scandal, or just playing politics? let's play "hardball." good evening, i'm michael smerconish in for chris matthews. let me start with benghazi. do republicans have a smoking gun? no. do they have enough to keep the story alive? yes. today we learned the state department asked for and received changes made to the administration's talking points after the attack. that doesn't mean that hillary clinton or president obama orchestrated a conspiracy to cover up some sort of malfeasance, but it does give

republicans fuel to keep this story alive, and they are. throw in lindsey graham's call for mrs. clinton to testify before congress, and a new anti-hillary ad by karl rove, and you've got a growing political story. david corn is washington bureau chief for "mother jones" magazine and msnbc political analyst. danielle pletka is vice president of the american enterprise institute. we now know that the talking points used by susan rice were changed 12 times in a 24-hour period and the white house and state department were more involved in the process than previously revealed. the first draft of the talking points included a specific reference to, quote, islamic extremists with ties to al qaeda participating in the attack. that was eventually scrubbed. also, there was this paragraph as abc reported today. "the agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al qaeda in benghazi and eastern libya. these noted that since april, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in benghazi by unidentified assailants

including june attack against the british ambassador's convoy. we can't rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the u.s. facilities also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks." in an e-mail according to abc, state department spokesperson victoria nuland took issue because it, quote, be used by members of congress to beat up the state department for not paying attention to warnings. why would we want to feed that, either? the entire paragraph was eventually scrub. all the news today made for a testy white house press briefing with press secretary jay carney clearly playing defense on the talking points. >> jay, you told us that the only changes that were made by stylistic. is it a stylistic change to take out all references to previous terror threats in benghazi? >> well, i appreciate the question, again, and i think

that what i was referring to was the talking points that the cia drafted and sent around to which one change was made. and i accept that stylistic may not precisely describe the change of one word to another. >> this was not a change of one word to another. these underwent extensive changes after they were written by the cia. >> there was an interagency process which is always the case. >> that was jonathan carl asking that question. he's one who broke this story for abc. danielle, let me begin with you. when you look at the editing of the talking points, is this the way it looks when you're watching sausage being made, or is this evidence of some form of cover-up. >> well, i think it's a little bit of both, honestly. clearly, in any executive branch discussion, you're going to have different agencies fighting with each other. protect their interests and turf. the issue here is, what was the white house looking for in taking out all references to terrorism? that's the part that really

concerns me because it goes along with what was later said about this not being terrorism, suggesting that, in fact, it was all about a youtube video. >> but what would be the upside? what would be the upside for the white house in trying to keep a limitation on terrorism? in other words, i'm of a mindset that says eight weeks out from an election, it might not, politically speaking, it might not be a bad thing if it is a case of terror because we have a tendency to rally around the chief executive. >> that's a little bit -- that's a little bit machiavellians even for me, but i think you asked exactly the right question. now think about this from the republicans' perspective. we get why the president didn't want to admit this was a case of terrorism, because, in fact, the entire part of his re-election on national security was, i killed osama bin laden, al qaeda is on its heels. they didn't want to admit it was an act of terrorism. but there's a bigger problem here, and that is that despite the fact that they knew that it was an act of terrorism, they kept pressing back. they kept trying to go back to

this other story. i think, honestly speaking, that's one of the reasons why people are so perplexed. they keep trying to cover up what actually happened. it makes people think something worse happened. >> david, i want to ask you -- david, let me ask you about victoria nuland. she took further issue with the talking points several hours later. she wrote "these don't resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership." >> she meant the leadership of the state department. a couple points. you said earlier, was this politics, was it scandal? it's kind of in between. jay carney did get caught not giving the full story about the process that led of these revisions when he spoke about this a couple months ago. david petraeus, the former cia director, has told while the cia took out the references to the al qaeda-linked group that were in the early versions of the talking points. that's what explained it, danielle. you may not agree or accept, but

that wasn't a white house revision. the major revision came from the state department, not from the white house. and it had to do with their -- what happened before the attack. not whether you call this terrorism or not. i think in a lot of ways the conservative theory of the case here has been almost disproven by these revisions. >> david, let me ask you this question, because you would know these -- david, you would know these facts better than i, perhaps. to an outsider, to a layperson, to hear there were 12 revisions to the talking points, that sounds ominous. in the normal -- in the normal course of events, how often is something like this edited, revised? >> i mean, if you look at some of the revisions, if you go through them, and i salute jonathan for putting this online. you can see in some of these revisions, some forms, one or two words were taken out that had no real substantive meaning. but it's not unusual for an interagency thing that involves multiple agencies to bounce around again and again and again

and again and before it's all resolved. that's not unusual at all. >> hang on. hang on a second david. hang on just one second. >> the process here? >> the e-mails that were released by "the weekly standard" of david petraeus' reaction to this were not, oh, this was fine with me, i wanted it to be taken out. he was very surprised these were taken out. so that's number one. number two, you're totally right. lots of revisions happen. that's very normal. the issue is what was the intent here with the revisions and why did the white house feel the need to lie about it? why did they feel the need to keep lying about it? why did they feel the need to keep saying that this was about something that it wasn't about? i think that everybody who looks at this objectively can understand that the white house gave every appearance of having something to hide. and that's a big part of the problem here.

>> danielle, allow me to respond to that if i might. i want to show everybody something. the idea that there was a vast cover-up involved was shut down by ambassador thomas pickering. he co-authored the most extensive independent investigation of the benghazi attacks. also the horror of the kidnappings has left many wondering how those women and the little girl will ever recover? we'll talk about their chances, which it turns out are better than you might have expected. and the latest in our series, the unkindest cut. tonight how the sequester cuts are hurting the victims of domestic vinyl both in and out of the military. finally, democrats, republicans and the beatles. which party prefers john and which favors paul? that and more of the red and blue musical divide on the side show. [ male announcer ] running out of steam? ♪ now you can give yourself a kick in the rear! v8 v-fusion plus energy. natural energy from green tea plus fruits and veggies. need a little kick? ooh! could've had a v8. in the juice aisle. it's the most powerful thing on the planet.

love holds us in the beginning. comforts us as we grow old. love is the reason you care. for all the things in your life... that make life worth living. ♪ ♪ sweet love of mine

welcome back to "hardball."

fair or not, benghazi fever has very real side effects. the main gop target has been and will continue to be hillary clinton, but even if she's vindicated as having done nothing wrong, has the political damage already been done? let's bring in our strategists ed rendell was governor of pennsylvania and is now an msnbc political analyst. john feehery is a republican strategist. governor, i want to begin with you. a personal question about her because you know her so well. is secretary clinton the type who looks at this emerging controversy and relishes the opportunity to confront it? or does the possibility, the prospect exist that she says, you know, this is a reminder to me of the underbelly of politics. who the hell needs it? i'm staying out in 2016. >> well, little bit of both. but i don't think this

controversy would be a factor in her decision whether to run or not. and i think she probably would relish getting another chance to answer the critics here. remember, when she had that fall, the right said she faked the fall to avoid testifying in front of congress. >> right. >> she came back and testified again in front of congress, and as i recall, she handed most of those republican male senators their hats. so i don't think she's worried about the controversy. she can take on controversy. she's been doing it all her career. but i will say, if i could, michael, on this, people are forgetting, if this was such a concerted cover-up, why did the president when he went and talked to the rose garden two days after this incident use the word, terrorist attack? remember, that word came out during one of the debates with governor romney. he used the word, terrorist attack. the president didn't make any bones about the fact it was a terrorist attack. >> well, in the immediate aftermath of boston, this same semantic issue, john feehery, was raised. i had callers to my radio

program saying, ah-ha, he doesn't want to acknowledge that boston is a case of terrorism. how do you see that issue? >> well, how i see this whole issue unfolding with hillary clinton and whether she runs, i think we don't know how this is going to play out quite yet. i think there's still some rope to be tied. the other thing that's interesting to me is, does there at some point the white house decide that they've got to throw hillary clinton under the bus and kind of protect itself? we don't know how this is all going to play out. i do know that as she left secretary of state's office, everyone was kind of giving her this great big sendoff. this kind of reminds people there was controversy at the end. that's going to come up during the campaign. there are plenty of democrats who want to be president and would be happy to throw hillary clinton under the bus and take over that job. so this is not an easy road for her. >> well, karl rove wasted no time. his group, american cross roads, has a new web ad out today. it focused entirely on secretary clinton. take a look at this. >> a 22 year diplomatic veteran

