Seeds Planted for Bernie Sanders-Led Grassroots Revolution

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

12 May 15

ithin 24 hours of making his presidential bid official, Senator Bernie Sanders raised $1.5 million dollars from 35,000 donors. To put this in perspective, he raised more money than Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and maybe Hillary Clinton. Clinton did not release her first day totals. “Bernie,” as his supporters call him, out-raised every campaign that reported their first day totals. The average contribution to his campaign was $43.54.

On CBS’s Face the Nation, Sanders noted that, since he announced his candidacy at the end of April, 200 thousand people have pledged to volunteer and he has received nearly 90,000 donations. “I don’t think we’re going to outspend Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush or anybody else, but I think we are going to raise the kinds of money we need to run a strong and winning campaign,” said Sanders.

While touring the country on his “listening tour,” Sanders repeatedly said that he would not run if he didn’t think enough support was there for him to run an effective campaign.

Whenever he talks about his agenda, he says no president could achieve it without millions of people backing him in a grassroots revolution. It’s early in the campaign, but so far signs are the revolution he called for is starting to take shape.

Last Wednesday over 250 activists from around the country came together on a conference call to kick off a new grassroots organization called “People for Bernie Sanders.” People on the call were not your typical Democratic Party activists. They were veteran organizers who don’t generally get involved in electoral politics. Many came from the Occupy movement and would probably be organizing protests in candidates’ offices if a candidate hadn’t emerged that they could believe in. I’m not saying these folks have ruled out a protest or two, but for now they are jumping into the electoral arena. One thing that separates them from other candidates’ supporters is they are organizing outside of the official campaign. There won’t be a top down agenda that they all have to adhere to.  Local groups are encouraged to “be the campaign.”

Charles Lenchner, one of the conveners of “People for Bernie Sanders” explained it this way: “We want supporters of Bernie Sanders to build a broad movement to elect him and ‘just do it’; this is not the same as waiting for some entity (or email list) to give you specific instructions. Right now, at this moment, there simply is no Bernie campaign where most voters reside; the best antidote is for everyone to collectively bootstrap what they can. This is our advantage to counter the money power of the corporate candidates.” Lenchner said they are in communication with the campaign and want to coordinate their activities.

Shana East, the regional director for People for Bernie summed it up this way: “A grassroots movement is a homegrown movement. It’s from the bottom up, not top down. So, we don’t wait for someone in Washington D.C. to allow us to do something. We decide on a local level what needs to be done and then we do it. We call this a Do-ocracy!”

East, who said the core group involved in People for Bernie has been so busy that many have not slept in a week, helped organize 2 meetups already in Chicago. The first one drew 75 people with only one day’s notice. She described the events as very passionate, with people getting involved in the discussion and preparing to work. Activists around the country are organizing meetups in their communities.

One common theme at the meetups has been expressed in statements like Jake Kaufman’s in Chicago, who said, “This is my first campaign. because Bernie’s the first candidate I’ve ever been inspired by.”

People for Bernie is not the only grassroots effort working outside the official campaign. Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) launched "Run Bernie Run” as far back as August, even before MoveOn launched "Run Warren Run.” Vermont Today reported in August: “If Bernie does run, we can definitely get resources to help him move forward in states like Iowa and New Hampshire,” said Conor Boylan, co-director of the Progressive Democrats of America. “We are going to continue to keep an eye on him because our base loves him; he is creating a lot of buzz.” 

On Facebook there are multiple pages in many states with thousands of followers. One group, Bernie Sanders for President 2016, is doing their best to maintain a list of all the Facebook pages and even has formed a private group of administrators from the various pages to coordinate efforts. 

With the Sanders campaign just getting started, the early response has to be encouraging. While the pundits continue to describe the race for the Democratic Party nomination as a “coronation” for Hillary Clinton, Sanders supporters are not going to concede. They know they have an uphill fight, but are a committed bunch. They come from movements that understand struggle. Bernie himself acknowledges that change does not come without a fight. He does however see a path to victory: “There is, in my view, massive dissatisfaction in this country today with corporate establishment and the greed of corporate America and the incredibly unequal distribution of wealth and income which currently exists.” Sanders also said his record on this issue over the past 25 years shows that he has led the way in standing up for working families and taking on “the billionaire class,” Wall Street, private insurance companies, and drug companies.

Sanders always concludes his stump speech by reminding people that progressives have been winning on many fronts. He gives examples ranging from an African American being elected president to the acceptance of gay marriage. He says that 30 years ago nobody would have believed these things possible.

Convincing people he can win is the biggest obstacle Bernie and his supporters have. Eight years ago, Hillary Clinton was the presumptive nominee. She wasn’t polling as strongly as this time, but with seasoned candidates like John Edwards and Joe Biden in the race, voters had options they were familiar with. Before Barack Obama won Iowa, the polls showed Hillary Clinton as the top choice of African Americans. They didn’t believe America was ready for a black man to win. After Iowa, they became believers. So it is possible to overcome the “I love Bernie but he just can’t win” mindset.

If the American people vote for the candidate who best represents their interests, they will vote for Bernie Sanders.

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

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

ALSO SEE: Pakistanis Knew Where Osama Bin Laden Was, US Sources Say

The Bin Laden Raid: The Truth Is Out There

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

12 May 15

In which we learn that what we know is rarely enough.

he ongoing, unquiet death of Osama bin Laden apparently is going to be the only thing we are entirely sure about regarding the circumstances of the raid on the compound in Abbottabad in 2011. The man is still dead and his body is still at the bottom of the sea. Beyond that, it seems the events ever will be obscured by strange international politics, multi-dimensional spook-play, and an incomprehensible tangle of agendas and motivations. The killing of bin Laden was a subtext of all the Benghazi nonsense. (The administration, you see, wanted the "narrative" of al Qaeda on the run, so that's why they covered up the events at the compound.) It engaged the national debate over torture again, this time through a Hollywood movie. There was a brawl over whom shot whom and where on the night in question, and dueling books were published. It has been used as a justification for everything from waterboarding to the re-election of the president. And now, Seymour Hersh has chimed in with an account that turns everything we thought we knew about the events on their head.

In brief, Hersh's story contends that the raid was not an all-American production, that bin Laden in fact was being held in Abbottabad and not "hiding in plain sight," and that the whole story of how the CIA found him through his couriers -- and, say the torturers, how they found the couriers through torturing people -- is pure moonshine. According to Hersh, the United States found bin Laden because a Pakistani official turned him in for a piece of the $25 million reward, and the Pakistani government was aware of the raid before it began. He also asserts that the story of bin Laden's formal burial at sea is a lie.

Hersh's piece already has detonated within the intelligence community, and within the media that covers it. (Peter Bergen of CNN attempts a vivisection here -- "farrago of nonsense," is right up there.) The White House has dismissed it. The strength of Hersh's report comes late in the piece, when he gets fairly deep in the weeds about how the CIA's story of its role in the mission has morphed over the years, and in putting what he alleges is the administration's deceit in the context of the "war" on terror, to which deceit has been fundamental since it was launched.

However, to me, anyway, Bergen seems to do better debunking Hersh's claims than Hersh does defending them.. The idea that Saudi Arabia was footing the bills for bin Laden's exile seems less than plausible. I also don't think the president needed an imaginary military pageant surrounding the events to get re-elected, as one of Hersh's sources argues. I think the country would have taken "bin Laden Dead" as something of a foreign policy triumph no matter what the actual circumstances of his demise.

What's clear is that, in the war on terror, or whatever it is in which we've been engaged since we handed the military policy over to the spooks and thrown international crisis diplomacy into the vast, deep underbrush of myth and legend generated by the conjuring spells of the intelligence world, that we willingly surrendered self-government to magic and spellcraft. And Osama bin Laden is still dead, and his body is still at the bottom of the sea. Maybe.