VPR’s Kinzel reports on the Douglas administration’s desire to return to a system whereby the first 40% of capital gains remain untaxed – a change that would (naturally) yield dramatically disproportionate benefits to the wealthy and open up another $10 million budget hole that he (presumably) would then want to fill by firing more Vermonters and cutting off their social services. This is the Grover Norquist shrink-government-so-we-can-drown-it-in-the-bathtub philosophy in action. From the report:

Administration Secretary Neale Lunderville says the new system is having a negative impact on job growth:  

(Lunderville) “These tax rates are forcing folks out of Vermont. They are creating disincentives for businesses to invest right now and to grow jobs at a time when we need them to do that most.”

This is the line routinely parroted by Lunderville, Douglas and others. Kinzel – as they all do – repeats it uncritically in his report.

Just once, wouldn’t it be nice to hear a reporter ask Lunderville (or whoever) for evidence backing up this assertion? Wouldn’t that be amazing? Just a simple follow up… “do you have evidence that this is occurring?” From what I’ve read there is none. GOPers always lean on the anecdotal, particularly this Op-Ed from poor victimized rich guy Glen Wright announcing he was “abandoning” Vermont and moving to Florida, absurdly describing it as the “only possible alternative.”

But even that’s bunk. He hasn’t abandoned anything, and is in fact the Finance Chair for Republican Phil Scott’s campaign for Lieutenant Governor. At best, then, he’s simply decided to use his own privilege to hide his wealth through the purchase of a second home and the pretense of residence elsewhere (which has been a tried and true practice of the wealthy GOP set). Puts “only possible alternative” in a different light, eh?

Why won’t Kinzel or the others challenge this assertion, which they’ve allowed to become conventional wisdom through its uncritical repetition?

…and we just passed the 2 million pageview threshold this week. Very cool.

For a li’l nostalgia, here are links to the founding three’s first ever diaries:

• Good News for the Administration (Jack McCullough) – Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 07:52:36 AM EST
• Drinking at the Catamount Tavern: Let it begin here (Ed Garcia, who later altered his front page ID to kestrel9000 to match up with his shingle on other sites) – Sun Feb 19, 2006 at 21:24:41 PM EST
• Anti-Choice Forces Hitting Town Meetings (odum) – Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 01:13:45 AM EST

Here’s a video “thank you” to Montpelier’s Valentine Phantom, with an added thanks to Dar Williams for a great concert in Barre last night (the first concert my wife and I have seen together in the -*gulp*- ten years since we became parents).

And sorry JD for missing the tamales again.

The linked “Boycott AP” graphic on the right hand side was put on this site, as well as many other blogs, when the Associated Press announced a new policy of charging for any quotations or excerpts from any AP wire story – even those as small as five words. Where this clearly flew in the face of Fair Use law and precedent, the AP was going to use its corporate muscle to essentially bully their unilateral approach into reality despite the law by targeting small blogs that couldn’t afford to defend themselves for legal action.

At any rate, there was pushback, a furor, and many of us decided to start the boycott AP bit in solidarity with our targeted comrades. Shortly thereafter, the AP backed off the targeted blog but seemed to continue with their announced new “policy.” Some of us kept the image and the link (and the boycott) up, some of us backed off.

But it’s been a while now – a year and a half since the court action was dropped – and they don’t seem to be furthering this nonsense after all. Given that (and given the fact that only GMD and a small handful of other sites are maintaining this boycott), I’m removing the image and link and calling it a victory. I suppose in retrospect it was a victory a year and a half back… I just didn’t quite trust it 100% at the time. Call me cynical.

Yippee!!

23-year-old Vermonter Hannah Kearney just completed an amazing run to take home the Gold Medal in the women’s moguls ski competition – the first US Gold of the 2010 Olympics.

Now if we can juts get the media to stop referring to her as a New Hampsherite (we Vermonters just don’t get no respect).

From her bio at usskiteam.com, Kearney describes herself as:

Just one member of a sports-oriented family – Mom’s the recreation director in Norwich, brother Denny is a first-rate hockey player (and, before focusing on the ice, he was an outstanding baseball player – and Dad coached his Babe Ruth team)…When she was sidelined in ’07, she took over a 7-year-old Rhodesian Ridgeback dog, Lola, from an elderly women who couldn’t care for her…Gotta-have when she travels: family and friends’ photos plus knitting supplies…Kearney was national junior moguls champ in ’02 but it got lost between the two Juniors Worlds titles and being an Olympic forerunner at Deer Valley in ’02 (being a forerunner, she said, “gave me something to strive for”)…Played trumpet in the school jazz band into her sophomore year… Enjoys riding horses, cooking, playing soccer and reading…She’s not much for watching sports on TV – “I’d rather be playing some sport than watching it”…”Fried Green Tomatoes” is (still) her favorite movie…

Congratulations!

The AP is reporting that Department of Health Commissioner Wendy Davis is now recognizing that, in the reporter’s words “the volume and direction of flow of tritium-tainted groundwater leads to the conclusion that it’s reaching the river.”

According to the report, Vermont Yankee officials agree with the conclusion.

(HT D.B. in the comments)

The “put up or shut up” card is played, and a high-profile campaign defection occurs. The intrigue begins, and it all gets a little more complicated.

A collective mojometer narrative this time, because I’m behind on them.

As an observer, this period for me was about fleshing out who among the candidates truly recognized the implications of a longer elections calendar and a full-on primary, and who didn’t. I truly expected that one or two candidates would hold off throwing all in because starting the campaign season before summer was “not the Vermont way” or some conveniently lazy nonsense.

Not so. All five have been campaigning actively, so all five have “graduated” into the modern world of Vermont campaigns.

So what we have now is a game of chess; of making strategic, long-term moves designed to build a long term narrative about the candidates (or something less than a narrative – an impression) – as well as trying to impact opponents’ long-term narratives. All without looking like they’re doing that.

And that process has begun in force in the last two weeks.

Vermont Yankee is a big part of that battlefield. This has been Peter Shumlin‘s strongest issue, but also his most dangerous, as he is uniquely positioned to do something about it. Matt Dunne was the first candidate outside the Statehouse to take advantage of the tricky political dynamics of the Senate (in which he is no longer immersed) by calling for a VY vote sooner rather than later. Deb Markowitz followed with a petition (which enables her to add to her list as well – very clever) – all of which puts the three Senators on the spot in front of the primary voters.

Doug Racine wisely joined in to deflect that pressure play, rightfully pointing out that he has no power to call for a relicense vote, but standing ready to vote no. Only Bartlett hasn’t thrown in, but its clear the pressure is on Senate President Pro Tem Shumlin.

Thing is, of course, Shumlin is fully capable of quickly and unexpectedly jiu-jitsuing the pressure and actually calling for that vote (remember how quickly and definitively he moved on the Bush impeachment vote when the pressure was on). If he does that, he retakes the primary momentum in a big way, becoming the poster child of “walking the walk” to rank and file Dems – so the politics of this issue remain explosive.

And Shumlin’s and Dunne’s strong early moves – perhaps unexpectedly so – are keeping the early jockeying for position quite lively, and the ones who they threaten are likely Susan Bartlett and Markowitz. With Racine’s name recognition, Chittenden County base, and popularity among constituent groups like labor, he’s likely to be in the “top three” when primary day comes unless he gets complacent (and yes, his sometimes-skimpy answers to the GMD questionnaire might suggest a little of that, but on the other hand, his uncharacteristically passionate “win” at the labor forum suggests the opposite).

For the others, its harder to say. One of them will likely get squeezed out. At present, Bartlett is not a safe bet to be in the top tier, of course, but she does have that potential “dark horse” mojo which can work quickly with so few voters involved – especially if voters start getting tired of the higher profile candidates. And she is not being shy about forging her own, more “centrist” policy narrative. She may well own that territory in the final vote. I’d be surprised if that in and of itself would be a winner for her among primary voters, but it could yet leave her among the contenders in the final stretch. Hard to guess.

Even early powerhouse Markowitz could still get squeezed out, but she has also raised enough money for several campaign peaks, and anecdotally, she seems to have the supporter base most willing to give repeatedly (as that seems to be what they’re doing). That’s huge.

But that’s not to say the big money supporters aren’t fluid. The most interesting “inside baseball” move of the week began with the mysterious disappearance from the supporter list on Markowitz’s website of Arthur and Anne Berndt – two of the biggest, highest profile Democratic campaign contributors in the state. They were early supporters of Markowitz.

Where’d they go? The Shumlin campaign just announced that Arthur Berndt was his new Finance Chair. In insider Dem circles, this shift is a big, big deal, and it underscores the real behind-the-scenes wrestling match going on. The Berndts sway a lot of other Dems, so this isn’t good news for Markowitz. Expect to see her get more actively involved in state issues to keep her supporters amped and onboard – Yankee was only the beginning.

So the chess game is afoot. At some point in the summer, it will turn into something more like NASCAR, but for the next few months it’ll be chess. Collective mojometers below, and since everybody is engaged and nobody is currently slacking, everybody starts out a little ahead with the mojo once again – but the dynamics I cited above will determine who is a little higher than who. Markowitz gets hot with Yankee, but loses heat with Berndt’s defection and the insider message that sends. Shumlin gets hot with the influential pickup, but is losing some heat by finding himself on the hot seat with his #1 issue. Racine is strong, but just shy of smoking, while Dunne stays constant and continues to open people’s eyes to his campaign’s viability. And Bartlett, given her position and responsibilities as Chair of Appropriations, is simply going to have a hard time doing a lot more than breaking even, until and unless she becomes a star of the budget process towards the end of the session.

SUSAN BARTLETT:

(Click here for the GMD gubernatorial primary candidate questionnaire part 1)

(Click here for the GMD gubernatorial primary candidate questionnaire part 2)

(Click here for the GMD gubernatorial primary candidate questionnaire part 3)

This is the final series of responses from the five Democratic candidates for Governor to the questionnaire sent to them by GMD. These, and all the questions we asked, had their genesis in this diary from last summer, as well as emails from readers. The questions were cleaned up and refined a bit, to streamline the process and make it as inclusive of all the suggestions as possible.

The final questions below are a bit more Democratic-voter “inside baseball,” as they concern the primary process – including how each candidate intends to help the winner, if in fact they are not the one chosen to face the Republican candidate in November.

And again, some candidates’ responded question by question. Other times candidates would take all the questions under a given category and write a collective response encompassing all the questions. In some categories, candidates would respond by combining some questions and not others. As such, the questionnaires are presented as follows: under each category, all the questions we asked are listed as bullets. At the end of each category, the candidates’ complete answers are presented (in alphabetical order by candidate). If the candidate answered each specific question, their answers are numbered accordingly. If their answers are not numbered, that indicates a generalized response to all the questions collectively.

In addition to the questions below, we also asked if the candidates would be willing to take part in a live forum or debate sponsored by GMD at some later date. All candidates indicated they would, so that possibility remains on the table.

THE 2010 ELECTION PROCESS:

• Many young voters in Vermont were introduced to politics by their involvement in the 2008 presidential campaign. How will the candidates transfer that momentum to the state level and address the concerns of young Vermonters? How are you going to use the internet in your campaign?
• What can you do to ensure that all the ‘big names” and the Democratic legislators get behind you if you are the Democratic nominee? How will you work to get prominent Democrats working for the candidate if its not you?
• In addition to unequivocally endorsing the winner of the Democratic primary, what special advantage will your support, endorsement and campaigning for the winner of the primary bring to the general election campaign. On the chance that you are not the nominee, why will you be the best campaigner for the nominee and why would a nominee want your support on the campaign trail above all others?
• What are some of the ways a hard fought and issue driven campaign can energize the party to victory and help the new Governor achieve a more effective agenda upon taking office?

BARTLETT:

1. I believe that young people are very concerned about the future of Vermont and they want a place that they can afford to live and a place that will have opportunities for them to raise their families.  They value not only good jobs, but our environment and our values that we show in so many ways.  I find that many young people understand that there are no simple answers and they want to truth about what we can and cannot accomplish.    

I have a website www.bartlettforgovernor.com

a face book page http://www.facebook.com/pages/…

a twitter account https://twitter.com/bartlettfo…

email susan@bartlettforgovernor.com

I have posted to GMD, vtdigger and ibrattleboro and plan to continue. I have submitted to Vermont Tiger and Vermont Daily News.

2. Every democrat and many independents I talk to are tired of the lack of leadership provided by Gov. Douglas. They view Brian Dubie as more of the same. I don’t think it matters which of the five democrats wins the primary, we would all enjoy the support of “the ‘big names” and the Democratic legislators.”

The real questions are: Who can beat Brian Dubie? Who is able to walk into the governor’s office ready to run state government, ready to lead on day 1?

I have served 16 years on the Senate Appropriations Committee, learning the ropes from Howard Dean and Jeb Spaulding. I have been Chair for 10 years, making difficult decisions balancing the often-conflicting needs of state government. Appropriations are the only place, other than the governor’s office, where you deal with every part of state government.  I have to know how all of the parts work and how they fit together.

I am ready to lead and confident that primary voters will vote for experienced, common-sense leadership and that I will be the nominee. If not, I am prepared to do whatever is asked of me to make sure a democrat is elected governor, and that we continue to control the house and senate.

3. First of all the best campaigner on the trail better be the candidate!  Only the candidate can answer the question of what they want the other 4 folks to do for them.

My message will not change as a result of the primary.

4. We have already participated in a half-dozen forums where each candidate speaks at length on various topics. While there are differences in style, experience and proposals, we are fundamentally expressing a consistent democratic message. This is good for the eventual nominee, who will enjoy having the principals of our party at the top of voters’ awareness.

Voters will choose from a spectrum of moderate to liberal candidates. It is my hope that supporters of the four candidates who are not elected quickly rally behind the winner and immediately donate time and money to win the general election. That is what I intend to do.

DUNNE:

In 1992, my home community sent me to the Vermont House at age twenty-two.  Inspired by that experience, I have consistently empowered young people in the political process.  Throughout my career in public service and the private sector, I’ve focused on engaging young people not just as voters every two years, but as democratic citizens who have much to contribute to our state government.  

As a legislator, I established and maintained an active internship program that utilized students from UVM, Dartmouth, and Vermont Law School in formulating policy solutions to Vermont’s challenges including brownfields legislation and the Vermont Film Commission.  After discovering how little objective information and research resources are available to the Vermont Legislature, I co-founded policy research shops at Dartmouth and UVM.  These efforts engage bright, energetic, and dedicated students in the governing process while also supporting lawmakers with non-partisan resources to improve policy outcomes.  Electorally, in my 2006 race for Lieutenant Governor, my campaign established a strong grassroots presence and engaged Vermont’s youth directly through “service politics”.  Through the primary and general election, we connected campaign volunteers and staff with communities around the state to provide opportunities for engaging in service projects such as building trails, stocking food shelves, and cleaning up parks.  The campaign provided hundreds of hours of direct service volunteer hours in Vermont communities and didn’t end on election day. Organizations and campaigns across the country have adopted service politics to engage young people, over the next several years I helped organize dozens of additional service politics events across the state and the people inspired by our approach in 2006 are excited to get involved again with this election.

Two years later on a national stage, the 2008 presidential campaign excited young voters who yearned not only for hope and change, but for continued engagement and a voice in the process.  As a result of partisan gridlock in Washington, many today understandably disappointed, but it is crucial that we continue to engage their talent and idealism in creating a better state.  Vermont is not Washington, and so I pledge to continue my approach of soliciting the ideas and inspiration from young Vermonters and encouraging them to actively participate in their government on both sides of Election Day.   A large part of that participation will be online, and my campaign and administration will continue to embrace new and innovative technologies that help connect people and communities with candidates.  Howard Dean showed the power of MeetUp and small-dollar online fundraising, and the Dunne campaign will strive to build on that legacy, utilizing Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, text, emerging on-line tools, and whatever technologies inevitably come next. As usual, I will look to those younger than me, digital natives, to identify the new ways to use technology to engage people and empower voters to take action.

I am not worried about the prospects for party unity following the Democratic primary. All of my fellow Democratic candidates would make better governors for Vermont at this time than the presumptive Republican nominee.  I know they feel the same way. No matter who emerges as the Democratic candidate, we will come together to support that individual.  I commit to bring my campaign’s organization, grass roots approach and energy to the general election campaign no matter what.  

However, I differ with some who believe we must reach a conclusion quickly.  A strong positive campaign, focused on the issues and solutions to solve them, is absolutely critical for success in November and in establishing the next Governor’s agenda. What Massachusetts taught us is that if we do not have a candidate who is willing to demonstrate a willingness to work hard for every vote, to effectively advocate for change, to champion new ideas, and to credibly articulate practical solutions to address citizens’ concerns, we will not prevail.

MARKOWITZ:

1. Among the nation’s Secretaries of State I am widely recognized as a leader in engaging young people in the political process.  The civics education program I developed – Vermont Votes for Kids – teaches young people the importance of voting to our democracy.  Many of you have seen our buttons and bumper stickers which say: Your Vote is Your Voice which we produced initially as part of our outreach campaign designed to engage college students and other young people in the political process. You can find out more about both of these initiatives by going to the Secretary of State’s website www.vermontvotesforkids.com and www.govotevermont.com.

We are already bringing that same energy and focus into the campaign by including college students and other young adults in our grassroots efforts.  Perhaps because I have visited Vermont high schools all across the state for over a decade, talking with students about how they can make a difference if they got involved, there are young people all across Vermont who have been volunteering to work with the campaign.  We are also reaching out using new media and more than 2,700 people have already joined our on-line community through our email outreach.    We have a great campaign website, Youtube channel, email updates, Facebook pages and Twitter.

2. I greatly respect all of my primary opponents and know that all of us understand that we share the same goal – to ensure that the next governor of Vermont is a Democrat. It will be of the utmost importance for all Democratic candidates, activists and leaders to come together after the primary to support the winner and I expect that we will all do so.  I have never taken anybody’s support for granted and that is why I have already reached out to Democratic legislators as well as party leaders – from town chairs to state committee members, and I feel honored by the endorsement of Governor Madeleine Kunin.  As the winner of the primary I will reach out to those who have endorsed other candidates and will ask them to help us beat Brian Dubie.

3. We are building a strong grassroots campaign and, once the primary is over we will be working hard to be sure that the winning Democrat is the next Governor of Vermont. Our future and our children’s future depends on changing the course of our state. That is enough for me to support a strong Democratic ticket.

4.  We have just suffered through eight years of rudderless government.  Vermonters are looking for a leader who can get things done.  A hard fought and issues driven campaign will help us show Vermonters that I have a positive vision for Vermont.  When our base voters understand the issues that are at stake we win. We saw the incredible energy President Obama grew in our country. I hope Democrats and all Vermonters see how much I care about the issues that must be addressed and they will help me win this election so I can deliver on my positions.

RACINE:

I am committed to a truly grassroots gubernatorial campaign. I have already begun developing a statewide team of volunteers who are working on the ground every day to invite people into the campaign and encourage their active participation. I am offering internships with the campaign as well, for young people who would like to gain specific campaign experience. I am also working to build a solid online presence – we already have a great website and a Facebook page, and we will soon be up on Twitter. We have a good email list that is growing every week, with good participation on that list.

My campaign is ahead of all of the others in the use of the internet. I showed my commitment to a statewide field campaign that uses technology in new and interesting ways with my recent Campaign Kickoff Party. We had 10 locations around the state with a live-stream video to the nine places where I couldn’t be physically present. We have received very positive feedback from the folks around the state who attended the party – the first of its kind in Vermont. I will be doing more events that provide opportunities for Vermonters to engage with me through the use of technology as the campaign goes on.  

I believe that a competitive primary can definitely energize voters, as long as we all focus on the issues and on the overall goal of doing better for all Vermonters. We must, and I will, encourage Vermonters to get involved in the campaign – by going to the debates and forums, by volunteering for a candidate (hopefully me), and by offering feedback and asking questions, and of course, by voting. When people feel welcomed into the process and they are encouraged to participate, we all get stronger, and so does our democratic process. I will not attack my colleagues who are running with me for the Democratic nomination, and I will be glad to talk with Vermonters about issues that are important to you. I will also work with the Democratic Party, the Progressive Party, and Independents to build a broad base of people who will be ready for action in the general election.

By doing all of this and working with Vermonters, I am hopeful that these same folks will be active after I am in office. I will need all of your help to move a positive, proactive agenda forward to ensure that all Vermonters have real opportunities to get ahead, as well as access to universal, affordable, quality health care. One of my first priorities will be cleaning up the damage left behind by the Douglas-Dubie administration. This administration has been cutting services to Vermont’s most vulnerable citizens, and there will be repercussions from those cuts for years.

We can all look to the national scene to learn a lesson that we cannot stop working together once we have won an election – we must continue our work to achieve the goals that are so important to us. I am committed to working with all of you in this way – now, as a Senator, and later as the Governor. You deserve more from your elected leaders. You deserve a governor who will lead in a way that shares power with you to achieve our common goals. I want to be that governor.

SHUMLIN:

1. Barack Obama was successful in motivating young people because he gave them a reason to vote by inspiring them with his message of hope and change.   If Democrats are going to get 18-25 year olds engaged in this election we must do the same.   I’m running for governor because I want young Vermonters to have the same opportunity that I have had to live, work and raise my family here.   All Vermonters, but especially young Vermonters, need to know that it does matter who the governor is not just for the present, but also for the future.  Decisions made today can impact the state 10, 20 and even 100 years from now.   I want young people to see a future for themselves in Vermont and that’s a message that I will articulate during the campaign.  

My two teenage daughters keep me up to speed on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube and like many I use my hand held phone for everything (although not while I’m driving!).   The internet has revolutionized how campaigns are run and I intend to take advantage of all it has to offer.   I want my supporters to take an active role in my campaign.  I will use the internet and social networking sites to engage them, keep them informed and solicit their advice and opinions.   The internet will also be a valuable tool in educating undecided voters about who I am and what I stand for.  

2. I have pledged not to run a negative campaign against any of my fellow Democrats during the primary.   We all know that we need to work together to make sure that Brian Dubie is not the next governor of Vermont.   I think the best way to bring us all together during the general is to run a positive campaign during the primary that articulates a bold and positive future for Vermont.

3. I am committed to making sure that a Democrat is elected governor of Vermont and I will campaign as hard as I can to make that happen.   I hesitate to claim the title of “best campaigner” because I think that distinction should be given to the five Democratic candidates as a whole.  If the four candidates who do not win the nomination join forces as a group behind the nominee we will be unstoppable.

4. The stakes are high in this election and I think the more we talk issues the clearer that will be.   Voters will have a choice: move our state forward on a new path or continue in the same direction we’ve taken during the last 8 years.  I think voters want to be energized and excited about their government again and if we give them a reason to they will.  So I say bring on the issues!

Dear Democratic State Lawmakers,

I’d like to deliver a word of advice to some of you all – especially a few folks in the Senate.

Now I know you want to be pragmatic about Vermont Yankee. And I know that pragmatism is a relative thing in politics. Obviously if it were absolute, there’d be no question. VY is past its expiration date by any measure, its record of problems is large, they’ve lied to you about their operations and they have a radioactive leak they still can’t find after weeks. Add to that the fact that they’re proposing power for Vermonters at a rate currently higher than the open market price, and for only 11% of our state’s demand. Far from the “third of our power” they provided in the past (and that we keep hearing about). There’s no part of objective pragmatism that wants any of that deal.

But again, “political” pragmatism is a relative thing – and it’s relative to where you feel the public is. If there are two sides, you all often feel the pragmatic place is in the middle – and its because that “pragmatism” is about prospects for supporting your further electoral ambitions. Hey, you might get to run for Governor someday!

So here’s another factor to consider in your electoral pragmatism calculus.

Cancer rates may not be up around Vermont Yankee yet, but that will change now that this stuff is getting into the groundwater. We all know that. The tritium level increased dramatically today, and that’s going to start having an impact on public health – and those effects may start cropping up right about the time you might want to run for Governor, or Lt. Gov, or US House, or whatever. There will be sick kids. It’s not hard to read the future on this. We all know where this is going.

So there will be sickness. Cancers. And then there will be campaign commercials from your primary opponents (and you can be certain there will be primary opponents – we will see to that). And those ads will remind viewers that, when you had the chance to put a stop to this, you didn’t. Because you thought worrying about cancer rates among Vermonters wasn’t important. Wasn’t responsible. And those ads will run on the TV and the radio and the newspapers over and over and over.

So you may want to ask yourselves again what the “pragmatic” thing to do vis-a-vis Vermont Yankee is.

Your friend,

John

(Crosspost from HuffPo)

You don’t hear a lot from former John Edwards supporters these days.

There are a lot of us out here on the innernetz. In fact, the left wing blogosphere was a significant source of the former Senator’s support during the last presidential primary. I daresay that without us, he wouldn’t have stayed in the game any longer than Chris Dodd did. So let me be among the first to stick my neck out there and freely accept that scarlet “E” on my forehead.

We may all be quiet lately, but as words of cheating and hair fixations and the love child and the sex tape (good god) have come out, we’re all thinking the same things all you early Clinton or Obama or Kucinich (or whoever) supporters are thinking; holy crap, what if that guy had actually been elected???

If former Edwards boosters are silent, there are plenty of “I told you so”s to be found – particularly from early Obama supporters. And why not? We were told so – most notably by progressive icon and almost-candidate himself, Senator Russ Feingold, but he was hardly the only one.

This is not to say that, given the same circumstances, I wouldn’t do it all over again. As a progressive, I liked what Edwards had to say, and we should vote for candidates who say the things we want them to say. That’s how it works. Yeah, Dennis Kucinich also said what I wanted someone to say, but somehow the abortion rights flip flop got to me a lot more than Edwards’s more numerous flip-flops.

But still, I have learned a lesson in all this.

I’m rather a cynic, and like all cynics, we prefer to consider ourselves realists. As a self-dubbed “realist” I approached my own candidate a lot differently than Clinton or Obama fans approached theirs. While the President and the Secretary of State inspired actual personal followings, I (and I suspect many other Edwards voters) wasn’t driven by the personal. In fact, I rejected the personal entirely. When a friend commented to me that she thought Senator Edwards was “a good man,” I got all squirmy. How could she know? How could I know?

And in fact, that was the real point of frustration for me regarding Clinton and (particularly) Obama voters. Their followings were so clearly personality-driven, it drove me bananas. They didn’t know these candidates. How could they? Why get all goopy over a persona that seemed no less an ungrounded fantasy as, say, leprechauns?

Bottom line for me; I didn’t really trust any of ’em. They were working me, that’s what they do. Their personas were purely public ones. I started from the proposition that they were all, to an extent, phonies. So when Feingold would suggest that Edwards was a phony, I was all “no freaking kidding – as opposed to…?”

So given that I trusted none of them, my choice came strictly down to policy – or rather, policy rhetoric. It was important to me to send a message – that liberal rhetoric was an election winner. That people who say these things win. And in getting someone elected on such a platform, even if they were a complete phony, those of us who actually sincerely believe that rhetoric would have to have a seat at the table.

And at the end of the day that’s all I ever really hoped for – even from Obama.

But I said there was a lesson for me here, and so there is. Cynicism erases subtlety. There is no nuance in “they’re all a bunch of phonies.” So whereas they may all actually be a set of phonies, there’s a way to look at that reality critically rather than reactively, or perhaps, absolutely.

In short, what I have learned as a former John Edwards supporter – one who even drove to New Hampshire to knock on doors for him and (ugh) watch him shoot hoops in a high school gym – is the following.

Okay, maybe they’re all phonies but the fact is that not all phoniness is created equal. There are many, many degrees of phoniness. Many degrees. Hoo-boy, are there degrees.

Next time I’ll try to take that into account.