I was kind of surprised to see Virginia Senator Jim Webb at the top of the GMD Veepstakes poll. True, he definitely has some attractive qualities as a potential candidate, some of his economic policies are truly populist, and him being on the ticket would most certainly fill in some of the support gaps where Obama is lacking. But Webb is no progressive, and he's got some views that might (and should) present a problem for women and persons of color. Jack has briefly touched upon this in a post below, but there's a bit more to this story. Go below the jump for more.

Webb is undoubtedly a better Senator than his predecessor, George “Macaca” Allen. And there'd be a certain amount of schadenfreude in Webb making it into the Veep slot, as Allen had presidential aspirations until his not-so-covert racism did him in. But I think there's a just a bit too much “good-ol'-boy” in Webb for him to get the gig, considering that a huge part of our country's problems lie in that attitude being prevalent for so long. Now, this has been discussed before, but Webb's a pretty “traditional” guy when it comes to gender-related issues. Granted, one can hope that with age, he's come around, but there's a lot to be gathered from his 1979 article in the Washingtonian, called “Why Women Can't Fight”:

Lest I be understood too quickly, I should say that I believe most of what has happened over the past decade in the name of sexual equality has been good. It is good to see women doctors and lawyers and executives. I can visualize a woman President. If I were British, I would have supported Margaret Thatcher. But no benefit to anyone can come from women serving in combat.

The function of combat is not merely to perpetrate violence, but to perpetrate violence on command, instantaneously and reflexively.The function of the service academies is to prepare men for leadership positions where they may someday exercise that command. All of the other accomplishments that Naval Academy or West Point or Air Force Academy graduates may claim in government or business or diplomacy are incidental to that clearly defined combat mission.

[snip] 

Nowhere is this more of a problem than in the area of women's political issues. Equal-opportunity specialists, women's rights advocates, and certain members of Congress have prided themselves on the areas of the military they have “opened up” to women. The Carter administration has come out in favor of “allowing” women to go into combat. These advocates march under the banner of equal opportunity.

Equal opportunity for what? They should first understand that they would not be “opening up” the combat arms for those few women who might now want to serve in them, but rather would be forcing American womanhood into those areas, en masse, should a future mobilization occur.

Now, personally, I'd like to see less men and women in combat, period. And undoubtedly, Webb is a creation of the military, male-centric culture, his views are hardly unique, and he has said that his views on that have changed.That's not justifying them. But I can hardly see how this will help him, especially as the party is working to pull disgruntled Hillary supporters back into the fold, in particular the ones who feel she was “robbed” of the nomination. The last thing needed right now is a man on the ticket who has more or less told women to “be in their place”, so to speak. And not just strategically… I don't think we need someone who harbors (or has harbored) that attidude in the #2 spot, becuse it's simply wrong.

Now, the Confederacy, and more specifically, how one interprets the aims, essence, and spirit of the Confederacy, has become a much more sensitive topic in recent years, and rightly so (heck, just look at what we've been talking about on GMD about the VT Neo-Confederates in our midst, lately). Often, when symbols of the Confederacy are under attack, or that notion that the “state's right” that it was all about was primarily the “right” to have slaves, the apologists can often try to paint it in the color of “preserving Southern pride and heritage”. Webb has written about the Confederacy over his career, and David Mark at the Politico has just done a piece regarding Webb's views on that subject, and how it may be a problem for him:

He has suggested many times that while the Confederacy is a symbol to many of the racist legacy of slavery and segregation, for others it simply reflects Southern pride. In a June 1990 speech in front of the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery, posted on his personal website, he lauded the rebels’ “gallantry,” which he said “is still misunderstood by most Americans.”

Webb, a descendant of Confederate officers, also voiced sympathy for the notion of state sovereignty as it was understood in the early 1860s, and seemed to suggest that states were justified in trying to secede.

“Most Southern soldiers viewed the driving issue to be sovereignty rather than slavery,” he said. “Love of the Union was palpably stronger in the South than in the North before the war — just as overt patriotism is today — but it was tempered by a strong belief that state sovereignty existed prior to the Constitution and that it had never been surrendered.”

