A Blue Battle in Illinois: Democrats Jockey for Durbin’s Open Senate Seat

With Senator Dick Durbin retiring after nearly 30 years in the U.S. Senate, Illinois Democrats are confronting a rare moment: an open statewide seat in a deep‑blue state with no clear heir apparent. Durbin, first elected in 1996, will complete his term on January 3, 2027. Illinois’ junior senator, Tammy Duckworth, also a Democrat, was re‑elected in 2022 and serves through January 2029.

The Democratic primary will be held on March 17, 2026, and although eleven Democrats have filed, the contest has consolidated around three major candidates: Robin Kelly, Raja Krishnamoorthi, and Juliana Stratton. Each brings a distinct political base, résumé, and theory of the race — and polling shows a competitive, unsettled electorate.

Robin Kelly

Kelly, a U.S. Representative from Illinois’ 2nd District since 2013, is known for her work on gun‑violence prevention, health equity, and community development. Before Congress, she served as a state representative and later as chief of staff to the Illinois state treasurer. Kelly polls behind the top two contenders but retains a loyal South Side and suburban base.

Raja Krishnamoorthi

Krishnamoorthi, the U.S. Representative from the 8th District, has built the most formidable fundraising operation in the race — reporting roughly $30 million raised. First elected in 2016, he has gained national visibility through his work on the House Oversight Committee. According to NPR Illinois, Krishnamoorthi has polled between 29% and 43%, often leading the field.

Juliana Stratton

Stratton, the Lieutenant Governor of Illinois, entered the race with strong statewide name recognition and deep ties to Democratic constituencies. A former state representative and longtime advocate for criminal‑justice reform, she has surged in recent months. Some polls have shown her overtaking Krishnamoorthi, and she benefits from major financial backing — including $5 million from Governor J.B. Pritzker to a supportive PAC.

A Race Still in Motion

Despite the frontrunners’ advantages, 15% to 30% of Democratic voters remain undecided, leaving the final outcome far from settled. USA Today and Ballotpedia both note that while ten Democrats will appear on the ballot, the race has effectively narrowed to these three contenders. Polling has consistently shown a three‑person race, with Krishnamoorthi often leading. NPR Illinois reports that he has polled between 29% and 43%, though Stratton has gained momentum and even topped a recent survey. Kelly remains competitive but trails the other two in most public polling. Notably, 

For Democrats, the stakes are straightforward: selecting a successor who can carry Durbin’s legacy while shaping the party’s future direction in a reliably Democratic state. With high fundraising, shifting polls, and a large undecided bloc, Illinois’ March 17 primary is poised to become one of the most revealing contests of the 2026 cycle.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s “No Quarter” Remark Collides With and Endangers A Century of U.S. War‑Law Commitments

When Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth publicly stated that U.S. forces will give “no quarter or mercy,” the remark carries far more weight than a moment of rhetorical bravado. In the law of armed conflict, “no quarter” is not a figure of speech. It is a precise legal term with a long and grim history, and one that international and U.S. military law treat as a categorical prohibition. Under Hague Convention IV (1907), Article 23(d), it is “especially forbidden… to declare that no quarter will be given.” The declaration itself—not merely the act of killing surrendering enemies—is defined as unlawful.

The United States did not stumble into this treaty. In 1907, American diplomats helped craft the Hague framework with a clear-eyed understanding of modern warfare. The U.S. entered the convention not only to restrain its own conduct but to ensure reciprocity. If American soldiers were captured, they were to be taken prisoner—not executed on the battlefield. The prohibition on “no quarter” was designed as a mutual guarantee: a rule that protected civilians and combatants alike, but also one that safeguarded American troops from the very fate the phrase describes.

This commitment did not fade with time. The 2019 U.S. Manual for Military Commissions includes a dedicated section on the offense of denying quarter, applying specifically to individuals with command authority. Legal commentary on the Manual notes that the maximum penalty for this offense can reach life imprisonment, underscoring how seriously U.S. law treats even the threat of refusing quarter. The logic is simple: when commanders speak, subordinates may interpret their words as operational guidance. History shows that such declarations often lead directly to battlefield atrocities.

