's another thing she has going for her. eric holder resigned as of the day of swearing in of his successor. so the longer they put off confirming loretta lynch, the longer they have to deal with eric holder. >> a vote against her is a vote for eric holder. thank you very much for joining us tonight. chris hayes is up next. i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start tonight with this. remember when supreme court justice potter stewart was asked about his standards on pornography and he said, i know it when i see it, i think a lot of us had reaction to netanyahu talking to congress. there's something wrong with this picture. was it done not only without his compliance, apparently, but

without his knowledge? would there have been anything wrong with speaker boehner calling the president and asking what he would think of such an invitation? was there reason to go around him in secret and inviting a foreign leader to address a matter of obvious national urgent concern to us americans or was it because this invitation was accepted by someone running himself for re-election just two weeks after his appearance here? is it right to set up a cheering section and live pictures of the cheering to the voters in israel? is it wrong to have a foreign leader get into the middle successful negotiations to stop iranian nuclear ambitions? david corn and eugene robinson are joining us. i think people are surprised that there's a real problem with the way that it's been timed, the way that it was done secretly. what is the mickey mouse thing here by boehner? >> what is interesting is the

backlash that it is creating in israel. a lot of people who used to work for and with netanyahu who are against this. why are they against it? because it's creating a rift between israel and the united states. as prime minister he has two jobs, essentially. one is to protect the security of israel and to protect the relationship with the united states, not just with the president but also with congress. and this week you see democratic senators running away from what aipac wants, which is a sanctions built sign before negotiations. so it's blowing up when -- >> so you think it's hurting their hard-line ambitions? >> in both places, in israel and washington. >> eugene, something about this seems wrong. when i worked for the speaker, there was always a coalescing. thatcher or somebody would come. either the president would ask for or -- always something done together. >> this is not the way it happened. israel is one of the closest allies of the united states.

that's the way it has been. that's the way it will continue. >> for both parties. >> but the prime minister of israel is a foreign leader and you don't invite a foreign leader to address a joint session of congress without telling the president, without consulting the president. >> why didn't he tell him? why didn't he call him up and say -- >> i know why. >> why didn't he tell him he was coming? >> the whole point of this exercise from boehner's perspective is to undermine the president. you don't call up the president and say, by the way, i want to sabotage your negotiations. is that okay with you? >> it did exactly the opposite. now they are running the other way. >> i think when you're going to challenge somebody like the president, even if you do something that he disagrees with, you tell him that you're doing it. >> of course. >> here is speaker boehner. >> the house of representatives is an equal branch of the government. we had a right to do it and we did it. and i'm, frankly, proud of the fact that the prime minister has

accepted our invitation and will be here on march 3rd to talk to the members of congress about the serious threat that iran poses and the serious threat of radical islam. >> well, his decision of the speaker to invite the israeli prime minister without consulting the white house and three weeks before national election drew criticism in both u.s. and israel. including some surprising sources. he said, this looks like a senator dianne feinstein said, peggy noonan wrote "we see

richard is a funny guy. he's your colleague over there at the post and he's showing how ludicrous this is. >> but richard was very touch and very quick on reacting to this because, as i said, this is just not the way to -- not the way things happen and for boehner to go out of his way that way, to try to torpedo these talks -- >> there are so many dimensions to how wrong -- >> okay. let's talk the partisan stuff. we talked about democrat versus republican. with great people -- i know libby pretty well. these like the bush and the kennedys. there's a fight going on over there. it could be a tight election. we've had partisan differences

here. both parties are overwhelmingly pro-israeli. >> yes. >> is this an attempt to sort of grab the israeli flag, if you're a republican -- let's talk about boehner? what's he up to? this comes a few days after scalise was caught going to a neo-nazi rally. i felt bad for the republican side for about five minutes. wait a minute, is this their way of balancing the book? >> i think it was a bad play for the hawkish jewish vote and sticking a knife -- >> what percentage of the jewish community would you say is on the hard right? >> 10, 20% at most. >> when it comes to elections, yeah. >> american jews support barack obama more than any other religious group. they are obviously liberal. so if netanyahu is doing, by siding with boehner who has spent the last four or five years trying to destroy president obama's presidency, forget about you, i'm going to

embrace myself with this guy who tries to screw your guy overall the time. >> even american jews who might have been inclined to lean netanyahu's way on the issue of iran resent what is being done. >> this is just the beginning. this fuse has been lit. journalist jeffrey goldberg wrote that prime minister netanyahu is alienating many elected democrats. one jewish member of congress told me, that's goldberg speaking, that he felt humiliated and angered by netanyahu's ploy to address congress behind the president's back. an official texted him over the weekend to say that the damage that netanyahu is doing to israel's relationship with the u.s. may be irreparable. >> last night i was at an event and spoke with democratic senators. you know, while this is going on, aipac --

>> i got there later. >> a lot of them were gone. but while this is going on, aipac is trying to run up support for a bill that would impose sanctions before obama finishes negotiations. >> he wants to get a deal with iran by the extended deadline in june. now i read something that said march. >> they were trying to get them to pass the bill in the next couple of weeks and senators, including menendez, said no to aipac. they said we senators are fed up with this coming at the time of the netanyahu booing of the president. >> the ranking member of the foreign relations will not support it until march 24 is the deadline. >> aipac, american israeli political action committee.

do you know who is involved in this? >> the israeli ambassador to the united states right now is a man by the name of ron dermer he grew up in florida even though he's an israeli citizen. he's very close to john boehner. it's been reported that the two of them helped design this event. i'm not sure what aipac knew about it. >> we're going to find out who came up with the idea. that's how it works. the prime minister of israel has gotten some push back. michael oren urged netanyahu to turn the invite down and said the behavior over the last few days created the impression of a cynical political move. >> that's the whole dimension of this. if netanyahu did this as a way

to improve his only political prospects ahead of the election, in fact, that seemed to have backfired, too. because it's a big hubbub in the israeli media over this and a lot of it is extremely negative. what are you doing? >> let's take a minute to talk about why it is important. i want you to talk about how this looks. president obama has basically put the word out, less than 50% chance we're going to cut a deal with iran. it's very touch and go. that means they are going to continue, perhaps, it looks like on their road to a weapon. >> well, maybe. that's getting -- >> if they get out of the deal. >> well, there is still some dispute whether they are heading towards a weapon or towards a nuclear program, civilian program that will get them close to be making a weapon. and so it's not a given that they will definitely have a weapon if these negotiations fail.

>> if you are living in israel, what would be your wall that you don't want them to go past? >> well, the issue here is that netanyahu and some others in israel, not everyone in israel, say that any civilian nuclear program is unacceptable to them. and if that's your position, which i think is for the birds, but if that's your position you're going to end up with war because there's no way that the iranians are going to accept the deal without some nuclear program existing, which the president is willing to live with if there are safeguards and regulations. >> that's exactly right. it's where you draw the line and netanyahu wants to draw the line, just get rid of everything -- >> does he know, like we know, they will never go with it, therefore, it's -- >> he must know that and perhaps he's taking a maximalist position. that's what he says. you'll never get a deal on that basis. >> i hope everyone knows what commonsense is, no american president can live with them having a nuclear weapon. >> politically is different. but if there's another war in the middle east as opposed to

what happens with the iranian governments and what safeguards they are -- >> i think we have a war on our hands if they have anything near weapons. >> i think obama would say iran is further away today than -- had they not taken this process. >> we've already weaponized iran. no president will survive that. thank you, david corn. and i think we agree on that political part. eugene robinson, thank you, sir. coming up, a fascinating battle unfolding with the republican party in it and it's over same-sex marriage. if mainstream republicans think they can dodge the issue in 2016, they may have to think again. people like jeb bush and chris christie will try to run to it, run to the middle, but the social conservative base will try to drag them back in, just like the godfather. they are going to have to talk about same-sex marriage. it's in the platform, in the blood of mike huckabee. plus, on the opening day of her confirmation hearing,

loretta lynch, president obama's pick for attorney general, defended the president's executive actions to save millions of immigrants from deportation. she says it seems reasonable. but will republicans say the same of her. and what do we make of first lady michelle obama not wearing a veil in saudi arabia? some say she was not respectful. this is unfortunate, she got a kudo from ted cruz but what does that tell you. finally, let me finish with the republican predicament on same-sex marriage. this is "hardball," the place for politics. no wonder more women already prefer new always discreet pads over poise. visit alwaysdiscreet.com for coupons and to learn more. i bring the gift of the name your price tool to help you find a price that fits your budget. uh-oh. the name your price tool. she's not to be trusted. kill her.

flo: it will save you money! the name your price tool isn't witchcraft! and i didn't turn your daughter into a rooster. she just looks like that. burn the witch! the name your price tool a dangerously progressive idea. a judge in south carolina has reversed a major mistake of the civil rights era. back in 1961, nine african-american men were convicted for integrating a white's only lunch counter in rockhill, south carolina. they are known as the friendship nine. today, their convictions were tossed out. here's how it unfolded in the courtroom.

