Disclaimer: I am a Klobuchar supporter.
I saw that the New York Times endorsed both Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for the Democratic nomination.
American voters must choose between three sharply divergent visions of the future.
The incumbent president, Donald Trump, is clear about where he is guiding the Republican Party — white nativism at home and America First unilateralism abroad, brazen corruption, escalating culture wars, a judiciary stacked with ideologues and the veneration of a mythological past where the hierarchy in American society was defined and unchallenged.
On the Democratic side, an essential debate is underway between two visions that may define the future of the party and perhaps the nation. Some in the party view President Trump as an aberration and believe that a return to a more sensible America is possible. Then there are those who believe that President Trump was the product of political and economic systems so rotten that they must be replaced.
[Watch the endorsement process on “The Weekly,” streaming on Hulu.]
The Democratic primary contest is often portrayed as a tussle between moderates and progressives. To some extent that’s true. But when we spent significant time with the leading candidates, the similarity of their platforms on fundamental issues became striking.
Nearly any of them would be the most progressive president in decades on issues like health care, the economy and government’s allocations of resources. Where they differ most significantly is not the what but the how, in whether they believe the country’s institutions and norms are up to the challenge of the moment.
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.
In the “radical division”, they list Sanders and Warren. In the “realist division” they list: Buttigieg, Yang, Bloomberg, Biden and Klobuchar.
So, it appears as if they are treating the current Democratic party as really a coalition of two parties: kind of like Labour and the Liberal Democrats in the UK, with the radicals being in Labour and the realists being the Liberal Democrats.
Now, I know that there will be a mixed reaction. Some of the “woke” crowd read this as “vote for a woman.” And one could view this as a realistic take on the state of US politics.
Personally, at least intellectually, I see this as reasonable as, to me, Warren is better than Sanders, and Klobuchar, in my view, is the best choice.
My concerns with Warren is that I find her to be a very awkward, untalented campaigner; someone who really isn’t “likable” (in terms of being a likable politician).
Check out the Morning Consult Senator approval poll (per constituent approval)
Now one might note that Sanders is from a tiny state and it is easier to get high approval ratings in a small state. But note the contrast between Warren and Klobuchar.
Interestingly, my emotional reaction is that I felt the need to stress that my backing Klobuchar has absolutely NOTHING to do with her being female; it has to do with her record as a Senator, her working with others and her being able to win over swing voters.