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."

April 25, 2019--Jack: Running Scared

A number of friends have been asking about Jack. One wrote, "I'm rested and can take a few stories involving him."

So, after a restful nap of my own I sucked it up and called Jack to see what was on his mind.

"You're calling to gloat?" Jack, already edgy, said.

I was but said, "I'm just wanting to know what you thought about the Mueller report."

"No collusion, no obstruction."

"So, you're still drinking the Kool-Aid?"

"Quite the opposite, I'm reading the report carefully. So I can come to my own conclusions."

"With the no-collusion-no-obstruction spin it sounds to me as if you're still on page one."

His not responding confirmed that Jack is not famous for being much of a reader. Like his president.

"If nothing else," I said, "If you do read any of it I recommend looking at volume two, the section about all the things Trump did to, well, obstruct justice. Like demanding that the White House counsel, Don McGahn, fire Mueller. McGahn refused and offered to resign. If he followed those orders that would have been a very big deal and Trump would likely have been indicted."

"I thought a president can't be indicted?"

"This may or may not be true. That policy has never been tested in court. But I didn't call to get into a constitutional debate, which neither of us knows enough about to have."

"So then to what do I owe this call?"

"Just to get your general view of things. Particularly what it means politically." I deliberately didn't mention that quite a few of my friends were asking about him. Talking with him could be unpleasant enough that I didn't need to have to also deal with his vanity. But it is true that a lot of people I know like hearing about him. 

"I think he's running sacred."

"Trump? Really? That doesn't sound like him."

"So why did he send out 50 tweets in 24 hours while he was in Florida this past weekend? That sounds like running scared to me."

"But you said he's feeling exonerated. He even said he's never been happier. So I don't get how he can believe he received a clean bill of health and at the same time be scared. Scared of what?"

"First of all you need to understand how right-wingers experience and respond to reality. We are at our best when we feel victimized. When we think things are unfairly stacked against us even if they aren't. That makes us furious and we act accordingly. That's why if you listen to Fox at night, to the Sean Hannities, or the ultraconservative radio talk show people, they're always in a rage even when winning. One would think they'd sound triumphant with Trump in the White House and until last November having majorities in both houses of Congress. But, no, they still raged as if Hillary was president and Pelosi and Schumer were running Congress. It would also be as if there was no Fox news. Just fake news from the New York Times and Washington Post."

"Interesting."

"Trump talks about winning and even when he does still sounds aggrieved. This is our default mode--frustration, fear, anger, rage."

"This sounds right to me," I said.

"But Trump is no fool. He knows the truth--he can claim vindication by Mueller all he wants, but he saw his poll numbers plummet to all-time lows earlier this week. Down to 35, 37 percent who still claim he's doing a good job. This is the core of his core. He knows with numbers like this even Kirsten Gillibrand or John Hickenlooper could beat him in 2020. So the 50 tweets, so the mobilization of his clown lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and that horror show Kellyanne Conway."

"You too," I said, "are sounding pretty worked up. Who are you feeling good about?"

"At the moment, no one. This includes his son-in-law, who looks to me like a bloodless vampire. He said really stupid things over the weekend--that the Mueller investigation is more dangerous to the United States than the Russians' involvement in the 2016 campaign. That was even hard for someone like me to swallow."

"So, that's it? That's all you have to say?"

"Hardly. Since you were nice enough to call me, I'll let you in on a little inside baseball."

"Shoot."

"Trump has a strategy to get reelected that depends on the Democrats. Like ju jitsu it takes one's enemies' strength and turns it against them. That's what Trump is up to."

"What's the Democrats' strength that he's using to his benefit?"

"Your sense of righteousness and fairness. You aways want to feel you're doing the good and right thing, which doesn't always translate into winning strategies."

"Give me some examples."

"OK. Let's talk about impeachment."

"Do we have to?"

"Only if you want to learn how to be smart."

"Shoot." I was feeling exasperated.

"Trump knows that half the Democrat caucus is obsessed with impeaching him. But they're the ones who represent mainly secure blue districts and won't be punished in 2020 by voters who don't want to see Trump impeached. These politically safe Democrats want to see Trump impeached."

"I agree that that could be true."

"But then there are those Democrats who are not wanting to make impeachment a priority because they are in red or purple districts and could be vulnerable to Republicans in 2020. For them, if the Democrats proceed with impeachment they will likely lose their seats and Nancy maybe her majority and speakership."

"But what about the race for the presidency? How does impeaching Trump help him get reelected? Your ju jitsu analogy?"

"It takes the Dem's eye off the ball. It gets them so worked up about impeachment that they don't talk about things people really care about--health care, preexisting conditions, student debt, women's issues, jobs for working class people, all the things that make Democrats strong. Again, Trump plans to turn this against them. And by doing so--he wins. Keep an eye on how he'll move to bait Democrats into impeaching him. As counterintuitive as it may sound he actually wants to be impeached."

"What a nightmare," I said, "Why did I ever listen to my friends and call you?"

"Aha!" Jack said, "I knew someone put you up to this!"

Cackling, he rushed off the phone.

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.

December 7, 2017--Al Franken

As I write this a number of events are unfolding that are closely connected--

Additional women have stepped forward to accuse Senator Al Franken of sexual improprieties.

Support among his Democratic Senate colleagues--mainly women including Kirsten Gillibrand, Patty Murray, and Claire McCaskill--is collapsing. A number of male Senators have joined them in calling for Franken to step aside.

Gillibrand said, "It would be better for our country if he sent a clear message that any kind of mistreatment of women in our society isn't acceptable by stepping aside to let someone else serve."

Senator Bob Casey said, "I agree with my colleagues who have stepped forward today and called on Senator Franken to resign. We can't just believe women when it's convenient."

Meanwhile, in Alabama, it is looking as if Roy Moore will be elected and Republicans in the Senate will "seat" a likely pedophile in their caucus.

While the Republicans are backed into a corner--most would like Moore to up and disappear--for the Democrats there is a political opportunity.

No matter how good a senator Franken has been (I think his work and influence are overrated), he has become a political liability to Democrats. 

It will be difficult to point a finger at the GOP, claiming they are the party of sexual predators Donald Trump and Roy Moore (I can already see the 2018 political ads) while going through months of investigations and technical procedures to determine if Franken is fit to be a U.S. senator.

I am not saying that what Franken has admitted to doing is morally or even legally equivalent to Moore's transgressions, but they both should go. 

From my partisan liberal perspective, I would be happy to have Moore in the Senate and ranting on CSPAN while Franken moves on. I am therefore proud of the Democrats who are finally acting as if they want to stop whining and win.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand

March 31, 2015--Hillary's Hair

There was a flap last week when Michelle Obama showed up on Jeopardy with what appeared to be a shaved head. The photos I saw tended to confirm that. She looked real good to me but I could only imagine what they must have been saying about her in the Heartland.

"You see. I told you. She's a militant. A black militant, and this proves it."

Well, there were official White House denials (about the hair). It seems she had her actual hair pulled way back in a tight bun.

This obsession about First Lady hair is nothing new. It goes back at least to Mamie Eisenhower's bangs and there was tons of commentary about Jackie's bouffants. But nothing, nothing like all the ink that has been spilled about Hillary Clinton's literally dozens of different looks. From her days when Bill was first a presidential candidate (shoulder-length hair and headband)  right up to this month (short, slightly off-center part, no bangs).

When I think about other prominent professional women (and men) most have "signature" hairdos. Condi Rice has that lacquered helmet with a dip of hair swept onto the left side of her forehead, Barbara Bush has that crown of soft white-gray curls, Dianne Feinstein consistently has a sweep of dark brown waves, Elizabeth Warren that unchanging Page Boy plus rimless signature glasses, while Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton's and Barack Obama's hair pretty much always looks the same, albeit in Obama's case grayer day by day.

Even those political women who have made some changes along the way have not done so as radically as Hillary. Senators Barbara Boxer and Kirsten Gillibrand come to mind.

When I asked Rona and Cousin Esther about this, simultaneously they said, "You just don't get it." But, I pointed out to them that they themselves have not swung from style to style over the years. Maybe this year a little longer, perhaps next a bit shorter. But that's pretty much it.

But do all the changes tell us anything about Hillary that we should know when considering her for the presidency?

Plenty. Just as her shape-shifting move from name to name to name tells us something.

Is she Mrs. Bill Clinton? Hillary Clinton? Hillary Rodham? Hillary Rodham Clinton? All of the above? Most likely the latter--all of the above--which would not be uncharacteristic of women of her generation who came to embrace feminism later in life. Women who had been raised to think that life for them would be determined largely by who they married. And then, in many cases, when that didn't prove to be satisfactory they came to acquire a liberated consciousness as fully formed adults--they weren't born to it as later generations of women were. Their feminism was put on, applied to an already-exisiting, well-developed sense of self.

But as with other forms of gender and cultural identities taken on later in life they do not always sit well. They are never fully assimilated, there are contradictions; and thus, in Hillary Clinton's case (a very special case indeed considering husband Bill's aberrant behavior and Hillary's serial public humiliations), living in the spotlight for decades, filled with unfulfilled ambitions of her own, she tried on different personalities as she tried on different names and hairstyles.

It comes with the territory when 67. All of this is very much who she is. Take it or leave it.