Mediaboss Marketing

ATLANTA Organizing for Action, the successor to Barack Obamas presidential campaign that has been rebuilding itself as a Trump-era resistance machine, is launching a new effort to train more activists by connecting progressive groups with newly-trained organizers.

Aftertraining1,000 fellowssince the start of the year, OFA will work with the Wellstone institute, the woman-focused Emerge America, Run for Something, the African American-focused Collective PAC and the millennial-focused New Leaders Council to place fellows with the relevant causes.

OFA couldnt be more excited to launch this partnership program and work with these influential organizations to help elevate the next generation of progressive leaders leaders who reflect the youthful, diverse population at the heart of progressive movement, said OFA spokesman Jesse Lehrich. Now is the time to invest in the future, to encourage talented young activists to take the next step and run for office, and to provide them with the training and support necessary to be successful.

[Liberals gather in Atlanta to plan Trump resistance strategy]

The progressive groups six-week fellowship program, created by veterans of the Obama campaigns,has become an under-the-radar asset for activists who plunged into politics after the 2016 election.The free program has been turning out organizers for special elections, voter registration and protest campaigns especially the sustained protests against the Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

The surge of interest in such protests, and the parade of resistance groups launched after the election, has turned OFA into one of the lefts more senior, mainstream political outfits.Viewed suspiciously by Democrats during the Obama years,OFAloomed during this years race to chairtheDemocratic National Committee as an example of how Obama hadfailed toresolve divisions within the Democratic Party.

Six months later, OFAhas settled into the firmament of the progressive movement and byconnecting other groups to fellows, its trying to build a farm team that the Obama-era DNC never could.

See more here:
Obama campaign successor teams up with progressives to train full-time activists - Washington Post

Eric Bauman / Getty

BY: Paul Crookston August 10, 2017 4:13 pm

A feud is roiling the California Democratic Party and highlighting divisions that persist in the national party as Democrats look to rebuild after their losses in 2016.

Longtime party leader Eric Bauman is facing continual resistance from activistKimberly Ellis, who refuses to concede defeat in the party chairmanship election, the New York Times reports. Ellis is a leader among Bay Area progressives and alleges Bauman won through voter fraud, while Bauman accuses her of trying to tear the party apart.

"The truth of the matter is, Kimberly Ellis cannot accept that she lost the election," Bauman said. "She's willing to allow the party to be torn asunder in an effort to prove that she really did win."

A final decision on the matter is expected August 20, but Ellis has called for binding arbitration and threatened legal action.

"If their goal is to avoid a legal battle, here it is," Ellis said about arbitration. "The ball is in their court."

Ellis' supporters have chanted "not my chairman" at Bauman, showing a divide that runs deep among Democrats runningthe government of the nation's largest state.

"What we are seeing in California is similar to what we are seeing on the national level," said Democratic state controller Betty Yee. "If we don't do our work to really heal our divide, we are going to miss our chance to motivate Democrats."

Both supported Hillary Clinton in the presidential primary, but Ellis has received support from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and touts her progressivism. Ellis spent yearsrunning a program to recruit women to run for office and has positioned herself as a party outsider, while Bauman has been a party insider for three decades.

Ellis ran on a platformof "Giving the Democratic Party Back to thePeople." She has not shied away from standing in opposition to party leadership.

"There are a lot of things that have gone on here that have really caused folks to feel that leadership doesn't care about them or their voices," Ellis said. "The Democratic Party is not only changing but has changed. There are folks who haven't gotten that memo."

She also comparedthe party's current position toRepublicans' situation during the rise of the Tea Party.

"The Democratic Party is in many ways right now where the Republican Party was when the Tea Party took over many years ago," Ellis said. "We are in a rebuilding moment."

Yee is one Ellis supporter who has criticized Bauman on a personal level, saying he can be "dismissive." That is the same word used by the president of Sanders' Our Revolution group to describe the Democratic National Committee's attitude toward grassroots activists.

Ellis ties Bauman to the party and its endemic problems, saying its "environment includes bullying and a lot of bad behavior."

Bauman does not exactly deny that characterization.

"A lot of people perceive me as a Tammany Hall kind of guy," Bauman said. "Because I do have that personality. And it works."

This squabblehas worried many within the party. As they are fighting, some are calling for unity in the face of deep-seated conflict lines.

"It's basically up to those who supported Kimberly: Do they want to help elect Democrats, move the state forward, or do they want to sit at home and suck their thumbs?"said John L. Burton, departing state party chairman.

Ellis dismisses that position.

"One of the false narratives that has been promoted is that if we don't unify that we are going to break the party," Ellis said.

View post:
Civil War Erupts Between Democratic Establishment and ... - Washington Free Beacon

The Herald

Greater Lake Wylie Progressives say they organized to impact elections and policy The Herald Members of the recently formed Greater Lake Wylie Progressives say they were frustrated with seeing mostly Republican candidates run unopposed in local elections. They also decided to take action to help their neighbors learn about important issues ...

See more here:
Greater Lake Wylie Progressives say they organized to impact elections and policy - The Herald

Al Sharpton, Opinion contributor Published 5:00 a.m. ET Aug. 9, 2017 | Updated 7:18 a.m. ET Aug. 9, 2017

Hillary Clinton in 2016.(Photo: Carlos Osorio, AP)

When Jesse Jackson ran for president during the 1980s, as when I ran in 2004, there were progressives in America just like there are today. Those progressives were well meaning individuals and politicians who shared our views and strongly believed in what we believed in. Despite this progressive political presence, our presidential campaigns were so important and necessary because the voices of black, brown and poorer white voters were not heard by the elites in American politics and government. Our agendas were not getting carried out. There was a great deal of talk back then, but no real action. That same dynamic holds true today.

The press speaks a great deal about the supposed fact that the Democratic base is riled up and activated by the state of play in America. This assessment ignores the most important segment of that base: the African-American voter. We are not motivated by anyone right now. While Sen. Bernie Sanders did a remarkable job in the 2016 presidential primaries and went further than anyone thought possible, he did so without the African-American vote, losing among African-American voters by more than 50 percentage points.

More: Democratic 'Better Deal' robs from the future

More: Rep. David Cicilline: A Better Deal is a bold agenda

While that progressive coalition purported to speak FOR the African-American voter, it did not talk TO African Americans. The so-called Hillary Clinton base of the party, while crushing Sanders, attracted substantially fewer black voters to turn out than in recent presidential primaries, and in the general election, running against a novice, the black voter turnout rate declined for the first time in 20 years in a presidential election, falling 7 percentage points compared to 2012. Arguably, that disinterested black vote cost Clinton the presidency.

It would be unfair to claim that leaders like Clinton and Sanders do not care about issues that are important to people of color. They do. However, it is equally inaccurate to claim that the current progressive movement is fueling African-American participation or interest in our political process. It is not. Blacks largely sit on the sidelines while the game of politics is being played around us. In the post-Obama era there is the sense that Democrats feel people of color African Americans in particular have had their chance and that we should now take a back seat to new leadership and let them handle the politics of today. However, such a sentiment is both foolhardy and wrong.

More: Jeff Sessions' Justice Department goes after affirmative action's institutional racism

POLICING THE USA: A look atrace, justice, media

The 21st century version of the rainbow coalition lacks vision and color. Remarkably, blacks still need to fight for a seat at the table and are too often simply stage props for allied elected leaders to make their points. Consider this: In 2016, when the officially independent Sanders ran for president as a Democrat, there were more black chiefs of staffin the Senate working for Republicans (1) than for Sanders (0) or the Democrats (0).

Talk is not enough anymore to be on the righteous path for justice and black political participation. Nor is caring about, or sympathy over, unjust policies. An effective progressive movement is more than an intellectual exercise espousing policy goals: it requires action and results. And people of color need to be at the table in large enough numbers to help make that difference. We cannot depend upon action from well-meaning progressives or others who want to fight our fight for us. History proves that change comes too slowly when we rely on that model.

Perhaps it is time for another African-American presidential campaign to fuel black voter interest. Perhaps its time to remind people that progressive politics cannot be advanced without results and a fully vibrant rainbow of colors working to make that difference. Two things are certain: African Americans will not be taken for granted again and progressives invite failure yet again if they try.

Reverend Al Sharpton is president of the National Action Network.Follow him on Twitter: @TheRevAl

You can read diverse opinions from ourBoard of Contributorsand other writers on theOpinion front page, on Twitter@USATOpinionand in our dailyOpinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2uoaiSL

More:
Al Sharpton: 'Progressives' are shortchanging African Americans ... - USA TODAY

Look at the latest report by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund, comparing health care performance among advanced nations. America is at the bottom; the top three performers are Britain, Australia, and the Netherlands. And the thing is, these three leaders have very different systems.

Britain has true socialized medicine: The government provides health care directly through the National Health Service. Australia has a single-payer system, basically Medicare for All its even called Medicare. But the Dutch have what we might call Obamacare done right: individuals are required to buy coverage from regulated private insurers, with subsidies to help them afford the premiums.

And the Dutch system works, which suggests that a lot could be accomplished via incremental improvements in the A.C.A., rather than radical change. Further evidence for this view is how relatively well Obamacare, imperfect as it is, already works in states that try to make it work did you know that only 5.4 percent of New Yorkers are now uninsured?

Meanwhile, the political logic that led to Obamacare rather than Medicare for all still applies.

Its not just about paying off the insurance industry, although getting insurers to buy in to health reform wasnt foolish, and arguably helped save the A.C.A.: At a crucial moment Americas Health Insurance Plans, the industry lobbying organization, and Blue Cross Blue Shield intervened to denounce Republican plans.

A far more important consideration is minimizing disruption to the 156 million people who currently get insurance through their employers, and are largely satisfied with their coverage. Moving to single-payer would mean taking away this coverage and imposing new taxes; to make it fly politically youd have to convince most of these people both that they would save more in premiums than they pay in additional taxes, and that their new coverage would be just as good as the old.

This might in fact be true, but it would be one heck of a hard sell. Is this really where progressives want to spend their political capital?

What would I do instead? Id enhance the A.C.A., not replace it, although I would strongly support reintroducing some form of public option a way for people to buy into public insurance that could eventually lead to single-payer.

Meanwhile, progressives should move beyond health care and focus on other holes in the U.S. safety net.

When you compare the U.S. social welfare system with those of other wealthy countries, what really stands out now is our neglect of children. Other countries provide new parents with extensive paid leave, provide high-quality, subsidized day care for children with working parents and make pre-K available to everyone or almost everyone; we do none of these things. Our spending on families is a third of the advanced-country average, putting us down there with Mexico and Turkey.

So if it were up to me, Id talk about improving the A.C.A., not ripping it up and starting over, while opening up a new progressive front on child care.

I have nothing against single-payer; its what Id support if we were starting fresh. But we arent: Getting there from here would be very hard, and might not accomplish much more than a more modest, incremental approach. Even idealists need to set priorities, and Medicare-for-all shouldnt be at the top of the list.

See the original post:
What's Next for Progressives? - New York Times