It's too close to call over at the NYT, but "Abdul El-Sayed has won Michigan’s slugfest of a Democratic Senate primary, NBC News projects."

I'm reading "Abdul El-Sayed wins Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, notching a Midwest victory for the left/The former public health official has defeated Rep. Haley Stevens, NBC News projects, despite facing a huge advertising disadvantage."

El-Sayed overcame a nearly $65 million onslaught of outside money and an establishment that had rallied around Stevens. Popular Gov. Gretchen Whitmer endorsed Stevens late last month — a move seen as a last-ditch effort to stop a rising El-Sayed.

Here's the NYT version of the news: "Primary Elections Live Updates: Race Too Close to Call in Democratic Primary for Michigan Senate Seat/Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive, holds a narrow lead over Representative Haley Stevens, a centrist, in a race that divided Democrats. The party sees the seat as key to its hopes of winning control of the chamber" (gift link).

"While I’m assigning blame, I shouldn’t leave out myself. Last October, when stories about Platner’s tattoo and Reddit posts first broke..."

"... I went to Maine to write about him. I tried to convey what I saw: a campaign that was electrifying angry Maine voters. But I deeply regret that, impressed by Platner’s political charisma, I wrote that he was 'nothing like the edgelord caricature I encountered online.' If anything, he seems to be significantly worse...."

Writes Michelle Goldberg, in "Lessons From the Graham Platner Disaster" (NYT).

That article she wrote and links to came out last October. It sets out to prop him up as he was falling long before the primary: "Platner is the oyster farmer and former Marine with a baritone voice and a Bernie Sanders endorsement who this fall came seemingly out of nowhere to capture progressive hearts nationwide. Recently, a barrage of ugly revelations made it look like perhaps all the hope invested in him had been misplaced...."

Hearts. Hope.

Here's Goldberg, back in October, explaining that Nazi tattoo:

"That's the precise point, 1 minute and 10 seconds in, where I clicked off the audiobook."

I wrote, 2 days ago, in what I called "a short, enigmatic blog post." I said, "I think anyone, using AI, can now easily discover what book is being talked about."

Shortly after posting, I tested AI and added the story of how it failed to identify the book. The problem was that the language I found so off-putting — "For as this appalling ocean surrounds the verdant land" — wasn't written by the book's author. It was the book's epigraph, a quote from "Moby-Dick," a quote that at least 2 other authors have used. AI never found the book I'd been listening to. 

At that point, I became curious enough to go back to the audiobook and I listened to the whole thing. It was a book I'd blogged about last Tuesday after reading a NYT column about it. The column was called "She Was a Famous Millennial Feminist. Her Polyamory Memoir Is Heartbreaking." I have a long-running problem with the word "heartbreaking," and I blurted out "Heartbreaking? Really? It's dangerous bullshit from West. I don't regard this as another occasion to summon up empathy."

West = Lindy West. The book is "Adult Braces: Driving Myself Sane" (commission earned). And I'm going to stand by my blurted-out opinion: It is not heartbreaking. It's dangerous bullshit. 

Let me quote from page 123, where the author call herself a “people pleaser" and calls "people pleaser" "a hideous misnomer for a hideous behavior." Boldface added:

“People pleasing” is never about pleasing people—it’s about the pleaser avoiding discomfort, confrontation, accountability. It’s a manipulation, a rot that threatens all my relationships, not because it makes me “too nice” and vulnerable to exploitation, but because it makes me a liar who isn’t willing to do the hard work of love.

"In earlier writing, [Lindy] West presented her union with the musician Ahamefule Oluo... as a kind of feminist fairy-tale ending."

"'My Wedding Was Perfect — and I Was Fat as Hell the Whole Time,' said the headline of a 2015 column she wrote in The Guardian. But if the wedding was idyllic, West reveals in 'Adult Braces,' the marriage was not. Almost from the beginning, she writes, Aham conditioned their relationship on his being able to sleep with other women. She gave in because she was desperate to keep him, but his dalliances made her intolerably insecure. Because West lived in a left-wing milieu in which nonmonogamy is common, she felt an extra layer of shame over her inability to accept Aham’s extramarital sex life. ('At the time, being cool about polyamory felt like a growing imperative in progressive circles,' she writes.) Her anguish was exacerbated by an excruciating degree of bodily self-hatred, which, as she knows, contradicts the persona she’s built her career on. 'Do you think I have ever felt like I deserved to demand anything from men?' she asks.... [Aham] used her politics against her; West reports that Aham, who is half-Nigerian, 'believed that monogamy was, at its root, a system of ownership.'... [At the end of 'Adult Braces,' West writes] 'If you think I have been brainwashed and I am secretly miserable, I simply do not know what to tell you.'"

Writes Michelle Goldberg, in "She Was a Famous Millennial Feminist. Her Polyamory Memoir Is Heartbreaking" (NYT).

Heartbreaking? Really? It's dangerous bullshit from West. I don't regard this as another occasion to summon up empathy.

"It wasn’t long ago that casual contempt for white women was the domain of the left, at least that part of the left that took books like 'White Fragility' seriously."

"So it’s striking how easily conservatives, who’ve been stewing over insults to white people for at least five years, have singled out a group of white women as the enemy. But it also makes sense, because everyone hates an apostate. In the right-wing imagination, these women are acting like harpies — an epithet often seen online — when they’re supposed to be helpmeets. Fox News’s Will Cain described a 'weird kind of smugness' in the way 'some of these liberal white women interact with authority.' For MAGA, ICE’s eagerness to put women in their place might be a feature, not a bug."

Writes Michelle Goldberg, in "The Right Is Furious With Liberal White Women" (NYT).

There's a link on "casual contempt for white women." It goes to a 2020 BBC article about the mythic figure known as Karen — "What exactly is a 'Karen' and where did the meme come from?"

Contempt toward women is pervasive throughout the world and throughout history, but it can also be a special left-or-right problem happening at particular times and in particular places. Social media keeps feeding me videos of women acting hyper-privileged and oblivious of the risk or screaming and losing her mind over practically nothing.

Michelle Goldberg calls Olivia Nuzzi's book "a grandiose postmodern pastiche that attempts to situate her personal catastrophe in the context of our collective one."

"Interspersed with Nuzzi’s stream-of-consciousness musings are facts about drone strikes, gun deaths and wild fires; long chunks of Q&A dialogue, including with Donald Trump; a court document detailing the assault on Nancy Pelosi’s husband; an F.B.I. report on the man who wrote the children’s book 'Harold and the Purple Crayon'; and quotes from figures including Friedrich Nietzsche, Carl Jung and Jane Birkin. It’s a pretentious mess, but an audacious one. It seems less an attempt to justify herself to the Beltway world she once inhabited than to catapult over it, into the more congenial realms of art and literary celebrity."

Here's the whole column: "A Serious Journalism Scandal Hiding Inside a Frivolous Sexual One."

I read the excerpt from Nuzzi's book when Vanity Fair published it a couple weeks ago, and I too made fun of the florid, pretentious writing. But "grandiose postmodern pastiche" — in the New York Times — makes me feel a twinge of empathy. What if Nuzzi is genuinely literary? What she did is perhaps what I would have done in the same circumstances — tossed out of my ongoing career with nothing but raw material, raw emotion, a publisher's advance enough to cover living expenses, and whatever true writing gift I could find inside myself. They thought I was a journalist, that I would write a fast-moving, funny, fact-filled account of my interaction with RFK Jr., but they don't know, they don't know what I am....

Here's the book, "American Canto" (commission earned).

"A decade ago, Republican voters, furious with their leaders... tossed out all conventional notions of presidential fitness to coalesce behind Donald Trump."

"Platner is still a contender because a similar alienation is building among Democrats, and party elites seem to have no idea what to do about it."

Writes Michelle Goldberg, in "I Thought Graham Platner Was Finished. What I Saw in Maine Changed My Mind" (NYT).

The headline doesn't say why Platner looks finished: He had a big Nazi tattoo on his chest. How does Goldberg get around that? She explains punk culture:

"Plenty of Jews Love Zohran Mamdani."

The headline for a Michelle Goldberg column. Excerpt:

“His campaign has attracted Jewish New Yorkers of all types,” wrote Jay Michaelson, a columnist at the Jewish newspaper The Forward. The rabbi who runs my son’s Hebrew school put Mamdani on his ballot, though he didn’t rank him first. And while Mamdani undoubtedly did best among left-leaning and largely secular Jews, he made a point of reaching out to others....

So it has been maddening to see people claim that Mamdani’s win was a victory for antisemitism.... Ultimately.... New York’s Democratic primary wasn’t about Israel.... 

The attacks on Mamdani during the primary were brutal, but now that he’s a national figure, those coming his way will be worse. His foes will try to leverage Jewish anxieties to smash the Democratic coalition.... But don’t forget that the vision of this city at the heart of Mamdani’s campaign — a city that embraces immigrants and hates autocrats, that’s at once earthy and cosmopolitan — is one that many Jews, myself included, find inspiring....

Earthy.  

I was moved to unearth every "earthy" in the 21-year archive of this blog. They're all quotes of other people. I've never once used the word (except for one instance, now corrected, where I clearly meant to type "earthly" ("I didn't think you would be terribly sad to see that Robert Blake has left the earthy scene")).

"I spend a lot of my time saucer-eyed with horror at the rapid degeneration of this country, agog at the terrifying power amassed by Silicon Valley big shots who sound like stoned Bond villains."

Writes Michelle Goldberg, pushing this new HBO show "Mountainhead," in "From the Creator of ‘Succession,’ a Delicious Satire of the Tech Right" (NYT).

No one, I suspect, can fully process the cavalcade of absurdities and atrocities that make up each day’s news cycle. But art can help; it’s not fun to live in a dawning age of technofeudalism, but it is satisfying to see it channeled into comedy.

I liked "Succession" and will give this show a try, but the trailer did not appeal to me. Was that music needed to mask the deficiencies of the script and the acting? 

"I hope you rich folks don't mind slumming it in the humble abode of the poorest billionaire in the gang" — that's the first line in the trailer! I can't believe present-day billionaires would talk like that. It sounds like the way a high-school student in the 1960s would write dialogue for a rich guy. Remember when any time a door was opened to reveal the innards of a mansion, some character would say "Welcome to my humble abode"?

I don't mind unrealistic dialogue if it's brilliant somehow — comically, tragically — but that's just so embarrassingly dumb. I don't get it. "Succession" was great. But I see this show was written and filmed very quickly:

"Plenty of Democrats are annoyed that 'Original Sin' has catapulted the issue of Biden’s enfeeblement back into the news..."

"... threatening to distract voters from Donald Trump’s rococo corruption. I think, though, that Tapper and Thompson have done the party a favor. Some sort of reckoning is due for the disastrous missteps that paved the way for Trump’s return.... Party officials burned a lot of credibility defending Biden’s cognitive fitness. As they seek to earn it back, they should be honest about what they got wrong. Politically, the easiest move for Democrats is to dump all the blame onto Biden, his family and the clique of longtime aides Tapper and Thompson call 'the Politburo': Mike Donilon, Steve Ricchetti and Bruce Reed. This group certainly deserves to be excoriated.... But while his closest associates might have hidden the worst of erosion, it was plain enough to anyone willing to see it. Again and again, voters told pollsters that the president was too old to run for re-election. If ordinary people recognized the problem, why couldn’t the insiders?"

Writes Michelle Goldberg, in "How Did So Many Elected Democrats Miss Biden’s Infirmity?" (NYT).

I don't know what "sort of reckoning" you're going to get if you keep saying "too old" when you mean mentally deficient and when you ask why couldn’t the insiders "recognize the problem" when you can't see inside the insiders' head.

I don't think you yourself are recognizing the problem when you say the problem was that he was "too old" and when you portray the insiders as sincerely failing to see what was there. If they saw that he was quite old, they could nevertheless believe that he was an old one with excellent capacities.

But I'd guess that they knew he lacked capacity, and I wonder if the reason they didn't recognize that problem is that Joe Biden has lacked capacity all along — including when he ran in 1988 — and the insiders were always operating through him and didn't particularly need or want him to have what it takes to serve as President.

So if you want a serious reckoning, reckon with that. But you don't, do you? You didn't then, and you don't now. You're just hoping Trump will fail so badly, that the much-abused people will come stumbling back to you in the end because there's nowhere else to go. 

"I was open to the idea behind Gavin Newsom’s new podcast, in which the California governor has been breaking out of his political bubble..."

"... to talk at length with right-wing media stars such as Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon. Democrats need to get better at speaking to people who don’t share their assumptions and at long-form conversations requiring improvisation and spontaneity.... Trying to leverage Kirk and Bannon’s notoriety to reach new audiences could have been an interesting experiment. Instead, it’s a protracted exercise in self-harm for both Newsom and any liberal who decides to listen to him. That’s because the governor frequently seems less interested in arguing than in finding common ground, assuming the good faith of people who have next to none. He leaves wild right-wing claims unchallenged and repeatedly concedes Republican premises. When Bannon described rebuilding his movement after what he claimed was the stolen 2020 election, Newsom’s response was, 'Well, I appreciate the notion of agency.'"

Writes Michelle Goldberg, in "What on Earth Is Gavin Newsom Doing?" (NYT).

Asked what was the "best moment" of Trump's speech, 2 of the NYT's 9 opinion writers said it was Al Green disrupting the session.

Rep. Al Green (D-TX) getting rightly removed from President Trump’s speech really illustrates the demise of the Democrat Party.

They are out of ideas. They can’t offer anything positive for America so they try to ruin it.

Al Green needs to be censured and hopefully expelled. pic.twitter.com/CV15kVsz9x

— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) March 5, 2025

I'm reading the NYT analysis of Trump's big speech: "'It Was 90-Plus Minutes of Bad Moments': 9 Opinion Writers on Trump’s Address to Congress."

From the "Best Moment" section of the article:

Binyamin Appelbaum Representative Al Green’s stand in defiance of a president who has governed in defiance of the law. Green’s civil disobedience was the behavior of a man who believes that Trump is a threat to American democracy. Why did he stand alone?...

Michelle Goldberg Green’s heckling. Democrats shouldn’t have shown up at all, but if they were going to be there, noisy protest made more sense than holding up dumb little paddles. There’s nothing dignified about quietly playing the foil to an autocratic thug gloating about stripping America for parts....

Meanwhile, at home, I was comparing the scene to January 6th. You don't like what's going on in the Capitol? Disrupt! Try to stop the proceedings!

"The liberal democracy most of us grew up taking for granted is brittle and teetering, but its fall still feels unthinkable..."

"... even if it also seems increasingly inevitable. Perhaps this is one reason Democrats, with a few admirable exceptions, seem so frozen. People who’ve spent their lives working within a system of laws and civic institutions may be particularly unsuited to respond to that system’s failure. But an F.B.I. run by Patel and Bongino is a sign that the system — which for all its manifold flaws has provided Americans a level of stability uncommon in history — is falling apart."

Writes Michelle Goldberg, in "Trump’s New Deputy F.B.I. Director Has It Out for the 'Scumbag Commie Libs'" (NYT).

If only that "system of laws and civic institutions" had been taken care of by those who purport to care so much now. 

The phrase "Scumbag Commie Libs" comes from this Dan Bongino tweet from May 30, 2024, the day Trump was found guilty on 34 felony counts. This is the full tweet:

"The Democratic Party needs to figure out better ways to counter disinformation, including the disinformation that it is elitist."

Writes Patrice La Belle, M.D., in the comments section of the Michelle Goldberg column in the NYT, "If Anyone Can Save the Democrats, It’s Ben Wikler."

So now comes the postmortem.

I see this little collection of chastened musings on the edge of the NYT front page...

... but I don't have to read this stuff. For you, though, I'll power through it super-quick and say...

1. "In this new era, in which supporting Palestinian freedom has become central to what it means to be progressive, the Palestinian exception is not just immoral. It’s politically disastrous."

2. "In the longer term, we’ll need liberal politics that are about more than just fending off the right."

3. "Instead of proposing sweeping new programs or even taking a stand, as Ms. Harris did, in defense of the status quo, [Democrats] could try to redefine themselves as responsible reformers."

4. "She spoke in the foamy blather of a corporate human resources manager. She pandered to low-information, single women voters by appearing on podcasts like 'Call Her Daddy' and goofballing along to her 'brat' label. She often came across as fake and scripted... seeming to parrot whatever her political consultants told her. The act wore thin."

"At the Democratic convention, especially on the opening night, 'corporate greed' was a scourge, and speaker after speaker sought to link 'freedom'... to programs that protect the middle class..."

"... from the depredations of concentrated wealth.... [Y]ou have to understand how [Lina] Khan, a 35-year-old legal wunderkind, became both so revered and so abhorred. Khan is a heroine to many on the left.... But she’s also respected by many populist conservatives... What brings Khan’s fans together is suspicion of Big Business, Big Finance and Big Tech, even if the reason for their suspicion differs.... To Khan, as I suspect to Harris, price gouging means more than just corporations raising prices during emergencies. Rather, it’s shorthand for a whole range of exploitative practices that leave consumers feeling taken advantage of. 'Oftentimes, the way people are taught about prices is it’s just the result of supply and demand,' she said. 'These natural forces. And I think over the last few years in particular, people have started picking up on the fact that actually there are a whole bunch of other factors that can affect pricing.' That can mean outright collusion, but it can also mean things like junk fees and subscription traps. (Under Khan, the F.T.C. has proposed a rule that companies must make it as easy to cancel a subscription as it is to sign up for one.) 'I view the price-gouging conversation as an opening to talk about that broader set of corporate tactics,' said Khan. The fight against those tactics could be an important part of a Harris presidency...."

Writes Michelle Goldberg, in "Billionaire Donors Have It Out for This Legal Prodigy, but President Harris Will Need Her" (NYT).

"The fight against those tactics could be an important part of a Harris presidency...." — could be.  Did Goldberg have to write it like that — in the conditional — because Harris doesn't do interviews?

"A campaign email slammed those calling on the president to step aside as the 'bed-wetting brigade'..."

"... and offered tips for responding to 'your panicked aunt, your MAGA uncle, or some self-important podcasters,' an apparent reference to the former Obama officials who host 'Pod Save America.'... I’ve heard hopeful Democrats enthuse about how much better Biden was in North Carolina than he’d been the day before at the debate, but that’s silly: We all know Biden is usually fine reading from a teleprompter. The question is whether he can think and speak extemporaneously.... [I]f Thursday were just a bad night, he could reassure doubters by doing a bunch of interviews and unscripted town halls. If he’s not doing that, it’s probably because his campaign doesn’t think he can pull it off.... Now, it would be worth it for the party to set its credibility on fire to keep Trump out of the White House.... Finding a Biden alternative would be risky and messy, and there’s no guarantee that it would work better than trying to put on a brave face and drag the current president across the finish line. But the Democratic Party’s leaders — the people, let’s remember, who got us into this mess — have no right to condescend to those trying to find a way out.... If you’re in a car careening toward a cliff and can open a door, you should jump out."

Writes Michelle Goldberg, in "There’s No Reason to Resign Ourselves to Biden" (NYT).

I don't think the headline is justified — you can see at least some reason — but I understand her distress. The party's credibility is already shot. So... do something drastic. Jump out of the car. That's her argument. Is it better than the campaign email idea to hold steady, keep the door closed and the seatbeat fastened, and fly out over the cliff?

ADDED: Check the operation of the door handle before attempting the tricky jump-out:

"Vance isn’t good looking enough for Trump. He looks like a forgotten Civil War brigadier."

Said Bret Stephens, in "Which V.P. Pick Will Help Trump Win? Four Columnists Rate the Field" (NYT).

There's also this, from Michelle Goldberg: "[J.D. Vance is] a completely amoral sycophant without an independent political base, which I think is what Trump is probably looking for."

I guess it will be Vance, then, don't you think? 

Since Trump, upon election, will be a lame duck, I think his prime concern should be who will be best able to carry Trumpism forward into the 2028 election and beyond. In that light, isn't Vance the right pick?

Do you realize that J.D. Vance is only 39?

The Trump trial was supposed to be such a big deal, but somehow "a strange sense of anticlimax hangs over the whole affair."

As Michelle Goldberg puts it, in "The Trump Trial’s Great Anticlimax" (NYT).

In a recent Yahoo News/YouGov poll, only 16 percent of respondents said they were following the trial very closely, with an additional 32 percent following it “somewhat” closely. “Those numbers rank as some of the lowest for any recent news event,” wrote Yahoo News’s Andrew Romano. When people were asked how the trial made them feel, the most common response was “bored.”...

A hopeful possibility... is that a guilty verdict will come as a shock to many Americans who have checked out of the news cycle, perhaps giving them pause about putting a criminal in the White House. I wouldn’t count on it, though.

I wouldn't count on it either. People already have their idea of whether or not Trump is a criminal, and if the jury doesn't agree with them, they'll be outraged at the jury. 

Oh! It's "risible Robin DiAngelo" now!

I'm reading Michelle Goldberg's new NYT column about the Nellie Bowles book, which I'm almost done reading. 

The book is "Morning After the Revolution: Dispatches From the Wrong Side of History" (commission earned).

The column is "Wokeness Is Dying. We Might Miss It." Excerpt:

There is much about that febrile moment worth satirizing, including the white-lady struggle sessions inspired by the risible Robin DiAngelo and the inevitable implosion of Seattle’s anarchist Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. Bowles dissects both in the book's best sections.... But “Morning After the Revolution” is undermined by Bowles’s lazy mockery and insupportable generalizations.... 

I note that Goldberg doesn't provide any support for calling Robin DiAngelo "risible." Is that not also lazy mockery? What did Robin DiAngelo — once vaunted in the New York Times — do to deserve this casual brush-off? She was everywhere and now she's... what? Worthless?

There's also this from Goldberg: