A quote from a recent magazine interview:
>I have this Ferragamo hot-pink bag that I adore. My view was that I would carry it around only in spring, but it makes me so happy, I’m even now lugging it around in January. I mean, how can you be unhappy if you pick up a big pink bag?
Can you guess who said it? We’ll give you four choices.
Can you guess who said it? We’ll give you four choices.
Who said it?
We thought the answer to "How can you be unhappy if you pick up a big pink bag?" would have been, "Because you just received a terrifying briefing on the latest terrorist threat out of Pakistan," but apparently no. Hey, if a simple pink handbag can somehow keep Hillary sane despite everything she deals with on a daily basis, so be it.
A sad day for Jeffrey Epstein’s old pal
The company is selling a 55% interest in Victoria’s Secret to Sycamore Partners for $525 million https://t.co/Ua39ZFvZOO pic.twitter.com/CmSQP8vvls
Lots of Sanders vs Buttigieg so far
Warren pounces
Oh wow that was just brutal. She rehearsed this line all week and had her hands up to make sure she delivered the line first.
How many voters are left to convince?
For context, turnout was only 84,000 in 2016. pic.twitter.com/M1DKT4Z1a8
Endangering the democracy to save the democracy?
[B]ad systems corrupt good individuals [by] enlisting our self-interest to convince us to betray our values. And make no mistake: America’s campaign finance system is a disaster. Most candidates can’t self-finance their campaigns, so they spend a disproportionate amount of time asking the rich to donate to their campaigns. Those donations are limited to $2,800 per individual, but the Supreme Court believes political spending is a protected form of free speech, so the rich can spend as much as they want on their own campaigns, or on Super PACs to push their political agendas.
Populists like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and, in his complicated and contradictory ways, even Donald Trump, have risen in part because Americans loathe seeing their political system bought by the rich. Bloomberg isn’t so much a defense against those critiques as he is a confirmation of them. The populists say that politics is rigged, elections are bought by those with enough money to spend, modern liberalism is mere lipstick on perpetual corporatism. Bloomberg is here to test whether they’re right. He may pitch himself to centrists as an answer to the populists, but in leveraging his fortune to fight them, he offers the country the (hopefully) false choice between populism and oligarchy.
Not exactly a direct hit
A clever hire
Already a subscriber? Log in or link your magazine subscription