Saturday Miscellany

First, in the world of election interference, we reserve a special place for Jack Smith. Since Smith’s first indictments were compromised by the Supreme Court, he is back with some new ones.

Consider the view of Mark Penn. Recall that Penn used to work for the Clinton administration. He is fair and open minded; he is not a MAGA partisan.

He wrote on Twitter:

Our elections continually descend into an unworthy mess as the public learned Biden was unfit only from a debate after a non primary primary and now a whole new team has been installed and the lawfare campaign resumed. Like many I believe Trump should have acted faster when the riot broke out but the attempt to turn the election challenges into a criminal conspiracy at this point is Jack Smith and the Justice Department interfering in the election. No primaries. Few interviews. No policy papers. And now more lawfare. The world’s most important job affecting the lives of hundreds of millions of people should not be conducted this way.

Second, as might have been expected, Kamala Harris did manage to throw in some word salads in her rather unimpressive interview with Dana Bash Thursday.

Among them this:

The climate crisis is real that it is an urgent matter to which we should apply metrics that include holding ourselves to deadlines around time. 

Evidently, she is neither very intelligent nor very competent.

Third, meanwhile over in Aurora, Colorado, a Venezuelan gang has taken over apartment buildings, among other places. You have no doubt seen the pictures of gang members breaking down doors to apartments, in order to expel the inhabitants. They are even collecting rent.

Precisely why the police are not involved in stopping this horror is beyond me.

Apparently, it is not beyond the governor of Colorado. The Democrat Governor, Jared Polis, long since a proponent of sanctuary for illegal migrants, refuses to take responsibility for the consequences of his policies.

His response to the migrant invasion of his state, via the New York Post:

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis dismissed anger over Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua taking over apartment buildings in the Denver suburb of Aurora, calling it “imagination” — despite video footage, police reports and the city’s mayor confirming it’s happening.

Polis’ press office offered the snarky statement Wednesday night in response to Aurora City Councilwoman Danielle Jurinsky — who told The Post the gang’s takeovers are tied to his policies.

“The Governor has already let the Mayor know that the State is ready to support the local police department with assistance from state troopers and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation if needed,” Shelby Wieman, a spokesperson for the Dem governor, told The Post.

“But, according to police intelligence this purported invasion is largely a feature of Danielle Jurinsky’s imagination.”

Wieman added that “it’s illegal to take over buildings in Colorado” and if Jurinsky has “knowledge” of such activity that the governor’s office is “ready to assist” cops “in taking them back.”

The evidence is clear and unimpeachable. It has been running on local television in Denver. But, it makes Democrat Polis look bad and it makes Kamala Harris look bad, so, the politicians want to gaslight us, to assure us that our senses are lying, that we are suffering from an overactive imagination.

As of now, it appears that the governor has had a change of heart. He seems to want to help with the imaginary problem, because it is hurting him politically.

Fourth, as we have been pointing out, more and more companies, even universities, have been shutting down DEI programs and DEI bureaucrats.

The Wall Street Journal reports on the situation at Brown Forman:

More companies are backing away from diversity, equity and inclusion policies amid new public scrutiny, and the distiller Brown-Forman illustrates the trend.

In an internal company email shared on social media by conservative Robby Starbuck, the Brown-Forman Corp. Executive Leadership Team wrote that since it launched its diversity initiatives in 2019 “the world has evolved, our business has changed, and the legal and external landscape has shifted dramatically, particularly within the United States.”

Brown-Forman’s email said it will end “quantitative workforce and supplier diversity ambitions,” also known as race-based hiring, contracting and promotion. It will also end “participation in the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index Survey.” This politicized index scores companies’ LGBTQ+ “workplace inclusion,” including categories on “transgender workplace best practices” and “corporate social responsibility.”

The company added that it will be “reviewing training programs for consistency with an evolved strategy” and ensure that “executive incentives and employee goals are tied to business performance,” a suggestion that perhaps they weren’t closely linked before.

The Brown-Forman shift follows similar rollbacks at Harley-Davidson Inc., Deere & Co. and Tractor Supply Co., which withdrew their major DEI initiatives this summer. Lowe’s Cos. announced similar changes on Monday and Ford Motor Co, did so on Wednesday.

Fifth, speaking of liars, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz deserves a special prize. Asked by CNN’s Dana Bash to explain why he kept insisting that he was in combat and why he misrepresented his rank-- he declared himself to be a command master sergeant when he was just a sergeant major-- Walz explained that it was just bad grammar.

Once a liar, always a liar.

Sixth, Alan Dershowitz comments on the student protests, the ones that want to free Palestine of all Jews. Anyway, he asks the salient question:

Is a single student group demanding that Hamas agree to cease fire?  No! 

How many of our political leaders, obsessed with taking both sides of the issue, have said as much?

Seventh, and then there is Joy, the new Kamala Harris signature. What does it mean, you might be asking. Well, John McWhorter has a cogent analysis in the Times.

He explains that joy is a way of emphasizing that she is black. It fits a candidate who brings nothing of consequence to her candidacy.

...let’s face it, nothing about Harris just now justifies her being treated as some kind of once-in-a-generation phenom or savior. 

This is not about substance, but optics. Harris is being received on the basis of a category she fits into rather than who she is as an individual.

John Sexton offers a point that sounds strangely like a point I have made:

I've argued before that I think the whole "joy" thing was cooked up by Harris' handlers as a way to recontextualize her worst tic as a candidate, i.e. her habit of bursting into hysterics when she is losing her audience's attention. 

And then, McWhorter adds this. I consider it to be a very astute analysis of the Kamala cackle:

Harris is way out of her depth and her laughter isn't about joy it's about her own awkwardness as a speaker. She laughs to bring people on her side because she can't accomplish that with her words alone. She needs to lighten the mood, to make things collegial rather than adversarial. The laugh is socially strategic and you have to admit it was a stroke of genius to embrace it rather than try to downplay it.

But the fact remains that none of this will matter if Harris wins and is actually called on to handle a crisis. In the midst of war or natural disaster no one is going to want to hear that awkward laugh or any flippant commentary about her joy.

Well stated, and on point.

Please subscribe to my Substack.

Odelia's Case

Herewith the beginning of Odelia’s case fiction.

Odelia was proud that she had managed to squeeze her appointment with Percival between her bodywork class and the evening concert by the Beirut Philharmonic. In truth, she quickly confessed, she did not really want to be there. She had taken up a challenge by her friend Desiree. After having patiently absorbed hours of Odelia’s stream of consciousness about her bad experiences with therapy, Desiree had dared her to try a life coach, the dread Percival.

Odelia had been on something of a therapy shopping spree. She had interviewed ten therapists-- all of them in and empathic, most highly recommended-- only to reject them all for one reason or another. 

She was a veteran of the recovery movement, but thought she needed more individual treatment to work on her unsatisfactory relations with men. She quickly told Percival that she was afraid of being abandoned and thus was a classical borderline personality disorder. 

Desiree had recommended a life coach, because Odelia was already far too involved with her psyche. She needed to get out of her mind and into her life. 

Odelia was a woman on the run,  female Rabbit Angstrom. When she began her monologue she was still slightly out of breath from dashing to his office.

Odelia liked Percival’s modernist office; white walls, black leather and chrome furniture, a glass-topped desk on which a suitably black LeNovo laptop was perched. But quickly she shifted keys and declared: “Let me tell you about my case.”

Percival braced himself. 

Odelia had issued from an upper East Side family of real estate developers. As a child she was a hyperactive overachiever. Her father loved her to distraction; her housewife mother was somewhat more distant, saving the better part of her affection for Odelia’s three younger brothers. 

Her father preferred her to his sons and had always wanted her to take over his development and property management companies. Given how hard she worked in high school-- at Brearly-- the adolescent Odelia had little time for boys or parties, something that pleased her father no end. 

Her hard work paid off handsomely, and shortly after her eighteenth birthday she was settling in to her new dorm in Harvard Yard. Between the stress of the new environment and her wish to fit in with some rather alien students, Odelia had a difficult time in Cambridge. 

It began during the second semester of Freshman Year when she developed a raging case of bulimia. At first, she had looked with detached bemusement at the barf squads in her dorm. Girls would binge their way through pizza and pudding and Lorna Dunes, and then march off to the communal toilets to apply their digital emetics.

After a few months, she was drawn into their unholy alliance. First, she began thinking that she was too fat. Then she thought she might try joining the party just to see what it was like. Then she began competing for the honoring of scarfing down the maximum number of Mallowmars in the minimum time. In time she discovered that she was addicted. She could not go two days without stuffing herself like a Thanksgiving turkey and then expelling it all while kowtowing to a commode.

Promptly, she told Percival that she had licked the problem and had not binged or purged in years. 

Odelia explained that the bulimia had vanished when she fell in love with Preston at the beginning of her sophomore year. Preston was her first love and she was convinced that he would be her only love. She wanted to possess him; to own all of him; and she yearned to give herself to him entirely, 

Now, looking back at it she was none too proud of her behavior, but she was young and in love, and perhaps because this was the first time she had such feelings, she was abnormally jealous. 

Preston was a Harvard senior. He was a shoo-in for a Rhodes or maybe a Marshall scholarship. Then he would go to law school and would have a shining future. Moreover, she continued, he was incredibly handsome, with a perfectly sculpted body, broad shoulders, with an unbelievable butt. Every woman on campus wanted a piece of that butt. 

As soon as Preston and Odelia became an item, she started receiving envious looks from women she did not know. With this man at her side she had risen from mousy Freshman to the top of the Harvard heap. Preston told her that she was the one for him and she drank it in as though it were holy water from the Holy Grail. Her self-esteem was in the stratosphere.

From there things plummeted. They would go to a party and half the women in the room would flirt with Preston-- offering their phone numbers, drooling at his every word. Preston would become so enraptured that he would lose sight of Odelia.

She did not take it passively. A couple of times she made awful scenes to get his attention; once he even grabbed another man’s crotch in full view of the assembled festivants. Another time she had gotten so drunk that she threw up all over herself.

And then she started throwing fits of jealousy. She was convinced that he was cheating. She knew that he had been unfaithful with Philomena-- she saw the way she looked at him. And why would they make moves on him if they knew he loved Odelia. To vent her rage she hurled shoes, ashtrays, and textbooks through the air. It was a miracle that she never hurt him seriously.

Then, one day she was walking down Mass Ave. when she espied Preston engaged in fervent conversation with Philomena. Without a moment’s thought, she threw herself in front of a moving car. Only the driver’s quick instincts saved her life. The mystery was why Preston stayed with her as long as he did. She was acting like a certifiable maniac.

Nothing Preston did or said could mitigate her feelings of being abandoned, of having lost the man that the gods had chosen for her. From feeling like the queen of the campus she started thinking that she was a complete failure as a woman. She began to binge and purge again; she went on a shopping spree. Finally, when Preston was busy or away she would take the MTA to Beacon Hill, pick up a man at a bar and go home with him to have sex. 

“I was an addict,” she explained. “I had to get my fix.”

Get it she did, until the campus found out about one of her conquests. When Preston received the information he dropped her like a stone. She was so distraught she could not study, and nearly flunked out of Harvard.

Odelia had managed to hide all of her behavior-- excepting the credit card bills-- from her parents. Once the grades for her first sophomore semester came in, however, they became alarmed and pressed her to tell them what was wrong. Eventually, she confessed the whole sordid tale and her parents, on advice of a neighbor, decided that she needed to go into recovery. If she refused, they promised to cut up her credit cards. Unable to imagine a worse fate Odelia begrudgingly started attending meetings of the local chapter of Lovers anonymous (LA), which was modeled on AA.

Without her five LA meetings each week she would not have gotten through Harvard. With them her grade point average rebounded and she graduated Magna Cum Laude. She had followed her sponsor’s advice and had sworn off men for the duration. After college she had had numerous relationships, some better, some worse, none of them lasting for more than six months. None were marriage material and she did not allow herself to fall in love. Thus, she did not fear that she would be abandoned. 

The more he heard the more Percival recognized that Odelia was suffering from a special condition. She was her father’s favorite child. Worse yet, as her father’s favorite son,

Yet, being in love made her feel, she would later say, like a woman, perhaps for the first time, perhaps for the only time. Unfortunately, at the moment when her true self should have flowered, her instincts, impulses and emotions failed her. They made her do the wrong thing with the wrong person for the wrong reason at the wrong time. LA had taught her to avoid falling in love, but it was not, she would confess, a very good way to conduct one’s life.

As Odelia disclosed more of her experiences with therapy, another story began to unfold. This one focused on her family and especially on her dealings with her brothers. 

Odelia was her father’s favorite. She had gone to work in his business just after college. Two of her brothers had also joined the firm, but her father had announced that he planned to leave the majority of his shares to his daughter. He was a modern man and liked the idea of having a woman inherit his company. Besides, she was smarter, a harder worker and largely more competent.

Barely out of college Odelia found herself on the fast track to corporate glory. She was becoming a player in the world of New York property development, She and her father were converting a large downtown office building into upscale condominia. 

While she had no worries about a glass ceiling, Odelia quickly discovered that real estate development was no place for a woman. Her brothers resented her success, especially since they thought it was rightfully theirs. If the term “evil eye” means anything, her brothers were casting it at her incessantly. Her father knew about it but felt powerless to influence his wayward sons. He told them to get over it.

Some of the men at the conversion site treated her with respect, but there were always a few who would make remarks behind her back about various features of her anatomy. Sometimes it felt as though they had x-ray vision. On those few occasions when she went out for a drink with the contractors, she found herself surrounded by demeaning conversations about wives and girlfriends. 

Odelia was not handling it well. As the emotional toxins accumulated in her she thought she should release them. Yet, when she did, she was mortified to make such vulgar displays. And she was totally put off the notion of being involved with a man. If that was what they were like, best to avoid them. 

Percival had worked with other women who had had similar experiences. Most often they had quit and started working in a more female friendly environment. Odelia did not seem to have that option. Her father had placed his company’s future in her hands. She felt she had nowhere else to go.

To be continued.

Those seeking a consultation should contact me via email, at StuartSchneiderman@gmail.com

Please subscribe to my Substack.

DEI Overpowers Science

One likes to think that science is immune from DEI considerations. One understands that Humanities and Social Science faculties in America’s university systems have been corrupted by ideology, but one had held out some hope for science.

Alas, if one is to believe John Tierney, via his most recent article in City Journal, the sciences have been overrun and defeated. This is bad news indeed.

Progressives on campus have quietly undermined scientific research for decades, but in the past year the corruption has become blatant. A series of scandals has exposed widespread bias, incompetence, plagiarism, and censorship. The publicity has prompted some modest changes, but the prospects for science are unclear: nonideological practitioners are outnumbered on campus today, and their ranks are thinning.

In the past science faculties based their work on experimentation, and on debate and discussion. Reality had the last word. Reality decided the value of any hypothesis. Well, such is no longer the case. 

Tierney explains:

Scientific institutions have traditionally flourished by recruiting the most proficient researchers and promoting vigorous competition as they freely debate and test their theories. Those traditions remain sacrosanct among older professors, particularly older men with moderate or conservative political views, but not among the younger progressives and women who increasingly dominate academia. These younger professors, administrators, and journal editors are more likely to champion the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) regime: they value ethnic and gender diversity over originality and productivity, and they are far more eager to silence and punish scientists daring to challenge progressive orthodoxy.

And also,

Even the hard sciences have been politicized by demands to meet diversity quotas and to “decolonize” physics and mathematics by introducing “indigenous perspectives.”

Tierney suggests that the problem lies with the arrival of many distaff members, that is, with women. Strangely, women tend to  reject the scientific method:

Female academics tend to be more politically progressive and more concerned with ensuring equal outcomes for groups than with rewarding individual achievement. They’re also more reluctant than their male colleagues to pursue controversial research—and more willing to suppress research and debate that they deem “harmful.”

Of course, plenty of women strongly support meritocracy and academic freedom, but studies have shown that on average, female professors put less emphasis than males do on “advancing knowledge” or “academic freedom” and more on “emotional well-being,” “social justice,” and “creating a better society.” In a national survey of academics two years ago, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) found that women were twice as likely as men to favor some restriction on “hate speech” and to support sanctions against faculty members who make controversial statements. The survey also found significantly less support for free speech among professors of both sexes who were under 35 or who leaned left politically.

Emotional well-being as the goal of scientific research. That means that we must ignore or stifle any research that makes us feel uncomfortable. This is a world defined by therapy, and by values that have stereotypically been associated with women.

But then, not all women are on board with this new culture. Consider, Tierney says, the case of Penn Law Professor Amy Wax:

“The feminization of the academy has been a total disaster,” Wax said in a recent podcast with Richard Hanania. “The values of the nursery and the kindergarten have now been elevated to the paramount considerations, and the old traditional and traditionally masculine values of truth-seeking, of argumentation, of reason, evidence, and objectivity have been downgraded.”

It is a bit of a stretch to call it science, but the field of psychology has recently become a female ghetto. This has had consequences:

When psychologists Cory Clark and Bo Winegard surveyed colleagues at 100 universities, they found that only 43 percent of the female psychology professors believed that scholars should prioritize truth over social equity when the two conflict, and that only 37 percent believed that scholars should be completely free to pursue research questions without fear of institutional punishment.

Of course, professional organizations are hard at work suppressing ideas that do not conform to the prevailing ideology:

The preference for dogma over science has become the official policy of one of the largest professional organizations, the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP). Since 2022, it has evaluated papers submitted for presentation at its annual convention by asking each researcher to explain how the work “advances the diversity, equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals of SPSP.” Some prominent social psychologists, including Jonathan Haidt, have resigned from the group in protest.

Obviously, psychologists have been advising young men to avoid the field. 

As today’s younger professors gain seniority and hire colleagues who share their politics and fit their preferred identity groups, fewer talented scientists will remain to tackle the difficult questions—and more scientists will be determined to stop anyone from trying.

As for how we can go about reversing the trend, Tierney is far from being optimistic. Dare we say that other nations will probably take the lead in scientific research. 

Please subscribe to my Substack.

Wednesday Potpourri

First, you can kiss the two-state solution goodbye. As you know, many serious thinkers, from the Biden administration to Tommy Friedman, have declared that the way to solve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is a two-state solution.

Now, the Wall Street Journal offers a cold look at reality. It turns out that the two-state solution is dead:

Most of the world has long agreed on what it will take to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has now brought the Middle East to the brink of a regional war that would almost certainly draw in the U.S. 

The U.S., Europe and many Arab governments insist the overdue answer is the two-state solution, under which Israel and a Palestinian state would exist side-by-side.

The snag is that Israelis and Palestinians no longer believe in it. 

The past 10 months have dealt the biggest setback in decades to the chances of a negotiated peace. The Hamas-led Oct. 7 killing of nearly 1,200 people in southern Israel and Israel’s devastating response, which Palestinian authorities say has left more than 40,000 dead in Gaza, have confirmed for both sides that their unwanted neighbor has no regard for their lives.

“Right now, Israelis and Palestinians do not believe that the other side are human beings,” said Khalil Shikaki, head of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah. 

Second, the Arab world expressed howls of derision at the latest Hezbollah attack on Israel. In retaliation for the Israeli murder of a Hezbollah commander, the fearsome terrorist entity struck an Israeli chicken coop.

The Jerusalem Post reports:

A Jordanian commenter added, “Iranian Hezbollah takes… 

revenge for Fouad Shukr and Haniyeh by striking an Israeli chicken coop, killing a number of chickens?!!”

Another Saudi user named Sultan commented ironically: 

“Hezbollah’s retaliation against Israel following the assassination of Fu’ad Shuker struck a chicken pen where firefighting teams began to extinguish the fire. The results of the bombing: the death of a rooster, two hens, and a young chick.

One user named Omar compared the high-ranking leader assassinated by Israel and Hezbollah’s response, showing the burning chicken pen. In contrast, another anonymous user named Adel wrote, “Hezbollah excels in its precision in killing chickens.”

Third, just in case you were meditating about the awesome power of the American military and the strategic brilliance of our commanders, the Houthi rebels in Yemen just sank a Greek tanker. Keep in mind that the American administration had declared itself ready to ensure open shipping lanes.

The New York Post reports:

Explosions rocked a Greek oil tanker drifting in the Red Sea off the coast of Yemen after Houthi rebels set fire to the vessel following repeated attacks by the Iran-backed terror group — leaving critics charging the U.S. has egg on its face.

Footage of the burning tanker, the Sounion, was shared online by Houthi rebels in an apparent attempt to mock the US and allies supposedly protecting the Red Sea’s vital shipping lanes.

In the video, the terrorists can be heard chanting the group’s slogan: “God is the greatest; death to America; death to Israel; curse the Jews; victory to Islam,” as the ship blazes.

Fourth, the latest from my alma mater, Brown University, has leftist student agitators working to find more ways to damage the school’s reputation and to devalue their degrees.

The agitators and junior terrorists have forced the university to vote on whether to divest from investments in Israel, as in Boycott, Divest, Sanctions.

Unfortunately for Brown, attorneys general in several states are suing the university. Hmmm.

Bloomberg reports:

The top law enforcement officials in 24 states warned Brown University of financial penalties if the school’s trustees vote in favor of a proposal calling for divestment from companies with close ties to Israel.

Some states have begun reviewing pension investment and contracts “to determine if Brown has already violated state law” by agreeing to allow the October vote, the attorneys general from Arkansas, Florida, Texas and other states told the university’s trustees in a letter Monday. Approving the measure would have “immediate and profound legal consequences,” they said.

I trust you are not surprised to see that the attorneys leading the charge are all Republican.

Fifth, you recall the extensive and persuasive report written by British pediatrician Hilary Cass. As it happened, she concluded that puberty blockers and other such treatments should not be given out. 

But then, the British Medical Association has decided to oppose the Cass report. As a result, physicians in once-Great Britain are resigning en masse from the BMA.

Billboard Chris reports on Twitter:

Doctors are leaving the British Medical Association in revolt at its opposition to the Cass review amid claims that the union has been taken over by an ideologically driven "vocal minority".

Hundreds of members, including NHS clinical leaders and former presidents of medical royal colleges, have gone public with their "dismay" at BMA leaders for voting to reject the Cass review — a report 4 years in the making which found that child transition wasn’t helping kids. 

Some have resigned from the union after up to 50 years as members, and others said that the BMA'S “abysmal" leadership was "increasingly bonkers" and "ideologically captured.”

Think about that one. Men and women who are supposed to follow the science, have been captured by an ideology, to the point where they have renounced their commitment to science.

Sixth, remember Don Lemon. Maybe you do; maybe you don’t. As it happened Don decided to do some man-on-the-street interviews recently, to assess the state of the presidential election.

Interviewed by Jen Psaki, Lemon explained that most people don't even know who Kamala is. Huh?

In his words:

For the most part in Pittsburgh, or the Jersey Shore, in Ohio, many people did not know who she was. They were not familiar with her. With him [Trump] they thought that he's better for the economy. That he brought money into the community, that he was on black people's side.

What does it mean? I leave that to you.

Seventh, is there anything Tim Walz has not lied about. Considering all the energy the left has put into making Donald Trump, and also G. W. Bush, out to be liars, it is a splendid irony that Gov. Walz turns out to be a serial liar.

And not just about his military service. Consider this. Walz claimed that the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce gave him an award for his work with the business community.

The Chamber wrote to him in 2006:

He never received such an award, however, which was outlined to him in a blistering letter from the then-president of the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce, Barry L. Kennedy.

“We researched this matter and can confirm that you have not been the recipient of any award from the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce,” the letter addressed to Walz on Nov. 1, 2006, reads.

“I am not going to draw a conclusion about your intentions by including this line in your biography. However, we respectfully request that you remove any reference to our organization as it could be considered an endorsement of your candidacy. It should be pointed out, however, that the US Chamber of Commerce has endorsed your opponent, Congressman Gil Gutknecht, for his support of small business issues,” Kennedy continued.

Eighth, no one is surprised to see that the New York Times has run guest columns by Republicans. The Daily Mail seems to think it is especially significant, showing an erosion of support for the Democratic presidential candidate. I do not think so.

And yet, what does resonate is this column by a deputy opinion editor, column that is less than flattering about Kamala. Considering how much the media has rushed to gaslight the world about Kamala, this is significant.

The Daily Mail reports:

In sour commentary, NYT Deputy Opinion Editor Patrick Healy said he'd 'cringed' when former president Bill Clinton took the convention stage on Tuesday to claim that Harris would be 'the president of joy'.

How's that going to help the millions of Americans whose livelihoods are now at stake, Healey asked? And why has Harris failed to conduct a single interview or serious press conference since Biden stepped aside last month?

'Ultimately, she needs more voters in the swing states to trust her to handle the economy better than her opponent… Harris can't coast on "joy",' he concluded witheringly.

And yet, so far, she is.

Please subscribe to my Substack.