Mulish Behavior

So Much for the "Straight Talk Express"

2008-07-11T19:37:00.000-07:00

McCain struggles to answer why men can get Viagra covered by health insurance but women cannot get contraception covered.

If anything can create a gender gap for Obama it is increasing awareness of McCain's inability to understand the issue of reproductive freedom and how men and women are treated differently. Not just on the abortion issue, but in terms of contraception and women's health care generally. There is a double-standard here that must be addressed and McCain just doesn't get it.

Wonder if he's mum on this because he's got a prescription?

Jim = Jobless

2008-03-12T04:12:00.000-07:00

Time for a new bumpersticker, Governor.

The Vermont Press Bureau reports today that Vermont is hemorrhaging jobs at a rate of about 2000 a year. That's the magic of the Douglas "Affordability Agenda." Vermont Tiger schill and supply-side apologist, Art Woolf says it is "not because our economy is doing lousy." Hmmm. Why would it be, then?

Oddly enough, it's usually the Vermont Toothless Tigers who are out trashing the Vermont economy. Now Woolfie is trying to make it sound like things aren't so bad (it's not the job-loss that hurts, it's that when we rebound in a year, we won't have enough workers, sayeth Art). Maybe with an election year looming constantly harping on Vermont as a bad place to do business is suddenly not looking like a winning strategy, eh? Time go give Do-Nothing Douglas a little cover so he isn't the one who ends up jobless? Could be...

Douglas Stiffs Retirees

2008-03-10T02:23:00.000-07:00

First, he kills the energy bill which would have created long-term savings and affordability for average Vermonters. Then, he cuts funding for affordable housing and conservation in Vermont. Next up? Taking a bite out of retirement funds for state employees. Are you starting to see a pattern here? Is the American Dream dying?

That may be overstating it a little, but when it comes to his "Affordability Agenda" it basically comes down to this: In Jim Douglas' world if you are independently wealthy, life in Vermont will be affordable - for the rest of us... uh, not so much. Douglas' failure to plan beyond the current fiscal year and seek long-term solutions for Vermonters is at the heart of his penny-wise, pound foolish budget and his other legislative priorities.

On the other hand, there is one new job he could create that would have a major impact on Vermont's future: New Governor. He's looking near invincible right now, but all things change in politics, and adopting these short-sighted policies may hasten his demise. Maybe not today, mabye not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of his life (with apologies to Bogey).

At least Jeb Spaulding is stepping up and holding Douglas' feet to the fire. In today's Times Argus, he takes Douglas to task for stiffing the state retirement fund:

"As a former state treasurer, you must know that is not a prudent action, because the problem of under funding compounds itself. It is the first time in recent years we have intentionally underfunded the state employees' retirement system. We shouldn't be starting new spending initiatives, no matter how worthy they are, unless we can meet the obligations," Spaulding said. "It's not like we can decide we want to change the rules of the game for the people who are on the job now."

Spaulding wrote to Douglas outlining his concerns: "I find it difficult to justify proposing new spending initiatives at the same time you are proposing not to pay the bill for services already rendered." Spaulding wrote. "I do hope the Legislature will correct the situation by funding the actuarial recommendations for the Vermont State Employees' Retirement System in full."

Giving New Meaning To Iraq's "Green Zone"

2008-03-05T14:10:00.000-08:00

All I can say is "wow."

Town Meeting Day!

2008-03-04T10:27:00.000-08:00

** Cross-posted at Exit Voices. Worth checking out to post your own town meeting day stories.

*******************

Just finished up Northfield Town Meeting. My son’s first town meeting day (he’s just 5 months old)! Felt great giving him a front-row seat to democracy in action.

Most items passed without much debate. The exception? A proposal to establish a $500 fund for picnic tables at recreational areas in town. Small town democracy at its finest!

I was particularly pleased that the town voted in favor of establishing a conservation commission, something a small, dedicated band has worked on for about a year now. They’ve already secured some grant funding for surveys of the Dog River and trail- work on Payne Mountain. Commission status will boost their grant potential for other projects in the future.
It’ll be interesting, too, to see how the other big items fare: There’s a ballot item for a new police station, and of course the school budget. The former went down last time, but there is renewed interest b/c of the building’s dilapidated condition; the latter is almost always a close, 50-50 vote with one side or another eeking out enough to carry the day (followed by a series of re-votes, ugh!).

Rep. Anne Donahue was there… so was Sen. Bill Doyle. Didn’t see any other political glitterati, however.

I was pleased to see most members of our Democratic Town Committee were present for the meeting.

Wonder how much a meaningful, contested primary this year boosted town meeting attendance. It would be interesting to find out. Do people just turn out to vote? Or, do they stick around to discuss the details with their neighbors at the town meeting? What do you think? Anybody else observe greater numbers at the meeting? I’m sure the overall vote tallies will be substantially higher - probably record numbers.

As for a wish list item for the ballot, here’s mine: One thing I would love to see is the elimination of the recall rule. It requires a legislative fix, but currently Northfield voters can overturn a result by getting a small number of petitioners to call for a re-vote (think it’s 5 or 10%, or something). This means that even when we get a majority vote, a tiny minority can call it back and rely on a much smaller turnout the second time around (because special elections frequently have smaller turnout either because folks don’t know, or forget a special vote is happening, or because there aren’t other elections/candidates/ballot items to bring people out to the polls). This happens frequently when we do happen to pass the school budget. It’s a real thwarting of democracy, and a deceptive way to go about doing town business.

Obama in Vermont?

2008-03-01T07:32:00.000-08:00

According to the Washington Post, Sen. Barack Obama is taking time out of his Texas/Ohio schedule to campaign in both Rhode Island and Vermont. Here's what the Post had to say:

"In a testament to the importance being placed on every state and delegate in the hard-fought Democratic contest, the candidate will take time away from Texas and Ohio to stump in this state as well as in Vermont, which will also hold a primary on Tuesday."

Anyone else out there have any information on this?

Exxon's Free Lunch (Oil On the Side)

2008-02-28T06:43:00.000-08:00

Anyone who has checked out David Cay Johnston's excellent new book, "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You With the Bill)" has probably already pulled most of their hair out by now. The rest may be gone soon if word coming from the U.S. Supreme Court following oral argument on damages in the infamous (and long overdue - 19 years) Exxon/Valdez case is correct... or at least it may merit a new chapter in any reprints of Johnston's book.

Some analysts predict the Court will use the obscure tenets of maritime law, and a 200-year old case (the "Amiable Nancy") to overturn or diminish the $2.5 billion in punitive damages (already only half the original amount) awarded by jury trial in the decades long case. Originally complaints were filed in 1989 and then consolidated for trial in 1994. The jury awarded its verdict in 1994 - $287 million in actual damages, and $5 billion in punitive damages. You can find a complete timeline here.

Since then, what's happened?

Well, nothing. At least not much anyway. The company has paid out some settlement money (to the government for criminal fines (although even those may have been mitigated by the feds at taxpayer expense, according to the New York Times), for some tribal claims, among others, to the tune of a little more than $1 billion). And, they had clean-up costs of about $3.4 billion. Of course, the clean-up is still incomplete (by some reports only about 14% of all the oil spilled was actually recovered and/or remediated). And, the damages in the form of lost jobs, businesses, and biodiversity will perhaps never be recovered. The settlement monies and actual damages may sound like a lot, but as the plaintiff's attorney in the Supreme Court appeal pointed out, the total award to each plaintiff to date amounts to about $15,000 per plaintiff.
Probably... Tell it to the whale.

So, the Supremes have an opportunity to affirm the jury award and to send a message to corporate polluters that they must abide by some basic rules we all learn in kindergarten: clean up your own mess, and when you make a mistake, don't do it again! In all likelihood, though, the Court will look to determine the outcome on two narrow grounds. First, was the drunken captain (convicted of negligence, but acquitted of "driving under the influence") an "agent" of the corporation; and second, are punitive damages in maritime cases limited by maritime law? The Justices appeared to be skeptical of the first point, and affirmative, or at least supportive of the premise of that last.

This does not bode well for the fishermen and women, the local industries, the towns, the wildlife, or anyone or thing connected with the fallout in Alaska of this environmental catastrophe.

Oh, and message to polluters: drag litigation out as long as you can (Slate reports that 20% of the orginal plaintiffs - about 6,000 people - in the case have already died - not to mention the fact that even if they end up having to pay the full $2.5 billion, it represents only about 3 weeks of last year's record profits... some disincentive, huh?) and hope for a few more conservative justices on the Supreme Court - of course, that may not help you much if they're all shareholders!

Oops, Did I Just Delete That...?

2008-02-27T08:54:00.000-08:00

Yes. They he/they did. But, Bush and his cronies at the GOP have decided "eh... all that email wasn't really very important anyway."

On the other hand, perhaps the missing email is so important that our fearless leaders have decided to engage in a systematic effort not to restore the tapes containing the "lost" email from the White House to the RNC which covered hundreds of days and potentially thousands, maybe millions of email correspondence between 2001 and 2003. Especially important would be any email leading to the run-up of the Iraq war, and/or email that could violate the Hatch Act from Karl Rove and/or other high level White House officials. According to the Washington Post, the RNC has now said it "has no intention of trying to restore the missing White House e-mails."

So much for transparency in government. Needless to say, the Bush Administration not only dismantled the Clinton policy of preserving all official White House correspondence, but it weakened its email system so that anyone (at least up to 2005) could enter the system and actually manipulate existing email messages. How scary is that?!

Both the National Security Archive and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington have sued the White House Office of Administration to force the back-up, preservation, and/or production of the missing email.

Don't you just think that Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman long for the days of shredders and tapes. After all, it worked for Nixon.

Enough To Make You Ralph...

2008-02-26T10:12:00.001-08:00

Tom Toles, editorial cartoonist at the Washington Post sums it up nicely (the caption reads: "Change and Experience: The ability to change an election outcome and the experience of having done it"):

Stuart Carlson and Patrick Oliphant were pretty good, too:

And the Harold Myerson, writing for the Washington Post, compares Ralph to Fidel but only in the narcissistic sense. An excerpt:

"Nader and Castro do come together on the ground where ego meets history. Nader said Sunday that he was running again partly in reaction to the Democrats' efforts four years ago to keep his name off the ballot in some states. This combination of principle and grudge match seems Fidelistic to a fault. Just as the revolution was Fidel, to be entrusted to no others, so the banners of American democracy and progressivism are Ralph, no matter if a number of his positions are being articulated by the likely Democratic nominee. The cause is Nader's alone; accept no substitutions.

Like Fidel Castro, Ralph Nader is not only in love with but hears history speaking through his own voice."

Dodd to Keynote DWC Awards

2008-02-25T11:39:00.000-08:00

The Vermont Democrats announced today that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) will headline this year's David W. Curtis Awards dinner on April 25th at the Hilton in Burlington. The annual fundraising event is Vermont Democrats' premier event and the biggest fundraiser of the year.

Quick, name three things you know about Chris Dodd! Well, you probably know he's a Senator for Connecticut. You probably know he was a recent presidential candidate; and you may even know he was widely supported by the firefighter's unions during that contest. All of the above are widely reported and were fairly recently in the news.

Here are three cool things about Dodd that maybe you didn't know:

1) He worked to ensure passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act ensuring that working families don't have to choose between their job and their family (he's now working to try to encourage that time off be paid time-off according to his Senate website) - as my wife and I recently had a baby I can attest to the importance of this federal protection;

2) He helped establish the "pay as you go" rules back in 1983 which ensured that any programs requiring budget increases enacted were disciplined by accompanying tax increases or budget cuts. It was this kind of fiscal discipline that enabled the Democrats and Bill Clinton to finally balance the federal budget, and later to begin an unprecedented era of budget surpluses (until the Bush Administration took a wrecking ball to their handiwork), and sound fiscal management. His work on this has helped to ensure that Democrats are now more trusted to handle economic matters than Republicans.

3) He served his Peace Corps stint in the Dominican Republic in Moncion, a tiny hamlet in the northwest part of the country. I traveled extensively in the D.R., living there between 1998 and 2000 and teaching 5th grade in Santo Domingo. But, I also lived in Santiago for awhile (the second largest city in the heart of the country), and traveled to that area up near Monte Cristi and Dajabon (the northwest crossing into Haiti). It's a fantastic, rugged country. Most folks associate it with the fine beaches, but I associate it more with the interior: miles of friendly people, rugged mountains (the highest peak in the Caribbean, Pico Duarte - Just over 7,000 feet and named for the father of the country), and backpacking everywhere. It's a wonderful travel destination if you enjoy getting off the beaten path.

You can find out more about Sen. Dodd at his Senate website.

Should be a great night for Vermont Democrats. My dad would be delighted.

Patriotism, or Prop?

