Does It Bother You?

1500943846915

AS ALWAYS, ALL OPINIONS IN THIS BLOG ARE MINE ALONE.

Let’s just say you’re a person who believes in all of Trump’s policies—America First, the travel ban, the Wall, the draining of the swamp—the whole bit. Let’s just say you think the Russia probe is totally bogus, it’s just the lamestream media attacking a man they hate. Let’s just say you even think Putin has been mischaracterized by the press—that he’s a strong leader, a man’s man, and a clear ally of the United States.

Let’s just say all of that is true. I still have a few questions for you:

•Does it bother you that…instead of draining the swamp, Trump has filled his administration with ex Goldman Sachs employees?

•Does it bother you that… he has spent nearly 20% of his presidency on the golf course?

•Does it bother you that…he admitted that he has no intention of reading or even comprehending a Healthcare Bill that will account for 20% of the U.S. economy and affect millions of lives—he just wants to sign something?

•Does it bother you that…he forced his cabinet members to lavish him with praise before that one cringe-inducing meeting?

•Does it bother you that…similarly, his new communication director, in his first press conference, boasted that the president swishes foul shots, throws a “dead spiral” through a tire, and sinks 30 foot putts? (Seriously, isn’t that some Kim Jong Un shit?)

•(Speaking of which) Does it bother you that he…called North Korean leader Kim Jong Un a “pretty smart cookie”?

•Does it bother you that…he hasn’t built the wall, not even close, and that last we heard, he admitted that Mexico probably wasn’t going to pay for it after all?

•Does it bother you that…he allowed Russian-state television into the Oval office but no American TV?

•Does it bother you that…at that same meeting, he divulged top secret intelligence to Russian diplomats in the Oval office?

•Does it bother you that…he lied about the crowd size at his inauguration?

•Does it bother you that…he put his neophyte son-in-law in charge of “Middle East Peace?”

•Does it bother you that… he put that same neophyte son-in-law in charge of the “Office of American Innovation”?

•Does it bother you that…he said “With the exception of the late, great Abraham Lincoln, I can be more presidential than any president that’s ever held this office”? (What the hell does that even mean?)

•Does it bother you that…he’s publicly harassing his Attorney General in the hopes he’ll quit?

•Does it bother you that….he didn’t seem to know who Frederick Douglass was?

•Does it bother you that…his new communications director threatened to sue his chief of staff on Twitter?

•Does it bother you that…he lamely tagged along world leaders during the G12 summit in a golf cart?

•Does it bother you that…German magazine Der Spiegel said that “Trump has turned the United States into a laughing stock”?

•Does it bother you that…Nordic prime ministers mocked his infamous orb photo?

•Does it bother you that…he took that weird orb photo to begin with? (What was up with THAT?)

•Does it bother you that…he engages in petty Twitter fights TV personalities like MSNBC’s Joe and Mika?

•Does it bother you that…his intelligence briefings have been dumbed down, because of his notoriously short attention span?

•Does it bother you that…NATO speeches had to be limited to four minutes or fewer, for the same reason?

•Does it bother you that…he tweets all the damn time from his private account?

•Does it bother you that…he seems to get most, if not all, of his news from Fox & Friends?

•Does it bother you that…he accused the former president of bugging his office, with zero proof?

•Does it bother you that…he seems to have replaced The National Anthem with the Make American Great Again anthem? (That doesn’t feel a little Stalin-y to you?)

•Does it bother you that…188 days into his presidency, he STILL boasts about his general election victory?

•Does it bother you that…188 days into his presidency, he still conducts campaign rallies?

•Does it bother you…people in his administration keep quitting, recusing themselves, or getting fired?

•Does it bother you that…while in front of thousands of Boy Scouts, he told a bizarre and nonsensical anecdote about a debauched billionaire’s yacht?

•Does it bother you that…his speech was so inappropriate the Boy Scouts had to apologize for it?

•Does it bother you that…HE STILL HASN’T SHARED HIS TAX RETURNS?

