MN State Senator John Marty

After watching any discussion of single payer health care pushed out of the debate and chalked up as “politically unrealistic” by the DC political establishment, many believe that leadership on that front is going to have to come from the states.  Giving states the power to create single payer systems is the focus of Dennis Kucinich’s amendment, which takes as its model the way Canada evolved toward a single-payer system.

State Senator John Marty is currently running for governor of Minnesota in 2010, and he is the author of the Minnesota Health Plan, a single-payer system he’s been fighting for:

In the last three years, Marty has pushed a bill that would set up the Minnesota Health Plan, essentially a single-payer plan that would shift the premiums we and/or our employers now pay for health insurance to a public entity that would cover necessary health services from cradle to grave.

Hasn’t he heard that a single-payer plan isn’t politically realistic, as they’re saying in Washington? Does he ever feel lonely being in the minority? “Yeah,” the seven-term senator chuckles during our Q&A. “I’ve felt in the minority about a lot of things.”

As Senator Marty has written over at The Seminal, he now has 70 co-authors on the bill –  over a third of the legislature.  He wrote about it in an op-ed entitled The Courage of Our Convictions:

It’s time for progressives to have the courage of our convictions. If we claim to believe in universal health care, we need to fight for it. The MN Health Plan — which covers everyone for all their medical needs, and costs less than we are spending now — is on the table. Those who are not willing to take on the powerful insurance lobby, ought to be honest and admit that reelection and other priorities matter more.

Refusing to fight for it because it is “not politically realistic” becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Likewise, dismissing it as something that will take decades to pass means leaving the problem to the next generation.

I think this is an important point, and it has led to the demoralization within the Democratic party that we are seeing in every poll right now.   We’re being fed a lot of excuses about how “naive” anyone was to expect meaningful health care reform, but that’s exactly what the President campaigned on.  To turn around now and have “anonymous senior administration officials” whispering to reporters that everyone who believed in that was a sucker and an extremist is cynical beyond words.  If the White House thinks that’s the reality of the situation, they need to own up to it.  They’re not going to take on the lobbyists.  Okay, now we know.

That isn’t, however, a message that is going to inspire even a small fraction of the country.  And as we look to the future, kindling health care reform is very likely going to start at the state level.  So we invited Senator Marty here today to discuss his plan, his campaign, and the national impact it would have if a single-payer governor took the lead and provided an example in a state-based single-payer system.

Please welcome Senator John Marty in the comments.  You can donate to his campaign through ActBlue.

Jonathan Tasini

Imagine electing a senator from New York who will lead the movement for single-payer Medicare for All, real healthcare reform, a senator not bought and paid for by the Sickness Industry, a senator not afraid to back his constituents over the “leaders” of his party, a senator skilled at telling the corporate media what the agenda is rather than allowing them to tell him.

This is a real possibility now, and we should seize it. We should seize it early in order to set an example for other states, other candidates, and the incumbents now in office. New York has only an appointed senator at the moment, Kirsten Gillibrand, filling in for Hillary Clinton who left to become Secretary of State. This is a terrific opportunity to elect a new leader, and I can’t imagine anyone better than Jonathan Tasini to place in the United States Senate, an institution — if ever there was one — in need of shaking up, rattling about, hosing down, and radically redirecting.

Our nation is in a state of fury over the ownership of the U.S. Senate by Wall Street, and New York might just be in the mood to elect a new senator free of its corruption and eager to take on its abuses, including those of the misnamed “healthcare industry.” Here are Jonathan’s own words:

My commitment to you is this: the very first piece of legislation that I will fight for as a United States Senator will be to make single-payer health care a reality. . . . Think of this: insurance companies waste billions of dollars every year in the pursuit of one goal — to deny people health care treatment! Why Medicare? It is by far the most efficient part of our national health care system. The administrative costs of the Medicare system are tiny: just 2 percent. Private insurers are ripping us off because we pay for their bureaucracies, executive pay and benefits, and advertising, which adds up to a mind-boggling 25 percent of costs. We should let firms and individuals buy into the Medicare system, taking advantage of its lower costs. The Medicaid system could also be rolled into Medicare, allowing for further savings by eliminating unnecessary duplication. The expanded Medicare system should use its buying power to push down the prices of pharmaceutical, medical equipment, and other costs in order to bring health care expenses in the United States under control and provide coverage for the uninsured.

If you want that position held and aggressively advanced in Washington, don’t buy an ad in the New York Times complaining about it.

• Donate to the campaign to elect Jonathan Tasini on Act Blue
• Jonathan Tasini on Facebook
• Jonathan Tasini on Twitter

Volunteer to organize for single payer

The problems in the current health care debate became apparent early on, when single payer advocates were excluded from participation. Part of that was certainly due to the fact that single payer challenges the logic underlying the entire health care reform effort: if we really cared about cutting costs and providing the best health care services, single payer would come out on top by every measure. Nobody in power wanted to have a CBO score on single payer, precisely because it would win.

But if you’re going to advocate for something that undermines the entire infrastructure of the medical industrial complex, you better lay the groundwork well. And at the time Congress took up health care, that had not happened.

You can’t take a day player and start demanding a movie star’s salary, because nobody will take you seriously. Johnny Depp was a day player at one time, but he had to demonstrate his boxoffice clout before he could ask $10 million for his services. Before the NRA demonstrated its ability to have a serious impact on electoral politics, they did not carry the weight that they do now, either.

But the NRA is subsidized by huge injections of cash from arms manufacturers and gun owners. We have to answer that with local organizing efforts and financial support of candidates who support a single payer agenda — with the expectation that if a they get into office, they will work collectively and exercise what power they have to advance it.

The weakness of single payer clout was evidenced this year when none of the 88 cosponsors of H.R. 676 worked collectively to get a CBO score. Withholding even a handful of votes from the war supplemental, or the stimulus bill, or cap and trade could have made that happen.

Instead, Democrats like Charles Rangel and Henry Waxman withdrew as cosponsors. After collecting donations from single payer supporters for years, once their votes counted they were nowhere to be found. Joe Baca, Eddie Bernice Johnson, David Scott stepped forward and said they will not even vote for it if it came up for a vote. And Andre Carson, Linda and Loretta Sanchez, Betty Sutton and Jim Moran wouldn’t commit.

Why did they feel they could do that? Because they felt safe in the knowledge that there would be no political consequences. And there were none.

Organizing around symbolic votes is not a good use of grassroots energy. It does not advance the cause relative to the amount of effort it takes to make it happen. We need to be working to build influence at the local level, to demonstrate the value of our support. And we should be asking more of leaders who are good at getting people excited but inefficient at organizing in Congress. To build a viable movement, we need to be tactically efficient and smart.

Single Payer Candidates in Every District

Blue America is going to be working to get single payer candidates on the ballot in every Congressional district across the country. And no, those who cosponsored 676 when it didn’t matter, and then vote to pass an abhorrent “compromise” don’t count.

As it is in the nascent stage of any organizing effort, we don’t expect everyone to win — in many cases, we’ll be asking people who are simply passionate and eloquent members of the community to get on the ballot and present the single payer position in debates and campaign events leading up to the 2010 election. And we’re asking the people who live around them to come together to help them.

What about you?

Find out what it takes to get on the ballot in your state.

Tomorrow at noon ET, Blue America will host Jonathan Tasini, a long time single payer advocate who is running for the US Senate in New York. Jonathan is a good friend of the blog who has been a great supporter in our health care advocacy efforts. Our host will be David Swanson, author of Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union for a “Medicare For All Organizing Forum.” We invite you to join us, and to spread the word.

If you know any candidates who support single payer, let us know.

And please stop by the Blue America page and contribute to Jonathan’s campaign. Working together, and showing our commitment with our time and our money is essential to building the movement whose seeds can only grow as the impact of Congress’s disastrous “compromise” becomes increasingly apparent.

The districts where single payer has the strongest support are also the districts of “liberals” who are going to be called upon to vote for it. They need to know that we are ready and willing to advocate for better than hollow promises and support that is only there when it doesn’t matter.

Donate to Single Payer Candidates at Blue America

Florida State Senator Al Lawson is running in a primary race against notorious Blue Dog Allan Boyd in FL-02.

Boyd, as many will recall, was  the only Democrat in Congress to endorse and cosponsor George Bush’s efforts to gut Social Security. He also voted “no” on the stimulus bill, and says he would vote against the House bill H.R. 3200 after it came out of the Energy & Commerce Committee including a public option.

Boyd says he won’t support it because it doesn’t do enough to “control costs.”  He doesn’t mention that 7 of his fellow Blue Dogs held the bill “hostage” in the Energy & Commerce Committee and demanded the removal of key cost control measures (such as tying reimbursement rates to Medicare)  before they would vote for it. Boyd also brags about keeping a health care bill bill from passing before the August recess, which subjected his fellow Democrats to abuse at town halls across the country.

It won’t be an easy race — Rep. Lawson has raised $55,285 through June 30, none of it from PACS.   Boyd on the other hand has raised $570,133 during that same period, with over $420,000 in PAC money from such disinterested parties as Blue Cross Blue Shield, Merck, Pfizer, and my favorite — Koch Industries, which financed a huge chunk of the August teabagger astroturfing.

Unsurprisingly, Boyd favors co-ops.

Senator Lawson favors a public option:

Florida Senator Al Lawson, who has served the people of the Big Bend for more than 25 years in the state legislature, has offered his opinion on the matter – “Real health care reform must include a public option.”

“I was greatly troubled to read recently that 126,000 citizens of Congressional District 2 are lacking basic health care coverage,” said Lawson.

“For months, nothing has been done in Washington. Both sides have bickered over ideology, while at the same time, families in my community continue to live one health crisis away from complete economic devastation,” stated Lawson.

“This is unacceptable.”

According to a recent U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce report, 126,000 citizens, or 18-percent, of Congressional District 2 lack basic health care coverage.

We wanted to invite Senator Lawson on to chat with people about the race and about his views on the health care battle.  You can find out more about his campaign here.

Please welcome Florida State Senator Al Lawson in the comments.

Jane’s in Sweden and I’m in Indonesia but we left Blue America in the best of hands. Digby, John, Jacqui and D-Day have been working non-stop on our campaign of cable TV ads to get one of the few senatorial culprits in the war against health care reform who actually has to confront voters next year–Blanche Lincoln–to reconsider her position. Lincoln, always an opponent of giving working families an equal break, is a member of the Health Care Subcommittee of the Senate Finance Committee. We want her to forget her avaricious campaign donors for once in her miserable political life and think about the average citizens of Arkansas and America for a change. Last week, HHS Secretary Sebelius’s report on the state of the nation’s health care situation is especially bleak for people living in Arkansas–not for Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor or the 4 congressmen, all of whom get free platinum health care coverage for themselves and their loved ones paid for by the taxpayers, but for regular working families.

We’re hoping our TV ads will help persuade Lincoln, worrying about her re-election prospects, that with 80% of Americans favoring at least a public option, her career i n politics depends on her championing her constituents, rather than Health Insurance CEOs. Digby wrote three TV ads, produced by Brave New Films and directed by D-Day. Here’s one, but you can view all three here: Campaign For Health Care Choice

We need you to vote on which of the three ads we should use first and we need you to donate what you can to getting the ads on TV in every nook and cranny in Arkansas so that there isn’t one single solitary person in the state who doesn’t know that their senator is playing a crucial role in health care reform. The raw facts about health care in Arkansas speak for themselves. Blanche Lincoln should speak for her constituents, not for Insurance Industry CEOs:

ARKANSANS CAN’T AFFORD THE STATUS QUO

Roughly 1.5 million people in Arkansas get health insurance on the job, where family premiums average $11,486, about the annual earning of a full-time minimum wage job.

Since 2000 alone, average family premiums have increased by 81 percent in Arkansas.

Household budgets are strained by high costs: 27 percent of middle-income Arkansas families spend more than 10 percent of their income on health care.

High costs block access to care: 17 percent of people in Arkansas report not visiting a doctor due to high costs.

Arkansas businesses and families shoulder a hidden health tax of roughly $1500 per year on premiums as a direct result of subsidizing the costs of the uninsured.

AFFORDABLE HEALTH COVERAGE IS INCREASINGLY OUT OF REACH IN ARKANSAS

18 percent of people in Arkansas are uninsured, and 69.5 percent of them are in families with at least one full-time worker.

The percent of Arkansans with employer coverage is declining: from 57 to 53 percent between 2000 and 2007.

Much of the decline is among workers in small businesses. While small businesses make up 75 percent of Arkansas businesses, only 29 percent of them offered health coverage benefits in 2006–down 3 percent since 2000.

Choice of health insurance is limited in Arkansas. Blue Cross Blue Shield AR alone constitutes 75 percent of the health insurance market share in Arkansas, with the top two insurance providers accounting for 81 percent.

Choice is even more limited for people with pre-existing conditions. In Arkansas, premiums can vary based on demographic factors and health status, and coverage can exclude pre-existing conditions or even be denied completely.

ARKANSANS NEED HIGHER QUALITY, GREATER VALUE, AND MORE PREVENTIVE CARE

The overall quality of care in Arkansas is rated as “Weak.”

Preventive measures that could keep Arkansans healthier and out of the hospital are deficient, leading to problems across the age spectrum:

20 percent of children in Arkansas are obese.

26 percent of women over the age of 50 in Arkansas have not received a mammogram in the past two years.

45 percent of men over the age of 50 in Arkansas have never had a colorectal cancer screening.

70 percent of adults over the age of 65 in Arkansas have received a flu vaccine in the past year.

You can see the three ads here; you can vote for which one we should start with here and you can donate here–and they’re all the same here.

John Amato explains what we’re trying to do really well at C&L and Digby did the same, with less words, at her blog. I don’t know if this is going to work or not but is it worth $5 or $10 to give it a try? Sooner or later we absolutely have to make these elected officials understand that, even if they have delusions of serving in an American House of Lords, they work for us. And if Blanche Lincoln loses, what do progressives lose? She’s already declared that she’s not just opposed to Employee Free Choice, but that she’ll support the threatened Republican filibuster. According to Progressive Punch only two Democrats–Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh–have voted more frequently with the GOP on substantive matters since Obama was elected than Lincoln. Would the Democratic caucus be better off without her? You bet; she consistently pulls it to the right and is worthless more often than not. And last year a Green Party candidate racked up 20% of the vote against Mark Pryor without anyone noticing. This year, the Greens hope to build on that and teach the Democrats–at the very least–to stop taking progressive values and working families for granted.

He is excited that because the economic crisis is offering us a once-in-a-lifetime chance to profoundly change the country for future generations. "But, while we have a great majority in Congress," he told me, "the values and principles of that majority are very important. Jonathan Tasini isn’t going to be Blanche Lincoln or Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu. Nor, if he manages to get into the Senate, is he going to morph into a slick corporate shill like New York’s senior senator. There are a small– very small– handful of senators who don’t look at their place of work like an American House of Lords: Bernie Sanders, Dick Durbin, Jeff Merkley, Sherrod Brown, Sheldon Whitehouse… a couple others. Jonathan wants to join them.

In some way, I’m reminded of the time when Howard Dean challenged our party, asking why we were not standing up to George W. Bush and the obscenity of the Iraq War. Now, we have a president who truly stands for something. And I am running both to support our president and push him to move our country in an even more progressive direction. To some extent, the vision, then, is much broader than the issue of who I’m running against. I want our party to stand:

• for single-payer health care,
• for a different foreign policy
• for the right to belong to a union,
• for marriage equality

And these are values and principles I’ve stood for my entire life, not values and principles recently discovered in order to run for Senator. These values and principles are who I am.

Needless to say, Jonathan is appalled that anyone calling himself or herself a progressive would even contemplate shutting down the democratic process by discouraging primaries the way Biden, Rendell, Schumer and Emanuel are in Pennsylvania and New York. He wants to see the primary as a contest of ideas that will help define what the Democratic Party will look like in the state and nationally. He points out that Kirsten Gillibrand has never stood before the voters and has the seat because of the vote of one person, an accidental governor. "This should not be a coronation or a selection like a monarchy. Voters should have the choice to pick who they want to represent them."

Beyond the process, though, people want to know what precisely Jonathan stands for that differentiates him from Kristen. Since being appointed to the Senate, she’s virtually disowned the Blue Dog persona that she had adopted in the House. Her Senate voting record is very progressive, among the top 20.

We have a very dramatic different set of values and principles. If you look at my life and history over the last 25 years I’ve done nothing but work for economic justice– for the labor movement, for the rights of workers. At the same time, my opponent was a corporate lawyer who represented the tobacco industry and has been very closely allied with the National Rifle Association. She had very different positions when she ran in 2006 for her House seat on immigration. I’m a long time advocate of single payer health care and that isn’t something Kristen Gillibrand supports…

As for the Supplemental, Jonathan might as well be a front page FDL blogger. Aside from being adamantly and unswervingly against wars of foreign occupation– "I will vote No on every procedural vote to advance unnecessary wars and occupations"– he’s also against (to put it mildly) "money that has been pouring into the banks to bail out the bond holders and the share holders and, essentially, the people who have mismanaged the financial system. And I have been a long time critics of the IMF, mainly because of the kinds of structural adjustment policies it has forced upon Third World countries, policies that I believe increase poverty by forcing already poor countries to privatize and curtail services."

In the middle of the primary season, Jonathan happens to have a book coming out, The Audacity of Greed– Free Markets, Corporate Thieves And The Looting Of America. I think we can look forward to an exciting campaign. And now let’s go meet Jonathan down in the comments section.

Similarly we are watching with dismay as Democratic Beltway Insiders are attempting to anoint favored candidates and cut out grassroots voters in the states. Pennsylvania Democrats are displeased that Joe Biden and Ed Rendell, who is rumored to want a sick, elderly seat-warmer like semi-Democrat Arlen Specter to keep the seat open for himself eventually, are trying to shove someone they don’t trust down their throats.

In New York state, you have a similar situation. Biden who’s made a career of being a corporatist shill isn’t only trying to make sure Republican Arlen Specter has no Democratic primary to contend with, but is also trying to clear the field for Blue Dog Kirsten Gillibrand. The Insiders were able to bribe Long Island moderate Steve Israel into dropping out (and something or someone changed implacable Gillibrand foe Carolyn McCarthy’s mind) and now Biden is working on progressive icon Carolyn Maloney.

Hank Sheinkopf, a New York-based Democratic strategist, warns that Maloney "has been a good fundraiser over the course of her career, but the institutional powers who want to keep her from running are going to try to block that money." He’s talking about Biden and Schumer. The other Democrat in the race– progressive activist Jonathan Tasini– is beyond the reach of the Beltway creatures because he’s all about progressive values and policies, not their partisan games. "Progressives," he told me on the phone yesterday, "should be 100 percent in favor of primaries and against attempts to shut down the democratic process and the ability of voters to have choices."

The most establishment and conservative forces within the Democratic Party are working for the most establishment and conservative candidates. And it isn’t only in Pennsylvania and New York. They already managed to clear the field for a disastrous loser in Florida, a corrupt and untested backbencher, Kendrick Meek, who couldn’t beat Charlie Crist if Crist campaigned in the latest Jason Wu gown, high heels and a diamond tiara. We can think corporatist fundraiser William Jefferson Clinton for that. And Meek isn’t the only less progressive Democrat for whom Clinton is doing fundraisers. Wherever a Democratic primary pits a progressive against a corporate shill, you can be sure Bill Clinton will show up to help the shill raise money against the progressive.

A few weeks ago we talked with Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, the progressive candidate for the open Senate seat. She’s a much stronger candidate against the Big Business candidate the GOP is putting up, George Bush’s Rob Portman, but the Establishment prefers Lee Fischer– and yesterday we found this item in the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

Clinton will host a private fund-raiser June 20th at a Cleveland-area home for Fisher, who is trying to knock out Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, who trails Fisher in fund-raising and insists she is not getting out of the Democratic primary. The event will likely give Fisher a boost in the second quarter of fund-raising, which closes June 30th. Fisher is hoping to keep financial pressure on Brunner by widening his money lead. At the close of the first quarter, Fisher reported raising just over $1 million, though not all the money can be used in the primary. (The figure also was propped up a bit by loans Fisher made to the campaign. Cash on hand looked good because he left some bills unpaid.) Still, it was far more than Brunner, who reported raising just a bit more than $200,000.

So the man who pushed through NAFTA, which devastated Ohio’s economy, who signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which was just about as Republican as anything George Bush ever did to the economy, and who made an exception for Rupert Murdoch so he could buy Fox and launch the worst right-wing propaganda network since the launch of the Völkischer Beobachter, is supposed to be a good thing? People have short memories.

But I can understand why a corporate shill like Clinton– look, he was one before he became president; he was one while he was president and now… I wouldn’t be shocked to see him dressed up in a Ronald McDonald outfit someday soon– would prefer a candidate less committed to ordinary working families than Jennifer Brunner. I wouldn’t be surprised if he brings Harold Ford along for the ride. After all, Ford is chairman of the conservative DLC, just like Clinton (as well as Lieberman and super-lobbyist John Breaux used to be). The folks who bankroll Clinton– and the DLC– these days might not like Brunner’s vision:

“Creating regulatory oversight specifically for the benefit of consumers is overdue. Economic recovery measures that strengthen the middle class are the fastest and most enduring method to return our country to prosperity; financial institutions that have contributed to middle class turbulence, yet benefited from tax dollars and government support, must be made to account for their future actions to ensure a lasting economic recovery and real change… The truth is consumer protections have not been pursued or adequately monitored by the government agencies that are in place now. It is time to rethink old practices and move in a direction that helps Americans who are trying to act responsibly, to change old spending habits and to take care of their families."

That’s the kind of stuff corporatists– whether Republicans or Democrats (like Bill Clinton) just hate. And Brunner goes much further. After passage of the very tepid Credit Cardholder Bill of Rights a couple weeks ago Brunner was urging Congress to pass an anti-usury law: "[W]e need to quickly impose a cap on [credit card] interest rates so that the bill has some teeth and actually protects everyday Americans when it finally becomes law.

“As middle-class Americans have been trying to pay down their credit balances and spend responsibly, financial institutions are pushing off on consumers the effects of poor decisions and the excesses of executives whose extravagances are not enjoyed by everyday Americans. Now, instead of doing what ordinary consumers are forced to do– tighten their belts and make it on what they have– it is expected that some of these institutions will be leveraging their superior financial position to gouge the very lifeblood of their businesses until the law takes effect and they are forced to treat their customers with respect. All of us, citizens and corporate citizens alike, should share in the sacrifices needed for economic recovery… Any corporation that receives the benefit from the government of shielding its shareholders, officers and directors from personal liability for their actions should step up and be responsible to the customers they serve, and they should do it now. For those corporate citizens unable or unwilling to make the sacrifices, Congress should quickly stop them from the anticipatory moves they can make to shield themselves from the impact of the law when it takes effect."

It must have freaked Clinton out to hear her say that she plans to seek passage of a rate cap, like the one Bernie Sanders introduced, if elected to the Senate. Just one Republican joined 32 Democrats in voting for a credit card interest rate cap, an anti-usury bill. Brunner would have been #34.

I’ve been trying to persuade her to run again in 2010 and asked her to come by and meet our community today. Before asking you to join us in the Firedoglake comments section, let me share with you a helpful bio her brother had some fun with:

- at age 8, she sent a petition with 300 signatures to President Eisenhower asking that girls and African Americans be allowed to play Little League baseball.

– age 8 also found Linda showing other early signs of activism. She uniformly drank from water fountains marked “colored” instead of the ones marked “white” and made sure to ride in the back of the bus (for which she was “thrown off” the bus more than once).

– In 1961, her widely known pit-bull stubbornness was evidenced at a piano recital. After having blown the heck out of Moonlight Sonata in 1960, she announced to her mom and dad she would not be playing in the recital of ’61. Her mother announced back– and louder– that indeed she would play in the recital… end of subject. So, Linda found a poison ivy field, bathed her hands up to her elbows in the stuff and spent the next 6 weeks wrapped in bandages. She, however, did NOT play in the recital of ’61 or any thereafter!

-In ’69 she started college and was elected President of the Freshman Class. She neglected her studies woefully and spent all of her time marching in the Civil Rights movement and plotting with her friends as to how to save the world. They had almost accomplished it (saving the world) when they graduated and were dispersed. Linda’s mom blames the 60’s for almost everything she doesn’t understand about Linda.

I asked her if she thought being upfront about being gay, even campaigning with her partner of 9 years, Beth Huntley, impacted the race. "When you lose by such a tight margin, anything could have played a role." In focus groups she found that people didn’t care about her personal sexual preference but respected her honesty. "We have more gay people serving in South Carolina than probably in anyplace in the United States; they’re just not out of the closet. We have an awful lot of people in the closet– Lindsey Graham, Glenn McConnell who’s our Senate president pro tem, our Lt Governor… I obviously lost the conservative, religious crazy vote, but I would have anyway because I’m pro-choice… It got more national attention than it did local attention; it was no secret to anybody around here." She actually won in Charleston County.

Speaking with Linda on the phone this week she reminded me a lot– in her attitudes towards taxpayers’ money, towards corruption, towards the abuses of incumbency– of Alan Grayson. Somehow she has the idea that her impetus towards reform gives her something in common with Blue Dogs. I almost fell out of my chair. She promised to do some research about Grayson. She’ll be blogging live for 2 hours at FDL today starting at 2pm (ET).

Today we’re going to start looking at the contest by meeting the more progressive of the two candidates, Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. Her opponent is Lt. Governor Lee Fisher, more a garden variety, middle-of-the-road Democrat. When Blue Dog Zack Space withdrew from consideration he endorsed Fisher. Jennifer is the first woman to have ever served as Ohio’s Secretary of State and if her winning streak continues– she’s won all three races she has contested– she’ll be the first woman to ever be elected to the Senate from Ohio. Interestingly, 58% of the voters in the 2010 primary will be women. People in Ohio know she doesn’t back down on the toughest issues, from marriage equality to Choice to prison reform, access to health care and fair labor practices– the reason in fact why she was awarded the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award.

Most people from outside Ohio who have heard of Jennifer know her primarily because her state’s voters tasked her with going in and cleaning up the horrendous mess Ken Blackwell had made of Ohio democracy through his shameful stint as Secretary of State. Needless to say the first thing I asked her on the phone the other day was whether or not Blackwell had actually stolen the election for Bush. I guess it’s how you define "stolen," but she isn’t as conspiratorial as I am. She won’t characterize his behavior as cheating. "I don’t think," she countered, "that he was making sufficient effort to make sure everyone was enfranchised."

This is a funny race. I get the feeling that Ohio Democrats have been on the outside looking in for so long that they automatically tend to see what’s best in each other and support each other. Jennifer seems perfectly happy to talk about her own qualifications and her own vision but has no interest whatsoever in disparaging Fisher. In fact when he ran for governor in 1998 she was his campaign’s legal counsel and she has been a supporter of his, as have many of her own current supporters. On the other hand, she does feel that she’s best equipped to handle the challenges whomever is elected to the Senate will be facing.

There’s a need to make sure Ohio is a full participant in the economic recovery. We have at least one county in the state, Huron, where the unemployment rate is almost 20%. The recession has hit Ohio harder than most of the states. We’ve lost a lot of manufacturing jobs through outsourcing and our state tax structure has changed so that it benefits business more. We’re coming from a deeper hole than other states and it’s going to take more of a fighter. I sustained 15 lawsuits in an 8-week period, mostly emanating from the GOP trying to set Ohio up so that the results of what they thought would be a close election could be litigated. I fought very hard and held my ground; I didn’t back down… and in the end it was the people of Ohio who won.

The people of Ohio will be facing a great many challenges as the economy turns around. I’m sure debating Bush’s Trade Representative and OMB Director in a state with tremendous job losses and unemployment is something to be looked forward to with relish. Jennifer identifies jobs and health care as the two overriding issues of the campaign. "So many people’s health insurance is tied to their jobs and for every one percent increase in unemployment, nationally, a million more people go without health insurance." Please join us below for a live discussion with Jennifer in the comments section and let’s find out how she intends to approach health care and the other issues foremost in our minds.

Marcy, who is a kind of West Coast Donna Edwards, founded the Los Angeles chapter of Progressive Democrats of America and built a good solid base from which to start her race against Harman. Three years and one week ago I urged Down With Tyranny readers to support her bid against the aloof, imperious Harman. Yesterday I asked her what will be different this year than in 2006.

"The critical factor will be time; I have more time now. We have over a year to organize on the ground. And that’s what it’s going to take– a lot of on the ground organizing, particularly in the two opposite ends of the district: the harbor area, where you have a very strong working class base, and in the West L.A./Mar Vista/Venice area where lots of liberal Democrats… You’re looking at 40-45,000 high frequency primary voters. Last time I jumped into the race very late– with only three months, barely enough time to even reach the absentee voters. Another important factor is Jane Harman herself getting caught with her hands in the cookie jar… [It appears that she was] taking favors, agreeing to backroom deals, to work on behalf of a foreign government to drop charges against 2 people accused of spying and then colluding with Alberto Gonzales to support warrantless wiretaps and be their posterchild! Even though I did not win last time, the fact that I came close– with almost 40% of the primary vote– sends a message that she is not invincible and the Machine is not invincible. This can be done.

Marcy can’t talk about the urgent priorities facing the country in terms of health care, education cuts, and the rest of the catastrophic consequences of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy– the veritable impoverishment of the country and hollowing out of our government’s ability to do its job– without talking about the billions, if not trillions, of dollars wasted on pointless wars. "We really do have to connect the dots between war, education and health care. A lot of guns leaves you with very little butter. We can’t have this bloated military budget– larger than the military budgets of all the countries in the world combined– while committing ourselves to a trillion dollar war and occupation in Afghanistan, and still provide our people with health care. We have 45 million Americans with no health care… Jane Harman is not going to challenge any administration, be it Republican or Democratic, on war, whether the war be in Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan. I think it’s terrific that President Obama is the leader of our country; I think it’s unfortunate that those who served under George Bush, who led us to war, have Obama’s ear. It’s really crucial that people who want to see peace in the world speak out for diplomacy and engagement and step up and support challenges to Blue Dogs and Democrats who really are uncritical about war and, worse than that, who are pandering to the military-industrial complex. When I ran, Jane Harman wore a pin of a B-2 bomber; we know who she is hoping to appeal to."

Marcy teaches English at Crenshaw High School and public education is certainly one of her top priorities. "If we continue on the path of perpetual war and economic privatization," she told me, "public education will become a mere memory." Since 2006 she’s been a tireless activist in L.A., an Obama campaigner, A co-founder of LA Jews for Peace, an Executive Board member of the California Democratic Party, who successfully introduced resolutions to protect our vote, bring our troops home, and implement parole and sentencing reform. She also helped organized a Progressive Caucus within the California Democratic Party. When I asked her, as I do all candidates now, if she would pledge not to join the Blue Dog caucus or any other group or reactionary Democrats in Congress she laughed. She’ll be joining the congressional Progressive Caucus on day one.

She’s already been endorsed by Mitch Ward, Mayor Pro Tem of Manhattan Beach; Carl Clark, Vice-President of the Redondo Beach School Board; David Greene, President of the San Pedro Democratic Club; Julian Burger, President of Progressive Democrats- Wilmington/Harbor Area; Mickey Oskey, Pres of Westside Progressives; and Nativo Lopez, President of the Mexican American Political Association (MAPA), which has thousands of members in the harbor area. She is adamant about voters in CA-36 being represented by someone with their best interests first and foremost, rather than unbridled personal ambition, and she is certain that residents of this west Los Angeles district– which Obama took with 64%– deserve a member of Congress who the ability to think through Big issues and do more than run with the herd.

"Jane Harman should never have supported the bailout of the banks without at least requiring some accountability. There was absolutely no critical thinking: there was a crisis; give them whatever they want. Meanwhile the banks are hoarding the cash and homeowners are being foreclosed on. I say freeze the foreclosures and set up mediation teams in every city in the 36th district– and beyond– to mediate between the banks and the homeowners so we can modify these loans. Once a homeowner goes into foreclosure, it’s disastrous for everybody. What results is lower revenue from property taxes, blight, rats, neighborhoods that are torn assunder."

Marcy is still getting her website up and going, but there is a place for donations. Please join Marcy in the comments section (below) for a free-flowing discussion.