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?