The first question that Anderson Cooper asked Bernie Sanders was, “A Gallup poll says half the country would not put a socialist in the White House. You call yourself a democratic socialist. How can any kind of socialist win a general election in the United States?” Sanders responded in part by saying, “Democrats at the White House on down will win, when there is excitement and a large voter turnout, and that is what this campaign is doing.”

The point was that in prime time (the beginning of the debate), Cooper gave Sanders an opportunity to explain what it is to be a democratic socialist and why he thinks that he can win. The fact that Cooper questioned Sanders about his progressive ideas, not just once, but throughout the debate, shows how far we have come in eight years.

In 2008, there was one true progressive among the Democratic candidates for president. He was Dennis Kucinich, the former mayor of Cleveland and then Congressman from Ohio. For years, he had championed a single-payer health care system in H.R. 676. Throughout the debates in late 2007 and into early 2008, debate questioners raised questions about the various candidates’ plans to improve America’s health care system, but not a word was said about H.R. 676.

In retrospect, the questioning was very myopic and somewhat meaningless. Questioners kept asking Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama about their views on an individual mandate. Initially Clinton was for it and Obama was against it, but as might be expected, once elected, Obama incorporated Clinton’s idea into his plan for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

Most people would say that America’s health care system in 2015 is superior to what it had in 2008. But even with the improvement, millions of Americans do not have health care coverage, insurance companies are making out like bandits, and consumers and providers must both work their way through a more than two-thousand-page labyrinth known as the ACA.

H.R. 676 which Dennis Kucinich proposed well before 2008 called for the establishment of a single-payer system or Medicare for All. All people would be covered, the insurance companies would be by-passed in the system, and the law was simple enough that it consisted of one six-page document.

As good as this was, it never got off the ground. The problem was not that Dennis Kucinich, or most members of the Congressional Black Caucus who favored it, were not articulate presenters. The problem was that the John King’s (CNN) of the world simply did not think that Kucinich was a “serious enough candidate” to be questioned about his views on health care coverage. As a result, all that was discussed was splitting hairs about cumbersome components of the Clinton – Obama plans. Medicare-for-all remained a somewhat invisible concept only understood by progressive members of the party, particularly in the African-American community.

All of this has changed in 2015 for Bernie Sanders. The Oct. 13 debate reinforced the notion that he is the only present candidate who is a legitimate contender to Hillary Clinton. Sanders brings to the table the whole ‘kahuna,’ everything progressive, with the exception of gun control (he’s working on that). He describes himself as a democratic socialist and does not shy away from advocating income redistribution in the United States. Hillary Clinton may say that Wall Street is too powerful, but her words are somewhat insipid in light of the massive amounts of donations she takes from the Street. Sanders eschews big money and has the track record to challenge Wall Street, large corporations and interest groups, wherever they might be.

His agenda includes long-standing support for H.R. 676. Hopefully the press will ask him about this, because if they don’t, and he is elected, they will be very surprised about what he will do with health care. To recognize what a powerful influence Sanders has had on the political landscape of the Democratic party, imagine what the debates would be like if they were only between Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. The key word would be ‘parsing.’

The media, and CNN in particular, did not say that they need to listen to a progressive voice in 2015 because they didn’t in 2008. They don’t work that way. But Bernie Sanders and his widespread enthusiastic supporters made that a necessity. Hillary Clinton may wind up being the nominee, but it won’t happen until she answers the hard questions from the progressive perspective, something that did not come close to happening in 2008.

The post Media does for Bernie Sanders what it never did for Dennis Kucinich appeared first on Occasional Planet.

There’s been much speculation about possible Republican and Democratic nominees in Missouri’s newly configured 2nd District. Republicans seem to have a beacon  always pointed to the furthest right position possible. Of the three announced Republican candidates, neither Ed Martin nor Jane Cunningham seems vulnerable to letting empathy or logic get in the way of their doctrinaire right-wing positions. The third candidate, Ann Wagner, may be more to the center, or maybe not. In any event, she is more adroit at making it appear that she has some familiarity with mainstream Republicanism that was the hallmark of the 2nd District back as  the Tom Curtis years (1951-1969).

By all rights, Russ Carnahan should be the Democratic nominee. He has served in Congress, has name recognition and needs a district from which to run, because the 3rd District that he currently represents has been dissolved through reapportionment.

Three quick thoughts about Russ:

1. Maybe he’s truly a change agent and recognizes that campaigns are far too long. I have discussed this in other blog postings as well as my own campaign in the 2nd District in 2010. I advocated six-week long campaigns, as in the  British system. I did not meet that goal; mine was six months long. If Russ wants to operate a six-month campaign, that’s still a 75% reduction of the time of most other candidates. Kudos  to him.

2. The redistricting process was obviously frustrating to Russ. He is currently one of three Democratic representatives from Missouri. Both Lacy Clay in St. Louis and Emanuel Cleaver in Kansas City have protection from the Civil Rights Voting Act of 1968 which forbids the elimination of “minority majority” districts. So long as redistricting is political rather than mathematical, this policy should not change. But it puts a non-minority candidate such as Russ in a difficult position. Let’s cut him some slack and understand that he had reason to vent about the whole redistricting process. However, he directed particularly nasty comments toward both Clay and Cleaver. Apologies are in order. To every extent possible, make them both sound and be sincere.

3. There has been talk that Russ wants to run for Missouri Lieutenant-Governor. As Peter Kinder has vividly demonstrated, it’s a job with virtually nothing to do. In a more positive light, it’s a place-holder before running for governor. Maybe that is what Russ wants to do, but right now why not run for Congress in the 2nd District, and if that doesn’t work, then he’d still have six years to figure out a way to succeed Jay Nixon as governor.

If Russ can’t make up his mind or does have it made up but he’s playing coy, then we have a wonderful wild card opportunity.

Welcome to Missouri, Dennis Kucinich. Dennis was squeezed out of his Cleveland district with far less of a chance to find another district in his home state than Russ has in Missouri. Along with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and members of the Black Caucus, Dennis Kucinich has been the finest progressive representative that we have in Congress. He desperately wants to stay in Congress. Even if there is a bit of hubris in his desire, it would be legal for him to move to Missouri and run in the 2nd District. He’s a free agent, eligible to run wherever he likes. St. Louis is owne something from Cleveland. The Cardinals sent bona fide closer Chris Perez to Cleveland for Mark DeRosa, a terrific player and clubhouse presence, but he was injured; in essence damaged goods. So like basketball star LeBron James, Kucinich could “take his talents south from Cleveland.” Let’s take Dennis Kucinich for the 2nd District as compensation.

Could you imagine the fun of an experienced, skilled progressive such as Dennis Kucinich taking on Ed Martin, Jane Cunningham, or Ann Wagner? We’ve learned from the special election in New York’s 26th Congressional District that no safe Republican district is really safe if the Democrats field a good candidate and the Republicans try to defend the Paul Ryan budget debacle.

When I ran in 2010, I was the most recent in a string of Democratic candidates with low name recognition. I believe that a Democrat who is a household name would have an excellent chance in the 2nd District, especially as it is reconfigured. Republicans have done a wonderful job convincing most Democrats as well as members of the media that Missouri in general, and the 2nd District in particular, are red.

And how does Dennis win? By being an unapologetic progressive and beating the Republicans at their own game. I’m not talking about dirty tricks. I’m talking about certain policy goals. Republicans want to reduce annual budget deficits and eventually the national debt. Dennis could push for three things: (a) get out of Iraq and Afghanistan post haste, (2) reinstate the taxes for the very wealthy that George Bush and gullible Democrats enacted, (3) support Medicare for All, which drastically cuts health care costs by eliminating parasitic profits by health insurance companies. Bingo, we’re back to responsible budgeting and also have a better quality of life.

He could also get government further out of our lives than Republicans could imagine by enthusiastically and articulately presenting the arguments to keep the government out of our bedrooms and other places where they don’t belong. Dennis could show Ed, Jane, and Ann what a real conservative is like. If he wanted, he could even call himself a conservative and show that the true meaning of conservatism is conserving the advances that we have made through institutionalizing progressive policies in previous decades.

It’s not for either me or  Occasional Planet to endorse candidates. But we can observe and offer advice. In a nutshell, I would advise Russ Carnahan that if that he wants to stay in Congress, he should jump into the race and make amends with others ASAP. If he doesn’t, let’s have Missouri claim Dennis Kucinich on waivers. How refreshing it would be to have the talk of the 2nd District be about Democrats.

