A few thoughts about the 2020 Democratic nomination for President

[Tom Rinaldo]

No doubt a good number of folks here remember that I supported Bernie Sanders in 2016. Probably a lesser number remember that I supported Hillary Clinton (once the field narrowed) in 2016. I kept Sanders as my avatar until this last election day. I did so because it was my opinion that he received an unfair degree of criticism on DU during a time when we needed to stay focused on the midterms and unity within the Democratic coalition. That was my low key way of objecting, though I know some others saw things differently. I haven't written a specifically pro Sanders OP in well over a year, and this isn't going to be one either.

I am wide open in regards to who I will support in 2020. I fully expect to fully support whoever our nominee ends up being. I haven't ruled out supporting any of the often mentioned potential candidates for the Democratic nomination with the likely exception of Michael Bloomberg, though I would work hard for him over Trump or any other Republican who could end up running as their candidate for President. So yes, given my choices once they narrow I could even return to supporting Hillary, even against Bernie, though that is at this point is an unlikely scenario.

Here are the four factors that are important to me, in the following order of importance.

1) Defeating the Republicans in the Presidential election.

2) Advancing a progressive vision for America (I realize that's a vague term but I'll no doubt flesh out what that means to me more as the 2020 primaries draw nearer.

3) Unifying the Democratic coalition to the extent possible given the above priorities.

4) Ushering in younger leadership for the Democratic Party and our nation as a whole.

The fact that I supported Sanders in 2016 will give some clues about what I feel a progressive vision for America entails, but it doesn't necessarily mean that I will support Sanders again in 2020. We have many fine potential candidates for President and my number one priority above is by far my highest priority. I want to watch how the contest for the Democratic Party nomination for President shapes up for awhile. I want to see who catches the attention of the electorate, who inspires enthusiasm, within which elements of it and why. I want to weigh who has the best chops to compete in the current political environment. A lot of us already have pretty well defined opinions about who will bottle the lightning this time around, and why, along with who will fail. But I don't want to get trapped in my own preconceived expectations about any of that.

For example, any regular reader of DU knows damn well that both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton (for mostly different reasons) are seen as risky and or controversial nominees by many here. That is relevant information but only to an extent. DU is not the world, nor even the Democratic activist world. I remember years past when I was part of a core group of Wes Clark supporters (Clarkies) on DU. We were a pretty powerful force both here and on other left leaning websites and online forums. We were passionate enough that mainstream media took note of both our enthusiasm and of our commitment to Wes Clark, and factored that in as a plus for Clark as a potential presidential candidate - which was true. Something similar can be said of Howard Dean's supporters (Deanies). Still other factors led other candidates to prevail over both Wes Clark and Howard Dean in 2004 (and in the jockeying during the run up for 2008.)

So if Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden etc. proves to be more or less popular with the electorate than they appear to me now through the prism of DU discussion, I will take that into account. We have to win in 2020, and to do so we have to remain, to at least a meaningful extent, open minded now.

[dae]

1. I supported Sanders in the primaries and Clinton in GE and will

vote for the Dem party nominee but I want to see big money out of elections.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. Absolutely. That is virtually a prerequisite to achieving any progressive vision

But winning more political power is also a prerequisite to ridding the big money ownership of politics.

[Demsrule86]

2. I won't vote for Sen. Sanders in the primary or Hillary Clinton for that matter. I haven't decided

whom I will support...too early. However, if a yellow dog is nominated in 20, He/she has my vote. I will vote for any Democratic nominee...anyone is better (way better) than Trump.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Nothing wrong with that. That's what primaries are for. General elections are a different matter n/t

[elocs]

4. "Defeating the Republicans in the Presidential election."

That should be numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and the rest can be 5, 6, 7, 8.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. I accept that friendly amendment n/t

[DFW]

7. I didn't know you were supporting Wes Clark in 2004

I was supporting Howard until he dropped out. Wes and Howard were the only two contenders I knew personally, and while I respected Wes's intellect immensely, I thought he was a less-than-dynamic campaigner, and wouldn't stand a chance against what we already knew was a powerful, corrupt (and now incumbent!) Cheney machine. I found myself pretty much in tune with both of them, although Wes and I had a minor difference on a looming foreign policy issue. I turned out to be right, by the way--the only time I ever beat Wes in a friendly disagreement, and with a guy whose IQ is probably 30 points higher than mine, that's not trivial! Howard never weighed in on that particular point, so I don't know how he felt. It was a military question, so he may not have a strong opinion one way or the other.

Other than that, I have agreed with Howard since 2009 (when he expressed this verbally) that ideally, our nominee should be around age 50. Now Howard never meant for that to be an inviolable rule, or he wouldn't have thrown in his lot with Hillary last time. He DID say "ideally." He never forgot what Jagger sang about not always getting what you want.

Other than that I am vehemently opposed to pinning down the identity of our 2020 nominee at this point. First off, it would give the Republicans ample time to find that candidate's Benghazi and beat it to death on Fox Noise. Let them sweat it out this time. Even though Obama gave them plenty of advance notice in 2007, they didn't take him seriously until Iowa. By then, the best they could do was his birth certificate, and that was back in the days when Trump was ONLY a bad joke.

So, I will join you in paraphrasing Chairman Mao in saying let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend. Not only give us a choice, but keep the Republicans guessing. They can't know if we don't.

Lastly, I will pick out one word you used that I have been citing as essential for a long time now: INSPIRES ("who inspires enthusiasm" ). Someone who spontaneously comes up with phrases that over time are used on placards at rallies. Someone who says something that just hits home and gives us all the feeling that, well, "yes, we can."

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. In the course of the 2004 race I came to admire Dean deeply also.

Never met Dean personally but he seems to be the sort of man who one could get a true sense of from afar, and i mean that as a strong complement. I trusted him. Got to know Wes fairly well and my respect for him only grew the more that I came to know him. He became a better campaigner over time but you only get the time that you get to break through. Wes could be electrifying in a small group setting however, his intelligence, character and fundamental idealism about America's true destiny shown through. And he truly cared about those who worked on his behalf. I think that was true of Dean as well. I too think Howard was right about the ideal age for a Presidential candidate, but I would take a Nelson Mandela type leader at 80 over anyone several decades younger eleven times out of ten.

Yes it is too early to have a strong sense of who should/will emerge with the nomination, but I agree with you on that word: "inspires". We need that now more than ever, not just Democrats but America, as an antidote to who we are forced to deal with in the White House today.

[DFW]

9. I only knew Wes Clark in small group settings, so I can only agree

I have known Howard since the time when he was still "Howard Who?" so I've seen him in just about every scenario except breakfast in Burlington.

I think it's difficult to talk about a "Nelson Mandela type leader" of any age, as his was a story of a man who withstood unimaginable adversity and emerged stronger. I can't think of any others who were his type--he was in a class by himself.

Back in 2004 or 2005, Wes was convinced that Cheneybush was planning to invade Iran. I told him I thought it would never happen, as I considered Republicans to be essentially cowards at heart. I said they would never knowingly initiate an attack a country they knew would shoot back. That one time, I was right and Wes was wrong, but that was the ONLY time I think we disagreed on anything. Back then, Howard did not have a huge a foreign policy resumé. That has now changed 180°, and he has been nearly everywhere, retaining everything he learned along the way. If he were to break his own rule and run again, I would support him in a heartbeat, though Judy would break something else if he did, so you can rule that one out.