The Most Important Question In Decades: Will Bernie Be President?

Netroots Nation happened. One of the guys who runs it, Markos from Daily Kos, told Vox that "Nobody’s excited about Biden. He’s old, tired, and elite." Nor was he there. Except for Elizabeth Warren, Markos' top pick, none of the front-runners showed up this year-- not Bernie on the left, Biden and McKinsey Pete on the right and not even Kamala from the identity politics lane lane. "While attendees have yet to identify which of those three candidates is their favorite, wrote Ella Nilsen and Tara Golshan for Vox, "it was clear the conference’s progressives had identified their enemy: Vice President Joe Biden, the frontrunner in the 2020 field. The weekend even featured a pop-up podcast titled “Why Joe Biden is the least electable major Democrat for president in 2020.”

[W]hile Sanders and Harris were absent, their surrogates and fans certainly were not. The same couldn’t be said for others like South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg or Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), however.

“You had the Buttigieg boomlet earlier this year and you might have thought that might have continued into a place like this, but it really hasn’t,” Neil Sroka, a spokesperson for progressive political action committee Democracy For America, said. “What’s pretty clear is it’s Bernie, it’s Warren, and maybe it’s Kamala.”

...Seven months from when the first 2020 voters have a say in the Democratic primary in Iowa, progressives are winnowing down a deep field of candidates in a party that’s increasingly turned toward more left-wing ideals-- from public health care to wealth taxes and free college proposals.

But at Netroots, only three names had any meaningful energy behind them: Sanders, Harris, and, of course, Warren.

Across the street from the Netroots convention on Thursday, Sanders’s campaign co-chair Nina Turner took the stage at a protest outside Philadelphia’s Hahnemann Hospital, a local institution that’s set to shutter in coming weeks. Among the protest’s attendees were local activists, physicians, and Netroots attendees showing solidarity with the movement. Sanders himself wasn’t in attendance, but it was a show of the political revolution he’s been trying to build a campaign around.

“With these hands we will save Hahnemann hospital, and with these hands we will elect Sen. Bernie Sanders as the next president of the United States of America,” Turner said to a crowd with raised arms chanting “Bernie, Bernie, Bernie.” Sanders is scheduled to rally at the hospital Monday.

...Biden’s lead in the polls means progressive activists are approaching their choices in the primary with some caution.

“I like both of them-- Bernie and Warren-- I trust both of them. Ultimately, it will be where are they in January or February of next year?” Sroka said. “Who is up and who is down?”

...Progressives may not know exactly who they want to be the Democratic nominee in 2020, but they know who they don’t want: Joe Biden.

Some activists [keyword: "Some"] at Netroots conceded they would support Biden in a general election if they had no other choice. But as far as exciting the base at Netroots, Biden seemed to represent everything attendees disdain, particularly because, despite clearly trying to capitalize on his ties to Obama’s progressive brand, Biden hasn’t made an effort to cultivate a progressive base.

“Biden is using a strategy of running out the clock,” said Maurice Mitchell, the national director of the Working Families Party. “There’s a number of forums and spaces he could place himself in, in order to be scrutinized by the grassroots. Our job is not to coronate the person that the Third Way and elite media decision-makers think is most electable.”

“Biden’s campaign headquarters is four blocks away, and the only person I have seen come here is his digital guy,” Sroka said. “The fact that they are not even working to try and make the argument to this community is the sign of a campaign that doesn’t get where the future of the party is.”

The Biden campaign would not comment on their presence at the conference.

Underscoring the theme of there being a top-tier group of three, some Netroots attendees were gifted a six-pack of craft beers by event organizers. Warren, Sanders, and Harris were the only presidential candidates with a beer named after them: There was the “Professor Warren Perfect Plan Pale Ale” (a “quasi-session beer”), the “Kamala’s California Common” (a lager), and the “Bernie’s Barleywine” (“Gritty’s favorite beer”).

Joe Biden and the group of other moderate white men running for president, however, were symbolized by the “Average Centrist White Guy Cream Ale”-- “pale and not strong,” according to the beer guide handed out to attendees.

While progressives are only one segment of the Democratic electorate, Biden, and other candidates Netroots attendees were less than enthused about, could use their support. Particularly as it was progressives who helped energize the party’s base ahead of the 2018 midterm elections that saw Democrats retake the House of Representatives.

Progressives have grown sick and tired with the unabashedly biased way the corporate media covers Bernie and his campaign. As we noted last week, the NY Times coverage of the campaign is headed by rot-gut Wall Street shill, Sydney Ember, whose every piece reads like unadulterated Biden propaganda. Monday morning, Michael Calderone, posted a piece about that widespread bias for Politico readers. Bernie's campaign manager, Faiz Shakir, told Calderone that some reporters, "attempt to hide their disdain and masquerade their commentary behind purported straight pieces that amount to seeing everything as a 'bad news for Bernie' moment."... "If Bernie Sanders’ team had its way," wrote Calderone, "every reporter covering the Vermont senator would put out a tweet disclosing their unvarnished, personal feelings about the candidate." By the way, that ActBlue thermometer on the right? That's so you can contribute to Bernie's campaign if you want to. Just click on it.