intimidated for daring to blow the whistle. all under hillary clinton's watch. how could this happen? why did she blame a video? and was she part of a cover-up? >> was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some americans? what difference at this point does it make? >> the difference is a cover-up and four american lives that deserve the truth. >> governor rendell, there are some controversies that are readily understood. watergate. we all get that. we don't want our homes broken into. there are other controversies that i think are too confusing. whitewater fell into that category in my view. where does benghazi fall in that spectrum, if you buy into it? >> well, first of all, i think karl rove has lost his mind. we saw a little bit of him losing his mind on election night when he wanted to call for a recount in ohio. and for him to put out an ad attacking a potential candidate who may never run three years from now, karl, get a life, take up tennis or do something. that's number one. number two, hillary clinton's stint as secretary of state, she'll be like a pitcher who had

20 wins and 2 losses during her stint as secretary of state. you know, if this is a blot on her record, her record was almost perfect in the eyes of the american people, and this won't have any long-lasting effect. i guarantee you three years from now if hillary clinton is a candidate, less than 5% of the american people will remember this. look, this is all about spin. it's not about cover-up. it's about spin. if there was a cover-up, let me repeat, the president of the united states, whose administration is supposedly orchestrating this cover-up, wouldn't have admitted it was a terrorist attack. he wouldn't have used those words. >> john, let me ask you as a republican strategist, i maintain benghazi, heretofore, referring to the 2012 election, never resonated beyond the very conservative hardcore on the right. it became a buzzword associated with all evil things that they wanted to believe about this president.

what is the prospect that benghazi moving forward as a political issue has more resonance in the middle? >> you know, michael, i was with you, and i didn't think that this was going to be that big of a controversy. i kind of sloughed it off. and i've been pretty surprised by seeing really respected journalists like jonathan carl and ron forney really go after this. they think there's something there and they're going to continue to pursue it. now, i understand what governor rendell is saying, that 20-2. if your last game is a loss in the world series and you get shelved, that's a problem. i do think that for hillary clinton, she could get thrown under the bus by the obama white house. we'll see how that plays out. do i think this is a much easier thing, much easier scandal for people to understand than whitewater because you had those four deaths and there's a lot of explaining as to why the embassy did not get enough security to

protect itself. >> well, i've been asking -- governor, i'll let you respond to this. because i've been asking aloud, to what end is there a cover-up? peggy noonan in the "wall street journal" today put it together better than others up until now. here's what she wrote. "the inconvenient truth about benghazi, the genesis of the scandal, it looks to me like this. the obama white house sees every event as a political event. it could not tolerate the idea that the armed assault on the benghazi consulate was a premeditated act of islamist terrorism. that would carry a whole world of unhappy political implications and demand certain actions, and the american presidential election was only eight weeks away. they wanted this problem to go away, or at least to bleed the meaning from it." governor, why is that not a convincing way to analyze benghazi? >> no, i think that's right. i think the obama white house wanted to spin this in the least damaging way possible. but i think you made a very good point when you said, look, let's

look at what happened that led to the deaths of the american people. i think this spin post-incident, the american people aren't going to give two hoots about it. they're going to think it's the usual political parties pointing the finger at each other playing the blame game. i do think it's a legitimate inquiry to why the system broke down, why the warning signals that were sent weren't responded to. hillary clinton had nothing to do with that. she never saw the cables and i think that's pretty well established. but we've got to put in place, we've got to find out what went wrong and how we fix it going forward. now, they've taken some steps, but i'm not sure those are enough steps. >> well, and john, we still don't have answers. we still don't have justice in terms of avenging those four don't forget. i can be heard daily exclusively on siriusxm.

ha! >> new jersey governor chris christie just revealed he had secret lap band surgery in february. apparently he's tired of people making fun of his weight. but really, who would do that? chris christie's approval rating has gone up 12 points. usually the only time he picks up a dozen is when he goes to krispy kreme. he said, i'll think about pancakes. he said, i'll collapse that bridge when i get to it. talk about his initiative, let's sit, on twitter. he tweeted out, really, jimmy fallon, another joke in the monologue? you guys need more material. and i go, you know what needs more material? your suits. back to "hardball." this is the sideshow. first, joe biden spoke to a group of first responders in washington, d.c., last night, and thanked them for coming to his aid in several past emergencies in more ways than

one. >> in 2004, that summer, i was down here doing a sunday program and lightning struck my home and destroyed a significant portion of it. and you got my wife out. in addition to my wife, you got my second best love out of the house, my '67 corvette. so thank you, all. and so i owe you. when i say i owe you, i mean i owe you. >> the vice president really does have strong feelings about his corvette. in a 2011 interview with "car and driver" magazine he said, "i still have my 1967 goodwood-green corvette. the secret service won't let me drive it. i'm not allowed to drive anything. it's the one thing i hate about this job." next, try to make the connection between politics and cicadas. you know those really loud creepy looking insects that re-emerge en masse every 17 years or so? well, this is set to be one of those years here on the east coast and our friends at "mother jones" found the insects have actually made a mark in politics over the years. in june of 1987, president

reagan name dropped them in a radio address against government spending. "like the cicadas, the big spenders are hatching out again and threatening to overrun congress." in the same address, reagan asked people to support his own budget and, "make the cicadas in congress go back under ground." sometimes they just get in the way. on memorial day of 1902, teddy roosevelt gave a speech about america's role in foreign affairs at the arlington national cemetery. a biography written years later had this to say about it. "invisible choirs of 17-year cicadas buzzed in counterpoint to roosevelt's voice." for a more recent example, take this anti-kerry rnc ad from the 2004 presidential race. >> every 17 years, cicadas emerge. morph out of their shell and changed their appearance. like a cicada, senator kerry would like to shed his senate

career and morph into a fiscal conservative, a centrist democrat opposed to taxes, strong on defense, but he leaves his record behind. >> as for how the current administration is prepping for the oncoming swarm of cicadas. "the obama administration currently has no plan to suppress the cicada invasion." finally, what do our tastes in music say about our political views? some results from ppp. for favorite music genre, democrats like classical music while the top pick for republicans, country. now to the favorite member of the beatles. democrats chose john lennon over paul mccartney 39%-36%. it was the opposite for republicans, but by a wider margin. 49% for mccartney. 15% for lennon. as for which singer people would want to see as president, both parties were in favor of justin timberlake taking on the white house. bad news for one pop star, though. justin bieber. with 54% unfavorability in the

poll, bieber came out as the only pop star to be viewed unfavorably by the majority of democrats, republicans, and independents. coming up next, "your business with jj ramberg" the usual, bob? not today. [ male announcer ] bob has afib: atrial fibrillation not caused by a heart valve problem, a condition that puts him at greater risk for a stroke. [ gps ] turn left. i don't think so. [ male announcer ] for years, bob took warfarin, and made a monthly trip to the clinic to get his blood tested. but not anymore. bob's doctor recommended a different option: once-a-day xarelto®. xarelto® is the first and only once-a-day prescription blood thinner for patients with afib not caused by a heart valve problem, that doesn't require routine blood monitoring. like warfarin, xarelto® is proven effective to reduce the risk of an afib-related stroke. there is limited data on how these drugs compare when warfarin is well managed.

no routine blood monitoring means bob can spend his extra time however he likes. new zealand! xarelto® is just one pill a day, taken with the evening meal. and with no dietary restrictions, bob can eat the healthy foods he likes. do not stop taking xarelto® rivaroxaban without talking to the doctor who prescribes it for you. stopping may increase your risk of having a stroke. get medical help right away if you develop any signs or symptoms of bleeding, like unusual bruising or tingling. you may have a higher risk of bleeding if you take xarelto® with aspirin products, nsaids or blood thinners. talk to your doctor before taking xarelto® if you currently have abnormal bleeding. xarelto® can cause bleeding, which can be serious, and rarely may lead to death. you are likely to bruise more easily on xarelto®, and it may take longer for bleeding to stop. tell your doctors you are taking xarelto® before any planned medical or dental procedures. before starting xarelto®, tell your doctor about any conditions, such as kidney, liver or bleeding problems.

ready to change your routine? ask your doctor about once-a-day xarelto®. for more information including cost support options, call 1-888-xarelto or visit goxarelto.com.

two is better than one when small businesses hook up and co-brand. what the owners of this bookstore didn't know about their bookkeeper cost them dearly. and a seattle clothing store has a revolutionary high-tech way for customers to shop. small business owners, it's time to make money coming up next on "your business." ♪ small businesses are revitalizing the economy and american express open is here to help.