Thursday Night Open Thread

Congratulations to Mick Jagger on the birth of his 8th child.

I don't get why so many people are trashing him for having a child at age 73. He's got more energy than most people half his age and will probably live long enough to see his son go to college or start a band. More power to him. It's so Rock n' Roll.

Madonna is also getting a lot of criticism for her "twerking" during last night's Carpool Karaoke with James Corden. I liked it. She's 58 and enough of a philanthropist that people should just get off her case and let her do what she wants. At least she's not sucking up to Donald Trump like Leonardo di Caprio who met with Trump and the other Mrs. Trump (Ivanka) and gave him a copy of his foundation's plan for the economy and climate control -- along with a copy of his new film about it.

Time for El Chema, episode 3 (Telemundo.)

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Donald Trump: An American Tragedy
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Clinton Spox Jennfer Palmieri won't back down. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 02:41:27 AM EST
    After her public dust-up with Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway at Harvard University last week, Ms. Palmieri sounds like she's in no mood to be gracious, particularly when it comes to the subject of Trump's empowerment of the white nationalist movement. And neither am I, so speaking for myself only, good for her.

    From Ms. Palmieri's op-ed in the Dec. 7 Washington Post:

    "I know how to be a gracious loser. I could have let it go last week when Kellyanne Conway, Donald Trump's campaign manager, challenged me to look her in the eye and say she ran a campaign that gave white supremacists a platform. I considered for a split second. I knew you were supposed to be gracious when you come for the post-election forum at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. But I decided this was a year where normal rules don't apply. Speaking the truth was more important.

    "'It did. Kellyanne, it did,' I told her. It's just a fact. Trump winning the election doesn't change that. To my mind, his win makes it all the more important that the truth be acknowledged."


    "I don't know whether the Trump campaign needed to give a platform to white supremacists to win. But the campaign clearly did, and it had the effect of empowering the white-nationalist movement. Trump provided a platform by retweeting white nationalists -- giving their views an audience of millions. Views previously relegated to the darkest corners of the Internet also had a platform on Breitbart, the website of Trump campaign chief executive Stephen K. Bannon.

    "'Before Trump, our identity ideas, national ideas, they had no place to go,' said Richard Spencer, president of a white-nationalist think tank that held a post-election conference in Washington. Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke said this fall, 'The fact that Donald Trump's doing so well, it proves that I'm winning.'

    "At Harvard, some on the Trump team crowed that we in the Clinton campaign and those in the press were foolish because we took Trump's words 'literally.' That's right. We did. You should take a candidate for president's words literally. You know who else took his words literally? White supremacists. The white supremacists who lauded Trump with cries of 'Hail, Trump!' Duke, who expressed confidence that Trump's decision to make Bannon his chief strategist meant Duke's ideology would have a prominent place in the West Wing. The students who mocked Hispanic athletes with chants of 'build that wall.' The man in New York City who threatened the off-duty female Muslim police officer last weekend.

    "It's also true that many of the more than 65 million people who voted for Clinton took Trump's words literally. Many of our supporters were sincerely frightened by his campaign's embrace of the alt-right. Hispanic families who voted for Clinton believe Trump will deport their parents or siblings because he said he would. Muslim supporters fear they will not be welcome in their own country because of Trump's proposed Muslim ban. Mothers and fathers of both parties supported Clinton because they didn't want their children growing up in an America where women and girls don't feel respected by their own president."

    Definitely worth a read.

    Happy Birthday, Kirk Douglas, ... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 07:44:59 PM EST
    "Yes, I know who Judas was. He was a man I worked for and admired, until he disgraced the four stars on his uniform."
    - Col. Martin Casey (Kirk Douglas), Seven Days in May (1964)

    ... who's 100 years young today.

    I've always enjoyed his work in... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by desertswine on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 08:05:14 PM EST
    "Lust for Life" and "Paths of Glory."  Two of his smaller films perhaps, but he's at the top of his game.

    Another one that people forget.. (none / 0) (#40)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 04:20:21 PM EST
    The Glass Menagerie.

    I wonder why (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 11:24:39 AM EST
    The Villiam is never mentioned? In the Top 10?

    I gotta confess. I laughed until my sides hurt.


    Trump's cabinet has become... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by desertswine on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 09:22:15 PM EST
    the thing that nightmares are made of.

    Trump's Pick for Interior Secretary Wants to Sell of Public Lands.

    On the League of Conservation Voters scorecard, which tracks environmental votes in Congress, McMorris Rodgers has a lifetime score of 4 percent. Her 2015 score was zero. Another  climate-denier.

    Now the headlines (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 10:08:45 AM EST
    are exploding with Russia helping Trump. The evidence has to be released to the public. But since Trump is influenced by a foreign actor what happens now? The GOP is too cowardly to do anything about it. Can we rerun the entire election?

    No, we can't rerun the entire (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 01:36:57 PM EST

    We'll just have to live with Russia running the country instead of Iran.


    "Instead of Iran"? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 02:47:12 PM EST
    Please elaborate.  It sounds like you want to make another baseless smear, but prefer to make a vague insinuation because you have absolutely no evidence to back it up.  The evidence about Russian interference is now out there, with more to follow, but tell us about this tinfoil Iran theory.

    Based on our foreign (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 03:19:02 PM EST
    policy any disinterested observer would have to comment that Iran has friends in high places...


    Wish someone would send me a jet full of money...


    "Any disinterested observer" - heh (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 03:40:44 PM EST
    Wingnut websites are not "disinterested observers".  Swing and another miss with yet another, tinfoil smear.

    But keep trying!


    Wanna play some 4 dimension chess? (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 10:54:25 PM EST
    Start by telling me why Russia would want Trump over Hillary?

    After all, she opted for a "reset" with them...Gave their Iranian ally the gift of being the big dog in region....Did nothing when Russia moved on Crimea...and has don't to support Ukraine and removed/failed to install missiles in Poland.

    But really, if you folks are dead set against interfering in foreign countries's elections...Why did you support Obama's interference in Israel.


    Any disinterested observer (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 03:34:32 PM EST
    might predict that armchair and potty chair warriors will continue to fantasize about attacking Iran until a Republican frontrunner like Trump tells them what a stupid idea it is.

    Iran has (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 03:09:26 PM EST
    never been running the country however it's interesting that you see no problem with Putin running the country. Of course, we already knew how craven and cowardly Republicans are but thanks for proving it.

    There you go again. (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 03:22:05 PM EST
    I never said I would have no problems with Russia running the country...

    And seeing as how Russia and Iran are snuggling up together who runs us may be a case of them arguing over the spoils of war.


    It is probably not that (none / 0) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 01:57:53 PM EST
    the Republicans are too cowardly to confront Trump, but more that they plan to tolerate him as the "useful idiot."  Ryan and other House Republicans see their dream of killing Social Security and Medicare as coming to fruition.  If Trump balks too much Ryan et al will suddenly become courageous and find Trump's conflicts of interest and the Constitution.

    In my opinion (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 03:11:17 PM EST
    he should not even be allowed to take office nor should Pence. McConnell knowing the influence Putin has with Trump kept numb and therefore is complicit. There are probably a lot of other Republicans that are complicit with Putin. Perhaps an electoral wipe out in 2018 may have to be the only thing that solves this problem.

    It is all curious. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 05:40:02 PM EST
    President Obama informed a Gang of 12, in secret, deputizing Comey and Jeh Johnson (Homeland Security), to seek " a show of solidarity and bipartisan unity" against Russian interference in our presidential election.

     McConnell quashed the idea, threatening to taint a disclosure with the claim that it was being done merely for political gain. Among the first Trump cabinet nominations was McConnell's wife for Sec. of Transportation.

    And, this was in September, so Comey was well aware of the Russian goal to favor one candidate (Trump) over the other, and help Trump get elected.  Yet, Comey needed to "investigate", once again, 11 days before the election with a "nevermind" two days before election day--based on a staff member's computer and emails he had not seen at the time.

    But, even more perplexing, is why President Obama sought out Congressional bipartisan support to confront such an existential threat.  Concern for our electoral process should have outweighed threats by McConnell. By a long shot.

      McConnell has been, for eight years, uncooperative, if not obstructive of everything and anything Obama tried or did. And, even if McConnell agreed, Trump would have made a similar claim.  Seeking bipartisan support, Obama should have learned by this time, is futile. Foreign interference was a job for the president.


    "Lock her up!" (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 12:08:42 PM EST
    Apparently, the ignorance and stupidity exhibited by a chunk of the US electorate is contagious.  The Trumpers have now invaded Canada.

    NBC News reports (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 02:35:22 PM EST
    that Trump will nominate Rex Tilerson Secretary of State, and, very likely, will pair Tilerson with John Bolton, former UN Ambassador and right wing neoconservative, as Deputy Secretary.   The 64-year old Tilerson is the multi-millionaire head of ExxonMobil; a graduate of University of Texas Austin (BS civil engineering), and 2013 Russian Award of Friendship, conferred by Vlad Putin.  

    Heh (2.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 10:32:56 AM EST
    But I decided this was a year where normal rules don't apply. Speaking the truth was more important.

    I agree.

    Truth is important??? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 02:30:27 PM EST
    So you supported Trump, the guy who is constantly making up false "facts".

    Scope of Trump's falsehoods unprecedented for a modern presidential candidate.



    Really? (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 11:11:26 AM EST
    While Hillary may not have said so herself:

    "While Clinton supporters circulated the allegations the last time she ran for president, they had no ties to either the candidate or her staff."


    That's parsing and reminds me of the old western movies where the bad guy, referring to Gene or Roy, turned to one of his buds and says, " Take care of that problem."

    And Hillary never intervened and said, "Hey! Knock that off!"

    And then we come to the Iraq war.

    "But Cavuto himself picked up the thread post-debate on Fox Business Network, unearthing the clip Trump referenced, from January 28, 2003 - Nearly two months before the Iraq War began on March 20. In the video, Cavuto asks Trump how much time President Bush should spend on the economy vs. on Iraq.

    "Well, I'm starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy," Trump said. "They're getting a little bit tired of hearing `We're going in, we're not going in.' Whatever happened to the days of Douglas MacArthur? Either do it or don't do it."

    Trump continued: "Perhaps he shouldn't be doing it yet. And perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations."

    And while that isn't a man demonstrating in the streets it is clear that he opposes the war.

    After the invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent fallout, Trump became a much stronger and far more vocal critic of the war.

    "Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in," he said in an August 2004 issue of Esquire. "I would never have handled it that way...Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he'll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam [Hussein] didn't have."


    He saw "something" that most missed. ISIS.

    It took me until 2007.

    And while DIH's link can point put that some people said some nasty things, it omits the riots and damage caused by Hillary supporters.

    If we want to settle down and fix some problems then both sides have to shut up and let the past go.

    It ain't gonna happen. The Internet and cable news has made raging partisans out of all of us.


    I someone supposed to care ... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 12:05:19 PM EST
    ... what it "reminds you of"?  Is someone supposed to care that Fox News thinks Trump's statement means he opposed the war in 2003, when in reality, it doesn't?  You understand the meaning of weasily qualifiers like "perhaps", don't you?

    Trump makes things up that are completely baseless.  Her exaggerates.  He promises things that are literally impossible.  He states outright falsehoods constantly.  He does so on a scale that dwarfs any other politician.  But now you want to claim truthfulness and facts important to his supporters, while saying "let the past go" (i.e. forget all the lies Trump told).

    You're funny.


    He said what he said in 2003 (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 02:04:07 PM EST
    and you will say he was deliberately lying.

    I understand.

    The great unwashed and deplorables have shot your dog, ran off with your girlfriend and cancelled Xmas.

    Life gets tedious.

    And you are doing the same thing you accused the Right of doing and making the same wild claims...see GA 6's comment...many of them made.

    Why don't you folks try this? Trump wants to dump Obamacare.

    Why not counter with a single payer system?

    You know, have a real debate about a policy that everyone is interested in instead of calling Trump and other people names such as .... "climate deniers"  that no one beyond politicians and people making money off it care about.

    While Trump was supported, finally, by the Right that wasn't enough to elect him.

    He was elected by people wanting CHANGE.

    Carpe Diem


    His claim was false (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 02:22:32 PM EST
    Trump repeats wrong claim that he opposed Iraq War


    Jan. 28, 2003: Trump appears on Fox Business' "Your World with Neil Cavuto," on the night of President Bush's State of the Union address. Trump says he expects to hear "a lot of talk about Iraq and the problems," and the economy. He urges Bush to make a decision on Iraq. "Either you attack or you don't attack," he says. But he offers no opinion on what Bush should do.

    Cavuto: So you're saying the leash on this is getting kind of short here, that the president has got to do something presumably sooner rather than later and stringing this along could ultimately hurt us.

    Trump: Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know. He's under a lot of pressure. He's -- I think he's doing a very good job.

    Trump said he was "totally against the war in Iraq." While he came to that position when the war became difficult, earlier on he was more accepting of military action. In 2002, asked if America should go to war, he said, "I guess so." Less than three months before the invasion, Trump said the president should be more focused on the economy, but he didn't speak against launching an attack.

    Trump didn't speak often about the Iraq War before it happened, but what he said did not add up to the sort of opposition he describes today.

    We rate this claim False.

    One of dozens of demonstrably false statements made by the Cheetoh.  His supporters, criticizing Hillary Clinton and claiming to stand for "the truth", is more laughable than Rush Limbaugh and Chris Christie publishing a book on personal fitness.


    BTW - He was elected by a minority (not a plurality) of people wanting change ... and their Russian comrades are laughing.


    BTW - I understand why you want to ... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 02:41:50 PM EST
    ... change the subject and would prefer not to discuss Trump's mountainous record of false statements (after pretending to want "the truth").  I also understand why you now prefer to discuss policies you want, after your candidate and your fellow supporters ran a campaign of false attacks and smears against HC.  But don't pretend you speak for the priorities of the American people:

    Why don't you folks try this? Trump wants to dump Obamacare.

    Why not counter with a single payer system?

    You know, have a real debate about a policy that everyone is interested in instead of calling Trump and other people names such as .... "climate deniers"  that no one beyond politicians and people making money off it care about.

    Only 1-in-4 want Obamacare Repealed

    64% worried a great deal about climate change.

    Good luck with trying to get your candidate or your Republican legislators to institute single payer system (paid for with a regressive tax).  Hate to break it to you, but that will never happen.  They wouldn't even discuss the issue in 2010 and they oppose it now.  Trump specifically disavowed single payer healthcare.  What they will do is repeal Obamacare and give people a few tax breaks and tell them to buy their own insurance, if they want to - and millions will be uninsured once again.

    You can't pretend single payer healthcare and access for all is important, while at the same time voting for people who specifically say they will oppose them.  You can try to do it, but don't expect any reaction other than laughter.


    I'm a realist. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 03:16:31 PM EST
    I knew about Trump 5 years ago.

    I agree. Donald will be fun. (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 30, 2011 at 11:31:33 AM CST
    And he has been fun.
    What Sienfeld needs to figure out is this.
    How many are laughing at Trump vs how many are laughing with Trump.

    Reply to This
    And how many (none / 0) (#8)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 30, 2011 at 12:18:03 PM CST
    are laughing at those who are "laughing with Trump".

    Parent | Reply to This |  1  2  3  4  5

    Who knows? (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 30, 2011 at 12:48:10 PM CST
    But the fact remains. Trump has shaken things up. Stirred the pot. Spilled the beans. Called momma home.
    What that will accomplish I don't think anyone knows. In the meantime, let's just enjoy and see of any of his wild shots hit home. 11/2012 will tell us all.

    And I don't mind you pointing out his obvious faults, but playing the "I can see Russia" card on things that are clearly debatable is just a rerun of what the Right did on Obama and Hillary for the BS that was spewed about McCain and Palin.

    And take all the polls you want, but when people are asked if they wanna pay $5 a gallon for gas to save the earth....the answer is no.

    And without politicians to push the issue the real science will come out..

    Trump is also a realist. If the case can be made to replace Obamacare with a single payer system he will support it.

    Of course instead of worrying about my support, why don't you indicate your own rather than supporting a system that has clearly failed everyone but a select few?


    A realist who believes (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 03:44:57 PM EST
    adamantly in single payer system, but who only votes for Republicans..


    Is that what you meant to say?


    Because you support Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 03:51:46 PM EST
    You supported Trump.  You support Republicans in the House/Senate.  They will now control the House, the Senate and the Presidency.  The mess they make of the healthcare system (and all those who lose healthcare) is on you and the rest of their supporters.  They are adamnantly against it, and anyone pretending we're going to get single payer healthcare reform is detached from reality.

    BTW - They aren't "clearly debatable".  Trump makes false statements on a regular basis.  He's made faaaaaarrrr more than anyone else.  When you or any of his supporters claim to care about truth and suddenly want to focus on the issues you pretend to care about (despite voting for candidates who oppose them), you're being hypocrites and have absolutely zero credibility.


    The examples I gave you are clearly (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 10:40:28 PM EST

    But you don't want to be of service to mankind by supporting a single pay system. You want to see the Repubs fail so you can feel good.

    There. I've defined you.


    Thank goodness (1.00 / 2) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 07:18:36 PM EST
    And that will be the last and only thing I'll say to you today

    One question I have is (none / 0) (#5)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 03:57:35 PM EST
    how much the opioid scourge effected this past election.

    One of the other main differences between 2012 and 2016 in the Rust Belt is the big increase in the number of opioid addicts..

    More proof that taking drugs won't automatically turn you into a thinker of depth and profundity like Thomas De Quincy and William Burroughs?

    Well, my expectation would be that if you (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 04:26:53 PM EST
    are an addict, your motivation for things that are not "opioid" related - like voting - would diminish.

    I did read that the "Democratic support in the Rust Belt collapsed as a huge number of Democrats stayed home".


    That's the voter suppression scourge (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Towanda on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 09:15:16 PM EST
    . . . although, of course, thw media's election-nght statements about low turnout overall were wrong.

    But in some demographic groups, such as Affrican Americans in Michigan and Wisconsin -- meaning, Detroit and Milwaukee -- either voter suppression worked . . . or the vaunted "Obama coalition" didn't work, as Obama only can get out the voters for Obama.  Plus, Obama cancelled out on the major rally in Wisconsin that was supposed to kick off the general campaign.

    And, of course, Sanders so poisoned the party in the primaries that millennial voters went third party far more in Michigan and especially in Wisconsin (where the Obama visit could have had huge impact in countering the Sanders poison).

    Probably all were  factors, and far more than opioids.


    In other words, (none / 0) (#7)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 05:20:05 PM EST
    a troll.

    Gotta be a remedy for that.

    trumps own words (none / 0) (#12)
    by linea on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 08:19:20 PM EST
    revealed himself to be a person who despises or is strongly prejudiced against women, illicitallty sexualy fondles women, and is a sexual voyeur of young girls. this is my opinion of his actions of barging into young girl's dressing rooms and his comments of "grabbing women by the pvssy."

    but i agree as a political argument calling him a "racist, evil, meanie" was ineffectual particularly in a race where trump was promising to bring back industrial jobs to middle america and hillary was viewed as the (disengenous) poster child for globalism.

    Viewed by some (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 08:53:18 PM EST
    ... in a race where trump was promising to bring back industrial jobs to middle america and hillary was viewed as the (disengenous) poster child for globalism.

    Then again, you don't cater to ignorance but fight back against it.


    It (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 09:33:08 PM EST
    was impossible to ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room, nobody listened to that wonky policy stuff anyway.

    Trumps campaign was built on lies, bigotry and demagoguery. It's a hard push to think that ignoring that would be a good way to fight it.


    Bawhaaaaa (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 04:03:26 PM EST
    The President elect at the Army Navy game had to get in front of the mic at halftime of course. He said he loved the Armed Services, great people, but he's not sure it's the best football. WHAT A DICK!

    We didn't tell him he had to come. Nobody forced his ass to be there. Go back to your tower Donald.

    He knows more about football (none / 0) (#39)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 04:15:01 PM EST
    than all the coaches.

    I tweeted it (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 04:23:20 PM EST
    And the deplorables are all over me cuz he did...he dissed the fricken soldiers and they can't deal with that. That isn't approoriatr war worship damn it. When you play for West Point or the Citadel football is your third priority, not your first. He's such a dick. His followers nothing but cult members.

    Well (none / 0) (#43)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 05:44:38 PM EST
    He surprisingly did get a nice cheer from the crowd though



    It's going to be a loong 4 yrs (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 08:09:58 PM EST
    Where the Donald will continue to talk about himself and talk about himself and talk about himself. I'll wait and see how much they cheer next year.

    Patti Smith accepts the Nobel (none / 0) (#47)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 11:20:10 PM EST
    for Bob Dylan and performs "A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall.

    Writing for The New Yorker Amanda Petrusich said:

    She looked so striking: elegant and calm in a navy blazer and a white collared shirt, her long, silver hair hanging in loose waves, hugging her cheekbones. I started crying almost immediately. She forgot the words to the second verse—or at least became too overwhelmed to voice them—and asked to begin the section again. I cried more. “I’m sorry, I’m so nervous,” Smith admitted. The orchestra obliged. The entire performance felt like a fierce and instantaneous corrective to “times like these”—a reiteration of the deep, overwhelming, and practical utility of art to combat pain. In that moment, the mission of the Nobel transcended any of its individual recipients. How plainly glorious to celebrate this work.