DNC meeting, day four.
Some women were moved to the core.
The speech was OK
Not much more I can say
At least sanity was restored.
The lines about Trump were razor sharp. The rest of it sounded like a shopping list, but that’s the way most people speak. We won’t be electing her for her oratory.
Obama is the charismatic Golden State Warriors. Hillary would be the grit and grind Memphis Grizzlies.
The problem with Fox News isn’t its right-wing perspective; there is plenty of room in the spectrum for that. My issue with Fox is that the message it repeats, over and over and over again, is that white American Christians are under attack by The Other, and need to rise and take their country back to where it was prior to the 1960’s.
Is it any wonder, under the circumstances, that Trump is the GOP nominee? One can only hope that the new leadership will see that this message is driving the GOP into a ditch, and will change its ways accordingly.
During the 2008 campaign, Hillary Clinton repeatedly made the argument that her methodical, grinding style was better suited for the nuts and bolts of governing than Obama’s flash and eloquence. Last night, in a supreme twist of irony, she called upon that same eloquence to make the case that she was right. And he delivered, big time, as only he can. He had help, too; Biden and Bloomberg were excellent in their own ways, as well.
It was a remarkable night: one to remember for a long, long time.
The DNC meeting, day three.
The delegates shouting with glee.
A Russian attack.
Trump can’t walk this one back.
You don’t ask for help overseas.
It would be a natural pairing: a genuine strong man and his apprentice.
I believe we are going to see a overwhelming, spontaneous expression of support from the delegates for the President tonight, as people begin to realize what he has done for, and meant to, this country over the last eight years. This won’t be choreographed. It will be real.
Ezra Klein wrote a column in Vox last week in which he argued that Trump is a clear and present danger to the American public. I agree, for the following reasons:
1. Trump is a threat to our economic system. Our economy, and that of the entire world, is based on stability, confidence, and trust. Putting a chaos agent in charge of the linchpin of the system will cause markets all over the world to go into free fall. In addition, his plans for a huge tax cut and trade wars will result in skyrocketing interest rates. A Trump victory will be a disaster for your 401(k).
2. Trump is a threat to our constitutional liberties. His plan to “reform” libel laws is intended to suppress legitimate dissent. His unconditional support for the police and what he calls “law and order” suggests an indifference to the constitutional rights of criminal defendants. His advocacy of torture in the face of international law indicates that he has no respect for fundamental principles of fairness and decency. Finally, his strong man act presages issues with constitutional checks and balances.
3. Trump is a threat to our lives. Trump’s foreign policy will drive away our allies and leave us alone in a hostile world. His hair-trigger temper and thin skin are incompatible with control of the nuclear codes. Finally, his desire to remain unpredictable and to keep everything on the table during negotiations suggests that he is capable of using nuclear conflict as a bargaining chip.
The counterargument to this is that Trump is too lazy to be a genuine authoritarian, that he only wants the trappings of power, and that his man on horseback routine is just a series of opportunistic improvisations. A lot of that is probably true; I have advocated for some of those positions in previous posts. The bottom line, however, is that the logic of his campaign may well drive him to take more extreme positions than he contemplated when he began. There could be nothing more ridiculous than a strong man who can’t get anything done; given the choice of looking pathetic or doubling down, which option do you think he would pick?
While the TPP undoubtedly will boost economic growth in the US, and elsewhere, a little bit, its real significance is geopolitical. It is primarily an effort to counter future Chinese aggression in the South China Sea by creating a rules-based economic alliance to supplement American military power in the region. Failure of the TPP will send a message to countries bordering the South China Sea that America cannot be trusted, and that they have no choice but to make the best deals they can by themselves with their dangerous and unpredictable neighbor. Chinese divide and conquer tactics will consequently prevail, and the military and political environment will become much more unstable.
Hillary undoubtedly knows this, which makes her pandering on the issue all the more depressing. From a tactical perspective, it makes no sense for her to engage in a protectionist race to the bottom with Trump, because, given her history, she cannot win it. She is going to look stupid and weak on this issue during the debates unless she vigorously defends both the concept of free trade and the agreements that she and Bill actually supported. The best case scenario, therefore, is that Hillary limits her objections to essentially cosmetic issues in the TPP during the campaign, wins the election, and fixes the “problems” with the agreement early in her administration.
The DNC meeting, day two.
The Hill nomination is through.
Bill went on too long
Should have moved him along
But he did what they told him to do.
1. Should Hillary campaign as a man or a woman? This is the question that bedeviled her 2008 campaign, when she had to assume that her ultimate Republican adversary would attack her for being weak on defense. I think if you could catch her in an unguarded moment, she might well tell you that her vote on the Iraq war was premised on that concern. Since her foreign policy bona fides have been established by her tenure as Secretary of State, and Trump is running as a neo-isolationist, the issue is less fraught this time–she can run as a strong woman.
2. Will Bill Clinton be an asset or a liability to the campaign? There are actually two parts to this question: one deals with his legacy as President; and the other, with his campaigning skills. Bill has struggled at times in dealing with attacks from the left, but doing battle with Republicans puts him in his comfort zone, and moderates tend to view the late 90’s as a golden age of sorts. He will be an asset.
3. Does Hillary represent continuity or change? She needs to draft off Obama’s relative popularity without sounding as if she lacks vision. The answer to this question is incremental change, which is consistent with the best case in the real world.
Day one of the DNC show.
The Trump bogeyman’s got to go.
Michelle sounded good.
The Bern said what he should.
It should leave a nice afterglow.
Everyone knows that country music is about guys in cowboy hats (or occasionally, baseball caps) singing in a nasal twang about women, trucks, and beer, with the odd female singer mawkishly upholding traditional values and standing by her man. Or is it?
The restaurant at which I usually eat lunch on Saturdays plays the top 20 country videos when I’m there, and I have to tell you, most of what I hear could pass easily for mainstream pop music in the 1980’s if you don’t look at the images. A lot of it sounds pretty good–particularly the women. I would rather listen to Miranda Lambert than, say, Rihanna any day of the week. I like the Band Perry and Lady Antebellum. Even some of the guys are OK, although I could do without Florida Georgia Line and their endless parade of chicks in bikinis.
There are lessons here for American politics: mindless red/blue tribalism is counterproductive; and it’s a mistake to make judgments solely on the package. Just because the singer is wearing a cowboy hat doesn’t make the song either good or bad.
I’ve got those dirty, lowdown, Donald Trump blues.
You’ll surely understand; it’s all over the news.
The election’s coming quickly, and now I’ve got to choose.
Should I take the high road or engage him in his ooze?
Must I get down in the dirt, or just prove that I’m sane?
Everything that goes awry, he’ll see I take the blame.
Like Islamic terrorists, by that or other names.
The country’s splitting wide apart; it’s just a crying shame.
I’ve got the blues.
The glass ceiling blues.
Should have won eight years ago
But now I’ve paid my dues.
Obama’s really helping me.
I’m following his cues.
It’s tough to be a second act
Can’t just stand in his shoes.
Tim Kaine, by all accounts, was a reasonably successful governor. He is clearly qualified to step in and become President, if necessary. Picking him won’t cost the Democrats a Senate seat. He gets along well with Hillary. Everyone views him as being sane and affable.
In other words, he appears to be a perfect example of idealism tempered by experience and realism, and a good choice for VP, particularly in light of the quality of the opposition. If the left has a problem with that, well, where are they going to go? Vote for wannabe Mussolini?