Labor Day Weekend Funnies

Robert Reich: "Labor Day 2028"

To celebrate the kickoffs of the high school and college football seasons, the 29th anniversary of the marriage of the lovely Mrs. Diddie and I -- no, neither of those.  This is a reason-for-the-season reposting of former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich's blog post about a Labor Day in the near future, predicted from 87 years in the past.

In 1928, famed British economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that technology would advance so far in a hundred years – by 2028 – that it will replace all work, and no one will need to worry about making money.

“For the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem – how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure, which science and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely and agreeably and well.”

We still have thirteen years to go before we reach Keynes’ prophetic year, but we’re not exactly on the way to it. Americans are working harder than ever.

Keynes may be proven right about technological progress. We’re on the verge of 3-D printing, driverless cars, delivery drones, and robots that can serve us coffee in the morning and make our beds.  But he overlooked one big question: How to redistribute the profits from these marvelous labor-saving inventions, so we’ll have the money to buy the free time they provide?

Without such a mechanism, most of us are condemned to work ever harder in order to compensate for lost earnings due to the labor-replacing technologies.  Such technologies are even replacing knowledge workers – a big reason why college degrees no longer deliver steadily higher wages and larger shares of the economic pie.  Since 2000, the vast majority of college graduates have seen little or no income gains.  The economic model that predominated through most of the twentieth century was mass production by many, for mass consumption by many.  But the model we’re rushing toward is unlimited production by a handful, for consumption by the few able to afford it.

The ratio of employees to customers is already dropping to mind-boggling lows.

When Facebook purchased the messaging company WhatsApp for $19 billion last year, WhatsApp had fifty-five employees serving 450 million customers.  When more and more can be done by fewer and fewer people, profits go to an ever-smaller circle of executives and owner-investors. WhatsApp’s young co-founder and CEO, Jan Koum, got $6.8 billion in the deal.  This in turn will leave the rest of us with fewer well-paying jobs and less money to buy what can be produced, as we’re pushed into the low-paying personal service sector of the economy.  Which will also mean fewer profits for the handful of billionaire executives and owner-investors, because potential consumers won’t be able to afford what they’re selling.

What to do? We might try to levy a gigantic tax on the incomes of the billionaire winners and redistribute their winnings to everyone else. But even if politically feasible, the winners will be tempted to store their winnings abroad – or expatriate.

Suppose we look instead at the patents and trademarks by which government protects all these new inventions.

Such government protections determine what these inventions are worth. If patents lasted only three years instead of the current twenty, for example, What’sApp would be worth a small fraction of $19 billion – because after three years anybody could reproduce its messaging technology for free.  Instead of shortening the patent period, how about giving every citizen a share of the profits from all patents and trademarks government protects? It would be a condition for receiving such protection.  Say, for example, 20 percent of all such profits were split equally among all citizens, starting the month they turn eighteen.  In effect, this would be a basic minimum income for everyone.

The sum would be enough to ensure everyone a minimally decent standard of living – including money to buy the technologies that would free them up from the necessity of working.  Anyone wishing to supplement their basic minimum could of course choose to work – even though, as noted, most jobs will pay modestly.  This outcome would also be good for the handful of billionaire executives and owner-investors, because it would ensure they have customers with enough money to buy their labor-saving gadgets.  Such a basic minimum would allow people to pursue whatever arts or avocations provide them with meaning, thereby enabling society to enjoy the fruits of such artistry or voluntary efforts.

We would thereby create the kind of society John Maynard Keynes predicted we’d achieve by 2028 – an age of technological abundance in which no one will need to work.

Happy Labor Day.

I wanted to post about something besides Houston city elections

-- But I am really not interested in talking about Sheriff Ron Hickman, or Fox News pushing his white conservative lies further out, while Hickman himself doubles down.  Other people have spoken for me anyway.

Hickman's rhetoric only pours gas on an ever-expanding forest fire.  More people will be shot down, unarmed black people and peace officers alike, as a result of his bloviating.

Thanks, Adrian Garcia!  One hell of a parting gift you left us.

-- I don't want to talk about Kim Davis, either.  It's "factually impossible" for me to talk about her.

-- I also won't be spending many pixels talking about Donald Trump, in Spanish or in English.  Not going to run many cartoons of him in the future, either.

These are all jokes that just aren't funny to me.

-- Nobody could have foreseen that Hillary Clinton would be struggling in the polls.  Bless his poor old hippie heart, Ted still can't see it.

-- Do you think we have immigration problems in the United States?  Do you think they have immigration problems in places like Syria, or Turkey, or Greece?  Who's got the bigger problem, do you think?  Us or them?  I'm thinking it's humanity that has the problem.

So... aren't you glad I'm blogging about those boring old city council races?

The At Large 5 contest

For those who wish to catch up, here are my posts on the state of play in the mayor's race from last week, along with AL1, AL2, AL3, and AL4.  Somebody is going to release a poll very soon in the mayoral; I'm kind of surprised we haven't seen one yet.  As a reminder, we don't talk about advertisements, or fundraising, or viability scores 'round these parts.  My humble O is that those things are by degrees undemocratic and have no place in estimating the value of potential political officeholders.  Issues, policy, clearly-staked positions, and how hard a person is actually trying to encourage people to vote for them, by their presence online and offline at various functions is how I evaluate worth.  YMMV, of course.

For you deadliners, the last day to register to vote in this election is October 5th; and early voting begins on October 19.  On to the participants in this race, listed in ballot order:

• Brad Batteau
• Jack Christie (incumbent)
• Philippe Nassif
• Sharon Moses
• Tahir Charles

Perennial candidate Batteau was instrumental in helping CM Michael Kubosh get elected in AL 3 two years ago.  He, Rogene Calvert, Roland Chavez (running again this year in District H), and Jenefer Rene Pool (running again in AL1) all split the vote neatly enough between themselves to allow Kubosh to go into a runoff against Roy Morales (who is also running again, in AL4).  That could happen once more here in AL5.

Batteau, sixth in a field of six with 8.6% of the vote in 2013, doesn't really seem to be getting the message voters are sending him.  Perhaps he's still holding on for an Andrew-Burks-in-2011-ish miracle.  He's running the same campaign he's run in the past, which is to say nonexistent.  This KTRK piece from four years ago is evidence that some things never really change.

And then there's J. Brad Batteau. He has run for an at-large position before. He says he's the man to represent the whole city. He hasn't raised any money or posted many signs but did address his robbery conviction 30 years ago.

"It shouldn't matter because what I'm going to do for the people doesn't have anything to do with my past back in 1987. I was a teenager ... I'm now 42," he said.

It's important to note that Batteau didn't know Rebuild Houston is when we asked him.

I would be surprised if he knows anything about it today.  Name recognition and first-on-the-ballot can't be completely discounted in municipal races, unfortunately.

Conservative Republican Christie defeated two half-hearted Democrats challenging him in 2011 with 55% of the vote, and four years ago finally prevailed in a third try over incumbent Jolanda Jones in the runoff by a similar 54.2% margin... with a helping hand from former mayor Bill White.  It is never-say-die candidates like Christie and Burks who give hope to the likes of people such as Batteau.  Greg Wythe's Texas Political Almanac has a good summary of that race in 2011...

The "Jack & JoJo Show" earned its third season as candidate Christie once more filed to run against CM Jolanda Jones. While many of the ethical charges brought against CM Jones during the past two years failed to merit serious attention, the spotlight brought attention on Jones' often combative approach to representing the city. While Jones remained popular in African-American communities -- particularly on the south side -- not enough voters elsewhere saw her as an independent voice at Council. Jones was the most frequent member on council to tag items on the city agenda, delaying action for a week on numerous items. The result was not dissimilar to the previous campaign and runoff. But the one thing missing from this election was that of a well-funded African-American candidate for mayor in a runoff that would help boost turnout to benefit Jolanda.

Wythe left out the Bill White part, probably because he was a White acolyte from the get-go in the former mayor's bid for the Governor's Mansion in 2010.  But the history he did write reminds us to watch for this African American dynamic in play in this cycle's runoff.  You can rest assured that either Sylvester Turner or Ben Hall -- or both -- running off for mayor in December changes the calculus of downballot council runoffs.  Christie wanted to run for mayor this time, but was crowded out by CM Oliver Pennington, himself an early dropout.  Both men are probably kicking themselves as they watch Hall ascend to the conservative throne.

Nassif is the Democrats' standard-bearer.  For whatever his reasons, Durrel Douglas wound up not filing to run here, and that clears the field a little for the liberal activist of Mexican and Lebanese descent.  He's got all the endorsements and support flowing his way.

Sharon Moses seems to have good qualifications for a potential council member if in fact this is her LinkedIn profile, but no other web presence and no past experience in running for office works against her.  Tahir Charles' website has a good bio of him but his Facebook page was last updated in May.  Both candidates -- and Batteau, for that matter -- might bite into Nassif's tally among African American voters.

Prediction for the general: If the four Democrats -- one establishment (Nassif) and three unorthodox (Batteau, Moses, Charles) succeed in canceling each other out, then the odious Christie goes back to council for a third term.  If the best hope for Democratic liberals, Nassif, can force the incumbent -- whose ceiling in past elections has been around 55% -- into a runoff, they should raise their expectations for knocking off the Republican on council.

Scattershooting Adrian Garcia and Hillary Clinton, two of the worst possible options for public office

-- Chris Bell reminds everybody in Houston again that Adrian Garcia, much like Hillary Clinton, is simply unfit to serve as a public leader.

"If you're leading what you call the largest mental health institution in our city, then how those inmates were treated becomes a very significant issue," Bell told a packed auditorium at the University of St. Thomas, where candidates had gathered for a mayoral forum on behavioral health. "You were supposedly the leader of that jail, and how could you have created a system where nobody told you of such a horrific incident?"

In response:

"It shouldn't have happened. It definitely should not have happened under my watch. But when I found out about it, I took full responsibility. I took action," Garcia said. "I put policies and procedures in place to keep it from happening again."

That's an admission of guilt. While a noble gesture, it still disqualifies him from office.

-- Speaking of Clinton...

While she was secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote and sent at least six e-mails using her private server that contained what government officials now say is classified information, according to thousands of e-mails released by the State Department.

[...]

The extent of the redactions in e-mails sent by Clinton and others, including ambassadors and career Foreign Service officers, points to a broader pattern that has alarmed intelligence officials in which sensitive information has been circulated on non-secure systems. Another worry is that Clinton aides further spread sensitive information by forwarding government e-mails to Clinton’s private account.

Benefit of the doubt:

But it also highlights concerns raised by Clinton and her supporters that identifying classified material can be a confusing process, and well-meaning public officials reviewing the same material could come to different conclusions as to its classification level.

Yes.  Why hasn't someone ever fixed this since email became prevalent (at a minimum of) fifteen years ago?

Is Hillary Clinton as president the person most capable of fixing it?  If you think so, there's a bridge in the desert on sale with your layaway tag on it.

-- More and more people are coming to the inevitable, inexorable conclusion that she is one final, small disaster away from fumbling the White House to the Republicans.  They're still imploring other Democrats to join the race.  I don't think any more candidates are needed personally, but whatever.

She is still going to beat Trump, or Carson, or Bush, or Cruz, or whatever other piece of flotsam the GOP floats.  But she is also in the excruciating process of beating herself, and the outcome of that fight is still to be determined.

More lighter, funnier fare on emails from Vox.

The At Large 4 contest

Now that we know ballot order, let's go forward listing the candidates that way.  As a reminder, Kuffner has audio interviews with a lot of these folks posted already, and Wayne is posting questionnaires returned to him from those responding.

• Amanda Edwards
• Jonathan Hansen
• Larry Blackmon
• Laurie Robinson
• Evelyn Husband Thompson
• Matt Murphy
• Roy Morales

It might be worth repeating (scroll to the end) that Houston blacks consider AL 4 to be theirs, and that is likely to hold true in this cycle with Edwards and Robinson, both African American Democratic women with solid networks of support.  They present as the best qualified and most progressive choices.  Robinson ran for AL 5 previously in 2011, finishing third behind then-incumbent Jolanda Jones and now-incumbent Jack Christie.  She is the chief executive of a high-profile management consulting firm.  Edwards practices law at Bracewell & Guiliani, and has a wide-ranging background of political and social justice efforts.  Blackmon -- this Chron piece thinly describes him as a retired school teacher active in local politics -- also carries a good resume' and the endorsements of three black Texas House members; he's been overshadowed to some degree by Edwards and Robinson.  Edwards has racked up most of the endorsements from Democratic clubs and groups to this point.

Either of the three has the skill set to be an effective council member.  But two of the three are unlikely to be in a runoff together, so we must handicap the likely (conservative) challengers.

Morales is a name we all know and distrust by now.  He's lost more city council and mayoral general elections and runoffs than I care to document.  But his Republican activism and Latino surname may once again be enough to get him second past the post.

Husband Thompson is the widow of astronaut Ron Husband, who perished in the 2003 Columbia shuttle disaster.  That's pretty much it for her online campaign as a prospective city council member.  No website, no Facebook page.  There's a story here about how she met, courted, and married her second husband, and too much for my digestion about the strength of their faith.  I'm going to presume, until she says otherwise on the record, that she's a Christian conservative and an opponent of HERO.

That leaves Hansen and Murphy.

Hansen is your basic pro-business, inherited-wealth, pull-yasef-up-by-ya-bootstraps Republican.  He recently engaged in some good old-fashioned political ball-busting of Murphy on HERO, without revealing his own position on the ordinance.  Murphy is the "pro-family fiscal conservative" in the contest, and I would surmise based on his flip-flop on HERO -- as detailed at Hansen's blog -- that he indeed does have the requisite hypocrisy needed for Houston's worst Republicans to vote him into the runoff.

Prediction for the runoff: Toss-up between Edwards and Robinson (with a small chance given to Blackmon) squaring off against Murphy.

HEROes and haters

The Chron chronicles a thirty-year of history of proud homophobia in Houston city elections (too much alliteration?), and outs the 'Bathroom Caucus' on your ballot in November.

A flurry of candidates opposed to Houston's anti-discrimination ordinance finalized bids for City Council in the waning hours before last Monday's filing deadline, setting the stage for a multi-race campaign against the controversial ballot measure known as HERO.

With the latecomers, the fight to repeal HERO now is poised to extend into all of the at-large and most of the district council races, in addition to the mayor's race.

At first glance, the lineup harkens back to the "Straight Slate" of 1985, when conservative power broker Steven Hotze organized challengers to run against incumbent council members who supported job protections for gays employed by the city.

Dr. Hotze, you haven't evolved a bit since 1985.  That was the year Louie Welch's "shoot the queers" comment went viral without an Internet, and in one night, "Don't Shoot Louie! T-shirts became best-sellers.  Read Mayor Annise Parker's account of the irony of representing the city of Houston (as comptroller at the time) at Welch's funeral in 2008.

"We have been approached by candidates who oppose the bathroom ordinance," said Jared Woodfill, spokesman for the anti-HERO campaign. "And we have encouraged people to run who oppose the bathroom ordinance, as have other organizations who have the same goal of defeating the ordinance."

[...]

Of City Council members running for re-election, five oppose the ordinance... They are joined by at least 11 council hopefuls, many of whom launched their bids before it became clear the ordinance would be on the ballot.

Others, such as pastors Willie Davis and Kendall Baker, as well as former teacher Manny Barrera and Siemens sales executive Carl Jarvis, filed to run on the last day.

Emphasis mine.  If you need to reminded why it's important to tax the churches...

Houston Area Pastor Council Director Dave Welch, who is helping to run the anti-HERO campaign's church-based efforts to rally voters against the law, said his group does not "officially enlist or recruit candidates."

He added, however, that he did broadly encourage those active in the church to seek office.

"In general, we encourage people to run for office and be politically involved," Welch said. "It's pretty hard to have a good government if you don't have good people in government. (HERO) certainly, it certainly provided an inspiration and motivation for some of the folks in our churches to run."

It reminds me of Ken Paxton's brethren and sisteren asking their local TeaBagger sheriff candidate why more lethal force is not used at the border.  But that's a digression.

You should go and finish Rebecca Elliott's and Kat Driessen's article; Chron municipal election coverage scores a D- in my gradebook, but the blind hog found a few acorns in this piece.  Nothing against the two reporters; responsibility for the newspaper's continued failure to cover local news adequately rests higher up the Hearst food chain (another digression).

Just note the names in bold above, and ask the question every chance you get of any candidate: "Do you support or oppose the equal rights ordinance?"  Everybody running for office needs to be on the record.

Texas Leftist posts the map and the list of all the American cities that have similar ordinances on the books (dozens) and the instances where a transgendered woman assaulted someone in a bathroom (not once).  And TransGriot reminds us about the potential economic losses associated with repealing the ordinance, which reminds me that it's time to remind you to sign this petition.

The Weekly Wangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance remembers the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and honors the spirit of its survivors as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff recaps Ken Paxton's first day in court. It won't be his last.

Libby Shaw, writing for Texas Kaos and contributing to Daily Kos scolds the Republican Party for its cruel war on immigrants. Earth to the GOP: Stop picking on immigrants and do your jobs.

Socratic Gadfly turns a skeptical eye to Constitutional-era pop historian Joseph Ellis, and rakes him over the coals for writing something barely historical, but that adds to Constitutional myth-making.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme watches the Republican war on Latinos continue with throwing attorneys out of detention centers and denying birth certificates to citizens.

Houston city council races dominated PDiddie's Brains and Eggs this past week, with At Large 1, At Large 2, and At Large 3 all profiled and prognosticated.

WCNews at Eye on Williamson also covered the Texas attorney general's many legal troubles, noting they are not going away anytime soon, in Paxton's problems pile up.

Texas Leftist analyzed the "debate" between Jorge Ramos and Donald Trump on immigration, and Dos Centavos also added his two cents.

TXsharon at Bluedaze spent some time in Fracking Hell, aka the Eagle Ford shale, and lived to tell us about it.

Neil at All People Have Value expressed distress over how we drive in Harris County and asked that we be careful on our roads. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

==============

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

Ryan Holeywell and Stephen Klineberg debunk myths about Hurricane Katrina evacuees in Houston, while Ethan Raker shows how interacting with Katrina evacuees affected opinions about them.

Grits for Breakfast seemed surprised and perturbed at Texas media for seemingly ignoring one of the most important laws going into effect on September 1: raising the threshold for property theft crimes.

Carol Morgan commented on the many instances of disaster capitalism in "When the Parasite (the 1% and the corporations) Kills the Host (the rest of us)".

Trail Blazers covered the removal of the statue of Jefferson Davis from the grounds of the University of Texas.

Juanita Jean gives the idiots protesting at the HISD Arabic language immersion school a piece of her mind.

The Makeshift Academic builds a model to estimate how many people would benefit from Medicaid expansion.

jobsanger graphed the polling that shows Americans are split on whether to tax churches or not.

Paradise in Hell observes a rite of passage for George P. Bush.

HOUequality reprinted Pulitzer-winning writer Lisa Falkenburg's op-ed: "Anti-(HERO) campaign's scare tactics need to be flushed".

Erica Ciszek explains her anxiety about bathrooms.

Lawflog explained why Hearne's supervisor of the city's street department is being paid to sit in jail.

Chip Brown calls out Baylor President Ken Starr in the Art Briles/Sam Ukwuachu case.

Stephanie Stradley explains why the Deflategate case matters.

And Fascist Dyke Motors got a little creeped out on her recent visit to New Orleans.

Sunday Funnies

The At Large 3 contest

Here are the entrants, as usual from the city's filings page and in alphabetical order.  Via Kuff, who has a post up about this and some mayoral fora upcoming, Mike Morris at the Chronicle's graphic shows the names listed in ballot order.

• Michael Kubosh
• John LaRue
• Joseph McElligott
• Doug Peterson

This race IMHO presents one of the more interesting lineups of candidates among the At-Larges despite its complete lack of diversity (I find AL 1 and AL 4 to be the protoypical mud wrestling matches, with AL 5 demonstrating more of what Houston is all about demographically).  Let's not bury the lede; one of Peterson or LaRue hopefully can push the incumbent Kubosh into a runoff in December.

Peterson has a long and impressive resume': strategist for NASA, leadership experience with environmental organizations like the Sierra Club, chairman of Senate District 11, active with the Bay Area New Democrats -- in short, everything just about anybody on the left could look for in a progressive, activist Democrat.   LaRue voted in the 2014 Republican primary in 2014, and McElligott -- affiliated with the Harris County Green Party, the only such candidate on the ballot -- voted in the 2010 Republican primary.  In a conversation with me, McElligott indicated that he did so strategically in the governor's race that year, for Kay Bailey Hutchison over Rick Perry.  I don't know LaRue's motivation so let's give him the benefit of the doubt that he did the same as McElligott.  (Many more Democrats than will admit it do this.  They even encourage others to do so; that's how weak Texas Democrats have become in midterm elections.)

McElligott has fleshed out strongly progressive policy issues: participatory budgeting (they've given it a go in NYC), repealing TABOR, reforming tax increment financing, advocating public banking and paid leave... sadly, these initiatives are outside the realm of concept for most municipal voters.  They will just screech "soshulist" and point at Bernie Sanders (or Jill Stein).  McElligott's paving the way to real progress for Greens, Democratic socialists and non-Democratic progressives.  Good on him for that.

LaRue is trying to run right down the middle of the partisan divide, rarely a winning electoral strategy at any level these days.  He has campaigned actively, appearing at numerous Democratic functions with photos on his Facebook page, and even making news as he and his husband became the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license issued in Harris County.  Here's OutSmart magazine's retelling of the day-long saga involving Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart's refusals, County Attorney Vince Ryan's threats of legal injunction, and the media swarm that covered it all day.  Here's an article where LaRue describes his views as centrist and bipartisan, and also that his motivation for joining the race was Kubosh's votes against HERO.  And he's open about chasing moderate Republican votes, so there's that.

Despite his folk hero status, LaRue did not get the GLBT Caucus endorsement, probably due to their distasteful "viability" ratings of candidates.  Kuff underscored this point a couple of weeks ago in his reporting on endorsements.

I simply would not expect a great deal of votes to go to McElligott -- something on the order of the Greens' usual market share in contested races, about 1-2% -- but LaRue and Peterson could spoil each other's chances and let Kubosh waddle back to the horseshoe.  The incumbent and portly bail bondsman has voted against HERO and taken five large, the maximum financial contribution, from Steven Hotze this go-round.  He has a big target on his very wide back.  He got lucky two years ago when the Democrats washed each other out, and his popularity from fighting (and winning) the red-light camera battle with Mayor Annise Parker was at its zenith.  But unless turnout favors the liberal strongholds in the city, we could be looking at a rerun of 2013.

Prediction for the general: Kubosh could skate over thin ice again if Peterson and LaRue split the Democratic vote. If one of the two can get the incumbent mano a mano in December, odds are good that the seat flips.

Email matter reveals Clinton unfit for office

We'll continue with Houston city council races shortly, but this piece from Investors Business Daily is a must-read, especially for all you pathetic Clinton supporters who continue to insist that her e-mail server scandal is small potatoes, or a smear tactic or some other lame-ass excuse.

Last week, it was Hillary Clinton's campaign spokesman acknowledging that she "didn't really think it through" when she chose to use her personal email account for State Department business rather than a secure government account, thereby admitting that she isn't fit to be president.

This week, Clinton herself conceded she doesn't have the judgment to be president.

While campaigning in Iowa Wednesday, Clinton showed that she finally understands what nearly everyone else has long known, confessing that her use of personal email "clearly wasn't the best choice."

"I should've used two emails: one personal, one for work," she said.

Yes, one for yakking with friends about yoga routines, another for the classified material that was on her personal email and private server. Most anyone who isn't a Clinton (or a top Clinton aide or Democratic operatives at the IRS and the EPA) would do just that.

As we noted last week, America doesn't need a commander in chief who doesn't "really think it through" when making decisions that can affect national security.

Presidents have and will make bad choices on big issues, but the country needs someone who can at least make "the best choice" in small decisions. How will a candidate who is unable to select what's clearly the right option when there's no pressure fare when faced with the monumental decisions that a president has to make on a frequent basis?

And that is precisely it.  When the FBI investigates something as a potential criminal matter, it's not just screwing around.  You can't call it a partisan witch hunt, either.  If nothing arises from said investigation, then you can certainly trumpet that.  But this drip, drip, drip of gradually taking responsibility for a serious mistake in judgement is part of the Clinton modus operandi.  Fear not, Clintonites; it's still not enough to damage her long-term prospects.

Ever the evasive politician, Clinton told the Iowa crowd that she takes "responsibility for that decision," but just what does that mean? Exactly nothing.

There will be no consequences. She will not censure herself in any way or pay for her mistake.

But she knows that phrase plays well politically, that it makes her sound as if she's holding herself to account.

Clinton also applied slippery spin when she said she's looking forward to October when she testifies before Congress about her personal email account and private server. She's "confident," she said, "the process" will exonerate her.

In private, she's probably not so confident. She knows what she did. The president and vice president also probably know, too. Maybe that's why Joe Biden is preparing to run and the president has given him his blessing.

Joe Biden probably isn't running, as it turns out.

Vice President Joe Biden revealed to members of the Democratic National Committee Wednesday that he is assessing whether he has "the emotional fuel" to run for the White House.

"We're dealing at home with ... whether or not there is the emotional fuel at this time to run," Biden told DNC members on a conference call that was billed as an opportunity to hear from the vice president on the Iran nuclear deal. "If I were to announce to run, I have to be able to commit to all of you that I would be able to give it my whole heart and my whole soul, and right now, both are pretty well banged up."

If he did, polling shows he'd be a stronger nominee than Clinton.  She's damaged goods, but thanks to Donald Trump, she's still on pace to be the 45th president of the United States.  And that will be nothing to celebrate.

The At Large 2 contest

Once more, your choices on the ballot in November from the city's filings page, listed in alphabetical order by last name, and links to those candidate web pages where they exist.

• Andrew Burks (See Facebook page linked below)
• Willie Davis (See profile linked below)
• Eric Dick (law firm site, no 2015 campaign site found)
• Moe Rivera
• David Robinson (incumbent)

Let's begin by recounting that just two years ago, Robinson defeated then-incumbent Burks in a squeaker of a runoff, 50.7% to 49.3, or a margin of less than 500 votes out of 52,000+ cast.  In the general that year, Robinson led with 41.2% followed by Burks with 38.2, Rivera with 16.3 and Trebor Gordon with 6.3. Gordon was rumored to file but did not, so the stage is set with Davis, a black pastor virulently opposed to HERO, replacing the Republican Gordon.

In 2011, when this seat was open, ten challengers split the vote, with Burks -- a perennial loser in City Hall elections to that point -- finishing first in the general, followed closely by Kristi Thibaut.  Robinson came in fourth that year, and Dick seventh.  Burks prevailed in December in a similarly close runoff election, 50.2 - 49.8, or just 111 votes.

Attorney Dick ran for mayor in 2013 and clocked in a solid third, well behind behind Annise Parker and Ben Hall but ahead of six others including a Green and a Socialist candidate, with over 18,000 votes out of 172,448 cast, or 10.6% of the tally.  (See the link above in the second graf for more details if you like.)  Dick also seems to like to run for political office more to boost the fortunes of his law firm than actually get elected, ever since his signs debacle a few cycles ago.

In a non-bathroom election year, you'd have to score a rematch with Robinson and Burks as the most likely outcome for a runoff.  But Dick and especially Davis complicate matters, with their distinct conservative supporters unlikely to switch away from their preferred candidate until the runoff dust is settled.  Rivera, a resident of Kingwood with a lengthy military background and a longtime Republican as well, completes the list of conservatives trying to win this office.  Latinos turning out for Garcia might know nothing about him and mark him on the basis of surname alone.

Burks has a Facebook page that saw its last update in March, with sad tales of knee replacements and broken arms and the passing of his mother.  His former campaign website, burksforhouston.com, returns a 404 on direct link, but the Yahoo search listing redirects to a domain hawking garcinia cambogia as a weight loss supplement.  And from deep in the bowels of the Internet, a site which looks current but only lists his political campaigns up to 2001 ("at present").  Still, none of this sort of thing held him back in 2011.  Though a nominal Democrat, Burks's record  is a fairly conservative one.  His HERO position is unclear.*  That isn't the case with Davis or Rivera or Dick, so expect the Republicans and social conservatives among the black Dems to be divided in their allegiances in this tilt.  No one of them can likely best Robinson -- a solid Democrat and quiet but effective council member with no philosophical challenger -- but a runoff with one of them, and the HERO vote in the record books, might be a different circumstance.

No bets taken on who might wind up facing the incumbent in December.  It all depends on how well the various conservative constituencies turn out their voters.

Prediction for the general: Robinson may be able to avoid a runoff if the black vote splits between Burks and Davis; even if it does then one of the two others could join him in the finals.  Strong liberal turnout for HERO gets him over the bar without one.

*See Charles Kuffner's remarks in the comments.