general

Naked Capitalism's Lambert Strether goes into depth on the Trump "Russian dossier" issue, which I'm not that interested in. Lambert's conclusions are worth quoting at length, though:

It would be nice, wouldn’t it, if our famously free press was actually covering the Trump transition, instead of acting like their newsrooms are mountain redoubts for an irrendentist Clinton campaign. It would be nice, for example, to know:

1) The content and impact of Trump’s Executive Orders.

2) Ditto, regulations.

3) Personnel decisions below the Cabinet level. Who are the Flexians?

4) Obama policies that will remain in place, because both party establishments support them. Charters, for example.

5) Republican inroads in Silicon Valley.

6) The future of the IRS, since Republicans have an axe to grind with it.

7) Mismatch between State expectations for infrastructure and Trump’s implementation

And that’s before we get to ObamaCare, financial regulation, gutting or owning the CIA (which Trump needs to do, and fast), trade policy, NATO, China, and a myriad of other stories, all rich with human interest, powerful narratives, and plenty of potential for scandal. Any one of them worthy of A1 coverage, just like the Inaugural crowd size dogpile that’s been going on for days.

Instead, the press seems to be reproducing the last gasps of the Clinton campaign, which were all about the evils of Trump, the man. That tactic failed the Clinton campaign, again because volatility voters weren’t concerned with the niceties. And the same tactic is failing the press now. Failing unless, of course, you’re the sort of sleaze merchant who downsizes the newsroom because, hey, it’s all about the clicks.

Walking across lower Manhattan, I passed a man with a loud, mellifluous speaking voice and a microphone, addressing people on the street: "I told you not to vote for Donald Duck, and you didn't listen to me, and now he's taking away your health care."
So far it's just the hated individual mandate but "Donald Duck" -- that's a good one.

From the RSS reader, three reactions to the Trump inauguration speech, two worthless and one fairly insightful:

Village Voice journalist-turned-Clinton-zombie Joe Conason thinks Trump is still fighting the campaign and is shocked, shocked by Trump's appeal to "anger." Lefty bloggers used to call this "pearl-clutching" or "fainting couch" behavior, where a comfortable Washington insider can't understand how someone could hate his guts.

Juan Cole calls the speech "a chain of falsehoods, saber-rattling and scary Neofascist uber-nationalism" and oh-so-cleverly translates it from the "original German" of the 1930s to the America of 2017. This all seems a tad ... overwrought ... if you actually saw the speech.

Corey Robin compares Trump's inaugural address with Reagan's 1980 equivalent. Now we're getting somewhere!

[T]here’s an interesting contrast to be drawn in how Reagan and Trump summon the people. Both men make much of the people as against the government. But where Reagan is very clear that government needs to get out of the way so that the people’s native talents and genius and initiative can flourish [speech excerpt] Trump construes the people differently. They are either the objects and beneficiaries of government action -- specifically, Trump’s actions -- or they are partners with the government [speech excerpt]

That sounds more like FDR or JFK than Hitler but the angry, fascist talk is more fun and soothes our woes at the loss of the noble, misunderstood Clintons. *sob*

It continues to amaze that so-called progressives are comfortable aligning themselves with the worst so-called Deep State elements fighting the incoming administration. Consider Trump's recent interview where he spoke about Europe, Russia, and the "obsolete" NATO. Depending on who you read, this was the kid pointing out the emperor's nakedness (Antiwar.com) or a kid, period (LobeLog). How aggressive will Trump be about altering US security priorities (if at all)? Quite a few well paid defense contractors seem nervous about #J20 -- it's not just the angry art galleries and websites who are "going dark" today.

Apropos of #J20 and #J20ArtStrike, this Archdruid essay (hat tip m.po) roots some of the Trump angst in pure class snobbery. A president who wears a ball-cap must be "illegitimate." Regarding indiscriminate use of the I-word, see Benjamin Studebaker.

Update, Mar. 2021: The Archdruid essay's URL changed -- see archived version or webarchive snapshot.

Matt Stoller, a blogger for the now-disappeared sites MyDD and Open Left, became a Congressional staffer (for Alan Grayson) and joined the DC establishment. :( He can still write a fiery screed, such as this one for the Amazon Washington Post, titled "Democrats can’t win until they recognize how bad Obama’s financial policies were."

While the Hillary Left moans about Russia and Trump's supposed "illegitimacy," Stoller gets at the heart of why the Dems lost.