Rasmussen has a Vermont poll, and the numbers are even with the ARG poll: Obama 57%, Clinton 33%. It’s not a question of who’s gonna take the state anymore (if it ever was), its a question of delegate allocation and just how many of our state’s handful Obama can capture. We’ll try to have an estimate on that after the returns are in next week.

Ken Picard is generally a solid reporter, but not last week as he did a bit of a smear job on Sen John Campbell (D-Windsor) in 7 Days. Apparently on weeks like this where there isn’t something hot and heavy happening, he falls into the trap of…shall we say…creative overstatement. His report in last week’s Seven Days is entitled “New Law to Boost Coverage for State Workers Raises Ethical Questions” but should be entitled New Law to Boost Coverage for State Workers Gets 7 Days Reporter to Attempt to Raise Ethical Questions, as he tries to argue that a bill being pushed by Campbell is not the worker-friendly bill it seems, as it will benefit lawyers like Campbell by raising uninsured motorist coverage limits to “$5 million for a state employee injured or killed on the job” from the current $250,000. Campbell is currently representing such a client and feels that the family in question is poorly served by the current cap of $250,000. Picard makes the point that the increase would also be an increase in payout for the lawyers (like Campbell) representing these clients.

Thing is, the bill wouldn’t apply to the current case, so Campbell stands to gain a big fat nothing. From his perspective, it was simply a matter of his seeing the problem through his own professional experience, and attempting a legislative remedy. And Picard apparently knows that, as he states in the article:

“its provisions are not retroactive and would not take effect until the following calendar year…. several Vermont lawyers and legal experts consulted for this story say that as long as Campbell’s bill isn’t made retroactive, it shouldn’t raise any red flags.”

So whats the problem? Nothing. And Picard apparently couldn’t even find anyone he could quote for the article that claimed there was. Nevertheless, the stated thesis of the article,  “Should lawmakers be allowed to propose legislation that, directly or otherwise, may benefit them personally?” – is a point he is inappropriately and irresponsibly making at Campbell’s expense, just to make it edgier. Come on, Ken. You know better.

Rep. Tom Koch (R-Barre Town), Concern Troll. Koch is very concerned that Democrats may use ineffective campaign messaging against his candidate, Senator John McCain. In yesterday’s Times Argus, he writes:

If you think that linking McCain to Bush is a good campaign strategy, you are mistaken. McCain is his own man – an independent thinker who works with hard facts and solid principles, who will always tell you the truth whether you want to hear it or not, and whose very being is summed up in one word: integrity. This year, it is John McCain, not George Bush, who is running for president.

Heh. Hit a nerve, there I guess. Thanks Tom. We’ll all take that into consideration. We know you’re just trying to…ah…. help.

Gratuitous old friend promotion. Talented friends that go all the way back to my teenaged Kentucky days. This one’s a musician (with her husband). Definitely give her a listen. This one’s an artist. She has some really beautiful stuff. Check ’em both out.

( – promoted by odum)

The Vermont Democrats announced today that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) will headline this year’s David W. Curtis Awards 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 helped secure 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; and

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: http://dodd.senate.gov/

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

** UPDATE: MSNBC reports that Dodd is set to endorse Sen. Barack Obama at a news conference in Cleveland, Ohio later today. Here’s the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23…

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

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.

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 a foreign and domestic 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.

** This is cross-posted with links to sources at http://mulishbehavior.blogspot…

Last week, the Legislature got hit hard by the education lobby to repeal Act 82.  Republicans joined Democrats and Progressives to repeal it.  Wisely, Speaker Symington saw the political fallout that would come from her caucus members flip-flopping and took it off the floor.  But it seems she thinks that House Ed. will come up with a good alternative.  I have my doubts, because both “cost containment grants” and “excess spending penalties” have serious problems.

So what was the education lobby hitting legislators hard with?  Federal mandates.

Federal mandates in education exist to an extent, but they’re overstated, and they’re not that big a cost driver.  I’ll give an example.  NCLB hardly affects 9-12 senior high schools at all.  And yet Spaulding H.S. spent 27 percent more in the five years after NCLB was passed.  My own high school spent 33 percent more.  These were typical experiences for 9-12 senior high schools.

School administrators get a lot of mileage out of excuses like federal mandates.  

Reading Kestrel’s diary on Ralph Nader and the comments that follow, it amazes me to this day just how profound an impact that little man’s selfishness had on the world and will continue to have on the world for, literally, generations.

Sure, Ralph Nader was not the only reason Al Gore lost Florida, or the overall election for that matter. The fact is, however, that Nader’s effect on the election was so severe, that without him – without that one single factor, Gore would have won. That puts the “Nader Factor” in a different category of reasons, and it is one reason he will never escape culpability for his acts. As many faults as the two party system has, Nader exploited the faults to make the system worse, not better.  He did it in a way to maximize his impact on the election rather than his impact on policy. His selfishness costs us all dearly to this day.

Some perspective, below the jump.

The story is not that Gore won the popular vote by a relatively narrow half million votes or so. Rather, generations historians will shake their heads at the fact that the popular vote was basically tied. The important number was a decisive win for Gore in the electoral college where he rightfully won 54% of the electoral vote to Bush’s 46%. However, when the Supreme Court reallocated Florida’s electoral college votes by rigging the tallying system, Bush was awarded a state that he had lost by thousands of votes. That created a swing of 8% in the electoral column. (& without Nader swinging New Hampshire – the other State where Nader singularly changed the outcome – it would have been a 55-45% electoral college victory).  

The biggest Nader effect was in Florida. Without Nader, instead of winning Florida by just 8,000-20,000 votes, which was Gore’s approximate margin of victory after an honest count of the vote, Gore would have had such a large margin that Nader’s narcissistic sabotaging could not act as the final straw in the ensuing post-election debacle. Admittedly there were other factors that prevented Gore from receiving the Florida electoral votes he won. Nader was one individual factor that, by himself, cost Florida and the presidency.

Also, like Florida, without Nader on the New Hampshire ballot, Gore would have won that state as well, no.question.about.it. With a win in New Hampshire, Gore’s presidential victory would also have been impossible to deny.

Gore won Florida outright, yet Nader’s sanctimonious interference was the biggest electoral factor in nullifying the victory. The biggest practical factors were the fraud and conspiracy within the both the Florida Sec’y of State’s office, and the result-oriented activism of the the Republican Supreme Court that stepped in and socially promoted a drunk from Texas.

Fifty years from now, the Republican theft of the 2000 election, through ballot fraud, the corruption of the GOP Supreme Court (Scalia, Thomas & Rehnquist especially), along with Nader’s obscene act of treasonous self-love, will rank in significance with events as tragic as the RFK assignation due to the disastrous historical courses set in motion by both events.  

Sometimes a single day's news offerings present an irony one can't ignore. Today in Rhode Island, HRC mocks Obama's gift of speech with a bizarre, risky parody against heaven itself:

“Now I could stand up here and say, ‘Let’s just get everybody together. Let’s get unified. The sky will open. The lights will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.’

Fair enough.  If you're elouence-impaired, go ahead and make a joke out of the best orator to come along since, say, Bill Clinton.

But then — what's this? — Glenn Thrush of Newsday.com pens a 4 page report with this biographical bombshell:

In 1975, a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham, acting as a court-appointed attorney, attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl in mounting an aggressive defense for an indigent client accused of rape in Arkansas – using her child development background to help the defendant.

Praise the Lord and Pass the Plea Bargain! 

The Glenn Thrush article, “An Early Look at how Clinton Deals with Crisis” is a must read, so here's the link again:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story?page=1

Now it's no surprise that Hillary Clinton will do just about anything to win, win, win.  Except, apparently, the winning itself.  But what is truly amazing is her pitbull tenacity against a 12 year-old rape victim.  

In her 2003 autobiography “Living History,” Clinton writes that she initially balked at the assignment, but eventually secured a lenient plea deal for Taylor after a New York-based forensics expert she hired “cast doubt on the evidentiary value of semen and blood samples collected by the sheriff's office.”

However, that account leaves out a significant aspect of her defense strategy – attempting to impugn the credibility of the victim, according to a Newsday examination of court and investigative files and interviews with witnesses, law enforcement officials and the victim.

Rodham, records show, questioned the sixth grader's honesty and claimed she had made false accusations in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out “older men” like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit signed “Hillary D. Rodham” in compact cursive.

Ok, she didn't ask to represent a rapist.  She even told the judge she would be uncomfortable doing so.  And of course, it was her job to provide the best legal defense for her client.  

But, come on, Hillary. 

