Mark Plotkin • May 21, 2015

If you are a Democrat and you are not quite convinced – not truly “Ready for Hillary” – then Martin O’Malley wants you to sign on with him. One could make the case that he is the hometown candidate. He was born in Washington, D.C. He went to Gonzaga College High School on North Capitol Street, then to Catholic University.

His family moved to Silver Spring and O’Malley went to law school at the University of Maryland in Baltimore, where he stayed and got elected to the city council. After seven years on the council, he was elected mayor of Baltimore in 1999. He was only 36 years old. In 2002, Esquire magazine put him on its “Best & Brightest” cover and named him “Best Young Mayor in the Country.”

After two terms as mayor, O’Malley beat incumbent Republican Bob Ehrlich for governor and got reelected in 2010. After finishing his term, he is now going for the ultimate prize: the White House.

A keen student of politics, O’Malley is trying to pull a Carter ’76. The similarities are stunning. Jimmy Carter, after finishing his service as governor of Georgia, all but moved to Iowa and New Hampshire in 1975. He campaigned full-time for president. This was his only job and it paid off. Carter came from nowhere and beat an exceptional field of candidates, including someone I worked for, Morris Udall, a representative from Arizona.

O’Malley, who endorsed and campaigned for Hillary Clinton in 2008, is positioning himself as the only clear alternative to Clinton, a younger version with a progressive mantle. He’s not afraid to take on the dynasty element, saying recently that the presidency is not some “crown” to be passed down, as if the U.S. were a monarchy. This comment is of course a swipe at Jeb Bush as well.

O’Malley’s strategy is to make sure Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts does not get into the race. He wants the economic populist brand to himself. At the same time, he wants to be perceived not as left or loony as Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont or as stolid as former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb. O’Malley’s desire, above all, is for Democratic Party activists to view him as electable in the November 2016 general election.

The present crisis in Baltimore will highlight O’Malley’s tenure as mayor and his policy of “zero-tolerance.” This might cause him some unforeseen difficulty.

But the 52-year-old politician is a charmer. He enjoys being Martin O’Malley. It won’t hurt when he picks up his guitar and starts strumming one of his Celtic favorites. He is just hoping that you will like the tune he’s playing and sing along.

Political analyst Mark Plotkin is a contributor to the BBC on American politics and a contributor to TheHill.com.

Mark Plotkin • April 9, 2015

Those who have ever played one-on-one in their schoolyard or sunk a jump shot in a pick-up game or just launched an imaginary three-pointer to win at the buzzer – we love this time of year. March Madness, one giant American event that never lets you down. Congratulations to the NCAA men’s basketball national champions Duke University. One exciting game this year reminded me of a local rivalry that should happen and hasn’t in many, many years. Wichita State has wanted to play in-state rival Kansas for decades. When Wichita State coach Gregg Marshall ran into University of Kansas coach Bill Self last year, Marshall suggested they play. Self just laughed and walked away.

The Shockers had the last laugh. They beat the Jayhawks in the NCAA tournament this year.

Which brings me to the men’s basketball programs of Georgetown University and George Washington University. Georgetown was the national champion way back in 1984, and, in the immortal words of the late Marion Barry, they have never “gotten over it.”

Georgetown refuses to play its neighbor in nearby Foggy Bottom, George Washington. To properly understand why this has not occurred, I called basketball expert and columnist John Feinstein.

Feinstein has written about Georgetown arrogance and elitism for years. He told me that “Georgetown doesn’t think they have anything to gain.” The decision was not made by the present coach, John Thompson III, but by his father. The son takes the “cues from the father,” Feinstein said. And he went on to say that no one will “dare criticize Big John.”

Well, I will.

There’s more to this story. For 20 years, Pete Teeley has organized a tournament every Christmastime at the Verizon Center. Today, it is known as the BB&T Classic, a glorious event that has raised more than $9 million over the years for the Children’s Charity Foundation. It wasn’t until this past year that Georgetown University deigned to participate – with the explicit stipulation that it not play GW. (For 19 years, Georgetown did not participate at all.)