2008-02-25T05:32:00.001-08:00

Some critics of Sen. Barack Obama are suggesting he may not be patriotic enough to be president. Specifically, some Republicans are criticizing his failure to wear an American flag pin on his lapel, and a reported failure (once) to cover his heart during the singing of the national anthem as indicative of a lack of sufficient patriotism on his part. Rather than actually questioning Sen. Obama's patriotism, this is actually an old story that some are trying to resurrect to blunt Obama's momentum as he speeds to the nomination and the Republicans attempt to find something (anything!) to try to define him.

Is it true? Is our likely standard-bearer a "Freedom Hater"?! A "USA, U-S-A" chant breaker?! A flag burning defeatist?

Not even close. Obama's own explanation is more eloquent than anything I can post. His words speak for themselves:

"I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.

I'm less concerned with what you're wearing on your lapel than what's in your heart.

You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. And you show your patriotism by being true to your values and ideals. And that's what we have to lead with, our values and ideals."

The truth is that millions of Americans go to work and school every day and don't sport a flag pin on their lapel. Some do, for sure, and bully for them. I wager that most do not turn around and accuse their non-flag wearing friends and neighbors of being unpatriotic. The point is that patriotism is not measured by flair.

Ah, but they are not running for president, the critics might say. In this dangerous, post-9/11 world our leaders must literally wear their patriotism on their sleeve, they might say. Really?
Did Abe Lincoln wear a flag pin throughout the Civil War? Umm, no. Does that make him any less of a patriot? I don't think that's a fair characterization of the man who saved the Union. What about Franklin D. Roosevelt, another wartime president? Did he wear a flag on his lapel? Nope. Sheesh, didn't he worry that people would think he was an aryan sympathizer? Or, a Stalinist? Not likely. The simple truth is that those were serious men whose commitment to country was unquestioned because of what they said and what they did. Flag as fashion accessory was not a prerequisite for those times.

So what's changed?

The first is that after 9/11 jingoism came back with a vengeance. Republicans quickly figured out that patriotism could be exploited to pass an agenda that benefited the wealthiest Americans and largest corporations at the expense of the vast majority of Americans. If you questioned the policy, you were quickly labeled "unpatriotic" in the name of 9/11. Fear ruled and people got in line. Politically, it was a master stroke. But is political manoeuvering "patriotic"? It depends. If the manoeuvers are used to benefit the vast majority, call for shared sacrifice (and actually do so), and/or are legitimately financing a military effort, then arguably yes. But, simply exploiting a catastrophe or tragedy for purely political gain - that is to pick up congressional seats, or secure a presidency, or to pass an agenda that has no clear benefit for most Americans or saddles future generations with debt - is not patriotic political expression.

Second, there is a great deal of frustration and anger that Americans were paid lip service by President Bush but were never called to serve, or sacrifice after 9/11. So, the frustration and anger of many Americans who see the flag (either on car bumpers, or on lapels) as indicative of patriotism is justified, but misdirected when levied at others who have not brandished the symbol. The frustration is shared and should be directed at the one responsible for failing to bring Americans together: George W. Bush.

After 9/11 many (most?) Americans truly wanted to come together in a show of unity. Many wished to share the burden and sacrifice of giving something back to the American community. But there was no call for sacrifice. Rather than instituting a national call for service (either civil or military, or both (note: Bush did call for national service... remember FreedomCorps?! But he has since largely abandoned any real effort to make service a priority)), or calling for taxation to fight our foes abroad, or planting victory gardens to increase food production while reducing transportation costs of food, or calling for massive recycling drives - all of which we were called to do during wartime(s) in the past, our President instead called on us to "go shopping." Frustrating, indeed.

So, Americans being independent and enterprising took it upon themselves to show support. In many cases they did volunteer their time and/or open up their wallets for a variety of causes. Many enlisted in the armed services. And, many took it upon themselves to make a statement by either wearing or displaying an American flag symbol. Some did both. Some did one or the other. In almost all cases, however the display of the flag as patriotic symbol was a personal statement, but not a measuring stick by which to demean other Americans who chose to act with patriotism rather than simply display it.

So, is patriotic display absent patriotic action more valuable than patriotic action absent patriotic display? I think clearly the answer is no. Anyone who goes into public service -whether civil or military is engaging in a patriotic act. After all, the sweat of your labor is going into the support and maintenance of the very institutions on which this great nation are founded. However, it is not required to wear a flag to prove you're committed to your cause.

Unfortunately, the display of a flag on the lapel of many politicians seems somehow less an act of patriotism than it is a sword or shield to distinguish oneself to voters. I wear a flag; message to voter: I am not weak on terrorism. The inference, of course, then is that if you do not wear a flag then you are weak on terrorism. This seems to be the root of criticism leveled at Obama.

In any case, Sen. Obama's actions are the very definition of patriotism: community organizing in low-income neighborhoods in Chicago; service in the Illinois General Assembly; service in the U.S. Senate; a presidential campaign premised on the twin messages of hope and change all wrapped up in the confident, optimistic slogan: "Yes, we can." This is perhaps the most patriotic campaign effort since Ronald Reagan's 1984 "Morning in America" campaign.

If Barack Obama can finally break through the cheap rhetoric of those who call unlabeled Americans "unpatriotic" and demonstrate that words and deeds signal more than simple pageantry, he would be rendering our nation a great service. We are traditionally a great and humble people. Patriotism is not a commodity, nor is it a monopoly owned by a political party. The very suggestion is unpatriotic.

Perhaps through this criticism (and his defense of it) Sen. Obama will reestablish that patriotism is an idea... a sentiment... a feeling; it is worn in the soul, not on the sleeve. That would make this patriot proud indeed.

What Part of "Affordability" Doesn't Jim Douglas Understand?

2008-02-21T04:37:00.000-08:00

... I guess it's the "ability" part. Douglas is rightly being criticized for gutting money for the housing and conservation board in his budget. That's money set aside for land conservation and affordable housing in Vermont. Gov. Dean always found money to put into VHCB (the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, which administers the Vermont Housing and Conservation Trust Fund) because he knew that Vermonters value the land, that it would help family farms, and that it created opportunities for Vermonters to put a roof over their heads at reasonable cost. But, it's not just advocates objecting to these short-sighted cuts. Legislators are catching on as well.

Is He Putting In, or Taking Out?

So what exactly is Douglas proposing? How about a 30% (or $5 million) cut in funding. That represents a loss of 120 affordable housing units, and saving 10 family farms and 10 community conservation efforts.

According to the Vermont Land Trust, "in the past 20 years, VHCB investments in Vermont communities have created more than 8500 permanently affordable homes and apartments and conserved more than 500 farms and 250,000 acres of forests and natural areas. For two decades, this has all made sense because affordable housing and conservation have strengthened our communities, conserved our world-class landscapes and in turn advanced our economic vitality."

This is Douglas' idea of promoting "affordability"?! Sounds more like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Maybe his public service announcement (ironically titled "Stretch Your Limits") should be retooled for Vermonters whose economic limits are being stretched. He doesn't even have to change his lines: "I'd like to challenge all Vermonters [sic] to stretch their limits this winter... then write to me and tell me how it's helping you..."

Hmm. Not a bad idea. Why not write Jim Douglas and tell him how his so-called "affordability" agenda, and that of his friend George W. Bush, is stretching us all to our limits (one new report out today even shows how Americans are tapping their retirement funds today in order to get by). The GOP agenda has helped us to record high gas and home heating oil prices; skyrocketing housing and rental costs; inaccessible and/or unaffordable health care, and skewed budget priorities that help the most affluent but do little for the rest of us.

While Douglas has routinely campaigned on, and championed, this agenda Democrats should hang this around his neck like the albatross it truly is and make him pay for his empty promises.

If we don't we'll all be paying for it for years to come. How about this for a Democratic ticket slogan: "Are You Better Off Now Than You Were Six Years Ago?" (with apologies to Ronald Reagan... Obama was right, he did have some good ideas!).

Obama Wins Wisconsin/Hawaii; Field Staff Reaches Out to Vermonters

2008-02-20T06:31:00.000-08:00

Sen. Barack Obama continues to pick up big momentum ("Obamo-mentum?"). Last night he won his tenth consecutive primary victory over Sen. Clinton by winning the crucial states of Wisconsin (a primary) and Hawaii (a caucus state).

Coincidentally, I received a friendly phone call from Obama's Washington County field organizer the other day. She asked that I post the following information for folks who want to get involved:

Please join the Obama campaign over the next two weeks to help drum up as much support for Senator Obama in Vermont, and Washington County as possible. If you are able to help out at all, from making phone calls to knocking on doors, we need you. Every vote will matter, and we're eager to have as many Obama supporters at the Primary on March 4th as possible.

We will have an office in Montpelier at 41 Elm Street, Second Floor, and a phone banking location in Montpelier as well, though we can also email you some phone calls to make from home.

If you are interested in getting involved, please contact Washington County Field Organizer, Emily Polak at (603) 521-5588 or by email at epolak@barackobama.com. You can also check out the campaign website for news and events, here.

We're looking forward to working with you!

**********

Note: don't be fooled by the New Hampshire exchange. Many of Sen. Obama's northeast region folks have been moving between New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont.

UPDATE: Just found out there is a "grand opening" for Obama's Montpelier office. Details below.

Montpelier Obama for America Office Opening

Thursday, February 21st - 7 pm

41 Elm St., Second Floor (Above the Soup Restaurant)

All are welcome.

I have not heard from any of Clinton's people, but the Times Argus reports they are having a news conference today to kick off their efforts.

The Romnivore's Dilemma

2008-02-07T10:46:00.000-08:00

OK, so Mitten has dropped out. What to do if you are part of the GOP Conservative Establishment? You don't like McCain... that's why you were for Mitt to begin with. Do you heart Huckabee now?

Granted McCain now appears to have this thing sewn up, but if Huckabee doesn't drop out and continues to campaign through the other primary states, it could be interesting to see what the "true" conservatives decide to do - both organizationally and in the money race.

Also, if Mitt's strategy is to angle for a VP slot as an "economic" counterweight to McCain's foreign policy credentials (not likely in any event as the two men apparently can't stand one another... on the other hand, I seem to recall there was no love lost between JFK and LBJ, yet they forged a ticket for strategic reasons), what to do if Huckabee continues to pick up southern states, and arguably the conservative mantle? Some suggest that Huckabee may now drop out and lobby for the VP slot.

Regardless, it looks like the Republicans are doing what they always do: circle the wagons and annoint the frontrunner in hopes of preserving an orderly nominating process.

It's really too bad. We won't have Mitt to kick around anymore. On the plus side, now he can spend his money to discover "who let the dogs out":

Barack Steady, Baby

2008-02-06T07:51:00.000-08:00

A close race in last night's Super Tuesday sweepstakes. However, Obama's bottom line is that he did what he had to do last night. Win more states than Hillary (13-8; probably 14-8 if his narrow lead in New Mexico holds up) and make it a draw in the delegate count (540 for Hillto 539 for Obama). A solid, steady (if slight) victory for him.

Last night's result was a photo finish, but because he won more states and received an equal number of delegates, Obama wins by a nose. Money and upcoming primaries favor him.

True, Clinton won the biggest prizes (California, New York, New Jersey), but these were all states where she had huge leads and she's going to split some of the delegates there with Obama anyway. The fact that he's cut into her overwhelming national lead by taking the plains states, the south, and southwest speaks volumes about how far his campaign has come.

You can find more (and better) analysis over at Slate and the Washington Post. On the other hand, David Brooks at the New York Times has a different (and interesting) take, giving Hillary the edge in a protracted battle for the nomination.

Coming up, the calendar seems to favor Obama. He raised $32 million in January alone and should have a fundraising advantage (Question: does Hillary's big win(s) in places like California and New York change this equation? Will she start to rake in more dollars now that she's won there, claiming that she's the "frontrunner" and pursuing celebs and Democratic rank and file)? It will be interesting to see where the money goes following this result.

This Saturday are the Louisiana primary, and Washington and Nebraska caucuses (Feb. 9); Sunday is the Maine caucuses (Feb. 10). As RealClearPolitics points out, Obama is likely favored in the first three given his success in the south and plains states, Clinton perhaps in Maine. The so-called "Potomac Primary" is next Tuesday, Feb. 12th and should favor Obama as well with Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia all casting ballots - states with large African American populations that should favor the junior Senator from Illinois. Obama also figures to win his birth-state, Hawaii, on Feb. 19th. In short, it appears Obama's momentum should continue, whereas Clinton's appears to be ebbing. But there will also be more debates, and obviously a week is a long time at this point - there may be mistakes that could doom either candidate before voting in any of these key remaining states. Hillary's best hope to staunch the bleeding may be a stand in some of the other large, delegate-rich states voting in early March, specifically: Texas, Ohio (March 4), and later Pennsylvania (April 22).

Although Hillary is roughly 80 delegates ahead overall (783-709, according to CNN), that is largely due to early superdelegates who have committed to the Clintons, rather than a result of voter preference. In fact, based on last night's results, it appears that the delegate count is literally split 50-50 (Hillary with 540, Obama with 539 - this is for Super Tuesday results only; if you factor in all the earlier primaries and caucuses, Obama leads by a delegate count of 603-590).

All that to say, we're pretty much in the same position we were in before the Super Tuesday primary kicked in. Both candidates showed they are well-run and can win where it counts. Obama gets the slight edge because he is better positioned to continue, and because of the breadth and diversity of his state (and delegate) count.

So, onward. Let the games begin... er, continue!

Super Tuesday Eve

2008-02-04T04:51:00.000-08:00

February 4, 2008. Big day. First, it's my birthday, so I get to celebrate. Spent yesterday bowling with friends and then off to a Super Bowl party. I get props for predicting the headlines and a Giants win (sorry, Pats fans).

All that said, today is also Super Tuesday Eve. Tomorrow voting begins in more than 20 states (22, to be precise) across America.

It's a bit like the Super Bowl, isn't it? Frontrunner/juggernaut (Clinton) who has led nationally all season up against upstart underdog (Obama) who has all the momentum. As with the Giants, I'm giving Obama the edge tomorrow. Don't know exactly how he'll do it, just a feeling.

Maybe it's the viral videos they're putting out. Pretty cool:

Barack Star!

2008-01-29T13:27:00.000-08:00

I've been remiss in not posting sooner on Sen. Barack Obama's tidal wave/tsunami/earthquake (choose your metaphor) in South Carolina. This was a victory he desperately needed - most important it showed he can take a punch (Bill's, not Hill's), absorb it, counterpunch, and win. Nice.

Obama's star is on the rise after a huge victory in South Carolina and being handed the key to Camelot by the Kennedy's.

Not only did he take apart the Clinton machine in South Carolina (a stunning 55%-27% victory), but he laid claim to the Democratic establishment's mantle of leadership. The real Democrats. Remember how Bill and Hillary were the "New Democrats" (you know, the ones who "ended welfare as we knew it" and declared "the era of big government is over"?). Well, the "Old Democrats are back. And, they're back with a vengeance. Sen. Ted Kennedy (along with Caroline and Rep. Patrick Kennedy) gave perhaps the best (and most damning, as far as the Clinton's are concerned) endorsement speech of the year so far. At least that's certainly what David Brooks thought.

Obama is reaching out to Americans... and has them believing again. Can he restore our faith in government?

Kennedy's speech was good. Obama's was better. This guy is good. I'm starting to believe. See for yourself:

The Stimulus Package Nobody Is Talking About...

2008-01-25T11:20:00.000-08:00

Congress and the Bush Administration (with the blessing of Treasury Secretary Paulson) have struck a tentative deal to send between $300 and $600 each to working Americans (so up to $1,200 for married (working) couples, plus an extra $300 for each kid). Hallelujah, and glory be...

Stimulating discussion: Do you trust these men to save the economy?

This is a cheap trick that insults the intelligence of our citizenry. The rationale is simple enough: Give working Americans a little cash in their pockets and they will go out and spend, spend, spend(!) thus giving the American economy a shot in the arm and avoiding recession.
The message is to simply continue conspicuous consumption... ie, we can simply spend our way out of this mess. The problem is that it doesn't work.

Back in 2001 they tried this rebate trick, too. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. Studies show that respondents to polling on the issue said they actually spent about 20% of the money on durable goods. The Tax Foundation notes one survey that showed: "the spending rate was quite low compared to what many economists had expected." Another study showed the figure slightly higher (between 20%-40% spent) and argued that it did have a significant effect on the economy. Even if you believe that study, it's not the picture that our friends in Washington, D.C. paint of folks running into the street waving hundred dollar bills.

I remember getting my check for $300. I used it to pay off some credit card bills. And, trust me, I would rather have done without it and known it would help pay off the national debt, build new schools, or pave roads. The specious argument that many conservatives use is to say: go for it! Send your check back to the government if that's the way you feel... or send it to a non-profit organization. While the latter is certainly an attractive and plausible option, the former doesn't make any sense. A singular contribution to the federal government does nothing. The purpose of taxation is so that many small contributions from millions of citizens adds up to a substantial pool of money that may be used for the public weal.

Now, what else did we get for that $300/person back in 2001? Hmmm. How about federal deficits as far as the eye can see? How about cuts to federal aid to states, reductions in essential human services, and more unfunded federal mandates. Such a deal!

Honestly, if you think about it how much is $300, or even $600 per worker going to get you? A month's rent (if your rent is cheap)... While it is a not-insignificant amount of money for low-income workers, the reality is that it's just not enough to get anyone through six months or a year of hard times that lay ahead. In short, the proposed stimulus package sends the wrong message for the wrong time.

Instead of using a transparent (if popular) election year trick to put a small amount of cash into the hands of Americans, why not focus on a real, long-term stimulus plan?

Such a plan might include:

1) Rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans (over $200,000);

2) Repealing (or at least recalibrating) the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) so that middle-income Americans are no longer caught in its clutches;

3) Using the new tax revenue from the wealthiest Americans to pay for unemployment insurance compensation extensions, increases in food stamp benefits, and workforce training (this was considered by the House, but they stripped it from the bill in order to move it; the Senate may put it back in, but there's no telling if a conference committee will pass it, or if Bush will sign it with these provisions included).

4) Corporate welfare reform - specifically stripping oil and coal research and development from the already hugely profitable private companies we subsidize and putting it into real renewable energy R&D and implementation. How about replacing every oil derrick in Texas with a wind turbine?

5) Balancing the federal budget.

If we have learned anything since the Bush Administration took over in 2001 it is that its economic policies are pure bunk. It took the largest budget surplus in American history and turned it into the largest deficit. This stimulus package will only make it worse.

How come nobody is talking about this?!

Actually some people are. Michael Bloomberg has just come out panning the entire package. The guy has some smarts, and some cojones. According to news reports of his comments on the package at a speech before the U.S. Conference of Mayors he said: "We can't borrow our way out of this. The jig is up." And, "It's not going to make much of a difference because we've already been running huge deficits. If we spend all the money right now, and there is no recovery because of it, then we don't have a second hand to play."

When it comes to money, Bloomberg makes dollars and sense.

His solution? According to Newsday: "Bloomberg argued that the government's first goal should be to stop the bleeding in the housing sector. "What good is a rebate going to do for a family who's about to lose the place that they sleep in?" he said. Instead, the mayor argued, the government should:

Adopt a capital budget to oversee long-term infrastructure spending, instead of the current year-to-year spending.

Offer financial counseling, modified loans and, in some cases, subsidized loans to homeowners who find themselves unable to afford their mortgages.

Overhaul immigration laws to bring more workers in, not keep workers out."

Wow... how refreshing. Instead of demonizing immigrants and demagoguing the immigration issue, there is a politician out there who actually says "let them in..." the words on the Statue of Liberty actually still mean something:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

If anyone should know the meaning of that old Emma Lazarus poem ("The New Colossus"), it would be the Mayor of New York. Is this guy actually going to run for President? An independent truth-teller (and former Democrat) who is self-funded and not as crazy as Ross Perot could sure make the race very interesting.

Ross was boss, back in '92.

While we're at it, why not throw in real progress on health care (say, universal, single-payer?), and fundamentally shift our economic priorities to help ALL Americans, not just those at the top of the socio-economic ladder?

What could be a better stimulus plan than building a foundation for long-term economic growth and prosperity and eliminating class anxiety by strengthening the social safety net for those in need?

Galbraith Dips a Toe into Gubernatorial Waters...

2008-01-22T14:38:00.000-08:00

Anthony Pollina's day just got a little worse... and Jim Douglas probably thinks he's got it made (although that false sense of security may be his undoing) as Peter Galbraith takes another step towards running for Governor.

Today Galbraith sent out an email touting his "Vermont Leadership Fund" which will support candidates at all levels, but presumably serves as the official "dipping of the toe" into gubernatorial waters.

"Interesting," as Peter Freyne would say. You can check out the message and contribute at: http://www.vermontleadershipfund.org/.

Maybe this guy CAN give Douglas a run for his money. At least he's got the guts not to be scared off by Douglas and/or Pollina (yet).

For those of you unfamiliar with Peter Galbraith, here's a video of his take on the Bush Administration's handling of the Iraq War, the surge, and its broader implications. If this guy can indict the Douglas Administration the way he goes after the Bush Administration in this clip, that should go a long way to shoring up his credentials. Stay tuned!

The conventional wisdom that Douglas cruises in a 3-way race. But the conventional wisdom is wrong: Douglas has it much easier in a head-to-head race against Pollina.

Here's why:

For starters, there are a large percentage of old-guard Democrats who simply WILL NOT vote for a Progressive, regardless of how much courting goes on, and regardless of whether the Democratic leadership could convince someone from running to give him a free pass (which won't happen). In that case, Douglas either picks up those folks ("Douglas Democrats"?), or they take a pass on voting in that race. So, Douglas stands to win with anywhere from 55%-45% (best case for Pollina), or perhaps in a landslide somewhere around 65% or 70% to Pollina's 35% or 30%) (more likely).

Second, in a 3-way race, the Democrats will vote, and turnout will be high in a hotly contested presidential election year. So, it does provide the opening to keep Douglas with a plurality of the vote - either throwing it to the legislature and allowing the 3rd place candidate to make a public appeal to throw their votes to the 2nd place candidate), or at a minimum hampering him by denying him a mandate.

Lastly, might I suggest that if the Dems put forth aggressive energy and health plans this session and Douglas vetoes them, or if the economy continues to worsen, OR, any number of other X-factors come into play (suppose Galbraith outraises Douglas using his national/international connections - who knows?!), then perhaps, just perhaps, the Democrat finishes first. Not entirely outside the realm of possibility if all the stars align.

In Defense of "Hillary Flick"

2008-01-16T05:14:00.000-08:00

OK, full disclosure: I would be perfectly happy if Hillary were to win the nomination. I feel like such a square for even saying that. All my cool friends are born-again Obama-philes. I know, I know... Obama is the Democrat-du-jour, the "change-agent." Edwards (truly, my first choice), the populist, is a longshot at this point, and much to my consternation keeps running third. But like Obama's candidacy, Hillary's run is, in fact, also historic. And, yet somehow she and her campaign are taken for granted.

That said, Hillary just seems to be trying so hard. Poking a little fun at her campaign is almost irresistible. Slate sums it up neatly: some folks just don't like her because she is an over-prepared, perfectionist goody-two-shoes. Call it the "Tracy Flick syndrome."

Pretty good, no? Almost spot on perfect, I'd say.

And yet... and yet there's something nagging at me the way the media, the pundits, and even some voters I've heard talk about her candidacy. It's as though there is this latent sexism... unspoken, yet prevalent. Pervasive, even. And, I don't like it. Not one bit. She's tough, she's smart, and yes, she's experienced.

So, why the Hillary bashing? Is it because we're afraid of the Republican smear-machine? Well, she was certainly right about the "vast right-wing conspiracy." But, I don't think that Democrats worried about "electability" explains it all. After all, the Republicans hate her because they fear her.

What about on the issues? Well, there she's a true-blue Democrat with all the bona fides of someone who has been through the health care wars (and with the battle scars to prove it). True, some would say that the "New" Democrats she represents are a sell out. But, we loved Bill and that and "triangulation" was what he was all about. He's not perfect, we said, but he's ours and he gave us eight years in the White House. How is Hillary any different? If you loved Bill, or at least voted for him, then Hillary should be good enough for you. Besides, she's just macchiavellian enough to steal any good ideas the GOP has, alter them with a liberal twist, suck them in to pass it, and then stick it to 'em right where it hurts. Just like Bill (probably better than Bill). Matthew Yglesias, over at the Atlantic, put it succinctly: "frankly, the idea that Clinton would use dishonest political tactics to beat the GOP is, in my view, probably the most appealing thing about her."

True, her position on Iraq is a liability, but no more so than Obama's position (or most of the Republican field, for that matter). The bottom line on Iraq is that none of the candidates really know what they will do once in office. And, the conditions in Iraq are driving the policy, not the other way around. Until someone new assumes control of the Oval Office and gets a real intel assessment it is all speculation. The likelihood that even someone like Edwards (or, even Kucinich!) could waltz in and just pull the troops out without consequence is unlikely and unrealistic. So, despite most Democrats desire to pull out of Iraq, I suspect that regardless of party or individual plan we are likely to be there well into a new Administration and beyond.

If nothing else Hillary would drive the Republicans absolutely crazy. Just like Tracy Flick in "Election." And, don't forget how the movie turned out: She ends up coming out on top in her battle against Matthew Broderick's character, when he attempts to turn the election against her by manipulating the vote totals (something Al Gore has actually experienced, and which could happen again): The poor fellow ends up losing his job and guiding tours at a museum somewhere in the capital and she ends up on Capitol Hill. That's probably what is in store for anyone who messes with Hillary - even with a 52% popular vote ceiling. It might be worth electing her for that alone.

So, yes, Hillary (if it comes to that). Not bad, and even good (or better) in some ways. And, a woman to drive the Republicans to distraction. How novel!

** In the meantime, I'll continue to support Sen. Edwards' longshot bid. I must say, I like that he's within spitting distance of an upset in Nevada (Obama-32%; Hillary-30%; Edwards-27%) and he was great in the debate last night (especially on the issue of Iraq, nuclear energy production, and corporate cash) distinguishing himself from his rivals.

NSA: Big Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?

2008-01-14T05:31:00.000-08:00

It's nice to know the almighty dollar still rules - even when it comes to national security.

Despite caving in to government spying on Americans through their telephone records, for "national security" reasons, apparently such patriotism extends only so far as the FBI budget allows. Apparently, more than half of almost 1,000 bills in five different FBI field offices were not paid on time; some FISA-authorized surveillance was dropped or interrupted as a result of unpaid bills.

From Reuters: "American Civil Liberties Union attorney Michael German said, 'It seems the telecoms, who are claiming they were just being 'good patriots' when they allowed the government to spy on us without warrants, are more than willing to pull the plug on national security investigations when the government falls behind on its bills.'"

It makes you wonder: if getting the information from those telecom accounts was so important to national security in the first place, why would the FBI let them lapse for nonpayment? Maybe they really weren't that important. Also, why would the telecom companies just shut them off if they were really interested in being "good patriots"? Could it be that they, who agreed to allow these transgressions in the first place, are still peeved that they haven't been granted immunity from civil suits for doing this, as they've requested?

Of course, domestic spying on Americans without a warrant is unconstitutional on its face. Still, the Bush Administration has successfully chipped away at our Constitutional freedoms. There is an excellent primer on the legal arguments for and against wiretapping at NPR's website.

US Supreme Court 5-4 Decision: Lethal Injection OK for Voters Without Photo ID (Scalia: "If they're dead, they're probably voting anyway.")

2008-01-10T07:53:00.001-08:00

... with apologies to the Onion.

Ok, so the Supremes have not handed down a decision in either the lethal injection case, or the voter identification case, but we can be fairly certain given the make-up of the court where they'll come down.

For those readers who are unfamiliar with these cases, here's a quick take on each:

Lethal injection: is it constitutional under the Eighth Amendment (read: is it "cruel and unusual")? Specifically, this case was brought by two death row inmate(s) in Kentucky. The case, Baze and Bowling v. Rees, centers on the narrow question of whether or not the way lethal injection in that state (a three drug cocktail - one to knock you out, one to paralyze you, and one to stop your heart) is administered is constitutional. It does not challenge the death penalty on its face. Still, it's an interesting case because it tests the limits of death penalty protocols.

Scalia (of course) takes the lead suggesting that 1) these folks don't really deserve that much consideration anyway ("This is an execution, not a surgery," he snaps! And, "the other side says that to know whether the person is unconscious or not, all it takes is a slap in the face and shaking!"), and 2) even if the pain caused can be considered "unnecessary" the standard is that in order for it to be unconstitutional, it must be "unnecessary and wanton."

Scalia says: "Put 'em down..."

This is a distinction without a difference. The definition of "wanton" is "done, shown, used maliciously or unjustifiably," or "deliberate and without motive or provocation," or "without regard for what is right, just, humane, etc." If the state knows that its protocols are unnecessary and likely to cause pain yet disregards that likelihood, doesn't that make it "wanton?!" Not in Scalia's book.

Of course, this case with its particularities and subjective fights over what constitutes pain, or how much pain is permissible, etc. ignores the elephant in the room: namely whether or not the death penalty itself ought continue. It's likely the Court will come down on the side of Kentucky in determining (as Scalia put it): "If the protocol is properly executed," presumably no pun intended, then "there's no risk." Slate has an excellent analysis on this case, and concludes with emphasis on the larger issue:

"There are so many real problems with the death penalty—racial disparities and inadequate trial counsel and sloppy crime labs. Anyone who thought those problems might be solved by inducing a sweeter sleep was probably dreaming anyhow."

Voting Rights. The second case referred to above, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, was just heard yesterday. It's a challenge to Indiana's 2005 "strictest-in-the-nation" voter ID law. The law requires every voter to produce photo ID at the polls on election day when s/he goes to cast a ballot. If they don't have it they can go to the county seat in some cases many miles away to get one after signing an affidavit that they cannot afford one (and by the way for which they must also produce a birth certificate - another hurdle in time, organization, and expense). Then they have to go back and vote. Ostensibly, the law was created to prevent that favorite conservative election day canard: voter fraud.

However, as anyone with any knowledge on the subject will tell you, this is almost entirely a figment of the right's imagination to scare the public into allowing such measures to be entered into law. It's the same justification used to continually raise objections to same-day voter registration, which is only available in a handful of states. Yet, voter fraud in the United States as a whole is exceedingly rare. Even in states where presumably you could get away with it - Minnesota, Maine, New Hampshire, Idaho, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and North Dakota (which has done away with registration altogether), voter fraud is virtually unknown. In fact, those states routinely have among the highest participation rates with few, if any, documented cases of fraud (I'm aware of only one case in Maine involving some college students who mistakenly voted by mail in their home states, then turned around and cast ballots in Maine near their college - they were not prosecuted).

Still, let's not lose the forest for the trees. As Slate's analysis points out, this case is shaping up not to be about what the appropriate burden for voters to bear should be with respect to the state's interest in ensuring the virtue and sanctity of the ballot box. Instead, this case appears to be shaping up as a debate over "facial challenges" - that is lawsuits designed to challenge laws that are unconstitutional on their face in every circumstance and not an "as-applied" challenge that affects only the litigants.

Chief Justice Roberts: "You have about this much chance of convincing me..."

In fact, it is arguable the appellants in this case can even show harm without a facial challenge: the case was brought before an election had even happened, and while the appellants could produce a handful of folks who didn't actually have photo ID's and would be "burdened" by the law, none had actually been denied their vote. Instead, the real reason for bringing the suit is to avoid injury to the potentially thousands of individuals who would be disenfranchised on election day because they do not have a photo ID and/or don't have transportation to get to the county seat, or can't afford the fees, or quite simply don't want to go through the hassle.

Let's get one thing straight: Justice Terrence Evans had it right in dissent when this case was before the Indiana Supreme Court: "Let's not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic."

Unfortunately, on appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court, not only is it likely that the increased barriers to voting for seniors, minorities, and indigents in Indiana be upheld, but it may be the fig-leaf conservatives have been looking for to do away with facial challenges altogether.

Meanwhile, Justice Thomas continues to show his usual, admirable restraint from the bench.

Justice Thomas: Mum's the word...

What Now?

2008-01-08T18:48:00.000-08:00

As I write election returns from New Hampshire are coming in. With almost half the precincts reporting, Hillary is narrowly leading Barack Obama. Edwards is a distant third. While this likely dooms Edwards (and certainly Richardson will be dropping out soon, despite his claims that he can compete in Nevada), what does this mean for the race generally?

One thing it might mean is that the reports of Hillary Clinton's demise are premature. The Clinton's are well loved by rank and file Democrats. What is so surprising is that she is doing so well in a place rife with Independents, like New Hampshire. Time will tell how the voters broke. One theory is that Edwards' folks decided he just wasn't viable and ended up breaking for Clinton... they are blue-collar rank and file Democrats more likely to support her than the cerebral Obama. Another theory is that women ended up breaking heavily for Clinton after her performance in the debates and the "Diner Sob." Finally, Obama's youth brigades may have told pollsters they were for him, but then ended up not turning out (that's what you get for inspiring frat-boys, Barack).

But seriously, the other thing it might mean is that rather than coasting, Obama may, in fact get the proper vetting and scrutiny that his campaign will need if it is to survive a general election campaign - particularly if McCain emerges as a consensus candidate (the only one who might be able to pull out a win against the Democrats in 2008). I think Obama (or Clinton, for that matter) would make a fine nominee. However, his campaign to date has largely centered on platitudes and variations on the "change" theme. That won't hold up for the next 11 months. We're going to need more... "beef" as Walter Mondale so eloquently put it to Gary Hart back in '84.

Slate ran a post on this topic that is worth checking out. It's clearly a huge victory for Clinton if she pulls it out, but it isn't a death knell for Obama, just a reality check. Getting the nomination against the caliber of opponent he is facing shouldn't be easy.

Apparently, it isn't.

We Can't Lose!

2008-01-06T15:39:00.001-08:00

That's the conclusion I came to after watching the two New Hampshire debates last night. That's a prediction and an exhortation (i.e., we can't afford to lose!).

The Republicans spent the evening fixed on fear, terrorism, war, immigration and living in the past on 9/11.

By contrast, the Democrats focused on the pressing issues facing America: health care, education, jobs and the economy, getting our troops out of Iraq, and looking ahead with optimism, strength and hope for the future.

Which platform sounds more appealing to you?

One thing I've noticed is that the various camps are digging hard into their positions, which is only natural and perfectly understandable given the heated battle for the primary elections. After the primaries, however, we all have to forgive and forget and get behind whoever the eventual nominee. The debate last night reinforced for me the sense that whoever gets the nomination is going to be a VAST improvement over the current Administration and any of the candidates the GOP has to offer.

Here's my quick take on the Democratic debate:

Obama was once again impressive: thoughtful, mature... presidential. His message of change may well be the most positive and inspiring of all the candidates. He makes a good frontrunner.

Hillary's performance came off as very human, funny, and smart. It showed she is well-positioned to lead. Despite what some folks say (they worry about her high personal "negatives"), she would make a great president and I firmly believe she can win if she gets the nomination.

John Edwards is definitely the most fired up of the bunch. He has a point: no matter how good your plans, if the big corporations are calling the shots in Washington then not much is going to get done. Not sure if that message is enough to bring him the nomination, but it is making a difference on the trail and it resonates with voters who know that despite our best efforts health care reform has been stymied in this country by those interests since Hillary tried to get universal care way back in 1993.

Bill Richardson probably has the best resume of the bunch. He's smart, but clearly frustrated that "experience" may not mean as much to voters given his polling numbers.
Best lines of the night:

Hillary, after being asked by moderator Charlie Gibson on why her personal negatives are so high... why is it that people don't seem to like you? She replied: "Now you've hurt my feelings." Which got a big laugh. "But I'll try to carry on." More laughs. The Obama chimed in: "You're likeable enough, Hillary."

Richardson on mistakes made during the debates and if he would correct any of them. He immediately said: "In the first debate I was asked who my favorite Supreme Court Justice was... I asked 'dead or alive' (big laugh). So, I ended up saying Whizzer White because I figured he must be good if he was appointed by Kennedy. Of course, later I learned that he was against Roe v. Wade, against civil rights... so, yeah, in hindsight that wasn't a very good answer." The place broke up. Points for honesty and humility.

Edwards on the same question: "Well, I've already got this one figured out... in an earlier debate I teased Hillary about the jacket she wore to the debate. I'll never do that again... by the way, Hillary, you look very nice tonight." Again, the place broke up, and points to Edwards for making fun of his earlier gaffe.

Vermonters Rally With Edwards in New Hampshire

2008-01-06T06:43:00.000-08:00

I spent yesterday canvassing for John Edwards and later attended the rally he held in Lebanon, New Hampshire. Here's a shot of some of the campaign staff and volunteers. A dedicated bunch. some of 'em fresh from the plains of Iowa.

They gave me a walking list in Enfield, NH and I spent a couple of hours going door-to-door chatting up our neighbors to the east.

Whether or not I made any difference for John Edwards, I can tell you that the good people of New Hampshire will be glad when Tuesday comes and goes. They are fried, burned out, and fed up with volunteers, canvassers, staffers, and even the candidates themselves begging for their votes. That message came through loud and clear. One 72-year old woman declared: "It's bordering on harrassment!"

Later, though she engaged in a spirited discussion on the problems with our health care system. "Thank God we're relatively healthy," she said, "we paid for at-home hospice care for my father. Cost us $13,000 for 13 days and our insurance wouldn't cover it... and that was back in the early '80's. I can't imagine what it would cost now!" By the end she gave me a wink and said "I do like that Edwards is standing up to the big corporations... they're running everything" She made the whole trip worthwhile.

Edwards was fired up and his pitch of taking on corporate greed and special interests seems to be catching on with voters.

Here's his opener:

Folks were pretty fired up. I was glad to see a strong Vermont contingent helping out with canvassing. Bill McKowne of Cambridge (below) was ready to knock on some doors. Said he was for Edwards based on "electability" and just got the call about the Lebanon rally the day before.
I was glad to make the trip. It's always good to get a taste of presidential politics up close and personal. Good to see Matt Dunne, Kevin Leahy, and Ben Cohen making the trip too. For more pictures and accounts check out Green Mountain Daily who also had a feisty, motivated contingent on-hand to help out.