I'm still transcribing the interview with Presidential hopeful and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel, but I wanted to take a moment to mention a couple items. First off, I'm experimenting with site stuff. There won't be a big, blank white spot in the top middle for long, I promise, but I am hoping that I can get Soapblox's news feeder feature to work. My goal is to have current news from VPR, VPIRG's blog and VNRC's newsfeeds running – and more as I find 'em (not any of the major news sources though, VPR being the exception).

While I work on this stuff, though, I'd like to make a big suggestion to the world at large. And as usual, I'm sure the world is waiting with baited breath (ew) to leap at my wisdom and implement it universally, through some sort of UN declaration…

I propose that we call a permanent moratorium on the use of the following two words from politicians of every stripe:

#1: “Disappointed.” As in “I’m disappointed Gov. Douglas has chosen to veto two significant pieces of legislation” You're not disappointed, Rep. Symington, you knew he was going to do this and you're pissed off. Say it loud and say it proud. This is a line we hear a lot locally, nationally – and no matter who says it, it sounds like a sighing elementary school teacher shaking their head and saying “tut tut” to a six year old who just called someone a poopyhead on the playground. Yuck. Candor is what people want from their electeds these days, and part of candor is emotional honesty. Passion.

#2: “Change.” This is the big one. I can live with “disappointed” staying in the lexicon if we can just dump the word “change.” It's a buzzword that perennially polls well, and means absolutely NOTHING. Change what? Into what? It's meaningless as a standalone goal, and yet those that overemploy it on the stump use it precisely for that reason: to studiously avoid having to say something meaningful. They all do it (at least at the national level), but there's no question Obama's got it the worst (“walk for change“?? WTF is that supposed to mean??). Still, it's undeniable that every Democratic Presidential candidate would have to rewrite half their press releases and stump speeches if we could pry it out of permissable political babble.

To this end I propose legislation. Criminal penalties. Gitmo. I just can't stand it no more. I'm going to be very disappointed if I don't see a change.

I’m slowly transcribing the taped interviews I did at last weekend’s DemocracyFest, and I was pleased to be able to get Matt Dunne’s attention, as he was just doing a flyby between other obligations in order to do a presentation on his Service Politics project.

Dunne, of course, is on top of the “who’s-gonna-run” speculation lists for ’08 – either in the context of a second try against Lt. Governor Brian Dubie, or possibly even against Governor Jim Douglas.

Matt’s a good guy and I always enjoy talking to him. Detractors tend to paint him as overly ambitious, but I think what they’re often detecting is the just the same sort of political addiction that many of we bloggers share. The guy is just really into this stuff.

The interview is below the fold. As with the Dean interview down the page, my recorder dropped some audio (which I denote)…

odum: So why don’t you give me the service politics rap?

Dunne: The Service Politics Institute was created as a way to try to bridge the universes of people intersted in community sevice to people being activists in the policy/political realm. As those who follow politics very, very closely know, that as part of my campaign for Lt. Governor, we experimented a little bit with getting people to come out to do good work, whether it was working on a trail or working on a youth home, building a recreation center or doing service in a senior center, to try to connect with different people, and then to have a conversation about the larger issues that were facing those organizations or their clients that Montpelier could support in a better or more efficient way. What we discoivered was that it was a very, very powerful instrument. People came out who weren’t interested in politics and became interested in politics. That I as a candidate was able to absorb the issues that were facing our communities in a more visceral way. There’s nothing like investing your time into something – to be that much more attuned to the issues as they’re being brought up. And I think it accounted for a lot of the the momentum that we gained during the campaign itself. By the end we did these sign holding events where we would have people go out into an interstection at a given time. On a Thursday morning at 7:30 in the sleet, we had over 400 people holding signs across the state for a Lt Governor race! And as we were looking at how that came to be, a lot of the folks had connected with us through the service project – a lot of them weren’t the typical Democratic or Progressive activists, and a lot of them weren’t even old enough to vote.

And so we realized that we’d caught onto something here, and many of the folks who’d been involved, after the election ended, were not interested in stopping – wanted to do – what we were going to do next. How we were going to make a difference moving forward and continuing that movement and that interest.

So we established the Service Politics Institute. We raised a little bit of money from folks who were intrigued by the idea specifically, and we started rolling out a series of service projects, in Vermont first, although we’re also doing something in New Hampshire – and then our hope is to demonstrate how it can work in an election environment and outside an election environment, and then document some curricula that we can distriburte nationally through the Center for Progressive Leadership, who is our umbrella organization that we’re functioning under – or through Democracy for America, 21st Century Democrats, or even a consortia of nonprofit organizations around a specific area. there are some environmental grassroots organizations who are very interested in seeing if they can incorporate service politics strategies into their efforts to bring their folks who are passionate about the service part and want to see change happen, but dont get to see politics as a lever to making a difference in creating a world that they want to see.

The other exciting thing for us is the opportunity to reach out to younger people. Theres an interesting statistic that came out last election, which is that, of 18 to 30 year olds, 40% of them did service last year of some sort or another in a fairly significant way. Only 22% of them voted. If you assume that the 22% is within the 40% – which I dont think it is, I think there are some political addicts out there that aren’t interested in the service – but even if you start there, that’s thousands of people in Vermont and millions of peoople across the country who are giving hours and hours and hours of their time in service, who hopefully will be able to see that engaging in politics, they’ll also be able to find other ways to meet their goals, perhaps ones that will make a larger impact.

Because when you’re trying to feed the homeless one person at a time, that’s nothing compared to addressing those needs on a macro scale that the policy realm can really address. So we’re hopeful that we can specifically engage younger people through the gateway of service, introduce them to political figures that currently represent them, and then have them able to feel comfortable in the political realm as a way to make change happen.

odum: Every cycle campagins are banging their heads against the wall to get that youth turnout into elections, and nobody ever bumps it more than a percentage point or two. Do you think this may be the holy grail approach, here?

Dunne: I dont think there’s going to be one solution to that particular problem. I’ve spent most of my life either as a young politician who has been trying to engage other young people, or as someone in the service world trying to make that bridge. But I think its a big piece of it. There’s a generation out there that clearly want to make a difference. They wouldn’t be spending hours and hours out of their week doing this kind of work unless they felt strongly about it.

And I think what’s the usual strategy is you pursue the people who voted in the past. If they haven’t voted in the past, politicians aren’t going to be looking to them for ideas, much less even knocking on their door. If we are strategic with these kinds of approaches in going to these places that young people have gravitated to, who want to make a difference, I believe we can introduce them to people who are in politics, or policy making decision makers, and make them feel comfortable making that connection.

I am hopeful it will make a diference. If we could make up even half that difference between that 20% and that 40%, you would have very different outcomes in elections, in the state of Vermont and across the country.

odum: And the reception’s been good? The evangelizing’s going well?

Dunne: It’s going well. I think the challenge is that people in the sevice world are naturally suspicious of politics, and people in the political world don’t quite understand why you need to spend so much time doing something and how is that really making a difference, in terms of reaching out to vast numbers of voters – cause of course its a numbers game. So there’s been a challengge in convincing people that, yes, this is [worthwhile].

And this is true of funders as well. There are some people who are all about getting progressively minded elected officials together, who think this is interesting, but it’s not exactly their fit. Then you’ve got people who are passionate about the service side, but are a little uneasy about politcs, and why would you want to get politics into this? People who see the two together are an incredible, powerful force for both – they’ve stepped up to the plate. But we’ve got a little ways to go to get those two universes – which are the traditional funding buckets – to feel like this is a more efficient use of their dollars rather than a distraction.

odum: Changing horses here – what are you doing for Google?

Dunne: I am heading up Google’s community affairs efforts in locations where they are building up new infrastructure – for the most part, datacenters. Google is on an intense effort to build new server capacity all over the country. They want to have a diversified grid to have their servers function on. I’m on officially as a contractor, to go out and help them understand how to connect with those communities where they’re building out this infrastructure, and make sure they’re being able to reach out to folks in that community for both employment opportunities, but also to continue the Google corporate philosophy – which is a very progressive one that wants to engage with the community – while also containing expectations. A lot of the places where we’re building out are depressed manufacturing communities that have a lot of energy,  which Google datacenters need, as well as land that is inexpensive – and unfortunately they sometimes then expect thousands of jobs and lots of resources going into their nonprofit organizations. We need to contain those expectations. These are, you know, 200 jobs – which is not insignificant, but is not – considering the size of the infrastructure going in – not what people are hoping for. So its been very exciting. I’m covering the whole country, which means I’m in an airport more than I would like, but its been an exciting opportunity.

odum: So – the big Vermont question, y’know? You gave a popular incumbent a real run for his money on your first statewide run, so – uh – what’s on the radar, here?

Dunne: There is – at the moment – nothing on the radar. There is, I am by that run. I felt great at the outcome, short of actually winning, and I’m excited to figure out what that next thing is. It’s a question of when and for what, but I’m as committed to political change in Vermont as when I started the Lt. Governor run.

But right now im focusing on making sure the Service Politics Institute is up and which is to get individuals who arent engaged in the political process but passionate about service, into the political process. We’re doing it as a 501c(3), so I’m committed to doing that across the board. I believe if we’re getting more people engaged, that’s better all the way across- and I think people who are committed to grassroots service – those are my kind of people. I don’t care what kind of party they put next to their name.

So, im excited about that effort, and I’m trying to make sure I do a good job for Google, and spend some time with my family. I didn’t get to spend that much time with them during the campaign as you might imagine, but I’m continuuing to stay in touch with people..

odum: Well, Freyne wants you to run for Governor. (cross-chuckling)

Dunne: I’m flattered by Mr. Freyne’s… (clears throat) encouragement. Got a long way to go before I make that decision.

At last weekend’s DemocracyFest, I had the opportunity for an exclusive ten-minute sit-down with former Vermont Governor and current DNC Chair Howard Dean. I had the chance to ask him a few brief questions just before he went on to deliver the conference keynote, and took the opportunity to ask a few general questions about the electoral challenges ahead, as well as get his perspective on some Vermont happenings.

A note to hopeful readers looking for some sort of Mike Wallace-style grilling: fuggedaboutit. Number one, I aint a reporter, I’m just a guy who splays his opinions on a piece of software for the world to see. But number two, Dean is head of the Democratic National Committee, and the DNC head is simply not a policy position. Sure, if I was talking to Reid or Pelosi, it’d be all about issues, but Dean’s job is to build Party infrastructure, propogate the message and support his candidates – in other words, to win elections.

Having said that, Dean was clearly promoted to his position, not simply to structurally reform the Party, but to do so from a progressive policy position, so it’s a fine line he walks, and IMO he generally walks it well (click here to read an account of his speech before the conference, as an example).

I was wondering if the job had aged the Governor, given it’s demands as well as the grief he has received from friend and foe alike, but Dean looked fit, rested, healthy and relaxed, which suggests to me that the job is a good fit.

A note – I made a tape recording of the conversation, but as we got into it and became more casual and relaxed, the audio tended to drop from the recording because our tones dropped and were swallowed by the room (I denote the drops in the text). Ah well. I’d never even tried to interview anyone before that day (and probably won’t again anytime soon), so it’s live and learn I guess.

Interview on the flip…

odum: With the Presidential campaign kicking off so much earlier, and with the rollback of the primary calendar, how do you deal with the danger of, sort of, elections burnout/campaign fatigue driving down turnout?

Dean: For the average person, that’s not gonna happen at all. I mean, there may be some burnout among the cognescenti who follow this thing religiously, but Americans have a way of tuning politics out until they really want to focus on it. So I dont think youre going to see an intense focus despite the coverage in the media and everything else, despite what’s going on until after the conventions.

Democratic primary voters are different, of course, but in terms of the average American voter, thats when they usually focus is after the conventions.

odum: With all the constant Bush scandals, do you feel that the need to be responsive to them and reactive against them, crowds out room for the Party and candidates to really be proactive with their message?

Dean: I don’t really think so. I think the constant misdoings of the administration are actually very helpful to us because it reminds people why they shouldn’t vote Republican. Eventually the message is going to be a positive, uplifting message about what were going to do and not how awful Bush is, but, look- as long as the press wants to carry all the mistakes and misdoings of the Bush administration, it gets people in the frame of mind of “we really need a change”. And its easier for them to do than for us to do it, and thats great.

Tha campaigns themselves for the most part are actually pretty positive. Mostly, the debates are not all about how terrible Bush is. A lot of them are about what we ought to do about health insurance, and what we want to do is very, very positive.

odum: But is it difficult to manage the tension between the base which wants that reactivity versus the less engaged voters that want something proactive?

Dean: Well there’s plenty of reactivity, you know I think there’s a balance you have to have. But again, every day we see something new in the press about the malfeasence of the administration. But I do think even the hardcore Democratic base wants a positive message.

odum: Have your critics warmed up to the 50 state strategy yet?

Dean: Oh yeah, I think it’s pretty much been absorbed. It’s now called the (looks at aide) what’s it called? The “enhanced field” or something like that. Because of course they would never call it the 50 state strategy…

odum: (chuckle) That’s great.

Of course your presidential campaign has obviously created – they’re out there (referring to the convention floor) – the rise and empowerment of the “netroots” as a force in the Party. How do you think – and obviously this is a question that could go on forever – how do you think, both negatively and positively, that sort of decentralization, that netroots effect….

Dean: I think its the best thing since sliced bread.

The internet has created an opportunity for redemocratizing America after one of the least democratic-with-a-small-d administrations, [that believes whats good for them] is more important than what is good for America. [The internet] empowers ordinary americans, which is what our campaign was all about, and its a good thing.

You know, there is some venom in the discussions, but I actually find that the internet builds consensus in debates that go on on the blogs and the chats, and all that. It’s interesting to see that there’s agreement. I mean, I read those things sometimes, and you know there’s a real dialogue. Sometimes people flame, and they need to be… escorted off, but a lot of it’s real discussion; “yeah, maybe you’re right about this” and such. I think thats very positive because you get people from all over the country talking to each other, and I think thats very positive.

odum: Here’s an impossible question to answer, but I wanna ask it anyway. You’ve worn so many hats and had so many adventures ove last decades, where do you see Howard Dean ten years from now?

Dean: I have absolutely no idea (laughs).

odum: Let me throw out real quick, because I know we dont have a lot of time, some Vermont questions. Democrats obviously made a lot gains in Vermont last year, but theres still a Republican governor. In your opinion, what’s Jim Douglas’s secret? Is it just incumbency?

Dean: He’s a very good politician, there’s no question about that.

odum: He’s just got the skills…

Dean: I think so…

odum: Now you’ve campaigned for Dems in the state, and Douglas has campaigned for Republicans, but looking at the various results, you get the sense that there just isn’t such a thing as political coattails in the state. Why do you think that is? That seems to be uniquely Vermont.

Dean: Well, Vermonters are very independent minded. New Englanders in general are independently minded, but particularly Vermonters, although I think based on last campaign, I think we’re going to win some… you know, we’ve got a pretty good record. I will predict flat out that we’re going to pick up the Lieutenant Governor’s race. You know, depending on who runs I think we have a shot at the Governor.

odum: The “common-law marriage” between Bernie and the Democratic Party seems to be holding and very strong…

Dean: I think it’s working very well – you know Bernie is essentially a liberal or progressive Democrat. I know he prefers to call himself a social Democrat…

odum: Recently – I dont know if you’ve been engaged in Vermont, but, the Vermont Legislature has received a lot of criticism from all sides on its priorities and product. I’m wondering What sort of general advice you would give to legislative leaders to retake control of the debate…?

Dean: I think the Legislature’s done a great job. What they need is a really aggressive message program. Jim Douglas has, what, fourteen people on the media staff? I had one! You know, they’re being out-spun, but their work product is terrific. I mean, I think this is a great Legislature that they’ve got. There hasn’t actually been much that’s come out of the Governor’s office in terms of intitiatives that’ve gotten passed. The Legislature’s passed most of the stuff, and the Legislature’s driving the boat. On the environment for example, even though their environmental thing got vetoed – and we’ll see if that stays – but the Legislature’s setting the agenda, here, in terms of stuff that gets passed. What they don’t have is a press strategy, and it’s not all the Legislature’s fault. The Governor – any Governor – that’s any good at his job……in fact, the legislature’s setting the agenda .

odum: You gonna be in Burlington on July 15th? You oughta come to the blogger’s barbeque on North Beach.

Dean: I’d absolutely want to do it – (double takes to consider what he’s just heard) – the bloggers are having – this is Burlington – Vermont bloggers – are having a barbeque?

odum: Yes, Neil Jensen, Philip Baruth and I – Philip has Vermont Daily Briefing –

Dean: Sure.

odum: And last year was the first one, and we turned out a crowd of people – most of our major candidates. An off-election year won’t be quite as star-studded, but you could certainly change that if you were in town.

Dean: What time is it?

odum: 1 to 5.

Dean: (to aide) 1 to 5, North Beach – write that down. I have absolutely no idea what I’m going to do right now, but, you know – that’d be a fun thing for me to do.

odum: Bring the family! I’m bringing mine!

Well thank you so much, I really appreciate this.

Dean: My great pleasure…(descends to cross chatter)

My final report on DemocracyFest is going to be brief, as I was away in the afternoon during most of the good stuff. I arranged to catch  up with former Alaska Senator (and Presidential candidate) Mike Gravel across town for what turned out to be an extended interview, so I wasn’t able to catch Dennis Kucinich calling into the conference (GreenVermonster was there…. perhaps he’ll grace us with his impression). Nor was I able to catch Matt Dunne’s presentation on “Service Politics.” Basically all I can recount further is a piece of the e Pluribus media presentation, and of course the big speech by DNC Chair Howard Dean.

The good news, though, is that I was able to secure interviews not only with Gravel, but with Dunne, and even Howard Dean. I’ll have the Dean interview up at some point Monday and will trickle out the others as I can transcribe them. Hopefully I’ll also have the Hodes/Shea-Porter clip by the end of the week.

But on to epm and Dean…

I only caught a bit of the e Pluribus Media talk on their model of citizen e-journalism (presented by epm-ers GreyHawk and luaptifer). It was a hoot to hear of the rapid genesis of the citizen media clearinghouse that began with this post by SusanG at dKos which lit the fuse leading to the “horizontally organized” journalism site in only a matter of weeks. Amazing how quickly things can happen in this medium.

It was also downright inspiring to see how comprehensively they have implemented their editorial and fact-checking system with enough redundancies and firewalls to insure quality and verifiable content, but not so much as to choke off content. The presentation wandered a bit, but it was still good stuff.

I seem to have missed a powerful presentation on the impact of the war before Dean’s appearence, unfortunately. In any event, the place had begun to fill once again to capacity in anticipation. Among those present were the three candidates vying for the right to run for Republican Senator Sununu’s seat in New Hampshire’s Democratic primary; Steve Marchand, Jay Buckey and Katrina Swett.

Dean, of course, entered with rock star fanfare. After referring to the event as a “family reunion,” Dean began his balancing act of playing his role as chief Democratic Party cheerleader, while acknowledging, and even validating, the concerns and frustrations of liberal Democrats who play the role of his constituency. He acknowledged openly that the Democratic victories of last year constituted “probational employment,” and after praising Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid, commented that a “fair amount of you are disappointed ahe voting a couple weeks ago in Congress.”

Dean’s response was to validate, but to remind attendees that Harry Reid starts out every Iraq vote with only 49 votes, given Tim Johnson’s temporary incapacity and Joe Lieberman’s delusional intransigence. He also made a point of contrasting the debate rhetoric of the Republican Presidential candidates versus that of the Dems. He noted that the Republicans uniformly endorsed Bush’s comparison of Iraq to the military commitment in Korea, calling it the “50 year plan for Iraq.” He noted that every single Democratic candidate, in contrast, said we should get out as soon as possible, and that they would in fact bring out troops (to varying degrees and at various rates, obviously)

“If we want to get out of Iraq,” Dean said, “we have to have a Democratic President.”

Dean urged activists to fully engage this election cycle, again making the point that we should ask for everyone’s vote (and that doing so was a sign of respect to the voter). He admonished activists when approaching voters to “ask everybody what they think before we tell them what we think.” He spoke optimistically about the prospects of building bridges with the younger generation of evangelical Christians, proposing a forthright approach that states clearly to socially conservative Christians that, while we will not turn our backs on civil rights for gays and lesbians or a woman’s right to choose, there is still much we can agree on, such as strategies for alleviating poverty and protecting the environment.

For those looking for some of Dean’s famous (or infamous) take-no-prisoners rhetoric, they got  a taste during his discussion of the filibustered immigration bill. While acknowleding the bills shortcomings, he placed it’s failure squarely on the shoulders of the far right, stating “what we don’t need is a lot of racist hysteria about immigration” based on fears of immigrants because they “don’t look like you” or that they may “change the character of your town.”

Dean, in contrast, praised the majority of immigrants as hard workers, calling them “the best of the best” and asking “why wouldn’t we want people like that in the United States of America?”

Tying the frustrations around immigration legislation and the Iraq vote together, he stated that it was time to “get rid of the stranglehold the right wing has on the US Senate.”

It was a very positive speech and Dean did what Dean does so well; lay out his own anger and frustration but channel it positively and optimistically into a rallying cry. Whatever you think of the man or his politics, you’d be fooling yourself to deny this oratorical talent he’s honed on the national stage.

Dean closed by stating that he’d taken the DNC job “so we could fix the Democratic Party,” again acknowledging both progress as well as the continuing challenges. Despite his position, he insisted with a smile that it’s “not about whether Democrats win or Republicans win – it’s just that it so happens that the Democrats are right, and the Republicans are wrong.”

Heh.

So what do you all think? Inspiring? Phony? Exciting? Boring? Discuss away…

Ah, so much democracy, so little time…

Yesterday evening and this morning has proven a relatively laid back affair (well, except for mataliandy). I’m not a big networker unless I come with a crowd, and I’m here all by myself, which means I hide in the corner. Organizers have done a good job making this a very musical experience, as there was never too long a stretch of time between guitar interludes (although the place was hardly hoppin’ last night. I think folks were tired). Lots of live music, no songs written less than about 30 years ago, of course…

Despite my turtle-ish behavior, this morning has been delightful, as I got time to catch up with a few old colleagues, such as Tom Hughes (currently the Executive Director of DFA and in serious need of a real vacation – the man’s a political addict. For his sake, I hope they invent a patch for that) and Kate Donahue, organizer extraordinaire who is now running Blue Mass Group’s Jamie Eldridge’s re-election campaign for the Massachusetts assembly. Chatted with him briefly, and he’s a great, progressive guy. You should go give him some money.

And if yesterday was my day to hear blog complaints, today I’ve had several people come up to me saying how much they appreciate GMD. Probably a sign that the beds here provided for a good night’s sleep.

This morning was the “bloggers breakfast,” which apparently is some sort of tradition at these things. Jim Dean again welcomed the crowd, speaking in glowing terms about blogs and bloggers (we are “elevating and recreating the political discourse” – I’d love to see David Broder’s face over that quote). Before introductions (ack! Nobody told me I’d have to introduce myself!), there was a moment of silence for bloggers passed, such as Steve Gilliard, as well as DFA community favorites JC and The OC of blogforamerica.

Pleasant scene, that blogger’s breakfast. It was the only place here that I’ve felt that oddly worshipful vibe towards Howard Dean that always made me squirmy during his campaign, but very pleasant nonetheless.

But working backwards to last night speakers…

Granny D

So I didn’t miss Granny D as it turned out, as she rescheduled her appearence in order to introduce Mike Gravel, whom she supports. “D” (otherwise knows as Doris Haddock) gained fame for her walk across the country a few years back in support of campaign finance reform. Speaking in front of the room of activists in a flowery sunhat, she struck me from the back of the room as looking like a liberal Minnie Pearl without the price tag.

Her talk was reasonably entertaining, although it was clearly taking a lot out of her. She started off making jokes about Republicans’ intelligence (which got a lot of laughs, but made me a bit uncomfortable, frankly). From there, she spent her time talking about immigration, which seems to be her new focal cause. While her positions reflected straightforward, no-nonsense reality, as did her analysis of the effects of NAFTA and (detrimental effects on traditional farming in Mexico, the subsequent flight into urban areas for jobs, and the resultant flow across the US border) her historical analysis was a bit odd, as she stated explicitly her belief that there was no illegal immigration issue before Clinton signed NAFTA and “militarized” the border. No question that things have gotten worse, but Clinton hardly invented the problem, despite her contention that pre-NAFTA, seasonal immigrants would come into America and return home all the time with no fuss.

Nevertheless, she was a great addition to the program, admonishing participants to “be good citizens and good Democrats” by “asking tough questions” of their elected officials.

Mike Gravel

I confess I didn’t know what to expect of Mike Gravel, but after hearing him, I no longer consider him a hodgepodge of uncoordinated views. He is, in fact, extraordinarily consistent, and his presentation was engaging (although I could have done without his parroting the GOP “haircut” criticism of Edwards for a throwaway laugh line).

The best way I can (currently) characterize him is as someone with a pure, straightforward libertarian ethical perspective – but who has no qualms or hesitation about using government (even what many would call “big government”) to fill in the holes that a pure libertarian government would leave. Whether that makes him an anomoly or a prophet, I couldn’t say. I get a sit down with him later this afternoon, so I’ll see if he bristles at that analysis.

This perspective made for a unique dynamic with the crowd. In combination with his earnest, straight-talking style, the experience of the progressive, activist crowd can only be characterized as bipolar. He started off with strong, progressive minded statements on immigration, even invoking the Trail of Tears as a metaphor for the hardship faced by immigrants. It’s likely he led with that to innoculate himself against criticism for being the only Democratic candidate at the CNN debate who indicated a desire to make English the “official language” of the US.

But then he ripped into everyone on Iraq, recounting his Senatorial history as a one-man filibuster machine and insisting that if even a handful of Democratic legislators took the same approach with a bill that would criminalize the deployment (targeting the Commander-In-Chief, of course) and any veto override votes, that the war could be over by Labor Day.

So the extraordinary bluntness was certainly warmly recived by the crowd. What many in the crowd (as reflected from the q@a afterwards) couldn’t reconcile were his other Libertarian-esque views; his proposal to abolish the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax (which he considers a progressive tax), his desire to put issues such as abortion rights, school prayer and gun control to a national ballot referendum system that would be a cornerstone of his government. But again, even these views were sprinkled with crowd-appealing views, such as the decriminalization of drugs and government sposored addiction treament (“addiction is a medical problem, not a criminal justice problem”), his advocacy of Scandinavia style subsidized education system, and the like.

Should be an interesting conversation this afternoon…

William McNary

William McNary is the Director of US Action, a national grassroots organization that I used to canvass for in a few states under its previous “Citizen Action” incarnation. McNary was an extraordinarily positive speaker, complimenting everyone – including previous speaker Gravel, saying that “our democracy is stronger for him running.”

But McNary was there speaking on behalf of Barack Obama, and I have little doubt that he converted a few people by the force of his own personality. He was funny, warm, energizing – qite possibly even more so that Obama himself, which is certainly saying a lot, given that Obama is the most engaging speaker in the race. I suspect that more than a few people in the crowd wished that McNary himself was in the race…

McNary personalized the dramatic oratorical style associated with African American leaders in a way that was natural, comfortable, even relaxed. He also was very skilled with the words themselves, delivering possibly the best summation of the ethical underpinnings of the progressive movement that I’ve ever heard.

Still, he was there for Obama, not himself, and he eventually slid into a presentation of Obama’s biography. In my opinion, the only thing more boring than hearing a politician drone on about their inspirational story is hearing someone else do it on their behalf, but McNary gave it a better shot than I could’ve imagined possible – especially by sprinkling it with his own terrific sense of humor (for example, saying he could  relate to Obama graduating “magna cum laude,” since he himself had graduated “help me laude, laude, laude…” Ha!).

Beyond the force of his personality, McNary did a lot for his candidate by reviewing his state legislative record, which is far more progressive than his more limited US Senatorial one. He also spent time applauding Obama for cosponsoring the Specter-Durbin public financing bill (S.936) currently on the wall – campaign finance, of course, being a traditionally big issue for US Action (although McNary made a point to state that he was here on his own behalf, not his organization’s)

…and so it goes…

GOt an interview with Matt Dunne on the recorder, about to go meet with Mike Gravel. Dennis Kucinich is calling in, but unfortunately precisely at the time I’m scheduled to interview Senator Gravel, so maybe another participant can get a report on that. And of course, tonight is the big keynote with Howard Dean. I’ll definitely be here for that (as well as the
presentation from the e pluribus media folks, I hope).

Until later…

Naturally, getting to the hotel in Manchester wasn’t as easy as it should’ve been, but after getting only mildly lost in the driving rain, I arrived late for breakfast and only just in time for John Edwards’ scheduled appearence. Fortunately for me, Edwards was on politician time (late), so I got to hear the last extended minutes of Democracy For America President Jim Dean (he of the eerily similar voice to his brother).

(Details on Edwards, Jim Dean, Paul Hodes, Carol Shea-Porter, and the impeachment panel including Jeffry Taylor, Dan DeWalt, Dave Lindorff and Adrienne Kinne below the fold…)

Sliding into the q&a portion, I did catch a couple interesting responses or exchanges. First of all, Dean indicated there would indeed be a DFA Presidential endorsement, but he indicated the bar would be set high (“no ‘fifty percent plus one'” that a candidate could eke under), and braced the crowd for the idea that no Dem primary candidate would make the cut. In any event, that’ll be an interesting process to watch.

The other interesting element to the q&a that I heard was the assertive presence of members of Vermont’s Progressive Party. I was told that before I got there, Dan DeWalt (of impeachment fame) asked Dean for advice on how to assertively advocate for the wars end without alienating Democratic allies. I understand Dean’s advice was (wisely) not to make it personal. Regular GMD visitors know of my frustration with the direction the impeachment movement has taken (despite my part in getting it going), and a sincere question like that was a reminder not to lay my frustrations at Dan’s feet (and I had a brief opportunity to offer a quick apology for Dan for coming off too harshly on this site).

On the other hand, another Prog I’m on generally great terms with was more annoyed. He pointedly called on Jim Dean to endorse Progressive Party candidates in Vermont (Dean didn’t close the door on the idea, but indicated he’s primarily interested in making the Democratic Party more responsive). In a brief hallway conversation afterwards, this questioner offered his “two cents” to me, which turned into a scolding for my “overreacting to a couple people” and my “burning bridges.” I told him that I felt the bridges had been burned under me, but he was having none of it, and didn’t really allow for the notion that impeachment-promoting Vermont Dems like myself could reasonably feel alienated after months of seeing the movement we’d played a key role in building become a counter-Democratic Party movement. Ah well, “to thine own self be true” goes both ways, I must remind myself…

Edwards was in absolutely peak form. I was impressed. He was relaxed and natural, his voice largely in conversational tones – and boy, did he know what to say to this crowd.

Edwards made sure to spend particular attention on the war – if only to remind the crowd that he sees it as a priority, and agreed with most of them that it should be firmly and definitely addressed – perhaps not quite to the extent many would like to hear, but by stating clearly that there should be no funding bills without firm withdrawal deadlines. He again acknowledged his responsibility for voting to authorize the war (saying confessionally “I have to live with that”).

Edwards easily moved through a checklist of issues important to progressives, and lingered on a few for particular emphasis. He returned to the poverty theme (which, surprisingly, Obama and Clinton seem to be leaving to him, to large extent) saying “incredible inequality…still exists” and that “the two americas are alive and thriving” referring to his common “two Americas” theme of four years ago. As part of an extended nod to labor and the importance of reforming the laws around workplace organizing, he called the labor movement the “greatest anti-poverty movement there is in history.”

He touched on racial inequalities, our “addiction to oil” and global warming without getting into specifics beyond calling for Justice Department action against oil company price gouging (stating his view that if big oil isn’t breaking the letter of the law, they’re breaking the spirit, and the letter should be changed accordingly.

But Edwards spent particular attention on the health care issue, which he is attempting to claim as his own – accusing his rivals of simply trying to play catch up. He characterized his plan as the only “truly universal” system. And while explaining the basic structure of his vision – that would mandate citizens opt into one of an array of partly subsidized choices,” he explicitly  presented his plan as designed to “move the system towards single payer” by having the “medicare plus” care option be the most attractive, thus drawing people into it voluntarily. The crowd was extremely receptive.

Edwards clearly understands that you need “hearts and minds” for big changes, and that you can’t simply run over skeptics. He advocates being blunt and clear from the bully pulpit of the presidency about the challenges, solutions and the impact of corporate money on the national debate. I almost had the sense that he would approach moderates and conservatives who might be leery of his plans as he would a jury.

Finally, he indicated that he believed the cures to our policy ills could not be cured by “incrementalism,” but by “bold” decisions. He stated that voters who are interested in moving slowly to fix things should choose someone else.

Strong words, but delivered convincingly. We’ll see, I guess…

Next I went to the impeachment panel, which included Jeffry Taylor of Vermont’s “Rutland Resolution,” the aforementioned Dan DeWalt, Dave Lindorff (author of “The Case for Impeachment”) and Adrienne Kinne, an Iraq War vet from Vermont.

I’d guess there were about thirty people in the room, and there was a “preaching to the converted” element, but also some real meaty stuff for three NH State Legislators who were in attendence and are preparing to push their own Rules Committee (this Monday at 11:00) to accept a Vermont-style impeachment resolution onto the calendar (despite being told the standard line that it’s “too late” in the session to consider it).

Dan DeWalt must’ve flown through his intro, because I only stepped out for a moment. He bluntly (and alas, truthfully) characterized much of the Dem leadership as being “stupid” or “afraid” to push forward on holding this President accountable and recounted the Vermont impeachment movement’s phenomenal success. Taylor provided the nuts and bolts of a state legislature using Section 603 of the Jefferson’s Manual, making the point that Vermont’s Senatorial resolution did not meet that standard. He added, though, that a properly executed and presented 603 resolution could not simply be shunted into the House Judiciary Committee, as the press has reported, but must be considered as a “privileged question” before other business. He encouraged the NH legislators to examine the orignal Rutland Resolution for language, rather than the Vermont Senate bill.

Lindorff was impressive, determined and angry at the Democratic leadership (which he made a careful and deliberate point of distinguishing from Dem rank and file – thanks, Dave… I wish more folks could make that distinction) for, in his view, making a deliberate, calculated decision to ignore their Constitutional responsibilities in order to have a weakened, disastrous President better serve their electoral interests. He rejected entirely the notion that hesitant legislators were – as DeWalt put it – “stupid” or too terrified to move (an assessment which is a bit simplistic, IMO, as I think all three of these elements are in play to one extent or another – as well as some good ol’ fashioned honest disagreement). Lindorff went so far as to call on Democrats (which he identified himself as) to withhold votes from elected officials unwilling to advance impeachment.

Finally, Kinne related her own interesting (and disturbing) experience as an Arabic intepreter in Iraq working for Military Intelligence (I think I heard that right…. I was futzing with my cell phone). She indicated that they had been given a blank check to eavesdrop on every and anyone in the Middle East area (including the Red Cross), and acknowledged she had strong misgivings at the time – tying her work to the NSA scandal.

Kinne spent a lot of time expressing her anger with Rep. Peter Welch for not pushing impeachment in Washington. In particular, she focused on his rather ridiculous statement that “history will impeach” George Bush (which makes me cringe everytime I hear it), following up with her own well-stated “history will impeach all of America” for not stepping up to the plate to stop him.

What I, of course, was listening for was whether or not Kinne would echo the call (in front of a Democratic crowd) for Welch and Leahy to leave the Democratic Party as Jeffords left the GOP and directly equate the Dems with the Republicans as her colleague James Leas did on Freyne Land. She did not, thankfully, understanding (I hope), looking at the roomful of supporters, that it was indeed possible to be a Democrat and still be a “good guy.” All in all, the Democratic crowd clearly appreciated her and made her feel welcome.

I’m not going to linger too long on their joint presentation, as I should be getting a clip of them that I can post in its entirety in the next few days. Suffice to say there’s was a feel-good presentation to a crowd of warm supporters. Shea-Porter in particular is the poster child of the grassroots electoral ideal – and the progressive electoral ideal at that, defeating, as she said, a “do-nothing Democrat” in her primary.

They gave the assessment of the improvements in Washington that we’ve heard from sitting Democratic Representatives across the country, celebrating the steady return of congressional oversite, but raising the clarion of the 2008 elections in order to bring a more meaningful majority with a Democratic President. Shea-Porter reminded the crowd that a Democratic majority is not the same as a progressive Democratic majority, and that activists’ expectations should be proportionate.

Again, I’ll post video when I have it, but both Hodes and Shea-Porter came off as exceptionally sincere and intelligent, which made it more… complicated… to hear many of the standard hedges, hesitations and rationalizations against moving directly against the President (either via impeachment or otherwise) that I’d just heard discounted and rejected in the impeachment session. Many of the impeachment participants were in the room at the end of the presentation, and their frustration was palpable.

If you ascribe to Lindorff’s view, Hodes and Shea-Porter were engaging in deliberate cynical calculation to put their Party’s interests above the nation’s. Dan DeWalt would also allow for the possibility of ignorance or fear. I agree with Dan on the fear angle very strongly, as I stated here (and no, I didn’t know about the Al Gore book when I wrote that). I would add that I think it’s possible for sincere disagreement – that there are some who believe impeachment only exists in the event you have a President that becomes an ax murderer or somesuch.

In any event, I don’t accept that Hodes and Shea-Porter are schemers, but I do hope Representatives like them come to take this President’s actions as seriously as we do – because as much as they insist otherwise, if they consider impeachment “off the table,” it’s hard to believe that they really do.

The afternoon was filled with workshops and films. I had to go elsewhere to get a cheaper room, and as a result I think I missed Granny D. Woops.

So I will head back in to catch Presidential candidate and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel at 7:30, and I’ll linger in the hopes of catching a couple people, such as Matt Dunne (who I also missed this afternoon). I’m still trying to pin down a one-on-one with Gravel, and with any luck, I’ll be able to post a q&a with him over the next coupls days. I tried getting time with Edwards, but ya can’t win ’em all, I guess.

…end part one…

Just a quick note to let people know that I’ll be blogging (live when possible/appropriate) from this weekend’s DemocracyFest (link to left) in Manchester, NH. I’ll be crossposting prodigiously (I think), but GMD gets the priority.

While I’m there, I’ll try to run down and chat with some of the participants. I aint a reporter, though – so no promises.

Climate Change has sure been the topic of the week.

Internationally, of course, Bush predictably rejected German Chancellor Merkel’s proposals for greenhouse gas reduction benchmarks, but allowed her to attempt to save face by agreeing to some other meaningless promise to look into the matter, once again. Wonder how many backrubs that measly accomodation cost her.

Locally of course, Governor Douglas followed through on his promise to veto the Vermont Legislature’s Climate Change bill, and on news that Al Gore’s aid had been enlisted by the Legislative leadership, Douglas quickly cobbled together his own proposal in a failed attempt to steal Gore’s thunder (instead, I think he may have added to it, based on the prodigious news coverage).

Douglas’s plan at a glance seems odd. A thrown together jumble of half-considered ideas to provide loans to Vermonters for energy efficiency. As if low-income Vermonters will fall in line to heap more debt on themselves (of course, the banks must love it, as these loans would be guaranteed by the state). No idea where the funding for those guarantees will come from (well, we know it won’t be Entergy). As for incentives for renewables, I haven’t heard anything, and exactly what’s supposed to be done with this proposal now that the biennium is done is anyone’s guess. Wait til next year I s’pose. All in all, Douglas couldn’t have piked a clearer way of showing how little regard or concern he has for the issue.

As for the Gore videoconference over Vermont Interactive Television, his remarks can be heard on VNRC’s website. Freyne has a lot of quotes from Shumlin in the brief presser that followed, and he is absolutely right when he says that Shumlin was in top form. Seriously, this was the best he’s sounded in many weeks, as he demonstrated a real command of the room. Symington as well seemed more focused and passionate than usual. I suppose the break has already done both of them some good.

And for a hastily thrown together event, it was surprisingly well-attended at the remote VIT sites around the state. It’s a shame the tech didn’t go off as well, as Gore’s link to the VIT network was routed through the internet, rather than via ISDN or satellite (and we all know how the internet can be). After many fits and starts, Gore’s audio was a mess and out of sync (you’ll hear it if you go to the mp3 link above) – but it was nevertheless audible.

A veto override is still clearly a longshot, but there’s an awful lot of focus and energy around the issue that seems to be snowballing, so contact your legislators if you haven’t already (and maybe you should do it again if you have).

If the rumors are true, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is actually considering an Independent run for President (and possibly pumping up to a billion of his own dollars into it), the giant sucking sound you hear may be the sound of moderate Republicans fleeing their Party’s Presidential candidate.

For entertainment value, such a three-way race would be unbeatable, but would Bloomberg be taken seriously? The Rasmussen polling outfit thinks so, and their results suggest he would be a major factor.

In fact, Rasmussen conducted a phone poll and found that 27% of American voters would be “Somewhat” (20%) or “Very likely” (7%) to vote for him.

An even larger number?39%–would consider voting for Bloomberg vote under the right circumstances. Just 28% would not vote for him while 33% are not sure.

These numbers suggest that if Bloomberg can find a message that resonates, he might win some states and deny either major party candidate a majority in the Electoral College. That could lead to Electoral Chaos by creating a deadlock in both the Electoral College and the House of Representatives. Such a process would be unprecedented and unpredictable, sure to be studied by historians and political scientists for generations. There?s also an outside chance it could lead to a President Bloomberg.

Obviously with those numbers, he’s not just pulling GOP votes – even though the Republican officeholder would likely pull from the GOP disproportionately. Still, this scenario makes the prospect of no clear winner in the electoral college a real liklihood, in which case the race goes to the US House.

great! The House will likely still be in Dem hands. And that means a Dem victory, yes? Maybe not, according to Rasmussen again:

The House would then vote, but the result would not be determined by the overall number of Representatives. According to the Constitution, each state gets to cast one vote? and a majority of all the states is required to select a President. That means a candidate needs to get the nod from 26 state delegations before moving into the White House.

In at least 12 state delegations currently controlled by Democrats, the loss of a single representative would either shift control to the Republicans or create a deadlock. If the Democrats lose just a single net seat in any one of those twelve states, they lose control of the ability to select the next President in the House.

Hang on folks, this may get more complicated..

Okay. So this diary has nothing to do with anything. You’d be advised to move on quickly. Go on. Out. Get going. Move it.

So last night I had this odd dream. I was in my kitchen which was, as usual, totally trashed. I was late for work, but I had to wait for something to be dropped off from Senator Leahy’s office. My 7-year old was wandering around, and I was in the sweats and T-shirt I’d slept in, when I spot the Senator himself walking to my door (which opens into the kitchen).

I think “crap, I don’t want him to see the kitchen,” so I step out to meet him. He hands me the expected envelope, but asks if he can come in for a moment. I’m still thinking “crap,” but I was raised a good southern boy, and he’s a freakin’ Senator, so I let him in and he has a seat at the kitchen table.

He seems to have nothing really to say, and I strain to keep up the small talk, but I start failing, which leads to awkward silences. Still, Leahy just seems content to sit there smiling at me. But I’m stressing. Why is he still here? I’m late. The kitchen’s a mess. I need to shower. Why isn’t my kid at school?… and then I woke up.

Can somebody explain this to me?