"America must seize on the moment and I truly believe — as I actually told the VP last night when I called him — that I think this is a moment to put a woman of color on that ticket."

Said Amy Klobuchar, who says she called Biden on Wednesday to tell him she was withdrawing from competition for the VP slot, NBC News reports.

I think we all already knew her chance was blown:

In the immediate aftermath of Floyd’s killing, Klobuchar’s time as chief prosecutor for Hennepin County came back under scrutiny, specifically the lack of prosecutions she pursued in cases of police brutality....

Asked if those questions about her past record on police brutality would have made it harder for her in the role of vice presidential nominee, Klobuchar said Thursday: "I think I could've functioned fine and there's a lot of untruths out there about my record and now is not the time to debate those."

So what I hear in her effort at a high-minded statement is an undercutting of the other women who are in the running. First, Elizabeth Warren — who is not a woman of color except in her memory of younger days when family lore and a desire to identify were enough. Why step on her chances, Amy? Second, all the various black women who are in the running. Amy is ensuring that when one of them is picked, everyone will believe they were picked because of their race.

"Shortly before Elizabeth Warren joined their virtual happy hour on a recent Friday afternoon, the five African American women co-hosting the #TheSipHour mused about calling her by her first name."

"The Massachusetts senator had her own moniker in mind. 'I was going to say I’m here today as an ally, but can we really just say co-conspirator?' laughed Warren, one of the few white women to appear at the events organized by Higher Heights For America, which promotes the organizing and voting power of black women. 'Nothing’s going to change unless it is black women’s voices that are uplifted.' Such overtures could help Warren’s bid to become Joe Biden’s running mate. The presumptive Democratic nominee is under mounting pressure to pick a black woman in the wake of recent outrage over racial injustice and police brutality. But some black leaders say Warren’s progressive politics, economic populism and specific policy proposals addressing everything from maternal mortality to the coronavirus could put her in a strong position. 'I think she’s totally still viable,' said Nelini Stamp, director of strategy and partnerships for the Working Families Party, a progressive labor activist group that endorsed Warren in the primary. 'Warren is one of the folks whose been talking about big structural change. And when we’re thinking about re-imagining public safety, that is something that’s going to require some actual structural change.'"

AP reports.

"In the first presidential race in which the combined age of the two leading candidates exceeds 150 years..."

"... mental acuity and physical health have become a central theme as the 77-year-old Biden and the 74-year-old Trump compete for votes. While previous presidential contests have included whisper campaigns and rumors about candidates’ health, the open charges of senility flying between the two camps sets the 2020 contest apart.... As the video of Trump on the ramp trended online Saturday, the president took to Twitter to explain his cautious stroll. 'The ramp that I descended after my West Point Commencement speech was very long & steep, had no handrail and, most importantly, was very slippery...'...  'I honestly don’t think he knows what office he’s running for,' Trump said.... 'They’re going to put him in a home and other people are going to be running the country and they’re going to be super left radical crazies.'... A Washington Post-ABC News poll released May 31... found that only 46 percent of voters thought Trump had the 'mental sharpness' necessary to serve effectively as president. For Biden, the number was 51 percent.... Some Biden supporters have pushed him to take Trump on more directly and more aggressively on the issue of mental and physical fitness. Some have highlighted how Trump effectively raised doubts about Hillary Clinton’s health in 2016. Philippe Reines, a former top Clinton adviser... publicly pleaded... 'PLEASE force the TRUTH about donald trump’s physical & cognitive health into the open... BEFORE his LIES about YOUR health harden any further.'"

From "As Trump casts Biden as ‘sleepy Joe,’ his critics raise questions about his own fitness" (WaPo).

I'm worried about both of them, so I'm creating a tag — "candidate infirmity" — to keep track of them. That's my absurd little way to help — make a tag about it. I dislike both candidates. Maybe you've noticed. Ever since Trump's West Point ramp descent down that ramp...



... I've visualized him taking the off ramp from the presidency and letting Pence go forward into the election. I can't believe we're left with the choice of Trump or Biden.

ADDED: Presidential visits are carefully set up, with the safety of the President meticulously attended to. How could they have provided him with a long, steep, slippery ramp?! That makes no sense.

"As his criminal justice proposal made clear months ago, Vice President Biden does not believe that police should be defunded."

"He hears and shares the deep grief and frustration of those calling out for change, and is driven to ensure that justice is done and that we put a stop to this terrible pain. Biden supports the urgent need for reform — including funding for public schools, summer programs, and mental health and substance abuse treatment separate from funding for policing — so that officers can focus on the job of policing...."

Said Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates, quoted at The Hill.

Has Biden himself come forward to speak to reporters? I'd like to see him do that and to face aggressive questioning on the subject — as aggressive as the questioning reporters use on Trump.

