On the GMD polling matter; “Should Anthony Pollina be the Democratic candidate for Governor (assuming he would accept the Democratic nomination)? – it seems consensus eludes us. Democracy's just so messy, aint it?

Burlington Black Blog is promoting National Black Out Day, Friday November 2nd. The day is a national boycott by African Americans of any commercial activity – sort of a 2 billion dollar wake up call on the continued rampant racial inequalities in the country. Think racism is “none of your damn business?” Maybe you think racism is just a Marxist plot to keep the poor, beset-upon white man down? Or maybe you're simply in denial. In any event, check the post for a sobering rundown of reality in today's USA.

Here's a front page link to usual suspect Chittendem Dem Sam Osborne's new Douglas-needling site. We'll give Sam a few weeks to get the feel of the medium before taking stock.

This is the difference between a Democratic State Treasurer and a Republican one.

Nose intact. Face remains un-spited. UVM will not ban Red Cross blood drives because of their compliance with a stupid homophobic law preventing gay men from donating. Maybe they can turn their efforts to changing the stupid homophobic law, rather than taking it out on people in need of blood (FYI: The Red Cross opposes the law).

There will be heavy sighs and the concerned shaking of heads aplenty, as former Kunin and Dean Chief of Staff Kathleen Hoyt, former Douglas Secretary of Administration Charlie Smith, and Progressive State Chair Martha Abbott take the stage at a Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce event on October 30th to bemoan how uncivil politics have become in Vermont. Chris Graff will moderate. I have an idea: let's a bunch of us go, have a shot everytime somebody mentions the word “blog” or “blogger,” and see how far we get into the event before passing out.

While Douglas and the GOP relentlessly talk down Vermont's business environment as compared to New Hampshire, reality offers a different perspective.

Meet the new math, same as the old math.

So a week or two back, the playing field for Democratic gubernatorial candidates seemed to only contain a crowd of folks pleading former Lite Guv candidate Matt Dunne to run for the top job, rather than go for round 2 against the Dubester (and please, folks… he is so NOT getting that FAA job. We're stuck with him.) Then, the Pollina for Governor crowd hit the Dem scene and media hard, making their case for Pollina to be the Democratic candidate, running as a P-D (it should be noted that Pollina has yet to make this appeal in person, and I'm still dubious as to whether he would ever accept a D by his name).

Today, via Louis Porter, we have two new names; author, foreign policy expert, former Ambassador, and former Democratic State Chair (1977-1979) Peter Galbraith, currently being discussed in Greenvtster's diary below, and Windsor County Senate powerhouse John Campbell.

So – whereas a couple weeks ago, we were looking at a barren wasteland, into which no one could blame Dunne for not wanting to venture, it's now morphed into what will be in effect – if likely not in actuality – a political primary among an array of candidates appealing not only to a broad ideological spectrum, but an institutional one as well. There's the third party firebrand, flirting with the idea of reaching out his hand to those he has made a career of scorning, an economic moderate/social liberal with strong connections across the political spectrum, and an in-state political outsider with international credentials and a reputation as a serious intellectual with a considerable pedigree.

On paper, you've got to give initial polling advantage to Pollina, but Pollina would be unlikely to be able to redefine himself quickly enough to close the deal. Campbell obviously has more electoral deal-closing potential, but the business interests that Campbell has made inroads with are going to be surprisingly unwilling to ditch their buddy Douglas, even with a Dem they find more palatable. The underdog has to be Galbraith, but the notion of a political outsider and intellectual running the state is definitely appealing in theory (and I do think someone with zero name recognition could beat Douglas… the problem is that he or she would have to start on a serious ground game last May…)

So it's back on (especially when you consider that Dunne may still wanna go for it, although I'm betting not). Conventional wisdom says a crowded field is a bad thing, and I suppose the ideal would've been to have a consensus candidate back in the Summer. But given the perception of weakness the lack of a candidate has created, and the negative impact that would clearly have had going into the next legislative session, I'll take a crowded field any day. In fact, some sort of horse race may well be the only way to get the media to sit up and take notice of electoral opposition to the Governor. Lord knows, after the last couple times around, little else has seemed to do the trick.

