New recipes

Apparently Hillary Clinton Didn’t Leave Anything in the Tip Jar at Chipotle

Apparently Hillary Clinton Didn’t Leave Anything in the Tip Jar at Chipotle


People were fascinated that Hillary Clinton went unnoticed on her New York Chipotle jaunt, but now managers say she did not tip

Is it a big deal that Hillary Clinton did not tip at Chipotle?

Hillary Clinton made waves this week when, shortly after her 2016 presidential campaign announcement, she took a trip to the Maumee, Ohio, Chipotle. Initially, the Twitterverse was baffled that no one recognized the well-known Democrat leader, but now, the manager at the Chipotle in question has admitted that not only did Clinton not pay for her own lunch (Huma Abedin, the vice chairwoman of her presidential campaign, took care of that), but she did not leave a tip in the tip jar.

The order, a chicken burrito bowl, chicken salad, blackberry Izzy, and a soda, came to $20, and Abedin left $21, which, last time we checked, totally counts as a tip.

"We get a bunch of tips," said manager Charles Wright, who only realized that the customer had been the presidential candidate after news organizations began calling, told Bloomberg, and later clarified that he didn’t care if she left a tip or not. “If we're doing our job right, people tip."

Talking head Rush Limbaugh was extremely interested in Clinton’s tipping habits, saying on his show, "That’s where the people that work at Chipotle, that's where they make a little extra, in the tip jar, and I haven't heard a word about whether or not she visited the tip jar, whether she put anything in it or not."


Questions For Hillary and Donald

The first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is Monday, September 26, at 9pm. Here are some questions I would like to ask both candidates:

Mrs. Clinton: On policy, do voters have any reason to think you won’t be serving President Obama’s third term?

Mr. Trump: Is it true—as one of your ex-wives has claimed—that you once kept a book of Hitler’s speeches as your bedside reading? If so, what did you learn from them?

Mrs. Clinton: You have said there is no conflict between your pledge to regulate big banks and the fact that you have received millions of dollars in speaking fees from those same banks. Do you truly not understand why many Americans cannot take your “tough on Wall Street” posture seriously?

Mr. Trump: You have praised President Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback,” which resulted in hundreds of U.S. citizens being illegally detained and deported because they were of Mexican descent. Do you also support President Roosevelt’s initiative to hold more than 100,000 U.S. citizens in internment camps because they were of Japanese descent?

Mrs. Clinton: You consider yourself a champion of the LGBT community. However, you publicly opposed full marriage rights for same-sex couples until March 2013—exactly one month after retiring as Secretary of State. When did you decide that gay people are equal to straight people with regards to marriage, and did it ever cross your mind that supporting marriage equality as America’s chief diplomat might have been helpful to the LGBT community?

Mr. Trump: Earlier this year, you suggested that any woman who has had an abortion should be punished in some way. Do you still think that today? If not, what made you change your mind?

Mrs. Clinton: You have expressed regret for saying that one-half of Trump’s supporters constitute a “basket of deplorables.” Upon reflection, what do you believe the true figure to be, and how will you win the trust of those people once in office?

Mr. Trump: When physical violence erupted at several of your campaign rallies, you lamented how such clashes don’t happen more often, saying, “Nobody wants to hurt each other anymore.” How do you reconcile this philosophy with your pledge to bring “law and order” to America’s most violent cities?

Mrs. Clinton: Why do you think you lost the 2008 Democratic primaries to Barack Obama? If you lose the 2016 election to Trump, do you think it will be for the same reasons?

Mr. Trump: In an interview, you claimed to be a highly religious person on the grounds that many evangelical Christians support you. Are you religious in any other respect?

Mrs. Clinton: If it were politically feasible, would you repeal the Second Amendment?

Mr. Trump: You have disavowed the support of former KKK grand wizard David Duke. Is there anything you two actually disagree about?

Mrs. Clinton: Are you ever concerned about your propensity for appearing to have violated the law, even when, in fact, you haven’t? Whom do you most blame for this perception—the voters or yourself?

Mr. Trump: If a poll came out tomorrow saying that a majority of your supporters now oppose building a wall along the Mexican border, would you drop the whole idea and never mention it again?

Mrs. Clinton: You have said you regret using a private e-mail server because of all the trouble it has caused your campaign. Is that the only reason for your regret?

Mr. Trump: You say you have a plan to defeat ISIS, but you intend to keep it a secret until after you win the election. If Clinton wins instead, are you going to keep it a secret from her as well?

Mrs. Clinton: Is there any major issue about which you think the majority of the public is dead wrong? If so, have you ever said so in public?

Mr. Trump: In your convention speech, you said, “Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.” If that’s the case, why didn’t you run in 2012? Or 2008? Or 2004?

Mrs. Clinton: During the primaries, you opposed Bernie Sanders’s plan to make all public colleges tuition-free, arguing it would just be too darned expensive. If you believed, in 2003, that it was worth funding the Iraq War with money we didn’t have, why doesn’t the same standard apply to higher education?

Mr. Trump: You once said, “I know more about ISIS than the generals do.” Where did you come by this information and why haven’t you shared it with the generals?

Mrs. Clinton: In recently hacked e-mails, Colin Powell wrote of you, “Everything [she] touches she kind of screws up with hubris.” Did it surprise you to read this?

Mr. Trump: The screenwriter of the Back of the Future movies recently revealed that the character Biff Tannen was largely based on you. Do you take this as a compliment?

Mrs. Clinton: Have you ever consciously lied to the American people? If so, why?

Mr. Trump: Based on how casually and frequently you have completely reversed your position on one issue after another, why should anyone believe a single word you say?

Mrs. Clinton: When you entered this race, did it ever occur to you that you might lose?

Mr. Trump: When you entered this race, did it ever occur to you that you might win?


The Case for Trump

I’ve had a personal Twitter account since December 2009, and possibly the single finest tweet that has come across my feed in that time—by a user named “God,” no less—reads as follows: “In an ideal scenario the President of the United States and the worst human being in the world would be two different people.”

True enough. Unfortunately, since January 20, 2017, we have not been living in an ideal scenario. Whether Donald Trump is, in fact, the single most execrable person on Earth is a matter of anyone’s opinion, but surely the fact that such a thing is arguable is not a terribly hopeful sign for the future of American democracy.

On the eve of a presidential election in which Trump is asking us to return him to office for another four-year term, the more pertinent question concerns not his character, but his actual record. History has shown that one needn’t be a saint to be a great leader—and vice versa—and it is thus sometimes necessary to separate one from the other in order to make an objective assessment of a chief executive’s time in office.

While outfits like the New York Times have already followed the lead of millions of angry, disgusted citizens in proclaiming, “Mr. Trump stands without any real rivals as the worst American president in modern history,” I find myself in accord with historian Michael Beschloss, who has long cautioned that one should wait at least 20 years before making anything close to a final judgement of a president’s legacy. As Beschloss points out, you can’t know the full impact of most executive actions until you give them enough space to play themselves out, which they often do in surprising and counterintuitive ways. As another historian, Joseph Ellis, likes to say about the American Revolution, “No event […] which was so improbable at the time has seemed so inevitable in retrospect.”

Accordingly, while my current views on Donald Trump’s rule are both firm and strongly-held, I will resist the Times-like temptation for broad, sweeping declarations about the 45 th president’s place in history, such as it is. At this tentative and highly tenuous juncture in the space-time continuum, there’s just too much I don’t know.

Here’s what I do know: In the course of even the most boring four years in the Oval Office, thousands upon thousands of decisions are made that directly affect the lives of millions (if not billions) of people. And just as an infinite number of monkeys strapped to an infinite number of typewriters will eventually reproduce Henry V, even the worst American presidents manage to do something laudable every now and again.

In what may well be Trump’s final week as a non-lame duck, allow me to put in a brief word for plausibly the one aspect of his job that he has handled reasonably well: foreign policy.

To be clear, I am not referring here to Trump’s alarming obsequiousness toward virtually every autocrat and would-be dictator on planet Earth, nor to his petulant, insane hostility toward America’s friends and allies, whose support he needs far more than he ever seems to realize.

What I mean is simply this: Should he leave office on January 20, with no big surprises between now and then, Trump will be the first commander-in-chief in this century not to involve the United States in a major military intervention with a country that poses no particular threat to our national security interests. He will, in effect, have been a peacetime president.

I’m no foreign policy savant, nor frankly do I much care what happens beyond our borders, if I can avoid it. Nonetheless, having seen a parade of leaders in both Congress and the White House operating on the unspoken—and unchallenged—assumption that, on non-domestic matters, a show of overwhelming force is the solution to almost every problem, I cannot help but admire anyone in a position of authority who looks upon military interventionism with extreme skepticism, if not outright contempt.

Throughout the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump voiced unequivocal disapproval of George W. Bush’s bloody initiatives in the Middle East, calling them stupid and wasteful and vowing no such democracy-building exercises on his watch. Thus far, he has been relatively true to his word, which is more than could be said of his immediate predecessor, Barack Obama, who made roughly the same anti-war pledge in 2008 yet ended up expanding the American footprint in the Arab world—particularly in Libya—while failing to withdraw fully from either Afghanistan or Iraq, as he promised to do over and over again.

Say what you will about Trump’s unilateral orders to assassinate Iranian major general Qasem Soleimani or ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, but they were certainly cheaper and less deadly than a Bush-like ground invasion would have been. Jeer all you like about his seemingly futile courting of North Korea’s Kim Jong-un through a mixture of mine-is-bigger-than-yours tough talk and “love letter” diplomacy, but the overtures stand as a singularly bold and noble attempt at rapprochement with a rogue regime—one armed with nuclear weapons, mind you—that has vexed every American administration since its modern founding in 1948.

Even on the Russia question—about which our leader’s motivations will always and forever be suspect—I have no particular objection to the notion that two longtime adversaries can’t forge a working, semi-normalized relationship for the sake of regional stability in a chaotic world, whatever moral compromises might be required along the way.

Call me naïve. Call me ill-informed. But in a 21 st century that has already seen the United States overextend itself in one misbegotten misadventure after another, there are things far more objectionable than an American president who is profoundly reluctant to commit both his nation’s troops and his own reputation toward yet another experiment in bringing democracy to a country that hasn’t even thought to ask for it.

Indeed, if we’ve learned anything truly unexpected about Donald Trump since January 2017, it’s that, for all his bluster at campaign rallies and on Twitter, he is, in fact, highly averse to direct confrontation and constitutionally incapable of assuming personal responsibility for anything. Taken together, these truths add up to the most anti-war president we could possibly hope to have in this unstable, hawkish world, and we just might miss that small piece of him when he’s gone.

As I said, this is but one issue among many. On balance, I would not wish four more years of Donald Trump on my worst enemy.

However, were a case to be made that Trump is not the worst American president of all time—nor, perhaps, of the last 20 years—it would posit that the most lasting damage he has wrought has been confined to our own borders—not the borders of other nations—and that the beauty of American carnage is that it can be repaired by other Americans, starting with the one who just might be elected the 46 th president some nine days from now.


Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Why Now For The 'Clinton Cash' Book?

Whether accurate or not, the new book titled 'Clinton Cash' paints the picture of a family involved a lot of potentially shady and perhaps(?) quid-pro-quo deals while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Deals involving wealthy foreigners, foreign companies, and countries that contributed to the Clinton Foundation. Supporters of Bill and Hillary are quick to point out that the book was written by former Bush speechwriter Peter Schweizer as the reason to believe its just another "political hit" job by a biased GOP writer. Thus, we are not supposed to trust even a single word that appears in that book.

But, the possibility that it may be a "political hit" job leads us to a very interesting question: Why now? We are months away from the nomination and more than a year away from the November 2016 Presidential election. Why not hold the book until just before the election where it could do some real political damage to Hillary? That, of course, assumes she will be the Democrat nominee.

I personally think that the book's current release has the sole intended purpose of hurting Hillary so much that she won't receive the nomination. I believe that there are some in the Republican party who believe she is unbeatable because of her being a woman and that many Americans feel it is time for the first woman President. Also, many believe she should have beaten Obama in 2008. Thus, this book is a defensive move to insure someone else jumps into the race and wins the nomination. Just my opinion.


Hillary Clinton arrives in Iowa: Fawning media go wild

Will former secretary of state ever face tough questions?

This is a rush transcript from "The Five," April 14, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

ERIC BOLLING, CO-HOST: Hello, everyone. I'm Eric Bolling along with Kimberly Guilfoyle, Julie Roginsky, Dana Perino and Greg Gutfeld. It's 5 o'clock in New York City and this is "The Five."

Hillary Clinton, woman of the people has been road tripping across America in a Scooby van for a couple of days. Lots of pit stops for the former first lady who hasn't driven since the '90s, she grab a snack at Chipotle but, didn't take time to say hello or take a picture with any of the people, none of the folks. She grabbed the masala chai tea and caramel latte at a coffee shop, and this afternoon her limo, I mean, Scooby van finally rolled into Iowa, and the press is really, really excited.

ALEX SEITZ-WALD, POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: And the Scooby van is coming up right here, right behind our camera, here it is. There she goes and secret service following behind her. OK, they're going around to the back, so we're not going to -- you can see the media running behind me here to chase the Scooby van.

