March 30, 2020--TRUMP Care

It is obvious that Trump hates everything associated with Barack Obama. Especially Obamacare.

Not because Trump has problems with what's included in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare's actual name)--I am certain he has no clue about what's in it. But the one thing he does know is that it will always be thought of as Obamacare. 

Ironically, Republicans who hoped it would turn out to be a disaster mockingly labeled it "Obamacare" so the public would forever associate it with Obama's legacy.

Well, they will turn out to be right--the millions covered by Obamacare will always think of it as connected with Obama, the compassionate president who willed it into being.

On the subject of social and political policies named for people, think about the postwar Marshall Plan, named for Truman's secretary of state, George Marshall; think about the Fulbright Fellowship program named for its lead congressional sponsor, Arkansas senator William Fulbright; think about the Nixon Doctrine which articulated a strategy to contain the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe. And of course there is the granddaddy of all doctrines, the Monroe Doctrine, named for president James Monroe, who sought to limit European involvement in the Americas. 

And then there is the aforementioned Obamacare. Different than the generic Medicare and Medicaid. Both could have been named for President Lyndon Johnson--Johnson Care--who was able to get them approved by a reluctant Congress.

On the other hand, in New York City alone there are numerous buildings named for Trump--TRUMP Tower, TRUMP Parc, and TRUMP Plaza. I could go on. And on. 

On all of these properties in huge gilded letters, visible from miles away, we can see the TRUMP name blazoned on the facades. 

(An interesting sidebar--residents of many of these properties have successfully petitioned to have the TRUMP name removed.)

Further, Trump gets malicious pleasure coming up with nasty nicknames for those he opposes or dislikes.

So, among many others, we have Sleepy Joe Biden, Howdy Doody for Pete Buttigieg, and Pocahontas for Elizabeth Warren.

The latest nasty name is the "China Virus." Excoriated for this as racist, Trump has sort of backed off. But he knows his base loves this sort of xenophobia.

But before moving on, I have a suggestion--let's name the COVID-19 virus the TRUMP Virus. 

He's so obsessed with himself that he might actually like this.

March 9, 2020--Bernie: Likable Enough?

Famously, in 2008, during the run up to the Democratic primary in New Hampshire, at the debate that featured Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, when the moderator asked Clinton whether she had the personal appeal to defeat her opponent, before she could answer, Obama interjected, "You're likable enough, Hillary."

The audience moaned and during the next few days Obama was widely criticized for his insensitivity and, as some claimed, his sexism. For interrupting her, for discussing her personality rather than her ideas and qualifications. They next thing, some speculated, he'd be talking about her clothes.

It was more than implied that he would not have behaved this way if he had been debating a male opponent.

Ultimately and ironically the bottom line was that Hillary lost the nomination because, among other things, the postmortems found, many potential voters didn't vote for her because they found her not to be likable. 

It could be that this time around Elizabeth Warren suffered the same fate. She too may have lost because many felt she too was not likable enough.

Sexism was again surely an issue. To smooth some of her rough edges she should have appeared on Saturday Night Live earlier in the primary season and done a little campaigning with her burrito-snatching dog, Bailey.

There is president for that. Remeember, Bill Clinton appeared on the Arsenio Hall Show and, donning shades, played a little sax. Even the dour Richard Nixon tried to demonstrate he had a sense of humor (he didn't) and showed up on Laugh-In, where he called for them to "Sock it to me." He was that desperate.

Speaking about likability, how likable is Bernie Sanders? 

To his followers, likability doesn't begin to characterize their fervor.  But to many, including voters who he has to appeal to now to defeat Joe Biden, his anger and grumpiness are turnoffs. After Trump they are looking for someone who can win but also calm things down.

Perhaps because of the absence of likability Bernie's mien is becoming aggravating and his numbers in the polls are sliding. Sexism for him is. not an issue.

Biden is clearly not a policy machine equalling Warren or Sanders, but an increasing number of Democrats are finding him . . . likable. Someone with whom they would like to have coffee or a beer.

This may not be the best way to pick a president, but there you are.

March 6, 2020--Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren's announcement yesterday that she is no longer a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the presidency was a class act. 

There was just the right combination of self-insight, a vision for the future, and understandable emotion.

Unlike her colleague candidates, she did not rush to endorse Joe Biden or, for that mater, Bernie Sanders. She indicated she needs to give it some thought. Who to back for the presidency deserves that.

In he meantime, Biden and Bernie Sanders are pursuing her, seeking her support. 

I have a suggestion--Joe Biden should see if she is interested in being his running mate if, which now seems likely, he defeats Bernie and becomes the nominee. And that he and she consider announcing it even this week which would help him win the Michigan primary next week. If he were to win that most savvy political observers feel it would in effect win him the nomination. It would suggest that over the next few weeks Biden would run the Midwest primary table.

And wouldn't Warren be an excellent running mate and, ultimately, vice president.

Biden was a deeply involved vice president to Barak Obama and from that experience would likely be an excellent president to partner with. He could, in effect, mentor her, assisting her get ready, while burnishing her resumé, to run again for the presidency four years hence. 

In the meantime, Warren would help draw progressives, women especially, to support him.

With Joe already 77 it feels likely that he would opt to be a one-term president. 

So this scenario for each of them could be politically advantages and responsible. It would also help breech the divide within the Democratic Party between progressives and moderates. Breeching divides will be Biden's agenda for the remained of the campaign and, if he succeeds, his presidency.

March 4, 2020--Money Can't Buy You Love

The Washington Post headline this morning had it right--Biden "Romps." 

If I'm coherent enough after staying up all night to gather the results from Super Tuesday, am I right to say that the only state outstanding is California, which Sanders is likely to win? Fairly narrowly at that after losing much of his lead there to a post-South Carolina revivified Joe Biden.

Biden won big in Texas, didn't he? Yes Texas.

When all is tallied, it may look as if Biden will emerge with more actual Super Tuesday delegates than Bernie. Am I right in what I wrote Monday that Bernie's movement is not a juggernaut, not an overwhelming movement but a more conventional candidacy where he has trouble getting more than 25-30 percent of the vote? That his candidacy has a ceiling, and not  a very high one at that?

But Sanders will live to fight many days. Many. Basically saying the same thing over and over until we all collapse from boredom, exhausted by his angry one-note rant. 

Voters, it seems, want to feel good and optimistic and Bernie makes everyone as grumpy as he is. Don't we all have at least one blustering uncle like that who we hope not to get stuck sitting next to on Thanksgiving?

Isn't the biggest loser from yesterday Elisabeth Warren who came in third in Massachusetts? Third in her home state!

Actually, the biggest loser was the half-a-billion-dollar candidate Mike Bloomberg who discovered that money can't buy you love, only American Samoa. 

February 26, 2020--Fidel & Bernie

With less than a week to go before the crucial Super Tuesday primaries where 40 percent of the Democratic delegates will be up for grabs,  Bernie Sanders, who has been running for president for many years is finally being vetted by his opponents and the media.

For example, until last weekend during a 60 Minutes interview, he had not been pressed about the cost to taxpayers of his ambitious social programs, including how he would pay for them. 

He fumbled around in his response and it was clear he didn't have those numbers readily at hand. He finally said Medicare for All would cost $30 trillion but when asked what about other programs such as free college tuition and forgiving student debt, testily he said--"Well, I can't--you know, I can't rattle off to you every nickel and every dime." 

Nickels and dimes?

This was an irresponsible version of an answer for programs that would cost Americans many trillions more.

When a few months ago Elizabeth Warren was pressed to reveal the cost of her healthcare program, also Medicare for All, when she released a detailed budget, with costs also running into tens of trillions and no meaningful plan for how to play for them, she was rightfully excoriated and her poll numbers--she had been in first place--began to slip. To a point where she is no longer realistically viable. 

Sanders, just a few days ago, for the first time, was asked about his comments some years back that appeared to show support for Fidel Castro's agenda and spoke about how the first thing Fidel did in 1959 when he took power was institute an island-wide literacy program. Not a word about the brutal side of Castro's rule. Bernie came off sounding as if he was an apologist for the communist presidente.

Rather than saying his views about Castro were expressed some years ago, that they have "evolved," and he no longer has such a favorable opinion of Fidel--though that would be a fib--a day or two later he doubled-down in another interview while his advisors shrugged, claiming this was just an example of Bernie being Bernie. Unlike traditional politicians he is not a hypocrite and is "consistent" in his views. (Some would say rigid.)

