Tag: Martin O’Malley

Categories
Living in Society

Drake University Democratic Debate

Drake University Photo Credit Cedar Rapids Gazette
Drake University Photo Credit Cedar Rapids Gazette

The winner in last night’s debate at Drake University’s Sheslow Auditorium was the American people as Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders discussed, and actually debated issues that matter. This is in sharp contrast with the multi-level Republican debates.

Only 700 people had tickets to attend, so I closed the door of my study, put on my headphones and shut down all browsers except the CBS live stream. I took notes using Microsoft Outlook.

It is ironic that Twitter, a debate co-sponsor, was pretty useless once the questioning began. With an avalanche of more than a thousand Tweets per minute, it was more than a person could comprehend, let alone participate effectively in. I opted to listen to the actual debate.

From here, the race is between Clinton and Sanders. Martin O’Malley had his last chance to gain traction in the race, and he whiffed.

One of O’Malley’s campaign taglines is “new leadership.” He failed to demonstrate it last night. When directly asked about his lack of experience in international affairs, O’Malley dodged the question. He won’t break loose from low polling numbers by dodging key questions. Without more support, he lacks a path to win any of the four early states.

As noted previously, it is hard to find fault with O’Malley’s core positions. The trouble is with his narrative. His style of using personal anecdotes, pointing to what he did in Maryland, is part of the reason he isn’t getting traction despite solid Democratic policy positions. O’Malley says the country needs new leadership, but doesn’t provide meaningful evidence to back up his assertion he has that capacity.

Then there were two.

There is a lot to like about both Clinton and Sanders. As with the results of a single poll, there is not as much meaning in a single debate performance as some supporters assert. At the same time, Clinton is the better debater and it showed.

Clinton’s response to the question about her campaign contributions from Wall Street demonstrated her mastery of the debate form. She began with a curious statement about needing to “do more” to regulate Wall Street. She didn’t say the words, but essentially lit the fuse for Sanders and O’Malley to go off on their position of re-instating Glass Steagall. Clinton’s position is re-instating Glass Steagall is not enough, and she was able to frame the discussion on her terms.

Reforming Wall Street and reducing the influence of money in politics is Sanders’ signature issue. It appeared Clinton got Sanders’ goat because he brought Glass Steagall up in the next question even though it wasn’t the topic. As long as there is money in politics (which there will be forever) and presidents appoint financiers from Goldman Sachs and J. P. Morgan Chase to key positions in their administration (which Sanders said he would not do), the appearance of impropriety will exist. Clinton didn’t shake this completely, but defended herself well in the debate.

The other topic where Clinton was able to frame the debate to her advantage was about increasing the minimum wage. Sanders and O’Malley support the Democratic party platform plank to raise minimum wage to $15 per hour. Clinton supports $12 per hour.

In asking the question, Kathie Obradovich of the Des Moines Register gave framing favorable to Clinton, mentioning the concerns of Alan Krueger over raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. Insiders would have known Clinton’s deviation from the party platform and that her position is partly a response to Krueger. As Clinton pointed out during the debate, Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman agrees with her. While both Sanders and O’Malley piled on Clinton, she maintained the upper hand on this topic.

A couple of people remarked in social media about Sanders’ increasing hoarseness during the two hours. I was reminded of John Kerry having the same issue with losing his voice on the trail in 2004. Kerry made the decision to send running mate John Edwards to an event in Cedar Rapids so he could save his voice for an upcoming debate. It’s insider baseball, but as I listened to Sanders I thought he should have backed off some of his events the previous day to save his vocal chords. He was able to adequately speak, but the hoarseness was a distraction. Clinton was not without fault in this regard. She sounded like she needed a drink of water as her laughter cackled across the stage after her competitors said things she must have thought were outrageous.

Tony Leys of the Des Moines Register made this comment on Twitter:

Some don’t want to hear it, but the Democratic primary debates are about Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada period. While Sanders’ reference to bloated spending on the nuclear weapons complex may provide traction in New Hampshire, Clinton was the only candidate to use the reality of Terry Branstad’s Iowa effectively.

There are two more national debates before the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses.

Categories
Living in Society

O’Malley in Mount Vernon in Caucus Season

Listening to Martin O'Malley in Mount Vernon
Listening to Martin O’Malley in Mount Vernon Photo Credit O’Malley Campaign

MOUNT VERNON—In his family’s modest living room, Nate Willems introduced former governor Martin O’Malley to about 75 guests on Thursday.

O’Malley announced for president May 30 and was a regular presence in Iowa during the run up to the 2014 midterm elections. Because of that, Democratic activists are sympathetic to his message and polite. Not a lot signed support cards at the end of last night’s speech. It may be too early for that.

The message was about O’Malley’s 15 years of executive public service as mayor of Baltimore, Maryland from 1999 until 2007, then as governor until January 2015. Among his twitter hashtags is #newleadership, presumably differentiating himself from the Clinton/Bush dynasties. He was concise and repeated those points during the house party.

In my April 11 post I asserted, “O’Malley is a story teller. Will we like the narrative?” That observation was borne out last night.

O’Malley stumped on core Democratic issues, similar to the April speech. It’s hard to find fault with his broad positions. On climate change, I don’t like the narrative.

An audience member asked O’Malley what he would do as president about CO2 and methane emissions. The answer to this is easy. President Obama presented the U.S. plan for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to the United Nations Climate Change Conference, or 21st Conference of the Parties in Paris this December. The U.S. plan relies upon the Clean Power Plan advanced by the Environmental Protection Agency for most of the proposed reductions. All O’Malley had to say was, “I support the Clean Power Plan” to satisfy climate voters. He didn’t.

Instead of a simple answer, he changed the question to one about “climate change.” He enumerated 15 things he did as governor to address climate change. It was an admirable punch list, but reducing CO2 and methane emissions is not the same thing. He missed the point of the question.

His brief statement on the campaign website did not provide much depth either:

Launch a Jobs Agenda for the Climate Challenge

Clean, renewable sources of energy represent one of the biggest economic opportunities in a century. And the threat of climate change is real and immediate. We must make better choices for a more secure and independent energy future—by limiting carbon emissions, setting renewable energy targets, driving innovation, seeding new industries, and creating good local jobs.

My take away from the event is that before I sign an O’Malley card for the February caucus, I need to get beyond the superficial narrative created for the campaign. Not just about climate change, but about each of his positions. This is Iowa, so that’s possible.

Some of my regular political companions were dismissive of O’Malley last night. I’m not ready to cast aside any of the five in the game at this point.

Political Miscellany

For the first time I interacted with a candidate’s D.C. staff via twitter. I posted this message:

A DC campaign staffer sent me this email after that post:

“You should go see O’Malley! Saw your tweet. You might like him.”

I gave the staffer a shout out on twitter:

Haley Morris, O’Malley’s national press secretary, liked my tweet.

While I was at the house party, first congressional district Democratic candidate Monica Vernon called. It was very noisy, so I explained I didn’t have money to donate, and when she was still interested in talking to me, asked her to call back in an hour after the O’Malley event.

I called her and we talked about ways I could help her campaign, even though I live in the second district. Of the three Democrats in that primary, she seems to be the only one really working.

I track how many views each post gets when I am live tweeting an event. It tells me whether or not there is an audience. Curiously, the following tweet had not been viewed by anyone. Could that mean someone is moderating the twitter without us knowing and behind the scenes?

Finally, I appear in the right side of the frame of the photo above. The women who took it almost knocked a lamp over getting into position with me behind the Willems’ couch. Note my ear seems very large compared to the image of the candidate. At least with that big ear I was listening.