She'll Persist

Warren on sexism in the 2020 race: "That is the trap question for every woman. If you say yeah, there was sexism in this race, everyone says, 'Whiner.' And if you say no, there was no sexism, about a bazillion women think, 'What planet do you live on?'" https://t.co/7eG9ZYlQsW pic.twitter.com/zMy5ohtbgd

— CBS News (@CBSNews) March 5, 2020

Knowing this was coming doesn't make it feel any less disappointing, but she isn't done fighting, because she promised. She has said in the past that good policies were what mattered to her, more than becoming president for herself. She will just be working towards them in the US Senate, just as before. I feel like I've already written up my feelings about whether she owes anyone an endorsement in 2016, and whether gender has anything to do with it feels self-evident to me. I think the timing was right--she could have stayed in for another debate, but that would not have helped anyone in any way at all.

I just think she would have been great at being president, is all.

There is a Metaphor in Here

🚨 SYMONE SANDERS FROM OUTSIDE 🚨 pic.twitter.com/5zLMp28pwl

— The Recount (@therecount) March 4, 2020

If you watch the above video of Symone Sanders just up and hauling off a protester while Jill Biden guards her husband, I feel like that says an awful lot about work in this Democratic primary. Biden was protected and promoted this evening in large part by Black and women voters. For all that anyone might want to ding his campaign turnabout on the donor class or elites or the establishment, the fact is--working class people, and marginalized people, and all kinds of people actually in fact voted for him. You can't take away from that by mislabeling his support.

Here's what they want: to beat Trump because he's actually, actively harmful to them. Biden's successes this evening come from the hopes of lots of people for a government that recognizes them, and it wasn't brought about by money. It was brought about by people believing in the network of goodwill he got from the people who said they would stand with him, because they knew what he stands for. And when I see anyone denigrating that as if the people who stood in line and took the time out of their day to make their vote were somehow dazzled into it by some nefarious fuckery--shit, I don't have to agree with it to acknowledge it for what it is. These people believe he can beat Trump. They believe he has the coalition.

Having a team matters. Being a part of a big thing, matters. It might not be a revolution, but it is not nothing.

But before I get into anything to do with these results (which aren't all in yet) can I vent on the subject of Elizabeth Warren?

South Carolina Shaped Things Up

Of all the primaries thus far, it seems to me that South Carolina's has been the most consequential. Former VP Joe Biden won handily, moving him to second in delegate count and first in popular votes, and giving his campaign a much-needed fund-raising boost that demonstrated there still is life in it. In his third time at running for the presidency, this was the first time that Biden had won a state.

That's really something to think about. That's persistence. It also shows that sometimes, the goodwill that a candidate needs to have is built up over a long time. It's about a long record forged on doing the things that were right for the time, and showing the kind of decency and compassion that stirs something in people. It isn't about being the perfect candidate, but being trusted. People in South Carolina who voted for Joe Biden knew who he was. They trust him. 

The decisive win lead Tom Steyer to bow out, but he is still in the political fight. He made a good statement about his goals:

“I, of course, will be supportive (of the nominee). I’ve said since the beginning, every Democrat is a million times better than Trump -- Trump is a disaster,” Steyer told his supporters. “Let me say this, we’re in South Carolina, Lindsey Graham is a disaster, he’s a disaster for the people here. So of course I’ll be working on that. Let me say one last thing, when the Lord closes a door, he opens a window.”

Maybe it isn't in the cards to be president--but it certainly is possible to positively influence a senate race (or so) and in doing that, continue the fight against the Trump regime. Steyer might not have been the likeliest candidate, but his support for the environment and his concern for our society shows a lot of decency, and I can't fault him for trying to create a platform within his campaign--but I think a supporting role just makes more productive sense and appreciate what he has done and can continue to do.

Let's Get it Together

I sense there are some folks out there experiencing some alarm that progressives are on the verge of nominating someone they see as the most electable progressive choice, but really? Our ideas about electability should have died a hard death when Donald Trump won an election. A multiply-bankrupt, serial adulterer, with several credible sexual harassment and assault claims, fraud claims and settlements, surrounded by the right wings' worst collection of dirty tricksters, with allegations of support by Russian bots, leaks, etc., compounded by the pretty obvious fact, ongoing to this day, that there is something, maybe even organically, seriously wrong with how the man understands the concepts of right and wrong....

Sanders is incredibly electable if our comparison is Trump. Above is then-Representative Sanders, talking about how much the US spends on defense vs. on American workers. He says, "Let's invest in American industry." He talks about feeding and educating our kids. That's who he was then; that's who he is now. And he excoriates both parties, because some Democrats were a little bit full of shit then, and some are a little bit full of shit now. (Democrats, for some reason, thought about a budget-balancing amendment for a minute back then. Think about the utter damage that would have done to the safety net for so many. Something something, Department of Defense, something something, bake sales. )

That was 1992. When I became aware of what he was standing for, it was this 2010 filibuster (ish) stand. Yes, he goes against what he is calling the "Democratic establishment"--also, I sometimes think the entire Democratic party could go bolder. Organize more. Fight like hell for the things we love.

Criticizing the Democratic party isn't about electing Trump. It's about saying there are sides and you have to choose one. And anyone who chooses Trump over someone like Sanders is saying they like fascism, racism, misogyny and lies. The party should be able to take arguments. If the Democrats are, in fact, a large and diverse party, that will have to be expected. But that is over policy differences, and in the meantime, there is a world at stake, our universal human rights, and the fight to preserve our environment.

The opinions of Never-Trumpers should have no bearing on Democratic conversation. Obama got into office without them--with many of them working against him. If they understand now the kind of bullshit statist liberals were trying to fight against then, and don't know how their attenuated McCarthyism (like the destruction of ACORN due to peckerheads like O'Keefe and Breitbart) fueled leftist rage, they can go get stuffed. Even Liz Mair, who is getting sued alongside an internet cow, by one of Trump's most captivated Renfields. What is her game? Because she needs an entire grip if she thinks you go from sued the entire fuck to hell and gofundmeing on it to...ooohhhh! Fuck me! (Keep an eye on that lawsuit right there.)

Does this mean I am endorsing Sanders, even if supposedly Russia is trying to help Sanders, etc? Because I deplore Trump and his Russian connections? Unlike Trump, Sanders never asked for this, and I think he has tried to repudiate both this association and the toxic online "Bernie Bros" label.

He is better than his stans--that seems enough. But if you all are a Democrat and wanted a unity candidate that would do--notice that Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg are all standing in that gap. If Bloomie wanted to make a way for a moderate, he done fucked up by uniting lefties under Sanders.

Warren is probably the  unity candidate for non-Berners. I'm not being pro-anyone, even if I' m telling you that despite what the news says, Sanders is not an op.  He's been real since way before Russia took an interest in him. I'm just letting you know--don't freak out.  Maybe Democrats being a little bit leftist isn't actually a whole fucking news flash.

Don't Ignore Elizabeth Warren.

Watch how Elizabeth Warren opened tonight's Democratic debate — with an attack on Michael Bloomberg.

Read more from the most contentious #DemDebate yet. https://t.co/aERVQUyCKY pic.twitter.com/EbH1oMpGXB

— The New York Times (@nytimes) February 20, 2020

Let's not miss her on the next poll, all right?

Sen. Warren's performance against Bloomberg's record (and his seeming lack of preparation to defend it) was pretty damn satisfying for me to watch, but I took notice of a handful of folks on Twitter who were having issues about "tone". "Oh she was mean." All standard disclaimers about politics not being beanbag obviously pertain, with a helping of "and if this were a male candidate?" on the side, obviously, but for crying out loud, this was a demonstration of what Warren wants to do to Trump, that Bloomberg, with his baggage, can't do onstage to someone like Trump (assuming that Trump won't be able to resist debates because it means he'll be on TV), and that Warren is uniquely able to.

I also noticed some people wondering why she didn't go after Sanders. I think it's been strategic. Her support would have to come in part from people who are pretty loyal Sanders supporters if her star was to rise, and she's being cagey about not alienating them (or pissing them right the heck off). Leave that to the other people in the competition.

Anyway, I think there still is a tendency for these debates to more or less reinforce attitudes, rather than change them, and even though I miss some people who are no longer in the race, the fewer people on the stage, the less of a mess the process feels like.

OK, Bloomers

I've been noticing a silly argument on Twitter that I won't link to, because it is silly: whether "Bernie bros" will put people "on a list" if they support or work for former Republican NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg. Whatever that list might mean, I really don't think people in this country can get shut out of working for campaigns or commenting on politics based on their previous support. My goodness, Jill Stein supporters manage to get attached to Democratic campaigns today, don't they? And the mainstream media doesn't look like it will ever give up it's love affair with Republican-lite/moderate Democrat cross-overs. For the unity!

But let's get real, the country will not be unified over Mike Bloomberg. Sure, he's got a whole lot of money and his ads do nail Trump right in his vanities and failures. But that doesn't equal a plausible Democratic candidate against Trump (it may even have some drawbacks as an outside antagonist, as I hope to demonstrate). 

In the past, I've blogged about my support of the Occupy Wall Street movement, Black Lives Matter, and the Me Too movement. If a Democratic candidate does not have a good record with, or can't demonstrate fundamental understanding of, the impact of economic inequality, the wealth gap, the failures of the system to protect consumers against fraud and predation in ways that harm economic security and mobility (as well as the way it intersects with racial inequality); if a candidate does not have a good record with, or can't demonstrate fundamental understanding of, the impact of racial inequality especially as it has related to the tools of the criminal justice system being used as a weapon against black bodies especially; and if a candidate does not have a good record with, and can't demonstrate fundamental understanding of, the ways men in power deploy misogyny and exercise their privilege against both women and men in sexualized ways, then, this party should not want them. 

Barr Should Go

“We are watching a descent into authoritarianism...we should all be calling on the Attorney General to resign.”

Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren weighs in on Pres. Trump’s interference in the Roger Stone case, saying the House may need to consider impeaching AG Barr. pic.twitter.com/cvmpsv1myO

— Anderson Cooper 360° (@AC360) February 13, 2020

What she said. Barr's DOJ is effectively Trump's DOJ, and that perception undermines everything. I just don't know what comes after Barr though.

UPDATE: Also, too, Barr should give an accounting of what influence Trump had.

Earlier this week, the DOJ overruled its career prosecutors in Roger Stone’s case after President Trump threw a fit on Twitter. This is unprecedented. That’s why I called on Chairman Graham to hold an immediate hearing. https://t.co/6QRQ0TM9bq

— Kamala Harris (@SenKamalaHarris) February 13, 2020

Of course, the Republicans in the Senate have no interest in finding out what pressure Trump may have exerted (with Barr, possibly very little--he already does what Trump would want) but they don't like being put on that damn spot:

“I don’t think he should be commenting on cases in the system. I don’t think that’s appropriate,” Graham told reporters.

“You want to let the legal process to move forward in the way it’s intended to,” Senate Majority Whip John Thune added. “The president weighs in on a lot of things. He tweeted about it. I guess, so, people perceived that as him having weighed in. But in the end, the Justice Department and lawyers over there need to do what they need to do to make sure justice is being served.”

Gosh, if only the president wouldn't weigh in like this and make them have to comment about it!

She Has Answers

Asked about a potential running-mate: “Who will be your Mike Pence, who will look at you with adoring eyes?”

⁦@ewarren⁩: “I already have a dog.” pic.twitter.com/pBKxLLM5vz

— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) February 9, 2020

As I've elsewhere noted, Sen. Warren's campaign surrogate, Bailey, is a good boy, but the dog line zings because Pence gives Trump those puppy-dog eyes, but we all know how Trump feels about dogs. This is something I recall from the 2016 campaign: she has a way with words and cuts to the heart of things, including cutting up the opposition.

I just want to note that while we've been talking about the lackluster show from Biden's campaign in Iowa, and the contention between Buttigieg and Sanders, Warren placed a very respectable third and seems likely to run third again in NH. That keeps her campaign alive, and there's a lot of ground left to cover. In the meanwhile, what she's showing is that she has put in the work with her debate performance, and how she responds to detailed questions.

She also doesn't just have plans, she has jokes. (So does Klobuchar!) I really don't understand the idea some folks have that she's strident--she cares! She'll fight.

I like that. I like that a lot.

