February 6, 2020--Enough Already

Before they do more harm to themselves, the Democrats need to get to where they're going. And fast.

By this I mean to their final two. 

After all the polling, debates, and now Iowa, it is becoming obvious that among current strivers for the nomination only two are viable--Bernie Sanders and Mike Bloomberg.

They are making powerful and effective cases for their ideas and electability. And they are the only two who have all the money needed to run a 21st century campaign. No one else comes even close.

Pete Guttigieg is clearly attractive, has some money, but with essentially no support in the African-American community doesn't have much of a chance to be nominated much less win in November. Bernie also has his own version of this problem. As, in fact, does Bloomberg (recall Stop and Frisk).

I do not understand why Warren's support has been shrinking for nearly two months--perhaps because of her Medicare For All ideas and their cost. Bernie has this problem as well and then some but for some reason is getting away with it. Probably sexism has something to do with that.

On the other hand, I think I know why Biden is turning out not to be viable. Mainly because he feels like a fragile old man whose time has come and gone. In addition, recall, the other times he ran for president. Though he was far from old, he was an unsuccessful candidate, securing 0.5 percent of the votes in Iowa and New Hampshire and never rising above 5 percent in the polls. When he aspires for the presidency there is clearly something about him that deters voters.

All the other candidates are mired in or close to one-digit territory. Amy Klobuchar is the one exception, now hovering in the 10 percent range.

In other words, the Democratic candidates are either flawed or politically weak. All the more reason to clear the field and let the final two hone their messages, get out of the business of self-destructive bickering, and compete meaningfully with each other. An on-going crowded field is not helping.

As to ultimate electability, can a 78 year-old Jewish socialist who wants to eliminate private health care insurance win a national election? 

Then, assuming by some version of a miracle Bloomberg can win the nomination (the process is rigged to undermine an outsider's chances to do so), can another 77 year-old New York Jew who is fervent about protecting a woman's right to choose, can he win in enough blue-collar swing states to achieve a majority in the Electoral College?

Bernie versus Bloomberg could turn out to be a great contest with clear and stark ideological differences separating them--can Bernie, the representative of the anti-capitalist ninety-nine percent defeat one of the most successful capitalists in American history (whose most profitable product is financial software) with enough wealth to place him in the top one-tenth of one percent?

I know my friends who are eager supporters of Mayor Pete or Elizabeth Warren will not welcome this ultra-practical suggestion. But we're in a dog fight with Trump, who is very good at this, while  also busy shooting ourselves in the foot.

November 8, 2019--Run, Mike, Run

I was in the middle of preparing a blog for Friday morning about how progressives shouldn't get complacent when thinking about the results of this week's elections in Virginia and Kentucky.

Yes, Democrats now control all branches of the Virginia government and the Bluegrass State again has a Democratic governor, but in Kentucky all other statewide contests were won by Republicans and Virginia has been turning blue for a number of years. 

In the middle of writing a blog about political paranoia there was dramatic Breaking News--it appears that the sixth richest American and former mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, on Friday will enter the race for the Democratic nomination for president.

I have a lot to say about Mayor Mike, including a number of positive and negative things I learned about him when I worked with him on a variety of projects when I was at the Ford Foundation--speaking about this will be for another day--but, in spite of very mixed feelings about him, my first reaction was excitement.

Why excitement? Isn't he a plutocrat who at the advanced age of 77 is looking to buy his way to the White House? Yes, but why was I, in spite of this, feeling so good about his potential candidacy?

Largely because like so many other liberals I am dissatisfied with our current choices. In fact, distraught.

Biden feels over the hill, Warren just unveiled a non-starter of a multi-trillion dollar healthcare plan that will if implemented finish the job of bankrupting America. The only good thing I've thus far heard about the plan is that it has no chance of being enacted by whatever Congress emerges after the 2020 election. And, as Biden and Sanders are too old to be president, Mayor Pete, who I like, is much too young and inexperienced. 

Bloomberg could write a check for $2.0 billion and in that way fully self-finance his campaign and still have more than $50 billion. With the exception of his own big money (largely amassed by the incredible Bloomberg company he built from scratch) that would eliminate the need to raise money from the wealthy and thereby free him from their influence and control. Like Franklin Roosevelt, he could be "a traitor to his class."

