March 2, 2020--Bernie's Ceiling?

After each debate and primary, political pundits make lists of "winners and losers." 

The Washington Post, New York Times, and the cable news channels publish theirs even before all votes are counted and all the crosstalk and shouting subsides.

Saturday evening Biden was declared the winner of the South Carolina primary by all the networks literally seconds after the polls closed. How well he did was that obvious. There was only one winner, and quite a victory it was. Biden by a KO with Bernie the sole loser. Sanders got just 20 percent of the vote while Joe received a resounding 48 percent.

Actually, though Sanders lost in a landslide, the biggest loser of the night might have been his self-proclaimed "movement."

The Sanders' movement, Bernie reminds us many times a day, consists of millions of modest folks contributing on average about $18 to his campaign and they are said to be augmented by millions more who have volunteered to work on his campaign. 

I am certain that most of what he reports is accurate (at least the money-raising part of it is verifiable and the amount raised and the number contributing is truly remarkable), but my sense of something that claims to be a political movement needs to attract more than a fifth of the vote.  

We'll know better tomorrow when the results of the 14 Super Tuesday primaries are tallied, but at the moment I am wondering about the power of Bernie's juggernaut, including how many young people have actually turned out to support him, how many first-time voters he calls forth, and how well organized his volunteers are.

During the past year, in poll after poll, Trump consistently has been shown to be supported by 40 to 42 percent of those surveyed. I can't recall one poll where he dipped lower than 40 percent or was preferred by more than 42 percent.

Some who study these matters say this is his ceiling. Joe Scarborough calls him a "42 percent candidate."

If the ceiling metaphor works for Trump it likely works for the Democratic candidates. Warren appears unable to rise above 10 percent, Klobuchar 5 percent, Buttigieg 15 percent, and until Saturday, Biden's ceiling was about 20 percent.

Again, we will see how this heuristic works on Super Tuesday. It already appears that Sanders will do extremely well in California and that might scramble this analysis. Then again if this occurs but the other 13 primaries stay true to form (even with Mayor Pete out of the race) it may mean that California is an outlier.

One thing that seems likely is that as a result of the vote counts Tuesday night the Democratic race will be scrambled. The most likely outcome is that by the end of the day we will have a two-person race--Biden versus Sanders. Then we would learn if there is in fact a robust Bernie movement or revolution. My current sense of things is that it is considerably less than represented. Most voters appear to want calm and healing not confrontation and uncertainty.

And then there are the huge egos. That could keep everyone in the race until the convention in Milwaukee.

February 18, 2020--The Final Seven

If the remaining seven Democratic candidates for the presidential nomination want to win, they need to make some midcourse corrections.

Amy Klobuchar needs to make a 30 minute speech in which she tells us who she is and why she is running for the highest office in the land. It needs to be what she would do as president beyond working with Congress to get bills passed. At the moment she is making a better case for herself to continue in the Senate than move into the Oval Office.

Elizabeth Warren is the most puzzling of the candidates. Just weeks ago ago she was the front runner and now she is struggling to hang on to fourth place. She needs to figure out how to make herself more likable by showing her human side. Her problem is not that she is pushing Medicare for All and lacks a plausible plan for how to pay for it (this is true for Bernie as well and he is doing fine) but rather that in spite of all her energy, effort, and brilliance she has been turning voters off and her numbers have shown it. 

Tom Steyer has been creeping up. With Biden losing support among African Americans, a surprising number have been turning to him. Many who know the inclinations of voters of color see him to be a practical alternative to the former Vice President. But if he wants to continue to rise he too needs to make a major speech about who he is and why he has such a political fire in his belly. At the moment, he is a more effective critic of Trump than an advocate for himself.

Mayor Pete may be the smartest of the candidates but that very smartness at times makes him sound programmed and robotic.

And then of course there is his on-going problem with voters of color. He needs to take that on directly. Think the speech Obama delivered in 2008 about race and his relationship with his former pastor, the black nationalist, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. 

Then there is Joe Biden. Those counting him out shouldn't do so prematurely. In most national polls he is still in second place. Just 5 or so points behind Sanders. Though he has lost some African-American support, a plurality still say they plan to vote for him. Strong showings in Nevada and South Carolina would put him back in the thick of things.

But he needs some reinvention. He needs to show he has a pulse and the best way to do that is in yet another speech. This one has to put Hunter Biden back in the middle of the narrative. This time not in a conspiratorial one concocted by Trump and Fox News.

Do you remember how back in 1988 Michael Dukakis, the Democratic nominee was leading Vice President George H.W. Bush by double digits until the the race card was played? During one of the presidential debates he was asked how he would feel about the death penalty (he was opposed to it) if his wife Kitty was raped and murdered. Rather than showing any emotion he spoke with sociological detachment and that did him in.

Biden needs to learn from that. Thus far, when asked about what his son was up to in Ukraine, he has spoken about it dispassionately. This makes it feel as if there are things to hide, that he is trying to finesse the situation, or that he is too over the hill and lacks the energy to take on what will await him if he manages to win the nomination and the general election. Someone this passive and seemingly unwilling to defend his family appears to be too weak for the race and ultimately the presidency. He doesn't feel as if he's ready to be commander in chief.

He too needs to make a speech or grant an interview to Sixty Minutes in which he demonstrates he has the capacity to fight and win with appropriate passion. 

More than anything else Sanders has to buy a half hour of TV time to address the voting public about just one topic--he needs to tell us what he means when he calls himself a "democratic socialist."

I suspect that fewer than 10 percent of the electorate know. But we do know that if he is the nominee Trump and his Fox supporters will turn Sanders into a cartoon. They have already begun to do so. It is essential for Bernie to get ahead of this and address it directly. It is at the center of his political philosophy but he has yet to make a clear case for why he embraces socialism and why it would be good for America. 

Finally, there is the case of the complicated Mike Bloomberg. If he wasn't  compromised in regard to some of his attitudes about race and gender, after decades of philanthropy and public service in support of women's rights and racial justice he would likely win the nomination and even the presidency.

But there is Stop and Frisk, redlining, and too many examples of misogyny.

Thus far he has fumbled his explanations and apologies. He needs to do better, much better. He too needs to address this directly, forcefully, and convincingly in another speech similar to Obama's on race. He also needs to be ready to deal with this during Wednesday's debate.

If the final seven were to do this, we would have a nominee who could win since three or four are viable.

February 14, 2020-Trump's Week

Last week was Trump's best ever.

First, with the almost unanimous vote of Republican senators he was found "not guilty" of committing high crimes and misdemeanors.

He immediately took off on an exoneration tour to bask in the regard of his most fervent followers. The crowds at his rallies were standing room only.

The stock market, his favorite economic barometer, reached record levels.

Also last week there was the jobs report. 225,000 new jobs were created, 65,000 more than expected. He took credit for this (though he doesn't deserve it--what we are experiencing is the ongoing extension of the Obama recovery) and used the good news to underscore how we are beneficiaries of the "best economy in history." (Also, not true).

And he delivered a politically effective State of the Union address, almost sounding like a normal president.

Even his approval ratings (perpetually stuck in the low 40s) crept up a bit. Just a bit.

Gullible (or craven) Republican senators such as Susan Collins claimed that impeachment would chasten him. As a result, they said he will change, become more "presidential."


We see already how that is working out. 

Also during the week it appeared that Joe Biden's campaign was collapsing. So Trump could see that his blackmailing Ukraine was working out.

Just as everything seemed to be going his way, three days ago, the credible Quinnipiac Poll published a spate of findings that was full of bad news for Trump.

From all the good news Tump was expecting a bump up in his favorabilities. As Bill Clinton did. Perhaps in a poll or two he would enter 50 percent land. 

But the opposite happened.

Of the Q Poll results the one that must have been most frustrating to him were the numbers from the head-to-head comparisons between him and each of his main rivals.

He "lost" to each of them. A few, widely--

Bloomberg topped Trump by 51 to 42 percent.  

Sanders beat Trump by 8 points, 51 to 43. 

Biden won 50 to 43.  

Klobuchar prevailed by 49 to 43 percent.

Warren led by 4 points, 48 to 44 percent. 

And Buttigieg won narrowly, 47 to 43 percent.

These numbers I am certain will shift when the results of the New Hampshire primary are factored in--Klobuchar, for example, will pick up at least a percent or two and Warren will continue to slip. None of this is good news for Trump. It shows the deep desire of people to see him voted out of office.

So, it's time for us to emerge from our fear and malaise and get on with our efforts to build on this. We're just at the beginning of the process. Our very country is at stake. 

February 12, 2020--A Squeaker

For those concerned about Bernie Sanders' ability to defeat Trump in November, for those who are concerned that Bernie seems unstoppable on the road to the nomination, the results yesterday in New Hampshire should be a bit of a relief.

Bernie, in a state next door to his Vermont, managed to squeak by Peter Buttigieg by a scant 1.3 percentage points. A
state Sanders carried four years ago by 20 points.

And, if you combine Amy Klobuchar's votes with Mayor Pete's (44 percent) and contrast them to the total the socialists Bernie and Elizabeth Warren garnered (35 percent), Bernie looks even more vulnerable.

So moderation was the story of the night. Not Bernie's victory.

What is yet to unfold will be very interesting.

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.

December 13, 2019--It's In Their Hands

Earlier in the week there was a blizzard of presidential poll results. 

Mainly about how the candidates were faring in Iowa and New Hampshire and how, nationally, individual Dems were doing in head-to-head contests with Trump.

The upper tier could not but feel encouraged. Even Amy Klobuchar, who was in about 8th place overall at four or five percent, appeared to be leading Trump by five or six percentage points. In first place, holding steady, Joe Biden was nine percentage point ahead of Trump.

Yes, the election is still nearly a year away, though almost everyone I know would like it to be next Tuesday, or tomorrow, and we know from the 2016 polling and results that people who eventually voted for Trump didn't reliably show up in the polls--apparently many people were and perhaps are reluctant to admit, perhaps are embarrassed to reveal they plan to vote for Trump--Biden's numbers especially are looking encouraging to anyone who wants to send Trump packing to Mar-a-Lago.

There was also a trickle of related poll and election results chat in the media that was both encouraging and concerning.

Some of the polls broke out data about how women are thinking about Trump and a generic Democratic opponent. Encouraging, 60 percent said they planned to vote for Trump's opponent, but concerning, 34 percent of polled women said they planned to vote to reelect him.

I know 60-34 represents a landslide and I'll take it, but how can one account for the fact that more than a third of American women say they will vote for Trump in spite of all the outrages he has committed when it comes to women.  From Stormy Daniels to the Access Hollywood tape to the way he characterizes any women with whom he disagrees. Ask Congresswoman Maxine Waters how he has smeared her.

And then, when discussing the polling results someone on "Morning Joe" reminded the panel and viewers that in 2016 only 19 percent of young people voted. Not for Trump, not for Hillary but did not vote at all. 

Also, someone pointed out that three years ago 4.4 million of Obama's 2012 voters did not vote.

So, looking toward 2020, unless women turn out, especially if black women vote at close to Obama levels, unless young people turn out, Trump could win a close Electoral College victory.

The good news though--it's all in our hands. 

November 25, 2019--Move The Goalposts

It's time for Democrats to move on from impeachment. 

Considering Trump's many crimes and misdemeanors, impeachment is the constitutional right thing to do--impeach Trump in the House of Representatives and initiate a trial in the Senate.

But there's the rub. With Republicans in charge of the Senate there is no chance, I repeat, no chance, zero likelihood, that Trump will be voted out of office.

Rather than witnessing an impartial trial, we will experience an attempt to portray Trump as an innocent victim of the Democrats, persecuted by a Dark State "witch hunt," aided and abetted by the "enemy of the people"-- the press.

Senate Majority Leader, Moscow-Mitch McConnell will be in charge. He will make and promulgate the rules (to be fair, as did Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi in the House) and people such as Lindsey Graham--chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee--will be in flagrant political ecstasy.

We won't be hearing more from Fiona Hill or anyone like her. Rather it will be left to Devin Nunes to whine to the Senate how Trump was railroaded in the House. Adam Schiff will be assigned by Mitch a small desk by the men's room.

As good as it felt the past two weeks to see young bureaucrats put their careers and perhaps lives at risk to tell the truth about how Trump led the effort to undermine the stirring of democracy in Ukraine to advance his own political agenda, that's how bad it will feel when Chief Justice Rogers gavels the trial to commence. We will hear nothing but conspiracy theories 24/7 even on MSNBC. It will be as if it had morphed into Fox News.

And at the end of the day, Trump will still be in office, his favorabilities will have risen, and the Democrats will be viewed by an increasing number of voters as politically-motivated obstructionists. Defeating Trump next Election Day will be considerably less likely. Reelecting a majority of the new class of Democratic House members will also be more difficult. 

This is why since 2018 when the Democrats gained control of the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi resisted the move to impeach Trump.

But there is a relatively easy way for the Democrats to get out of this pickle and actually gain political standing--move the goal posts from impeachment to censure. 

Get the House to condemn Trump's behavior and move on. Take impeachment off the table. Censuring a sitting president is a big deal and would demonstrate to moderate voters that the Democrats are capable of behaving decisively and moderately.

They can do this as it is possible for one house of Congress on its own to censure colleagues and members of the administration, including the president.

It would also free up the Democratic senators who are seeking the presidential nomination--Senators Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Amy Klobuchar. As impeachment "jurors" they would be like hostages in the Senate for at least a month during the height of the primary season. Mitch McConnell will relish muzzling them. And Lindsey will launch investigations into everything from the Bidens to Hillary Clinton's server.

Spare us.

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."

February 15, 2019--National Emergencies

Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell unintentionally just set the agenda for the Democrat who will be elected in 2020 to succeed Trump as president.

He was good enough to set both the programmatic and the strategic agenda. With the latter being about how to govern.

Thank you Mitch.

Mitch did this when attempting to discourage Trump from declaring, in his case, a phony emergency.

Do not declare a national emergency, he urged Trump, to get your way with the border wall because if you do you will set a precedent for future presidents. Like the Democrat who will come after you in less than two years. A progressive who might use your precedent to declare emergencies involving gun "rights" and the climate.

When it comes to Trump, McConnell is whistling in the wind because for Trump there are no precedents. A precedent is something that applies to the future, but with Trump there is no such thing as the future. He is all about the now, caring only about himself, ignoring who or what comes next; and thus he will declare an emergency this morning to allow him to reap political credit from his base (meaning Ann Coulter, who two days ago called him a "weenie,"  and Sean Hannity) for building, or pretending to build the wall.

But for a normal person who might become president, governing by the strategic use of national emergencies in an era where nothing can be enacted by a broken and hyper-partisan Congress may make sense and to declare at least two emergencies--one to deal with the scourge of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of murderous people and the other for another genuine emergency, global warming--sounds like a plan for Kamala Harris or Joe Biden or Amy Klobuchar.

February 12, 2019--The One Person Who Can Defeat Trump

I spent much of the weekend agitating about the 2020 election. 

Two more aspirants formally announced that they are seeking the Democratic nomination. Neither was unexpected--Senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. The latter without hat or gloves declared her candidacy in a blinding snowstorm. That image more than what she said proclaimed I'm ready to run no matter the obstacles. 

And then, waiting in the wings was Beto O'Rourke who held a counter-rally in El Paso last night at the same time as Trump's.

With respect for these three who joined at least seven others and after that perhaps there will be ten more candidates, none make me feel they can beat Trump, assuming by Election Day he's not deposed or imprisoned. Though like other popular candidates such as Ron Reynolds from Texas, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump, running from Sing Sing, wouldn't manage to find a way to win. Such is the fervor of his dead-ender 35 percent. 

There is, though, at least one heavyweight already in the ring, Kamala Harris, who might find a path to 270 electoral votes, and one more-- the ever-coy Joe Biden, who, if he wasn't 100 years-old, could be nominated and win. 


But the passion among Democrats and Independents is tipped to the progressive, youthful wing of the party. What else explains the excitement about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Or, for that matter, Beto. The good news, at only 29, AOC is constitutionally too young to serve as president. Otherwise, heaven help us, infatuated Dems might suicidally nominate her.


There is though a solution to our search for a winning candidate who also, to quote a popular TV commercial, knows a thing or two. Also, how to go high and low.

Michelle Obama.

I know, she says no way. But I say, let's get to work drafting her. Let's get a petition drive going with a target of at least 10 million signatures. That could attract her attention.

On a personal note, she has seen the Obama legacy largely obliterated from changes in the Affordable Care Act to the abandonment of the nuclear treaty with Iran. She has also seen devastating attacks on the environment (remember the Paris Agreement?) and as a Harvard Law School graduate has witnessed equally ferocious challenges to the rule of law itself. And don't overlook what she must feel about Trump and the birther business.

Her book, Becoming, has thus far sold nearly three million hard-cover copies (an all-time record for a First Lady memoir) and all polls show her by far to be the most admired American woman (she is most admired by 15% of the population, three times higher than number two, Oprah), who if she ran would sign up in a second to be her media advisor and spokesperson. 

(Also helping, husband Barack is most admired by 19% while Trump languishes at 13%.)

If Michelle would agree to run all Democratic money would flow to her and she could early next year begin to measure the Oval Office for new drapes. (Anything but gold.)

The one concern--complacency.  Look what happened to Hillary as she waited around for the coronation that never happened. But Michelle is smarter than that and appears to actually like people.

January 22, 2019--Democrats: How's It Looking So Far?

How's the 2020 campaign shaping up for you now that five or six of the 35 Democratic candidates who will eventually join the race are announced, sort of announced, are out and about in Iowa, or haunting CNN and MSNBC?

I just listened to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand who was being interviewed by Jake Tapper. He popped the Roger Mudd question--the one in which Mudd asked candidate Teddy Kennedy, "Why do you want to be president?" Kennedy's stumbling response ended his candidacy on the spot. 

Gillibrand said, she's a mother of young children and wants all children in America to have the same opportunities as hers. So she's the Mommy Candidate.

Earlier in the week Chuck Todd asked former HUD secretary Julián Castro the same question. He said he wanted all Americans to have the same opportunities he had. He has children and wants the same for them. So he's the Daddy Candidate.

Beto O'Rourke is on some sort of Jack-Kerouac stream-of-consciousness road trip from which he occasionally sends out videos. One was while he was having his teeth cleaned. Another where he said he's doing this to "clear my head." Explitives included. I guess he's the Existential Candidate. 

Let's see, who else? Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown got a new, very kempt-looking haircut. His signature tousled mop some consultant must've convinced him didn't look presidential. Senatorial? Fine. But Oval Office? Not so much, especially considering the hair mess currently occupying it. So he's looking lean and all moussed up.

Three candidates last week who are on the Senate Judiciary Committee--Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, and Kamala Harris--had opportunities to demonstrate gravitas when questioning Attorney General designee Robert Barr during his confirmation hearing.

Each had prepared written questions and mumbled them, not able to look up from their papers and pretty much all failed to make eye contact. So he came off feeling more presidential than they.

Then poor Bernie Sanders is under pressure not to run--he had his turn, some are saying, and should turn his supporters over to 69 year-old Elizabeth Warren, who wasn't impressive last week while trying to look comfortable away from the Harvard Faculty Club when out in Iowa hanging with "ordinary" Americans. 

Bernie was forced to be in Vermont for three days of confrontational meetings last week about how his campaign is apparently riddled with sexual abuse. That should finish him off especially since, oblivious, he seemed to be hearing about this for the first time.

I don't know about you but thus far I am not impressed. 

Am I missing something? Does 100 year-old Joe Biden feel like our best option? Or will this gaggle of undistinguished candidates encourage John Kerry, Al Gore, and Hillary to jump into the race? That way there could be a subset of geriatric candidates while Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and her gang of Furies (too young to run) bop around the Capital in search of Mitch McConnell. I know he's looking forward to hosting them. At the moment, though, he's hiding from them and Trump.

October 1, 2018--Brett Kavanaugh: Wasted

If allowed by Republicans to do their work what the FBI will discover about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in their now resumed background check will turn out to be quite simple--back when he was accused of sexually assaulting Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and other young women he was a habitual drunk.

That would explain almost everything, including that he might in fact not remember the hideous incident. He may have been that blotto.

If they interview just a few people who knew him at the time would it surprise anyone who listened to Kavanaugh stumble through his testimony Thursday that he had a serious drinking problem? It even looked, as he rambled incoherently, that he still is a drunk.

The FBI should begin by interviewing his Yale College roommate, James Roche, who has written: 

"It is from this experience [as his roommate] that I concluded that although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and that he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk . . . I remember Brett frequently drinking excessively and becoming incoherently drunk."

This is particularly condemning since anyone who has had a roommate knows that roommates know everything about each other.

And of course there is Mark Judge, one of Kavanaugh's prep-school drinking buddies, who was a self-admitted black-out drunk and wrote revealing books about that, including one, Wasted, that included a semi-fictional character who was habitually inebriated, "Bart O'Kavanaugh." Sound familiar?

Next the FBI should look closely at the entry Georgetown Prep senior Kavanaugh wrote about himself for the school yearbook. According to the New York Times--

"There is lots about football, reports of plenty of drinking, and parties at the beach." Among the reminiscences about sports and booze is a mysterious entry: “Renate Alumnius.”

The word “Renate” appears at least 14 times in Georgetown Preparatory School’s 1983 yearbook, on individuals’ pages and in a group photo of nine football players, including Kavanaugh, who were described as the “Renate Alumni.” It is a reference to Renate Schroeder, then a student at a nearby Catholic girls’ school.

Two of Judge Kavanaugh’s classmates say that mentioning Renate was his coded way of boasting about his and other classmates' sexual conquests.

“They were very disrespectful, at least verbally, with Renate,” said Sean Hagan, a Georgetown Prep student at the time, referring to Judge Kavanaugh and his teammates. “I can’t express how disgusted I am with them, then and now.”

And then there was last week's bizarre free-associative ramble of an answer to Senator Amy Klobuchar's questions about his apparent love for beer.

In his answer he mentioned "beer" and "brewskis" 29 times and at the end, seemingly drunk in the witness chair, bizarrely pressed Senator Klobuchar to talk about her own drinking habits--

"I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexually assaulted anyone . . . We drank beer."  

Asked if he had ever suffered memory loss during a time that he had been drinking, Kavanaugh said no, and returned to his beer soliloquy-- 

"We drank beer, and you know, so . . . so did, I think, the vast majority of . . . of people our age at the time. But in any event, we drank beer, and . . . and still do. So whatever, you know."

Within the window of the week the FBI has to do its investigation they should be able to come up with a pretty complete picture of Kavanaugh's drinking history. Many things he lied about in his sworn Senate confirmation hearing.

If he was such a serious drinker and drunk during those years, to disqualify him it will not even be necessary for the FBI to get to the bottom of what actually happened the evening Dr. Blasey was nearly raped.

If this truth about his alcoholism is exposed Kavanaugh will either be compelled to withdraw or be pulled by Trump. We can't have another Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. What Thomas got away with 27 years ago can't be allowed to happen again.