theguardian--2020-01-07--Confusion over letter from US military signaling withdrawal of troops from Iraq – as it happened

The future of the US presence in Iraq is in question after a military memo seemed to indicate a potential @ @ @ @ @ the country .
The memo stated troops would begin “ onward movement ” from Iraq @ @ @ @ @ defense Mark Esper said the memo was inaccurate “ There ’ s been no decision @ @ @ @ @ The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff , General Mark Milley , said the @ @ @ @ @ error .
The back-and-forth began as the Trump administration scrambled to respond to Iraqi demands @ @ @ @ @ after last week ’ s assassination in Baghdad of Iran ’ s top general , @ @ @ @ @ the US are responding in kind , with British officials are now pointing to Esper @ @ @ @ @ the original letter from the US-led coalition circulating in Iraq as “ very unclear ” @ @ @ @ @ seems ” without giving further details .
For more information , read our latest report @

7 Jan 2020 01.33 GMT Summary of the evening Kari Paul here, logging off for the night. Here are today’s top events to make note of: Republican Congressman Paul Gosar of Arizona tweeted out a photoshopped image of president Barack Obama shaking hands with Hassan Rouhani that was quickly debunked as fake. A memo was apparently mistakenly released implying potential withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Officials said the letter had been sent in error, drawing confusion. The Trump administration has reportedly blocked an Iranian diplomat from addressing the UN this month
Updated at 02.01 GMT
7 Jan 2020 00.08 GMT Pete Buttigieg is heading back to Iowa on Jan. 12 to do more campaigning ahead of the upcoming caucus there, his team announced on Monday. According to the announcement, Buttigieg has now visited Iowa 21 times, with visits to 49 counties to hold 100 events across the state.
6 Jan 2020 23.50 GMT Donald Trump will hold a rally in Wildwood, New Jersey on Jan. 28, his campaign announced Monday. Wildwood is in the district of Rep. Jeff Van Drew, who left the Democratic Party to join Trump in the GOP late last year.
6 Jan 2020 23.18 GMT Republican congressman Paul Gosar of Arizona tweeted out a photoshopped image of former president Barack Obama and Iranian president Hassan Rouhani that was quickly debunked. “The world is a better place without these guys in power,” the caption Gosar tweeted to accompany the fake photo said. Obama and Rouhani reportedly never met in person, and Rouhani is also still in power. The two did speak by phone in September 2013, a landmark moment reflecting the highest level of contact between a US and Iranian president in 30 years. As of the time of publishing this post, the inaccurate tweet is still live on Gosar’s account.
Updated at 23.19 GMT
6 Jan 2020 23.01 GMT Donald Trump’s son Donald Trump, Jr. posted an image on Sunday of himself holding an AR-15 style rifle with an image of former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on its magazine. Allow Instagram content? This article includes content provided by Instagram. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. To view this content, click 'Allow and continue'. Allow and continue In response to some backlash online, a spokesperson for Trump Jr. gave the following statement to The Hill: “Instagram post was strictly about him using a famous meme to mock Hillary Clinton, as he and many others have done on numerous occasions and will surely do again in the future, so long as it continues triggering humorless liberals”. The image appears to be a reference to the phrase “lock her up”, which has frequently been chanted at Trump campaign rallies. The creator of the magazine said the company has seen an uptick in business in response to the photo.
6 Jan 2020 22.34 GMT Confusion surrounds memo indicating potential withdrawal of US troops from Iraq The future of the US presence in Iraq is in question after a military memo seemed to indicate a potential withdrawal of American troops from the country. The memo stated troops would begin “onward movement” from Iraq. However, secretary of defense Mark Esper said the memo was inaccurate “There’s been no decision whatsoever to leave Iraq.” The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Mark Milley, said the letter had been sent in error. The back-and-forth began as the Trump administration scrambled to respond to Iraqi demands for the troops to leave after last week’s assassination in Baghdad of Iran’s top general, Qassem Suleimani. Allies to the US are responding in kind, with British officials are now pointing to Esper’s clarification, describing the original letter from the US-led coalition circulating in Iraq as “very unclear” and “not what it seems” without giving further details. For more information, read our latest report.
6 Jan 2020 22.01 GMT Mitt Romney said he would “like to hear” from John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, but stopped short of saying he would subpoena him. Bolton previously said he would testify in a Senate impeachment trial if he were subpoenaed, but a majority of the Republican-controlled Senate would have to approve a subpoena.
6 Jan 2020 21.52 GMT The Trump administration made a move Monday to block Iran’s top diplomat from addressing the UN security council, Foreign Policy reports. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has been blocked from obtaining a visa to attend a Jan. 9 Security Council meeting on the importance of upholding the UN Charter, sources told Foreign Policy. The block violates the terms of a 1947 headquarters agreement requiring Washington to permit foreign officials into the country to conduct UN business and marks another escalation in the continued tension between the US and Iran.
6 Jan 2020 21.47 GMT Hello, Kari Paul on the West Coast here, taking over the blog for the next few hours. Stay tuned for updates.
6 Jan 2020 21.31 GMT Evening summary That’s it from me today. I’m handing the blog off to my west coast colleague, Kari Paul, for the next few hours. Here’s where the day stands so far: A memo from the US military seemed to indicate a potential withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, but secretary of defense Mark Esper then said the memo was inaccurate. “There’s been no decision whatsoever to leave Iraq,” Esper said.
then said the memo was inaccurate. “There’s been no decision whatsoever to leave Iraq,” Esper said. John Bolton , Trump ’s former national security adviser, said he would testify in a Senate impeachment trial if he were subpoenaed, but a majority of the Republican-controlled Senate would have to approve a subpoena.
, ’s former national security adviser, said he would testify in a Senate impeachment trial if he were subpoenaed, but a majority of the Republican-controlled Senate would have to approve a subpoena. Democratic congressional leaders, including Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi , called on Republicans to support a Bolton subpoena, arguing any other course of action would constitute a “cover-up.”
and , called on Republicans to support a Bolton subpoena, arguing any other course of action would constitute a “cover-up.” Bolton’s statement could delay the transmission of the articles of impeachment to the Senate, which previously seemed likely to occur this week. Kari will have more coming up, so stay tuned.
6 Jan 2020 21.23 GMT Secretary of defense Mark Esper said the letter indicating a potential US troop withdrawal from Iraq is “inconsistent” with the Pentagon’s current position. .@EsperDoD on Iraq: “We are re-positioning forces throughout the region number one. Beyond that with regard to the letter which I’ve read once. I can’t tell you the veracity of that letter and I can tell you what I’ve read. That letter is inconsistent of where we are right now.” — Ryan Browne (@rabrowne75) January 6, 2020


theguardian--2020-01-06--Iraq scales down threats to expel US forces after Trump reaction

Officials in Iraq have stepped back from threats to expel US forces after Donald Trump threatened to impose sanctions over the Iraqi parliament ’ s vote for retaliation for the killing of the Iranian general Qassem Suleimani in Baghdad by a US drone strike .
The military spokesman for the acting Iraqi prime minister , Adel Abdul Mahdi , who met the US ambassador on Monday to implement the decision , said any withdrawal would involve only combat forces and not training and logistical support for the Iraqi military , which have been core components of the US presence in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s conflicting signals and Trump ’ s rhetoric underline the tensions that continue to surround the killing , which has deeply unsettled the region and left many Iraqi officials scrambling as Washington and Tehran square up to each other .
In a clear sign of the confusion , a letter was disclosed on Monday in which the US commanding general in Iraq , Brigadier William Seely , informed his Iraqi counterparts that US forces in the country would be repositioning “ to ensure that movement out of Iraq is conducted in a safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the defence secretary , Mark Esper , said no decision over a withdrawal had been made , and General Mark Milley , chairman of the joint chiefs of staff , said the document was a “ poorlyworded draft ” .
The US president ’ s threats to impose sanctions on Iraq that will “ make Iranian sanctions seem somewhat tame ” led some Iraqi MPs to urge a softening of the parliament ’ s position .
One Iraqi MP said Trump ’ s unpredictability made such a move risky when US air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prevent a resurgence of Islamic State .
Abdul Mahdi ’ s tone was more conciliatory on Monday than in his speech to parliament on Sunday , in which he demanded “ urgent measures ” be taken to oust US forces .
After meeting Washington ’ s envoy , his office released a statement saying : “ The prime minister stressed the importance of mutual cooperation on implementing the withdrawal of foreign troops , in line with the Iraqi parliament ’ s resolution , and to set relations with the United States on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how dangerous the situation is right now and its potential consequences , adding that Iraq is doing everything it can to prevent the descent into open war.
” By recasting any withdrawal as a potential bilateral decision between Washington and Baghdad , Abdul Mahdi is aiming to avoid Iraq being in the middle of a lethal standoff between Iran and the US , which officials in both countries and across the Middle East say could easily escalate into a war .
Iran and its Lebanese proxy , Hezbollah , say the removal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a main objective in the wake of Suleimani ’ s death .
Such an outcome was a stated goal of the assassinated Iranian general and would be considered by some to be a victory worthy of his “ martyrdom ” at the hands of an enemy .
However , there is widespread consensus among security officials in the region that the Iranian response would also include attacks against US interests .
Speaking to reporters on Air Force One before Abdul Mahdi ’ s meeting with the US ambassador , Trump said : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if we don ’ t do it on a very friendly basis , we will charge them sanctions like they ’ ve never seen before , ever .
We have a very extraordinarily expensive airbase that ’ s there .
It cost billions of dollars to build .
Long before my time .
We ’ re not leaving unless they pay us back for it.
” Cooperation between Baghdad and Washington was an important factor in the battlefield defeat of Isis but was forged mostly out of joint necessity and barely addressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heading .
Though US efforts to play a leading role in post-Saddam nation-building largely lay in ruins , Washington was still engaged in a tussle with Tehran for influence .
Some within the US government had begun to realise that Iran had more aegis and leverage in Iraq and in recent months hopes had gathered that a large uprising against the Iraqi government could weaken Iran ’ s hold .
Anti-Iranian nationalism had been one component of the Iraqi protest movement , which had been given additional impetus by anti-regime demonstrations in Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have ground to a halt since Suleimani ’ s death and in their place has emerged a rise in anti-Americanism , which is likely to be sustained .
The assassination of the second most powerful figure in Iran has been galvanising for Iranians and polarising in Iraq , where much of his legacy is written .

Officials in Iraq have stepped back from threats to expel US forces after Donald Trump threatened to impose sanctions over the Iraqi parliament’s vote for retaliation for the killing of the Iranian general Qassem Suleimani in Baghdad by a US drone strike.
The military spokesman for the acting Iraqi prime minister, Adel Abdul Mahdi, who met the US ambassador on Monday to implement the decision, said any withdrawal would involve only combat forces and not training and logistical support for the Iraqi military, which have been core components of the US presence in Iraq in recent years.
Iraq’s conflicting signals and Trump’s rhetoric underline the tensions that continue to surround the killing, which has deeply unsettled the region and left many Iraqi officials scrambling as Washington and Tehran square up to each other.
In a clear sign of the confusion, a letter was disclosed on Monday in which the US commanding general in Iraq, Brigadier William Seely, informed his Iraqi counterparts that US forces in the country would be repositioning “to ensure that movement out of Iraq is conducted in a safe and efficient manner”.
Soon afterwards, the defence secretary, Mark Esper, said no decision over a withdrawal had been made, and General Mark Milley, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said the document was a “poorlyworded draft”.
The US president’s threats to impose sanctions on Iraq that will “make Iranian sanctions seem somewhat tame” led some Iraqi MPs to urge a softening of the parliament’s position. One Iraqi MP said Trump’s unpredictability made such a move risky when US air support in particular might still be needed to prevent a resurgence of Islamic State.
Abdul Mahdi’s tone was more conciliatory on Monday than in his speech to parliament on Sunday, in which he demanded “urgent measures” be taken to oust US forces. After meeting Washington’s envoy, his office released a statement saying: “The prime minister stressed the importance of mutual cooperation on implementing the withdrawal of foreign troops, in line with the Iraqi parliament’s resolution, and to set relations with the United States on a proper foundation.
“He stressed how dangerous the situation is right now and its potential consequences, adding that Iraq is doing everything it can to prevent the descent into open war.”
By recasting any withdrawal as a potential bilateral decision between Washington and Baghdad, Abdul Mahdi is aiming to avoid Iraq being in the middle of a lethal standoff between Iran and the US, which officials in both countries and across the Middle East say could easily escalate into a war.
Iran and its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, say the removal of all US forces from the region is a main objective in the wake of Suleimani’s death. Such an outcome was a stated goal of the assassinated Iranian general and would be considered by some to be a victory worthy of his “martyrdom” at the hands of an enemy. However, there is widespread consensus among security officials in the region that the Iranian response would also include attacks against US interests.
Speaking to reporters on Air Force One before Abdul Mahdi’s meeting with the US ambassador, Trump said: “If they do ask us to leave, if we don’t do it on a very friendly basis, we will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before, ever. We have a very extraordinarily expensive airbase that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. Long before my time. We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it.”
Today in Focus The assassination of Qassem Suleimani Sorry your browser does not support audio - but you can download here and listen $https://audio.guim.co.uk/2020/01/06-69827-200107TIF_iran.mp3 00:00:00 00:30:26
Cooperation between Baghdad and Washington was an important factor in the battlefield defeat of Isis but was forged mostly out of joint necessity and barely addressed the tensions over where Iraq was ultimately heading. Though US efforts to play a leading role in post-Saddam nation-building largely lay in ruins, Washington was still engaged in a tussle with Tehran for influence.
Some within the US government had begun to realise that Iran had more aegis and leverage in Iraq and in recent months hopes had gathered that a large uprising against the Iraqi government could weaken Iran’s hold.
Anti-Iranian nationalism had been one component of the Iraqi protest movement, which had been given additional impetus by anti-regime demonstrations in Iran. However, movements in both countries have ground to a halt since Suleimani’s death and in their place has emerged a rise in anti-Americanism, which is likely to be sustained. The assassination of the second most powerful figure in Iran has been galvanising for Iranians and polarising in Iraq, where much of his legacy is written.


theguardian--2020-01-06--Trump’s motivation for Suleimani assassination | Letters

Your report on the assassination of Qassem Suleimani ( Iran vows ‘ severe revenge ’ on the US , 3 January ) features some welcome scepticism about its stated motives .
The Pentagon is quoted as saying that it was about “ deterring future Iranian attack plans ” , while “ a senior US official ” refers to “ the imminent attacks that Suleimani is alleged to have been preparing ” .
As Agnes Callamard , the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions , tweeted : “ Future is not the same as imminent , which is the time based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I be permitted a dissenting theory – that the attacks that motivated Suleimani ’ s assassination were neither future nor imminent , but had already taken place ?
On 31 December , Donald Trump took to Twitter to vow revenge for an attack on the US embassy in Baghdad : “ Iran will be held fully responsible for lives lost , or damage incurred , at any of our facilities .
They will pay a very BIG PRICE !
This is not a Warning , it is a Threat .
Happy New Year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Africa • The US attack that killed Qassem Suleimani was yet another ploy to divert attention from President Trump ’ s many problems .
As the impeachment hearings drag on and the Ukraine debacle is yet to be resolved , what better way is there than orchestrating a “ war scenario ” directed by our president , who hopes he comes out looking like a patriotic hero , since his tenure in office has been ( and will always be ) all about him .
He is playing a dangerous game and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Herb Stark Mooresville , North Carolina • The slaughter of Qassem Suleimani was an inept attempt by President Trump to grab attention .
Trump ’ s foreign policy has been marred by an utter failure .
Iran resumed its nuclear programme ; North Korea brushed aside Trump ’ s threats and entered a new era of deterrence .
In Syria and Iraq , Iran and its allies emerged victorious and Trump has trampled on human rights and brazenly attributed the presence of American troops there to solely protect oil reservoirs .
In Afghanistan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which was labelled not long ago as a terrorist organisation .
In Palestine , he drew derision by recognising Jerusalem as Israel ’ s capital .
In a nutshell , Trump is a destabiliser of global peace and security .
Dr Munjed Farid Al Qutob Geneva , Switzerland • While Trump ’ s assassination of Suleimani may appear to be a random reflex of a disordered narcissist , research would clearly indicate that it may be a highly cynical manoeuvre .
Studies have shown that increasing a perception of threat always pushes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not know what was behind Trump ’ s incendiary actions but they may play out to his benefit in 2020 .
Paul Daly Leeds • Boris Johnson and any other western leader who supports the assassination of Qassem Suleimani misses a critical point ( General was ‘ a threat to all our interests ’ , 5 January ) .
Though few in the west will lament the death of the Iranian general , we have ushered in a new law of the jungle : that it ’ s acceptable to assassinate a high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nation that we are not formally at war with ) without a formal trial and that it is OK to kill others who happened to be with the target as collateral damage .
This precedent is dangerous .
Dr Michael Pravica Henderson , Nevada • It is disturbing that assassination is no longer universally condemned , as it was until the last decade or two .
While capital punishment has become rather less common , extrajudicial killings seem to have been normalised , and , when carried out by UK allies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems that murder by drone is regarded as somehow less offensive than , say , killing with poison , but as there is almost always “ collateral damage ” it is just as iniquitous and should never become acceptable .
Diana Francis Bath • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters • Do you have a photo you ’ d like to share with Guardian readers ?
Click here to upload it and we ’ ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition

Your report on the assassination of Qassem Suleimani (Iran vows ‘severe revenge’ on the US, 3 January) features some welcome scepticism about its stated motives. The Pentagon is quoted as saying that it was about “deterring future Iranian attack plans”, while “a senior US official” refers to “the imminent attacks that Suleimani is alleged to have been preparing”. As Agnes Callamard, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, tweeted: “Future is not the same as imminent, which is the time based test required under international law.”
May I be permitted a dissenting theory – that the attacks that motivated Suleimani’s assassination were neither future nor imminent, but had already taken place? On 31 December, Donald Trump took to Twitter to vow revenge for an attack on the US embassy in Baghdad: “Iran will be held fully responsible for lives lost, or damage incurred, at any of our facilities. They will pay a very BIG PRICE! This is not a Warning, it is a Threat. Happy New Year!”
Rodney Ulyate
Roodepoort, South Africa
The US attack that killed Qassem Suleimani was yet another ploy to divert attention from President Trump’s many problems. As the impeachment hearings drag on and the Ukraine debacle is yet to be resolved, what better way is there than orchestrating a “war scenario” directed by our president, who hopes he comes out looking like a patriotic hero, since his tenure in office has been (and will always be) all about him. He is playing a dangerous game and I must ask: at what cost?
Herb Stark
Mooresville, North Carolina
The slaughter of Qassem Suleimani was an inept attempt by President Trump to grab attention. Trump’s foreign policy has been marred by an utter failure.
Iran resumed its nuclear programme; North Korea brushed aside Trump’s threats and entered a new era of deterrence. In Syria and Iraq, Iran and its allies emerged victorious and Trump has trampled on human rights and brazenly attributed the presence of American troops there to solely protect oil reservoirs. In Afghanistan, Trump reopened talks with the Taliban, which was labelled not long ago as a terrorist organisation. In Palestine, he drew derision by recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. In a nutshell, Trump is a destabiliser of global peace and security.
Dr Munjed Farid Al Qutob
Geneva, Switzerland
While Trump’s assassination of Suleimani may appear to be a random reflex of a disordered narcissist, research would clearly indicate that it may be a highly cynical manoeuvre. Studies have shown that increasing a perception of threat always pushes voters towards rightwing politics. We do not know what was behind Trump’s incendiary actions but they may play out to his benefit in 2020.
Paul Daly
Leeds
Boris Johnson and any other western leader who supports the assassination of Qassem Suleimani misses a critical point (General was ‘a threat to all our interests’, 5 January). Though few in the west will lament the death of the Iranian general, we have ushered in a new law of the jungle: that it’s acceptable to assassinate a high official of a foreign state (even a nation that we are not formally at war with) without a formal trial and that it is OK to kill others who happened to be with the target as collateral damage. This precedent is dangerous.
Dr Michael Pravica
Henderson, Nevada
It is disturbing that assassination is no longer universally condemned, as it was until the last decade or two. While capital punishment has become rather less common, extrajudicial killings seem to have been normalised, and, when carried out by UK allies, possible illegality is widely ignored. It seems that murder by drone is regarded as somehow less offensive than, say, killing with poison, but as there is almost always “collateral damage” it is just as iniquitous and should never become acceptable.
Diana Francis
Bath
Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters


theguardian--2020-01-06--Media leaders agonize over amplifying Trump lies as 2020 election year begins

The US media is facing daunting decisions as it enters the 2020 presidential election year including whether to amplify or muffle Donald Trump ’ s “ digital bully pulpit ” and his relentless stream of untruths as it seeks to avoid the calamitous mistakes of 2016 , leading figures from the industry say .
The Guardian and the Columbia Journalism Review talked to 30 top editors , reporters , TV executives and commentators across the US .
With the first poll of the Democratic nomination contest in Iowa just four weeks away , the issue of Trump ’ s domination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disturb many media figures .
In the wake of Trump ’ s victory in November 2016 , many commentators pointed to disproportionate and exhaustive coverage of his extreme comments and tweets as an important factor that skewed both the Republican primaries and the general election against Hillary Clinton .
If anything , that pattern has intensified since then .
As Nancy Pelosi , the top Democrat in Congress , remarked last month , “ I ’ ve said to many of my friends in the press , ‘ You ’ re accomplices , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ .
” Frank Bruni , a New York Times columnist who has written extensively on the dilemmas facing the media in 2020 , told the Guardian/CJR project : “ We ’ ve learned that if you write a story about the ridiculousness of Trump ’ s latest tweet it gets a lot more traffic than an analysis of Elizabeth Warren ’ s Medicare-for-all plan .
I ’ m concerned that we are going to end up giving Trump more than the lion ’ s share of media time all the way up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the media landscape as we go into an epic election year is mixed .
The 30 top editors , executives and reporters reveal that : * Opinion polls .
Big changes are likely this year in the wake of the disastrous election night in 2016 when Trump ’ s victory took most pollsters by surprise .
Fewer outlets will make use of forecast models , which give probabilities of each candidate winning .
The technique spread confusion , not least when the New York Times opened election day in November 2016 by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % chance of winning .
* Horserace coverage .
Several editors said that they thought the horserace , where the election is covered by talking about who is up and who is down , had outlived its welcome .
“ Horserace coverage is dead , ” said Ben Smith , editor in chief of BuzzFeed News .
* Trump ’ s untruths .
Uncertainty still reigns over how to treat a president who appears to have no attachment to the truth .
By the Washington Post ’ s count , Trump has made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since he came to office .
Susan Page , Washington bureau chief for USA Today , said that the media has learned to be much more sophisticated in fact-checking Trump .
But Margaret Sullivan , media columnist for the Washington Post , pointed out that members of the president ’ s inner circle , such as White House counsel Kellyanne Conway , who have repeatedly made false claims are still being booked for the Sunday political TV shows .
“ The press is under assault and democracy is under assault right now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ ve come a ways , but I ’ m still not particularly positive about how we ’ re going to deal with 2020 , ” Sullivan said .
As BuzzFeed ’ s branding for its election coverage – “ the Stakes 2020 ” – indicates , much is riding on how the year unfolds .
It ’ s not just that the outcome of the election is seen as profoundly important for the future of a searingly divided nation .
For the media itself – denounced as “ fake news ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ CNN sucks !
” at Trump rallies – nothing less than public trust in fact-based journalism is in the balance .
“ I am very concerned that the truth is disappearing , that facts don ’ t matter anymore , that lies have such an important weight in our political life , ” said Jorge Ramos , anchor for the Spanish-language TV channel Univision .
With about 86,000 people employed in newsrooms across print , online , radio and TV according to Pew Research , the US has one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world .
But it is under intense stress , with 25 % of its workforce shed in the past decade , mainly in newspapers .
Other people worry about a repeat of the perceived failure in 2016 to report the views of millions of Americans living in the US heartlands .
One of the mysteries of Trump is how this real estate developer , whose home is a glitzy apartment on Manhattan ’ s Fifth Avenue , has managed to present himself as the champion of “ forgotten voters ” ignored by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the media veers towards the coast is founded on truth .
Pew Research shows that one in five newsroom employees live in just three cities – New York , Los Angeles and Washington .
Sarah Kendzior , a midwest-based journalist and author , was widely hailed for her coverage of the 2016 election .
She was one of few who successfully gauged the discontent of those who would go on to vote for Trump .
Kendzior warned the Guardian/CJR that news organizations were sleepwalking into the same trap .
“ I think the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as in 2016 .
The midwest has become the sort of stand-in region for what the national media think of as the forgotten voter.
” She added : “ What a lot of these coastal outlets are doing is basically parachuting in here with the narrative pre-written and trying to find people who fit their preconceptions of what people in the midwest are like.
” Many other faultlines were raised in the Guardian/CJR project .
Facebook continues to be awash with misinformation , including in political advertisements .
Young and Latino voters continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media prompting fears of repeated low turnouts among those groups .
All told , US newsrooms are braced for a bumpy ride this year .
As Smith put it : “ The media is totally prepared not to repeat the mistakes of the last cycle .
But I ’ m sure we ’ ll fuck it up in some new way we aren ’ t expecting .
”

Ed Pilkington and Adam Gabbatt in New York

The US media is facing daunting decisions as it enters the 2020 presidential election year including whether to amplify or muffle Donald Trump’s “digital bully pulpit” and his relentless stream of untruths as it seeks to avoid the calamitous mistakes of 2016, leading figures from the industry say.
The Guardian and the Columbia Journalism Review talked to 30 top editors, reporters, TV executives and commentators across the US. With the first poll of the Democratic nomination contest in Iowa just four weeks away, the issue of Trump’s domination of the 24-hour news cycle continues to disturb many media figures.
In the wake of Trump’s victory in November 2016, many commentators pointed to disproportionate and exhaustive coverage of his extreme comments and tweets as an important factor that skewed both the Republican primaries and the general election against Hillary Clinton. If anything, that pattern has intensified since then.
As Nancy Pelosi, the top Democrat in Congress, remarked last month, “I’ve said to many of my friends in the press, ‘You’re accomplices, whether you want to be or not’.”
Frank Bruni, a New York Times columnist who has written extensively on the dilemmas facing the media in 2020, told the Guardian/CJR project: “We’ve learned that if you write a story about the ridiculousness of Trump’s latest tweet it gets a lot more traffic than an analysis of Elizabeth Warren’s Medicare-for-all plan. I’m concerned that we are going to end up giving Trump more than the lion’s share of media time all the way up to election night.”
Bernie Sanders speaks to reporters in Concord, New Hampshire. Photograph: Elizabeth Frantz/Reuters
The picture painted of the media landscape as we go into an epic election year is mixed. The 30 top editors, executives and reporters reveal that:
* Opinion polls. Big changes are likely this year in the wake of the disastrous election night in 2016 when Trump’s victory took most pollsters by surprise. Fewer outlets will make use of forecast models, which give probabilities of each candidate winning. The technique spread confusion, not least when the New York Times opened election day in November 2016 by forecasting that Hillary Clinton had an 85% chance of winning.
* Horserace coverage. Several editors said that they thought the horserace, where the election is covered by talking about who is up and who is down, had outlived its welcome. “Horserace coverage is dead,” said Ben Smith, editor in chief of BuzzFeed News.
* Trump’s untruths. Uncertainty still reigns over how to treat a president who appears to have no attachment to the truth. By the Washington Post’s count, Trump has made more than 13,000 false or misleading claims since he came to office. Susan Page, Washington bureau chief for USA Today, said that the media has learned to be much more sophisticated in fact-checking Trump.
But Margaret Sullivan, media columnist for the Washington Post, pointed out that members of the president’s inner circle, such as White House counsel Kellyanne Conway, who have repeatedly made false claims are still being booked for the Sunday political TV shows.
“The press is under assault and democracy is under assault right now, and these two things are related. We’ve come a ways, but I’m still not particularly positive about how we’re going to deal with 2020,” Sullivan said.
Today in Focus Trump and the media: will 2020 be different? Sorry your browser does not support audio - but you can download here and listen $https://audio.guim.co.uk/2020/01/03-63134-200106TIF_USmediab.mp3 00:00:00 00:34:00
As BuzzFeed’s branding for its election coverage – “the Stakes 2020” – indicates, much is riding on how the year unfolds. It’s not just that the outcome of the election is seen as profoundly important for the future of a searingly divided nation.
For the media itself – denounced as “fake news” by conservative politicians and greeted with chants of “CNN sucks!” at Trump rallies – nothing less than public trust in fact-based journalism is in the balance. “I am very concerned that the truth is disappearing, that facts don’t matter anymore, that lies have such an important weight in our political life,” said Jorge Ramos, anchor for the Spanish-language TV channel Univision.
With about 86,000 people employed in newsrooms across print, online, radio and TV according to Pew Research, the US has one of the largest and most sophisticated news medias in the world. But it is under intense stress, with 25% of its workforce shed in the past decade, mainly in newspapers.
Other people worry about a repeat of the perceived failure in 2016 to report the views of millions of Americans living in the US heartlands. One of the mysteries of Trump is how this real estate developer, whose home is a glitzy apartment on Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue, has managed to present himself as the champion of “forgotten voters” ignored by coastal media elites.
His charge that the media veers towards the coast is founded on truth. Pew Research shows that one in five newsroom employees live in just three cities – New York, Los Angeles and Washington.
Sarah Kendzior, a midwest-based journalist and author, was widely hailed for her coverage of the 2016 election. She was one of few who successfully gauged the discontent of those who would go on to vote for Trump.
Kendzior warned the Guardian/CJR that news organizations were sleepwalking into the same trap. “I think the national media is making the same mistakes as in 2016. The midwest has become the sort of stand-in region for what the national media think of as the forgotten voter.”
She added: “What a lot of these coastal outlets are doing is basically parachuting in here with the narrative pre-written and trying to find people who fit their preconceptions of what people in the midwest are like.”
Many other faultlines were raised in the Guardian/CJR project. Facebook continues to be awash with misinformation, including in political advertisements. Young and Latino voters continue to be poorly served by the news media prompting fears of repeated low turnouts among those groups.
All told, US newsrooms are braced for a bumpy ride this year. As Smith put it: “The media is totally prepared not to repeat the mistakes of the last cycle. But I’m sure we’ll fuck it up in some new way we aren’t expecting.”


