…I’m sort of glad I am, because it gives me advance notice of things like this:

“Sadly,” I can’t make the rally.

The Reformer today ran a story on an internal member survey conducted by EntergyNuclear’s lobbyist, which they call VT Energy Partnership. The story missed the best parts of the survey:

EntegyNuclear’s own club members prefer water power over nuclear by 28%! They prefer wind power over nuclear by 25%! And they prefer biomass energy generation by 14%!

Even among their own group’s membership, 20% oppose running the Vernon reactor for twenty more years!

Online polls such as this one are notoriously unreliable because they are not random. Only members of EntergyNuclear’s group were surveyed. The poll was stacked in favor of EntergyNuclear from the start, but even so, nuclear loses to other energy sources.

In failing to get comment from the majority of Vermonters, who want a safe, reliable and nuclear-free energy future, the Reformer printed EntergyNuclear’s bought-and-paid for interpretation of their survey results, without noting the real story: Even nuclear boosters like nuclear least.

Nuclear power has had its day. It’s too bad we’re stuck with a crumbling old reactor and a million years of nuclear waste in Vernon, for forty years of electricity.

 

While the (in my opinion) unreliably anonymous (and verifiably out-of-state, corporate) politickervt (which may or may not be any more accurate a source of information than the original PoliticsVT, we shall see…) is trying to paint Anthony Pollina as some sort of John McCain in the temper department, claiming that he’s been hanging up the phone on Democratic leaders who aren’t sufficiently responsive to his candidacy, what draws my attention and is a bit more… er, dependably verifiable… is his website. One thing we can be certain of is the fact that Pollina has – finally – begun reaching out to more of the Democrats he claims to need and want supporting him (although some key, and obvious, Democratic leaders have still not been approached, by him or his proxies). Could we be finally starting to see signs of this new-Pollina, who knows he can’t demonize and vilify a whole swath of voters whose support he needs? His early rhetoric suggests that he no longer expects some mythical wave of heretofore unengaged voters to carry him to victory over the political rubble of the Democrats, but rather understands he needs their votes, and must therefore build bridges rather than burn them, all in the interests of overcoming the common enemy. Well, I sure hope so, but I couldn’t help but notice that, on his new improved (and very nice, I might add) campaign web page, there are no attacks, disparaging comments or otherwise comparative assaults on Jim Douglas or the Republicans.

That’s not to say somebody isn’t attacked, its just not Jim Douglas. Who is the only visible subject of scorn on the new-improved, bridge-building candidate Pollina’s website?

Democrats.

But you probably guessed that already. Ahhh, here we go again.

UPDATE: Still no change on the website. Given that many on Pollina’s team have now read this diary and the reactions, they could easily have pulled the diary by now if it wasn’t their intention to get in a cheap shot.

…and, as readers have pointed out, the Reformer story that the excerpt links to is… er… parsed, shall we say. Interestingly (or maybe not so much), the “more” link on Pollina’s site takes you to another page on the same site with the “complete” article – except that it’s not complete. It only includes the piece that puts down the Democratic Party, and in fact removes pieces from the beginning, middle and end, making for a very different read – with a very different point. Curious as to what they decided to exclude? Here’s an example of the very next paragraph, that immediately follows the line shown (“It is frankly amazing to us that the Vermont Democratic Party continues to flop around, totally unable to come up with a credible candidate to challenge Gov. James Douglas in November.”)It’s still available in Google’s cache:

But perhaps this is starting to change. Former ambassador Peter Galbraith of Townshend paid a visit to the Statehouse on Tuesday to speak to the House Democratic Caucus, and he was warmly received. Galbraith has expressed interest in running for governor, but so far he has taken his time in making a decision.

A Galbraith candidacy is an interesting possibility. His bona fides as a liberal are unquestioned. When your father is John Kenneth Galbraith, one of the towering economic and political figures of the 20th century, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

His ties to Vermont go back to his youth and the summers and vacations he spent on his family’s farm in Newfane. He’s not a native, but then again, neither is Douglas.

ANd of course, there is no suggestion of where it is in any way edited on Pollina’s site – no elispses or anything – just the word “excerpt” near the top. They’ve essentially re-crafted it as their own and presented it as a complete piece. Tacky, tacky, tacky.

Just got this letter from Leahy (link points to full text):

Tuesday is a critical day in our fight to stand up for American values and preserve our freedoms while protecting our national security.

Tomorrow the Senate will vote on amendments to FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the law governing the use of wiretaps and other means to conduct surveillance of foreign threats.

Unfortunately, the new FISA bill we’ll be voting on Tuesday still has many problems.  I will do everything in my power — including joining my colleague Chris Dodd in a filibuster against this legislation — to fix it.  

That’s pretty much what I was hoping to hear.

There’s a funny parody of that “Yes We Can” Obama vid making the rounds, done up for John “Rambo” McCain. Enjoy!

Who says John McCain can’t inspire this nation… With three simple words, Gonna Be Wars…

Hilarious.

As pundits go, I am generally pretty fond of Paul Krugman.  He is a top-notch economist and he speaks with a progressive voice on a variety of issues.

This morning, however, he seems to be taking his cues from Robert Novak:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?ref=opinion

He talks about all the venom coming from the Obama camp, but doesn't cite a single example.  Not one.  The two examples he does cite are ones the Obama camp had nothing to do with: HRC's comments on MLK and LBJ and this week's Shuster-flap.

I am not saying the Obama campaign is a bunch of saints. Michelle Obama should have clear and forthright that they will support HRC if she is the nominee, but that is pretty minor stuff and I think there are a lot of Democrats who feel similarly (including yours truly).  Obama also has a very strong response to criticism (Look at what they said about Bush after his comments over the weekend), but this is a presidential campaign.

So Obama spews some sort of mystical venom, but Krugman concludes that he may not be up to responding to a swiftboating. 

If Obama is the nominee, I think it presents the GOP hate machine with a real vexxing challenge.  Obama is not John Kerry or Al Gore – he is much more charismatic and able to provide a robust response to a swiftboating. The glove that throws the return punch may have a velvet glove on, but there is an iron fist underneath.

I accept the fact that Krugman doesn't like Obama.  However, if he is going to attack him, I'd like to see Krugman do it as a member of the reality-based pundit community. 

The “status of forces” agreement currently being worked out between the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government behind closed doors has a lot of Democrats and war opponents concerned. Despite assurances from Defense Secretary Gates that any agreement “will not contain a commitment to defend Iraq and neither will any strategic framework agreement” and that they “do not want, nor will we seek, permanent bases in Iraq”… well, let’s just say nobody’s ready to buy those kinds of assurances from Bushco anymore.

Rep. Peter Welch has joined with 19 of his colleagues to try and raise the profile of the issue and sound warning bells about some early indications that the final product, in fact, may not be consistent with Gates’s testimony (imagine that!). From the letter: Most disconcerting to us are the security-related obligations laid out in the Declaration of Principles, including a commitment to support “the Republic of Iraq in defending its democratic system against internal and external threats,” to provide “security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression,” to support Iraq “in its efforts to combat all terrorist groups” including “Saddamists, and all other outlaw groups regardless of affiliation,” and to support Iraq in “training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces.” Foremost amongst our concerns is that such terms will commit U.S. forces to combat any internal armed faction or external enemy that is deemed a threat by the al-Maliki government regardless of whether such action is clearly in our national interest. Also a matter of concern are indications that this agreement will further codify the immunities enjoyed by civilian contractors such as Blackwater, who have most recently been fingered for using chemical agents on Iraqi civilians and US troops in order to clear traffic for themselves.

The current US presence in Iraq is ostensibly under a United Nations mandate. It’s a fig leaf, obviously, but the Bush Administration is making moves to toss the fig leaf entirely and more directly, formally and intimately entangle the US with the Iraqi government (such as it is). This raises eyebrows to be sure – especially since it would run counter to the oft-expressed will of the public to disengage, rather than more tightly bind ourselves to the Iraqi quagmire, but it also flies in the face of the administration’s song and dance that we are always on the cusp of “standing down as the Iraqis stand up.”

