[unable to retrieve full-text content]
Hillary Clinton is right: the age of the showman leader has damaged politics The Guardian
At the start of the pandemic, I began searching around for a complicated word that would express the idea that I was basically fine but also utterly shattered (I assumed the German language has a word to accommodate this vague concept for reasons I cannot at present identify). I never found such a word, but my friend and teacher Tamara recently proffered the phrase “broken but blessed.” Her phrasing gets close to describing the feeling: That sense that you can personally be surviving but also that nothing is actually okay. This is all separate and apart from the language of “privilege” or “languishing” or “behavioral activating.”
What I meant, looking back, is that I knew the feeling that I was “okay” was tenuous. The world around me could get worse, but at the same time I also couldn’t imagine things devolving any further.
Then everything got worse.
Last week’s Uvalde shootings, coming in the wake of the Buffalo massacre, last month’s assault on women’s health and liberty, the resurgence of a toxic assault on LGBTQ people and their rights, finally made me crave the language to describe my even worse feeling of being cracked and also now completely broken.
As I struggled to reassemble myself to at least write something about the school shooting in Texas, I reminded myself that broken but also broken is akin to “hopeless” and that I was not prepared to be that, either. In any march toward authoritarianism, fostering a broad sense of public hopelessness is very much the point. As Amanda Marcotte noted last week, once a majority of any population has fundamentally given up on politics, on institutions, on voting and education and protest, you’re in pretty good shape to be rolled by the next wave of Trumpism.
“You may support abortion rights and gun safety laws, but why give over a beautiful Saturday morning to a protest when you believe it will not move the needle? It’s not “selfish” to want to use your free time enjoying your life instead, not when you are starting to believe that political action is a flat-out waste of time,” as she so aptly put it.
Looking for a word to express the need for action and hope, when we are struggling to even move, last Friday, I put out a social media plea for the word that best captures the sentiment that we should tend to our broken hearts while also mustering the strength and courage to keep fighting in the face of the inexorable pull of normalcy and self-care.
Out of nowhere another friend, Laura, swooped down and offered up what I’d been searching for: A Yiddish word (of course) “tzebrokhnkayt, which means, she explained, “the quality of broken-heartedness that gives strength in healing.” The notion is unpacked further here, but at its essence it means that “we each carry our shattered pieces with us.” The essential bit is that tzebrokhnkayt, is not something in need of quick fixing; it is instead honored. It means that we are obligated to gather up, tend to and honor the pain, but also to take up the work of healing. My friends Ron and Carolyn confirmed that it’s a real word. And my friend Dahna turned the word into a prescription: “Let’s not be ok. Let’s find power in not being ok. Let’s honor our brokenness – and the brokenness of our country – by finding the collective strength to fight for change.”
What does it mean, the opposing imperative of honoring the feeling of being shattered, while gathering up whatever is left to work harder?
I have found a few comforting examples of this paradox at work in other moments of political darkness. One of the readings I have consumed almost compulsively this past year is in this account by Samantha Rose Hill of the summer of 1940, during which Hannah Arendt and her husband Heinrich Blücher were forced to wait in Montauban, France, after fleeing a Nazi internment camp, to receive emergency US exit visas (Only 238 were granted between June and December of 1941). Despite the fact that they were being pursued by actual Nazis and the threat of death, Arendt and Blücher spent their time tooling around the glorious French countryside on bikes and reading good novels. They weren’t normalizing, they weren’t in denial. They were simply getting what enjoyment they could out of their lives as they did the arduous political work of trying to make the world better. In her account, Hill explains that Arendt had long abandoned the idea of “hope” but embraced instead the necessity of what she later called “natality,” the idea of political action on earth. In “natality,” Arendt located a “principle of new beginnings, the root of political action, and the possibility of freedom.”
Amid all the shattering brokenness, in politics lay the seeds of repair.
This week, after every mass shooting I’ve found myself wondering what it means when Sen. Ted Cruz excoriates people for “politicizing” suffering after a massacre, even as he himself stands at a press conference to do the same. How insane that we cannot politicize the pain and loss of a school shooting, but it’s permissible and even necessary to politicize the worst moments of a woman’s private pain – her pregnancy losses and her ectopic pregnancies and her decision to give up a baby she cannot support. These moments of excruciating sorrow are debated in amicus briefs and at oral arguments at the Supreme Court. But we may not politicize children assassinated in their classrooms. Pain is always political. It’s just that we allow politics and politicians to decide whose pain counts and whose does not.
These acts of repair, of holding the pain of others and refusing to be told how and when to put that pain down, are politics. At times like these politics is all we have left and that is enough. Which brings me to another sustaining line of thought that seems to be built exclusively of tzebrokhnkayt. In his 2002 autobiography You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train, Howard Zinn, who had seen also seen the very worst of human moral failures as a World War II Air Force bombadier, wrote this:
To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places–and there are so many–where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction. And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory.
It turns out, we do not, in fact, require a complicated German or Yiddish word or a complex philosophical descriptor to explain the wearying condition of being ripped apart, heartsick and furious, stabilized to the point of near-sanity, before launching back into the fight, shattered but still awake and still committed. This is just what life is now. We take care of each other and ourselves to go on to do the work. We can bike, read, plant our gardens, organize, vote, march, donate, and be kind. We can call it “pain” or “politics” or “self-care,” or tzebrokhnkayt. But the fact remains that the future depends on this “infinite succession of presents.” Finding ways to marry the brokenness to the work, is a part of the work itself.
Democratic candidates have shied away from talking about the Capitol siege. That could change if voters flock to a former federal prosecutor running for a House seat in California.
On Tuesday, we’ll get an unusually clear test of the political power of Jan. 6 at the ballot box.
In California’s newly drawn 41st Congressional District, a pro-business Republican who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election faces a primary for a House seat against a Democratic former federal prosecutor who worked cases against several alleged Capitol rioters.
No race provides a starker contrast between voters’ usual kitchen-table concerns and what the leading challenger cast in an interview as a battle for “the future of democracy.”
The Republican incumbent, Representative Ken Calvert, embodies a changing G.O.P.
He has represented the area for three decades, though the district’s boundaries, which now stretch from suburban areas east of Los Angeles to Palm Springs, have changed over the years. He was first elected to the House in 1992 as a traditional, Chamber of Commerce-style conservative, but has moved rightward along with his party.
He voted on Jan. 6, 2021, against certifying President Biden’s victory, but later published an op-ed article denouncing the mob at the Capitol. Donald Trump has endorsed him, though Calvert’s website makes no mention of that fact. He prefers to talk about the price of gas in a state where the average gallon now costs $6.25.
Calvert has faced accusations of ethical lapses during his time in office, though he has always denied wrongdoing. After the police discovered him in a parked car with a woman in 1993, he acknowledged having sex with a prostitute, saying he had been “lonely” after a recent divorce.
In California’s unusual primary system, voters in the district will decide which two candidates advance to the general election, regardless of party.
The leading Democratic challenger is Will Rollins, a 37-year-old former assistant U.S. attorney in California who has made Jan. 6 the central theme of his campaign. In his ads, such as this introductory video, he talks about the danger to democracy posed by domestic extremism and misinformation — ideas most other candidates in his party rarely emphasize.
Rollins saw a “huge rise in domestic terrorism cases” during his five years as a Justice Department prosecutor focused on national security and counterterrorism, he said in an interview, culminating in his work assisting colleagues in Washington reel in alleged participants in the Capitol riot.
One of the cases he helped with was that of Gina Bisignano, a Louis Vuitton-clad salon owner from Beverly Hills who gained notoriety for shouting “They will not take away our Trumpy Bear” through a bullhorn on Jan. 6. Bisignano initially pleaded guilty to six federal charges, but later sought to withdraw her plea.
“It was the experience of working on those cases and seeing ordinary American citizens, radicalized enough to invade the U.S. Capitol for the first time since the War of 1812, that got me thinking more seriously about how broken our information system is,” Rollins said.
Among other ideas, he proposes to revive and modernize the Fairness Doctrine, a Cold War-era law that required broadcasters to report evenhandedly on political topics.
“That doctrine wasn’t perfect,” Rollins said. “But it did enable us to defeat fascism and win the Cold War because we didn’t waste time debating nonsense, like whether the polio vaccine had microchips in it, or whether the moon landing was faked, or whether it was actually Nixon who beat Kennedy in 1960.”
Rollins said he was first inspired to pursue a career in public service by the Sept. 11 attacks, which took place when he was a junior in high school. He considered joining the military, but was discouraged by laws that still discriminated against gay service members.
“I wanted to enlist, but I had a government that told me that there was something defective about who I was,” Rollins said. He chose the law instead, clerking for Jacqueline Nguyen, a federal appeals court judge, before becoming a prosecutor.
Unseating an incumbent is an expensive proposition, but Rollins is showing an ability to raise the kind of money that could carry him into a general election.
He has raised a little more than $1 million since the start of his campaign, lagging behind the nearly $1.9 million Calvert has raised this cycle. As of mid-May, Calvert had most of that cash — $1.2 million — still on hand, while Rollins had just shy of $445,428 left heading into Tuesday’s primary.
Rollins’s largest donors are three PACs focused on L.G.B.T.Q. issues, including the political wing of the Congressional L.G.B.T.Q.+ Equality Caucus, which donated $5,000 and endorsed his campaign. More than $145,200 of his war chest came from people who gave less than $200.
Take Back the House 2022, a joint fund-raising committee led by Republican leaders, has given $95,575 to Calvert. Corporate PACs, including those affiliated with Northrop Grumman, Booz Allen Hamilton and Raytheon, are also among Calvert’s biggest financial supporters.
Through a campaign spokesman, Calvert declined an interview, but emailed a statement.
“Riverside County families are confronting a number of challenges in their daily lives,” he said. “Between record-breaking gas prices, high food costs, and baby formula shortages, most of these challenges were created under President Biden’s failed leadership.”
“I have consistently spoken out against political or any other kind of violence,” he added.
Although national Republicans say they aren’t worried about Calvert, the new 41st District has become more Democratic. It now includes Palm Springs, a left-leaning city that Rollins has made his base. And for the first time, it contains more registered Democrats than Republicans. The area voted for Trump by just one percentage point in 2020.
Official Democratic Party groups, daunted by President Biden’s low approval ratings and by a national map that is forcing them to defend dozens of seats, have yet to show interest in the race.
But Rollins has drawn about $65,000 in support from Welcome PAC, a relatively new Democratic-aligned outfit that applies insurgent tactics to support center-left candidates in swing districts.
Liam Kerr, a founder of the group, said that Rollins was the committee’s first major investment because Calvert had rarely faced a serious challenge, and because the district ought to be winnable for the right Democratic candidate.
“People are consuming a lot of polarization porn and underestimating how many swing voters there are out there,” Kerr said.
Privately, many Democratic campaign strategists are skeptical that voters will reward their party for focusing on the Capitol siege.
They describe it as a “base issue,” or rank the topic somewhere below higher priorities for voters, such as inflation or abortion rights. What preoccupies the Beltway, they say, doesn’t always resonate out in the districts where congressional majorities are won and lost.
Which is not to say that Democrats aren’t talking about Jan. 6 at all. The Center for American Progress Action Fund has commissioned a monthslong research project to learn how best to go after the MAGA brand and portray pro-Trump Republicans as insurrectionists and extremists, and has disseminated its findings to Democratic strategists and groups.
And next week, the House committee that has been investigating the Capitol riot will hold its first public hearing on its findings, scheduled for 8 p.m. Eastern on Thursday — prime-time viewing. Although the panel is bipartisan, Democrats plan to use the hearings to highlight Republicans’ links to the Capitol rioters, culminating in a final report to be delivered a few weeks before Election Day in November.
Rollins doesn’t necessarily have the primary sewn up. Shrina Kurani, a charismatic engineer who is running as a problem-solver who can address California’s never-ending water crises, has her share of admirers among Democrats.
But if Rollins performs well on Tuesday and starts to gain momentum, expect to hear more about Jan. 6.
Alan Feuer contributed reporting.
The day before the Capitol riot in 2021, Mike Pence’s chief of staff is said to have warned the vice president’s lead Secret Service agent that Donald Trump was going to turn publicly against Pence, and there could be a security risk to him because of it, Maggie Haberman reports.
Peter Navarro, a White House adviser to Trump who defied a subpoena to provide information to the House committee investigating the Capitol attack, was charged with contempt of Congress.
