It’s Wednesday, July 3, 2019.
On this day 156 years ago, the forces of a treasonous racist group made a last attempt to defeat U.S. soldiers in a battle in Gettysburg, Pa.
They failed in what was called “Pickett’s Charge,” dooming their effort to establish a white supremacist nation in the southern United States.
That, to me, is the right way to describe what happened on July 3, 1863.
I can’t watch soccer.
Or football, as the rest of the world calls it. I’m not going to bore you with my reasoning, because boredom is a mean thing to inflict on people.
Just like making them watch soccer.
Nevertheless, I would like to see the U.S. women win the World Cup on Sunday. Not just because it would make Trump’s head spin.
I just love the fact that this team, with such finely honed individual skills, meshes the talent into an unrelenting unified effort.
So, go USA! I’ll eagerly look online for the score Sunday.
The New York Times did it again today.
There’s an article about Democrats worrying that running a woman against Trump next year is a ticket to failure. Here it is, if you want to read it.
Now, obviously, reporter Lisa Lerer has a story here. She quotes a lot of people, mostly women – including candidates Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand.
And some of the women quoted confirm the story’s theorem – that there are concerns a woman can be elected President of the United States.
First, this isn’t the first time the Times put out a story about female electability. This is from May.
This is from February.
And this is from January.
Last Thursday, on a stage of 10 people with egos massive enough to think they should be president, one candidate dominated – according to all post-debate polls or anyone with eyes and ears.
She was Kamala Harris.
She was sharp and on point the whole two hours. The confrontation with Joe Biden was just the most noticed moment. Throughout, she showed a command of facts and ideas, and clarity in presenting them.
There’s no question she belongs on a debate stage next fall. And while there are no sure things in life, I turned off the TV last Thursday as confident as I can be that she could wipe the floor with Trump.
If you saw that debate the way I did, please don’t tell me you next said to yourself: yeah, but she’s a woman and nobody wants one of them to be president.
Because then you’re an idiot.
And so I just have to wonder if the proliferation of stories about the electability of women perpetrates the notion that there’s some unelectability component to xx chromosomes.
A woman advances in the polls, as Harris – and, to a lesser extent, Elizabeth Warren – did after the debates. Then the reflex at the Times and other media kick in – ah, but is she electable? Maybe we need to do another story about it.
Then the story comes out and the question dominates the day again – I’m obviously falling victim to that in this post.
So to get to the point: How does this stupid cycle end?
David Axelrod, the CNN analyst and former adviser to President Obama, has the best quote in the story: “In terms of electability, the cure for that is winning.”
And I’ll quote another famous male Democrat: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
Look, I get it. We CANNOT LOSE the next election to Trump. The future of our democracy and the proclamation of our ideals to the world are in grave danger.
But Democrats can’t try to not lose. They have to try to win. They need to ignite enthusiasm and make people sprint to the polls on Nov. 3, 2020 to vote for their candidate.
There are two reasons Hillary Clinton lost. One is that a Russian disinformation helped manipulate enough voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin to overcome a nearly 3-million vote margin in the national popular vote.
Hopefully, Robert Mueller will elaborate on that before the House Judiciary Committee in two weeks.
The other was the low enthusiasm level for someone who had been in the national spotlight for a quarter century.
People were tired of the Clintons – both Bill and Hillary. Just like the Republicans were so tired of the Bushes that Jeb’s candidacy was a joke.
That’s the problem with nominating an older candidate. A Biden, a Bernie Sanders, maybe even Warren. They’ve been around so long that people get tired of them – this is a country that’s on to the next new thing every few days.
And yet, the Times and other media don’t seem to be doing quite as many stories about that being a factor as Hillary Clinton’s – or Kamala Harris’ – femaledom.
So if you’re a Democrat, ignore the crap.
Yes, you want a winner. But that winner is the one who will get you to wear her/his button every day, wake up a 4 a.m. on Election Day and make you want to have Champagne on ice that night when we finally throw Trump out on his massive butt.
Kamala Harris was one of several candidates – male and female – who made Democrats feel that way last week. That’s all you need to know about her electability.