Harris v. Biden - An Anatomy of a Political Attack

This post was going to be a post rating the contenders after the Democratic debates. But the more I wrote and thought about it, the more I realized what I want to write about is the attack that Kamala Harris laid on Joe Biden. It was probably the most powerful political attack I've seen in a primary debate. Even though Biden's hit on Rudy Giuliani was powerful ("a noun, a verb, and 9-11"), it came across the aisle. This was a Democrat on Democrat hit, and it's brilliance is reflected in the recent CNN poll which shows Biden's support down 10 points from last week. He has literally lost 1/3 of his support in one week. 

Now, there was a time when Joe Biden was capable of greatness. His persona was that of a family patriarch who'd put his arm around your shoulder and call you "champ" and tell you that everything would be okay. He single-handedly destroyed Rudy Giuliani's political career. And he gave the Obama Administration that personal touch that Obama could never give (because of white racism). Even the Onion loved Diamond Joe.

At the same time, Joe Biden was also capable of being an immense jackass. His glad-handing could veer into groping, he plagiarized speeches, and his policy decisions on Iraq, race relations, bankruptcy laws, and his handling of the Clarence Thomas hearings were atrocious. In many ways, Biden represented the worst of Obama's policy choices - the desire for consensus and compromise over doing the right thing. 

Going into the debate, Biden's rationale for his candidacy was he was electable, and his election would be a return to Obama's policies. Kamala Harris' hit on Biden shredded both rationales. First, candidates who are electable don't fuck up debates. Yes, you can look bad in a debate, but this hit on Biden for his kind words to segregationists and his opposition to busing, had been a part of the primary campaign for weeks prior to the debate. And in fact, the Democratic Party voters have moved to the left on race issues, in large part due to Obama. So, he knew or should have known that this hit was coming. 

And had he been prepared (as he absolutely should have been), Biden could have used a line from Obama to turn the hit around. I know it's been awhile but Obama faced an issue regarding his old pastor who, in voicing his anger toward race issues in the U.S., shouted "God Damn America!" Obama responded with one of the great American speeches which revolved around the idea that people change, and their views evolve. Had Biden referenced that speech, the hit would have died.

Instead, he blundered for a response to a prepared attack. And yes, it was a prepared attack, as Harris is now selling fucking t-shirts with the attack's main line on it. That begs the question, if Biden can blunder into an attack that everyone could see was coming, how the fuck is going to deal with Fox News and Donald Trump in the general election? He's not.

The other big problem with the hit on Biden is that it undermines his second rationale that his Administration would be a continuation of the Obama Administration. Not surprisingly, it's pretty clear that Biden is no Obama. But more importantly, unlike Obama, Biden isn't African American. He has never had to deal with racism, and race relations aren't personal to him. When Obama was community organizing, Biden was palling around with racist Senators. 

At the same time, the hit itself was also effective because it was personal. Harris was directly affected by Biden's policy choices, and she used the stage to air her legitimate grievances. It was masterful in planning and execution. I have watched more than my share of debates over my lifetime, and the closest thing I've seen to Harris' attack on Biden was Bentsen's infamous "you are no Jack Kennedy" line. But even that line wasn't as devastating as Harris' attack. Bentsen's line to Quayle was a throwaway. Harris' attack was a sustained policy discussion. It. Was. Brilliant.

So, that being the case, where does this leave the race? Well, I think Harris and Warren will continue to rise in the polls. The reality is both are better than all the other candidates. Warren has shed her goofy persona and turned into a fiery policy wonk. Harris just demonstrated that she can turn an attack into a multi-day story (a talent unto itself). I suspect that we'll see a race of Sanders (who has his own constituency which exists unto itself), Harris, and Warren by the time Iowa is done.

Trump's Key Weakness in 2020.

I've been blogging more or less since the Bush Administration, which. . .shit. . .is a long time. In that time period, I've been thinking about politics and writing about politics on a very part-time basis (being a lawyer and father of young children will do that). But in that time, I've developed a theory of politics and negative hit pieces - hit pieces about something obvious don't work.

By way of example, with Bill Clinton, the GOP went nuts trying to convince everyone that Bill Clinton was a world-class sleazeoid, and that we shouldn't vote for him. The problem with that attack was that (a) the sleaze stuff was often overblown (but not always, as was the case with his affair with an intern); and, (b) most voters pegged Clinton as a sleaze early on, and were okay with it. As a result, the attacks on Clinton got more desperate, and were ignored. And when Clinton did actually do something sleazy, no one batted an eyelash. Similarly, attacks on George W. Bush for stupidity and Barack Obama for being a black guy with a Muslim name were equally dismissed by the voters.

No, the worst hits on politicians are the ones that the politician doesn't see, but which can be backed up. Romney being exposed as a plutocrat with his "47%" remark was brutal because it wasn't something he could walk away from, and you could connect the dots through his policies. Al Gore being exposed as a politician who exaggerated his statements (normal), hurt him because it wasn't a hit he was expecting. John Kerry being attacked as a flip-flopper fed into his years of being in the Senate (I voted for it before I voted against it). These are the kinds of hits that bring down politicians.

With Trump, the obvious hit is that he's a chaotic, racist monster, who's almost certainly on the take. As in, there is literally a lawsuit ongoing about Trump accepting gifts (bribes) from foreign entities. And the key issue in that lawsuit is not whether Trump is on the take, but whether he can be sued for being on the take. But that sort of hit won't affect Trump's numbers because everyone knows Trump is a racist, chaotic monster who's on the take. Those sort of hits won't change any minds.

But there is a hit that will work - point out that Trump, despite his rhetoric, is a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. From the moment Trump has taken office, every single policy choice has been supported by Republicans, including ending the ACA as we know it. He is, for all intents and purposes, a rank-and-file Republican.

Now, you might wonder why that argument is somehow more devastating than attacking Trump for the myriad of scandals the roll through every single day. The answer is simple - in 2016, Trump ran against a huge field of Republicans, and beat every single one because he: (a) had over a billion dollars of free media; and (b) ran against Republican policies. Trump supported increased infrastructure spending, keeping the protections for pre-existing conditions in health care, protecting Medicare and Social Security, and promised government protections for those hurt by the changing economy. The other two Republicans who survived into the primaries - Ted Cruz and John Kasich - were equally unorthodox in their approach. The regular standard bearers - Jeb Bush, etc., - were wiped from the map early on. And keep in mind, this was among Republican primary voters.

Similarly, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, and the guy who's the biggest standard bearer for the Republican establishment regularly has approval ratings below 30 percent, which indicates that even among Republican voters, McConnell is not well liked. In fact, Ted Cruz's presidential campaign got traction when he openly condemned McConnell as a liar on the floor of the U.S. Senate. And in fact, since 1988, the GOP has won a majority of the popular vote only twice - in 1988 and 2004. 

What we also saw in the 2018 mid-terms was a Democratic Party that focused on Republican policies more than on Donald Trump's insanity itself. And it was in that election that the Democratic Party annihilated the GOP.  Indeed, if you look at the policy, from gun control to taxes (yes, taxes), to health care to education to immigration, to most issues, the Democratic Party is closer to what the average voter wants policy-wise than the GOP. And Donald Trump's policies are no exception.

And that's where I think Trump is vulnerable. He's not a transformative politician, or the new face of the GOP, or the next coming of Andrew Jackson, he's a Republican who's not very good at his job. 

Rating the Contenders - Early Edition

QUICK NOTE ABOUT THIS POST:

I wrote this a couple of weeks ago, and completely forgot that I forgot to post it. So, the opinions are about two weeks old. In my next post, I'll update my opinions.

So, in my last post, I wrote about how the polls are stacking up, and how, mostly, it's all about name ID right now. Since then, Jamelle Bouie wrote a particularly good article about the prospects of 2020  candidates. The baseline of the article is that white candidates are a bit behind the curve because they have to demonstrate to minority voters that they understand the troubles these voters face every day. Bernie in 2016 was hit by this pretty hard.

And Bouie is right, by the way. One thing that never really was discussed in 2008 was the ability of Obama to appear to Democratic voters as being more liberal than he actually was. Because he was African American, because he went through the trials and tribulations of being the child of a single parent, and then became a community organizer, and then became an attorney, Obama was able to connect to minority voters instantly while at the same time, being moderate enough to swing white voters. As a result, he was able to attack Clinton from her left and her right simultaneously, while also not having to take extreme positions that would turn off voters in the general election. Anyway, it's a really good article and I highly recommend it.

With all that said, here are some of the contenders for the 2020 nomination, and my initial thoughts:

Bernie Sanders: Bernie Sanders, as I said before, probably ran in 2016 as a last hurrah. Sanders spent decades in the Senate not doing much of anything but being a Socialist. He didn't pass any legislation, or really try to. Nor did he try to cobble together a caucus of some kind on the Hill, despite not really having to work for reelection. That changed in 2016, when he ran against Clinton, and did relatively well. Now, keep in mind, he was helped by Russian trolls, and he was running on Clinton's left, where she was weak. Suddenly, he's on the national stage, and he hasn't done much. I don't see him breaking through in 2020.

Beto O'Rourke: Beto ran against Ted Cruz and almost won. He has good-ish name recognition, is young, and fairly progressive. People like Beto. As a result, Sanders' supporters have been attacking Beto, which is foolish because if Beto does run for President, it'll be to raise his national profile before he drops out the race to take on John Cornyn. Beto is young enough to think 2028, not 2020.

Stacey Abrams: The former candidate for Governor of Georgia was absolutely robbed by her opponent, who engaged in every disgusting trick in the book to prevent Abrams' supporters from voting. By all rights, she should be the Governor - unlike Beto who never really stood a chance of winning, but made it really, really close. I think if she runs in 2020, she'll do so, like Beto, to raise her profile for later runs for other office.

Elizabeth Warren: I don't think Warren is going to be the nominee. She'll run, and push the field to the left, and may even be the frontrunner at some point, but I don't know if she's savvy enough. The whole DNA test thing left a bad taste in a lot of mouths and showed she wasn't quite ready for the big stage. Also, her energy is more VP than Presidential. Now, that can change, and it often does, but I have concerns.

Joe Biden: When Joe ran in 2008, it was a Last Hurrah sort of campaign, and it ended up with Biden being a really good VP for 8 years. Probably one of the best because of how he contrasted with Obama. And the Onion articles for Diamond Joe are priceless. But I don't think Biden is the guy. He's too old, and too awkward at this point.

Corey Booker: A definite contender. He's smart, energetic, and the office of President suits him better than being a Senator. When Corey Booker was mayor of Newark, he practically walked the streets like Batman. Seriously. The dude saved a few lives, etc. There are two big issues with the Senator: (1) his Senatorial tenure is good, not great, and (2) he's single. Of the two, the single-ness is a problem for me. Having a spouse is a good tell socially that underneath it all, the person is still a lovable human being. Hell, even Donald Trump is married. Now, if Corey is gay, that would explain his not being married up to a certain point, but same sex marriage is now legal.

Kamala Harris: Another strong contender. Super smart, tremendously capable, and has been known to give powerful speeches. Her only weakness is her newness to the Senate, but that's hardly a handicap, as we saw with Obama in 2008. Plus, unlike Obama, she held statewide elective office in California. And to that end, since California is my home state, being able to run in California for Attorney General and the U.S. Senate, both plum jobs, and win them in a field as crowded as the California Democratic Party says a lot. To do that as an African American and a woman? Basically unheard of. I wouldn't be surprised if she's the nominee.

Kristen Gilibrand: A good candidate but with two big strikes against her. First, her initial career was that of a hard-nosed prosecutor type. That will hurt her with African American voters. Second, she (rightly) pushed out Al Franken from the Senate for his antics with women. While Al didn't do anything remotely near what Trump did, it was still creepy, and he deserved to be bounced from the Senate. On the other hand, what does she bring to the table that Harris doesn't? Not much.

Amy Klobuchar: The Senator from Minnesota is a surprising candidate for President to me. Klobuchar never struck me as someone with rock star potential. At the same time, I never thought Trump's candidacy would go anywhere, so what the hell do I know. Her outward appearance of a mildly mannered Minnesotan would certainly be a good contrast to Donald Trump. I am concerned of reports that she's tough to work for (her staffers tend to come and go quickly, apparently), but I don't have a lot of information one way or the other.

Sherrod Brown: The rumpled Senator of Ohio is definitely running for President because he recently got a haircut that doesn't require much combing. Definitely progressive, blue collar, and seems to be a good guy. His wife, Connie Schultz, is a national treasure of a columnist, which certainly says good things about Brown. I don't see him taking the nomination, but he'll do well in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Steve Bullock: Aside from being the Governor of Montana, I have no idea who he is. Could be great, could suck. No idea.

John Hickenlooper: Another Governor I don't know enough about. Still, he comes from a blue-ish state that became a bluer state under his watch. Also, started a brewery, so there's that.

Bloomberg/Tom Steyer: I'm grouping the billionaires, but that's because I don't think either has much of a shot. Of the two, Steyer has the best shot because Bloomberg presided over the stop and frisk policies of the NYPD, which pretty much kills him with Democratic primary voters. Meanwhile, Steyer has been making friends. My guess is that Steyer gets offered a position with the DNC post-2020.

Swalwell, Garcetti, etc.: There are a bunch of other minor candidates who are in the running who have no shot. I suspect that Swalwell and Garcetti are running for President because they are looking to run for office statewide in California, and need something to stand out of the pack of Democrats.

Now, again, these are really early views, and more about my own personal views of each candidate.

A Brief Meditation on Racism and White Supremacy

As we sit here on the day memorializing the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a towering figure of the fight for equal rights by African Americans, I think it's time I finally write down my thoughts regarding racism and white supremacy. The thing about these two concepts is that many people think of them as one in the same. In reality, white supremacy is to racism as AIDS is to HIV. Racism infests and corrupts for years before it turns into full blown white supremacy. As a result, all white supremacists are racists, but most racists are not white supremacists.

To explain further, my definition of white supremacy is someone who has made an active political choice to view non-white persons as less important than white persons. Or, in most cases, the white supremacist views non-white persons as less than people. The fight that Dr. King fought for so long was against white supremacy of the South. As a matter of law in the South, African Americans were less persons. This view of white supremacy was aided by a United States Supreme Court that was horrifically regressive until FDR literally bullied them into the 20th Century (if you want to see a really awful opinion, read Buck v. Bell, a real gem of horror by none other than Oliver Wendell Holmes).

But at the same time, Dr. King also saw that the root cause of white supremacy was racism - the unconscious, subconscious, or semi-conscious fear of other races. Because our society was founded on racism - with African Americans and Native Americans legally being determined to be 3/5ths of a person, with latent fears of Muslims based on terrorism, Jews for alleged greediness and conspiracy, Mexicans for perceived laziness - we are all infected by racism. As President Obama used to say, racism was our "original sin." Like the Original Sin in the Bible, we are all cursed by it.

That includes me. Despite my strong belief in equal rights, and my former connection with a civil rights organization (who I would probably still be working for but for the fact that they couldn't afford to pay me), my work on campaigns for African American candidates, I have said and done things that were racist. And it was only upon being challenged on those acts and statements, or upon my later reflection, that I realized my own racism. It has infected me, and I will always struggle to eliminate it.

Unlike Original Sin, no baptism will wash away the original sin of racism. The blood of martyrs, like Dr. King and Medgar Evers, though there is plenty of it, will not wash it away either. Rather, we must endeavor to purge ourselves, and teach our children better. What's more, we have to teach our children to do the same. And teach them to teach their children.

Now, such reflection and such teaching is really hard to do. I was reminded of this last night as I was trying to explain to my daughter who Dr. King was. But how do explain racism to a four year old?! Especially one who has watched enough Disney to know that kings deserve crowns, and people on their birthdays deserve birthday tiaras. But that is my charge.

Because the alternative is the horror that we see now. Rather than purge himself of racism, Trump luxuriated in it. He used his racism as a cudgel to bash his way into the public spotlight, and now our government is shutdown - used as a hostage so that Trump can get his memorial to white supremacy. In the meantime, he tears children from their parents at the Border for no reason than to cause horror and trauma. The cruelty of his immigration policies is the point. His supporters, proudly wearing their MAGA hats behave as mobs, threatening old Native Americans.

One last point, I remember that I was once told that to call a white person a racist is the same as calling an African American the n-word. The more I have reflected on that statement, the more I ashamed I am, for I should have spoken up at the moment, and told the person how horrifically wrong they are. Because no white person was ever hung from a tree while being called a racist. No white person was ever dragged from the back of a truck while being called a racist. Or set on fire. Or whipped, or raped, or suffered the brutality of enslavement. Or shot, and left to bleed to death on the street. Or suffer any one of the daily indignities of that minorities live with every single day.

Being called a racist is not a prelude to losing one's civil rights. Rather, it is a wake-up call. It is a moment to realize that your actions are now perceived as being racist. Are those actions/statements racist? Has the infection of racism affected you in this moment? Remember, being a racist need not include being a white supremacist. And even if the person is wrong, and your thoughts/statements/actions were not racist, or your intent was not racist, we must still engage in that reflection, lest we fall.