The State Committee of the Vermont Democratic Party met yesterday in Randolph, and probably the issue that drew the most interest was the endorsement of candidates for statewide office.
On yesterday’s agenda were requests to endorse Doug Hoffer in his second run for Auditor of Accounts and TJ Donovan for Attorney General.
The Hoffer endorsement was pretty straightforward, and nearly unanimous (there was one “no” vote). Doug spoke to the committee and expressed his desire to be the guy who actually wants the office he’s running for, unlike Tom Salmon, who seems to be interested in just about everything except doing the job he was elected to do.
The bigger question was the endorsement of TJ Donovan, and that’s probably what brought the press out (Andy Bromage from Seven Days was in the front row). Part of the question was that there was a motion to endorse TJ, but there was no motion before the body to endorse Bill Sorrell, who was also in attendance. Consequently, some members raised the question of whether we should endorse one candidate, and what that would mean for the candidates and the message it would send to the public.
This all arises from the peculiar endorsement rules for the State Committee. Our bylaws provide that we can endorse more than one candidate for a single office, and we have done that in the past. For instance, in 2010 all the Democratic candidates for governor received the endorsement.
Still, the question was whether endorsing one candidate in May and another candidate at our next meeting, probably in July, would send the signal that the party is favoring Donovan over Sorrell.
To be absolutely clear, that’s just wrong. Many speakers specifically said they were voting to endorse Donovan yesterday and they intended to endorse Sorrell at our next meeting.
On the other hand,this is more evidence that TJ has gotten his campaign organized ahead of Sorrell’s. They were both present with their teams at yesterday’s meeting and at last week’s David Curtis Award dinner. Yesterday they both gave good speeches that were well received, and they are both lining up lists of important and prominent Democratic supporters.
Still, The fact that he got his petitions in first seems to be an indication that Donovan recognizes that he has to work hard to unseat an incumbent.
Does that mean it’s a sure thing? Absolutely not. For one thing, it’s always hard to defeat an incumbent. For another, TJ indicated yesterday his support for the drug database access bill that never became law this year. He argued that the bill was not the civil liberties nightmare its opponents painted it to be, but his support of this legislation may cost him support among the Democratic base.
This should be an interesting race.
Finally, one last observation: I always enjoy going to these meetings at Randolph Elementary School because of the great, large-scale student artwork on display, and yesterday was no exception. Randolph, like so many Vermont schools, clearly understands that schools are more than just test-taking machines.
Maybe, but its a distinction without a difference. It’s already in wide circulation that Donovan was endorsed, NOT Sorrell, which equates to Donovan was endorsed OVER Sorrell. The only way that impression could be countered, is if another endorsement for Sorrell were to follow quickly.
But July?!?!?! Forget it. Nobody’s even going to notice by then. That’s weeks before the primary. For Sorrell the damage is done. Donovan just drew a lot of attention and raised a lot of eyebrows – and that’s going to echo relentlessly through the Democratic primary voter set.
If Donovan wins, it is this moment that will be the turning point. Delegates are kidding themselves if they insist otherwise.
re his warrantless drug database stance
From VTDigger story, Donovan:
Interview at the Brattleboro Reformer:
http://www.reformer.com/localn…
In all stories Donovan did not make it clear that he unequivocally will not support warrantless searches of the drug database. I agree with many of his ideas however absent a consistant, clear position & stance re this troubling issue, he will never get my vote.
Hoffer is a go-Salmon is a joke, Wilton is a hell-no for state treasurer. I’m sticking with Spaulding.
More on polical scene from Sunday Times Argus:
http://www.vermonttoday.com/ap…
I see no reason why VDP cannot support both Sorrell & Donovan.
…can lose the Vt. Yankee appeal and say: “What the hell…?” I think the Vt. Dem Party, in this instance, showed Vermonters that it doesn’t necessarily have to recycle incumbents who are more Republican/Democrats than Democrats. Good riddance to Sorrell. I hope.
are not the biggest problem, although I have no confidence in his skills as prosecutor whatsoever. Under his watch VT law enforcement esp municipalities has become increasingly more likely to harm or violate the rights of citizens because they know nothing will ever be done. Their criminal antics are safe from consequences under Sorrell, much of what takes place cannot be made public, making residents unsafe from law enforcement.
The lawyer who was found with a sophisticated weed growing operation as well as possessing extremely large quantities should have faced prosecution, or all those sitting in VT prisons & in the system for similiar violations should have been freed.