stevenkesslar

Honestly, that's the thing. Who actually felt Hillary's campaign was joyful? I didn't. At worst, there were these bad moments where Blacks were saying they'll vote against her because she called them "superpredators", which became a meme. That's not really her fault, in my view. "Deplorables" was her fault, in my view. For that matter, Bernie's campaigns were not particularly joyful, in either 2016 or 2020. Bernie was like a sourpuss holding America to account. To me it was a sort of moral reckoning. Which arguably is why he could only take it so far. Hillary might have done better if she sold joy. I think it's a consensus that her "Bad Orange Man" ads from Fall 2016 just did not work. They were based on the assumption that people would vote against Trump because he's sexist or mean or even grabs women by the pussies. I did vote for her in the 2016 primary, even though my heart was with Bernie. And I certainly voted for her in the general. But I will call my vote for her dutiful. Definitely not joyful. Walz answered your question in the last part of that second video I posted above. To quote him, "I think what's happened is the spell [of Trump's] been broken. And now we need to step into it with some positive ideas." Damn right! I think the DNC has to be a convention about ideas about the future. Joy is not enough. Speaking of Hillary: I don't know why she didn't run more ads like that in 2016. I mean, "access to new markets" will only get you so far, I guess. But that's got a positive vibe. At the end of the day, I am a Lichtmanite. And he predicted Hillary would lose in 2016, through no fault of her own. And Biden would have lost in 2016, too. It was a thumbs down on Obama, Term Three, basically. Not a vote for Trump. He's almost certainly about to predict Harris will win, because people will basically vote for more of the same. Even though it feels new and fun. But at the very least, assuming Lichtman is right, why not give people a reason to feel joy about it? And why not run on some positive and unifying ideas so you can try to have a mandate? That's what I want. I think Walz has proven he is a master at that.

Good point. Context is everything. Two short clips. The first is the one minute clip where he talks about Trump laughing. The second is kind of a "Tim's greatest hits on weirdness" montage I found when I was looking for the first. One thing is for sure. To oversimplify, it is the first time ever someone was chosen to be Veep because they called someone powerful weird. 😲 I wanted to remind myself what it sounded like that I liked. In context, what works for me is he is calling Trump a bully, who laughs at people. And we should not give him that power. I think that works. Another thing that works tangents your point: far from judging what families do, Republicans who want to be in my closet should mind their own damn business. This could all be taken too far. "Weird" has pretty much run its course. But Trump trying to copycat similar words shows that it worked. The other thing that Walz has to be careful about, which I think he has been, is he is not talking about weird voters. He is talking about Trump, and Vance, and weird leaders. "Weird" is not the new "deplorables".

And to continue the theme of death, in a different but hopeful direction. Eddie Glaude Jr., who likes to take these deep dives that may or may not mean anything, said something interesting on Morning Joe this week. I could not find the recent clip. But this clip from years ago sets up what he said this week: So what he said this week is the opposite part: sad then, joy now. Dark then, light now. Night then, morning now. He was commenting on how the joy that seems to be manifesting itself at these Harris rallies is more than just partisans feeling happy that Kamala may win. He put it in the context of all the death, all the loss, all the grief, and the bile, all the division. And so now you have all these people who want a reason to feel better, to laugh, to feel joy. Not being a MAGA or Trump guy, I could see how Trump surviving a bullet could produce a similar feeling at the RNC. At the very least, it is survival. You could push that into a form of manifest destiny. God's will. The specific image, of some older White man ripping off his t-shirt off like some buff young Gay guy in a porn movie, wasn't really my cup of tea. (The porn movie is, I mean. Just not Hulk Hogan). Back to my brand of joy. Eddie Glaude was certainly describing how he feels: joyous. Listening to him, I felt that helps me to understand why I like watching these rallies. Do other people actually feel that way? Is this going to somehow be subtext in this election? It's happened before. Reagan and "Morning In America" come to mind. Or you could just say that was Michael Deaver's slick bullshit, and the 1984 election was really about the economy improving, stupid. Warnock did this in Georgia. I thought this "Morning" ad was very effective. (It's the first of two pieces in that video below.) Being a Rev, he of all people should know. I think it helped him relate, and win. Even though it says nothing about his politics. People talked about how he ran on joy. And he kept winning.

If it were me, there is something that sounds truly horrific about, "Took A Bullet For The Bottled Blonde." If we're being blunt, who would want that on their gravestone? I think what they did at the RNC was appropriate, and tasteful. Credit it to Susie Wiley and Chris (uncharacteristically) LaCivilaOne for once. No cruelty. No lies. Just humility and honor. Didn't last long. Another thought on sober subjects comes to mind. I think Walz gets traction by saying Donald Trump is weird, because he does not really laugh. Another thought. When does he cry? Whether it was politically effective or not, one moment that humanized Obama was when he was crying over the dead really young kids at the school shooting. To belabor the point, you could compare it in a negative way to Obama saying Trayvon could have been his son. The latter was awkward, because it made it about Obama and race. The former was just a genuine moving moment of the most powerful man in the world having to hold back tears because he could not stop young kids from being brutally and horribly killed at school. Hopefully none of that applies to the next three months. I want joy, joy, joy. And lots of it. Either the Harris or Walz version are fine with me. Maybe they will even make Joe look young and happy again, as opposed to old and confused and a bit tragic.

Well, not that I ever make it about me. 😲 But, if we are making it about me, I like Bugs Bunny better. But if we are gong to rabbits, I have to add this: It is one of my favorite organizing principles. Alinsky said a similar thing in a different way, "The action is in the reaction." Sometimes the best thing to do is to let people do the thing you know is actually going to help you, but they are too slow-witted to figure out. Trump is a master at being just such a dumb ass. As poor frustrated Republican Alex Castellanos keeps saying, Trump is the only Republican POTUS candidate who can lose in a race against himself. And now, here we go again. And there is a pretty good example mostly related to Trump's attempted assassination. I am actually curious why, right now, his disapproval rating (51.6 %, compared to 48.5 % for Harris) is lower than it has ever been. As long as over half of America does not disapprove of Harris, but does disapprove of Trump, that is good math for Democrats. I am assuming some of the reason Trump is less disliked than pretty much ever is the attempted assassination. Maybe it did give him this almost magical aura of dominance or invincibility. Or maybe it just humanized him to people who don't like him. So the Brer Rabbit principle here is "Please. Don't let Donald Trump go out there and play martyr. Don't let him go out there and talk for an hour - or over an hour and a half at the RNC - about how he came to save us. And of course we just recognize that intuitively. And we want to hear him tell us how his opponents are the most awful people ever, especially dumb women like Hillary and Kamala, and he came to save us from them." He had about 20 good minutes in his acceptance speech. And the rest of it proved that all this stuff about the new and improved and unifying Donald Trump who was changed by an assassin's bullet is just total bullshit. So, please, don't send Donald Trump out to press conferences at Mar A Lago or debates with Harris and let him tell us how he is an almost assassinated martyr that came to save us! That would be the worst thing ever! If he does what I think he will do and his disapproval ratings go back up to 53 or 54 or 55 % or so, who could have guessed?

I agree with Tim Hogan. He's the Democratic consultant who is the counterpoint to Sean Spicer on Mark Halperin's daily 2Way chats. Halperin asked Hogan whether Democrats would prefer that Trump has a press conference every day of the week. And Hogan immediately answered, "Yes. Please. Just give the guy a mike and let him ramble and lie and remind people why they don't want him to be POTUS again." That's not verbatim. But that was his point. When Trump is explaining, or even just rambling, he's losing. Proud Boys, stand by! 😉 It does go to Anita Dunn above. Implicit in what she said is that voters can just listen to Donald Trump and draw their own conclusions about the fact that he just lies and lies and lies. And the voters who don't want to see that, or simply can't, ain't watching O'Donnell, and won't be persuaded by him. I think there's something else going on here. It's becoming clearer by the day that another contrast Team Harris is trying to draw is that we ain't the people who are going to rant at you or bludgeon you. We are going to make you smile, and make politics civil again. You can argue that's a false promise. But I think it is the promise that is being made. And they are labeling Trump as the guy who brought us this ugliness in 2016, and we just don't want to go back to THAT. I think they are gambling right. I think there is this hunger in the middle to get past this ranting and bludgeoning. Halperin's 2Way forums are actually a good example, At least the people that come on it keep saying they love being able to have civil and informed discussions with people they mostly disagree with. So if Harris and Walz tonally push that while Trump bludgeons and lies,Team Harris is going to win that debate with the swing voters.

Well, lectures aside, I'll focus the Trump attempted assassination on one question: what would a conspiracy theory that makes any sense whatsoever even sound like in this case? Here's a nice summary written a few days afterward of the main conspiracy theories that were floating around. They boiled down to two options: left wing extreme, or right wing extreme. Left wing extreme requires believing that Trump would almost have himself killed, and kill and injure several of his most loyal supporters, because it was a publicity stunt. That's pretty far out there. I'm guessing nobody cares much about Trump's ear because they are just happy he survived. It makes no sense he would order his own fake assassination. And we all just want to move on and hope this never happens again. Right wing extreme makes more sense, in that you can at least plausibly argue Joe Biden and some anti-MAGA or anti-Trump left wing Deep State wanted to take their opposition out. So now, what? Instead of Texas oil men and anti-Commies taking out JFK, we have AOC and Bernie and the socialist Deep State taking out Trump? I suppose I could see how some of the most extremely fringe Proud Boys might actually believe that. But it is absurd. One thing that is kind of interesting about this, in a darkly conspiratorial way, is back in early 2021 there actually were some articles that pointed out, maybe correctly, that the kind of people who work in the Secret Service, law and order types, are naturally MAGA types. So they tend to like Trump. And the idea was that Biden maybe should watch his back, because he may be surrounded by Secret Service who really would rather see Trump be President. Joe Biden to have new Secret Service team amid concern about Trump loyalty There were actually articles written about that at the time, as you can see. Note that article was written about a week before January 6, 2021. Which only heightened concern about the willingness of some people to engage in political violence to get their way. Just reading articles like that was disturbing. I did spend hours yesterday reviewing videos about the JFK and RFK assassinations. It is just really icky to think about the possibility of some vast conspiracy where my own government is taking out our own leaders - whether that leader is a Republican or a Democrat. I hope the outcome of this is we all can all decide that is not what anyone wants. And that, is this case, that is not what actually happened. I know how I feel personally. Everything around that period just a few weeks ago was DEPRESSING. Trump playing martyr at his own convention. Biden looking old and losing. Oh, and now we are back to assassinations. So it could not be more different today. To quote Tim Walz, THANK YOU for bringing the joy back. It's actually good news that right now both Republicans and Democrats feel highly motivated to vote for leaders they like. That's the America I want to live in.

What's interesting about it is the Trump campaign has done a good job of lowering expectations for Harris. They have said she is dumb. And she can't speak to the press because she does not know how to form sentences without a teleprompter. Ironic, coming from Trump! So they are setting themselves up. Because whatever Harris is, she won't be the 2024 version of old Joe, as we saw him at his politically fatal debate. I'll use that as a segue to throw this in, which I'm not sure where to put and which I don't want to start a new thread about: Why Biden Was Really Forced out of the Race, According to Anita Dunn The longtime presidential adviser blames the press and her party That's a long and really interesting read that talks a lot about the first debate. I'm actually surprised she went public with what is mostly a bunch of gripes. But she might have figured my boss is out, and I'll at least take the chance to get it off my chest. Three points about what she said, one of which deals with the debates. First, I think Anita Dunn is right that the fact that Biden did so poorly obscured the fact that Trump did poorly, too. Specifically, she says, independents who were reacting on dials during the debate are just sick of Trump's lies, and reacting badly to them. And they liked Biden telling the truth. So if that is correct, and Trump does what he always does and spew lies, next time the lies and bile won't be obscured by a faltering old man on stage. Well, Trump will be the faltering old man with low mental acuity! 😲 Second, I can't recall a time when some political theory, when implemented, proved itself to be correct so quickly. The basic theory is that people didn't want either Trump or Biden. So if we replace one of them, that party wins. We now know without question that theory is true. Now we just need to see how true it is. It has helped that both Harris and Walz have completely smashed whatever expectations we had about them. They are doing incredibly well, so far. But the sense of relief is so deep and strong that it goes way beyond the specific talents of Harris or Walz. Third, this was the part of what Dunn said I found tragic: The tragedy about that statement is it seems to confirm that Dunn and Biden's closest advisers and family simply could not see what most of America saw. And now feels relieved about. You can talk all you want about how Joe Biden won his debate in 2008, or 2012, or 2020. But that is not the Joe Biden we see and hear today. And it does not mean he is senile. It sounds like they genuinely did not get that. And they did not get that, as long as Joe Biden was in the race, it was always going to be a referendum on Biden and his age. Even though it did not have to be. With 20/20 hindsight, that is what the debate helped crystallize. That this was going to be a referendum on Biden's age, and it just doesn't have to be. And now it isn't. Nothing personal, Joe. It's a bit funny. Because the Democratic Party was the political force that in 1968 and 1972 reacted strongly against smoke filled rooms and party insiders controlling decisions. And nobody wants to go back to 1968 and having Mayor Daley decide who gets to be the nominee inside while his cops beat up protesters outside. But this is obviously not 1968. Harris/Walz was not the kind of team Mayor Daley would have picked in 1968. So it shows a lot of growth on the part of the Democratic Party. And now I just have this sense of gratitude that a very different set of party leaders - Pelosi, Obama, Schumer, Jeffries - did something tough that needed to be done.

