(Video added — Charley)
Yesterday, Alexandra Chandler announced that she is a candidate for the seat vacated by Nikki Tsongas for the U.S. House of Representatives as a Democrat. Chandler is a trans woman who, until 2016, was the division chief at the Office of Navy Intelligence.
I recently met with her and was amazed at her breadth of knowledge and her passion for protecting American democracy from the horror in the Oval Office – and she speaks from a position of actual knowledge of the role played by intelligence agencies, whom the train wreck in the White House has called “Nazis”.
What was most impressive about her, though, was the grace and dignity with which she carries herself. This, also, is in stark contrast to what we all now endure every day.
This grace is all the more remarkable when one considers her personal story of challenge after challenge followed by courage.
She is the first trans person to make a publicly-facing gender transition in the history of her agency, and has written movingly about it in the Washington Post and other media outlets.
During the 9/11 attacks Chandler was on a subway train under Manhattan when the towers fell. She spent hours not knowing if her wife Catherine had survived. That day, Chandler made the decision to join Naval Intelligence where she served for 12 years thwarting weapons of mass destruction programs in countries like North Korea and Iran and targeting arms smuggling to war zones and terrorist groups.
The language she is most comfortable with is very much in the mainstream on both economic issues and on matters of national security and public safety, which could be a surprisingly good match in this relatively conservative district, while her identity and story may provide a lucrative vein for fundraising.
In this wide open race, if she can tap that money, Chandler could be the sleeper candidate in what may be turning out to be the year of the transgender activist, although that is not the way Chandler sees it. She told me that she is not the transgender candidate, just a security-oriented Mom who has actually protected this nation on the barricades.
In addition to playing a key role in supporting organizations working on LGBT health, Alexandra is a member of the Truman National Security Project Defense Council, where she is an expert on clean energy.
As the only candidate in the race with a national security background – a Russian-speaking lawyer and former intelligence analyst – Chandler says that she is determined to stand up for American democracy, and ensure Russia never dares to interfere with our elections again.
Chandler is a graduate of Brown University with a A.B. in International Relations and received her law degree from Brooklyn Law School. She is married to Catherine Chandler, her partner of 22 years, with whom she has two young sons (5 and 2 years old). She lives in Haverhill, Mass., with three generations of the Chandler family, including her parents, her wife, and their two sons.
Her website, which features a well-produced introduction video, is at:
http://www.alexandrachandler.com
I think she has the potential to blow the race open. I dare you to watch this video and still say I’m dreaming.
Very impressive. My worry with this race is that Koh will get so far ahead with big money donations. Chandler seems to have the most compelling personal story and record of service of those running.
I have a general skepticism of people from the defense community, though. Most still seem to be generally conservative in those areas. Although it’s not my district I’d love to know more about her positions there. I’d love to see a growth in experienced and left security thinkers – away from the dynamic of right-wing hawks v. centrist hawks. You see someone like Seth Moulton sound good on defense issues (especially compared to Republicans) but then consistently vote in favor of bad defense bills.
I found this phrasing interesting. That’s some threading of the needle right there.
“Security-oriented” is exactly what I don’t want. That’s the polite way of saying “warmonger.”
Not necessarily. We do after all need people who can be smart about our security.
No, it’s a dog whistle. Like “make america great again.” In a literal sense it could mean all kids of things, but in reality, the way real people use it, it has a specific meaning.
So you’ve already decided, without knowing anything else about her or her values, that she is a warmonger because of her resume?:(
See https://www.alexandrachandler.com/meet-alexandra – editors, is there no longer a way to link in comments?
No, I’ve decided that based on the dog whistle language being used to advertise her.
Is Juliette Khayyem a “warmonger”, eg?
Close enough. My question; do the various intelligence a agencies constitute a community?
She opposed the Iraq war, so no: http://brookline.wickedlocal.com/article/20140423/NEWS/140428924
I can’t find any evidence that Chandler took a public position on any wars. Her bio above says she worked on “thwarting weapons of mass destruction programs in countries like North Korea and Iran ” at the Office of Naval Intelligence during some unspecified period of time starting shortly after 9/11. It definitely sounds like she was part of the crew that got us into the Iraq mess. Perhaps at too junior a level to deserve the same level of blame as other culprits, but going along with the bad decisions of her superiors isn’t exactly a reason to promote her.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to be concerned with NK and Iran’s weapons programs.
“It definitely sounds like she was part of the crew that got us into the Iraq mess” — nah, that’s not gonna cut it. That came from the top — Bush, Cheney, Rummy, etc. You don’t know what Chandler thought. Maybe you can find out how she feels about war and peace and diplomacy and Iraq; but you’re making an extremely weak argument based on flimsy inferences.
It’s OK to not know something, and ask questions.
Bush didn’t act alone. He was aided by the entire foreign policy Establishment, Republican and Democratic. Not just Rumsfeld, not just some random Senators. The intelligence agencies botched the intelligence because they had a bias toward war. They may not be the cowboy warmongers of the Bush style, but they still have a bias that leads to unnecessary, ill-advised, and costly wars.
That’s not a fluke. C. Wright Mills wrote about the paranoid bent of the Very Serious People in the 1950s. So if someone’s main qualification for office is foreign policy experience, it’s fair to assume they share, and would act on, the biases that most of their ex-colleagues do, unless they can show otherwise. And I note that her campaign manager is monitoring this post, so it’s pretty clear that she would prove me wrong if she could.
I also note that, judging from the multi-year gap in her resume, Kayyem seems to have been a pariah among the Very Serious People as a result of her level-headedness. Deval Patrick and then Barack Obama were able to see through the crap and appoint people who didn’t share the standard litany of idiotic views on security. So that’s what I would expect to see in the background of someone who did push back against the panicky tendencies of the foreign policy Establishment.
Sort of, yes.
I think we all see seamus’s point. It’s a matter of emphasis.
Kayyem? Nah. Anyone associated with national security or intelligence is a warmonger? Nonsense. I reject that totally. Many of those folks dedicate their lives to keep us *out* of war.
PS. The nesting works.
The field is still developing. The Lowell Sun has the current list of candidates.
Talk about the real deal! She’s the fighter we need right now for the working class.
Thank you, Charley, for adding Alexandra’s video.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Campaign Manager
Alexandra Chandler for Congress
THAT”S NOT WHAT I SAID CHARLEY,
If you want intelligent commentary here, you have to reciprocate. I was making a nuanced point,
Candidates have a variety of experience. Those who emphasize “security” are sending a clear message. In Kayyem’s case (learn to spell her name please) she was trying to separate herself from the field; it is an ideological position.
PS. Sorry, that was a bit hot. No insult intended. I should have said “nuanced” in the first sentence, not intelligent. I just got annoyed. Apologies.
Well, I think you’re drawing too much from a small bit of evidence — which is not nuanced. And I certainly don’t agree that the “message” sent in highlighting natsec experience is pro-war. If “pro-war” is *not* the “clear message” you’re referring to, then please tell me exactly what it is.
And yes, I should spell her name correctly! Terrible. I’m going to use my back-end super-powers to clean that up.
Well, in a Democratic context, the message “I know more about security than other Democrats.” That’s a hawkish message (just ask Hillary Clinton, at around the time of the 2008 primary.)
Think of the variety of messages that could be sent: I’ll increase healthcare; I’ll protect Social Security; I’ll fight for higher minimum wage; and on and on.
The late Joe Mackey, from slightly-less-progressive-back-then-but-still-progressive Somerville, used to talk a lot about crime. He was drawing a contrast.
I’ll agree with you that it’s scant evidence, but I think you can agree that it IS evidence, especially in an introduction video for a new candidate.
Pretty sure she talks about those other issues on her website, but since she is a former naval intelligence officer of course that’s her wheelhouse. Are you suggesting that persons with such a resume are always unacceptable in a Dem primary?
No. I was just replying to the notion that this is unfair. Politicians send signals, and we read them.