Yes, Dr. Oz Could Actually Win

Dr. Mehmet Oz (R-PA)

Celebrities have run for public office for decades.  Oftentimes people name-check Ronald Reagan when they have a conversation about the onslaught of celebrity candidates, primarily because he's the most successful (and it's oftentimes lost in the mythology of Reagan that he was once a major movie star, albeit not a particularly good actor), but it goes back before Reagan.  In the 1940's, for example, actress Helen Gahagan Douglas (the wife of Oscar winner Melvyn Douglas) ran successfully for Congress and was involved in one of the uglier Senate battles of the 1950's when she faced off against "Tricky Dick" (a moniker she coined) aka Richard Nixon two years before he became Vice President.  Since Reagan, we've seen candidates ranging from Arnold Schwarzenegger to Jesse Ventura to Clay Aiken try their hands at politics, sometimes failing but occasionally succeeding.  And of course, former President Donald Trump's greatest success in life has been in crafting a celebrity persona from nothing (he certainly can't claim a lot of success as an actual businessman, but his ability to market himself as a successful entrepreneur is undeniable).

So when Mehmet Oz (aka Dr. Oz made famous from his many appearances on The Oprah Winfrey Show) announced for the Senate, I wasn't immediately taken to making jokes about it, even if it caught the larger public consciousness by surprise.  Dr. Oz has been toying with this run for weeks, and I know better after Jesse Ventura (and certainly after Donald Trump) than to not take a celebrity candidate seriously.  But more so I know the dynamics of the Pennsylvania Republican primary put Oz in an unusually strong position that he might not be in, say, North Carolina or Ohio.  

That's because the Pennsylvania Republican primary has largely been a flat affair.  While Democrats quickly lined up a frontrunner (John Fetterman), a clear second place that could upset (Conor Lamb), and a respectable outsider (Val Arkoosh), giving us a primary that, provided it doesn't get too negative, will produce a viable general election candidate, the Keystone Republicans have struggled to do the same.  Several of the best candidates (Ryan Costello, Charlie Dent) seemed to assume that they couldn't survive a primary & while they're reportedly still toying with the idea, I don't think are plausible options in the Trump Era.  Other candidates like Mike Kelly simply declined.  And the Republican primary frontrunner Sean Parnell suspended his campaign recently amid a messy custody hearing.

This means that Oz is now the highest-profile candidate in a race that is slowly closing (with a March 8th filing deadline).  Other candidates could get in, and Oz could falter, but he's a famous name in a race that has none.  And as a result, you wouldn't be foolish to describe Oz as being the frontrunner, though I wouldn't go that far quite yet (though, like I said, I'm taking him seriously).  Oz comes with some uniquenesses beyond celebrity.  He's a doctor in an era where doctors have been celebrated repeatedly (albeit demonized by Oz's own party), and he has decades of goodwill on The Oprah Winfrey Show to fall back (it does not appear, at least as of when I'm writing this on Friday morning, that Winfrey has endorsed in this race or even made a statement on it yet).  Republicans, who have struggled to make inroads with female voters, might be intrigued by a the potential cache of someone associated with Winfrey in the race.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN)

But Oz also comes with a lot of unique baggage as a celebrity (not to mention the risks of being a first-time candidate in a high-profile race).  Oz's association with weight loss scammers is so notable he was grilled by Sen. Claire McCaskill in a 2014 Senate hearing  for raising these scams to legitimacy through his television program.  Oz is closely-associated with Donald Trump in a state that Trump lost last year, and is known for his promotions of hydroxychloroquine, a drug that was supposed to help with Covid-19 but was really just a conspiracy theory elevated by Oz & Trump.  Oz also is on the record as saying that reopening schools would be worthwhile even if it led to the deaths of thousands (though he later retracted this statement), which will surely hurt a with a general public that took Covid more seriously than your average Republican primary voter

I've seen a few allusions of paths that Oz could follow, but I think my friend Drew might've gotten it best when he said that Oz had vibes of Al Franken's chances in 2008, which I think is quite apt.  Franken, like Oz, came into his race with a lot of baggage (forgetting the reasons that Franken would eventually resign which weren't public at the time, Franken's comedy bits had had a lot of humor about women that many felt bordered on the sexist and, at the very least, made him vulnerable).  But similar to Pennsylvania, after several prominent Minnesota Democrats (Mike Hatch, Betty McCollum, Mike Ciresi) either dropped out or refused to run, Franken became the most plausible Democratic nominee.  He also won the general election, less because he ran a great campaign (Franken's 2014 campaign was very strong, his 2008 one was much weaker), but because the national environment allowed for a candidate who wouldn't otherwise win to take the W.  Democrats will bristle comparing Oz to someone they agree with to Franken, but it's accurate because Franken would've lost in most circumstances in his first race (I'd argue he couldn't have taken Minnesota as a non-incumbent in 2012 or 2016 even as the state went blue for Obama/Clinton), but he picked the right year to do it.  Republicans will be taking a risk betting on Oz, a non-serious person who could well be given the nomination to one of the most important Senate races in the country, but past precedent is not necessarily against Oz, and only foolish Democrats would look at this as a gimme race or a contest they shouldn't bring their A-Game.

A Wrinkle in Time (2018)

Film: A Wrinkle in Time (2018)
Stars: Oprah Winfrey, Reese Witherspoon, Mindy Kaling, Storm Reid, Levi Miller, Deric McCabe, Chris Pine, Gugu Mbatha-Raw
Director: Ava DuVernay
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

I think A Wrinkle in Time was the first book ever that I had to read twice in a row not because I loved it so much, but because I didn't really get it.  The book, complicated and scientific in ways that were difficult for me to grasp, was the first novel I read with its own mythology, its own terminology.  It is also, even as an adult, a book that's hard to imagine as an actual film, which is why when Disney decided to tackle the project, I was skeptical.  Even in the hands of someone as accomplished as Ava DuVernay, it felt like a story that would be too cerebral, too introverted and too inward to ever pop on the screen.  Then again, "impossible" novels are made into classic movies all-the-time.  One of my favorite pictures ever is The Hours, and I read that book thinking how preposterous it was that it could ever be made into a movie...except of course it had.  So I went to A Wrinkle in Time with childhood fancy in my eyes but an adult's skepticism about what this book could turn into onscreen.

