Elections

His innovative version of the chocolate chip cookie, studded with irregular pieces of dark Swiss chocolate, led to a chain of more than 100 stores worldwide.David Liederman, whose confections redefined the chocolate chip cookie and whose chain, David’s Cookies, eventually grew to more than 100 stores nationwide, died on Thursday in Mount Kisco, N.Y., near his home in Katonah. He was 75.His wife, Susan Liederman, said the cause of his death, at a hospital, was a heart attack. He was also being treated for myelofibrosis, a type of blood cancer.Mr. Liederman’s innovative version of the chocolate chip cookie will keep his name alive.The cookie’s unique feature was that it was not made with standard Toll House chocolate chips but was studded with irregular pieces of dark Swiss Lindt chocolate. He chopped the chocolate by hand, the way Ruth Graves Wakefield did when she created the Toll House cookie in 1938 in Whitman, Mass., before Nestlé took over and began manufacturing its little chocolate drops. Mr. Liederman called his cookies chocolate chunk, a term that has become widely understood and used in the world of baking and confections.But long before his revisionist cookie came on the scene, creating his reputation and cranking up his income, his career in food, as a chef, was starting to simmer like a good pot-au-feu.He was 19, still an undergraduate, when he went to France. Intrigued by Michelin three-star restaurants, of which there were but a handful at the time, he decided to eat at Troisgros in Roanne, near Lyon, because it seemed to be the cheapest. The meal set him back $19 (the equivalent of about $172 today); the food was an epiphany.He persuaded the Troisgros brothers to let him hang out in the restaurant’s kitchen and work for the next few summers, despite his lack of culinary training. While he was studying for a degree at Brooklyn Law School and clerking for Judge Maxine Duberstein of the New York State Supreme Court, he began taking classes at night in the culinary program at New York Technical College (now the New York City College of Technology) in Downtown Brooklyn.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Mat Shelden takes us for a ride.Jump to: Today’s Theme | Tricky CluesTHURSDAY PUZZLE — The hardest part of making a crossword puzzle is getting through your first submission. It’s the anxiety that gets you.You spent countless hours trying to make a puzzle that you think people will enjoy solving, got stuck countless times while trying to fill the puzzle, mulled over your clues without knowing exactly how hard they’re supposed to be and now it’s time to send it off to the editors.You fill out the submission form, attach your puzzle in the format the editors requested and, with palms sweating, you hit “send.” From there, it goes into a black hole, never to be seen again.Ha-ha, just kidding! That’s how it feels, but, in reality, the puzzle editors receive your creation, and it goes onto the pile of crosswords that have yet to be reviewed. From there, the editors discuss your creation at length and talk about what tweaks will need to be performed on your baby to make it ready for prime time. You try not to picture the puzzle editors laughing at your puzzle.Submitting crosswords becomes less anxiety-producing as time goes on. Today’s grid reminded me of the stress of the submission process because it is Mat Shelden’s New York Times Crossword debut. In fact, it is his first publication anywhere, but not his first submission, so he’s already been through the anxiety.“I felt confident in what I made, uncertain in how it would be received and was prepared to wait for an answer,” Mr. Shelden said in an email. “I had received rejections in the past, so my optimism was tempered.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

A federal judge in Tennessee said that it was unconstitutional for the City of Lakeland, Tenn., to fine Julie Pereira for the sign she posted expressing disapproval of President Biden and Donald J. Trump.A federal judge in Tennessee ruled this week that it was unconstitutional for a city to fine a woman who had displayed a sign in her yard that used profane language to express disapproval of both President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump.The woman, Julie Pereira, 40, of Lakeland, Tenn., who posted the sign, which said “Fuck Em’ Both 2024,” in January, was fined hundreds of dollars by the city. It told her that the political sign violated its municipal code because it was obscene.In June, Ms. Pereira sued Lakeland in federal court, arguing that she had a First Amendment right to post the sign in her yard.Judge Mark S. Norris of U.S. District Court in Memphis, said in an order issued on Tuesday that Ms. Pereira’s yard sign was not obscene, and that it was unconstitutional for the city of Lakeland to take action against Ms. Pereira over the sign.Judge Norris ordered the city to reimburse her for nearly $700 in fines and pay Ms. Pereira damages of $1 for violating her First Amendment rights, according to the order. Ms. Pereira was also awarded legal fees of $31,000. The judge also barred the city from taking any additional action against her.Julie Pereira’s sign in her yard in Lakeland, Tenn. She won her lawsuit against the city of Lakeland after they fined her hundreds of dollars for putting up the sign.Julie PereiraWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Toda mi vida he sido demócrata; no me disculpo por eso. Estoy orgulloso de lo que mi partido representa y defiende. Como parte de mi participación en el proceso democrático, y en apoyo al candidato que he elegido, he dirigido algunas de las mayores recaudaciones de fondos de la historia de mi partido. Barack Obama en 2012. Hillary Clinton en 2016. Joe Biden en 2020. El mes pasado colaboré en la organización la mayor recaudación de fondos en apoyo de un candidato demócrata de la historia, para la reelección del presidente Biden. Digo todo esto solo para expresar lo mucho que creo en este proceso y lo importante que creo que es este momento.Me encanta Joe Biden. Como senador. Como vicepresidente y como presidente. Lo considero un amigo y creo en él. Creo en su carácter. Creo en su moral. En los últimos cuatro años, ha ganado muchas de las batallas a las que se ha enfrentado.Pero la única batalla que no puede ganar es la lucha contra el tiempo. Ninguno de nosotros puede. Es devastador decirlo, pero el Joe Biden con el que estuve hace tres semanas en la recaudación de fondos no era el Joe “big F-ing deal” Biden de 2010. Ni siquiera era el Joe Biden de 2020. Era el mismo hombre que vimos en el debate.¿Estaba cansado? Sí. ¿Resfriado? Tal vez. Pero los líderes de nuestro partido tienen que dejar de decirnos que 51 millones de personas no vieron lo que acabamos de ver. Estamos tan aterrorizados ante la perspectiva de un segundo mandato de Trump que hemos decidido ignorar todas las señales de advertencia. La entrevista de George Stephanopoulos solo reforzó lo que vimos la semana anterior. Como demócratas, contenemos colectivamente la respiración o bajamos el volumen cada vez que vemos al presidente, a quien respetamos, bajar del Air Force One o acercarse a un micrófono para responder a una pregunta no programada.¿Es justo señalar estas cosas? Tiene que serlo. Se trata de la edad. Nada más. Pero tampoco es algo que pueda revertirse. No vamos a ganar en noviembre con este presidente. Además, no ganaremos la Cámara de Representantes y perderemos el Senado. Esta no solo es mi opinión; es la opinión de todos los senadores y congresistas y gobernadores con quienes he hablado en privado. Todos y cada uno, independientemente de lo que digan en público.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Senator Peter Welch of Vermont on Wednesday became the first Democratic senator to publicly call on President Biden to withdraw as the party’s presidential candidate in the aftermath of his disastrous debate performance last month.“We can’t unsee what we saw,” Mr. Welch said in an interview shortly after publishing an op-ed in The Washington Post in which he called for Mr. Biden to end his campaign and allow another Democrat to take on former President Donald J. Trump. He said the president’s stumbles during the debate had only reinforced — rather than allayed — concerns about his ability to run a successful campaign.“Age was a big issue going into the debate, and it was an opportunity, obviously, that the White House saw to put that to rest, and coming out of the debate, it intensified it,” the first-term senator said. “And that’s a real problem.”Mr. Welch, 77, said his decision to call on the president to step aside was extremely difficult because he and voters in his home state “love Joe Biden.” He touted the 2020 election results, in which Vermonters delivered Mr. Biden the highest percentage victory of any state in the country.But he said those same voters had deep anxieties about the future, fearing that four years under a second Trump administration would remove any chance of extending progressive policies championed by Mr. Biden and could wipe away the progress they have supported over the last four years.Mr. Welch said it had become an existential issue for him to consider the threat of another Trump presidency, and that his determination was that Mr. Biden was not up to beating the former president.“It’s not the elites in Vermont who are talking to me,” Mr. Welch said, brushing back an argument that Mr. Biden has made in recent days as he has defiantly refused to leave the race. “It’s the working-class mother who’s got two kids and is hoping maybe we can get the child care tax back. It’s kids who are working in AmeriCorps just to do cleanup and environmental work who are terrified that all the achievements of the Biden administration on the environment are going to be erased if we get a Trump presidency.”“It’s a catastrophe,” he added.The senator said he is not blind to the risks that could come should Mr. Biden step down, but rejected comparisons to the meltdown Democrats faced in 1968, when chaos and violence at the party convention in Chicago contributed to then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey’s loss in the general election that November.“One of the achievements of Joe Biden is that he has unified the Democratic Party — everyone from Bernie Sanders to Joe Manchin,” Mr. Welch said. “And what that means is that if we have to go through ‘Who’s our next candidate?,’ it’s going to be among people who are all committed to the Biden commitment to save democracy, the Biden commitment to the environment, the Biden commitment to women’s rights.” More

A president who long delighted in public speech is now sometimes hard to understand. Does it matter?President Biden’s failure to speak clearly in the unscripted setting of a presidential debate late last month plunged his party — and his re-election campaign — into crisis.He’s hoping an unscripted appearance at the NATO summit in Washington tomorrow will help him turn things around.The political drama over the past two weeks has turned in part on Biden’s fundamental struggle, in a moment that really counted, to send a message that could be widely understood. His effort to clean up the mess with an interview late last week created new questions about his communication skills, some of which were as absurd as the matter of whether he said “goodest” or “good as” when neither option really made sense.It all underscores the fact that a president who for decades has delighted in the power — and the abundance — of his own speech has become, in certain moments, just plain hard to understand. Does it matter that the public can find itself turning up the volume or parsing the sometimes-corrected transcript to figure out what he meant?“He’s become someone who, unless he’s giving a major speech, you have to lean forward to hear what he’s saying and sometimes you have to think twice to understand what he’s saying,” said David Kusnet, a former speechwriter for President Clinton who has observed Biden’s speeches for decades.In scripted appearances or when he can rely on notes, the president typically has an easier time making a strong point — such as the unequivocal assurance he has made this week that he has no plans to bow out of the presidential race. His first solo news conference since the debate, scheduled for tomorrow evening, will amount to a critical opportunity for him to show his party that he can still be understood when speaking off the cuff.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

At least 27 people were killed when an Israeli airstrike exploded as people played soccer at a school turned shelter in southern Gaza.The soccer ball went out of bounds and the goalkeeper was lofting it toward his teammates as dozens of people looked on from the sidelines of the courtyard. It was a moment of respite in the Gaza Strip — but it did not last. Before the ball reached the ground, a large boom shook the yard, sending players and spectators fleeing in frenzied panic.The Gazan authorities say that at least 27 people were killed on Tuesday in that explosion, which was caused by an Israeli airstrike near the entrance to a school turned shelter on the outskirts of Khan Younis, in southern Gaza.Displaced Palestinians had sought shelter at the school in Khan Younis that was hit by the airstrike. The Israeli military said the target was a Hamas member who participated in the Oct. 7 attack.ReutersIyad Qadeh, who was sitting outside his home near the school property, said the day had been calm, without drones buzzing overhead. Then a warplane appeared and fired a missile toward a group of young men sitting at an internet cafe, he said.“After that, it was screams and body parts everywhere,” Mr. Qadeh said.Philippe Lazzarini, head of the U.N. agency that helps Palestinians, UNRWA, said on Wednesday that it was the fourth strike in four days to hit or damage a school building in Gaza. Two-thirds of U.N. school buildings in the enclave have been hit since the start of the war, with more than 500 people killed, UNRWA said.Grieving the dead at a hospital in Khan Younis on Wednesday after an Israeli airstrike.Haitham Imad/EPA, via ShutterstockWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More