Mediaboss Marketing

When Andrea Flynn, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, started work a year ago on a report about the racial and gender barriers holding back women of color in the United States in conjunction with the Ms. Foundation it was a very different political landscape. Its not just that Donald Trump wasnt yet president, but the notion that identity politics was some sort of toxin destroying liberalism had not yet really taken root.

Trumps narrow electoral victories in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, however, spawned apopular new theory amongst the chin-scratching white male liberal set: That identity politics which putanti-racism and feminism at the center of progressive ideology have harmed progressivism and need to be abandoned in favor of a more identity-neutral message based only on economics, in order to appeal to white working-class voters.

In a widely shared New York Timespiece published shortly after Trumps election, Mark Lilla scolded Hillary Clinton for calling out explicitly to African-American, Latino, L.G.B.T. and women voters at every stop, which he suggested made white men feel left out and resentful. He argued thatliberal discourse about race and gender was somehow preventing people from addressing such perennial questions as class, war, the economy and the common good and suggested that a healthy political framework isnot about difference, it is about commonality.

Lillas views took off in the progressive discourse, particularly among white men who will definitely flip out if you suggest they have self-interested reasons for wanting to minimize the attention given to increased diversity, particularly in progressive leadership. Theyre not claiming that racism and sexism dont exist, proponents will say, just that the ur-struggle that will solve all others is the struggle against capitalism. This recent Jacobin tweet is a good example:

Flynn and her team knew the report, titled Justice Doesnt Trickle Down and released Wednesday morning, had to address this controversy.

The focus [of the report] has always been on women of color, she explained on the phone, but we felt particularly in this political moment, it was really important to call out how some individuals are more vulnerable than others.

Yes, fixing current economic policies will move the needle a bit, she continued, but for women of color, social justice will not be an inevitable byproduct of economic progress.

Racism and sexism, like many other forms of discrimination, have been baked into our social and economic systems and will not simply fall away as a fairer economy emerges, the report reads, adding that the recent calls to abandon identity politics in favor of a race- and gender-neutral approach wouldsimply exacerbate race and gender inequities and injustices.

Anglique Roch, the vice presidentof external affairs for the Ms. Foundation, argued over the phone that acknowledging diversity and the different challenges different people face is ultimately the best way to create a stronger progressive movement.

It has always been true that if we help the least of us, it benefits all of us, she said, pointing out thatits hard to take full advantage of better economic opportunities when we are literally setting the start line for women and people of color so far back that theirmere existence is being criminalized.

If we dont look at the different policies and how theyre targeted, how will we ever get to equity, much less equality?Roch asked.

One major example covered in the report is health care.

Improving economic outcomes alone would not sufficiently address the myriad other rules contributing to the gendered and racialized disparities and inequities that have come to characterize the U.S. health system, Flynn writes.

Dr. Krystal Redman, whose work with SPARK Reproductive Justice Now is highlighted in the report, agreed.

Accessibility to coverage is important, Redman explained over the phone, but noted that racial and gendered barriers to care dont solely go away just because someone has coverage.

There are many providers who have their own ideas of how a patient should be treated based on how they present, Dr. Redman said.

As an example, Dr. Redmanargued that a black woman with four children who goes to the gynecologist is more likelyto get pushed into a long-acting form of contraception than a similarly situated white woman, who is more likely to have a chance to engage in dialogue with a doctor about whether or not she wants any more children.

Another huge example of the limits of an economic-only framework is the way that law enforcement treats white people differently than black and brown people.Just this week, Redman said, she had personal experience with that. Her husband,a dark-skinned black man, tall, dreads, everything like that, was pulled over, she said, because the cop said he was following too closely behind another vehicle.

We cant overcome those small heart-flashes of, Oh God, am I going to be safe?' when things like that happen, she said, and thats why we need to center race in the progressive movement.

Flynn agreed, noting that theres an economic angle to the way that people of color tend to be over-policed and funneled into the criminal justice system more than white people.

Even if people of color are able to have higher wages or better economic opportunities, Flynn argued, the fines and fees and experiences associated with the criminal justice system really serve as a wealth-stripping mechanism that is really sucking resources out of those communities.

