At the Democratic convention, as Hillary beams, the crowd chants "Lock him up!"

I'd fallen asleep by then, because it was my bedtime and because I'd already watched a bunch of speeches. As I texted to my son, "I can't just be watching some coach." 

But this morning I was reading "'There Was a Whole Lot of Sass for a Gathering of Democrats': The Best and Worst Moments From Night 1 of the Convention" (full access link), with the NYT opinion writers giving individual opinions on concise topics, and, asked what was the worst moment, Charles M. Blow said, "It dragged on too long — and the unfortunate image of delegates chanting 'Lock him up' from the convention floor."

So I'm watching — and sharing — the relevant clip. Hillary looks great and seems to be doing what needs to be done, at least in that minute. I wonder what Blow thinks is so "unfortunate" about the delegates chanting "Lock him up." That criminally prosecuting the former President was deeply wrong or, at least, reflects badly on Democrats? That it reminds us of the chant "Lock her up" and creates a lot of dissonance for Democrats? 

KH picks Walz.

"Harris picks Tim Walz as VP ahead of multistate tour" (WaPo).

ADDED: This was expected, and what can we say about it? 

1. If it were a race for the presidency, Josh Shapiro would be the stronger candidate, but for that reason, I'm happy to see him left out of the position of subordination to the already subordinate person, Kamala Harris, the sitting Vice President, sitting in the shadow of the barely-there President Joe Biden. Better for Josh Shapiro to remain active and independent, accomplishing things in Pennsylvania, and to launch a presidential campaign in his own right in 2028 or 2032. He'll have a stronger position than Tim Walz, if Tim Walz is the sitting Vice President, hoping to run in 2032. A Vice President always looks inert, and he tends to have been chosen to strengthen someone else. Do you realize how rare it is that a sitting Vice President gets elected President? It's only happened twice in U.S. history — 4 times if you count the first 2 Vice Presidents (which you shouldn't, because they did not get there as the winner's running mate).

2. What does this say about Kamala Harris's position on Israel? Is she appeasing the pro-Palestinian forces within the Democratic Party? Was anti-Semitism involved or some kind of idea that Kamala Harris, being triply intersectional, needed a running mate completely composed of traditionally privileged elements?

3. I'm interested in watching the onslaught against Walz. In the last couple weeks, Democrats have unloaded on JD Vance, so it's time for the retaliation. What form will it take? How intense will it be?

4. Or is it better to yawn? From my morning textings:

5. Do I hear a Walz?

6. Is there something about "Tim"? Hillary picked a Tim too. Did you know that "tim" was "A term of personal abuse" in the 1600s (according to the OED). From Ben Jonson's "The Alchemist": "Then you are an Otter, and a Shad, a Whit, A very Tim." 

7. The name Hillary has been uttered, and she is summoned. Up she pops, and she is thrilled:

"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.

"I’m somewhat sympathetic to those who find protests uncomfortable. They’re always disruptive..."

"... as they’re supposed to be. And big loud crowds make me nervous now in a way that they didn’t when I was 22 and a big loud crowd was fun and meant I was at a club with oontz-oontz-oontz music and 73 of my closest friends. I now prefer political participation that is less hard on the knees. But I am exhilarated to see students using protest for exactly the reasons it’s protected by the First Amendment. It allows them to stand up for their values, invest in what’s happening in the world and hold decision makers accountable, even if it means putting themselves at risk. And most compellingly, it’s getting the attention of the president and other lawmakers who can effect change far beyond the walls of any university campus."

Writes Elizabeth Spiers in "What Hillary Clinton Got Wrong About Student Protesters" (NYT).

What did Hillary say that Spiers deemed wrong? She dismissed young people as ignorant of "the history of the Middle East or frankly about history in many areas of the world, including in our own country."

By the way, I had to look up "oontz-oontz-oontz music." I found this:

"Once she was deported from the U.S., [Maria Butina] became a member of Russia’s parliament and, of course, the host of her own TV program...."

"Today, the redheaded Butina, wearing an equally red blouse and suit pants, decides to talk about Hillary Clinton. Wait, what? Who still cares about Hillary Clinton? Apparently, Butina and Tanya from Taganrog still do. Tense music begins. According to the program, Clinton laughed 'hysterically' when she was shown pictures of the death of Muammar Qaddafi. 'What kind of monster responds to a person’s death like that?' Butina asks. A 'psychiatrist' appears and says, 'Yes, she’s a monster. But it’s because she has had to compete with men.' Donald Trump, whom Russian television adores, is shown calling her 'unstable.' 'What an awful woman,' the former U.S. president says. 'Hillary Clinton,' the chyron reads. 'A shark floating belly up?' A so-called expert on America is produced to diagnose Hillary’s early years: 'She wore big glasses, she had terrible teeth, and then she threw herself at Bill Clinton.'..."

Writes Gary Shteyngart in "I Watched Russian Television for Five Days Straight/My full immersion in Putin’s propaganda" (The Atlantic). The watching took place in 2023.

"One more lame defense you hear from Republicans: Democrats did this to Mr. Trump. But that’s false, too."

"Democrats did indeed focus on Russia’s assistance to Mr. Trump’s election campaign. But they did not claim that he wasn’t president. Hillary Clinton immediately conceded. President Barack Obama invited Mr. Trump to the White House and attended the inauguration." 

From "One more lame defense you hear from Republicans: Democrats did this to Mr. Trump. But that’s false, too" by the Editorial Board of The Washington Post.

The "lame defense" is put into words — "Democrats did this to Mr. Trump" — that seem easy to refute. The word "this" carries a silly amount of weight. What is "this"? What are these Republicans actually saying the Democrats did to Trump and how does it compare to what Trump and his supporters are doing to Biden now? Which is worse?!

Democrats didn't just "focus on Russia’s assistance." I won't take the time to write out all that Democrats did over the entire Trump presidency. And "Hillary Clinton immediately conceded" because the outcome was obvious on the first day. How would she have behaved if it had been as close and open-ended as the 2020 election? 

I couldn't take my eyes off Bill. What's he thinking?!

What do you think the bubble above Bill Clinton's head says right now? https://t.co/p3efFzKAFK

— Sharyl Attkisson🕵️‍♂️ (@SharylAttkisson) September 5, 2020

"Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don't give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is."

Said Hillary Clinton, quoted in Politico.

"The morning after the last election, I said, 'We owe Donald Trump an open mind and the chance to lead.' I meant it."

Why start with something so unbelievable?

That's the first line of the Hillary Clinton's convention speech last night. Transcript. Video:



ADDED: Here's the tweet Trump put up as Hillary was speaking last night. The video focuses on the Democrats' disruption of the transition of power:

Welcome, Barack and Crooked Hillary. See you on the field of battle! pic.twitter.com/ZrTKXcc6aU

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 19, 2020

"Hillary Clinton will deliver a prime-time speech next Wednesday for the Democratic National Convention..."

"Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts will join Mrs. Clinton, the 2016 nominee, on the Wednesday night program if she is not selected as Mr. Biden’s running mate, according to the officials. Former President Bill Clinton will speak as well, one of the officials said. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, a Republican who is a harsh critic of President Trump, will deliver addresses Monday night, the officials said. Former President Barack Obama’s time slot has not been announced (or leaked), but he could be included on a crammed Wednesday night program, or possibly introduce Mr. Biden on Thursday — to deliver a nationally televised rendition of the-Joe-I-know speech he has been giving during online Biden fund-raisers and round tables. It is not clear when Michelle Obama, who delivered what was widely regarded as the best speech at the 2012 convention in Charlotte, N.C., will speak. But planners have privately said they believe her address could attract the widest viewership outside of Mr. Biden’s."

From "2020 Election Live Updates: Democratic Convention to Feature Obamas and Clintons" (NYT).

Other than the Obamas, this sounds awful. I can't believe we're going to be stuck watching both of the Clintons. It's all so terribly old. Who wants to hear from Kasich?! And Warren and Sanders are the opposite of Biden. They're the candidates who got elbowed out by the party that didn't want them. But I guess they'll be good and play their part and concentrate on how it's all about getting rid of Trump.