Though there is something attractive about a presidential candidate being a truth teller, doesn't Sanders recognize that this time around it's all about winning and that some prevaricating is a small price to pay if it contributes to ridding us of Trump?

Also lurking, waiting to be exposed and mocked are his favorable views of the Sandinistas and Soviets. Apparently while on his honeymoon trip to Moscow he came away a fervent admirer of the chandeliers in the Moscow subway and by implication the USSR system.

This positive assessment of Castro and the Soviets may cost him the election because by giving Fidel a pass, it is hard to see Sanders carrying Florida and in a close Electoral College election it could again come down to Florida, Florida, Florida.

Sanders is making it too easy for Trump to caricature him.

If you think I am being unfair to Sanders by demagoguing Castro, back in my college days I helped establish a Fair Play for Cuba chapter in New York City, met Castro and Che Guevara, and read Jean-Paul Sartre's On Cuba cover-to-cover three times!

This is not about Cuba but Sanders' candidacy.

I got over my infatuation with the Cuban Revolution before I turned 25. Bernie at 78, not so much.

Fidel Castro in New York 1959

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 3, 2020--Vetting Bernie

Elizabeth Warren has been put through the ringer ever since she revealed details about how she was proposing to pay for her version of Medicare for All.

As she should have been. As all the leading candidates should have been. We need to know if they are offering pie in the sky or policies that make sense and are affordable.

This sort of scrutiny comes with the territory when running for president. Especially when taxpayers assess the highlights of a candidates' domestic agenda that would cost us tens of trillions in additional taxes or increased debt.

Warren was second or third in the national polls when she showed voters her numbers; but since getting into the budgetary weeds about her plans she has slipped. She's now locked in fourth place as her numbers continue to slide.

The main political beneficiary of her descent is the other most progressive candidate--Bernie Sanders. Depending on the poll, he has moved solidly into second or even first place. Tied with or ahead of Biden.

In spite of his rise Bernie has not been seriously vetted. He got this far on a pass. It might be good to wonder why.

For example, according to Steve Rattner, though Warren disclosed her health plan would cost tens of trillions of dollars more than currently being spent on Medicare, the additional cost to taxpayers for Sanders' Medicare for All proposal over ten years, rarely discussed, could be as much as twice that.  ($30-40 trillion versus her $20.5 trillion).

Looking at the cost of some of their other plans Bernie's continue to be much more expensive--

For the Green New Deal, Warren would spend $3.0 trillion more than we currently budget for environmental  programs whereas Sanders' additional spending would reach $16.3 trillion. More than five times as much.

For free college tuition, Warren budgets $610 billion while Bernie would spend less--"only" $480 billion.

To eliminate student debt, Warren would allocate $640 billion, while Sanders would increase the budget by $1.6 trillion. Four times as much.

When asked to explain how they would pay for these and other programs they both talk about instituting wealth taxes. When one looks at the numbers, however, Warren's increased taxes on the very rich would yield $3.75 trillion while Bernie's would net just a little more--$4.35 trillion.

In both cases additional trillions would be required to make their proposals revenue neutral. Good luck with that.

We all know that if any of these programs could be approved by Congress their cost would be added to the federal debt. The same place where Trump's trillions in tax cuts for the mega-rich fester.

If we want to defeat Tump at the polls in November we had better do some of own vetting before Trump and his henchmen do it for us.

November 4, 2019--Stupid Is

Until Friday my favorite stupid thing was Trump releasing what he calls a "transcript" (which it isn't) of his July 25th "perfect" telephone call with Ukraine president, Volodymyr Zelensky. In effect, a confession that he did indeed commit a crime when he tried to lure Zelensky into digging up dirt on the Bidens.

Next most stupid would be Trump reading the full 8-pager on TV in what he is calling a version of a Franklin Roosevelt's fireside chat. 

With a six-pack at my side, I'd want to soak up every word and nuance of the reading. Unless Trump redacted it further, it would underline its confessional nature. 

Next for Trump would be for him to actually shoot someone on Fifth Avenue (where, from a New Yorker's perspective, Trump will thankfully no longer be living) to see if he could get away with it. 

The answer to that one--yes he would.

Now, in a perverse bipartisan trope, Elizabeth Warren has done something almost equally stupid--at the end of last week she announced how she, if elected, would pay for her Medicare for All plan.

First, all 130 million who have private medical insurance would no longer be covered that way because if her proposal was enacted all would lose that coverage. How politically stupid is that? That the 130 million of us who have even far from perfect private insurance would trust the government to do a better job of providing medical insurance then, say, Aetna of Humana?

Then, continuing the stupid theme, she acknowledges that her plan would cost an additional $20.5 trillion. That's "trillion" with a "T."

This would double our current national debt since there is no way Congress would pass legislation to get billionaires and corporations to pay for it via dramatically increased taxes.

The plan put forth by Warren will likely derail her candidacy. Just as she was catching up with or passing Biden and Sanders in the polls, on Friday she dropped this plan, hoping it would slip by unnoticed. 

Quite the contrary--her plan, going forward, is how she will be characterized and mocked by Trump and her Democratic opponents. It's already happening. I can only imagine the nicknames Trump has in store for her.

What is it with Democrats that we are so prone to self-sabotage? Just as I was feeling better as Nancy Pelosi and the House moved the impeachment process into strategically smart higher gear, Warren does this. 

It could be politically even worse if her plan calls for free health care for undocumented immigrants. I can't yet bring myself to research that. It is already bad enough.

September 30, 2019--Ukraine Fall Out

We should stay focused on the House of Representatives' move toward the impeachment of Donald Trump. That is obviously the most important and promising news of the last two, three years.

But also of consequence is the effect it will have on the 2020 election. Concern that it could tip things in Trump's direction was the primary reason Nancy Pelosi was so reluctant to proceed. She remembered how Bill Clinton's approval rating went up while his impeachment unfolded.

So what should we expect?

Unlike Trump, Clinton was in his second term and the economy was booming. Not as currently primarily for wealthy people. So, I am not expecting to see Trump's number rise. In fact, in just the one week since Ukraine Gate was exposed they appear to be plummeting.

Expect then to see Trump take a political hit. Enough, perhaps, to upend his reelection chances.

What then about the Democrats?

I am anticipating that as we get deeper into all that was going on between Ukrainian officials and oligarchs and Trump, his children Giuliani, Paul Manafort (remember him?), and many others there will be much more fall out. Ukraine, after all, is primarily a place known as a money laundry.

Fairly or not, therefore, expect to see Joe Biden driven from the race.

Again, fairly or not expect to see his son Hunter Biden dragged deeper into the mess. Does anyone believe that if his last name wasn't Biden he would have been invited to serve on the board of Burma Holdings, a Ukrainian natural gas producer?

He served on that board from 2014 to 2019, which happens to be among the same years that his father was Barack Obama's Vice President. That didn't hurt his employment prospects.

We know that Trump will hammer away at this. Who could expect him not too. It is teed up for him.

And so Joe Biden will have to leave the race because Democratic voters really do care about draining the swamp. And to make the case that Trump made the swap swampier, Biden needs to not be our nominee. He is already being characterized as part of the problem. By Democratic activists. And as a result he has little chance of being nominated. 

By remaining in the race he will only further sully his reputation.

The main political beneficiary? That's easy--Elizabeth Warren.

September 24, 2019--Get Ready For Warren

The latest poll numbers from Iowa are good news for Elizabeth Warren and her growing number of supporters.

The headline from the latest Des Moines Register/CNN poll is that Warren is now two points ahead of Biden--22 to 20 percent. Sanders is at 11 percent, and no other candidate is in double digits. 

Warren's numbers have been soaring and Bernie's and Kamala Harris's (now at 6 percent) have been declining. Until recently Biden has been in the lead in Iowa but for the first time his numbers are slipping and he is trailing.

There are still about five months until the caucuses and things likely will change, but more and more potential voters are saying they are getting locked into their choices so the trends we are seeing could continue.

More important numbers from the poll are related to the uniqueness of the Iowa caucuses. On the day they are set to occur, caucusers in attendance are allowed to switch from their first choice of candidates, if he or she fails to reach the "viability threshold," to their second or third choice. Since in a crowded field no one is likely to gain a winning majority on the first ballot candidates who have the most second and third place supporters have a distinct advantage. 

The Register poll shows Warren with by far the most fallback support. 71 percent say she is either their first, second, or third choice, a number much higher than for any other candidate.

So, unless something seriously unexpected happens, Warren could win in Iowa and as a result have momentum going forward, especially for taking on Biden and Sanders in New Hampshire, next up in the primary season. And winning the first two primaries would help her in South Carolina where coming in second (after Biden) could be considered a form of victory. It would be the first state where she will be challenged to demonstrate she can do well among African-American voters. This is very much an open question and critical to her ultimate viability in the general election.

These first three primaries are the traditional package. What is new is that on Super Tuesday, March 3rd, a week after South Carolina's primary, for the first time, California will join 13 other states on this most delegate-rich of days. Previously, the Golden State held its primary so late in the process that, with notable exceptions, it did not have much impact on who was nominated. 

But with Warren likely to prevail in California, it will be of great political benefit for her to rake in most of California's delegates and to be anointed by the progressive media. 

The morning after Super Tuesday the race for the nomination could in effect be over.

At the moment, with all sorts of caveats, Warren appears to be the Democrat to beat. And she could turn out to be a powerful opponent for Trump. First, it is obvious he does not do well when with smart and assertive women. Warren is nothing if not that. As a consequence, desperate, we can expect to see barrages of misogyny from him. Then she could be the one best able to get under his skin during the debates and provoke him to self destruct.

Here's the worry--as she moves into the lead in the polls (in Iowa and beyond) her record and campaign promises will undergo ramped-up scrutiny. Her greatest vulnerabilities will be exposed and picked at. For example, she will be pushed to show how she proposes to raise the many trillions required to pay for even a small number of the initiatives she has promised to deliver--Medicare for All and the implications for private health care first and foremost. Increasing taxes on the wealthy (not likely to happen) would not begin to pay for all she has promised. 

She needs to begin now to clean this up. She needs to begin the transition from insurgent to an insurgent frontrunner. As smart as she is I expect she's already on it.

September 19, 2019--Bernie for All

In a desperate effort to keep up with Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, slipping to single digits in some polls, just announced a $2.5 trillion (with a T) program of Housing for All.

Presumably, this is where folks would live while getting Medicare for All or College for All or Food for All or Sex for All. 

Not to be outdone, Julian Castro, with a nod in Joe Biden's direction, proposed a program of Depends for All.

September 10, 2019--Jack: Elizabeth Warren

A quivering Jack slid into the banquette next to me.

"You seem all excited this morning."

"Why shouldn't I be," he said to me. Rona had her head buried in the Times.

"Because the hurricane didn't strike Alabama?"

"I can't believe people are still talking about that," Jack said, "What's the big deal?"

"It shows Trump as either geographically challenged or unhinged."

"Could be both," I added with a snicker.

"Or maybe as you wrote," he turned to face me squarely, "That he's trying to nudge Alabamans to replace their Democratic senator with a Republican."

"A sexual predator no less."

Ignoring that, he said, "Look, I only have a minute. Let me get to what I want to talk with you about."

"What's got you all excited?"

"The latest CBS poll. I read about it this morning and raced right over to see you."

"I didn't see it yet," I said, "Enlighten me."

"It has Poca . . . I mean Elizabeth Warren in the lead. About one point ahead of Biden. But still in the lead."

"I thought you were ignoring polls," from behind the paper, Rona said, "It's too early blah, blah, blah. The polls don't capture Trump's people accurately, blah, blah, blah."

"This one's a little different," Jack said, "It tallies . . ."

"To save you time, let's agree that you're now interested in polls because they contain news you like."

"I'll acknowledge that," he said, smiling, "But let me tell you what this one shows."

"Go on," Rona sounded weary.

"It projects the delegate count. How delegates to the Democratic convention will vote for the various candidates. It shows Warren with slight leads over Biden and Bernie. What's interesting is that Biden's and Sanders's numbers are holding steady while Warren is picking up delegates from other candidates' supporters. Candidates like Kamala Harris and Beto O'Rourke who are slipping further and further behind."

"This whole thing feels bogus to me," I said, "As far as I know no one yet knows who the delegates are going to be. So how can they be polled?"

Jack didn't respond, so I asked, "What else do you have on your mind? There must be more than this flimsy material."

"I'll admit this polling business is a little technical for me, but you have to agree that Warren is doing better and better."

"It does look like that. But why this sudden interest in Warren? I assume she's not one of your favorites."

"It means if she somehow holds on and wins the nomination get ready for four more years of The Donald."

"My recurrent nightmare," Rona said, still using the paper as a scrim.

"Don't be so gleeful," I said, "Polls still show Biden with pretty good leads. Of likely voters not fictitious delegates. In fact, in the early primary states--Iowa and South Carolina among others--Biden appears to be increasing his lead. And they show him trouncing Trump."

Jack said, "But if Warren wins the nomination Trump gets reelected. After Hillary do you think this country's ready for a woman?"

"I do," I said, "And polls, again polls, show that."

"But this woman? Warren wants Medicare for all, the end of private health insurance, student loan forgiveness--a trillion dollar item--free college--another trillion--open borders, including free food stamps and health insurance for even illegal immigrants. And more trillions, I think it adds up to three trillion, for climate change. I could go on. If she wins the nomination I can hear Trump saying, 'Thank you, thank you. There is a God,'"

"Be careful what you wish for," Rona had folded and put down the paper. "She was supposed to get killed when she first ran for the Senate in Massachusetts but won overwhelmingly. And now we're seeing her rising in the polls and doing very well when it comes to raising money for her campaign."

"Speaking of that," Jack said with a toothy grin, "Also in that paper of yours, on the front page," he tapped it where it lay on the table, "there's a story about how though she says she rejects the practice of going after wealthy donors she has been doing that for years and as a result has tens of million stashed away in her campaign war chest. What a hypocrite. I can't wait until the Republicans and the media get their hands on that."

"Funny, about that," I said, "I come to a totally different conclusion."

"I'm all ears."

"It shows me she's pragmatic. Not just an ideological policy wonk. She's in it to win it. That she's willingly to do what she has to do to gather the resources she needs to prevail. Even if it makes her vulnerable to the charge that she's 'just another politician.'"

"Like you're socialist friends you live in dreamland. I live in the real world where things are not so clear."

"And I live in a world," I said, "where Trump's approval ratings are slipping below 40 percent."

Jack had slid out of the booth and, without a goodbye, headed for the door.

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.

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.

June 13, 2019--Trump Slump

We've been in Maine more than five weeks and I have spent about five minutes watching Morning Joe. 

Not each day, but five minutes totally. And for at least half that time I wasn't paying attention.

This is me who back in the city was about addicted to Joe Scarborough's early morning show and Nicole Wallace's on MSNBC later in the day.

My rationalization for tuning out is that the 2020 election is more than 17 months away and I do not want to peak too soon in my effort to help dispose of Trump.

But though I may be pooping out, or, as I prefer to think about it, pausing, Trump at 73 is tirelessly racing around the country appearing at pep rallies and spending hours each day tweeting up storms of noxious abuse that he hurls against his opponents. Mainly recently, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. 

Forgotten for the moment is that the week before there were others who bedeviled Trump and as a result were mocked by him--remember Robert Mueller and Bette Midler among others? Yes, "Boogie-Woogie Bugle Boy" Bette Milder, who he called from the beaches of Normandy, on D Day, a "washed-up psycho."

And that's sort of the point--he sends out such a continuous stream of political gas that he creates a new norm, and unless one is careful it is easy to get sucked into it or want to retreat to the sidelines.

So I am finding, not just anecdotally, that many people are seeking distractions. Even Trump people. His rallies are less well attended and somewhat less rapturous. But just as I expect Democrats to return to the fold, or minimally resume following the campaign, I expect most of Trump's people will as well. So I don't see much of an edge there.

Conventional wisdom (which with Trump has not always been that wise) suggests that in national elections people do not start paying attention until the Labor Day before Election Day. And in the current case, if this holds true, we're talking about two Labor Days from now. The one this year and another in September 2020.

Yes, the Democratic nomination process kicks into high gear in 13 days when there is the first debate, spread over two days, among the 20 or 75 candidates seeking the nomination. (Another debate will follow in July so by August I'm afraid that hardly anyone will be paying attention to the Democrats.)

Party activists, though, will track what is happening as the debates are viewed as elimination rounds where those who languish in one-percent land at the end of June will begin to drop out. New York City mayor, Bill de Blasio, for example.

And, yes, on the other side of the equation the debate is an opportunity for someone or two to emerge from the pack. Elizabeth Warren or Pete Buttigieg, for example, who recently have been doing well in the polls. In Iowa at least. 

Many Dems seem to be looking for an alternative to oldsters Sanders and Biden, both of whom are looking as if they are readier to move into a care facility than the White House. Though 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the ultimate care facility. The president even has his own in-house physician and emergency room.

In spite of what I've just said, I suspect for some time I won't be tuning in to "Morning Joe." Except, perhaps, for a couple of days later in the month just before and after the first debate. 

Though it appears that Joe himself these days hardly ever turns up for his own show.

May 31, 2019--Googling

I take Google and Googling for granted.

I've heard some of the criticism and think I agree it can be a corporate bully. But I do not know enough about the claim, from say Elizabeth Warren, that it is a search engine monopoly and should be broken up in much the same way AT&T was broken up, Google says, in 1984. Perhaps it should be, maybe not. I'm not sure about what's at issue and what would be the public benefit if it were required to disaggregate. 

But more than anything I know I would have difficulty living without it. 

Take Wednesday for example, the morning Robert Mueller, who the New York Times referred to as the Sphinx of Washington, finally spoke directly to the public about his investigation and its findings.

Talking about it afterwards, Rona and I disagreed about what Mueller said or didn't say about the Department of Justice's policy that sitting presidents are immune from federal prosecution. I thought he did not state this explicitly in his report and that Wednesday was the first time he did so.

Rona said she remembered that he dealt with this in his report and the other morning merely reiterated it.

We went back and forth about this for five or ten minutes until Rona said, "Let's Google it." Which she proceeded to do.

I suggested that if she did so it would likely be found in the introduction to the second volume of the report where Mueller dealt with claims that Trump obstructed justice.

One, two, three, with Google's help, in much less than a minute Rona found the quote in the introduction and was reading the germane passage where he, nice going Rona, explicitly stated that he did not charge Trump with obstruction because, as a sitting president, federal guidelines do not allow the special counsel to do so.

A point for Rona who has a better memory than I, and more than just a point for Google which built this powerful system that is an essential tool for accessing so much of the world's accumulated knowledge.

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."

March 15, 2019--BETO: Born to Run

Here's my quick initial impression of BETO O'Rourke's long anticipated announcement that he is running for president--

I begin with a confession:

I want to fall in love with this guy. I want to be convinced that he can beat Trump in 2020. I want to believe he has the chops as well as the obvious buzz and charisma. I want to find he's not just sizzle. That there is also steak.

I've been hoping to see these qualities in Kamala Harris, but she thus far seems more surface than substance. And as of now I see it as unlikely that she can successfully take on and unseat Trump. That is all I care about. Defeating Trump.

Then there is the Democrats' Hamlet--Joe Biden. 

To run, or not to run. That is the question. 

This soliloquy is not working. His tease of a dance makes it look as if he, at 76, doesn't have the energy or stamina to take on the rigors of a national campaign. This public coyness, this flirtation is already wearing thin. He feels out of gas even though he hasn't really started!

Bernie or Warren could win the nomination but would struggle to find a strategy to challenge Trump in the general. He's already half figured out how to get under their skin. And wouldn't he relish running against a socialist. He'd make that equivalent to competing with a terrorist who snuck into the United States across the Mexican border in a cargo container.

So then, what about BETO?

Get out your copy of Vanity Fair magazine. By an amazing coincidence the latest issue, with him on the cover, dropped just a day before he announced. What remarkable timing. As I said, amazing.

Take a close look at the photos. How surprising is it that they were taken by glamorizing celebrity photographer Annie Leibowitz and that the subtitle of the accompanying article is, "Man, I'm Just Born To Be In It."

This notion of his natural right to run laid out in VF with Annie's perfect pictures is too bicoastal. It doesn't sound like Rust Belt. It would be better to have been written about in some Wisconsin magazine, if any still exist.

In sum, BETO's problem appears to be a certain tone deafness. It's as if he can't wait to get into the spotlight and out of El Paso.  

He has time to get it right, but in the meantime I need to figure out how to fall in love with Kamala.

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.