Written Report on 1st Day of 2020 Democratic National Convention

I thought the first night of the 2020 Democratic National Convention, the first virtual convention ever held, was truly effective.   Not only because of what the well-known speakers said, which was passionate and true and highly effective, but also because of several speakers I don't recall seeing before at any national political convention.

Probably the best of these not-yet-famous people, certainly what moved me the most, was what Kristin Urquiza said.  Her father, a Trump supporter, died of COVID.  His only pre-condition, Ms. Urquiza said, "was that he trusted Donald Trump".  That statement not only rings true to the soul, but shows that Ms. Urquiza has a future in the political world, if she wants it.

Now to some of the people we already knew.  I thought Bernie Sanders gave the best speech of his life tonight.  He spoke plain truth to his millions of supporters, which didn't include me.  But every word he said made eminent sense.  His confessions of a progressive -- his confessions about why he was supporting Joe Biden for President -- should be a handbook for every rational person.  In a phrase, they explained the dangers of Trump (which we already know), but also how Biden's positions take important steps towards what Sanders wants, most importantly universal health care.  I hope those points become known and are believed by every progressive.

I thought the Republicans supporting Trump were convincing, and, for some reason, even more so Biden's rivals in the Democratic Primary, like Bernie.  In addition, the more moderate Amy Klobuchar continues to impress as one of the most sensible thinkers and speakers in America.   Andrew Cuomo didn't run for President this year.  But his dealing with the COVID pandemic in New York -- we now have just a one-percent infection rate in this state, after starting out as the most infected state in country -- was masterful, including his daily briefings (which I said at the time were akin to FDR's fireside chats during the Great Depression).  His speech tonight followed in that tradition.

And then there's Michelle Obama.  She already ascended to being far more than a former First Lady.  But tonight she hit new heights, of passion, compassion, and just clear common sense.  Her speech was a pleasure and an inspiration to hear, and I hope that it gets everyone who voted for Barack to vote for Biden this time around.   Her plea that we should vote as if our lives depended on it was never more true.

And I'll be back here tomorrow with thoughts on what tomorrow's segment of the 2020 Democratic National Convention brings.

See also Report on the 2020 Democratic National Convention, Day 2 ... Report on the 2020 Democratic National Convention, Day 3

Biden vs. Bernie in our Coronavirus Time

A powerful Presidential debate just concluded between Biden and Bernie on CNN.  The backdrop and of course the greatest sources of questions were about the Coronavirus pandemic.  But there were other crucial issues debated as well.

I thought both candidates did well, but Biden did better.

On the Coronavirus, and health care in general:  I'm strongly in favor of universal health care provided by our government (see my William H. McNeill and The Logic of Universal Health Care from January 2017).  But I think Biden's way of getting there -- building upon  Obamacare, with a free, robust public option -- is better than Bernie's (which amounts to just magically declaring that we'll have free universal healthcare).  In other words, at all times, but especially in this time of the Coronavirus, practical construction is more reliable than revolution.   Biden added to this with his point about look how poorly Italy is doing in combating the Coronavirus.  They have free healthcare for all, and their  problems with the Coronavirus show that their way is no sure way of limiting the devastation of the virus.

And Biden did very well with his commitment to put a progressive woman as Vice President on the ticket, in contrast to Bernie who, the best he could say was "in all likelihood" he would put a woman on his ticket.  I also liked Biden's commitment to put an African-American woman on the Supreme Court.

As for the past, each candidate had some warranted criticism of the other.  But for me, the criticism that counted the most was Biden's critique of Bernie for voting no on the Brady Bill to limit guns no less than five times.  That's another crucial, literally life-and-death issue.

I'm looking forward to Tuesday's primaries and Bernie's recognition that the best way to get rid of Trump is for Bernie to give his support to Biden,

Captain Phil interviews Paul Levinson about his New Album 'Welcome Up', and Trump

Welcome to Light On Light Through, Episode 123, in which the inimitable Captain Phil (on WUSB Radio) again interviews me about my new music, latest science fiction, and Donald Trump. But this time, there's my brand new album of science fiction related songs, Welcome Up: Songs of Space and Time (now releasing by Old Bear Records), to talk about.  And we're right in the middle of the impeachment trial of Donald Trump (author Bill McNulty joins us for the first part of this discussion).  Phil also plays, at the start and end of the episode, two songs from Welcome Up.
Helpful links:

• a taste of Welcome Up on YouTube
• lyrics to all the songs on Welcome Up
• free digital complete album on Bandcamp
• advance order multi-color limited pressing vinyl (100 copies) from Light In the Attic Records
• CDs

Check out this episode!

Fifth 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate: Winners

The six-person Democratic presidential debate just concluded on CNN was easily the best debate so far - best in clarity, power of ideas, and even charm - so far.  Whether this was because of the fact that six candidates had more time than ten and more to express their views, or because these six candidates had better views to express ... well, it's probably a combination of both.

But I thought Klobuchar and Steyer especially stood out in their answers to just about all of the questions, and their concluding comments, and I expect that will help both of them in Iowa and beyond.   But Biden, still not the most articulate person on stage, was clear enough.  And Warren, Bernie, and Buttigieg were articulate and passionate, too.

My favorite exchange, in terms of both truth and humor, was between Biden and Bernie:

• Biden: Kim Jong-un said: "Joe Biden is a rabid dog who should be beaten with a stick" 
• Bernie: "Other than that, you like him." 
• Biden" "0ther than that I like him.  And then he sent a love letter to Donald Trump"

Next, I thought Warren got the better of Bernie in the "can a woman be elected President" controversy.  Although Bernie denied saying that, and offered his view that of course a woman could be elected President, given that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, Warren just seemed more believable in both her unspoken denial and her commitment to women in politics, with her example of woman being more electable than men.

On health care, I still remain unconvinced by Bernie and Warren about the way to get to universal health care in America.  It's a laudable, essential goal, but Klobuchar, Biden, Steyer, and Buttigieg made more sense in building towards on what we already have, via the Affordable Care Act.

Warren was also excellent on politics not being the most important thing - in this case, returning to Washington and sitting as a senator in the trial of Donald Trump takes precedence.   All the candidates agreed that, one way or another, Trump has to be removed from office.  Seeing him voted out of office by the Senate would be satisfying, but I'll take any of the candidates on stage tonight beating him in the election this coming November.

See also  First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers ... First Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers ...  Second 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers ... Second 2020 Democratic Presidential, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers  ... [missed third debate, I was in Canada] ... Fourth 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate: Winners and Losers

Fourth 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate: Winners and Losers

I thought the 4th Democratic Presidential Debate - just concluded on PBS and CNN - was easily the best so far (but with the proviso that I saw and reviewed both parts of the first and second of these debates, but I didn't see the third, because I was up in Toronto doing this event).  Maybe tonight's debate was stronger because there were fewer people up on stage, so each of the seven candidates got more time to talk.  Maybe last night's Impeachment of Trump inspired the candidates (it certainly inspired me).  But, for whatever reasons ...

I thought the exchange in response to the question about Obama's recent statement that women would do a better job of governing America was outstanding.  All the candidates (with the exception of Yang, who I don't believe gave an answer) responded with clarity, style, and humor.  That included Biden, who easily had his best night, and Steyer, who I thought really came into to his own tonight, with consistently strong answers about how his Presidency could tackle the problems of our time and really make a difference.

But Bernie had a powerful night too, with clear expositions of his socialist perspective.  And Klobuchar was strong, in her defense of improving Obama-care rather than scrapping it in favor of Medicare for all, a position she shares with Biden, in opposition to Bernie and Warren.  And Klobuchar and Buttigieg got in some good lines in their one-on-one exchange, as did Warren and Buttigieg in theirs.

So all the candidates, with exception (again) of Yang, had excellent nights in tonight's debate.  Since Biden was already leading in the national polls, his having such a strong outing is especially significant, since it reinforces his already considerable strength.  But Steyer stepping into the light was notable, too, and the performances of all the other candidates (other than Yang) was more than enough to keep them in the running.

See also  First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers ... First Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers ...  Second 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers ... Second 2020 Democratic Presidential, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers

Fourth 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate: Winners and Losers

I thought the fourth 2020 Democratic presidential debate, just concluded on CNN, had far more winners and far fewer losers than in any of the previous debates.  Meaning: just about everyone did well.

Among the highlights:

• Biden, who started off a little less than totally coherent in his phrasing - as he often does - did far better in the second half of the debate, and distinguished himself with powerful statements on the need to hit the ground running as President, and his copious experience on many issues ranging from foreign policy to gun control.  He also offered a good critique of Warren's proposals lacking specifics of how they'd be financed.
• Warren gave a strong defense of her progressive policies, and, on the process of campaigning, I was glad to hear her say (with a bit of sarcasm) that "selfies must be the new measure of democracy" - which is almost precisely the point I made after her four+ hours of selfies to all who wanted them after a rally and talk in New York last month (see my McLuhan in an Age of Social Media). 
• Bernie also gave a strong defense of his policies, very similar to Warren's, and he also was almost charming in some of his banter with other candidates.
• Buttigieg gave an excellent defense of his proposal to expand the Supreme Court, and/or in some way to get out of the cut-throat politicization of the Court that currently grips this country.  On the other hand, I though he was unnecessarily aggressive in challenging Beto on Beto's proposal to have a mandatory buy-back of all assault weapons in the U. S. (which I support).
• I thought Beto, in general, was the most effective he's been in the debates so far, finding a good balance between passion and logic in his presentations, and offering an excellent, vivid example of working with a Republican (whom he got to know sharing a car ride from Texas to Washington, DC).
• Harris gave one of the best arguments I've ever heard on the urgency of women having complete control over their bodies.
• Klobuchar was also more effective than she's been in the past, and offered a believable mix of pragmatism and idealism in addressing our myriad problems.
• Even Andrew Yang made some good sense tonight, pointing out that breaking up monopolies - splitting of behemoths like Amazon - is using an old solution to the new problems of the 21st century.   On this one point, I agree with Yang not Warren.
• Tom Steyer the billionaire made his debate debut tonight.  He didn't get much time, but gets points from me in siding with Bernie and Warren that billionaires should be taxed far more than they are currently.
• Booker had the second best example of a social relationship with a surprising person: Booker the vegan had dinner with the "meat eating" Texan Ted Cruz.  He also was good in saying that women are entitled to control their own bodies, because that's a right intrinsic to all people. 
• Castro was typically lucid and reasonable, especially his observation that "police violence is also gun violence, and we need to address that".  I don't know why he isn't doing better in the polls, but this may well be the last time we'll see him on the debate stage.

That leaves just one candidate - Gabbard - for whom I can't think of anything positive worth noting in her debate performance.  Gabbard is wrong on so much many issues - especially foreign policy, and she's friends with Trey Gowdy? - that I'd find it hard to vote for her, unless somehow she were the Democrat running against Trump.

Third 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate: Winners and Losers

The third 2020 Democratic Presidential debate just concluded in Houston on ABC-TV.  It was longer the first four - nearly three hours - and was just one debate, of the ten leading candidates, rather than the two debates of ten each, one day after the other, which is the way the Democratic debates proceeded in June and July.  I thought tonight's debate was also better.

Joe Biden, in his quiet way,  had a very strong and successful night.  He was excellent on a variety of topics, including health care.  Contrary to Castro's calling out Biden for forgetting that Biden just said that Biden's health care plan required people to "opt in," Biden did say that people who couldn't afford any health care would be automatically enrolled.  (More on Castro below, who owes Biden an apology.)  Biden was also strong on both defending Obama's immigration policy and saying, also, that times have changed - I think that's a fair and accurate appraisal.  Biden was also Presidential in the public appreciation he expressed to Beto about his comforting the survivors of the El Paso shooting. And Biden's closing response about the personal tragedies in his life and how those gave him purpose rang deep and true.

Amy Klobuchar also had a good night.   She consistently was a unifying voice, and was 100% on target in her attack on Mitch McConnell.   It's important but easy enough to say Trump is a disgrace to his office.  But McConnell's freezing of the Senate on everything from gun control to immigration is also a crucial piece of why our country is in such difficult straits.  Beto O'Rourke was especially good on gun control and his insistence on taking away the most dangerous guns that are out there in so many hands.  And Kamala Harris had an effective night, with her blend of social sensitivity and prosecutorial zeal directed at Trump.

Elizabeth Warren was ok, and didn't get enough time.   Cory Booker did a little better than in his previous two debates, but loses points for saying "dagnabbit".   Pete Buttigieg were good but didn't really break any new ground.

And then it went seriously downhill.  Bernie seemed haggard and haranguing, and also said nothing new.   Yang was irrelevant.  And, I truly think Castro talked himself out of Presidential contention with his ill-informed and graceless attack on Biden.

I'll see you back here after the next debate.

See also First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers ...   First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers ... Second 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers ... Second Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers

Second 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers

I thought the first part of the second 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, just concluded on CNN, was much better than the first part of the first 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate on MSNBC last month.  By "much better," I mean that almost every candidate on the stage expressed her or himself better than what we saw last month.

Among the highlights -

• Bernie and Elizabeth Warren were clear, passionate, and outstanding on their view that the avarice of private health insurance means that the best path forward is the government provides all of it.  As Bernie said, health care is a human right.  (I would add, the government protects us from human parasites, why not from micro-parasites and lethal cells?)  And as Warren said, private insurers are all devoted to maximizing profits, which means taking in as much money as possible in premiums, and keeping expenditures for health care to a minimum.  Later in the debate, Rep. Delaney's equation of private pensions and private health insurance was wrong: there is no immoral profit motive in companies providing pensions for employees.
• Amy Klobuchar was outstanding on the need to finally stand up to the NRA as the only way to get sensible gun reform in America, and stop the massacres.
• Back to Bernie and Elizabeth Warren: Bernie was better than Warren in wanting to cancel all student debt, in contrast to Warren, who wants to cancel 95% of that debt.  But good for Warren for being better than everyone else on that stage on that issue, other than Bernie
• Good for Pete Buttigieg for insisting that all U. S. military engagements (i.e. wars) get Congressional approval,  and that approval have a three-year sunset clause.  Here's a better idea: how about we follow the Constitution, and insist on a Declaration of War (but also with a sunset clause).
• Buttigieg also put out an important challenge to all Republicans in Congress: do you want to be remembered as someone who didn't speak up about the racism of Trump?
• Bernie's denunciation of Trump as a "pathological liar" is always good to hear.
• Especially powerful closing statements by Buttigieg, Warren, and Bernie.

As to everyone else in the debate, I thought that Rep. John Delaney spoke the best, and offered the best arguments against Bernie and Warren.  But I didn't agree with him.  And as for the rest, well, I look forward to not seeing them on stage in the third debate, in September.

See you here tomorrow night.

See also Second Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers

First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 2 of 2: Winners and Losers

I thought the second part of the first 2020 Democratic Presidential debate was better than the first part - on yesterday - in that more of the ten on stage had standout moments.   My assessment follows, in descending order of what I thought were the best performances:

Harris was clearly outstanding and the best tonight.  She was powerful and eloquent on health care and immigration.  She was strong on the need to curb racism, including an attack on Biden for working with Southern racist Senators.  I liked her intention to take executive action on banning assault weapons (though Swalwell was even stronger on this issue), and she had the best closing statement.

Gillibrand did a lot of good for herself on the need to curb gun violence, and on the danger of compromising on women's rights.  I think she'll rise in the polls as a result of tonight's performance.

Among all the crucially important issues that beset us, I put reducing gun violence, aka gun control, at the top of the list.   I therefore agree completely with Swalwell putting gun control at the top of his list.  His plan to buy back assault weapons makes good sense, and he captured the stakes in this issue well with his observation that we need to "love our children more than our guns".

Bennet was correct to speak about Nazi concentration camps in his denunciation of the camps for immigrants at our Southern border, and he was right to stress the need to win back the Senate in the 2020 election (as Booker did last night).

Sanders had a strong closing statement, and he was passionate as always on the need to equalize wealth in America.

Buttigieg was powerful and articulate on the need to end police racism, but Swalwell did him one better by challenging him to fire the Police Chief of South Bend.

Biden took a long time to come alive - too long - and responded pretty well to Harris's attacks (but he should have kept talking).   He was excellent on the evil of putting children in cages, strong on the need to get our troops out of Afghanistan, and right to hold gun manufacturers responsible (but why let the NRA off the hook?).  His closing statement was ok - which is about the best you could say about his overall performance.

The other three either outright crazy (Williamson), too focused on a single issue (Yang), or nothing special (Hickenlooper).  I don't expect any of them to be on stage for the next debate.

But I'll be back here with another review.

See also First 2020 Democratic Presidential Debate, Part 1 of 2: Winners and Losers



Joe Biden does become President in this 2014 novel

The Flaw in Bernie Sanders' Speech Last Night

I actually thought Bernie Sanders' speech last night in California was pretty good, with the exception of one crucial point.

When he pledged to "continue the fight," he was ambiguous as to whom that fight would be against.

He said it would be against Trump, which is exactly what the country needs.  But he also said that the fight would be part of the nomination contest - even though that contest has now been decisively decided in favor of Hillary, by millions of votes, and huge leads in pledged and super delegates, including in California last night.

This distinction is important, especially in the weeks ahead.   Bernie's power and eloquence will be a crucial component of the fight against Trump, the most destructive and toxic nominee for President by a major party in my lifetime.   What is the point of directing even an iota of Bernie's attack and influence against Hillary Clinton, the only person who now stands between Trump and the White House?

In addition to all of that, Bernie is highly unlikely to win or even do passably well in the last primary, in the District of Columbia, next week.   What he should be campaigning for, between now and then, as well as after, is a Democratic platform that marshals the greatest number of voters against Trump.

Based on his speech, Bernie is almost there.   I hope he moves the final piece into place, and puts Trump and only Trump into the focus his attack, as soon as possible.

Our country and the world need this.

A Great Moment for America!

It was wonderful and inspiring watching Hillary Clinton step up to claim the Democratic nomination for President a few minutes ago.  I only wish I could have seen this historic moment in person instead of on television.

As I've said many times since 2008, the Democratic primary back then presented a very tough decision for me. Two excellent candidates - Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  The election of either would right a profound historical wrong in our country.  I went with Obama, by a very narrow margin in my mind. I've never had cause to regret that, but I always hoped I would have a chance to correct the other wrong.

And tonight it's clear we have been given that chance - the opportunity to elect the first woman President in the United States.  Obviously, the candidate has to be more than a woman to deserve any thinking-person's vote.  I would have voted for almost any privileged, rich white dude instead of someone like Sarah Palin.

But Hillary will be a superb candidate, progressive and strong, on every important issue, including gun control, health care, and all the things the Republicans are so retrogressive and wrong about. And as a former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton probably has more foreign policy experience than any candidate for President since, I don't know, Thomas Jefferson.

All that's left is for Hillary Clinton to beat the worst candidate for President by a major party in my lifetime.  That should be easy.  But it won't.  It never is.  The media have to do more than they've done until very recently in reporting the ravings, lies, and inconsistencies of the Republican candidate for President.  We all need to do whatever we can - Bernie supporters as well as Hillary supporters - to see that Trump is defeated and Hillary Clinton is in the White House in 2017.

Thinking about the Egging in San Jose

I found the violence against Trump supporters in San Jose the other night, including the egging of a young woman in the face, very disturbing.

First and foremost: what was going on with the police?  Usually they're quick to illegally declare a peaceful demonstration illegal and move in to break it up, in violation of the protesters's First Amendment rights.   But in San Jose the police did just the opposite, standing by, in the video coverage I saw on MSNBC, barely moving as anti-Trump protesters surrounded and sometimes pounced on Trump supporters leaving the pro-Trump rally.

To be clear: I think Trump is a monstrosity, and I'll do everything I can to see that's he's not elected. But that does not and will never include violating other people's' rights, including the right to attend a pro-Trump rally.

Who would disagree with that?  What is the basis of these violent anti-Trump tactics?  A few of the anti-Trump people in the streets of San Jose said they were Bernie Sanders supporters.   Bernie condemned the violence the next day from anyone who claims to be one of his supporters, and that was good to see.   But is there something in Bernie's message which evokes such violence among even a sliver of his supporters?

Well, he says he wants a revolution in this country, and although he no doubt means a peaceful revolution, the word can be a magnet to people who might resort to violence.  And I think it goes too far, in any case.  I want change and improvement in this country - health care for all, two years parental leave with pay, free college for all who want it, etc - but I want to get those changes through the democratic process, through laws enacted, not through revolution which has even the slightest connotation of violence.

That's one of the many reasons I strongly support Hillary for the Democratic nomination.   But I would vote for Bernie in a heartbeat over Trump if that was the general election choice, and hope that now and in the future, whatever position Bernie may hold, he continues to speak out with passion against criminals who commit violence and disrupt the democratic process in his name.

Glad that Jerry Brown Endorsed Hillary Clinton

Good for Jerry Brown, Governor of California, to endorse Hillary Clinton today.  I met him about a decade ago when he was speaker at a conference about Marshall McLuhan at Fordham University, and our lengthy conversation before his talk confirmed what I already knew:  Jerry Brown is one of the brightest people, profoundest of thinkers, not only in politics but across the board in all professions.

He first caught my attention when he was serving as the 34th Governor of California in the mid-1970s through the early 1980s.   I was impressed by his championship of the space program, and his idea that California should get its own space effort going, with a space academy and its own satellite. This of course was not to get military advantage over an adversary, as the US space program had sought to do vis-a-vis the Soviet Union in the 1960s. Brown's idea showed a real understanding of the cosmic import of getting humans off this planet.

Brown's endorsement of Hillary also shows admirable integrity and clear thinking about what's best for the country today.  Given his nasty exchange in a 1992 Democratic debate with Bill Clinton about Hillary, Brown had every reason to go with Bernie now or sit this out.  But he correctly sees that Hillary will get the nomination, and a win in California can strengthen her hand in the battle ahead with Trump.

I look forward to Jerry Brown getting an important position that befits the depth of his intellect in the Clinton administration.

All the Way on HBO and its Relevance to Hillary

I saw All the Way on HBO last night.  I thought this movie about the Texas politician and Vice President who became President on the day of what I still see as the worst public event in my lifetime - the assassination of JFK in November, 1963 - was outstanding for at least part of the way, in its portrayal of LBJ's mastery of domestic policy.  But it was frustrating for what it barely addressed - how Lyndon Baines Johnson messed up so badly in foreign policy, in Vietnam.

I came of age in the 1960s.  Not only was I devastated by the murder of JFK and his zest and idealism, but I appreciated and cheered the way Johnson came back with extraordinary Civil Rights legislation and all kinds of pathbreaking law for life in America, such as Medicare.  For a very short time, it looked as if the future could survive what happened to JFK. And then the Vietnam War, not started by LBJ but prosecuted and expanded by him, shattered all of that forever, or certainly at least until this very day.

All the Way does a great in job in showing how Johnson brought into being those domestic miracles, how he played the necessary Senators and recalcitrant parts of the country like a chess master moving pieces on a board.  Bryan Crantson gives an astonishingly  good performance, capturing every bit of Johnson's swagger, political cunning, vulgarity, wisdom, and insecurity.  Anthony Mackie and Bradley Whitford are spot-on and memorable in their portrayals of MLK, Jr. and the hapless Hubert Humphrey.   The deliveries and demeanors of the Senators and other players in this movie don't miss a beat.

Did LBJ really believe in civil rights and other domestic revolutions he championed and succeeded in putting into Federal law?  At the time, I was pretty sure he did, and All the Way - assuming that LBJ's words and expressions in the movie are based on truth - reinforces and satisfies that sense.

But what went wrong with LBJ in Vietnam?  All the Way provides little more than a shadow of that calamitous development, and thus not much help in understanding how and why it happened that the U.S. got drawn into this unconstitutional, disastrous war.   When it has happening, my best explanation was that Johnson was just over his head when it came to foreign policy, unable to navigate and parse what his generals and advisors were telling him, and above all not wanting to appear weak or indecisive. He just lacked the requisite experience.

Which brings this movie back to 2016 and its relevance to a decision facing all Americans today.   Though Hillary Clinton is not without her failings, including in foreign policy, she has far and away the most foreign policy experience of the three candidates still standing - easily more than Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump's experience in foreign policy is zero.  Hillary Clinton, as a former Secretary of State, has more experience in seeing to America's best interests in the world than anyone other than a former President or Secretary of State.

LBJ's error in Vietnam, just hinted at like a hurricane on the horizine in All the Way, changed the United States for the worse in a way that has endured to this very day.  Given the challenges that our country now faces in the world, we need someone in the White House with enough experience to avoid making an equivalent mistake in the next few years, which could have far worse consequences than what happened in the 1960s.   Thank you HBO for bringing home this point so effectively, though it was likely not your intention.   In the short and long run, All the Way may be more important for what it didn't actually show on the screen.

Trump and The Day After

I mentioned this in my review of The Americans 2.9, aired last night, which featured the major characters watching The Day After, the post-nuclear bomb movie first watched by more than 100 million television viewers back in 1983.   One of the Soviet spies in The Americans, Elizabeth, mentions that the U.S. was the only country to have dropped the atom bomb (back in 1945).   I thought, as I saw this on TV last night, that it's a hopeful thing that no nation has used nuclear weapons since 1983, either.

And then I thought of Donald Trump.  And I realized that when you strip away all the bombast and racism and personal attacks, you have a man with a temper and access to the nuclear trigger were he to become President.

It's not his complete lack of governing experience per se that's the cause for concern.  Eisenhower had zero political experience, but commanded the Allied Army that beat the Nazis in World War II.   He, in other words, had massive experience with weapons.  And though Ronald Reagan spent a lot his life as an actor, he was Governor of California, a populous and diverse state, before he was elected President.

Trump has none of that.   In response to one of the terrorist attacks last year, he's already said he would "bomb the shit" out of ISIS.   Can we be confident that he would not use nuclear weapons as part of that attack?  And provoke some sort of counter nuclear attack as well as contaminating the affected area with radiation for decades?

His temper is unfortunately very obvious.   To even the mildest of criticisms, he lashes out with insults.   And while it's true that words are not physical weapons, can anyone want a person with his temperament in the White House?

We need someone with a maximum of foreign policy experience, which is one reason I support Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.  But whoever the Democratic nominee is, we - everyone with a modicum of sanity - need to do all in our electoral power to make sure Donald Trump never gets near a nuclear weapon.

How to Beat Donald Trump

I was interviewed about Donald Trump a few years ago - actually, about ten years ago, time flies when you're having a good time - and then quoted in and asked to blurb this 2007 biography of Trump, No Such Thing as Over-Exposure: Inside the Life and Celebrity of Donald Trump, by Robert Slater.

I admit that I admired something of Trump back then, or at least his success, which is why I was happy to blurb the book.   Slater thought I understood a bit of what made Trump tick.   I thought so, too, and think so today, when what makes Trump tick is vastly more crucial to our nation and indeed the world than it was a decade ago.

I told Slater, and he agreed, that Trump was motivated, to the point of being addicted, to two things. One has become obvious and all too well-known.  Trump is addicted to publicity.  He's the very embodiment of the principle that there's no such thing as bad publicity, aka the worst publicity is no publicity, and everything he's said and done since announcing his candidacy for President last summer proves this.   That was the sense of the title of Slater's biography of Trump.   No Such Thing as Over-Exposure.

But there's a second part to Trump's compulsion: he's addicted to winning. We saw the first major expression of this after his big loss in Wisconsin. He declined to appear on the Sunday talk shows, for the first time since November, the weekend after Wisconsin.

No candidate likes to lose.   But look at what Hillary did after her losses to Bernie - she immediately redoubled her efforts and media appearances.   Indeed, having lost a very difficult primary to Obama in 2008, she came back in 2016.   We've yet to see what Bernie will do in the future if, as now seems likely, he doesn't get the Democratic nomination, but so far he seems unbowed by the victories Hillary has mounted,   On the Republican side, Cruz and Kasich seem largely unfazed by their considerable defeats.

This analysis of Trump is of course now muddied by his big win in New York last night. But I think it will  prove out in the months ahead.  If Trump does not get the Republican nomination, I predict he'll kick and scream but do nothing more (though his supporters may riot), including not launching a third party effort. If he does get the nomination, and loses the general election, I predict we'll never see him run for office again. Trump's addicted to winning, and therefore hates losing with every ounce of his being.  That's why he traded so many of his companies off to bankruptcy - he'd rather leave the field than risk losing even more.

The way to beat Trump is, therefore, to beat him.  And although that might sound like tautological gibberish, I believe it has a deep grain of truth.  Trump has a glass jaw when it comes to losing.   It's why he sulked after losing Wisconsin.   He's probably won too many primaries to leave the political field any time before the GOP Convention.   But if he doesn't get the nomination, or does but loses the general election, we'll likely never see him on the ballot again.   That may be scant comfort, but it's something.

It may not be easy to stop Trump, but once that happens, I bet he won't be coming back soon, or ever again.

My New Policy Regarding Hillary Detractors

Now that Hillary Clinton has won New York, and by a very substantial margin, I hope the Bernie Sanders campaign can ease up on some of its destructive rhetoric.   Campaigns are not run by angels, but some of what the Sanders campaign has recently done, including an ad that incorrectly says Washington politicians vote under the influence of money received for speeches - an ad correctly called out by Chris Matthews on MSNBC several nights in a row (it's illegal for people in Congress to take money while in office, as Matthews correctly points out) - are beyond the pale.

The fact is neither Hillary nor Bernie are perfect, which means there are grounds for criticizing either, but I don't think it's too much to ask for the truth.

And then there's the tone of the criticisms.   I disagree profoundly with Bernie's lack of support of the Sandy Hook parents and their suit against gun manufacturers and dealers, but I think it's more than enough to state this disagreement, and not impugn Bernie personally.   Unfortunately, I've not seen the same about Hillary among some of Bernie's supporters.

In fact, in many discussions over the past few months, I've been treated to being cursed out and insulted, as well as presented with all kinds vicious - and groundless - characterizations of Hillary.   Indeed, I just was treated to some of this about Hillary today, on Facebook.

Accordingly, I've decided that, as of now, I will block and de-friend anyone who resorts to nasty insults rather than logic in commenting about any of my political Tweets, Facebook, or other online posts.   Disagreement is fine, and is the lifeblood of rational discourse.   Insults, often vulgar, are not, and indeed poison the discourse.

Here are some possible questions about my new policy, with, one hopes, helpful answers:

Levinson, I thought you believe in the First Amendment?

I do,  but last time I checked, I was neither Congress nor any part of government.  Therefore I'm entitled, unlike the government, to block any speech I find atrocious.

Come on, haven't you said nasty things about political candidates?

Yes, I have, but mostly against Trump.   Actually, that's true, but, even so, I don't think insult is helpful, and I'm going to try from now on to keep my criticism non-insulting, which is more effective, anyway.

Will you block long-term friends and family?

They'll probably get a pass, but it depends how long-term the offending friend in question may be. And as for family, I reserve the right to critique him or her at the next seder we attend.

Billions Season 1 Finale: Finally

Billions concluded its excellent first season last night with something it has needed to do from the very beginning:  resolving the insanity of Wendy being married to Prosecutor Chuck and at the same time being the chief psychological adviser of Axe, currently being investigated up and down by Chuck.

The resolution, which began last week with Chuck's breaking into Wendy's laptop to see her notes about Axe - though perhaps not really breaking in, if we buy Chuck's argument that how can you be breaking in if the owner of the laptop has given you the password? - came to a head in the only way possible that didn't strain belief:  Wendy leaves both Chuck and Axe.

She has ample reason and motive to leave both - the two bitter adversaries have been using her mercilessly throughout the show.  That she put up with this so long, that Chuck and Axe each put up with it for their own different reasons, was unbelievable.  But Chuck loved her, as did Axe in a way, and this along with each using Wendy as a barometer of what was going on with the enemy is what kept this intense and bizarre triangle in motion, kept us distracted and even mesmerized enough to let it keep ringing.

I've got to say - and Bernie Sanders wouldn't like this (but who cares) - that I think Axe has at least the slightly superior argument in that great one-on-one between the two at the very end of the episode.  Yeah, Chuck may be a right in a narrow technical, legal, sense, but Axe has the superior moral position when he points out whom is he really hurting in his wheeling and dealing, which certainly benefits lots of people.  Both men have done wrong to their personnel, but as far as the world at large: which one has really brought more value to the world?

It's also clear that part of Chuck's rage against Axe is not just about what Axe may be doing that's illegal, but about what Axe may be doing to Wendy.  We the audience know that they haven't slept together, but even if Chuck could be sure of that, he would still deeply resent the emotional connection between Axe and Wendy.  His use of his office to prosecute that is surely an abuse of power.

Chuck's anger over Wendy won't be abated by her leaving Axe, because Wendy has also left Chuck, who not completely incorrectly blames Axe for Wendy's leaving Chuck, even though Chuck knows he is to blame for this too.   It will be fun to see what new role Wendy plays in the next season, and for that matter, fun to see the next season in general, at which time we'll have a brand new President, too.

See also Billions on Showtime: Winning Me Over ... Billions 1.6: Pivotal Wendy

Hillary Clinton Sweeps All Five States Tonight: The Best Antidote to Trump

An excellent night indeed for Hillary Clinton, who won primaries in Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri - or all five contests, over Bernie Sanders.

As I've said many times and in many places, Bernie Sanders is an excellent candidate, with courageous positions that have a lot to commend them.  But I prefer Hillary, for a variety of reasons - her stronger position on gun control, on stopping police who kill innocent African-Americans, to name just two - and now there is an additional, highly important reason:

Donald Trump did very tonight in the Republican primaries, too.  Kasich won Ohio, but Trump won the rest.  What happened in his campaigns over the weekend makes it more imperative than ever than the Democrats nominate a candidate who can beat Trump in the general election.

It's not even Trump's positions that are so frightening.  Cruz's are even worse.  It's the fascistic tendencies that Trump has displayed at his most recent rallies - inciting his followers to violence. Such incitements are straight out of the Joseph Goebbels handbook.  He was the Nazi minister of Propaganda, and though I know some people dislike comparisons in our current day and age to the Nazis, they can't be ignored.  We're not that far away from angry people taking up arms against innocent, law-abiding Muslim Americans, given Trump's rhetoric.

I know Bernie has done better in many polls against Trump than has Hillary.  But, in the long run, she's the more reliable candidate to beat Trump.  As she aptly says, she has been under GOP attack for decades.   She can better withstand whatever vicious barrage Trump and his ilk might bring against the Democratic candidate for President.

Especially gratifying, then, that Hillary Clinton swept all five of  the Democratic primaries tonight.

Knife in the Back from Robert Reich

I read with deep and special regret that former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich decided to endorse Bernie Sanders in his run for President.  Not because I don't think Bernie is many regards a very admirable candidate - I do.   And not because I support Hillary Clinton because I think she is the preferable candidate - which I also do, as I explain here.  But because of the circumstances through which Robert Reich became a public figure whose views were worth noting, and the loyalties that I think such circumstances should engender.

Reich, after all, was appointed Secretary of Labor by Bill Clinton.   Prior to that, Reich was a professor at Harvard - but when was the last time you saw a professor's choice for President noted in places like Politico and The Hill?   Reich's relevance to this or any election derives from a position which Bill Clinton bestowed upon him.

Which is not to say that Reich owes Bill, or Hillary, unquestioning loyalty.   Were Hillary to suddenly start espousing ideas similar to Trump's, Cruz's, or Rubio's, I would not blame Reich in the slightest for putting aside his debt of gratitude to Bill Clinton, and supporting Bernie.

But as Bernie and Hillary and Reich himself readily admit, there's nothing like such a significant level of difference between the two Democratic candidates.   And that being the case, I think Robert Reich owes it to Bill Clinton to, if not outrightly endorsing Hillary, at least not endorsing Bernie this primary season.

Because, although I don't think loyalty should count for everything, it should still count for something in this world.  The First Lady of the President who appointed him Secretary of Labor, and therein the position which now makes his opinion count for anything, deserves better now from Robert Reich in her own run for the highest office in the land.