Monthly Archives: January 2020

LESLIE JONES: TIME MACHINE (2020) Stream on Netflix. Leslie Jones left Saturday Night Live last fall. But that doesnt mean shes not keeping busy. The 52-year old comedian just announced that she will be hosting a reboot of the game show Supermarket Sweep on ABC. And she has this new stand-up special, directed by the Game of Thrones creators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss. In this performance, Jones lists the ups and downs of aging and argues that todays 20-year-olds dont know how to have fun. To prove her point, she roasts a young audience member for her subdued outfit choice, calling it a Little House on the Prairie sweater.

THE BLACK STALLION (1979) Stream on Criterion; rent on Amazon, Google Play, iTunes, Vudu or YouTube. This heartwarming adventure film, based on Walter Farleys classic childrens novel of the same name, opens with a voyage gone terribly wrong. Alec (Kelly Reno) and his father are aboard a ship that catches fire. Amid the chaos, they get separated, and a wild stallion saves Alec. They wind up stranded on a desert island together, and, after building trust, forge a connection. Their bond only grows stronger after they are rescued, thanks to a retired horse trainer (Mickey Rooney) who helps enter Alec and the stallion in a competitive race. The film is a visual treat, with a score by Carmine Coppola.

KIPO AND THE AGE OF WONDERBEASTS Stream on Netflix. Radford Sechrist, the creator of this new animated series, has listed Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead and The Wizard of Oz as his influences. The cartoon, produced by DreamWorks Animation, centers on Kipo (voiced by Karen Fukuhara), a teenager who was separated from her family after the destruction of her underground city. She ends up on the surface, in a post-apocalyptic Earth replete with adorable, yet deadly, mutant animals. Humans are not exactly welcome there, but new friends help Kipo navigate her new world and reunite with her family.

THIS IS US 9 p.m. on NBC. Grab those tissues the fourth season of this intergenerational drama series is back. The last time we saw the Pearson family, they had come together for Thanksgiving at Randalls townhouse. In this new episode, Kevin (Justin Hartley) is on the hunt for love, while Randall (Sterling K. Brown) heads to Los Angeles to see Rebecca.

DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE 9 p.m. on CNN. The pool of 2020 Democratic candidates continues to shrink. In the past two weeks, Marianne Williamson, the self-help author, Julin Castro, the former housing secretary, and Cory Booker, the New Jersey senator, have all dropped out of the race. Six remaining contenders have qualified to participate in Tuesday nights debate in Des Moines: Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the billionaire businessman Tom Steyer and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

Read the original post:

Whats on TV Tuesday: Leslie Jones and the Democratic Debate - The New York Times

Top Democratic leaders in Congress said they were caught completely off guard by a report on Russia hacking the Ukrainian natural gas company at the center of President Trump's impeachment.

In back-to-back interviews Monday evening, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer claimed they were only just hearing of the breach when asked by MSNBC host Rachel Maddow.

"I have to say, Rachel, I'm a bit distressed to see this for the first time in a newspaper report. If the intel community is aware of this, that should have been brought to our attention by now," Schiff said.

"But I don't find it surprising. I do find it deeply disturbing, and I would hope that maybe both parties can get out ahead of this, even if the president won't, and condemn any Russian effort to influence the next election," the California Democrat added.

The New York Times reported that researchers from Area 1, a U.S. cybersecurity firm, discovered on New Year's Eve that Russian hackers from the GRU targeted subsidiaries of Burisma as well as Kvartal 95, a Ukrainian television production company founded by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The report, which notes that it is unclear what the hackers were looking for or what they may have found, does not have any immediate comment from the Russian government or Burisma.

Former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, served on the board of Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm owned by a Ukrainian oligarch, from 2014 to 2019. The impeachment effort began last year after a whistleblower complaint revealed that Trump pressured Zelensky in a July phone call to open investigations into political rivals, including the Bidens, while withholding congressionally approved military aid. The elder Biden is now a Democratic candidate for president.