And as a genuine billionaire who not only has his own fleet of planes but also pilots them, he is just the type to get under Trump's jealous skin and take him down in the debates.

Also, as a former Republican, Independent, and Democrat, he knows everyone and where all the bodies are buried. And just think about the kind of talented and experienced people he could draw into public service.

But above all, he could win next November. More than anything, that's what I'm not proud to crave--someone, anyone who can beat Trump.

Think also about a bipartisan ticket with Bloomberg running with Nikki Haley or, think about this one, Condoleezza Rice.

This adds up to exciting to me. You?

August 12, 2019--Jack: Women

Jack was waiting for us at the Bristol Diner. It was not as if we had an appointment to meet. In fact, I had been avoiding his texts and phone messages. I was trying to spend less time and energy thinking about, talking about Trump. There would be plenty of time for that, I thought, after Labor Day. It would still be more than a year until the election. Plenty of time for political talk. Yes, I had relapsed into Trump Fatigue. 

We were tempted to ignore Jack's patting on the banquette, signally he was holding two places for us. I whispered to Rona, "Maybe let's go to Crissy's. I'm not in the mood for Jack."

"I know what you're thinking," he said with a smile, "I promise not to keep you more than half an hour. Come, sit with me for a while."

And so reluctantly we shuffled over to him and slid into the booth.

"I'll just have coffee," I said to Sarah, "We can't stay very long today." Rona said the same.

Without so much as a hello Jack launched into his latest rant.

"I know you and your people care only about who can beat Trump. You're putting aside your concerns about where candidates stand on health care or immigration. You're whole focus is denying him a second term."

"That pretty much sums it up," I said, "Almost everyone I know is thinking about the election that way. There will be time for debates about policy after a Democrat is elected. I agree with Tom Friedman about that. He warns, if we want a revolution and Trump wins we will have a revolution not of our liking when, for example, he gets to appoint two more Supreme Court justices like Kavanaugh and Gorsuch."

"Though one thing," Jack said, "does show up on the screen with a lot of you guys."

"This I'm interested in hearing,"I said.

"With six women seeking the nomination, many of you this time around not only want to nominate a woman, but unlike with Hillary who turned out to be a terrible candidate, you want to elect one. Most realistic, considering the poll numbers, only two have a real chance of being nominated, with winning another story. Forget Gillibrand and Klobuchar. The only two who have a chance are Warren and Kamala Harris. At the moment they're the only ones close to Biden in the polls."

"That could be true," Rona said, "But I continue to wonder if America is open to having a woman as president. They tell pollsters that they are but I'm skeptical. Among other things by what he says and how he behaves Trump sanctions not only racism and white supremacy but also sexism. And in so doing exposes how extensive it still is."

Rona continued, "Even Trump's female supporters--and there are more of them than any liberal would like to acknowledge--can in their own way be quite sexist. Why else did so many of them vote for him rather than for the first woman to be the nominee of a major party? And don't tell me it was because Hillary was such an ineffective candidate or won the popular vote. The country's just not ready for a female president. Though with Biden unravelling because of gaffs, there could be a woman next in line."

I was surprised that both Rona and I were so easily drawn into political talk. Our fatigue was clearly not that deep seated.

"Let me give you an example," Jack said, "of why I too don't think you can elect a woman.

"I'm listening."

"So there was this terrible shooting in El Paso. And what happened? Joe Biden, Cory Booker, and that mayor from South Bend whose name I can never remember all gave major speeches about it. Booker even gave his from the pulpit of the church in South Carolina where there had been another massacre four years ago. Where a white guy targeted black people and where Obama spoke and sang 'Amazing Grace.'"

Jack paused and peered at us. "I see you're not getting it."

"Getting what?" I asked.

"What's missing from this picture?"

"Enlighten me."

"Women."

"Women?"

"Yes, Democrat women candidates."

"They spoke out," Rona said, "Among other things they accused Trump of being a racist and, even more seriously, a white supremacist. Which he is. I think you're splitting hairs. I felt they were very forceful. Very effective."

"But none of the women gave a speech. A big picture, presidential-style speech, one in which they put all the pieces together. About the history of racism in this country, about how various ethnic groups have been treated. They missed the opportunity that most of the leading male candidates--Sanders excepted--seized. To show how they would act if president and incidents of this kind occurred. As they surely will. These men not only made speeches of this kind but they also showed how they would behave as mourner-in-chief."

"I hate to agree with you," Rona said, "But, thinking about it now, I must admit the women may have missed an opportunity. My guess is that they didn't want to be stereotyped as emotional women by making a speech of this kind. That they didn't want to be perceived as being soft in a situation that calls for toughness."

"It calls for both," Jack said. "For sure it's a tricky line to straddle when a woman wants to show she can be both compassionate and tough-minded. Look at how Hillary got all tangled up in whether or not to vote for the war with Iraq. She eventually voted for it in large part to show she had cajones."

"Along with most other Democratic senators," I said, "Half of whom were thinking about running for president, she botched this and paid the price."

"So this wasn't so bad after all," Jack said.

"What wasn't?" I asked.

"Spending a little quality time with me." He laughed. "When was the last time we agreed about anything?"

Rona said, "I'm not sure we're agreeing now."

"Let's order some food," I said. "Sarah."

August 1, 2019--Dem's Losing Strategy

Trump must be licking his abundant chops.

Here's what the most progressive Democrats are cooking up to confront him with--

Implement Medicare for All, claiming that it will cost middle-class people less for heath insurance because they will eliminate all expensive private plans. So most of the million who are currently insured via their employers will need to seek government-run alternative coverage. Many will have to find different doctors but it will be good. Trust us.

While they're at it they will "decriminalize" illegal border crossings and thereby make undocumented immigrants eligible for free health care as well as education benefits such as Pell Grants and student loans. It will be good. Trust us.

How this will be paid for isn't part of the discussion but we know it will cost trillions, most of which will be added to the debt. Taxing the top one percent isn't going to cover the cost of very much of this. As usual, average people will have to pick up the tab.

And never mind of course that none of this will find its way into legislation. Though as Elizabeth Warren said, why run for president if you are afraid to "think big."

I say why run for president if you aren't obsessed with defeating Trump, holding off on promoting policies the are politically tone deaf until after the election.

Trump must feel he died and went to heaven. All he has to do is make Warren and Sanders the face of the Democratic Party. Then there are AOC and her Squad colleagues ready to caricature.

July 18, 2019--Wither Kamala Harris?

It began so auspiciously. Kamala Harris's campaign for the Democratic nomination. 

20,000 turned out in Oakland for her announcement ceremony. Millions in cash and pledges poured in with promises of more to come. Hollywood gazillionaires have deep pockets.

Then there was The Debate. She took frontrunner Joe Biden down in a preemptive strike by attacking him face-to-face on the most vaunted part of his legacy--his record of support for civil rights. 

Harris knew that Biden's core constituents are African Americans, especially African-American women, and unless she could attract some to support her candidacy it was doomed. So she went after him. Almost calling him a racist by saying she didn't think he was a racist. She just let that hang in the air. And it seemed to work.

For a week after the debate things were looking good for her. No matter that she slammed Biden for his position on court-ordered school bussing, which though designed to reduce segregation all evidence shows was a disaster for blacks as well as whites. Schools were no more integrated and neighborhoods were shredded by White Flight though some individuals such as bussed second-grader Kamala, by her account, benefited.

Harris's poll numbers rose five to 10 points while Biden's plummeted by similar amounts.

But then something seemingly surprising happened--her campaign appeared to stall. She began to slip in the polls and contributions to her campaign went from flow to trickle. 

And on Monday of this week an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed Harris slipping to fourth place in head-to-head competition with Trump, trailing still frontrunner Biden (who led Trump by nine points) by eight points, trailing second-place Sanders by six points, and third place Warren by five.

Well within the margin of error, unlike the other three who did well in the poll, Harris led Trump by just one percentage point.

None of this is good news for Harris.

What happened?

I suspect over time underlying race and gender issues are coming into fuller play.

Too many Democratic voters were turned off by the overly-aggressive way in which Harris raked Biden over the coals. She was perceived to be more angry than assertive. It was too much a beatdown than a disagreement about ideas and policies. And too many women as well as men, white as well as black, think of this as you will, felt she was acting in an emasculating manner. Instead of confronting his political history she was attacking his manhood.

