Make resistance the safer bet

I finished the book Whistle-Stop Politics; Campaign Trains and the Reporters Who Covered Them by Edward Segal. The book is small scenes of when a politician climbs onto a train to take his message to the small towns across the country. Segal was the press secretary for an Oklahoman Congressman in 1984 and thought to use a campaign train to introduce his candidate to more of the state. He wanted to find a book or other resource about campaign trains and came up empty. So he started collecting stories, then did serious research, and 40 years later produced this book. Overall, it’s a lightweight book. He covers the campaigns from the late 1800s to Biden’s train in 2020, though the first train campaign was in 1836. Th coverage isn’t of the type of saying in 1896 this candidate was on the rails for this number of days, covered so many miles, gave this number of speeches, had these incidents along the way, and the trip had this consequence for the candidate or the future of campaign trains. Instead, the book is organized by topic. These campaigns had this type of incident. These had that type of incident. Each incident is described in a few paragraphs, up to a page or two. Campaigns can appear under several topics, but there isn’t a complete campaign narrative. Some of the topics: A description of the campaign train (the candidate’s car was always the last one and out its back door was the campaign platform). Who was on it (candidate, staff, reporters, regular train staff). Whether the candidate gave the same speech at every stop or how he pulled in local details. What local politicians were introduced. How the logistics of the trip were set up. What the Secret Service did to make the route safe. What happened when a doctor was needed. How the candidate dealt with hecklers or protesters. How the press managed enroute (no showers, no laundry, no direct communication while on the train). As to the last topic, occasionally the train stopped and everyone stayed at a hotel. Sometimes they stopped only during the day, so the hotel would get a request for six rooms and 150 towels. Segal also described some campaign imitators. In 1940 Gracie Allen of the comedy team Burns and Allen did a train tour as the candidate for the Surprise Party. Winnie the Pooh did one in 1972 with advisors Tigger and Eeyore. Mickey Mouse did one in 1978 to celebrate his 50th birthday. The top candidates that logged the most miles on a train were Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, far more than any of the others. There is a description of the rail car built for Roosevelt to keep him comfortable and safe. The reason for campaigning by train was simple: There was a train depots downtown in practically every small city. Everyone knew where it was. The airport, if there was one, was a ways outside of town and few people knew about it. A train allowed the candidate get close to the people. I enjoyed the book, but glad it was just over 200 pages (plus 778 endnotes to list the sources that I could skip) and I could finish it in just a few days. As I said, these were short amusing stories without a comprehensive narrative. Oliver Willis of Daily Kos reported on Monday the nasty guy’s invasion of Chicago has begun. It’s over the objection of Gov. JB Pritzker and the city’s mayor. The justification for sending in the troops is, of course, lies. Also on Monday Lisa Needham of Kos reported on the state of the invasion of Portland. U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut ruled on Saturday that the nasty guy could not federalize the Oregon National Guard to protect federal agents in Portland. On Sunday the judge ruled that the nasty guy could not use California’s national guard protect federal agents in Portland. That ruling was at the request of both California and Oregon because neither wanted one state to invade the other. While she was at it the judge ruled the nasty guy couldn’t use the national guard from any other state either, even if Texas was offering. The case was appealed and I’m still behind in my reading. A week ago Needham reported that the nasty guy has a new effort to get colleges and universities to bend to his will. He came up with a ten point plan titled “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” Schools that agree to it will get preferential access to federal funds. Needham wrote about the points in the plan. Here’s some of them.

So a vibrant marketplace of ideas, but one where schools put their thumb on the scale for conservatives, who basically can’t compete in the marketplace of ideas in higher education. ...And, of course, there are demands that there be no race-or sex-based preferences in hiring and that transgender women be barred from women’s locker rooms and sports.

And they need to hire an independent auditor to ensure compliance.

So all that schools need to do to get “multiple positive benefits,” including “substantial and meaningful federal grants,” is to totally alter their curriculum, departments, admissions, hiring, and sports teams to conform to whatever racist, transphobic, or xenophobic thought that skitters across Trump’s gray matter at any given time. Just some minor tweaks, really.

Nine schools have received the “invitation.” One, the University of Texas at Austin, appears all in. On Monday Dalbert of the Kos community reported that Gov. Gavin Newsom of California has a response. Refuse the nasty guy’s offer a school could lose federal funding. But if a state school accepts the nasty guy’s offer they lose state funding, including grants to California students.

People cave to bullies when there’s no cost to giving in. Newsom’s changing that dynamic. The article urges other blue-state governors to follow suit: cut off state resources to institutions and officials who comply with Trump’s demands. Make resistance the safer bet.

Alix Breeden of Kos wrote that a few top level comedians have gotten themselves into a mess. The royal family of Saudi Arabia funded the Riyadh Comedy Festival. The royal money means they paid big bucks to the comedians, like $375K and upwards. They are working hard to burnish their image. With this royal family we know there is a catch – the entertainers signed contracts specifying they would say nothing bad about the country, the royals, the legal system, or the religion. But giving up free speech for a paycheck, especially a big one, means they are losing credibility in America, especially after Jimmy Kimmel was pulled off the air because of free speech. Fellow comedians are saying their hypocrisy is showing. In the comments of Monday’s pundit roundup for Kos paulpro posted a cartoon by Angel Boligan showing the nasty guy beating furiously at a huge drum set while the two speakers are aimed at earth. John Sipher posted a cartoon by Kal showing a big beefy American army man ready to fight foreign foes while a small Pete Hegseth tugs at his ankle and points to a cat named “Wokeness” and saying “You’re under attack!” In Tuesday’s roundup Chitown Kev quoted Paul Krugman writing for his Substack on why the nasty guy’s second term seems to have gotten so extreme so fast.

One reason things have gotten so extreme, so fast may be that Trump, Miller and company are in a race against time. Foreign autocrats like Orban or Vladimir Putin could afford to chip away gradually at the foundations of democracy because they were, at least initially, quite popular. Trump — although he won’t admit it — has very low approval, and the public opposes him on every major issue. Yet he and his minions control much of the machinery of government, and are trying to use it to intimidate — you might say terrorize — their opponents before public anger catches up with them.

