From my limited (digital) interactions with Howie Klein, I like him a lot. And I have no problem at all with his enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders. But I don’t get why he’s bashing Martin O’Malley for echoing some of Bernie’s themes. Even if O’Malley is a bit of a Johnny-Come-Lately on the economic populism, don’t we want a couple of candidates on Clinton’s left pushing her in our direction? The worst that can happen is that it inoculates her from charges that her maiden name is really Ilyich Ulyanov Lenin. And, since she’s not a communist or even a socialist, I don’t see why a little truth in perception is a bad thing in this case.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
I agree with you totally, at the same time I can understand where other supporters of Sen Sanders feel differently. They do not want anyone else shall we say dimming the bright messages he is sending. This might pull prospective voters from Sen Sanders.
If you believe David Simon in his portrayal of O’Malley’s journey from Baltimore to the state house – and I do – I would prefer that O’Malley just go away. He’s more like a John Edwards – the right positions – the right “look” – but corrupt personally. Sanders strikes me as being fearless and uncorruptible – saying and doing the right thing in every case. I don’t think anyone can beat Hillary – and I’m okay with that at the moment – but I’d rather have Bernie speaking truth to power than a guy who couldn’t even play it straight as mayor.
Let me put it this way – a really smart interviewer can tie up any of the candidates with the right questions about their positions, past, present and future. Except Bernie Sanders – he answers every possible question immediately, forcefully and if necessary, angrily. There’s no triangulation – he knows what he believes – it’s all consistent – and he lays it out there.
I know nothing about him but I’ve been reading his tweets for a long time. My sense is that … okay, think about the HBO series Veep. Selina Meyers is clearly a liberal democrat, but when we see her and her team behind the scenes we see that she doesn’t give a crap about anything and is totally corruptible. Most insiders say that of all the dramas about politics, Veep is most realistic, in spite of being a nearly slapstick comedy. My sense is that Howie Klein has direct knowledge of the corruption of most of the democratic party and is righteously pissed off about it and ready to call them out – as he did with Steve Israel and all the other criminally corrupt jerks who flushed the 2014 election down the toilet and would quickly vote for chained CPI et al.
It depends on whether your analysis is on Democratic strategy or policy prospects.
The article aims at policy prospects should lightning strike and O’Malley win or as a vice-president with some ear of a President Hillary Clinton. This seems to be one beef:
He is faulting O’Malley as yet another hippie-basher who leans left during Democratic primaries but never delivers. There is a huge constituency sensitive on this point in this cycle and not paying a whole lot of attention to down-ticket races. And pundits like Klein speak to this constituency. It’s his default audience. But this point of authenticity has lots of resonance. And history. It is in fact how Jesse Helms got himself re-elected enough times to change the sentiment in a substantial part of the rural geography of North Carolina.
Moreover, the policing issue can be made a weakness to peel off minority voters with concern-trolling third party ads in a general election. Best to get that on the table now. O’Malley should have to deal with it now instead of finesse it. Figuring out how to deal with it might just open some new policy avenues–something that candidates used to think of, but today’s consultant-managed “principals” rarely do.
I’ll have to go read Howie’s piece but I already know O’Malley is a fraud. Why? This:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601158.html
H/T to Zaid Jilani, who posted it on his FB page.
I have no problem with being tough on crime. If the Democrats become the pro-crime party, they are doomed.
I DO have a huge problem with anyone calling them selves a “New Democrat ™”.
There is a difference between posturing and actually reducing crime rates. The only pro-crime party are those that look the other way as white-collar crimes, fraud,and tax evasion are committed because “it’s too hard to prosecute”. That has never stopped corrupt police departments and ambitious prosecutors and judges from convicting the innocent people of drug or street crimes. Nor has it stopped Republicans from ensuring that the streets are awash in firearms.
On “New Democrat”, I have the same feelings. Blairism transplanted to the US.
From some of the Sanders camp perspective, O’Malley splits the ABC voters and makes a potential upset impossible.
Sanders has the potential to do strongly in Iowa (because of the caucus mechanism) and New Hampshire (because of a limited but no less real “friends-and-neighbors” effect). South Carolina is the test for Sanders strategically. If he is a “real” challenger there, then the Democratic primary becomes a horse race. O’Malley’s presence makes that harder to do.
I think that early pressure on all of the primary candidates, Republican and Democratic, would be helpful this year. It polarizes the candidates to those who can stand up to lies and those who lie through their teeth, and those in the middle drop out. That is beneficial for Sanders and sets up a Romney-like Republican. It also strengthens the Democratic candidates for the general election by getting all of the garbage dealt with so there is no blind-siding in the general election. (Not that the Democratic candidate shouldn’t expect some swiftboating from previous “friends”.)
The Dems need amother candidate. Someone of color…willing to debate the issues. An Asian American, Hispanic, Native American. or an African American….or one of each. Lets talk the talk and energize our base.
The Dems need amother candidate. Someone of color … willing to debate the issues.
Is there one? Ia there anyone out there who will want to put up with the crap that Obama has from the right?
Is Howie worried about the possibility that the two left-oriented candidates will compete mainly with each other, and thus end up not exerting as much pressure on HRC as one of them alone would?
I don’t know, but I hope he doesn’t seriously think Bernie can get the delegates to take the nomination. Even Bernie doesn’t think that.
Insurgent candidates cannot cut corners. Recruiting the delegate slates and down-ticket allies is part of organizing a broader base. Someone in the Democratic Party better think about doing that in all 50 states. It takes more front-end time and expense but makes rolling out campaigns over geography happen faster.
If “even Bernie doesn’t think that”, why bother? It’s institutional benchmarks that matter not temporarily adopted rhetoric.
Has anyone seen/heard about his Minneapolis crowd today? Did it meet/exceed expectations? I wouldn’t write off Bernie yet. The first voting doesn’t take place for another 7 months.
Um, I don’t know — do we? I completely fail to understand liberals’ desire to feel like some important strategic goal has been achieved if a candidate gives lipservice to one of their pet ideas. Even to the point — oh now we’re giddy with anticipation! — of getting the pet idea adopted as a part of the platform at the convention!!! It’s almost as though a centrist, neoliberal candidate who has spent a lifetime being a centrist and a neoliberal becomes something else once the candidate has given a voice to one or more of a set of ideas. The ideas become talismans.
Then the candidate wins, reality sets in, disillusionment sets in as well, and the whole cycle starts over again. That’s the story of the “debate” within the left over health care reform, 2008-2010.
You really want to go down that road again?
he succumb to brain cancer
The key is Bernie says he has never run a negative ad in his career and is not starting now. This is a real problem for those who just want an opponent for Hillary to simply toughen her up, get the crap out of the way before the general election, moving her to left enough to get her to spout the bullshit O’Malley is attempting. Bernie is going to only talk issues because the stakes are too high to do anything else. Not bullet point bullshit but real ways to accomplish what he wants and what we need. On the other hand Hillary doesn’t mind spouting the bullet points but then dodges saying anything further, case in point; TPP. I’ve had enough of politicians like Obama saying the right things then selling out to big money to last a lifetime. Against an opponent who is positive and speaks only to the issues in depth it’s hard for someone like Hillary to get voters to read between the lines for what they want to hear.
Half her supporters are supporting her because they want to see a woman become President. The other half just want to win and don’t give a crap about policy. She is tailor-made for them. Quite literally. She is an artificial President who brings nothing but ambition. No soul at all. Cash registers have no souls.
Hello
I agree with you,
Really good news
Best wishes keep up the good work.
http://www.sureviagra.com/
I agree the fact with you completely, simultaneously I can understand where other followers of Sen Sanders feel in a different way. They do not want anyone else shall we say dimming the shiny information he is delivering. This might take potential voters from Sen Sanders.
Visit this link : http://assertmeds.com/