“Is it possible, in fact, to make everyone happy in a compromise?” Host Soledad O’Brien asked.

“It’s already happening, Soledad,” Cutter replied. “It’s happening in 28 states. It’s happening in the state of Massachusetts, when Governor Romney was governor there. Women had access, and continue to have access, to contraception at all institutions. The exclusion there is the same exclusion that the federal requirement includes.”

O’Brien played Cutter clips of Republicans speaking out against the mandate at CPAC, then listed a group of Democratic senators who have asked President Obama to reconsider, including Tom Carper, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Clare McCaskill, Joe Manchin, and Bob Casey.

“Would the President say, yeah, what he has done was a mistake, and now he’s backing away from the mistake?” O’Brien asked. “Or would you spin that a different way?”

“This is not abortion,” Cutter said, “this is birth control. This is the pill, which women have been taking for generations. It is not controversial. 99% of all women have taken it. 98% of Catholic women have taken it. The debate on this is over.”

Cutter, who likely misquoted a poll that said 98% of sexually active Catholic women have used birth control in some form, added that the President actually agrees with the Democratic senators. “He agreed when we announced this rule. That’s why we gave these institutions an additional year and a half before anything goes into place, so we can talk to them and figure out how we can find a way to meet the goal…in a way that’s respectful of everybody’s beliefs.”

Watch a clip of the interview below, courtesy of CNN:

Host Soledad O’Brien played a series of clips of conservatives talking out against the birth control mandate before turning to Mack.

“I think this is a huge issue,” Mack said, “that continues to show that this administration doesn’t believe that the Constitution and personal freedoms and liberties matter.”

Mack added that the birth control mandate “shows an arrogance,” and used President Obama’s background as as a lawyer to imply that he could cleverly work around the Constitution.

“Whatever the words of the Constitution are don’t matter to him,” Mack said. “He will interpret it in a different way, and think that is what has created this frustration.”

“You know there are Democrats all over the country right now who are throwing things at the television,” O’Brien said.

“Look, if you look at his own record, he has done everything to move against the Constitution,” Mack replied.

Watch a clip of the exchange below — with a healthy dose of Andrew Breitbart looking on — courtesy of CNN:

“Isn’t there something contradictory in that, though?” asked host Soledad O’Brien, “Saying ‘I’m against it, but embrace it because the other guys are embracing it.’”

RELATED: President Obama Was The Only Candidate Who Could Afford To Denounce Super PACs, Yet He Won’t

“Well, because we can’t operate in a situation where we have only the resources we can raise in our campaign by very limited campaign finance rules,” said Wasserman Schultz, “and the Republicans will have several hundred million dollars in Super PAC money that will be dumped on President Obama in the general election. So, the rules as they exist now are the rules we will play by, but when it comes to the future and if the Republicans would step up right now, pass a disclose act, apply those new transparency rules and get rid of Super PACs to the election right now — which we would love to see — we welcome them and urge them to do that.”

She added that Obama wouldn’t become beholden to special interest groups now that he’s agreed to play the Super PAC game. “We have been the example in how to reduce special interests,” she said.

Have a look, via CNN:

Walker said that Gingrich will focus on delivering a strong conservative message that “will be positive.” He also addressed a recent Wall Street Journal piece by Karl Rove that said, as O’Brien summarized it, that the race is now between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, and that keeping his head above water is going to be “impossible for Newt Gingrich” as he focuses on a “Southern strategy.” Walker said Gingrich’s focus is much farther-ranging, and includes efforts in Ohio and California as well as the South.

RELATED: Newt Gingrich Calls For SuperPAC To Correct Errors In Anti-Mitt Romney Bain Film

“Sounds expensive,” said O’Brien.

“It is expensive,” Walker agreed.

“How much money do you have?”

“Well, we’re doing pretty well, money-wise.”

“Like, a number?”

“I don’t follow the numbers day-to-day,” Walker responded. “We’ve been doing very well online, raising money online. Even yesterday, now that the inevitability is broken, the fact is that money is flowing to other candidates. We’re seeing an upswing in our online contributions as well.”

But negative campaigning, he later added, is essentially turning off the base, so don’t expect Gingrich to resort to that again. He issued them before, Walker added, to fight against the negative ads launched against him.

Watch, via CNN:

bob walker!

O’Brien noted that Santorum has but $1 million in “cash on hand” — a small amount compared to Mitt Romney‘s $19 million. Is he expecting a “pile-on” of negative ads funded by this money?

“In Minnesota and Colorado they both spent more money than we did on the ground and direct mail and in other ways,” Santorum said, referring to Romney’s campaign. “Robo-calls. We know lots of folks received a lot of nasty robo-calls from the Romney campaign. They were running, you know, underground type of campaign. We understand that. We were right aboveboard talking about the issues and we feel very, very comfortable that money isn’t going to — if money made the difference we wouldn’t have won four primaries so far.”

RELATED: Game Changer? Rick Santorum Wins Colorado Caucus

Santorum also took time to address Romney’s assertion that he’d make the ideal Republican nominee because he hasn’t spent time in D.C. A grinning Santorum recalled running for Senate at the same time Romney did. “Well,” he replied, “it’s funny because I ran for the United States senate the same year Mitt Romney ran for the United States senate. We both ran in 1994. I won and he lost. It’s not that Governor Romney didn’t want to be Senator Romney. He tried to be Senator Romney but he ran as a very liberal Republican in Massachusetts, who had just become a Republican, and he lost.”

Later, O’Brien mentioned conservative businessman Foster Friess, saying that “he has been bankrolling your Super PAC” and asking whether that sends “a bad message to people.”

Santorum attempted to clarify Friess’ involvement:

No. I mean, Foster doesn’t run my Super PAC. He may be a donor to it, but the person who runs my Super PAC I haven’t spoken with in five months. So as far as the conversations we have, Foster has been a long personal friend for 20 years. And we have spent a lot of time together. But we also know what the law is and Foster doesn’t run the Super PAC and we don’t talk about anything regarding those matters. So he’s someone, again, who is a friend and will continue to be a good friend.

O’Brien also asked Santorum about his “sick child.”

“Well,” he said, “she’s not a sick child. She was sick this past couple of weeks ago, but she’s not sick.”

Have a look, via CNN:

O’Brien did a good job of challenging that false premise, but allowed guest Rep. Marcia Blackburn (R-TN) to slip in the lie that the mandate covers the “abortion pill.”

RELATED: Contraceptive Mandate Is Not About Religious Liberty, It’s About Female Liberty

Ms. O’Brien repeatedly pressed Rep. Blackburn to explain how the administration’s decision had anything to do with religious liberty. In responding, Rep. Blackburn inserted a popular lie about the mandate, one which the media has been slow to correct.

“It is about forcing employers to provide things that go against their religious beliefs,” Rep. Blackburn said. “And when you have individuals that go to church on Sunday and put money in the offering plate, they need to be assured that that money is not going to go and pay for contraception items, for abortion pills. And this mandate covers all FDA-approved medications.”

RELATED: This Week Host Lets George Will Lie About Contraceptive Mandate And ‘Abortion-Inducing Drugs’

The “abortion pill,” RU-486, is not covered by the mandate, of course, but Rep. Blackburn was likely trying to conflate emergency contraception with the abortion pill. They are not the same thing, so while some religions may promote that idea as an article of faith, it is a medical fact that they are not the same. Emergency contraception prevents pregnancy from occurring, and is for use long before a pregnancy is even possible.

O’Brien’s other guest, the ACLU’s Louise Melling, explained why the mandate does not infringe on religious liberty. “This respects religious liberty,” Melling said. “Churches don’t have to provide contraceptive coverage as part of their package. What this rule says is institutions like hospitals and charities and schools that open their doors to the public, serve primarily the public, don’t have a primary purpose of religion, have to offer the same insurance everybody else does. 98% of American women use contraception, including Catholics. This say it is you serve the public, you play by public rules.”

RELATED: Fox News Analyst Falsely States New Regs Require Religious Employers To Provide Abortions

The “religious liberty” argument has even gained traction among Democrats, partially because the Obama administration, and even people like Ms. Melling, have failed to make the simple, essential argument that this decision is about equal protection under the law for women. The Preventive Services Mandate itself is about achieving parity for women’s preventive health services with everyone else’s, and the decision about the “conscience exemption” is about extending that protection to women who work in institutions that serve the general public, religious or not.

While I disagree strongly with most of what he says about this, Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough deserves a bit of credit for pointing out, this morning, that the Preventive Services Mandate doesn’t cover abortion services of any kind, and I’d even tend to agree that the administration did a poor job of rolling this out. By letting it just sort of pop out and lie there, shivering, the administration has allowed the measure’s critics to control the discussion, so that even when they do a good job of defending the decision, the best they can do is convince people they’re not infringing on religious liberty. There’s a bumper sticker.

RELATED: Dear Media: There’s No Such Thing As A ‘Morning-After Abortion Pill’

They should have announced this decision with a strong statement about equal protection, and about protecting women from having their employer’s religious beliefs imposed on them. Instead of answering questions like “Why should Catholic hospitals provide contraceptive coverage?” the media could, and should, be asking “Why should a woman be denied the same rights as others, just because she works at a Catholic hospital?”

Here’s the clip, from CNN’s Starting Point:

RELATED: Gipper Move: President Obama Won’t Unilaterally Disarm On SuperPACs

Here’s a section from the blog post:

“The President opposed the Citizens United decision. He understood that with the dramatic growth in opportunities to raise and spend unlimited special-interest money, we would see new strategies to hide it from public view. He continues to support a law to force full disclosure of all funding intended to influence our elections, a reform that was blocked in 2010 by a unanimous Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. And the President favors action—by constitutional amendment, if necessary—to place reasonable limits on all such spending.

But this cycle, our campaign has to face the reality of the law as it currently stands.

Over the last few months, Super PACs affiliated with Republican presidential candidates have spent more than $40 million on television and radio, almost all of it for negative ads.

…

With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm.

Therefore, the campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP Super PAC.”

This morning on CNN, Obama supporter Russell Simmons defended the President’s “second Super PAC wrong to make a campaign finance reform right” approach.

Simmons was a guest on Starting Point and was discussing the designer clothes he’s produced for the President’s campaign. The Republicans have been trying to stop the sale of such items because they believe it’s possible that it breaks campaign finance rules. This only makes sense. Why shouldn’t we have a system so confusing that it’s totally legal for corporations to secretly funnel millions and millions of dollars into campaigns but people aren’t sure if you’re allowed to sell a tote bag?

Anyway, Simmons defended the Obama products and used that to go into broader topics:

“I think the president should use whatever resources he has within the law. But, you understand, the problem is the law. The problem is that we allow so much money in politics and there are so many people funding horrible- These super PACs have gotten out of control. It’s crystal clear, when you watch the Republican primary, that it’s only money that rules this democracy. And, until the laws are changed, the president should play by any rules available.”

Soledad O’Brien challenged him, saying that this is the “art of mutual destruction.” Simmons countered by comparing it to the fight over the tax cuts for the rich. He pointed out that he’s all for raising the taxes on the rich and that he’d like to pay higher taxes, but, until the rules are changed and every rich person is paying higher taxes, he’s not going to “write a blank check” by himself. Basically, he knows what’s right but he’s sure as heck not gonna be the first fool to try it.

That may sound like a depressing way of looking at things, but it’s necessary. Lets go back to Obama’s need to use a Super PAC. If the Republicans are ruining the sport of baseball by pumping their bodies with democracy ruining steroids, President Obama doesn’t have a chance of winning a game unless he grabs the needle too. Then, after he’s won the World Series, he can eliminate the performance enhancing drugs.

Sure, Super PACs make it so that anyone who isn’t a billionaire or a corporation has basically no say in our government, but we need to use them to destroy them. To use another, more Swiftian, analogy, lets say the presidency was decided by an eating contest but, instead of eating hot dogs, the food of choice was poor people’s babies. The Republicans have already eaten millions of babies. President Obama needs to pick up a fork soon, or he won’t be able to save our children in the future.

So chow down, President Obama! Chow down, Mitt Romney! And chow down, nation!

We can only fix our problems by embracing them. We can only become a good America again by becoming the best bad America we can be!

Romney’s gaffe dominated the political news cycle for a time, and initially, the candidate insisted that his remark just needed to be taken in context:

“No, no, no, no,” Romney said. “You’ve got to take the whole sentence, all right, as opposed to saying, and then change it just a little bit, because then it sounds very different. I’ve said throughout the campaign my focus, my concern, my energy is gonna be devoted to helping middle income people, all right? We have a safety net for the poor in, and if there are holes in it, I will work to repair that. And if there are people that are falling through the cracks I want to fix that.”

On Thursday night’s Hannity, Gov. Romney abandoned the context argument, and chalked his gaffe up to that political silver bullet, “I misspoke.”

The problem with that, as Soledad O’Brien pointed out on CNN this morning, is that he didn’t simply “slip up on a word,” or “misspeak.” Misspeaking is when you say “incinerate” instead of “insinuate.” When Romney made his statement on Wednesday’s Starting Point, O’Brien immediately asked him to clarify. “We will hear from the Democrat party, the plight of the poor,” Romney said. “And there’s no question: it’s not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those who are very poor. But my campaign is focused on middle income Americans.”

It’s a fairly open-and-shut case on the superficial question of whether or not Romney “misspoke,” but O’Brien shifted the discussion to the deeper issue of the candidate’s blithe declaration that “if there are holes” in the “safety net,” he’ll fix them. ”What is, really, Mitt Romney’s stance on certain issues? When we talks about ‘I’m going to repair that safety net,’ where does he stand on the things that we consider the safety net?”

National Journal‘s Ron Brownstein pointed out that Romney’s political positions are out of step with a safety-net-fixer. “The most important one is Medicaid, now an entitlement that provides health care for the poor and seniors,” Brownstein said. “He wants to convert that into a block grant. He wants to reduce the growth of federal spending on it to half the level it is now. $100 billion a year. Unless states find significant efficiencies that are eluded them before, that means fewer people being eligible and reduce benefits.”

That’s just one example, but Romney, and pretty much every other Republican, have shown, in deed, their willingness to weaken social safety nets in favor of other priorities, from the Paul Ryan budget plan that would end Medicare as we know it, forcing seniors to pay more than double for their health insurance, to his party’s consistent opposition to extending unemployment benefits.

There’s the rub, because a fair-minded person could look at Romney’s statement and conclude that, in electoral politics, nobody focuses on the very poor. As Jon Stewart noted, they have shitty lobbyists. The difference is that, despite an equal amount of pandering to the middle class, President Obama hasn’t sought to devastate programs that benefit the very poor. Romney and his party have, and they’re usually damn proud of it.

Here’s the clip, via CNN:

On Thursday, in the wake of O’Brien going viral, the show returned to its normal state. Following a clip from Wednesday night’s Daily Show — which O’Brien celebrated being featured on without being made fun of — Martin made a point about Romney’s poor math in determining who constitutes the very poor.

“This whole 90, 95% middle class,” Martin said. “No. 15.3% of the country is in poverty. 22 grand for a family of four. Mitt might want to go check the math and understand the number of people out there who are having a difficult time.”

After making one more quick point, Martin stood up, reached over the table, said, “Great job, Soledad,” offered a high five, and announced, “Off to Tom Joyner!”

“Tell Tom I said hey,” O’Brien replied, turning to the rest of the panel. “Roland just gets up and leaves in the middle of our show. It’s all chaos here in the morning on Starting Point.”

UPDATE: Roland Martin tells Mediaite that he leaves at 7:15 every morning to do the Tom Joyner Morning Show.

Watch a clip of the show below, courtesy of CNN:

RELATED: Mitt Romney Tells Soledad O’Brien: ‘I’m Not Concerned About The Very Poor’

Stewart first played the clip of his exact quote, and his explanation that the very poor have “nets” to catch them. “The reason the net is there is that they’re not okay,” Stewart explained. “It’s like a doctor saying ‘I’m not concerned about the very healthy… or the very sick because, you know, morphine.”

Stewart then played the rest of the clip, where Soledad O’Brien challenges Romney’s claim and asks for a clarification, because it sounded “odd.” This left Stewart flabbergasted, since a TV anchor actually asked an explanation from a politician. “It’s like a flower blooming in the desert!” He beamed. “Quick! Someone pick that up and take it away from CNN before a giant holographic screen falls and crushes her!”

He then went back to the explanation from Romney, which seemed to not help at all. Stewart took the time to explain. “Being in a net is bad, whether you’re a butterfly, or a fish, or a trapeze artist, or a poor person,” he concluded. “If you’re in a net, something has gone terribly, terribly wrong.” He then went on to play the rest of Romney’s explanation, where he notes that “it’s not good, being poor.”

“They’ve got the play tennis on public courts!” Stewart joked. “I can’t imagine the thread count on their linens!”

The segment ends with the two classes, “Very Rich” and “Very Poor,” singing about how they are nothing alike. And by “these two classes,” they mean correspondents Jason Jones and John Oliver.

The video via Comedy Central below:

O’Brien’s question was pegged to a report showing that 92% of the campaign commercials run in the week before the Florida primary were negative ads. Citing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney‘s rising unfavorability rating among independents, she asked Priebus “Isn’t that really, this kind of stuff, a big problem?”

“I don’t necessarily believe that tough primary competitions carry in the general elections,” Priebus began. “The history there, Soledad, is that it really doesn’t.”

He then threw in a completely gratuitous shot at a fair, data-driven question. “I mean, if you’re really being objective here, not spinning here, Soledad, you look back –”

“Appreciate that,” O’Brien injerjected, with a wry smile.

“You look back at Obama and Hillary Clinton. That’s the most obvious and most recent example that our country has of a very, very difficult primary election. The chair-woman of the DNC was on Team Hillary campaigning against Obama. Hillary called Obama a hypocrite from the very beginning.”

An impatient O’Brien interrupted, “It was ugly.”

“I have a good point here,” Priebus pleaded. “Hang on. Hang on.”

“Okay. I’m waiting,” replied a dubious O’Brien.

“It’s going to take 15 seconds,” Priebus said, and he was accurate almost to the second, almost like he’d rehearsed it. He began by “accidentally” misattributing a statement to Barack Obama. “Obama said that Hillary Clinton didn’t have the moral fiber to lay a wreath, or his people — he said, his people said this. Hillary didn’t have the moral fiber to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Now she is the Secretary of State.”

RELATED: Soledad O’Brien Tires Of Steny Hoyer’s Long-Winded Answers, Cuts Him Off Twice

It’s an old political hack trick, shout the “mistake” and mumble the correction, and Priebus gets his facts wrong, anyway. If you’re going to be objective, Reince, not spinning here, Reince, you, Reince, ought to point out that the comment in question was from an obscure Obama campaign surrogate, and he said then-Sen.Clinton’s tales of sniper fire in Bosnia caused her to have a “lack of moral authority” to lay the wreath.

That exchange occurred in March, and was one of several nasty ones during the 2008 Democratic primary, but it doesn’t really apply to O’Brien’s question at all. This is January, and 92% of all ads are negative. The fact that an Obama surrogate was mean to Hillary in March of 2008 does nothing but underscore how bad things have gotten for the Republicans this year, and quick.

O’Brien also took the time to brace Priebus about his repugnant Italian cruise ship joke. “You’re talking about a tragedy that’s claimed lives while they were still trying to fish bodies out of the ship?”

Priebus repeated his previous defenses, including his apparent belief that the use of the word “clearly” magically erases dickishness.

O’Brien concluded the interview by calling back to Priebus’ “spinning” shot. “I try to be fair with everyone,” she said.

Republican leaders have learned that they can score easy points with their base by bashing the media, regardless of the merits, but people like Wolf Blitzer and Soledad O’Brien are beginning to fight back. You can only punch the ref in the balls so many times before he hits back.

Here’s the clip, from CNN:

At one point during the interview, O’Brien asked Romney about a recent poll that had him trailing President Barack Obama when it comes to “understanding the needs of average Americans” as well as a Washington Post column by Kathleen Parker that opined voters “can’t connect” with Romney.

Romney’s plan is to allow people to get to know him better, he said, and to focus on “the heart of America:”

RELATED: Mitt Romney: ‘Obama’s Vision Of A Free Economy Is Take Your Money And Send It To His Friends’

And, by the way, I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor; we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich; they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.

O’Brien asked him to clarify what he means by “not caring about the very poor,” and he reiterated that he would “repair holes” in their safety net if he sees anything that needs fixing with them.

“We will hear from the Democrat party, the plight of the poor,” he continued. “And there’s no question: it’s not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those who are very poor. But my campaign is focused on middle income Americans.”

Watch what happened, via CNN:

RELATED: “Sen. Marco Rubio: ‘I Have Never Seen A President Pit Americans Against Each Other Like This One Does’

Rubio has seemed like an easy choice. He’s an up and comer, a Conservative, and someone who’s very popular with the all important Hispanic population. Also, his decision not to endorse any of the current candidates could have implied a desire to work with whichever one wins the nomination. But, no. Like the aforementioned Christie turning down the Presidential run itself, Rubio made it clear that he was happy with the post he’s got.

His comment came after former Congressman Tom Davis remarked on air that he’d be a great Vice President.

“Well, look, my answer hasn’t changed on that. I’ve answered it repeatedly. I have. I’m focused on my job in the Senate. I don’t think I’m going to be asked in terms of getting elected. I’m not going to be the vice presidential nominee but I’m flattered by your words on the panel. We’re going to TiVo that to my mom.”

O’Brien then joked that moms are her key demographic.

Rubio explained that the only reason he hadn’t endorsed anyone was because he had pre-existing relationships with two of the candidates and didn’t think his input would change much anyway.

Watch the clip from CNN below:

O’Brien played a clip of the comments, then simply told West:

“I don’t get it. I mean, I don’t understand what you’re saying. Which is… you’re telling Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to get out of the United States. Explain it to me.”

“No, Soledad. Soledad. Absolutely not. And you know that,” West replied.

“No, I truly — no joke. I am not being facetious. I do not get what you’re saying.”

“Well the thing is,” West countered, “you should have listened to the entire speech. You didn’t listen to the entire speech which talked about the contrast between the quality of opportunity which allowed a young man born in 1961 in the inner city of Atlanta Georgia to now represent the highest-income zip code in the entire United States of America. That’s the America that I love, that’s the America that’s dear to me.” West then invited O’Brien to come to south Florida and read the Federalist papers and Constitution with him.

“As fun as that sounds, the two of us sitting down and reading the Federalist papers together,” she said. “No, I’ll stick to the TV interviews with you if you don’t mind.”

Watch a clip of the interview below, courtesy of CNN:

You’ll recall that Panetta told 60 Minutes that, while he does not have hard evidence that Pakistan knew Osama bin Laden had been essentially hiding in plain sight within a suburban Pakistani compound, “I personally have always felt that somebody must have had some sense of what was happening at this compound.”

RELATED: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta Tells 60 Minutes Pakistan ‘Must’ve Had Some Sense’ Bin Laden Was In Its Midst

“I don’t know what purpose it served at all in revealing that or saying that now, you know, so many months later,” said Brookes. “I think U.S.-Pakistani relations are in a terrible state. I’m not sure they could go any lower other than a complete break in the relationship. So I’m not sure what point it really served for him to say that on national television. ”

“I concur with Secretary Panetta, but I’m not sure,” he added.” I think it was a mistake to go ahead and say this once again to a national audience when we’re trying to – once – you know, we you’ve got to remember, Soledad, that the supply routes through Pakistan are still closed, that we want them to deal with the Haqqani Network and the Taliban and al Qaeda that’s growing in the tribal areas of Pakistan. We want their help with Afghanistan. So I’m not sure why saying this now would have been at all helpful. I think by diplomacy is probably what’s needed.”

Have a look, courtesy of CNN:

“You know, Ron Paul’s followers are not party regulars. He’s not a party regular. He really has these very, very impassioned followers. All four of our children are huge Ron Paul followers,” Suzy acknowledged. “So we’re living with this.”

RELATED: Ouch: Rick Santorum’s Nephew Endorses Ron Paul

Suzy Welch’s startling admission that they were asking Paul to drop out in spite of the fact that he had captured the imagination of her own kids ended up overshadowing the rest of the interview. The revelation caught the attention of CNN contributor David Frum, who was sitting on set, and tweeted incredulously about the news.