Now, I can't profess to know what is in Jim Webb's heart, but that his statements don't exactly make this Yankee feel all tingly inside. Now, those of you who were paying close attention to the Second VT Republic controversy (or if you pay attention to hate groups in general) may be familiar with the name of Edward H. Sebesta, author of the Anti-NeoConfederate Blog. Sebesta was interviewed for the article, and found Webb's statements troubling:

Edward H. Sebesta, co-author of the forthcoming “Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction” (University of Texas Press), said Webb’s views express an unhealthy regard for a political system that propped up and defended slavery.

His book, in fact, will cite Webb as an example of the mainstreaming of neo-Confederacy ideas into politics…“I don’t think people have thought through the implications of how his ideas have racial overtones, even if they are inadvertent,” Sebesta said.

Let me emphasize here, it's not just about “how it's percieved”. Political junkies know all too well how the perception game, when played sucessfully, can mask a less-than-well-intentioned agenda. Now, I'm not saying Webb is a racist or anything along those lines. I don't think he'd be a good choice in the end, not just because of the perception issue, moreso that I believe Webb, populism aside, is a bit too traditional in  attitudes that American needs to be changing, and would not sit well with Obama's “change” mantra, for better or worse. We don't need more good 'ol boys at the top of the ladder.

I suppose the last thing you want me to write about is another impeachment diary, right? Well this one merits special attention.

Dennis Kucinich is forcing a vote today on articles of impeachment.

Call Nancy Pelosi at (202) 225-0100

Peter Welch at (202) 225-4115

Go to C-SPAN.org for live coverage of and give us some updates. Let us know how the calls go or if you hear any new information.

It may have no shot but it’s nice to see it in the limelight again.

SPREAD THE WORD!

BTW, here’s my latest on Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christian-avard/impeachment-the-election_b_106401.htm

So, Symington did say she was running for Governor – right??

I dunno. At the Curtis Awards, where Madeleine Kunin basically announced Symington’s campaign for her, Kunin mocked those who were complaining that Symington was entering the race on the late side. She naturally got many cheers within the Democratic-bubble of a room.

But bubble it was, and in terms of campaigning, its a bubble Symington hasn’t yet shown much interest in leaving. Building a statewide campaign means building a functional, hyper-active, statewide nonprofit instantly – and with a built in, non-negotiable mission benchmark in November. It’s a big undertaking that takes time. And it takes lots of money. And raising money takes time. When Kunin mocked those that were saying “hurry up” to Symington and the Democratic Party, she was really mocking the realities of the space-time continuum. To great applause, no less. But that has always been the Democrats (and Progressives, for that matter) greatest problem; the unshakable certainty that they have it all figured out, and all the tsk-tsking is just coming from naive people who aren’t as in the know.

Well, here’s a bubble-popper: It’s only 4 months and 23 days until the election.

Symington has been an unmatched talent for building up the House Democratic caucus with relentless campaigns of small scale, neighborhood-esque “house party” events that focus on the personal scale with committed Dems and bring others in. It’s a terrific strategy, and one that could translate terrifically into a grassroots oriented, statewide campaign…

…if this were a year ago.

But its way too late for that. With this little time left, this is an earned/paid media campaign, whether she likes it or not, and first and foremost, the media needs to see that you’re serious. A “Symington for Governor” race car does not show anyone in the media (or the public) that you’re serious. That you’re capable of winning, or that parting with some of their hard-earned money in an economic meltdown is anything more than flushing it down a black hole. And yet the Symington for Governor website shouldn’t even count as a website. Even Douglas’s, which hasn’t been updated for a month has more going on.  Contrasted with the fantastic Pollina website, its disgraceful.

A Google news search of the last month turns up 318 hits for the search parameters “Jim Douglas” and “Vermont.” For “Gaye Symington” and “Vermont” I get 94. Sure, you can blame the power of incumbency – but in a google search like that, its not just the quantity… its the particulars. I see Symington hitting the Governor on the cleanup of Lake Champlain, but little else. And Douglas has since responded overwhelmingly to Symington’s response, and has been seemingly left with the last word, for now. Windfall profits tax for oil companies? The coverage is all Douglas and Bernie (of all people). Groundwater? Douglas. Yankee inspection bill? Douglas. Hemp, for Christ’s sake? Douglas.

If there are press releases that are countering this Douglas messaging, I sure aint seeing ’em.

At this late stage, if the Symington message machine can’t find a way to generate content on every issue with Douglas’s name on it that gets front page treatment, and not leverage media relationships to be sure her name gets included (and, for that matter, start taking more direct ownership of some of those headlines herself), she’d better get on it quickly.

If Symington is to have any hope at all, there is one thing that she has to have in play: rapid response. She needs to respond quickly to everything, and in such a way that puts Douglas on the defensive. There has rarely been a moment during her Speakership where Symington was not on the defensive, and it will work even less well in this setting. Stop worrying about “fun.” Scudder Parker’s bicycle powered campaign float was “fun.” Wanna know how many votes it got him?

Zero.

And if we’re really into tracking these things, I bet it wouldn’t be too hard to turn up some votes that it cost him.

Democrats have traditionally been god-awful at rapid response in this state. Why? Because we’re such experts. We understand messaging so well, we get that communication is a precious commodity. We ration out our bits to the press only under much careful consideration, refinement, meetings, emails and hyper-message targeting – and pat ourselves on the back for our skills.

And then we lose and wonder why.

The Sanders campaign virtually invented rapid response in Vermont, but the Dems never figured out its power until the Welch campaign, which reaped huge dividends in the media from running a professional, high-speed response operation.

Here’s a hint: quality is important, but is no less important than quantity. In fact, I think its less so. Better to look like youre doing too much to the media than too little, because once those reporters decide you’re not doing anything, you’re done for.

It’s only 4 months and 23 days until the election., folks. 4 months and 23 days.. There’s no explaining, processing, outsmarting or snarking that deadline away.

Cross posted from Rational Resistance:

I've been saying and writing that Jim Webb seems like the logical choice for Obama's Vice Presidential candidate. He has a military background, he's from the South, he even served in Reagan's cabinet. On the face of it he would seem to bring a lot to the ticket.

Well, maybe not so fast. Tim Noah has a piece in Slate today arguing that Webb would be a terrible choice for the job. He starts out with the fact that his prior sexist writings would likely alienate Clinton's supporters, even though he no longer supports the views he expressed, and goes on from there.

I encourage you to read it.

( – promoted by odum)

A surprise article in the Lobbying section of The Politico says elements of Vermont health care plan are being studied. Historic background of the ups and downs of the various efforts are given. I hope they pick the parts that work.

Wondering what health care might look like in an Obama administration?

Check out Vermont.

Two years ago, the Vermont Legislature approved an initiative moving the state closer to universal health care coverage. The scope of the plan, hampered by a recent Bush administration funding flip-flop, bears some similarity to Barack Obama’s health care proposal: no mandates, income-related subsidies, and savings through expanded prevention and wellness programs.

….The health care overhaul passed in May 2006 with the votes of all the Senate Democrats and five of the nine Republicans.

Not everyone was happy with the plan. The state Chamber of Commerce objected to the tax increases. And progressive groups didn’t like that the plan relied upon private insurance programs, rather than setting up a single-payer system.

…But today, even the strongest advocates are frustrated with how their plan has been implemented. So far, only about 5,000 people have enrolled in Catamount, far fewer than the 25,000 eligible for the program. Advocates blame the low enrollment on the bad economy.

http://www.politico.com/news/s…

This being a presidential election year seems to accentuate the political nature of many things. Hemp remains in the position that it’s in here in the United States not because of any difference of opinion based on facts, but primarily because of politics. We started the legislative season this year with five bills carried over from last year, and because of election politics we did not expect any new legislation to be introduced. We had high hopes for H.267, the Hemp for Vermont bill. Along with the agricultural policy non-profit Rural Vermont, we put nearly two years into getting the hemp farming bill passed.

Our hard work seemingly paid off, but at this point the hemp farming bill is still not certain to become law. Supporters worked hard and made sure that the bill moved out of committee and got the floor vote in the Vermont Senate that it deserved after passing in the House by an overwhelming 126 to 9 margin. The Senate vote was an even stronger 25 to 1! The day after Governor Douglas indicated that he would allow H.267 to become law, we put out the press release “Hemp for Vermont Bill Becomes Law.” Unfortunately, that may have been premature, as it was previously reported that a “pocket-veto” was not an option for the Governor. Please see the news stories below for full details on this somewhat confusing issue with Constitutional repercussions in Vermont.

[More…]

Article I

Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.

Article II

Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.

Article III

Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.

Article IV

Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.

Article V

Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.

Article VI

Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.

Article VII

Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.

Article VIII

Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.

Article IX

Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor

Article X

Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes

Article XI

Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq

Article XII

Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation’s Natural Resources

Article XIIII

Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries

Article XIV

Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency

Article XV

Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq

Article XVI

Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors

Article XVII

Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives

Article XVIII

Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy

Article XIX

Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to “Black Sites” Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture

Article XX

Imprisoning Children

Article XXI

Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government

Article XXII

Creating Secret Laws

Article XXIII

Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act

Article XXIV

Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment

Article XXV

Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens

Article XXVI

Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements

Article XXVII

Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply

Article XXVIII

Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice

Article XXIX

Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Article XXX

Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare

Article XXXI

Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency

Article XXXII

Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change

Article XXXIII

Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.

Article XXXIV

Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001

Article XXXV

Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders

Full list with details here.

Glad to see you’re on board with this Leahy, Sanders and Welch.

Oh … that’s right … you’re not! Better you have something to whine about than really take action.

I’ve seen comments here and there about how so much of the party favors Clinton for the VP slot.  Some have even suggested that this is the first real test of Obama’s leadership, such as illustrated here:

Early on in the debates, it was obvious that people wanted the Dream Ticket and that the two of them had a real chemistry.

Face it– the Democratic Party is and always has been a house divided. Obama has a chance to show some real leadership here by bringing the party together.

I’ve seen similar arguments throughout the blogosphere and I think they’re misguided.

The real test of leadership is not what choice Obama makes for the VP slot.  The real test of leadership is how he makes it.  Does he do so quickly, in order to placate disappointed party members or does he do so with careful and thoughtful deliberation?

Does he make a quick rash decision in the interests of bringing the party together or does he let the possibilities linger for a time?

Does he respond to the pressure from outside groups to force him to choose a specific candidate, or does he refuse to allow an entity within the party to dictate to him what his choice will be?

I don’t know about the rest of you but, to me, a leader is someone who actually, you know, leads on an issue: the best possible move Obama can make at this moment in time is to do exactly what he’s doing: say that it’s going to take some time and that this is a private process and that, eventually, a decision will be reached, and then take his time, with the support of his search committee, to find the best possible nominee not for this moment in time, but for November and beyond.

Veterans For America (VFA) strongly applauds Vermont Rep. Welch for co-sponsoring H.R. 6205, the Stop-loss Compensation Act, authored by Rep. Betty Sutton of Ohio. The bill requires that U.S. servicemembers whose tours of duty are involuntarily extended, commonly known as “stop-loss,” receive special pay for the duration of their extension.

More than 70,000 Soldiers have been stop-lossed since 2002.  During the recent Iraq troop “surge,” the number of troops stop-lossed reached 12,235.  Such orders harm the morale of our fighting men and women and are nothing more than a short-term crutch for maintaining force levels.  As Admiral Michael G. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently said “we need to move away from [stop-loss] as rapidly as we can.”

Of all the abuses borne by our servicemembers since the beginning of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, excessive reliance on stop-loss is one of the most egregious. Involuntary service negates the promise of our all-volunteer military. By forcing tens of thousands of troops to stay in the military, we have broken the contract that our servicemembers willingly entered into with their country.

VFA applauds Reps. Welch and Sutton’s efforts to mitigate the burdens placed on our troops and their families by stop-loss orders.  We encourage their colleagues in Congress to support this legislation.

Sheesh. What, I gotta do everything around here? Here are the final delegates to the DNC August Convention, chosen over this last weekend:

Unpledged Delegate:

Secretary of State Deb Markowitz

Pledged Party Leader and Elected Official Delegates:

Senator Sara Kittell

Senator Peter Shumlin

Pledged At-Large Delegates:

Linda Weiss – Corinth

Kevin Christie – Hartford

Sherry Merrick – Post Mills

Alternate At-Large Delegate: Tim Briglan – Thetford Center

Markowitz was elected the Vermont Delegation chair. Don’t know what it means to be the chair, but when I get to Denver and find out, I’ll let you know…