2016: Let Us Smash this Rehash

Frankly, the Republicans are the only ones who benefit from the constant re-articulation of a narrative that puts the blame on Secretary Clinton’s loss on the 12% of Sanders primary voters who went with Trump in the General Election.* 

What is particularly tiresome about this line of argumentation, although it possesses a kernel of truth to it, is that there absolutely would have been a significant number of Clinton primary voters that would not have cast their ballots for Bernie-as-D-nominee (and gone as far as voting for Trump) in November.  Would it have been 12%, probably more like 6%-8%, but I would argue that 1) Bernie would likely have not have turned out as many white Democratic women as Clinton, 2) the GOP corporatist machine (functionally aided by many New Democratic-inclined well-heeled fundraisers who would have sat at home) would have decimated Sanders with a predictable (read: socialist-baiting) and brutal line of attack in the Fall campaign, and 3) many of those Sanders primary voters-Trump general election voters possessed an anti-neo-liberal worldview (which, at times, seemed to be closer to where Trump stood on trade, if you believed what he said).  Without Sanders or a similarly situated candidate, most probably would have sat out the primary election entirely.

The current-day finger-pointing and blame-shifting is painful to witness when the threat to our Republic is so abundantly clear. Outside of personal ego trips, it does the Democratic Party (no matter where one resides within this noble faction) little good to criticize a substantial percentage of the Party’s 2016 electorate.    

Frankly, with high-profile Democrats, including potential 2020’ers like Senator Kamala Harris and Senator Elizabeth Warren, announcing their support for Medicate-for-All legislation, those who belong to the Party of the People should be overjoyed that we might be able to run on a coherent and compelling platform against what is likely to be a weak GOP nominee.

Yes, Virginia, the ’20 Democratic nominee is likely to be someone with backing from Establishment players.  Yes, this person will probably not be a social democrat.  But, given what our nation has experienced since 1/20/17, I for one would gladly take a half-loaf for stable, moderately progressive governance in the Executive Branch.  Right now, given the President we have, he makes Congressman Delaney and Governor McAuliffe look like very appealing options.    

In short, let us bury the unproductive arguments of 2016.  The stakes for the 99% are too high to worry about the past actions of the 12% of one sub-set of voters.  The right candidate, with the right message, can bring them into the fold.

In solidarity.

*For the record, I voted for Senator Sanders in the primary.  It was not an easy decision but ultimately, he was closer to where I stood on a variety of issues.  And yes, I “came home” for the general election and voted for Secretary Clinton, as she was, at the very least, qualified to hold the office, sufficiently progressive on enough issues, and not demonstrably insane like the GOP nominee.  So don’t refer to me “Bernie Bro.”

A Waste of Time

Two thoughts on a theme – National first and Howard County-specific second:

-        The 2020 Democratic presidential field should be bereft of candidates who sought the office previously.  Invigorated blood is what is needed. Sorry Joe, Hillary, and Bernie.  Grab a seat, Martin. The last three Democrats to win the White House were all first-timers when they sought the nomination (’76, ’92, and ’08). Most of the folks who ran before (and whose names are bandied about as possibilities in 2020) are hauling about heavy baggage, fairly acquired or not.  We can’t waste time fighting old wars.  That said, I am certain we will see a doomed-to-failure sequel from someone.  Unfortunately for them, and the electorate.

-        Turning from national to HoCo news, I am getting more than a little irked at the namby-pamby-ness of the Invisible Campaign for County Executive.  I recognize that September is the time when this battle is likely to be joined but I am seeing Kittleman dominate the earned media space this summer.  It reminds me of how the Clinton re-election effort, oh, excuse me, the DNC spent the entire summer prior to the ’96 GOP National Convention beating the ever-loving tar out of the Dole campaign, defining the Republican nominee before he had a chance to establish his own narrative.  Folks can’t expect to win in ’18 just because they have a D next to their name.  Democrats in HoCo need to roll out a progressive platform, provide a solid rationale for their candidacy that appeals to voters, and show an ability to frame a debate. Right now, it feels like an opportunity was lost.  As former British MP Dr. David Owen said about the struggle over the direction of the Labour Party, “it will have to be a fight of passion and of conviction…we are fed up with the fudging and the mudging, we are fed up with slush and mush, we want courage, fight, conviction, and hard work.” 

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

Fresh Blood: 2020

First, a hand-drawn infographic!

Ok, I may not have captured everyone.  And some were favorite sons (alas, no daughters) in the earlier cycles, but bear with me.

This is a list of all of the Democratic candidates for President since 1952 who 1) lost once and 2) ran again.  A circle means they were the nominee in that cycle.

Some names not on this list: every Democrat elected to the Presidency since 1960 with one exception.

1) John F. Kennedy.  First time presidential candidate in '60.  Tried (unsuccessfully) to get on the national ticket with Stevenson as the VP pick in '56.  Won the nomination and General Election.
2) Jimmy Carter.  First time presidential candidate in '76.  Tried (unsuccessfully) to get on the national ticket with McGovern as the VP pick in '72.  Won the nomination and General Election.
3) Bill Clinton.  First time presidential candidate in '92.  Thought about it in '88 but passed.  Won the nomination and General Election, twice.
4) Barack Obama.  First time presidential candidate in '08.  Won the nomination and General Election, twice.

LBJ is on the list, and he did win on his own in '64 (against Goldwater, not the strongest opponent the GOP could have fielded that cycle).  That said, he lost the bid for the nomination in '60, came to the office only on the passing of JFK, and was clearly in for a tough battle for the nomination in '68 when he famously declared that he would neither seek, nor accept the nomination of the Democratic Party for President.

And of course there were those who lost on a national ticket as a VP or VP candidate and who ran for the Presidency later...and lost again (Muskie in '68 and '72 respectively, Shriver in '72 and '76 respectively, Lieberman in '00 and '04 respectively).  Mondale, of course, won in '76 with Carter (when he passed on the race himself, citing a lack of "fire in the belly") but lost in his own bid in '84.  Al Gore and Joe Biden have already been accounted for in this chart.

So...while the past is not always prologue...I would like to see some new names come to the fore for the Democratic Party in 2020.  History has not been kind to the "not one-and-done" club. You have to admit, we have run (and won with) some excellent first-timers.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

These Three Things

Support: the efforts of the Horizon Foundation and their coalition partners (known collectively as Sugar Free Kids Maryland) to terminate, with extreme prejudice, the state’s sales tax on bottled water.  Tax relief combined with promoting healthier beverage options? Seems like sound public policy.

Support: the decision by the Obama Administration to move in the direction of normalizing relations with Cuba.  Up until recently, our policy toward our neighbor has been caught up in a Cold War vortex, with some modifications over the past couple of decades.  I am well aware of the regime’s human rights record, which doesn't exactly differentiate Cuba from at least 30 other nations I could rattle off.  This presents an opportunity for the U.S. to expand our influence, and promote our ideals, during what promises to be a transitional period in Cuba’s history. It is better that the diplomatic shift occurs now before any potential post-Castro chaos ensues.  The differing perspectives I have heard today tend to be backward looking, politically motivated, and neglectful of the present-day needs of the Cuban people.  President Obama is dealing with the world as it is, and a reality-based foreign policy is a very good thing.

Support: an open exchange of ideas among Democrats as the Party constructs a new path forward.  A rigorous discussion among multiple presidential candidates would help facilitate a much-needed national conversation as to what constitutes a Democratic governing vision and which principles and policies we should emphasize as we seek to regain our electoral footing. 

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

"Time Keeps On Slippin'"

I will keep this brief.  The 4:05 pm to Saskatoon is boarding soon and my sprint from Parking Garage A to the ticket counter resulted in four exclamations to “Watch out,” two muttered apologies and one spilled latte. Thankfully, the coffee wasn’t mine.

Anyone who believes they can run for President, seeking the nomination of a major party, and wait on announcing until the summer of 2015 is either a complete dolt…or Hillary Clinton, because she could get away with it.   She wouldn’t tarry to that extent, but she has advantages that none of her likely Democratic rivals can match: astronomically high name recognition & solid Fav/Unfav numbers among likely D primary voters/caucus attendees, a broad network of supporters (ranging from top-flight operatives to keyed-in local elected officials and activists), massive fundraising potential, a spouse who (when on his game) is probably the most persuasive advocate for Democratic candidates and causes since JFK, and a personal biography that seems ideally suited for the Challenges of Today.  Do you think Bernie Sanders is going to stop that juggernaut?  Extremely unlikely.

She could afford to wait, if she wanted to. That said, she won’t. I would wager dollars to doughnuts, that Clinton will most likely announce her intentions in early 2015...at some point between January 1 and March 31...most likely in the first half of that window.

For the record: I am not, viscerally, a huge fan of HRC.  Intellectually, I admire her accomplishments and respect her brainpower and toughness.  Genuine heavy mettle.  I think she would be a good president, perhaps even very good.

Perhaps I just find the Clinton family saga a little tiresome.  Maybe my thinking on the matter will evolve, and it is all about making the best choice from the available options.  That said, my last votes for a Clinton occurred back in ’92 (once in March, again in November).  Pissed off on how he handled the Lani Guinier nomination, I decided I would not vote for his re-election in 1996.  I ended up casting my ballot for Steve Forbes in the GOP primary, and for Senator Bob Dole in the General. 

But that was the other Clinton.  Fast forward to late 2007, I favored then-Senator Obama’s stance on the War and his overall positioning, slightly to the left of then-Senator Clinton… a good mainstream progressive from the Heartland. 

But now, deep into the second term of the Obama Presidency, with Official DC turning its critical, menaced and slightly rum-soaked eyes to 2016 and whispering of Iowa, of New Hampshire…and facing the near inevitability of yet another Clinton campaign.  One must ask, is this her time? 

In the post WWII era, few candidates who aren’t sitting Presidents, incumbent Vice Presidents or Bushes have had such a clear road to the nomination of a major party. Adlai Stevenson’s second run in ’56 comes close, and even he had to contend with Estes Kefauver, who was no slacker.

So who will step up on the D side?  I have a list of 38 names.  Many of the other 37 won’t run.  Some might explore it, then opt against such an arduous campaign.  A handful will get into the race, I would estimate no more than four or five serious candidates in addition to former Secretary of State Clinton. In short, a small field by modern standards. 

There will be a challenger from the Far Left (right this way Senator Sanders), a slot for a conservative Democrat who wants to over-correct based on one interpretation of the 2014 election results (greetings Senator Manchin), a couple of candidates who want to be in the mix because a) they believe they have a compelling story to tell and b) Hillary might stumble…let’s just put in former Senator Webb and current Governor Martin O’Malley in this category….for now.  The former is an interesting possibility, given his populist inclinations and swing state geographic base.   Potentially very interesting.  O’Malley was dinged, probably not irreparably, based on last week’s election outcomes in Maryland…but he remains a decided long-shot.

Oh yes, and let us not forget Vice President Joe Biden.  First, I don’t believe he will run again.   He had two decent opportunities. I recall his 1988 campaign vividly and his 2008 effort recently.  Second, he is a fine public servant but he is not the future of the Democratic Party.  

The progressive wing will long for Senator Elizabeth Warren, some of the unreconstructed will want the ageless Jerry Brown to saddle up once more, Rahm may practice speeches in his bathroom mirror, and Senator Booker will keep his calendar open for 2024.

Me? I will probably spend the Holidays pondering the possibility of a Cuomo, the reemergence of Feingold or Dean, the potential of Gillibrand, or if John Cusack is ready to take a break from this acting nonsense and get into politics in a serious way.   

That said, I will most likely be wearing a Clinton button on 12/31/2015…just like many of you will too. 

But who knows? 

In any event, it is all coming sooner than you think.  The calendar demands it.  Beware those who jump in late, history has not been kind to them.

With that in mind…up next…a look at the Republicans.  And yes, they will probably go Establishment again in 2016, in case you were wondering.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

Character and a Flamingo-colored HQ

Eighteen years ago, I was serving as the press secretary for a congressional campaign.  The candidate, simply put, hated being a candidate…with an passion uncommon among those who operate at that level.  The Governor asked him to run against a long-time incumbent who belonged to the other party.  In the previous election cycle, a challenger who could have been described, charitably, as the proud possessor of a thin resume almost knocked out said incumbent Congressman.  The logic flowed that if a lightweight almost succeeded in ’94, surely a Heavy could finish the job in ’96.  So, dutifully, he gave up his position as the head of a state agency and entered the race.

To say that he barricaded himself in his campaign office at one point would be an over-statement…  but not by much. It is safe to say that he found the experience grueling.   He wasn’t a political animal; he was an expert on transportation issues who found himself on the campaign trail.  It was a bad fit from “go.”  Too bad though…he would have been a good, thoughtful U.S. Representative. 

It’s been a long time since I sat in that campaign office, a small bright pink building off Dixie Highway in Waterford, Michigan.  I hear it housed a clothing boutique once, but that is only an apocryphal tale.   The place had character, as did the candidate.

Character is a fascinating attribute. Political scientist James David Barber, in his work, “The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White House,” focused on what it could tell us about a presidential aspirant, and what particular challenges a Chief Magistrate – if you permit the usage of a rather archaic descriptor - might face based on the amount of energy he or she exerted in executing the duties of the Office…and his or her outlook on life, the world, and the role of the Presidency.

Barber categorized U.S. presidents into one of four groups based on two criteria: their energy levels (active/passive) and their attitude or “orientation” towards the job (positive/negative). So there are four possibilities: active/positive, active/negative, passive/positive, and passive/negative.

I’m not a particular proponent of this heavily psychological classification scheme, but let’s adapt & simplify the concept and explore the space a bit…

An active/positive would be a president with a high energy level who enjoys the responsibilities of the office.  They are adaptive and strive for “rational mastery.”  They may experience issues dealing with the “irrational in politics.” As is the case for all four clusters, some achieve more success than others. Two recent examples of this type of character would be Presidents John F. Kennedy and Gerald Ford.

An active/negative is also high-energy, but derives “low emotional reward” for their effort. They tend to be less flexible and they endure bouts of pessimism, exacerbated by a disconnect between their political ambitions and the “condemnations of a perfectionist conscience.” President Woodrow Wilson is of this group, as are Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

A passive/positive tends to be reactive, but possesses a “superficial optimism.”  They are driven more by a “search for affection” than the other types.  This need for external approbation can be a source of strength and a considerable weakness. Looking at recent presidents, Barber places President Ronald Reagan in this bloc.  Personally, I believe that Reagan’s optimism was not merely superficial and that his energy levels, at least for a significant part of his first term, were somewhere between active and passive on the energy spectrum.  His politics and policies aside, I do not think Reagan is the archetype of this group.

A passive/negative is also reactive, not an initiator.  They are duty-focused, with a tendency to “withdraw, to escape from the conflict and uncertainty of politics by emphasizing vague principles…and procedural arrangements.  They become guardians of the right and proper way, above the sordid politicking of lesser men.”  Barber cited President George Washington and President Dwight Eisenhower as two examples of this character type. Again, these are Barber’s classifications and even he recognizes that his characterizations are rather broad tendencies.

So what does this all mean?  Well, let’s take it from “president” to “local office-seeker.”  Understanding that greatness, or massive ineptitude, can spring from any of the four groups, several questions leap to mind.  Among local public officials and candidates, who falls within what categories? What can that tell us about what they might do and how they might serve?  What should we, the voters, consider when thinking about their character? What challenges should they keep in mind? How can their energies and worldviews be harnessed to bring out the best in them? 

Academic? Perhaps.  But a fun thought exercise nonetheless.  Definitely much more engaging than trying to coax a candidate to unlock a door so they can meet up with a local precinct delegate they can’t stand.   

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

Road to the White House 2016: Manilow, Mistakes and Mandates

Déjà Vu

Could you be the dream that I once knew
Is it you
Déjà Vu
Could you be the dream that might come true
Shining through
I keep remembering me
I keep remembering you

Déjà Vu

            - Lyrics by Isaac Hayes and Adrienne Anderson. Performed by Dionne Warwick. Produced by B. Manilow

What concerns me most about the most recent, incarnation of the Hillary Clinton for President movement is captured succinctly by the name of the highly visible Super PAC extolling her virtues, Ready for Hillary.

It all feels oddly familiar.  A campaign, or in this case, a proto-campaign, that seems more focused on the candidate than on what she or he might deliver.

Of course this is a grotesquely unfair criticism.  Hillary Clinton is not a candidate, at least not yet. 

The problem is her past.  In 2007 - 2008, she ran largely on a solid resume and the perceived strength of her brand.  She trusted that those elements, along with a top-flight campaign team and oodles of ready money, would be sufficient to clinch a first ballot nomination.

Depending on your perspective, a tragic or a fortunate (and possibly hilarious) thing happened next.  Some member or members of her quite well-paid campaign team - reportedly - forgot how delegates are allocated in Democratic primaries and caucuses.  This is important as delegates ultimately determine who receives the nomination.  They were playing for high stakes and some key person or people (who shall not be named here) couldn't be bothered to thumb through a rulebook.  Figuratively speaking, of course. At least that is how the story was covered.  In the fog of the fight, who knows where the truth resides?

She did catch a run of bad luck.  The American electorate was looking for a clean break from the Bush years…and her candidacy represented not so much a fresh start but a risorgimento of the previous Administration, one that still elicited mixed emotions, even from a fair number of Democrats.

Enter then-Senator Barack Obama and the Politics of Change.  He seized a moment, in part because he had a theme larger than himself – while still amplifying his biography – and because voters trusted that he would deliver on that promise.

Even then-Governor Clinton knew, in 1992, that he needed something beyond his record.  His campaign famously employed a compelling messaging troika: “Change versus more of the same,” “It’s the economy stupid,” and “Don’t forget health care.”

Fast forward to the present day.   Some heavy-hitting Clinton backers decide to launch a vehicle promoting Hillary Clinton as a potential presidential candidate.   Instead of linking it something actual voters care about or even a broad theme that suggests the outlines of a vision, they opt for “Ready for Hillary.”

When I first head that name, I thought: Are they criticizing voters for, presumably, not being ready for Hillary in 2008? Are they saying, in so many words, you were children but now it’s time to grow up?  Are they mocking us?  Hardly the inspirational stuff of “Yes We Can.”  More akin to “Why Didn’t You Before?”

I know, I know.  A Super PAC is not a presidential campaign.  But if you look at the roster of folks associated with Ready for Hillary, it is enough to give one pause.  If she runs, will she be a better candidate this time around?  Will she make the campaign about something larger than her admittedly impressive credentials?  How will she Connect?     

Or will we see an imitation of Clinton 2008?  She could probably get away with it, minus the ridiculous unforced errors, at least in the Democratic nominating process.  Democrats are so concerned about locking in the accomplishments of the Obama Administration, they want as close to a sure-fire winner as possible.  There is a measure of risk aversion and, on paper, Hillary Clinton offers the best path to 270 electoral votes…. possibly even a mandate in 2016, depending on how the next two years shape up.

In any event, I hope that the brain trust advising Team Hillary is smart enough to learn from the past, but not dwell in it.  

Stay tuned, as more will follow.