campbell: i am campbell brown. mark: i am mark halperin. the streets aren't for everyone. that is why they made sidewalks. on the show tonight, why clinton won't back down. and what does the market say? first america's most eloquent politician, benjamin netanyahu, who has given more interviews than malcolm gold while -- gold well on a book tour. a briefing in which josh was asked about the pursuit of the two state solution.

>> that pursuit has essentially been the foundation of u.s. policy toward the region, not just in this administration that also under the previous of ministration as well. this is thomas supported by democrats and republicans on capitol hill as well. when premised on netanyahu indicated a weakness in his commitment, and i think that is putting it charitably, indicated a weakness on his commitment to a two state solution, he was indicating a difference of opinion not just with president obama, but with a policy pursued by president bush, and the policy strongly supported by democrats and republicans in the united states and congress. mark: so it is clear that was not an aberration yesterday. what is the obama administration strategy, and could it work? campbell: i'd you not think they want to change his behavior. they want to create this toxic bubble around him, because their

priority is trying to get a deal with iran. he is probably the most persuasive voice they have. so they want to try to isolate him. they are escalating there were with him, calling him a flip flopper, saying he is dishonest. he said stupid things at the end of his campaign, as politicians do to get elected. david axelrod said barack obama was opposed to gay marriage in his campaign because he wanted to get elected, that he really always supported it. this is what politicians do. mark: they need to get him back on track. not necessarily a peace deal, but less hostility toward israel and more towards a deal. what they need to do and what they are doing is to try to free him like as the leader of a hostile nation. they are trying to convince some people in the minor parties that netanyahu is not a good play. either force the government to do a good job, or be more accommodating to palestinians.

campbell: but the president has always had this view that he thought there should be more daylight between the u.s. and israel, and he has said that before. i am not sure he wants to bring that together. it will be interesting for hillary to say what she does. we david bronner say this. americans are with israel. as a political maneuver, you can see her trying to distance from him on this in the same way she did with syria. mark: just as the president gave a message to the young people of iran, he is trying to send a message to the dovish people in israel, you do not have to be for netanyahu. they are trying to weaken his hand or bring his government down. it is not necessarily changing netanyahu's policy. campbell: a few hours ago, i got meerkat, so i could say -- stay relevant in our media landscape. mark you are all about this

live streaming service. we should explain it. it is for your phone, linked directly to twitter. there are other apps like periscope that basically do the same thing, so how do you think all of these things are going to change the 2016 race? mark: the streaming services live video with anybody who has an iphone or another phone anywhere you want. i have been waiting for this to happen. you are going to see even more gaps on the campaign trail. you are also going to see reporters realize there is a reason why we usually edit and do not show everything live. reporters are going to make mistakes. candidates are going to make mistakes. staffers are going to make mistakes. people are going to go through a learning curve. live everywhere is good in some ways, bad in others. campbell: it is reality tv, and every presidential candidate is the star. will they fear it or embrace it

is the question. you are seeing who already is jeb bush and rand paul using it. hillary clinton -- it is hard to imagine how they will try to use it. campbell: -- mark: it is also a voter stream. i have been live streaming events i have been in. they were not necessarily in tv voters were going to see the candidates. the interesting question is, campaigns have used and the politicians have used new media to go around the press. you can imagine jeb bush giving a speech and not letting any cameras in. mark: -- campbell: does not need to. mark: that is a danger. reporters need to say, we are not taking your live stream. the problem is, if we say we refuse to take it, they can live streaming directly to our followers. campbell: doing away with the middleman. on the social media piece republicans are still not there yet. they have this view, the candidates and the people around

them, that their voters, their core electorate, is older and not as engaged, and therefore they don't have to embrace it as much. and i don't think they are as far along as they need to be. mark: i agree. jeb bush and rand paul are both guys surrounded by operations saying, we need to appeal to younger people. we need to understand new media. this has gotten as hot as fast as anything i have seen including in politics and political media. if you are keeping score at home, the clinton scandals are piling up, like the unread e-mails. reuters is all over the clinton foundation for not disclosing some of it donors. the wall street journal is all over the clinton foundation for taking money from foreign donors. something tells me that if "the new york times" reported hillary clinton's middle name was not diane but benghazi, it would not make a difference. with all the clinton schedules

past, present, and future, how big is a scandal have to be to impact hillary clinton's chances? campbell: it is not going to matter in the primary, because her people have nowhere else to go. core supporters talking about the e-mail scandal -- they can real ethical concerns about that. they never said, we are going to look at the republican. they do not even know who martin o'malley is. in a primary, it is irrelevant. in the general, i think it is background noise unless it is really huge and new. i think her bigger problem in the general and the bigger impression is, what is her vision for the country? she has yet to lay that out and talk about what her agenda is. i think that will dominate more. mark: there is a reason clinton scandals do not break through the way they might. the bar is pretty high if it does not involve impeachment. get back to us. cleanse operation, even now

which is not fully formed, is very good at dealing with these things saying, that is an old story. the american people do not care about that. they are good at damage control. something has to be big to break through. when she has to talk to the press every day, we will see. the country wants to see her handle controversies. not necessarily address them in every detail, but handle them. she has not done that lately. campbell: she has not handled them well either. if you are alone and you do not have a primary challenger, you do get under the microscope with these things. she is not handling it well that could become a problem. mark: more democrats are saying, memory -- maybe hillary clinton would be better off with someone to distract from pure focus on her from republicans, the media, and democrats. [bell rings] campbell: now, it is time for our -- weight, magic wand. who won the week other than georgia state? let's go to the wall and look.

mark: get ready with your magic wand and show us who you pick. campbell: is it ted cruz? chris christie? i am thinking, marco rubio. mark: why did marco rubio win the week? campbell: foreign policy was front and center with everything in israel. you are reminded quickly that are in policy issues can take over. they can dominate discussion in this country. lindsay graham is more fluent and more in command on those issues than any of the other republican candidates. i have seen that time and time again. so have you. he has been connecting recently with donors. he has been doing a lot of outreach with new york donors, and they are more receptive, looking for a plan b if things don't work out. campbell: mark: -- mark: or if they do not like bush. campbell: i think they see a

level of sophistication they do not see in scott walker. mark: where is most of the republican effort going right now? it is going to walker. he is handling the flaps ok, but let's see what happens if you will start going after rubio. there is plenty to drop. when they do -- there is on everybody. when they do, i think he will not be doing as well. right now, foreign policy, connecting with donors. he is looking like a better bush alternative than walker for some. campbell: who have you got? mark: i survey the field of republican candidates, and who had the best week? none of them. my magic wand says this man. biden. there is buzz in the media about him. he is now being seen as, if hillary clinton fails if somehow the controversies undertake her, he is the man. he is more into running than most people realize.

if he can find a way to do it, he will do it. there is a "draft joe biden" effort going on by former supporters. chances are hillary clinton runs. but more democrats say she should get a challenge. biden, people were discounting before. now, the incumbent vice president is the man. campbell: this is a serious question. how do you overcome the shoulder rubbing? the visual image, over and over again? mark: everybody has problems. joe biden, rub it in. focus group madness. we will reflect after this. ♪

mark: focus group. john and i did some focusing in new hampshire with purple strategies. yesterday, we showed you the

republican group and the democratic group. tonight, we are mashing them together. we are going to show you similarities and differences in how the republicans and the democratic roots felt. first, let's look at how they felt about republican jeb bush. what you know about jeb bush? >> i cannot tell you much specifically. it was not one i spent much time looking at. i felt like a lot of the things the facts i looked up about him were not compatible with me. mark: could you imagine voting for a republican? >> i want hillary to win, but i could live with jeb bush. he is pretty moderate. >> the stance on immigration things like that -- >> i think his support of the common core may be an issue for him. >> on immigration, he is big on schools, education. those are big issues for us

boys and girls, aren't they? that is part of who we are. >> being the son father brother of the latest president, is going to leave a mark on at least percentages of people. he may be able to pick up the vote. i think he will be losing at least a percentage of the vote just having that name. >> i would listen to him. i would. i would listen to him. i do not know if i would vote for him, but i would listen. he could change me. >> not any chance at all really. mark: democrats of four jeb bush. republicans not. campbell: is this the reason the clintons have been saying he is the candidate they are most afraid to run against? mark: i think there are crazy conspiracy. that clintons are sneaking out jeb, because they want him to be the nominee. he could appeal to the hispanic

voters and raise a lot of money. i think he would be the strongest general election candidate. but it is incredible how close the republicans are. when you are a democrat-leaning independents, it takes courage to say i am open to jeb bush. and to say, i am open to speak on these issues. so striking. you would not hear anybody in the democratic group say that about chris christie, scott walker even marco rubio. hillary clinton, they all tester. the focus group is a little indication. dangerous for jeb bush if democrats like him more than republicans and you are trying to win the republican election. campbell: knowing how well he is known to a lot of republicans, if he makes a big push -- mark: democrats seized on the same issues, the very reasons republicans do not like jeb bush. he supports citizenship on immigration. that is the very thing the

democratic group said. we like him, because he is talking about our issues in an inclusive way. there is an awareness from both sides about parts of his agenda. incredibly different reactions. i was surprised at the openness of the democrats as well as the republican hostility. campbell: here is another key difference between the groups. democrats appeared to care more about nominating someone who is the most electable, meaning who has the better chance of when he and general election, where is republicans gave the impression they wanted to find their political soulmate. >> when you think about who you want to support in the primary, do you think of their ability to win the nomination to win the general election, the electability? >> i like bernie sanders. but electability is a factor. >> consistency is a factor and the idea of electability certainly does not enter into my

thought process until later on. >> i think the worst immigrant or liberal is better than the best conservative i know. >> absolutely not electable if you did not vote for them. you have to get out and vote for the candidate you trust him and hope everybody sees what it is you see. >> i think the country is ready for a moderate democrat. i think elizabeth warren, as much as i like her, is too liberal, even though i like a lot of things she is for. she is too liberal. >> i think it could potentially solve itself, once you pick what i think would be the right candidate, regardless of whether some talking head says that person is electable. mark: so that is another big difference, in part because you have got republicans who are really interested in winning, which is really -- dark rats are

really interested in winning, which is normally what republicans are. i generally fun republicans are focused on, who can we nominate and when? democrats want to fall in love with somebody. campbell: democrats, i felt like it show they are not in love with hillary clinton, and are looking for why they are supporting her. mark: they are being cleared right and coldhearted, saying, we like her because she can win. it is fascinating that the republicans who lost the popular vote in five out of the last six elections are not trying to say, as democrats did in the 1970's and 1980's, who can win? the sentiment of the group overall is, i want somebody i really like. hopefully, they can win, but i want somebody i really like. that is a surprising place for them to be. they have lost five of the last 6 -- campbell: but look at this field compared to the last two elections. this is the strongest field in years. mark: maybe.

campbell: people have accomplish things. mark: how many can actually win? campbell: they are all bringing something to the table. mark: those of the big differences between the groups but here is a similarity. both republicans and democrats gave basically the same answer when we asked about partisanship and dysfunction in washington. john: we are not seeing progress to the extent we should. what is not right? >> we are spinning wheels. everything introduced congress says we cannot do that. we cannot do this. >> republicans, it has got to be our way. the democrats, it has to be our way. >> you bring people to the table and hammer out the differences and come to some reasonable decisions. >> i think we should have a measure to evaluate the progress

of congress, and if they don't make any congress, they should not get paid. but i do not think they should get paid if they don't make progress. they are just not doing anything. >> nobody is working together. nobody is -- >> there is no team. mark: does everybody think that rand paul working with democrats is good, or that he should not be working with the enemy? >> depends on what you are working with. >> i think it is great. that is a good thing, other issues notwithstanding. campbell: that is a polarized group. it represents where the country is right now. a little bit of hopelessness around bipartisanship. mark: and they both like people who can work across the aisle including the republicans liking rand paul for working with democrats in a group. we are going to be right back with our weekly retro spectacular review. ♪

campbell: what is wrong? mark: i was thinking about john. campbell: i have had a good time being here this week. mark: it has been a crazy three weeks. there was that time fbi agents stampeded and gunned us down. look at this. campbell: and that time we asked a legendary ad guru to come up with slogans for hillary. mark: turns out, hillary loves yoga. americans love yoga. ever seen one of these? mark: governor pataki was a laugh riot. >> but what can you expect? cap of them worked on the romney campaign. mark: that time lindsey graham took over our show. campbell: we reported on hillary clinton's e-mails. >> emailgate.

what did she know? campbell: -- mark: the time we booked eric. campbell: that time we celebrated netanyahu's victory. mark: congratulations, bibi! campbell: hold still, you big baby. that time we talked to new hampshire democrats about hillary clinton's stuff, -- stiff competition. >> does anyone know martin o'malley? he is the former governor of maryland. mark: the time we tried to wrap like sir mix a lot-- rap like sir mix-a-lot. campbell: the time we broke bad in new hampshire. mark: it is the new hampshire voters who are not here. the time chuck schumer went back

-- campbell: and the time we found our one shining moment. >> ♪ that moment you reach for the stars ♪ campbell: did we really do all that? mark: yes, we did. campbell: no wonder i am so tired. ♪

mark: we are only on the tube half an hour a day, but we are live 24/7 on bloomberg.com. campbell: griffin is meerkating this whole thing, so go to mark's twitter. ♪

pimm: i am pimm fox, and this is what i am taking stock of. greece get the bailout money as soon as next week. the funds could float to greece if the greek government can deliver on reforms. >> we have to be committed to the eurogroup agreement of the 20th of february. and we agree in the spirit of mutual trust to speed up the work and concluded as fast as possible. all confirm their intention