big day today, subpoeper tuesda this could cement the nomination for romney or not. given the ups and downs of the season. and the first formal white house press conference getting ready to start in a few moments from now. let's get to it. there are 424 delegates up for grabs in 11 states enough to cement romney's claim to the nomation or keep his opponents hopes alive. well. >> glad to be here. >> glad to have you. first, to you, tom, we have seen super tuesdays with more contests, certainly, there were 25 four years ago, but this one has its own focus because we have seen so many ups and downs and mitt romney having just win michigan and won so big in arizona, if you were to win ohio

today, he could very clearly -- he could very easily get this thing pulled together. >> they are trying to dress me up here andrea. >> you just keep talking. we are looking at the map. >> i cannot quite get myself going. there are a number of things here in play today. let's begin with the states that are in play. let's begin with the state of ohio, for example, no republican candidate has been successful in the fall without winning ohio. so that is a big industrial midwestern test for all of the candidates today. romney would like to get this behind him as quickly a as possible. the longer it goes on, the more damage is done to the party, more opportunities there are for the democrats in terms of taking manage just, as a matter of course, like the rush limbaugh

statements, putting them in an ad next fall, they want to country down on the opportunities for that and move on to try to secure a nomination for that. we will not know until the end of the day if this goes on longer inially real -- in real terms or whether or not in fact romney will say the nomination is mine after today. >> there's no incentive to get out for those who are funded. for all beintents and purposes, could be over. >> on the delegate front, it's clear that romney has a good night on the delegate front, but will he win a majority of all of them available? >> what is your ranking, 150 plus? >> i think he will get 200 or 220, and he could loose ohio and tennessee by a point or two, when you believe the polls that is the most likely outcome. and he had 220 delegates, so to

do you say, we had this argument four years ago, what is more important, winning the big states or the delegates. the delegates get you the nomination. but the perception issue, he needs one of the two wins. for santorum. he has the win both ohio and tennessee to at least have this -- have the ability to make the case, i have a path forward to the nom magz. there's a realistic path. he is not wrong, if he wins a state or two, there's a path for him to on go forward. >> you kind of eluded that the longer it goes on the more of a problem it becomes. they have had so many detours that have hurt the republican brands in the social issues. >> they do and they have to for the sake of their party and i'm looking at this as an umpire,

looking at it objectively. they have to put the kind of damage they have been doing to themselves behind them at some point. as you have heard me say a thousand times, the ufo theory, who would have thought that rush limbaugh would have become the party to this debate that he became in the last three days. and the democrats saw it as a wide open opportunity, a-to race money and b-to beat up on the republicans primarily because there's a lot of women that are beginning to are have reservations about what the republican platform is on birth control and home schooling and other issues. they would like to stop that kind of damage going into the august and getting to tampa bay as quickly as possible. >> i want to show you barbara bush with laura bush in the a forum in texas, her comments, as always the silver fspeaking str. >> it's been i think the worst

campaign i've seen in my life. i just hate it. i hate the fact that people think compromise is a dirty word. i think the west of the world is looking at us and thinking, what are you doing? >> barbara bush laying it out there. >> number one, she is right, thises the worst we have seen and part of it is we are seeing everything. this is the first 360 campaign, we are seeing it from every angle because of twitter. so we see everything, i is say '88 race, if you saw it from the same 360 angle you would have the same feeling of -- because you would see everything everything second. >> imagine john mccain in the 2000 race, if that was in real time. >> how about that second comment, it was less, it was more of a, to me a shot at washington republicans and where the republican party is going. what do you mean we cannot compromise anymore? that has been, look at it, there

are republican politicians that do not utter the word compromise. >> thises the olympia snowe message. >> it is. and that was the two things that i heard from her on that. one was hey, this is what would happen if you saw a campaign of the way we are seeing it, which is purely naked in an ugly way. to that point, it was not just limbaugh, but it was romney's response and other candidates responding to what he said. and they would not take a stand on it. look at the women data, 18 point swing on the way that the suburban women view the congressional parties. that is the problem. what is going to happen in the house and senate, could be more important to the republicans. >> it is, that is why there's motivation to get this behind. they have to sort of right the ship. they have to make sure their president candidate gets 48. president candidate gets 48% of

