>> thanks to miguel for that report. you can find my on instagram or twitter @ari melber. deal or no deal? let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm steve kornacki in for chris matthews. chris is in japan this week as a guest of the ambassador caroline kennedy and the john f. kennedy library foundation honoring the legacy of president kennedy. he'll be back next week. let me begin tonight with iran's pen pal, senator tom cotton of arkansas. the freshman was able to corral 46 of his fellow senators to send a letter to iranian leaders essentially aimed at blows up nuclear negotiations. this evening, cotton took to the senate floor and defended the move.

>> the deal foreshadowed by the president allowing iran to have uranium-enrichment capabilities and accepting an expiration date on any agreement, to quote benjamin netanyahu, doesn't block iran's path to the bomb, it paves iran's path to the bomb. if you think, as i do, the islamic state is dangerous, a nuclear armed islamic republic is even more so. >> one of the few republicans to express a measure of regret over that letter, senator john mccain conceded it was a rush job due in part to the fact that, quote, everybody was looking forward to getting out of town because of the snowstorm last week. mccain was a rare exception. for the most part republicans doubled down of their support for the letter. majority liter mitch mcconnell saying that he has no regrets. >> i signed the letter. i don't think it was a mistake. it's no more unusual than robert byrd going to moscow or john

kerry going to monagwa. >> did you go over it? did you look at it? >> yeah, i read it. >> make suggestions? >> it was entirely appropriate to explain that the process is going to include congress at some point. now, the president would like to keep us out of it. we know that. but we're going to be involved in it. >> secretary of state john kerry, again, called the letter reckless when asked if he would have to apologize to the iranians for the letter, kerry had this to say. >> not on your life. i'm not going to apologize for the -- for an unconstitutional, unthought out action by somebody that's been in the united states senate for 60-some days. that's just inappropriate. >> secretary kerry and his iranian counterpart held five hours of talks today in switzerland. one u.s. official telling "reuters" rat the iranian delegation raised the cotton letter and called it ill-timed and ill-advised. late this afternoon i spoke to senator joe manchin of west virginia. so, senator manchin on this issue of the letter that 47

republicans signed last week, the negotiations are resuming now in switzerland. do you think that switzerland could effect those negotiations and whether a deal is struck? >> well, steve, it sure isn't going to help. there's no way that letter can be of any help for us getting an agreement that's going to be good for us to keep iran from getting a nuclear weapon. that's the whole purpose of what we're doing in negotiations. i signed a letter, there were ten senators with menendez, that we signed saying let's wait until march 24th. lay the deal out, let's see what we negotiated with our other five nato partners. with the p5+1. we're not in it by ourselves. let's see what we have. also i signed a piece of legislation, the menendez/kirk. it's bipartisan. democrats and republicans that says if we don't have a deal by the end of june, we'll double down on our sanctions which we know will be effective. and it will hurt them. so i've done and put myself in

position, and steve, we've said this, if this is policy or is it politics? if you're wanting to do policy, it should be bipartisan. no one ever approached me about a letter. even tell me what the contents, show me the letter, or asked me if i would want to sign. i would not have signed it but i would have had input on why i think it shouldn't have been done. >> do you think the motive from tom cotton and the republicans was to make a political statement or have some effect on the outcome of the negotiations? >> well, either way has to make a political statement. i mean, either way it goes, it's a political statement to be made. it wasn't intended to, nor was there an attempt to make it bipartisan. if you want pure policy here, especially within the senate, you better have democrats and republicans, at least a few on both sides working together. >> you mentioned -- >> that didn't happen. >> you mentioned the bill that you and senator menendez are behind. there's also this legislation from bob corker, republican of tennessee, senate foreign relations committee chairman. he wants to introduce a bill that would require congress to

approve any deal before it's implemented. over the weekend white house chief of staff dennis mcdonough sending a letter to corker urging him to reconsider that. he wrote "we believe the legislation would likely have a profoundly negative impact on the ongoing negotiations emboldening iranian hardliners, differentiating the allies in the negotiations and once again calling into question our ability to negotiate this deal. the administration's request to the congress is simple, let us complete the negotiations before the congress acts on legislation. if we successfully negotiate a framework by the end of this month in a final deal by the end of june, we expect a robust debate in congress." let me ask you, what is the role in your mind, the proper role for congress here? because the case that the republicans are making, the democrats who signed on to the corker legislation make is, hey, look, any deal that's struck is going to involve easing sanctions that congress passed. so shouldn't congress get a vote on any deal? >> well, steve, first of all, bob corker is a dear friend of

