Shortly after he was reelected president in 2012, Barack Obama had a small group of Democratic operatives in to the Roosevelt Room to thank us. We had provided some counsel and had appeared regularly on cable TV news to boost his campaign. After he expressed his appreciation, he admitted that he didn’t watch that much of the “talking head” shows and might not be seeing us on TV in the future. I replied: “Not unless we are on ESPN,” which drew a laugh from the president, who was known to check in on sports reports at the end of a long day.

What a change to Donald Trump. With him, it is all about TV.

By all accounts since the start of his presidency Trump has spent most of his mornings watching TV news and later into the evening. This, according to the New York Times, is especially true during the pandemic. Trump awakes early and watches cable news (usually a heavy dose of FOX) until coming down to work around noon. Previous reports from The Hill and other sources indicate Trump consumes up to eight hours of TV a day, and his leaked schedules show that 60 percent of his time is devoted to “executive time” — read: no meetings or briefings or scheduled calls.

Even Trump’s former Press Secretary Sarah Sanders responded that Trump “has a different leadership style than his predecessors.” That is putting it mildly. Of course, many of his tweets are blasted out during his “executive time,” responding to what he has seen on television. As many have said, that seems to be his governing style.

Most presidents read briefing memos, read intelligence reports, read history, heck, even read books. But Donald Trump likes his TV time. There is little indication that he reads much at all and certainly doesn’t seem to take a daily briefing book of the next day’s activities home to the executive mansion at night after work as most modern presidents have done.

I have had a theory for some time that baby boomers, as the first generation to grow up with television in the ‘50s and ‘60s, have a peculiar approach to politics. We consumed a rather large amount of traditional half-hour and some hour-long shows. No cable. No internet. No social media. Just ABC, CBS and NBC.

What we saw when we watched Lassie, Father Knows Best, Leave It to Beaver, Gunsmoke, I Love Lucy, Perry Mason, Bonanza etc., was a very simple formula: The main characters were introduced in the first 5-10 minutes, the problem/dilemma was laid out, and the main characters set out to solve the problem and tidy everything up before the hour or half hour was done. Actually, with advertising, it took 24 minutes, or 48 minutes for an hour-long program, to make everything right.

The effect of this early period of television on most of us growing up in post-World War II America was to convince us that problems were easy to solve, that our lives were pretty simple, and that life really was Ozzie and Harriet.

Politicians began to fit in to that television modus operandi and make promises that emphasized how they could easily and simply solve our problems. Pass some laws, and the problem of civil rights would be solved; take on the Communists in Vietnam, and the dominoes would not fall in Southeast Asia; declare a War on Poverty, and it would end.

Donald Trump seems to buy into the simplicity of what he sees on television, just as he probably did growing up in the ‘50s and ‘60s. He is now an addict to the cable news shows and their short sound bites — and he refuses to consider nuance and complexity and fact-based analysis. Why else would he suggest magic cures like hydroxychloroquine, injecting or ingesting disinfectant or that Covid-19 would just miraculously go away? Why would he say after one meeting that he had fallen in love with Kim Jung Un? Why would he agree with Vladimir Putin that Russia didn’t interfere in our elections when his entire intelligence community said otherwise?

For Donald Trump it has always been about television — from his days as a New York celebrity to his 14 seasons on The Apprentice to the daily briefings on the coronavirus and the attack game he plays with the press. It is all about the cameras and the rallies and the insatiable appetite he has for being a TV personality. He learned it as a boomer consumer of television growing up, and sadly, it is all he knows.

Many of us who hardly watched an episode of The Apprentice over all those years didn’t comprehend the impact of television on Trump’s rise. Our mistake. Now many realize that what was a big part of his political persona is coming back to haunt him.

At the end of the day, the emperor has no clothes. P. T. Barnum has nothing to sell.

It is not all about TV. It is about substance. It is about governing. It is about empathy for others. It is about more than manufactured enemies and casting blame and baseless attacks. At the end of the day, it is about choosing a leader who truly leads rather than just playing one on TV.

Peter Fenn is a long-time Democratic political strategist who served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was a top aide to Sen. Frank Church and was the first director of Democrats for the 80s, founded by Pamela Harriman. He also co-founded the Center for Responsive Politics/Open Secrets. Follow him on Twitter @peterhfenn.

Hello? Earth calling Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. It is time to cancel your political rallies for the foreseeable future. Especially you, Mr. Trump.

After playing golf this past Saturday and Sunday and going to political rallies and fundraisers, have you considered that might not exactly sit well with a worried nation? You are the President of the United States — You should act like it.

And about wearing that red Keep America Great hat on your visit to the Center for Disease Control, rethink that. This is not a PR crisis, it’s a health crisis. It’s simply not a campaign event.

As for the general optics of large public rallies with thousands of people crammed into stadiums and standing cheek to jowl behind the candidates —  regardless of party, it’s not good. I know political candidates love that visual of the cheering throng all lined up with their signs and colorful tee shirts, inches from each other, but really… Think about it. Meetings large and small — gatherings like South by Southwest and large trade shows — all have been canceled. People are scared to travel or go to church or to the mall. It seems tone deaf for candidates to continue to invite people into situations that could prove physically dangerous, even fatal.

Both former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) canceled their election night rallies on Tuesday, after Ohio’s Republican Governor Mike DeWine declared a state of emergency and urged people not to hold large events. Biden announced that a rally scheduled for Thursday in Tampa would also be canceled and that he would give a speech on the coronavirus crisis.

But not Donald Trump. Instead, he announced — just hours after Biden and Sanders canceled their rallies — a “Catholics for Trump” rally in Milwaukee, Wis., on March 19.

What is it that Trump doesn’t understand? He apparently is planning to attend the Republican Jewish Congress in Las Vegas on Friday to speak at a political rally. Instead of working on the coronavirus crisis?

CNN reports that Rush Limbaugh has accused Democrats of wanting Trump to stop holding rallies “not because of public safety, not because of public health” but to hurt the president. And this guy was given the Medal of Freedom.

Democrats should take the lead in canceling big rallies and structuring different events that show their concern for the issues confronting the country. Putting together more controlled discussions with smaller groups, people who are not sick, who are not jammed together, would be smart.

This is now a matter of leadership and common sense.

Big boisterous rallies with cheering crowds aren’t conveying a helpful message. Candidates should carefully consider whether viewers and voters think such rallies at this point are smart or whether — as is more likely — that they reveal candidates and their advisors to be woefully out of touch.

Trump can’t seem to get out of the box that “everything is about him,” and he loves his rallies. But this one isn’t about him. It’s about the country, its safety and its future.

So, let’s get with the program and cease and desist.

Stop organizing huge public events that may prove dangerous to the lives of those who attend. Let’s show that this is about the people of this country, not about some political visual.

Peter Fenn is a long-time Democratic political strategist who served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was a top aide to Sen. Frank Church and was the first director of Democrats for the 80s, founded by Pamela Harriman. He also co-founded the Center for Responsive Politics/Open Secrets. Follow him on Twitter @peterhfenn.

The Democratic debates have been the political version of “The Bachelorette” — and just as painful to watch.

Put aside the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) format CNN in particular adopted of sensational voiceovers, over-the-top music, videos and treating it all like a caged match, the gotcha-questioning is designed not to truly explore issues but to drive a wedge between the candidates in the most trivial of ways.

Even more disturbing is how the candidates have taken the bait and gone so far as to criticize and condemn President Barack Obama, a man with a popularity rating greater than 90 per cent among Democrats in virtually all polls. Why in God’s name would these candidates, no matter how liberal, decide it was wise to rip into the former president?

It also surprises me that the DNC would structure these debates to ensure that internecine warfare comes to the forefront, starting in July and lasting all the way until the Iowa caucuses.  Sure, the networks want gladiator TV and the ratings that go along with it so they can sell advertising. After all, Trump made millions for them in the last election with his rantings and ravings and ratings. But for the DNC to structure so many debates, with so many candidates, guaranteeing so much infighting, was a mistake.

Democrats have taken their focus off the devastating possibility that Donald Trump could win the next election. They have failed to make the concrete arguments about his policies, his performance and his outright destruction of American values and ideals. Instead, they have set their sights on each other. Establishing differences, yes, but creating made-for-TV ads for the opposition, not a good idea!

Plus, setting up the possibility of an easy message comparison is not smart. I’ve been doing political consulting for over 30 years, and I can tell you that if the 2020 campaign is viewed as Freedom vs Socialism, we Democrats are in deep trouble. Furthermore, giveaways vs personal responsibility is not a winning argument either.

We are in danger of falling into the following traps, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory:

1. Health Care, prescription drugs, the Affordable Care Act and the public option are winners for Democrats — but abolishing private insurance plans is NOT.
2. The Trump-McConnell Tax Bill giving 83 percent of the benefits to the top 1 percent is a loser for Republicans; a fair tax system that changes that and makes the very wealthy pay more is a winner for Democrats — but raising taxes on the middle class to pay for a myriad of programs is NOT.
3. College loan reform is a winner for Democrats — but forgiving $1.5 trillion in debt, particularly for the wealthy, is NOT.
4. Support for funding for college and trade school, like the Obama plan, is a winner for Democrats — but free college for all is NOT.
5. Better pay for teachers and more support for public schools is a winner for Democrats — but a federal raise of $13,500 for every teacher, costing $315 billion (the Kamala Harris plan) is NOT.
6. Comprehensive immigration reform, stopping the separation of families at the border, and expanding asylum programs is a winner for Democrats — but decriminalizing immigration and promising free health care is NOT.

It is so important for Democrats to focus on pragmatic, rational solutions that resonate with the American people, not box ourselves in to proposals that we know will be rejected in November of 2020. We cannot play into Donald Trump’s hands.

Democrats must be the party of the $15 an hour minimum wage, the party that protects Social Security and Medicare, the party that ensures civil rights for all Americans and that invests in 21^st century infrastructure.

Think about it: Trump and the Republicans’ radical, unreasonable and venomous policies on a woman’s right to choose, stronger gun laws, global warming, income inequality, and race and hate and division and fear — that is not where the American people are — Democrats offer a clear alternative. These provide a progressive path to victory.

And how about foreign affairs: coddling tyrants and dictators while dissing our allies, a truly harmful trade policy, chaos abroad and chaos in our defense and foreign policy establishment at home — Trump has no clue what he is doing.

So, why should Democrats nominate a candidate who offers proposals that are anathema to the majority of American voters? Why propose an agenda that has no chance of passing and will not lead to Democrats expanding their majority in the House and, hopefully, taking back the Senate, and sending Mitch McConnell packing?

From now on, these debates had better highlight the differences and the stakes with Trump, not become a circular firing squad that nominates the candidate least likely to win a general election. Democrats have a real chance to turn America around. Let’s not blow it.

Peter Fenn is a long-time Democratic political strategist who served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was a top aide to Sen. Frank Church and was the first director of Democrats for the 80s, founded by Pamela Harriman. He also co-founded the Center for Responsive Politics/Open Secrets. Follow him on Twitter @peterhfenn.

I will never forget, as a young man in my early 20s, having a conversation with my mentor and later boss, Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) after his campaign visit to Delaware to campaign for a 29-year-old Senate candidate named Joe Biden. Few gave Biden a chance to win against a seasoned and respected senior senator, J. Caleb Boggs.

The polls had Biden way behind, and 1972 was anything but a good year for Democrats. But Frank Church saw something very special in Joe Biden and he said to me: “I think that kid Biden can do it, he is an amazing candidate and he’s connecting with voters.” When the votes were counted, Joe Biden won with just over 3,000 votes.

As most Americans know, Biden and his family were preparing to come to Washington when his wife and young daughter were killed in a tragic car accident, that also left his other two sons injured and in the hospital. Biden seriously considered not taking his seat, but Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-Mont.) and others consoled him and urged him to be sworn in and take the office.

Frank Church helped Biden through his grief and provided his experienced Chief of Staff and Press Secretary to help the new senator. Public service has been Joe Biden’s life ever since. When I worked for Church, I became close to Biden’s top aide Ted Kaufman (later Senator), who helped guide us through the hard election of 1980, and even Church’s run for President in 1976.

All this to say, there is a lot of history over many decades.

In my view, Joe Biden’s time is now. Here are the reasons:

1. He speaks the common language of what Senator Sherrod Brown calls “the dignity of work.” With Brown not running, Joe Biden talks the talk of the scrappy, Catholic kid from Scranton, Pa. He learned the ups and downs of an American family in the 20th century and his working-class roots are ingrained in him.
2. Biden is genuine, he speaks his mind, what you see is what you get. He may go on a little long, he may misspeak, he may occasionally go over the top… but any criticism of Uncle Joe for that pales in comparison to what we have in the White House now. Hard to imagine over 6,000 lies from Joe Biden in just two years!
3. Biden is a steady hand on the tiller when we need a captain who can navigate the foreign policy seas that are guaranteed to get much choppier with Trump on top. He is trusted abroad, respected by our allies and enemies alike, and knows the lay of the land and the history behind it. Again, a clear contrast not only with Trump but also the group of other Democrats seeking the nomination.
4. He is a solid progressive, but his issue positions won’t alienate large sections of the American electorate. The “socialist” label will never stick to him. He has a record of over 40 years in office that can be nitpicked, but Joe Biden is mainstream in the best sense of the word — middle America mainstream.
5. Democrats want to win the presidency more than all else. They understand that another four years of Trump isn’t just another term, it’s exponential in its harm to the country. Just as the election of 2018 showed what Democrats could do, even when the economy was relatively stable, 2020 is the ultimate battle. Even if some of the more liberal elements of our party would rather Biden adopt more radical policy positions, nothing is more important than nominating a ticket than can, and will, win in November.
6. The states that Democrats lost, or nearly lost, in 2016 — Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, Minnesota, New Hampshire — are states where Biden will be strong and do well as the Democratic nominee. He will play much better, to be honest, than Hillary did in 2016 or other “coastal” candidates will in 2020.
7. The fact that Biden knows how to negotiate with the other side is a plus, not a minus. The fact that he was able to prevent a government shutdown by negotiating with Republicans illustrates that Biden is trusted by his former colleagues on the Hill and has earned their respect. He has been there, he has sat across the table from strong personalities. He knows how to do it. He is competent and with an incompetent P. T. Barnum in the White House the contrast could not be more clear.
8. He may be older than others running, and he may not be a new face, but he is in better shape than Trump, and he knows how to campaign. He will be out there as a Happy Warrior, as they used to describe Hubert Humphrey — a candidate who dives into the crowd.
9. The role of the vice president doesn’t hurt, it helps. Not only has he been there in the White House, but when you consider that we have had six vice presidents as nominees for president in the last 60 years, that is impressive. (Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, George H.W. Bush. and Al Gore).
10. Joe Biden is a fighter. He is passionate and strong and skilled. And, more important, he knows how to wage a political fight without going over the top, without making rookie mistakes, without taking the bait. He may very well be the most experienced and deft opponent that Trump could face. He has been through it all and his political instincts are well honed.

There is no question that Joe Biden has been a fixture in American politics for a very long time. He is a known quantity — maybe just what America needs right now. That’s why it may just be Joe Biden’s time.