Such an agreement could also put the new, incoming President into a far stickier situation in regards to implementing his or her own Iraqi policy (which – come on – is probably the intent).

Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut introduced legislation in January to specifically demand that any such agreements be done in concert with Congress, and the bill has gathered 42 cosponsors. It’s currently been referred to the House Committees on Foreign Affairs and Armed Services. The bill would have to pass, not be blocked by the GOP in the Senate, not get vetoed and then not be ignored by Bush to be meaningful, of course. Long odds, to put it mildly. Still, if it came to a full-on battle, Congressional Dems may also be able to make a Constitutional argument on the Congressional power to enter into treaties under Article II before the Supreme Court. You know, the Supreme Court which Bush has been stacking…

But even under the best of circumstances, the way Article II has shaken out historically is not promising. In November, Bush military adviser General Douglas Lute remarked that “We don’t anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress.” In other words: forget it, folks. If we wanna tie ourselves militarily and economically to Iraq in any way we please, we’re not gonna waste our time coming to you about it. In this particular case, Bush wouldn’t be ignoring Constitutional precedent, as it would seem that in historical practice and judicial interpretation, the Executive Branch has wide leeway on deciding what is and isn’t a treaty that it is obliged to get Senatorial approval on.

Unfortunately, that means this legislation is, at present, the only way to go.

Oy. It’s gonna be a long year.

The always interesting Talking Points Memo has a little newsbit about former candidate John Edwards’s meetings with the two remaining presidential contenders regarding an endorsement, which the aide claims is a 50-50 possibility at this point. What’s interesting is that, while campaign observers have cast the question of an Edwards endorsement in terms of what kind of deals the former Senator may or may not make for himself, the anonymous source suggests the question for Edwards is much more about the issues – and as such is a perfect mirror of the online discussions that his former supporters have been engaged in:

The aide says he talked about “who’s going to carry on the mantle of fighting for the voiceless,” and is trying to gauge which of the two “will sign their name in blood in order to make that commitment.”…

“He’s torn,” the aide said “He has reservations about Hillary, which are pretty apparent.”

On Obama, the aide says, Edwards worries “whether he’s tough enough to be President of the United States. If you look at what Edwards ran on, which is not negotiating with the special interests, taking away their power, that’s pretty different than the Obama model.”

The Edwards aide added that Obama’s lack of a health care plan with a “mandate” is a “tough hurdle for him to get over.” He added, however, that Edwards is much more in line with Obama on other issues.

So Edwards himself is precisely where his many supporters are – conflicted. And at its core, it has less to do with Obama than Clinton herself. On domestic issues, the fact is that Clinton’s stated positions are bolder, whether it be health care, housing or the environment. The big stumbling blocks are obviously foreign policy and the continuing influence of entrenched power (from which Obama may not be a dramatic improvement – that remains to be seen), but there’s also the question of follow-through on these progressive sounding domestic proposals. Clinton has not held fast in the face of GOP pressure on domestic issues – and famously, neither did her husband for eight years.

From the perspective of this former Edwards supporter, I can’t get past this simple fact; I don’t trust her to follow through any more effectively than her last go-around with health care. Obama may well collapse like a house of cards when the other side doesn’t want to hold hands and sing campfire songs – but on the other hand, he may not.

Odum, did you really think we’d let you get away with some kind of hit-and-run graphic designing scheme?

For my 2 cents, I liked the Calendar/ads/blogroll/etc bar on the other side, though probably I’ll just get used to the change.

Glad to see the “About GMD” up there.

And it may take me a bit to decide on my opinion of the new header, but I will start with this observation: the guy who’s tagline is “undercaffeinated” throws a full coffee mug into his blogsite’s logo?  Is this like John giving us the clue that “the walrus is Paul”?  Is there some puzzle to be put together here? If viewed upside down does the header read “I am not 40”?

Other opinions of the GMD make-over?