Will Mainstream Democrats Support or Oppose Single-Payer Health Care for California?

Yes, health care can be this simple. We just have to choose it. Californians will be able to choose it very soon.

by Gaius Publius

As we wrote recently, California has a unique opportunity to both resist the Ryan-Trump destruction of the ACA and establish a state-wide single-payer health care system. Two state senators have introduced legislation to do just that.

Emily Green, writing at the SF Chronicle:

California legislation would create single-payer health care system

A push for a single-payer health care system in California is making a comeback.

State Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens (Los Angeles County) plans to introduce legislation Friday to create a single system that would provide health insurance to every California resident.

“This is our opportunity to put ourselves on the record and be proactive against a Trump administration that is hellbent on eliminating the Affordable Care Act,” Lara said.

The two-page bill contains no specifics. Friday was the deadline for introducing new legislation, and the bill will be fleshed out over the coming month, Lara said. It will first head to the senate Health Committee and then to the senate Appropriations Committee, which Lara chairs.

As Green notes, this is not the first time that single-payer health legislation was introduced in California:

Previous efforts to create a single-payer system have failed. At least eight bills were introduced between 1992 and 2009 that attempted to create one. They failed to get through the Legislature or were vetoed by Republican governors.

Efforts to create a single-payer system in California ended after the passage of the Affordable Care Act under President Obama.

More on those previous attempts in a moment.

Will Democrats Support or Help Defeat This Bill?

The question for California state Democrats is this — Will enough of them support single-payer legislation to get it to the governor's desk?

If they do, the Resistance — the Revolt, really — will take a huge leap forward. It will show the Trump-Republican national government that denying what almost everyone in the country wants is not going to work. It will also embolden other states to likewise resist, both on this issue and many others. If there's to be a fight against the backward-facing federal government, states like California must help lead it, if only for the momentum they will provide.

But there's a catch — Democrats. In particular, money-fed mainstream Democrats, the same people who got us into this Trumpian nightmare to begin with by being far less interested in what people wanted this time around than in what they wanted for themselves, the power to enact more pro-austerity, incrementalist policies. (Remember, the 2016 electoral squeaker should have been a landslide, and not just at the top of the ticket.)

It will do no good for most state Democrats to support this legislation, if they let just a few cross the aisle to defeat it (keeping the rest of their fingerprints off of the kill). The insurance industry hates single-payer, because it would put them out of business. If the Party lets some of its members help defeat this legislation, the Party is responsible for the consequences, which may be momentous.

One more test for the "reborn" Democratic Party. The question: reborn as what? In this newborn Trumpian Age, the entire country is watching.

Why do I worry about Democrats helping kill this attempt at single-payer in California?

Mainstream Democrats Helped Kill Single-Payer in Colorado

Let's look at the last attempt to enact single-payer health care, this time in Colorado as recently as 2016. Ace corruption reporter Lee Fang at The Intercept, wrote this in May 2016 (my emphasis):

Prominent Democratic Consultants Sign Up to Defeat Single Payer in Colorado

INFLUENTIAL DEMOCRATIC CONSULTANTS, some of whom work for the Super PACs backing Hillary Clinton, have signed up to fight a bold initiative to create a state-based single-payer system in Colorado, according to a state filing posted Monday.

Coloradans for Coloradans, an ad-hoc group opposing single payer in Colorado, revealed that it raised $1 million over the first five months of this year. The group was formed to defeat Amendment 69, the ballot measure before voters this year that would change the Colorado constitution and permit a system that would automatically cover every state resident’s health care.

The anti-single-payer effort is funded almost entirely by health care industry interests, including $500,000 from Anthem Inc., the state’s largest health insurance provider; $40,000 from Cigna, another large health insurer that is current in talks to merge with Anthem; $75,000 from Davita, the dialysis company; $25,000 from Delta Dental, the largest dental insurer in the state; and $100,000 from SCL Health, the faith-based hospital chain.

Here's what this sweeping legislation would have done:

Under the new system, there would be no health insurance premiums or deductibles, and all health and dental care would be paid for by the state through a new system called ColoradoCare. The plan calls for raising $25 billion through a mix of payroll taxes, along with bringing down costs through negotiations with providers.

Needless to say, the effect would be sweeping. Here's who to blame for its failure to pass:

The filing reveals that the anti-single-payer group has retained the services of Global Strategy Group, a Democratic consulting firm that has served a variety of congressional candidates and is currently advising Priorities USA Action, one of the Super PACs backing Clinton’s bid for the presidency.

Last month, Global Strategies Group circulated a polling memo that contends that the single-payer ballot measure can be defeated because voters “overwhelmingly reject” the idea.

But, the memo warned, the measure “has some traction with key groups,” including Democrats and millennials, and that the 2016 election year has proven difficult to predict. “[A] sustained campaign pointing out the many flaws in Amendment 69 is essential, especially in such an unpredictable environment,” the memo concluded.

It's not just Global Strategies Group. Other Democratic Party-associated consulting firms were involved:

A number of other Democratic firms have signed up to help defeat single payer, too. Hilltop Public Solutions, a firm managed by former campaign staffers to Barack Obama, was paid $45,000 by the group. Hilltop has also provided consulting services to Ready PAC, another Clinton-supporting Super PAC that eventually folded into the Clinton campaign.

The Trimpa Group, a consulting company run by Democratic strategist Ted Trimpa, also received a payment from Coloradans for Coloradans.

The Democratic consultants are listed alongside several Republican firms, including Brandeberry-McKenna Public Affairs, a GOP company that also lobbies for the drug industry.

Let's be plain. Manistream, health care industry-fed Democratic consulting firms took money from a secretly-funded ad hoc organization to defeat single-payer health care in Colorado. And they succeeded. That effort — Democrats defeating single-payer in Colorado — got some press, but not enough, given the broader public interest in the national campaign for the presidency (and the anti-Trump press's interest in protecting, to the extent it could, the reputation of the Democratic Party and its lead candidate, Hillary Clinton).

They won't get that protection this time, given the visibility of the effort and the press's interest in "the Resistance."

Democrats Have Consistently Helped Kill Single-Payer in California

California has a long history trying to enact single-payer health care. Above we noted the SF Chronicle saying this: "Previous efforts to create a single-payer system have failed. At least eight bills were introduced between 1992 and 2009 that attempted to create one. They failed to get through the Legislature or were vetoed by Republican governors."

Here's some of that detail. Larry Potash in Labor Notes writes this about the 2012 effort (h/t Naked Capitalism for the link; my emphasis):

Why Did Single Payer Health Care Fail in California?

Though it’s passed the legislature twice before, a bill to establish a single-payer universal health insurance system in California failed in the state senate in January.

Not surprisingly, the bill received no Republican votes, but it fell just two votes short of passage when two Democrats voted no and four Democrats failed to vote, despite intense lobbying efforts by community and some labor health care activists.

