Donald Trump On The Defensive/March 4, 2016

Donald Trump on the defensive is something we're not used to seeing. This past week has shown us how the Republican presidential front runner handles being on the other side of attack mode, and it was not a pretty picture. Trump is no dummy, but the last Republican debate showed a man and his shoot from the hip form of politics being vigorously challenged by his opponents. He was scrambling to defend himself, and it became increasing hard to tell Trump fact from Trump fiction. A chink in his armor began to show. It had to happen at some point with a campaign strategy focused on personality more than substance.

March 3rd was not a good day for the Trump campaign. Former 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave an afternoon address to a conservative audience that opened the doors to a vehement attack on Trump. He called him a "phony and a fraud." The visual and temperamental contrast between the two men was hard to miss, as were Romney's very targeted words. "He's playing members of the American public for suckers," Romney said while continuing to make his thoughts clear "He has neither the temperament nor the judgement to be president."

While we can ask where Romney was months ago with his remarks, the fact remains that they were made yesterday and were not only more scathing than anything heard in the debate, they were more strategic. He publicly encouraged an open Republican convention. Surprising many Romney said, "Given the current delegate selection process, this means that I would vote for Marco Rubio in Florida, John Kasich in Ohio and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state."

Trump’s response to Romney’s remarks were the type of personal put-downs for which he’s becoming known. He cited Romney's 2012 request for an endorsement saying, "He was begging for my endorsement. I could have said, ‘Mitt, drop to your knees,’ and he would have dropped to his knees."

Republican leaders kept piling on. Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, expressed concerns about "Mr. Trump's uninformed and indeed dangerous statements on national security issues."

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Romney's former running mate, also used March 3rd to publicly respond to what could only be called a threat made by Donald Trump in his Super Tuesday victory remarks. Trump said that Ryan would "pay a big price" if he didn’t get along with him. Yesterday, without using Trump's name, Ryan told reporters that he “laughed out loud,” after hearing those remarks. Appearing far from intimidated Ryan continued, "I was sitting in my office watching it live, and I just laughed out loud. I think sometimes reality's stranger than fiction around here these days."

March 3, 2016 was not just another day in Republican politics. 

 

Down to the Republican Wire

It's been a fascinating journey from the first Republican debate to the last before Super Tuesday. We have watched the candidate numbers dwindle, the rhetoric become increasingly vitriolic and the public either cheer or scratch their heads. Republican politics have been turned upside down. No one seemed prepared for the unexpected - the staying power of the now frontrunner, Donald Trump.

Being unprepared in politics can bear treacherous consequences. Could the Republican party have been so tone-deaf to its voters in the period leading up to the campaign that they didn't pick up on the strong internal divisions that were forming? Apparently so. They are now paying the price, as is the rest of the country who has been listening.

The rise of Donald Trump's candidacy will be viewed in history books as the result of a period in our country when the split between the haves and have nots finally reached a boiling point. Trump is seizing the moment and capitalizing on the split. He tests his often divisive words and thoughts on the fly while whipping up frenzied crowds that validate his behavior. I believe a part of him is as surprised at his success as many others are, despite all his bravado. 

The Republican debates this year have provided vehicles for the candidates to show too little real political dialogue and too much hit and run word splash. Television has helped turn them into near Roman spectacles drawing millions of viewers, and giving Trump a home TV turf advantage. His reality show persona puts him totally at ease when performing in front of a camera, an audience, or both.

The obvious question now focuses on the future of Trump's candidacy. Last night's debate was the first time his dirty laundry began to be hung out to the public, and he took hits when being attacked. As prepared as he should have been, he sometimes appeared unprepared for a taste of his own medicine dished out by a newly aggressive Senator Marco Rubio.

Rubio took off his mantle of faltering under the heat of Trump’s continual put-downs, and came loaded with information ammunition. The kind that should have come out in the debates and campaign long ago. He went after Trump’s business practices, hiring of illegal immigrants to work on his construction sites, hiring foreigners instead of locals at his Palm Beach resort and the Trump University financial mess. It's all been there without being up for debate - until now.

Trump admitted in the post-debate spin room that his outrageous behavior, although he didn't use that word, has worked for him and gotten him to this point. Republicans have to ask themselves if that is what they want to continue rewarding.

Hillary Must Court Millennials: USA TODAY Column

 

                                      Previously Published in USA TODAY

Marilyn Salenger February 10, 2016

If the New Hampshire Primary isn’t Hillary Clinton’s mega ‘aha’ moment when it comes to her support among women voters, she’s going to face a far greater uphill challenge going forward. Her campaign has been playing off-key to those that she needs the most and those who should be her strongest supporters.

Bernie Sanders won women in New Hampshire by 53% to 46%, and racked up a striking 82% of Democratic women ages 18-29. Clinton’s strongest numbers came from women over 65. Young women vs. older women creates a dynamic and challenging political split. It’s been a surprising twist to some this year, but one that should have been expected.

Many young women I’ve spoken with believe that all of the doors of opportunity are open for them and are very surprised when they hear me say that too many remain closed. Millennial women unfortunately know too little about how hard so many of us worked to break the ground they now walk on. My perspective, and Clinton's, is history to them. They’re more interested in today. Maybe we were that way when we were their age. We just didn’t have political clout.

So how does Clinton create a world that feels shared sisterhood again, or Sisterhood 2.0, in an effort to try and salvage women’s support?

She can start by building bridges of commonality and understanding to young women, and making sure those who support and speak for her stop criticizing them if they choose another candidate. Clinton, of all people, should be the candidate of inclusiveness for women of all ages. That means not only respecting women and their choices, it requires adding more young women to her inner and outer circles.

As a young television news correspondent breaking my own ground, I covered the early days of the women’s movement because I thought it was important and none of the men wanted the assignment. I was living a large part of what the movement was talking about and felt the connection. It’s the kind of personal connection that has been missing in the Clinton campaign. You need to feel it to vote it.

Relatability has become the new likability factor in this political season, and it will play a major role in electing our next president. We want to see strength in our candidates, but when it comes to Clinton we also want to see vulnerability. A double standard? Absolutely, but reality as well. She showed a glimpse of her ability to reach us more personally during the recent televised New Hampshire Town Hall admitting, “This is hard for me. ... I never thought I'd be standing on a stage here asking people to vote for me for president. I always wanted to be of service.” That was Clinton talking with us, not to us, and it was a buy in key moment for many that night. She became relatable, more human. While it may not be instinctive for her, she has to show that side of herself consistently. Especially to young people.

Millennial women and men are feeling the headiness of being recognized as a new political force. They want to be wooed as an important voter demographic and to know that the candidates feel their pain. Sanders’ ability to do just that has been his strength. Clinton’s inability to touch their hearts and souls has been her weakness. To change this pattern going forward, Clinton has to step out of what has been her intellectual comfort zone of knowledge and experience and into a zone that's closer to young people and the issues they care about. That may help bring them to her, even if they don't understand why women like myself feel it is so important to elect the first woman president of the United States in 2016.

Marilyn Salenger, an Emmy-Award-winning news correspondent and anchorwoman, was the first woman hired by CBS for its newsroom in Cincinnati and the first woman to solo anchor a newscast in Boston, Mass. She also co-produced and anchored the first all-women’s television news program in the United States and was the first woman to hold the position of press secretary for a national presidential campaign (Alan Cranston's). Follow her on Twitter @MarilynSalenger. 

Dateline: New Hampshire

If the Hillary Clinton who took the stage at the New Hampshire Town Hall on Wednesday night is the Hillary Clinton we continue to see, she'll be well on her way to winning. What we saw was a woman who was unveiled. More open than can be remembered, more showing of her heart and personal feelings that most have seen. It's what many of her supporters and some undecided voters have been waiting a long time to see.

New Hampshire voters are some of the most well-informed in the country. In my days stumping their snowy hills with candidates, I was absolutely taken with how politically knowledgeable they were, and their Town Hall gathering last night showed that to the rest of the country. They asked questions of both Senator Bernie Sanders and Clinton that in many cases had not been asked by journalists. New Hampshirites asked them respectfully and opened up personally, which in turn opened up the candidates. Rare.

The audience was well spoken with an earnest desire to hear the answers. Whether it was the cancer patient asking Hillary about making end of life issues easier for people - a question she said had never been asked of her before. Or the Rabbi who asked how she handles humility and the ego necessary to run for political office prompting Clinton to respond, "Practice the discipline of gratitude. That has helped me enormously. I've had to be in public dealing with very personal issues." She continued along that personal path ... "My husband was such a natural. This is hard for me. It was about service not standing on stage when I began."

Sanders spoke about how his religious and spiritual feelings impact him. "My spirituality is that we're all in this together." And he brought an ease of humor and style. When asked about electability, "Voter turnout is key."

Addressing a key Clinton campaign issue focusing on why young women don't seem to be rallying to her support, she told Anderson Cooper, "I accept the fact that I have work to do to convey what I want to do. Whether they're for me or not, I'm for them." But it was the mother of five daughters in their 20’s who brought the issue home. "How can I get them to vote for you?" Clinton's response started slowly, talking about helping the young women learn about her record. Then she broke loose. "I'm going to try hard to break the hardest and strongest glass ceiling there is. I hope it will open doors for them." 

That's what electing the first female president has the potential to do. The New Hampshire Town Hall has now maximized its own potential as a role model for helping us substantively learn more about the candidates running for president of the United States.

Religion and Politics 2016

Religion and politics are playing an increasingly prominent role in the 2016 presidential race in ways unique to the times. Evangelical voters are being aggressively and very publicly courted by Republican candidates, and Democrats have the potential to elect the first Jewish President. If Bernie Sanders defeats Hillary Clinton in either the Iowa or New Hampshire primaries, that alone would make him the first Jewish candidate to win a primary contest in either party. 

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and even Donald Trump have been promoting their religious beliefs as if they are part of their political platforms. In the last Republican debate, Rubio and Cruz appeared to be going head to head on who was the most religious. Sanders, on the other hand, talks little about his faith. Clinton sometimes discusses it. 

Half of all Americans, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey, say religious conservatives exert too much control over the Republican Party, while slightly fewer say secular liberals have too much control over the Democratic party. The study also found that two-thirds of Republicans want a president who shares their religious beliefs compared to less than half the Democrats. Religion has become part of the partisan political divide with sometimes ominous implications for the future. 

Given the current environment, one is led to ask in what ways and to what degree, if any, will the next president use his or her faith as a basis to push their agenda? Among all else, the judicial system stands to be significantly affected. The next President will appoint one or more Supreme Court Justices and many lower court judges. Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision making abortion safe and legal, hangs with the balance of the Supreme Court as lower courts are aggressively trying to chip away at the ruling.

For many, faith is a private matter. But today, privacy is becoming a thing of the past. A presidential candidate's faith has always been formally known, but I don't recall President Dwight Eisenhower's religion. It was not an issue. That was left for his successor to deal with in 1960. President John F. Kennedy's Catholic faith became a significant factor in his electability with questions about whether he would take direction from the Vatican. Kennedy chose not to campaign on issues of his faith, and went on to become the country's first Catholic President defeating Richard Nixon who was a Quaker.

It’s clear in 2016 the separation between church and state is becoming even more blurred.

It's Sarah and Donald Time

Photo by Alex Hanson/CC BY-2.0

Sarah Palin's rousing public endorsement of Donald Trump at an Iowa rally puts together quite a team as Trump continues his path to a Republican presidential nomination. Two people who love the hugeness of the limelight without the factual specifics that previously mattered in politics are now standing side by side. 

The 2008 vice presidential candidate and former Alaska governor seemed almost euphoric as she was once again able to share being front and center on a big political public stage. Palin delivered what could be considered a mock convention nominating speech, as if it was a rip-roaring right-wing conservative talk show. She’s got the formula down pat. Trump stood next to her looking pleased, but slightly uncomfortable. He never once looked at Palin as she spoke, instead listening and assessing the crowd's response. 

Palin has chosen to turn her back on Senator John McCain, the man who first put her in the spotlight as his vice presidential running mate in 2008. While he remained loyal to her, she’s cast loyalty to the wind instead endorsing the man who has attacked McCain. Trump has refused to call the former prisoner of war a hero saying, “I like people that weren’t captured.”