theguardian--2020-01-06--Why Michelle Williams is the real winner of this year's Golden Globes

Everyone knows that it ’ s not only what you win or who you wear that counts at an awards ceremony – it ’ s what you say .
And were there a prize for most inspiring speech at the Golden Globes , it would go straight into the hands of Michelle Williams .
Her award , for playing the magisterial but overlooked dancer and choreographer Gwen Verdon in the searching eight-part drama Fosse/Verdon , was entirely deserved .
It was what she said once she got up on stage , though , that really mattered .
In the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she appealed to women to vote in the forthcoming presidential election in their own self-interest .
“ It ’ s what men have been doing for years , ” she said .
The A-lister avoided a certain A-word , referring instead to the “ choices ” available to a woman in deciding when to have children and with whom .
Williams , who has a daughter by the late Heath Ledger and is currently expecting a child by the director Thomas Kail , expressed her gratitude “ to have lived in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because as women and as girls , things can happen to our bodies that are not our choice.
” It was a perfectly calibrated speech that avoided divisive words ( “ Trump ” was another one conspicuous by its absence ) and aimed instead at a sense of unity and fairness .
Backstage at the post-awards press conference a male journalist opened the questioning by casting a line in the forlorn hope that it might come back with the word “ abortion ” attached to the end of it .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specifically you may have been sharing , ” he told Williams , pressing her for “ clarity ” only to meet the cold , hard , brilliant brick wall of common sense : “ Um , no , I said it as I intended to , ” she said .
In other words : nice try , buster .
That Williams is a performer of uncommon intelligence and inventiveness will be news to no one .
If you were going by Oscar nominations alone , you would have to consider her complex studies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of marital trauma in Brokeback Mountain , Blue Valentine and Manchester By the Sea as well as her accomplished portrayal of Marilyn Monroe in the otherwise mediocre My Week With Marilyn .
Those with a mind to look beyond the approbation of awards bodies will find in her films with the director Kelly Reichardt ( Wendy and Lucy , Meek ’ s Cutoff , Certain Women ) yet more evidence to support the idea that she is the finest and most unshowy actor of her generation .
In the matter of becoming a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is just getting started .
At the Emmys in September , where she was also honoured for Fosse/Verdon , she chose pay parity rather than the erosion of reproductive rights as the focus of her speech .
Doubtless this was a subject that would have been dear to her heart even if she had not become an unwitting embodiment of the cause .
In 2017 it was revealed that her co-star in the thriller All the Money in the World , Mark Wahlberg , had trousered $ 1.5m for 11th-hour reshoots while she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( The insult was compounded by the fact that they were both represented by the same agency , William Morris Endeavor . )
When the scandal broke , it transformed that movie overnight into a lightning rod for not one but two of this century ’ s most pressing cultural conversations : # MeToo – the reshoots had been necessitated , after all , by the removal of Kevin Spacey from the film in the wake of historical accusations of sexual assault – and the gender pay gap .
It also turned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of institutional bias that can exist even in a supposedly liberal and progressive industry .
She doesn ’ t sound much like a victim now , though .
Hollywood made the mistake of underestimating her , even as it was showering her with accolades , but after her brace of galvanising speeches Williams is a champ not a chump .

Everyone knows that it’s not only what you win or who you wear that counts at an awards ceremony – it’s what you say. And were there a prize for most inspiring speech at the Golden Globes, it would go straight into the hands of Michelle Williams. Her award, for playing the magisterial but overlooked dancer and choreographer Gwen Verdon in the searching eight-part drama Fosse/Verdon, was entirely deserved. It was what she said once she got up on stage, though, that really mattered.
In the most acute and pointed speech of the evening, she appealed to women to vote in the forthcoming presidential election in their own self-interest. “It’s what men have been doing for years,” she said. The A-lister avoided a certain A-word, referring instead to the “choices” available to a woman in deciding when to have children and with whom. Williams, who has a daughter by the late Heath Ledger and is currently expecting a child by the director Thomas Kail, expressed her gratitude “to have lived in a moment in our society where choice exists, because as women and as girls, things can happen to our bodies that are not our choice.”
Michelle Williams accepts The Golden Globe for Best Actress in a Limited Series or TV Movie. #GoldenGlobes pic.twitter.com/afS9Hkuoky — NBC Entertainment (@nbc) January 6, 2020
It was a perfectly calibrated speech that avoided divisive words (“Trump” was another one conspicuous by its absence) and aimed instead at a sense of unity and fairness. Backstage at the post-awards press conference a male journalist opened the questioning by casting a line in the forlorn hope that it might come back with the word “abortion” attached to the end of it. “I think there was some confusion about what specifically you may have been sharing,” he told Williams, pressing her for “clarity” only to meet the cold, hard, brilliant brick wall of common sense: “Um, no, I said it as I intended to,” she said. In other words: nice try, buster.
That Williams is a performer of uncommon intelligence and inventiveness will be news to no one. If you were going by Oscar nominations alone, you would have to consider her complex studies of three women enduring very different species of marital trauma in Brokeback Mountain, Blue Valentine and Manchester By the Sea as well as her accomplished portrayal of Marilyn Monroe in the otherwise mediocre My Week With Marilyn. Those with a mind to look beyond the approbation of awards bodies will find in her films with the director Kelly Reichardt (Wendy and Lucy, Meek’s Cutoff, Certain Women) yet more evidence to support the idea that she is the finest and most unshowy actor of her generation. In the matter of becoming a spokesperson for change, however, she is just getting started.
At the Emmys in September, where she was also honoured for Fosse/Verdon, she chose pay parity rather than the erosion of reproductive rights as the focus of her speech. Doubtless this was a subject that would have been dear to her heart even if she had not become an unwitting embodiment of the cause. In 2017 it was revealed that her co-star in the thriller All the Money in the World, Mark Wahlberg, had trousered $1.5m for 11th-hour reshoots while she had been paid less than $1,000. (The insult was compounded by the fact that they were both represented by the same agency, William Morris Endeavor.)
When the scandal broke, it transformed that movie overnight into a lightning rod for not one but two of this century’s most pressing cultural conversations: #MeToo – the reshoots had been necessitated, after all, by the removal of Kevin Spacey from the film in the wake of historical accusations of sexual assault – and the gender pay gap. It also turned Williams into a walking symbol of the sort of institutional bias that can exist even in a supposedly liberal and progressive industry. She doesn’t sound much like a victim now, though. Hollywood made the mistake of underestimating her, even as it was showering her with accolades, but after her brace of galvanising speeches Williams is a champ not a chump.


theguardian--2020-01-06--After Julián Castro’s departure,  Latinx voters wonder: when will it be 'our time'? | Ed Morales

About a year ago , Julián Castro announced he was running for president in front of an adoring hometown West San Antonio crowd .
He was bursting with optimism that his campaign would serve “ the people ” , as well as solidify Latinx voters as a national political force .
On Thursday , his campaign released a video announcing Castro ’ s decision to withdraw as a Democratic presidential candidate .
The video began with footage of that same San Antonio event , only to conclude that he had “ determined it simply wasn ’ t our time.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t quite the right time for Castro , a 45-year-old former San Antonio mayor and Obama cabinet appointee , we ’ re left to wonder whether the message was actually that it ’ s not a Latinx candidate ’ s time , or even any candidate of color ’ s time , in a tumultuous campaign against a president that most Democrats consider a “ clear and present danger ” .
Castro ’ s departure leaves a Democratic field with only two candidates of color – New Jersey senator Cory Booker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to participate in December ’ s debate , and Andrew Yang , whose outsider campaign seems to have more to do with tech entrepreneurship and the appeal of universal basic income .
It is difficult not to see the departures of Castro and California senator Kamala Harris , as well as Booker ’ s struggle to stay in the race , as at least partly a product of the media ’ s lack of interest in candidates of color .
Predictably , many pundits have preferred to focus on whether the centrist candidacies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more likely to beat Trump than the leftist proposals of Warren and Sanders .
Castro and Booker have been further hurt by Democratic National Committee “ threshold ” rules that left them out of the recent debates .
The rules , which require candidates earn 4-5 % support in qualifying polls , as well as a minimum number of donations from a minimum number of states , seem to have discriminated against candidates of color who have a narrower base of support or a tougher run at fundraising .
Castro himself has criticized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the primary system that prioritizes mostly white states like Iowa and New Hampshire .
His criticism , shared by Booker , reveals the considerable irony that these rules have been presided over by Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez , who is Dominican-American and who defeated Pete Buttigieg to get the job .
Castro was also unable to gain traction by moving “ to the left ” .
Despite being branded as a “ Latino Obama ” , he attempted to take a more activist approach .
He successfully moved his fellow candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and he spoke frequently about police brutality against African Americans .
When he announced a plan to end hunger , he took the opportunity to argue that the political focus on the middle class came at the expense of poor Americans .
But Castro seemed to be hurt by his attacks on Joe Biden , which some saw as ageism , and the fact that his platform of identity politics and social class grievances didn ’ t fit into the debate between the center and left wings of the Democratic party .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15 minimum wage and tax increase on the rich didn ’ t distinguish him from Warren and Sanders .
As far as his attempt to command Latinx loyalty in the presidential race , his San Antonio narrative , though warm and fuzzy enough , did not transcend the problem of Latinx political regionalism .
It was a strong move to link the hate politics directed at both Mexican/Central American immigrants with the Trump administration ’ s neglect of Puerto Rico , but only somewhat resonant in perpetual swing-state Florida , still wildly in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Latinx constituencies .
In his 2018 review of my book , Latinx : The New Force in American Politics and Culture , Castro riffed on whether , in the eyes of America , Chicanos , and by extension Latinx , “ even exist ” .
His campaign ’ s unfortunate end reveals how America ’ s inability to recognize or understand Latinx people , or the value of a Latinx candidate , persists .
Candidate Castro tried to forge a modified identity politics that was seemingly overwhelmed by the rapidly accelerating struggle between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the uncertain future of the Democratic party .
He might have had made more of a splash if he had gone full-bore Ocasio-Cortez and tried to usurp some of Sanders ’ /Warren ’ s support , but , lacking her improbable fusion of millennials and working-class people of color , he couldn ’ t quite form a viable coalition .
When Castro , some new Latinx or minority rising star , or perhaps Ocasio-Cortez can successfully do that , then maybe it will finally be “ our time ” .
• None Ed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ author of Latinx : The New Force in American Politics and Culture

About a year ago, Julián Castro announced he was running for president in front of an adoring hometown West San Antonio crowd. He was bursting with optimism that his campaign would serve “the people”, as well as solidify Latinx voters as a national political force.
On Thursday, his campaign released a video announcing Castro’s decision to withdraw as a Democratic presidential candidate. The video began with footage of that same San Antonio event, only to conclude that he had “determined it simply wasn’t our time.” While it’s possible that it isn’t quite the right time for Castro, a 45-year-old former San Antonio mayor and Obama cabinet appointee, we’re left to wonder whether the message was actually that it’s not a Latinx candidate’s time, or even any candidate of color’s time, in a tumultuous campaign against a president that most Democrats consider a “clear and present danger”.
Castro’s departure leaves a Democratic field with only two candidates of color – New Jersey senator Cory Booker, who wasn’t even allowed to participate in December’s debate, and Andrew Yang, whose outsider campaign seems to have more to do with tech entrepreneurship and the appeal of universal basic income.
It is difficult not to see the departures of Castro and California senator Kamala Harris, as well as Booker’s struggle to stay in the race, as at least partly a product of the media’s lack of interest in candidates of color. Predictably, many pundits have preferred to focus on whether the centrist candidacies of Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg are more likely to beat Trump than the leftist proposals of Warren and Sanders.
Castro and Booker have been further hurt by Democratic National Committee “threshold” rules that left them out of the recent debates. The rules, which require candidates earn 4-5% support in qualifying polls, as well as a minimum number of donations from a minimum number of states, seem to have discriminated against candidates of color who have a narrower base of support or a tougher run at fundraising.
His campaign’s unfortunate end reveals how America’s inability to recognize or understand Latinx people, or the value of a Latinx candidate, persists
Castro himself has criticized the threshold rules, as well as the primary system that prioritizes mostly white states like Iowa and New Hampshire. His criticism, shared by Booker, reveals the considerable irony that these rules have been presided over by Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez, who is Dominican-American and who defeated Pete Buttigieg to get the job.
Castro was also unable to gain traction by moving “to the left”. Despite being branded as a “Latino Obama”, he attempted to take a more activist approach. He successfully moved his fellow candidates to his proposal to decriminalize border crossings, and he spoke frequently about police brutality against African Americans. When he announced a plan to end hunger, he took the opportunity to argue that the political focus on the middle class came at the expense of poor Americans.
But Castro seemed to be hurt by his attacks on Joe Biden, which some saw as ageism, and the fact that his platform of identity politics and social class grievances didn’t fit into the debate between the center and left wings of the Democratic party. Also, his support of a $15 minimum wage and tax increase on the rich didn’t distinguish him from Warren and Sanders.
As far as his attempt to command Latinx loyalty in the presidential race, his San Antonio narrative, though warm and fuzzy enough, did not transcend the problem of Latinx political regionalism. It was a strong move to link the hate politics directed at both Mexican/Central American immigrants with the Trump administration’s neglect of Puerto Rico, but only somewhat resonant in perpetual swing-state Florida, still wildly in flux between Cuban/Venezuelan anti-communists and more moderate Latinx constituencies.
In his 2018 review of my book, Latinx: The New Force in American Politics and Culture, Castro riffed on whether, in the eyes of America, Chicanos, and by extension Latinx, “even exist”. His campaign’s unfortunate end reveals how America’s inability to recognize or understand Latinx people, or the value of a Latinx candidate, persists.
Candidate Castro tried to forge a modified identity politics that was seemingly overwhelmed by the rapidly accelerating struggle between Trump’s white nationalist/tax-cutting Republicanism and the uncertain future of the Democratic party. He might have had made more of a splash if he had gone full-bore Ocasio-Cortez and tried to usurp some of Sanders’/Warren’s support, but, lacking her improbable fusion of millennials and working-class people of color, he couldn’t quite form a viable coalition.
When Castro, some new Latinx or minority rising star, or perhaps Ocasio-Cortez can successfully do that, then maybe it will finally be “our time”.


theguardian--2020-01-06--Even after Iraq, too many US elites still think war is a bloodless chess game | Moustafa Bayoumi

Donald Trump may act like a schoolyard bully and an impetuous infant , but he is not the only one to blame for recklessly bringing the world closer to a catastrophic war .
While the responsibility for approving the assassination of Qassem Suleimani , Iran ’ s top general , in a drone strike near Baghdad international airport is certainly his , Trump ’ s actions would not have been possible without the deep infrastructure for war that lies at the core of the American political system , especially since 2001 .
After the “ War on Terror ” began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deeply militarized country – essentially abdicated public deliberations of war and peace when Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force ( AUMF ) .
The executive branch has been invoking the AUMF for almost two decades as its primary legal basis for military operations around the world .
Put another way , war isn ’ t hell .
War is mundane .
We ’ ve already arrived at the point when even the Senate armed services committee couldn ’ t tell you who , precisely , the United States is at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ episode of the show Radiolab made clear .
This corrosive lack of transparency recently led a bipartisan group of lawmakers to add language to the National Defense Authorization Act ( NDAA ) , the annual defense budget bill , that would have required Trump to get Congress ’ s approval before striking Iran .
That bill failed in the Senate , which Trump will no doubt interpret as freeing his hand even more when it comes to war with Iran .
As Representative Ro Khanna tweeted , “ Any member who voted for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t now express dismay that Trump may have launched another war in the Middle East.
” I hear the objections to this point already : Trump is so lawless , some will probably say , that none of this legal parsing matters much .
But it ’ s this legal infrastructure of waging war – notably assassination by drone – that makes Trump ’ s actions possible in the first place .
And that drone program was legally expanded and entrenched by none other than Barack Obama .
Considerable responsibility lies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic establishment who continued the march toward today ’ s manifestation of the imperial presidency , which itself began under George W Bush .
And , of course , Iran would not even be a powerbroker in Iraq if Bush and his administration had not overseen what is one of the largest crimes against humanity of our time : namely , the invasion , occupation , and destruction of Iraq .
With over a million of their people dead , their country in ruins , and corruption rampant , the Iraqi people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Over the past months Iraqis had been peacefully rising up to protest the sectarianism of their political system and lack of opportunity to improve their lives , only to be viciously gunned down by their own government .
Stuck precariously in an escalating proxy battle between Iran and the United States , their fate is bound to get worse .
But the struggles of the Iraqi people will remain largely invisible to the American public because we like our wars to be uncomplicated , to be caricatures of war , to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guys , between cowboys and Indians .
And make no mistake .
Muslim are today ’ s Indians .
This all leads to a media fascination with war that is dreadfully simplistic and sometime almost gleeful .
The cheerleading the American media radiates when discussing US military maneuvers would disturb Americans if such joy were expressed by any other country , yet it continues without self-reflection .
And January 2020 feels like the return of 2003 .
Following the assassination of Suleimani , Fox News had on Ari Fleischer and Karl Rove , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iraq .
CNN interviewed Max Boot , a loud supporter of the 2003 Iraq invasion , and CNBC published an op-ed titled America just took out the world ’ s No .
1 bad guy .
In the media and political ecology of the United States , war isn ’ t a catastrophe of inhuman proportions .
War is a parlor game .
There is no doubt that the Iranian regime carries out a merciless foreign policy across the Middle East .
Suleimani won ’ t be missed by many – especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assad regime ’ s bloody prosecution of the Syrian civil war – but he will soon be replaced .
The irony – or is it more of a tragedy ?
– is that until this assassination there were budding signs of possible thaws and shifts in the region .
Iran and Saudi Arabia were engaged in peace talks in Pakistan , and while the talks hadn ’ t yet yielded a positive outcome , they had been putting pressure on both Iran and Saudi Arabia to hash out a shared vision for Yemen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , some of the largest anti-government protests Iran has seen in years also took place .
All of this will probably now evaporate .
I worry for what comes next and I already lament the unnecessary deaths , from all sides , that will inevitably come .
But , in the United States at least , nothing will change as long as our culture worships war without its consequences and as long as our politicians believe that war is good for their careers .
“ In order to get elected , # @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” tweeted citizen Donald Trump in November of 2011 .
Today , people are laughing in smug disgust at his duplicitous comment .
But this isn ’ t only about Trump .
It ’ s about the deep infrastructure and logic of war that pervades American culture and the US political establishment .
And it ’ s about the need for that to change .
• None Moustafa Bayoumi is the author of the award-winning books How Does It Feel To Be a Problem ?
: Being Young and Arab in America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the War on Terror .
He is professor of English at Brooklyn College , City University of New York

