It's in Hillary Clinton's interest to get a viable nomination challenger

By Richard K. Barry

You see? I too can check my BlackBerry
in a cool sort of way.

Well, viable. What does that mean? Hillary Clinton is not going to lose the Democratic nomination this time so "viable" apparently means someone who can stand on the stage with her so voters pay some attention to the nomination process.

Politics is theatre and lack of competition, any competition, is not good box office.

Even aside from a challenge from the left to make Hillary talk about the kinds of things her Wall Street backers won't appreciate, there is the issue of a good show, something the Democratic Party should care about.

So who are we talking about?

Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, former Virginia senator Jim Webb, and Vermont senator Bernie Sanders — the trio who have shown the greatest interest in mounting a challenge to Clinton — face a steep path, Democratic operatives say, while the two most famous names mentioned as potential challengers — Vice President Joe Biden and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren — seem increasingly far from running.

Lincoln Chafee, the former Rhode Island senator and governor, emerged in the last few days to stake a possible claim to be the Clinton alternative, raising Warren-like concerns about Clinton’s closeness to Wall Street. But he’s a maverick whose shift from Republican to independent to Democrat is unlikely to excite the progressive base.

[ . . . ]

Nonetheless, Clinton aides point to O’Malley as the most viable alternative candidate, believing he will eventually pick up support from many of the liberal activists currently urging Warren to run. The silver lining in his low name recognition is that he has an opportunity to introduce himself to the American people on his own terms.

Okay, it's O'Malley, whom I suspect is being pressured to run even from those who want Hillary to win. Is it really a bad thing for Clinton to gently beat back a challenge from the left to show moderate voters she's a serious person, not at all a flaky lefty? And are so-called progressive voters, such as they are, really going to abandon her in November of 2016? Don't think so.

Again, the Democratic Party, and Clinton's campaign, should be thinking about how to keep interest high, and how not to cede all the media coverage over the next year to the crazy goings on that will characterize the Republican primary process.

Isn't that the important thing?

It's Hillary, stupid!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

James Carville may not always seem to have his political wits about him, but I suspect he's pretty much right about what he said about Hillary Clinton's 2016 prospects yesterday on This Week: 

I don't know what she's going to do, but I do know this: The Democrats want her to run. And I don't just mean a lot of Democrats. I mean a whole lot of Democrats, like 90 percent across the country. We just want to win. We think she's the best person and shut it down. And that's across the board.

Which reminds me of something Richard and I were talking about recently, as he recounted in a "Hillary Watch" post last week:

Michael and I were... speculating about what will become of the Obama campaign machine, including personnel, in 2016 and who else might run for the Democrats if Hillary does. Would anyone of significance bother, and would it be a bad thing if no one did? Parties sometime say that so-called "coronations" for presidential nominations are unhealthy, but given how badly the Republican contenders beat each other up, it may not be an awful idea for the Democrats to know who their candidate is early on. 

Normally I'm against such coronations. I'd much rather let the democratic process play itself out. But presidential primaries these days aren't so much democratic processes as exercises in self-immolation exposing various establishment and base fault lines.

Read more »

Maryland, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

By Michael J.W. Stickings

WaPo:

A bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland was approved by the state Senate, which advanced a measure that narrowly cleared the House of Delegates last week.

The final vote by the state Senate ended a yearlong drama in Annapolis over the legislation, and marked the first time an East Coast state south of the Mason-Dixon line has supported gay nuptials.

With the vote, the measure moves to Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), who has said he will sign it.

Maryland would join the District and seven states in allowing same-sex marriages. Supporters have cast the bill as a major advance in equal rights. Opponents have called it a misguided attempt to redefine the institution of marriage.

Opponents, of course, are bigots. Period.

(And, yes, that includes the bullying blowhard known as Gov. Chris Christie of my former home state of New Jersey. He's better than most Republicans on this issue, to be sure, but separate but equal isn't good enough.)