Why #STFUHillary is trending on Twitter.

So why didn't you, Obama and Biden deal with it when you all had the power to do so? #STFUHillary https://t.co/4yt6tIeclr

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) June 7, 2020

"Over and over, we are told that women are not allowed to be angry. It makes us unattractive to powerful men who want us to be quiet."

"I’m angry and I own it. I’m angry on behalf of everyone who is hurt by Trump’s government, our rigged economy, and business as usual."

Wrote Elizabeth Warren in an email reacting to Joe Biden, who's written that she has an "angry, unyielding viewpoint."

Quoted in "Klobuchar and Warren are shattering the expectations of female candidates" (WaPo), a column by Karen Tumulty, which I read mainly to try to understand what expectations still existed that hadn't been shattered by Hillary Clinton.

The name Hillary Clinton does not appear in that column! Does the columnist have an "expectation" that females disappear when they are unwanted?

Okay, here's the answer, according to Tumulty. Supposedly female candidates proceed in "a cautious manner" and stick to "a narrow lane of acceptability" where they are "tough but likeable, strong but not pushy" and "[n]ever, ever angry."

"7:40 AM Sen. Durbin says it’s time for Iowa caucuses to end/7:35 AM Howard Dean says Iowa shouldn’t be first caucus anymore..."

I'm reading headlines at the Washington Post.

You see what they are doing? They're blaming Iowa. It's not the fault of the Democratic Party. It's Iowa's fault. After the citizens of Iowa put up with all that interaction with candidates swarming the state for the past year (and more) and after they showed up for this elaborate nighttime gathering in groups in gyms and showing support with their bodies, they are blamed for the screwup of the party!

The other blame-shifting I'm seeing is: The computers did it. There was an app and it somehow caused all the trouble. Reminiscent of Hillary's wipe-it-with-a-cloth computer problems. I really don't want to hear excuses that have to do with computers getting things wrong. This cannot have been a complicated app, and the backup was to use the phones, yet they want to blame the phone lines too! It's just not credible.

AND: There's also room to blame the Clintons: "Tech firm started by Clinton campaign veterans is linked to Iowa caucus reporting debacle" (LA Times):

An app created by a tech firm run by veterans of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign is taking heat for the unprecedented delay in reporting Democratic caucus results from Iowa. The firm behind the app reportedly is Shadow....

“When a light is shining, Shadows are a constant companion,” its website says....

"Late night congress is great stuff! I'm switching between Twilight Zone, Alfred Hitchcock and the impeachment hearings and it's all starting to make sense."

Said Mr. Forward in last night's "Are you watching the impeachment theater?/I walked out."

Me, I conked out early, got a full night's sleep, and am up at 3 a.m. to view the wreckage.

Headlines on the front page of the NYT:

Senate Adopts Framework After Acrimonious Debate

Republicans blocked Democrats’ efforts to subpoena documents and seek testimony, including from John Bolton. Witnesses could still be summoned later.

Chief Justice John Roberts admonished the House impeachment managers and President Trump’s lawyers to “remember where they are.”

At Davos, Trump Scoffs at Trial and ‘Prophets of Doom’/President Trump appeared at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on the day his trial began.

Impeachment Trial Begins in Acrimony/Republicans made last-minute changes to their proposed rules to placate moderates, but they held together to turn back Democratic proposals.

The headlines kept changing on me, and I don't think "Acrimonious" and "Acrimony" were up at the same time, but I infer that they wanted a negative word to describe the emotional atmosphere and they converged on "acrimony."

"Acrimony" is "anger and bitterness: harsh or biting sharpness especially of words, manner, or feelings." It's the same root as "acrid," which is used to describe a taste or smell.

Remember smellovision?



PLUS: "They'll have to have subtitles for the smelling impaired." Hey, thanks for thinking of me, Weird Al.

AND: The word "acrimony" also appears in the NYT headline, "‘Nobody Likes Him’: Hillary Clinton Risks a Party Split Over Bernie Sanders," which went up yesterday, and that's intraparty acrimony:

Since Mr. Sanders endorsed Mrs. Clinton in July 2016, the acrimony between the two camps has lingered. Mrs. Clinton and her former aides maintain that his endorsement came too late and was too lukewarm to truly unify the party. Some supporters of Mr. Sanders still argue that the Democratic National Committee “rigged” the rules to help her secure the nomination.

"'Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him'... it's not only him, it's the culture around him. It's his leadership team. It's his prominent supporters. It's his online Bernie Bros..."

"... and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women. And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — not only permitted, [he] seems to really be very much supporting it. And I don't think we want to go down that road again where you campaign by insult and attack and maybe you try to get some distance from it, but you either don't know what your campaign and supporters are doing or you're just giving them a wink and you want them to go after Kamala [Harris] or after Elizabeth [Warren]. I think that that's a pattern that people should take into account when they make their decisions.... Then this argument about whether or not or when he did or didn't say that a woman couldn't be elected, it's part of a pattern. If it were a one-off, you might say, 'OK, fine.' But he said I was unqualified. I had a lot more experience than he did, and got a lot more done than he had, but that was his attack on me. I just think people need to pay attention because we want, hopefully, to elect a president who's going to try to bring us together, and not either turn a blind eye, or actually reward the kind of insulting, attacking, demeaning, degrading behavior that we've seen from this current administration."

Said Hillary Clinton, quoted in "Hillary Clinton in Full: A Fiery New Documentary, Trump Regrets and Harsh Words for Bernie: "Nobody Likes Him'" (Hollywood Reporter). The quote within the quote — "Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him" — is from the documentary. The rest is from the Hollywood Reporter interview.

ADDED: She's talking about Bernie the way Democrats talk about Trump.

AND: Nobody likes you is a classic childhood taunt.

PLUS: How much do you care whether the politicians like each other? Does that benefit Us the People or is their inwardly directed cliquishness a danger? Do they like us?

A fantastic montage of the wildest moments of 2019.

The most powerful woman.

"A face-to-face confrontation between Hillary Clinton and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard set for next Friday was averted when Clinton backed out of the Fortune Most Powerful Women Summit in Washington, DC. Clinton aides cited a scheduling conflict when she announced her withdrawal from a speaking slot at the annual event...."

The NY Post reports.

"Hillary Clinton has warned that Russia, which interfered in the US election she lost in 2016, is 'grooming' a Democratic candidate for a third-party run next year..."

"... signalling congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard could fill the role. The goal of this would essentially be to divide the US electorate and help President Donald Trump win re-election, Clinton said. 'I'm not making any predictions but I think they've got their eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary, and they're grooming her to be the third-party candidate,' the former secretary of state told David Plouffe in his 'Campaign HQ' podcast. 'She's the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.'"

Yahoo News reports.

Is she just making this up? She thinks the Russians have a favorite and they have "ways of supporting her"? They have ways of supporting her but are they using these ways? The "so far" at the end insinuates that they are already using these ways, but maybe it only means that so far they have ways and of course they have "sites and bots" and Hillary "thinks" they can use them and if they did, they'd use them for Tulsi. If Trump came out with a theory like this, he'd be portrayed as a conspiracy-theory lunatic.

ADDED: Tulsi responds:

Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a ...

— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) October 18, 2019

... powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.

It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.

— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) October 18, 2019

Is Hillary running?!

From "New Hillary listening tour: ‘I’d like to hear what you're thinking'" (Washington Examiner).

In an email to supporters, the 2008 and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate said, “I’d like to hear what you’re thinking.”...

“I’ve been traveling and talking with folks around the world about their plans for the rest of the year. Some members of this team are doubling down on issues from voting rights to immigration reform, while others are focused on electing Democrats at all levels in 2019 and 2020. Like you, they’re all thinking about how we can best work toward making our country a place where the values we share are front and center — in our policy and in the way we treat each other,” she wrote for her group, “Onward Together.”

I said it last May:

Yesterday, on Facebook, my son John declared an "Open thread for your predictions on who’ll win the 2020 presidential election. I know it’s too early, but it’s still fun to guess." There were lots of answers, mostly "Trump," but some said Biden or Harris or Buttigieg. After 4 hours of that, I said:

Hillary. It’s her turn.

I laughed and I got laughs:

But is it a joke? Someone else commented...

Tune in, turn on, drop out — with Hillary Clinton. Listen to the colors of your mind.

I'm reading Architectural Digest's Step Inside Bill and Hillary Clinton's Deeply Personal Washington, D.C., Home." Deeply personal? Is that even possible

Ms. Clinton’s mother, Dorothy Rodham, partnered with her daughter in selecting most of the furnishings and landing on just the right paint and patterns... “Both my mother and I love color, and you can see, we have a lot of color in the house that came from our collaboration.”... “I have to say, it was a very nice refuge from my life in the Senate,” says Ms. Clinton of the process. “I’d come home or I’d get sent color samples, or fabric swatches, or pictures of furniture, and it was a nice way to turn one part of my brain off and turn the other on.”

Turn off your mind, relax and float downstream.

From the slideshow...

An anteroom ahead of the kitchen, this nook is used for informal meetings.... The space has a little desk that Ms. Rodham had used for correspondence and paying bills.

We're calling her "Ms. Rodham now? And I'm supposed to picture her sitting at a little desk paying her own bills and doing "correspondence"? What is it, the 19th century all of a sudden? Is she still selling the idea that she doesn't know anything about email? [ADDED: Sorry, "Ms. Rodham" must be the mother Dorothy.]

[The decorator Rosemarie] Howe experimented in order to find just the right red for these walls, something coral and not too blue. She landed on Benjamin Moore Bird of Paradise 1305. The painting over the love seat is by Virginia artist Barbara Ryan. “It was something I saw and admired so long ago,” says Ms. Clinton. “We’ve had it for many years. Someone who looked at it remarked and laughed: If you look at the cloud or smoke in the back, it looks like a comic profile of my husband. But that’s not why I bought it.”

Not why I bought it but I enjoy telling people the puff of nothingness in the background looks like my husband... who used to have a little nook next to the Oval Office for informal meetings.

I'm sorry! Am I going too deeply personal? All right then, I'll turn that part of my brain off and turn the other one on, the one that thinks somebody has some D.C. real estate to unload and a glitzy magazine to assist in reeling in a credulous buyer.

But listen to the color of your dreams/It is not living, it is not living/Or play the game "Existence" to the end/Of the beginning...

ADDED: Here at Meadhouse, the word "deeply" is considered deplorable. Read the 2014 post, "Deeply... it's such a poser word."

Said Meade... It made me wish I'd had a tag on the word "deeply" all along. It's a metaphor, creating an image of abstract concepts in space. Where are you when you are "deeply in love"? There are so many trite usages — deeply in love, deeply disappointed, deeply religious, thinking deeply, deeply troubled, deeply concerned, deeply offended, deeply regret — and "deeply" is deeply embedded in constitutional law doctrine with the phrase "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition." But I'm interested in seeing how is "deeply" is deployed in various political and cultural statements, so I've searched this blog's archive, and here's the best of what I found....

There's a list of 12 items, and it deserves a new one, the unlucky 13th: "Step Inside Bill and Hillary Clinton's Deeply Personal Washington, D.C., Home." Interestingly enough, 2 of the items on the old list have Hillary:

5. Last May [2013[, Tina Brown said: "Now that Chelsea is pregnant, and life for Hillary can get so deeply familial and pleasant, she can have her glory-filled post-presidency now, without actually having to deal with the miseries of the office itself..."...

8. "Clinton’s interest in global women’s issues is deeply personal, a mission she adopted when her husband was in the White House after the stinging defeat of her health care policy forced her to take a lower profile." 

"Deeply" — in the Hillary Clinton context — seems like a cloud or puff of smoke in the shape of defeat.