This guy Mike Bell who posted the model of the assassination attempt I posted above did this update after getting more information a few days later. There were more shots than he initially knew. Trump really was lucky. In JFK's case, since the alleged "lone nut" Oswald was using a rifle, there was only time to get off a few shots - if you believe the lone shooter theory. The RFK assassination allegedly was only Sirhan, whose gun could fire eight shots. And yet there was evidence of 13 bullets, which has never been explained. In Trump's case, at least so far, it appears that the number of bullets shot and the trajectory all line up with a loan shooter. The question is not how the guy managed to clip Trump's ear. It's how did Trump manage to survive when the number of bullets fired was more than adequate to kill JFK and RFK?

So fuck both of you guys to getting into bullet rabbit holes! You made me go down dark rabbits holes again. 😉 I think maybe five years ago I spent most of a weekend going down the JFK/RFK/MLK rabbit hole. It was not fun. First, it's about death and gore. Second, where it leads is the idea that we have this right wing secret government led by the CIA and FBI and built around the special interests of oil men or other corporate interests or right wing anti-Commie zealots. To me - and I think to a majority of Americans - these assassination theories are a little like the "Joe Biden is old" thing. It's hard to convince people not to believe what they can see and hear. So I think most people feel that way about the 60's assassinations. The official theories just don't add up. In large part because of obvious things you can see and hear yourselves. So today I went down the rabbit holes again to see if there is anything new. Especially after Biden released most, but not all, of the still secret CIA documents that were actually ALL supposed to be released in 2017, by law. (That law was passed after Stone's JFK created an uproar. So even after waiting another few decades, the CIA is still sabotaging public disclosure.) Trump delayed the release of many documents in 2017. And Biden also delayed the release of over 4,000 documents, and let the CIA decide whether they will ever release them. So this is a bipartisan Presidential defense of the CIA. My view for a long time has been -duh! - the CIA of course won't release documents, because they have something to hide. They were in on the conspiracies. Beyond that, even if somehow all the documents were released, I think we still would not know the truth. Because we also know for a fact that the CIA, among other agencies like the Secret Service, destroyed lots of documents from the assassinations. We're learning again on Trump that they don't like being looked into. I wouldn't mind if both Trump and Biden supporters went after the Deep State and demanded they disclose all their dirty secrets of the last half century or so. The only thing that the Trump debacle makes me think slightly differently about the CIA and Secret Service is that it seems obvious enough that they are hiding their involvement in a conspiracy, even half a century later. But it is possible that what they are hiding is less malevolent: that they are incompetent. Like I said above, it seems like their failure with Trump was incompetence, not a conspiracy. But in case anyone is interested I will sum up what I just relearned about JFK and RFK, 99 % of which I knew already. The most unbelievable thing about the JFK assassination to me is the idea that Oswald was not an employee or an asset of the CIA. There are way too many CIA connections with Oswald and his close friends and associates over way too long a period of years. This interview with a JFK conspiracy expert, Jefferson Morley, is done after Biden's release of most of the remaining documents. And he makes the point that most of what we learn from the ones Biden released is more about Oswald. Which is not the simple "lone nut" view of Oswald put forward by the Warren Commission. Morley states clearly that he (like Harry Truman, LBJ, Nixon, and Jackie Kennedy) thinks the evidence we have points to a conspiracy. And that Oswald was, as he claimed in the little time he had before he was silenced, "a patsy". But he also adds that it is quite possible the CIA is simply trying to cover up their incompetence in letting someone they were following closely for years kill JFK. That said, to me their is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that for years Oswald was close to all kinds of people that were CIA assets. Including, as I posted above, oil man Col. Byrd, who just happened to own the building Oswald happened to work in for a few weeks and from which he shot JFK. Unlike with Trump, this is where the bullet theory also just makes no sense. When I did my deep dive years ago, I watched a number of videos that asserted that a "magic bullet" could have shot Kennedy in the back, then Connally in the back, hand, and leg. That is basically what you have to believe to believe the "lone nut" theory that Hoover and LBJ told the Warren Commission upfront was the only conclusion that was possible to reach. The JFK Assassination made simple —using video evidence and doctors' testimony The only problem with the official theory, which I don't think people believed even in 1964, is that people believe what they see themselves - just like with Biden's age. This video is also a nice five minute summary. Because both Connally and his wife insisted that the Allen Dulles/Warren Commission one bullet theory was wrong. And you can see on video that Connally appears to be hit at the same time JFK was fatally wounded, when he slumped forward. As his wife, who was sitting next to him, said, it doesn't make sense that one magic bullet sat in the air for five seconds after it hits JFK before it entered her husband's body. There had to be another bullet, and another shooter. There's no way to prove this now, of course. Which I think was the point. There is plenty of evidence from witnesses who saw the Kennedy assassinations that the CIA, as well as local Dallas (JFK) and LA (RFK) cops bullied witnesses who did not agree with the official version of events to change their stories. I think what we have learned time and again since with the CIA is that they are perfectly wiling to lie to Congress and the public. Knowing that if they tell the lie long enough it will be the truth. Or at least anyone or any document that could prove them wrong will be long gone. Thane Eugene Cesar has passed away That thread, on a mixed martial arts forum of all places, is also an interesting treasure trove of YouTube videos and reports on the RFK assassination rabbit hole, if you want to go down it. I think part of what worked for the CIA with JFK, if you want to believe in a CIA conspiracy, is that they were at least able to alter or destroy evidence that could have confirmed something other than their official explanation. Starting with having one of the prime suspects, the CIA Director JFK fired, Allen Dulles, run the Warren Commission. You at least can argue their magic bullet theory is the only plausible explanation, if you don't want to believe in a conspiracy/ With RFK there is what appears to be a truly unsolvable problem. The forensics doctors said the fatal bullet was fired into his head from about 1 to 3 inches away, from behind. And Sirhan, the alleged assassin, was by the accounts of all witnesses at least a few feet away from RFK, and in front of him. Unlike the JFK magic bullet theory, there is no reasonable explanation for how Sirhan could have shot RFK from right behind him. A lot of the suspicious and unexplained things are the same as JFK. The guy the post is about, Cesar, was the security guard right behind RFK. Who, like Oswald, was working a job he had only worked at for a few weeks. Multiple witnesses said he was standing right behind RFK, and they saw him with his gun aimed. He told what were later determined to be multiple lies about the gun he was carrying, as is documented in that thread. Cesar was never investigated. The two cops who led the LAPD investigation were also connected to the CIA, and bullied multiple witnesses who did not agree with the "lone nut" theory, based on what they actually saw or heard, into going with the official version. Also documented in that thread, if you are interested. So over half of century later we're left with all kinds of magic bullets and loose ends. Including things like E. Howard Hunt's supposed confession to his sons that he was in fact part of the JFK assassination conspiracy. The MO, true or false, is always the same: maintain plausible deniability, wear people down, and run out the clock until everyone who could dispute what actually happened dies. And if someone comes forward (like Hunt, or Loyd Jowers, who says he was involved in a conspiracy to kill MLK) just say they must be crazy, too. I'll end my rabbit hole diatribe repeating what I started with. If the worst thing Americans have to deal with now is the incompetence of the CIA or Secret Service, that is almost a nice problem to have. I'd rather have them be incompetent than be a highly competent band of assassins who kill leaders around the world, including US Presidents and Presidential candidates and movement leaders, and then spend the rest of their lives denying it.

