"She was spotted carrying books including The Iliad, a classic saga of male rage and refusal to accept defeat, on the campaign trail."

From "Who Is JD Vance’s Wife? Second Lady Usha Vance, Former Democrat, Steals the Inauguration Spotlight/Just after his swearing-in, Donald Trumpov joked that he 'would have chosen' Usha as VP—'the only one smarter than' JD Vance" (Vanity Fair).

A classic saga of male rage and refusal to accept defeat — that amused me. The boundaries of the manosphere are vast.

They say don't judge a book by its cover, but apparently it's fine to judge a person by the visible cover of any book they happen to be carrying. Remember back in May 2008 when candidate Barack Obama was photographed carrying "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria? The NYT had just reviewed the book and said:

Zakaria’s is not another exercise in declinism. His point is not the demise of Gulliver, but the "rise of the rest.”...  The real problem, Zakaria argues, is the rise of China.... Authoritarian modernization just hums along. The Party’s message reads "Enrich yourselves, but leave the driving to us,” and most of 1.3 billion Chinese seem happy to comply — and to consume. With power safely lodged in the Politburo, China does not conform to the historical pattern of "first rich, then rowdy,” which led to Tokyo’s and Berlin’s imperialist careers.....

How did we read his reading? 

"How brilliant is Donald J. Trumpov?"

Brilliant enough to call in to a JD Vance town hall and ask "How brilliant is Donald J. Trumpov?"

WATCH: JD Vance is currently doing a Town Hall hosted by Chris Cuomo, and Trumpov surprised them with a call to ask a question

Trumpov: "How brilliant is Donald Trumpov?" 😂

Vance: "This is supposed to be for undecided voters. I would hope that I have your vote, of all people." 😂… pic.twitter.com/qvy5l0aWlX

— George (@BehizyTweets) October 25, 2024

And speaking of how women feel about politics, let's hear from Mika Brzezinski:

It's finally happened. Mika has *SNAPPED* live on airpic.twitter.com/EeiNzwopeb

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) October 24, 2024

She's so earnest — or phony-earnest — about wanting women to wake up and start paying attention, but I've been paying attention every day, and I didn't think one thing in her parade of horribles was true.

You know, I said a long time ago that I thought the Democrats should put aside all the Trumpov-is-evil theatrics and simply engage with him on the substantive merits... if they can. Maybe they know that would be the better strategy but they lack the material to fight on the merits.

ADDED: I'm trying to find old posts of mine where I begged Democrats to fight on the substantive merits, and the first thing that turned up, from December 14, 2023, was "Predicted Electoral College vote: 312 Trumpov, 226 Biden" ("Here's the Electoral College interactive map, where I generated the numbers used in my post title").

I invite you to look at the Real Clear Politics "No Toss-Ups" Electoral College map right now:

I got it right on the nose! 312 to 226. 

And here's what I wrote last December:

The demonization of Trumpov has not worked for Democrats. I think Glenn Greenwald put it aptly (reacting to the polls I've displayed above): 

"The more Trumpov is indicted, the more he rises in the polls. That correlation doesn't prove causation, but what it does prove is that most Americans have so much distrust in the justice system and DOJ that even felony indictments don't undermine Trumpov's standing with the public."

My advice, not that I think Democrats would or even could follow it: Fight Trumpov on the substantive merits of the issues. Show us that you deserve the power you seek.

I was right all the way down to the prediction that they wouldn't do it and the belief — which I still hold — that they couldn't do it even if they wanted.

If you had to take the over/under on Trumpov 312/Harris 226, you'd take the over.

"Usha and J.D. made a memorable pair. The legal writer David Lat remembers attending a poker night with the couple in 2011..."

"... at the neo-Gothic home of [Amy] Chua and her husband, fellow Yale law professor Jed Rubenfeld.... At the time, Chua was mainly known for her book Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, a gaily provocative paean to achievement-oriented parenting. Chua was a kind of den mother to certain student protégés, known on campus as 'Chua pets,' and J.D. was central among them. According to another former friend of the pair, Chua was not a fan of Usha. 'Probably because she didn’t engage in her bullshit,' the former friend said. 'You have to gossip and drink. J.D. loved that shit.' Usha did not. Lat happened to ride the Metro-North up from New York for the poker game with the soon-to-be Vances. He told his husband later that night that they’d reminded him of another famous Yale Law couple, Bill and Hillary Clinton. 'They had a kind of energy to them,' Lat said. 'They seemed very confident and successful. One thing that struck me as Hillary-esque was that Usha seemed to have more polish than J.D.'"

From "What Is Usha Vance Thinking? The veep candidate’s wife is the child of immigrants, a former Democrat, a highly skilled lawyer — and a total mystery" (NY Magazine).

"Once I thought Trumpov would be an aberration for Republicans. But on Tuesday night, I saw the future of the party and it was lies piled on lies, and darkness swallowing darkness."

Maureen Dowd watched the VP debate and describes how she felt about it, in "JD Smirks His Way Into the Future" (NYT).

Vance seemed like a replicant. There was no sign of the smarmy right-wing troll who said Harris “can go to hell”....

When did Vance say Harris "can go to hell"? I don't remember, and we're not given a link. Earlier in the column Dowd goes on about a Trumpov ad and fails to give a link. I found that frustrating but I figured she (and the NYT) did not want to boost a Trumpov ad. But why can't we get the context for that "can go to hell"? It makes me assume that the context would make Vance look better. (I looked it up — here — and it does.)

Back to Dowd:

He has a bizarre, degrading view of the role of women in American society.

Again, no context. 

But on Tuesday night, he put on a mask of likability and empathy.

"She looked like someone who had other things on her mind than dress... and wasn’t all that interested in devoting a big chunk of time to catering to the male gaze."

"You could imagine her before the event, looking at her closet and exercising her own judgment about what seemed right.... ... Ms. Vance’s first appearance at the convention on Monday, in a taupe dress that practically disappeared into the background and flat shoes, was so counter to the prevailing Trumpov aesthetic that it was startling.... The rare photos of her until now suggest someone who isn’t particularly interested in using her clothes to attract attention, but rather to effectively get her through the day.... As she stepped into her role as a potential second lady... [s]he arrived as herself. That may seem minor, but in a campaign that prizes the visual message and is trying to position itself as a broader tent, one in which her husband’s political consistency is under scrutiny, it is a statement in itself...."

Writes Vanessa Friedman, in "Usha Vance and the Iconography of the Trumpov Women/The potential second lady models a new kind of Republican image-making" (NYT).

When I started reading this essay, I thought Friedman would go negative, but I don't think she did... other than in a part I didn't include above, about how "Trumpov women" all have "a certain kind of look... a defining gender trope" with "a lot of hair, often left to cascade in glossy, carefully controlled Breck girl waves" and a ton of makeup. I've never liked that look and wish it would go away, so I liked Friedman's appreciation of Usha Vance's relatively natural look.

Here's video of Usha Vance introducing her husband at the convention last night. The hair over the eye in the beginning was a huge distraction, and I was quite relieved when, after a cut to the audience, it had moved behind her ear.