Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Klobuchar was totally on her game during the Fox News town hall

Minnesota’s senior senator, Amy Klobuchar did an hour-long town-hall-style show on Fox News yesterday. Today’s morning Glean led with a reference to it, so I’ll just provide a link for those who want to watch it for themselves and make just a couple of comments.

After her snow-challenged announcement event, national coverage of Klobuchar’s campaign has been somewhat derailed by the mean-boss stuff. Make of that what you will.

In yesterday’s forum, she was totally on her game: likable, logical, factual, unflappable, substantive. I encourage you to watch it. If you believe that the Democrats need a relatively moderate liberal to compete for middle-of-the-road voters, Klobuchar would definitely qualify. Whether the party’s left- and center-wings can work out that issue, and whether Joe Biden is the chief contender for that role is a matter to be determined by future events.

The fact that it was on Fox is slightly interesting. Fox’s Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum played it absolutely straight. Baier likes to argue that Fox’s right-wing slant (if “slant” is a strong enough term) in its opinion shows is separate from its straight news team, and he did much to support his cause yesterday.

I looked up the latest (dated May 3) Washington Post “Power Pundit Ranking” of the Democratic field. To my slight surprise, they still have Klobuchar ranked sixth. Biden is on top. The next four are all from the battle for the party’s leftier wing (Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren, although I suppose you could argue about my classification of some of them). I suppose one could surmise that if Biden stumbles, Klobuchar could get a very serious look from Democrats who are worried about the electability of a lefty. The Post ranking is here (and I should repeat here my preachments against taking any such rankings too seriously nine months before the Iowa caucuses).

As you might expect, the Fox news program didn’t push her, as others might, on why she isn’t as far left as some of the others.

Anyway, this link will get you video of the full video Fox-Klobuchar town hall, in three chewable chunks.

Comments (16)

  1. Submitted by Paul Brandon on 05/09/2019 - 03:47 pm.

    Once again, the primaries and the election are two different races.
    If Kobuchar can make it through the primaries she’ll have a very good shot.

  2. Submitted by Steven Bailey on 05/09/2019 - 05:58 pm.

    Senator Klobuchar is not left or progressive in anyway. She is a modern day Reagan Republican. The time for low impact pragmatic solutions to our financial, inequality, climate and environmental problems was decades ago. As a lifelong Democrat (90% of the time) I didn’t vote for her last time and I will not support her or any DNC approved candidate. They are why we are where we are.

    • Submitted by Harris Goldstein on 05/10/2019 - 10:07 am.

      With all due respect, we are where we are today with Trump as President at least in part because the left wing of the Democratic party insists on purity. I’ve spoken to more than one Sanders supporter who did not vote in the general election as “protest”. Granted it didn’t make a difference in Minnesota but that’s not the case in every state.

      Every Democrat who failed vote for Clinton in the general election delivered – in effect – 1/2 a vote for Trump.

      You may be right about it’s being past time for low impact, pragmatic solutions. But I’ll take moderate impact, pragmatic solutions over no solutions any day (I don’t agree that her proposals are low impact).

      • Submitted by Tom Crain on 05/10/2019 - 12:37 pm.

        Perhaps you need to ask yourself why 9.2% of Obama voters voted for Trump in 2016 instead of Clinton. Was it because Clinton was too progressive, to the left of Obama? The political spectrum isn’t a line with polar opposites where whomever is closer to the center wins the most votes. Maybe it was last century, not anymore.

        Are you prepared, Mr Goldstein, to vote for Sanders if he wins the primary? Or is he not pragmatic enough for you?

        • Submitted by Harris Goldstein on 05/10/2019 - 06:22 pm.

          Sanders vs. Trump in the general election? Sanders, without a doubt. In spite of him not being pragmatic enough for me. And that’s my point.

          The general election is multiple choice, not an essay question. You have (in our system) 2 practical choices and you pick the one you think is best or at least the one that is the lesser of evils.

          If you sit it out, you’re letting someone else choose.

      • Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 05/10/2019 - 03:11 pm.

        People might ask themselves, What has Bernie Sanders actually accomplished, in his long political life?

        We know that Sanders didn’t really have steady jobs or a profession before he ran for mayor and started the political path. Now, for years, he has been what is termed “a grouch and a loner” in the Senate. He hasn’t any legislation to his name. He doesn’t play well with others, ,and I think his followers have to face that. He’s also pretty insensitive to women and minorities. Kind of an avuncular one-note Charlie..

        Is that what we need?

        Amy Klobuchar’s time in the Senate has coincided with Republican control of that body, for the most part. Out of power, she has still been able to pick her issues and get some Republican support for her initiatives in the Senate, and she gets stuff done. Can you imagine? Bi-partisan legislation! In a chamber dominated by the opposite party!

        Klobuchar would be not just a progressive President; she knows the legislative process and could work with Congress to get something done! .Maybe even with some of the saner Republicans.

        elizabeth Wearrn is the only other Demorat I can see on the presidential horizon who has proven that she can get progressive legislation through. And Big Plans, which iunlike Sanders, she knows how to fund and provides those details.

        As usual, the women are stronger than the men, but the country wants a Daddy. Even if it’s a bumbler like Biden or a do-nothing ideologue like Bernie Sanders.