Angry activists pointed to the fact that five of the six errant Democrats had received money from the insurance industry and Big Pharma, ranging from $100,000 to over $250,000. Three of the six senators had been endorsed by the California Labor Federation which, along with unions such as the Service Employees and AFSCME, was on record supporting the single-payer bill. The California Democratic Party was also on record supporting it.

I'm certain that some (or many) yes-voting Democrats sincerely supported the bill. I'm also certain that some (or many) other yes-voting Democrats were thankful that those six Democrats helped kill it ... so they didn't have to. What percentage of politicians in both parties, do you think, take money from the health insurance and Pharma industries? Most, would be my guess.

Other efforts in California failed because these same Democrats could count on a Republican governor's veto to make their Yes vote meaningless:

Similar bills passed the legislature fairly easily in 2006 and 2008, only to be vetoed by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. At a time when premiums were rising and there were few other proposals out there, it was an easy vote for Democrats certain of the governor’s veto.

Then came Obamacare, and the Obama-era effort failed out of "party loyalty":

But when Congress passed federal health reform in 2010, defending that bill, as well as President Obama, became paramount for many Democrats. It became more difficult for legislators to vote for a single-payer bill that might be interpreted as deserting the president, and the Democratic leadership refused to put the bill up for a final vote in the Assembly.

Which led to the 2012 effort, which failed because six Democrats helped kill the bill so the rest wouldn't have to. Again, since 1992, not once were Democrats able to pass single-payer in California. It would break the mold if they succeeded this time. Will they succeed this time?

Will Democrats Support the People or the Money That Pays for Campaigns?

There's more than just single-payer health insurance at stake here. First, if the ACA is gutted or repealed, people will die in every state. It's that simple.

Second, how many more tries will the Democratic Party get to prove they are worth a second look in this new era, the era that sent Trump to the White House instead of Clinton?

Predicting the future is almost has hard as predicting the past, but I will say this: If Democrats don't get on the people's side in an obvious way — by deeds and not just by "messaging" — they may wander the wilderness for a generation. That's far too long, given the nation's actual need for a strong, hard U-turn now.

Support SB 562 in California, starting today. If single-payer health care wins there, it could win in many more places.

Scheduling note: My comments appear regularly here on Monday and Thursday, or Tuesday and Thursday if Monday is a holiday.

GP
 

Tom Perriello Is A Progressive? Who Says So? And Why?

Character matters-- more than labels

Nationally at least, I think it was Jonathan Martin who broke the story about Tom Perriello running for the Democratic nomination for governor of Virginia, “disrupting Democrats’ well-laid plans in what promises to be the most-watched election in the country this year.” The Democratic establishment had already picked their candidate, moderate-to-conservative Lt. Governor Ralph Northam. Perriello, according to the media, is the progressive interloper, “hindering McAuliffe’s effort to avert a contentious primary.”

A run by Mr. Perriello will expose the tensions between the moderate and progressive wings of the Democratic Party in Virginia, which is increasingly dominant in a once-conservative state. Much of the state’s Democratic leadership is already lined up for Mr. Northam, and Mr. Perriello’s unexpected move made them to scramble to respond.

…For decades, Virginia Democrats have taken care to distinguish themselves from their more liberal national party and present themselves as prudent centrists. But having carried Virginia in the last three presidential elections and controlling every statewide office, some Democrats are hungry to elevate progressives.

Mr. Perriello, 42, largely fits that bill. Swept into office in the Democratic wave of 2008, he quickly became a favorite of the White House for his willingness to vote for Mr. Obama’s agenda despite representing a right-of-center district. Mr. Obama took a liking to the congressman, a Yale University-trained lawyer and human rights advocate. Mr. Obama even flew to Charlottesville on the Friday before the election in 2010 to campaign for him.

Mr. Perriello lost that race in the Tea Party deluge, but soon became an executive at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research group. Mr. Obama then appointed him to the State Department, where he was a special envoy to the Great Lakes Region of Africa until he left the post at the end of last month.

But that’s not the whole story, not at all. And even The Times had to admit it. Way down in the second to last paragraph, Martin wrote that “Perriello is well liked among some liberal activists and could gain support with the sort of highly engaged voters who show up in low-turnout summer primaries. To do so, though, he will have to fend off questions from the left about some of his stances on cultural issues. He was endorsed by the National Rifle Association in his 2010 campaign and cast some votes against abortion.”

Oh, yes. I’m no fan of Northam’s but there are reason’s why I’m not jumping up and down over Perriello either. I know and mostly like him. But…

The Sad Saga Of Tom Perriello, A Confused And Dishonest Man, Lost In A Political Nightmare He's Spiritually Unprepared To Navigate was a post here at DWT in 2009. “Blue America,” I wrote at the time, “endorsed him in 2008 after he assured us-- several times, in writing and on tape-- that, if elected, we could count on him to be a pro-choice congressman. He was elected, and one week ago he voted for the horrific Stupak-Pitts anti-choice amendment to the health care bill. I wrote him a letter; he didn't respond… When he first solicited an endorsement from Blue America, we were very wary because it had been pointed out that he opposed women's right to Choice. He insisted his position had been misrepresented.

He kept calling and calling and then visited my house. On February 27, 2008, Tom did a guest post here at DWT and he addressed concerns about Choice head-on:

Confusion ...[about] my position on abortion may stem either from my public association with Catholicism as co-founder of the progressive Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good or from being badly misquoted in a New York Times article following the 2004 election. I firmly believe that abortion should not be criminalized, nor can we allow any action that seeks to coerce women by reducing access to care or making the process less safe.

The emphasis is mine. But that is exactly what Stupak-Pitts does, and quite intentionally, as Perriello well knows.

Perriello is in a very tough district, and he beat one the House's most notoriously corrupt incumbents 158,810-158,083, one of the closest congressional races in a decade. Mark Warner's coattails certainly helped drag him into office-- not to mention the tremendous support he had from grassroots and netroots activists taken in by his ability to portray himself as a progressive on key issues. He's turned out to be another political coward with a wretched 39.22 ProgressivePunch score on substantive issues, nestled comfortably between arch-reactionaries Brad Ellsworth and Health Shuler. In fact, many of the worst and most extreme Blue Dogs in the Congress have better voting records than Perriello: Heath Shuler (NC), Chris Carney (PA), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Dan Boren (OK), Gene Taylor (MS), Collin Peterson (MN), Jim Mashall (GA) and even John Barrow (GA). When Perriello gets burned in effigy by the teabaggers he tried to please by throwing women under the bus, he'll have to look elsewhere for sympathy and support.

Maybe he changed? Maybe he’s better? Maybe. But honesty, integrity and character are important— more important than a label claiming “progressivism,” especially when Perriello’s actual voting record is at odds with superficial reporters claiming he’s a progressive without digging around at all. It would be hard to imagine getting behind Perriello, not because Northam is any better on the issues— they’re probably about the same— but because he doesn’t smell trustworthy to me.

