Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.

Donate

No cajolery could make our senior senator foretell Boom Island reveal

There’s little to no suspense about what Minnesota’s own senior senator, Amy Klobuchar, is going to announce Sunday. It will be a shock if she doesn’t announce her candidacy for the Democratic 2020 presidential nomination, and she’s entitled to do in the time, place and manner of her own choosing, which apparently will be Sunday at a 1 p.m. event at Boom Island Park, across the Mississippi River from downtown Minneapolis.

Not even liberal stalwart Rachel Maddow‘s best cajolery could induce Klobe to officially end the suspense any sooner when she interviewed the senator in the post-State of the Union coverage on MSNBC Tuesday night. (Clip below.)

In commenting on the speech, Klobuchar said Trump did a good job of praising some of the heroes and heroines in the audience, like World War II vets, but ended: “We need someone in the White House who’s a hero for our time.”

When Maddow all but pleaded for Klobuchar to end the suspense over her own plans, the senator told her to come to Boom Island on Sunday, and dress warm. If you want to watch Klobuchar resist Maddow’s blandishments, the five-minute clip of their exchange is embedded below.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (40)

  1. Submitted by Bob Barnes on 02/07/2019 - 08:55 am.

    She has no chance of winning a national election. IF she announces a run, she will likely be just like Pawlenty’s last Presidential run…an early washout.

  2. Submitted by Paul Yochim on 02/07/2019 - 09:24 am.

    She won’t even get as far as Michelle Bachmann. Why is she wasting her (and the people of Minnesota who elected her) time?

  3. Submitted by Paul Scott on 02/07/2019 - 09:25 am.

    Update needed.

    Story idea: If it’s really an open secret that she’s the worst boss in Washington, as is now being reported, why didn’t the local press ever once say so?

    • Submitted by Pat Brady on 02/07/2019 - 09:45 am.

      The Huff Post aritcle show that right out the the gate, she faces criticism as a tough woman boss who has high standards.
      Our local press would see this as a given. It is what we demand of our Senators , a high standard a good work ethic.

      • Submitted by Curtis Senker on 02/07/2019 - 10:40 am.

        “Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s Mistreatment Of Staff Scared Off Candidates To Manage Her Presidential Bid”

        https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/amy-klobuchar-abuse-staff-2020_us_5c5a1cb1e4b0871047588649

        Probably lacks context, right?

        • Submitted by Brian Simon on 02/07/2019 - 11:21 am.

          Didn’t stop Trump.

        • Submitted by Pat Brady on 02/07/2019 - 11:40 am.

          I do see the article added more context from earlier one I read this morning: the contrast of MN nice and being demanding boss. LOL
          Here in MN , one can be MN nice and still be a boss who has high standards, whether in business, labor, farming or government.
          Thanks for for providing the updated link.

      • Submitted by B. Dalager on 02/07/2019 - 05:58 pm.

        For me it has been hard to glean how much of it is real and how much is “woman boss with standards and consequences.” From an anecdotal HR perspective I’d put it at 65/35.

        The “public flogging” element was the one I’d heard the most about. It’s a terrible management technique and tends to breed fear of failure. But it’s also pretty common in government, and people overcome the effects because of the mission. There are always people who decide it isn’t worth it to be treated like garbage, and they move on.

      • Submitted by Paul Scott on 02/08/2019 - 03:43 pm.

        Please Minnesota liberals do not think we have to run to the defense of Amy Klobuchar and say patently unappealing ideas, like bullying your staff is normal and does not affect your ability to get things done. It does.

    • Submitted by richard owens on 02/07/2019 - 09:49 am.

      Good question! I have a couple of hunches:

      1) The Republican character assassins weren’t ready to go public with their Amy daggers

      2) She is a perfectionist and actually IS demanding to work for.

      Imagine this is all a dream. Americans get a President so sloppy and careless with facts, traditions, schedules and institutional demands that the exact opposite candidate appears!

      That could be the best argument yet for actual divine intervention.

  4. Submitted by Curtis Senker on 02/07/2019 - 09:42 am.

    “We need someone in the White House who’s a hero for our time.”

    Trump’s got nothing on her in the blowhard department, does he?…sheesh.

    • Submitted by Pat Brady on 02/07/2019 - 09:56 am.

      You forgot to add the context around the sentence you quoted.
      Context is everything in a n interview.
      Senator Amy is spot on during that 5 minute interview of her reaction to Trump’s State of the Union speech.

    • Submitted by Marc Post on 02/07/2019 - 10:46 am.

      The right accuses Amy of being a blowhard now… What a joke.

      At least she doesn’t have bone spurs.

    • Submitted by ian wade on 02/08/2019 - 12:44 am.

      Well, she hasn’t said that she could could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose voters, so I’d say she’s got quite a few rungs to climb on the “blowhard” ladder to reach the level of your guy.

  5. Submitted by scott gibson on 02/07/2019 - 09:52 am.

    While I actually hope she chooses to remain just being our senator, I don’t feel the folks commenting so far are realistic in their assessment of her chances. I don’t think they would vote for any Democrat, regardless of who it may be.

