I had missed this moment. It got overwhelmed by Trump’s joking references to election interference. But apparently while there was no US press in the room Trump joked about “fake news” and how it was a problem Russia doesn’t have but the US does.
Trump to Putin: "Get rid of them. Fake news is a great term, isn’t it? You don’t have this problem in Russia but we do …" (for full quote see here https://t.co/dbdVvB04y8) pic.twitter.com/MdGNXLTSjm
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) June 28, 2019
Because we are humans we tend to think, confront the past and the future, in terms of symbols and moments. I’ve been reading through all your emails that I asked for last night and I was struck that one moment came up again and again: the Trump/Clinton debates, specifically the town hall style debate on October 9th, in which Trump seemed to stalk Clinton around the stage, getting into her space, looming over her. Reader after reader invoked that moment and said Harris clearly wouldn’t let that happen.
As political observers we often focus on text at the expense of subtext, the libretto at the expense of the score, where the real story is told. The big winner tonight was Kamala Harris. She was consistently strong in her answers. Her dramatic confrontation with Joe Biden is clearly the story of the evening. But again, score over libretto. Somewhat like Booker last night but much more so, she took possession of the room and turned it to her advantage. She repeatedly kept talking until she was done talking and did it without sounding rude or grating. She could do that because she embodied command. She made the moderators sound annoying. She continually showed through actions rather than words that she’s powerful, that she shapes the moment rather than being shaped by it. This sort of demonstration of command is always important. It’s especially important when the ultimate opponent is Donald Trump. She was far and away the big winner.
10:56 PM: Good close by Sanders. Clear encapsulation of his agenda, message.
10:20 PM: Harris’s refusal to stop talking until she’s done talking sends at least as strong a message as the specific things she’s saying.
10:08 PM: That was a remarkable exchange between Harris and Biden. Harris grabbed hold of the debate, pivoted it toward her own personal history, and took it right to Biden in a remarkably aggressive way. She put him on the spot. But he managed to hold his own. He went right back at her, invoked support for the ERA, shepherding the renewal of the Voting Rights Act. She pressed the point that he was essentially making a local control argument about busing, which certainly has a problematic history. I’ll need to go back and listen again to that exchange. And I’m not sure precisely how it will play for either candidate. But it captured both of them, their substance, their strategy. I think they both managed to do just what they’d want for their own strategies, own campaigns. Curious your take.
9:56 PM: I don’t know if it will matter politically. But that was a really good answer on China. Video in a moment.
Don't know if it'll matter but this was a very good answer. pic.twitter.com/6yC47RP8LS
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) June 28, 2019
9:52 PM: Sen. Harris just does not care about your clock. And she pulls it off and comes off well doing it. She knows how to hold the stage.
9:46 PM: Biden is speaking mainly in consensus bromides, things that most Democrats generally agree on. But so far at least he’s managing to hold his own, underline his campaign themes and really prevent anyone from landing a punch on him or really even taking a swing at him.
9:35 PM: Harris just bulldozed right over whoever else that was trying to talk and bulldozed through the question itself.
9:29 PM: So I think Williamson just said we need to dig beneath the superficialities of public policy and get down to the substance of slogans. She then said some stuff about the environment causing chronic diseases. (Video on this in a moment.)
Here we are …
Williamson: We need to get past the superficiliaties of public policy and get down to slogans. pic.twitter.com/CPqFHgrjWE
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) June 28, 2019
9:24 PM: Biden’s was a good answer. Whether or not you agree with it in policy terms, he connected on a number of very resonant points.
9:18 PM: Biden is managing so far to not really engage in any of the policy nitty-gritty, not really say anything. Which is the definition of an incumbent/frontrunner campaign.
9:15 PM: I’m struck by how little engagement between the candidates there is so far. Aggressive but all off into the distance.
9:08 PM: That’s a good question, focusing the socialism question on ‘what policies are you talking about.’
8:59 PM: Placeholder for wisdom.
One thought about how tonight’s debate may go.
Last night’s debate was fairly positive and policy substantive. I actually found it refreshing – maybe because Donald Trump came up surprisingly little. But it’s important to note a key dynamic at play. Elizabeth Warren was the only one on the stage with any significant public support. All the rest are either truly flatlined or pretty close to it. That meant there was little reason to attack anyone or ‘draw contrasts’. These people all desperately need to find any people to support them. Showing they’re better than someone else or that someone else sucks is a luxury or irrelevancy until they can get some group of people to think they should even be in the race.
Your amusing political gaffe of the day.
Bill de Blasio tossed out a Che Guevara line at a union rally down in Miami today. In Miami. Did I mention Miami?
He’s now apologizing:
Here’s a pretty important wake-up call for those who may need waking up about the growth of support for ‘religious liberty’ exemptions as a tool to provide legal sanctuary for affirmative discrimination. A new poll from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) shows the percentages of public support for certain kinds of discrimination under ‘religious liberty’ exemptions and how they’ve grown in recent years – and substantial numbers support exemptions to discriminate against Muslims and Jews.