This says as much about Palin as it does about Trump. For him it's all about winning. Perhaps much more so than any good he could do as president. While winning an election is what it's all about for any politician, with Trump it's more than part of the endgame. It's the beginning, the middle and the end.

He is the consummate construction tycoon who will do almost anything to make a deal and feed an insatiable ego. There's a continual bit of falseness that hangs over a substantial part of his candidacy. It leaves one to wonder if he really believes what he's saying, or is he just saying it to appeal to his target audience. In some ways he reminds me of J.R. Ewing, that infamous and devious oil tycoon of the popular television show Dallas. Trump going after Palin's endorsement fits into that entire scenario.

Palin swings Trump all the way to the right politically. It's a marriage made in the anti-establishment part of the Republican party that is salivating over the outrageousness of Trump. They love it. In Palin’s endorsement speech, she spun Trump almost better than he can spin himself. Facts be damned. 

Trump according to Palin:

"He's from the private sector not a politician. Hallelujah." She must have forgotten that she's a politician herself.

"He's a billionaire who is not elitist." Is there anyone who knows Trump who would call him a man of the people? " 

He's a self-made man." she told the audience, leaving out the fact that he began his career with a HUGE amount of help from his wealthy father.

"He's a strict constitutionalist." Now there's one to get us thinking.

Trump's son Eric later called Palin "refreshing," and a " fighter like my dad." But he too appeared slightly uncomfortable in the Palin aura. The young Trump said she had gotten to know his family during a visit with them in New York City. One can just imagine a down-home dinner table setting in Trump Tower as they discussed her position in a potential Trump White House.  

Wake Up America!

Donald Trump has once again created a new reality show. This time no apprentice is needed because it’s all about himself. He can say whatever he wants. Do whatever he wants. And his rules call for no penalties. Trump doesn't believe he should accept any. It's a very well thought out production.

Trump's show, however, is creating serious problems that are too often aimed at bringing out the worst in people. That's what happens when a production is based upon negativity.

With near total abandon, Trump throws his racial, religious, gender and personal slurs around in a stream of consciousness that doesn't stop. The fact that it's riling up hatred and prejudice that have serious consequences seems to be almost beside the point. He does it with a strong attempt at righteous arrogance, and no apparent concern for those consequences. With Trump it's all about winning - no matter the cost.

In France, Trump could potentially be prosecuted for hate speech. Germany is trying to clamp down on incendiary speech in their country, and the UK is talking about banning Trump for allegedly violating their hate speech laws. Three of our closest allies understand consequences. It’s becoming increasingly clear that Trump does not.

Is this really what we want to see in the next leader of the Free World? 

And yet we continue to watch this man find new ways to play dangerous games with people's thinking, carelessly but carefully whipping them up as he goes along. It's one thing to disagree with an opponent’s position, but it’s another to stir up hate. Trump’s reality show needs a serious course correction.

May the Force Be With ... Who?

Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images News / Getty Images

Hillary Clinton's final words in Saturday night's Democratic debate were, "Good night and may the Force be with you." Big smile. Big applause.

According to my Jedi research and for those not quite so familiar, Clinton's closing line refers to a "Star Wars" phrase that wishes "luck or good will when individuals parted ways or the object of the expression was facing some sort of imminent challenge."

On the other side of the political spectrum, Donald Trump's closing words in the last Republican debate were, "Nothing works in our country." Doing my Trump research, that indicates everything in our country is a dangerous mess except "me, Donald J. Trump.”

Therein lies the choice. As we come down to the last days of the 2015 campaign season, two things are becoming clear. Clinton and Trump are positioned to be the candidates nominated for president of the United States. What a race it will be. We definitely will need the Force to be with all of us.

People have been talking about how much money Clinton has raised to finance her campaign almost from day one. She's going to need it.

The Republicans will throw every piece of dirt they can find on her and husband Bill Clinton in an effort to win while Trump, the man with the deepest pockets, stands ready to continue slinging more than arrows. But Trump has enough of his own mud to be dug up and thrown right back. Coupled with his constant fear mongering trying to masquerade as substance, we have quite a year ahead of us.

Despite the best attempts of Democratic National Committee to bury its last debate of the year on the Saturday night before Christmas, the candidates overcame their scheduling handicap with a strong performance that in the end strengthened Hillary's position. 

I found irony in ABC network's programming decision to use the game show "Jeopardy" as the lead in to the Democratic debate. When that show ended, the debate bizarrely popped up almost as if it was another game show. That category, unfortunately, could best describe too much of the Republican presidential campaign that was not playing that night.

2016 Presidential Debate Winners - The Public

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images News

The five Republican presidential debates and two Democratic debates have produced a clear winner. The public. The debates, for better or worse, have generated more interest, anticipation and dialogue among potential voters than any time in recent history. Because of that, there is no clear loser.

The Pew Research Center reports that seven in ten people have watched some part of the debates prior to last night's Republican debate. That's 69% of the public. Almost three quarters of them say they have given some thought to the candidates. One year ahead of the election. 

The current level of engagement by the public has been generated by a confluence of the large numbers of media involved and the politicians themselves. We’ve been instructed how to watch the debates, who's on first and who's rounding up last place. We’ve been angered by the outrageousness of some of the candidates’ remarks and perhaps found a comforting comment here and there.

Whether it's the negativity, anger or touted political policies, this year's debates have created a unique learning curve that has changed the political process in ways totally unexpected.  

While some have felt there have been too many debates, and others have described them as "fun" to watch as if they are a spectator sport, there are few people who say they don't have some kind of opinion. The smaller Democratic field with fewer debates has created a calmer approach, but the sheer number of Republican debates is providing substantial exposure. They have enabled us to get to a point previously unseen. Last night’s debate showcased Jeb Bush actually standing up to Donald Trump when the New York businessman attacked him. The crassness of Ted Cruz met head on with ripe for the fight Marco Rubio. And John Kasich's young daughter unexpectedly became one of the best focus groups, saying she doesn't like politics because "there's too much fighting, too much yelling."

The winnowing out process has begun. Substance is starting to sneak through. The more we see of the 2016 group of politicians running for president of the United States, the more we learn. The key will be turning our current level of engagement and interest into actual votes.

The New "Founder Generation" Challenge

The generation born near the end of the year 2000, previously known as "Gen Z," has formally announced a name change - "The Founder Generation.” More than 1000 young people, ages 13 and 14, were recently surveyed by MTV, the cable music network, and given an opportunity to more clearly define themselves. When asked what they would like their generation to be called, the group boldly responded with a surprisingly clear sense of identity. 

Aside from new naming rights, the study revealed insights into their generational ways of thinking that provide a small window into our potential new order. Our youngest teens apparently feel they're following on the heels of a disruptive millennial generation, putting them in line to be the ones responsible for building a "better world."

That's what the rest of us could call a heavy lift.

These teenagers are the post 9/11 generation that was uniquely born into a world where terrorism has been a constant and real domestic threat. Where families have lived and raised them amidst the worst financial crisis since the Depression. And where technology is a significant and faster driver of life than ever before. 

That's what could be called a triple challenge.

We've left it to MTV to shine a light on common threads in young people's thinking. 90% of those surveyed said they are "going to start a new society where diversity is accepted and encouraged." 91% said they're "optimistic our generation can build a better world," and they've expressed a "pragmatic" approach to making their way through that world. 

Optimism and pragmatism coming from the minds of today's youngest teens could be one of the greatest gifts they bring to a society badly in need. Add to that a real acceptance of diversity, because they themselves are the most diverse generation in history. Imagine if world leaders, politicians and business people would actually hear those words and begin to put them into effect as they work toward tomorrow. That's a momentary optimistic thought that refreshes the mind and spirit.

While there are ruminations and some attempts beginning, broad-based positive social activism has not been a cause taken up by the millennial generation. A hands on approach for effectuating real societal change will, in all likelihood, be left up to both the millennial and Founder generations. Working together and building on the strengths of their foundations and numbers could well set the stage for the emergence of a different kind of "New World," as long as they don't get pulled into old traps. Perhaps it's time for the adults to take notice and begin tuning in.