Both Schiff and Schumer are members of the "Gang of Eight," a bipartisan group of leaders from both parties in the House and Senate with access to classified intelligence. In recent days, Democrats have complained over what they say is the Trump administration's reluctance to share intelligence, particularly after U.S. officials failed to consult Congress before carrying out a drone strike killing Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani.

Schiff, suggesting that Trump conveyed a signal to Russian President Vladimir Putin to interfere in the 2020 election, said the first thing he intends to do is communicate with U.S. intelligence agencies to find out if they knew of the reported hack.

Schumer said the news "shows the great need" for Congress to pass election security legislation but cited Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as a "complete ally" to Trump in frustrating those efforts.

In a Sunday interview, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Trump is "in complete denial" about Russia's attempts to interfere in the 2020 election and accused McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, of being an "accomplice" to Russian interference, claiming that she wonders about his allegiance to the United States.

Read the original:

'Deeply disturbing': 'Gang of Eight' Democrats shocked by report on Russians hacking Burisma - Washington Examiner

These poll numbers are different in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, states where the candidates are spending their time and money, and where voters are paying closer attention to the early stages of the race. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination will obviously see their Name I.D. grow with time. But at the moment, Democrats other than Biden and Sanders are facing down a massive attentional gulf versus Trump. Right now there are just too many of them, said Jessica from Milwaukee. Im not watching the Democratic debates. I mean, this is like The Bachelor. You dont watch on week one. Theres too many. Like, Ill tune in when theres two weeks left and weve narrowed down the population. But I dont care enough right now. I want to see the number down to three roses, then Ill vote.

In the meantime, the views of these lesser-engaged Democrats are complex and dont fall neatly into the ideological buckets often discussed in the media. They mostly liked the idea of Medicare for All, but also doubted how the government could possibly pay for it. They brought up a wide variety of issues as their top concernspoverty, opioids, prison reform, Medicaid, college affordability, guns, LGBTQ rights, drug prices, taxesbut few could say what the federal government had done to help. No one could remember the last thing the government had actually done to improve their lives, except one woman in Miami who brought up the Affordable Care Act, Favreau said. In Milwaukee, where all the panelists had voted in the 2018 midterms, they were often more knowledgeable about state politics than national. Thats the stuff that has a direct impact on us, right? said Carol, a mother of two from suburban Waukesha County. The stuff in Washington is all, like, at the top level. But day to day, I feel like thats where we have more impact, where we feel, or can convince ourselves, anyway, that we have more impact to effect change. All of them expressed clashing opinions that frequently surface in polls of Democratic voters: They wanted a nominee who would fight and not compromise on principles, but also someone who would work with the other side and heal the country.

Favreau asked each of the focus groups how they consumed their news. Most cautioned that they tune out political news, before naming Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Google News, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, BBC, and local news. But even as the participants identified their own news sources, every focus group participant said they didnt trust them for information about politics. All of the cable networks were viewed as agenda-driven and produced to stoke outrage and ratings rather than inform viewers. You only get what they want you to have. Theres no solid form of receiving news that isnt biased or that isnt, you know, structured and formulated and produced for the masses, said Don, the father from Philadelphia. You only get what they want you to have. In Miami, George, the Ecuadorean immigrant, said TV news treats politics like entertainment, at the expense of more serious news. The way they report, it seems like its more like a joke, so people dont believe anything, he said. Another Miami voter named Paul lamented the panel-style debates that have come to dominate the cable channels. You have one side against the other, he said. They talked for two minutes. Nothing gets solved and you move on to the next topic. Theres no compromise anymore. Theres no smart talk.

They dont trust CNN or Fox, see them as two sides of the same coin, said Favreau. They dont even trust what they read on Facebook anymore, which is probably a very good thing, but the result is that they dont know what to believe, and so they just largely tune out. The focus groups crystallized the imperative for Democrats to find new ways to reach the irregular voters they need, with tactics and innovations that slice through the confusion of the media landscape. Its more than that, though: The Democratic nominee must feel, for lack of a better phrase, bigger and more relevant than politics. Twitter isnt real life has become a common refrain for critics who want the press and campaigns to keep their sights on voters who dont spend their days yelling about politics online. But for many of the people in Favreaus focus groups, politics isnt real life, either. The eventual Democratic nominee, he said, is duty-bound to fix that. He pointed to an interview with former Georgia gubernatorial nominee Stacey Abrams, also airing on this season of The Wilderness: What I think we all have to hold to, is that our ambitions have to be met with our capacity to deliver, Abrams told him. Because for the people who are the most easily dissuaded from participation, its when you promise them the moon and cant deliver a single grain of sand.

