"The success rate of getting to a candid place with politicians is very small... and this is somebody who’s divisive and controversial and has a history that’s somewhat sordid..."

"... not by any fault of her own, but I just didn’t see where I could go with that."

Said Marc Maron, quoted in "Liberal comic Marc Maron who helped popularize podcasting explains why he turned down Hillary Clinton interview" (NY Post).

Not by any fault of her own?! What suddenly happened to the asserted desire to speak from "a candid place"?

The article doesn't say the Clinton team pushed to have her on Maron's podcast, only that his producer "pitched Clinton, fresh off her loss... in the 2016 election." He said "You’re the guy to do this" and Maron "adamantly disagreed."

Was he afraid he wouldn't get to a candid place or that he, at least, ran the risk of being candid in a way that would hurt the Democrats.

Of course, Mamdani takes advantage of the existing law, living in rent-stabilized apartment, paying a mere $2,300 a month for a 1-bedroom in Queens.

But Andrew Cuomo is challenging him. "[M]ove out immediately," he wrote on X. "[G]ive your affordable housing back to an unhoused family who need it. Leaders must show moral clarity. Time to move out."

Where is Cuomo, in his "moral clarity," living these days? And would he be forefronting this issue if he had scored the nomination, as he'd expected? I think it's only because Mamdani got the nomination that Cuomo talking about rent-stabilization, which is a problem, but not one that could be solved by trying to guilt-trip the beneficiaries of it to move out of their apartments.

This reminds me of the time Hillary Clinton tried to shame Donald Trump out of using the tax advantages that are written into the law:

"The whole thing is hard for me to write. I couldn't sleep for two years after the election. I was so angry, I wasn't fit to be around."

"I apologize to all those who endured my outbursts of rage, which lasted for years and bothered or bored people who thought it pointless to rehash things that couldn't be changed...."

Writes Bill Clinton in his new book, quoted in "Bill Clinton makes stunning confession about his bizarre behavior after Hillary's defeat in America's 'darkest election'" (Daily Mail).

Presumably, he means he didn't sleep well. The assertion that he couldn't sleep for 2 years is patently untrue. He's still alive.

Clinton also writes in a mode that would be called "election denialism" if it were pro-Trump: "Almost two years after the election, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a highly regarded social scientist said Russia's cyber attacks piled on top of Comey's interventions were effective enough to persuade voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to vote for third parties or stay at home. If so, Putin's enablers were Comey and the political press."

What about the Russia hoax that Hillary participated in?! Shouldn't that balance the effect of "Russia's cyber attacks"?

What were the "cyber attacks"? Here's Kathleen Hall Jamieson's book, "Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President: What We Don't, Can't, and Do Know" (Amazon Associates link). From a 2018 New Yorker article about that book:

Trump's word: "fight."

I have a simple point to make, but before I do, I want to acknowledge that "fight" was also Hillary Clinton's word, and here we see the music video shown at the 2016 Democratic National Conviction and it's full of celebrities brimming with determination to fight (for what we know they went on to lose):

Trump won in 2016, and he went on to lose — or are you one of the millions who think he won? — in 2020, and now he's fighting to win again. Out there fighting, we know what happened in Butler, Pennsylvania, and we know that "fight" was Trump's word in the most immediate dire moment:

"Some scholars have been surprised by their findings about gender and how candidates translate to viewers."

"One experiment enlisted actors to re-create a Clinton-Trump debate — repeating lines, gestures and facial expressions but with the genders swapped. Audience members were asked about their views afterward.... 'That project was really shocking for me,' said Joe Salvatore, a New York University professor who co-led the experimental performance. He had thought that viewers would react more negatively to a female Trump and more positively to a male Clinton because of gender bias — for instance, an aversion to a confrontational woman. But plenty liked that the female Trump was 'strong' and 'concise' — and conversely took issue with how much the male Clinton was smiling."

From "Analysts say Trump faces risks heightened by gender when he debates Harris/Political analysts say there are particular risks for Donald Trump — heightened by gender — in coming across as a bully when he debates Kamala Harris" (WaPo).

I blogged about Salvatore's project back in 2017 — with video of the gender-reversed debate. What a revelation! Watch:

I think it's great that the audience appreciated a woman talking like Trump and didn't like the Hillary mannerisms in a man. And Kamala Harris has a lot of feminine style that I'm afraid comes across as subordinate: the laughing, the smiling, the whole-body shaking, the nodding of the head as if desperate for approval, the ever-changing voice. It doesn't show leadership ability, and we can see why Trump is getting mileage out of saying that world leaders will "walk all over her" and "She'll be like a play toy."

"It’s the stuff of #Resistance dreams: Kamala Harris, the prosecutor, gets onstage in Philadelphia next Tuesday across from Donald Trump, the felon, and proceeds to brutally expose him..."

"... as a racist and sexist con man who’s been lying to the American people ever since his famous escalator ride nine years ago. Only that’s not how she or her debate-prep team sees her main objective for the debate — at all. In mock-debate sessions in Pittsburgh, planning meetings in Washington, and briefing-book cram sessions between public events on the campaign trail, the vice-president and her aides have kept much of their focus on fine-tuning ways to keep presenting her as representative of a new political era for the benefit of curious voters who are still interested in learning more about her — and who may swing the race come November... 'She’s not known in the way Donald Trump is,' says one senior Democrat who used to work for Joe Biden and is now close to the Harris campaign’s leaders. 'It’s an opportunity to define herself....'"

Writes Gabriel Debenedetti, in "Why Kamala Isn’t Preparing to Knock Out Trump at the Debate/To her campaign, something else is more important" (NY Magazine).

Hillary Clinton can't talk straight about whether Kamala Harris has sought out her advice on how to debate Donald Trump.

I'm reading "Hillary Clinton Has Advice on Debating Trump: ‘He Can Be Rattled’/The 2016 Democratic nominee fell short to Donald Trump, but she had strong debate moments against him. In an interview, she offered some thoughts for Kamala Harris" (NYT).

"The consensus was that I won all three debates and that I was well prepared," Mrs. Clinton said.

That rather suggests that she doesn't have the secret to besting Trump in a debate. Everyone around her told her she was winning, so she knows what it means to win. Obviously not.

And this was funny:

Have you talked with Harris about this debate?

He doesn’t answer the questions. He doesn’t come with any specifics. It appears from the reporting that he is going with a scorched-earth approach and will just try to tear her down, which is his usual go-to strategy.

She didn't answer the question when she answered a question by saying "He doesn’t answer the questions." The question was "Have you talked with Harris about this debate?" I'm going to infer that the answer is no. I can also infer that one piece of advice she would give KH if she were asked is: Any question you don't want to have to answer can be reimagined as a question you do feel comfortable answering.

A NYT article I'd be more interested in reading if my search of the page had turned up one name — Donna Brazile.

The article: "Trump Questions Fairness of Next Week’s Debate at a Town Hall/Former President Donald J. Trump, at a Fox News event, insisted without evidence that Vice President Kamala Harris was 'going to get the questions in advance.'" 

Why Donna Brazile needed to be there for me to take this "insisted without evidence" business seriously: "Interim Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile is coming under fire Monday after a newly released WikiLeaks email indicated she gave Hillary Clinton’s team an explicit heads-up about debate questions last spring." (October 31, 2016, CBS News).

From the new NYT article: "Pointing to Vice President Kamala Harris’s longtime friendship with a senior executive whose portfolio includes ABC News, Mr. Trump insisted without evidence that Ms. Harris was 'going to get the questions in advance.' The network released agreed-upon rules that no topics or questions would be provided to either candidate or campaign."

How much "evidence" in advance does Trump need before he's entitled to waft his suspicion about something that, if it happens, will be done surreptitiously and where it is something has happened before and, when it happened we only found out after the fact thanks to... of all things... WikiLeaks?

Yes, you can criticize Trump's rhetoric. It's not precisely correct to assert that Harris is "going to get the questions in advance." But we understand what he means. We don't (or shouldn't) trust ABC not to do something like what happened in 2016. And Trump wants to heighten our mistrust and perhaps intimidate ABC in case it's tempted to violate its agreement to keep the questions and topics secret.

Of course, we all expect ABC to frame questions that will not trap or unduly challenge Kamala Harris. The only check on that behavior is that at some point, the coddling is obvious and invites mockery.

"Yeah, well, Trump has that unvarnished element, and that's also something that's very appealing to working-class people...."

"He doesn't talk down to people.... He's very good at that.... Yeah, well and he's got that gift of spontaneity. You know, he doesn't craft his speeches, and of course that makes him a bit of a loose cannon, but people like that.... You might be deceiving us, but not in a practiced and calculating way. Right, you know, some of your personality flaws are leaking through, but but at least that's kind of like honest deception. I thought when when Trump won, I thought, well, they they preferred the spontaneous lies of Trump to the calculated lies of Hillary. You know, and that's very cynical but but there's still there's something about it that's accurate...."

Said Jordan Peterson, and it rings true to me. They're all going to lie, but which form of lying do you feel more inclined to trust?

What does "Heavy on Buzz" even mean?

I'm trying to read Reid J. Epstein, in "Harris’s Early Campaign: Heavy on Buzz, Light on Policy/On policy, the vice president is drafting off President Biden, essentially cherry-picking the most popular parts of his agenda and betting that a younger messenger can sell them to Americans" (NYT).

When Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2016, she had more than 200 distinct policy proposals. Four years ago, Joseph R. Biden Jr. had a task force write a 110-page policy document for his White House bid.

Now, Vice President Kamala Harris does not have a policy page on her campaign website.

A last-minute campaign born of Mr. Biden’s depreciated political standing has so far been running mainly on Democratic good feelings and warmth toward Ms. Harris, drafting off legislation and proposed policies from the man she is hoping to succeed....

I made the link a free-access "gift" link so you can help me read this thing. I am irritated by the claims of "buzz" and "good feelings and warmth." We're being instructed on how to feel, but it seems to be about how other people feel, or so we are told. 

ADDED: Is there a shift going on? A week or so ago, it was all about how Kamala Harris feels. I made a tag "how does Kamala feel" because I thought that was the wrong focus. We were told she was "joyous." Obvious bullshit, of course, but that was the nature of the campaign — the purportedly heavy-on-buzz campaign. But now the NYT seems to be nudging us into thinking about how we the people feel, and we're supposed to feel good... good and warm... about Kamala.

AND: "Buzz" is a cool looking word.

"Hillary Clinton’s laugh was criticized, and also called weird. There was a suggestion that it made her seem inauthentic..."

"... which was a bizarre point, since genuine laughter is, if not involuntary, then very hard to fake. Lenny Bruce once dared a crowd to try it four times in an hour. Calling women overly emotional or hysterical is a sexist trope, and there’s a long history of positioning laughter in opposition to reason. Plato warned against a love of laughter, suggesting it indicates a loss of control. Ever alert to the theater of power, Trump rarely laughs... ...."

Writes Jason Zinoman, in "Kamala Harris’s Laugh Is a Campaign Issue. Our Comedy Critic Weighs in. The Trump campaign sees Harris’s laugh as a vulnerability to exploit. But far from a liability, it is one of her most effective weapons" (NYT).

"What does a laugh say about a person? That he or she is human. In a divided country, it’s something we all do and enjoy. And as anyone who has hung out with friends late into the night knows, it’s contagious. That’s a powerful political tool. As the poet Ella Wilcox wrote, 'Laugh and the world laughs with you.'"

Ella Wilcox? She started that? Oh!

I am laughing at the surprise encounter with what looks like the childless cat lady J.D. Vance was talking about.

Here's the poem, "Solitude":

"I know the excruciating pressure of walking onto that stage and that it is nearly impossible to focus on substance when Mr. Trump is involved...."

"It is a waste of time to try to refute Mr. Trump’s arguments like in a normal debate. It’s nearly impossible... to identify what his arguments even are. He starts with nonsense and then digresses into blather. This has gotten only worse in the years since we debated.... Mr. Trump may rant and rave in part because he wants to avoid giving straight answers about his unpopular positions.... He interrupts and bullies... because he wants to appear dominant and throw his opponent off balance.... In 90-minute mock debates on an identical stage, I practiced keeping my cool in the face of hard questions and outright lies about my record and character.... Unfortunately, Mr. Biden starts from a disadvantage because there’s no way he can spend as much time preparing as I did eight years ago.... Mr. Biden is one of the most empathetic leaders we’ve ever had. Listen to how sincerely he talks.... Mr. Trump can’t do that because he cares only about himself.... ... Mr. Biden is a wise and decent man...."

Writes Hillary Clinton, in "Opinion | Hillary Clinton: I’ve Debated Trump and Biden. Here’s What I’m Watching For" (NYT).

It's actually not hard to understand Trump. He does switch in different topics, and that could throw his opponent off balance, but it's not hard for the home audience to follow. His rally crowds get him, easily. If you hate him, it may indeed be "nearly impossible to focus on substance," and then you won't understand him. That's a plus for him as a debater. He gets to communicate fluently with the voters, at least the ones who aren't dead-set against him, and flummox his opponent, who, apparently, is supposed to dump endless time into practicing not losing his cool. Meanwhile, is Trump even practicing at all? I don't think he is. He may be brushing up on the facts and the policies, but his debate style is instinctive, and his opponents don't even know if he's going to do the acting-presidential routine or unleash some chaotic force-of-nature attack.

Philippe Reines did not call Joe Biden a "malfunctioning appliance."

I'm trying to read "Debate advice from the man who played Trump for Clinton’s prep" (WaPo)(free access link).

Phillippe Reines, the "longtime aid [sic] to Hillary Clinton" asked whether, in the debate, Joe Biden should "appeal to persuadable voters or engage his base." He says:

You can’t think in those terms. You’re just onstage with a malfunctioning appliance. I mean, you can’t. You can’t assume that you’re going to get done what you want to get done unless you do it in the context of using the malfunctioning appliance to make your point.

I know Joe Biden has had trouble walking and talking lately, but that's nasty. I mean, it's too true and put too humorously. I mean, I know the "malfunctioning appliance" must be the debate. Right? I hope! If Joe Biden is a malfunctioning appliance that must mean he's been a tool all along. That's not something Phillippe Reines would say.

"I didn’t say 'lock her up,' but the people said lock her up, lock her up. Then, we won. And I say — and I said pretty openly, I said, all right, come on, just relax, let’s go, we’ve got to make our country great."

Said Donald Trump, quoted in "Trump falsely claims he never called for Hillary Clinton to be locked up/'Lock her up' is perhaps one of the most popular chants among Trump supporters, and he agreed with it or explicitly called for her jailing on several occasions" (WaPo)(free access link).

But after his election, on Nov. 9, 2016, Trump did not lash out at Clinton when, during a post-election rally, a crowd began a loud chant of “Lock her up!”

“Hillary has worked very long and very hard over a long period of time and we owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country,” Trump said then. “I mean that very seriously. Now it is time for America to bind the wounds of division. … I say it is time for us to come together as one united people.”

But election denial is reprehensible, no?

Saying Trump is on trial for paying hush money to a porn star is like saying John Wilkes Booth was tried for sneaking up behind Lincoln in Ford’s Theater. Silencing Stormy was just the means Trump used to commit the crime of fraudulently killing Hillary’s 2016 presidential bid.

— Laurence Tribe 🇺🇦 ⚖️ (@tribelaw) April 12, 2024

"Former President Donald Trump is a cultural phenomenon.... For his legion of passionate supporters, he is more than a politician."

"He is like a sports team or a rock band that helps define who they are as much as the families and communities to which they belong.... Uninhibited by concerns about decorum and tradition, Trump has aggressively figured out ways to market himself like a cultural product, not a standard politician, knowing that this would forge much deeper ties....To be sure, Trump is not the first president to command strong cultural currency with voters that goes beyond traditional political attachments. Stuffed toy bears identified with President Theodore Roosevelt became a phenomenon in the early 20th century. During the 1930s, saloon owners famously hung portraits of President Franklin Roosevelt over their bars.... There were President Ronald Reagan dolls in the 1980s while Shepard Fairey’s 'Hope' poster from President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign remained iconic throughout his two terms.... Rational appeals about the inconsistencies of his rhetoric, the dangers of his positions and the practical reasons for choosing someone such as DeSantis... don’t mean much to the fans whose homes are stuffed with MAGA hats, shirts and coffee mugs...."

Writes Julian Zelizer, a Princeton history and public affairs professor, in "What’s really working for Trump" (CNN).

There's always a lot of irrationality in politics, but it's very disturbing when the candidate you fear and hate is working the emotional backchannels of the human mind much better than the guy you're stuck with. Yes, of course, that fear and hate is also irrational. But it's negative, and isn't it a bitch that that positivity is stronger? Love beats hate. 

Hey, remember "Love trumps hate"?

"Merriam-Webster’s Word of the Year for 2023 is authentic.... A high-volume lookup most years, authentic saw a substantial increase in 2023..."

"... driven by stories and conversations about AI, celebrity culture, identity, and social media.... Although clearly a desirable quality, authentic is hard to define and subject to debate—two reasons it sends many people to the dictionary."

Announces Merriam-Webster.

They call attention to a headline I hadn't noticed and don't feel I even need to understand: "Three Ways To Tap Into Taylor Swift’s Authenticity And Build An Eras-Like Workplace."

That article came out a month ago in Forbes, which tells us: "Swift’s events brim with energy, carried by the thunderous voices – some melodious, others less in tune – of thousands: the opposite of how work feels today. According to recent data, 60% of employees are emotionally detached, and one in five is miserable."

Why would anyone want the workplace to feel like a pop concert? Why would the answer involve the concept of "authenticity"?

Take Hannah Shirley, a 23-year-old tech worker who recently went viral for pointing out that her job was “like a full-time acting gig.” She tik-toked one consequence of this: feeling “drained — especially mentally, sometimes even physically — from the character that …we play at work.”...

A Taylor Swift lyric is quoted: “Did you hear my covert narcissism I disguise as altruism? Like some kind of congressman?”

Forbes goes on:

What happens during an Eras event that makes it so engaging? There is realness, empathy, kindness, listening, a narrative (or journey-like) space big enough for all to partake and feel whole with oneself and others. The whole experience is devoid of pretension. Take this recipe and break it into three precepts – avoid alienation, increase authentic living and balance external pressure – and you have a roadmap for creating an Eras-like workplace culture....

I don't see how merger with a huge crowd is a feeling that you could — or would want — to take into the workplace. Even if I did, I wouldn't think of it as "authenticity." 

***

I've written about the word "authentic" many times on this blog. A few examples.... (and the first thing I see, strangely enough, has Taylor Swift in it):

On March 20, 2010, I quoted John Hinderaker saying "Much as Bob Dylan was the most authentic spokesman for his generation, Taylor Swift is the most authentic spokesman for hers." I say: "that's a trick assertion, since Bob Dylan was never about authenticity." I quoted Sean Wilentz:

During the first half of the concert, after singing "Gates of Eden," Dylan got into a little riff about how the song shouldn't scare anybody, that it was only Halloween, and that he had his Bob Dylan mask on. "I'm masquerading!" he joked, elongating the second word into a laugh. The joke was serious. Bob Dylan, né Zimmerman, brilliantly cultivated his celebrity, but he was really an artist and entertainer, a man behind a mask, a great entertainer, maybe, but basically just that—someone who threw words together, astounding as they were. The burden of being something else — a guru, a political theorist, "the voice of a generation," as he facetiously put it in an interview a few years ago — was too much to ask of anyone.

On June 17, 2015, I talked about a Slate writer's advice to Hillary Clinton that she should "offer voters her authentic, geeky self. I said "We've been seeing the word 'authentic' a lot lately — what with Caitlyn Jenner and Rachel Dolezal. There's this idea we seem to like that everyone has a real identity inside and that if we've got an inconsistent outward presentation of ourselves it would be wonderful for the inner being to cast off that phony shell. But 'authenticity' can be another phony shell...."

On December 19, 2017, I wrote about Facebook's purported goal of "authentic engagement." I said:

Facebook wants you to engage... with Facebook. They want the direct interface with the authentic person, not for some other operation to leverage itself through Facebook. And it makes sense to say that the exclusion of these interposers makes the experience better for the authentic people who use Facebook.... 

On a more metaphysical level: What is authentic anymore? What is the authentic/artificial distinction that Facebook claims — authentically/artificially — to be the police of? Is there an authentic authentic/artificial distinction or is the authentic/artificial distinction artificial?

AND: I'm reading a book that I think has a lot to say about the authentic/artificial distinction. You can tell by the title: "Although Of Course You End Up Becoming Yourself" (Subtitle: "A Road Trip with David Foster Wallace"). But the word "authentic" never appears in the book, and the word "artificial" only appears in the context of "artificial spit" ("it’s called Zero-Lube. It’s an actual pharmaceutical product").

On March 9, 2018, I blogged about something Nancy Pelosi said about "RuPaul's Drag Race." According to The Hollywood Reporter, she "suggested that politicians could learn a thing or two from Ru's girls: 'Authenticity. Taking pride in who you are. Knowing your power....'" Reading the comments on my post, I added:

Everyone jumps on that word "authenticity." "I mean, I'm all for people doing what they want -- except for misusing words like 'authenticity'" (fivewheels); "Authenticity? A man dressed as an over-the-top woman is authentic?" (Annie C); and the inevitable "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" (Ignorance is Bliss). Yeah? Well, when a person putting on a show is in costume and makeup, you could say he's an authentic showperson. And, anyway, what makes you think you're so authentic? 

My mind drifted back to this 1967 song by Jake Holmes, "Genuine Imitation Life": 

chameleons changing colors while a crocodile cries
people rubbing elbows but never touching eyes
taking off their masks revealing still another guise
genuine imitation life
people buying happiness and manufactured fun
everybody doing everybody done
people count on people who can only count to one
genuine imitation life

What's going on here? Hillary Clinton is performing concern about our loneliness

This caught my eye:

 

I copied the whole layout — headline, author's name, lugubrious image— because it's so absurd. And yet, it's just going back to her roots: It takes a village.

"The recording obtained by CNN begins with Trump claiming 'these are bad sick people,' while his staffer claims there had been a 'coup' against Trump."

"'Like when [Joint Chiefs General Mark] Milley is talking about, "Oh you’re going to try to do a coup." No, they were trying to do that before you even were sworn in,' the staffer says, according to the audio. The next part of the conversation is mostly included in the indictment, though the audio makes clear there are papers shuffling as Trump tells those in attendance he has an example to show. 'He said that I wanted to attack Iran, Isn’t it amazing?' Trump says as the sound of papers shuffling can be heard. 'I have a big pile of papers, this thing just came up. Look. This was him. They presented me this – this is off the record but – they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him.' The indictment includes ellipses where the recording obtained by CNN shows where Trump and his aide begin talking about Clinton’s emails and Weiner, whose laptop caused the FBI to briefly re-open its investigation into her handling of classified information in the days before the 2016 election she lost to Trump. Trump then returns to the Iran document, according to the audio recording and indictment transcript. 'I was just thinking, because we were talking about it. And you know, he said, "He wanted to attack Iran, and what…,"' Trump says. 'These are the papers,” Trump continues, according to the audio file."

From "Exclusive: CNN obtains the tape of Trump’s 2021 conversation about classified documents" (CNN).

"The FBI lacked 'any actual evidence of collusion' between the Trump campaign and Russia when it violated its standards and jumped over several steps..."

"... to initiate a full investigation, including probes into four members of the Trump campaign. The pretext for the probe -- a random conversation between unpaid Trump adviser George Papadopoulos and an Australian diplomat -- was so flimsy that FBI agents complained it was 'thin' and British intelligence was incredulous. The FBI opened the probe without doing interviews, using any 'standard analytical tools,' or conducting intelligence reviews -- which would have shown that not a single U.S. agency had evidence of collusion...."

From "Why the Durham Report Matters/It is a damning account of the corruption of the FBI and its accomplices" by The Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal.