The hubbub from everybody – from the media folks to the casual observers – is that the inevitable veto override vote over the marriage equality bill is a (if not the) defining test of leadership for new House Speaker Shap Smith.

It’s a benchmark to be sure (a huge one), but it ain’t the showdown at the OK Corral, as much as the Governor would like to make it one through his comments (“I’m sure that legislative leaders would not have advanced this bill if they didn’t have the votes to override a veto,” – a nakedly ridiculous comment that was transparently meant as nothing more than a playground-style taunt… historically, Mr. Douglas is nothing if not petty). If anything bears such status in any given legislative session, it (almost) always ends up being the final wrangling over the budget, regardless of the weightiness or full implications of other issues in play – and it’s likely that process has only passed its latest phase, given the Governor’s legendary politicization and gamesmanship of virtually everything in government. Part of the reason for that’s a function of the inevitable media-narrative timing, as the budget will always have an archetypal showdown quality in divided government.

But this is a leadership benchmark for Rep. Smith to be sure, and as such it affords us an opportunity to assess what may be different in the Smith era versus the Symington era (or perhaps it should be more accurately dubbed the Smith/Nease era, given the profile of Majority Leader Nease).

Smith has made attempts to be proactive in policy messaging with mixed success. It’s helpful that he seems to have a public chemistry with Senator Shumlin, but he’s also faced with an opponent in Douglas with years of experience keeping Dems reactive rather than pro-active (of course, they’ve often made it easy for him).

In terms of tactics and perception, the Marriage issue is a perfect vehicle for continuing the proactive dynamic (in fact, the entire issue of LGBT rights has evolved from being treated by Dems as an inconvenience to a badge of honor in the last decade… but that’s tomorrow’s diary). That’s not to say it isn’t still high stakes, simply that it places Democrats in the context of, as they say, the right side of history very clearly.

What Smith hasn’t seemed to have done yet is build the kind of interdependent network typical of caucuses. The mutual backsratching relationships among lawmakers decried by many, but that within a caucus make for an active, meaningful chain of command. In other words, there is a time for hierarchical whip cracking within a legislative caucus and Smith and Nease don’t seem to have built the whip yet, leaning instead on camaraderie to keep the caucus together. That’s great when it works, less so when it doesn’t.

It’s a work in progress, but the good news it – it is in progress.

But this early in the Smith regime, what interests me more than the new commander building the tools of command is the change of psychology within the caucus. In recent years, the caucus has felt gripped in paralysis. It’s a feeling that’s been there even when the caucus has been doing things – like passing the Catamount Health Plan. A sense that they dare not do more than necessary, lest they get shot down by a hostile governor, an ineffectual press corps and a fickle electorate. This created a bunker mentality that carried into the last race for Governor.

This year, however, it feels like there’s a culture change trickling down from the more combative leadership. For example, included in the press coverage about the budget passage in the House were these gems:

Moments after passage, the House Ways and Means Committee spelled out the tax increase. At its heart would be a surcharge that amounts to an increase in the state income tax that would raise about $17 million a year.

That income tax would be spread across Vermonters of all incomes, but it would also be progressive, like the underlying state income tax, hitting those earning the most the hardest…

…Before its final approval in the House the spending plan was amended in several ways. A measure proposed by Rep. Michael Fisher, D-Lincoln, requiring legislative approval before human services offices are closed was approved. So was one offered by Rep. Paul Poirier, D-Barre City, putting limits on when contractors can be hired to replace laid-off state workers.

I don’t know which of those things make me feel better – but none by itself makes me feel as good as the fact that we have a Democratic caucus where these things come up and are approved.

That’s not to say there aren’t weeniecrats doing weenie things – and as the session winds down, we’ll be seeing that play out – particularly on environmental issues and permitting, where self-dubbed “moderate” Dems (which, in these cases, will mean myopically short-sighted, visionless Dems who want shore up their conservative bona fides). And there is far more that the caucus could – and should – do. But the fact is, there’s more of a culture of Democrats rising to the occasion as Democrats in the caucus than before – and it feels good to be heading in that direction.

Because the definition of camaraderie and teamwork within the caucus seems to now have less to do with making the Speaker’s life as comfortable as possible when our team is in the right, and more to do with making the Governor’s life as uncomfortable as possible when he’s in the wrong.

And what a great change that is.