( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

As I read various entries sniping at one another, I think of Susan Powter and Rodney King. “Stop the insanity” and “Can’t we all get along?”

Frankly, I’m not very interested in the minutiae of who’s senior foreign policy expert recommended one slightly different strategy than another. The fact of the matter is that all of these candidates, should they become president will be presented with some very ugly realities upon taking office. After that, most of the campaign rhetoric is out the window. Hopefully, whoever is the eventual nominee can hew to the basic Democratic party line (which they all profess to do) on the big ticket items: budget (which is where most of these fights will be anyway), war, health care, and energy. All four of the remaining candidates are on the same page as to 90% of their goals. I agree that it’s worth haggling over the remaining 10%… the details, and I’m an Edwards man myself, but I’m not interested in trashing any of the others, and I certainly am impressed with, and supportive of ANY of the remaining four candidates. I trust everyone else here is, too, but sometimes the tone of the entries strikes me as a little over the top given the (mostly) shared agenda of Obama, Hill, Edwards, and Richardson.

Bottom line for me after watching the debates on WMUR the other night is this: We Can’t Lose!

That’s both a prediction and an exhortation (i.e., we can’t afford to lose!).

The Republicans spent the evening fixed on fear, terrorism, war, immigration and living in the past on 9/11.

By contrast, the Democrats focused on the pressing issues facing America: health care, education, jobs and the economy, getting our troops out of Iraq, and looking ahead with optimism, strength and hope for the future.

Which platform sounds more appealing to you?

One thing I’ve noticed is that the various camps are digging hard into their positions, which is only natural and perfectly understandable given the heated battle for the primary elections. After the primaries, however, we all have to forgive and forget and get behind whoever the eventual nominee. The debate last night reinforced for me the sense that whoever gets the nomination is going to be a VAST improvement over the current Administration and any of the candidates the GOP has to offer.

Here’s my quick take on the Democratic debate:

Obama was once again impressive: thoughtful, mature… presidential. His message of change may well be the most positive and inspiring of all the candidates. He makes a good frontrunner.

Hillary’s performance came off as very human, funny, and smart. It showed she is well-positioned to lead. Despite what some folks say (they worry about her high personal “negatives”), she would make a great president and I firmly believe she can win if she gets the nomination.

John Edwards is the most fired up of the bunch. He has a point: no matter how good your plans, if the big corporations are calling the shots in Washington then not much is going to get done. Not sure if that message is enough to bring him the nomination, but it is making a difference on the trail and it resonates with voters who know that despite our best efforts health care reform has been stymied in this country by those interests since Hillary tried to get universal care way back in 1993.

Bill Richardson probably has the best resume of them all. He’s smart and likeable but lacks the charisma of the other three; also he’s clearly frustrated that “experience” may not mean as much to voters given his polling numbers.

Best lines of the night:

Hillary, after being asked by moderator Charlie Gibson on why her personal negatives are so high… why is it that people don’t seem to like you? She replied: “Now you’ve hurt my feelings.” Which got a big laugh. “But I’ll try to carry on.” More laughs. Then Obama chimed in: “You’re likeable enough, Hillary.”

Richardson on mistakes made during the debates and if he would correct any of them. He immediately said: “In the first debate I was asked who my favorite Supreme Court Justice was… I asked ‘dead or alive’ (big laugh). So, I ended up saying Whizzer White because I figured he must be good if he was appointed by Kennedy. Of course, later I learned that he was against Roe v. Wade, against civil rights… so, yeah, in hindsight that wasn’t a very good answer.” The place broke up. Points for honesty and humility.

Edwards on the same question: “Well, I’ve already got this one figured out… in an earlier debate I teased Hillary about the jacket she wore to the debate. I’ll never do that again… by the way, Hillary, you look very nice tonight.” Again, the place broke up, and points to Edwards for making fun of his earlier gaffe.

http://mulishbehavior.blogspot…

Or, you can find it on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

( – promoted by odum)

When you drive up and down Vermont’s roads and scenic byways, you have Theodore M. Riehle, Jr. to thank for the beautiful views.

http://mulishbehavior.blogspot…

Mr. Riehle was a Vermont Republican who, in 1968, authored the legislation forbidding billboards on Vermont highways. Although controversial at the time, the bill passed thanks to a different breed of Republican. At the time, Mr. Riehle and other environmentally conscious Republicans were in the vanguard of environmental thinking and stewardship. While not as far reaching in terms of size and scope as Act 250 – Vermont’s landmark planning and development law (signed into law by former Gov. Deane C. Davis, also a Republican in 1970) – it is hard to think of anyone who has had as much impact on what we see (or DON’T see) as we drive around the state than Mr. Riehle.

Mr. Riehle died peacefully after a brief illness on New Year’s Eve. To be sure, the billboard law was not his only accomplishment, but it may be what he is best known for – read his obituary for more about the man.

All in all, not a bad legacy.

(Good diary on a topic that is rightfully getting a lot of play, but will have to be delicately finessed, as its fraught with the danger of sounding as though we’re telling voters that everything’s great, when their own experience tells them differently. – promoted by odum)

Yesterday’s Times-Argus editorial page devotes a full column taking Jim Douglas to task for his habitual knocking of Vermont’s economic and jobs development climate.

See the full article at: http://mulishbehavior.blogspot…

Is the mainstream media finally catching on to the political agenda behind the “affordability agenda”? Or, are they just getting tired of his say-more, do-less attitude? Either way it’s high time the Governor was subjected to a little more scrutiny. Maybe his days of getting a free pass are finally over.

An excerpt:

“Don’t believe what the governor is going to tell you about our young people moving away. Declaring that the sky is falling because of Vermont’s status as the oldest state in the union has become as much a part of Jim Douglas’ routine as is his folksy demeanor and having a veto showdown with the Democrats come springtime.

Douglas has in fact built his “affordability agenda” on the idea that we are chasing young people out of the state with our high taxes.

But it’s not true.

…It’s time Douglas stopped doing a similar disservice to Vermont business. The perception is that Vermont is not business-friendly, in part because our state’s chief executive won’t stop telling people that’s the case.It’s easy to see why he’s doing it: It gets Jim Douglas re-elected…

So what can Douglas do? He has talked about finding a regional solution – emphasis on the “talk.” And he has put forward some positive initiatives around education, selling the state as a “green” destination and small business development. None of those things can hurt.

But playing Chicken Little over taxes is worse than useless because it encourages those people and businesses that want to be in the Northeast to look elsewhere.

Vermont can’t afford the “affordability agenda” if it’s being sold one knock on the state at a time.”

Kudos to the Times Argus editorial staff for this important work. Read the entire column here.

Three things this editorial makes clear:

1) “Don’t believe what the Governor is telling you…”; and

2) The Governor is doing our state and our business community “a disservice”; and

3) Vermont can’t afford Douglas’ so-called “affordability agenda.”

Sounds like a platform for Vermont Democrats to run on in 2008.

‘Nuff said.