Donald Trump may act like a schoolyard bully and an impetuous infant, but he is not the only one to blame for recklessly bringing the world closer to a catastrophic war. While the responsibility for approving the assassination of Qassem Suleimani, Iran’s top general, in a drone strike near Baghdad international airport is certainly his, Trump’s actions would not have been possible without the deep infrastructure for war that lies at the core of the American political system, especially since 2001.
After the “War on Terror” began, the United States – already a deeply militarized country – essentially abdicated public deliberations of war and peace when Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). The executive branch has been invoking the AUMF for almost two decades as its primary legal basis for military operations around the world.
Put another way, war isn’t hell. War is mundane.
We’ve already arrived at the point when even the Senate armed services committee couldn’t tell you who, precisely, the United States is at war with, as a must-hear 2014 episode of the show Radiolab made clear.
This corrosive lack of transparency recently led a bipartisan group of lawmakers to add language to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the annual defense budget bill, that would have required Trump to get Congress’s approval before striking Iran. That bill failed in the Senate, which Trump will no doubt interpret as freeing his hand even more when it comes to war with Iran.
As Representative Ro Khanna tweeted, “Any member who voted for the NDAA – a blank check – can’t now express dismay that Trump may have launched another war in the Middle East.”
I hear the objections to this point already: Trump is so lawless, some will probably say, that none of this legal parsing matters much. But it’s this legal infrastructure of waging war – notably assassination by drone – that makes Trump’s actions possible in the first place. And that drone program was legally expanded and entrenched by none other than Barack Obama. Considerable responsibility lies with Obama and all those within the Democratic establishment who continued the march toward today’s manifestation of the imperial presidency, which itself began under George W Bush.
And, of course, Iran would not even be a powerbroker in Iraq if Bush and his administration had not overseen what is one of the largest crimes against humanity of our time: namely, the invasion, occupation, and destruction of Iraq. With over a million of their people dead, their country in ruins, and corruption rampant, the Iraqi people are the unheralded victims of the recent strike.
Over the past months Iraqis had been peacefully rising up to protest the sectarianism of their political system and lack of opportunity to improve their lives, only to be viciously gunned down by their own government. Stuck precariously in an escalating proxy battle between Iran and the United States, their fate is bound to get worse.
But the struggles of the Iraqi people will remain largely invisible to the American public because we like our wars to be uncomplicated, to be caricatures of war, to be wars between identifiable good guys and bad guys, between cowboys and Indians. And make no mistake. Muslim are today’s Indians.
This all leads to a media fascination with war that is dreadfully simplistic and sometime almost gleeful. The cheerleading the American media radiates when discussing US military maneuvers would disturb Americans if such joy were expressed by any other country, yet it continues without self-reflection. And January 2020 feels like the return of 2003.
Following the assassination of Suleimani, Fox News had on Ari Fleischer and Karl Rove, as if the Bush administration were still in Iraq. CNN interviewed Max Boot, a loud supporter of the 2003 Iraq invasion, and CNBC published an op-ed titled America just took out the world’s No. 1 bad guy.
In the media and political ecology of the United States, war isn’t a catastrophe of inhuman proportions. War is a parlor game.
There is no doubt that the Iranian regime carries out a merciless foreign policy across the Middle East. Suleimani won’t be missed by many – especially in Syria, where he assisted the Assad regime’s bloody prosecution of the Syrian civil war – but he will soon be replaced.
The irony – or is it more of a tragedy? – is that until this assassination there were budding signs of possible thaws and shifts in the region. Iran and Saudi Arabia were engaged in peace talks in Pakistan, and while the talks hadn’t yet yielded a positive outcome, they had been putting pressure on both Iran and Saudi Arabia to hash out a shared vision for Yemen’s future. At the same time, some of the largest anti-government protests Iran has seen in years also took place. All of this will probably now evaporate.
I worry for what comes next and I already lament the unnecessary deaths, from all sides, that will inevitably come. But, in the United States at least, nothing will change as long as our culture worships war without its consequences and as long as our politicians believe that war is good for their careers.
“In order to get elected, #BarackObama will start a war with Iran,” tweeted citizen Donald Trump in November of 2011. Today, people are laughing in smug disgust at his duplicitous comment. But this isn’t only about Trump. It’s about the deep infrastructure and logic of war that pervades American culture and the US political establishment. And it’s about the need for that to change.


theguardian--2020-01-05--'The best chance we have to elect a real progressive since FDR’: On the phone with Elizabeth Warren

'The best chance we have to elect a real progressive since FDR’: On the phone with Elizabeth Warren | Art Cullen

The cellphone declared “ No Caller ID ” but I answered on the off chance it wasn ’ t a vehicle warranty robocall .
“ Hi .
This is Elizabeth Warren , ” the unmistakable voice on the other end hailed .
This was no recording .
The senator from Massachusetts dialed up Iowa just a month before the 3 February lead-off caucuses , while campaigning in New Hampshire on Thursday .
She is known for ringing local politicians , activists or voters she has bumped into on the trail .
She called us to thank the Storm Lake Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editor , for endorsing her as the leading candidate of an impressive Democratic field , the first newspaper endorsement of the 2020 Iowa caucus cycle .
We chose her because she talks that old-time New Deal religion in a way that can perhaps help save struggling places like rural Iowa ; Flint , Michigan ; and West Virginia .
Many pundits have left her for dead since a slump from the top of Iowa this summer , following months of withering attack from her rivals and Wall Streeters terrified by her populism .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I love the response I ’ m getting , ” said Warren , who had just spoken to a packed room of 350 in Concord , New Hampshire .
She was railing against a nation in servitude to corporations that she argues sucks the life out of working America .
“ We have these core questions about what kind of nation we want to be , ” she said .
“ But sometimes I feel like I ’ m in an alternate universe .
We face these monumental issues that nobody is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the soundbite game .
It ’ s frightening.
” Warren wasn ’ t naming names , just riffing on her progressive themes so you can fill in the blanks .
The Vermont senator Bernie Sanders could argue that he is addressing those same themes .
At some point , there has to be a reckoning between Warren and Sanders for the progressive wing .
Sanders ’ s support remains rock-solid .
He may be leading in New Hampshire , and anyone might be leading in Iowa right now .
I asked Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Dubuque , a union man who brooks nobody but Sanders .
Warren mustered no direct answer but offered an appeal .
“ C ’ mon guys , this is the best chance we have to elect a real progressive since FDR , ” Warren replied .
That might be the strongest statement she has made about Sanders .
So far they have played each other by YMCA rules ( no sharp elbows ) .
She relishes parrying former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg , who has bypassed the early states with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is short-circuiting democracy , ” she said , by not pressing the flesh and witnessing first-hand the decline in so many pockets of the nation .
Her only reflection about the rest of the field was a general rue that they are not bold enough for the moment .
Warren launched her campaign in rural Iowa last January with a visit to Storm Lake , a small county seat which she said reminded her of her birthplace in Wetumka , Oklahoma ( population 1,700 ) .
She lamented that the town has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prompted her to launch into an indictment of the Reagan revolution , which she considers at the core of America ’ s structural economic ills .
“ In a sense , the decline of rural America is a logical conclusion of trickle-down economics , ” she said .
“ If childcare dollars followed babies , if we could keep that community hospital open , if we could cancel student loan debt , think what a different place it would be .
But this is what happens to our country when all the value @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she just might close her Iowa campaign where she started it , in Storm Lake and Sioux City , the most conservative and rural north-west quadrant of the Tall Corn state .
Warren had launched her campaign by declaring that she was going after every voter no matter where , and her rural outreach has been impressive in its breadth and detail .
She remains confident that hers is a superior organizing network in the first state , rivaled by the former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg , and believes that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And , she defended Iowa and New Hampshire ’ s placement at the front of the nominating process because they force candidates into retail politics , and answering detailed questions .
“ It ’ s democracy , ” she said , “ and that ’ s how I measure it .
I am plugging holes in democracy every day.
” She noted that a man who just lost his job gave her $ 2 in New Hampshire .
“ That means a lot .
Think about it , ” Warren said .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next phone call in the harried dash for every last vote , and on to the next stop for selfies by the hundreds .
It ’ s that sort of retail touch that can make the difference among a field so fluid .
• None Art Cullen is the editor of the Storm Lake Times in north-west Iowa , where he won the Pulitzer prize for editorial writing .
He is a columnist for Guardian US , and is author of the book Storm Lake : Change , Resilience and Hope in America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paperback this month from Penguin