Exactly. You can see JFK's head being blown off on film. And, notwithstanding HIPPA, you can go online and also see JFK's naked body with the bullet hole in his back. I'm glad I don't have to see that in Trump's case, both for Trump's sake and mine. Had Trump not turned his head, or had the bullet been an inch more in one direction, I think we'd all have the misfortune of seeing the gore. So it's interesting that these days anyone curious can do this on a computer now. I'm guessing this amateur video is more precise than some of the work done by the Warren Commission, before we had computers. This explains some things. While this is just some amateur, it suggests Trump was grazed by a bullet, which then when right into that big yellow hydraulic lift. Which caused obvious and immediate impacts - oil shooting out where the bullet pierced it. To be blunt, thank God it was oil rather than Trump's brain gushing out. I assumed the guy killed and the guys injured were on that far right bleacher, and they were in the line of fire that would have hit Trump had he not gone down quickly. But, actually, they were not. As the video explains, the second two bullets were way off, if Trump was the target. The amateur's theory is by the time the second two bullets were fired the shooter had been hit by snipers. We'll probably all eventually know. There is something obviously wrong here, as is discussed briefly in this video. It sounds like there were a few minutes between when it was clear there was a guy with a gun on a roof, and when Trump was shot. So why wasn't the shooter taken out, or Trump removed? People looking for a conspiracy should and are going there. And one answer, which the amateur speculates, could be that Trump is the kind of guy who doesn't like to be told what to do. That said, if there is a guy with a gun on a roof, and the Secret Service knows it, there is no good explanation for why they let Trump go on for two minutes until he was almost killed. That said, from my perspective, there is also no good reason why this should not convince Congress to pass common sense gun restrictions, including an assault weapons ban, which most Americans support. But don't hold your breath for that, either. Sometimes even smart professionals just do dumb shit. The idea that this was somehow an inside job to help Trump by making him look like a martyr makes no sense. He is lucky not to be dead. And one other Trump supporter did die. It would make more sense to speculate that maybe the Deep State wanted Trump dead. But that makes no sense, either. The CIA was behind this? Why? How? I suppose I could come up with a theory for why that made sense, if I had to. But it would be really illogical and dumb. So my takeaway is that there is some good news here. And I'll say it this way. Whether the target was Trump or Harris, the good news is what seems obvious is that this was just one lone nut that should have been stopped, but wasn't. Because the Secret Service and local cops were incompetent. End of story. That's not good. But I can live with that better than I can live with the idea that for at least a decade or so, from 1963 to 1973, we actually did have a Deep State - the CIA, the FBI, working with the mafia - that actually did impact the course of history by taking out JFK, RFK, and MLK. I believe that. I believe they then used the "lone nut" theory to cover up a massive conspiracy. I think probably a majority of Americans do. I think the CIA got away with it in 1963, so they did it again when they saw RFK and MLK as threats. And I say 1963 to 1973 or so because the first thing that really shut the CIA show down was the Congressional investigations, including of those assassinations, after Watergate and all the dirty tricks of the CIA started to come out. Then there was a house cleaning. One final point, which I will continue in a second post. Part of the way to smell something is wrong is the stuff about the bullets. In the case of Trump, everything we know about the bullet makes sense. That video, albeit by an amateur, confirms the idea that one bullet grazed Trump's ear and then thankfully took out a truck, basically. In the case of JFK and RFK, after decades of debate and investigation, we're still left with the idea that bullets are magic, and did things they could not possibly do. I know this is about Trump, not the Kennedys. But I spent a few hours revisiting the JFK/RFK rabbit holes, to remind myself of what I thought I knew. And also to see if there is anything new that we did know before. So I will put that trip down nightmare lane in a separate post.

The trolls have been trying to nibble at the edges of "Coach Walz", too. Like I guess the idea is stolen championship, rather than stolen valor. It won't work. There is just way too much there. In fact, it seems pretty clear that it is fatal for Republicans to push any of this, for two reasons. One, they are asking people to look into why Tim Walz had character and decency. Two, by quiet comparison, they are making it clear they lack the same. From Newsweek: 'Tim Walz's Coaching Style: How He Led Suburban High School to State Championship I have to assume that there are former students who are telling somewhat exaggerated or biased stories about Walz, because they like him that much. But even that says something. That decades later there are people who you moved so much as a teacher or coach or scared Gay teen that they will come out of the woodwork to defend you. Where are the people who tell the uplifting stories about how Donald Trump believed in them? (Well, there's Jared of course.) There was a deceased client of mine who posted all the time on the other board. He was as hard core a conservative Republican as I am a liberal Democrat. But, at least before Trump, we could talk about anything. In fact, I spent the week Trump won in 2016 in Puerto Vallarta with this guy. And in some ways he was the best person to talk to. Since he could lay out what would likely happen from a savvy (if harsh) Republican perspective. He said this at the time, and got it right: "I want two, and three if that bitch dies." I knew immediately he was referring to SCOTUS vacancies, and not too lovingly referring to RBG. Well, he got what he wanted! My point in bringing him up is that he was a high school Spanish teacher who loved Mexican culture. One of his favorite movies was McFarland, USA, the Disneyfied version of the true story of working class Latinos who some motivated high school coach in the middle of nowhere turned into cross country state champions, despite them having everything going against them. We watched the movie together for the first time, in tears. I know he bought the DVD and watched it many times thereafter. There was nothing overtly political about it. Other than that these kind of stories, when true, are deeply inspiring and unifying. So I think the Republicans will have a big problem going after this guy.

Since we are going to conspiracy theory, I'll go. But before I do, let me spend one paragraph on reason and compassion. Kudos to Nancy Pelosi. I watched two interviews of her on YouTube yesterday. Because she is making the rounds on TV to promote her new book. In both she made a point to talk about how horrible the attack on Trump was. And to thank God he survived it. Pelosi is a known anti-Trumper, who will do whatever it takes - including getting Joe Biden to resign - in order to stop him. So she is setting the right tone. We don't want to be the place where politics is settled with bullets. I have not followed the hearings on the Secret Service closely. But two things seem clear. It is not the hardest thing in the world to kill a POTUS, if you really try. At the very least, the Secret Service makes it much harder. So the last two times it was a close call - Reagan and Trump - at least it was a near miss rather than a direct hit. The second thing that is clear is that this does feel like the Keystone Kops. Both political parties seem to feel the Secret Service screwed up. So the problem with any conspiracy theory is this: how could people who are this disorganized manage to pull off a conspiracy that would work? And, if they were able to pull off a conspiracy like that, wouldn't they have made sure the bullet actually hit where it was supposed to? I've read conspiracy theories about Reagan. The basic theory was that George H.W. Bush and the CIA were behind it. There was a sort of interesting idea about how there was something weird about the bullet that almost killed Reagan. And this idea that maybe it didn't even come out of Hinckley's gun. If you want to go down that rabbit hole, here's an article about the bullet - a "Devastator" - and the doctor who removed it. But the whole idea of that being a conspiracy pretty much never added up. And then there is JFK. Gallup says there has never been a time when the vast majority of Americans did NOT believe there was a conspiracy. I am in the majority on that one. There are so many ways to connect the dots of a conspiracy that it is very hard not to believe something weird was going on. Here's one nice summary of why the CIA and FBI may have had something to do with it. To the degree that there is a smoking gun, other than the actual gun. the whole thing about Col. Byrd is what seemed beyond possible coincidence to me. You have a right wing Texas oil man with ties to the CIA who just happens to own the building Oswald just happened to go to work in right before JFK is killed. I guess the equivalent would be that Nancy Pelosi owned the building the wannabe Trump assassin took the shots from, and that the assassin used to work in the Obama White House. The other thing about JFK is that the CIA and FBI, in that instance, were not like The Keystone Kops. There is a very plausible argument that not only were they capable of putting together a vast conspiracy. But that a conspiracy was actually the best explanation of so many weird coincidences. The part that is not talked about as much that I was drawn to was the Hotel del Charro in La Jolla. It was owned by Clint Murchison, another right wing Texas oil man. And J Edgar Hoover and his partner Clyde were there often, with their bills always comped. As well as various mafia types and Richard Nixon, among others. It proves absolutely nothing. Other than that you had this network of people, starting with the heads of the FBI and CIA (Dulles), who were perfectly capable of killing JFK and covering it up. And who potentially had motivations to do it. With the Trump attempted assassination, there is none of that. Just a bunch of clowns and Keystone Kops. Including ex-Clown In Chief Trump himself, and his so-called doctor whose name he could not even recall.

In other words, they decided to have Hope in America. 😉

The other thing that is clear from early polling is that Walz is wildly popular, as voters get to know him: August 4 - Marist - 17/13 +4 favorable August 6 - YouGov - 32/19 +13 favorable August 7 - RMG Research - 31/25 - +6 favorable August 8 - You Gov - 41/30 - +11 favorable So during this period of time when this is being debated, more people are getting to know Tim Walz. And they like what they see. By comparison, the last polls on 538 on JD Vance from August 5th by Marist show him 35/43 for -8 unfavorable. So now he is about as well known as Walz. 4 in 5 voters have an opinion. They like Walz, and they don't like Vance. Walz has done this incredible job of leaving a trail of loyalty and explanation behind him on three issues, any of which could be fatal to a politician: 1) his decision to leave the military and run for Congress, 2) his handling of the 2020 riots in his state, 3) his loyalty to Joe Biden. I can't find a bigger JPG of that press release Walz put out in 2005. But it was very smart, both at the time and in retrospect. There is a clearer to read version in the Town Hall right wing hit piece I lifted it from. Which is a nice summary of all the reasons the right wing nuts are having an orgasm thinking they "got"Tim Walz. Even though they are just proving how stupid and utterly insensitive they are. Just like when they laughed at how Paul Pelosi was almost murdered. Fucking clueless idiots! It makes perfect sense that in early 2005, when Walz was probably still on the fence, he put it out in public that he wanted to run for Congress, but his unit might be called to service in Iraq. That is what the right wing now wants to relitigate. The bottom line is that the actual order to deploy came much later in 2005, after Walz had clearly resigned. And the actual deployment came in 2006, when Walz was in the heat of his successful run for Congress. In a district I lived in which I know is right of center and very into patriotism. So if you believe Walz abandoned his troops, what you have to believe is that Walz had 0 % right to run for Congress and in 2006 he 100 % had to be in Iraq. No choice. And you also have to believe, as you note, that meanwhile it's 100 % fine for Trump to cop "bone spurs" and JD to be a hillbilly venture capitalist. Only Democrats have to make hard choices! It does make sense to me that some veterans could believe that in a time of war, no military leader should be able to resign - ever. The idea here is that Tim Walz had no moral choice, even though he had served for over two decades. And even though he decided to re-enlist after 9/11 because, like many patriots, he was moved to defend his country from terrorists. But all of this is very extreme and radical. I think very few people believe that military leaders should never be able to resign, like to run for Congress. And that if they do resign they are suddenly traitors. Which is why fellow veterans who don't agree with Walz politically are making a point to defend his service. But what I credit Walz for is he obviously thought that through in early 2005, knowing the kind of district he wanted to win in. So there is no question now about the history. He did it all in public. He talked about it, and he left a paper trail behind. It is probably just dumb luck that Donald Trump is on tape bending over backward to praise how Tim Walz handled the 2020 riots. But Walz had to know that it would be in his interest to not to be the target of Donald Trump's ire at the time. So whatever Walz did, I'd bet money he wanted Donald Trump on his side in that moment. And the same is true for Biden and his staff in the weeks when Biden was being run out of his campaign. I'll post this interview in another thread, but here is Anita Dunn talking about how loyal both Kamala Harris and Tim Walz were to Biden while Pelosi, Schumer, Obama, and Jeffries were forcing him to resign. Walz is a loyal team player, and a very smart one. He earned what he is getting now.

First, if we want to discuss what real service means, we need to ask some very urgent questions. When Donald Trump was serving his nation on January 6th, 2021, by starting a riot, what was he doing minute by minute? At what point, if ever, did he contact his rioters and instruct them, "Do not try to overturn this election"? At what point, if ever, did he contact his rioters and say "Do not hang Mike Pence"? At what point, if ever, did he contact his rioters and instruct them, "Do not kill Nancy Pelosi"? At what point, if ever, did he contact his rioters and tell them, "Stop breaking the bones of cops"? And if Trump did not call his rioters and tell them NOT to kill Pelosi, hang Pence, break the bones of cops, and try to overturn an election, why not? What is his definition of "service" to his nation? If the Raping Felon and Hillbilly Venture Capitalist want to talk about character and "service", let's go! Man who served under Walz says governor retired before unit had deployment news Unfortunately, Donald Trump did not abandon his rioters or their crimes, even when every Congressional Republican they wanted to attack was begging him to do so. Unfortunately, JD Vance has not abandoned his right wing billionaire venture capitalist friends, who want more tax cuts. Regardless, even though JD Vance had the right to retire from his service to Silicon Valley billionaires to run for Congress to get them even more Trump fat cat tax cuts, they want to litigate the minute by minute of how Walz retired after decades of service in the military to run for US House. So let's talk about character and national service. As Tim Walz likes to say, "Come on!" More lies. Walz does not want to take Donald Trump's guns away. When did Donald Trump ever hold a gun in service to his nation? The only thing we know about Trump is his cult would be fine if he killed someone on 5th Ave. And those are the slime ball felon's own words. And extra credit goes to Chris LaCivita, who has gotten rich packaging lies and hate for a raping convicted felon like Trump. These men have the character of slime.

Most important thing, which you forgot. His penis is bigger than hers. (And his ego.) Why am I not surprised that the loser cry baby felon is whining? Poor little rich rapist.

I've never tasted simile, actually. But I assume it tastes way more delicious than bowling pins. 😉 Or rioter flambe. 😲 That's a perfect GIF for his comment, by the way.

Trump praised Walz in 2020 over handling of George Floyd protests I have to imagine the Harris campaign thought through the known vulnerabilities of Walz, as well as Shapiro and Kelly and others. So this is a threefer. First, it underscores that the only time you can't believe what Trump says is when his lips are moving. Second, who was the President when riots were erupting all over America? And who bent over backwards to throw gas on the fire with his hate and divisiveness? Third, who failed to call out the National Guard when he STARTED riots at the US Capitol on January 6th? President Bone Spurs also has JD dredging up more lies to trash Walz's military service. JD Vance, of all people, ought to believe Walz resigned from the military to run for Congress. Since JD left Silicon Valley to run for Senate. And they have more in common. On the Veterans Affairs Committee, Walz was loyal to the veterans he left behind. In Congress, and if elected Veep, JD will be loyal to the right wing venture capitalists seeking tax cuts that he left behind.

He may. Whether he would or would not, I mostly agree with your point. When Harris wins, she should get what she wants while she can. But the idea that she can win these Senate seats in Montana and Ohio, which she needs just to have 50 votes, is a huge question mark. Everything that follows is just interesting details. I have mixed feeling about this part of Obama. Which is to say, I blame some of it on him. He was never really a legislator, in my view. And, if you believe what Harry Reid told him on the fateful day he called young Senator Obama to his office, Reid knew Obama was more of a rock star than a long term legislator like Biden. Whatever Reid or Pelosi thought at the time, it had to work out as well as expected, or better. They got the Presidency for eight years, and they got a lot of stuff done. 2010 sucked. But to again quote someone very smart, David Axelrod says that he knew by 2009 that the economy was going to get so bad that Democrats would get a shellacking in 2010. Which they did. It's the economy, stupid. 2010 was what opened the door for the Tea Party to come in and thrive and fester. And the Tea Party looks charming and quaint compared to the MAGA cult Trump grew. The Victory of ‘No’ A lot of the reporting done at the time is on your side, an example of which is above. The basic idea was that if we Republicans work with the Democratic majority, we will always be the minority. So we have to block them, and make them fail. Arguably, it worked. Republicans were extinct in 2008, until they came roaring back in 2010. Although I think the argument is weak. Democrats did do a lot in 2009 and 2010, because they had the votes. So some would argue they lost badly in 2010 precisely because of what they did. Like Obamacare, which was unpopular at the time. Not because of Republican obstruction. But I agree with Axelrod. It is the economy, stupid. And the price Democrats paid for winning so much in 2008 is that they had to own the economic mess in 2010. Republicans didn't have to do anything other than just wait. So the question is, once the Republicans took back power in 2010 through no fault of Obama and Democrats - who simply inherited the global financial crisis - what could Obama have done to make deals with The Party Of No? Your answer would be, nothing. Which may be true. But, objectively speaking, Clinton and Biden both got things done that Obama did not. So I think you can make a good argument that if Obama viewed his Presidency differently, and were a creature of the Senate like Biden or a Bubba deal maker like Clinton, he might have had more success in a second term. But I recognize you can make a great argument that Mitch McConnell was going to kill anything that could possibly be born under Obama from 2010 to 2016. Here's the irony. If you buy The Gospel Of Allan Lichtman, which I do, "The Victory Of No" did not occur in 2010. It happened in 2016. Again, I think the Democratic shellacking in 2010 was about voters who were pissed about a really bad economy. The reason a red wave did not happen in 2022 and seems very unlikely to happen in 2024 is that we don't have 10 % unemployment and a national foreclosure crisis, like we did in 2010. Prosperity sure sucks, doesn't it? Which is why Lichtman thinks Harris will win. His view of what worked against Clinton in 2016 is she had exactly six keys turned against her. Which was just enough to seal her fate. And one of those six keys was Obama's lack of any real accomplishment in his second term, like Obamacare in his first term. So you can argue that if Obama had made it his single most important priority to make any deal he needed to make to get something big and bipartisan done in his second term - let's say an infrastructure bill like Biden did - that alone would have made Clinton POTUS in 2016. Bridges and roads are inherently popular to Republican House members and Senators. So it's a counterfactual that can't be proved. But I think Lichtman's whole model is based on common sense. It would not have hurt Clinton if she could say that she and Obama were bending over backwards to get stuff like roads and bridges done, even if the Republicans were a hard sell. If you agree with this logic, it means we are both right. But under different circumstances. If Harris manages to win a Senate and House majority, which means a clean sweep of all these difficult Senate seats like Ohio and Montana, Lichtman would agree with you that she absolutely should do whatever it takes to win what she can. So she has a record of victory to run on in 2028. Even if she gets zero Republican votes, like Obama did. But if she does not have a legislative majority, your logic suggests she will have zero policy victories. So what's she gonna do? To me it is just common sense to think that centrist voters will reward her in 2028 if they see her making whatever deals she has to to accomplish things they care about. If instead there are four years of party line votes, all of which she loses when it comes to anything important, it makes sense that she would have a harder time in 2028. Another example of this is Bill Clinton. He was forced to meet in the middle because of 1994 and Gingrich. One very granular point I am not sure I agree with Lichtman on is that he says Clinton had no significant policy achievement in either term. For sure, Hillarycare failed. But at least in my view Bill Clinton was rewarded by voters in 1996 for the fact that he did compromise with Republicans after 1994 and he did get things done. Like that led to a budget surplus. It may be him believing his own bullshit, but the night welfare reform passed Dick Morris said in his book he called President Clinton and said, "Congratulations, Mr. President. You just won re-election." Of course, if that is true, it was because Clinton triangulated in a way that drove liberal Democrats crazy. Regardless, Lichtman predicted Clinton would win in 1996 despite any major policy victory, in part because he was the incumbent. When Gore then ran in 2000, again with no major Democratic policy achievement and also not being an incumbent, he lost. So, again, it's a counterfactual. But you can argue that if Clinton had been able to get something significant and bipartisan done between 1996 and 2000, it would have been enough for Gore to win in 2000. I love my Lichtman. So one final point that again mostly reinforces you are correct. Lichtman has predicted 11 elections in advance, starting in 1984, if we include his likely prediction that Harris will win. In only 4 of those elections did he give the party in power the "major policy change" key: Reagan in 1984, Obama in 2012, Trump in 2020, and now Harris in 2024. (Meaning, they could all run on a policy accomplishment made in the last four years.) Again, do we really believe there was no major policy change in the US from 1984 to 2012? Not sure. But if we go with Lichtman, the only one of those 4 major policy changes that were bipartisan in any way was Reaganomics after his 1980 landslide win. And that required a Republican Senate majority and being able to muscle down on Southern Democrats in the House whose constituents voted for Reagan, or supported his tax cut ideas. So it speaks to your point. Harris will not win in a landslide. And if she wants to do something like raise taxes on the rich to help the middle class, or reform SCOTUS, or Voting Rights, DC statehood, or anything else on your list, she's unlikely to be able to pressure any Republicans to agree, like Reagan could. So she should get it while she can.

