It's interesting that the only anger I seem to have generated on my admittedly less than enthusiastic endorsement of John Edwards is around this sentence:

the embarassingly entitled “Club Obama” event

It's the part that Baruth highlighted (although I don't think he was mad, just amused), and was a peripheral comment at best. Still, it was not my intention to offend people with the line – which I seem to have done, although in complete earnest-honesty, I don't quite understand why. But given that I did, I thought it best to explain what I was thinking.

A big part of me cringed when I saw the odd way, in the throes of the Dean for President phenomenon, the Governor seemed to start losing control of his actual image. There were the peripheral events like the Lolapalooza-sounding “Sleepless Summer Tour” and all the ways that his name started being used almost as though he were some sort of product, like a hot new car or a brand of beer. “Deaniacs,” “Generation Dean,” “Dean Bran Flakes.”

Okay, maybe not the last one, but you get the idea…

The fact is that the imageering kept from overshadowing the Dean campaign itself because Dean was always saying things of substance – often things that would get him into trouble, in fact, but it helped to insure that content was always at the core of the campaign. Obama's campaign is different. Ask any 10 Dean supporters around primary time what they liked about Dean, and you were likely to hear something about Iraq in very nearly 100% of the replies. Ask Obama supporters what they like about him in 10 words or less and you're likely to hear something along the lines of what Treasurer Jeb Spaulding said in the Herald/Argus:

“I really think he represents the American dream. He has a very culturally diverse background,”

Right off the bat, many Obama supporters start from a place of image, rather than policy. What people see when they look at him. What they read into his background, and what they perceive “the American Dream” to be, from their own ideological vantage. And that makes the commodofication of his candidacy a far more dangerous thing, in my opinion, than it was for Dean, because the imageering already is an overwhelming part of his presentation from the get-go.

Now I'm as big on marketing and branding as the next guy. You want stuff with your candidate on it, and going catchy is a great idea. Heck, just the name “Dean for America” was itself a branding slogan of sorts, and a smart one. But how far is too far? At what point does marketing our candidates cross the line into treating them like a commodity? Like a new soft drink? When that line is crossed, what does it say about us as a culture? What is the public debate path that we're on, and does going too far down it in one campaign perpetuate the problem overall?

I'm not sure exactly where the line is, but I know when it gets crossed you'll find the marketing itself starting to shove out the content – the policies and particularized visioneering that should be – by all rights – what a mature electorate bases their decision on. There just becomes less and less actual time for both, and when that tension squeezes out the content, I think we all lose. It's also an obvious way for a candidate who wants to avoid being pinned down on precisely who and what he or she represents to avoid having to be.

However it happens – either by accident or design – it's something I find at once frightening, disheartening and when it comes from my political “team”, yes – I find it embarassing as well. Maybe it's not happening so much as I'm afraid its happening. The name “club Obama” definitely punched that button with me, but again, I didn't think a public cringe at the title would be so extraordinarily disturbing. My bad.

 What do you all think?

Whatever you think of freshman Representative Peter Welch, the fact is that he's been a busy, busy man of late.

Today (from the Times Argus):

Vermont's lone representative in the U.S. House, Peter Welch, said he will work to defeat the extension of a new federal wiretapping law passed by Congress in July.

Welch, a Democrat, said a number of Democrats have given in to pressure from the White House and supported the bill.

“This really is an abdication of the separation of powers. That is a core principle of our democracy,” Welch said. “There's no judicial review under the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) provision that was passed by Congress. Frankly I think that the courts may well find this unconstitutional because it's depriving the court of its jurisdictional oversight. And that's not an appropriate thing for Congress to do. This was a mistake.”

Click below the fold for the rest of the rundown…

The press release from yesterday:

Today Rep. Peter Welch introduced legislation to strengthen the safety of nuclear power facilities in Vermont and around the country establishing a process for an independent safety assessment. Welch’s legislation authorizes the governor or public utility commission from a state with a nuclear power plant (or an adjoining state) to initiate an independent safety assessment conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) when there is a pending application for re-licensing, a request for an increase in power above authorized levels, or a pattern of safety problems.

The bill directs the inspection team to report on its findings which are to be available to the public and be considered by the NRC. The NRC is directed to postpone license extension or approval of a power uprate until any safety matters identified in the report are resolved.

Two days before that, here's Welch reacting to Bush's announcement that the Democratic Congress is giving too much money to veteran's services:

“President Bush is engaged in a shameless political maneuver that pits necessary support for veterans against critical domestic spending needs such as children’s health care, affordable housing, and transportation infrastructure.  At the same time, he continues to insist on a blank check to fund his failed policy in Iraq at the expense of domestic priorities.

“This President, who regularly declared his support for the troops while presiding over the scandal at Walter Reed, is now demanding that Congress reduce funding for veterans programs.  Earlier this year, the House of Representatives appropriately passed the largest funding increase in Veterans Administration history, recognizing the real care our veterans need and deserve.  Those increases are necessary and must take effect.

The week before, he touted Congress's contribution to the much-discussed youth flight from the state:

The College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, H.R. 2669, passed the House last month and provides nearly $18 billion in financial aid over the next five years, cuts interest rates on student loans, and provides college cost containment incentives.  The bill adds no new cost to taxpayers.

The legislation is expected to benefit over 10,000 Vermont students, providing an estimated $44 million in financial aid and cutting interest rates for an average savings of $4,370.

A similar initiative has passed the Senate, and Welch is hopeful the legislation will be signed into law this fall.

On Iran a few days ago (via the Reformer):

“I don't trust the president on Iran,” Welch said in an interview.

“He's demonstrated a willingness to play it fast and loose when he was justifying Iraq. So I don't have confidence in what the president said (about Iran), and I don't have confidence in his judgment.”

The assessment came one day after Bush accused Iran of “sending arms to the Taliban” in Afghanistan and providing 240-millimeter rockets, explosives and training to Iraq-based insurgents. The pace of Iran's interference is increasing, he warned.

And along with this lil flurry, a public schedule over the week and a half leading up to labor day that had him averaging one public appearence a day during the end of his recess.

You may take issue with the content (I obviously don't – this is what I want to hear more of), but there's no denying the guy is working hard and keeping a high profile and level of accessibility. And he's using the bully-pulpit aspect of his position to solid effect.

I've noticed that, with the exception of those who were never going to vote for him in the first place, Welch has quieted a lot of the complaints about him of late. Perhaps its because, in terms of progressive priorities, he's proving himself to be more effective in his first term than was the man he replaced – former Rep. Bernie Sanders.

And the result? Still not a peep from a potential GOP challenger. And that's refreshing.

(I’m bumping this back to the top. This is getting pretty interesting! – promoted by Brattlerouser)

I just can't stand it anymore.

My left brain has been pushing towards Edwards for a while, while simultaneously reminding me that candidates can turn on a dime so I should watch it and hold off for as long as possible. My right brain has wanted me to wait until the embarassingly entitled “Club Obama” event to dip my toe in the pool with the only candidate who has inspired any real passion from Democrats to see if any of it rubs off.

Well, my right brain just threw up at the latest news of the talk of more mind-numbing capitulation on war funding from the Democratic leaders in Washington.

If you haven't heard:

With a mixed picture emerging about progress in Iraq, Senate Democratic leaders are showing a new openness to compromise as they try to attract Republican support for forcing at least modest troop withdrawals in the coming months.

The wait is now on to hear from those-who-would-lead-the-free-world on this.

Let's be clear, I don't expect anything from Clinton. With her record, I don't see how anybody rationally could. Dodd has come out on this in a forthright way quickly, but he's always seemed like he's running for the nominee's VP spot. Richardson puts his foot in his mouth as much as Dean ever did, but without the great payoff that candidate Dean provided as compensation. Kucinich would be way too “non-secular” a Prez for me (and I don't trust the abortion rights flip-flop), and Gravel (who I interviewed, but found the tape was damaged) is way too right-libertarian for me (and hasn't found a clean way to translate his unusual political philosophies into specific policies without sounding scary). And Biden. Uhhh.

So let's be serious, it's always been between Edwards and Obama for me, with advantage Edwards. Even as Obama avoided policy discussions for so long, I was well aware of the enthusiasm he generated among people I respect, so I've tried to keep my mind open in the same way I'm a religious agnostic; my gut tells me there's no deity out there, but I'm open to the idea that believers have some special knowledge or understanding that I'm just not picking up on. So it's been with my relationship to the Obama phenomenon (or syndrome, if you see it that way).

In that vein, I've been encouraged by Obama's recent moves towards speaking up and out about policies and issues, rather than simply spouting cliches and platitudes to adoring throngs. I've had the sense of late that he's become more interested in running for President, rather than National Therapist.

For so long, he has seemed so concerned about being as many feelgood things as possible to as many people as possible that he's hopelessly straitjacketed what is clearly an impressive intellect. His strange bobble over the question of using nukes was a prime example…

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons “in any circumstance” to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,” Obama said, with a pause, “involving civilians.” Then he quickly added, “Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table.”

… where he (presumably) started sheepishly with something from the gut, then nervously modifying it into an answer he probably felt was a good sell, but hearing and questioning himself again before the reverberations had even died down.

Long passed is the time when in may have been strategic (if distasteful) to avoid clear policy pronouncements in the hopes of not alienating potential supporters. With the extended election calendar, that window closed long ago, leaving in its wake a narrative of someone who is either a panderer – or worse – an empty suit.

But of late, one had the sense that his unintentional flashes of hot-button substance had yielded gold. That even his fans had yearned for the progressive substance they've always assured skeptics was hiding there, just beneath the surface, and all reacted with renewed enthusiasm – perhaps finally showing him that a Presidential candidate can lead, not just by allowing voters to easily project all manners of goodness and light into his ciphered image and personal presence, but by stepping forward with real vision and political leadership. And policies have of late been forthcoming – perhaps not always the most original or the most progressive ones, but still heading in the right direction.

Perhaps the straitjacket was coming off – not simply of the intellect, but of this good-hearted progressive I keep being told about.

And perhaps I simply let my guard down by being hopeful. Obama is receiving a “do-over” of sorts on one of his more profound failures as a leader to the progressive base; his coyness on whether or not he would vote in the Senate to continue funding the war, and his voting against only after it was clear the bill would pass.

Well, we're right back there again, for all intents and purposes, as the Democratic leadership in Washington are falling all over themselves to – once again – give Bush what he wants, even though everything was supposed to be different in September (ha). Edwards and Dodd are right out of the gate calling this bullshit for what it is.

Obama? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

I can't stand it anymore. I thought maybe – just maybe – he'd moved beyond the clumsy calculations. This capitulation is morally outrageous, so where is the moral outrage? I'm sorry, but if you have to stew on it with your advisers and decide whether or not it'll poll well before you finally come out with something, it's something other than moral outrage, and I really expect to hear some moral outrage.

I for one am tired of waiting for it, or trying to imagine acceptable excuses as to why its not there.

So its Edwards – who doesn't exactly make me do backflips. Nevertheless, his focus on poverty and labor issues are a breath of fresh air – and its hard not to wonder if his lagging in the polls isn't because such talk isn't seen as a “downer” in the face of Obama's ethereal, amorphous hope-speak. If that's the case, then it's a downer many in the country should be required to take. Looking at poverty is ugly. It suggests that the “haves” may have to sacrifice for the sake of what's right. The idea of a National Therapist who will make it all better with a change of our collective self-esteem may capture the zeitgeist of the baby boom era, but it aint enough. Edwards's more open-eyed and pasionate approach is evident in his health care plan, which is superior to Obama's, and through which he openly purports to grease the wheels toward a fundamentally different single-payer approach.

Still, I have the same problem with Edwards that a lot of people have; I'm afraid he could be a phony.

But guess what – I'm afraid they ALL could be phonies. Some of them I'm certain are. As far as that goes, they're all on a level playing field, more or less.

Faced with the choice of several maybe-phonies, it would be self-defeating not to vote for the one that is out there saying what I've been demanding the candidates say about Iraq, poverty, health care and corporate political influence. I feel obliged to do my part to make sure that this sort of rhetoric and policy is an election winner rather than a loser, as all the beltway insiders and DLC types insist. In fact I'd be downright hypocritical not to vote for the guy at this point. Here he is on the new “compromise” notion:

Following today's report in the New York Times that Congress may cave on a withdrawal date from Iraq, Sen. John Edwards released the following statement:

“In 2006, the American people elected a Democratic Congress to change course and end this war. It's the whole reason the American people voted for change. Yet, 10 months after the election, we still have the status quo and Congress has still failed to do the people's will. That might be the way they do it inside the Beltway, but it's not the American way. It's time to stand up for the American people and against President Bush's failed, stubborn policy. Without a firm deadline, a small withdrawal of only some of the surge troops won't cut it—that's not a solution, it's an excuse. Congress must not send President Bush any funding bill without a timeline to end this war. No timeline, no funding. No excuses.”

Okay, maybe he's just telling me what I want to hear.

What, I'm supposed to therefore vote for someone who isn't??

I don't think so.

Since it's Labor Day, it seems worthwhile to review where the labor unions stand (so far) in regards to the Presidential candidates. The following is a list of labor endorsements at this point (keep in mind, the AFL-CIO will not be making a primary endorsement, as no candidate can manage the necessary supermajority. It's member unions are, as you'll see below, moving forward on their own):

Hillary Clinton
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM)
United Transportation Union

Chris Dodd
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF)

John Edwards
United Steelworkers (USW)
United Mine Workers of America (UMWA)
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America

If I missed any, put 'em in the comments and I'll update the list.

From the NYT Sunday wedding announcements:

Rose Cheney Friedman, the daughter of Denny Partridge and Steve Friedman of Bellows Falls, Vt., is to be married this afternoon to Justin Leonard Lander, a son of Anne Lander and Lynn Lander of Harrington Park, N.J. Carolyn W. Partridge, the majority leader of the Vermont House of Representatives and an aunt of the bride, is to officiate as a justice of the peace at the farm of the Bread and Puppet Theater in Glover, Vt.

Congrats to all, even if one part of the announcement made me wince:

Mr. Lander, who was raising chickens as part of the communal life at the (Bread & Puppet) farm, said a raccoon was eating the animals. “I caught the raccoon and ate it,” he said, “and that made her mad. She was a vegetarian at the time.”

Uhh. Raccoon? You can't tell me that tastes like chicken…

I photographed the following, posted by the entrance to Brooks Pharmacy in Montpelier:

“Will do anything legally permissable” to hinder a union. On the one hand, I suppose there's something refreshing about the honesty. On the other hand, is this the type of corporate citizen a progressive town like Montpelier wants in its midst?

Brooks was recently bought out by Rite Aid nationally. It will be interesting to see if the signs stay after the transition is complete. On the one hand, Rite Aid struck a deal in the late nineties to be the preferred provider pharmaceuticals to the National Health and Human Service Employees in New York in exchange for opening their stores up for unionizing (many already were at the time). On the other hand, there's this report from only a year ago in L.A. County:

The warehouse workers at Rite Aid’s distribution center in Lancaster need our support. They sweat and vomit on the job all because the warehouse where they work lacks air conditioning. In fact, one worker died on the job. Many attribute his death to heat stroke. Now these workers are trying to organize themselves for better working conditions by joining the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 26, but Rite Aid has not been supportive. In response, they have slammed these workers with firings, suspensions, harassment and threats.

In any event, if the sign doesn't come down, there may be an opportunity for local activists to work in solidarity with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which absorbed NHHSE about ten years ago. SEIU has a strong New England presence and is a very activist-oriented union. Since this sign amounts to a spitting-in-the-face of those of us who consider the labor movement a good thing and the right to organize as fundamental, a little pushback would seem to be in order. Stay tuned.

I take two of these daily as part of the handful of pharmaceuticals my doctor has me on for my various frailties. I only just noticed what they actually say on them…

Funny prescription for a blogger, eh? Wonder if Markos knows he's available in pill form.

There was a break in at a property owned by Montpelier gadfly Gary Schy over this last weekend. Property was stolen, smashed and defaced. The Times Argus gave it front page treatment, though. Why?

A pair of swastikas were left at the site of a destructive burglary in Montpelier late last week, transforming the break-in into a hate crime, according to police.

Property owner Gary Schy discovered the anti-Semitic symbols amid the aftermath of a destructive rampage when he checked in on his teenage children's East State Street “clubhouse” early Thursday morning. The burglars, according to Schy, took two expensive guitars from the small barn before ransacking the premises and spraying the interior with a fire extinguisher. Schy said the swastikas were traced into the layer of white residue deposited by the extinguisher.

“I saw it on my kids' face, they know what hatred feels like,” Schy said.

A lot of folks on the left like to echo the right wing on hate crimes. Hate crime laws evoke strong negative feelings from the damndest people, and to a person they use the same arguments. That its somehow penalizing thoughts. That all crimes somehow involve hate already, so what's the point? That its some sort of fallacy to prosecute a random assault differently, and with a different set of punishments, than an assault based on a persons race, creed, color or sexual orientation. And they always go straight to angry that anyone would suggest otherwise, throwing around accusations of “political correctness.”

Often when somebody goes straight to angry like that, it's a sign that there isn't a lot of rationality to their argument to waste any time with.

First of all, lets do away with the two least developed arguments. No, not all crimes involve hate, and even if they did – that's not the point. Call them bias crimes if you want, it hardly matters. A rose by any other name, and all. This argument is a straw man at best.

Second of all, there's no penalization for thoughts. You don't get charged with a hate crime for thinking bad things about people – you get charged when you do bad things to people, and as is the case with any violent crime, intent matters. We prosecute criminals differently for reckless homicide vs. intentional murder. We prosecute differently for premeditation. We let people off completely if they can prove they weren't in their right minds. This is all common sense. Throwing out the “thoughtcrime” canard is, after a second of thinking about it, clearly a way to suggest that bias and ethnic, racial or sexual identity motivations should be specially singled out as beyond consideration (so now who's making special allowances?).

Finally, there's the argument that an assault that is motivated by bias-hatred should simply be prosecuted as an assault. That it's no different.

And that's a load of crap.

First of all, there's – again – the argument that we don't treat all assaults or attacks the same in other ways, as I mentioned before. Why single out the consideration of bias motivations as specifically arbitrary or inappropriate?

And the fact remains that a garden variety break in or vandalism and one motivated by bigotry are NOT the same crimes. Not even close. Need proof? There are break ins all the time in central Vermont with comparable damage and theft. Generally, you'll find them in the police reports. Sometimes a blerb on the sidebar in the B section. This particular break-in, however, was front-page-above-the-fold. What was the difference?

The swastikas.

Surrounded as we are by a disturbing complacency on such matters, fed by a media that considers those that gleefully associate themselves with dangerously fascistic bigots to be “quaint,” we have a special responsibility to call this sort of thing out and tell it like it is. By defacing Schy's property with swastikas, the peretrators were not simply trashing the place and stealing a few items, they were dropping a fear bomb into Montpelier's Jewish community – and by extension, all of us with friends and family among the Jewish community. It's the same when someone targets a gay man for a beating specifically because they're gay. Sure there's an assault, but there's also a violent, loud threat to the entire gay community, and an intent to terrorize them.

If you doubt that there's something much than in a garden variety act of violence when bias is the motivation, simply look at the ripples made in the community and you'll have little choice but to admit there's something more in play.

And that something is what makes it a hate crime. They're a form of terrorism, and should be treated as such.

The party line then (emphasis added):

Family groups believe Vermont’s “civil unions” law will have a negative impact on the state and may be used to undermine marriage laws across the country.
    Janet Parshall, chief spokeswoman for the Family Research Council, decried the lawmakers’ action.
    “This is ‘gay marriage’ in everything but name, and it is a direct assault on society’s most essential institution,” Parshall said.

The party line now:

“It appears that, from their side,” said (Stephen) Cable (President of the “Center for American Cultural Renewal” in Rutland), “it is a battle of semantics, and being in a position of being more accepted in terms of the word ‘marriage.’ From our perspective, ‘marriage’ is drastically different. The word marriage,” he said, “implies, you know, it implies [the] opposite sex can form a union. So it’s very, very different from our perspective.”

I didn't see this coming:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress, has resigned. A senior administration official said he would announce the decision later this morning in Washington.

It looked for all the world like Bushco was dug in on this – as they are on everything. What changed? If they were going to care about political pressure and public standing, why now and not months ago when the writing was all over the wall? Perhaps Rove was the driving force behind the stubborn support of Gonzales, and now that he's gone…

Who knows. I'm sure all these questions and more will be asked. Hopefully there will be a Washington reporter or two that will do their jobs and dig a bit for the answers. In the meantime, it begs the question as to who comes next? Rumors place DHS boss Michael Chertoff as the next name in line, but Victoria Toensing (mother of fellow national GOP hack and Charlotte resident Brady Toensing) strikes me as a possibility.

Stay tuned…