It's irritating to get the message from a campaign spokesman, and I really dislike the preface "As his criminal justice proposal made clear months ago." So much has happened in the last 2 weeks, and Biden should make a show of caring about the new push for dismantling the police. To say, we already talked about this months ago sounds a bit callous toward the people who are demanding very strong measures like abolishing the police and unresponsive to those of us who are anxious about these extreme demands.

"[S]ome of the usual tools for organizing students may be of limited use in the coming months if colleges begin the fall semester virtually...."

"... That makes messaging to large groups of students at once trickier, and Democrats are making plans to be as present as possible on the virtual versions of those quads and dorms: 'There are so many campus-based meme pages where you can spread content dedicated to people usually on those campuses,' he said. He cited the University of Wisconsin at Madison as an example: The 'UW-Madison Memes for Milk-Chugging Teens' Facebook group has nearly 28,000 members; the school has around 32,000 undergraduates. Meanwhile, the Biden camp itself has so far been tentative about its digital outreach to young voters, wary of looking like it’s pandering and conscious of the need to target its messaging to relevant media....  Biden himself has stepped only gingerly into such targeted outreach.... Internally, Biden’s senior aides have been vetting possible appearances and content by asking if it will be a chance to focus on the message of decency, empathy, and connection to real people, which they believe are the former VP’s best attributes to communicate online...."

From "Joe Biden Would Like a Word With the Youths" by Gabriel Debenedetti (Intelligencer/NY Magazine).

It's hard to do social media gingerly. If you're careful, it doesn't work. If you're not careful... you're Trump.

"It certainly seems as though something has happened. I’m not sure... frankly, this is a messy moment, and I think we need to acknowledge that — that it is not clear cut."

Said Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on NPR this morning. So there is at least one prominent Democratic Party woman who's not donating her reputation to the joint enterprise of vouching for Joe Biden.

“Instead of focusing on her account, instead of focusing on her story as a survivor, people are fast forwarding to the political implications,” she said. “‘Do you want Trump to win? Will you be voting for Joe Biden?’ And that denies justice in this situation.”

She's right about that.

Ocasio-Cortez says she will vote for Biden for president but has so far declined to endorse him. An endorsement, she says, “has to do with an understanding of what we are fighting for together.”

“I think an endorsement means we have come to a place where we have come to a place where we have developed a vision together not just for winning [in November] but for getting our country to a better place.”

Nice to see somebody in that party preserving her credibility.

AND: Don't you want to come to a place where we have come to a place where we can see how to get to a better place?

"Why is Tara Reade’s official complaint against former Vice President Joe Biden so hard to find?"

"Possibly because the system for lodging it was opaque and challenging for accusers. Reade, a onetime Biden staffer, says she filed a complaint against him in 1993 when he was in his fourth term in the Senate representing Delaware. The process would have subjected her to a system that did little to protect Capitol Hill staffers from retribution and offered little recourse if they were not satisfied with the outcome. It would take a 1995 overhaul of congressional personnel laws to bring Congress in line with federal labor and anti-discrimination laws. Even almost 30 years later, the alleged complaint — the secretary of the Senate won’t even confirm or deny whether there is one — may never be released because of strict disclosure rules.... Four in 10 women who responded to a 2016 CQ Roll Call survey of congressional staff said they believed sexual harassment was a problem on Capitol Hill, while one in six said they personally had been victimized. 'Unfortunately, due to the system that Congress created to protect itself from being exposed, there has been no accountability,' [said Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif.]. Between 1997 and 2014, the U.S. Treasury paid $15.2 million in taxpayer dollars toward 235 awards and settlements for Capitol Hill workplace violations...."

From "The opaqueness of Congress’ workplace rules hangs over the Tara Reade allegations about Biden/Secretary of the Senate says law prohibits disclosure of any complaint" (Roll Call).

"26% of Democrats, including 40% of those under the age of 45, said the party should select a different nominee."

"The party’s younger voters and women are less likely to view Biden’s denial as credible than older or male Democrats. 38% of all voters say elected officials should resign when facing credible accusations of sexual misconduct, down 18 points since late 2017."

The Morning Consult reports on its new poll.

When Jake Tapper asked Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer to explain her belief in Christine Blasey Ford and not Tara Reade...

... she really got desperate. Let's look at the transcript from last Sunday's "State of the Union." Tapper asks a completely fair and well-stated question:

TAPPER:  You have said that you believe Vice President Biden. I want to compare that to 2018, when you said you believed Dr. Christine Blasey Ford after she accused now Justice Brett Kavanaugh of assault. Kavanaugh also, like Biden, categorically denied that accusation. And Blasey Ford, to be honest, she did not have the contemporaneous accounts of her view of what happened that Tara Reade does. You have spoken movingly about how you're a survivor — survivor of assault yourself. Why do you believe Biden, and not Kavanaugh? Are they not both entitled to the same presumption of innocence, regardless of their political views?

WHITMER: You know, Jake, as a survivor and as a feminist, I will say this. We need to give people an opportunity to tell their story. But then we have a duty to vet it. And just because you're a survivor doesn't mean that every claim is equal. It means we give them the ability to make their case, and the other side as well, and then to make a judgment that is informed. I have read a lot about this current allegation. I know Joe Biden, and I have watched his defense. And there's not a pattern that goes into this. And I think that, for these reasons, I'm very comfortable that Joe Biden is who he says he is. He's — and you know what? And that's all I'm going to say about it. I really resent the fact that, every time a case comes up, all of us survivors have to weigh in. It is reopening wounds. And it is — take us at our word, ask us for our opinion, and let's move on.

Let's move on?! The question does ask her to answer as a survivor, and she began her answer "as a survivor and as a feminist." She didn't object to being asked as a survivor until after she'd answered, though she did begin by expanding her status from "survivor" to "survivor and... feminist."

But after quickly answering, she registered her objection: She resents that her survivor status makes her a target of questions about sex assaults. It reopens the old wound. But she does want to be asked. She wants to get the question, to answer it quickly, and to be believed as a commentator on the things that happened to other people: "take us at our word, ask us for our opinion, and let's move on."

I certainly believe it's her opinion that Kavanaugh did what Blasey Ford said he did and Biden did not do what Tara Reade said he did, but why is that her opinion? Is it only because of what political side Whitmer is on? If so, I can understand telling us to move on. Don't look too closely at that.

Notice how Whitmer stopped herself in the middle of her explanation of why Biden's denial is more believable than Kavanaugh's: "I'm very comfortable that Joe Biden is who he says he is. He's — and you know what?" She decided not to go on about her reason why but to switch to attacking Tapper for asking the question. You know what? I resent the question! Let's move on!

That seems to give the game away. Her reason was that she's on Biden's side. It's like the way Bill Clinton was treated back in the 90s — complete with the old "move on" catchphrase.

Tapper defended himself:

TAPPER: Well, just for the record, the reason I'm asking you is because you're the only Democrat on the show today, not because you're a survivor, and not because you're a woman. But thank you so much for your time. I want to...

Well, he did present her survivor status as a basis for authority on whom to believe. He said "You have spoken movingly about how you're a survivor... of assault yourself: Why do you believe Biden."  She may have been "the only Democrat on the show today," but why was she  the only Democrat on the show today? Looking at the whole transcript, I think it was because of the protests against the lockdown in Michigan. I can see how maybe she felt ambushed by that extra question.

She responded to his self-defense:

WHITMER: Yes. No, and it's not a criticism of you, Jake. It's not a criticism of you. You're doing your job, and I appreciate that. I'm just sharing, I think, some of the simmering anger that we survivors have every time that we have got to confront this from someone else's behavior that we weren't a party to, that we weren't even a part of the reality in the moment. What I think is this. We owe it to every woman who has a story to listen to that story, and then to vet that story, ask the questions and be critical thinkers, and then make a judgment, based on all of those pieces. I have done that in this instance. And I will tell you this. I don't believe that it's consistent with the Joe Biden that I know. And I do believe Joe, and I support Joe Biden.

There is no further question, but here are the questions I would ask:

Does it all depend on who you know? If someone you know is accused, you disbelieve the accuser, but if someone you don't know is accused, you believe the accuser? Or does that depend on whether you like that person you know or the person you don't know? Seriously, what is the rule going forward as these accusations arise — especially in the context of a nomination for a high office, where there is the temptation to try to find a shortcut to bring someone down? We can't make it easier and easier to destroy a candidate, and it can't work — it shouldn't work — to stand up for the candidates we support and to participate in the destruction of the candidates we oppose, so don't you need to reexamine your position on Brett Kavanaugh if you want fair-minded people to accept your vouching for Joe Biden? You say we need to listen to every story, vet that story, and be critical thinkers, but where is the critical thinking in your distinction between Brett Kavanaugh and Joe Biden?

ADDED: Rereading this post, I noticed a point where Whitmer deviated from supporting Biden and said something that I think is properly respectful of the problem of due process to the accused. In her response to Tapper's self-defensiveness, after she rejected the idea that she was criticizing him, Whitmer talked about the "simmering anger" that survivors feel as they are called upon to look at the evidence and weigh in on whether the accused is guilty or innocent. She doesn't like having "to confront this from someone else's behavior that we weren't a party to, that we weren't even a part of the reality in the moment."

I'm not sure exactly what that meant. Maybe it's the idea of reopening the wound. To judge what happened you have to hear the evidence and imagine the entire scene, the events, and put yourself inside of it and to use your own personal experience to form a belief about whether it is true. That's a painful ordeal, and those who impose it on the survivor ought to be more aware of what they are doing.

Maybe it's the idea that fact-finding is truly difficult. It's difficult in a courtroom trial, with all of the safeguards of cross-examining witnesses under oath and a judge excluding improper evidence and meticulously instructing a sworn-in jury about the legal standards. And it's all the more difficult when we've got allegations passed along in newspaper articles and amplified by political partisans. Whitmer may have been saying — just in that one sentence — that she is in no position to give the accused the due process he deserves.