O'Malley Says No To Presidential Run - Endorses O'Rourke

(These photos are from Wikipedia. The O'Malley photo is by Gage Skidmore. The O'Rouke photo is the official photo from his time in the U.S. House.)

Martin O'Malley, the former governor of Maryland, is a good Democrat. He ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, and some thought he might toss his hat in the ring again in the 2020 race.

That's not going to happen. In a guest column in The Des Moines Register, O'Malley made it clear he is not going to run this time. Then he went further and endorsed a possible candidate -- Beto O'Rourke.

Here is what O'Malley wrote:

I will not be running for president in 2020, but I hope Beto O’Rourke does. And this is why.

In 2016, my long-shot presidential candidacy found its flame extinguished between a rock and an angry place in my own party. America wasn’t in the mood for new leadership. We were in a mood of anger, rage and retribution. And in this mood, Donald Trump’s candidacy rose. It was good for ratings, and good for the Russians; but, bad for America. And, we got what we got.

But now, there is a different mood in our nation. People are looking for a new leader who can bring us together. They are looking for a unifier and a healer. They are looking for a leader of principle, and they are now looking for a fearless vision.

Yes, the anxieties about the future are higher than ever.  Our whole world — and our country with it — is experiencing the growing pains of a third Industrial Revolution. And this one will change the future of work as much as the last two. Perhaps, even more so.

Our parents and grandparents faced rapid change and security threats in their own day. But they didn’t try to build a wall around their country. They didn’t shut down their national government, or turn their backs on one another.

Instead, they faced a changing future head-on. They made their children and grandchildren winners in that changing world rather than its victims. And so too, must we.

This courage to face change — with truth about ourselves and compassion for one another — is a big part of what it means to be an American. Tapping into this innate American quality is the key to moving our country forward.

I know this because over the past two years, I’ve traveled to over 30 states to help Democratic candidates at every level of government. Whether it was Iowa or New Hampshire, Washington state or Georgia, voters were clearly longing for new leadership.

These leaders include Lucy McBath, a mom who lost her son to gun violence, and responded with a determination to save other children's lives by winning a seat in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District. They include Allison Ikley-Freeman, a social worker and lesbian mother of two, who successfully flipped a Trump +40 state senate seat in Oklahoma.

I had the honor of campaigning with both of these heroes, and over 120 other courageous Democrats across our country in the 2018 midterms. They spoke to the goodness within us as a people. And they spoke with a fearlessness about the future we can build together.

All of which brings me to Beto O’Rourke.

In his courageous run for U.S. Senate in Texas, O’Rourke ran a disciplined and principled campaign that also managed to be raw, authentic, and real. He spoke to the American values of honesty, compassion for one another, and courage in the face of a rapidly changing future. These are the American values alive and well in the hearts of our young people. These are the values which tell us where America is headed. And with these values, O’Rourke very nearly defeated the incumbent senator and Republican runner-up for president — in Texas.

The fearless vision and unifying message which brought people together in Texas also sparked imaginations all across our country. And, I believe, will again — if Beto O’Rourke runs for president.

The challenges we face will not solve themselves. Building an economy that works for all of us, reversing climate change, passing immigration reform — they all require leadership. O’Rourke has the wisdom to listen, the courage to lead, and a rock-solid faith in the powerful goodness of our nation.  Because he is of a new generation, O’Rourke understands that a new way of governing — with openness, transparency, and performance — is called for to tackle our problems in the Information Age. And because he is from a border state, O’Rourke understands the enduring symbol of our country is not the barbed wire fence, it is the Statue of Liberty.

So, while I will not be running in 2020, I would like to put my faith and trust in a fearless American future — an American future large enough for all of our children.  Like so many other Americans, I believe we need new leadership to make that future a reality. And, I believe the new leader who can best bring us together and turn us around to create that better American future, is Beto O’Rourke.

Bernie And Hillary Both Make Me Proud To Be A Democrat

(This caricature of the Democratic presidential candidates is by DonkeyHotey.)

If you follow the news at all, then you are probably aware of the latest flap in the presidential campaign among Democrats. Some Sanders campaign staffers took advantage of the wall between campaigns being down on the DNC database, and they performed an unethical search of the Clinton database for information. All of the political pundits declared that this would result in a fight between Sanders and Clinton at their debate last Saturday night -- taking time away from the discussion of the serious issues facing our nation.

They were wrong. Bernie Sanders apologized to Hillary Clinton for the actions of some of his staffers, and Hillary Clinton graciously accepted his apology. Then they got down to discussing the real issues. In other words, they acted like the decent adults we know them both to be.

Isn't this how most of us were taught to act? When someone (or those acting on your behalf) does something wrong, you should apologize. And when someone you think has wronged you apologizes, you accept that apology. And then you both put it behind you and move on. That's what decent people do, and both Bernie and Hillary proved themselves to be good role models (and great candidates). And they made me proud to be a member of the Democratic Party -- the party with three great and very qualified candidates for the presidency.

I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton, and I will be voting for her in the Democratic primary. But if Bernie Sanders or Martin O'Malley were to somehow win the nomination, I would happily support and vote for them in the general election. I hope the supporters of Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley feel the same way. It is of the utmost importance that a Democrat be sworn in as president in January of 2017.

Sensible Reactions To Trump's Ridiculous Ban On Muslims

(Cartoon image is by Jim Morin in The Miami Herald.)

Donald Trump made it clear a few days ago that he is basing his presidential campaign on fear and hate by proposing a ban on all muslims entering this country. This isn't his first hate-filled proposal, but it may be his most egregious. He seems to be counting on the fear of Americans to propel him to the White House.

I don't think Americans want a country based on hate and discrimination (of any group) -- and the three Democratic candidates agree with that. They were quick to respond to Trump's hateful unconstitutional proposal, saying:

Hillary Clinton (on Late Night)

“I think for weeks, you know, you and everybody else were just bringing folks to hysterical laughter and all of that. But now he has gone way over the line. And what he’s saying now is not only shameful and wrong – it’s dangerous.”

“This latest demand that we not let Muslims into the country really plays right into the hands of the terrorists.”

“I don’t say that lightly, but it does. He is giving them a great propaganda tool, a way to recruit more folks from Europe and the United States. And because it’s kind of crossed that line, I think everybody and especially other Republicans need to stand up and say ‘Enough, you’ve gone too far. That’s not who we are.  That’s not the kind of country that we believe we are, and we’re just not going to tolerate it.'”

Bernie Sanders (on the Tonight Show)

"What somebody like a Trump is trying to do is to divide us up -- a few months ago, we're supposed to hate Mexicans. Now we're supposed to hate Muslims. That kind of crap is not going to work in the United States of America."

Martin O'Malley (on MSNBC)

“I think this is the sort of  fascist demagoguery every responsible citizen in the United States has the responsibility to speak out against. This sort of language and the context of a presidential campaign, of all things, plays right into the hands of ISIL. This is exactly the sort of behavior from unscrupulous politicians that is bad for our country’s security. It’s bad for the fabric of America and it does damage to the very values that we need to hold tight in order to confront this threat. I just find this language absolutely appalling. Who is he going to start with? Is he going to start with Muslim Americans in our armed forces? They can’t come home? Who is he talking about? Is he talking about Engineers that do business abroad? It’s just outrageous behavior. It is the sort of demagoguery that oftentimes precedes fascism. All of us have a responsibility to speak out against it.”

Let me leave you with one more quote -- this one from one of America's greatest sports personalities. Muhammed Ali said:

”I am a Muslim and there is nothing Islamic about killing innocent people in Paris, San Bernardino, or anywhere else in the world. True Muslims know that the ruthless violence of so called Islamic Jihadists goes against the very tenets of our religion.

We as Muslims have to stand up to those who use Islam to advance their own personal agenda. They have alienated many from learning about Islam. True Muslims know or should know that it goes against our religion to try and force Islam on anybody.

Speaking as someone who has never been accused of political correctness, I believe that our political leaders should use their position to bring understanding about the religion of Islam and clarify that these misguided murderers have perverted people's views on what Islam really is.”

The Democratic "Forum" Was Better Than Any Debate

On Friday night, MSNBC hosted a "Democratic Forum". It was not a debate, and the candidates did not appear on stage together. Instead, moderator Rachel Maddow did about a 30 minute interview with each of the three Democratic candidates -- Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton.

Maddox did an excellent job. She asked good questions, tough questions, and even some fun questions -- and she gave the candidates the time to fully explain their answers and let them make the case for their candidacy. I think this sealed Maddow's reputation as the best of the talking heads on cable TV news.

So, how did the three candidates do? They all did well. And I like all three of the Democratic candidates. I still support Hillary Clinton for president, but after the forum was over, I am convinced that any of these three Democrats would makes a 1000 times better president than any of the Republicans seeking their nomination.

Thank you MSNBC! I have been critical of political coverage in the mainstream media this year, but this show was very good -- and shows the rest of the media how political coverage should be done.

(NOTE -- the picture above of Rachel Maddow is from hollywoodlife.com.)

My Thoughts On The Democratic Debate

(This caricature of the Democratic Debaters is by DonkeyHotey.)

I have to start by saying how disappointed I am with CNN. They would like for us to think they are just doing us all a favor by holding this debate, but it became quite obvious from the beginning that for them this was just an opportunity to make a lot of money from advertisements. The debate was scheduled for 7:30pm, but it was about 18 minutes later before the candidates actually began to speak.

I probably should have expected that, but it's still disappointing. Also disappointing was their overuse of graphics to try and turn the event into some kind of entertainment show -- rather than just an opportunity to perform their function to inform the public. But that is what corporations do -- try to make everything an entertaining and profitable venture (even when it would be better not to do that).

I will give credit to Anderson Cooper, who moderated the debate. He wasn't afraid to ask the hard questions of all the debaters -- and he did a fairly good job of making them answer those questions.

How did the candidates do in the debate? All of them did fairly well. Sanders was strong on the economic issues (which is his forte), but seemed to struggle on gun violence and the Middle East questions. Clinton was strong on gun violence, held her own on the economic issues, and sounded like the voice of reason on the Middle East. Both did well on education, opportunity, and college costs. Both did well in discussing global climate change. Both were also good on Social Security and blasted GOP attempts to cut it. Sanders wants to expand benefits, and Clinton called for enhancing benefits for those getting the smallest benefits. Both disappointed me when talking about Edward Snowden and his actions.

Sanders did have the political courage to say he would vote for marijuana legalization. I applaud him for that. Clinton was not willing to go that far (sadly), but only came out in favor of medical marijuana and decriminalizing possession. I doubt this is going to be a huge issue in the Democratic primaries though.

In the final analysis, I don't think either of them lost or gained support -- and I'm betting the polls next week look very much like the polls last week.

As for the other three, they showed (at least to me) why they are not first-tier candidates. They seemed to be struggling to stay up with Clinton and Sanders throughout the debate. I would be very surprised if any of the three start climbing much in the polls. I do think Martin O'Malley trumped all the other four with his plan to have the country 100% on green energy by 2050 -- but I doubt that will be enough to vault him into contention.

Was there a winner? Not really. Clinton and Sanders performed as expected, and neither made any real gaffes. I think the supporters of both probably left feeling satisfied with the performance of their candidate.

There are five more of these debates that will be held. After watching this one, I think that will be plenty -- and I can't agree with those who are calling for more that that.

NOTE -- One thing did sort of surprise me. I had expected a lot of talk about how bad the Republicans and their policies are, but while a few jabs were thrown, there wasn't a lot of that. For the most part, the debate was centered on Democratic issues.

Clinton Enters Democratic Debate With A Large Lead

Tonight, five of the six Democratic candidates for president will participate in their first debate (Lessig was not invited by CNN to participate). And Hillary Clinton enters that debate with a large lead over all of her opponents. According to the latest national poll, Clinton leads her closest competitor, Bernie Sanders, by about 19 points. That's with Joe Biden being considered a candidate. If you take Biden out of the mix, then Clinton's lead over Sanders grows to 24 points.

Will Biden be a candidate? He's still toying with the idea, but has not jumped in yet (and will not participate in the debate). I think he's waiting to see if either Clinton or Sanders commits an egregious error in tonight's debate. If they do commit an error that hurts their candidacy, then he might enter the race. If they don't, I think he'll stay out of the race.

And the way I see it -- neither Clinton nor Sanders is likely to commit an error. Sanders supporters are counting on their candidate to win the debate big, and et his campaign moving again (after being stuck in the mid-twenties for quite a while now). I doubt that will happen either. Clinton is an experienced debater. I expect both Clinton and Sanders to do a good job in the debate -- and both to remain about where they currently are in the polls after the debate.

CNN has been talking for a couple of days now about how big an opportunity this is for the minor candidates (O'Malley, Webb, Chafee) to jumpstart their own campaigns. Again, I disagree. I'm sure they will probably come out swinging in the debate, but I doubt it'll do them much good. This primary election is between Sanders and Clinton (and perhaps Biden if he enters the race). Everyone else is just wasting their time and money.

These charts were made from the results of a new CBS News Poll -- done between October 4th and 8th of a random national sample of 343 Democratic primary voters, and has a margin of error of 6 points.

-----------------------------------------------

And below is the last pre-debate net favorability rating among Democrats for Clinton and Sanders. The net favorability rating is favorability minus unfavorability (and the higher the number the better).
Note that Democrats rate Clinton's net favorability 13 points higher than Sanders'. Clinton also has a significant margin among women, Blacks, Hispanics, moderates, conservatives, 30 to 49 year-olds, 50 to 64 year-olds, and those 65 & older.

Sanders has an advantage among Whites and those 18 to 29 years-old.

Men and liberals view both candidates with an equal net favorability.

This is from a new Gallup Poll -- done between September 12th and October 10th, and has a margin of error of about 4 points.

Why Won't CNN Allow ALL Of The Candidates To Debate ?

If you've been following the political process recently, you may have noticed that while their are six Democratic candidates, only five have been invited to participate in tonight's Democratic Party presidential debate.

CNN has invited Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chafee to debate the issues important to Democrats -- but Harvard Law Professor, and legitimate presidential candidate, Lawrence Lessig was not invited.

Why wasn't he invited? CNN will tell you its because he does very poorly in the polls. So what? O'Malley, Webb, and Chafee also do very poorly in the polls (sometimes failing to get even 1%), and yet they were invited. And Lessig has raised a million dollars for his campaign -- significantly more than either Webb or Chafee.

I can understand why CNN (and Fox) limited the number of candidates on the big stage for the Republican debate. Putting all 17 on the stage at the same time would have made the debate too ridiculous -- giving no candidate enough time to explain his position. They limited the number to 10 (11 in the CNN debate), but made up for it by holding a second debate for those left out of the big debate.

But that's not happening here. There are only six Democratic candidates, and there's no justifiable reason for leaving out any of the six. If CNN could handle 11 Republican candidates on the stage, then they certainly should be able to handle six Democrats debating. That is just fair (especially since there is not a second debate being held).

Evidently fairness is not important to CNN. Instead, they see themselves as some kind of gatekeeper, whose duty is to tell the American public who is a serious candidate and who is not. And in doing that, they have abandoned their own mission and subverted the job of the party members. It is up to Democrats to decide who is a viable candidate -- not CNN. It is CNN's job just to provide the information voters need to make an informed vote -- and leaving a candidate out of the debate is failing to do that job.

There's no other way to say it -- CNN was wrong to not invite Professor Lessig to debate.

(The caricature of Lawrence Lessig above is by DonkeyHotey.)

Martin O'Malley Whines That Six Debates Are Not Enough

(This photo of Democratic candidate Martin O'Malley is from his Facebook page.)

Martin O'Malley has been in the presidential race for a few weeks now, but he's been unable to garner any support beyond low single-digits. In other words, either no one knows he's running, or more likely, no one cares. And frankly, I don't know where he's going to find any support. Clinton and Sanders are splitting the liberal vote, and Clinton seems to have a lock on the moderate and conservative votes (with a few conservative votes going to Jim Webb).

O'Malley knows he is currently dead in the water (and likely to stay that way), so he's decided to stir up some controversy by accusing the Democratic leadership of "rigging" the election for Clinton -- and his "proof" of that is the fact that only six Democratic debates have been scheduled. Here is some of what he had to say to the DNC at their summer meeting in Minneapolis:

"We need debate! What are we afraid of?"

"While the Republicans put their backwards ideas forward before an audience of more than 20 million Americans. We put our forward-thinking ideas on the backburner...and try to hide them from the airwaves."

"How does this help us tell the story of the last eight years of Democratic progress? How does this promote our Democratic ideas for making wages and household incomes go up again and not down? How does this help us make our case to the people? One debate in Iowa. That’s it? One debate in New Hampshire. That's all we can afford?"

"Is this how the Democratic Party selects its nominee?"

"Will we let the circus run unchallenged on every channel, as we cower in the shadows under a decree of silence in the ranks? Or will we demand equal time to showcase our ideas, our solutions to the nation's problems, and our leadership for the better America we carry in hearts?"

I say that's a load of crap (that stuff that comes out of the south end of a north-bound bull). Having six debates is not "a decree of silence" -- and whether his few supporters (or the supporters of Bernie Sanders) want to admit it or not, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is neutral in the nominating race and have NOT rigged the race to favor anyone.

I realize that O'Malley is just trying to stir up some controversy so he can get someone -- anyone -- to pay attention to his campaign. But his charge is absurd. He will be allowed to debate on an equal footing with all the Democratic candidates, and if he can't drum up enough support to be competitive in six debates it will be his own fault.

I don't have a problem with holding six debates, but personally I doubt that even that many are needed. I doubt that anyone who can't decide which candidate they want to support after three debates is unlikely to be able to do so after six debates, or ten debates, or even thirty debates. Democrats are not stupid, and I imagine they will watch the first two or three debates in large numbers. But after that, most of those watching will be there just to cheer on a candidate they have already decided to support.

Sic debates are plenty -- and anyone who can't convince Democrats of his/her candidacy after six debates should realize that it is not the process that is at fault -- it is their own campaign.

Bernie Sanders Announces His Candidacy - Again

(This photo of Bernie Sanders is from CNN.)

On Tuesday, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont announced he was running for the Democratic presidential nomination. This is no surprise to anyone. Back on April 30th, he told everyone he was a candidate for that nomination (and started collecting campaign funds). Tuesday was just the "official" announcement.

I know a lot of my progressive friends like to think Democrats will flock to the Sanders candidacy, and that he will be able to raise the money to run an effective campaign. I doubt it though. Currently Hillary Clinton is extremely popular among Democrats nationwide, and is sitting on a huge campaign chest.

Will Sanders' official announcement start that flood of voters to support him. Probably not. The chart below shows the results of the three national polls that have been taken on the Democratic race since Sanders' first announcement -- a YouGov Poll, a Public Policy Polling survey, and a Fox News Poll. That announcement didn't cost Clinton any support, and this one won't either.

If Sanders is to have any chance in this race, it will be in the Democratic debates. Almost immediately after Sanders announced in April, Clinton generously agreed to participate in three debates. I expect millions of Democrats nationwide will be watching those debates, and that will be Sanders' best chance to win them over.

But Hillary Clinton's popularity is not Sanders' only problem. Martin O'Malley says he will announce his own candidacy next Saturday -- and he will be trying to win over the same liberals that Sanders is going after. If they split that vote, it will be bad news for both of them.

Maryland Voters Say No To Martin O'Malley For 2016

Poll after poll has shown Hillary Clinton is the prohibitive favorite for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016. Most people, including me, believe all she has to do is say she wants it and the nomination is hers. That hasn't stopped some other Democrats from making noises like they would like to run -- and one of those is Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley.

O'Malley has done quite a bit of traveling this year, speaking at Democratic functions around the country -- just trying to keep his name before Democratic voters. I think he is probably just doing this in case Hillary decides not to run, but who knows -- maybe he is really crazy enough to think he can beat her.

But as the chart above shows, he's got a long way to go if he plans to run in 2016. Only 15% of his home state voters think he should run, while a whopping 62% say he should not. He might be a viable candidate in the future, but 2016 is not that time (nor is it the time for any Democrat except Hillary -- and that includes Joe Biden).

This chart was made from information in a new Rasmussen Poll that was conducted on July 9th and 10th of 750 likely Maryland voters, and has a margin of error of 4 points.