Democrats with 2020 ambitions finagle the committee assignments that boosted Clinton and Kaine

[DonViejo]

(emphasis exists in the original article)

By James Hohmann December 16 at 8:09 AM

THE BIG IDEA: Hillary Clinton joined the Senate Armed Services Committee after the Sept. 11 attacks, a central element of the strategy to re-brand herself as a tough-as-nails American version of Margaret Thatcher after eight years as first lady. She often mentioned her work on this committee in 2008 and still brought it up in 2016, after four years as secretary of state. The relationships she forged while on the panel, touring bases around the world, prompted a lot of retired brass and advocates for veterans to support her who might not have otherwise.

Tim Kaine was the first statewide elected official outside of Illinois to endorse Barack Obama when he launched his long-shot 2008 campaign, and his loyalty got the then-Virginia governor on the short-list for vice president. But Obama, himself a first-term senator, passed Kaine over for Joe Biden because he lacked foreign policy experience. This is why, after he got elected to the Senate in 2012, the freshman sought out spots on the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees. By 2016, no one questioned his bona fides.

Clinton considered both Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren as potential running mates this summer, but a big knock on both was their lack of foreign policy experience. This calculus seems quaint now, but Clinton World feared that going with either of them might undercut one of their candidate’s best contrasts against Donald Trump. Recall that on the eve of one of Clinton’s sit-downs with Warren, basically a job interview to be vice president, Clinton ally and former DNC chair Ed Rendell told a Philadelphia radio station: “I think Elizabeth Warren is a wonderful, bright, passionate person, but with no experience in foreign affairs and not in any way, shape or form ready to be commander-in-chief.”

Booker and Warren very clearly want to seek the presidency for themselves in 2020. Neither wants to be anyone else’s second fiddle. And both recognize the need for some kind of experience in this arena. This week they took big steps to shore up their shared liability: Warren joined Armed Services, and Booker gave up his seat on the Homeland Security Committee to jump over to Foreign Relations.

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/12/16/daily-202-democrats-with-2020-ambitions-finagle-the-committee-assignments-that-boosted-clinton-and-kaine/585349cae9b69b36fcfeaf44/?utm_term=.2cc92123c2c3&wpisrc=nl_daily202&wpmm=1

[DoctorMyEyes]

1. too far into an uncertain future

I'm sorry, but anyone thinking ahead to 2020 at this point is wasting valuable time and ignoring what we are facing in the immediate future. There may not even be a 2020 - or real elections.

[DonViejo]

2. What are you apologizing for, expressing your opinion?

[geek tragedy]

5. we'll see how people feel about electing people with zero FP depth after 4 years of Trump nt

[David__77]

12. My primary election support of Sanders was driven in part by foreign policy.

I don't think that that's an anomaly at all. Not everyone supports what's called "American exceptionalism." It's common, I think, for people to express that in various ways.

[geek tragedy]

4. Booker we knew about, but Warren moving to Armed Services is a very interesting move.

I had assumed she wasn't running, but that assumption looks iffy at best.

[geek tragedy]

6. Also, Booker seems to be the favorite based on this alone:

Democrats largely agree that they want a younger candidate who has never run for president before. Six in 10 Democrats want the 2020 nominee to be under 60, and eight in 10 want the person to be under 70. For what it’s worth, Warren will be 71, Biden will by 77 and Bernie will be 79. (Booker will be 51. President Trump, assuming he seeks reelection, will be 74.)

Democrats have had enough of the gerontocracy (our House leaders are all over 76 years old).

[ZoomBubba]

7. Booker and Kaine are good ...

... but I think Democrats overestimate the appeal of Warren.

[vi5]

9. Yeah, Kaine is a dynamo.

[ZoomBubba]

10. So, what's wrong with Kaine then?

He's Christian, has a strong progressive record, hasn't gathered a lot of partisan animosity, able to reach out to conservative voters, able to talk directly to Spanish voters, etc., etc. — sounds pretty solid to me. We don't need some firebrand out there.

[vi5]

13. Oh you've got to be trolling at this point...

"We don't need some firebrand out there." and dismissing Warren.

[ZoomBubba]

14. I'm not trolling ...

... I simply believe Democrats overestimate Warren's ability to win over non-Democratic voters in a general election.

[vi5]

8. Ugh...please not Booker

He is the epitome of all hat, no cattle. And we'd be doubling down on Wall Street/Charter Schools and other bad policies that do the Democratic party no favors at all.

I know I'm in the minority on this one because Booker is such a charming guy and a slick politician. But I'm close enough in proximity to Newark to know that things are still bad in a lot of ways and his solutions were largely to just gloss over it by having big companies and businesses come in as the cure which as is often the case didn't do as much as it should have for the people who have lived and struggled there for years.

[ZoomBubba]

11. Like it or not ...

... charter schools are here to stay. We have to live with that fact and make sure they're meeting standards. If I lived in a high-crime city, I'd want my kid to go to one and many parents feel the same. Nothing is to be gained by going after them.

Wall Street is another fact of life. We need some of them as allies and they are an integral part of the fabric of America. I'd rather work with as many of them as possible instead of giving them the finger and driving them to the Republicans.