>> can you see him? towards the middle. >> ambassador, and it's been a long time since i have seen you. >> can you make sure the microphone is on? >> ok. i was part of the iraqi an iraqin, then i was parliamentarian. now i am very active in the cause. listened to the excellent panel you have gathered. i have listened to the general saying that in the past two or three years the forces taking iraq apart are much greater than

the forces that are putting iraq together. i have listened to ryan crocker, ambassador crocker, saying we symptom.ng at a it is not the cause. i agree with you completely. we talked about the political solution before the military solution. because, whatever force you said that it will yield problems. , andrms of carpet bombing what i believe has come in the arms committee, there has been carpet bombing. we have total destroyed arab sunni cities. those that were not destroyed by

the carpet bombing were destroyed by the militias in tikrit. binary -- with the iranians, dismantling all of their primary backing. the targeting that has happened to the iraqi sunnis after 2003 edy that is never been talked about in the quarters and a proper manner. genocide that is being committed against the arab , and maybe even in syria. it doesn't matter which side you are. , you have toainst be taken out. that is the question. about a sunniht

regional government which can make sure that iraq stays together rather than torn apart? >> thank you. just hand the mic off? >> it was interesting to see not aalk about how monolithic was the shia community. ,ow it was divided nationalistic movements was greater in number. the less financially rich. is, would be interesting to look at empowering these locals that are maybe to the limited iranian expansion. withan the u.s. do that

the poor history it has talking about these movements. >> there was just one more question. he is been waiting, they go. i want to go back actually, we're hearing some questions about what will happen to the sunni areas. of the example that was given about lebanon and what it took to rebuild that country, some of the services that also ambassador jeffrey spoke about. the entrepreneurial spirit that brought back electricity to baghdad. as we look at iraq, whether we talk about a feature that includes multiple states, an independent kurdistan, or not, those areas under isis will be liberated. people have to go back one way or another.

the 2 million people that a then displays. the one thing that could unite and look into a future of iraq is building upon that entrepreneurial spirit and the leadership development of youth. that has been completely neglected. i was born in iraq and raise their. i understand the iraqi resilience both on the kurdish and the other communities. i have gone back. there was a huge level of disenfranchisement and distrust of the iraqi government. whether it is to control those areas, or not. my question, how do we end our current foreign policy as well as the broader depth law make -- thatmatic and created country ownership and entrepreneurial spirit that engages the young people? we really have to think about the trauma and retranslated back into an economic productivity of rebuilding.

>> thank you very much, i'm sorry i had a couple more on my list but i think we had to leave it here. if you can wrap up your final remarks. >> i am trying to absorb all of that. becausetart with you, part of what we're trying to do is something that is not just a repetition of everything that has been numb before. we want to do it in a way that is useful. -- done before. we want to do it in a way that is useful. the structure says a lot about it. 25 senior adviser representing i can assure you every conceivable -- there is iraq

going to be a lot of healthy debate and discussion. that is very important for together thing i said at the beginning, this is hard to do, all of us involved in this, to the extent we can, need to check our preconceptions at the door. , let'shere is the issue drill down in it and let it speak to us. let it define itself rather than us trying to overlay our own preconceived definitions on whatever the issue is. again, that is really hard to do. you can check that tendency. one of the mistakes i made in my career have always involved letting my preconceptions shape and objective reality. these are very good cautions. you did hear us pontificate because that is what happens when you're sitting up here. i tried to say at the beginning, that is -- what this task force

is about is discovering iraq realities first then trying to come up with constructive ways to deal with them. not starting with the preconceptions than adjusting facts to fit those most of i'm sure we will be getting your refreshing academic critique as we proceed. [laughter] >> very quickly, on some of the other issues. otheraq'son neighbors, particularly the sunni arabs is a very important one. we spent today talking a lot about iran because that is obviously the challenge of the hour. that is our intention to look at not alwaysated, discernible, roles the arab

states like saudi arabia, jordan, do play in iraq. i have way more questions than i had tentative answers list that is an important issue. we will get at it. what else do you need to talk about? support the we nationalistic militias here at the moment? >> that is a great point. it is a challenge for the task force. who are these guys? are youngidy, if you enough to remember -- who are these guys? who directs them, what motivates them? understanding their reality, and then coming up with some ideas as to how they might to be dealt possibly incorporated

into some state structure. mind a certain sense of humility. it is not the united states that is going to do this. i think we can do some interesting analysis and iuggestions both to iraq authorities as well as our own. that aboutke entrepreneurship. one of the things that is cap lebanon going is its deeply rooted sense of personal entrepreneurship. that is alive and iraq as well. if there's one thing it is unite kurds, arabs sunnis, and arab shia, it is the desire to go make. in earlyeek in iraq 2009 at to go walk through downtown ramadi. was bustling, buyers and

sellers everywhere. i went to a couple of shops that were selling housewares. they were made in new york. i said how do you get this stuff? they have a middleman. we get a good prices. they willliveries, never meet him. it is great doing business with them. that spirit is everywhere out there. that will be something that we look at. leastn the state at allow, if not encourage, iraqis to do what they do very well which is business. >> thank you. this flurry of

questions to try to think of something intelligible about to some them all up most i usually fail, this time i will try. in looking at all of these things, let's empower the people, 70% under 20, let's find the militias, let's do something about a courtesy regional government for the sunnis. -- with a, let's find lot of it is. none of this works in my experience. the assumption we are making is patient, that is turned him or herself over to a team of doctors. do whatever you want and fix me then goes under. that team of doctors you have blood pressure guy, a blood sugar girl, a heart specialist,

this and that, they all sit together and have debates. we tried that. we were the team of doctors during the military period. we had this huge effort trying to deal with the patient. but iraq, other than a brief time around the surge were a civil war was about to tell the don't think iti ever said tell us what is wrong with us and we will do what you say. the problem is, we hear every day in iraq many people telling us what is wrong and how to fix it. never deeply ingrained in the population and the various groups. would urge is, apart from , todiplomatic and military look at those things that seem to be working, that seem to have

buy in, and seemed to be really iraqi. it can be the oil sector, electricity, trading relationships, and find ways to support that. if we try to diagnose this patient and then find ways to fix it it will keep us busy but will not do anything for the patient. >> thank you very much come with run out of time. [applause] >> thank you for everything.

[indiscernible] aaron klein on the negative interest rates. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. >> this weekend the c-span cities tour hosted by our charter communications cable partners takes you to greenville, south carolina to explore the city history and literary culture.

on book tv. >> in september of 1939, when europe went to war, our allies, primarily england and france, looked to washington dc for goods and materials they needed. looked down todc the textile capital of the world and all of a sudden government contracts came funneling into herearea asking the mills to begin producing for the war effort, initially for our allies. and then of course, for the united states as well. >> and on american history tv. >> we are standing right here and this was a pretty nasty spot. this hard to be now -- hard to believe now looking at it when it is one of the best parks in the country. this was a very depressed, nasty place. it is a great story of how a community can get behind a part and start to appreciate and

ver and its rice waterfall again. >> watch of the c-span cities 2.r that saturday on c-span's o we are visiting cities across the country. president obama held a news conference and was asked about the supreme court vacancy left by the death of justice scalia. the 2016 presidential campaign and the ongoing conflict in syria. the president hosted leaders of southeast asia countries. obama: we have agreed to a number of key principles, including the principal that it is indispensable in the asia-pacific to prosperity and

peace. it can help advance security, opportunity, and human dignity. first, we agreed to do more together. we had an excellent discussion with a number of pioneering business leaders who reiterated the recipe for attracting trade and investment. ,ule of law, transparency protection of international property, efficient customs. moderate infrastructure, e-commerce and the free flow of information, support for small and medium-sized as mrs., and most importantly, investment in people. investment in a strong schools

to educate and train the next generation. around the table there was widespread recognition that this is the path we need to continue on. if they do, it will create more opportunities for trade and investment. i affirm my strong support for the community and pledge that the united states will continue to be a partner in asean's efforts. i am also announcing a new initiative. of. asean connect, a group hubs that will help us better coordinate our economic engagement and connect our entrepreneurs with each other. we are also doing more to help aspiring innovators in the region to learn english, the internationally which of business. i reiterated the transpacific partnership, which includes the four asean members, can advance immigration and help with trade

in the asia-pacific. we have launched a new effort to help all asean countries understand the key elements of ttp, is full of the reforms that could lead to them joining. this regard -- with regard to security, we are reaffirming our strong commitment to a regional order or international rules and norms, and the rights of all nations large and small, are upheld. we discussed the need for tangible steps in the south china sea to lower tensions. including a halt to further militarization of disputed areas. freedom of navigation must be upheld and lawful commerce should not be imputed. i reiterated that the united states will continue to fly, sail, and operate were ever international law allows. we will support the right of all countries to do the same. we will continue to help our

allies'maritime capabilities. disputes within the region must be resolved peacefully through legal means, such as the upcoming arbitration ruling under the u.n. convention of the law of the seas, which the parties are obligated to respect and abide by. third, i made it clear that the united states will continue to stand with of those across southeast asia who are working to advance rule of law with governance, accountable institutions, and the universal rights of all people. we continue to encourage a return to civilian rule in thailand. we will sustain our engagement with the people of myanmar as a new president is selected and they will work to move forward with national reconciliation. across the region we will continue to stand with citizens and defend their freedom of speech, of assembly, and of the press. no one, including those in political opposition, should

never be detained for simply speaking their mind. countriest harder for to truly thrive and prosper. we are doing more to deal with transnational challenges together. i offered our assistance to help asean countries better leverage interpol data to prevent the flow of foreign terrorist fighters. we agreed that implementing the paris climate change agreement, including helping developing countries adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change, will be critical. it will enable them to leap ahead to new and affordable clean energy. thee pursue our sustainable moment goals, we are launching a new competition, and innovation challenge to encourage students to develop new solutions to boost agriculture. we are moving ahead with our global security agenda to prevent future epidemics. i pledged additional u.s. assistance to help asean combat

the horror of human trafficking. i believe this summit has put our partnership on a new trajectory that will take us to greater heights in the decades ahead. american's foreign policy will rebalance to the asian-pacific and continue to be a foreign policy of my presidency. i look forward to visiting vietnam for the first time in may and becoming the first u.s. insident to visit laos september. i am confident that whoever the best president may be will build on the foundation we built a. -- the foundation we built. and through our young southeast asian leaders initiative, our investment in young people, in their business success, and civil society across the region, i believe will further bind us together in the spirit of

partnership and friendship for many years to come. so with that, let me take a few questions. i will start with darlene from the associated press. you, mr. president. my question is about the supreme court. [laughter] haveat recourse do you if you're supreme court nominee is blocked? do you think if you chose conservative enough, they would stop blocking you? obama: first of all, i want to reiterate my heartfelt condolences to the scalia family. obviously, justice scalia and i had different political orientations and probably would have disagreed on the outcome of certain cases, but there is no

doubt that he was a giant on the supreme court, helped to shape the legal landscape. he was by all accounts, a good loved his family deeply. and so, it is important before we rush in to all the politics of this to take stock of someone who made enormous contributions to the united states. we are grateful not only for his service, but for his family's service. um. clearnstitution is pretty about what is supposed to happen now. when there is a vacancy on the supreme court the president of the united states is to nominate someone. the senate is to consider that nomination. they disapprove of

that nominee, or that nominee is elevated to the supreme court. historically, this has not been viewed as a question. there is no unwritten law that says that i can only be done on off years. that is not any constitutional text. i am amused when i hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there. there is more than enough time for the senate to consider in a thoughtful way the record of a nominee that i present and to make a decision. and with respect to our process, we are going to do the same thing we did with respect to kagan's nomination

and just decide. we are going to find someone who cares about democracy and rule of law. there is not going to be any particular position on a particular issue that determines whether or not i nominate them, but i am going to present somebody who indisputably anis qualified for the seat and any fair-minded person, even somebody who disagreed with my , would serveld say with honor and integrity on the court. now, part of the problem that we have here is we have almost gotten accustomed to how obstructionist the senate has become one it comes to nominations. i mean, i have got 14 nominations that have been pending that were unanimously

approved by the dish area committee -- by the judiciary committee. republicans and democrats all agreed that they were well qualified for the position. and yet, we can't get a vote on those individuals. in semi, this argument is an extension of what we have seen in the senate generally. and not just on judicial nominees. the basic function of government requires that the president of the united states in his or her people,has a team of cabinet secretaries, assistant secretaries, that can carry out the basic functions of government. it requires, the constitution requires, that we appoint judges so they can carry out their functions as a separate branch of government. we've almostthat

grown accustomed to a situation that is almost unprecedented where every nomination is contested, everything is blocked, regardless of how qualified the person is -- even when there is no ideological certainly, where there no disqualifying actions by the nominee. the fact that it is that hard, that we are even discussing this is a measure of how unfortunately the venom and rancor in washington is preventing us from getting basic work done. this would be a good moment for us to rise above that. i understand the stakes. i understand the pressure that

republican senators are undoubtedly under. the fact of the matter is, the issue here is the core is court is now divided on many issues. this is the deciding vote. there are a lot of republican senators under pressure from various special interests, many let any nominee go through. no matter who i nominate. that is not how the system should work. that is not our democracy should work. nominate in due time , a very well-qualified candidate. if we're falling basic precedent , then that nominee will be presented before the committees. a vote will be taken.

ultimately, they will be confirmed. when justice kennedy was , andated by ronald reagan ronald reagan's last year in office, a vote was taken. there were a lot of democrats who did not agree with justice kennedy with his position on a variety of issues. they did the right thing. they confirmed him. if they voted against him, they certainly did not mount a filibuster to block a vote from him coming into office. this is the supreme court. the highest court in the land. where we wouldrt expect elected officials to rise above day-to-day politics. and, this would be the opportunity for senators to do their job. your job does not stop until your voted out.

or until your term expires. do my job between now and generate 20 as of 2017. i expect them to do their job as well. let's see who we have here. jeff mason, thank you mr. president. that, should we determine from your comments that you are more likely to choose a moderate nominee, -- president obama: i do not know where you found that. not assume anything about the qualifications, other than they will be well-qualified. to follow up, would you consider a recess appointment if your nominees not granted a hearing your go -- hearing? obama: i believe we have the time to go through a regular order and regular processes. we can present them to the american people into the senate. i expect to hold hearings and

have a vote. >> lastly, as long as region this in a row, how do you is undercutriticism by you and your administration who were in the senate at the time trying to filibuster judge alito? president obama:. i think what is fair to say is how judicial nominations have notved over time is historically the fault of any single party. this is one more extension of politics. and, there are times where people in the senate are thinking, as i just described, it will discuss the problems the primary? will this cause me problems with supporters?

so, people make strategic decisions. i understand that. true is thatalso justice alito is on the bench. i think that historically, when you look at it, regardless of what votes senators have made, there is a basic consensus that the supreme court is different. who willus may decide vote, where and what. basically, you at the vote,. you make sure that a well-qualified candidate is able to join the bench, you do not agree with them. my expectation is that this should happen here. now, this will be one more test the norms andnot

the rules, basic fair play can function at all in washington these days. i do want to point out that this is not just the supreme court. seen a consistently breakdown in the basic functions of government because the senate will not confirm well-qualified nominees, even when their voted out of committee. meaning that their voted by both parties without objection. we still have problems. there is a certain mindset that says we're going to grind the system down. ,f we do not like the president then we will just not let him make any appointments. we're going to make it tougher for the administration to do their basic job.

will make sure that ambassadors are unseeded, even of these are critical countries and it may have an impact on our international relations. we'll make sure judges are not confirmed, despite the fact that justice roberts has pointed out that there are emergencies in courts around the country because there are not enough judges into me cases. so, this has become a habit. it becomes worse and worse each year. is not something i've spent a huge amount of time talking about. average,can people on are more interested on gas wages, issues that impact their day to day lives. it does not get a lot of attention. this is the supreme court. it is going to get some attention. we have to ask ourselves, are we

able to make this democracy work the way it is supposed to? i would challenge anyone who purports to be adhering to the founders,ntent of the anybody who believes in the constitution to come up with a plausible rationale as to why he would not even have a hearing for a nominee made in accordance with the constitution by the president. practically a year left in office. it is hard to find that in the constitution. ok? you have gotten for now, jeff. >> thank you.

two different topics. first on syria. last year when vladimir putin was about to enter syria you said he was doing it out of a position of weakness and he would only have an issue, now it basically going to bolster president assad and backed the rebels. how do you respond to critics who say you are outfoxed by the russian president? what is your plan if it does fall? you plan to step up action to help the rebels in syria who are fighting isis? this is getting to be a lot of questions. you asked me a big question first. how about answer that one? , if you look back at transcripts, what i said was

that russia has been propping up resident assad this entire time. that vladimir putin had to send his own military and invest this operation is not a strengths, itreat is a testament to the weakness of president assad's position. if somebody is strong, you do not have to send the army to prop up your ally. they have legitimacy in their country. they are able to manage it themselves. , when then your army course you are backing is not effective. that is exactly what has happened. russiasaid was that

would get involved with a quagmire. absolutely, it will. if there is anybody who thinks that the fighting ends because russia and the regime has made , three quarters of the country is under control of people other than a side. that is not going to stop anytime soon. so, i say that with no pleasure. a contest between the environment putin, the question is how can we stop the suffering and stabilize the region? stop this massive migration of refugees who are having such a terrible time. and the violence. stop the bombing of schools and , and innocent civilians. stop crating a safe haven for isis.

there is nothing that has happened over the last several weeks that points to those issues being solved. that is what i mean by a quagmire. now, vladimir putin may think that he is prepared to invest in a permanent occupation of syria with the russian military, that'll be pretty costly. but to be a big piece of business. and, if you look at the state of the russian economy, that is probably not the best thing for russia. smarter would be for russia to work with the united states and others other parties in the international community to try to broker a political transition. john kerry working with his russian counterpart has, on aper said that there will be sustained should of hostility in a few days. this will test whether or not that is possible.

it is hard to do because of all the bloodshed. if russia continues indiscriminate bombing of the sort we have begun to see, it is safe to say you will not see a take-up by the opposition. yes, russia is a major military. bunch of rebels or not be able to compete with the hardware of the second-most powerful military in the world. , that does not solve the problem of actually stabilizing syria. to only way to do that is bring about some sort of political transition. we will see what happens over the next several days. and, we will continue to work with our partners who are focused on defeating isis to also see how we can work together to try to bring about a

more lasting political solution then the aerial bombardment of schools and houses. it is difficult. i'm under no illusions that -- a country has been shattered, because he was willing to shatter it. and he has repeatedly missed opportunities to try to arrive at a political transition. been a party to the entire process. and the real question we should , what is it that russia thinks it gains if it gets a country that has been completely destroyed as an ally? that it now has to perpetually spend billions of dollars to prop up.

that is not a good price. isortunately, the problem that there is a spillover effect that is harming everybody. that is what we have to focus on. us fromnot distracting continuing to focus on isis. are continuing to press them hard and both iraq and syria. that will not stop. if we can get a political transition, that will allow us to work more effectively. not just with russia but others folks region to focus on who posed the greatest direct threat to the united states. >> thank you. i want to ask you first of all if you think military intervention will be necessary in libya?

do think that by the end of your presidency that it will impact stronghold? hical the laugh ofma: nongolfers there is a reference to pj quest. my score is classified. with respect to libya, i have been clear from the outset that we will go after isis wherever it appears. we will go after al qaeda wherever they appear. the testament to the fact that we are doing that already is one of isis out

most prominent leaders in libya. we will continue to take actions where we have a clear operation and a clear target in mind. we are working with other coalition partners to make sure that as we see opportunities to isis from digging in in libya, we take them. at the same time, we are working diligently with the united nations to try to get a government in place in libya. that has been a problem. the tragedy in libya over the , they have aars is small population and a lot of oil wealth.

they are divided by tribal lines and ethnic lines. power plays. there is now a recognition on the part of the broad middle among their political leadership that it makes sense to unify so that there is some semblance of a state there. side areemes on either still making it difficult for that state to cohere. if we can get that done, that will be enormously helpful. our strong preference as always is to train people of libya to fight. news is that they do not like outsiders coming in telling them what to do. ofre are a lot constituencies who are hard fighters. isis, ort ascribe to

their perverse ideology. they cannot be fighting each other. that is probably as important as anything we will be doing in libya or in the coming months. >> thank you. the democratic race to replace you has gotten kind of heated lately. hillary clinton is saying she is currently testing -- presenting herself as the rightful heir to your legacy. while also saying that bernie sanders has been disloyal to you. is she correct? well, that is a great thing about the primary. everybody is trying to differentiate themselves. , bernie and hillary agree on a lot of stuff.

they disagree across-the-board the board with everything republicans stand for. you know, my hope is that we will let primary voters and caucus goers have their say for a while, we will let this thing play out. i know hillary better than i know bernie because she served in my administration. she was an outstanding secretary of state. that on certain issues she agrees with me more than bernie does. on the other end, there may be some issues where bernie agrees with me more. i do not know, i have not studied their positions close enough. here is what i have confidence in. believe invoters certain principles. they believe in equal opportunity.

they believe and making sure that every kid in this country gets a fair shot. they believe in making sure that economic growth is a broad base and everybody benefits from it. they believe in preserving a strong safety net through programs like social security and medicare. they believe and a foreign policy that is not reckless. it is tough and protects the american people, but does not shoot before it aims. they believe in climate change. they believe science matters. they believe it is important for us to have basic regulations to keep our air and water clean, and to make sure that banks do not engage in an excess of can result in the kind of things we saw 2007-2008. there is a broad convergence of interest around those issues.

i think what you're seeing among democrats right now is a difference in tactics. how do youre out actually get things done? in ao you actually operate political environment that has become so polarized. you deal with the power of special-interest? how do you do with a republican party that has moved so far to the right that it is often hard to find common ground? debate taking place right now. it is a healthy debate. , if i have an opinion votes being a candidate of hope and change and a president who has some bumps and bruises from getting stuff

done over the last seven years, for now, i think it is important for democratic voters to express themselves and for candidates to be run through the bases. the thing i can say unequivocally is that i am not unhappy, i am not only ballot. >> i want to continue the 2016 questions. on the republican side, a lot of you are probably intrigued that there is a candidate who is still winning who is all for a changing thes and population. the point -- president obama: let's stick to two.

you said anger resentment, economic security, the question is how much responsibility do you expect for that reservoir of feeling in the country propelling us that way? you also said donald trump will not win the presidency. do you now think that he will also not win the nomination? what about ted cruz in marco -- ted cruz and marco rubio? president obama: i think foreign observers are troubled by some of the rhetoric that has taken place in his republican primaries, and republican debates. i do not think it is restrictive to mr. trump. i find it interesting that everybody is focused on him, primarily because he says in more interesting ways with the other candidates are saying as well. he may up the ante in

anti-muslim sentiment. if you look at what the other republican candidates have said, that is troubling as well. may express strong anti-immigration sentiment, but we have heard that from the other candidates as well. give a candidate who sponsored a bill to finally solve the immigration problem. he is running away from it as fast as he can. they are all the nine climate change. that is troubling to the international community. the science is unequivocal. the other countries around the world kind of count on the being on the side of science. in reason. and common sense. because, they know that if the

united states does not act on big problems in smart ways, nobody will. this is not just donald trump. look at the statements being made by the other candidates, there is not a single candidate in the republican primary that things we should do anything about climate change. none of them take it seriously. that is a problem. the rest of the world looks at that of things how can that be? you toleave it to speculate on how the race will go. i continue to believe mr. trump will not be president. the reason is because i have a lot of faith in the american evil. that thehey recognize president is a serious job.

show ort hosting a talk reality show. it is not about promotion. it is not marketing. it is difficult. a lot of people count on us getting it correct. it is not a matter of pandering and doing whatever will get you in the news on a given day. toetimes it requires you make a hard decision you and if the decision is unpopular. and stating up for people who are vulnerable but do not have a powerful political machine to help them. being able to work with leaders around the world in a way that reflects the importance of the office. and it gives people confidence that you know the facts.

and you know their names. you know where they are on a map. you know something about their history. you're not just going to play to the crowd back home. because, they have their own crowds back home. we're trying to solve problems. primaries, people vent and express themselves in ways that seem like entertainment. oftentimes it is reported like entertainment. , reality has aer way of intruding. and, these are the folks who, i have faith in. will ultimately save whoever standing where i am standing has the nuclear codes with them. they can order 21-year-olds into a firefight, they have to make sure that the banking system does not collapse.

for it is often responsible not just united states of america, but 20 other countries having big problems. the american people are pretty sensible. i think that will make a sensible choice in the end. thank you everybody. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> wrote to the white house beginning i will. in caucus went stateside 1972. we went to new hampshire for the first in the nation primary which has a long and rich history. now, we really begin to test the candidates. we move south and the south we move into the party caucus in nevada for democrats and republicans.

more than likely, we will see candidates drop out of the race so the field will get narrow. then come we move into early march. super tuesday will have a winner take all primary. as he watched the delegate -- --icate count continue delegate count continue, we see who is resonating and who is on the path to the nomination. journal is next. we will take your calls. this morning come we look at the oil market. campaigns in south carolina, we have his remarks live at 5:00 p.m. eastern time. rubiolorida senator marco holds a townhall meeting in south carolina. coming up later, we will talk to about theurt reporter path of justice scalia over the

weekend, and the legacy left on the court. the bipartisan policy center on the federal reserve and possible changes to interest rates in the coming weeks. that you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> good morning. president obama said the constitution is clear. the senate should take up his nominee to replace the late justice. the first news conference since the passing of the justice, president obama vowed to represent a qualified nominee. should aifications supreme court justice have. republicans 202-748-8001. democrats 202-748-8000. independents 202-748-8002