“Spanked that ass”

A few of my favorite comments on last night’s debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and Donald Trump:

“The debate was like watching a sad old man at thanksgiving dinner blather nonsensically as the host fed him and served the guests and entertained everyone and made him a plate of leftovers and put him in a van back home.”

“the vice president “spanked that ass” and Trump looked “small” and “beaten” and “pissed.”

“there’s nothing worse than a pissed bigot on stage with a woman he can’t control” — Michael Steele

I remember coat hangers

Bill McKibben is the founder of Third Act, which organizes people over the age of 60 for action on climate and democracy. In the latest issue (subscription required) of Rolling Stone he wonders “Will a Silver Wave Help Elect Kamala Harris?”

“Eighty-six percent of older Americans think abortion should be legal at least under certain circumstances — in part because we’re old enough to remember coat hangers.”

I immediately got the reference but started wondering if younger folks do not remember the wire coat hanger. Are they all plastic these days? (Yes, I stopped going to the dry cleaners when I retired) ChatGPT provides some history: Continue reading

“A presidential candidate’s job is to win”

Markos Moulitsas at Daily Kos

The Beltway press is angry that Vice President Kamala Harris hasn’t sat down with them to talk about things like policy. In their warped, archaic minds, they are important to the political process as a way to inform readers about the candidates. That was a thing before social media and the internet, for sure. But today? The Beltway media is broken beyond repair, and we’re all doing fine learning about Harris on our own, thank you very much.

A presidential candidate’s job is to win. That’s it! So pray tell, how does talking to The New York Times or any other national media outlet help that cause? Either journalists will ask ridiculous, shallow questions and waste everyone’s time, or they’ll fish for a gotcha quote they can use to generate “controversy” and clicks.

Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine

Look at the press’ behavior. When given a chance to ask questions, they sound like they’re in a lockerroom, seeking quotes, not policy. This does nothing to inform the electorate. I know the argument about testing a candidate. But the press as currently configured aims for game & gotcha.

The press needs Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris doesn’t need the press. Their motive in whining for what they take as their birthright (hello, A.G.) is to salve their editorial egos and earn them attention (and money). They have not earned this role; they have forfeited the privilege by their behavior.

Time For A Break: Democrats Don’t Need The Media (Bypass the Gatekeepers to Speak To The People). By Oliver Willis

The press collectively believes at all times that it must constantly be fed. Like an infant or toddler who doesn’t get their food at precisely the moment their bellies start rumbling, the press throws up these occasional tantrums. On the other side of the aisle, they are willing to put up with the abuse of the infantile Donald Trump because he gives them precisely the empty calories they want: Nonsensical outrage that attracts clicks and eyeballs and attention and leads to ad revenue and book deals and the like. 

Harris and her campaign have been able to masterfully frame the election as a battle between normal progressive ideas and the weird conservativism of the right, not via sit-downs with stuffy news anchors and reporters working on their next book deals, but by constantly pumping out content via their existing press infrastructure and social media.

A Harris social media post can reach every single one of the people who are going to cast a ballot […] If she speaks directly to camera and hits “post,” she no longer has to worry about whether the editors hiding behind their monitors have deemed it “newsworthy.” That is now for the potential audience to decide, not them.

Tacos, music and the future of America

This is the most effective political… not sure what to call it. Doesn’t feel like advertising or marketing although both terms apply. I’m going with “media.” The most effective political media I have ever seen. Yes, I’m sure someone came up with this and there was probably a list of talking points and they might have even tried a few minutes to see how it worked.

During my working life I did hundreds of interviews and the chemistry and sincerity that comes across in this ten minute video is hard to fake. I think these two actually like each other thereby come across as likable.

And it is a good example of what can be achieved when you stop letting the media mediate your message. A point well made by John Stoehr, editor of the Editorial Board:

“The Harris campaign is not letting the press corps wedge itself between her and voters. She is not allowing the news media to mediate her message. In effect, she’s preventing the press corps from speaking for her and, as a consequence, she’s preventing it from exercising a de facto veto on her speech. In that, she is taking power – defining her campaign as well as Trump’s. She is turning the narrative about Biden’s age (81) back against Trump’s (78), such that whatever he says in self-defense is seen as proof of the allegations against him.”

There are no rules. There is no lawbook declaring that candidates shall talk to reporters. There is a playbook, if that’s what you mean, but not a lawbook. The vice president could go the whole time without talking to one reporter and she would not have done anything morally wrong.

Full article »

Do you think any reporter is going to tell us what kind of music these people grew up with? What their childhoods were like? That’s not gonna generate clicks so no thank you. I stopped believing journalists really care about truth or honesty or protecting democracy. Maybe once upon a time. No more. Take your story directly to the people.

Vetting process for VP candidate

Lots of stories about who Kamala Harris will choose for her running mate. I’m reminded of the movie Game Change and the scenes where McCain’s campaign is looking into the background of Sarah Palin. I prompted Perplexity for info about this process.

The vice presidential vetting process is an intensive and thorough examination of potential running mates. Here are key aspects of the process:

1. Candidates typically undergo extensive background checks, including reviews of their financial records, medical history, public statements, and personal lives.

2. The vetting team, usually comprising campaign staff and volunteer attorneys, may ask candidates to answer up to 200 probing questions covering various aspects of their lives.

3. The process involves examining tax documents, medical records, and even private social media profiles of candidates and their family members.

4. Candidates may be asked highly personal questions about their sexual history, financial dealings, and potential controversies.

5. The vetting team aims to uncover any potential liabilities or surprises that could harm the campaign.

6. The timeline for vetting can vary. While most campaigns have months, Kamala Harris’s team has had a compressed timeline of just a few weeks.

7. The process typically concludes with in-depth presentations on each finalist to the presidential candidate, followed by final interviews with top contenders.

8. Confidentiality is crucial, with vetting notes often destroyed after the process to maintain privacy.

The goal of this rigorous process is to avoid any unexpected issues that could derail the campaign and to ensure the chosen running mate strengthens the ticket

I’ll never get a close look at this process for any number of reasons but here are some of the things about which I am curious:

  • Who does the hands-on research and what sort skill set is required?
  • What’s involved in investigating someone’s social media account? Do they read every Facebook and Twitter post? Watch all YouTube videos?
  • Do they look at files on a prospect’s phone and computer?

I do like the sound of “Madam President”

Recent events reminded me of this photo (2007) of my longtime friend (and former coworker) O. Kay Henderson

I asked her if there was any chance of recreating the photo with Vice President Harris. She pointed out that Iowa is not a swing state in this election cycle so, no, KH won’t be stopping by. But she did share this photo from July of 2019. Kay is wearing the white hat and Men In Black shades.

A New America

Heather Cox Richardson (born 1962) is an American historian. She is a professor of history at Boston College, where she teaches courses on the American Civil War, the Reconstruction Era, the American West, and the Plains Indians. She previously taught history at MIT and the University of Massachusetts Amherst. (Wikipedia) Following is her essay from July 28, 2024:

Just a week ago, it seems, a new America began. I’ve struggled ever since to figure out what the apparent sudden revolution in our politics means.

I keep coming back to the Ernest Hemingway quote about how bankruptcy happens. He said it happens in two stages, first gradually and then suddenly.

That’s how scholars say fascism happens, too—first slowly and then all at once—and that’s what has been keeping us up at night.

But the more I think about it, the more I think maybe democracy happens the same way, too: slowly, and then all at once.

At this country’s most important revolutionary moments, it has seemed as if the country turned on a dime.

In 1763, just after the end of the French and Indian War, American colonists loved that they were part of the British empire. And yet, by 1776, just a little more than a decade later, they had declared independence from that empire and set down the principles that everyone has a right to be treated equally before the law and to have a say in their government.

The change was just as quick in the 1850s. In 1853 it sure looked as if the elite southern enslavers had taken over the country. They controlled the Senate, the White House, and the Supreme Court. They explicitly rejected the Declaration of Independence and declared that they had the right to rule over the country’s majority. They planned to take over the United States and then to take over the world, creating a global economy based on human enslavement.

And yet, just seven years later, voters put Abraham Lincoln in the White House with a promise to stand against the Slave Power and to protect a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” He ushered in “a new birth of freedom” in what historians call the second American revolution.

The same pattern was true in the 1920s, when it seemed as if business interests and government were so deeply entwined that it was only a question of time until the United States went down the same dark path to fascism that so many other nations did in that era. In 1927, after the execution of immigrant anarchists Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, poet John Dos Passos wrote: “they have clubbed us off the streets they are stronger they are rich they hire and fire the politicians the newspaper editors the old judges the small men with reputations….”

And yet, just five years later, voters elected Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who promised Americans a New Deal and ushered in a country that regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, promoted infrastructure, and protected civil rights.

Every time we expand democracy, it seems we get complacent, thinking it’s a done deal. We forget that democracy is a process and that it’s never finished.

And when we get complacent, people who want power use our system to take over the government. They get control of the Senate, the White House, and the Supreme Court, and they begin to undermine the principle that we should be treated equally before the law and to chip away at the idea that we have a right to a say in our government. And it starts to seem like we have lost our democracy.

But all the while, there are people who keep the faith. Lawmakers, of course, but also teachers and journalists and the musicians who push back against the fear by reminding us of love and family and community. And in those communities, people begin to organize—the marginalized people who are the first to feel the bite of reaction, and grassroots groups. They keep the embers of democracy alive.

And then something fans them into flame.

In the 1760s it was the Stamp Act, which said that men in Great Britain had the right to rule over men in the American colonies. In the 1850s it was the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which gave the elite enslavers the power to rule the United States. And in 1929 it was the Great Crash, which proved that the businessmen had no idea what they were doing and had no plan for getting the country out of the Great Depression.

The last several decades have felt like we were fighting a holding action, trying to protect democracy first from an oligarchy and then from a dictator. Many Americans saw their rights being stripped away…even as they were quietly becoming stronger.

That strength showed in the Women’s March of January 2017, and it continued to grow—quietly under Donald Trump and more openly under the protections of the Biden administration. People began to organize in school boards and state legislatures and Congress. They also began to organize over TikTok and Instagram and Facebook and newsletters and Zoom calls.

And then something set them ablaze. The 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision stripped away from the American people a constitutional right they had enjoyed for almost fifty years, and made it clear that a small minority intended to destroy democracy and replace it with a dictatorship based in Christian nationalism.

When President Joe Biden announced just a week ago that he would not accept the Democratic nomination for president, he did not pass the torch to Vice President Kamala Harris.

He passed it to us.

It is up to us to decide whether we want a country based on fear or on facts, on reaction or on reality, on hatred or on hope.

It is up to us whether it will be fascism or democracy that, in the end, moves swiftly, and up to us whether we will choose to follow in the footsteps of those Americans who came before us in our noblest moments, and launch a brand new era in American history.

Continue reading