TomP at dKos also has an environmental diary contrasting the three big candidates views on Nuclear, with Edwards being the only one clearly opposed (check out the Clinton administration's history with Entergy).

I'm definitely feeling better and better about supporting this guy. Here's a big chunk from the diary:

1.  Hillary Clinton.

What about nuclear power?

I am agnostic about nuclear. I am very skeptical that nuclear could become acceptable in most regions of the country, and I am doubtful that we have yet figured out how to deal with the waste. But I keep being given information about research that is being done to resolve the waste problem. I know that will continue because that has a lot of economic power and resources behind it. But until we can figure out what to do with the waste and overcome the political objections, we should not be putting a heavy emphasis on nuclear.

Grist

  a.  Bill Clinton (for background. Hillary Clinton's agnostic position is a bit inpenetrable.  Give this history the weight you think it deserves, which may range from none to a lot)

Bill Clinton backed the Entergy Corporation's outrageous plan to soak Arkansas ratepayers with the cost overruns on the company's Grand Gulf reactor which provided power to electricity consumers in Louisiana.

The Clinton years indeed saw an all-out expansion of nuclear power, not only in the US, but all over the globe. First came the deal to begin selling nuclear reactors to China, announced during Jiang Zemin's 1997 visit Washington, even though Zemin brazenly vowed at the time not to abide by the so-called “full scope safeguards” spelled out in the International Atomic Energy Act. The move was apparently made over the objections of Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, who cited repeated exports by China of “dual use” technologies to Iran, Pakistan and Iraq. The CIA also weighed in against the deal, pointing out in a report to the President that “China was the single most import supplier of equipment and technology for weapons of mass destruction” worldwide. In a press conference on the deal, Mike McCurry said these nuclear reactors will be “a lot better for the planet than a bunch of dirty coal-fired plants” and will be “a great opportunity for American vendors” — that is, Westinghouse.

Counterpunch

2. Barack Obama.

Obama also refused to commit to a ban against using nuclear power, when asked by a young voter. In his speech in Portsmouth yesterday on renewable energy, Obama said that development money should be spent on researching safe ways to use and dispose of nuclear power. He reiterated that stance today.

General Electric/Microsoft Wholly Owned Corporate Media (msnbc)

During a Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works hearing in 2005, Obama, who serves on the committee, asserted that since Congress was debating the negative impact of CO2 emissions “on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable — and realistic — for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration.” Shortly thereafter, Nuclear Notes, the industry's top trade publication, praised the senator. “Back during his campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2004, [Obama] said that he rejected both liberal and conservative labels in favor of 'common sense solutions.' And when it comes to nuclear energy, it seems like the Senator is keeping an open mind.”

Counterpunch

Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy: Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table. However, there is no future for expanded nuclear without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants.

barackobama.com

3. John Edwards.

Q: What about nuclear power as an alternative energy source?

A: Wind, solar, cellulose-based biofuels are the way we need to go. I do not favor nuclear power. We haven't built a nuclear power plant in decades in this country. There is a reason for that. The reason is it is extremely costly. It takes an enormous amount of time to get one planned, developed and built. And we still don't have a safe way to dispose of the nuclear waste. It is a huge problem for America over the long term.

Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007

Here, once again, is Douglas outside of Vermont, in an interview this month in Health Affairs (major hat tip to Nancy Remsen for this) basking in the accolades and credit for the Catamount Health Plan he fought tooth and nail:

Catamount Health is a premium subsidy program that allows the uninsured to purchase affordable coverage through their employer or directly through Catamount. These reforms are a key part of my strategy to make Vermont a more affordable place to live, work and raise a family. The reforms are part of my Affordability Agenda .

And here he is not even two weeks ago (ht VDP) in Milton on the same Catamount Health Plan (after saying last week in the Barton Chronicle he would've vetoed it… not sure what was stopping him at the time…):

“It’s not working,” he said. “It’s not an effective plan.”

And this guy is supposedly unbeatable? Good lord.

This little blog was set up to navigate the breakwater between the Democratic left and the non-Democratic left (and yes, with a nakedly Democratic Party bent, but not to the exclusion of all else – as we have a handful of non-Dems on the front page rolls). When we started, we were largely a bunch of busybodies with some connections to various Democratic committees here and there.

Nowadays, the picture is a little different. GMD front pagers include the Chairs of the Washington and Franklin County Democratic Committees. A former (and still occasional) front pager is the Chair of the Orange County Committee. The contact email for the Bennington County re-organization is that of perhaps our most consistent contributor from the very first day, vtpeace. And that's just the names off the top of my head.

In the words of Donny and Marie, “I don't know if it's good or bad, but I know I love it so…”

Okay, let's get to it (and note the poll to left).

The question has been called by Terri Hallenbeck in today's Burlington Free Press, so the debate is on. What about Anthony Pollina as a “unity” candidate for Governor? According to the article, Pollina Martha Abbott and David Zuckerman were at Friday's Democratic fundraiser trying to talk up the idea. The Freeps also reports they've been reaching out to liberal Dems on this for sometime (and yeah, now that the conversation is officially out in the open, I was contacted by Dave Z last week about the idea).

First of all, its worth noting again that plenty of us saw this coming. With these press reports, the “spoiler” argument is now up for grabs, as Pollina seems to be the only lefty making any meaningful moves towards running. If he announces this month, and the Dems find somebody in December or January, he'll have a legitimate point of debate that it's the Dem who will be the “spoiler.” To the leadership of the Democratic Party, I can only say: it should not have come to this.

But on to the matter at hand. The fact is, there's a lot to say on the topic, and a lot of air that would need to be cleared before meaningfully moving forward – if that seems like the wisest move. There are pros and cons – and a whole world of history, but while others will dance around it, I invite folks to flesh it out here (a GMD conversation which has already begun, actually). I'll lay out many of the cards after the fold…

Here's the deck of cards for the table-laying, as I see them:

Positive Card 1 – An Apollo-Soyuz Moment

It's finally a way for us all to start working together (maybe). Over the last few years, there have been many times where the Ds and Ps have actually cooperated behind the scenes – sometimes even in front of the scenes (most obviously with Zuckerman's committee chairmanship). This would be a far more extraordinary step.

The truth is, the level of cooperation has gradually risen as the prominence of partisan-warrior Pollina has dropped. Putting him front and center of the Progressive Party's public face again – but this time willingly holding hands with Democrats, not just individually, but institutionally would be a dramatic change. Some of his fans may not put up with it.

But the fact is, if he were willing to run with a P and a D by his name (it seems, at this point, his running as an independent is not an option) it would be an extraordinary move on his part – one that should be seriously considered and discussed graciously and openly by Dems. He's sticking his neck out, and gets a lot of respect in my book for doing so.

Negative Card 1 – Burnt Bridges

Let's be real: there are Dems who are going to hold a grudge against this guy forever.

He's been as openly contemptuous of Dems as Bernie ever was, but unlike Bernie, he hasn't tried to build bridges with Dems, he's tried to build bypasses around them. To make them irrelevent, with the express purpose of supplanting them. His notion of campaign finance reform has been squarely at odds with the very existence of a Democratic Party. To turn on a dime like this will be challenging.

But it goes deeper with many than a disagreement, some don't trust him personally. Pollina has, like Barack Obama, cast himself as a different kind of politician – someone above the backstabbing, self-serving world of the political. And like Obama, that packaging invites a special kind of scrutiny.