More Great Stories from Vanity Fair

On the eve of impeachment vote, Giuliani called up New York Times to incriminate Trump Melania Trump believes Greta Thunberg had POTUS attack coming Inside Roger Ailess twisted game of mind control Why the White House belongs to Jared Kushner now Kamala Harris next act is destroying Stephen Miller From the Archive: Inside Jeffrey Wigands epic multibillion-dollar struggle

Looking for more? Sign up for our daily Hive newsletter and never miss a story.

Read more here:

Like, Ill Tune In When Theres Two Weeks Left: Why Trump Has a Huge Advantage Over Dems With Low-Information Voters - Vanity Fair

Episode 25: The Endorsement

A Special Collaboration With The Timess Editorial Board

Watch the full episode on FX, Hulu, and in these areas outside the U.S.

Producer/Director John Pappas

Between coffee-shop chats in Iowa and stump speeches in New Hampshire, candidates for the Democratic nomination for president visited The New York Times last month for a series of on-the-record conversations with the editorial board.

For up to 90 minutes at a time, the leading Democrats in the race defended their records, sparred with the board over policy, and made their pitches for the chance to challenge President Trump in November.

Watch the freewheeling conversations in a special, hourlong episode of The Weekly on Sunday, Jan. 19, at 10 p.m. ET on FX, and streaming the next day on Hulu and see which candidate The Times editorial board will endorse for the 2020 Democratic nomination.

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from The New York Times newsroom.

For their conversations with the Democratic candidates, the regular members of the board were joined by other opinion writers and editors. James Bennet, the editorial page editor, recused himself from any involvement in the 2020 elections. His brother, Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, is running for the Democratic nomination.

[The full episode will be available to Times subscribers in the U.S. on Monday, Feb. 24.]

Every day this week, well publish one or two of the board's conversations with the Democratic candidates. Check back tomorrow for new transcripts and video.

Senator Bernie Sanders

The good news is, and it is very good news, is that our younger generation today is the most progressive young generation, I suspect, in the history of this country.

Read the full transcript.

Tom Steyer

I think, as a country, we have some huge tasks. One is, honestly, to save the world. People are unwilling to face the fact that we have to save the world and it has to be us.

Read the full transcript.

Senator Cory Booker

Look, I have this firm belief that if America hasnt broken your heart, you dont love her enough.

Read the full transcript.

Senior Story Editors Dan Barry, Liz O. Baylen, and Liz DayDirector of Photography Sam ChaseVideo Editors Geoff OBrien and Evan WiseAssociate Producer Brennan Cusack

Follow this link:

The Weekly | Vetting the 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates - The New York Times

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley raised eyebrows earlier this week when she told Fox News that Democrats were mourning the death of top Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani.

Georgia Republican Doug Collins took it up a notch Wednesday night:

Fox Business host Lou Dobbs clearly didnt have a problem with that hot take from Collins, as you can see from the interview:

Other Republicans followed suit. Among them: Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader, who contended in a Thursday press conference that Speaker Nancy Pelosi was defending Soleimani.

Of course, on the matter of the treatment of Gold Star families those who have lost family members in battle Donald Trump has himself come under sharp rebuke for his attack on the Khan family. Nobody mentioned that on the Fox show, though.

Needless to say, Collinss comment sparked a serious backlash.

Who is running against this craven un-American ignorant ahole named Doug Collins? I will max out to you tomorrow, tweeted former United States Attorney Preet Bharara. I happen to be a Democrat and I prosecuted terrorists for living. Sent many to prison for life. I dont know what Doug Collins has ever done to for America except preen and sound stupid.

And heres what Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) had to say on CNN when she was asked about the comments: Im not going to dignify that with a response she said. I left parts of my body in Iraq fighting terrorists. I dont need to justify myself to anyone.

Watch this clip from the interview:

They werent the only ones taking Collins to task. Twitter TWTR, -0.27% was ignited by his inflammatory comments:

By midday Friday, Collins was showing signs of having been chastened by the criticism, saying he, in fact, does not believe Democrats are in love with terrorists:

This Key Words item was initially published on Jan. 9. It was been updated.

Read more from the original source:

Prominent House Republican Doug Collins walks back his insistence that Democrats are in love with terrorists - MarketWatch

This is just a wild card, and it makes the election itself hostage to decisions made in Tehran. If, God forbid, a jetliner filled with American passengers mysteriously blows up midair in October, like Pan Am Flight 103 did over Lockerbie, Scotland, in the 1980s, voters may well blame Trump, even before anyone knows for sure who is responsible. But its easy to think of other scenarios that benefit Trump.

Gail: Oh God, Bret, youre making me feel even worse about the possible downside of 2020. This is why Im suddenly checking the N.B.A. standings and looking forward to spring training.

Bret: Rest assured that no matter what happens this year, the Knicks will embarrass us. The key for Democrats isnt so much to take a position on Suleimani as it is to convey a sense of sobriety when it comes to questions of peace and war.

Gail: Well, thats certainly fair. And not too tough. If you look at the contenders, theyre not exactly a bunch of what-the-heck-lets-party people.

Bret: If I wanted the Democratic nomination (I dont!), or were a Democrat (Im not!), Id say something along these lines: Suleimani killed Americans, and on my watch anyone who kills Americans is a dead man walking. Period. But the goal of saving American lives requires prudence and vision, not bravado, impulse and political calculation. As president, I will oppose Irans dangerous behavior at every turn, whether against us or our allies. But Im not going to hazard our position in the region, or risk a reckless war, or ruin the chances for a negotiated nuclear deal, just to kill one evil but easily replaceable man. And, unlike Trump, Im going to listen closely to my soldiers and diplomats before I go around signing kill orders just because I like feeling tough.

Gail: I would definitely vote for you, if youd just consider embracing Medicare for all and a tax hike for the wealthy.

Bret: Heaven forfend, Gail. We need further tax cuts to keep this incredible economic expansion going, and Health Savings Accounts for All so that we can finally get away from the third-party payer that has bedeviled our health delivery systems for so long.

Read this article:

The Odd Couples of the Democratic Party - The New York Times

Of course there will be those who simply follow the presidents lead, he noted. But I think most people probably have a wait-and-see attitude, which is, Well, hes got to prove to me that hes really Republican now, and this just wasnt done opportunistically, which I dont think hes going to be able to prove, because thats exactly what this is, Mr. Richter said.

Ron Filan, Mr. Van Drews campaign manager, said in a statement, If David has any question as to Congressman Van Drews relationship with the voters of South Jersey, Id invite David to sign up for a ticket and see the response Jeff Van Drew gets when President Trump comes to support him in Wildwood later this month.

Mr. Richter is doing what any textbook would probably advise at a moment like this: Drum up ones lifelong Republican bona fides. Remind voters of all the times the other guy stood with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Stay optimistic that Republicans in this district care about the issues and the principles they believe in.

But this is not a textbook time.

At a gathering of local Republicans at a Margate City restaurant this week, Mr. Richter introduced James Toto, a Somers Point councilman who was among the first officials to endorse him.

Mr. Toto should say hes still all in for Mr. Richter. That Mr. Van Drews switch meant nothing, that of course hed love to oblige the president, but that he already pledged his support elsewhere.

But after Mr. Richter walked away, Mr. Toto, leaning against the bar, admitted he was no longer so sure.

I support our president. And this is what the president wishes, he said of voting for Mr. Van Drew.

Mr. Toto then clutched his chest. How, he asked, do I go against what the president stands for?

