This story was originally published on Wed May 15, 2013 5:01 PM EDT

As the White House faces a trio of burgeoning controversies that have put the administration and agencies throughout Washington on the defensive, Attorney General General Eric Holder reiterated before a House panel Wednesday that he was not involved in the Justice Department's decision to seize two months of phone records from Associated Press journalists as a part of a leak probe.

LIVESTREAM: House Judiciary Committee hearing

The Justice Department has also opened an investigation into revelations that the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status for additional scrutiny. In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Holder said that prosecutors are looking at several different statutes in the investigation of those actions. 

He said those potential violations could include an IRS statute that requires employees to do their jobs without favoritism, civil rights laws, the Hatch Act that restricts a federal employee's political activities, or the law against making false statements to investigators.

“The facts will take us wherever they take us,” he added, promising a nationwide investigation. 

Asked about the leak probe, Holder confirmed that Deputy Attorney General James Cole authorized the subpoenas on AP reporters' phone records after Holder recused himself from the matter.

Brendan Smialowski / AFP - Getty Images

Attorney General Eric Holder is sworn in during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill May 15, 2013 in Washington, DC.

Holder first announced Tuesday that he had recused himself from the AP leak probe because he had previously been questioned by the FBI about the intelligence breach.

He added Wednesday that he also turned over his own phone records as a part of that questioning. 

He told the committee that he recused himself because he was one of the “relatively limited number of people” who had first-hand knowledge of the leaked information – and also because he had more regular communication with reporters than Cole.

“I was a possessor of the information that was ultimately leaked,” he added. “And the question then is, who of those people who possessed that information – which was a relatively limited number of people  within the Justice Department – who of those people actually spoke in an inappropriate way to the Associated Press,” he added.

In response to questions, he said that he did not know the date of his recusal for certain and that there was not a written record of it.  He also said that the White House would not have been informed of the recusal. 

Holder has been widely criticized by Republicans for DOJ's handling of the matter, scrutiny Holder noted at the beginning of his remarks.

"The head of the [Republican National Committee] called for my resignation in spite of the fact that I was not the person who was involved in that decision," he said.

The routine Justice Department oversight hearing became a hot ticket after two scandals – the DOJ probe and the revelations about the IRS – erupted since the end of last week. The Obama administration also continues to be dogged by lingering questions over its administration’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on a diplomatic outpost in Benghazi.

In opening remarks he was set to deliver before the House Judiciary Committee, Holder says the Justice Department “has taken critical steps to prevent and combat violent crime, to confront national security threats, to ensure the civil rights of everyone in this country, and to safeguard the most vulnerable members of our society.”

NBC's Pete Williams contributed to this report. 

This story was originally published on Wed May 15, 2013 1:07 PM EDT

In a Supreme Court test of whether a company can be granted a patent on the genes in the human body, a majority of the justices indicated during Monday's oral arguments that the court is likely to rule that a human gene can’t be patented. 

It would be one thing, several of the justices said during Monday’s oral arguments, for a company to seek a patent on a test for breast cancer that was developed by analyzing a human gene, but it would be going too far to be awarded a patent on the gene itself.

"What's the difference between snipping off a piece of the liver or kidney, and seeking a patent on that, and seeking a patent on a piece of a gene?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Justice Samuel Alito made a different analogy, to someone seeking a patent on a plant found in the Amazon rain forest that bore leaves containing a cancer cure. "You could patent the process used to get the chemical out and the use of the result, but you cannot patent the plant," he said. 

Stelios Varias / Reuters file photo

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington

The case, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, involves a test that has helped guide more than a million women in their medical decisions. The test can determine whether the composition of their genes makes them more likely to get breast or ovarian cancer.

Myriad Genetics, a Utah company, owns patents on two parts of human genes known as BRCA 1 and BRCA 2, named for the first two letters of the words breast and cancer.

Women with mutations in those genes face up to an 85 percent risk of getting breast cancer and up to a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer. Because of the patents, Myriad has a monopoly on performing all diagnostic tests related to BRCA 1 and BRCA 2.

In the past three decades, the federal government has granted nearly 3,000 similar patents on genetic material. Without such protection, Myriad argues, companies would be less willing to spend the money required for making genetic discoveries.

"Countless companies and investors have risked billions of dollars to research and develop advances under this promise of stable patent protection," according to Gregory Castanias, a Washington, D.C, lawyer who argued the case for Myriad.

The idea of patenting DNA material has provoked a strong debate among scientists, and many have lined up on opposite sides of the case.

"Human genes should not be patented," says James Watson, the Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA.

"Life's instructions ought not be controlled by legal monopolies created at the whim of Congress or the courts," he says.

But a group of researchers at the University of Maryland is among those arguing just the opposite. "The costs are outweighed by the benefits stemming from the fruits of increased inventive activity," they say in their friend-of-court brief.

In the 220 years since Thomas Jefferson wrote the cornerstone of U.S. patent law, the courts have agreed on a general principle: patents protect inventions, not products of nature. A central issue in this case is whether Myriad has obtained a patent on something already in the body or has created something new.

The ACLU, representing a group of scientists, doctors, and cancer patients, claims that Myriad has merely removed from the body something that was already there -- the DNA sequence making up the BRAC 1 and BRAC 2 genes. Because it is a creation of nature, the ACLU says, it cannot be protected by a patent, even though Myriad claims that removing it is what makes it useful.

"Gold does not become patentable once taken out of a stream because it can be used in jewelry. Kidneys do not become patentable once taken out of a body because they can be transplanted," says the ACLU's Christopher Hansen.

Myriad's exclusive patent, says the ACLU, creates a monopoly that denies women the ability to seek a second opinion, based on another test of the genetic material, and dissuades other laboratories from pursuing research on the patented genes.

The ACLU also contends that because the test costs roughly $3,000, many women cannot afford it or lack the necessary insurance coverage. If the gene was not under patent protection, the ACLU says, competition would make the test cheaper.

But Myriad argues that removing the gene sequence from the body requires breaking chemical bonds that lock it into place, thereby creating a new chemical entity.

The resulting genetic materials, the company says, "were never available to the world until Myriad's scientists applied their inventive faculties to a previously undistinguished mass of genetic matter."

Myriad cites a line of cases finding patent eligibility for naturally occurring substances that were isolated and purified, including aspirin, vitamin B12, and adrenaline derived from cows.

As for availability, the company says the cost of the test is covered by private insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. It also says many other labs provide second opinions regarding the company's test results and that thousands of researchers have done studies on the gene sequence involved, unimpeded by the patent.

The Obama administration has urged the court to be deeply skeptical of Myriad's broad claim of what can be patented. The Justice Department's brief in the case says the public interest has consistently been given precedence by the Supreme Court "in avoiding undue restrictions imposed by patents that effectively preempt natural laws and substances."   

NBC's Tom Curry contributed to this report.

This story was originally published on Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:17 AM EDT

With automatic, across-the-board spending cuts set to begin Friday, majorities of Americans believe that approach is not a good idea and also say the contentious budget negotiations make them less confident about the U.S. economy, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Click here for full poll results (.pdf)

Despite those findings, a majority still supports Congress moving ahead with either the current cuts or a plan containing even more cuts as a way to reduce the deficit, suggesting the public’s general appetite for reducing spending.

But the poll also shows that as the nation’s political actors once again quarrel over these automatic cuts totaling $1.2 trillion over 10 years – commonly referred to as sequestration or the sequester – President Barack Obama finds himself in a much stronger position than his Republican adversaries. 

Related: NBC/WSJ poll: Public says GOP less interested in unity than Obama is

“If the president needs some tweaks and adjustments, the Republican Party is pretty much in need of a major makeover,” says Democratic pollster Fred Yang of Hart Research Associates, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. 

“The Republicans don’t need a silver lining; they need a whole new playbook,” Yang adds.

Cut a deal – or let the cuts take effect?
In the poll, 52 percent of respondents say the sequester cuts are a bad idea, versus just 21 percent who say they’re a good deal.

What’s more, 51 percent believe that the budget negotiations between Obama and congressional Republicans make them feel less confident about the economy, which is unchanged from when this question was first asked in last month’s poll.

Just 16 percent say the negotiations make them more confident about the economy.

But a combined 53 percent prefer that Congress move ahead with the current sequester cuts or a plan that contains even more cuts. Thirty-seven percent want a plan with fewer cuts.

And in a separate question, exactly half of respondents say that Obama and congressional Republicans should work together to avoid the sequester cuts from taking place, while 46 percent believe the cuts – while not perfect – should go into effect.

But the NBC/WSJ pollsters caution that all of these numbers could change if these sequester cuts take place and are as dire as critics say. “A month from now, we might find a very different dynamic at play,” Yang says. “When you feel [these cuts], that’s a different story.”

Obama’s brief honeymoon – but growing support for his top priorities
In addition to the budget debate, the poll shows that Obama’s rise in the polls – after his re-election, his inaugural speech and his State of the Union address – has ended for now.

His overall approval rating stands at a healthy 50 percent, but that’s down two points since January and three points since December. 

The percentage approving of the president’s handling of the economy has dropped five points, from 49 percent last month to 44 percent now.

And just 32 percent of Americans believe the country is headed in the right direction – down three points since January.

“The poll points to significant vulnerabilities for the president” heading in next year’s midterm elections, says McInturff, the GOP pollster. 

Alex Wong / Getty Images

President Barack Obama waves during a visit to Newport News Shipbuilding Feb. 26 in Newport News, Va.

Democratic pollster Yang adds: “The transition from campaigning to governing hasn’t brightened the public’s mood.”

That said, strong majorities support the broad outlines of Obama’s top domestic priorities – on immigration, gun control and raising the minimum wage. 

Fifty-four percent favor giving undocumented immigrants the ability to apply for legal status, which is up two points from last month’s NBC/WSJ poll. 

Also, 61 percent believe the laws covering the sale of firearms should be stricter, which is up five points since January.

And nearly six in 10 support Obama’s proposal from his State of the Union address to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $9.00.

Asked which of Obama’s proposals Republicans in Congress should offer a helping hand, 36 percent answer eliminating tax loopholes for the wealthy; 28 percent say expanding background checks for guns; 23 percent cite making preschool available for every child; 17 percent say giving illegal immigrants a path to legal status; and 11 percent say addressing climate change and global warming.

GOP’s poor standing with the public
While Obama has seen his poll numbers drop – albeit within the survey’s margin of error – his political standing remains significantly stronger than Republicans’.

Only 29 percent of respondents say they agree “with most” of what Republicans in Congress have proposed (versus 45 percent for Obama and 40 percent for congressional Democrats). 

An identical 29 percent have a favorable view of the Republican Party (compared with 49 percent for Obama and 41 percent for the Democratic Party).

And the public believes the GOP is more interested in partisanship than Obama is: 48 percent say Obama is pursuing a path on unifying the country in a bipartisan way, while 43 percent say he's taking a partisan approach that doesn't unify the country.

By comparison, 64 percent say Republicans are taking a partisan approach, versus 22 percent who say it's focused on unity.

What’s more, the polls shows the Democratic Party beats the Republican Party on almost every issue – looking out for middle class (by 22 points), Medicare (by 18 points), health care (16 points), reducing gun violence (15 points), Social Security (14 points), immigration (7 points) and even taxes (3 points) and the economy (2 points).

The only issues where the GOP holds the advantage in the survey are reducing the federal deficit (by 6 points), controlling government spending (16 points) and ensuring a strong national defense (26 points). 

The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted Feb. 21-24 of 1,000 adults (including 300 cell phone-only respondents), and it has a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.

Updated at 2:20p.m. ET: President Barack Obama’s choice to be secretary of state, Sen. John Kerry, D- Mass, testified Thursday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, one day after the same committee conducted a fractious hearing with current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over last September's attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.

Unlike Wednesday’s sometimes-contentious hearings, Republicans welcomed Kerry, who is currently the chairman of the same committee, warmly at the outset.

Sen. John McCain R-Ariz. joined Clinton and Sen. Elizabeth Warren D-Mass. in introducing the nominee, with McCain praising him for “exemplary statesmanship” in his work on an accord to allow opening of normal diplomatic relations with Vietnam in 1995.

But while the hearing remained cordial, Kerry came under bipartisan pressure on the question of the civil war in Syria in which more than 60,000 have been killed.

Kerry has met several times over the years with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.

Recommended: Hillary's honeymoon with GOP ends

McCain, part of a bipartisan group of senators which just got back from a trip to the Mideast and visited camps where Syrian refugees are living, told Kerry they feel “an anger and frustration” and believe that the United States is indifferent to their suffering.

One Syrian teacher told McCain and the other senators, “This next generation of children will take revenge on those that that did not help them.” McCain added, “We are sowing the wind in Syria and we are going to reap the whirlwind.”

He said “We can do a lot more, without putting boots on the ground” – such as a no-fly zone – and he complained that “all I get, frankly, from the (Obama) administration is the fall of Assad is, quote, ‘inevitable.’ I agree, but what about what happens in the meantime?”

Another member of the delegation that toured the Middle East, Sen. Chris Coons, D- Del., complained to Kerry that U.S. humanitarian aid intended for Syrian refugees “has not reached the people on the ground.”

In response to both Coons and McCain, Kerry said “if you have a complete implosion of the state” in Syria after Assad’s fall, it would greatly increase the risk that Assad’s chemical weapons arsenal would fall into the wrong hands.

Kerry also said that “we need to change Bashar Assad’s calculation. Right now President Assad doesn’t think he’s losing -- and the opposition thinks it is winning.” Kerry said the goal of U.S. policy is a peaceful transition to a new government. He said he hoped to confer with the Russian government, a major supporter of Assad, and with others and “increase the readiness of President Assad to see that the die is cast, the handwriting is on the wall….”

Coons told Kerry, “We frankly face a very narrow window to make a difference on the ground in support of the opposition.”  

“I get it,” Kerry answered, saying he did not want to “wind up with them (members of the anti-Saddam Syrian opposition) blaming you” for not doing more to remove Assad from power. But Kerry voiced worry about who would control the country if Assad were forced out of power.

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

Senator John Kerry, D-Mass., President Barack Obama's nominee for Secretary of State, speaks with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., before he testifies at the Senate Foreign Relations committee during his confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on Jan. 24, 2013.

The committee’s ranking Republican, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, asked Kerry about Obama’s nominee to be defense secretary, former Sen. Chuck Hagel and his support for Global Zero, a group which calls for the total abolition of nuclear weapons.

Kerry said Hagel would be “a strong secretary of defense secretary” and that Hagel would not weaken the U.S. nuclear arsenal which serves as a deterrent to an attack on the United States.

A world without any nuclear weapons, Kerry said, was a goal “worth aspiring to,” but “we’re not talking about today’s world” and it might take “many centuries” to achieve abolition of nuclear weapons.

Recommended: Jindal to warn fellow Republicans of 'obsession' with D.C. battles

Kerry also addressed Iran's nuclear program.

“The president has made it definitive--we will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” he said in his opening statement to the committee. “I repeat here today: our policy is not containment. It is prevention and the clock is ticking on our efforts to secure responsible compliance.”

He added, “No one should mistake our resolve to reduce the nuclear threat.”

He said Obama “knows that American foreign policy is not defined by drones and deployments alone. We cannot allow the extraordinary good we do to save and change lives to be eclipsed entirely by the role we have had to play since September 11th, a role that was thrust upon us.”

Referring to the impasse over reducing budget deficits and the growing national debt, Kerry said to the committee members that “the first priority of business which will affect my credibility as a diplomat – and our credibility as nation – as we work to help other countries create order, is whether America at last puts its own fiscal house in order.”

In his opening statement, Kerry showed one brief moment of emotion. His voice shook when he referred to his father, who was a Foreign Service officer. Kerry said he was proud that “the Senate is in my blood – but equally proud that so too is the Foreign Service. My father’s work under presidents both Democrat and Republican took me and my siblings around the world for a personal journey that brought home the sacrifices” that American diplomats abroad make or their country.

Updated at 2:20p.m. ET: In a hearing marked by sometimes sharp and pointed exchanges, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee she took responsibility for not adequately protecting U.S. personnel in the Sept. 11 attack on a diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. 

Defending the administration’s immediate handling of the attack, Clinton clashed at times with Republicans over the account the administration gave in the initial days after Sept. 11.

Clinton said the Obama administration did not try to mislead the American people about the cause of the attacks. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” she said as she sparred with Sen. Ron Johnson, R- Wisc.

She angrily told Johnson that at this stage it did not really matter what the precise origins or motives of the attack were: “What difference at this point does it make?”

She told Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, a Republican, “we did not have a clear picture” of all that was going on in Benghazi although she did acknowledge that senators had “legitimate questions” about the administration’s account.

Sen. John McCain, R- Ariz., -- after telling Clinton “we are proud of you” and that all over the world “you are viewed with admiration and respect” -- delivered a blistering criticism of the Obama administration’s handling of the events in Libya.

“There are many questions that are unanswered and the answers you’ve given this morning are frankly not satisfactory to me,” McCain told Clinton. He added “the American people and the families of these four brave Americans still haven’t gotten the answers they deserve.”

He asked Clinton whether she was aware of numerous warnings from Stevens and other Americans in Libya that the facility in Benghazi was not capable of resisting a sustained assault. He also said there had been other warning signs such as an attack on the British ambassador to Libya.

He angrily asked Clinton why Defense Department forces were not nearby to defend the Benghazi facility.

Last month a report issued by the Accountability Review Board (ARB) appointed by Clinton, blamed State Department officials for “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies” that led to protection for the Benghazi facility that was “grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.”

In her response to McCain, Clinton said, as she did to other senators on the panel, that some additional information on the causes and circumstances of the attack is in the classified portions of the report issued by the ARB. Senators and Senate staff can read the classified portions of the ARB report, but the public cannot.

And she blamed members of Congress for holding up additional aid to Libya that might make the country more secure and less chaotic. 

Clinton was testifying Wednesday afternoon on Benghazi before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

In his questioning of Clinton Wednesday morning, Sen. Rand Paul, R- Ky., told her, “I’m glad that you’re accepting responsibility. I think that ultimately with your leaving, you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11, and I really mean that. Had I been president at the time and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi, you did not read the cables from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post.”

He added, “It’s a failure of leadership” which cost the Americans in Benghazi their lives. “I think it’s good that you’re accepting responsibility-- because no one else is.”

Paul also argued that U.S. personnel ought to never have been sent to Benghazi “in a war zone” without a military guard. “You shouldn’t send them in with the same kind of embassy staff that you have in Paris,” he added. 

Clinton replied that all four State Department officials criticized in the ARB report for their roles on the Benghazi events had been removed from their jobs and placed on administrative leave. “The ARB (report) made very clear that the level of responsibility for the failures that they outlined was set at the assistant secretary level and below.”

The furor over the Benghazi attack helped derail one possible nominee to replace Clinton at the State Department, UN ambassador Susan Rice, whom Republicans assailed for using administration talking points that portrayed the incident as a spontaneous response to an inflammatory anti-Islamic video.

But Clinton told the committee that in the hours and days after the attack, “I was not focused on talking points” and “I wasn’t involved in the talking points process.”

Recommended: Biden not shying away from 2016 speculation

In her opening statement, Clinton told the committee, “As I have said many times since September 11, I take responsibility.  Nobody is more committed to getting this right.  I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure.”

Clinton's voice choked with emotion as she recalled the return of “those flag-draped caskets” from the Americans killed in Benghazi and put her arms “around the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters” of those killed. 

Clinton also used her testimony to deliver a vigorous call for continued U.S. involvement in the North African nation of Mali where the Obama administration is aiding French efforts to defeat Islamic jihadist forces.

She told the committee that the United States cannot allow Mali to become a safe haven for the group Al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), warning of the risk of AQIM attacks on the United States itself.

Clinton also said she could not confirm reports that some of the terrorists involved in last week’s Algeria hostage taking were also involved in the Benghazi attack but called it a "new thread" to follow.

She did say that there is no doubt that Algerian terrorists have weapons they obtained from depots in Libya that were opened up and “liberated” after the dictator Moammar Gadhafi was toppled, with U.S. and NATO help, in 2011.

Gary Cameron / Reuters, file

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks about the hostage situation in Algeria during a joint news conference with Japan's Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida (not pictured) after their meeting at the State Department in Washington Jan. 18, 2013.

Clinton said she had accepted the ARBs recommendations for improvements in security procedures and had asked her subordinates “to ensure that all 29 of them are implemented quickly and completely.” She said these changes are designed to “reduce the chances of another Benghazi happening again.”

On Thursday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold its confirmation hearing for Clinton’s successor, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who is the committee’s chairman and is likely to be confirmed without any opposition.

As President Barack Obama is set to begin his second term next week, he finds himself with a job-approval rating above 50 percent and with majorities supporting his general direction on gun control and immigration, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

But he also confronts an American public holding mixed attitudes about the next four years, concerns about the economy and a belief that tougher times lie ahead.

Click here for the full poll (.pdf)

It’s a stark reversal from four years ago, when Obama’s first inauguration – despite taking place in the midst of the Great Recession – contained high expectations and seemed more like a “coronation,” says Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff.

“If 2009 was all about hope, 2013 is about the ability to cope,” Hart adds of the public’s lower expectations about the economy and reducing partisanship in Washington.

General support for Obama’s gun, immigration agenda
In the poll, 52 percent of adults approve of the president’s overall job performance, which is down one point from last month. In addition, 49 percent approve of his handling of the economy, versus 48 percent who disapprove.

What’s more, the public appears to be receptive to the broad outlines of his top agenda items for a second team.

Mandel Ngan / AFP - Getty Images file

President Barack Obama speaks on proposals to reduce gun violence on Jan. 16, 2013 in the South Court Auditorium of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, next to the White House in Washington.

Fifty-six percent believe that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be stricter, compared with a combined 42 percent who want them less strict or kept the same.

That’s the most support on this particular question since 2006, but it’s less than the 60 percent to 70 percent who supported stricter gun laws during the 1990s, including when Congress passed an assault-weapons ban in 1994.

Related: NRA more popular than entertainment industry, poll says

Also, for the first time in the poll, a majority of Americans -- 52 percent -- favor allowing illegal immigrants who hold jobs to apply for legal status in this country.

And in the latest fiscal fight in Washington, more respondents say they would blame congressional Republicans (45 percent) than Obama and congressional Democrats (33 percent) if the nation’s debt limit isn’t raised and the country is unable to meet its obligations.

As for views on Obama’s qualities as president, he gets the best marks for being easygoing and likeable (61 percent give him high marks here), having the ability to handle a crisis (55 percent), being compassionate (53 percent), being knowledgeable and experienced (53 percent) and being a good commander in chief (51 percent).

His lowest marks come on achieving his goals (44 percent give him high marks here), working effectively with Congress (29 percent) and changing business as usual in Washington (28 percent).

'A lack of buoyancy'
Yet looking ahead to Obama’s next four years in office, Americans have tempered their expectations.

The public is split how Obama will fare in a second term, with a majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- saying they’re either “optimistic” or “satisfied.”

By comparison, a combined 48 percent say they are “uncertain” or “pessimistic.”

Asked another way, 43 percent are optimistic about the next four years, while 35 percent are pessimistic; 22 percent have a mixed opinion.

In addition, more than seven in 10 are dissatisfied with the current state of the economy, and just more than a third are either “very” or “fairly” confident in Obama’s ability to promote a strong and growing economy.

And 60 percent believe the coming year will be a time to hold back and save because of harder times ahead, versus 34 percent who instead think it will be a time of economic expansion and opportunity.

“The poll reveals a lack of buoyancy in looking ahead,” Hart, the Democratic pollster, says.

Adds GOP pollster McInturff: “This feels like a long four years, and it feels like a long four years ahead.”

Public continues to sour on Congress, GOP
But if Americans have tempered the expectations for Obama’s second term, they have soured even more on Congress and the Republican Party.

Just 14 percent of adults approve of Congress’ job (which is near the all-time low in the poll), while 81 percent disapprove (which is close to its all-time high).

What’s more, 49 percent hold a negative view of the Republican Party – its highest negative rating in the survey since 2008. Only 26 percent have a positive view.

By comparison, the Democratic Party has a net positive rating, with 44 percent holding a favorable view of the party and 38 percent holding an unfavorable one.

And the conservative Tea Party movement – which took off in Obama’s first year as president – also finds its popularity at an all-time low in the poll, with 23 percent viewing it favorably and 47 percent unfavorably.

On Iraq and Afghanistan
Soon approaching the 10-year anniversary of the Iraq war, nearly six-in-10 say the war wasn't worth it, versus 35 percent who say it was.

Yet asked another way, 55 percent of respondents think the war was successful.

Meanwhile, a narrow majority of Americans – 51 percent – say the war in Afghanistan hasn’t been worth it, though 62 percent believe the war there has been successful

The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted Jan. 12-15 of 1,000 adults (including 300 cell phone-only respondents), and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.

Updated 2:56 p.m. -- President Barack Obama unveiled sweeping new policies Wednesday aimed at limiting gun violence, teeing up a political showdown that will pit the broad public popularity for many gun control measures against Congress’s tepid appetite for approving the most stringent restrictions on gun ownership.  

"While there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil," Obama said at a mid-day announcement at the White House, "if there's even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try it."

Acknowledging the difficulty of the Congressional fight ahead, Obama appealed for public support, slamming - as he did in a press conference earlier this week - conservative commentators and the most vocal pro-gun activists for "ginning up" opposition to gun reforms for political reasons. 

"I will put everything I've got into this and so will Joe [Biden], but I tell you, the only way we can change is if the American people demand it," he said. 

Some of the main legislative proposals backed by Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are:

• requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales, including private sales    
• banning "military-style" assault weapons    
• limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds      
• strengthening penalties for gun trafficking 

"The most important changes we can make depend on Congressional action," Obama said. "They need to bring these proposals up for a vote and the American people need to make sure that they do."

Related Information: Gun Violence Fact Sheet | Gun Violence Executive Summary | Gun Violence Reduction Executive Actions 

The president also signed a series of 23 executive actions - free from a Congressional blockade -- intended to strengthen existing laws, augment mental health measures and promote federal research on gun crime through the Centers for Disease Control. 

The executive actions announced included stricter prosecution of would-be gun buyers who fail background checks as well as new requirements for federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations. 
 

The president's recommendations also direct administration officials to "clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes" and to "release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities." 

Obama and Biden were joined at the White House event by families of the Newtown school shooting victims as well as by four children who wrote the president after the tragedy that left 20 young students dead. 

"This is our first task as a society: keeping our children safe," Obama said at the beginning of his remarks. "This is how we will be judged, and their voices should compel us to change."

Biden, who led the presidential task-force on gun safety in the wake of the Newtown shootings, praised the activists who met with his staff over the last week to help build the list of recommendations. 

"The world has changed and it's demanding action," Biden said. 

While some of Obama's long-expected proposals - like universal background checks - garner overwhelming public support, the outlawing of certain types of weapons may be less of a slam dunk for lawmakers eager to appease constituents. 

A recent poll from the Pew Research Center showed that a majority of Americans -- 55 percent -- back a ban on "assault-style weapons," with 40 percent saying they don't approve of a ban. But a partisan breakdown shows that only about four in ten Republicans support such restrictions, compared to a broad majority of Democrats. 

Democrats in Congress have already voiced doubts about the feasibility of the president's most ambitious proposals. 

"We're not going to get an outright ban" on assault weapons, Democrat Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York bluntly said yesterday.

 "[Senate Majority Leader] Reid has said he doesn't know whether he has the votes (for an assault weapons ban)," she added. "There's heavy lifting, so are we going to waste time on heavy lifting? Or are we going to try to work on doing something that could actually get passed?"

Related: Obama's gun plans spark little enthusiasm with key lawmakers

Supporters are more optimistic about background checks and magazine restrictions. 

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy announced Wednesday that his panel will hold its first hearing on issues relating to gun violence on Jan. 30.

In his remarks Wednesday, Obama anticipated opponents' reactions to his proposals. 

"This will be difficult," he said. "There will be pundits and politicians and special interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical all-out assault on liberty. Not because that's true, but because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves, and behind the scenes they will do everything they can to block any commonsense reform and make sure nothing changes whatsoever."

The National Rifle Association, the country's most powerful gun lobby, released a statement Wednesday afternoon in response to the president's remarks.

"We look forward to working with Congress on a bi-partisan basis to find real solutions to protecting America's most valuable asset - our children. Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation," the NRA wrote. "Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy."

That statement was relatively muted in comparison to the group's controversial ad released Tuesday night, which criticized Obama's dismissal of the gun lobby's proposal to increase armed security in schools. 

"Are the president's kids more important than yours?" a narrator asks in the short ad. "Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he's just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security."

Related: White House calls NRA 'repugnant,' 'cowardly' for invoking president's children in ad

The ad prompted outcry from observers who said the First Family should be off limits for such advertisements, while NRA backers say their focus is on school safety rather than on the president's daughters themselves. 

"Whoever thinks the ad is about President Obama's daughters are missing the point completely or they're trying to change the subject," said spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "This ad is about keeping our children safe. And the president said he was skeptical about the NRA proposal to put policemen in all schools in this country. Yet he and his family are beneficiaries of multiple law enforcement officers surrounding them 24 hours a day." 

White House spokesman Jay Carney shot back that the ad is "cowardly." 

"Most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as pawns in a political fight," he said. "But to go so far as to make the safety of the President's children the subject of an attack ad  is repugnant and cowardly."

NBC's Mark Murray, Frank Thorp, Ali Weinberg and Kelly O'Donnell contributed to this report.

Headline from our new NBC/WSJ/Marist polls: A marginal -- but not substantial -- improvement for Romney since last week’s debate… In Ohio, Obama leads among those who have already voted by 2-to-1 margin… Tonight’s main event: Biden vs. Ryan… And College Man: Obama hits his fifth-straight college campus when he visits the University of Miami (FL) at 3:25 pm ET, while Romney campaigns in North Carolina at 6:00 pm ET.

DANVILLE, Ky. -- So how much did the political environment change after last week's presidential debate as we head into tonight's VP showdown here in Kentucky? According to our new NBC/WSJ/Marist polls of three of the most important battleground states, it changed at the margins -- but not substantially. A week ago, right before the debate, our NBC/WSJ/Marist poll of Florida had President Obama with a one-point lead among likely voters, 47%-46%; now it is still one point, 48%-47%. In Ohio, Obama was ahead by eight points; now it is by six, 51%-45%. And in Virginia, Obama had a two-point edge last week, 48%-46%; now it is Romney by one, 48%-47%. So our poll shows some improvement for the GOP presidential nominee, but we seem to be back to where we were before the conventions: It's a very close race with Obama still enjoying a structural edge in the battleground states. And why was there only a little change in these surveys -- conducted Oct. 7-9 -- since last week’s debate? These numbers probably tell the story: More than 90% of the likely voters in these three states say they made up their minds BEFORE the debate. Here is a question to be asked: Is Romney over-performing in national polls and under-performing in the battlegrounds? Sure seems like it.

Slideshow: Biden on the campaign trail

Slideshow: Ryan on the campaign trail

*** Other examples: Here are more examples of marginal change since the first debate, per our NBC/WSJ/Marist polls: Obama's favorable ratings remain above 50% in all three states among likely voters (51% in Ohio and Virginia and 52% in Florida), and his overall job-approval numbers among registered voters are near 50% (48% in Florida and Virginia and 47% in Ohio). Meanwhile, Romney saw his fav/unfav rating tick up in Florida and Virginia (to 49%-44%), but it still remains under water in Ohio (44%-50%). And brand-new New York Times/CBS/Quinnipiac polls also show a marginal improvement for Romney. In Colorado, it’s Romney 48% Obama 47% vs. Obama 48% Romney 47% from a month ago. But in Virginia, they have Obama ahead, 51-46% vs. what they had before, Obama 50% Romney 46%. And in Wisconsin, it’s Obama 50% Romney 47% vs. Obama 51% Romney 45%. Bottom line: There has been some battleground-state improvement for Romney, but not a significant amount. Essentially, we’re back to where things were before the conventions -- which is a close race that slightly favors the president. 

Charles Dharapak / AP

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney takes a picture for well-wishers after an unscheduled stop at a Chipotle restaurant in Denver, Tuesday, Oct. 2, 2012.

*** A deep dive into Ohio: Our new NBC/WSJ/Marist poll also provides two explanations why Obama maintains his lead in the Buckeye State. One is early voting. According to the survey, nearly 1 in 5 respondents have already voted in Ohio, and Obama is winning them by a 63%-37% margin; among those who plan to vote on Election Day, Romney is leading, 52%-42%. What also helps to explain the president’s advantage is party ID. Last week, it was D+5 among likely voters; this week it’s D+11. But here is something else to chew on: 46% of likely voters in the survey describe themselves as conservative (when it was 35% in 2008, per the exit poll). So while the poll’s party ID in Ohio was more Democratic than last week, it was also much more conservative. Meantime, the NBC/WSJ/Marist poll of Virginia was more Republican. 

*** Biden vs. Ryan: Today’s main event, of course, is the Joe Biden-vs.-Paul Ryan debate here in Danville, KY. According to Pew, 40% expect Ryan to perform better in the debate, while 34% expect Biden to do better. Ryan also enjoys a stronger fav/unfav rating (44%-40%) than Biden does (39%-51%) in the survey. Our most recent national NBC/WSJ poll shows similar fav/unfav numbers: 37%-33% for Ryan and 37%-38% for Biden. As we wrote yesterday, Biden has more pressure on him going into the debate, but Ryan has the higher expectations, especially among base conservatives. And a question: Just how many will tune in to the debate? We’re putting the over-under at 40 million. Remember, there are two MLB playoff games tonight, as well as Steelers-Titans NFL football game.