 

Seriously, folks, does any of this bother you? Not even a little?

 

 

Advertisements

It Follows: Some Thoughts on the “Bernie Would’ve Won” Brigade

tumblr_ok963xAbYT1sug43ho1_500

After Labour Party candidate Jeremy Corbyn had a surprisingly good showing in Thursday’s election, I braced myself for the inevitable and it came: The Bernie Would’ve Won coalition, out in full voice. They’ve been everywhere since the election: in tweets, in memes, even in this one very creepy music video. They WON’T GO AWAY. And the tiniest thing—like an election that was a response to Trump and the wave of white nationalism around the globe—emboldens them.

I have a few thoughts on this brigade that I need to get off my chest. First of all, reasonable people can disagree on whether or not Bernie would’ve won the General Election, I suppose.

You say: Bernie was a populist candidate and America was in a populist mood.
I say: Have you been paying attention to what’s going on out there? The rise of hate crimes and racist rhetoric? Do you really think that Trump’s win was all about economic populism? If so, I have some shares in Sears I’d like to sell you.

You say: Bernie is the most popular political candidate in America. The polls say so!
I say: So was Hillary Clinton right before she ran. Hmmm, what could the difference have been? You do realize that not a single negative ad was aired about Bernie, right? There was no Bernie oppo campaign. No mentions of his unemployment until 40, those weird, misogynist essays that he wrote in his 30s, his dalliances with Castro and other communists, his atheism, which even more than his Judaism, would freak the voters out. Quite the contrary, Karl Rove’s PAC bought ads FOR him.

You say: Hillary had so much baggage, she was bound to lose.
I say: Bernie had baggage too, see above. And Hillary’s so-called “baggage” was minor: A (very secure as it turned out) private email server, not completely different from the Blackberry Colin Powell used when he was SoS; some bad optics with Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton on a tarmac (oh, Bill); the Clinton Foundation, which certainly creates some potential conflicts of interest but is inarguably a force for good in this world.  The baggage came because of the excessive mischaracterization of her as corrupt and maybe even murderous, which came from several sources: the right, Russian propaganda, a clueless and compliant news media, and, mostly damningly, FRIENDLY FIRE from Sanders and Jill Stein supporters. (By the way, you played right into the hands of the Russians, who happily helped to widen that divide. Good job, everybody!)

Okay, but enough about that. Like I said, reasonable people can disagree. The question I kept asking myself is, Why are these people harping on the hypothetical of a Bernie win? We have a legit maniac in the White House, a constitutional crisis playing out right before our very eyes, who cares if the guy who lost the Democratic primary by 4 million votes MIGHT’VE won the General Election? He lost. This is the way politics in this country works. You have a primary, the winner of the primary moves on to the General Election. The winner of the General Election moves into the White House (God help us all). Right now, for example, we’re in the midst of the NBA finals, where the Cavaliers are getting thrashed by the Warriors. I haven’t seen a lot of “The Celtics Would’ve Won” memes.

And then it occurred to me: The Bernie Would’ve Won meme grows out of another false and, frankly, dangerous belief: That the primary was rigged.

Correct me if I’m wrong, Bernie Would’ve Wonners: The reason you keep inundating all of our Twitter timelines with this meme is because he think your guy was robbed. In your view, he should’ve been the candidate, rightly, and therefore it’s fair to continue to obsess on this point to punish those who sought to keep Sanders down. Have I got that right?

But here’s the thing: The primary was NOT rigged. It wasn’t. Go back and read the leaked DNC emails. Here’s what they showed: The DNC preferred Hillary. Big whoop. That was their prerogative, indeed, arguably their very reason for existing—to support the candidate they believed was best for the party and had the best chance to win. And it wasn’t just the DNC who preferred Hillary, mind you, it was virtually every Democratic senator and congressperson (and most newspapers, too.) And it’s not even slightly surprising when you consider that Bernie was an independent, who became a Democrat to get the full credibility and financial support of the party. Did you really think the DNC was going to prefer a Democratic carpetbagger?

So what did those leaked emails show? That one numbskull in the DNC wanted to use Sanders Jewish atheism against him—and was roundly ignored. That the DNC was getting impatient with Bernie when he refused to step down from his campaign, even when it was all but mathematically impossible for him to win. That Donna Brazille, in an overabundance of “helpfulness,” gave Hillary Clinton a debate question she surely knew was coming and on an issue Clinton already had mastery of. That’s it. If anything, Hillary was the one who was robbed. Caucuses massively favored Sanders because many of his supporters were young, unemployed and had the time to caucus. Plus, they were a rowdy, spirited group who could intimate other caucusers. In Washington, Hillary WON THE POPULAR VOTE but lost the caucus and that one still went on the ledger for Bernie. RIGGED!!

P.S. Don’t just take it from me, take it from Melissa Byrne, a former Bernie Sanders staffer:Screen Shot 2017-06-09 at 12.38.01 PM

Look, Sanders exceeded expectations in the primary. It was exciting. It was fun. But he still lost by 4 million votes. That’s a lot! For the love of this country, and for your own sanity (and mine), LET IT GO.

 

I Thought Nick Viall Was Going To Be the Best Bachelor Ever. Boy Was I Wrong.

bachelor1

Sad Nick is sad

I am a shameless and unapologetic Nick Viall backer. I think he’s funny and cute and genuinely sweet and I literally never understood the “villain” edit he got. As far as I could tell, the other guys in the house always hated Nick because:

  1. He was a frontrunner on both Andi and Kaityln’s seasons.
  2. He’s exactly the kind of chatty, emotional guy women tend to like more than men.

To me, the whole “if you didn’t love me, why did you make love to me” controversy from Andi’s After the Final Rose show was overblown. Nick is not a slut-shamer. His behavior before and since has more than demonstrated that. To wit, this tweet*:

And here’s why I thought Nick was going to make a great Bachelor. Two-percent body fat and smoldering blue steel aside, he seems like a guy I could actually hang with. Most of the Bachelors are cocky ex jocks or overly polished “entrepreneurs” or shameless opportunists or God squad types who have the unneurotic confidence that comes from thinking that everything happens for a reason. Nick isn’t polished. He mumbles. He overshares. He likes to gossip—as people do! He actually thinks about things. He seems to love women, and not just for the sex stuff! How refreshing it will be, I thought to myself, to have an actual human being as the Bachelor.

Oops, I was dead wrong. Because Nick is actually a terrible Bachelor—so neurotic, so fretful, so self-questioning he’s taken a lot of fun out of the series. He’s so afraid that he’s not going to find love, he’s sabotaging himself, second guessing everything he does, sending contestants home willy-nilly, crying when he feels an iota of tenderness toward a woman, then crying again when that fleeting feeling goes away.

The Bachelor is a show that thrives on artifice. You have to believe in the process, no matter how absurd the process may be. Of course the odds are slim that your future wife and soul mate is among the 25 women randomly selected for a reality TV competition. I mean, it’s possible (oh hai, Ryan and Trista!), but certainly not likely. Then, you have to give yourself fully to the romance of it all—never asking yourself, Do I really feel this way? Or am I being overly seduced by the various perfectly-timed fireworks displays, sunsets on the beach, helicopter rides, candlelit dinners in castles, private concerts from minor recording artists, and other unrealistic dates that the show handily provides?

Nick sees through the artifice. This is literally the worst thing that can happen to a Bachelor. They have to either buy into the artifice or not care. But Nick cares! He cares a lot!

A lot of focus has been placed on the fact that Nick was burnt by the show twice (well, two and a half times, if you include Bachelor in Paradise, which I don’t) and that’s why he’s been so gun shy. Surely that’s part of it. With both Andi and Kaitlyn, he thought he had found true love and was sent packing. (In particularly humiliating fashion by Kaitlyn, who literally let him get down on one knee. That’s cold.) So yeah, he’s understandably cautious. But I think his biggest problem is that he’s too damn smart for his own good. He knows that the odds of this whole thing working out are slim and he also knows that if he doesn’t find love he’ll be seen as a failure, even a laughingstock. He’s so afraid of failing, he fails. (There’s a lesson here, people.)

What’s more, because of his natural over-sharing tendencies, he tends to be honest-to-a-fault with his dates, giving them a lot of “I wanted to will myself to love you, but I just couldn’t” and “I thought I had feelings for you—sadly I was wrong” type confessions. He even broke down in front of the remaining contestants and told them about his anxieties over finding “the one.” What the hell are they supposed to do with that?

Every once in a while, a glimmer of the Bachelor I thought Nick was going to be shines through. I loved his amused insistence that Alexis was really a shark, not a dolphin. I loved when he laughingly told Corinne, “Didn’t expect you to go full third person there,” when she started dropping a lot of “Corinnes” into her sentences. And he was beyond sweet when he tended to Vanessa after she fell ill during a date. (He even kissed her after she puked—now that’s chivalry.)

But mostly, I was wrong about Nick. I thought I wanted a relatable Bachelor. I don’t. I want a slick, polished, made-for-TV Bachelor who’s either in it for the wrong reasons or too dumb to care. Turns out the surest way to kill reality TV? Too much reality.

*I do, however, judge Nick for spelling judgment wrong.

Things I Blame For Hillary Clinton’s Loss, Ranked

screen-shot-2016-12-03-at-2-42-52-pm

Here is my response to the Slate article, “So We’re Still Blaming Jill Stein and James Comey, Huh?”

This is a partial list of the things I blame, ranked.
(As always, the opinions on this blog are mine alone and do not reflect my employers.)

1-199. MISOGYNY

This is why they chant “lock her up” and “Trump that bitch,” it’s why people can’t quite put a finger on it, but they just don’t like the cut of her jib. It’s why they see her as shrill and scolding and corrupt; not sufficiently warm, not the kind of person they want to grab a beer with. It’s why, following a tried-and-true pop culture paradigm—from Lady Macbeth to Claire Underwood—they see her as hungry for power and willing to do anything—even murder—to get what she wants. It’s why 2016’s answer to most election-related questions is, “It’s the misogyny, stupid!”

200. BERNIE SANDERS

I know this is going to piss a lot of people off, but so be it. I think Sanders, who fortified the recurring narrative that Hillary was a corrupt neoliberal and part of a rigged system, did more damage than anyone else. He turned millions of young people against Hillary—and countless independents, no doubt, too.

Yes, he ultimately campaigned for Hillary, but did so half-heartedly, through pursed lips and slumped body language, bashing Trump but rarely praising Hillary. One could almost see the thought bubble over his head: “This should’ve been me.”

201.FAKE NEWS

This, like almost everything on this list, is a subset of the misogyny. But these were among the stories that were circulating on the web—and that people believed—about Hillary Clinton during the campaign.

  • She’s got Parkinson’s or MS and is covering it up.
  • She has a body double, whom she trots out when she is too ill to appear in public
  • She murdered a DNC staffer, among many others
  • She exchanged “signals” with Lester Holt from the debate stage.
  • She runs a child pedophilia ring out of pizza parlor in D.C. (No, really!)

I could go on…

202. JAMES COMEY

When FBI director James Comey announced that his office would not be filing charges against Hillary Clinton, he did it in the most scolding, damning language possible. His statement, where he called her “extremely careless,” was unprecedented. Nonetheless, the Clinton campaign took this embarrassing public reproach and thanked him, happy the whole thing was behind them. Oh, if only they had been so lucky. Not content to have damaged her reputation with his public statement, Comey waited until 11 days before the election to announce that he was reopening the case, investigating new emails related to Anthony Weiner. (The Weiner bit was a particularly damning touch, reminding people of Bill’s infidelities.) As the Trump campaign celebrated and gloated— and Americans were essentially told: This is who Clinton is, a woman who will be forever dogged by scandal—a hasty release was issued a day before the election, clearing Clinton (again!) of all wrongdoing (the emails on Weiner’s server were duplicates). This was the biggest November Surprise in the history of November Surprises and it never should’ve happened.