(Spoilers Ahead) And I left disappointed that my childhood's vision of the book would only be brought to life in a surface-level way, my adult side winning the day on this one.  The film centers around Meg (Reid), a bright young girl haunted by her father's (Pine) disappearance, with many of her fellow classmates thinking that he simply ran away from their family, and mocking her incessantly for it.  She lives with her brother Charles Wallace (McCabe), an unusually bright young boy who seems to have some issues with social cues, and doesn't care for most of the people his age.  One day three magical women (played by Winfrey, Witherspoon, and Kaling) take them across the universe in pursuit of their father, and along the way they find out things about themselves.

This is standard-plate stuff for a children's movie, and if that were simply where we were going, it'd probably work.  We have three talented actresses taking on the main roles, and Witherspoon in particular (on such a role lately!) is a hoot as the Mrs. Whatsit, the newest celestial being who frequently becomes impatient with our chief protagonist Meg.  However, the movie's mythology appers too thick to come across in less than two hours, and as a result DuVernay has to sacrifice something.  The problem is she doesn't simplify the plot as a way of letting us connect with the characters, but instead she diverts away from our child performers, giving us cardboard cutouts of Meg, Charles Wallace, and Calvin (Miller).

It feels hard to pick on younger actors in such a way, but all three struggle onscreen.  We leave the theater with just a razor-thin understanding of Meg, Charles Wallace, and Calvin, with their problems all coming back to relationships with family members, but little insight into who they are as human beings.  Reid, in particular, seems to rely more upon frustrated glances and stilted line readings than actually instilling something into her character.  This is partially the fault of Jennifer Lee & Jeff Stockwell, the screenwriters, who don't give Meg much character aside from hero-in-training.  There's a scene late in the film where Meg's name is listed alongside luminaries like Gandhi & Einstein, but we still don't know how simple Meg should possibly be grouped with such people, even though she supposedly just saved the world (weirdly, this is where DuVernay skimps the most on mythology-building).  Without a connection to the younger characters (whom I really loved as a kid as I read all of L'Engle's Time Quintet once I could understand the books), the film itself is just a disconnected series of shots, a muddled mess that movie star charisma can't even save.  It pains me to give it such a low score, but childhood nostalgia & pretty art direction don't make a movie watchable, and you can't be excused for having the budget to cast Witherspoon, Winfrey, and Kaling to try and liven up a dud.  DuVernay has made great movies before, and she likely will again, but this is a stinker.

Why Oprah Shouldn't Be President

Oprah Winfrey

It occurred to me in the hubbub around Oprah Winfrey's incredible speech at Sunday night's Golden Globes that the Democrats likely would never have a "Donald Trump" that looked like Donald Trump.  Trump is the epitome of the Republican Party's trajectory in recent years.  He's a businessman in a party that favors capitalism and the opinions of the successful more than anything else.  He's a straight white male in a party that increasingly and more glaringly favors all three.  He eschews political correctness and examples the American Dream of wealth, a beautiful wife, a happy home, and continued success.  These are all, to Democrats, mirages, and hiding some of the hateful messaging behind him, but it's proof why he's so teflon to a certain core of his supporters-he's basically an incarnation of everything Republicans have been striving to want in a candidate, and though when they got him he ended up being a disaster, he's so clearly their dream guy that they can't let it go.

Many people in recent months have written about how Mark Cuban or Mark Zuckerberg or Tom Steyer could pull a page out of Trump's playbook and run as a brash-talking billionaire, waltzing into the Democratic Primary in the exact same way, but this feels like it's an idea that A) lacks creativity and B) ignores some basic tenets of the Democratic Party's belief system.  The Democratic Party's base, were they to come up with a candidate in a lab, would be someone all-inclusive, who likes strong progressive ideals but also appeals to the masses.  They might be rich, but they would have become rich by building people up, rather than down.  They would be a beacon for disenfranchised people, particularly women, communities of color, and LGBT people.  They would be someone who clearly cared about issues that matter to us, and would, in a way that Trump speaks to millions of Americans in a level they feel is their own, have a way of connecting with the average American voter in a way that traditional politicians can't.  They would be someone we dream of being, but have no hope of ever becoming.  In other words-they'd be Oprah.

I realized this because I wouldn't be won over by Mark Zuckerberg or Mark Cuban.  They're too cut-for-the-same-cloth like Trump.  They're rich, straight, white men who have been rich so long they have no concept of what it's like to be poor or even middle-class.  They talk down to crowds, and don't have the experience where I'd trust their acumen without some sort of political experience to back it up.  What I forgot was, if there was going to be a Donald Trump, someone that appealed to at least the core base of Democrats, they would have to be someone who, well, appealed to me.  I'm a dyed-in-the-wool member of the Democrats, and have been my whole life.  If a candidate may make you want to put on your rose-colored glasses, they'd have to be a candidate that would at least get me to try to start making excuses over their faults.  They'd have to be a candidate that objectively has a lot of similarities to Trump in terms of lack of political experience, celebrity status, perhaps even a bit of cult of personality, but whom I would be offended by being compared to Donald Trump.  Oprah Winfrey is perhaps the only non-politician in America who could make me do that.

I love Oprah Winfrey.  Few people don't, and certainly few people on the left don't.  More than pretty much any figure in American culture, Oprah Winfrey is one of those celebrity's I listen to, respect, and who can help formulate my opinions.  I have read every book club entry she's selected in at least the past ten years, I subscribe to her newsletter, and watch her interviews.  Her speech on Sunday moved me to applause in the middle of my living room, and I trust her judgment.  Her life, patience, and determination is what I strive to achieve in my everyday life.  Winfrey is a billionaire, but in the way that the right feels about Trump, is a billionaire who feels like they "know me."  Her shows and sense of understanding of other people, thanks to a charisma largely unparalleled in modern life and the interviewing-skills of a Pulitzer Prize-winner, is impossible to resist.  While not all of them would feel the same way, few people on the left, few Democratic base voters, would claim to actively dislike Oprah Winfrey.  And her Globes speech proved that she can rally the troops.

I don't know if Oprah Winfrey will run for president.  I honestly doubt anyone does (perhaps not even Winfrey herself knows).  But it's easy to see what would be deficits for other candidates not being a problem for Winfrey, in the same way that they weren't deficits for Trump.  Winfrey obviously has no elected political experience, and is unmarried but lives with her boyfriend.  She has pitted fights against people that normally would be a problem in an election (specifically the agricultural industry in the 1990's), but probably wouldn't be punished too harshly for it.  She's not a progressive in the Bernie Sanders sense, but more one in the Obama mold.  Her politics, I would imagine, are not that dissimilar to a Biden or Hillary Clinton, quite frankly, and she's likely to be less for and idea like free college considering her own-your-future philosophy on her show.  This is speculation, of course, as Winfrey hasn't met the gamut of the DC press corps and her views aren't always publicly announced, but if Trump could sustain a teflon sheen, I suspect so could Winfrey.

But the fact that the two share such similarities also illustrates another problem with their connection-that they both lack political experience.  Trump ended up being a great candidate not in the sense that he ran a great campaign, but in the sense that he won.  This is one of the few times where Trump's "the winners write the rules" mentality probably works, as American politics has become so base in recent years that the winner winning is all that matters in terms of their campaign.  But Trump has been a terrible president, because he wasn't prepared for the hardships of the job, the demands of the job, and the wave of backlash that would meet his world.  Though Winfrey has a stronger obvious work ethic, it's foolish to believe that she also doesn't have something of a veneer of celebrity to her name.  Winfrey hasn't always been in a position of power like Trump, so this might not be a shock to her system (she grew up an impoverished black girl in Tennessee, and has written about her struggles as a woman and person-of-color, things that Trump cannot possibly understand as the white son of a multi-millionaire), but she's been rich for a long time, and adored for nearly as long.  Certainly Winfrey would struggle when she eventually couldn't pass a bill through Congress that was a promise, and the backlash that would ensue.  She's not magic, despite some meme-protestations, and this would happen.  A woman that is treated as a near religious figure in some sects of the population might have issue with suddenly moving to 41% approval ratings (which would inevitably happen), and with the demands of being the leader of a political party.  This is not to mention that Winfrey's personal politics, particularly when it comes to human rights and women's rights, might make for a struggle when negotiating with countries like Russia or China.  It's marvelous for liberals to imagine Winfrey in charge of something like our healthcare system or our education system, but less so when it comes to imagining her trying to negotiate with countries with poor human rights records that nonetheless are vital to avoid a recession.  All-in-all, we would find out that Winfrey is mortal, just like Trump and all those before her, and that we'd be left with someone in office who, however insanely talented, doesn't have the experience required to be president without a stronger foreign policy acumen.  I've had one president learn on the job, and while I have more confidence in Winfrey to admit her shortcomings, I feel like we need an established progressive voice with government experience to be our nominee.  Let's not take the wrong lesson that Trump could win away from celebrity candidates, but instead the right lesson that celebrity candidates do not make strong presidents.

What Democrats Should (and Shouldn't) Run for President in 2020?

First off, I want to apologize for the lower than normal amount of posts in April so far.  I've been having a surprisingly busy last week or so between life, work, and tackling a couple of goals around my apartment, so I haven't had as much time for the blog.  However, you can expect a full slate of twelve articles this coming week as I'm parking myself in front of a computer right now and writing them all (including the finale of a long dormant series).  Until then, though, I figured I should reward your patience with a look at the 2020 Democratic Party contenders.

Now, in this regard, don't get used to me talking about 2020, because I abhor discussing races this far out as a general rule.  For starters, I think that the newly-elected candidates should be given a chance to actually govern.  The media's focus on the next election rather than holding our current officeholders accountable has long been a pet peeve of mine, and even if I didn't vote for the incumbent president, that doesn't mean that I'm a complete hypocrite on this, even if it might soothe my wounds to start fantasizing about the day when he might leave office.

Secondly, predicting presidential races nearly four years out is an absurd task.  Occasionally you can make sense of the nominees; people like Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton, if you'd told me six months after the previous election that they were the next cycle's nominees, I'd have nodded and said "makes sense."  But just as frequently people like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump come along and I'd have laughed you into the next room for predicting such a thing.  Politics is sometimes an industry that rewards the most-likely-successor and occasionally she gives in to a completely new name.

Finally, even if we want to presume on the nominees, predicting the presidential race three years from now is impossible.  Democrats may be salivating at Trump's dour approval numbers, but approval numbers this early in a presidency mean nothing (unless you're Jon Ossoff, in which case you're probably feeling appropriately cocky right now).  Don't believe me?  Just ask Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, who had abysmal moments in their first terms that surely would have meant them losing reelection...except of course they won in landslides.  Conversely, Republicans shouldn't be particularly sure here either-George HW Bush and Jimmy Carter both seemed like very likely winners for second terms mostly because of a thin bench from the opposition, only to have to endure that most odious of presidential retributions: a reelection loss.

So the focus here is not on who will win or even who will run, but instead on 21 names in the Democratic Party that I think should run, shouldn't run, or where I'm undecided.  Most of these names are politicians being floated for higher office, some are just ones I wanted to insert into the conversation preemptively.  Feel free to chime in in the comments with names I missed or who you're hoping joins the conversation.

