We have an embarrassment of riches. Our opponents just have embarrassments.

eom

He is sort of a distant second choice after Bernie. An After-Bernie if you will. But why should anyone go with a second choice when the first choice is so awesome and has such terrific inertia? It makes no sense.

I support substance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017277834

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1281

He just happens to have inertia as well.

and experience. However, and briefly, Governor O'Malley's executive experience is outstanding.

Martin O'Malley:

1. Ended death penalty in Maryland
2. Prevented fracking in Maryland and put regulations in the way to prevent next GOP Gov Hogan fom easily allowing fracking.
3. Provided health insurance for 380,000
4. Reduced infant mortality to an all time low.
5. Provided meals to thousands of hungry children and moved toward a goal for eradicating childhood hunger.
6. Enacted a $10.10 living wage and a $11. minimum wage for State workers.
7. Supporter the Dream Act
8. Cut income taxes for 86% of Marylanders (raised taxes on the rich).
9. Reformed Maryland’s tax code to make it more progressive.
10. Enacted some of the nation’s most comprehensive reforms to protect homeowners from foreclosure.

Mother Jones magazine called him the best candidate on environmental issues.
Article here:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/martin-omalley-longshot-presidential-candidate-and-real-climate-hawk

I really think O'Malley has done some great things.

I just find Sanders to be tougher on the banks and Wallstreet. I have to pick the best candidate. I want a candidate that can win the nomination and the presidency and I don't want to have to grudgingly vote for Hillary a year from November; I will if I have to, but I am not enthused by that prospect at at all.

and continues to plan more. Tougher on the banks and Wallstreet, I DOUBT it; here's Gov. O'Malley's plan set out today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12811400

I'm in tech/telecom so I have a respect for white papers. He's pretty clear about what needs to happen to Law Breakers and what needs to happen for preventing another crash like this.

Key Point - Law breakers and Crime Prevention. He's not going after the local credit union or small town bank -and that's a good thing.

Really, it is pretty obvious.

He makes a lot of noise to get noticed. He tries to run to the left of Hillary to grab onto that support. Unfortunately for him Bernie already showed up and absorbed much of the progressive left.

Then we have that SuperPAC of his doing an unauthorized hit on Bernie on guns.

And then we have him jumping on the anti-Wallstreet messaging and advocating some of the same polices that Sanders has already put forth.

If he goes after Bernie on guns during the debate it will eliminate all doubt as to what his intentions are.

Nothing he is saying is any different from what he said and did as governor.

I don;t think Sander has that kind of legislative resume.

He has every right to go after Clinton and Sanders about guns— take look at what he fit regarding guns in Maryland. Maryland is one of the strongest gun control states in the nation. What I know is that he had the courage to change gun control laws in his state as governor.

I won't fault Bernie for that, he wasn't a governor.

Wait for the debate.

I doubt he will tag Clinton with anything at that time and that will be the tell.



On the other hand, there is always the possibility I am wrong about this. If Hillary manages to somehow screw up really, really, really badly and Sanders loses steam I would happily have an O'Malley presidency. The only way I want an O'Malley Veep is if he is teamed with Bernie.

I could see him selecting someone like Grayson . . . A fire brand orator.

He won't go Gen X (O'Malley) - supposedly he has the youth (Millenials) locked down.

So he doesn't need us (Gen X) who tend to be cynical - I freely admit I'm one - and won't make a choice that appeals to us.

I think all races, gender, economic class, orientation - that Mid 60's to late 70's group will do what we always do -

Go along to get along. I think both he and Clinton can count on that.

A: Bernie is not going to take Grayson. I don't know why you are trying to push him off on Bernie but that makes no sense at all. Nice try.

B: Bernie is about policy. If O'Malley is serious about his recent statements about the policies he supports than Bernie is the best candidate for him to jump on board with. Hillary is not.

C: I barely even know what your last statement is about.



I am going to tell you again. I support Bernie all the way. O'Malley is a second choice as president and he is a second choice I would be thrilled to have as president!

The Only way I want O'Malley as Veep is if it is with Bernie.

I am not interested in a Hillary presidency and will regretfully stumble into the voting booth drunk and angry at having to vote for her over whatever lunatic, fundamentalist, randroid, moron that randomly falls out of the GOP clown car.

I just think that the country would be better served if O'Malley goes and does advocacy work if he is not elected. Hell - even go and do lobbying for Elon Musk - no one can say Elon Musk is just another evil CEO- he's changing this world. And he's going to need allies to overcome those assholes at BP.

A. First time I've written that - so don't try to portray me as being 'all about Grayson' - you gotta admit - they have the same style. They are both firebrands. If not Grayson -someone LIKE him. O'Malley would be a poor choice - just based on some of the Cheese Sandwich posts here - there's going to be real disappointment if he (Sanders) picks someone so measured. There's a wide swath of dummies in this country who are not policy wonks like we at DU - they want a 'style'. These are the assholes who wanted to have a beer with Bush. The next great thing - the shiny new object. Sanders can get those people - O'Malley cannot.

B. I don't think their policies quite match - they are in the same vein. But I don't see O'Malley getting onboard with ALL bankers. He's been very clear that there are good guys/gals in that mix. I agree with him. And it's going to be very hard for him to walk back from that document he released this week. It could potentially create a point of weakness - and if Sanders gets the nomination - he's got to win. He cannot lose for any reason whatsoever.

C. I had a very successful blog with two other women - GenerationWhatever during the Bush Administration. Research we did as we were refining how to reach others that got lost in the Telecom/Tech bubble burst - it was other Cynical Asshole Gen Xers reading us and contributing thoughts. My peers I've picked up through my life - are all very cynical. We will go along to get along - and will vote party lines. That's all - it's not anything huge and cryptic! We came of voting age in the Clinton Era (first election I was eligible to vote in) and now see what a shitty choice we made. But the alternatives (Bush I and Dole) would have been far worse. We'll vote along party lines. I don't think there is much of a middle in that narrow band of people.


I'll say it again - I'll be voting Democratic in the 2016 Presidential election. Because I've always been a Democratic Party Member - and I can't undo my canvassing and support for Hillary in the Senate in 2000.

A:
No, they are not. Grayson is bombastic, has alienated people, and is an albatross. Dear lords, why are you trying to hang him around Bernies neck?

B:
For someone not on board with Bernie he is certainly jumping onto a lot of Bernie's financial policies lately. I have seen about a half dozen posts on policies he has suddenly come out for in the last day or so. His open letter to Wallstreet and his support of financial transaction tax. If he doesn't pick up steam then I can't think of a reason why he wouldn't either hook up with the Sanders ticket or at least throw an endorsement if he drops.

C:
Ok... well outreach is always good. Nuff said on all that.


No one is asking you to undo canvassing for Hillary in 2000. I don't know how that is coming to the fore here. I don't waste my time pouring through anyones support or history of yesteryear.

I am saying as a progressive there are candidates I am excited about and candidates I am not. I am not excited about Hillary. If I am right, and I really, really, really hope I am not, and this is all just resume building for O'Malley to sign on to being Hillary's veep then I am substantially less interested in what he has to say.

And as I have already stated, what he does during the first debate is going to define my opinion of him. If I see a lot of elbows tossed Bernies way and soft gloves on Hillary then he will be revealing exactly what his intentions are.

Not comparing him to Trump, just talking relative chances.

has him on ignore. If he can by that, he has as good a chance as any.

Still so early.

O'M is still unknown. With greater exposure he could climb in the polls. Without exposure he'll remain in single digits.

About a 2% chance of the nomination