Home / General / Presidential Ambitions In A Democratic Senator Are A Good Thing

Presidential Ambitions In A Democratic Senator Are A Good Thing

On August 14, 2013

At 11:43 am

In General

421 Views

I’m afraid I must dissent from my colleague’s post below on a couple points. I certainly I agree that Booker will be a self-aggrandizing blowhard, although a few noble exceptions aside for a United States Senator the description approaches tautology. Based on what little I know, I wouldn’t have voted for him in the primary if I was a New Jersey voter. But 1)really, let’s not forget what a colossal asshole Joe Lieberman was; Booker will never approach that level. And 2)presidential ambitions are a good thing. Even if he has no core beliefs, having presidential ambitions will mean that he will vote pretty much a straight Democratic line. (He may be many things, but he’s not dumb, and I think he saw how Lieberman’s strategy of running for the Democratic nomination on the platform of how much you hate Democrats worked out.)

Could New Jersey Democrats do better? I’m sure, although they can also do worse (and note that actual plutocrat scam artist with no core beliefs Jon Corzine was one of the most liberal votes in the Senate.) The McCain comparison is in a sense a good one — for all is reputation for “reasonableness,” McCain (apart from a brief period when he was motivated by personal animus against George W. Bush) never voted against his party on any vote that meant anything. That’s what senators with presidential ambitions do. Booker will be an annoyance, but he won’t be Lieberman.

…to expand a bit on something I said in comments, I think the core of the disagreement is that I think the extent of Booker’s concern trolling is being exaggerated. He’s not Zell Miller or Harold Ford. He’s more like Chuck Schumer or Joe Biden — a fairly standard issue moderate liberal Democrat who’s overly protective of the local plutocrats. That’s not admirable; I’d prefer Elizabeth Warren. But if I’m going to be sold on the idea that he’s some kind of unique threat to the Democratic Party, I’d like someone to name one issue on which he’s to the right of the prohibitive frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2016.

sven

“having presidential ambitions will mean that he will vote pretty much a straight Democratic line”

I suspect that there are many Democrats who think the road to success is paved with Sensible Centrism and doing favors for future donors.
- Anonymous
  
  They should give Lieberman and Harold Ford a call.
  - sharculese
    
    Ford, I’ll give you, but by what measure was Lieberman not successful?
    - sharculese
      
      Unless, as I just realized is probable and obvious, you’re referring to the narrow issue of Presidenting. Taken back.
      - Brien Jackson
        
        And really, Lieberman didn’t really accomplish anything within Democratic politics other than getting a fairly meaningless (and very much unique) VP nomination.
        
        Scott Lemieux
        
        And not only was his presidential campaign an instant punchline, under the rules of most states he would have been removed of his duties as Senator in 2006.
        
        Nick
        
        I think he was pretty important in pushing for wars and the creation of the DHS.
        
        djw
        
        Why? Do you really think that if there had been a generic D senator from CT, either Bush war or the DHS would have been less likely to occur/be created?
        
        Brien Jackson
        
        It also has nothing to do with his level of personal achievement.
    - Brien Jackson
      
      Running for President.
      - sharculese
        
        Yeah, as I said above, that was my reading comprehension fail.
      - Jonas
        
        Hey, he did finish in a three-way tie for fourth!
        
        elm
        
        Actually, it was three way split decision for third, which remains the best ever spin after a crushing political defeat I’ve ever heard. It was also Saleten’s finest moment as a columnist when Lieberman dropped out a week later and Saleten wrote his “Joebituary,” saying, “Joe revoir, Joe. Joerivederci. Hasta Joe Vista. … There is no Joe in Mudville.””
    - Joshua
      
      Lieberman lost a Democratic primary, if you remember. It’s why his final term was as an Independent.
      - Brien Jackson
        
        That too. And he probably wouldn’t have won another term after endorsing McCain in 2008.
      - sharculese
        
        And then he beat Lamont in the general by almost double digits. I don’t think that counts.
        
        Brien Jackson
        
        But we’re talking about internal Democratic politics, so the general election results aren’t terribly important.
        
        sharculese
        
        I just realized we’re not on the same page, because I was treating Getting to Be a Senator as an end in and of itself. Yours is a fair point.
        
