I hear her saying it, but I’m not convinced “experience” makes all that much difference anymore. In last night’s debate, our senator, Amy Klobuchar, sunk her teeth into “Mayor” Pete Buttigieg, arguing in so many words that he hasn’t been around the Washington political circus long enough to be as credible as she is.
Amy, who is “from the Midwest” in case you haven’t heard her say it a couple thousand times, seems to believe this is an effective diminishing attack on the very young “mayor”. (She pushed the “mayor” business often enough to let you know she doesn’t think running a city of 120,000 compares well to representing a state of 5,000,000.)
But really? Experience? After Barack Obama in 2008 and Donald Trump in 2016? In what world is experience still a primary criteria for the White House?
In 2008 John McCain was clearly the more “experienced” candidate. But raw charisma withstanding, astute voters didn’t have a hard time deciding whose fundamental judgment they found more appealing/reassuring. McCain’s long DC experience was pock-marked by dozens of examples of truly suspect judgment on key issues. In his case “experience” translated to “more of the same FUBAR.”
Klobuchar isn’t John McCain. But as hard-working and as tough a competitor as she’s proving to be on the campaign trail, I still have no sense that she has the quality of judgment to play the game as it has been designed and is being played by the likes of Mitch McConnell, Bill Barr, the Federalist Society and their vast network of very wealthy, influential benefactors.
At this point I can’t say for sure if Buttegieg does either. But he continues to display a depth and quality of thinking and judgment that suggests he understands pretty damn well how the country actually operates and what to do — and not do — to get where you have to be to make some changes.
The past few weeks — and again last night — “Mayor” Pete has been taking shots from the progressive wing for his coziness with … well, really rich progressives. This business about his fund-raiser in a California “wine cave” is bad optics in the minds of those applying the kind of sack cloth and ashes standard to progressive politics. But besides the (mild) hypocrisy of Elizabeth Warren poking him for snuggling with billionaires, he isn’t the one demonstrating bad judgment by accusing his rivals of something they all have done to one degree or another. (Bernie less than others.)
Despite their obvious tenacity, Warren and Klobuchar, both of whom are currently trailing the inexperienced “mayor” in Iowa, haven’t demonstrated to me at least that they have the fully-thought out perspective on American politics 2020-style. At least not as well thought out as, “a gay dude from Mike Pence’s Indiana,” to quote the “mayor”.
Huffington Post progressives and others seem to see Buttigieg as more somber and studious version of Bill Clinton. Another (white, though not straight male) too comfortable in schmooze mode with the tycoon class, and therefore less likely to ram through in his first 100 days all the major reforms the country needs.
They could be right. But what that ignores is that Clinton, for all his slickness, canoodling and all the dry tinder he laid at the feet of the rabid dogs of talk radio Republicans, produced indisputable improvements for women, the middle-class, science and international relations. (I’m open to the debate over welfare reform.)
Point being, as a “middle-laner” rightfully skeptical of promising voters all sorts of dreamy and wonderful things that have zero-to-no chance of so much as a hearing in a Republican Senate, Buttigieg is showing better judgment — certainly of the real world realities of 2020 America — than Bernie and Warren.
As for fellow “middle-laner” Klobuchar’s accusation that the “mayor” doesn’t have sufficient experience, those of us here in Minnesota, (which is in “the midwest” as you might know), are well aware that after 13 years as a solid, workman-like Senator, Klobuchar’s judgment has not produced the reputation of being an acknowledged leader on any of the biggest issues of our era.
The difference between listening to Buttigieg and Klobuchar talk about the country’s foundational problems is this: with Buttigieg you’re listening to someone who has impressively cross-referenced the demographics, the science and the raw vagaries of human nature and is making unique, well-considered and strategic distinctions between noble aspiration and pragmatism.
There’s an inspirational factor there.
While with Klobuchar, the sense is of someone with plenty of battle-tested experience, but whose judgment is regularly deferring to standard political positioning and protection.
As promised — (ok, “threatened”) — you have here the first of a new Wry Wing Politics recurring feature. Your Democratic Presidential Candidate Power Rankings. (Insert flatulent tuba sound effect.)
As briefly as possible, this is the shtick:
Candidates are given two percentage scores. One for their real world potential, based on the fact that at this point in the game most voters only really know two or three of them. (Biden, Bernie and Elizabeth Warren to a lesser degree.) Then there’s a second ranking for, shall we say, a somewhat more informed opinion (mine) of each candiate’s ability to compete with Donald Trump and his despotic allies, which is to say Russian troll farms, North Korean web hackers, Saudi bone-saw artists-cum-financiers as well as wholly corrupt and nefarious American actors like Bill Barr, Mitch McConnell and the vast, echoing right-wing sewer.
The two scores are then averaged to produce … Your WWP Pow-pow-pow-errrr Rankings!
#1: 91% / 42%. (66.5%)Joe Biden. Biden is pretty much all name recognition. Which normally counts for a lot. His “blue collar” cred — (which is baffling since the guy’s been prowling the starchiest white collar halls of DC power for what, 50 years?) — still has detectable cachet with the much-anguished over “Reagan Democrats”, i.e. white guys roughly Joe’s age in the Rust Belt. But they truly are the crowd paying very little attention at this moment. The big downside with Joe is his (very) old school judgment. From Anita Hill to the gamed-out credit card system in Delaware, Joe has forever played the give-a-lot-to-get-a-little DC influence game. The fact that he was unprepared and taken aback by Kamala Harris’s busing shots in the first debate proves again he is nowhere near nimble enough to deal with a campaign cycle already veering into shamelessly reckless histrionics and corruption.
#2: 65% / 61%. (63%) Elizabeth Warren. Less name recognition than Joe and Bernie, but a whole lot more than the bottom dozen, plus the most fully thought-out policy proposals keeps Warren high up in the rankings. She’s smart, principled and tireless. But as a performer, a bit too single-note in her (well justified) indignation and outrage. Democrats are thoroughly disgusted with Trump, but the general population tends to gravitate to candidates who they feel are “cool” and “in control” and yet still capable, even in the face of epic stupidity, corruption and racism, to crack a smile from time to time. Another demerit is, like everyone else, Warren shows no sign of having a plan for neutering Mitch McConnell. Which means her grand, laudable policy proposals are DOA.
#3: 38% / 85%. (61.5%)Kamala Harris. In my capacity as all-knowing seer, Harris checks most of the boxes required to soundly defeat Trump. Essentially, they are these: no other candidate offers as dramatic a contrast to a lazy, corrupt misogynist and bigot as a black, female former state attorney general. Her relative youthfulness also signals to Millenials and younger (75% of whom vote Democrat) that she may also be aware of and concerned with issues 20 years down the road as well as the degradation Trump has wrought today. Moreover, Harris best signals, as I’ve said before, a wiliness — a higher level of enemy recognition and preparation for the truly foul and unexpected — then almost all of the others. She knows how to play the game to win. And … I’ve seen her smile.
#4: 21% / 80%. (50.5%)Pete Buttegieg. Mayor Pete I believe is the real deal, and in a normal world, (which has never existed), a nearly ideal candidate. Someone with Buttegieg’s remarkable intelligence and thoughtful demeanor is desperately needed to guide the world through climate change and reset key fundamentals — Supreme Court, electoral college — of our gamed-out, less-than democratic order. The appeal of a (really) smart gay guy to sophgisticated urban voters may well outweigh the inevitable troglodyte bigotry of rural Trumpists. Also, of all the mano a mano debate scenarios, Buttegieg v. Really Stable Genius is the one I’d like to see most.
#5: 52% / 43%. (47.5%) Bernie Sanders. Who doesn’t love Bernie? His Medicare for All idea is wildly implausible. (Let’s imagine for a second what UnitedHealth would do if President Bernie served up a bill putting them out of business in four years.) But, as The Stranger said to Jeff Lebowski, “I like yer style, dude.” Bernie is simply too old and too easily identified (and caricatured) as a “wild-eyed Socialist”, never mind that no one accusing him of that has the faintest idea what Socialism really means in 21st century USA. And like Warren, I’ve never been able to imagine Bernie beating Mitch McConnell at anything truly devious. His light is dimming as we enter the next round of debates.
#6: 27% / 62% (44.5%)Julian Castro. A pleasant surprise in the first debates. I had forgotten how articulate the guy was in Obama’s cabinet. (Remember when cabinet officials weren’t just a pack of decrepit grifters running up fat tabs on the taxpayers’ dime?) I see no path for him to the top of the ticket, but a smart, honest Hispanic from Texas as VP? Interesting. Very Interesting.
#7: 36% / 51%. (43.5%)Cory Booker. If Barack Obama hadn’t already broken the race barrier for the Oval Office, Booker might be given more consideration. But, he just doesn’t compare all that well to Obama. Maybe it’s the New Jersey thing and having to play paddy-cake with all the Wall St. fat cats living in his suburbs, but he’s too slippery for my tastes and, ironically, not nearly as quick on his feet as Harris or Buttegieg in the face of jaw-dropping stupidity … of which there will be a superfund-sized waste dump to deal with in 2020.
#8: 18% / 44%. (31%)Amy Klobuchar. Our gal hasn’t created any forward motion for herself. Her relatively high-standing here is more a reflection of the stark inadequacies of everyone lower than she is. Her performance before the NAACP convention in Detroit this past weekend exposed a potentially fatal flaw in her record, certainly in terms of inspiring the minority vote. By oh-so carefully threading the needle between supporting cops (appeals to rurals) and acknowleding an “outrageous situation” (sorta satisfies urban voters) with regard to cop conduct, she’s got dime deep support among blacks.
#9: 11% / 36%. (23.5%)Beto O’Rourke. Is this guy still even running? Talk about a vanishing act. As the past months have gone by I’m more and more convinced that the fanatical enthusiasm for his Texas Senate race last year was all about how much people despise Ted Cruz. There should be a “lane” for a candidate speaking the lingua franca of contemporary Americanese, peppered wit readily understanable pop culture references, metaphors and aphorisms. Passionate but common verbiage, in other words. Instead, the O’Rourke of 2019 sounds like he’s had his head injected with a quart of Stepford Candidate gelatin. Dude!
#10: 6% / 36%. (21%) Michael Bennet. Bennet is actually someone you could make a case for, if he were running against, umm, Bob Dole or George W. He’s intelligent and decent. Unfortunately he is about as compelling and inspiring as a “Clean Government Now!’ leaflet handed out on a street corner. Stay in the Senate and figure out a way to publicly de-pants Mitch McConnell. (I apologize for the imagery.)
#11 9% / 25% (17%)Kirsten Gillibrand. This woman reeks of un-modulated personal ambition. Is that me, a white guy, calling a woman “pushy”? Yeah, I suppose it is. So sue me. As much as she wants to deny it, her — ambition-driven — putsch against Al Franken really is a defining factor is her campaign. It was indelible proof of what a lot of Democratic party insiders thought she was all about as she clawed her way up the party ranks in New York. Just go away.
#12: 5% / 24%. (14.5%) Jay Inslee. Agreed. Climate change should be Issue Number One. Unfortunately, until all of Trump’s Griftopia is in cinders and (here I go again) Mitch McConnell is caught in bed with a live girl AND a dead boy, the topic won’t get so much as a committee vote in the Senate. Your candidacy is futile. But by all means keeping beating the climate drum.
#13: 3% / 18%. (10.5%) Steve Bullock. Why? You’ve been a reasonably popular governor in a mountain west state (with a third the population of Brooklyn) where the majority of men like to think they’re the Marlboro man incarnate. Go back to Montana and run for Senate against Steve Daines.
#14: 2% / 13%. (7.5%) Tulsi Gabbard. Again, I’m not sure what it is she’s really after? A Senate run? The Governorship of Hawaii? Apology withstanding, her anti-LGBT rhetoric forever places her in “deep outlier” land among 21st century liberals.
#15: 2% / 10%. (6%) John Hickenlooper. What I said about Steve Bullock. Faced off against the right candidate, Cory Gardner is an easy, fat target in Colorado. Go home and get yourself elected to that job.
#16: 2% / 8%. (5%) Andrew Yang. Okay. Another book deal and speaking engagements. I get it. But beyond that, you’re part of the season’s comic relief.
#17: 1% / 6%. (3.5%)Bill DeBlasio. He has progressive bona fides. But apparently no one actually, you know, likes the guy. Other than that, the country may have maxed-out its appeal for big, self-agrandizing Manhattanites.
#18: 0% /3%. (1.5%) Tom Steyer. I’ve seen your commercials. “Impeach the moronic racist now!” (TM David Simon.) As a billionaire, your job is to keep buying TV time … for someone else.
#19: 0% / 1%. (0.5%)John Delaney. Why is anyone listening to this guy at all? Or wait, what I mean is, “Is anyone listening to this guy, at all?”
#20: 0% / 0%. (0%) Marianne Williamson. Listening to her is like what I imagine Gwyneth Paltrow would sound like as a candidate. “When I pass a flowering zucchini plant in a garden, my heart skips a beat.” (Actual Paltrow quote.) But, unlike Kirsten Gillibrand, I’d have a couple glasses of organic wine with Williamson — and not throw one in her face.
