July 14, 2020--Seven to Two

The first wave of phone calls, texts, and emails I received right after the Supreme Court late last week ruled that even the president is not above the law, that he must respond to subpoenas, and can be held accountable for any felonious activities in which he may have been involved, all the people I heard from were ecstatic, many claiming this would finally assure Trump's downfall.

A few hours later, after everyone had their fill of watching events unfold on CNN and MSNBC (Fox News devoted little programming time to cover this historic ruling) the tone of those who stayed in touch with me changed. 

Where earlier there had been euphoria I sensed the beginning of frustration.

"What's going on with you?" I asked a friend who just hours before had been the most enthusiastic, "I thought you were on happy pills. Now you sound as if you're headed for deep despair?"

In a flat voice she said, "Since we spoke I've been listening to cable news and everyone, their legal experts especially, say none of Trump's tax documents will be available to the public before Election Day. He and his henchmen will be able to run out the clock. The political effect will be nonexistent. I'm turning off the TV or will look for an episode of Friends to lose myself in."

"Before you pack it in," I said, "Be sure you're keeping your eye on the prize."

"What's that?" she said.

"The big picture," I said, "The historic nature of the Court's ruling. People will read about this 100 years from now. Just as we think about and read about Supreme Court decisions during the Watergate era. Like the Supreme Court ruling that Nixon was not above the law and thus needed to turn over to prosecutors the tapes he made while in the Oval Office."

I continued, now feeling euphoric myself, "Remember how through the seemingly endless years of the Trump administration we said that the most important checks-and-balances guard rail would turn out to be our justice system? That ultimately all the big questions would be resolved by the federal courts? Particularly as with Nixon and Clinton, who while still president was required by the Supreme Court to testify under oath, we speculated that soon equivalent matters would find their way to the highest court for resolution. Well, that's where we are now--the most important issues are being dealt with by the Supremes and, based on their rulings thus far, there are reasons to believe that Trump will eventually be bought before the bar of justice. Since, though he is president, he is still, according to the Constitution, just a citizen."

"I see your point," my friend said, "It is all about the precedents. The reassertion that even with an authoritarian like Trump the law will eventually find him and hold him accountable."

"That's the hope," I said. "Though I'll acknowledge there's still a ways to go. But we're finally heading in a good direction. And, by the way, the fact that the vote was 7 to 2, with Trump's two judges voting with the majority, suggests there may be a lot to feel good about."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now I am not so sure. 

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

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

Full-throatedly, he needs to say-- 

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 20, 2018--Jack: When No Is Yes

I have been so agitated about Trump's pathetic behavior at the Helsinki summit and then with his attempts to walk back a number of the more outrageous things he said, that I found myself calling Jack to get a few things off my chest.

"I want you to just listen," I said, not even beginning with "Hello."

"You have 15 minutes before my next appointment. So shoot. There I go again with the shooting business." He chuckled at that. I ignored him as I didn't want to get sidetracked into an argument about the Second Amendment.

"Just listen," I said, racing on, "There have been numerous examples of politicians, including presidents, who said stupid things that they or their people subsequently attempted to clean up, to explain away.

"Let me begin with John Kerry when he was running for president in 2004. He was accused, not entirely unfairly by George W. Bush, of being a flip-flopper. The most enduring example was when he tried to have it both ways when it came time to vote for or against a supplemental defense bill that authorized $87 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"He said, 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.' Typical John Kerry and so he lost the election.

"Next there's what President Bill Clinton, under oath, said to the grand jury about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. I wrote it down so I can quote him--

"'It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. . . Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

"I'm running out to time," Jack said, "But thus far I like what you're saying--taking it to those two phonies--Kerry and Clinton."

Again I didn't take the bait and continued--"Now let's turn to your boy. Trump."

"Shoot." I could hear him laughing.


"Trying to wiggle out of what he said about Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign, on his return to Washington from Helsinki, Trump 'clarified' his position on Russian meddling in the election. Again I wrote it down--

Trump now claims he was 'very strong' with Putin on election meddling

Read more

“'I thought it would be obvious, but I would like to clarify just in case it wasn’t. In a key sentence in my remarks, I said the word ‘would’ instead of ‘wouldn’t.’ The sentence should have been: ‘I don’t see any reason why I wouldn’t, or why it wouldn’t be Russia,’ sort of a double negative. So you can put that in, and I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself.'

Among other things do you really believe he knows anything about double negatives?" 

Jack didn't say a word. "So here's another one for you. Also about the aftermath of the summit with Putin. This time about the meaning of 'no' and 'yes.'"

"When asked during a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday if he believes Russia is still seeking to meddle in U.S. political affairs, Trump initially answered, 'no,' a remark that led to criticism even from some Republican lawmakers.

After Trump's remarks, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders again tried to, quote, 'clarify' what Trump was saying 'no' to--she said he meant that he wasn't answering any questions at all, that he wasn't responding to the reporter's question itself."

I took a breath--"This is right out of Orwell's 1984. It's doublethink. And before you say that Trump was only doing the same thing as Kerry and Clinton, let me set you straight about that. Kerry was engaging in political spin and no matter how reprehensible it was for Clinton to have sex with Lewinsky and lie about it, what Trump did was of a higher order of magnitude, or a lower order--he violated his oath of office--he wasn't defending and protecting the Constitution conservatives so cherish. That alone justifies considering impeachment."

"Are you done?" Jack asked, "Because if you are I have one thing to say back to you--an Axios poll just came out out about how voters feel about the Helsinki meeting. The poll focused on the joint press conference that you and your people are all bent out of shape about. Well, 79 percent of Republicans said they approved of Trump's performance. What do you say to that?"

"Two things--they're still drinking the Kool-Aid, and 79 percent, as pathetic as that is, is not the usual 90 approval rating Trump gets from people like you. And further, I'll bet that at least half of these people are OK with the Russians meddling in our elections as long as they were helping Trump get elected."

With that, feeling a bit better, I hung up.

March 22, 2017--Wag the Dog

If I am right that the Russian-connection dots lead back to Donald Trump, and if we learn that in one way or another he authorized some of his people to collude with their Russian paymasters, this situation is much more serious than any other presidential scandal from Teapot Dome to Watergate to Monic Lewinsky.

If true, expect the master of distraction, out of fear and desperation, to trot out the wag-the-dog defense. Wag the Dog, recall, is the title of a Clinton-era 1997 black comedy in which a political spin doctor (Robert De Nero), days before the presidential election, to distract the public from a sex scandal, hires a film producer (Dustin Hoffman), to stage a fake war with Albania.

It worked. The president is reelected.

What distraction might we expect from our current president?

Minimally, a war with North Korea.

Not that North Korea doesn't deserve serious attention and, who knows, at some point military action to "take out" their nuclear arsenal and missile delivery systems since they are working on developing the capability to reach our west coast cities.

But under unrelenting political pressure and media scrutiny, Trump may ignore the diplomatic approach and reach for the "football" and nuclear codes.

My bet, though, is that he has something more Trump-like in mind. Something more reality-show.

He will fulfill one of his most outrageous campaign pledges--he will get the Attorney General to arrange for Hillary Clinton to be indicted.

That would push everything else off the front pages. There will be no talk about healthcare; no back and forth about defunding Meals On Wheels or Planned Parenthood; no coverage of Judge Neil Gorsuch's Supreme Court nomination hearings; no gossip about Ivanka Trump's new West Wing office; and, most important to Trump, talk will be suspended about his possible involvement with the Russians to undermine the presidential election.

It would be his equivalent of Wag the Dog's fake war with Albania.

"Lock Her Up"

January 13, 2017--A Fine Bromance

On an unseasonably warm day I was out on the terrace helping Rona secure some of her trees and plants for when the worst of winter will arrive.

When my part of the work was done, I collapsed on the bed and turned on MSBC to see if the world still existed.

At the bottom of the screen there was a shot of the White House State Dining Room. A graphic indicated they were waiting for the President and Vice President to arrive for a brief ceremony to honor Joe Biden's remarkable political career.

They were running late but I sensed it might be worth waiting. Maybe Biden would unleash a few valedictory Bidenisms. Like when he was caught on an open mic nearly eight years ago at another formal ceremony, Obama's signing the Affordable Care Act. Biden hugged Obama and whispered for all the world to hear, "This is a big fucking deal." It turned out to be just that.

Yesterday's was a wonderful occasion. The president struck the perfect balance between honoring Biden for his nearly 50 years of service and as is traditional in male-male bromances (and they clearly have an intense one) there was lots of affectionate joshing, including a smattering from the opus of the best Bidenisms. The "big deal" one very much featured with the f-word deleted (many grandchildren were present) but clearly hanging in the air.

When it was Biden's turn he didn't disappoint. He told stories from his life, a life of love and death and then more love and yet more death. But much of what he had to say was about Obama. All heartfelt and full of tears for what had been and what might have been.

"You have a heart as big as your head," Biden said, "And with it you entered my heart." It felt like a defining moment in both of their lives. These unlikely brothers. Not their political lives but their larger lives of family and commitment and integrity and resilient optimism even though, for Biden particularly, his life could have easily been one of cynicism and loss.

As it ended, I couldn't help but think about what was underway literally in other rooms beyond the true emotion and simple beauty of that White House ceremony.

The news channels could not wait to get back to it. One could feel that, as if there were digital emanations from the TV screen reaching out to pull us back into another version of reality, of what the media have opted to present as most important--the "unsubstantiated" CIA document, leaked by BuzzFeed, that alleges, in regard to Russia, that Donald Trump participated in many financial and personal indiscretions.

The reputable news outlets have known about this since August but did not write about it because they could not verify any of the accusations. But all the while, and this is what the networks and and papers such as the New York Times do when there is the hint of a scandal--as with Monica Lewinsky--pretending to be above matters of these kind, they cover the coverage.

That way they do not have to get down in the muck but instead write about what other sources that thrive in that muck are leaking. Journalistic ju jitsu at its most hypocritical. Having it both ways, the elite media remain clean while reporting about the reporting about the dirt.

In the current case that involves revealing, "unverifiably," that once when in Russia Trump asked to stay in the same suite in the same hotel that earlier had accommodated the Obamas and then hired Russian prostitutes to preform "golden showers" on the Obama bed.

Sad to say, though not verified, I'm almost inclined to believe this. This is where America is at. Where I am at. This is to where Donald Trump has helped to bring us.

And, I also thought, what will things be like, what will our country be like when the Obamas and Bidens are no longer in the White House and the Trumps next Friday arrive to check in.

                                       

September 29, 2016--Sidney Blumen-Who?

During the last half hour of Monday's presidential debate, moderator Lester Holt asked Donald Trump the inevitable question about his many-years-long campaign to call into question Barack Obama's citizenship and thus eligibility to be president. The Birther business. And by posing it during the segment of the debate devoted to race, Holt upped the ante.

Rather than just apologizing for pressing the issue so hard for so long in an attempt to move on--as Hillary Clinton successfully did when asked about her emails, saying--"I made a mistake,"which effectively ended the matter--Trump stumbled on and offered an incoherent and defensive response that on reflection was interesting because of what was largely ignored--his mumbling something about "Blumenthal." Seemingly suggesting that "Blumenthal" had something to do with raising the Birther issue.

Neither Clinton nor Holt followed up vigorously, wisely in its own way as Trump was on his own momentum twisting in the wind.

I was half-asleep by then and did not think that much about it.

But later that night, on one of my after-midnight talk shows--"Red Eye Radio"--a caller referred to Sidney Blumenthal, a close Clinton aide, as the progenitor of the Birther movement. A movement, so called, populated mainly of middle-age racist white men. That must have been, I thought, what Trump was trying to say.

I remembered Blumenthal as a senior advisor to Bill Clinton during his presidency. I knew Clinton trusted his political instincts, especially when it came to launching political attacks. This very much included Blumenthal's trying to help Bill thread his way though the cyclone of the Monica Lewinsky affair.

I also remembered that the Obama administration would not allow Hillary Clinton, when she was named Secretary of State, to hire him as one of her senior advisors. David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs, for example, indicated they would resign their White House positions if Blumenthal was appointed.

Call me foolish, but also from the talk-show world, I thought this had to do with rumors that Hillary and Sidney were fooling around and Obama didn't want any of that going on on his watch.

To check my recollections and to see what Trump might have been attempting to say during the debate, I googled "Blumenthal Birther" and within a microsecond there was all sorts of stuff, ranging from ratings from the lunatic fringe to other postings that appeared credible. Especially one from McClatchy News' Website of September 16, 2016--a few days before the debate.