mine. he came and he asked me to look at the letter, or look at the bill and sign on. i've looked at the bill i'm not comfortable signing onto that bill if i see we're able to through diplomacy and diplomatic measures get a commitment and a treaty, if you will. let me say this. you know when we had all, tom, a year and a half, two years ago when the white house and the state department wanted to drop bombs on syria? i spoke out very loudly against that because i didn't know what it was going to prove. we weren't going to take out assad, weren't going to be able to get the weapons, chemical weapons off the table, if you will. we were table to convince and change because of the input. we worked through the process. we didn't get the final signoff. but they worked out a deal with russia and now we have chemical weapons taken off the table in syria. i think that was a success. so i'm going to do everything i can through the process we have, i'll be outspoken when needed. i'm in a position now to make

sure that a treaty, a good treaty is going to be signed. if not, then we're going to double down on sanction which we're serious about, and the 24th, end of this week, we should have a complete layout of where the deal is. i would say, let's wait and see what comes forth and make the decision whether it be on the corker or any other legislation. >> the question then is how much time do you want to wait here? you're talking about the end of this month, the 24th. we'll know what the framework is. the white house putting out the word the actual specifics of the deal, though, maybe not until mid-june, maybe not until late june. would you be willing to wait? would the senate be willing to wait that long? >> well, the framework is basically going to tell us the path they're going down. i want to see that framework. everybody is saying they don't know what's in the deal. you know, i wanted to have a briefing so i went -- i went and called state department and samantha powers called me back. we had a nice chat. i went through everything that i heard in the netanyahu speech. everything that i've seen and read about. she was very frank and very

direct. it was a very good conversation. they've been very open. they're willing to continue to meet and be very open about where they are in the process. i feel i haven't been getting the knowledge and input i need and i'll continue to ask for that, but i'm willing to say, let's say, on march 24th, look at the deal. look at the diagram, if you will, the diagram of the deal and be able to see and keep updated by the state department to find out what areas we can, whether it's, you know, the time, length of time we're talking about, or the breakout time. all the different things or the centrifuges or the unfettered access. all these things we're concerned about. i'm determined as every other senator here is determined that iran will not get a nuclear weapon. we all have different directions and different ways to get there and i feel that basically there's a process in place, and we should work with the process we have. >> all right. senator joe manchin, thanks for your time. >> thank you, steve. this weekend senator tom cotton insisted the letter was meant to sent a clear message to

the iranian regime, day were within their rights in doing so. cbs' bob schieffer asked cotton this pointed question. >> are you planning to contact any other of our adversaries around the country? for example, do you plan to check with the north koreans to make sure that they know that any deal has to be approved by the congress? >> bob, right now i and most every other senator is focused on stopping iran from getting a nuclear weapon. that's why it's so important that we communicated this message straight to iran because they're not hearing it from geneva. >> i'm joined now by retired army general paul eaton, an adviser to the group vote vets. "washington post" columnist, eugene robinson, an msnbc political analyst. general, let me start with you. in the same question i asked senator manchin there. kerry with the iranians in switzerland trying to hammer out this deal. what role does that letter that was sent last week, that open letter to the iranian regime by the 47 republican senators, what role is that playing?

how is it affecting those conversations and those negotiations in switzerland? >> steve, thank you. and good to be with you, mr. robinson. that letter was patronizing, poorly written and i think a gross breach of discipline. it serves no other purpose than to undercut the primary negotiators en route to a negotiated agreement we hope and it was destructive to that process. we've been at this for 18 months. let's demonstrate some strategic patience and some discipline here and wait to see what we've got coming out of it. >> rand paul was among the senators who signed on to cotton's letter. this weekend. paul gave a novel rationale for the support. he said he was just trying to help president obama. according to the "huffington post" paul said, "there's no one in washington more against war and more a negotiated deal than i am, but i want the negotiated deal to be a good deal. my reason for signing on to the letter reiterates what is the

actual law that congress will have to undo sanctions but i also signed on to the letter because i want the president to negotiate from a position of strength which means he needs to be telling them in iran that i've got congress to deal with." eugene, let's talk about congress and the role they're trying to play here at least, the republicans with this letter, but also some of this legislation, this bob corker legislation, for instance, has had democratic support behind it. there is no indication yet for all of the democratic outrage over the letter, itself, there's no indication that the democrats who have been supporting this legislation are going to back off yet. seems the white house still has its work cut out for it on that front. >> well, the white house will have its work cut out if, indeed, it reaches a framework agreement depending on what that agreement says. of course, we don't know where they're going to end up. so, you know, in that sense, all of this is premature, and look, as far as rand paul's contention that this was all to help the president, i wonder if he got a thank you call from the white house. i kind of doubt it.

because while it is in any negotiation the sort of good cop/bad cop setup, it could be useful to have some noise in washington about, you know, this better be a good deal, this better be, you know, a deal that really locks down the program. in fact, it is not at all helpful to have this sort of letter from 47 u.s. senators to the supreme leadership of iran. this is unprecedented, and it only can be destructive to what i think rand paul genuinely wants and what most people genuinely want which is a solution to this without war. >> well, general, in terms of the conversation, then, of congress' role, a vote by congress, what the corker bill wants, say, hey, if you cut a deal with iran, we want in congress to have a vote in this. that's what the corker bill is basically saying here. what about the argument for that? you know, which is basically as you were saying with senator manchin there, the argument that congress would have to ease some of these restrictions that congress passed in the event of any deal?

why shouldn't congress get an up/down vote on the deal, itself? what do you think of that? >> steve, we're talking about an executive agreement here. the same kind of agreement that ended the vietnam war in 1973. we're not talking about a treaty negotiation. advice and consent for treaty passage by 67 senators, i get that. this is an opportunity for senators to weigh in with the president of the united states. with the secretary of state. and provide their advice, consent not required. >> all right, thank you general paul eaton, eugene robinson from the "washington post." coming up, the fight is on in new hampshire where scott walker and jeb bush traded punches, and ted cruz told a 3-year-old girl her world is on fire. that in just a minute. plus, does hillary clinton need a sparring partner, a democratic rival to make her a stronger candidate against the republicans? james carville and jerry brown both say no.

but a lot of democrats right now aren't convinced their presumed front-runner is quite ready for primetime. a story that's captivated the country, the arrest and what appears to be the stunning confession of fugitive millionaire robert durst. finally tonight, president obama is doing it, so are 40 million other americans. time to make your final four picks. and tonight, something you're not going to get anywhere else. we have got our blue state and red state brackets. the teams you should be picking if you're a progressive. the teams you should be pick if you're a conservative. we will unveil that a few minutes from now. this is "hardball." the place for politics. ♪ nice! gr-reat! a shot like that... calls for a post-game celebration. share what you love with who you love. kellogg's frosted flakes. they're gr-r-reat!

lilly. she pretty much lives in her favorite princess dress. but once a week i let her play sheriff so i can wash it. i use tide to get out those week old stains and downy to get it fresh and soft. . . tide and downy together.

with just hours now until polls open in israel, prime minister benjamin netanyahu today making a last-minute effort to court the right wing. today telling an israeli newspaper that if he remains in charge, there will be no palestinian state on his watch. that is a reversal for netanyahu who endorsed a two-state solution back in 2009. be back right after this. . .

welcome back to "hardball." jeb bush finds himself faltering in the polls. scott walker puts the front-runner target on his back. and ted cruz finds out what happens when you tell a 3-year-old that the world is on fire. it was a wild weekend in republican presidential politics. as four candidates, count them, four candidates descended on the first of the nation state of new hampshire. the heavyweight matchup up there, jeb bush and scott walker. each candidates' first visit to the granite state in years. right now, walker has clearly stolen the hot hand from bush. in december, 63% of republicans said they could see themselves supporting bush versus 33% for walker. in just a few months, though, bush's numbers have dropped 14 points. this is among republicans, remember. walker's have soared by 20. they're now neck and neck in that metric. walker's clearly got the momentum here. bush has some friends in some very high places and

fund-raising machine that could outspend mr. monopoly if it wanted to. john brabender, republican strategist, ron reagan is an msnbc political analyst. john, let me start with you. we show those poll numbers right there. the nbc/"wall street journal" poll last week. scott walker, the number of republicans who say they could vote for him has risen that much, but the others are twice as high when it comes to jeb bush as it is with scott walker. what is scott walker tapping into in the republican party? >> people are looking for something new and exciting to be part of. it's like test driving a car. you don't want to go on the lot and drive the car you had before. you want to drive something new. the problem, also, what comes with that is further scrutiny. i would imagine scott walker is probably the first one that says, please, don't call me the front-runner because he knows that changes things. these type of races are incredibly fluid. we saw that in the last two presidential primaries on the

republican side. it will happen this time as well. >> i have to say, last week he was asked about some of the attacks of democrats. he embraced the front-runner's label. you wouldn't normally see a candidate in that position do it. ron, let me ask you about that, too. this idea, one thing i think might be going on here is bush fatigue is working two ways in the republican party. one is at a pragmatic level. day look at bush and say i don't know if the rest of the country is ready to elect another bush. maybe we're better off having somebody up there whose last name isn't bush. the other thing is the republican party moved so far to the right since bush's presidency, that's the rise of the tea party and all that sort of thing, that they look at jeb bush and say, well, the reason we got into the whole mess we have with president obama and all that is because of the bush. we need somebody more conservative than that. it's a different party right now. >> well, i think you're absolutely right. listen, we're talking about this because jeb bush and scott walker represent the two different halves of the republican party.

it's a bit of an oversimplification. you can divide the pie into more chunks than just in half. jeb bush, of course, represents the establishment of the republican party and tabbed into the establishment money already. but scott walker has the heat behind him and appeals to the right wing of the republican party, the tea party, if you will. jeb bush's problem really i think and why his numbers have gone down so far, he's boring. i think his numbers were high until he got into the race. and then people started to look at his record a little bit, particularly the conservatives and not liking what they see on, say, immigration, and other people began listening to him and thinking, huh, what's the big deal with this guy? he's not very exciting. he's not very charismatic. john is absolutely right, i think he's put his finger on it, the republican party i think now is ready for somebody not establishment. somebody to shake things up a little bit. somebody coming out of wisconsin, maybe. somebody from the tea party, maybe. and they're souring on bush a little bit.

i think john is right about that. >> i think he might be on to something there, too, about the jeb bush style. the contrast between watching jeb bush talk in public and his brother. his brother was made fun of for mangling words. his brother, i saw a real common touch there. i'm not picking up on that with jeb bush. >> not at all. >> speaking of the other one, scott walker up there in new hampshire facing multiple questions from the press, that he's a flip-flopper, flip-flopped on issues like immigration and abortion. here's walker's response to that. >> flip-flop. how do you respond to that? >> a narrative from the other campaigns. we have a strong reputation of keeping our word and the only major issue out there is immigration, and we -- we listen to the people. >> governor, what do you think the difference is between changing your mind and flip-flopping? >> if you listen to people and have a valid argument, we laid out exactly what we've done. i think people want strong leaders and leaders who listen to the people. >> also while on the trail in new hampshire, jeb bush being asked several times about rival

scott walker. let's watch his response to that. >> scott walker is also here in new hampshire today, and he called himself a possible front-runner. do you think that's a premature assessment? how do you judge it? >> well, i'm not a candidate. i don't think -- maybe he is. i don't know. >> is scott walker a flip-flopper? >> i don't know. >> john, how is that flip-flopper charge going to play in the republican party? you know, mitt romney, it may have held him back with conservatives when he ran in 2008. there were all these suspicions is he really one of us? they're trying to throw that against scott walker now. i think we're going to be hearing this a lot. how is that going to play? >> first of all, scott walker realizes something very clearly when it comes to immigration, you're better to change your position than to keep a bad position. so they very early on have made a concession that his position has evolved as they called it. let's be clear. hillary clinton i'm sure has the same problems. when she first probably decided to run for president about age 12, i'm sure the positions she holds today are not the same.

every one of these candidates have something like that, but scott walker seems to be handling it in a pretty smart way. a 3-year-old girl named julie tran stole the show at ted cruz's rally in new hampshire over the weekend when she heard ted cruz warn the crowd that the world is on fire because of the president's policies. >> the whole world's on fire. >> the world's on fire? >> the world is on fire. yes. your world is on fire. but you know what? your mommy's here, and everyone's here to make sure that the world you grow up in is even better. >> well, after a flood of headlines that cruz scared the girl, the little girl's mother went on local radio to clarify that her daughter thinks cruz is a hero. the woman is an enthusiast for ted cruz. what do you make of that?