The cellphone declared “No Caller ID” but I answered on the off chance it wasn’t a vehicle warranty robocall.
“Hi. This is Elizabeth Warren,” the unmistakable voice on the other end hailed. This was no recording.
The senator from Massachusetts dialed up Iowa just a month before the 3 February lead-off caucuses, while campaigning in New Hampshire on Thursday.
She is known for ringing local politicians, activists or voters she has bumped into on the trail. She called us to thank the Storm Lake Times, the Iowa newspaper where I am editor, for endorsing her as the leading candidate of an impressive Democratic field, the first newspaper endorsement of the 2020 Iowa caucus cycle. We chose her because she talks that old-time New Deal religion in a way that can perhaps help save struggling places like rural Iowa; Flint, Michigan; and West Virginia.
Many pundits have left her for dead since a slump from the top of Iowa this summer, following months of withering attack from her rivals and Wall Streeters terrified by her populism. She sounded chipper on the phone.
“I love the response I’m getting,” said Warren, who had just spoken to a packed room of 350 in Concord, New Hampshire. She was railing against a nation in servitude to corporations that she argues sucks the life out of working America.
“We have these core questions about what kind of nation we want to be,” she said. “But sometimes I feel like I’m in an alternate universe. We face these monumental issues that nobody is even prepared to address. Everybody is in the soundbite game. It’s frightening.”
Warren wasn’t naming names, just riffing on her progressive themes so you can fill in the blanks.
The Vermont senator Bernie Sanders could argue that he is addressing those same themes. At some point, there has to be a reckoning between Warren and Sanders for the progressive wing. Sanders’s support remains rock-solid. He may be leading in New Hampshire, and anyone might be leading in Iowa right now. I asked Warren how she could reel in my brother in Dubuque, a union man who brooks nobody but Sanders.
Warren mustered no direct answer but offered an appeal.
“C’mon guys, this is the best chance we have to elect a real progressive since FDR,” Warren replied.
That might be the strongest statement she has made about Sanders. So far they have played each other by YMCA rules (no sharp elbows). She relishes parrying former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has bypassed the early states with a nationwide TV ad blitz. “He is short-circuiting democracy,” she said, by not pressing the flesh and witnessing first-hand the decline in so many pockets of the nation. Her only reflection about the rest of the field was a general rue that they are not bold enough for the moment.
Warren launched her campaign in rural Iowa last January with a visit to Storm Lake, a small county seat which she said reminded her of her birthplace in Wetumka, Oklahoma (population 1,700). She lamented that the town has been drying up through the years. This prompted her to launch into an indictment of the Reagan revolution, which she considers at the core of America’s structural economic ills.
“In a sense, the decline of rural America is a logical conclusion of trickle-down economics,” she said. “If childcare dollars followed babies, if we could keep that community hospital open, if we could cancel student loan debt, think what a different place it would be. But this is what happens to our country when all the value goes to the top.”
She offered that she just might close her Iowa campaign where she started it, in Storm Lake and Sioux City, the most conservative and rural north-west quadrant of the Tall Corn state. Warren had launched her campaign by declaring that she was going after every voter no matter where, and her rural outreach has been impressive in its breadth and detail.
She remains confident that hers is a superior organizing network in the first state, rivaled by the former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg, and believes that will spell the difference in the caucuses. And, she defended Iowa and New Hampshire’s placement at the front of the nominating process because they force candidates into retail politics, and answering detailed questions.
“It’s democracy,” she said, “and that’s how I measure it. I am plugging holes in democracy every day.”
She noted that a man who just lost his job gave her $2 in New Hampshire.
“That means a lot. Think about it,” Warren said.
After 20 minutes she was off to her next phone call in the harried dash for every last vote, and on to the next stop for selfies by the hundreds. It’s that sort of retail touch that can make the difference among a field so fluid.


theguardian--2020-01-04--Klobuchar gains momentum in Iowa – but can a centrist hope to win there?

Craig Hiller , an Iowa farmer , had just enjoyed a hot chocolate on Amy Klobuchar ’ s campaign bus as it made a stop in the small town of Rockwell City , population just 2,100 .
Hiller , whose state is the vital first one to cast ballots in the party ’ s nomination race to pick an opponent to Donald Trump , was impressed by the Minnesota senator , a fellow midwesterner who desperately needs a strong showing in Iowa to boost her 2020 presidential campaign .
“ Who we need is someone who someone who ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can hate , ” Hiller said on Rockwell City ’ s Main Street as Klobuchar ’ s bus rolled to its next stop in Cherokee county , 50 miles west .
“ I don ’ t know anyone after tonight who fits that better than Amy Klobuchar.
” That sort of reaction is music to Klobuchar ’ s ears as she carried out a gruelling tour through 27 counties in rural Iowa in an attempt to build a groundswell of support through reaching out to the state ’ s smallest towns and rural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a couple dozen attendees counts as a success .
On her arrival in Rockwell – with temperatures below freezing – 25 people including Hiller had piled aboard the big green Amy bus for hot chocolate .
Two dozen others had turned out to see the Minnesota senator in tiny Ida Grove that same day , a county that doesn ’ t even have 1,000 registered Democrats .
But most striking to Klobuchar was a crowd of around 50 packing the Sac County Cattle Company on a Sunday night just before Christmas .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ King , who hails from Kiron , 30 miles south , stumps and dines with family .
The proprietor said Klobuchar ’ s crowds were at least the size of King ’ s , or any other Republican who has come calling .
Klobuchar said those gatherings are a sign of what to expect on Iowa ’ s caucus day on 3 February .
Klobuchar sits at about 6 % support among probable Iowa caucusgoers , according to the most recent Des Moines Register Iowa poll in October , but a strong debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She says it ’ s evidence of momentum , just like the folks coming out to see her in increasing numbers .
“ We ’ re approaching this like we can win , and all signs are pointing in the right direction , ” Klobuchar told the Guardian .
“ A crowd that size in Sac City , anywhere in rural America , means something .
I ’ m especially glad it ’ s in Steve King ’ s backyard.
” Klobuchar is blunt about her shared background with Iowa ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the midwest , and how she can win in rural Minnesota counties that Trump took by 20 points .
In the last Democratic debate she took a dig at the location of a rival ’ s fundraiser by saying she ’ s never been to a wine cave , but she ’ s been to a wind cave in South Dakota .
A mention of Trump is usually followed with a mention of the tanking of corn and soybean prices from trade wars .
Her entire argument is built around electability in midwest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Michigan and Ohio .
“ He ’ s treating farmers like poker chips in one of his bankrupt casinos , ” she said to the delight of her audience at one stop .
By contrast , she says she remembers her neighbors saving spare cash in coffee cans growing up .
The question is whether her momentum , which is mainly confined to Iowa , is too little too late .
In less than six weeks , caucusgoers will trudge through a frigid night to precinct meetings in schoolhouses and courthouses – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s impeachment trial in the US Senate , which is set to start sometime in January and last for an unknown time .
“ To say it ’ s an uphill battle would definitely be accurate , even charitable , ” said Brad Best , a longtime caucus observer and political science professor at Buena Vista University in Storm Lake .
“ In an ironic way , her stardom in the Senate will hurt her campaigning in Iowa , where she desperately needs to do well.
” Yet , there are precedents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2004 less than two weeks before the caucuses to win , and later secure the nomination .
Klobuchar says a doubling of office spaces in Iowa and positive responses in Des Moines Register/CNN Iowa polls are signs of hope .
Best says her strongest advantage is that overwhelming majorities of probable caucusgoers have favorable opinions of her and list her in their top three selections .
“ I ’ d say I know Iowans pretty well , and they really like honesty , which is what we aren ’ t seeing from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Klobuchar said , citing the 39 counties in Iowa that voted for Trump in 2016 and Barack Obama in 2008 .
She says people there have a thirst for economic prosperity that can be achieved realistically , not with promises like Medicare for All .
She never mentions challengers from the progressive wing by name .
“ We can win them back telling the truth .
We can bring those people back.
” Congressional candidate JD Scholten , a Sioux City Democrat running against King , likes Klobuchar ’ s strategy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capped off a 39-county bus tour of western Iowa in a camper .
Scholten said voters in rural areas like Sac City and Rockwell City are easier to organize than in Democratic metro strongholds such as Des Moines or Iowa City .
Those who show up in Rockwell City are reliably Democratic and less issue-focused .
Rarely do they see a candidate with Klobuchar ’ s resume .
When they do , they leave with a strong impression .
“ It ’ s a lot easier to get viability in Sac county than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ She recognizes that people are familiar with her .
Sac City isn ’ t a long way from the Iowa-Minnesota border.
” Those who hear Klobuchar ’ s message like her focus on the midwest .
After the Sac City event , one farmer – who declined to offer his name because his landlord is Republican – said Klobuchar ’ s retelling of family stories from the iron ore mines and farms of northern Minnesota struck him as authentic .
“ It ’ s not a story she picked up from somewhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tell she ’ s from here , she ’ s one of us who faces the same problems we do , ” he said .