the national vote, they are competitive in getting the senate and they probably hold the house. that is what they wanted at this point. you talk to professionals and they think that romney on his worst day is capable enough to do that. >> as we await the president's press conference we will talk more about the fact that the republicans are not the only ones focusing on tonight's super tuesday results. re-election team you have watching the results as well. and robert gibbs, great to see you robert. you've been there and done that. tell us what is probably going on in the green room, the real green room in the white house as the president prepares to walk out into the east room and have his first formal white house press conference in exactly five months? >> well, look, they have probably finished up a prep session going over a few things.

all of these will be topics that the president has been working on, so there's not a ton that you have to do, he is probably just sitting there watching, looking a his watch and wondering when it's going to get started, and i hope there's somebody in there trying tell him jokes and get him to laugh and smile a bit. >> how important is it for him to get out in front of what ever messaging the israeli will deliver from prime minister netanyahu on iran. we saw the candidates trying to make the president look weak on iran at the aipac conference. >> i think the only people that look weak in the topic are republican candidates. we are one with the israeli government in protecting their country and their people. but watching the verbal gymnasts that we see as republican candidates stand up and say, we need crippling economic sanctions and all options on the table is what the president has been working on for years now,

so, i think people dismiss the arm chair foreign policy that is being played by romney and santorum. look, they are either playing fast and loose with the truth or they are ill informed and it could be a case of a bit of each. >> one thing the president has been saying is that they were able to get the europeans and if rest of the arab -- and the rest of the arab countries against iran and get tougher sanctions. mitt romney and the republicans are complaining -- >> without a doubt. >> -- hitting him hard on him trying to engage iran. was that a mistake, and his approach in the elections in 2009, a mistake? you were in the white house on those days. >> no it was not a mistake, exactly what the regime want said us to do was to start picking sides and to use us, the united states government, as a

way of getting the people back. look, i think you hit on it, andrea, the reason we are at the point of crippling sanctions through the united nations and through our european friends and allies is because this president worked to bring them along. g getting those sanctions more than four years ago was impossible. and because we have pursued the policy, we have crippling economic sanctions and we are at the point where the world is with us. >> robert gibbs. thank you so much for joining us, we will all be watching the president's press conference in a moment. and there are 2 -- 46 delegates at stake in virginia's open primary today. get my math right. romney and ron paul are the only candidates on the ballot, newt gingrich and his wife are not voting today in virginia, because his campaign did not

finish the paperwork in time and did not get had his name on the ballot john mcdonald a chair of the republican governor's association, and supporter of mitt romney. thank you for joining us. >> thank you, andrea. >> i want to talk about the campaign and the whole issue of women and how mitt romney did not come out and strongly criticize what rush limbaugh said, what is your position on what rush limbaugh said? >> well, there's a lot of comments i think probably in the right and the left about important social issues that people probably say thing s tha theshds not. and rush limbaugh said thing says he should not and he apologized for it. we see here in virginia where peep on the left say thing -- where people on the left say things as well. the issue is taxes and spending and jobs and the economy, while the important issues about life and family and faith and marriage and religious freedom are important, people want to know where you stands, but they

want to know what are you going to do about getting us back to work and get us out of debt and lead the nation into the next sents -- century. >> isn't thatti getting lost because the debates have been detoured. and republican women are suggesting that the comments have not been strong enough. >> i can only say that i think that those kinds of over the top condemnations are not having a place. let's talk about it in a civil way. and i would say, really, this started a month ago, when president obama decided to have an attack on religious freedom and people in the catholic church responded negatively. it's been a month, i think where

people have weighed in on the social issues. but that is not what will control the election. it will be about jobs and the economy and taxes and spendsing and leadership. that is why i'm supporting mitt romney. >> as muches mitt romney, your campaign and republicans in general want to frame it as the economy. the polling indicates that women really are reacting and that there's been a big swing in suburban women. that is the big issue in virginia as to who should be supported in congress so that republicans in congress could in fact be effected perhaps by the debate you had in richmond over what was basically legislation that would require invasive sono sonograms. >> the bill you are talking about is a bill that 23 states have a bill that requires a

woman to be given the option of seei inin ining a ultr a a soun making a decision. what men and women want is to know how their children are getting into college and have a reduced tuition and how the crushing national debt will be kept in check so that we do not become like europe. i mean, at the end of the day, while there's some discussions, and these are important discussions for people, they want no know where the candidates stand on these important moral questions, polls are a snap shot in time, what people really want is to make the nation, the hope of the earth, where people have the opportunity for the american dream, that is what will determine this election. >> thank you very much. governor bob mcdonald, from virginia, which is a super tuesday state. good luck with the election there today. and the president's news

conference will begin any minute. joining us chris matthews the host of "hardball." here with tom and chuck. >> he has had his training, hasn't he? >> they had a bad detour that was damaging to the republican party in virginia. >> still, i think he was not completely correct in explaining the ultra sound, he said is women are offered the opportunity to have one. the bill was modified to require it. >> here is the president. >> i thought i would start the day off by taking a few questions which i'm sure will not be political in nature. but before i do, i want to make a few announcements about steps we are taking to help responsible home owners who have been struggling through this housing crisis. we have seen some is positive economic news over the last few months. businesses have created 3.7

million jobs and manufacturers are hiring for the first time since the 1990s and the industry is back and hiring, confidence is up and the economy is getting stronger. but, there are still millions americans who cannot find a job. there are millions more who are having a tough time making the rent or the mortgage, paying for gas or groceries, so, our job in washington is not to sit back and do nothing, and it's certainly not to stand in the way of the recovery. right now we have got to do everything that we can to speed it up. now congress did the right thing when they passed part of on my jobs' plan and prevented a tax hike on 160 million working americans this year, and that was a good first step. but it's not enough. they cannot stop there and wait for the next election to come around. there are a you few things that they can do right now that can

make a difference in people's lives much. this congress should once and for all, end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas and use that money to reward companies creating jobs mere in the united states. i put forward a proposal that does just that and there's no reason why congress cannot come together and start acting on it. this congress could hold a vote on the buffett rule. so that we do not have billionaires paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. that is just common sense. the vast majority of americans believe it's common sense and if we are serious about paying down our deficit, it's as good a place to start pass any and finally this congress should pass my proposal to give every responsible home owner a chance to save an average of $3,000 a year by refinancing their mortgage at historically low rates. no red tape, no run around from the banks. if you have been on time on your payments and done the right thing and acted responsibly, you should have a chance to save

that money your home. programs to build up your equity or put more money in your pocket. that would make a huge difference for millions american families. now, if congress refuses to act, i have said that i'll continue to do everything in my power to act without them. last fall, we announced a initiative that allows millions responsible home owners to refinance at low interest rates. today we are taking it a step further. we are cutting by more than half the refinancing fees that family place for loans insured by the federal housing administration, that will sai the typical family in that situation an extra thousand dollars a year on top of the savings they get from refinancing, that makes refinancing more attractive to more families, it's like another tax cut that puts more money in people's pocket. we will do it on our own.

we are taking a series of steps to help home owners who have served our country. it is unheard of that members of our armed forces and their families have been some of those that have been most vulnerable to losing their homes due to the actions of bank sas and mortgag lenders. that happened a lot over the last few years. a lot, so as part of the land mark settlement we reached with some of the nation's largest banks a few weeks ago. if you are a member of the ae ad forces you will be substantially compensated for what the bank to you and your family if you were wrongfully denied the ability to reduce your interest rate, the banks will refund you the money you would have saved along with a significant penalty.

the settlement will make sure that you are not forced into foreclosure just because you have a permanent change in station. but can't sell your home because owe more than it's worth. some of the money will go into a fund that guarantees loans on favorable terms for our veterans and there will be foreclosure protections for evemen and woma serving the country. no amount of money will make it right for those families that have had the american dream taken away from them and no action will entirely heal our housing market on its own. this is not something that the government by itself can solve. i'm not one of those people that believe that we need to sit by and wait for the housing market to hit bottom. there are things that we can do right now that can make a

difference in the lives of innocent responsible home owners that is true in housing and any number of different areas when it comes to ensuring that the recovery touches as many lives as possible. that is my top priority as long as i hold this office and i'll do everything that i can to make the progress. with that i'll take questions and i'll start with mike. >> yes, sir. to middle east and as it relates to american politics a little less than a year ago, gadhafi gave a speech saying he was going to get opponents from their bedrooms and shoot then. you sited that speech for justifying military action. and that is happening in syria, air strikes have been called by mccain. romney went so far as to say that you are re-elected that

iran will get a nuclear bam. >> let's start with the iran situation since that has been a topic in the news for the last few days. when i came into office, iran was unified on the move. had made substantial progress on its nuclear program and approximate the world -- and the world was divided on how to deal with it. what we have been doing is mobilize crippling sanctions on iran, iran is feeling the bite of these sanctions in a substantial way. the world is unified, iran is politically isolated. what i have said is that, we will not allow iran to get a nuclear weapon. my policy is not containment, my policy is to prevent them getting a nuclear weapon, it

would trigger a arms race and it could fall into the hands of terrorists. we have been talking to our allies about moving this strategy forward. at this stage, it's my belief that we have a window of opportunity where this can still be resolved diplomatically. that is not just my view, that is the view of our top intelligence officials. it's the view of top israeli intelligence officials. and as a result, we will continue to apply pressure, even as we give iran a door to walk through to rejoin the national community, they need to meet their obligations and not pursue a nuclear weapon. that is my track record. what is said on the campaign trail, you know, those folks do not have a lot of

responsibilities. they are not commander and chief. and when i see the casualness with which some of these folks talk about war, i'm reminded of the costs involved in war. i'm reminded the decision that i have to make in terms of sending our young men and went into battle and the impact it has on their lives and on our national security, the impact it has on our economy. this is not a game, there's nothing casual about it. when i see the folks with a lot of big talk and you ask them specifically what they would do, it turns out they repeat the things that we have been doing over the last three years. it indicates to me that is more about politics than trying to

solve a difficult problem. now, the one thing that we have not done is we have not launched a war. if some of these folks think that it's time to launch a war, they should say so and explain to the american people why they would do that and what the consequences would be, everything else is just talk. with respect to syria, what is happening in syria is heart breaking. and outrageous and what you have seen is the international community mobilize against the assad regime and it's not a question of when assad leaves or if he leaves, it's a question of when. he has lost the people. and the actions that he has now taken against his own people is inexcusable and the world community has said so in a more or less unified voice.

on the other hand for us to take military action, unilater ally as some have suggested or to think that somehow there's a simple solution, i think is a mistake. what happened in libya was we mobilized the international community and had a u.n. security council mandate, had the full cooperation of the region, arab states, and we knew that we could execute very effectively in a relatively short period of time. this is a much more complicated situation, so what we have done is, to work with keir ab states, key international partners, hillary clinton was in tunesia to plan how do we support the opposition and continue the political isolation, how do you

continue the economic isolation. we are going continue to work on this project with other countries, and it is my belief that ultimately, this dictator will fall as dictators in the past have fallen. but, the notion that the way to solve every one of these problems is to deploy our military, you know, that has not been true in the past, and it will not be true now, we have got to think through what we do lew the lens of what will be effective and what is critical for u.s. security interests. jake? >> thank you, mr. president. what kind of assure answers did you give prime minister netanyahu about the role that the u.s. would play if economic sanctions fail to work to convince the iranian leaders to

