Julian Castro Announces Presidential Bid

Julian Castro has announced he is running for President.

“When my grandmother got here almost a hundred years ago, I’m sure she never could have imagined that just two generations later, one of her grandsons would be serving as a member of the United States Congress and the other would be standing with you here today to say these words: I am a candidate for President of the United States of America,” he said at the rally. The Castros grew up in an impoverished neighborhood of San Antonio and were raised by a single mother.

In his announcement speech, Castro called for Medicare for all, alleviation of college debt, reform of the criminal justice system, housing affordability and reforms to the immigration system.


I was very impressed with him as the Keynote Speaker at the 2012 Convention, writing "Michelle Obama was good but hands down, the star of the night was Julian Castro." (I was hopeful Hillary would choose him as her VP candidate in 2016 but it was not to be.

In 2012, the Washington Post wrote this article on Julio and his twin brother Joaquin who is now a member of the House Intelligence Committee.

The Dems could certainly use some new blood. I won't even write about Biden or Sanders, I think it's really sad when egos get in the way of what otherwise could be a graceful exit. No one needs an 80 year old in the White House. Would you want an 80 year old surgeon operating on you?

I'd like to see someone run who really cares and emphasizes the needs of the underdog, the poor (rather than the "middle class" and business owners), the powerless and the voiceless. Someone who is smart, has a law degree and experience with the criminal justice system in a non-law enforcement capacity -- someone with a foreign policy experience and someone who attracts good talent. Someone who doesn't want to throw money at defense contractors or builders of private prisons and detention centers. Someone with respect for the privacy rights of individuals who will put some brakes on the mission creep of government surveillance. And of course, someone who will try to right the wrongs of the war on drugs.

Is that Julian Castro? Probably not -- I don't think such a person exists among those who might run for President. You probably can't get there espousing those views. But I'll be looking for the person who comes closest -- and it's not Biden, Sanders, or Kamela Harris. From the 2017 article in Jacobin Magazine, The Two Faces of Kamela Harris:

In truth, there is much about Harris’s long record as a public prosecutor in California — the vast bulk of her career — that is up for legitimate criticism by any prospective 2020 Democratic voters.

The article gives several examples, such as that as California's attorney general, she defended the state's death penalty when a judge ruled it unconstitutional while refusing to support the state's anti-gay Proposition 8 in court, stating it was “a proposition that was found by a judge to be unconstitutional.”

You can see this pattern in Harris’s approach to criminal justice. Today, Harris talks a good game....Yet Harris’s “smart on crime” approach seems remarkably similar to a “tough on crime” one. “Getting Smart on Crime does not mean reducing sentences or punishments for crimes,” she explains in her book.

She defended California's horrendous three-strikes law.

She urged voters to reject Proposition 66, a ballot initiative that would have reformed the harsh law by making only serious or violent felonies trigger life sentences. Harris promised that if voters rejected the initiative, she would put forward her own, different reform. But Harris’s proposal was a tepid half-measure: it simply eliminated some third strikes.

...When she ran for attorney general, her Republican opponent actually ran to her left on the issue. In fact, four years earlier, as the Los Angeles County district attorney, he had proposed a reform of the law. Harris had not supported it. (emphasis supplied)

Her record on sentencing reform as an AG also leaves much to be desired:

In 2012 and 2014, California voters passed two ballot initiatives that gave judges more discretion in sentencing and retroactively scaled back punishment for certain low-level crimes. Harris didn’t take a public position on either, claiming that taking a side would come into conflict with her duty to write the ballot text. A fellow Democrat who had preceded her as attorney general called the excuse “baloney.”

Today she's concerned about imprisoned women. But as District Attorney (before becoming CA Attorney General):

For all her recent concern about the incarceration of women and its economic effects, as district attorney, she successfully championed a statewide version of an anti-truancy law she had put in place in San Francisco that threatened parents of chronically truant children with as much as a $2,000 fine and a year in jail. By October 2012, two mothers had been imprisoned under the law.

“We are putting parents on notice,” she said in her inaugural speech as attorney general. “If you fail in your responsibility to your kids, we are going to work to make sure you face the full force and consequences of the law.”

There's lots more examples in the article to give you pause about Kamela Harris. Including but not limited to the war on drugs. She's born-again on the issue now, but when she was AG she went in the other direction. This is a really long and thorough article and covers her prior contrary stances on many issues, from police shootings, to civil liberties, to transgender rights. The article also argues we shouldn't give her a pass on her old ways:

It should matter to us that Harris, the ardent criminal justice reformer, not only did little to enact this reform during her years as a prosecutor but backed harsh, punitive policies that undermined her own progressive rhetoric on the issue. It should matter that she at times did so needlessly, taking a harsher stance than her right-wing opponents. It should matter that she repeatedly attempted to keep an innocent man locked up in prison and attempted to defend a falsified confession.

And if she continues to sell herself to the public as a take-no-prisoners prosecutor who went after financial misdeeds in defense of the ordinary homeowner, then it should matter that her record on this was more underwhelming than even some county district attorneys.

[Jacobin Magazine, which I have only recently encountered, describes itself as "a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture."]

Again, I'm not making up my mind this early, but I'm glad that Julian Castro has thrown his hat in the ring.

< How to Avoid the Goof Made by Manafort's Lawyers | Thursday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    My Ideal Candidate Will (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by RickyJim on Sun Jan 13, 2019 at 10:09:33 AM EST
    1. Come right out and make increasing taxes/repealing loopholes for the rich a prime concern.

    2. Massively slash defense spending so that we don't spend as much as much on it as the rest of the world combined.

    3. Redirect foreign involvement/aid from the Middle East to Central America

    My ideal democrat (none / 0) (#7)
    by McBain on Sun Jan 13, 2019 at 11:16:57 AM EST
    would have plans for the border, the environment and health care that make sense.  Not free health care for all, not an extreme difference for low risk/high risk and less do to with income than the current ACA. Something like this...
    • People at low risk for big medical bills pay $100/month
    • People at medium risk pay $200
    • High risk pay $300

    I don't care about this candidates race, gender or age. He/she would eliminate some tax advantages or loopholes for the rich but wouldn't necessarily raise income taxes.  As for the poor, the emphasis would be on jobs not handouts.

    Less money on defense, more money on the space program.

    Definitely against the death penalty and legal issues that make it difficult for the wrongfully convicted/over prosecuted to get new trials.


    Risk (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 14, 2019 at 10:37:46 AM EST
    is determined by the insurance generally by age. If not by age then medical history. So if you have a preexisting condition of any kind you are going to be high risk and you're living in a fantasy world if you think anybody in a high risk category is going to have $300 a month insurance premiums.

    That's how the previous system worked (none / 0) (#20)
    by McBain on Mon Jan 14, 2019 at 11:43:08 AM EST
    Older people with preexisting conditions paid significantly more than younger people without much of a health history.  At one point I was paying around $150/month while my mom paid around $1,000.  Every time I saw a doctor I had to be careful what I said because I didn't want something going on my record that could raise my rate. I don't want to go back to those days.

    The current system is better in some ways but by giving significant subsidies to those with low or no income it takes away some of the incentive to work.

    To stay on topic, my ideal candidate would have a plan to balance the current and previous system.  Everyone pays something but the difference between high risk/low risk and high income/low income isn't huge.  That's something I could vote for.  


    No, (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 14, 2019 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    how it worked before was if you had preexisting conditions they were not covered. So a lot of people technically had insurance, went to the doctor and then got a huge bill from the doctor, the hospital, the labs or an imaging facility.

    You have to have a job to get the subsidies. If you are below a certain income level you don't qualify for Obamacare. You would have to go on Medicaid which a lot of states do not offer. So most of these lower income working people just go without insurance.


    Explain how you propose to (none / 0) (#15)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jan 14, 2019 at 09:23:31 AM EST
    determine the risk levels? The idea is ludicrous to me. Do you classify anyone over 50 or 60 as high risk? Because need for medical care goes up as you age. What's the algorithm? Lifestyle? Athletes are generally pretty healthy, but in my opinion their sport puts them at risk for injury. Do gun owners go high risk or low risk? Where to do you place school kids? High risk cause they might shot? Or low risk? Do you propose DNA or genetic testing on everyone?

    A good canditate wouldn't make (none / 0) (#21)
    by McBain on Mon Jan 14, 2019 at 12:02:04 PM EST
    silly arguments about guns while talking about health care.  Generally speaking, kids are safe in school.  The risk of being shot is low.

    I'm OK with age and pre existing conditions increasing the rates for some but not to the extreme is has in the past.  Healthy people should be rewarded with lower rates but still pay something and the difference shouldn't be night and day.

    Do you have an opinion on any of the Dems Jeralyn mentioned?  Of the lot I prefer Biden.  


    "Heathy people (none / 0) (#22)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 14, 2019 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    should be rewarded."

    Health is a matter of choice?

    If you are a Master of the Universe, you can avoid all sickness?


    Guns are a public health (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 14, 2019 at 01:07:45 PM EST
    issue. The fact that our streets are awash with weapons of mass murder means that our health costs are going to be extremely high. It's like if you have guns in your home your homeowner's insurance will be higher due to the fact that you are more likely to have a claim than someone who does not own guns.

    I was with Jeralyn in hoping (none / 0) (#25)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jan 14, 2019 at 03:19:56 PM EST
    Clinton would go with Castro for her VP. Instead she went with the safe, white bread choice. I don't think it hurt her, but it didn't help.

    I don't want to support any more old white guys for president. Not real big on Warren for that matter. All too old. So, no, not big on Biden. I'd probably love to have dinner with Joe Biden (or a beer), he has a certain likability. But we need younger people to lead. People who understand technology. There are too many politicians who have to look up "internet" in the dictionary just to spell it correctly. They all need to go.


    Castro (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 13, 2019 at 10:10:34 AM EST
    Is a very appealing candidate.

    I think the nominee needs to be a woman.  It's time.  There are several options.  I agree about Harris.  And I don't think it's Warren.  Although it's not impossible.  She has a good message.  I think she is to old and carries lot of baggage.

    So who?

    I like Amy Klobuchar.  She is smart.  She doesn't scare anyone.

    I think a Klobuchar/Castro or a Klobuchar/Beto ticket could be killer.

    Castro is my favorite (none / 0) (#3)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 13, 2019 at 11:09:35 AM EST
    but don't think he can win.....And that is the most important criterion.

    Klobuchar would be really good.  But I hope she could leave aside the Minnesota nice.  She is the smartest of them all.  Editorial Board of the Chicago Law Review.  Those are the smartest people on the planet--more so than the Ivies.

    But I think Sherrod Brown is the guy right now I would support.  He can win, and he is progressive. Cool wife too. Sold.


    People we know who worked on Capitol Hill (none / 0) (#4)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 13, 2019 at 11:12:16 AM EST
    say Klobuchar is not the least bit "nice" in person, to colleagues or staff. Good thing or bad? You be the judge.

    You want a nice person (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 13, 2019 at 11:18:39 AM EST
    To run against Cheeto.

    I have read the same.  I think a person who "seems" nice and goes for the jugular is exactly what is needed.

    Just my opinion.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 14, 2019 at 10:39:37 AM EST
    I'm with you. Someone who can smile while lodging the knife in Trump's back would be ideal.

    Good thing (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 13, 2019 at 11:18:40 AM EST
    Mean when she needs to be  but appearing nice.  Good combination. Could work.

    Bobby is the model here. The will to win.  


    Bobby gave (none / 0) (#11)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 13, 2019 at 11:26:03 AM EST
    the Indianapolis speech impromptu.   Great heart.

    And he told the Soviets what's what during the Cuban Missile Crisis.


    Can you imagine (none / 0) (#12)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 13, 2019 at 11:32:12 AM EST
    the Cheeto taking the meeting with Dobrynin instead of Bobby?

    Result: sure, tell Nikita to bring in all the nukes...


    Good dish (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 13, 2019 at 11:19:59 AM EST
    Please go on.

    Beto (none / 0) (#5)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 13, 2019 at 11:16:05 AM EST
    He is fine.   After all, he and I come from the same micro neighborhood and went to the same elementary school.  

    But his podcast from the dentist was a little too much.  Smarmy and stupid.  


    I agree about (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 13, 2019 at 11:16:55 AM EST
    The dentist.

    Strike one.


    My main problem (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 14, 2019 at 10:41:07 AM EST
    with him is lack of experience and lack of winning statewide. I know it's Texas but still we have D's that can win in red states.

    All of the Democratic (none / 0) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jan 13, 2019 at 05:46:39 PM EST
    announced and likely candidates appear to be qualified and fit to be president, save for Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.  

    Julian Castro would be an excellent candidate.  His understanding of the importance of education to personal as well as communal successes are grounded in the academic opportunities made available to him(Stanford and Harvard Law).   He is among the young achievers (age 44) of the Democratic party who has demonstrated, through his elected and appointed offices, his progressive values.

    The Democratic primary process will provide opportunity to learn more about Secretary Castro, particularly his communication skills and comparisons with the field. He does seem to have a steady and calm demeanor which may constitute a welcome change in the general election supporting issues related to electability.

    Senator Warren, in my view, continues, at this point, to be the intellectual heavy weight among contenders--a policy scholar with a record of bringing her ideas to fruition.  A policy expert prior to even entering politics (the Republicans surely regret blocking her appointment as the first head of her brainchild agency, the Consumer Protection Bureau).   While I believe it would be preferable for the presidential nominee to be much younger, Senator Warren's energy and excitement for critical issues, including economic equality,  outdistance such thoughts, especially with a running mate such as Beto, Castro, Ro Khanna, or Hakeem Jeffries. (I believe the Democratic party needs to look to the young comers in the House).

    The reporting above that Senator Klobuchar is not Minnesota Nice is disappointing.   It is one thing to be tough on an opponent or to express yourself forcefully on a point, but not  being nice to staff and friends is no asset, particularly for a president.  And, after Trump, someone without empathy or good will to all, is just what we do not need.

    All things being equal, the Democratic ticket should look like America to the extent possible.  

    "Minnesota nice" (none / 0) (#14)
    by leap on Sun Jan 13, 2019 at 06:56:58 PM EST
    is a euphemism for being passive-aggressive. It's not surprising to learn that Sen. Klobuchar has a public nice façade, and a personal not-so-nice side. Seattle has a similar reputation, but I think even more not-so-nice underneath it all.

    Tulsi should (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 14, 2019 at 10:43:06 AM EST
    quit while she's ahead. I guess the good news is all the vetting that she's currently going through on social media is probably going to get the attention of her constituents who might start looking at other candidates to represent them in the house.

    Tulsi (none / 0) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 14, 2019 at 05:15:53 PM EST
    now claims she regrets working with an organization that opposed same sex marriage and promoted conversion therapy.  That organization is run by her father. She is evolving of late.

    I seem to remember our friend DonaldFromHawaii (none / 0) (#29)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 14, 2019 at 10:08:43 PM EST
    saying that Gabbard's father's group was not so much an "organization" as a cult. And that she was raised in that cult. Do I have that wrong?

    She's all (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 15, 2019 at 05:34:24 AM EST
    over the place it seems. The other statement I read was that her values have not changed but that she no longer believes in having the government enforce her values on other people or some such.

    I've been telling everyone that Tulsi ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 16, 2019 at 10:53:43 PM EST
    ... has got some serious issues for years now. She's my congresswoman and frankly, I'd be more comfortable if we had one of the title character from "Mars Attacks!" representing us, rather than her.



    Rep Gabbard (none / 0) (#27)
    by ragebot on Mon Jan 14, 2019 at 09:42:01 PM EST
    got in a spat with both Harris and Hirono over the oped she wrote that The Hill published.

    While I assume Castro is Catholic I have seen polls that Democrats have seen a decrease in the percentage of votes from Catholics.  Lots of traditional liberal positions are at odds with traditional Catholic views (gay rights and abortion).  When two high profile Senators indicate a problem with confirming a judge because he belongs to the Knights of Columbus I have to wonder about the fall out.

    I really don't have a dog in this fight but have to say Gabbard's position on not requiring a religious test seem good to me.

    With the sophisticated targeting of political ads now in use I will bet coin of the realm that if Harris runs vids her questioning of Buescher's Catholicism will find their way into the eyeballs of voters who would be upset by it.


    It does not impose a "religious test" (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 14, 2019 at 10:05:45 PM EST
    in violation of Article VI to ask a nominee for federal office, with good basis in the nominee's past writings, whether s/he holds personal views (of whatever sort, including religious) so strongly and deeply that they would prevent him/her from carrying out their oath of office. Nor does it exhibit a bias against the nominee's religion to ask that question.

    All of this (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 15, 2019 at 05:45:54 AM EST
    stems out of the whole evangelicals claiming they are victims and that they need religious freedom laws. You really have to get into people's religious beliefs because they are using their beliefs to make claims like they will not fill a prescription for birth control. The Hobby Lobby family virtually by themselves started all of this and then they used junk science on top of their claims regarding religion. So look in the mirror when you start saying this kind of thing.

    Yes, It (none / 0) (#32)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 15, 2019 at 11:14:31 AM EST
    is with this backdrop that the senators asked Brian Buescher, US Disrict Court nominee from Nebraska, if membership in the Knights of Columbus would prevent him from being an impartial judge.

    The KC is an all male society of Catholics that has taken public positions on reproductive rights and same sex marriage that align with Catholic teachings.

    Buescher's response was to the effect that the KC does not have the authority to take positions on behalf of all its two million members.  And, his decision-making would be shaped by the Code of Conduct for US judges and by his oath of office, not by the KC.

    The questions were appropriate and the answer was pitch perfect.  It was Gabbard who made a thing of this with her assertion of religious bigotry by Senators Hirono and Harris...to the benefit of those in the grandstand.


    There's (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 15, 2019 at 02:09:51 PM EST
    a reason why Putin apparently is firing up his bots in support of her run and you just cited one example.

    Sherrod Brown (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 15, 2019 at 07:44:49 PM EST
    Just announced he's in.  Gillibrand is announcing on late night tonight.

    No thank you Gillibrand. (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jan 15, 2019 at 10:37:17 PM EST
    She stabbed Al Franken in the back. I will never support her. I'll write in Al Franken if she became the nominee.

    I don't think she will get far (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 16, 2019 at 08:32:40 AM EST
    Brown otoh is one of the only white guys with cred.

    He's one who would absolutely beat Trump


    I (none / 0) (#37)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jan 16, 2019 at 09:07:03 AM EST
    also like Brown, I think Brown and Harris would make a dynamite ticket. to be honest I'm only working off of gut feeling right now.

    If we are doing fantasy football (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 16, 2019 at 09:32:07 AM EST
    How about Brown and Stacy Abrams.

    I think Abrams (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 16, 2019 at 10:21:42 AM EST
    Is a much more attractive candidate that Harris.  Who I find a bit grating.  

    But women of color have propped up the democratic party long enough for them to be rewarded with a spot on the ticket.


    POLITICO (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 16, 2019 at 05:28:58 PM EST
    Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum -- two of the Democratic Party's breakout candidates of 2018, despite losing their elections for governor of Georgia and Florida, respectively -- are looking to parlay their near success into the defeat of Donald Trump in 2020.

    The pair of young, progressive African-American pols amassed so much political fame that they're a must-call for the growing roster of likely Democratic presidential contenders. They're also on some early and unofficial lists as possible running mates.

    I would wait on (none / 0) (#48)
    by ragebot on Wed Jan 16, 2019 at 07:15:59 PM EST
    Gillum's choice till 25 Jan.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 16, 2019 at 07:51:37 PM EST
    The world holds it's breath to learn if he got tickets to Hamilton

    If either of them (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 17, 2019 at 07:35:07 PM EST
    run I don't think they will go far in the primary. Rumors are that Abrams is thinking of running against Perdue. I'm not sure she would get out of the D primary again. I think after having too many African American candidates go down statewide in GA people are going to be reluctant to nominate her or any other AA candidate for the senate in 2020.

    Didn't she do better (none / 0) (#56)
    by CST on Fri Jan 18, 2019 at 11:29:10 AM EST
    Than previous Dems?   Seems a bit silly to blame it on race when no other Dems were winning statewide races either.

    She did (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 18, 2019 at 03:38:24 PM EST
    do better but it still was not enough. We've run other African American candidates and they've lost too. It's not just Abrams. Her whole "get out the base" thing just wasn't enough. She couldn't connect with voters in the suburbs. I don't know if that is because of her issue stances or what. There were a lot of none of the above kind of voters who also stayed home.

    She did (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 18, 2019 at 03:38:24 PM EST
    do better but it still was not enough. We've run other African American candidates and they've lost too. It's not just Abrams. Her whole "get out the base" thing just wasn't enough. She couldn't connect with voters in the suburbs. I don't know if that is because of her issue stances or what. There were a lot of none of the above kind of voters who also stayed home.

    I don't (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 18, 2019 at 03:38:45 PM EST
    know why this posted twice.

    There are a lot of people (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 18, 2019 at 05:29:59 PM EST
    Who think "it wasn't enough" because the election was stolen.

    There are (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 18, 2019 at 05:55:13 PM EST
    but they need to wait until the evidence comes out much like it did in NC. The whole election was "stolen" thing really doesn't play in her favor since it does nothing but demoralize more people from voting.

    Local Dem fundraisers (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 16, 2019 at 04:47:59 PM EST
    tell me Klobuchar will run.

    If so, she's my gal.  Otherwise, Brown is my guy.



    I'm sure she will (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 16, 2019 at 05:29:42 PM EST
    Mine too (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Thu Jan 17, 2019 at 03:13:23 PM EST
    I don't really have a second choice but I'd prefer someone from the Midwest/Southwest, maybe Southeast.  Avoids some of the cultural "fake America" garbage.

    That stabbing (none / 0) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 16, 2019 at 12:01:33 PM EST
    was more like Murder on the Orient Express. A chorus of Democratic senators caled for Senator Franken to resign.  Schumer, Warren. Booker, Harris, Brown, Tester, King, Durbin, Hirono, Hassan, Baldwin, Casey, Donnelly, Stabenow, Heitkamp.  Markey, Reed, has Bennet, Leahy, Heinrich, Feinstein, Merkley, Wyden, Carper, Duckworth, Udall, Whitehouse, Peters, Murphy, Murray, Cantwell, Nelson, McCaskell.

    The conductors on the Orient Express (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by fishcamp on Wed Jan 16, 2019 at 12:15:23 PM EST
    know the whole story of that book in many languages.  Years ago I filmed a segment on that train, with Dick  Cavett as the star.  We were only on the train for five hours between Venice and Innsbruck.  It's quite small and difficult to film on, but it's a super ride.  It was terrific to get paid while having fun.

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 16, 2019 at 12:05:42 PM EST
    But she was definitely Michelle Pfeiffer

    As a fan (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 16, 2019 at 04:04:57 PM EST
    of Al Franken since his Air America days, and for his service in the Senate my disappointment was with him rather than Gillibrand or the bulk of the Democratic Senate caucus. He let us down.  Senator Gillibrand's concern was consistent with her views on sexual harassment and assault and the taking seriously the claims and believability of women.  Or, at least, not dismissing them summarily. And, there were about eight allegations. Including that photo on a plane staged or not.

    I doubt Gillibrand, herself, had the power to make Franken resign.  And, Franken resigned prior to the completion of the ethics investigation he. Called for. That was on him.  In politics all may not be fair. But in my view it was Franken who took the lead...he was the first among the stabbers.


    Wait'll you see her views on immigration ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 16, 2019 at 10:58:40 PM EST
    ... from a dozen years ago. Let us know if they're consistent with your own.

    I have not (none / 0) (#52)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 17, 2019 at 01:27:18 PM EST
    signed up, at this point, for any candidate's bandwagon---just wanted to register a counter-opinion to that of my respected TL colleagues regarding Franken.  My choice will be the ticket that can best get out the vote and most assuredly defeat Trump/Pence.

    Yes, I am aware of Senator Gillibrand's record of the past.  I am aware, too, of her political awakening over the last ten years since she represented a conservative, upstate New York congressional district, to representing the state of NewYork as a US Senator.  It is not just her words that have changed, but also her legislative actions.  Gun rights to gun control was accompanied by an NRA  grade of "F" from an "A".  Her conservatverating is now in singe digits while progressive/civil right scores are high percentages---a supporter of single payer with co-sponsorship of a Medicare for All, elimination of ICE. Gillibrand was an early and aggressive supporter of  the repeal of DADT and DOMA and a strong supporter of same sex marriage . Sexual harassment and abuse including in the military have been a particular focus

    The voters of N.Y. have recognized her evolved progressive values by electing and re-electing her to the US Senate by substantial margins.  I believe Democrats fell into line with " but she voted for the Iraq War (Gillibrand voted against this war when in the House) so we cannot trust Secretary Clinton on  anything so let's eat each other or give that Trump guy a shot at it---he could not be worse, right?


    I don't know (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 17, 2019 at 07:38:18 PM EST
    those but I have to say that that kind of thing will probably bring her bigger problems than Al Franken.

    And it will not be forgotten (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 16, 2019 at 12:06:14 PM EST
    Washington Examiner (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 29, 2019 at 03:34:00 PM EST