Another Cuomo Bites The Dust

Although I will not post lists of winners and losers of the year that the end of the year or any other year going forward, I do have to admit . . .  2021 hasn't been a good year for anyone named Cuomo.

Chris Cuomo, a star anchor at CNN, has been fired when it turned out that he helped his brother Andrew deal with sexual harassment allegations much more than he admitted to.  He crossed the line from being a journalist reporting on the story to being a politician's brother being a part of the story, and it was conduct unbecoming a reporter.  As Chris Cuomo has a law school education, he should have known what he did amounted to a  lack of journalistic ethics.

CNN did the right thing and it should be an example for how a responsible cable-news outlet should react to such conduct,  Meanwhile, at Fox News, Tucker Carlson is allowed to be an advocate for right-wing extremism based on lies, and Laura Ingraham is so insufferable for her blatant bigotry and intolerance that she actually makes me miss Megyn Kelly.  Maybe Fox News is getting the message, to some extent.  After comparing Dr. Anthony Fauci to Josef Mengele, former serious reporter Lara Logan has suddenly disappeared from the airwaves, albeit without an explanation from Fox.  Her show "Lara Logan Has No Agenda" has been displaced by the fact that Lara Logan has no program.

At at moment when nightly cable commentary programs are in flux, with Rachel Maddow planning to move from nightly commentary and reporting to producing and hosting documentaries, it will be interesting to see how CNN handles things going forward.  In the meantime, Michael Smerconish will fill in Cuomo's 9 PM Eastern tie slot, and at MSNBC, there's still Lawrence O'Donnell at 10: 00 Eastern.

Oh yeah, I didn't want to bring it up, but Chris Cuomo has been fired for a second reason; there's a sexual harassment charge against him.  I'm just glad their father Mario isn't alive to see any of this.  At least Andrew's and Chris's sisters haven't stained the family name; ironically, they can't carry it on to the next generation.

Touch of Joe

Joe Biden's old-school ways of campaigning finally caught up with him in this new age.  Former Nevada assemblywoman Lucy Flores came forward and accused him of having hugged her from behind an kissing her on the head while they were backstage at a 2014 campaign rally when she was a candidate for lieutenant governor of Nevada.  (She lost the election.)

Until now, Biden's only scandal was using the words of another politician back in the 1988 presidential campaign to describe his humble beginnings (though, to be fair, he and former British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock, that other politician, had similar backgrounds), which led to revelations that Biden plagiarized someone else's work for a college paper.  Now Biden faces a scandal over how he acts with women not his wife in the glare of the Me Too movement.  And for getting minimally physical with a woman in the heat of the excitement of a campaign rally.  Oh yeah, three women have made similar accusations. 

Biden's potential rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination (he's not a presidential candidate yet) all say that believe Lucy Flores, and Biden himself moved swiftly to control the damage.  He acknowledged the incident, he said it was never his intent to make Flores feel uncomfortable, and he says he's willing to listen to her concerns.  Not . . . good . . . enough.  Biden also apologized in an impromptu Twitter video, but more recently, he's been trying to laugh it off, though not too many people are laughing with him. Biden is about to learn what Gary Hart - who, ironically, was forced out of the 1988 presidential campaign over a sex scandal just as Biden was forced out of that same campaign over plagiarism - learned back in the spring of 1987.  He doesn't get the last word on this, and he doesn't get to move on until everyone else lets him, and by then, moving on to a withdrawal may be his only recourse.  Lucy Flores - who supported Bernie Sanders in 2016 and was at a Beto O'Rourke rally recently - still thinks this disqualifies Biden for the Presidency, and she's gone back to how he ran the hearings for Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas in 1991 as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and botched the handling of Anita Hill's testimony over sexual harassment on Thomas' part. 

The thing is, Biden's transgression is hardly worthy of the term.  He didn't have an affair.  He didn't assault anyone.  He crossed the line, yes, but he did so thinking it was just innocent physical contact.  He's had physical contact with women before, yes, but he's also been touchy-feely with men, too.  That's the sort of fellow Biden is; he likes to literally press the flesh with everyone, getting close to people and connecting with people, because he lives people and he loves politics.   He has a penchant for glad-handling everyone just like the uncle he is.  (I'm not talking about literal nephews and nieces, though I assume he has some; I mean he's the uncle of the Democratic Party.)  He's not unlike the late actor Telly Savalas, who'd always glad-handle friends and fans and tell them he lucky they were to get "a touch of Telly."  And by all accounts, he was a great guy to hang around with.  So, it seems, is Biden.

 And Anita Hill?  Biden was completely foolish to cross-examine her as if Thomas were the victim, which was exactly the wrong strategy, but his bigger problem was reining in his fellow senators with their over-the-top grilling of Professor Hill  - including Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, who voted for Thomas and later regretted it, saying he realized Professor Hill had been telling the truth all along - and, I swear, Biden almost came to blows with Utah's Orrin Hatch.

Biden voted against Thomas in the end.  He believed Anita Hill after cross-examining her.  And he went on to become a major proponent of women's issues.  That part is left unmentioned.

What should not be left unmentioned is that any remedy to Biden's latest incident should be the equivalent of a slap on the wrist, not internal exile, as happened to Al Franken.  Because any punishment for sexual harassment or unwanted physical contact should only be out of proportion only when the act is also out of proportion.

Which begs the obvious question - why are we talking about minor physical contact ending a political career while Clarence Thomas - who reaffirmed recently that he's not retiring - is still on the Supreme Court?      

Ford Tempo

Here's how the issue of Christine Blasey Ford's attempt to testify against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh  stand at this point.  After Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley set an arbitrary deadline for Mrs. Ford to agree to a time to testify and she and her attorney held out for demands to benefit her ability to present her case, the chairman kept setting the deadline further back.  And further back,.  And further back.  And so on and so on, until Mrs. Ford finally agreed to testify, and now she and her attorney are in the process of negotiating the particulars. 

What caused Grassley to be more accommodating? Probably Donald Trump's tweet in which he wanted to know why the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which would investigate Mrs. Ford's claims of sexual assault against Kavanaugh, didn't hear from the accuser in the early 1980s, when the assault was supposed to have taken place.  Once reminded that the FBI doesn't involve itself in sexual-assault cases involving people who have not been appointed to the judiciary due to the fact that they are teenagers, Trump then asked in a follow-up tweet why she and her "loving parents"  (his words) didn't report the assault to local authorities in Maryland, where Kavanaugh and Mrs. Ford lived.  Well - thousands if not millions have people who had been sexually assaulted took to Twitter to explain why they never reported cases of assault - because they involved family members, a star student, an employer . . . and fear of retribution was a common factor in all of these cases.  They feared not being believed or having the blame deflected to them if they were believed.

Nevertheless, the Senate Republican caucus seems hell-bent on getting Kavanaugh confirmed, and with a couple of renegade Democrats, they're likely to pull it off.  But Christine Blasey Ford can still pursue a case against Kavanaugh even if he makes it onto the Court, and what might ultimately happen is that Democrats can "Fortas" him.  I refer to what happened to former Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas. who in 1969 was shown to have accepted a $20,000 retainer and was believed to have entered into a tax evasion scheme with other judges.  Fortas resigned from the Court under pressure, rather than face lengthy impeachment proceedings, to save his family grief.  If Kavanaugh is confirmed and the charges against him don't go way, he could be forced off the Court like Fortas was, resigning to spare his wife and daughters further grief.

But then he'll have more time to devote to charity.

I've been led to understand that the Senate Judiciary Committee didn't do a good job the last time it looked into a sex scandal, when many of its members didn't take seriously Anita Hill's charges of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas in 1991.  The full Senate did a better job of that. Thomas was confirmed by a vote of 52-48 - the highest negative vote ever received by a confirmed Supreme Court justice.

Red Face-off and White Washing

American men are behaving badly at the Winter Olympics again.  Including Shaun White.

First, to get it out of the way, the U.S. men's ice hockey team.  Ahead 2-0 over Slovenia, the Americans suddenly collapsed and lost 3-2.  After the American women beat out the Olympic Athletes from Russia team in a shutout (5-0), the men shut down. Which prompted all of those silly Americans chanting "We're number one!" to shut up.  (At least one of the current White House residents, I'm sure, was secretly pleased.)  

As if seeing our guys live up to the tradition of American national men's teams choking weren't bad enough, we now learn that Shaun White is yet another celebrity involved in a sexual harassment case.  White has his own rock band, appropriately titled Bad Things, with a female drummer that has since left the band after White did . . . bad things.  To her.  It was since been reported that he texted her pictures of  private parts, and he has also been accused of having shown her hardcore porn, forcing her to drink vodka, trying to make her change her look to appear sexier, and making her smell something, uh, personal.  After his gold-medal victory in these PyeongChang Winter Games (the one hundredth gold-medal victory for the U.S. in the Winter Games' 94-year history), White, who settled with the woman out of court, admitted to the first charge but not the others, dismissing the rest as "gossip."  White sounds like a guy who's addicted to cocaine, crystal meth, and tobacco and only admits to smoking.

White has since apologized for his poor choice of words ("gossip?") and how he handled the story when it came to the fore; the case, for the record, was settled out of court.  He admits to being in a dark place at the time of his fourth-place halfpipe showing at the Sochi Winter Olympics in 2014, leading to his bad behavior.  But the truth is that White has always been in a dark place of sorts.  No one in snowboarding likes him because of his swagger and self-importance. "To so many who saw the text messages, read the allegations," Jeff Passan of Yahoo! Sports wrote about White's magnificent comeback on the halfpipe course this week after his Sochi disappointment, "the notion of redemption was nothing more than a canard to distract from a far uglier story."

I'm not going to equate the U.S. men's ice hockey team's misdemeanor of sucking to White's high crimes.  But to see both stories at the same time has certainly caused a pang of rue for anyone who expected our guys at the Winter Olympics to be shining examples of American manhood in the Age of Trump.  Uh, fellas, could I see you in my office?     

Catherine Deneuve - Not Her Too

The Me Too movement is spreading like wildfire across the globe, but it may have sparked a firestorm in France.

A hundred prominent French women, including movie star Catherine Deneuve, have put their names to an open letter denouncing the Me Too movement as being misandric and undemocratic, saying that the movement could lead to a new "puritanism" in male-female relationships and adding that male persistence in pursuing women - referred to as a "freedom to pester" - is "indispensable to sexual freedom."  Mlle. Deneuve and her ninety-nine co-signers said that there is a huge difference between abuse or harassment and mere flirting.

"Rape is a crime," they wrote, "but insistent or clumsy flirting is not an offense, nor is gallantry macho aggression."

The women could have stopped there, but they added that the charges against men make women sound like they can't take care of themselves and need to play the role of the "eternal victim."  They also said that men are denied the opportunity to defend themselves against charges of sexual impropriety, especially in the court of public opinion, and even the smallest gesture, made without malicious intent, can be blown out of proportion.  Furthermore, they write, such an approach to feminism "takes the shape of hatred for men and sexuality. We believe the liberty to say no to a sexual proposition goes along with the liberty to inconvenience. And we believe that one should know how to react to this liberty to inconvenience in other ways than shutting oneself up inside the role of the victim."

Needless to say, numerous women took the liberty of inconveniencing Catherine Deneuve (pictured above) and her compatriots.  French feminist  Caroline De Haas said that the letter equated seduction with rape, saying that seduction "means treating the other as your equal, respecting their desires, whatever they may be. The other is treating them as an object at your disposal, paying no attention to their own desires, or their consent." The British feminist Caroline Criado Perez wrote of Mlle. Deneuve and the other signatories of that letter that they "claim to be concerned with women's sexual freedom. But if that is what they actually care about, they wouldn't be reifying the old myth that women need to be harassed into sex. As if we don't enjoy it. As if we don't want it just as much as men."

Oh dear . . . there is so much to unpack here.  Suffice it to say that there is enough truth on both sides of this argument to find a middle ground, but finding the right balance is like walking on a tightrope - fall on either side and you're dead.  But let me try.  I think the letter that Catherine Deneuve - whom, in full disclosure, is my all-time favorite actress - signed made a valid point in stating that not every act performed by a man toward a woman rises to the level of sexual harassment.  Garrison Keillor briefly touched a woman with no intent to make her feel uncomfortable or to come on to her, yet he lost his radio show.  Similarly, former senator Al Franken made gestures towards women that he apologized for and was accused of other gestures towards women that he denied or remembered differently, but he was willing to have the accusations against him investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee to clear his name.  Not good enough for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who all but forced him to resign rather than defend himself.  There are some innocent acts that don't deserve a punitive response, and there are not-so-innocent acts in which the punishment is much bigger than and out of proportion to the deed.  And also, if a woman accuses a man of an act of sexual impropriety that he denies or does not remember, his side of the story should be heard before any rush to judgment.  If he denies charges of sexual impropriety, he should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.   

On the other hand, if there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a man is guilty of sexual misconduct or rape, then by all means, he should be punished.  Bill Cosby has 59 women accusing him of rape, and it's clear that they can't all be lying.  Harvey Weinstein has so much evidence against him that to take his side of the story wouldn't be courageous; it would be idiotic and out of touch with reality.  Not to mention suicidal.  And Donald Trump admitted on tape that he sexually harasses women - how can that not be considered irrefutable evidence against him?  I doubt that Catherine Deneuve would give Donald Trump a pass, and if he ever made one to her, the outcome would be more embarrassing for America and for Franco-American relations than what he did to the Paris Agreement.  Which goes back to her point about how women should react to men's "liberty to inconvenience."  Because Catherine Deneuve is a woman who doesn't take crap from anyone.  How many of you who saw The Last Metro - a film about an actress who takes full charge of her Jewish husband's theater in German-occupied Paris while he hides from the Nazis - thought that Mlle. Deneuve wasn't acting?

I don't think Catherine Deneuve was belittling or casting aspersions on anyone who's been the victim of sexual assault.  I think she was only trying to get people to realize that there's nothing wrong when men get a little flirtatious (though "freedom to pester" was a poor choice of words) and that some male sexual behavior doesn't warrant swift and severe punishment but can be dealt with accordingly when it does.  We're talking about a woman who has survived fifty-four years in a long career as one of the most desirable women in the world, and likely dealing with lots of men who, shall we say, may have desired her too much.  And for every man who respected her and made her feel like her own woman, like director François Truffaut, there was a man who was a complete jerk to her - including, somewhat ironically, the director Roger Vadim, with whom she lived in the early sixties and who made a star out of her after making one movie with her.  While they were seated in a car, Mlle. Deneuve accused him of confusing her with and trying to mold her in the image of Brigitte Bardot, to whom Vadim had been married and had made And God Created Woman with.  "No problem," Vadim replied.  "I can tell the difference between a genuine diamond and a bottle cap."  The insult angered Mlle. Deneuve so much, she got out of the car.

Oh yeah, the car was moving at the time.

And let's agree with the other side.  Sexual misconduct should be called out. Again, anyone who engages in the sort of behavior Harvey Weinstein engaged should clearly have their careers ruined.  And I also agree with Caroline Criado Perez when she says that men can't be deemed "better suited to hold positions of power and influence, while at the same time accepting that they're incapable of telling whether or not a woman wants it."  Men have to know when a flirtatious act is appropriate and when it is not.  I'm not talking about something like Garrison Keillor's faux pas, I'm talking about . . . well, consider me.  A few years ago I met a woman I'd known on social media for the first time in person once, and we ended up hugging each other.  As we embraced, I felt this vibe urging me to go ahead and kiss her on the cheek.  So I did.  She later told me that I made her feel beautiful and that she appreciated the gesture. 

It's just a matter of knowing what is appropriate and when it's appropriate to do it.

Who was it?  Sorry, I don't kiss and tell.  But it was certainly not Catherine Deneuve - good grief, if I  ever met her, I'd be so shocked that I wouldn't even speak unless spoken to.  And I'd be so much in shock, probably not even then.  Because I know where to draw the line when it comes to women. Especially a film icon like Catherine Deneuve.

I hope that this has been helpful. 

Every Rose Has Its Thorn

I gave up long ago on keeping track of all of the unscrupulous males who were caught making sexual advances and exhibiting other forms of improper behavior toward women, from assault to rape, but what caught my attention was Charlie Rose getting caught with his pants down . . . literally.  Rose always came off as the thinking person's talk show host, a gracious, mannered Southern gentleman . . . and it turns out that he has a dirtier mind than Howard Stern.  And Howard Stern, potty mouth that he is, is actually a family man and a nice guy. 

Al Franken, meanwhile, apologized for improper behavior toward a woman while on a USO tour before he was elected to the Senate, and many commentators were quick to note the difference between Franken, who admitted his deed and apologized, and Roy Moore, the Alabama U.S. Senate candidate who has been accused of pedophilia and whose accusers are credible despite his denials.  Then it turned out that Franken groped other women as a U.S. Senator.  Meanwhile, Detroit congressman John Conyers is facing charges of sexual harassment, which he denies, even though he paid a settlement to save everyone involved from going through a legal process.  This isn't a Democratic or Republican issue or white male or black male issue . . . it's a male American issue, and it makes American men look like bigger louts than the rest of the world thought they were.

I believe that Franken and Conyers should resign from their seats in Congress.  And I believe so because of Roy Moore.  Alabama being Alabama, Moore, barring a major disaster, is likely to win the special election for the state's open Senate seat despite every Republican in Washington taking the side of Moore's accusers.  With Moore, who's backed by Trump, likely to be an embarrassment for the Republicans nationwide as a U.S. Senator, and with pressure to do something about him, Democrats should set an example by dissociating themselves from their letches to prevent charges of hypocrisy and take the lead against mistreatment of women.  Franken is inconsequential - he's an entertainer, for Pete's sake, and his home state of Minnesota isn't likely to put a Republican in his place - and Conyers is too old anyway.  Conyers is part of the Democratic gerontocracy that has hobbled the party for too long, and even though there's something cynical to get him to quit the House so that younger House Democrats can finally move up to higher positions of responsibility, that wouldn't be a bad thing.  The 88-year-old Conyers did quit his position as ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.  Not good enough - he should just leave the House, period.  Good grief, he was first elected to the House from Detroit in 1964, the same year the Supremes recorded their first big hits there.  Give it up, dude, you're through.

As for Charlie Rose, who lost his jobs at CBS, Bloomberg and PBS, I've heard that PBS is looking to replace his program with a new talk show.  Some, I have been led to understand, have suggested getting Oprah Winfrey to replace him.

Republican efforts to defund public television suddenly look attractive . . .     

Hurricane Harvey

This guy.

Harvey Weinstein is rivaling Donald Trump for the role of the most hated man in America, thanks to charges that he sexually harassed and "had non-consensual sex with" (read raped) numerous women, many of them among today's greatest living actresses in English-language cinema.  Forced out of his own production company and seeing his wife leaving him, Weinstein has gotten people talking about sexual harassment seriously for the first time in over a quarter of a century.

I just have one question - Why is everyone so shocked?  Everyone has known for decades that Hollywood is full of libidinous producers who prey on the aspirations of young actresses and try to get these women to sleep with them.  How many people still believe that Hollywood is primarily interested in making great movies by nurturing a creative process in which top-rate writers and directors - or, better yet, top-rate writers/directors - come up with ideas, get backing from producers who don't get involved with artistic or creative concerns and let the filmmakers cast their films on the basis of talent and ability alone?  Producers are notorious for using their power to bed the leading (and supporting) ladies of Hollywood.  They inject themselves in the casting decisions, make decisions while lounging in their hot tubs looking over head shots, and confuse casting couches with love seats. 

This is ironic, because Weinstein, his sleazy operational style so prevalent in a town that gives us lowbrow "popcorn movies" and brain-dead direct-to-video-style fare, is associated with some of the most acclaimed movies of the past twenty-odd years - The English Patient, Shakespeare In Love, Good Will Hunting, The Aviator, Finding Neverland, and Silver Linings Playbook, among others.  (And highbrow artists of other media have demonstrated the same disgusting behavior as Weinstein has.  I'm sorry to point this out, but Picasso did not simply spend all of his time painting in a studio.)  Also, Weinstein has contributed to several charities, such as AIDS research, multiple sclerosis, and anti-poverty programs.  Not to mention the Democratic Party, a charity case if there ever was one.  But none of this can excuse or justify Weinstein's disgusting behavior - his contributions to the Democrats have become chum in the water for Republicans running against coastal elites -  and he deserves to be forced to pay for his sins in the most severe manner.  Hopefully, this will put an end to sexual harassment in Hollywood and everywhere else.What was it Shakespeare, either when he was in love or when he wasn't, said about the evil men do outliving them and the good they do being buried with them?  

At a time when everyone is deserting Hurricane Harvey, though, he still has one guy standing by him.

Awk-ward! :-O

And by a strange twist of fate, the scathing investigative report of Weinstein that appeared in the New Yorker was written by . . . Ronan Farrow.

Life really is a comedy written by a sadistic comedy writer.  

Factored Out

We have O'Reilly on our radar.

Bill O'Reilly, the abrasive and rather nasty Fox News commentator, was forced off the conservative news channel when it turned out he had been accused of sexual harassment by seven women and that he and Fox had paid out more than $13 million to settle lawsuits from five of them. 

Among the more nauseating details of his harassment history . . . he called a black female intern "Hot Chocolate."

And of course, these allegations must be true, because why would Fox pay so much money to keep things nice and quiet?  

Liberals are applauding this move, as they should, and some of them think this marks the end of the dominance of right-wing news commentary, as O'Reilly's show "The O'Reilly Factor" was the highest-rated show on the highly-rated Fox News Channel.  Indeed, it's being called a turning point in how harassment is being dealt with.  Well, let me dispel all that by pointing out a couple of things . . .

Tucker Carlson replaced Bill O'Reilly is his old time slot and delivered ratings numbers just as high as Bill's.

O'Reilly is getting a golden parachute of $25 million - a payout almost twice that of the sum paid out to those previously mentioned five women.  When a black man like Bill Cosby sexually harasses - nay, rapes - women, he is deservedly made to pay for it.  O'Reilly should also be made to suffer, so why is getting twenty-five million bucks for bad behavior?

And if the popularity of right-wing commentary is fading, why is Sean Hannity - who makes O'Reilly look like Eric Sevareid  by comparison - still on the air?

O'Reilly's departure from the TV airwaves treated a symptom of the disease plaguing American civilization.  The disease itself goes merrily on.    

Your Serve

Leaked information from Clinton campaign keeps pouring in. The leaks, all from the e-mail account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and supposedly provided to WikiLeaks by the Russians, cover everything from the denigration of Catholics to the underhanded tactics against Bernie Sanders - nothing about Martin O'Malley? nah, even Hillary's campaign staffers didn't know who he is - but the most explosive leak may have been the report that a deputy secretary at the State Department, Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy (not the former Rhode island congressman of the Kennedy family), may have tried to get the FBI to de-classify the contents of one e-mail from Hillary's own private server. 

In exchange, the State Department said that it would help the FBI get agents assigned to dangerous areas overseas.  (Wait - the FBI has agents assigned overseas?)  One individual said there was pressure from another FBI official regarding the request.  

The FBI is denying that there was a quid pro quo - Latin for "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" - involved, but it doesn't look good for Hillary.  Her camp says that the e-mails that have been released have neither been authenticated nor disproved.  Well, her staffers should either authenticate them or disprove them, and then they should let the chips fall where they may.

They may not have to do any of that, because Donald Trump is shooting himself in the foot.  He's going around mocking the sexual harassment charges against him, and he's also saying that the voting system in These States is rigged.  His charge of voter fraud make him look so ridiculous, petulant, and unpresidential that he even has fellow Republicans - known for voter-fraud paranoia of their own - denying the system is rigged.  Trump even said the Republican nomination process was rigged.  Yeah, Donald?  Well, I guess that explains why you're the Republican presidential nominee!

Then again, there may be a method to Donald's madness.  He said the GOP nomination process was rigged and thus encouraged primary voters to show up and secure his nomination.  He may be trying the same strategy to overtake Hillary in the general election, though he fails to understand that the general election campaign is completely different from the nomination campaign.    

I still think he has a chance, though, if only because the polls showing Hillary ahead don't take into account any of the voters who registered to vote for Trump in the primaries and plan to vote for him in November - but did not vote in 2012.  Presidential election polls are based on registered voters from the previous election.  I am not saying that Trump will win.  I only note that he can.   

As for Hillary's e-mails . . . I expect another leak, a couple of leaked e-mails in which Hillary staffers ask about Martin O'Malley, "Wasn't he the company clerk on 'M*A*S*H'?"  "Wasn't he the eighth President of the United States?" :-p