This whole thing reminds me of the 1980 Olympics, Miracle on Ice game. The Soviets' starting goalie, considered the best in the world at the time, let in 2 goals in the first period, at least one of which was clearly his fault. He was replaced with the backup with the game tied 2-2. You know the rest. Would the US have won if he wasn't pulled? Maybe, maybe not, we'll never know.
I think we're just setting up the blame game for after we lose - "if only we Joe would have stepped aside, Harris surely would have beaten Trump" vs. "I always knew replacing Biden at this late stage was a gamble and a horrible mistake".
When Biden made that worthless pile of useless shit Merrick Garland Attorney General & he refused to indict T**** by March 1, 2017 for the insurrection. Why Garland is such a wimp & why Biden never fired him has baffled me for over three years know. Biden should've left that bum on the appellate court to rot there.
Why did it take years to ever bring criminal charges against him?
Why did that utter incompetent Jack Smith charge T**** with the stolen documents case in Palm Beach, where the sole federal judge is a T**** stooge?
The proper place to charge the theft of documents was in DC, where they were stolen from! You always indict a theft in the place the stolen items are from, not where the thief takes them!
Garry, I hate to burst your bubble. I have made it clear what I think of Trump. But of what is he guilty. Let's assume he actually told the rioters to attack the Capitol. After reviewing his words several times, it's not clear to me what legally he did. Were the rioters all federal employees? Were they members of the military? Were they all members of some insurrectionist group led by Trump? It seems to me that they listened to Trump and fomented their own plan of action based on what they saw as his urging. Have you listened to the guilty pleas? Many of them are sorry for their actions and realized that they were out of control and felt compelled to act, based on what he said. But nowhere did he specifically say to attack and trash the Capitol or threaten members of Congress. As a criminal case, it would have been an extremely difficult case to make. Impeachment? He was on his way out and the House never would have voted to impeach. He used poor judgement. He should not this year even been allowed on a ballot. But criminal? I think it would have been a waste of time and taxpayer money. I think it is now. While we're all busy blaming MAGAs for their politics, who here believes Democrats wouldn't use this for political advantage? Furthermore, it's failing. MAGAs see it as political persecution. Many liberals are threatening, at best, to sit it out over Gaza and the migrant issue. I applaud your sentiments, Garry. I'd prefer to see Trump dumped in a hole which is then cemented over. Or send him to live with one of his good buddies like Kim or Putin. But prosecution? Unlikely!
Would love to hear how you rationalize Trump’s missing documents case. “Oh, Donnie just thought they were his property. He declassified them with omnipotent thoughts from his “genius” brain, right?”
You asked, “of what is he guilty?” Just answering that question. But I get that you were initially responding to another person. Regarding the insurrection, there is an awful lot out there about all the planning with the Roger Stones, Mike Flynns and Jeffrey Clarks, etc. of the world about their plans in meetings at the Willard Hotel to keep the election from being certified. Your presumption of Trump’s innocence in these proceedings is naive.
I'm sorry you decided to get personal. You are showing a lack of knowledge about both the law and politics. If I tell you jumping headfirst off the roof of a house, are you required to do it? Have I committed a crime? What do you know about these so'-called meetings at the Willard Hotel that the FBI doesn't seem to know? Trump would claim he wasn't there and had nothing to with it. It is rare for anyone to turn on him. At any rate it would be his word against the confession. Unless it could be shown that Trump had direct knowledge and was direction activities, it would be a waste of time. Don't you think the Biden Justice Department would have taken action by now if the thought they had anything. I don't even need to be a lawyer to come up with Trump's defense. Why did they wait so long and how much of the information was made up by the prosecution and conspirators looking to save their own necks? You are the naive one, my friend.
Laurence, you seem like a decent guy. And well informed, also. We can debate about what Trump did or didn’t do and probably never agree. The Jan 6 Committee had a lot of this but they are not a court so we can’t debate their evidence. But you seem offended at my statement that your presumption of Trump’s innocence is naive because I was getting “personal?” Is possible that your reaction is a little bit defensive? Insulting you was not my intention.
I despise Trump, I want him in jail, but also fully agree with you. 99% of Americans do not understand how the laws apply to us. As despicable as it was, the morons on January 6 were not planning to overthrow a government. They committed horrible acts and would have likely killed any politician they got their hands on, even Pelosi and Pence. It was an out of control mob incapable of mounting a true insurrection. Big problem is that even liberal progressives get hammered by being nuanced and rational on this issue.
Thank you. I appreciate it. It's not the first time someone in this column has twisted my thoughts into defense of Trump. It has nothing to do with defending Trump. If we support any methods to get him, legal or not, are we any better than him? I know some would say you need to fight fire with fire. I don't totally disagree. I am less concerned with him going to prison than getting reelected. Has is occurred to anyone that if he wins the election- legitimately, and not just through the Electoral College, as Eric reminded me- that is what America deserves? Nixon was elected by a wide margin after Watergate had already been revealed. Samuel Tilden is probably still rolling over in his grave over what happened in 1876 Rutherford Hayes. What are people here really wanting? I have made no secret of my desire to see Trump not elected. What is more important- the election or criminal prosecution? I would be perfectly content to see Trump ride off into the sunset although I fear the media would never tire of airing his rants.
He egged them on, they weren't going to do anything except he brought them together & then the fat traitor bugged out back to the White House where he refused to do anything for well over three hours, despite multiple phone calls from many people who he normally listened, include his own daughter Ivanka who was urging to send in the National Guard, but he refused.
He loved what his idiot followers were doing, which was an actual insurrection, because they were to stop the vote certification & then many wanted to hang Pence! In fact it appears that most of Pence's Secret Service detail were in on that part of the mess!
I spent a big chunk of my life in the legal/public policy/political world so love a good political debate more than anyone (except maybe Eric Zorn ;-), so this was a good read. All the points made are decent; not all slam dunks, but good arguments. But at what point does one accept that "No" means No?
Biden has said he absolutely won't back out. Unless he has a stroke or breaks a hip or something medical happens, there's no blog post, op-ed, or media talking head that's going to change his mind. He will be the convention nominee and the only choice against Trump. And all this time, effort, arguments and angst spent trying to get him out is time that could have focused on Trump's flaws and efforts to defeat him. Because if Biden loses, his detractors will put the blame all on him, never acknowledging their efforts weakened his candidacy and campaign.
We don't always get what we want in politics or in life, but we have to make the best with reality. So unless you have Joe Biden's personal phone number, I'd suggest we all accept that he meant what he said and we turn our attention and our efforts toward the nightmare that is Trump and Project 2025.
That’s some serious buck passing to say that if Biden loses it will be because his campaign was weakened by those who urged him to step aside. Really? Did you watch the debate? You don’t think that his being a lost, decrepit, addle brained, nearly catatonic old man whose mental faculties are in rapid dissolution and plainly visible for the whole world to see might have a thing or two to do with it if, er I mean when he loses in November?