Biden came away from the confrontation looking like a punished child.

As I did, on YouTube replay the confrontation to see if she crossed some of these tripwire lines. 

We should probably be beyond these kinds of reactions in our public discourse. But sadly we aren't and it may be costing Kamala Harris a potential path to the nomination. We are not yet that enlightened to be OK with a black women taking down a 70-plus year-old white man. We still have a long way to go.

July 1, 2019--18.1 Million

A number of friends have given me grief recently, accusing me of being too "gloomy" and obsessed with what I have been writing about the Democratic candidates seeking the 2020 nomination.

I will admit to being obsessed with this, an endlessly long seven months before the Iowa caucuses. Not necessarily a good thing, but since it is urgent that we nominate someone who has the best chance to unseat Trump I feel it is none-too-soon to, well, be at least a little obsessed.

If Biden is the one, so be it; if now after Thursday's debate Kamala Harris is the one, even better.

My gloom, though, has been that neither they nor any of the other frontrunners thus far--for example, Elizabeth Warren (a rising star) or Bernie Sanders (a waning star)--lift my spirits when I imagine them going toe-to-toe with Trump.

But then there were the 18.1 million who watched the debate live Thursday night--the Harris-Biden night--which make me feel less gloomy.

Conventional wisdom suggests that the public has the good sense not to pay serious attention to national elections until after Labor Day just two months before the actual voting. And so to have a record number tuning in to the debate two months before the first of the two Labor Days  prior to the voting suggests an inordinate level of interest in the Democratic campaign on the part of the electorate.

As a result I feel my gloom lifting.

If you add the 15.3 million who watched the first half of the debate (let's call it the Warren half since most observers feel she won) that means a total of 33.4 million watched both halves, easily surpassing the record 24 million viewers who looked in on the first of the Trump debates on Fox in 2016 as his popularity was peaking.

This is significant since pollsters say that most important when attempting to predict voting outcomes of those voters most likely to actually turn out to vote are the number of "engaged" or enthusiastic voters. One measure of this is who pays attention and who gets involved early in the process. By this measure it may in fact be looking better for Democrats than I have been fretfully speculating.

I promise to try to cheer up and even write a few more happy pieces at the request of my friend John. Pieces, he urges, not about politics. And so for Tuesday I will try to finish a piece I'm working on about when as a 10-year-old I turned my family's East Flatbush apartment into a sweatshop.

Kamala Harris

June 28, 2019--Winners & Losers

Picking winners and losers from this week's Democratic debate is easy--

There was one big loser. Joe Biden. Forget what he had to say (which is easy to do). Just look at him. He's OLD. Very old. And an old 76 at that. Expect his numbers to plummet. People like me desperate to find someone who can as assuredly as possible defeat Trump need to move on.

There were three big winners--

The third place winner was Elizabeth Warren. It was not that hard to imagine her in the Oval Office. At least there would be someone there with knowledge and energy. 

The second place winner was Kamala Harris. Not the biggest winner. Her takedown of Biden will live in debate history.

The biggest winner, though, was Donald Trump. 

This is because whichever Democrat wins the nomination will lose because they all lemming-like, by raising their hands in assent, saddled themselves with impossible to defend commitments they made to illegal immigrants (that they deserve free healthcare as soon as thy cross the border and that the crossing itself should be decriminalized) and to the medically uninsured-- there will be Medicare for all, paid for by phasing out private health insurance. 185 million Americans have private insurance and for the most part like it. 

Also, in the new frontrunner's case, Kamala Harris, it appears that she is calling for a return to forced bussing to reduce segregation in public schools.

The only good news--it's early, very early. Seven months until the Iowa caucuses. These folks, though, need to get their act together.

May 30, 2019--The Democratic Horse Race

Wanting to maintain some distance from the horse race that will determine who will be nominated to run against Trump in 2020, to keep from obsessing, I have been allowing myself to check the poll numbers, almost a year and a half before the election, just once a month.

Actually I take a peek more often than that. I confess to every two weeks. All right, sometimes weekly.

Real Clear Politics (RCP) is where I turn as they list and aggregate all the major polls. Five or six at a time for the presidential nomination.

Checking yesterday, RCP had Biden leading comfortably with 33-35%, Sanders at 15-17%, Warren doing well at 8-10%, Harris next at 6-8%, Buttigieg at 5-7%, and among the other perhaps credible candidates, O'Rourke struggling at just 4-5%.

Finding this interesting on a number of levels I checked with some friends to see what they might have to say about the state of the race.

Some took note of Warren's numbers. She, they said, is the nomination processes' Energizer Bunny. Campaigning tirelessly and coming up with plans for new social programs almost every day. It appears, friends say, that she is appealing to enough of Bernie's people to both bring him down and propel her forward. 

Some were surprised by Harris' and Beto's anemic numbers. Both are among the most successful fund raisers but that isn't appearing to attract voters. As a result they are languishing in single-digit land.

And then there is Mayor Pete who just a few weeks ago was all the rage. When Biden announced, Buttigieg was solidly in third place with support from up to15 percent of potential Democratic voters. He, too, appeared to be able to attract all the money his campaign could responsibly spend.

When I asked why they thought the Mayor had slipped far in the polls, I heard some surprising thoughts. 

"Because he's gay," one friend said. A friend who happens to be gay. 

"It surprises me that you would say that," I said.

"Let me restate it. It's not because he's gay but because he's running as a gay candidate."

"I'm confused," I said, "Say a little more."

"It's not as if he's running for president and happens to be gay but it's because he is giving the impression that he's running because he is a gay person for what happens to be the presidency of the United States.  

"It seems that when he launched his campaign he was wonderfully comfortable to include his husband in campaign events and interviews. Just like Biden and the others feature their spouses at their rallies. That seemed to be working well. He was all over the media and solidly in third place in the polls. But then everything about Mayor Pete, encouraged and often initiated by him, seemed to be about his gayness. And his numbers began to shrink.

"Note how this was very different from Obama's approach. He made an effort to make his blackness incidental. The last thing he wanted the race to be about was race. And, of course, he won."

"I get what you're saying," I said, "I get the distinction."

"Check it out with the other people you're calling." Which I did.

A few noted that his slide in the polls began at about the same time Time magazine featured the mayor and his husband on its cover.

"This," another friend pointed out, "was also when it became clear that much of Buttigieg's money was coming from gay activists. I'm not sure this is working politically. I hate the idea but it could be hurting him in the polls."

"What about Beto?" I asked.

A friend said, "He's too kooky even for the Democrats."

May 24, 2019--Jack: Youngstown, Ohio

We were having a quiet morning at the diner when the door burst open and there, framed in it, grinning ear-to-ear, making an entrance was Jack. 

"Am I ever glad to see you," he bellowed.

I stole a glance at Rona, thinking, just what I needed. Now my morning is complete. 

"Yessiree. My two favorite Commies." He liked that and rolled with laughter. "But I still love you guys. Why, I do not know. But I do."

"I hesitate to ask," I finally said, "I know I'll regret it, but what's got you all jazzed up?"

"How you Dems are doing it again." Rona signaled for a heater of decaf and perhaps the check. She's had it with early morning political talk.

I said, "Doing what again?" Rona glared at me.

"Let me read it to you. From your New York Times. I have it with me. To quote it directly. From the paper of record. That's what you call it, right? I've been carrying this around for almost a week, hoping to run into you two."

He had plopped down on the banquette next to Rona and was searching for whatever it was in his pockets.

"I got it. I got it." He waved what looked like a newspaper clipping. "It's about what's going on in Youngstown. Ohio. Right in the heart of the Rust Belt. In Trump Country."

"You mean Biden Country," Rona said under her breath.

"That's a good one," Jack said. "It's never going to be Biden Country as long as he goes around denying our economy is threatened by China. Let me read something to you. From the Times." He squinted at the clipping. "I want to get this right so I quote--'On the campaign trail Mr. Biden has downplayed China's global economic threat. "China is going to eat our lunch? Come on man. They're not competition for us.'"

Jack made a face as if he was offended, "Saying these things in Ohio which has lost not just jobs to China but whole industries is crazy. He may in some ways be right, but politically this is a disaster. He expects to carry that state? Dream on. It could turn out to be his 'deplorables' moment. Remember that? I can see what he said featured in Republican TV ads."

I said, "It wasn't a politically smart way to put it. I'll grant you that. But the polls show Biden leading his Democratic rivals as well as Trump in Ohio and the other swing states."

"As I said, dream on. Let me read you what an Ohio Democratic strategist said before, out of frustration, resigning his position--

"My party has lost its voice to speak to people that shower after work and not before work. [I love that.] All we're saying is that Trump refuses to turn over his tax returns. He's saying, 'I'm fighting China to get you better jobs.' Trump's people don't care about his taxes--they just don't."

"But they care," I said, "about all the jobs that have been lost in Ohio. Including very recently, in nearby Lordstown. General Motors shut down its assembly plant and 1,600 good jobs were wiped out. On Trump's watch, after all his promises to save jobs and bring back manufacturing."

"OK but listen to what Democratic congressman Tim Ryan, who incidentally is running for president and represents Lordstown, had to say. Again from your favorite newspaper--"

Jack read, "The president is punching China in the face while the leading candidate on our side is saying China is not even an issue. If we go into the election with that as our message we'll get beat again."

I said, "As you pointed out, Ryan's running for the Democratic nomination and he is trying here to bring Biden down. To clear a path for himself."

"OK," Jack said, "So let me tell you what the vice president of the United Auto Workers union had to say. He's not running for the presidency by the way. Again, I'm reading from the Times."

With a hint of attitude, Rona said, "Glad to see you weaned yourself from Fox News."

Jack let that pass and read--

"The UAW vice president said--'Very few union members are abandoning the president even after the plant that made the Chevy Cruze laid off thousands of workers in three waves after Trump's election. I don't think these Trump people are going to flip back, even for Joe Biden, who has a lot of support in this area. I think they're dug in on Trump. Whatever happens, they're going to go down with the ship with him.'"

"Now finally that's something I can drink to," Rona said, raising her coffee mug, "Here's to Trump and his people together on a sinking ship." 

Trump Rally In Youngstown

April 16, 2019--Mayor Pete

It has been quipped than when it comes to supporting presidential candidates Democrats fall in love while Republicans fall in line.

I worry that the current surge in enthusiasm for Democratic candidate, South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg, might be an example of this.

People in the progressive media on Monday were gaga about Mayor Pete's Sunday announcement speech (delayed at least two hours since his people wisely realized that viewers were tuned into another historic event--Tiger Woods' victory at the Masters and would not switch away to watch Buttigieg's declaration).

It was a good speech and well delivered but should we already be advising him about what curtains to order for the Oval Office?

I'd recommend being a little careful about getting ahead of things, not allowing infatuation to get in the way of cold calculation. That calculation has all to do with Democrats nominating the person who has the best chance to defeat Trump. For me, this time around, all I am obsessed about is voting Trump out of office. I'll worry about policy issues after that gets taken care of.

The mayor is obviously very smart and, if true that he wrote his announcement speech, that too is impressive. I like the idea that he is beginning his run for the nomination by introducing himself to voters before burying us in dozens of policy papers about everything from the climate to education to animal rights.

And I very much like his idea that this is not just about winning in 2020 but about "wining the era." It is time for his generation to take responsibility for the fate of our system and our role in global affairs. The current generation of leaders made a mess and new ideas and youthful energy are essential if we are to have a chance to rescue ourselves.

There is enough time between now and the Iowa caucuses (which I think he has a good chance of winning) to take the time to roll things out thoughtfully. He should take advantage of the current enthusiasm, but be careful not to become overexposed and thereby flame out, relegated to political flavor-of-the-month status. We've seen that before.

But we have to be equally careful to scrutinize his capacity to win and, of course, consider what kind of president he would make if elected.

I am concerned that though in many ways his youth (he is "only" 37) is an asset to many it might also be viewed as a liability.

How assuring is it to imagine Buttigieg seated at the head of the conference table in the Situation Room when a major crisis is underway? Say, North Korea launching missiles that may or may not be headed toward Japan? Or California?

