November 21, 2018--IvankaGate

According to a story in yesterday's Washington Post, presidential First Daughter and official senior advisor to the president (her daddy), using a personal account, Ivanka Trump, sent hundreds of emails last year to White House staff and Cabinet officials. 

According to sources, "hundreds" violated federal rules about the dissemination and retention of official papers and correspondence. 

Sound familiar? Do you hear "Lock her up. Lock her up" being chanted in the background? This from rabid Trump supporters who packed themselves into mass rallies during the primary and general election campaigns of 2016-17, the same time Ivanka was using personal email for official business  

If you were paying attention, so must have been Ivanka. And she as well as we knew the "her" bing chanted was Hillary Clinton and the reason Trump claimed that Hillary should be locked up was because, while secretary of state, she used a private email system rather than one provided by the government.

Also like Hillary, Ivanka is now asserting she did not know that by doing so she violated well established rules.

Clearly she wasn't paying attention. Or, more likely, felt that federal rules about official papers did not apply to her or, for that matter, her princely husband, Jared Kushner, also a senior presidential advisor, with whom she shared a personal network or domain.

As might be imagined, the mainstream media are having a field day with this example of blatant hypocrisy. How delicious it must seem to Democrats (very much including Hillary Clinton) who have had to endure Trump's mocking while blaming the former First Lady for all our troubles. He did so as recently as Sunday while trying to deflect probing questions from Chris Wallace on Fox News.

By Tuesday morning, on CNN and MSNBC, chat was all about Ivanka's let-them-eat-cake hauteur. But, on both networks, while gleefulness was universal, Jeffery Toobin, CNN's chief legal analyst, and John Harwood, Washington correspondent for CNBC, on Morning Joe expressed second thoughts. Both claimed that this was not that big a deal. Nor for that matter, retrospectively, was what Hillary did, though both confessed to having spent too much time on the Hillary flap. They cautioned that we should not to make the same mistake again. 

Mika, Joe, and Alisyn Camerota went ballistic. It would be irresponsible to give the story short shrift since is was such an open-and-shut opportunity to get back at the Trumps.

I agree with Joe, Mika, and Alisyn, but perhaps for somewhat different reasons.

Progressives need to take this on aggressively. Not only to get even with the Trump crime family but to demonstrate that like Republicans we are capable of fighting aggressively. 

There is a tendency within the educated, professional class to reason rather than fight. In many instances this is the appropriate option but in most political situations it needs to be more about winning than reasoning.

One reason Republicans have done as well as they have (including electing Trump) is because they have the capacity to battle relentless for things they want to achieve. Like getting nominees confirmed for federal judgeships. Change the rules if necessary. Keep an eye on the goal--winning.

Progressives often lose because they are too quick to be understanding and reasonable.

This is not an argument to emulate Mitch McConnell but to stop being such wusses when it comes to confrontations and political battles. A cold political war is underway and we demur at our peril.

October 16, 2015--Hillary

Unless there is something that the FBI will uncover in Hillary Clinton's emails that is indictable, after Tuesday's Democratic debate, not only will she waltz to the nomination but a year from November she will be elected president.

Bernie Sanders might have been an old fashioned gentleman when he said "enough about these damn emails," but politically, for all intents and purposes, that ended this line of questioning.

He is not privy to what the FBI is rooting about in, and there is more than a small chance that they will uncover a smoking gun. That would change everything. But as things stand, I stick by my prediction.

Clinton was so impressive that Joe Biden now will decide to stay out of the race. Maybe he even feels relieved. He had little chance of upsetting her. And he knows now that she is capable of roughing him up as she did to Sanders in regard to his record about guns and his naivety with world affairs ("With all due respect, senator, the United States is not Denmark"). Does Joe need to go through any of this in a losing cause?

He'd go from being the potential savior to spoiler. As of now there is nothing to save.

But above all here is why I am feeling so certain that the nomination and president is hers to lose--

Women.

Pretty much all the women I know have been planning to vote for Hillary. I mean even before the debate. To some it was a hold-you-nose thing. Yes, she's flawed. Deeply. But she is no worse than any of the others and . . . she's a woman.

Being female was the decider.

After Tuesday, checking in with a number of politically active women, I found they are now enthusiastic supporters. They are feeling that she excelled (admittedly the other four candidates were quite weak--I am trying to be kind) but she stood more than a little above them.

It was easy to imagine her back in the White House. This time as the president she always wanted to be.

So, they will not only vote for her, they now plan to contribute money and become active supporters. They will do  everything they can to encourage others to vote for her as well as become volunteers in her campaign.

And if this morning's rumors are true that she will select Julian Castro to be her running mate, it's all over. He is the former mayor of San Antonio and currently secretary of Housing and Urban Development. And, of course, is Mexican-American.

He they are together--