I said place "all" the blame on him when I believe that the lack of focus on Trump is a significant problem.
Steven, using hyperbolic words like "decrepit," "addled," and "catatonic" makes me think you don't spend much time with elderly people or know what those terms really mean. Someone who is catatonic doesn't hold effective meetings with NATO leaders.
“Decrepit” and “addle-brained” might seem hyperbolic, but I don’t see how you could argue that they don’t fit Biden.
This is not something that just manifested itself two weeks ago either. As Jon Stewart reminded us last night, it was two whole years ago that Biden stood at a podium at the White House and repeatedly called out to a congresswoman who was unable to reply because she was….dead.
Focus on Trump all you like, but doing so is really just preaching to the choir. Most undecided voters will probably view that tactic as a diversion from the Biden issues that we’re asked to ignore and cast their vote for the candidate who at least appears to be coherent.
"good read" is an understatement, probably the best bullet point and response summary that could be written on the subject. I'm going to violate some copyright laws and cut and paste this into a document worth saving.
no no no - it's not biden's detractors who weakened his candidacy - it's joe biden and his 'handlers' [family, WH staff, campaign staff] who weakened his candidacy. don't shoot the messenger, monica.
anyone who watched the debate, was intending or inclined to vote for prez in Nov, and had not yet made up their mind [i can't believe i'm saying these words - could there have been >a dzn of those people in the US of A?] had to come away saying: no way i vote for biden.
biden's stubborness, underpinned by his lackluster [charitably stated] interview w- stephanopoulos, will only confirm their negative opinion of biden and inclination to vote for trump.
I have quite reluctantly come to the conclusion that, because of the politics of this pivotal moment, the stark facts of the case, and the piling on by all sides, that an enormously successful president and one of the best human beings to occupy the WH will have to yield to another nominee. Unlike the savants, instant and professional, I have no idea what will ensue.
I have never partaken of Twitter, Facebook, and the rest, apart from a brief time when I thought that Instagram would be a good way to keep in touch with family here and abroad--a not very long time in the Zuckerverse disabused me of that notion. I don't think I have missed a damned thing. The vitriol, insults, and abuse that has manifested itself in this relatively sedate forum has made me even more glad about my decision. Homophobic insults like "panty-waist," being called a creduous fool because I have a different opinion, etc, etc, (mostly from people who use pseudonyms of one kind and another) make me shudder to think what the real thing must be like and reinforce my idea that social media are to media what social diseases are to disease.
I agree with you, Michael, that Biden is one of the best human beings to occupy the White House and an enormously successful President. I think that his focus on building the economy from the bottom up rather than from the top down has successfully channeled the person who I think was our greatest President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
And I am certainly sympathetic about your aversion to the coarseness of social media, including the Picayune Sentinel, which, let’s face it, is a form of social media. I’ve certainly experienced the sharpness of social media here. Garry Spelled Correctly (or was he Greasy Thumb Guzic at the time?) told me here in the comments that I am a man. “Once a man, always a man,” is what he said, or something to that effect. It is my selfish and fervent hope, however, that, notwithstanding the coarseness of social media, you stay and continue to comment here as I find your comments insightful and your tone refreshing. :-)
I have fears this Democratic convention in Chicago will go the way of 1968 with party upheaval degenerating into violence, leading to a November outcome in favor of Republicans. Difference is that Trump is far scarier than Nixon (even knowing in hindsight that Nixon was a criminal). Far scarier.
Trump is already a favorite to win in betting markets. The convention was always going to be a shit show of protestors outside. Inside the convention the nomination will have already been done, a very different scenario than in '68.
A roll call vote of delegates will be taken over the internet on, or starting on July 11. By the time the convention happens the formal nomination of the Democratic Party candidate will be completed.
Where is the Democratic politician who will not only say that Biden is no longer qualified (easy to do at this point), but shout out that most or probably all of the people working for him looked the other way while this was going on, and actively gaslit the press and public on it? That person, if they are willing and actually exist, should be the next president. For example, Eric Zorn.
Biden is clearly not going to drop out. So, 'Harris will make a great president' will have to be a major undercurrent of the campaign. I am sure that they can plant the right stories in the media and get the right questions asked by crony reporters. We can expect lots of fairy stories about how she has been a key advisor, intimately involved in policy, is critical and respected in the Senate, great relationships with foreign leaders, etc.
The more difficult thing will be to convince voters that Harris, White House staff, the Cabinet, or whomever, would act on concerns about Biden. Having gaslighted us for at least the last two years, they now continue to pretend they see no issues. But we can trust them to do the right thing in the future? Will they be honest, frank, clear-eyed, and willing to do the hard thing? Or will they continue to be political weasels?
They'll be weasels. There is no reason to believe they will change. And every interview with Kamala Harris, if she is the nominee, should begin with "Why did you lie? Why did you cover up for Biden?"
How much contact has Harris had with Biden? We know from the show VEEP that she may have never had conversation with him.
They put her in charge of fixing the border problem early, which I saw as a way to move her out of the way as that was going to be an impossible task for the Executive Branch alone.
She is either an important part of the administration that has been engaged in significant policy, or she is a clueless bystander without any sources of information in the White House. I assume that she wants us to believe she is a key player, in which case she should answer the question. Or she can admit that she was lucky to bump into him at functions. I am guessing she is actually more of an outsider but has had plenty of interactions to have developed an assessment. And we are supposed to believe that the VP will lead the 25th Amendment effort, should that be required. So, her assessment skills seem important.
I agree with everything you said. Somehow George HW Bush skated around the Iran-Contra scandal by saying he was out of the loop, and still get credit for extending a Regan administration. Very different political circumstances, of course.
rather than share my opinion, which no one is really asking, I'll ask this: Is there anything that Biden can do to convince those calling for him stepping down to change their mind?
For the record, my thinky-thoughts is Biden should have stepped down and the Dems should have had a better, younger candidate in place during the primaries. My educated guess is that there isn't any awesome candidate that would unite and ignite voters. The names currently being thrown around are party-line apparatchik who are waiting their turn rather than make a run now.
If he is capable, then yes there definitely is. He could do a town hall format in a live broadcast where he takes questions that he has not heard in advance. He could meet with large donors having conversations with them so that they can assess if he is all there. On the latter point he has already failed on an opportunity the weekend after the debate.
Not doing things like that is taken as evidence that is not capable of coherent intense conversations.
KJP announced yesterday that Biden would do a press conference later this week -- then she called (as did Kirby, I believe) a "big-boy press conference." I'm guessing she was belting the White House press corps, but boy did that seem like a slam at Biden instead.
