Could there be hope for Martin O'Malley?

By Richard Barry

Anything can happen in politics. We’ve all seen improbable outcomes. Though pundits will sometimes deny this, it is usually unwise to suggest there is, in an absolute sense, no hope once a candidate decides to jump in.

And, no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump and the embarrassment his current small degree of success is causing for anyone with a conscience nor how so many of us will feel should he survive too far into the process.

I am thinking about former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and how strange it must be for him to contemplate Bernie Sanders’ success – the same Bernie Sanders whose full legal name many must think is “Self-Described Socialist Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders,” as I don’t think I’ve ever read an article about him without that phrase in it.

O’Malley knew from the start that the only way to run against Hillary Clinton was from the left, as so many Democrats don’t trust Mrs. Clinton to be a voice of true progressivism and find her, fair or not, to be on the side of wealth, power, privilege, Wall Street, etc.

When Sen. Elizabeth Warren chose not the run O’Malley must have seen a clear path to a credible candidacy and many months of robust media attention.

So, that hasn’t happened, at least not in the short term.

In a recent piece in the Des Moines Register, it was said that O’Malley is looking to Iowa where he will go “all in” in an attempt to present himself as the “anti-establishment” option and the real alternative to Hillary Clinton.

As the Register rightly points out, O’Malley has little choice. It’s easy to make the case that he either establishes himself as a real threat here or goes home as New Hampshire is next, a state that has long been good to the Clintons and is in Sanders’ backyard. After then it’s on to South Carolina and Nevada, states with significant numbers of minority voters, also fertile ground for Clinton success.

Much of the Register article outlines the work O’Malley’s team intends to do in Iowa including hiring paid staff, a travel schedule that would see him meet as many eligible voters as humanly possible, and investing more in resources than in any other early-voting state.

As we know, Iowa is not without its magic. In 2008, the state was a springboard to then-Sen. Barack Obama’s eventual Democratic nomination win, which is still probably not a great topic for conversation at the Clinton household. On the Republican side, in 2012 Rick Santorum came out on top and positioned himself for many as the anti-Romney.

The point is that it’s a funny little process in Iowa and odd things have been known to happen even if, according to recent polling, few people in Iowa seem to know who Martin O’Malley is. He’ll have to change that.

At a minimum, O’Malley has to come out of Iowa as Hillary Clinton’s main opponent, which obviously means he has to leap-frog Bernie Sanders. The thing is, I actually believe O’Malley might be able to do that based on one observation, which is that the Democratic Party, from coast to coast, especially away from the major media centres, is not as liberal as it would need to be for the Bernie Sanders wave to continue unabated. Sure, O’Malley will position himself to the left of Hillary Clinton, but he could do it in a way ultimately more palatable to Democratic voters.

I am just saying that I wouldn’t count Martin O’Malley out mostly because he is a very good retail politician in a caucus process where that counts for so much, and his opponent for second place is still “The Self-Described Socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.”

If O’Malley comes out of Iowa with only Mrs. Clinton ahead of him, that changes everything including how hard it will be for Mrs. Clinton to win the nomination. In other words, Clinton should prefer Bernie Sanders as her main opponent.

By the way, I’m not saying I want it to happen, only that it could.

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

What's Martin O'Malley's game?

By Richard Barry

Reports are that former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley will launch his presidential candidacy Saturday in what most are politely calling an uphill battle. 

He'll talk about income inequality, helping the middle class, and the need for a new generation of leadership, or "fresh leadership," as he has called it.

He'll talk about how deregulation and tax cuts have helped the rich get richer. He'll talk about the immense power Wall Street has in shaping the economy and politics of the nation and how we really ought to do something about that. As he recently asked an audience in New Hampshire, "Do you want this to be a country where only the rich can get ahead."

In a sense, he'll talk about what all Democrats are talking about these days.

Whatever he says, he better get to work as a new Quinnipiac University Poll of Democrats nationally has O'Malley at 1% support compared to Clinton with 57%, followed by Sanders at 15%, and Biden at  9%.

The same poll found that "80% of Democratic voters said they didn't know enough about O'Malley to have an opinion of him."

So, what's O'Malley's game? Could it be that if the Clinton campaign finds a way to run itself into the ground as it did in 2008, he thinks he could be there to pick up the pieces? That must be it because Hillary Clinton is at least as progressive as O'Malley, and if he thinks he can put any distance between himself and Mrs. Clinton by drawing attention, however obliquely, to her ties to Wall Street, he's delusional. And the new generation of leadership thing might resonate if the race was closer.