        JKTHs
        
        That was more due to the Republicans running (almost literally) an empty suit in the general.
      - UserGoogol
        
        And it’s also worth keeping in mind that most states (I believe including New Jersey) don’t let you do what Lieberman did.
  - Brien Jackson
    
    ^ Me.
- Joshua
  
  I really don’t see the Democratic voter base becoming more eager for Blue Dogs over the next couple decades… especially as the GOP becomes more and more extremist.
  
  I voted for Rush Holt in the primary but I’ll happily support Booker in the general election.
  - Another Holocene Human
    
    Booker’s no angel but I’m not jumping on the hate bandwagon until there’s evidence of Cuomo family or Filner level vileness.
  - sven
    
    “I really don’t see the Democratic voter base becoming more eager for Blue Dogs over the next couple decades…”
    
    There is a large difference between wanting something and being willing to accept something. Republicans have a proven willingness to risk losing elections in order to stamp out any sign of apostasy. They want extremely conservative candidates and aren’t willing to accept something less. Democrats may want more liberal candidates but aren’t willing to risk losing elections to get them. I think this reality is clear when we look at the behavior of Democratic politicians. They evince little fear when it comes to embracing rival interest groups (see the ed “reform” movement or spouses on various corporate boards) despite perceptions on the left.
    - Panda
      
      This might be true on the senatorial level, but in the last two presidential primaries, the republican primary voters went for the most electable candidate, after he committed to a base pleasing platform. If this how Booker fares in 2024, I can live with that.
      - tt
        
        That wasn’t some conscious choice by the Republican collective. Both times, the establishment candidate won because the crazies split the vote.
- Dilan Esper
  
  Yeah, it wasn’t that long ago when most of the Democratic Senators with presidential ambitions supported the Iraq War.
  - Brien Jackson
    
    When was this?
    - Another Holocene Human
      
      Clinton and Kerry didn’t stand in the way, that was considered tantamount to support by the base… I wrote in Randall in the primary.
    - Dilan Esper
      
      When the Congress voted to authorize it.
  - Scott Lemieux
    
    And surely had only Clinton and Kerry voted against the war the whole thing could have been stopped.
    - Another Holocene Human
      
      It was demotivating in that even Dem leadership wasn’t sticking up for the base’s values or even some basic fucking sense … the Dems got their mojo back opposing the war vocally.
      
      I’m almost glad it happened because the warpigs have been chastened by the ballot.
      - Brien Jackson
        
        The public really showed them by handing the Republicans that crushing midterm defeat in 2002, huh?
        
        Mark Field
        
        Huh? The Iraq War didn’t start until March 2003.
        
        Brien Jackson
        
        So the public had no awareness of Bush’s desire to invade Iraq in November 2002, then?
        
        efgoldman
        
        So the public had no awareness of Bush’s desire to invade Iraq in November 2002, then?
        
        If by “the public” you mean political bloggers and the folks who read and comment on their blogs, they/we did. If you mean the real wide public, this is the same polity that believed, and largely still believes, that Saddam/Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
        
        Brien Jackson
        
        Huh? They bought the Saddam/9-11 link Bush made up but didn’t know Republicans wanted to invade Iraq?
        
        Mark Field
        
        Not really, no. Bush was selling the AUMF as a means of getting Saddam to let the inspectors back in [sic]. Many Dem Senators were saying that too. Sure there were those of us who didn’t believe that, but I can’t say the US public didn’t.
        
        Besides, there’s a huge difference between a war that hasn’t happened and one that has. Only in the second case can we say that the voters are punishing those responsible.
        
        Brien Jackson
        
        That’s laughable, but even if we cede it it doesn’t prove I’m wrong in the slightest. Anyone with enough of a pulse to cast a ballot in 2002 knew that Bush wanted the AUMF against Iraq, that there was a good chance Bush would order an invasion of Iraq, and there was ample amount of time for public opposition to manifest itself in off-year electoral victory that Democrats should have been realizing anyway. Instead, Republicans won a very atypical midterm victory by riding their Daddy Party credentials in the wake of 9/11 and Bush got re-elected two years after that.
    - sven
      
      This is precisely the point. Democratic politicians with aspirations of higher office quite frequently move to the center. I’m not endorsing their judgment (morally or politically) or arguing that it is always true. I just don’t see the evidence that ambition ties Democratic politicians more closely to their base.
      - Brien Jackson
        
        Except the Iraq War vote in 2002 simply doesn’t show us that in any way, shape, or form. And it’s salience as an issue was completely dead by the time January 2003 came along.
        
