As a working dude, I don’t always have time to do the sort of in-depth research I’d like to be doing on political figures, especially those who may be up-and-coming, but not yet here. When I can read what appears to be a positive report on them from a member, or former member, of the opposition party, or at least someone of a political philosophy differing from the reportee, I take an interest. Reports from the same side can be a whitewash; reports from someone with little or no reason to conceal flaws are more likely to be honest.<\/p>\n
With that in mind, Jennifer Rubin, ex-Republican, comments on Democratic Presidential wanna-be nominees Stacy Abrams, who just missed out on being governor of Georgia, and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana:<\/p>\n
\nStacey Abrams is an African American woman, of \u201csturdy build\u201d she says, from the South who barely lost the Georgia governor\u2019s race, has made voting rights her passion and\u00a0knocked it out of the ballpark<\/a>\u00a0in her response to this year\u2019s State of the Union. Pete Buttigieg is a white, gay man of slight build from the Midwest who\u2019s spent eight years as mayor of South Bend, Ind., a mid-sized city, served in the military and is a genuine intellectual. They couldn\u2019t be more different, right?<\/p>\n
Not exactly. Both are quite progressive but do well in red states and both have made a giant impression on the media and among those voters who know who they are. What\u2019s the secret of their success? I\u2019d argue they have important ingredients rarely found in a single politician.<\/p>\n
First, both are crazy-smart.\u00a0She\u2019s a Yale Law School grad<\/a>,\u00a0he\u2019s a Harvard grad and Rhodes scholar<\/a>. They don\u2019t simply have credentials, however. They have nimble, curious minds and are voracious readers. That makes them interesting to listen to and makes them sound somehow different, more serious than traditional politicians who rely on buzzwords and catchphrases. [WaPo<\/strong><\/a>]<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
That they value knowledge is, of course, important to me, and should be to any voter. Rubin has lots more. My takeaway from this? To watch the other Democratic nominees with this in mind: are they trying to distract me with their body language, or are they talking to me<\/em>. Do they seem chronically curious about the world, or do they think they know all the answers already?<\/p>\n
That was part of Obama’s attraction for me: forever reading, always searching for a viewpoint that gave insight into problems he was, or might, face.<\/p>\n
But more important is Rubin’s throwaway line:<\/p>\n
\nBoth are quite progressive but do well in red states …<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
In this line may well lie the winning Democratic Presidential strategy for 2020: to nominate someone from a red state. Buttigieg, of course, is not holding a state-wide office, but his last victory in South Bend was with 80% of the vote<\/a> in a city in a red state. Abrams lost deep South Georgia by a whisker.<\/p>\n
I wonder just how much they’d rupture the red states if one of them won the race for Democratic nominee and picked the other as running mate.<\/p>\n
My exposure to both is confined to their appearances on The Late Show<\/em><\/strong>. Buttigieg came through as having a sense of humor, but of serious purpose as well. Abrams, which was just a night or two ago, seemed to have quite the nimble sense of humor, had just the right touch of embarrassment concerning her career as a romance novelist, undertaken to put food on the table, and was at least as impressive as Buttigieg and other The Late Show<\/strong><\/em> guests Harris, and moreso than Gillibrand.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
As a working dude, I don’t always have time to do the sort of in-depth research I’d like to be doing on political figures, especially those who may be up-and-coming, but not yet here. When I can read what appears to be a positive report on them from a member, \u2026 Continue reading