Speaking Up, and Not

Van Jones is quite capable of saying bad things.  

After Charlie Kirk was assassinated, Jones appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher. He stated that Kirk had sent him a message proposing that Jones appear on Kirk's podcast and he suggested

‘Let’s disagree, agreeably.’”

“I’m going to carry those words with me because he was a words, not weapons, guy… We’re getting away from that now. I was very frustrated with people in my party throwing rocks at the corpse before he could even be buried. Bl00d still on the widow’s shoes, and people want to post every dumb thing he ever said. He was a 31-year-old kid.”

There were a few individuals who slammed Kirk after he was killed, but very few. And a 31-year old, especially an activist such as Kirk, is a "kid."  Still, at times Jones makes a lot of sense.

Van Jones on Abdul El-Sayed ⬇️

"These people are incredibly dangerous... I know Abdul, his positions on Israel and foreign policy are INSANE. They're not reasonable reactions to anything."

"Abdul's position is a total and complete arms embargo against the State of Israel,… pic.twitter.com/tKuiuDGXNe

— Sarah Gallagher (@sgallz_) September 1, 2026

Jones, green czar in the Obama Administration before he was prevailed upon to resign, argues that Abdul el-Sayed's

position is a total and complete arms embargo against the State of Israel, including defensive weapons, That's an insane position.

Israel wants to pay for infrastructure to stop a rocket coming from Iran or coming from Hezbollah or coming from Iran. We should deny them the right to buy the interceptors and knock down rocket going into Israel, men, women, children babies?

That's an insane position and by the way, it offends me because Barack Obama was a part of creating that Iron Dome. Barack Obama was a part of creating those interceptors. Barack Obama thought the Israeli people were in such a tough neighborhood, they needed to be able to knock down rockets. So you're telling me you're smarter than Barack Obama? You have better ideas about foreign policy than Barack Obama and you want to deplug an defund and take away Israel- half the world's Jews- ability to defend themselves?

Van Jones has exhibited undying love for, and devotion to Barack Obama through the years. He has a blind spot there and evidently does realize that some people do have better foreign policy ideas than the ex-President. (Crimeans would agree.) 

However, Jones is right about President Obama vis-a-vis the Iron Dome. As explained by a guest column published in The Jewish News in 2021 by Doron Levin, the idea for the defensive system was hatched in 2004 as Israel was being bombarded by crude, short-range rockets from Hamas and Hezbollah.

The project received some funding from the Israeli government but the Bush Administration believed Israel should use the USA's own Phalanx Vulcan anti-missile sytem. However, Colin Kahl, who had been cooridinating USA Middle East policy at the Pentagon, sent to Israel in 2009 experts who discovered that Iron Dome was superior to the Phalanx. His office recommended $200 million in aid and

In May 2010, Obama asked Congress to provide $205 million for production and deployment of Iron Dome, which would be manufactured by Israel’s state-owned Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. The U.S. House of Representatives approved the funding later that month in a 410-4 vote. The measure became part of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011, approved by the Senate and signed by Obama on Jan. 7, 2011.

Iron Dome went operational in March 2011 and shot down its first missile a month later. Whether the new missile defense ever would have been built without Obama’s support and U.S. funding is questionable.

President Obama, having taken bold and proper action, later cooled toward the Israeli government. Nonetheless, it appears that Jones was largely correct about Obama's assistance for military defense of Israeli infrastructure and citizens. His observation that el-Sayed opposes defensive aid (all aid) to the Middle East democracy.  He is wrong about the reason. El-Sayed is no more "crazy" than the 104 Democrats in the House of Representatives who have voted to cut off all aid to the Netanyahu government.

They had varying reasons to do so, none of them valid I, and presumably Jones, find valid. Unlike some of those Democrats, el-Sayed is actively hostile toward Israel. And in his case, it's not the current government in Jerusalem; it's the very nature and idea of Israel itself. That's not insane, but something else.  AIPAC! AIPAC! AIPAC!  (Liz Lemon/Tina Fey to Jack Donaghy/Alec Baldwin in 30 Rock: "Jack, just say Jewish, this is taking forever.")

Never missing an opportunity to criticize Barack Obama (one Democrat, somewhere, has to do it sometime), I see a rich irony. You don't have to be James Carville (terrible idea, though, James) to recognize the development of a schism in the Democratic Party over Middle East policy. It is not about Gaza or Palestinians or Netanyahu; it is about Israel.  As the Party, and especially the media, contemplate Democratic prospects this November or November two years  hence, Israel looms large as an issue which can do (further) major damage to party unity.

Two voices have yet to be heard from. One is Joe Biden, who has cancer and whom nobody wants to hear from anyway- despite a successful presidency- because of how his term ended. The other is Barack Obama who, though idolized only by Van Jones and a large minority of the Party, is nonetheless beloved by most Democrats. 

And Barack Obama, exhibiting the boldness which characterized his presidency, has remained silent. It is unsurprising but damaging. He cannot unite the Democratic Party by simply snapping his fingers. However, some individuals, Van Jones and many others, are by speaking out forcefully risking their careers, reputation, or at least popularity. It is time that Barack Obama grab a backbone and do the same. I can survive a fainting spell.  

Share |

Hero Worship

Oh, get a room. Sally Jenkins, reportedly an award-winning journalist, writes in a recent column in The Atlantic

Suavity is a sorely missed ingredient in the American presidency. The effortless charm of a Roosevelt or a Reagan, a Bush or a Clinton, projected a particular brand of power. Suave means a kind of athletic ease and self-command in difficult, spotlighted circumstances, the assurance that solutions are at hand if only we all hold our composure and act right-headedly. Here was the ultra-suave Barack Obama’s message to the basketball player Caitlin Clark in a small but noteworthy exchange over the WNBA All-Star weekend: It never hurts to be winsome. In fact, it can help you win.

Almost unbelievably, it goes downhill from there.