He might benefit politically that a majority of Americans may fear that Trump might stumble into this kind of crisis, but does Mayor Pete pass the commander-in-chief test or the three-o'clock-in-the-morning telephone call test?

Further there is the gravitas challenge. How does he do on that one? Again, better than Trump. But better than all other Democratic candidates?

Also, as a Democrat, to be elected it is imperative that he is able to appeal to a wide coalition of voters, especially people of color. It did not appear that there were many African Americans at his Sunday announcement rally. Being practical, we would be wise to pay attention to this.

Finally, how does Buttigieg stack up when it comes to these electability concerns when compared to, say, Biden? Biden, who has all sorts of his own problems might still do better.

Bottom line--feeling enthusiastic, we also need to be smart about how we think our way though this. He may turn out to be the real deal (I think he in fact will) but it is way to soon to consider consummating our relationship.

April 4, 2019--Those Who Live In Glass Towers

In my blog I used to give weekly chutzpah awards. To people who said and did the most shameless things.

I am moved to shake off the mothballs and reprise the award.

If I were to do so, I would then have to retire it as Trump would wipe out the competition.

His most recent award would be for his most audacious display of chutzpah ever.

It would be for mocking Joe Biden for getting into trouble for inappropriately touching women, for violating their personal spaces.

Biden, as a result of what Trump and his accusers have said, is hanging by a political thread and it may doom his candidacy. 

Thus far four women have stepped forward to accuse him of making them feel creepy, and, if a few more emerge (as I suspect they likely will), it could very well do him in. In the MeToo era "just" acting inappropriately, especially at a time when the  Democratic nominee must appeal to women, particularly suburban women, this could prove to be too big an obstacle for Biden to overcome.

He has liabilities in addition to his advanced age. More than any others is the way he mishandled and disrespected Anita Hill during the Clarance Thomas hearing, which he chaired.

So he has potent political troubles. And understandably his opponents are eager to exploit them. Including nearly all his Democratic opponents. He after all is the front runner in most polls and to bring him down even before he formally enters the race is nothing but an unexpected opportunity for them.

But for Trump to lead the piling on is just too much. This is the person who during his own campaign three years ago bragged on Access Hollywood about how thrilled he was that he was so famous that women let him kiss them and grab them by their genitals.

I have confessed here that all I care about when thinking about who to support for the Democratic nomination is to figure out who has the best chance to defeat Trump. Policy ideas and leadership experience aside, I have argued that it is so essential to the preservation of our democracy to rid ourselves of Trump before he can do permanent damage to our system that figuring who can win makes every other concern insignificant.

Until this week I have been thinking by this calculus that a Biden-Harris ticket would have the best chance of winning.

Now I am not so sure. 

If Biden actually wants to run, and even before this I suspected that he might conclude that running for the nomination and general election is too much for someone almost 80, he needs right now to fight for his political life. Including not coyly waiting another month or so before getting in the race.

Assuming there is no smoking gun accusation waiting to be revealed--that Biden sexually assaulted someone, not just touched some women inappropriately--he needs right now to speak about this publicly. To show some moxie in the process as well as contrition. He needs to take Trump on directly in extemporaneous words as opposed to something crafted for him by a spin meister.

Full-throatedly, he needs to say-- 

"Really? You of all people have the  audacity to attack me for my behavior while you, when married to your current wife, had affairs with porn stars to whom you subsequently paid hush money? You who was heard on tape talking about grabbing women's genitals? You have some nerve. You are a disgrace and should seek forgiveness rather than mocking me."

Etcetera, though I'd keep it to less than five minutes. 

Nothing of this sort is without calculation. Doing it this way would show Biden to not be finessing the situation or trying to deal with this very real problem via surrogates (he is getting dozens of women who know him to speak for him--like Clinton did after he was exposed by Monica Lewinsky) or a carefully-measured response, much less trying to ride out the storm by holding his fire. Politically, we have to know he has a fire in his belly and is capable of taking Trump on directly. 

Dealing with Trump one-on-one will be more than a dogfight and Biden needs to find ways to get under his skin. As the pundits say, he needs to control the narrative.

Instead, as I was writing this, Biden released a video in which he said he is who he is. Physically affectionate, but that times have changed and now he "gets it."

Fine, but now he has to do what I suggested.