Your Democratic debate guide, the under the bus version

This should be a goodie.

Hillary Clinton can call Bernie Sanders a gun nut (because he is), Sanders can call Clinton a Trans-Pacific Partnership hypocrite (because she is, as Perry details) and if Joe Biden doesn't officially enter the race by then, Beau Biden's last tears can sit in a jar on stage (since they told Joe to run).

Cynical? Me? Noooo.

Not because Hillary Clinton has more campaign positions than Bill had sexual positions.

Not because Bernie Sanders not only IS a gun nut, but he's actually a Democrat who's a selective war hawk and more. (Or "less," to riff on Ted Rall, as I did).

Not because the Democratic rogues gallery is so geriatric that if Biden runs, he still wouldn't be the oldest candidate.

Not when other Dem possibilities are weak tea, indeed. And that includes the Al Gore weak tea.

To complete the debate lineup, we'll have an empty suit named Martin O'Malley, a saltine named Jim Webb, preferably the traditional version (think about it, on both parts of that), and a man looking like Lincoln Chafee who, unfortunately, will be Lincoln Chafee. (Al Gore will be backstage with a massage therapist.)

And your debate drinking game?

Shots for either "Benghazi" or "socialist, as I note in my more serious guide as well.

If not Hillary, then whom (for Democrats)?

Per the poll on the right, a post of mine from last week, a post of PD's from last week, and this Huffington Post piece, what if 2016 is 2008 redux for Hillary Clinton? She's got a fresh semi-scandal on hand with her email server, done to avoid both the real and fake parts of the "vast right wing conspiracy" and also done for Clintonian secrecy. (Ultimately, this seems more a Hillary than a Bill thing.)

I agree with Perry that there's enough "real" in the email scandal, plus, enough Hillary Clinton mindset in the issue, and the fact that it's going to be a "drip, drip, drip" for at least a couple of months, that she's officially entering damaged goods territory. Bernie Sanders, per Puff Hoes, is drawing crowds, doing the right thing with Black Lives Matter (if/when they let him), etc. If not the frontrunner, he is in "serious contender" territory.

Is he a winner? (Not in terms of electability, but first in terms of actually getting the Democratic nomination, then in terms of desirability.)

First, other candidates.

I've already said I don't get anybody visiting this website, if they know my political views, and, per that poll, favoring Jim Webb over Clinton. Ugh.

O'Malley? I've noted, without a specific blog post, that a fair amount of today's Baltimore policing issues stem from his time as mayor. If Black Lives Matter wanted to disrupt anybody's campaign, it should probably start with his.

Biden? I blogged about the optics of how he's sticking his toes in the water, among other things; he has now met with Elizabeth Warren, a sign that he's sticking more toes in the water, and perhaps trying to position himself as the electable midpoint between Clinton and Sanders. He'd be incrementally better than Clinton, probably, but that's about it.

(Update, Aug. 24: He's running, it seems more and more.)

Al Gore? I shot him down a month ago, even before more massage therapist rumors started coming over the transom.

Sanders? I've noted that he's not all he cracks himself up to be. On foreign policy issues, a "tell" will be if he votes against Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. For me, that could be a semi-bright line as to whether I'd vote for him, or for nobody, in the Democratic primary.

And, as I noted on the Biden piece, while not listing Gore's age, Lincoln Chafee is the only announced or hotly rumored candidate who's not eligible for Social Security. Biden and Sanders are both 70-plus.

Meanwhile, Nate Silver and his 538 gang provide an analysis of Sanders' chances. It's more off the cuff than scientific, but I agree with the issue that Sanders needs to increase his black support to have a real chance in the primaries. A black supporter of Sanders in South Carolina says it's about name recognition and familiarity as much as anything. Probably at least halfway true.

And, I also agree that Biden's not likely to enter unless Clinton's "drip, drip, drip" picks up.

Which gets to a longer-term question: Where's the Democratic bench? Jerry Brown in California's in the geriatric set and the original neolib governor. Andrew Cuomo in New York is skating on the edge of state-level scandal. Colorado's John Hickenlooper, if the GOP wins 2016, will probably move to the front of the line of 2020 Democratic candidates, if he wants. And he'd be 68 then. Jay Inslee of Washington, just maybe, but on age, he's a year older than Hickenlooper.

Name any other Democratic governors that catch your eye. Or senators. If Kamala Harris replaces Barbara Boxer, she's a possible, but 2020 would be a Senate election year for her, too.

Finally, if you're a Democrat, do you even really want it other than ego? Depending on what oil prices and the Chinese economy look like a year from now, you could be starting your presidency battling a recession, plus trying to figure out the half of Obamacare that's yet to be officially implemented, and other things.

What's with the love for Jim Webb?

Just over a month ago, after Bernie Sanders had entered the Democratic presidential race, along with Martin O'Malley and Lincoln Chafee, but before the then-rumored Jim Webb did, I put up a poll with their names and the previously-rumored Brian Schweitzer.

I made it a multiple choice poll, where people could select any candidate they'd vote for in Democratic primaries before Hillary Clinton. (See poll at right.)

Almost every voter here has chosen Bernie. No surprise.

What IS a surprise to me is that Webb's gotten almost as many votes as the other three combined.

He's the one person on the list that I'd put behind Hillary.

First, he's a former Republican, and I don't think he's gotten rid of all of his Republican "sensibilities" yet.

Second, while I like his emphasis on socioeconomic class as part of what we should consider in affirmative action, I don't think it should replace race-based efforts. Not yet, for sure. And I have a suspicion he does feel that way.

Third, as far as Republican "sensibilities," I think he, as a Son of the South, still clings to some Lost Cause ideas about the Civil War. He's been the least vocal of the four announced candidates about the Confederate flag. (As far as getting quoted, both he and Chafee are fighting to get more media oxygen, it should be noted, but for Chafee it's worse, because he doesn't stand out as different from Clinton or Sanders on an issue like this.) He's even indicated support for some Southern "honor" ideas.

Southern honor ideas ... that justify the Confederate flag, that can lead to "driving while black" and related issues of policing and more.

Speaking of, of course, Webb wasn't at the Netroots Nation, so he hasn't been called out on Black Lives Matter, but I'd venture his response would be beyond just "politically incorrect."

And, I don't know about Schweitzer, but, of the other four, Webb was last to the table on most gay rights issues.

So, any of you Webb supporters, what gives? Is this just that blind of Hillary hatred, or is there enough you actually like about him to want him to win?

ICYMI: Weekly Prez roundup: #BernieSanders, #LincolnChafee, #RickPerry

Last week was a busy one in the world of politics, with two new announced presidential candidates of note and issues about media coverage on one already in the race.

First, is Bernie Sanders getting treated unfairly by the "mainstream media"? In the wake of Columbia Journalism Review, I argue yes. This is of relevance to coverage of third-party candidates, too, whether Green, Libertarian or other.

Second, former GOP governor of Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee jumped in the Democratic race to also challenge Hillary from the left.

Yes, you heard that "from the left" correctly and I defend it here. Yes, Chafee once supported Shrub Bush's idea of a partial (note: partial, not full, but still not excusable) privatization of Social Security. Yes, Hillary Clinton opposed that.

That said, she's not that liberal on Social Security herself. Add in that she's a warhawk, a supporter of the national surveillance state, and arguably to the right of Chafee on big and dark money in politics, bank regulation and other things, and I stand behind the argument that he's to her left.

To the right of both of them, and a bigger grandstander and bloviator, is Rick Perry. As I noted, in a piece with extensive links to old blogging about him, his "Texas miracle" is largely a sand castle, he's still under indictment, and he probably has a snowball's chance in the GOP race, among other things.

Move over, #BernieSanders, as #Hillary gets 2nd challenge from left

Lincoln Chafee

It admittedly sounds weird to talk about a former Republican running to the left of Hillary Clinton, but, if one looks at Lincoln Chafee's presidential campaign announcement, he's doing exactly that. (And please participate in the poll at right about actual and rumored 2016 Democratic presidential candidates.)

First, yes, it's something he throws out there all the time, but he WAS the only GOP senator voting against the Iraq War. Clinton, as a senator herself then, of course voted for it, and has been totally down with the War on Terra since, as senator, presidential candidate and Secretary of State.

Second, along with Sanders, he wants Edward Snowden to come home. He's less clear than Sanders on whether that should be without any criminal consequences, but the "allowed" certainly indicates he's closer to Sanders than to Clinton. Dan Froomkin, writing at Glenn Greenwald's outpost, seems to agree.

Third, he wants to end drone strikes, primarily in the Muslim world, of course.

Fourth, he at least wants to do something to get big money out of politics by banning political donors from becoming US ambassadors.

Fifth, he explicitly used the word torture for what the Bush Administration did, and the Obama Administration did nothing about, and says that we must stop doing.

These are all positions to the left of Hillary Clinton, per her documented political stances.

"We have to have a way to wage peace," as he said in his announcement, alone illustrates that. That's Dennis Kucinich land!

Does he have any more chance than Sanders? I don't know.

Will this split the left-of-Clinton Democratic vote? Maybe. Maybe it will get more of it to turn out in primaries.

Will he get as much media dissing as Sanders? Possibly.

Per my header, is it true? I say yes, overall.

Yes, Chafee once supported, and maybe still supports, privatizing Social Security. That said, Clinton has opposed hiking the portion of income subject to FICA, claiming it would be a "middle class" tax hike, when it would actually affect 6 percent of Americans or less. This, in turn, plays to her middle class pandering.

Yes, Chafee voted for the Patriot Act. So did Clinton. Yes, he supports free trade. So does Clinton.

The point is not that Chafee is THAT liberal.

The point is that Clinton is not even THAT liberal.

I would in no way vote for a Democratic nominee named Lincoln Chafee over a Green candidate. But, if Bernie Sanders were out of the race, I'd vote for Lincoln Chafee over Hillary Clinton.

More on Chafee here.

My opinion of Lincoln Chafee just went down

When Chafee left the Senate, after being the only Republican to vote against the Iraq war (yes, Hillary Clinton, that's what it was), I had a fair amount of respect for him.

Then, in this vomitorious blandness of a column calling for a new centrist party, he lost it.

First, while Rahm Emanuel may be hyperpartistan, he recruited all the Blue Dogs now in the House that have been a pain at times. So, it's not been ideological partisanship, to the degree there has been any partisanship; it's been gamesmanship-based only.

Second, Chafee knows how blatant GOP Senate filibustering is.

On the coffee table – ‘Against the Tide’

Former Rhode Island U.S. Senator Lincoln has words of wisdom for both Republicans and Democrats alike, but mainly Republicans, in this thoughtful book.

To illustrate the fact that he is straight-spoken, I take this anecdote from page 183, in light of his Senate vote against a flag-desecration amendment in the late summer of 2006, an amendment thrown up as election fodder.

“In my opinion, some members of Congress desecrated the flag every day by wearing flag pins on their lapels while voting to divide Americans and restrict freedom. … Using the flag for political gain was the real desecration.”

Chafee has a closely reasoned takedown argument for his former Republican colleagues in the Senate, for candidates who would follow the Bush-Rove method of campaigning and more: The game is up.

Chafee, one of six Republicans who lost their Senate seats in 2006, repeated this message inside the GOP caucus long before that. And, he meant it as someone who was still trying to save the Republican Party from itself.

He says he considered running as an independent in 2006, but just couldn’t do that.

Now, out of office, though, he is encouraging the idea of a centrist middle to take the third-party road, if needed. This is the one biggest shortcoming of the book.

As a left-liberal who has voted third-parties in the past, I know the Constitutional system is rigged against them, unless one or the other of the major parties is in a time of turmoil. That last happened in the 1850s, when the Whigs shattered over the Compromise of 1850 and then the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

Beyond that, outside apparatchiks like the Grover Norquists of the policy world and insiders, whether elected officials or strategists, will insist in maintaining GOP “message rigidity” enough that, while the party may shrink, it won’t explode or implode.

But, Chafee is committed to the idea, perhaps even idealistic about it, so I won’t hold that against him.

At the same time, with wistfulness, he recognizes his father’s GOP is no more, and Humpty Dumpty can’t put it back together. The former “Rockefeller Republicans” are lost; it is on them, and centrist-to-conservative Democrats, that Chafee appears to pin his third-party hopes.

Otherwise, Chafee struck me as someone who actually brought two crucial things to his job as a senator: Due diligence and curiosity beyond accepting spouted platitudes.

That’s clear in his descriptions of his dealings with President Bush, Vice President Cheney, John Negroponte when he was ambassador to Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz and others.

For Democrats, his biggest take is continued hypocrisy on the Iraq war. That includes pro-war voters like Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton visiting the state to campaign against him in 2006.

And as for his opponent, now-Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse? Whether due to sour grapes or what, Chafee says Whitehouse had no cojones when he was a U.S. Attorney.

Finally, for both Republicans and Democrats, he says we need a real Middle East peace process, and one that does not write blank checks to Israel.

As a sidebar, I found it interesting that this son of a U.S. Senator worked for years as a horseshoer, in very much an “everyday” job. In short, contrary to the claims about a ranting tyrant from Crawford, Texas, you might actually want to sit down for a beer, a diet Coke, or whatever, with Lincoln Chafee.

Hillary a war enabler – former R.I. Senator

So says the only GOP senator to vote against the invasion of Iraq, Lincoln Chafee. Chafee, defeated for re-election by Sheldon Whitehouse in 2006, has a new book out on just that subject.

Titled “Against The Tide: How a Compliant Congress Empowered a Reckless President,” it looks as if it could be a great insider’s tale, depending on just how much Chafee will “dish.” Chafee, now an independent who is backing Barack Obama, calls Hillary Clinton one of the “Democratic Bush enablers”:

“Being wrong about sending Americans to kill and be killed, maim and be maimed, is not like making a punctuation mistake in a highway bill,” Chafee writes. “They argue that the president duped them into war, but getting duped does not exactly recommend their leadership. Helping a rogue president start an unnecessary war should be a career-ending lapse of judgment, in my view.”

Sadly, but truly, Chafee writes that these Democrats put political ambitions ahead of principle in 2002. And now, we’re paying the price.