        Dilan Esper
        
        Of course it does. The vote itself was right wing (authorizing Bush and Cheney to murder Iraqis), and clearly at least some people, like Kerry, cast it to preserve their presidential aspirations in 2004.
        
        Brien Jackson
        
        That seems like a very wrong analysis of motive: Democrats cast that vote because a) they had no chance of stopping the war anyway, b) they feared that opposing the war would have meant an even worse electoral defeat in 2002. I don’t think the 2004 primary had anything to do with it.
        
        Dilan Esper
        
        Bill Clinton trumpeted his support of the first Gulf War in 1992. And Kerry trashed Howard Dean on national security in 2004. Further, there was a ton of reporting at the time (EASILY googled) that the vote was in part about the 2004 election.
        
        At any rate, I think “they had no chance of stopping the war anyway” is absolutely immoral reasoning. I understand you can’t stop things just by voting against them, but the idea that this justifies voting to authorize Bush and Cheney to murder people is completely offensive.
        
        Nathanael
        
        It wasn’t even good politics.
        
        Voting for the Iraq War just goes down as a mark of shame: either a mark of cowardice, or of venality, or of stupidity.
        
        Voting the correct way may cost you a few points in the polls at the next election, but at the election AFTER that, you can come roaring back with the “I was the one who knew better!” campaign, and THAT sells BIG-TIME.
    - Dilan Esper
      
      And surely had only Clinton and Kerry voted against the war the whole thing could have been stopped.
      
      I don’t exactly understand what the point of that comment is. That it’s OK to vote to authorize murder of foreigners so long as you don’t cast the deciding vote? Much of the time, there is no deciding vote.
      
      The point I was making is that presidential ambitions can just as easily cause Democratic senators to move right rather than left. Kerry is a clear example of this. (I am not actually sure that Hillary was all that liberal to begin with on military policy. Kerry, however, was.)
      
      Is your claim that because there’s no deciding vote, voting to authorize Bush and Cheney to murder Iraqis does not constitute a right wing vote?
      
      Your comment is just weird and non-responsive.
      - Scott Lemieux
        
        I’m not saying it’s OK; indeed, I favored Obama in the 2008 primaries because I didn’t want Clinton to benefit from it. But wars aren’t really relevant examples of the political incentives faced by members of Congress because they play a subordinate role in the process.
        
        Brien Jackson
        
        And in any case, this proves exactly the theory you articulated, just with respect to the general election: Democrats who probably didn’t favor the war nonetheless cast a meaningless vote for it because it was clear that was what the electoral atmosphere called for at the time. So even if we take this at face value…it merely proves that any Democrat who wants to become President is going to be forced into taking positions that leave them palatable to Democratic primary voters (not to be confused with the tiny faction of internet dwellers who like to imagine that they’re The Base).
Bill Murray

I imagine someday we will hear the refrain, Booker, he’s with us on everything but Wall Street.
Philip

It seems to be another example of the Feinstein principle, though (conservative states elect conservative senators, liberal states elect Dianne Feinstein). New Jersey is no California, maybe, but it can do much, much better.
- Scott Lemieux
  
  I don’t even see evidence that Booker is as bad as Feinstein, frankly. He seems like Biden or Schumer — a moderate liberal overly protective of the local plutocrats.
  - Brien Jackson
    
    Yeah, you can’t really examine New Jersey Democrats independent of the state’s financial industry, just like you can’t examine, say, Maryland Democrats independent of Perdue chicken.
    - njorl
      
      The biggest business in the state of Maryland is not Purdue, it’s the federal government.
      - Brien Jackson
        
        True, but unlike the federal government, Perdue could conceivably relocate their operations.
      - Jordan
        
        It would indeed be pretty surprising if Purdue was the biggest business in the state of Maryland.
  - Glenn
    