Bailey Warren Just Won the Caucus

This speech solidified my support for @ewarren. Hit the right talking points plus earned sustained applause in my house for thanking her very good boy, Bailey. #ElizabethWarren #HopeOverFear https://t.co/N6ImCeVFpT

— Rebecca Murray (@becmur) February 4, 2020

Now, you can say, "How is that? Last I heard, Pete Buttigeig declared victory." And that would be a thing....he did. But just listen to my reasoning here:

Math didn't win in Iowa (Yang). Organization didn't win in Iowa (Sanders). Experience didn't win in Iowa (Biden). The plan didn't win in Iowa (Elizabeth Warren). And common sense sure didn't win in Iowa (Klobuchar). And you can't just congratulate a clusterfuck and decide it stands for a species of win, Mayor Pete.

So, it's looking to me like the whole darn thing went to the dogs. And Bailey is a very good boye.


UPDATE: But, no joke, this process is classist, sexist and ableist, and relies on people without kids or with guaranteed childcare, people who don't have work commitments they can't back out of, etc. It's a dopey process that shouldn't ever come down to "the handful of hardheads that can stay as long as it takes" and "some kind of app and the backup app both of which could be as buggy as a cowflop in July."

This Debate Could Have Been Better With Seasoning

When you're in the room and mom and dad start arguing... #DemocraticDebate pic.twitter.com/BFyRq3O0HM

— Jessy Han (@hjessy_) January 15, 2020

I know, you know, the world knows, the exchange above is going to be the topic after the Warren/Sanders build-up, right? But I have to say, I'm feeling for Steyer a bit here. "Oh hi guys, great debaaaaa...." Timing, right? I guess a mic probably has picked up what was said (and Steyer was right there) but I'm not reading a lot into the exchange. People aren't really the body language experts we think we are.

I think CNN had a problem with asking questions in a way that didn't sound a little loaded. Asking Bernie Sanders how he won't bankrupt the government wasn't just loaded, but actually doesn't really reflect how government debt works, and also doesn't reflect how things like health care provide a net benefit to society and reduce costs along the way. I'm not sure what would help them not be that way.

I think Warren and Klobuchar did especially well, and think that Warren pointing out that both of them were effective campaigners and also calling out the CNN moderators for the topics not handled were highlights.

I cannot believe, however, that after all my pissing and moaning about how crowded the stage used to be, that I'm now "pouring one out" for the folks not up there. But of such is life.

Primary Thoughts

Maybe it's because as a Pennsylvania voter, I don't get to vote in the primary until pretty late, but my feelings about the candidates is a little bit like when a neighborhood cat deposits kittens under the porch: "Don't get too attached to any of them--we're only keeping one."

So how do I feel about the Sanders-Warren foofaraw? I don't actually have a really strong opinion because only one person will win the primary, and then my preference is that whoever that person is, they beat Trump. It's pretty much that simple. This "beef" thing is kind of like wrestling: I don't know how much of it is work and how much is shoot, but I will vote for a Democrat when the time comes regardless, and recognize that primaries are competitive. They're trying to win. It's not that deep.

So, long story short, my opinion is, either you think Senator Warren or Senator Sanders are both highly qualified and would do better than Trump, be more credible, transparent and respectable than Trump in office, and surround themselves with more professional, less questionable people in office, while engaging in a substantive, progressive agenda or, well?

Eh. I like them both. I can't stand Trump. The end.

Many Things Can Be True at Once

So, Chris Cillizza did a piece about how a particular Democratic candidate responded to the current Iran situation in a way that was a little bit--

Hm. How do I put this? Disingenuous? Artificial? Bullshit?

Yeah. Something like bullshit. Anyway, he put it thusly:

Warren, Jan 2: Soleimani is a "murderer"

Warren, Jan 3: U.S. "assassinated" Soleimani

Warren, Jan. 5: Soleimani is "a government official, a high-ranking military official" https://t.co/Bz8Squds0c

— Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) January 6, 2020

Soleimani was a murderer, because he caused a lot of people to be killed. The strike that killed Soleimani was an assassination because it specifically targeted him, and we are not in a declared war with Iran. He was, also, quite factually, a high-ranking government official in Iran. That's the problem. That would be an entire predicate for Iran to treat the strike (an assassination or killing of a high-ranking government official whose job was to arrange for others to die) as an act of war, None of these things are contradictory to the other things and all are actually true.