203. RUSSIA/WIKILEAKS

I love how we’re all pretending that Russia didn’t have a clear horse in the race—Trump—and didn’t do everything in their power—hacking the DNC, hacking John Podesta, disseminating fake news—to get him elected. While we weren’t looking, Russia just won an information war against us.

204. THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

Eventually, they got better at calling out Trump for his lies, incompetence, and corruption, but they continued to act as though Hillary’s emails were an equally big deal (they spent three times as much time discussing her emails as they did on all of her policy proposals combined), and continued to let Trump’s surrogates run roughshod over cable news, assassinating Hillary’s character (remember the handcuffs?) and lying about her, smugly, sanctimoniously, and with impunity. Quite simply, the media failed us.

205. JILL STEIN

That light-weight, publicity-seeking bourgeois hippie gave disenchanted Bernie or Busters a place for their protest vote, and continued the absurd narrative that Hillary was just as bad as Trump.

Yes, this matters, despite snide Slate articles suggesting otherwise:

screen-shot-2016-12-03-at-2-58-45-pm

205a. You’re on my list too, Susan Sarandon.

206. THE 96 MILLION WHO DIDN’T VOTE

What the hell is wrong with you people?

207. VOTER SUPPRESSION

Some people who wanted to vote couldn’t. Without the protections of the Voting Rights Act, Republicans were able to suppress the vote in several key states.

208. HILLARY’S MESSAGE

Bernie made promises: Free college! Trump made promises: Build that wall! Save American jobs! But Hillary, a policy wonk who understands the nature of incremental change, could never bring herself to spout slogans. I don’t think she should’ve made false promises, necessarily, but perhaps a few concrete soundbites would’ve gone a long way.

209. HILLARY’S CAMPAIGN

They should’ve had her hold rallies in Wisconsin, ffs. They took their eye off the ball.

210. HILLARY’S SUPPORTERS

We took to the corners of the Internet for a variety of reasons—mostly because of (duh) the misogyny. But we should’ve been louder and prouder and worn our allegiance in public, shutting down the narrative that we were unenthusiastic. I was a pretty public supporter. But that being said, I can’t tell you how many times I expressed my devotion to Hillary—and my anger at the unfair, widespread anti-Hillary tactics—in a locked FB group when I should’ve been screaming it from the rafters.

Things I don’t blame:

1. HILLARY HERSELF.

She won every debate. She came up with well thought out, concrete plans to govern. She carried herself with dignity and grace, despite all the endless, misogynist shit that was hurled at her. She was nothing short of heroic.

2. IDENTITY POLITICS

Because seriously, fuck that.

How MSNBC Screwed Over Hillary Clinton (Not you, Joy Reid and Lawrence O’Donnell)

screen-shot-2016-11-11-at-2-10-44-pm

As always, the opinions in this blog are strictly my own.

Any discussion of how MSNBC let Hillary Clinton down has to start with Joe Scarborough, of course. Before the station made its recent, concerted shift to the center, he was MSNBC’s token Republican, so perhaps it stands to reason that he would support Trump. His co-host Mika Brzezinski, however, was the real disappointment. There was a time when she was a reliably left-leaning, even feminist, foil to Scarborough’s smug, jokey, right wing bonhomie. But something happened in the last year, fueled by her inexplicable hatred toward Hillary Clinton and her starry-eyed adoration of her cohost—she joined Joe in normalizing the greatest threat our country has seen in my lifetime.

This was the most horrifying aspect of Morning Joe. Both Mika and Joe have socialized with Trump and consider him a friend. They believe that the charming (allegedly) man they’ve shmoozed with at cocktail parties is the real Trump, not the bloviating, rage-filled fascist we saw on the stump. In fact, with the smirking cynicism that is their hallmark, they made fun of the people who saw Trump as a global threat. In the primaries, they gloated, because they had pegged him as a serious contender from the start. (This is true.) So instead of being horrified by the fact that this Cheeto-faced con artist could win the presidency, they did a victory lap. Around that time, a rumor began circulating that Joe was a potential Trump VP candidate. His credibility as a “journalist” in jeopardy, Joe got sober for a few weeks, even penning an editorial in the Washington Post calling for Trump to step down. But once he saved face, he went back to laughing over all the “liberal elites” who were wetting their pants over a potential Trump presidency. Meanwhile, the sycophants around the table mostly got in line—taking for granted Mika and Joe’s characterization of Clinton as grim, uninspiring, and corrupt to the bone, and reveling in how wrong the media had been about their boy Trump.

But the lightweights on Morning Joe weren’t the only MSNBC personalities that let Hillary down. The general trajectory of the station went like this. In the primaries, the story was all about Bernie and his youthful revolution, with all Hillary conversation focused on her apparent deficiencies: Why don’t young people like her? Why isn’t she more inspiring? What is she so unlikable? Why can’t she reduce her message to soundbites the way Bernie can?

If you watched the primaries through the lens of MSNBC, you’d be pretty convinced that Bernie was winning. Rarely was it mentioned that she had a substantial lead and, what’s more, there was a bad faith assumption that what support she had was unenthusiastic. There was never an attempt to find her supporters, and ask why many had retreated to the sidelines. (I tackled that a bit here.)

In the general election, the myriad Trump outrages were covered, but Trump surrogates were always brought in to defend their candidate, which generally meant leaning heavily on hyperbolic, anti-Clinton talking points. With a few notable exceptions, their outrageous, mean-spirited claims were rarely challenged. What’s more, the email scandal was never put in context—namely that it grew out of the protracted and partisan Benghazi hearings which were a known GOP witchhunt (and of which she was, again, found to have done no wrong) and that Colin Powell, himself, also used a private email account. (The “private server” sounded nefarious—and was always treated as such—but if you looked closer, you’d see that it had been set up by Bill Clinton years earlier and just happened to be where the Clintons conducted their personal business.)

One of the worst MSNBC offenders was Andrea Mitchell, who relentlessly grilled Hillary about her emails and seriously engaged with absurd conspiracy theories about Clinton’s health. Other offenders included Chris Matthews, who was nominally pro-Hillary during the general election, but couldn’t quite conceal his glee over Trump’s larger than life personality and populist tendencies. Other Hillary foes on MSNBC included Mark Halperin, a known Trump lackey, and Meet the Press‘s Chuck Todd, who routinely salivated all over Trump campaign director Kellyanne Conway. (“Don’t forget to enjoy the moment,” he sweet-talked her the night before the election, after congratulating her on a what a great job she had done.)

The redoubtable Chris Hayes was certainly anti-Trump, but never fully pro-Hillary. (He was a Bernie guy.) Rachel Maddow was a little better on that front, but never as enthusiastic as I might have hoped. Only Joy Reid and Lawrence O’Donnell were committed, enthusiastic Hillary truth-tellers. (I won’t say supporters, they just saw her without the cynicism and entrenched negative bias of their colleagues.) Joy Reid, in particular, was the only MSNBC host who could take on the unfair and transparent tactics of Trump surrogates with facts and the appropriate amount of disgust.
The truth is, Hillary was at a disadvantage across all cable news, even without the help of biased hosts. Her surrogates tended to be reasonable people, who answered direct questions, stuck to the facts, and played by the rules. As I said, his surrogates tended to be blowhards and liars, who never answered direct questions and pivoted to anti-Hillary talking points. (Famously, although not on MSNBC, one of Trump’s supporters brandished a pair of handcuffs mid-interview to demonstrate how Hillary should be behind bars.)

There’s a lot of blame to go around for Hillary’s loss on Tuesday, but I look squarely at the so-called liberal station (it’s really not anymore), which parroted right-wing conspiracy theories about Clinton, gave much airtime to Trump’s merry band of  bullies and liars, and started with a baseline characterization of the Democratic nominee as corrupt and uninspiring. How terribly, terribly sad.