Within minutes of Justice Antonin Scalia’s unexpected passing, Republicans implored the president to abdicate his constitutional duty to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” said Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell at a time when other political leaders were releasing statements offering condolences to the Justice’s family.

President Obama, in a demonstration of class and respect, offered praise for the conservative who, more than any other justice, had been a thorn in his side.

“He will no doubt be remembered as one of the most consequential judges and thinkers to serve on the Supreme Court,” said Obama. “Justice Scalia dedicated his life to the cornerstone of our democracy: The rule of law. Tonight, we honor his extraordinary service to our nation and remember one of the towering legal figures of our time.”

But the President was having none of the advice coming from all corners of GOP land.

“Obviously, today is a time to remember Justice Scalia’s legacy,” said Obama. “I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time. There will be plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote.”

The untimely death of Justice Scalia has put Republicans between a rock and far-right place. If they follow through on their promise to not even consider the President’s eventual nominee, they will show themselves to be the obstructionists they are and not as defenders of the Constitution. If they acquiesce, they will be seen as spineless by their “take no prisoners” base already angry with the Republican governing class.

Democrats have shown themselves to be a respectful bunch following the passing of Scalia. While the late Justice was perhaps the most loathed figure among liberals, they followed the president’s example by not exalting what many secretly believed to be a stroke of good luck.

No matter what the Republican Senate decides to do, the Democrats are in the catbird seat. All they need to do is have their nominee … whichever one it may be … elected president and the direction of the Supreme Court will be changed for decades … much like when Antonin Scalia was appointed to the Court by Ronald Reagan 30 years ago.

Photo | mashable.com

You say you want a revolution, well you know. We all want to change the world -John Lennon

The choice for Democrats has come down to this: vote with your head or vote with your heart? Go with the visionary or go with the pragmatist? Demand a revolution or let evolution take it’s course.

Both Clinton and Sanders believe our political system is broken. Each candidate agrees fundamental change is needed. But where Bernie wants to take down the system, Hillary wants to improve it from the inside out. It’s the difference between one small step or a giant leap.

Voters on the right as well as the left consider Washington paralyzed and corrupt. They want big changes, and they want them now.

Clinton is asking the American voter, especially enthusiastic, young Sanders supporters, to grow up and get practical; to think about electability in swing states, not popularity on campus. She is trying to convince them that revolution isn’t in the cards, but that evolution is possible, and that she’s the candidate who can deliver it.

Sanders argues fundamental change can’t happen because of the power of special interests and the corrupt campaign finance system. He implies Clinton cannot change our corrupt system because she is part of the status quo; she is wedded to Wall Street and other special interests that have donated big money to her campaign and super PAC.

Just as there is a split between mainstream conservatives and far right conservatives in the Republican Party, a divide exists between Progressive and moderate Democrats.

Progressive Democrats agree with Hillary that electability needs to be considered but they believe Bernie is the more electable of the two. They point out Clinton’s high negative ratings among the electorate. Polls have shown Clinton to have unfavorability ratings, nationwide, close to 60%. Nobody wins a general election when close to 60 percent of Americans don’t trust the candidate.

At this point in the contest, the odds are still great that Hillary will be the Democratic presidential nominee. The only thing that could stop her is a new scandal.

It was reported recently the State Department inspector general issued a subpoena last fall targeting the Clinton Foundation and some of the charitable events hosted by the organization. The I.G. is looking into whether some of those events required the permission of the federal government. The investigation could expand beyond such a narrow focus. (Clinton Foundation scandal)

With the Clintons, you never know. As a Bernie supporter might say, “Oy vey!”

Photo | usatoday.com

Only in this year’s bizarro world of Republican presidential politics can a loss be celebrated as a win. First it was Marco Rubio’s third place finish in the Iowa caucus. Now it is Jeb Bush’s fourth place finish in the New Hampshire primary.

Bush donors and fundraisers were practically giddy with Jeb’s showing in New Hampshire, saying their man has finally found his footing in the chaotic contest otherwise known as the Republican presidential race.

The Republican contest now moves on to South Carolina, which holds its primary on February 20.

“He needed to be in the game, and last night, he was able to do so,” said Barry Wynn, a former South Carolina Republican chairman, now Bush fundraiser. In speaking of Donald Trump’s first place finish in New Hampshire, Wynn went on to say, “I don’t think (Trump) sells well in the south.” And even though Trump tops the polls in the Palmetto State, Wynn said, “You may find that South Carolina corrects some of the mistakes of New Hampshire.”

Much like Hillary Clinton views South Carolina as her firewall, which in her case means coming in first, Jeb is also looking to do well in next week’s primary. But what that actually means for the Bush camp is hard to say. Does Jeb need to win? Come in second or third?