change their behavior and israel goes ahe had and prepares to strike? and shouldn't we be having, in this country, a vigorous debate about what could happen in the case of a middle east war in a way that sadly we did pnot do before going into iraq? >> no doubt, those that are suggesting or proposing or beating the drums of war should explain clearly to the american people what they think the costs and benefits would be. i'm not one of those people. because what i have said is that we have a window through which we can resolve this issue peacefully. we have put forward an international frame work that is applying pressure, the iranians stated they are willing to return to the negotiating table

and we have the opportunity as we maintain the pressure to see how it plays out. i'm not going to go into the details of my conversation with the prime minister. but what i said publically does not differ greatly from what i said privately. israel is a nation that has to make its own decisions of how best to preserve its security. as i said over the last several days i'm deeply mindsful of the historical precedence that weighs on any prime minister of israel when had he think about the -- when they think about the potential threats to israel and the jewish homeland. what i have also said is that because sanctions are starting to have significant effect inside of iran, and that is not just my assessment, that is a uniform assessments, because the sanctions will be tougher in the coming months, because they are

now starting to effect the oil industry, the central bank and because we are now seeing noise says about -- noises about them returning to the negotiating table, it's deeply in everyone's interests, the united states, israel and the world's to see if it can be resolved in a peaceful fashion. so, this notion that somehow we have a choice to make in the next week or two weeks or month or two months, is not born out by the facts. and the argument that we made to the israelis is that we have made an unprecedented commitment to their security, there's an unbreakable bond for our countries, one of the functions of friends is to make sure that we provide advice term of what is the best approach to a chief a common goal. particularly one in which we have a stake, this is not just

an issue of israeli interest, it's an issue of united states interest, it's not just the consequences of action being taken prematurely. there are consequences to the united states as well. i think that any time we consider military action, that the american people understands there's going to be a price to pay. sometimes it's necessary but we do not do it casually. you know, when i visit walter reid, when iletters to families whose loved oneses have not come home, i'm remindsed that there's a cost, sometimes we bare the cost, but we think it through. we do not play politics with it. when we have in the past. when we have not thought it through, and it gets wrapped up in politics, we make mistakes.

and typically, it's not the folks who were popping off who pay the price, it's these incredible men and women in uniform and their families who pay the price. and as a consequence, i think it's very important for us to take a careful thoughtful sober approach to what is a real problem, that is what we have been doing over the last couple of years and i'll keep doing it. >> if i can quickly follow-up. you did publically say we have got israel's back, what does that mean? >> what it means is that historically, we have always cooperated with israel, with respect to the defense of israel. just like we do with the whole range of other allies, just like we do with great britain and japan. and that broad statement i think

is confirmed when you look at what we have done over the last three years on things like iron dome, that prevent missiles from raining down on towns on the border regionals in israel that land on schools or children or families. and we will continue that unprecedented security commitment. it was not a military doctrine that we were laying out for any particular military action, it was a restatement of our consistent position that the security of israel is something i deeply care about. and, that the deeds of my administration over the last three years c s conif you remember -- confirms how deeply we care about it. that is a commitment we made. jackie? there you are. >> with the news this morning that the u.s. and its allies are

returning to the table and taking up iran's offer to talk again, more than a year after those talks broke in frustration. is this iran's last chance to negotiate an end to this nuclear question and you said three years ago, nearly three years ago in a similar with one on one meeting with the prime minister netanyahu, that the time for talk, by the end of that year, 2009, you would be considering whether iran was negotiating in good faith and he said we are not going have talks forever, so here we are nearly three years later, and is it this it and did did you think he would be here three years later after those talks? >> there's no doubt that over the last three years when iran has engaged in negotiations, there has been stalling and

avoiding the issues in ways that the international community has concluded were not serious. and my expectations, given the conquestions of inaction for them, the severe sanctions that are now being applied, the huge toll that it is taking on the economy, the degree of isolation that they are feeling right now, which is unprecedented. they understand that the world community means business. to resolve this issue, it will require iran to come to the table and discuss in a clear and forthright way, how do prove to the international community that the intentions of their nuclear program are peaceful. they know how to do that.

