The following from Hendrik Hertzberg is, um, curious.
A footnote: Hillary Clinton’s prominence points up the remarkable shallowness of the Democratic bench. Whether or not she chooses to run, the supply of plausible alternatives is shockingly thin. The Republicans have an ample roster of men (and only men) who are readily imaginable as nominees, even if thinking about some of them as Presidents (step forward, Ted Cruz) requires contemplating about the unthinkable. On the other side, there’s Joe Biden, our septuagenarian Vice-President. There’s Andrew Cuomo—another legacy case. After that, the list drops off rather sharply. Martin O’Malley, governor of Maryland? Sherrod Brown, senator from Ohio? Alec Baldwin? Who else?
Anyone? The floor is open for nominations.
I couldn’t disagree more. Imagine that Hillary Clinton had some health issue and couldn’t run for president. Who might step up and fill the void? As Hertzberg mentioned, Vice-President Joe Biden is waiting the the wings. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is chomping at the bit. Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has made no secret about his ambitions. I’m not sure where Hertzberg got Sherrod Brown, though. He doesn’t strike me as a presidential candidate. If you are looking for someone who has the money, the ambition, the resume, the regional strength, and the look of a presidential candidate, you can hardly do better than Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, who has already contemplated a run. Another senator who has attracted some buzz is Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. She might not fit our preconception of what a president looks or acts like, but she definitely has a winning personality and the ability to make people like her. Another charismatic woman is Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. I can imagine Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick attracting much of the Obama coalition. I suppose 2016 is too soon for Cory Booker to make a run, but he’ll be around as a potential running mate. If we want to talk about people who, perhaps, have the intelligence and seriousness to be a good president but lack the profile and connections to raise the money they would need, we can mention Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, and Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin. The Democrats have a very full roster of quality people who could present themselves as plausible presidents.
However, on the Republican side we have an almost bare cupboard. The fact that Jeb Bush is probably their most electable politician is telling. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has a surface appeal, but he couldn’t even pass Mitt Romney’s vetting process. He’s a paper tiger. And what do we have after them? Please don’t bore me with Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. If you mention Bobby Jindal, I will laugh in your face. Govs. Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania and Rick Scott of Florida won’t be reelected. Govs. Rick Snyder of Michigan and John Kasich of Ohio could make a case if they win reelection, but that is far from assured. Maybe Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is best positioned right now, but even he is vulnerable if a viable opponent emerges. David Petraeus has been disgraced. Maybe Sen. John Thune of South Dakota could take advantage of his knack for not alienating people, his good looks, and height advantage to play the role of a serious person. No one else from Congress on the Republican side strikes me as remotely plausible. Paul Ryan? Please.
I’ll take the Democrats’ bench over the Republicans’ bench. It isn’t even close.
Of course I’m biased, but in the last two Presidential elections, I’ve been struck by how few palatable choices there were on the Republican side compared to the Democratic. While I had my favorite, I could have comfortably supported most of the Democrats who were running in the primaries who eventually ran against McCain. McCain on the other hand seemed a ridiculous choice, except that he was arguably stronger than any of the others. I had the same feelings, only stronger, concerning Romney.
I agree. Don’t know where Herzberg comes off with his ridiculous analysis, but he makes abundantly clear where his political leanings lie. I will never give him any credibility again. Seriously, how could any sentient being come up with this analysis unless that’s exactly where his political preferences take him?
Well, it could be laziness, but yes, it’s pretty ridiculous to act is if there are any Republicans at all who could plausibly win in 2016. Aside from the quality of the candidates, after all, there all the structural and cultural and not not-being-a-bunch-of-xenophobic-assholes advantages that the Democrats have. I mean, by not even allowing a vote on la reforma migratoria and the ENDA, the Republicans aren’t just shitting on Latinos and gay people, they’re also shitting on everybody who doesn’t hate Latinos and gay people. And just about any woman the Democrats might nominate will have a gigantic advantage as long as the Republicans keep shoving their probes up everybody’s orifices.
“After the election, he was recruited to join Carter’s speech writing team by James Fallows. After Fallows departed in 1979, Hertzberg became Carter’s chief speechwriter. Hertzberg was an author of President Jimmy Carter’s July 15, 1979, speech on energy conservation, widely known as the “Malaise Speech” [12] and considered by numerous commentators as one of the most ineffective pieces of political rhetoric in American history.”[refs.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Hertzberg
I think this tells you something:
“Hertzberg was twice editor of The New Republic, from 1981 to 1985 and then from 1989 to 1992, alternating in that job with Michael Kinsley.
….
“In 1992, when Tina Brown became editor of The New Yorker, she recruited Hertzberg as her executive editor, and he helped her redesign and revitalize the magazine.” (Wikipedia)
As a regular and very long-term reader of the New Yorker, I do recall that at one time they printed a lot of excellent independent commentary. Not for quite a while, though.
Hertzberg is just another pundit.
In 2004, no one imagined the junior senator from IL, who won a ridiculous senate race against 2 jokes, running for POTUS.
Until he did.
This is a classic failure of imagination. You see it in many games, where people are paralysed by the next move. You make the move, and boom, stuff happens. Same here. Your list of candidates is a good start. Brian Schwitzer from MT, maybe Hickenlooper, several others. When they step up to the plate, all of a sudden they seem inevitable.
Well Biden and Clinton are the only ones with national name recognition. Any of the others would have to introduce themselves first. Biden is also getting up there in age. I’ve actually felt this way too, to an extent, but this is in matters of star-power, not competence.
There is no shortage of grandstanding whackos on the right, willing to stand up in front of any camera they can and say the most vile thing imaginable.
How is Hendrik Hertzberg a liberal? Is he a liberal in the same way that people think Snuffleupagus, or Jay Carney, is a liberal?
Kirsten Gillibrand is another name that gets tossed around, should Hillary Clinton exit the stage.
I know people keep saying that about her, but she’s yet to show me anything.
she’s been quite a good senator so far. (My state.) Hell of a lot better than Hillary ever was.
I would crawl on broken glass to vote for Sherrod Brown for president.
I love Biden, but he’s too old. Obama does more in a day than I do in a week or more. Clinton and Biden need to step aside.
The presidency is much more physically demanding than it used to be.
Biden is five years older than Hillary Clinton.
Brian Schweitzer, former governor of Montana, would be a candidate if Clinton doesn’t run. He was certainly prominent in the last two DNC conventions. Now, I wouldn’t say he’s the favorite or a household name, but lots of personality and governor of a small state is not a hopeless position.
Here I had imagined Sherrod Brown to be an attractive prez candidate, one of our best, and Booman doesn’t even see him as a possible one. Brown’s an actual stand up and fight progressive, who weathered a massive corporate onslaught to hold his seat in Ohio, which is still–and always will be–one of the actual battlegrounds. That alone is enough to make him quite viable.
Most of these other Dem possibilities are from deep Blue states, many tiny, which are 100% in the Dem column anyway (VA excepted). This isn’t the way one used to evaluate prez candidates, haha.
Warner seems to have about zero charisma to me.
Probably never saw and/or watched Brown in action on a campaign stump and in debates. He comes across as both authentic and personable.
To me Warner has about as much charisma as a dead fish. That still beats McAuliffe’s negative charisma.
The thing I really like about Sherrod Brown is that he is a very authentic politician with real liberal values and policy positions. He doesn’t try to be Ohio’s mushy middle centrist politician, like an unnamed newly minted Senatorial candidate here in my state.
One other thing Brown would bring, is Ohio almost guaranteed as a Dem win.
Clinton/Brown might be very formidable, and make a GOtP electoral college win very difficult to obtain even if Christie runs.
I think the Democratic bench is thin. Of those people Booman mentioned, how many are in the news or public eye? Almost none.
Too bad Jennifer Granholm is Canadian. I wish Jerry Brown of California was 10 years younger – he’d be unstoppable.
Maybe somebody will emerge in 2014, but hard to see who. I do not consider an economic neoliberal like Hillary Clinton to be an appealing candidate.
Look at it this way. Even without knowing (and why should we at this point?) who the candidate would or could be — and I certainly agree with you about Hillary Clinton — from which party do you see a nationally appealing candidate as more likely to emerge?
Democratic party would have the more appealing candidate, but mostly because of policy positions. So the Democrats have to avoid choosing a stinker. Which can happen, from time to time. Witness Terry McAuliffe in Virginia. Glad he won, but I hope a money-man doesn’t rise nationally.
Also western candidates Schweitzer and Tester. I don’t know why every progressive senator has to be considered a candidate for prez – e.g. Elizabeth Warren. Although that was also my thought when I heard her campaign speeches, upon consideration – she had to be persuaded to run for senate. running for prez is much more arduous, and she’s doing great in the senate