Where hate seems to be going.

As perceived by Marianne Williamson, writing on X:

We seem to have gone from calling for justice for Palestinians - a call with which I wholeheartedly agree - to an absurd romanticization of a gigantic death cult. That cult is not just coming for the Jews. Those who continue yelling 'We’re not antisemites!!!' while at least passively joining Hamas in their call for our destruction are naively aligning with a movement that hates them too.

"President Trump has ushered in an age of political theatre – a collective adrenaline rush that has enabled him to not only move masses of people into his camp..."

"... but also masses of people away from ours. It does not serve us to underestimate the historic nature of what he has achieved. In fact, it’s important that we recognize the psychological and emotional dimensions of Trump’s appeal. We need to understand it to create the energy to counter it. MAGA is a distinctly 21st century political movement and it will not be defeated by a 20th century tool kit.... [W]e must immediately get about the task of creating a new party. It will be….  A party that listens more, and makes people feel that their thoughts and feelings are as important as their wallets. A party that advocates unequivocally for the working people of the United States. A party with the humility to recognize we need to look in the mirror, and be willing to reinvent ourselves...."

Writes Marianne Williamson, announcing that she's running for chair of the Democratic National Party.

ADDED: I like how she spelled "theatre"... especially while touting herself as in touch with the mind of America. "Theatre" is British English. "Theater" is American English.

"If I run, there are forces within the Democratic Party who would be trying to invisibilize me."

"I think they will have an easier time invisibilizing me if I run third party. If I do run, and I run as a Democrat, I will be more inconvenient to the people who need to be inconvenienced."

Said the charmingly glib Marianne Williamson, quoted in "Potential Biden challenger Marianne Williamson heads to New Hampshire/The visit comes as state Democrats warn the ongoing showdown over primary dates 'will create an opening for an insurgent candidate' that could embarrass the president" (WaPo).

I love the quote. Great repetition of 2 cool words beginning with "i" — "invisibilize" and "inconvenien- t/ced." Invisibilizing as the defense to inconveniencing. And the way to fight invisibility is to be more inconvenient. Another way to fight invisibility is to say intriguing, interesting things.

"Republican policies represent a nosedive for our democracy.... And Democratic policies represent a managed decline.... The status quo is unsustainable... There is too much human despair out there."

Said Marianne Williamson, quoted "Marianne Williamson: A Politico or Apolitical?/The outsider from the 2020 presidential race ponders what’s next" (NYT).

In some ways, Ms. Williamson is like a Rorschach test: Many thrill to her message, while others doubt her sincerity and believe she is feeding into the speculation about a second presidential run only in order to linger on the stage. 

The night Mr. Trump was elected, Ms. Williamson was speaking at the Marble Collegiate Church in New York, as she did every Tuesday. A childhood friend, Geri Roper, was in the audience. Afterward, “sad and shocked,” the two women drank Lillet and Perrier cocktails at the bar at the NoMad Hotel, Ms. Roper recalled. “You should run for president,” Ms. Roper told her friend....

Asked again, this week, if she was ready to announce that she intends to run for president, she just laughed and declined to answer. Later she sent a text. “The media is always interested in the horse race, but to me that’s not what matters most,” it read. “What matters most is not just the who but the what....”

Not just the who but the what — a great slogan. Of course, the NYT writer (Casey Schwartz), has the sense to ask, what?! And, of course, she has no idea what.

Credit/blame for saying the right/wrong number.

Why should it have mattered what the president said he wanted? What should have mattered is what the Democrats demanded.

— Marianne Williamson (@marwilliamson) December 23, 2020

"Left-leaning Claudia [Conway] has been openly feuding with her parents on TikTok and Twitter all summer, bashing them for their conservative views."

"At one point she urged progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to adopt her. Saturday’s tweet ['I’m officially pushing for emancipation'] came alongside many more in which she penned her frustration over her [mother Kellyanne Conway's] work for the president, and over recent praise of her father, George Conway, for his work as co-founder of the Lincoln Project, a Republican anti-Trump group. 'As for my dad, politically, we agree on absolutely nothing. We just both happen to have common sense when it comes to our current president. Stop "stanning" him,' Claudia tweeted.... 'My mother’s job ruined my life to begin with,' she wrote. 'Heartbreaking that she continues to go down that path after years of watching her children suffer. Selfish. It’s all about money and fame, ladies and gentlemen.'... 'I’m a savage lol I’m aware,' read her last tweet...."

From "Kellyanne Conway’s daughter Claudia 'officially pushing for emancipation'" (NY Post).

I see she got a response — a wise response — from Marianne Williamson:

I don’t agree with your mother politically, Claudia, but she’s still your mom. I promise you your life ahead will be better if you handle your issues with her privately. I’m sure she’d go to counseling with you, if you don’t already. Love has got to trump politics. It just has to

— Marianne Williamson (@marwilliamson) August 23, 2020

Claudia sounds like she is what she is — a 15-year-old kid. She's saying things that would only be shouted around the house if it weren't for social media and that would go nowhere on social media if her parents weren't famous.

In case you missed it...

This was gorgeous, in case you missed it. pic.twitter.com/XABIUDa0oP

— Marianne Williamson (@marwilliamson) August 18, 2020

I object to the use of children in politics but that was a lot better than this...



And this...



IN THE COMMENTS: Wince said:

Why weren't they shown taking a knee?

Simultaneously, Bob Boyd:

Were they all kneeling?

Which was exactly what Meade said here in real space.

The answer to Wince is: They were shown from the chest up, in the familiar coronavirus-y style of people Zooming from home. That's why it's so funny to ask "Were they all kneeling?"

"Andrew’s personality is like a tuning fork realigning us with something we need to retrieve, taking us back to a more innocent time, making us remember to chuckle...."

"This is not an unserious issue at all, for that chuckle has more power to take us over the line in 2020 than does all the anger in the world. Quite simply, the demon doesn’t know how to eat it. Andrew is light in tone, but he is deep in substance."

View this post on Instagram

Part 3 of 3: It’s not a transactional politics, but a relational one, that will win in 2020. And that takes me to Andrew. Three personality characteristics define how Andrew comes across. They are self-confidence, levity, and positivity. Many believe these are less important than the details of his stances on health care, the economy, or foreign affairs. But such things are every bit as important as where he stands on those issues, because at a time like this the issues aren’t the only issue. The most important thing is that we win in 2020. Nothing, nothing, nothing is more important. We won’t beat Trump only on the issues; if that were the case, he wouldn’t be president today. We will beat him by forging an emotional connection with the American people that is more compelling than his. Self-confidence, levity and positivity are exactly what America has lost and needs to regain. It’s also what millions of Americans long for. Andrew’s personality is like a tuning fork realigning us with something we need to retrieve, taking us back to a more innocent time, making us remember to chuckle. There was a time, not so long ago, when America was self-confident and positive about our future. This is not an unserious issue at all, for that chuckle has more power to take us over the line in 2020 than does all the anger in the world. Quite simply, the demon doesn’t know how to eat it. Andrew is light in tone, but he is deep in substance. I know from first hand experience the breadth of his intellect and the expansiveness of his heart. That “humanity first” stuff applies not only to his policies but to how he goes through life. Bernie and Elizabeth will make it past Iowa and beyond; I admire them both, but right now they don’t need my help. I’m lending my support to Andrew in Iowa, hopefully to help him get past the early primaries & remind us not to take ourselves too seriously. We need that this year. We need to lighten up on a personal level, because the moment is so serious on a political level. Otherwise the months ahead will be too tough on all of us. The only one who’d be laughing at the end of the year is Trump. And we must not, must not, must not let that happen.

A post shared by Marianne Williamson (@mariannewilliamson) on Jan 22, 2020 at 9:01pm PST

Marianne Williamson drops out because, she says, she "will not be able to garner enough votes in the election to elevate our conversation any more than it is now."

Full statement here.

She was a delightful presence in the race, and I have a special delight in her leaving, because she said that word, "garner."

Did her message also include the word "love"?... which, speaking of words, I associate with her because of this epic debate moment...



Answer: Yes. It's the last thing she says: "A politics of conscience is still yet possible. And yes….love will prevail."

A fantastic montage of the wildest moments of 2019.

The "overly secularized Left" loses a lot of votes by treating people who believe in prayer "with mockery or condescension."

I was born and raised in Texas so I’ve seen it. Millions of people today are praying that Dorian turn away from land, and treating those people with mockery or condescension because they believe it could help is part of how the overly secularized Left has lost lots of voters.

— Marianne Williamson (@marwilliamson) September 4, 2019

That's after she deleted her own post after it was mocked. Here's a screen shot:

"I know this sounds naïve... I didn’t think the left was so mean. I didn’t think the left lied like this."

Said Marianne Williamson (in a New Yorker interview).

I have not listened to the audio yet, but according to the summary at the link, she's talking about accusations that she's an anti-vaxxer and uses crystals and that sort of thing.

Of course, this is intensifying the right's very special love for Marianne. Breitbart's article on this topic has over 6,000 comments. The highest rated comment is: "The democrat party is in very deep trouble, because Marianne Williamson sounds much saner than the rest of the candidates....and Marianne Williamson is certifiably crazy." (The comments are threaded at Breitbart, so it's almost impossible to get to the second-highest-comment. Everyone seems to be jumping the time line by replying to the top-rated comment. Very boring!)

I'm glad to have a use for my old tag "meanies."

Marianne.

View this post on Instagram

@mariannewilliamson work in prog...

A post shared by Chloe Fineman (@chloeiscrazy) on Aug 13, 2019 at 6:36pm PDT

"The best send up of Williamson was by Sigourney Weaver playing Debra Moorehouse in the gay film Jeffrey."

Writes J. Farmer — in the comments to my post "Marianne Williamson escapes the paw-like grip of Bill Maher" — linking to this video clip:



The movie is from 1995, and here's a contemporaneous San Francisco Chronicle article, which mentions the "self-help guru Debra Moorehouse (Sigourney Weaver)": "Powerful, full of 12-step cliches, Debra is obviously a send-up of Marianne Williamson and other charismatic, quick-fix evangelists."

Marianne Williamson escapes the paw-like grip of Bill Maher.

You can see that he wanted to nail her on religion (his longtime bugaboo). "You were Oprah's spiritual leader," Maher says, and when she murmurs modestly — "Oprah was very generous to me" — he gives an "mmm-hmmm" in a tone that gets a laugh out of the audience. (Exactly why? I hear insinuation that the relationship was sexual, and that feels like retrograde homophobia. My Googling about Williamson's sexuality diverted me to "Marianne Williamson Implies Mike Pence Is Gay/'Well, there are all kinds of theories about that, aren’t there?'")

Maher presses her on the book — "A Course in Miracles" — that is the basis of her teachings. It sounds like Scientology, he says, and she enacts mild, lighthearted offense. He's concerned about anything based on one book, and she says the book collects spiritual wisdom from "all religions and no religions — like you." The audience slowly absorbs the "like you" and builds into a laugh. That breaks Maher's pace. He giggles and places his big hand on her shinily padded shoulder.

His next move is to confront her with the fact that the author of "A Course in Miracles" said she "took dictation from Jesus." This is just about the first thing you learn about the book if you read Wikipedia or the "Course in Miracles" website:

A Course in Miracles was “scribed” by Dr. Schucman between 1965 and 1972 through a process of inner dictation. She experienced the process as one of a distinct and clear dictation from an inner voice, which earlier had identified itself to her as Jesus.

Williamson says, dismissively: "Well, there's nothing in the book" — she blows a puff of air — "Maybe she felt that." Maher pushes, she deflects. The book doesn't even try to get us to believe in God or Jesus: "The book tries to get us to believe in each other." Maher hits the table lightly with his fist, says, "We can't argue with that," and moves on.

He compliments her. In the debates, unlike everybody else, she "goes to the root of things." He mostly wants to talk about how people don't eat right and pharmaceutical companies are greedy and "all the toxicity and the chemicals," but she wants to talk about the need for love and spiritual wholeness. They chatter at cross purposes. Then she comes around to talking about "the corporations" and he cuts her off: "Don't become a politician now!"

ADDED: Let me front page something I just wrote in the comments:

By the way, the show continued with MW participating along with the panel of 3 other guests. During this part of the show, which I didn't find on video, but watched on TV last night, Maher showed his dislike for MW in ways [that] felt sexist to me....

He intended to make her look bad and his plan failed and he was irritated about that. MW is good at receiving and redirecting negative energy, and BM is under pressure to keep his show moving and interesting and funny and he couldn't make her happen the way he wanted.

"We cannot keep with the Republican talking points on this. You got to stop."

Said Kamala Harris at the Democratic Party candidates' debate last night. She was pushing back Michael Bennet, who'd said that her health-care plan would eliminate employer-based insurance and cost an amount of money equal to 70% of what government collects in taxes. She goes on to say that employer-based private insurance that follows all the new rules can continue and people will have a choice between "a private Medicare plan" and "a public Medicare plan."

I don't want to attempt to compare the various health-care plans (and I don't believe that electing a particular candidate will result in our getting their plan any more than electing Trump got us a border wall (and Mexico will pay for it!)).

I just want to talk about the rhetoric "Republican talking point." It wasn't just Kamala Harris. It was Joe Biden: "This is not a Republican talking point." And Julian Castro: "Open borders is a right-wing talking point."

And (to go back to the Tuesday night debate), Elizabeth Warren said it twice: "We should stop using Republican talking points in order to talk with each other...." And "What you want to do instead is find the Republican talking point of a made-up piece of some other part and say, Oh, we don't really have to do anything."

There was Bernie Sanders: "And, Jake, your question is a Republican talking point."

Marianne Williamson used the phrase, but warily: "And I do have concern about what the Republicans would say. And that's not just a Republican talking point."

It's such a cliché already that its usefulness may already be gone, but let me do my part to try to kill it. I assume — and I am a moderate voter in Wisconsin, capable of going for either party's candidate — that the Republicans' talking points are their best arguments on all the various issues. A Democratic Party candidate, to be any good, better demonstrate skill at countering these arguments, these talking points!

It's especially bad to use the line against the debate moderator, as Bernie did — "Jake, your question is a Republican talking point." It sounds as though he's implying that Jake Tapper should go easy on him and not challenge him with the very arguments he'll have to deal with if he's the Democratic Party candidate.

And it's terrible to use the phrase as a way to refuse to deal with a problem with your position. Julian Castro said "open borders is a right-wing talking point, and frankly I'm disappointed that some folks, including some folks on this stage, have taken the bait." His whole argument was Shut up, you sound like a Republican. And he wasn't even talking to the other candidates. He was talking to one of the moderators (Don Lemon), who had quoted President Obama's homeland security secretary, Jeh Johnson. Your immigration policy sounds like open borders! If it's not open borders, you'd better explain why!

And look at that Kamala Harris quote I put in the title: "We cannot keep with the Republican talking points on this. You got to stop." You've got the slang "We cannot keep with" and the (intentionally?) bad grammar "You got to stop." Is that supposed to be sassy and cute? To me, it sounds tired and unprepared. Or worse... it sounds like you know your policy is bad and vulnerable to attack but you're going to bull forward with it anyway. It's the best you got... the best you've got.

"Republican talking point" is a Democratic talking point.

"It’s $500 billion dollars — $200 to $500 billion dollars — payment of a debt that is owed. That is what reparations is."

"We need some deep truth-telling when it comes. We don’t need another commission to look at evidence, I appreciate what Congressman O’Rourke has said. It is time for us to simply realize that this country will not heal. All that a country is is a collection of people. People heal when there is some deep truth-telling. We need to recognize when it comes to the economic gap between blacks and whites in America. It does come from a great injustice that has never been dealt with. That great injustice has had to deal with the fact that there were 250 years of slavery followed by another 100 years of domestic terrorism. What makes me qualified to say $200 to $500 billion dollars? I’ll tell you what makes me qualified. If you did the math of the 40 acres and a mule given that there were four to five million slaves at the end of the Civil War and they were all promised 40 acres and a mule for every family of four. If you did the math today it would be trillions of dollars. And I believe anything less than $100 billion dollars is an insult and I believe that $200 to $500 billion is politically feasible today because so many Americans realize there is an injustice that continues to form a toxicity underneath the surface and an emotional turbulence that only reparations will heal."

Said Marianne Williamson at last night Democratic Party candidates' debate, quoted by Eugene Scott at "Marianne Williamson makes the case for reparations in her breakout debate moment" (WaPo)(Scott writes "million" for billion in this piece that went up 6 hours ago, and no one at the Washington Post has noticed yet).



Scott writes:

Reparations has not polled particularly well with the American public, but the topic has seen renewed focus this year as many presidential candidates have been asked to address it and the House held a hearing on it earlier this summer.

From the comments over there: "Reparations is the dumbest idea democrats have ever had. If you want to motivate republicans try this bs." I guess that means it's a "dumb" idea because it's politically dangerous for Democrats. It's not a dumb idea in terms of moral reasoning. It has some practical and legal problems. And it might be a smart idea politically if your goal is to impede the progress of excessively left-wing candidates.

Anyway, I give Williamson high marks for rhetoric and delivery. She's on fire.

I guess we’re watching the Democratic Party candidates’ debate.

Not promising I’ll have anything to say, but here’s a place to talk about it.

And my son John is live-blogging it here.

7:07 — Oh, no! A gun! Tim Ryan doesn't have his hand over his heart for the National Anthem. Great rendition of the song.

7:11 — Amy and Liz are wearing red jackets (Liz's is brighter and longer), and Marianne is in an all-black suit. The men are, of course, all in dark suits, but Buttigieg is distinguished with a somewhat lighter blue-colored suit.

7:14 — Opening statements, what a bore! Bullock — he gets stuff done. He says people "can't wait for revolution" — that's ambiguous! Marianne Williamson rails against an "amoral economic system" which has become "a false god." John Delaney is against "impossible promises" that "will get Trump reelected." Tim Ryan has a top-of-the-head/bottom-of-the-head-disproportion... and not in the right direction. Hickenlooper shares progressive values but is "a little more pragmatic." Who's clearing their throat into the mike while Hickenlooper is talking?! Amy Klobuchar has "had it with the racist attacks" (not sure if she means the attacks from Trump or on Trump). Beto O'Rourke wants to stand up against "a lawless President." Buttigieg says "our country is running out of time." What's that thing on his face? Elizabeth Warren says Trump is a "disgrace" but he's just part of a "rigged system" that "kicks dirt" at... oh, is that what happened to Buttigieg's face? Bernie Sanders is pissed at Amazon. His upper lip is Nixonizing.

7:26 — The first question goes to Bernie Sanders and lets him plug in his health-care proposal. Dull! He's pitted against Delaney, who's criticized Sanders's plan. "Why do we gotta be the party that's taking something away from people?" Warren breaks in. Her theme tonight seems to be about how the Democrats really all want the same thing. She insists on telling an anecdote about a "cute little boy." It's all out of control! Jake Tapper breaks in to tame her: Are you for Medicare for all? She brushes it off to get back to her anecdote — "I want to get back to Addie" — and the crowd laughs. She chides, "It's not funny." We are scolded, scolded for expecting her to answer the question asked.

7:34 — The health-care issue is too complicated to discuss in this agitated, rushed way. It's making me ill. So much yelling and stress. I'm tuning out on this issue. I don't think it works well in a debate, not with all these contestants and tight time limits and permitting candidates to break in and go overtime. It's incredibly irritating.

7:45 — A lot of concern about union members losing the private health insurance benefits in the move to Medicare for all. Delaney explains how health care will decline under that plan — it's a matter of simple arithmetic — and Sanders accuses him of profiteering off private insurance. It seems like a wild slur. Sanders gets so mad and turns bright red. It's so off-putting!

7:51 — They're talking about immigration. Sanders just assured us we would have "strong border protections," but most of the talk is about "de-criminalizing" crossing the border. Bullock was sounding a bit like Trump and then he said the whole problem was Trump. I'm hearing a lot of emotion and railing against Trump, but the substance is a jumble. No one is standing out. Maybe Buttigieg, just for staying calm.

7:58 — Guns. I don't think any of this is new. How much longer is this debate? Another hour.

8:06 — Bullock brags about "gettin' the Koch brothers out of Montana." That doesn't sound right to me! Singling out particular private citizens and driving them out of your state?

8:11 — Is Bernie Sanders too far left to beat Trump? Tapper asks Hickenlooper. Hickenlooper doesn't give a clear "yes" and there's such a barrage of words that I have no idea what he said. He's not defining himself, so he is losing. There is some cute byplay when Hickenlooper says Sanders just throws his hands up and Sanders does the throwing-the-hands-up gesture and Hickenlooper does it back at him.

8:17 — Elizabeth Warren is "not afraid" and she thinks Democrats win when they figure out what they believe in and fight for it. Delaney says something pragmatic and she smashes him with: "I don't understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for President of the United States just to talk about what we really can't do and shouldn't fight for." That’s the quote of the night.

8:24 — Amy Klobuchar is invited to say who is making promises just to get elected. She declines to attack anyone individually... other than, of course, Trump. But now that I think about it, no one is landing any serious attack on Trump. It's a given, often repeated, that Trump must be defeated, but I'm not hearing anything memorable undermining Trump.

8:33 — Climate change. I got distracted looking into what that necklace is that Williamson's wearing....

https://t.co/boLEfmyQQB pic.twitter.com/FCQsYlNVAj

— Marianne Williamson (@marwilliamson) July 31, 2019

8:37 — I'm checking out Twitter. Interesting that some of the candidates are tweeting during the debate. In other words, the illusion that they tweet their own tweets is ruined.

8:40 — I don't know what Marianne Williamson was just saying, but it was very exciting and I kinda got chills.

8:47 — Drudge has a "who's winning?" poll. I thought a second, then voted for Williamson. Turns out she has 43% of the vote. That's way out in front. Delaney is next, with only 10%. Not scientific, but weird.

8:58 — May the yelling end soon. I am weary....

9:28 — I thought this would end at 9, and I’ve basically treated it as over since then. I am kind of listening, but... whoa! Marianne!!! Okay, I checked back in for that radical psychic energy, and now I’m back out again.

9:39 — That thing is now gone from Pete Buttigieg’s face. I wonder what it was?

"Mostly the Democrats are taking tweet-size bites out of one another’s hind parts in Heathers-style putdowns, or engaging in virtue-signaling contests, like they’re running for president of Woke Twitter."

From "The Iowa Circus/An overstuffed field of candidates is repeating the Republicans’ 2016 primary-season errors" by Matt Taibbi (Rolling Stone).

It's a long article. Feel to read it. I'm just going to cherry-pick some stuff about Marianne Williamson:

Precisely because socioeconomic stresses have pushed them into heightened awareness, she says, the American public sees what she calls “a transition from democracy to aristocracy,” and the corporate sector’s “insatiable appetite” for money that dominates American life....

Williamson [says] that most Americans are aware that their government is now little more than a handmaiden to sociopathic forces. She describes a two-party system that, at its worst, operates in perfect harmony with the darkest impulses of corporate capitalism, and at best — presumably she refers more to Democrats here — sounds like institutionalized beggary.

“ ‘Pretty please, can I maybe have a hundred-thousand-dollar grant here?’ ” she says. “ ‘Pretty please, can we maybe have a million dollars in the budget for all this?’ ”

Heads are nodding all over the place.

“They say, ‘I can get you a cookie.’ ”

This elicits a few yeahs from the crowd.

Christ, I think. This woman is going to win the nomination....

Marianne Williamson is polling higher than Cory Booker, Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Jay Inslee...

I say out loud (as I read about a new poll of registered voters in New Hampshire).

The response from Meade was singing: "Hey, Marianne, what's your game now, can anybody play?" Based on:



It's a pretty small poll — only 390 respondents — but it's fascinating that Marianne Williamson got 1.5%, and "serious" candidates Cory Booker, Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Jay Inslee lagged behind (with 1.2, 1.0, 0.7, and 0.3, respectively).

ADDED: If a pollster called you up, why wouldn't you say "Marianne"? It says so many things. For example it says: I know who you are pollster, but you don't know me, you don't know anything about my world.

AND: Screw the pollsters! Everyone should say "Marianne."