The fight is on. Iowa only made things more interesting tonight by refusing to coronate anyone or to hand New Hampshire a template. On the right, Ted Cruz officially won Iowa, Marco Rubio unofficially won, and Donald Trump is still a force in the race. Meanwhile, John Kasich and Chris Christie have been sitting on the bench in New Hampshire ready to pounce. And on the left, a dead heat between the Democratic candidates means that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are still going to have to duke it out going forward.
They will get their chance this Wednesday, February 3, when CNN hosts a New Hampshire town hall for the two Democrats. And then on February 6 in Manchester, the Republicans will hold their eighth debate on ABC. The Atlantic’s politics staff will be covering and live-blogging both events as well as the primary itself.
So join us as we wade even deeper into election season. It probably can’t get any weirder. (Right?)
Next on the schedule: the New Hampshire primary on February 9. Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and Chris Christie skipped tonight’s theatrics in the heartland, in favor of continuing their campaigns in New Hampshire. During a speech earlier this evening, Marco Rubio suggested he is heading there overnight, and Carly Fiorina tweeted about 30 minutes ago that she was boarding a plane to the Granite State. For Kasich and Christie in particular, that primary could be a make-or-break contest for their campaigns. Christie told the state’s voters earlier today that “for the next eight days, you are the most powerful people in the world.”
A final tech update: Another declaration of victory tonight comes from Microsoft, which says that the outages on the GOP reporting website was the result of the two parties’ overwhelmed servers—and not its own technology. “The mobile apps for both parties have been working without issue,” the company says.
Summing up the night for Republicans: a huge win for Ted Cruz, a significant loss for Donald Trump, a heartening finish for Marco Rubio, and a devastating loss for Jeb Bush, who should get out of the race.
How close is the Democratic race? Clinton leads right now, 603-600. Yahoo Newsis reporting that in at least two precincts, when voters deadlocked, officials had to resort to the designated tie-breaker method—a coin flip. Hillary Clinton won both tosses. The delegate shares in which the results are reported are complicated, but it's entirely plausible that if those two coin flips had been won by Bernie Sanders, he’d have a 602-601 lead right now.
It’s well known that Republican Party leaders do not want Ted Cruz to win the nomination. But it’s still notable that the statement from Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus tonight didn’t even congratulate Cruz or mention the Republican results in Iowa; Priebus spoke only of Democrats and what he called “an unmitigated disaster” for their party.
Clinton: “Here’s what I want you to know: It is rare that we have the opportunity we do now to have a real contest of ideas. To really think hard about what the Democratic Party stands for and what we want the future of out country to look like.” The thing is, just a couple months ago, she was hoping that this would be a contest about her vision of the Democratic Party versus whoever the Republicans would put up. Now she has got the tough task of running against Bernie Sanders first instead. She looks like she might pull off a tight win in Iowa, but she starts far behind him in New Hampshire.
It’s a remarkable night in Iowa. Who would have looked at the Republican horserace a few years ago and picked a couple of candidates with Hispanic roots—Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio—to win and show? But there’s also history on the Democratic side of the aisle tonight. Bernie Sanders isn’t the first Jewish candidate for president. He has been preceded by others, most recently Joe Lieberman. But by splitting the delegates from Iowa tonight, win or lose, he has already become the most successful Jewish candidate for the highest office in the United States. Mazal tov!
Was it the “full Grassley” that sealed it for Cruz? Or a “victory for the grassroots”? It sure wasn’t the media or the Washington establishment or the lobbyists, according to Cruz, who is also quick to point out that his win was the largest in Republican Iowa primary history. Iowa has proclaimed to the world: “Morning is coming.”
Marco Rubio’s surprisingly strong finish tonight has cheered many Republicans, displeased by the choice between Trump and Cruz. But my colleague Peter Beinart warns that, far from a triumph of the establishment, Rubio’s success is a testament to how deeply Donald Trump has reshaped the race: “Trump may have lost in Iowa but Trumpism won. The fact that the moderate in the GOP race is now peddling a version of The Donald’s message testifies to how profound his effect has been. And it’s not likely to dissipate anytime soon.”
Just talked to some Trump supporters at his party in West Des Moines. A woman named Dianne Beilstein told me she had no doubt he would still win the nomination. “Iowans are so conservative, and Donald Trump is flashy,” she said. “He’s from New York—some people here don’t relate to that.”
Candidate speeches are quickly rolling in now. The latest, from Rand Paul, was sunny. A smiling Paul told his backers that “tonight is the beginning”—he’s not dropping out tonight, or anytime soon, it seems. Paul has maintained for weeks now that his campaign is just as viable as those of the top-polling candidates, and Iowa hasn't changed his mind.
Martin O’Malley announces he’s out, as anticipated: “The people have made their choice tonight. ... I am suspending this presidential bid. But I am not [ending] this fight.” He struck a characteristically impassioned tone: “Thank you for allowing me to make this offering out of love.”
Even just a month ago, it would have been surprising to hear a Republican candidate acknowledge that anyone other than Hillary could be the Democratic nominee—she has always been their perfect and inevitable foil. But tonight, both Marco Rubio and Trump talked about taking down “Hillary or Bernie” in the general election.
The fact that Rubio can deliver this as a victory speech is proof of the genius of his campaign’s “3-2-1” spin—the idea that he would place third in Iowa, second in New Hampshire, and win South Carolina. That spin took such firm hold that he’s just acting like third really is a win.
What’s left to watch for tonight? Sure, there’s the Democratic result, but as I scroll through Twitter, the real question for many people seems to be: When will Donald Trump tweet? As he slides to a second-place finish, the Donald’s famed feed is eerily silent.
Marco Rubio’s intro here was almost identical to the first words Barack Obama uttered upon winning the Iowa caucuses in 2008. “They said this day would never come,” Obama said then. Of course, he actually won the caucus that year...
Rubio’s speech is already somewhat surreal: He’s speaking like he has won, even though he placed third. There are shades, perhaps, of Bill Clinton declaring himself “the Comeback Kid” in 1992—after a second-place finish in New Hampshire!
As they have leading up to the Iowa caucuses, the governors in the race are seeing single digits tonight. Jeb Bush stands at 3 percent, Kasich is at 2 percent, and Christie is at 2 percent. It has been a difficult race for governors, who have been drowned out by the outsiders or senators. In the past, governors in pursuit of the Oval Office have fared well. As I noted last year, after Jimmy Carter, three of the next four presidents were likewise onetime governors. But in 2012, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney lost to Obama.
And tonight, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee has suspended his campaign.
Andrea Mitchell reports that the Clinton campaign is now “declaring victory.” This isn’t usually how it works, but this is important in light of what happened on the GOP side in 2012: The vote may be so close that nobody emerges the clear winner, and Clinton wants her name to be the headline winner, even if the results aren’t certified. In 2012, Mitt Romney had “won” on caucus night by seven votes, but officially, Rick Santorum ended up winning by 34 votes. With 84 percent of precincts reporting, Clinton is barely ahead: 50.0 percent to 49.3 percent. But because the Iowa Democratic vote is merely an allocation of delegates, it is, for all intents and purposes, a tie.
It’s amazing how quickly the narrative is crystallizing that Trump is over. Don’t get me wrong: This is bad news for Trump, whose brand is based on winning. This was Trump’s first big test, and he failed it. But the road to Iowa is paved with failed predictions that Trump was donezo, finished, over, toast. It might be wise to avoid definitive judgments about what his showing means down the road—as tempting and clear as it seems now
As I saw on the debate circuit in college, Ted Cruz is not one to be underestimated. He won Iowa; think that’s as far as he’ll get, like Santorum last cycle? No way. I’d bet a lot of machine-gun bacon that there’s a big, well-organized plan for what’s next.
The GOP establishment has got to be pretty excited about Marco Rubio's unexpected surge in Iowa tonight, based on early returns. Meanwhile, what does Trump say and do if he loses? Remember, this is a candidate whose pitch is all about how he'll give Americans so much winning that they won't even be able to handle all that winning.
The Trump schadenfreude at this moment is suffocating, from all sides. Republicans, Democrats, and nonaligned pundits alike are crowing at Trump’s failure to deliver on his promise and inability to get voters to the caucuses. On one level, this is the natural pile-on whenever a front-runner gets taken down, but I think there’s also an element of the political class striking back: Trump made them (us) all seem like chumps, and his slippage now seems like a sort of vindication for the old conventional wisdom. But keep in mind: At the moment, Trump is still a solid second, and he heads to New Hampshire with a yuuuge lead in the polls—even if faltering in Iowa takes a bite out of that.
My colleague Clare Foran raised a good point earlier about O’Malley’s significance tonight. Ahead of today’s contest, he suggested he wouldn’t tell supporters which candidate they should back instead of him once he dropped out. “Many” of his backers planned to just go home if his candidacy isn’t viable, O’Malley told Politico.
What’s the state of the race at this hour? First, on the Republican side, everything’s coming up Cruz. Despite early assumptions that strong turnout would be good for Donald Trump, Ted Cruz is soaring, with a lead of several thousand votes and around 28 percent of the vote so far. Trump is second at 25 percent, with Marco Rubio at 22—a solid finish that’s raising eyebrows—and Ben Carson at 10 percent. No one else has more than 5 percent. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton retains an edge, but it has gotten extremely close, with just a couple of percentage points separating them: 51-49. Martin O’Malley is currently at 0 percent, and reportedly will suspend his campaign tonight.
Far from the Iowa precincts, there’s another contest underway tonight: the National Magazine Awards, affectionately known as the “Ellies.” If the Ellies are the magazine industry’s version of the Oscars, then Magazine of the Year is the equivalent of Best Picture. We’re still waiting to see who will win the Iowa caucuses, but we’re delighted to announce that The Atlantic has been named Magazine of the Year.
Tonight, one has to wonder—as many political scientists have since cable television’s rise—how useful the horserace-style coverage of poll results actually is to viewers. Anyone keeping an eye on CNN, for example, has probably noticed that each time a correspondent has reported early poll results, Jake Tapper has chimed in to remind viewers that most of these early results are essentially meaningless.
Some good news for Marco Rubio: Politico reports that Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina will endorse the GOP candidate on Tuesday. That could give Rubio a leg up in South Carolina, where Scott wields political clout. In the meantime, Rubio is trailing Cruz and Trump in early returns out of Iowa. CNN has him at 19 percent compared with 27 percent for Trump and 30 percent for Cruz
Marco Rubio’s campaign desperately wants to beat expectations tonight, as do his many allies in the GOP establishment who believe he is now the party’s best chance in the general election. But what is a good night for Rubio? Does it have to be second place, displacing either Trump or Cruz? Or could it be just a strong third, perhaps topping the 20 percent threshold that he has struggled to reach in polls? Well, right now he’s at 18.9 percent (with 17 percent reporting)—right on that bubble.
If you’re wondering which channel to watch right now, take note: Talking-head commentary isn’t your only option. CSPAN’s three channels are streaming precinct meetings in Iowa. Original-flavor CSPAN and CSPAN2 are showing a Republican caucus in Boone County, and CSPAN2 is showing a Democratic caucus in Polk County, in a Des Moines high school. It’s cool to be able to see the caucusing in action, in real life. (Or as close to IRL as most Americans will get.)
There’s a lot of pressure on Microsoft and InterKnowlogy, the companies that built a new reporting platform for the Iowa Democratic and Republican parties. With help from the companies, the parties trained hundreds of precincts on how to report results through a smartphone app, which would then be reported in real time on the party and news websites. So far, the public Democratic site has held up, but less than an hour after the caucuses began, the Republican site at iagopcaucuses.com began having intermittent outages, with viewers getting messages that the services were unavailable.
Another question looming over the Iowa caucuses tonight is who evangelicals will coalesce behind. Thus far, reports indicate that evangelicals are breaking between Trump and Cruz. A poll earlier this month found that, nationally, 37 percent of white evangelical Republican supporters back Trump compared with Cruz, who stood at 20 percent.
But as my colleague Jonathan Merritt noted earlier today, the split is not unordinary. As he put it: “Many in the media have flat-out missed it, but there is a growing divide between ordinary evangelicals and evangelical leaders.” How that will culminate tonight remains to be seen.
Surprising no one, it’s already looking like a tough night for Martin O’Malley. CNN is reporting early results showing the Democratic presidential long shot is registering 0 percent compared with Hillary Clinton’s 53 percent and Bernie Sanders’s 47 percent . If O’Malley doesn’t get traction that could actually make him more relevant due to the way the caucuses work. As my colleague Nora Kelly explained, if a Democratic candidate fails to reach a certain threshold of support at a caucus, their fans will have the option to defect to a Democratic rival. Fearing that this might benefit Sanders, Clinton’s campaign has trained Iowa caucus leaders to push supporters over to O’Malley in instances where it might strategically choke off support for Sanders.
Because the Democratic caucuses count people standing in various corners of a room instead of secret ballots, the results are coming in a bit quicker on their side. With 17 percent reporting, Clinton has a 53 percent to 47 percent lead. It probably also helps that they have three candidates rather than the crowd running on the GOP side.
Donald Trump in his closing remarks: “We’re not going to be losing anymore… We can’t be defending the world anymore. South Korea, we defend. Germany, we defend. Japan, we defend. Saudi Arabia, we defend."
On the Republican side, 54 percent of caucus-goers have caucused before, while 45 percent have not, according to early entrance polls from CNN. Among the more experienced attendees, 25 percent prefer Senator Ted Cruz. Though that’s only by a small margin.) Trump clocks in at 23 percent support and Marco Rubio, who’s hoping for a third-place finish is at 22 percent. Among the novices, Trump commands a strong lead, at 33 percent, with Rubio next at 21 percent. It’s helpful to remember that like their exit-poll brethren, entrance polls aren’t a sure thing.
I wonder how many Ben Carson voters will wind up supporting Donald Trump. On one hand, he’s the other outsider in the race. On the other hand, fans of Dr. Carson’s soft-spokenness and relative humility could hardly find a more starkly different temperament and affect as the New York billionaire.Ben Carson in final remarks to his supporters: “We Americans must be proud of who we are. We cannot give away our values for the sake of political correctness.”
The early-entrance polls are in, providing insight on Iowa caucus goers. The numbers are still fluid, but so far, on the Democratic side, 60 percent of respondents backing Hillary Clinton say they’ve attended a caucus before, whereas 58 percent of Bernie Sanders’s supporters say they have not. This is what’s unnerving for the Clinton campaign. The race between Clinton and Sanders has tightened in recent weeks, and Sanders appears to have persuaded voters, who traditionally don’t caucus, to come out tonight.
The education split on the GOP side is, well, yuuuge: 18 percent have postgraduate degrees; 18 percent are high school or less. The former rank Cruz, Rubio, and then Trump—but The Donald has 42 percent of the latter.
One thing to watch tonight will be the vote-counting itself: Republicans were embarrassed in 2012 when the man who claimed victory on caucus night, Mitt Romney, turned out to have lost the contest to Rick Santorum by 34 votes when the results were certified days later. This year, both parties have partnered with Microsoft on a new vote-reporting app, with the promise of faster, more accurate results. But as we saw on Election Night 2012 with the Romney campaign’s infamous ORCA program, election software has a bit of a checkered history, and there have already been rumblings by the Sanders campaign about turning such an important function over to a corporation that might have ulterior motives. I wrote in more detail about the new technology last month.