Slideshow: On the Trail 

*** The skinny on tonight’s debate: Both Biden and Ryan will be seated. And moderator Martha Raddatz of ABC will ask questions built around nine topics (at 10 minutes per topic), and the questions will alternate between domestic and foreign policy. And that means Libya will come up. Here’s how Bloomberg describes yesterday’s congressional hearing on the topic: “Requests for additional security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, before the Sept. 11 attack were rejected by the State Department because of a desire to convey ‘normalization,’ the Republican chairman of a House panel [Darrell Issa] said.” Yesterday was not a good day for the Obama administration, nor the Clinton State Department. We still don’t know the basic answer to this question: Why, five days after the attack, did Susan Rice get briefed incorrectly? Obviously, some critics of the administration want to be believe the worst -- that it was on purpose. But do we really think the administration thought that story would hold? More troubling, it seems, was the intelligence failure, both on the front end (no warning) and on the backend (too long to figure out what happened). And it appears a lot of good old fashioned CYA – a legacy the intelligence community has been trying to shake for a decade.

*** College man: Before tonight’s debate, President Obama holds a rally at the University of Miami (FL) at 3:25 pm ET. By our count, this is the president’s FIFTH-straight event at a college campus in the past week -- the others were at the University of Wisconsin (WI), George Mason University (VA), Cleveland State (OH), and Ohio State (OH). Meanwhile, Romney campaigns in Asheville, NC at 6:00 pm ET.

*** The Senate numbers: Lastly, here are the Senate numbers from our new NBC/WSJ/Marist polls: In Florida, it’s Bill Nelson 52%, Connie Mack 39%; in Ohio, it’s Sherrod Brown 52%, Josh Mandel 41%; and in Virginia, it’s Tim Kaine 47%, George Allen 46%. 

Countdown to 2^nd presidential debate: 5 days
Countdown to 3^rd presidential debate: 11 days
Countdown to Election Day: 26 days

http://is.gd/ccxyrR%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on http://is.gd/TzuR1b%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Facebook and also on http://is.gd/hkhSDT%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Twitter. Follow us @http://twitter.com/#!/chucktodd">chucktodd, @http://twitter.com/#!/mmurraypolitics">mmurraypolitics, @http://twitter.com/#!/DomenicoNBC">DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

LONDON-- Mitt Romney said Wednesday that more restrictive gun laws would likely not have prevented last week's deadly mass shooting at a Colorado Cineplex, and argued that it would take Americans changing their hearts, not their legislation, to prevent similar future attacks.

"Political implications, legal implications are something which will be sorted out down the road," Romney told NBC's Brian Williams during an exclusive interview here in London. "But I don't happen to believe that America needs new gun laws. A lot of what this young man did was clearly against the law. But the fact that it was against the law did not prevent it from happening."

Romney, who enacted an assault weapons ban as governor of Massachusetts (with the support of a Democratic legislature) would not say whether he still believes that weapons like the AR-15 assault rifle used in the Colorado shooting were "instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people," as he described them during the bill signing ceremony in 2002.

When Williams followed up later in the interview on the Aurora attack, Romney argued that it would take a change in heart, not laws, to stop future violence.

"Well, this person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already. But he had them," Romney said, although the guns used in the shooting were all purchased legally.

"And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't. Changing the heart of the American people may well be what's essential, to improve the lots of the American people."

NBC News

NBC's Brian Williams interviews Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in London on Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Romney used the interview to shore up several policy and strategic positions laid out by his campaign in recent weeks, reiterating that he would only release two years of tax returns so as not to provide fodder for Democratic operatives to " twist and distort and to turn in different directions and try and make a big deal out of." He also repeated the major planks of his economic plan, which he says differentiates him from the last Republican president, George W. Bush.

Williams also asked the candidate about controversial comments on the front page of a British newspaper, reportedly given by an unnamed Romney adviser, who called President Barack Obama a "novice" in foreign affairs, and said the Democrat did not fully value the "Anglo-Saxon" nature of the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom.

“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special. The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have,” the adviser is quoted telling the Daily Telegraph.

Earlier today, Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul flatly denied the comments came from anyone inside the Romney camp, or that those views were shared by the former Massachusetts governor. Romney said he was generally "not enthusiastic" about adopting the comments of unnamed advisers in newspaper stories, and pointed out he gets "advice" every day along rope lines and on the street.

“But I can tell you that we have a very special relationship between the United States and Great Britain," Romney said. "It goes back to our very beginnings, cultural … and historical. But I also believe the president understands that. So I don't know agree with whoever that advisor might be. But do agree that we have a very common bond between ourselves and Great Britain."

When it comes to selecting a vice presidential nominee to join him on the Republican ticket, Romney told Williams he has still not made a final decision, and confirmed that he would not be announcing his pick until at least next week, after he returns from his week-long trip abroad.

"While I'm overseas, I'm not gonna announce my vice presidential running mate. But when the decision is made, I'll make that announcement. It's not made yet," Romney said. "I can't tell you when it's gonna be. That's … that's something which we'll decide down the road."

This visit was timed to coincide with the opening ceremonies of the 2012 Olympics, where Ann Romney’s horse, Rafalca, is competing in the equestrian sport of dressage. Will the presumptive GOP nominee be cheering it on?

"I have to tell you, this is Ann's sport. I'm not even sure which day the sport goes on," Romney said. "She will get the chance to see it, I will not be watching  the event.  I hope her horse does well.  But just the honor of being here and representing our country and seeing the other Olympians is something which I'm sure the people that are associated with this are looking forward to."