Too early to call the election?

In the CNN electoral map, Donald Trump already has enough votes to win.

This map is 272 Trump, 225 Biden. pic.twitter.com/QuB8ieUpTl

— Chris Cillizza (@ChrisCillizza) March 14, 2024

Tittle-tattle.

Couple in front of me on flight refused to wear masks.

They were tuned to “Tucker” the whole time.

— Chris Cillizza (@ChrisCillizza) March 26, 2022

It had never crossed my mind, in 18 years of blogging, to use the compound word "tittle-tattle." I've occasionally used the word "tattle." For example, in 2007, I wrote "Who decided on this occasion to tattle on a few of the words that were spoken at a closed-door meeting?" (John McCain had yelled "Fuck you!" at another Senator.)

But it was not until just this moment, when I read Chris Cillizza's twitter-tweet, that I ever felt like writing "tittle-tattle." What is achieved through the compounding of a word with another similar sound? I just wrote "twitter-tweet" to get the feel for what's going on with that sort of thing.

 

See? What's that? "Chit chat"? Why not just say "chat"? It's a little childish. I'm thinking "doggy woggy" and "pussy wussy." But don't say "fuzzy wuzzy" — that's racist. Ah, maybe don't say "doggy woggy" or "pussy wussy" either. Oh, but you only do that when you're talking to the baby? This is how we get racist babies!

Anyway, I'm driven to the OED to find out how deep are the historical roots of "tittle-tattle." Is that some modern chitchattiness? No. It's old:

"When you were asked, 'What's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America,' you said 'Russia.' Not al Qaeda; you said Russia. And, the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War's been over for 20 years."

Said Barack Obama, in the third presidential debate in 2012, quoted by Chris Cillizza in "It's time to admit it: Mitt Romney was right about Russia" (CNN). 

So many people took the cue and laughed at Romney, who had been focusing attention on what Obama had said to then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev earlier that year: "This is my last election. And after my election, I have more flexibility." 

Obama's joke — "the 1980s are now calling..." — overshadowed Romney's statement, which was: "Russia is not a friendly character on the world stage. And for this President to be looking for greater flexibility, where he doesn't have to answer to the American people in his relations with Russia, is very, very troubling, very alarming." 

Now, Cillizza says: "What looked like a major flub during the 2012 campaign -- and was used as a political cudgel by Obama -- now looks very, very different. It should serve as a reminder that history is not written in the moment -- and that what something looks like in that moment is not a guarantee of what it will always look like."

How about telling us what you actually said at the time? Because you, Chris Cillizza, were part of the "political cudgel" that — passive voice — "was used." You had the ability at the time to be more than semi-conscious, and as a writer at The Washington Post, you had a responsibility to do more than cheer-lead for Obama, something more than glance "in the moment" and say "what something looks like." 

It was time at the time to say who was right and wrong! And here's what you said at the time:

 

Oh, the superciliousness of "methinks"! It looks so awful now — that supercillizziousness...

Here's The Week celebrating Obama and Cillizza's wit at the time:

4. The '80s called....

After Obama noted that, earlier this year, Romney had called Russia, not Al Qaeda, our greatest geopolitical threat, the president unleashed his other zinger of the night: "The 1980's are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back — because the Cold War has been over for 20 years. But governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policy of the 1950s, and the economic policies of the 1920s." Boom, "that '1980s called' line was the best line of the 3 debates methinks," tweeted The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza.

Yeah, "boom" yourself. I'm sure the zinger amused Putin.

I want to read this Chris Cillizza piece — "Joe Biden is facing a crisis of competence" — at CNN Politics, but...

"... it begins with a premise I can't get my head around: "At the heart of Joe Biden's 2020 presidential campaign was a single word: competence." 

What I remember is continual doubt that he had even minimal competence. I searched my blog archive — and I scanned presidential campaign news every single day — to find anything about Biden and "competence" and the closest I came was a May 2, 2020 post where I was quoting something from New York Magazine about Biden campaigning from his home basement: 

[Biden is] largely staying true to the strategy that’s guided his campaign since early on, which holds that the winningest Biden is one to be imagined, not seen, heard, or even thought about too hard. His staff recognizes that the less its candidate speaks, the less opportunity his supporters have to neglect evidence that undermines their faith — in his competence, his election odds, and, increasingly, his innocence.

If competence was the heart of his campaign, then it was a campaign in negative space. Through his absence, the idea of his competence might survive in the minds of the people who maintain a spark of belief in it. And, really, that had more to do with the widespread and vehement belief that Trump was incompetent. For those in that mindset, almost nothing was expected from Biden. 

So what's this "crisis of competence" Biden faces now? As Trump fades into the past and those who believed in Biden look to him for performance, rather than mere nonTrumpness, it's a crisis for the vain fool.  

Oh, am I really going to read this Cillizza thing? 

After four years of Donald Trump's incompetence in, well, everything, the Biden argument was that the country badly needed a steady hand on the tiller -- someone who had been there and done that.

Ludicrous. Steady hand on the tiller... been there and done that.... Thanks for signaling that you're writing on autopilot.

"Their argument, then, is not necessarily that we don't need police officers. It's..."

"... how we can best ensure that police officers are serving the communities they are tasked with policing? But that subtlety is lost in chants of 'Defund the Police.' And Trump, desperate for an issue to latch onto as he watches his poll numbers both nationally and in swing states tumble, will destroy any nuance in the conversation over police funding in order to paint Biden (and Democrats more broadly) as wanting to get rid of the police entirely."

Ha. Yeah. Trump IS the destroyer of nuance.

I'm reading "Is 'Defund the Police' a massive political mistake?" by Chris Cillizza (CNN).

Liberals love to present themselves as the People of Nuance. But if you're going to do slogans and chants — and especially if you're going to do vandalism and looting — you're not doing nuance. And if your knee-jerk reaction for everything you do wrong is to flip it into ORANGE MAN BAD, you are not doing nuance.

I've been following this "nuance" theme since I started this blog in 2004. Remember how John Kerry was fawned over as the candidate of nuance, compared to that vicious dimwit George Bush?

"I think I'm going to buy an RV and travel from now on in an RV with our first lady. I don't think anybody would mind that."

#32 on a list of "The 39 most outrageous lines from Donald Trump's Friday 'press conference'" (Chris Cillizza, Politico).

Worst Trump misspelling yet... or brilliant trap for elitists to look out of touch?

And as long as I'm dealing with Trump and Twitter, there's this, which I'm seeing because it was retweeted by Trump:

The corrupted Dems trying their best to come to the Ayatollah's rescue.#NancyPelosiFakeNews pic.twitter.com/a0ksPHeXCy

— داون آندر (@D0wn_Under) January 13, 2020

ADDED: Good thing I made a screen shot. Trump's "eminent" tweet is now deleted.

"Did Stefon write this headline?"

Did Stefon write this headline? https://t.co/XCstrhuUzD

— Chasten Buttigieg (@Chas10Buttigieg) March 21, 2019

Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, is running for President. Chasten Buttigieg, who has a good Twitter presence, is his husband. Stefon is this "Saturday Night Live" character.

Chris Cillizza is a CNN political analyst, whose latest piece, linked in that tweet, reads:

Don't look now, but a(nother) skinny kid with a funny name is turning heads in the presidential race.

In 2008, it was Barack Obama. In 2020, it's Pete Buttigieg.

Buttigieg, the 37-year-old, married gay mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is, at the moment, the hottest candidate in the Democratic presidential field -- drawing rave reviews everywhere he goes.... He's young, charismatic and personable. He knows how to talk like a regular person -- an underrated trait in a field filled with front-running senators. And he has a remarkable resume: Rhodes scholar, military veteran, gay mayor of his hometown....

But Buttigieg is unquestionably having a moment right now....

That was my question too.

How is it false? What, specifically, is inaccurate? https://t.co/M2243TzqSL

— Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) February 20, 2019

"2019 WILL BE A FANTASTIC YEAR FOR THOSE NOT SUFFERING FROM TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME."

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO EVERYONE, INCLUDING THE HATERS AND THE FAKE NEWS MEDIA! 2019 WILL BE A FANTASTIC YEAR FOR THOSE NOT SUFFERING FROM TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME. JUST CALM DOWN AND ENJOY THE RIDE, GREAT THINGS ARE HAPPENING FOR OUR COUNTRY!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 1, 2019

ADDED: Did the all caps bother you? It bothered Chris Cillizza: "Typing in all caps is a very good and very presidential way to calm people down!"

"Beto O'Rourke leapfrogs most of the 2020 Democratic field."

Chris Cillizza and Harry Enten, write at CNN.

O'Rourke has that thing that every candidate -- Democrat or Republican -- wants: organic energy. He generates excitement everywhere he goes -- and is being urged to run by activists from all over the Democratic base. He's the flavor of the moment, no question...

They present a top 10 ranking:

10. Kirsten Gillibrand... She has the most anti-Trump record of any senator...(Previous ranking: Not ranked)

9. Julian Castro: He's running!... [But is there] room for both young Texas Democratic firebrands, Castro and O'Rourke.... (Previous ranking: 7)

8. Sherrod Brown... Still, Brown's a white male in a party that is becoming less white and was intent on nominating women in 2018.... (Previous ranking: 9)

7. Amy Klobuchar: We probably had the Minnesota senator ranked too highly last month... (Previous ranking: 4)

6. Bernie Sanders... We wonder though if time has passed Sanders by... (Previous ranking: 6)

5. Elizabeth Warren: The last month has made clear just how much damage Warren did to her chances with a badly botched attempt to put to rest questions about her Native American heritage.... (Previous ranking: 2)

4. Cory Booker... some progressives view him as a dreaded "neoliberal," and some may see him as a bit over-dramatic (see his "Spartacus" moment). (Previous ranking: 5)

3. Joe Biden.... a septuagenarian white male... (Previous ranking: 3)

2. Beto O'Rourke: The guy just lost a Senate race. And yet, here we are with O'Rourke in second... Still, folks really shouldn't get ahead of themselves.... Will Democrats actually nominate a white man in 2020?.... (Previous ranking: 10)

1. Kamala Harris... an Indian-American and African-American woman with a law-and-order background -- looks tailor made for the 2020 Democratic electorate.... (Previous ranking: 1)

Well, there you have it: The Democrats don't want a white man. Is Beto O'Rourke still a white man? Puzzling!!!

ADDED: Overheard at Meadhouse: "Why aren't the Democratic candidates better? I'm just going to be for Amy Klobuchar."

Cory Booker and Brett Kavanaugh — Chris Cillizza pushes away whataboutism, but we might reach for it anyway.

"What makes Cory Booker's groping incident different than the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh."

That's the CNN headline for a piece by Chris Cillizza.

The automatic, easy, snarky answer: He's a Democrat.

I still haven't read the article, and I hadn't previously noticed there was a "groping incident" about Cory Booker. Is it an allegation or something we know happened? Anyway, to give an nonsnarky answer — again, before reading the article — I'd say: Cory Booker has a limited term and faces reelection. Brett Kavanaugh is up for a lifetime appointment.

Let's read this piece now:

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker wrote in the early 1990s -- while a student at Stanford -- about an incident on New Year's Eve 1984 (when he was 15) in which he groped a female friend's breast after the two of them had kissed.

"With the 'Top Gun' slogan ringing in my head, I slowly reached for her breast," Booker wrote of that night. "After having my hand pushed away once, I reached my 'mark.'" The point of Booker's column was how that moment, and his work on the issue after, had changed him -- and his views on women, consent and assault -- forever. "It was a wake-up call," Booker wrote in his Stanford column. "I will never be the same."

You're already consensually kissing. You try to touch her breast and are pushed away, and you try again and — what? — the end of the story is missing. But, holy God, if that's what ruins your life these days, the world has gone mad. I wonder whether college-student Cory was bullshitting when he claimed to be changed forever by this "wake up" call. But, again, I don't know the end of the story. Did the woman take him to task for trying again? And what's the "Top Gun" slogan? Maybe Cillizza isn't telling the story straight.

So the difference between the 2 stories — and this is my opinion, not Cillizza's — is that Booker's story was a story he told on himself, as part of posturing and instructing about how to be a good man. I don't know if it's true, but he chose to tell it and tell it that way. What really happened? I have no idea. Kavanaugh is suffering through someone else's telling of what is purportedly his story, and it's not told in the template of how he became such a good man, but to frame him as secretly evil. Within that other person's story, he is brutal and ugly, not boyishly copping a feel that he later lavishly regrets.

Back to Cillizza:

The rise of the #MeToo movement and the cavalcade of high-profile men admitting to behavior that ranges from boorish to criminal has opened eyes and forced uncomfortable and important conversations. The accusations against Kavanaugh are another moment to examine our assumptions and talk openly about how we should bets [sic] approach these situations -- both now and going forward.

Oh, yes. Let's have a conversation about everything! Talk openly! How do you think that will go? Place your "bets."

What we don't need amid all of this is an epic bout of "whatboutism" [sic].

Yeah, don't come after my guy while I'm going after your guy. That's whataboutism! I want you to stand down while I take all my shots. Funnily enough, that's how all these "conversations" tend to go when we're encouraged to have a conversation about some hot subject.

What Booker did as a teenager wasn't right. And he has been and will be judged by voters on them. But to turn Booker into a political missile to prove hypocrisy misses the mark. This isn't about Booker. This is about Ford, Kavanaugh, and how we, together, figure out the right way forward.

Yes, tell us what this is about.  You call out "whatboutism" — AKA whataboutism— but I'm going to call out your "what-it's-about-ism." You don't get to restrict the subject to exactly the scope you like. When you do that, it's "what-it's-about-ism" (my coinage).

But of course, everything's different from everything else. We can talk about differences and samenesses. Don't tell me what to do.

IN THE COMMENTS: Nonapod said:

"an incident on New Year's Eve 1984 (when he was 15) in which he groped a female friend's breast after the two of them had kissed. 'With the 'Top Gun' slogan ringing in my head'"

Top Gun came out in 1986. This whole story is an anti-strawman.

Wow. I found 2 typos in Cillizza's piece — "whatboutism" and "bets" — so maybe "1984" is another typo.

Anyway, checking the release date of the movie — it is indeed 1986 — I found the "slogan," I believe. It's "I feel the need... the need for speed!" That's such a stupid sex slogan.

"James Clapper did NOT say what Donald Trump keeps saying he said."

A hilarious headline that expresses the end-of-my-rope frustration of anti-Trumpers, from Chris Cillizza at CNN.

Clapper was on "The View" yesterday and it went like this:

BEHAR: "So I ask you, was the FBI spying on Trump's campaign?"

CLAPPER: "No, they were not. They were spying on, a term I don't particularly like, but on what the Russians were doing. Trying to understand were the Russians infiltrating, trying to gain access, trying to gain leverage or influence which is what they do."

BEHAR: "Well, why doesn't [Trump] like that? He should be happy."

CLAPPER: "He should be."

Well, Trump seems happy that the word "spying" slipped out of Clapper as he was talking about what the FBI was doing. Clapper obviously knew he slipped, since he immediately tried to (subtly) erase it.

Trump displayed his happiness by tweeting: "'Trump should be happy that the FBI was SPYING on his campaign' No, James Clapper, I am not happy. Spying on a campaign would be illegal, and a scandal to boot!" And, talking to reporters: "I mean if you look at Clapper ... he sort of admitted that they had spies in the campaign yesterday inadvertently. I hope it's not true, but it looks like it is."

Here's how Cillizza tries to wriggle out of it:

Clapper makes crystal clear that the FBI was not spying on the Trump campaign. And he also makes clear that while he doesn't like the word "spying" -- because we are talking about the use of a confidential source -- that, to the extent there was any information gathering happening in conversations between the FBI's informant and members of the Trump campaign, it was entirely designed to shed light on Russian meddling efforts related to the 2016 election.

Clapper began by saying "no" to the question whether the FBI was spying on the Trump campaign, but then concedes that they were spying. He doesn't like the word, because it's politically hot (and maybe illegal/unethical), but he used it. Then the question is where were they spying. They were spying on the Trump campaign.

The qualification "on what the Russians were doing" refers to the Trump campaign, not to the Russians generally. I understand that the motivation may have been to see what was the interaction between the campaign and the Russians, but that is still spying on the campaign. Now, the motivation could also have been to figure out a way to defeat Trump. I don't know.

To my ear, the phrase "on what the Russians were doing" is there as a denial of the political motivation, to say that it was legitimate to spy on the Trump campaign because the reason was to deal with genuine concern about Russians doing things within the Trump campaign. My interpretation is supported by Behar's response, "Well, why doesn't [Trump] like that? He should be happy," which Clapper jumped to ride along with, "He should be."

Cillizza:

Clapper said that the FBI didn't spy on the Trump campaign. He said that the only information gathering that happened with the confidential source was related to Russian interference. 

That just says that the spying on the Trump campaign was limited, not that there wasn't spying on the Trump campaign!

Any honest reading of the entirety of what Clapper said -- and you can read the whole quote in about 15 seconds! -- makes clear that a) Clapper doesn't believe the FBI was spying on Trump's campaign and b) the information gathering being done by the FBI's confidential source was aimed at Russia and designed to protect Trump and his associates, not to mention American democracy more broadly.

Any honest reading...  so, by Cillizza's lights, I'm not being honest.

How could reading what Clapper said make clear that Clapper does't believe something? Clapper could be lying or bullshitting. What's inside somebody's head is rarely clear even when the statements are clear. But looking only at the meaning of the text, Cillizza's interpretation doesn't sound right to me, and his assertion that his view is the only "honest reading" is an affront to our intelligence.

But let's put aside the technicality of what may be an inadvertent mistake in writing about what Clapper believes (as opposed to what he asserts). Cillizza's efforts at calling Trump wrong fail because Cillizza is only talking about the reasons why the FBI spied on the Trump campaign, not whether the FBI spied on the Trump campaign.

ADDED: Since Clapper was on "The View," he should have said "Yeah, it was spying, but it wasn't spying spying."

ALSO:

Four things to understand about SPYGATE: 1) There was no spy in the Trump campaign. 2) The spying that did NOT happen was totally justified. 3) It would be bad for national security to identify the spy who doesn't exist. 4) His name is Stefan. #SPYGATE

— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) May 23, 2018

"You've talked about how people have assumed you're African American even though you're white—do you get that a lot?"

"I didn't until I moved to New York. I think it was actually a pickup line once. But even now on some of my Instagram posts, people will ask, 'Are you black or white?'... The more we're open to talking about race, the better. A lot of white people shy away from discussing it, but we need to. I think a lot of us are just ignorant, and sometimes there's no other way to learn than by putting your own foot in your mouth."

Said Michelle Wolf, talking to Oprah.com, last January.

And here's Wolf on "The Daily Show" discussing the subject in the context of Rachel Dolezal (the white woman who controversially presented herself as black):

Of course, we've been talking about Michelle Wolf for the last day, because she was the comedian at the White House Correspondents' Dinner — that corrupt, inappropriate event. Some people are making a fuss that she said "fuck," talked about sex, and was mean to Sarah Huckabee Sanders who was sitting right there.

Here's Chris Cillizza at CNN serving up "5 takeaways on Michelle Wolf's hugely controversial speech at the White House correspondents' dinner." I'm not going to read the whole thing because I presume he leads with his best material and the first "takeway" is very lame:

There are LOTS of way [sic] to go after Sanders. I personally think that she is overly antagonistic to the reporters who cover the White House and misleads on the regular [sic]. But to make fun of Sanders' makeup? ("I think she's very resourceful, like she burns facts and then she uses that ash to create a perfect smokey eye. Maybe she's born with it, maybe it's lies," said Wolf.) Like, really?

First, the word is "smoky." "Smokey" is the correct spelling only for the name of the U.S. Forest Service mascot, Smokey the Bear. [ADDED: And other proper names, like "Smokey and the Bandit."]

Second, Wolf didn't make fun of the makeup. In the joke, the makeup is not only good. It's perfect. The joke is that ugly things are going on behind the scenes and there's a contrast between that and the perfect exterior.

I would compare that joke to Jesus's denouncement of the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23:25-28:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

ADDED: Bear/Wolf... I should have made something out of that. Also, I should made a show of connecting up the subject of the way Michelle Wolf  looks and the way Sarah Huckabee Sanders looks.

AND: Meade read this post and said, "I would have made a show of connecting Sarah Huckleberry Hound and Michelle Dancing With Wolves."

64 entertainingly quotable quotes from one speech — who can do that?

Only Trump, but even as Chris Cillizza grabs eyeballs by serving up a long list of Trump quotes, he has to present them as deplorable, in "The 64 most outrageous lines from Donald Trump's untethered Pennsylvania speech."

From the list, here's the part cherry picks from Trump's discussion of how people say he should be more presidential (and he comically imitates the "presidential" version of himself):

56. "But you'd be so bored because I could stand up, right? I'm very presidential."

So so presidential. The most presidential president likely ever.

57. "If I came like a stiff, you guys wouldn't be here tonight."

Remember: Trump is, first and foremost, an entertainer. And he views the presidency through the lens of entertainment.

58. "I don't know if I'm a good speaker. But every time I have a 25,000-seat stadium, we fill it up."

Campaign rally as therapy session.

Here's that part of the speech. Look how funny it is (and he has real points to make):

"5 reasons why Donald Trump's massive North Korea gamble makes total and complete sense."

Chris Cillizza, you got me with that headline (CNN). The 5 reasons:

1. Trump the deal-maker... he has to try to tackle the biggest dealmaking challenges in the world... a more stable and de-nuclearized North Korea is about as big as they come.

2. Trump the history-maker... He loves to go where no one has gone before -- or, at least, where he believes no one has gone before...

3. Trump the unorthodox... Trump revels in the idea of freaking out the political establishment...

4. Trump the freelancer... In the opening to the "Art of the Deal," Trump wrote about how he liked to start his day -- clean desk, empty schedule. He didn't like to make plans. He liked to react at whatever the day threw at him. His grand strategy was just a bunch of tactics sewed together. Trump has brought that same mentality to the White House. Trump has bridled under attempts by his staff to keep him on message for a day or even a week. He values his "Executive Time," when he putters around the residence, watching television and tweeting. He trusts his gut -- even if it says something different than all the eggheads in his administration.

5. Trump the reality TV star... Trump knows that a meeting between him and Kim will have the eyes of the world on it....

The Angry President.

I've been noticing so many news stories reporting that Trump is angry:

1. "Internal chaos at the White House, Trump angry" (MSNBC March 1, 2018): "President Trump say [sic] he is in a bad place -- mad as hell about the internal chaos and the sense that things are unraveling."

2. "The angry past 24 hours in Trump’s fight with his own attorney general, explained" (Vox March 1, 2018): "President Donald Trump’s public feud with Attorney General Jeff Sessions keeps getting uglier — and may soon lead to the unceremonious ouster of one of the president’s earliest and most enthusiastic supporters."

3. "Trump was angry and ‘unglued’ when he started a trade war, officials say" (NBC News March 2, 2018): "According to two officials, Trump's decision to launch a potential trade war was born out of anger at other simmering issues and the result of a broken internal process that has failed to deliver him consensus views that represent the best advice of his team. On Wednesday evening, the president became 'unglued,' in the words of one official familiar with the president's state of mind."

4. "Think the White House is in chaos now? Just wait" (CNN, Chris Cillizza, March 2, 2018): "The descriptions coming out of the White House describing Trump's state of mind over the last few days all paint a picture of a frustrated and angry executive who feels more and more isolated in his own White House." And maybe that's the way Trump likes it... "President Donald Trump has, throughout his life, embraced chaos as a life philosophy. (He's like Littlefinger in that way)"... and I seem to need to watch a "Game of Thrones" clip to understand the President's psyche.

5. It's nothing new. Look at this from last May, in Slate: "Why Is Trump So Angry?/The president’s uncontrollable rage powers his ruthlessness—and his ineptitude." The illustration artist seems to have been told, just show Trump as angry as you possibly can. He's got pointed teeth arrayed in a circular formation around the circumference of his gaping mouth. His eyes are black. What color are his eyes really? Blue, right? That question was weirdly hard to Google. I kept getting things about the whiteness of the skin around his eyes — the "reverse raccoon" look that might be highlighter makeup and might be from using eye protection while tanning. And I stumbled into "What is going on with Donald Trump’s eyes?" in The New Republic 2 years ago. The young TNR writer — who seems never to have heard of the way older people tend to need reading glasses — questions Trump's fitness for office based on the large size of the font in his printed-out notes. But, yeah, Trump's eyes are blue. And Slate (racistly?) made them black, because he's angry. Imagine if they'd made his skin black to convey that he's angry!

So I'm thinking, what about President Obama? Was he portrayed as angry? No, Obama had to be the never-gets-angry man, perhaps because he actually did not get angry (behind the scenes or in public) but perhaps because advisers and the media believed they had to mollify Americans who were believed to harbor racial stereotypes.

"Obama's Anger Management Problem/As the cool-headed president says goodbye tonight, one lesson from Trump: He should have picked more enemies" (January 10, 2017 Politico): "The best comedy about President Obama has been the series of Key & Peele sketches featuring Luther, the 'anger translator' who screams the unexpurgated thoughts the first black president would scream if he weren’t so chill, so deliberate, and so unwilling to scare white people.... And if you had to pinpoint one specific thing he’s done badly, you might start with his perplexing failure to get riled up about rile-worthy behavior, his no-drama reluctance to pick defining public fights. Obama has an anger over-management problem...."

That's after his party lost the election. Maybe the media wished they'd portrayed him as less bland, more fiery. Well, there was that one time.... "Angry President Obama Tears Into Donald Trump Like Never Before" (NBC June 15, 2016):



Chris Cillizza explained that in "Why President Obama is so angry about Donald Trump’s ‘radical Islam’ attack." I'm thinking maybe Obama was worried that his party was in danger of losing the White House and that he actually had to activate himself to generate support for Hillary Clinton. Cillizza says Obama genuinely disapproves of the "radical Islam" rhetoric and really hates having to do things "purely for the sake of politics."

Obama liked to tell us he was "mellow." Here he is in 2015 at the White House Correspondents Dinner:



Now, clearly, the press was much more favorable to Obama, and I think they portrayed him as exceedingly slow to anger because that's the way he and his people wanted him to look, but it probably had some truth to it. The press is so hostile to Trump, and they seem to be openly attacking him with reports of his anger — sometimes making him look like a scary rageaholic. But there must be some truth in it. Maybe the distortion is mostly in failing to comment on Trump's full array of emotions. He's an outwardly expressive guy, often joyful and ebullient. Another distortion is the failure to speak in positive terms when the anger is justified and properly targeted and a good and balanced part of the psyche of a human being.

Chris Cillizza accidentally (I think) insults Michelle Obama.

This is a beautiful portrait. It looks very little like Michelle Obama pic.twitter.com/1CsRrWIJtN

— Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) February 12, 2018

A "fake news" conundrum.

Click to tighten the focus and enlarge:



I'd say the real victim here is Van Jones.

The real winner: Donald Trump (because he's got his haters carrying his message about low black unemployment).

Do you understand why the Arizona Republican Congressman Trent Franks thinks he has to resign?

I'd been trying to understand, and I don't get it. Chris Cillizza looks at the resignation letter and deems it "absolutely bizarre."

From the letter: "Due to my familiarity and experience with the process of surrogacy, I clearly became insensitive as to how the discussion of such an intensely personal topic might affect others. I have recently learned that the Ethics Committee is reviewing an inquiry regarding my discussion of surrogacy with two previous female subordinates, making each feel uncomfortable. I deeply regret that my discussion of this option and process in the workplace caused distress."

Also in the letter, as summarized by Cillizza, after Franks's wife had 3 miscarriages, the couple were able to use a surrogate to produced twins, and they wanted more children. That was a topic he discussed with 2 of his female employees. What's so terrible about that, especially after he acknowledges that the discussion made the employees uncomfortable and expresses regret. Can't we all move on?

Cillizza goes on to mock Franks's statement because it says too much. It proceeds to criticize the media:

"Rather than allow a sensationalized trial by media damage those things I love most, this morning I notified House leadership that I will be leaving Congress as of January 31, 2018," Franks said in the closing lines of his statement.

But I think it says too little! What was so awful about what Franks actually said (as opposed to how the employees, by their own report, felt)? Cillizza, a member of the press, goes sarcastic: "Riiiiight. It was the 'sensationalized trial by media' that's to blame here. Not the conversations about surrogacy with two female employees. Got it!" Cillizza wants those who resign from Congress to keep it short. "Be brief," he advises.

Well, that's one way to put it. If they get part way into an explanation, we're confused. We might want to say: Then why are you leaving? In the longish version that Cillizza mocks, the answer to why is that the media have gone wild and are horribly cruel. Cillizza didn't quote another line in Franks's letter, which I see here:

"But in the midst of this current cultural and media climate, I am deeply convinced I would be unable to complete a fair House Ethics investigation before distorted and sensationalized versions of this story would put me, my family, my staff, and my noble colleagues in the House of Representatives through hyperbolized public excoriation."

This is somewhat similar to what Al Franken said yesterday:

I said at the outset that the ethics committee was the right venue for these allegations to be heard and investigated and evaluated on their merits. That I was prepared to cooperate fully and that I was confident in the outcome.... I know in my heart that nothing I have done as a senator — nothing — has brought dishonor on this institution, and I am confident that the ethics committee would agree.... It has become clear that I can't both pursue the ethics committee process and at the same time remain an effective senator for them. 

The way things are right now, the member of Congress cannot pursue vindication through the established process. The trial in the media and the opposition from other members of Congress is so severe that you have to end the exposure to their attacks. No future vindication at the end of a fair process seems worth the pain. Not to Franken or Franks.

Now, Donald Trump and Judge Roy Moore. Those guys will stand their ground forever and take it. Do you understand that?  If Franken or Franks think they're teaching a lesson by example to Trump and Moore, I think they're mistaken. They're teaching an anti-example.