10 things I'm thankful for this Thanksgiving

Continuing the tradition I started on this blog last year, here are the 10 things I'm thankful for in 2017. Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Sonora Pass, October, 2017

1. First and foremost, my family, who provide never-ending love and support, and tolerate my flaws and faults each day of the year (which is often no easy task). I'm thankful for their health and spirit and proximity (which hits home every year when I see the millions packing airports to travel long distances to be with family). 
2. The news media, who do so much to hold the powerful accountable and give the public the information they need to make decisions rooted in truth and facts, both for themselves and the nation. There's never been a time when the news media in this country have been under such assault, and never a time when its role has been more essential. Like all institutions in American society, the news media are not perfect, but the good they provide to a democratic, free society far outweighs their flaws. Of all my material possessions, my subscriptions to the New York Times, Washington Post and my own East Bay Times are among the ones I value most.
3. My colleagues at the East Bay Times and Mercury News who enabled me this year to experience the professional thrill of a lifetime, being part of a Pulitzer Prize-winning team.
4. The brave women throughout the nation who have stepped forward in recent months to call out sexual harassment and abuse. This is a long-overdue reckoning of the need to combat the abuse of power at all levels, and I firmly believe their actions will change the landscape for all women who are subjected to such conduct, along with misogyny and gender discrimination. It makes me more hopeful for the world my own daughters will encounter when they reach adulthood in a few years. 
5. All Americans who have persisted and resisted over the past year in standing up against racism, hatred, nationalism and all the insidious ills that manifested themselves in last year's election. Those who stand for decency, truth and empathy for our fellow men and women may have lost a battle last November, but they are well on their way to winning the war. More and more, Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, are putting country and our shared values above party and ideology.
6. America's veterans, who have given and sacrificed so much for our nation. Ken Burns' "Vietnam War" series captured in gripping detail what the American soldier, airman and sailor has routinely been asked to endure and sacrifice on our behalf. Regardless of how we feel about any given war or the decisions that may have led up to it, we should never forget the burden carried by those whom our leaders put in harm's way in defense of our values and security. 
7. Our nation's first responders, who played such a critical role in responding to the wave of hurricanes, shootings and wildfires that devastated our country over the past year. For many people, their around-the-clock efforts literally meant the difference between life and death.
8. The political leaders of my state, California, for taking such a firm stand in defense of human rights and the security and safety of citizens here and around the world, whether it pertains to the plight of immigrants, the scourge of gun violence or the battle against climate change. As Washington D.C. and so many other states around the nation turn a blind eye toward the truth about these issues and retreat from leadership in favor of narrow self-interests, California, while not perfect, is stepping up to lead the way in creating a society that is more safe, just and caring for all its people.
9. The priests at Christ the King parish, who routinely tame my anxieties with words of wisdom and grace. Thank you for reminding me of the values of patience, humility and respect (for both myself and others) in a world that can so easily pull us in unhealthy directions.
10. And finally, I'm thankful for God's great gift of this planet and all the beauty, comfort and tranquility it provides. Nature is truly God's church. Our family adventures this year brought us to the awe-inspiring beauty of the Grand Canyon, the majestic waterfalls and formations of Yosemite National Park, the calm, cool waters of Bass Lake, and the snow-capped peaks of the Sonora Pass and hypnotizing flow of the Stanislaus River in the Sierras. But beyond all that, the simple beauty of seeing the leaves change color in my own neighborhood as I walk my dog, Theodore, on crisp autumn morning is a reminder of the priceless beauty of nature, which is accessible to each and every one of us, as long as we value and commit ourselves to preserving it (looking forward to spending Friday at Samuel P. Taylor State Park in Marin).
    

Yosemite National Park, August 2017

Happy Thanksgiving! 

How Bill Clinton's resignation would have changed history

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's comment this week that Bill Clinton should have resigned amid the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal has ignited a firestorm of debate within the Democratic Party, and a backlash against the New York senator who now holds Hillary Clinton's former seat and has long-standing ties to the Clintons.

For what it's worth, as someone who voted for Bill Clinton twice, I believed then and today that he should have resigned for the good of the country. His salacious conduct was unbecoming of the president of the United States and a betrayal to voters who twice looked past various allegations of sexual misconduct on his part to elect him to the White House. But most importantly, his resignation would have spared the country a long impeachment battle, lifted the cloud from his presidency, and allowed the country to move forward in confronting its various challenges, not least of which was the growing threat of terrorism.
Regardless of what people think about what Clinton should have done in 1998, it's interesting to speculate how the history of the past 20 years would have been different had he stepped down and not served out the remainder of his second term. We'll never know for sure, but my guess is that the country would have been better off as a result.
Here's a look at some key historical questions to ask about the events that would have followed Clinton's resignation:

• Who would have one the 2000 presidential election? 
• Would the 9/11 terrorist attacks still have happened?
• Would the United States have ultimately gone to war with Iraq?
• Would the 2008 financial crisis have occurred?
• Would Barack Obama and Donald Trump eventually been elected president?

Let's look first at the most obvious question. Would the outcome of the contested 2000 presidential election been different? It's far from guaranteed, but I think it's highly likely that Al Gore would have won the 2000 election running as an incumbent president who had restored a sense of order and normalcy to the White House following the Lewinsky sex scandal. Given the fact he would have almost certainly continued Clinton's core policies, Gore likely would have enjoyed an approval rating similar to the one Clinton had upon leaving office (66 percent). He would have avoided the uncomfortable dilemma of having to run on the Clinton record while distancing himself from Clinton's personal conduct, as he would have had nearly two years to build his own record. Given the razor-thin margin by which he lost the election (a few hundred votes in Florida), I think these factors together would have easily put Gore over the top. There's no way to know for sure what an Al Gore presidency would have brought, but the results most likely would have been better than the disastrous George W. Bush presidency, which included the worst terrorist attack in the nation's history, a misguided war in Iraq, and the beginning of the Great Recession. 

Which brings us to the next big question. Would the 9/11 attacks have unfolded the way they did? My guess is probably they would have, but the chances are at least marginally higher that they would have been foiled had Clinton resigned. For one thing, the year that was consumed with the sex scandal and resulting impeachment battle coincided with the time period when the 9/11 attacks were being planned. If not for the distractions that accompanied Clinton's scandal, the White House and Congress obviously could have focused more centrally on the looming terrorist threat. Of course, there's no guarantee that would have happened (they could have simply shifted their focus to other matters, and battles), but the impeachment drama certainly didn't help in keeping the country focused on what Osama bin Laden was doing in the desert of Afghanistan. Then there's the question of whether a Gore administration would have succeeded in preventing the attacks that a Bush administration failed to. Again, I think it's unlikely, but possible. A Gore presidency would have brought continuity in the fight against terrorism, and there's strong evidence that the new Bush administration didn't view the threat with the same urgency that existed under Clinton. It's hard to argue that the intelligence agencies that failed to prevent the attacks would have acted in a significantly different fashion had Gore occupied the White House, but we'll never know.

One thing that is safe to assume, however, is if Gore had been president during 9/11, there would have been no Iraq War. This was by far the most controversial, and misguided, decision of the Bush presidency. If Gore had been president, as I believe he would have had Clinton resigned, he would have focused on extinguishing bin Laden and his band of terrorists in Afghanistan and not gotten sidetracked in Iraq. 

But what would have become of the Gore presidency had he been elected and the 9/11 attacks still occurred? I think it's likely Gore would have been a one-term president. Of course, much would have depended on how he executed the war against terror and led the nation in the aftermath of 9/11, but he would have faced a stiffer challenge than Bush in maintaining the public's support. He would have received more blame for the attacks than Bush ultimately received as a relatively new president. Gore's critics would have been able to argue that he was part of the administration that had been in power during the years in which Al Qaeda grew as a threat and plotted the attacks, and had failed to take strong enough action to stop it. Bush's supporters could say that he had been president for less than 8 months when the attacks occurred, and that most of the planning for the attacks took place on Clinton's watch. 

So let's say Clinton resigned, Gore became president in 1998, won in 2000, then lost in 2004, likely to Sen. John McCain. That's my best guess on what would have happened in the years following a Clinton resignation. After that, the hypotheticals grow cloudy. How would a President McCain had executed the war against terrorism, assuming 9/11 had occurred? Would a war in Iraq eventually resulted? And would the 2008 financial crisis had played out the same way? Not knowing how Gore's and McCain's economic policies would have differed from Bush's, it's difficult to say, but many of the factors that led to the economic collapse were structural and beyond the relatively limited scope of any actions different presidents, or their administrations, would have taken in the preceding years (Congress likely would have remained in the hands of the Republicans during the majority of this period). So let's say the economic collapse would have occurred regardless of whether Bush, Gore or McCain were president in 2008. It likely would have doomed any re-election prospects for whichever party held the presidency at the time (I'm guessing McCain, but it's possible Gore would have won re-election). So perhaps Barack Obama would have been elected president in 2008 and Trump in 2016 regardless.

But the one wild card in all this is how a Bill Clinton resignation would have affected Hillary Clinton's political career. The fact that Bill was able to prevail in the impeachment battle and serve out his term certainly made it easier for Hillary to run for and win her Senate race in 2000. But would she have run and won even if her husband had resigned? My guess is yes. Voters largely absolved her of any blame during the Lewinsky scandal, and her standing in voters' eyes actually improved as she became a sympathetic figure, and the scandal shifted focus away from her own controversies, specifically the Whitewater ordeal. But while I think she would have run for and won the Senate seat regardless, I think it's much more doubtful she would have been able to mount a presidential campaign. The Democratic Party's views toward the Clintons and the Bill Clinton presidency would have shifted dramatically had he resigned from office in disgrace, and it's highly doubtful that the Clintons would have been able to maintain their powerful position within the party, particularly if Gore had won election in his own right. And if there had been no Hillary Clinton foil for Donald Trump in 2016, the chances are very high his campaign would have crashed and burned. 

So there you have it. Bill Clinton should have resigned in 1998 not only because it was the right thing to do, but because it likely would have spared us the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush, possibly prevented the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq War, and ultimately kept Donald Trump far away from the White House. 

At least that's my best guess. 

Journalist, martyr and saint. The amazing story of Maximillian Kolbe

In honor of All Saints Day, I wanted to share the story of a saint I only learned about a few months ago, during an audio lecture series I listened to titled "The Lives of Great Christians." Of all the saint stories I heard over the course of roughly 15 hours of lectures, none inspired or touched me as much as Maximillian Kolbe.

Kolbe was a Catholic priest during World War II who ultimately starved to death at Auschwitz when he volunteered to sacrifice his own life in the place of another prisoner. How did Father Kolbe end up in the most infamous of concentration camps despite the fact he was a Catholic and not a Jew? He also happened to be a fearless journalist who built an amazingly successful newspaper publishing operation in Poland and later Japan in the years before and then during the war (the monastery he founded in Nagasaki was spared in the atomic bombing because it was protected by a surrounding mountain). Somehow, Kolbe managed to prosper as a newspaper publisher when the economic challenges were even more daunting than they are today, building a circulation in the hundreds of thousands and eventually launching his own radio station.

Kolbe was passionate both in his faith and his belief in the power of newspapers to educate, inform and inspire. He wasn't afraid to take on those in power, whether Stalin's Soviet Union, the Polish government, or later the Nazis, and use the power of the pen to take a stand for human rights. During the war, he also sheltered Jews from the Nazis in his Polish monastery.

When Kolbe's newspaper accounts ran afoul of the Nazis, he was shipped to Auschwitz. But that wasn't his greatest sacrifice. One of the many horrific practices employed by the Nazis was their method of deterring escape attempts. When one prisoner escaped the camp, they would randomly choose 10 people to starve to death in a "hellish dungeon."

When a fellow prisoner who was chosen among the 10 cried out to be spared because he had a wife and children, Kolbe stepped forward and volunteered to take his place. For some reason, the Nazis accepted his offer, and Kolbe was the last to die in the dungeon, eventually being administered a lethal injunction when starvation wasn't enough.

The man whose life Kolbe spared, Francis Gajowniczek, survived the war and spread word of Kolbe's sacrifice in the years that followed. He lived to see Kolbe canonized a saint by Pope John Paul II in 1982.

In a world where we're buffeted daily by stories of hate and division, the story of Maximillian Kolbe's love and sacrifice for his fellow man during humanity's darkest days embodies the meaning of All Saints Day. And regardless of religious faith, his belief in the power of journalism to educate citizens, right societal wrongs and hold those in power accountable should serve as an inspiration at a time when the news media are regularly threatened and attacked by those in the highest rungs of power, both here and around the world.

The strange parallels between the presidencies of Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, and what it could mean

One of my favorite Google searches since January has been "Donald Trump's approval rating." Much was made of the fact that no president since polling began saw his approval drop so precipitously after taking office. The gap between where Trump's approval stood during the early months of his presidency and that of his predecessors during their honeymoon period was strikingly enormous. For those who believe Trump is a disaster for the country (I'm one of them), his dismal approval ratings have provided a ray of hope.

Clinton vs. Trump approval ratings from FiveThirtyEight.com

But as I've followed his approval ratings in recent months, I've noticed an interesting trend. It has largely flatlined in the high 30s, which of course is awful for any president, and particularly for one in his first year in office when presidents typically see some of their highest ratings. Nevertheless, comparing his approval rating to past presidents at the same point in their presidencies , we see that Trump is largely holding steady, while other recent presidents saw their ratings drop precipitously after their honeymoon period.

Of all the recent presidents, Trump's current average approval of 37.3% is closest to Bill Clinton (44%) at the same point in his presidency. In fact, Clinton's approval actually fell lower than Trump's was 134 days into both presidencies (36.8% for Clinton vs. 39.6% for Trump). Meanwhile, while George W. Bush and Barack Obama both began their presidencies with generally high approval ratings, by this point in their first years, both were hovering around 51% approval (Obama would drift under 50% as his first year continued, while Bush saw a huge spike after 9/11).

For those who continue to count on Trump's presidency to implode, or at the very least for him to last only one term, this trend poses both cause for concern, and optimism. First, the concern. The similarities between Bill Clinton and Trump stretch beyond their generally rocky presidential starts and low approval ratings in their first year. Both ran campaigns that almost from the start were engulfed in scandal and controversy and seemed poised to implode at various points. Of course, there were the sexual-related scandals (Gennifer Flowers for Clinton, the Access Hollywood tape for Trump). But it's easy for forget that with Clinton, there was a lot more (accusations of draft dodging and the Whitewater land deal to name a few). Time magazine ran a cover of Donald Trump melting down during last year's campaign when it appeared he had offended his way out of the race; but how many people remember the Time magazine cover of candidate Clinton's face shown through a negative photo image of him, to highlight his broader image problem. Almost from the moment his presidency began, it was under investigation for one thing or another, or at the least clouded by controversy and questions about his moral and ethical compass.

We all know what eventually happened with Clinton. Despite the scandals and low early approval ratings, he would easily win re-election and end his presidency as one of the most popular presidents in modern history -- despite being impeached. Few people would have predicted at this point in his first year as president that he would coast to re-election; in fact, by 1994, there were rumblings about whether he should be dumped from Democratic ticket in 1996 so that his more presidential-looking vice president (Al Gore) could take his place. The scandals never left Clinton, but the low approval ratings did. The reason was simple. The economy soared during the 1990s, the country largely avoided foreign entanglements and wars, and most people in the country were generally happy with their lot in life. Hence, they were more than willing to overlook their president's personal shortcomings and give him credit for what was going right in America. By almost every measure, Obama had nowhere near Clinton's baggage weighing him down, but he never approached Clinton's popularity, because the economy under Obama never approached its glory days under Clinton (few people seemed willing to give Obama credit for preventing another Great Depression, which many thought possible when he took office).

Could the same thing happen with Trump? Could voters ultimately overlook the Russian election tampering, the never-ending lies and self-absorption (and everything else), and reward Trump with a second term if the economy grows even more healthy and the country avoids international crises?

I think the answer is yes, but not likely. If unemployment stays low, the stock market continues to advance and things stay calm the next three years, there is a chance that Trump's approval rating could inch higher, especially if he finally decides to act somewhat presidential, and the Russia investigation bears no fruit. But I also believe the upside for him is much lower than it was for Clinton. For all his faults, Clinton was not nearly as polarizing and divisive as Trump has been, he was an intellectual heavyweight, and he acted presidential (at least much of the time). Enough people had an open mind about Clinton that when things started to look up in the country, and optimism about the future grew, there was lots of room for his popularity to soar. Trump, on the other hand, has offended so many people so quickly, has acted so unpresidential in so many ways, that a large segment of the American population simply will never change their opinion about him. The fact that his current approval rating is so dismal even though the economy is generally healthy, and even though he hasn't yet completely botched any domestic or international crisis, is a telling sign that  people are paying more attention to him (which seems to be his ultimate goal) than what's happening in the country as large.

Nevertheless, the Clinton example should be sobering for those who believe it's just a matter of time before the Trump nightmare ends. If the economy falters in the next year or so, or something else goes wrong, and Trump has no accomplishments to show for his time in office, his base could begin to desert him, and his approval could sink toward the 20s. But if that doesn't happen, it's not hard to see a scenario where his approval rating starts to inch back into the 40s and maybe even approach 50%. And as Bush and Obama showed, an incumbent who can keep about half the electorate behind him has a great chance at re-election.

It's hard to image at this point Trump's approval rating ever approaching the level it would need to be to give him a realistic chance at re-election (or even being renominated). But then again, the Clinton presidency also was shaping up as a disaster for much of his first term. Things can change quickly in a country where people largely judge their president based not on how they feel about him, but how they feel about their own lives.

Finding inspiration in the early years of Pope Francis

The four-part Spanish-language Netflix miniseries "Call me Francis" on the early priesthood of Pope Francis surely isn't raking in the viewership of "House of Cards" or "Stranger Things," but it's one of the most compelling, powerful and inspiring pieces of television I've seen in a long time (and inspiring is not something you see much in popular television these days). I never thought subtitles could bring me to tears.

First of all, you don't need to be a Catholic or even a Christian to find meaning in the series. In fact, one of the interesting and surprising revelations from Francis' life is that some of his closest friends were agnostics or atheists, including one woman in particular, Esther Ballestrino, whom Francis worked with in a lab when he was studying chemical engineering. Esther's fight on behalf of human rights during the brutal purges of the 1970s, and her tragic fate, is one of the fascinating subplots in the mini series, and leads to a crisis for Francis that threatens to destroy his career.

At the heart of the series is a message of hope and resilience, and the struggles so many of us face in trying to do the right thing and make a positive difference while constricted by forces outside our control. We learn from Francis' life how easy it is to tie ourselves up in knots, and how to ultimately undo those knots (Episode 3 of the Series is titled "The Knots.")

The basic theme of the story is Francis' life in the 1970s and '80s, when the man then known as Father Jorge Bergoglio is climbing the ranks of the Catholic Church in Argentina at the same time the church is grappling with the horrific purges and assassinations by the country's military dictatorship that ultimately results in the disappearance, and apparent deaths, of 30,000 people. Though the church is a powerful force in Argentina, its ability to stop these human rights abuses is limited, and those priests who are especially outspoken and active in fighting the government often end up assassinated themselves.

This is where Francis comes in. Like so many, he finds himself caught in the middle of an impossible situation, trying to work within the system to make a difference and save lives even while he knows the system isn't working the way it should. He often finds himself unable to please anyone, including himself. The activists who are openly fighting the government view him as too much of a conformist to a church that is unwilling to jeopardize its position within Argentine society by taking a harder stand against the government's atrocities. And those above him view him as too much of a rabble rouser rocking a boat that will only tip himself and the people he wants to help over the side.

This is ultimately a story of what it's like to be caught in the middle of a difficult, or impossible, situation, balancing what we want to accomplish with what is possible given the circumstances. Whether in our careers or family lives, how many of us have found ourselves in a similar situation? Trying to carve out a middle ground because it is the only path we can find, and seemingly unable to please anyone in the process, or make the difference we want to make? This is Francis' plight, and it ultimately leaves him tied up in knots. Even though he works behind the scenes to hide and protect people targeted by the government and fight government corruption, the people he cares most about keep dying.

And this is what leads to the crisis when Esther Ballestrino disappears during her fight on behalf of mothers of missing children who were abducted by the government (she and others were drugged and tossed out of an airplane to their deaths). His inability to save his friend nearly destroys Francis' career. He escapes for Germany and one day finds himself sitting in a small church gazing at a painting of the Virgin Mary holding a ribbon of knots. A woman sitting next to him explains the meaning of the painting. Mary is undoing the knots of the ribbon, symbolizing the power of faith to undo the knots we tie ourselves up in during our own struggles. She can undo your knots, the woman tells Francis. As Francis gazes at the painting, tears stream down his eyes. He feels the burden of his difficult decisions begin to lift from his shoulders.

The rest, as they say, is history. From that day on, Francis held a strong devotion to Mary, the undoer of knots, and would carry around cards with the painting that he would give to others facing their own struggles and difficult decisions.

As a man driven by faith, Francis also displayed a strong sense of pragmatism in his rise to the papacy. And in this era where ideology drives such deep wedges between us and stunts hope for progress that can only be achieved through compromise and finding a middle ground, it's a powerful lesson to remember. During his short papacy, Francis has brought people together like few before him, and inspired the world with his activism on behalf of shared values, whether the plight of the poor, or the environment. As the world sees a leadership vacuum from the United States, Francis may be the figure who steps forward to continue the fight for the values of freedom and social justice across the globe.

"Call me Francis" also reminded me how rare it is to see television drama these days that is truly inspiring and uplifting. There was plenty of darkness and sadness in the series, but that darkness was ultimately transcended by the power of human goodness, and one man's triumph over his inner struggles. It's sad that the most popular dramas on television these days seem to focus exclusively on human darkness and the power of violence, selfishness and evil. Back in the 1970s and '80s, you routinely saw dramas that, while often cheesy, were heavy on inspiration and the goodness of humanity, as well as the power of faith ("Touched by an Angel" and "Highway to Heaven.)" Those types of series are long gone. It seems that as a society, we now prefer to wallow in our darkest impulses, even when it comes to entertainment. We need more series like "Call me Francis" to teach us that goodness ultimately triumphs over evil, not just in fiction, but in real life.

The forgotten miracle of June 1942, and what it teaches us today

From June 4-7, 1942, something miraculous occurred near a little island in the Pacific Ocean. It has largely been forgotten to all but the most dedicated history buffs, which is a shame. Because in the grand history of the United States, never has there been a grander testament to the spirit of resilience over despair, daring over fear and hope over seemingly insurmountable odds. It is a forgotten event that sorely needs to be remembered at a time when defeatism is again on the rise and it all too easy to see America's best days as behind it.

America was not great when dawn broke on June 4, 1942. Far from it. Crippled by years of economic depression, the country had faced one disaster after another since being plunged into World War II by the crippling blow at Pearl Harbor. Much of its naval fleet remained in tatters or destroyed at Pearl Harbor. The Japanese had rampaged through the Pacific, capturing one island after another, all the way to Australia. Hitler's Nazi forces controlled much of the European continent, and it would be months or years before the United States could even hope to start turning the tide. Many Americans could scarcely remember a time when anything had gone right for their country. "We don't win anymore" is a misplaced slogan for 2017 but it was entirely appropriate for 1942.

Then it all changed. The Battle of Midway was the greatest naval victory in world history, plain and simple. Not simply because of how decisive it was but because of how unpredictable it was. A naval force that was woefully hobbled and outgunned by its enemy, that had been devastated at Pearl Harbor less than six month earlier, somehow, some way patched itself back together and forever changed the course of World War II and world history.

I won't bore you with the military details, but suffice it to say, that when the battle was over, the vaunted Japanese navy that had known nothing but victory since Pearl Harbor was decimated, four of its aircraft carriers sitting on the bottom of the ocean. The United States would never look back in World War II. 

Whether military history interests or bores you shouldn't matter. The lesson of Midway isn't really military at the end of the day. It's a lesson of faith in the human spirit and what can be accomplished when you don't lose hope. Ultimately, Midway was a tragedy like all battles of all wars are a tragedy. Young men on both sides died. That is never something to be celebrated. But in June 1942, the hopes of the world rested on whether the United States could pick itself up from the ashes of the Great Depression and Pearl Harbor and save democracy and freedom. Sadly, those hopes rested not on diplomacy or other peaceful means but on the power of its military. That was the reality the world faced, the reality that Hitler and Tojo had created. There was much question before June 4, 1942, whether America could possibly rise to the challenge. Afterward, there was little doubt. 

What happened at Midway was a triumph of brilliant code breakers working around the clock at Pearl Harbor to give a crippled navy a strategic advantage it desperately needed. It was a triumph of quiet, determined leaders like Chester Nimitz and Raymond Spruance, who would become the forgotten heroes of World War II, overshadowed by the likes of Eisenhower, MacArthur and Patton, none of whom ever had to overcome the odds these great admirals did. And it was a triumph of fearless naval aviators who were asked to take on a seemingly invincible enemy, and somehow rose to the challenge. 

But most of all Midway was a triumph of resilience, hope and faith in ourselves and one another. Seventy five years later, we need that lesson as much as ever. 

My updated odds for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination

With the midterms behind us, it's time to get really serious about handicapping the 2020 Democratic presidential race. By early next year, we should start seeing a parade of candidates announcing their intention to at least "explore" a presidential campaign. For better or worse, the midterms offered no clear path for the the Democrats to follow in choosing a potential standard bearer. The moderate wing of the party will argue that the Democrats' success in taking back the House of Representatives came from winning swing districts with centrist candidates that appealed to independents and even Trump voters. The progressive wing will point out the manner in which moderate incumbent senators such as Joe Donnelly, Claire McCaskill and Heidi Heitkamp crashed and burned in Trump country, while progressive firebrands such as Beto O'Rourke, Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillium came much closer to victory.

I tend to agree with the progressives. While there's no overlooking the success of the moderate Dems in House races, the presidential race more clearly mirrors the statewide, winner-take-all Senate and gubernatorial contests, and by that standard, the results were clear: Democrats need to find a candidate with the capacity to both energize the party base and turn out new or apathetic voters in a big way. Candidates like McCaskill and Donnelly who try as hard as they can to run away from their party identification come election time can do neither, nor can they pick off enough Trump supporters to make a meaningful difference.

With that said, here's my top 10 picks for Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, along with 10 others to watch if the top tier should falter.

Elizabeth Warren, senator, Massachusetts

Odds: 5-1

Yeah, that ancestry test didn't go over quite as well as she would have hoped, but at least now the facts are out and I think it's less likely the issue will dog her campaign. She has the best chance of uniting the progressive and establishment wings of the party and is not shy about mixing it up with the likes of Trump, Mitch McConnell or corporate CEOs. Her prodigious fundraising skills will make her an instant contender.

Kamala Harris, senator, California

Odds: 7-1

The buzz around the freshman senator has continued to build over the past year, and her grilling of Cabinet and Supreme Court nominees has earned her plenty of fans on the left. The political betting markets seem to like her chances. Could she be the female version of Barack Obama in going from first-term senator to the White House?

Beto O'Rourke, Congressman, Texas

Odds: 8-1 

Losing the Texas Senate race actually makes it easier for O'Rourke to run for president, if he decides to take the plunge. His losing Senate campaign was a huge victory in earning him a national following; as history buffs will point out, the same thing happened with Abraham Lincoln after his Senate loss to Stephen Douglas in 1858. The biggest wild card is whether he will go for it after such a grueling Senate race; if he does, he could very well replicate Obama's meteoric rise from 2008.

Joe Biden, former vice president

Odds: 10-1

Age and the party's shift left would work against him, but if Dems decide they need to lock down the working class white vote in the Rust Belt, the former Veep would be the obvious choice. And in a crowded field that lacks an early front-runner, he would have an immediate advantage.

Bernie Sanders, senator, Vermont

Odds: 12-1

It's looking more and more like Bernie's time may have passed, but if he decides to run and can generate the same type of grass-roots support he did in 2016, watch out. If Biden decides not to run, Sanders would have a clear advantage on the name-recognition front, which could be a big deal in a crowded field.

Michael Bloomberg, former New York mayor

Odds: 15-1

Both the party establishment and Sanders progressives would likely line up against this former Republican, but with his billions and name recognition, Bloomberg has the potential to upend the Democratic race the way Trump did the Republican one in 2016. And his leadership on big issues such as gun violence would sway many liberal voters.

Amy Klobuchar, senator, Minnesota

Odds: 25-1

She was probably the most impressive Dem during the Kavanaugh hearings, and has the potential to appeal to both suburban women and Midwestern working class voters, two key voting blocs in 2020. If the party is not ready to go as far left as Warren and Harris want to take it, Klobuchar could be an appealing alternative.

Kirsten Gillibrand, senator, New York

Odds: 30-1

She appears stuck in the shadow of Warren and Harris at this point, and her rapid transformation from centrist to liberal firebrand will likely weigh her down with a flip-flopping reputation, but Gillibrand's leadership in the #MeToo movement could provide a path to break through should she decide to run. There's also the irony of her holding Hillary Clinton's former Senate seat.

John Hickenlooper, governor, Colorado

Odds: 40-1

What this field desperately needs is a candidate far outside the Washington beltway who can run as an outsider with a proven record of getting things done (sort of like Bill Clinton in 1992, absent the baggage). Hickenlooper would definitely be a long shot, particularly as a centrist, but at least he would give voters something different to chew on. 

Cory Booker, senator, New Jersey

Odds: 50-1

There's already way too many senators on this list who will have little to run on other than their fierce opposition to Trump. Booker would inject the field with a dose of energy and youth, and draw some easy comparisons to Obama, but his "I am Spartacus" movement at the Kavanaugh hearings leads me to believe his candidacy would be more style than substance. 

Others to watch: Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, former Attorney General Eric Holder, former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, former New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley.