No. of Recommendations: 8
Several of us here are regular readers of HCR's "Letter's From An American" Substack. It is not surprising. She has 2.6 million subscribers. A couple of weeks ago she was interviewed by Nicole Wallace. It was a thoughtful conversation that is worth the time spent listening to it.
https://youtu.be/AbAaqqzuhgA?si=hj-678W3p27oXM_UThe interview took place shortly after the November off year elections. HCR did not see it as a win for the Democratic party. With her historic perspective she is seeing it as the beginning of a sea change and not necessarily one that favors one party over another. The winners will be the politicians who listen and reflect what the voters are saying.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Spanberger and Sherill are basically carbon copies of each other.
Neither is able answer substantive questions on an unscripted basis.
Both "froze" in those situations, Spanberger during a debate, Sherill in interviews.
White suburban middle/upper class "suburban moms." Totally non-threatening, bland, but both are totally devoid of any real substance.
Total cyphers.
In the above respects, they are basically caucasian versions of Kamala Harris.
Both are not Republicans. Both are not white males.
Both ran against Republicans who the consensus seems to believe, ran below-par campaigns.
Neither got where they are now by doing anything new or taking any chances. They will both put their fingers to the wind and whichever way it happens to be blowing, will try to go along with the breeze as much as they can.
Both are unremarkable garden variety "pols."
Can anyone say off the top of their heads what, if anything, either Sherill or Spanberger "stand for"?
Is there anything that makes either one of them distinct (either good or bad)?
The only thing I can think of regards Sherill since I was in her 11th NJ Congressional District, and it's not good.
When faced with explaining her Naval Academy record, in which she was penalized by not being allowed to walk with her graduating class because she chose not to cooperate with a cheating scandal investigation, rather than explain it by saying it was a mistake which she learned from, she basically said "I don't rat out my friends." She violated the "Honor Concept" to protect her friends who were or were accused of cheating. Maybe because of her lack of cooperation, some people who did cheat got away with it. That's a reasonable inference because if she didn't know about any cheating, she could have given that information freely to the Naval Academy officials who were investigating at the time, and actually helped clear the innocent of false or unfounded cheating allegations.
So she is ethically compromised from the get go.
This is as Gov. of NJ--we have one of our former Senators Menendez currently serving an 11 year sentence for corruption. You know he was the guy who had gold bars in his pockets? Some of you may remember that in the news.
Apparently that was O.K. with NJ voters because corruption is taken for granted and NJ has a stereotype of having corrupt politics.
I guess if Sherill, as Governor, learns of suspicious or corrupt practices by one of her political cronies, we can count on her to cover it up.
Good to know Sherill is dedicated to being a "stand up guy."
