The POTUS artfully shoveled dirt on Mr Trump’s political corpse.
Meanwhile, pundits are puzzled over Mr Trump’s dalliance with the Russian dictator.
Mr Trump and Mr Putin are members of the billionaires club, hence their affinity and Mr Trump’s comfort in asking for help.
Both like to flaunt their aging masculinity. Putin, shirtless, riding on the back of a bear; Trump, showing one of his hands to the crowd while the other points to his zipper.
Mr Putin is a master of interfering with elections, most notably his own. He uses all the dark arts, including physical violence and the jailing of naive pop singers, to retain his Eternal Presidency. He understands that his imminent invasion of the Baltic States would be met by a President Trump who would use it as an opportunity to raise the price tag for US support of NATO. Such an invasion would be met with a rousing “hail strong fellow well met” from the mouth of the clownish American cheese puff.
(Image: New York Magazine)
Before it begins:
It’s nice of the Republican’s “law and order” nominee to reveal the Putin-Snowden-Assange-Trump axis. However, he can expect a visit from the FBI.
Mr Trump has said he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes. Now he’s saying he can suborn espionage from a foreign government and get away with it.
Many of Mr Trump’s supporters share his bromance with the Russian strongman.
Mr Assange may have given the UK government a legitimate legal reason to extradite him to the US.
Well played, Jules.
The VPOTUS states the obvious that Mr Trump has no clue.
He closes with “We’re America!” Riveting!
Mr Bloomberg just locked down independent voters for Ms Clinton by suggesting Mr Trump is incompetent and possibly insane. Harsh words from one billionaire to another.
Tim Kaine speaks in Spanish. Mr Trump tweets in support of his deportation.
The POTUS calls Mr Trump a home-grown demagogue.
POTUS and Clinton embrace.
Apropos the fiftieth anniversary of the assassination of JFK (originally written on 27 January 2008).
The New York Times is reporting that Senator Edward Kennedy will endorse Barack Obama tomorrow. This news follows in the wake of Caroline Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama in a New York Times Op-Ed, in which she writes: “I have found the man who could be that president” who inspires people as did her father, JFK. This is certainly a major coup for the Obama campaign, to have the last surviving member of Camelot bestow the Kennedy imprimatur on his pursuit of the Presidency. Any evocation of her father tugs at the heartstrings of Democrats old enough to remember anything about 22 November 1963, perhaps the most significant date in American political memory until 9/11. Strategically, the double dip of Caroline Kennedy and Senator Ted may put into play such Clinton “safe states” as New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts on 5 February. It will also not be easy for the Clintonistas to spin these endorsements, from the daughter and the brother, especially Bill, the self-represented legatee of the Kennedy tradition. Additionally, the logic of ethnic politics can be drawn out of Ted Kennedy’s endorsement. Ted co-sponsored (with McCain) the defeated immigration reform legislation that had less draconian paths to legalization for millions of illegal immigrants. In the Lou Dobbsified American imagination, illegal immigrant equals “Mexican.” Hence, the message can be delivered: Obama is good for “Latinos.” Obama should play this “ethnic card” to the hilt.
A question remains: why invoke the Father at all? If, as some pundits write, Americans may not want alternating political dynasties (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton), what recommends the symbolic capital of the Ur-Dynasty in American politics? Is this a unconscious hankering for the long lost aristocratic beginnings of the nation? For now, I’ll propose that politics is about identity and the projection of identity. Unburdened of the responsibility of historical memory, there is a tendency in American politics to traffic in imagery. This is not necessarily a criticism. But what it means is that the political unconscious of the nation tends towards a search for the most positive image as the anchor of identity. The optimistic and naive self-conception of Americans about their place in the world order is mirrored by the desire to find “likable” people to have exclusive access to the launch code of the U. S. nuclear arsenal. In recent memory, the two parties have two fail-safe images: the “Happy days are here again” Reagan and the photogenic JFK (and Jackie), who asked the nation to do something for the greater good. If this is true, the photogenic Barack Obama, with the immigrant’s name, will stand a good chance against the fidgety persona of Hillary Clinton, and the clenched jaw militarism of the aged McCain. Neither Clinton nor McCain emit the sort of light that enveloped JFK and now Obama. Caroline Kennedy has simply reminded Americans of the Democratic stripe: Father was best.
To the chagrin of the Republican Party, the President has turned out to be more of a Lannister than a Stark.