​We close out the week with a moment of personal privilege.
 
As readers of these pages know, I happen to like Chicago a great deal.  The Cubs, da Bears, the beloved Northwestern, Ravinia Music Festival, the Art Institute, Charlie Beinlich’s, Del Rio’s, the Chicago Botanic Garden, Writers Theatre, Goodman Theatre, Second City, WFMT, and…and…well, a lot more.
 
I do know I yammer about it a lot.  But what I’ve found over the years is that when people who chide me have a reason to go to Chicago, many, if not most of them say afterwards, “Oh, okay, I see why you like it so much.”
 
So, it was a pleasure to see Condé Nast Traveler publish the results of its 2024 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Cities in the United States. with 575,048 people participating.  It’s their 37th annual survey.  And their #1 Best City in the U.S. was – (to no one’s surprise of those who’ve made it this far) – Chicago!
 
And not only was Chicago named #1, but…amazingly, this is the eight straight year it was named!

To be fair, I don't know what the criteria was for people to vote by, though I think there was an overlap between people living in a city, visiting on business and vacationing.  And also to be fair, having seen the results of several other surveys that Condé Nast Traveler has done, I don't take this as the quintessential result to end all results.

Though, to be biased, I do think they got it right in this survey. For the eighth year in a row...

I was trying to decide which song to go out with here -- "Chicago (That Toddlin' Town)" or "My Kind of Town (Chicago is)."  But then I realized, no, this instead is the piece to end with.  "The Best Kept Secret in America," by the great banjo master Stephen Wade.  I posted an article about it in 2013 (and then did a follow-up in 2021), so this is an appropriate time to repeat it.  Not just for the timing, but it also in some ways helps explain the survey result.

                                                           *    *    *

                                         The Best Kept Secret in America

In 1979, a unique performer named Stephen Wade developed a unique theatrical act.  He combined banjo playing, storytelling and percussive dancing into a stage show called Banjo Dancing.  It was hugely popular in the city, and ran for 13 months, which included a performance at the White House.  He then took his show on the road, and ended up in Washington, D.C., where he had a longer run.  That would be 10 years.

In the ensuing years, he's developed another show On the Way Home which had another successful run in Washington, won him the Joseph Jefferson Award in Chicago [the city's prized-version of the Tony Award], and toured.  He's written books, essays, and as recently as 2012 released his latest album, Banjo Diaries, which got a Grammy nomination (albeit for liner notes)
​

I admit it.  There was such a massive swirl of information from the document that it’s above my pay grade to make sense of it all.  I do know that since Trump is so upset with it being made public this close to the election, perhaps he shouldn't have kept delaying the trial until the timing got to this point.

No, there isn't going to be a trial of Trump on this evidence before the election.  But it's good and very important to at least have some of the evidence (even redacted) finally out in the public.  It may not make much difference to enough undecided voters to matter (or, to be fair, may), but what's most important about it is that this all -- along with "JD Vance" trying to whitewash the Insurrection at his debate the night before -- brings January 6th back in to focus as a reminder filled with details before the upcoming election.
 
And what a mound of details. 

As former DOJ prosecutor Andrew Weissman said to Lawrence O’Donnell last evening, “It’s really hard to do highlights, because this is bombshell after bombshell after bombshell.”
 
Hey, if Andrew Weissman is unable to do highlights, what chance do I have?
 
That’s why what’s also clear is that with the cable news networks devoting all day to analyzing the 165 pages of material, any full discussion of it would be ridiculously long even by my standards.  Hey, the fact that the documents show that Trump threatened his vice president Mike Pence 71 times, and it got to the point where Pence’s chief of staff Mark Short had to inform the Secret Service (!!) is almost a footnote.  So, I figure the best thing to do is not only go to an expert I admire, but let him do a much more brief summary.
 
And that would be election lawyer Marc Elias who was a guest on Nicolle Wallace’s show on MSNBC.  And happily, he’s not only able to summarize it, but highlight his importance in just one sentence.
 
"I think this is a blockbuster document, but one sentence encapsulates it all," he said.  And it’s when the documents show that Donald Trump told his family -- '’It didn't matter if you won or lost the election, you still have to fight like hell.' He knew he lost,” Elias continued. “He put the nation through 60-plus lawsuits. When that failed, he organized an insurrection of the nation's Capitol. This man should not be anywhere near the Oval Office."
 
Elias also pointed out that Jack Smith took great pains to show that Trump’s efforts had nothing to do with official actions of the presidency (which the recent Supreme Court ruling required for a president to not have immunity).  To do so, Smith’s documents present a meticulous timeline of the actions Trump took that were separate from his White House duties.  Elias explains --
 
"If you go back to a much more mundane part of the post-election, or at the time seemed mundane, Donald Trump wound up placing a call to the state canvassing board members for Wayne County, Michigan," Elias noted. "It was kind of an odd thing at the time that you had the President of the United States calling two local canvass board members with the RNC chairwoman trying to pressure them not to certify Detroit."
 
And then, Trump called Georgia's Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger, pressuring him to find just those 11,780 extra votes.
 
All this together is what Elias says is so damning.  Being able to use the documents and follow what Trump is doing to overthrow the election.  Material that comes from a range of sources, of course, but most damningly from Grand Jury testimony not only by Republicans, but by Republicans in Trump’s circle.  And from those documents, Elias says --
 
"We know now he was hands-on in almost every stage of this post-election process for almost everything we are aware of that was done wrong. He is hands-on in trying to pressure Mike Pence. He is hands-on in trying to pressure or to build this January 6th insurrection rally effort. He was involved because he did not want to lose power, and I think a lot of the people around him knew he lost, and others knew he had lost, but were willing to humor him, but was the only one spending 24 hours a day, seven days a week, every moment, trying to figure out a way around leaving office."
 
My favorite comment of the day came from Fox anchor Neil Cavuto:   In reporting the story, he said, "It was in this newly unsealed court paper we're learning that former President Trump resorted to crime in a bid to cling to power after the 2020 election."
 
It's surprising but actually impressive that Neil Cavuto on Fox is reporting this.  So, well done to them.  What's humorous, though, is that only on Fox would viewers just now be "learning" that Trump resorted to crime in a bid to cling to power after the 2020 election."

Here's the last song parody from Randy Rainbow.  For my taste, I don't think it's one of his better lyrics, though they're good, but more a laundry list than telling a story -- and more "false rhymes" than usual.  Part of that might possibly be because the song itself is a rare one for him that isn't a Broadway number, which he seems to be most comfortable with parodying.  Or it just might be my taste.  Still, though, it is fun -- and the laundry list is deserving.  But mostly what is so wonderful about the choice of songs  and makes it especially worthwhile (and almost certainly why he chose it for his parody) is that it's from...Taylor Swift.

By the way, as I've mentioned, he now has sponsorship of his videos -- good for him -- though less good is that he includes them within the video, interrupting it, that I find disruptive.  And they're long.  So, for those who want to skip them, this one starts around the 45-second mark, and you can then jump to 2:07 when things pick up again.

Hey, did you know that “JD Vance” was raised by his grandmother?  Yes, it’s true!  That’s what he told us – over and over and over and over and over.
 
I don’t have a lot to say in specifics about the vice-presidential debate, because honestly I found it so annoying, for several reasons, that I don't even have it in me to proofread this.  (So, good luck to us all!)  In fact, for the last 20 minutes I mooted “JD Vance” because I just couldn’t take him anymore.  Not that he was worse than Trump at his debate – he wasn’t, Trump was overwhelmingly worse, but so obviously worse that you couldn’t miss it with klieg lights shining.  And you knew there was a career prosecutor waiting anxiously to respond.  And so, “Vance” spent the evening speaking smoothly, but generally ignoring most questions and deflecting reality into an alternate universe where wall-to-wall lies, revisionist history, and a pseudo-caring "JD Vance" exist.
 
And Tim Walz is a former schoolteacher and high school football coach, not a career prosecutor.  He was also right in saying beforehand he was not a good debater.  I also think he was nervous (which he said he would be), mostly in the first half) and didn’t let his charm come through nearly as much as ideal.  This isn’t to say he did poorly – he didn’t, he had his facts down.  Nor to say he lost – he didn’t, though didn’t necessarily win.  He did a solid job, supported his running mate well, criticized their top opponent well, and if  you cared about facts, did come out ahead.  If you cared about style, didn’t know much going in, and weren’t listening closely, “JD Vance” probably did better.  That’s a pretty low standard, though.
 
Mainly, I started muting “Vance” because I’d figured out at that point that the debate, not surprisingly, was not going to affect the race much, if at all.  In fact, a snap CBS poll showed that 42% of those questioned said “JD Vance” won the debate, and 41% said Tim Walz won, with 17% saying it was a tie.
 
A couple things stood out as bugging me.  And both are related to Tim Walz being “Minnesota nice.”  So, at a couple points, he talked about how cordial the debate was and that he and “JD Vance” were in agreement on many things.  Yeah, maybe, but they really weren’t in agreement on almost everything.  And the other was when he noted that he and “Vance” likely agreed on how they could misspeak – which “Vance,” of course agreed to with a smile.  Well..sure, he smiled.  Because they both did not misspeak.  Tim Walz has misspoken a few times during the campaign.  “JD Vance” has not – he did not “misspeak” about his criticism of Trump and calling him “America’s Hitler” and that he was a “Never Trumper,” didn’t like Trump, and that his administration was a failure – repeatedly.  That was not misspeaking, that was what he believed and said specifically and at length for years.  Same thing about his relentlessly-expressed views on abortion and women.
 
On the other hand, Tim Walz being “Minnesota Nice” is one of his strengths.  So, if someone is going to do their worst at being too nice, that’s probably the best thing to do your worst on when trying to convince people to vote for you.
 
Still, I was sorry that “JD Vance” was able to get away with too many things that were galling.
 
When he said, “I’ve been in politics long enough to…” at which point he criticized Kamala Harris.  My immediate reaction was, “Long enough??  You’ve been in politics for two years!  Not just in the Senate for two years, that’s the entirety of his political career.”
 
When “Vance” referred to Kamala Harris as ‘the Border Czar’ – she wasn’t.  And I’d love to have heard that refuted.  Not just because it’s a lie, though, but because what her actual job was – coordinating efforts to improve conditions in specific countries so there would be less emigration to the U.S. – was actually very effective.  And showed how strongly she was working on the border and immigration issues.
 
I thought “Vance” got away with much too much on abortion.  To be clear, Tim Walz did a good job in responding, explaining the terrible problems of Trump’s responsibility for ending Roe v. Wade and sending the issue to the states, where a woman’s health care depends on where you live.  And the health risks to women, including those who’ve lost their lives and almost did.  But this is such a hugely-losing issue for the Trump campaign, that the best response wasn’t just stating the problems of ending Roe, it was also explaining “Vance’s” on-the-record position which he got away lying about -- saying he never supported a national ban, which there’s a recording of him saying exactly that.  And “Vance” got away without mention of his on-the-record outrageously horrific comments on single cat-ladies and post-menopausal women for how such views impact how the Trump-“Vance” ticket deal with women.
 
Gov. Walz also did a respectable job on the Affordable Care Act, including noting that Trump came into office saying specifically he wanted to kill it.  And explaining why Trump’s “concepts” on health care are unworkable, especially going into impactful detail on Trump wanting to end pre-existing conditions.  But because “Vance” nonetheless said and even repeated the ludicrous point that Trump supposedly saved the ACA, it required a pointed, blunt, shut-down, along the lines of “Please don’t try to gaslight the American public.  They know Trump hated the ACA and kept trying to end it.”  But that’s not “Minnesota Nice.”  But still, a missed opportunity.
 
I thought it was good that Tim Walz brought up Springfield, Ohio, and the threats of violence that now exist because of the lie “Vance” and Trump knowingly made.  What was less good is that he let “Vance” get away what the insane lie actually was – that immigrants were supposedly stealing pet dogs and cats and eating them!  How do you leave that out?  I suspect that was strategy, because it’s too noteworthy to leave out.  What I don’t know why that was the strategy.
 
Tim Walz also had a very good comment about Trump ending our involvement in the defense coalition against Iran, as well as ending our diplomatic deal with Iran, which gave Iran greater access to nukes.  What I was sorry about was that after “Vance” made a terrible rebuttal -- saying that Iran is more dangerous today because its growth in nuclear technology occurred during Biden/Harris Administration, a comment that sound great on the surface but totally ignores what Walz had just said, that Iran is closer to having nukes precisely because Trump took off the safeguard (!!) – I wish that Walz had had a chance to respond and say that.  And even though he didn’t, I still wish he’d called it out anyway.  But…well, “Minnesota Nice.”
 
And again, too be clear, I think Tim Walz did a respectable, solid job with the debate.  He made many excellent points, had a few winning responses, and he came across well.  He just didn’t come across like he does on the campaign trail, as “America’s dad” and his nerves showed.  But so did his politeness, which is no small thing.
 
Still, I wish the debate prep for Democrats had been to let Tim Walz be Tim Walz.  Not just polite, but endearing, engaging and nurturing.
 
In the end, Tim Walz saved his best, impactful exchange for the end – in fact, the very end.  Whether most viewers made it that far, I don’t know.  But if they did, ending on your high note, the last thing you see and remember, is impactful.  And that’s when a question about the threat to democracy was asked, and “JD Vance” tried to claim that it was the Democrats were the greater threat.  And at that point, Walz put aside “Minnesota Nice” and said this is one issue they  totally disagree with.  And not only did he raise the issue of the violence on January 6, but happily brought up Trump’s former vice-president Mike Pence who refused MAGOP calls not to certify the election – clearly pointing to why Pence is not the vice-presidential candidate again, while “Vance, who has said he wouldn’t certify the election, is the nominee.  And even more importantly, Tim Walz then turned to “JD Vance” and asked pointedly who won the 2020 election.  And “Vance” actually and blatantly and obvious to everyone watching…cowardly and reprehensibly refused to answer, and instead deflect elsewhere.  To which Tim Walz gave probably his best, most blunt response, pointing out how damning that “non-answer” was.
 
And ultimately, after all that – it was a tie.  Which is fine, because the race is actually between Kamala Harris and the convicted felon, adjudicated rapist who says he wants to be a dictator and has signs of dementia.
 
Unless you most care that “JD Vance” was raised by his grandmother.