UPDATE 2: Title changed to reflect reality. Now that the Canadian government has disavowed the story, this is starting to look suspiciously like a smear job…

A-yup. Courtesy of CTV (by way of TPM):

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama’s campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada’s ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

Don’t fool yourself. If we get this guy in, activists are gonna have to keep on him like stink on a skunk – no different than we’d have to with any other candidate. Eyes wide open, folks.

UPDATE: Obama has denied the account. No less a critic than the much-maligned-by-Obama-supporters David Sirota feels that we should all be taking Obama at his word on this, given that the report is sourced to ideological opponents and that Obama has been consistent in his rhetoric. Fair enough, but its a reminder for us all to keep on our toes with an Obama – or any – presidency.

It’s dry and very un-sexy, but Rep. Peter Welch’s recent initiative on the issue of reining in credit card companies and supporting consumers has “signature issue” potential all over it, and is just the kind of issue that could further insulate him from the threat of facing a serious GOP challenger in the Fall. Welch has signed his name onto an effort by Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) to institute a “Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights”, and is lining up the right people to back him up, politically. From Welch’s website:

Welch was joined at the roundtable by John Adams of Fair Haven, Eliot Burg from the Vermont Attorney General’s Office, Chris D’Elia with the Vermont Bankers Association, Scott Falzo from Rockingham Shell, Jim Harrison from the Vermont Grocers’ Association, and Representative Warren Kitzmiller of Montpelier, chairman of the House Commerce Committee and former owner of Onion River Sports in Montpelier…

Welch added, “At a time when Vermonters are already feeling a financial pinch, it’s time to require fair play and transparency, and put an end to these gouging tactics.  The Cardholders’ Bill of Rights requires simple fairness all consumers deserve.”

Adams, a victim of unexpected credit card rate hikes, commented “Like most Vermonters, I pay my bills and use a credit card for convenience.  I had no idea my rate changed from 7.99 to 26 percent until it had passed the point at which I could pay off the balance under the terms.  I don’t want other Vermonters to go through what I experienced.”

Try and tell me you can’t see the campaign commercial in that line.

The proposal, like all such legislative “bills of rights” is structured as a statement of principles with a set of policy proposals distributed within. It is also, honestly, a pretty modest bill. Among it’s provisions, would be requirements that companies give 45 days notice of interest rate increases, give cardholders the right to cancel their card and pay off their existing balance at the existing interest rate and repayment schedule if they get hit with an interest hike, preventing card companies from retroactively increasing interest rates on an existing balance for reasons unrelated to the cardholder’s behavior with that card, prohibiting card companies from arbitrarily changing the their cardholder contracts, and banning “any-time, any-reason repricing.” It would also mandate far longer periods between billing and and the billing due date, and cardholders would have protection from misleading terms such as “fixed rate” and “prime rate.” There’s also some more pro-active bits, such as requiring card companies to offer consumers the option of having a fixed credit limit that cannot be exceeded (while being prevented from charging over-the-limit fees on a cardholder who opts for such a fixed limit). It limits the overall amount of “over-the-limit” fees card companies are allowed to charge to 3, and – particularly relevant to our current economic woes – companies will face restrictions on giving cards to consumers who can clearly not afford them.

There are also stricter oversight regulations and mandates for other scenarios, particularly for customers who are never late (you know, the ones who need that help the least… ah well…). It’s limited, but it is progress – and electorally, its potentially creating something that he hasn’t been able to create yet, as a freshman in the shadow of political giants Leahy and Sanders – an issue that gets all his constituent’s heads nodding in agreement, and that they they will come to associate with him specifically. Smart.

If successful, he should keep it going beyond Rep. Maloney’s ideas. As I was informed just the other day, Credit Card companies predation isn’t limited to cardholders, but to merchants as well. In many cases, business owners are charged a fee of a dollar or more when a customer’s card is rejected. It’s such practices that cause many small business that have to count every penny to quietly impose minimum charge amounts, even though such minimums are usually prohibited by their agreements with the companies. There’s a lot of hands-on governing needing to be done with this industry, both out of general principle and for the good of the economy as a whole, recession bound as we are.

Look, this is bread and butter liberalism; protecting the little guy from big corporations using the lack of regulation not to innovate, but to exploit – and the fact that it impacts small businesses is even better. It’s an issue virtually everybody in the middle and working classes can relate to, and sticking his shingle in the media-ready phrase “Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights” gives him a leg up with the casual or unengaged voter, whatever the actual merits of his initiative. It may not be high on many bloggers’ lists, but in an election year, this may be the savviest of Welch’s many attempts to stamp his imprimatur on an issue – and if he can get it picked up over the next few months by the Vermont media, it could do as much to scare off Skip Vallee, or whoever else the GOP faithful are hoping to take the plunge, as his war chest and its steady creep towards a cool million bucks.

Too much stuff to write about today. Oy.

Progressivepunch.org is the brainchild of Joshua Grossman, an activist and green entrepeneur. It’s an attempt to build a database of “progressive” votes by category, and create ratings for the different members of Congress. It’s a great idea, and his system is worth a look. It’s clearly Grossman’s baby, so these are progressive priorities captured and weighted through a single set of eyes – and eyes that are somewhat unknown, at that. Still, it’s an expansively comprehensive database. The operation is a bit rough around the edges, as visually demonstrated by both his press releases and the funky-ish website, but he deserves alot of credit nonetheless.

It’s an interesting system he’s set up, and he’s clearly put it through some rigorous testing. The algorithm is based, not on an external progressive ideal, but by the limits of progressivism and conservatism within the legislative bodies themselves, making it like an issue group’s scorecard. Overall scores are contrasted against what he calls “chips are down” scores, described as “votes where either progressives lost or where the progressive victory was narrow and could have been changed by a small group of Democrats voting differently.”

Curious how he rates Vermont’s delegation? So was I… check the flip for the scoop…

Rep. Welch’s overall progressive score is quite good, a 97.03 – but interestingly, that puts him way down at 59th in the House rankings (surprisingly, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is rated number 5 in this category at 98.78, right after Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.)

Welch’s “chips are down” value is a good chunk lower, at 87.66, but leaving him a bit higher on the list at a tie for 54th.

On the Senate side… brace yourselves Sanderistas…. Bernie is not number 1. Or number 2. Or 3, or 4. the godfather of Vermont’s Progressive Party comes in at number 10 with a score of 95.70 – trailing nearly 20% of the Democratic Party Senate caucus, falling between number 9 (Barbara Boxer) and number 11 (Patty Murray), with number 12 Patrick Leahy coming up next with an even 95 score.

And when the “chips are down,” our Senators each drop one ranking – Sanders to 11 and Leahy to 13 – with 93.37 and 92.22, respectively.

It’s truly an impressive piece of work – although a smidgin buggy – allowing users to break out the overall vote into thematic categories and look at more issue-specific ratings, all linked to the members’ voting records. I tell ya, it’s easy to get lost playing around with it. Do yourself a favor and check it out. I have little doubt that I’ll be referencing it frequently.

And if your curious (and you know you are)… Hillary Clinton comes in with an overall score of 91.42, putting her at number 27 on the list. Obama? Wayyyyy down at number 41 (after number 40, Chris Dodd) with a score of 83.64. The “chips are down” ranking are similar, with scores of 86.90 (number 27) and 76.87 (number 37) for Clinton and Obama respectively.

Ouch.

… and before you all leap to the tinfoil, I checked him out on opensecrets.org, and although he has given to a couple campaigns, he has not given to either Presidential campaign (or at least, not enough to trigger reporting).

Enjoy!

Iraq is front and center on a couple fronts today:

In Washington, Senators Leahy and Sanders are co-sponsors of the Feingold bill that would cut off funding in four months (well.. most funding.. There are exceptions for training of Iraqi troops and counterterrorism – Welch has supported companion legislation in the House).

The bill, surprisingly, was not squashed this afternoon, moving past a procedural roadblock 70-24. GOP leader McConnell’s green light likely means they’ll try to make a show to continue embarassing Dems when the vote comes up for real later in the week, but the more we talk about the War, the better, so McConnell isn’t doing himself any favors.  Stay tuned (but don’t hold your breath for passage).

In Vermont, From 5:30-7:30 this (Tuesday) evening, The Senate Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs Committee is hearing testimony on S.362, a bill that reins in “the constitutional and statutory authority of the President to federalize and deploy the Vermont National Guard in Iraq; declares that the authority for that deployment has terminated; requests that actions be taken to terminate federalization and bring troops back to Vermont as members of the Vermont national guard; and reaffirms that Vermont national guard members be limited to service on behalf of the state of Vermont, unless properly and lawfully called into federal service.” It is sponsored by much of the Senate Democratic leadership, and nearly half of the whole caucus.

To listen to the VPR stream, go to http://www.vpr.net/vpr_files/l…

(Note: Click on the “House” link, as they’re taking the testimony in the House Chamber)

(This is a variation on a diary I posted at Daily Kos recently…)

We’re making some jokes about it over at a diary of BP’s… but all joking aside, when, where and for what office will readers of this blog be stepping up to the plate to put all the words and ideas we so readily toss around electronically into action?

I remember when the question was first called for me. I was managing a road canvass for the Oregon League of Conservation Voters and was having an impromptu “turf meeting” in at a pizza place in Eugene with a canvass Field Manager for the fledgling Forest Conservation Council (I think – memories fuzzy….40 now, I tellya…). My friend was telling me that he was, for a second time, filing to run for a local state legislative seat. He had previously lost badly, but t didn’t seem to phase him. “I always encourage everybody to run for office,” he told me. “Even if you’re not likely to win, it gives you a great platform to get people talking about issues.”

His words have echoed around in my brain since.

Nowadays I’m older, and if not wiser, maybe a bit crustier. As such, I take the potential “spoiler” effect on other candidates more seriously than I did then, so I wouldn’t necessarily consider his advice to be axiomatic, but that’s not to say that it didn’t still hold a lot of wisdom.

But this is the era of “crashing the gate,” where regular folk are empowering themselves through the internet – either through blogging or even more simple forms of communication – all towards the singular purpose of shaking up our preconceptions of political classes and institutional absolutes. Now, when we don’t like the way public policy or institutional power is shaking out, we challenge it – both in the blogs and on the ground. Nowadays, if someone in power sneers at an activist “we’re doing all we can, now sit down and shut up,” the activist – from time to time – has the resources and the savvy to step and say “I don’t think so – move over.”

But when is the time right? And now that new blood is starting to become infused into the old body politic, is it enough to do as my friend said and simply run to amplify your voice? Is it important, now that it’s more possible to win, to try and make sure you actually do?

It’s a tough question. One I’ve always deferred because of my own shortcomings as electoral product. Still – there’s a nagging sense of responsibility in play as well. I started Green Mountain Daily because the Vermont Democratic Party, state Legislature and political culture needed the netroots revolution to arrive in the state, as we were falling behind, and the local political institutions were getting pretty crusty themselves. When nobody was even making a peep towards doing it, I stepped up to fill the vacuum. It hasn’t always been fun (NOTE: I just noticed how this reads – I’m speaking very specifically here about the the community blog scoop/soapblox, “Daily Kos” style, netroots organizing and incubating space – not blogs in general. Obviously there were already great blogs on the scene in Vermont before GMD came along. If anything, GMD was a bit of a latecomer to the party…sorry….don’t hit me Philip, JD, Jack, etc…).

So with all the nagging, cajoling and harassing I do of the political class and the state government, when does honor demand that I either find someone to step up to the plate, or – if none are available – when do I have to put up or shut up myself?

And what about all of you reading this?

For my part, I am very close to a decision to run this year for the Democratic National Committee at the Party convention. Not sure yet, and I haven’t spoken yet to the current holder of that position, since I’m not sure – but it seems like an obvious choice for somebody like me. Complain about the National Dem Party, why not be that National Dem Party – at least to the extent a single person can. If I decide to go for it, I’ll fully post my thinking.

So – who else is thinking about stepping up to the plate?

Rasmussen has a Vermont poll, and the numbers are even with the ARG poll: Obama 57%, Clinton 33%. It’s not a question of who’s gonna take the state anymore (if it ever was), its a question of delegate allocation and just how many of our state’s handful Obama can capture. We’ll try to have an estimate on that after the returns are in next week.

Ken Picard is generally a solid reporter, but not last week as he did a bit of a smear job on Sen John Campbell (D-Windsor) in 7 Days. Apparently on weeks like this where there isn’t something hot and heavy happening, he falls into the trap of…shall we say…creative overstatement. His report in last week’s Seven Days is entitled “New Law to Boost Coverage for State Workers Raises Ethical Questions” but should be entitled New Law to Boost Coverage for State Workers Gets 7 Days Reporter to Attempt to Raise Ethical Questions, as he tries to argue that a bill being pushed by Campbell is not the worker-friendly bill it seems, as it will benefit lawyers like Campbell by raising uninsured motorist coverage limits to “$5 million for a state employee injured or killed on the job” from the current $250,000. Campbell is currently representing such a client and feels that the family in question is poorly served by the current cap of $250,000. Picard makes the point that the increase would also be an increase in payout for the lawyers (like Campbell) representing these clients.

Thing is, the bill wouldn’t apply to the current case, so Campbell stands to gain a big fat nothing. From his perspective, it was simply a matter of his seeing the problem through his own professional experience, and attempting a legislative remedy. And Picard apparently knows that, as he states in the article:

“its provisions are not retroactive and would not take effect until the following calendar year…. several Vermont lawyers and legal experts consulted for this story say that as long as Campbell’s bill isn’t made retroactive, it shouldn’t raise any red flags.”

So whats the problem? Nothing. And Picard apparently couldn’t even find anyone he could quote for the article that claimed there was. Nevertheless, the stated thesis of the article,  “Should lawmakers be allowed to propose legislation that, directly or otherwise, may benefit them personally?” – is a point he is inappropriately and irresponsibly making at Campbell’s expense, just to make it edgier. Come on, Ken. You know better.

Rep. Tom Koch (R-Barre Town), Concern Troll. Koch is very concerned that Democrats may use ineffective campaign messaging against his candidate, Senator John McCain. In yesterday’s Times Argus, he writes:

If you think that linking McCain to Bush is a good campaign strategy, you are mistaken. McCain is his own man – an independent thinker who works with hard facts and solid principles, who will always tell you the truth whether you want to hear it or not, and whose very being is summed up in one word: integrity. This year, it is John McCain, not George Bush, who is running for president.

Heh. Hit a nerve, there I guess. Thanks Tom. We’ll all take that into consideration. We know you’re just trying to…ah…. help.

Gratuitous old friend promotion. Talented friends that go all the way back to my teenaged Kentucky days. This one’s a musician (with her husband). Definitely give her a listen. This one’s an artist. She has some really beautiful stuff. Check ’em both out.

From ARG, via the Freeps (h/t to Wes, as I’d totally overlooked this. So much for my Google alerts…):

The poll numbers show Obama with 60 percent support among Democrats and independents planning to vote in the Democratic primary. Clinton had 34 percent and the remaining 6 percent was either undecided or favored someone else.

Raise your hand if you’re surprised.

Details after the flip, if you’re into that sort of thing.

Here’s the breakdown (compared to a poll a from a year ago) the ARG site:

Sample Size: 600 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of likely Democratic primary voters living in Vermont (364 Democrats and 236 independent voters and Republicans).

Sample Dates: February 20-21, 2008

Margin of Error: ± 4 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split.

Question Wording:

If the 2008 Democratic presidential preference primary were being held today between (names rotated) Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, for whom would you vote – Clinton, Obama, or someone else?

Would you say that you definitely plan to vote in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, that you might vote in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, or that you will probably not vote in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary?

Now, you just gotta love polls like this that take no understanding of statistics or polling or any other arcane stuff to be able to read. Just look at the change between Clinton’s and Obama’s counts over the year.

Clinton’s support remains a constant, within the margin of error. People who wanted to see her President last February haven’t changed their minds a whit.

And the same is true of Obama supporters. The difference is that Obama has managed to scoop up everybody else: the Edwards supporters, the undecideds… hell, even the Kucinich supporters.

It’s hard to imagine that everybody else so neatly lines up with Obama. In fact, it’s easy to demonstrate that many of them (such as the Kucinich supporters) don’t. ALl things being equal, the distribution of those voters should have been more evenly divided.

Which means that that increase has to be read as a repudiation of Clinton, as much (or more) than an embrace of Obama. In Vermont, the election has sorted into what many thought it would in the rest of the country: the Clinton supporters versus the non-Clinton supporters (beyond Obama’s initial 19%, which undoubtedly were more “pro-Obama” than “anti-Hillary”).

Obama, as the last “un-Clinton” standing, has reaped the benefits.

Of all the ruts the Vermont left seems to be in, the policy rut seems to be the most problematic. There are tremendous upsides to living in such a small state, where political interactions are generally more personalized affairs than in other arenas, but among the downsides is the political stereotyping – or perhaps archetyping – that happens. People slip into roles, and often seem to simply go through the motions in acting out those roles time and time again on the political stage.

Case in point, the needless tragedy that is the failure of H.304, which would have set up the State of Vermont to become the functional single insurance payer for Hospital care, in an attempt to jumpstart the transition to a single-payer system. As many on the left opined (myself included), 304 was a bad bill, poorly conceived, supported and understood – and as such doomed to failure as written. It was, however, the first meaningful, tangible attempt to make a real first step in the single-payer attention, and as such deserved more than to be unceremoniously dumped. Unfortunately, neither its supporters nor legislators were interested in making any progress, so immersed as they were in playing their respective, traditional roles.

For the legislators, that simply meant throwing up their hands because it was too hard. Now, this is a “citizen” legislature with limited time and support, and who depend on the executive branch to flesh out the legal nitty-gritties of whatever they pass, programmatically, so I have some sympathy given all that they’re asked to do – but still, there is no more important issue period, so the time must be made. This bill should have been taken on and at least discussed as a serious starting point.

And for the activist/supporters, it meant virtually phoning it in. A half-baked bill that makes it hard to believe they expected it to get a serious hearing. A public support campaign which cavalierly insulted people, rather than spoke to them, and a harsh unwillingness to accept any criticism. I received a rather unpleasant email from someone who, by their email address and “behind-the-scenes” take on  things, was clearly a Vermont Health Care for All insider. Let’s just say it was anything but open to criticism from anyone – even someone who publicly supports their cause. And the display in the Statehouse was even worse. When met with incredulity from serious lawmakers looking at the partially fleshed-out revolutionary overhaul of the system, many of the same, usual activist suspects just fell back on their old roles and chastised even friendly legislators like Senator Racine (D-Chittenden) and Representative Maier (D-Middlebury). It was as though they were covering their ears and going “na-na-na-CAN’T-HEAR-YOU-na-na-na” to even ideological allies who were merely skeptical about this particular approach.

The final result, predictably, seems to be a big fat nothing. Everybody going through the motions, and nobody surprised by the outcome. Is it possible that we need not only some fresh faces in the legislature, but also some fresh faces among the activist community?

Let’s talk solutions after the fold…

As GMD commenter SPS pointed out at the time:

My concern with this bill is the incentive structure it may put into play for many Vermonters with high-deductible insurance.  Basically, if a person needs to go to the doctor, but has a $3000 deductible, s/he is likely to try to go to the emergency room to try to take advantage of this benefit and avoid the deductible charge.  It encourages people to use the most expensive part of the health care system for relatively simple problems.  Maybe I am reading it wrong, but that is what it sounds like.

It might make more sense to start single-payer on preventative and chronic care side.

Agreed. But how?

The most successful progressive program in Vermont is arguably Efficiency Vermont. Efficiency Vermont is run through a private nonprofit and “provides technical assistance and financial incentives to Vermont households and businesses, to help them reduce their energy costs with energy-efficient equipment and lighting and with energy-efficient approaches to construction and renovation.” The concept is that the program and its recommendations, if implemented, conserves energy (across the state and for individual users), as a result bringing a user’s utility costs down by a certain amount, while getting funded with a charge on that bill that creeps it back up by far less than the savings provided by the program itself, maintaining a significant net decrease in consumer costs while perpetuating itself financially.

Could you do that with health care?

It’s not a clean fit, but it could be rhetorically powerful if you could make a programmatic approximation. It’d make the concept a much easier sell to a public (and to a legislature) which has grown comfortable with the Efficiency Vermont model.

Here’s a shot at it:

• Create a privately managed and administered network of providers to provide a set list of basic, preventative care procedures (e.g. health screenings, mammograms, and basic health maintenance including blood testing – possibly even inexpensive medicines for conditions like diabetes and hypertension. Some of the most common medications for those conditions are actually pretty inexpensive). Or, better yet – retrofit the already existing Catamount system to handle it…
• Have these procedures for Vermonters in the program paid for by the new state authority.
• Modify community rating so that signing onto the program can be considered by private insurers in setting rates. Mandate that Vermonters on the program must have their premiums reduced or rebated by a certain percentage.
• Pay for the program through a surcharge on health care premiums – but one far less that the premium reduction afforded for joining the program, leaving a significant net savings for the consumer in place.
• I would consider making the program as financially stable, predictable and manageable as possible, maybe by surveying how many Vermonters are likely to participate and giving participating providers block payments, rather than having them bill each individual procedure. If a doctor reaches the limit of what they’ve been block granted, an effort can be made to direct patients to another nearby doctor who isn’t so maxed out – and of course if that isn’t possible (or there is no other nearby participating provider), the state can start covering procedure by procedure. The block grant approach could have the added effect of further cutting into the clerical costs of health care. Of course, it would also make for some heinous end-of-year reporting requirements, but it’d still be less paper work than billing every individual procedure to the state. Perhaps a special recording/accounting/reporting software package could be standardized for participating providers.

Hopefully, such a system could be rigged to largely pay for itself, while bringing down premiums for individual Vermonters – again, mirroring Efficiency Vermont. There would be broad payoffs at the community level as well, as the health care costs impacting town budgets and local businesses could be noticeably effected.

One of my favorite elements is the idea that we wouldn’t be counting on all the mystery money saved by reduced paperwork and early treatment. Over the last couple decades, there has been a game of activist telephone played on those numbers. Somebody gives a ballpark estimate of x-many-millions that could be saved, that gets picked up, repeated, passed around – and then gets promoted as a firm value that budgets can be predicated on, which is nuts. There are guesses and speculations, but nobody can say for sure how much will or won’t be saved from such changes. In this system, we wouldn’t be depending on such phantom numbers. Those savings would simply present themselves – whatever they may be – and we can work with them from then forward.

It would also get more people comfortable with the idea of the state brokering their health care, and would be a meaningful way to grease the wheels towards single payer, should we ever get enough flexibility from the feds to go that far. As I’ve stated before, for such a transformational change as a single-payer health care system, there has to be enough buy-in from the general electorate to support taking the plunge, come what may.

Under such a program, it might end up making even more sense to a broader range of Vermonters for all the ethical, commercial and practical issues the rest of us talk so much about.

So – your turn. How might you make tangible steps into a single-payer world? Throw your ideas out there, or tear mine to shreds… or both.

Consider this an addendum to Jack’s diary below.

Not only is there an Obama campaign office newly opened in Montpelier, there are also Obama offices in White River Junction, Bennington, and – of course – Burlington. Tonight there was an Obama event in Windham County hosted by Senator Shumlin, featuring former Clinton administration National Security Advisor (and current Obama campaign senior foreign policy advisor) Anthony Lake.

There are also at least three paid staffers for the Clinton campaign in Vermont, while high-profile Hillary supporters have already begun “grasstops” phone calls to progressive leaders – and there are rumors of a possible stop in Vermont by Chelsea Clinton.

We may not be Texas or Ohio, but it is nice to feel like your vote matters to someone after all, isn’t it?

There are a couple names being batted around behind the scenes for a possible Lieutenant Governor run. Right now the one who seems most serious (although still not ready to leap in) may be Senator Jim Condos (D-Chittenden).

Condos reached the Senate in (I believe) the 2000 election. At the time, some activists were quietly concerned he would be too much of a conservative for comfort. In reality, Condos has been hard to pigeonhole. And he certainly has no qualms about challenging Republicans – whether it be online, or by confronting Bill O’Reilly’s goonsquad:

Rep. William Lippert, D-Hinesburg, was eating oatmeal in the Statehouse cafeteria a little after 8 a.m. when members of a camera crew, who bystanders said were from the Fox News program “The O’Reilly Factor,” arrived…

…Sen. James Condos, D-Chittenden, called the incident “extreme verbal abuse” against Lippert.

“I don’t think O’Reilly cares about the truth, I don’t think O’Reilly would know the truth if it hit him in the face,” Condos said.

Heh.

There are clear pluses to a Jim Condos candidacy – the most obvious that he might be able to cut into Essex resident Brian Dubie’s advantage in the critical swing Burlington suburbs, such as Essex and Condos’ own South Burlington, where he’s gained significant experience in municipal and regional government and enjoys wide support. He does seem to press Republicans’ buttons (especially in regards to education matters), as they engaged in a whisper campaign trying to suggest that he spent enough time out of Chittenden County that his residency should be questioned, so a Condos candidacy would certainly create some entertaining fireworks.

The question, of course, is – with the clock ticking – how serious is Condos, and how far along in his consideration of the effort is he? Reportedly, he had a sit down with Brian Dubie to apprise him of his electoral musings, but over email, he clearly indicated to me that he remains undecided. With the election only 8 months away, times a-wastin’, and these electoral vacuums are playing havoc with the morale of the Democratic base.

If this drags on too long, I’m gonna start pestering some of our GMD front pagers to swoop in and save the electoral day (heh, watch out, world)…