HRC=KKT? Maryland Memories

HRC = KKT?

Nothing sends a chill up the spine of Maryland Democrats like the initials KKT – Kathleen Kennedy Townsend.  For those who don’t recall, she is the Democrat who lost the Governor's race to Republican Bob Ehrlich in 2002, inflicting four bleak years of Republican stewardship on this great state.

I recently heard a savvy Maryland politician compare Hillary to Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, and the more I think about it, the more it makes sense.

BULLDOZER METHOD, EVERYBODY OUT OF MY WAY!!!
KKT had a machine, so does Hillary, and woe to anyone who dares get in its path.  KKT was Lieutenant Governor under Parris Glendenning and seemed like a natural successor when his two terms were up.  But there was resistance:  Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley (more about him later) pondered a run.  But, oh no, KKT’s supporters would hear nothing of it:  Don’t Mess With Kathleen was the message.  She and her supporters bullied her way to the nomination.  There was some resistance: In the primary, a totally unknown and unfunded Democrat named Robert Raymond Fustero got 20% of the vote, a "protest vote" according to the WaPo.  

In the end, though, most Maryland Democrats bought into the "inevitability" message, and put her up for election.   Some Democrats are doing the same with HRC –  oh, she must be the one, after all, Bill’s her husband and everybody knows her.  

DEMS CAN'T LOSE IN THIS STATE/IN THIS YEAR  
Underestimating Republican Chances in a Democratic Environment can be fatal.  Maryland Dems assumed that KKT couldn't lose in our heavily Democratic state.  HRC supporters assume that any Dem can win against a weakened Republican party in 2008. But KKT wasn’t a very compelling or attractive candidate.  Ehrlich had more charisma, more appeal as a person, and he won. HRC may be attractive to some Democratic stalwarts, but we know she's poison to a lot of the electorate.  A moderately appealing Republican can take her out.  If HRC is the nominee, Republicans will find religion and flock to the polls to put her down, independents will break against her.  Democrats will lose again because they couldn’t see the big picture.

THE KENNEDY/CLINTON BRAND WILL HELP HER
Maybe, maybe not.  Plenty of Marylanders weren't swayed (or were perhaps repelled) by the Kennedy name. Some people are sick to death of the Clinton name.  And there is some resistance to dynasties, whether Kennedy, Clinton, or Bush.  The name recognition certainly fuels Clinton's leads in the polls, but it can backfire, too.  

WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO ELECT THE FIRST FEMALE GOVERNOR/PRESIDENT???  
Well yes it would, if it were someone else.

My HRC=KKT comparison doesn’t hold all the way.  KKT ran a crummy campaign and was a lousy speaker.  HRC can run a well-organized, disciplined campaign and she presents herself well in public.  KKT was running to succeed a Democratic Governor whose popularity was low (due in part to an extramarital affair).  Plus she made a lousy pick for Lt. Gov (ex-Republican retired Admiral Charles R. Larson) - but then again, she was trying to look tough, an Iron Lady, and HRC does that in her own way, too.

An aside on Martin O’Malley, now Governor.  He endorsed HRC; I hear he owed the Clintons: Bill made ads for him and appeared in the state for him.  He has been an HRC surrogate in New Hampshire, getting name recognition for his future run for President.  Sadly, this week we learn that his Lieutenant Governor, Anthony Brown, caved in and is finally endorsing HRC.  I had hopes for Anthony Brown, that as an African-American, Harvard Law-educated, up and coming politician he would secretly be an Obama supporter and would stay neutral while his boss sucked up to HRC, but it was not to be.

Surprise: I'm an Obama supporter.  In Barack Obama we have a once-in-a-generation chance to pick a superior, inspiring candidate.  Let's not blow it.

•  It's a real danger

  that a well-financed marketing machine will simply roll over the competition, but the product will fail to live up to the hype.  I think it happened to some extent with Kerry in 2004.  

  But, I think you do sell HRC short.  She is not KKT bad.  

  by johnny rotten on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:34:40 PM PDT

  •  Obama raises more money than Hillary ...

    from what I understand and from more people.  Money isn't ALL, it's access and the media filter.  Bobo's (David Brooks') column on her appears to indicate to me that the media inside the beltway s***heads want Hillary.  I don't know how to change that.

    by billlaurelMD on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:44:25 PM PDT

    •  Hillary has the proChoice Republicans

      The inside the Beltway, urban professionals who don't give a rat's ass about abortion. For them its only about money, money, money.

      But no doubt about it, Hillary has an umpteen year old inner sanctum team that cant be beat and doesn't miss a beat and she has the visible troops, The A Team Extraordinaire: Bill/Clark/Rubin/Albright/Holbrooke. That's a pumpin' team. Obama has their assistants. /snark - but it's true!

      I think jr has exactly the precise right quesiton for the netroots being shouted loud and clear, Given Hillary is a winner, is she the right one for the job?

      I can't find any one better....

      by kck on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 03:24:56 PM PDT

•  Interesting.

  I didn't really know the history of how Kennedy Townsend lost.  I remember being a little surprised at the time that she did lose, not really knowing that she was such a dud.

  by chicago minx on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:35:13 PM PDT

•  2002 was a Republican year

  And I never thought Ehrlich was charismatic.  Fustero was a cashier in a supermarket.  It's not surprizing he would get 20 percent of the vote because lots of wing nuts here in Maryland are registered Democrats, because in some counties, Baltimore City and parts of Baltimore County, local elections are decided in the Democratic primary.  I guess there will be a general election in Baltimore City in November, but are any Republicans running?

  KKT made a lousy pick for lieutenant governor, choosing a retired admiral and a Republican in a futile and stupid effort to get some of the wing nut vote, while irritating Maryland's black electorate.  But because 2002 was a Republican year and Ehrlich outspent KKT, I didn't think she was such a lousy campaigner.  Look how well Ellen Sauerbrey, with her extreme promise to cut the budget 1/3 for all items except police and prisons, did.  Ehrlich, by promising to control spending without major cuts, could rightly claim he was a moderate compared to Sauerbrey and thereby pick up some moderate voters.

  by Navy Vet Terp Jr on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:42:41 PM PDT

  •  She didn't run well where I live

    She barely showed up in Montgomery County; I missed it when she did but from what I heard, she was a lackluster speaker.  People simply could not get fired up about her.

    by norabb on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:49:12 PM PDT

•  I don't like it when people are

  put off by leaders they respect endorsing someone other than their candidate, it's dumb.  People have their own minds and reasons for supporting who they do, they are their own people. Calling it "sucking up" what a  joke.

  by rigso on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:43:01 PM PDT

•  Between the two of them, the Clintons have

  run 1 race for Congress, one race for attorney general of Arkansas, four races for governor, two for president and two for the senate. Out of all those races, they have lost two. Say what you will about Kathleen Kennedy, she had nowhere near the level of campaign experience that the Clinton's have.

  by lorelynn on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:50:04 PM PDT

•  I am not a Hillary supporter

  and I give you credit for a thoughtful comparison, but ultimately I think it is a false analogy. KKT is on par with Bob Shrum for special type of "histories greatest losers" award. People in Maryland still talk about how awful KKT's campaign was.

  by Lefty the playwright on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:51:43 PM PDT

•  Interesting comparison

  The big difference is that Hillary is running a terrific campaign against tough primary opponents.  KKT used inevitability to clear the field, wasn't tested early, and ran the worst campaign I've ever seen.  Hillary is a better candidate by an order of magnitude.

  by Trapper John on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 02:59:20 PM PDT

  •  You hit a biggie ...

    I've dissed the Edwards and Obama campaigns a few times, but that's only by comparison. I really can't remember a stronger field on our side, and both Edwards and Obama are anything but patsies.

    But really, so far it has been like watching two top ranked college teams take on an NFL team.

    by al Fubar on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 03:24:53 PM PDT

•  I won't vote for HRC in the primary but

  I sure hate these hit diaries.  

  by nupstateny on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 03:11:38 PM PDT

•  KKT was a lackluster campaigner

  but her biggest problem was Glendenning.  Her association with him was poison and she refused to repudiate him.  Loyal perhaps, but that's what brought her down.

  by mdprogressive on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 03:16:30 PM PDT