Could a Republican really be mayor of liberal Los Angeles in 2023? It’s in the realm of possibility given the strength of Rick Caruso, a billionaire mall mogul who has become a front-runner in the mayor’s race, thanks in part to his tough-on-crime message. Jennifer Medina and Jill Cowan have the story.
viewfinder
On Politics regularly features work by Times photographers. Here’s what Pete Marovich told us about capturing the image above:
I was assigned to cover a House Judiciary Committee markup session that had been called to debate the Protecting Our Kids Act, a package of gun control measures including an increase of the minimum age to buy certain firearms.
During the hearing, I noticed Kristin Song sitting next to a poster of her son Ethan Song.
From a quick Google search, I learned that Ethan had died in a gun accident in 2018 at the age of 15. He and a friend had apparently been playing with a firearm at his friend’s home in Guilford, Conn., when it discharged and killed him.
Kristin Song was the only obvious person in the hearing room who had lost someone to guns, so I felt I had to make a photo of her. Lawmakers facing her throughout the hearing could clearly see her and the poster.
Thanks for reading. We’ll see you on Monday.
— Blake
Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com.
On Monday, Eurostat, the European statistical agency, released a preliminary estimate of euro area inflation for March, and it was a shocker: 8.1 percent over the preceding year, 0.8 percent — about 10 percent at an annual rate — for the month.
Europe’s preferred measure of inflation doesn’t correspond exactly to America’s Consumer Price Index, and when you use a comparable measure, U.S. inflation has generally been running even higher. But the bad European inflation news comes in the wake of modestly good or at least better U.S. news, so at this point it’s arguable that Europe has an inflation problem as bad as or worse than ours.
True, some economists argue that the U.S. inflation problem is more fundamental than Europe’s. I’ll get to that in a minute. But here’s the thing: Voters don’t care about economists’ estimates of underlying inflation; they care about the prices they pay, especially the prices of highly salient goods they buy on a regular basis. That is, voters aren’t saying, “Trimmed mean P.C.E. inflation is too high because fiscal policy was too expansionary.” They’re saying, “Gas and food were cheap, and now they’re expensive.”
And there’s truth to that complaint. But the lesson from Europe’s bad inflation report is that these are precisely the prices over which President Biden, or actually any president, has almost no control.
Take the case of prices at the pump. Gas prices in the United States have more than doubled under Biden; as of last week, they were about $2.40 a gallon higher than they were in the last week of December 2020. But gas prices in Europe have risen by almost exactly the same amount; actually, after converting from liters to gallons and euros to dollars, I estimate that pump prices in Germany rose $2.80 a gallon over the same period.
This common rise in prices is no accident: Oil is traded on global markets, so its price has risen by roughly the same amount everywhere. The same is true of major foodstuffs.
So when people say — as they do — that gas and food were cheaper when Donald Trump was president, what do they imagine he could or would be doing to keep them low if he were still in office? OK, he probably wouldn’t have supported Ukraine, might even have tacitly supported Vladimir Putin’s invasion, and if the Russian flag were currently flying over Kyiv, world fuel and food prices would be a bit lower than they are. But I don’t think buying lower inflation at the expense of Ukraine’s freedom is what Trump supporters have in mind.
Does this mean that Biden and U.S. policymakers bear no responsibility for inflation? No. While much inflation reflects global shocks to energy and food, plus special pandemic-related disruptions — who imagined that used car prices could play such an important role? — America probably has an underlying annualized inflation rate of 3.5 to 4 percent, up from the 2 percent norm. This underlying inflation probably reflects an economy that’s running unsustainably hot, which in turn partly reflects an overlarge fiscal package at the start of Biden’s presidency and the Fed’s failure (which I shared) to recognize the problem early enough.
On the other hand, overheating isn’t unique to the United States. While some economists believe that European inflation is almost entirely due to transitory disruptions — something many people, myself included, wrongly believed about the United States a year ago — my read of recent European data suggests that it has also seen a rise in underlying inflation, despite not having pursued U.S.-type fiscal expansion. Notably, even European prices excluding energy and food rose 3.8 percent over the past year.
In any case, as I already suggested, voters aren’t poised to punish Democrats for underlying inflation; they’re angry about gasoline and food prices, which no rational analysis would say are Biden’s fault.
So what can Biden do? From an economic point of view, the most important thing is his pledge not to lean on the Federal Reserve, to allow the Fed to do what it must to cool off the economy.