In strange, early-evening news, Ben Carson is reportedly planning to leave Iowa before we know tonight’s results. He'll be traveling to his home in Florida, where he’ll stay for “some R&R,” reports CNN’s Chris Moody. He is expected to emerge on Thursday, when he’ll be attending the National Prayer Breakfast at the Washington Hilton in D.C. It’s fitting that Carson, whose unorthodox and disorganized campaign has sagged since its autumn high, is returning to the breakfast this week. That’s where he rose to national prominence in 2013 for knocking political correctness—now a primary buzzword—and the Obama administration in a speech in front of the president. Perhaps he’s hoping a good showing at the breakfast could mean more to his campaign than stumping in New Hampshire? Moody reports he's planning to stick it out in the race “no matter” the results.
CNN is reporting “unusually high” turnout at GOP caucus sites, but no entrance polls have been submitted yet. If that turns out to be the case, it would speak to Donald Trump’s ability to mobilize first-time voters. In the last election cycle, more than 121,000 Iowans voted in the Republican caucuses, according to The Washington Post. Caucus-goers are typically more active in their respective parties. High turnout would be significant for Trump. But it’s equally important for Bernie Sanders who has also worked to appeal to nontraditional voters.
After an incumbent president and a milquetoast challenger last time around, America deserves 2016: an anti-establishmentarian, at times vaudevillian, pundit-confounding race for the ages.
It started in March with Ted Cruz, who was the first to announce his candidacy and who called on “courageous conservatives” to join him. But it was dozens of conservative competitors who joined him, making the Republican field so unwieldy that “undercard” is now part of America’s political lexicon. Hillary Clinton announced with a video that made her seem downright warm and Jeb Bush announced with a speech that deftly deployed his fluent Spanish—tactics both have since abandoned. And then there’s Donald Trump, who literally hired a crowd to populate his announcement speech, cheer for his xenophobia, and pretend to support his candidacy. How far the nation has come.
Tonight, the good people of Iowa will take Americans one step closer to detangling the dizzying array of contenders: Huckabee, Santorum, Bush, Rubio, Paul, Fiorina, Christie, Kasich, Carson, O’Malley, Sanders, Clinton. (The sheer volume of ads these Iowans have consumed astonishes the mind.) To make the night even more exciting, The Atlantic has a brand-new, shiny toy: a delegate tracker—to help you sort through all the rural, urban, educated, not educated, and evangelical votes—powered by live caucus results.
It’s time to abandon the dogma that’s driven our foreign policy and led to so much disaster in the region.
President Donald Trump’s October decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria produced a rare moment of bipartisanship in foreign policy. With a shared sense of alarm, Republicans and Democrats alike accused Trump of betrayal.
Certainly, it was a betrayal of the Kurdish partners who bled for us in the fight against the Islamic State. It was also a betrayal of process—leaving our military leaders and diplomats struggling to keep up with tweets, our allies in the dark, our messaging all over the map, and chaos on the ground.
If all this episode engenders, however, is a bipartisan dip in the warm waters of self-righteous criticism, it will be a tragedy—or worse, a mistake. We have to come to grips with the deeper and more consequential betrayal of common sense—the notion that the only antidote to Trump’s fumbling attempts to disentangle the United States from the region is a retreat to the magical thinking that has animated so much of America’s moment in the Middle East since the end of the Cold War.
I served as a career diplomat throughout most of this era, sharing in our successes as well as our failures. Despite important achievements, we all too often misread regional currents and mismatched ends and means. In our episodic missionary zeal, especially after the terrible jolt to our system on 9/11, we tended to overreach militarily and underinvest diplomatically. We let our ambitions outstrip the practical possibilities of a region where perfect is rarely on the menu, and second- and third-order consequences are rarely uplifting. The temptations of magical thinking, the persistent tendency to assume too much about our influence and too little about the obstacles in our path and the agency of other actors, led to indiscipline and disappointments—steadily diminishing the appetite of most Americans for Middle East adventures.
That leaves American policy at a crossroads. Our moment as the singular dominant outside player in the Middle East has faded, but we still have a solid hand to play. The key to playing it well will be neither restoration of the inflated ambition and over-militarization of much of the post-9/11 period nor sweeping disengagement. Instead, we need a significant shift in the terms of our engagement in the region—lowering our expectations for transformation, ending our habit of indulging the worst instincts of our partners and engaging in cosmic confrontation with state adversaries, finding a more focused and sustainable approach to counterterrorism, and putting more emphasis on diplomacy backed up by military leverage, instead of the other way around.
A conversation with the evangelical pastor and theologian
Shortly after I met my wife, Cindy, in 1989—she was living in New York City at the time, while I was living in Northern Virginia—she told me about a new church she was attending in Manhattan: Redeemer Presbyterian. The young minister, she told me, was “the best pastor in America.”
His name was Timothy J. Keller.
Since that time Keller, 69, has become one of the most consequential figures in American Christianity. When he founded Redeemer in the fall of 1989, fewer than 100 people attended; in the aftermath of the attacks on September 11, 2001, Keller was preaching in multiple services in three different venues each Sunday to about 5,000 people—mostly young, single, professionally and ethnically diverse. He has written about two dozen books, several of them best sellers. And unlike that of many popular ministers, his reach extends farbeyond the Christian subculture.
For some kids, the weekly trash pickup is a must-see spectacle. Parents, children, waste-management professionals, and experts on childhood all offer theories as to why.
For Ryan Rucker, a dad in Vacaville, California, the weekly summons comes on Wednesday mornings, usually around seven. For Rosanne Sweeting on Grand Bahama island, in the Bahamas, it’s twice a week—Mondays and Thursdays, anytime from 6 to 8:30 a.m.—and for Whitney Schlander in Scottsdale, Arizona, it’s every Tuesday morning at half-past seven.
At these times, the quiet of the morning is broken by the beep beep beeping of an approaching garbage truck—and broken further when their kids start hollering, begging to be escorted outside to wave or just watch in awe as the truck collects and majestically hauls away the household trash. Rucker’s daughter Raegan, 3, takes her stuffed animals outside with her to watch the pickup. Cassidy Sweeting, 4, enlists her mom’s help to deliver granola bars and water bottles to the three trash collectors. Finn Schlander, 3, invited the neighborhood garbage-truck driver to his birthday party. (Ultimately, he was unable to attend, but the party had garbage-truck decorations nonetheless.)
The fancy bike brand tried to depict a wellness journey. It didn’t go as planned.
The internet has some feedback on Peloton’s holiday ad campaign. The fitness-tech company, famous for its $2,400, Wi-Fi-enabled stationary bikes that let riders stream spin classes, debuted a new television commercial in mid-November, but it didn’t become infamous until earlier this week, when Twitter got ahold of it.
In the ad, a young mom gains confidence in the year after her husband buys her a Peloton for Christmas—or, at least, that’s what the ad seems to be aiming for. The commercial documents the woman (who is also documenting herself, via her phone’s front-facing camera) while she gets up early day after day to exercise or jumps on the bike after work. At the end, she presents the video of her exercise journey to her husband. “A year ago, I didn’t realize how much this would change me,” she tells him. “Thank you.”
Vladimir Putin has a fondness for the Soviet era. So do many Russians—but often not for the same reasons.
SOCHI, Russia—Gazing up at the bust of Joseph Stalin, the young boy listened silently as his mother squatted next to him, whispering the Soviet dictator’s story into his ear. The pair studied the black-colored sculpture, among many of Stalin in this city’s history museum (just one, apparently, is not enough). “He built this city,” the mother told the child, who stared admiringly at Stalin’s signature moustache. “He was like a czar.”
To some extent, that is true. Though Russian intellectuals and poets had long found refuge in this Black Sea port, it was Stalin who ordered its development, turning it into a resort city. His vision was to create a Soviet Riviera, replete with grand botanical gardens and enormous, well-equipped hotels.
Harry Reid may be the only person who can keep the Democrats from killing one another before selecting a nominee. But will he live long enough to do it?
LAS VEGAS—Swing past Caesars Palace; head up the Bellagio’s driveway, where its famous fountains are erupting to an auto-tuned Cher hit. Walk by the Dale Chihuly glass-flower ceiling above the check-in line, and the animatronic exhibit with the half-human, half-monkey figures. Head past the blackjack tables and the jangling slot machines and the chocolate fountain to the austere concrete corridors beyond them. There, getting wheeled around in a red metal-frame wheelchair is the 80-year-old man on whom the unity of the Democratic Party in 2020—if not the Democratic nomination—may hinge.
If he can stay alive that long.
Harry Reid, who retired in 2017 after representing Nevada for 30 years in the U.S. Senate—a dozen of them as chair of the Democratic caucus, eight of them as Senate majority leader—was supposed to be dead already; his pancreatic cancer was forecasted to prove fatal within weeks. But he’s still here, which is how I came to be talking with him, not long before Thanksgiving, in a conference room at the Bellagio, asking him why he remains the person to whom many of the Democratic presidential candidates come for advice and anointment.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Television in 2019 offered up sweet birthday babies and hot priests; exposed nuclear cores and examined injustices; giant octopuses and the king of edible leaves, His Majesty the Spinach. It was a year in which more than 500 original scripted series were estimated to air—a new record signaling a television landscape that’s more abundant but also more fragmented than ever.
With that in mind, this year’s “best of” list, like last year’s, tries to recognize shows that did specific things particularly well. Some were brand new; some have already been canceled. But most of them came into being because someone took a chance on an odd idea, a risky concept, or a distinctive voice. As the streaming wars heat up, none of these series feels like a safe bet, which is precisely what makes them so worthwhile to watch.
The surreal story of how a comedian who played the Ukrainian president on TV became the president in real life—then found himself at the center of an American political scandal
Last May, in the weeks leading up to his presidential inauguration, Volodymyr Zelensky learned that a man named Rudy Giuliani wanted to meet with him. The name was only distantly familiar. But the former mayor of New York City was the personal attorney of the president of the United States, and he apparently wanted to make the case that certain investigations deserved the full attention of the new Ukrainian administration. Zelensky understood that it might be hard to say no.
Zelensky had won his country’s highest office despite having been a politician for little more than four months. Even as he prepared to assume the presidency, he remained a professional comedian and a fixture on television shows, including League of Laughter. Unsure of whether he should agree to meet Giuliani, Zelensky gathered advisers in the headquarters of his entertainment company.
Why we need to face the best arguments from the other side
Images above: A protestor holding a sign that reads “Abortion Is Freedom” and protestors holding anti-abortion signs
In 1956, twoAmerican physicians, J. A. Presley and W. E. Brown, colleagues at the University of Arkansas School of Medicine, decided that four recent admissions to their hospital were significant enough to warrant a published report. “Lysol-Induced Criminal Abortion” appeared in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology. It describes four women who were admitted to the hospital in extreme distress, all of them having had “criminal abortions” with what the doctors believed to be an unusual agent: Lysol. The powerful cleaner had been pumped into their wombs. Three of them survived, and one of them died.
MAGA nation should be outraged about President Trump’s personal attorney.
If the grassroots right wants to “drain the swamp” in Washington, D.C., it can’t ignore the suspicious behavior of Rudy Giuliani. Here’s one red flag: Wealthy, powerful people tend to pay their lawyers top dollar. But as Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Giuliani works for free. In fact, an attorney representing Giuliani’s wife in divorce proceedings told the New York Post that he’s losing money. “Not only does he work for free, but all of his expenses every time he goes down to Washington, D.C., every time he travels for the president, it comes out of his own pocket,” the divorce attorney explained, “and he won’t say how much it’s costing him.”
Why has the former New York City mayor taken on a billionaire as a charity case? It’s not clear, and neither is the nature of the work he’s done relating to Ukraine, a subject of interest in the House impeachment inquiry. At times, Giuliani has described his Ukraine meddling as heroically public-spirited, declaring that “I’m not acting as a lawyer.” He once told a Fox News host, “I wasn’t operating on my own; I was operating at the request of the State Department.” Yet on a different occasion he said, “This isn’t foreign policy,” but help for “my client.”