Against this backdrop, a statement from a Secretary of Defense promising “no quarter or mercy” cannot be brushed aside as mere emphasis. It echoes language that international law explicitly forbids and that U.S. military law treats as a prosecutable offense. It also carries strategic consequences. Adversaries may interpret such rhetoric as license to deny quarter to American troops in return, undermining the very reciprocity the United States sought when it became a signatory more than a century ago.

The history is clear, the law is clear, and the stakes are unmistakable. When senior officials speak in ways that contradict long-standing American commitments, the legality—and wisdom—of such declarations demands scrutiny.

Also a reminder:  President Richard Nixon never was convicted of a crime or served any time but 88 members of his staff and White House team did. 

A Texas Race Transformed: Early Polls Show a Competitive Senate Battle as Talarico Edges the GOP Field

The 2026 Texas U.S. Senate race has quickly become one of the most competitive statewide contests in a generation. Democrat James Talarico, fresh off his primary victory, enters the general election facing a Republican Party still split between Sen. John Cornyn and Attorney General Ken Paxton, who are headed to a May runoff after neither secured a majority. This unresolved GOP field gives Talarico an unusual early advantage in a state where Democrats have struggled for decades.

The latest Public Policy Polling survey (March 4–5) shows Talarico leading both Republicans in hypothetical matchups. He edges Cornyn 44% to 43% and holds a slightly larger lead over Paxton, 47% to 45%, results confirmed by Houston Public Media and FOX 7 Austin. While these margins fall within the poll’s error range, they highlight a striking dynamic: Talarico currently enjoys broader favorability than either Republican contender.

The GOP runoff adds further volatility. A Newsweek‑covered poll shows Paxton narrowly ahead of Cornyn 45% to 42% among likely Republican voters, underscoring deep internal fractures. Whoever emerges will enter the general election weakened—financially drained, politically bruised, and carrying high unfavorability numbers.

Taken together, the early polling suggests a race far more competitive than Texas has seen in decades. Talarico is not just viable; he is, at this moment, slightly ahead—an outcome few would have predicted even a year ago.

Asymmetry at the Gates: What Today’s Attacks Reveal About America’s Emerging Security Landscape

While the U.S. government and major broadcast and print media outlets confidently reassure the public of America’s extraordinary military strength—its superior organization, training, and overwhelming symmetrical capabilities—they often overlook a crucial reality: Iran does not need to match the United States on conventional terms. Instead, Tehran has spent decades perfecting the art of asymmetrical warfare, developing the capacity to carry conflict to its adversaries precisely when faced with overwhelming conventional superiority. This dimension of the threat is too frequently minimized or ignored as seems to be the case now.  The focus is on the wrong type of war or threat facing us.

                                                                                                                                                        

Although the attacks in Michigan and Virginia show no evidence of foreign coordination, their timing and character highlight a growing vulnerability within the United States: the increasing susceptibility of open societies to decentralized, ideologically influenced violence that mirrors the strategic logic of modern asymmetric warfare. This vulnerability is intensified by recent institutional upheavals — including the appointment of Kash Patel as FBI Director and the subsequent purges that removed multiple counterterrorism specialists — which may reduce the nation’s ability to detect, contextualize, and disrupt emerging threats.

Given Iran’s long‑standing reliance on indirect, deniable, and psychologically disruptive methods of influence, developed precisely because it cannot confront Western militaries symmetrically, it is reasonable to hypothesize that future threats to U.S. stability will arise not through conventional confrontation but through a diffuse ecosystem of lone actors, ideological sympathizers, and proxy‑aligned movements. Whether or not Iran directs such incidents, the strategic environment it helped shape favors societal disruption over battlefield engagement. Therefore, the United States must prepare for a security landscape in which internal resilience — informational, institutional, and civic — becomes as critical as traditional military strength.

The two attacks that shook the United States today—a vehicle assault on a Michigan synagogue and a shooting at Old Dominion University involving a suspect with a prior ISIS‑related conviction—are not linked by motive, organization, or evidence of foreign direction. Yet they expose a deeper pattern shaping the security landscape of the 21st century: the increasing prominence of violence carried out by individuals or loosely connected extremists rather than by formal state militaries. This shift mirrors the broader global environment shaped by decades of asymmetric conflict, particularly the model refined by Iran’s revolutionary clerical leadership.