In the comments exlrrp posted a meme showing, I think, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. Whoever it is the text is fun. It says, “She’s going through the normal 5 stages of grief: pyrotechnics, merch, podcasting, grifting, and acceptance.” In the comments of Wednesday’s roundup is a cartoon posted by LJ Slater and created by Smit. It shows ICE agents standing around and one says, “I gotta leave early today, guys. We deported my kid’s babysitter.” A comment posted by paulpro shows a calm Chicago scene and two ICE agents are talking:

First: You see any Chicago Antifa rioters yet? Second: No, but there was a dress sale at the Water Tower my wife would kill for.

LJ Slater posted a cartoon by David Cohen. It shows a peace prize on the floor and the nasty guy reaching for it. To the side one guy tells another. “It’s an old bar trick. I glued it to the floor. Let’s see how long it takes him to get it.” In the comments of today’s roundup Fiona Webster posted a cartoon by Jesse Duquette showing a policeman cuffing a young black child (I’ve seen mentions that this is a thing). The policeman says, “Stop crying. America’s great now.” Webster also posted a cartoon by Lalo Alcaraz that has a caption, “Meanwhile, at the border... The president ordered that the border wall be painted black because it makes the wall hotter when migrants climb it. Also, it’s lunchtime.” The image shows the bottom of three beams of the wall bent up and being used as a grill attended by a Mexican man. Beside him is a sign, “Hot border tacos.” While checking one set of stats for this blog – the excitement of setting big viewing records in September – I forgot to keep track of other stats. I’ve passed mentioning the nasty guy in 700 posts, this one is 701. There are only two topics with more posts. One is “GOP” which is now at 1114 posts. The other is “Gay Marriage” and “Marriage Equality” (I switched tags) at 711.

LOTUS for POTUS

I did a lot of ignoring the news while I was traveling. I rather enjoyed that. Even so I did hear about a few things. The assassination attempt and a bit of pundits declaring this and that about how it affects the race. How the Republican Convention was a bore, especially the nasty guy’s speech that set records in length and boredom, and how duplicitous JD Vance is. That Biden kept saying he would not step down and then did (after I got home). The global tech crash, which happened my last night away from home. My phone buzzed at 4 am and I later heard the message that the New Hampshire 911 system is down, call this number instead (I was a long way from New Hampshire). When checking out of the hotel the desk person could not print a receipt. I saw a tweet by Morgan Freeman (sorry, the link was on my tablet) saying during the convention dozens of Milwaukee bars and nightclubs hosted drag shows each night so Republicans had nowhere to party. Another source added a reason for that is Republicans rarely leave a tip. Some thoughts on Biden. Over the last four years I’ve thought of him as a wonderfully decent human and a pretty good president (though not great – he didn’t get the Voting Rights Act and a few other democracy protecting bills passed and only now is presenting ideas on Supreme Court reform). See more below. I felt Biden was the one to beat the nasty guy. I have doubts Harris can do it. And there’s this: wwallace of the Daily Kos community wrote – before Biden dropped out of the race – that the calls for Biden to step aside was not about the debate. Yes, I’m aware this is an opinion piece from a person of unknown credentials. What it was about is rich people wanting Biden out because if his calls to raise taxes on themselves. All the talk about the rich wanting Biden out to protect democracy doesn’t pass the smell test. The author provides plenty of quotes to support his view. Since writing it the author added an update about Biden dropping out and Harris is now the likely nominee. She deserves our full support. But the author doesn’t answer the question of whether Harris supports and will push for tax increases for the rich. Before I leave discussing the rich... Pat Byrnes posted a cartoon showing the income gains of the top 1% rising high from 1980 on, then down to the line for the lower 20% not rising at all. A man looking at the lines says “One more tax cut for the rich should do it. Then something is sure to trickle down at last.” On to what has happened since Biden’s announcement. There was fear that going into the convention the delegates Biden released would become so fragmented there would be a fight over the nominee, which in the past has usually meant that party lost in the General. Mark Sumner of Kos reported that won’t happen. Potential challengers – Josh Shapiro of PA, Gavin Newsom of CA, Wes Moore of MD, Gretchen Whitmer of MI, Andy Beshear of KY, JB Pritzker of IL, Pete Buttigieg of Transportation – instead united behind Harris. Sumner then wrote about the huge amount of money that was donated to the Harris campaign in the first day. Also ten governors, twenty senators, one hundred thirty representatives, and others (including the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund) had endorsed Harris by 10 am Monday, less than 24 hours since Biden withdrew. Later on Monday Sumner reported the Harris campaign collected $81 million in the first 24 hours, the largest 24-hour haul in the 2024 race, beating the $52.8 million the nasty guy campaign pulled in when he was convicted on 34 felony counts. More money also came in for Democratic candidates in other races. A massive Zoom call organized Win With Black Women required the COO of Zoom to raise the participation limits. That also raised cash. On Monday evening an Associated Press article posted on Kos reported that Harris had the support of 2,471 convention delegates. She needs 1,976 to receive the nomination. At 2:00 pm Tuesday Joan McCarter of Kos reported the Harris campaign had received more than $100 million and had 1.1 million donors, 62% were first-time, in 48 hours. Also, all 23 Democratic governors had endorsed her, plus 43 senators, 191 representative, 10 unions, and 2,887 delegates. Number of criminal convictions (or even charges): 0. Another AP article reports that Harris is polling quite well among Democrats. On to how this changes the campaigns. McCarter reported that Harris is much better at articulating why abortion rights are necessary (Biden seemed afraid of the word) and what the nasty guy did to get us into the current abortion rights mess.

Republicans and anti-abortion groups think they can paint her as extreme, though. As soon as Biden announced he was ending his presidential campaign, the Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America group issued a statement. “While Joe Biden has trouble saying the word abortion, Kamala Harris shouts it,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, the group’s president. What they don’t get is that that’s what women want to hear. Even 53% of Republican female voters in the critical 18-49 age group want a law that guarantees a federal right to abortion. And this is what those women will hear from Harris: “We trust women to know what is in their own best interest. And women trust all of us to fight to protect their most fundamental freedom.”

Sumner discussed that another theme of the campaign will be Prosecutor vs. Felon. She had been a prosecutor, then California attorney general, then a senator grilling judicial and Supreme Court nominees (a clip of her going after Brett Kavanaugh is getting airtime). The party of Law and Order will be shown as nothing of the kind. A campaign ad that Harris made for her 2019 campaign will be hitting the airwaves soon. She reintroduced it with a tweet:

I prosecuted sex predators. Trump is one. I shut down for-profit scam colleges. He ran one. I held big banks accountable. He's owned by them. I'm not just prepared to take on Trump, I'm prepared to beat him.

Sumner wrote:

Now Trump is off balance, facing someone who is everything that makes him uncomfortable all rolled into one: a Black woman prosecutor.

He won’t handle it well. On Monday Sumner reported the nasty seems to not accept he’s no longer running against Biden. Some of his tweets suggest he’s begging Biden to reconsider. In a pundit roundup for Kos Chitown Kev included several good quotes. First, from Michele Norris of the Washington Post commenting that over the last few weeks Harris has been both resolutely supporting Biden and quietly auditioning for his job. “Let’s just concede that walking that tightrope was not easy.” Haili Blassingame of The New Republic says the idea of a Kamala Harris – Gretchen Whitmer ticket was proposed quite quickly.

Elections aren’t endings; they’re beginnings. A two-woman ticket would demonstrate that Democrats believe there is an after-election world that they will be relevant in shaping. The slogan practically writes itself: a historic team in a time when history is being made in all the wrong ways.

I’m not sure it’s good or bad that Whitmer isn’t interested. I’d like her to stay in charge of Michigan. Jon Meacham of the New York Times and friend of Biden wrote:

Here is the story I believe history will tell of Joe Biden. With American democracy in an hour of maximum danger in Donald Trump’s presidency, Mr. Biden stepped in the breach. He staved off an authoritarian threat at home, rallied the world against autocrats abroad, laid the foundations for decades of prosperity, managed the end of a once-in-a-century pandemic, successfully legislated on vital issues of climate and infrastructure and has conducted a presidency worthy of the greatest of his predecessors. History and fate brought him to the pinnacle in a late season in his life, and in the end, he respected fate — and he respected the American people.

In the comments Denise Oliver Velez posted cartoons celebrating Harris. Charles Jay of the Kos community reported that Indian-Americans, in rallying around Harris, have created a few memes. Her ancestry is half Indian. Jay wrote:

It turns out that in Sanskrit, the name “Kamala” means “lotus.” So Indian-Americans have created this meme: “LOTUS for POTUS.”

Kamala is also an alternate name for Lakshmi the Hindu goddess of prosperity, good luck, and beauty, often portrayed as holding a lotus flower. C. Vuksinich tweeted:

The lotus flower can be a metaphor for human life, as its emergence from murky waters can represent overcoming difficult times with dedication and resilience.

In another pundit roundup for Kos, this one by Greg Dworkin, quoted Frank Bruni of the NYT discussing Bidens decision to withdraw.

In the hours and days to come, many political observers will say that President Biden was backed into a corner and had no choice but to end his re-election campaign. His limitations had been laid painfully bare. He’d lost the confidence of the Democratic Party. And he was staggering toward an increasingly ugly revolt within it or a potentially harrowing defeat by Donald Trump. Bowing out wasn’t an act of grace. It was a saving of face. All correct. But that’s not the whole truth. Not the full story. It misses the bigness of what Biden just did — its historical rarity, its emotional agony, its fundamental humility.

In the comments are several more cartoons celebrating Harris and imagining her facing the nasty guy. There’s also a meme: “‘Let’s Go Brandon’ merch now 90% off” And a tweet by Catherine Rampell showing the iconic image (borrowed from Norman Rockwell?) of a black girl walking to school in the time of desegregation. In this updated image we see the little girl is a shadow cast by Harris. DeathMetalViking tweeted: “God wanted Donald Trump to live so he can lose to a black woman.” Now the other half of the story. Another AP article describes the process of Biden deciding to drop out of the race. I’ll let you read it. Sumner discussed the amount of time and money Republicans, headed up by Reps. James Comer and Jim Jordan, wasted in trying to find something for which to impeach Biden. They didn’t even give the nasty guy something to campaign against. At least they showed they were under the nasty guy’s control. Not at all surprising (but still highly annoying) B sides of the Kos community posted that Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee has introduced a resolution calling to impeach Harris because she “has demonstrated extraordinary incompetence in the execution of her duties and responsibilities.” That’s all related to her failures at upholding immigration laws at the southern border. Hey guys, the vice president doesn’t actually have any power, at the border or anywhere else. Finally, Sumner discussed all the good things Biden did as president, who Sumner called, “simply the greatest progressive president of our lifetimes. Full stop.” Of course, Sumner didn’t stop, but went on to list several areas where Biden made great improvements: Pulling us out of the pandemic and the nasty guy’s mismanagement. Built up manufacturing and business creation and avoided a recession everyone kept predicting. Restored international faith in America, expanding NATO and leading help against Ukraine. Took big steps towards fighting the climate crisis. He guided a time of declining crime, declining gun sales, and rising opportunity. He showed compassion. He start improving national infrastructure. “For the first time in 23 years, our nation is not at war.” He did more in one term than other presidents did in two.

It's easy to diminish Biden. It’s easy to brush him aside as someone who isn't a great orator, a visionary leader, or an object of veneration. He doesn’t stride across the stage like a giant. He doesn’t deliver speeches that will be the subject of analysis for decades to come. Biden is an everyman. And he'd be nothing but flattered by that term.

I’m feeling better about Kamala Harris for president. My vote for her won’t be just to keep the nasty guy out of the Oval Office. It will be a vote to put her in it. Four years ago I though she wasn’t ready. But in those for years she has had an excellent mentor.

The majority disdains restraint and grasps for power

I’m about to travel, leaving Monday after lunch. I might post tomorrow, and might not. I’ll be gone for two and a half weeks. If I post in that time it will probably be travelogue. Yeah, pontificating on Thursday’s debate is still a thing. Kerry Eleveld of Daily Kos wrote a review of the debate. In spite of the obvious flubs that are getting all the airtime Biden did give a spirited defense of democracy in the face of the nasty guy lies. The nasty guy’s lying did catch plenty of notice. Alas, there are still many who won’t vote for the nasty guy because of his lies and other behavior, but then saw Biden as old and won’t vote for him. Joan McCarter of Kos reported that Speaker Mike Johnson has found a reason to remove a president. Johnson was an architect of the nasty guy’s attempt to stay in office in 2020 and voted against impeachment twice. His choice in November is the criminal and constant liar. Johnson could have helped remove that president from office. And didn’t. But he’s called on Biden to pull out of the race. Reason? Biden lost a debate.