We really need to take a moment to let the media (as in, Chris Cillizza)  know that maybe, just maybe, we are not going to play by 2016 rules and let stories fly that try to depict a candidate as having contradicted herself when she just happened to make separate factual statements that don't conflict one another at all. In actuality, noting that an unauthorized killing of a high-ranking military figure of an oppositional but sovereign government is exactly when a Senator should probably weigh in on things, candidate for president or not. As for whether she came around to noticing whether this looked a bit like wagging the dog--fuck. I was already there. She isn't wrong to acknowledge this is what people are saying on the internets when one of them is me.

I guess.

Anyway, there's nothing here worth criticizing because she both acknowledged the guy wasn't a hero to the US but that killing him this minute might have had repercussions the Trump Administration didn't consider. As far as I'm concerned, right on both accounts.

I'm really not down with anyone playing the "who's got your message" game with Warren after the "but her emails" and "but her speeches" stuff that happened to Clinton in 2016. If someone wants to call her out, it better be legit or I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers.

Also it is very cool to me that Julian Castro endorsed Elizabeth Warren. I think this makes so much sense for two candidates who brought so much to the policy table.  I am trying not to ticket-ship, but I kind of am. I can like the idea of this ticket, even if I also like other candidates.

See how that can work? Because they can be very qualified, as other candidates can be also. And also many things can at once be true. And we don't have to be mad about any of it.

Did You Know Millionaires can Qualify for Medicaid and Social Security?

New Pete ad in Iowa taking aim at Warren and Bernie over college affordability/debt (but not by name), arguing they’d alienate half the country by insisting it be “free even for the kids of millionaires”. H/t @McCormickJohn
pic.twitter.com/SEAcOdHcAq

— Alex Thompson (@AlxThomp) November 29, 2019

Look, I'm just a potty-mouth D-list blogger, and I realize that sometimes, government programs benefit the rich and the families of rich people. In fact, rich people benefit from all kinds of programs that people without money can't even access, like different tax breaks and credits for doing cool stuff with their money. And yet, I am skeptical that college affordability needs to be held to a strict means test and tend to think that it's really not that we need to subsidize students, so much as we need to subsidize institutions of learning. Make them really accessible. Make it so anyone can get in, regardless of their ability to pay, but their qualitative merits. Pay teachers. Pay them a fuckton. Pay adjuncts enough to make them upper middle class and not live out of their cars. Pay people who educate people and make education really great. I don't care if Ritzykid McBucksalot gets a full ride from tax money if they really did pay their educational dues and will benefit from a great education. I think we should fund more schools into existence. It might be true that not all kids need college to find jobs, but I think critical thinking and cultural awareness are great things to get grounding in and help with many aspects of just living.

I get the idea that there are "elites" that have benefited a lot from the society that we all share. I think if we all shared the same access to education and the same work ethic regarding educational achievement, it would have an effect of changing the curve. This does not give rich kids greater access--it still gives less-affluent kids greater access, while focusing availability of an education on work.

This is somewhat dependent on public schools also becoming more egalitarian--and I think primary public schools should be funded more equitably and am deeply skeptical of whether private and charter schools even ought to exist. I want more equal opportunities for everyone. I want public schools to be integrated not just on racial, but economic values. I want young people to be confronted when they are at their most impressionable with the diversity of the world in which they will live.

I think talking about education as a commodity is kind of missing the point. It is a cultural asset that makes the human who receives it better capable of achieving more in their selected endeavors. It isn't a transferable good--it is something that only works as a benefit for people who appreciate how to use it. For this reason, why not make it as broadly available as possible, to do the most good?

I'm just saying!

Thoughts About the 2020 Democratic Primary

With the news that former NY mayor Mike Bloomberg is now seriously considering entering the 2020 Democratic primary, I'm tempted to just link to my 2016 blogpost about him and step out of the way, but it occurred to me I've been woefully remiss in not covering Democratic politics, so I figured I'd deliver some takes--but first of all, who asked Mike Bloomberg?