this is not a mystery. and so, it's going to be very important to make sure that on an issue like this, there are complexities, it has to be methodical, i do not expect a break through in a first meeting, but i think we will have a pretty good sense fairly quickly as to how serious they are about resolving the issue. and there are steps that they can take that would send a signal to the international community and that are verify able, that would allow them to be in compliance with international norms and international mandates, abiding by the nonpro livliferation tre they know how to do it, the

question will be, are they moving clearly in that direction. ed henry? >> thank you, mr. president, i want to follow-up on israel and iran. you said repeatedly you have israel's back, i wonder why in three years in office, you have not visited israel. related to israel and iran, you have talked about the talk of war driving up gas prices further. your critics will say on capitol hill that you want gas prices to go higher because you said before it will put the american people on new fuels. >> do you think that the president of the united states going into a re-election wants the prices on gas to go higher. is there anybody here that thinks that maybekes a lot of sense. here is the deal, i want the gas prices lower because it hurt

families. i meet people every day that have to drive a long way to get to work. and them filling up this gas tank gets more and more painful and it's attacking their paychecks and pocket book. a lot of folks are operating on the margins right now. and it's not good for the overall economy because when gas prices go up, consumer spending often times pulls back and we are in the middle right now of a recovery that is starting to build up steam and we do not want it to reverse. what i have said also about gas prices is that there's no silver bullet and the only why we will solve the problem over the medium and long-term is with an all of the above strategy. that says, we will increase production, which has happened. we are going make sure that we are conserving energy, that is why we doubled fuel efficiency

standards on cars which will save consumers about $1.7 trillion, and take about 12 billion barrels of oil, you know, off line. which will help to reduce prices. and we are going to develop clean energy technologies that allow us to continue to use less oil. and we have made progress. i mean the good news is 2010, first time in a decade that our oil imports were below 50% and they have kept going down. and we are going to keep on looking at every strategy we can to, yes, reduce the amount of oil that we use, while maintaining our living standards, and maintaining our productivity, and maintaining our economic growth and we will do everything that we can to make sure that consumers are not hurt by it. there are short-term steps that we are looking at with respect to for example, there are certain potential bottlenecks in

refineries around the country that we have been concerned about, we have been concerned about what is happening in terms of production around the world. it's not just what is happening in the gulf, you have had for example, in sudan, some oil that has been taken offline that is helping to restrict supply. so, we are going to look at a whole range of measures, including by the way making sure that my attorney general is paying attention to potential speculation in the oil markets. i have asked him to reconstitute a task force that is examining that. but we go through this every year. we have gone through it for 30 years. and you know, if we are going to be competitive, successful, and make sure families are protected over the long-term, then we have to make sure that we have got a set of options that reduce our overall dependence on oil.

with respect to israel, i'm not the first president who has been unable, because of a whole range of issues, not the visit israel as president in their first term. i visited israel twice as senator and once right before i became president. the measure of my commitment to israel is not measured by a single visit. measure of my commitment to israel is seen in the actions that i have taken as president on of the united states, and it is indisputable that i had israel's back over the last three years. yes? >> do you believe rush limbaugh's apology was sufficient and heart felt and do you agree with the number of sponsors that have stopped supporting his show and has there been a double standard,

liberal commentators have made distasteful statements and there's not been such an outrage. >> you know, i'm not going to comment on what sponsors decide to do. i'm not going to comment on either the economics or the politics of it. i don't know what is in rush limbaugh's heart, so i'm not going to comment on the apology. but i can comment on the fact that all good folks can agree that the remarks that were made don't have any place in the public discourse. and you mow, the reason i call -- and you know, the reason i called ms. fluke is because i thought by my daughters and one of the things i want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about, even ones i may not agree with them

on. i want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way. and i do not want them attacked or called horrible names because they are being good citizens, and i wanted sandra to know that i thought her parents should be proud of her. and that we want to send a message to all of our young people that being part of a democracy involves argument and disagreements and debate and we want you to be engaged and there's a way to do it that doesn't involve you being demeaned and insulted, particularly when you are a

private citizen. all right. jessica, jessica yellen. >> mr. president -- >> jessica? >> apologize -- >> thank you, mr. president, top democrats said that republicans in a similar issue are engaged in a war on women. some top republicans say it's more like democrats are engaged in a war for the women's vote. as you talk about loose talk of war in another arena and women, this could raise concerns among women, do you agree with the chair of your dnc that there's a war on women? >> here is what i think. women are going to make up their own mind in this election about who is advancing the issues that

they care most deeply about. one of the things i have learned being married to michelle is i do not need to tell her what i think it is that she should feel is important. there are millions strong women around the country who are going to make their own opinions up around a whole range of issues. it will not just be focused on contraception or driven by one statement by one radio announcer, it will be driven by their view of what is most likely going to allow them to help support their families, make their mortgage payments, who has a plan to ensure that middle class families are secure over the long-term. what is most likely to result in their kids being able to get the education they need to compete. and i believe, that depositiond

better store to he will the to women -- that democrats have a better story to tell on growing the economy, and making sure everyone has a fair shot and everyone is doing their fair share, and we have a set of rules that everyone has to follow. i'm not somebody that believes that women will be single issue voters they have never been, and i think we have a strong story to tell when it cops to women. >> would you prefer the language be changed? >> jessica, as you know, if i start being in the business arbitrating -- >> you talk about civility. >> and what i do is practice it. i'll try to lead by example as opposed to commenting on every comment that is made by either politicians or pundits, i would not have time to do my job, that is your job to comment on what is said by them.

all right laurie? >> thank you. >> there you are. >> mr. president, the polls are showing that latino voters seem to be favoring your re-election over a republican alternative, but still are upset about the promise that you made on immigration reform that has yet to come to pass. if you are re-elected, what do you do different to get immigration reform passed through the congress, especially if both houses continue as they are right now, which is split. >> first of all, everyone should want immigration reform. we have a system that is broken, we have a system in which you have millions families here in the country who are living in the shadows, worried about

deportation, you have american workers that are being under cut because those undocumented workers can be hired and the minimum wage laws may not be observed. over time laws may not be observed. you have incredibly talented people who wants to start businesses in this country, or to work in the country, and we should want those folks mere in the united states but right now, the legal immigration system is so tangled up that it becomes very difficult for them to put down roots here. so, we can be a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants and it's not just a hispanic issue, this is an issue for everyone, this is an american issue that we need to fix. now, when i came into office, i said i'll push to get this done. we did not get it done. and the reason we have not gotten it done is because what used to be a bipartisan agreement that we should f-- th

should fix this has ended up being a problem. i give credit to former president bush, that said, this should not just be the democrats support, the republican party is invested in this as well. that was good advice then and it would be good advice now. and my hope is that after this election, the latino community will have sent a stong message that they want a bipartisan effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform that ininvolves tough border security, and this administration has done more for border security than just about anybody that we are making sure that companies are not able to take advantage of undocumented workers. that we have got, you know, strong laws in place.

and that we have got a path so that all those folks who's kids often who are u.s. citizens who are, you know, working with us, working with us, living with us and in our communities and not breaking the law, and trying to do their best to raise their families that they've got a chance to be a fuller part of our community. so, what do i think will change? what i will do -- we're going to be putting forward, as we've done before, a frame work, a proposal, legislation, that can move the ball forward and get this thing done. ultimately, i can't vote for republicans. they're going to have to come to the conclusion that this is good for the country, and that this is something that they

themselves think is important, and depending on how congress turns out, we'll see how many republican votes we need to get it done. nora. how are you? >> thank you, mr. president. today is super tuesday. i wonder if you might way in on your potential republican proponents. mitt romney has criticized you on iran and said hope is not a foreign policy, and he said you are america's most factless president since carter. what would you like to say to mr. romney? >> good luck tonight. >> no, really? >> really. lynn, since you've been hollering and you're from my hometown, make it a good one. >> my question is about the ga