(Note: I'm listing each group of seven in alphabetical order-I might call out my favorite candidates, but I'm not ranking since, as I've said, it's way too early for such things)

(Second Note: You'll notice I lean a little heavier into electability than you normally would on a personal list like this.  This is for two reasons: 1) as a rule I agree with most of these people on most issues, and I think that conversations that start with "not a true liberal" in this hyper-partisan age are unproductive and 2) successful presidential challengers usually win based on being deeply electable-Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, for example, were moderate Southerners who were very likable when they first ran. As a result, I'm going to be putting a little bit more emphasis on public persona than if I were to just, say, "pick" the president rather than assume that he or she has to win two very difficult elections to get to that position)

Candidates I Hope Will Run

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)

Age in 2020: 54
Why I Hope She Runs: On the list of candidates that I'm hoping will run, you're going to see a lot of names of people who probably won't make a go of it.  Much like 2004 where I ended up sitting for Wesley Clark in the primary, I anticipate 2020 being a year where I'm more voting "against someone" than voting "for someone" in the general as our bench isn't that exciting.  The lone exception there is Gillibrand, who has proven to be a strong leader for women's issues, the environment, and has started to emerge as a foreign policy voice in the Senate.  Arguably she's Hillary Clinton without all of the baggage or stigma, and has been positioning herself as the perfect foil against Trump.
What Holds Her Back: One of the bigger issues that Democrats need to address between now and 2020 is that they will need to either win back the Obama Midwestern/Great Lakes states (principally Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) or take a crack at FL/NC/AZ, which have become friendlier for Democrats but not reliably so.  A New York liberal senator isn't exactly a recipe to solve either of those two problems.

Sen. Maggie Hassan (NH)

Age in 2020: 62
Why I Hope She Runs: Hassan barely won her Senate election in 2016, but she did win and as a result she's one of the only women in history to have held a Senate seat and been governor.  That dual experience could come in handy if the Democrats are able to run on a revolving slate of staffers in the Trump White House (so far, there's no indication that that couldn't happen).  Hassan also has been pretty impressive in Senate hearings so far-frequently finding her way into headlines, and finding quick ways to differentiate herself from the Trump administration while still maintaining an aura of moderation in a purple state.  That sort of balancing act will be handy in a presidential primary.
What Holds Her Back: Does she want this?  I honestly think that if I were running a theoretical Joe Biden 2016 presidential race that I would have gone with Hassan over an Elizabeth Warren as a running mate in part because she feels like one of the under-tapped talents in the Democratic Party.  But in an already crowded field, can she differentiate herself quickly enough?

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN)

Age in 2020: 60
Why I Hope She Runs: Admittedly Klobuchar is on this list in part because of home state pride, but it has to be said that she's an attractive candidate on paper (another candidate who would have been better on a Biden ticket in 2016 than Warren).  She's turned what could be a tossup seat into an easy victory for the Democrats, as she's wildly popular in the Gopher State.  She's a former prosecutor, so she's sharp in a debate but comes across as very personable (it's easy to see her playing well in Iowa or South Carolina).  And she's quirkier than you'd expect from a Midwestern senator, which may play well as Democrats are accused of being out-of-step with the average voter (arguably Trump's most successful line-of-attack in 2016).
What Holds Her Back: Klobuchar has had over a decade to distinguish herself on the national stage, but has never really taken that leap from Senate workhorse to Senate show horse, the latter of which she'll need to be in a primary that could be littered with big names like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and potentially even her fellow Minnesotan Al Franken.  If she can't find a way to become part of the noise headed into at least the 2018 elections, it's hard to see where the room is at the table for her candidacy.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (MO)

Age in 2020: 67
Why I Hope She Runs: If you didn't see McCaskill coming on this list, well, welcome to my blog (I'm an enormous fan).  McCaskill may be one of the older names on this list, but she'll be younger than Trump or Hillary was this year when 2020 rolls around, and she's arguably one of the ballsiest and most tenacious members of the Democratc Party (again-I would have skipped Warren entirely if I ran a Biden 2016 campaign and just had Hassan, Klobuchar, and McCaskill on my list-I'll engage in the comments if you'd like to talk about which would have been the better running mate).  McCaskill has won a tough battlefield a couple times now in Missouri, so she'd be able to translate those skills to places like Michigan and Pennsylvania, and I suspect that she's at least thinking about this with surprisingly liberal votes on the Gorsuch nomination.
What Holds Her Back: For starters, she's nowhere close to a sure thing to win in 2018, and she has to win reelection to be a contender in 2020 (just ask George Allen and Roy Barnes what putting the horse before the cart got them in presidential politics).  Secondly, it's hard to picture the Democratic Party going with someone as moderate as McCaskill, even if it might be in their best interests.  If Hillary Clinton was considered too moderate in 2016, I cannot fathom McCaskill emerging unscathed four years later.  Still, Donald Trump broke a number of "you're not allowed to say that" rules in the GOP primary in 2016-McCaskill could do the same in 2020.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (OR)

Age in 2020: 64
Why I Hope He Runs: If I'm going to get a true, died-in-the-wool liberal, I want one that will be able to resonate with younger voters and actually get them to come out, and one who seems to have at least a grasp on bipartisanship because one-party rule until they lose is a terrible system.  Merkley fits that bill arguably better than anyone else if I'm forced to pick a very liberal senator, and he has been making rather impressive waves in the media (that Supreme Court filibuster surely didn't hurt), as well as reaching out on a more national stage.  He also has won a difficult election before (beating an incumbent in 2008), something few blue-state Democrats can boast.
What Holds Him Back: It's hard to see how Jeff Merkley enters the national stage in a way that Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren don't already.  Admittedly, if both pass on the White House, I could see this being his opening, but otherwise-is there room for a third hyper-liberal senator in this race?  How does he distinguish himself even if he's ultimately the most talented politician of the trio?

Sen. Chris Murphy (CT)

Age in 2020: 47
Why I Hope He Runs: Murphy has fast-emerged as someone to watch in the Democratic Party.  His views on gun control proved that he can make a national moment for himself, and his continual push on liberal issues makes me think that he wants to jump onto a national stage, though perhaps not as soon as 2020 given his relatively young age and safe seat.  Still, he'd draw a stark contrast to a 74-year-old president (the same contrast many expected between Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio in 2016), and even though he's from a blue state, he's not a stranger to winning tough elections (he had to take out a long time incumbent to get into Congress).
What Holds Him Back: I cannot stress this enough, but Democrats have had their hearts broken by New England liberals one too many times at this point, and even the ones who seem different end up failing us in the end.  Murphy will have multiple other chances to run if he so chooses-would he really want to take an on incumbent?

Rep. Adam Schiff (CA)

Age in 2020: 60
Why I Hope He Runs: I'm not wild about members of the House running for POTUS, but Schiff has impressed me enough in recent weeks that I would entertain this possibility.  He's got a pretty interesting perch to challenge Trump by proxy for in the next two years on House Intelligence (and the Devin Nunes fiasco only helped Schiff in terms of making him appear bipartisan), and as a result he's one of the few Democrats who won't have to fight to be in the news or for partisans to rally to his side.  Plus, he's very smart and can shore up a weak point Democrats frequently have in presidential elections-military/foreign affairs.
What Holds Him Back: Partially it's the House thing, but more so it's the fact that he won't be able to trumpet any of his views on liberal hot topics like student loans, climate change, and criminal justice-he'll just be the Trump watchdog, and Republicans may have a field day if the House Intelligence committee chair goes onto the top of the national ticket.  Still, though, if I were to pick my true dream ticket for 2020, it'd probably be McCaskill/Schiff at this point.

Candidates I Hope Won't Run

Gov. Jerry Brown (CA)

Age in 2020: 82
Why He Might Run: Because Jerry Brown always runs for president.  Seriously-is there any other living credible candidate (he's been governor of the most populous state in the country for almost sixteen years!) who has run for president as often as Brown who hasn't become the nominee?  Brown has never given up on his dream, and while he surprisingly sat out 2016 (I was sure he'd make a play against his nemesis the Clintons), he's still chatting away about running in 2020.
Why I Don't Want Him: Jerry Brown is too old to be president.  At 82, I might buy him if he was the incumbent, but making a first-round pass just doesn't fly here.  Brown arguably has the voting record that could get him elected, but his age combined with his abysmal track record at making plays for federal office (three failed presidential races, two Senate losses) makes me think that this was never in the cards for the perpetual governor.

Sec. Julian Castro (TX)

Age in 2020: 46
Why He Might Run: Castro honestly has nothing else to do but run for POTUS at this point.  As a former mayor who has no obvious paths to higher office (it'd take a miracle for a Democrat to win a Senate or gubernatorial campaign in Texas), he was really counting on Clinton winning to either be her running mate or get a promotion in her cabinet, thus helping to keep him on the national stage.  Since he doesn't have those things, and since he represents a burgeoning voter bloc in the Democratic Party (no other major Latino candidate seems destined to run in 2020), he might see an opening.
Why I Don't Want Him: Secretary of HUD and Mayor of San Antonio are not good enough qualifiers to be able to take on Donald Trump in 2020-I want someone with statewide experience, preferably a senator, who knows how grueling the national spotlight can be.  As someone who sees that Castro has a lot of potential it troubles me that he doesn't have an obvious way up (I feel the same way about Jason Kander in Missouri), but putting him on the national ticket is too big of a risk.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo (NY)

Age in 2020: 62
Why He Might Run: While his father was the perpetual Hamlet on the Hudson, his son has always felt more likely to make a play for national office.  Andrew Cuomo is a very powerful figure in a high profile state, and as Donald Trump's governor, will be able to draw POTUS into public arguments more easily than your average politician.  Additionally, he'll have an enormous donor base to tap into, and it's likely he'll still be the incumbent in 2020, so raising money in NYC may be tougher than it seems for anyone who isn't Cuomo.
Why I Don't Want Him: I know I said up-top that I would largely disregard policy.  Well, that can't quite stop me in some cases, particularly with Cuomo, whose viewpoints on too many issues I find divergent from my own.  More importantly, I think his sort of monied, Wall Street-style approach to politics is going to alienate the same left-leaning crowd who wouldn't go for Clinton in 2020.  If you think Jill Stein can gain with HRC, imagine someone as entrenched on the subject as Cuomo.

Sen. Al Franken (MN)

Age in 2020: 69
Why He Might Run: I actually get this, and of the seven names listed here this is perhaps the only one I could see me changing my mind on in a primary.  Franken has fast emerged as a national hero for some parts of the left, using his bully pulpit to take on the likes of Jeff Sessions and unabashedly go after Donald Trump.  That's going to endear him to the primary crowd who is looking for some sort of hubris against the president.  Franken also has the comedic and improv skills to go toe-to-toe with Trump in a debate, and as a two-term senator you can't really argue that he doesn't have the qualifications even if he also comes from the "celebrity" camp.
Why I Don't Want Him: I think one of the things that the Democratic Party will need to deal with in 2020, provided that the political environment still somewhat resembles the current atmosphere, is that they have a burning desire to see Trump humiliated.  No politician will be able to make Trump look like a moron faster than Harvard-educated, SNL-trained Al Franken, but that's not what I want.  I'm looking for a candidate that can beat Trump, not humiliate him.  I'm not convinced that another candidate that appeals to the backrooms of the DNC but not necessarily the heartland is the way to go here.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT)

Age in 2020: 79
Why He Might Run: It's often said the best way to predict if someone will run for president is if they've already run.  Sanders, at this point, has already run and tasted what second place is like.  It's hard to imagine him passing on millions of fans across the country, particularly when he would arguably start the 2020 election in a leading position.  While his age is a deterrent, in terms of actually running I'd bet solid money that Sanders would make a play for the White House once again in 2020.
Why I Don't Want Him: Sanders is too old and too liberal to win the White House, and it's doubtful that Donald Trump is the best Republican candidate to go against him (Sanders was always going to be a better Democratic foil to someone like Ted Cruz than a Republican who can lean into populism like Trump).  Sanders also proved to be a bitterly bad team player in 2020, and I don't need that in the primary in 2020.  Having Sanders in the race will mean that there's the risk of the "Bernie Bros" staying home again, something the Democrats (clearly) cannot afford.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA)

Age in 2020: 71
Why She Might Run: In hindsight (always a 20/20 proposition), Warren was the candidate the Democratic Party wanted in 2016, but she wasn't ready or brave enough to run.  A more palatable politician than Sanders, her stances on the issues make her hard to topple in terms of straight liberal politics, and she's more than willing to put herself out there to attack Donald Trump.  Warren may have wanted to wait, assuming Clinton was invincible, but in 2020 she starts as arguably the frontrunner for the nomination (if I were a gambler, I'd bet on her for the nomination), and it's very, very, very hard for a politician of her level to turn down a chance at the ultimate promotion.
Why I Don't Want Her: For all of her attributes (she's a smart woman), she is not a great retail politician.  She was helped in 2012 by a national wave and Scott Brown not being the finest politician either, but it says something to me that her approval ratings aren't great even in ocean-blue Massachusetts.  Plus, she's not great on the stump and she's not a great team player (I want a presidential nominee in 2020 who's willing to take the baton up-and-down-the-ballot).  It's hard to imagine her beating Trump, quite frankly, a task I can envision multiple other people on this list pulling off.

