In fairness, most of those suits were filed against the company, but the famous "kill it" suit was against Bloomberg personally.

So far, that is by far the ugliest thing in the book. It was disgusting. He left a voice mail for her saying, "I didn't mean it" but he wasn't able to give the kind of apology this deserved.

Mike Bloomberg, personally, had a policy of not fraternizing with any of his employees.

The atmosphere at the Bloomberg companies has a lot to do with the mindset of people who formerly worked on Wall Street. That culture was profane and misogynistic. There's no getting around that fact.

Do you know how much money those people were making? Between two and four hundred thousand dollars a year. He demanded that employees put work first, period. It was not what we would call an evolved philosophy. There was no such thing as a work/life balance if you worked for one of his companies.

It's true, though, he made them work incredibly long hours and the women were encouraged to wear short skirts, and the atmosphere was grotesque by today's standards. In fact, the descriptions remind me a lot of "The Wolf of Wall Street".

Bloomberg (the company) completely rewrote its policies.

But yes, it's a black stain.

(EDITED numerous times)

attacks no longer have the effect he desires them to have.

To the extent he has "power," he's never, ever learned to use it. He throws it away. Our candidates need to capitalize on this mistake.

"...and the hair looks good?"

That is the only time I can recall ever seeing the slightest hint of insecurity or self-doubt in any statement or tweet made by this president, assuming it isn't a typo.

His usual way would be to write: "...and the hair looks good!"

"betting on the Bull in the Heather."

Bull in the Heather was a racehorse that was expected to lose a race badly and had the worst odds, but won the race.



https://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/21/sports/horse-racing-bull-inthe-heather-not-a-mistake.html

Sonic Youth: Bull in the Heather



So this could be good luck for Bernie Sanders.

Different mental health professionals have different theories, but Dr. Jerrold Post (psychiatrist and CIA political profiler, author of "Dangerous Charisma" argues both Trump and his followers are damaged, but in different ways, not in like ways. The followers are damaged in a way that makes them crave an authoritarian "father" figure who can make their psychic distress go away, usually by promising to alleviate real world "problems" that they mistakenly believe are the cause of their distress.

"The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump" contains many essays that basically say Trump was damaged very early. He could not tolerate the emotion of shame so he produced an arsenal of defense mechanisms that shield him from the truth and lead him to crave approval. His followers provide exactly the narcissistic fuel he requires to maintain his fantasies of unlimited success

Both of those books are quite extraordinarily, but IMO "Dangerous Case" covers far more ground and is the better of the two books.

PS: I don't know if either Trump or his supporters have enough insight to "hate themselves." I know Trump could never admit that to himself. Their grievances are external, but of course they are diversions from immense internal anxiety they cannot face.

You know the one: Richard Gere plays a cynical, highly sought-after political consultant. The greatest ever. Few candidates can afford his services, but if you can, you win. Guaranteed. In the end, Richard Gere has a crisis of conscience and gives heartfelt advice to a young idealist, a penniless grass-roots candidate, urging him to reveal his soul humbly in a climactic speech and let the voters decide.

From Roger Ebert’s review:



I don’t remember if the candidate wins or not.

My DU icon for months was Warren. I’ve been saying my heart is with her (my brain is with Biden, and my fascination is with Bloomberg), but last night I heard her through fresh ears. She was disparaging Bloomberg and Steyer, as you would expect, rejecting the role of big money, speaking from the heart in that irresistible way that makes you love her, and calling for a tsunami of grass roots support, appealing to “the little guy.”

It sincerely is touching. She means every word. It’s one of a dozen reasons I’ve been drawn to her.

Over the next nine months Donald Trump will spend at least a billion dollars to recapture the White House. Worse, he’s got the help of the Department of Justice, State Department, hundreds of judges who will rule in his favor on any election-related issue, and the probable help of hostile foreign countries. He will lie, he will cheat, he will destroy the lives of decent people and no one will stop him. He will burn it all down.

Below are paraphrases of statements by two candidates given over the last 24 hours:

#1. “We are on a wartime footing with an incompetent, dangerous and corrupt president. We’ll spend at least a billion dollars, and we’ve hired two thousand five hundred soldiers in this fight, and are looking at hiring more, and we’re opening six new offices this week in Texas, sending 900 more people to California, and doubling our spending on advertising. We know what we have to do; let’s just get it done.”

#2 “We appeal to the Little Guy, we need to inspire a grassroots movement, Americans giving five dollars here, ten dollars there, Americans need to rise up, and say 'We reject this president' and say ‘No’ to big money, we say ‘No’ to millionaires and billionaires…”

This is a conundrum. Who doesn’t want Warren’s vision? Who doesn’t want to kick Trump’s ass in November?

I will admit this: Statement #1 makes me want to fight like my life and nation are in existential peril and, this morning at least, Statement #2 makes me want to go back to bed and resign myself to failure in November.

At the very, very least, I would plead with Elizabeth Warren (or any other candidate, for that matter) not to be so short sighted in her wholesale rejection of the enormous assistance Bloomberg can bring to bear on our ultimate objective.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Yesterday, this senator of an opposing party embodied the "moral courage" Adam Schiff asks us all to embody. He did so at considerable risk, which I don't think is being fully appreciated by everybody.

Secondly, we are the party of compassion. This person who did the right thing, for the right reasons, is going to suffer. His entire family is going to suffer. That is what Senator Blumenthal likely appreciated when he almost burst into tears in the middle of a live interview on CNN last night. That is a moment I'll remember for a long time. It made me really proud to be a Democrat, to see one of the leaders of our party shed tears for the leader of our adversarial party for a rare act of courage.

Thirdly, even if you cannot muster compassion for Mitt Romney, one might be able to appreciate the strategic favor he did us by denying Trump the right to claim there was a bipartisan acquittal; he gave us just the opposite: a bipartisan non-acquittal.

That's my two cents.

When he speaks of others' pain, there's a lightheartedness, some laughter, some undercutting. When he speaks about his own pain, he's deadly serious.

During the Jodi Arias trial, she only cried once: when she was watching video of herself crying in a police interview. It was like the only pain that she could relate to was her own suffering.

My heart is mostly with Warren (and before that, Kamala Harris), but I've been preparing myself for the strong possibility I'll have to support another candidate, which I happily will do because my priority is to get Trump out. I thought it would be Biden, who I strongly like too. I'm also increasingly interested in Bloomberg, who I think could demolish Trump. But whoever can decisively beat the orange trash bag, that's who I'm supporting.

https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/status/1224892586286047238