CAN SPRING BE HERE?

For the first time we're reading that some persons close to Hillary Rodham Clinton don't think she should run for president.  Apparently they see through the hype and recognize that she could take big hits from pols in her own party.  I suspect, though there's no evidence for it, that the main thing propelling her forward is her hubby's itch to take back the White House and get his hands on some levers again.

It has also been suggested now that her seemingly unrivaled status has only amounted to the fact that persons who will eventually run have been avoiding early scrutiny by letting her have all of it, "using her as a human shield", as someone put it.  Who might these aspirants be?  I've nothing to base my answer on except who looks to me to be attractive, ambitious, and progressive.  Try Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon.  Try Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island (surely a name from Providence!).  And Maryland's Governor O'Malley isn't working as hard as he is to get known nationally because he hopes to be Hillary's running-mate.

One illusion that was meant to be a self-fulfilling prophecy has just bit the dust.  That is that her prospective candidacy would clear the field of Dem contenders.  It's been made explicit now that she stands a real chance of being challenged for the nomination by a candidate who can't be ignored although he isn't even a Democrat.  The media don't seem quite sure what to make of him.

Senator Bernie Sanders is 72, outspoken, and seemingly healthy.  His popularity in Vermont hovers around the 70% mark.  An independent, he caucuses with the Dems, who support him when he runs for re-election.

He calls himself a democratic socialist and makes it clear that his socialism is that not of North Korea but of Scandinavia: that of a mixed economic system that works better than ours does.

He started out working for civil rights and peace.  He moved to Vermont, organizing politically, running unsuccessfully several times for statewide offices, then becoming mayor of Burlington, the state's largest city, and running it cleanly and well and for everybody.  He got elected to the U.S. House, then to the Senate and is his state's one towering political figure.  

His position is that, while he has nothing against Hillary personally, somebody has to take progressive stands. He hints that he might stand aside for someone who did.

He has indicated that if he runs it will be as a Dem.  Is he viable?  I don't know.  It could be a plus for him that he stands for what the Democratic party stands for without being caught up in its pandering and sellouts and influence peddling and pathological timidity.

A friend (who's Jewish) says Sanders is too Jewish, too Brooklyn, too old, and too radical to win.  Maybe at first blush.  But I'm not convinced that anyone would oppose him who wouldn't also oppose Hillary or O'Malley or Whitehouse, Merkley, etc.

Everybody knows that his forebears weren't New Englanders, weren't sea captains, and weren't Congregationalists or Unitarians.  But as you look at his halo of white hair and his weathered face, he seems to come across subliminally as one of those old-time flinty New England independents who are incorruptible and who stick around long enough to become institutions.

Why did he show his hand this early?  Maybe because he wants to spike the Hillary bubble.  Maybe to spur other progressives to get in motion and not be fatalistic..  Or maybe he likes the idea of being the Dem nominee and is putting some fear into other progressive candidates.  His being in the race could split their vote.  So it may have been a preemptive move, to get in first and make them think twice about competing with him.

Sanders' age could actually work for him, I'd think.  It's said that each generation parts company with its parents and shakes hands with its grandparents.  The young - and they're the soul of the Democratic party - always hope to find wisdom in elderly people.  They sure as hell aren't finding it in middle aged ones. Sanders has acted with consistent integrity and vision throughout a long public career.  It's possible that the newest political generation will respond to that.

Youthful voters may seem complacent so far.  If they feel resigned to Hillary and four more years of agony, that can't be what they want.  And we recall that the young, rallying to Gene McCarthy's insurgent candidacy in 1968, made Lyndon Johnson retire.  If somebody inspires "the kids" and gives them hope, things may change.

And this is about not only idealism but realism.  We're facing major, major crises including a broken economy, climate change, and an oligarchic situation that's strangling democracy.  The only way we're going to have an effective administration is if we elect a candidate with a mandate to do specific and difficult things, who will tell the whorish members of Congress: "You'll do right or, by God, I'll put the hurt on you.  Every bill of yours that comes to me will get vetoed if you won't listen to the people and take real action."  

Hillary's strength is also her weakness: that she doesn't really stand for anything and has never really done anything, however hard she has worked.  Once somebody starts pointing out that she's a bullshit candidate who represents a corrupt and unsustainable status quo, I think young Americans will realize, if they haven't already, that it's so.

We now have a promise that an uncompromised progressivism will play a role in 2016.  That's a huge advance over where we were only a few weeks ago.