The floor of the U.S. Senate isn't a place that usually sees a lot of drama. But last month there was the closest thing to a high drama moment when a bipartisan group of eight women senators (that's half of us) stood together to show a united front and deliver a series of speeches in support of reauthorizing the landmark Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). As the only two women members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein and I headed up the group and since then we have gained a number of cosponsors for the bill, now totaling 61 senators. It is now time to pass the bill.

This common-sense legislation first passed in 1994. The original VAWA legislation was authored by then-Senator Joe Biden. There was a senator from Minnesota who had an important role, too. His name was Paul Wellstone.

Paul and his wife Sheila worked for years to help push the issue of domestic violence out of the secret shadows of the home and into the light of public attention.

Paul and Sheila are gone now, having died in a plane crash almost 10 years ago. But I'm committed to carrying on their legacy by fighting to ensure that VAWA continues to protect our families, our children and our communities.

When the legislation passed in 1994, it started a sea change in public attitudes about violence against women. Once considered largely a private family matter, domestic violence is now treated by law enforcement and the justice system as the serious crime that it is.

As chief prosecutor for Minnesota's largest county from 1998 to 2006, my office handled hundreds of cases involving domestic violence and sexual assault, where we put a lot of focus on the victims' needs and particularly the children's needs. In fact, we had a poster on the wall in our office that showed a picture of a woman with a bandage across her nose who was holding a baby, under the message "Beat your wife, and your kid goes to jail."

That poster was a sad reminder that kids who grow up in violent homes are 76 times more likely to commit acts of domestic violence themselves. It doesn't take a bruise or a broken bone for a child to be a victim of domestic violence. Kids who witness domestic violence are victims, too.

With Paul and Sheila Wellstone's help and with the good work of my predecessor and successor, Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman, our office established one of the nation's leading domestic violence service centers, where victims have a safe space to begin the difficult process of recovery. The center offers a full range of services to help victims and their families, like a day care center, access to the police, legal resources, and a place where restraining orders are signed -- all so that victims don't have to go through an obstacle course of procedural hurdles. The way we see it, we need a system that encourages victims to come forward. Not a system that discourages them from seeking help, or one that intimidates victims into staying in the shadows.

But the work must continue.

According to a recent survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in the United States. Approximately one in four women have experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime, and 45 percent of the women killed in the United States are killed by an intimate partner. These statistics mean that sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking are still a problem in America.

It is these numbers that have always led members of Congress to the conclusion that domestic violence is not a partisan issue. Both when the bill originally passed and through two previous reauthorizations, the bill has always garnered bipartisan support. That is why so many of us were taken aback this year when, despite the chief authors being both a Democrat (Sen. Patrick Leahy), and a Republican (Sen. Mike Crapo), the bill passed out of the Judiciary Committee with only Democratic votes.

Many provisions in the reauthorizing legislation make important changes to the current law, such as consolidating duplicative programs and streamlining others; providing greater flexibility for how communities utilize resources; and adding new training requirements for people providing legal assistance to victims.

The legislation also fills some gaps in the current system.

It includes a bipartisan amendment I introduced to address high-tech stalking. These are cases where stalkers use the Internet, video surveillance or bugging to stalk their victims, often without the victim's knowledge. By providing better tools for cracking down on these stalkers, my amendment will help make our law enforcement agencies as sophisticated as those who break the law.

We must pass this bill. Those that have worked in law enforcement understand this as well as anyone. Just a few months ago, I attended the funeral of a young police officer from Lake City, Minnesota. The officer died after responding to a domestic violence call from a 17-year-old girl who was being abused by her ex-boyfriend. When the officer arrived at the scene, he was shot in the head. He literally gave his life to save another. And I will never forget what I saw at his funeral: his three children, walking down that church aisle, two young boys and a little girl in a blue dress covered with stars.

Significant progress has been made since VAWA was first enacted in 1994, but tragedies like this are a reminder of the serious challenges our country still faces in stopping domestic violence and should be a rallying cry for members of both parties to come together and pass this legislation.

It's what's right for cities and towns across our nation, it's what's right for our families and children, and it's time to get it done.