Craig Hiller, an Iowa farmer, had just enjoyed a hot chocolate on Amy Klobuchar’s campaign bus as it made a stop in the small town of Rockwell City, population just 2,100.
Hiller, whose state is the vital first one to cast ballots in the party’s nomination race to pick an opponent to Donald Trump, was impressed by the Minnesota senator, a fellow midwesterner who desperately needs a strong showing in Iowa to boost her 2020 presidential campaign.
“Who we need is someone who someone who’s down to earth, who no one can hate,” Hiller said on Rockwell City’s Main Street as Klobuchar’s bus rolled to its next stop in Cherokee county, 50 miles west. “I don’t know anyone after tonight who fits that better than Amy Klobuchar.”
That sort of reaction is music to Klobuchar’s ears as she carried out a gruelling tour through 27 counties in rural Iowa in an attempt to build a groundswell of support through reaching out to the state’s smallest towns and rural settlements. With this strategy, even a couple dozen attendees counts as a success.
Amy Klobuchar on her bus in Iowa. Photograph: Tom Cullen/Storm Lake Times
On her arrival in Rockwell – with temperatures below freezing – 25 people including Hiller had piled aboard the big green Amy bus for hot chocolate. Two dozen others had turned out to see the Minnesota senator in tiny Ida Grove that same day, a county that doesn’t even have 1,000 registered Democrats. But most striking to Klobuchar was a crowd of around 50 packing the Sac County Cattle Company on a Sunday night just before Christmas. It’s where the Republican congressman Steve King, who hails from Kiron, 30 miles south, stumps and dines with family. The proprietor said Klobuchar’s crowds were at least the size of King’s, or any other Republican who has come calling.
We’re approaching this like we can win, and all signs are pointing in the right direction Amy Klobuchar
Klobuchar said those gatherings are a sign of what to expect on Iowa’s caucus day on 3 February. Klobuchar sits at about 6% support among probable Iowa caucusgoers, according to the most recent Des Moines Register Iowa poll in October, but a strong debate showing in Los Angeles brought her notice. She says it’s evidence of momentum, just like the folks coming out to see her in increasing numbers.
“We’re approaching this like we can win, and all signs are pointing in the right direction,” Klobuchar told the Guardian. “A crowd that size in Sac City, anywhere in rural America, means something. I’m especially glad it’s in Steve King’s backyard.”
Klobuchar is blunt about her shared background with Iowa’s voters. She brags about being from the midwest, and how she can win in rural Minnesota counties that Trump took by 20 points. In the last Democratic debate she took a dig at the location of a rival’s fundraiser by saying she’s never been to a wine cave, but she’s been to a wind cave in South Dakota. A mention of Trump is usually followed with a mention of the tanking of corn and soybean prices from trade wars. Her entire argument is built around electability in midwest swing states such as Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan and Ohio.
“He’s treating farmers like poker chips in one of his bankrupt casinos,” she said to the delight of her audience at one stop. By contrast, she says she remembers her neighbors saving spare cash in coffee cans growing up.
Amy Klobuchar laughs during her introduction at the Marion county Democrats soup luncheon in Knoxville, Iowa, on 17 February 2019. Photograph: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg via Getty Images
The question is whether her momentum, which is mainly confined to Iowa, is too little too late. In less than six weeks, caucusgoers will trudge through a frigid night to precinct meetings in schoolhouses and courthouses – while she may be chained to Trump’s impeachment trial in the US Senate, which is set to start sometime in January and last for an unknown time.
“To say it’s an uphill battle would definitely be accurate, even charitable,” said Brad Best, a longtime caucus observer and political science professor at Buena Vista University in Storm Lake. “In an ironic way, her stardom in the Senate will hurt her campaigning in Iowa, where she desperately needs to do well.”
Yet, there are precedents. John Kerry came from the shadows in 2004 less than two weeks before the caucuses to win, and later secure the nomination. Klobuchar says a doubling of office spaces in Iowa and positive responses in Des Moines Register/CNN Iowa polls are signs of hope. Best says her strongest advantage is that overwhelming majorities of probable caucusgoers have favorable opinions of her and list her in their top three selections.
“I’d say I know Iowans pretty well, and they really like honesty, which is what we aren’t seeing from the man in the White House,” Klobuchar said, citing the 39 counties in Iowa that voted for Trump in 2016 and Barack Obama in 2008.
She says people there have a thirst for economic prosperity that can be achieved realistically, not with promises like Medicare for All. She never mentions challengers from the progressive wing by name. “We can win them back telling the truth. We can bring those people back.”
Amy Klobuchar greets people during a campaign stop in Estherville, Iowa, on 27 December 2019. Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Congressional candidate JD Scholten, a Sioux City Democrat running against King, likes Klobuchar’s strategy of dwelling on rural voters. He just capped off a 39-county bus tour of western Iowa in a camper.
Scholten said voters in rural areas like Sac City and Rockwell City are easier to organize than in Democratic metro strongholds such as Des Moines or Iowa City. Those who show up in Rockwell City are reliably Democratic and less issue-focused. Rarely do they see a candidate with Klobuchar’s resume. When they do, they leave with a strong impression.
“It’s a lot easier to get viability in Sac county than Polk county,” said Scholten. “She recognizes that people are familiar with her. Sac City isn’t a long way from the Iowa-Minnesota border.”
Those who hear Klobuchar’s message like her focus on the midwest. After the Sac City event, one farmer – who declined to offer his name because his landlord is Republican – said Klobuchar’s retelling of family stories from the iron ore mines and farms of northern Minnesota struck him as authentic.
“It’s not a story she picked up from somewhere. It’s one you can tell she’s from here, she’s one of us who faces the same problems we do,” he said.


theguardian--2020-01-04--Rally round the flag: do wars boost presidential popularity? | Mona Chalabi

Donald Trump ordered a drone strike on Friday that killed the second most powerful man in Iran .
The decision to kill Qassem Suleimani was made without the approval of Congress and has been widely condemned by Democrats and international experts as a reckless act that will move the US closer to yet another conflict in the Middle East .
Why do it , then ?
With a general election less than a year away , some have speculated that there may be some political calculus at work .
Trump ’ s popularity is surprisingly steady ( even his impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) but is also consistently low .
Trump is the least popular US president since at least Harry Truman .
But wars ?
Well , wars can be great for presidential popularity .
In 1970 , the political scientist John Mueller described a “ rally round the flag effect ” where presidents are able to reduce criticism of government policies by making dramatic decisions such as big diplomatic decisions or sudden military interventions .
Mueller used three clear criteria to to define a “ rally round the flag ” decision : • None @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president directly .
• None It is “ specific , dramatic and sharply focused ” .
More recently , researchers have found just how effective this strategy can be .
In a 2015 study , Daniel Stevens examined how the 2003 invasion of Iraq had given George W Bush a sudden boost in support .
Stevens adds that the effect depends on whether the politician heads a rightwing or leftwing government .
For example , the decision to invade Iraq had a less desirable effect on the popularity of Tony Blair in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s boost in presidential approval was just a couple of percentage points when the Vietnam war escalated .
The illustration above compares four US presidents who have presided over four recent US conflicts .
For consistency of comparison , all data is taken from Gallup polling .
Of course , presidential popularity alone doesn ’ t always determine electoral outcomes .
There ’ s evidence that in democracies , during wartime , voter turnout increases but doesn ’ t necessarily have a large partisan effect .

Donald Trump ordered a drone strike on Friday that killed the second most powerful man in Iran.
The decision to kill Qassem Suleimani was made without the approval of Congress and has been widely condemned by Democrats and international experts as a reckless act that will move the US closer to yet another conflict in the Middle East.
Why do it, then? With a general election less than a year away, some have speculated that there may be some political calculus at work. Trump’s popularity is surprisingly steady (even his impeachment in December 2019 barely dented his numbers) but is also consistently low. Trump is the least popular US president since at least Harry Truman.
But wars? Well, wars can be great for presidential popularity. In 1970, the political scientist John Mueller described a “rally round the flag effect” where presidents are able to reduce criticism of government policies by making dramatic decisions such as big diplomatic decisions or sudden military interventions. Mueller used three clear criteria to to define a “rally round the flag” decision:
The move is international.
It involves the United States and particularly the president directly.
It is “specific, dramatic and sharply focused”.
More recently, researchers have found just how effective this strategy can be. In a 2015 study, Daniel Stevens examined how the 2003 invasion of Iraq had given George W Bush a sudden boost in support.
Stevens adds that the effect depends on whether the politician heads a rightwing or leftwing government. For example, the decision to invade Iraq had a less desirable effect on the popularity of Tony Blair in Britain. Similarly, Lyndon B Johnson’s boost in presidential approval was just a couple of percentage points when the Vietnam war escalated.
The illustration above compares four US presidents who have presided over four recent US conflicts. For consistency of comparison, all data is taken from Gallup polling.
Of course, presidential popularity alone doesn’t always determine electoral outcomes. There’s evidence that in democracies, during wartime, voter turnout increases but doesn’t necessarily have a large partisan effect.