SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:#222;padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 980px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Republicans appear to be paying no price for turning the Kirk event into a right-wing, Christian nationalist, white supremacist MAGA political rally.
The memorial services for Charlie Kirk last week and for Senator Paul Wellstone in 2002 illustrate how much our political culture has changed over the past two decades.
Both men were charismatic figures on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Wellstone died in a plane crash. Kirk was murdered on a college campus. Wellstone was an elected official. Kirk was a political agitator. They both lived interesting lives. But what’s fascinating is how their respective supporters, their opponents, and the media reacted to their deaths and, in particular, to the memorial services organized to eulogize them.
Wellstone, a former community organizer and political science professor at Carleton College, was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1990, defeating a Republican opponent with a grassroots campaign that included clever TV ads emphasizing his low-budget operation and his high-energy activism. He won reelection six years later. At the time, he was the Senate's most progressive member (Bernie Sanders was not yet in the Senate) and was known as the "conscience of the Senate."
On October 25, 2002, Wellstone (along with seven others, including his wife) died in a small plane crash, one week before the election in which he was running for a third term. Minnesota law required that Wellstone’s name be stricken from the ballot and replaced by the Democratic Farmer Labor Party. One day after the crash, the DFL selected former Vice President Walter Mondale as its Senate candidate.
On October 29, Wellstone’s family and friends organized a public memorial event at the Williams Arena in Minneapolis (the University of Minnesota's basketball arena), which was broadcast live on national TV. High-profile Democrats (including former president Bill Clinton) and Republicans (including Senator Trent Lott) as well as Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura (an independent) attended the service, but only Wellstone's family and close friends spoke at the event.
Their remarks were not vetted or scripted. One of the speakers was Wellstone's close friend and former campaign treasurer, Rick Kahn. He began his speech as a conventional eulogy, but it shifted into a call to action, suggesting that the best way to honor Wellstone's memory was to keep organizing: "We’re gonna organize, we’re gonna organize, we’re gonna organize, we’re gonna organize, we’re gonna organize, we’re gonna organize!...[T]ogether, we can and will continue to fight every one of his fights; and together we can and will achieve great victories in Paul Wellstone’s name.’’ Kahn then rallied the crowd by urging them to "keep Paul Wellstone's legacy alive" by helping Mondale win the Senate election.
Republicans immediately attacked the Democrats for turning the memorial service into a political rally. They demanded "equal time" on TV to counter the event's messages. Former Republican Minnesota congressman Vin Weber said, ‘‘The DFL clearly intends to exploit Wellstone’s memory totally, completely and shamelessly for political gain. To them, Wellstone’s death, apparently, was just another campaign event.
The Republicans were particularly rankled that two weeks earlier, Wellstone was among the 21 Senate Democrats (out of 50) to vote against the authorization for the use of US military force in Iraq, a key component of President George W. Bush's rally-round-the-flag response to the 9/11 bombing. They also knew that if the GOP candidate (former St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman) defeated Mondale, it would flip the Senate, so they orchestrated a full-scale attack on the Democrats for politicizing the Wellstone memorial event.
The media echoed the Republicans' (as well as Ventura's) attack on the Democrats for “politicizing” the memorial event. The orchestrated backlash worked. A poll conducted by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune a few hours before the memorial service found that Mondale was leading Coleman by eight points. But on election day, Coleman won by 2.2%. His victory ended the Democrats' one-seat majority in the Senate. On election day, Republican Tim Pawlenty won a three-way race for Minnesota governor, while the GOP flipped one House seat and made gains in the state legislature.
Some journalists and professors began describing what occurred as the "Wellstone effect." For example, after Senator Ted Kennedy, the key proponent of universal health insurance, died in 2009, Rush Limbaugh warned that Democrats would turn his memorial service into a "Wellstone memorial on steroids." NBC News observed that ‘‘Anyone addressing the health care bill at the [Kennedy] service will tread a fine line between taste and politics...The dangers of politicizing a memorial event were illustrated by a 2002 memorial for Sen. Paul Wellstone."
The memorial service for Charlie Kirk (at a football stadium in Glendale, Arizona) was obviously a political rally by MAGA Republicans to turn Kirk into a martyr for their cause, to keep his legacy and his right-wing organization Turning Point USA alive, and to exact vengeance and whip up anger against Democrats, liberals, "the left," the media, and all those Trump views as his opponents. Kirk held no office, but he was close to Trump and Vice President JD Vance. His final speaking tour (which included the Utah event where he was killed) was clearly intended not only to build the MAGA movement but also to help Republicans win the 2026 midterm House elections that Trump is worried they could lose.
Trump used his 40-minute speech to highlight campaign talking points like tariffs, crime in Chicago, and fear-mongering about the unproven consequences of Tylenol as well as to call for revenge against his opponents.
“Charlie Kirk truly was ... he was a missionary with a noble spirit and a great, great purpose,” the president said. “He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That's where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent and I don't want the best for them.”
Several speakers praised Kirk’s mission to carry out a conservative Christian vision of the United States. “We always did need less government,” said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. “But what Charlie understood and infused into his movement is that we also needed a lot more God.”
Tucker Carlson even compared Kirk’s murder to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
The most vitriolic remarks came from Stephen Miller, Trump’s key consigliere, who the previous week vowed to avenge Kirk’s death by “go[ing] after the left-leaning organizations” that, he claimed, “are promoting violence in this country.”
At Kirk’s memorial service, Miller -- a foaming-at-the-mouth fanatic -- declared: “Erika [Kirk's widow] is the storm. We are the storm. And our enemies cannot comprehend our strength, our determination, our resolve, our passion."
“Our lineage and our legacy hails back to Athens, to Rome, to Philadelphia, to Monticello,” Miller continued. “Our ancestors built the cities. They produced the art and architecture. They built the industry,” he said, pulling “us out of the caves and the darkness into the light."
“We built the world that we inhabit now, generation by generation, and we will defend this world,” he added.
Addressing “the forces of wickedness and evil,” Miller thundered. “You have nothing. You are nothing. You are wickedness, you are jealousy, you are envy, you are hatred. You are nothing. You can build nothing. You can produce nothing. You can create nothing. We are the ones who build. We are the ones who create. We are the ones who lift up humanity."
“You have no idea the dragon you have awakened,” he warned, as the MAGA movement will strive to “save this civilization, to save the west, to save this republic, because our children are strong, and our grandchildren will be strong, and our children’s children’s children will be strong. And what will you leave behind? Nothing, nothing.”
Even if one believes that Paul Wellstone's friends and family, acting out of grief, erred in politicizing the 2002 memorial service, nothing said at that event reflected the kind of hate-mongering, venom-spewing, and demonizing of opponents that we saw at the Kirk memorial, which was like a combination of a religious revival meeting and a KKK rally. Our culture has come to accept as normal the kind of hysterical rants and raves espoused by Kirk's friends and colleagues, including Trump, Vance, and Miller.
Moreover, after the Republicans and much of the media ganged up to condemn the Wellstone memorial, the Democrats paid dearly. In contrast, Republicans appear to be paying no price for turning the Kirk event into a right-wing, Christian nationalist, white supremacist MAGA political rally.
Unlike the Republicans' backlash against the Wellstone memorial service, which they claimed was illegitimate and even illegal, today’s Democratic leaders, liberals, and the mainstream media seem intimidated from telling the truth about the memorial service that echoed and honored Kirk's outrageous views, which, polls show, are strongly opposed by most Americans. The failure of current Democratic leaders and the media to challenge this apocalyptic, white supremacist, Christian nationalist fever is part of the problem.
The most progressive of the candidates under serious consideration was the one Kamala Harris has decided to put on the ticket. It was her choice and she made a good one.
The few weeks of speculation are over. Kamala Harris has selected Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her VP running mate.
All six of the leading candidates had strengths and weaknesses that have been endlessly discussed. Whoever Harris selected, some of her supporters were bound to be disappointed. I believe that nothing is more important in U.S. politics at this moment than defeating both Trump and Trumpism. And so I have been prepared to write in support of whoever was the nominee. All the same, I honestly think that Walz is the best choice, and I am both relieved and heartened that it is he that Harris has chosen.
Walz is a Minnesota progressive (think Walter Mondale with a touch of Paul Wellstone) who can help carry Minnesota and Wisconsin (states in his media market) and Michigan, and he is the kind of plain-spoken, no-bullshit guy that will play well throughout the “heartland”—and will be able to call bullshit, figuratively and literally, on J.D. Vance and his “hillbilly elegies.”
While Josh Shapiro, like Harris, has had a “typical” career trajectory from law school to politics, Walz served for 24 years in the Army National Guard and is the highest-ranking enlisted soldier to ever serve in the U.S. Congress—where he served for 12 years as a major supporter of veteran’s affairs. He is a former high school teacher and football coach who received his college degree—a B.S.—from Chadron State College in Nebraska (where, you ask? Exactly the point). He is a hunter and gun owner. In other words, he is the farthest thing from a “coastal liberal” that it is possible to be.
Walz is very strong on social and economic issues, which is why he has been the favored choice of Bernie Sanders and other progressives. He has been described as a “Minnesota social democrat,” and this is accurate. But so too was Walter Monday and Hubert Humphrey before him—neither a Bernie Sanders-type. Walz might well be the person in this race whose profile is closest to—Joe Biden. And he promises to do for Harris’s campaign what Biden did for Barack Obama’s in 2008.
Walz is very strong on social and economic issues, which is why he has been the favored choice of Bernie Sanders and other progressives.
Shapiro is a very successful Democratic governor who promised to carry Pennsylvania and its 19 electoral votes (it is worth noting that Minnesota and Wisconsin each have 10 electoral votes, and Michigan another 15). He is a more “centrist” politician than Walz, and he was supported by many donor-types because of his more neoliberal views on economics (especially school choice), and also by many pro-Zionist groups because of his positions on the Israel/Gaza war and on campus protest. And he is probably more closely associated with the Biden administration’s feckless handling of the Middle East crisis than any other candidate. But these policy positions also threatened to alienate many of the base democratic constituencies—young people, Arab-Americans, many of the BLM-linked civil rights groups—whose mobilization will be crucial in November. (And the notion that progressive opposition to Shapiro because of his positions on the Gaza war and campus protest is antisemitic is bullshit, though it draws on tropes that right-wing Zionists have been deploying ever since October 7.).
Shapiro’s profile as a Democratic rising star is indeed rather close to Harris’s—and indeed in the end it might have been his ambition and his strong personality that caused Harris to look elsewhere for a partner. The notion that Harris is a “leftist” who needs to be balanced by Shapiro’s centrism is risible, and it is worth reminding those making this claim that when she campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2019-2020, she was very much in the middle of a race whose two most dynamic candidates, for some time, were Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. At that time, she was being attacked from the left for not being radical enough (I published a piece on this back in February 2019 entitled “Kamala Harris Is Not a Red-Baiter, She’s Just Not a Socialist, Like Most Americans.”) The Trump campaign will lie about her “leftism.” But the proper antidote to such lies is simply the effective promulgation of the truth.
In short, Walz “balances” Harris on the ticket better than Shapiro ever could.
And if Shapiro and Fetterman–who hate each other, another interesting dynamic that might have played a role in Harris’s choice of Walz–are the Pennsylvania power-houses they each claim to be, then they should be able to deliver their state to the Democrats anyway (I assume that at some point the support of “Scranton Joe” might also play a role).
Harris has made a fantastic choice, even if it will disappoint some of the neocons who have realigned with the Democratic Party.
In yesterday’s The Bulwark, Bill Kristol—full disclosure, a friend with whom I have collaborated—argued strenuously that Shapiro is the only strong VP candidate, and that Harris’s failure to name him would be the “first unforced error of her campaign,” potentially stalling her momentum and also making her look weak “after the campaign against him from the left.” Kristol was not wrong to note Shapiro’s strengths. But, as I indicate above, these strengths are exaggerated, and come with serious weaknesses; indeed Kristol admits that “Harris could still win without Shapiro.”
Harris has made a fantastic choice, even if it will disappoint some of the neocons who have realigned with the Democratic Party.
Kristol exaggerates the extent to which there has been a “campaign against” Shapiro as opposed to an honest debate about who would be best. For as he himself notes, most Harris supporters have said that they would support whoever Harris picks. The differences between the VP candidates were not great, and all were and are firmly in the general orbit of Harris—who is of course the person who matters most.
The Democratic Party is a big tent party that has become even bigger since Trump forced many former Republicans out of the GOP. “Never Trump” Republicans are now an important part of the “common front” against the MAGA movement, as the Harris campaign has clearly acknowledged with its launching of “Republicans for Harris.” And centrist Democrats—of which there are a great many—are a core constituency of the party. But the progressive wing of the Democratic party is equally central; it has been pivotal for the Biden administration’s economic agenda and for its legislative success; and the successful mobilization of its supporters is essential to a Harris victory in November. Harris has demonstrated her savvy, and her leadership skills, by refusing to play against her own party’s left, and by choosing a running mate—Walz—who is, in all honesty, capable of appealing to the party’s diverse constituencies, while being as mainstream and middle America as they come.
But the main reason why Harris’s choice of Walz is the right choice is much simpler: because it was Harris’s choice to make, and she has made it.
In a matter of weeks, she has gone from being the running mate of a depressed and failing Biden campaign to being the dynamic leader of her own presidential campaign. She has been able to bridge divides within her party, to mobilize the entire range of Democratic constituencies behind her candidacy, and to generate an unprecedented amount of fundraising and volunteer enthusiasm.
For whatever combination of personal and political reasons, she has chosen Tim Walz.
It is now incumbent on everyone who believes that a Trump victory would be a disaster for social justice and democracy to support the Harris-Walz ticket and to do the work necessary to bring it a resounding victory in November.
Power to the People!" blared over the speakers at Navy Pier Festival Hall in Chicago in early March, as U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders walked onstage in front of roughly 12,500 cheering supporters and declared, "We are gathered here tonight to complete the political revolution that we started three years ago."
With rocking campaign kickoff rallies in Brooklyn and Chicago, more than a million volunteers signed up, and $10 million raised in small-dollar donations within a week of his announcement, Sanders is making a serious bid to be the Democratic candidate who faces Donald Trump in 2020.
After all, he says, his 2016 campaign has already had a lasting impact on the Democratic Party.
"Three years ago, they thought we were kinda crazy and extreme," Sanders said in Chicago. "Not the case anymore. Three years ago, the ideas that we brought forth here in Illinois and all over the country were rejected by Democrats. Not anymore."
Indeed, the other Democratic candidates in a crowded primary field are beginning to sound a lot like Sanders. Senator Kamala Harris, Democrat of California, is backing a "Medicare for All" universal health care plan. Elizabeth Warren, who has always shared Sanders's concerns about income inequality, corporate welfare, and wrongdoing by Wall Street, is also pushing the Democratic debates to the left. Even Senator Amy Klobuchar, of Minnesota, a centrist candidate, talks about "getting to universal health care" and invoked the late community organizer and progressive Senator Paul Wellstone in her announcement speech.
It's a new day for Democrats.
Medicare for All and the Green New Deal have new champions in Congress--including progressive rock star Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democratic Socialist of New York, who was inspired to get into politics by Sanders.
But is Sanders, a seventy-seven-year-old white man, the best face for the new Democratic Party? When Vermont Public Radio reporter Bob Kinzel asked him that question, Sanders replied:
"We have got to look at candidates, you know, not by the color of their skin, not by their sexual orientation or their gender, and not by their age." Instead, he said, we need to move toward "a nondiscriminatory society which looks at people based on their abilities, based on what they stand for."
But surely representation of marginalized people means something in the era of Donald Trump, who was elected partly in a backlash against the nation's first African American President, with an aggressively misogynist and xenophobic campaign, as a kind of White Man's Last Stand.
That's why Representatives Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar, along with Stacey Abrams, who almost became the first African American governor of Georgia, are such an exciting new generation of leaders.
Especially this year, it would be nice to see a young, progressive woman of color pick up the mantle from Bernie. But, so far, there is no Democratic candidate in the race who is more progressive than Sanders.
All of the Democratic candidates are emphasizing unity in the divisive Trump era. All are sounding economic populist themes.
Not Kamala Harris, the tough prosecutor who says she is personally opposed to the death penalty, but as California's state attorney general defended its use in a federal lawsuit. Not Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, whose ties to Wall Street and the charter school industry have alienated him from labor, teachers' unions in particular. And not former Vice President Joe Biden, who once called for getting "predators" off the streets through a draconian crime bill.
Elizabeth Warren, who thrilled progressives when she flirted with running in 2016, is the favorite candidate of the million-member Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), which coined the term "the Elizabeth Warren Wing" of the Democratic Party.
Back when Warren was still unsure whether to run in 2016, a progressive political consultant told me that some advisers had begun tossing around the idea of a "plan B for Bernie." Sanders was not a fan of the phrase.
Now that Bernie has become a household name, and has been leading in early polls, it's not clear if Warren can reclaim her mantle as leader of her wing of the party.
The PCCC has been doing a funny dance, putting out positive statements about Sanders, while reiterating the view that Warren is the best candidate.
This year, Warren was the first Democratic candidate to announce, at a rally in Lawrence, Massachusetts, where she took the stage to the working women's anthem "9 to 5." She told the story of Lawrence's female, immigrant textile workers who led the great strike of 1912, launching the modern labor movement.
"It's a story about power--our power, when we fight together," she declared, connecting the early struggles of working people to the fight for $15 an hour, family leave, universal health care, and "big, structural change" to transform a rigged system.
Amy Klobuchar struck a different tone, announcing her candidacy on the banks of the Mississippi during a snowstorm and emphasizing her Midwestern roots.
"Let us cross the river of our divides and walk across our sturdy bridge to higher ground," Klobuchar said, before closing with the requisite "God bless the United States of America."
All of the Democratic candidates are emphasizing unity in the divisive Trump era. All are sounding economic populist themes. All denounce the Trump Administration's cruelty to immigrants and emphasize racial harmony and civil rights.
The Sanders campaign, well aware that Sanders needs to shore up his support among black voters, leaned hard on his civil rights bona fides in Chicago. After a rip-roaring introduction from his African American campaign co-chair Nina Turner, who connected the Sanders campaign to the freedom struggle going back to Harriet Tubman, Sanders talked about his formative years as a civil rights activist with the Congress of Racial Equality.
In her announcement in Oakland, California, Harris talked about being the daughter of a father from Jamaica and a mother from India who met while participating in the civil rights movement. Then, like Klobuchar, she closed out her speech with a "God bless you" and "God bless the United States of America."
Despite her background, and her support for Medicare for All, Harris sounds like an establishment candidate.
Not Sanders. The 1960s music, the fist-pumping by the young neighborhood activists who preceded him to the podium, the ebullient in-your-face speech by Nina Turner--all of it looked like a nightmare come to life for conservatives of both political parties. This was the specter they tried to attach to Obama: socialism, radical activists from the 1960s, race and class antagonism. Sanders isn't running from it. He's leaning in.
He threw down the gauntlet on corporations that pay no taxes, on big pharmaceutical companies that rip off the sick and elderly. And this: "Today, we say to the military industrial complex that we will not continue to spend $700 billion a year on the military--more than the next ten nations combined." We should invest in human needs, he said, "not more nuclear weapons and never-ending wars."
The Democrats' dilemma is bringing together the economic justice message that caught on in 2016 with the Sanders campaign, helped elect a Republican outsider who sounded like a populist, and has gained even more traction since then, with so-called identity politics--a phrase used to dismiss the aspirations of underrepresented people, who, in the violently racist and sexist Trump Administration, are in no mood to be overlooked.
It's not an easy task. For one thing, voters have become even more polarized since 2016, including geographically. The Democrats are now the party of urban areas, while Republicans are the party of rural areas and small towns.
Besides the tensions between "Bernie Bros" and Hillary supporters left over from the last election, there is the question of what to do about white, rural voters who feel abandoned by both parties.
I've met some of those voters recently, while covering the dairy farm crisis across the Upper Midwest. Some are Obama/Trump voters who supported Trump to throw a rock at the whole system. In their announcement speeches, the Democratic candidates tried to appeal to them.
"We will end the decline of rural America, reopen those rural hospitals that have been closed, support family-based agriculture, and make sure that our young people have decent jobs so that they do not have to leave the small towns they love and where they grew up," Sanders said.
Klobuchar pledged to connect every household to the Internet by 2022, "and that means you, rural America."
And Warren, in recalling those textile workers who helped launch the labor movement, said, "It's a story about power--our power, when we fight together."
At the Sanders rally, when his fans began to chant "Bernie! Bernie!," the candidate scolded them a little, reminding them that this is a group effort. "No, no. Nope. Not Bernie--all of us," he said. The crowd obediently switched to a murky "Go, we, go!"
"Now we're talking," Sanders said.
Sheesh. Can't the revolutionaries have a little fun?
If we do not allow Trump to divide us, Sanders said in closing, "if we stand together," gay and straight, black and white, urban and rural, male and female, "if we believe in love and compassion, the truth is there is nothing we cannot accomplish."
Well said. But easier said than done.