As for Bernie Sanders, well, the self-described socialist is likely too much on the fringes of American politics to seriously compete, but if he does well enough in the primaries, and raises enough questions about Mrs. Clinton, O'Malley may hope that voters will instead come to him as the credible anti-Hillary.

All of this is quite ridiculous but for the fact that presidential politics often shifts at a very quick rate of speed and, though it may be too much to say that anything can happen, some unexpected things do happen. 

Unfortunately for Gov. O'Malley I am finding it hard to imagine how a successful run for the Democratic nomination could be one of those things.

Bottom line is that Democrats are so invested in the thought that they can keep the White House if only they more or less enthusiastically get behind Hillary Clinton that nothing will change that view, certainly not Martin O'Malley.

In his defence, however, I will say that Democrats are more loyal to the idea of victory than to Mrs. Clinton, and if she stumbles badly, they will look for another option without breaking a sweat.

Sen. Sanders will allow liberals to feel good about themselves

By Richard Barry

Politico has a story today that Democrats see Sen. Bernie Sanders as the greatest threat amongst potential challengers to Hillary Clinton for the party's presidential nomination. This is another way of saying that she is not going to be challenged at all, not at least as far as winning and losing goes.

But that's not the point. The point is that the party faithful, and those others desperate to stop the Republicans from retaking the White House are fine with Hillary. That support probably runs the gamut from real enthusiasm, though I haven't seen a lot of that, to meh. But Hillary's the one.

What that means is that we are, in a sense, going through the motions. Who better to go through the motions with than Sen. Sanders who will actually make things interesting by allowing Democrats to have a real internal dialogue about how progressive they really want to be. 

When that's over, liberal to liberal-ish voters can pat themselves on the back knowing the conversation they just had will have virtually no adverse impact on Hillary Clinton's ability to win the presidency.

This also means there is no room left for candidates like Martin O'Malley who will position himself slightly to the left of Mrs. Clinton, but not so far as to really mix things up. He's really just an annoyance, in part because under other circumstances he could have been a credible contender. In this election cycle that makes him an unnecessary distraction.

Bottom line is that Sen. Sanders will make many Democrats feel a little bit better about themselves, knowing they talked about some real transformative issues without any risk. Other than how to ensure Hillary Clinton beats whoever the Republicans put up, no other conversations are particularly welcome.

And, by the way, liberals really like to feel good about themselves.

Come on, Bernie. Stick to the issues

By Richard Barry

I like Sen. Bernie Sanders. I like the issues he's raising and how he's doing it.  I'm glad he's in the race and I'm sure I'll be saying some nice things about him in the coming months.

However, I don't particularly like the shot he took at Hillary Clinton that her wealth could "isolate" her from the concerns of working-class voters.

Sure, he says he doesn't begrudge her the money she is making in speeches, but it does suggest to him, he said in an interview, that she therefore couldn't understand what working stiffs have to go through to make ends meet, or those struggling to feed their families.

“When you hustle money like that, you don’t sit in restaurants like this,” he said. “You sit in restaurants where you’re spending—I don’t know what they spend—hundreds of dollars for dinner and so forth. That’s the world that you’re accustomed to, and that’s the world view that you adopt. You’re not worrying about a kid three blocks away from here whose mom can’t afford to feed him.”

But “that type of wealth has the potential to isolate you from the reality of the world,” Sanders added, mentioning a growing disconnect and anger at the establishment that he has noticed at gatherings in Austin, Las Vegas, Chicago and the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Maybe one could claim this isn't a personal attack, that it's a legitimate concern her policies won't go as far to help people in need because she doesn't understand them. But it's a personal attack. And Bernie, you said you wouldn't go there.

For whatever reason, politics frequently doesn't work that way. Presidents who have come from wealth or become very wealthy, like FDR, JFK, and LBJ, were very concerned about the poor. Ronald Reagan came from humble beginnings and turned into Ronald Reagan.

I have no doubt that Sen. Sanders himself cares deeply about working people and the less fortunate, but he's a United States Senator and I'll bet in a typical day eats quite well. Who cares?

This is nonsense.

Progressives shouldn't think of voting for Hillary Clinton as "settling"

By Richard Barry

My instinct is to push hard against wealth and privilege in American politics, which is what makes it hard for me to fully embrace Hillary Clinton's candidacy. I continue to hope that some of Bernie Sanders "social democratic" ideas get a fair hearing. I'm not optimist, but I'm hoping.

I don't intend to be an uncritical Hillary booster. In any case, she really doesn't need my help. 

Having said that, Hillary Clinton is not just "some women" who happens to be running for president. She is one of the smartest, most qualified candidates to seek the job in a long time. In addition, and this is key, she is not just progressive compared to the right-wing extremists seeking the GOP nomination. She is very progressive in the context of what the U.S. political market will bear. 

It's not the whole enchilada, but it's pretty good.

Don't take my word for it. You can have a look at an article that appeared in the  Huffington Post in mid-May by Ben Stein and Amanda Terkel. They compare, as they write, how "Hillary Clinton measures up on Bill De Blasio's 13-point progressive litmus test."

On immigration, criminal justice reform, labour reform, family sick leave, the carried interest loophole, expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, the refinancing of student loan debt, the Buffet Rule, and CEO pay she does well by any progressive measure.

Am I worried that her relationship to Wall Street and a penchant for pragmatism (in a bad sense) might impact what she would actually do if elected? Yes I am. But that's true of anyone.

No gaurantees, but read the piece and relax a little bit about the presumptive nominee. This could be a lot worse.

Gov. Christie has left his senses, now if he would only leave New Jersey

By Richard Barry

So what you're saying is that it isn't because you
want me to stay?

A lot of people think politics is boring and not at all fun. But how can they think that? Perhaps it's because they've never been to New Jersey.

As the political equivalent of a hanging curve ball, Gov. Christie told Megyn Kelly of Fox News that the reason 65 percent of New Jersey voters don't think he'd make a good president is that they love him so much in the Garden State that they want him to stay. What he actually said was,  "A lot of those people in that 65 percent want me to stay. And I've heard that from lots of people at town hall meetings."

Well, the state's largest newspaper, the Newark Star-Ledger, would like to take issue with that assessment, and not in a very nice way.

They say that if Gov. Christie believes this, which is possible, he has lost touch with reality.

They think the reason people in New Jersey don't believe Christie would make a very good president is because he has been a disaster as governor. 

And why is that?

It could be the rotten job market. Or the high property taxes. Or the crumbling transit system. Or the broken promise on pensions. Or the private jets. Or the Bridgegate indictments. And so on.

They offer the advice to Gov. Christie that he ought to reacquaint himself with reality, "pour himself a drink and ask himself the tough question: Why don't people love me?

Because, sorry, Governor, they don't love you.

Hey, the next time your boss gives you a really bad job evaluation, ask him if it's because he thinks you'd be great for that promotion you've been coveting.

Bernie Sanders is popular on social media because he is actually saying something

By Richard Barry

Nick Corasaniti at the New York Times begins a profile of Bernie Sanders and his surprisingly effective use of social media like this:

The quotations he posts, rarely pithy, are often sayings he thinks up in the shower. The photographs he puts up sometimes show him frowning, while others show him gazing oddly into the horizon. And he does not seem to care about the importance of videos.

Corasaniti writes that the 73-year old Sanders (as if even using a computer at that age is a miracle) has  "emerged as a king of social media early in the 2016 presidential campaign, amid a field of tech-savvy contenders."

He continues:

Mr. Sanders, an independent who describes himself as a socialist, has stuck to an idiosyncratic method: posting images that share a quotation, which he has either written himself or dug up from a historical figure and then burned onto a photograph. (President Theodore Roosevelt and President Dwight D. Eisenhower are among those he has recently cited.)

And the thing is that Sanders is using social media "all wrong" by putting up longish posts and avoiding buzzwords that might drive traffic and using corny graphics and not sharing meaningless details about his personal life, and still the traffic comes.

How could that be?

Personally, I love the historical quotations because it has all been said before, though we sometimes need to be reminded of that fact.

Sorry for sounding like a ideologue here, but some time ago people with all the money, access to power, and political clout decided that a whole range of ideas were simply crazy and only entertained by foolish and "unserious" people. Most of these "crazy" ideas aren't new, they simply have no mainstream legitimacy. It would therefore be unwise for anyone seeking office to rely too much on them in a campaign.

A guy like Sanders comes along and starts talking about the military-industrial complex, single-payer healthcare, taking care of veterans, effective climate change action, tuition-free college, bad trade deals, serious Wall Street reform, real progressive tax policy, doing something about the wealth gap (instead of just talking about it), changes to campaign finance laws, social democracy, and on and on.

Just maybe Bernie Sanders is doing well with social media because a lot of people (younger people?) are sick to death of politicians trying to figure out every angle on every issue so they can grab the biggest chunk of voters sitting in the middle. I think they call that triangulation.

Maybe it has nothing to do with how well Bernie Sanders is using the accepted rules of social media and more to do with people who think it's time we started to believe, and have leadership who believe, that so many of the things that would truly improve our society, though they may not be new ideas, can be done.

Can I get a "like" for that?

You want debates? We'll have debates

By Richard Barry

Ooh, frosty.

The Democratic National Committee announced on Tuesday that there will be six officially-sanctioned debates as part of the party's presidential nomination process. It's not many, but considering how thin the field is and that the outcome is hardly in doubt, it will do. 

"We’ve always believed that we would have a competitive primary process, and that debates would be an important part of that process,” said DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. “Our debate schedule will not only give Democratic voters multiple opportunities to size up the candidates for the nomination side-by-side, but will give all Americans a chance to see a unified Democratic vision of economic opportunity and progress – no matter whom our nominee may be.”

In addition to Mrs. Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders is in and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb,  former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee, and former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley are thinking about it.

Six debates should be enough for the Democratic Party to show that there is to be no coronation, but not so many to cause real damage to the eventual nominee, Hillary Clinton.

Chris Cillizza is exactly right when he notes that "Clinton and her team want to make sure you and everyone else knows that she is not taking this nomination for granted," even if she has every right to.

What better way to show that she is willing to fight for the every vote than to stand on a debate stage six times with the other candidates? That leveling process is a net good thing for Clinton in a way it wouldn't be for virtually any other candidate. While this would be seen as "punching down" for most well-known candidates, Clinton badly needs to avoid the appearance of a coronation, and a bunch of debates is a very good way to do that.

Then there is the fact that Clintonworld would like some positive media coverage during the primary and some credit for winning it.

Clinton is, if the 2008 campaign is any evidence, a skilled and poised debater who will likely perform well in the six showdowns to come. Her debate performances will then provide a storyline that isn't about her e-mail server, the Clinton Foundation or how much she or her husband were paid to give speeches. Clinton and her top aides abhor process stories, but a series of pieces about her ability and agility on the debate stage would be the sort of process-y story they would welcome with open arms.

Cillizza adds something I said a few weeks ago, which is that Clinton may be an experienced politician but she's likely rusty as hell and "needs practice before the three highly watched and highly meaningful general election debates against the GOP nominee."

It's all good, Clinton lovers. Relax. You should be happy with this, especially if you recall that Clinton and Obama met more than two dozen times in 2008.

And if you're planning your date book into 2016, take note that there will be debates in the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. And by then it should be over. 

Does having a leftist challenge hurt or help Hillary?

By Richard Barry

Go get 'em, Bernie

It is being reported that Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, will announce on Thursday his intention to run for president in 2016. Though an Independent, he plans to enter the primary and caucus contests as a Democrat, according to his advisors.

Sanders, who calls himself an independent socialist, will of course be running to the left of Hillary Clinton. The question is whether that helps her or hurts her.

I like Senator Sanders. I like Senator Warren. But if the left-wing of the Democratic Party thinks Hillary Clinton is incapable of successfully addressing a challenge from their quarter, they are mistaken.

Despite what we hear from the vocal left of the Democratic Party, the American electorate is quite conservative, as is the Democratic Party. Sanders will say important things about income inequality, the challenges facing the poor and the middle class, and the need to better regulate Wall Street, etc., etc., and Hillary will agree with him, but she will also position herself as a moderate when dealing with various scourges because that is where the votes are. Yes, she will care, and she will promise to do things, but not too much and not too fast, but thank you Senator Sanders for providing contrast.

If you haven't noticed, Hillary is already doing a decent of job of holding Elizabeth Warren close.

I am trying to imagine an issue on which Sanders will seriously challenge Clinton that will have a significantly adverse impact on her vote share in the general election. Sanders will not be there for the general election, and not being far enough to the left will matter not at all when it comes time for Clinton to face off against the GOP nominee.

