Okay, so it may not officially start until this upcoming week, but in many ways that matter, the ’07 Legislative session has been underway for a while now. It doesn’t take a genius to see that in recent legislative cycles, the more a Party holds control of the public debate, the more they control the actual agenda. In ’05 after a lot of good work by the Dems on health care, Governor Douglas stepped into the limelight and took complete control of the discussion before lawmakers had even left the Statehouse to return to their districts. That control was certainly on display in the final product, as well as in the accolades from the likes of the AARP.

The Republicans (naturally) are the only Party who seems to be tackling this in an organized, head-on way. Despite the fact that both the Ds and the Rs are in transition – moving into a new legislature as well as new Party leadership – you wouldn’t guess it on the R’s part from the recent papers. Message testing and propogating is very much in play, seemingly already pushing the GOP framing of property taxes and a new twist on civil confinement into the media forefront. Take a look at this AP piece on the upcoming agenda which leads on property tax:

(House Minority Leader Steve) Adams and his colleagues called for creation of a special House committee dedicated to property tax reform, much as Symington created for health care when she was elected speaker two years ago.

But she has rejected that approach, arguing that a much broader debate has to take place about why education costs what it does as well as about how it’s funded.

Not only is the issue front and center on the GOP’s terms, but Symington is already being placed on the defensive.

This isn’t a good early sign for House Democrats. Adams (unlike his predecessor) will likely be interested in getting something passed as opposed to simply playing partisan contrarian, which in the big picture bodes well for the chances of actual legislation emerging from the House. Nevertheless, that doesn’t alter the fact that – once again – House Dems are starting in the hole against a GOP noise machine that is clearly working in unison with the Governor (of course, Adams may also find himself in an awkward position if, as reported by PoliticsVT, recently defeated Senator Wendy Wilton successfully takes the reins of the GOP, as she would likely be interested in a slash-and-burn combative approach).

The Dems seem to have no such counter effort. What they do have is Peter Shumlin who was first out of the gate beating the drums on his legislative priority the day after his re-ascendence to Senate leadership. The issues related to global warming are just starting to become less of an abstraction to the average Vermonter, and depending on how he plays them (and how much support he gets from other Dems). he could find resonance. From conservation to hydro to wind, the topic could be expansive. There could even be an opportunity to enter the taxation debate if he broaches the matter of a potential offsetting revenue capture from a BTU or carbon tax. The topic is obviously near and dear to his base, and his vocal championing of the issue will help keep his base in line in the event of disappointments on other issues (such as health care). Translating it to an “everyman” appeal will have to be finessed. The issue does create opportunities for stark lines of distinction between the Democrats and the Republicans going into the ’08 elections, though, so expect to see Shumlin stay on it relentlessly.

If this early jockeying for position is any indication, Shumlin will be likely to frequently eclipse Symington as the voice of the Democrats in Montpelier and be a greater force in driving the agenda. Even in today’s Allen-Porter piece, which (for a change) puts the D’s front-and-center on the agenda list, Symington again seems on the defensive – this time from the aggressive rhetoric of Shumlin rather than the GOP:

Symington doesn’t mind (Shumlin’s) emphasis on the topic (climate change) early in the session. But she has cautioned that the General Assembly has concrete issues to grapple with, particularly as the state’s education tab approaches $1.2 billion and the taxpayers’ ability to sustain it grows more tenuous.

“What I would ask us to think about is what are we doing now to make this state all it can be for our children and grandchildren,” Symington said last month to her fellow 92 Democrats in a report from The Associated Press. “That is the question that really needs to guide us.”

That corrective, almost scolding tone that so often accompanies the Speaker’s rhetoric does her no favors, as it always comes off as defensive – and being on the defensive is always seen as a sign of weakness. Hopefully Communications Pro Bill Lofy will be working with her on this sort of thing.

Whether the new Statehouse dynamic will push Symington, repotedly (by Dwinell) considering a gubernatorial run, closer to such a move is an interesting question. In either event, she would be well served to quickly find ways to be less reactive to the seemingly more media-savvy GOP and Shumlin and get her own agenda out front proactively. To do that, Symington will have to break from form as a political technician and find a little of that vision-thing. Besides health care, the only issue last session that seemed to evoke an impassioned response from the Speaker was the raising of the gas tax to close a budget hole. Hardly inspiring stuff (although it will get you headlines – just the wrong kind…)

We spend a lot of time in the political blogosphere discussing the Christian Right and the political claims to Christ’s personal endorsement of their agenda – but personally, I draw the line at any attempt by the Right to co-opt my superheroes. So my gander was tweaked when I read last week’s typically left-bashing piece at the Dwinell Political Report entitled HELP WANTED: SACRIFICIAL LAMBS. The piece, which started out reasoned and thoughtful, quickly veered into li’l ranting tidbits like this one: choosing to be in Vermont now overwhelming means that one is expected to volunteer to be sacrificed to the pig-headed vanity, incredible ineptitude, and purely-ideological fantasies of a remnant ruling class of elderly flower children. Fairly pedestrian right-knee-jerk-drivel, of course – except for the byline (emphasis added): Captain America graces these pages annually. Captain America is a Vermont resident

I beg your pardon.

Captain America?! A Republican?? Pfft. Let’s put this li’l fallacy to rest right away.

First off, it comes as little surprise that the Right would try to co-opt Cap (Cap-opt?). Mr. Red-White-and-Blue is the very image of patriotism, and the right has a tendency to think they own that particular quality. In point of fact they do own it, inasmuch as those that do attempt to use the concept as a bludgeon (certainly not all Republicans, just the talk radio types) like to define it as some sort of imperialized laissez-faire, religious and ethnic superiority. It brings to mind Bill O’Reilly’s favorite trick, recently put on display against Barbara Walters on The View, whereby he pointedly, repeatedly and impatiently prods on the matter of the Iraq War with the simplistic question “you do want us to win, don’t you?”. The answer is awkward because his presumptive definition of “win” is likely the neoconservative transformation of the Middle East into an American corporate client state. A straight-up “no” doesn’t play well, and you don’t get any time to qualify your answer to Mr. “I’ve never received any Republican talking points” (BWA-ha!) O’Reilly.

So Cap’s the one they think they have a right to. Who else have they got? Spider-Man’s mantra of “with great power comes great responsibility” is, after all, a better statement of the liberal ethic than the last thirty years of Democratic Party talking points.

For those who don’t know (and without going too much further down the fanboy route than absolutely necessary), Captain Americ’a story begins in World War II, where he volunteers to receive a chemical treatment (the secret to which has, of course, been lost) which transforms him into a “super-soldier.” Not super-powered per se, but given a shortcut to the peak of human athletic potential. Through a combination of suspended animation and the peculiar flow of comic-book time, Cap survives into the modern era fighting more contemporary bad guys.

On the way, though, there have been several hints into Cap’s political leanings. There was the enthusiastic first meeting with FDR (where the President gave him his shield) – but the ever-patriotic Captain is always respectful and accomodating to the office of the Presidency. Less easy to explain away, however, was his reaction to the Watergate scandal (or its comic-equivalent). Rather than adopting Skynard-esque defiance, Cap was distraught, losing the stars and stripes for a time to become the gloomier Nomad.

He also dropped his Captain America persona following his attempted conscription by the government in the 1990s, and his rational (but deeply felt) patriotism was contrasted against the aggressive, Rambo-era jingoism of his replacement in the red-white-and-blue (a replacement he naturally had to take down eventually).  This is clearly not a my-country-right-or-wrong guy. In addition, he’s always been one to stand up against racism, sexism and classism, and one could argue in the post WWII era, that given his genesis, the guy is a one-man successful government program.

So, okay, this is one fanboy’s opinion. What isn’t a matter of opinion is the message being sent by the current stroryline in Captain America’s Marvel Comics line. From this month’s issue of the Utne Reader:

Hundreds are killed. The president asks for, and gets, expanded powers. Preemptive war is waged in the name of national security. More people die. Only a few voice their dissent. “War is just a diversion,” writes embedded journalist Sally Floyd. “We’re so busy watching ugly pictures on TV that we lose sight of what’s really going on. The hurt doesn’t seem real . . . which suits the warmongers just fine.”

Who is this perceptive and opinionated journalist? She’s a fictional reporter for the imaginary New York Alternative-and the war she’s covering is between two groups of superheroes in the Marvel Comics Civil War mini-series, launched in May. One group embraces a “Superhuman Registration Act” that forces costumed heroes to reveal their secret identities and register with the government; another, led by Captain America, goes underground and resists the expanding power of the state. Later, Sally is arrested for refusing to reveal a confidential source.

Reflecting their older demographic base from previous decades, comics have done what few television or movie productions have – tackle the Bush era civil liberties debate head on. In fact, leading the other side of this “civil war,” is Marvel’s Iron Man – the head of a multinational corporation who recently (and briefly) served as Secretary of Defense. Captain America, now forced underground, clearly playing the role of oppressed, but unbowed everyman. From Utne again:

For example, some readers might assume that Captain America, a superpatriot who already works for the government, would support the Registration Act. Yet it makes perfect, if surprising, sense for Captain America to lead the rebellion. Through many political zigs and zags in the real world, Cap has always represented core American ideals-freedom of conscience, fair play, and commitment to the general welfare-that are today in conflict with the imperatives of the war on terrorism. If Captain America really existed in George W. Bush’s America, whose side would he be on? Cap probably would be punching out Abu Ghraib torturers and exposing secret detentions as un-American.

What’s my excuse for spending so much time on Captain America today? Yeah. sure, I’m a geek – but it’s more than that. That little byline on Dwinell’s site is yet another (albeit subtle) example of Republicans feeling they have the right to co-opt everything and anything that smacks of patriotism. Sometimes deliberately, but sometimes out of complete cluelessness, given that to so many of the Bushites (again, which not all Republicans are), being proud of America means being proud of the Republican Party, as opposed to being proud of the noble principles enshrined in our imperfect, yet still-extraordinary Constitution.

So to Dwinell and his mystery writer daring to scrawl his drivel under this hallowed pen name, this fanboy has one thing to say:

I’ve grown up with Captain America. I know Captain America. Captain America is a friend of mine…

Mr. Republican-screed-writer, you’re no Captain America…

The Times Argus AP (thanks for the catch, Nat) has its list of the top 10 stories of 2006 out. Some are rather broad categories of stories (“congress race,” “Vermont Yankee”), some are clearly news stories that belong on such a list (“Cashman controversy,” “school shooting,” “Fell sentenced”), while the “tire burn” story probably doesn’t belong in the top ten, in my own opinion.

All told, though, some significant news stories probably should’ve been on that list – or at the very least, should be mentioned in the same strata. Here then, are what I believe to be the top 10 stories not included on the AP’s list (not necessarily in order of prominence or priority). Some of them were big splash items, while some simply did not receive the attention they probably should have, but were significant events whose impact may be underestimated or underappreciated by the traditional media.

And by all means, use the comments to add your own as well… (continued on the flip)

1. Spec. Chris Merchant of Hardwick, Sgt. Josh Johnson of Richford, Sgt. Carlton Clark of South Royalton and Lance Cpl. Kurt Dechen of Springfield are killed in the Iraq War, bringing the total number of Vermonters killed in Iraq to 18, with an escalation of tens of thousands of troops virtually guaranteed to be proposed by Bush and supported by GOP leading Presidential contender John McCain.

2. The Vermont Impeachment Movement. Two grassroots efforts simultaneously spread across the state – both of which garnered major media attention nationwide and galvanized activism leading into the elections, energizing the anti-war movement from coast to coast. Starting with Dan DeWalt in Newfane, multiple Vermont Towns have passed Town Meeting Resolutions calling for the impeachment of the President. Simultaneously, Jeff Taylor of Clarendon drafts language calling on the Vermont legislature to use its authority to initiate impeachment proceedings, and that draft sweeps through Democratic Town and County Committee meetings statewide. When some members of the Dem leadership ralied to narrowly defeat the measure at the State level (in a still-controversial vote), nearly a dozen Democratic Progressive and Independent State Representatives signed on to Progressive Rep. David Zuckerman’s similar bill in the Statehouse. Both the Town Meeting and Legislative efforts continue in close alignment.

3. GOP Senate Candidate Rich Tarrant spends more per vote than any other candidate in US History. This of course being the eye-catching tagline of the greater story of the huge amounts of money now being spent in Vermont on these races and the end of statewide elections as we’ve previously known them.

4. Auditor’s race reversed in recount. Such a thing has never happened before. Who says your vote doesn’t matter? Congratulations again, Auditor-elect Tom Salmon Jr.

5. Vermont Peace Activists spied on by US Government. Although it originally broke last December, the issue played out over the first three months of this year. One of those stories of huge import and potentially monumental implications, yet the coverage was tepid and the follow-up perfunctory. At least Senator Leahy was properly pissed off.

6. Catamount Health. It sort of blows my mind that the AP left this off their list. The issue of health care was where it belongs in 2006 – front and center. Unfortunately, it also sucked the air out of the room for many other issues. The compromise with the Governor was not the systemic overhaul envisioned by the House bill in 2005, but a safety net for most completely uninsured Vermonters. Called the most extensive reform in the nation, it was still a mighty disappointment for progressives (li’l ‘p’, natch), and made it difficult for Scudder Parker’s gubernatorial campaign to get any traction on the greater issue. Although serious doubts about the long-term sustainability of the plan loom, the Democratic Legislative leadership made a deliberate decision to not let the perfect (true reform) stand in the way of the good (covering tens of thousands without health care). In any event, the train-wreck that is the US health care system keeps piling up.

7. The Vermont Milk Company launches. Largely overlooked by the media (I suspect because it gets into a level of economics that makes many reporters’ and readers’ eyes glaze over), the VT Milk Company is the culmination of a long effort by Anthony Pollina and others to take control of a corner of the dairy production market in order to give local dairy farmers better prices. As the Catamount Health system was for health care, VT Milk doesn’t get at the root causes of the steady decline of the dairy industry in Vermont which are systemic to the global market. Again, it doesn’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good – which in this case means allowing farmers to begin to take some small measure of control of the production and offer stabalized prices on the higher end of what is commercially viable at present. Again -as with Catamount – issues of long-term sustainability linger.

8. Warming trend. Nationally, six of the first nine months of the year were much warmer than average. Going into fall globally, September was the 4th warmest recorded. Locally, November of 06 had the lowest snowfall ever in Vermont. And then there was the Green Christmas. Anybody see a pattern?

9. Instant Runoff Voting used in Burlington mayoral race. And very successfully by most accounts. Expect the issue of election reform to be revisited and the Burlington election to be the first of many.

10. Blogs impact Vermont statewide elections. Julie Waters broke the now-famous Rainville plagiarism story – which is coming to be seen by many as a watershed event in the Congressional election. The genie of the blogosphere is now out of the bottle in Vermont, and expect big-ticket statewide elections to never be the same again.

Your turn. What’s I miss?

A Vermont political icon has passed away at the age of 93. From the AP:

beginning as Rutland city attorney and moving up through Rutland County state’s attorney, attorney general, lieutenant governor, governor, U.S. House and U.S. Senate.

Stafford built a national reputation in the Senate as a stalwart defender of the environment and a good friend to education.

“Throughout his long and distinguished career of public service, Robert Stafford represented the best of Vermont values,” said Sen.-elect Bernie Sanders, who in January will take the seat once held by Stafford. “He was nationally known and respected for his leadership work on education and the environment and for his strong sense of political independence. He made our state proud and will long be remembered for all that he accomplished.”

As a matter of perspective, I would just add the following quote (via Newsday) from former Rutland Herald Reporter David Moats’ discussion of his book chronicling Vermont’s civil union debate of some years back:

[David Moats:] “In the last chapter [of my book], I quote [former Vermont U.S. Sen.] Bob Stafford [on civil unions], who came forward with that statement, ‘What’s the harm?'” He laughs, as if nothing could be more obvious. “Come on, guys,” he says, “what is the harm?”

If younger readers (who may only know of Stafford through the student loan program that bears his name) or Vermont newcomers wonder what Jim Jeffords meant during his famous party-switching speech when he said “Aiken and Gibson and Flanders and Prouty and Bob Stafford were all Republicans, but they were Vermonters first. They spoke their minds, often to the dismay of their party leaders, and did their best to guide the party in the direction of those fundamental principles they believed in,” the above quote may put it into contemporary context.

Rest in peace, Senator – and our sincerest thanks for your service to Vermont and the nation.

As soon as word was out that longtime Democratic State Representative Francis Brooks of Montpelier was throwing his hat into the ring for the Statehouse Sergeant-at-Arms position, speculation began on who his replacement might be. In the overwhelmingly Democratic Statehouse, it was a given that if Brooks wanted the job, it would be given to him at the outset of the session, when the position is voted on. Current S-at-A Kermit Spaulding vacillated on whether or not to make a stab at keeping the position (while praising Brooks as his personal choice, should he choose to retire), but as of yesterday he bowed to the seemingly inevetible and announced he would not seek a return to the post.

Since the announcement of Brooks’ interest, Montpelier Mayor Mary Hooper made it clear to the press that she was interested in filling his seat. Her desire was amplified by back-to-back glowing pieces in the Times Argus that, by their cumulative, de facto effect, seemed to all but endorse her for the role. The scuttlebutt around Montpelier is that the statehouse seat is Hooper’s already.

Let’s slow down for a minute, shall we?

First of all, it’s traditional for a regional caucus of the Party of the retiring lawmaker (in this case, the Montpelier Democratic Committee) to nominate three acceptable choices to forward to the Governor (not simply one or two). A tradition is not a hard and fast rule, but it’s likely a tradition that will be followed in this case. For one, it’s wise policy when offering names to a Governor of the opposing party not to give the appearence that you are delivering marching orders, as a one-name list would. But for another, there are likely to be several interested people (full disclosure, I was toying with the idea of going for it myself – how could I not? – but I can’t imagine doing without a “real” job).

But the real point is that this is the Governor’s pick, and the Governor’s only. So it behooves us to consider what might drive the Governor in his decision making.

First of all, it’s unlikely that Douglas would break with tradition and appoint someone from his own party. Douglas needs to work with Dems. Besides that, he’d be dropping an R into a district where they’d just get their butt kicked in 08, so it’s hardly helpful to Republicans in any meaningful way.

So the question is where Douglas may come down on Mary’s ascension, if you will.

All politics in Vermont are trumped by the personal. If Hooper has a personal relationship with Douglas, then she does become the odds on favorite. If she doesn’t, the calculation may become more political. Mary Hooper has the potential to become a star in Democratic circles. She would make a strong State Senate candidate who would quickly become a serious contender for statewide office and a real threat to the GOP. As such, given the choice between Hooper and an alternative Douglas might consider far enough left to be outside of the Vermont mainstream, he may opt for the latter, calculating that his choice would be effectively “contained” within  Montpelier’s more-liberal-than-the-county-at-large voting bloc. If he was in a mood for real mischief (and a long shot, political “Hail Mary” pass), he may – given the opportunity – opt for a lesser known, milquetoast “centrist” Democrat, calculating that he or she would likely draw a Progressive challenger in 08 and possibly open the door for a GOP pickup (unlikely, but not impossible).

On the other hand, given the news that she has statehouse ambitions, such an ascension may be inevitable and the Governor may decide it makes more sense to make it as cooperative an ascension as possible.

And on the..er…third hand, it’s always possible that Douglas would just pick the person he thinks would make the best legislator, regardless of the political considerations…

…oh, stop laughing, now.

Not much to report because its cold outside, gets dark too early, and as a result I don’t bump into anyone on the street these days. What’s a political gossipmonger to do when I have to depend on the same wire reports everybody else reads? Sheesh. Well, let’s see, here…

A few different folks report that Chuck Ross is mulling a run for Governor. Ross is a former state legislator, is the current Vermont Democratic National Committeeman and has been Senator Leahy’s right hand in Vermont for several years now. As such, he’s a major mover and shaker in Dem circles, but isn’t as widely known beyond them. Reportedly Ross was considering a run early last cycle as well, but with environmental issues moving more front and center of late, a Ross candidacy may seem more timely (Ross is considered very strong on environmental issues).

TV newsman Anson Tebbetts is to be the deputy secretary for development for the state Agency of Agriculture. I don’t really understand how one job leads to another, but what do I know?

GMD is nabbing Tim Newcomb when PolVT closes shop in a few weeks Woo-hoo! Cartooons! When I started working to get GMD off the ground, I intended to do the occasional political cartoon, but I suck. Tim totally does not suck.

Robb Kidd’s Evolving Peace is a really interesting blog. You should check it out.

On the other hand, Chris Stewart/Monday Morning Clacker’s Green Mountain Politics1 will be a lot more interesting when it starts losing the “don’t blame me, I worked for Rainville” subtext dripping from every (okay, okay, many) otherwise well-written post(s). Of course I doubt I’ll much agree with any of the GOP rhetoric he’s offering, but he’s a good writer with stuff to say under the sour grapes.

There was something else I was going to mention, but now that I’ve gotten this far, I forgot. Gimme a break, I’m sick this week.

( – promoted by odum)

If you haven’t yet heard, Representative Clint Martin (D-Springfield) passed away. This is from PoliticsVT’s post on his passing:

Martin was the director of the parks & recreation department in Springfield, and was dedicated to fitness, healthy living and children’s issues.

Speaker of the House Gaye Symington (D-Jericho) said that his death was a “loss for Springfield, a loss for Vermont and a loss for the House.”

Martin was most noted for being a thoughtful legislator and a dry sense of humor that put people at ease when it came down to tough negotiations. He was well liked on both sides of the aisle, in this regard.

Our thoughts go out to Rep. Martin’s family and friends.

( – promoted by odum)

Darren Allen’s Sunday column was a condemnation of money in politics, but with Allen’s attempt at a populist bent by suggesting that the extreme “per-voter” amount spent electioneering would be more better spent as individual checks to individual voters. It wasn’t my cup of tea, but whatever.

What did catch my eye was his phrasing near the beginning:

The much-reviled-on-the-left Swift Boat Veterans For Truth agreed to pay the Federal Election Commission $300,000 to settle charges that its $22.6 million attacks on Sen. John Kerry in 2004 violated campaign finance laws.

But two other so-called 527 groups also settled with the FEC last week for acting like political action committees rather than the soft-money, unregulated entities they purported to be.

And, lo and behold, those two others – coughing up a total of $330,000 – were ultra-left-wing MoveOn.org and the League of Conservation Voters.

What strikes me about this excerpt is his descriptions of the different organizations. MoveOn.org and the LCV are “ultra-left wing.” The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, on the other hand, are “much-reviled-on-the-left.” Two things to note here, in my view (and on the flip).

The first is obvious. “Ultra-left” is clearly beyond simply “left.” Using “ultra” suggests that they are off the charts – beyond the mainstream; radical, crazy, not to be trusted and have little or nothing to do with everyday political dialogue (in fact, I googled “ultra-left” and most of my first hits had words like “marxism,” “anarchism” and “Lenin” in the headings). And the Swift Boaters? Well, they are simply those who are reviled (read “hated” – and hate is always an ugly thing) by those on the other side of the passage who have just effectively been labeled nuts. Sure, this is an opinion column we’re talking about, but Allen is playing the dual role of columnist and reporter – a problematic combination to be sure.

We see this all the time, and have for years (Allen himself nonsensically referred to the center-left Philip Baruth as “somewhere to the left of Bernie Sanders” in his now-famous-in-blogging-circles brush-off of the Vermont political blogosphere). The Traditional Media gleefully accepted the right-wings qualification of centrist New Democrat Bill Clinton as a “liberal,” and in doing so helped set the mainstream political spectrum so far to the right, virtually any and all progressive policymaking ended with the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Consider the spectrum that Allen has just laid out for readers. We have the infamous Swift Boaters, who successfully smeared John Kerry’s reputation through a campaign of outright lies, described in such a way that allows them entry into the arena of public debate – if for no other reason than the fact that they aren’t explicitly cast outside of that arena as MoveOn and LCV are a few sentences later.

So who are the two organizations that are so far to the left, as to be practically mocked as the “ultra-left?”

MoveOn evokes strong feelings because of their effective advertising and communications campaigns. The name, drawn from their genesis during the Clinton impeachment hearings, was shorthand for “censure and move on” as an alternative to the protracted Starr investigation and subsequent impeachment. A glance at their website reveals that this crazy leftist cabal is currently advocating for causes such as election/ballot reform and stabalized funding for public radio and television. They are also promoting screenings of “An Inconvenient Truth.” Is Al Gore now an “ultra-left” radical as well?

And the LCV? Never in my life would I have expected to hear the League of COnservation Voters described as “ultra-left.” In looking at that sentence, it is possible that Allen intended that adjective only for MoveOn, but it’s ambiguous at best – and the association is clear, regardless. And that association must extend to the LCV’s current board members (such as John Podesta), as well as as past members such as former Chair Bruce Babbitt.

I may mock, but we’ve all witnessed the very serious effects over time of this kind of political branding on the public discourse. If we let the likes of Al Gore and Bruce Babbitt be defined as crazy, outside-the-acceptable-range-of-debate left wing loonies, that puts the political center roughly around the likes of South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, with Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma (who considers homosexuality to be the “greatest threat to freedom”) in the role of the right, and Joe Lieberman in the role of the left.

This is hardly reflective of the real spectrum of American discourse, and allowing it to be cast as such serves the interest of the right – particularly the far right, so dominant in the modern GOP – in no uncertain terms.

But I said there were two things to note. The second may seem middling, but I think it’s significant as well. Both polarities (the LCV and MoveOn onthe one hand, and the Swift Boaters on the other) are characterized by their relation to the left. This intrigues me because it is, again, something you see often in the traditional media.

The fact is, reporters often make such placements relative to the left because that’s where they’re looking. Using that scrutiny on the right leads to a lot of unpleasant places I suspect many simply don’t want to go, for fear of being tarred as the “liberal media.” As I’ve said before, the way to demonstrate one’s intellectual independence in the modern TM is to demonstrate that you can reach out and connect with right wingers on the one hand, but be sure to challenge, confront, and take-no-guff from left wingers on the other. And sure, I suspect it is precisely because so many in the media probably are center-left themselves, and therefore feel constantly vulnerable to charges of “liberal bias.” It creates a dynamic easy for the right to exploit, as they have been doing for decades now with astounding success.

What this means for journalism as a whole is probably complicated. It means instead of journalism classes teaching some sort of denial-based, non-existent concept of personal objectivity, they should probably start teaching students how to confront their own subjectivity and biases in such a way to better create an objective product (to the extent that’s possible), and to not be manipulated by affinity for one side, or by charges of bias from the other.

In the meantime, there’s always conditioning. In other words – you and me and everyone we know calling this sort of subtle political consciousness-shaping out whenever we see it.

Well, well, well. Is it possible the national, traditional media has finally hit bottom? The latest Time Magazine “Person of The Year” may mark a watershed point of sorts. Is there anyone who thinks this is anything other than insipid nonsense? Putting aside it’s worth or quality for a moment, in the past, Time’s “Person” has been an honest, vaguely interesting attempt to identify the individual who had the greatest impact on the world, for good or for ill. Is there anyone who thinks (especially after 2003’s almost equally meaningless winner, “the American Soldier”) this hasn’t destroyed the meaning, credibility (such as it was) and blandly academic value of Time’s Person of the Year feature once and quite possibly even for all? No one outside the Time payroll, I’ll bet. But that’s not the real question, is it? What we should ask is whether or not anyone could possibly be offended by the selection of “you” (WTF?) as Time’s Person of the Year. Again, the answer is no one. And that’s really the point, isn’t it?

Looking at the last decade, you can almost pity the older mainstream media sources like Time, Newsweek, The New York Times and the major network operations in the face of “advocacy journalism,” pundits-as-newscasters, talk radio and the ascendence of Fox News. Not that I share a romanticized version of the “old days” of news – for the most part, it’s tended to be a bastion of mediocrity, but with enough flashes of brilliance from time to time to keep the institution relevant. But in the changing face of reporting and the ascendence of niche journalism, the old-schoolers who still try to do the quote-unquote “objective” thing have moved from trying to stay relevant to trying to stay profitable, and we’ve all seen how that’s played out over the years.

Increasingly measuring their impact, revenue and futures against the conservative media monster, the old-liners piled on Clinton in the nineties before adding ridicule and scorn on the likes of Gore and Dean, while giving Bush a virtual free pass. Post-9/11, the old-liners simply parroted the adminsitration’s propoganda in the face of all evidence (and common sense) to the contrary, and are now dealing with the inevitable aftermath. Many of the old-liners have found themselves, not as a vanguard of truth, but literally the last to come around to reality. The left figured it out years ago, the blogs, certainly the rest of the world. Even the very population that has defined cluelessness – the Washington Democrats – started waking up to the reality of Iraq, Bush, and the modern Republican, one-party rule before most in the old-line media did.

So what to do? It’s tough to do any mea culpas and retain the pretense of credibility. If they try to change their ways now, they’ll find the right-wingers just as ready to deride and reject them as ever. And what credibility they had on the left (or, at this point, the middle) is in tatters. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t – a perfect recipe for paralysis, stagnation and entropy.

And thus we have the bottoming out of Time’s Person of the Year. Meaningless. Pointless. Ridiculous, yes – but safely non-provocative.

All in all, the clearest manifestation of the traditional media identity crisis I could’ve imagined.

Now, anybody want to place a bet on how many of Time’s lingering, long-suffering subscribers bail after this?

Had a brief conversation with a friend today (you know who you are…) about how newly elected State Auditor Salmon (yeah, I’m callin’ it) could have pulled off a victory against an incumbent having run such an… ahem… subtle campaign, seemingly made up exclusively of talking to Democrats in a few swing areas. Was it really all name recognition that came from sharing his name with his father, former Governor Tom Salmon?

Maybe, but Vermonters are also famously unwilling to throw out incumbents. Even previous Auditor Elizabeth Ready had to accumulate two scandals before voters finally turned on her (the cell phone charges and the padded resume).

Consider this possibility. Sure Salmon had a name recognition boost, but it was modest, given that his father was a two-term governor 30 years ago. And sure, Brock had an incumbency advantage, but after only one term, that advantage hadn’t fully matured. One could argue that these two respective advantages cancelled each other out. One could also argue that Brock ran an equally ineffective campaign, relying exclusively on radio ads (which don’t do much for you), and running around cutting ribbons with Governor Douglas (in a state that seems to offer NO political coattails whatsover, based on the past several elections).

What you’d be left with, then, is the closest thing on the statewide ballot to a generic party preference poll. If so, that gives us 44 percent each for the Republican and Democrat. Probably a bit more for the Dem, actually, as a full 9 percent went to Progressive Martha Abbott who ran a pretty strong campaign. Had she made an equally lackadaisical effort as her rivals, she likely would have lost a few points – most of which would have gone to Salmon. Given that, perhaps a 49 D 48 D (just noticed the bad math – sorry), 44 R, 5 P and 3 “other” would be more accurate.

Sounds more complicated than a straight-up “blue” state to me – but we already knew that, didn’t we?