  6. Submitted by James Hamilton on 02/07/2019 - 11:05 am.

    I suspect this is not a serious run for the nomination but an attempt to position herself for the vice-presidential nomination when an East or West coast candidate wins the endorsement. She’s only 56, so she can afford the long game.

    That said, I won’t support her for either position though I likely will vote for the Democratic ticket if Trump is in the race.

  7. Submitted by Betsy Larey on 02/07/2019 - 11:11 am.

    My friend worked for her campaign when she first ran. He said she was very demanding, but damn smart. He has gone on to a big time law firm in DC. His comment to me was, would we be having this discussion if she was a man? The answer is of course not! Here we go again. I hope the press mentions that as often as possible

    • Submitted by Todd Hintz on 02/07/2019 - 11:53 am.

      Betsy hit the nail on the head. If it were a man in this position, people would be saying he’s a shrewd leader who knows how to run a team.

      Instead, people put her leadership skills under a microscope and question if she’s too hard and demanding on people. The double standard is so thick you could cut it with a knife. But use a spoon so you can get every drop!

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 02/07/2019 - 12:45 pm.

      I recommend you read the HuffPost article. It raises the same questions about sexism, but it also points out that she has the third-highest staff turnover in Congress.

      This will become the “But her emails!” of 2020. Never mind that the Goniff-in-Chief was (is) a much worse boss, the staff questions will dominate all coverage.

  8. Submitted by Henry Johnson on 02/07/2019 - 12:10 pm.

    If it’s true, and I suspect there is probably at least some truth in it, and Amy’s a critical, hard to please manager with the staff, that’s an obvious negative that counts against her to some degree.

    However, I’m thinking that if you look hard enough at any candidate you’re going to find some negatives, so I think it would be a mistake to say, okay, this one’s out..

    I have to laugh at the republicans on this board making a big deal out of those reports though, there are dozens of reports from former staff, and we can see ourselves from his angry, unhinged tweets that their hero Trump is perhaps the nastiest, hardest to work for individual anyone has ever seen, and the staff turnover shows that as well.

    On the positive side, you hear many reports that in terms of interfacing with Republicans senators, Klobuchar is pretty easy to work with, and more bipartisan than most.

    I think that matters more than how she relates to her staff, although if it’s true, I think she should just admit it as a mistake and a flaw, and make a real effort to change her ways in that regard.

    I also have to laugh at the Republicans on the board complaining about how she treated Brett Kavanaugh during his senate hearings.

    Give me a break, I watched the interview, her questions were polite and relevant, it’s not her fault he didn’t want to answer anything but softball questions!

    I think he was the one who treated her badly, with his truculent, spoiled frat-boy “It’s not me, it’s you!” attitude, and ultimately his refusal to answer simple and relevant questions.

    When she politely asked him if he had ever blacked-out from drinking, he could have just calmly said ‘No’, and that would be it.

    However, he didn’t, he started attacking her – why? because he didn’t want to be on record admitting the truth, which is probably that he knows damn well that he blacked out on numerous occasions.

    His attacking of her was just a way to avoid answering the question – so we have a supreme court justice with the emotional maturity of a 20 year old, dishonest frat-boy. And republicans consider that a ‘victory’.

    She handled herself calmly and professionally, he came off as a spoiled brat with a crappy, entitled attitude.

    It’s not for no reason that professional legal associations came out after watching his performance in those hearings and reversed their support for him – not because of believing allegations of sexual abuse against him, but because of the partisan, and immature way he handled himself.

    As for the being hard to work for claim with Klobuchar, again, it’s comical that the people who support Trump are okay with his non-stop lying, the access hollywood video, multiple affairs with multiple mistresses while his wife was pregnant, paying them hush money (and lying about doing it), his treasonous kissing-up to Putin, saying and doing just what a Russian ‘asset’ would do, undermining Nato by saying its “obsolete’, his laziness, – I’ll stop there, the list would take a few hours to write.

    Let’s just say It’s a VERY LOW BAR to find someone better than the guy they think is so great, and he has so many mountain-sized flaws,that it’s comical to hear supporters criticize other candidates for far, far less serious drawbacks.

  9. Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 02/07/2019 - 12:16 pm.

    Can anyone explain to me why she is a Senator, or what she has done that she thinks she could be President? Is it because she is milquetoast and otherwise unobjectionable? Or because there was never a war, corporation or bank that she wouldn’t support over economics for working people and environmental health?

    Another neoliberal shade of Clintonite virtue-signaling identity politics, to go with Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillebrand. Heirs of Saint Obama; must we only vote for Presidents who speak for the people but serve only the elite?

    • Submitted by scott gibson on 02/07/2019 - 01:08 pm.

      She may, in fact, be guilty of eveything you claim. You choose her or someone like her because you want to WIN the election. A push for purity will get you four more years of the current occupant. Would you prefer that?

      • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 02/07/2019 - 02:14 pm.

        Pushing for actual progressive results is not purity. It’s an expectation that we need leaders who will move us toward an economy that actually serves people, rather than the people serving the economy.

        Letting the Democratic party continue it’s rightward drift in search of center that keeps drifting right will only lead to someone worse than Don Trump. The next Trump will be competent as well as be able to read a book and focus for more than a few moments.

        If you don’t think the Democrats have drifted rightward, ask yourself why Ronald Reagan’s Justice Dept. put S & L crooks in jail, but Obama’s JD didn’t even think about charging even one such crook.

        We don’t have to accept the Overton Window as it currently is.

        • Submitted by Paul Yochim on 02/07/2019 - 05:49 pm.

          We need a government that serves the people as well, not a populace that serves the government. These politicians have become celebrities and folk heroes.

    • Submitted by William Stahl on 02/07/2019 - 01:14 pm.

      Amy Klobuchar started her third term as Senator and has been elected easily each time with increasing margins. She is the most popular politician in Minnesota. There are reasons for this. She has an extensive public record that is not hard to look up. I suggest you do a do some research beyond your own echo chamber. Ask some questions beyond the “Have you quit beating your husband ” variety that you pose here.

    • Submitted by Howard Miller on 02/07/2019 - 02:11 pm.

      Amy Klobuchar won 2 state-wide elections to serve in the US Senate.

      That’s all the formal reason she needs to serve. Beyond that, she cares about the well-being of Minnesota and Americans, seeks to ensure our safety, freedom and bright future using policies that don’t just cut taxes for rich folks, while shredding the social safety net the rest of us need. Tough boss? Worse things happen. Corrupted boss? Not Amy. Should she be elected president, she’ll replace the most corrupt mean cuss ever to darken the White House door. That would be most welcome. Maybe she’ll learn to lighten up with her staff management methods

    • Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 02/07/2019 - 05:28 pm.

      I remind Mr. Duncan that the probable opposition candidate for Senator Amy Klobuchar–should she be the Democratic candidate in 2020–would be the supremely unqualified-for-President, Donald J. Trump!

      No argument of “what’s she done?” or “How is this woman qualified?” holds any water when the comparison is with Trump. Puleeez.

      Plus, just because she’s highly intelligent, quiet and well-spoken, and doesn’t spend her time vilifying everybody, doesn’t mean she’s not up to the Presidency.

      Au contraire, mon ami!

      Besides, Amy Klobuchar just got re-elected to her third six-year term as a senator. She can run for president in primaries, at least, without jeopardizing that power position. And, I am one of those who believe her smart performance in repeated instances on the Judiciary Committee, where she’s next to Diane Feinstein Democratic seniority I believe, show that she’s ;in a power position there and in the US Senate as a whole; Minnesotans have a win-win with Senator Klobuchar this time around.

    • Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 02/08/2019 - 09:45 am.

      That is a lot of responses to my query, amounting on the whole to…vote for her because she isn’t Trump, it doesn’t matter what she really stands for.

      That is why I cannot and will not vote for any Dem anymore, until such time as Dems walk some kind of talk that is more than “inclusion” and “tolerance”, specifically, how do we renew economics for working people, how do we hold corp, bank, billionaire and the war/security/surveillance machine accountable, how do we heal the earth and people and America from the ravages of war and consumerism.

      All I hear from Ms Klobuchar is, well, next to nothing except more of the same war and consumerism.

  10. Submitted by Jon Ruff on 02/07/2019 - 03:24 pm.

    Personally, I look forward to her term as Senate Majority Leader; though I’d vote for her Presidential efforts.

  11. Submitted by Tom Christensen on 02/07/2019 - 04:03 pm.

    If she is demanding with the staff that is okay as long as she is working for her constituents, which she is. Republicans have no room for comment. All they have to do is look at individual 1 who eviscerates people at will just because he can’t control himself and he is serving no one, but himself.

  12. Submitted by Frank Phelan on 02/07/2019 - 06:00 pm.

    If a supervisor berates an underling in front of the rest of the staff, that is a serious sign of disrespect, and it it bullying. Competent and tough managers know there are better ways of handling under-performers. Tough and respectful are not mutually exclusive.

    If there are many politicians, both male and female who are like this, why is turn over so high for Klob’s staff? And why would 3 people turn down working for her now?

    These may not exclude her from the White House. But they are reasonable considerations. Individual #1 is a terrible manager, and he’s got a team of back benchers to show for it.

  13. Submitted by Tom Anderson on 02/10/2019 - 10:44 pm.

    I hope the author will remember how I begged him to ask the Senator if she would be running for President since voters might have wanted to know if they were electing a part-time Senator. No such luck. To be fair, I begged Lori S. over at the Strib to ask the same question, and again, no dice. This campaign will be over by the end of March 2020 but it takes time away from the Senator’s first job (supporting things that nobody is against) representing ALL Minnesotans in the United States Senate.

Leave a Reply