This is the same Mike Johnson who voted against removing Trump from office after the Capitol insurrection. He’s for removing a president because he’s old, and he’s against removing a president who is old and who tried to overthrow the government. Good to know.

McCarter than quoted CNN’s fact checker, who said the nasty lied more than 30 times. The quote lists them. Kos of Kos says Biden called for the debates and set the rules, so Biden needs to fix it. That does not mean dropping out. There is a problem if the nomination is handed to Kamala Harris. She’s not Biden and would have an extremely hard time winning. But shoving Harris aside for Newsom, Whitmer, or Buttigieg or any other Democrat ready to jump in would create quite bad optics. Also, states want names for the ballot by about six weeks. This was a lost opportunity to shift the narrative from Biden’s age to the nasty guy’s mental decline. But so far the polls have shifted little. The Supremes have issued quite a few rulings over the last few days as they conclude their session. An Associated Press article posted on Kos reported on a ruling about whether cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors when shelters are full. The question before the court is whether the bans were “cruel and unusual” and in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The majority, in the 6-3 decision along ideological lines, said nope, it’s not cruel. The minority, in a dissent read from the bench, said yes, it is. “Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. The minority sided with the homeless who, in many cases, do not have an option when shelters are full. The number of homeless in the country is more than 650K, the most since 2007. The majority sided with cities, who want to keep their beautiful and safe. The article doesn’t mention how the ruling supports the social hierarchy, which this Court is all about. This ruling is also about oppressing the people already in a difficult and precarious positions. Another AP article reported the Court overturned the Chevron decision. Many articles don’t mention the name of the two cases involved, which can be confusing, so I’ll mention them: Loper v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce. The main dispute is who has the final say when an agency issues a rule and the supporting law is vague in that area. Back in 1984 the Chevron decision concluded that in such cases deference should be given to the agency who wrote the rule. They’re the experts. Congress cannot foresee every possibility and having Congress wrangle every last detail of what “clean water” means is something they don’t have time or expertise for. So, fine, Congress can’t fill in the details. But corporations say courts can. Environment and consumer protection advocates say, courts aren’t subject experts either. It will take time to teach the courts the relevant science. Filling the courts with these cases (and there will be a lot of cases) will take up a lot of time and in the meantime the corporations could continue their harm to consumers and the environment. (To which corporations say to themselves, yep, that’s the point.) Scott Detrow of NPR talked to law professor Jody Freeman about this case in a six minute, understandable discussion. McCarter reported Justice Elena Kagan issued a strong dissent for these rulings. There’s the part about courts not being subject experts – which Justice Gorsuch demonstrated by repeatedly confusing “nitrous oxide” and “nitrogen oxides.” A bit of Kagan’s dissent quoted by McCarter:

In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law. As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar. It defends that move as one (suddenly) required by the (nearly 80-year-old) Administrative Procedure Act. But the Act makes no such demand. Today’s decision is not one Congress directed. It is entirely the majority’s choice. ... Its justification comes down, in the end, to this: Courts must have more say over regulation—over the provision of health care, the protection of the environment, the safety of consumer products, the efficacy of transportation systems, and so on. A longstanding precedent at the crux of administrative governance thus falls victim to a bald assertion of judicial authority. The majority disdains restraint, and grasps for power.

A Supreme Court power grab? Yes, because a lot of cases will be appealed to them. In a pundit roundup for Kos Greg Dworkin had several interesting quotes. Jill Lawrence suggested that the nasty guy won simply by showing up because the impeachment process and the courts did not protect the country. He won again when moderators called him “Mr. President.” The rest of Dworkin’s quotes are about the ruling’s the Supremes have issued over the last few days. Just Security talked about another case, this one the Fisher ruling. It narrowed the definition of obstructing an official act. This was used to prosecute many of the Capitol attackers and the official act was Biden’s election certification. For those already convicted there is minimal impact. For those still waiting trial there are other laws to convict them under. Rock Hasen of Election Law Blog says the Fisher ruling probably won’t help the nasty guy because of his fake elector scheme. Inside Climate News discussed the decision to overturn Chevron. Though the actual question involved a small fishing operation the case was funded by the network created by the billionaire Koch family, who made their billions in petroleum and very much want to gut consumer and environmental protections. That original Chevron case was led by Anne Gorsuch, then head of the EPA and fierce opponent of regulations. She lost that 1984 case. Her son Neil wrote a lengthy concurring opinion to overturn Chevron. Noah Rosenbloom of The Atlantic said attacking the federal government’s ability to regulate industry (to protect consumers and the environment) has long been a corporate top priority.

On stage: one man who breaks things, one who fixes things

I didn’t watch or listen to the debate between Biden and the nasty guy last night. If what Biden said that the nasty guy said nothing but lies is true (and I have no doubt that it is) I’m glad I didn’t sit through 45 minutes of him lying. So I didn’t hear about it until this morning. NPR’s Morning Edition looked at every single angle of it – the debate itself, how these people saw it, how those people saw it, etc. Of course, they included audio of the clip where Biden seemed to grind to a stop in the middle of a question. And, of course, that flub was all over the news. Somewhere in all that someone, perhaps Biden, said the only thing that came out of the nasty guy’s mouth was lies. That got me wondering: Who knows they were lies? Who was going to tell at least the undecided, in a way that was as delivered to them as easily as the actual debate, that lies were constantly spouted and this is why they are lies? From all this blather it seems this debate was not as decisive as I (and most Democrats) would like. There were calls from pundits – and Democrats! – that Biden’s performance was so bad he should step aside and let the Convention in August choose someone else. Amazing how many pundits didn’t call on the nasty guy to step aside when he was convicted 34 times. Mark Sumner of Daily Kos reported on the debate. He posted his observations this afternoon, so it wasn’t the quick take as came from the overnight pundits.

On stage were one man who derives sick pleasure from breaking things, one man who tries to make everything better, and a network that invited them both into a glass house and handed them mallets. Then, after 90 minutes of watching the first man send shards in all directions, we got to listen to everyone complain that the second man didn’t swing his mallet with sufficient vigor. If you give a minute to Donald Trump, he will use it to lie. If you give a minute to President Joe Biden, he will use it to try and correct the lie—and answer the original question that Trump ignored. If it seems like Trump has the easier task, you’re right. If you think Biden should do something else, you’re on the wrong team.