    • Submitted by Pat Terry on 05/10/2019 - 10:42 am.

      Yes, that is exactly why we are where we are. Because people like you insist on ideological purity. Because you see pragmatic solutions as a problem while opting for fantasies.

      • Submitted by Henry Johnson on 05/13/2019 - 10:25 pm.

        ” Because you see pragmatic solutions as a problem while opting for fantasies.”

        Agreed, Pat. When we get to the point as a country where “pragmatic solutions” are looked at as something that we are “too late” for, and that are held in contempt, well, we’re in serious trouble.

        I also agree that everyone who refused to vote for Clinton because they didn’t like her and they wanted Bernie instead, etc, etc, really handed the election to Trump.

        Please people, you are the reason we have Trump – the whole election I head on TV today was a matter of 70,000 votes in key states.

        I don’t think there’s any doubt that if all of the disaffected, uinspired liberals who decided to not vote for Clinton had done so, she would have won and we would have been spared Trump.

        I know you disliked Clinton, I did too!

        Many of the elections I’ve ever voted in, I cast a vote for the “lesser of two evils – I’m not a Hillary Clinton fan at all – but she would have been way less of an evil than the guy we have now, who is trying to destroy our democracy I believe!

        We had George Bush because of the people who voted for Ralph Nader (who didn’t have a prayer of winning!) and we have Trump because of those who voted for Jill Stein (who didn’t have a prayer of winning) or who didn’t vote at all because they just didn’t like Clinton.

        Think of the damage done by Bush and Trump, for the love of God, being pragmatic and voting for the lesser of two evils (Gore and Clinton) is important and very valuable.

        And let’s not deceieve ourselves that Clinton lost because she was too ‘moderate’, she lost because she was perceived by far too many as having a rigid and unlikeable personality, carrying too much baggage and scandal, she was unfairly aided by the DNC, and she was lacking in charisma and campaigning skills to boot.

        Again, I’m not a fan at all, but I voted for her, because IT WAS CLEAR TRUMP WAS 10 TIMES WORSE.

        Given the giant financial war-chest he has put together, and the fact that the economy is very good (and probably 60% of the population could care less about losing our democracy and just cares about the question “are you better off today?”), Democrats should NOT assume that Trump will be easily beaten in 2020.

        Therefore, the focus IMO should be picking a presidential candidate and VP who can WIN in the general election.

        And I think candidates like Kamala Harris who are pushing what would be wildly unpopular general election themes like reparations, or Warren pushing for forgiving most student loan debt (yeah, we’re suddenly a rich country that can afford to do that!) – I just don’t think they are very electable in the general election.

        I think Klobuchar would fare very, very well against Trump on the other hand,

        And yes, that DOES matter. Defeated candidates have NO power, and no ability to implement their policy proposals.

        And worst of all, a defeat means we end up with another 4 years of Trump.

    • Submitted by Mike Davidson on 05/10/2019 - 12:23 pm.

      Just because she’s not as progressive as Sanders or AoC doesn’t make her Republican-lite. This ideological purity garbage is one of the reasons we have Trump.

  3. Submitted by Paul Yochim on 05/10/2019 - 08:23 am.

    I don’t know how far Michelle Bachmann made it but Amy Klobuchar won’t make it out of Iowa.

  4. Submitted by Robert Moffitt on 05/10/2019 - 10:18 am.

    Buckeye State? Someone at Fox needs to wake up and smell the dairy air.

  5. Submitted by Suzanne Perry on 05/10/2019 - 03:22 pm.

    Really? Reagan was pro-choice, supported LGBTQ rights, wanted a public health-care option, supported unions and teachers, opposed ideologically conservative Supreme Court justices? News to me.

  6. Submitted by JUDITH MONSON on 05/10/2019 - 06:23 pm.

    In case you haven’t noticed, Biden and Sanders have both stumbled, but the white male media would rather focus on “bad bosses” (let’s assume they themselves have never been one — not to mention, a “bad dad” or “bad spouse”). Biden’s stumbled twice: 1) insisting his touchy/feely self-indulgent “intentions” were honorable (focus on me, not on who I harmed); and 2) belatedly (years later) apologizing directly to Anita Hill just months before announcing his presidential run — better late than never, right? Bernie? Gosh, he’s a millionaire. And because all the white male media believed his story that if you write a book, you make a million dollars, no need to investigate further. Especially, his 3 real estate properties (one a rental), their total value around a million. And, Bernie, if your ideals are so pure, why not run as an Independent rather than a Democrat? If you agree with me, grunt and wave your arms in a wide circle.

  7. Submitted by Joel Stegner on 05/10/2019 - 09:00 pm.

    I am always astonished when people who claim to be Democrats say they won’t for Democrats who are not their main choice. You vote for the Democrat or you are supporting Trump. Democrats who didn’t vote at all or voted for a third party candidate helped elect Nixon, Bush and Trump.

  8. Submitted by Solly Johnson on 05/12/2019 - 02:28 pm.

    In a CNN interview with Jake Tapper on May 5, Klobuchar appeared poorly informed. Outside of Minnesota she is not regarded as a strong candidate by most people.

Leave a Reply