I did not see this one coming.
Baldwin is a smart policy type politician. She has a very good sense of the political plays that make for being a winner in Wisconsin. But she has too calm a personality which would not allow for the conveyance of her passions on a national stage. It seems very hard to think of Baldwin on a national stage carrying the mood of a very frustrated and concerned electorate forward in a presidential campaign.
Her strength is not in an interview situation. It always appears she is not exactly sure where she is headed when a question is asked. Her delivery in interviews are ponderous.
Make no mistake about the fact she cares deeply about our republic, but I can not see her lifting her voice and arm in a theatrical way when speaking about the undermining of our Constitution and values due to Donald Trump and feckless Republicans.
What if there were a Democratic politician who had been championing single-payer health care for two decades, and calling for a ban on stock buybacks — and for giving workers representation on corporate boards — before it was cool? What if she also helped lead the congressional opposition to the Iraq War in 2002, while earning a 100 percent pro-worker rating from the the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union — and 100 percent pro-choice rating from NARAL?
Just for the sake of argument, what if this politician were also the first openly gay woman ever elected to Congress, the first LGBT person of any gender elected to the Senate — and had won reelection last year, in the single most important 2020 swing-state, by a double-digit margin, despite facing a barrage of Koch-funded attack ads, and refusing to compromise on her exceptionally left-wing policy commitments? Wouldn’t such a politician be a uniquely compelling 2020 candidate?
Which is to say: Wouldn’t Tammy Baldwin be a uniquely compelling 2020 candidate?