60. If we are talking a functional majority. But 57 Democrats, technically. Add two Independents that voted Democratic and Arlen Spector who flipped to Democratic, providing a brief 60 vote supermajority. Recall that Ted Kennedy's death and his replacement by Scott Brown almost derailed Obamacare, because of the 60 votes. You are being slightly unfair to Obama. A friend of mine who was a CEO had met most Presidents. Either because of the work he did, or because he happened to live in Iowa where it is all very retail - or was. More than anyone else I know, he's the guy I view as a true Independent (voted for Bush, Bush, Obama, Romney, Clinton, Biden) and also an early warning system. By no later than March 2009 he was apoplectic that Obama had promised to bring people together, and unify. But he turned out to be just another partisan hack. We had many debates about that. But his perception that Obama promised to be a unifier and failed to deliver is a broadly shared verdict. So, yes. One way to look at it, 16 years later, is if Harris has 50 votes (with no Manchin or Sinema, plus Walz) and a House majority she should get rid of the filibuster and get anything she really wants as fast as she can. Then prepare for two things: America probably won't like it, and may react badly in 2026. And Republicans will do the same the first chance they get. There is something else about Obama you didn't mention, but should. He was the guy who said the "fever will break" after some election or another. Well, we're still waiting. Trump just took "the fever" and turned it into what about half of America sees as a plague. I don't think there is any getting around it, as long as it lasts. Steve Kornacki on MSNBC did an excellent factual take down of Walz yesterday. Specifically, about all the talk about how Walz maybe helps with red America. One small problem is there is absolutely no evidence of that in 2018 or 2022, when he was elected Guv. Walz ran up huge majorities in the Twin Cities, and got clobbered everywhere else. Including in his old Congressional district in southern Minnesota, which I know well since I went to college there. He's an excellent poster child. Since you have two versions of the same guy. When he was a moderate US Rep with an A rating from the NRA, he did just fine in a slightly right of center House district. But as a progressive Guv, he lost the love. The lesson I take from that is that if Kamala Harris really wanted to send a signal, she might have chosen Mark Kelly. Better still, choose Joe Manchin. That matters in terms of your point. If Democrats want to win 60 Senate seats, the facts suggest they will have to moderate. That may be happening, organically. I liked Cori Bush. But she was objectively extreme, just like JD Vance is. Now Cori Bush is history. So the Democrats are cleaning house in a way Republicans are not. And I say that as a progressive who wants someone like Claire McCaskill to be able to win in a state like Missouri again. One would hope, in theory, that voters in Missouri would not think that it is radical to have paid family leave. Or have fewer White children that are hungry or poor. But, again, there is no evidence that actually helped make Tim Walz more lovable in rural Minnesota. If anything, it just helped brand him as one of those radicals. I actually think the best model we have is Joe Biden. And, had he been a decade younger, he would have run for re-election and won. He won some big compromise victories on things that really matter. So whether Harris has 48 Senate votes or 50, that is probably the best model for now. Walz can only help, especially in winning House seats and working them for votes if there is a Democratic majority. Two long terms ideas of what solves the problem you are identifying. Which is THE problem. My theory is that Obama may eventually prove to be right. If Trump loses in 2024, one can at least hope that Republicans will finally realize he led them to a dead end. I mean, it does seem so simple. He won once, barely. And we got tax cuts for the rich, a close call on making health care much worse, a 30 % murder spike, and repealing Roe v. Wade. That's not an agenda most Americans long for more of. Then he lost in 2018, 2020, 2022, and presumably 2024. And Trump himself is just old and senile. Is there really no hope for the Grand Old Party? My oldest nephew has a theory that is a bit more brutal, but perhaps true. Old people just have to "age out". Demographically, he is correct. He is Gen X. And the MAGA crowd, who he finds distasteful even though he is slightly right of center, is heavily focused on Baby Boomers and Gen X. If the only people who voted were Millennials and Zoomers, Harris/Walz would win in a landslide. So as Trump and his cohort age, my nephew is probably right. But it's going to take a long time. The good news is I never bought Trump's bullshit that somehow young voters and Blacks and Hispanics are falling in love with MAGA. Some Blacks and Hispanics, like Tim Scott and Marco Rubio, are conservative. And always have been, And now they are at home in a Republican Party that used to exclude them. I'm happy for them. But it is also now clear that Kamala Harris will crush Trump among voters who are younger and not White. So I think eventually the problem will solve itself. And in the meantime Democrats should be able to at least cobble together narrow majorities and compromise victories.

As much as I would hope to be the oldest and wisest whore in the room, we still have to deal with political whores like Sean Trende and Allan Lichtman. Lichtman, having just won some senior Olympics race in Maryland, is for sure older and wiser. Kamala Harris' Puzzling VP Pick by Sean Trende Sean probably answered his own question. If Rule #1 is do no harm, Walz probably objectively made the most sense. There were strong voices inside the Democratic Party that did not particularly like Kelly (unions) or Shapiro (the Gaza crowd, and John Fetterman, loudly). Walz just continues the love fest. Just on a tactical campaign level, I can't wait for Walz or Harris to ask Trump or the Couch Potato what is so right about a 30 % murder spike under Trump, and a 20 % murder decline under Biden/Harris. I mean, if the issue is violent protests in 2020 - THAT HAPPENED WHILE TRUMP FROZE AS PRESIDENT AND PRESIDED OVER A REIGN OF MURDER, BLOOD, GUNS, AND HATE - wouldn't Trump and his do nothing but get rich Couch Potato be happy that the prosecutor helped reverse the gushing flow of murder and blood and horror and hate that Trump brought to America, lovingly and with joy, in 2020? Coach Walz will say it almost that bluntly. If Trump wants to talk about what happened in the Summer of 2020, I don't think people liked him much then. What am I forgetting? Meanwhile, reading Sean Trende reminded me of Lichtman. Who is ranting about how whoever Trump or Harris picked as Veep makes absolutely no difference to the final outcome. Which I am 95 % sure will mean Lichtman predicts later this month (after the DNC) that Harris will win. Lichtman also keeps saying that where the Veep does matter greatly is something Sean Trende doesn't even mention: that, somehow, elections have something to do with actual governing. Who knew? What a weird idea! 😉 Now that it has had a day to sink in, and I saw The Philadelphia Story on the big screen last night, I think Walz makes even more sense from a governing perspective. The thing Shapiro, Kelly, and Walz all had is a record of being White men who were able to reach across the aisle. And a belief in "One Minnesota" or "One America" where we are all neighbors. Trump will say that's bullshit. But with any of the three that just makes it clear that Trump is for divide and conquer, which is all he's good at. Except he still loses. Poor mess of a weird thing. What Walz has that is unique to him is both an actual relationship with senior and powerful House members he served with, and a track record that is a model for some of what Harris plans to do. What is it about supporting parents with paid family leave or having kids not be hungry or poor that is radical? And when they say that's not the issue, the issue is that you are for crime and chaos, that leads us right back to Trump's very unique 30 % murder spike. Not to mention all the blood and horror and hate he spewed in Summer 2020. We know Walz knows how to say, "Come on!" This is going to be fun. Trende doesn't seem to think governing matters. Lichtman does, which is why he is likely about to predict Harris and Walz will win. I'm lovin it.

Well, two positive things I can say. One, I am neither as old nor as senile as Trump. Two, when I first read a book on male escorting, written by a male escort, I was 40 years old. And the book said that with plastic surgery a male escort can have a shelf life as old as 40 years these days. Since I had just started escorting, that did not seem to bode well for me. Anyways, I had a great run that lasted well over a decade, and I left escorting on my own terms. On what was Bill's site, I had close to 100 perfect reviews. And I made some very nice money, and some very nice friends. Some of my friends, who are not particularly young, still escort and still enjoy it. Others hire escorts, but not me, and still enjoy it. So if this is a tender and sensitive age joke - making fun of people's age on a site like this is of course ALWAYS funny and tasteful ha ha ha ROTFL - I don't think the joke's on me. 😉

Two points related to this: why Harris picked Walz, and perceptions of Israel among Democrats. My takeaway is the main reason Harris picked Walz and not Shapiro came down to one word: "loyal". To add a second word, it is proven loyalty. Democratic House members said we know Walz and he is a team player. We like this guy. He can help us win. Democratic Governors said Walz is a team player. We like this guy. One article pointed out that Walz was one of the few Governors who defended Biden when he was under fire. So the Biden people think of him as "loyal". It's interesting that the two people who rose to replace Biden - Harris and Walz - were conspicuous about defending Biden until the moment that Biden gave up. For that matter, I'll add [name any prominent Black Democrat, like Rev. Al] to the list. For days on TV when Biden was being publicly called on to resign Black talking heads like Rev. Al and Bakari Sellers and Van Jones defended him on MSNBC and CNN. Probably knowing that when Biden fell Harris would benefit. It was a shrewd play, I think. The other interesting and arguably unfair thing that was present but somewhat muted yesterday was the perception, it seems like among some Jews based on online chatter, that Shapiro was perhaps the victim of anti-Semitism. Walz, who seems to view Israel the same, and has a picture of him embracing Netanyahu floating around online, was not tagged with being in the middle of that whole thing. Shapiro was. The quote I read several times from some anonymous source in the Harris campaign was that no one wanted to open the door to a debate about Gaza. It's toxic, and divisive. Let's talk about kids, paid family leave, and health care instead. Again, arguably that is unfair to Shapiro. But it speaks to a real and deep conflict in the Democratic coalition. Older Democrats, like me, are Clintonians who grew up seeing Israel as this scrappy underdog that was surrounded by people out to get them, with The Holocaust always looming in the background. Younger Democrats see Bibi The Butcher, genocide, and a fanatical right wing country that keeps electing a butcher who seemingly loves to kill Muslim women and children. Period. "What part of genocide do you not get?" is how many of them feel. The polls make that clear. And those young people are going to be the majority some day. I'm not defending either position. My point is that Democratic Jews are going to have an increasingly hard time wanting to thread the needle of being for Israel but against what the government of Israel keeps doing. Because the people of Israel elect them to do it. And there's nothing anti-Semitic about it. Chuck Schumer is not anti-Semitic. Nor is Bernie Sanders. And they are the ones calling it out publicly. It's a problem that is clearly going to fester as long as Israel keeps doing what it is doing. Even if what they are doing is a response to a bloodbath against Israeli Jews. I also love how the Republicans suggest maybe Kamala Harris is anti-Semitic. What faith is her hubby? And how many Republican Jewish Senators are there ? (Answer: none. There are nine Jewish Democratic Senators.) The point about American Muslims makes sense. They may not like what Biden says or does. But the alternative is what they would likely see as their worst nightmare: just go ahead and blow the fuck out of Gaza

Both can be true. This shit happens. Just listen to my sister testify.