In 2015, the Department of Justice highlighted this issue in its report on the police in Ferguson, Missouri. Law enforcement in the area clearly sawticketing black citizens for every little thing as a handy source of revenue. Accumulating wealth is hard when a white-run police force is treating your savings like apiggy bank.

ForRoch, the election of Trump and the formation of the resistance against him makes it even more important to put women of color and their experiences at the center of the progressive movement.

We have been fighting for freedom for several centuries now, she said, not without a note of humor.

The recent resurgence of the organized labor movement,Roch added, is one example of how the perspectives and insight gained byemphasizing identity politics and putting women of color in leadership roles can help progressives. Traditionally, labor has been seen as a movement of white men in manufacturing jobs, but these days, the movement is growing because of service workers who are disproportionately women of color. That changes the shape of the labor movement, but also makes it stronger and more forward-looking,Roch suggested.

The fight were fighting now, under the new administration, isnt new for these women, she added. They have been fighting in Mississippi, in Albuquerque and Miami and Tennessee and Kentucky, for years.

Roch believes in people coming together, but argues that simply wont work if they have to leave their identities and unique experiences behind them. Those experiences are what motivates us to be passionate, she said. The things that impact us are what motivate us to fight together.

Read this article:
Should progressives abandon identity politics? No new report suggests women of color should lead the movement - Salon

Whew! For once, one of my predictions was correct: Donald Trump had a great visit to Saudi Arabia. It was a great visit for him, it was a great visit for the Saudis and the other Arab Gulf states, andlast but not leastit was a great visit for magical, glowing orbs.

I want to spend a little time talking about one of the reasons why the trip went so well. Ill warn you: This is a somewhat taboo subject for progressive foreign-policy types. The subject, friends, is arms sales. Progressives dont like arms sales very much, but they need to pay attention to them, because theyre one big way Republicans are fighting forand winningthe votes of working-class Americans who have traditionally voted for Democrats.

While the president was in Saudi Arabia, the Trump administration announced $110 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabiawith an additional $240 billion committed over a 10-year period. If youve ever worked in government, you know this is what is called a deliverable, the clunky management-consultantese term for a tangible outcome of a visit or meeting. When Donald Trump is asked to justify his trip to Saudi Arabia, hell cite that $110 billion in arms sales.

There are a few interesting things about these sales. The first is that many of these sales were already in the works. The Obama administration spent eight years quietly selling a lot of arms to Saudi Arabia: When President Obama left office, for example, the United States still had $100 billion in the foreign military sales pipeline with Saudi Arabia and, in 2011, had inked what was previously the largest arms sale in U.S. history with the Kingdoma $29 billion deal to sell F-15s to the Saudis.

The 18 Independent Agencies Trump Wants to Eliminate

Obama-era sales to Saudi Arabia were in keeping with sales to other Gulf states: Both Qatar and the United Arab Emirates bought a tremendous amount of U.S. arms between 2009 and 2017. Qatar bought more U.S. arms than any other state in 2014 and, in the waning days of the Obama administration, announced that it would buy nearly $4 billion in Boeing-made F-15s in addition to $19 billion in commercial aircraft, also from Boeing.

Overall, the Arab Gulf states went on a spending spree during the Obama years, and most of the money was spent on American arms.

So why didnt you hear a lot about this from Democratic politicians during the 2016 election season? There are two main reasonsone strategic and one moral.

Strategically, not everyone is convinced that arming the Arab Gulf states to the teeth is a wise idea. Some worry that these arms might someday endanger Israels security, while others worry the Arab Gulf states might be encouraged to use their new toys on disastrous military interventions against Iran or Iranian proxies in, say, Yemen.

The quick and unsatisfying answer to these concerns is the global market. The Arab Gulf states have money, and that money will buy the weapons that are available. If U.S. arms are not for sale, fine: French, Chinese, or Russian arms will be. (And if you dont believe me, look at the way in which Gulf statesfrustrated by U.S. export controls on drone technologyare turning to the Chinese.) Selling U.S. arms to the Gulf states, by contrast, further ties them to U.S. interests by deepening cooperation and interoperability between the U.S. military and its Gulf partners. One of the reasons Qatar wanted to buy U.S. fighters to partially replace its French-made fleet, for example, was because they discovered how difficult it was for their existing fighter aircraft to fly with the U.S. air force as part of coalitions over Libya and Syria.