it seems like it takes him about five, ten seconds to realize he's talking to a 3-year-old girl and changes the tone pretty abruptly. >> well, yes, but not abruptly enough. when a little girl thinks the world is literally on fire, you reassure her that it's not. you don't reinforce the idea that literally the world is on fire and then her mother, of course, then tells her ted cruz is the guy who's going to put the fire out. he just seemed a little creepy and strange to me there. and he's got to stop scaring children. >> well, we'll see what happens if the kid asks if santa claus exists on the trail. keep our eyes open for thereat. thank you, john brabender, ron reagan. the arrest and apparent confession of fugitive millionaire robert durst. we'll talk to a friend of his wife, kathleen, who disappeared three decades ago. this is "hardball." the place for politics. there's nothing more romantic than a spontaneous moment. so why pause to take a pill? and why stop what you're doing to find a bathroom? with cialis for daily use,

you don't have to plan around either. it's the only daily tablet approved to treat erectile dysfunction so you can be ready anytime the moment is right. plus cialis treats the frustrating urinary symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently, day or night. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision or any symptoms of an allergic reaction stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. why pause the moment? ask your doctor about cialis for daily use. for a free 30-tablet trial go to cialis.com

welcome back to "hardball." real estate millionaire robert durst waived his right to extradition in a new orleans

courtroom today and will be sent to los angeles. the district attorney in los angeles just announced that durst will be charged with cold case murder. the 71-year-old durst was arrested over the weekend in new orleans by the fbi who say they now have evidence linking durst to the slaying of his friend and writer, susan berman. in case you're not familiar, durst has been the subject of a six part hbo documentary series called "the jinx: the life and deaths of robert durst" which investigates durst's connections to three murders. he was questioned without being charged in the disappearance and death of his first wife kathleen durst in 1982 and also after the murder of his longtime friend susan berman in 2000. in 2001 durst was arrested for the murder of his texas neighbor morris black, but in 2003 durst was acquitted of shooting, killing and dismembering black's body. in last night's hbo finale of the six-part series and one day after durst's latest arrest in new orleans, durst made what appears to be a stunning confession.

while in a bathroom following the hbo interview, and still wearing his open microphone, durst whispers to himself, "what the hell did i do? killed them all, of course." the remarks were captured on audiotape. >> what the hell did i do? killed them all, of course. >> excuse me. joining me now is a friend of robert durst's first wife, kathleen, who went missing in 1982. ellen strauss. lisa depaulo of "bloomberg politics" who's been covering this. let me start with you, ellen. how do you feel today? i've never seen anything like this, what seems to be a confession caught on tape like that from a guy who is trying to defend himself and trying to deny everything. do you look at this an say, got him now?

this is the end of it? >> i'm over the moon, to tell you the truth. there's no such thing as justice unless you two to divinity school. we're not going to get kathy back. we're not going to get susan back or morris back. but if he ends up in prison for the rest of his life or in a home for the very, very bewildered, i will be satisfied. >> lisa, what to you make of this? we have the tape there. he's beaten the rap before. he's been out there for 30-plus years now. is this something that would hold up in court do you think? is this thing she could walk back and say i was ticked off at them, i was being sarcastic, i was muttering to myself what i thought they wanted to hear? is there a way out of this for him? >> i'm sure there are a million ways out of this. he walked out of the courtroom a free man after getting on the stand and admitting to chopping up his friend and throwing -- >> how did he get out of that? >> partly, he was only charged with murder, and -- i know. only. but they convinced a jury that the actual killing was in self-defense.

he convinced the jury the reason he chopped morris black up and threw him in the bay is because they were coming after him for kathy's disappearance all these years ago and nobody would believe his story. they bought that. so in many ways, what's going to happen? you know, he got -- what happened in galveston is so terrifying. >> ellen, is there something about this guy? tell us about -- yeah. >> first of all, the prosecution -- as an attorney, i'll talk. the prosecution made a mistake in not having any lesser included offenses when they tried him in dallas. >> right. >> that's what i think lisa was trying to say. >> yes. >> had they done that, he could have been convicted of something lesser than murder. everybody thinks, heck, you go to texas, you kill somebody, death chamber. the only thing he was convicted of was misdemeanor, cutting up a dead body. once the body's dead, you want to cut it up, it may be a bit nuts but it's not murder.

