I confess to having a great, you might say sentimental, devotion to voting. I have voted in every election I've been eligible for, and that means I've voted for a long succession of losing presidential candidates. In fact, Clinton was the first winning candidate I ever voted for, and one of the votes I was least enthusiastic for.

Still, I love to vote. This year I'm more fervent about it than in most years, and the last few nights I've felt like a little kid before Christmas. It's not just me, though. I sense a greater excitement for this election than I ever have before.

I was in Boston the night Obama secured enough electoral votes to be the candidate. I was watching his speech in the basement of a building at Boston University with four or five maintenance workers, four of whom were African, one was Hispanic. These guys were totally into it. They knew the candidates, they knew their positions, they could talk knowledgeably about possible vice presidential and cabinet choices. They knew it was an important night.

But not as important as tomorrow.

When Barack Obama was born, black people were still legally prevented from voting in parts of the United States.  During our lifetimes we've seen brave people beaten and killed trying to vote; and seen candidates elected not because of the strength of their policies, but because of their ability to exploit racial fears and hatred. Now, our country, a country that owes so much of its culture to the legacy of slavery, stands on the threshold of electing its first black president. Think of what that says to the rest of the world, but more importantly, think of what it says to millions of our own citizens, citizens who have been told their whole lives, in word and in deed, that they don't have a say in what happens to their country. 

He'll make mistakes, and we'll presumably stay in the opposition to much of what he does. But the important thing is this:

Starting tomorrow, everything is different. Forever.

A great op-ed piece by Chris Curtis, chair of the Northfield Dems

My Turn: Are you better off now?

By Christopher Curtis • November 1, 2008

The central issue of this election is a variation of Ronald Reagan's famous line from his first presidential run: Are you better off now than you were six, or eight years ago? Unfortunately, for the vast majority of Vermonters, the answer to that question is “no.”

Monkton man called it early

By Sam Hemingway, Free Press Staff Writer • November 1, 2008

With three days to go before the election, there are plenty of pundits now willing to predict Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama will win Tuesday.

“I predict he’ll run, win the nomination, and win the presidency with the widest margin since Reagan,” Jensen wrote Oct. 23, 2006.

Here's a great column that sets forth a variety of positive reasons to support Gaye Symington in Tuesday's election.

Courage outside the comfort zone

I loved what Rep. Mitzi Johnson had to say about it in today's Free Press.

MITZI JOHNSON: In 2002, supported the top vote-getter. I'll listen to constituents again. Readers: Please contemplate candidates in office for 26 years who still can't earn 50 percent of your confidence. 

My Turn: Douglas disappoints on energy efficiency

By Jack McCullough • October 29, 2008

More energy efficiency news should have Vermont voters looking hard at the Douglas administration. Unfortunately, it doesn't make Douglas look good.

If this sounds familiar, maybe it's because you read it here a couple of weeks ago. As much of a colossal media titan as Green Mountain Daily is, I'm glad to get the added eyeballs that the Free Press delivers.

So you know the story the R's have been trying to sell: Sarah Palin is a new kind of Republican; not as corrupt, more mavericky.

The news of the last few days, which may not seem too important taken separately,  really seem to reveal that she is every bit as venal and self-dealing as the old Alaska hands like Ted Stevens. I think these stories about the expense accounts and so forth are not a side show at all, but reveal the candidate's character.

Big money first. The story that broke overnight tells us that the Republican National Committee dropped $150,000 on her, spending money at Nieman-Marcus, Saks, and Barney's. Obviously she needs to look good, but $150K? That's what Josephine the Plumber spends on clothes? Sure, they eventually cooked up the story that they're giving the clothes to charity after the campaign, but I'd like to see that in writing from before the shitstorm started, wouldn't you?

Then, we also get the story that in her job as governor of Alaska, Palin charged the people of Alaska over $20,000 to fly her kids around the country on various jaunts, put them up in hotels, and otherwise show them the high life. Then, when she gets caught on it, she goes back and doctors her expense reports to they look like official state business, but those claims are particularly transparent.Possibly the worst of it was when she flew her kids to the National Governors' Association convention.Expense forms describe the girls' official purpose as “NGA Governor's Youth Programs and family activities.” But those programs were activities designed to keep children busy, a service provided by the NGA

to accommodate governors and their families, NGA spokeswoman Jodi Omear said.

 In other words, she takes her kids to a convention, puts them up in the babysitting service they set up for governors' kids, and then claims that they were on official state business because they got in on the babysitting program. Nice, huh?

And, following the rule that three data points make a trend, we can go back to earlier in her career as governor.   Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a “per diem” allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.

So what do these incidents have in common? In each case, what we see is Sarah Palin using her official position as an elected official (or candidate) to enrich herself. You could argue that the thing with the kids is just because she's a devoted mother who wants to spend time with her family, and I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with charging the state for what is a purely personal expenditure.

How is this any different from Ted Stevens letting someone build a house for him?

I guess it's a good thing that the McCain-Palin slogan of the week is “Country First”, and not “State First”.

You already know about Powell's endorsement of Obama. You could well say that you don't care, since he forfeited all claim to be taken seriously when he lied to the UN. I think it's kind of a big deal because, whether he deserves to be taken seriously or not, there are still plenty of people who do.

Now there are two new big endorsements.

Zbigniew Brezezinski's endorsement isn't really new; he's been supporting Obama for a long time. I was never a big fan of his. When he worked for Carter he was a real hawk, possibly based on his own experience, but still, consistent with Carter's conservative administration. He has been highly critical of Bush's war, though, and what he has to say about Obama is great, not only because it's one more voice for our guy, but because of how he makes it clear that it is Obama, not McCain, who has the character, judgment, and gravitas for the position. Plus, he utterly silenced Joe Scarborough this morning, always a good thing.

The other new endorsement for Obama is a real blast from the past. You may remember Kenneth Adelman from the days when he was Reagan's guy on arms control. These were in the days when people were talking about the nuclear freeze, and in his confirmation hearings he couldn't go so far as to say it might be good if there were no nuclear weapons. A real paleo-conservative.

Today in the New Yorker, George Packer reports that Adelman is backing Obama. Here's why Adelman says he's doing it:

Primarily for two reasons, those of temperament and of judgment.

When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I’ve concluded that that’s no way a president can act under pressure.

Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate.

That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain’s main two, and best two, themes for his campaign—Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick.

Of course, McCain still isn't alone. He has the support of mass murderer and war criminal Henry Kissinger, for instance.  Still, if there was anyone who could claim to be a serious thinker supporting McCain, that person has long since left the room.

Or, to put it another way, when McCain was selling experience he could claim that experience got you maturity, stability, character, and judgment. He has since thrown all those away, so what does he have left?

If you're a regular GMD reader, you probably don't spend too much time with the Obama haters. Thankfully, neither do I. Sure, we read about them in TPM, with their yells of “Terrorist” and “Kill him”, but they don't seem to rear their ugly heads around here too much.

I just got exposed to them, not exactly in person, but in enough of a dose to get a real sense of their vicious attitude. Over at Facebook they have a group called Anti-Obama and Damn Proud of It, and these people will give you a view of every backwards, misinformed, bigoted attitude you could ever hope to see.

For example, one of the first things you see is a joke about Obama being assassinated after he's inaugurated. No kidding. Then, if you delve into the discussion boards, you can find such highly relevant discussions as the one speculating about whether Obama is the antichrist. And they're not kidding about it.

 You can see repeated claims that Obama supporters think he's the Messiah., more than anyone's fair share of ridiculous posts rehashing minor slips of the tongue, and a rich and plentiful supply of posts making liberal mention of his middle name, his claimed religious background, his claimed racial background, mocking the very idea of racism in the United States; oh yeah, and unfounded questions about whether he was actually born in the United States.

There is one young guy named Rishi who has posted a large number of pro-Obama stories, and I just friended him to support what he's doing.

You might want to jump over there and see what it's like. It's pretty annoying to read, but on the other hand, this is really all they have, and these people are the best and the brightest among the Obama haters. In other words, they're totally out of ideas.

More energy efficiency news should have Vermont voters looking hard at the Douglas administration. Unfortunately, it doesn't make Douglas look good.

For years we've enjoyed patting ourselves on the back, and with good reason. Efficiency Vermont, Vermont's energy efficiency utility, has long been the model for statewide energy efficiency programs. It is the best legacy of our prolonged and expensive flirtation with electric industry restructuring back in the 1990's. Well, that and the fact that, since we said no to restructuring, we're now paying lower electric rates than the other New England states.

The problem is, what happens to models? That's right, people follow them, and that's what's happened. It also means that if we want to keep our leadership position, we need to keep expanding and improving our efforts.

The position of the Douglas administration has been just the opposite. For years Douglas has tried to undermine Efficiency Vermont, opposing cost-effective investments in energy efficiency. Their message: we don't want to invest more in efficiency; we do want to pay higher electric bills. 

A report issued this week tells the story. As recently as last year, Vermont was ranked # 1 out of all fifty states in energy efficiency. This year our rank has dropped to # 4, with Vermont slipping behind the two states it tied for first last year, and faling behind Oregon, ranked fifth in 2007.

Now does this really make much difference? We're still pretty close to the top, right? I submit that it does make a difference. In 2003 Efficiency Vermont won a big award from the Kennedy School for Government for its groundbreaking work, and Douglas was right there in the State House, holding a ceremony to announce the award and praise the work of Efficiency Vermont. Still, when Douglas came in he appointed as Commissioner of the Public Service Department a guy who had fought against increased funding for Efficiency Vermont in the Public Service Board, and he has continued to argue against budget increases even this year.

And what's the payoff? Have you ever seen a competition in which the guys at the back of the pack were saying, “I sure hope I can catch up to the guy who's in fourth place!”? Me neither. Vermont was THE national leader on energy efficiency, and now we're not. Energy efficiency is not only good for the environment, it's good economic development. Jim=jobs? No more.

So as I say, thanks, Jim. How far do you think we're going to drop in the standings if Douglas gets another two years?