Marcy Winograd, Co-founder of Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles, is establishing an exploratory committee to challenge incumbent Jane Harman (CA-36) following explosive new revelations about Harman's involvement in potentially illegal obsctruction of justice, which the Bush Department of Justice overlooked because of her political support. Winograd won almost 38% of the vote in a 2006 primary challenge.
Following Jeff Stein's initial revelation of the the Jane-Harman/Alberto-Gonzales/AIPAC scandal last weekend, Harman whipped herself into a frenzy of denial, whilst simultaneously transforming herself into the least believable champion of civil liberties outside the Republican Party.
And speaking of the Republican Party, what may have been the most significant news of the week was the revelation that--totally fulfilling Fredo's expectations--Harman was such a staunch defender of Bush lawlessness that she weighed in to help stop the NY Times from publishing the NSA wiretap story before the 2004 election.
It was known before that Harman had offered to interfere with an investigation into alleged spying by two AIPAC staffers. What wasn't known was the real reason the Bush Justice Department dropped the investigation into what she did: they needed her political support. And now it seems that they got it, too.
On April 21, NYT spokesperson Catherine Mathis emailed a statement from NYT executive editor Bill Keller to Greg Sarget, stating, in part:
Congresswoman Harman spoke to Washington Bureau Chief Phil Taubman in late October or early November, 2004, apparently at the request of General Hayden. She urged that The Times not publish the story.
It doesn't appear that Harman played a major role--such as talking directly to Keller--but she clearly did weigh in. And that could be just one step too far to keep her in the good graces of her party brethren and sistren.
"I think her credibility with fellow Democrats is going to be strained at best," said grassroots activist Marcy Winograd, co-founder of Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles--who ran a strong campaign against Harman in 2006--just before confirming that she was forming an exploratory committee for another primary challenge in 2010.
In a story she published at Huffington Post on April 22, Winograd even raised the possibility of a special election, but didn't quite say she was intending to run. Now it's clear she's ready to take the first step.
"I think she's clearly in trouble and I think she knows it and is doing whatever she can to turn the tables on the situation," Winograd said. "And now she is the spokesperson for the ACLU or the Bill of Rights Foundation. It would be comical, if the stakes weren't so high."
But, of course, they are. And no one can really trust Harman to fighting for anyone's rights except her own, particularly given her willingness to lobby the NYT to suppress the NSA wiretap story.
Harman's involvement in the underlying AIPAC investigation, promising to run interference, was known when Winograd ran against Harman in 2006. But the cover story had it that the investigation was dropped for "lack of evidence", not because Attorney General Gonzales regarded her as a such a staunch Bush Administration ally.
Now that that cover story is blown, and it's also known that Harman justified that trust in her betrayal of her own party, things could be very different indeed. In 2006, Winograd shocked Harman by winning widespread support among grassroots activists, but Harman retained the support of the Party establishment, as well as a massive fundraising apparatus. This time, the calculus could be very, very different.
One of Winograd's first steps is going to be "taking the pulse" of the district on issues like military spending and single-payer health care, among other issues. It's entirely possible that Harman might bow out and try to annoint a successor. Or that another establishment Dem might try to take advantage of her weakened position. Which is why I wanted to get the word out as quickly as possible that there's a really credible progressive alternative. Winograd has already run a primary once in the district. Activists there know who she is, and a lot of them have already worked for her in 2006. This would not be a net-based candidacy, but it will certainly help to have it be net-supported.
So I made a point to ask Marcy if she had a place to accept donations yet. Not when I first asked, but she promised that was about to change. In less than a day, she sent me the following copy and link:
Send Marcy Winograd to the House. Send Jane Harman to the dog house. Donate to Winograd's 2010 challenge to Harman in California's 36th congressional district. Winograd received almost 38% of the vote in only three months of campaigning against Harman in 2006. With a year until the next election, Winograd can collect enough endorsements and dollars to win.
Send a donation, however small, and support a candidate who wants to bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, protect our constitutional rights, and implement single-payer health care.
