A BREAK OUT MOMENT

In nearly every presidential primary campaign, there's a moment when a candidate stands out from the others, when they step forward and make a lasting impression on the voters that can really help push them into the nomination.  Sometimes, it happens even before they're a candidate, as when a young Senator Barack Obama gave a memorable and moving speech at the 2004 Democratic convention.  Other times it happens right at the moment when a candidate announces an interest in running, as when Trump openly made bigoted statements about Mexican immigrants almost immediately after announcing his candidacy, letting the world know that his candidacy would be like no other in modern history,  propelling him to the top in 2016.  Last night, during the second Democratic debate, Senator Kamala Harris may have had such a moment.
She already had started off strong before the moment came, shushing people talking over each other with a clearly prepared but effective line: “America does not want a food fight, they want to know how we’re going to put food on their table!”.  It silenced the talking and won applause from the crowd.  But her real breakout moment came when she leaned in against front runner in the polls, Joe Biden. “I do not believe you are a racist,” she began,“ but it was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country. And it was not only that, but you also worked with them to oppose busing. And, you know, there was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day. And that little girl was me.”  The way that she turned a complement into a criticism, went after both a controversial statement and a past position by Biden, and then personalized it at the end, with just the right amount of emotion (no tears, but a slight quaver in her voice at the end) really hit her point home.  Like the earlier line, it was clearly rehearsed in advance, but so what?  It had a mixture of anger and sadness that cuts through the usual political rhetoric.  And, without stating it outright, it made a generational argument about the 76 year old Biden and his pining for the good ol' days of politics when senators got along, while forgetting that some of those senators literally ran pro segregationist campaigns. 
And Biden's befuddled response to Harris's attack did not look good, as he lamely sputtered about busing being a state's rights issue.  Clearly she took the  moment.  And it really shows how unprepared Biden is for the race; it's now common knowledge that Biden's own advisors have told him to stop telling the story about getting along with those pro segregationist senators, and he just ignored them.  Now that story has come back to bite him, illustrating why Biden had no luck in his previous attempts at the presidency in 1988 and 2008.
Of course, I could be wrong about all of this, and Biden could still sail into the nomination with the support of older Democrats who just want to beat Trump.  But after last night, most of the talk is about Harris.  And from the night before, Elizabeth Warren, with her striking intellect and ability to spell out specific plans for the country's problems, was also seen as the big winner.  This raises the possibility  that the Democratic ticket could have two women on it (just who's name would come first is the big question!).  While I love this idea at first, it does make me wonder if this country is still not ready to elect a woman president.  Remember that 2016 Hillary Clinton ran as a highly experienced, clear headed candidate, and she still lost to the rampaging Trump.  Having another woman lose to Trump in 2020 could be utterly demoralizing to the country, maybe even more upsetting than his win in 2016.  Still and all, I think Harris, as a former prosecutor, has the wherewithal to stand up to Trump in the debates and eviscerate his lies and boasts, making her my favorite candidate out of the 23 Democrats running for the nomination.

2020 TIME

Donald Trump just started his reelection campaign officially, kicking it off with a speech in Florida last Tuesday, and like a toddler banging on a piano, he hit same the chords that he always has over and over again.  He lied about his job as president ("Perhaps the greatest economy we've had in the history of our country."), bashed Hillary Clinton as if she were still his opponent, railed against undocumented immigrants, and boasted constantly (he called his 2016 win "probably the greatest election in the history of our country.”)  The only real takeaway from this speech was how much the media coverage has been changed by his crazed behavior since he took office: once upon a time a president that described the opposing party with the words  “Our political opponents look down with hatred on our values and with utter disdain for the people whose lives they want to run.”  and that the Democrats stand on immigration was “the greatest betrayal of the American middle class and, frankly, American life”,  would be seen as a big deal, acts of overreaching aggression.  But the news media mostly yawned at his hate mongering; same old Trump.
His speech certainly seemed to fire up the president's base, as the crowd cheered his every move as he puffed himself up with self importance.  But is his base large enough  for him to win reelection?  He is, after all, the first president in modern history to never have an approval rating over 50%.  And recent polls show him losing badly to Joe Biden, and several other Democratic candidates (in typical fashion, when his own pollsters showed him those numbers, he fired them!).
But none of this certainly means that the Dems have the election in the bag.  First of all, the election is well over a year away, and various unexpected news stories could affect the outcome in  ways we can't foresee.  Plus, Trump has already raised a huge war chest to spend, meaning that this campaign will be far less chaotic and freewheeling as the last one, especially now that the entire party has fallen behind him, come what may.
Also, there is a different X factor in facing Trump that must have the Democrats worried: never before has a celebrity candidate  swooped in and won the biggest office in the land without ever running any kind of campaign before.  How do you run against someone who has only had one unlikely but successful campaign?  Since Trump's kickoff speech shows that he intends to run for reelection the same way he ran in 2016, there is no doubt that this will be yet another ugly campaign, with him creating a childish nickname for whomever his opponent is (he's already using "Sleepy Joe" for front runner Joe Biden) and then lying about his or her record repeatedly and shamelessly (remember when he called Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton "the co-founders of ISIS?").   The tricky thing is just how to counter such a barrage of lies and insults?  During the 2016 primary contest, Republican Marco Rubio tried out descending to Trump's level, (making crude remarks about Trump's hand size) and looked foolish, gaining no traction in the race.  But then when Clinton tried to mostly ignore Trump's mud slinging, she still lost too.
So what will work against a president that's never lost an election?   Personally, I think the Clinton route was the right one, even though she lost.  Remember that Trump's victory was a matter of luck in the Electoral College, aided by Russian interference and that infamous letter to congress from James Comey.  The Democratic candidate should mostly ignore whatever crazed thing Trump is tweeting or saying and stick to issues like health care, education and student loan debt.  It's important to remember that Trump's novelty factor has worn off, and that he can no longer call himself an outsider. Add to that the fact that 2016 polls showed that many voters were personally repulsed by Trump but still voted for him under the expectation that the office would somehow change him, which obviously hasn't happened.  Overall, I think the Democrats stand a good chance to retaking the White House, but it's certainly no certainty, and we're in for another ugly, cringe inducing campaign either way.

THE TIPPING POINT

“The F.B.I. director is wrong.”

Donald Trump in his years as president has avoided interviews outside of the Fox News bubble, because anything other than fawning, adoring questions often make him angry or blurt out terrible things.  For example, shortly after winning the White House, he gave an interview with Lester Holt in which he freely admitted that he fired FBI head James Comey because of "this whole Russia thing", contradicting his own advisors that had given other reasons, and bringing on more scrutiny of his behavior regarding Russia aiding his campaign.
Now Trump has given another interview that's seen him put his foot in it again: last Wednesday, while talking with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, he cheerfully admitted that if a foreign country were to offer him information on a political rival, he would take it, and that he would tell the FBI only “if I thought there was something wrong.”  The American public has heard Trump say so many offensive, stupid, and dishonest things in the past few years (the sound from windmills causes cancer?),  that the full measure of what he just admitted to there may not sink in.  But it should.  There are laws in place that make it illegal for American candidates to accept foreign aid in a campaign.  Therefore, this is the President of the United States openly admitting that he would break those laws to gain an advantage in his reelection.  When Stephanopoulos pointed out that Trump's own FBI leader disagreed with him, he snapped back “The F.B.I. director is wrong.”  This gets even worse when one considers that the whole world is watching this interview, and foreign countries hoping to influence the election are seeing a president essentially asking them to help him with no consequence.  He's not just saying that he would take illegal information, he's encouraging it!
Of course, why should Trump care that he breaks the law, as long as he wins?  This is a man who has lived his whole life in a cushion of wealth and privilege that has prevented him from ever having to pay for any of his bad behavior.  He's grown from a spoiled brat six year old that once punched his music teacher because she didn't know enough about music, to a man who can shrug off multiple bankruptcies as good business and multiple sexaul assualt charges as lies.  After all, Russian hacking during the 2016 campaign, which he once openly asked for in a speech, may have helped push him over the victory line, and he has never had to pay for getting that help as president.  (The Mueller report said that he was aware of that Russian aid, but did not openly conspire with Russia).Why not ask for help in his reelection, since it worked last time.
Can't we, for once, hold this man in check?  Can't we just once say to him, after all the lies, boasts, bigoted and misogynistic statements, that he should be held responsible? I think, in light of this interview, it really is time for the House of Representatives to start impeachment proceedings.  This is about more than Trump, this is about congress saying that the office of the presidency is not above the law, and that we as a nation cannot and should not tolerate a president who blithely states that laws do not apply to him.  It doesn't matter that the Senate will not vote to remove him even if the House does vote to impeach, it is still imperative to the future of this country that congress at least register its disapproval.  If we can't hold the most powerful person in the country to any legal standard, then what is the point of having laws?   How can people tell their children to follow the rules and support a leader who sees himself as above any rules at all?   It's time to stand up to this man for once, or the damage he could do to this country is irreparable.