‘High Priestess’ Marianne Williamson Scores In Fight Against ‘Dark Psychic Forces’

Somehow, I doubt we’re the only portal that’s reluctant to devote anything in the way of coverage to Marianne Williamson, whose bid for the Democratic nomination is infinitely more far-fetched than Donald Trump’s run for the White House.

But that’s kind of the point, now isn’t it? Despite running one of the most patently offensive campaigns in the history of American politics (complete with an actual Muslim ban and a literal plea for Russian assistance in obtaining his opponent’s stolen e-mails), Donald Trump is now president, a state of affairs that still hasn’t “gestated” (as he once described cooking turkey) with large swaths of the voting public.

The question, when it comes to Marianne Williamson, is simply this: If America elected Donald Trump, and continues to countenance his presence in the White House despite mountainous evidence of his unfitness for office, why not “President Williamson”?

Her first debate performance was wholly laughable, but it did garner quite a bit of social media attention for the extent to which she lived up to her reputation as a spaced-out motivational speaker peddling the healing power of love. “My first call is to the prime minister of New Zealand, who said that her goal is to make New Zealand the best place in the world for a child to grow up, and I would tell her, ‘girlfriend, you are so on'”, Williamson said, describing her hypothetical first phone call as president. If you watch the clip, she clearly says “so wrong”, not “so on”, but it doesn’t matter – “Girlfriend you are so on” became an instant meme.

Fast forward a month to the second Democratic debate and nobody was laughing at “the high priestess of pop religion”, as Williamson was once dubbed.

Although she received less than nine minutes of speaking time (half of that afforded to headliners Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders), Williamson made the most of it.

Her first big hit came when she was asked about the water crisis in Flint, Michigan. “My response is Flint is the tip of the iceberg”, she began. “We have an administration that has gutted the Clean Water Act. We have communities, particularly communities of color and disadvantaged communities, all over this country, who are suffering from environmental injustice”.

(If the video does not load, please refresh your page)

Once she got rolling, Williamson could barely finish a sentence without being interrupted by applause.

“I assure you — I lived in Grosse Pointe, what happened in Flint would not have happened in Grosse Pointe”, she declared. On a roll, Williamson continued:

This is part of the dark underbelly of American society. The racism, the bigotry and the entire conversation that we’re having here tonight, if you think any of this wonkiness is going to deal with this dark psychic force of the collectivized hatred that this president is bringing up in this country, then I’m afraid that the Democrats are going to see some very dark days.

It’s likely that CNN’s moderators (not to mention the other candidates) thought the Flint answer was a fluke, but they were disabused of that notion later when Don Lemon tossed the reparations question Williamson’s way. Do note that the reparations issue is a hill on which no politician wants to die – there is no “right” answer. Or at least there wasn’t. Until the “A Return to Love”  author got ahold of it.

“We need deep truth-telling, we don’t need another commission to look at evidence”, she said, on the way to confidently declaring that “we need to recognize, when it comes to the economic gap between blacks and whites in America, it does come from a great injustice that has never been dealt with. That great injustice has had to do with the fact that there was 250 years of slavery followed by another hundred years of domestic terrorism”.

 

Williamson did not hesitate when asked to explain the math behind her reparations estimates, either. “Well, first of all, it’s not $500 billion in financial assistance, it’s $200 to $500 billion payment of a debt that is owed”, she said, deftly brushing aside Lemon’s attempt at condescension. As she ran through the math, Twitter went crazy.

By the time Williamson was asked about college tuition, it was a wrap. The debate was almost over and it was widely billed as a snoozer for the rest of the field. But not for Williamson and the power of love.

Her confidence running sky high, she easily navigated the tuition question, elaborating on the economic benefits of wiping the slate clean for encumbered students.

 

Then, she turned to the rest of the candidates (literally) and said “I almost wonder if you’re really Democrats – you seem to think there’s something wrong with using the instruments of government to help people!”

The crowd went wild.

Ultimately, Williamson failed to stick the landing. Her closing statement lapsed back into the spiritual and she stumbled a bit in her delivery, but it didn’t matter. It was Williamson’s night.

Getting back to reality, Williamson has no chance. It’s not likely she’ll even qualify for the next round of debates in September. She’ll need to garner 2% in four polls, rack up 130,000 unique contributors, and have 400 donors in 20 states. As the Washington Post notes, “Williamson is working to meet the donor requirement — hitting up her followers on social media to contribute at least $1 to keep her campaign going, but in spite of the attention she has gotten at the debates, Williamson has barely cracked 1 percent in most polls”.

On the bright side, she has a month to capitalize off her second debate performance which, frankly, was as good or better than everyone else on stage.

Obviously, Warren was the “winner” (she eviscerated all comers and her mastery of the issues was on full display), but that was no surprise. It’s hard to see how Warren can generate any more buzz than she already has. She’s a known quantity at this juncture. Bernie was Bernie (what else can you say?).

Google Trends showed Williamson was the top-searched candidate of the night, ahead of both Warren and Sanders.

The before/after map view is astonishing.

---