Late last Winter and on into late Spring Democrats waited and waited for possible candidates for governor to complete the “thinking about it seriously ” ritual process and run .The word was there was plenty of time and this is the way it was always done,relax .Now, with heart breaking speed on the heals of the last election we have a possible candidate for two years from now .Are we in the midst of a sea change of tradition or just a strategic break with tradition?I am pleased that some challenge to Douglas is shaping up early. If the dialog is to be shifted out of Douglas’s comfort zone an early start is needed.Early and united opposition is something Douglas may find new ,if he runs.Kind of a game changer though if Douglas bows out in favor of other opportunities.The field might get crowded early on both sides . Uh,oh ,gotta go stuff a turkey now ,nah,plenty of time its early.

MONTPELIER – State Treasurer Jeb Spaulding said Wednesday that he is considering running for governor in 2010, a decision he will make within the next three months.

“I’m giving it serious consideration,” said the Democrat, when asked by The Times Argus in a broader interview if he was eyeing the gubernatorial race.And he said, referring to Republican Gov. James Douglas’ hold on the state’s top office since his inauguration in January 2003, “As a Democrat, I’m tired of losing.”

Spaulding said he would move quickly on the decision, even though he won’t know whether Douglas will also be running or will step aside for 2010.

http://www.timesargus.com/arti…

It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven

Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:

It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.

CORRECTED–Thanks, MadamPince

These are the words of Portia, defending Antonio in court against her own father in The Merchant of Venice. Apparently Portia doesn't qualify to work at the Washington County State's Attorney's office.

You see, Matt Manning pled guilty today to the heinous act of hitting Governor Douglas with a pie. I'm one of those who thought he shouldn't have done it. Matt feels that way too, saying in court today:

I don’t see anything good that has come from it,” he said, describing himself as “… a disappointment to my community” and offering his apologies to Douglas, his family – several of whom were in the courtroom – and the community at large.
“I’ve learned that it wasn’t funny,” he said, describing the prank as “a mistake.”

 That sounds like a good outcome, doesn't it?. Nobody got hurt, a young man realized that he made a mistake and harmed the community, and it's pretty clear he's not going to be doing it again.

Not good enough for State's Attorney Tom Kelly, though. He's asking for forty-five days on the chain gang.

“If you had a scale of one to 10 on disorderly conduct your honor it’s a 10 and I think the court should impose a sentence that reflects that,” he said,

 Yes, you read correctly: disorderly conduct.

So in this season of pardons for turkeys, both the winged and human kind, you can thank your lucky stars that you're probably safe from a pie attack this year, unless what you're really worried about is overeating.

It seems our little dustup at GMD is quite timely.

Following the withdrawal of John Brennan for consideration to any Obama Administration Chief Intelligence position and the subsequent blaming of “bloggers” (including otherwise “hands off Obama” progressive bloggers such as Glenn Greenwald) for his fall from favor, the traditional media has picked up on the notion that many progressives are feeling squirmy (or even more actively unhappy) at the sense that voices on the left are being passed over as Obama puts together his governing team.

In fact, there’s been a mini-explosion of coverage on the topic. Here’s Dean Baker on NPR, Hotline coverage, USA Today and even this from the Canadian media as some examples.

Obama himself seemed a trifle annoyed annoyed at his press conference – perhaps a sign that the concerns are indeed reaching his ears.

It will surprise few that I think this is a good thing. In fact, this is what many of us hoped to do: get his attention and say “hey, don’t forget us, we helped get you into office, remember…? Really hoping your coalition doesn’t include everybody-but-us”.

And actually, its even better than that, as progressive economic guru Paul Krugman has weighed in on the matter:

A thought I’ve had: there have been some complaints from movement progressives about the centrism/orthodoxy of Obama’s economics appointments. To some extent this was unavoidable, I think: someone like the Treasury secretary has to be an experienced hand who can deal with Wall Street, and I haven’t heard anyone proposing particular individuals with clearer progressive credentials to hold that position…

But the Obama administration’s new economics advisory board would seem like a very good place to give progressive economists a voice. There are a number of excellent people whom Obama might not want to put in line positions but would be very much worth bringing in to offer well-informed alternative views.

Notice his use of the term “movement progressive.” That’s a signal directly to folks like the Open Left crowd that they’re being heard. And by reassuring these folks that things are gonna be okay, Krugman is – willingly or not – taking on the role of media good cop to the agitated bloggers’ bad cop.

With this dynamic playing out before the President Elect, there’s a sense that the agitating-bloggers have accomplished what they wanted, and I, for one, feel better about the prospect of being at the table in something more than a tokenistic way, or only in the person of Melody Barnes (she sure sounds like a progressive, at any rate). In fact, Sargent at TPM speculates on the following scenario offered by Krugman:

For the leading progressive economic voice to be saying this is obviously good for Obama. But Krugman also has a challenge for the President-elect, pointing out that the new economics advisory board unveiled today offers him “a very good place to give progressive economists a voice.”

“Let’s see whether progressives do in fact get a seat at this particular table,” Krugman says.

Indeed. Obama did say today at his presser that “labor” would be given a seat at this table. Here’s the perfect opportunity for Obama to allay the concerns — founded or not — that some liberals have been giving voice to.

Sounds good. If it plays out that way, I, for one, will consider it yet another testament to speaking out to make sure you aren’t taken for granted or otherwise forgotten. I may be wrong, but I expect within the week we’ll hear Obama go out of his way to announce some high profile, significant positions going to more progressive thinkers. At least I hope so.

Sometimes I read something, and say, I just can’t believe we got this guy elected.  How awesome is that?

Be sure to read the whole thing, (I got it over at Daily Kos), but I’ll just quote a little from the press pool report from this afternoon:

The First Family-to-be were positioned at the start of the food line; their job was to hand out white plastic bags filled with fresh chicken. Recipients then moved down the line to receive bags of potatoes, apples, loaves of bread and large boxes of staples including macaroni and cheese, tomato sauce, peanut butter, canned corn, oatmeal, Miracle Whip, mixed fruit and other items.

Obama called out: “We’re ready, let’s go, bring ’em on in,” and the distribution began.

Clearly, those lining up for food hadn’t been told they had an importangt guest helping out. this day. Many of them lit up; some shrieked with delight and hugged one or more of the Obamas. One elderly woman bowed; all seemed very appreciative. One and all were greeted with handshakes, hugs, and hearty “Happy Thanksgivings.”

The daughters behaved like troopers for a half hour or so before the cold caught up with them, and they retired for a few minutes to warm up.

One sixty-something neighborhood resident named Daryel Namdan was asked how it felt to have Obama there. “It makes me feel very special,” he said, before choking up.

[…]

After shaking hands with the food bank volunteers, he [Obama] came over to the pool and had this to say:

“The number of people who are getting food this year is up 33%. It gives a sense times are tough – and I think that on Thanksgiving it’s importat [sic] for us tpo [sic] remember there’s a need for support.

“These folks were already oftentimes having a tough time, and it gets tougher now.” He encouraged all Americans of means to help out however they could. “This is part of what Thanksgiving should be all about,” he said.

Asked why he’d brought his daughters along, he replied: “I want them to learn the importance of how fortunate they are and to make sure they’re giving back.”

I mean, think about it.  Can you even imagine any of our Republican presidents (or the nominees) from the last two decades doing this?

Wow.

After what seemed like years of meeting with City officials, gaining local grassroots support, and discussing the petition wording ad nauseam (OK, it was only 2 weeks, but I am not really a patient person :-), the Rutland IRV effort is now ready to start collecting petition signatures!

The petition is to have a Charter change question placed on the March 3, 2009 ballot to have the Rutland City Mayor elected using instant runoff voting (IRV). The Charter change would be similar to the one Burlington passed a few years ago and now uses to elect their Mayor.

IRV is good because it ensures that the candidate who is elected has majority support (the current Mayor of Rutland was elected with just 33% of the vote), and does it in a way that doesn’t involve a costly separate runoff election.

This effort is endorsed by Rutland DFA, Democracy For Vermont, Fair Vote and Vermont Common Cause. Several more organizations are expected to make official endorsements this week.

We are looking for 40 volunteers to collect 20 signatures each. If you can help, please email me at jjem1999@yahoo.com

Douglas’s new head of the Agency of Human Sevices, Rob Hoffman (former Corrections Commisioner), was on Vermont Edition yesterday. As VPR puts it, AHS is “the state’s largest agency and it provides services to the most vulnerable people”.

Host Jane Lindholm discussed the upcoming, widely expected push from the Douglas Adminsistration to respond to budget issues by cutting into critical social programs and jobs, and invoked the recent “kerfuffle” (as she describes it) over emails released to the press that discussed the possibility of reclassifying social service jobs so they could be eliminated under the public’s and the legislature’s radar. Lindholm suggested better transparency might be a good idea (not, obviously, if Douglas & Company intend to hide things), and what steps Hoffman might take to make the decision making process open. Here’s an audio clip:

(“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.”-Edward R. Murrow – promoted by kestrel9000)

I didn’t vote for Obama. In the end I chose Nader as my “none of the above” because McKinney didn’t make it onto Vermont’s ballot.

Why didn’t I vote for Obama? I grew disillusioned with his drift into neo-con foreign policy land and his willingness to go along with the same tried and failing economic plans that have been tried and failed more often than not in the last 30 or 40 years.

I was still considering Obama when I placed my #2 pencil close to the ballot. In particular I appreciated Obama’s comments that we as individuals are responsible for what goes on around us … it’s not just some government’s job to make things work right.

What kept my attention the most was Obama’s ability to articulate a big view. He was able to to talk about life in philosophical terms … the vision thing if you will.

But this is where I became uneasy too.

While Obama talked about a world built from the bottom up, his policy choices have been more in tune with the top down: a mandatory medical insurance plan instead of a national health care plan; big brother spying permissions as in the telecoms vote; expanding the military even beyond its already bloated size; more federal mandates on our schools; expanding “faith” based funding.

Nothing about Obama bothers me as much as his foreign policy: it wasn’t Georgia, it was all Russia’s fault; Israeli pandering; expanding our war machine; not wanting to really pull out of Iraq; expanding the Afghanistan war not only in that country but into Pakistan too.

I don’t like his cabinet and close staff picks for the most part: for someone who talked about change there sure is a hell of a lot of the same ol’ same ol’ Clinton administration heading back to the White House. Apparently Obama has also picked up the concept of borrow and spend without regard to what’s going to happen to future generations because of our financial missteps … to me it speaks poorly of his choice in economic advisers.

Don’t expect some grassroots driven presidency. I’ve never seen any indication that Obama doesn’t run that which he heads. Trying to hold his feet to some mythical post-election fire when he’s cloistered himself in Chicago isn’t going to cut it.

BUT …

I’ll know by mid-summer where Obama is heading with his administration. Until then I plan on keeping my undies unbunched and working at those things I believe I can be helpful in.

If nothing else … he’s a legitimate electee.

I’m going to do something here I don’t usually care to do, which is simplify a complex issue into two basic camps.  Those camps are “hold his feet to the fire” and “relax and let him do what works for him.”

For short, I’ll all those two camps “firebugs” and “hibernators.”  If this insults either or both camps, I’m okay with that.

So let me say right now I am of both camps.  Really.  I’m not trying to play nice with everybody.  I’m just feeling both things.  I cried at Obama’s acceptance speech, but whenever he mentions “clean coal” I cringe or shout obscenities at the TV (literally; it’s happened more than once that I’ve shouted something out loud).  

Some of his appointees thrill me.  Others don’t.  I’m okay with that.  I’ve said before that I’d rather have competent people who don’t share my ideology than incompetent people who do.  A big take home from the Bush “administration” should be that you pick good people to do the necessary work of government, even if their politics don’t share yours.

I’ll take one specific example: David Iglesias was a Republican appointee to the Justice Department whom Gonzales fired because he refused to play ball and use his office for political retribution.  I don’t care that he’s a Republican.  Obama should offer him a good position in the AG’s office because he clearly cares more about justice than he does about politics.  

But that’s beside the point.  I want to talk about the anger I’m seeing from both camps: people who feel like they’re being told to STFU and not criticize Obama or Democrats, and people who feel as though those who are criticizing Obama or Democrats are betraying the party.

But before I get to that, I will mention something with a little bit of perspective on the history of this.

In ’92, I worked on the Clinton campaign.  When he won I was thrilled.  A lot of us were.  I didn’t have high expectations of Clinton, but I knew he was better than Bush.  I had also been part of ACT/UP, which was an important AIDS activist group which actively challenged the Bush administration during his time in office.

A lot of activism died when Clinton took office.  ACT/UP lost focus.  Anti war groups weren’t sure what to do with themselves.

Even though Clinton would have made a much better President than Bush, I greatly regretted the failure of activists to keep Clinton’s feet to the fire.  I understand the need to think that things are getting better, and the need to relax after 12 years of pro-war presidents.

But, as activists, I think we failed during the Clinton years. We didn’t do our jobs.  We didn’t protest when Clinton engaged in inappropriate overseas military action.  We didn’t challenge him when he put forth “anti-terrorism” legislation which invaded privacy.

Don’t get me wrong.  I am extremely happy that Obama is president.  But I can be extremely happy about it and still be angry about his FISA vote.  I can be looking forward to his inauguration while questioning whether or not his inner circle will include progressive voices.  I can think that he’s our best hope out of this economic mess while still wondering if Larry Summers is the best person to be at his side during this.  

So I guess what I want to say is that I don’t think we should STFU, nor do I think we should be attacking Obama for everything he does that doesn’t perfectly suit a progressive agenda.  But we do need to pressure him and find ways to promote our own agendas without being so far over the top that we find our way into irrelevancy.

And as I write this, I admit that there’s a part of me which is just tired.  I feel like I’ve been fighting these battles for decades now and I don’t know how many more I want to be fighting.  So there’s a real and honest temptation to say “you know, I can sit this one out and not complain when I hear references to clean coal.”  

But I know what that voice is; it’s just the part of me that wants a fairy tale ending.  It’s not honest.  It’s not real.

So yeah, I’m in both camps, and I understand both camps.  But we need one another to work this through, and we need to accept that criticism is not an attack, that pushing our agendas is part of how politics works, and that this was a really long election and it took a lot out of all of us, and it’s okay to just say “I need a break” and let things go for a little.

So that’s my thought on the topic.

What’s yours?

Vermont Yankee seems to cough up a fur ball about once a week .A sign today of a possible setback as the NRC rules to examine metal on a water supply nozzle used to cool the reactor core . But the NRC is a strange incomprehensible regulatory beast .Neil Sheehan, an NRC spokesman, said”the ruling does not reflect badly on the agency staff’s handling of the metal fatigue issue.”As always Entergy is pressing to go more quickly.Give us the renewal,we can check the cracks later .

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, a panel that acts as the judicial arm for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said in a 154-page decision that Entergy needs to do more tests now, not later, on metal nozzles used to supply water and maintain the temperature in the reactor core.

Entergy had proposed putting off such tests until sometime after the anticipated 2012 date for renewal of its license. One of the nozzles is critical to protecting the reactor’s core in the event of an accident.

Monday’s ruling was a victory for the New England Coalition, a Brattleboro nuclear watchdog group ….”We are the first citizen organization in the country to have one of our contentions sustained by the hearing board,” said Raymond Shadis, a coalition consultant. “Vermonters ought to be extremely proud of what this little, homegrown, organization has done.”

That was from the Free Press coverage …

This from the Rutland Herald causes a little bit of puzzlement .They report basically the same story , including this quote “Is it legally permissible and technically appropriate to issue the license now, and allow Entergy to postpone the necessary metal fatigue analysis until later? Our answer is no,” the panel members wrote in their decision. But curiously floating alone in the article is this claim made by the reporter  …. “However, the ruling by the three-judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission seems unlikely to pose a major obstacle to the plant’s plans to continue operating beyond 2012.”

http://www.burlingtonfreepress…

http://www.rutlandherald.com/a…

Political cartoonist, Tim Newcomb, has been

Tim Newcomb's first collection of Vermont editorial cartoons was just released, and there's gonna be a party! Come on out Tuesday, December 9 at The Black Door! Cash bar and appetizers, but most of all, a great celebration of "Nuke" and his 25 years of Vermont political cartoons! Party-goers get $3.95 off the cover price, making "A Gaggle of Governors" a great holiday gift for only $15. Party poopers pay $18.95 retail. (Ok, if you can't make it, you're not a party pooper.)

From Green Mountain Daily

Some teaser cartoons just below the fold…

From Green Mountain Daily

From Green Mountain Daily

From Green Mountain Daily