Join Amy on Facebook: www.facebook.com/amyklobuchar

Follow Amy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/amyklobuchar

Gov. Pat Quinn, MSNBC
Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn joins Ed Schultz to discuss the state of the Illinois and Wisconsin economies."Wisconsin's dead last in job growth," Quinn said. "Don't listen to Scott Walker if you want to get jobs in your state, and we sure haven't listened to him. We believe in our workers. We have skilled, educated workers. We believe in investing in education." 

STOCKHOLM — Sweden's environment minister thought she had asked the country's former agriculture minister to attend a glam dinner. But the invitation went to the "wrong" Margareta Winberg – an ordinary Swede who jumped at the chance to mingle, even participating in the group photo.

Winberg, a 67-year old retiree from Sundbyberg outside Stockholm, told Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter that although she doesn't know much about the environment, she didn't hesitate in taking up Lena Ek on the offer last week.

She told the paper that she wore black trousers and a blouse "with some things on," and that she met interesting people, "like that guy Blix," a reference to former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix.

Ek's spokesman said the minister found the situation "extremely funny."

Michael Barone, DC Examiner
The illegal immigration problem is going away.That's the conclusion I draw from the latest report of the Pew Hispanic Center on Mexican immigration to the United States.

Jeffrey Rosen, TNR
At the conclusion of yesterday’s oral arguments in Arizona v. U.S., the case that will decide the fate of Arizona law SB 1070, Chief Justice John Roberts said, “Thank you, Mr. Clement, General Verrilli. Well argued on both sides.” The tip of the hat to the Solicitor General and his conservative opponent, Paul Clement, seemed designed to reassure Verrilli that he had redeemed himself after his much-criticized previous appearance with Clement in the health care arguments last month.In fact, however, Verrilli struggled in the immigration argument just as he had...

Mitt Romney was not only born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he had the most glittering of golden parachutes from Bain & Co, guaranteeing him a job whether he failed or succeeded and with Bain agreeing in advance to lie about any failure.

Credit Lawrence O'Donnell for exposing Romney's sweetheart deal with Bain Capital that had been described in "The Real Romney."

Bain & Company established a subsidiary called Bain Capital that was seeded with millions of dollars.

But, Romney was afraid, (yes, afraid!) he might fail, so he got Bain & Company to agree in advance to take him back if he failed, and with all the salary increases he might have received had he remained at the parent company.

That is, Romney took no risks, he could not lose, and he would not take the job unless Bain agreed to his terms.

When Romney says he knows how the system works, I guess he means TARP, bailing out his buddies just as he was guaranteed a bail out.

But, that is not all. Romney was concerned that, if he failed, it would damage his reputation. (One is tempted to ask, "what reputation?", but that is another story). So, Bain agreed that if Romney failed at Bain Capital, it would announce that Romney was returning to the parent because the parent company "needed him."

This is the man who wrote "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt."

But, when it comes to himself -- no risk, no consequences for failure, all reward, happy to have prearranged a lie to preserve his "reputation."

Is this Romney's model of capitalism?

Romney is now running for President. We are entitled to know: Does Romney think everyone should have guaranteed "no-cut" contracts with their employers?

Or just himself?

David Zurawik, Baltimore Sun
Tuesday night, there was a two-hour report by "Frontline" that explained better than anything I have ever seen on TV how the middle-class got shredded by Wall Street and sold-out by our elected leaders in Washintgon -- and that includes Democrats in the White House.There were also presidential primaries that made Mitt Romney all but official as the GOP candidate.But all anyone will be talking about this morning is President Barack Obama slow jamming the news with latenight host Jimmy Fallon at the University of North Carolina.

Scott Clement, Wash Post
Arizona's immigration law "” slated to be heard Wednesday by the Supreme Court "” has stirred up accusations of racism, conference boycotts and a strident legal challenge from the Obama administration. Despite all the controversy, the judgment from poll after poll is clear: Americans like the law. A lot.In national polls, there have consistently been more supporters than opponents of the Arizona law, with the latest polls showing higher support than at any point since its passage. More than two-thirds of registered voters (68 percent) approved of the...

WASHINGTON -- In a sign that Democrats may consider getting on board with Sen. Marco Rubio's Dream Act-style legislation, three leading Latino members of Congress plan to meet with Rubio Wednesday afternoon.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Reps. Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas) and Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) will meet with Rubio (R-Fla.) around 3 p.m. to hear more about his plan, a senior Democratic aide told HuffPost. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity because the members of Congress had agreed not to publicize the meeting.

Under discussion will be Rubio's "Dream Act," a term appropriated from a long-standing bill supported by Democrats. Both bills would be aimed at undocumented immigrants who entered the United States as children, and would allow some to stay if they kept a clean criminal record and joined the military or attended college.

Menendez, Gonzalez and Gutierrez all support the Dream Act that passed the House in 2010 but was defeated in the Senate 55-41, with three Republicans supporting and five Democrats defecting to vote against the measure.

But that bill, which was initially introduced more than a decade ago with bipartisan support, has become politicized as "amnesty" because it would allow some undocumented young people to receive green cards and possibly citizenship if they completed government requirements. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, whom Rubio endorsed, said in December that he would veto that Dream Act. Romney said Monday that Rubio's bill has "many features to commend it," but that he will need to see more details before giving full support.

Rubio's framework -- he has not yet introduced a bill -- would not provide a path to permanent residency or eventual citizenship, which immigrant rights groups said would undercut the purpose of the Democrat-supported Dream Act.

Of course, holding a meeting doesn't necessarily mean the members of Congress would sign on to Rubio's bill.

Grijalva told MSNBC last week that Rubio's plan would create a "second class" because it would allow some undocumented immigrants to stay, but with few options for ever becoming citizens.

Earlier on Wednesday, Gutierrez did not comment on whether there would be a meeting but told HuffPost he had two questions about the Rubio legislation: whether it would stop deportation of those young people and whether it could pass.

"Most importantly, does he have 10 Republican senators?" Gutierrez said. "We know we got 55 the last time, do you have another 10?"

Mark Bowden, The Atlantic
The meeting began with Jimmy Carter's announcement: "Gentlemen, I want you to know that I am seriously considering an attempt to rescue the hostages."Hamilton Jordan, the White House chief of staff, knew immediately that the president had made a decision. Planning and practice for a rescue mission had been going on in secret for five months, but it had always been regarded as the last resort, and ever since the November 4 embassy takeover, the White House had made every effort to avoid it.

WASHINGTON -- On Tuesday, congressional Democrats announced plans to introduce legislation that would extend the current low interest rates on government-subsidized student loans, responding to the major public relations push from President Barack Obama. But while the issue has ginned up cable news chatter and drawn attention to a host of grassroots student debt relief efforts, it is a relatively minor front in the administration's college affordability battle. In 2010, Obama took a much bolder and largely overlooked step, boosting direct aid to low-income students by eliminating $60 billion in federal money given to banks to provide loans to students.

Consumer advocates had been urging Obama's student-lending reform for decades, but the bipartisan lobbying clout of student loan servicing giants like Sallie Mae had prevented legislation from going anywhere in Congress. Today, nearly two years after the law passed, education access advocates have another target: relief for the millions of graduates drowning in debt. Tackling that problem involves another bruising political battle with banks -- and the White House has instead chosen to focus on affordability programs.

While Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney has publicly supported Obama's plan to prevent the interest rates on federally subsidized Stafford loans from jumping to 6.8 percent from their current level of 3.4 percent, congressional Republicans and conservative interest groups are criticizing the administration for making a mountain out of a molehill. Conservative economics think tank American Action Forum has emphasized that the higher rate would only cost an average of $1,000 more in debt per student over the term of the loan, or roughly $7 a month per student in future payments.

Consumer groups contend that $7 a month is still better than nothing, especially in an election year with low prospects for substantive legislative action, but some of the administration's allies acknowledge that the issue sounds bigger than it actually is.

"From a really wonky policy perspective, I don't think the interest rate piece is a very big prize, but it is a great opportunity to talk about education affordability," said Amy Laitinen, a former policy adviser in Obama's Department of Education who now works as a senior analyst for Education Sector, a nonprofit think tank.

Nevertheless, Obama's 2010 overhaul was a major policy accomplishment. For decades, private lenders like Sallie Mae received massive subsidies from the federal government in exchange for issuing loans to students. Sallie Mae did the actual lending to students, but taxpayers guaranteed the loans against default. If students repaid everything on time, Sallie Mae made a profit. If students couldn't repay, the government -- not Sallie Mae -- took the loss.

"The banks were making money for doing nothing," says Jack Jennings, a former longtime Democratic congressional education staffer. "They wound up with students' names as future customers with no money risk at all."

This system of public losses and private gains worked very well for Sallie Mae shareholders and executives. CEO Albert Lord reaped enormous pay packages, including a year in which he made over $40 million, while the company paid out lucrative dividends on its stock every quarter. All this overhead made private banks a very expensive middleman for the federal government. And for years, consumer advocates pleaded with lawmakers to stop subsidizing Lord and his cohorts and instead issue loans directly to students -- or, better yet, simply offer them direct grants. But reform languished for decades, due in part to Sallie Mae's lobbying blitz.

"They were super powerful," said Laitinen. "The banking industry is bipartisan. They support everybody. It certainly pissed a lot of people off."

The Obama administration only secured student loan reform by attaching it to the health care reform package, using a special legislative maneuver known as reconciliation, allowing the bill to be included with just 51 votes instead of the 60 needed to clear a filibuster. Even that tactic might have failed had the timing not been right: While major student lenders like Sallie Mae and NelNet were not closely involved with the housing market, the financial crash of 2008 had lowered the financial industry's status on Capitol Hill.

"For once, the lobbyists were not able to prevail," said Jared Bernstein, a former economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden who is now a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "But you have to realize that this was a time when the banking sector had played an integral role in inflating a terribly destructive housing bubble and was in the process of being bailed out. So the idea of ending this middleman role here in the college education space was more well-received than it would have been in other circumstances."

With $60 billion in bank subsidies cut out of the process, $36 billion was redirected to Pell Grants -- money for low-income college students -- alongside another $2 billion to boost community college programs.

"We had been working on that for maybe 15 years," said Gary Kalman, who directs the federal legislative office of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. "Moving those lender subsidies, which were a complete waste, and getting them into Pell Grants -- to us, that was a big step in terms of what government can do to help students afford college."

That legislative packaging for the reform is often overlooked in Republican demands to repeal Obamacare. If the Supreme Court strikes down the entire health care law, the government will have to slash aid to low-income students in order to reestablish government's lucrative relationship to loan-servicing corporations.

Democrats -- particularly those active in Obama's reelection campaign -- are taking the opportunity to cite policies they've tinkered with on behalf of college students over the past three years: extending Income-Based Repayment, a program that qualifies some 600,000 students to repay their loans in proportion with their salaries; extending the American Opportunity Tax Credit, a measure that allows families below a certain income threshold to write off $2,500 annually per student in college; and preserving the Pell grant maximum. This marketing effort was on display Monday, with Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) trumpeting these policies as a win for students on a conference call organized by Obama for America.

Obama himself made a similar case Tuesday in an address to college reporters. "We've extended Pell grants to 3 million more students, and we signed a tax credit worth up to $10,000 to help middle-class families cover the cost of tuition," Obama said.

The Income-Based Repayment expansion, for example, was heralded last fall by the administration as part of its broader "We Can't Wait" campaign. The tweak allows future graduates to consolidate their federal loans at a slightly lower interest rate, and allows graduates to pay 10 percent of their discretionary income over 20 years (down from 15 percent over 25 years). Despite the administration's fanfare, IBR only expanded upon a program that dates back to the 1970s and doesn't apply to those who have already graduated.

But higher education experts caution against too much jubilation in a political environment obsessed with austerity. A full $20 billion from the $60 billion in banking savings went to deficit reduction as a concession to Republicans.

"The increases in the Pell grant, which were not fully funded, were relatively anemic," says Mark Kantrowitz, who runs the website finaid.org. "But that's at least better than further cuts."

Pell grants, the largest source of federal financial aid, are specifically targeted to low-income students. "This is an election year," says Kantrowitz. "There are more proposals now that benefit middle-income families than low-income families because they're [middle-income families] more likely to vote." Last year, after a congressional budget standoff and a near-government shutdown, Obama agreed to tweaks that ultimately cut Pell grants by between $1,100 and $1,700 for about 14 percent of recipients.

Despite the administration's current focus on improving federal programs, student loan activists are more focused on the private-sector market. Federal loans max out at $3,500 per year, but graduates complete college with an average of $25,000 in student debt. The remainder is from private banks.

"That's something the president hasn't weighed in on, and I hope that he will," said Laitinen. "The private student loans are really difficult. The interest rates on those are similar to credit cards, but at least with a credit card, you can declare bankruptcy if you're just drowning in debt. You can't even discharge the private student loans in bankruptcy ... If I were giving advice and people were considering taking out a private student loan, I would say put it on your credit card so you can at least declare bankruptcy if it becomes untenable."

When Fox News Channel cancelled Glenn Beck, there was progressive dancing in the social media streets. Beck was off television, after all, and it had a lot to do with grassroots efforts to convince advertisers that it's a bad idea to have their brand linked with an incendiary fraud.

But then Fox News filled the time slot with easily the dumbest show ever. It's called The Five -- an obvious cable news knock-off of The View (and all of its imitators) in which four conservatives and one liberal (for balance) snark about the issues of the day. If Fox News was trying to create a show that would amplify the intellectual stature of the usually moronic Fox & Friends, they totally succeeded.

The moderator of the show is serial race-baiter Eric Bolling and the panel consists of a Lazy Susan of cackling simpletons. Greg Gutfeld, whose previous credits include both Fox News Channel's overnight show and The Huffington Post where he blogged about his calf muscles and made hilariously smart cracks about Cenk Uygur's name, is evidently the designated jokester, d-bag and misogynist of the group. There's also former Bush press secretary Dana Perino and legal analyst Andrea Tantaros. "Democratic strategist" Bob Beckel, who recently said "fuck" on the Hannity show, is the token liberal and, in keeping with Fox News policy, makes really weak points and often appears to be drunk. A perfect target for the conservatives on the panel.

Everything you need to know about the dynamics of The Five is contained in this a clip from Friday's show:

So with the exception of Beckel, who barely made it through his bit without passing out, everyone on the show thinks it's okay for corporations to inject unlimited and totally unaccountable buckets of money into political campaigns.

And so in case your head hurts and you skipped over the clip, here's what each panelist said.

They began by airing a clip of Nancy Pelosi talking about campaign finance reform and some thoughts about a proposed constitutional amendment to ban corporate political donations. Bolling was outraged that Pelosi said "we have a clear agenda" to "amend the Constitution." More on this presently. Gutfeld, meanwhile, thought Nancy Pelosi was dressed like Dr. Zaius from The Planet of the Apes. Zinger! And relevant! Next up, Beckel mumbled and slurred his way through a reiteration of Pelosi's remarks (to which Bolling replied, "Wow! You admit it!" as if a constitutional amendment is crazy talk). Beckel also framed his bungled, belching answer in a way that allowed a massive opening through which the other panelists were able to fling poop all over him. Dana Perino didn't make any points about campaign finance and, instead, claimed that Democrats want to amend the First Amendment, and she doesn't think the Supreme Court leans conservative. (Perino is obviously in favor of corporate personhood and unlimited political "speech" in the form of campaign contributions.) Andrea Tantaros also ignored campaign finance and made an awesomely clever joke about Pelosi being from outer space -- complete with a Star Trek communicator impression. Another Fox News panelist on the bleeding edge of comedy.

Regarding Bolling's and Perino's shocked horror that Democrats want to amend the Constitution in order to ban corporate money from political campaigns. It turns out Nancy Pelosi isn't the only one who's been pushing for a constitutional amendment.

Sean Hannity wants a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. Such an amendment would naturally amend free speech and First Amendment rights. Perino seemed to be against that and, in fact, thinks it's politically suicidal. I wonder if Hannity is aware of Perino's objections. Meanwhile, Steve Doocy and most Republicans support an amendment that would establish fetal personhood -- this would alter the 14th Amendment. Mike Huckabee wants to entirely repeal the 16th Amendment. Fox News hosts Andrew Napolitano, Huckabee and Glenn Beck have all pushed for a repeal of the 17th Amendment. In total, Republicans have proposed 51 constitutional amendments.

Somebody check to see if Bolling has fainted yet.

So what has The Five actually accomplished here? Aside from fulfilling their role as the dumbest show on Fox News Channel, they've managed to completely avoid talking about the poisonous influence of corporate money in American elections. First, they're just unable to articulate a rational point in defense of Citizens United v FEC. Second, the moderator and at least one other panelist is totally ill-informed about the constitutional amendment process -- either that or they're being deliberately stupid about it. Third, the Supreme Court's decision is indefensible to everyone except Citizens United, the five justices who supported it and corporations that are adding increased and unregulated control over the American political system to their business models. Oh, and Stephen Colbert. He likes it too, but for very satirical reasons.

And really, a pro-Citizens United position on Fox News Channel is a losing argument since 73 percent of conservatives and anywhere from 56 to 73 percent of tea party supporters were against the decision, according to an ABC News / Washington Post poll. But none of that matters because The Five isn't about having a serious (or even light-hearted) debate using principled arguments about the issues. It's clearly about taking the opposite position of whatever Democrat X has to say -- and then using stale sarcasm, deliberately uninformed outrage and hackish jokes to ridicule it.

And ssshh! Don't wake Beckel.

Crossposted at The Daily Banter
Subscribe to the uncensored and totally raw Bob & Chez Show After Party podcast.
Click here to listen to the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast, with Bob Cesca and Chez Pazienza.
Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go!

The Truth-o-Meter says: Pants on Fire! | Facebook post says Bank of America bonuses are big enough to create 878,300 jobs

We recently noticed a Facebook post that channeled popular anger over bonuses for people who work in the financial industry. It said: "Bank of America could create 878,300 jobs with benefits if they spent their 2010 bonuses on job creation." We wondered if that was accurate. After some Internet searching, we found what appeared to be the source of this factoid. It’s a report called "Big Banks, Bonus Bonanza," released by a coalition of five groups, led by the Service Employees International Union, or SEIU. Here’s an excerpt:
>> More

Throughout history, books have been banned for various reasons -- for sex, for language, for racism and for viewpoints. In British Columbia this week, a quote from Dr. Seuss' Yertle The Turtle was on the receiving end of a boycott for a politically polarizing reason.

According to the Globe and Mail, an elementary school teacher in Prince Rupert was told she could not display the quote, "I know up on top you are seeing great sights, but down here on the bottom, we too should have rights” from the book in her classroom.

As Joanna Larson, president of the BCTF local in Prince Rupert noted on Twitter:

Teachers in PrinceRupert,BC could face discipline for displaying Dr.Suess quote.Management "must insulate students from political messages"

Dave Stigant, acting director of instruction for the Prince Rupert School District, stated the decision was based on the November, 2011 ban by an arbitrator on political messages in schools in the province, though the ongoing labour dispute between the teacher's union and the province played a role as well.

This isn't the first time a Dr. Seuss book has faced exile. In 1989, Laytonville, California, tried to ban The Lorax, based on its criminalization of foresting, one of the town's primary industries. While the objector -- the father of a student who came home from school with the book -- was eventually outvoted in his opinions, it did reveal the potential for controversy inherent in these children's books.

Seuss, whose real name was Theodor Geisel, started his career as a political cartoonist, and was vocal in his desire to educate children about politics. He once stated the character of Yertle was modelled after Hitler.

SEE: The most commonly banned books:

President Barack Obama framed the 2012 election in some of the starkest terms to date in an interview published Wednesday by Rolling Stone.

Obama said that in this election there "will be as sharp a contrast between the two parties as we've seen in a generation."

"You have a Republican Party, and a presumptive Republican nominee, that believes in drastically rolling back environmental regulations, that believes in drastically rolling back collective-bargaining rights, that believes in an approach to deficit reduction in which taxes are cut further for the wealthiest Americans, and spending cuts are entirely borne by things like education or basic research or care for the vulnerable," Obama continued.

Obama rejected the idea that Romney would be able to disavow positions he's taken in the primary. "I don't think that their nominee is going to be able to suddenly say, 'Everything I've said for the last six months, I didn't mean.' I'm assuming that he meant it," he said. "When you're running for president, people are paying attention to what you're saying."

The notion that Romney would shift to the middle in the campaign was most famously espoused by his top adviser, Eric Fehrnstrom, who said that Romney's positions in the primary were as erasable as a drawing on an Etch a Sketch.

Romney already shifted his position on student loans, agreeing with Obama's push to extend federal interest rates at 3.4 percent after making the case in March that taxpayers should not subsidize loans at below-market rates. Rates are set to double to 6.8 percent in July.

Obama was asked about Romney Tuesday night in an interview with Jimmy Fallon. "I've met him, but we're not friends," he said. "His wife is lovely." He added that Romney was someone who "cares deeply about his family."

It was the magazine's fourth interview with Obama and lasted an hour.

Read the full interview here.

Jann Wenner, Rolling Stone
We arrived at the White House on Easter Monday, the South Lawn overrun by children and their parents enjoying the annual Easter Egg Roll. This was the fourth time in the past four years that we had sat down for an extensive interview with Barack Obama, but the tenor and timing were markedly different than the previous conversations. This time he was focused on the campaign, his thinking dominated by the upcoming battle for a second term.

Jonathan Chait, NY Magazine
Two constituencies that President Obama is holding onto about as strongly now as he did four years ago are voters under 30 and Latinos. In what is probably not a coincidence, these two constituencies are the targets for the first two major Mitt Romney Etch A Sketch pivots of the general election. After having repeatedly denounced any need for the federal government to subsidize tuition costs during the primary, Romney has now endorsed Obama's call for extending lower rates for federally-subsidized loans. Romney says he supports the measures "in part because of the...

Josh Kraushaar, NJ
In physics, every action produces an equal and opposite reaction. President Obama could learn a lesson from Sir Isaac Newton and understand that while his policies promoting fairness may poll well in a vacuum, they could strike at the heart of the upscale, well-educated group of supporters who fueled his victory four years ago.It’s easy to forget, now that Obama is preaching a populist message on the campaign trail, that a major part of his support came from the very 1 percent that he’s now calling on to pay their fair share in taxes.

Over the next several months the Supreme Court will hear arguments over Arizona's state-passed immigration law. Regardless of the outcome one thing should be very clear: the anti-immigrant movement has no long-term strategy to fix our broken immigration system. All these laws have done is create an environment which has stagnated conversation about repairing the systemic problems inherent in our non-functioning immigration system. The bottom line: state-passed laws by design cannot and will not ever reform an immigration system which needs a uniform overhaul from Congress.

Any law which seeks to fix the problems associated with undocumented immigration in our country must deal with three issues on a national scale: 1) how best to enforce our immigration laws; 2) how to deal with those undocumented immigrants currently here; and 3) create a process for moving future flows of legal immigration into and out of the country.

The Obama Administration has already made significant movement on the enforcement part of this strategy. Deportations are at a record high level and undocumented immigration into the country is at a net zero. Most importantly, between 2009 and 2010 for the first time in decades the undocumented population actually dropped, and has remained stagnant to date. In fact in a huge reversal, more Mexican undocumented migrants are leaving the country then are entering it. Despite the strides made, there are those who see state-passed immigration laws as a legitimate fix for our broken immigration system. Playing the devil's advocate, let us envision a scenario in which the Supreme Court upholds SB1070.

Using simple arithmetic, 36 of 51 states have attempted to pass anti-immigration laws similar to Arizona SB1070. However, only six of the thirty six proposals or around16% have actually passed. This suggests that even if the Supreme Court sets a precedent by finding these laws constitutional, it is highly unlikely that anything close to a majority of the states would pass their own immigration laws. Under this scenario removing immigrants currently in this country without documentation would be all but impossible.

A patchwork of state-passed immigration laws will not remove immigrants from the country. The evidence suggests it merely causes them to move from one state to another. Carrying this proposed scenario out further, if states were given constitutional authority to generate mass deportations or to implement a system which compels self-deportation, they would still be reliant on federal enforcement resources and financial support.

From a basic process standpoint states do not have the legal means or resources to deport immigrants. Deportations are a controlled process with specific and expensive steps which must be adhered to. States who attempt to deport on their own would find themselves in a morass of legal red tape coupled with staggering costs. It can cost anywhere from $12,500 to $23,480 to deport one immigrant. Estimates show that deporting the population of undocumented immigrants already in this country could cost as much as $285 billion.

A patchwork of state-passed immigration laws does nothing to fix the utterly broken process of legal immigration into the country. The majority of undocumented immigrants in the country are Visa overstays who came into the country legally. The number of immigrants who apply to come in legally far outnumbers the allocations for visas currently given. Even if possible, deporting all of the undocumented immigrants in the country would accomplish nothing, if the process of legally moving people into and out of the country is not fixed. On their own states simply cannot do this. Any scenario which finds state-passed immigration laws constitutional will only bring the country right back to where we are now, dealing with an immigration system that doesn't work.

The rise of the state-passed immigration movement has been an ideological dead end for the country and a stagnation of real conversation around reforming our current system. The Supreme Court case matters, not just because of the precedent it will set, but because upholding these laws would only give Congressional Republicans the ability to continue to shirk their duty to come to the table and fix our immigration system. Regardless of whether or not the Supreme Court strikes down some or all of SB1070, the inescapable fact remains, states individually will never be able to fix the larger problems associated with our immigration system. Most assuredly, with time the Court's decision will only reinforce a simple fact: the only entity that can fix the mess we are in is Congress.

ISLAMABAD, April 25 (Reuters) - Pakistan successfully test-fired a nuclear-capable ballistic missile on Wednesday, the military said, less than a week after rival India tested a missile capable of delivering nuclear warheads as far as Beijing and Eastern Europe.

Pakistan's Shaheen-1A is an intermediate range ballistic missile, capable of reaching targets in India. Military officials declined to specify the range of the missile.

The missile's impact point was in the Indian Ocean.

India and Pakistan have fought three full-scale wars since they were carved out of British India in 1947. They conduct missile tests regularly and inform each other in advance. (Reporting by Sheree Sardar and Qasim Nauman; Editing by Rebecca Conway and Robert Birsel)

Maureen Dowd, NY Times
Maybe we gave up on John Edwards too soon.His hair still looks great, even though he now gets cuts for $12.95, not $400.And the man clearly has a gift for multitasking under pressure.In the winter of 2007, as Edwards campaigned for the presidency in Iowa, he still found time to check up on his pregnant girlfriend, Rielle Hunter, who was on the lam with fall guy Andrew Young and his family, zooming around in private jets to luxe resorts and haciendas in Aspen, Santa Barbara and Florida.

Tim Alberta, National Journal
For the second time in as many weeks, President Obama on Tuesday made an overt attempt to contrast his humble beginnings and real-world struggles against the privileged life of Mitt Romney -- without actually mentioning the Republican nominee-in-waiting by name.Speaking to a boisterous throng of college students at the University of North Carolina, Obama argued for making college more affordable by extending a low interest rate on student loans set to expire this summer. Obama stressed that he understands the importance of the issue by reminding the collegiate crowd that he, too, needed...

Harold Meyerson, Washington Post
In the short term, the recovery looks shaky. In the long term, the economy looks shaky "” so shaky that it may be many years before a president of either party or any ideology can count on winning a second term.Polls show that President Obama's lead over Mitt Romney is narrowing, but should Obama lose in November the decisive factor won't be Romney (who is as inept a presidential candidate as this country has produced in decades). The real culprit will be the economy.

Nina Easton, Fortune
What if I told you that there was a group of hard-driving workaholics who tend to have advanced degrees and bring a level of talent and skill to their jobs that attracts premium pay in the global economy? Scholars have found that this group is more likely than much of the population to raise their children in two-parent homes.You might think this was a group people would admire, even emulate, right? Not so. For this is the much-maligned 1%, whose media infamy via the Occupy Wall Street protests, followed by President Obama's populist reelection message, is now firmly embedded in the...