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.

(cross posted to Broadsides.org)

It looks like Vermont’s own Howard Dean is finally getting some heat for his complete inability to handle the Democratic delegate nightmare that is playing out in Florida and Michigan. As the head of the Democratic National Committee, this delegate fiasco has been occurring on Dean’s watch from the beginning when the two states first defied the party’s wishes regarding the timing of their primaries. And now Dean’s DNC is striking out in its attempts to find a happy ending to the mess.

Worse, it sure seems like Dean’s been playing his all-too-familiar duck and cover game with a political hot potato. Where, exactly, has he been during the public discourse on this mess? I’m no casual media watcher and I haven’t seen him at all.

It’s pretty clear that the Dem party power elite don’t think much of Dean anyway. I heard one pundit just scoff at the idea of Dean pulling the Obama and Clinton camps into his office to hammer out a deal, saying, “He just doesn’t have the stature.”

Vermonters, of course, are used to this kind of hiding from Dean. When the Vermont courts forced the legislature to pass the law allowing “civil unions” between gay and lesbian couples, Dean literally hid in his backroom (closet?) when he signed it. It was a most cowardly act and a major finger to the eye of the many people who worked hard on the issue and deserved the kind of public acknowledgment that normally accompanies such an historic occasion. But not with cowardly Howard – he just signed it in the backroom and then, years later, bragged about his involvement with the law on the national stage.

But it’s time for Dean to come out of hiding while the delegate mess continues to zap energy, time and focus from the real issues at hand. He’s got to stop acting like the hiding child while his parents fight in the other room. Dean is the chairman of the Democratic Party. And he needs to start acting like it.

If you thought stepping down as governor was going to be the end of Spitzer's troubles, outside the house anyway, there's more:

ALBANY — Federal prosecutors are investigating whether Gov. Eliot Spitzer used campaign funds in connection with his meetings with prostitutes, including payments for hotels or ground transportation, three people with knowledge of the investigation said.

The governor’s lawyers have begun consulting with a campaign finance expert who has long worked for Mr. Spitzer’s political organization to see whether campaign money was spent on the trips, including some as recently as last month, a person briefed on the investigation said.

Whatever you think about whether prostitution is a victimless crime, this looks pretty bad. The patronizing prostitutes would be unlikely to cost Spitzer his law license, but I imagine if this pans out it might.

Poll from the Caledonian Record online

Friday morning :Bush 49% naked 51%

No other options were available

Bothered In Brattleboro

Which would be the more offensive sight for you to see strolling along Main Street in Brattleboro, Vt.?

Please select one:

President George Bush  

A naked person  

Friday morning :Bush 49% naked 51%

No other options were available  

Yesterday was a red-letter day in my email in-box. I heard from both of my U.S. senators, Pat Leahy and Bernie Sanders. Leahy was lamenting the cost of the Iraq occupation, and wishing that we weren’t spending so much. He was pleased to have entered a recent article by Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes outlining the occupation’s true cost into the Congressional record.

Sanders wrote to inform me that me must consider three trends when considering the nation’s budget: inequality of wealth, children in poverty and the growing debt. Below are two open letters to our Senators.

Dear Senator Leahy,

My question to you is; why aren’t you doing anything about it? Your voice (and Bernie’s) should be dominating the airwaves calling for an end to the occupation.  Instead of repeatedly caving in to the “President’s” requests for funding, you should be leading filibuster efforts refusing one more nickel unless it’s for withdrawal.

Instead of being pleased with your efforts to nibble around the edges of Pentagon contractor fraud, or worrying about Harriet Meyers and whether you dare have her arrested for contempt, you should be going after the real villains from this crime scene: Bush/Cheney.

Your fine words are a cheap currency sir, better left to those of us who hold no power. You are in a position to do something about this administration that has lied us into war, has decided to use torture has spied on Americans, to mention just a few of their crimes. I don’t need to hear your lament; I want Congressional action.

.

Sincerely, Dan DeWalt

South Newfane VT

Dear Senator Sanders,

You list three major trends that must be addressed to better our nation, but, incredibly, you don’t even mention the two that are most significant: Iraq and the suspension of the rule of law and Constitutional adherence by the Bush/Cheney administration.

You would like to garner a few billion dollars here and there by increasing taxes on millionaires (a fine idea), yet you say not one word about the occupation in Iraq, which costs more in one month than your tax plan will reap in a year. And how can see importance only in economic terms, when this occupation has degraded us morally, debased us in the eyes of the world, and helped to foster a new status of America as a pariah nation, embracing torture as an important “tool” of our foreign policy, and engaging in an illegal war of aggression?

Equally incredible is your decision to blatantly ignore the flagrant violations of the Constitution and American law by the Bush/Cheney administration. The proud maxim once promulgated by our political leaders that we are a country of laws, not of men, has been disgracefully reduced to sniveling about getting a veto proof majority and the rule of law be damned.

I admire your interest in economic justice. But putting your head in the sand about Iraq and the Constitution does nothing but make your objectives unattainable.

Dan DeWalt

South Newfane VT

I just heard an interview of Hillary Clinton on VPR a couple of minutes ago, and the interviewer was pushing her on whether she's okay with winning with superdelegate votes even if she loses the popular vote. (By the way, I'm okay with it–we knew the rules going in, and I think there are good reasons for the superdelegate system.)

What I thought was interesting was the way she seems to be trying out a new line on why she should win. Even if she doesn't get the popular vote in all the primaries combined, we should look at states where the Democratic candidate can win. She said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that we're not going to win Alaska, or Utah, or South Dakota anyway (states that Obama won) but we can, and we need to, win states like Michigan and Florida. The implication was that they should count more in deciding who the nominee should be.

Of course, they do, because they have more delegates. Still, she seemed to be saying more, like maybe discounting the results of even big states if we are pretty sure they are going to go for McCain.

Maybe this isn't so much about Alaska and Utah as it is about the fact that we now know that she also lost Texas, but it seems to demonstrate a certain level of desperation on her part, leading to another in the shifting rationales for her candidacy. 

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.

[cross posted at Broadsides.org]

I guess the Pollina campaign will be the gift that keeps giving to this writer-boy. It’s just too bad that the mainstream media here in Vermont won’t wake up to the campaign’s many silly blunders. Yesterday, of course, we highlighted some of the names listed on the “Democrats for Pollina” website as being far from “Democrats.” And today I got a tip from a vegetable farmer here in Vermont who found it comical that Pollina’s little video speech on his campaign website about the importance of “buying Vermont food products” features a backdrop of…ready for this: bananas, oranges and a watermelon. Watch it yourself:

Like I said yesterday, this campaign is not ready for primetime – deep in the recesses of cable access, perhaps. But not primetime.

I mean, wouldn’t you think Pollina or someone on the campaign staff or video crew would stop to consider what food product is behind him when he says these words to Vermonters:

The State must set the example when it comes to buying Vermont products and helping provide markets for our farmers. It is frustrating to know that our prisons, state colleges and other institutions are still buying and serving dairy and other products that could be bought right here at home. We need more instate processing of meats, vegetables and other farm products. We need to make investments in agriculture infrastructure and on farm enterprises. And we need to build a Vermont Fair Trade certified brand of dairy and other Vermont products.

Or am I missing something and did Vermont just become a major grower of bananas, oranges and watermelons? Heh, you never know with global warming…

While campaign video backdrops may seem trivial, it does point to a continued sloppiness in what is increasingly looking like a haphazard and desperate effort. Remember, this is the campaign that began by trying to parse the definition of “intend,” as in: “I intend to run for governor.” He did that, of course, so he could keep his radio show (Equal Time) going while setting up the campaign without having to play by the “equal time” norms of campaigning. Cute.

And this is also the campaign that played semantics with his fundraising efforts. You’ll recall that Pollina announced at one point that his campaign had a goal of raising $100,000 by mid-January. Well, mid-January came and Pollina did what he thought he had to do: announce that the goal had been met. But when some of the Vermont media woke up for a brief second and asked for proof, Pollina had to admit that at least $30,000 of that money was in the form of “pledges.” Sure, Tony, just play loose with the facts and keep pretending you’re above the political games.

And now we come to his “buy Vermont” faux pas. Of course we all support the notion of buying local. Some of us have been doing that long before the trendy “localvore” movement became…well…trendy. But if you’re going to get up on a video soapbox and lash out at your opponent’s lack of follow through about “buying Vermont products first,” wouldn’t it be wise to hide the bananas, oranges and watermelons in the background? Or, better yet, wouldn’t you want to be featuring some good-old-fashioned Vermont products? Just a thought.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of “do as I say, not as I do” norm that many of us have seen from Pollina over the years. He wants to talk about his “closeness” with the “working man” but he’s more often than not seen sitting at the coffee shop during working hours. He wants to talk about the horrors of things like pesticides but starts a non-organic milk company. He talks about the problems of bovine growth hormone (rBGH) but is too scared to join efforts against the Cabot Creamery’s use of it. He talks about the importance of a third party but covets the Democratic Party’s support. He talked about the importance of public financing of campaigns but then ran into some very rich friends. And now he’s telling voters about the importance of buying Vermont produce with bananas as a backdrop.

Frankly, I’m not sure if Pollina’s clueless or just another smarmy politician amongst many. Either way, it amounts to a terrible start to what everyone admits is a huge uphill battle to unseat the incumbent governor, Jim Douglas. I guess he’s satisfied with fooling the same 15% of the population that he always does – and then calling it a “victory.”

Vermont progressives deserve better.