For many, that packaging blew up with the campaign finance issue several years back.

Pollina was running for Lieutenant Governor and had intended to accept public financing under the state's campaign finance laws. As part of that law – that he himself was instrumental in passing – there were deadlines and restrictions on things of value that can be shared between candidates and political parties. Polls are expensive things, and were very much considered a thing of value under that scheme.

Now, if the Progressive Party had commissioned a poll and made it public for all to see, that would've been one thing – but they didn't. They paid for a poll and shared it with Pollina and others behind the scenes – a violation of the law's limits in letter and spirit. How do we know this? Because high profile Progressives were naively talking it up around the Statehouse.

So my boss at the Democratic Party at the time wrote a letter to the AG's office asking him to look into it. That's when all hell broke loose. Pollina sued Sorrell, Deb Markowitz and my boss (Mark Michaud). In fact, they sued Michaud by name – not even under his title as VDP Executive Director – which made the whole thing stink of a SLAPP suit, designed to intimidate. Pollina was heard to suggest that it was all a conspiracy (“I smell Dean! I smell Leahy” – I was told by someone), before finally being scolded out of court by Judge Sessions.

He never took any responsibility for screwing up (in fact, his arguments to throw out the law when it worked against him were later used by anti-campaign reform forces in court). Instead, the only thing I would ever hear from the edges of that crowd were angry charges of hypocrisy – insistence that Doug Racine had to be just as guilty. That was hogwash, as Doug is an absolute boy scout about the law, and the Racine campaign at the time was downright paranoid about dotting every 'i' and crossing every 't' rather than make a mistake.

But the message was that the evil, corrupt Dems just couldn't be more pure on any matter than the Progs, so it must be hypocrisy. No further proof necessary.

It was ugly, and writing it up STILL makes me mad all over again. And -correct me if I'm wrong – but to this day, there's never been a simple acknowledgement of responsibility for screwing up.

And for many, that cemented in their minds the notion that Pollina, at the end of the day, was no less a “politician” than any of those he routinely railed against.

Negative Card 2: Weeniecrats

Vermont is full of Douglas Democrats. Tarrantcrats. Those who demanded that the left of their party pull together and play like a team when the Party's candidate for Governor was the annoyingly conservative Howard Dean in the 90's, but who would hypocritically refuse to play like a team if someone too liberal for their tastes were the Party's candidate.

I don't know how you get those folks to shape up, but there are enough of them to really screw things up on Election Day.

Negative Card 3: The Anti-Dem Faithful

They aint gonna like it. Sure, some will rationalize it as the next step in attaining Pollina's historical goal of supplanting the Dems, but the fact is, if Pollina accepts a D by his name, there are several of his allies who will stay home from voting – and perhaps more importantly (as their numbers are probably too small to impact the voting totals too much) – to stay home from volunteering.

Crass Card 1 – Can Pollina win?

I take no joy in saying this, but no freaking way.

In a straight shot at Douglas, he comes in less than Clavelle, who was a bridge builder to the middle (and even the right). Pollina has historically alienated at least as many people as he has reached out to, and Democratic voters (as we all know) tend to be the last group willing to fall into line when told to.

And despite his long efforts to work with those in the working class crowd who are GOP-oriented, most of them still won't vote for him. A few will – and that'll be the few his campaign will parade around the spaghetti dinners to demonstrate his working class cred, but that'll be the end of it.

What about Bernie you say? How does he do it? Well, for one thing he does it by not getting in his own way. By picking up the “independent” label, he adopts a very powerful, positive term, and in the process allows folks to project many of their own political hopes onto him. And that's not phoniness, either. Once he's got their attention in that way, he makes real connections.

But Pollina will not run without the Progressive brand he's worked so long and hard to market, and for many on the right, as well as the middle, that P is a big ol' scarlet letter. Clavelle couldn't shake it, even though he explicitly dropped it for the D tag. A lot of folks cling to the notion that running as a Dem was precisely WHY Clavelle lost, but that's ridiculous. It brought him votes – I daresay at least 10 or 12%. The problem was, that it needed to buy him more like 26% above and beyond what he could get by running as a P. Remember, we all talk of the Clavelle campaign as a monumental failure, but he had a lot better showing than Pollina ever did – even on his best run.

My prediction:

Pollina with a straight shot: 35%

Pollina in a 3-way race: 14%

Crass Card 2 – Money & Resources:

Some of the usual suspects who put a lot of money behind big ticket Dems will step up and support Pollina, but many will not. Douglas's financial advantage will increase with a Pollina unity candidacy.

And Pollina would rightfully expect access to Democratic resources – such as their now unmatched voter lists and polling data. Such information is the prized possesion of the VDP, and its hard to imagine them turning those over to Pollina, which would likely mean turning them over to the Progressive Party.

Nor would Pollina find the resource-sharing mechanism for Democratic campaigns very tasteful: the Coordinated Campaign. A legal entity that would require Pollina to fundraise into for his “buy-in” to the resource sharing. This would be tantamount to Pollina raising tens of thousands of dollars into the Democratic Party.

Just try and get your brain around that one.

Positive Card 2 – Money & Resources:

People get excited about Pollina they way they don't get excited about too many Dems. Field assets could be combined in some key areas and the potential is there for a fantastic ground campaign. This would go a long way towards refocusing anti-Douglas work back towards the ground which, honestly, is where the left has a traditional advantage that they've frittered away through self-doubt and a tendency to run field operations as though they're either secondary, or as though we're all still living in the sixties.

Also – Organized Labor in Vermont just adores Pollina. That's why the state AFL endorsed him over Shumlin for Lite Guv, even though Shumlin had a 100% AFL-CIO voting record (ouch). Whereas Labor will likely help out whoever the Dem candidate is, expect them to do so with greater enthusiasm if it's Pollina.

Crass Card 3 – The Spin of Defeat:

There's going to be some ugly, defeatist calculating going on. If Douglas can't be beaten (as many believe – if they didn't, the Dems would have a candidate by now), some will try to calculate what kind of loss would look best. If Pollina runs as a P-D and loses, maybe it can be blamed on Pollina and the Dems don't lose any perceived power. On the other hand, the very fact that the Dem bench is all too chickenshit to run against Douglas in the first place suggests a major loss of face, and therefore perceived power. If Pollina runs in a threeway, and Douglas wins, maybe that can be blamed on Pollina too.

Sounds ugly, I know – but there's no question many are thinking in such terms.

Put it all together and you get…

If it went this way, and we saw a Pollina-Dunne unity ticket, a big part of me would be thrilled. I can certainly let bygones be bygones, and would strongly and relentlessly encourage others to as well In fact, I would bust my butt to help him succeed and give naysayers quite a bit of hell if they didn't shut up and get on board.

But in all honesty, I'd be feeling that we'd be working to raise some important issues and open some strategic vulnerabilities to take Douglas down in 2010, as I just don't see Pollina coming close. I really wish I did.

So- yer-alls turn. Let's see those cards – don't hold back. It'll probably get heated, and that's okay, because it probably needs to – but let's see if we can't make it productive.

Fire away…

Ah, we political junkies. Always surprised when others aren't as worked up about this stuff as we are.

So our poll is wrapped, and we didn't even get half of the respondents that Seven Days got on theirs (Obama was the winner out of, I think 100-& -20-some votes… of course, I cant find a link – the Seven Days site is awful for finding stuff that's even in the recent past). On our site, we got a measly 44 voters – virtually the same amount as on our first online poll waaaaay back when we had about 20% of the readership. Go figure.

In any event, Edwards was the winner – while coming in only a distant fifth at Seven Days. I'm not sure what that means either way. Probably nothing, but its still fun: