Joe Biden running on his record. And we need to see who he truly is now, today, 2020.

YouTube.

Next, if you really want to see a real shit wad at play, MoJo has the video.

For people who want to read; MoJo and boston.com

Biden is the candidate of Comcast and the credit card industry; predators. It need not be complicated much beyond that, but more facts can be put into subsequent posting. For now, follow the links, and see the sleaze.

Biden is Trump with wording and stylistic differences; but Trump kinship exists by a willing choice to be no different, and not genealogy.

Just as Clinton and Trump were the two most unpopular presidential candidates in history; Biden can be a Clinton surrogate in that duality. He fits.

A Biden cramdown just as the Clinton cramdown will fail. Running Biden will assure four more Trump years. Does the DNC care, do the beltway consultants care, do the politician buyers care? They get mirror images, Biden or Trump, and we suffer. The spoils will remain in the Trump hands, so some will care, but the beat goes on.

Warren, Bernie, Gabbard, perhaps Booker; or then the alternative, four more years.

__________UPDATE_________
No comparison. A juxtaposition but no comparison.

____________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
Excerpting the MoJo item will be helpful; the text following the embedded video [italics in original]:

Long before their Capitol Hill clash [shown in the video], Warren called out Biden by name in op-eds and in her first book, accusing him of carrying water for the big corporations that called his state home and kept his campaign coffers full.

The bankruptcy fight was a pivotal moment for both Warren and Biden, who have each built a political brand based on a defense of the American middle class. Biden is fond of saying that he talks about working families so often his colleagues called him “Middle-Class Joe.” (Exactly who has ever called him that is a mystery.) Warren’s 2017 book was subtitled “The Battle to Save America’s Middle Class.” But there’s a key difference. In Warren’s telling, politicians like Joe Biden are exactly who the middle class needs protection from. And as the 2020 Democratic presidential campaign slowly heats up, the two may be on a collision course once more.

The primary point of conflict between Warren and Biden has been bankruptcy reform, which was accomplished with Biden’s 2005 bill. Though the law was enormously complex, its most important consequence was simple—the legislation made it harder for millions of Americans who had fallen into debt and who sought relief through bankruptcy to break free from their obligations. At the same time, the bill entitled creditors, such as car companies or mortgage lenders, to an even greater share of their assets.

So Biden was not merely having a turn in a round of witness questioning over a bill; but he was snotty as he was pushing his bill; one against people in dire straits, favoring small and large creditors, including credit card firms on the squeeze. Next:

Warren, whose research at Harvard focused on the causes of individual bankruptcy, had allies in her fight against Biden’s bill. Women’s groups, including the National Organization for Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund, opposed the measure because of the disparate impact it would have on women, who made up a rapidly increasing percentage of all personal bankruptcy filings. The legislation also made it harder for single mothers to collect child support from bankrupt exes, by strengthening protections for other creditors.

Some of the same women’s groups that were fighting the bill had previously elevated the Delaware senator to exalted status because of his work passing the Violence Against Women Act. And that’s what made Biden’s support for the measure so grating to Warren.

Warren first began publicly taking on Biden in 2002, when she wrote a paper for the Harvard Women’s Law Journal suggesting that his position on bankruptcy had been effectively bought.

“His energetic work on behalf of the credit card companies has earned him the affection of the banking industry and protected him from any well-funded challengers for his Senate seat,” she wrote. With a touch of snark, she added, “This important part of Senator Biden’s legislative work also appears to be missing from his Web site and publicity releases.”

Inexplicable amnesia, in the process of self-definition as "Middle-class Joe?" Or just evasion of who he really is? Go figure. Resuming the excerpt:

And in a New York Times op-ed that year she called the bankruptcy bill “unconscionable,” singling out Biden for his work on it. “Apparently many politicians believe they can remove the last safety net for families facing financial disaster (many of which are led by women) so long as they can find another highly visible issue that lets them proclaim their support for women,” she wrote.

She took on Biden again in The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers & Fathers Are Going Broke, the best-selling 2003 book she co-authored with her daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi. “Women’s issues are not just about childbearing or domestic violence,” they wrote. “More women with children will search for a bankruptcy lawyer than will seek subsidized day care. And in a statistic with special significance for Senator Biden, more women will be victimized by predatory lenders than will seek protection from an abusive husband or boyfriend.”

Warren and Tyagi continued, “The point is not to discredit other worthy causes or to pit one disadvantaged group against another. Nor would we suggest that battered women deserve less help or that subsidized day care is unimportant. The point is simply that family economics should not be left to giant corporations and paid lobbyists, and senators like Joe Biden should not be allowed to sell out women in the morning and be heralded as their friend in the evening.”

There is more at MoJo, but the excerpt is already long; while illustrative and instructive. Read it all, at MoJo. Has Biden changed, with a stint as Obama's VP arguably a leavening agent? Know the history, however, to effectively judge the present. Being informed means be skeptical. However Trump won, suggesting an insufficiency of skepticism; and MSNBC in ramping up to the 2016 election surely played a lot of Trump campaigning while Bernie was treated by those at that outlet as a news leper. Don't touch, don't even go near. So, trust MSNBC at your peril. Be skeptical. The bet here is there will be a whole hell of a lot of Biden video at MSNBC ramping up to November 2020, or at least ramping up to when the Dems convene to choose a nominee. Biden love, flowering strongly at MSNBC and the institutional money loving that along with the Dem establishment; Haim Saban likely there too.

Watch for it. See if I am wrong. Do note news - do the research, it's on the web and easily found - news is that Biden's initial fundraising at big dollar amounts will be hosted by a Comcast person, with Wikipedia stating:

In December 2009, Comcast announced its intent to acquire a majority stake in the media conglomerate NBCUniversal from General Electric (GE). The planned acquisition was subject to scrutiny from activists and government officials; their concerns primarily surrounded the potential effects of the vertical integration that the acquisition could create, as Comcast is also heavily involved in cable television and internet services in many media markets.[1] The deal went through, resulting in Comcast owning 51% of the company until March 2013, when GE divested its stake to give Comcast sole ownership.

[Links omitted, italics added] Chris Hayes knows suck-up, Comcast pays the piper, so watch the tune somewhat skeptically, please. You will be getting a super-dose of Biden love, Biden koolaid, so don't drink the koolaid, it's not good for you.

__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Jimmy Dore has opinions about Comcasts's MSNBC, Morning Joe, dumping a load on Tulsi Gabbard. Dore has points of disagreement also with Chris Hayes.

___________FURTHER UPDATE__________
After linking to the Dore screeds, and for a compare and contrast with Joe Biden, Tulsi Gabbard on YouTube. Campaign website "about" page, where readers can navigate to her CONTRIBUTE page. If Gabbard and her ideas and issues-agenda can generate enough poll and money raising moxie, she will be included in debates - something needed because she is the strongest candidate on ending regime change wars a world away and using the money wisely instead, for us and our homeland needs. The story, possibly apocryphal, is that Trump complained to Carter about the Chinese and their astounding economic growth engine, asking Carter about any thoughts about how to react, and Carter replied, "How many wars have the Chinese caused since Nixon opened relations?"

Another Tulsi YouTube posting, showing how an unfriendly but polite establishment acceptance looks. Some do not warm to her message.

Surprisingly, a refreshing lack of hostile coverage, Tucker at FOX, here and here.

Opinions might differ, but Crabgrass thinking is Gabbard seems to have the constitution and background to make one hell of a fine Secretary of Defense in a Bernie presidency. Or a VP, with attitude. Just as we await a first female president, with Warren being a suitably uncompromised possible first that way; we've not yet had a woman heading the Defense Department. It would be neat to, with Tulsi. Good for the troops via sane policy, good for the nation's infrastructure needs. Good for not funding terrorists for a proxy fighting function in mucking around in Syria. Good also if a National Security Chief. Better than a Gen. Flynn for the job, for example.

Daniel Ellsburg interviewed about the Assange arrest.

YouTube.

Now in the news; previously in the '80s in the news, so before following the link, who is the individual, what's happening now with him, and what was his persona, dressed differently, back then when attending Congress?

link

Anoka County - What exactly is Sivarajah up to, and should it be quelled? And what of her facilitators on the Board? What's up? A nearly pulled off money grab by one tasked to meet a fiduciary duty owed the public?

Others know more than I do about comings and goings in the county, and pay levels; which can be reasonable or excessive under circumstances. Hence when one in such a position takes time to write an LTE it is incumbent on us, as voters, to read and understand.

In that spirit, hometownsource.com has a good one:

Letter: Anoka County needs full-time administrator -
Apr 28, 2019 0

To the editor:

Shortly after Jerry Soma was appointed county administrator, rumors about his absence from the office began. It was known that the Somas purchased property in Arizona where they winter. They also sold their home in Anoka County and purchased one in Pine County, [...]

Soma’s $149,000 salary is in addition to his pension, providing over $250,000 annually in total Anoka County income. From Jan. 1, 2018, through early April 2019, Soma used 656 hours of flexible time off.

Commissioner Rhonda Sivarajah has been the board chair during this period; under her direction, the board allowed the administrator’s position to effectively become part time.

[...]Sivarajah wants to trade her $70,000 per year commissioner job for the county administrator job at a salary of about $174,000. Like Soma, Sivarajah sold her home in Anoka County after purchasing a $500,000 cabin in Washington County. In order to claim residency, the Sivarajahs transferred to themselves a $200,000 rental property owned by their limited liability company and have claimed this property as their homestead.

Sivarajah has previously worked for the county, and would acquire benefits as county administrator that would take into account this prior county employment.

[...] The salary the county is offering would attract a good candidate who would be willing to work full time on the county’s needs rather than “part time” for full-time pay as with Mr. Soma, a pattern Commissioner Sivarajah apparently desires to continue for her own benefit.

Marsha Van Denburgh

[italics added] The excerpt is substantial and the story looks shabby.

Yet - Follow that link, read the entire thing. It is short. It is concise. It is massively troubling.

So skids greased for Rhonda to get a big cashflow boost, almost done without any actual scrutiny, lots of money, not lots of care, no how, for how much is sought for how much actual ongoing work?

And that surely seems why the hiring process is being constrained to those already on the payroll (getting the shot to be bigger, bigger, bigger player(s) on the payroll - friends help friends). Pubic money is not Monopoly money; it's real.

The County Board should get real too.

___________UPDATE___________
The letter author has previously run for Board Seat District 1, hence, it seems the incumbent holding that seat might want to exercise due fiduciary care in all of this.

You'd think so, wouldn't you. And that search committee, what do you suppose -- if Jim Kordiak, as a past board member, (i.e., fully schooled on county affairs from long and dedicated service),were to seek an interview, would he get one, and would it be pro forma or real? The IRRRB recently had its fan load up about questionable personnel practices where a person strangely hired resigned, so what should happen here?

_________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Links: A related earlier Crabgrass post noted other opining. Strib. Earliest crabgrass notice and posting was triggered by a prior LTE concern for this stuff.

A saga of greed and impropriety? Or just the County Board being well motivated fiduciaries as we and the law expect?

____________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
Opening words about LTEs sometimes having informative value - another one.

Does she REALLY still reside in Anoka County, or should she resign the board seat and correct voter rolls if she in fact is residing in Washington County?

Being Administrator has no residency requirement. Board service does. Or should. You have to reside in the district you represent. So is it more than money being chased? You tell me. All I know is what I read from the papers. I can detect the odor of stale fish. All of this seems ripe for an AGO. Or even an AG inquiry. When Ramsey's mayor left town, she resigned. It seems clear, and there was a judge a while back who had residency requirement problems, staying on the Hennepin County bench while moving out of county, papering up something that was factually false. It got Strib reporting. Duties regarding that stuff is not a mystery.

_________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Schulte and Robyn West seem the most aggressive other board members in promoting Rhonda from a residency requirement to where there is none. What did they know and when did they know it?

Did the prior administrator, Soma, resign to create a vacancy for Sivarajah knowing a residency situation might exist? What did he know and when did he know it?

It simply looks awful, and all the perps should stop. Straighten up and fly right, that is the cliche, isn't it? Even an appearance of impropriety should be avoided to maintain trust in governing officials and government.

_________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Kasarov was the judge with the residency juggling. It resulted in a published per ccurium Minnesota Supreme Court opinion.

Big Associated Press news: "Casey endorses Biden in Democrats’ 2020 race for president -- April 25, 2019." It ain't Casey at the bat doing it, it's Casey at the trough.

AP link, beginning excerpt:

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Pennsylvania’s Democratic U.S. Sen. Bob Casey is endorsing Joe Biden for president, just minutes after the former vice president entered the crowded 2020 race.

In a statement Thursday, Casey touted Biden as a fighter for the middle class who can beat President Donald Trump in Pennsylvania if Biden becomes the Democratic nominee.

A fighter for who? THIS BOB CASEY.

 

CHECK OUT: OPENSECRETS.ORG
that Bob Casey

______________UPDATE_____________
Diane Feinstein, . . . of all people. Who'd have ever guessed?

Links, here, here and here. Reciprocity; friends help friends.

Too little, too late. Radinovich poisoned his own well, surely knowing better, and Metsa too, and neither should have any political future. Then, how to make the IRRRB not keep morphing into the shape of a ram's horn.

Radinovich resigns IRRRB cush cash creation. So?

Firing some in that agency is a step, but only a step. Absent that, expect a flat to downward sloping learning curve; cronies learning as cronies choose is bad policy. Mop up.

That ram's horn configuration seems an equilibrium state, so a swift kick of large impact might be needed to dislodge the operation to a new and better equilibrium.

UPDATE: Metsa. IRRRB paycheck, after running, loosing, and giving up the leg seat to run.

Have they no shame?

___________UPDATE____________
He's a weasel, but he's our weasel. Per Strib:

Walz reprimands IRRRB chief in wake of DFLer's resignation

Gov. Tim Walz sent his commissioner overseeing the Iron Range economic development agency an official letter of reprimand Thursday after allegations of DFL cronyism at the agency surfaced last week.

"I expect you to model openness, transparency, inclusivity, and servant leadership. In this situation, you fell far short of my expectations," Walz wrote to Mark Phillips, commissioner of the Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board (IRRRB).

[...] Gov. Tim Walz sent his commissioner overseeing the Iron Range economic development agency an official letter of reprimand Thursday after allegations of DFL cronyism at the agency surfaced last week.

"I expect you to model openness, transparency, inclusivity, and servant leadership. In this situation, you fell far short of my expectations," Walz wrote to Mark Phillips, commissioner of the Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board (IRRRB).

"It was also inappropriate to use my Office as your stated rationale for requesting an exception. My Office never directed you to … vary from ordinary hiring procedures."

However, Phillips, who was not immediately available for comment late Thursday, has influential allies at the State Capitol.

A group of Iron Range lawmakers circulated a draft of a letter to Walz in support of Phillips.

[... The second letter, to Walz] backs Phillips. "Despite his missteps, Phillips is an asset to the Range and the state of Minnesota."

The perps authoring that second letter are not named by Strib, but by the fact a band or politicians declare him their weasel is the precise reason a letter of condemnation is inadequate. Replacement, by one Walz can trust to not dump a load on his lap, is the only lesson that has any chance to take.

Also Walz, who denies being the activating source of "find Joe a cushion," needs to also fire whatever intermediaries instigated and facilitated the offense. Other than the legislative perps who he unfortunately cannot fire.

CLEAN UP THE PARTY APPARATUS must be the intent and action, as a means to keep the DFL viable in the public's mind.

Given how Joe is ensconced in the political process, the severance has to be clean and final. Having him end up in some other government slot, on the taxpayers' payroll again at six figures after this IRRRB stuff, i.e. "find Joe some other cushion, somewhere more obscure, but do it very quietly" would add further insult to the people of the State. Not even dog catcher at minimum wage, at this point.

However, if the DFL party itself, using its own money and not taxpayer cash, were to service Joe's family's cashflow needs, then DFL contributors might not like it, but it would not carry the impropriety of greasing an insider with public taxpayer cash.

They could replace the one Perpich relative with Joe, as it likely could be an upgrade of the party apparatus. If that were to happen, shifting gears to "find Justin a cushion" would be inappropriate, but likely.

----------------------
Singing Cowboy Gene Autry did both "Home on the Range," and "Back in the Saddle Again," which seem to document aspects at each end of "Joe lost the electlion, so IRRRB him" shenanigans.


____________FURTHER UPDATE____________
The guess here is that after Stauber's CD8 election, if anyone had offered Michelle Lee some kind of IRRRB perk she'd have slammed the door on the thought and felt highly insulted.

So whose money will he be using?

Any individual donor who'd give one red cent to Biden is crazy. He's the esablishment-institutional troll. He sandbagged all along to not have to disclose his financing. Wall Street? Who? Every other candidate filed a first quarter FEC disclosure. The man is not the one. It will be four more years of Trump if this Biden thing ousts Bernie/Warren. Hillary Biden. More cautious with his speeches and speech fee, but otherwise, clear kinship. DWS for Veep? Tom Perez? One of the Podesta brothers? Chelsea? Please early primary voters, scrub for progress.

Puffery, plus, per Strib's carried AP feed:

In a video posted on Twitter , Biden focused on the 2017 deadly clash between white supremacists and counter protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia. Biden noted Trump's comments that there were some "very fine people" on both sides of the violent encounter, which left one woman dead.

"With those words, the president of the United States assigned a moral equivalence between those spreading hate and those with the courage to stand against it," Biden said. "And in that moment, I knew the threat to this nation was unlike any I had seen in my lifetime."

"We are in the battle for the soul of this nation," Biden continued. "If we give Donald Trump eight years in the White House, he will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation — who we are. And I cannot stand by and watch that happen."

If this nation has a soul, besides top sidebar characterization, it involves Bernie and Warren and progressive policy, not platitudes. Biden need not stand by and watch, he could be out campaigning for Bernie, Warren, and Progress. Porcine flight being more likely.

Truthdig.

DWT.

Tune.

"Never Trump" surely hit the shoals; rats abandoning in an eyeblink. We are better. We are not Republicans.

____________UPDATE____________
Without the piano player, he's nothing.

Tune. Notice how you can play both YouTube items together, same message.

Try a sincerity check. Compare and contrast; Bernie on YouTube, no piano, talking policy, talking grassroots, talking volunteer effort.

FURTHER: Vox analyzes. All the rational teardown of career lowpoints in hindsight, surgically analytical, while not getting to the simple fact that Biden in that video comes across as phony as a three dollar bill. Piano, marching Nazis, and Statue of Liberty cut away footage whereas Bernie just described what his values and aims are. No props, no scripting into a beltway consultancy cliche format.

Arguably premature, but the hope and belief here is that Daddy Warbucks does not hijack the airplane.

Link

A wholly different person, a different mndset and policy orientation, but someone shook a stereotype at Senator Warren, who answered it thusly " . . .".

First the link, then the question, then the answer, then you as a reader decide which way is up. An April 22, 2019 item by Tara Golshan for Vox. The answer artfully avoiding the different person - different ideals and policy thinking dimension, citing history alone. Question:

The comparisons started early for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): Not long after she jumped into the 2020 presidential race, she was met with an onslaught of comparisons to Hillary Clinton and her failed 2016 presidential campaign. The not-so-hidden subtext was whether any woman, or at least this woman, could beat Trump.

On Monday night, at a CNN presidential town hall with New Hampshire and Harvard students, Warren was asked directly, twice, about these questions. She’s getting “Hillary-ed” — a term that’s come to encompass sexism women running for national office are experiencing — one student said, so what is she going to do about it? Another student asked Warren how she could measure up to Trump’s bullying: “In particular, are you afraid he can caricature you?”

The Senator's Answer:

The short version of Warren’s answer: “One might say you persist,” she told the student questioner, Ellie Taylor of Wisconsin, referencing a viral feminist catch-phrase born out of a tense moment between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Warren, in which McConnell tried to silence Warren on the Senate floor.

To combat Trump’s nicknames, Warren said, “we’re not going to win by saying ‘not Donald Trump.’ We’re not going to win by doing better name-calling than he does.”

In response to both questions, Warren told a story about her 2012 race for the Senate in Massachusetts, defeating Republican Sen. Scott Brown in one of the most high-profile Senate races that year. Warren beat Brown, who served as the senator from Massachusetts from 2010 to 2013, claiming an upset win to fill a vacant seat after Democrat Ted Kennedy’s death.

Warren has been called “aloof” for her focus on policy throughout her career, and her misleading claims of Native American heritage played a role in that 2012 Senate race. [...]

Here’s Warren’s full exchange:

Ellie Taylor, Wisconsin: Hi, Senator. This isn’t as much of a policy-based question. Some people have voiced you getting ‘Hillary-ed’ in the election. So what lessons have you learned from 2016 that will help you to kind of navigate these situations when you might be criticized for something that’s partially motivated by sexist?

Warren: That’s a really good question, but if I can, I want to go back before 2016. Can we all just let our hair down here for a minute? This didn’t just start in 2016. Been around for a while.

I’ll tell you when I ran into it big time. I never thought I was going to be in elected politics. I’ve known what I wanted to do all my life. I wanted to be a teacher. I thought that would be my job forever. During the crash I end up down in Washington setting up a consumer agency for President Obama. After I did that for a year, the Republicans said, we’re never going to let her stay and run that thing. I came back to Massachusetts. There was a very popular Republican incumbent. He had high approval ratings, he had a bucket of money in the bank from Wall Street and he had just beaten a woman who was really good and everybody thought was going to win. So I start getting these phone calls from people and they say, Elizabeth, you should run against him for the Senate seat. You should do it. Go ahead. You should do this thing. You’re going to lose, but you should definitely do — these were Democrats calling me. Saying, you should do this. You’re going to lose. All I can say is Democrats, get a better message.

But people said to me, you’re going to lose because Massachusetts in 2011, according to conventional wisdom, was not ready to have a woman senator or governor. We never had. And people said it’s just not going to happen, not at least for another generation.

Now, you can imagine how I heard that. I heard that as, get in this race, right now, which is what I did. So I jumped in the race and sure enough, you know, the early coverage is about what I’m wearing. It’s about my hair. It’s about my voice. It’s about whether or not I smile enough. I didn’t. It was every part of that. This kept up and I thought, you know, look, I’m going to be in this race. I’m going to make something count every single day. So every day when I saw a little girl, I would come up and I’d usually get down, I’m a teacher, and I would say, ‘Hi, my name is Elizabeth and I’m running for Senate because that’s what girls do.’ And then we would pinky swear to remember.

And so every night when I went home, no matter what the day had been like, I would count up how many pinky swears we had done during the day. And I kept getting out there and hammering my message. I kept getting out there talking about what’s happening with working families across the country, talking about how Washington works great for the rich and the powerful, just not working for anyone else, and how we’ve got to fight back against that. So I talked about it every single day and ultimately I went from 17 points behind that guy to beating him by 7.5.

So the way I see it is here we are in a presidential, and it’s the same kind of you stay after it every day.

One might say you persist.

That Warren is being asked about going against Trump’s bullying on the campaign trail, and being compared to Hillary Clinton all comes down to a growing factor in 2020: this notion of “electability.”

According to an early February poll from Monmouth University, 56 percent of Americans prefer “someone who would be a strong candidate against Trump even if they disagree with that candidate on most issues.” Only 33 percent would prioritize issues, even if it meant the candidate would have a hard time against Trump.

Of course, at some point it’s all a self-fulfilling prophecy: the more you question someone’s electability, the less electable they are. And, of course, the gender of a candidate plays a role.

[links in original omitted] One would expect big banking to be funding a big putsch to keep Warren out of the White House; which is the soundest reason around to support her candidacy. You want proof she'd not be favored by banking mischief makers? Proof exists, YouTube short segments, here, and here; the woman is patient enough to speak tightly while leaving little doubt, she has no time or patience to take prisoners, while wanting to see imprisonment of at least some perps. Dishing out comparable scorn for another villian, here.

Readers with a bit more time should see, beyond questioning at hearing, how Warren presents policy thinking to the press. Brains and a will toward fixing error would be a welcome change in the White House once the sicko circus gets voted out of town. And that's the plain, full, and honest truth whether you dislike her speaking style and prefer Trumplistic homilies and outright lying.

____________UPDATE____________
If you prefer an openly apparent outrage, logically structured, there is Bernie. If you prefer a tightly controlled but burning just beneath the calm surface, there's Warren. The mood here loves both, but as more listening transpires Warren comes across more and more favorably; with an inventiveness unlike Bernie running the same campaign he ran in 2016 with the frontrunner chasing hord imitating his policy novelties; where you can trust Bernie's version, as well as trusting Warren. Neither is a Beto. Neither is a Biden. Neither is a former prosecutor moving away from that job toward a will to take another higher calling. Bernie, Warren, and Booker are the Senators in the contest, along with Harris and Biden's past status [quo].

Bernie and Warren, with Booker seeming legit too, stand out in the gaze cast here.

Interestingly, they are the three over which Bernie took the Podesta thing (see here and here) to task via an online posted letter, set out in its two pages, in the earliest of those two Crabgrass posts; p.1 and p.2. Nothing has been seen online about any Podesta-folks publicly daring to reply. What they did stands as they did it. They may yet defend or context Bernie's characterization, but for now that Podesta thing should be viewed askance as highly suspect against actual progressivism, despite being called, "Center for American Progress." A misnomer? It seems so, called out by public letter, declining so far a prominent public response.

As to a suggestion of corporate donor influence at the Podesta thing, see, The Nation, here and here.

Last, if you dislike the "hinge states" concentration - "swing states" being another term - Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Florida; being a focus of contention while deep blue and deep red states are not courted (and left to suck eggs) then should you blame the electoral college? If getting every vote to mean more to you, then note that several of the Democrat Party contestants have publicly criticized the electoral college as disregarding the concept of every person's vote ideally having an equal impact; Warren arguing for a Constitutional amendment to abolish the e.c.; in particular. For context, that YouTube item is Warren answering in response to a question at a CNN townhall she held at Jackson State.

The Nation, posting on the question.

Strib editorial board rightly points at legislators in error: "The proposed conversion protections are good policy. Republican health committee chairs Sens. Michelle Benson, R-Ham Lake, and Jim Abeler, R-Anoka, should be urging their party to support reforms. Their voices are needed but missing."

Readers in either district are urged to light a fire under the miscreants. Link.

"Countless" Popes are alive today.

Well, in truth, two, Benedict and Francis.

Link. Those unable to count to two have a problem. The House is full of countless Reps. The Senate, a countless fewer.

Mining and the Boundary Waters Wilderness.

Link.

Ordinary people express opinions about healthcare differing from the well-compensated insurance mogul that Strib had featured.

Link.

Clean out that mess. And we've had about enough of Joe Radinovich, and perhaps it's time for Michelle Lee.

The IRRRB and a questionable appointment singing "Politics as usual, not as things should be." Do not forget how frontrunner Leah Phifer was sandbagged at the convention. It, Iron Range Dem politics, is defective. In need of fixing.

More on the Bernie Sanders calling bullshit on the CAP - the so-called "Center for American Progress," a political organ run by John Podesta, allied with the Clintons, and inimical toward Bernie and inimical to actual progressives in general.

Earlier Crabgrass post, here. That post set out by image Bernie's letter to the Podesta-run operation, while providing by online excerpting background info.

What's to add? Additional web coverage, mainstream and otherwise. Start with local Minnesota Repubicans, PowerLine twice publishing, different authors overlapping the same day, each giving a mainstream media link. First [links in original]:

Posted on April 14, 2019 by Paul Mirengoff; Sanders calls out Center for American Progress [UPDATED]

It’s not news that the liberal Center for American Progress (CAP) is a vicious operation. It is news that Bernie Sanders has decided to call it out.

The New York Times obtained a letter (I wonder how) that Sanders sent to the boards of the Center for American Progress and its sister group, the Center for American Progress Action Fund. The letter accuses the think tank of undermining Democrats’ chances of taking back the White House in 2020 by “using its resources to smear” him. Sanders calls for an end to CAP’s “counterproductive negative campaigning” and urges the organization to “play a constructive role in the effort to defeat Donald Trump.”

Sanders wasted no time fundraising off of his dispute with CAP. According to the Times, his campaign promptly sent out a fund-raising email to supporters based on the dust-up. The subject line stated: “We are under attack.”

Sanders is. His letter appears to have been prompted by the suggestion by ThinkProgress (which is associated with CAP) that Sanders’ attacks on income inequality are hypocritical in light of his growing personal wealth (which is based on he success of his book). However, Sanders surely was mindful that the Center worked tirelessly to defeat him in 2016 so that Hillary Clinton, to whom it is closely connected, would win the Democratic nomination.

Since 2016, Democrats have been trying to heal the wounds created by the tactics used to undermine Sanders’ quest for the nomination. The Times suggests that CAP has pretended to play along with the healing process while, at the same time, working to undermine Sanders:

Since Mr. Trump’s victory, Ms. Tanden [the head of CAP] has recast herself and her organization as leaders of the anti-Trump “resistance,” and has sought to harness the energy of liberal activists who backed Mr. Sanders in 2016, even as she has continued complaining about his supporters.

That sounds right.

For a context, without including links, an earlier NYTimes item reported:

In 2016, they [Sen. Sanders and his wife Jane] released 2014 returns showing $205,617 in income, including $156,441 in wages and salary and $46,213 from Social Security benefits.

Mr. Sanders — whose trademark on the campaign trail is his attacks on the “millionaires” and the “billionaires” — had consistently ranked among the least wealthy members of the Senate.

But since his 2016 run for the presidency, Mr. Sanders’s financial fortunes have improved. His 2017 Senate financial disclosure forms show he earned roughly $1.06 million that year, more than $885,000 from book royalties. His most recent book, “Where We Go From Here,” was published last year.

So, while trailing Jeff Bezos somewhat in wealth and income, it appears book royalty and/or advances have made the Sanders family millionaires. With that context, back to the first of two PowerLine items:

Apparently, Kamala Harris has been exempt from CAP’s accusation of hypocrisy. I guess that means it’s okay for her to attack wealth inequality even though she reported nearly $1.9 million in household income in 2018.

Joe Biden also gets a pass. “Middle Class Joe,” as he likes to call himself, has been “raking in millions,” according to Politico. He has a $2.7 million vacation home, charges more than $100,000 per speaking appearance, and has signed a book deal likely worth seven figures. Bernie Sanders, from all that appears, isn’t nearly that wealthy.

But the story here isn’t about hypocrisy. There’s nothing wrong with rich people favoring income redistribution as long as they are willing [to] have their wealth transferred under the same terms as the similarly situated rich.

The story here is about the Democrats’ seeming inability to heal the ideological fissures and personal ill-will that plagued the party in 2016. (Republicans have done a much better job of this, thanks in no small measure to being in power). And given PAC’s [sic] longstanding ties to the Clintons, it’s also about the party’s inability to shake free of the Clintonistas.

The anti-Sanders wing seems to believe it can keep Sanders’ backers in the fold if/when the party nominates a less left-wing candidate by giving lip-service to unity and relying on disgust with President Trump to overcome hurt feelings and doctrinal disgruntlement. Sanders’ letter should be viewed as a warning against counting on this scenario.

The second PowerLine item is more editorial in tone while overlapping the first, hence it is less excerpted, links in the original:

Posted on April 14, 2019 by Steven Hayward; Civil War on the Left, Ch. 68: Bernie Fratricide

First up, Bernie lashed out at the Center for American Progress according to CNN:

Sen. Bernie Sanders has accused a leading liberal think tank, founded and run by longtime Hillary Clinton allies, of orchestrating attacks on him and two other 2020 Democratic presidential candidates.

In a letter provided to CNN by his campaign, Sanders addressed the board of the Center for American Progress and CAP Action Fund on Saturday, alleging that its activities are playing a “destructive role” in the “critical mission to defeat Donald Trump.” Sanders cited two posts about him by ThinkProgress, a website run by CAP’s political arm, and past pieces focused on Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker. . .

“Center for American Progress leader Neera Tanden repeatedly calls for unity while simultaneously maligning my staff and supporters and belittling progressive ideas,” Sanders wrote, adding: “I and other Democratic candidates are running campaigns based on principles and ideas and not engaging in mudslinging or personal attacks on each other. Meanwhile, the Center for American Progress is using its resources to smear Senator Booker, Senator Warren, and myself, among others. This is hardly the way to build unity, or to win the general election.”

That PowerLine item links to an Eric Alterman item in The Nation seeming to basically say any liberal/neoliberal should be able beat Trump in 2020, so why risk Bernie's progressive approach (read it yourself should you doubt the characterization). Alterman appears to even take Howard Schultz seriously as a spoiler, go figure. Alterman's item's concluding paragraph, again, go figure:

Someday, all of this may change, and I—or more likely my daughter—will be able to vote for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for president. Today, however, with Trump as president, Democrats cannot afford to bet America’s future on an invisible “revolution.” Here’s hoping they realize this soon enough to protect the progressive achievements of the past from the destruction and devastation that would be the inevitable result of four more years of Donald Trump

Make what you want of the local GOP's love of the Alterman Chicken Little advice and objections to Bernie, advising not for anyone else in particular, but only fretful over Bernie's background and current policies as Alderman's needing to wait for his daughter's maturity times, not ours, or some such hashed mindset. At my age, why wait? The grave beckons, so fix things NOW. Why should overdue things such as joining other nations in healthcare delivery as a right, be delayed because Alterman frets too much at leaving Clintonapolis for a promised land.

Again, the PowerLine pundits link to mainstream media items, here and here; so check them out. From the NYT item (links in original):

Democratic leaders worked assiduously to heal rifts and avoid a recurrence in 2020, in part by overhauling the party’s presidential nomination process. Specifically, they engaged in extensive outreach to Mr. Sanders’s fervent base of liberal supporters, who had come to distrust party leadership as beholden to major donors who favored centrist positions and supported Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. Some viewed the Center for American Progress, and its leader, Neera Tanden, as part of that cabal, working to stymie liberal activists and ideas.

The letter from Mr. Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist who is among the early front-runners in the 2020 Democratic field, threatens to undo a delicate rapprochement, and could presage another bitter primary battle.

The Center for American Progress, which is known as CAP, was founded in 2003 by John D. Podesta, a close ally of the Clintons, and is based in Washington. It has played an important role in Democratic politics, even as it is legally required to be independent from the party. It has been funded by major Democratic donors, like the financier George Soros, as well as entities with interests that do not always align with progressive politics, including health insurance companies, Walmart, big banks, defense contractors and foreign governments.

Should any reader believe that CAP founder and still head honcho of its Board John Podesta is okay and grudge-free with his lobbying firm's loss from what could have been had he and the Clintons won against Trump, get real. If Bernie did not call that business out early, he'd have had to do so later, after yet more sly damage had been done to him, Warren and Booker. The PowerLine embrace of the situation now would be stronger, later. Also, should any reader believe that the last minute switch-insertion of Tom Perez instead of Kieth Ellison into DNC leadership after even Schumer had signed off on Ellison was "working assiduously to heal rifts," read something else, please. And if such a reader does not look at "among the early frontrunners" stated instead of "presently is the early frontrunner," ditto. Go and read PowerLine.

When a snake is in the house, take a stick and kill it, rather than ignoring it as if it might behave or leave or change its nature.

Who has the most former Clinton staffers on a present 2020 campaign? Research it.

former clinton campaign staff present 2020 campaign positions

The web is fairly clear that way. Also, ThinkProgress:

“It was electrifying. There was a buzz in the air. Soror Harris was met with warmth and hundreds of cameras clicking. She came in like she was floating and everyone was waiting just to catch a glimpse, to take a picture, to shake her hand. It was, as I said, something special.”

The celebrity-like treatment might be thought of as a coming-out party for Harris, a cozy place to launch her campaign with the advance knowledge that these black women — her fellow sorors of AKA — would be both a shield and a comfort as the presidential campaign got underway.

To lock down the Democratic nomination, Harris understands she’ll need to earn the unchallenged allegiance and passion of the voting bloc most likely to make that a reality — African American women.

It’s a strategy based on an emerging consensus that recognizes black women as must-get voters for Democratic candidates. If there was ever any doubt of this, the post-election analysis of the 2016 general election and the 2018 midterms dispelled it, as black women proved themselves to be Democrats’ most loyal, enthusiastic, and unified voting bloc. And for the election next year, past is prologue: winning the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 demands having the support of black women voters.

So it’s little wonder that Harris turned immediately to her AKA sisters to get out of the starting blocks quickly. Little-known outside the largely overlooked circle of black professionals and virtually ignored by the overwhelmingly white political and media establishments, the AKAs are a potent force of some 300,000 college-educated women in U.S. college chapters and in alumni groups across the nation — as well as several foreign countries.

They've got their dog in the hunt. They are not highlighting anything about Cory Booker's football background and academic skills at Stanford, are they? Who he formed freindships with during his earning his degree from one of the most prestigious universities in the nation. Big league, not less. Do you need a scorecard to tell you who is on which team?

The Israel lobby moves in mysterious ways. As in who put a document factually incorrect in front of Gov. Dayton to sign without it having been vetted by staff and handled in an official manner? And why in the world did he sign such a thing?

Text of the anti-BSD "declaration" which Dayton apparently signed is presented along with detail uncovered by Steve Timmer at Left.mn. In reporting, Timmer carefully documents the impropriety of such a thing existing, apparently, without any paper trail whatsoever in Minnesota's official records.

The "declaration" did not merely express a personal opposition Mark Dayton may have against BDS actions; but instead included a lengthy preamble recitation of pure BS, before getting to BDS.

Someone, bypassing regular channels and procedures did not do Mark Dayton any favors in gaining a signature to a most controversial and questionable document, however the signature was obtained.

Who?

At a best guess, Ilhan Omar would never treat such an emotionally charged policy question inartfully, but instead would move with full adherence to and respect for propriety of process. That she'd be principled that way, not presumptive or overreaching.

Being dismissive of the question, thinking AIPAC and this other Israel Lobby organization Timmer posts of being so effective in lobbying for Zionism and Israel, (current far-right-wing Israeli government orientation included), that rubber stamp expectations should apply is wrong.

Dissmisiveness toward the treatment of Palestinians in occupied territory west of the Jordan River by the Netanyahu government is simply wrong, as Rep. Omar and Rep. Tlaib have properly brought to focus. Despite the throwing of "anti-Semite" mud at each from multiple directions for their questioning acts of a foreign nation which much of the world has questioned, they have helped a dialog to emerge.

Saying as Omar did that Israel's present government is acting wrongly but has a strong lobby in the U.S. of A. is being truthful, not anti-Semitic.

Is this factual report from https://www.timesofisrael.com/ showing a critical position toward some Israeli developments anti-Semitic, in its urging that the State of Israel may be moving unacceptably among the nations of the world, or aiming to do so; and should stop:

Four Jewish Democrats warn Israel not to annex West Bank territory -- Eliot Engel, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch and Brad Schneider, known for strong AIPAC ties, allude to pre-election pledge by Netanyahu to extend Israeli law to settlements
By Ron Kampeas 12 April 2019, 4:35 pm

WASHINGTON (JTA) — Four Jewish Democrats in the US House of Representatives known for their ties to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee warned Israel not to annex West Bank territory, days after Benjamin Netanyahu’s election-eve pledge to do just that.

The statement by Reps. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., Ted Deutch, D-Fla. and Brad Schneider, D-Ill., did not name the Israeli prime minister, but alluded to his pledge on the eve of elections that he would extend Israeli law to all Jewish settlements in the West Bank, even those in remote areas, that would diminish the prospects of a contiguous Palestinian state. Netanyahu won the elections.

The statement signaled a warning from the party’s most pro-Israel wing that retreating from the two-state solution would be catastrophic for efforts to maintain close ties between Democrats and Israel. There is an emerging argument among Democrats on whether to become more sharply critical of Israel under Netanyahu.

“As strong, life-long supporters of Israel, a US-Israel relationship rooted in our shared values, and the two-state solution, we are greatly concerned by the possibility of Israel taking unilateral steps to annex the West Bank,” said the statement released early Friday.

[...] Despite the caveats, the statement is a shot across the bow from the four, who routinely attend AIPAC conferences and who have split with the party in the past to favor AIPAC positions, including in 2015 when each of them opposed the Iran nuclear deal. Three of the four hold senior positions in the House caucus: Engel chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, Lowey chairs the Appropriations Committee and Deutch chairs the Middle East subcommittee.

Were one to contend it is okay for AIPAC-active Jewish members of the House to criticize Israeli leadership, but anti-Semitism for Muslim members of the House who are critical of AIPAC and the Israel lobby's general reach to do so, one would look like a total fool. Engel, who signed that critique, was one of the most vocal critics of Ilhan Omar, but luckily his voice was but one of several with other voices more diverse in outlook.

Luckily, in today's times it is not third-rail political suicide to judge Israeli government conduct in a negative way; yet there is far to move to achieve anything like a balanced national outlook.

The two-state statement of the four Jewish Congressional members did contain much that was far too presumptive and in need of discussion on a level and fair basis. But a start is a start; and Omar is to be saluted for initiating a discussion, however one may criticize her wording. The fact is "the Benjamins" are a part of the Israel Lobby approach to DC. To deny that is to embrace a lie. Also there is bullying to "go with the flow," which Rep. Omar rightly declined.

__________UPDATE____________
Rounding things out, first an earlier Timmer post with a compelling opening image. Then, about the Benjamins, Omar has support for her taking on her efforts. And while from our nation's own right wing and not from the Israel Lobby or the Likud folks in Israel; Omar gets an online attack which is judged false in a factfinding report. Standing up for her beliefs and for members of her constituency is why she defeated multiple primary contestants for the seat Kieth Ellison was vacating to run for Minnesota Attorney General. Her primary win in her district was in a contest more meaningful in Minnesota's CD5 than the general election; Repubicans being a clear minority there. Rep. Omar has been a welcome new Democratic voice for Washington, DC, where same old was not/is not cutting it.

_________FURTHER UPDATE___________
J-Street, perhaps losing patience, in the news.

Also, Jacobin, "The Center for American Progress is the country's most prominent liberal think tank. But it isn't just buddy-buddy with Democratic elites like the Clintons — it's cozy with AIPAC and right-wing leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu."

Also, Salon reporting grassroots support for Minnesota's CD5 Congressperson,

Rep. Ilhan Omar [...] hauled in an astonishing $832,000 in the first quarter of 2019, NBC News reported. Just under half of that total, or $415,000, came from individuals who donated less than $200, according to Politico. Together, these figures suggest a large grassroots support for the freshman congresswoman.

_________FURTHER UPDATE____________
An op-ed from Australia rings a familiar bell:

In Australia, anybody who either defends Palestinians against Israeli policy during their political career, especially prior or during an electoral campaign, or insists that Israeli policy falls well short of humanitarian standards, is deemed a rabid anti-Semite frothing with manifest hatred. To limit criticism of questionable policies, its best to simply limit the terms used: avoid, for instance, a reference to “Israeli policy”, or “atrocities”, or “settlements”. Never mention “lobby” in the same sentence as “Israel”. Importantly, the strategy here is to conflate Jews and the expanse of their history and experience with the hard edged, often harsh features of Israeli policy, thereby meaning that any criticism of policy implies a libel on the Jewish people. Devious, that.

As Australia now moves into another federal election of characteristic, lowbrow tedium, a few sparks are starting to show in that regard. Interest has piqued towards certain members of the Australian Labor Party, targeted for expressing unscripted and inappropriate views favourable to Palestinians. Again, anything favourable towards a Palestinian state or critical of Israel’s approach to it is singled out for special treatment.

While being one writer's opinion, a coincidental parallelism is noteworthy by carrying a suggestion of worldwide propaganda style.

Anoka County, MN: Disagreement expressed online about the Rhonda $150,000 cash/position grab, or what looks like that. The anon. writer of Reflections in Ramsey writes.

Link. "Anoka County Board: ZERO Transparency. How Sad." Dated April 26, 2019. Only partly excerpted, (but readers have the link).

[...] The residents of Anoka County need to be assured that the best person for the job is vetted and voted on, PERIOD.

[...] TRANSPARENCY, with no back room politics, arm twisting or favors allowed.

She and a few of her cronies on the board have started a campaign of personal attacks on any other commissioner who doesn’t support her unopposed gift of the job.

Come on, Rhonda; you lambasted Erhart for operating that way for years, now you’re doing it.

[italics emphasis added] That Board of Commissioners by tradition meets mornings, when most citizens have duties making it difficult to attend meetings in person. Why? Go figure.

The item ends citing Strib, online here.

What's to add? Sunshine is the best disinfectant? That there just might be bigger fish in bigger ponds? That for obscure purposes a search/application process beyond the bounds of those already employed by the county, or recently so, is being forestalled, yet it would be the norm to avoid political incest.

Now, Mr/Ms Anonymous, post some salacious detail about "cronies on the board" and the whispering attacks on other commissioners who disagree with a Rhonda-up (as if we'd all want that, all in the whole entire county, a done deed but with some figleafing)? That is a questionable postulate at best.

NOTE: It is called a "whispering campaign" against some, because none of the bad-mouthing has been heard at Crabgrass. But that Board involves circles that are inbred and to themselves. Circles some don't bother with giving great attention at all times.

So who is bad-mouthing whom, when, how, where, saying what, to whom? Or is that the anon. author's speculation without evidence?

In closing, that board will choose whoever, and the quality of the choice will reflect the quality of those choosing. Small pond, very small. See earlier post.

______________UPDATE________________
YouTube. Do watch. At the end, mention of Jim Kordiak. He'd be a good candidate for head honcho, if he'd want the job. As things stand, he should be able to apply and be heard. Also, it appears Anoka Couny presently has a deputy commissioner, a situation where one might expect a desire to be fairly considered for a promotion. It will be interesting to see a finalist pool, once the 30 day posting expires. We await the reformed process reaching its conclusion, even without a search beyond the present county people - the bigger fish in the bigger ponds still being excluded from consideration for the top $150,000 grab the gold ring exercise. Gotta be on the carousel to have a grab at the gold ring, is how the Board set things up.

FURTHER: YouTube again; Sivarajah discussing her Board history, the item being from the last election cycle when she ran to retain her Board seat.

Bernie, town hall session, hosted by FOX.

On YouTube. Part 1. Part 2. YouTube appears to be set up to autoplay the parts in sequence, and at the end of Part 2 to rotor back to Part 1 for those who may have missed it. The crowd, from its reactions, tended to be favorable to much of what Bernie said. The crowd's questions involved a few softball questions, but all told, Bernie made his ideas clear. FOX hosting people did not try to bully or bluster, yet on occasion Bernie had to assert by speaking louder that it was his town hall.

"Most Actual Democrats Are Progressives-- Though Not The Ones In Congress"

Link.

ASSHOLES. People I disagree with and whose motives strike me as mean, vindictive and crass. [UPDATED]

Link, identifying them.

image

UPDATE: Bought and paid for ASSHOLES people I disagree with and whose motives I question, appearing as if  nursing a grudge.

FURTHER: Will they back Biden? Gillibrand? Or simply stand around slinging mud out of spite?

UPDATE NOTE: The DownWithTyranny site published a "Bernie confronts" follow-up report, here.

UPDATE NOTE: Below is the online letter Bernie sent to the people I disagree with and who appear to be nursing a grudge from 2016 when Bernie was the most compelling, progressive, and trustworthy candidate then running for president.

[click the thumbnails to enlarge and read]

FURTHER: Be suspicious of the Think Progress website; per the "Bernie confronts" post:

by Thomas Neuburger

[...] Well, the highly Clintonist, highly corporate establishment is at it again, in the form of the corrupt Center for American Progress (CAP) and its online publication ThinkProgress. (For more on their corruption, see also here and here.)

ThinkProgress published a video critical of Sanders, as Lee Fang (who also delves into their corruption) explains here:

The Center for American Progress, which sponsors ThinkProgress, is led by board president Tom Daschle, who is a registered lobbyist for Comcast CVS Health-Aetna, and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. TP used to criticize those companies, now they carry their water.
— Lee Fang (@lhfang) April 11, 2019

In response to that video Sanders sent CAP a letter, saying in part:

Center for American Progress leader Neera Tanden repeatedly calls for unity while simultaneously maligning my staff and supporters and belittling progressive ideas. I worry that the corporate money CAP is receiving is inordinately and inappropriately influencing the role it is playing in the progressive movement. (emphasis mine)

Team Sanders then went a whole lot further than that in a public fundraising letter, parts of which are reproduced below. [...] The letter also names a few of the companies and countries that bankroll CAP — Walmart, Bank of America, Blue Cross, Blackstone, the UAE. He could have listed a great many more. There are countless stories emerging from former ThinkProgress writers about CAP leadership squelching aggressive reporting because their reports were negatively affecting CAP fundraising. Read this twitter thread by former ThinkProgress reporter Zaid Jilani to see some of those. There are others as well.

Bernie Sanders is not backing down this time. Unlike 2016, this will be a battle with the enemy named out loud and its deeds detailed. Looks like the fight, the one our country has been avoiding for years, is finally on.

[bolding and links in original] Don't let the sack of snakes thrown onto the table fool you - it is Dem Party corporatists who threw the sack there.

It will be most informative if this astroturf [phony grassroot] operation backs any one particular 2020 candidate, either by overtly naming and endorsing one, or by trashing and mud slinging at the best of the others - make that the rest of the others who may down the line have traction going into 2020 primary/caucusing. Shun their choice - the big money talking choice.

Bernie on the camaign trail, in Pittsburgh, attracting the same big crowds as last cycle, and telling the truth about a prominent liar, and more.

YouTube. This link. He has to be the candidate. Theft of that from Bernie would be a theft from each of us, and do you want to be robbed?

The crowd is predominantly young, under 40 by appearances, and predominantly white. Nina Turner is working to get the message known within black communities, and people such as Kieth Ellison are there doing the same in Minnesota where I live. Ellison who advocates a fifty state Democratic Party approach as he'd have done if leadiing DNC. Bernie has good people backing him; Trump has thugs.

Other Democratic primary contestants are not without quality and worthwhile supporters. Biden? Whose choice is he, really? Big donors are not a part of any solution. Grassroots have to be respected and successful, now is the time the chance is ripe. Help the effort, or later wish you had.

Watch Bernie. Not an untrue thing. You can disagree on ideas, but in contrast to the White House occupant, truth is refreshing.

Katie Porter is yet another of the first-term House members elected in the 2018 election. She has generated less publicity than other first-term Reps, but has brains and chutzpah and is on the Financial Services Committee after a career as law professor and consumer finance reform advocate.

She studied at Harvard Law School under Elizabeth Warren, with a stellar career before being elected. [UPDATE: See, e.g., WaPo, here]

Campaign website About page. Wikipedia. Official House homepage. Websearch. From the latter link you can see this person hit the ground running, and she is ideally suited to represent the public interest on the Financial Services Committee. There were some smart California voters, when offered a real first class choice. Pay attention to see on an ongoing basis a skilled practitioner at work, for us.

Two immigrants in a conversation, Trevor Noah and Ilhan Omar.

YouTube, eleven and one half minutes.

More on Cheri Bustos and her DCCC leadership.

bible ... flags

Leaving Sinclair Lewis fact-checking aside, the key to this YouTube item, it was 4 views before I found it. The text appears to be from Politico, although it is unclear whether the YouTube post is Politico's, or that of a third-party. While playing background music the item cycles through a few images, repeating this one several times, as the text changes. From that Politico item,

Cheri Bustos takes on the new left - The DCCC chairwoman is standing firm against a progressive backlash. By HEATHER CAYGLE and LAURA BARRÓN-LÓPEZ, 04/04/2019 05:03 AM EDT

[...] “We don’t have time for games, we don’t have time for hugs and kisses,” Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said in an interview, praising Bustos for taking a hard line to protect the party’s incumbents ahead of a difficult 2020 campaign.

[...] In a heated meeting with Bustos last week, Pocan, Jayapal and Ro Khanna of California voiced their displeasure. Bustos stood her ground and appeared unwilling to change course. Khanna came out of the meeting angry, vowing to fight the policy until it was nixed.

But in the days since, progressives have shifted tactics, saying they want to keep the debate private, with Khanna saying, “these things take time.”

“We’re having ongoing conversations, but dealing with it in the public is counterproductive,” Pocan said, when asked whether Ocasio-Cortez’s tweets to her 3.8 million followers was helpful. “I’m dealing with it in the responsible way to make sure we get rid of the policy and that means dealing with it within the family.”

Meanwhile, Ocasio-Cortez told POLITICO on Wednesday she doesn’t have any additional plans to blast the DCCC on Twitter and said she’s “not sure” whether she is going to pay her member dues to the campaign arm.

Though Pocan and Jayapal insist the conversations are not over with Bustos are not over, the three lawmakers appear to be talking past one another. Bustos said she would ask progressives to “play the long game.”

“If we’re going to be successful as Democrats, and going into 2020 with a very, very fragile majority, we got to be on the same team,” said Bustos, adding that the new policy ensures the DCCC will spend “every cent we can to hang on to our majority and not work against ourselves.”

While running for the DCCC post, Bustos pitched herself as a Democrat with a unique ability to appeal to Trump voters while not shying away from taking on the president. The fourth-term lawmaker hails from a rural district in the northwestern corner of Illinois that Trump won in 2016 even as it reelected Bustos by 20 points.

The background image used at the start of this post appears to be from here. More YouTube views, here, where the Politico text is also used, with editorializing against Bustos/DCCC.

There is a Reddit thread, captioned, "‘We don’t have time for games’: Cheri Bustos takes on the new left." It uses the Politico image and the quote from Cedric Richmond, which is ironic in that the House had time for its H.R. 1 (see post below this one), and that time arguably was for nothing except playing games. The Reddit comments are unfavorable toward Bustos.

Going from opinion to substance, freebeacon.com posts, "Justice Democrats Organize Opposition to DCCC Policy Protecting Incumbents - BY: Cameron Cawthorne - April 5, 2019 11:30 am." That report cites a new page of renegade consultancies who affirmatively defy the DCCC ban; so you have that defiance together with Ocasio Cortez suggesting that individual progressives freeze out DCCC to a reliance solely upon its big money donors and its tithing of House membership, with Ocasio Cortez saying she' uncertain whether she'll pay the share she's tithed. If Bustos generates less money by inflaming the issue she's in trouble, and that could happen.

Cawthorne wrote [links from the original], about a counter-DCCC "blacklist" site Justice Democrats launched, https://dcccblacklist.com/:

"The DCCC is using their financial leverage to intimidate and blacklist many hardworking people in our movement in a blatant attempt to protect a handful of out-of-touch incumbents," the [counter-] DCCC blacklist website reads. "We’re launching The Blacklist to fight back and provide potential primary challengers with a database of go-to vendors, organizations, and consultants who will continue to support efforts to usher in a new generation of leaders into the Democratic Party."

Some of the groups listed on the website, which aren't abiding by the new DCCC policy, are Think Rubix, Democracy for America, Indivisible, Left Rising, and Working families.

Bustos, the DCCC chief, argues the new policy isn't specifically targeting progressives and that she isn't punishing consultants for their past work with incumbents, but progressives aren't convinced.

Progressive Caucus co-chairs Mark Pocan (D., Wis.) and Pramila Jayapal (D.,Wash), and caucus member Rep. Ro Khanna (D., Calif.) met with Bustos last month to voice their opposition against the new policy and demanded that it be reversed, but Bustos said she would not change the policy, according to Politico.

While Bustos hasn't showed signs she will be reversing the policy, Pocan told Politico he believes they are still having an "open conversation" and "there’s more to come" with their conversation.

"Let's be clear. If this policy remains in place, it will mean that we will not allow new Ayanna Pressleys or AOCs to emerge. It's simply wrong," Khanna told the Intercept. "It's also hypocritical for a party that champions strong antitrust. The DCCC is acting as a monopoly by saying that anyone who does business with them can't do business with any competition. It's the classic antitrust violation and an unfair restraint on trade. Many progressives in Congress will fight until this rule is changed. We stand for reform in Congress and reform of the Democratic Party machinery to make sure they prioritize our voters and the grassroots."

Ocasio-Cortez has vocally opposed the new policy on Twitter and has advised small-dollar donors to donate directly to Democratic primary challengers.

"The @DCCC’s new rule to blacklist+boycott anyone who does business w/ primary challengers is extremely divisive & harmful to the party," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. "My recommendation, if you’re a small-dollar donor: pause your donations to DCCC & give directly to swing candidates instead."

Dueling beltway consultancies? Had Bustos simply allowed an unwritten policy to continue, instead of enscrolling it as written policy, the SNAFU might not have happened. Whether it's best to air out the issue publicly or not, that is what Bustos decision making yielded. Bustos seems ambitious. "A lean and hungry look," as was once written by one attuned to human nature. Given the Senate and Trump as roadblocks to any actual House majority substantive action, perhaps the coverage of the Bustos business is proportional to its actual importance; i.e., the Democrats in control of the House cannot - yet - reform anything. The positioning going into the 2020 election is hence what is going on, and Bustos is sucking up to incumbents; however capable they may or may not be. It looks to be a power grab attempt to embroil Pelosi in the Bustos stew, while Pelosi simply tries to hold things together somewhat more discretely. It is far easier to fault Bustos.

___________UPDATE____________
Down With Tyranny, on Bustos. In general the site is covering things well, homepage, here.

Do you suppose the big money Dem donor pool has actively been squeezing Bustos, "If we buy them we want mileage, not any uncertain lesser thing"? "We want years to amortize the down payment, and in turn will keep up annual service fees"? "Years give the biggest return on investment; ROI being our thing"?

The guess here, she's doing it with a minimal but non-zero bit of input that way. Just being who she is, going where her ambitions lead her. Not blind ambition. Dead-end ambition, perhaps going to hell in a bucket but consultants on contract at least enjoying the ride.

FURTHER: The Bustos - Tyranny item begins:

"Cheri Bustos," they wrote of the woman quickly turning herself into her party's next Debbie Wasserman Schultz, "isn’t afraid of the insurgent left." That's so cute! I wonder if Bustos paid extra for that. "The chairwoman of House Democrats’ campaign arm has found herself in a very messy-- and public-- spat with progressives over the past week and a half. But the Midwestern moderate"-- ah, yes, Politico's favorite put down of progressives: calling corrupt conservatives like Blue Dog Bustos a "moderate," the most admired political term among American voters. What makes Bustos a moderate? That she votes with Republicans? That she opposes the most popular Democratic initiatives of the time-- like Medicare-For-All, free state colleges, the $15 minimum wage, and the Green New Dream? In Beltway conservative circles, opposing those initiatives is what makes someone "serious" and, apparently, "moderate."

Bustos, they continued "is refusing to budge, despite drawing ire from prominent progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has encouraged her millions of social media followers to halt donations to the campaign committee in retaliation." [Notice how the boogey man was just created in the narrative, the boogey man who the "moderate" shall vanquish.] Let's see what can they do to make Bustos sound all-American and heroic?

Then it suggests how to read the earlier linked Politico item, as to Politico specifics. Is the language too over the top? It is how Down With Tyranny is written, so remember, over the top does not mean actually wrong in argument or detail. Read it with an open mind, that way. Truth shows itself, regardless of rhetorical style.

FURTHER: Bustos and allied House cohorts have taken one self-touting step in the right direction, but their letter should have been aimed at the entirety/enormity of any/all DHS and ICE money being flowed to privateers. The letter down-parsed the size of the thing.

FURTHER: One of the better debunking of the mythological Cheri Bustos spun for us in the Politico item, Politico text first, the quote within a quote, and DWT rejoinder:

[... Politico being quoted]

While running for the DCCC post, Bustos pitched herself as a Democrat with a unique ability to appeal to Trump voters while not shying away from taking on the president. The fourth-term lawmaker hails from a rural district in the northwestern corner of Illinois that Trump won in 2016 even as it reelected Bustos by 20 points.

Only a Democrat as tragically lacking as Hillary could lose that district, which was gerrymandered by the Democratic-controlled state legislature so that Bustos would never lose her seat. Hillary's 1 point loss to Trump brought the PVI down to D+3, hardly the red district the Bustos cheering squad makes it out to be. Obama beat McCain there by a whopping 60.0% to 38.5% and then beat Romney 57.6-40.6%. Last year Bustos beat Republican Bill Fawell 142,659 (62.1%) to 87,090 (37.9%). Politico -- and most House Dems -- are too dull-witted to look into the bullshit Bustos has spewed about her epic battle to win the hicks in Trump country. IL-17 may not have embraced Hillary, but this district was drawn for Democrats, and very successfully so. You want Bustos to teach you how to win in a red district? All she can tell you is to make sure your state legislature gerrymanders the Republicans out of it and into IL-18, where the PVI suddenly shot up from a stable R+11 to a blood red R+16. Easy as pie. Now elect me DCCC chair too.

That looks to be an ideal place for a real Democratic Party progressive to primary. It looks like Joe Crowley land, except not a primarily Hispanic demographic carrying an establishment regular white guy; but more of a Blue Dog pound. Still, someone offering a Bernie agenda should give it theo old college try. A Bustos defeat there would be a Cantor-like occurrence, because it would not have the Crowley "changing demographics" excuse set in place. It would be a total repudiation of big money DCCC mindset. Especially if the challenge were conducted on that - get big money influence mongering out the door policy norm - as one of several progressive-change issues. Bustos ousted, would be other than business as usual. And even should a primary challenge fail, at least it would be Bustos still rather than a seat lost, somehow, to Repubicans. It would either way on a primary keep that seat in the "razor-thin" majority Bustos says she'd like protected. Just, protect it with a better human being.

Does your bullshit meter pin out on this one? Using USA Today coverage as a vehicle, how does the propagada thing, House Resolution 1, ring to you in light of DCCC stifling primary challengers or trying to, and its taking lobby money? Bustos voted for H.R. 1, so go figure if it's bona fide unless/until Bustos is primaried out of office. [UPDATED]

Earlier Crabgrass posting on DCCC needs no repeating. Open with an image:

Only an Act. image source, here

With the image source being a report on this "for the People" thing; don't bullshit the people, please. It is unbecoming for leadership to do so.

This for show business was passed knowing it would be D.O.A. in the Senate because McConnell had said exactly that, yet the item passed on Dem majority party lines in the House, taking up time that could have been spent on real business, given how the highfalutin thing was only for show. Bustos/DCCC working to discredit it at the same time as an unbelieved cynical token; the tokenism being evidenced by the Bustos/DCCC disdain heaped on the people's chance to get better than bought incumbency via primary challenges of too comfortable incumbents.


The USA Today item (dated March 8, 2019 describing H.R. 1), from which the image was taken, can be read in its entirety, while it states in part:

The House passed a sweeping anti-corruption and government ethics package Friday [March 5, 2019]that would fundamentally reshape how campaigns are run, how elections are conducted and how officeholders conduct themselves.

The measure, known as the For The People Act or H.R. 1' [...] was approved 234-193 along party lines.

"H.R. 1 restores the people's faith that government works for the public interest, the people's interest, not the special interest," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Friday morning on the steps of the U.S. Capitol surrounded by members of her caucus. It "is fundamental to a democracy that people believe that actions taken here will be in their interest."

The bill has no chance to become law. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said it's a "terrible bill" that he won't give any floor time.

GOP critics say the measure is an unconstitutional maneuver that would enable voter fraud, saddle taxpayers with unnecessary costs and tilt elections in favor of Democrats.

"This bill is a Democrat push to elect more Democrats and to put more money into the pockets of members of Congress and anyone running for election ... under the guise of campaign finance reform," said Rodney Davis, R-Ill., the top Republican on the Committee on House Administration, which handled the bill.

[links in original] From that point, the USA Today item extols bill provisions; even with it stated up front the thing was going nowhere and hence suggesting it was only for show. Reporting elsewhere critiquing the DCCC decision making is consonant with "only for show," and dissonant with "meant at all seriously."

Why did they bother? Weigh in mind the Pelosi quote:

It "is fundamental to a democracy that people believe that actions taken here will be in their interest."

Given the DCCC mischief, and Pelosi seeming keenly fine with it, one can only conclude the key Pelosi word in that sentence is "believe."

______________UPDATE_____________
There is YouTube reactive analysis about Obama surfacing from retirement wealth and comfort to say, go slow, learn the process. Here and here, each using the same Obama surfacing polimics delivered in Berlin.

Compare one of the new voices, here.

This H.R. 1 post can fit well in the light of Obama days and ways, as they unfolded. Using his sloganeering; selling HOPE and doing business as usual, warts and all, while selling CHANGE worked then, but made us wiser.

HOPE pitched at us with business as usual is exactly what H.R. 1 embodies, Pelosi and all knowing well that it is exactly what the theater was done to achieve. We want the CHANGE part, the reality, not the HOPE.

If the Pelosi and Bustos folks think business as usual with a cherry atop with a flag stuck in it suffices, that's pure bullshit. And the two video critiques of Obama ring true while the House with its H.R. 1 brief opening excursion from business as usual rings wholly and cynically false. Indulging in falsehood serves nobody well. It might be self deluding for the House Democratic caucus, a doubtful possibility, but the people are not deluded. They, instead are sick and tired of bullshit being served them while those wielding wealth get serviced, with gusto.

Why would "go slow," and incrementalism satisfy anybody? If CHANGE is not happening now, it needs to be goosed into happening. As Keynes said, "In the long run, we're all dead."

NOW. CHANGE either is now, or it is not CHANGE, but less, and less is insufficient. 

SELLING "HOPE" IN THE ABSENCE OF "CHANGE" IS INSUFFICIENT.