For the uninitiated, McClatchy is a major publisher of daily newspapers, 29 at the moment, including a number that they secured from the Knight-Ridder company. They have won 9 Pulitzer Prizes and the first  I.F Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence. So they are far from ideological.

Since before the 16th Trump yet again made Birther noises and mentioned Blumenthal, who since 2008 has been a close advisor to Hillary, on its Website on the 16th McCaltchy posted a piece about its role in the Birther controversy.

It appears that during the run up to the Iowa caucuses in 2008, before Trump was questioning Obama's legitimacy, when Clinton was opposing Obama for the nomination, a staffer from Iowa approached McClatchy with a tip--she claimed that Obama was not born in the United States. When the word about this got out she was quickly disavowed by the campaign and summarily fired.

Closer to the point, then McClatchy Washington Bureau Chief James Asher, at that same time was approached by Sidney Blumenthal with the same "news." They refused to run it but again the word began to leak out.

Then this past Friday, and then again on Monday, Asher was quoted as saying that, "Blumenthal did spread the story to him, and that he assigned a reporter to check it out."

Though this may appear to be a posting about Trump with the implication that he was doing his version of a good citizen's due diligence, it is anything but.

Trump has been despicable throughout, including the other night when he appeared to stammer that he didn't do what he was accused of doing (wrong) and that he had not been pressing the calumny recently (again wrong, in fact that is blatantly untrue).

What is also despicable is the cravenness of moderator Lester Holt not knowing, or pretending not to know, the true genesis on the Birther slander with Sidney Blumenthal front and center.

Trump may have been the principal mouthpiece and self-promoter in promulgating the Birther lie but it did not begin with him. More truthfully, it may have originated with Hillary Clinton's closest advisor.

If it took me five minutes to get this straight. Holt with his squadron of producers and assistants could have done the same thing in half the time. And surely Hillary or one of her people could have, should have done the same thing.

None of this is impressive.

September 26, 2016--Debate Preview

When I saw that the cable news networks were planning to begin their debate coverage today at 4:00 p.m., five hours before the actual debate commences, I wondered out loud to Rona why they would be doing something this seemingly ridiculous, "How much is there to talk about?"

"Easy," Rona said, "They are expecting at least 100 million to tune in--an all time record, nearly half of the country's adult population--and that means big-bucks ratings. These are Super Bowl numbers and it's all because of him."

"So it's all about ratings and money?"

"What else is new. Some companies are actually making special TV commercials, including the Mexican beer Tecate, which will make fun of Donald's wall."

"Amazing, though not really. But as always with these kinds of mega-political events--the State of the Union or the Inaugural address--the media folks spend hours in advance speculating about what will be said. In the case of the debate, I'm sure they'll talk endlessly about who will get under their opponent's skin first and who will make the biggest blunder. Like poor Gerry Ford who stepped in it when he said in 1976 that the Eastern European countries are free and not captive Soviet nations."

"When he did that, the moderator, I think he was from the New York Times, was so stunned that he said, 'I'm sorry, what?'"

"So," I said, "here's my preview."

"Spare me," Rona said, but did not leave the room.

"First of all, can it be true that 100 million will watch? How could that be since at most a few thousand voters are genuinely undecided. Do you think at this point there are more than that who haven't made up their minds? In spite of what most polls report about them. Like Trump said, he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and none of his supporters would as a result vote for Hillary."

"If he did, considering what's going on in the country, his numbers would probably go up."

"This then means," I persisted, "that almost everyone who'll watch will be doing so for entertainment reasons. Since both candidates are thin-skinned, there's a good chance that there will be fireworks and the real possibility that someone will say something politically calamitous. It doesn't get to be more fun or high stakes than that. Better than House of Cards. More like Veep."

"I think that not since Kennedy/Nixon in 1960 will a first debate be so decisive. Yesterday morning the Washington Post poll had Clinton and Trump in a statistical dead heat. So tonight could be even more conclusive than what happens on Election Day."

"I assume you mean that after tonight the results will in effect be determined."

"That could be. So millions with their minds already made up can say they were 'there' when the tide turned decisively in one direction or another."

"But getting back to the entertainment issue. Did you see that Trump invited Bill Clinton's former mistress, Jennifer Flowers to be his guest and sit in the front row? Maybe just a few seats away from Bill himself?"

"She tweeted that she plans to be there."

"How about Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky?"

Getting into the theatrics of the debate, Rona said, "To retaliate Hillary could invite all of Trump's former wives and girlfriends."

"Between Bill and Donald that could fill up the entire first row."

"If Flowers or any of the others show up, do you think the moderator, Lester Holt, will ask about that? It would take great restraint on his part not to do so since he's a newbie to presidential debate moderation and could probably benefit from the notoriety like Megyn Kelly did."

"Or will the NBC folks put Jennifer on camera? How about a split screen of her with Bill?"

"Anticipating that alone," Rona said, "would keep me watching for the full 90 minutes."

"Really?" I said, "I thought you might not want to watch at all. You've been so consistent in feeling disgusted with the whole process."

"But it's perversely brilliant," Rona said. "I hate it but I get it. Our politics has been morphing into an ongoing reality TV show. Obviously, with Trump propelled into public consciousness from that world. So it's not unexpected that he would have Jennifer Flowers there. Jerry Springer would if he were staging it. As for sure so would the Kardashians."

"The full apotheosis of this debasement of our political culture--not that even with the Founders it's been that high (Jefferson and Adams, for example, and Hamilton and Burr among others went at it in hurtful personal, even deadly ways)--the full flowering of politics as schadenfreudian fun--forgive the pun--would be if Trump somehow managed to get elected. I suspect that a majority of the voting population might very well be ready for that. Just as Oprah helped pave the way for Obama, Springer and his spawn may wind up doing the same thing for Trump."

Signaling that she had had enough, Rona sighed, "Save us. Please."

"Amen," I said.

"But I admit it--I'll be watching."

June 1, 2016--Slime

Is there a slimier American than Ken Starr, the independent federal counsel who snooped around in President Bill Clinton's dirty laundry between 1994 and 1998?

His investigation began relatively benignly. To dig for the truth or, failing that, the dirt surrounding Clinton's alleged sexual harassment years earlier of Paula Jones when he was governor of Arkansas.

When Starr couldn't come up with that much new to defame the president, he roamed around in other salacious matters such as the death, alleged murder of Vince Foster, until reports about Clinton's sexual escapades with White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, fell into his, shall we say, overheated lap.

With that he finally got lucky, hounding and embarrassing the president and finally getting him to perjure himself when he denied having "sexual relations with that woman. Miss Lewinsky." The so-called "Starr Report," copies of which were gobbled up by a panting public that wanted to know all the seamy details about Lewinsky's thongs, Clinton's anatomy, and the uses other than smoking them he found for cigars.

This and other goodies gave Republicans in Congress all they needed to impeach the president. That effort was led by the over-sexed Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, who at the time was cheating on his second wife, diddling a staffer who worked for him--now wife number three, Callista, best known for her signature helmet hairdo.

But it looks as if Ken the self-righteous pornographer is having second thoughts about how Clinton "was treated." The passive voice, was treated, not how he, Starr, and his staff of investigators did the mistreating.

In a recent article in the New York Times, all but overlooked as the current presidential campaign trundles on with its own almost daily dose of gossip and slander, Starr is quoted as expressing regret that Mr. Clinton's legacy has been tarnished because of "the unpleasantness." Unpleasantness!

There are certain tragic dimensions which we all lament. . . . That having been said, the idea of this redemptive process afterwards, we have certainly seen that powerfully in Mr. Clinton's post presidency.

What tortured language for such a perfect and fastidious a man. But at least he managed to squeeze out a few words of contrition. Even if not entirely his own. Though I assume he includes himself in the "we all lament."

Now, with delicious irony, he has more things to lament.

In the current case what went on pervasively among student athletes at Baylor University where he was, until he was demoted last week, the president.

A variety of reports revealed that during his tenure as Baylor CEO sexual harassment was rampant and, this is key, ignored, swept under the rug by President Starr and his administrative team.

Now we'll see how well he does as he undertakes his own redemptive process. Thus far we have heard nothing about that from him.

How wonderful sometimes things work out.

Baylor's Number One Fan

December 29, 2015--The "Woman's Card"

Though it is still 2015 and neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have selected their nominees, from the political salvoes exchanged over the past few days between Hillary Clinton and Donald TRUMP you could have fooled me--it sounds as if they have declared themselves nominated and already launched the general election campaign.

The initial focus is on sexism.

Both are deeply experienced in that arena, but not as always assumed.

The eruption broke out last week when TRUMP said that back in 2008 Barack Obama had "schlonged" Hillary.

He probably meant that Obama defeated her handily (the connotative meaning of schlonged); she that since schlong is a Yiddish slang term for penis, he was being not just a bully but sexist.

Would he, she probably wondered, have said the same thing about Joe Biden who Obama also schlonged? In my and TRUMP's old neighborhoods, the answer is for sure.

Rising to the bait and seeing an opportunity to get under Clinton's skin (as The Donald has so successful done to Jeb Bush and John Kasich among other opponents) he in effect warned her not to play the sexism card, implying that if she did he would retaliate in kind.

Predictably, thus challenged, to show that he couldn't intimidate her as well as to raise higher the ire of the women who despise TRUMP, Hillary doubled down and continued to accuse him as having "a penchant for sexism."

At the same time she was defending her own honor, Hillary Clinton's people announced that they were about to unleash husband Bill and that he would next week take to the campaign trail in New Hampshire. There is some worry in the Clinton camp that Bernie Sanders may steal that primary and who knows where that might lead.

Seeing the unshackling of Bill Clinton to be an opportunity, TRUMP seized it. First he quoted Hillary back to herself, claiming on Twitter, all in caps, that she "HAS A PENCHANT FOR SEXISM."

And, less playful but potentially more potent, TRUMP began an assault on Bill Clinton, tweeting that he "has a terrible record of women abuse [sic]" and that by using her husband in her campaign, she is "playing the woman's card [sic again]."

This requires a little unpacking--

How does turning "women abuser" Bill loose on the campaign trail constitute playing the "woman's card"? They seem mutually exclusive, minimally contradictory.

This then brings us to Hillary Clinton's problem with young women.

When it comes to middle-age women, head-to-head in the polls against TRUMP, she gets over 80 percent of the vote, but she languishes when it comes to young women--young women who do not reflexively see sexism so commonly on ugly display.

For the younger generation of women getting schlonged, for example, is not as hurtful as it might be for their mothers' generation who needed to fight every step for their liberation. Taking feminism and liberation as a given, younger women tend to see TRUMP's utterances as only stupid while Hillary feels the need to remind them, motivate them, to think of themselves as women first, as vulnerable women, and everything else as secondary.

What she thus may be failing to notice is how these younger women, whose allegiance and votes she covets, are not that enthusiastic about seeing Bill Clinton coming to the aid (or rescue) of his unfairly put-upon wife. Ironically a wife, for whom sexism is her default mode, being shielded by someone who, in his sexual escapades while in the White House--exerting sexual power as president over a 19 year-old intern--had, as TRUMP rightly claims, that "terrible record of women abuse."

#  #  #

While on this subject, remember that less-than-felicitous phrase, "bimbo eruption," that was bantered about during Bill Clinton's first campaign and then later during his years in the Oval Office, a phrase for what his staff and advisors most worried about--that there were more Paula Joneses and Gennifer Flowers rattling around who might at any moment pop up on the front page of the National Inquirer, accusing Bill Clinton of sexual harassment. And then sure enough, up popped Monica Lewinsky.

Where are the TRUMP equivalents? There are big bucks and Gloria Allred waiting to bring their stories to the public. If there were such women wouldn't we by now have heard from them?

And wouldn't we also have heard about all the illegal Mexican immigrants mowing the fairways and greens of TRUMP's numerous golf courses? We learned about poor Mitt Romney's gardeners so, if there are any working for TRUMP, they should by now have been outed. Many mainstream reporters hate him and would love to win Pulitzer Prizes by exposing his hypocrisy.

In the meantime, I can't wait to see what mayhem Bill Clinton will soon be perpetrating. Remember South Carolina back in '08?

#  #  #

Breaking News--with a margin of error of 3 percent, the latest Rasmussen Poll has Clinton and TRUMP in a statistical deadbeat with Hillary at 37 percent and Donald at 36.

Stay tuned.

"I did not have sexual relations . . ."