A source close to the campaign informs me that the identity of the person Obama has settled on to be his running mate is Hillary Clinton.

The source doesn’t want to go on record, but this particular person is well-positioned for such insights and her information in the past has always been 100% spot on.

A Clinton pick after so many conflicts and concerns surrounding both her and her supporters and the Obama campaign suggests that there is deep concern over the steadily downward creeping poll numbers both nationally and in key states, and the need for enthusiastic Democratic unity (as well as a new campaign narrative) trumps worries over Bill’s mouth on the campaign trail.

We should know for sure soon enough.

Surprise! Pollina is keeping the money after all! After being told his peculiar abandonment of the Progressive Party ballot line in favor of electoral “independence” created the necessity of his returning $27,000 in campaign contributions that he doesn’t have – Mr. Campaign Finance Reform has (predictably) once again said “Limits? We don’t need no steenkin’ limits…”. Well, at least not if they turn out to be inconvenient.

Whatever else this may be, it’s also ridiculous. Is he gonna take on the campaign finance regime every time he runs for office now? Good grief.

What complicates this issue is if you have been (as I have) convinced by the knowledgeable and thoughtful arguments of GMD’s Caoimhin Laochdha who layed out the case only three days ago (coincidence?) that our current campaign finance “law” is a mirage. That, if you scratch beneath the surface even the tiniest bit, and look past the consensus veneer originating from the Attorney General’s office, it turns out we have no contribution limit on the books at all, and Pollina is, in fact, free to do as he chooses – even if what he chooses in this case is political suicide for both this election, and any future electoral ambitions.

Of course, the Argus/Herald article is waxing incredulous, following Secretary of State Deb Markowitz’s head scratching over this violation of “the letter of the law,” and the article offers no counter-argument from the Pollina campaign, just some mumbling about the law being “unfair” which amounts to whining – and again, the same flavor of whining that characterized his unsuccessful challenge to the campaign finance laws in ’02. Just another reminder to Dems who might be deluding themselves otherwise, that things have not changed with this guy. (Although rather than simply scratch their heads thoughtfully regarding what Pollina could possibly be thinking, you’d think Porter & Barlow might’ve taken the arguments from Caoimhin a little more seriously. C’mon guys – we’re into our third year at GMD… how many more times are we gonna have to prove we know what we’re talking about here, even if (especially if) it hasn’t (yet) been acknowledged by the powers-that-be? Ah well, we can wait a few more years. Heh.)

But as CL said, Pollina really isn’t breaking a law this time, much to Markowitz’s insistence otherwise. What he is breaking is an unspoken pact, a norm if you will, in the universe of rules norms and laws. A norm he followed when it suited him (as he was staying under the $2,000 limit when he thought he was a Progressive), and that he’s now throwing out when it doesn’t.

And like the 2002 issue, its not just about him. His response is to take the system head on and, if successful, bring it down as a result. Where he wasn’t successful against the law in ’02, he likely will be successful against the norm in ’08. In the process, he’ll only shore up the traditional narratives on the two left wing parties (even though Pollina is no longer “technically” a member of one); the Democrats are somewhat feckless, but mean well. The Progressives are stronger and clearer on issues, but are unrestrained in their ambition – even to the detriment of those issues.

But the real winner of course? Once again, Pollina is playing patsy to Jim Douglas. There’s a good chance Douglas was already planning a last minute trouncing of this non-law norm that is our campaign finance…er… code(?). Now there’s no question. For $27,000, Pollina has run interference for him in the public arena, and is holding open what could easily be a $270,000 golden door for our Republican Governor this election. As Caoimhin so aptly said in his diary below, when Pollina “pulls his finger out of the money dike, where do you think the river of big money contributions will flow?”

UPDATE: Philip chimes in in his usual entertaining style:

…the Secretary of State has told (Pollina), in no uncertain terms, that (keeping the $27,000) violates the letter of the law. …you cannot survive a public knife fight with Deb Markowitz. Not where the particulars of election law are concerned.

Cool. If this is the case, Markowitz should be able to answer a simple question: which law?

• Carpetbagger-bagger: Vermont uberblogger Steve Benen of Carpetbagger Report (and Salon, Crooks & Liars, Talking Points Memo, etc. etc…) is bagging the Report to move further up the media foodchain (seriously, he was already near the top):
  

  Starting this Friday, Aug. 22, Kevin will be leaving the Washington Monthly, heading over to a new blog at Mother Jones. He’ll be replaced at Political Animal by … me.

  Yes, five-and-a-half years and more than 16,000 posts later, I’m giving up The Carpetbagger Report to blog exclusively for the Washington Monthly. I couldn’t be more excited about the opportunity.

  Cool! Hey Steve, If I give you fifty bucks, can you sneak us on the blogroll?

• A Wash? Lt. Governor candidate Tom Costello links from his website to Jack’s diary on the presentations from him and primary rival Nate Freeman to the state committee. Jack reports some good stuff from Costello and speaks highly of him – but those who click on the link entitled “How Tom Stopped Enron in Vermont” will find that the actual name of Jack’s diary is “Freeman Calls For Energy Department”. I can’t decide whether that’s a net promotional gain, or if its just a wash…
• Speaking of Lt. Governor candidates… Liberty Union Candidate Ben Mitchell says in his spiel:
  

  If I am elected Lieutenant Governor and the Governor leaves the state for even ten minutes, I will pardon all nonviolent drug offenders serving time in Vermont or Kentucky prisons.

  Ok, that is a tempting pitch… if only it were that easy.

UPDATE I was going to write a diary on this but thought that I’d add it in the open thread- CA

Tune In, Log On, Drop By: Online Communities on VPT: Chris Grotke at iBrattleboro had this announcement today.

“This Thursday at 8 pm, Vermont Public Television will be broadcasting highlights from the Snelling Center’s E-State Conference held earlier this year at Champlain College in Burlington.

To help extend the conversation beyond the one-way screen, they are offering viewers a chance to chat online during the show about building online communities. VPT asked iBrattleboro to help lead the discussion. We’ll be joining Kurt Gruendling from Champlain Valley Telecom and Don Mayer of Small Dog Electronics to field your questions and concerns as best we can.

VPT will be doing the moderation and chat, so if you have any difficulty, contact them for assistance.

Otherwise, tune in, log on, and drop by to take part in the (slow) shaping of Vermont’s connected future. We’ll see you in the chat room.

To read the press release click here. Cool!

So much for the idea that Wesley Clark might get anywhere near an Obama administration, let alone be VP:

 * [new] He kept the date open… (38+ / 0-)

For a long time but we have a very active business that he needs to travel a lot for.  He wasn’t invited to speak at the convention.  I’m sure somebody in his office called the campaign and asked if he was going to be invited to speak because he needs to book meetings for that week if he isn’t in Denver.  Apparently the answer that came back was no.

It’s not a fake out or some secret plan, he isn’t going to be VP or probably anything else in an Obama administration, assuming he’s elected.

What he is going to do is go out and campaign for Obama and plenty of Democrats in house and senate races this Fall.

I know some you think you can change this by launching VP diaries a couple times a day in hopes that Obama will be swayed by the “netroots.”  Dude, when has that ever worked with this campaign?

It’s a beautiful day.  Go outside and get some sun.

“Apes don’t read philosophy.” “Yes they do, Otto, they just don’t understand it!”

by WesClarkJr on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:12:02 PM PDT

“When has that ever worked” indeed. Clark has become associated with the netroots and the progressive left, and Obama is clearly done with the progressive left in general and the netroots in particular. No big shocker – the guy’s always been a centrist, but the way its been going down also makes clear that he is in no way practicing anything other than what he refers to as the “old politics,” he’s just doing so with his own particular style.

So be it. We’ll all continue to work to get him elected, because the only alternative is unthinkable. But it’s clear from even the most casual pulse-taking of the mood among much of the activist left that from the day he’s sworn into office, we’re going to have to be dogging his every step to keep him from merrily cruising down the same tired road of Washington-style compromises and capitulations that steered the nation into GOP dominance over the 90’s.