Sanders Wants to Reform the Democratic Party. Will He Play His Ace to Do It?

Sanders shows he knows he has an ace. Will he play it?

by Gaius Publius

Sanders has more leverage than he's ever had in his life. He has the right vision and the right goal. He's also holding the right cards — all he has to do is play them. In particular, he has an ace. Will he play it if he loses to Clinton?

To understand what I just wrote, listen to the short video clip above. It's 3½ minutes of the candid interview Sanders gave on a recent episode of The Young Turks (full interview here).

"What Do You Do If You Lose?"

I want to direct you to two answers from Sanders. First, to the question, What do you and your movement do if you lose the nomination?

Q: If you were to lose, and the Democratic Party comes to you and says, "Take this movement, that is full of energy and against the Establishment, and make sure they vote for the Establishment candidate," what do you say?

Answer (at 0:53; my emphasis):

Sanders: What we do together, as a growing movement, is we say, "If we don't win — and by the way, we are in this thing to win, please understand that — [what's] the Democratic Establishment going to do for us?"

For example, right now, you have a Democratic Establishment which has written off half the states in the country ... and they've given up on states in the South, the Rocky Mountain area.

Are they going to create a 50-state party? Are they going to welcome into the Democratic Party the working class of this country and young people, or is it going to be the upper middle class and the cocktail crowd and the heavy campaign contributors, which to a significant degree, it is right now? ...

In other words, if I can't make it, and we're going to try as hard as we can until the last vote is cast, we want to completely revitalize the Democratic Party and make it a party of the people, rather than just one of large campaign contributors.

Shorter Sanders: We want to remake and reform ("revitalize") the Democratic Party. That's his goal, and it's been his goal all along. Notice that this means that he knows he's running within the Party and against the Party, meaning against its current leadership, simultaneously.

That's two points, not one — first, he's running against the Party, and second, he knows he's doing that. This is what I've been calling "Open Rebellion" — refusing to play "Follow the Neoliberal Leader" — taken to the next level. It's a direct challenge to the culture and methods of corruption that thread throughout the Party like green mold through Gorgonzola.

A nice fresh chunk of Gorgonzola cheese. In Gorgonzola, the richly threaded mold is a feature (source).

This is open rebellion at the very highest level. It's not a challenge in the Senate against Antonio Weiss, for example, or against the Citibank Rider. It's not a challenge in the House to Pelosi's support of Fast Track and TPP, the next job-killing neo-liberal trade deal.

This is a challenge to the Party for control of the presidency, of the entire Executive Branch of government. No wonder people are so enthusiastic about supporting it. And no wonder the Democratic Establishment so desperately want Sanders gone. As has been documented many times before, the leaders of the Democratic Party want two things — first, to control the Party; second, to win elections. And in that order.

They may not all be happy with Hillary Clinton, but not one of them wants to deal with a Democratic Party and presidency controlled by Bernie Sanders.

Sanders Has an Ace. Will He Play It?

I mentioned that Sanders has an ace he can play if he loses the nomination. I also suspect he knows it, based on his answer to the next question. Would he play it?

Here's the question:

Q: [If you come in second, let's assume you're not going to ask for an appointment, something for yourself.] If you're going to ask for policy positions, what are the policy positions that you would want?

Before you read the answer, think about what the question really asks. This is tantamount to the following:

If you come in second, what policy changes do you want in exchange for your support?

And that's his ace. The Establishment wants his supporters, badly. Sanders can withhold his support, or trade it for something. What's that something? Here's his answer (at 2:36):

Ok.

I want Secretary Clinton if she is the nominee, to come out for a Medicare-for-all, single-payer health care system. I want $15 an hour as a minimum wage. I want to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure — Flint Michigan is not the only community in America that doesn't have safe drinking water. Our roads, bridges, rail system is in disrepair.

I want a vigorous effort to address climate change. I mean, I am very worried. I talk to these scientists. This planet is in serious danger. And you can't cuddle up to the fossil fuel industry. You've got to take them on.

And also what is resonating, and I think very important, making public colleges and universities tuition-free, Wall Street tax on speculation to pay for that, ending all these corporate loopholes.

Those are some of the demands we make.

If you read that list again, you'll see how stunning it is. Three things to notice:

1. He calls these "demands," not requests.
    
2. He wants Clinton the candidate to endorse them, presumably on the campaign trail, not just the Platform Committee in a document that can later be ignored.
    
3. Clinton is on record as running against most of these policies.

Once more, the policies he wants Clinton to "come out for" are these:

• a Medicare-for-all, single-payer health care system
• $15 an hour as a minimum wage
• rebuild our crumbling infrastructure
• a vigorous effort to address climate change 
• no "cuddling up to the fossil fuel industry"
• making public colleges and universities tuition-free
• Wall Street tax on speculation
• ending all these corporate loopholes

In effect, he's asking for her to be Bernie Sanders, at least in policy. Yet I think she would agree with only one of those policies (note that a "vigorous" effort is a part of his climate change demand). She would support infrastructure repair — though in her world that likely means creating an ACA-like profit opportunity via "public-private partnerships" and corporate friendly sweetheart deals. In Sanders' world, infrastructure repair means doing the job without enriching corporate campaign donors in the process.

If he really "demands" that Clinton herself campaign in September and October on these policies as a condition for his continued support, he's basically saying, "I want to handcuff you to my policies every time you speak." Which makes it a whole lot harder for her to reverse herself in office and not be toxic in 2020.

That's why this is his ace. Because if he really suggests he would withhold his support from her if she doesn't meet these conditions, she's helpless.

If he makes this demand in public, and she's seen to reject him, she will lose a significant percentage of his supporters; this could easily cost her the election. Yet if she accepts and campaigns on Sanders' platform, the leverage on her for the next four years will be much greater. The "liar" label is already an albatross, deserved or not. Betraying a set of explicit Sanders-forced campaign pledges could turn the albatross into a boat anchor.

Bottom line —Clinton's best shot at capturing the enthusiasm and the votes of Sanders supporters is to get Sanders' vigorous support after the convention. If he really does intend to play hardball with his endorsement, as the above indicates, he's in a very strong position, even in defeat. If Sanders follows through with what he told Cenk Uygur, Clinton could have a very difficult choice to make after the convention.

"But ... Republicans!"

Of course, Sanders understands that a Republican would be worse than Clinton as president. So at some point he will endorse her even if she refuses his demands, and many of his followers will agree, again, to vote the "But...Republicans!" party ticket.

But in fact, if he makes the above demands and she publicly refuses — even if later he does support her (and he will) — she would still lose a large percent of his supporters simply because they are supporting his policies first, and only secondarily his candidacy. Again, she's helpless if he makes this demand. That's a very nice card to have in your hand if it's the very last card in the game.

The 2016 election is not just the most consequential of our lives. It's also the most interesting. Stay tuned.

How You Can Help Sanders 

The meaty parts of the contest are upon us. Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president.

