(It bears repeating that a diary like this does not necessarily express the opinions of any front pagers but me…) If you hadn’t noticed, I’m frustrated. Frustrated at the fact that a clear, viable candidate isn’t stepping forward to challenge Jim Douglas. Frustrated that an anti-choice, anti-gay rights, scandal-plagued Republican is getting promoted for the post by our Senate President Pro-Tem. Frustrated because too many people are pretending that a credible campaign can still be run in this state by deciding to jump in sometime next May. So my wild and crazy solution? Drag internationally known author, activist, and Middlebury College Professor Bill McKibben into the fray (yes, possibly running as an Independent), even though I’m sure he’d rather spend the winter cross-country skiing.

The fact is that, of the rumored candidates, Sorrell is probably just messing with people’s heads (either that or he thinks you can play by the old calendar), and Dunne needs to beat Dubie first.

But consider what a Bill McKibben campaign would look like.

First off, he isn’t just more credible on the issue that many believe (including possibly the Governor himself) that Douglas is most vulnerable on – he’s a global leader on the matter. Douglas would pull his smarmy patronizing schtick on the guy at the risk of looking like a real doofus.

And McKibben is more than just a high profile author, he’s become an international celebrity. The introduction of an international celebrity into the race would not only open up unparallelled financial support, it would also give the race instant attention and credibility from a Vermont press corps which routinely gives Douglas absolute deference, while dismissing his opponents out of hand.

McKibben would also be uniquely able to bring in new voters. And the international attention brought to such a race would shine a positive light on the state.

There’s also the matter of McKibben himself. His style is not unlike the approachable, folksy demeanor of Douglas himself, but without the smarminess. McKibben can also speak in easy, matter-of-fact terms about how a statewide effort to encourage local economies that are less dependent on petroleum can be an economic engine for the state, encourage job growth and save taxpayers money. The image of McKibben walking the state and talking to regular Vermont voters is an appealing one that should be concerning to Douglas.

Although he’ll be labelled inexperienced, Obama supporters know that this charge can be made into as much (or more) of an asset than a liability. McKibben can guarantee the state that he will surround himself with Vermont’s best and brightest to put his vision of government into action.

Anywa, I could go on, but I won’t because this isn’t a “draft McKibben” website – this is: mckibbenforgovernor.org. Check it out, and sign the petitions encouraging Bill to take the plunge and pledging support. I hope to blogify the site soon enough, so keep watching it (and let folks know)

Homespun's diary from a few days ago, called “Terri Hallenbeck must go” brought to our attention, among other things, Peter Welch talking of a particular “earmark” (federal money allocated for a specific homestate project). Now, earmarks, also commonly derided as “pork”, generate a lot of controversy, such as AK Senator Ted Stevens infamous “bridge to nowhere”. Without a doubt there is much waste and abuse, but can one honestly find a problem when federal dollars go to expand a rural health center or another beneficial thing? And can you guess where Vermont stands in all of this? Go below the jump to find out… 

Regardless, my point is not to decry or defend earmarks at this particular juncture, more to point your attention to the fact that Vermont is one of the top receivers of earmark money, as illustrated in this picture, courtesy of the Sunlight Foundation, by way of Talking Points Memo. The size of the circles indicates earmarked federal dollars on a per capita basis by state (the green circle is Vermont, at $215.7:

Not too shabby, eh? As TPM points out, the smaller states tend to do really well, due to the influence in the Senate. And it doesn't hurt that most of the Senators from those states have some serious longevity:

Another interesting way to look at this is, look at the top three states: Alaska, Hawaii, and West Virginia. All smallish states but each also have senators that have been in office, respectively from 1968 (Stevens), 1963 (Inouye) and 1959 (Byrd).

And don't forget, Pat Leahy has been in there since 1974, as he rode the Dem wave in the wake of Watergate.

All in all, earmarks will remain a controversial topic for the time being, as talk of reform gathers some steam. They tend to be more controversial when other states get them. For the time being, Vermont is doing pretty good with them, and it's better to see the money coming here than going to, let's say, West Virginia, isn't it?