Watch a clip of the interview below, courtesy of CNN:

(h/t David Frum)

Opening the show, O’Brien had the camera pan to an empty chair, which was supposed to belong to panelist David Frum, who was late.

“There is no David Frum,” O’Brien said. “I’ve committed to mocking David Frum this morning because he is late for my show! I’m told it’s not his fault, but too bad, we don’t care.”

O’Brien then segued into an interview with Florida Republican Congressman David Rivera, who was joining them live via satellite. As they cut to his shot, it looked like he was mouthing words. A woman’s hands then appeared on screen, one wielding a large bottle of hairspray, the other gently patting down his hair.

“Oh — I don’t know that you’re ready for us yet,” O’Brien said, as the camera cut away.

Watch the clip of the lighthearted chaos below, courtesy of CNN:

RELATED: CNN Confirms They Asked Mitt Romney’s Campaign To Pull Anti-Rick Perry Ad

O’Brien’s main problem seemed to be that so many debates have squeezed all of the substance out of the race, leaving only a handful of soundbyte moments to show for them. “At some point it feels like the conversation is all about these high drama moments and people can say what — it’s about managing the impact of the moment of the debate…”

“I think what the debates have shown us, we have gotten to see these candidates consistently and in different lights,” Martin said. “Think about it…if we didn’t have 19 debates, trust me, Rick Perry would still be in this race, still be high in the polls. It was all based on what was happening on paper. The debates have exposed people for what they are.”

Conservative CNN analyst Will Cain agreed. “The more sunlight you shine on this process, the better,” he said.

Soledad O’Brien has a point, but it applies to the broader political media, as well. Since the 2008 election, interest in political media has been at gold rush levels, and the need to feed that eternal (yet microscopic) news cycle has led to an emphasis on superficial drama over substance.

The tradeoff is that many more people are engaged in politics, particularly with these hella entertaining debates. That’s a fair trade, if you ask me, because there are still plenty of places for wonks to get a fix, and plenty of opportunities for a smart commentator to slip some nutrition into the media junk food diet.

I agree with Martin and Cain, the debates have provided a valuable public service to voters, acting as a crucible for Perry and Michele Bachmann, whose campaign demise can be traced to her HPV vaccine debate crazy talk. They have also proven problematic for sometime frontrunner Mitt Romney.

More than that, though, the proliferation of debates has served to ameliorate, to some degree, the influence of money on this race. The merits of voters’ judgments are debatable, but strong debate performances by Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have helped them succeed far beyond what their respective war chests might indicate (especially Santorum).

Martin also made the point that the media types clucking at the quality of these debates bear much of the blame. “It’s on the people who are sponsoring these debates to ask the real questions,” he said. “You should have questions tonight about foreclosures. You should have questions tonight about real foreign policy. It’s on us. We can’t play the game and say it’s somebody else.”

Roland should be careful what he wishes for, though. If turning down the sizzle means turning off a significant portion of the debate audience, I’m not sure that’s a worthwhile trade. Getting people to turn off Dancing With The Stars and turn on a presidential debate is a win, in my book.

Here’s the clip, from CNN:

The interview had a great moment right off the bat, as Hoyer made a joke about the diner food, O’Brien invited him to join them anytime, Hoyer laughed, and then…nothing. For a solid five seconds the two stared at the screen in awkward silence before O’Brien asked, “What’d you think of the speech?”

Hoyer’s answer then became a long-winded, talking point-infused monologue that essentially recapped the State of the Union.

“That’s some of the highlights,” O’Brien said with a smile, “and I’ll stop you there because I don’t want to go through the entire speech from the President last night,”

“I hear ya,” Hoyer responded.

O’Brien then asked another question about the Republican response to the speech, which allowed Hoyer to go on another never-ending answer.

“There is no doubt that the economy is reviving. The stock market reflects that, jobs reflect that. Are we where we need to be? No. And that’s what the President said. We need to do more. We need to grow the manufacturing sector. We ought to do a tax policy that encourages growth of jobs here in America, making things here in America. On the foreign policy front, he was absolutely correct, we have our people out of Iraq, we’re drawing down on Afghanistan, we have a savings that we can apply to infrastructure as his suggestion, or other needs of the American people. But clearly, I think that, uh, I was surprised — “

And then a smiling O’Brien popped up on the screen.

“I’m smiling here because I, because we’re — I want to stop you because, and I, I, you know, with all due respect to you, with every political figure we will have on the show today… When you guys have the opportunity, you tend to go on and on on the side of the issues that you’re interested in — and I greatly appreciate that, but I do want to get some questions in…”

Later in the show, after an interview with Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex), O’Brien turned to her panel and said she was making a new rule. “All elected officials need to sit right here, so when I need to, I can stop them. And that is bi-partisan. Take a breath sir! So I can get in there — on the Republican side and the Democratic side.”

Watch a clip of O’Brien’s interview with Rep. Hoyer below, courtesy of CNN:

“I believe that [...] it should be about shared responsibility,” said Sewell. “I think that something is fundamentally wrong if a person of his great wealth is only paying 13.9 percent effective tax rate and most of Americans are paying 28, 30 percent and they make far less.” She’s looking forward, she added, to hearing what President Obama, has to say, if anything, about “shared responsibility” during tonight’s State of the Union address.

West, meanwhile, advocated for a flat tax:

We need to have a wholehearted reform of our tax code system, because the United States of America, since the 16th Amendment came about, we have a progressive tax code, which means based upon the amount that you are making on the income tax side the more that you are paying. But also, we have capital gains tax and dividends taxes which have less, tax codes, 13 percent, 15 percent. And that’s why I believe that immediately we go to a flat tax system across the board, somewhere between 13 to 16 percent. You can reduce the number of deductions that you have. And we can zero out capital gains and dividends tax. And I think we need to have reform for our corporate tax rate as well.

Watch the segment, via CNN:

RELATED: Jimmy Carter Tells Piers Morgan That Gingrich Has ‘Subtlety Of Racism’

“Let me just say,” O’Brien noted, “that we have the most black people ever around the table for Starting Point in the history of Starting Point!” A true thing!

Getting back on topic, former Republican candidate Herman Cain said he was not amused by Carter’s comments. “I usually don’t get this intense: That is ridiculous. When they talk about coded words,” he said, “that’s talking about race. Take race out of it. It has nothing to do with it.”

Fellow panelist Roland Martin disagreed, pointing out that it was Gingrich who made race an issue by specifically mentioning the NAACP.

South Carolina’s Rep. Tim Scott and O’Brien then spoke over one another in voicing their disagreement over what, exactly, Gingrich had said. “I won’t talk over you because you’re a lovely woman,” said Scott.

“I know,” she replied. “It’s my show, though. I’ve got to get a point in occasionally.”

Watch the disagreement, via CNN:

“Why has this been such a struggle for him to get his message out about the taxes?” O’Brien asked. “Because it’s been stumbles, it’s been booing — that was another low point in the debate last night.”

“Well look, Ron Paul last night said he’s not going to release his taxes,” Sununu replied. “Santorum said he’s not going to release his taxes.”

“No, that’s not what they said,” O’Brien interrupted, explaining that Rick Santorum said his taxes were on his computer at home, and Ron Paul was ashamed to release taxes showing how little money he actually made.

“But the net outcome of those two cute comments,” Sununu retorted, “are that Ron Paul is not going to release his taxes, Santorum’s not going to release his taxes, Gingrich released one year. And Mitt Romney said as soon as this year’s done, he’s going to release them and multiple years. You tell me which one’s the most transparent of all those.”

O’Brien asked why not just release them now, and Sununu explained that Romney wants to make “one single package release.”

“Or you could just release them twice!” O’Brien suggested.

“It’s ridiculous to release them twice,” Sununu said. “So two guys can dribble stuff out for three or four months? The idea is to nominate somebody who’s going to be President of the United States.” Sununu went on to suggest that Newt Gingrich release the package that the ethics committee had when they fined him $300,000.

Watch a clip of the conversation below, courtesy of CNN:

O’Brien kicked things off by asking Price how he felt about the sentiment that the vote is a “charade” since, citing emails from the conservative group Club for Growth, it appears that “the decision has already been made” and “this is not a real vote.”

RELATED: Sen. Harry Reid: ‘I Think The Tea Party’s Dying Out As The Economy’s Getting Better Slowly’

“These aren’t self-congratulatory press releases,” Price explained. “What they are is drawing attention to the remarkable spending that is out of control here in Washington.” All the Republicans need to get the debt under control, he added, is a willing partner on the other side of aisle.

O’Brien then quoted Senator Harry Reid, who, addressing compromise in Washington, said recently that he hopes “the Tea Party doesn’t have influence in this next year, [like] they had in previous years.” Van Hollen agreed with Reid, adding that the economy would be wrecked if the debt ceiling is not raised. He also accused Republicans in Congress of “wanting to have it both ways” where the debt and national budget are concerned.

Things grew increasingly heated after O’Brien asked the two to weigh in on a recent poll showing that support for Congress is at an abysmal 11 percent. Price accused his colleague of speaking in sound bites, prompting O’Brien to note that “everyone in Washington speaks in sound bites.” No offense!

Van Hollen shot back that Republicans in Congress are impeding the country from paying its debts, essentially making us “worse than Greece.”

Watch what happened, via CNN:

“Both SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act) are threats not just to the U.S. economy and not just all the jobs that this tech sector creates. If they had existed, Steve Huffman and I could have never started Reddit. It’s frustrating to see legislation that was written by lobbyists and not technologists perhaps become law.”

RELATED: Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales Trashes SOPA On OutFront

O’Brien grilled Ohanian, asking why Reddit wasn’t being part of the conversation on the legislation being crafted.

“There are some people saying by going black — it’s a gimmick,” O’Brien explained. “Come on morning shows, talk about it. Reddit could be part of the conversation and Google could be part of the conversation — because it sounds to me like all sides think piracy is a bad thing. There’s no one arguing piracy is a good thing.”

“Agreed,” Ohanian responded. “I just wish we had been called to the table when this legislation was written. If you look — last year, $94 million was spent lobbying to get this bill — to get these bills made. It’s just so frustrating because we look at Congress and we can’t see them do anything that’s important. They can’t solve the problems of unemployment, they can’t solve the problems of the deficit. Yet as soon as a lobbyist shows up with $94 million, Democrats and Republicans line up to co-sponsor it. Something is wrong.”

Watch Ohanian condemn SOPA and PIPA, and explain why Reddit shut down to protest the bills below, via CNN:

Here’s what Wasserman Schultz had to say to CNN:

RELATED: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Seems Unprepared For Chris Wallace’s Romney/Obama Layoffs Question

I think Mitt Romney was at 39 percent. And this is ostensibly his home state. He’s got a family home here. He was governor of the state next door. So to not crack 40 percent in a primary that you should have droves of Republicans coming to the polls to vote for you, that’s a problem. He’s here as a — he came out of this primary now as a wounded candidate.

Romney’s reaction? After having a chuckle, he shared that he feels sorry for her:

“The President, unopposed, only got 80 percent last night. So, you know, I feel sorry for Debbie Wasserman Schultz,” Romney explained. “She’s got to stand up for the President’s record. And that is pretty bad. You’ve got almost two million people that have lost their jobs under this president. You’ve got median income that has dropped 10 percent over the last four years. You’ve got 24 million people out of work or stopped looking for work.

“This is a failed presidency,” he added. “People know that.”

Watch, via CNN:

“It was just about a week ago,” O’Brien observed, “where you were talking about how mad you were about Mitt Romney spending $3.5 million through his super PAC. Now the number I’m hearing from you is $3.4 million from the super PAC that supports you. Isn’t that hypocritical?”

RELATED: Charles Krauthammer Warns Gingrich Is ‘After Vengeance’: ‘Captain Ahab On The Loose’

Here’s Gingrich’s response:

No, no. I think if you are faced with the reality and somebody decides that that’s what they’re going to do, if you unilaterally disarm, you might as well drop out of the race. He’s decided that he would pin his entire future on shrinking his competitors rather than offering positive ideas. We came back and we offered a very clear choice here, talking about impact, for example, raising the commuter tax on folks from New Hampshire, raising $730 million in taxes as governor of Massachusetts.

So I think it’s fair to draw a contrast between my record of fighting for tax cuts and the tax increases that he set up in November and in Massachusetts as governor. Similarly, I think he’s gone around talking about his record in the private sector. Well, it’s fair to look at that record. I don’t see why looking at somebody’s record is wrong.

O’Brien interrupted Gingrich to ask whether he expected to continue this “hostile conversation” as the election moves forward. “I don’t know what will happen in terms of what you describe as a hostile conversation,” Gingrich replied.

RELATED: The New Film From Pro-Gingrich Super PAC: Mitt Romney Is ‘The Man That Destroyed Us’

Take a look at the interview, courtesy of CNN:

Today, she spoke with CNN’s Soledad O’Brien about Jon Huntsman‘s recent assessment of John McCain‘s Romney endorsement (For those of you who missed it: “Who cares?” Or, more accurately, voters don’t necessarily respond when GOP establishment types dole out endorsements.)

RELATED: Jon Huntsman Reacts To Sen. John McCain’s Romney Endorsement: ‘Nobody Cares’

As O’Donnell sees it, Romney is also garnering support from figures who have had to “fight the establishment.” Figures like, say, Christine O’Donnell:

Well, you look at the fact that Governor Romney has earned not only my endorsement but [former South Carolina] Governor Nikki Haley‘s endorsement, you know, figures who have had to fight the establishment. And the resounding message in that is that he has broad base appeal and that, you know, based on the feedback we have been getting from my supporters, it truly is causing people to take a second look because they know that based on Governor Haley’s record, based on my record, we would not sell out like that.

RELATED: Christine O’Donnell: ‘A Lot of People’s Dislike For Romney Is Based On Misinformation’

Of course, O’Donnell and Haley supporters might still have some very specific concerns when it comes to Romney, particularly in the form of his so-called “RomneyCare.” But, to O’Donnell, comparing the former Massachusetts governor’s health care plan to “ObamaCare” is like comparing apples to oranges. Or like comparing two different hotel chains:

Obviously, one of biggest concerns of many Americans is ObamaCare and, you know to compare the Massachusetts health care bill to ObamaCare is like comparing, you know, Motel 6 to the Four Seasons.

Romney is the Four Seasons? Swanky. And quite a step up from a Marriott.

O’Brien also asked O’Donnell about South Carolina Tea Party leader Karen Martin‘s recent assertion that she does “not personally know anyone that does not despise Mitt Romney and doesn’t hate the idea of him being our nominee.”

RELATED: South Carolina Tea Party Leader Says She Doesn’t Know Anyone ‘That Does Not Despise Mitt Romney’

“I hope that that leader begins to take a look at Governor Romney,” O’Donnell responded, “because he has the class, courage and convictions to stand up for some truly conservative principles in a liberal state like Massachusetts and that’s overlooked.”

Have a look, via CNN:

Paul appeared flummoxed by her question.

“I didn’t quite understand even what you just read, but, obviously, I didn’t send it. So, I don’t even understand. I’m sorry, I didn’t catch the whole message there about Jon Huntsman. I haven’t talked about Jon Huntsman in a long time. I don’t know what’s going on there.”

CNN Loses Feed With Ron Paul-Supporting Soldier, Ron Paul Fans Cry Foul

O’Brien was referring to a tweet that was deleted by the Paul campaign last night, but not before multiple journalists screencapped it:

O’Brien re-asked her question about the deleted tweet.

“Well, it was sort of a snitty message that was sent out under your name, under your Twitter handle — @ronpaul — [It] was sent to another fellow candidate and kind of a snarky message and you say you don’t tweet for yourself, someone else is sending out messages?” O’Brien reiterated.

“Yeah, I have some help on tweeting, yes.” Paul stammered.

“Okay, so, when I read that, the first thing I saw, again –because I follow you on Twitter — that didn’t sound super Presidential to me, and your Twitter handle is supposed to be sending out your messages and is that something you look at and back away from or say, it’s Twitter, who cares?”

“I don’t understand why this is an important issue or what it means and why Jon Huntsman wasn’t even in the campaign,” Paul, bewildered, answered. “So, I’m not sure the importance of what you’re talking about. It just seems to be irrelevant to me.”

Watch the uncomfortable exchange below via CNN:

“It’s a bizarre thing to bring up.” Bachmann countered. “Today is the election, what people recognize is that the most important issue that people will be looking at is, ‘Who is the best person to deal with the economy?’ Probably someone who’s created the a business from scratch. I came from a family where I was below poverty. I had to earn my way up out of poverty.”

“What you’re telling me is you don’t want to discuss social issues because you want to talk about the economy? I don’t think it’s a bizarre question. I think it’s a fair question,” O’Brien replied.

“It’s a gotcha question coming way out of the past,” Bachmann affirmed. “I stand very strong for marriage between one man and one woman. I believe in protecting human life from conception until natural death. I believe in the family, I believe in religious liberty and for people to practice their faith freely. That’s important. It’s also important we get rid of Obamacare. Obamacare is socialized medicine — is wildly unpopular. Of all of the candidates in the race, I’m the one who led 40,000 Americans to object to Obamacare, and I’m the one who means what I said. I say what i mean. I’m very consistent. People know that they can count on me. I won’t be shifting my positions over the years.”

Watch the somewhat contentious interview with O’Brien and Bachmann below via CNN:

First, some context in the world of cable news programming. O’Brien’s assignment as morning show anchor will rightfully be seen by many as the final significant strategic move made by President of U.S. Operations Ken Jautz since taking over the reigns from Jon Klein.

Skeptics may claim that Jautz is making a play from a 2003 playbook, as this is O’Brien’s return to hosting CNN’s morning show, and the reason cited for her departure morning show schedule was low ratings. But that’s nothing new; CNN’s morning programs have had a hard time drawing substantial viewer for well over a decade, so the hope is this version of an O’Brien hosted show differentiates itself enough from a crowded field that it can make an impact. Another important distinction? CNN EVP and Managing Editor Mark Whitaker, a well respected news veteran himself, will oversee development of the version of the morning programming.

Unlike prime time slates, cable news competes with the broadcast news outlets, and their comparatively enormous production budgets as well.

So understanding that the show needs to be different from the pack is an important component of recognizing O’Brien’s forte. In the last few years, she has produced and hosted 25 documentary episodes for CNN; she has well-honed journalistic chops that few, if any, of the other cable news morning anchors can match. And lest there’s concern that she’s unfamiliar with the morning show genre, she came up the morning show ranks, having hosted NBC’s Weekend Today before becoming CNN’s own morning show host in 2003 and 2004.

I spoke with O’Brien earlier today and asked her how she hoped her new show would stand out in a crowed field. She quickly referenced bringing with her the experiences from the documentary series as tools she plans on using.

“I’m thrilled and excited to get to a chance to work on the stories that I like to tell,” O’Brien said. When pressed for specifics, she added that the experience of producing 25 documentaries informs the way she hopes the show will differentiate itself, saying “we recognize the need to give insight, nuance and deeper context which are missing from a lot of morning show stories. The topics might be the same, but we will hope to address them in an entirely different manner.”

I asked if we should expect to see documentary-style segments, and she said “Oh, this is still a morning news show, don’t get me wrong. But our documentaries were issue-oriented programs that allowed a deeper look into topics that concern real people — whether it’s the economy, education, religion, or race — and we plan on doing the same thing on the morning show. Talk to real people, in addition to the players and analysts associated.”

Since CNN has stayed away from the opinion media fray that has served Fox News and MSNBC so well, I asked if she will enter that realm, at least by covering the media coverage in the way that many other shows are now doing. She conceded that “in some stories, the coverage of the story is a story unto itself – take for instance the media reaction and coverage of the earthquake in Haiti,” but she did allow that she didn’t necessarily foresee the need to cover opinion coverage.

At the end of the day, its clear that O’Brien is an old school journalist who still gets a thrill from “cracking the nut of a complicated story by getting a number of different opinions,” though in a way that works for morning programming. She summed up by saying “the show has to be interesting people talking about interesting topics…that’s what makes entertaining television.”

After three months, her goal is for viewers to say, of her program, “It’s a smart morning show that’s fun to watch.”

Read the press release from CNN below:

CNN will launch a new format of news and conversation in the morning, including a 7-9am ET show anchored by award-winning journalist Soledad O’Brien in 2012.
O’Brien will anchor a new conversational ensemble program that explores top issues of the day while opening the conversation to people from all walks of life. O’Brien will continue to be a special correspondent for long-form documentaries at CNN.
“I couldn’t be more eager to return to daily news, to bring conversation and context to CNN viewers in the morning. I welcome the opportunity to give voice to people who aren’t often heard, and stories that are sometimes overlooked,” says O’Brien. “I love telling people’s stories, and I’m looking forward to bringing the perspective, heart and storytelling that have worked well in our documentaries to a morning audience”
“CNN has the opportunity in the morning to cover a wider range of stories from broader perspectives,” says Executive Vice President of CNN Ken Jautz. “We are planning to offer something original in the four-hour morning block to complement our direction in primetime.”
“This is an exciting time to be relaunching our morning show, with the morning television audience more up for grabs than it has been in years,” says Executive Vice President and Managing Editor of CNN Mark Whitaker, who will oversee development of the new program. “With CNN’s global reach and this unique cast of superb journalists as anchors, we have the opportunity to do something truly fresh and different.”
Ashleigh Banfield and Zoraida Sambolin will anchor from 5-7am ET, kicking off the new CNN morning block with a new program covering a broad spectrum of the day’s news from two highly personable and passionate journalists.
Shannon High will join CNN later this month and will be executive producer of both programs. Most recently, High was the executive producer of development for NBC Peacock Productions, and before that served as MSNBC’s vice president of daytime program development, and vice president and managing editor. At MSNBC she developed The Dylan Ratigan Show and oversaw Morning Joe and daytime news. An award-winning producer, High has worked in local news in Miami, Houston and Charlotte as a manager and producer.
“I’ve dreamed of joining CNN for more than 20 years. It’s the gold standard of news — the brand, the people and the product. I am excited to be stepping back into a daily anchor role with such a prestigious team, and I can’t wait to get started!” says Banfield.
Sambolin adds, “I am completely thrilled to be coming to CNN. Ashleigh is an accomplished journalist with an incredible wit and dynamic personality. I look forward to collaborating with her and working together to inform, enlighten and build a strong relationship with our viewers.”
Since joining the network in 2003, O’Brien has reported breaking news from around the globe—including the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, hurricane Katrina, and the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. In addition, she has produced award-winning documentaries, including the acclaimed Black in America, Latino in America and Muslim in America. Earlier this year she was part of a CNN team that won an Emmy Award for their reporting of the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti. O’Brien came to CNN from NBC, where she anchored the network’s Weekend Today show from 1999-2003. She was named Journalist of the Year by the National Association of Black Journalists in 2010. That same year she launched a personal foundation with her husband, the Soledad O’Brien and Brad Raymond Foundation to send underprivileged youth to and through college.
Banfield has covered national and international stories including live reports from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, England, Israel (West Bank and Gaza), Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Most recently, she was a correspondent for ABC News, reporting for Good Morning America, 20/20 and Nightline. Prior to ABC, Banfield anchored and hosted three programs on TruTV (formerly Court TV); Banfield and Ford: Courtside, Hollywood Heat and Disorder in the Court. As a correspondent for NBC News from 2000-2004, Banfield reported for The Today Show, NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw and Dateline. She received Emmy Award recognition for her groundbreaking 9/11 coverage from Ground Zero in New York City.
Sambolin was the Weekday Edition co-anchor of NBC5 News Today in Chicago and special assignment reporter and fill-in news anchor for Telemundo Chicago. She also served as host of Un Buen Doctor, a weekly Spanish language medical series airing on cable stations worldwide. Before joining NBC5, Sambolin was the creator and Emmy award-winning host and executive producer of Small Talk for Parents on WYCC-TV and Nuestros Ninos on WSNS-TV from 1999 to 2002.
CNN Worldwide, a division of Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., a Time Warner Company, is the most trusted source for news and information. Its reach extends to nine cable and satellite television networks; one private place-based network; two radio networks; wireless devices around the world; CNN Digital Network, the No. 1 network of news Web sites in the United States; CNN Newsource, the world’s most extensively-syndicated news service; and strategic international partnerships within both television and the digital media.