To summarize the reason for The New York Times endorsement editorial, The Democrats Best Choice for President in a few sentences:
Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration. If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it.
That’s why we’re endorsing the most effective advocates for each approach. They are Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.
I have had growing reservations about wanting Joe Biden to be the candidate because he maintains his lead in the polls. This is mostly because of his stumbles which show that because of his age he may not be up to the job, and because there is an increasing risk that he could have a major setback as the convention nears or even after he became the candidate that would throw the door wide open for a Trump win.
This left me with my second and third choices moving into a close first and second: Amy Klobuchar first and Elizabeth Warren second.
I have always liked Warren from back when I lived in Massachusetts and she was my senator. However, this incident at the debate gave me pause.
Elizabeth Warren’s decision, planned or spontaneous exchange with Bernie Sanders is, of course, now famous:
“I think you called me a liar on national TV,” Warren said to Sanders.
“Let’s not do it right now,” Sanders responded. “You called me a liar.”
There are several elements to this. If she thought her words were meant only for Bernie I’d have to conclude that she had some kind of lapse because she had to know that there’s almost always and open microphone, and Tom Steyer was standing right there and overheard everything. That of course would not be good. Trump has lapses, our candidates must not have them.
By not shaking Bernie’s outstretched hand she would have to know questions would be raised about why she didn’t reciprocate.
My hunch is that this was a decision made on the spur of the moment but a tactical decision none-the-less. We want our candidates to think tactically on the fly. My suspicion is that she decided this was a good time to appear to be the kind of female candidate with the cojones to take on a male competitor locked, loaded, and ready to do the same with the ultimate chauvinist Donald Trump.
If Warren reacted in anger without forethought I would hold this against her. Candidates are human and can be provoked to anger, however the way they express it must be mediated by an internal censor which even instantaneously measures consequences. Trump is an example of someone who has no such ability.
Assuming Warren did this purposefully, I didn’t change my leaning towards her as my second choice to run against Trump.
My first choice has been Amy Klobuchar in part because I think she’d appeal more to the midwest moderates in crucial states the Democrats need to win than Warren.
Here’s how the New York Times put it:
Good news, then, that Amy Klobuchar has emerged as a standard-bearer for the Democratic center. Her vision goes beyond the incremental. Given the polarization in Washington and beyond, the best chance to enact many progressive plans could be under a Klobuchar administration.
The senator from Minnesota is the very definition of Midwestern charisma, grit and sticktoitiveness. Her lengthy tenure in the Senate and bipartisan credentials would make her a deal maker (a real one) and uniter for the wings of the party — and perhaps the nation.
The question of women and anger
Then this morning I followed a link in the HuffPost article about the New York Times endorsement of both Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar to an article from February: “Harry Reid Rebuked Amy Klobuchar For Mistreatment Of Staff — A leaked campaign document shows how staff tried to manage her anger.”
Two juxtaposed sentences jumped out at me in the article:
Klobuchar, a talented retail politician who visited every one of the state’s 87 counties, won her 2006 election easily and has been re-elected twice by wide margins.
But as HuffPost reported Wednesday, concerns about how she treated her staff followed her to Washington, where her rate of staff turnover is consistently one of the highest in the Senate.
The first sentence succinctly tells us what she has made a major campaign point about her appeal to middle America. In fact, it is why she may be the best candidate to beat Trump if Biden stumbles badly by making unforced errors and showing signs that his age is catching up with him.
The second sentence is the one that I find problematic because it could be interpreted as a major plus or significant minus.
This is how The NY Times addressed this:
Reports of how Senator Klobuchar treats her staff give us pause. They raise serious questions about her ability to attract and hire talented people. Surrounding the president with a team of seasoned, reasoned leaders is critical to the success of an administration, not doing so is often the downfall of presidencies. Ms. Klobuchar has acknowledged she’s a tough boss and pledged to do better. (To be fair, Bill Clinton and Mr. Trump — not to mention former Vice President Biden — also have reputations for sometimes berating their staffs, and it is rarely mentioned as a political liability.)
While I’d prefer a candidate who in the past was able to attract, hire, and retain the best of the best to work for them I would also want them to find people who not only are capable but also willing and able to keep up with a tireless and demanding boss. If Klobuchar herself didn’t vet job applicants whoever she had do so should have made sure the staffers would be up to the demands of the job from major to seemingly trivial given the personality of the boss.
I think this would become a moot point should Klobuchar become president because she’d be filling the most important positions in the country and a stellar group of Democrats would be lining up to help reconstruct the shambles Trump’s minion have made of the institutions of government.
All of this seems to revolve around how women are perceived when they express anger, and when they become irritated or annoyed with subordinates who aren’t up to snuff. When men in power are known to yell at and berate their underlings this rarely seems to become an issue, and sometimes they tend to be admired by their colleagues and the public.
Trump is perceived by his supporters as macho despite evidence that he is both irrational and a coward. Women are called the B-word.