It’s not going to happen, but campaign manager Faiz Shakir thinks he knows what it would reveal anyway.

"This isn't intended to be a sweeping generalization of all journalists,” he told Politico, “but there are a healthy number who just find Bernie annoying, discount his seriousness, and wish his supporters and movement would just go away.”

In the 2016 Democratic primary, Sanders’ complaint about the media was that he was ignored, especially early in the campaign, while a phalanx of reporters trailed Hillary Clinton and cable networks turned live to Donald Trump’s raucous rallies.

Now, he’s not having trouble getting airtime, giving interviews in just the last week on ABC, NBC, MSNBC and CNN. Among the Democratic field, Sanders ranks behind only Vice President Joe Biden in mentions in traditional news outlets this year, according to an analysis by global media and intelligence company Meltwater.

In the 2020 campaign, his team’s frustration has morphed, centering on what they see as excessively negative stories and dismissive commentary. Even though he’s consistently near the top in the polls, Sanders’ staff thinks pundits write off his chances. And they’re unusually vocal in calling out coverage they dislike on Twitter and on the media channels they’ve created in-house, fueling frustration once again among the senator’s supporters about whether he’s getting a fair shot at the White House.



On Sanders’ live-streaming show, The 99, three campaign staffers spent more than an hour last week discussing what they perceive as media bias, such as the tendency to focus on the shiny and salacious rather than Sanders’ decades-long advocacy for the poor and working class. “Standing up on these issues over 40 years is not new and exciting for people,” said chief of staff Ari Rabin-Havt.

...Rabin-Havt told POLITICO there’s something akin to a language barrier between political journalists and the campaign.

“They just will never buy that we don’t think it’s a game,” he said.

Sanders hosted a cable access show in the 1980s, and many of his campaign staffers have backgrounds at progressive news outlets-- Shakir was founding editor of ThinkProgress, Rabin-Havt served as executive vice president at Media Matters, Sirota wrote for The Guardian, and national press secretary Briahna Joy Gray was an editor at The Intercept.

They all share a skepticism of the “corporate media.” “The media work for huge multinational corporations,” Sanders told Rolling Stone last month, adding that “anyone with my agenda is going to attract a lot of opposition.”

He doesn’t have much patience for reporters who want him to talk about anything other than that agenda. Good Morning America host George Stephanopoulos kicked off an interview Thursday by telling Sanders that voters want to know more about him as a person.

Sanders didn’t take the bait. Americans “have a right” to know about a person running for president, Sanders acknowledged, but “sometimes the media goes overboard on that and does not pay enough attention to what you are trying to do to transform the country."

On Sunday, he said on NBC’s Meet the Press” that he had no plans to change his approach.

“When the poor get richer and the rich get poorer, when all of our people have healthcare as a right, when we are leading the world in the fight against climate change, you know what? I will change what I am saying,” Sanders said.

Yes, Elizabeth Warren In Running-- But Not For President

Gideon Resnick is wrong. The Daily Beast is wrong. Must be a slow news day, so they made up a story about Elizabeth Warren running for president. She isn't. It wasn't made up out of the blue; it was made up out of a badly misinterpreted keynote address she made at Netroots Nation Friday. Does this sound like a declaration of candidacy? Isn't this exactly what she says everyday?

We believe that in America every family deserves a fighting chance, and we’re ready to fight as hard as it takes, as long as it takes, to deliver on that promise.

It won’t be easy. We’re going to have to fight uphill. Me? I’m going up that hill. And I hope you are, too.  And I hope that you’ll reach your hand out and bring someone else along for the climb.

Because we can only make it up that hill together. That’s why we can’t afford to waste our time arguing about whose fight matters most.

It’s one fight. And we have to stand with one another, for one another. We’ve got to embrace the unshakeable truth that an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us. The Republicans will continue to practice the politics of division. They will keep right on attacking anyone who dares to stand up to the rich and the powerful. They will call us every ugly name in the book.

Nevertheless, we will persist.

Classic Elizabeth Warren. She's also said that she isn't running for president. Does that mean nothing? Is she a liar like Trump? Has Gideon never heard her speak before or read one of her books? Probably not. He call her inspiring keynote "stump-like rhetoric... challenging Democrats to unite under one banner to take on Trump." Yes, so? I'm not saying she's not running for national office in 2020-- just that she's not running for president. Maybe Gideon should try being a reporter. If I could dig it up, I bet he could too. Meanwhile, pay attention:

Corporate Dems Like Schumer Aren't Done Wrecking The Democratic Party

I've never missed an election in my life-- even while living in difficult to vote places like the mountains of Afghanistan-- and I've never voted for a Republican, although before I was old enough to vote, I was a volunteer for John Lindsay, a liberal Republican-- they had them back then-- running against the conservative machine hack Abe Beame. Lindsay responded to the GOP's inexorable drift rightward by switching to the Democratic Party while he was mayor. That said, it has gotten harder and harder for me to vote for Democrats in recent years. The further Democratic candidates drift from progressive values and principles, the more I find myself voting for judges and assemblymen and leaving out congressmen (Blue Dog Adam Schiff), senators (Dianne Feinstein) governors (Gray Davis) and presidents (Barack Obama, 2012).

