We need to really push right now on lack of faith in Vermont Yankee and its ability to maintain core safety standard.  One way we can do this is to start pushing the Democratic/Progressive majority’s energy plan NOW, before the legislature even gets back in session, to make it a top priority and make it politically difficult for Douglas to veto it again. 

We need to start blanketing our papers with letters, not only talking about the dangers of nuclear power, but tying them in to three things:

• The energy bill that Douglas vetoed and why it’s more important to refocus our work on safe, clean and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power;
• local economy and how when people are invested in their own community, they don’t have  to worry about their safety being in the hands of large corporations which see the surrounding communities in terms of profit and loss and little else;
• that lack of regulation and supervision is a dangerous thing and if we can’t adequately insure that VY is up to the task of maintaining their own equipment (be sure to mention the recent incident, the fire and the rods that they just couldn’t find one day).
  

This is a big deal.  We need to write letters about it.  We need to make phone calls about it.

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

You know the saying that one picture is worth a thousand words? Here's a case where that is true.

You've probably heard the stories about Vermont Yankee having to reduce power, and you've seen the press reports that it was caused by “problems” in the cooling towers.  Wooden components and piping had failed in one of the towers, said Sheehan and Robert Williams, spokesman for plant owner Entergy Nuclear.

What you probably haven't seen or heard are descriptions of the cause of the problems or pictures of what the damage really entails. According to a filing yesterday by VPIRG, Arnie Gunderson, an expert  on cooling towers, 

 

 the current damage and derate shares causes identical with the June/July 2004 fire, outage, and derate. Those identical shared causes are poor maintenance, lack of attention to detail in engineering, failure of aging management, and the impacts of extended power uprate (“EPU”).

 

  VPIRG's filing also shows photographs of the failed cooling tower. The photos depict the wooden and metal wreckage of the cooling tower, with water flooding out of a huge broken pipe. It's pretty dramatic, and it certainly gives one pause about whether the MSM coverage has been enough to convey the scope of this problem.

Here's the most dramatic picture in the group:

 Maybe, the next time we hear conservatives in the Douglas Administration bragging about Vermont's “clean” power portfolio, we should remind them of the costs of this “clean” power.

Well the press may not be taking this seriously (click here for the pictures, – they are pretty shocking – or just scroll down) but at least somebody is:

August 23, 2007

The Honorable Dale Klein
Chairman
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001

Dear Chairman Klein:

We are writing in response to the alarming events that occurred at Vermont Yankee power plant on August 21, 2007.  It is our understanding that a non-safety related portion of one cooling tower cell at the plant collapsed.  We further understand from your staff at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that there was no threat to the public's health with this accident and that the plant began to power down to 40% immediately following the accident. 

We are concerned about the cause of this structural failure, especially about the implications for the cooling tower cell(s) that are related to the safe operation of the plant.  We understand from your staff that the licensee, Entergy Vermont Yankee, is currently examining this accident to determine the cause of the collapsed tower and whether there was any evidence of structural deficiencies prior to the collapse.  However, the NRC, has not yet committed to undertaking a thorough investigation of the safety related cooling towers cell(s) that are located on the same site and could potentially have similar structural issues.  We find this extremely troubling.     

We therefore request you undertake an immediate and thorough investigation to determine if there are similar structural deficiencies in any and all portions of the safety related cooling towers cell(s) at the facility.  Furthermore, we ask you to examine the structural integrity of the remaining towers and institute any additional precautions to prevent other collapses that would jeopardize the safety of the cooling towers and that could present a risk to the public's health or safe operation of the facility.  Finally we request an evaluation of any preventive actions that the licensee and/or NRC took in the past related to the safe and efficient operation of all of the cooling towers at the facility.

Please continue to keep us thoroughly informed as more information becomes available. We are committed to assisting Vermont and the NRC to ensure the safety at Vermont Yankee. We appreciate your timely attention to this issue. 

PATRICK LEAHY        BERNARD SANDERS              PETER WELCH

(Astonishing amount of damage, given that – as VTArnie states in Julie’s original post about the incident, that “An NRC spokesman described the problems like so: ‘I don’t know if I’d characterize it as rotting, but more sagging, deformation in some of the wood.’…. wow…. what rose colored glasses the NRC wears!” – promoted by odum)

Photos (unauthenticated) of the ENVY cooling tower failure event.(Photos courtesy of the New England Coalition.)

To judge the size, note the pipe spewing water in photo 1 is 52'' in diameter.

This is called “deferred maintenance” in the nuclear industry.

A rumble a loud crack, like thunder, rocks, dirt and chocking dust rain down.
A rock fall is imminent. So what is a miner to do?
“You run for your life,” said Tim Miller, who toiled in Kentucky’s mines for more than two decades.

… The goal is to eliminate the coal industry. Of course the goal is to eliminate the coal industry. Coal is filthy. It destroys ecosystems to dig it up. It kills the people who work around it. Coal plants throw particulates in the air and causes respiratory ailments. They throw mercury in the water and causes birth defects. They throw CO2 into the atmosphere and cause global warming. The coal industry corrupts the political process. It lies to the public about global warming, and mine safety, and coal reserves, and everything else. It leeches money and opportunity out of the states where it is based.
The only reason we think of coal as “cheap” is that we don’t tally all those costs in the debit column.
From David Roberts Coal is the enemy of the human race…

During the winter of my fourteenth year I had a part time job. Every morning I would get up at 5 o”clock and walk up the hill to the ancient brick home of an elderly widow where I would descend to the dimly lit basement and remove the previous day’s supply of clinkers from the firebox of an equally ancient and frightening looking furnace, shovel in a supply of fresh coal and get a good fire roaring. That was it, home to shower and head to school. She payed me two dollars a day and in 1958 when a gallon of gas was a quarter, that was a good sum of money. That is also the sum total of my life’s experience with coal.

David Roberts wrote the brief but engaging piece quoted above earlier in the summer at Huff Post, he wrote his rant in reference to a coal industry mogul who for several months had been preaching to anyone who would listen about the evils that congress, in league with environmentalists, were plotting to perpetrate on the coal industry. I had heard the name of the subject of his rant before but at the time I didn’t recognize it.

It wasn’t until two weeks ago when a mine in central Utah’s Emery County in Crandall Canyon, one of the deepest coal mines in the country collapsed, burying six miners 1500 to 1800 feet below the surface and 3 1/2 miles from the entrance point, that the name and the reason the it rang a bell popped back into my mind.

Robert Murray. The name was familiar because I had read a Washington Post article about his testimony before a congressional committee in the spring in which he took congress to task over the Clean Air Act of 1990 and declaimed on the perils of listening to the purveyors of Global warming science, which he has since referred to as “global goofiness.” (as quoted below in the New York Sun)

“Some wealthy elitists in our country,” he told the audience, “who cannot tell fact from fiction, can afford an Olympian detachment from the impacts of draconian climate change policy. For them, the jobs and dreams destroyed as a result will be nothing more than statistics and the cares of other people. These consequences are abstractions to them, but they are not to me, as I can name many of the thousands of the American citizens whose lives will be destroyed by these elitists’ ill-conceived ‘global goofiness’ campaigns.”
2007 speech to the New York Coal Trade Association

Robert Murray is one of two people that you would recognize from the nearly non stop coverage of the aftermath of the cave in, the repeated rescue attempts, and the ensuing tragedy upon tragedy when the rescuers themselves were caught in another collapse killing three and injuring six others.

Murray, is the most recognizable, at times seen castigating the press or the unions, at others in the mine, pointer in hand, explaining the rescue operation to the media, or as seen below. Murray is the owner and CEO of Murray energy which is among the dozen largest coal mining companies in the country. He owns 19 mines in Ohio and Illinois including the Crandall Canyon mine and others in Utah. In general, Murray’s operations have a far less than stellar reputation for safety, having over the years, been cited thousands of times for safety violations and fined millions of dollars. Murray says that the safety violations were trivial and included violations such as not having enough toilet paper in the restroom.