Oprah Winfrey (IL)

Age in 2020: 66
Why She Might Run: Because if Trump can do it, why can't other billionaires?  Winfrey sits here in part as a proxy for other names like Bob Iger, Howard Schultz, Mark Cuban, and Mark Zuckerberg, all of whom have made rumblings about running for POTUS in 2020.  It's not the craziest idea-if Trump's election issued the dawn of the "are you not entertained?" portion of American politics, it may make political sense to fight fire with fire, bringing out another billionaire to test his endurance.  And it's hard to argue that Winfrey doesn't come with a legion of devoted fans.
Why I Don't Want Her: Because I don't want the presidency to become a reality show.  I don't like the lack of experience Donald Trump brings to the White House-it is arguably the thing that troubles me the most about his position.  I'm not a hypocrite on this front-I don't want someone who can simply buy their way to the Oval Office to be able to do so.  I have a lot of respect for Winfrey as a person and entertainer, but I don't trust her with the nuclear codes or handling international affairs.

Candidates I'm Undecided Upon

Vice President Joe Biden (DE)

Age in 2020: 77
Why I Hope He Runs: Because I love Joe Biden.  Biden has been arguably my favorite politician since I was a teenager, and that will never change.  His "Uncle Joe" persona may have been a major miss for the Democrats in 2016 (it's hard to know if he would have beaten Trump, but it's likely that he would have been our best candidate), and he clearly wants this.  I said up-top that Jerry Brown is the man who has pursued the White House more than any other living non-nominee, but I might need to amend that statement to include Joe Biden.  His age won't be a huge factor if he's healthy considering he's not that much older than Trump.
Why I Don't Want Him: Biden's skills on the stump are legendary, but occasionally infamous, and while you might think that gaffes aren't as significant in a post-Trump era, they still matter and will still be used against him (just look at the "basket of deplorables" line on Clinton).  Plus, combining his age and the Democratic Party's desperate need to go into a younger direction, I just don't think Biden should be the nominee unless it's clear he's the only one who will help us to win.

Sen. Cory Booker (NJ)

Age in 2020: 51
Why I Hope He Runs: It's hard not to like the handsome, social media-adapt, life-saving junior senator from the Garden State, and don't think that Democrats haven't noticed.  Booker has graduated to a very prominent role in the party, getting a primetime spot in 2016 without having run for president (or being related to someone who did), something only Elizabeth Warren can also boast.  Booker is affable and deflects criticism extremely well.  Personality-wise, it's hard to see two such different public figures as Trump and Booker.
Why I Don't Want Him: Booker's politics are a little murky on issues that Democrats need to hold their ground on (specifically education), and his personality could come across as phony or cloying much more easily than most of the other people on this list.  He clearly wants this (I'd guarantee he's running in 2020), but I'm worried he might be the Democratic Marco Rubio-he doesn't seem to have as grounded of principles as the likes of Warren or Biden.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (OH)

Age in 2020: 67
Why I Hope He Runs: Occasionally the solution to your problem is to go to the most obvious source-if you're having trouble winning in Great Lakes states, pick someone who already has done that and run him.  Though there are other Democrats that come to mind, the only one who seems destined to run for POTUS is Brown, who has managed to be both a hyper-liberal and represent a light red state.  That's a difficult balancing act, and Brown has proven several times to be a fighter so tough elections are not new territory for him.  He's already getting buzz from the grassroots-could he be a more electable Bernie?
Why I Don't Want Him: I'm not entirely convinced that geography is what will help us win Wisconsin and Pennsylvania back-I think it's an attitude toward the voter.  As a result, I believe that Brown is perhaps too liberal to win a general election (I think, quite frankly, that the best candidate for the Democrats is a social liberal/economic technocrat, but that person doesn't really exist), and may just be a good-on-paper candidate.  Plus, like McCaskill, he has to clear 2018 first.

Sec. Hillary Clinton (NY)

Age in 2020: 73
Why I Hope She Runs: Because she won the popular vote in 2016, and because I've wanted Hillary Clinton be president since I was old enough to read.  And because half of you reading had your heads explode with joy when you saw her name.
Why I Don't Want Her: Because in 2016 she managed to lose to the most controversial candidate for POTUS in at least a century-she's had her shot.  And because half of you reading wanted to vomit when I suggested her as a candidate.

Gov. Roy Cooper (NC)

Age in 2020: 63
Why I Hope He Runs: Cooper is an interesting candidate as he's one of the few age-appropriate Southerners left in the Democratic Party, and as a result might be able to translate well to places like Florida, Georgia, or North Carolina as the Democrats lose some of their strength in typical swing states like Iowa and Ohio.  Cooper will have plenty of chances to run in with the unpopular state legislature in the state, and is one of the few governors nationally who give off indications that they could run nationally AND be good candidates.
Why I Don't Want Him: It's very early in his tenure, and if his focus is more on state issues his profile may end up too moderate to ever survive a primary (or even be approved for the second spot on a ticket).  I think Cooper is a name that should probably be bandied about more, though, even if he ultimately decides against running as Democrats will need to use his mold to start winning back purple states.

Sen. Kamala Harris (CA)

Age in 2020: 56
Why I Hope She Runs: There aren't a lot of superstars in the party if you've been able to parcel that out from this list.  Harris is one of the few emerging ones, after taking a pretty quick trip to the Senate in 2016.  It's still early, but it's clear that she's starting to cut a progressive mold more in the line of Kirsten Gillibrand than Elizabeth Warren, and is working her celebrity well to get traction on issues but not losing sight of her being a freshman senator.  That shows political moxie, and as a result she may be the most impressive member of the recent freshman class.
Why I Don't Want Her: It's arguably too soon for her to run, and it's not clear that a California lawyer is going to be who the general electorate wants to rally behind.  More importantly, though, is that Harris is not a good retail politicker-her speeches are frequently stiff and she's been somewhat lucky in getting opponents who can't compete on her level in a blue state.  I want to see her actually best a major player like Mitch McConnell or Donald Trump before I back her for this office.

Gov. John Hickenlooper (CO)

Age in 2020: 68
Why I Hope He Runs: Governors from swing states are in short supply for Democrats, but Hickenlooper, twice elected in Colorado, is the exception.  A businessman who seems to be more beloved inside the Beltway than well-known outside of it, I continually see him talked up as a candidate with potential by political insiders.  Though I haven't seen that skill, part of me wonders if he just hasn't had the opportunity to show it.  There's room for a left-of-middle pragmatist governor in this race (I don't see one running).
Why I Don't Want Him: Hickenlooper has gone to the right on some issues that could haunt him, particularly when it didn't feel like he had to go there.  Additionally, his electoral margins were underwhelming (even if he did indeed win), and my gut says that he'd make a better running mate for an up-and-comer like Harris or Booker than someone who makes sense on the top of the ticket.

OVP: Picture (2014)

OVP: Best Picture (2014)

The Nominees Were...

Clint Eastwood, Robert Lorenz, Andrew Lazar, Bradley Cooper, and Peter Morgan, American Sniper

Alejandro G. Inarritu, John Lesher, and James W. Skotchdopole, Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Richard Linklater and Cathleen Sutherland, Boyhood

Wes Anderson, Scott Rudin, Steven Rales, and Jeremy Dawson, The Grand Budapest Hotel

Nora Grossman, Ido Ostrowsky, and Teddy Schwarzman, The Imitation Game

Christian Colson, Oprah Winfrey, Dede Gardner, and Jeremy Kleiner, Selma

Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Lisa Bruce, and Anthony McCarten, The Theory of Everything

Jason Blum, Helen Estabrook, and David Lancaster, Whiplash

My Thoughts: I really have absolutely no excuses as to why these take me so long to finish up-I genuinely enjoy doing them and while I never get many comments (or any comments), I know people are visiting and reading these but some nine months later, we are finally coming to the end of the 2014 Oscar Viewing Project.  I will probably start up 2007 in the next week or so as that's our next stop on the OVP train and am praying that I don't take a gestational period to finish that one up, but encouragement is always appreciated-please peruse the below links and comment on articles if you enjoy reading these and going back to past Oscar races, as I surely enjoy doing the write-ups.  But enough self-promotion, let's close out 2014.

We'll start with The Theory of Everything because I feel like it, and because it's the sort of picture that probably is the least memorable, so let's build to something, shall we?  Honestly, the movie itself seemed inevitable, and I still can't get over how much I enjoyed the first thirty minutes, genuinely feeling like it might be the rare biopic that doesn't rely on the same repetitive tropes we always see from the genre, but instead letting a real-life story be properly intermingled with movie-making magic, with a charming lad meeting a lovely lady and fireworks start popping.  Unfortunately for all of us, the film can't really handle when reality and real-life come into the picture.  Stephen Hawking is an extraordinary human being, but onscreen here he is hardly complicated, and so much of his life is transformed into a stiff upper lip contest, rather than having much feeling, either outward or in "a woman's heart is a deep ocean of secrets" manner.  The film fails in that regard, and as a result becomes middling rather than something you recall with pangs of emotion.

Alongside it in the biopic genre is The Imitation Game, arguably the film I have been the most hard on throughout these write-ups, but it's with sound reason.  The film itself is not good, and poorly edited and plotted.  Forget for a second the homophobia the director and writers utilize in addressing Alan Turing's life-the entire plot is formulaic, and only a few moments in the film (like Joan Clarke telling off Alan Turing) feel at all interesting or have any mystery around the characters.  The film, for a movie that is so high stakes, never mounts the hurdle of us knowing how the story ends, which the best biopics consistently can accomplish (see our recent review of United 93 for a strong example).  The Imitation Game also severely underwrites the gay nature of the main character, and as a result he leaves a puzzle rather than something that the film is trying to solve for the audience.  Unless the director equates being gay to a mental illness, it's hard to distinguish the two without more information.  This is a pity because, due to the celebration the movie received from critics, this is surely the only major biopic we will ever get about the extraordinary Alan Turing.

Continuing our real-life direction, we have American Sniper, the true story of Chris Kyle, the most successful sniper in American history.  Chris Kyle's story is arguably the least well-known of these three, and also has the most potential considering the bravura acting from Bradley Cooper at the lead and the way that Clint Eastwood has built strong narratives around complicated heroes in the past.  And yet Clint's not giving us much to go with on the screen, even if some of his directorial decisions are thrilling.  Forget that he glosses over some of the more fascinating aspects of Kyle's character (accounts of his casual racism have been well-documented in the past) as I oftentimes say you need to adapt a biopic to make it more cinematic; still, the Kyle onscreen feels wildly underwritten and the focus of the film gets less interesting when it just excuses Kyle's morality issues with PTSD.  The unfortunate thing here is that American Sniper, unlike The Imitation Game and The Theory of Everything, has the makings of a truly superb movie-it could have been Clint's best since Unforgiven.  But whether out of political prudence or simply the inability to see that a man who views the world in black-and-white is more interesting from the grey, Eastwood wasn't able to bring that to the screen.

Our final biopic of the bunch is undoubtedly the best.  Selma starts off in some ways at a disadvantage, much like Lincoln a few years back, in that it's trying to create a definitive story about a man who is so ingrained in people's minds that he's practically a comic book superhero.  The film smartly chooses only a short period of Dr. King's life, the lead-up to his march through Selma, Alabama, to focus upon rather than creating an exhaustive origin story instead, but it's still hampered a bit in its treatment of King as the main character, as the least interesting scenes are the ones that focus on him, with both his complicated relationship with Coretta Scott King and his reluctant attitude toward being a politician being underwritten.  The movie is at its most thought-provoking and true when its instead focusing on nameless, faceless people who stood up to racism, whether in a march or simply trying to vote.  DuVernay is unflinching in the way she addresses these scenes, giving us a sharp, harsh look at the long toll that racism took on millions of people in the 1960's, and how that still lingers in the lives of people today.

It's strange to pivot from the brutal history of racism in Selma to the frothy confection of The Grand Budapest Hotel, but the Best Picture category frequently makes strange bedfellows.  It's worth noting, of course, that prejudice rears its head quite frequently in the train sequences of The Grand Budapest Hotel, as Gustave M. and his young companion have to deal with a ruthless totalitarian government in the backdrop of their shenanigans and the quest to save their hotel.  The problem I had with Grand Budapest, which is generally delightful thanks to the central performance of Ralph Fiennes, is that it never acknowledges that the romantic plot-line is dead.  The true core of the story is the sacrifices that Gustave is willing to make to protect his friend Zero, not necessarily that we need an insertion of heteronormative behavior by having Zero "straight-labelled" by having a relationship with Agatha.  The Agatha story pulls away from the importance of Gustave to Zero's life, and makes the film nearly falter in the last ten minutes.  That being said, it's easily the best Wes Anderson film there is, and one I enjoyed tremendously, save for the end focus.

Whiplash is another film where the opinion is driven in part by the ending, though here it's in a way to save the picture.  Most of the film is not particularly good.  There's occasionally some great monologues out of JK Simmons, but Miles Teller's Andrew (as well as Simmons' ability to continue teaching) are both questionable at best.  We get the sense that Andrew didn't really exist until Terence Fletcher came into his life, and doesn't know how to function without him as a driving force.  Obviously he had to have had gumption to get to this university and ability, so why can't he find a balance with his girlfriend and father, both of whom we're meant to believe are important to him but never really seem that way, even if it's clearly pertinent to the narrative that they remain tokens of his lost innocence.  The ending, with him shattering his humanity in pursuit of perfection, is a strong metaphor and nearly makes the film seem great, but everything in front of it is tainted in some ways by a lack of believability and inconsistency in the main character.

We turn now to the two films that genuinely competed for the Academy Award, and if you've been following along you know that one of them is probably my favorite.  The thing about Boyhood is that based on the plot alone (filming, for twelve years, a narrative picture), it would be challenging and thought-provoking.  A million think pieces about devotion to your craft and wanting to tell the ultimate story are all there for the taking, but Boyhood is genuinely a masterful picture.  The film unfolds slowly, but increasingly, like in life, it feels like it's moving too fast, with us wanting more time with a specific chapter in Mason's life but knowing that, like life, it will quickly pass into the next phase.  The film operates under a simple "all of life is interesting" guiding principle, and it works because Linklater has faith in the characters that he has created.  Watching Mason's parents as they both embark on journeys that yield little and realizing that Mason's promise may be just as small-it's a fascinating commentary on the way that we live through our dreams, but life happens whether or not we want to punch the pause button.  I was floored by this movie, and left in awe as it ended, gifting us such a wonderful slice-of-life picture.

Birdman also plays with time a bit, never really cutting away from our central Riggan, but here we get a more stylized look at the wonders of getting older.  Birdman functions on two levels for me.  One, there's the bitter, nasty Sunset Boulevard style look at celebrity, and in particular the way we worship and then discard the most famous of people in the world with little thought for their humanity or giving much reason as to why.  The second is the more relatable, uncomfortable look the film pushes on age.  Age, and the need to remain vital even if the zeitgeist has shifted away from worshiping your generation, is everywhere in Birdman and critically-important to the story.  Unlike most of his films, though, AGI makes these feel very real but never in a dour, lifeless way, but in a focus that crackles and shoots you from the side, like the way that Emma Stone's Sam is given so much validation just by virtue of her youth.  It's a biting, rich movie that has so many incredible ideas that it's hard to knock the Academy for choosing inarguably its gutsiest and finest Best Picture winner since No Country for Old Men.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes were definitely in their own direction in 2014, skipping over a couple of key nominees and actually rejecting the Best Picture victor, even if it wasn't in the Drama category.  Yes, The Grand Budapest Hotel topped Birdman in Comedy/Musical, along with St. Vincent, Into the Woods, and Pride, while Boyhood emerged victorious over Foxcatcher, The Imitation Game, Selma, and The Theory of Everything.  The PGA Awards were ten-wide unlike Oscar, so they actually included all but Selma in their lineup (likely due to Selma's bizarre under-the-radar campaign for the Oscar that ended in disaster for Paramount), with Birdman taking the top prize and Nightcrawler, Foxcatcher, and Gone Girl getting the remaining three spots.  Finally, at the BAFTA Awards they selected Boyhood as their victor, topping Birdman, The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Imitation Game, and The Theory of Everything.  Looking at these, had the Academy stuck to its nine-wide field, it feels like Foxcatcher would have been the beneficiary rather than Gone Girl or Nightcrawler-it had the Best Director nomination, scored at the Globes/PGA's, and got multiple other Oscar nominations in general.  In a ten-wide field it's impossible to imagine it missing.

Films I Would Have Nominated: I would have kept Pride, which got that shock Globe citation and was one of my favorite pictures so far this decade.  I also would have gone with the cerebral Under the Skin, the dangerous Stranger by the Lake, the surprisingly effective Fault in Our Stars (what-we all have our favorites), the outstanding Wild, and the jarring Nightcrawler.

Oscar’s Choice: In one of the truly toughest-to-call Best Picture contests I've seen in years (which was weirdly duplicated one year later by an even harder call), Birdman took the cake away from Boyhood.

My Choice: Boyhood is far-and-away my favorite film of 2014, so this is an easy call for me.  I'd follow it with Birdman, Selma, The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Theory of Everything, Whiplash, American Sniper, and The Imitation Game.

And there we have it folks-2014 is officially over with!  What are your thoughts on the cinematic year at large-were you more Team Boyhood or Team Birdman?  Are you still smarting over those Selma snubs, or is the lack of Nightcrawler making you break out into hives right now?  And overall, what was the best picture of 2014?  Share in the comments!

Also in 2014: Director, Actress, Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Costume, Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Documentary Short, Live Action Short, Animated Short, Previously in 2014

Past Best Picture Contests: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013