During a phone call with the press twenty minutes ago, US Senator Patrick Leahy announced he is endorsing Barack Obama for the Democratic Presidential nomination. This is the latest in a string of high-profile endorsements for Obama in recent days, and is particularly significant given Leahy’s high national profile, and his position of leadership as Chair of Senate Judiciary.

It also seems to be part of an Obama strategy of rolling high-profile endorsements that have a cumulative impact. It’s true that any one endorsement is only worth so much, but a steady flow of them would seem to be greater than the sum of the parts. Brilliant.

Clinton still holds the lead in superdelegates, but Leahy just did his part to close the gap.

UPDATE: Welch follows suit. From his office:

“I have great admiration for all the Democratic candidates in the race. But it is Barack Obama who has brought new energy into the political process, inspiring all Americans to believe that it is possible to restore America’s promise at home and in the world.   Senator Obama’s campaign and his remarkable personal journey are helping us reach across a partisan divide and renewing a sense of hope and possibility in our country that we can shape our future by working together and by emphasizing what unites us, not what divides us. Barack Obama embodies the type of leadership America needs to overcome our many challenges.”

Below is a post from Allyson Villars, wife of impeachment marcher John Nirenberg. This is not just a coutionary tale. This is a new and stark reality. Thank God Peter Welch is protecting the major league home record from steroid fueled batsmen.

Dan

Yesterday, I was ecstatic to be able to surprise John by being at the end of his march from Boston to Washington. But my excitement suddenly turned to shock when we went with a few rally participants to view the actual Constitution. Upon entering the National Archives building I was stopped and told that I could not enter wearing my yellow rain poncho. When I asked “Why,” I was told that they don’t allow anyone in the building wearing a protest slogan on their clothing. My poncho read “Save the Constitution” and continued with “Impeach Bush/Cheney…Tell Speaker Pelosi (202) 225-0100.” Finally it listed the web address: www.marchinmyname.org.

I was pulled from the security line. The guard said, “Step over here,” and unhooked the cordoning rope so I could move aside. The man behind me, Larry, was wearing a light jacket over a green t-shirt that said “Impeach Bush.” He made Larry move out of line as well.

I tried to talk to the guard about my goal in being in the building – simply to see the Constitution of the United States. He wasn’t convinced and kept repeating his mantra, “Just take off the poncho and you can go in.” I asked him what was wrong with my poncho. He replied that they do not allow protests inside the building. I said that I was not protesting, that I was just an American citizen visiting the most important document of our country.

He kept talking over me. I said I wanted to speak to his supervisor and asked a friend in line to call the press and tell them that I was being barred from visiting our Constitution because of a message on my clothing.

Captain Judd and C. Bethea arrived quickly and identified themselves as supervisors and made an effort to explain to me why I could not wear my poncho. I calmly but forcefully asked them, “How it is that I was denied my freedom of expression if I was not actively protesting, or carried a sign, or in any way disturbed others?” I also mentioned that other people went into the archives with protest t-shirts and baseball caps saying, for example: “Stop the War for Oil,” and “Vote for Hillary.” Apparently those people were allowed in by mistake and officer C. Bethea said he would make certain they would be found and escorted out. But Captain Judd corrected Bethea and said that those wearing election campaign garments like “Elect Edwards” or “pro solar power” t-shirts were okay since they were “for” something. I responded, “Well I am for Saving the Constitution.” That did not convince him. He was now in mantra mode and simply repeated his command, “Just take off the poncho and you can go in or leave.”

Larry, with the green “Impeach Bush” t-shirt, buttoned his thin jacket, moved back into line and proceeded through the security checkpoint. I asked for the guards’ names. They wrote them down and when asked to tell me who their boss was so I could call him or her on Monday, “I was told to look it up on the Archives website.”

Then, I asked for a copy of the policy that mandated I remove my objectionable clothing in order to see the Constitution. They would provide nothing. They were unmoved. I asked them to tell me what they would have done if Larry didn’t have a jacket. Would they require him to take off his shirt and then go into the building half naked? They basically said they wouldn’t respond. Larry’s shirt was not an issue anymore…I asked them how the policy is practiced – that knowing how they interpret and implement the policy might help me understand the policy or law I was violating. They simply and finally said, “You will have to leave if you do not remove your garment.”

I chose to leave. I chose to leave because I refused to give up my rights to see the very document that provided those rights. I told Captain Judd that he might want to consider the good Germans who were part of the 3rd Reich machinery that took away the freedoms of Jews, and ultimately their lives. And, as I was turning to leave, I told him he was part and parcel of the reason that I found it necessary to articulate my point of view to “Save the Constitution,” on my clothing. “You might want to read the Constitution before you leave work today to find out what this is all about.” I said as I left.

I stood outside in my poncho in a silent protest until my friends returned.

I learned that a woman who cleared security wore a t-shirt that said “Impeach Bush.” Security guard C. Bethea later found her and made her borrow a jacket or leave the building. He also found my husband who was wearing a baseball cap that said “Impeach Cheney?” and made him take it off.

My thoughts go to those of you who see this as a small thing…perhaps even trivial. To those who believe this was just a ridiculous over-escalation in response to a security guard doing his job, let me tell you that our Constitutional rights are being stripped away one at a time and that it seems that most Americans who take these protections for granted will not “get it” until they, too, have their rights denied. Our being denied our rights is happening with more mind-numbing frequency than ever, and gets worse with each one of these new “trivial” moves.

I suppose I shouldn’t expect people to be upset about this is they are not upset about having lost their right to know what they are being charged with when they are arrested, possibly tortured and denied a speedy trial.

It may be just one more, sad instance of our rights being denied us, but remember, as it says on the outside wall of the National Archives, “Eternal vigilance in the price of liberty.” I hope you will take this seriously and decide where you will draw the line, what you will stand up for, what you will stand up for.

(Be advised: What follows is just a political musing. Enter with care. You should also be warned that I have occasion to include pictures from both Star Trek AND comic books, so JD might want to run screaming…)

In norse mythology, the pantheon of gods, with their internal conflicts between Aesir and Vanir, and ongoing battles with evil, as personified by beings such as Loki and the Midgard Serpent, was predestined to an unavoidable doom. They were caught in a cycle of destruction and renewal hardwired into their cosmology, and there was nothing to be done but ride it out. This was “ragnarok” – the twilight of the gods.

Regular readers are familiar with the regular conflict on this site – to third party or not to third party? GMD was, of course, set up by liberal Dems who, by their choice of affiliation, lean towards the latter option (although there are undoubtedly front pagers who prefer to keep their options more open). Not to rehash, but for my part, again, I see it as the fundamental structure of our elections; with a distinctly elected executive, power inevitably polarizes out into the party of the executive versus everybody else. This is what happened to the Whigs, the original Progressives, the Know-nothings or whoever. Every new, insurgent political party in our system faces one of two fates – either they supplant one of the existing ones and take their place of prominence in the hardwired two-party system, or they simply fail completely. I'm not saying its a good thing – in fact, it's probably not – but it is an inevitable result of our system as laid out in the Constitution.

And it is the political ragnarok ultimately faced by the divided left in Vermont. 

In Vermont at present, we are living through a period whereby the “winning” left-party will gradually sugar out over time. Given the direction and the progress the Progressive Party has taken, it would seem to inevitably be that the Democrats will maintain their systemic primacy. In fact, Anthony Pollina's gubernatorial candidacy will only accelerate that, one way or the other. Either Pollina loses, and the Progressives' abiding faith in their ability to draw Republicans and Democrats alike into a silent revolution (if only there is no Democrat in the race) stands shattered before electoral reality, or Pollina wins, and he must put together an executive branch without a Progressive political infrastructure that is developed enough to support such a government without depending primarily on Democrats to make it work.

This latter possibility is the most intriguing, and it lays out the real fallacy to a third party pursuing Pollina's top-down model (go for one of the top spots, such as Governor and fill in the rest later), as opposed to sticking with the grassroots, bottom-up model (work more patiently through city councils and state legislative seats, as has worked so well for them in Burlington): if you build from the bottom up, you not only build a case for executive power, you create a body of experienced public officials on which to build your executive infrastructure once you're in.

But that's not Pollina's (and apparently the Progs') way. Ironically, this means a Pollina victory would lead to his Party's being absorbed into that of the Democrats – probably losing several moderates, but gaining disaffected lefties – but a merger nonetheless that leaves us, again, with two parties.

A merger of this sort is the other possible manifestation of this political ragnarok, and is itself hardly unprecedented. Consider Minnesota's Democratic-Farmer-Labor party, or DFL. In 1944, the Democrats merged with the Farmer-Labor third party and have been a potent force ever since, sending several representatives to Congress. The thing is, once in Washington, they're all simply known as “Democrats.”

Which is what they are. Democrats. The “F” and the “L” were completely absorbed by the “D” in all but name only. That's not to say it wasn't a good thing, moving the Dems to the left, but the two-party structure remains.

So it would seem to be a doom, of sorts. We in the left just wait around, dealing with the left wing schism that has led us to so much frustration on both sides around the race for Governor. Ragnarok is coming – either the Progs will whither away or be absorbed in a merger – its a question of when, and how many elections we stand to lose in the meantime. It's a process completely out of our control.

Or is it?

In Norse mythology, the first sign of Ragnarok was the death of the god Balder, who could only me harmed by mistletoe. The story goes (at least in one version), that Loki didn't want to wait, tipped an arrow with mistletoe, and did the deed himself, bringing on the change.

Well, grassroots activists in both parties have access to a little mistletoe themselves…

If the grassroots crowds in both parties got tired of waiting, they could simply bring on a merger by fiat. Imagine activists committed to a merger running for leadership positions across the state – first at the city level, then the county, and then – inevitably and inexoribly – the state. Unless the law has changed, one can't hold offices in distinct and parallel party governance structures, so activists would have to work in teams.

It's a fun thought experiment for a couple of reasons.

One: imagine the scenes among local committees. There would be a lot of contention of course, but I suspect a surprising number of activists on both sides would be all for it. Obviously there are plenty of [ Democrats / Progressives ] of the “better dead that [ Progressive / Democrat ]” persuasion – but just how many would be interesting to see.

Two: If a movement like this were to actually get any momentum, leadership of both parties would likely plotz. It would threaten entrenched powers-that-be, dug in rivalries, and obsessive ideologies like nothing else.

But, if there were actual grassroots support, there is little anyone in either party's leadership could do about it.

One could further imagine it bringing the party's leaders together in a truly ironic way. In the film Star Trek VI, the looming success of a peace treaty between the Federation and the Klingons brought bitter enemies together behind the scenes to scuttle it, rather than be forced to leave their bitter war behind. Kirk, in grappling with his own ingrained prejudices opines “how will history get get around people like me?”

Maybe a coordinated grassroots effort to force a peaceful merger of the two parties despite themselves would finally bring the powers-that-be in both organizations together?

Let me be clear: I'm not advocating for anything – not by a long shot. This is just a little mindgame.

But its one that would drive Progressive and Democratic leadership equally crazy if it became reality.

And that makes it kind of a fun thought, no?