Murray claims that the Crandall Canyon collapse was caused by an earthquake, seismologists dispute his claim saying that the seismic activity they recorded was the result of the collapsing mountain not the cause of it. The head of the National Earthquake Information Center in Golden, Colorado said that an analysis of seismic waves that occurred in the area around the time the mine collapsed are consistent with what would be seen from a mine collapse, and, subsequent seismic activity that has been detected may have been related to energy being released in the aftermath of the collapse,

However its probably easy to guess which side of this question the insurance companies will land on.

If Murray has no love for environmentalists and federal regulation, he also has no love for unions and all but one of his mines are non union, a fact that probably is responsible, in large measure, for the dismal safety record. In a union atmosphere, union stewards and safety committees can report violations without fear of retaliation from management. In a non union mine reporting safety violations or unsafe practices and working conditions place the individual miner at risk of losing his job, or worse, for speaking out. This often results in an atmosphere of fear in which such conditions are overlooked, placing lives at risk.

Murray is also a serious donor to Republican candidates for office, having bequeathed over $150,000 to such notables as George Bush, Mitch McConnell, Katherine Harris and Sam Brownback among others, in the last couple of years through his Murray Energy PAC and other affiliates. This may help to explain the accommodating way he has been treated by federal regulators.

The coal in the Crandall Canyon mine is removed by what is called the room and pillar method where digging and removing coal creates a cavity or room and large pillars or columns of coal are left standing to hold up the roof which is further augmented by drilling and setting roof bolts. It is believed by many that at the time of the collapse the miners were engaged in retreat mining in which the pillars are removed and the roof is allowed to collapse as the workers retreat back to the entry.

Although considered to be a very dangerous undertaking, the mine had the necessary permits for performing retreat mining from Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) according to Robert Friend who told the Washington Post that the cause of the collapse had not yet been discovered but, “there was retreat mining where these miners are.” Asked about the conflict with Murray’s denials that the retreat method was in use he replied, “I can’t speculate as to what he meant.”
Some, including Utah’s Governor are calling for an investigation focusing on why those permits were granted in this instance and UMW says that the MSHA has been too cozy with the industry in recent years.

There are whispered reports (it’s a good idea to lower one’s voice when criticizing mine owners or their operations in central Utah) that the Crandall Canyon mine was unsafe when Murray bought it last year. Not wanting to leave behind any of the coal contained in the pillars they began the retreat mining operation. A spokesman for UMW, Phil Smith, said yesterday, “No one took the time to see that it was a recipe for disaster.

The graphic depicts retreat mining in a room and pillar operation like Crandall Canyon.
The pillars are mined from the farthest point towards the entry and the mine is allowed to collapse as it will.
Wanna try it? I’m sure the image above is a much more orderly depiction of the process than the reality.

Though it may seem strange to people outside the coal industry, generations of miners have been cutting away those pillars to increase coal production in a practice known as retreat mining. It’s legal and considered standard procedure. But it has claimed the lives of 17 coal miners in the past seven years.
In Kentucky alone, four miners have been crushed in rock falls during retreat mining in the last 14 months.
“You’re definitely playing Russian roulette,” said Miller, now an organizer for the United Mine Workers of America, which spells out in its contract that members can withdraw from any section of mine they believe is unsafe. “You remove those pillars, the roof is coming down. It’s inevitable.”
Retreat Coal Mining Comes Under Scrutiny

Which brings us to the second recognizable figure from the coverage of these horrible events, Richard Stickler the Mine Safety and Health Administrator who waited two days after the mine collapsed before taking control of the rescue efforts, a delay that reminded some of “Brownie” and Katrina.

Stickler is a former mine executive and manager whose confirmation for the position was turned down twice by the Senate.

Richard Stickler

The injury rates at coal mines Stickler managed from 1989 to 1996 were double the national average, according to statistics assembled by the Mine Workers before Stickler’s appointment to head the Pennsylvania Bureau of Deep Mine Safety.

During his confirmation hearings, Stickler said he believed the then-current mine safety laws were adequate and did not need strengthening. This spring, when coal mine deaths stood at 33?at the time the highest number killed on the job in a full year since 2001. Congress passed legislation to strengthen and improve mine safety.
AFL_CIO Blog

In spite of fierce opposition from both Democrats and Republicans as well as the United Mine Workers, George Bush made the appointment last October during a congressional recess.

The Fox was now in charge of another regulatory chicken coop.

The federal government’s power to regulate the activities of business is among it’s most sacred duties to our citizenry. The regulation of the purity of our drugs and our food, the safety of our workplaces, the safety and reliability of manufactured products, ranging from what we wear to what we drive is a responsibility that is as critical to our social health and civil order as defense. In this area, as in so many others, this administration has not only dropped the ball, they have thrown it to the opposing team.

From a candlelight vigil held in Huntington last week, focused on the six coal miners trapped in the Crandall Canyon mine. Photo by Trent Nelson Salt Lake Tribune

“We are at the mercy of the officials in charge and their so-called experts.”
Sonny Olsen, Spokesperson for the families of the trapped miners”

As I was about finish and post this article I received this Email from John Sweeney, AFL-CIO President. The timing was spooky, but he wrote the perfect postscript to what I wanted to convey here. So I’m going to use his remarks as my close, Take it Mr Sweeney:

Dear Robert,

As you may already know, the underground rescue operation to save the six coal
miners trapped in the Crandall Canyon Mine has been halted. Tragically, the miners may be buried beneath the Utah mountain
forever.

At this difficult time, I ask you for your thoughts and prayers for the miners and their families, as well as for the families of the three rescue workers who gave their lives trying to save the missing.

I also thank you for being someone who cares enough to take action to improve life for working
families on many fronts.

Last year, after 12 coal miners died in the Sago Mine in West Virginia you helped convince Congress to pass the first major overhaul to mine safety laws in more than three decades, the MINER Act.

Since the Bush administration came into office, it has been systematically dismantling workplace safety protections. But you wouldn’t allow corporate greed and Bush administration neglect and indifference to go unchallenged.
That neglect and indifference haven’t been isolated to workplace safety. Just look at our economy workers’ paychecks are stagnant while our productivity goes up and up. Just think back to the
administration’s catastrophic response to Hurricane Katrina, the poor conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, our health care crisis; many, many people are wondering,What’s wrong with America?

Fortunately, in our democracy, every four years we have a chance to fix what’s wrong by electing
leaders, including a president, who put working families first. We have a very busy time ahead of us, fighting together for health care, good jobs and the freedom to form unions without employer interference and fighting for a government led by people committed to make America work for
working families.
Thank you for all that you’ve done so far in this fight and for all you will do in the months ahead.
In solidarity,
John Sweeney
President, AFL-CIO
P.S. What do you think the next president should do to make our workplaces safe and healthy? Please share your thoughts on our AFL-CIO Working Families Vote 2008Forum.

Related Stories and Links:
Columbus Dispatch
Two For The Money
The Salt Lake Tribune
Memo shows mine already had roof problems in March
I See Dead People
A sincere thank you to Marty Kaplan and David Roberts

Bob Higgins
Worldwide Sawdust

Douglas was practically sputtering with hackneyed, anti-Democrat talking points on VPR last night at the news that – after urging from the left going all the way back to the Brigham decision – Gaye Symington and other leading Democrats were actually considering an income tax to fund education. The words that cause the sputtering? Symington (from VPR – emphasis added):

“I think when you're looking at a proposal that eliminates the statewide property tax and with it the confusion of the CLA and has the potential to more clearly connect what Vermonters pay in school taxes to what they spend per pupil, I think there's a lot to be gained by making this change.”

Republicans sounded apoplectic, but all Douglas had to fall back on was an insulting generalized, anti-Dem attack:

“I don't think anyone believes that the architects of Act 60 are going to simply transfer liability from one tax to another.

And Rep. Joyce Errecart (R-Shelburne) went for the other canard: fear –

I think it would be just devastating to Vermont's economy

It's GOP orthodoxy to oppose income-based taxes, even though it represents a common sense approach to most people. Republicans believe they stifle economic growth more than other taxes, such as property taxes, sales taxes, etc. The truth is, of course, its clearly easier to make an income tax progressive and based on the ability to pay – which makes it more difficult for Republicans to eke out rhetorical advantage in debates and protect their upper income constituency.

The conversation is an important one to have, though, not just as a matter of good policy, but for the positioning it provides for the 2008 elections – as well as the long-term psychology of Democratic lawmakers (more on all this below the fold)…

First, consider what is being discussed. From the Times Argus:

The proposal being considered by members of the House Ways and Means Committee would only change “homestead” property taxes on primary residences. Other land, houses owned by nonresidents and business property, would continue to be taxed under the property tax system.

That leaves several thorny issues to be worked out before the proposal would be considered by the full House Ways and Means Committee or the General Assembly at large.

One is a mechanism to prevent renters from paying taxes on their income in addition to covering property taxes on their homes through rent. Renters could conceivably get a credit for rent they pay or be exempt from the income tax, said Rep. Shap Smith, D-Morrisville, chair of the subcommittee.

The important principle is that education taxes should be based on people's ability to pay them, Smith said. “People do not believe the property tax does that,” he said. “People are sitting on land that has an immense amount of value but their incomes haven't changed.”

Smith is no wild-eyed lefty, and his support is indicitive of the wide range of support the proposal could have. Even more so is the support from Republicans such as Rep. Bud Otterman (R-Topsham) from VPR again:

It more nearly is assessed on the basis of ability to pay than any of our other taxes. I would say I don't think property tax is based on ability to pay. In fact, I think it's quite regressive, especially in the lower income brackets

Obviously. And it's nice to see that some Republicans aren't so mired in GOP hegemony to see that. Douglas's response to Otterman is to treat him as he treats Democrats – by belittling him as a dupe or a Democratic stooge, in order to reframe the debate where he is more comfortable (from the Times Argus):

“This is a Democrat majority and a Democrat idea,” insisted Jason Gibbs, spokesman for Douglas. “Unfortunately, they have co-opted” any Republicans who support the idea, Gibbs said.

Policy aside, this proposal has tremendous potential to reframe what Douglas has made the cornerstone of his rhetoric in a way that favors Democrats. Dems get mired in convoluted explanations of convoluted policies so often, it's become routine. What is often absurd is that the convoluted policies often serve to rhetorically or bureaucratically circle the more obvious, simple answers. For years, proponents of decoupling statewide education funding from the often financially arbitrary and regressive property tax have been assured that, with all the income sensitivity provisions, the statewide property tax already had many of the qualities of an income tax, so why change?

Of course that also begs the question, why not?

I think the reason for that has been in large part some bad psychology on the part of Democrats. We have allowed ourselves to be beat up so long and so relentlessly by the GOP and the media on fiscal issues, that many Dems (especially self-dubbed moderates) have internalized that criticism. They feel drawn to progressive policies and lean towards a general Keynesian economic perspective, but when they get into positions of power, they doubt themselves.

I think there is some sort of hegemonic, media-driven neurosis that says the closer you are to laissez-faire economics, the more of a grown-up you are. Dems who have internalized this nonsense are easily cowed when they start creeping towards economic progressivism by a few “tut-tuts” from the pundits or from Republicans. They craft convoluted ways to get to many of the same places that straightforward policies would get you to more quickly, efficiently, and more reasonably because they feel comfortable hiding in the minutaea of complex policies. They can then reinforce this pattern by patting themselves on the back for being the only people expert enough to truly understand the policies.

Poppycock (or bullshit if you prefer).

It has always seemed to me that the reason we haven't had this discussion sooner, is it hits this very wall of liberal self-loathing. It also explains why so many discussions like this have to seemingly be validated by the agreement of at least some Republicans, such as Otterman. As far as the media is concerned, that makes it “Grown up” to talk about. Unfortunately, many Democrats feel the same way.

It also explains why ideas like this can often come from Republicans like Otterman, as they're not clouding their perspective with self-loathing.

But here we are, the discussion is on the table – put there squarely by head Democratic wonk Gaye Symington herself. This is a very, very good sign.

Hopefully they'll throw into it with both feet. If they're simply dipping their toes in to test the water, they'll snap them back at the tried-and-true castigations of the Governor, rather than look less than grown up.

If they take the plunge, though, they'll quickly find that saying “eliminate the statewide property tax” and “tax only those that can afford it based on how much money they make” are a lot more resonant on the stump than trying to explain the nuances of convoluted tax policy (or worse, not even trying and instead simply saying “trust me”).

And its that prospect that's got the Governor apoplectic.

Per today’s Rutland Herald:

Following the lead of Washington state, Vermont will develop a high-security license with radio frequency ID chips and other security features that can be scanned at the border. The license will cost more than a standard driver’s license, but will be considerably cheaper than a passport, according to Douglas spokesman Jason Gibbs.

Per Yahoo’s Tech News:

Vermont plans to develop an enhanced driver’s license for residents who volunteer to use it. The enhanced driver’s license will be slightly more expensive than a standard Vermont state driver’s license and will require proof of citizenship, identity, and residence, according to DHS. It will also contain security features similar to a U.S. passport, which uses RFID.

This looks very benign on the surface, but let’s talk about this for a second, because RFID is something that may or may not be familiar to y’all.  RFID is, as the article notes, “Radio Frequency” identification.

What does “Radio Frequency Identification” mean?

It means that there’s a chip in your driver’s license which can be tracked by anyone with the right technology.  It means that you can be tailed, tracked and followed without ever knowing about it.  It’s like your Driver’s license has a built in Lojack and most of us won’t even know it’s there.

Where did this plan come from?  Did anyone in the legislature have an opportunity to weigh in on it, or is this just a unilateral decision on the part of Douglas to help lead Vermont into an end run against the bill of rights?

Per The Brattleboro Reformer:

BRATTLEBORO — Structural problems in one of the banks of cooling fans at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant forced operators to dial back on the facility’s power output.

Though the cause for the failure of one of the plant’s 22 cooling towers has not yet been determined, said a spokesman for the power plant, he assured the public that shutting down 11 of the fans doesn’t affect safety.

Yes, because who could we possibly trust to assess the safety of a nuclear powerplant, if not that plant’s spokesman?

I'm sorry to have to say it, but it's true.

Milbank nails Leahy.

[The White House has] stalled or ignored Leahy's requests as his committee looks into the wiretapping program and the travails of Gonzales. They have calculated — accurately so far — that the Dynamic Duo of Leahy and Schumer would deliver harsh words but no punishment of consequence.

“The time is up. The time is up,” Leahy announced yesterday. “We've waited long enough.”

But what would Leahy do about it? The first questioner riddled Batman with this.

“The full Judiciary Committee will have to sit down and determine whether to seek contempt from the full Senate,” said the noncommittal action hero.

Does that mean he would seek a contempt-of-Congress citation? “What I want to do is get the response to these things,” Leahy demurred.

Rebecca Carr of Cox News tried again to pin him down, but Leahy continued to escape. “What we have to find out is what happened here,” he answered.

How about withholding money from the administration? “Let's take it step by step,” he proposed.

Holy incrementalism, Batman!

Weak, weak, weak. Weak tea.

The best spin that can be put on this — and the spin Leahy would no doubt put on it — is that the Senator was careful, even cagey, and displayed a statesmanlike refusal to tip his hand.

The rest of the world saw this: He's got nothin'.

I understand, of course, that Leahy wants — needs — to proceed with caution. But then why not just do that? Why not issue your non-statement from Vermont? Why fly to DC to say you have to fly home and then fly back again when your colleagues get into town, then meet with them and decide what to do?

The White House spin machine even sent out signals yesterday that August 20th was never supposed to be any kind of deadline. Leahy showed up to insist that it was.

And a deadline for what? Apparently for him to hold a press conference to announce that he would have to wait until September to confer with his colleagues about what to actually do about the White House missing the “deadline.”

Which in the real world means September was the deadline. And yesterday's performance did nothing but reinforce the appearance of a Congress unwilling to stand up for itself.

It may well be that Leahy has the resolve to move forward with contempt charges. And why wouldn't he? It's risk free. The “administration” has already said point blank that this Department of Justice will not prosecute such charges. But he couldn't say so, because he knows he can't count his chickens before they're hatched. And when your “chickens” are people like Arlen Specter, it's probably quite wise not to count them for anything. Specter collapses so often, I wouldn't even feel comfortable counting him as an egg, quite frankly.

So yes, it's a difficult line to walk. But when you know how squishy your troops are, you've got to include that in your calculus. Don't set deadlines you can't enforce, and for God's sake, don't have press conferences to announce you can't enforce them. Although to be honest, a presser to announce that would have at least been more concrete than the thin gruel we got yesterday. At least it would have been definitive on something.

I got into it last week with a couple Obama supporters, one of whom had an interesting criticism of GMD. It's a variation on one I've heard a lot – that is, that we're so negative at GMD. My response is that we're not a cheerleading site as a whole, and that the success of the blogosphere has been twofold (in my opinion, and to reduce it to the simplest possible terms): one – that we turn out support (votes, money, volunteers) for our candidates to win elections (largely by working around the traditional media to bring information that would otherwise be ignored or belittled front and center for discussion and dissemination), and two – that we act as a gauntlet by which our candidates are made better.

It's the second one that brings out the so-termed “negativity.” The political blog movement has placed high expectations on our candidates in terms of issues, candor, strategy and style. In the process of acting and speaking on those expectations, we squeeze out some, but make the others stronger. I think the reality of the last national election is not simply that more voters turned out to do more work for candidates, it's that many of the candidates themselves were a notch or two better than we've become used to seeing – and I give a lot of credit for that to the national blogs and their impact on the process.

It's also true that blogs are all about subjective biases. This is “What I Believe” writ large, and as such there is no requirement that we give every candidate equal time. Still, out of curiosity, I went back and searched for every time a GMD front pager has made a reference to one of the “big three” in the Presidential race, and categorized those references as “positive,” “negative” or “bland” (by which I mean it was matter of fact, and without characterization – implied or otherwise). References that defended the candidate from attacks – or which cast a political attack as a bogus “hit job” were dubbed positive (even if they were crude, as kestrel's “Why I Love Hillary” diaries were). Here was the breakdown:

Obama— Positive: 12, Negative: 15, Bland: 11 (Total: 38)
Clinton— Positive: 3, Negative: 12, Bland: 5 (Total: 20)
Edwards— Positive: 4, Negative: 1, Bland: 5 (Total: 10)

Is that the spread you'd expect? It's clear that Obama gets the most digital ink, as he has more Positves, Negatives AND “Blands” than the other two combined. Edwards is the only one with more “blands” than anything else, which is interesting. Hillary has a 4-1 Negative-to-Positive ratio, and Obama has the most even spread overall. Gravel, Dodd, Biden, Richardson, and Kucinich have all been mentioned, but so rarely its hard to create a real spread (and they're all over the map in terms of positive/negative).

What do folks think (and what are the implications if Clinton pulls this out and gets the nomination)?