Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, who also served as Baltimore Mayor, seems, finally, ready to challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Presidential nomination, with indications that he will announce before the month of May comes to an end.
O’Malley, regarded as one of the best Governors in the entire nation, has been holding back, having been a close friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton in the past, and groomed by them to become an important Democratic leader.
But O’Malley senses that Hillary Clinton has major issues that will cause troubles for the Democrats, and that, at the least, she needs a major challenge to improve her ability, if possible, to overcome the controversies through having to explain herself and communicate better than she has been doing so far.
No one is entitled to a coronation, and it is a horrible form of democracy to have anyone who is not President already, to be considered a shoo-in with no one willing to take on the task to make that person work for the job.
O’Malley may not succeed in his challenge, but could, by making himself known,and making Hillary work for her nomination, become her Vice Presidential choice.
And even if that does not happen, the old saying holds: “Nothing ventured, nothing gained!”
I hope O’Malley runs, as should Warren. It would be fun to watch them debate Hillary and Obama’s foreign policy.
A lot better than getting us into two wars, trillions of dollars in debt, massive veterans care needs for those who survived, almost 7.000 dead while Dick Cheney and others enriched themselves through Haliburton and other war corporations, who want more of the same.
But Obama is NOT going to follow the same path, and if he did, the right wing would attack him anyway, because they live off attacks endlessly no matter what is said and done by Obama.
Bush put us in a mess, and Obama is not going to dig in deeper in the same mess. One must learn from blunders and errors, and the neoconservatives are never happy unless we are at war.
But I say, to all who want war with ground troops, be the first to volunteer and go over, no matter what your age.
You will notice silence after that!
Well you have to say it must have been really, I mean really hard, for liberal icon Bob Woodward to conclude after 18 months of investigation that Bush did not lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq War, don’t you think? I mean in hindsight you can definitely make an argument that it was a mistake, but to say that it was on purpose is stretching it too far. As for that question we hear lately ,”Knowing what we know now about Iraq…” is really nonsensical because Presidents have to make decision based on what they know, what there intelligence reports tell them etc. It’s like asking Obama, knowing what you know now about Isis, would you have still withdrawn from Iraq? Furthermore, way before Bush, Clinton , Gore, Hillary , Albright, among many other prominent Democrats were all certain and talking about the fact that Saddam had WMD’s. And this was before 9-11, and now they act as if they said no such thing! How can this be? That’s why I don’t believe in any politician or party.
Breaking news on MSNBC is that Bernie has officially announced he’s running.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/can-bernie-sanders-take-the-burlington-revolution-national
Max, I think Bob Woodward has drank the Kool Aid of Fox News Channel, where he is on the panel on the Sunday show of Chris Wallace. I am serious, that I think he had something implanted in his brain, the way he defends Bush and criticizes Obama. I feel Woodward has lost all credibility as a serious journalist, and is living off his reputation from the Nixon Watergate scandals.
One might say that Bush may not have planned to enter war against Iraq, BUT there is no doubt in my mind that Cheney and Rumsfeld had that agenda and manipulated Bush with fear tactics, and that means Bush was bullied by them.
Finally, in his second term, he paid less attention to Cheney and got rid of Rumsfeld, and hired Gates, so I think Bush liberated himself from the evil forces, but too late, sadly.
I can understand your cynicism about politics and parties, and I have some of that on my own, BUT history tells me that the Democratic Party offers the better alternative by far, especially since the time of Ronald Reagan.
Further back, it could be argued that the GOP often had outstanding leaders, Governors and Senators, but now their party is pitiful, with a terrible group of potential candidates.
We are doomed if any of the terrible choices ends up in the White House, with only Kasich looking really decent as things stand now, but he is too experienced and too straight laced, unwilling to act nuts, as so many of them do.
I will be writing a lot more about all this over time, of course, as the future of the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, is at stake in the Presidential election of 2016!
Professor said:
I can understand your cynicism about politics and parties, and I have some of that on my own, BUT history tells me that the Democratic Party offers the better alternative by far, especially since the time of Ronald Reagan.
Further back, it could be argued that the GOP often had outstanding leaders, Governors and Senators, but now their party is pitiful, with a terrible group of potential candidates.
——————-
I quite agree with that. Even if I disagree with a specific policy by a Democratic politician, I realize they are the better alternative.