And I think we’re more than ready to do that. President (I hope) Obama may be in for some eye-opening surprises…

We just passed a little benchmark at GMD: 1,000,000 page views, according to our site meter (which was actually installed a month and a half after the blog launched, so its actually a bit more).

And another, perhaps more significant benchmark passed recently as well. In the last two mentions of GMD in the Vermont press (here and here), you’ll notice that the blog is now mentioned without explanation. No more “liberal blog Green Mountain Daily” or the Democratic oriented website, Green Mountain Daily” or somesuch. Just “Green Mountain Daily,” ’cause they figure people just know what it is, I guess. Cool.

On another note (since this is tagged as an “open thread” and therefore requires no thematic consistency), someone was telling me last week that I’ve been too hard on Seven Days’ Shay Totten of late. So to balance things out, let me first repeat a couple of things I’ve said in recent weeks – one, that he should be applauded for doing more than anyone else in recent months for (finally) raising the profile of the Vermont Yankee issue among folks in the northern part of the state and two, for continuing to do yeoman’s work birddogging the vendetta currently being waged by Jim Douglas and his ANR against all the operations in the Intervale (an issue rife with all kinds of political nastiness that the other reporters really should be picking up on as well).

But to that, let me add that I heartily concur with his taste in novelists, as he recently highlighted my personal favorite in his column. Although I can say first hand that the only people who consider Philip Dick to be their personal favorite are deeply screwed up people (uh-oh… did I just wreck the compliment?).

Okay, a lot of well-meaning people have starting asking me why I haven’t done what most of the other blogs that are sending folks to Denver seem to be doing – put up a PayPal button to enable readers to contribute to the effort. After all, it aint cheap, and room/board is clearly a premium. JD & I are making it work, but I’d be lying if I didn’t say it was a strain (and Christian is going too, of course, but under the auspices of the Huffington Post, and I don’t know if they’re helping him get there or not…).

There are two reasons I haven’t. One, it wasn’t that long ago that so many of you pitched in to get me a laptop for my birthday, which was really, really generous and really appreciated. But two – well, its election season for criminy’s sake. If you’ve got money to give to something, give it to a candidate who needs it to win.

I still feel that way, but I have become convinced that there are still people who would actually like to help us get there, and that I should shut up and be grateful. Also, there’s JD (and maybe Christian?) both of whom have kept their mouths shut about this, but may be quietly wondering why it is that other blog admins are going to their communities for help, but that loser odum guy has some weird hang-up about it…

So, I’m putting up a PayPal contribution button, so that folks who want to help offset the costs of the Denver adventure can – and with all of our great, great thanks. Any money raised will be divided between the the lot of us who are going to try to limit the financial hemorrhaging and make the experience a bit less scary. It’s a lot to ask for, but help would be appreciated (but for heavens sake, if its this or a campaign contribution to a worthy candidate, please give to the candidate!)

Button will live on the right side up top.

Outgoing Representative Darryl Pillsbury may not be the most popular elected official in the Pollina camp this week.

Pillsbury, of course, changed his vote on the 2nd attempt at campaign finance overhaul in as many years. Without his defection, the Governor’s veto would have been overridden and the rules would be different. His reasoning? That “For independents, this campaign law stinks.”

It’s a bitter irony indeed, then, that had Pillsbury voted for the override, Anthony Pollina would not be obliged to return $28,000 of contributions that he doesn’t have, simply because he opted to run as an Independent.

Here’s what the current law requires (from the Secretary of State’s website):

Contributions to Candidates and Candidate Political Committees

• $1,000 per election from individuals and entities that are not parties or political committees

(Again, that “per election” is the issue… candidates in major parties have two elections this year – the primary and the general, hence $2000. Independents have one election, limiting them to $1000 only, and 35 contributors have already given Pollina above that amount)

And here’re the relevant passages from the bill that Pillsbury joined the Governor in defeating (emphasis added):

(c)  A candidate for the office of governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, auditor of accounts, or attorney general shall not accept contributions totaling more than $1,000.00 from a single source or political committee for any election…

…(n)  The following shall apply to independent candidates:

(1)  The limitations on contributions set forth in subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section shall be doubled for independent candidates prior to the date of a primary election.

Woops.

A lot of bloggers have been hoping to see former Presidential Candidate, General Wesley Clark be tapped for Obama’s number two spot. Of late, that likelihood has been slim at best. He hasn’t been mentioned on any press short lists, he was a Clinton supporter in the primary (of course, so was oft-mentioned “short-lister” Evan Bayh of Indiana), and when he made the obvious (and highly appropriate) observation on national television that being shot down in Vietnam is not a qualification to be President, the Obama campaign couldn’t distance itself fast enough in response to GOP criticism.

In fact, all things being equal (and given recent news reports about Bayh’s early and steady support for the Iraq War), it seemed likely that Governor Kathleen Sebelius (who has been my first choice) was likely to get the nod (until she popped up with a Tuesday night Convention speaking slot, and given the renewed Bayh rumors today. Arg.).

But in light of the violence in Georgia, the aggressive movements of the Bush administration, and the corresponding full court press by the McCain camp to exploit the conflict as a full-scale campaign showcase, it seems like a no-brainer that the Obama campaign will probably look anew at former NATO commander Clark who would have an easier time shining a light on any dangerous adventurism from the administration, as well as any crass political exploitation from McCain and company than would Obama alone, or an Obama/Sebelius combo.

In any event, expect to hear very soon. Maybe even Saturday to make the Sunday talk shows and newspaper headlines. It’ll be important not to make the announcement too close to the convention, to maximize coverage and avoid letting it simply be absorbed into the convention media coverage.

I, for one, would like to see Clark for several reasons. He’s not perfect by a long shot, but he was (among other things) one of the only Presidential candidates or potential Presidential candidates to come out early and clearly for Single-Payer Health Care – certainly as big a progressive priority as you’ll find.

If you needed any more proof of Obama’s Gen X appeal…

(Woops… Just noticed as I sit “save” that BP got a diary up on this while I was working on mine… check out what he’s got to say as well…)

Ruh-roh. In yet another sign that Mr. Pollina’s last minute surprise abandonment of the Progressive Party ballot line was a hastily made decision, the Free Press is reporting that the implications of campaign finance regulations for the born-again Independent may be dire for the cash-strapped campaign. As in a whopping $28,000 worth of dire (and this for a campaign that had only $23,000 on hand as of the filing of less than two weeks ago). Ouch.

From Hallenbeck::

Pollina faces the likelihood of having to return $28,000 in campaign contributions that go over the limit of what an independent candidate is allowed to accept from donors. Independents are limited to $1,000 donations from individuals per election while candidates from parties that hold primaries have a $2,000 limit, according to Elections Director Kathy DeWolfe.

She gave Pollina’s campaign the news last week after reviewing his campaign’s finance reports that were filed July 31.

Pollina had listed contributions over $1,000 from 35 donors as of July 31.

Of course, many will remember the last time Pollina just did his thing despite the requirements of the campaign finance law (when the Progressive Party shared polling information with him – an act defined by law as a campaign contribution disqualifying him from the public financing he had been planning for). At that time, his first impulse was not to comply, but to sue to have the law (that he had helped get enacted) overturned, in an extraordinary act of political burning-the-village-in-order-to-save-it-ism. It’s hard to imagine him doing that again and courting a very poor narrative. On the other hand, it didn’t really hurt him in 2002, as he received his highest percentage of the final vote in a November election to date. In any event, it’s a real stunner that someone once dubbed Mr. Campaign Finance Reform once again did not do his homework. Or maybe it’s just another “rules are only for the bad guys” thing.

Or – whatever. Who knows. I just don’t understand that guy and the campaigns he runs. I really, really don’t.

In any event, as I expected, Pollina’s switch is bringing out many questions regarding the current campaign finance scheme. WIll contributors be able to re-gift Pollina under their kids’ names? Will that just look slimy? Will Pollina flip yet again and go for a Progressive write-in? Could he accept such a write in, or would the double flip make him a total joke? How exactly can these laws be applied before there has even been a primary, dubbing any candidate an “official “major party candidate?”

Whatever the case, Pollina now has a $28,000 alarm clock ticking to primary day next month.