Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.

Donate

Klobuchar launches 2020 presidential bid

photo of amy klobuchar speaking from lectern to crowd
MinnPost photo by Bill Kelley
Klobuchar’s day-old campaign got the image it was hoping for.

Amy Klobuchar got her shot.

Not her shot at becoming president of the United States — that will be determined in a year or so in the Democratic primaries and caucuses.

Instead, her day-old campaign got the image it was hoping for: their candidate and her supporters on the banks of the Mississippi River, the Minneapolis skyline in the background, somewhere, while a steady snowfall filled the foreground, not to mention the hair of the speakers.

Bold North in a single frame. Community huddled together for strength and warmth. References to hardy Minnesotans too numerous to count.


All in all a good day for Minnesota’s senior senator as she added her name to an increasingly lengthy list of Democrats who want the chance to take on Donald Trump in 2020.

It was Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan who first tied the scene with the theme, though. “We are showcasing what we do well in Minnesota,” Flanagan said from the Boom Island stage in the lead up to Klobuchar’s speech. “We are not intimidated by a little snow. And we are not intimidated by Donald Trump.”

“Welcome to Boom Island,” Klobuchar began when she got onstage. “Where are we? We don’t let a little cold stop us, do we? Like are you guys even cold?”

Many were, but nearly everyone shouted, “No.”

The announcement was an announcement only in a political sense. National candidates don’t reserve a scenic park, hire security, assemble tents and warming huts, book talent and brew a lot of hot chocolate to say they thought about it but decided against it. And they don’t invite a national press corps to a city in the midst of a run of winter weather to show them the scenery.

So when she got to the key line Sunday, about halfway into her prepared remarks, none who crowded the ground before the stage was surprised, even if they cheered as though they were.

“So today, on an island in the middle of the mighty Mississippi, in our nation’s heartland, at a time when we must heal the heart of our democracy and renew our commitment to the common good, I stand before you as the granddaughter of an iron ore miner, the daughter of a teacher and a newspaperman, the first woman elected to the United States Senate from the State of Minnesota, to announce my candidacy for President of the United States,” Klobuchar said.

From Facebook to Whitman

She covered a lot of ground in a 23-minute speech: from her being the granddaughter of immigrants to region’s response the I-35W collapse; from the need to embrace the digital economy to the need to protect people from the privacy abuses of the same; from addressing climate change to amending the U.S. Constitution to reverse the Citizens United supreme court ruling.


She endorsed “common sense” gun legislation and taking on health care affordability, illustrating the latter by telling the story of Alec Smith, who died when he couldn’t afford insulin for his diabetes.

And she condemned attempts to reject immigrants, such as a Somali family dining out at a restaurant who were told to “go home.” “The little girl looks up at her mom and says ‘Mom, I don’t want to go home. You said we could eat out tonight. I don’t want to eat dinner at home,’” Klobuchar said. “Think of the innocence of that little girl. She didn’t even know what he was talking about. Because she only knows one home. And that home is our state. She only knows one home, and that home, that home is the United States of America.”

photo of lt. governor peggy flanagan waving to crowd amid snow
MinnPost photo by Bill Kelley
Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan told the crowd, “We are not intimidated by a little snow. And we are not intimidated by Donald Trump.”
She even quoted Walt Whitman: “I hear America singing, the varied carols I hear.”

“For Whitman, those were the songs of the mechanics, the carpenters, the masons and the shoemakers,” she said. “And those carols are still being sung today. They are now also the songs of our sisters and brothers, a chorus of different faiths, races, creeds and ways of life.”

E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. It is more than a motto. It is the North Star of our democracy. It is the North Star of this effort.”

While President Donald Trump was mentioned by some of the elected officials who spoke in the lead up to Klobuchar’s remarks (Gov. Tim Walz drew the loudest laughs when he said, “There are more people here than on the National Mall for that inauguration”), Klobuchar didn’t use the president’s name (even if he was clearly paying attention to her).

She did, however, make references not lost on her snow-speckled audience. “We need to stand strong — and consistently — with our allies,” she said. “We need to be clear in our purpose. We must respect our front line troops, diplomats and intelligence officers who are out there every day risking their lives for us. They deserve better than foreign policy by Tweet.”


And one last obstacle which we must overcome to move forward together,” she said. “Stop the fear-mongering and stop the hate. We may come from different places. We may pray in different ways. We may look different. And love different. But all live in the same country of shared dreams.”

