In case folks hadn't noticed, the contributor list on the sidebar has altered a tad. NanuqFC had told me some time ago that she needed to pull back from the expectation of being a Front Pager, but I talked her into holding off a bit. As of now, though, I've instituted a new category. Front Pager Emeriti. Front pagers past who are backing off, but who maintain front page posting rights, and as such may pop in from time to time. I added former FPer mataliandy to the list as well.

Also stepping back is Brattlerouser, who has a bit too much on his plate these days (including the imminent arrival of a new kid… congrats B, keep us apprised).

To fill in the gaps left by the semi-retirement of Nanuq and B'rouser is new front pager Caoimhin Laochdha, a GMD usual suspect, as well as an occasional commenter on the mothership. (CL, you just gotta make sure the “put diary on front page” box is checked when you post a diary). CL continues our (unintended) tradition of running a Vermont political blog with nobody from Chittenden County on the front page. Funny, that.

Those America-hating Vermonters are at it again. This time it's the most fiendish plot of all. It came to light via Glenn Greenwald in connection to  a piece he'd written for Salon “regarding the politicization of the Army in Iraq, as evidenced by its constant coordination with, and leaking to, the likes of Matt Drudge, The Weekly Standard, and the most extremist right-wing blogs.” Well, the official spokesman for Gen. David Petraeus, one Col. Steven A. Boylan, took umbridge. Thus began a weird series of emails back and forth, which the Colonel tried to deny after the fact (at least some of them), even though, from an IT perspective, it seems that – yes indeed – they came from his email account.

The initial email was replete with gems like this:

You are either too lazy to do the research on the topics to gain the facts, or you are providing purposeful misinformation — much like a propagandist. . . .

But after, among other things, castigating Greenwald for a lack of courage, he seemed to have his own sense of personal responsibility dry up when questioned about the appropriateness of the email. It wasn't his fault. It must have been someone else. Who else exactly?

Heh…

(Boylan to Greenwald): If you do a search on the web, you will also see that I have been a victim of identity theft of late in Vermont

Didn't you just know it was gonna be some latte-sipping, Volvo-driving, sushi-eating, New York Times reading liberal from Vermont? Probably Dean himself. Maybe Sanders. Hell, it was probably some crazy “blame America first” blogger.

You can't trust 'em.

That Benen guy may look 16, but I hear he's really like, 67 or something.

Baruth's a fiction writer (that makes him a professional liar, right?).

No doubt the massive beard sported by Jack McCullough is just there to smuggle things past airport security for his terrorist buddies.

Megadittoes, baby!

Pretty grim few days, not just for the Obama campaign, but by extension for Americans and Democracy. Obama's new kind of politics looks just like the old this week in the worst possible way; that is, fanning the flames of homophobia to bring in votes. If you missed the details, the basics were diaried here. Suffice to say that the freshman from Illinois has had several opportunities to make this right, but has continued to dig in, in the process demonstrating either a callous indifference to the people hurt by McClurkin's anti-gay rhetoric, or a disturbing level of arrogance by deciding that if people have a problem with his giving this kind of garbage a national microphone and stamping his own endorsement on it, it's just their problem. (If you're curious how this played out – it went basically according to a worse-case scenario).

Obama – of course – was a no-show, just as he's often a no-show on controversial issues in the Senate of late. For my part, I'm going with the arrogance theory over callousness, as it would be consistent with what was on display iin the last couple paragraphs of this weekend's NYT piece, as well as the dug-in “if you build it, they will come” style of campaign he has run.

So this guy, who for most of the year has been my second choice, has now dropped into the Hillary “no way” column for me. The great uniter has thoroughly alienated me (and for an example of what a good job he's doing uniting us all, take a look at the comments at dKos on the topic. It's a pretty piss-poor display, and was utterly avoidable).

But what's really depressing is where this likely leaves me – and many other liberals – looking ahead to the General election. It's likely that either Clinton or Obama will be the nominee. I think for all of us, this was supposed to be the year that – for maybe the first time in memory – we were going to get to vote for a candidate we actually liked – somebody we might actually want to see as President – rather than, yet again, being faced with a “lesser of two evils” choice. In the post-Dean era, after ALL the work we've all done across the country on this party – and with the incredible opportunity afforded by a thoroughly discredited and rejected Republican Party – we were supposed to move beyond that tiresome scenario (even if just barely).

But apparently, not yet. For me, at least, not if it's one of these two. Clearly a lot has happened in the last few years.

But clearly a lot still needs to.

( – promoted by odum)

On my tour around the Vermont webscape, I noticed that Colby has resurrected a perennial canard that's worth responding to; the myth of the Democratic overlord (or boogeyman, if you prefer) – Harlan Sylvester.

To start, Colby sets up a faux cause-effect link by stating “I told you the real behind-the-scenes Vermont Dems weren’t going to sit on their hands and watch Anthony Pollina play in the media spotlight for long,” and goes on to implicate Sylevester as “The real behind the scenes kingmaker of Vermont politicians” in a post dramatically entitled “The Hand of Harlan.” It's just the kind of chatter that makes most actual, hands-on Dem insiders roll their eyes. While Colby's overall assessment of mainstream politics and the Democratic Party is a legitimate, defensible opinion that one may or may not agree with, his “insider info” can be very bit hit-or-miss.

This one, while dramatically compelling, is a miss.

The reason the Democratic gubernatorial whisper campaigns suddenly went live, is that rank-and-file Democrats were getting antsy – even rebellious. And with reorganization coming up, and the Party Chairmanship at stake, that matters in a big way. The idea that a Democratic Wizard of Oz behind the curtain decided to throw a switch to avoid Pollina is sexy, but off-base. This operation just aint that coordinated. If there were such a command-and-control operation, its a switch that would've been thrown weeks or months ago. The fact is that Pollina's entry into a left wing vacuum threw gasoline on a sense of humiliation already bubbling among the rank and file, and a grassroots pushback from many Dems was inevitable.

And setting the record straight on all this matters for one reason; that if such a narrative gets wide enough circulation, perception can become reality (at least to a point). The perception of power is power, and the limited power Sylvester does have, he has precisely because there is still this myth of the uberlord Sylvester in some, old-school circles in Chittenden County, and the mutterings about the “Burlington mafia.”

For an example. By the time I could get corroboration from enough sources, this was already old news – but the mystery man in this article from back during the session was, reportedly, Mr. Sylvester:

The energy bill also caused one of the more tense moments in the Statehouse recently.

Sen. John Campbell, D-Windsor, said he felt threatened by David O'Brien Wednesday evening when the head of the state's Department of Public Service was trying to convince the Senate majority leader to vote against the energy bill.

O'Brien told him a prominent member of the state's business community and a major force in state politics, whom Campbell declined to name, would be disappointed if Campbell supported the bill.

Campbell said he found O'Brien's comments “extremely disturbing” and took them as a “direct threat” to his political future. The lobbying “jeopardized the integrity of the legislative process,” Campbell said.

That's the hubbub, anyway. Clearly the Governor's people have bought into the line that Sylvester is some sort of kingmaker, but that breaks down fairly quickly when you think about it.

Sylvester's a wealthy guy, but you can only throw so much wealth around in this state. And he's hardly in a professional position to put together contribution “bundles.” Sylvester is a conservative investment banker and stockbroker, who rose to political prominence as a primary financial adviser to Howard Dean's governorship – to the dismay of liberals. His Democratic Party context has always been a Howard Dean context. Once Dean moved off the state scene, Sylvester became a Douglas supporter, becoming the Chair of his Governor’s Council of  Economic Advisors.

Believe me, the Chair of Douglas’s Council of  Economic Advisors is hardly in control of the Democratic Party.

The simple fact is, he hasn't been on the radar screen as a Dem force since the Dean days, and there's no way he's a master manipulator. When Doug Racine was running to replace Governor Dean, Sylvester was reportedly dour and resigned to the prospect of Racine beating his new man – Jim Douglas. He assumed a few months before the campaign (incorrectly, as we all did), that lefty Vermont would easily promote the liberal Racine to the top spot. It's hard to be the master manipulator if you're just watching and reacting to the conventional wisdom just like the rest of us. And do you really think, if he had been the overlord of the party, he would've “allowed” a Peter Clavelle or Scudder Parker candidacy?

And the truth of the matter is, at this point, most people working the Statehouse have still never even heard of the guy. That's not because his existence is some super-secret dogma that only the illuminati are graced with, it's because he's not really a factor. It may not be very exciting, or sexy, or sufficiently spooky in a Da Vinci Code kinda way, but life is never that simple.

Seriously, if the Democratic Party really were a dictatorship, it wouldn't be such a perennial mess.

Wow. So much for New England Republicans being different. I suppose that was then, this is now. Even we supposedly nasty, vitriolic bloggers are very cautious with the “l” word. Especially locally.

Not Rob Roper's GOP. Check this link. Scroll down past the point where he says “it is Republicans who are bringing forward positive, common-sense, bipartisan solutions to the state’s most pressing problems.” (emphasis added):

(Vermont NEA Chief Angelo) Dorta says: “Act 82’s spending limits on local schools are unnecessary and harmful.” This is a lie.

Act 82 mandates that in districts that spend more than the Vermont per-pupil average, boards can't request an increase of more than 1% in their standard, yearly budget request. They can come back after the base-plus-1% vote with an additional funding request. That's a spending limit on the 1st vote, and not on the second. Spin? Sure. It can be spun either way. A lie? That's just pure viriol. 

Dorta says: Act 82 “assumes local voters aren't smart enough to make their own decisions regarding schools.” This is a lie

This one's even better. It's a matter of opinion. Is the theory that Dorta's lying about his own opinion, now?

Now I wouldn't say Roper is lying on the GOP website. Maybe somebody just needs to explain the meaning of some of his vocabulary words a little bit.

In any event, this sort of name calling should be beneath him.

This could generate a few interesting You Tube moments. From Welch's office:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is scheduled to testify before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and Rep. Peter Welch tomorrow.

The hearing, “The State Department and the Iraq War,” will take place Thursday, October 25 at 10 a.m. in 2154 Rayburn House Office Building.

“Secretary Rice has a lot of questions to answer.  This Administration must be accountable to Congress and the American people,” said Welch.

The hearing will examine questions regarding the performance of the State Department on several major issues relating to the Iraq war, including the impact of Iraqi corruption and the activities of Blackwater USA.  The Committee may also question the secretary regarding allegations of wrongdoing associated with the construction of the new U.S. Embassy Compound in Baghdad, as well as other matters under investigation by the Committee.

There will likely be some interesting and maddening exchanges. Rice will stonewall and belittle, and I'm sure Welch – among others – will be forceful in his questioning.

Then we'll all have to watch closely and see what, if anything, actually comes of the hearing from Waxman, Welch and company. 

Back in 2000, I worked for the Vermont Democratic Party. A handful of weeks before the election, we received word that there was to be a coordinated march on several Democratic Party HQs across the country, protesting – I believe – some oil company holdings of Al Gore's mother.

So we knew they were going to be coming from the Peace & Justice Center, and a meeting was held the day before among the coordinated campaign staff. The ED put the problem to the floor, and to a person, everybody who spoke up wanted to call the police and have them there, on the ready, blocking the entrance.

I dissented. Strenuously. I said that these folks were coming, and it was inconvenient, but that's just the way it goes. I insisted that the way to deal with them was meet them in the office entrance room with donuts and cider. Listen to them. Tell them that there wasn't much pull we had with Al Gore's family, but that we could at least try and pass the message along to the DNC. I told my officemates that some of these folks may be planning on getting arrested, so we should check with the group up front, find out who those folks are, and make the arrest process as painless and orderly as possible, so they can do what they needed to do, we could do what we needed to do, and we could keep it on a human-to-human level, without conflict. Everybody thought I was nuts.

Except my boss, who simply said “I think we'll go with Odum's plan.”

The next day came, the crowd came, my boss and I went out and met and talked with them (and we were joined by Elizabeth Ready, who happened to be in the office that day). Donuts were eaten, cider was imbibed. No one opted to be arrested (which surprised me), but there was a lot of talk – sometimes a little testy on both sides, but persoon-on-person communication won out. I made sure their concerns were sent to Washington.

A note to those at any political office who are inclined to deal inappropriately with protesters; they may be a pain, you may feel like you have better things to do, but dealing with citizens in this way is simply part of the job – and like any other part of the job, should be done with dignity and respect – even if the protesters choose not to reciprocate (and there will likely be a couple that don't, as there were in the experience related above). If you really have a problem with that, it's probably time for another line of work.

By all accounts (except for the crude one in the Rutland Herald, written in such a way as to make one wonder if the reporter was even present), the recent McKibben-McLaughry debate on global warming was a one-sided bloodbath, with reports that McKibben not only casually countered every phony, long-obsolete canard offered by McLaughry, he actually had McLaughry beginning to accept reality and discussing solutions.

Well, apparently it didn't take, as the “Ethan Allen Institute” (such as it is) is now sponsoring a Vermont appearence by Dr. Marlo Lewis, Jr. Hardly news, but it's interesting that the Vermont GOP is actively promoting this lecture on their website, lashing themselves haphazardly to the Exxon-Mobil funded Lewis, whose scientific credentials seem to consist of degrees in Government and Political Science, and a career in partisan hackery. Here are some choice comments from Mr Lewis:

26 April, 2006
The main incontrovertible effect of global warming to date is that it has made those severely cold regions slightly less lethal to people and other living things.
Source: www.cei.org/pdf/5288.pdf

1 February, 2007
“The asserted consensus that global warming is a planetary emergency and that all right-thinking people believe we need to limit our energy use has been exposed, once again, as unsubstantiated myth.”
Source: Heartland Institute website 2007

It's continually outrageous that anyone continues to spout this nonsense, and Lewis wavers between outright denial and passing off climate change as a really swell thing for everybody. What's interesting at the local level is that the state GOP is gleefully associating themselves with this sort of rhetoric, when many of their elected politicians are wising up enough to realize what kind of poison such views are to their electability.

Global Warming denial is steadily moving into the realm of evolution-denial. It's flat-Earthism. The new issue for the casually engaged swing voter that defines a candidate as that political nowhere creature (at least in the purple-to-blue states); the Neo-Trogladyte. The Neo-Trog label sticks, and becomes a shorthand measure of a candidate's character to the marginally engaged, who so often turn close elections.

If Roper wants to continue to hang this sort of nonsense around his Party's neck in this state, more power to him.

There's something a little… off… that's been nagging at my brain lately as I make my daily stop at the VT Dems newsdump site. Something about the image from the fundraiser. I'm a little slow sometimes, so it took me this long to realize what was wrong.

It's the pictures. Bernie, Leahy, Welch, Carleton. They're all men (and straight white men, to boot).

Of all the Dems statewide officeholders, only SoS Markowitz breaks the gender mold. Add in the de facto statewides leading the two Congressional bodies, and she joins only Speaker Symington against a backdrop which includes Shumlin, Spaulding and the Junior Salmon. Even the candidates being bandied about for Governor – Galbraith, Campbell, Dunne and Pollina – are all men.

This is a problem. All things being equal, the laws of statistics would seem to suggest that, over these several years, the numbers should look more even than the 17% women among the names listed above. Instead, that 17% would seem to represent a high mark.

In other words – all things are still not equal.

The reasons for this are a little more complicated than they used to be. At the grassroots level (among the town, county and state committees), you see a good gender mix. But among the true political class (and yes, Vermont – like every other state – has political classes) its a different story. Despite denials to the contrary, statewide faces are often groomed. Party folks do put out their feelers to hear who might be interested, but they still – more often than not – massage people who have that spark of interest into making the statewide plunge (as such folks expect a certain amount of massaging), hoping to turn that spark into a flame. But the folks who get the massaging are the ones that generally come from the subset of people that those on the inside consider viable and credible – and that means people in their circles.

So, a “good ol' boys network” is too strong a turn of phrase, as its nothing so overt or intentional, but it does equate to a tendency towards cliqueishness and staleness – a tendency that lends itself to real diversity even more slowly than the more public institutions at large.

Markowitz and Symington, with the help of people like former Governor Kunin, have been continually working over the years to train, support and encourage women to step into the political process, and those efforts have certainly borne fruit in the legislature. But legislative electoral politics (even in Senate campaigns) are still grassroots in a way that statewide races aren't, and never will be, making the statewide dynamics much more institutionally bound.

But the dynamics are different than they were a generation ago. To the extent that there's a glass ceiling at the top of the political ladder, it's now a very fragile one. As such, the responsibility for bringing it down is more of a shared burden. Party big dogs should be pushed to look outside their usual suspect cliques, but potential women candidates also need to step up to whack at that now-fragile ceiling. The list of potential candidates for Governor may be all men, but there was nothing stopping someone like Markowitz from throwing her hat into the ring, and it could be argued that she has a responsibility to do so. State Senators like Susan Bartlett or Claire Ayer could easily step up and take another whack at the statewide ceiling and easily leave a big piece of it in shards.

It's not enough just to say there's a wall, but it's permeable now. There is a burden of responsibility to actively permeate it.

But in the meantime, lets not advertise the gender gap so gleefully, 'kay? How about a new picture…

How our Dem or Dem-esque elected officials apply their core beliefs in Congressional action seems to boil down to two relative standards. There's the standard of decision-making that is relative to the US Constitution, and the standard relative to the opposition – sort of a “what's the best we can hope to expect or receive from George Bush and the Republicans” approach. Although there's a time and place for the latter, it's clear that it's not with this president, and not with these republicans.

Thankfully, in regards to the nomination of Mukasey to the AG position (and his discouraging – but hardly unexpected – non-answers in his confirmation hearing), Bernie has chosen the Constitutional standard. From his office today:

President Bush’s choice to head the Justice Department, Sanders said, holds views on the sweeping powers of the presidency that are at odds with what the framers of our Constitution intended.  The nominee also demonstrated at Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings a disregard for civil liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

“Of course the United States government must do everything that it can to protect the American people from the dangerous threat of terrorism,” Sanders stressed, “but we can do that effectively consistent with the Constitution and the civil liberties it guarantees.

“We need an attorney general who does not believe the president has unlimited power.  We need an attorney general who understands that torture is not what this country is about, and we need an attorney general who clearly understands the separation of powers inherent in our Constitution,” Sanders added. “Unfortunately, it is clear that Mr. Mukasey is not that person”