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.

The Field Narrows

It’s with profound gratitude to all of our supporters that I suspend my campaign for president today.

I’m so proud of everything we’ve accomplished together. I’m going to keep fighting for an America where everyone counts—I hope you’ll join me in that fight. pic.twitter.com/jXQLJa3AdC

— Julián Castro (@JulianCastro) January 2, 2020

I could think of about a half dozen people I'd have liked to see drop out of the primary instead of Julián Castro, who had been running a solid, policy-driven and inclusive campaign. NO knock on the front-runners, but I'm still feeling a bit disappointed about how the primary has gone so far.

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.