By my estimation, less than two hours elapsed between the time Beto O’Rourke announced he was running for POTUS and the moment he took fire for being straight, white and male. Welcome to the big show, Mr. ex-Congressman!
I have no preferred horse in the race at this moment. (There are several Democrats I wish would just shut up and go away.) But the immediate, visceral reaction to O’Rourke — who announced simultaneous with a full-on giga-as-Gaga celebrity Vanity Fair cover — is going to be not just one of but maybe the critical factor in terms of who liberals/progressives choose to run against Trump.
In case you haven’t noticed, the ladies have had enough of the straight white male thing.
For The Cut Kimberly Truong says, “… as charismatic as O’Rourke may be, his candidacy already seems to be drawing anxieties and misgivings from women, for multiple reasons. One of those has to do with the announcement video itself, in which his wife, Amy, sits beside him on a couch, doing not much more than simply gazing at him in a show of support. … That is of course, not to mention the stark contrast between the ways the media has presented O’Rourke’s persona as charming and magnetic and the ways some of those same outlets have covered Elizabeth Warren’s candidacy, which often focus on doubts about her ‘likability’.”
For Vox, Laura McGann wrote, “Beto O’Rourke jumped into the Democratic presidential primary on Thursday sounding like he hasn’t heard much about the big debate in recent years over how we judge male and female leaders. Just before he announced his run, O’Rourke boasted to Vanity Fair that ‘I want to be in it. Man, I’m just born to be in it’. NBC reporter Kasie Hunt spotted the inherent double standard the comment represents: Men are rewarded in politics for showing ambition, while women are punished.”
And here’s Jessica Heslam in the Boston Herald and Pete Kasperowicz from the (conservative) Washington Examiner.
The counter-balance though to millions of activated women disgusted with Trump (and Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz and Rush Limbaugh and their loudmouth, overbearing brothers-in-law) is everyone else who just wants to win. To sweep Trump and his enablers out of power. The latter crowd — still the majority is my guess — is less concerned with gender and policy than the ability to lead another wave election. A wave large enough to immediately reverse catastrophic neglect and corruption fostered by Republican rule.
Who knows if O’Rourke has the chops to pull that off? Critics point out that he raised $70 million and nearly beat Ted Cruz in [bleeping] Texas because … well, because he was running against Ted Cruz, one of the most loathsome trolls ever dropped into a Senate office, (which is really saying something.) The obvious and immediate counter to that one is … “WTF! Trump is worse!”, something no one can dispute.
Establishment conservatives like George Will (a “never Trumper”) mock O’Rourke, calling him a “skateboarding man-child”. But Republicans are truly afraid of him. Uber-progressives meanwhile are complaining he lacks sufficient policy gravitas, which again is also true. Right now O’Rourke is a lot like Barack Obama in 2007 in that he’s this neon-bordered celebrity idol-like white board on which anyone can imagine anything.
But here’s the bummer for both activated, pissed-off women and uber-progressives … that celebrity-vague [bleep] works. At least if the goal is winning an election in the most sweeping and convincing manner possible.
At this moment my betting money is still on Kamala Harris. She seems, well, wily, without being devious. To mis-paraphrase Lou Grant, “I like wily.” I’ve never thought Bernie Sanders is wily enough. Harris also seems truly comfortable up close in the retail game, and she too has a lot of celebrity vibe going for her. Not as much as straight, white and male O’Rourke, but plenty enough to work with.
O’Rourke ran a remarkably error-free campaign against Cruz. He displayed abundant energy and he speaks effortlessly and naturally in a contemporary, pop culture-laced language familiar and therefore appealing to voters who are not policy wonks, but who know enough by now to understand that Trump is both a fool and a criminal.
So that was Day #1 in Beto 2020.
Let the circus proceed.
Beto, Bernie, Biden…Amy, Kamala, Elizabeth, Kirsten, Tulsi…Julian, Pete, Jay…a player to be named later, a donkey and a swinging couple from Mansfield, OH (h/t to Dan Jenkins) or a 6′ 2×4 nailed to a piece of plywood with a wig on top. Tell me who polls better in a head-to-head with the Umber Jackhole (h/t Rick Wilson) and I’m all in. After that gateway question, I’m largely indifferent.
I’m reading Wilson’s book right now. “Everything Trump Touches Dies”. There’s a coffee-out-the-nose moment every other page. Various Republicans are “twerking like $5 hookers”, etc. The guy also gets big credits from me for referring — on almost live cable TV — to Trump’s best-seller as, “The Shart of the Deal”. I don’t think the producers understood what he was saying, because it didn’t get bleeped. Hilarious.
We’re putting you down as, “leaning Gillibrand.”
Your comments on Harris are interesting. I’ve been put off by her wily demeanor. Maybe I need to think of it as a survival skill absolutely necessary in D.C. However, I don’t like how she adjusts her policies (like those on criminal justice) according to what she thinks will sell. But she seems more mature, more politic, than Beto.
And as for the anti-Beto women, isn’t it sexist to judge someone’s fitness to run for office by their gender or sexual orientation? In order to transcend sexism, must we first dig deeper into it?
Beto impresses:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/beto-raises-6-1-million-first-24-hours
As for Kamala (and Amy and Biden) changing her tune on things like criminal justice–there is a fine line between being a weather vane (bad), and changing positions as we learn from experience (good). I just wish I knew how to tell the difference between those 2.