America-- And The Democratic Party-- Needed Bernie To Stay In The Race

This is a must-watch video, a discussion between Mehdi Hasan and Naomi Klein. They don't get to Bernie staying in the race 'til near the end but the whole half hour is a worthwhile way to spend some time. As for Bernie staying in the race, I very much agree with Naomi Klein and with Alan Minsky, the Executive Director of Progressive Democrats of America who penned this guest post a day before Bernie decided to drop out. I hope you agree as well-- and agree enough to contribute to congressional candidates who are running on Bernie's issues, even if it's just five or two dollars. Thats why I've included a Bernie Congress Blue America thermometer below. Just click on it and vote with a few dollars to let Bernie you agree too.


Stay In The Race Bernie Sanders-- America Needs You Now More Than Ever.
-by Alan Minsky

Progressive Democrats of America calls upon Senator Bernie Sanders to continue his presidential campaign until the end of the 2020 primary season.

We understand that many Democrats are calling for Bernie to drop out. They say that Joe Biden is so far ahead that the time has come for party unity, for focusing on Donald Trump. While we agree about the necessity of defeating Donald Trump, we arrive at the opposite conclusion: The Democratic Party, and all Americans, will benefit from Bernie continuing his campaign in this historic moment.

The severity of the COVID-19 national emergency has changed everything in this election year. Coronavirus has revealed, with tragic consequences, the failings of our public health institutions and economic safety net-- in ways that Bernie Sanders has been warning against for decades. Thus, it comes as no surprise that Bernie's platform directly addresses these failings; in marked contrast to his rival's. As many observers have noted, with each passing day the COVID-19 pandemic is proving the wisdom of the Sanders agenda.

In particular, Medicare for All needs to be the official policy of the Democratic Party and it's presidential nominee in 2020. The pandemic has exposed America's current healthcare system for the disaster that it is. There can be no denying that having tens of millions of Americans unable to access affordable care greatly increases the public health risk for everyone. America needs universal single-payer health care; and the only way to get there is through the Democratic Party. Yet Joe Biden opposes Medicare for All, while Bernie Sanders is its leading proponent.

In the wake of COVID-19, Medicare for All isn't merely a winning political issue; it's a political landslide issue. Even if Bernie doesn't win the nomination, by continuing to campaign and win delegates to the convention, he could leverage Medicare for All into the party platform. For this, America, the Democratic Party, and even Joe Biden, should want Bernie Sanders to stay in the race. We also need Bernie to stay in the race to insure that his voice is heard as we enter the peak days of the crisis. Over the past few weeks, Bernie has fought tirelessly on behalf of average Americans in the battles over the stimulus bills. As one of only three viable candidates for President, Bernie has a powerful platform. That will change overnight when his campaign ends; and his influence will wane, leaving Americans even more at the mercy of a political class that, on balance, prioritizes big money interests over those of the vast majority.

Of course, Bernie's campaign going forward is not just about building support for policies, however essential, because of one fact: the race isn't over. Joe Biden may have a significant delegate lead, but it's nothing that a string of 70-30 results wouldn't reverse. That might be a longshot, but it's not impossible. Think about it this way: Bernie's policies match this moment just like FDR's did in the early 1930s; and FDR won his share of landslides. Calling for Sanders to step aside is anti-democratic. Let the candidates campaign and let the voters decide.

On this final point, consider the parallel with FDR in light of the recent unemployment statistics. Only one period in American history resembles the wholesale devastation that is currently shredding the American economy, the Great Depression. How did we get out of that? After three years of Hoover's impotent response, FDR re-energized America with a revolutionary program that transformed the country forever, the New Deal-- an updated version of which was a central plank of Sanders' platform, the Green New Deal.

The President who will be inaugurated in January will have a unique opportunity to define the direction of the country for the foreseeable future. Do we want to re-affirm a society that only works for the few while the rest of us work multiple jobs, live entwined in debt, with underfunded public schools, and a broken health care system with little hope of overcoming America's endemic crises? Or do we choose a new path that brings both our society and the planet back into balance and ensures that America will lead the world in addressing the biggest challenges of the next century?

Be honest folks, the Bernie Sanders agenda made a lot of sense before COVID-19, now it makes all the sense in the world. It's the vision that the Democratic Party needs to unify behind. The only way that happens is if the Sanders campaign continues.

The world has changed irreparably since early March when most primary votes were cast. The fallout from COVID-19 will define politics in the 2020s. We will all benefit by having the country's leading advocate for strengthening the public sector make his case in our new, transformed, reality.

Stay in the race Bernie Sanders. America needs you now more than ever.

Guest Post By Alan Minsky-- Joe Biden and Why America Needs a Strong Progressive Movement

-by Alan Minsky,
Executive Director-- Progressive Democrats of America

In the second half of Sunday’s debate, Bernie Sanders delivered what would likely have been a knock-out blow to Joe Biden in any other Presidential debate when he established that Biden was lying about his record on social security. Biden insisted that he never advocated for cutting social security payments, but Sanders pointed to videos of Biden, from across his career, in which he clearly calls for making cuts to the program. Biden objected vociferously, but to no avail; it seemed that he was exposed, in trouble. However, in the midst of a truly unprecedented global crisis, which understandably has re-ordered everyone’s priorities, the moment passed without making an impact on the race.





Nevertheless, it is a moment worth revisiting, as it speaks volumes about Biden, who is now the prohibitive favorite to be the next President.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. If the Democratic nominee wins the White House, he will be tasked with re-building the country and the world in the wake of the dual disasters of the COVID-19 pandemic and Donald Trump.

Indeed, it looks like 2021 will resemble 1933 and 2009. The incoming President will have a rare opening to alter major policies, redesign government agencies, and propose transformational changes. Would Joe Biden be more New Deal or Shock Doctrine? Or would Status Quo Joe play things down the middle? What leverage would progressives have to influence his administration?

We can learn a lot from Sunday evening’s conflict over Joe Biden’s record on Social Security; about the forces that influence high-level political decision-making in America; and Joe Biden’s decision-making, in particular. It’s worth a closer look.

On the surface the details of the exchange are pretty straight forward. Social Security is exceptionally popular. Polls show that the public overwhelmingly opposes any cuts to the program. So, not surprisingly, the Sanders campaign has released ads that show Joe Biden, at various times throughout his career, saying that he is willing to make cuts to social security. In response, Biden has said that the ads are misleading: that he does not currently support making cuts to social security; and he never supported making such cuts.





When this matter was raised during the debate on Sunday, Biden reiterated his denial. Bernie responded with incredulity-- explaining to viewers how easy it is to verify, simply “check it out on the youtube.” Indeed, a simple search for “Joe Biden social security” produces the damning evidence.

In that regard, it’s a pretty open and shut case. Normally, it would cause some damage to Biden-- as it shows his willingness to deceive voters about his longtime support for a right-wing economic position overwhelmingly opposed by Democrats-- but in a week when a pandemic is sweeping across the world; the impact was negligible.

Still, a question lingers: why did Biden lie? It seems like a risky move. Certainly, any candidate wants to avoid being exposed as dishonest. While this exchange didn’t have the impact the Sanders campaign would’ve liked, #LyingBiden was trending on Twitter afterwards; which certainly wasn’t lost on the ghouls at the Trump campaign.

So, why didn’t Biden just say that his position on the matter has evolved? Why insist that’s he’s always been a staunch defender of social security when it’s untrue? In fact, it wasn’t just on social security that Biden made this claim-- he denied the reality of his past positions on a number of other issues across the debate (albeit in much shorter exchanges than the back-and-forth over social security), ranging from bankruptcy legislation, bank de-regulation, budget policy, and the Iraq War. Significantly, just as with social security, Biden not only denied his previous positions, he claimed that he supported a more progressive position than was actually the case. In other words, he was attempting to re-write his history such that his voting record was more in line with the majority of Democratic voters; and, for that matter, with Bernie Sanders.

Obviously, Biden’s gambit here is that voters will be persuaded that his beliefs line up with theirs-- and not be concerned about his past record or his dissembling (“don’t all politicians lie anyway?”). If the measure of success is maintaining his momentum and winning the nomination, it’s hard to argue with the results so far. The problem is, no one who is being remotely honest with themselves can have any confidence that Biden’s beliefs have shifted. On the one hand, you don’t gain trust by dissembling. On the other, Biden’s campaign is not about policy positions, its primary selling point is the restoration of the Obama/Biden Administration.

You can probably see where this is going, but here’s a hint: When was the last time that Joe Biden was advocating for social security cuts? Was it in the 90s? The W Bush years? Nope, it was in 2013, as Vice President. And who played a leading role in blocking the cuts? Bernie Sanders.

The bigger point here is that we’re about to nominate someone with a track record much further to the right ideologically than the current center-of-gravity in the party; and, given the severity of the current crisis, Biden will have an unprecedented opportunity to re-cast the role of government for the 21st Century.

As such, we have to start thinking strategically about how we can insure that the now-powerful progressive movement is not shut out from the decision-making process of a new Democratic Administration. The stakes couldn’t be higher. The decisions made at the end of the W Bush, and the beginning of the Obama Administrations-- during the height of the financial crisis-- have defined the politics of the past decade. They restored Wall Street, screwed Main Street, and set us on a course for ever-greater wealth inequality. We can’t make the same mistakes again.

Which brings us to perhaps the most salient point about a Joe Biden presidency-- what do we know about its braintrust? Will progressives have a voice? Frankly, it doesn’t look promising. A couple of weeks ago, the excellent investigative website Axios received what it claimed was a leaked document from the Biden camp, detailing who might fill the major positions in a Biden Administration. The list was chilling, overwhelmingly stacked with leading figures from corporate America, especially the financial industry. The Biden campaign challenged the documents authenticity; but given what we know about Biden’s career as a longtime ally of Wall Street in the Democratic Party, and about the big-money backers of his current campaign, the list was frighteningly plausible. Suffice to say, if a Biden Administration even remotely resembled the Axios document, the country and the planet would be in deep trouble-- forget about progressive change, forget about progressive voices being heard.

Fortunately, we’re not there yet; but we have to act now to insure the progressive policies supported not just by the majority of Democrats, but the majority of Americans, have a determining role in any in-coming Democatic Administration in 2021.

Of course, the first, best, and easiest option remains supporting Bernie’s campaign. It ain’t over yet, and you never know what might happen in these crazy times. So, if-and-when the campaign kicks back into gear, let’s get back to the phone banks, back to persuading our fellow citizens. Let’s win some primaries, reverse the momentum and go from there. Benie’s policies are massively better for the country and the world-- and, yes, it would be brilliant to have a progressive President recasting American Government for the 21st Century come January. Imagine echoing FDR by implementing Medicare for All and a Green New Deal in Bernie’s first 100 days!

The other option is tricky, to say the least; but for the sake of all that we love, we have to do what we have to do. If Biden continues on the fast track to the nomination, we progressives have to reach out-- both respectfully and insistently. Our point of entry can be Biden’s re-creation as a Bernie progressive (in the last debate he even opposed fracking, one the Obama Administration’s crowning jewels). We have to let him know that we’ll be holding him to his word. We can be his allies, an army of lobbyists supporting progressive legislation; or adversaries, exposing his betrayals. Two things we won’t do: go home; or accept a retrenchment of neo-liberalism, which is what we fear Joe Biden will pursue, if left to his own devices.

There Is Literally Only One Way To Defeat Marco Rubio

Over the weekend, Alan Grayson warned that a right-wing PAC-- who he refers to as "some pollution-spewing, book-burning group of flat-earth neo-con-artists... greed-mongering, minority-oppressing, torture-cheering, fact-loathing illiterate ignoramuses"-- has started getting serious about defeating him. "They are mobilizing their Tea Party zombies and miscellaneous undead," warned Grayson, "to help Marco Rubio defeat us-- even as we speak. Their letter screamed "t Is Crucial That Republicans Maintain Control Of The Senate! The Other Florida Republicans Running Against Alan Grayson Have Dropped Out And Cleared The Path For Marco Rubio! Only Marco Rubio Has The Poll Numbers And Support To Defeat Alan Grayson!... This race is statistically tied. Voters must know the truth! It is crucial that voters know about Marco Rubio's bold conservative vision and Alan Grayson's dangerous radical agenda.

Grayson seems to have found that mildly humorous:

Let me try to edify them. Here’s Marco Rubio’s "bold conservative vision":

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

Here is my "dangerous radical agenda":

JUSTICE, EQUALITY, PEACE.

While Grayson is chomping at the bit to get at Rubio, he has to contend with a smear campaign by Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer on behalf of their weak Republican-lite candidate, Patrick Murphy. Several progressive organizations began fundraising drives for Grayson over the weekend, to counter Murphy getting more money from Wall Street than any non-incumbent-- including Republicans-- running for the Senate. The banksters love him because he's consistently delivered for them on everything from pay day lending to gutting Dodd-Frank. It's not for nothing that Patrick Murphy is known around Capitol Hill as "Wall Street's errand boy," precisely what Schumer has pledged to his finaciers to deliver into the Senate. DFA pointed out that "there's been a complete upheaval in the all-important Florida Senate race."

First, Marco Rubio changed his mind. Rubio said he wasn't going to run for another term in the U.S. Senate after his presidential bid collapsed. He told a friend "he hates it." But he's had a change of heart. On Wednesday, Marco Rubio announced he was going to run for re-election after all.





Second, news reports have emerged questioning corporate Democrat Patrick Murphy's own personal story. Local reporters in Florida have discovered that Murphy "exaggerated his experience and in other instances made claims that were misleading or outright false."



Marco Rubio can be beaten-- but we need to have the strongest Democratic candidate possible running against Rubio.



That's Alan Grayson.

Alan Grayson is the best choice to provide a clear, inspiring contrast to Rubio's right-wing extremism. As a fighter for working people who endorsed Bernie Sanders, a champion for expanding Social Security and Medicare, and a warrior against Wall Street, Alan Grayson is the Democrat who can rally Florida voters to defeat Rubio and take back the Senate.



Florida's Senate seat could decide whether Democrats or Republicans control the U.S. Senate. Let's make sure it's a progressive Democrat-- a Bernie backer-- who wins.

Marco Rubio has a tough path ahead of him. On the presidential campaign trail he took many extremist positions that will haunt him in November.



Rubio echoed Donald Trump when he proposed shutting down any place Muslims gather. Rubio denies that humans cause climate change. He wants to privatize Medicare and slash Social Security. And he's a close ally of the NRA.



Patrick Murphy-- Alan Grayson's opponent in Florida's Democratic primary on August 30-- isn't the right Democrat to defeat Rubio.



Murphy himself was a Republican who only just re-registered as a Democrat a few years ago to run for Congress. Murphy has been willing to cut Social Security, supports bad trade deals, and isn't reliable on workers rights or Wall Street reform. And that's not even factoring in the bombshell news that Murphy hasn't been honest about his personal and professional history, as a brutal CBS News report out of Miami just exposed.



In contrast, Alan Grayson will take on Marco Rubio using strong progressive values-- and he'll win. An excellent example: Rep. Grayson spoke on the floor of the House during Wednesday's sit-in against the NRA. Grayson sponsored an assault weapons ban. Grayson has been a leader in the House on expanding Social Security and Medicare.



Let's send Alan Grayson to the Senate to continue that important work.


 At the same time, PDA-- Progressive Democrats of America-- sent out a letter to their national membership asking them to help make sure there's a progressive in the Florida Senate seat next year. "Alan Grayson has fought for us since his first day in Congress," wrote Mike Fox, PDA's Florida coordinator. "You may remember Alan from when he made national news early in his career for his speech on the House floor exposing the Republican health care plan as 'Don't get sick, and if you do, die quickly.' The Republicans and their media allies attacked Alan relentlessly ever since.

Like FDR said about the animosity he faced from his enemies, Alan "wears their hatred as a badge of honor." He has been the most powerful voice opposing bad trade deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership. He has also been the most outspoken opponent of efforts to cut Social Security. Alan opposes wars and regime change, and he listened to his voters before deciding to cast his super delegate vote for Bernie Sanders.

Even though he takes all these strong and principled stands on the issues vital to us all, Alan is also the most effective congressperson in DC. He's gotten more bills and amendments passed into law than any other current House member. That's because he's smart as well as strong. He knows how to get real results.

Alan gets things done for us. Now we have to get something done for him in his race to defeat and replace Marco Rubio. As a Florida resident, I'm asking you to dig deep and help Alan Grayson win my state's Senate seat. To win, Alan has to beat two Republicans. We need you to give as generously as you can right now to help Alan beat his primary opponent–a Democrat in Name Only (DINO) who supported Mitt Romney In 2012.

That's right, Alan's "Democratic" opponent Patrick Murphy gave as much money as he legally could to the Republican presidential candidate who mocked 47% of Americans as takers who deserve nothing because they'll never vote for Republicans, and who believes, "Corporations are people." That's where Patrick Murphy stands: with the rich and big corporations. Alan Grayson stands with us.

As Progressive Democrats, we demand actual Democrats as our candidates. Alan has to win his primary against Murphy to move on and defeat Rubio. Vote by mail ballots will be going out in a few weeks, so we must do all that we can right now to ensure a strong progressive victory. Please give generously right now. Even if it's only $5, it will make a real difference. And if you can give an hour of your time here or there, please contact me and we'll get you connected with Alan's grass roots crew.

Whether it's healthcare for all, peace, combating income inequality, social justice, fighting to expose and stop the TPP, protecting our environment, or getting big money out of politics, Alan has been there for us. If we're there for him, he will be the Senator With Guts that we need to fight for us all. He consistently has our back. Now let's have his.

DFA and PDA both know what they're talking about. Please, if you give to just one Senate race this cycle, make it Grayson's in Florida. And as Mike Fox, pleaded, dig deep:

Less Than Two Weeks To Go Before The New Jersey Primary-- Don't Give Wall Street Banksters Another Senate Seat

This week Blue America and Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) sent a joint letter to all our members asking them to support Rush Holt for the open New Jersey Senate seat. The August 13 primary has 4 Democrats vying for the nomination-- Rush Holt and Frank Pallone, both progressive congressmen, General Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver, a kind of boss-affiliated garden variety Democrat, and the Wall Street candidate, Newark Mayor Cory Booker. The special election itself will be held October 16. Digby penned the letter:

Last April, just three months before he passed away, the ailing liberal lion Senator Frank Lautenberg issues a strong statement in opposition to proposed cuts to Social Security. He said: "We can't afford to further balance our books on the backs of middle-class families and seniors. The proposed cuts to Social Security benefits are a major problem that would hurt countless Americans.”

Sadly, the man considered to be the front runner to succeed him, Newark mayor and media darling Cory Booker, isn't willing to hold that line. He said just this week that he'd consider raising the retirement age for younger people, a patented Republican dodge and a sure sign that he cannot be trusted to protect the Democratic Party's greatest achievement.

But there is someone in the race who will protect Social Security and his name is Congressman Rush Holt.

Holt not only opposes all cuts to our most important social insurance program, he is a co-sponsor of the Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act, which would expand Social Security benefits not cut them. Where Mayor Booker has said that he has "not formed an opinion" on a carbon tax, something which 41 Democratic Senators have already voted for, Rush Holt is card carrying scientist who strongly supports it.

Where Mayor Booker thinks calling for repeal of the Patriot Act is "irresponsible", Rush Holt sponsored a bill in the House just this week to do just that. He said: "The executive branch’s groundless mass surveillance of Americans has turned our conception of liberty on its head. My legislation would restore the proper constitutional balance and ensure our people are treated as citizens first, not suspects.”

Where Mayor Booker considers Wall Street a strong friend and ally, Rush Holt... doesn't. 

The last thing we need in the US Senate is another Wall Street friendly centrist with a propensity for government secrecy and a willingness to cut our most important social insurance programs. There are plenty of those already.

In the upcoming primary, New Jersey can choose an establishment celebrity who plays a progressive on TV or it can choose a real progressive. We strongly believe the choice for progressives in this race is obvious and urge you support Congressman Rush Holt for US Senate. Please donate what you can and spread the word among your friends and acquaintances in New Jersey.

Healthcare, Not Warfare: A Cosmic Thing

Photo by HeadCount

You've probably noticed that we're trying to monetize rock'n'roll collectibles to help progressives thwart the two corrupt Inside-the-Beltway party machines. This week, PDA and Blue America have teamed up to mark the 12th anniversary of America's violent involvement in Afghanistan by going after two senior Republican militaristic policy-makers who are dead set on extending the occupation of that country, House Armed Services Committee chairman Buck McKeon and House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan. Both espouse a radical Austerity agenda that cuts back on human needs for healthcare, education, infrastructure expansion, nutrition, basic research, etc while expanding military spending and continuing to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires. And, shockingly, both have "free passes" to reelection from the DCCC. 

Although Obama won both CA-25 and WI-01 in 2008 and is expected to win both districts in November by even greater margins, the DCCC would rather spend money to try to replace powerless backbenchers on the Republican side with conservative New Dems and Blue Dogs than go after key GOP policy makers and replace them with stalwart progressives, in these cases, Dr. Lee Rogers in California and Rob Zerban in Wisconsin. That doesn't sit well with us.

So... who remembers Cosmic Thing by the B-52's? It was the band's best-selling album and had two smash hits, "Love Shack" and "Roam." When the 1989 blockbuster had sold 4 million copies in the U.S., their record company, Reprise, where I was working, celebrated by designing a spectacular, customized, RIAA-certified, quadruple platinum award. Only a few dozen were ever manufactured and it is extremely rare and collectible... especially for a B-52 fan. Do you know any? Christmas is coming up fast.

We're going to pick one random person who contributes-- any amount; no minimum-- to Rob Zerban's and Lee Rogers' campaigns on this page: Healthcare, Not Warfare: A Cosmic Thing. And if you want to have a chance to win and can't afford a contribution, just send us a note at P.O. Box 27201, Los Angeles, CA 90027 and tell us you want in and... you get a chance too.

Jammin' The Vote With Dave Matthews, Wilco, Phish and Bob Weir

PDA is going to be registering people to vote and talking with them about progressive solutions to American challenges at Crosby Stills and Nash concerts across America starting next month. And they'll be talking about progressive candidates who can make a difference, like David Gill in Illinois and Norman Solomon in California. Blue America will be working with them on a project that will put a rare and beautiful numbered, signed Neil Young art print into the hands of one lucky winner. You'll be hearing more about that very soon. But there's another organization working the rock'n'roll circuit, particularly the jam band circuit to register voters and that's Headcount. Like PDA, Headcount is a grassroots organization; unlike PDA, Headcount is a non-partisan group. It's primary function is to use the power of music to register voters and raise social consciousness. Since 2004, HeadCount has staged voter registration drives at over 2,000 concerts and signed up over 175,000 voters. With questions looming about young voter turnout in this election cycle-- between disappointment with promises from 2008 and GOP efforts to disenfranchise young voters, some major rock bands are hosting voter registration drives at all their summer concerts.

Headcount's “Great American Road Trip,” is a cross-country trek taken by young volunteers who are following the Dave Matthews Band, Wilco, Phish and Furthur (Grateful Dead) across the country, just to register voters at each stop on each tour. Because, as our friends at Headcount like to ask, "what's more American than rock'n'roll?

They expect to register voters at 103 concerts and cover 15,000 miles. Each band has been assigned a crack Headcount team of 2 to 4 volunteers who will be augmented in each city by another 10 local volunteers. Anyone 18 years of age or older can sign up to volunteer at HeadCount.org.

The HeadCount team is traveling to each Dave Matthews Band show in a Volkswagen Routan minivan-- and filing dispatches from the road on the HeadCount blog. Volkswagen of America, Inc. and Dave Matthews Band’s Bama Works Fund are covering all the volunteers’ travel costs.


HeadCount set an all-time record for a single concert tour when they registered 12,161 voters with Dave Matthews Band in 2004. That year, turnout by voters age 18 to 24 jumped 11 percent. It was by far the largest increase among any age group. In 2008 that trend continued, with young voters being the only age group to show an increase in turnout.

However, it will take some work if that trend is to continue. A recent Wall Street Journal poll found that only 43 percent of young voters said they were very interested in the Presidential election, compared to 65 percent in a poll taken at the same time of year in 2008. Another poll by Gallup said that only 56 percent of registered voters under the age of 30 plan to cast their ballot in November.

One of the best ways to increase voter turnout is by welcoming new voters into the democratic process. In 2008, over 72 percent of the voters registered by HeadCount turned out to vote, according to an independent study by the Washington, D.C.-based New Organizing Institute. That same study said that over 4 million votes were cast that year by individuals who registered to vote through independent groups like HeadCount.

Blue America Is Giving Away An Autographed Barenaked Ladies Guitar

I first met the Barenaked Ladies even before someone shot the funky video above. "If I Had $1,000,000" was on their first album, Gordon but American media showed no interest in the song, the album or the band. The band, undaunted by their lack of success, kept playing shows and building a grassroots following across America. I remember, several years-- and several albums-- later bringing a program director from a radio station in Columbus, Ohio to a concert. It was in the city's biggest indoor concert venue, the Celeste Center, and the 10,200 tickets had all sold out in advance. The program director was stunned. "How could this be happening in my city without us even knowing about it?" he wondered aloud. His station helped "break" the band-- at least to the mainstream. But it was the grassroots and the hard work that really broke the Barenaked Ladies even before the 1998 platinum smash hit "One Week" from Stunt.

Dr. David Gill and author and activist Norman Solomon have been working the grassroots angle for a very long time. They are Movement Progressives rather than politicians per se. And both are on the verge of national prominence. When I asked Ed Robertson if it would be OK for me to give away the beautiful Fender Strat all the members of the band has signed and given to me when I retired from Warner Bros, he replied immediately, "Happy to help out the ailing American political system wherever we can!"

So... I gave Blue America and Progressive Democrats of America the guitar and Blue America and PDA are going to give it away to a randomly-selected donor on a new Act Blue page, If I Had A Million Dollars. This is the letter we sent out to all the Blue America members last night:


A few years ago the Barenaked Ladies sang in one of their breakthrough hits about what they'd do with a million dollars:

If I had a million dollars
If I had a million dollars
I'd buy you a fur coat
But not a real fur coat-- that's cruel

If I had a million dollars
If I had a million dollars
I'd buy you an exotic pet
Like a llama or an emu

To each his own. Blue America and Progressive Democrats of America have something different in mind for a million dollars-- helping elect two of the most outstanding progressive candidates running for office anywhere this cycle, Norman Solomon in California and Dr. David Gill in Illinois. But both organizations are grassroots groups and neither one of us-- nor even both of us together-- has a million dollars. Instead we have a beautiful Fender stratocaster guitar that has been autographed by each member of the Barenaked Ladies. Would you like that... instead of an emu?

We need to raise some money to help Norman and David win their tough races. David has already won a difficult primary against a conservative, Machine-backed Democrat, who finally conceded Friday. Now he'll face whomever the GOP Machine forces down Republicans' throats. Norman still has a primary ahead of him-- and if he comes out in the top two, as is expected, he'll face off against a more Establishment character for a seat in Congress.

David is in an open Democratic-leaning district, so as long as he can get his message out, he's likely to win in November. And Norman's district is one of the most Democratic and progressive districts anywhere in America. Both candidates have been endorsed by both PDA and Blue America. This is the first time our two groups have ever gotten together for a fundraising effort. If you contribute any amount to these two candidates on this ActBlue page you could be the lucky winner of the Barenaked Ladies guitar.

It doesn't matter if you donate $10 or $1,000. Everyone has an equal chance to win the guitar. Just go to this page any time this week and donate to both the candidates. At the end of this week we'll pick one person at random and send him or her the very special Barenaked Ladies thank you gift-- the beautiful Fender Stratocaster guitar autographed by each member of the Barenaked Ladies (shown in photo, above).

Today's The Day-- Brownbaggers NOT Teabaggers

At noon today PDA's second in a series of Brown Bag Lunch Vigils will take place around the country, at congressional offices of members who both support escalation in Afghanistan and members who oppose it. We started looking at this new movement a couple weeks ago and I tried to put it into context as an integral part of the American peace movement last weekend. Since then, the number of people participating has skyrocketed and the number of congressional offices being covered shot up to 60 as of yesterday.

The purpose of the vigils is to peacefully oppose war funding. The first batch took place January 20th, at the district offices of 22 members of Congress. "Brownbaggers" are asking members of the House to publicly commit to voting No on any bills that fund the occupation of Afghanistan and the escalation of the war there, and to publicly urge their colleagues and the House leadership to make the same commitment and to cosponsor HR 2454, calling for an exit strategy from Afghanistan, and HR 3699, prohibiting any increase in the number of U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan. Congress members' commitments are tracked at defundwar.org. While brownbaggers hold vigil at congressional district offices today, allies Inside the Beltway will visit the Capitol Hill offices of the same congress members. "Brownbaggers" will assemble, peacefully, at 10 a.m. at the Independence Avenue entrance to the Rayburn House Office Building.

PDA has also found that its members are demanding that Congress pass straightforward "Medicare for All" legislation and trash the tainted, corporate-friendly bill the two political parties have worked out with the Medical Industrial Complex. Donna Smith, Co-Chair of PDA's Healthcare Not Warfare campaign, said "We plan to speak with the offices of every congressmember whose constituents are holding vigil that day. We will confront them not only with the direct financial and human costs of war, but also with the tradeoffs. We have 45,000 preventable deaths due to lack of healthcare access every year in this country. That's a choice our representatives make. Right now they are choosing war."

Here's the most current list of vigils. Details are here (and there are a few that are starting as early as 11AM so do check). The members that I've highlighted are the Democrats who voted last June to deny funding already. These 32 were the only ones with the guts and the sense to stand up to Rahm Emanuel's bullying. (Particularly dangerous warmongers are in italics.)

AZ-05 Rep. Harry Mitchell
CA-05 Rep. Doris Matsui
CA-06 Rep. Lynn Woolsey
CA-09 Rep. Barbara Lee
CA-10 Rep. John Garamendi
CA-18 Rep. Dennis Cardoza
CA-22 Rep. Kevin McCarthy
CA-23 Rep. Lois Capps
CA-24 Rep. Darrell Issa
CA-31 Rep. Xavier Becerra
CA-33 Rep. Diane Watson
CA-34 Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard
CA-37 Rep. Laura Richardson
CA-40 Rep. Ed Royce
CA-42 Rep. Gary Miller
CA-45 Rep. Mary Bono-Mack
CA-46 Rep. Dana Rohrabacher
CA-48 Rep. John Campbell
CA-50 Rep. Brian Bilbray
CA-53 Rep. Susan Davis
CO-04 Rep. Betsy Markey
FL-07 Rep. John Mica
FL-09 Rep. Gus Bilirakis
FL-10 Rep. Bill Young
FL-17 Rep. Kendrick Meek
ID-01 Rep. Walt Minnick
IN-09 Rep. Baron Hill
KY-01 Sen. Mitch McConnell
MA-01 Rep. John Olver
MA-02 Rep. Richard Neal
MA-03 Rep. Jim McGovern
MA-08 & 09 Sen. John Kerry
MA-10 Rep. Bill Delahunt
MD-04 Rep. Donna Edwards
ME-01 Rep. Chellie Pingree
ME-02 Rep. Mike Michaud
MI-09 Rep. Gary Peters
MS-01 Rep. Travis Childers
MS-04 Rep. Gene Taylor
NJ-04 Rep. Chris Smith
NJ-06 Rep. Frank Pallone
NY-18 Rep. Nita Lowey
NY-28 & 29 Rep. Louise M. Slaughter and Eric Massa
OH-13 Rep. Betty Sutton
OH-17 Rep. Tim Ryan
OR-04 Rep. Peter DeFazio
OR-05 Rep. Kurt Schrader
PA-02 Rep. Chaka Fattah
PA-07 Rep. Joe Sestak
PA-15 Rep. Charlie Dent
UT-03 Rep. Jason Chaffetz
WA-02 Rep. Rick Larsen
WA-03 Rep. Brian Baird
WA-06 Rep. Norman Dicks
WI-03 Rep. Ron Kind
WI-07 Rep. David Obey

Brownbaggers, Not Teabaggers-- The Healthcare NOT Warfare Lunch Vigil Campaign Is Growing... FAST

It was less than a week ago that we first mentioned PDA organizing Brown Bag lunch vigils at the district offices of congressmembers all over the country for February 17. I've been re-reading the part of Rick Perlstein's book, Nixonland that deals with the events around the Vietnam Moratorium Committee, arguably the greatest anti-war movement in U.S. history.

It was the idea of a Boston envelope manufacturer, the kind of figure Richard Nixon was used to approaching for political contributions: a one-day nationwide general strike against the war. Most antiwar leaders were skeptical. One who wasn't, who knew something about quixotic successes, was Sam Brown, the organizer of the McCarthy "Children's Crusade" in 1968. The usual spots where dissidents gathered, he realized-- New York, San Francisco, Washington-- were foreign territory to most Americans. This action would be determinedly local. Get pictures on the AP wire of antiwar butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers in Schenectady, Cincinnati, and Bakersfield, and a new antiwar narrative might emerge. Since "strike" sounded like something bomb-throwers did, they adopted, instead, a Nixon word: moratorium. A moratorium from everyday life, smack dab in the middle of the week.

The first press release went out: "On October 15, 1969, this nation will cease 'business as usual' to protest the war in Vietnam and for the Nixon administration to bring the troops home." (Nixon issued a dictate to John Ehrlichman on June 24, using a favorite football metaphor: come up with an anti-Moratorium game plan by July. What was significant about that order was that the protest was not announced publicly for another week.) The Vietnam Moratorium Committee organized on a scale never attempted before. The core was the 253 student government officers and student newspaper editors who had signed an anti-draft pledge in spring. The spring clashes on campuses actually worked to their advantage. People wanted desperately to talk to these clean-cut kids knocking on their doors-- to grasp the baffling events just past. That was the conversation starter, the opening to points like: "Isn't 25,000 a rather token amount of troops for Nixon to withdraw, given that there were over 500,000 American boys in Vietnam? Didn't that rate of withdrawal mean we would still be in Vietnam in nine years?"

John Ehrlichman named as the anti-Moratorium game plan's quarterback Nixon's favorite football coach, Bud Wilkinson, late of the University of Oklahoma. What Wilkinson proposed, since "no one likes to be used," was that he jawbone the kids into realizing the Moratorium as "an attempt to exploit students for the organizers' own purposes." "It's easy to manipulate kids," Haldeman agreed, "because they love to get excited. You can foment them up for a panty raid, or in the old days, gold-fish swallowing." But six weeks after Bud Wilkinson started meeting with student leaders to shame them into the realization that they were cats' paws, he apologetically reported back: kids were laughing in his face. "The problem of dealing with the Vietnam Moratorium Committee," Wilkinson noted, with understatement, "is difficult."

Some Establishment leaders surveying the anti-war disruptions began concluding that the best way to end the anti-war was to end the war. Notre Dame's Father Hesburgh earned an Oval Office audience for his get-tough policies against student protesters and took the opportunity to beg the president to reform the draft and end the war "as soon as possible." The president of the most violence-wracked campus in the country, the University of Michigan, practically thundered against the war in the opening convocation. Word came down from the President: "not to be included in any White House conferences."

Simultaneously, the White House launched an anti-Moratorium Plan B: leaking word that they were responding to demonstrations. The New York Times printed the testimony of an anonymous "critic" within the administration that there would soon be "a temporary suspension of the draft for an unspecified time" and that when conscription resumed men would only be eligible for a year after their 19th birthday instead of the present six, and only professional soldiers and draftees who volunteered would be sent to Vietnam.

Nixon started making mistakes. On September 26 he held his first press conference since June. Aides urged him not to sneer at something so obviously broad-based as the new antiwar surge. Asked first about the proposal of Charles Goodell, the Republican senator Nelson Rockefeller had appointed to fill out the late Bobby Kennedy's term, to cut off funding for the war after December 1, 1970, he responded like something out of 1984: "that inevitably leads to perpetuating and continuing the war." The third question was a softball: "What is your view, sir, concerning the student moratorium and other campus demonstrations being planned for this fall against the Vietnam War?" He replied, with monarchical bluntness, "under no circumstances will I be affected whatever by it."

Mistake.

The remark was the next day's lead story. VMC leaders put on a press conference timed for the Sunday papers. Dozens of reporters showed up instead of the usual five or six. They had done what Nixon had done in 1948 with Truman, and 1966 with Johnson: massively inflated their stature by making themselves debating partners of a president. They also played skillfully into the emerging media narrative: that the stresses of the job were getting to Nixon. They said what distressed them about his statement "is the degree of isolation which it reflects. It is the kind of rigid stance which contributed so much to the bitterness of debate during the last days of the Johnson administration."

They were speaking the Establishment's language, and the Establishment suddenly started showing respect. Newsweek reported: "Originally, October 15 was to have been a campus-oriented protest. But it has quickly spread beyond the campus. And, if everything goes according to the evolving plans, the combination of scheduled events could well turn into the broadest and most spectacular antiwar protest in American history."

Everything was going better than planned. As Weathermen tore up Chicago, the New York Times reported on a letter from six of the top Vietnam experts from the Rand Corporation, the top defense think tank. America should withdraw, they said, unilaterally and immediately-- not "conditioned upon agreement or performance by Hanoi or Saigon." They went on: "Short of destroying the entire country and its people, we cannot eliminate the enemy force in Vietnam by military means." Even further: if every enemy soldier or sympathizer was somehow magically eliminated the other side still would not make "the kinds of concessions currently demanded"-- a divided Vietnam with the South overseen by a government that the people there thought fundamentally illegitimate. "'Military victory' is no longer the U.S. objective," despite what the American government told the American people, and that wasn't even the worst of the lies: "The importance to U.S. national interests of the future political complexion of South Vietnam has been greatly exaggerated, as has the negative impact of the unilateral U.S. withdrawal"-- whose risks "will not be less after another year or more of American involvement." The Times called them "men of considerable expertise who normally shun publicity"-- and that one, "Daniel Ellsberg, spent two years working for the State Department in Saigon before joining Rand." The New Yorker, in the issue that hit newsstands three days before the Moratorium, ran a report called "Casualties of War" about a five-man reconnaissance squad who kidnapped and gang-raped a South Vietnamese girl, then murdered her. The anti-antiwar side fought back with a national newspaper ad headlined "Everyone who wants peace in Vietnam should: TELL IT TO HANOI." It listed in the left-hand column seven steps "the President of the United States has done to end the war in Vietnam." The right-hand column named Hanoi's contribution: "Nothing." It printed a coupon to clip out and send to "Citizens for Peace with Security," promising, "We'll see to it that the evidence of your support for the President without dishonor for the United States is transmitted to the enemy in Hanoi. The time has come for the 'silent Americans' to speak out."

Two precisely incommensurate propositions: that either patience or impatience with the war was the road to national dishonor. On the 15th, the American people could vote on that referendum with their feet.

Richard Nixon lost. Life called it "the largest expression of public dissent ever seen in this country." Two million Americans protested-- most for the first time in their lives.

Everywhere, black armbands; everywhere, flags at half staff; church services, film showings, teach-ins, neighbor-to-neighbor canvasses. In North Newton, Kansas, a bell tolled every four seconds, each clang memorializing a fallen soldier; in Columbia, Maryland, an electronic sign counted the day's war deaths. Milwaukee staged a downtown noontime funeral procession. Hastings College, an 850-student Presbyterian school in Nebraska, suspended operations. Madison, Ann Arbor, and New Haven were only a few of the college towns to draw out a quarter of their populations or more (New Haven's Vietnam Moratorium Committee had called up every name in the city phone book). The nation's biggest college town brought out 100,000 souls in Boston Common. A young Rhodes Scholar out of Arkansas, Bill Clinton, got up a demonstration of 1000 people in front of the U.S. embassy in London. Newsday publisher and former LBJ right-hand-man Bill Moyers, Paris peace talks chief negotiator Averell Harriman, the mayor of Detroit, even the Connecticut state chairman of Citizens for Nixon-Agnew participated in protests. The Washington Post drew a man-bites-dog conclusion: "Anti-Vietnam Views Unite Generations."

...At Columbia, Jimmy Breslin reported what the day's starting pitcher, Tom Seaver, had told him: "If the Mets can get to the World Series, the U.S. can get out of Vietnam."

And then there was Washington, D.C. On the evening of the 14th, twenty-three Congressmen began an intended all-night session Vietnam on the House floor. Gerald Ford managed to shut them down after four hours. It was the longest time Congress had ever talked Vietnam at a stretch. The next day, congressmen vigiled on the Capitol steps. At lunchtime bureaucrats at the Department of Health, Education and Welfare could chose from twelve different anti-war discussions. Or they could simply play hooky, joining the 50,000 who gathered at the base of the Washington Monument, listening to Coretta Scott King say that this was war "destroying the very fabric and fiber of our society."

Then, in ranks of ten, they moved out to the White House.

There wasn't a single Viet Cong flag in evidence. There were hardly any signs at all. There were candles, shimmering in an unbroken line all the way back to the Washington Monument. (Charleston, West Virginia's police chief described his city's pro-war counter-demonstration: "We won't creep around in the dark with candles like those traitors do.... We'll march at high noon on Monday and let free people fall right in line.") An NSC staffer took a break from working on the President's November 3 speech on Vietnam to witness the flickering encirclement of the White House. He looked up with a start: it included his wife and children. The President affected to have noticed nothing: "I haven't seen a single demonstrator-- and I've been out."

...The conspiracy to sabotage it all had consumed the West Wing. One black op consisted of sending a letter sent to every Congressional office on simulated Moratorium letterhead, announcing that the vigil had been moved to Union Station. Yet more ads from the supposedly independent "Citizens for Peace with Security" -- a White House front -- enjoined Americans to blame Hanoi for the continued warfare. (The man listed in the ads as the group's chairman, William J. Casey, was a former intelligence officer who had lost a 1968 campaign for Congress as a Nixon Republican, then cemented his Orthogonian bona fides by having his membership application rejected by the Council on Foreign Relations; in 1971 Nixon nominated him for Securities and Exchange Commission chairman.) Conservative congressmen were recruited to assail antiwar colleagues for advocating a "bug out" that would bring "the slaughter of untold millions to Vietnam." And Americans who'd been held hostage by the Communists in Vietnam were wheeled out as political props. Two POWs had been released by the North Vietnamese in August. In September, the Pentagon sent them around the country to describe their "ordeal of horror." And surely their confinement had been no picnic. But journalists noticed their stories became more extravagant and inconsistent as time went on. The Secretary of Defense announced of their captivity: "There is clear evidence that North Vietnam has violated even the most fundamental standards of human decency." But two years later, when Seymour Hersh investigated, he discovered a letter from the Pentagon in which Laird reassured the prisoners' families he was exaggerating: "We are certain that you will not become unduly concerned over the briefing if you keep in mind the purpose for which it was tailored."

For the first time, the President sent out Spiro Agnew to do what Nixon used to do for Ike: call the administration's critics traitors. On the eve of the protest North Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Van Dong broadcast an open letter on Radio Hanoi praising the Moratorium's efforts "to save the honor of the United States and to avoid for their boys a useless death in Vietnam." The Vice President demanded its leaders "repudiate the support of a totalitarian government which has on its hands the blood of 40,000 Americans," and said pro-Moratorium congressmen were "chargeable with the knowledge of this letter." The legalistic insinuation-- "chargeable"-- nicely recalled the master, in 1952, calling President Truman and Secretary Acheson "traitors to the high principles in which many of the nation's Democrats believe."

...On Moratorium Day, they recruited parachutists to touch down on the Mall and in Central Park, bearing American flags: perhaps the crowd would seize them, maybe burn them, and that would become the story. Instead, the crowds just laughed.

When is Obama going to realize that his administration will soon be replaying hideous scenarios just like this... as his standing sinks beneath the waves of universal revulsion for an unjust and unjustifiable war and occupation?

Yesterday there was a lot of speculation about why Mitch "Miss" McConnell broke down and wept like a 6 year old girl when he announced Kyle, his chief of staff, was departing. People speculated that it was a situation similar to David Dreier and his chief of "staff." Take a look:



But there's another theory. In the last 3 days PDA added these vigils to the February 17 schedule:

Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS) in Hernando
Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) in L.A.
Chellie Pingree (D-ME) in Portland
Xavier Becerra (D-CA) in L.A.
Pete DeFazio (D-OR) in Eugene
Betsy Markey (Blue Dog-CO) in Ft Collins
Laura Richardson (D-CA) in Long Beach
Diane Watson (D-CA) in L.A.
Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS) in Gulfport
Mike Michaud (Blue Dog-ME) in Waterville
Doris Matsui (D-CA) in Sacramento
and
Miss McConnell (R-KY) in Paducah

Take my word for it; the tenor of the gathering at the offices of the 2 members from Maine or at Diane Watson's district office on Wilshire Blvd., each of whom were among the 32 Democrats who voted against Obama's war funding supplemental budget last June, is going to be substantially different from what is likely to take place in Paducah.

Is There Something We As American Citizens Can Do To STOP The Tragic Mayhem In Afghanistan?

I'm always nervous about boring DWT readers by recounting the adventures I had on my trips over forbidden seas to land on barbarous coasts, to paraphrase Herman Melville; that's why I have a travel site. But sometimes I just feel that those adventures have a place here too, like last month when I wrote about my experience with Pashtunwali, the code by which the Pashtuns of Afghanistan and Pakistan live their lives. My own two lengthy stays in Afghanistan color everything I say and write about the war there.

Yesterday I was reading a post by David Wood at Politics Daily, Afghanistan: Who Are We Fighting For, Anyway?, in which he lays out the case that the rising antipathy for Karzai's corrupt and incompetent government has doomed U.S. efforts in that country. Much of what he has to say I started writing about 8 years ago when Bush blundered into an occupation of that country-- and I based it on what I had picked up in my very first couple of weeks there in 1969!

[A] rising chorus of mid-career U.S. military officers with years of combat experience in Afghanistan say the current war-fighting strategy-- based on making tribal and clan leaders subservient to a central government-- is doomed to fail. Far better, they say, to work with tribes and clans, in essence building trust and security from the ground up rather than the top down.

There is no sign that the military command or the White House is willing to consider abandoning what has been the central U.S. strategy through eight years of bloody war, and more recent demonstrations of widespread corruption in Karzai's government. That idea remains central, according to administration officials: the United States holds to the singular goal of creating the first powerful central government in Afghan history, striving to prop it up and strengthen it to the point where American forces -- now numbering some 74,000 -- can go home.

The result seems to be a widening gulf between official U.S. strategy, and the field experience of officers with broad experience on the ground in Afghanistan. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top American commander in Afghanistan, has acknowledged that Afghan society "is rooted in tribal structures and ethnic identities.'' But he insists that "Afghans do have a sense of national identity.'' And in his West Point speech, the president reiterated his intention to "strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government'' with the 34,000 troop reinforcements now flowing into Afghanistan.

A rejoinder from the field came from Army Maj. Jim Gant, who led a Special Forces team in Afghanistan in 2003 and 2004 (and subsequently won a Silver Star for combat valor in Iraq in 2006-2007). In a paper widely shared with journalists, Afghan experts and the military, Gant argued that Afghanistan's tribes should be the focus of U.S. counterinsurgency actions.

"Afghan tribes always have and always will resist any type of foreign intervention in their affairs,'' Jim Gant wrote. "This includes a central government in Kabul, which to them is a million miles away from their problems, a million miles away from their security.

"A strategy in which the central government is the centerpiece of our counterinsurgency plan is destined to fail,'' Gant added. "It disenfranchises the very fabric of Afghan society. . . . By supporting and giving some power back to the tribes, we can make positive progress in the region once again.''

My business partner in Kabul was the equivalent of the Postmaster General. His father had been governor of Herat and was a close relative of the King. When I was arrested with 50 kilos of Mazar-i-Sharif hash, he had me out of jail in hours-- I wouldn't have lasted much longer-- and he had my van and my hash back to me the next day. It took a lot for him to pull it off, because basically, as I learned, the King's jurisdiction was pretty much confined to an area around Kabul and was dependent on the goodwill of tribal leaders in the rest of the country. I was lucky that the guys who caught me had plenty of goodwill, or the baksheesh it cost to get me out would have been in dollars and not afghanis. (I think it cost my friend something like $20 to free me and another $20 for the van and hash, although I was sternly warned that I couldn't take the hash across the border.)

The "official" Afghan government in Kabul was recognized-- and armed-- by foreign powers. But in the valleys that make up Afghanistan, the King was just the damn King of Kabul who the damned foreigners were (unfairly) giving fancier weapons than the ones they had. And no, I wasn't there with the British in 1878.

Where I start to differ with Jim Gant is when he talks about a winning strategy. There is only one winning strategy-- short of completely annihilating the Afghan people-- and that was very well-summed up by Alan Grayson when he said, "People just want to be left alone." There is no place for the U.S. military in Afghanistan.

Yesterday I heard that counterterrorism experts think American shopping malls and airport counters and parking lots are going to be hit by suicide bombers to wreak havoc here in the U.S. If they do it, well, I'm sure I don't have to tell you what the results will be. But these people are sick of our drones killing their women and children. Wouldn't you be? We just have to stop. Obama has to stop. He should listen to the advice defense experts from Rand gave Nixon almost 4 decades ago, about the tragic and ill-fated U.S. invasion of Vietnam:

America should withdraw, they said, unilaterally and immediately-- not "conditioned upon agreement or performance by Hanoi or Saigon." They went on, "Short of destroying the entire country and its people, we cannot eliminate the enemy force in Vietnam by military means." Even further, if every enemy soldier or sympathizer was somehow magically eliminated, the other side would still not make "the kinds of concessions currently demanded"-- a divided Vietnam with the South overseen by a government that the people there thought fundamentally illegitimate. "'Military victory' is no longer the U.S. objective," despite what the American government told the American people, and that wasn't even the worst of the lies: "The importance to U.S. national interests of the future political complexion of South Vietnam has been greatly exaggerated as has the negative impact of the unilateral U.S. withdrawal"-- whose risks "will not be less after another year or more of American involvement."

And that brings us to:

Brownbaggers Not Teabaggers
VIGILS AGAINST WAR FUNDING SPREAD ACROSS NATION

Since the media didn't deem it as newsworthy as the 600 demented and unfocused angry teabaggers who gathered in Nashville last weekend, you probably don't know that PDA organized "brownbag" lunch vigils against war funding at the district offices of 22 congressmembers on January 20th. What these "brownbaggers" want are commitments from congressmembers to vote against more money for war. Not as sexy as Sarah Palin's handjob? Or frothing at the mouth teabaggers screaming racial and ethnic epithets on TV? Maybe that's what the mainstream media thinks but most Americans want to see this war over... now.

Don't worry about having missed one of the first 22 lunchtime vigils. PDA has another whole set-- 37 so far-- scheduled for February 17. That link will show you which ones are on the schedule and help you put one together if there's none near you. So far they are planning them for the district offices of:

Tim Ryan (D-OH) in Akron
Dennis Cardoza (Blue Dog-CA) in Modesto
Walt Minnick (Blue Dog-ID) in Medidian
Louise Slaughter (D-NY) in Rochester
Rick Larsen (D-WA) in Bellingham
John Olver (D-MA) in Pittsfield
Charlie Dent (R-PA) in Bethlehem
Gary Miller (R-CA) in Brea
Ed Royce (R-CA) in Orange
Chaka Fattah (D-PA) in Philadelphia
Nita Lowey (D-NY) in White Plains
Norm Dicks (D-WA) in Tacoma
Dave Obey (D-WI) in Superior
John Campbell (R-CA) in Newport Beach
Ron Kind (D-WI) in Eau Claire
Lois Capps (D-CA) in Santa Barbara
Mary Bono-Mack (R-CA) in Palm Springs
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) in Huntington Beach
Richard Neal (D-MA) in Springfield
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) in Santa Rosa
Baron Hill (Blue Dog-IN) in Jeffersonville
Brian Baird (D-WA) in Vancouver
Kendrick Meek (D-FL) in Miami Gardens
Gary Peters (D-MI) in Troy
Jim McGovern (D-MA) in Worcester
Brian Bilbray (R-CA) in Solana Beach
Susan Davis (D-CA) in San Diego
Joe Sestak (D-PA) in Media
Barbara Lee (D-CA) in Oakland
John Garamendi (D-CA) in Walnut Creek
Bill Young (R-FL) in St. Petersburg
Bilirakis the Younger (R-FL) in Tampa
Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog-AZ) in Scottsdale
Betty Sutton (D-OH) in Akron
John Kerry (D-MA) in Boston
Bill Delahunt (D-MA) in Hyannis
Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) in Bakersfield

Obviously some of these members are heroes of the anti-war movement, like Barbara Lee and Jim McGovern, and some are clueless warmongers, like Gary Miller, Charlie Dent and Baron Hill, so some of these events will be more like "thank you" demonstrations and some will be wake-up calls. And there are an awful lot of Democrats on the list above who talk the talk but who do not walk the walk. We need to help them change that. Remember, "brownbaggers" are asking members of Congress to publicly commit to voting "No!" on any bills that fund wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Yemen and to publicly urge their colleagues and the House leadership to make the same commitment. As lesser steps in the same direction, PDA is encouraging congressmembers to cosponsor HR 2454, calling for an exit strategy from Afghanistan, and HR 3699, prohibiting any increase in the number of U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan.