Join us at our brand new blog - Blue Country Gazette - created for those who think "BLUE." Go to www.bluecountrygazette.blogspot.com

YOUR SOURCE FOR TRUTH

Friday, February 5, 2016

That Was the Best Debate Yet

The Democratic debate in New Hampshire. (photo: AP)
Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News
The Democratic debate in New Hampshire. (photo: AP)

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News
05 February 16
readersupportednews.org
 
f you came away from last night’s debate not sure what the differences were between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, then there is no hope for you. If you want real change in the system, then Bernie Sanders is your man. If you want to try to improve things within the current system, then Hillary Clinton is the candidate for you.

I have always said that any candidate the Democrats had running is better than any Republican, and I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. I have regularly commented that the whole pledge to write in Bernie if he is not the nominee is a counterproductive effort that Bernie will not support. However, one thing we have to face is that Bernie Sanders has brought people back into the Democratic Party process who would either be voting Green or another alternative party … or not voting at all. You cannot expect those people to vote for Hillary in November if they wouldn’t have voted Democrat before Bernie energized them. I do think they should vote for the Democratic nominee while the alternative parties build themselves up in local elections.

I think Hillary Clinton had strong moments in this debate, and as Bernie said, she would be a million times better than any of the candidates in the GOP clown car. I agree with her on gun control, and I think she scored points in the “progressive” debate – even though I agree with Bernie, you can’t vote for the Iraq War and be progressive. While the poli-sci major in me thinks her performance was good, the activist in me saw just that, a performance.

She lost the debate in my opinion on a few issues. I find her attack on Bernie Sanders’ health care plan disingenuous. She knows that Bernie Sanders wouldn’t rip up Obamacare without first passing a bill that brings us closer to Universal Health Care. I also wonder why she keeps saying she doesn’t want another national debate on health care. Should we not debate a way to lower prescription drug costs? Should we not debate a way to lower premiums, deductibles and co-pays? Does she think her proposals will not generate a national debate? As I have said before, I believe we should start the healthcare debate asking for what we really want, and if we don’t get it, then we should start negotiating. That is what Bernie did with veteran’s healthcare.

I also thought Bernie was right on the death penalty. Too many innocent people die as the result of our unjust criminal justice system, and I too believe you don’t address violence with more violence.

I was really happy to hear Bernie Sanders say if he became the nominee he would change the Democratic Party. There is a lot of room for reform within the party I don’t see any changes occurring under a Hillary Clinton-led party.

I think Bernie scored big on trade. NAFTA was a disaster, as have been many other trade agreements that Secretary Clinton supported. Secretary Clinton is still qualifying her opposition to the TPP, saying she "doesn’t think” it meets her standards. I’m willing to bet she will find some reason that it does if she wins the nomination.

I am not bashing Hillary Clinton, I am just pointing out the differences between Hillary and Bernie. You might be a free trade supporter. I am a fair trade supporter like Bernie. I oppose the death penalty on moral grounds. I think the Democratic Party has become too dependent on corporate cash, and while unions are still involved in the party, their voice has been weakened by the influence of corporate cash. Hillary said she doesn’t believe college education should be free. So does that mean K-12 shouldn’t be free? Why draw the line and say that higher education should come at a cost? There will still be private universities just like there are private schools for K-12.

While Bernie’s usual passion was there, I thought he did better at staying composed. Secretary Clinton, even with her prepared lines, seemed rattled a couple of times.

They made their differences clear, and voters will choose whether they want to rock the boat with Bernie or stay the course with Hillary.

Notes on Iowa
I don’t think we will ever know who really won. The major flaw in the system is that there is no paper trail. I like the open process and I like the battle for supporters of candidates who are not viable. When caucus-goers sign in, they check the box of their preferred candidate. I propose that if you switch your preference during the caucus you have to go back to the sign-in sheet and change your preference. That way there is an accurate paper trail.

Plenty of other things went wrong. Some precincts had higher turnout than the room would hold. In those cases, some precinct leaders held things together and devised a process for getting an accurate count. Others were overwhelmed and fighting broke out. Some lost voters and it affected the delegate allocation process. Some precincts had the IDP-designated precinct chair not show up. That created a situation where the people who stepped up ran the caucus did not have access to the app being used to report the results. I have other concerns: If the designated precinct chair did not show up, did the voter rolls? How do we know if people who caucused were registered to vote? Also, the results were reported by reps of all the campaigns on the app. Those who didn’t have the app might not have had the opportunity to have all three campaigns witness the reporting of the results.

With the vote being 49.8 to 49.6 percent, I think they should throw the delegate distribution plan out the window, declare it a tie, and give both candidates 22 delegates. There was too high a chance that they got it wrong, so just call it a tie and move on.



Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.

Comments

+35 # moreover 2016-02-05 10:28
Completely agree on officially declaring it a tie. Differences like the ones we've seen are definitively smaller than the margin of error, and there has been plenty of documented error (random error not favoring one side).
 
+15 # HowardMH 2016-02-05 11:59
How much has Burnie got from Wall Street???

Hillary is a creature of Wall St. Did you see the donation chart that Rachel showed on her program last night. Hillary donations $6.2 Million from Wall Street, $118 Thousand from Iowa. At one of her recent BS Session in Iowa she told the people, get out there and vote for me and I will work for you every day. Sure she will $6.2 M = Wall Street, $118K = Iowa -- such a touch decision as to who she will support.

This week, Wall Street’s buddies in Congress are lining up behind a bill to make it harder to prosecute bank fraud. You heard that right: the House of Representatives will be voting on a bill that will make it harder to investigate and prosecute bank fraud.

Tell the House of Representatives that they work for the American people – not Wall Street banks that break the law. Vote NO on the Financial Institution Customer Protection Act.

It’s been more that seven years since the financial crisis. A lot of people in Washington may want to forget, but the American people have long memories.

GO BURNIE GO, MAKE THEM ALL FEEL THE BURN
 
+24 # Barkingcarpet 2016-02-05 10:28
Given the non-choices, I'll vote for Bernie, as have the youth, and I do not expect much to change, until, we the consumers, change our tunes, quit buying "it" along with stuff, and dedicate to tryingat least, to rebuild the commons of Nature, which supports all life. Until we consider the Air, Water, Soil, and interconnected diverse communities and ecosystems of life to be more important than money, fences, and landfills of toxic goo and disposable nonrepairable junk, and drive and fly in circles, consuming along, nuthin is gonna change.
Tikkun IS a great word/concept. We create and recreate this whirley with every waking dollar, and every ecosystem consumed.
 
0 # jdd 2016-02-05 10:42
What's up? Bernie fails to answer with rousing YES to Todd's question "Does he demand an Iowa recount?" referring to the Des Moine Register. He throws up a giant softball and Bernie doesn't even swing.
+25 # Realist1948 2016-02-05 10:45
Bernie has had a consistent focus on the issue of income inequality (among other things). Hillary can parrot the words, but I don't find her credible. After all, she was on the board of directors of Wal-Mart for 6 years. Wal-Mart, the Walton heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune, and the thousands of low-wage workers who generate the wealth for this richest family in the U.S. give us a clear picture of wealth and income inequality at its worst. Hillary participated in creating this situation, while becoming cozy with the rich and powerful. She has benefited from her ties to the rich.

Go Bernie!
 
+14 # jdd 2016-02-05 11:36
Don't forget that the former "Goldwater Girl," and Wellesly Young Republican Club President, was attending the 1968 Republican Convention at the time when others of us, including MLK, were protesting genocide in Vietnam and supporting RFK.
-9 # NRESQ 2016-02-05 12:31
And HRC was fighting for health care reform and getting skewered by Republican fascists when you were in diapers!
+3 # Pikewich 2016-02-05 12:58
if she was fighting for health care reform, she failed, didn't she.
 
+16 # PABLO DIABLO 2016-02-05 10:47
Barkingcarpet --- you are so right. Boycott the corporations that are killing us. They won't change. WE MUST. We really don't need most of their crap any way.
+33 # xflowers 2016-02-05 10:49
Bernie's strongest point was the one he ended on: nothing is going to change without campaign finance reform. I thought his argument was wonderfully adept when he was able to get away from Hillary's charge that he was using the issue against her personally, and instead generalized it, as it should be, with example after example of how too much campaign money have led to outcomes against the public interest, like big pharma and the banks. Great job Bernie. I can't help but really love this guy.

Thursday, February 4, 2016

Donald Trump Misdirects Real Worker Anxieties




Wednesday, February 3, 2016

It Takes a Movement

Robert Reich. (photo: Richard Morgenstein)
Robert Reich. (photo: Richard Morgenstein)

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
02 February 16
readersupportednews.org
 
n 2008, when then-Senator Barack Obama promised progressive change if elected President, his primary opponent, then-Senator Hillary Clinton, derided him.

“The skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect,” she said, sarcastically, adding “I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be.

Fast forward eight years. "I wish that we could elect a Democratic president who could wave a magic wand and say, ‘We shall do this, and we shall do that,’” Clinton said recently in response to Bernie Sanders’s proposals.  "That ain’t the real world we’re living in.“

So what’s possible in “the real world we’re living in?”

There are two dominant views about how presidents accomplish fundamental change.

The first might be called the “deal-maker-in-chief,” by which presidents threaten or buy off powerful opponents.

Barack Obama got the Affordable Care Act this way – gaining the support of the pharmaceutical industry, for example, by promising them far more business and guaranteeing that Medicare wouldn’t use its vast bargaining power to negotiate lower drug prices.

But such deals can be expensive to the public (the tab for the pharmaceutical exemption is about $16 billion a year), and they don’t really change the allocation of power. They just allow powerful interests to cash in.

The costs of such deals in “the world we’re living in” are likely to be even higher now. Powerful interests are more powerful than ever thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision opening the floodgates to big money.

Which takes us to the second view about how presidents accomplish big things that powerful interests don’t want: by mobilizing the public to demand them and penalize politicians who don’t heed those demands.

Teddy Roosevelt got a progressive income tax, limits on corporate campaign contributions, regulation of foods and drugs, and the dissolution of giant trusts – not because he was a great dealmaker but because he added fuel to growing public demands for such changes.

It was at a point in American history similar to our own. Giant corporations and a handful of wealthy people dominated American democracy. The lackeys of the “robber barons” literally placed sacks of cash on the desks of pliant legislators.

The American public was angry and frustrated. Roosevelt channeled that anger and frustration into support of initiatives that altered the structure of power in America. He used the office of the president – his “bully pulpit,” as he called it – to galvanize political action.

Could Hillary Clinton do the same? Could Bernie Sanders?

Clinton fashions her prospective presidency as a continuation of Obama’s. Surely Obama understood the importance of mobilizing the public against the moneyed interests. After all, he had once been a community organizer.

After the 2008 election he even turned his election campaign into a new organization called “Organizing for America” (now dubbed “Organizing for Action”), explicitly designed to harness his grassroots support.

So why did Obama end up relying more on deal-making than public mobilization? Because he thought he needed big money for his 2012 campaign.

Despite OFA’s public claims (in mailings, it promised to secure the “future of the progressive movement”), it morphed into a top-down campaign organization to raise big money.

In the interim, Citizens United had freed “independent” groups like OFA to raise almost unlimited funds, but retained limits on the size of contributions to formal political parties.

That’s the heart of the problem. No candidate or president can mobilize the public against the dominance of the moneyed interests while being dependent on their money. And no candidate or president can hope to break the connection between wealth and power without mobilizing the public.

(A personal note: A few years ago OFA wanted to screen around America the movie Jake Kornbluth and I did about widening inequality, called “Inequality for All” – but only on condition we delete two minutes identifying big Democratic donors.  We refused. They wouldn’t show it.)

In short, “the real world we’re living in” right now won’t allow fundamental change of the sort we need. It takes a movement.

Such a movement is at the heart of the Sanders campaign. The passion that’s fueling it isn’t really about Bernie Sanders. Had Elizabeth Warren run, the same passion would be there for her.

It’s about standing up to the moneyed interests and restoring our democracy.


Comments

+76 # librarian1984 2016-02-02 14:06
There is another issue: electability.
Things don't get accomplished by skeptics; they get done by those who won't take no for an answer.

Contrary to the statements of the Clinton campaign, Sanders consistently outperforms Clinton in GOP matchups.

More importantly, Clinton will mobilize the GOP base, while Sanders will energize the Democratic base.
-24 # Rain17 2016-02-02 22:41
"Sanders consistently outperforms Clinton in GOP matchups."

The problem with this point is that less people know about Sanders. He has lesser name recognition in comparison to Hillary. Once people know about him I suspect support will drop for him.

The problem is that Sanders has said that he is a "Democratic Socialist". And, despite what people say here, it's a deal-breaker with many voters. Sanders's radical past is almost certainly going to be brought up, including:

--The fact that he applied for conscientious objector status in the Vietnam war.
--The fact that he called for the nationalization of businesses in the 1970s.
--The fact that, as mayor of Burlington, he traveled to the USSR in the 1980s.
--The fact that he visited the Sandanistas in Nicaragua in the 1980s.
--Stating out loud that he plans to raise taxes.

All of these facets of his past will almost certainly end up in negative ads should be the Democratic nominee. I am afraid that Sanders won't survive the onslaught that is almost certainly coming his way. Whatever Hillary has said about him is only the tip of the iceberg.

This is why I am voting for Hillary in the primary. I don't think Sanders can survive this onslaught of negative ads.
+10 # jimallyn 2016-02-02 23:58
Quoting Rain17:
--The fact that he applied for conscientious objector status in the Vietnam war.
--The fact that he called for the nationalization of businesses in the 1970s.
--The fact that, as mayor of Burlington, he traveled to the USSR in the 1980s.
--The fact that he visited the Sandanistas in Nicaragua in the 1980s.
--Stating out loud that he plans to raise taxes.

To many, those are good reasons to vote for Sanders.
-10 # Rain17 2016-02-03 00:08
But they aren't to a majority of voters.
+7 # mentor 2016-02-03 06:20
A really big problem is the stupidity and intellectual laziness of too many voters.
-2 # MidwestTom 2016-02-03 10:30
The Democrats are the ones always pushing for extension of the vote to uniformed voters.
+6 # newell 2016-02-03 08:52
All my heroes ain't Reagan cowboys. My heroes were consciencious objectors that chose a cage over killing innocent civilians. And I believe most Americans would agree if given the choice of a Clinton or a Bush who didn't show the leadership to publicly announce, like Ali and Bernie and MLK, that the war was wrong. Fact--people said many things in the 70's. Fact-- Burlington has a sister city in Russia. Many cities do--we were trying to avoid all the yahoos that wanted a nuclear war. Fact--Reagan illegally sold them weapons. Fact--Eisenhowe r had a 92% tax rate on the rich.
 
+1 # Raging Moderate 2016-02-03 13:39
You are exactly right. I have been saying the same thing for months
 
-29 # Shades of gray matter 2016-02-02 14:24
Inconvenient Truth: Among young Iowa voters, The Bern "Movement," "Revolution," drew FAR FEWER caucusers than Obama, costing US a desperately needed win. WHY? Is this a social media "virtual Movement"? Twit "Virtual Revolution"? Clicking "Like" won't threaten U.S. BASED criminal GlobalCorp technocracy. Droning on and on won't ground drones.
 
0 # Buddha 2016-02-03 14:11
Actually, I hate to admit it, but Shades is actually correct here. Something like only 18% of Millenials caucused in Iowa, and they are the ones Bernie most needed to turn out in historic numbers. If even just 25% of them showed up, Bernie would have won handily. And African-America ns and Hispanics, those most screwed by our racist status quo Drug War and neo-liberal economic structure, still overwhelmingly support Mrs Status Quo HRC herself. I love Bernie and wholeheartedly support him...but it seems as if the masses are after 3 decades of Reaganism too misinformed, too beaten-down, and too lazy to rise up and take our democracy back from the Oligarchs who have stolen it.
 
+63 # Bernforward 2016-02-02 14:43
Robert, You have been so right for so long and this is not an exception.Berni e stands for the government we want, while Hillary stands for the government we have, and what we have is an oligarchy ! ! !

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

A Mosquito Net Descends Across the Americas

Climate activist Bill McKibben. (photo: 350.org)
Climate activist Bill McKibben. (photo: 350.org)

By Bill McKibben, Reader Supported News
 
e are a few weeks away from the 70th anniversary of Winston Churchill's famous speech in Fulton, Missouri, the one where he announced (with Churchillian timbre) that "from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent." He named the geopolitical fact that would dominate the globe for the next 40 years, the single factor that would focus, and often warp and distort, everyone's worldview for most of the rest of the 20th century.

Sometime in the last 10 days, a mosquito net has descended across the Americas. It is unlikely to cause armed conflict between great powers, but unless we are very lucky, the new divisions it creates are likely to linger, truncating and deforming relationships, and changing the way that rising generations view the world in which they live.

And in the meantime, it's pure agony for women and families across Latin and South America. The Zika virus has been in circulation in Africa for some time, apparently, but in the last two years it made a decisive crossing into South America -- perhaps into Brazil, perhaps with the World Cup soccer tournament. In any event, in this previously unexposed population it is producing a particularly horrifying havoc.

Last year, 4,000 microcephalic babies were born in Brazil -- that is, babies with small, rounded heads. (They were called "pinheads" in the 19th century, when they were common sideshow exhibits. It's gross -- and we've since, thank God, learned to think more thoughtfully about children with birth defects -- but there's no denying the visceral pain the image still evokes.) This increase, from the normal baseline of a couple of hundred cases, obviously alarmed Brazilians -- there are at the moment 220,000 troops deployed across the country. Their job is to turn over flowerpots and empty tires of standing water.

That's because it's mosquitoes that spread zika. Aedes egypti, in particular, the same species that spreads other newly worrisome diseases, such as chikunyunga. In some measure, that rapid spread is paced by climate change. As the New York Times said in the first story about the disease, researchers are particularly worried that "climate change may be allowing viruses like Zika to thrive in new domains." The World Health Organization pointed out this morning that the hot, wet El Nino was part of the story -- and of course they've been tracking the worldwide spread of dengue, carried by the same mosquito, as that long-feared disease finds vast new swaths in which to thrive.

The concern is obvious, since global-warming creates new habitats for mosquitoes -- they love the warmer, wetter world we are systematically building. As Maria Diuk-Wasser of Yale's School of Public Health told Scientific American in 2013, speaking before the Zika scare, "The direct effects of temperature increase are an increase in immature mosquito development, virus development and mosquito-biting rates, which increase contact rates (biting) with humans."

In any event, the disease is spreading very rapidly, as one again would expect in an area with such tight air links. By last week, the Centers for Disease Control had listed 24 countries that American women thinking of becoming pregnant should avoid (a warning that came too late for some; a microcephalic baby was born in Hawaii a few weeks ago, to a mother who had traveled to Brazil early in her pregnancy). By this week, the major air carriers in the region had announced they would refund the tickets of any passengers who no longer wanted to travel into the Zika zone.

Inside that zone, of course, was where the real damage was being done. To their credit, health authorities seemed to be speaking up promptly, and not minimizing the crisis. In Brazil, Colombia, and Jamaica, health ministers urged residents not to become pregnant. In El Salvador, the authorities said last week that couples should postpone pregnancy until at least 2018. That's remarkable, and perhaps unprecedented, like something out of a particularly grim Margaret Atwood novel.

Imagine what it must be like to be pregnant right now in some Recife favela or Kingston slum, just waiting to see if your child is born damaged.

President Obama yesterday urged fast development of vaccines and treatments (there are none at the moment), which is good. And today the World Health Organization (burned by its slow response to Ebola) announced it was scrambling to put plans into action. But in the meantime, the fears are so visceral and the images so graphic that it's possible to imagine a future where easy contact begins to break down. (Zika has also been tentatively linked to a bizarre condition called Guillain-Barre, whose victims are paralyzed for weeks or longer.) 

The social and ideological stresses of the 20th century divided the world into distinct camps; now, as we are forcing the planet's physical systems to change at the same breakneck pace, it seems possible that we'll see a replay of those divisions, this time along epidemiological lines, and as usual making life hardest for those who have done the least to cause our problems.

Zika provides a glimpse into a future we should do everything possible to avoid, a terrifying reminder why the fight for a stable physical planet is the fight of our time.


Bill McKibben is scholar in residence at Middlebury College, and the author of "The End of Nature, Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities" and the "Durable Future and Earth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet." He is also the founder of 350.org, the global climate campaign that has been actively involved in the fight against natural gas fracking.

Monday, February 1, 2016

Regardless of results, Iowa’s Big Winner: Senator Bernie Sanders

Robert Borosage
The results of the Iowa caucuses won’t be known until late this evening, but we already know the big winner: Senator Bernie Sanders.

The 24/7 chattering classes focus on whether Sanders’ young and new voters will turn out, whether his voters’ enthusiasm can match Clinton’s organization, whether the blizzard will hit before or after the caucuses. But Iowa isn’t about who wins the most delegates; it is about who gains momentum and legitimacy. Whether he wins or loses in the final caucus count, Sanders is already assured of coming out of Iowa with momentum and legitimacy. The “fringe” candidate is for real. The prohibitive favorite has been pushed to the wall.

When Sanders first announced, he was universally dismissed as irrelevant, an unknown self-described “democratic socialist” who would strain to live up to the results of the boutique campaigns of Al Sharpton or a Dennis Kucinich. Hillary Clinton had all of the money, unprecedented establishment support, the best operatives, and wisely was building an unprecedented ground operation in Iowa. She led Sanders in a February 2015 NBC poll of Iowa voters by 68 percent to 7 percent (Biden has 12 percent). Sanders, at best, would provide a frisky trial-run pony, giving Clinton practice in debates, helping the campaign exercise its muscle, without forcing it to raise much of a sweat or spend much of its lucre.

That was then. Since then, Sanders has surged dramatically, running neck and neck in Iowa and capturing the lead in New Hampshire. He’s set new records in small donations, proving that a populist candidate can be financially competitive in a national presidential race without support of the Democratic Party’s deep pockets, largely located in Wall Street, Silicone Valley or Hollywood. His bold populist agenda – break up the big banks, Medicare for all, $15 minimum wage, free public college and more – has proven its appeal, with Clinton forced to move his way.

Sanders, the 73-year-old grandfather, has electrified young voters. The press has focused on polling that shows Sanders with wide leads among the young and new voters, while Clinton’s strength is among older and experienced caucus-goers. The Sanders campaign faces immense turnout challenges as a result, but he’s demonstrated that millennials – the largest and most diverse segment of the population – are looking beyond the offerings of socially liberal, corporate Democrats for a bolder and more populist politics.

Sanders also appeals, not surprisingly, to the party’s liberals, professionals, technical workers and activists. But Clinton is also very popular among liberals and professionals. The Jacobin’s Matt Karp offers an additional insight into the Sanders coalition: “A good deal of evidence suggests that Sanders has assembled a rather different kind of voter coalition than any primary challenger of the past generation — that he is the rare ‘progressive’ candidate who can actually win over white working-class voters.”

Karp points to a September Quinnipiac poll that showed Sanders with a 19-point lead among voters making less than $30,000 while Clinton led by 14 points among voters making more than $100,000. A more recent Quinnipiac polls shows that trend sharpening. More extensive polling in New Hampshire shows Sanders faring better among voters making less than $50,000, while Clinton does best among voters making at least six figures.

If these trends hold up, they will be a stark contrast to the support garnered by earlier “insurgent” candidacies of Barack Obama or Bill Bradley or Howard Dean. Their appeal was largely among affluent, young professionals. Clinton’s comeback in New Hampshire in 2008 was fueled by the support among working people, particularly women. Obama cleaned up in voters making six figures or more.

And this suggests that Sanders’ appeal comes from his integrity – his independence of big money and willingness to take it on and call it out – and his platform. It suggests hat at least in Iowa and New Hampshire, working class voters are tuning in on what he has to say.

The last insurgent to put forth an agenda as bold as Sanders was the Rev. Jesse Jackson in 1984 and particularly in 1988. (Disclosure: I worked with Jackson on that campaign.) Jackson also championed universal health care, a living wage, empowering workers, challenged NAFTA, called for dramatic increases in public investment, and for curbing our interventionist foreign policies. Jackson’s insurgency mobilized people of color, but gained increasing traction among working people, particularly union members.

To date, the Sanders campaign has gained little traction among African-American and Latino voters, the former providing the core of Clinton’s much-celebrated “firewall” in South Carolina. These are the very voters that fueled the Jackson insurgency.

As an African-American civil rights hero, Jackson had name recognition, allies, organizers and ministers in support of his effort. Sanders is virtually unknown, despite a proud history with the early civil rights movement. Virtually all of the gatekeepers are with Clinton, who has, of course, universal name recognition.

Sanders will clearly come out of Iowa and New Hampshire with momentum. He’ll have the resources to be competitive. He’ll have to introduce himself and his ideas, with little time to do so. But his platform will appeal if it gets heard. As Black Lives Matter and the Dreamers have shown, throughout the black and Latino communities, young organizers are impatient with their leaders, angry at conditions, and ready to force change. Generally, blacks and Latinos tend to vote cautiously, better the “devil we know.” But these are not cautious times. The African-American and Latino middle classes were devastated in the Great Recession, and have had the hardest time recovering from it. From Ferguson to Flint, the afflictions imposed on these communities are getting exposed. As Sanders introduces himself, he may generate a surprisingly receptive response.

Those, of course, are mere musings. But what Sanders has already won is very real. He’s put forth a bold, populist agenda. He’s challenged the grip of big money on our politics. And he’s shown that his message can electrify the young and attract working people.

In this, Sanders has already begun to shake the establishment, evidenced by increasingly vitriolic attacks on him and his ideas. Sanders is putting the powers that be on notice. This rigged system doesn’t work for the vast majority of Americans.

And the complacent politics of the establishment center offer no way out. The elites of both parties better figure out how to cut Americans a better deal – or Americans will demand a new dealer.

So whatever the caucus results, congratulations, Senator Sanders. You come out of Iowa with momentum. Your campaign is challenging the limits of our political debate. You are, without doubt, Monday night’s big winner.

Sam Guarnaccia ·
With THIS 'winner'......there are NO losers.
Like · Reply · 4 · 4 hrs
Antonio Bernal ·
THIS IS HOW REVOLUTIONS WORK; First, the background must be analyzed and established, then 2.- New Ideas emerge, 3.- There is a definite shift to revolutionary activity, as opposed to reformism, 4.- The terror is brought in by thugs fighting change, met with revolutionary violence from the other side, 5.- The oligarchy, frightened, does everything it can to usher in a COUNTERREVOLUTION, then 6.- the revolutionary forces slip their boundries of discipline and engage in ultra- left, anarchist acts. The revolutionary forces rein them in, establishsing the revolution institutionally--a new stage in human development, a synthesis combining the old and the new, in a fulfillment of the promise.

WE ARE SOMEWHERE AROUND NUMBER 3. Expect violence in 2016-2220.
Like · Reply · 2 · 4 hrs
Darlene Costner ·
I attended one of Bernie's rallys and if the people who have seen him come out to vote, he will win by a landslide. The enthusiasm is real and inspiring.
Like · Reply · 7 · 4 hrs
Albert Elsen ·
Just keep the momentum going, and we'll see where this can take us! Well done Bernster!
Like · Reply · 2 · 4 hrs
David Studer ·
If we don't pay for our politician's political campaigns then how can we expect them to represent us? Democracy depends on the participation of we the people. Everyone understands this. Only Sanders walks the walk. He cannot do it without us. Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of Bernie Sanders and what his campaign represents, a promise to move back in the direction of democracy. I'm sorry, but Hilary Clinton represents the Democratic Committee business as usual. Not good enough.
Like · Reply · 2 · 3 hrs