Brendan Smialowski / Getty

WASHINGTON — When Congress decides this week whether to give the Obama administration the fast-track trade authority the president wants, the vote will be the culmination of the intense, nasty, weird battle between progressives and pro-trade Democrats that’s forced the White House to take on its base in a way it never expected. And that’s just the public battle.

Behind the scenes, the tension is even higher: Progressive trade opponents have followed a pro-trade Democrat home to his house, sent anonymous emails to Hill staffers some thought came from the administration, leveraged political money in a way that’s upset even their allies, and suggested trade deals like the one favored by the president were among the causes of the civil unrest in Ferguson, Missouri.

The White House and its allies have been very aggressive, too. But the administration side of this fight is well-documented — partially because the toughest attacks on the left have come from the man with the loudest voice in the country: Obama, who recently flew to Oregon to attack progressive trade critics in a high-profile speech from Nike’s global headquarters (a move unpopular with his critics: “I was appalled the president would go to Nike,” said Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America). Obama is now openly sparring with Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Those White House allies argue, however, that they are not alone here. The progressives, they say, have essentially gotten away with their incendiary tactics against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the proposed Asian trade deal, and the fast-track authority that would limit Congress to simple up-or-down votes on trade deals.

An often-cited example is the treatment of Sen. Ron Wyden. The Oregon Democrat has been a long-time progressive on many issues, most notably his ongoing attacks on the administration’s domestic use of bulk surveillance. But he supports Obama on trade. And since he said that, the left has gone after Wyden hard. Protesters have taken their efforts to Wyden’s house in southeast Oregon, his family home in New York City, and the bookstore owned by his wife there, the Strand. The groups were small — never approaching a dozen people, according to someone familiar with them — but protesting a politician at his home did not impress even Obama’s trade opponents back in Washington.

“I wouldn’t pick that tactic, honestly. I do think that in democracy, people have a right to do things, but that wouldn’t have been a tactic we would have suggested,” Cohen said. “On the other hand, the president going to Nike? And giving the speech that he gave? … Ron Wyden and his connections to Nike is a lot more troublesome to me than the fact that some people may have gone overboard at his house. I mean, they didn’t go overboard, but even showing up there. I don’t think that that’s a tactic that’s going to build broad-based support.”

For his part, Wyden hasn’t publicly said the protests bothered him. But many of his and Obama’s allies point to them when complaining about the progressive attacks.

“I have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with activists over and over again to push our government in a more progressive direction and stand up for Americans’ rights, so I welcome their work to have their voices heard, even when we don’t agree,” Wyden told BuzzFeed News in a statement provided by his Senate office.

Wyden said the protesters’ cause is already included in the current trade debate, a point Obama has tried to argue in his public statements lately.

“When it comes to trade, activists have made valid points about the secrecy of trade agreements and a lack of enforcement, among other things,” he said. “That’s one of the reasons the president and I pushed so hard to ensure today’s trade agreements are very different from those of the 1990s.”

Cohen himself has upset pro-trade Democrats with his often impassioned rhetoric on the president’s trade plans. Back in January, he drew a line between the ‘90s trade deals, the decline of Detroit, and the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri.

“Every one of our members in Detroit, high-tech or low-tech, know that the trade policies that devastated Detroit devastate their lives also — that they can’t get a raise when people don’t have a job,” Cohen said at a Capitol Hill press conference with prominent trade opponents. “Our members in St. Louis and Ferguson know that the root causes of Ferguson lie in the shutdowns in St. Louis. And so we connect the dots in this coalition and with these members of Congress.”

At the time, the comment drew little press scrutiny, but it got the attention of trade-supporting Democrats. “Obama administration officials were ‘taken aback’ by the level of rhetoric from Thursday’s anti-fast track press conference,” read a tiny item buried in a Jan. 9 Politico newsletter. The claim that trade policy can adversely affect communities of color predates the Ferguson unrest. A policy brief on the CWA website, “TPA A Worry for Communities of Color,” made the case that fast track could hurt black workers in June 2014.

Months later, though, Cohen’s argument that the “root causes” of Ferguson were in trade is still is angering pro-trade Democrats, who cast the comment as over the line at best, and illustrative of the progressive attacks.

Cohen doesn’t think much of the controversy.

"I think the right [connection to trade] to make is Ferguson as a part of St. Louis, not Ferguson itself,” he said. “The president himself said that the loss of all the factory jobs in Baltimore is directly related to this. That’s a quote from the president. He just doesn’t tie it to trade.”

Hilary Shelton, a St. Louis native and senior official at the NAACP, said the Ferguson comment was “just a little bit hyperbolic,” but said his group also worries about the potential for trade policy to adversely affect communities of color.

Labor’s full-court press on trade has upset even their political allies. A freeze on all political spending by the AFL-CIO announced in March wasn’t supported by all the unions in the labor confederation, and Democratic allies on the Hill say the move was a step too far.

“I think it was unnecessary, I don’t think the labor unions needed to make that kind of nuclear threat to their friends. And we are their friends,” said Rep. G. K. Butterfield, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and a no vote on fast track. “It rises to the level of a nuclear threat and I think some of them have had second thoughts about making that statement.”

Elsewhere in Washington, other antics have grated on the Democrats backing Obama. Public Citizen, the progressive activist group originally founded by but now longer officially associated with Ralph Nader, has been at the center of generating progressive talking points, opposition research, op-eds, and other material often cited by lawmakers opposed to the trade deals. The group also has a 16-foot-tall horse-shaped parade float labeled “Trojan Horse Trade Agreement.” In February, the group combined those two ideas into an email lobbying campaign that pro-trade Democrats labeled downright odd, and embarrassing for the TPP-opponents side.

On the Friday before Valentine’s Day, an email from “michaelfromanustr@gmail.com” landed in the inbox of dozens of trade-focused Democratic legislative assistants across Capitol Hill. Michael Froman is the U.S. Trade Representative, Obama’s top negotiator on the TPP trade deal, and if not the progressive enemy number one, probably somewhere between two and four. The email had no signature and directed readers to an anonymous website, fromantics.com, which consisted of “Mike” begging forgiveness for having “not been faithful in this relationship.”

Will you be my Valentine? If I have betrayed your trust, I am sorry that you feel that way. I’ve been so focused on convincing you to take the Fast Track trip with me and buy those trade deals I love, I’ve said some things that, in retrospect, were not true. :( Will you give me another chance? Will it help if I come clean with a little Valentine’s Day poem for you and some sweet nothings on a special website just for you?

Neither the website nor the email listed Public Citizen.

“There was lot of confusion at first about, ‘Where did this come from?’” recalled one senior pro-trade Democratic Hill staffer. They asked the USTR, “Are you guys sending us candygrams right now?”

The anonymous email with the USTR-focused valentines was odd, the staffer said. “This falls in the more outlandish category,” the staffer said. “Usually you get a letter with 6,000 groups signed on to it or something.”

Lori Wallach, the director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch and a veteran of the trade wars stretching back decades, was behind the email. Her name was on the domain registration of the Fromantics website too, though neither her name nor Public Citizen’s was anywhere on the site itself. Wallach was happy to discuss it in detail in an interview, and laughed off congressional staff who may have been confused.

Staff at Public Citizen were actually worried no one would open their email, not that many people would and would then be fooled.

“We were thinking we would have to print out paper valentines and bring them to the individual offices, because basically anyone with any internet sanitation protocols would not think that was from the USTR and as a result they would not open the dang link,” she said.

It was not the first time Wallach had heard congressional staff were surprised by the email.

“With that email, it did not cross our minds that anyone would think it was from Mike Froman. But in retrospect, I guess next time we do what we thought was not a very subtle joke, we’ll have to actually specifically say, 'This is not from USTR Froman!’” she said. “It didn’t seem subtle to us. I mean for one thing, if we wanted to hide it, we wouldn’t have sent it from here. You can track it back to us.”

In some ways, this political dynamic was expected: Obama’s allies in Washington have said all along that passing trade deals with Republican support is traditionally the way trade deals are done, and that the sometimes awkward fight amongst Democrats was always an expected part of the trade push. But pro-trade Democrats have clearly been impressed by the way the left has rallied, and stayed rallied, against the Obama trade agenda. On the Hill, Obama’s allies watched in dismay as the left started applying real pressure against fast track while the White House focused its defense on a strategy of what one ally called “Let’s get people facts and information.” That meant dry and policy-heavy briefings many members didn’t attend. And it certainly did not mean anything like a 16-foot-tall horse.

Now that Obama has fully engaged, really calling on his base to trust him on trade and to believe that he’s not going to send a trade deal to Congress that runs counter to the rest of his agenda, his allies are starting to get more confident that he’s rallied enough Democratic support to get his trade agenda through. Pro-trade Democrats recently sent around an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showing growing support for trade among Democratic voters, including big jumps among Latino and black voters.

Progressives say they’ve done enough damage to keep fast-track authority from passing the House, certainly. They’ve definitely quieted many Democrats when it comes to crossing them publicly: Democratic critics of progressive trade strategy contacted by BuzzFeed News generally preferred to stay off the record or speak without attribution about the groups that may prove to be valuable allies in future legislative fights.

Pro-trade Democrats say the progressives shot themselves in the foot with tactics and rhetoric — threats of primaries, an aggressive “you’re with us or against us” mentality — that have turned many Democrats off.

“The sense is absolutely that the attacks cross the line,” the pro-trade aide said. “It’s frustrating to a lot of members when they really do want to get in the room and shape policy and make trade agreements more progressive.”

Progressives say they don’t mean to scare anybody off, and they’re not trying to be in your face for in your face’s sake. They just don’t see room for wiggle room.

“This vote on fast-track and the TPP, it’s not a close call. So if there is an issue where it’s a sincere ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ moment, then the kind of really pressured, pointed tactics and messages that apply for this campaign wouldn’t be appropriate,” Wallach said. “But in this instance, it’s not a close call.”

Lawmakers stuck in the middle of the fight between the White House and progressives don’t see the heated rhetoric fading quickly from memories. Butterfield, the Congressional Black Caucus chair, has been lobbied by the president directly as well as all the progressive groups pushing to keep Democrats from standing with Obama on trade. For now, he’s standing with the progressives. But he said the tactics of both sides have left a mark.

“The president feels very strongly about TPA and TPP. I haven’t seen him this determined since the whole Affordable Care Act debate back in ‘09. He is fully invested in this debate, because he is convinced that he’s right,” he said. “This is not one of those issues that’s a come and go issue. I’ve lived through and seen many of those, that seem kind of clenching but at the end of the day it passes over. But this is one of those that’s going to be with us for a while. The proponents and opponents feel very strongly about their positions.”

Unsurprisingly, Bill and Hillary Clinton agree on this position.

Abdeljalil Bounhar / AP

Bill Clinton made the case for ultimately granting undocumented immigrants citizenship Tuesday — at the biggest Hispanic media organization's advertising presentation in New York.

A path to citizenship, he said, is the best way to appeal to Latino voters.

"If I were advising candidates, you have to have a credible position on immigration reform, the only thing that makes sense is a path to citizenship," he said in an interview with Fusion's Alicia Menendez at Univision's upfronts presentation.

The stance, unsurprisingly, mirrors the one taken last week by Hillary Clinton in an unusually detailed campaign event in Las Vegas. There, she tacked strongly to the left on immigration, saying she supports a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and said she were open to expanding upon President Obama's executive actions she could do if Congress does not pass an immigration overhaul.

On Tuesday, Bill Clinton said that while children must be taken care of and enforcement should be smarter, a path to citizenship would raise the wages of undocumented immigrants and ultimately be good for the American economy. He also praised Nevada's governor, the centrist Republican Brian Sandoval, saying it's "no mistake" that he is well-liked because he took the Medicaid expansion in Obama's health care law.

The appearance was the first time a former president spoke at a media company's upfront presentation. George W. Bush was also invited but was unable to attend.

Clinton, who was paid for his appearance, and Hillary, have worked closely with Univision often. The network partnered with the Clinton Foundation for the "Too Small To Fail" early education initiative in 2014. Haim Saban, part-owner of Univision has also been a major supporter, and financial backer, of the Clintons.

At the event, Clinton also brought up the case of Eric Garner, without using his name, saying the reason there was raw anger when he was killed by New York police after Ferguson was because there wasn't "dispute resolution" by "diverse community decision makers."

"We need inclusive economics and an inclusive society where people don't feel degraded," he said.

The popular former president occupies an interesting space in the campaign — he is one of the most effective messengers the Democratic Party has and a skilled campaigner — but there are also questions over whether the campaign will be able to control him. The Washington Post reported this week that Bill Clinton is, for now, expected to have little role in his wife's campaign.

In a testy interview on Today last week, he defended the Clinton Foundation over questions of whether there were ever improprieties when it accepted money from foreign entities.

"There is no doubt in my mind that we have never done anything knowingly inappropriate in terms of taking money to influence any kind of American government policy," he said. "That just hasn't happened."

Clinton's focus on speaking to Latinos comes as no surprise. Hillary Clinton's campaign has made early efforts to court Hispanic voters strongly, especially in the face of possible challenges to the Democratic Party's strength with this group from Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, potential opponents.

Hillary Clinton actually beat Obama among Latino voters in the 2008 primary, but attention to Latino issues is already being given early and often by some candidates. After her immigration comments, Bush followed in an interview with Fox News afterwards, clarifying his immigration stance as well, indicating that while he would get rid of Obama's executive actions, he would seek to do so only after an immigration legislative overhaul.

LINK: The GOP’s Univision Problem

Internal emails obtained by BuzzFeed News between officials at the National Archives show officials there were caught off-guard by Hillary Clinton’s personal email usage.

Jim Watson / Getty Images

The top lawyer for the National Archives expressed concern in internal emails, obtained by BuzzFeed News, over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's exclusive use of personal email.

The agency, the top records-keeping authority in the federal government, was not aware of Clinton's personal email usage until the New York Times reported on the issue in March, a spokeswoman told BuzzFeed News on Tuesday.

The internal emails, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, show Gary Stern, the general counsel at NARA, expressing some concern and surprise after a phone conversation with New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt, who broke the story. That conversation took place in March, months after Clinton's staff sent email records to the State Department.

"When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she apparently used a personal email account to conduct government business," Stern writes to colleagues about the exchange with Schmidt. In the internal emails, Stern relays his conversation with Schmidt to other NARA officials, writing that "if true," Clinton's email use "would present a concern."

Stern also serves as NARA's chief Freedom of Information Act officer, senior agency official for privacy, and dispute resolution specialist, according to his biography.

Stern did not return a inquiry for comment on the internal emails.

Clinton turned over about 55,000 pages of emails to the State Department last December. Clinton decided which email were deemed personal and which were deemed official to be turned over. Her lawyer told the Benghazi Committee last month her server was wiped and the emails were deleted after they were turned over.

Here's Stern's email expressing concern:

The full email thread:

View Entire List ›

Even Democrats who support the president’s trade agenda voted to block it on Tuesday.

Mandel Ngan / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — In one fell swoop Tuesday, Senate Democrats successfully blocked President Obama's trade legislation and handed him one of his biggest defeats in recent memory.

A senior Senate Republican leadership aide said Obama and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell spoke Monday about the status of the bill, and during that conversation McConnell warned the president that he "needed to get it together" and whip members of his party if the bill was to avoid a filibuster.

But less than 24 hours later, even Democrats who supported the bills were bailing.

Ostensibly unhappy with the procedures under which the Senate was considering the package of trade deals and sweeping new authority for the president to sign agreements, a group of pro-trade Democrats unexpectedly broke with the administration, siding with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and opponents the legislation.

Even Sen. Ron Wyden, who is a manager of the trade bills and was tasked with moving the legislation through the Senate, bucked the administration — much to the delight of Republicans.

"What you're going to see here is a failure of a president … to produce enough votes," Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn told reporters, while Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Thune argued Senate Democrats are "throwing their own president under the bus."

Sen. Rob Portman — who has also served in the House and was former President George W Bush's United States Trade Representative — said it's unheard of for a president's party to abandon him to this extent. "Look, I've never seen the leader of the president's party stop the president's top priority on a procedural matter … the idea is you're supposed to carry the water, at least on process."

Senate Democrats, however argued it's not the presidents fault. "I don't think it's a reflection on the president ... I think it's just a difference if views" on trade, said Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Ben Cardin said after the vote.

Connecticut Democrat Sen. Chris Murphy also downplayed Obama's ability to move the trade bills, arguing trade has simply become too difficult of an issue for many Democrats.

"Democrats have always been all over the map on trade, and trade isn't getting any easier, these trade agreements aren't getting any easier to support as the middle class continues to get eviscerated in many of our states. So I think the natural flow of the economy and evaporation of the middle class is making it harder for members to support these deals, not withstanding the efforts of the [President]," Murphy said.

Meanwhile Sen. Sherrod Brown, one of the most active opponents to the current effort to push through the trade package, praised the filibuster.

"Senate Democrats stood united and demanded a full and thorough debate of trade policy. We cannot rush through the largest trade deal ever while leaving American workers and manufacturers behind," Brown said.

Tuesday's failed vote is a victory for unions, activists, and progressive lawmakers who have mounted an aggressive opposition campaign against the White House's efforts to push through a "fast track" that would allow the president to negotiate trade deals and give Congress a simple up-or-down vote.

In recent weeks, the Obama administration has made a concerted effort to break the broad progressive opposition to their trade agenda. Those efforts have not deterred the opposition.

The mostly behind-the-scenes intra-party battle has spilled out in the open at times, with President Obama on Saturday forcefully responding to Sen. Elizabeth Warren's vocal opposition to his trade deal.

"The truth of the matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else," Obama said in an interview with Matt Bai of Yahoo News. "And, you know, she's got a voice that she wants to get out there, and I understand that. And on most issues, she and I deeply agree. On this one, though, her arguments don't stand the test of fact and scrutiny."

In 1979, Hillary Rodham was already wrestling with many of the same issues — privacy, keeping one’s identity in the public eye, and the strains of her career vs. Bill’s — that she is today.

In 1978, Bill Clinton was elected governor of Arkansas in a landslide. He and his wife, Hillary Rodham, whom he married in 1975, were just 32. Rodham, who moved south for Clinton's political career, had already built a successful career in the state as a young lawyer and law professor.

The young Hillary had decided to keep her last name because she saw it as part of her own identity. (Bill's mother, Virginia, had cried at the news.) Rodham's last name ultimately became an issue in Bill's 1978 campaign, though. His opponent, Frank White, would introduce his wife as "Mrs. Frank White" — a not-so-subtle attack on what Republicans in Arkansas saw as the Clintons' brazen liberalism in the Southern state.

In 1979, a month into her tenure as Arkansas first lady, Rodham sat down for an interview with the Arkansas public affairs program In Focus. The interview, available on BuzzFeed News for the first time in decades, is among the earliest, and most open, glimpses of Clinton's efforts to balance public and private life, a theme that has followed her long career. Archived in the special collections at the University of Arkansas, the nearly half-hour-long interview offers an insight into the future Hillary Clinton and her early attempts to navigate the tough waters as the wife of a political figure — while keeping her own identity and privacy.

The interview covers how the Clintons compromised on her dual roles in her career and as first lady and how they traded the exposure of being a public couple but guarded their private life. She talked about her and Bill's youth being an asset, and discussed wanting to have children (this interview took place before Chelsea was born).

The deeply personal interview is perhaps the oldest and longest video of the young Hillary Clinton.

Here are the highlights:

View Video ›

buzzfeed-video1.s3.amazonaws.com

Hillary said she dealt with guarding her and Bill's privacy while accepting that having your privacy curtailed is a part of public life.

"Well, I think that anyone who is going to be in public life has to, first of all, accept the fact that a certain amount of your privacy has to be curtailed, because you have an obligation to be available to people — and for people to feel that they have access to you. So I think it’s a trade-off that one knows one makes, when you enter public life, but I try as much as I can, particularly on his behalf, to take as much effort as I can make to guard his privacy so he has enough time to sleep and eat and think, because I believe that the people elected him to make decisions, and if he’s just always a public person there’s no time for that. So it is a problem, but it’s one that we’re willing to live with and figure out."

University of Arkansas Special Collections

View Entire List ›

“Either a path to citizenship, which I would support and that does put me probably out of the mainstream of most conservatives; Or a path to legalization, a path to residency of some kind…” Bush told Charlie Rose in 2012.

During an appearance on "The Kelly File" on Monday, Jeb Bush disagreed with Megyn Kelly when she pointed out that, in the past, he had supported a path to citizenship (though he then went onto say he'd be open to it as part of a "compromise").

Via video.foxnews.com

Kelly questioned the former governor of Florida about his past positions on immigration, specifically citing an interview Bush did with Charlie Rose in 2012.

"No, I've said as long as there — if that was the way to get to a deal where we turned immigration into a catalyst for high sustained economic growth, where we did all the things we need to do in border security, where we narrow the number of people coming through family petition and dramatically expanded a like-kind number for economic purposes which will help us grow and help the median rise up, in return for that as a compromise, sure," Bush said.

"But the plan in the book and the plan that I've suggested when I go out and speak, which is almost every day on this subject, I'm talking about a path to legalized status."

In the 2012 interview with Charlie Rose, though, Bush was a little clearer: He said he would support a path citizenship. Bush was again talking in the context of a deal.

Via charlierose.com

"You have to deal with this issue. You can't ignore it," Bush told Rose at the time. "And so, either a path to citizenship, which I would support and that does put me probably out of the mainstream of most conservatives; or a path to legalization, a path to residency of some kind, which now hopefully will become — I would accept that in a heartbeat as well if that's the path to get us to where we need to be which is on a positive basis using immigration to create sustained growth."

View Entire List ›

“And you’re drinkiiiiiiiiin’ Diet Pepsiiiiiii!”

On the same tape as this 1979 interview with Hillary Clinton there were a few other clips:

About five seconds of a Bullets-76ers game!

About 10 seconds of this weird competition, featuring QB Joe Theismann, called "1979 Superstars."

And this is hilarious Diet Pepsi ad:

View Video ›

buzzfeed-video1.s3.amazonaws.com

LINK: Watch This Rare, Long-Forgotten Interview With Young Hillary Clinton

View Entire List ›

The Alabama senator voted to move forward with debate on fast-track trade authority, but remains opposed to the deal.

Alex Wong / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — As Senate Republicans fumed that Democrats blocked a trade bill supported by President Obama, there was at least one GOPer who didn't seem to mind that the bill was defeated: Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions.

Sessions voted with Republicans to move forward with debate on giving the president fast-track authority, arguing that he wanted to support Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's desire to have a floor debate about the bill. But he has been outspoken in recent months about his issues with trade-promotion authority, making him something of an outlier in the Senate Republican conference (along with Rand Paul who said recently he opposed fast-track but, like Sessions, voted to proceed with debate).

Though a primary motivator for Sessions' opposition has been related to his mistrust of the president on immigration issues, he argued that his stance was perhaps more in line with voters than some of his colleagues and struck something of a populist tone when asked why he opposed the trade deal.

"I saw a poll recently that suggests Republican voters oppose the bill more than Democratic voters. I don't know how accurate that is but I think people are hearing concerns because things aren't going well," he said in an interview. "There's a wealth gap, why? Somebody can get more wealthy by building a factory in a foreign country than laying off people here. The factory builder gets more wealthy but not the people who get laid off. So we believe in trade but I think there's a belief that trade agreements haven't worked… I'd like to see a far greater emphasis on the economic benefits of it and not just perceived political benefits."

"I'm very uneasy about it. I see a lot of problems with it," Sessions added after the vote. "I think we are at a point in history where we cannot afford to lose a single job in this country to unfair trading practices."

In a memo circulated in last week, Sessions had charged that there were "numerous ways TPA could facilitate immigration increases above current law" although leading Republicans and the Obama White House strongly refuted that argument.

"That's a false issue," Senate Finance chairman Orrin Hatch told Politico.

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown accused the president of sexism for calling Sen. Elizabeth Warren “Elizabeth” in the heat of the trade debate.

MANDEL NGAN / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The nastiest comment of the trade policy fight between President Obama and progressives in Congress came just minutes after Senate Democrats handed the president a big defeat on Tuesday.

Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, who opposes Obama's trade agenda, accused the president of sexism for calling Sen. Elizabeth Warren "Elizabeth" in a recent interview with Yahoo News.

"The truth of the matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else," Obama told Yahoo. "And you know, she's got a voice that she wants to get out there. And I understand that. And on most issues, she and I deeply agree. On this one, though, her arguments don't stand the test of fact and scrutiny."

The use of "Elizabeth" rubbed Brown the wrong way.

"I think the president was disrespectful to her by the way he did that. I think that the president has made this more personal than he needed to," the Ohio senator said, according to Politico.

"I think referring to her as first-name, when he might not have done that for a male senator, perhaps?" Brown told reporters. "I've said enough."

Obama has referred to male Capitol Hill lawmakers by their first names in public many times. The list includes Brown, who Obama has called "Sherrod" on at least three occasions since taking office. All came in positive speeches praising Brown.

Here are three times President Obama called Sen. Brown by his first name:

"I came out here with the—a number of members of the Ohio congressional delegation, but I want to make a special note of my former colleague when I was in the Senate, who is just as passionate about working people as anybody in the country, Sherrod Brown. Give Sherrod a big round of applause."

"And it's pretty -- it's timely to be able to see you because I was in Cincinnati today -- came up to Columbus this afternoon, and in both places we announced the work that we've done, in conjunction with Sherrod, to make sure that we're filing a new WTO case challenging China's illegal trade and subsidies in autos and auto parts."

View Entire List ›

Oklahoma heavily redacted a letter that was sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice — but told the high court that it was actually sent to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday, March 4, 2015.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

The Oklahoma attorney general's office misrepresented the facts behind a key argument about the availability of certain execution drugs in its filings at the U.S. Supreme Court, BuzzFeed News has determined.

The false statement — which relates to discontinued availability of the drug pentobarbital — is clear from a review of previous court filings and comments from the lawyer for a pharmacy that the state claimed had previously supplied for its lethal injections. In the state's brief to the justices, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt's office highlights a letter that the lawyers describe as having been sent to state officials. That letter is real — but it was sent to an entirely different state.

Since Oklahoma lawyers argued before the Supreme Court on April 29 in defense of the constitutionality of its execution methods, BuzzFeed News has been looking into whether Oklahoma misled the court in its brief.

The state contends that they resorted to using the controversial execution drug midazolam because their other options dried up. At oral arguments, some of the more conservative judges posed questions about this issue.

In Oklahoma's brief, they state that the source of pentobarbital stopped supplying the drug to the state because the source faced "intense pressure" to stop.

Oklahoma Supreme Court brief

As proof of their claim, Oklahoma's lawyers presented a heavily redacted letter they claim was sent to "ODOC" — the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

View Entire List ›

“It’s almost malpractice. Malpractice is the only word I can use to describe the amount of data that’s being collected in the metadata program,” Sen. Bob Corker said.

Michael Bonfigli/The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON — Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker called for a broad expansion of the Obama administration domestic surveillance program, arguing that current data collection activities are capturing an inadequate amount of information to effectively identify terrorists.

Corker also predicted a new bipartisan effort to expand data collection as part of the upcoming Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reauthorization, citing a classified briefing for senators on Tuesday as a key turning point.

"I'm just going to say to you that I think there was an 'ah ha' moment yesterday for people on both sides of the aisle when we realized how little data is being collected. At how little data is being collected. It was a shock," Corker said during a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.

"It's almost malpractice. Malpractice is the only word I can use to describe the amount of data that's being collected in the metadata program," Corker added.

The collection of bulk telephone and internet data has become a central battleground between hawks and civil libertarians in Congress and has put the reauthorization of the FISA in question.

"I know there's going to be a number of conversations taking place today on this" Corker said of the renewed push for an expanded FISA reauthorization. "I think you're going to see more people pushing, on a bipartisan basis … [because] the way it's being implemented today, I don't see how it's effective for the American people."

“I know it’s gotta be frustrating for all of those who occupy a space outside the building. I would say probably including the vice president,” Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker said.

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker

Michael Bonfigli/Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON — Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker Wednesday accused the White House of shutting out dissenting voices — including Vice President Joe Biden — when making critical foreign policy decisions, including how to conduct the war against ISIS.

At a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, Corker singled out Biden specifically as someone whom President Obama and his inner circle have shut out of the decision making process, particularly when it comes to Syria and ISIS.

"It's evident that, again, the administration has not been willing to make decisions that will cause things to move along. I know it's gotta be frustrating for all of those who occupy a space outside the building. I would say probably including the vice president," Corker said.

Asked to expand on his views about Biden, Corker demurred, quipping: "I don't ever wish to get into private conversations, because then they end."

Still Corker went on to say, "Let's face it, anybody who's outside the internal offices of the White House has very little impact on the big decisions in terms of foreign policy."

That lack of engagement has, in Corker's mind, caused significant harm to U.S. interests.

"The lowest moment in foreign policy, since I've been in the Senate … was that August to September timeframe in 2013 when we figuratively jumped into the Russians lap to avoid having to deal with the issue of Assad crossing the red line. And just the implications of that … are real and deep," Corker said.

Obama walked back a threat to bomb the Assad regime following a chemical weapons attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta in August 2013. The following month, the administration reached a deal with Russia to remove Syria's chemical weapons instead. Recent reports say the Assad regime still maintains chemical weapons.

Meanwhile, Corker remained cool on the prospects that Congress would pass a new Authorized Use of Military Force measure to cover the war against ISIS.

"Look, I've spent a lifetime trying to produce outcomes, do things that matter … and I think all of you recognize that at least the way the AUMF was sent forth … it's going to have zero effect to things on the ground. Zero effect whatsoever," Corker said.

Corker pointed out that the White House has essentially abandoned any serious effort to enact a new AUMF in part because it believes it has adequate legal authority. "The White House is going to exert zero effort to pass an AUMF. It's just not something they're going to do," he said.

Still, Corker conceded "that doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with the issue. Our staff, my own staff, are divided" on the administration's existing authority, "Most believe they are on the fringes, legally, of doing what is legal."

“Sometimes people ask me what it’s like being married to Bill…”

Via University of Arkansas Special Collections

When Bill Clinton first ran for Governor of Arkansas in 1978, his campaign ran a 5-minute infomercial -- obtained by BuzzFeed News from the archives at the University of Arkansas -- that includes some early footage of Hillary Clinton (who still went by Hillary Rodham at the time).

In one short sequence, Bill and Hillary discuss their marriage in voice-over narration, as the camera captures them in a happy domestic scene: Bill works intently at his desk, while Hillary sits on a nearby couch, making notes on a document and laughing.

The footage also includes a biographical segment, a sequence in which Bill interviews his 9th grade English teacher, and a series of testimonials from everyday Arkansans.

Here's the clip of Hillary in the ad:

View Video ›

buzzfeed-video1.s3.amazonaws.com / Via University of Arkansas Special Collections

"As much as I care about my work, my relationship with my wife, Hillary, means even more to me," says Bill.

Hillary then adds: "Sometimes people ask me what it's like being married to Bill. He works so hard, and keeps such long hours, and becomes involved in so many other people's lives and problems. I always tell them it's great. We really cherish the time we do have together, and appreciate the fact that each of us works hard."

View Entire List ›

“Add your name to my petition to keep America safe and stand up to ISIS.”

Mark Wilson / Getty Images

Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, who currently serves as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, is using the recent attack by ISIS sympathizers in Garland, Texas to build his email list for his tough re-election fight next year.

Johnson's campaign sent out and email and Johnson posted on his Facebook page a message inviting people to add their names and emails to a "petition" to help defeat ISIS.

"The fight with ISIS has officially hit home," reads Johnson's email and a similarly-worded post on Facebook. "Last week, ISIS supporters carried out an attack in Texas. This is their first attack on American soil, and it is all part of their strategy to inspire more acts of violence."

Signing the petition also invites you to share it with your friends on Facebook.

An aide to Sen. Johnson's campaign told BuzzFeed News that the petition is not about the Texas shooting, but is an effort to engage supporters around the threat of ISIS, an issue on which the Senator has been vocal recently.

"We keep our supporters up to date on many issues. Senator Johnson uses social media to talk about relevant issues with voters and provide a forum for them to give feedback," a spokesperson for Johnson additionally added.

Here's the petition request Johnson posted on his campaign Facebook:

Via Facebook: ron4senate

And here's the similar email also to those already on his list:

Andy's Email Inbox

View Entire List ›

“There are obvious national security concerns, where the operational details shouldn’t be in the public domain.”

Alex Wong / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Sen. Ted Cruz Tuesday said that while significant allegations of government misrepresentations merit investigation, withholding operational details surrounding the killing of Osama bin Laden would be appropriate if that furthered national security.

Journalist Seymour Hersh set off a firestorm Sunday when he published a story accusing the Obama administration of lying to the American public about a host of details surrounding the death of bin Laden in 2011. Some other media outlets and the administration have questioned parts of or that full story.

But Cruz, who is no defender of the White House, said national security concerns could make hiding details appropriate.

"There are obvious national security concerns, where the operational details shouldn't be in the public domain," the Texas Republican told BuzzFeed News, adding that it's too soon to call for congressional hearings.

"At this point I think we need to understand what the basis is for the reports. I think it is premature to have an assessment. Certainly, all of us celebrate and are grateful that the United States was able to kill Osama Bin Laden. And that was far too long in coming," Cruz said.

But he did caution that, "anytime you have an allegation of significant misrepresentations there should be an effort to ascertain the truth."

Although Republicans continue to question details surrounding the September 2012 attack on a U.S. facility in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, Cruz argued there are key differences in the two situations, including questions about political motivations.

"There is a difference between those two contexts. With regard to Benghazi, there are serious concerns that the administration has deliberately obfuscated and misrepresented the facts for political benefit, to prevent accountability for the wrongful murder of four Americans including the first U.S. ambassador killed in duty since the Jimmy Carter administration," Cruz said.

After BuzzFeed News revealed Oklahoma misled the Supreme Court in a lethal injection case, Attorney General Scott Pruitt’s office admitted an “inadvertent citation error.” Update: The Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office informed the court of the error on Wednesday afternoon.

Attorney General of Oklahoma Scott Pruitt outside the Supreme Court building on March 4, 2015.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt's office admits that it had provided inaccurate information to the Supreme Court in a death penalty case before the justices.

The admission comes 13 days after BuzzFeed News first asked Pruitt's office for comment on the issue.

In a statement, spokesperson Aaron Cooper says it was an "inadvertent" error.

Statement to BuzzFeed News

Cooper told BuzzFeed News in a follow-up email that the correct citation should be the district court's ruling, in which the judge found testimony from a former Corrections employee convincing that the previous supplier dropped out "because of pressure in the litigation."

But an attorney representing death row inmates in the suit says the error is much more than a clerical one.

"This is not a citation error," Dale Baich said in a statement to BuzzFeed News. "Oklahoma represented in its brief that its supplier came under pressure and sent a letter to Oklahoma Department of Corrections declining to provide more of the drug. If there is a letter which shows that, the state should now provide that letter."

"We pointed this out in papers we filed in the district court last year and in the Supreme Court last month," he said. "If it was a clerical error, the state should have fixed it when we pointed it out."

As of late Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court docket showed no additional filings that would correct the error. Additionally, Baich said he has received no notice that Oklahoma has attempted to do so.

A key part of Oklahoma's argument is that the state had to resort to using the controversial drug midazolam after anti-death penalty advocates forced their hands.

View Entire List ›

“Now these fathers leave the home and not just father children with that particular women, they father a child with another women, and another and another. We have created predators…”

View Video ›

YouTube/Da Tech Guy

Former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum called men who father children with multiple women "sexual predators" in a speech to the socially-conservative Cornerstone organization in New Hampshire on Tuesday.

Santorum, who is expected to launch a campaign for president, cited statistics on marriage from Harvard professor Robert Putnam's book, Our Kids, when making his argument.

"Another new statistic just came out in his book. A majority of children being born out of wedlock today in America are born in families where the father is in the home. But they're not married," said Santorum. "So they are born to cohabiting couples. So the majority of children born out of wedlock are born to cohabiting couples. And what does Putnam say about these? They stuck to them longitudinally, they never get married. Let me use that term, never, like one or two percent ever get married."

"And he compared it when he was growing up in the 1950s and when children were conceived out of wedlock, what happened in the 1950s," added Santorum. "We all know what happened in the 1950s and here is the amazing thing, this is Putnam saying this, 80 plus percent of these marriages succeeded."

"And children were raised in stable homes. Now these fathers leave the home and not just father children with that particular women, they father a child with another women, and another and another. We have created predators, sexual predators particularly where, again, Putnam—low income America."

Putnam told BuzzFeed News that Santorum appeared to be, at times, using statistics not garnered from his book and, at times, using them "a little bit selectively" to make his argument on marriage. Putnam added that he couldn't find the 80 percent statistic in his book but said it could be true.

Putnam added, "I certainly don't, for sure, use the term 'sexual predators.'"

The full video of Santorum's speech, posted on YouTube by DaTechGuyBlog, can be viewed here.

The progressives urging Elizabeth Warren to run for president are not interested in some leading progressives’ claim that President Obama was being sexist when he criticized Warren.

Alex Wong / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The progressives urging Sen. Elizabeth Warren to run for president want no part of the claim that President Obama was being sexist when he critiqued Warren in a recent interview.

Sen. Sherrod Brown said the president's use of her first name, Elizabeth, was sexist. The president of the National Organization for Women said his criticism was done "in a sexist way." An official with Public Citizen, the group leading the charge against the deal, called Obama's statements "shockingly disrespectful."

But the various progressive groups competing for Warren's attention aren't touching the allegation. So far, none of them have sent out any emails to supporters flagging Brown's comment or the Washington kerfuffle that's erupted from it.

Warren coaxers say those emails aren't coming. They're not getting on board with Brown, largely because they don't see the sexism he saw.

"The president's attacks on Warren's fight against a job-killing trade deal that's been written by and for huge corporations just seem more silly and provably false, than sexist," Neil Sroka, spokesperson for the progressive group Democracy For America, which co-manages Run Warren Run, told BuzzFeed News in an email.

The White House, and many Democrats, were confused by Brown's sexism charge, which came Tuesday after a procedural vote on fast track went against the president. On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Brown will eventually apologize to Obama.

"Sen. Brown is a standup guy, and given the opportunity to review the comments that seemed like they were made in some haste, that I feel confident that he'll do the right thing and apologize," Earnest said.

The ongoing trade fight within the Democratic Party has been a boon for the Warren legion, who have seen her rise to be Obama's most vocal opponent on the so-called fast track trade bill that would allow the president to send trade deals to Congress they can approve or dismiss, but can't change. DFA attacked White House rhetoric as "absurd" after a particularly strong round of anonymous administration official Warren bashing earlier this month, and most Warren supporters hare happy to call the president out for his on-the-record claims that Warren is simply playing politics with the trade issue.

But when Brown pushed the vocal sparring between Warren and Obama into a debate about sexism, Warren's presidential pushers didn't go along.

Ready For Warren, the progressive super PAC, plans to continue to use the trade issue heavily in emails attacking Obama for pushing and Hillary Clinton for not openly opposing him. But so far they haven't engaged on the sexism charge and don't plan to. MoveOn.org, the other half of Run Warren Run, also hasn't jumped on the sexism charge.

"MoveOn members are focusing on the substantive case against Fast Tracking the TPP — the fact that the text is being kept secret from the American people, that the agreement would likely lead to more outsourcing of jobs, the threats it poses to workers and the environment, and how the ISDS provision could allow big corporations to undermine our laws and sovereignty," Nick Berning, spokesperson for MoveOn, said in an email.

Sroka said the Warren-Obama battle is worth highlighting, but not for the reason Brown is.

"The whole spat between the White House and Sen. Warren struck us as a pretty laughable attempt to pander for Republican and Wall Street-wing Democrats' support on a legislation that's a loser with voters across the political spectrum," he said. Anyone who stands with the president will pay a political price next year, Sroka added.

"If the president somehow manages to get Fast Track to the House and dupes some right-wing Republicans into voting for it, the truly funny thing will be watching them take incoming from both conservatives and progressives for 'voting to give Barack Obama authority to pass the job-killing, NAFTA-style Trans-Pacific Partnership,'" he said. "The 2016 attack ads, from both the right and the left, basically write themselves."

“Those such as Secretary Clinton, who preach a message of international engagement and ‘smart power’ yet are not willing to stand up to special interests and support free trade.”

CHRIS KEANE / Reuters

Sen. Marco Rubio attacked Hillary Clinton's relative silence on the dispute over President Obama's proposed Asian trade deal, while offering robust support for the deal and expanded executive authority on trade negotiations in a speech Wednesday.

"Those such as Secretary Clinton, who preach a message of international engagement and 'smart power' yet are not willing to stand up to special interests and support free trade," Rubio said in a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, "are either hypocritical or fail to grasp trade's role as a tool of statecraft that can bolster our relationships with partners and create millions of American jobs."

Rubio went on, in the speech on American strength abroad titled the "Rubio Doctrine," to emphasize the importance of free trade and the deal currently being negotiated.

"It is more important than ever that Congress give the President Trade Promotion Authority so we can finalize the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership," he said. "These agreements will create millions of jobs and cement U.S. strategic partnerships in Asia, South America, and Europe."

The long-brewing, intra-Democratic dispute over the president's trade agenda exploded this week, as a number of high-profile Democrats backed off their support for the "fast track" authority he seeks. That authority, if ultimately approved, would give Congress an up-or-down vote on trade. Progressives, labor, and environmentalists — led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren — have sharply opposed the deal, provoking intense criticism in turn by President Obama.

Clinton, for her part, has offered little since she announced her presidential bid in way of comment on the deal — a source of consternation for both sides. Last month, she noted that "Any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security." But she has not made whether she supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Obama's proposed deal, clear.

Last month, Jeb Bush sharply criticized Clinton on the issue, as well, raising her earlier public support for TPP.

There are, however, some Republicans who disagree with Rubio and Bush: Some more Tea Party-oriented lawmakers do not support it, and Rubio's rival for the Republican nomination, Rand Paul, opposes the deal, as well, citing the lack of transparency in negotiations.

When Jeb arrives in Iowa this weekend, it will only be the second time this year. Sources say the Iowa Straw Poll may not be the only thing he’s skipping there.

Scott Olson / Getty Images

Jeb Bush's decision to forego this summer's Iowa Straw Poll has roiled many conservatives in the state, but that snub might only be the beginning: According to three sources with knowledge of Bush's campaign strategy, the likely Republican presidential candidate does not plan to seriously contest the first-in-the-nation caucuses — and may ultimately skip the state altogether.

Tim Miller, a spokesman for Bush, strongly denied that the candidate planned to write off Iowa, and suggested those who say otherwise are merely speculating. "There is nobody with any shred of authority or proximity to Gov. Bush suggesting that, should he decide to run for president, he skip or ignore Iowa," he said.

But a top Republican consultant and a high-level fundraiser — both of whom have been courted by the Bush camp, and requested anonymity to recount private conversations — said Bush's advisers were explicit that the campaign would not seriously invest in Iowa during the primaries. Similarly, an operative involved in Bush's yet-to-be-announced campaign told BuzzFeed News earlier this year that the state was a low priority.

"If they wanted to play aggressively in Iowa, why would they take the best strategist in Iowa and move him to Miami?" the Bush-aligned operative said, referring to veteran Des Moines-based strategist David Kochel, who was tapped in January to run the national campaign out of its South Florida headquarters.

According to the two Republicans who were briefed on the broad points of the campaign's primary strategy, Bush's political advisers believe his steadfast support for Common Core education standards and softer immigration policies will make it incredibly difficult for him to woo the conservative caucus-goers, who tend to favor more combative figures like Iowa's 2012 victor Rick Santorum, or Mike Huckabee, who won in 2008.

"Common Core has become an anchor tied around this guy's neck... and they realize it," said the political consultant, who met with senior Bush advisers while he was considering joining the campaign. "I think it's partly [media consultant Mike] Murphy telling him, 'You need to be the iconoclast,' and I think it's partly just where Jeb is philosophically."

But with Bush's massive war chest and national network of family loyalists, his advisers believe he can afford to perform poorly in Iowa as long as a fifth-place finish isn't covered in the media as a hard-fought defeat. (One recent poll showed him in seventh place among 14 likely candidates.)

Bush's advisers told the two Republican sources that they would focus on a strong performance in New Hampshire, and save their resources for later primary contests, when many of the other contenders will be strapped for cash.

"They've got a plan to get to Florida," said the consultant, referring to the primary in Bush's home state that is currently scheduled for mid-March 2016. The fundraiser jokingly named it "the Giuliani strategy," after the former New York City mayor who hinged his entire 2008 presidential campaign on a failed attempt to win the Sunshine State. The comparison isn't perfect: Bush's team plans to run strong in other early primary states, and unlike Giuliani, the candidate will likely have enough money to stay in the race as long as he wants to.

All three sources stressed that Bush and his team could change course at the eleventh hour if they see an opening in Iowa next year, following the strategy employed by Mitt Romney in 2012 — and executed by Kochel, his chief Iowa strategist at the time. Romney steered clear of the caucuses throughout most of 2011 and then blitzed the state in the final days of the race. He ultimately lost to Santorum by 34 votes, but the photo finish was covered as a victory for the national frontrunner.

But John Stineman, a longtime Iowa GOP strategist who ran Steve Forbes' 2000 presidential campaign in the state, said a scheme like that wouldn't work in this race.

"The difference is that Romney ran once before in 2008, and he had an active list of supporters that were doing work in the background while everyone was stewing about the fact that he wasn't here," he said. By contrast, it has been 11 years since a Bush last appeared on a ballot in Iowa, and Jeb doesn't have the same grassroots network of evangelical Christian supporters that his brother had.

Stineman said he's in regular contact with the various presidential campaigns in the state — though he is not affiliated with any of them — and believes Bush's team is "aggressively setting low expectations." They know "Iowa's going to be tough sledding," and he said they have devoted substantially less time and resources to the state than other candidates. But he added that it's still early in the cycle, and, "I'm definitely not under the impression that a decision has been made."

Bush will be in Iowa this weekend to speak alongside 10 other presidential contenders at the state party's Lincoln Day Dinner — a sign that he is not ready to give up on the state entirely. Still, it isn't lost on Iowa's conservatives that this weekend's trip will mark just the second time Bush has stepped foot in the state this year.

Ann Trimble-Ray, a prominent conservative activist in the state, called Bush's decision to skip the Iowa Straw Poll — a high-profile ritual where Republican presidential candidates genuflect at the altar of the all-powerful caucus-goers — "a bit arrogant." She added that the buzz among fellow activists is that Bush doesn't plan to pay their state much attention at all.

"The disrespect he's showing to Iowa is apparent," Trimble-Ray said, adding, "As a politically active Iowan, I believe for a presidential candidate who doesn't think Iowa is worth their time to campaign in, it probably won't be worth their time to represent us effectively, either."

Craig Robinson, the former political director for the state's GOP and editor of the conservative site The Iowa Republican, said Bush and his campaign are making a dangerous mistake by ignoring the caucuses.

"I mean, they're acting as if they can come in eighth place in Iowa and it's not going to effect them. Newsflash: That would be devastating. Absolutely devastating," Robinson said, adding that Bush could easily go on to lose the next three primary states, at which point, "Every donor in the super PAC is going to be standing there scratching their head, saying, 'What the hell did we invest in?'"

Robinson primarily blamed Bush's advisers: Murphy, he said, is "no fan of Iowa and the process here," and Kochel is "basing everything off previous campaigns." But he didn't spare Bush himself: "Iowa requires candidates to actually work to get their support, and I don't think he wants to put in the effort."

He said he hasn't noticed a statewide conservative uproar over Bush's absence — but, in fact, something worse. "I don't get a sense that they really care at all what Jeb Bush is doing or thinking. There's not some gaping hole in Iowa where people are saying, 'Oh, why isn't Jeb campaigning here?' It's no different than Jon Huntsman not campaigning here."