A week ago, in a comparison between Netroots Nation and the New Music Seminar I was grumbling about the stature accorded to conservative corporate Democrats Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer. Why not invite Rahm Emanuel, Harold Ford, John Barrow or Robert Rubin? They're Democrats too. When it started the New Music Seminar was a place you could see live shows from REM, The Pixies, The Buzzcocks, My Bloody Valentine, RomeoVoid, 10,000 Maniacs, Smashing Pumpkins, Sonic Youth, Dinosaur Jr and Run DMC. Not Chuck Schumer. Oh I don't care if Chuck Schumers and Joe Bidens come to this kind of thing-- and it's none of my business anyway (and, of course, it is a business)-- but why elevate them and give them some kind of status among the cutting edge? Bleccchhh.

The Finance Sector, or what we affectionately call Wall Street, has given Schumer $20,385,339, more than any senator in history who hasn't been a presidential candidate-- and more than several who have! Like Biden who "only" took in $4,029,797. Schumer's never been a friend of progressives and never will be-- and I remember him from the 1960s at James Madison High School in Brroklyn! A day after he strutted around Netroots Nation, he was writing an OpEd for the NY Times that would make it easier for his Wall Street backers to own even more of the American political system than they already do. "Polarization and partisanship," he writes, "are a plague on American politics." He's sad that Eric Cantor was defeated by some scruffy teabagger and claims primaries poison the health of the political system. I remember when he was head of the DSCC and progressives fought him-- and beat him-- when he put some slimy Wall Street shill up for senator and we got behind populist John Tester, who beat Schumer's candidate and then beat a Wall Street-owned Republican incumbent.

Most of the response to Schumer's proposal to do away with partisan primaries has been very negative. 538: "Here’s the problem with Schumer’s argument: There isn’t much evidence to support it." Jonathan Bernstein for Bloomberg: Chuck Schumer Gets Primaries All Wrong. And California grassroots activist Paul Hogarth points out that Schumer's proposal would just duplicate California's dysfunction.

[I]t was Schumer’s defense of California’s top-two primary that revealed how clueless he is about my home state, and how getting rid of party primaries will only make things worse.

California was racked by polarization until voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2010 that adopted a “top-two” primary system.

Oy vey. Yes, it’s true that California’s government was dysfunctional before 2010, but that did not change because we passed the “top-two primary.” It was ending the two-thirds rule for passing a budget in 2010 that finally brought some sanity, and an increasingly blue legislature in 2012 changed things for the better.

But the “top-two” primary also created a whole new host of problems that has led to abysmal voter turnout, Republican-vs-Republican general elections and the rise of corporate Democrats in the state legislature. Oh, and the Tea Party is still a relevant factor in the state.

So no thanks, Chuck. Please don't export the Golden State's dysfunction. Lots more below the fold, written by someone who actually lives in California...

[A]s state Democratic chairman John Burton predicted at the state party’s 2010 convention in Los Angeles, it was really more about helping big business elect more of their Democrats-- with cross-over votes from Republicans.

Four years later, Burton’s prediction has proven right-- as we have witnessed the rise of the corporate Democrat in deep-blue districts that should be electing progressive champions.

The rise of what might be called the Corporate Democrat can only be partly explained by shrinking GOP delegations in Sacramento. It is also the product of redistricting and effects of the “top-two primary,” by which members of the same political party can win the top two primary positions and then face off in November. Since then, powerful corporations, agricultural associations and other political high rollers have been turning away from their traditional Republican partners and placing more and more of their chips on the Democratic end of the table-- specifically, on candidates like Marc Levine [of Marin County.]

Under the new rules, Silicon Valley Rep. Mike Honda may have easily bested Ro Khanna in the June 2014 primary-- but the “top-two” primary means that corporate Democrat Khanna still has a second bite at the apple, and will attempt to beat Honda with Republican votes. Under the new rules, Republicans can even cross over and pick their Democrat.

We saw this happen in June in legislative races, such as California’s 4th Assembly district—a deep blue district in wine country (Napa County and surroundings), where Democrats enjoy a 20-point registration edge. Progressive champion Mariko Yamada was elected under the old system, and is stepping down due to term limits. But her replacement in November will now be a choice between a Republican-- and an ex-Republican turned corporate Democrat.

That’s because there were 3 Democrats and 1 Republican on the June ballot, and the top two finishers regardless of party moved on to November. The Republican came in first with 26 percent of the vote, followed by Democrat Bill Dodd-- an ex-Republican Napa County Supervisor with heavy funding from the Chamber of Commerce, who benefited because Republicans could now choose which Democrat moved ahead. Progressive Democrat (and labor-backed) candidate Dan Wolk came in a close third, and a fourth Democrat in the race played spoiler.

California will still have a solidly Democratic legislature, but enough corporate Democrats elected under the top-two primary recently colluded with Republicans to kill a fracking moratorium. Expect more of these losses in Sacramento, as Democrats from even deep-blue districts side with their corporate donors.

Sometimes, the top-two primary allows for what could be winnable seats for Democrats into a November match-up between two Republicans. GOP Rep. Gary Miller of California’s 31st Congressional District (San Bernardino) dodged a bullet in 2012, when a crowded field of Democrats on the June ballot meant that he ended up facing another Republican.

Voters in that district, by the way, preferred Barack Obama over Mitt Romney-- so coat-tails could have netted the blue team an extra House seat. But there was no Democrat on the November ballot, so it was a wasted opportunity.

Miller is retiring this year, and we almost had a repeat in that district. But Democrat Pete Aguilar managed to score a second-place finish in June (by less than 400 votes), so the blue team will at least have a Democrat on the ballot and have a potential pick-up opportunity.

But in California’s 25th Congressional District, where another Republican (Buck McKeon) is retiring, what could have been a possible pick-up for Democrats is now assured GOP representation until at least 2016 (if not further) in a district that is trending blue.

No, Chuck, top-two primary does not mean higher voter turnout

While there are no guarantees, it seems likely that a top-two primary system would encourage more participation in primaries and undo tendencies toward default extremism.

Sen. Schumer alleges that a top-two primary would result in higher turnout. That's exactly what Arnold Schwarzenegger and Abel Maldonado promised back in 2010 when California voters were asked to pass it.

But unlike Schumer, they didn’t have the hindsight to know its effects. Now we know the answer.

The 2014 California Primary Election will go down as the worst ever in terms of voter turnout.

Voter turnout in June was an abysmal 18 percent, which of course turns out the most committed and comfortable voters-- who are disproportionately white, old and conservative.

In California’s race for state controller, we came dangerously close to another November run-off between two Republicans: Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin, and conservative David Evans-- who spent practically no money, and benefited from a healthy Tea Party turnout.

The next day, Markos took a swing at the same proposition. "Let's be honest," he urged. "Just one party is polarized, and that's the GOP. That's their problem, not Chuck Schumer's or anyone else's. Let Reublicans fix their own shit. But even both parties were polarized, so what? Partisanship is deeply ingrained in the fabric of our nation's being. There's nothing wrong with it. It gives people without the time and inclination to research every single candidate a guidepost upon which to base their voting decisions. It gives people a flag to rally around, a cause to stir them to action. That's why parties exist. And voters should be allowed to determine the direction of their own parties. That's not a problem that needs solving, and even if it was, his solution does nothing to do so… But the biggest indictment? It kills voter participation."

Before Schwarzenegger and other corporate politicians got the dysfunctional new system passed in California, primary turnout was 30%-- pretty awful… but not as awful as it was with the new system: 18%. Schumer is tired and whatever sharpness he hever ad is long dulled by time. He shouldn't run again; he should make room for fresh new ideas in the Senate.

Netroots Nation-- What Next?

I don't know a lot about Netroots Nation and I've never been to one, although everyone else from Blue America usually goes and generally speaks well of it. I always thought Markos from Daily Kos was the founder and owner. But over the weekend I read a post he wrote about next year:, Netroots Nation is going to Arizona, Daily Kos is not. That provoked an evolving discussion of Netroots Nation both at Kos and among progressive bloggers in general. And it certainly went beyond Markos' complaints about Arizona's anti-immigrant posture. Our old pal, author Dave Neiwert, summed up a lot of complaints about how Netroots Nation has been evolving:

For me, Markos' decision underscores a lot of my growing unhappiness with NN. It's been obvious for some time that this convention is less and less about its heart and soul-- the bloggers, journalists, and other content providers who gave its founding impetus-- and more about organizers and political professionals. That's a natural and probably necessary evolution, to some extent, and understandable, but it has now reached a tipping point to where that heart and soul has been completely marginalized and shunted into a corner.

Look at this year's panels: Not a single one was about blogging. And where is the environmental community? They were nohere to be seen, and not a single panel focused on environmental issues. That's inexcusable in an era when Keystone XL and climate change are defining issues for progressives.

Instead, the overwhelming majority of panels were about and for organizers. The meat-- a discussion of the issues themselves that face progressives-- was as thin as a slice of prosciutto. It all felt like a big fat fuck-you to the bloggers and journalists.

My overwhelming feeling this year was that there was little there for me and my friends and writing colleagues. The chief draw always been and will be about the great NN community, and that is being systematically gutted into nothingness.

Considering that it usually costs a large sum out of my not-very-large personal account to attend, it no longer seems worth that expense or my time. If NN works to repair that damage over the coming months, I will reconsider, but as things now stand, I cannot justify going to Phoenix for what would have been my ninth Netroots.

Wow, 9 Netroots nations; I think that's every one of them! I never went to any although I almost did a few times and I've been supportive financially and used to encourage Blue America candidates to go and to participate and network. But it reminded me too much of the music business conventions had had seen start up so strongly and then devolve into profit-making, corporate endeavors whose ideals and vision were easily compromised away.

In 1980 I had been running a small independent record label in San Francisco, 415 Records, for a couple of years, writing for local alternative rock publications and doing a weekly alternative/punk radio show. There were people all over the country working on the same kinds of projects. Some of them worked with alternative rock bands-- managers, agents, indie labels-- and other worked at supporting the bands and the ethos around a DIY music scene-- publications, radio, a new distribution network, etc. Organizers in NYC launched the New Music Seminar at an SIR rehearsal studio in Manhattan. Everyone in the alternative/punk rock business was there-- all 200 of us-- from everywhere in the U.S. If it cost anything-- I don't recall that it did-- it was certainly never about making money for the organizers. It was about building a community and an infrastructure for a cultural revolution we were helping to define.

That first New Music Seminar was great in so many ways and for me that included meeting, for the first time, promoters who were booking my label's bands, journalists, record store owners and djs who were getting our music out across the country, other record label folks who who facing the same trials we were facing... It was a major turning point for a new genre of music. And it became an annual event and got even better-- for a few years. But then it got so much better that the major labels-- the Establishment it was organized in opposition to-- wanted in, a music biz version of the DNC, DCCC, DSCC... Joe Biden. And it died. It died ugly and unloved, but-- by then a stinking wretched zombie corpse-- it kept moving, although it really was just for the Establishment by then-- no one could even afford it anymore unless they were having their expenses picked up by corporate entities-- and had nothing substantive to do with the indie spirit.

15 years after it started, it finally realized it had been dead for a decade and... well, not many who hadn't been making money from the corporate enterprise bothered going to the funeral. And no one missed it. For some reason-- not sure exactly why-- it was relaunched in 2009, an entirely corporate affair with relatively minimal pretense about having anything whatsoever to do with anything grassroots. Mayor Bloomberg's office was a cosponsor by 2012. The president of Clear Channel gave the keynote address. (Another president of Clear Channel gave the keynote the following year too. And-- note to people who don't know about the music biz-- Clear Channel means the exact same thing there that it means to people working in progressive politics.) I had stopped going many years before and never heard anything since that would have made me want to go again.

Like Dave suggested, this is usually the way these kinds of great ideas become victims of their own initial success. Genuine progressive champions like Elizabeth Warren, Raul Grijalva and Shenna Bellows still go-- worth the price of admission, I'm sure-- but hey also invite conservative careerists like New Dem Gary Peters, Third Way mainstay Joe Biden, and Chuck Schumer who represents Wall Street banksters in the U.S. Senate. NSA enablers/partners Google and Facebook were sponsors, as was the anti-progressive Beltway political operation EMILY's List. I have no first-hand knowledge about where Netroots Nation is in the cycle-- getting better, declining, zombie-like... True believers I trust, who are not on the commercial side of it, have assured me they are getting value out of it. When I read Markos' post, I sympathized with the personal and political argument he made for reconsidering Phoenix. Sounds like it might be worth doing even if just to avoid a schism-- either moving it to a random other city not in Arizona or compromising on Tucson, a progressive bastion in Arizona. Maybe some day John and Digby will persuade me to go with them... although, neither one of them-- for whatever reason-- went this year... so they haven't been to as many as Dave. Hard to imagine going to a convention with Chuck Schumer other than to throw rotten tomatoes at him though.

Always an early adapter, I think this is when I may have stopped going to the New Music Seminar:




UPDATE: Netroots Nation And The Environment

Brad Johnson sent me a note this morning:

Hey-- I appreciated the critique of NN14, but one of the factual claims in the post was straight-up false.

"And where is the environmental community? They were nowhere to be seen, and not a single panel focused on environmental issues."

This is simply false. There were three exclusively enviro panels (all with a focus on environmental justice, not the mainstream green priorities), the enviro caucus, and three panels that were cross-issue and included environmental/climate voices.

Fighting Fake Science: When the Right tries to Derail Your Movement with Misinformation

Panel; Thu, 07/17/2014 - 10:30am, 140 G

This panel will discuss right wing tactics-- from climate change deniers to misinformation campaigns on birth control, sex ed, and abortion-- that use fake science to try to attack progressive movements. Panelists will present successful strategies devised to counter the right’s attacks, and identify best practices on how to respond when the right comes at you with fake science.

Led by: Travis Ballie
Panelists: Peter Sinclair, Felipe Sousa-Rodriguez, Erika West

Climate Justice Against Koch's Tar Sands from Detroit to New York

Panel; Thu, 07/17/2014 - 04:45pm, 140 AB

The Koch brothers’ petrochemical empire is poisoning the world and the American political process. From Detroit, home of the Koch petcoke mountain, to Sandy-ravaged New York City, where David Koch is the richest resident, leading climate justice activists will speak about how they’re fighting back against the corrupt fossil-fuel barons and building a better future.

Led by: Brad Johnson
Panelists: Marion Berger, Lisa Graves, Rae Breaux

Hunger First: The Importance of Food Security in Detroit, and Why We're so Hungry (for Change)

Panel; Fri, 07/18/2014 - 11:00am, 140 D

Detroit natives can easily point to any number of challenges to food security in their community. Whether it’s the lack of fresh and affordable options or the insidious targeting of our kids by fast food outfits, the “healthy meal” is under attack. This problem isn’t unique to Detroit: these are problems facing communities of color and children across the country. Join us to explore the importance of—and threats to—food security in Detroit and lessons we can apply to broader campaigns around food justice. This panel will tell stories you’ll remember, offer lessons you can use in your work, and further weave us together as a community of food activists.

Led by: Dream Hampton
Panelists: Monica Patrick, Tepfirah Rushdan, Kadiri Sennefer

Changing the Climate on Climate Change: A Showcase of Films for Environmental Action

Screening Series; Fri, 07/18/2014, 12:15pm, 142 C

This screening showcase focuses on films that address our environmental challenges, and the moral questions these issues raise.

This showcase will tie films to action directly.  After the discussion, presenters will invite the audience to join them at the nearby rally asserting that access to water is a basic human right-- and calling on the city of Detroit to keep the water turned on for all its citizens.

Please join us for short presentations on three films followed by a moderated discussion. At 12:50, there will be a pause for anyone who wishes to join the march for water rights.  We will end promptly at 1:30 to join the rally for water rights taking place at 1:45 (only a 7-minute walk away).

Led by: Matthew Filipowicz
Panelists: Angela Alston, Julie Bergman Sender, Dave Saldana

Civil Disobedience Gets Results: Lessons from the Immigration, Labor and Climate Movements

Panel; Fri, 07/18/2014 - 03:00pm, 140 D

Across the progressive movement, activists and organizations are embracing civil disobedience on a large scale as a tactic to escalate pressure in our most crucial fights—and getting results. We’ll share how progressives have leveraged the commitment of activists to increase pressure on decision makers.

Led by: Becky Bond
Panelists: Rae Breaux, Cristina Jimenez, Eric Schlein

Environmental Caucus

Caucus; Fri, 07/18/2014 - 04:30pm, 354

Join us for an engaging discussion on environmental issues. We’ll seek to come away with some tangible steps on two key questions.

1. With the recent introduction of the EPA Clean Power proposal, the retirement of almost half of the nation’s coal plants, and the increase in clean energy generation, the environmental movement has witnessed great strides in the right direction. However, there is still more to be done. What are our next efforts going to be to build on this momentum? What are the next challenges, major or minor, we expect to face?

2. As the world adopts a more global approach to problem solving, consider how can we promote the concept of “the global environment” (as others have promoted the concept of “the global economy)? Outside of bringing attention to the issue of climate disruption and how it relates to the global problem, what other issues should we use to highlight the global environment “brand”?

Led by: Alison Flowers, Marta Stoepker

48217: What One of the Country's Most Polluted Zip Codes Can Teach Us about Environmental and Digital Justice

Panel; Sat, 07/19/2014 - 11:00am, 140 C

With only 8,200 residents, southeast Michigan’s 48217 zip code is sandwiched between I-75 and giant industrial polluters. Smokestacks billow above schoolyards in River Rouge, MI, where more than 1.6 million pounds of hazardous chemicals are released into the community every year. The zip is part of Wayne County, which has the highest number of pediatric asthma cases in the state, combined with the highest state population of those living in poverty. Clean air and water violations abound the physical space, coupled with barriers to affordable cyberspace, threatening many residents’ ability to survive in a digital age. Learn about the interplay between environmental and digital justice in one community, from fighting for equal access to the internet, launching community media labs, and improving air quality.

Led by: Dr. M. K. Dorsey
Panelists: Rhonda Anderson, Jenny Lee, Michelle Martinez

Elizabeth Warren And Darcy Burner Don't Need Anyone Else To Make The Case For Them

I didn't go to the Netroots Nation convention this year. If you missed it too, I'd like to share Elizabeth Warren's keynote speech (above). As you know, she's running for the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts now. She's one of only three Senate candidates Blue America has endorsed. As you can see in the video above, she, unlike so many conflicted Democrats, is able to make an effective case about how the two political parties differ and why the progressive end of the Democratic Party, really is worth backing-- against corrupt conservative corporatists in both parties.

Her speech really is worth listening to. It's more than a campaign speech. But if you're so moved, if you're ready to help put the wind in our own sails, please consider giving her a hand here. And if we're lucky, we'll live long enough to see Elizabeth Warren as president. Can't I have just one great president before I die?

As a matter of fact, another one of Blue America's favorite candidates-- this one for the House-- is Darcy Burner. Darcy gave another Netroots Nation keynote. And... it was a great one. If you want to contribute to Darcy's campaign, there's a different page-- this page. Darcy explains what the game really is-- beyond policy; it's about power. And she explains why we can win. "We have power; it's high time we used it." Now, keep this in mind while you watch the video clip below:

Angel Soft® toilet paper
Brawny® paper towels
Quilted Northern® toilet paper
Soft n' Gentle® toilet paper
Dixie® plates, bowls, napkins, & cups
Mardi Gras® napkins and towels
Sparkle® napkins
Vanity Fair® napkins
Zee® Napkins
Georgia-Pacific® paper products, lumber and building products
INVISTA® products
Lycra® products
Stainmaster® Carpet

Social Media Enthusiasm Gap Gives Republican Candidates A Landslide Edge Over Democrats

Probably the single most boring twitterer I follow-- not counting John Shimkus, who basically never takes to The Twitter except to regurgitate official GOP talking points and Bible passages which supposedly assuage his conscience over having let Mark Foley have sexual access to the underage congressional pages back before he was discovered and forced to resign from Congress-- is Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Damn, for someone who knows how to brutalize progressive candidates, and who aspires to caucus leadership, Wasserman Schultz's tweets are devoid of passion and meaning. They sound like someone told her it's a "must," so she does it, but even lamer than her best bud Ileana Ros Lehtinen. And this is going to be the leadership of the Democratic Party, the party progressives have hooked their wagon up to. Are we ever doomed!

Last week our friends at HeadCount released a worrying report on how the GOP is kicking the asses of Democrats in the social media world. "Republicans," they write, "have about four times as many Facebook Fans as their Democratic counterparts, and five times as many Twitter followers. It’s a social media landslide. The disparity was so shocking, we put together this report." In fact, they find Republican incumbents and challengers for the Senate have about four times as many Facebook fans as their Democratic counterparts, and five times as many Twitter followers.

Just two years after Barack Obama made Facebook and social media a staple of his campaign for the presidency, Republicans have far surpassed their Democratic rivals in popularity on Facebook and Twitter. As of September 21, 2010, Republican candidates for the Senate have amassed 1.43 million fans on Facebook, compared to just under 300,000 for Democrats. The differential on Twitter is even more striking, where Republican senatorial candidates collectively have close to 520,000 followers, and Democrats are just below 90,000.

...In 22 out of 37 Senatorial races, the Republican candidate has a larger social media presence than his or her Democratic opponent across both Facebook and Twitter. The Democrat has a larger presence in nine races, and in six races the lead is split.

Incumbents enjoy a larger social media presence in most races. Among the 22 races where an incumbent is seeking re-election, the challenger has more fans and followers in only two-- Sharron Angle (R) is leading Harry Reid (D) in Nevada and John Boozman (R) is leading Blanche Lincoln (D) in Arkansas.

Candidates associated with the Tea Party movement are among the most popular in social media, most notably South Carolina Republican Senator Jim DeMint. Hailed as one of the most new media savvy elected officials, he has more Twitter followers than any incumbent and more Facebook fans than any incumbent other than McCain. Across both parties, candidates in California and Florida have strong social media followings. In Florida Kendrick Meek has the third largest social media following of any Democrat nationwide, but he also ranks third in his own state, trailing Republican Marco Rubio and Independent Charlie Crist.

Below is a list of all Democratic and Republican candidates, listed in order of their total Facebook fans and Twitter followers.





Barack Obama’s surging presence on Facebook during the 2008 campaign was widely hailed as an early sign that a grass-roots movement was building around him. He remains one of the most popular figures in all of social media, with 13.6 million fans on Facebook and 5.5 million followers on Twitter. Beyond Obama however, it is mostly conservative voices and specifically ones operating outside of the political establishment that boast the strongest foothold in social media. The Tea Party, for instance, has more fans on Facebook than the Democratic and Republican parties combined. Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul-- considered two of the de facto leaders of the Tea Party movement-- boast some of the largest followings on Facebook and (in Palin's case) Twitter in the entire political arena. Then again, “The Coffee Party,” a 501(c)4 organization created in responseParty largely via social media, also claims more Facebook fans than either of the established political parties.

You can certainly see from this chart why Republicans and their allies-- both the dedicated ones and the useful idiots-- were so terribly upset about Stephen Colbert getting so much attention last week.

My own experience is that the Republican incumbents use Twitter very badly, mostly as an orchestrated Amen Choir for their dull-witted followers. Rarely does one find even a modicum of wit or useful information. In fact, few politicians from either party make good use of Twitter. A few nights ago Rachel Maddow showed how poor is the grasp of the Republican Party-- even at the highest levels-- of all things technological... like a .pdf

If you marked your calendar for next month's (previously rescheduled) Tea Party Unity Convention, you've got some free time now

Already booked your travel and lodging for the big Vegas tea party October 14-16? Now you'll be able to do those other things you didn't think you'd have time for while you're in town.

Raven Brooks, executive director of the annual Netroots Nation progressive conclave (Netroots Nation 2011 is scheduled for June 16-19 in Minneapolis), has been keeping track of the Tea Party Unity Convention announced and already rescheduled by Tea Party Nation. Today on his blog he reported a new development. -- Ken

About that Tea Party convention… canceled

POSTED by RAVEN on SEP 17, 2010

Back in June we learned that the much hyped Tea Party Unity convention was being canceled and rescheduled to October 14-16 in Las Vegas. This barely registered a blip with the media at the time and I called them out on it and set the record straight on what this was really about.

We’re about a month out from their new announced date, and I thought I’d check them out and see how things were coming along.

Well my first stop was a Google search to find their web site. I found it, but this link should speak for itself. Check out nationalteapartyconvention.com. Oh you got a page not found error? Well there’s nothing wrong with your browser, the site doesn’t exist any more. And there’s absolutely zero media or blog coverage of the event since they announced the dates were changing. Not really what you’d expect for an event featuring Sharron Angle, Lou Dobbs, Joseph Farah, and Andrew Breitbart is it?

Well it gets better. I wanted to make sure the convention really was canceled and they weren’t just having web issues or neglected to do any PR for their event. So I put in a call to the Mirage hotel and asked if I could book a room in their block for the event. Turns out the room block had been canceled and the Mirage had no record of the event.

So there you have it, the much hyped Tea Party Unity Convention is now completely canceled. Maybe they shouldn’t have paid Sarah Palin $100,000 to keynote the first event and they might have had a little more staying power financially.

The traditional press is still obsessed with writing about the Tea Party and the power they hold. And yes in the most recent primary elections their candidates did prevail. But those wins have also put races back on the board the Democrats weren’t counting on winning. This cancellation shows that they have zero grassroots strength. It’s GOP operatives and big money that control everything, it’s not some sort of bottom up effort lead by real people and supported by the conservative community. This article recently printed in Playboy really says it all.

UPDATE: SO WHAT HAPPENED TO THE $$$?

Raven notes that Princess Sarah at least intended to take whatever money was to be paid for her appearance, "but her spokesperson claimed it would 'go to the cause.'" Raven directs us to a TPMmuckraker post from February in which Justin Elliott reported (for links see the original post):

Who will be the lucky beneficiary of the hefty fee Sarah Palin received for her Tea Party Convention address?

Mark Skoda, a spokesman for the convention, tells TPMmuckraker that when he called Palin's office in the days after the speech to thank her for appearing and inquire about the money, "at that point they had no disposition at all. I do know that she's committed to providing that honorarium to conservative causes."

This is no small sum. Her standard speaking fee is reported to be $100,000, and one activist told TPMmuckraker before the convention that Palin was charging that amount for the tea party speech, which lasted 40 minutes.

After reports of the mega-honorarium added fuel to the controversy around the expense of the convention, Palin declared on the O'Reilly Factor that she would not benefit financially from the speech.

And she wrote in a USA Today op-ed:

"My only goal is to support the grassroots activists who are fighting for responsible, limited government -- and our Constitution. In that spirit, any compensation for my appearance will go right back to the cause."

Palin's spokeswoman did not immediately respond to our request for comment.

It's not clear whether the lucky recipient(s) of Princess Sarah's Unity Convention largesse get to keep the moolah.

Presumably the fees already coughed up by convention attendees will be refunded. It wouldn't be like upstanding teabagging promoters to abscond with the dough, would it? No, I didn't think so.

#

Bloggers On The Bus-- Don't Leave Home Without It

Netroots Nation is coming up this week. President Bill Clinton is giving the keynote address. I love Pittsburgh-- especially the Andy Warhol Museum-- but I'm not going, I've never gone. I know I should and I usually want to in like February or March. But then something always happens like a trip to Mali or Bali and... I miss out. All that not withstanding, I just had my dozenth call from a candidate or office holder who is going, looking for advise. "What should I do there? Who should I meet?" They all want to know.

They'd be better off asking me about Timbuktu-- awesome place-- or Ubud, Kathmandu, Kerala, Kabul or... how to get to Bush's rancho in the Gran Chaco region of Paraguay. But here's my advice to candidates who are going. It's real simple: always be genuine and never pander. Don't say anything different to the netroots than what you'd say to your constituents back home. If you do, that message will definitely get back home, and probably before you do. Oh, and before you go, get Eric Boehlert's book Bloggers on The Bus. Reading it I learned so much more about people I thought I really knew-- not just from reading their work for years but by hanging out with them in real life too. In fact, despite starting the part about me by likening me to "a golden retriever suddenly blessed with the gift of speech," I recommend the book to anyone looking to figure of the progressive blogosphere and some of the characters populating it. And you can get it right on the first page of the Down With Tyranny Books & Music Store. And so can all the candidates and incumbents with the slightest bit of interest.

And if you don't like to read books, our friend Doonesbury captured the spirit of the blogosphere real well in this cartoon and you should study it carefully: