Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley continues to do everything a politician would do to set up a strong Iowa caucus campaign.

So why am I still having trouble believing he will offer himself to Democrats as a alternative to Hillary Clinton?  

Ever since I heard O’Malley speak at the 2012 Harkin Steak Fry, he has struck me as a candidate with strong potential appeal for Iowa Democrats. He has a mostly progressive record as governor of Maryland, he hits on populist themes with good applause lines, and he even has a semblance of Iowa roots as a former staffer for Gary Hart’s campaign before the 1984 caucuses.

Last year, O’Malley went above and beyond what’s expected for candidates testing the waters in Iowa. He didn’t just show up to promote himself at meet and greets. He helped Democratic candidates in important races with money and staff.

I’ve been operating on the assumption that O’Malley was laying the groundwork for a “plan B” presidential campaign. It’s only logical for other Democrats to wait in the wings, in case former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton opts out for any reason. But everyone knows by now that Clinton is running for president again. She has hired an Iowa campaign manager and is about to bring on a bunch of field staff here. People close to her appear to be paying for a series of polls testing positive and negative messages with early-state Democrats.

Meanwhile, O’Malley still looks like a guy who’s about to launch a presidential campaign. He hired an Iowa staffer for his political action committee in January. He published a Des Moines Register guest editorial and interviewed with Radio Iowa on March 20 to coincide with his latest swing through eastern Iowa. (Scroll to the end of this post for excerpts.) O’Malley brought the house down at the Scott County Democratic fundraiser Friday night. Pat Rynard posted a good write-up of that speech and O’Malley’s appearance in Cedar County over the weekend. The former governor passed through Cedar Rapids as well, raising money for Iowa House Democrats at an event attended by all the likely candidates in the first Congressional district. In early April, he’ll speak at the Polk County Democrats’ major spring fundraiser.

My brain tells me that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. O’Malley must be running for president.

Yet my gut still tells me that O’Malley is not going to challenge Clinton in a primary. How can he?

Not only did he support Clinton the first time she ran for president, he chaired her campaign in Maryland. From the May 2007 press release announcing O’Malley’s endorsement:

“At a critical time in our history, Hillary Clinton is the kind of experienced leader this country needs,” O’Malley said. “No one is better equipped to repair America’s alliances abroad and address the urgent needs of our communities at home.”

She’s even more experienced now, after four years as secretary of state.

I’ve asked many Iowa Democratic activists how they think O’Malley could make a convincing case against Hillary. The usual answer is something along the lines of, he won’t run against her, he’ll run with a positive, progressive Democratic message.

Some have theorized that Clinton could benefit from loyal opposition in the primaries. O’Malley’s presence would create the appearance of competition (generating media coverage and maybe increasing turnout) without subjecting the front-runner to criticism she would get from, say, former Senator Jim Webb or Senator Bernie Sanders. Without question, there’s room for a strong voice on the left, and maybe stump speeches like this will divert progressive energy away from “draft Warren” efforts.

Fair enough. Lots of people run for president with no hope of winning the nomination, angling for a future cabinet position or even the vice-presidential spot. But most of those people aren’t on record telling everyone who will listen that their competitor would be a great president, “better equipped” than anyone else.

Even if O’Malley’s goal is primarily to elevate his profile for a job in a Clinton administration, he would still need to answer obvious questions in debates and interviews: What made him decide that he rather the Clinton is “the kind of experienced leader this country needs”? Why should Democrats support him, when Clinton is better-known and looks like a strong general-election candidate?

Maybe O’Malley will campaign as a fighter for Democratic values. Maggie Haberman reported for the New York Times on the governor’s speech in South Carolina last month:

“The most fundamental power of our party and our country is the power of our moral principles,” Mr. O’Malley said, according to a transcript of his remarks provided by an aide.

In words that echoed those of Senator Barack Obama when he battled Mrs. Clinton in 2007 for the Democratic nomination, Mr. O’Malley added: “Triangulation is not a strategy that will move America forward. History celebrates profiles in courage, not profiles in convenience.”

Mr. O’Malley’s comments came at the Democratic Party’s John Spratt Issues Conference in Myrtle Beach, and South Carolina is a crucial early primary state that Mrs. Clinton lost to Mr. Obama. Mr. O’Malley has in the past declined to contrast himself with Mrs. Clinton. […]

The politics of triangulation is a phrase often used to describe former President Bill Clinton’s brand of centrism. It has also been used to criticize Mrs. Clinton as overly poll driven, and liberals have long used it as a cudgel. In a pivotal Democratic primary speech in November 2007 in Iowa, Mr. Obama deployed “triangulation” as an attack line against Mrs. Clinton.

Reading that passage, my first reaction was, if you don’t like triangulation, why were you such a dedicated Clinton surrogate in 2007 and 2008?

Democrats want a competitive Iowa caucus campaign. Nevertheless, a Clinton alternative who’s not really her opponent makes little sense to me.

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers? Will Iowa Democrats who are hungry for a more progressive voice line up with O’Malley, even if he never engages in battle with the front-runner?

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that O’Malley also headlined an event in Council Bluffs on Saturday night. Jennifer Jacobs reported for the Des Moines Register,

He told the audience of about 70 at a Pottawattamie County Democrats’ event that the party had a very disappointing midterm election, “but it’s not how low you go it’s how high you bounce, and we are going to bounce back.” […]

The main theme of his speech was that it’s time to stand up to powerful special interests “who think they can gamble with our money and with the economy.” Nearly shouting into his microphone, he said: “We have to, as Democrats, step up and regulate Wall Street and make sure that they are never able to create that kind of economic devastation again. That’s our job.” […]

Iowa Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal was there wearing a “Martin O’Malley” T-shirt.

“It doesn’t necessarily mean that I’ve endorsed anybody,” Gronstal told the crowd. “I welcome any candidate that will come to Council Bluffs. I will put on their T-shirt.”

Gronstal noted that O’Malley as Maryland governor passed marriage equality, started the process of cleaning up Chesapeake Bay and improved access to higher education.

“I think he would be a great president,” Gronstal said.

Gronstal didn’t endorse a candidate before the 2008 caucuses, but his immediate family members were active volunteers in Clinton’s campaign. Incidentally, she cleaned up in Pottawattamie County.

Excerpts from Martin O’Malley’s guest editorial in the March 20 Des Moines Register: Prevent another crash, reform Wall Street.

The most serious structural reform we can make is reinstating the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act that kept commercial banks separate from investment banks. Under Glass-Steagall, our country did not see a major financial crisis for nearly 70 years. If that law hadn’t been repealed in 1999, the crash would have been contained.

The largest banks should be broken up into more manageable institutions. Today, five banks control half of the financial industry’s $15 trillion in assets. Even members of Congress, several Federal Reserve Board governors, and major players in the financial industry are recognizing that institutions that are too big to fail are too big to succeed.

Structural reforms aren’t enough. We must bring fundamental change to the culture of Wall Street, beginning with real accountability. To this day, the Justice Department and financial regulators have done virtually nothing to bring criminal charges or hold leadership accountable. Legal deterrents are critical for improving the culture of Wall Street and showing that fraudulent behavior will be punished.

Excerpts from O’Malley’s March 20 interview with Radio Iowa:

“I think we’ve never seen such a concentration of wealth and corporate power as we have now,” O’Malley told Radio Iowa this afternoon. “And we’re all paying for it, through declining wages in our country.” […]

“I think as a party we’ve not always stood up for the sort of robust regulation of Wall Street recklessness that the public expected us to,” O’Malley told Radio Iowa.

Five banks control about half of the assets in the nation’s financial sector and O’Malley said it’s time to bust those banks up into “smaller, more manageable institutions.” He’s also is calling for a sort of three-strikes-and-you’re-out policy that would close any bank guilty of three violations of the law – and he would end the practice of allowing banks to take a tax credit for any penalties paid in a legal settlement. O’Malley said these and other changes would clean up the culture on Wall Street where wrong-doers go unpunished.

“Our economy is the product of the choices we make and, sadly, we’ve made choices to concentrate wealth,” O’Malley said. “…We need to return to our true selves and make our economy work again for all of us.”