The greatest danger, and I truly hate to say this, is that Hillary will allow herself to be so spooked by her left flank that she gives away too much and alienates moderate voters who could vote for a Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio.

What a world.

Hillary's the one

By Infidel753 

Hillary Clinton is now officially in the 2016 Presidential race, and will almost certainly be the Democratic nominee. And we're lucky to have her. She can do the job, she can do the job right -- and, critically, she can get the job. She can beat the Republicans.

[I mean no disrespect by adopting the common habit of referring to Hillary Clinton by her first name. Given that Bill Clinton remains a prominent figure, just calling her "Clinton" would be ambiguous, and her own campaign is called "Hillary for America".]

Here's Charles Pierce (found via Progressive Eruptions) explaining what's at stake: 

If she is elected, she unequivocally will accept the science of anthropogenic climate change and treat it as a crisis. This cannot be said of any of the Republican candidates, real or potential. 

If she is elected, she unequivocally will support marriage equality, and oppose discrimination against our fellow citizens based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This cannot be said of any of the Republican candidates, real or potential. 

If she is elected, she will not destroy the Affordable Care Act, an article of faith among all the Republican candidates, real or potential. 

If she is elected, and despite her closeness to certain Wall Street interests, she will not destroy the Dodd-Frank reforms, another article of faith among all the Republican candidates, real or potential.

[...] 

To get elected, she does not have to wink at state's rights, up to and including incidents of armed resistance. 

To get elected, she does not have to equivocate on the science behind the theory of evolution as does any Republican candidate who seeks the votes of Republicans in Iowa. 

To get elected, she does not have to peddle the snake oil of supply-side economics, nor does she have to peddle scare stories about the oncoming caliphate, nor does she have to create bogeymen about jackboots coming to steal your guns.

That is to say, Hillary thinks and functions in the real world as opposed to being committed to dangerously-delusional policies. I'd add that she won't put any more theocratic nutcases like Scalia on the Supreme Court. And she will build on the progress Obama and Rouhani have made on bringing Iran out of isolation to the point where it has a stake in the international system, and will continue working with amenable Middle Eastern groups and governments to fight violent extremism, as opposed to the Republican strategy of "when in doubt, bomb and invade and hope for the best."

Read more »

Jeb Bush: The GOP's long-distance runner

By Richard Barry

That's what I'm talkin' about

Amy Walter at the Cook Political Report expresses what I believe is a rapidly forming consensus position on who will likely win the GOP presidential nomination.

She writes:

At the end of the day, when you put all the assets and liabilities on the table, it's hard to see anyone but Rubio, Bush or Walker as the ultimate nominee. Sure, one of them could stumble or come up short in a key early state. It's also highly likely that someone like Huckabee, Paul, Cruz and even Perry could win in Iowa. But, when you look at the candidate vulnerabilities instead of just their assets, these are the three who are the most likely to win over the largest share of the GOP electorate. Winning the "Evangelical" or the "Establishment" or the "Tea Party" lane isn't how you win the nomination. Cobbling together the broadest coalition is the key.

And of Walker and Bush, she writes:

Scott Walker is on top in the polls, but just about every Republican not associated with the Wisconsin Governor argues that the polls are underestimating his weak candidate skills. Just about every room Bush walks into contains a pretty high degree of skepticism. However, I've witnessed that skepticism melt away once he's had a chance to make his case. It's not that the Republicans in the room are in love with him, but they are at least open to hearing more from him and about him. That's about the best he can hope for at this point in the campaign.

And Rubio? I'm just not feeling it. What can I say? Maybe that will change.

Look, I strongly agree with Walter that it's easier to like Walker if you haven't seen him perform, and it's harder to like Bush until you've watched him at the front of the room, which voters will have a lot of time to do.

As for Clinton v. Bush in 2016, I wouldn't have the courage to bet a nickel one way or the other.

The swift-boating of Hillary Clinton?

By Richard Barry

We are now starting to hear about a new book by Peter Schweizer called “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.” It will be released May 5th.

One reason it is making headlines is because various major media outlets, including Fox News, The Washington Post, and the New York Times, have made "exclusive agreements" with the author to pursue stories contained therein.

Amy Chozick at the Times writes that “Clinton Cash” purports to expose how “foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return.”

Those defending Mrs. Clinton point out that Schweizer comes at things from a decidedly conservative perspective and has a documented track record of getting important things wrong.

Erik Wemple at The Washington Post contacted people at three of the major media outlets involved to discuss what the "exclusive agreements" entailed. The National Editor at his own paper, Cameron Barr, said this:

We made an arrangement with Peter Schweizer’s publisher so we could read his book before publication because we are always willing to look at new information that could inform our coverage. Mr. Schweizer’s background and his point of view are relevant factors, but not disqualifying ones. What interests us more are his facts and whether they can be the basis for further reporting by our own staff that would be compelling to our readers. There is no financial aspect to this arrangement.

Well, what could be wrong with that? Maybe nothing. Or maybe giving someone credibility out of the gate who doesn't deserve it is a problem.

In an interview with Rachel Maddow below, David Brock calls what Schweizer is up to "swift-boating," which is a term we all remember well. And for a long time we have also known that if you repeat a lie often enough, it starts to feel like the truth to too many.

Perhaps Hillary and Bill Clinton have done some things that are problematic. If so, I hope that comes out.  But I am also sure that the anti-Hillary machine, and all the money behind it, will make up what they can't prove.  I just hope "serious" media outlets don't help them do it. 

Was Hillary Clinton the "original Elizabeth Warren?"

By Richard Barry

Will Hillary Clinton ever be left enough for the left? Well, no. But she's trying.

As Amy Chozick at the New York Times writes: 

For anyone who wondered what kind of economic message Mrs. Clinton would deliver in her campaign, the first few days made it clear: She is embracing the ideas trumpeted by Ms. Warren and the populist movement — that the wealthy have been benefiting disproportionately from the economy, while the middle class and the poor have been left behind. And the policies Mrs. Clinton is advancing, like paid sick leave for employees and an increase in the minimum wage, align with that emphasis.

As Chozick goes on to say, Hillary's inner circle is more than a little annoyed that their candidate is perceived as late to the game. The say that Mrs. Clinton was the "original Elizabeth Warren" and a "populist fighter who for decades has been an advocate for families and children; only now have the party and primary voters caught up."

So why can't Hillary Clinton get any traction for her populist words and deeds?

Maybe this comment tells a bit of the story.

Mrs. Clinton “wakes up asking how she can accomplish real things for families, not who she can attack,” said Gene B. Sperling, an economic adviser in the Clinton and Obama administrations. He added, “When she shows that fighting populist edge, it is for a purpose.”

She's not really a fire breathing dragon when it comes to populist rhetoric and is, I suspect, uncomfortable with "class warfare" type attacks. She's a policy wonk and, in the early stages, seems ready to signal a willingness to propose policies that should be welcome to many on the left, though they would be reluctant to give her many style points.


I'm willing to see where this goes. What choice do we have?

Is Hillary Clinton pushing herself to the left? What?

Standing with Martin O'Malley (maybe)

By Richard K. Barry

But let's get a better campaign photo

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) is saying she expects Hillary Clinton to get a challenger or three and is working on setting up primary debates accordingly.

As reported by The Hill, Wasserman Shultz says that "party officials were thus mapping out a “series of sanctioned debates that we expect our presidential candidates to participate in."

The DNC chairwoman mentioned Vice President Biden, former Gov. Martin O’Malley (Md.), former Sen. Jim Webb (Va.) and former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chaffee as other likely contenders.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), she added, would be a welcome entrant provided he switched party affiliations for the primary.

Although I would be surprised if Biden gets in, and Wassserman Schultz probably had to add his name to be polite, the others could all well run. 

As for myself, I'm getting interested in O'Malley.

Speaking at Harvard University on Thursday night, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley cranked up the pressure on Hillary Clinton by calling for a $15 an hour minimum wage and voicing his opposition to President Barack Obama’s massive trade deal, the Trans Pacific Partnership.

"As we gather here tonight," he said, "wealth and economic power in the United States of America have now been concentrated in the hands of the very few as almost never before in the history of our country."

During her first week in the presidential campaign, Clinton has tried to win over progressives in the Democratic Party by attacking CEOs for not paying their workers enough and saying that gay marriage should be a constitutional right. But both the minimum wage and trade pose an early test of Clinton's progressive credentials. Her positions on those issues will offer a clear indicator where she stands in the Democratic Party—and what her potential presidency could look like.

Run, Martin, Run. 

Hillary Clinton's left-speak

By Richard K. Barry

Don't you sometimes wonder how much Hillary Clinton is really enjoying having to share even a small part of the stage with "darling-of-the-left" Sen. Elizabeth Warren?

Oh, sure, in the latest edition of Time magazine, Clinton was asked to contribute a short piece on her BFF Elizabeth in a feature on the world's 100 most influential people, and no doubt gladly complied. 

"She never hesitates to hold powerful people's feet to the fire: bankers, lobbyists, senior government officials and, yes, even presidential aspirants," Clinton, the clear front-runner to win the Democratic nomination for president, wrote in an apparent wink to herself.

"Elizabeth Warren never lets us forget that the work of taming Wall Street's irresponsible risk taking and reforming our financial system is far from finished," Clinton wrote in Time after the magazine named Warren, a former Harvard law professor and a senator for Massachusetts, one of the world's 100 most influential people.

Though Clinton has talked about fighting growing income inequality, we know virtually nothing about what specific policies she might propose or how, for example, she might increase Wall Street regulation.

But there she is, making the right noises.

One of the more foolish things said in politics concerns the potential danger of pissing off a significant flank of a given party such as the far left of the Democrats or far right of the Republicans. Some say it doesn't matter because "where are they going to go?", meaning they aren't going to vote for the other party.

No, but they could stay home, forget to vote, forget to volunteer, or forget to give money.

The left-wing of the Democratic Party is increasingly vocal and active. They know Hillary is not really their cup of tea, but if she at least makes an effort to say a few things to placate them, it could help her immeasurably.

And if she has to do it by smiling through gritted teeth while embracing Senator Warren, that's okay.

Lincoln Chafee says Hillary Clinton shouldn't be president because . . . Iraq

By Richard K. Barry

I'm very sympathetic to the argument that Hillary Clinton should continue to be hammered on that whole Iraq war thing, but, um, I sure wish we had someone more articulate making the case. Geesh!

If you missed it, and that would have been easy, Lincoln Chafee, this guy, is running for the Democratic presidential nomination.

To be fair, because it's nice to be fair:

On paper, Chafee’s resume is presidential caliber: He’s served in the Senate, as governor and as the mayor of Warwick, Rhode Island. But he faces several obstacles to being considered a serious rival to Clinton for the nomination. For one, he only joined the Democratic Party in 2013 — after serving in the Senate as a Republican and running for governor as an independent — and lacks the political infrastructure of former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who served for two years as chairman of the Democratic Governors Association.

He also lacks the national profile of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who says she’s not running despite a big grassroots push for her to do so, or even independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has cultivated a large following on social media.

So, no one knows who he is, he has limited political infrastructure in place, and he can't, apparently, put together a coherent sentence. 

Sure, why not?

Is it better for Hillary to have Democratic challengers?

By Richard K. Barry

Doyle McManus at the Los Angeles Times discusses whether it would be a good or a bad thing for Hillary Clinton to get a challenger or challengers for the nomination.

Like many pundits, I've written that it would be good for Clinton to have real debates with capable sparring partners, under the theory that she needs a tune-up before taking on the GOP nominee. Almost every professional campaign strategist I've talked with says that's nuts. For a front-runner, they say, debates are mostly an opportunity to commit gaffes and lose support.

He lands on the view that primaries "aren't only about choosing candidates," but are also about "refining the ideas that the nominee will take into the general election." Following that logic, he thinks it would be useful if Clinton were forced to address a number of issues such as potential increases to Social Security benefits, a higher minimum wage, stronger financial regulation, and what many see as her hawkish foreign policy. 

I would add that if Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, or Jim Webb can help make those discussions happen, that's good for Democratc politics in America, particularly progressive politics.

Is it better for Hillary Clinton, the likely nominee, to have to put herself through these paces? Would the benefit of getting a tune-up before the general election campaign outweigh any damage from potential gaffes she might make? Maybe not, but I don't care.

The left-wing of the Democratic Party should be able to hear what she has to say on issues important to them, in a context in which see can be pushed from the (relative) left.

If we only hear from her in debates with the eventual Republican nominee, anything she says will make her sound lovely to progressive ears in comparison.

Shocker! Hillary Clinton Is running for president!

By Frank Moraes

This morning, The New York Times sent me a news update, Breaking News: Hillary Clinton Will Run for President in 2016, Top Aide Says. This is why I subscribe to their updates. I don’t want to miss out on anything. I would hate to be hanging out in the lunch room at work and muse aloud, “I wonder whether Hillary Clinton will run for president.” Only to have a coworker embarrass me, “You haven’t heard? Hillary Clinton is running for president!” Boy would my face be red.

Since I got that update from The New York Times, I’ve been waiting for other breaking news. Really, at this point, it could be anything:

• Hillary Clinton Married to Former President, Top Aide Says
• Hillary Clinton Unlikely to Change Hair Colour in 2016, Top Aide Says
• Hillary Clinton Recently Became Grandmother, Top Aide Says
• Hillary Clinton Will Not Be Contestant on Dancing With the Stars in 2016, Top Aide Says
• Hillary Clinton Not Controlled by Reptilian Extraterrestrial, Top Aide Says

Actually, that last one might qualify as news. I’ve been intrigued this last week that there was the announcement that Hillary Clinton would announce her candidacy for president. And so there was lots of “news” about her upcoming announcement, as if it were, you know, news. And now that she has officially announced her candidacy, there will be lots of news about that. I know it won’t happen, but it would make sense if next week we got the headline:

Hillary Clinton Still Running for President in 2016, Top Aide Says

I have nothing especially against Hillary Clinton. If it comes to it, I will vote for her. But with Clinton, Cruz, and Paul, this is really not news. They have all been running for president for some time. So a formal announcement ought to be treated as such. This isn’t earth shattering. It is along the lines of a business that has been a sole proprietorship is changing into an S corporation. That’s how big this news is: not big.

Now her campaign put out this very nice video announcing her candidacy. And I am not nearly cynical enough to not like it. It’s good (post at The Reaction earlier in the day). And it is a hell of a lot better than Ted Cruz’s staged speech where he wanted us to all imagine a world in which fifty years of social progress was washed away.

Just the same, I am cynical enough to think that The Onion nailed her candidacy better than her campaign or the mainstream media ever will:

• Campaign Slogan: “I deserve this”
• Campaign Strategy: Overwhelming tide of inevitability
• Spouse: Former Arkansas attorney general William Jefferson Clinton
• Wingspan: 7 feet, 6 inches
• Ideal Running Mate: Primary opponent who knows how to gracefully step aside when the time comes
• Biggest Scandals: Deaths of four Americans at Benghazi, use of private email account for government emails, choice of Nina McLemore dress at a 1998 presidential function
• Grandchildren: One, but pushing Chelsea for one more before Iowa caucus
• Stance On Abortion: Supports a woman’s right to choose for her husband’s mistress
• Birthplace: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming
• Number Of Times Teeth Gritted To Date: 489,346
• Things She Personally Understands As A Grandmother: Hope, faith, future, education, children, all that crap
• Greatest Fear: Charismatic young senators from the Midwest
• Number Of Big Macs That Fit In Mouth At One Time: 2
• Biggest Challenge: Not completely blowing it

My hope is that if she completely blows this, she will do it soon. But if she does, the media will probably miss it because they are busy covering Jeb Bush’s announcement.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Oh, Governor O'Malley, your words are so beautiful

By Richard K. Barry

Hello, central casting? We need someone to
play a presidential candidate.

Though former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley hasn't made a decision about whether he will seek the Democratic presidential nomination, he's out and about talking like a candidate. This week he was in Iowa.

“For 30 years we’ve followed this trickle-down theory of economics that said, ‘Concentrate wealth at the very top, remove regulation and keep wages low so we can be competitive – whatever the hell that means,” O’Malley says.

“What it led to was the first time since the Second World War where wages have actually declined, rather than going up – where almost all of the new income earned in this recovery has gone to the top 1%,” he says, invoking the famous phrase from the Occupy Wall Street protests.

“It doesn’t have to be this way,” he continues, arguing, “these things are not effects that blew in on a gulf stream or on a polar vortex – these are the products of the policy choices we made over these 30 years.”

O’Malley says the system is rigged “in many ways” – a concern pressed by the “Elizabeth Warren wing” of the Democratic Party – and contends middle class priorities should be “at the center of our economic theory.”

The crazy thing is that in American politics talk like that makes you a lefty radical, instead of what it should it make you, which is a person who understands reality.