Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley launched his presidential campaign in Baltimore yesterday before holding events in the Quad Cities and Des Moines later in the day. He was well-received at both venues and in New Hampshire today. I challenge any Democrat to find much to disagree with in O’Malley’s message.

O’Malley’s pitch to Democrats draws several indirect contrasts to front-runner Hillary Clinton, starting with the “new leadership” tag line on his campaign materials. His stump speech includes riffs on declining real wages, trade policy and the banking industry that put him to Clinton’s left. But from what we saw in Iowa this weekend, O’Malley has a lot of work to do to.

O’Malley’s immediate problem isn’t the large lead for Clinton in name recognition and opinion polls. It’s that Senator Bernie Sanders has already claimed the “progressive alternative to Hillary” niche.  

First, mea culpa: I was wrong about O’Malley waiting in the wings as an “understudy” in case Clinton decided against running for president. I didn’t see how a vocal and hard-working surrogate for Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign could put together a convincing case for himself as a superior candidate in 2016. Though I agreed with all the substance of his speech in Des Moines yesterday, as well as the one he delivered to Polk County Democrats last month, I still see O’Malley as more of a loyal opposition to Clinton than a committed primary rival.

While O’Malley has rarely criticized Clinton directly, he has added to his stump speech a line about the presidency not being a “crown” for the Clinton and Bush families to pass between each other. (Why that wasn’t a problem for him in 2007, your guess is as good as mine.) Here was the version from O’Malley’s campaign launch in Baltimore.

“Powerful, wealthy special interests here at home have used our government to create – in our own country – an economy that is leaving a majority of our people behind,” O’Malley said.  […]

“Goldman Sachs is one of the biggest repeat-offending investment banks in America,” O’Malley said. “Recently, the CEO of Goldman Sachs let his employees know that he’d be just fine with either Bush or Clinton.”

“I bet he would,” he added. “Well, I’ve got news for the bullies of Wall Street: The presidency is not a crown to be passed back and forth by you between two royal families.”

At yesterday’s Des Moines event, O’Malley was introduced as the only candidate in the Democratic field who would not be “polarizing” and could therefore unite the country. The idea that Clinton was too polarizing to win a general election drove a lot of Iowa Democrats toward other candidates in 2007, but that fear seems less salient now, as many swing state polls have shown her leading the whole Republican field.

O’Malley reminded the Des Moines crowd yesterday that he is our party’s only candidate with fifteen years of executive experience, having served as Baltimore mayor before his two terms as governor. While that’s a solid resume for a presidential candidate, I have trouble seeing many Democratic voters rejecting Clinton for lacking the experience to do the job. Eight years as first lady, a term in the U.S. Senate, plus four years as secretary of state make her one of the most qualified people to have sought the presidency in my lifetime.

O’Malley delivered a powerful indictment of our country’s failure to regulate big banks or prosecute their criminal wrongdoing, which cost millions of Americans their jobs or their homes. However, he pulled his punch by not placing the blame directly with President Bill Clinton, who signed into law the unwise Glass-Steagall repeal in 1999. Maybe the governor’s planning to draw that contrast explicitly during a debate later in the year. At some point he will need to be more clear about why he considers himself the best choice for Democrats who want to “prosecute cheats” and reinstate Glass-Steagall.

Sam Frizell reported for TIME magazine that O’Malley called Clinton on Friday to give her a heads up about his campaign plans.

On the call, O’Malley told Clinton that he is running because he believes it’s time for “new leadership” of the country. Not coincidentally, the phrase is the slogan for his nascent presidential campaign, visible on half a dozen campaign signs around the stage at his launch event on Baltimore’s Federal Hill.

The 52-year-old plans to emphasize his youthfulness in comparison with Clinton, who is 67 and one of the oldest candidates to ever seek the presidency.

Friday’s call is not the first time Clinton’s campaign has communicated with O’Malley. Around St. Patrick’s Day, Clinton’s campaign chair John Podesta held a private meeting with O’Malley and told the former governor that they were going to take any possible campaign seriously.

Perhaps I’m reading too much into a courtesy phone call and a private meeting, but those informal contacts confirm my impression that O’Malley will be a “loyal opposition” figure during the caucus and primary season. Presumably he will be angling for a cabinet post if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination and the general election. At 52 years old now, he could run for president again in 2024.

In contrast, 73-year-old Sanders has a safe Senate seat and nothing to gain from pulling punches now. While the former governor speaks about the American dream and aspirations for future generations to live better than their parents, the socialist from Vermont is calling for a “political revolution.”

Like O’Malley, Sanders wants to break up the “too big to fail” banks, but rhetoric on inequality more explicitly bashes the “billionaire class” and the top 1 percent. He calls out Clinton for not taking a stand on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. He makes the case for single-payer health care, an issue near and dear to many liberal hearts. Appealing particularly to young voters, Sanders advocates free tuition at public universities and other policies to reduce students’ debt burden.

What Paul Wellstone called the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is loving that message.

Sanders’ rally in Davenport on Thursday evening drew more than 500 people, perhaps as many as 700. Either way, it was “the largest rally in the state for any single candidate this campaign season, and far more than the 50 people who attended a rally there on Saturday” with O’Malley.

According to Pat Rynard, 88 Iowans came to hear Sanders in Muscatine on Friday afternoon. At least 150 people gathered in a West Branch back yard to hear the senator that evening; one person who was there put the crowd around 200. Saturday morning, Sanders spoke to roughly 300 people in Iowa City, with an overflow crowd of some 250 people listening from outside. That afternoon, Sanders drew some 500 people to an event in Ames, where many were stuck outside the packed house. Most remarkably, Sanders’ rally in Kensett (Worth County) last night drew at least 300 people, more than the town’s population. The New York Times’ Trip Gabriel reported that local Democratic leader Kurt Meyer contacted Clinton staffer Troy Price during that event to tell him, “Objects in your rearview mirror are closer than they appear […] Mrs. Clinton had better get out here.”

Sanders drew large crowds last week in New Hampshire too. Not all of those people will end up voting or caucusing for Sanders, but any candidate would be happy to speak to crowds so large eight months before the first nominating contests.

Sanders’ appeal as the progressive alternative to Clinton isn’t limited to early nominating states. Once pollsters stopped including non-candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren in their ballot tests, Sanders jumped into second place among Democratic candidates in national polling and in various state polls, including Pennsylvania and Washington as well as Iowa and New Hampshire.

Annie Karni reported for Politico last week, “Socialist Sanders threatens Clinton more than made-for-TV O’Malley.”

“Sanders could be 2016’s Eugene McCarthy,” said Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf, who in the past has advised Bill Clinton. “He is the populist symbol well-known to his supporters. Clinton is the establishment candidate. Sanders is the insurgent. And O’Malley needs money and has to run a traditional campaign and create a constituency. Sanders’ constituency is just waiting to be told the game is on.” […]

Sanders’ liberal stances make him well-positioned to inherit the Ready for Warren constituency that O’Malley has also tried to court, through off-the-record meetings with enthusiasts of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Sanders this week hired Kurt Ehrenberg, who ran the New Hampshire effort to draft Warren into the race, to be his top operative in the Granite State. […]

Insiders familiar with the thinking of the Clinton campaign described it as “frightened” of Sanders – not that he would win the nomination, but that he could damage her with the activist base by challenging her on core progressive positions in debates and make her look like a centrist or corporatist. One source described the campaign as “pleased,” at least, that O’Malley and Sanders will split the anti-Clinton vote. A Clinton spokesman declined to comment. […]

Sanders this week said Clinton’s money “hustle” makes her out of touch with the everyday Americans whom she seeks to represent, and he criticized her for failing to take a position on President Barack Obama’s controversial trade deal. O’Malley so far has appeared reluctant to take on Clinton directly. He has refused to weigh in on the email scandal trailing Clinton, and his pulled punches have many speculating about whether he is running for vice president or simply to raise his profile for a second candidacy down the line.

Speaking of money, Sanders raised $1.5 million on the first day of his campaign from around 35,000 donors who contributed on average $43.54. Bank on most of those supporters making repeat small-dollar donations. Sanders travels light, so his campaign should be able to stretch that cash far. He’ll never have the army of field organizers Clinton will be able to hire in Iowa and New Hampshire, but if his supporters are more enthusiastic, he won’t need as many paid staff. Anyway, Sanders’ campaign is less about winning the nomination than about bringing his key issues into the public discourse. He could claim a moral victory by keeping Clinton’s victory in Iowa or New Hampshire smaller than expected.

In contrast, O’Malley has to displace Sanders as the progressive alternative to Clinton before he can think about exceeding expectations on caucus night. It must be galling for the governor, who paid his dues by lending a hand to many Democratic candidates here in 2014.

On that note, I was surprised to learn that Sanders visited Iowa as many times last year as O’Malley did (four trips for each). The difference is that O’Malley appeared almost exclusively at traditional Democratic events, such as fundraisers for candidates or local party organizations. Sanders headlined some local party events, but he also spoke at meetings for two of the state’s largest progressive advocacy groups: Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement Action Fund and the Iowa Citizen Action Network.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

P.S.- O’Malley’s growing Iowa staff seem to be on the ball. Not only did representatives of the campaign personally call many Iowa Democrats to invite them to the May 30 events, those who attended the Des Moines meet and greet received follow-up phone calls today, inquiring about their leanings for the caucus and offering a chance to sit down with an O’Malley field organizer.

UPDATE: Ruby Cramer wrote a good piece for Buzzfeed on O’Malley’s pitch as the younger candidate for a “new generation.”

Still, some who know O’Malley worry that the aggressive strategy could be too negative, and not consistent with his approach historically as a campaigner.

“The problem with playing the age card is very quickly it turns into playing the gender card,” said a former top adviser to O’Malley. “He’s a better person than that. He could unintentionally marginalize himself in a permanent way.”

“There’s something potentially offensive about it,” the former adviser said.

An unnamed representative for the pro-O’Malley super-PAC delivered some unintentional comedy to Cramer.

And last week, two O’Malley associates started a super PAC to support his campaign called “Generation Forward.” Upon its debut, the group’s chief executive, longtime O’Malley adviser Damian O’Doherty, told the Washington Post, “This is not your grandmother’s super PAC.”

Ron Boehmer, a former O’Malley spokesman who founded Generation Forward with O’Doherty, said the comment was not a reference to Clinton, who is in fact a grandmother. “It was not an attack on Hillary Clinton’s age, or any candidate’s age. Instead, it’s a PAC based on a candidate whose policies best fit future generations.” (An official involved with Generation Forward did admit: “Saying grandmother’s super PAC wasn’t the best choice. We should have said grandparent’s super PAC.”)

No, you should scrap your dumb metaphor, because no one’s grandparent had a super-PAC.

SECOND UPDATE: The latest Selzer & Co poll of Iowa Democrats for the Des Moines Register and Bloomberg News shows that Clinton is the first choice of 57 percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers. Sanders placed second with 16 percent support, followed by Vice President Joe Biden at 8 percent and O’Malley tied with former Senator Jim Webb at 2 percent.

So much for Iowa State University professor Steffen Schmidt’s assertion that Iowa Democrats “truly hate Clinton’s ‘listening tour’ campaign” because it supposedly makes them feel left out. No doubt many activists are eager for Clinton to start holding rallies that are open to the public, but that doesn’t mean they “hate” the way she has campaigned so far (with small, invitation-only events).