The best way to campaign is "the face-to-face, handshake, a hug and being able to hold up the children so they can take pictures with you, to ask a question, to do a pinky promise."

Said Elizabeth Warren, quoted in "'Don't tell me it doesn’t matter': Impeachment trial hurts presidential campaigns/Democratic senators seeking the White House will be stuck in Washington rather than Iowa at a critical moment" (Politico).

The pinkie promise! So that's the secret!

Wikipedia:

To pinky swear, or to make a pinky promise, is the locking of the pinkies of two people to signify that a promise has been made.

In the United States, the pinky swear has existed since at least 1860, when Dictionary of Americanisms listed the following accompanying promise:

Pinky, pinky bow-bell,
Whoever tells a lie
Will sink down to the bad place
And never rise up again.

Pinky swearing presumably started in Japan, where it is called yubikiri (指切り, "finger cut-off") and often additionally confirmed with the vow "Finger cut-off, ten thousand fist-punchings, whoever lies has to swallow thousand needles." (指切拳万、嘘ついたら針千本呑ます, "Yubikiri genman, uso tsuitara hari senbon nomasu")....

That's rather harsh! Should Warren be doing this with children? I note the suggestion that promise-breakers go to Hell. Trump recently got raked over the embers for suggesting that a man had gone to Hell:



Are we taking Hell seriously today or not?

I don't have a tag "promises." I'm using "contracts." Warren taught the law school course "contracts," you know. Would you do a pinkie promise with a contracts professor? Better a contracts professor than a religionist. Whoever tells a lie will sink down to the bad place and never rise up again.

Contracts answer: It's not a contract.

Who do you think will be the Democratic Party nominee?

I say Elizabeth Warren.

She's the one who's really fighting for it, and she's the best choice to go up against Trump. She's got the verbal clarity and aggression, and she can take hits without crumpling. She's the most like Trump in style and skill.

I'm not talking about where she is on the political spectrum or all the policies, and I'm not saying who I want to be President. I'm just predicting and expressing a preference about the debate I'd most like to watch. And I assume Trump will win. I just would like to see him have to go through a hard fight, and not a boring fight.

Watch Kamala Harris hand over the microphone with zero resistance to a goofball lunatic:



Harris passively waits for it to be her turn to intone a series of words.

Liz seizes the opportunity.

Hey, I already have a tag that says "Warren is like Trump."

ADDED:

Here’s the thing: When a candidate tells you about all the things that aren’t possible, about how political calculations come first, they’re telling you something very important. They’re telling you that they will not fight for you. Not me. I’m here to fight for our country. pic.twitter.com/SZBBUkfomi

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) June 2, 2019

"Warren uses vivid speech that's fascinatingly similar to Trump's."

That's something I wrote on August 10, 2016, and I'm reading it again after writing about Elizabeth Warren's speech yesterday. In 2016, I was addressing Warren's tweet, "@realDonaldTrump makes death threats because he's a pathetic coward who can’t handle the fact that he’s losing to a girl." I want to add my new "Warren is like Trump" tag to that. And I want to find the transcript from yesterday's speech so I can pull quotes that made me feel it was Trumpish. But let me give you some of this 2016 material for its present-day worth. I had 4 things to say, but I'm only going to highlight ##3 and 4:

3. ... Is this some female privilege — she can say "girl" but a man can't? I think that what's going on is that Warren is purporting to read Trump's mind, so it's not her saying "girl." That's what's in there in his mind. He's the one denigrating Hillary, thinking of her as a girl. Or: He's reliving a childhood psychodrama, in which boys feel humiliated if they can't even beat a girl. Warren uses vivid speech that's fascinatingly similar to Trump's. She blurts out the language of a childhood taunt: Hah! You're losing to a girl! And she seems to think she can talk like the playground bully because it's not really her speaking, it's just her doing the voice of somebody else, somebody who hurt little Donald many years ago and who still lives inside his head, taunting him after all these decades.

4. I think Trump believes he's doing damned well. He had to fight through 16 Republicans to get the nomination. He had to defeat his party's establishment, just like Bernie Sanders tried to fight his party's establishment. Does Bernie feel humiliated for "losing to a girl"? That "girl" had her party's whole establishment pushing her along. She's promoted and held aloft by a former President of the United States. I think Trump feels he's in a valiant battle and it's still going on, not that he's losing.... But even if he were upset about losing, I doubt if it would be about the fact that Hillary is female, that any decent man should be able to beat any female. Why does Warren think she can ascribe such thoughts to him? I don't think she's correctly reading Trump's mind, but I also don't think she believes she is. I think she's trying to stir up excitement for Hillary, and the most exciting thing about this candidate few voters actually like as an individual, is that she's a woman... Think of voting for a woman. And think of voting against that terrible man, Donald Trump, who is fighting a woman — not because she's his political opponent in the election — but because he's a man, with screwed up man-thoughts, and she's a woman, so he needs to destroy her. Plunge into the psychodrama, people!

And we've been swimming in the psychodrama ever since. That's where Trump likes it, and that's where Warren likes it, and — prove me wrong, America! — that's where America likes it.

Elizabeth Warren just gave a fantastic speech — announcing her candidacy.

I don't see how she could have done any better. Her delivery — the passion, inflection, energy, clarity — is as close to perfect as I can imagine from someone who's found her way into the position to run for the presidency.

I'm not saying I agree substantively. I'm talking about the sheer achievement in speech giving. And you may remember that my instant reaction to Trump's SOTU was, "That was damn near perfect. So upbeat, full of optimism."

I appreciate a great speech. And Elizabeth Warren just delivered the hell out of one. If you're not willing to concede that, then I think you can't distinguish form from substance.

Much of what she said was about the troubles of the middle class, and it sounded a lot like Trump. There were many times when I said out loud, "This is like Trump." And she got a crowd reaction that reminded me of Trump's. People cheered and chants got going.

Unlike so many candidates, she sounds as though she's really feeling what she is saying. In the very beginning there was a sobbing quality to her voice, but as she warmed up, it became excellent passion and energy. It was so different from Hillary, who could sound robotic or like some acting coach had taught her how to give the impression of human feeling. Warren seems to have a strong natural talent for speaking to a crowd, really coming alive in front of a crowd.

I'm thoroughly impressed.

Elizabeth Warren tweets Donald Trump "makes death threats because he's a pathetic coward who can't handle the fact that he's losing to a girl."

.@realDonaldTrump makes death threats because he's a pathetic coward who can’t handle the fact that he’s losing to a girl.

— Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) August 9, 2016

I hate what Trump said. It was bad. He shouldn't have said it, and he should find some way to undo the damage and to stop blurting out things that occur to him on the fly, things that might be interpreted as a call to any sort of violence. If he can't control that tendency, how could he possibly serve as President?

But I want to talk about Elizabeth Warren's tweet. It has 4 aspects worth talking about: 1. The characterization of Trump's statement as a "death threat," 2. The assertion that Trump is "a pathetic coward," 3. Warren's use of the word "girl" to refer to Hillary, and 4. The assertion that Trump is motivated by a threat to his masculinity.

1. What Trump said was: "Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know." That's not literally a threat. I know Warren was tweeting and that pushes people to compress language, but if you're going to criticize other people's blunt speech and crude language, you shouldn't do the same thing yourself. Trump said that the Supreme Court can change the interpretation of the Second Amendment (which it could easily do, switching to what had been the dissenting Justices' position, finding no individual right to bear arms) and then there would be "nothing" you could do. That was a reason to vote for him. Let him appoint the Justices. If Hillary gets the appointment power, it will be too late. At that point, Trump seems to have observed — as one might do in casual conversation — that "nothing" is not strictly true. There is something. It wouldn't be to assassinate Hillary Clinton. The way I heard it, before reading anyone else's opinion, was as a reference to the right of revolution, which is why some "Second Amendment people" think the government should not be able to disarm them. I don't think it's even talking about killing Hillary Clinton. But it is bad, nonetheless, because it floats an idea of violence that some deranged person might process into a call for assassination. If Elizabeth Warren wants to call that a "death threat," then she's using cruder language than Trump used, and she's adding energy to assassination ideation. The problem is delusional people who hear things and get ideas. Don't touch them off. If you believe that, act like you believe it!

2. What is the basis for calling Trump "a pathetic coward"? He's got a lot of nerve. That's why there's so much problem with him. Why did Warren use these words? The only idea I can come up with — connecting it to the next phrase — is that she wants to take a nasty swipe at his masculinity and "pathetic" and "coward" seem well-suited to that purpose.

3. Meade called this tweet to my attention, asking how Warren could get away with using the word "girl." Is this some female privilege — she can say "girl" but a man can't? I think that what's going on is that Warren is purporting to read Trump's mind, so it's not her saying "girl." That's what's in there in his mind. He's the one denigrating Hillary, thinking of her as a girl. Or: He's reliving a childhood psychodrama, in which boys feel humiliated if they can't even beat a girl. Warren uses vivid speech that's fascinatingly similar to Trump's. She blurts out the language of a childhood taunt: Hah! You're losing to a girl! And she seems to think she can talk like the playground bully because it's not really her speaking, it's just her doing the voice of somebody else, somebody who hurt little Donald many years ago and who still lives inside his head, taunting him after all these decades.

4. I think Trump believes he's doing damned well. He had to fight through 16 Republicans to get the nomination. He had to defeat his party's establishment, just like Bernie Sanders tried to fight his party's establishment. Does Bernie feel humiliated for "losing to a girl"? That "girl" had her party's whole establishment pushing her along. She's promoted and held aloft by a former President of the United States. I think Trump feels he's in a valiant battle and it's still going on, not that he's losing. He hates losing, he loves to tell us, but his style is to keep trying to win, not to succumb to low self esteem and view himself as a loser. But even if he were upset about losing, I doubt if it would be about the fact that Hillary is female, that any decent man should be able to beat any female. Why does Warren think she can ascribe such thoughts to him? I don't think she's correctly reading Trump's mind, but I also don't think she believes she is. I think she's trying to stir up excitement for Hillary, and the most exciting thing about this candidate few voters actually like as an individual, is that she's a woman. Warren encourages us to focus on the excitement of the first woman President. Don't pay attention to the individual, Hillary. Think of voting for a woman. And think of voting against that terrible man, Donald Trump, who is fighting a woman — not because she's his political opponent in the election — but because he's a man, with screwed up man-thoughts, and she's a woman, so he needs to destroy her. Plunge into the psychodrama, people!