Jim Neal is the progressive candidate in North Carolina's Primary this Tuesday May 6.  He is up against Kay Hagan, a conservative Dem who was apparently nudged by the DSCC to run soon after Jim affirmed in a press interview that he was openly gay.  I first learned about Neal through the netroots and through an article on 365gay.com about his candidacy his candidacy.  After hearing about the campaign, I decided to take a look at the candidates' sites themselves.  Even a quick glance reveals tremendous differences.  Jim is a true progressive on everything from healthcare to gay rights to the Iraq War.  He is also taking a great step forward for all gay Americans by having the courage to be himself and run for office.  We must band together and do what we can to get Jim elected!  Please visit his site, donate, spread the word, and read below the fold for more.

The word certainly appears often enough here so at least some people have an idea that there is.  My thesis for this diary is that there is one and that it is at the heart of the primary battle we all wish would go away.  Furthermore, it would be in the vital  interests of that establishment to either defeat Senator Obama before he becomes the official nominee or certainly after he does.  For some strange reason these are goals shared by John McCain and Hillary Clinton.  Is it coincidence or is it part of the big picture?  It pays to look the anatomy and physiology of  the establishment meme.  Just what do we mean by an "establishment" in this context?

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation).

Too often the concept congers up images of some conspiracy pulling the strings on the puppets that make up our society.  Are there real people to flesh out the idea? Look below and explore this with me.

Since we know what the pledged delegate outcome will be (pretty much, anyway) and the campaign has hit the point of being destructive. (Exit polling says that 60% of Clinton voters who won't vote for Obama has grown significantly since Ohio and vice versa for 40% of Obama voters) then why are the super-delegates holding out? Why not close ranks?

We all agree that last night's so-called debate was execrable. We all agree that the nation should collectively hold ABC's feet to the fire. We all agree that ABC and George Stephanapoulos and Charlie Gibson colluded to carry water for the other side, generally, and Sean Hannity in particular.

We all agree. But we're not talking about what actually happened last night. What it all means. What ABC's performance underscores in spades.

Last night? Last night was the collective establishment on both sides of the aisles telling we, the people, to go fuck ourselves.

More below:

You can see it happening.  For a while, it was cute.  For a while, it was self-serving.  'Let the plebes have their hero.  Let them get whipped up into a frenzy.  It's good for 'the Party'.  When the time comes, we'll make sure they do the right thing.'

For them, Democracy has always been a bit of a joke.  A private joke, and the joke has been on us.  

Someone mentioned to me the other day that there are basically two major “wings” of the Democratic Party. Actually that is somewhat of an oversimplification, since there are actually many factions within the Party.  But there is also some truth to that bisected depiction, as has been evidenced in many primary elections for president, including the current nomination battle.

Change in America requires more than just Democrats going the other way from Republicans, it requires a paradigm shift.  That's going to be the difficult part of this.

We have to win not only the battle to gain nominal power, but to rethink things so we we're not simply having to accept "political realities" and end up committing the same mistakes.  Not every conclusion we draw may be different, but it will be worth it not to retread the same "big government", "tax relief", "war on terror" garbage, believing that to stray from these notions is to risk political defeat.

Politics must come second to policy, but if we don't align the politics properly, it will get in the way.

Imagine the scenario where the first African American in history to actually have a better than average chance of winning the presidency, wins both the popular vote and the majority of pledged delegates in the primary election, only to have it stripped away by the leaders of the Democratic party.

I've often imagined what it would be like if there wasn't a Democratic party. But only in the context of how long it would take for the Republicans to destroy themselves if allowed to fully realize their vision for America unfettered from the Democrats. It's a fun thought experiment. And I give it about 10 years before the backlash from right wing rule created an American equivalent to Evo Morales.

But today I am thinking of a Democratic-party-free world for an entirely different reason. I'm thinking about how the scenario mentioned above would actually play out. And it's looking like I may get to see my thought experiment in the real world.

While the mantra before the Feb. 9 caucus was "the primary doesn't count", that doesn't mean you shouldn't vote in it. It still may count for something.

His "change" mantra may be empty rhetoric, but the movement that is rising up to back this first serious African-American contender for the Oval Office is real and will be hard to put back in the box.

The Democratic Party has railed for seven years against a system where the winner of the popular vote did not actually become president. Yet in its own system, the winner of the popular vote is currently behind.

Can you believe Bill Clinton?  First, it was that Obama's well-documented opposition to the war amounted to a "Fairy Tale".  Second, he proposed that Obama was the "establishment" candidate, and his wife some sort of insurgent.  Third, he's got it exactly backwards in his support of the the voter suppression efforts that Hillary's supporters have launched ion Nevada.

Sounds like Three Strikes and You're Out to me.  Bill, please, give your helmet to the next guy and take a seat at the end of the bench.

A closer look, after the jump.

Mea culpa. I must admit to being a "classic liberal" who loves Mankind but sometimes -- most times -- despises people. Indeed, as I get older, my tolerance for prevarication, deceit and quibbling has decreased precipitously, as has my capacity for gracious acceptance of "the way things are" and "human nature".  To quote Rose Sayer, Nature, Mr. Allnutt, is what we're put in this world to rise above.  The simple fact remains that precedence and tradition and establishment favor those who are adept at manipulating systems for their own cynical ends, and change seldom comes easily or painlessly, even when any change at all is preferable to the miasma which is the status quo.

All of this, of course, is in way of preface to expressing my disgust with last night's Democratic group hug in Las Vegas, which shall take an honored place in the pantheon of  banal faces of treachery.

I'm breaking this implicit net roots rule and attacking Obama, not personally, but professionally, and also because he and his supporters need it. I believe Obama and his people are running a lightweight campaign far outside Democratic progressive-populist traditions, holding hands with the financial establishment - afraid to offend them, and completely unready for a general election.

Obama is the Brand of the Financial Establishment

Obama and Clinton are both moderate establishment-bankrolled candidates. But, Obama is definitely advertised differently than Clinton. The financial establishment is bankrolling Obama to avert retribution from a perfect storm brewing in our economy. Obama reached an bargain with the financial establishment. He created his brand based on this bargain. Implicit in the bargain is the agreement to drown-out populist voices by poaching the rare air and substantively not being a populist voice, yet appealing to populist leaning voters. It was the illusion of change and anti-Bush change sold instead of real economic change that fit the actual priorities of the Democratic Party. He reflects the viewpoints of his high-profile donors.

Striking a courageous blow for the status quo, it looks like the Establishment and the old blue hairs are going to make sure we won't have an insurgency or any real change AGAIN this year...

One of the most false and untrue statements made about Hillary Clinton is that she is 'the establishment' and that she 'does not represent change'.

The truth is that Hillary represents a huge amount of change.
Because she agrees on the need for change and disagrees only on the best means of bringing them about.
Because she supports for policies and positions that would be very different from status quo Republican policies.
Because she'd be the first woman President, and the first liberal woman leader of a G-8 nation.

I got 5 hours of sleep, but managed to write this last night.

Barack Obama’s victory in the Iowa caucus last night sent a powerful message of change – as a record turnout (especially among young voters) picked him the winner with 38% of the total vote.  John Edwards, who likewise ran a populist campaign that emphasized change, came in second place with 30%.  When asked what was the most important factor in a candidate, voters picked “change” over “experience” by a 51-20 margin – giving Hillary Clinton's establishment campaign a humiliating 3rd place finish at 29%.  Obama defied expectations by even beating Clinton among women and registered Democrats, which questions her viability as a candidate.  But while Obama’s insurgent campaign has crystallized the message of change, the dirty little secret in presidential primaries is that the establishment always wins.  As the fight moves to New Hampshire and other states, Obama’s campaign will have to defy historical precedent to dethrone the Clinton dynasty.  I believe he can prevail, but it will be a different story for Mike Huckabee – who won last night’s Republican caucus.

Some believe this election is about the past versus the future. To me, that idea is so vague as to render it utterly meaningless as a campaign theme. No offense to the diarist who put that forth. I'm a big fan of his writing. I just disagree. I believe this election could be about something far more tangible, far more to the point: Us versus them. And that's a theme whose time has come.

By them, of course, I mean the establishment. With their globalist, pro corporate, laissez faire agenda, and with their control over commerce, the media, and even the electoral process, they are literally attempting to recreate American society in a way that does not benefit most Americans.

They are a threat to our standard of living, our communities and our democracy. They are a threat to the environment, to national security, and world stability. Quite frankly, they have become so out of control, they are a threat to themselves.