Read more here:

He Was Cruising in a G.O.P. Primary. Then Trump Endorsed an Ex-Democrat. - The New York Times

Iowa state Auditor Rob Sand is seen in his office at the Iowa State Capitol in Des Moines. Multiple presidential campaigns have sought Sand's endorsement in the final stretch before next month's caucuses, which he has declined to give. Clay Masters/Iowa Public Radio hide caption

Iowa state Auditor Rob Sand is seen in his office at the Iowa State Capitol in Des Moines. Multiple presidential campaigns have sought Sand's endorsement in the final stretch before next month's caucuses, which he has declined to give.

A wide open competitive presidential primary should be a moment of opportunity and peak political leverage for ambitious and aspiring politicians in places like Iowa. But one of the most sought-after Democrats in the first-in-the-nation caucus state isn't interested in endorsing a presidential candidate.

As the youngest of a handful of Democrats in statewide office in Iowa, state Auditor Rob Sand, who was elected in 2018, is often mentioned as a potential future U.S. Senate or gubernatorial candidate.

But despite getting courted by candidates ranging from Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, Sand says endorsements "barely" matter "at all."

"I think it's a bigger deal to the candidates than it is to caucus-goers," says Sand, who says his sister supports Warren and that if he endorsed another candidate, it wouldn't sway her at all.

With only a year of experience as auditor and two young kids at home, Sand says he's not interested in being tied to a presidential campaign.

"If I could snap my fingers and know that the person that I determined was the best candidate was going to somehow magically win the Iowa caucuses and become the nominee, I would take this much more seriously," Sand says. "But part of the reason the Iowa caucuses are good to have go first is because Iowans take this seriously."

Prior to becoming auditor, Sand, 37, was an assistant attorney general and led a nationwide lottery-fixing investigation. Originally from Decorah, a college town in rural northeast Iowa, Sand was elected by defeating a Republican incumbent in year that also saw Iowa's GOP governor, Kim Reynolds, win.

Sand, who's a bow hunter, hasn't offered any presidential candidates a trip to his deer stand in urban Des Moines. The city has been trying to control the deer population.

While Sand hangs out in the deer stand on a recent day, he sends some emails from his phone and checks his social media accounts. He's live-streamed his quest for a haircut while traveling in rural Iowa and tweets often about his favorite food: gas station breakfast pizza. (In Iowa it usually comes with cheese sauce, eggs and a breakfast meat like sausage or bacon.)

"You get a nice piece of breakfast pizza with some firm crust underneath, that's a really good version of breakfast on the go," Sand whispers in the deer stand.

Sand has previously pointed out before that presidential candidate and former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg hasn't tried breakfast pizza from the gas station chain Casey's. During an interview with Iowa Public Radio last month, Buttigieg was asked about that challenge.

"Is that what it's going to take to get the Rob Sand endorsement?" Buttigieg asked with a chuckle.

"Organizational heft and reputations on the line"

While Sand may doubt the value of his endorsement, any edge a campaign can get matters in a field this big, said Lily Adams, communications director for California Sen. Kamala Harris' now-defunct presidential campaign. Adams was also Hillary Clinton's Iowa communications director in 2016.

Adams says campaigns want a good mix of endorsers who are not just going to be a name on a press release, but will also "put their organizational heft and reputations on the line to get out people on caucus night."

"[That's] when you are going to need everybody in that room to be advocating for you," Adams says.

While not decisive, endorsements hold some sway with caucus-goers, such as Christopher Marks, a mental health counselor.

After seeing a state lawmaker who had endorsed Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar introduce her at an event in suburban Des Moines last week, Marks says that support "didn't hurt" for him.

"I think it carries more weight to me than Kevin Costner coming out for Pete. This is where I live. This is where I'm from," Marks says. "These are the people that represent me. And if they say they represent her that means something to me."

After several hours in Sand's deer stand, the sun starts going down, ordinarily prime time for deer to appear.

"I endorse this location for deer to visit within the next 40 minutes," Sand whispers.

But no deer ever show up. Sand says it's proof his endorsement doesn't really matter.

Go here to see the original:

Why The Most Coveted Democratic Endorser In Iowa Isn't Picking Sides - NPR

Stephanie Valencia, a co-founder and the president of EquisLabs, a Democratic firm studying Latino voters, told me that dislike of Trump is not enough to guarantee bigger turnout. Democrats cannot afford to rest on the fact that Latinos hate Trump and question his moral character and question his handling of the issues that matter to them, she said. We need an aspirational vision of what this country can be, and not just how we are going to stop Trump from being president.

The other challenge facing Democrats is that both non-college-educated and college-educated white voters in the Sun Belt have traditionally leaned more conservative than they do in the Rust Belt. In 2018 exit polls, Trumps approval rating among both groups was higher in the Sun Belt than in the Rust Belt, with the gap especially wide among college-educated white voters.

Read: Brace for a voter-turnout tsunami

Still, Democrats wins in suburban House races across the Sun Beltas well as the results of the Senate contests in Texas, Arizona, and Nevadashowed clear cracks in the once-impregnable Republican dominance among white-collar Sun Belt voters.

Hausman argues that Democrats must now try to capitalize on those openings and capture state legislative chambers there. Frey agreed, noting that having control of redistricting could provide Republicans their final wall against the growing diversity that is mostly driving the population growth in the Sun Belt. Focusing primarily on suburban seats within major metropolitan areas, Hausmans group is mounting an effort to flip Republican-controlled chambers in Texas, Arizona, North Carolina, and Florida.

Democrats are focusing heavily on those same diverse and white-collar areas this year as they target Republican-held House seats in North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas, as well as GOP-controlled Senate seats in Arizona, Colorado, Texas, and Georgia. On the presidential level, they envision Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina as fallbacks if they cant recapture any of the Rust Belt battlegrounds from Trump. (Democrats are also hoping to significantly improve their presidential performance in Texas and Georgia, though both remain long shots for 2020.)

Nicole McCleskey, a New Mexicobased Republican pollster, acknowledged to me that a recoil from Trump, particularly among women, has hurt the GOP in the Southwest suburbs. But she remains optimistic that the GOP can hold Texas and Arizona in both the Senate and presidential contests, noting that Republicans easily carried the governors elections in both states last year, despite the nationwide Democratic tide.

Once those suburban voters put a face to what the Democratic Party is really about, it becomes a much more uphill struggle for them, she told me. In these suburban areas, when you start talking about what does Medicare for All mean for you, cost for you, I think it changes the face of what this election is about.

See the rest here:

Democrats Future Is Moving Beyond the Rust Belt - The Atlantic

Despite the diplomatic frills and savoir-faire, the United States has committed itself to a policy of extortion for decades: threats and mounting sanctions designed to bring Iranian civil society to its knees.

The U.S. governments targeted assasination of Iranian General Qassim Suleimani, characterized by the Trump administration as a preemptive defensive strike after the death of a military contractor, was the latest U.S. military provocation against Iran. A gleeful John Bolton, former assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, congratulated all involved in eliminating Qassem Soleimani, calling the assassination a decisive blow that he hopes will lead to regime change in Tehran.

While war hawks like Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer salivated at the prospect of another war, Democrats were quick to feign outrage over the killing of Suleimani, leaning into what they characterize as Trump's strategic failures: Elizabeth Warren described the incident as reckless. Biden's said Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox. And Cory Booker criticized a president who has had, really, a failure in his Iranian policy and whos had no larger strategic plan. Former Obama aides, meanwhile, have been swift in blaming this latest provocation on President Trumps 2018 withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly referred to in the United States as the Iran nuclear deal.

Signed in 2015 after almost two years of negotiations, the JCPOA eased the U.S.-led sanctions regime imposed on the Islamic Republic by successive administrations since 1979 in exchange for severe restrictions on Irans civilian nuclear energy program. Democrats in Congress and running for president have told the U.S. public that by ripping up Barack Obamas signature foreign policy achievement just to tar his predecessors legacy, Trump undid a deal that was working. But how was the deal so easy to undermine? How have the most hawkish elements of the Republican party reasserted themselves at the highest level of a supposedly isolationist administration?

The answer is that Obamas legacy was to momentarily sideline the neoconservative project in the Middle East without questioning its key premises. The Democrats damned the Iran dealthey damned it with faint praise, veiled racism, and colonial arrogance. In fact, the Democrats have been undermining the cause of peace with Iran since before the JCPOA was a glimmer in John Kerrys eye.

In 2010, Obama was asked by a reporter for BBC Persian if he saw any contradiction between his conciliatory Persian New Year address (a gesture of goodwill on the hallowed spring equinox that his administration had already been established as an annual tradition) and the draconian sanctions hed just imposed against Iran, sanctions his administration would tout as crippling. He replied that what the Iranian government has said is, its more important for us to defy the international community, engage in a covert nuclear weapons program, than it is to make sure that our people are prospering. Heres the thing: Iran wasnt engaging in a covert nuclear weapons program, and every single U.S. intelligence agency would have told him so.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went further the following year, telling BBC Persian that eventually the Iranian people will be free, they will not be oppressed by the kind of totalitarian regime that currently rules Iran. In other words, without declaring it the stated policy of the U.S. government that the Islamic Republic is illegitimate and should be overthrown, Clinton nevertheless suggests that it would be a nice idea. The de facto endorsement of regime change by Clintons State Department is echoed in the public position of her counterpart in the Trump administration, Mike Pompeo, who has said that the objectives are to change the behavior of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Then as now, the administrations rationale presents Iranians with a particularly cruel catch-22: No matter what the facts are, we know your government is up to no good, and if ordinary Iranians dont like it, you can just overthrow your supposedly totalitarian government. The logical conclusion of this paradox is, of course, regime change.

Obama and Clinton could have just said that Iran wasnt developing nuclear weapons. Instead, they repeatedly reminded Iran, the government and its people, that all options are on the table, a genocidal threat of preemptive military invasion justified by the image of a scary Islamic Republic whose fanatical leadership is a death cult, secretly pursuing nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the map. They affirmed the fiction that a nuclear-armed Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, a claim that is predicated on the Islamophobic assumption that the government of Iran is suicidal and simply cannot be trusted with a nuclear deterrent against belligerent aggressors constantly threatening to bomb it. Only a view of the Middle East steeped in racism can explain the automatic according of victim status to Americas junior partner in the Middle East, an outpost of white supremacy apparently entitled to undeclared nuclear monopoly as carries out its settler-colonial expansion.

The nuclear deal was conceived in sin, an imperialist shakedown to guarantee U.S. and Israeli regional hegemony without becoming embroiled in another protracted military engagement. During her failed 2008 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton reminded Iranians that the United States would be able to totally obliterate them. This menacing disclosure was an effort on Clinton's part to get back to what worked during the Cold War, as she put it in remarks during her campaign. Despite the diplomatic frills and savoir-faire, the United States has committed itself to a policy of extortion for decades: threats and mounting sanctions designed to bring Iranian civil society to its knees.

As Kerry, newly sworn in as Secretary of State, began talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in 2013, Democrats who opposed negotiations with Iran found the image of Iran as an irrational actor quite useful. Sen. Cory Booker and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, the latter currently running for president, were vocal critics of Obamas Iran policy from the right. When Booker (who just dropped out of the presidential race) ultimately declined to buck Obama, it was begrudgingly and with half a heart. He wrote by way of explanation that while negotiations with Iran have only delayednot blockedIrans potential nuclear breakoutwe have now passed a point of no return that we should have never reached, leaving our nation to choose between two imperfect, dangerous and uncertain options. He urged that we must be more vigilant than ever in fighting Iranian aggression.

And before Gabbard finally came around, she earned considerable attention from conservative media for her record of voting with Republicans on anti-Iran legislation aimed at scuttling diplomacy and for her hawkish rhetoric parroting GOP talking points about the worlds leading state sponsor of terrorism. She was lauded on the right for her concerns about the deal, which she voiced on Fox News and as a speaker at the 2015 conference of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Andimplicitly but undeniablyshe supported efforts to undermine the deal by attending Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus address to Congress on the invitation of Republican leaders that same year, a speech openly aimed at rebuking Obamas Iran policy and boycotted by 56 of her colleagues, including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), both of whom are running for president. Gabbards recent attempts to reposition herself as an anti-war politician notwithstanding, the only extended discussion of Iran policy during last years Democratic primary debates revealed how much ground the party shares on the need to actively restrict Irans sovereignty.

Booker was the only then-candidate who said at the June 26 debate that he would decline to rejoin the JCPOA to allow for the opportunity to leverage a better deal. Gabbard ceded that changes to the deal would be necessary after rejoining: It was an imperfect deal, there are issues like their missile development that need to be addressed. We can do both simultaneously to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

In a September 2019 interview with CNN, Gabbard claimed with great confidence and urgency that Iran is moving forward towards developing a nuclear weapon. However much Rep. Gabbard, who is not running for reelection in Hawaii, may differentiate herself from the mainstream of the foreign policy establishment, she remains in lockstep with her partys overwhelming instinct to play up the threat of a nuclear Iran without a deal in place in hopes of frightening conservatives back towards the JCPOA.

It was unavoidable that this racist caricature of suicidal mullahs, hellbent on Israels destruction knowing full well that assured US retaliation means it would entail their own, informed the Democratic response to US withdrawal from the deal. Nowhere was the folly of this gambit more grotesquely typified for the Trump era than in the decision by Daily Show alumnus John Oliver and his producers at HBOs Last Week Tonight to buy ad time for a pro-Iran deal PSA in April of 2018 during Sean Hannitys time slot on Fox News, when the president is presumed to be watching. Oliver is the current golden child of a satirical news subgenre whose previous poster boy, Jon Stewart, was beloved by Democrats and even called to testify before Congress on issues close to their hearts. Like Stewart and Stephen Colbert, he is influential among liberals and symptomatic of their ideological blind spots.

0 is less than 10, an actor dressed as a cowboy repeats in the ad: 10 is the number of years the deal would have constrained Irans insatiable hunger for nukes due to its so-called sunset clauses (this is not true), and 0 how many years it would take Iran to develop one without it (this, too, is not true). The Iran deal may not be perfect, the cowboy concedes, but it restricts Irans ability to start making a bomb. The spot concludes with a black-and-white image of a mushroom clad. Even in supposed defense of the bill, the liberal framing validates the most fevered neoconservative fantasy of all, that a sovereign Iran is an existential threat to the United States, Israel and 'global security,' whatever that is.

In an interview with CNN, after he was barred from entering the United States where he had planned to to address the United Nations Security Council, Zarif delivered a pointed summation of Iranian attitudes in light of offenses committed by past and present administrations: The United States has to wake up to the reality that the people of this region are enraged, that the people of this region want the United States out, and that the United States cannot stay in this region. The retaliatory strike against US bases in Iraq marks a dynamic shift in U.S.-Iran relations, one which may potentially transform the region.

Trump has already promised further sanctions against Iran. As Democrats decry the presidents strategy as misguided, it is worth remembering that the first major violation of the nuclear deal occurred with their full support back in 2017, when every Senator save for Sanders and Kentucky Republican Rand Paul voted in favor of a sanctions package targeting Iran along with Russia and North Korea.

Now, at the current point in the administrations Maximum Pressure campaign, which has targeted food and medicine and sought to bring the Islamic Republics oil exports to zero, it is unclear what there is left to sanction. What should be clear to anyone seeking to meaningfully counter the momentum of military conflict is that diplomacy cannot be war by other means. An agreement between those who live in fear of annihilation and their prospective annihilators is no less coerced than any promise youd make with a gun to your head. As long as the United States attempts to dictate the future the Middle East in any capacity, half-measures in the name of progress will be undermined by the very relationship of domination that persists.

Read this article:

Top Democrats Say They Support the Iran DealBut Here's How They've Undermined It - In These Times