'She was just a real bulldog'

Rodham immersed herself in the work, people involved in the case say, mounting a ferocious and exhaustively researched defense that made a strong impression on some in the male-dominated legal community in northern Arkansas.

“She was just a real bulldog – a real bulldog,” said former Washington County prosecutor Mahlon Gibson, her opponent in the case.

Susan Carroll, senior scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, says Clinton's attitude toward her work in Arkansas foreshadowed the workaholic approach she's adopted today in her uphill battle against Barack Obama.

 Really.  Now this we can believe.  As a matter of fact, we can see a young  Hillary Rodham going after a 12 year-old in 1975 just like we see her going after Obama in the last few days, capped off with her deragatory “celestial choir” reference to Obama supporters.  Do whatever it takes.  Don't concern yourself with the fallout.

So it was Hillary Rodham's job to defend a hard-drinking 41 year-old Thomas Alfred Taylor in a rape trial.  The story, as best described by Newsday, went like this:  

Around midnight, Taylor and his 20 year-old cousin found a 12 year-old girl willing to go for a ride with them.  Taylor then picked up a 15 year-old boy and proceeded to a liquor store.  He then poured some Old Grandad in the girl''s Coca-Cola.

Then some bowling; then a trip to a place off the highway.  The two older men went for  a walk; the girl and boy had sex; then the 41 year-old guy came back to take a turn.

What kind of argument did Rodham make?

…the record shows that Rodham was also intent on questioning the girl's credibility. That line of defense crystallized in a July 28, 1975, affidavit requesting the girl undergo a psychiatric examination at the university's clinic.

“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing,” wrote Rodham, without referring to the source of that allegation. 

Given the fact that Hillary Rodham was a young attorney put on a case she did not desire, there should be no complaint against her for representing Taylor.  But that's not the point.  There's an old adage I find to be useful in cases like this:  “It's not what you say; it's how you say it.”

Listen one more time to the video clip from the Rhode Island speech today.  Imagine HRC being one of the kids in your childhood schoolyard.  Imagine being a 12 year-old girl being questioned by 27 year-old Hillary Rodham.  Consider yourself part of the growing “choir” raising it's voice through the Obama campaign.

Maybe it's not irony I'm seeing in today's news offerings.  Maybe it's a definitive pattern of behavior.

Nate Freeman

Northfield 

before I head off to bed:

I have no idea where this came from.  It got posted to Kos and I stole it.  

Well, then. It's been a bad week for St. McCain. First, the lobbyist story breaks, then Bud Paxson, the broadcaster at the focus of the debate comes out a day or two later and contradicts McCain's statement that they never met. Now, Howard Dean has announced that the DNC's  going to file a complaint with the FEC against McCain due to his on and off public financing fiasco. From the WSJ:

“We are in this complaint to the FEC asserting that the senator and his campaign are still bound to the conditions by matching funds including the spending limits of approximately $56 million dollars,” Dean said.

McCain and his campaign have vigorously disputed that assertion in light of a recent letter from FEC Chairman David Mason to the McCain campaign stating that he cannot formally withdrawal from the system until the FEC obtains more information regarding the terms of a $4 million loan his then cash-strapped campaign obtained last year as well as a formal vote from the commission, which would require an approval from four of the six members on the panel.

The DNC’s complaint alleges that McCain used the promise of matching funds to secure the multi-million dollar bank loan. He also said McCain has benefited from the public financing system which helps facilitate candidates’ ability to get their names on state ballots. He said these actions bind McCain to the system, and he is asking the FEC to investigate those issues.

“The law is very clear. He can not withdraw if he has used the promise of matching funds as collateral for his loan,” Dean said, “John McCain cannot unilaterally withdrawal from the spending limitations.”

 What does this mean? Well, it's pretty serious. There's a good plain ol' synopsis of it over at Americablog right now. The last paragraph's a doozie:

What does it mean for John McCain? It's yet another issue where John McCain tries to legislate one way and do something completely different. In this case it has to do with campaign finance issues. As Brad Smith, the former Republican FEC commissioner noted, if McCain drops out of the system the FEC will subpoena McCain, and his staff during and their records to determine whether they violated the law. If they're found to be in violation of the law they can be fined up to $25,000 and they can be jailed for up to five years.

Being that McCain is really trying hard to give us a Bush third term, what are the odds he ignores it in classic Bush fashion? Should be an interesting week.