THOMAS ROBERTS, MSNBC ANCHOR: Wow.

WALD: She's going around to the back.

WALS: All right, we'll see -- we'll see her very soon.

ROBERTS: Guy in the orange pants is pretty quick. Alex, I mean, I'm looking at these people -- wow. All right now, orange pants, he's really outnumbered now.

BOLLING: So why does Hillary actually want to be president? Here's why.

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: I'm running for president because I think that Americans and their families need a champion. I want to be the champion who goes to bat (ph) for Americans in four big areas, four big fights that I think we have to take on, because there are those who don't agree with what I think we should be doing and they're pretty powerful forces. We need to build the economy of tomorrow, not yesterday. We need to strengthen families and communities, because that's where it all starts. We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment. And we need to protect our country from the threats that we see and the ones that are on the horizon.

BOLLING: We apologize for that, for that extended sound on tape. Greg, you want to take the media following your comments (ph)?

GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: Yeah, yeah. OK. There's so many interesting elements here, first of all, going into Chipotle that strikes me as a bit selfish, who decides to order a bean dish on a bus tour?

GUTFELD: That is a spying night space. The rule on any bus tour, the gas remains in the tank.

(LAUGHTER) GUTFELD: I knew she wanted to run. But I didn't know she wanted to get the runs. But afterwards --

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, CO-HOST: So glad, you're into this.

GUTFELD: Afterward, she did go to get ice cream. It was self serving.

GUTFELD: But OK, enough of the bad jokes. You're right. Watching those reporters chase her, it was like little, they were little kids going after the ice cream truck. They're treating Hillary Clinton like a sighting a big foot, or Elvis in a pantsuit. It's like, oh my God, there she is. Because, because she's organized it that way. She has organize herself as a recluse and, and like everyone when you see her, she pops up out of nowhere. It's like oh my God, it's the Obamanable (ph) snowman.

BOLLING: And then she chose an auto mechanic shop for her first announcement. For her first moment --

DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: It was a garage.

BOLLING: In the garage -- but she --

PERINO: The cleanest garage ever.

BOLLING: Hasn't driven in 20 years.

GUILFOYLE: I don't know. Everybody needs a little jiffy lube every once in a while to get this campaign off to the right start. But I mean this makes no sense to me, I thought I was watching one of the (inaudible) cartoon, like the Scooby van. Does the Scooby van come with Scooby snacks too? Because they are delicious. I don't get it. What is she doing? Because we're all laughing and then the reporters are running and there's a guy like the orange pants making a jailbreak. Is this a real presidential campaign, or is this Saturday Night Live?

BOLLING: I don't know -- honestly --

PERINO: I feel bad for the reporters, OK? Because it's not their fault. The editors and the producers that are sending them after her, it is their fault. These reporters have worked really hard. They are excited to be on the presidential campaign.

GUILFOYLE: Yeah. God bless them.

PERINO: They probably were told if you don't get a picture of her in the Scooby van, you're going to get fired. I think that producers and editors should take a moment and realize -- do you want to have your people chasing her around like this, because she bought a burrito? Or, make her come to you.

GUILFOYLE: Where was campaign Carl? Was he in that throng?

BOLLING: He was like no, I'm not --

BOLLING: Are you kidding me?

GUTFELD: I'm not doing any of that stuff.

BOLLING: So Julie, the Scooby van that looks more like a limo, honestly does. The announcement going --

JULIE ROGINSKY, CO-HOST: Well, well, I'm sorry --

BOLLING: Going in the mechanic stuff --

ROGINSKY: Do this (inaudible).

BOLLING: No, I wouldn't call it a Scooby -- she's the one who chose Scooby van.

ROGINSKY: Why just chose like neon, like (inaudible) and Volkswagen van.

BOLLING: Look at it. She just said -- this is my bus ride or my van ride across -- the Scooby van -- and then the masala -- the masala chai tea and the caramel latte. Is there anything authentic about this woman at all?

ROGINSKY: What's wrong with that masala chai tea?

BOLLING: I just -- because that's --

GUILFOYLE: No, I heard Oprah's fact (ph). Oprah said it was delicious.

BOLLING: She claims to be one of the people.

BOLLING: She claims to be one of the regular folks. What about what she unrolled today, was like the regular folks?

ROGINSKY: Well, you can't blame her because she had a burrito and a masala chai tea, expect for the fact that those don't go really well together.

ROGINSKY: That is a bad combo. But what's wrong with her having a tea.

BOLLING: If you go out to the audience in out of the -- let's say the audience is a pie, what slice of the pie had a burrito and a masala chai tea today?

ROGINSKY: A burrito probably 90 --

BOLLING: I said both. I said both (inaudible)

BOLLING: All right. So day one was all about Hillary Clinton burrito poll - -

GUILFOYLE: That was a powerful question.

BOLLING: Or we could, we could roll the Marco Rubio sound, sound on tape. Do we have the Hillary burrito sot? Go ahead. Roll it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right boys. Let's stop in here for a second. I'm a little parched from the jog.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sir, we've only been jogging for three blocks.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Besides, Mrs. Clinton asked us not to let you get anymore fast food places.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I just want to mingle with the American people. Talk to some real folks. Maybe get a diet coke or something.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, fine. But please, don't tell Mrs. Clinton.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jim, let me tell you something. There's going to be a whole bunch of things we don't tell Mrs. Clinton.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fast food is the least of our worries. OK, buddy.

BOLLING: Well, completely -- that wasn't today --

GUILFOYLE: That was awesome.

BOLLING: Or last night. But this was --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She was wearing sunglasses and no one recognized her. Clinton is on a two-day stealth (ph) road trip traveling in this black van. Security camera video of her ordering a chicken bowl of guacamole at a Chipotle outside Toledo tantalizing hints of a seemingly, carefree jaunt from the Clinton state in Chappaqua across key battleground states.

MARK HALPERIN, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST FOR TIME MAGAZINE: Part of why yesterday was successful is, she looks like she's having fun and she's doing for her new stuff. We've never seen her get a burrito before.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That exactly what --

ROGINSKY: I can't. I can't. GUILFOYLE: Oh my, God.

PERINO: It was -- it was Mark Halperin just kidding?

ROGINSKY: She was doing new stuff. We have never seen her get a burrito before. Therefore, she's clearly never had a burrito, because her entire life, she it lives in the Mark Halperin fishbowl where he watches what she eats on a daily basis. Since he has never seen her have a burrito, clearly she's doing new stuff for herself. She has never had a burrito. What is that?

BOLLING: That's news to the MSNBC.

ROGINSKY: That is -- he works for Bloomberg. He works for a respected news organization. That is amazing to me that comment was made. It's just incredible.

GUTFELD: It's interesting. Hillary had a burrito bowl and Marco has a bowl cut.

ROGINSKY: You are obsessed with Marco Rubio's hair.

GUILFOYLE: Stop with Marco's hair.

BOLLING: Do I say -- all right, OK. So look, it's all about health. Michelle Obama is all about health. This Chipotle chicken burrito bowl --

BOLLING: At Chipotle with the guacamole -- with the salsa and the -- I believe it was black beans. I don't think it was pinto beans.

BOLLING: And some chips. It's approaching 2,000 calories.

PERINO: It's ridiculous in Mark Halperin.

GUILFOYLE: I'm the wrong person to ask about that.

BOLLING: That simply saying --

GUILFOYLE: Because I call that, Tuesday.

BOLLING: Michelle would say, wouldn't she say keep the calorie content down? It supposedly to have 2000 calories a day.

ROGINSKY: If she were a guy, if she were a guy, she ordered that. Would you be saying that?

BOLLING: Because I wouldn't. I would never --

PERINO: Yes, because you are not El Gordo y la Flaca (ph).

GUTFELD: I was going to say that.

BOLLING: OK. I see how this going to go.

PERINO: You can't make fun of what she's eating calorie wise. I mean, just like cut that out like your whole like thing.

BOLLING: I wasn't making fun. I was simply stating fact.

GUILFOYLE: The point is that's healthy.

BOLLING: How about some of these numbers.

GUILFOYLE: With beans and rice (inaudible) her or meals. Let's do it.

BOLLING: How about some of these numbers?

BOLLING: $2.5 million -- $2.5 billion she's going to spend on this campaign, which comes to more than double what Obama -- the prior record spending on a presidential campaign was.

BOLLING: It's like $37 dollars probably.

PERINO: Because she's got this much money to spend and she doesn't even have any primary opponent to spend it against. So, I mean, the reporters that are assign to cover the Hillary Clinton campaign are going to probably have to do a lot of this, chasing her down to where she's going to talk to every day Americans. Because there is really -- what else does Hillary Clinton need to do? She doesn't have to convince here the Democrats, so she can just sit in the backseat. That's one of a reason I was surprised that she jumped in as early as she did. They must be so worried about her poll numbers slipping in those -- in those states like Florida, Virginia, Colorado and Iowa that they felt they needed to get her out there but I don't -- look, this is just her first day. They're having --

PERINO: They are having fun.

GUILFOYLE: What she should have picked up the bill for everybody at Chipotle. That's what I would have done.

GUILFOYLE: Put your bills on me.

PERINO: If your whole point is to go out and see every day America, why do you go into Chipotle looking like Kim Kardashian with your aid behind dark glasses so that no one will recognize you? Isn't the whole point to get there and say --

PERINO: Hi. And if they don't know who you are say, I'm Hillary Clinton. I'm running for president. I would love your vote.

GUILFOYLE: She like Darth Vader.

BOLLING: Breakout the saxophone and then --

GUTFELD: Is that what he calls it?

ROGINSKY: Well, but two, two point about something. One is (inaudible) reference.

ROGINSKY: Kimberly Guilfoyle deserves all the credit.

GUILFOYLE: Then he got back.

ROGINSKY: Then he got back.

ROGINSKY: Secondly, to Dana's point look, I think she does have to convince Democrats. There's --

ROGINSKY: We had a poll out the other day saying the vast majority of Democrats want her to have a primary. Democrats are not sold on a coronation of Hillary Clinton as their nominee. They're going to get --

PERINO: But what is their option?

ROGINSKY: There is no option. They're going to get behind her --

PERINO: Why does she have to do anything?

PERINO: To go to the convention. Even if it's lackluster support, she still gets the nomination.

ROGINSKY: Because she needs the enthusiasm gap to be diminished. She needs Democrats to come out.

BOLLING: I want to turn to Rubio in a second, but all his supple, it was almost comical circus like atmosphere in Iowa, does it overshadow Rubio's announcement?

GUTFELD: No, I don't think so, because we have so much time to fill. That's why this is happening.

GUTFELD: We will run anything. We -- if she gets a burrito, we're going to talk about it. If Rubio gets a haircut, we're going to talk about it. If Joe Biden gets a prostate exam, we'll be right there up close.

ROGINSKY: If Rubio gets a haircut, you'll be talking about it. This is like your fetish.

PERINO: I think Rush Limbaugh had a good point today. He said that maybe we should just ignore Hillary Clinton.

GUILFOYLE: And then he also said do they have a thing in a tip jar.

GUILFOYLE: Well there's a tip jar.

PERINO: Do they have a tip jar at Chipotle?

BOLLING: I don't know if they do, they might not.

BOLLING: All right. Turning to another --

BOLLING: Throwing his ad in the 2016 ring --

BOLLING: Senator Marco Rubio delivered a passionate speech announcing his candidacy last night. A well received message. Here's a clip.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: Too many of our leaders and their ideas are stuck in the 20th century. They are busy looking backwards. Our country has always been about the future. That is why tonight, grounded by the lessons of our history, but inspired by the promise of our future, I announce my candidacy for president of the United States.

RUBIO: But I have a debt to America, must try to repay. This isn't just the country where I was born. America is literally the place that changed my family's history. To succeed on this journey, I will need your prayers and your support and ultimately your vote.

BOLLING: And a few moments later, the senator sat down with Sean Hannity for a chat. Sean asked about his relationship with fellow Floridian and likely presidential hopeful, Jeb Bush.

SEAN HANNITY, THE HANNITY SHOW HOST: I noticed the media has been trying to pit you against Jeb Bush. Some recent headlines petting locals to pick what sides, they are forcing locals to pick sides at odds with his mentor.

RUBIO: I consider him a friend. That he's someone I admire and respect. I'm not running against Jeb Bush if he decides to run. I'm running because I believe I'm the right person at the right time for this country.

BOLLING: Dana -- good answer.

PERINO: Yeah, so he is just some Marco Rubio exceeded expectations that were already high for him. And he had a great rollout. He liked like he was comfortable and having fun. I love the picture with his family and that really was the contrast you know. Last week, when people said oh no, Hillary Clinton is going to step all over Marco Rubio's announcement on Monday and, I thought the opposite. That he would be able show something different, new, exciting brush and I thought he had an excellent first day.

ROGINSKY: I thought he did well. But you know Marco Rubio has got a problem, which is that he's got a Jeb Bush problem and that's not to see if one is going to want to talk about it. He and Jeb Bush are over Florida which is a huge state and a big state in the Republican primary. And so whenever I hear his comparisons to Barack Obama and how he's the new Obama, he's not willing astern. Well to some extent, but Obama wasn't offending (ph) with anybody over Illinois. Obama also consolidated African-American community behind him. Marco Rubio has a long way to go before he consolidates the Latino community behind him and a primary -- primary or a general election. That's the problem with that.

PERINO: It shows something about Hillary Clinton's candidacy that being from Illinois, she actually -- he actually didn't have any competition in Illinois when he ran against Hillary Clinton --

GUTFELD: Yeah, and -- wait. There is a parallel. You know, Obama, they chose Obama over Hillary.

GUTFELD: Which the -- which was the dynasty -- correct. I mean, the party did.

GUTFELD: The party overall.

GUTFELD: She was expecting to get that and they gave it to Obama instead.

GUTFELD: What's kind of what's happening?

BOLLING: K.G. your thoughts. He did well.

GUILFOYLE: Yeah. I thought he did fantastic. It was a great when I -- when I saw him and I listened to him speak and you saw the crowd and the rhetoric and the emotion of his delivery, he was presidential to me. And I like the juxtaposition with Hillary, because he brought it and she was scooping (ph) around, I don't know. It's just didn't seem, she just -- it fell short. It was bizarre. The glasses, reporters chasing, one seems ready for primetime and the other one was just was not.

PERINO: Yeah, why then - this is one of the things about Hillary Clinton's campaign. So, they do this very safe structured video on Sunday, and instead of letting that be the only thing that reporters had to use.

PERINO: On a day like today, we actually now have video of the silly Chipotle thing, the chasing of the Scooby van and again, as the contrast -- I think that, in some ways her campaign is over thinking things, but they're also under thinking things because, they are just not being very specific.

BOLLING: The best money can buy?

GUTFELD: She doesn't need a lot.

GUTFELD: Look, she's like -- she's like a one hit wonder. She's going to play, I am woman, until your ears bleed. Because the fact is, if you look at the response from the celebrities on Twitter, that's all they really want.

GUTFELD: That's all they are saying is that, I'm voting you because you are a woman, which is amazing.

GUILFOYLE: She doesn't care.

GUTFELD: Yeah. But that's what --

GUTFELD: That all she's got right now.

ROGINSKY: But I disagree. If she had state home after that video and done nothing? People would have said oh, she's too good to be going out. They're meeting the voters --

ROGINSKY: She had to (inaudible) voters.

BOLLING: She could have done this --

PERINO: Well, they could have done better.

BOLLING: They could have done it any time.

GUTFELD: But we are not talking about e-mails.

ROGINSKY: She could have done it after the kick off.

BOLLING: That's a good point.

GUILFOYLE: It just seems cartoonist.

GUILFOYLE: With Marco Rubio.

BOLLING: OK. Let's leave it right there. Senate committee votes to advance a bill that will give Congress a say before making a final deal with Iran. But will the president sign that? Next.

PERINO: Senate Foreign Relations Committee reached a bipartisan compromise this morning on a bill that would give Congress a say on a deal on with Iran. In this afternoon, the panel voted unanimously to advance. The White House said the president is not thrilled with the measure, but indicated he would be willing to sign it.

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We've gone from a peace legislation that the president would veto to a peace legislation that's undergone -- that's undergone substantial revision, such that it is now in a form of a compromise that the president would be willing to sign. That would certainly be an improvement.

(END VIDEO CLIP) PERINO: So based on my experience, Eric, when a situation like this happens, where the president says you -- I will not sign it. And then the Congress tweaks a little something and the president says, I'm not happy about it, but I'm signing it, then the president is pretty happy that he got what he needed.

BOLLING: He got what he wants. The question is what is, what is the president going to see? What is Congress going to see if? Because the deal that they - that they presented us is far different from the deal at the Ayatollah has told the Iranian people they have. Specifically, what I am saying since when the sanctions start, but more importantly on inspection. The biggest difference between the two is, the Ayatollah has told his people that Americans or international inspectors will not inspect any of the enrichment facilities that are military run.

BOLLING: Now we said all of them. They told us every single facility that's under -- in this deal will be inspected on a regular basis and whenever we want to inspect it. He carved out the military use, very, very different, for me that would be a deal breaker. So what they going to say? Congress is going to get a deal. I think we going to see the deal that we saw the five- page thing that we saw? Because that's not what the other side thinks they have. I would -- seriously push back on any deal with them.

PERINO: All right. I think -- but I do think that both -- and this also gives Congress the ability to say to their constituents, we were concerned, we passed a bill. The president signed it and we get to have a say. That's what on at Thom Friedman, he was at.

PERINO: Morning Joe. And he was talking about how the president has a different perspective than anybody else and therefore is superior.

THOMAS FRIEDMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: Obama is someone who lived broad, maybe more than any president a long time. And because of that, he actually knows what America looks like from the outside-in. And he can actually see America, even to some point from the Iranian perspective. Obama can actually walk in another man's shoes.

PERINO: What do you think of that, Greg?

GUTFELD: Yeah -- oh my goodness. He's not the outside are looking in, it's the people that he hung around with. When he hears death to America, all he hears is oh, yeah, Reverend Wright. He used to say that all the time. It has nothing to do with him being outside the United States and that's what the education that he had within. So that's a bunch of baloney.

PERINO: OK. Do you want to add anything else?

GUTFELD: Shall I talk about the missiles?

PERINO: Yes. Well, let me set it up for you. So --

PERINO: So, and I want to get to K.G. and Julie. What -- yesterday --

PERINO: Russia announced that it is going to be selling a surface to air missile system to Iran.

GUTFELD: These are basically the guard dogs for the nukes, right?

GUTFELD: So now (inaudible) it makes it harder for you to go in and bomb them. So basically, the reset button just hopped on a jet, put on a burka and flew to Iran. This was not supposed to happen. And this is another thing that's going to come up for Hilary in the debate.

PERINO: So Remember, one of the first and this is adding onto that, Kimberly.

PERINO: One of the first things President Obama did is cancel the European defense -- missile defense shield. Remember, he called up in the middle -- they have to call the Polish ambassador in the middle of the night. Say -- the president is about to basically cancel the missile defense shield. That was their -- their concern was about Iran and possibly Russia. Now you have Russia and Iran working together to protect Iran.

GUILFOYLE: Yeah. I mean look, it's getting very complicated but it is very clear for someone like Putin, right? He knows exactly where he stands and loves poking the cage with Obama and to say OK, let's have some fun now. This situation has gone from bad to worse. I don't know who can say that at this point, but you've got like Obama and Kerry driving the bus like blindfolded backwards and there's this like crashing and burning and seeming to laugh all the way, like they're on laughing gas. This isn't diplomacy. This isn't smart foreign policy. This does not benefit the United States national security.

PERINO: Julie, here's the question if I were going to be moderating in the debate, and I will not be, that's why I will do it here.

PERINO: I would ask Hillary Clinton this. In the past six years, have you been better off if you were a friend to America or a friend to Russia?

ROGINSKY: What is your question?

ROGINSKY: Well, if you're a friend to Russia, you're probably not getting as much foreign aid as you would have in the past, to the fact that --

PERINO: For military support.

ROGINSKY: We have sanctioned them and we have -- thanks to oil prices going down. But I will also say this, look, on this whole Iran deal, I kind of want to take a wait and see approach. You're right. That the Ayatollah said one thing and we're hearing something different, but it's going to be in writing eventually, it could happens at all, right? But June 30th or somewhere around that time, we'll have something potentially in writing. And either they abide by it or they don't abide by it, if they abide by it, great. If they don't abide by it, slap sanctions on them and look at all options including military options. But I -- you know, this whole rush to judgment until we actually see what is going on right now, to me is troubling to me, because we have to --

BOLLING: But what do you see it, Julie.

BOLLING: I mean we saw a five page coming out saying that every single enrichment facility will be inspected. On our terms not on Iran's terms, and the Iranians have told us specifically, they're carving out some for military purpose and, and some of them will be inspected on their terms.

ROGINSKY: As I said, let's look and see what the final agreement is like. And then if we don't like it, look its three months right? Two months, not even three months. Let's see what it's like, and if we don't like it, we go back to the drawing board.

ROGINSKY: It's one way to avoid work. That's the only option we've got.

GUTFELD: No, it's not. It's not. The rush to judgment is a natural response to a rush to negotiation. He seems to be -- President Obama seems to be the massive hurry to help, help shore up his legacy. Why can't we be in a rush to judge? He's -- like a dumb husband who comes home from a casino, telling his wife that he did well because they only lost half their savings.

GUTFELD: I mean, everything that -- we're not getting anything out of this.

ROGINSKY: We're not? Hopefully we're going to get.

ROGINSKY: Where there are not going to have a military capability --

PERINO: If I were -- if I were in the White House speech office, I would read Brett Stevens today, in the Wall Street Journal in his column. He suggests that language that President Obama could give about this deal that will be intellectually honest and at least tell us what we're really getting. OK. Ahead, instead of standing in solidarity with the victims of the Charlie Hebdo terror attack, the creator of a comic strip, Doonesbury blames them for it. That's next.

GUTFELD: "Doonesbury" creator Gary Trudeau accepted a lifetime achievement award for drawing terrible cartoons embraced by fans of kale. But at the George Polk Journalism Awards on Friday, he said that the cartoons by the "Charlie Hebdo" staff, who were murdered by radical Muslims, quote, "wandered into the realm of hate speech."

He added that free speech has become its own fanaticism. Need I remind you, this was actually at a journalism function.

But I guess it's easy for him to say. When was the last time Gary ever upset anyone? This twerp has been a beneficiary of left-wing welfare forever, cultivating his career by parroting every progressive trope. He's as safe as milk.

What a contrast to the dead cartoonists. The fact is, "Doonesbury" was as funny as head lice. But it never had to be, as long as self-conscious liberals got their assumptions coddled.

Here are three comic strips funnier than "Doonesbury": "Cathy".

GUTFELD: Yes. "Family Circus."

GUTFELD: And, of course, "Mary Worth."

GUTFELD: Trudeau said the French cartoons bordered on hate speech. Thanks to the creation of that phrase, "hate speech," so-called defenders of free speech now have a way out of defending free speech. Because now, ripping Islam is like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Funny how Gary never felt that way about anti-Christian smears.

Trudeau is a true Islamophobe, for he holds Islam to a lower standard than the rest of us do. To him, his French peers asked for their murders. Maybe they should have just bravely mocked Republicans instead.

Dana, I remember many years ago, you were the suggest of a weeklong "Doonesbury" attack.

PERINO: Something like that.

GUTFELD: That's brave. I think it was brave that he went after you.

GUTFELD: You're not going to cut his head off.

PERINO: I'm a soft target, that's for sure.

PERINO: I can't remember -- I think he was -- I think he was pretty much making fun of me, but I don't remember it being terrible. And I considered it an honor that I must be irritating them on some level.

GUTFELD: But I think it's incredibly fearless of him to go after you.

GUTFELD: Yes. That is amazing.

PERINO: It's not like I'm running and chopping anyone's head off.

BOLLING: What was he going after you for?

PERINO: Who knows? I worked for the Bush administration. He didn't need an excuse.

GUTFELD: Yes. Eric, is this -- it's hypocritical. Not surprising?

BOLLING: I think you nailed it. How many years has he been doing it? For ever long he's been doing it.

BOLLING: Who syndicates him? It's been a boring cartoon for 20 years, as long as I've known. I don't even read it anymore. But I would think that every cartoonist, every political cartoonist, especially, would get behind the "Charlie Hebdo" people, whether you believe in their ideology or not. No matter where you are on Islam. It's not even about that. It's about free speech First Amendment, free speech and the stifling of that should just drive anyone crazy.

BOLLING: He didn't have the guts to do it.

GUTFELD: Here's his defense, Julie. That you should punch up and not punch down, and he felt that criticizing radical Islam is punching down. But I would think punching up is going after somebody who could kill you.

ROGINSKY: Punching up is Dana Perino, I guess. Is that it?

PERINO: It's not bigotry. It's punching down.

ROGINSKY: Look, I agree with you, and I think -- I'm very concerned about this whole hate speech thing, because I think it prevents free speech. And one person's hate speech is not another person's hate speech. It's a subjective term.

And to me, the whole issue of "hate speech," quote/unquote -- and there are certain things that people say that we all find offensive, but you're allowed to say it. You should always be allowed to say it. The Ku Klux Klan should be allowed to march down the street, although it offends everybody. The -- you know, you should.

BOLLING: Westborough Baptist Church.

ROGINSKY: Westborough Baptist Church, on public property -- I hate to say this -- should be allowed to protest. They should be -- anybody should be able to do what they want to do as part of free speech. And when you start getting.

GUILFOYLE: Well, there's limits. Constitutional and otherwise.

ROGINSKY: Correct. But not this. This is not a limit. Right?

GUILFOYLE: You're not allowed to threaten people's lives or threaten to kill them or, you know, terrorist threats and whatnot.

GUTFELD: Which they didn't do.

ROGINSKY: But -- right, but saying something that somebody finds offensive is your right to do as part of the First Amendment. They're French, obviously. I don't know what their amendments are. Or whether they have the same rights (ph) we do.

PERINO: Their (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

ROGINSKY: But -- yes. But I think in this country, at least, you should be able to say whatever you want and not get in trouble for it.

