The national general elections of 2012 left politics on the Potomac unchanged.  Six billion dollars later and all we had to show for it were single digit shifts in the House of Representatives and the Senate that effectively canceled each other out. Add to that a second term for President Obama and it would appear all that time and treasure was spent just to preserve the status quo.

What life would be like for Democrats in the post-Obama era compelled me to write an opinion piece titled “Beyond Barack” during the 2012 Thanksgiving weekend analyzing who could be logical choices for the next Democratic presidential nominee. Here is an excerpt:

“Who will be the viable Democratic contenders in 2016?  Hillary Clinton is certainly a substantial, formidable and electable candidate. However, she will be 69 years of age in 2016.  Ronald Reagan, at 69, was the oldest president to take office to date.  Elizabeth Warren, another possible powerhouse candidate, would be 67.  Unless medical advancements in the next three years can make 70 the new 50, I sadly surmise that, given the rigors of the campaign trail, with its voracious 24/7 news cycle this past election has demonstrated coupled with the challenges and stresses placed on the modern U.S. Presidency, these two remarkable women will most probably pass up a presidential bid as it will come so late in life, regardless of what might be said and done in their name today.”

Not only was my surmise wrong, an even older candidate (who wasn’t even a member of the Democratic party at that time) emerged.  75-year-old Bernie Sanders, the longest serving independent U.S. Senator from Vermont and a self-described “democratic socialist,” mounted a surprisingly strong primary campaign paradoxically energized by disaffected young citizens, many of whom had never voted or participated in the political process.

Back then, I took a pragmatic approach in my analysis of who might emerge as the Democratic nominee. I reasoned that the demands of the job today appear to require the stamina and vigor of someone younger.  The last three presidents had been all under the age of 55 when they were first inaugurated so I used that age as the benchmark.

In the last century, six vice-presidents, two senators and five governors have ascended to the presidency. The current vice-presidential list obviously contains only one name. 74-year-old Joe Biden toyed with the idea and declined to run, but not for reasons of age.  56 out of 187 Democratic members of the House of Representatives are currently 55 or younger. However, the last person elected to the presidency straight from congress was James Garfield and, before him, Abraham Lincoln.  There are two reasons running for president from a representative’s seat is difficult to achieve. A representative’s platform is a relatively parochial one and it is hard to build a name outside of the congressional district. Furthermore, the two-year congressional election cycle makes it extremely difficult to raise money to simultaneously be re-elected to your current office and prepare a run for president.

Governors and senators have a bigger platform and a wider constituency from which they may develop a presidential bid and their four and six year terms allow them a more comfortable cushion in order to raise money in pursuit of presidential aspirations.

In retrospect, it is not surprising that Bernie Sanders, whose politics were forged in the crucible of the 1960s, became the champion of young people’s aspiration for the next presidency.  The 1960s brought us the youngest president ever elected with the promise of renewed faith and optimism. This was followed too quickly by the horror of the JFK and MLK assassinations. The civil rights struggles that brought on a doubling down of FDR’s New Deal through LBJs War on Poverty and the Great Society only ended in dissolution with the Vietnam conflict and the election of Richard Nixon.

Hillary Clinton failed to reignite the passions of those young voters who propelled Obama to victory and Sanders to coming close. The razor-thin margins of the general election, deeply divided by a marked generation gap and low approval ratings of both nominees, once again spawned the resurgence of third party candidates. We got Naderized again by the consequences of having that option which never had a scintilla of a chance to win despite Bernie’s best efforts to put the genie back in the bottle. They took away just enough of the Sanders constituency to lose the Electoral College vote. Now the consequences of a Trump presidency loom large before us.

A Chicago Reader article quoted me while covering an event I held in 2001 protesting of the inauguration of George Bush after what many felt was a stolen election:

"I want these people to see the mainstream, and I want the mainstream to see them," Hollenbeck said. "It doesn't make any sense to have them out of the Democratic Party. I think (Ralph) Nader showed that. We've evolved a two?party system over the years. It doesn't have to be the same parties, but it's developed that way. The conservatives and liberals have coalesced into one party or another."

I am still of the opinion that a multi-party parliamentary-style political system simply exacerbates the bitter intransience and gridlock we are experiencing at all levels of government.  This nation is far too populous for such a system to ever build a governing consensus.  The evolution of the two-party system has served, and will continue to serve, us well.  What is needed now is room for younger, more progressive representation in the Democratic Party.

The Republicans, for the first time in my memory, have considerably younger representation in Washington by lopsided margins. Senate Republicans have 17 members at or below the age of 55 (32% of their total Senate membership) while the Democrats have just 8 members in the same age bracket (17% of their total Senate membership).  The statistics in the House are much the same.  43% of House of Representatives Republicans are 55 years of age or less while the Democrat’s percentage is just a little less that 30%.

I reiterate that age matters in a presidential election. The modern campaign is longer, far more grueling and expensive. The media cycles are now 24/7 with technology making scrutiny and amplification of the smallest details possible on a viral scale. The intensity and pressure wasn’t as great eight years ago.

However, being too young and lacking in any governing experience can be just as problematic as evinced by Barack Obama’s rapid ascendancy through the ranks of the Democratic Party to become president at the age of 47. There were four younger presidents. However, Theodore Roosevelt (at 42), Ulysses Grant (at 46) and Bill Clinton (also at 46) all had experience in governing. John F. Kennedy (at 43) had already served two full terms in Washington before being elected and was assassinated after only serving for three years. By contrast, Obama served seven years in an Illinois legislature dominated by Democrats from a “safe seat” where there was never a Republican running against him. He was launched into national prominence with his keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in 2004 and, after being elected that same year as the junior Senator from Illinois, he did not even complete his first term in Washington before running for, and subsequently winning, the office of U.S. President.

During the 2008 primary, it was my opinion that Hillary Clinton should be the Democratic nominee. Even then, she was the most qualified, having been in the White House and served in the Senate far longer than Obama. I knew the President back then (having consulted for two candidates who were running against him in the primary for Illinois State Senate) and felt he was too unseasoned for such a quantum leap. Democrats held the majority in the Senate and the House when he was inaugurated and I still feel that his lack of experience with governing squandered that advantage for his first two years.

Imagine what this country might be like today if roles had been reversed with Hillary Clinton, at age of 60, being elected as the first woman to that office along with Barack Obama as the first African-American Vice-President. Now, at his current ideal age of 55, he could have become the President after eight years as president of the Senate, managing a larger staff, and being better able to deal with the Republicans (and they with him).

However, it was the hope that President Obama inspired that sparked the excitement and passion among the same constituency as Bernie Sanders had that lead him to victory in the primaries and eight years in the White House. His unflappability against the most blatantly absurd attacks and steady hand at the helm steered the Ship of State through new and troubling challenges most admirably. He both grew and grayed as POTUS and I have nothing but kudos for his stewardship.

We now face at least four years of a president who is 70+ years of age and even less prepared to govern than Obama was in 2009 ... due no small measure to the failure of leadership to encourage and properly develop younger talent within the Democratic party. Paradoxically, this failure has been fomented by the incredible success of Democratic legislation and policy throughout the last century that has kept that aging leadership in power.  Now, well more than a decade into the new millennium, Democrats need younger leaders to reinvigorate and reaffirm those traditional Democratic values borne out of the New Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society as well as inject new ideas and ideals that will lead us away from global conflict and environmental crisis.

In the coming years, the Democratic Party must find ways at the local, state and national levels to support young, progressive candidates and give voice to those young constituents who feel they are outside the Democratic Big Tent.  Make them feel they are a part of the continuing tradition espoused by the bold Democratic programs and policies that made them the party of the people.