Feinstein was one of the original organizers. He went to Georgetown and thought they would surely play. As he recalled thinking, “It was for charity.” But, he said, “I was wrong.” Quite simply, Georgetown won’t play GW because the team might lose.

You see, doing something for the city is not what moves them. They don’t identify with D.C. They just don’t give a damn. And they get away with it.

I tried to contact Georgetown University President John DeGioia on this subject. He never called back.
Now, I must confess that I am a GW alumnus. More important, I am a resident of this city. A hometown rivalry – GW vs. Georgetown – would be great for this place. But Georgetown won’t suit up.

Political analyst Mark Plotkin is a contributor to the BBC on American politics and a contributor to TheHill.com.

Mark Plotkin • March 11, 2015

It’s a good thing for American politicians that Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu isn’t a player in U.S. politics. Don’t, for now, consider his views on the Iran nuclear threat. Instead, marvel at his performance before the joint session of Congress.

Talk about being a master of the moment. From the very start, he seized the day. He walked down the center and worked both sides of the aisle – shaking hands, touching shoulders, smiling with good cheer. And when he got to the podium, he looked up to the packed gallery and, to thunderous applause, raised his right hand and waved. There was not a trace of nervousness or hesitation. Bibi grasped the lectern and was immediately in charge, and seemingly at home.

Without teleprompter, he thanked all the right people. And with a natural politician’s touch, he singled out Minority Leader Reid, who had suffered a serious eye injury, and said with warmth, “Harry, good to see you back on your feet. Just shows you can’t keep a good man down.”

After that opener, he told the rapt audience that he was “deeply humbled” to be addressing “the most important legislative body in the world.” A little praise has been known to sway and charm a crowd. The prime minister hit exactly the right note with that line.

Midway through the speech, he pointed out that “with us today is Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel.” Wiesel stood up in the front row of the gallery and acknowledged the mention. The ovation was overwhelming. Everyone rose to show respect. When the premier said that the Jewish people would no longer “remain passive in the face of genocidal horror,” and when he proclaimed, “Those days are over,” the House shook.

He closed perfectly by saying, “May God bless the State of Israel and may God bless the United States of America.”

Politics and persuasion require theater and style. Netanyahu knows this, and practices it with ardor and audacity. He went to high school in suburban Philadelphia and college at MIT. The American idiom is putty in his hands. He came up to the plate and hit the ball out of the park.

Netanyahu’s strong words and powerful oratory have altered the negotiations. That was his primary purpose, and I believe that he has succeeded.

Political analyst Mark Plotkin is a contributor to the BBC on American politics and a contributor to TheHill.com.

Mark Plotkin •

David Axelrod started off as a journalist, then became a political consultant and then a senior advisor to a president. Now he’s telling his own story – as an author. Paired with CBS News analyst John Dickerson at the Sixth & I Historic Synagogue, Axelrod charmed and delighted hundreds who came out on Feb. 11, a cold Wednesday night.

Axelrod does not suffer from George Will disease. He’s never stuffy, stiff, pedantic, arrogant, haughty or humorless. In fact, he’s very funny, with a Borscht Belt timing that comes naturally. This likable raconteur has loads of stories, and he tells them with a twinkle in his eye and deadpan delivery. He reminded the audience that “nobody watches ‘House of Cards’ as a documentary.” And when they hissed at the mention of former client Rod Blagojevich, he instantly commented, “That’s the usual reaction.”

The crowd of millennials and older suburban liberals listened intently, almost with reverence. Most of all they wanted to hear about their president, Barack Obama.

Axelrod was the man behind the candidate when Obama won his first big race, for the U.S. Senate, in 2004. He described how in a seven-candidate field this black man with a strange name came out on top. Axelrod told his wife that Obama was a long shot, and other candidates would pay him more, but he would go with Obama and “that would be something he could be proud of for the rest of his life.”

He said this with real emotion and genuine conviction. It rings true. He wants you to believe he is a “Believer” – the title of his book, subtitle: “My Forty Years in Politics” – not just a hired gun who will work for anybody. Candid and revealing, he told the crowd that Obama was unhappy in the Senate, so unhappy that he was seriously thinking about leaving Washington and running for governor of Illinois. One day, the senator came off the floor and ran into Axelrod. With a disgusted look on his face, Obama muttered that “all they do is yack, yack.”

The presidential campaign of 2008 was Axelrod’s main focus. He said the 2008 campaign was “willing to take risks” and to “raise our sights.” The Rev. Wright controversy “tested his mettle” when it “brought race screaming back into the campaign.”

Axelrod claimed that Obama as president wants to “take on hard things.” The fight for health insurance for all was a prime example. When asked why Obama has not done more for D.C., his response was meandering but really comes down to: we had to do more important things. He said he “hopes” Obama will do more in the time remaining, but this was not spoken with any passion or force.

He spoke movingly of his own personal struggles, especially his daughter’s epilepsy. Axelrod paid tribute to his wife and all she has done as a caring and loving mother. He closed saying that in politics “you never get the perfect.”

This is a substantive, smart guy who is honest about his trade and tells his story with a savvy Chicago style. He is a welcome departure from the people with whom I’ve dealt in the Obama camp who are – unfortunately and almost universally – arrogant, unpleasant and unattractive in every way. There is more than a little hero-worship of Obama that is sometimes a bit much to take. Axelrod is a fierce Obama loyalist, but that should not stop you from reading his book.

Political analyst Mark Plotkin is a contributor to the BBC on American politics and a contributor to TheHill.com.

Mark Plotkin • February 11, 2015

Nobody – I mean nobody – thought that Larry Hogan, Jr., would be elected governor of Maryland. The national Republican Party didn’t give him a chance and ignored him. But last week he delivered Maryland’s State of the State address.

Just look at the political demographics of the state. Democratic Party registrations lead Republican Party registrations 2 to 1. Nearly two thirds of both chambers of the state legislature are Democrats. The congressional delegation contains seven Democrats and one Republican. And no one can remember or recite the last attorney general or comptroller who was a Republican and got elected statewide.

If that’s not enough, how about these stats? In the 1992 presidential election, Maryland was Bill Clinton’s third-best state by percentage of the vote. In 2000, it was Al Gore’s fourth-best state. In 2004, it was John Kerry’s fifth-best state. In 2008, it was Obama’s sixth-best state. Obama won 62 percent to 36 percent.

So, with this all up against him, why did Hogan win? Perhaps more to the point, why did he even dare to run?

Sen. Jamie Raskin, a proudly liberal state senator from Takoma Park, perceptively analyzed the race by saying that the Democratic candidate, Lt. Governor Anthony Brown, hammered Hogan on all the social issues, such as abortion and same-sex marriage – but Hogan “never took the bait.” Instead, Hogan’s campaign consisted of one issue: taxes. Overall, Hogan presented himself “not as a right-wing ideologue, but as a modest affable businessman,” Raskin said.

John Kane – a moderate Republican who is also an affable businessman and past chair of the GOP in Maryland – pointed out the disappointing turnout for Brown in heavily Democratic Montgomery County. He also stressed the very effective use of Hogan’s daughter in TV ads. Hogan’s wife Yumi and daughters are Korean Americans. That picture of inclusion struck a positive note in the Free State. Kane calls Hogan “well-measured and pragmatic.” The last Republican presidential candidate who won in Maryland – George W. Bush in 1988 – fits the same description.

According to Raskin, Democrats shouldn’t worry about 2016. They will carry the state easily in the presidential year. Kane says Hogan can get reelected in 2018. Raskin even concedes Hogan “seems like a nice guy.” What does this all mean? Very blue Maryland might be turning purple when it comes to electing a governor.

One final thought: Democrats of a certain age and long memories just might remember that Larry Hogan, Sr., the new governor’s father, was on the House Judiciary Committee. He was one of the first Republicans to call for President Richard Nixon’s resignation.

This might just be a belated thank-you.

Political analyst Mark Plotkin is a contributor to the BBC on American politics and a contributor to TheHill.com.

Mark Plotkin • January 29, 2015

Let’s stop kidding ourselves. It’s been 40 years since D.C. got “limited Home Rule,” and nothing has changed. We are still, as former Mayor Sharon Pratt so memorably said, “not part of America.”

Here is the situation. In our national legislature, we have no voting representation. We do have a non-voting delegate who is not permitted to vote on the House floor. We have no presence at all in the U.S. Senate. Every law which our local legislature passes can be overturned by the U.S. Congress. Every penny of our locally raised funds can be negated. Our local judges are appointed by the president — not by locally elected office holders.

Why has nothing changed in over four decades? First and foremost is the lack of advocacy by our own elected officials. The District Council views itself not as a temporary transitional body, but as a permanent institution. It is more interested in preserving its status than creating real self-government.

Our non-voting delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton is a major impediment to any real change. This champion of incrementalism is most dangerous to our advancement by the language she uses. She continually labels defeat as victory. This behavior goes back more than 20 years.

There was one vote on D.C. statehood in the House of Representatives — in November 1993. Up to 151 Democrats voted for it. Norton at a post-vote press conference raved that 60 percent of the Democrats had voted for the bill. The number needed for passage was 218. We were to be comforted or pleased that we made a modest showing. That was supposed to be sufficient.
Four months ago, there was a D.C. statehood bill introduced in the Senate. Norton refused to go to the four uncommitted Democratic senators on the relevant committee (Claire McCaskill, Mark Pryor, Jon Tester and Heidi Heitkamp) and ask for their vote. Council member Mary Cheh lobbied Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) for his sponsorship of the bill — not Norton. A hearing on the bill was good enough for Norton. When it was her turn to testify she never once asked for a mark-up of the bill or a vote on the bill, even though Democrats had a nine-to-seven majority.

Norton holds the moniker, “Warrior on the Hill.” This is an enormous misnomer. She is a perpetuator of the status quo. Her very presence in office holds us back.

In assessing blame, we cannot forgive the local population. What a passive lot! We are treated as third-class citizens. We accept it. We are excluded from democracy. We don’t make a fuss. No meaningful civil disobedience. No active effective citizens movement. No, we just take it.

I once asked Rev. Jesse Jackson when this would change. He simply replied, “When it rises to the level of personal insult.” African-American, white, Hispanic, Asian, it doesn’t seem to make a difference. We haven’t yet been personally insulted. We are far too polite, far too well behaved.

Be under no illusion. Full and complete self-government means one thing: statehood for D.C. Anything less is incomplete.

We missed two golden opportunities for making D.C. the 51st state. In 1993, there were 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans in the Senate; 259 Democrats and 176 Republicans in the House. In 2009, 60 Democrats and 40 Republicans comprised the Senate with 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans in the House. Both times, there was a Democratic president. The stars were perfectly aligned. We failed.

We were on the right side of history, but we lacked a strategy and a fierce discipline. Let us vow: never will we let these opportunities pass us by again.

Mark Plotkin is a columnist for The Georgetowner and The Downtowner as well as a political analyst to the BBC on American politics and a contributor to TheHill.com.

Mark Plotkin • October 24, 2014

Before I begin my analysis and express my personal endorsement in the D.C. mayoral race, I have to take care of some other matters. At the recent WAMU mayoral debate, hosted with typical charm and elegant restraint by Kojo Nnamdi, one of the panelists seriously marred the event by a question that was totally irrelevant, improper and alien to the political discourse we cherish in America.

Panelist Tom Sherwood addressed his comment to all three mayoral candidates. He remarked that he had noticed that none of them had listed where they attended religious services. (This is a paraphrase.) Maybe Sherwood needs to be reminded that in this country we have separation of church and state.

In 1960, John F. Kennedy memorably said that no one who runs for president should be judged by their religion. To bring up this subject is absolutely outrageous and poisonous to the political process. The three candidates should have refused to answer the question.

Moving on to other topics: there are several contests for political office, which D.C. voters will have to make a choice.

For the first time, D.C. will have an elected attorney general. This election itself would not have taken place at all, if it were not for one individual. That individual is Paul Zuckerberg. He enhanced Home Rule by taking on the District Council and the entire political establishment by personally going to court and making sure that voters would get a vote on this office. Zuckerberg is experienced, feisty and funny. But most of all he is qualified.

We have two positions to vote on for At-Large Councilmember. One of them should go to Elissa Silverman. She is smart and sassy. Extremely well informed and a fighter for those who usually don’t have a champion, she is truly independent, un-bought and un-bossed.

Now, let’s turn to the main event.
Carol Schwartz is well known and well liked. She has served the city dutifully in the past, but I do not see the rationale for her candidacy. Many people have said that she’s doing this because she craves the attention. Her campaign talks about what she’s done, not what she is going to do.

Let me not mince words. The election of David Catania would be a catastrophe. His entire career is motivated by ego. His overriding concern is his own political advancement — devoid of principle. His temperament alone disqualifies him for this high office. There are countless examples of his behavior being ugly and abusive (even from former staff members — read the Oct. 13 Washington Post profile of him).

Being mayor requires working with people you disagree with and finding common ground. Catania is only interested in scoring points, not making progress. He is not progressive in any sense, and when he doesn’t get his way he becomes petulant and toxic. Is this what we want for our next mayor?

I sincerely wish I could summon up some degree of enthusiasm for Muriel Bowser. But I will be voting for her under the “do-no-harm” concept. She is knowledgeable and interested in the operation of government (unlike her former mentor Adrian Fenty). She is a Democrat and is of this place. Muriel Bowser was nominated because she was not Vince Gray. She will be elected because she is not David Catania. I sincerely hope she can grow in office and has the capacity to pick good and able people to serve with her.

This is Mark Plotkin’s final column about the mayor’s race for the Georgetowner. He is a political analyst and contributor to BBC on American politics.

Mark Plotkin • September 25, 2014

Muriel Bowser had a good week. First, the poll conducted by the Washington Post showed her with a commanding lead of 17 points. The rap on her was that when she was on the same stage with David Catania she would be vastly inferior and Catania would make her look bad. I was not at the first debate at American University with the three candidates present, but the published reports and word of mouth was that Bowser more than held her own.

Let’s get back to that poll. If subsequent polls show her continuing to lead with large margins, Catania will be tagged as a loser. That will make fundraising difficult and the campaign will be demoralized. Bowser has a huge fundraising lead now with more than $1 million in the bank. Catania’s challenge is to show that he is still a contender — that he has a chance. African American voters are overwhelmingly against him. In the Post poll, he gets only 11 percent of their vote. Many thought he would do considerably better with that group.

Although the poll does not show it, I firmly believe Carol Schwartz cuts into Catania’s potential with Independents. I have not said much about her efforts in past columns. Her past week was not good at all. Her attempt at rousing her troops and demonstrating grassroots support was downright dismal. Her Freedom Plaza rally produced a miniscule crowd. In addition, she was a no-show at the D.C. statehood hearing on Capitol Hill on Sept. 15. (Both Bowser and Catania were there.)

The D.C. statehood hearing deserves some comment. If there ever was truth to the old saw making “a silk purse out of a sow’s ear,” it sure applied here.

The sponsor of the bill, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) didn’t even push his own bill. D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton’s behavior was more appalling. She gushed over Chairman Carper and never asked him to round up the votes necessary to get the bill out of committee and onto the floor for passage. Once again, Holmes displays incumbent malfeasance.

Both Bowser and Catania sat in their seats appearing intent and interested. One of them could have distinguished themselves by emphatically saying that the hearing was a sham and charade. Taking on Norton for her pathetic role would have received some attention and demonstrated political courage. It’s too bad that both candidates passed up this golden opportunity.

At this point in the campaign, the traditional voting patterns are holding true.

Mark Plotkin has been writing about the mayor’s race for the Georgetowner and will be doing so until the November election. He is a political analyst and contributor to BBC on American politics.