Ready to fight? 2020 Democrats frame the race on their terms

Speaking before a gathering of black leaders on Capitol Hill this week, Sen. Kamala Harris offered guidance on when Democrats should fight President Donald Trump and Republicans.

"What I've found myself recently saying is this: 'If it's worth fighting for, it's a fight worth having,'" the California Democrat and potential presidential candidate said, pausing, before repeating the phrase once more. "And I say that because I think sometimes there is a conversation that suggests that before we decide we're going to engage in a fight, some might say, 'Well, let's sit back and consider the odds of winning.'"

"No," Harris continued. "If it's worth fighting for, it's a fight worth having."

In this Nov. 14, 2018, photo, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., left, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., right, talk on their phones before heading into meetings with fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill in Washington. Their campaigns are not yet official, but some Democrats are beginning to frame the 2020 fight on their terms. Warren has taken aggressive stances that suggest a willingness to take on President Donald Trump directly. (AP PhotoPablo Martinez Monsivais)

Energized by their success in last week's midterms and courting potential primary voters outraged by the actions of the Trump administration, virtually every Democrat considering a White House run is talking about fighting in one form or another — and trying to prove he or she is prepared for the match.

Some, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, have taken aggressive stances that suggest a willingness to take on Trump directly. Others, such as Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, talk about fighting for workers and espouse an aspirational vision of America. And former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, another potential presidential candidate, urges a higher form of politics that moves past the bitter rancor of the moment. In the process, all the possible presidential contenders are offering signs of how they would approach their candidacies.

Dan Pfeiffer, who was a senior adviser to former President Barack Obama, said the best Democratic campaign will be the one that can "raise the stakes."

"You need someone who is tough enough to take on Trump, for sure. But what you want is someone who is inspiring," he said, cautioning that it's still early and potential candidates could change their approach.

"If your message is 'They punch me in the gut, I punch them in the face,' that is not an inspiring message," he said. "We have to make this election about big things, and we have to inspire people."

Last week's election showcased a variety of strategies.

On election night, Warren declared that Trump and his "corrupt friends" had spent two years "building a wall of anger and division and resentment." In her speech, she referenced the "fight" ahead more than two dozen times.

"Tonight, as the first cracks begin to appear in that wall, let us declare that our fight is not over until we have transformed our government ... into one that works, not just for the rich and the powerful but for everyone," Warren said.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat and potential presidential candidate, spoke of an electorate that voted for the way politics can and should be.

She described a final meeting with the late Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona in which he pointed to a passage in his book that said, "There is nothing more liberating than fighting for a cause larger than yourself."

"That is what Minnesota voted for today," Klobuchar said. "Minnesota voted for patriotism, Minnesota voted for tolerance, Minnesota voted for people who believe in opportunity."

In a victory speech in Ohio, where Brown notched an easy win even as other Democrats there struggled, he appeared to test a populist pitch for the White House.

"When we fight for workers, we fight for all people, whether they punch a clock or swipe a badge, earn a salary or make tips. Whether they are raising children or caring for an aging parent," he said.

Later, Brown urged the nation to look to the Midwest, and particularly Ohio, and to take note of how his state celebrates workers.

"That is the message coming out of Ohio in 2018, and that is the blueprint for our nation in 2020," he said.

Diane Feldman, a pollster for Brown's 2018 race, said Brown tends to talk "about who he's for, rather than who he's against," and described his message as an "affirmative one."

"There's going to be a discussion about whether the Democratic Party defines itself in opposition to Trump or whether the Democratic Party really has something to assert about who we're for or what we're for and what that means," Feldman said. "While we're all against Trump, we also need to be clear on what we would change in ways that would be helpful to people."

Perhaps no one in the potential field has demonstrated the impulse to fight than Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for adult-film star Stormy Daniels and a vocal Trump critic. Avenatti, who has said he is considering a 2020 run, said in his first early state speech as a potential political candidate that Democrats "must be a party that fights fire with fire."

Avenatti was arrested this week in Los Angeles on allegations of domestic violence, which he has denied.

Tom Steyer, the billionaire investor and Democratic activist who is considering jumping into the 2020 race himself, said Democrats need someone who can explain to voters "not just how stupid and misguided what's going on right now is," but who can also speak to the opportunity ahead of the country to course-correct."

"It's a hell of a good thing to run your mouth, but when the time comes, the American people need someone to produce, someone who understands what's going on and is not just flapping their gums," Steyer said.

Donna Edwards, who represented Maryland in Congress for four terms before giving up the seat to run for Senate, said she hoped that Democrats would not "take on Trump by being Trump," and would be capable of speaking to the broader interests of Democrats and left-leaning independents across the country.

"I think as Democrats we have to be smart — we're always so good at doing policy," Edwards said. "We live and die on our policy, but we have to have that unique combo of the policy and the personality that fits the entire country, and I think that's going to be the challenge."

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Russia on Wednesday vetoed a U.N. resolution sponsored by the United States and Japan calling on all nations to prevent a dangerous nuclear arms race in outer space, calling it “a dirty spectacle” that cherry picks weapons of mass destruction from all other weapons that should also be banned.

The vote in the 15-member Security Council was 13 in favor, Russia opposed and China abstaining.

The resolution would have called on all countries not to develop or deploy nuclear arms or other weapons of mass destruction in space, as banned under a 1967 international treaty that included the U.S. and Russia, and to agree to the need to verify compliance.

U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said after the vote that Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Moscow has no intention of deploying nuclear weapons in space.

“Today’s veto begs the question: Why? Why, if you are following the rules, would you not support a resolution that reaffirms them? What could you possibly be hiding,” she asked. “It’s baffling. And it’s a shame.”

Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia dismissed the resolution as “absolutely absurd and politicized,” and said it didn’t go far enough in banning all types of weapons in space.

Russia and China proposed an amendment to the U.S.-Japan draft that would call on all countries, especially those with major space capabilities, “to prevent for all time the placement of weapons in outer space, and the threat of use of force in outer spaces.”

The vote was 7 countries in favor, 7 against, and one abstention and the amendment was defeated because it failed to get the minimum 9 “yes” votes required for adoption.

The U.S. opposed the amendment, and after the vote Nebenzia addressed the U.S. ambassador saying: “We want a ban on the placement of weapons of any kind in outer space, not just WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). But you don’t want that. And let me ask you that very same question. Why?”

He said much of the U.S. and Japan’s actions become clear “if we recall that the U.S. and their allies announced some time ago plans to place weapons … in outer space.”

Nebenzia accused the U.S. of blocking a Russian-Chinese proposal since 2008 for a treaty against putting weapons in outer space.

Thomas-Greenfield accused Russia of undermining global treaties to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, irresponsibly invoking “dangerous nuclear rhetoric,” walking away from several of its arms control obligations, and refusing to engage “in substantive discussions around arms control or risk reduction.”

She called Wednesday’s vote “a real missed opportunity to rebuild much-needed trust in existing arms control obligations.”

Thomas-Greenfield’s announcement of the resolution on March 18 followed White House confirmation in February that Russia has obtained a “troubling” anti-satellite weapon capability, although such a weapon is not operational yet.

Putin declared later that Moscow has no intention of deploying nuclear weapons in space, claiming that the country has only developed space capabilities similar to those of the U.S.

Thomas-Greenfield said before the vote that the world is just beginning to understand “the catastrophic ramifications of a nuclear explosion in space.”

It could destroy “thousands of satellites operated by countries and companies around the world — and wipe out the vital communications, scientific, meteorological, agricultural, commercial, and national security services we all depend on,” she said.

The defeated draft resolution said “the prevention of an arms race in outer space would avert a grave danger for international peace and security.” It would have urged all countries carrying out activities in exploring and using outer space to comply with international law and the U.N. Charter.

The draft would have affirmed that countries that ratified the 1967 Outer Space Treaty must comply with their obligations not to put in orbit around the Earth “any objects” with weapons of mass destruction, or install them “on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space.”

The treaty, ratified by some 114 countries, including the U.S. and Russia, prohibits the deployment of “nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction” in orbit or the stationing of “weapons in outer space in any other manner.”

The draft resolution emphasized “the necessity of further measures, including political commitments and legally binding instruments, with appropriate and effective provisions for verification, to prevent an arms race in outer space in all its aspects.”

It reiterated that the U.N. Conference on Disarmament, based in Geneva, has the primary responsibility to negotiate agreements on preventing an arms race in outer space.

The 65-nation body has achieved few results and has largely devolved into a venue for countries to voice criticism of others’ weapons programs or defend their own. The draft resolution would have urged the conference “to adopt and implement a balanced and comprehensive program of work.”

At the March council meeting where the U.S.-Japan initiative was launched, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres warned that “geopolitical tensions and mistrust have escalated the risk of nuclear warfare to its highest point in decades.”

He said the movie “Oppenheimer” about Robert Oppenheimer, who directed the U.S. project during World War II that developed the atomic bomb, “brought the harsh reality of nuclear doomsday to vivid life for millions around the world.”

“Humanity cannot survive a sequel to Oppenheimer,” the U.N. chief said.

United States Ambassador and Representative to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield addresses members of the U.N. Security Council before voting during a meeting on Non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, Wednesday, April 24, 2024 at United Nations headquarters. (AP Photo/Eduardo Munoz Alvarez)

FILE - U.S. Ambassador to United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield speaks on Thursday, April 18, 2024, in Tokyo. The U.N. Security Council is set to vote Wednesday, April 24, 2024, on a resolution announced by Thomas-Greenfield, calling on all nations to prevent a dangerous nuclear arms race in outer space. It is likely to be vetoed by Russia. (AP Photo/Eugene Hoshiko, Pool, File)