Sumner said before the debate started host CNN would do no fact-checking. Sumner can’t think of any reason why that would be a good idea. So the nasty guy lied. And all CNN hosts did was say, “Thank you.”

Pundits—even some supposed Democratic pundits—are admiring the massive, nonchalant lying of a convicted criminal while clutching their pearls over Biden trying to set things right, and that tells you everything about them. If the Democratic Party fails to dust itself off, stand in front of the cameras, defend Biden, and explain how a lying felon is worse than laryngitis and some verbal stumbles, then it will say everything about us.

Before the debate Biden posted on X a spoof of the claim he would be on performance enhancers during the debate. The caption says:

I don't know what they've got in these performance enhancers, but I'm feeling pretty jacked up. Try it yourselves, folks.

He holds a drink can showing Dark Brandon and the text:

Zero Malarkey Get Real, Jack. It’s Just Water.

Fans can buy cans at the campaign website.

Be nice to the waiter

Mark Sumner of Daily Kos discusses signs that after almost nine years of steady economic growth a recession is on the horizon. Those signs suggest a recession might begin just before the 2020 election (meaning there wouldn’t be enough time to influence the election). And the nasty guy has a few ways to goose the numbers until after election day. Those predictions on timing aren’t very interesting. This is:

And when [the election is] all over, it’s entirely possible that we could slide into recession with absolutely no slack in the system. With the Fed rate already at zero. With Trump already having chopped corporate tax rates to an unsustainable degree. With the Republicans already burying the Treasury in record debt. With trade relations in tatters and the biggest buyer of U.S. treasuries alienated.

Translation: we could slide into recession with a federal government with no tools to pull us out. A government not having those tools is very intentional. And the people who will feel the pain are not the ones at the top.



A quote from presidential candidate Cory Booker, which I agree with:

Someone who's nice to you but not nice to the waiter is not a nice person.

Dahlia Lithwick of Slate describes Elizabeth Warren (a candidate I like more and more) who had been a teacher:

Warren is an extraordinary educator. We misread her as a detached wonk when she's actually a brilliant translator of complex ideas. Watching her on the stump, you come to realize that it's not so much the fact that she knows a lot of technical and complicated things that truly excites her fans, it's that she can explain them to you.

David Eisenberg is a doctor at the last abortion clinic in Missouri, one that was threatened with closure at the end of last month. He now has to deal with new provisions in the state law the severely restricts abortions. One of them is carrying out pelvic exams, which are not medically necessary and are invasive. He said:

What I realized was I effectively have become an instrument of state abuse of power.

Governor Jay Inslee, also a candidate for president, has been campaigning on climate changes. He has been pushing the Democratic National Committee to have one of their debates focus on climate change. The DNC said no. Sarak Kendzior of Missouri tweeted a response.

No major issue is unconnected to the climate crisis. Climate change impacts the economy, immigration, infrastructure, health care, etc. You also cannot separate the climate crisis from the rise of autocracy. The DNC should be ashamed of itself for denying a debate on this topic.

The public is owed a climate change debate. You DNC chickens***s who think it's "divisive" have no idea what real problems are. In my state farmers lost all their crops and families lost homes. They want answers, resources, plans. The pain is not partisan and you can't ignore it.

We demand to know

Melissa McEwen of Shakesville and Shareblue has been saying for months the national media are garbage. She backs up her words by looking at the media's coverage of Hillary Clinton's recent bout with pneumonia. McEwen asks a few questions:

1. Is the story newsworthy?

2. If so, do we do a straightforward report of facts? Or do we put those facts in a frame?

3. What additional context should be provided for balance?

4. How much coverage do we give it?

Here, the answers appear to have been: Yes; use existing false frame of “transparency”; provide very little to no balance by way of comparison with her opponents’ lack of transparency on medical records; and A LOT.

Those are not the only possible answers to those questions, though the media frequently pretend that they are.

There was no requirement—by any standard—that the media were obliged to cover this story in the way that they did nor as intensely as they did.

That was a choice. And it is a choice that gets made, over and over, in order to create the news and shape it in a very particular way.

McEwen comments on how the media works:

The corporate media create a narrative about Hillary Clinton; they repeat that narrative ad infinitum; they do a poll about that narrative; they report on the poll finding that the narrative has penetrated the public consciousness. Then they step away and summarily erase their role in creating the original narrative, retroactively justifying their creation of a false frame under the auspices of “this is what the public thinks,” as though “the public” came to that conclusion in a vacuum.

No surprise then that trust in media has dropped to a new low.



Brian Beutler of the New Republic also looks at the way news media frames stories. Why doesn't the media have dozens of stories about how Trump lies brazenly? Why so silent on Trump's racism? Why is Clinton's comment about Trump supporters being "deplorable" (or see above about her health) getting so much more attention?

Is it because the media wants to avoid value judgments? Perhaps they're skittish about partisanship? Or the problem is a misguided attempt to maintain balance – by helping out Trump the underdog? Beutler has another explanation:

The press is not a pro-democracy trade, it is a pro-media trade. By and large, it doesn’t act as a guardian of civic norms and liberal institutions—except when press freedoms and access itself are at stake. Much like an advocacy group or lobbying firm will reserve value judgments for issues that directly touch upon the things they’re invested in, reporters and media organizations are far more concerned with things like transparency, the treatment of reporters, and first-in-line access to information of public interest, than they are with other forms of democratic accountability.

Here are examples of how that plays out:

* Clinton is dinged on transparency when the issue is her private email server and when she didn't immediately disclose the pneumonia. The media demands it be allowed to know.

* Trump is dinged when his campaign manager allegedly batters a reporter.

* Trump is dinged when he feuded with the Khan family (whose son died in battle). But it wasn't because they are a Gold Star family, but because Trump may have offended people who would now choose to vote against him.

* Trump is given a pass when he talks about his wall on the Mexican border because there are no press freedom issues in the debate. Same thing when the issue is Trump shredding others constitutional rights.

Quoth the raven

I've got lots of browser tabs. Time to talk about them or let them go.

The Arizona legislature, heavily controlled by the GOP, expanded the state Supremes from 5 members to 7, to be appointed by the GOP governor. Court packing? Lots of Dems think so. GOP legislators say it is just to handle the work load. Besides the other five were appointed by GOP governors.



Now that Trump is the last man standing in the GOP race, what about that lagging confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland for the Supremes? Both Hillary and Bernie are polling much higher than the Donald. Would the recalcitrant senators prefer someone nominated by Hillary? Hint: that person won't be more conservative than Garland. Perhaps they want the clown likely nominated by the Donald? So isn't Garland the best in damage control?



A couple weeks ago Garrison Keillor of A Prairie Home Companion did a parody of The Raven by Edgar Allen Poe. In Keillor's version the refrain has become "Quoth the raven, 'Donald Trump.'" I thought the whole think was delightful and clever. You can listen to it here (it is a radio show) or follow the link to watch it. It is 4 1/2 minutes.



My sister's wife told me she is scared that Trump in the apparent nominee and if he is prez. we're in for a disaster. She is skeptical of polling and of American voters being wise. I hear you.

This may – or may not – be of solace. Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post says the Electoral College math works against Trump. There are 19 states, plus DC, that have have voted for the Dem candidate in each of the last six prez. elections. They have 242 electoral votes. Hillary needs 270. Add in the states that have gone with the Dems in four or five of the last six elections and she's done. Or add in Florida, which has been evenly split.

There are 13 states that have gone for the GOP candidate in the last 6 elections. They total 103 electoral votes. To win this candidate would have to win states that have gone Dem in four of the last six elections. So how did Bush overcome these stats? The Supremes in 2000 and theft of Ohio in 2004.

GOP insiders area already gearing up to blame Trump for the loss rather than see if there is something inherently wrong with their basic message, meaning they would fare no better in 2020.

The real Hillary

I seem to be referencing Melissa McEwen of Shakesville a lot today. There is a good reason for that. She has spent a great deal of time studying the whys and hows of oppression. And there's a big reason for that – she's been on the receiving end of a great deal of it. She now devotes her blog to calling it out.

In one of today's posts McEwen takes a look at why young people have mostly gone for Bernie and not Hillary. Many young will say there is something vaguely untrustworthy about her.

Hillary entered the national stage as Bill ran for and won the presidency in 1992. Both were progressives, thus drawing the ire of conservatives who assumed they were supposed to be in charge. Hillary got an extra dose of misogyny thrown at her. She was characterized as a monster, an idea that mainstream media perpetuated.

That garbage started 25 years ago, sometimes as a whisper, sometimes as a shout. "This decades-long, relentless campaign to create a supervillain, led by the GOP and abetted by the media, is so insidious and ubiquitous that we don't even see it." Which means this noise has been in the background (and sometimes not all that far back) for the entire lives of these 25 year-olds. No wonder they don't trust Hillary.

Remember those emails that Hillary released? McEwen actually read a few hundred of the 3,000. They reveal a woman "who is running for president because she genuinely cares about people." Quite a dramatic contrast from the portrayed monster. And when people meet her, like this one (sweet picture!), they find someone fundamentally different from how she is portrayed.

Will the young voters see the real Hillary? If they do will they face up to having been brainwashed? Or will they continue the untrustworthy narrative?

There are reasons to oppose Hillary. I don't think she will push hard enough on such issues as gerrymandering and corporate money in politics. But arguments against her can be made without invoking the monster created by misogynists. And there are a great number of reasons to support her, including the grace she portrays while all this misogyny is thrown at her.

Gender does matter

So that Iowa thing happened yesterday. Trump was beaten out by Cruz, who isn't any better and Rubio pulled off a strong third, and he isn't any better either (not that the GOP crowd had such a person). At least Carson and Huckabee have decided to go home. We won't miss you.

On the Dem side Bernie and Hillary are almost tied. And O'Malley has gone home. Bye!

Only 9 months to go!

A big part of Bernie's spiel is income inequality and what he would do about it. A few days ago he was introduced at an event by Susan Sarandon, who said, "I'm here because gender is not what's important, the issues are important."

Melissa McEwen of Shakesville disagrees.

You can't talk about income inequality, as but one of a million examples, and say gender doesn't matter, when the means by which income equality is enacted against women is different than how it is enacted against men.

And how it is enacted against women of color is different than how it is enacted against white women. And how it is enacted against trans women is different than how it is enacted against cis women. And black trans women vs. white trans women. And all the other identities that overlap with womanhood: Queer women, women with disabilities, fat women, etc.

Each of these groups are economically marginalized in very specific (and demonstrable) ways, explicitly on the basis of our particular identities.

Presidential

I had recently written about my internal debate between Bernie and Hillary. I'm not the only one pondering that. Melissa McEwen of Shakesville described what she considers when studying candidates (and apparently does a much more thorough job than I do). She reminds us that these are her criteria and don't need to be anyone else's. Even so, they fit my thinking pretty well.

For example: I look at campaign staff, its diversity and its structure and its efficacy and its decency. I look at how candidates respond to crisis and criticism. I look at voter outreach efforts, especially to marginalized populations, where voters are disproportionately likely to be disenfranchised. I look at the precise language used to discuss issues of concern to me. I look at candidates' debating style, and how diplomatic they tend to be during debates and interviews. I look at their negotiating skills. I look at their preparedness and flexibility and versatility. I look at how capable they seem of being able to pivot, when they are proven wrong. I look at their willingness to be accountable for mistakes and fuck-ups and endorsements of shitty policy. I look at the quality of their apologies, and whether they are willing to apologize at all. I look at how much they value transparency.

This is not a complete list, but you get the picture. In addition to policy, I am keen to assess the attributes that I want to see in a president. I want a president who is competent, effective, unflappable, adaptable, accountable. Who knows when to stand their ground and when to compromise. Who understands that diplomacy and negotiation are huge parts of the president's job, and who is a solid diplomat and negotiator.

And I look for examples, on the campaign trail, of how a candidate might respond to something if they were president. ...

McEwen then provided an example. Over the last week and in connection with the Flint, Mich. water crisis the Dem candidates showed what they are made of.

Bernie called on Mich. Governor Rick Snyder to resign. Snyder has apologized and remains in office.

Hillary sent a few staffers to Flint with the message: What can I do to help?

McEwen wrote:

[I]t means something to me that Sanders responds like someone running for president while Clinton responds like someone who is president.

It means something to me too.

Full throated support

As part of the recent Democratic Presidential Debate Bernie Sanders said that we should replace Obamacare with a single-payer healthcare system, essentially Medicare for all. That would greatly simplify the current system and reduce costs with a big chunk of those reductions from eliminating paying profits to health insurance companies.

Hillary Clinton dismissed Bernie's suggestion, saying that is isn't practical. There's no way a GOP controlled House would pass such a bill.

I wrote recently about a lot of progressives hungering for someone to challenge the way gov't works for the rich and not for the majority of voters, which Bernie is championing. I've written many times about Medicare for all, including in the first month of this blog and also here and here and here and here and here and here and here.

Hillary is probably right that a GOP controlled House wouldn't touch Medicare for all. But Bernie said it. In that Michigan Dem primary in March perhaps I should vote for Bernie.

Then there is this. Sigh.

Bernie was asked about his low support among African Americans and Latinos. Bernie's answer was essentially once they get to know me they'll love me. Melissa McEwen of Shakesville notes that Bernie has been around long enough and has a large enough record that is possible – and likely – that minorities do know Bernie and don't like what they see. Leaders of minority groups don't endorse on a whim, they do actual research. If Bernie has to go all the way back to marching with MLK to demonstrate his street cred, something is missing. Such a patronizing tone from Bernie is not a way to build a progressive coalition.

Then Bernie threw a snit when the Human Rights Campaign endorsed Hillary.

I'm not a fan of the HRC and stopped donating years ago. And neither Bernie nor Hillary are long-time champions of our causes (though lately Hillary is definitely now on board). But in an attempt to show he has our backs, Bernie was a bully. That isn't acceptable.

One more factor. A week ago Hillary gave a full throated cry to end the Hyde Amendment. Back in 1976 Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois put a clause in the federal budget saying Medicaid (and I think the federal gov't in general) is prevented from spending money on abortions. That phrase has been renewed in every budget since then. And signed by both GOP and Dem presidents.

That clause isn't a law that needs to be repealed. It simply needs to be left out of future budgets. Which Hillary could refuse to sign if that phrase is still there. Government shutdown? Perhaps. But better in defense of the right to an abortion than over some Tea Party dream of limited (read: oppressive to the poor) government.

Katie Klabusich, writing for The Establishment (in a worthwhile post), goes on to explain what overturning Hyde would do and how much of a big deal this is. She also discusses how the current climate of constantly chopping away at Roe has been accepted by Dems as simply the way things are.

So Hillary is coming out as a champion of the right to an abortion (which, she says, isn't a right if you can't get one) and rights of women (and, no doubt, of others).

Hillary is saying nice words here. But will she follow through once elected? Or is she saying them only to get elected? Klabusich believes Hillary's statements are for real. There is no financial advantage to these statements. She already has the endorsement of the big pro-choice organizations. In addition, these words will be a fundraising bonanza for the GOP. So, yeah, Hillary means it.

Hillary may (correctly) determine that Medicare for all isn't possible yet. She may not be calling for significant government reforms. But she's not a bully and a full throated support for several other progressive causes sounds pretty good right now, especially after all of that trashing of anyone not a white straight male by the GOP.

Hillary is looking pretty good!

If Bernie does become the Dem nominee, he will get my vote because he is way better than any of the GOP candidates. Though if it is the cantankerous Bernie and bullying Donald I may turn off my radio and stop reading newspapers in September.

No finding of wrongdoing

A bit of background and consequences of that Benghazi investigation that included Hillary's 11 hour testimony – From Terrence Heath:

Three years, ten congressional investigations, 32 congressional hearings, 204 witnesses, 11 published reports, and $20 million ($4.5 million for Gowdy’s committee alone) has yielded no findings of wrongdoing, no evidence of an intelligence failure leading up to the attacks, and no evidence of a stand down order.

Rep. Trey Gowdy from South Carolina is the chairperson of the current committee and in charge of Thursday's marathon session.

Many conservatives were annoyed with the show, calling it "a waste of time" and decrying that everything "about it is politicized."
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/22/even_conservatives_admit_the_benghazi_show_trial_was_a_flop_could_make_you_feel_sorry_for_stalin/

It was such a blatant and pointless display of a political inquisition Senate Democrats sent a letter to Reince Priebus, Chair of the Republican National Committee demanding that the RNC pay that $4.5 million rather than the American taxpayer. They support their demand with several reasons: House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said the committee was put together to drive down Hillary's poll numbers. Gowdy and his staff focused on Clinton rather than the actual events in Benghazi. The RNC used the committee as a key point in a solicitation of money.

Of course, the RNC won't pay up. Why do so when the deep pockets of the taxpayer are so available? In addition, that would be an admission that the whole thing was politically motivated.

11 hour circus

Hillary went before the House committee on Benghazi about what went wrong such that the ambassador and a few aides were killed. General consensus of the 11 hour circus: Hillary won. The way she handled these clowns showed she could handle the presidency. As Melissa McEwen of Shakesville put it:

Honest to Maude, if the Republicans had tried to conceive of a way to help Clinton's campaign, they couldn't have done any better than giving her an extended platform on which to present herself as one of nation's best politicians and statespeople, while they hammered away at her in a petty, partisan attack.

The Republicans on the panel were so bad and Hillary was so good there were reports of Republican voters saying Hillary got their vote.

Another indication of her success came during the hour just after the debate in which her campaign had its best hour of online fundraising – and that's without an explicit ask.

Not running for prez.

Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin analyzes the comments of Ted Cruz in an NPR interview. Kincaid concludes:

Which leads me to believe that Ted Cruz is not serious about Presidential aspirations. He’s not saying things that push one down the path to Presidency. Wacko statements like these do not cause donors to support you, papers to endorse you, or fellow politicians to bring their political machine to your service.

They do, however, get media attention and raise your profile in right-wing media. They do fire up the uninformed and earn the adoration of the single minded. As does a “campaign” designed not to win votes but to showcase image.

And, as it turns out, Ted Cruz has a book to sell, A Time For Truth. In the short NPR interview, he manages to mention or reference his book 22 times.

Ted Cruz is not running for President. Ted Cruz is selling a book.

Commenters suggest Cruz is not the only one.

Texas sidestep

For the last few months the Texas legislature has been loudly trumpeting a collection of 23 bills to hinder gay marriage, stop gay rights, or insult gay people. This was a really big show put on for the anti-gay rabble. Out of that basket of conservative goodies only one passed, and that one allows clergy to refuse to officiate at the weddings of gay couples (something already handled by the First Amendment). Somehow the clock ran out before any of the other bills could be passed. So what happened?

Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin has a delightfully snarky explanation, based on reporting by Mark McKinnon of Politico. The Texas Association for Business quietly said we saw what happened in Indiana. Bluster all you want for the masses. But don't do that here.

Alas, the anti-gay rabble is pissed that the legislative session ended and they have so little to show for their efforts. So they've delivered letters to Gov. Greg Abbott to call a special session of the legislature to defend marriage.



A new study by the Pew Research Center found that 48% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people in America identify as Christian, 11% identify with non-Christian faiths, and 41% identify with no religion. In contrast, 72% of straight people identify as Christian, 6% identify with non-christian faiths, and 22% identify with no religion.

The reason: a 2013 survey found large majorities of sexual minorities perceive the major religions and denominations to be unfriendly and 29% were personally made to feel unwelcome.



George Pataki has announced his run for prez. I only mention it because Terrence Heath's commentary about how much Pataki is not a progressive comes with a cool chart from FiveThirtyEight showing how conservative various GOP leaders and hopefuls are. Pataki's problem is that he rates about 14 on a 100 point scale and is at the top of the list while Ted Cruz, at the bottom, rates a 71. Ronald Reagan, the guiding light of the party is rated only about 46.



Memorial Day was originally Decoration Day first celebrated by the black residents of Charleston in 1865. It was to celebrate the end of the war and the end of slavery. The day soon included marking the ongoing racial struggles. But white Supremacists couldn't let that meaning go unchallenged. The meaning of the holiday was shifted to a day to honor those who died in all wars. If you want to properly mark Memorial Day do some protesting on behalf of civil rights.



Several months ago JONAH, the Jewish organization promoting gay conversion therapy, was sued for false advertising. That trial has now begun. The four men who are the plaintiffs are beginning to tell their stories. It ain't pretty.



After record storms and floods in Texas and record heat (pushing 120F) in India, Bernie Sanders, Democratic candidate for president. said:

According to the scientific community, uh, climate change is the great planetary crisis we now face. Do you think we might want to be discussing that issue?

Conservative candidate

Yes, Ted Cruz announced he is running for president. Melissa McEwen of Shakesville describes the announcement this way:

It's pretty sweet that he's making no bones about the fact that he doesn't want to lead "the American people," but definitely just wants to lead conservatives to take back the country from the terrifying grip of moderates and liberals. Fresh take!
…
This is just the perfect Republican candidate, right here: A professional politician who hates government; who makes his living from taxpayer dollars but hates taxation of the wealthy and corporations; who wants to be president of the country, but hates most of it.

From commenter jeannebean:

NPR notes that Cruz was born in Canada and until a few years ago carried dual citizenship. His mother is American. Does he meet the constitution's mandate for "natural born"? The Supremes have never ruled on this situation.

Why aren't the birthers up in arms?

Look me in the eye and say it

As the ball dropped on New Year's Eve New Hampshire began allowing gay couples to marry. Both Iowa and New Hampshire now allow gay marriage and both states start off the next race to the White House. By 2011 both states will have time to get many of their citizens used to the idea. And both are also small enough that candidates get grilled by lots of ordinary citizens rather than reporters. One wonders how they'll react when they look gay couples in the eye. Will they be able to say gays should be second-class citizens? Yeah, some will do it anyway.

And on November 5?

As part of an ongoing series two NPR reporters talked about the election with voters in York, PA. The topic this time around was how will the country be different if led by a black man? First, the positive effect -- black kids would have the ultimate role model. Beyond that the comments from both sides of the racial divide were packed with fear. The whites were afraid that if Obama won blacks would consider this an opportunity for payback of their white oppressors and things could get violent. Blacks were afraid that an Obama win would be intolerable to the most hard-core racists, the ones being stirred up by McCain and Palin, and things could get violent -- at least for Obama. Finally, there is the fear that blacks will turn violent if Obama loses, especially if there is evidence the election was stolen. Hope for a good result on Nov. 4, but be concerned about Nov. 5.

More short notes

I'm way behind on my reading, so here are a few things that came across my radar today. Perhaps I'll comment on the news of the last 3 weeks as I catch up.

Obama decided to forego the $80M of public financing for the fall campaign. He says it isn't because he doesn't believe in clean financing (he does) or because he can raise more than that on his own (likely he can), but because the public financing system is broken, rigged to help lobbyists and special interest groups give unlimited funds to McCain.

The debate of the cause of homosexuality is shifting away from saying it is caused by genetics to exploring how the hormones of the womb interact with the fetus. And that implies that it may be possible to "correct" those hormones so that no baby is born gay. Offended? Sorry, you won't be in the room when the decision is made. Parents already screen for and abort the "wrong" gender. You think parents won't screen for the "wrong" orientation?

Why is it some Fundies are so rigid about the definition of marriage and God's supposed view of gays, yet they find all kinds of wiggle room when discussion torture? That puts them somewhere between hypocrite and heathen.

A laugh: Jon Stewart and the start of gay marriages in California. It is all in about the first 10 minutes.

Advertising with a twist: Mayonnaise so good it is like having a deli in your kitchen. And this is a New York deli.

Watch your irony meter on this one: Why I'm voting Republican.

Pat Paulsen for President!

It was in the old Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour that Pat Paulsen got his big break. Through tongue-in-cheek satire he ran for president in practically every election cycle from 1968 until he died in 1997. But it seems he's still at it, leading the protest vote. He beat out Dennis Kucinich in the recent ill-starred Michigan Democratic Primary even though voters were told that write-in candidates would not be counted. Paulsen's campaign staff just completed a contest for an appropriate slogan for this year's Paulsen campaign. Winning slogans include: "Never Say Die!" and "Join the Pat Paulsen Underground." A contest to nominate his VP (living or dead) has begun This is so much more fun than the actual candidates.

Find more fun here.

Some great quotes are here.