on monday, the republican national committee released a report saying if we want ethnic minority voters to support republicans, we have to engage them and show our sincerity. just one day after releasing that report, republicans showed their sincerity this way in arkansas, by passing a new measure requiring all voters to show photo i.d. in order to vote. a measure that opponents of that law say would suppress the vote, particularly among minority, elderly and young voters. joining me now, msnbc's joy reid. joy, michael steele said, look, you can't say this on monday and pass these kinds of things. this is part of what's alienating those voters.

>> absolutely. apparently, the governor's and legislatures out there in the world didn't get the memo from nice reince priebus. the problem with these laws, lawrence, they are far more likely to disenfranchise black and hispanic youth, something like 72% of african-americans who go to vote are asked for i.d. something like 760% of hispanics, but half of white younger people who go to vote. so you're disenfranchising people directly and black and hispanic youth are far more likely to report not voting because either they don't have the i.d. or are perceived or think they don't have the i.d. so on one hand, we're going to speak more nicely to minorities, but as a back up, we're going to make it harder for them to vote. >> and joy, there's ten other states out there considering doing this kind of thing. and i keep hearing people theorizing that, in fact, these efforts may have increased minority turnout in some places last year. >> yeah, i think there's a

direct sort of circumstantial case to say that at least in florida, and in ohio, you saw actually a bump in turnout among minority voters, because of not only the fact of the laws and knowing about them and learning about them and people being outraged because they felt disenfranchised but the fear of the law. so even in some states that don't have restrictive laws, people were worried their right to vote would be taken away. and a state like pennsylvania which has very restrictive laws, you had philadelphia suburbs saying we're going to come out and vote in defiance of people telling us our vote is less valuable and less valued and not wanted at the polls. >> joy reid gets tonight's last word but this story is not over. we'll be back on it, joy. joy, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> "hardball" is up next. gunfight. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. the shooting has begun at the ok corral. you want to stop the sale of assault weapons.

go for it. joe biden says it's always a chance. the news from the battle is it's gown do background checks, which i hear could go either way. we might end up with the horror of newtown with nothing more than something about trafficking, secondhand purchases, but for all those who care about gun safety, let me repeat what i said, get ahold of your senator or member of congress and say you want a real background check on people who buy guns. get ahold of your senator, by calling 202-224-3121. if you don't know your senator or member of congress, fine, just go to www.house.gov. and enter your zip code to find out who your congressman is. and www.senate.gov to find your senator.

you can then click on his or her name when it pops up. it will take you to their website with all their contact information. look, at the switchboards are jammed, wait a few minutes and try again. it means we're working, this thing is working. it's a good sign of the impact you're having. cynthia tucker is with the university of georgia, and sam tine is with the huffington post. sam, i hear you have some news, and i think the focus on back ground checks. will the senate include background checks in the actual main bill that goes before the senate? >> yeah, a bit of breaking news. i'm told reliably that senator harry reid will move a bill starting tonight and it would have background checks in the base component of it, which means it won't be offered as an amendment.

in addition to this, harry reid is going to do the assault weapons ban and the second is the ban on high-capacity magazines. you saw weapons ban faces a much more uphill battle than the one of the high capacity magazines but you have to guess at this moment and anything that passes the senate would then have to go over to the house and we're not sure what john boehner would do at this point in time. yesterday he indicated that he doesn't want to expend any new laws. that could trip up all of the reform. >> let me ask you, cynthia, about the politicians and passions about this. they were very hot, 90% for a better set of background checks. in fact, everything comes out with a majority. will it be brought to bear as the senate votes after easter? >> chris, i certainly hope so. i'm so glad that you are advising people to get in contact with their members of congress and members of senate. let me also say that i am so disappointed that harry reid didn't do more to at least keep the ban on high capacity magazines in the main bill. i wanted to see a ban on assault weapons as well but the ban on high-capacity magazines is so critical because those magazines

have been used in virtually every major mass shooting that we've seen over the last decade. and they matter. they give the capacity to fire round after round after round without reloading. they give the capacity to fire round after round after round without reloading. and if we could get a ban on high-capacity magazines, we could really do something to stop some of these crazy, mass shootings. >> it's all about 60 votes. today vice president biden made your point. here he is. he wasn't giving an inch. he joined michael bloomberg and families of the newtown,

connecticut, shooting victims to call for the ban despite harry reid's decision not to include it in the bill. let's listen to the vp. >> for all those who say we shouldn't and can't ban all assault weapons, for the politicians who say it's too hard, how can they say it when you take a look at those 20 beautiful babies and what happened to them? for all those who say we shouldn't or couldn't ban high-capacity magazines, i just ask them one question, think about newtown. think about newtown. think about what happened out in -- where gabby giffords, my good friend, was shot and mortally wounded. had he only had one clip that fell out of his hands, how many more people would have been alive? >> sam, here's the thing.

we have the horror recently where we all have a pretty good picture in our mind and looking at first graders and firing away with a semiautomatic and then reloading it with magazines. so he had all of the equipment we've been talking about here, the very equipment of a semiautomatic, the kind of assault rifle that we're talking about, he had magazines which were 30 rounds. he was using the very thing that we're trying to get out of public circulation. isn't it a problem with the senate can't deal with something, when somebody has described the bill we need through horror and they won't do it? >> yes, i think it's a huge problem. obviously the 60-vote threshold complicates things. it can make the case that, you know, if you spend more time ramping up pressure on individual senators, maybe they would be more inclined to do this. but gun politics is incredibly

hard. i would contend the shooting of a congresswoman in the head would have been enough to prompt action. that just didn't happen. there's a lot of explanations for this. the gun rights lobby does -- is very powerful still on the hill and i also would contend that lawmakers still are very scared of what happened in 1994. the narrative that emerged from that election was a vote for the assault weapons ban contributed to the democrats losing their majority in the house and people in the senate and in the congress don't want to relive that, for better or worse. >> people like tom foley out in spokane. you're right. speaker of the house lost in that race. >> democratic senators from red states where mitt romney ran are vulnerable. here we have mark pryor of arkansas, begih of alaska, mary landrieu and a lot of these people who are passionate on gun rights will remember every election from now on and vote accordingly against these people. >> well, chris, it's true that i would suggest to senators that there's some things worse than

not being re-elected. but i also think they give the gun lobby way too much credit. let's take harry reid, who has coward before the gun lobby if harry reid thinks it's gun lobbyists who got him back in the election, he's nuts. he lost the male vote. it was the obama coalition of union voters, young voters who put harry reid back in office. people like harry reid give the gun lobby far too much credit. >> sam, what's your reaction to that?

>> they say the same thing, that the nra has trumped that. and the only thing i would add to that is this. we've seen a lot of recent pollings, specifically background checks, and it's universally popular. i don't see any other issue polling at 90% popularity. if you read specific issues it might dip. this is a noncontroversial bill. it would be surprising to me if democrats felt concerned or nervous about voting for it and i think harry reid recognized that and that's why he's going forward with this in the baseline bill. >> according to "the washington post," these individual gun

safety measures have overwhelming support with the public. you know, they have 6 in 10 people, 57% support a been on assault weapons, a majority, obviously. 82% think illegal sales should constitute a crime and 91% support background checks at gun shows. cynthia, with all of your passion and those watching, we have a situation where a measure has 91% support. very few measures are 91% in this country. in fact, it's very hard to find. maybe apple pie is 91%. i don't know what else is. and maybe cherry pie -- >> cherry pie is at 70%, chris. >> let me ask you this. and yet here we are with a pearls of paul line situation where even though it's going to be in the bill, i wonder where the bill is going to get 60% and

jam the action in the house. it's got to action or the house won't act. >> chris, the problem with the house majority, the republican majority is that, first of all, it's highly difficult to move those right wingers. they are all from safe districts. and so it is difficult to put pressure on them. i do think, however, it would be possible to embarrass john boehner into at least staging a vote. i remember president obama in his state of the union speech, don't the parents of newtown deserve a vote? don't the children of newtown deserve a vote? so let's at least force the house into an up and down vote on this bill. >> sam, will that work, that kind of an appeal? >> yes, it will work because a number of house republicans who ran in 2010, including some in pennsylvania, obviously representative griffin from staten island and representative peter king as well from new york. >> delaware county. >> exactly.

>> they have to be careful. >> they do have to be careful. they have to be careful and -- but, again, this all comes back to speaker boehner. he holds the cards here. if he feels enough pressure to bring it to a vote, he probably will. if he doesn't, he will bottle it all up and have no reform. he hinted very strongly that he doesn't want to tackle new laws. he wants to work within existing laws. >> i think is one thing people should get involved with. find a way to get to the person, let them know over easter what matters to you. how about the safety of our children? that's important, isn't it? anyway, thank you, sam stein and cynthia tucker. for all of the republican's hopeful talk of changes to be made and lessons learned, their tomorrow is looking an awful lot like their yesterday. the gop leadership is nowhere to be seen or heard on same-sex marriage. not a peep. also, months after the election, there's a fight for the

leadership republican party between two newcomers, marco rubio and libertarian rand paul. their fight may well determine who the gop runs in 2016. plus, you had to say shalom. president obama's historic trip to israel. the president has seemed to won over many skeptical israelis and they may have real political consequences back here. >> sarah palin is back, or was that tina fey with james lipton. >> same-sex marriage, what is your view on that? >> well, the bible says it's gross. a lot of the amazing people that i met in the audience of "dancing with the stars" seems to feel that way. >> right. >> but no. >> that might just be the best political impression ever. this is "hardball," a place for politics. hello. is this where we do that bundling thing? let's see what you got. rv -- covered. why would you pay for a hotel? i never do. motorcycles -- check. atv.

i ride those. do you? no. boat. house. hello, dear. hello. hello. oh! check it -- [ loud r&b on car radio ] i'm going on break! the more you bundle, the more you save. now, that's progressive. hillary clinton showing her strength in the country's largest swing state, florida. she's got double-digit leads in hypothetical presidential

matchups over each of florida's potential presidential candidates. let's check the "hardball" scoreboard. according to a new quinnipiac poll, she would lead by 11 points, and against marco rubio, the lead among florida voters is again 11, 52-41. wow, she's beating them on their home turf. we'll be right back.

i know what our principles are and i know our party believes marriage is between one man and one woman, but i know we have a party that will le inclusive, will listen to people and allow differences of opinion in our party and we're going to move forward and build. >> welcome back to "hardball." was that a person or a taped

machine, one of those pep pets. that was reince priebus. he's saying the right things, and you heard about the gop learning from mistake, about becoming a more inclusive party, but the reality is very different. the party is mosque backwards on self fronts with states with republican legislature routinely enacting more restrictive abortion laws. the bottom line right now is that the gop is changing its message sounding but not its policies. michael steele is the former chair, a very good chair, and he won a lot of election. and stephanie sherock. president of emily's list. are you partisan or nonpartisan? >> we're partisan, all democrats. >> why do you say progressive? >> progressive democratic women. >> a subset. >> let's get serious. your party has had a very bad report this past election. let's talk about young people,

in order to make people feel better about being republicans, your chair right now, mr. priebus, is saying let's talk more positively about gays, about more different views on issues, but he's really not doing anything. >> no, and that's going to be -- >> he's not telling anybody to change. >> in one sense you're not saying anything new. you didn't need to spend $10 million to figure that out. it's very obvious after the election, just after 2006 and 2008. we had a people problem. it's beyond the message. it's how we connect to people and how they respond. number two, with respect to young people they are going to be the outcome determinative factor for the party. the future will rest in their hands, and their attitudes are shifting and changing, and how the national leadership begins to reshape the argument. i mean, look, we are a party that believes very firmly in the marriage between a man and a woman. how do you express that without alienating those who believe differently will be the challenge.

>> you know the gas stations night training, if you -- if you changed the label, would that change the wine? >> it would not. it would still be bad wine. >> what does he think he's accomplishing the mind people notice it tastes like the old stuff? what are they going to do? >> they're not going to join the party. >> no they're absolutely not. you talk about young people. women, there's been a continuing growing gender gap. the ryan budget, devastating to women and families, violence against women act. it took a year and a half to get it reauthorized. what's happening in the state legislatures, state by state, rolling back the clock on women's rights, is going to come

back. it's already affecting the gender gap. >> and republicans in congress are not exactly jumping on the marriage equality bandwagon. saxby chambliss told politico, quote, i'm not gay, so i'm not going to marry one. i love that. it means absolutely nothing. in the same article, lindsey graham says i believe in traditional marriage, at least he without animosity. figure that one out. i don't mind if people are able to transfer their property, visit their loved ones in hospitals, but marriage to me, i've stayed with the concept of traditionally marriage. >> i love that phrase you. they're so awkward in saying something. first of all the party keeping says marriage is between one man and one woman. why do -- >> they say it that way, because that falls into the argument that when you open up this pandora's box that it would lead to marriage between -- >> or among. >> -- among more than one person. it's silly.

oh, that's a debate. there are some very strong and i think important voices of gay republicans within the party. >> yes, they always astound me. >> the go proud republicans and others need to be expressed and to help move the party along in this argument. because, keep this in mind, there are gay members of -- >> of course there are. up on capitol hill there are gay staffers in both parties and they support members of the republican parties who vote regularly for gay rights. >> but you still have other national republicans, governor chris christie this week, who refuses to take a position on a piece of legislation on gay conversion therapy, which they are trying to ban. >> what's the state's involvement? i'm a libertarian. why would the state ever get involved in conversion therapy one way or the other? >> because it is proven very, very damaging to particularly young lesbians and gays across the country. the state is saying we need to do that. how do you stop someone who privately wants to do it?

>> we don't want the state sanctioning such an event, either. how are you even open to that idea? >> we will not agree on this. i don't believe in it. i don't believe in converting people. i also think we've got to stop with a little too much 16-ounce living around here. >> true on that. i don't know the details behind what governor christie has been told about this or knows about this, and hence maybe that's why he hasn't taken a position. i would assume that, having been in that position as lieutenant governor, the stuff comes across the desk, what's your view? i need to know more. there's more to this. >> let's talk about the issue that means a lot to women, abortion rights. "mother jones" pointed out today, 14 states have republican governor, arkansas passed a law banning abortions after 12

weeks, the strictest law in the country. but earlier this week, north dakota outdid it. they passed the heartbeat bills, banning abortions after just six weeks. all of this is happening as the republicans are increasingly agreeing with more abortion rights. let me get back to you, and the question here, stephanie is, why are they doing this? why are they pushing back on rights? we don't have to agree with abortion. a lot of people don't like it, i don't like it, period, as a practice. certainly don't like it as birth control, certainly not as a first resort, by any means. but when the law changes to squeeze down that window, where a woman, a girl, a teenager discovers that she's pregnant and only has a little time to decide this thing -- >> and in six weeks? >> when do you know? when do you normally know? >> i have a lot of friends who didn't know as six weeks. >> give me the politics of this. why are they doing this? >> well, they are controlled by incredibly conservative arm of the republican party right now

that are driving these policies backwards. i can only assume that they want to make women the problem and put it on them to fix it and the truth is, this is about -- >> why don't they pass laws against premarital sex? start with that one. >> let's see how that goes. >> how about being there for the takeoff and not the landing. i'm sorry. i know it's serious. it's always blaming it on the woman and -- >> these laws are unconstitutional. and they are trying to change -- they are trying to get something to the united states supreme court. that's really what they are trying to do, right? >> but i think that's the -- the precedent has been set but it's precedent that hasn't been challenged and that, i think, is what you're seeing here at certain levels for certain states. they are devising these bills so there's a decision one way or the other on constitutionality and reflect the attitudes of --

>> you know what, the preachers, the rabbis, the government, the people who care about abortion rights, they got out of the pulpit this weekend and started issuing statements, try to avoid unprotected sex. you know what i mean? anyway, michael steele, stephanie, thank you. up next, the return of sarah palin means one thing, the return of tina fey and her fantastic impression. >> i address you as governor, you served only half a term so what's the right term to address? >> well, i tell ya, i don't know. i'm a half governor or you could call me a maverick at large. [ female announcer ] going to sleep may be easy, but when you wake up

in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal. intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities

while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪

back to "hardball." ready for these one benefit of having sarah palin in the spotlight? entering tina fey, in an

interview with james lipton on "inside the actors studio." >> as governor, you served only half a term. what's the right term of address? >> well, i'll tell ya, i don't know. and -- i'm a half governor, or you could call me a maverick at large. >> you're very fond of shooting wolves from helicopters, which is understandable enough. have your views on gun laws or wolves changed at all? >> you know, jimmy, i believe that if everybody had guns, then there would be fewer guns in the stores. >> same-sex marriage, what is your view on that, please? >> well, the bible says it's gross. a lot of the wonderful, amazing people that i met in the audience at "dancing with the stars" seem to feel that way. >> right. >> but no. >> how does a woman like you make her way through a man's world? >> i don't think of it as a man's world or a woman's world

unless again we're talking about marriage. i think of it as people being mavericks or not being a maverick. started to laugh there. by the way, it never gets old. she's the best. next, earlier this week i showed you this picture of the satan character from the history channel's miniseries "the bible." during the broadcast, twitter exploded with comments about how the character looked like president obama, though the network immediately denied that the resemblance was intentional. rick wiles agrees that the film makers did not go out and make satan to look like president obama, but still says it was no accident. >> i don't believe they believe they intentionally portrayed the lucifer character to look like mr. obama. i think god guided the hands of the makeup artist and blinded the eyes of everybody on the movie set while it was being recorded, and the spiritual

blinders were removed sunday night when the program was broadcast nationally on the history channel. >> how is that for an explanation of free will? that tops michele bachmann saying hurricane irene was a sign from god to cut government spending. hmm. speaking of her, you know how she's celebrating the third anniversary of the affordable care act, obama care? by trying to get rid of it. >> let's repeal this failure before this literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens. let's not do that. let's love people. let's care about people. let's repeal it now while we can. >> so what does she mean by repeal it now while we can? it's been three years and over 30 failed attempts at repeal by

house republicans. the law was upheld by the supreme court, president obama was even re-elected. some republican governors are planning for the expansion. what is she talking about? up next, marco rubio and rand paul, who has the juice on the right wing? this will be fun for people on the left. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics.

now to the battle to 2016 already under way. on the republican side being fought between two relative newcomers. florida as marco rubio and kentucky's rand paul. "new york times" reported just today, for better or words they have come to represent this moment's forth in the republican road. mr. rubio, who decided the republican establishment in 2010 with his brash primary challenge to governor charlie crist's senate run looks like the establishment's man for now. mr. paul, as he try toss expand his appeal beyond the libertarian base of his father, ron paul, has become the face of radically smaller government. both rubio and paul came to washington with solid tea party credentials, but represent very different wings. one of them might just end up being the republican nominee.

chip saltzmann ran mike huckabee's campaign, and willie brown, of course, the -- chip, you're the republican. i think it comes down to juice, that sense of life, of protoplasm, of excitement, of -- it has many different meanings, but charisma, excitement. do these two guys represent the exciting candidates in your party? >> well, they do today. we always talk about does a candidate have the it factor. they certainly both have it right now. chris, as you well know, the path to the white house is long and windy. there's a lot of next presidents to the underbodies on the road. it's a long time between now and then. >> let's not be sheepish. do you sense right now they have the juice? >> absolutely. they both have great national names, they have organizations. they're going different paths.

senator rubio is more the establishment route, and senator paul seems to be like he's going to take the antiestablishment creds all the way to the bank and will double down any chance he gets. >> youth, late 30s, early 40s, is that a big thing in the party? are you unlikely to bring in an older character? do you think there's a real incentive for you guys on your side to go young perhaps against hillary clinton, joe biden, someone like that? >> i think it certainly helps. we can learn from what beat us last time. barack obama was the youthful candidate four years ago. he rode that pretty well. you get a lot of excitement, more people involved, you grow that tent. i think senator rubio and rand paul both do that right now. >> let me go to willie brown in california. let me ask you about this, the prospects, what do you see? who would you least like to go up against if you were secretary clinton or joe biden? >> i think they would prefer not to have to face charlie crist or anybody like him?

in this case obviously the governor of new jersey. >> chris christie? >> yeah, i like charlie crist better, because that was a better contrast, but chris christie is the one guy these two people would not like to face, simply because he can go into the democratic world and have some credibility as he's proven almost daily in new jersey. >> can he keep up? i want to get back to the two younger guys that seem like the hot guys. can a guy like christie keep up this attitude of it's none of your business, that sort of street talk that's made him popular? ed koch did it for like 12 years before he ran out of that steam. can you keep up that way in politics, to just by dismissive and mouthy? does it work? >> i don't think he would want it to be described as dismissive, or out of sync. i think what he would like to be is just a common man.

he would like to be the football fan, the guy who yells at the referee. everybody identifies with that guy, or at least a majority of people do. that's what this guy has been doing. now, on the other hand, the two guys you were talking about at the outset and the two guys at "the new york times" talked about in my opinion, they do represent who the republican party really is. they also represent the republican party that i guarantee you both ms. clinton and mr. biden would like to see in 2016, because for sure they can defeat that republican party. >> okay. let me ask you that, chip, you're the inside republican. what would scare -- what would attract -- i see real attraction for these guys like marco rubio has a style i like. the other guy is so far to the right, he brings back the goldwater urge, that we may not win, but we'll have a hell of a good time. >> we're going to go down fighting as long as they believe

it's right. they're two different types of people even though they started off from the same side. they fought and clawed every step of the way. that gives them a lot of street cred with grass-roots republicans everywhere because they started fighting out washington. i think the one who keeps that fight alive, that doesn't go washington, so to speak, will have a chance. >> can jeb run with the war in iraq so unpopular now? can he run with his brother still around? politically? >> it's going to be tough. i think jeb bush has carved out his own segment, especially with education, but there's always the bush name. that's good and bad, but they've been a bush in the white house forever, there's a lot of people that don't remember a republican president but george bush. >> that may not be a positive. thank you, chip. you can't bring your brother to the convention with you, you have problems. thank you, mr. mayor for coming on again. up next, the president is in the middle east.

he seems to be winning over many skeptical israelis especially the young who are not skeptical. that could be good things for the president. don't you think? this is a big, positive trip for him. this is "hardball," the place for politics. g, waiting... feel like you're growing older... waiting to look younger? don't wait. [ female announcer ] get younger looking skin fast. with new olay regenerist micro-sculpting cream. the next generation with 2 new anti-aging ingredients. it penetrates rapidly. visible wrinkle results start day 1. and you'll see younger looking skin before you even finish one jar. ♪ new olay regenerist. the wait is over.

well, could 2013 be the year of the woman mayor? consider this. christine quinn is the likely front-runner in the mayor's race in the country's largest city of

new york. she would be the first female mayor in new york history in los angeles it's a matchup between the controller, and if gruel wins she could be the first l.a. mayor. in houston, the country's fourth largest city, is set to elect the second female mayor. the only outlier is chicago. bet on rahm. we'll be right back.

those who adhere to the ideology of rejecting israel's right to exist, they might as well reject the earth beneath

them or the sky above, because israel is not going anywhere. >> so long as there is a united states of america -- [ speaking foreign language ] -- you are not alone. >> we're back. that was president obama, of course, speaking earlier today in jerusalem to an audience of more than 2,000 israeli citizens, mostly young people. the speech was interrupted frequently by applause. he addressed peace talks with palestinians and the need for a palestinian state. this is very important. listen to this. >> i also believe it's important to be open and honest, especially with your friends. politically, given the strong bipartisan support for israel in america, the easiest thing for me to do would be to put this issue aside, just express unconditional support for whatever israel decides to do.

that would be the easiest political path. but i want you to know that i speak as a friend who is deeply concerned and committed to your future. the only way for israel to endure and thrive as a jewish and democratic state is through the realization of an independent and viable palestine. that is true. >> overall, the trip has been seen as a big success for the president, helping to improve his image in a country where he hasn't always enjoyed a lot of popularity in the past. his relationship with the israeli prime minister, netanyahu -- by the way, the man to the right has been frosty. he's endorsed his rival mitt romney in the last campaign. look at them. they are like politicians together. that improved relationship may pay for the president back here. robert wexler is a great guy. he's actually president of the center for middle east peace.

peter, the prime minister of israel said he is not sure -- if iran decides to go nuclear, actually turn it into a nuclear weapon if he can, that will take a year from then. a former democratic congressman from florida president of the senate for middle east peace and peter been in ard is with open peace. fascinating comment from bebe yesterday. if iran decides to go numbering -- to go nuclear, and i thought it was very flexible and not at all war-like. >> you're right. what the prime minister of israel essentially did was he bought into the american time frame. what he was signaling to the united states and more importantly to iran and it was reciprocated from president obama was that the united states and israel stand shoulder to shoulder in terms of the time frame as well as defenses, intelligence, military cooperation so that the iranians understand there is a common

belief between the united states and israel in terms of preventing, not containing, preventing iran from becoming a nuclear weapon. what president obama was hoping to receive from prime minister netanyahu, in fact he got it was endorsement of the american plan to prevent iran from having a nuclear weapon. >> do you see it the same way? >> i think what obama did was bought himself some time. remember, there's a lot of opposition inside the israel establishment anyway. a test will really come if the u.s. gets close to a diplomatic deal with iran, would this israeli government support any diplomatic deal the united states could get with iran. >> why does it matter if we get a deal not to go nuclear with weapons, why does it matter if israel that? >> because a lot of republicans would be opposed to it. >> how would that hurt our government.

>> if there is a deal, we have to give on something, not a complete capitulation from iran, some gestures towards lifting sanctions towards the europeans, maybe by us that may take action by congress and will be a political battle with washington and how netanyahu responds plays out. >> more than time, he bought time as peter said but also bought leverage. as prime minister netanyahu has been arguing and the prime minister has been arguing the president now accepts is get them to a position where they negotiate away their nuclear weapon capacity. in order to do that, they have to perceive a credible threat if that is military. with president obama and netanyahu standing together on

the question of iran in a way they have not done before, iran if they are watching and calculation is smart. >> everybody talks about the jewish vote and how it will go republican and maybe it does with reagan and mcgovern against nixon, is this really a problem for obama at all that he has a problem with the jewish community electorally? >> even mcgovern won two-thirds of the jewish vote in defeat. the jewish vote has been among the most stable in american politics, between two-thirds and three-quarters for democrats since fdr and al smith in 1958 because americans vote to the left on domestic issues, they don't primarily vote on israel and why these things don't change very much. i don't think it has to do with the jewish vote at all, with obama's views about american national issues. >> what about the man in jail for 28 years, the longest in any country. not spying on us but arabs.

it seems if the makes this statement apology, belief he shouldn't have done it, what do you think? >> i think jonathan pollard is culpable, guilty, as you said. the only thing is the sentence proportional to the crime. at this point it is now disproportionately severe. >> where are you on that peter? i think at this point let him out. 28 years, more than nelson mandela. a long time. he has to say something myself. this isn't what a friendly government should do to another country, your thoughts. >> the only question i have, i'm not sure we entirely know the severity he did. when bill clinton got close to releasing jonathan pollard, his own cia director virtually threatened to resign. that gives you some sense how

strongly the intelligence community feels about this. they may know things we don't know. i'm not saying necessarily i'm against commuting his sentence but some things we don't know. >> i think you're right but 12 years he served since then and gave marc rich instead. the way clinton handled those things was not the best part of his presidency. really working for peace over there. and peter really improves his image with me everyday. going to, but when you wake up in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath

or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal. intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