he made a very brilliant three-day testimony on the stand about how they struggled for the gun. as we never found morris' head, we don't know which way the bullet went in. whether it went in from here as if they were struggling or whether it went in from the back the way susan berman was murdered. >> so, what is -- how can somebody be out there for 30 years? i mean, three different -- >> 33. >> 33 years. >> right. >> three different crimes. all of this suspicion. low is it only when he mutters something like this he's cornered? >> well, really every investigation was botched, okay? >> uh-huh. >> right? kathy -- there was never a real investigation there 1982. neither by new york city where he tried to pretend it happened, which it didn't. she never left south salem we now know. or in south salem. susan's murder happens the 23rd

of december. frankly, somebody had a train set to put together, and you know what, nobody knew she was somebody. right? and they didn't investigate it in the beginning. and bobby wasn't even a, quote, suspect until a few years. okay. then in texas, they, the cops did a great job. they connected all the dots. they had all the evidence in the world and the prosecution dropped the ball. >> well, is this -- i mean, he comes from money. he comes from a prominent family. now, the family put out a statement saying they're happy that he's been -- >> i'm sure they are. >> -- he's in custody right now. >> they have bodyguards for themselves. >> do his name -- the connections he had, does that play some role? >> it meant nothing in galveston except for paying for the lawyers. >> right. >> but strangely enough, i think it had -- there were so many things at play here. he did get the best defense possible --

>> absolutely. >> -- that money could buy, but even if he got a cheap defense, for some reason, that jury was easy to sway, and it was because the prosecution did not prosecute. they did not rebut anything. >> is there something about his personality that is particularly persuasive that wins the benefit of the doubt from people? whether it's law enforcement, whether it's a jury? is there something about him that just is extra and unusually convincing? >> jarecki found him charming. >> this is the director of the -- >> the director and producer of "the jinx." i never found him charming, but i only met him once. and, you know, i used to say to kathy, leave him. he would mutter to himself and make these sounds. >> i'm glad you said this. he talked to himself when they were dating. this isn't a new development talking to himself in the bathroom.

>> belching, the whole nine yards. >> he'd belch in public. okay. so this is nothing new. he had -- he was always that way. but it was excentric because he was rich. it was, oh that's excentric bobby. >> the most bizarre thing i've seen in a long time. somebody who is -- first of all, somebody in that position agreeing to give an interview. >> that was stupid. he didn't listen to his attorneys. >> you pay them all that money, you don't listen? >> he got away with -- >> the idea of agreeing to do it and sitting there and just pleading your innocence and then getting up, you know, i know i have a microphone on. you think you would realize that. anyway, it's bizarre. we will see what happens next. as we say, the news tonight that the l.a. district attorney is going to charge him with cold case murder. that's the most recent news. a lot more to follow, though. thank you, though, for now. ellen strauss, lisa depaulo. >> we need somebody very smart. maybe a special prosecutor. >> we'll see if the fourth time is the charm so to speak. anyway, up next, hillary clinton's had a few stumbles out of the gate. she hasn't announced her

presidential campaign yet. she needs a sparring partner, viable contender to make her a stronger candidate. that's what some people think on the democratic side. you're watching "hardball." the place for politics. . .

the conference call. the ultimate arena for business. hour after hour of diving deep, touching base, and putting ducks in rows. the only problem with conference calls: eventually they have to end. unless you have the comcast business voiceedge mobile app. it lets you switch seamlessly from your desk phone to your mobile with no interruptions. i've never felt so alive. get the future of phone and the phones are free. comcast business. built for business.

welcome back to "hardball." well, republican contenders for 2016 are already duking it out. hillary clinton is sitting comfortably above the fray among a field of much lesser known democratic challengers. according to a "wall street journal"/nbc news poll last week, a whopping 86% of democratic voters say they can see themselves voting for the former secretary of state in the upcoming primaries. most likely opponents include former senator jim webb of virginia, former maryland governor martin o'malley, senator bernie sanders of vermont. yet all of them are polling in the low single digits among democrats nationwide.

clinton is so favored to win, the clinton loyalist james carville now says her democratic challengers shouldn't bother, quote, wasting their time. >> of course, senator webb, governor o'malley can run for anything they want, but in terms of the party, in every poll that you see shows 86% the last "wall street journal" poll was out, 86% of democrats say they're going to vote for hillary. i don't know how much data you can get, but who am i to tell senator webb or governor o'malley, both know you can't run. you're not going to win, but if you want to waste your time, that's your business. >> even governor jerry brown of california who ran an aggressive primary campaign against bill clinton in 1992, attacked hillary clinton in that as well, said last friday hillary should not be challenged. >> on 2016, do you think it would be a good thing for hillary clinton to have more competition in the primary?

>> certainly not. i can't think of anything i'd rather have less if i were running for president than have a competitor if the primary. i tell you why. because the primaries, get into all the little nuances and small differences within candidates of the same party. >> would a viable opponent make hillary a stronger candidate? i'm joined by the "hardball" roundtable. april ryan. ruth marcus of the "washington post." the democratic pollster, cornell belcher. let me start with you on this question, does she need a challenger? it occurs to me you're sort of in unprecedented territory here. we've had primaries where candidates run unopposed but that's been an incumbent president. every other nomination in the modern media age of politics, there's been some serious competition. hillary clinton right now doesn't have much serious competition. does she need some? >> well, she kind of is the incumbent if you look at sort of, you know, her history, who she is, how established she is.

i'm a campaign hack, so you never want to see a primary because you don't want to spend money on attacking your other democrats. the upside is particularly for hillary clinton if you have grumblings on the left, nothing wrong with her running a campaign and have a conversation to the base of the party and work for those votes. on the back end, i think she probably will come out a better candidate. i worked on the obama '08 campaign. he was a much better candidate after the primaries than he was when he began the process. we were better positioned in the general election because quite frankly, 11% of our electorate there 2008 were brand new voters. we would not have had that expansion of the electorate in 2008 which was so important for barack obama if, in fact, we had not had the process where we talked to more voters and expanded the electorate and energized our base.

i think that's the upside of it. >> you know, ruth, there's a difference i guess between having a challenger whose name appears on the ballot and that's pretty much it versus having a challenger who forces you into uncomfortable decisions, says things about you that makes you defend yourself. lands a punch or two. i'm looking at martin o'malley who seems to be lining up to run against her. it seems every opportunity he has to take a shot and draw a contrast with hillary clinton, he's passing on it. people are telling me that means he wants to be her vice president. does that count as a real challenge if he's really auditioning for number two? >> i was about to say, gee, i wonder why that is he's taking a pass. look, a primary campaign can get very intense and times nasty. but it's never going to be quite as vicious as between-parties rivalry. look, i thought it was very nice of james carville to worry so much about whether governor o'malley and senator webb are wasting their time. and i understand that it is possible for a candidate to improve from the experience of going through this, but hillary

clinton will get enough during the primary campaign, enough slings and arrows coming at her from republicans who understand that she is the incumbent, as cornell says, that she doesn't really need that testing and it is much better position for her to be in with pretty much nonopponent opponents. who are running to make a little point, make a little name for themselves, but don't seem at this point to be very much of a threat to her. >> well, april, what about the media's role in this? the press' role there this? when there's an active campaign, really competitive campaign, you know, one candidate is going to throw charges at the other candidate. the press is going to investigate, tell you if there's something to it or not, dig up more if there's more to it. if there's no real competition on the democratic side, how is the press going to be handling hillary clinton for the next year? >> whether there's a viable candidate or not, that's going to go up against hillary clinton, the press is going to be on her because she is hillary clinton. she's part of that machine, this what has been known as one of the great political machines of our modern era.

i mean, her husband was known as the comeback kid. he got two terms in office, and she was a first lady who became a u.s. senator, who also is now running for president. and who was secretary of state. who else has the pedigree that she does? so she is someone that attracts media attention. she has a story. she is a magnet for everyone to come to particularly the press. so she will definitely be scrutinized under the microscope of the press as well as from her fellow competition whoever that may be, even if it's martin o'malley or whomever else that comes up. she is really right now for all intents and purposes, she is the person to beat. this is her stage on the democratic side. >> the house select committee on benghazi might also complicate hillary's 2016 campaign if the investigation continues into next year. here's what trey gowdy who is chairing that committee said yesterday about that on "meet the press." >> i would like to be through as

quickly as possible, but keep in mind, when you are never told that the secretary of state kept her records, when you're never told that she didn't have a state.gov e-mail account, it does tend to draw things out. i don't get to fully decide how quickly it's done. i need cooperation from the people who have access to the witnesses and the information. >> ruth, i bet in one way, you know, if the republicans do persist with the benghazi thing into 2016, in a way that is isolates hillary clinton in her own party. >> you know, that might not be the bargain she'd want to strike and i'm sure congressman gowdy would be really, really sorry to see this dragging into a general election campaign. but this -- i mean, the fact that there is the benghazi committee and the fact that by virtue of her own decision making and actions, secretary clinton has invited additional scrutiny of benghazi and her

e-mails really kind of underscores the point that april was making, it doesn't totally matter whether she has competition from inside her party or not. first of all we in the press are going to be looking at everything hillary clinton does, we magnify our attention. and second of all, even more republicans who understand that she's the nominee to beat are going to be scrutinizing her. >> all right. the roundtable is staying with us. up next, it's that time of year again, time to make your final four picks. we have got our blue state bracket and our red state bracket. the teams you should be rooting for if you're a liberal, the teams you should be cheering for if you're a conservative. we're going to show you that. this is "hardball." the place for politics. progressive insurance here and i'm a box who thrives on the unexpected. ha-ha! shall we dine? [ chuckle ] you wouldn't expect an insurance company to show you their rates and their competitors' rates but that's precisely what we do. going up! nope, coming down. and if you switch to progressive today

you could save an average of over 500 bucks. stop it. so call me today at the number below. or is it above? dismount! oh, and he sticks the landing!

you heard of red america and blue america. what does that look like when it comes to the ncaa basketball tournament? we have our red bracket and blue bracket. we will unveil them both, next, "hardball" back in a minute.

all right, we are back with something i have been looking forward to all day. call this one two brackets for two americas. you all walked into the office today and got one of these. we tried to squeeze it to fit it all on the screen.

68 teams in the ncaa basketball tournament. it started last night. you have to fill them out, put your $10 in and someone that knows nothing about college basketball takes your money every year. so let's come up with a novel way of filling out your bracket. a blue bracket for blue america and a red bracket for red america. if you want politics to 2009 who wins these games. we looked at niche.com. they have a survey of colleges across the country. and they listed the schools from the most liberal to the least liberal, most conservative to least conservative. look at this first round match up. you see the oregon ducks playing oregon state.

oregon is nike, the pacific northwest, this is a blue state. oklahoma state is t. boone pickens. he won those swift boat adds, big time republican, oklahoma state very conservative. in those rankings that we have, oregon is the 55th most liberal college in the united states. oklahoma state is the 799th. so what does that mean? in the blue bract, oregon will win the game. what does that look like? that means we filled out oregon is the winner and we did that for every match up in the tournament. we did the same thing on the republican side. baylor versus georgia state. georgia state a very liberal school. if you look at the rankings, georgia state much for the liberal bract.

so we advance baylor and we go all of the way through this is what the big blue bract looks like. we filled it in. you get this as your final four. northeastern, a 14 seed. oregon makes the final four, lafayette, ucla. oregon and lafayette. on the republican side, what is your final four? notre dame, byu wins the play in game, wyoming, utah, and your national champion is byu on the republican side of the bracket. that is the crazy tournament thing we have there. april ryan, ruth marcus, and cornell belcher, we ran out of time but we'll be back after this. boy: once upon a time,

there was a nice house that lived with a family. one day, it started to rain and rain. water got inside and ruined everybody's everythings. the house thought she let the family down. but the family just didn't think a flood could ever happen. the reality is floods do happen. protect what matters. get flood insurance. call the number on your screen to learn more.

just because i'm away from my desk doesn't mean i'm not working. comcast business understands that. their wifi isn't just fast near the router. it's fast in the break room. fast in the conference room. fast in tom's office. fast in other tom's office. fast in the foyer [pronounced foy-yer] or is it foyer [pronounced foy-yay]? fast in the hallway. i feel like i've been here before. switch now and get the fastest wifi everywhere. comcast business. built for business. isreali's go to the polls to decide whether or not to reelect benjamin netanyahu. it comes just two weeks after coming to slam president obama in a joint session of congress. tomorrow we might find out if that backfired on him. he could be in real trouble over there. and there is the possibility of this being an israeli election

that it will start tomorrow night with all of the jockeying, coalition. tune into hardball tomorrow and we'll have the race in israel. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. the stocking finale to "the jinx." >> he is very frank about the things he is frank about. and the arrest of robert durst. >> as the jinx fillmakers cancel all interviews, the judge who presided other his last murder trial joins us. then, criticisms of conservatives on ferguson from conservatives. plus a new ad on the eve of the israeli election.