GUILFOYLE: Yes, I agree. I don't think this was an, you know, award- winning moment for him. He had an opportunity to say something courageous and make a positive impact. And instead he looked small and cowardly.

PERINO: He probably thought it was a good idea when the administration made up that lie about the Benghazi video.

PERINO: And arrested the guy in the middle of the night.

PERINO: No one in Hollywood stepped up.

GUTFELD: It's the same kind of thinking.

OK. Coming up on "The Five," breaking news on the world's highest paid supermodel. That's me. Oh, no, it's Gisele. She's making big changes to her career. She's moving out. Kimberly will fill us in ahead.

GUILFOYLE: Well, it's been exactly one year since Boko Haram terrorists kidnapped nearly 300 schoolgirls in Nigeria. After the schoolgirls were abducted, a social media campaign erupted, with people like Michelle Obama, Rihanna, and Ellen DeGeneres holding up signs with the hash tag #BringBackOurGirls. But 365 days later, more than 200 of those young women remain missing.

Nothing like follow-through, is there, Dana?

PERINO: It's very disturbing to me that there are so many major atrocities that happen in Africa that do not get the kind of coverage that they deserve. So for example, we were wall-to-wall coverage in America, not just at this channel, but everywhere, after the "Charlie Hebdo" attacks.

The Nigerian situation with the girls, 200 girls the Kenyan situation, which was over 150 Christians that were murdered at a university and in Sudan, the atrocities that continue. We haven't even mentioned Congo. It goes on and on. And I think part of that is that it is so overwhelming it is hard to describe it. And we also don't have that many reporters there like we used to. The reporters that are there are stretched very thin, and we could use more of them to help us tell these stories.

GUILFOYLE: Yes. I mean, it's very troubling. I'm sure as a woman, thinking about this, these young girls and who's looking for them, who's trying to help them, Eric.

BOLLING: So the hashtag foreign policy or hashtag diplomacy apparently doesn't work. The theory was that, if you put it out there from the White House, and the hashtag got retweeted and seen by enough people, there would be a social push to make change. But that's not happening. It doesn't even happen here, let alone in Africa or anywhere else.

People read -- play on Twitter, and they talk. And they talk a big game, and they very rarely engage. They very rarely get off the couch and actually do something about it. They can throw a lot of tweets up there. They can get involved and be all, you know, vehement about their outrage. But to actually get up and do something is rare.

PERINO: Can I just say we have sent Special Forces to Nigeria work with Nigerian officials against Boko Haram and had some success. But limited enough that it's not really worth talking about yet. But they're trying. But they still don't have a read on where these girls are.

GUILFOYLE: Yes, well, I mean, hopefully, we can do something else, you know, to help them. You know, I'm a mother. You're a mother. This is heart-wrenching when you think about the families with their young girls out there. God knows the atrocities that are being committed against them.

ROGINSKY: It is absolutely heart-wrenching. And Dana, I know you've spent time in Africa. I have too. And I don't know if anybody else her has. But when you see how little some of these families have to do -- have to have, and how very little they have to get by, but they're so family focused. I mean, these kids walk literally miles and miles and miles to either get to a school or to get to a water source or anywhere else, under brutal conditions in open fields and God only knows. You're ripe for the picking by anybody.

When you think about how protective we are about our own kids here and how open they are as a society and welcoming and kind and generous and warm, and that people just take advantage of that. And it's horrific. It's horrible.

GUILFOYLE: Well, now activists are using the new slogan "never to be forgotten."

GUTFELD: This -- the real issue here, aside from the atrocity of it all, it reflects the destructive consequences of symbolic action.

GUTFELD: Symbolic action, which is a hashtag tweet, actually feels as though you are doing something, so that you can actually walk away without ever doing something. Symbolism replaces actual action.

This is why, when people are doing charities on Twitter, people will retweet your charity without ever contributing, and it actually hurts your charity, because people feel, "Hey, I just did this." That is what you're seeing right now. Because whenever it does "Oh, this is terrible. This is terrible." Tweet. That's an achievement. That actually means nothing.

But then that leads to the bigger question. If I as a person condemn or reject symbolic action, then I must be for real action, in which America should actually go there and erase Boko Haram from the planet without apology, risk American lives and then reject the idea that conflating moral action with expansionism. Because that to me is a grave cop-out. We are not expanding. We are going to rid the world of evil, or else we are just guilty of ocean privilege. That we're far away, so who cares?

PERINO: In this particular case, however, I do think there is a United States national securities imperative. And that is because Boko Haram and ISIS have tried to link up.

PERINO: . make a partnership and an alliance. And so I think that there is a -- you could actually make a case for having more U.S. involvement.

PERINO: . to try to help them to ward off that possible connection.

GUILFOYLE: She's right. And now there's no excuse to not get involved and do something and be very proactive. I mean, it definitely is in our national security interests.

GUTFELD: We live in a world now where we cannot look away from things. The world is now literally a phone book. I mean, not literally. But it's a phone booth. We can see everything. We can't escape atrocity. It's in our face.

ROGINSKY: I agree. But I mean, and it's horrible. But atrocity is everywhere, and that's the problem. There's so many atrocious acts taking place on every continent in this world that at which point do you just stop and say, "Oh, my goodness"? Not any -- no nation, nobody on its own could ever do anything to fix it.

GUTFELD: However, we focus so much on marginal things.

PERINO: But you know, climate change.

GUTFELD: We spend days talking about a conflict between Christian bakers and gay couples. Nobody's getting killed in that. There are no children are being raped. But we spend a lot of time talking about that stuff.

ROGINSKY: Well, we spend a lot of time talking about Kim Kardashian.

ROGINSKY: More importantly, and no children except for her own are getting hurt in that. But you know, yes.

GUTFELD: She's doing some good work.

GUILFOYLE: OK. Coming up, a mother who admits she has a favorite child, and she doesn't feel guilty about it, next.

ROGINSKY: Is it OK for a parent to have a favorite child? I do, and he's a little 10-year-old Chihuahua. His mother of two from.

ROGINSKY: I'm just kidding. A mother from Oregon readily admits she does: her 3-year-old daughter.

LAUREN HARTMANN, BLOGGER/WARDROBE STYLIST: There's something so special about your first child. We really had a strong bond. It feels awful to think, oh, could I have a favorite? It doesn't mean that I don't love my son just as much. I love them both.

But I have had more time to get to know her, and to develop that bond, and my bond with my son is going to grow.

During the teenage years when my daughter is maybe really challenging and emotional, I might find myself gravitating towards my son. Relationships just are ever changing. And I feel like children are no exception to that.

ROGINSKY: Woo. Someone is going to be saving up for therapy bills for her son one day soon.

GUILFOYLE: It's so rude, right? That's then going to be on the Internet forever. I mean, friends are going to make fun of the kid. It's like, what's wrong with you?

BOLLING: What happened to little Timmy? Let's look back.

BOLLING: Here he is on ABC.

ROGINSKY: I am an only child, and I only have one child, and he probably will be an only child. So clearly, my parents created me and felt no need to ever go any further for a variety of reasons. But Kimberly, you've got a brother.

ROGINSKY: And does your mom, did you ever feel like somebody played favorites? Or what was going on there?

GUILFOYLE: I -- I think I was the favorite. I mean, right?

GUILFOYLE: OK, I will say this, my mother was super close with my brother.

GUILFOYLE: . I would say, for sure. Because he was, like, the little one, the munchkin. And I -- because I'm self-contained, take care of myself, do my thing. But I was probably, for sure, daddy's girl.

But I mean, look, I have one child, Ronan. I picked him, not my dog Bella. Note, Julie. You picked the Chihuahua.

ROGINSKY: My dog Grimace is awesome, but I do love my son a little more. But OK.

GUILFOYLE: But I would never say. I mean, how can you pick and choose, and why would you ever put it on tape and memorialize it? Imaging, lawsuit.

ROGINSKY: So all of us are totally unqualified to talk about this, because we only have only children. Right? You've only got one son.

ROGINSKY: But you had a sister, right?

BOLLING: Right. Right, right. But I'm Italian. My mom was Italian, so I was the favorite.

PERINO: Wow. This explains a lot.

ROGINSKY: And Greg, you have three older sisters. So I feel like your parents probably kept trying until they got the boy they wanted. Right?

GUTFELD: Perhaps. You know, I don't have real children. But I have seven life-sized dolls that I have suspended in any game room. And I do have a favorite. It looks like Brian Kilmeade, because it is Brian Kilmeade.

This article is a symbol of the modern selfish jerk. The woman's desire to publish a provocative piece exceeded the decency of her not hurting her other child. So I hope the article is worth it for her. She got a week of Twitter and Facebook, and she's on shows. That's what it's about.

PERINO: Yes. I have to tell you, like.

BOLLING: Can I just add this? Lou Dobbs just e-mailed. He's like, "What about me?"

GUTFELD: Oh, yes. Lou, see you tonight, hot tub.

GUILFOYLE: You know, poor Lou Dobbs. He's a sensible man, and you just disparaged him. Although Lou.

GUTFELD: That's his nickname.

GUILFOYLE: . controlled water is the way to go, Lou. Bubbles on low. Lights. Champagne on ice.

ROGINSKY: Dana, I feel like -- you raise a good point, Dana, because here you've got -- there goes the hot tub Lou Dobbs thing that's going on in my head right now, while I try to focus on the subject.

ROGINSKY: Which is I do feel that people are getting a little out of control. What is with the oversharing? Why would you do this to your child?

PERINO: Also, like, bring back our journalism. This is.

GUILFOYLE: That's a different show, Dana.

PERINO: It seems to me like it was a producer in search of a story. Like I think that you could have just easily gone past this and said, "Let's do a story about Nigerian kidnappings."

ROGINSKY: Are you talking about our producers picking this topic?

GUILFOYLE: Dana's a little more highbrow.

PERINO: I always felt like my parents thought my sister was the favorite, but she was my favorite, too. But then I asked my mom that today, and she said, "No, you were both my favorites. "

GUTFELD: But see, you're more famous than your sister, so you can -- you can call her and go, "Ha, ha, ha, you were mom's favorite, but look at me. I'm on TV" and then hang up.

PERINO: She -- one time we were at my mom's party, her 60th party, birthday, and my sister live in Denver, and I walked in afterwards. And she and I heard this older lady say, "Oh," about my sister. She said, "Oh, she's the other sister."

PERINO: That's what we call Angie.

ROGINSKY: "One More Thing" is up next.

GUILFOYLE: Call her after the show, please.

BOLLING: Time for "One More Thing," and Greg kick it off.

GUTFELD: Greg's Secret to Happiness.

GUTFELD: All right. Big secret to happiness, if -- even if you think you're going to win, assume you're going to lose, because if you don't, you might just lose.

Take -- I can't say this guy's name.

GUTFELD: This guy. They can't hear me now.

GUTFELD: See what happened was he started celebrating. He thought he was going to win. The other guy said "ha" and ran past him and beat him.

The great thing is they're now living together in Vermont. I'm joking. I don't really know who these people are. They're University of Colorado steeplechase or something. I'm not into sports.

BOLLING: Steeplechase. All right, good.

GUTFELD: It's a steeplechase runner. It's right here, people.

ROGINSKY: Where's the steeple?

BOLLING: And where are the horses?

GUILFOYLE: Open it up, and see all the people.

PERINO: Yes, I can. I had a great night last night. I got invited to an amazing dinner.

PERINO: . by -- no, this is Dana Perino's kind of good night.

PERINO: I got invited by "Glamour" magazine to where they were honoring their top ten college women. They are amazing. Here they are at the event last night.

If you go to -- pick up this month's issue of "Glamour" or go to Glamour.com and read about these top ten college women. They have achieved so much. They're very young, bright, exciting people that are doing things like bringing CFL light bulbs to a nonprofit called Brighter Today in the Philippines, in India. They are doing things that most people -- they're doing things by 20 that most people never do in their lifetimes. It was so inspiring, and I really appreciated the invitation.

BOLLING: Awesome stuff, D.P. All right, K.G., you're up.

GUILFOYLE: "Glamour's" great about women's issues.

GUILFOYLE: And about young girls.

OK. So tonight I'm going to be in for Greta, "On the Record." And Greta traveled to Michigan on Sunday and Monday and interviewed the parents of our Marine held in Iran. And it's a very compelling story. The father has brain cancer and wants to see his son before he dies. So hopefully, we can help make that happen. And we're going to take you inside the 2016 race.

And in other news, we have some news from Brazilian supermodel -- Eric, you've been really following this closely, Gisele Bundchen, who is retiring from the catwalk next week. She is not leaving Tom Brady, as you were hoping. Two decade-long career, very successful businesswoman and supermodel. And I'm sure many will be sorry to see her go. She will just be performing for Tom Brady now.

BOLLING: She's not leaving, though. Right? She's not leaving the country?

GUTFELD: She's waiting in my car.

BOLLING: With Dobbs. In a hot tub.

OK. Can we do this very quickly?

ROGINSKY: With Dobbs in a hot tub? Is that what you said?

BOLLING: Yes, Greg's hot tub with Dobbs and whatever.

CampusReform.org found out that 22 states have colleges where illegals get instate tuition. Watch what happens when they talk to kids who are paying full tuition out of state. Watch.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You could save $80,000 on your education.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, my gosh. Really?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That would be amazing.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So in order to do that, you would have to give up your U.S. citizenship to be an undocumented student, and then you'd be eligible to pay in-state tuition in Maryland. Is that something you'd be willing to consider?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I guess so.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We have Social Security cards. Would you be willing to sign your name on it? And then.

BOLLING: OK, Jules, you're up.

ROGINSKY: All right. So have you ever gone to a website, and the link is really bad? Hillary Clinton obviously is planning for that for her website. Look at HillaryClinton.com. You go to that website and there's a bad link, look what pops up. A picture of her, Donald Duck, little Chelsea and Bill Clinton in his Bubba days at Arkansas.

PERINO: I bet that that was planned.

ROGINSKY: I'm sure it was planned, but it's still pretty funny. Come on.

BOLLING: All right. We're got to go. That's it. "Special Report" next.

Content and Programming Copyright 2015 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2015 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.


Questions To Ponder

There is a lot going on, but rather than add my two cents to all that is out there, I would rather toss out some food for thought.

Posit: The government that governs best, governs least. What, therefore, is the ideal amount and type of government? What is essential to providing the guarantee of contracts (which is a/the core function of government) between individuals?

Posit: Key to the Libertarian view is the idea that the ultimate property right is control of one’s own body and life. Two questions for the day. What are the reasonable limits, if any, on this right in regards governance and society? What limits, if any, are there on defense of that life and those rights if threatened physically or politically?


Yes, "The Clintons Have Been Disorganized and Greedy," But the Republicans Are Still "the Stupid Party"

There's no question that Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations—perhaps expectations is the better word—are in serious trouble. Even before this week's bombshells about loosey-goosey relations between Clinton, her family's Global Initiative, and various far-flung autocrats, there was precious little "Hillary Fever" in the air. Last summer's book tour for her ironically titled Hard Choices was a flop, the only millennial who seems to care about her is her daughter (who's on the family payroll), and her recent trip to Chipotle was a bust.

No wonder her campaign is stammering over the allegations, as outlined in The New York Times and elsewhere, in Peter Schweizer's forthcoming Clinton Cash book.

Think of it this way: Clinton still won't say whether she'd vote for the Keystone XL Pipeline, a project that's been talked to death since the Rutherford B. Hayes administration. She's on a "listening tour" of America because she's only been on the national stage since the early 1990s and needs to get out to, what, "touch Indians" like Albert Brooks in Lost in America or see the real America like Billy and Wyatt in Easy Rider? If memory serves, neither of those pictures ended well for their protagonists.

Sure, part of what she is doing is what Politico's Jack Shafer calls "unrunning" for president. Given her lack of serious competition within the Democratic Party and a pandemic of chronic fatigue syndrome with her family (really, can't Roger Clinton drop in from his never-ending tour of North Korea to change up the storyline a bit?), Clinton really can't start any sort of serious pressing of the flesh for months or maybe even until early next year.

Yet things are so bad that even reliable Democratic partisans in the press such as New York's Jonathan Chait are writing thing such as this:

The best-case scenario is bad enough: The Clintons have been disorganized and greedy.

Indeed. About the only thing missing so far is a cameo appearance of Sandy Berger stuffing uranium in his socks (you can almost hear him bluster in his defense: "Sorry, I thought they were classified documents").

The Clinton campaign is batting down the darkest and most conspiratorial interpretation of these stories, and where this all leads remains to be seen. But the most positive interpretation is not exactly good.

When you are a power couple consisting of a former president and a current secretary of State and likely presidential candidate, you have the ability to raise a lot of money for charitable purposes that can do a lot of good. But some of the potential sources of donations will be looking to get something in return for their money other than moral satisfaction or the chance to hobnob with celebrities. Some of them want preferential treatment from the State Department, and others want access to a potential future Clinton administration. To run a private operation where Bill Clinton will deliver a speech for a (huge) fee and a charity that raises money from some of the same clients is a difficult situation to navigate. To overlay that fraught situation onto Hillary's ongoing and likely future government service makes it all much harder….

The Obama administration wanted Hillary Clinton to use official government email. She didn't. The Obama administration also demanded that the Clinton Foundation disclose all its donors while she served as Secretary of State. It didn't comply with that request, either.

That's from somebody who wants a Democrat, any Democrat, to win over any Republican in 2016.

I think it's far from clear what the ultimate damage to Hillary Clinton will be. Yes, it all looks awful and for most people simply having to deal with the fallout and recriminations from real and imagined sins and crimes for the rest of your public life would be enough to toss in your badge and retire to a remote mountaintop somewhere.

But the Clintons aren't most people and if the last time one of them was president is any indication, Hillary is uniquely equipped to live with a neverending, ongoing set of "scandals" that would fell virtually any other candidiate.

As Charles Paul Freund wrote in the April 2000 cover story for Reason, "Secrets of the Clinton Spectacle,"

How did [Bill Clinton] do it? How did he keep rising from the mat to revel in high public opinion numbers?… Clinton ignored traditional Washington wisdom for dealing with exploding scandal and instead used the capital's notorious scandal machine against itself. Scandal is unlikely ever to be the same. Bill Clinton's long-sought Legacy turns out to be a guide on how to rise from the dead.

Lest we forget, Bill Clinton is every bit as much invested in seeing his wife become president as she is. This is a guy who wants it all, baby, and what could be more incredible from a historical perspective than his wife becoming the first presidential spouse to occupy the Oval Office and the first female president? It should surprise no one if Hillary Clinton not only survives all this but flourishes despite an absolutely abysmal record as secretary of state, a so-so record as a senator, and a checkered, unconvincing record as a best-selling "author."

What I'm at least as interested in is how the emerging Clinton scandal—remember, Schweizer's book isn't on sale until early May—Republican presidential hopefuls respond to this opening.

At least since the 2000 campaign, when George W. Bush squeaked into office with an affirmative vision of a "humble foreign policy" and the promise of "compassionate conservatism," it has been years since the Republican Party's nominee has offered up any sort of positive, sweeping vision for the country. Running on the anti-terror status quo and free money for seniors, as Bush did in 2004, or simply as anti-Democrats, as John McCain and Mitt Romney did in 2008 and 2012, isn't enough to get the country's backing (as Matt Welch likes to point out, while railing against out of control spending, Romney refused to name a single significant program he would cut, a reluctance re-enacted by John Boehner just weeks before he assumed the speakership in 2011). Perhaps it's because it fashions itself as the party of the religious, but the GOP seems to always rely on the political equivalent of Hail Mary passes (anyone else remember Bob Dole's sad declaration that he would only serve one term if elected in 1996?). Some terrible revelation, or a tide of disgust with the Democrats, or a late-breaking news story, will fell the Democrats rather than a serious discussion of the country's finances and special interests. What do you know? Sometimes that works out just swell for Republicans.

But disliking the team in office isn't affirmation. As J.D. Tuccille noted here a couple of days ago, just 3 percent of Americans trust the government to do the right thing "just about always." Another 20 percent trust the government "most of the time." Republicans would do well to treat the latest Clinton scandal as a gift to serious political discourse, but not as a sign that they will take the White House no matter what (remember guys, your party was a shoo-in in 2012).

The early stages of the Republican race for the White House have been incredibly disappointing to date, with virtually all of the announced and unannounced candidates sounding like mimeographed copies of one another. With the exception of Sen. Rand Paul, who sounds seriously different notes on foreign policy, privacy, civil liberties, and, for the most part, overall levels of speding, none of the "top tier" candidates has advanced much beyond the "I'm not Obama and I pledge to be even tougher on defense than the president who bombed Libya, threatened to bomb Syria, and brought us back to Iraq." Beyond failing to advance true alternatives to Obamacare—indeed, the GOP Senate leadership is pushing to maintain health-care exchange subsidies through 2017 no matter what the Supreme Court decides this year—the Republican Party has been content to capitalize on the long, slow collapse of the Democratic Party under Barack Obama.

That's enough to win Congressional majorities and historic levels of state legislatures. But it won't be enough to win the White House in 2016 and, far more importantly, it won't be enough to move America forward into the 21st century. What's needed now more than ever is a governing vision that accords with the growing libertarian sensibilities of the country—record levels of people want a government that does less in the economic and moral spheres—not the go-to Republican response of, "Hey, we're not the other guy."


Cruz Out of Control

Is it just me, or is Ted Cruz the most transparently cynical politician on planet Earth?

In the interest of charity, let’s say it’s just me. After all, there are plenty of cynical people in politics, and picking out the cynical-est of them all is a bit like choosing which Oscar nominee is the most Caucasian: In the end, why not just call it a tie?

Yet it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that, even among the most craven of presidential contenders, the junior senator from Texas is in a league all his own. While this has been true from the moment he appeared on the scene, his steady ascension in the polls has made his abject wretchedness a matter of national concern.

Indeed, the sheer chutzpah infused in every sentence that comes out of Cruz’s mouth is a wonder to behold, as you realize we’re dealing with someone who will say and do just about anything to become the next Republican nominee—and, presumably, the next president—and who apparently has no understanding of the word “shame.”

If we wanted to be succinct about this, we could merely cite his recent Duck Dynasty-themed TV ad and call it a day. (Seriously, how many hours were devoted to that face paint?) Or we could revisit that time he cooked bacon by wrapping it around the muzzle of a machine gun and firing away. (No, dear reader, that moment was not a hallucination.)

Truly, in the realm of primary season pandering, Cruz is a visionary and a prophet. You sense that if he could win 15 more votes by skinning a live raccoon and wearing its carcass as a hat, he would do so without a moment’s pause—with a big, fat smile on his face.

Which brings us to the $1.6 billion question: Is Ted Cruz as stupid as he looks?

Answer: Absolutely not. A graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law and a nationally-recognized debater at both, Cruz is arguably the most intellectually formidable person in the GOP field, capable of processing complex ideas in ways that most other public figures don’t even attempt. If you’re a Republican voter who values smarts above all else, Ted is most assuredly your man.

Herein lies the paradox and the punch line, which is that Cruz’s long-term electoral success depends almost entirely on garnering the support of idiots—folks who, at best, don’t give a rat’s ass about a fancy Ivy League education and, at worst, are openly contemptuous of those who have one.

Cruz understands as well as anybody that his only hope of winning the nomination is by pretending to be a total dunderhead, and damned if he isn’t giving it the old college try. He is not going to let a little thing like dignity get in the way of becoming the most powerful man on Earth.

In this sense, Cruz doesn’t employ cynicism so much as he embodies it. While the word “cynicism” has been used rather haphazardly in our public discourse over the years, it can best be defined here as purposefully saying something false in the understanding that your audience is too dumb to know the difference.

Up to now, Donald Trump’s birtherism has arguably been the gold standard on this front. From the beginning, Trump knew perfectly well that Barack Obama was born in the United States and was constitutionally qualified to be president. And yet, once he made the calculation (rather brilliantly, I must say) that there were enough ignorant rubes with whom he could build a base of support for his eventual foray into politics, he embraced the “Obama was secretly born in Kenya” conspiracy theory whole hog and—presto chango!—he is now the most popular Republican in U.S. politics.

Into this deranged, noxious atmosphere, Ted Cruz materialized last fall with possibly the most cynical public pose of all: Embracing Trump as a swell guy with a lot of really good points.

Recall, if you will, that while Trump was inexplicably rising in stature with one galling, infantile comment after another, all of his GOP counterparts denounced and distanced themselves from him—except for Ted Cruz. As Trump was called a “blowhard” by Jeb Bush and a “buffoon” by Rand Paul, Cruz all but linked arms with the Donald, insisting that the latter had his finger to the GOP winds and should not be so quickly discounted as some kind of unhinged carnival barker (thank you, Martin O’Malley).

Politically, it was a bold move for Cruz to align himself with a man with no apparent moral compass—someone willing to alienate virtually every racial and ethnic group in America as a means of taking over the GOP. Like Trump himself, Cruz wagered that there were enough bigots and paranoids in the electorate to comprise a plurality of Republican primary voters, and that if those fine, upstanding citizens ever soured on Trump, why shouldn’t Cruz position himself as their next-best bet?

It seemed like an insane gambit at the time: Trump was clearly a disaster waiting to happen and who in his right mind would tag along with that?

As it turned out—in a predictably unpredictable manner—Cruz’s low opinion of Republican voters proved 100 percent accurate, and he has benefitted from their credulity every step of the way. While Trump remains as admired as ever, Cruz is in the best possible position to absorb Trump voters in the event of a flameout. For Cruz, short of actually being in the lead, everything has gone precisely according to plan.

In the past few days, of course, all hell has broken loose as the unofficial détente between Trump and Cruz has officially come to an end. Suddenly vulnerable, Trump has begun treating Cruz as disrespectfully as all his other rivals, while Cruz has finally—finally!—hinted as to what he really thinks about his party’s bully-in-chief.

While I haven’t the slightest idea how the average Republican primary voter is taking this drastic turn of events, I think I speak for most leftists and other non-Republicans in calling this the most entertaining clash of the entire 2016 race. All presidential campaigning is crack to political junkies, but Trump v. Cruz is a veritable eight ball of excitement, and it’s going to produce one hell of a hangover when all is said and done.

Why is this fight different from all other fights? Easy: Because neither fighter has the slightest shred of integrity or self-awareness and—perhaps not coincidentally—both are born showmen and narcissists concerned with the fortunes of no one but themselves.

To wit: When Trump was exchanging insults with, say, Jeb Bush, the tiff was implicitly a battle between lunacy and reason, with Bush assuming the mantle of the latter as an antidote to the former.

Against Cruz, the rules of engagement have managed to achieve an added level of ridiculousness, as neither man has the faintest interest in moderation, decorum or intellectual coherence. By every known account, Ted Cruz is the most personally unpleasant member of the U.S. Senate, particularly among those in his own party. It might seem odd that a man of such intelligence and education would be so detested by his fellow Republicans—that is, until you realize that he channels every modicum of his rhetorical gifts to advance his own selfish interests (read: being elected president), often in the most heavy-handed and theatrical way possible.

Indeed, we can’t know whether Cruz means a word of what he says, because—much like Trump—every syllable is uttered entirely for effect, without regard for the consequences of turning those words into actions.

Lately, for instance, Cruz has mused about “carpet bomb[ing] ISIS into oblivion,” partly to find out “if sand can glow in the dark.” While we have all expressed such sentiments about how we would personally handle terrorism—typically in a college dorm at 4 o’clock in the morning after 10 or 12 drinks—to hear a sober grown-up say them in the middle of the afternoon—well, it’s a bit like those closet cases who are little too effusive about how much they love women. There is a whiff of phoniness and overcompensation in the air.

Except that doesn’t matter with Cruz, because his target audience is precisely the sort of gang that eats that stuff up and thinks all problems can be solved with apocalyptic violence. Since Trump’s attitude on this is virtually identical to Cruz’s (on ISIS: “I would bomb the shit out of them”), their matchup is destined to be the most childish, petty and substance-free contest in memory, and there may not be enough popcorn to get us through it. (At least not after we leave Iowa.)

It was Andrew Sullivan in 2009 who said the Republican Party would get worse before it gets better, but I think even he didn’t foresee just how completely the GOP would disintegrate into nihilism and self-parody. How even its highest-achieving thinkers would appeal to the lowest common denominator.

At that point, you’ll recall, Sarah Palin was the party’s great shining star—an ideological demagogue who, on the basis of her syntax, was every bit as dumb as she appeared. How interesting, then, that the current war for the nomination is between two demagogues who, by their backgrounds, are perfectly capable of enlightened, serious leadership but, because of what their party has become, have no plausible route to success except through cynicism and bombast.


Drunk Crue vs. Sober Crue

In the early '80s, there was no band more notoriously hard-partying than Motley Crue, much to the chagrin of their manager Doc McGhee. Their destructive, drug-addled ways were and are well-known, but McGhee put life on the road with Crue into hilarious focus during an interview on the Talk is Jericho podcast: "They were more like a gang than a band," he explained. "You apologized every day. We got thrown out of every hotel with them. . We had to put up $15,000 in cash just to get into a Howard Johnson's." He even described an incident in which the band was booted from their hotel after brawling with none other than Van Halen. (In the latter's defense, an unidentified crew member started it by biting Eddie.) But these days, the Crue aren't so much rowdy as they are a royal pain in the keister for venues.

Among the standard, still-excessive rock star requirements for backstage amenities, the Crue requires that each venue have on hand the location of any AA meetings taking place in the area since the boys are now mostly sober. But their newfound sobriety doesn't mean they don't know how to have fun: among their other requests are a jar of peanut butter (creamy, please), a jar of Grey Poupon mustard, a sub-machine gun, and a 12-foot boa constrictor. You know, the usual stuff.


Bill Clinton's media defense violent assault on free speech

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: On the BuzzMeter this Sunday, Hillary Clinton stays silent as her aides denounce accusations involving her family foundation while Bill Clinton plays defense with a carefully choreographed NBC interview in Africa.

FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: In a very deliberate attempt to take the foundation down. And there is almost no new fact that's known now that wasn't known when she ran for President for the first time.

KURTZ: But there are plenty of facts and allegations only just emerging about favor-seeking with his wife's department and speaking fees to the former president. How long can Hillary Clinton duck the media?

The Republican presidential field doubles as two former Fox News contributors, Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina jump into the race.

RON FOURNIER, NATIONAL JOURNAL: All three of these people are once very serious men and women who are selling themselves out for speaking fees and cable contracts.

KURTZ: And the media dismissing them as hopeless long shots.

Two terrorists are killed as they attack an anti-Islamic Muhammad art contest in Texas and some pundits blame the group itself.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, 'HARDBALL' HOST: I wonder whether this group that held this event down there, to basically disparage and make fun of the prophet Muhammad, does it someway cause these events.

THOMAS ROBERTS, 'MSNBC LIVE': Did they get exactly what they want by drawing out people that would incite violence?

KURTZ: But aren't offensive groups, especially offensive groups, entitled to free speech?

Plus, "Deflate Gate" is back. Tom Brady awkwardly ducking questions after the NFL says that he and the New England Patriots weren't telling the truth about tampering with footballs for the A.F.C. Championship. Should the media now brand Brady as a cheater? I'm Howard Kurtz and this is "MediaBuzz."

NBC's Cynthia McFadden accompanied Bill Clinton to Nairobi, where the backdrop for their Today show interview was groups of poor black children being helped by the Clinton foundation. The Former President deflecting her questions about donations from foreign governments and why the organization now accepts cash from only six Western countries.

CLINTON: Absolutely not. It's an acknowledgement that we're going through, come as close as we can during her Presidential campaign to following the rules that we followed when she became Secretary of State.

KURTZ: What about the money going directly into Clinton's pocket?

CYNTHIA MCFADDEN, NBC NEWS: Americans look and say, $500,000 for a speech?

CLINTON: Well, why shouldn't every -- it's the most independence I can get. And I have turned down a lot of them. If I think there's something wrong with them, I don't take it. And I do disclose who gave it to me, so people can make up their own mind.

MCFADDEN: She's now running for President, will you continue to give speeches?

CLINTON: Oh, yeah, I've got to pay our bills.

KURTZ: Joining us now to analyze the coverage, Matt Lewis, Senior Contributor at the Daily Caller, Christina Bellantoni, Editor-in-Chief of Roll Call and Michael Tomasky, columnist for the Daily Beast.

Matt Lewis, Bill Clinton comes out and answers some questions about the foundation. Why are the media beating him up?

MATT LEWIS, THE DAILY CALLER SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR: The guys got to pay his bills, let's be honest. No, look, I think, clearly, this was a public relations effort to talk about the good work that I'm sure the foundation does do. A wellness trip but that's not really point. Nobody holds a gun to your head and tells you to run for president, but when you do it, scrutiny follows and there are a lot of things happening with the Clintons that looks fishy. And I think it would be entirely appropriate to say, look, if my wife is going to run for President, I'm going to step down from the foundation, we're not going to take anymore foreign donations. I think that -- what the media would probably expect as being appropriate for him to do.

KURTZ: What do you make of the way that the interview was carefully staged in Africa with that backdrop and how did Cynthia McFadden do in her questions to the former President?

CHRISTINA BELLANTONI, ROLL CALL EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Well, you're going to expect an interview like that when you can get such an incredible access? In the television business, pictures tell a thousand words. And it is very important for the Clintons the frame the way that this is shaped. He's also on the cover of some magazine. I thought the airport couple days ago giving philanthropy magazine, this is how they're going to do it. And don't forget a lot of that footage of the people they're helping, when they talked about the children getting hearing aids for the first time, you're going to see that in campaign ads too. They're going to talk about the good things this foundation has been able to do to try and deflect any criticism.

KURTZ: And Cynthia McFadden and her questions?

BELLANTONI: I thought she did all right in the circumstances and standing in the middle of this backdrop. It's a hard interview to do. You're not in a controlled studio environment and the way they set it up, it was also pretty clear that she couldn't ask everything the she could possibly ask.

KURTZ: I think they were undoubtedly time limits though I don't know that for a fact. I was also struck, Michael Tomasky, by the "I Got to pay our Bills" question. We're talking about speeches, $500,000 a pop, as much as. Did that strike a discordant note in that interview?

MICHAEL TOMASKY, THE DAILY BEAST SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Most definitely. And I don't think we're going to be hearing him use that sentence again. Look, I have written and I think, that they need to be more transparent here and need to be more dramatic about announcing some new sets of rules that they're going to follow during her candidacy and her during her presidency, if she is President. So I think all of that is certainly fair. At the same time, Dylan Byers had a sentence this week in a piece he wrote for Politico, and Dylan Byers is I think a pretty reliable barometer of the thinking of media here in Washington. And his sentence said the media is primed to take the Clintons down. Not primed to investigate or primed to rake over the coals, primed to take down.

KURTZ: You agree with that?

KURTZ: All right. We'll come back to that. But Bill Clinton also answered questions about the foundation in an interview with CNN's Christian Amanpour. Let's take a look at that.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN: Did any of those donations ever affect Secretary Clinton's policy?

CLINTON: No. She didn't know about a lot of them, so, there's just no evidence -- even the guy that wrote the book, apparently, had to admit under questioning that he didn't have a shred of evidence for this, he just sort of thought he would throw it out there and see if it would fly.

KURTZ: What do you make to have Bill Clinton saying that the author of "Clinton cash," Peter Schweitzer, admitting he had no evidence. What do you make of that shot?

LEWIS: This is right out of the Clinton playbook, 101. What did James Carville say -- you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park, you never know what you're going to come up with. That's how you handle scandal. It's to attack the attacker, the messenger in this case, the author. I think that Peter Schweitzer has been very clear that there are a lot of things in this book that lead you to believe that something unseemly, untoward is happening. There is no smoking gun and the Clintons are great at not leaving smoking guns behind.

KURTZ: I had Peter Schweitzer on this program last week and he acknowledged that he doesn't have a smoking gun, but he lays out a circumstantial case about big money and donors and speaking fees and then you have to connect the dots. It's not the same thing as saying he has no facts.

BELLANTONI: No it's certainly not. This is going to be a systemic bit of evidence that you're going see used against Hillary Clinton from the beginning of this campaign to whenever it ends. You know, if she ends up in the White House, you're going to continue to see people lay out these facts, talk about different relationships that the Clinton foundation has. It's not just about giving money, it's a about the types of interactions that there are and the Clintons are going to combat that, look at all the great things that we did and look at what she did as secretary of state and these things are very separate. But the point is we all know it's about perceptions. And if you tell a government in Oman or Saudi Arabia or wherever, we're not going to take your donations until eight years after she's in the White House, that doesn't mean that you might not have influence there.

KURTZ: Politico had an interesting piece about the Hillary war room and the way it conducted this plan to campaign woods to combat the book, Clinton cash, knowing it was coming out. According to Politico, the campaign acquired an early copy and leaked chapters to selected journalists so they wouldn't have the whole picture. Is that fair play? Was that effective?

TOMASKY: It was somewhat effective. I think their pushback on this book was reasonably effective. And it's not showing up in the polls. I saw this poll, 10 percent of people think there's a quid pro quo problem here. That even leaves out a lot of Conservatives.

KURTZ: And maybe more interesting polls that I saw was -- because we live in a media bubble to some degree, and because we're talking about this all the time, 52 percent of Democrats, ok, Democrats, are pathetic to Hillary, obviously, know very little or nothing about the Clinton foundation. What do you make of Michael raising the question of whether or not, not just of the media playing an aggressive role, asking questions, that I think we all would agree are legitimate questions about the big money sloshing through the Clinton foundation, and what the people expect in return but trying to take the Clintons down.

TOMASKY: I think there's something to that. Look Barack Obama got a pass from the media for most of his presidency and part of it was the insouciance, the sort of there's no their there. They never got riled up. The Clintons do something opposite. They go on the attack, they actually entice the media because it's a good story to have Clinton scandals. And I've written this before. I don't think it's going to be a big scandal that takes down the Clintons. I think it's the mockery. I think it's the "Saturday Night Live" spoofs. I think it's the thing where she launched her campaign and didn't leave a tip at chipotle. I think it's going to be the fact that the press is essentially going to go after her with these little things making fun of her.

KURTZ: There's a difference between going after, pushing back between needling somebody and taking them down. Taking them down says to me that you won't be able to.

LEWIS: Compare the press Obama got to the press.

BELLANTONI: And by the way, the Clinton people made that big argument about Obama just getting all this glowing coverage, but don't forget, this is also the same, if anybody has used the media trying to take a candidate down, they also say the exact same thing about the media trying to take Republican candidates down.

LEWIS: Welcome to the party Hillary. They'll turn on the Republican once Hillary --

BELLANTONI: Journalists are looking to teach the American people and American voters about all of the candidates. And with the Clintons, so much has been known about them, they have been in the public eye for now decades and they are trying to get new information. And this question about donors and the question about what e-mails, you know, did or did not make it through, you know, what she was supposed to say, those are legitimate questions that should be raised, regardless of what party she's with.

KURTZ: Absolutely legitimate questions. It's been nearly a month since Hillary Clinton officially declared her campaign she's been running for a long time in my view. And she has zero interviews. What happened to that media chatter early on that they learned their lessons from 2008 and the candidate was going to be more open with the media this time?

TOMASKY: I don't know. This was the 2000 playbook that I saw firsthand, I covered a lot of that -- her early trips to upstate New York actually in 1999. Very limited press access then. She would come out and maybe answer four questions and go back into her van. She's not even doing that, so far. And in New York, the rhythm was, she started doing interviews, it wasn't really until the spring of the campaign year, of the election career. I think she's going to have to have speed it up a little bit this time.

KURTZ: What happens is on a campaign, is when you -- or have people day after day after day trailing the candidate and get no access at all and no questions answered, there's a resentment that builds up. And by the time you speak, just briefly. You have all told backlog of questions.

BELLANTONI: One thing to point out, the Democratic national committee did say that they would allow for debates, if she has strong primary challengers. That's something that will give the American people a much better window than any question, any picture.

KURTZ: I hope it doesn't -- we don't have to wait until those debates start. Let me get a break. Remember, we launch our media comments and questions on twitter, @howardkurtz. We'll read some of them a bit later.

Ahead some pundits blame an Anti-Islam group for staging a Texas event that's attacked by armed terrorists, blaming the group.

But when we come back, Jeb Bush gives his first interview in two months, the Fox's Megyn Kelly and talks about immigration. We'll have a preview.

KURTZ: Jeb Bush had been running hard for President, but he hadn't given a sit-down interview in two months, until yesterday. The Former Florida Governor sat down with Fox's Megyn Kelly. Bush said, we have to show some respect for people by making it easier for illegal immigrants to obtain legal status, then this happened.

MEGYN KELLY, HOST OF 'THE KELLY FILE': This is another area where folks say, I like Jeb Bush, but how can he ever get through the GOP primary with this position on immigration. You know that there's a core wing of the party for whom this will be a deal breaker.

JEB BUSH, FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: I don't know that. I've been traveling over the last three months and I get a sense that a lot of people can be persuaded, to be honest with you. But here's the deal, Megyn. If I go beyond the consideration of running to be an actual candidate, do you want people to just bend with the wind, to mirror people's sentiment? Whoever's in front of you? Oh, yes, I used to be for that, but now I'm for this. Is that the way we want to elect Presidents?

KURTZ: That was an interesting back and forth. But if Jeb Bush is just now first sitting down for an interview after two months, why isn't the press on him about that?

BELLANTONI: That would've been a question I would have asked. Why aren't you sitting down and talk about it? But it's also -- a very smart strategy on his part. This is something he's gonna have to continue to answer. It will be the question of debates, it will be something that he is targeted on, polled on in advertising against him. You know, he calls it an act of love. This is something you're going to continue to see. As coming to an audience as large as Fox, with someone so popular like Megyn Kelly, and then you get the reasonable, like independent voters who, you know, don't really care about immigration either way. Oh, listen to him, he's not trying to just win a primary that could help him in a general if he ever makes it through.

KURTZ: The difference Michael is that, Jeb does stop and take a few reporters' questions after these events, so you don't have that pressure cooker building up the way you do with the Hillary Clinton campaign.

TOMASKY: I guess that's true. But it's a strategy, Howie that I think we're going to see out of a lot of front-running candidates. They don't have to do that much media anymore, really. They don't have to answer that many questions. They can tweet things out, they can have their supporters tweet things out.

KURTZ: And if we complain about it, who cares, because basically the press isn't very popular?

TOMASKY: And people don't really care because the press isn't very popular. As long as they're going out and talking to voters and taking voters' questions, I think the people are basically satisfied with them.

KURTZ: You agree with that?

LEWIS: I do. And by the way, the voters' questions to Jeb are tough. I've seen him take questions about immigration where a lot of the base doesn't agree with him about things like common core and he doesn't back away from it. And he will aggressively answer those questions and sometimes bring them up himself.

KURTZ: Another question that came up with Megyn Kelly had to do with the Iraq war, and Jeb Bush said, well, clearly, some version of mistakes were made. And then he said, well, you know who else made a mistake that's George W. Bush. Do you think the press will continue to press him about his brother, because he does have that last name?

LEWIS: I think they will. And I think Jeb Bush has to be very clear. We're going to potentially elect the commander in chief. Would he bring us into another war like Iraq or would he govern differently like his father did. He started the process with Megyn Kelly here of essentially implying that he knows there were problems. The intelligence was bad and a lot of other issues. But you have to be more clear, because that's going to hang over his head, and rightly so.

KURTZ: It's not just Iraq. The press question is basically, are you another George W. Bush or are you going to govern differently.

BELLANTONI: Hillary Clinton will face the exact same questions. She makes it as, are you going to govern the exact same way as your husband and the only difference is George W. Bush left office fairly unpopular nationally. Bill Clinton is considered pretty popular now even though he was very unpopular when he left office as well. People are not their family members.

KURTZ: That's fair, but it's an assumption that the press doesn't always make. Maybe some voters don't as well.

Christina Bellantoni, Michael Tomasky, Matt Lewis, thanks very much for joining us. You can see the entire exclusive interview with Jeb Bush on the Kelly File, that's Monday, 9:00 eastern. I'm looking forward to seeing that as well. Ahead, three new Republican candidates jumping into the 2016 race will much of the media yawn. Is that fair? But up next, "Deflate Gate" is back and the media are piling on Tom Brady and the Patriots. Has everyone else just moved on?

KURTZ: The media frenzy over "Deflate Gate" dominated coverage of the super bowl as Tom Brady and the New England Patriots insisted they knew nothing about game balls being intentionally under-inflated before they trounced Indianapolis in that A.F.C. championship game. Now, an N.F.L. report says it's more probable than not that two Patriot staffers deliberately tampered with the teams' footballs to make them easier to throw and the report said it's more probable than not that Tom Brady was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities. Fox News contributor Jim Gray asked Brady about the report at a previously scheduled event.

TOM BRADY, NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS QUARTERBACK: I really don't have any reaction. Our owner commented on it yesterday, it's only been 30 hours, so I haven't had time to digest it full but when I do I'll be sure to let you know how I feel about it.

KURTZ: Only 30 hours. I spoke earlier with "New York Magazine's" Will Leitch from Atlanta. Will Leitch, welcome.

WILL LEITCH, NEW YORK MAGAZINE CONTRIBUTING EDITOR: Of course, thanks for having me, as always.

KURTZ: How did Jim Gray and Tom Brady handle those exchanges, when Brady clearly did not want to be answering the question?

LEITCH: It's funny, Gray, he always tends to get these big interviews. He had the decision interview for Lebron James. This is kind of his bailiwick to be friendly, but interrogator if you have to, but mostly friendly reporter. This was not the intention -- Brady didn't realize this was all going to be happening right then. I think he was surprised by it. But the thing with this is what can Brady say? I think Gray --

KURTZ: He could answer the questions. Here he is, I really don't like the guy. He's too glamorous, he's got the glamorous wife, he's rich, star quarterback, Superbowl Champion and he said he didn't know anything about it, the report says he probably did, and he said he needed to digest the report? Come on!

LEITCH: And I generally agree with that. It's funny, because Brady's general vibe on this, one thing I do kind of agree with him a little bit about, this is the reaction that we are all kind of collectively having to this, as if the Patriots and Tom Brady secretly found a way to make their touchdowns worth ten points and everyone else's touchdowns are worth four. We're talking about air pressure in footballs. And Brady, while sticking to this, maybe a little bit of an advantage, I think it's never really taken all that seriously. And the Patriots, who didn't seem to know anything about this, he definitely never took it seriously. Brady saw it as a very minor thing.

KURTZ: Form what you're saying -- I'm getting the impression perhaps, just perhaps, those of us in the media, who went crazy over this before the Super Bowl, are pumping up this story to perhaps an extraordinary degree?

LEITCH: A story like this, anytime Brady is involved, everyone gets excited and moves around in a corner. I think people want, we talked about this, people, it's Brady. The Patriots, ever since the spygate situation, people have been -- this gets people fired up in a lot of ways. I think the N.F.L. loves this story during the Super Bowl, distracted from some of the more serious stories actually going on with the N.F.L. For now, it's become a Brady thing, you can see this coming when Brady had his press conference during the actual super bowl. Because he was just like, hey, what are you talking about? I'm just here to play football.

KURTZ: These actual text messages involving a couple of equipment guys for the New England Patriots. One called himself the deflator. Another one talked about talking to Tom. Look at the New York daily news coverage, great ball of liar if we can put that up on the screen. No secret the national media doesn't like the Patriots or doesn't like Tom Brady. Is he ever going to be forever branded by the national media as a cheater?

LEITCH: I think so. I think -- I would argue, if not unfairly, I would say, oh, maybe a little over the top. But it's worth -- even those his text messages were all after -- they weren't really hiding this until all of a sudden this story exploded. This is not something they felt was really, that they were really terrified about, if anyone could find out, until the story exploded and they realized, the media is really freaking out about this.

KURTZ: In 20 seconds, why do you think the media are going too far into making this a huge scandal?

LEITCH: Because, it's a -- as I said before, touchdowns are still worth seven points. The amount of advantage it gave him, if it actually did, is so minuscule, that you would think that they were putting air other than -- that put helium in one team's ball and air in another team's ball. It seems maybe a bit much to add, certainly not decisive.

KURTZ: The Patriots did win that game by a large margin. Will Leitch, thank you very much. Thanks very much for joining us.

KURTZ: And Jim Gray says he gleaned what information he could from a reluctant Tom Brady in a situation that wasn't supposed to be a news interview. Media reports said Brady might be suspended in the coming week, but nothing definitive.

Ahead on MediaBuzz, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, and Mike Huckabee all jump into the Republican race. Are they being marginalized by the media?

But first, two terrorists in Texas are dead after an armed assault on a Muhammad cartoon contest. And some commentators are blaming the group under attack?

KURTZ: It could have been a bloody massacre in Texas. Pamela Geller's Anti-Islam group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative was staging a contest for the best drawing of the prophet Muhammad, which obviously would be offensive and blasphemous to many Muslims. Two apparent jihadis were killed in a shoot-out with a police officer guarding the event. And, with rising criticism of her tactics, Geller has been all over the air waves, fighting back.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN: So what people are saying is that there's always this fine line, you know, between freedom of speech and being intentionally incendiary and provocative.

PAMELA GELLER, AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE INITIATIVE: "Intentionally incendiary and provocative" by drawing a cartoon. This is the low state of freedom of speech in this country.

GELLER: What would you have said about Rosa Parks? Rosa parks should never have gone to the front of the bus. She's taunting people.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS: No, no, no. How do you make the Rosa Parks comparison?

KURTZ: Joining us now in Palm Springs, California, Rick Grenell, Fox News Contributor and a former foreign policy spokesman for the Bush Administration.

And here in Washington, Radio Talk Show Host Richard Fowler. Rick Grenell, I liken these media attacks on Pam Geller's group for inviting these attacks as blaming a rape victim for dressing provocatively, your thoughts?

RICK GRENELL, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah, I think so. I mean, by this same liberal narrative that told us that a youtube video was to blame for our ambassador and three other killings. If you take that same philosophy, then the Mormons should be burning down Broadway and Christians should be burning down Hollywood. I think we've got a real problem with the liberal media and the left right now, because they really are telling us they've lost all their senses. They're telling us that somehow, a word, a cartoon or youtube video is justification for killing and violence. It's really gotten way off-base from the left.

KURTZ: Is that what the, "liberal media" is saying, Richard Fowler?

RICHARD FOWLER, RADIO TALKSHOW HOST: That is not what the liberal media is saying at all, Howard. I think what the liberal media is saying, these attacks should not have happened, number one.

KURTZ: But you have said, it's fair to focus on Pam Geller and her provocative actions and you believe she's acted irresponsibly? Is that your message?

FOWLER: No I agree. I believe she's acted completely irresponsibly. The fact that you would do an event -- she's not fighting for more rights, she's clearly had her freedom of speech. Martha McCollum said on Friday, you've been on pretty much every station talking about it. She's had her fair share of freedom of speech. But there comes a point in time where common sense has to come in and say, this is not necessarily a good idea. If we are truly promoting freedom and we're truly standing up for what America is, a place where you have the freedom of religion, making fun of one religious group is, especially in that particular manner, is just inappropriate, just like it's inappropriate to have Jesus in a jar of piss, and people were upset about that as well.

GRENELL: Can I jump in here for a second?

GRENELL: If you really look at what Richard just said, and I can appreciate the fact that we're supposed to be civil, but if you really go back and look at what Richard said, he said, this isn't helpful, this whole cartoon thing. I actually think that it was helpful. It draws the line to show that we have Islamic radicalism that is really -- they need to put on their big boy pants. This is the real world. You get criticized. Everyone gets criticized. You don't go to violence because somebody criticizes your religion. Again, I go back to the fact, if that were the standard, we would see a whole bunch of violence from a whole bunch of different groups. But we have an administration that keeps protecting this idea.

FOWLER: Now you're -- I think you're convoluting two things. Let's leave the administration out of this. This has nothing to do with the administration --

GRENELL: I don't think you can.

FOWLER: This is a debate around free speech and common sense. I think, while I agree she has the freedom of speech to have this type of event, if we truly as a nation want to end terrorism, we've got to invoke moderate Muslims to stand up and say, hey, and tell those -- the radicalized to sit down.

KURTZ: Richard, you got into it with Megyn Kelly the other night in saying, there's have to be limits on free speech. There are no legal limits on free speech beyond shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Is that what you meant to say?

FOWLER: I think what I was calling for and I think it was misconstrued. I got a lot of flack for that on twitter, but I am calling for common sense. And I'm not the only person calling for common sense. Greta van Susteren did it this week, Martha McCollum, Bill O'Reilly, Donald Trump.

GRENELL: I don't think you can put yourself in that crowd, though.

GRENELL: Common sense means you can draw a cartoon, you can produce a youtube video and that no one with common sense is going to jump to violence. You have to say free speech, full stop.

FOWLER: No, there's a big there's a distinction here. It's not like -- she's tried to -- what Geller has tried to do unsuccessfully is compare herself to "Charlie Hebdo." In Charlie Hebdo, they were making satirical argument. She was clearly making fun of a religion and that's completely two different.

GRENELL: It's her right, full stop, free speech.

FOWLER: It is her right, but it doesn't make it right.

GRENELL: I'm not hearing you say that. I'm hearing you say a bunch of other things. We got CNN -- this is a show on media, Howie, and we had CNN really making fun of freedom of speech. Chris Cuomo said that there are no protections for hate speech. Then you have the associated press.

KURTZ: He acknowledged that he misspoke. He made a mistake. Cuomo said he had been.

GRENELL: But it got reaction as a -- his family is a leading liberal family and his gut reaction --

KURTZ: I'm almost out of time. I'm more worried about a "Washington Post" headline that says, "Event organizer offers no apology after thwarted attack in Texas." Think about what that means in terms of free speech.

FOWLER: Here's the thing, Howie. And I think -- here's the thing. This was a bad event to begin with. The Garland Police were like, this is so bad, and you need to hire your own private security. This was a bad event, it wasn't thought through, there was no common sense here, and common sense should have outweighed the freedom of speech in this particular.

KURTZ: To me, nothing outweighs freedom of speech. Good debate, Richard Fowler, Rick Grenell thanks very much.

Are the mainstream media basically writing off Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina in the 2016 race? And later, a reporter who covered the killing in the Freddie Gray case, while in a personal relationship with the prosecutor.

KURTZ: For Carly Fiorina, it was "Good Morning America" and Megyn Kelly. For Mike Huckabee, it was "Hope Arkansas", and Megyn Kelly. For Ben Carson, it was a Detroit stage, and Megyn Kelly, CNN, CNBC, Chris Wallace, all three Republicans with back-to-back announcements competing for media attention.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN: How do you think you can distinguish and differentiate yourself from all these other candidates competing for those conservative Christians?

MIKE HUCKABEE, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, first of all, I think that among evangelical Christians, I'm not somebody who just started talking about the message. This is who I am.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS: How do you convince voters you have the relevant experience?

CARLY FIORINA, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Our nation was intended to be a citizen government. And somehow we've come to this place in our nation's history where we think we need a professional political class. I don't believe that.

KELLY: So why should the country in this day and age entrust foreign policy to a self-admitted novice on the issue?

DR. BEN CARSON, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I've learned an enormous amount about foreign policy in the last few months.

KURTZ: Joining us now, Susan Ferrechio, Chief Congressional Correspondent for the Washington Examiner and in New York, Betsy Woodruff, and Political Reporter for the Daily Beast. Susan, these three announcements got a few sentences at most on the network evening news. None of them made the front page of the New York Times, the other media basically dismissing them as marginal candidates.

SUSAN FERRECHIO, WASHINGTON EXAMINER: The media tends to cull the Presidential candidates, we talked to pollsters, the pollsters tier the candidates, first tier, second tier, third tier. Some of the candidates that announce are considered second or third tier. It doesn't always make sense though, if you get Carly Fiorina, for instance second paragraph in the New York Times story about her announcement calls her a long shot candidate with a sliver of support. What about Martin O'Malley, I'll be curious to see how they portray him. He has about 1 percent in the poll. He's polling same as Carly Fiorina. I think it doesn't always make sense about the way the media decides to dismiss the non-conventional candidates.

KURTZ: The danger with relying on polls is there's always somebody that breaks out of the pack whether it was Huckabee in 2008 or Rick Santorum in 2012, who was hardly getting any coverage, and suddenly they get hot even though they were down in the polls and don't have much money.

Betsy, you wonder how the liberal media view these three candidates and others on the G.O.P. slide? New York Times Columnist Timothy Egan this morning calling it a fringe festival and saying the Republican clown car has turned into a clown bus.

BETSY WOODRUFF, THE DAILY BEAST: Carly Fiorina certainly isn't a fringe candidate. Most of the stances she is staked out are very much in the middle of how Republicans feel about national policy issues. Huckabee is a little further to the right. I can maybe understand using that particular adjective but referring to a clown bus, come on, that's certainly not fair. As a reporter, I would much rather prefer covering a bus full of characters than just having a sprint after a Hillary Clinton's Scooby Doo Van.

KURTZ: There is point where the bus becomes so crowded, it's hard for those of us in the media. You only have an hour for a newscast, so many inches in the newspaper story.

Susan, Ben Carson, surgeon, world-renowned surgeon, a non-politician, who's established himself as a real force in places like Iowa, but much of the coverage focuses on his gaffes. Chris Wallace today asked him about likening Obamacare to slavery and things like that. Is that fair? I mean, if a novice candidate makes those kinds of remarks?

FERRECHIO: It's fair. It's fair, but I think those questions should also be more directed at the mainstream candidates, too, who have their share of mistakes. How much attention is going to be paid to Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state? You think it's going to be a lot? I think it's going to be less than we might expect. It needs to be balanced out here, too. Let's look at Huckabee, he has gotten more executive experience than Jeb Bush. He polls far better than him in Iowa, and he's not going to get a quarter of the attention. And I think that's pretty interesting, because it shuts out those who aren't in the top tier and voters aren't getting a better look at them. And that's not great coverage.

KURTZ: That's a great point. Mike Huckabee was a Governor of Arkansas for ten years, and of course, he became more nationally known when he hosted a show here at Fox News, but the media wrap on him is, even though he won the Iowa caucuses seven years ago, hard to break out of narrow evangelical voters and can't raise enough money, but how do we know how it's going to play out?

WOODRUFF: That's a totally fair point. He certainly did do well at his previous Presidential bid. I think part of the reason that reporters are looking at him in such a way that's so askance because of what he's done since he was governor of Arkansas. One thing that Jake Tapper really pressed him on at CNN was the fact that he rented out his e-mail list to some very questionable actors. There were people sending out e-mails about biblical cancer cures under the banner of Mike Huckabee. That's very, very questionable and I think that makes national reporters take him less seriously. But even though those things might set off warning lights for people at New York Times or Beltway Media, they don't rally seem to register with Republican primary voters in places like Iowa and South Carolina. So what gets us in a tizzy here in New York and D.C. might not necessarily be such a problem in the heartlands.

KURTZ: But certainly a fair question. Ok, so very quickly, Susan, Betsy mentioned Carly Fiorina, and she ran a major company, also was dismissed from that company, but the media, I think, considered her such a long shot, because she's never held elected office.

FERRECHIO: Well, her executive experience, Mitt Romney he's that not his 10 years Governor he's the executive experience more to tout his candidacy for President. So I think the fact she can bring that to the table, she shouldn't be dismissed and the media, really, I think, has been not -- I think it's more in defense of Hillary Clinton. She is a real threat, I think to Hillary Clinton and I think that's part of the reason why you see the mainstream media going after her as hard as they are.

KURTZ: The real question for the media, with so many candidates, I'll close by saying this, is that how many of them, nine, and ten, and can't do more than that on a debate stage. How many will get the media oxygen. And is it fair for us, the unelected journalists to make those decisions so early in the process. Betsey Woodruff, and Susan Ferrechio, thanks very much for stopping by this Sunday.

FERRECHIO: Sure thing, thanks.

KURTZ: After the break, the media keep on making mistakes in Baltimore. And later, debate over a couple of frozen embryos. Is that an excuse for television to keep running pictures of Sofia Vergara?

KURTZ: It was a bad mistake, no question about it. Fox News correspondent Mike Tobin reported that he and his crew had seen Baltimore police shoot a black man in the back. But the network retracted the report minutes later with an apology from Shepard Smith.

SHEPARD SMITH, SHEPARD SMITH REPORTING ANCHOR: It sounds to me that what's happened is we screwed up. That's what it sounds like. I can tell you one thing. Mike Tobin would never -- I've been through this. Mike Tobin thought he saw somebody get shot, and there was a gun, and there was a patient on the stretcher and there was a woman who said she saw the cops gun him down and there's going to be violence and all the rest of that and what we have is nothing. Nobody has been shot, no police officer has pulled a trigger, and on behalf of Mike Tobin and to the rest of our crew there, and the rest of us at Fox News, I am very sorry for the error and glad we were able to correct it quickly.

KURTZ: That is a way to correct a mistake. Tobin says the situation was confused with the gun going off and a man going down. "It would be very hard to duplicate a situation that looked more like a guy being shot. Still, I don't think the report should have been aired unless the reporter saw the shot being fired or had it confirmed." The Washington Post has also made a mistake in its coverage of Freddy Gray's death. Its story on a police document originally carried the headline, "Prisoner in van Gray was trying to injure himself and described that person was 38 years old". After a report in Politico, the post changed the headline to say prisoner in van heard banging against walls, corrected his age to 22 and quoted that prisoner Dante Allen as disputing the account. And Jane Miller a veteran reporter for Baltimore's BALTV is stepping back from her coverage of the Freddie Gray case. She was frequently analyzing the story for MSNBC as well. Move comes after the Sun's David Zurawik ripped Miller for not telling viewers she was in a relationship with Janice Bledsoe, the lead prosecutor on the case.

JAYNE MILLER, WBAL-TV: I'm actually going to be covering less of the court case because I have a personal connection to one of the prosecutors and now that it's in that arena, I'm going to be backing away from coverage of that.

KURTZ: Miller should have disclosed that earlier. She wouldn't say what she means by stepping back the best course would be not to cover this story at all. Still to come, your top tweets. ESPN parting company with big time sports writer Bill Simmons and should the media be obsessing on Sofia Vergara's frozen embryos?

KURTZ: ESPN has dumped Bill Simmons, a sports writer with a huge personal following. He built a successful site Grandland for the sports network. You can see the dysfunctional relationship Simmons called N.F.L. commissioner Roger Goodell a liar, dared ESPN today he wasn't in trouble. The network retaliated with a three week suspension. ESPN President John Skipper isn't even hiding the attention saying the firing was "about more than money". As technology transforms the media business, we're launching our digital download segment online. This week we look at how younger people are increasingly getting their news on their phone, how does that shape what they see?

DAVID RODRIGUEZ: My first thing when I wake up is to typically check my e-mail, go into Instagram, go into Facebook, the average things and that's pretty much how I consume media.

NATALIE ANDREWS, WSJ SOCIAL MEDIA EDITOR: I think that because we create our news more than we ever have before, we are only seeing things we like.

KURTZ: You can check it out soon on our home page Foxnews.com/MediaBuzz or Facebook page which we hope you'll like. Here are the top tweets. Are the media justified in kicking Tom Brady around over the N.F.L.'s deflate-gate report?

Derek Hunter: Is it the media's job to kick around or is it their job to report?

Thomas Gordon: To me it shows insularity of U.S. Media. Big stories around the world and our sports star may be cheating gets this much attention, yeah, America. The golden boy's true character is showing, great quarterback but willing to cheat and lie. Can't hate Hillary yet ignore Brady lies?

KURTZ: All right. It's the kind of show down TV loves, Sofia Vergara on Good Morning, America pleading for her privacy while her ex-fiancee was on the Today Show at the same time having dragged their private life into the spotlight with the New York Times demanding access to two frozen embryos they had created together.

NICK LOEB, SOFIA VERGARA'S EX-FIANCE: It has nothing to do with whether her baby or a baby. Lives were already created. A lot of the question is why don't you move on and meet somebody else. No doubt I would love to do that but it doesn't matter that two lives have already been created. I wouldn't toss them aside.

SOFIA VERGARA, ACTRESS: Why is the press allowing somebody to invent things and create press for himself? He's not an actor, he's not a celebrity. It's like why?

KURTZ: Why? I'll tell you why. The media don't care about this embryo issue. The couple signed an agreement requiring mutual consent to bring them to term. They care about a juicy spat involving the start ABC's "Modern Family". They are trampling Sofia's privacy and should just ignore her publicity hungry ex. But I'm not holding my breath.

That's it for this edition of MediaBuzz, I'm Howard Kurtz. Glad you could join us. You can write to us at [email protected] to become part of your buzz online where we respond to your questions. No political rants. Ask us a media question and I'll try to answer it. Don't forget to DVR our program. We'll see you on Facebook, we'll see you on twitter @howardkurtz. We are back here next Sunday morning, 11 and then again at 5 eastern with the latest buzz.

Content and Programming Copyright 2015 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2015 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.