To my mind, the only thing Biden could possibly do to change lots of minds is to prove the "bad night" argument by demonstrating his mental acuity and vigor in a flurry of events in which he looks good, seems sharp, and responds well to questions (not provided ahead of time) extemporaneously -- press conferences, town halls, TV interviews, many more than the one bad one on ABC and the call-in to Morning Joe. In other words, just the stuff that we have not seen him do much for a long time for now obvious reasons. Because he can't actually do those things. The Biden of our hopes and memories can do those things. The actual Biden cannot. So, there's nothing he can do.
My primary impression of Harris is that she is the master of progressive word salad. She is much further left of center than Biden. She does not seem particularly well versed or have clear foreign policy positions. She is less divisive than Clinton was, but I can see her fixing that with a few unguarded quips. Despite her identity/progressive credentials she has not been embraced by the left and has often been criticized by them. Maybe they will come around, like the protestors at the convention.
But she appears to be the only option given that all of the purported alternatives to Biden are courageously hanging back, mumbling support, and waiting to see if the wind will effortlessly lift them. It reminds me of the ballad of Brave Sir Robin - Bravely Running Away. They all seem to be calculating that they will do better in 2028, or as an appointed Harris VP in 2026. Biden knows they are cowards, as in his interview he challenged them to throw their hats in the ring at the convention.
It’s not okay to have a President who is demented. It’s just not. Biden’s staff says he is best between 10:00 am and 4:00 pm. And we’ve seen that after 9:00 pm, when he is under stress, he may get confused and say things like, “Look . . . we finally beat Medicare.” What happens if there is an international crisis that requires quick and brilliant analysis at 9:00 pm? You know, something like the Cuban Missile Crisis. Biden is not running for alder or city council. And this idea that we should stop urging Biden to step aside because that will have a negative effect on his chances! You haven’t seen anything yet! Go to Wisconsin or one of the other swing states next October and turn on the TV in your hotel room. You’ll see Biden on that debate stage unable to put a coherent sentence together. I’m going to vote for Biden anyway, of course. But I sort of have a more personal stake in the election than most because I am a transgender person, and we are one of the groups of scapegoats of the new MAGA American fascism. The average undecided voter in a swing state? I fear that Biden’s stubbornness will bring that fascism to our country in the form of a second Trump presidency. But . . . who the Democrats will run is way above my pay grade.
One of my first thoughts after the debate was that Biden should resign the presidency now, because he really dos not seem fit now. If we think Harris is the most likely standard-bearer, this would elevate her to the presidency immediately and allow her to demonstrate actual leadership and competence in the job in advance of the election. That's assuming she can do that well. I have my doubts.
I need to clear up some confusion about Kamala Harris. I carefully read all the comments concerning her. It's not about her competency. Competency relates to whether or not she can do the job. Compared to what? I wasn't a big Biden fan when he was first elected. I saw him as a lifelong politician who was a deal maker more than a leader. Others might disagree with me, but senility not withstanding, he pretty much lived up to my expectations. Do I need to even comment on Trump's competency? If one delves into American history, we have had more than one leader who achieved high office only on the basis of political deals and probably shouldn't have been there. This is about electability, not competency. Try to remember that the actual qualifications for the position are few. 35 years old, a natural born citizen, and a resident for the past 14 years. Those qualifications fit millions of Americans. I am qualified. So are most of you reading this. Qualified and/or competent are two different matters. That raises two different questions. Just what are the competencies to be President and what makes one electable? No special degree or field of expertise is required. Electable? That depends not only on the person running, but the people running the campaign. It leaves me with several thoughts. Harris is probably more competent than Biden and always was. Electable is the question. Most Americans have no idea what presidential competency is. That is not necessarily criticism. Why should they know when the job is not clearly defined? The problem is not enough people educating themselves about the job itself and the people running. MAGAs think they are going to get what they want from Trump so they accept his lies. Great businessman? He's been through more bankruptcies than many Hollywood stars have had marriages. Leader? Hmmm- interesting. The German people thought that about Hitler at the start. Biden, I have already discussed. My point is that there are plenty of people in both parties that I believe to be better than either Biden or Trump. The questions are who is going to step up and who is electable. The GOP is spoken for. The Democrats look like an applicant for a wire walker who trips coming in the door.
You forgot one of the very few constitutional qualifications: not having engaged in insurrection or rebellion having previously held office and taken an oath to support the Constitution. But the Supreme Court redlined that little bit out.
Go back and read my entire comment. I forgot nothing. Your statement is not a qualification listed in the Constitution. It's a standard to be followed once someone actually attains the office. It is a restriction should someone actually be convicted of doing it. I addressed it. I said he should not be allowed to run again. But my comment was directed at Garry, who blasted prosecutors for not trying him earlier. We are talking two different types of prosecutions. You and I cannot be prosecuted for our job actions unless we break the law. Federal office holders can be held responsible for not properly doing their jobs. This can be done with or without an actual criminal violation. A criminal prosecution takes place after someone is ousted from office if needed. Clinton was impeached. He could have been removed from office. A criminal prosecution was highly unlikely. I know there are some in this forum that will take my comments the wrong way as if I were defending Burger Boy. I am a realist, not a cheerleader. I hope something bad happens to Trump as he has ruined life for a lot of people. I would love to be wrong. I once predicted they wouldn't get Nixon. But I don't think a criminal prosecution is going to happen. At this point, he may not even come to trial before November. If he's elected, all bets are off.
Yes it is a qualification listed in the Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 3. It uses the same language as the others, "no person" "shall" hold such office. It does not require criminal conviction or conviction on impeachment. No such requirement is mentioned; the framers could have easily added such a requirement. Moreover, convictions were not required shortly after the time of ratification to exclude Confederate office-holders under this clause.
The Supreme Court did not take up your view here in Trump v. Anderson. They didn't read it to require a criminal conviction. They read it to require a congressional statute to make it enforceable. But that's not how it usually works. Congress didn't need to pass a statute to outlaw slavery for slavery to be abolished. Congress didn't need to pass a statute requiring equality before the law for segregation to be unconstitutional. The Constitution itself was enough. More than enough -- it required those outcomes by its plain language. Same here. It was a lousy decision. Colorado did exactly the right thing, and the rest of the states, which are the ones who run elections and thus adjudicate constitutional qualifications, should have been free to do so as well, subject ultimately to Supreme Court review.
Such review could in theory say, No, that's not the sort of conduct envisioned by this clause. Or it could say, you, State of X, did not give Trump enough opportunity to contest your findings. It didn't say any of that. It wanted to nip the thing in the bud and thus basically read Section 3 out of the Constitution, just as it shamefully ignored the rest of the 14th Amendment for about a hundred years after its ratification.
But there is some good news today as reported by the Intercept: “‘Gay Furry Hackers’ Claim Credit For Hacking Heritage Foundation Over Project 2025"! If the Gay Furry Hackers are fighting on the side of democracy, maybe we will come out of this mess okay!
I recommend watching "The AntiSocial Network" on NetFlix. It might provide some insight into the confidence that can be placed in anonymous hacker collectives.
Re Harris, I was talking with friends the night of the debate, and somebody said, well, I guess it's Harris. To which my response was, we're trying to *solve* a problem here!
Maybe I'm wrong, as Zorn suggests. I haven't seen her recent performances. I started trying to get used to the idea. It certainly would be the simplest non-Biden route. I even imagined a crazy anti-Trump unity ticket with her and Nikki Haley.
To be fair, though, my negative impression of her is not purely based on her lackluster debate showing. Nor is it based on her lackluster victory speech. She seems lackluster to me generally, but that's not the worst thing. She rubs me the wrong way because she seems phony baloney, unserious. My favorite example is where she blasted Biden for being anti-busing -- taking great umbrage, this is personal to me, etc. -- and then offered word salad when pressed on her own busing views today. This shows someone who doesn't think half a chess move ahead and has a bad habit of latching onto a stance of progressive offense-taking that is not at all the right tone to attract independents and moderates, the people we need to get out and vote the right way.
Slick politicians like Bill Clinton and Gavin Newsom are also less than, say, Bernie-Sanders-sincere. With Clinton, I respected the brain behind the politician. With Newsom, I'm not so sure, I don't know enough about him. But, in both cases, the thing about their slickness is that they were/are both really good at it. Harris is both phony *and* not slick at all. That's a bad combo.
It's true that she was handed a difficult assignment with the border, but she bungled it out of the gate by not going to the border and embarrassingly flubbing the Holt interview and others on that topic. I'm not aware that she said or did anything constructive on that front or on any front. She ended up serving as an ineffective mouthpiece for progressive talking points. For example, she made headlines by coming out strong in response to the Florida African-American history education standards. Except that was a bogus story. It was typical Harris -- an unpersuasive show of personal affront combined with specious logic and/or bad facts.
Hillary Clinton was, we were constantly told, "polarizing." I never understood why. She always struck me as exceedingly smart and capable with her heart and mind very much in the right place on issues, foreign and domestic. The widespread visceral dislike she generated over her entire public life remains a mystery to me. With her, I felt in the presence of a serious person, very much presidential material. There was nobody more qualified, then or now. Harris isn't in her league.
She may well do better than Biden, and the longer it takes for Biden to drop out, if he ever does, the more likely it is that she'll be the nominee. Maybe she doesn't even need to up her game by a lot. She's not Trump, she's not Biden, and she's a woman. All very exciting by the standards of the moment. Ugh.
The widespread visceral dislike that Hillary Clinton generated over her entire public life is not really a mystery. She has a vagina, and we still live in an extremely misogynistic society where the idea of a women in positions of authority generates a lot of hatred and anger. Women are just not judged as men are judged by a large percentage of our society.
I guess, I mean that must be a big part of it. But I remember being surprised some time ago to hear from a liberal, feminist friend, a lawyer who represents mostly woman victims of sexual harassment, that *she* didn't like her. Her face scrunched up when I mentioned her, I think prior to her 2016 run. She pointed to a picayune detail out of one the trumped-up scandals that dogged her career as her sole evidence, I don't remember what, but it wasn't persuasive on its own. It wasn't just that she thought she would be a bad candidate or not electable. She obviously shared this visceral dislike.
It's not like I'm immune to such feelings, a gut-level dislike not perhaps fully justified by objective evidence. Maybe I'm guilty of that in relation to Harris. I don't see it with Hillary, though. Whenever she did an interview on, say, a late-night show, she always struck me as winning, charming. There's a pantheon of comments she's made, from "baking cookies" to "Tammy Wynette" to "deplorables," all of which were gaffes in the classic sense of saying the truth out loud. I see why they were liabilities, but they wouldn't piss off my liberal friends. Obama has a similar library, with such hits as "guns and religion" and "you didn't build that." He's not hated so much, and his race and cerebral affect would seem to rule him out of American presidential politics on paper. Speaking of which, Michelle Obama cleans up against Trump as a candidate!
There were and are people who liked and disliked Hillary. Could it have been her politics that they liked or disliked? Her stances on issues? Does it have to be that she was a woman? I get that women have had a tough road to follow, I understand the awfulness of glass ceilings, lack of equality and heartily applaud and respect women who fought for and continue to fight today but blaming Hillarys loss on her gender seems disengenuous to me, and seems to diminish her accomplishments.
I really can’t imagine any other reason she lost the race for President to a reality TV show actor/businessman with no government or political experience. How does it diminish her accomplishments to suggest that she lost her race for the Presidency because the U.S. electorate wasn’t ready for a woman President?
I agree with you about the rampant sexism, and you and others are doing what you can to overcome it and kudos to you. I just feel that automatically going to "she didn't get it because she's a woman" belies the fact that there might be voters who didn't like the way she governed whether as a senator or Secretary of State or didn't like her health care plan efforts as First Lady.
i agree, how could she possibly have lost to donald trump in 2016?
how about poor campaign mgmt? she took bad advice, or just made a bad decision,, not to campaign [or campaign minimally] in battleground states Wis & Mich. trump won those and other battleground states by minuscule %-ages.
HC won the popular vote by 3 mill+. yet anyone knowledgeable of US govt knows that the election of the POTUS is by the electoral college. whatever anyone thinks of the EC, that's the game and those are the rules. trump [or more likely his campaign leadership] understood this and ran circles around HC and her team.
HC was also compromised by her foolish use of personal email for govt business [serious business], and the pay-to-play of the clinton fdn, of which she was a leading part.
finally, she, like al gore, marginalized bill clinton - the greatest retail politician of our generation - in her campaign. IMO both she & gore would have been elected Prez had they given BC full rein to campaign for them.
so, a highly flawed candidate who ran a poor campaign. was she far more qualified than trump? of course. did misogyny play a part in her loss? yes.
was misogyny the predominant reason for her loss? i say no.
This whole thing reminds me of the 1980 Olympics, Miracle on Ice game. The Soviets' starting goalie, considered the best in the world at the time, let in 2 goals in the first period, at least one of which was clearly his fault. He was replaced with the backup with the game tied 2-2. You know the rest. Would the US have won if he wasn't pulled? Maybe, maybe not, we'll never know.
I think we're just setting up the blame game for after we lose - "if only we Joe would have stepped aside, Harris surely would have beaten Trump" vs. "I always knew replacing Biden at this late stage was a gamble and a horrible mistake".
interesting - well-considered. seems to presume a Dem loss/trump win for prez is imminent, regardless - with which i sadly agree.
Betting odds are 57% for Trump, 20% for Biden. There is still hope, but I'm emotionally preparing myself for the worst.
You know where this disaster actually started?
When Biden made that worthless pile of useless shit Merrick Garland Attorney General & he refused to indict T**** by March 1, 2017 for the insurrection. Why Garland is such a wimp & why Biden never fired him has baffled me for over three years know. Biden should've left that bum on the appellate court to rot there.
Why did it take years to ever bring criminal charges against him?
Why did that utter incompetent Jack Smith charge T**** with the stolen documents case in Palm Beach, where the sole federal judge is a T**** stooge?
The proper place to charge the theft of documents was in DC, where they were stolen from! You always indict a theft in the place the stolen items are from, not where the thief takes them!
Garry - I think you mean March 1, 2021 . . . .
Yeah, typo!
Garry, I hate to burst your bubble. I have made it clear what I think of Trump. But of what is he guilty. Let's assume he actually told the rioters to attack the Capitol. After reviewing his words several times, it's not clear to me what legally he did. Were the rioters all federal employees? Were they members of the military? Were they all members of some insurrectionist group led by Trump? It seems to me that they listened to Trump and fomented their own plan of action based on what they saw as his urging. Have you listened to the guilty pleas? Many of them are sorry for their actions and realized that they were out of control and felt compelled to act, based on what he said. But nowhere did he specifically say to attack and trash the Capitol or threaten members of Congress. As a criminal case, it would have been an extremely difficult case to make. Impeachment? He was on his way out and the House never would have voted to impeach. He used poor judgement. He should not this year even been allowed on a ballot. But criminal? I think it would have been a waste of time and taxpayer money. I think it is now. While we're all busy blaming MAGAs for their politics, who here believes Democrats wouldn't use this for political advantage? Furthermore, it's failing. MAGAs see it as political persecution. Many liberals are threatening, at best, to sit it out over Gaza and the migrant issue. I applaud your sentiments, Garry. I'd prefer to see Trump dumped in a hole which is then cemented over. Or send him to live with one of his good buddies like Kim or Putin. But prosecution? Unlikely!
Would love to hear how you rationalize Trump’s missing documents case. “Oh, Donnie just thought they were his property. He declassified them with omnipotent thoughts from his “genius” brain, right?”
That's s not insurrection. You are mixing apples and oranges.
You asked, “of what is he guilty?” Just answering that question. But I get that you were initially responding to another person. Regarding the insurrection, there is an awful lot out there about all the planning with the Roger Stones, Mike Flynns and Jeffrey Clarks, etc. of the world about their plans in meetings at the Willard Hotel to keep the election from being certified. Your presumption of Trump’s innocence in these proceedings is naive.
I'm sorry you decided to get personal. You are showing a lack of knowledge about both the law and politics. If I tell you jumping headfirst off the roof of a house, are you required to do it? Have I committed a crime? What do you know about these so'-called meetings at the Willard Hotel that the FBI doesn't seem to know? Trump would claim he wasn't there and had nothing to with it. It is rare for anyone to turn on him. At any rate it would be his word against the confession. Unless it could be shown that Trump had direct knowledge and was direction activities, it would be a waste of time. Don't you think the Biden Justice Department would have taken action by now if the thought they had anything. I don't even need to be a lawyer to come up with Trump's defense. Why did they wait so long and how much of the information was made up by the prosecution and conspirators looking to save their own necks? You are the naive one, my friend.
Laurence, you seem like a decent guy. And well informed, also. We can debate about what Trump did or didn’t do and probably never agree. The Jan 6 Committee had a lot of this but they are not a court so we can’t debate their evidence. But you seem offended at my statement that your presumption of Trump’s innocence is naive because I was getting “personal?” Is possible that your reaction is a little bit defensive? Insulting you was not my intention.
I despise Trump, I want him in jail, but also fully agree with you. 99% of Americans do not understand how the laws apply to us. As despicable as it was, the morons on January 6 were not planning to overthrow a government. They committed horrible acts and would have likely killed any politician they got their hands on, even Pelosi and Pence. It was an out of control mob incapable of mounting a true insurrection. Big problem is that even liberal progressives get hammered by being nuanced and rational on this issue.
Thank you. I appreciate it. It's not the first time someone in this column has twisted my thoughts into defense of Trump. It has nothing to do with defending Trump. If we support any methods to get him, legal or not, are we any better than him? I know some would say you need to fight fire with fire. I don't totally disagree. I am less concerned with him going to prison than getting reelected. Has is occurred to anyone that if he wins the election- legitimately, and not just through the Electoral College, as Eric reminded me- that is what America deserves? Nixon was elected by a wide margin after Watergate had already been revealed. Samuel Tilden is probably still rolling over in his grave over what happened in 1876 Rutherford Hayes. What are people here really wanting? I have made no secret of my desire to see Trump not elected. What is more important- the election or criminal prosecution? I would be perfectly content to see Trump ride off into the sunset although I fear the media would never tire of airing his rants.
He egged them on, they weren't going to do anything except he brought them together & then the fat traitor bugged out back to the White House where he refused to do anything for well over three hours, despite multiple phone calls from many people who he normally listened, include his own daughter Ivanka who was urging to send in the National Guard, but he refused.
He loved what his idiot followers were doing, which was an actual insurrection, because they were to stop the vote certification & then many wanted to hang Pence! In fact it appears that most of Pence's Secret Service detail were in on that part of the mess!
I thought I had cracked the code on the “Beethoven urinals” tweet, but I was thinking the first four notes of the 5th symphony, not the 9th.
I think it's the first 4 notes of the 5th. I think you are correct on the first thought. It's not the 9th.
I completely did not understand the joke (ha!) at first.
I spent a big chunk of my life in the legal/public policy/political world so love a good political debate more than anyone (except maybe Eric Zorn ;-), so this was a good read. All the points made are decent; not all slam dunks, but good arguments. But at what point does one accept that "No" means No?
Biden has said he absolutely won't back out. Unless he has a stroke or breaks a hip or something medical happens, there's no blog post, op-ed, or media talking head that's going to change his mind. He will be the convention nominee and the only choice against Trump. And all this time, effort, arguments and angst spent trying to get him out is time that could have focused on Trump's flaws and efforts to defeat him. Because if Biden loses, his detractors will put the blame all on him, never acknowledging their efforts weakened his candidacy and campaign.
We don't always get what we want in politics or in life, but we have to make the best with reality. So unless you have Joe Biden's personal phone number, I'd suggest we all accept that he meant what he said and we turn our attention and our efforts toward the nightmare that is Trump and Project 2025.
That’s some serious buck passing to say that if Biden loses it will be because his campaign was weakened by those who urged him to step aside. Really? Did you watch the debate? You don’t think that his being a lost, decrepit, addle brained, nearly catatonic old man whose mental faculties are in rapid dissolution and plainly visible for the whole world to see might have a thing or two to do with it if, er I mean when he loses in November?
I said place "all" the blame on him when I believe that the lack of focus on Trump is a significant problem.
Steven, using hyperbolic words like "decrepit," "addled," and "catatonic" makes me think you don't spend much time with elderly people or know what those terms really mean. Someone who is catatonic doesn't hold effective meetings with NATO leaders.
I said “nearly” catatonic.
“Decrepit” and “addle-brained” might seem hyperbolic, but I don’t see how you could argue that they don’t fit Biden.
This is not something that just manifested itself two weeks ago either. As Jon Stewart reminded us last night, it was two whole years ago that Biden stood at a podium at the White House and repeatedly called out to a congresswoman who was unable to reply because she was….dead.
Focus on Trump all you like, but doing so is really just preaching to the choir. Most undecided voters will probably view that tactic as a diversion from the Biden issues that we’re asked to ignore and cast their vote for the candidate who at least appears to be coherent.
"good read" is an understatement, probably the best bullet point and response summary that could be written on the subject. I'm going to violate some copyright laws and cut and paste this into a document worth saving.
no no no - it's not biden's detractors who weakened his candidacy - it's joe biden and his 'handlers' [family, WH staff, campaign staff] who weakened his candidacy. don't shoot the messenger, monica.
anyone who watched the debate, was intending or inclined to vote for prez in Nov, and had not yet made up their mind [i can't believe i'm saying these words - could there have been >a dzn of those people in the US of A?] had to come away saying: no way i vote for biden.
biden's stubborness, underpinned by his lackluster [charitably stated] interview w- stephanopoulos, will only confirm their negative opinion of biden and inclination to vote for trump.
biden's problem is of his own making.
As noted, it’s the 5th.
I have quite reluctantly come to the conclusion that, because of the politics of this pivotal moment, the stark facts of the case, and the piling on by all sides, that an enormously successful president and one of the best human beings to occupy the WH will have to yield to another nominee. Unlike the savants, instant and professional, I have no idea what will ensue.
I have never partaken of Twitter, Facebook, and the rest, apart from a brief time when I thought that Instagram would be a good way to keep in touch with family here and abroad--a not very long time in the Zuckerverse disabused me of that notion. I don't think I have missed a damned thing. The vitriol, insults, and abuse that has manifested itself in this relatively sedate forum has made me even more glad about my decision. Homophobic insults like "panty-waist," being called a creduous fool because I have a different opinion, etc, etc, (mostly from people who use pseudonyms of one kind and another) make me shudder to think what the real thing must be like and reinforce my idea that social media are to media what social diseases are to disease.
I agree with you, Michael, that Biden is one of the best human beings to occupy the White House and an enormously successful President. I think that his focus on building the economy from the bottom up rather than from the top down has successfully channeled the person who I think was our greatest President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
And I am certainly sympathetic about your aversion to the coarseness of social media, including the Picayune Sentinel, which, let’s face it, is a form of social media. I’ve certainly experienced the sharpness of social media here. Garry Spelled Correctly (or was he Greasy Thumb Guzic at the time?) told me here in the comments that I am a man. “Once a man, always a man,” is what he said, or something to that effect. It is my selfish and fervent hope, however, that, notwithstanding the coarseness of social media, you stay and continue to comment here as I find your comments insightful and your tone refreshing. :-)
That is more than kind of you. Thanks.
I have fears this Democratic convention in Chicago will go the way of 1968 with party upheaval degenerating into violence, leading to a November outcome in favor of Republicans. Difference is that Trump is far scarier than Nixon (even knowing in hindsight that Nixon was a criminal). Far scarier.
Trump is already a favorite to win in betting markets. The convention was always going to be a shit show of protestors outside. Inside the convention the nomination will have already been done, a very different scenario than in '68.
What do you mean by “the nomination will have already been done?”
A roll call vote of delegates will be taken over the internet on, or starting on July 11. By the time the convention happens the formal nomination of the Democratic Party candidate will be completed.
Where is the Democratic politician who will not only say that Biden is no longer qualified (easy to do at this point), but shout out that most or probably all of the people working for him looked the other way while this was going on, and actively gaslit the press and public on it? That person, if they are willing and actually exist, should be the next president. For example, Eric Zorn.
Biden is clearly not going to drop out. So, 'Harris will make a great president' will have to be a major undercurrent of the campaign. I am sure that they can plant the right stories in the media and get the right questions asked by crony reporters. We can expect lots of fairy stories about how she has been a key advisor, intimately involved in policy, is critical and respected in the Senate, great relationships with foreign leaders, etc.
The more difficult thing will be to convince voters that Harris, White House staff, the Cabinet, or whomever, would act on concerns about Biden. Having gaslighted us for at least the last two years, they now continue to pretend they see no issues. But we can trust them to do the right thing in the future? Will they be honest, frank, clear-eyed, and willing to do the hard thing? Or will they continue to be political weasels?
They'll be weasels. There is no reason to believe they will change. And every interview with Kamala Harris, if she is the nominee, should begin with "Why did you lie? Why did you cover up for Biden?"
How much contact has Harris had with Biden? We know from the show VEEP that she may have never had conversation with him.
They put her in charge of fixing the border problem early, which I saw as a way to move her out of the way as that was going to be an impossible task for the Executive Branch alone.
She is either an important part of the administration that has been engaged in significant policy, or she is a clueless bystander without any sources of information in the White House. I assume that she wants us to believe she is a key player, in which case she should answer the question. Or she can admit that she was lucky to bump into him at functions. I am guessing she is actually more of an outsider but has had plenty of interactions to have developed an assessment. And we are supposed to believe that the VP will lead the 25th Amendment effort, should that be required. So, her assessment skills seem important.
I agree with everything you said. Somehow George HW Bush skated around the Iran-Contra scandal by saying he was out of the loop, and still get credit for extending a Regan administration. Very different political circumstances, of course.
Hi Eric,
Small correction: Kamala Harris ran in the 2020 primaries against Biden. Not in 2016 when Hillary Clinton was the nominee. Thanks!
rather than share my opinion, which no one is really asking, I'll ask this: Is there anything that Biden can do to convince those calling for him stepping down to change their mind?
For the record, my thinky-thoughts is Biden should have stepped down and the Dems should have had a better, younger candidate in place during the primaries. My educated guess is that there isn't any awesome candidate that would unite and ignite voters. The names currently being thrown around are party-line apparatchik who are waiting their turn rather than make a run now.
If he is capable, then yes there definitely is. He could do a town hall format in a live broadcast where he takes questions that he has not heard in advance. He could meet with large donors having conversations with them so that they can assess if he is all there. On the latter point he has already failed on an opportunity the weekend after the debate.
Not doing things like that is taken as evidence that is not capable of coherent intense conversations.
KJP announced yesterday that Biden would do a press conference later this week -- then she called (as did Kirby, I believe) a "big-boy press conference." I'm guessing she was belting the White House press corps, but boy did that seem like a slam at Biden instead.
To my mind, the only thing Biden could possibly do to change lots of minds is to prove the "bad night" argument by demonstrating his mental acuity and vigor in a flurry of events in which he looks good, seems sharp, and responds well to questions (not provided ahead of time) extemporaneously -- press conferences, town halls, TV interviews, many more than the one bad one on ABC and the call-in to Morning Joe. In other words, just the stuff that we have not seen him do much for a long time for now obvious reasons. Because he can't actually do those things. The Biden of our hopes and memories can do those things. The actual Biden cannot. So, there's nothing he can do.
My primary impression of Harris is that she is the master of progressive word salad. She is much further left of center than Biden. She does not seem particularly well versed or have clear foreign policy positions. She is less divisive than Clinton was, but I can see her fixing that with a few unguarded quips. Despite her identity/progressive credentials she has not been embraced by the left and has often been criticized by them. Maybe they will come around, like the protestors at the convention.
But she appears to be the only option given that all of the purported alternatives to Biden are courageously hanging back, mumbling support, and waiting to see if the wind will effortlessly lift them. It reminds me of the ballad of Brave Sir Robin - Bravely Running Away. They all seem to be calculating that they will do better in 2028, or as an appointed Harris VP in 2026. Biden knows they are cowards, as in his interview he challenged them to throw their hats in the ring at the convention.
It’s not okay to have a President who is demented. It’s just not. Biden’s staff says he is best between 10:00 am and 4:00 pm. And we’ve seen that after 9:00 pm, when he is under stress, he may get confused and say things like, “Look . . . we finally beat Medicare.” What happens if there is an international crisis that requires quick and brilliant analysis at 9:00 pm? You know, something like the Cuban Missile Crisis. Biden is not running for alder or city council. And this idea that we should stop urging Biden to step aside because that will have a negative effect on his chances! You haven’t seen anything yet! Go to Wisconsin or one of the other swing states next October and turn on the TV in your hotel room. You’ll see Biden on that debate stage unable to put a coherent sentence together. I’m going to vote for Biden anyway, of course. But I sort of have a more personal stake in the election than most because I am a transgender person, and we are one of the groups of scapegoats of the new MAGA American fascism. The average undecided voter in a swing state? I fear that Biden’s stubbornness will bring that fascism to our country in the form of a second Trump presidency. But . . . who the Democrats will run is way above my pay grade.
One of my first thoughts after the debate was that Biden should resign the presidency now, because he really dos not seem fit now. If we think Harris is the most likely standard-bearer, this would elevate her to the presidency immediately and allow her to demonstrate actual leadership and competence in the job in advance of the election. That's assuming she can do that well. I have my doubts.
I need to clear up some confusion about Kamala Harris. I carefully read all the comments concerning her. It's not about her competency. Competency relates to whether or not she can do the job. Compared to what? I wasn't a big Biden fan when he was first elected. I saw him as a lifelong politician who was a deal maker more than a leader. Others might disagree with me, but senility not withstanding, he pretty much lived up to my expectations. Do I need to even comment on Trump's competency? If one delves into American history, we have had more than one leader who achieved high office only on the basis of political deals and probably shouldn't have been there. This is about electability, not competency. Try to remember that the actual qualifications for the position are few. 35 years old, a natural born citizen, and a resident for the past 14 years. Those qualifications fit millions of Americans. I am qualified. So are most of you reading this. Qualified and/or competent are two different matters. That raises two different questions. Just what are the competencies to be President and what makes one electable? No special degree or field of expertise is required. Electable? That depends not only on the person running, but the people running the campaign. It leaves me with several thoughts. Harris is probably more competent than Biden and always was. Electable is the question. Most Americans have no idea what presidential competency is. That is not necessarily criticism. Why should they know when the job is not clearly defined? The problem is not enough people educating themselves about the job itself and the people running. MAGAs think they are going to get what they want from Trump so they accept his lies. Great businessman? He's been through more bankruptcies than many Hollywood stars have had marriages. Leader? Hmmm- interesting. The German people thought that about Hitler at the start. Biden, I have already discussed. My point is that there are plenty of people in both parties that I believe to be better than either Biden or Trump. The questions are who is going to step up and who is electable. The GOP is spoken for. The Democrats look like an applicant for a wire walker who trips coming in the door.
Thank you. The operative word here is electability.
You forgot one of the very few constitutional qualifications: not having engaged in insurrection or rebellion having previously held office and taken an oath to support the Constitution. But the Supreme Court redlined that little bit out.
Go back and read my entire comment. I forgot nothing. Your statement is not a qualification listed in the Constitution. It's a standard to be followed once someone actually attains the office. It is a restriction should someone actually be convicted of doing it. I addressed it. I said he should not be allowed to run again. But my comment was directed at Garry, who blasted prosecutors for not trying him earlier. We are talking two different types of prosecutions. You and I cannot be prosecuted for our job actions unless we break the law. Federal office holders can be held responsible for not properly doing their jobs. This can be done with or without an actual criminal violation. A criminal prosecution takes place after someone is ousted from office if needed. Clinton was impeached. He could have been removed from office. A criminal prosecution was highly unlikely. I know there are some in this forum that will take my comments the wrong way as if I were defending Burger Boy. I am a realist, not a cheerleader. I hope something bad happens to Trump as he has ruined life for a lot of people. I would love to be wrong. I once predicted they wouldn't get Nixon. But I don't think a criminal prosecution is going to happen. At this point, he may not even come to trial before November. If he's elected, all bets are off.
Yes it is a qualification listed in the Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 3. It uses the same language as the others, "no person" "shall" hold such office. It does not require criminal conviction or conviction on impeachment. No such requirement is mentioned; the framers could have easily added such a requirement. Moreover, convictions were not required shortly after the time of ratification to exclude Confederate office-holders under this clause.
The Supreme Court did not take up your view here in Trump v. Anderson. They didn't read it to require a criminal conviction. They read it to require a congressional statute to make it enforceable. But that's not how it usually works. Congress didn't need to pass a statute to outlaw slavery for slavery to be abolished. Congress didn't need to pass a statute requiring equality before the law for segregation to be unconstitutional. The Constitution itself was enough. More than enough -- it required those outcomes by its plain language. Same here. It was a lousy decision. Colorado did exactly the right thing, and the rest of the states, which are the ones who run elections and thus adjudicate constitutional qualifications, should have been free to do so as well, subject ultimately to Supreme Court review.
Such review could in theory say, No, that's not the sort of conduct envisioned by this clause. Or it could say, you, State of X, did not give Trump enough opportunity to contest your findings. It didn't say any of that. It wanted to nip the thing in the bud and thus basically read Section 3 out of the Constitution, just as it shamefully ignored the rest of the 14th Amendment for about a hundred years after its ratification.
But there is some good news today as reported by the Intercept: “‘Gay Furry Hackers’ Claim Credit For Hacking Heritage Foundation Over Project 2025"! If the Gay Furry Hackers are fighting on the side of democracy, maybe we will come out of this mess okay!
https://theintercept.com/2024/07/09/gay-furry-hackers-claim-credit-for-hacking-heritage-foundation-over-project-2025/
I recommend watching "The AntiSocial Network" on NetFlix. It might provide some insight into the confidence that can be placed in anonymous hacker collectives.
My tongue was firmly in my cheek.
Re Harris, I was talking with friends the night of the debate, and somebody said, well, I guess it's Harris. To which my response was, we're trying to *solve* a problem here!
Maybe I'm wrong, as Zorn suggests. I haven't seen her recent performances. I started trying to get used to the idea. It certainly would be the simplest non-Biden route. I even imagined a crazy anti-Trump unity ticket with her and Nikki Haley.
To be fair, though, my negative impression of her is not purely based on her lackluster debate showing. Nor is it based on her lackluster victory speech. She seems lackluster to me generally, but that's not the worst thing. She rubs me the wrong way because she seems phony baloney, unserious. My favorite example is where she blasted Biden for being anti-busing -- taking great umbrage, this is personal to me, etc. -- and then offered word salad when pressed on her own busing views today. This shows someone who doesn't think half a chess move ahead and has a bad habit of latching onto a stance of progressive offense-taking that is not at all the right tone to attract independents and moderates, the people we need to get out and vote the right way.
Slick politicians like Bill Clinton and Gavin Newsom are also less than, say, Bernie-Sanders-sincere. With Clinton, I respected the brain behind the politician. With Newsom, I'm not so sure, I don't know enough about him. But, in both cases, the thing about their slickness is that they were/are both really good at it. Harris is both phony *and* not slick at all. That's a bad combo.
It's true that she was handed a difficult assignment with the border, but she bungled it out of the gate by not going to the border and embarrassingly flubbing the Holt interview and others on that topic. I'm not aware that she said or did anything constructive on that front or on any front. She ended up serving as an ineffective mouthpiece for progressive talking points. For example, she made headlines by coming out strong in response to the Florida African-American history education standards. Except that was a bogus story. It was typical Harris -- an unpersuasive show of personal affront combined with specious logic and/or bad facts.
Hillary Clinton was, we were constantly told, "polarizing." I never understood why. She always struck me as exceedingly smart and capable with her heart and mind very much in the right place on issues, foreign and domestic. The widespread visceral dislike she generated over her entire public life remains a mystery to me. With her, I felt in the presence of a serious person, very much presidential material. There was nobody more qualified, then or now. Harris isn't in her league.
She may well do better than Biden, and the longer it takes for Biden to drop out, if he ever does, the more likely it is that she'll be the nominee. Maybe she doesn't even need to up her game by a lot. She's not Trump, she's not Biden, and she's a woman. All very exciting by the standards of the moment. Ugh.
The widespread visceral dislike that Hillary Clinton generated over her entire public life is not really a mystery. She has a vagina, and we still live in an extremely misogynistic society where the idea of a women in positions of authority generates a lot of hatred and anger. Women are just not judged as men are judged by a large percentage of our society.
I guess, I mean that must be a big part of it. But I remember being surprised some time ago to hear from a liberal, feminist friend, a lawyer who represents mostly woman victims of sexual harassment, that *she* didn't like her. Her face scrunched up when I mentioned her, I think prior to her 2016 run. She pointed to a picayune detail out of one the trumped-up scandals that dogged her career as her sole evidence, I don't remember what, but it wasn't persuasive on its own. It wasn't just that she thought she would be a bad candidate or not electable. She obviously shared this visceral dislike.
It's not like I'm immune to such feelings, a gut-level dislike not perhaps fully justified by objective evidence. Maybe I'm guilty of that in relation to Harris. I don't see it with Hillary, though. Whenever she did an interview on, say, a late-night show, she always struck me as winning, charming. There's a pantheon of comments she's made, from "baking cookies" to "Tammy Wynette" to "deplorables," all of which were gaffes in the classic sense of saying the truth out loud. I see why they were liabilities, but they wouldn't piss off my liberal friends. Obama has a similar library, with such hits as "guns and religion" and "you didn't build that." He's not hated so much, and his race and cerebral affect would seem to rule him out of American presidential politics on paper. Speaking of which, Michelle Obama cleans up against Trump as a candidate!
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/only-michelle-obama-bests-trump-alternative-biden-2024
So, yes, misogyny, but I've always thought there must be something additional, some button she pushes in others I don't seem to have.
There were and are people who liked and disliked Hillary. Could it have been her politics that they liked or disliked? Her stances on issues? Does it have to be that she was a woman? I get that women have had a tough road to follow, I understand the awfulness of glass ceilings, lack of equality and heartily applaud and respect women who fought for and continue to fight today but blaming Hillarys loss on her gender seems disengenuous to me, and seems to diminish her accomplishments.
I really can’t imagine any other reason she lost the race for President to a reality TV show actor/businessman with no government or political experience. How does it diminish her accomplishments to suggest that she lost her race for the Presidency because the U.S. electorate wasn’t ready for a woman President?
Because it might make people think that the only reason she reached the heights she did was or is because she's a woman.
What you said doesn’t make any sense at all. She accomplished what she did in spite of the sexism that permeates our culture.
I agree with you about the rampant sexism, and you and others are doing what you can to overcome it and kudos to you. I just feel that automatically going to "she didn't get it because she's a woman" belies the fact that there might be voters who didn't like the way she governed whether as a senator or Secretary of State or didn't like her health care plan efforts as First Lady.
i agree, how could she possibly have lost to donald trump in 2016?
how about poor campaign mgmt? she took bad advice, or just made a bad decision,, not to campaign [or campaign minimally] in battleground states Wis & Mich. trump won those and other battleground states by minuscule %-ages.
HC won the popular vote by 3 mill+. yet anyone knowledgeable of US govt knows that the election of the POTUS is by the electoral college. whatever anyone thinks of the EC, that's the game and those are the rules. trump [or more likely his campaign leadership] understood this and ran circles around HC and her team.
HC was also compromised by her foolish use of personal email for govt business [serious business], and the pay-to-play of the clinton fdn, of which she was a leading part.
finally, she, like al gore, marginalized bill clinton - the greatest retail politician of our generation - in her campaign. IMO both she & gore would have been elected Prez had they given BC full rein to campaign for them.
so, a highly flawed candidate who ran a poor campaign. was she far more qualified than trump? of course. did misogyny play a part in her loss? yes.
was misogyny the predominant reason for her loss? i say no.
we can agree to disagree.