A few days ago, I wrote the following on MyDD:

She’s not going to win the nomination, not without doing serious harm to herself and the party.  But in the meantime, I don’t see a need for her to drop out before Pennsylvania or North Carolina, just as I don’t see a need for her to be shut down by Superdelegate edict.  She will lose after North Carolina, but it’s much better if it happens in a way which causes the least harm to the party.  Either her dropping out, or enough Superdelegates pledging to get Obama over the total delegate mark (even if MI and FL are included in the math).

This has to be done in such a fashion as to promote the (true) idea that Clinton had a fair shot at it but just didn’t pull it off: that this was a battle between giants where only one could win and the other lost it fair and square.  If Superdelegates jump in right now and virtually say “Clinton’s already lost, so don’t bother voting in Pennsylvania ’cause it won’t matter” it won’t be perceived as a fair contest.  I think it’s fine to wait for PA and NC to vote and then for them to start making real pledges towards one candidate or the other.

They should, however, be talking to Clinton privately and telling her that they will announce their support for Obama if she continues to make personal attacks on him, that the scorched earth approach will cost her considerably.

Per politico, today:

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said Tuesday it was “probably a mistake” when he said last month that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) should drop out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

I just don’t get why Senators don’t talk to me before they say things in public.

A few months ago, two incidents involving the inappropriate use of tasers by law enforcement came home to Vermont, when police tasered two non-violent protesters in Brattleboro and a teenager at Brattleboro Retreat. These incidents prompted an outcry that prompted A.G. Bill Sorrell to conduct an investigation into the incidents. He released a statement today, as reported in today's Times Argus:

“I'm sorry to report that the Brattleboro police blew it in both cases,” Sorrell said during a press conference in Montpelier Monday.

Sorrell said the protesters, Jonathan Crowell and Samantha Kilmurray, posed no threat to either the officers or the public and that police failed to exhaust alternate options for de-escalating the situation.

“They should not have Tased the two protesters even one time, let alone multiple times,” Sorrel said.

He went on to also say that tasers are still a valuable tool for law enforcement, and refused to comment on the medical/health risk elements of tasering, and also suggested that law enforcement agencies should have written policies in regards to taser use. This does not go far enough, according to the VT ACLU:

The executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont, Alan Gilbert, applauded Sorrell's call for use-of-force policies governing the use of Tasers but said the attorney general should have been more forceful in his recommendations. “The report says law-enforcement agencies are advised to have written protocols governing Taser use. We feel really strongly that the protocols should be required,” Gilbert said.

Gilbert also advocated for a statewide Taser-use policy to be used by all police departments. That very idea was in fact put forward by Sorrell at the outset of his investigation. However Sorrell said that upon review, Taser policies are best left to the communities in which they are used.

Regardless of Sorrell's reluctance to make policies compulsory, the silver lining in all of this is that due to the heavy-handed inappropriate actions of the Brattleboro police, and the ensuing negative publicity, hopefully these kinds of actions will not be so prevalent in the future. Or one can hope, at least.

What goes around truly comes around, I suppose, as after months of frustration, hand-wringing and head-scratching, we seem to be coming right back around to where many would have expected we would’ve started at this time last year, as Senate President Pro Tem Pete Shumlin is reportedly close to a decision to run for Lieutenant Governor (guess we know now why Sen Jim Condos, who had been actively considering a run behind the scenes himself, had been holding back, eh?).

Now I should say I usually like to wait until I hear a rumor from three sources before going up with it (assuming I don’t hear it straight from the source, which I haven’t). In this case, it’s from one source (and only one back up) – but it’s an exceptionally solid source, so I’m throwing caution to the wind and putting it out there for public consumption.

What this will mean is a few things. Getting going this late in the game, we’ll have a media-heavy campaign for the 1 & 2 spots, although the state party with help from the DNC has invested prodigious time and resources into building a field and information infrastructure. It also means – obviously – that the Dem candidates will most certainly not be running against the legislature, as some had hoped a candidate might do (in addition to running against the Governor, duh). They will be running as the legislature – a legislature sick of not being able to get things accomplished in the face of “Governor No.”

But perhaps most exciting for political geeks like us is that it means leadership of both the House and the Senate will be wide open next year… and that means fun! Expect Campbell to be first in line for the Senate top spot, but I’d be surprised if he gets it unopposed. On the House side… Nease? Klein? Obviously it’s ungodly early – and neither potential candidate has announced yet, but – c’mon – how can you not start thinking about this stuff??