CORY BOOKER FOR PRESIDENT IN 2020? (BOOKER vs TRUMP vs OBAMA)

CORY BOOKER FOR PRESIDENT IN 2020? (BOOKER vs TRUMP vs OBAMA):

BOOKER IS A GREAT CANDIDATE BUT DON'T KNOW IF HE CAN RAISE BIG MONEY LIKE OBAMA DID.

BOOKER IS PASSIONATE BUT IT TAKES MORE THAN PASSION TO BECOME U.S. PRESIDENT.

TRUMP STILL PULLS BIG MONEY FROM BUSINESS BILLIONAIRES.

OBAMA ALSO PULLED BIG MONEY FROM BUSINESS BILLIONAIRES.

IN FACT TRUMP BORROWED HIS 2016 WINNING STRATEGY FROM OBAMA'S POLITICAL PLAYBOOK.

OBAMA SET A POLITICAL GENIUS STANDARD HARD TO BEAT FOR ALL FUTURE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES.

MANY SOUTHERN BLACK VOTERS DON'T KNOW BOOKER.

WILL BLACK VOTERS SHOW UP FOR BOOKER IN LARGE NUMBERS? I DON'T KNOW.

~ FYI:
I DON'T BELIEVE TRUMP IS RACIST, PERHAPS MISGUIDED.

SOMETIMES I REALLY DO MISS "COOL HAND LUKE" OBAMA.

I'M JUST SAYING.


Sources: NJ.com, Raw Story, BBC News, CNN, Youtube


****** Cory Booker's voice challenges the silence of Trump supporters


Every now and then, a political leader seems to capture what is on our minds. Franklin Roosevelt had that ability. So did John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and occasionally Barack Obama. Even Chris Christie could do it until he became intoxicated with his presidential ambitions and his bully ways.

This week Cory Booker found his voice – and ours, too, with just six words.

“She hit a nerve in me.”

Booker was not talking about one of his colleagues in the U.S. senate or even one of his constituents back in New Jersey. His words, spoken during an interview on CNN, were directed at Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.

It was evening in Washington, D.C. Booker looked worn out. He was sporting a five o’clock shadow beard when he appeared on CNN.

Hours earlier, in one of his first appearances as a new, very junior Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Booker had listened quietly as Nielson said she “could not recall specific words” when President Trump reportedly cursed a blue streak a week earlier as he criticized an immigration plan suggested by Sen. Dick Durbin, the Illinois Democrat, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican.

As almost everyone in America has heard, the “specific words” that Trump is said to have uttered are “s---hole” during that immigration discussion. The president was not describing the plan or any of the people in the Oval Office. His words were aimed at Africa, Haiti and El Salvador. Simply put, the president wanted to register his disapproval of immigrants from those “s---hole” nations.

After the meeting broke up, Durbin went public with Trump’s vulgarity, saying Trump was out of line and disrespectful of those nations and their people. Graham backed Durbin up. Neither Trump nor the White House tried to deny the “s---hole” remark – at least not initially.

But as uproar spread across the nation that the president – indeed, any political leader – would describe poor nations like that, Trump had second thoughts. He suggested that he didn’t quite use the “s---hole” phrase.

So what did Trump say?

About a dozen people were in the Oval Office for the immigration discussion. But it seems that everyone except Durbin and Graham came down with a sudden case of hearing loss, amnesia or had taken a monk-like vow of silence.

Actually, that’s not quite correct. After first claiming they did not know what Trump said, two GOP senators who were present for the discussion said that Trump did not say “ s---hole” but “s--- house.”

As if that makes a difference.

But now, here was Kirstjen Nielsen several days later testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Maybe she could recall what Trump actually said. Was it “s---hole” or “s--- house” – or something else?

Instead of shedding light on what happened, Nielsen did her best imitation of Sergeant Schultz, the rotund, dim-witted Nazi prison guard in the 1960’s TV sitcom, “Hogan’s Heroes,” who habitually exclaimed to “know nothing” when asked by his commander whether the American and British prisoners of war were planning to escape.

Nielson first claimed too many people were talking at once so she couldn’t quite determine what was being said. Then, she conceded that she managed to hear what she described as “rough talk.” She just couldn’t recall anything specific. So how did she know the talk was “rough”?

As Nielson offered this lame explanation, the TV footage showed Booker in what could kindly be called a slow burn. When it was his time to speak, his eyes widened and he declared that he was “seething with anger” over Trump’s alleged comments.

He then used his entire 10-minute session that had been set aside for him to question Nielson to lecture her. He mentioned Ghandi and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. He also described his parents’ difficulty in confronting bigotry when they purchased a home in Harrington Park.

Booker's message was simple: Why wasn’t Nielson confronting bigotry – in this case, the words of her boss, the president?

Nielson sat stone-faced.

“I sit here right now because when good white people in this country heard bigotry or hatred, they stood up,” Booker declared.

Nielson still sat stone faced.

When Booker had finished, Nielsen did not address what he said but instead talked about threats from white supremacists. Then Nielson said she believed that the president was trying to suggest in that Oval Office discussion that America ought to have a “merit-based” immigration system – meaning that highly educated immigrants or those with skilled would be admitted.

She didn't have to say that immigrants from “s---hole” nations would be rejected. She didn’t need to. Suggesting a “merit-based” immigration system was her clever way of avoiding any discussion of immigrants from “s---hole” nations – the poorest of the poor.

What is disturbing here is not just the president’s words, but the reaction from those closest to him like Kirstjen Nielson. Simply put: What is it going to take for people in the White House – or, frankly, in the Republican Party – to criticize Trump for stepping over a line?

We shouldn’t be surprised by the silence. Remember Trump’s “rapist” comment about Mexicans? Or when he doubted that John McCain was a war hero? Or when he disparaged the Muslim parents of an Army officer who was killed in Iraq? Or when he mocked a disabled journalist?

Trump loves picking on anyone who is vulnerable. But the uproar over Trump’s litany of outrageous statements was often brief at best and coming mainly from Trump’s critics. Trump’s allies were mostly mute, dulled into tacit acceptance.

This pattern seemed to bother Booker deeply – and rightly so. What does it take for Trump’s buddies to speak up?

And so, when Kirstjen Nielson seemed overcome with amnesia, Booker fired back. And a few hours later, when asked on CNN why he was so bothered, he said, “She hit a nerve in me.”

In that simple sentence, Booker captured the frustration that so many have felt in the first year of Trump’s presidency. He not only strikes a nerve when he opens his mouth, but his supporters strike that same nerve in their silence.

This week, Cory Booker found his voice.

When will Trump’s people find theirs?