Klobuchar Deserves a Serious Look
Preface-
Lawyers are fond of saying that hard cases make bad law, meaning the the precedents handed down from the complicated and close case do not serve well as a general template for the hundreds of more mundane cases that follow.
The law is not unique in this. Consider the effect of Watergate on political journalism. Prior to Watergate, most reporting on political figures pivoted around their goals and their accomplishments. Failings and critiques, if present at all, were the counterbalance. A purely positive story would usually go without peer critique, a purely negative story would most often be seen by almost all as a pure ax job.
Watergate changed all that. In the early days, the Washington Post stood almost alone in blowing the whistle on the Nixon crowd. Ultimately Woodward and Bernstein became the heros and expose journalism became the norm.
This development has had a great effect on what the public knows and how they evaluate what they know. Prior to Watergate the citizen who tried to stay informed would know the the strengths of the movers and shakers in the Senate. Humphrey was a leader on civil rights, Muskie a leader on the environment, Dirkson the man who helped pass the Civil Rights and and the Test Ban Treaty, and Goldwater was the father of modern conservatism. Post Watergate we are much more likely to know only the negative part of the story.
Politicians and the public have reacted to this. In a world where the bad story always wins over any accomplishment, you are motivated to do as close to nothing as possible. Watch how hard McConnell works to help his Senators avoid voting. Likewise for the public, in a world where all politicians are bad, does it really matter if we vote. Does it matter that Trump calls on the Russians to illegally violate Clinton’s email. Not really because they are all bad. If bad sells, sell bad. Eventually all negative comment is in 96 point type so now there is no way sound the alarm on the truly and sincerely bad, such as lying 50 times in one speech, or attempting to advance your campaign by pitting the races against each other, or aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States, or bragging about grabbing women by the pussy. What does it matter? They are all bad! Hillary had her own email server.
This is not a call to go back to the pre Watergate days and sweep things under the rug. It is a plea to the creators of and the consumers of news to find balance and proportionality. We all have shortcomings! THEY ARE NOT ALL THE SAME!
As a case in point review the coverage of the Presidential campaign of Amy Klobuchar. It is totally caught up in a faux expose of whether Amy is too hard on her staff. Some say she gets angry and yells. The majority claim she is great to work for. The New York Times reported that the Senator found herself with no utensil to eat her salad so she used her comb. This is the kind of story that sounds silly and lets us feel superior, but it is at best marginally important. Senators have very busy schedules when out meeting folks. More often than not food is grabbed on the run. The person staffing the Senator has to figure out a time the Senator can eat and try to provide access to food and utensils.
A friend of mine reading the story did point out that for him the import of the story is that a male candidate would not have been eating a salad, he would be eating a hot dog and not need a utensil. His foolishness aside, I would say at best this becomes important if after reviewing all the candidates you are down to to 2 or 3 that you think are equally good and you decided to use this as a tie breaker. Personally I would give it almost no weight. Early im my carrier I had the opportunity to work for Senator Ed Muskie. He could be a bear on staff. He often let the frustrations of the day spill over onto the people who worked for him and he enjoyed a good argument. That aside he was a very fair man to work for and he was a great public servant.
AMY: The Key to Winning the Midwest back?
What to consider as the candidate comes out of the gate.
Electability
Positive Amy has been very successful in midwest politics. In 2012 while Obama was carrying her state by with 52+% of the vote, Amy won with 65+%. The other major midwesterner in the race is Sen. Brown of Ohio. In 2012 Obama won Ohio with 50.1%, Brown had 50.2%. Is Sen. Klobuchar the Dems best chance to beat Trump in the midwest?
Weakness Can Sen. Klobuchar motivate and turn out voters of color and young voters?
The Most Effective Senator.
Positive While the Congress has become less and less effective at finding middle ground and getting anything done, Klobuchar has by most methods of keeping score passed more legislation than any other Senator. She prides herself on being the old fashioned kind of Senator who knows how to reach across the aisle.
Weakness: Has she fashioned the kind of dramatic proposals many Democrats are looking for.
The most like Obama.
Positive A majority of Democrats would happily renominate Obama again and send him into battle against Trump if that was not prohibited by the Constitution. In many ways Klobuchar would govern more like Obama than any of the other candidates. She brings the hometown edge in the midwest. She was raised in a home with a missing father and puts great store on her ability to hold people together. Her sense of humor and ability to view herself objectively is a great part of her appeal to voters but it also covers up a compulsion to work harder and with more discipline than any of her opponents. She like Obama was on the law review at a prestigious law school.
Negative. Many Democrats who once applauded Obama’s efforts to win over Republican lawmakers have been persuaded of the folly of leading with an olive branch by Republican obstructionism, the worst example of which was the refusal to even give Obama’s Supreme Court nominee a vote. These primary voters will be looking for a happy warrior not an instinctive peacemaker like Klobuchar.
Can Klobuchar assemble the Organization needed to win?
Traditionally senators who have been in the Senate for more than 2 terms have trouble organizing winning Presidential campaigns. Possibly this is because they have come to frame the country’s problems in context and jargon of legislation. Possibly it is because a Senators staff is all organized around her: serving constituents in her name, guiding her committees, keeping her informed. It is an organizational chart where every arrow points at the Senator. Where as a Presidential campaign is much more about execution and does not have the luxury of indulging the Senators prefered pace. This requires the Senator to delegate and with Klobuchar’s purported staff problems widely aired there will be increased attention on these issues as the campaign unfolds in Iowa and New Hampshire.
A note: If you are inclined toward Amy, consider supporting her now. There will be no more than 3 or 4 Democratic candidates still in the race after Iowa. If Amy Klobuchar isn’t in the top 2, she will be out. A victim of the old rule, if you cannot win in your own backyard, where can you win?
Lawyers are fond of saying that hard cases make bad law, meaning the the precedents handed down from the complicated and close case do not serve well as a general template for the hundreds of more mundane cases that follow.
The law is not unique in this. Consider the effect of Watergate on political journalism. Prior to Watergate, most reporting on political figures pivoted around their goals and their accomplishments. Failings and critiques, if present at all, were the counterbalance. A purely positive story would usually go without peer critique, a purely negative story would most often be seen by almost all as a pure ax job.
Watergate changed all that. In the early days, the Washington Post stood almost alone in blowing the whistle on the Nixon crowd. Ultimately Woodward and Bernstein became the heros and expose journalism became the norm.
This development has had a great effect on what the public knows and how they evaluate what they know. Prior to Watergate the citizen who tried to stay informed would know the the strengths of the movers and shakers in the Senate. Humphrey was a leader on civil rights, Muskie a leader on the environment, Dirkson the man who helped pass the Civil Rights and and the Test Ban Treaty, and Goldwater was the father of modern conservatism. Post Watergate we are much more likely to know only the negative part of the story.
Politicians and the public have reacted to this. In a world where the bad story always wins over any accomplishment, you are motivated to do as close to nothing as possible. Watch how hard McConnell works to help his Senators avoid voting. Likewise for the public, in a world where all politicians are bad, does it really matter if we vote. Does it matter that Trump calls on the Russians to illegally violate Clinton’s email. Not really because they are all bad. If bad sells, sell bad. Eventually all negative comment is in 96 point type so now there is no way sound the alarm on the truly and sincerely bad, such as lying 50 times in one speech, or attempting to advance your campaign by pitting the races against each other, or aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States, or bragging about grabbing women by the pussy. What does it matter? They are all bad! Hillary had her own email server.
This is not a call to go back to the pre Watergate days and sweep things under the rug. It is a plea to the creators of and the consumers of news to find balance and proportionality. We all have shortcomings! THEY ARE NOT ALL THE SAME!
As a case in point review the coverage of the Presidential campaign of Amy Klobuchar. It is totally caught up in a faux expose of whether Amy is too hard on her staff. Some say she gets angry and yells. The majority claim she is great to work for. The New York Times reported that the Senator found herself with no utensil to eat her salad so she used her comb. This is the kind of story that sounds silly and lets us feel superior, but it is at best marginally important. Senators have very busy schedules when out meeting folks. More often than not food is grabbed on the run. The person staffing the Senator has to figure out a time the Senator can eat and try to provide access to food and utensils.
A friend of mine reading the story did point out that for him the import of the story is that a male candidate would not have been eating a salad, he would be eating a hot dog and not need a utensil. His foolishness aside, I would say at best this becomes important if after reviewing all the candidates you are down to to 2 or 3 that you think are equally good and you decided to use this as a tie breaker. Personally I would give it almost no weight. Early im my carrier I had the opportunity to work for Senator Ed Muskie. He could be a bear on staff. He often let the frustrations of the day spill over onto the people who worked for him and he enjoyed a good argument. That aside he was a very fair man to work for and he was a great public servant.
AMY: The Key to Winning the Midwest back?
What to consider as the candidate comes out of the gate.
Electability
Positive Amy has been very successful in midwest politics. In 2012 while Obama was carrying her state by with 52+% of the vote, Amy won with 65+%. The other major midwesterner in the race is Sen. Brown of Ohio. In 2012 Obama won Ohio with 50.1%, Brown had 50.2%. Is Sen. Klobuchar the Dems best chance to beat Trump in the midwest?
Weakness Can Sen. Klobuchar motivate and turn out voters of color and young voters?
The Most Effective Senator.
Positive While the Congress has become less and less effective at finding middle ground and getting anything done, Klobuchar has by most methods of keeping score passed more legislation than any other Senator. She prides herself on being the old fashioned kind of Senator who knows how to reach across the aisle.
Weakness: Has she fashioned the kind of dramatic proposals many Democrats are looking for.
The most like Obama.
Positive A majority of Democrats would happily renominate Obama again and send him into battle against Trump if that was not prohibited by the Constitution. In many ways Klobuchar would govern more like Obama than any of the other candidates. She brings the hometown edge in the midwest. She was raised in a home with a missing father and puts great store on her ability to hold people together. Her sense of humor and ability to view herself objectively is a great part of her appeal to voters but it also covers up a compulsion to work harder and with more discipline than any of her opponents. She like Obama was on the law review at a prestigious law school.
Negative. Many Democrats who once applauded Obama’s efforts to win over Republican lawmakers have been persuaded of the folly of leading with an olive branch by Republican obstructionism, the worst example of which was the refusal to even give Obama’s Supreme Court nominee a vote. These primary voters will be looking for a happy warrior not an instinctive peacemaker like Klobuchar.
Can Klobuchar assemble the Organization needed to win?
Traditionally senators who have been in the Senate for more than 2 terms have trouble organizing winning Presidential campaigns. Possibly this is because they have come to frame the country’s problems in context and jargon of legislation. Possibly it is because a Senators staff is all organized around her: serving constituents in her name, guiding her committees, keeping her informed. It is an organizational chart where every arrow points at the Senator. Where as a Presidential campaign is much more about execution and does not have the luxury of indulging the Senators prefered pace. This requires the Senator to delegate and with Klobuchar’s purported staff problems widely aired there will be increased attention on these issues as the campaign unfolds in Iowa and New Hampshire.
A note: If you are inclined toward Amy, consider supporting her now. There will be no more than 3 or 4 Democratic candidates still in the race after Iowa. If Amy Klobuchar isn’t in the top 2, she will be out. A victim of the old rule, if you cannot win in your own backyard, where can you win?