Matt Stoller's already commented on a possible Bob Kerrey return to the U.S. Senate, and why he wasn't enamored of the idea; others have dismissed those concerns by essentially saying that we don't know enough about local politics in Nebraska to comment one way or the other.
That may well be the case, but let's be blunt--the following reporting by Bob Novak doesn't do anything to allay my concerns.
That was Bob Kerrey, on Democrats that wanted to defend Social Security from privatization. Jonathan Singer has a comment, echoed somewhat heatedly by Lowell Feld at Raising Kaine on Mark Warner.
I used to laugh when the 1990s right-wing Clinton scandalmongers would send their pseudo-journalists and private eyes to Arkansas to look for Clinton's connections to all the nefarious characters the right-wing media machine reported about. They were effective at spinning these tales to traditional big media reporters anxious to play "gotcha", but the simple fact known to anybody who has ever done politics in a small state is that everyone is connected in one way or another to everybody else. Every time I go back home I am reminded of this connectedness.
Take me in the two states I've lived in before moving to D.C. It's been 15 years since I've lived in Iowa, but I still know the governor, lt. governor, secretary of state, attorney general, secretary of agriculture and the House and Senate majority leaders. Most of them are personal friends.
Or go back even further. It's been almost 25 years since I moved from Nebraska at the age of 22. In spite of this, I still know a ton of people in politics back home. The current mayor of Lincoln, who I've known since before I left, is the son-in-law of two of my mom's best friends. The previous mayor, who I've known since I was born, goes to the church I grew up attending. The mayor before that has been one of my best friends for almost 30 years. My wife used to run in 10K races and marathons with Bob Kerrey before he ever ran for governor the first time, and another close friend of my mom's worked for his dad. Ben Nelson's chief of staff was a friend of mine in high school. Even on the Republican side, I have personal connections. Former Governor Mike Johanns used to be a liberal Democrat, and I worked on his first race for county commissioner. And current Attorney General Jon Bruning is the son of one of my wife's best friends, and one of his top aides was my best friend in elementary school.
So what's my point in listing all these connections? I think we need to understand that the politics and language in small states has a different feel and rhetoric than the politics of big states and cities. Sometimes all those personal ties can make the political jousting really ugly and petty, like all the Clinton-era Arkansas attacks. But more often, when you know people on such a personal basis, it doesn't generally feel right to hammer them as hard as we do in national politics. I would love to know what bloggers and the OpenLeft.com community members who live in small states think about this and how it affects their political work and their writing.
I know for me, being from a small state has changed the way I do politics even though I've lived in D.C. for so long. I still try to get along with a wide variety of folks, and I still try to see the point of view of my opponents even when I think they are fundamentally wrong. Although I've given up entirely on the Bush and DeLay-style politicians who have taken over the Republican Party, because I think they are mean-spirited to the core, I still try to assume the best about most other people in politics until they prove me wrong.
I'm not at all saying, by the way, that folks from big cities or states are less likely to be like what I've described above. And God knows there is nothing idyllic about these states- there are plenty of bullies and cheats and liars in the small states I described, too.
I'm just saying that growing up in a small state has driven these kinds of attitudes that I described deep into me.
So I'm curious what folks think, especially those of you from small states, since we have to win plenty of Senate races in these small states to have a majority in the U.S. Senate- how does the kind of connectedness dynamic make the strategies for winning politically in small states different than in bigger states or cities?
Although Chuck Hagel is obviously a really quirky guy and could change his mind at the drop of a hat, everyone I talked to in the know about Nebraska politics is pretty convinced that Hagel is going to announce his retirement, and that Bob Kerrey is going to get in the race to replace him. I know that many in the blogosphere are not fans of Kerrey's, some even comparing him to Lieberman, and I have never been close to him. But I think his running again is actually a good thing.
The most obvious reason is that he will likely give Democrats another seat in the Senate. Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey and Scott Kleeb are the two other potential Senate candidates, and while both have a lot going for them, I think their paths to winning a statewide Senate race are much more uphill compared to Kerrey's, who is still very popular and who would likely beat any of the Republican candidates.
I also don't think Kerrey is as bad as a lot of the blogosphere assumes. He is for sure an independent cuss, one who has driven me crazy many times over the years, and he would be very unpredictable on issues the progressive community cares about. But overall he was the most progressive Senator that Nebraska has had since the legendary George Norris (a Republican in the 1930s who championed rural electrification and labor law reform). And unlike most politicians, he will be open and passionate about what he believes. He will drive us all crazy from time to time, but on balance he's a whole lot better than either Lieberman or any of the Republicans running.
I also had a good conversation with Scott Kleeb, his wife and new Nebraskan Jane Fleming Kleeb, and most importantly their one month-old baby Maya (they got me to lunch by promising I could hold her). Scott got 45% last year in one of the five most Republican districts in the country, and is trying to decide whether to run again. It's a tough call given the nature of the district, and it would be really difficult to defend the seat even if he did win in 2008. I think he's leaning toward going for it in spite of the odds, and I hope he does- he's a good guy. The nature of the district wouldn't allow him to vote with progressives on every issue, but I think he would always be open to listening to us, and would do what he could, given the district, to be a solid team player for Democratic leadership on tough votes.
The table is set. Labor Day is upon us, and a number of political deadlines are approaching. Decisions ready to be made. Political heavyweights ready to enter the arena, and some apparently ready to exit.
I've devoted quite a bit of virtual ink to this race, repeating myself dozens of times, going over every single sign, detail, rumor, or press account to get a better picture of what I believe is the most important race in Nebraska - for Nebraska - in 2008.
The evolution of this race - from the initial rumors of Hagel's retirement, to Mike Fahey's potential entry into the race, Hagel's March "announcement," and Bruning's primary challenge, followed by Kerrey's interest in a potential candidacy, has been one of the most fascinating stories of this young election cycle.
In Don Walton's article in the Lincoln Journal Star today, this quote stands out:
If it's ultimately Kerrey versus Johanns after 2008 primary voters have spoken and all the smoke has cleared, Nebraska may play host to next year's premier Senate race.
So say Chris Cillizza and Shailagh Murray in The Washington Post.
"A Kerrey-Johanns matchup would be the early front-runner for the marquee race of the 2008 cycle," they wrote last week.
We wait in anticipation for Kerrey's decision. More after the jump...
STATE BLOGS