summit. a reason given for the white house is now he wanted a more intimate summit. people of chicago would like to know, what do you know now that you did not know when you booked hometown chicago for the ga that led to the switch and part did security threats play in the decision? >> we're still going to be showing up with a bunch of world leaders. tillically what happen is we try to attach the g 8 summit so the leaders don't have to travel twice to whatever location. last year in france we combined a g8 with a nato summit. we'll do so again. i have to say this was an idea that was brought to me after the initial organizing of the nato summit. somebody pointed out that i had

not had any of my counter parts that i worked with for three years up to camp david. we talk about a wide range of issues in a pretty intimate way. the thinking was people enjoy being in a more casual backdrop. i think the weather should be good that time of year. it will give me a chance to spend time with the new russian president and from there we will fly to chicago. i always have confidence in chicago being able to handle security issues whether it's taste of chicago of lapalooza or bulls championships. we know how to deal with the crowd. i'm sure that your new mayor

will be quite attentive to detail in making sure that everything goes off well. all right. okay. go ahead. last question. >> mr. president, just to continue on that. when the nato leaders gather in chicago in may, do you expect they'll be able to agree on a transition strategy, and are you concerned that the koran burnings and episode since then threaten your abt to negotiate? >> the transition policy was in place and established at lisbon. we've been following that strategy that calls for turning over increasing responsibility to afghans and a full transition so that our combat role is over by the end of 2014. our coalition partners have agreed to it. they are sticking with it.

that continues to be the plan. what we are now going to be doing over the next -- at this nato meeting and planning for the next two years is to make sure that transition is not a cliff but there are benchmarks and steps that are taking along the way in the same way that we reduced our role in iraq so that it is gradual, afghan capacity is built. the partnering with afghan security forces is effective, that we're putting in place the kinds of support structures that are needed in order for the overall strategy to be effective. now, yes, the situation with the koran burning concerns me. i think that it is an indication

of the challenges in that environment and it's an indication that now is the time for us to transition. obviously, the violence directed at our people is unacceptable, and president karzai acknowledged that. he's more eager for responsibility fon the afghan side. we'll find a mechanism where they understand their soveignty being respected. i'm confident we can execute. it's not going to be a smooth path. there's going to be buffermps a the way just as in iraq. >> are you seeing a deterioration in the relationship of the koran

burning itself, the violence that followed that inhibits your ability to work out things like how to hand off the detention center? >> none of this stuff is easy, and it never has been. obviously, the most recent riots or propests against the koran burning were tragic, but remember this happened a while back when the pastor in florida threatened to burn a koran in iraq as we were making this transition. there were constant crises that would pop up and tragic events that would take place, and there would be occasional setbacks. what i try to do is to set a course, make sure that up and down the chain of command that everybody knows what our broader strategy is, and one of the incredible things about our military is that when they know

what our objective is, what our goal is, regardless of the obstacles may meet along the way, they understand. we're not interested in staying there any longer than is necessary to assure that al qaeda is not operating there and that there's sufficient stability that it doesn't end up being a free-for-all. we share interests here. it will require negotiations and there will be times that things don't look as smooth as i'd like. that's kind of the deal internationally on a whole range of these issues. all right. thank you, guys. oh, can i just make one other

comment. i want to publicly express condolences to the family of donald pain. congressman from new jersey, a wonderful man. did great work both domestically and internationally. he was a friend of mine. my heart goes out to his family and to his colleagues. all right. >> with that condolence to the loss of congress payne from new jersey president leaves with the message that he had throughout the news conference which is that she the commander in chief and mitt romney, you are not. i'm here with tom. he spoke of how casual they are in response to questions about mitt romney. casual they are who bluster about war. what about the consequences? they should talk to the american people about that? >> he made some fairly remarkable statements saying