    Yeah, I’d classify him as a more camera-hogging version of Schumer. Assuming that is possible, of course.
    - njorl
      
      He’s like Chuck Schumer with a pulse.
  - Warren Terra
    
    Booker generally reminds me very strongly of Schumer: attention-seeking, apparently sincere in his abject devotion to Wall Street, not all that enthused by the poor, otherwise smart and talented – except for this ludicrous and apparently completely corrupt “start-up” of his. That genuinely bugs and worries me; what if he’s too greedy, or dumb?
    - Darkrose
      
      While there are plenty of dumb people who went to Stanford, I’ve yet to see any evidence that Booker is not intelligent.
      - Warren Terra
        
        I’d have thought so, but the whole startup scam has this too-clever-by-half type of stupidity about it that you see the intelligent and educated falling into.
        
        commie atheist
        
        Josh Marshall’s TPM called it a “ridiculous tech start-up,” which a spokeperson for the company objected to, in spite of the fact that they have already laid off people and lost their pricey Manahattan office space:
        
        Clarke pointed out that the company is still in beta testing, that it has created a proprietary technology allowing users to “assemble video collections using videos from anywhere on the Web,” and that the website’s number of registered users is up to 29,000.
        
        “So thanks in advance for removing the word ‘ridiculous’ from the headline, as it is inaccurate and has no basis in fact or support from the content in your post,” Clarke wrote.
    - Jordan
      
      Actually, the one thing that Booker does seem to care about is poverty.
      - Warren Terra
        
        But at a policy level?
        
        Jordan
        
        Well, the proof will be in the pudding, of course. But I would be surprised if Booker isn’t to the left of the median Democratic senator on poverty issues (narrowly construed: he will be to the right on education, and probably on unions in general, etc).
      - Jay C
        
        Well, being Mayor of Newark, Cory Booker had plenty of poverty to see without having to go very far. IIRC, Newark (and the Jersey Bank of the Hudson) has a lot of Wall Street/FIRE-sector “back-office” jobs, and NJ in general is dependent to some extent on said industry for tax revenue (though not to the crippling degree NYC is) – it would be nice to have an Elizabeth Warren type in there, but Booker was never going to want bite the hand that pays him too badly. A shame, but there ya go….
        
        Jordan
        
        Yes, like virtually all politicians around NYC, Booker gets along with the financial millionaire crowd. Not sure what that has to do with his anti-poverty stances.
      - joe from Lowell
        
        Corey Booker started a free legal clinic in New Haven.
        
        He’s not even from Newark. He moved there because his interest in government service revolved around the issues of the inner city.
        
        Jordan
        
        That isn’t really true. He grew up in a small place pretty close to Newark. He’s “not from Newark” in the sense that people who grow up in a suburb aren’t from the relevant city.
        
        But otherwise, yes.
        
        joe from Lowell
        
        I guarantee you, people Harrington Park don’t say they’re from Newark. They probably don’t like it if other people say they are.
        
        Going from the suburbs to the inner city is a BFD, even if it’s a nearby inner city.
        
        He could have moved back to Harrington Park and run for state rep, but he didn’t. He want to Newark, served as a lawyer for a social service group, and then ran for city council.
        
        Jordan
        
        That is all true. If anything, I’m trying to support your position: It wasn’t like he parachuted into the place from Stanford/the Ivies.
  - Johnny Sack
    
    Funny, I was going to say just that-I also think he’ll be kind of like Schumer. A quasi-liberal corporate shill who never met a camera he didn’t like. And like Schumer, more of an attention whore than the average Senator. Still, we could do worse. Big missed opportunity in Rush Holt, I think, but that wasn’t realistic.
- Bill S Preston Esq
  
  Honestly, California is no California. There’s a huge, often terrifyingly red state outside of the gay bay and SoCal. Hell, Darrell fucking Issa represents part of OC. California: not as liberal as people think, and more than two cities. Also gave us two of our worst presidents, lest anyone forget.
  - Darkrose
    
    Yeah, in Sacramento you’re pretty much ten minutes in any direction from parts of the state that make you think you’re driving through Alabama.
  - Vance Maverick
    
    True enough, but the proportions have shifted. Dems finally have 2/3ds majorities in Sacramento, and things are moving.
    - Scott Lemieux
      
      It’s also true of virtually every state except Maine and Vermont so I don’t really know what this means.
      - PSP
        
        Maine definitely has its redneck conservative hinterland. Perkins Cove to Wiscasset will give you a very wrong impression. Note the current governor.
        
        On the other hand, I think the wing nuts in Vermont move to New Hamster to avoid taxes.
ploeg

Joe Lieberman’s problem was that he let his ego lead him around by the nose. Dirty hippies did not coddle Joe’s ego as much as Joe’s buddies on the Republican side of the Senate chamber did, and everything follows from there.

Naturally, people with outsized egos are attracted to the Presidency, which is why Joe ran (briefly). So having presidential ambitions does not automatically make you less annoying or more loyal to the party. On the other side, to run successfully (unlike Joe), you need some amount of ego suppression to attract the dollars and votes that you need. Booker will be annoying because he will do what he thinks is necessary to attract sufficient dollars from his friends in lower Manhattan, but at least at this point, Booker can suppress his ego enough to do what must be done. Lieberman was never able to do that.
- Aimai
  
  Its important to remember that what your intentions are, politically, as a young man are not the same as your intentions late in life. Lieberman absolutely might have run as a really good Democrat except that he got slapped back with the Gore loss and then became embittered. Also: the political world had passed him by and his good deeds and political activism were all long gone.
  - Warren Terra
    
    Excerpt Lieberman threw in the towel on Gore’s Presidential bid long before anyone else, grandstanding about how invalid military absentee ballots desired by the Bush camp must be accepted even as the Bushies blocked military absentee ballots from poor black and brown enlisted men.
    - politicalfootball
      
      Lieberman was also a prick before the Gore loss. He made a big show of denouncing Bill Clinton from the Senate floor, for example.
      - efgoldman
        
        Did Holy Joe vote to convict Clenis? I don’t remember, and I’m too lazy to look it up.
        
        Scott Lemieux
        
        Of course not. Also, he wasn’t alone in denouncing Clinton; Wellstone, among many others, did too. Lieberman is certainly a moralistic douche but the impeachment isn’t the best example.
- Warren Terra
  
  “briefly”? He ran for President at least from early November 2000 to January 2004, possibly longer, and ran for Vice President in 2000 and 2008, possibly other times as well.
max

But 1)really, let’s not forget what a colossal asshole Joe Lieberman was; Booker will never approach that level.

We’ll see about that. The dude did go a *long* way out his way to attack Democrats from the right in middle of presidential election season, which is classic Holy Joe.

Hey, I stayed shut for the duration, so I’m not sure why he got a walk. Actually, I am sure – he got a walk because he sucks up to Wall Street.

max
[‘If he keeps up that particular habit, then I think your assessment will turn out to be wrong.’]
- Another Holocene Human
  
  I thought the whole episode was pretty funny, myself. Don’t think it hurt the Democrats or Obama.
  
  Hedgies supported Obama in ’08, then got pissy with him even though he saved the fucking economy. No pleasing some people.
  - witless chum
    
    Well, the Republicans did run one of their tribe for the presidency. The financial industry were probably the only people in the country to look at Mitt Romney with any sort of excitement.
  - quercus
    
    Well it doesn’t seem that hard to figure out: Hedgies do really want the economy saved; they make less money in a Depression. But once that’s taken care of, then they want tax cuts for the rich. Don’t confuse greed with personal support and loyalty.
    
    (Sure, within the financial plutocracy, there’s personal loyalty, but only within it, and only to the extent that the same CEO whose giant pay raise you approved does or possibly will someday sit on the board that approves your pay. Pres Obama doesn’t fit the bill]
- C.S
  
  The dude did go a *long* way out his way to attack Democrats from the right in middle of presidential election season, which is classic Holy Joe.
  
  Exactly. There are a ton of people with presidential ambitions. Many of them are Democratic elected officials. Many of that sub-group (but, yes, less than we would like) get put on the teevee to talk about their views. Out of all of those people, only Booker went out of his way to attack the sitting president of his own party. I’m willing to suspend a little bit of belief, but not that much. I think at this point he bears the burden of showing that he is not Holy Joe redux.
  - Gregor Sansa
    
    Apparently that burden is not enough to keep him from being nominated.
    
    I don’t trust him any farther than I could throw him either. But let’s not pretend he cares about us.
- PSP
  
  We are talking about a guy that had a lot of people telling him he could be the first black president. There has got to be some degree of bitterness there.
wengler

I don’t see what’s so especially bad with Booker that is not also what’s wrong with the Democratic leadership in Washington. They suck up to Wall Street and labor unions to get money and volunteers, but only keep their promises to the former.

Until DC stops being corporate-occupied territory, it doesn’t matter if it’s Booker or Obama or even a critic like Elizabeth Warren, since anybody against the corporate agenda for America can easily be isolated.
- TribalistMeathead
  
  Me neither. And I’m not sure what the difference is between complaining about Booker being pro-corporations and complaining about Obama not supporting single-payer.
  - Erik Loomis
    
    Because Obama had to get a bill passed through a hostile Senate and Booker is openly pro-corporation without any particular pressure to do so?
    - Glenn
      
      True, but why single out Booker? Is there anyone in the Senate currently who is not “pro-corporation”? Obviously there are degrees but we’re talking a pretty narrow band here.
      - Nathanael
        
        Sanders. Warren.
    - TribalistMeathead
      
      Sorry, one of my usual inarticulate posts.
      
      I don’t understand what the difference is between criticizing Obama for being insufficiently liberal and criticizing Booker for being insufficiently liberal.
      - JL
        
        To me, at least, there’s a difference between what I expect from a national politician vs a state/local one. I’m in Massachusetts, for instance. I expect us (in state elections and liberal congressional districts) to elect strong liberals (we seem to have been doing well on that since the screwup with Scott Brown). New Jersey is a pretty blue state, one that seems like it ought to be able to elect strong liberals (though I have less of a sense of it and may be wrong here). I don’t expect the country as a whole to be able to elect people as liberal as the ones I support at home (and I don’t expect red states to be able to elect people who are as liberal as the national party).
        
        Nathanael
        
        New Jersey is a really weird state, politically. I try to avoid commenting on it because I don’t understand it.
        
        Until recently it was the state with some of the *oldest* US Senators.
        
        Its politicians routinely get approval ratings in the low 40s *if they’re popular*, and can easily get re-elected with approval ratings *far* worse than that. This doesn’t happen in most states. Apparently “better the devil you know” is the general view in New Jersey, and it certainly isn’t the general view in most parts of the country.
- L2P
  
  Isn’t the “suck up to Wall Street” faction a pretty small minority of the Democrats in the Senate? I can’t think of more than 10 or so that won’t back financial regulation and those 10 are more likely to vote with Warren then any Republican on those issues.
  - politicalfootball
    
    This is correct. When some folks talk about “The Democratic Party,” they are generally talking about the 10-20% of the Democratic Party that is most rightwing.
    - Davis X. Machina
      
      Except for the people who are talking about the 10-20% of the party that is most left-wing, and call it ‘the base’ in the process.
      
      In Europe, you fight the election, then form the coalition, then govern.
      In America, you form the coalition, then fight the election, then govern.
      - Arla
        
        Hooray, single member plurality systems!
  - Nathanael
    
    In practice, the “suck up to Wall Street” faction is much larger than that, because its numbers are inflated by the members of the “Do anything to the country, but do not remove the Most Holy Filibuster” faction. That is the faction which I have the most contempt for.
Hayden Arse

Why all the Booker hate? I love this guy’s Putin-esque ability to have a camera crew around when he saves someone from a burning house or rescues a dog. I can’t wait to see the next stunt: Booker performs CPR on a horse while attending a race at Meadowlands Racetrack (or something similar)!
- witless chum
  
  Yeah, that’s what it was. CPR.
  - Micky Kaus
    
    You CPR one goat, and for the rest of your life…
    - sparks
      
      It’s actually the mouth-to-mouth that people misunderstand.
- rea
  
  It would have to be something suitable to his new role as a senator, like pinch hitting for Bryce Harper.
  - Darkrose
    
    I’d pay good money to see that.
Captain Bringdown

Booker performs CPR on a horse while ~~attending a race~~ riding it to victory at Meadowlands Racetrack, which happens to be on fire at the time.
Chuchundra

The better question is, out of the 54 members of the current US Senate Democratic Caucus, how many of them are actually any good at all. Could you even find a dozen that you actually like or who are significantly better than you think Booker is going to be?

Off the top of my head I can go Franken, Warren, Gillibrand and Sanders? Anyone else?
- Anon21
  
  Don’t forget the awesome Jeff Merkley, Foe of the Filibuster.
  - Nathanael
    
    Tom Harkin for the same reason — opposition to the filibuster. But he’s retiring.
- JTR
  
  Sherrod Brown? Boxer?
  - Nathanael
    
    Neither is reliable; fair-weather friends are better than nothing, though.
- rea
  
  There are a couple of issues on which Carl Levin is less than ideal, but overall, he’s been pretty good.
- Jestak
  
  Both of the Rhode Island senators (Reed and Whitehouse) are very good, as are the already mentioned Merkley and Brown.
  - Nathanael
    
    Agreed with Reed and Whitehouse.
- JustRuss
  
  Ron Wyden is occasionally not terrible, he’s been making noise about NSA for years.
- Jeremy
  
  I haven’t heard much about Tammy Baldwin since her election, but she’s always been a reliable progressive. Same with Ed Markey, I’d imagine.
Johnny Sack

I think he’ll be kind of like Schumer. A quasi-liberal corporate shill who never met a camera he didn’t like. And like Schumer, more of an attention whore than the average Senator. Still, we could do worse. Big missed opportunity in Rush Holt, I think, but that wasn’t realistic.
Bill S Preston Esq

I think he’ll be kind of like Schumer. A quasi-liberal corporate shill who never met a camera he didn’t like. And like Schumer, more of an attention whore than the average Senator. Still, we could do worse. Big missed opportunity in Rush Holt, I think, but that wasn’t realistic.
JRoth

To me the main upside of Booker’s ambitions is that I can’t imagine him staying in the Senate all that long: two terms*, max IMO. By then he’ll be off to run for president or governor or simply to get rich. I don’t think he really wants to be a Senator For Life.

*I haven’t paid enough attention to know how long this upcoming election will cover, so let’s call it 2 6-year terms plus whatever he gets now
- Jordan
  
  The coming election will last until next year, when they have to do it all over again.
- bobbyp
  
  Senator For Life strikes me as a pretty good gig.
- Nathanael
  
  Senator is a terrible platform for becoming President, historically speaking. The 2008 election was a real outlier.
  
  I do wonder if he’ll go for Governor.
JRoth

To Scott’s added question/challenge, I’d be pretty stunned if Booker weren’t to the right of HRC on reproductive rights, as well as pretty much every other women’s issue. And not just because she’s a woman and he’s not, but because she was pretty energetic as Sec’y of State at making women’s rights a major human rights issue worldwide. Whereas I can’t imagine Booker giving a shit, and I can readily imagine him joining in on Saletan-friendly compromises.
- Darkrose
  
  Whereas I can’t imagine Booker giving a shit, and I can readily imagine him joining in on Saletan-friendly compromises.
  
  I can’t. Booker is the good old “fiscally conservative; socially liberal” kind of corporate Democrate who’d be a libertarian if that term hadn’t become associated with the racist, sexist and homophobic Pauls. He’s also not stupid, and he knows damn well that if he wants to get elected in the Northeast as a Democrat, he needs to at least say the right things when it comes to reproductive rights.
  - Jay C
    
    And especially with a re-election campaign looming this time next year (Booker is running to fill the late Sen. Lautenberg’s seat: up in 2014) – he’s not going to want to rock any boats: though the avoidance of a serious primary fight will probably have the effect of him jockeying for even more camera time – oy vey!
- Scott Lemieux
  
  and I can readily imagine him joining in on Saletan-friendly compromises.
  
  Based on what? Even pro-corporate northeastern Democrats are generally stalwart on reproductive rights issues (cf. A. Cuomo.)
- Anon21
  
  Whereas I can’t imagine Booker giving a shit, and I can readily imagine him joining in on Saletan-friendly compromises.
  
  Is this based on anything in particular, other than your personal distaste? Because even being cynical, no one’s going to get the Democratic presidential nod ever again if they don’t have a flawless record on reproductive rights. Even if he truly doesn’t give a shit, signing onto “Saletan-friendly compromises” would put a serious crimp in his hypothetical ambitions.
- Jordan
  
  While Clinton may well be better, there is absolutely no reason to think Booker would support Saletan-friendly abortion compromises.
  
  You could read about it if you want. No weasel words there.
Both Sides Do It

I’d like someone to name one issue on which he’s to the right of the prohibitive frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2016

I’m not sure on either of these, but

– school vouchers

– privatization (he privatized the sanitation department while waving around obviously faulty studies in justification; his efforts to repeatedly privatize the water department are just sad)

It’s true those are things he did in local office, and a wider constituency might alter his views, but I have a hard time thinking Hillary would have done either if she were in Booker’s position.
- Scott Lemieux
  
  You seem to be right on vouchers; Clinton does seem to oppose them.
Johnny Sack

But but there are Special Masters handling cases in the court of federal claims! Never mind that I’m too dumb to know what that means, special master sounds ominous. Liberal fascism conspiracy!
Roger Ailes

We need team names.

Just think how much better the D primary could have been with “Bookerbaggers vs. Holtbots.”
joe from Lowell

All of these comparisons to Schumer, Lieberman, and Ford overlook something that probably matters more to me than to most other people here, for whom all politics is national: Booker was the mayor, and city councilor, of a poor city for a long time. He’s spent most of his public career trying to bring sidewalks, snow plows, and jobs to the residents of a poor inner city.

That doesn’t mean I like him, or wanted him to go to the Senate, but he sure as heck isn’t Joe Lieberman.
- Jordan
  
  Right, this.
- Brien Jackson
  
  I don’t know if anyone mentioned Ford but me, so to be clear, my point was merely that Booker is smart enough to observe that Ford didn’t get himself anywhere in Democratic politics by going on teevee to talk about how awful Democrats are, so I don’t actually foresee Booker doing that if he does want to be President.
  - joe from Lowell
    
    I wasn’t talking about your comment specifically. I’ve seen plenty of people compare him to Ford as a pro-Wall Street, pro-plutocrat Dem, like the Lieberman and Schumer comparisons.
    - Jordan
      
      The Lieberman comparison is stupid. But the Schumer comparison seems better. You are right about his local actions, but I think Schumer is probably a good comparison for how he will act towards Wall Street.
      - joe from Lowell
        
        Schumer’s from NYC, so Wall Street is “his plutocrats.”
        
        Lieberman is from CT, so it was the insurance industry.
        
        Jordan
        
        Right, but Wall Street is also Newark’s “plutocrats,” no?
- Jeremy
  
  “He’s spent most of his public career trying to bring sidewalks, snow plows, and jobs to the residents of a poor inner city.”
  
  Of course, he seems to have been spending his time personally bringing those things, and live-tweeting it, rather than trying to use government policy to achieve those goals on a somewhat larger scale.
  - Jordan
    
    He more or less did both. Why is this a problem?
    - LeeEsq
      
      I don’t get this either. Politicians in a democracy, especially where you vote for a particular candidate rather than a party, need to spend a lot of time promoting themselves because it helps them get elected. Politicians that don’t tend not to go very far.
curiouscliche

This is why Soctt Lemieux is a fucking idiot who should have his keyboard taken away. Seriously, just fucking google it.
- Jordan
  
  Hmmm, googling “Soctt Lemieux is a fucking idiot” doesn’t really help much.
- Arnaud de Borchgrave
  
  “Google” is not actually a word. “Googul” is a word, but “Google” is the name of a business. Therefore, “Google” should always begin with a capital.
  
  I am surprised that someone so obviously literate and cultured as you would make this mistake.
ぶゐゑす

Seem to be used to irritated do well, definitely there isn’t an criminal offenses for the purpose of completing unscripted testimonials etc.. geeze do you want lessen with goodness stakes
Pingback: Iran Deal Gets More Supporters - Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money()