What about going after corporate price gouging? I’m much more sympathetic than most economists to the view — widely held by the public — that some companies are taking advantage of widespread price increases to further exploit their monopoly power. And I don’t think things like holding hearings on price gouging do any harm, as long as the Fed is allowed to do its job; that might even help a bit. But gouging is probably a small factor in overall inflation.
So should Biden officials be out there pointing out that the price rises bothering consumers most are global phenomena, not the results of U.S. policy? Yes, of course, not least because it’s the truth. And I hope media reporting will make the same point.
But the old line “If you’re explaining, you’re losing” surely applies. Democrats may be able to blunt the damage from inflation, but realistically they won’t be able to win the kitchen-table argument by November. For now, Democrats need to run on social issues — and against the threat the modern G.O.P. poses to democracy and basic American values.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
Protesters rally against the government and recent attacks against Israelis in Jerusalem, Israel, April 6.
Photo: abir sultan/Shutterstock
Jerusalem
As I sat Sunday night at an outdoor restaurant on Jaffa Road and watched thousands of jubilant, mostly young people stream by after celebrating Jerusalem Day, it was possible to imagine that Israel is a united country. But a few days spent reading the Israeli press and engaging in political conversation dispels this illusion. There are too many similarities between Israeli and American politics.
In Israel as in the U.S., the contending forces are deeply divided, and the current government’s majority hangs by a thread. In both countries, diverse coalitions are held together by mistrust and loathing of the other side. Right-leaning forces campaign relentlessly against the threat of an undifferentiated “Left” while the center and far-left fear the return to power of a charismatic populist conservative leader. Both sides believe that the future—and the soul—of the nation are at stake, and they may be right.
After each election, Israel’s president turns to the leader of one of the parties to assemble a coalition of at least 61 seats in the 120-seat parliament, the Knesset. When Benjamin Netanyahu was unable to do so last year, the president gave this opportunity to Naftali Bennett, the leader of a small right-wing party, who cobbled together a majority. But now, hobbled by threats and defections, Mr. Bennett’s eight-party government might not last much longer. If it falls, new elections—the fifth in three years—are likely. But this may not resolve the deadlock.
A recently released Jerusalem Post poll found that as in previous elections, Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party would come out on top, but the coalition it leads would fall short of the 61 seats needed for a majority in Israel’s Knesset. The poll explored the distribution of seats under alternate scenarios that the most probable fissures and mergers in Israel’s parties would create. The outcome: Power would be rearranged within the two coalitions, but the balance between them wouldn’t change.
The terminology of left and right in Israeli politics obscures a large historical change: The Left as it once existed has collapsed, and the center of gravity has shifted to the right. In various incarnations, the Labor Party dominated Israel for nearly three decades and vied with Likud for another three. Today, it controls only 7 seats out of 120, while Likud has 30.
But Labor’s loss hasn’t been Likud’s gain. Under Mr. Netanyahu’s leadership, his party has been buffeted by internal splits—and by quarrels with parties that previously supported him. After the most recent election, three such parties refused to back him and instead joined forces with centrist, leftist, and Arab parties to end his decade-plus as prime minister. Despite winning only seven seats, the leader of one the new right-wing parties, Mr. Bennett, became prime minister after agreeing to rotate leadership with Yair Lapid, the head of the centrist Yesh Atid (“There is a Future”) party.
To call this situation fragile is an understatement. To the dismay of many center-left Israelis, 69% of respondents to the Jerusalem Post opposed including an Arab party in the next government. And if someone other than Mr. Netanyahu led Likud, the odds are that at least one of the dissident right-wing parties would return to the fold, leading to the formation of a more ideologically coherent majority coalition. One wonders how long it would take for Likud to decide that, despite his political talents, Mr. Netanyahu is hindering his party’s return to power.
In Israel as in the U.S., the close balance between the parties has led to a constant battle for political advantage, whatever the consequences for governance and the country’s long-term interest. For example, the Israeli government recently proposed to increase education tuition subsidies for former members of its armed forces, a policy favored by nearly everyone. But in a secretly taped meeting, Miri Regev,
an ambitious Likud leader, urged members of her party to vote against the bill. “We have decided that we are a militant opposition and we want to bring down this government, so there are no stomach aches,” she declared. Whatever the government’s agenda, she insisted—whether about soldiers, the disabled, or even rape victims—Likud members of the Knesset must resist their natural sympathies and vote against it.A similar logic drove Sen. Mitch McConnell’s famous declaration that his principal objective was to ensure that Barack Obama would be a one-term president. And it induces leaders of both parties to introduce bills designed to send messages to the electorate rather than become law.
In a remarkable exchange of letters in 1934, the right-wing Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky responded to socialist and rival David Ben-Gurion’s expressions of trust and esteem by confessing that “Recently, I’ve begun to hate this way of life; my soul is weary of all the constant, endless bitterness stretching beyond the horizon. You’ve reminded me that perhaps there is an end to it after all.”
I suspect that many of today’s Israelis and Americans share this weariness and hope for a sign that it can end. I know I do. But doing so will take leaders who are strong enough to face down their most obdurate supporters.
Sheryl Sandberg may pursue a career in politics after she leaves Facebook, with some Beltway observers highlighting her high profile, a history of business success, a popular book, and a compelling personal story.
The veteran Facebook executive said on Wednesday she is stepping down. "I'm not entirely sure what the future will bring — I have learned no one ever is," she wrote. "But I know it will include focusing more on my foundation and philanthropic work, which is more important to me than ever given how critical this moment is for women."
That may be a reference to the Supreme Court's imminent decision to end women's abortion rights, the hottest political issue of the moment.
Sandberg published the book "Lean In" in 2013, suggesting women should push for more power. It was a sensation at the time, with more than 4 million copies sold in five years, according to the New York Times. About two years after the book came out, Sandberg's husband Dave Goldberg died, pitching her into a period of wrenching grief.
Then came a series of Facebook scandals and congressional hearings that Sandberg had to tackle with CEO Mark Zuckerberg. In 2019, she published a second book — "Option B," with author Adam Grant — about dealing with adversity.
"There has been a huge interest in business leaders and she definitely has a story to tell," said Tammy Haddad, a Washington-based consultant and former political director of MSNBC. "She probably has some things voters would want her to explain but there's a long history of success and innovation at Facebook in her career." Sandberg didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
As an early employee at Google and Facebook Sandberg has amassed a huge personal fortune, estimated at $1.6 billion by Forbes.
Haddad noted that there are no perfect political candidates any more, pointing to Mehmet Oz, a former TV personality who is running in a Senate primary in Pennsylvania. "The American people like a story of down and out and recovery and she's extremely well known," she added.
Sandberg has worked in politics before, and she's been touted as a potential running mate for some candidates. She was chief of staff to Clinton Administration Treasury Secretary Larry Summers from 1999 to 2001.
Sandberg was considered a candidate for Treasury Secretary had Hillary Clinton's bid for the 2016 presidency succeeded, according to Politico, which also reported that Sandberg had advised Hillary Clinton's campaign on women's issues.
During Michael Bloomberg's 2016 presidential run, she was a top choice to be his Vice President, a person who worked on his campaigns said.
One person familiar with Sandberg's circle of friends told Insider, "The election years put her in the cross-hairs. She can't win, but apparently she wants Dianne Feinstein's seat." Feinstein is the 88-year-old California Senator who has said she is not stepping down despite complaints from colleagues about her mental acuity reported by the San Francisco Chronicle.
Another person who worked in California state politics spoke of a rumor that Sandberg had expressed interest in being considered for the open US Senate seat left in 2020 by Kamala Harris.
However, the optimal time to launch a political career may have passed for Sandberg, according to a person involved in high-level Democratic politics who has interacted with her. "She's too smart to think she can win," this person said. "By the time Kamala's seat opened up, we were a very long way from 2015. She can read the political winds well enough to know that was not on the menu."
Indeed, when Bloomberg ran for president again in 2020, Sandberg was not on his list, according to the person who worked on his campaigns. "No candidate would have wanted to even stand next to her," this person said. "The cachet she had is gone."
Are you a Facebook employee with insight to share? Got a tip? Contact Kali Hays at khays@insider.com, through secure messaging app Signal at 949-280-0267 or Twitter DM at @hayskali. Reach out using a non-work device.
For you
[unable to retrieve full-text content]
Borgen review – this antidote to real-life politics is like The West Wing 2022 The Guardianunitedstatepolitics.blogspot.com Adblock test (Why?) "politic" - Google News February 01, 2024 at 03:47AM https://ift.tt...
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/bostonglobe/VNG7YMZTRWJ5WBFTJ5NVETPCQI.jpg)