• Time to contribute?
• Time to phone-bank for Bernie?
• Time to make sure all of your friends come out to vote?

Seems so to me. And thanks!

GP
  

P.G. Sittenfeld or Ted Strickland: Climate or Coal?

Climate champion P.G. Sittenfeld is the one choice for the U.S. Senate from Ohio

by Gaius Publius

I've been watching the Ohio Senate primary contest between former governor Ted Strickland and progressive P.G. Sittenfeld with interest. I keep having to remind myself that Strickland is actually a Democrat and that the race is still in the primary phase. The first is a lie (Strickland is a "Democrat" only, not a real one), and the second is an opportunity (we can replace him on the Democratic ticket).

For those keeping count, pretend-anti-TPP Sen. Rob Portman is the incumbent Senator and a Republican. You may not know, even if you live in Ohio, that Portman was a Bush-appointed U.S. Trade Representative:

Portman spent significant time out of the United States negotiating trade agreements with roughly 30 countries, visiting Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, France, Hong Kong, India, Mexico, South Korea, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.^[32] During his tenure, Portman also helped to win passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement.^[59] Portman utilized a network of former House colleagues to get support for the treaty to lift trade barriers between the United States and Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Honduras.

That's a lot of countries to screw over American workers with. Portman was busy. After that, he went into lawyering:

On November 8, 2007, Portman joined the law firm of Squire Sanders as part of the firms transactional and international trade practice in Cincinnati, Ohio. His longtime chief of staff, Rob Lehman, also joined the firm as a lobbyist in their Washington, D.C. office.^[73][74]

Another self-serving "public" servant who make money negotiating rotten trade agreements, then made money representing corporations that benefit from them.

Portman is considered a vulnerable Republican senator this year, which is why it's so important to defeat him. Portman is also one of the reasons that neither Obama nor McConnell will bring TPP to Congress until the lame duck. If it comes up before the election, Portman, to save his seat, will have to pretend to care about Ohio and vote No. After the election, win or lose, he can vote his wallet, his history, and aggrandize his possible future as a lobbyist.

The candidate Ohioans choose to replace Portman is the question, since the seat is winnable — thus the importance of the Democratic primary between Sittenfeld and Strickland.

Sittenfeld or Strickland — Climate or Coal?

The virtues of these candidates on a number of issues have been discussed in these pages — corruption, gun violence, and so on. Each comparison shows Sittenfeld the clear winner. (If you like, you can help him here.) But a comparison that has not been well covered is coal, the environment, and the climate.

Put simply, a vote for Strickland is a vote for coal in Ohio (and frankly, for a neo-Stone Age life for your great grandchildren, not that Strickland cares). A vote for Sittenfeld, on the other hand, is a vote for a carbon-free future.

The following piece from The Hill illustrates the first point well. As you read, note the main idea — that candidate Strickland is distancing himself from Obama's "Clean Power Plan," and instead, returning to his first love, coal (my emphasis):

Strickland’s coal policies dust up possible Senate bid

Ted Strickland, Democrats’ top prospect to take on Ohio Sen. Rob Portman (R), is facing a litany of questions about his ties to the clean-energy industry that could weigh heavily on coal-country voters.

To prepare for a possible Senate bid, the former Ohio governor quietly stepped down last week from a senior role with the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank and advocacy group that has promoted a shift away from coal.

Critics are tying him to the group’s environmental policies and to Carol Browner, the former architect of President Obama’s climate policies, who is a distinguished senior fellow at CAP. “CAP has people like Carol Browner right down the hall from him in the office, and we can’t in the industry trust someone whose ties to the war on coal go that deep,” said Christian Palich, interim president of the Ohio Coal Association, a GOP-leaning group.

Strickland tried to inoculate himself from attacks shortly before leaving by touting the think tank’s new report calling for reform of coal subsidies to help Appalachian coal compete with cheaper Western coal. He argues that Western coal producers enjoy an unfair advantage because their royalty rates have not increased in 40 years.

The apparent move to rebuff the possible damage is a sign that coal politics could figure prominently in the Ohio Senate race next year. Strickland, however, said 2016 was not a motivating factor.

“I care about Ohio. I care about coal communities,” he said, according to The Associated Press, “long before there was any talk of me entering a political race of any kind.”

If you read this too quickly, you'd think that the Strickland deception was to pretend to distance himself from Obama's plan. But that deception hides this — that Strickland has a genuine and longstanding love of the carbon extraction industry, including coal mining and fracking for oil and methane ("America's natural gas").

For example, in Congress Strickland was a strong supporter of coal subsidies, and also voted multiple times to prevent increases in fuel economy standards. He voted No on amendments like these:

• HR 2520, House Vote 337, 7/15/93 — An amendment to cut $50 million in funding for coal research and development, and to then transfer $25 million to energy conservation research and development and the other $25 million to deficit reduction.
   
• HR 4602, House Vote 271, 6/23/94 — An amendment that called for cutting $27 million from funds earmarked from coal R&D.
   
• HR 4, House Vote 311, 8/1/01 — An amendment to increase fuel economy standards by closing the light-truck loophole for fuel economy standards.
   
• HR 6, House Vote 132, 4/10/03 — An amendment that would reduce the amount of oil consumed by U.S. automobiles by five percent by 2010.

And many others like them. Strickland was quite consistent. Do Ohioans want to replace Rob Portman with Ted Strickland, a reliable coal, oil and gas industry representative? Ohio can do much better.

Sittenfeld Understands — We Must Eliminate Carbon to Survive

Sittenfeld is more than just an up-and-coming face in the strong, progressive Bernie Sanders mold. He understands that the future of America, and the future of the world, does not lie with the carbon industry. If you believe that a carbon-free future is essential for your children and grandchildren, P.G. Sittenfeld is your candidate and Ted Strickland is the opposite — your enemy.

I've reached out to the Sittenfeld campaign on this issue. Here's Sittenfeld on carbon and the climate (emphasis mine):

I have endeavored to be a leader wherever and whenever possible on climate change, including my early and unwavering opposition to the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. I firmly believe we can and should do what it takes to entirely decarbonize the U.S. economy as soon as possible.

You can't get much clearer than that.

If you believe in a carbon-free future, here are two things you can do now. First, please help P.G. Sittenfeld in his fight for the U.S. Senate. Second, if you're a voter in Ohio, by all means, vote in the coming primary.

Do it for the children.

GP
 

When Trump Talks Trade, Voters Listen

Donald Trump talking about trade during his March 8 victory speech

by Gaius Publius

Shorter Thomas Frank: It's easier for liberals to blame Trump voters for racism than to blame themselves for the job-loss and pain of the working class.

I want to share a piece about Donald Trump, racism and working class voters. It's long enough (and good enough) to ask you to read the whole thing. It's by Thomas Frank, the What's the Matter with Kansas writer, looking at the Trump phenomenon and asking why.

Before you read, though, take a moment to watch less than two minutes of Donald Trump above, from his victory speech after winning in Michigan and Mississippi. I've cued it up to start at the remarks I want to highlight, Trump discussing our trade deficit.

Now Thomas Frank, writing in The Guardian. He starts by noting the utter invisibility of real working Americans to our elite class, including our media elites, and especially our liberal media elites (my emphasis throughout):

Millions of ordinary Americans support Donald Trump. Here's why

When he isn’t spewing insults, the Republican frontrunner is hammering home a powerful message about free trade and its victims

Let us now address the greatest American mystery at the moment: what motivates the supporters of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump?

I call it a “mystery” because the working-class white people who make up the bulk of Trump’s fan base show up in amazing numbers for the candidate, filling stadiums and airport hangars, but their views, by and large, do not appear in our prestige newspapers. On their opinion pages, these publications take care to represent demographic categories of nearly every kind, but “blue-collar” is one they persistently overlook. The views of working-class people are so foreign to that universe that when New York Times columnist Nick Kristof wanted to “engage” a Trump supporter last week, he made one up, along with this imaginary person’s responses to his questions.

When members of the professional class wish to understand the working-class Other, they traditionally consult experts on the subject. And when these authorities are asked to explain the Trump movement, they always seem to zero in on one main accusation: bigotry. Only racism, they tell us, is capable of powering a movement like Trump’s, which is blowing through the inherited structure of the Republican party like a tornado through a cluster of McMansions.

The conclusion of these writers is this:

The Trump movement is a one-note phenomenon, a vast surge of race-hate. Its partisans are not only incomprehensible, they are not really worth comprehending.

And yet...

A lot of people are racists, including those not supporting Trump. But people have other concerns as well, especially working people. They are dying faster than they used to, from drugs and despair, and they fear for their jobs and their families, for very good reasons. This economy is failing them.

They also hate — and understand — "free trade."

Trump Also Talks Trade

Donald Trump talks about more than just race and immigration. He talks about trade and the trade deficit, an issue that powered Bernie Sanders to his Michigan victory as well. From the New York Times:

Trade and Jobs Key to Victory for Bernie Sanders

No Democratic presidential candidate had campaigned in Traverse City, Mich., in decades until Senator Bernie Sanders pulled up to the concert hall near the Sears store on Friday. Some 2,000 people mobbed him when he arrived, roaring in approval as he called the country’s trade policies, and Hillary Clinton’s support for them, “disastrous.”

“If the people of Michigan want to make a decision about which candidate stood with workers against corporate America and against these disastrous trade agreements, that candidate is Bernie Sanders,” Mr. Sanders said in Traverse City, about 250 miles north of Detroit.

Mr. Sanders pulled off a startling upset in Michigan on Tuesday by traveling to communities far from Detroit and by hammering Mrs. Clinton on an issue that resonated in this still-struggling state: her past support for trade deals that workers here believe robbed them of manufacturing jobs. Almost three-fifths of voters said that trade with other countries was more likely to take away jobs, according to exit polls by Edison Research, and those voters favored Mr. Sanders by a margin of more than 10 points.

There is no question — America's billionaire-friendly, job-destroying trade policy is toxic — again, literally. That's why Obama and his bipartisan "free trade" enablers in Congress have to pass TPP, if they can, in post-election lame duck session. TPP is also toxic to political careers, and only lame ducks and the recently-elected can vote for it.

Frank again on Trump:

Last week, I decided to watch several hours of Trump speeches for myself. I saw the man ramble and boast and threaten and even seem to gloat when protesters were ejected from the arenas in which he spoke. I was disgusted by these things, as I have been disgusted by Trump for 20 years. But I also noticed something surprising. In each of the speeches I watched, Trump spent a good part of his time talking about an entirely legitimate issue, one that could even be called left-wing.

Yes, Donald Trump talked about trade. In fact, to judge by how much time he spent talking about it, trade may be his single biggest concern – not white supremacy. Not even his plan to build a wall along the Mexican border, the issue that first won him political fame. He did it again during the debate on 3 March: asked about his political excommunication by Mitt Romney, he chose to pivot and talk about ... trade.

It seems to obsess him: the destructive free-trade deals our leaders have made, the many companies that have moved their production facilities to other lands, the phone calls he will make to those companies’ CEOs in order to threaten them with steep tariffs unless they move back to the US.

On the subject more generally, Frank adds:

Trade is an issue that polarizes Americans by socio-economic status. To the professional class, which encompasses the vast majority of our media figures, economists, Washington officials and Democratic power brokers, what they call “free trade” is something so obviously good and noble it doesn’t require explanation or inquiry or even thought. Republican and Democratic leaders alike agree on this, and no amount of facts can move them from their Econ 101 dream.

To the remaining 80 or 90% of America, trade means something very different. There’s a video going around on the internet these days that shows a room full of workers at a Carrier air conditioning plant in Indiana being told by an officer of the company that the factory is being moved to Monterrey, Mexico and that they’re all going to lose their jobs.

As I watched it, I thought of all the arguments over trade that we’ve had in this country since the early 1990s, all the sweet words from our economists about the scientifically proven benevolence of free trade, all the ways in which our newspapers mock people who say that treaties like the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement allow companies to move jobs to Mexico.

Well, here is a video of a company moving its jobs to Mexico, courtesy of Nafta. This is what it looks like. The Carrier executive talks in that familiar and highly professional HR language about the need to “stay competitive” and “the extremely price-sensitive marketplace.” A worker shouts “Fuck you!” at the executive. The executive asks people to please be quiet so he can “share” his “information”. His information about all of them losing their jobs.

Frank goes to greater length, and again, please click through. But you get the idea. This is what Trump is speaking to, whether he means what he says or not, and this is what his voters are responding to, whether they like his racism or not. After all, haven't you, at least once, voted for someone with qualities you dislike because of policies you do like?

Whose Fault Is This? Both Parties, But Especially the Democratic Elites

One final point. Frank takes on the issue of responsibility:

Trump’s words articulate the populist backlash against liberalism that has been building slowly for decades ... Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit that we liberals bear some [or most] of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions, for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much easier to scold them for their twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality of which Trumpism is just a crude and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed.

I am certain, if this comes up in a general election debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, she could very likely get her clock cleaned; not certainly, but certainly very likely. First, she can only equivocate, and Trump will have none of it. (Trump: "Let me understand. You were for this before you were against it? So ... will you be for it again next year? I'm just trying to understand.")

Second, this is a change election, Trump is one of only two change candidates in the race, and Clinton is not the other one.

Here's that Carrier Air Conditioning "we're moving to Mexico" video that Frank mentioned above. Take a look, but prepare to feel some pain as you watch:

Are all of these people racists, the man walking past the camera at the 30-second mark, for example? Of course not. What these people do have in common is hopelessness, powerlessness, and creeping despair. If you were any of those people, would your response be different than theirs? And if you were any of these people, is your candidate Hillary Clinton?

My view: In a Trump–Sanders contest, Sanders gets at least half of these voters. In a Trump–Clinton contest, Trump gets them all.

Something for the "free"-trading leaders of the Democratic Party to consider as they move toward the convention and the 2016 fate that awaits them.

Support Your Progressive Candidates

Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. If you'd like to help out, go here. If you'd like to "phone-bank for Bernie," go here. You can volunteer in other ways by going here.

In addition, Blue America is proud to endorse P.G. Sittenfeld as senator from Ohio, running in the Democratic primary against an agent of all that neo-liberals like Clinton stand for, Ted Strickland. Help put Sittenfeld in the general election by clicking here.

Then vote!

GP
 

Is Obama About to Nominate an Exxon Lawyer to the Supreme Court?

Is Nicolo Machiavelli about to whisper into Obama's shell-like ear? (Source; click to enlarge)

by Gaius Publius

When we talk amongst ourselves, we leftie writers and activists, I sometimes hear it said that Obama should nominate someone very liberal to replace Antonin Scalia. I also sometimes hear that if he doesn't do that, it's because he feels pressured not to. Immediately after hearing these things, the next phrase going through my head is this one, the phrase that took up residence during the 2009 health care process:

Occam's Switchblade (n. ph.) — "He does it because he wants to." A way to explain a person's otherwise confusing behavior.

Which brings us to Obama's rumored list for Supreme Court justice, the one who will replace the newly departed Scalia. (Side thought — Did Antonin Scalia depart while accepting favors from someone with prior business before the Court? Was he there to be hobbed and nobbed with by any of the 35 other guests, who may also have past or future business before the court? Maybe we'll find out. It's not like he hasn't done it before; Scalia, I mean; accepted gifts, I mean.)

Topping every nomination short-list, printed, rumored and trial-ballooned, is Sri Srinivasan. Mr. Srinivasan is almost always named first (and out of alphabetical order) in lists with more than one name (example here; another here, first paragraph). And, as noted above, it appears he's being trial-ballooned by none other than Joe Biden. 

So let's take a look at Sri Srinivasan as a potential nominee. We'll start with Srinivasan and the climate, the one that Obama dearly loves. If he becomes the nominee, we'll take a look at other aspects of his biography.

Greens Are Wary of Sri Srinivasan's Fossil Fuel Past

This takedown of Srinivasan comes via Politico of all places. (But wheels within wheels. This doesn't look like a pro-administration article, a placement as it were, but it could be — a media placement that tanks apparent corporate favorite Srinivasan and allows Obama to nominate someone like Loretta Lynch, for example. Perhaps we'll look later at the many-layered chess game in this nomination, as Obama fends off his opponents, both left and right, prevents a possible anti-corporate Sanders nominee, notches another ... er, notch ... in his duel with McConnell, and pockets an E-ticket spendable at his post-retirement theme park party. Wheels within wheels.)

Here's Politico (my emphasis):

Greens wary of Sri Srinivasan's fossil fuel past

His work as an attorney representing Enron's former CEO and ExxonMobil raises hackles among some eco-activists.

The prospect of President Barack Obama tapping Sri Srinivasan for the Supreme Court is spawning a sharp debate among at least one part of the Democrats’ liberal grass roots — environmentalists turned off by his high-profile defense of giant fossil fuel companies. ...

Srinivasan’s work on human rights cases in which he defended ExxonMobil and the mining company Rio Tinto have raised particular objections from environmentalists. He also represented that enduring symbol of corporate excess, former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling, in the appeal of the executive’s fraud and conspiracy convictions.

"Any judge that sides with Big Oil over the American people has no place on our Supreme Court,” said Jane Kleeb, a Nebraska activist who helped lead the grass-roots campaign that killed the Keystone XL oil pipeline, in an email to POLITICO on Tuesday.

“Corporate interests have trumped citizens’ concerns for too long,” she added. “Folks in the heartland will not look the other way of Srinivasan representing both Enron and Exxon, which denies climate science and pollutes our land and water.”

Jane Kleeb, if you haven't yet heard of her, is entirely reliable on the subject of the climate. A Nebraskan, she's one of the national heroes behind stopping the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have run through her state.

The Exxon Supreme Court Nominee

Assuming Obama does nominate Srinivasan, would Exxon say thank-you in, say, another year or so, for putting an Exxon lawyer on the nation's highest court? Especially if doing so would also block a Sanders appointee, one who might take a dimmer view of the self-dealing insider game played by corporations and both parties alike?

Not sure, but if they did want to thank him, there are ways. I keep thinking of this:

One proposal for the Obama Presidential Library. Like Starfleet Academy, only pricier (source).

These presidential libraries don't build themselves. A person needs friends to help with some of the lifting.

GP
 

Alan Grayson Is a Superdelegate. Help Him Decide — Sanders or Clinton?

It's coming from the feel
That this ain't exactly real
Or it's real but it ain't exactly there

by Gaius Publius

Ah democracy; it creeps in through the cracks, even through the cracks of the deliberately undemocratic use of superdelegates by the king- and queenmakers in the Democratic Party. (Ironic name, that.)

Here's what I mean by "undemocratic" — Debbie Wasserman Schultz explains it to Jake Tapper (h/t Daily Kos diarist Th0rn; my emphasis):

TAPPER: Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire by 22 percentage points, the biggest victory in a contested Democratic primary there since John F. Kennedy. But it looks as though Sanders and Clinton are leaving the Granite State with the same number of delegates in their pockets because Clinton has the support of New Hampshire's superdelegates, these party insiders.

What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it’s all rigged?

WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: Let me just make sure I can clarify what was available during the primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire. The unpledged delegates [superdelegates] are a separate category. ... Unpledged delegates exist, really, to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.

... which, of course, is exactly what they are doing, running against the grassroots. She means: "They exist so Party leaders won't have to compete with grassroots activists for control." Tapper replies:

TAPPER: I’m not sure that that answer would satisfy an anxious, young voter but let’s move on.

Clinton and Sanders are competing against each other for regular (pledged) delegates. The superdelegates are competing against the grassroots for control of the process.

Alan Grayson Is a Superdelegate — Help Him Decide

Which brings us to Alan Grayson. He unDemocratically wants to put democracy back in the process, by asking you to help him decide. Who should he support — Clinton or Sanders? Read on, or just click this link to help him decide.

Grayson writes:

Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton. Talk to me about it.

I’m a “superdelegate”; I want to listen to you. You decide: Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. The choice is, literally, yours. Go vote now.

Bernie or Hillary? You tell me.

I’m a “superdelegate.” In July, at the Democratic Convention, I will be voting for one or the other. I’d like to know which one you think I should vote for, and why.

Unlike “some people,” I will not be making this decision based on who can host the best fundraiser for me. I will not be making this decision based on what my fat-cat donors tell me, in part because I don’t have any.

I’ll be making this decision based on what you and your friends tell me. I’m inviting you to vote on this, and give your reasons. Democracy – what a concept!

Click here to tell me whom you support for President – and invite your friends to do the same

Look, I’d be perfectly happy if our nominee were chosen exclusively in the primaries. But 15% of the delegates to the Democratic Convention are chosen because of who they are, not whom they support. And I happen to be one of them. I wrestled with that responsibility for a while, until I realized that I don’t have to decide – I can let you decide.

My official title is “Representative.” Isn’t that sort of what “Representatives” are supposed to do? Represent the wishes of others?

So tell me: Bernie or Hillary? And why:

GO VOTE

If you want me to endorse Bernie Sanders, then you can vote for me to support Bernie. If you want me to endorse Hillary Clinton, then you can vote for me to support Hillary. If you want me to switch to the Republican party and vote for one of those lunatics, then why are you even reading this? You can expect that to happen when the Atlantic Ocean freezes over. Oh, and Hell, too.

Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton? The choice is yours. Go here to vote right now, and get lots of others to do the same.

Don’t wait too long on this one. The Florida Presidential Primary is just four weeks away, and I’m going to make my decision – excuse me, our decision – long before that. If this works, then maybe other “superdelegates” will follow suit, and netroots activism can turn one of the least democratic elements of the UnDemocratic Party into something really special – a decision Of the People, By the People and For the People.

So what are you waiting for? Go vote. Like now. Stop reading this, and go vote.

Courage,

Rep. Alan Grayson

What do you mean, “I couldn’t be the president of the United States of America”?
Tell me something, it’s still “We the people”, right?
—Megadeth, “Peace Sells” (1986).

And if you feel like making a contribution to Grayson to help him fight for real progressive values in the U.S. Senate, you can do that too.

GP
 

Hillary Won't Take A Backseat (Pants Suit On Fire)

Hillary was a hipster in the 60's

I'm not a Hillary hater. I'm very enthusiastic about Bernie Sanders, not because of who she is but because of who he is. And although at this point I can't imagine voting for her if she wins the primary, I know myself well enough to admit I'll be rooting for her over Bush or Trump or Walker or Cruz or whichever garbage wins the clown car derby. That said, I was shocked today when Hillary-- visiting New Hampshire progressive bastion Hanover-- told a medium-sized crowd, "I take a backseat to no one when you look at my record of standing up and fighting for progressive values."

She's no dummy and she certainly knows what "progressive" means; apparently she doesn't care. There may be some good justifications for progressives to vote for her-- primarily to keep someone far worse, whether Webb or Rubio, out of the White House-- but her "progressive values" would not be among them. She's a cautious centrist with many of the most reactionary power-mongers within the Democratic Party on her team. If actual progressives like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Alan Grayson and Donna Edwards get "A" grades, it wouldn't be fair to grade Hillary anything more than a "C" or, at best, a B minus. On almost every progressive issue outside of specific women's issues she's been a laggard and a follower, never a leader, holding a wet finger to the wind.

Seeking the Democratic nomination, Clinton's focus has been on economic issues, the driving force behind Sanders' recent rise in polls. The senator describes himself as a democratic socialist and has won elections in Vermont as an independent. He has drawn large crowds around the country and reported raising $15 million since late April, about one-third of the $45 million Clinton has brought in.

Sanders said on Friday in an email to supporters that he would release a series of policy proposals in the next few weeks "to address the major issues facing our nation." The campaign is seeking to ramp up its volunteer base and planning to hold organizing meetings across the nation on July 29.

This is a Bob Dylan song from 1965, his first Top 40 hit and the lead track from Bringing It All Back Home. The song references the conflict between the liberal firebrand Hillary supposedly really was at the time and the centrist she gradually turned herself into. It's worth listening to over and over until you know every word and understand every inference:



Johnny’s in the basement
Mixing up the medicine
I’m on the pavement
Thinking about the government
The man in the trench coat
Badge out, laid off
Says he’s got a bad cough
Wants to get it paid off

Look out kid
It’s somethin’ you did
God knows when

But you’re doin’ it again
You better duck down the alley way

Lookin’ for a new friend

The man in the coon-skin cap

By the big pen
Wants eleven dollar bills
You only got ten
Maggie comes fleet foot
Face full of black soot
Talkin’ that the heat put

Plants in the bed but
The phone’s tapped anyway
Maggie says that many say

They must bust in early May
Orders from the D.A.
Look out kid
Don’t matter what you did
Walk on your tiptoes
Don’t try “No-Doz”

Better stay away from those
That carry around a fire hose

Keep a clean nose
Watch the plain clothes
You don’t need a weatherman
To know which way the wind blows

Get sick, get well
Hang around a ink well
Ring bell, hard to tell
If anything is goin’ to sell
Try hard, get barred

Get back, write braille
Get jailed, jump bail
Join the army, if you fail

Look out kid
You’re gonna get hit
But users, cheaters

Six-time losers
Hang around the theaters
Girl by the whirlpool 

Lookin’ for a new foolDon’t follow leadersWatch the parkin’ meters Ah get born, keep warmShort pants, romance, learn to dance
Get dressed, get blessed

Try to be a success
Please her, please him, buy gifts

Don’t steal, don’t lift
Twenty years of schoolin’
And they put you on the day shift
Look out kid
They keep it all hid

Better jump down a manhole
Light yourself a candle
Don’t wear sandals

Try to avoid the scandals
Don’t wanna be a bum

You better chew gum

The pump don’t work
’
Cause the vandals took the handles

Sanders Raises $3 Million in Four Days; Will He Split the Party?

​

A good day in the Sanders office. You can make
it a better day here. (Image credit AP; source)

by Gaius Publius

My headline has two parts (you can see it above) but the second is, for me, the most important and the most interesting. I've been writing about the split — the chasm, really — between progressives and "progressives" in the Democratic Party for at least a year, and Howie has been documenting the sins of money-bought "Democrats" like the DCCC since forever.

Some want that split to heal, and some want it to widen. Democrats who want it to heal are motivated by two main interests, it seems. One is the desire, understandable enough, to keep government out of the hands of Republicans, who really are the greater evil, if only by a little.

The other interest, though, is more insidious and far less defensible. If the party pulls together, those whose careers are tied to the success of its money-soaked DLC wing will see those careers advanced — in some cases, spectacularly.

The losers in all this? Unbailed-out mortgagees; students with crushing personal debt; the soon-to-explode bomb of poverty among soon-to-retire 401k-holders — the jobless; the poor; the barely-making-it in a Nike and Apple "made in Asia" economy. The bottom 80% who are going nowhere or going down. The traditional constituents, in other words, of the real Democratic Party as constituted in the pre–Bill Clinton years.

Who wants the split in the Democratic Party to widen? Anyone who wants progressive change in America at a non-incremental pace. And everyone, voter or activist, who no longer wants to reward "professional Democrats" — self-serving, money-serving women and men — for their constant and regular betrayals.

An Uneasy Truce

So far, we've seen something of a truce between the two groups, with skirmishes. The DCCC-minded crowd has been losing elections for progressives as fast as it can while still advancing some progressive causes, even if forced and grudgingly. And pro-progressive activists have been taking them on via incremental assaults on their numbers. In the meantime, the Democratic Party as a whole has been losing its brand, and arguably losing elections as a result (most recently, 2014).

There's absolutely no question that progressive and populist economic policies are wildly popular with voters, even Republican ones. 87% of Republicans want TPP to fail, along with large numbers of Democrats. Yet party leaders — Democratic party leaders —are hell-bent to pass it, and don't mind being seen by voters as hell-bent to pass it.

Even Hillary Clinton, I'm almost certain, wants TPP to pass, but doesn't want to say so. Consider this:

Clinton Campaign Chairman On Trade Deal: 'Can You Make It Go Away?'

... At a closed-door gathering of wealthy progressive donors in April, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was asked how the campaign would deal with the [TPP] issue.

"Can you make it go away?" Podesta replied jokingly, according to sources in the room at the time.

This isn't how a TPP opponent talks. This is how a friend-of-money talks when her campaign needs to hide her views. How else can you read this?

Now Comes Bernie Sanders, Making Progressives Choose

But this is not about Hillary Clinton, Robert Rubin or Barack Obama. It's about Democratic voters and the infrastructure of the Democratic Party, its official organs and its allied support groups.

Bernie Sanders is calling them all out — "You say you believe in fixing the economy; prove it." And he's doing it as a candidate for the presidency, in direct opposition to the "inevitable" Hillary Clinton. This is not about polls that can be ignored. Sanders is asking for votes. Now look at the first part of my headline: "Sanders Raises $3 Million in Four Days." He's apparently got the popular wind at his back, at least for now:

Bernie Sanders Raised $3 Million From Small Donors in the First Four Days of His Campaign

Your 2016 Democratic presidential primary in a nutshell: At about the same time Hillary Clinton revealed Wednesday she would begin raising unlimited money for a super PAC supporting her bid, an aide to Sen. Bernie Sanders told the Huffington Post the Vermont independent's campaign had taken in $3 million over four days — at an average of $43 per donation, from an estimated 75,000 supporters.

The same adviser reported that 99.4% of the contributions were for $250 or less. Furthermore, the Huffington Post reported, Sanders' campaign website has collected 185,000 email addresses, an indication his grassroots donor base could grow throughout the primary season

Getting the band back together: If the interest is there — and these early numbers suggest Sanders is rooted in fertile political ground — the campaign will be in a good place to capitalize on it. The Associated Press reported Wednesday that Sanders had signed up veterans of President Barack Obama's groundbreaking 2008 digital operation. Revolution Messaging, headed up by Obama alumnus Scott Goodstein, will manage the campaign's online networking and fundraising work.

Sanders will need his initial wave of small donors to keep their pocketbooks open and credit cards out, because there is no cavalry of billionaire boosters ready to ride in behind them. Asked last week if he would accept and promote a friendly super PAC — like the rest of the candidates in the 2016 field, Republican and Democrat — Sanders told CNN's Wolf Blitzer he would not, describing the practice as "vulgar."

That wind at his back is not a gentle breeze:

It's a long shot, but Sanders has reason to believe. A poll Wednesday out of New Hampshire showed Clinton with a narrowing majority — just 51% — with Sanders' support among Democrats rising to 13%, up from 6% in February. One in 5 surveyed said they backed Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), who has said repeatedly she will not run in 2016. If those potential voters were to shift their allegiance to Sanders, the candidate most closely aligned with Warren's politics, he would be up to 33% in the Granite State.

If this keeps up — and if he doesn't take himself out of the race (which I don't see, but I'm watching) — everyone who calls herself a "Democrat" will have to choose sides. If he unites the voters, he could split the party. It's going to be interesting times if the Sanders campaign gains any kind of strength. (You can help, if you like, here.)

Shining Clinton's Progressive Apple

At the moment, two large groups of progressives in the Democratic Party are in agreement about Bernie Sanders — they like that he's entered the race. The first group, however, wants Sanders to win. Actually win. The second group are Hillary supporters; they want Clinton to win, but want Sanders to shine her apple — to "pull her to the left" so that she's (a) more acceptable to voters; or (b) forced to make promises she might, maybe possibly, feel forced to keep. Or both.

Hillary supporters in the (b) group above — those who think or hope that Clinton can be "pulled to the left" — are mainly genuine in their principles, whether mistaken in their hope or not. These progressives, I think, would re-elect Barack Obama, even if he manages to sign TPP, and be glad he's not a Republican.

Hillary supporters in the (a) group — who only want Sanders around to polish her progressive apple so voters will like her better — are a different story. They know, no matter what Clinton does while in office, their next bread and butter will come from her administration and the infrastructure that supports it. That has to be a compromising thought. It would certainly compromise me if I needed her favor to eat, or at least eat well in DC.

From the sidelines, this is just fascinating to watch. I don't for a second envy the players, however. DC is a very expensive town if you want to eat well.

An Uneasy Truce ... For Now

This truce will last, I think, until Sanders is out of the race, so long as it never looks like he could win. But if it starts to look like he can actually beat Clinton — if he lasts through next April, say, with the same wind or stronger at his back — look out. The more he thrills the voters, the more he splits the party.

Consider that again — If Sanders and his message prove wildly popular with voters, the party will split along a continent-long fault line, one it has lived with, uneasily, for more than two decades.

The San Andreas Fault, still holding together ... for now (source)

Yet, in all this there's very good news.

If Sanders Wins, All Progressives Will Win

The good news here is very good. If this works out, if Sanders wins the Democratic primary, it will prove how popular his message of economic recovery actually is. That opens all kinds of possibilities on the Democratic side. And given the hatred of Wall Street among Tea Party voters — which just scratches the surface of their economic anger — he's likely to pick up many of the Republican votes in the general election that a Warren candidacy would have gotten.

I think if Republicans could nominate a competent non-whacko, it might be a contest. But frankly, without the racism angle, I see a Sanders win, or at least a strong shot at one. That would put progressives, real ones, in the White House for the first time, in fact, since Johnson. How is that bad, if you're a real progressive?

And just in time, in the hour of greatest need. I'll have more on that "greatest need" later, but as you might guess, it includes climate, billionaire-owned methane, and the inexorable march of the lemmings to 500 ppm CO₂ and beyond.

You Have to Play to Win

Whatever the outcome, this may be the most interesting political year for Democrats since 1968, when Eugene McCarthy forced President Lyndon Johnson out of the race, paving the way for Kennedy to enter it. (I know, Nixon won that year, but only because we lost Kennedy, who I'm certain would have beaten him.)

Be nervous, but be hopeful. The stakes are high — Clinton, though a Democrat, is a carbon candidate as well — but the rewards are higher. Let's put this in the hands of the people, and let the game begin.

(Again, if you'd like to help, click here.)

GP