You can read in her piece about the soiree of the ex-President and Clark's Indiana Fever as the team was "milling around an indoor court at the newly opened Obama Presidential Center on Chicago's South Side." Obama, the breathless Jenkins recounted, was suave enough "to gently remind them of certain truths." When he spoke to Clark, there was "a sweetness in the moment, a subtle teaching. In the nicest way, Obama shored Clark up..."

Jenkins remarks that the young superstar guard

can be either mesmerizing to watch or tiresome, depending on how aggrieved she feels on the day. Clark has complained that she is intentionally targeted with hard fouls—and sometimes she is, but not because she’s white. Mauling is the guaranteed, time-honored way to stop an otherwise insuperable player.

Highlights from video and television suggest that Clark can be mesmerizing to watch or tiresome and is sometimes "intentionally targeted with hard fouls."  Further, Jenkins comments, "mauling is the guaranteed, time-honored way to stop an ohtewise insuperable player."

I don't watch WNBA games. But if the journalist believes that "mauling is the guaranteed, time-honored way to stop" a great player, she has not watched the National Basketball Association much in the past quarter century. The men often play an o'le defense (defense, optional), much to the annoyance of most of us in middle-age or above. And when the ball handler is a star, it is even more common for the defender (word used loosely) to make only a disinterested effort at stopping him. (If Jenkins were referring specifically  to the women's league, she would not have used "time-honored" and would have clarified her remark.)

Nonetheless, she really is more interested in aleging that the mauling of Clark is "not because she's white."

But we don't know that, and Jenkins makes no effort to explain why she believes that.  It is very likely that jealousy is involved. Though there have been seveal excellent players in the NBA, all have gone under the radar, elicing little attention or endorsements. Caitlin Clark joins the league,  garners tremendous publicity and while lighting up the league, reaps endorsements and credit for making the WNBA a hot ticket (or at least much hotter than in the past). 

Gun to head, I would say that race and/or the sexuality (straight) of Clark plays a role. However, that's only speculation- I would not assume, unlike Jenkins. I admit I may be wrong; she leaves no doubt of her certainty.

She also is certain about the ex-President.  The article was not only about Jenkins' perception that the player embodies a sense of entitlement but also about Barack Obama's awesomeness.  The latter "gave her grace" and "a lesson in how to be winning."

As it happens, President Obama was himself given a lesson in winning in his second term.  One chapter in the recently-published U.S. Foreign Policy and Presidential Leadership in an Age of Strategic Uncertainty

explores the rise and fall of President Barack Obama’s “reset” policy toward Russia, highlighting its conciliatory approach and strategic missteps. ​ Obama sought to improve US-Russia relations, leveraging cooperation on arms control, counterterrorism, and nuclear nonproliferation. ​ However, his administration underestimated Russia’s expansionist ambitions, particularly in Ukraine, where limited sanctions and non-lethal aid failed to deter Russia’s aggression. ​ The reset policy, rooted in Obama’s consequentialist worldview, prioritized avoiding escalation but overlooked long-term security risks. ​ Ultimately, the policy’s shortcomings contributed to strained US-Russia relations, emboldened Moscow’s neo-imperialist aspirations, and left lasting negative impacts on European and global security.

In early 2012,  President Obama assured outgoing Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that he would have "more flexibility" in dealing with Russia once he was re-elected later that year. Medvedev told Obama that he'd relay the information to incoming president Vladimir Putin.

Message received. Russia in 2014 annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine's eastern Donbas region, part of which still is occupied by the Kremlin. The US response, consisting of mild sanctions, was tepid.

In 2024, we learned

According to Watergate journalist Bob Woodward's forthcoming book, War, (President Joe) Biden expressed discontent during a private conversation late last year over how his former running mate handled Russian troops invading Ukraine's eastern Donbas region in February 2014. At the time, Biden was serving as vice president under former President Barack Obama.

"They f***** up in 2014," Woodward quoted Biden saying to a close friend in December 2023, according to the Associated Press, who obtained a copy of Woodward's book before its publishing date of October 15. "Barack never took [Russian President Vladimir Putin] seriously."

Biden is also quoted as telling the friend that the White House "never should have let Putin just walk in there" and that Washington "did nothing" when Russia invaded.

Many Ukrainians consider the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 merely a continuation of the war begun in 2014. This is the particular "brand of power projected" by four presidents, whom she believes include Barack Obama and not Joe Biden. Yet, President Biden did what President Obama did not do and chose to defend Ukraine aggesively. As Sally Jenkins will tell you, Barack Obama knows "winning"- he did it twice. Unwittingly, he helped Vladimir Putin also do it.

Share |

Admission

In February, former President Barack Obama was asked by liberal/left podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen "are aliens real?' He replied  "They're real but I haven't seen them and they're not being kept in Area 51. There's no underground facility. Unless there's this enormous conspiracy and they hid it from the President of the United States."

After the inevitable controversy arose, Obama wrote on Instagram

I was trying to stick with the spirit of the speed round but since it's gotten attention, let me claify. Statistically, the universe is so vast that the odds are good there's life out there. But the distances between solar systems ae so great that the chances we've been visited by aliens is low and I saw no evidence during my presidency that extratrrestrials have made contact with us. Really!

This was in the spirit of President Clinton. Asked to explain his answer as to whether there is something "going on" between Monica Lewinsky and himself, explained "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." 

And so it was that Barack Obama stated "I saw no evidence during my presidency that extraterrestrials have made contact with us."  This doesn't go to the question of whether there are extraterrestrial craft which have visited our solar system, only that the President was shown no evidence of "contact with us." Even if such beings have made contact with any human beings- less likely than visitation by craft to earth's atmosphere- it is unlikely that such evidence would have, or even could have, been made available.

`

Then in May, Obama (at 1:02) told Stephen Colbert

If there were aliens or alien spaceships or anything under the control of the United States government that we knew about seing, photographs, what have you, I promise you, some guy guarding the installation would have taken a selfie with one of the aliens and sent it to his girlfriend to impress her.

Obama was not lying. There is no alien spaceship under the control of the United States government. No one has said that such a "spaceship" is under the control of the United States government. That is the point of what apparently are extraordinary phenomena.

Dean Baker says TALE- Trump always lies about everything. He's also a blabbermouth.  And in the following statement by President Trump is embedded a lie. More obviously, the fellow who stole top secret and other classified documents from the USA government and stored them in a bathroom in his Florida resort has made something clear. On February 19, Trump responded to Obama's initial remarks by telling Fox News

He's not supposed to be doing that. I don't know if they're real or not. I can tell you he gave classified information. He's not supposed to be doing that. He made a big mistake. he took it out of classified information.

The beauty of that statement lies in Trump both being true to his nature and revealing valuable information. We know that the President is lying when he contends "I don't know if they're real or not" because elsewhere in the statement he comments a) "he's not supposed to be doing that"; b) "he gave classified information"; c) "he's not supposed to be doing that": and d) "he took it out of classfied information".

He's like the man or woman who has information others don't, knows he (or she) should not reveal it, yet wants everyone know that he is privy to the information. Ultimately, he'll be able to say that he knew it all the time. Yet, he gets to slam Obama, whom he envies and hates, for leaking (unspecified) things contrary to law or regulation. By not conceding that extraterrestials are real ("I don't now if they're real or not"), he can still release government files at his own pace. It's a win-win, maybe a win-win-win for him.

The cat has been let out of the bag about the existence of those aliens not from Latin or South America, the Middle East, or elsewhere in our universe. And as a girlfriend of Jerry Seinfeld in Seinfeld famously bragged of her breasts, "they're real and they're spectacular"

  .

Share |

Who Are These Democrats, Anyway?

Ladies and gentlemen: the plain-spoken Barack Obama, who never, ever was accused of being a professor in a college seminar

Obama: "What I'm more interested in for Democrats is, do you know how to just talk to regular people like we're not in a college seminar? Can you talk in plain English to folks? And not have a bunch of gobbledygook around it. Just talk like normal people talk. 'The rent is too… pic.twitter.com/HUPCGD64Dq

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 6, 2026

In late February, the leading (by conventional wisdom) Democratic contender for the 2028 presidential nomination appeared before a largely black audience in Atlanta. He claimed a struggle with dyslexia and stated "I cannot read a speech."  He maintained "I'm not better than you. I'm a 960 SAT guy"and was accused of racial bias by a Fox News talk show host. He responded

You didn't give a shit about the President of the United States posting an ape video of President Obama or calling African nations shitholes- but you're going to call me racist for talking about my lifelong struggle with dyslexia? Spare me your fucking outrage, Sean.

That's an impressive profanity-to-word ratio. and it doesn't sound much like gobbledygook in a college seminar. Responding to the Atlanta kerfuffle, conservative lawyer and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley noted that Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had flasked the "f-bomb" in public and

Katie Porter this week thrilled a crowd by waving around a sign reading “F–k Trump.” Porter was previously criticized for using such language to abuse staffers to “get out of my f–cking shot” in an interview.

At the State of the Union, Rep. Rashida Tlaib wore a button on the House floor reading “F–k Ice.”

Such behavior is not just limited to Democrats. President Trump has used profanity on occasion.

However, the Democrats appear to have made profanity a signature element in their campaigns.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, who is running for the U.S. Senate in Texas, seems a perpetual profanity machine, regularly telling figures like Elon Musk to “f–k off” and dropping the f-bomb at a higher rate than prepositions.

Some are virtually giggly over swearing in public. Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.) declared, “I don’t swear in public very well, but we have to f–k Trump. Please don’t tell my children that I just did that.” The crowd roared with approval that Dexter was feigning being naughty with dirty words.

There is a belief that profanity is a way to connect to younger voters who trash-talk and seem to like what was once called “potty mouths.”

In the modern era, this practice was inaugurated by Donald J. Trump, who went on to be elected twice to the presidenccy with the support of most young men, who tend to be favorably triggered by this affectation. (Oh no, I sound like I'm at a college seminar!)  It's a cheap, easy way to attempt appeal to non-college educated voters.  (Trump: "I love the poorly educated."). It's less risky than claiming low SAT scores or having to consider altering a view on an actual issue.

Democratic politicians are trying to avoid sounding like university professors, though in this simplistic, profane manner. And conservatives continue to knock Democrats in much the same way as did the former President, to whom Steve M responds

IB know, I know -- this isn't just a right-wing critique of Democrats. Many Democrats agree that their party's leaders sound too cerebral and professorial. But "Democrats are out-of-touch elitists" is a core right-wing argument, and Obama is echoing it here.

I don't really believe that professorial talk is what's holding back Democrats. Many liberal and left slogans -- "No Kings," "Tax the Rich" -- are very plain English. And Republicans don't always talk like regular folks.

Obama, the magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School, never was accused of being overly down-to-earth. However, by far the greater hypocrisy is on the part of the GOP.  Steve M adds

Older Republicans praise pseudo-intellectual right-wing pundits such as Thomas Sowell and Hugh Hewitt, not to mention Newt Gingrich and Dinesh D'Souza, who delighted Republican voters for years with their academic-sounding denunciations of Obama's alleged "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior." GOP voters appreciate efforts to turn institutions of higher learning such as Florida's New College into conservative beachheads.

They hate mainstream scientists, but love scientists who embrace vaccine and climate denialism. They distrust lawyers in general, but they revere the memory of Antonin Scalia, and they cheer on the Federalist Society lawyers who control much of the federal bench. They appreciate the work of right-wing think tankers like Chris Rufo. And they sometimes use fancy language: remember, we talk about trans rights, while their term for the trans rights movement is the very academic-sounding "gender ideology."

I don't think right-wingers care how highfalutin your language is, as long as they agree with you. If you tell them things they want to hear, you can use any language you want. If you tell them things they don't want to hear, they'll reject you even if you use nothing but one-syllable words.

It may be hard for Obama and others to understand but in most cases, it does not come down to language. It's ideology or values or whatever, "as long as they agree with you."  The current effort of many Democrats to dumb down their language in order to relate to the voting bloc now hanging with Republicans is not only a little obnoxious and embarrassing, but unlikely to bear fruit.

Share |

They Are Gazans. Gazans. And Did I Mention "Gazans"?

During much of the years 2009-2016 (or 2015), I never missed an opportunity to criticize President Obama- for roughly the same reason Matt Stoller does here. However, in this tweet he chooses the wrong incident to slam the ex-President because the latter said nothing wrong.

Ultimately Obama never stood for anything except his own celebrity. He built the deeply loathed Democratic party that exists today. https://t.co/mUTs3Tomll

— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) April 30, 2026

The website Middle East Eye, widely believed to be funded by Qatar, reported last October

Social media users have accused former US President Barack Obama of dehumanising [sic] Palestinians and "bothsides-ing" genocide for a social media post about the announcement of a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas.

"After two years of unimaginable loss and suffering for Israeli families and the people of Gaza, we should all be encouraged and relieved that an end to the conflict is within sight; that those hostages still being held will be reunited with their families; and that vital aid can start reaching those inside Gaza whose lives have been shattered," Obama posted on X on Thursday.

He continued: "It now falls on Israelis and Palestinians, with the support of the US and the entire world community, to begin the hard task of rebuilding Gaza – and to commit to a process that, by recognizing the common humanity and basic rights of both peoples, can achieve a lasting peace."

Many users criticised the choice to reference "Israeli families" while referring to Palestinians as "the people of Gaza".

The ‘people’ of Gaza are Palestinians. They have survived a genocide and an ongoing attempt to eliminate them for over a century,” Palestinian-American human rights attorney Noura Erakat added.

The people of Saudi Arabia are Saudi Arabians. The people of Nigeria are Nigerians. The people of Ukraine are Ukrainians. And the people of Gaza are Gazans. This should not be so hard. Yet 

Several argued that the distinction was not merely stylistic, but part of a long-standing rhetorical pattern in western political language.

Sana Saeed, a media critic, wrote: “this wasn’t a deliberate demarcation of humanity; it’s reflex. A masterclass in seven words on how Palestinians are rendered faceless and nameless when slaughtered, while Israelis are granted empathy - especially when they are the butchers.”

Obama observed "an end to the conflict is within sight;" that hostages "will be reunited with their families." He suggested also that"vital aid can start reaching those inside Gaza," that "the hard task of rebuilding Gaza" and of achieving "a lasting peace" can begin.

It's unsurprising that eventual peace with Israel and the release of live hostages would be distasteful to Islamists. It's a little more surprising that someone envisioning lasting peace and the rebuilding of Gaza would be scolded (though not much more).

The article continued

"For Obama, Israel has families, but Gaza just has people. Israelis are hostages being held but Gazans are merely 'those' who need aid," posted one user.

“When they deign to mention Palestinians at all, they must always throat-clear by mentioning Israelis first. Thems the rules," said journalist Barry Malone.

If it is unacceptable to address the matter of Israelis while addressing the plight of Palestinians, there is an alternative. "The Palestinians in Gaza are led by a ruthless, evil entity named Hamas which should be wiped off the face of the earth."  O.K., then: Palestinians are mentioned with no mention of Israelis.

Moreover

Several social media users highlighted Obama’s use of the word “conflict” to describe Israel’s assault on Gaza, which the UN, genocide and legal experts, and international rights organisations have concluded constitutes a genocide.

"'Conflict' connotes that this was a war with two equal sides and not a genocide/wiping out of an entire region and its infrastructure," responded one user.

"It’s a GENOCIDE," responded historian Assal Rad. "There is no accountability without acknowledging it, and there is no justice without accountability."

Several users said the framing constituted a “bothsides-ing” of a situation defined by Israeli occupation and siege.

The word "conflict" was used because it was a conflict (unfortunately, still is). Obama was not trying to score points or to litigate the issue of genocide; he was applauding an apparent ceasefire.  

And- for the 173rd time or so I've had to mention: this was, or is, not genocide. Killing lots and lots of people, even unnecessarily, is not genocide. If it were, Russia currently would be accused of genocide against Ukrainians and the USA would be accused of genocide against Iranians (or Persians). Nonetheless, neither major power- and Israel has proven it, too, is a major power- is attempting to wipe out an entire people.

Russia, a nuclear power, could wipe out Ukrainians; it is not. The USA, a nuclear power, could wipe out Irainians; it is not. Israel, generally believed to be a nuclear power, could wipe out Iranians; it is not. The Russian assault against Ukraine is not referred to as war crimes committed against Slavs, but rather against Ukrainians. However, it has become acceptable for Islamists and their allies to define the ongoing Middle East dispute in racial terms. 

This is reprehensible. 

The Israelis are not trying to exterminate a people. If it were trying to eliminate Palestinians, Jordan- at least 50% Palestinian- now would be under brutal asault.  (And it probably would become a wasteland.)

The Islamists who actually were offended by the remarks of ex-President Obama would argue that what Israel has done to Gaza would constitute genocide. However, with the ever-increasing number of people outside of Gaaza who would identify as "Palestinian,"it is odd that "Palestinian" would be considered synonymous with residents of Gaza. I suppose that referring to inhabitants of a strip of land constituting a political entity would fit "the longstanding rhetorical pattern in western political language," as Middle East Eye put it.  Que c'est horrible!

The term "genocide" is one of the best examples of definition creep.  "Genocide" never meant unnecessary killing or even slaughter but something far worse. However, those who wish to accuse Israel of the worst behavior imaginable have employed "genocide" as a weapon against a nation with the gall (chutzpah?) to believe that it has a right to exist.  The expression joins "traitor" and "racist" as among the most commonly abused words whose definition is stretched well beyond its original, justified, meaning.

These were comments posted on social media and everyone has a right to express his or her opinion. However, individuals who find these viewpoints distasteful and- more importantly- absurd should not ignore them.  And it shouldn't be left to the far right, which often attacks such remarks, to expose them as nonsense.

Share |

Bias and Timidity, Wrapped Into One

This is a clever tweet, because it illuminates the habit of this White House to offer shifting explanations for an outrage:

First: “it’s fake”

Then: “it’s real but he’s trolling you”

Now: “it was a staffer that posts to his account without him having any knowledge of it”

Soon: “it’s a hoax”

— Cooper (@justcuuper) February 6, 2026

He was referring to President Donald Trump's post on his Untruth Social 

late Thursday night of a video that included a racist animation of former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama depicted with the bodies of apes.

After backlash, the White House at about noon Friday said the post had been taken down from the president's page.

The roughly minutelong video, shared by Trump at 11:44 p.m. ET on Thursday, largely focused on debunked claims about the 2020 election.

At the end of the video, the Obamas' faces appear abruptly and without explanation for seconds with the song "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" playing over it. The video then ends back on similar imagery of the conspiracy video footage.

A few Republicans (not many), such as Senator Tim Scott, a black Republican from South Carolina, have reacted appropriately. However, John James, a black US Representative and two-time unsuccessful GOP candidate for governor of Michigan, did not.

I was shocked and appalled by that post.

I know the President. He is not racist.

I’m glad to see that trash has been taken down. https://t.co/GJgUNvRSN6

— John James (@JohnJamesMI) February 6, 2026

Well, actually, Donald Trump is a racist. We've suspected that for many years, well before on Deccember 16, 2023

 “They let — I think the real number is 15, 16 million people into our country. When they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They’re poisoning the blood of our country,” Trump told the crowd at a rally in New Hampshire. “That’s what they’ve done. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just to three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world. They’re coming into our country from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.”

Trump then repeated the use of “poisoning” in a post on his social media website Truth Social, saying overnight in an all-caps post, that “illegal immigration is poisoning the blood of our nation. They’re coming from prisons, from mental institutions — from all over the world.”

The term “blood poisoning” was used by Hitler in his manifesto “Mein Kampf,” in which he criticized immigration and the mixing of races. “All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning,” Hitler wrote."

"Poisoning the blood of our country" is not using a dogwhistle but screaming "racist." Whatever the valid explanation for Thursday's reprehensible video, Donald Trump is a racist and almost certainly has been for a long time. However, he could , if not make amends, show real leadership. He could say it was a mistake to post this, then find the person or persons responsible for it, and fire them.

However, that would require real leadership, which Donald would much rather fake than demonstrate.  However, to be fair and non-partisan, this may be common among two-term presidents. The last two-term president and the last two-term Democratic president since Bill Clinton, has responded in a starkly indirect way.

To all the athletes representing @TeamUSA: I'm so proud of you. Your talent and perseverance have brought you to this moment, and Michelle and I will be joining Americans from across the country cheering you on.

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) February 7, 2026

Oh so bold. The man who is serving in the office Barack Obama held for eight years shows his true colors (no pun intended), working indirectly with Russian president Vladimir Putin to break up NATO, and set federal law enforcement upon both illegal immigratns and legal immigrants in a brutal and punitive manner. Membes of Obama's own party are swinging hard at Donald Trump for a social media post depicting Barack and wife Michelle as animals. Carrying water for him, they are, and the ex-President so boldly tweets out a message "cheering you on."

Audacious! Courageous! In Obama's defense, former President George W. Bush has said nothing about Trump's message, and won't. He, too, was a two-term President and unlike Barack Obama- who has said a little about Trump's immigration tactics- Bush has said nothing. 

I'm not sure what that says about us as voters and as a people, but it probably is nothing good. Still, we deserve much better than Donald J. Trump- the one who is a clear-cut, palpable bigot and. though less obvious to the naked eye, the fellow for whom leadership is a four-letter word.

Share |

Missing in Action

On a recent Chuck ToddCast, host Chuck Todd and writer Mark Leibovich discussed the leadership vacuum in the Democratic Party, especially as it pertains to former President Barack Obama. At 4:56 of the video below, Leibovich comments

No, I completely agree. But I do think, look my piece wasn't really calling for Obama to do much- but I mean, just showing up at a march or something. You don't have to say anything. It would get all kind of press coverage- it would be sort of quiet leadership by example, like this is important enough for me to show up, whatever it is, one of the NO Kings this this weekend or something, so the kind of counter-programming around- 

Don't be silly. On No Kings day, the Obamas attended the wedding of former Alex Soros and former Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin at the grand estate in the Hamptons of Soros' father, George. The guest list was "power-packed, including the Obamas, Anna Wintour, Kamala Harris and husband Dough Emhoff, Senator Chuck Schumer and Nicky Hilton Rothschild, all escorted by valets. Boyz to Men performed at the reception."

It was in character, and the kind of leadership Barack Obama has continually displayed. 

Todd responded to Leibovich

It would be quite the- can you name the last former President that would have protested a sitting President... You and I both know Obama kind of is a believer in those protocols. He really appreciated that (George W.) Bush....

The way that Bush has behaved I think is a model. I think Obama almost uses that as a role model.

Oh, yes, because Donald Trump, who has sent US Marines to Los Angeles, and the National Guard there over Governor Newsom's objections, always has followed protocol himself.

Leibovich then noted

oh, yea, it's the most appealing. If you are in that presidential club, it's the most appealing model of all because all you've gotta do is whatever the heck you want and make tons of money and nobody is gonna bother you. Um, the difference between the two of them is there's not a soul in the Republican Party who says, and certainly not a lot in the Democratic Party, who wants George Bush anywhere near their enterprise, right?

             

Right. And it's not as if former President Obama won't speak out against today's extraordinary status quo. On Wednesday, CNN's Aaron Blake reported

Barack Obama delved into domestic politics Tuesday night in a way he rarely does – and the content was pretty remarkable.

Speaking to the Connecticut Forum in Hartford, the former president called for institutions, law firms, universities, members of both parties and even Justice Department figures to make “uncomfortable” sacrifices to defend a democracy he argued is increasingly under fire in President Donald Trump’s second term.

But the kicker is "he suggested, without ever using Trump's name, that the US was 'dangerously close' to a more autocratic government." Blake continued

“What’s happening is that we now have a situation in which all of us are going to be tested in some way, and we are going to have to then decide what our commitments are,” Obama said, according to a transcript of his remarks provided by his office. "It will be uncomfortable for a time, but that's how you know it's a commitment- because you do it when it's hard, not just when it's easy, not just when it's trendy, not just when it's cool."

The former President could have added "although if there's a hip and fashionable affair to attend at the palatial mansion of a multi-billionaire donor, old school rap music for the cherry on top, don't pass it up." Yet, the always aware Obama

specifically cited how law firms that don’t cow to Trump will have to accept reduced billings — “which means you cannot remodel that kitchen in your house in the Hamptons this summer” — and businesses that resist the administration’s bullying may have to deal with retribution like politically oriented investigations or mergers being held up.

He even twice pointed to people who work in Trump’s Justice Department, painting them as a bulwark in upholding the Constitution in the face of the president’s threats.

It was a significant call for a broad-scale resistance from the most popular and significant Democratic figure of the 21st century. And it comes at an important time, as the grassroots have risen up in protest like they haven’t since the start of Trump’s first term, but as the party still faces a remarkable leadership vacuum.

Still

His appearance, however, was also somewhat discordant.

If you haven’t heard much about Obama’s comments, there’s a reason for that. He chose to deliver them at an event at which audio and video recordings were prohibited. If the idea was to disseminate this clarion call to the broader public, it was a weird choice of venues.

Obama never uttered the word “Trump” once. Throughout his remarks, it was clear what he was talking about. But he opted for broad generalities rather than specifics about who and what are threatening democracy.

He did include winks and nods to what everyone likely knew he was talking about.

“I mean, if you follow regularly what is said by those who are in charge of the federal government right now, there is a weak commitment to … our understanding of how a liberal democracy is supposed to work,” Obama said.

He also warned about government being “captured by those who, let’s say, have a weak attachment to democracy.”

After some cheers and applause, Obama said, “Well, I don’t even think that’s a controversial statement at this point … It was a controversial statement; now it is self-acknowledged.”

But is it self-acknowledged? Perhaps in a room full of people who would turn out to see Barack Obama.

Leibovich would agree. At nearly the end of this segment with Todd, he recognized

I mean, I do think that the problem with Obama has been how he has conducted his post-presidency to some degree is in addition to his absence from the ten-alarm fire we've lived, we're living through now, and were to some degree earlier is when he does come out in public, he does so in such a way that reinforces every worst stereotype of the modern Democratic party, which is wealthy, which is removed, which is not at all affected by Trump's America or like in- I mean, this is like, hey look, my new, I mean... such as anytime he's got a new playlist that comes out or a new- oh, here are my book recommendations. 

Well, that's how it has always been with the risk-averse Barack Obama. He has the ability to speak and act with "a nod and a wink" understood by the people who agree with him and, fortuitously, largely ignored by those who don't.  It has been a feature of his success, which overshadowed his embodiment of virtually everything voters now associate unhappily with the Democratic Party.

Nonetheless, he remains widely popular with Democrats at a time when rallying the base is a prerequisite for an effective strategy. Obama would have aided that significantly had he not figuratively gone fishing on Saturday, June 14, 2025. In his recent remarks, the ex-President displayed his tendency- disturbing, were Democrats not eager to ignore it- to avoid invoking the word "Trump." 

Notwithstanding Chuck Todd's archaic perspective, Barack Obama doesn't go easy on the incumbent primarily because he's dedicated to "protocol." Obama knows the score, has paid attention to the last ten years, and almost surely realizes the "when they go low, we go high" strategy is grievously outdated. 

It may be simply the common instinct, unfortunate but understandable, of people not to get involved.. However, it's inexcusable in a former President when our existence as a representative democracy is imperiled. More likely, the ex-President is afraid of the vitriol the incumbent will hurl at him if he directly criticizes him and/or fears Trump has something on him which would sully his reputation. In either case, Barack Obama is qualified to give the Democratic Party, and the democratic republic we've benefited from so long, a boost, and his resistance should be alarming. 

Share |

Weak Analysis

In mid-May, Chris Cillizza noted that when pollsters asked Democrats their opinion of the Democratic Party, the word that often came to mind was "weak."

There are many reasons for that. One, however, is that when major Democratic operatives are asked about the Party, they are loathe to be seen or heard defending it. At the beginning of the video below, David Axelrod contends "More and more, the Party has come to approach working people as missionaries and anthropologists. We show up and say "we're here to hep you become more like us..." 

"More like us." Black? Gay (or, rather, "queer")? Former federal prosecutors? Axelrod continues "... and we know what you need and we're fighting for it. And there's a fundamental disregard associated with that and I think that's been communicated and I think that disdain has been weaponized by Trump.."

At 1:51, Axelrod claims

But look, there's a larger problem, uh. And I think Democrats do themselves a disservice by not doing, engaging, in some introspection here.  It is that the party that sees itself as the party of working people came to be seen by so many working people as the party of elites and institutions.

Oh, good gravy. Democrats are forever and ever looking themselves in the mirror. They are the party of introspection.  Republicans do not do this, though at least not since early 2013, when they conducted an "autopsy" which concluded that it must be a more inclusive party, more welcoming to immigrants, blacks, and other minorities. They then nominated Donald Trump, and the rest is history.

There is a modicum of validity to Axelrod's observation. However, at least in this segment, the veteran consultant, as is common among similar critics, does not specify what "elites" or institutions Democrats are enamored with. Further, the assessment might be a little more credible, or at least genuine, if it hadn't come from a chief strategist and senior adviser to a famous former President, who once remarked.

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Barack Obama did not offer this "introspective" and definitely not elitist comment after his presidency or even during his presidency. He said this on the campaign trail in April of 2008- seven months before he would be elected President. And this fellow, who maintained Americans in the heartland "get bitter (and) cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them" was re-elected. Sometimes, smug prevails. And elitism.

Of course, it's not that Obama was wrong. Nor is his former consultant/adviser arguing that the policy prescriptions or analysis of Democrats is inaccurate. However, Barack Obama's success at winning presidential elections suggests that the perception that Democrats are elitist is not a cause of electoral failure bur a result, or proxy for, something else.

I don't know what that is. But if talk is cheap, diagnosis without prescription- as practiced by Axelrod- is nearly worthless, or worse. He and others try to distance themselves from the Party, which reinforces the perception of Democrats as weak: if its heavyweights don't stand up for the party, why should others

Share |

The Smartest and Most Spineless in the Room

In November of 2013, conservative Mark Steyn of the conservative National Review wrote contemptuously

Still, as historian Michael Beschloss pronouned the day after his election, he's "probably the smartest guy ever to become president." Naturally, Obama shares this assessment. As he assured us five years ago, "I know more about policies on  any particular issue than my policy directors."

In March, 2016 house conservative Niall Ferguson wrote in The Atlantic

It is a criticism I have heard from more than one person who has worked with President Obama that he regards himself as the smartest person in the room- any room. Jeffrey Goldberg's fascinating article reveals that this is a considerable understatement. The president seems to think he is the smartest person in the world, perhaps ever.

It always was a go-to criticism of Barack Obama by Republicans that the President believed he was "the smartest guy in the room."  It was a more diplomatic way of slamming a black man than to accuse him of being "arrogant," which appeared to be their real, unspoken criticism of him. From the right-wing Free Beacon (which, perhaps ironically, initially funded what became known as the Steele dossier):

Another incident critics cite is when Obama was still a Senator from Illinois and traveled to Iraq in 2007. General David Petraeus, then commanding U.S. forces for the war effort, gave Obama his assessment of the fight against al Qaeda and how to prosecute it. Obama disagreed with the general's analysis, arguing that Petraeus had it wrong.

the nerve to question a general? I think the word the Free Beacon was searching for was arrogant.

Funny thing is that Obama may have been the smartest guy in the room, though certainly not overly imbued with fearlessness. Last week, we learned

Former Vice President Kamala Harris was "very annoyed" with former President Barack Obama as she sought his endorsement to take former President Joe Biden's spot on the 2024 Democratic ticket, a new book claims.

"As the hours rolled by, and it became clear that she was well on her way to seizing the nomination by storm, Obama's opposition to her grew more confounding," authors Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes reported. "Harris was ‘very annoyed’ with him, according to a confidant. They had plenty of donors and political allies in common. The rest of the party threw in with her. Where was Obama?"

The book, published earlier this month, is titled "Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House" and details how Harris secured the support of key Democrats after Biden dropped out of the race. The authors revealed that Obama did not want Harris to run in Biden's place, because he felt she couldn't beat Trump.

In the discussion with MSNBC, Allen stated  "President Obama absolutely did not think that Joe Biden should continue, according to our sources close to President Obama."

The former President was correct on both counts. The incumbent President should not have run for re-election. It had been obvious for many months that Biden had lost something off his fastball and that voters would not forgive him as they would forgive opponent Donald Trump, who either physically or mentally (let alone ethically) not right. 

And Obama was right that Harris couldn't beat Trump. The then- Vice President wisely ran a campaign emphasizing her strengths and de-emphasizing her weaknesses. Nevertheless, she still didn't win because, ultimately, she was Kamala Harris.

Yet, if Barack Obama had been cast in The Wizard of Oz (fictionally set in the birthplace of his mother), he easily could have played the cowardly lion, albeit without the self-awareness. True to character:

However, Obama spoke with Harris over the next couple of days, according to the book, and he found he was in a position where "his actions against Biden and Harris could diminish him in the eyes of Democratic elites."

Well, that wasn't very bold. 

Still Obama, who as Senator dared to question the corrupt  David Petraeus, was encouraging a challenge to a candidate who herself thought the nomination was her divine right  His counsel- similar to that of James Carville- should have been embraced.

Instead, the Party fell in line with James Clyburn, who quickly endorsed Harris after Biden's exit in order to stave off any momentum for an open primary.  The four-year old Win With Black Women leveraged its influence.

The prescience and wisdom the courage. In an interview last week at Hamilton College in New York State, the former President stated

Imagine if I had pulled Fox News’ credentials from the White House press corps. You’re laughing, but this is what’s happening. Imagine if I had said to law firms that were representing parties that were upset with policies my administration had initiated, that you will not be allowed into government buildings.

We will punish you economically for dissenting from the Affordable Care Act or the Iran deal. We will ferret out students who protest against my policies. It’s unimaginable that the same parties that are silent now would have tolerated behavior like that from me, or a whole bunch of my predecessors.

I say this not on a partisan basis.

Of course, he didn't say it on a partisan basis. The name "Trump" never crossed his lips. He completely avoided the words "Trump" or "Donald Trump" or "President Trump." It was very Obama-esque.

It's a feat worth admiring. So, too, is Barack Obama's sense that betting on Kamala Harris was a lousy gamble. It's unfortunate that he wasn't bold enough to let more than a few people know at the time.

Share |

Problems

Donald Trump knows. He knows that it's open season, as it always is,  on the opposition party. The President mentioned Joe Biden on thirteen occasions in Tuesday's State of the Union Address. You probably noticed that none of the references was positive- or even neutral. There were thirteen, in twelve paragraphs, six involving a variety of topics. (Feel free to skip to "The Democratic rebuttal....")

We ended all of Biden's environmental restrictions that were making our country far less safe and totally unaffordable. And importantly, we ended the last administration's insane electric vehicle mandate. Saving our auto workers and companies from economic destruction.

Joe Biden especially let the price of eggs get out of control. The egg price is out of control, and we're working hard to get it back down. Secretary, do a good job on that. You inherited a total mess from the previous administration. Do a good job.

It may be a little bit of an adjustment period. We had that before when I made the deal with China. $50 billion in purchases, and I said, just bear with me. And they did. They did. Probably have to bear with me again and this will be even better. That was great. The problem with it was that Biden didn't enforce it. He didn't enforce it - $50 billion of purchases. And we were doing great. But Biden did not enforce it, and it hurt our farmers.

I did it with China and I did it with others, and the Biden administration couldn't do anything about it because there was so much money. They couldn't do anything about it. 

And look, And look where Biden took us to. Very low. The lowest we've ever been. Jeff,

 But we're getting along very well with them and lots of good things are happening. Biden has authorized more money in this fight. than Europe has spent by billions and billions of dollars.

Six references to pertained to one of the few matters, immigration, on which President Biden's performance was faulty.

In comparison, under Joe Biden, the worst president in American history. There were hundreds of thousands of illegal crossings a month, and virtually.

So while we take out the criminals, killers, traffickers and child predators who are allowed to enter our country under the open border policy of these people, the Democrats, the Biden administration, the open border. insane policies that you've allowed to destroy our country.

Many of them were murderers, human traffickers, gang members and other criminals from the streets of dangerous cities all throughout the world because of Joe Biden's insane and very dangerous open border policies. They are now strongly embedded in our country, but. We are getting them out and getting them out fast.

That morning, Laken was viciously attacked, assaulted, beaten, brutalized, and horrifically murdered. Laken was stolen from us by a savage illegal alien gang member. Who was arrested while trespassing across Biden's open southern border and then set loose into the United States under the heartless policies of that failed administration. It was indeed a failed administration. He had then been arrested. and released in a Democrat run sanctuary city, a disaster before ending the. life of this beautiful young angel.

Joe Biden didn't just open our borders, he flew illegal aliens over them to overwhelm our schools, hospitals and communities throughout the country. Entire towns like Aurora, Colorado, and Springfield, Ohio, buckled under the weight of the migrant occupation and corruption like nobody's ever seen before. Beautiful towns destroyed. Now, just as I promised in my inaugural address, we are achieving the great liberation of America.

Countless thousands of these terrorists were welcomed into the U.S by the Biden administration. But now every last one will be rounded up and forcibly removed from our country. Or if they're too dangerous, put in jail…..

The Democratic rebuttal was offered by freshman senator Elissa Slotnick of Michigan.  At 22:27 of the video below, the Senator can be seen remarking

President Trump likes to say "peace through strength." That's actually a line he stole from Ronald Reagan. But let me tell you. After the spectacle that just took place in the Oval Office last week, Reagan must be rolling in his grave. We all want an end to the war in Ukraine but Reagan understood that true strength required America to combine our military and economic might with moral clarity. 

And that scene in the Oval Office wasn't just an episode of reality TV. It summed up Trump's whole approach to the world. He believes in cozying up to dictators like Vladimir Putin and kicking our friends like the Canadians in the teeth. He sees American leadership as merely a series of real estate transactions. As a Cold War kid, I'm thankful that it was Reagan and not Trump in office in the 1980s Trump would have lost us the Cold War.

Probably so. However, Slotnick's reasoning is one all too common among among individuals who bring to mind the GOP slur "Republicans in Name Only" (RINOs). After showing this clip, an exasperated Kyle Kulinski at 23:10 responds

Ah, we have "you gotta hand it to George W. Bush and you gotta hand it to Ronald Reagan in the same Democratic speech- Democratic. Why can't you do a like "you gotta hand it to Lyndon B. Johnson with the War on Poverty and you gotta hand it to FDR with the New Deal."  Zero mentions of FDR; multiple mentions of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Guys, this is the core of the problem. This is the heart of the problem right here.

                 

By contrast, no Republican ever says of a disappointing Republican "why can't he be like Barack Obama (or Bill Clinton)" nor "Franklin Roosevelt would be rolling over in his grave." Never. He or she prefers to spend time and words blasting the favorite Democratic target of the era.

The President did that twelve (12) times, to little criticism or even notice. It is what both the media and Democrats have come to expect, and to neither is it news. Democrats never have defended their own as have Republicans and often have fallen back to the kind of argument invoked by Senator Slotkin. You are not a good Republican; You are not a true conservative. ("Remember when Republicans were for balanced budgets!"); You, sir, are no Ronald Reagan.

It's hard for a political party to build a message or brand out of that. If only there were a Democrat who is popular among party officials, more so among Democrats in the street, more so yet among the base (black women).  Ideally, that person would be able to speak with gravitas and legitimately claim that he or she uniquely understands the nature of the office President Trump holds. 

And yet former President Barack Obama remains silent. The man who served eight years as President, he of the (D) after his name, has barely been heard from the last eight weeks as Donald Trump takes apart the government, the Trans-Atlantic Alliance, and representative democracy. Crickets. "Where have you gone, Barack Obama?"

Obama did have a friendly chat with President Trump at the funeral of former President Jimmy Carter, an exchange I at the time erroneously thought meant nothing. Perhaps it was their status as among the fewer than fifty individuals who have ever held the highest office in what has been the most powerful nation on earth. Or there was some other reason. Whatever, as Bob Dole would have said.

              

Nonetheless, whether former President Obama or some other figure respected in the Party takes the reigns, someone has to break out of the pack and take a leadership role. For decades, Republicans used Jimmy Carter as a whipping boy, the name becoming synonymous with "failed," if not worse. The same is in danger of happening to Joe Biden, who was a very good President but whom very few prominent Democrats will defend. That's bad for Joe Biden, and bad for the Democratic Party. 

Share |