Jim Webb: His irrelevance is proof “liberals” in the Democratic Party are more concerned with silly wedge issues than issues of war and Wall Street.
I think most know who I was referring to, though in actuality it applies to the whole lot.
Hillary Clinton: Obama’s third term, not Clinton’s.
Stolen! And we thank you. Groovy.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/may_june_2013/features/should_martin_omalley_be_presi044513.php?page=all
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/06/you-have-martin-o-malley-all-wrong.html
In numerical order…
- No!
- Jesus!
- Fuck no!
- You nuts?
- Aaaarrgh!
- Canada!
- Cuba!
- Latvia!..
What wedge issues, in his case?
All the prosperity, none of the sex scandals! 
Read that article all the way through, and then my links two posts earlier.
We’re blaming O’Malley for things that are happening today? Sorry, but that’s all on the current mayor.
Whole lotta fluff there, I’m from Baltimore, I don’t need a primer. Does it address my specific accusations? Specifically Maryland schools were caught eliminating a higher number of underachieving students than allowed from test score reports. Also there have been accusations Omalley played with the crime stats as mayor.
Guns, gays, and immigrants.
Also, progressives’ support for Hillary over Webb show they are more comfortable raining death on brown people from the skies than calling them rude names.
Under indictment, oops.
Or maybe it’s just because we think he’d be a pretty good pundit but a lousy President.
The GOP field’s already crowded with guys who would make better pundits than Presidents. I’m perfectly willing to let them corner the market.
What about Webb makes you think he’d make a better pundit than President? Seems the opposite is true. He has zero charisma but a rock solid resume: war hero, Secretary of the Navy, Senator, bipartisan cred, thinks for himself and is not beholden to party leaders.
That’s precisely the kind of guy who would have been a frontrunner in the pre-TV/tabloid age.
Here’s my one-liner: Webb- I think for myself, therefore Democrats aren’t interested in me.
In the pre-TV/tabloid age, the party leaders determined who was the “frontrunner”. And then the two frontrunners ran against each other.
Webb has any number of admirable qualities, as do a couple million other people who are also not going to be President. There’s something else, something Bill Clinton has by the buttload and even Obama has some of, but Webb does not.
Also, he smiles like a military lifer being polite to a civilian.
He’s also got limited patience for working and playing well with others.
And while a Republican President may be able to manage without those skills, since his own party will fall in line behind him under almost any circumstance (cf. GWB, 2007-08) and on most issues there will be a sufficient supply of Dems who will be willing to work across the partisan divide, the reverse is true for a Dem: even when there were something like 258 Dems in the House in 2009-10, all sorts of legislation was getting through with just barely more votes than the 218 needed, and the wall of GOP opposition was nearly unbroken.
If you’re a Democrat, can think for yourself, but don’t have the patience to herd cats to get your legislation through Congress, you’re better off as a pundit than a President, and so is the nation and the party.
And the resume - hell, replace “Secretary of the Navy, Senator” with “Governor” in that resume and you’ve got…Jimmy Carter. Lot of good it did him.