Vermont comes with a level of access to state government that I’ve not seen in other states. When I lived in Rhode Island, I occasionally had very brief and fleeting interactions with legislators and politicians. The night Clinton got elected President, I got to meet now Senator Jack Reed in an elevator and tell him how much I admired and respected him. That’s about as much as you get.
Vermont’s a bit different. This season, I’ve had extended conversations with Peter Shumlin and Matt Dunne. Last year, I talked with Doug Racine and Floyd Nease at length at our blogger summit. When I criticized Challenges for Change a few months ago, I got an e-mail from speaker Smith.
This is so outside of the realm of what I tend to expect, but this access has left me in the position of not just choosing between abstracts and figures who give speeches but choosing between people with whom I’ve had extended conversations and have a bit of admiration and respect for.
I will say that I wish I’d had this opportunity with Markowitz, and because I’ve never met the woman and never had a chance to see how she interacts when I challenge her directly, I don’t have a read on her and I just don’t feel confident supporting her at this point. I truly respect that she may end up making an excellent governor and I’m open to that. If she wins the nomination, she has my full support.
But I’m not going to talk further about her here because I’m not writing about the abstracts. I’m writing about what I know best: what I’ve seen directly and witnessed with my eyes.
So, between the three candidates with whom I’ve had extended conversations, who are Shumlin, Racine and Dunne and why I’m having so much trouble choosing:
With respect to fund raising, this is Racine’s weakest point by far, and honestly it concerns me. Dunne’s powerful fund raising machine has actually shocked me in terms of its abilities, and I think that can be turned to great advantage in the general. Shumlin is just very, very good at talking to people, interacting with them and getting them to support him. In Dunne’s case, I think it’s superior organization that’s leading to strong fund raising. In Shumlin’s, I think it’s primarily just force of personality.
I first met Doug Racine at a poverty forum. It was a fairly amazing experience and gave me great confidence in his ability to govern and lead on issues that are extremely important to me. If Racine becomes our nominee, I’d have no concern whatsoever advocating for him. I am also deeply respectful of his willingness to be open and direct about the tough choices in ways I don’t see other candidates (save for Bartlett) doing. That makes me lean in his direction in a major way. Whereas Shumlin is extremely optimistic about how we can get things done (and I do think he’s got some good ideas), I get the sense from him that he’s more big picture and grand idea than small detail. I don’t see that as a problem as much as it just doesn’t make me as enthusiastic.
My biggest concern with Racine, aside from the money issue, is one that is hopelessly vague: when I see him at events this year (and I haven’t gone to many) I don’t get the feeling that he’s enthusiastic about them. But I’ve only seen him at a few forums this year, and maybe I just caught him on off days, but it makes me worry that he’s not excited about this race. From Shumlin and Dunne I see excitement. From Racine I see a great deal of confidence and ability, but not as much enthusiasm. This makes me think he’d make a great governor but I’m not convinced he’d make a great candidate in the general election.
My biggest concern with Shumlin is an echo of what I wrote before. When I met with him briefly a few weeks ago, he asked if I liked his ad on early education. I said “no.” He wanted to know why and we talked about it a bit. My biggest concern was that I didn’t get the sense that the ads focus on universal preK might end up causing child care providers to think they were putting him out of business. Peter reacted with surprise at my reaction, and I got the sense that he got it but I also felt kind of dismissed, as though what he said was more to placate me and he didn’t remember what his ad actually said. That particular issue makes me question his depth of understanding. Like I said, I think he’s big picture guy, but I’m fine tooth comb detail girl, so that’s important to me.
But that said, I think Shumlin’s charisma is phenomenal, and just having a conversation with the guy, I want to support him, and that psychology and charisma goes a long way in an election. So my support for him is the flip of that of Racine: I think he’d make a stronger candidate but I don’t know that he’d make as good a governor.
Which brings us to Matt Dunne.
Watching Matt for me is like watching a time lapse video of several years over the course of a matter of minutes. When I look at the difference between how he did at the forum I live blogged last month (he did well, but not spectacularly well) and the depth and detail of what I’ve seen since, I’m extremely impressed. I like Matt. He’s personable and he has charisma. My biggest concern about him is what I would have loved about him twenty years ago: his idealism. He talks about technological innovation, which I think is important, but he talks about it as though it’s a cure-all. I’ve been fairly heavily involved in “technological innovation” at the state level. It sounds great on paper, but easily turns into bloated, expensive, waste, much of which is spent out of state and ends up costing us far more than we expect it to. So this concerns me and I worry about this. But from the campaign point of view, what Matt lacks in the over the top personality that Shumlin has, he makes up for in spades with a fund raising apparatus that’s formidable.
So that’s it. I haven’t decided yet. I like them all. I like different things about them and have different concerns about each of them. But none of these concerns are major. They’re more “well, ideally what I’d like is…” I mean, ideally, I’d like my next car to have keyless entry but it’s not like I’d pass on a great vehicle just because it didn’t.
And that’s it for me: Dunne, Shumlin, Racine: these are people I would trust to be governor and do a good, possibly great, job at it. These are people I think could wage a serious effort against Brian Dubie and have a very strong shot at beating him. And maybe that’s the problem: it’s not that the candidates have weaknesses but that the choices are so good this time around that I have to focus on the weaknesses to differentiate between them.
So yeah, I still haven’t made up my mind.
Anyone want to take a stab at convincing me?
Loading ...
Ideally what I’d like is for the unsuccessful Democratic gubernatorial candidates to go out and actively campaign and fundraise for the successful candidate.
To confront on behalf of the nominee and for all Democrats the Republican candidate’s record (if any) and any of his campaign’s misrepresentations or distortions.
To not wait to be asked and grudgingly agree to an appearance here or there, but to volunteer and to convince their own bases — and maybe others — that we really are in the same boat and that they need to get on board with, volunteer for, donate to the eventual nominee, because without them, that boat is going to sink.
That would mean not just lip service to the phrase “party unity,” but active participation. You know, acting like a team instead of people out for themselves.
And ideally I’d like the nominee to accept and use those folks to help him or her win: to get to more events, speak to more people, help Democrats get into that fifth floor office in the Pavilion Building and lead the state back to a sense of community and cooperation.
It’d take some excellent communications coordination and maybe a little humble pie consumption to be sure that the message delivered is the nominee’s and not the former candidate’s, but it could be done. Maybe the VDP chair can facilitate that kind of cooperation.
Ideally, I’d like to think so.
NanuqFC
The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood. – MLK, Jr.
Of all the Democratic candidates, Dunne is the only one, as the outsider, who can pin the blame for our state’s woes on the incompetence of the Dubie-Douglas administration … and other elected officials. Since all the other Democratic candidates have been in office, Vermonters can reasonably look around at the mess we’re in and ask, “Why would we want to elect you back into public office?” They can’t say that with Matt. That gives him a great advantage when going up against Dubie.
Racine concerns me because he said early on at the start of the race that all the Democrats had made a pledge to be good to each other, and yet his campaign was the first to really break ranks and go on the attack, accusing the other Democratic candidates of being liars. So much for The Pledge!
As for “Showboat Shumlin” … well, I just get the feeling that if the facts get in the way … like how much solar power the Germans use … he’ll plow right through and pick up the pieces later. He’ll be too easy to pick apart in the General.
Markowitz: I just don’t think she’s that smart. She boasts that she’s responsible for “transparency in government”, but Vermont is dismal in that area. Like 48th out of 50 … behind Alabama! The only job she’s really had was Secretary of State which gives her enormous name recognition. But that’s about it. It seems like her run for Governor is just a way to do something different. I also don’t think she can beat Dubie.
So, I’m going to vote for Dunne. The guy is smart. He has some real leadership experience. He’s got more energy than a team of draft horses. And his family roots are Vermont all the way.
Julie
Disclosure: I work for the Secretary of State’s Office in my day job (as opposed to my night job as a Burlington City Councilor and Democratic Caucus Chair). In addition, I have submitted parts of what I wrote below as letters to the editor for dailies throughout the state and at least two papers have printed portions of it.
You are right, Deb will make an excellent governor. If you have not yet met her and that is all that is holding you back from considering her in your mix, then I would urge you to seek her out.
I agree with all of Caoimhin Laochdha’s reasons for endorsing Deb that listed here on July 21, 2010 – http://greenmountaindaily.com/…
Let me reiterate some of Caoimhim’s higlights and add a few of my own.
When I was in a private municipal law practice, I heard time and time again from local officials through out the state about the confidence those officials had in Deb’s leadership and the strong value that they placed on the advice given by her office. That was a powerful factor when I decided to take a position in her office. My confidence in Deb’s abilities to lead with strength and vision has only been fortified by my observations over the last seven years.
I strongly support Deb’s positions on job creation, health care, education, agriculture, clean energy and transparency-in-government. As a municipal official the opinions and advice provided by the Secretary of State’s Office has been fundamental in helping both myself and my colleagues on the Burlington City Council take the necessary steps to help insure that City government has the required oversight and has guided me as I have strived to push for greater transparency in City government.
My support for Deb in the democratic primary is not about the other candidates, they are all worthy opponents and I have voted for several of them in past elections. My support for Deb is because of the strength and leadership that she has demonstrated over her eleven plus years as one of Vermont’s statewide office holders. When I first decided to run for City Council, Deb was supportive from the beginning. She could have easily asked me not to run or discouraged me from running. Instead she simply asked what she could do to help. Personally, I think that this shows a tremendous amount of strength on her part.
I have also seen first hand Deb’s transformation of the Secretary of State’s Office. The Elections Division provides excellent services throughout Vermont and gives topnotch, non-partisan information to anyone who inquires. The Corporations Division is providing 21st century services to enhance and strengthen Vermont’s business community. Deb has merged and transformed the Archives and Public Records Divisions into a user-friendly agency that allows for greater citizen access, thus increasing transparency in State government. My own division, the Office of Professional Regulation, has been transformed into a streamlined work engine with an electronic licensing system that is being studied by other state agencies both in Vermont and beyond. How has Deb achieved such rapid transformation of the Secretary of State’s Office? It is not because she has hired bright, hardworking, professional managers. I would expect her to do the same when elected governor.
I have also had the chance to watch Deb outside the office at various social and political functions. Deb is a engaging and has a great sense of humor. Deb’s demeanor, instantly puts those around her at ease. I do not know how she has managed to juggle so many balls successfully, but Deb has a wonderful, well-rounded family, which quite frankly is difficult for anyone to manage and maintain in today’s hectic world, but even harder for a high functioning politician.
At the end-of-the-day Deb has all the ingredients needed to become the next governor of Vermont and not just a good governor, but as you said Julie, a great governor. She is right on the issues, she knows when to delegate, she has a successful track record as an executive and she relates well to others. Most importantly of all, she is committed to public service, good government and the rule-of-law. I hope that you will join me in supporting Deb to be the next governor of Vermont.
I am on vacation this week, so I would be more than happy to discuss any of the above at anytime. My cell is 802-233-2131.
Best,
Ed Adrian
I narrowed it down to a choice between Shumlin and Dunne and the deciding factor was that I believe Dunne is much more open minded and sincerely committed to a level of communication that stands out heads above the rest. When people can’t or won’t communicate about a problem or an issue, it’s truly the guarantee that nothing will change and less will be accomplished in the end.
Matt has a level of unassuming confidence that isn’t diminished by his ability to convey a message that he is able to accept and investigate any suggestions that may come from his constituents without feeling threatened or challenged or downright stumped.
I can sense a genuine enthusiasm in him that is less attached to the possibility that he might be the next Governor of Vermont than to the fact that he has ideas and wants to work toward making this state a better place to live and work, and that he would strive to do that whether he wins or not.
Although it was a somewhat difficult to make my choice, I think in the end I have chosen someone who is going to get things done for the long haul and not miss a beat in the process, and most importantly, I think he will be accessible throughout his entire term(s!!!) in office.
All the candidates are limiting their vision to state issues, which will keep them on the defensive, since the repubs are going to base their campaign on lack of tax revenue.
Deb comes off as too much of the imperial “we.” That is, she says she will do all kinds of things which the governor does not have the power to do. That’s really a hot button issue with me.
Matt is a very nice young guy, and his vision is good locally, but the big picture isn’t there.
The other 3 are all from the legislature, where they should have been able to do the things they say they will do as governor.
Doug is very nice, but has no fire in the belly. I heard that he realizes that he can’t be a nice guy in the campaign, but I don’t think he gets it.
Susan and Peter have no vision except a “new” fiscal conservatism, which is something they could have preached much more effectively in the legislature, which controls spending.
Just to be clear: I am very much looking forward to the general election once the primary has been decided. I seriously think that Dunne, Racine, Shumlin or Markowitz can defeat Dubie and I look forward to seeing him stammer, mumble and bluster his way through a debate with any of them. I do think, from what I’ve seen that Shumlin would probably be the best against him in terms of debate style, but that Racine would be the strongest in terms of content. But… one thing strikes me that’s come up before: in the forum I live blogged last month, Challenges for Change was addressed and Shumlin and Racine both flubbed their answers. They made factual mistakes about some details about the legislation. Dunne, who wasn’t even involved in crafting the legislation, on the other hand, gave a detailed and in depth response that was very strong and relied on the specific facts of it without making errors.
I will also note that one thing pushing me strongly in Shumlin’s favor is his unequivocal support for closing Vermont Yankee, beyond simply stating it as a goal.
Full disclosure: I’ve been working as a volunteer on Matt Dunne’s campaign doing social media work.
I think we’ve got a great slate of candidates on our side, and I don’t think there’s is any question that running the right campaign Dunne, Shumlin, Racine, and Markowitz could all beat Brian Dubie and be effective governors. But ultimately, I thought Matt was the best candidate to run against Brian Dubie as well as the candidate with the best skills to govern.
On the campaign side, I think Matt’s position outside of Montpelier will make it incredibly difficult for Dubie to deflect criticisms about his inaction, where as blame can be levied on the other four since they’re in elected office and have had opportunities to implement many of their policies. Matt also provides an incredibly strong personality contrast with Brian Dubie – I think a 40 year old with significant experience in the private and public sectors who has a lot of new ideas to get our state back on the right course is a very favorable contrast with a do-nothing Lt. Governor who has held office because he’s a “good guy”.
Often on GMD, people have dismissed Matt’s chances because of his loss to Brian in 2006. I really don’t see how that makes sense – he closed the gap dramatically on Brian in the final three weeks of that campaign, and that was when the Lt. Governor’s race was being given virtually no attention, and Brian avoided having to actually campaign against Matt as much as possible. There are going to be no electoral distractions this time, and I think Matt is the best candidate to hold Brian Dubie’s feet to the fire.
But what excites me most about Matt is the fact that despite being a very strong candidate, I think he’ll be an even better governor. Anyone who has sat down with Matt can attest to his depth of knowledge about all kinds of policy, and perhaps his answers become too wonky on occasion. But despite his tremendous personal knowledge, Matt is always so open to the ideas of others, and genuinely believes that a lot of the solutions our state seeks need to be identified by the actual people performing our state’s services.
He has the mind to address our state’s problems in a comprehensive way, the charisma to lead, and a genuine commitment to engaging all Vermonters that I think is going to go a long way in moving our state forward.
we’re going to have a more encompassing poll coming up in the very near future as a featured piece, so please ignore this one.
I remember once supporting a Democratic Presidential candidate whose positions looked good on paper, but few of his former colleagues supported him. This candidate was John Edwards. I think I learned a lot from that experience. (To say the least.)
Doug Racine has at least 27 endorsements from Vt. State legislators, and he’s garnered most of the Union endorsements, as well as the League of Conservation Voters. Dunne and Shumlin each have only a handful of Legislative endorsements, from peers or former peers, and few organizational endorsements.
I had myself convinced I was voting for Shumlin (due to his charisma and energy) until I remembered my lesson from John Edwards. Why are more of Shumlin’s colleagues not endorsing him? I have major concerns that Racine’s presentation is too bland, but he seems well respected by those he works with, and has great ideas. I feel that Matt Dunne cannot win the general election. His presentation is too cerebral. Just calling things like I see them. And in no way comparing Shumlin’s character to that of John Edwards. Just making the endorsed by colleagues analogy.
We need to win in November. How to do it?