After telling of how the state responded to the I-35W collapse, Klobuchar spoke of the community acting together. “But that sense of community is fracturing across our nation right now, worn down by the petty and vicious nature of our politics,” she said. “We are all tired of the shutdowns and the showdowns, the gridlock and the grandstanding. Today we say enough is enough.”

‘I have grit’

In addition to the hoped-for optics of snow and winter and hearty souls who barely notice, the setting let her use the Mississippi River — vaguely visible through the snowfall — as a metaphor.

“The Mississippi River… all our rivers connect us… to one another. To our shared story,” she said. “For that is how this country was founded, with patriots who saw more that united them than divided them. And that is how this city — the Mill City — and our country prospered, right along this river and our nation’s railways and roads, grounded in the common belief that prosperity shared leads to better lives for all. And this is how we became the world’s beacon of democracy, one in which everyone matters.”

photo of crowd at klobuchar announcement
MinnPost photo by Bill Kelley
References to hardy Minnesotans too numerous to count.
And she ended with this: “I’m asking you to join us on this campaign. It’s a homegrown one. I don’t have a political machine. I don’t come from money. But what I do have is this: I have grit. I have family. I have friends. I have neighbors.

“Let us cross the river of our divides and walk across our sturdy bridge to higher ground. As one faith leader reminded me this week, to pursue the good, we must believe that good will prevail. I do believe it and so do you.”

Joining a crowded field

It might be expected that when a favorite daughter announces for president, the elected officials from her party would rally to her, but the 2020 presidential campaign is being run in the midst of a debate among Democrats as to how best to defeat Trump. Just Saturday, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts announced her own presidential run, a bid that comes from the party’s left flank.

Klobuchar is not of that wing, and she will most likely appeal to a somewhat more-moderate Democratic electorate. Those who stood with her Sunday were mostly from a similar place: Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, Duluth Mayor Emily Larson, Moorhead Mayor Johnathan Judd, U.S. Sen. Tina Smith, U.S. Reps. Angie Craig, Dean Phillips, Walz and Lieutenant Gov. Peggy Flanagan.

Though she didn’t make a direct reference, Larson seemed to be calling out Trump when she said: “Some politicians, some pundits, they look at parts of our beautiful country, our Midwest area and they put us down, saying the best is behind us. They look at our proud history and they use it to divide us.

“Amy doesn’t see us struggling and lose interest. She sees potential and she gets to work,” Larson said. “Amy understands that the Midwest is the beating heart of America.”

Response to stories about mistreatment of staff

During her announcement, Klobuchar made no reference to recent stories about her mistreatment of her Senate staff, including a HuffPost story that said three different potential campaign managers opted out after hearing stories from former staffers.

In a media scrum after the speech, she did however repeat the response she has given previously when asked about turnover in her office: that she is tough and demanding and will have the same standards for herself. “Yes, I can be tough. And yes I can push people,” she said. “I know that. But in the end there are so many great stories of our staff who have been with me for years who have gone on to do incredible things. I have high expectations for the people who work for me but I have high expectations for this country.”

After being asked whether she thought the stories had been planted by opponents, Klobuchar demurred. “I don’t want to go into that at all,” she said. “I believe in freedom of the press. People should be able to listen to what they want. What I really want to focus on is an optimistic agenda for this country.”

She said if Democratic candidates spend their time going after each other, “we are never going to take this country where we need to go.”

Comments (30)

  1. Submitted by Janette Dean on 02/10/2019 - 08:45 pm.

    I am also especially proud that my Senator Amy Klobuchar is one of the first 11 cosponsors of Senator Ed Markey’s Senate Resolution 59: “A resolution recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal” which is at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-resolution/59/cosponsors . Our next President of the United States will need to boldly lead on and sign the upcoming pieces of legislation in 2021 (or sooner) that will be planned from 2019-20 to implement the Green New Deal’s initial ten-year plan. The plan will allow the U.S. to much more urgently and uniformly act on climate and our threatened ecosystems with far more renewable energy and other sustainable products, services and practices while also limiting fossil fuel development and usage. This will also allow the U.S. to finally build a far more just & sustainable economy where many more people will benefit economically and physically from plenty of green new jobs which would involve, for example, renewable energy installers and planners, scientific enterprise, infrastructure building, governmental action, environmental clean up, community and global partnerships, training and education, etc. I would also like my other Senator Tina Smith to cosponsor the Senate resolution as well. FYI: The resolution on the House side is House Resolution 109, and only Honorable Representative Betty McCollum from Minnesota has cosponsored it so far, but I expect others will, too, as momentum and public demand for it continue. We must take serious action to reduce and end as many greenhouse gas emissions as possible and believe that we can still save the habitability of our planet for ourselves and future generations. As one of the biggest and longest-polluting carbon emitters in the world, the United States is especially responsible for globally-damaging emissions, and its lack of leadership has only encouraged other countries to also continue to use fossil fuels through our poor example and overall nonchalance at the existential climate crisis that we have largely helped to create. Yes, we have done some work at the federal level, but nearly at the scale that is adequate to solve the complex problems of global warming and resulting climate change extremes of all kinds. We cannot simply reply on bold cities and states who are currently trying to do all the heavy lifting including our own State of Minnesota and several cities who are now finally starting to aim for as close to 100% renewable energy or at least carbon-free energy (across all sectors preferably) and nearly zero carbon emissions or even negative emissions as well through more energy efficiency, carbon sinks, direct air capture technology development underway, etc. See the sector sources with EPA-published percentages at: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks. I also support the public calls for a bold Green New Deal in Minnesota.

  2. Submitted by Janette Dean on 02/10/2019 - 09:20 pm.

    I meant the word “especially” not “specially in my comment above. I’d also like to state that I do not support dangerous sulfide-ore copper-nickel mining in water-rich Minnesota which is one of the worst places to have such a mine that would threaten our priceless watersheds and ecosystems in Northern Minnesota. See info at: https://friends-bwca.org/causes/mining/sulfide-mining/. Minnesota should not sacrifice itself to inevitable sulfide-ore mining pollution when more copper recycling can be done instead and when there are also safer areas to obtain copper and nickel. I would like both Senators Klobuchar and Smith to help stop the Polymet mine which benefits the company Glencore owned by several foreign entities and persons including some who have been directly involved in interference in our own elections. Any U.S. President should be one who protect our representative democracy from election interference by foreign enemies which Amy Klobuchar has already been working on as a U.S. Senator, and therefore Minnesota should not also simultaneously become a traitor state by helping to enrich Glencore. The Polymet mine should therefore be stopped for these multiple reasons, and the Twin Metals sulfide-ore mine planned by Chilean mining giant Antofagasta should not be given state or federal permissions to operate in Minnesota either.

    • Submitted by Dennis Litfin on 02/11/2019 - 12:01 pm.

      Yes Janette, both Amy and Tina need to come out from back stage and commit to working against these foreign mining interests. Their so-called ‘neutral’ days are over.

      • Submitted by Arthur Lind on 02/11/2019 - 02:16 pm.

        My hope is the Amy remembers her grandfather helped build this country as a miner. We still mine iron ore and helped build this country and we still need copper, nickel, gold, and palladium for EVERYTHING! We can do it here safely and will help the northeastern part of the state prosper. The MN DNR and MPCA have agreed based on science, not hysteria. Ya’ know, that stuff has to be mined somewhere and you might be improving the environment by doing it here where we have regulations and oversight.

  3. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 02/11/2019 - 08:45 am.

    I’m not saying I won’t vote her, but unfortunately she did pretty good job of laying out a minimalist agenda that misses the mark in my book. She’ll also need a stronger message, her parents aren’t running for president and simply being from MN isn’t an impressive credential elsewhere, we’re not the only people in the country who experience winter.

    It looks like a typical DLC “vote for me I promise to be adequate” campaign. I don’t know how it will shake out but I don’t think THAT’S “electable”. She’ll need to tighten up a more compelling and focused message and an agenda, I don’t see a clear message or agenda here, and I wouldn’t assume that people will vote for Amy just because she’s Amy or because she’s from MN. Millions of voters NEED concrete action,they’re not just looking for a change of “tone” in DC. Is Klobuchar promising action or tone?

    • Submitted by Joel Stegner on 02/11/2019 - 11:01 am.

      After two years of Trump, where all standards for presidential demeanor and accomplishment have been shattered, you think that the Senator who is known for getting Republicans and Democratic to pass bipartisan legislation isn’t doing enough. We need a positive person with a small ego who gets people to work together to be President. If she gets the nomination and wins the election, she will make the clearest possible distinction possible with self centered money obsessed Republicans. Most Americans will never have a lot of money, but with a good government they will get their most important things accomplished, with scam artists like Trump trying to rip them off. That is the future we all need, not more blotted billionaires calling all the shots.

      • Submitted by Jim Marshal on 02/11/2019 - 12:00 pm.

        The vast majority of our legislation is passed with broad bipartisan support. It’s the rule rather than the exception. We need less bipartisanship, not more. A Democrat like Amy who constantly reaches across party lines and votes in lockstep with Republicans when it comes to the drug war, our security/surveillance state, massive military budgets and bank bailouts is someone that doesn’t seem to possess any real vision or worthy ideals. Sounds more like some career politician wanting to please their corporate backers and make sure that their funding streams remain intact.

      • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 02/11/2019 - 01:10 pm.

        “After two years of Trump, where all standards for presidential demeanor and accomplishment have been shattered, you think that the Senator who is known for getting Republicans and Democratic to pass bipartisan legislation isn’t doing enough.”

        My apologies… I didn’t realize we’d made so much progress.

  4. Submitted by Bill Schletzer on 02/11/2019 - 10:06 am.

    I am disappointed that Amy is running for president. I think she is an excellent senator and can make a large contribution to the country in that position, being pragmatic and a hard worker. I don’t think she has a chance at winning the top of the Democratic ticket and she would be wasted as a VP. I find her “I’m running for you” thing disingenuous. Like all candidates, she is running first for herself and her own ego. She should own that. Also the recent articles on Huffpost have me questioning her public persona as Ms Minnesota Nice..

    • Submitted by Henry Johnson on 02/11/2019 - 01:05 pm.

      I don’t think she would be “wasted as a VP” if Biden announces and ends up as the candidate, he chose Amy as a VP. Let’s be honest, I believe he’ll be 76 in 2020, so there’s a definite mortality risk there and a bigger chance he might pass away in office.

      I have to admit even though I’m in the ‘we need to win, let’s choose a moderate’ candidate camp, I think there should be a constitutional amendment with an age limit for president – it’s too stressful a job (if it’s done right, not the way Trump is doing it, by watching TV most of the time and lounging around the oval office) to be correctly done by someone over a certain age IMO. I’d probably say 70 should be the limit, but I guess medical professionals might be consulted on that.

  5. Submitted by Bob Barnes on 02/11/2019 - 10:27 am.

    Should be a fun Democrat Primary to watch implode. Every one so far has signed on to the “green new deal” which is giving the GOP a guaranteed win over what that deal means. Amy has zero chance of winning..she is not a leader and never has been.

    • Submitted by Paul Yochim on 02/11/2019 - 11:02 am.

      Bob, I’m with you. Will she receive the same criticism that the last female presidential candidate from Minnesota did for neglecting her duties to the people she represented in order to campaign?

      Senator Klobuchar has been able to avoid hot button issues until now. Her luck is about to change.

      • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 02/11/2019 - 05:35 pm.

        The “last female presidential candidate from Minnesota” largely spent her congressional career neglecting her duties, so no one noticed any difference. The criticism she received was due to her being one of the flakiest members of Congress.

        There IS such a thing as bad publicity.

    • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 02/11/2019 - 11:06 am.

      Sounds a lot like what I heard about Don Trump in 2016. The 16 car GOP clown car primary would implode, nominating a candidate who was not a leader, with zero chance of beating HRC.

      Beware the guaranteed win.

      • Submitted by Bob Barnes on 02/12/2019 - 07:09 am.

        We seem to recall the 2016 GOP primary quite differently. Trump dominated that field from the day he announced. None of the others had any guts to even challenge him (Cruz tried in vain). Everyone knew Hillary was going to lose… not even the Democrats liked her. She was probably the worst possible choice for the Democrat party. She was the 2016 Democrat version of 2008 John McCain… someone no one wanted to vote for.

        Now the Democrats are handing the GOP a giant club in the form of this “green new deal”. If you actually read what they want to do in it, you’ll see it’s politically toxic. Paying people who are unwilling to work? eliminating entire sectors of the US economy (like air travel, oil, coal etc)?

        Good luck with that… it’s a guaranteed win for the GOP against anyone who endorses that thing.

  6. Submitted by Ron Gotzman on 02/11/2019 - 12:02 pm.

    “When asked by MPR News during her 2018 election if she would commit to serving her full six-year term, Klobuchar responded: “Of course I will”.

    Enough said…..

    • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 02/11/2019 - 02:00 pm.

      This is what politicians of all stripes do, they run for office. And if they have a fighting chance at a higher office, they usually run for that one.

      Nothing new under the sun.

  7. Submitted by Peter Gove on 02/11/2019 - 01:20 pm.

    Great that Amy announced on the banks of the ‘mighty Mississippi’ and within the boundary of our Mississippi River National Park – the Mississippi River and Recreation Area, established by Congress 30 years ago in legislation championed by the late Cong. Bruce Vento and Sen. Dave Durenberger and with bipartisan cosponsorship by the Minnesota delegation.

  8. Submitted by Henry Johnson on 02/11/2019 - 01:47 pm.

    I like Amy as a candidate, although I do agree she needs a more focused, catchy, purposeful and powerful message and stump speech.

    I did disagree with the comment about how ‘I don’t care who you’re parents were’ – I think the iron ore miner reference especially will play well in the rust belt states especially – which desperately need to come back to the Democratic side to win the election.

    So I’d definitely keep that paragraph in the stump speech personally. But the point was well made about a harder hitting campaign message.

    I think in that regard, all the Democratic candidates need to focus on creating more catchy, SHORT phrasing and themes.

    As much as I dislike Trump, a person has to admit that he had a well put together campaign, in that with help from the sleezy Cambridge analytica, they crafted a few well-polled and tested winning messages after stealing a few hundred million facebook pages of data, such as “Drain the swamp!’, and even “Lock her up!” regarding HIllary, and “Make America great again!” that resonated with people.

    Short, catchy, powerful messages.

    Whereas Hilllary had her weak and uninspiring internet “I’m with her” message, as if she was some cuddly, popular figure that you just couldn’t help but support. Which wasn’t at all true of course.

    Even though Trump in reality I don’t think gives a darn about the average Joe or Jill, at least he was smart enough (or his Cambridge Analytica team partially led by Steve Bannon was smart enough) to really research, and craft a handful of themes and messages that they tested the heck out of, and knew that people responded to.

    And themes which said essentially “I’m going to do something for YOU” (or the country), instead of gee I’m an ego-tripper, you want to be with ME don’t you?, as the HIllary message said.

    So yes, her team needs to do some work to create a better, harder hitting message or messages.

    But I’m looking for someone electable who can WIN, she would be light-years ahead of Trump for being a good and a healing President.

    And I think she’s the type of person who can attract those suburban republican women who voted democratic in the mid-terms, attract even some disillusioned republican men, and definitely a majority of the independent vote (like me and my wife’s vote).

    And that independent vote is a pretty large part of the electorate.

    And I think she would help Democrats win the upper midwest states, and that she’d also play well in the rust belt states that need to come ‘back in the fold’ to win.

    I think with some work, she’s electable, IF, and it’s a big if, she can win the Democratic nomination, against a lot of other candidates who the ultra-liberal love, but who would probably stand a good chance of losing against Trump, like Warren for example, and probably Bernie too, who also is too old IMO.

    I can’t see harsh, strident Warren doing anything but making virtually all republicans vote AGAINST her, even if they really don’t like Trump much. There would be very, very few crossover votes for her IMO.

    Same with win winning the votes of independents. So if you’re serious about WINNING, and not just making a ‘statement’, she’s a losing bet I think.

    Like a lot of people, I probably feel like I may have to leave the country if Trump wins again I’m so sick of him and what he’s doing to the country, so I’m really focused on just getting Trump out of that chair that he never belonged in in the first place.

    If she won the nomination, I think she’d walk over Trump pretty easily, I think the country is getting more sick of him by the week or month, and though Amy might not have the ‘sizzle’ that some other candidates might have, my feeling is that MUCH of the country is really, really looking for a return to ‘normalcy’ again, being totally disillusioned with the chaos and conflict constantly generated by the orange-haired one.

    So I think it’s possible someone who seems like kind of a reasonable, down-to-earth, ‘normal’ type of person might be ‘sexier’ and more appealing in this election cycle than would normally be the case.

    I’d like to see Beto enter the race, and in that case, I’d be happy with either a Amy/Beto ticket or a Beto/Amy ticket, because I think both Beto and Amy are both winners (they’re more electable than many others IMO).

    • Submitted by Bob Barnes on 02/11/2019 - 03:07 pm.

      52% approval rating now…seems the nation isn’t getting sick of Trump. Couple that with this disaster known as the “green new deal” and the Dems are sinking their own boat.

      • Submitted by Pat Berg on 02/11/2019 - 05:51 pm.

        52% according to who? 538 still has his approval rating down in the low 40s.

        • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 02/12/2019 - 08:15 am.

          According to Rasmussen, the conservative safe space.

        • Submitted by Bob Barnes on 02/12/2019 - 09:48 am.

          Rasmussen for one. 538 has old data Besides they haven’t been a reliable polling site anyway. Their bias nullifies their polling results and they rely almost exclusively on yougov for their data.

          • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 02/12/2019 - 10:15 am.

            “Their bias nullifies their polling results . . .”

            You have described Rasmussen to a T.

          • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 02/12/2019 - 10:30 am.

            No, Rasmussen has Trump at 50%, 538 adjusts that to 45%. You guys are fudging your numbers by simply subtracting “disapprove” (48%) and using the difference of 52%. The actual number is 50%, the difference of 2% reflects undecided or noise that was thrown out for some reason. You can’t just “add” that to Trump’s total.

    • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 02/12/2019 - 08:51 am.

      Henry, I’m reading your lengthy and thoughtful comment and frankly, your just reiterating the same rational and mentality that put Clinton in the ballot in 2016, I remind you… Clinton lost to Trump. Why would anyone conclude that the losing formula of the last election can be the only possible winning formula against the same candidate in the next election?

      Some of us thought that beating Trump was a critical imperative in 2016, so you’ll have to forgive us for rejecting the “expertise” and political wisdom regarding “electability” flowing from those who lost that election.

      I don’t why so many Democrats don’t believe popular candidates running on popular agendas can win elections, but the mental gymnastics behind the rejection of common sense are always impressive. I don’t know why the math is so elusive for Democrats who keep thinking they can’t win without Republican votes… you don’t need Republican votes to win, and chasing votes you’re never going to get is how you lose elections.

      This notion that moderation can be the only winning formula strikes me as personal comfort zone preferences pretending to be political analysis. Moderation may be a comfortable option for those who basically haven’t REALLY been affected in any substantial way by Trump and his policies not to mention the failed compromises of past Democrats; but tens of millions of voters are beyond suffering and desperate and beyond moderation. You ignore that fact at your own peril. Democrats ignored that fact in 2016.

      Democrats need to recognize the fact that this ISN’T ALL about Trump. Many of the issues like Single Payer, Living Wages, and immigration reform were hug problems long before Trump got elected. Voters turned to Trump out of desperation, and that desperation is still there, any Democrat who ignores that fact and assumes they can pick away around the fringes rather than meet voters expectations is playing with defeat. I think voters are looking beyond Trump, and they haven’t forgotten all the unsolved problems and failed compromises they were living with before Trump got elected. The old etch-a-sketch from election to election political landscape the Democrats are so comfortable with is disintegrating. At any rate, for all their “focus” on winning elections, they had an impressive record of losing for decades. Whatever.

      And I hate to say but it is entirely possible that Trump won’t even be on the ticket in 2020, so candidate choices based on Trump alone may well be strategic folly.

      Yes, Klobuchar needs to produce a more focused sharp and targeted message that promises action and appeal. The problem is that moderates have a notoriously difficult time producing messages and campaigns like that, even when they lie. Remember when Clinton tried to claim she was a “progressive”? And by the way you moderates, why is it do you suppose that your “moderate” candidates can only win elections when the promise to be more “liberal” than they are? I mean if “moderation” is the ticket… why can’t they run as moderates and win?

  9. Submitted by Scot Kindschi on 02/11/2019 - 03:18 pm.

    I believe that she is doing this to possibly become number two on someone else’s ticket with a real presidential bid down the line.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 02/11/2019 - 05:39 pm.

      Why do you think that?

      I’ve seen a number of comments here saying that she is angling for the VP slot, or that she would make a good Vice Presidential candidate. Why? Why is she better suited to be the VP than she is to be the President?

  10. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 02/13/2019 - 12:21 pm.

    I was encouraged to get see that for now she’s using Sanders’s fund raising model, and not accepting PAC money etc. I’m not sure it will work for her in the long run unless she ups her game in terms of popular policies and agendas. If you’re going to rely on $5 -$25 donations you need to get people excited about your agenda.

Leave a Reply