Democratic

Feb. 27 (UPI) — Former Vice President Kamala Harris has endorsed U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D.-Texas, in the Texas Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate.

Harris recorded a robocall for Crockett in the race, which has the Texas representative facing off against Texas State Rep. James Talerico for the Democratic nomination in the race this fall Republican Sen. John Cornyn‘s seat, The Texas Tribune reported.

Cornyn, who has been in the Senate since 2002, is running for re-election but has to win a Republican primary against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Rep. Wesley Hunt.

“Texas has the chance to send a fighter like Jasmine Crockett to the United States Senate,” Harris said in the robocall, which was first reported by the Tribune. “Jasmine has the experience and record to hold Donald Trump and his billionaire cronies accountable.”

Crockett launched her campaign for Senate on Dec. 8 and will face off against Talarico in the March 3 primary.

She launched the campaign the same day that Colin Allred, a potential primary opponent, dropped out because he felt that “a bruising Senate Democratic primary and runoff would prevent the Democratic party from going into this critical election unified” — specifically citing Crockett’s entry into the race.

Crockett also has been endorsed by Maryland Sen. Angela Alsobrooks and California Rep. Ro Khanna, according to The New York Times.

Tuesday’s primary winner will face Cornyn, Paxton or Hunt, with the election moving to a runoff in May if none of the candidates receive more than half the votes.

President Donald Trump, a Republican, has not endorsed a Republican in the race.

None of the Democratic candidates running for California insurance commissioner won the party’s endorsement at its convention over the weekend, but two surged far ahead of the field in votes.

Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica), won a plurality of votes with 1,056, or 41.7%, of the ballots cast by delegates at the Moscone Center in San Francisco on Saturday.

Trailing closely behind was former San Francisco Supervisor Jane Kim, who received 1,018, or 40.2%, of the ballots. To win an endorsement a candidate needed to reach a 60% threshold.

Splitting up the remainder of the ballots was former state Sen. Steven Bradford, who represented South Los Angeles County and the South Bay in the Legislature. He won 221, or 8.7%, of the votes, while San Francisco businessman Patrick Wolff, a political newcomer, got 153, or 6%, of the votes cast.

Candidates who win an endorsement benefit from the party’s voter outreach through media such as mailers, door hangers and other advertising.

The GOP field includes businessman Robert Howell, who lost by 20 points in the 2022 general election to current Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. Also running are insurance agent Stacy Korsgaden from Grover Beach, and attorney Merritt Farren, whose Pacific Palisades home burned down. The Republic Party convention is April 10-12 in San Diego.

The candidates will now gear up for the June 2 primary election, with the general election set for Nov. 3.

The race for insurance commissioner typically draws little attention, but that changed after the Jan. 7, 2025, wildfires that swept through Los Angeles County, damaging or destroying more than 18,000 homes and killing 31 people.

Some insurers have been accused of delaying, denying and underpaying claims, while Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara has been subject to calls for his resignation over how he has handled the insurers’ response to the fires.

Allen, whose district includes the Palisades fire zone, has a platform that calls stabilization of the insurance market, which has seen carriers drop policyholders in fire-prone neighborhoods, while cracking down on insurer wrongdoing.

Despite his narrow margin over Kim, Allen released a statement saying, “Today, California Democratic Party delegates and activists sent a clear message: proven leadership and real results matter.”

Kim, who announced her candidacy in January, has garnered attention with an endorsement from U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and a proposal to cover disasters such as wildfires through a state-run program, rather than the private market.

“Despite Kim entering the race just a few weeks ago she virtually tied Allen for the most delegate votes. Everyone at the convention could see that Kim was the clear grassroots candidate,” said Kim spokesperson Catie Stewart.

SACRAMENTO — Every farmer knows there comes a time to thin the crop to allow the most promising plants to grow bigger and reach their potential.

The same is true in politics. And it‘s now time to cull some Democrats from the dense field of candidates for governor.

Put another way, it’s time for some lagging Democrats to step aside and provide more running room for swifter teammates in the race to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Sure, they’ve all got a constitutional right to run. But too many Democrats on the June 2 primary ballot could flip the California governor’s office to a Republican.

You’d think that Democratic candidates now plodding behind in the race — with little realistic hope of catching up — would want to avoid having that on their conscience. Party leaders, too.

Until recently, this nightmarish scenario for Democrats seemed inconceivable. After all, California hasn’t elected a Republican to statewide office for 20 years. Roughly 45% of registered voters are Democrats. Only 25% are Republicans. About 23% are independents who lean left.

But do the math. There are nine Democrats running for governor with various degrees of seriousness. There are only two major Republican contenders, plus a third lagging practically out of sight.

Remember, California has a “top two” open primary. The top two vote-getters, regardless of their party, advance to the November election. And only the top two. Write-in candidates aren’t allowed.

It’s a matter of arithmetic.

In the primary, about 60% of voters will choose a Democrat, political data expert Paul Mitchell figures. That number of voters split among nine Democratic candidates could result in all sharing smaller pieces of the pie than what the top two Republicans receive. Mitchell estimates nearly 40% of voters will side with a Republican, with just two candidates splitting most of the smaller GOP pie.

Recent polls have shown three candidates — two Republicans and one Democrat — bunched closely near the top. They’re Republican former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton, Democratic U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell from the San Francisco Bay Area, and Republican Sheriff Chad Bianco of Riverside County.

Another Democrat, former Rep. Katie Porter of Orange County, has been running close to the top three, followed by Democrat Tom Steyer, a billionaire former hedge fund investor.

It’s not likely that two Republicans will survive the primary and block a Democrat from reaching the general election. But it’s a legitimate possibility — and not worth the risk for the Democratic Party.

“How unlikely does it have to be for Democrats not to be worried?” asks Mitchell, who works primarily for Democrats. “Even if the chances are very small, the consequences could be catastrophic.”

He is constantly running primary election simulations. And last week he calculated the chances of two Republicans gaining the top slots at 18%. Most of his calculations have come out at around 10% to 12%, he says.

“I’m not trying to yell fire in a crowded theater,” Mitchell says. “But I’m trying to install a thermostat.”

He adds: “If there was ever a perfect storm when this could happen, we’re experiencing it now.”

The absence of a gubernatorial candidate heading the Democratic ticket in November, Mitchell says, would result in party damage far beyond the governor’s office.

It would lower Democratic voter turnout and probably cost the party congressional and legislative seats, and also affect ballot measures, Mitchell says.

In fact, it could jeopardize the Democrats’ chances of ousting Republicans and capturing control of the U.S. House.

So which candidates should drop out, not only to avoid embarrassment on election night but to save the party from possible disaster?

Four clearly should stay.

Swalwell has some momentum and is the leading Democrat in most polls, although his numbers are only in the teens. He’s relatively young at 45 and many voters are looking for generational change.

Porter is the leading female — with a chance to become the first woman elected California governor — and has been holding up in the polls despite showing a bad temper in a damaging TV interview last year.

Steyer has loads of his own money to spend on TV ads. But he needs a more coherent, simple message in the spots.

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan just entered the race, but shows some promise. He’s a moderate with strong Silicon Valley tech support. And he also has youth at 43.

Five others should consider bowing out.

Xavier Becerra has a great resume: Former U.S. health secretary, former California attorney general and longtime congressman. But he hasn’t shown much fire. And his message is muted.

Antonio Villaraigosa also has an impressive resume: Former Los Angeles mayor and state Assembly speaker. He’s running with a strong centrist message. But at 73, voters seem to feel his time is past.

Former state Controller Betty Yee knows every inch of state government, but lacks voter appeal.

State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond hasn’t shined in his current job and has no traction in the governor’s race.

Former legislator Ian Calderon isn’t even a blip.

What causes some candidates to stay in a race against long, even impossible odds?

“Hope springs eternal,” says longtime Democratic strategist Darry Sragow. “History is replete with races that turned around on a dime.”

And many feel obligated to their donors and endorsers, he adds.

Also, consultants often “have a vested interest” financially in keeping their clients in the game, he acknowledges.

But currently, Sragow adds, “it’s time for the Democratic Party to get its act together and weed out the field.”

“Party leaders should start cracking the whip. There’s something to be said for decisions being made behind closed doors in a ‘smoke filled room.’ The difference today is that it’s in a smoke-free room.”

The filing deadline for officially becoming a candidate is March 6. After that, a name cannot be removed from the ballot. It’s stuck there — possibly drawing just enough votes to rob another Democrat of the chance to be elected governor in November.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Bernie Sanders kicks off billionaires tax campaign with choice words for the ‘oligarchs’
What the … : Bondi claims win in ICE mask ban fight — but court ruled on different California case
The L.A. Times Special: Billionaires Spielberg, Zuckerberg eyeing East Coast, stirring concerns about California’s wealth-tax proposal

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Reporting from Washington — Sen. Elizabeth Warren took the first major step toward a White House run Monday, announcing a presidential exploratory committee as she attempts to redefine populism for the left in the age of Donald Trump.

“These aren’t cracks that families are falling into. They’re traps. America’s middle class is under attack,” the Massachusetts Democrat said in a 4½-minute video posted online. “Billionaires and big corporations decided they wanted more of the pie, and they enlisted politicians to cut ’em a fatter slice.”

Aside from a few images of Trump and polarizing figures in his administration, Warren’s largely biographical video steered clear of directly taking on the president. Instead, it echoed some of the complaints that brought him to power by asserting that “corruption is poisoning our democracy” and that government has “become a tool for the wealthy and well-connected.”

Warren is the biggest name to take a formal step into a race that is expected to feature a historically large primary field for a party that is eager to displace Trump in the White House.

A fundraising juggernaut who was among the first to tap into the anger of a resurgent left, Warren figures to be a major factor in the Democratic primary with a significant chance of winning the nomination.

Some detractors say Warren would have a hard time in a general election, however, both because some voters see her as too far to the left and because the former Harvard University law professor’s style can appear pedantic and lecturing to some ears. She has also been dogged by controversy over her thin claims of Native American ancestry.

But she has proved adept at capturing the frustrations and aspirations of many on the left. She’s skilled at putting core beliefs about the need for government regulation and income distribution into simple terms on videos that go viral. And she has successfully used her position on Senate committees to grill administration figures from both parties whom she has accused of going easy on big banks and other powerful players — attracting accusations of grandstanding from detractors.

“I’m in this fight all the way,” she said at a Monday afternoon news conference in Cambridge, Mass., using her favorite word, “fight,” multiple times.

The rhetoric puts her at the forefront of an intraparty debate over how best to take on the president. Warren believes in a combative approach based on a left-wing alternative to his right-wing populism.

She has long positioned herself as a fighter — years ago saying she had “thrown rocks” at those in the wrong. She relishes an image as a leader who will not back down, even in occasional battles against her own party.

“She was a pioneer of a lot of the populist themes that are coursing through the veins of Democratic primary voters, and she’s able to channel their frustration at the current administration,” said Colin Reed, a consultant who has run a campaign against Warren and later headed a Republican opposition research group.

Like Trump, Warren attempts to channel the anger in the middle class over the decline in employment in the nation’s industrial base and stagnant incomes for a large share of American workers.

Unlike Trump, she favors more government regulation and spending — including Medicare for all — to lift more people from poverty. She also opposes him on the long list of issues of cultural and ethnic diversity that have become litmus tests for both parties.

Warren, a policy wonk, is also far different from Trump in governing style and temperament.

Other potential candidates say a more uplifting message is needed to counter Trump’s grievance-filled politics. Warren, asked about her polarizing reputation on Monday, was unapologetic, saying those unhappy with her are the drug companies, big banks and others who benefit from the status quo.

In announcing on New Year’s Eve, Warren jumped ahead of several Senate colleagues who are expected to join the race soon, including Sens. Kamala Harris of California, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Cory Booker of New Jersey. Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas and former Vice President Joe Biden are also among the long list of Democrats considering the race.

Warren, who is completing her first term in the Senate, is 69, younger than Trump and other potential front-runners such as Biden and Sanders, but far from the generational change some in her party are urging.

Her early entry into the 2020 primary race, on the last day of 2018 calendar year, demonstrates the eagerness of potential candidates to stake a claim on party support, fundraising and public attention.

She is entering the primaries at a time when the Democratic Party is not only grappling with its economic message; it is also trying to come to grips with its increasing diversity. Hillary Clinton’s failure to energize enough voters of color was one of many reasons she could not defeat Trump, and many Democrats believe that they must make a stronger appeal to minority voters.

Warren, whose base of support in Massachusetts is largely white, signaled her intent to court minority voters in her launch video, which showed clips of her marching in an LGBTQ parade in a feather boa and attacking Trump’s divisiveness while pointing to the harsher effects that economic inequality has had on people of color.

Trump has gone after her repeatedly, mocking her claims to Native American heritage with the nickname “Pocahontas.”

In a Fox interview Monday, Trump continued to belittle her, saying he would “love to run against her” and attacking her mental fitness by saying “you’d have to ask her psychiatrist” whether she could win the election.

Warren’s attempts to put the Native American controversy to rest, including a DNA test this year that showed trace genetic links to Native American peoples, have largely fallen flat, drawing criticism not only from Republicans but prominent Native Americans as well.

Several reviews of her records, including an exhaustive investigation by the Boston Globe, have found that her ethnicity claims played no role in her hiring at a series of law school jobs, including at Harvard.

“Her message is a resonant one, but in terms of the messenger there are questions that weren’t there a few months ago,” said Tracy Sefl, a Democratic consultant who has been involved in many presidential races.

Sefl called the imperative to defeat Trump in 2020 “almost beyond description” and said “Democrats will be less inclined to choose a messenger who’s been called into question.”

Warren has tried to counter another potential liability — her image as part of the coastal elite — by telling her life story, which she also highlighted in Monday’s launch video.

She grew up in Oklahoma to middle-class parents. Her mother took a job at Sears when her father was unable to work following a heart attack.

A champion high school debater, she was able to make it to college and then law school while also starting a family.

Those early struggles fit within her economic argument that middle- and working-class families are often left without a safety net in the face of healthcare emergencies and other setbacks.

As a member of the Democratic minority in the Senate, Warren can’t claim many legislative accomplishments, but has succeeded in commanding attention.

She has kept financial regulation at the center of her message, the issue that brought her to prominence as an academic and allowed her to first make her mark on national politics while serving as a special advisor in the Obama administration. In that role, she advocated for and helped establish a consumer protection agency as part of the financial services and banking overhaul passed in the aftermath of the financial collapse.

Warren, a longtime critic of Wall Street, was passed over by President Obama to lead the agency on a permanent basis after Republicans made it clear they would fight her nomination. She ran for the Senate instead, winning her first term in 2012.

Despite hostility toward her policies from the financial industry, which contributes heavily to many candidates in both parties, Warren has been an especially strong fundraiser since entering politics. In her first Senate race, she raised what were then record levels of donations in both small online contributions and larger sums from the party’s big players.

She is a large draw on the campaign trail, where she gestures emphatically as she talks about what she characterizes as the “rigged” system that favors the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of middle-class people.

Warren stayed out of the 2016 race, believing Clinton was unbeatable in the primary. Since then, other contenders for the White House, including Sanders, have captured much of the attention and energy that had been directed toward her.

Questions intensified about whether her moment had passed after signs of somewhat tepid support cropped up in her home state this year.

She easily won reelection against an unknown candidate, drawing 60% of the vote, but her vote total was lower than that of Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, and polls showed the majority of Massachusetts voters did not want her to make a presidential run. Many Democrats preferred former Gov. Deval Patrick, who recently bowed out.

The Boston Globe editorial board, one of the most liberal in the country, urged her to reconsider a bid, saying she had become a “divisive figure” on the national stage.

“There’s no shame in testing the waters and deciding to stay on the beach,” the board wrote.

Follow the latest news of the Trump administration on Essential Washington »

noah.bierman@latimes.com

Twitter: @noahbierman

The Federal Communications Commission‘s stronger enforcement of its “equal time” rules is already affecting late-night TV.

During Stephen Colbert’s Monday night monologue on “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert,” he carried on per usual, introducing the Late Show Band and his guest Jennifer Garner. He then posed the question, “You know who is not one of my guests tonight?”

The late-night host was meant to have Texas state representative James Talarico on the show. But he said on air that he was “told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast.”

He continued on to explain the FCC’s new guidance for equal time rules under its Chairman Brendan Carr. The rules require broadcasters who feature political candidates to provide the same time to their rivals, if requested. Typically, news content, daytime and late-night talk shows have been excluded from these regulations, as it’s been an informal tradition for presidential candidates to make their rounds on various late-night shows.

But the FCC under Carr, who has made no secret of his intention to carry out an agenda that is aligned with President Trump’s wishes, has questioned whether late-night and daytime talk shows deserve an exemption from the equal-time rules for broadcast stations using the public airwaves. Many legal and media experts have said a stricter application of the rule would be hard to enforce and could stifle free speech

“Let’s just call this what it is. Donald Trump’s administration wants to silence anyone who says anything bad about Trump on TV, because all Trump does is watch TV,” said Colbert Monday night.

Earlier this year, ABC’s “The View” featured Talarico, as well as his main rival and fellow Democrat Jasmine Crockett. Talarico is currently facing off with Crockett and Ahmad Hassan in the Democratic primary for one of Texas’ two seats in the U.S. Senate. The FCC is also reportedly investigating his appearance on “The View.”

Experts consider the equal time rule to be antiquated, designed for a time when consumers were limited to a handful of TV channels and a dozen radio stations if they lived in a big city. The emergence of cable, podcasts and streaming audio and video platforms — none of which are subject to FCC restrictions in terms of content — have greatly diminished traditional broadcast media’s dominance in the marketplace. Carr has previously suggested that if TV hosts want to include political candidates in their programming, they can do it — just not on broadcast TV.

Colbert said he was taking Carr’s “advice” and revealed that his entire interview with Talarico was instead uploaded on YouTube. During the interview, Talarico calls out the Republican Party for initially running against “cancel culture.”

“Now they are trying to control what we watch, what we say, what we read. And this is the most dangerous kind of cancel culture, the kind that comes from the top,” said Talarico. “They went after ‘The View’ because I went on there. They went after Jimmy Kimmel for telling a joke they didn’t like. They went after you for telling the truth about Paramount’s bribe to Donald Trump.”

“The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” is leaving the air come May, signaling the end of CBS’s longstanding relationship with the late-night talk show. Its cancellation was a “purely financial decision,” according to CBS. But it also came at a time when Paramount Global, which owns CBS, was seeking regulatory approval from the Trump administration to sell itself to Skydance Media. The merger was finalized in August.

L.A. Times staff writer Stephen Battaglio contributed to this report.

More than 457,000 European citizens have signed a petition calling for the full suspension of the European Union’s partnership agreement with Israel within the initiative’s first month.

Launched on January 13 as a formally registered European citizens’ initiative, the petition must reach 1 million signatures from at least seven EU member states by January 13 next year to trigger formal consideration by the European Commission. It is not a symbolic appeal. It is a mechanism embedded within the EU’s democratic framework, designed to translate public will into institutional review.

The speed and geographic spread of this mobilisation matter. The demand to suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement is no longer confined to street demonstrations or activist circles. It has entered the EU’s formal democratic architecture.

The petition calls for suspension on the grounds that Israel is in breach of Article 2 of the association agreement, which conditions the partnership on respect for human rights and international law. As the initiative states, “EU citizens cannot tolerate that the EU maintains an agreement that contributes to legitimize and finance a State that commits crimes against humanity and war crimes.” The text further cites large-scale civilian killings, displacement, destruction of hospitals and medical infrastructure in Gaza, the blockade of humanitarian aid and the failure to comply with orders of the International Court of Justice.

As of Monday, the initiative had gathered 457,950 signatures, more than 45 percent of the required total in just one month. Signatories come from all 27 EU member states without exception. This is not a regional surge. It is continental.

The distribution of signatures reveals more than raw numbers. France alone accounts for 203,182 signatories, nearly 45 percent of the total. That figure reflects the country’s longstanding tradition of solidarity mobilisation, sustained mass demonstrations throughout the genocidal war on Gaza and the clear positioning of major political actors, such as La France Insoumise. France has emerged as the principal engine of this institutional push.

Spain follows with 60,087 signatures while Italy stands at 54,821, a particularly striking figure given the presence of a right-wing government that openly supports Israel. Belgium has registered 20,330 signatures from a population of roughly 12 million, reflecting high relative engagement. In the Nordic region, Finland with 12,649 signatures, Sweden with 15,267 and Denmark with 8,295 show sustained participation. Ireland has reached 11,281 signatures from a population of just over five million.

Several of these countries have already exceeded their required national thresholds under EU rules. France, Spain, Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Italy and Sweden have all surpassed the minimum number needed for their signatures to count towards the seven-member-state requirement. This is a critical development. It means the initiative is not merely accumulating volume but is also already satisfying the geographic legitimacy criteria built into the European citizens’ initiative mechanism.

The Netherlands, with 20,304 signatures, is approaching its national threshold. Poland, at 22,308 signatures, reflects engagement that extends beyond Western Europe. Even in smaller states such as Slovenia with 1,703 signatures, Luxembourg with 900 and Portugal with 4,945, participation is visible and measurable.

Germany presents a revealing contrast. Despite being the EU’s most populous member state and the site of some of the largest demonstrations against Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza, the petition has gathered 11,461 German signatures, only 17 percent of Germany’s national threshold of 69,120. This gap between visible street mobilisation and formal institutional participation highlights the particular political and legal environment in Germany, where pro-Palestinian expression has faced restrictions and where successive governments have maintained near-unconditional support for Israel as a matter of state policy. The relatively low percentage does not signal absence of dissent. Rather, it illustrates the structural constraints within which dissent operates. That more than 11,000 citizens have nevertheless formally registered their support indicates that institutional engagement is occurring even under conditions of political pressure.

Taken together, these patterns reveal something deeper than a petition’s momentum. Over more than two years of genocidal war, ethnic cleansing and the systematic destruction of civilian life in Gaza, solidarity across Europe has not dissipated. It has moved from protest slogans and street mobilisation into a formal democratic instrument that demands institutional response.

Petitions do not automatically change policy. The European Commission is not legally bound to suspend the association agreement even if the initiative ultimately reaches 1 million signatures. But the political implications are significant. A successful initiative would formally compel the commission to respond to a demand grounded in the EU’s own human rights clause. It would demonstrate that the call for suspension is rooted in broad and measurable public support across multiple member states.

The European Union has long presented itself as a normative power committed to international law and human rights. Article 2 of its partnership agreements is foundational. If hundreds of thousands, and potentially more than a million, European citizens insist that this principle be applied consistently, EU institutions will face a credibility test.

This petition is not merely a count of signatures. It is an index of political will. It shows that across France, Spain, Belgium, Italy, Ireland, the Nordic states and beyond, citizens are invoking the EU’s own democratic mechanisms to demand accountability.

Whether the initiative ultimately reaches 1 million, one reality is already established. The demand to suspend the EU-Israel partnership has entered Europe’s institutional bloodstream. It can no longer be dismissed as marginal rhetoric. It is embedded within the union’s formal democratic process, and that marks a significant development in Europe’s response to the genocide in Gaza.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

WILLIAMSBURG, Va. — In Waco, Tex., Richard A. Gephardt kicked off his Super Tuesday campaign by deriding Michael S. Dukakis as the Democratic presidential candidate with the most money and “the least message.”

The next day, in Deerfield Beach, Fla., Dukakis castigated Gephardt as “the prince of darkness” for appealing to the angry side of America with his complaints about unfair foreign economic competition.

In part, the two candidates generally deemed the front-runners in the Democratic race, who came here last week for a debate before the cream of the Southern Democratic Party, are flinging rhetorical brickbats at each other because of the 20-state treasure-trove of delegates up for grabs in Super Tuesday’s primaries and caucuses.

Another Struggle

But Massachusetts Gov. Dukakis, the winner of the New Hampshire primary, and Missouri Rep. Gephardt, the winner of the Iowa caucuses, are locked in another struggle as well, one that transcends even as rich a prize as Super Tuesday. At stake is nothing less than the heart, mind and future of the Democratic Party.

And that deeper struggle has injected a bitter, biting element into the campaign because the cleavages between the two leaders are sharply drawn along class, cultural and regional lines.

To put the matter in starkly simple terms, Dukakis, with his core support in the suburbs and among upscale city dwellers, reflects the beliefs and values of the party’s Eastern liberal Establishment, and the interests of the nation’s thriving bicoastal economy.

Gephardt, hailing from America’s economically hard-hit hinterland with his Missouri legacy of Harry S. Truman populism, is striving to speak to and for working-class voters. Such voters have been the foundation of classic Democratic majorities of the sort the party has seldom managed to assemble in recent years.

“Nothing is ever 100% black and white in politics,” says Southern pollster Claibourne H. Darden Jr. As he suggests, the realities of the immediate battle for votes are so complex that the underlying struggle may not be precisely reflected in the election returns across Dixie or the rest of the nation.

“But there’s a real socioeconomic division here,” Darden says. “Gephardt is after the ‘Bubba’ vote–the good old boys, the middle-middle section of the Democratic Party. And Dukakis is the darling of the educated liberals and the suburbanites.”

In a sense, their battle is a sequel to the 1984 contest between Walter F. Mondale and Gary Hart, in which those two argued essentially over whether the Democratic Party needed to change. Although Mondale won the nomination, he lost the election and thus the argument: Virtually everyone entered the 1988 campaign agreeing that the Democratic Party needed to change.

The battle between Dukakis and Gephardt will help to settle the remaining question: In what new direction will the party now move?

Of course, Dukakis and Gephardt have to reckon with two other major rivals in the Southern contests–the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore Jr.

Jackson is expected to run very well here Tuesday, perhaps capturing more states than any of his rivals. But most analysts doubt that he can sustain that success outside the South on the scale needed to make him a serious threat for the nomination.

As for Gore, few believe the only white Southerner in the race can do well enough in his home region to make up for his lack of achievement in the early contests elsewhere.

Meanwhile, what seems to be happening in the competition between Gephardt and Dukakis is that their debate is redefining the governing grammar of the Democratic Party, creating a new syntax in which the definitive phrases are not “liberal” and “conservative” but rather “change” and “pain.”

To a considerable extent the dividing line between Dukakis’ supporters and Gephardt’s backers is based on the degree to which any group of voters feels hurt by current economic conditions and prospects and the urgency with which they want to alter those conditions.

By using his argument against unfair trade practices as an expression of the case for broader change, “Gephardt has found a clean way to tap into the anger of voters who feel the circumstances of the economy are working against them,” said Paul Tully, former political director of Dukakis’ campaign.

Last January, just before the Iowa caucuses, Gephardt defined his populism in the rhetoric of Franklin D. Roosevelt, whom he described as “the greatest populist of the century.” Recalling F.D.R.’s celebrated vow to crush “the forces of greed and privilege,” Gephardt called that dictum “the legacy and the life force” of the Democratic Party.

Listen to Gephardt 10 days ago at the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in Atlanta, where he warned 3,500 Democrats that America was in decline and demanded change to reverse the tide.

“I want to put a Democrat in the White House in 1988 so we can make America move and soar again,” he declared. “But to move in that direction we must change America in fundamental ways. That’s what the election in 1988 is all about.

Must Stand for Change

“A lot of people don’t want change,” Gephardt warned. “Strong forces resist change for a whole lot of different reasons. You must understand that if you want to change America the only way it will happen is if you stand for change in the Tuesday, March 8, primary.”

This message, says Tully, has visceral appeal to “those Democrats who live in places where the economy is threatening or not encouraging.” Moreover, Gephardt’s insistence on tougher trade policies, denounced as “protectionist’ by the well-educated middle-class supporters of Dukakis, appears to strike a responsive chord among the blue-collar workers Gephardt is trying to reach.

For many of them, political professionals point out, the idea that it is time for the United States to get back at foreign competitors has not only economic significance but also patriotic resonance.

Because of this, many Democratic politicians believe this issue could help win back former Democrats who have turned away from the party and supported Ronald Reagan in recent years because they believed that Democratic national leaders were namby-pambies in dealing with foreign nations.

“The trade issue is a metaphor for the sense that people have that they have lost control of their economic destiny, for the sense that many people feel that ‘my standard of living is slipping, we’re drifting and we’re slipping,’ ” says Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.), a Gephardt supporter.

Dukakis is for change too, Tully asserts. But the Massachusetts governor is a self-decribed optimist. And the kind of change for which he argues is more businesslike and less impassioned, more methodical and less fundamental than what Gephardt preaches.

“It is more of a roll up your sleeves and get on with the work approach,” Tully says. “And it appeals to people who want change but who have a lower level of anxiety than Gephardt’s constituents.”

Central to Dukakis’ optimistic view and to his message of moderate change is the economic recovery in Massachusetts, for which he claims a large share of credit and which he seems to argue has almost unlimited relevance elsewhere in the nation.

“Over the last dozen years I’ve seen the Massachusetts economy turn around and come back strong,” Dukakis declared in a speech last fall on economic policy. “And over the past few months, campaigning around this country, I’ve seen example after example of the kind of strength and determination and spirit it will take to get our fiscal house in order and restore our competitiveness abroad.”

If Gephardt seems to respond to anger and frustration among the voters, Dukakis appears to try to smooth over grievances.

When the Democrats hold their nominating convention in July, Dukakis told the Atlanta dinner audience that Gephardt also addressed, “I hope we as a party will have learned the lessons of division. Let’s make 1988 a year for the promise of opportunity and not the politics of resentment.”

Ultimately, the argument between these two points of view will be settled at the ballot box.

And ironically, the circumstances of these two candidates and the special nature of those who normally vote in Democratic primaries suggests that–as in 1984–the apostle of fundamental change could be hard-pressed to win the nomination, while the moderate could lose in November.

More Electable

A good many Democrats who have reservations about Gephardt’s policies, particularly his views on trade, are nonetheless interested in the congressman’s candidacy because they think he would be more electable than Dukakis in November.

“Dukakis’ message is competence in domestic policy and the rule of law in foreign policy,” says Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City), one of the House members who–along with many leading Southern politicians–gathered here at Williamsburg for a meeting of the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of moderate-to-conservative office holders. “And, frankly, I’m not convinced it’s a winning message.

“The Gephardt message is very good for blue-collar workers,” continues Berman, who will not decide who to back until after Super Tuesday. “It could help us get back people we have been having trouble holding in general elections, people who were attracted to Reagan.”

Other Democrats are blunter in their assessment: “Dukakis looks like another 49-state blowout to me,” says a high-level Southern labor leader who declined to be identified. He thinks that Dukakis could not draw any significant amount of votes beyond what Mondale received in 1984, when he carried only Minnesota and the District of Columbia.

By contrast, this official believes that Gephardt would “bring the white middle-class and blue-collar vote in the South back to the Democrats. We have to be a party that’s not just interested in redistributing wealth, that’s also interested in helping the middle class.”

But for all Gephardt’s potential assets in the fall, some think he may never have the chance to cash in on them because of the practical realities governing Democratic primary politics, particularly in the South.

“(Dukakis’) is an elitist campaign,” Martin Linsky, a public policy specialist at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, says. “But the primary in the South is a setup for him. He gets the suburban, liberal upper-middle-class vote.” And, as Linsky points out, these are the voters most likely to go to the polls on Tuesday.

Gephardt Might Struggle

Moreover, while Gephardt’s message of change gives him much broader potential appeal than Dukakis, many professionals believe that without the financial and organizational resources Dukakis has amassed, Gephardt will have to struggle to get his potential supporters to the ballot box.

And Gephardt’s ability to win votes by emphasizing basic differences from Dukakis is complicated somewhat by the fact that neither man’s origins quite match his current billing.

As Gephardt’s rivals never tire of pointing out, while serving as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus he was widely considered to be a fixture of the congressional hierarchy. And the legislative connections he fashioned with lobbyists for business and labor have helped finance his presidential campaign–to the tune of more than $350,000, or about 6% of his total contributions.

“Dick, don’t give us that Establishment stuff when you’re out there taking their money,” Dukakis snapped at Gephardt during the debate here last week. And the Dukakis campaign released a negative commercial later in the week attacking Gephardt on just the same grounds.

For his part, Dukakis entered politics sounding more like a neoliberal than a traditional liberal. And even today his views embody his natural frugality and his abounding faith in the efficacy of high technology and rational management.

Dukakis campaign chairman Paul Brountas, who has known the governor all his political life, says: “Certainly Michael Dukakis is a progressive”–a term Brountas prefers to “liberal.” But he adds: “He’s very conservative fiscally. And he’s run the state in a tight-fisted way.”

In the end, many believe the outcome of the Gephardt-Dukakis battle in Dixie may depend on whether Gephardt can reach the voters whose anger is fueling his candidacy.

Chris Scott, president of the North Carolina AFL-CIO, contends that Gephardt’s argument for retaliation against unfair trade practices has great appeal in his state, where the textile industry has been hard hit by foreign imports.

“Gephardt’s trade message can romp and stomp in this state,” Scott says. “But I don’t know if Gephardt can get the message out.”

CHICAGO — Before she had toppled the moneyed and the mighty, back when perhaps a dozen people thought she had a chance to be a U.S. senator, Carol Moseley Braun went to Washington to drum up support for her ragtag campaign.

Waiting in the drafty outer hallways of power, she was treated like a poor relation. And the results were pathetic.

The official gatekeepers of money and political advice simply dismissed Braun and her candidacy for the Democratic Senate nomination from Illinois, recalls Tony Podesta, a college friend who is now is a Washington political consultant. He walked her through receptions, and she got nothing more than a few polite hellos. And although established women’s groups said, “Right on, keep going,” they kept their pocketbooks closed.

“Talk about your underdogs,” Podesta says, laughing. “I couldn’t even find a professional fund-raiser who she could pay to work for her.”

But with no organization, little money and a quintessentially Chicago political title as the Cook County Recorder of Deeds, Braun knocked out a three-term senator, Alan J. Dixon, in the March 17 Democratic primary.

This week, Braun went back to Washington for money and backing. And this time, it was the difference between the Prince and the Pauper.

With the head of the Illinois State Democratic Party in tow, she met with party powerbrokers, including Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell of Maine and Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. All are members of the white man’s club she ran against, but the reception was ecstatic.

Such is the nature of power in Washington. Braun had just eliminated one of their entrenched cohorts, “Al the Pal” Dixon, 64, who has been winning elections for 42 years. But now she stands a fair chance of making history as a double outsider: If she wins against Republican nominee Richard Williamson in November, she’ll be the first black woman in the Senate and only the fourth black to serve in that august chamber.

Although she dismisses political post-mortems that credit anything but her determination, there is evidence she was also buoyed by luck, timing and a third candidate, Al Hofeld, a 55-year-old personal-injury attorney who spent $4.5 million of his own personally injuring Dixon in negative TV advertisements.

“I think it’s fair to say that if this were hockey, Hofeld would get an assist,” quips Hofeld’s media consultant, David Axelrod.

Braun may have had one other unlikely man on her team: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In fact, without him she might never have entered the race.

Last autumn she was so disgusted by the tone and substance of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Thomas’ nomination to the high court–before and after the allegations of sexual harassment by Prof. Anita Hill–that she decided it was time to break into the men’s club on Capitol Hill.

“I was completely focused on how badly the process had failed,” she says. “If the Senate had done its job right from the start, we all would have been spared the mess. And who were these guys anyway? Where were the women, the minorities and the regular working people?”

She said as much, twice, on a public television talk show and was overwhelmed with letters, phone calls and friends urging her to take on Dixon, who had voted for Thomas. After several meetings, Chicago women activists identified three potential female candidates to challenge Dixon; it was decided that Braun, a University of Chicago Law School graduate who had served 10 years in the state Legislature, had the best qualifications and the best shot.

But she was not a shrinking violet thrust forward into the limelight. Now 44, she has been in the cut and thrust of Chicago politics since her early 20s, and she knew the risks. When a friend warned her that she could be a sacrificial lamb, she reportedly retorted: “If the best my party can do for me is recorder of deeds, then I don’t care about the future.”

With the backing of a coalition of women activists, suburban liberals and her most critical base, blacks throughout Chicago, Braun garnered 38% of the vote compared to Dixon’s 35% and Hofeld’s 28%. Less than two weeks before the upset, Braun had been 12 percentage points behind Dixon.

Hers was a last-minute sprint that came together through a confluence of events, including a television debate in which Hofeld hammered Dixon for his conservative voting record. For the first time, a broader spectrum of the public saw Braun demonstrate her speaking savvy and natural warmth.

In addition, Gloria Steinem came twice to Chicago on Braun’s behalf, attracting attention and contributions to the campaign. And the network of liberals in the suburbs–mostly white women–mounted a word-of-mouth effort to turn Braun into a winner.

In fact, women did well up and down the ballot in the Illinois primary. “I think women, more than men, are convincing elements of change,” says Axelrod. “That will give Carol an edge in November.”

But the “women’s vote” has never materialized consistently in past elections, and it’s still too early to tell whether Braun can make a convincing argument in November that she is a “change agent,” as Washington insiders are fond of saying.

“She’s got to broaden her base beyond blacks and some women and focus, focus, focus, on economic issues,” advise Axelrod and others.

Both Braun and Williamson are positioning themselves as outraged outsiders and setting each other up as a symbol of what catapulted America into an economic morass.

“The fundamental difference between my opponent and myself is that she has made her living for the past 14 years as a career politician and voted 13 times to raise taxes,” says Williamson, 42, a partner in a Chicago law firm who serves on President Bush’s General Advisory Committee on Arms Control.

Speaking from a car phone as he made an eight-city campaign swing last weekend, he added: “I’m not saying it’s always evil to be a career politician–George Bush certainly is. It’s just among the elements that makes differences between my opponent and myself so stark.”

Although exhausted from her sudden status as a political phenomenon–already she’s done “Nightline” and the “Today” show–Braun last week offered her assessment of those differences:

“He’s a typical Reaganite and will have to answer for the policies of the new federalism that screwed up this country. He was part of it.”

Braun doesn’t expect this race to be more challenging than the primary seemed last November–but she does see land mines.

“It’ll be a tough race only to the extent that Williamson (who is white) plays the racial card, directly or subtly, by manipulating symbols like talking about my views on welfare reform,” she says.

Illinois has elected blacks statewide, but many more have been defeated. “If the election was held next week, she’d probably win because of the post-primary euphoria around her,” says Don Rose, a Chicago political consultant. “But we have a way to go, and we don’t know how the wild card–race–plays, and we don’t know how the national ticket plays.”

Williamson insists that he’ll fire anyone in his campaign who uses racism to attack his opponent.

“I won’t hold my opponent accountable for the race of her parents if she doesn’t hold me accountable for the race of mine,” says Williamson, who grew up and lives with his wife and three children on Chicago’s wealthy North Shore.

As he describes it, Williamson has spent most of his career in “public service,” although he has never run for office. He was an aide to the most conservative congressman in the Illinois delegation, Rep. Philip Crane, and later worked for the Reagan Administration as intergovernmental affairs director and for the Bush campaign in 1988.

A fiscal conservative who has etched out more moderate positions on social issues, Williamson is known as an intellectual who reads Hermann Hesse and gives windy speeches on public policy.

So far, he says, his status as a novice campaigner has created the biggest hurdles for him in formulating positions on the spot. For example, while the former Princeton University religion major personally opposes abortion, he decided after consulting “with my wife and others” that he was pro-choice–although he does not support federal funding for abortion. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, Williamson would support legalizing abortion. But when asked how that law should be defined, on a state or federal level, he bristled: “I’m not going to say any more; I think (reporters) are more interested in this subject than the public.”

The Braun-Williamson competition is as much a horse race for the locals made blase by the oddities of Chicago politics as it is for the national touts who haven’t seen its like since Shirley Chisholm ran for President in the 1970s.

Already, local pundits are joking on the radio that for the first time the Bridgeport neighborhood, home to the late Mayor Richard J. Daley and his son Richard M., the current mayor, may support a black candidate.

“Carol will get the vote,” says the radio announcer, “because Daley wants her out of town and safe in Washington, where she can’t run for mayor.”

The daughter of a policeman and a medical worker, Braun grew up in Hyde Park, an integrated neighborhood near the University of Chicago, admiring such women as Amelia Earhart and Bessie Coleman, a black aviator. After graduating from law school, Braun married a classmate and joined a Republican-controlled federal prosecutor’s office.

Her initiation into politics came in 1977, when she was pushing her young son in his stroller on Hyde Park Boulevard and ran into Kay Clement, a neighbor. Clement was on a search committee to find a replacement for Robert Mann, a well-known liberal state legislator who was among a group that called itself the “Kosher Nostra” and prided itself on being a constant burr in the elder Daley’s side. Clement asked Braun if she’d run.

“She was well-spoken, congenial, and I thought she had the character to continue on in the tradition of us Young Turks,” recalls Mann, now retired.

Braun served 10 years in the Illinois House, eventually becoming assistant majority leader and Chicago Mayor Harold Washington’s floor leader in the mid-1980s.

In the Legislature, she dealt with Democratic politics skillfully but not always defiantly, which angered some of her radical black supporters. Similarly, she riled her white liberal cohorts at times and had problems with Mayor Washington when she formed alliances with his enemies and attempted to run without his approval for lieutenant governor.

“Carol is an ambitious woman, and that’s a sin in our society,” says Mann. “It’s OK for everybody else to be trading horses, making deals, being rainmakers–but not her.”

Braun left the Legislature to be the Chicago recorder of deeds in part to spend more time closer to home; she had been divorced and had a young son and an ill mother to care for.

As an administrator, she updated the deeds system with modern technology and created committees to eliminate patronage. Speaking of the deeds office, a Realtors association spokesman recently told the Chicago Tribune: “It’s not a dungeon anymore. You don’t have to carry your own candle.”

But the administration of Braun’s grass-roots primary campaign did not win as much praise; several members of her staff quit amid reports of conflict over the leadership of campaign manager Kgosie Matthews. And although Braun is likely to draw on the Chicago Establishment, organization is considered her weak point.

Kay Clement, who is on Braun’s committee, says the candidate has confidence in Matthews but plans to bring in more professionals once the money starts rolling in–which is expected at any moment.

Emily’s List, a fund-raising group for women Democratic candidates, gave $5,000 to Braun in the last weeks of the primary campaign and has vowed to support her further. “We will be in the mail for her in the next two weeks and plan to raise an incredible amount of money for her,” vows Ellen Malcolm, the group’s president.

And Chicago women such as Susan P. Kezio are determined that this time around, Braun will get the full respect due her in her hometown.

Kezio, 37, founder of the company Women in Franchising, says she tried during the primary to get Braun as a lunchtime speaker at the city’s Rotary One, the first Rotary Club in America.

“After Dixon spoke to us, I ran up to our director and proudly said, ‘Hey, I can get Carol Moseley Braun to speak,’ ” Kezio recalls. The director suggested they wait until after the primary. Then, a few weeks later, Hofeld came to speak.

Kezio was furious. She complained to the director, who said Hofeld had asked to address the Rotarians and Braun hadn’t. Apparently, Kezio’s request for Braun hadn’t registered.

But this week, according to Kezio, the Rotary director hunted down Braun and eagerly invited her to be a speaker. She said she’d be honored.

“Believe me,” Kezio says, “this time nobody is going to ignore Carol Moseley Braun.”

WASHINGTON — A grand jury in Washington refused Tuesday to indict Democratic lawmakers in connection with a video in which they urged U.S. military members to resist “illegal orders,” according to a person familiar with the matter.

The Justice Department opened an investigation into the video featuring Democratic Sens. Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin and four other Democratic lawmakers urging U.S. service members to follow established military protocols and reject orders they believe to be unlawful. All the lawmakers previously served in the military or at intelligence agencies.

Grand jurors in Washington declined to sign off on charges in the latest of a series of rebukes of prosecutors by citizens in the nation’s capital, according to the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the matter. It wasn’t immediately clear whether prosecutors had sought indictments against all six lawmakers or what charge or charges prosecutors attempted to bring.

Grand jury rejections are extraordinarily unusual, but have happened repeatedly in recent months in Washington as citizens who have heard the government’s evidence have come away underwhelmed in a number of cases. Prosecutors could try again to secure an indictment.

Spokespeople for the U.S. attorney’s office and the Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.

The FBI in November began contacting the lawmakers to schedule interviews, outreach that came against the backdrop of broader Justice Department efforts to punish political opponents of the president. President Trump and his aides labeled the lawmakers’ video as “seditious” — and Trump said on his social media account that the offense was “punishable by death.”

Besides Slotkin and Kelly, the other Democrats who appeared in the video include Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire and Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania.

Slotkin, a former CIA analyst who represents Michigan, said late Tuesday that she hopes this ends the Justice Department’s probe.

“Tonight we can score one for the Constitution, our freedom of speech, and the rule of law,” Slotkin said in a statement. “But today wasn’t just an embarrassing day for the Administration. It was another sad day for our country,” she said.

Kelly, a former Navy pilot who represents Arizona, called the attempt to bring charges an “outrageous abuse of power by Donald Trump and his lackies.”

“Donald Trump wants every American to be too scared to speak out against him,” Kelly said in a post on X. “The most patriotic thing any of us can do is not back down.”

In November, the Pentagon opened an investigation into Kelly, citing a federal law that allows retired service members to be recalled to active duty on orders of the defense secretary for possible court-martial or other punishment. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has censured Kelly for participating in the video and is trying to retroactively demote Kelly from his retired rank of captain.

The senator is suing Hegseth to block those proceedings, calling them an unconstitutional act of retribution. During a hearing last week, the judge appeared to be skeptical of key arguments that a government attorney made in defense of Kelly’s Jan. 5 censure by Hegseth.

Richer and Tucker write for the Associated Press.

Feb. 10 (Asia Today) — Jeong Cheong-rae, leader of South Korea’s Democratic Party, said Monday he has suspended merger talks with the Jo Kuk Innovation Party less than three weeks after publicly proposing the idea, citing internal unity ahead of upcoming local elections.

Jeong told reporters after a party leadership meeting that discussions will be put on hold until after the local elections.

“Until the local elections, we will stop the merger talks,” Jeong said. “Whether people supported or opposed the merger, we all share the spirit of putting the party first. We respect the will of party members. I believe harmony is more urgent than controversy over integration.”

Jeong said the party will form a preparatory committee focused on “solidarity and integration” and will revisit the merger after the local vote.

The Democratic Party’s move comes 19 days after Jeong publicly raised the possibility of merging with the Innovation Party, a smaller liberal party associated with former Justice Minister Cho Kuk.

Jeong also apologized for friction stirred by the discussions.

“Everything that happened during this process was due to my shortcomings,” he said. “I apologize to the public, our party members and members of the Jo Kuk Innovation Party.”

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260210010003885