Since 1979, Iran’s Twelver Shia clerics have governed through a doctrine that merges religious authority with political power and frames resistance to Western influence as a sacred obligation. Confronted with the overwhelming symmetrical strength of the United States, Iran developed a strategy that avoids direct confrontation and instead relies on indirect pressure, proxy networks, deniable operations, and psychological disruption. The IRGC and Quds Force became architects of this approach, cultivating partners across the Middle East who could challenge Western interests without triggering a conventional war.

This doctrine does not require Iran to control or direct violence inside the United States. Rather, it reflects a worldview in which societal disruption, ideological agitation, and the erosion of public confidence are seen as effective tools against stronger adversaries. In such an environment, even unrelated domestic attacks can have strategic resonance: they reveal how open societies can be shaken by small‑scale violence, how information spreads faster than facts, and how fear can be amplified without a single state actor taking responsibility.

For Iran, whose symmetrical options are limited, the appeal of asymmetric influence lies precisely in this dynamic. For the United States, the danger is not that every incident is foreign‑directed, but that the strategic logic of asymmetry thrives in a world where lone actors, extremist ideologies, and digital echo chambers can destabilize communities from within. This is the emerging security frontier—and one the nation must now confront.

The Strait of Hormuz: A Brief History, Its First True Closure, and the Economic Shock Now Rippling Through the United States

For centuries, the Strait of Hormuz has been one of the world’s most strategically vital waterways — a narrow passage between Iran and Oman through which nearly a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) normally flows. Only 21–35 miles wide, the strait funnels the energy lifeblood of Asia, Europe, and the United States through a pair of deep shipping lanes that pass partly through Iranian and partly through Omani waters.

Despite its vulnerability, the strait had never been fully closed. Even during the 1980s Tanker War, when Iran and Iraq attacked tankers and mined the Gulf, international naval escorts kept traffic moving. Later crises — 2008, 2012, 2019 — brought threats, seizures, and missile strikes, but shipping always continued in some form. Geography, global dependence, and the constant presence of the U.S. Fifth Fleet made a total shutdown extraordinarily difficult.

That long record ended in 2026. After U.S.–Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28, including the killing of Iran’s supreme leader, Iran retaliated with missile and drone attacks and issued direct warnings prohibiting vessel passage. Shipping companies withdrew, insurers canceled coverage, and tanker traffic collapsed — first by 70%, then to effectively zero. For the first time in modern history, the Strait of Hormuz became commercially impassable.

But the geopolitical drama is only half the story. The real economic shock comes from the cascading effects of surging diesel and LNG prices. Diesel is the bloodstream of the American economy: nearly every consumer good — groceries, medicine, electronics, construction materials — travels by diesel‑powered trucks, ships, or rail. When diesel prices spike, transportation costs rise instantly, and those increases ripple through supply chains into retail prices.

At the same time, LNG volatility hits the U.S. from another angle. Natural gas now powers more than 40% of American electricity generation, so rising LNG prices translate directly into higher utility bills for households, businesses, and manufacturers. The result is a dual‑front inflationary shock: higher costs  move goods and higher costs to power the economy.

How Long the U.S. Can Cushion Diesel and LNG Shocks

Despite the severity of the 2026 shutdown, the United States is better positioned than most nations to absorb short‑term energy shocks — but not indefinitely. The U.S. has three major buffers: strategic reserves, domestic production, and flexible supply chains. Each buys time, but each has limits.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) can release crude that refineries convert into diesel, helping stabilize supply for several weeks. But the SPR is finite, and diesel demand is enormous. Even aggressive releases can only soften price spikes, not eliminate them, and only for months, not years.

On the LNG side, the U.S. is the world’s largest producer, which provides a crucial cushion. Domestic natural gas production can meet most U.S. needs even during global turmoil. However, LNG prices still surge because they are tied to global markets, and U.S. exporters are contractually obligated to supply Europe and Asia. That means domestic prices can rise sharply even when physical supply is secure. The U.S. can redirect some cargoes, but only at the margins.

Rerouting oil and LNG from non‑Gulf suppliers — the U.S., Canada, Brazil, West Africa — helps, but shipping distances are longer and tanker availability is limited. These alternatives ease the shock but cannot fully replace the lost flow from Hormuz.

In practical terms, the U.S. can cushion the diesel and LNG shock for several months, but not avoid it. Prices will remain elevated as long as the strait is closed, and the inflationary pressure will be felt across transportation, electricity, manufacturing, and consumer goods. The buffers buy time — they do not neutralize the disruption.

Anecdote of the Day

Two generations ago, when Prime Minister Winston Chruchill was still a member of the Liberal Party he rose in Commons to defend his party against the charge they had deliberately misrepresented the Conservative Party.  The Liberals had accused the Conservatives of practiciing slavery in South Africa because they kept black laborers behind barbed-wire compounds under severe restrictions.

Churchill famously remarked: "I admit the term 'slavery' might be a terminological inexactitude." 

At this Joseph Chamberlain, the father of the late Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, interrupted: "I prefer the ugly little English three letter word - L-I-E."

Which brings me to today's POTUS: a one Donald J. Trump.  Since the network media outlets are so reticent to attribute nearly every utterance of the current White House occupant a lie, perhaps they would be better served to affix Winston Churchill's famous description of a falsehood to Mr. Trump's every verbal pronouncment a  "terminological inexactitude."  The ghost of Churchill would almost be imagined as grinning and nodding in agreement. 

Welcome to the Truman's Conscience Series of Recommended Podcasts: 1st UP - Kagro In The Morning

It has become a realization that podcasts accelerated a shift already underway as our society moves away from print and network media outlets for their cultural, social, and news information and entertainment.  Audiences are making a choice moving toward on‑demand, personalized, mobile‑first media instead of the old entrenched scheduled mass market offerings with a narrow choice of access points.  Now its all about a broad scope of interests one can pick and choose from to watch or listen to on their own time with a menu of interests designed to appeal to broad segments of our diverse culture and society.  Mine is politics and sports [Gator football and basketball in particular].  Being a liberal swimming in a world dominated by corporate conservative media outlets podcasts have become a panacea for my frayed sanity as I reach out to connect with like minded believers that are at the same time open to the exploration of adverse opinions, ideologies, and discussions about solutions to an ever changing world threatened with narrow thnking that more often or not is driven by prejudices, biases and just plain hatred.

First in our recommended series of podcasts is my favorite 'Kagro In The Mornng.'  I listen specifically to Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday boradcasts when it has two hosts: David Waldman based in Virginia and Greg Dworkin who hails from Connecticut.   David is your host every weekday and drives the narrative with timel features and articles salient to the issues of the hour.  Greg Dworkin is a contributor to Daily Kos a digital media platform devoted to analysis of hard-hitting issues that matter to progressives with a team of activists providing tools like petitions letter writing campaigns, and indormation about organized protests to empower it readers ready to take action.  Greg's contributions to the podcasts are informative with timely critical analysis with a progessive point of view not found on most other digital platforms.  I've been a member of Daily Kos almost since its inception in 2006-2008.  These podcasts are esential to political junkies like my self.  It can be found Monday through Friday on Youtube.  One caveat should be metioned is David Waldman, though originally and formely part of the Daily Kos community is now an indepdendent podcaster.  I present them here with a highlighted synopsis of key issues.  You can find both on the X.com [formely Twitter] & Bluesky social platforms: David Waldman - @KagroX & @KagroX.bsky.social & Greg Dworkin - @DemfromCT & @DemfromCT.bsky.social.

For Monday's broadcast the center piece is Greg's analysis of the Texas Senate primary results and the victory of the rising star of the Democratic party: Texas State House Representative James Talarico.  I strongly recommend listing to get an insight on why and how this new rising star offers the Democrats a chance to win a statewide election in Texas for the first time in 37 years.  

The Emperor's Shoes Becomes A Bizarre Loyalty Test With Trump

Trump’s decision to outfit his male staff with matching Florsheim shoes has taken on a strange life inside his orbit. What began as a gift now feels more like a uniform requirement, a quiet test of loyalty that no one wants to fail. Aides slip into the same polished leather each morning not because they love the look, but because they fear the consequences of standing out. The shoes have become a symbol of the unspoken pressure that defines the workplace around Trump—where even something as mundane as footwear becomes a measure of obedience. Staffers joke about it in private, but no one risks showing up in anything else. In a world where every detail is scrutinized, the safest path is to blend in, shine the shoes, and hope no one notices the discomfort beneath the surface.

Has A Chamber In Congress Ever Switched Majorities Between Elections? The Answer Is YES.

In the 119th Congress 218 House seats by one party is needed for a majority which is currently the exact number held by the Republicans. That is until today, Monday, March 9th, 2026.  

California Rep. Kevin Kiley [CA-CD3I] this morning announced he will formely leave the Republican party to become an Independent though he still plans to caucus with the GOP.  This brings their House GOP majority down to 217 where 218 is required for a majority. Kiley plans to caucus with the Republicans to keep his committee assignments. Speaker Mike Johnson still holds a very razor thin edge to keep a GOP majority but he can no longer risk absences, defections, or vacancies due to health or death for fear of losing a vote or flipping the gavel over to Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jefferies [NY-CD8D].  Such a narrow razor thin majority begs the question: has a chamber in the House or Senate ever switched majorities between elections?  The answer is YES. 

Most Americans assume that control of Congress changes only on Election Day, when voters decide which party will lead the House and Senate. Yet the nation’s legislative history contains several extraordinary moments when the balance of power flipped between elections—quiet, often unexpected shifts triggered not by the ballot box but by the unpredictable realities of political life. These rare episodes reveal how fragile congressional majorities can be, especially when margins are thin and individual members hold enormous influence.

The Senate has experienced the most dramatic mid‑Congress reversals, largely because its small size makes every seat consequential. The most famous example came in 2001, when Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an Independent aligned with Democrats. His single decision instantly transformed a 50–50 Senate into a 51–49 Democratic majority, abruptly ending Republican control just months into the new administration. Earlier that same year, the Senate had briefly flipped in the opposite direction when Vice President Dick Cheney’s inauguration gave Republicans the tie‑breaking vote. Even in earlier decades, the Senate’s balance proved delicate: in 1953, the deaths of Democratic Senators Brien McMahon and Clyde Hoey shifted the chamber toward Republican control during the 83rd Congress, demonstrating how mortality alone could reshape national power.

The House of Representatives, with its 435 members, almost never changes hands mid‑term. Its size makes it far more resistant to sudden shifts. Yet even the House has one striking exception. In 1931, during the depths of the Great Depression, a series of deaths and special elections steadily eroded the Republican majority. By mid‑year, Democrats gained enough seats to take control of the chamber nearly a full year before the next general election. It remains the clearest and most dramatic example of a House majority flipping without voters going to the polls.

These episodes—spanning party switches, deaths, special elections, and constitutional quirks—underscore a simple truth: congressional power is not determined solely by national elections. It can hinge on individual choices, unexpected vacancies, and the shifting alliances that define political life. In these rare moments, history turns not on campaigns, but on circumstance.

Podcast of the Week: FAST POLITICS: Molly Jong-Fast

Now that I've gone down the podcast rabbit hole I've decided to start a blog watch called "Podcast of the Week."  My first choice to start this endeaver off is a podcast episode from Fast Politics with Molly Jong-Fast.  Though she still has a podcast for Friday left to go to finish out the week I've already made my choice from Monday, March 13th.  Her guests were The Lincoln Project's Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson), congressman Eric Swalwell [CD-15 Dem] (@RepSwalwell), and Planned Parenthood's VP of Abortion Access Danika Severine Wynn (@PPFA).  

Rick Wilson is one of the individuals, along with Liz Cheney, responsible for that Frankenstein monster that is now loose in the national community village known as MAGA acolytes.  Now that I've qualified who he is and what he is responsible for let me say now that he is someone that needs to be heard and listened to.  He is Molly Jong-Fast's guest on this episode and he deconstructs who and what Gov. Ron DeSantis is and why in his opinion he will NEVER be POTUS. 

California Rep. Eric Swalwell deconstructs the Rep. Jim "Gym" Jordan the chair of the "Weaponization of the Fed. Gov. Committee" about what a self owning moron he is and give examples and receipts. 

VP of Abortion Access for Planned Parenthood Danika Severine covers the dystopian world for women in Texas and the moves there to ban the abortion morning after pill and denial of reproductive healthcare.  

It's a MUST listen episode especially the Rick Wilson segment.

Podcast honorable mentions:

WTF with Marc Maron with recent Oscar winner for best actor Brendan Fraser.

Kagro In The Morning with David Waldman on heroic Nebraska Senator Machaela Cavanaugh

China Gets Tacit Okay To Move On Hong Kong From Trump

The political pressure cooker used by Trump to govern with has been breached and may not be repairable.  While the political strategy of dissent and grievance continues to simmer and be driven by Trump's governing style and campaign for reelection here at home underneath the cover of the unabated sear of the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump's foreign policy negligence goes politically unchecked through via the distracted eye of the corporate media here at home and abroad.  In 1997 when the United Kingdom's lease on Hong Kong expired there was a "gentleman's agreement" between the still very much communist government of China and the provincial government of Hong Kong letting the city keep its unique status of a free market that thrived within the confines of a democratic political structure granted by an exceptional status that would transition over a period of fifty years to complete Chinese government control.  It is obvious by now that "gentlemen's agreement" has collapsed, along with the democratic government of Hong Kong as the government of China prepares to move in with its military to administer the political and cultural hand of oppression and suppression. 

Meanwhile Trump has given a Tacit okay to the Chinese government and Secretary Xi Jinping to go through with this move on Hong Kong as the White House walks a tight rope clinging to the prospects of a trade agreement still unresolved between the two countries.  What's going seemingly unnoticed is the continuing and ever expanding chasm between the United States and the western world politically and socially driven by the vacuum of an absentee leadership role by Trump as he turns his back on our European allies and the rest of the western hemisphere.  His "America First" policy, as Trump likes to call it, is by day proving to be economically and politically detrimental and expensive for our nation in its relations outside of our boarders as we turn inward and withdraw from a global community grasping for a leader pull us out of this global pandemic.

While we had a world leader and statesman do just that from the confines of a wheelchair at the outbreak of World War II with President Roosevelt we find ourselves with a President who won't even wear a medical mask in public as he politically flails about in an environment fraught with massive unemployment and unrest over how to handle the pandemic as it spreads across the country.  His lack of leadership at home and abroad is on the verge of undoing what over 150 yeas of healing in post Civil War America had made possible with the election of its first black President. 

We were only now beginning to form scars over the scabs that still existed from a war that nearly destroyed us from within.  The fact that Trump can almost undo all of that work in a short four years has only underlined how tenuous it has been over a century and a half.  If he gets four more years those scabs may turn out to be wounds that will not ever heal in the political environment we have now that makes us what we were to the world: a beacon of hope and unity.  

Trump Continues Meme Of COVID-19 Not Being That Serious With Ford Plant Visit In Michigan

Despite calls from Ford Motor Company and the state of Michigan’s Attorney General for Donald Trump to wear a mask during his visit at the automakers Ypsilanti’s plant he still refused to do so during his tour.  This is nothing more than a continuance of Trump’s view the effect of the global pandemic on the United States is not a pronounced as the corporate media asserts.  This is also a shout out to his devoted base to also reflect the same view and demand their state and the country at large re-open.  After threatening the state of Michigan to withhold federal funds because they mailed out 7.7 million applications for absentee ballots before his visit he failed to mention the two dams that burst 140 miles northwest of Detroit forcing the evacuation of near by townships on the Tittabawassee River that was directly effected by the breaches.  

This is a critical state for him electorally for the 2020 election and logic would dictate these latest White House moves and assertions about the state would take on a different approach.  But Trump is who he is and rigid pronouncements and bluster is the style that got him where he is today.  There is no reason he is going to change that style anytime in the near future.