>> on behalf of the named defendant, i move for the convictions to be entered in 1961 be vacated. >> today, as solicitor of your county, i represent the state. so allow me to take this opportunity to extend each of you my heartfelt apologies for what happened to you in 1961. it was wrong. [ applause ] >> i am now signing the order and that is done. now -- [ applause ] >> well, the judge in that case said he can't rewrite history. he can make history right. well said. we'll be right back.

welcome back to "hardball." well, there will be two battles at the republican 2016 primary with gay marriage. the supreme court decision whether they have a constitutional right to marry is

expected in june and could make that fight all the more urgent. many of the 2016 contenders say the decision should be respected in the debate. but mike huckabee will allow for no such position. he's threatening to leave the party over the issue. here he is. >> a lot of republicans, particularly in the establishment and those who live on either the left coast or those who live up in the bubbles of new york and washington are convinced that if we don't capitulate on the same-sex marriage issue and if we don't raise the white flag of surrender and just accept the inevitable, that we're going to be losers. i tell you, tim, it's the absolute opposite of that. and if the republicans want to lose guys like me and a whole bunch of still god-fearing people, go ahead and just advocate on this issue and while you're at it, say abortion

doesn't matter either because at that point you lose me. i'm gone. >> right. >> i'll become an independent. i'll start finding people that have guts to stand. i'm tired of this. >> well, governor huckabee intends to make it impossible for a republican presidential candidates to make the issue of same-sex marriage under the radar. tim, tell me, what do you think about this issue? the republicans have had it on their platform and now you get a sense that people like jeb bush would love to finesse away from it. he says, i respect same-sex couples. chris christie from new jersey probably doesn't want to run on this thing. what happens to the huckabees? what happens to the santorums, the jindals, the rubios? i think they are all going to be fighting about it. >> well, i do agree that they are going to be talking about it.

i'm not exactly sure that they are going to be fighting about it. now, here's -- i think that calling it a dramatic fight is probably a little bit of an embellishment. i think it's a lively discussion but my hope over the next 15 to 18 months is that we can find a way to discuss this without being at each other's throats, both in content as well as in tone. >> well, that's about manners. you think -- you think huckabee sounds like a guy who wants to cool this thing down or heat it up. it sounds to me like he wanted to hype it up. >> great question. i don't know the room he was in when he had that conversation and obviously i don't speak for governor huckabee or any other candidates. but -- >> he was of sound mind and body, i think. >> he also recently released a book, as you're probably aware of, and i haven't read the whole book but excerpts from it and he actually talks about being for marriage, traditional marriage, biblical marriage, not necessarily being against same-sex marriage or at least

people that are same sex -- >> tim -- >> let's listen right here. mike huckabee took a direct shot against republicans who will -- here it is. this is pretty strong stuff, by the way. >> one thing i am angry about is this notion of judicial supremacy. if a court make as decision, i hear people say, well, that's settled. and this is the law of the land. no, it isn't the law of the land. >> would you counsel social disobedience to city clerks? >> states would be in the position that their legislatures would have to go into session. if they don't, there is not a same-sex marriage in that state. if the federal court says you have to do it, then you have a confrontation. at that point, somebody has to decide, is the court right?

if it is, then the legislation will be passed. >> well, he's saying the supreme court doesn't have a right to interpret the constitution. at "meet the press" on sunday, chuck todd followed up with a question about what he would do. listen. >> i just want to clarify, are you advocating, essentially, nullifications by the state? >> i'm advocating an adherence to the constitution. i'm really saying that there is a process to change the law. and it doesn't just involve one unilateral branch of government. >> here's the question that huckabee raises. he goes back to the civil war, of course. we operate under judicial review. whether we like it or not, the supreme court decides whether it's constitutional or not. they change over time. right? >> chris, i'll say this -- >> and we accept them in their time. that's how it works.

>> prefer legislative solutions as a preference because it's more rock solid when you pass laws legislatively. court rulings, whether you support them or oppose them can be overturned. this is the danger in using them as your all or nothing strategy. speaker john boehner is saying that the house should be respected. the supreme court should also be respected by republicans as well as democrats. what is getting thrown out there to bring same-sex marriage before legislators completely disregard the fact that marriage is something that already exists in legislature. they are looking at civil marriage and seeing discrimination that exists. >> let me go back to tim. the problem that you have from your side, the courts in each state, these 30 some states, you're right, they were not elected -- there wasn't a referendum on same sex and normally you don't have a referendum on rights, by the way. and so how do you rectify the

fact that all of those state courts said that those state constitutions provided for this right? how do you deal with that? in each individual state? >> the simple fact of the matter -- and, of course, all of us would agree that here we are 200 years into u.s. jurisprudence and just in the last decade, just over a decade we've removed the issue of marriage from being a state issue to becoming a federal issue. and so, you know, we're -- >> i think we're headed there, by the way. do you think we are? do you think the supreme court is going to rule there's a constitutional right to same-sex marriage? do you think they will? >> i think that they certainly have kind of tipped their hand in that direction. probably late summer, maybe early fall. >> yeah. tim, we've got to shut it off there. i agree with you, tim. you agree, don't you? >> i was just going to say, if you wonder why things happened so rapidly in the last ten years, iowa started recognizing same-sex marriage in 2009. people have seen committed

couples that are no threat to them. >> your group, the log cabins that didn't push marriage years ago, you've changed. the country has changed. so many people born gay, they respect those people that god made. that's what is going on here. it's not complicated. thank you. it's a difficult argument. i don't think all states can have a their own situations. you have custody battles, battles over social security if you let that happen. up next, bill clinton proposed a new title for himself in the event, which is probable, clearly plausible, that his wife becomes president. that's coming up in the sideshow.

back to "hardball," time for the sideshow. while new england got the brunt of winter storm juno, many

cities in the northeast were thankfully spared. however, as jon stewart pointed out last night, the storm preparation effort in new york city provided an unlikely media sensation. >> no weather-related emergency would be complete without sign languagers vying for best hype man. there was a clear winner. >> new yorkers should not underestimate this storm. assume conditions will be unsafe. >> that is some new york sign language. i don't read sign language but i'm pretty sure he's going, you bring that [ bleep ] and i will [ bleep ] you up. do you hear me? plow me! no. plow you [ bleep ]. boom! >> how does he do that? next up, it's a question that's gone unanswered for years.

what should former president bill clinton be called if hillary clinton becomes our next president? well, "the washington post" offered the following possibilities today. quote, first gentleman, which was the title first suggested by former first lady laura bush. first dude, which was the title sarah palin actually used for her husband while she was governor up in alaska. first spouse, which was how congresswoman michele bachmann referred to her husband when she was in congress. and last but not least, first laddie, suggested by one of bill clinton's scottish friends. and rachel asked the president what he should be called if he returns to the white house. we got an advance clip of that. >> what would you be called? first fella? mr. and mrs. presidents? like is there a proper -- have you thought about this? >> no.

but -- you know, if you call -- if the president is the man, you call the president's spouse the first lady, so we'll have to cross this bridge if a gay couple ever -- >> yeah. >> but let's say if a woman became president, we could -- i could be called adam. >> of course he's referring there to the original first man from the old testament. chuck schumer is one of the most high-profiled senators in the senate. just watch the sunday political shows on any given weekend, he'll most likely be on. loretta lynch, senator schumer poked fun at his reputation for seeking the spotlight. >> miss lynch has always been a nose to the grindstone type, rarely seeking a claim, only a

job well done. she has earned a reputation for keeping her head down and avoiding the spotlight, just like me. >> well, that's what bobby kennedy, one of his predecessors called hanging a lantern on your problem. up next, president obama's pick for attorney general. he depends his stand on illegal immigration. and cheering michelle obama's decision not to wear a veil in saudi arabia. there she is. you're watching "hardball," a place for politics.

hey matt, what's up? i'm just looking over the company bills. is that what we pay for internet? yup. dsl is about 90 bucks a month. that's funny, for that price with comcast business, i think you get like 50 megabits. wow, that's fast. personally, i prefer a slow internet. there is something about the sweet meditative glow of a loading website. don't listen to the naysayer. switch to comcast business today and get 50 megabits per second for $89.95.

comcast business. built for business. welcome back to "hardball."

welcome back to "hardball." fireworks on the hill today, capitol hill, over the nomination of the new attorney general. if confirmed, loretta lynch would make history of the first of the country's african-american woman to serve as the a.g. lynch made clear she'll be a strong ally of the president and his agenda when it comes to voting rights, surveillance and torture. in particular, his executive action to halt deportation for the undocumented immigrants.

the hearing was dominated by the republican party over the executive actions. it was the hot button issue at the hearing. >> not only is this action contrary to our laws, it's dangerous abuse of executive authority. >> this is a dangerous precedent and cannot be allowed to stand. and frankly, the attorney general of the united states should have told president obama that, urged him and -- to back off. >> i would like to remind my colleagues that the president's immigration policies are not seeking confirmation today. loretta lynch is. >> can you give us an estimate, if not now, in the future, what it would cost to deport 11 million people? >> in our round table tonight, howard fineman, amanda turkel and clarence page.

let's go to amanda. you know, i don't get it. why would lindsey graham, who is for immigration reform, voted for it in the last senate, why is he asking about the cost of deporting 11 million people? is it because he wants to encourage it or discourage it? >> lindsey graham has never been for deporting everyone and it's unrealistic. i hope it's the lindsey graham who is bringing it up to show what a ridiculous policy it is. it would cost too much and logistically it doesn't work. >> howard? >> i think that's probably right. i think he wants to show the administration and its allies haven't even thought about what it would cost because they don't want to do it. >> hold me back. hold me back. >> right. >> i'm getting rid of the 11 million people. everybody knows they had all of the congress and senate and all of that, they wouldn't do it. >> right. >> they've been there.

>> the main point is, she handled the whole topic incredibly smoothly and on point because she said, look, i read the details. there's no amnesty here. there's not a path to citizenship, which legally is the right point to make. >> yeah. >> and she made it repeatedly and very well. >> clarence, what's going on with these hearings? an african-american woman, not a politician, not a high-flyer like chuck schumer. i've never heard of her before but she went after grimm. she's done her work out there. >> she's got a terrific particular record for prosecuting terror cases and a variety of other crimes. there's very little for conservatives to dislike about her except for the guy who appointed her, barack obama. so they are using her as the surrogate, shall we say, for attacks on barack obama's policies. >> should she have worn a veil to the hearings? >> she didn't need it.

no, she gave the right answers, didn't commit herself on her actual -- her judicial opinions. >> and by the way, she's going to get a bunch of republican votes. >> that would be a smooth move. >> she's going to get hatch and cornyn and the new republican from north carolina. she's from greensboro. if i'm a republican i'm thinking, why can't we have somebody like that? not ideological. she's perfect. >> she went further in the defense of the president's stand on immigration. let's watch that one. >> i believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that is shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here and certainly if someone is here, regardless of status, i would prefer that they

be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace. >> well, that's weird in a way because the number one reason people come here is to work and to get a legal job. they come illegally, they get a job illegally. the whole idea is to prevent that so employers don't accidently hire somebody here in the country without papers. and what is she saying, you shouldn't have any verify, we shouldn't be checking who we are hiring, we should be the good person and hire them? i don't know how else to read that. what do you think she meant? >> i don't think she meant that. >> she said people should be working here even illegally. >> she was trying to make the point that it's better socially if people work or don't work. she probably shouldn't have used the word right because in another context she said there's no civil right to citizenship. she was trying to make the contrast between drawing the line there, which is the proper one to draw and which the conservatives would like and the one on this. >> i'm going to take it home and read the transcripts and they are going to think and say, wait a minute, why have this huge

e-verify system to make sure people don't hire somebody here illegally if we're not going to do it? if we're going to do it, i should say. >> i think she had a slip of a tongue in terms of distinguishing citizenship from documentation as well and what she said it sounded like she was saying, you can't hire somebody who's not a citizen. she meant to say somebody who is not documented. that's the sort of thing that may have led to some confusion. >> clearly miss lynch would continue eric holder's legacy of voting rights. let's watch. >> how do you view the state of voting rights in america today and what do you view is your responsibility should you be our next attorney general? >> i believe the right to vote is the cornerstone of a democracy and one that every citizen would have the right and some would argue the obligation to exercise.

the concerns that are raised, senator, is when acts are taken with a goal towards protecting and preserving the integrity of the vote act in a different way. and act to suppress the vote or in some way prevent people from exercising the franchise. >> well, she's being very kind there because leaders in pennsylvania, where howard and i are from have openly said, the purpose of all of this effort to demand i.d. cards of 80-year-old who is live in row houses is to make sure they don't vote. they basically said that. >> this is where she got into a testy exchange with tom tillis because they have gone after north carolina for dismantling the laws and making it easier for people to vote and tom led the legislature there and he was not happy about that and he said, i hope the justice department under you will not go under states like north carolina. the voting rights act has been dismantled by the supreme court. it's now up to the justice department to be on the lookout for what these states are doing

and some of these voter i.d. laws and things like that. >> so they are still arguing, clarence, the reason that they are making it tough for people to vote in a big macro sense, like you have to go down to d.o.t. and get a picture and get all of this done because they think there's a lot of cheating by blacks? that's what they think? they honestly think that? >> well, that's certainly -- it's just funny how when you say honestly think, it's funny how people honestly think along partisan lines. you go back historically when democrats were in the segregationists and you had the opposite occurring. republicans were accusing democrats of voter suppression. it's obvious what is going on here. these cases have to go to court where they are argued. >> i don't see how anybody who is african-american would think about voting republican as long as reince priebus is involved. and the controversy over michelle obama's decision not to wear a head scarf while in saudi arabia. this is "hardball," the place

for politics. just tell us your budget and the "name your price" tool helps you find a whole range of coverages.

no one else gives you options like that. [voice echoing] no one at all! no one at all! no one. wake up! [gasp] oh! you okay, buddy? i just had a dream that progressive had this thing called... the "name your price" tool... it isn't a dream is it? nope. sorry! you know that thing freaks me out. he can hear you. he didn't mean that, kevin. kevin: yes, he did! keeping our competitors up at night. now, that's progressive. on friday, join me for a special super bowl edition of "hardball" live from phoenix. we've got great guests lined up as the patriots and seahawks get ready for the big game on sunday and we'll have plenty of politics with new england's own mike barnicle. it's all coming up this sunday night, 7:00 eastern on "hardball."

we're back. well, social media erupted over first lady michelle obama's decision not to wear a head scarf during the first couple's visit to saudi arabia yesterday. an arabic hash tag translated to #michelle obama unveiled was tweeted 2500 times. while the rules for foreign women call for long, loose fitting clothing, the head scarf is optional for visitors. michelle obama was wearing a

flowing blue top, black pants and no head scarf. some say she was making a political statement we're afternoon saying, kudos to first lady michelle obama for standing up for women worldwide. and refusing to wear a sharia mandated head scarf in saudi arabia. nicely done. white house deputy press secretary eric schultz said today the first lady's attire was consistent with what first ladies in the past have worn to saudi arabia. here he is. >> the attire the first lady wore on this trip was consistent with what first ladies in the past have worn. first lady laura bush, first lady clinton, other members of the united states delegation at the time. >> howard, amanda and clarence. was this a breach of practice, protocol or either? >> i don't think so at all. condoleezza rice went over there

and didn't wear a head scarf. foreigners don't have to do it. you know, i think michelle obama doesn't usually wear a head scarf, and i think that was perfectly appropriate. i am surprised this is such a controversy. >> who's out there twittering? >> all eyes are on saudi arabia right now. in ways that haven't been in the past because of this blogger, who's been sentenced to, what, a thousand lashes for -- >> each week for 20 weeks. >> yeah. and this is a kind of thing that all of a sudden all eyes are on saudi arabia. >> why are the bloggers talking about the blogger? >> it goes both ways. the bloggers are talking about the flogger, including me. this is something that's truly atrocious. in the past when w. bush was president, saudi arabia was viewed more of a kindly friend with this eccentric religious practices or whatever. but we don't need them like we

used to now, because of fracking, and the oil prices plummeting, and the fact that there's a tizzy to free press issues, religious freedom issues. this is the kind of thing that has changed the landscape. >> some of the tweets that were using the hash tag were making fun of saudi arabia. so they weren't all negative toward michelle obama. >> i agree with clarence, i think the position of saudi arabia politically has changed. people are much more aware of the kind of double game that they play. with their strict rules, and also their alliance with the west. and i think -- >> and the under-the-table relationship with al qaeda. >> i agree with amanda, the white house carefully researched this, and they were going with what the precedent had been. >> i think that makes sense. because we went over there. the president from india went over there. aren't the saudi government people allowing the price to

stay down where it is? anybody can manipulate supply and demand. that's not hard to do when you're saudi arabia. >> when you're saudi arabia, you have a whole lot of control. >> the point is, they don't have the power to do that. >> they can't pump the -- >> the notion that they are doing this deliberately to drive all new energy forms out of business so they can come back and -- >> but aren't they consistent -- >> while other countries and companies are cutting back oil production, saudis are going full bore. deliberately trying to bring the price down, no question about it. >> i think they have a budget to support. and if they think they can do that, they're going to find out that they're not going to be able to do that. things have changed. >> they've got money and oil in reserves. they're not really hurting. >> they're treated generally like the rich uncle.

thank you. see the pyramids along the nile. walking along with the crown prince. very daintily and lovingly. thank you for joining us. when we return, let me finish with the republican predicament on same-sex marriage. on the horns of a dilemma on this baby. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics. i took mucinex to help get rid of my mucusy congestion. mr. mucus: oh, right then i'll swing by in like 4 hours... just set aside a few tacos for me. man: forget the tacos! one pill lasts 12 hours. i'm good all day. mr. mucus (to himself): wait! your loss. i was going to wear a sombrero. [announcer:] only mucinex has a bi-layer tablet that starts fast, and keeps working. not 4, not 6, but 12 full hours. start the relief. ditch the misery. let's end this.

the conference call. the ultimate arena for business. hour after hour of diving deep, touching base, and putting ducks in rows. the only problem with conference calls: eventually they have to end. unless you have the comcast business voiceedge mobile app. it lets you switch seamlessly from your desk phone to your mobile with no interruptions. i've never felt so alive. get the future of phone and the phones are free. comcast business. built for business. we finish with this tonight. with spring training coming on the way, i think a fair way to describe the republican

predicament on same-sex marriage is being caught offbase. the pitcher spins from his position on the mound and shoots the ball to the alert fis baseman who tags the runner for having taken too much of a lead, a lead he can't get back from. that in baseball terminology is called a pickoff. how in the heck are the republicans serious about beating secretary clinton going to do that when they've alienated families across the political spectrum for having sons and daughters, cousins and nephews and nieces who were born gay. how to bow to the cultural right to say what you really don't believe in to get the country to believe you want other things. is this too complicated? think about it. if a person's willing to sell themselves to the opponents of same-sex marriage in order to win their vote, would you take that person's word yourself? would you, or would you suspect

more than a smidgen that anyone willing to dump on marriage equality to snag a political opening would do just the same on other matters? i can see how this whole mess is going to pile up, again, on the more serious republican candidates. mike huckabee, who has threatened to quit the party if he drops the opposition to same-sex marriage will drive the competition on the right. he will make every other contestant on the right to go out on the limb with him, that he will keep the air in the ball as long as he can because it's the one way he can come out top by daring anyone else to follow him all the way. we're going to see in the months between now and the spring of 2016 as a partisan version of gresham's law. that bad issue is going to drive the better republican issues out of discussion. you watch, there's going to be no hiding from homophobia, once the gop chitchat gets going out there.

that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. all in with chris hayes starts right now. tonight on all in -- >> i'm, frankly, proud of the fact that the prime minister has accepted our invitation. >> boehner and bb, in the wake of the speaker's back door invitation to netanyahu. >> we have a right to do it, and we did it. >> the hearing on the hill. >> what legal rationale would be in play that would prohibit polygamy? >> republicans on the senate judiciary committee played got cha as loretta lynch bids to replace eric holder. plus, the white house yanks their plan to roll back a college tax break as reporters who benefit from the tax break stage rebellion. and forgetting sarah palin. >> for it is they who point a finger, they have tripled that