Bush may be helped by the departure of Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina from the race. It is unlikely voters who had supported either candidate will now move to Trump. The odds are those supporters will back one of the establishment candidates.

Jeb has a strong organization in South Carolina, which backed his brother George W. in 2000. The former president is still well-liked in the Palmetto State. The Bush camp started airing a radio ad yesterday featuring George W., and Jeb is also relying on the support of the state’s U.S. senator, Lindsey Graham.

In this crazy Republican presidential race, the establishment may still get their man, Jeb, as their party’s nominee. Bush has the money; the organization; and the backing of his beloved brother to actually come in second or third behind Donald Trump in South Carolina … which in Republican-speak would be a resounding victory.

You never know. We might get a Clinton v. Bush contest after all.

Photo | telegraph.co.uk

In 2008, Hillary Clinton was broadly seen as the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic nomination for president over a little-known, first-term Illinois senator… and lost. Coming into the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination contest, Hillary was once again labeled the prohibitive favorite over a little-known, self-described septuagenarian socialist from tiny Vermont.

Hillary Clinton lost the New Hampshire primary yesterday to the white-haired, fiery Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders. But that is not the real news as his victory was widely expected. The deflating fact for Clinton is that she got trounced. Sanders won with 60% of the vote to Clinton’s 38.3% … a difference of 21.7%!

The Clinton camp had hoped to keep Sanders’ margin of victory in the high single to low double-digit range. Instead, she got beaten by a margin very few pundits had predicted. The Democrat voters of New Hampshire were feeling the Bern.

What has to be most alarming for Clinton, she lost to Sanders in almost every demographic group. Clinton’s only win was among people with incomes above $200,000. Sanders carried majorities of both men and women. He won among those with and without college degrees. He won among gun owners and non-gun owners. He won 83% of the youth vote, virtually identical to the percentage of young people he attracted in Iowa.

The next primary will be held in South Carolina on February 27. The state has been dubbed Clinton’s “firewall.” She is currently leading in the polls by nearly 30% over Sanders. But with a little over two weeks to go and with Bernie’s momentum following his blowout win in New Hampshire, the margins are sure to tighten.

At her concession speech last night, a sullen looking Bill Clinton watched as his wife tried to put a positive spin on a devastating loss. You could almost see the wheels turning … “Damn, not again!”

President Obama won in 2008, despite all the polling and political punditry that labeled him unelectable, primarily because he was able to generate energy and enthusiasm. There is no doubt Hillary Clinton is the most experienced presidential candidate in either party. But she is not able to generate the excitement the 74-year-old Vermont Senator brings to the contest.

While Clinton talks about carrying on the Obama legacy, Sanders is talking about a political revolution. That message seems to be resonating across the board.

Could Bernie Sanders be this year’s Barack Obama? Just look at Bubba’s face.

Click to show your support

Click to sign up for email

Photo | outsidethebeltway.com

MSNBC hosted a one-on-one Democratic presidential debate last night that I doubt many people watched. It was added to the debate schedule at the last minute, no thanks to Democratic National Committee chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

With Martin O’Malley having withdrawn from the race only a few days before, we finally got the match-up we had hoped for: Clinton v. Sanders … mano-a-mano … may the best man (woman) win.

The DNC originally refused to sanction the debate but later relented when both candidates agreed to attend the debate moderated by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd. The debate was held at the University of New Hampshire in Durham, New Hampshire.

If you did watch the debate, you were treated to what a presidential debate should look like. Substantive issues were discussed without any acrimony or name-calling. The evening was more like Masterpiece Theater than the Jerry Springer show offered by Republicans.

The question after any debate is always “Who won?” In last night’s debate both candidates won. They each showed a deep understanding of the issues and communicated their answers effectively. Some pundits thought Clinton needed a knock-out punch because of her poor poll numbers heading into the New Hampshire primary this coming Tuesday, February 9. Time will tell.

Each candidate got rousing rounds of applause during the debate but the loudest came towards the end of the evening when Bernie said of himself, and Hillary, “On our worst days, I think it is fair to say we are 100 times better than any Republican candidate.”

Truer words were never spoken.

Democrats are blessed with two candidates who are both presidential material. Some progressives have stated they will only vote if Bernie gets the nomination. I say to those ardent Sanders supporters, listen to Bernie. If you’re a Democrat, the bottom line needs to be this: vote for your party’s nominee whoever that may be.

For those who are going through Republican-reality-show-withdrawal, their next debate is this Saturday, February, 6, at Saint Anselm College, Manchester, New Hampshire.