I don't have anything against the man, I seriously don't, anymore than I had against Howard Schultz or even have against Tom Steyer (who has his heart and his money in the right place--mostly!) but I'm going to be very honest--the Democratic party might just be working out how we can best appeal to the 99%, and having a handful of .01%'ers out here is a hard sell in this environment. I'm not the one who is going to argue that the actual existence of billionaires is a policy failure, but I am going to inform you that the maxim that "to whom much has been given, from him much is expected" is definitely a whole mood right now. While being a billionaire could mean a person is an excellent manager with innovative ideas who will disrupt day-to-day politics and whatnot, we've had Trump for the last fucking three years.

Please, I beg, go fund down-ballot races. We need progressive statehouses to ensure voting rights are protected and encourage good local environmental protections and maybe local minimum wage increases where we can't get a national one and for goodness sakes don't forget about the US Senate! Because a Democratic president can't get shit done if Mitch McConnell still can block everything.  Even if Democrats didn't capture the presidency, a strong Democratic congress could counter much Trump fuckery. Our worst problem on the progressive side isn't a people problem, they exist. It's an access and money problem. Go fund groups that support voting rights and restoring former felon rights to vote and fund independent media!

Now, another thing--Joe Biden went in on Elizabeth Warren for elitism. This was a response to her claim that he was running in the wrong primary regarding his comments on her plan for funding Medicare For All. Elizabeth Warren is not an elitist and Joe Biden is not a Republican, and regarding any improvement on the ACA, I can tell you right now that I have a spending plan for my winning Powerball ticket. I have seen the GOP go rabid shithouse up the wall "All you goddamn Democrats are Commies" twice in my life in person and it was the Contract for America class of 1994 rejecting the Clinton universal health care plan, and the Tea Party goobers against Obamacare. I understand they went the same kind of apeshit over Medicare the first time around. Here's a plan--we need to win the White House and the Senate and hold the House. Until then, why get extra fucked-up over the details? It's fantasy football league.

I'm just saying--at one time Warren called Hillary Clinton an apt student. (I don't think that was actually any shade in that context.) Learn from the difficulties "Hillarycare" faced. And the ACA--Biden was there. There is not any bit of it that will go down easily. But I agree with her that you do have to fight--I just submit you also have to do all you can to be armed and recognize some ground may be yielded strategically.

You want to know what's trending on Twitter right now? A hashtag: #PeteForGovernor. It really just cropped up. I have had my concerns about Buttigieg's age and experience, and his invitation to walk with Julian Castro around South Bend set my teeth on edge. Castro has been under-recognized despite a great understanding of issues and an awesome bio--and for that matter, I don't understand why Cory Booker hasn't really had a "moment" in this campaign, yet. Anyhow, Booker can stay a Senator, and do great stuff because he just does, and yet--you know? There's really something to this idea that Buttigieg should consider winning the Governor seat in Indiana. For one thing, doesn't Indiana deserve a good governor? And that was Pence's former job. And it would show he can do more. Middling town to President is just such a big leap.

I don't know who is advising Kamala Harris on primary strategy, but because I love her and parking herself in Iowa isn't going to do for her what she needs done, I wish something better was happening for her. With the wildfires, she could go hard on climate, utilities, fossil fuels, etc. (She has solid environmental principles.)  She is at her best in her prosecutor mode. I want her to put on the best case she can for herself. In the meantime, I don't know what to make of a Steyer aide (now fired) who stole Harris data).  I guess they were fixing to poach supporters from what they saw as a campaign that wasn't firing on all cylinders? (There was also a solicitation re: endorsements in Iowa by Steyer's campaign which is just weird. Not unheard of--but weird.)  Anyhow, I wish her campaign was getting all the good attention for her competence and wit and so on.

Anyway, where female politicians are seen as angry or elitist, I guess I want to just end with Amy Klobuchar, because she really is funny and smart and down-to-earth and reminds us that "Minnesota nice" has an icy edge to it.

I like these folks a lot--I haven't got a real bad feeling for any of them. I just think we're at a time when if you're Messam or Sestak you should probably take your five dollars in donations and your six supporters and do some other stuff.  (Of course, Gabbard going on Brietbart is just her own entire thing, with a definite "triggering the libs" level of provocation.)  And everyone needs to get real about what they offer, and how they want to serve. Because that's what the people want to see. Real means serving with your feet by leaving the race, and with money, by lifting up someone else if that's what gets rid of Trump and advances progressive goals.

Are We Really Doing This?

Really? Because when employers fire someone because they are pregnant, they probably aren't going to commit that to paper--they might even advise the employee to resign to make it easy on themselves. Now, I know that all anyone has to do anymore to make a smear stick is say it out loud and let people's biases do all the work, but yes, women have been let go from employment because they were pregnant. Sometimes it was difficult to prove--and other factors might have influenced one's decision whether to fight it or not. I just don't feel like this is an absolute "gotcha!"

I totally get people on the right running with the idea that she's claiming a form of victimhood, but I think that isn't really the situation, here. She's describing an experience many women had at the time. It really seems to me like a case where people who experience sex discrimination can also run into factors making it difficult to prove or to fight--and honestly? That's not a news flash. I don't think her statements have been disproved, and I don't believe people on the left (even if they favor another candidate) should want to run with this.

Accidental Promos

Stuart Varney: "Sen. Warren would force all big companies to take a lot of their profit away from shareholders. And it would be given to (pause) — the workforce, the community, customers, the local and global environment, and community and societal factors — whatever that is." pic.twitter.com/HPZMiXWADt

— Eric Kleefeld (@EricKleefeld) September 11, 2019

Sounds good to me!

Elizabeth Warren is Ready To Fight

If there was anything I wanted from a candidate, it would be that they had a serious interest in crafting really solid policies that would help raise up the personal economy of working people, instead of focusing on the stock market and whether the rich did well, and showing that they were really in the race with the intention to kick ass. Senator Warren has been out here talking about the policies (I've been a fan since Occupy, and as much as I liked Senator Sanders because of his filibuster at the time, she's had me at "hello let's stop the banks from fucking people over").

She did her damndest trolling Trump last election.  That's because she has fight in her. Her "give a shit" dial is set to 11. So her considered opinion that the House should commence with impeachment strikes me as flowing naturally from her wrath that once again, some privileged asshole has gotten over and needs to get put back in his place, and we need some damn standards about what conduct is appropriate in this office.

Right now, I know Warren has the energy and the understanding of how to correct our course. I have never been ready to endorse early, but I feel like we're in a different time and place, and I don't want this weird Swalwell, Ryan, Moulton, whatever. (They are okay people--especially Swalwell--I just think I want someone for president that I have seen being president for a little while longer than yesterday.) I don't give a shit about any damn near moderate white guy lane. I don't want people who just "think they can".  I want a person who goddamn will.   I've already made my Biden feelings pretty transparent. For me, there are two people in this race, and they are Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris. Pete and Beto and 'em need to find value from doing more and better elsewhere.

I will possibly move from this position in the coming months, but this is where I am right now. Warren wants Trump gone because he is bad and all of this looks bad, and she'll fight Mike Pence if that's the guy, too.

I like her fight. She has fight that wakes up the fight in me.

The Blood is Rigged

Having some memory problems, @realDonaldTrump? Should we call for a doctor?

Here’s something you won’t “forget,” Mr. President: You’re the least popular president in modern history & your allies will go down hard in the midterm elections. 22 days. Tick-tock, tick-tock. pic.twitter.com/53FV0HXGXX

— Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) October 15, 2018

I really have no impression about what Senator Warren's DNA test means in 2020 terms because it's a pretty good troll right now. It will actually not in any way change any opinions on one side or the other: people who though Elizabeth Warren was a pretty effective politician regardless will likely still think she's pretty effective, and people who don't like her much will continue to not like her very much. I don't think she's fooled about what this does for her, except get the dumb question of taking a DNA test in the first place out of the way well in advance of 2020.

The point is really that she's never run on identity politics. This wasn't a part of how she got on the national stage, but the "Pocahontas" nickname basically became how Trump preferred to define her because she got under his skin. 

Now, the degree to which she has native ancestry really doesn't matter--she isn't claiming anything except there was an ancestor according to family lore, there apparently was, that's it. Trump, on the other hand, bet a million dollars, with his own alligator mouth, that she had none. And now his canary ass will only pay if he gets to administer the DNA test himself, which he wouldn't enjoy doing (what does he think this entails?) because--?

The blood is rigged? She dramatically faked a DNA test to put a person worth, according to his own estimation "$TEN BILLION DOLLARS" on the hook for a measly $1 million for (checks notes) an Indigenous women's resource center.

It doesn't really seem likely, unless you happen to be notoriously dodgy debt-skipper Donald Trump, who will still use the racist nickname, because he is an insensitive asshole. Which says far more about Donald Trump than it says about Elizabeth Warren. And maybe he'll pay, maybe not (probably not). But every time he says it, it's like a little reminder that she at least put up. And he can't even shut up.

Why Can't Obama Get Paid?

I know there are people* who are champing at the bit to call my best president (sorry Bill!) a neo-liberal sell-out, but I have a tiny bit of news for you--highly-qualified intelligent capable performers net a ginormous amount to get them to roll out of bed and do trifles for you, because honestly, they have done better work and expect to get paid for trifling.

This goes for paid speakers in much the same way it does for the cliché of pop stars doing private concerts for an Arabian prince's birthday or a Swiss banker's kid's. Sometimes this happens on the weirdly down-low, or right out in public.  If you have a name to conjure with, you can conjure up some bank with it. I'm still trying to work out why it is a bad thing that Barack Obama (or Hillary Clinton, for that matter) gets paid big bucks for talking to rich people who can afford to pay, when they have listened to poor people in their lives for what we honestly know for free--and even tried to do stuff for them.

This conversation kind of makes me sick, because this is one of those "why we can't have nice things" conversations. If someone is a "sell-out" we have to start questioning whether they ever did any good. If Hillary Clinton took money from the big banks for speeches, how did that take away from trying to get women's rights recognized? If Barack Obama takes money from big banks for speeches, how does that take away from his accomplishments?

The thing is, it doesn't. Love of money might be the root of all evil, but getting paid isn't. Money is a tool. It can pay for nuclear warheads, or it can pay for hospital beds. It can pay for chemical warfare, or it can buy AIDS medication for children to live their lives. It can build bridges to a better tomorrow, or it can build walls to keep the concerns of the hungry, harried, and hurting away from the folks who have the means to help those people. Or it can even buy a moment of time from people who understand how to communicate the needs of a world to those who have a world to offer, and maybe even unleash a movement in the best of directions...

But no really. I understand why some people might get concerned with how some people get paid to speak. Sometimes I don't like how I do my piece for free, either. But I know what my little voice is worth. And I don't hate, I just keep on singing.

*Not to hate on Bernie Sanders, or Van Jones, or Elizabeth Warren. Much love--but wrong is wrong. And if Barack Obama has a thing to say, as the first black president, he gets his asking fee to say it. That is how it is, and for that, I have no concerns. Until he endorses some entirely dumb shit that isn't commensurate with the values we all came to admire him for. Then, I will have a problem.

This SCOTUS Hearing Just Isn't Right

In light of the several things that have been somewhat irregular about this past election cycle, I just can't even get interested in the Neil Gorsuch hearing for SCOTUS because I simply can't view his nomination as legitimate. When the position on the bench became open with the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, this seat on the bench simply should have been President Barack Obama's position to fill.

Full stop. I do not think that Sen. Mitch McConnell's blocking of Obama's choice, Merrick Garland, was anything but pure partisanship.  His statement about "giving the people a voice" denied the voice of the people who elected and then re-elected Obama. Obama's successor lost the popular vote, and many people are not with him.

And then there is that gray cloud that Rep. Devin Nunes spoke of--the idea that we have in office a person under FBI investigation for possibly colluding with a foreign power to gain that office. I am with Sen. Elizabeth Warren on this one--leaving aside that Gorsuch would be unacceptable to a liberal on the basis of his privileging corporate power over people power, there is no reason this hearing needs to continue while uncertainty over Trump's legitimacy remains.

Perhaps I see the light now in what Sen. Ted Cruz said back in October--this court can function with eight justices.  It would be better that it did, than that Senate Democrats accepted a nominee under these conditions--even if Senate Republicans do not seem to understand the problem.

It just wouldn't be right. The "people" McConnell was referring to, may not have entirely had their say.