Big news (ht BP)… and yet it’s buried in a letter column. Former Governor (and Vermont Democratic Party Patron Saint) Phil Hoff has thrown his lot in with the Pollina campaign, and without any of the expectations of reciprocity or partnership that seemed to be the reasons the Democratic State Committee deferred a potential meeting until the summer.

For a long time I have felt that the Democratic and Progressive parties should work together for the common good of Vermont.

In the absence of a viable Democratic candidate it seems to me that the candidacy of Anthony Pollina offers such an opportunity.

I do not know Pollina well. Several Democrats that I respect know him well and give him high grades in terms of his character and devotion to Vermont. Certainly he is “right” on the issues facing Vermont.

It is my understanding that he seeks the support of the Democratic Party.

Given this situation it seems to me that we Democrats should set aside partisan politics and support Pollina.

PHILIP H. HOFF

Burlington

He’s still not on the Democrats For Pollina website, but that probably gives it more legitimacy. After all, on the DFP site, he would be joined by fellow Democrats Walt Freed and Brian Tokar (get some screeners, folks). UPDATE: Okay, at least somebody else thought this was news, too.

After a long debate yesterday, the Democratic State Committee rejected (for now) Anthony Pollina’s request to address them and ask for some sort of endorsement. While the Pollina campaign will spin this as a rebuff only by the Party elite, the truth is the State Committee is both more liberal than much of the greater Dem community, and also represents a cross-section of muckity-mucks as well as grassroots activists – so the rejection is not good news for Pollina.

As I have stated on this site, I personally believe, as a matter of principle, that if somebody wants to address such an open-to-the-public committee, they should get to. Everyone should have the opportunity to be heard. It’s hard to condemn, though, as I appreciate that people have concerns; that an audience would just be spun to suggest some sort of support (as he repeatedly does regarding his meeting with the Barre Town Dems in his interview with Baruth), or that it might undercut a potential Democratic candidate. Then there’s simply the feeling that they owe nothing to someone who – in public over the years – has repeatedly made the point that he has higher regard institutionally for even Republicans over Dems. It’s a simple reality of human nature that such history is hard to easily shake off, due to the same psychology that causes many leftists to conclude they won’t be able to vote for Hillary Clinton in November if she is the Democratic Presidential nominee.

Still…

In any event, the same questions will keep going round and round, and some are more valid than others. There’s the whole third party concept. Some might question Pollina’s historic committment to some progressive issues (but honestly, what candidate doesn’t invite that kind of question)? But there is one big roadblock that may make all other questions ultimately meaningless – a roadblock made manifest by Representative Rachel Weston of Burlington before Pollina himself at a recent Montpelier House Party. A question – and an account – repeated again to State Committee members yesterday.

Weston is a rising star in Vermont politics; young, smart, charismatic, politically progressive – and an elected Democrat from a very left leaning district that is always a key battleground between Dems and Progs. At the house party, Pollina gave his unity pitch (which resonated with Weston), and then took questions from the group.

Weston stepped up to ask the obvious, yet heretofore unspoken one: If Pollina wants Dems to look past Party labels and support him based solely on the issues for the good of the greater community, is he willing to do the same? Specifically – if a Prog chooses to run against a Dem who is progressive on all the issues (and who may even support him, perhaps?) is he willing to offer his own support to that Dem even if there’s a Prog candidate, given that he’s asking that level of commitment for himself?

It would seem to have been a critical, even defining moment for Pollina – or perhaps a re-defining moment, as that is truly what he is attempting to do before Democratic crowds. Unfortunately for all of us, he first tried to avoid the question entirely by suggesting they hadn’t made such a confrontational run in a while. Weston pointed out that the immediacy of the question was standing right before him. She fully expected – as usual – to face a Progressive opponent herself in her battleground district.

Over the course of his evening, Pollina shifted from the response that he wouldn’t support anyone in such a conflict, to the position that he might support both, to the view that they would have to talk about it if it comes up.

But what was missing for Rachel was the clear reciprocation she was looking for. A statement that if she were to join Team Pollina, buck partisanship, focus on the issues only, and support him with her reputation, that he would join Team Weston, buck partisanship, focus on the issues only, and support her with his reputation. In attempting, in front of a crowd, to find a way to have his cake and eat it too, the message Weston received in response to her question was simple: No.

So the issue at the end of the day is trust, and the fact is, it takes two to tango. As dubious as Dems are toward Pollina specifically, its questions like Weston’s that get to the heart of the trust issue on the Dem side; when Pollina speaks of wanting to take on Douglas as a team, does he mean working together shoulder-to-shoulder, or does he have a team of horses in mind?

One of these things is not like the other.

In a world of ubiquitous Christian fundamentalism and major party presidential candidates that proudly reject evolution, how do we explain this?

If you watch TV, you’ve probably seen the Levi’s ad where the guy in his apartment pulls up his pants, and pulls up the city block, crashing through  the walls as he does. Inside the phone booth is the “hot babe” who eyes him, and they walk off together. It’s pretty damn stupid, but in the days of computer animation, stupid knows no visual bounds.

But there’s another version. Both are shown beneath the fold, and for what I’m getting at, here’s a hint: the alternate version is reportedly showing during breaks on the reality show “Project Runway” (ht MM)…

The common version:

The slightly less common version:

Surprise!

If its not self-evident, lets break out what is so quietly revolutionary about this ad.

For one, all the male “gayness” on TV right now is asexualized gayness, for the most part. Cutesy stuff, and safely sterilized. To the extent there’s a sense of sexuality in such gay imagery, the homoeroticism is not usually overt. Men presented as sexual next to each other is a lot safer than images of men presented as sexual at each other. Under the former, there can remain the fig leaf (pardon the expression) that its all for straight women viewer’s benefit. Clearly coupling two men in a seductive-kinda-way crosses into a new zone.

Then there’s the issue that this is not a television show, but an advertisement for a product. Products make particularized targets for right-wing nutjob boycotts, which is why gay-targeted advertising is generally hyper-targeted by venue to avoid catching the eye of the mob. A broadcast like this will bring overt gayness right into the homes of bible-thumpers everywhere, even if it’s just through casual channel-surfing. That broadens the target in a way that may be seen as rolling out the red carpet for some serious pushback. Either Levi’s (which has been targeted by such boycotts in the past) is feeling confident that we’re at a point where the pushback will be minimal, or they’re looking at the potential controversy and simply saying “bring it on.”

Good for them either way.

Now I should add that I could be full of crap. My radar really isn’t out for this kinda stuff in the media… and I really…ahhh… don’t spend a lot of time on shows like Project Runway, so I could really be way, WAY behind on the real world. Maybe this diary will proke a collective “duh, where have you been for the last decade.”

All I can say is that I saw the two YouTubes lined up and was like “whoa! I’ve never seen THAT before!” and immediately started wondering when James Dobson would start calling for a boycott of pants. Or at least of Levi’s.

In any event, its an interesting, tertiary sign that the world is, indeed, growing up a bit – even though it sometimes feels like we’re speeding haphazardly back into the Dark Ages so much of the time.

Peter Welch has an unfortunate habit of doing lots of escalating good things before screwing up on something really big in a more Constitutional sense, in a way that suggests a degree of obliviousness (the MoveOn vote, the “Homegrown Terrorism Bill”, etc.). If that pattern continues, he’s due for a major screw up anytime, as the last couple weeks have been great for him.

On the 3rd, he brought home $341,000 for expanding Norwich University’s Nursing program, on the 5th he led the way on legislation overturning the recent Environmental Protection Agency decision to deny California’s request for a waiver to adopt stricter automobile emission standards.

On the 7th, he asked the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to investigate a multibillion-dollar contracting loophole that was slipped into plans to crack down on fraud in taxpayer-funded projects overseas, putting the Bush Administration on the defensive in a big way. This got him attention from as far away as UK’s Guardian newspaper.

Also, he not only scored 100% score for supporting legislation to help the middle class from the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy’s TheMiddleClass.org 2007 Congressional Scorecard, yesterday he also joined Berne Sanders in receiving an A+ rating on the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law’s scorecard for his voting record on poverty issues.

And just for added measure, he had this to say about the idea of immunity for telephone companies that broke the law to help Bush spy on American citizens:

Keep in mind some telecommunications companies said no and they got a requirement of judicial warrant and they’re all set they have immunity the ones that complied it’s really much more about what the president doesn’t want us to see that the White House did than anything the companies did.

But my favorite one, just for the sheer drama of it?

A bill to create an outside independent panel to investigate ethics complaints against US Representatives faced one of those procedural votes that would enable it to be quietly killed, without Reps having to actually have to go on record with a floor vote on the bill. The bill eked by this roadblock (before going on to passage) by ONE vote – with Welch voting in the affirmative.

I mean, holy crap. Peter’s been a busy bee this month so far. Let’s hope there are many more such months to come.

Sometimes it makes sense to restate what it is GMD is doing here, as some people apparently feel a strange compulsion to return day after day, even though they just can’t stand it. You should probably find a way to break that habit, as emails demanding we change to better suit you are a waste of everybody’s time.

This is a Dem-oriented site (not a Dem site), but don’t let that fool you. Other Dems don’t anymore. We are fiercely independent. We push hard on progressive issues and in a fairly routine manner, take our elected officials to task if we don’t like the way they’re behaving. Maybe not always in the same ways as some readers would, or to the degree some might like – but believe me, it’s a lot more than many would prefer. In any event, political institutions are loath to absorb criticism, but the Democratic community has largely taken our measure and learned what to expect. I’d like to believe they are stronger for it, as any institution that is not capable of self-criticism is a sick or dying institution.

But Progressive supporters of Anthony Pollina are clearly, of late, having a hard time with this concept. I don’t know whether it’s that they’re coming late to the show, or whether they’ve seen the criticisms of Democrats on this site for so long, they’ve just assumed – in a “with us or against us” kinda way – that we’re all a bunch of Progressives. Surprise! We’re actually all a bunch of individuals (I know, what a concept).

The left is clearly split in this state in a way it isnt elsewhere. Both the Democrats’ and the Progressives’ capacity for self-criticism have splintered off into the other with the schism, leaving each profoundly unhealthy. For my part, I’ve decided to treat the candidates from each party similarly, while continuing with my own opinion that the system is hardwired to prevent three parties from stably co-existing (hence my Dem-thing). What that means is, I’m gonna criticize them when I think they’re out of line – and out of line can mean anything from being phony, to being hypocritical – or sometimes just being stupid. And yeah, I’m gonna pat them on the back sometimes too, as I’ve done with Dems, Progs – and even, on a couple occasions, Republicans (gasp!). But the fact remains that there’s plenty of phoniness, hypocrisy and stupidity to go around in politics, and if you think what you see as your political “team” is somehow inherently, mystically immune from such institutional inevitabilities, do us all a favor and frequent another website that doesn’t require quite so much critical thinking. Here, try this one.

(UPDATE: I just got invited to tomorrow’s Pollina campaign kick-off event. There’s some more reachin’ out for ya…)

I dunno whether its the season changing or what, but this week does sure seem to be Pollina week. Might as well go with it.

Pollina’s campaign is revving up a bit more, and with it seems to be some real attempts to make some sort of unity thing with Dems work (at least to a point). The fact is, between the sketchy “Democrats for Pollina” and the active reaching out to local party committees, he and his team are making an effort, and that’s worth something. Even in the blogosphere. Although I’d never expect Pollina in a million years to stick his neck out into the mosh pit that is GMD, he did sit down for an interview with Philip over at VDB which should be up soon.

At the risk of being over-the-top in my analogy (bear with me), there’s always been a bit of the Middle East conflict to the whole Dem-Prog thing. You’ve got the Dems who control most of the firepower and infrastructure, and the Progs who are often reduced to electoral guerilla warfare (by playing spoiler, and the like) and who are se existence is predicated on the frequent questioning of the Dems “right to exist” (so to speak) by labeling them as one and the same with the GOP and pushing to supplant them as the “real” leftist party in Vermont. One sign of things being different is the quote atop their website:

“The Republican and Democratic parties are not the same. The Republicans are an extreme right wing party. The Democrats are a centrist party tilting, perhaps, a little bit to the left …”

(Put aside for a moment this quote comes from the same Bernie Sanders who scores lower on ProgressivePunch’s ratings than nearly 10% of the Senate Democrats) That’s a big statement from them – especially to headline like that.

Of course, the “centrist” argument is still a crock that serves their purposes. The thing about the Dems is that they’re all over the map – as Howard Dean likes to call them, a “coalition party.” Spend five minutes on this site or ones like it and you’ll see there are plenty of Dems every bit as leftist as Progs (sometimes moreso, as I’m reminded of Pollina’s own reticence to come out for Civil Unions early in that debate – presumably for fear of alienating his developing NEK support, as well as the fact that the Rural Vermont founder is often concerned about environmental issues only up to the point where they could have any impact on farms). But this illusion that there’s a clean “spectrum” – that if you far enough to the left you turn into a Prog – is a simplistic construct that definitely serves their interest.

But I digress. The fact is, the Progressives are no longer out there actively, personally bashing Ds as they have throughout their history. And what do Progs sound like when they’re not slamming Dems? They sound…well… familiar….

At a Pollina press conference in early Februrary, a Free Press reporter asked:  “All of these ideas have come up here in this building — the capital gains idea the Speaker had, some senators had the idea that the governor needs to work more with the legislature on this bill, as it comes out of Shumlin’s mouth.  It almost looks like you’ve been watching their tapes and coming out and repeating them.”

Pollina’s response: “What I think it is is that I am a Vermonters who’s in touch with people around the state who is more in touch with people outside this building than inside this building and understands what needs to be done and when you talk about this dynamic that goes on between the governor’s office and the legislature and how they’ve had some of this conversation and some of this back and forth, there’s one component that’s missing in the dynamic right now which is a governor who share’s the commitment that the legislature has for a budget that works for Vermonters.  If we just change the occupant of that office across the hall this process would be different.”

Hmm.

On John McCain, compare some of the rhetoric from VDP Chair Ian Carleton & Pollina:

Carleton’s statement: 13 February

Pollina’s statement: 14 February

Carleton:

“On the war, SCHIP and tax cuts, McCain is out of touch with Vermonters and the majority of Americans who are demanding a real change in priorities.”

Pollina:

“Douglas’ appearance today with Sen. John McCain demonstrates just how out of touch he is with Vermonters who want to stop the war in Iraq.”

Carleton:

“As the country slips into recession, Vermonters would like to see the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on endless war instead invested in America’s future investments to create jobs, repair our roads and bridges, build schools and fight disease.”

Pollina:

“Douglas’ appearance today with Sen. John McCain demonstrates just how out of touch he is with Vermonters who want to stop the war in Iraq. And want to start investing again in our local communities and families”

Carleton:

“McCain’s policies offer little more than a third term for President Bush.”

Pollina:

“McCain is a direct link to the past. With most people in Vermont and across the country ready for a change in direction, Douglas is promising us more of the same.”

Carleton:

“While both of Jim Douglas’ chosen candidates George Bush and John McCain are the primary supporters of the grossly mismanaged Iraq War, most Vermonters are ready for a change in priorities ….

Pollina:

“Remember Douglas supported George Bush who brought us the war in Iraq…”

Carleton:

“John McCain never admits that, just like President Bush, he said victory would be easy. Now, McCain says we’ll be there for 100 years, but refuses to say how he plans to pay for it”

Pollina:

“Now Douglas is supporting McCain who says we can expect to be in Iraq for 100 years.”

I guess when Progs aren’t castigating Dems for existing, they sound a lot like… Dems.

Okay, maybe I mock a little, but it does improve prospects for working together.

Of course, there are limits, which suggest the question as to how much of this is sincere, and how much just political necessity. You may remember my own frustrations with the gratuitous Dem-knock (and in the absence – at the time – of any criticism of Douglas) on the Anthonypollina.com website. After a couple days of complaining, it was taken down. But not in response to this blog, as it turns out, as a few days later it returned – but not before Chris Pearson dropped me a heads-up email (with a message to readers of this site):

I wanted to give you a heads up since our site has been the subject  

of some back and forth on your blog.  As you know, campaigns move in  

fits and starts.  After you took us to task for posting the Reformer  

editorial at the top of our News section we added three statements  

Anthony had sent out in the last few weeks which bumped the Reformer  

piece and others.  The site is set up to post the three most recent  

additions.

We are now poised to alter the way it works so we allow two news  

hits, two press statements and two recent letters to the editor.  

When we make this change (later today), the Reformer editorial will  

re-appear.  However, we’ve tried to make it abundantly clear that  

it’s not our language, rather one of the states leading papers.

It was certainly not our desire to slam on the Democrats.  In fact,  

this editorial is incredibly positive about our candidate making  

several points we have made ourselves for many months: asking  

Democrats to treat Anthony like Bernie; pointing out that  

Progressives haven’t run in 2002, 2004 and 2006; mentioning that  

Anthony wasn’t a spoiler in 2002; and finally that Anthony (or  

Galbraith) would be a superior Governor to Jim Douglas.  As you know,  

campaigns wait a lifetime for an editorial this strong.

Please know we are not putting it back because of any desire to fight  

with you or engage in a snippy back and forth with readers of your  

blog.  We are putting it back because the content of the editorial is  

very positive.  I hope you understand and offer this note as a  

courtesy heads up.  I believe you and many Democrats are committed to  

defeating Jim Douglas and look forward to working together as the  

months unfold.

My response:

appreciate the heads up… but… and you knew

there was gonna be a but…

I appreciate the need to put positive stuff out. I

also appreciate the limitations of a cms. Thing is,

though, I also understand the need to control and

finesse message, especially on a campaign website.

There is nothing more important. And – whether or not

you think its fair – there was a message sent to the

casual reader from that snippet – and that message

will re-assert itself with the snippet’s return.

That’s just cause and effect.

But it becomes more than that when you get called on

it… obviously the cms doesn’t put it’s own content

up there, so if you choose to just say “we have no

control” and let the slam stay up… well, as those

Canadians said, “if you choose not to decide, you

still have made a choice.”

My advice- if you’re sincere about not wanting to

alienate Dems with a backhand on your front page,

don’t let the same quote be featured. If the cms just

automatically grabs the first few lines, replace

those lines on the article’s page with something

about how wonderful Anthony is. You can format it

like some sort of a teaser/pull quote on the page, so

it doesn’t look odd. If it’s a choice between grating

on some folks whose votes you need, and spending a

li’l effort not to grate on them, allowing you to

have your cake and eat it too, why not spend the

extra couple minutes?

Look – in all honesty, I held no illusions that you

had changed the website in response to the GMD diary, but I decided

to give you credit anyway, just in the interest of

not rubbing more salt on anything. I’ve decided to

treat Pollina like I do any other left wing

politician – meaning, when I think he’s out of line,

smacking him around a bit, but that doesn’t mean I’m

trying to bring him down.

In any event, tweaking the text really would solve

this little communication-with-Dems problem – and

leaving it will send a message that its a problem you

don’t care about fixing, even if it wouldn’t take any

more than negligible effort.

I honestly wasn’t sure whether he’d just roll his eyes and further ignore this “Dem,” or whether he might hear what I’m saying and spend a modicum of energy to make his point without the appearence of an insult. It was a sort of Ego-vs-Super Ego moment (although, in the interest of full disclosure – everytime I have sent any kind of “if you’re serious about reaching out to Dems, you might try…” message to Team Pollina, its been ignored, so I wasn’t expecting anything).

To no avail, the slam re-emerged, with no more word from Pearson, of course.

So I don’t know where this all really leaves us. There’s no question in my mind that the Progressives really do deserve credit for trying to build bridges here.

But based on that last interaction, I can’t help but feel that their real partisan animosities are still there, just being repressed.

We’ll know for sure after, as I suspect, Pollina loses (and badly) in November. We’ll see if – no matter how it plays out – it will all, once again – somehow – be the big bad Democrats fault.

Democrat Patrick Leahy continues to work front and center in the fight to maintain a FISA law that doesn’t provide blanket immunity for telephone companies (and the Bush administration?) from breaking domestic spying laws, despite the fact that the bill is now in the House (where House Dems are – for now – refusing to knuckle under). Leahy’s high-profile efforts put him in direct conflict with Senate Intelligence Chair Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) who, along with Dick Cheney, is the immunity provision’s chief cheerleader. In fact, Rockefeller continues to categorically reject the notion of any bill without immunity that may be bounced back to the Senate to be reconciled, despite House Speaker Pelosi engagement on the issue.

Leahy and Rep. Conyers (Chair of House Judiciary) have launched FixFISA.com, which is run through Leahy’s preferred Blackrock Associates which also maintains the web presence of his leadership PAC, GreenMountainPAC.com, which is hosted on the Get Active server. From the site:

We’re at a critical juncture. The House and Senate have passed different versions of the new FISA legislation, and we are meeting to resolve those differences.  The president and his Republican allies are using this opportunity to pressure our colleagues to give in and grant retroactive immunity.

That’s why we need your help, right now, to push back against the White House while the final FISA bill is being negotiated. Help us respond to White House scare tactics, preserve our civil liberties, and reject the Senate’s telecom immunity. Please use this online tool to write a letter-to-the-editor of your local newspaper to speak out and build grassroots support for fixing FISA the right way.

It’s a get-the-word-out tool – a pretty bare bones one at present, but slick nonetheless.

Because simple commentary will not suffice.

C’mon… you know you wanna…

The “Democrats for Pollina” website (such as it is) is up at http://democratsforpollina.com. Currently, it consists entirely of a list of presumed Democrats… for Pollina (duh). Some notable names on the list, including internationally lauded author and frequent GMD commenter Bill McKibben. There are also a lot of familiar Dem names on there. Janet Munt, of course. Also a lot of bona fide party names such as Rob Backus, Louise Coates, Peter Grant and others. A lot of folks who pass in and out of the whole Democrat thing, such as Alexandra Thayer and Dave Grundy. Some names I assumed were more independent sorts than Dems, such as Andrea Stander.

So it looks mostly legit, but should be read with a skeptical eye. I was surprised to see author and activist Brian Tokar on the list, for example – not because he’s such a dyed in the wool Dem… quite the contrary. He’s a Social Anarchist. That’s…er… quite a fudge factor for the Dem label, there…

WCAX on the DFP press conference:

Monday morning, Democrats for Pollina– a citizen group of Vermont Democrats– announced they are launching a write-in campaign to place Anthony Pollina on the Democratic ballot this fall…

“…It’s about time that the two entities got together behind a single candidate and given the circumstances this year, I think the Democrats and Progressives have a great opportunity to elect a governor. We ought to get behind Anthony,” said Harvey Carter

What’s interesting about this, is that the report doesn’t say “write in” campaign on the ballot, it says a write-in campaign “to place Anthony Pollina on the Democratic ballot.” Interesting if true, and not a misprint, as Pollina would have to consent via signature to allow himself to appear on the ballot, as Bernie Sanders did – which is frankly what so man of us have urged him to do. We clearly need a primary to avoid a 3-way in November, and if it takes semantics to get Pollina to agree to honor one, I suspect most Dems would be okay with that. In fact, such a de facto Prog-Dem primary may be a critical part to any chance of winning.

And if this is the word, don’t count out the possibility that Pollina may well intend to follow through with it. This is no rogue group, it’s an arm of the Pollina campaign (although organized as a separate PAC). Emails went out promoting the press conference from Progressive Representative David Zuckerman, after all.

The question then will be, should activists step up and push this all the way? The logic is sound – and in fact, is only consistently sound if a comparable push would be undertaken to put Galbraith on the Progressive ballot after he formally announces – with an agreement from both candidates to honor the results if one is eliminated. I’m sure the Prog powers-that-be squealing would rival what is likely to be the inevitable Dem powers-that-be squealing, but that’s the powers-that-be’s jobs.

As a postscript, it’s worth noting the not-so-cryptic announcement/threat from “Snarky Boy” Michael Colby, both on his own site, and on the GMD sidebar as “LeftField” that “A true progressive needs to challenge Pollina in the Prog Party primary so his followers will have to focus on their own party’s efforts rather than soiling that of the Dems…And I think I know someone who’s interested..”. One may assume that this suggests his intent to jump into the Progressive Gubernatorial primary, but it’s more likely that he’s referring to his mentor, perennial Liberty Union candidate Boots Wardinski. Wardinski has had a negligible effect on statewide ballots, but the relatively small Progressive ballot (especially if there are Pollina supporters crossing over to support him on the D ballot) might provide a greater opportunity for impact. It’s hard to imagine him having any serious effect, though, given the reverence Pollina is held in by even the least partisan Progressives.

It’s March. The election is in eight months. That’s about 36 weeks. This from vtbuzz:

I’m sure many politically tuned-in Vermonters are surprised that we are sitting here in March without a known Democratic candidate for governor, but it indeed we are…

…What should the good voters of Vermont make of that? “You’re to make nothing of it,” Vermont Democratic Party Chairman Ian Carleton said.

I’m not sure who Carleton is talking to here. If his statement is a directive, he knows as well as anyone that rank and file Dems do not take directives well. If it’s simply face-saving rhetoric, a no comment would be better, as we’re rapidly entering the world of self-parody.

We’re past the point where the suggestion that concern – even panic – over the lack of clear candidates for the top two slots is somehow only for the small handful of political insiders or hobbyists, and that the greater population doesn’t care. First of all, that’s not true anymore, as I’m hearing the question from an ever-widening range of people.

Second (and most important), it has been going on long enough to begin setting in as a narrative among one subset of Vermonters that truly matter in this process – the press. Today’s media doesn’t bother with the pretense of not having opinions. They embrace opinions – wallow in them, really – so long as those opinions can’t be pegged as “partisan.” And the Democratic Party is flirting with a “keystone kops” narrative among the media that will dog them throughout the campaign season if something doesn’t change soon.

Some argue that none of this should be discussed without also discussing the lack of a GOP candidate against Peter Welch. That discussing the gubernatorial – and now the lieutenant gubernatorial – race, without discussing that lack is somehow engaging in a double standard. Not so.

Truth to tell, the Dems should dread the day when they are spoken of together. The fact is, the Vermont GOP looks like a disaster. Dems solidly have the House, the Senate, and 7 out of 9 statewide offices, if you count Bernie Sanders. The Republican Party in this state has, under its previous Chair Jim Barnett, all but abandoned the local races in it’s myopic focus on the re-election of Douglas, and as a passing thought, Dubie and the occasional other statewide race. As a result, it maintains little resemblance to a functioning major party.

The fact is that people aren’t talking about the GOP lack of a candidate, because – well, what do you expect? Try a free association test: see how many Vermont Dems you can name in a few seconds that could be competitive against Jim Douglas. You know the list; Leahy, Welch, Markowitz, Spaulding, Sorrell, Racine, Shumlin, Symington. Those are the easy ones. The ones that would make it a battle royal. You may have easily come up with others.

Now try the same game with Republicans versus Welch.

Crickets, right?

I mean, you have to really reach for any names at all – Brock? Walt Freed (remember him?) Skip Vallee, for pities sake?

Dems should stop complaining about the hand wringing over Governor. The fact is, people expect more from what otherwise looks like a healthy political party. The task now is to show them that they should.

And the task for us? Clearly, the time is coming to force a reaction. If Galbraith is to be the candidate, it’s time to shake him from what is clearly a subjective certainty that he has plenty of time until it becomes necessary to announce. One assumes that this assumption is based on an electoral clock nearly 30 years out of date. If he is to be a candidate – and a viable one – he needs to be capable of losing dyed-in-the-wool preconceptions that are no longer reflective of reality. Now is the time. Many months ago was the time. For my part, I have allowed him some leeway because of recent history. Galbraith told me, as he has told many others, that, during their 2007 meeting, Pollina told him that he would opt NOT to run for Governor if Galbraith did indeed get in the race.

In January, he apparently contacted Pollina again to both indicate he was moving towards a run and to re-confirm this verbal agreement. Pollina apparently informed him that he had, er, changed his mind.

For that reason, I’ve been loath to rush the Ambassador, given the seismic shift in the likely makeup of the arena. But the grace period is clearly over.

As far as Lieutenant Governor goes, Jim Condos has flirted with interest, as reported here. There is attempted recruitment behind the scenes, but again – it’s unclear at this point as to whether anyone is really serious. And it’s way past time for seriousness.

Boy, do we need some seriousness.

I think it’s safe to assume that Galbraith is in this thing. But he needs to truly get in this thing. If he’s not in it… well, whatever. I’m rapidly losing faith that there’s any real shot at taking out Douglas, given the totality of the tableau before us. A real shame given Douglas’s softness between the polling lines.

Lieutenant Governor? That’s more complicated, and in a Democratic wave year, Dubie is also vulnerable – especially given his do-nothing reputation. My sense is that, by a date certain, if there still is no sign of a candidate, we at the netroots should threaten to run a candidate, leaving the powers that be to decide for themselves which scenario they’d find more embarrassing – continuing an empty candidate slot well into election season, or having some nobody blogger or netroots activist as the only one willing to step in and fill the gap.