Crossposted on Daily Kos on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 10:17:43 AM EDT

After the Vermont Senate voted overwhelmingly (26-4) for a bill that would allow same-sex couples in Vermont to obtain the same state marriage license that is afforded to opposite-sex couples  – and in advance of last night’s tremendous support (95-52) for this bill in the Vermont House – the Governor of Vermont, Jim Douglas, announced he would veto the bill.

Douglas says he believes that only members of his own group should be allowed to enter this public institution.

“I say segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!”

–Gov. George Wallace

Vermont was the first state, and indeed the first sovereign nation, to outlaw slavery.  Vermont would be the first state to grant same-sex couples marriage licenses without being required to by a court ruling. Apparently uninspired by this egalitarian tradition, Jim Douglas is taking his cues from another place and time in American history.  

I was thinking it might be very powerful if a crowd of people stood (or sat) silently in a places like downtown Burlington, all holding placards that read:

What do you think?

UPDATE: Your contributions should be made at the John Edwards campaign website, which you can get to by clicking the picture below.

On Monday, a DailyKOS diarist suggested the idea of a massive one-day grassroots contribution effort for the Edwards campaign.  

This idea has been greeted enthusiastically by Edwards supporters, but the usual cranky sort of partisans who just don’t like to see enthusiasm for anyone else’s favorite candidate, couldn’t resist the urge to scoff. One of them wrote:

Edwards supporters are looking more and more like Ron Paul supporters every day.  “No, really!  Our guy can win!  You just wait til everyone sees!!!”

My reply:

Edwards is a mainstream candidate who has always had a chance (albeit no one ever thought it would be easy) of capturing the nomination. Paul is a fringe candidate who has never, ever, had a chance of capturing the nomination.

But there is more to this discussion than who becomes the nominee. Most of us supporters are very realistic – and openly so – about the chances that an underdog candidate has to capture this nomination.  But the Primary System is not winner-take-all; Edwards doesn’t have to come in first in a state to win delegates. The more delegates he brings to the convention floor, the more it will serve to amplify his campaign’s message.  To the degree that one believes it is an important message, there is nothing unrealistic about continuing to support his campaign.

(Good stuff in here. – promoted by JulieWaters)

Crossposted on MyDD on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:05:11 PM EST

In a diary up today, dataguy has a poll asking who supporters of John Edwards will turn to, given dataguy’s observation that

For whatever reason, he is losing ground.  He will not win SC.  If he does not win the state of his birth, where can he win?

I believe that he will continue through SuperDuper Tuesday.  He will be out at that point if he wins no states.  I see no prospects for him to win anything, so I do not see him continuing.

This race should have already taught us something about premature conclusions. Months ago, many people on the blogs had concluded that McCain was toast. Days ago, many people on the blogs had concluded that Clinton was toast.

I’m not unrealistic about the chances of an underdog candidate to capture this nomination. However, our Primary system is not winner-take-all.  Under Democratic Party rules, a candidate does not have to come in first in a state in order to win delegates, so the answer to dataguy’s question “Where can Edwards win?” is Anywhere people vote for him, he can win delegates.

Obama and Clinton are both outstanding, topnotch candidates, but Edwards remains my favorite in this race. The themes Edwards is focusing on in his campaign sound so much like those of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt – ending poverty, supporting labor unions, making sure government works as an agent of and for the public, not as an agent of and for big monied interests – that Edwards is serving to communicate, in a powerful way, the fundamental principles that do or should distinguish the Democratic Party from the Republican Party.  The better that distinction is defined, the more likely that people will actually have a good reason in mind to go vote Democratic, instead of picking a candidate this November based on superficial media narratives or a mental coin toss.

It is not just the (often slanted) punditocracy – but regular, sincere folks, as well – who in recent years have asked the question “What does the Democratic Party stand for?”  Edwards is saying, loudly and clearly,

                   THIS IS WHAT WE STAND FOR!

Like Franklin and Eleanor, Edwards expresses the need for progressive legislation in a way that stresses that such basic necessities as good healthcare and a good education and a decent place to live and work are inherent rights – and that it is a duty of government to work proactively in support of these inherit rights.  And it is a moral imperative of the Democratic Party to see to it that government does its duty.

These themes are just as salient now as they were in Franklin and Eleanor’s time – and it’s critical that they continue to be heard from mainstream Democratic candidates.

Edwards’s presence in this presidential campaign, and the size of the pool of delegates he brings to the convention floor, serve to amplify these themes.

Edwards will get my vote, and my continued support.