Arms sales also drive down the cost of our own weapons and thus the amount of money U.S. tax-payers have to spend on defense instead of other priorities like, say, the State Department, school lunches, or housing subsidies. Heres one example: Because the United States is buying fewer F-35s than originally planned and using more of its fourth generation fighters (F-15s, F-16s, etc.) in the skies over Iraq and Syria than previously anticipated, the Department of Defense will likely need to buy more of those fourth generation fighters in the coming years. The recent sales of F-15s to Qatar, F-18s to Kuwait, and F-16s to Bahrain will drive down the cost per plane for the Pentagon. Thats a good thingat least financially.

Morally, though, many progressives just grow ill at the idea of selling weapons abroad. Senator Chris Murphy, for exampleone of the more eloquent and consistent critics of U.S. arms sales in the Senate, even though his own state has a very robust defense industrial basesees nothing admirable about the idea of selling weapons to the Saudis that might be used in Yemen. Other progressives agree: Yes, they argue, we understand the demand of the market will be met by someone, but do we have to be complicit in providing the supply? In other countries, progressives have even taken to the courts in an effort to halt sales.

I have a lot of respect for these progressives and their values. I spent too much time in Sunday School as a kid to not feel a little uneasy about the business of selling weapons. And the angst many progressives feel about U.S. arms sales has been enough to keep many Democrats from talking up their successes in helping U.S. industry abroad. I wonder, though, if there isnt a real political cost to not doing so.

Boeing employs 157,000 peoplealmost all of them in the United States. 14,500 people work in Boeings facilities in Missouri, where the F-15 and F-18 are made, where Senator Claire McCaskill is up for reelection next year, and where Donald Trump trounced Hillary Clinton 56 to 38 percent in 2016. (Those 14,500 people do not include the many thousands of other Americans who make parts for the F-15 and F-18 elsewhere in America.)

Lockheed Martin, meanwhile, a huge winner in the recent arms deal with Saudi Arabia (despite ace businessman Jared Kushner negotiating the price down on behalf of the Saudis), employs an additional 97,000 workersagain, most of them in the United States. And Raytheon, another big winner last week, employs another 60,000 or so Americans.

Donald Trump obviously has no moral qualms about selling weapons to our partners and allies abroad. And so while Democrats leave points on the board with working-class voters by not talking about how much Democrats do to support U.S. industry, Republicans swoop in to take credit with assembly line workers for even those things that Obama approved and set in motion.

The way in which Trump brags about U.S. arms sales, of course, is in keeping with the strain of economic mercantilism that ran through his populist campaign message. That message worked with voters throughout the Midwest, helping to cost Clinton the election. So while progressives might have moral qualms about companies that sell weapons, the roughly 1.2 million American voters who work in the aerospace and defense sectortogether with the roughly 3.2 million Americans who support the sector indirectlysee little wrong with the sales that help ensure their livelihoods and provide a future for their children.

This might be another area in which progressive eliteswho have the kinds of education and skills that dont require them to seek work on the assembly lineare simply out of touch with the voters they need to win back control of the Congress and state assemblies, never mind the presidency. And politics aside, surely even the moral calculus of arms sales gets more complicated when you think about the millions of American mouths that are fed by mothers and fathers who work in the aerospace and defense sector.

Donald Trump, for his part, is speaking to those voters. And even as progressives fret about U.S. arms sales, they should also fret about what it will mean for the rest of their agenda when Republicans claim credit for protecting some of the last good assembly-line jobs in America.

Read more:
What Progressives Miss About Arms Sales - The Atlantic

A member of queer punk rock duo PWR BTTM was recently accused of sexual assault, news that has taken the music industry by surprise.On May 11 a person claiming to be part of Chicagos DIY scene and queer community wrote on Facebook that musician Ben Hopkins is a known sexual predator and perpetrator of multiple assaults. A band that was booked to tour with PWR BTTM tweeted they had been forewarned about Hopkins predatory behavior and Jezebel posted an anonymous interview with a woman who says she was sexually assaulted by the rock star.

The fallout was swift:PWR BTTM, which has recently garnered critical acclaim from The New York Times and just released a sophomore album, was dropped by their management as well as their label, which pulled the bands music from all streaming services.

The allegations have shocked fans, many of whom idolize PWR BTTM for being one of the few gender fluid role models in a heteronormative music industry. The band is part of the queercore movement, a small subculture of punk that eschews aggressive masculinity, and writes songs such asI Wanna Boi, and Sissy. The gender-neutral Hopkins, who wears thrift store dresses onstage and a face smeared with glittery makeup, has become a queer icon and thebands shows are known as safe spaces the musicians demand every venue have gender-neutral bathrooms, and in November gave audience members access to a back entrance when homophobic protestors showed up outside a concert.

But given the complexity of many sexual assault cases, these allegations should not be surprising. They should instead serve as an important reminder that abusers can also come in progressive packages.

Theres a societal tendency to think sexual violence predators fit one, misogynistic mold. That they are the type of people who anchor right-wing talk shows, leer at women on the street or brag about grabbing genitals. This limited definition makes the threat of sexual assault feel contained rather than omnipresent. The reality is that progressive politics dont preclude non-consensual sex.

When a queer person with enlightened gender values is accused of sexual assault it creates cognitive dissonance. Nobody expects a musician who champions safe spaces especially one who isnt a heterosexual man to face allegations of sexual assault. But you know what else we didnt expect? That Americas dads favorite pastime was allegedly drugging and raping women. There is no one-size-fits-all model of an abuser.

There are countless examples of people whose liberal values or artistic jobs have helped distract from their alleged criminal behavior. Bill Clinton, who signed the Violence Against Women Act, secured family leave, and lobbied for sexual orientation to be included in hate crime law, has been accused by three women of sexual misconduct and has infamously used his power to get sexual favors. Canadas Jian Ghomeshi used his high-profile status as a progressive radio host and renaissance man to allegedly sexually abuse 15 women (the court acquitted him of four charges). And lets not forget thelong list of celebrities, including Casey Affleck, Roman Polanski, Woody Allen and Nate Parker, whose artistic work is at seemingly odds with the accusations or charges of sexual violence against them. (To be fair, the problem isnt only with men. The female self-proclaimed feminist founder of Thinx underwear was recently accused of sexual harassment by current and former employees.)

We all likely know someone who waxes poetic about gender equality during the day and becomes a total creeper in dark bars. In the worst cases, perpetrators explicitly use their liberal ideals as bait. The term macktivistm refers to men who espouse progressive politics to lure in female victims. A Jezebel article describes one man who was fluent with womens issues such as body-image politics, female silencing and, most chillingly, consent, whom 20 women have accused of sexual assault and harassment.

Liberal values can also become a shield to help perpetrators defend themselves against allegations. Hopkins, who goes by the gender-neutral pronoun they, used progressive gender ideals to bolster their innocence in a statementreleasedThursday. Though they denied the allegations, they wrote: I am firmly committed to consent, to communication, and to mutual expression of sexual interest...I believe it is my responsibility to be accountable to this individuals perspective and to honor it accordingly. While theres no doubt PWR BTTMs values have improved the lives of many queer fans, these enlightened politics come across as hollow and manipulative when used to deny accusations of sexual assault.

While the PWR BTTM allegations will likely never be tried in court, they follow a well-known pattern: Theres a prominent figure within a community whose sexual abuse certain members claim is well-known.Eventually someone posts a blog or a tweet about the persons behavior, which seemingly permits others to share corroborative experiences. This phenomenon recently occurred with an editor who ended his public writing career after a womans blog post about his behavior led to multiple sexual assault accusations and with a music publicist who resigned after a woman tweeted an allegation of sexual harassment that prompted many other similar stories.

While these accusations are incredibly painful for PWR BTTM fans, they are a good reminder that sexual assault perpetrators dont fit into neat categories. Sometimes, they are the aggressive men who grab women at bars and yell sexist slurs. But they can also be queer role models who sing about progressive gender messages while covered in sparkles.

More here:
Progressives Can Be Sexual Predators, Too | HuffPost - HuffPost

Red cards, signaling disagreement, often predominated at Sen. Dan Sullivans town hall May 20 in Anchorage. (Photo by Wesley Early/Alaska Public Media)

U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan held a town hall meeting Saturday in Anchorage, one of only a few hes held on the road system since the election of President Donald Trump.

Hundreds packed into the Bartlett High School auditorium were frequently vocal.

This was not the kind of crowd Sullivan was used to.

I cant tell if those are boosor if those are Dont answer! Sullivan said at the start. You dont have to answer that.

When he spoke about rolling back federal regulation and turning control over to the states, lines that usually draw applause for him fell flat. Or worse.

The thrust of what we need to be doing is letting the states, who understand their (insurance) market much better, much better than bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., design a systemthat fits Alaska, Sullivan said, straining to continue over the chorus of booing.

Sullivan took questions for more thanan hour. Many were about proposed changes to the Affordable Care Act.

Health care worker Sarah Stevens asked the senator how he expects Alaskans to bear the cost of giving birth if Congress allows insurers to dropmaternity coverage.

Sullivan supports covering pregnancies, but flexibility would bring down insurance costs.

What I dont support is a federal government plan, like you have under the Affordable Care Act, that says to a 60-year-old male you have to have insurance that covers maternity, Sullivan said, amid sustainedbooing. It makes no sense, and thats why you have premiums spiking.

But isnt that just health insurance? Stevens asked, to hearty applause. I dont need prostate exams but I pay into a health care plan that provides prostate exams.

The booing continued, and the crowdheld up red cards to show their disagreement. A few people in the crowd started chants of single-payer.

Just to get it out of the system and get the biggest boo of the night, I am not supporting a single payer health system, Sullivan said, drawing the predicted response.

Red cards also went up when Sullivan spoke of defunding Planned Parenthood and mentioned Trumps more controversial cabinet secretaries.

Green cards appeared when Sullivan described Russia as an adversary and said Alaskas climate is changing.

(Sullivan, though, has disputed the scientific consensus on the cause of climate. He voted no to a Senate declarationthathuman activity contributes to climate change.)

The crowd chanted yes or no?when Sullivan did not give a simple answer to a question about his support for expanded Medicaid.

The senator saidhes focused on not pulling the rug out from under current enrollees.

Donna Marie is among the constituents who have been clamoring for months for a congressional town hall in Anchorage.

At his request, she introduced Sullivan on the Bartlett stage, and she took it on herself to ask people to be respectful and avoid booing. She wassurprised athow one-sided the audience was.

I thought the senator would have more conservative support in the crowd, and more support for his views, Marie said. I didnt see more than three or four ofwhat I would call Trump administration supporters, and the rest of the crowd seemed overwhelmingly progressive.

Sullivan responded with good grace and good humor to a fairly hostile audience,Marie said.

Were they rude? Perhaps a little bit, Marie said. But they werent out of control. Its not like they prevented the meeting from going on. They might have delayed (it) for a couple of moments, but otherwise I thought the audience reacted appropriately given the situation.

Marie said shes hoping U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski or U.S. Rep.Don Young will appear at a town hall shes organizing at the end of the month.

Sullivan, in a written statement Monday, said the Anchorage town hall was more raucous than his previous community outreach events. But he said he believes in listening to all Alaskans, regardless of theirideology.

Zachariah Hughes contributed to this story.

Continue reading here:
Progressives make voices heard at Sullivan town hall - KTOO

That speech had some wishing Booker were accepting the nomination rather than Clinton, but the Trump era has brought renewed scrutiny of his record from progressives. Like all of his Democratic colleagues and even two Republican senators, Booker voted against the confirmation of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. But he was rightly called out for hypocrisy, given that he previously worked with DeVos to promote school choice policies, including private school vouchers. Booker also voted against an affordable drug proposal from Senator Bernie Sanders, before ultimately backing a compromise bill. Booker said his initial opposition was based on the need for safety provisions, but critics werent buying it. This is silly, given that Americans already import drugs from Canada illegally and it hasnt resulted in a public health emergency, argued the New Republics Alex Shephard. Similarly, the Canadian drug industry doesnt exactly have a reputation for being dangerous. Voxs Jeff Stein wrote that while its true that his vote may have had more to do with the concentration of the pharmaceutical industry in his home state, its also only served to confirm some progressives suspicions that hes too closely allied with corporate interests in the Democratic Party.

Much of the criticism of Booker is still about tone. Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign committee said Booker has been getting better over the years, but still needs to do more:

One of the biggest issues some people had with Cory Booker over the years is an unwillingness to name villainswhich is an essential part of story telling and which Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders do very well. Unfortunately, Trump did this in 2016 and sold people on the idea that their economic pain was the result of immigrants and other races as opposed to corporate CEOs who arent sharing wealth with workers. Fortunately, Booker has begun to be more aggressive in the Trump era, and its a pending question as to whether he will be willing to call out Wall Street bank CEOs for defrauding millions of Americans and hurting our economy. We shall see, but things are progressing.

Moulitsas argues anyone thinking about 2020 needs to catch up with the grassrootsor ideally get ahead of themwhen it comes to stopping Trump and the Republican Congress. He foresees a massive field of Democratic candidates: Im absolutely convinced that were going to have an embarrassment of riches. That means progressives dont need to settle for second best. Our bench is growing, he said. The reason Im even taking a call about 2020 is because Democrats today need to think about what 2019 looks like. The first question anybody in the resistance is going to ask is where was this person in 2017? If they werent with us in 2017, that will make it really easy to whittle down that list.... Youre either with the resistance today or I would say dont even bother running.

Booker sees himself as very much with the resistance. He took a big stand against his colleague Jeff Sessionss nomination for attorney general, joining Representative John Lewis to testify against him. In January, NJ Advance Media called Booker a leading voice of dissent in the Democratic Party as the Donald Trump era begins, adding, Its a sudden turn of events for a lawmaker who arrived at the U.S. Capitol with a reputation for liking the spotlight but instead sought to hide from its glare, working quietly with members of both parties to advance legislation and using his celebrity status to help elect more Senate Democrats. At CAP on Tuesday, Booker said, I want to fight in this climate. I want to dedicate myself. But we cannot just be a party of resistanceweve got to be a party thats reaffirming that American dream.

Booker has long preached unity and transcendence. Progressives may want him to name villains, but he told Salon in 2013, I dont believe in wholesale vilification of any industry in the United States. The title of his book last year says it all: United: Thoughts on Finding Common Ground and Advancing the Common Good. Hes worked across the aisle for good, as with his work on criminal justice reform with Senator Rand Paul, and for ill, as with his corporate school reform efforts in Newark with Governor Chris Christie and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

Last summer, in a sign that he sees Booker as a political threat, Trump attacked the senators impassioned convention speech:

Booker responded neither with snark nor insult, instead telling Trump, I love you, I just dont want you to be my president.

Booker has long been compared to Obama, for reasons both lazy and legitimate. Their race aside, theyre both gifted orators who call for healing divisions, building bridges, overcoming political cynicism and partisan rancorin other words, they evangelize for hope. Theyre also not easy to pin down ideologically, and have angered their fair share of progressives and centrists. Tad Devine, who served as Bernie Sanderss senior strategist last year, said any comparisons to Obama would serve Booker well. I think voters would say theyd like another round of that, thank you very much, he said.

But the message that worked for Obama in 2008, after eight years of hopeless wars under President George W. Bush, may not work for Booker in 2020, after four years of chaos and incompetence under Trump. If progressives mood today is any indication, the Democratic base will demand anger and fiery obstructionism, which is hardly Bookers style. If he adopted such a persona in the partys primary, would the Bernie wing believe it? Not likely.

Booker also thinks its a mistake for Democrats to become what were trying to replace, treating Trump and Republicans like the GOP treated Obama. I literally have these arguments with supporters or fellow Democrats all the time, he said earlier this month on The Ezra Klein Show, where they say, Enough with the love and kindness stuff, Cory. Weve got to fight. And I say, When are those mutually exclusive?.... I think, again, we lose a bit of our moral compass when we are demonizing other people. He added, I just dont believe you need to be mean, you need to be deceitful, you need to practice the dark arts in order to win elected offices.

Booker may not have to completely transform himself to win the Democratic nomination, either. If he can monopolize support from black voterswhich may require outmaneuvering Kamala Harrisand pick up enough moderate Democrats, he could conceivably be the partys pick to take down Trump. While Bookers lack of populist bona fides could prove damaging in a general election, too, a constitutional crisis may well override concerns about, say, his Wall Street ties. But even in that scenario, its hard to imagine Booker succeeding with his same old message. Its hard to be both a lover and a fighterand you certainly cant kill Trump with kindness.

See the original post here:
Can Cory Booker Win Over Progressives? - New Republic