The post If Carnahan won’t, how about Kucinich? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Right-wing Republicans may be strutting around calling the 2010 mid-term elections a “rejection” of progressive ideas, but that doesn’t mean that it’s so. Contrary to popular belief among right-wing conservatives, there is more than one valid point of view on the political scene in 2010. Progressives are still out here, advocating for policies and programs that work for the common good, help people whose opportunities have been constricted by circumstances beyond their control, and promote equality, human rights and small-d democracy. And, in fact, Americans count on fundamental, progressive policies and programs in their everyday lives. That’s why it’s so important to keep the progressive fire burning, to keep advocating for progressive programs and to be unrelenting in reminding America about the constructive role that progressivism continues to play.

And that’s why Occasional Planet is starting a new feature, called “Stand-up Progressives.” As events dictate, we’ll highlight people in and out of government, who are fearlessly making the progressive case that is so critical to the well-being of our country. And that’s why a news item we saw on November 10, 2010 prompted us to call out Dennis Kucinich as our first “Stand-up Progressive.”

Congressman Kucinich [D-OH] is unhappy about the just-revealed plan to keep troops in Afghanistan until 2014, thus undermining a previous Obama-administration pledge to begin withdrawing troops in 2011. Most importantly, Kucinich is doing something about it.

“When the new 112th Congress convenes in January, I will immediately enter a privileged resolution that will force Congress to vote on setting a withdrawal date,” Kucinich said. “The withdrawal of our troops must be driven by Congress, not the corrupt president of Afghanistan.”

On his website, Kucinich says:

In July 2010, Kucinich introduced bipartisan legislation that would have ended the war in Afghanistan by the end of this year. The new legislation would call for the end of the war by the end of 2011. This legislation will firmly establish ownership of the war and its timeline by the new 112th Congress.

“It is imperative that the 112th Congress move immediately to end this costly and unnecessary war,” said Kucinich. “Our economy needs help and as the new leadership looks for ways to reduce spending, I will continue to introduce legislation and amendments to force votes, ensuring that this issue remains at the forefront of issues facing the next Congress.

Kucinich’s plan demonstrates his courage as a progressive willing to go beyond complaining and take action. His resolution has little chance of passing, but he’s not backing down. His action is a role model–in the Howard Zinn tradition–for fighting the uphill battle in the interest of the common good.

The post Stand-up progressives: Kucinich vs. war appeared first on Occasional Planet.

We won’t get “Medicare for everyone” in the current healthcare bill, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich may vote “no” because of that. And we may not even get a public option–even a watered-down version. But Kucinich’s basic premise of expanding Medicare–an idea that has been variously ignored, vilified and even laughed-at–refuses to die.  After all, Medicare (along with the Veterans Administration health care program) is a government-run program that works–with lower overhead costs and higher customer satisfaction that almost any privately run healthcare insurance program.

So, if we can’t get Medicare for all, how about “Medicare for more?”  That’s what Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) is proposing in a bill he introduced on Tuesday. He calls his bill, H.R. 4789, the “Public Option Act,” and he’s also calling it the “Medicare You Can Buy Into Act.”  The bill would allow all legal residents under 65 to enroll in Medicare by paying a fee.

Grayson’s approach offers a “workaround” for the absence of a public option in the much larger healthcare reform bill currently up for grabs in Congress. It’s a small step forward, in the spirit of the great incrementalist, Teddy Kennedy. It deserves consideration.

According to The Raw Story, Grayson introduced his bill by saying:

“The government spent billions of dollars creating a Medicare network of providers that is only open to one-eighth of the population. That’s like saying, ‘Only people 65 and over can use federal highways.’  It is a waste of a very valuable resource and it is not fair.  This idea is simple, it makes sense, and it deserves an up-or-down vote. America needs a public option. That’s why I’ve introduced this bill. I say to those people on the other side of the aisle, if you don’t want to buy into the public option, but don’t prevent me and my family and the ones who I love from doing the same. Let us have our alternative.”

The post New bill offers “Medicare for more” appeared first on Occasional Planet.