Lots of interesting emails today. Nothing brings in the emails like media-metablogging, I tellya. Never fails. And always interesting emails.

But one did come from Terri Hallenbeck. She wanted to make the point that she does not feel “contempt” for this site, and she did so rather emphatically. She also took a moment to engage with the history I cited, refuting my source that claimed she was pissed off about the old Welch diary I linked to (although she at the very least sounded annoyed – sorry Terri).

In any event, she genuinely seemed to appreciate how her comment could be interpreted poorly, but I think sincerely indicated that she didn’t mean it that way (in fact suggesting that my interpretation was removed from “reality.” A little much, maybe, but then it was a big diary).

So consider this my mea culpa for seeing a sense of contempt when there was none in play. It was, I think, an aggressively judgmental quote from Hallenbeck, but I can acknowledge my over-defensiveness. Wouldn’t be the first time, after all. At least it did present a springboard for a discussion about blog-reporter relationships, which is a conversation I enjoy having and hadn’t had the occasion to for too many months.

So there ya go. One big, happy, extended, weird, dysfunctional, multimedia family once again.

So you all know the drill from the national blogosphere (call it the “Markos Model”). This is where the blogger takes the backhanded insult from the “mainstream media” person (in this case, an actual reporter, rather than a columnist, making it all the stranger), and returns it in spades, magnified by a factor of 10. The commenters pile on, and the discussion turns to a new media vs. traditional media discussion.

But not this time, and I’ll explain why in a moment.

First let’s take care of the obligatory preliminaries. When asked by a commenter (and not just any commenter, a commenter recently banned from GMD for crossing what is likely the only complete taboo in this site – going after somebody by using their employer as a weapon against them – and long time readers will remember the ugly history of that sort of craven attack at this site) about the lack of press coverage of our little activist meeting this week (a lack that I was grateful for at the time, as I was concerned about people speaking freely, but there was no way we could’ve – or would’ve – closed anyone out), Free Press reporter Terri Hallenbeck responded:

No, we didn’t go to the “activist meeting” Saturday. Didn’t inquire whether we would have been allowed. From Odum’s write-up it sounds like there were heated debates but he’s not going to tell us the nature of them. Otherwise, it sounded like they talked about how to put enforcers into place. Henchmen, if you will. In other words, the real worry is about keeping people in line while also making “a more inviting electoral environment for potential candidates.” Interesting contrast.

Okay: as to “heated debates” that I’m “not going to tell us about,” this is apparently concluded from this single phrase in a nearly 1200 word diary:

There were plenty of moments of disagreement – and even a moment where it got slightly heated

To respond:

• “Heated debates” from a “moment where it got slightly heated.” It’s a reach, but whatever. If Ms. Hallenbeck or anyone cared to know about  that “moment,” asking might’ve been prudent. It was when a GMD front pager and a participant got a bit heated in discussing the Zuckerman-Pearson-Ram race for about, oh, 30 seconds. I don’t recall the particulars. I understand they exchanged apologies after the meeting. I could have gone into detail when I wrote the diary, but the thing was already 1200 words and that seemed a bit tertiary, somehow.
• As far as “Otherwise, it sounded like they talked about how to put enforcers into place. Henchmen, if you will.” So Hallenbeck’s message here is that: a) I reported “heated debates” but refused to divulge details, and that b) besides that, I just talked about “henchmen”.

  Again, just so i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed, here, I never used the word “enforcers” at all. She is apparently reacting to this paragraph:

  3. Create an entity or network of entities that act as enforcement. If the legislative package passes, it will be vetoed, and that veto will need to be overridden – and that means some “wrath of god” stuff which can be brought to bear against wavering override votes. If, as we build relationships and create discussions, agreements and understandings manifest – perhaps political  “non-aggression treaties – that big stick will need to be at the ready. We will be looking at formalizing that capacity, either through the creation of a non-partisan entity, or an expanded, multipartisan and diverse new media structure that can work in concert on this agenda.

  Along with the “heated debates” phrase, that, from Hallenbeck’s POV, comprises the totality of my “report.” All told, that’s about 120 words. In actuality, there were 1157 words in the diary.

  If it really must be said, no, I wasn’t trying to suggest a team of “henchman” (a la the old Batman series?) be hired to roam the statehouse. I was talking about an entity or network of entities (like, maybe blogs?) that could mobilize citizen, grassroots activism when our interests were on the line and looking threatened on the one hand, or to complain a lot and write a lot of letters if a P-D non-aggression pact (should one arise) is looking unilaterally compromised. A rapid response activist network. Hardly re-inventing the wheel, here. I gotta give props, though – “Henchman” is certainly an entertainingly unique spin. When possible, I tried to use some of the words that participants used in the meeting so they could more clearly hear themselves, and perhaps this is a lesson that, given the overt hostility of a reporter or two, I should be less forthright in my accounting of these things. Lesson learned.

• As to the last point, if Hallenbeck seriously wants to imply that creating a network to employ constiuent pressure towards controversial goals is inconsistent with creating an environment that supports one’s candidates, I’m not sure how to respond in a way that doesn’t come off rather snarky or petty myself. I guess I’d suggest she take it up with VLCV, Vermont NEA, the Vermont AFL-CIO, or for that matter the Democratic, Republican and Progressive Parties, as they’ve been playing that game for years. I can only assume that, as a political reporter, she already knows that, but I suppose, since the question has been called here, it must be said.

So there: acknowledged, refuted. Formalities complete. Now this is the part where we all talk about the viciously low regard blogs are held in by the “traditional media” and how we are all natural enemies.

Except we shouldn’t go there, because that’s not the case – at least not in Vermont. Not by a long shot. After the flip, I’ll discuss why I think this should be considered an isolated instance from someone who has particularized contempt for this site (and likely this blogger), and does not reflect the blog-reporter relationship as a whole, and how that relationship may not be what you expect from looking at the national sites…

A funny thing happened in the last few years. The Vermont political press corps has gone into a sort of crisis. Between key figures being drafted into Administration or other political jobs, another key member losing his job, and the financial crisis hitting the traditional media (now coupled by a global economic meltdown), their ranks have become thinned – so thinned, that there simply aren’t enough bodies on the ground to cover everything coverable anymore.

But the result is that whatever groupthink has been in play in the past among this group has been largely broken up. Oh sure, there’s still limiting “conventional wisdom” informing the profession – one only has to tune into a few minutes of Vermont This Week to see it in action, but the press corps  – with its many new faces – is much closer to being a team of equals now. And a team of equals equates to a team of individuals, which is a very good thing.

And it shows in the quality. You’ve heard me repeatedly sing the praises of the VPR team (reporters like Sneyd, Dillon, Zind and the like), as well as speak highly of Barlow, Porter – and yes, even Hallenbeck – on numerous occasions. I tried to get reporter-specific newsfeeds running on the sidebar at one point to promote some of these folks and get GMDers to think more in terms of product coming from specific agents, rather than publications (and to promote the ones I thought did great work), but I couldn’t get it to work.

Of course, you’ve also seen me give ’em hell. The social psychological function being filled by netroots sites like this one nationally and locally is clear: we are the political, community, independent psychic clearinghouse of last resort – and that includes talking honestly about the media in all its forms. Are we right when we have an issue? Well – we think we are, and amateur, “hobbyist” sites like this are clearly read and internalized by the professionals. I wouldn’t say we “watch the watchmen,” but we do talk about them a lot.

So what is Hallenbeck on about? It did reach my ears that she was mightily pissed off after this piece way back. It’s a criticism I stand by and I think was fair. After the diary was posted, that bad habit seemed to stop. Did it have an effect? Who knows. It’s beside the point, actually. But there was no “feud” intended, as I have praised her work when I thought it praiseworthy (and lord knows we link to vtbuzz aplenty – it’s even got a permanent sidebar link in the blogroll). I only met her once, waiting in line at the SoS office for campaign finance filings. I identified myself and told her I thought her recent live blogging experiments were fantastic, that I hope she’d ignore the critics on her own site, and that I hoped other press folks would follow her lead. Other than that, I think I asked her if she knew who someone else in the room was. It seemed pleasant enough.

One of the things for reporters to remember, though, is that this is – to some extent – a “media geek site,” and like all geek sites, we act as reviewers a lot.

And she’s hardly the only one I’ve had critical words for (speaking only for myself, here). I rip into Sneyd here. I go after Barlow here. And regular readers will know that these are two of my favorite reporters in the state. And yet, neither of them are putting their reporters’ hats on and making such bizarrely contemptuous and clearly distorted statements in public about this site. In fact, I feel like I get on rather well with both of them.

The point again, is that we’re graced not to have a traditional media groupthink in play. Vermont is small, it functions person-to-person, and that dynamic plays out even in what we often think of as an impenetrable fourth estate. The cast of characters is a small one, but they react as individuals. We get along fine-to-great with Sneyd, Zind, Dillon, Barlow. Porter tolerates us, at any rate, even though I think he’s either rolling his eyes or grumbling half the time (fair enough). Ledbetter seems to kinda dig the blogs. Sue Allen and Mark Johnson watch us, but get mightily pissed off (Johnson got very angry when he felt I unfairly attacked him. He brought it to my attention, I agreed and publicly apologized as I’ve had to do on occasion, but it didn’t seem to help much). Whatsisname the Herald editor pretends we don’t exist, while the Reformer editor (someone else I’ve beat up) enjoys the site.

And Hallenbeck dislikes us so much, it distorts her journalistic eye. Well, what are ya gonna do? I guess it happens.

But her comment should not be taken as a condemnatory statement from the collective voice of the traditional media to Vermont bloggery assembled. It is only a single axe grinding on its own terms.

It’s just going to be an inevitable byproduct of what happens here – but a nasty relationship with all traditional media practitioners need not be.

I won’t say the meeting on the 6th was a revolutionary success, but a success it most definitely was. About 30 people – a combination of self-identifying Democrats as well as “Democratic stakeholders” (those who may not consider themselves Dems, but feel a stake in having a functional, effective Democratic Party in the state) gathered in Montpelier to consider 3 things: reforming or improving the functioning of the Party’s election machine, how to avoid the candidate vacuum (or the “exciting” candidate vacuum) at  the top of the ticket from this past cycle, and – the big one – how to approach the damage done by the divide amongst the left in the state.

There was a good range of faces who made it. Folks from within the Democratic Party, such as County Chairs and the State Vice Chair, elected officials, campaign professionals, and many people outside of such insider circles, from labor ambassador Ralph Montefusco to environmentalist Bill McKibben.

And of course, names from the burgeoning Vermont netroots were throughout – including some completely new to this sort of political dynamic.

The number was ideal. Any bigger and such a roundtable wouldn’t have been manageable, any fewer and it might not have been meaningful. The challenge was to make the whole process more than simply a gripe session, and more than the perennial conversations that are so similar, but which lead nowhere.

By the end, most felt that the ball had been moved just a bit – which is enough to follow up with more concrete action. After the flip, I’ll review the directions the group intends to pursue, and some of the goals that are now in play.

There were plenty of moments of disagreement – and even a moment where it got slightly heated – but overall, there were far more moments of agreement, and a few key points emerged. The conversations about the Party and its “Coordinated Campaign” were grounded in the reality that the Democratic Party proper has certain hardwired limitations, limiting how much the left in this state can reasonably expect to depend on it, but that this cycle there was serious room for improvement.

Along those lines, there was a consensus that we need to take affirmative steps to change the environment for potential candidates for office (Governor and Lt. Governor especially, but not exclusively). We need to create an environment where candidates can feel welcome and supported to enter, while being able at times to apply pressure as well.

Perhaps the most nuanced conversation was a discussion of the role of primaries. It was a bit of a surprise to me to find a universal sense that primaries could be a good thing that enhances the democratic process as well as the winning candidate’s odds in the general election. The group did have a sense that there was a bit of a curve in play – that too large or scattered a primary could crate problems.

But there was also the consensus that the primary date is simply too late in the election calendar to make it a clean or easy dynamic.

As the Prog v. Dem thing goes, there were mixed views as to whether some sort of partisan fusion was practical or even possible, but there was a general agreement that such a merger was not likely to happen this cycle regardless. There was a desire, then, to push for processes and procedures that structurally minimize the opportunity for such conflicts, as well as to create or encourage some sort of individual entity or network that could have enough muscle to play heavy if candidates work around these rules or needlessly pick fights. Exactly what constitutes such transgressions is not entirely clear yet, as there was a division between those who felt that district or office-level “non aggression pacts” were valid or not.

None of this was to discourage the idea of communicating, or negotiating detentes between Dems and Progs, but placing it in a realistic context. There remains the hope that pushing for election reforms in the Legislature could provide such opportunities, as Progressives and Democrats would be needed to overturn expected gubernatorial vetoes.

All told, the group decided to move forward quickly in the following areas:

1. Enhance Coordinated Campaign transparency – particularly during key organizational periods to prevent problems at the peak of election season. Among the activist Democrat crowd, there was an acknowledgment that, while many of the frustrations around the Democratic Coordinated Campaign are endemic, this was an especially frustrating year, and it wasn’t always easy to tell how much of that frustration was preventable. The frustrations extended into relationships with constituency groups, such as labor as well. The group committed to focusing on engaging with the Coordinated Campaign as it comes together and use the tools available to us to maximize transparency, enhance lines of communication, and to bring new faces into the process starting immediately.

2. Election reform legislation. Of the options discussed, the group decided to make an organized, affirmative push for a package of changes to Vermont elections. That package includes:

• Instant Runoff Voting
• Moving back the Primary Date to June or July
• A “Sore Loser Law,” preventing candidates who lose a primary election from coming back later in the year to run in the general election.

These changes will encourage healthy primaries, and minimize potential spoiler effects.

3. Create an entity or network of entities that act as enforcement. If the legislative package passes, it will be vetoed, and that veto will need to be overridden – and that means some “wrath of god” stuff which can be brought to bear against wavering override votes. If, as we build relationships and create discussions, agreements and understandings manifest – perhaps political  “non-aggression treaties – that big stick will need to be at the ready. We will be looking at formalizing that capacity, either through the creation of a non-partisan entity, or an expanded, multipartisan and diverse new media structure that can work in concert on this agenda.

Such an entity could also serve the function of either explicitly collecting financial support for whoever is the final candidate for governor, or identifying financial supporters, being yet another way to make a more inviting electoral environment for potential candidates, as the previous two action items will hopefully do as well.

In addition, there was a lack of consensus on the broad question of issues. Many feel that we should move the Democratic Party and the state firmly into progressive (li’l p) territory. Others felt that we needed to make a special effort to identify the Obama/Leahy/Sanders/Douglas voters and bring them over, likely leading us towards the center. While “populism” was an (ahem) popular term, it was not entirely clear if everyone attached the same meaning to it.

For my part (and I’m not sure if many folks agreed with me), I felt comfortable that the organic process of issue development that has been maturing gradually in sites like this has been working for us, and perhaps we don’t need to try and get ahead of it.

Without a clear sense of what a Vermont netroots platform might look like, there was a desire to look at the demographics of the mixed-vote set and return to the discussion. There was broad consensus that its important to know where the voters are on their own terms which should further inform our collective approach.

So the ball was moved, if only a bit, but the good news is that the follow up has already begun on the Legislative front, and the other areas will follow soon. TO all those who participated – thank you so very much, and I will put together a listserv over the next couple days so we can keep in touch. That will also further enable the “next steps” conversation to happen – in particular, whether we should be looking first towards another group meeting, or whether its time to divide up into groups of interests, get cracking, and keep each other apprised of progress.

For those of you who could not make it but would like to be involved (assuming these approaches sound agreeable to you), please email me at jodum atpoetworld-dot-net. Obviously I – and all of us – are doing this in our spare time, as there are jobs, families and holidays in the picture, but this is happening and you will hear from us if you want to get involved.

Thanks for everyone’s interest on this, and I enthusiastically open the floor for additions, subtractions, suggestions, comments, or corrections of any inaccurate representations of the meeting content, glaring omissions or other screw-ups.

From the email that went out from State Democratic Chair Ian Carleton to the State Committee regarding the VDP’s Executive Director search (emphasis added):

This year’s search committee will include the following individuals:  

1. Judy Bevans

2. Chuck Ross

3. Linda Weiss

4. Dick Marek

5. Carolyn Dwyer

6. Spence Putnam

7. Mary Sullivan

8. Jon Copans

9. Ian Carleton

I think this group exhibits an excellent cross section of all aspects of our party.

Oy. I think he’s not kidding.

Let’s see, of 9 names, all but one are on the state Executive Committee or have been on in the past, while the remaining person is a recent ED.

Geez. I don’t know what’s worse, the idea that this could be an “excellent cross section” of the Democratic Party, or that Carleton thinks it is.

Let’s see, Lamoille County has about 25,000 people or roughly 4% of Vermont’s population (as compared to Chittenden County which has a population of about 150,000, or 24% of Vermont’s population.

But that tiny Lamoille sliver of the population will soon include: The Speaker of the House (Shap Smith), the House Majority Leader (Floyd Nease) and the Senate Appropriations Chair (Susan Bartlett).

I guess that makes li’l Lamoille County the political big dog in the state, eh?

(Bumping back to the top. – promoted by odum)

The fix it meeting is scheduled for Saturday, 1-3PM in Montpelier. Our location was set to be the meeting room of the Police Station behind City Hall. The overflow space in case this thing were to become more than simply cozy has been set to be the city council chambers in City Hall (the door to which is a mere 20 feet or so from the primary location in the Police Station).

Well, here’s the map to both – but from the increase in buzz this meeting has gotten in the last few days, its a safe bet we’ll be in the overflow room to accommodate everyone. The directions are the same, as the doors face each other and are a scant distance away, and I’ll inform the police dispatcher where we are in case anybody comes in wondering. An email to those I know who have RSVP’ed will go out tomorrow. In the meantime, here is a map:

From the Montpelier exit on I-89, drive in on Rt 2 to your fourth light (Main Street). Turn left, drive over the bridge and past the Shaw’s on the left. City Hall is less than a block down on your right. The Police Station – as well as the rear entrance to the city council chamber – can be found in back of City Hall. There should be parking.

As our December 6th meeting in Montpelier begins, down the street another meeting will end – the meeting of the House Democrats that will choose their new leadership. For Speaker, of course, the choice is down to two: Mark Larson and Shap Smith, with Smith the likeliest winner. After going back and forth (largely around concerns about his potential vulnerability in the district), I’ve decided to just come right out and say that I’m rooting for Smith.

I share with many folks the concern over whether Larson or Smith have the gravitas and presence to be an effective counter to Douglas. I also note that, as a progressive Dem, Larson is basically with me 100% of the time on issues, while Smith is somewhere in the 80s, percentage-wise. But I think the way Smith’s busted his butt to come from the back of the pack and be on the edge of winning this thing against all expectations (including mine) is a testament to the likelihood that many of us may have underestimated just how determined and focused he can be, and those are the qualities of a leader.

And there’s another plus to a Smith ascendence, one doubled if he’s joined by Floyd Nease in the Majority Leader spot. Smith and Nease are two political figures who are willing to engage with the growing new media in this state. They have, in fact, both participated in discussions on this site. A Smith/Nease combination would mean that we would be listened to, respected, and even acknowledged.

Are they going to agree with us all the time? Of course not. But this is democracy and that’s the way it goes. The important thing is – by accepting (if not exactly embracing) that our voices are part of the conversation, that democracy is enhanced and bettered, and it will stand in stark contrast to the previous Speaker who seemed loathe to acknowledge that we were even here.

Now, I know other front pagers will have different horses in this race, and I invite and encourage those folks to speak up, but I wanted to make sure and put this out there before the final decision is made on Saturday.

2 days now until our upcoming strategy/brainstorming session (in Montpelier this Saturday, from 1-3 – I’ll post and email a map later today) among new media activists and other “Democratic stakeholders.” Again, if you plan on coming, please RSVP to (jodum at poetworld.net) as this is not a public forum per se – its a working meeting with the goal of brainstorming some specific strategies and moving towards implementing them to whatever extent we feel is manageable.

Moving on to a look at the next agenda item. It’s the biggie:

IV. Getting the left to stop fighting itself (at least long enough to get elected).

This, of course, is the Dem-Prog conundrum. The think that everyone seems to think this meeting is 100% focused on, and will likely take up the lion’s share.

With the size differential, the Legislative part of this problem is less widespread, and as such may be easier to brainstorm solutions and systems to implement those solutions. There will be challenges, though. How to approach conflicts in Burlington as compared to the rest of the state? If we are heading towards a paradigm that says Primaries are good things, is it possible to create localized primaries?

Statewide is obviously a different story – but what is the story? Is it about Democrats working with Progressives, or Democrats dealing with Anthony Pollina specifically? Is the solution a partisan merger – either encouraged or enforced from the grassroots? Is the solution to create – or simulate – a primary, either through IRV, opening up party primary ballots to allow candidates to appear on more than one? A regular runoff? Maybe just good ol’ fashioned organized grassroots and constituency group pressure on one or both parties?

Wherever the discussion goes, there’s no question that it will be informed by tonight’s Democratic/Progressive forum in Burlington, sponsored by 7 Days. A forum which everyone I’ve spoken to is expecting to become a food fight.

Of the four panelists, I suspect Dem Rep. Joey Donovan and Prog City Councilor Jane Knodell will be amenable to an exchange. Where I don’t know City Dem Chair Jake Perkinson, he would seem to be the partisan warrior sort, and Rep. David Zuckerman, I fear, has been looking for a fight.

Clearly I’m a partisan Democrat myself, and as a partisan Democrat, my perspective is not neutral. My concern, though, is that everyone will end up looking very bad. The Dems’ inclination will be to be dismissive and the Progs’ inclination will be to be holier-than-thou, and around we go.

As a Dem, a real test of whether or not there will be a real conversation from the Progressive side will be whether or not Rep. Zuckerman goes into what has been a favored question of his of late. It’s a question he asked multiple times when we were on the radio, and repeated on another blog as well as this one. Although I responded to it in the comments, he has repeated it on the Prog Blog since in his prelude to tonight’s event, so I think he’s committed to it, or chose to disregard the response on this site. It seems like a harmless enough question. Here it is from this site:

What are the key fundamental principles that Democrats (this means elected and serving) fundamentally believe in?  By this, I mean more than the platform.

The fact is, this question is a rhetorical trap. One designed to quickly define you as the right-wingers in a room full of leftists in an unfair – and inaccurate – way. It represents exactly the argument that we have to leave on the table if we can expect not to needlessly come into conflict (and therefore empower the right) in this state.

It is, in my eyes, akin in rhetorical quality to Sean Hannity’s frequent attempt to corner Democrats by asking them flat out if they want to be victorious in Iraq. It’s a question designed to put your opponent in a corner because its a question on your terms, that they can’t answer on those terms – and yet it sounds so simple. My hope – and request – is that Zuckerman choose not to go there. If he does, I would hope that Joey and Jake recognize it for the trap that it is.

Here are the problems:

First: its an explicit demand that Democrats justify themselves to Zuckerman before he will deign to continue the conversation. It is a precondition to negotiations that is, frankly, a little demeaning. If Dems could justify themselves in this way to Zuckerman’s satisfaction after all, he and other Progressives would likely be Dems. Any real discussion should stipulate that conversions are not happening.

Second: It preemptively rejects the answer to the question. The Platform is the Democrats statement of values. By rejecting it outright, he is not only demanding Dems justify themselves to him – he’s demanding they do so on his terms – and its unclear what those terms even are.

Third and biggest: The question compares apples and oranges – to the apple’s advantage (or is that the orange’s?). The Progressives are simply a different organization that the Democrats. The Dems are one lobe of the two-party system – the “left” party. The dynamics of the two party system (which I believe are clearly hardwired) are such that the “left” and the “right” party are in constant flux. That, in a sense, they become institutional battlegrounds for what it means to be a “leftist” or a “rightist” in the country and the state. The question of “what are our values” is the perennial struggle within the party that theoretically finds expression through the platform and ripples out to the political dynamic and culture at large. Structurally, its not a question that you can answer in a soundbite, as its the process of asking that question that defines the party (and another reason why we could really use Progs’ help inside the party, but I digress…)

The Progressives, on the other hand, are both small, and not a part of the two-party system. They can structure themselves with a more traditional nonprofit style hierarchy and can define themselves with nonprofit style mission statements – which the Progressives do and even attempt to enforce among membership under their bylaws (something Democrats could – and would – never do). Now if Progs ever do supplant the Dems, they will find themselves in exactly the same position as the Dems and rapidly become the exact same party, just under a different name. But for now, they have the luxury of playing by a different set of rules entirely.

In other words, Zuckerman’s question could be answered by a soundbite from the Progs, but to be precise, the Dems have to answer more philosophically. Short of that, the answer is the Platform, or at least its abstract, which reads:

The Vermont Democratic Party believes the rights to health care, food, shelter, clean air and water, education, privacy, justice, peace and equality, to organize, and to speak freely are essential to a robust democracy. These rights are not negotiable. When any Vermonter lacks or is denied any of these basic essentials, the fabric of our community is torn and all of us are harmed.

We believe that all citizens have a responsibility to be informed, engaged participants in our democracy. As engaged citizens, we will work toward the establishment of economically and environmentally sustainable communities that regain and maintain the ecological health of our state and contribute to the health of our country and the planet.

We expect elected officials, their staffs and their appointees to govern compassionately, competently, and with fiscal integrity and transparency. We demand that all elected officials fully adhere to their oaths of office and defend the Constitutions of Vermont and of the United States at all times, using all lawful means available to them through their office. Based on the principles of the Vermont and U.S. Constitutions, we stand against torture, bigotry and discrimination, forced childbirth or sterilization, corruption, and the establishment of state-sponsored religion or religious doctrine.

We judge the success of a democratic society by how it treats its most vulnerable members. Therefore, in everything we do — every policy, law, and regulation — we must consider the effects of our actions on the lives and futures of our children and succeeding generations.

…and if he’s preemptively throwing that truthful response out, its simply not a fair or honest question.

So Dave, I’m asking you: don’t go there.

Jake and Joey: If he goes there, its just a rhetorical sucker punch designed to kick your ass. Don’t follow.

But if you must, the quick answer is therefore – “The Platform, and if that’s not good enough for you, well we’re just not going to meet with each others’ personal approval and we have to accept that if we’re going to move on.”

The more precise (but abstract) answer is: “What do we stand for? We are the party of the left in the political system, and we beat the hell out of each other every year to define what the “left” means for our state and for the country – and we could use all the progressive help we can get.”

And everybody – everybody – please remember that simply saying “now I’m not trying to suggest my opponent is a moron” and then going on to suggest your opponent is a moron does not inoculate you. There are no verbal inoculations, and whoever among you decides to try to go that route will come off looking like a grumpy child.

I’m not sure if there’s an opportunity for any good to come of this tonight, given the timing and the circumstances. I’d like to think there is. I just hope it doesn’t make things worse.

3 days now until our upcoming strategy/brainstorming session among new media activists and other “Democratic stakeholders.” Again, if you plan on coming, please RSVP to (jodum at poetworld.net) as this is not a public forum per se – its a working meeting with the goal of brainstorming some specific strategies and moving towards implementing them to whatever extent we feel is manageable.

Yesterday I rambled a bit on the first discussion item to little response from readers. Betcha looking at the next agenda item – if only one aspect of it – will get a bit more feedback…

III. Avoiding the candidate vacuum of the last cycle. Do we need new faces if we can’t get the old ones off the dime?

Early signs are that this may – or may not – be such a problem this year, at least for the Governor’s race.

Now I remain dubious about early speculation and early trial balloons, as we don’t want to get caught with our pants down and end up with nobody, so the last thing we should be doing is waiting for the whims of chance. But if there are names being bandied about, it changes the dynamics of our discussion quite a bit.

After the flip, I’ll focus on the early names/faces/balloons/wild-speculations that currently seem to be floating about for the Governorship, and some names might surprise you…

There all all kinds of names floating around this year.

Of course the big news last week was that State Treasurer Jeb Spaulding is considering a run for the top spot. It’s pretty common knowledge that Jeb would like to be Governor some day, but he was also at the top of the list of potential candidates who wanted to wait until a Jim Douglas retirement, rather than run against the reigning electoral champ. It sounds as though he is either getting tired of waiting, or perhaps he’s banking on Jim Douglas retiring, taking a shot at the Presidency of Middlebury College, or possibly making another run for US Senate (although it seems likely that Patrick Leahy will stick with the job and wait for his chance to Chair the Appropriations Committee).

By way of inference, one has to assume Matt Dunne and Doug Racine are possibilities. Neither was intimidated out of consideration by the prospect of running against Jim Douglas last time, and so it follows that neither would be this time. Racine made serious moves towards a run at the end of ’06 but decided he wasn’t prepared for another 3 way split like the one that cost him his first time out. With another addition to the family, Dunne likely decided the time was wrong. But still – if it was worth considering then, it seems likely they’re considering it now. Since his return to the Senate, Racine, of course, has become a huge vote-getter in the populous, more conservative Burlington burb-towns where we often lose statewide races.

Other names that are floating around include State Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Bartlett of Lamoille County. Bartlett has long been eyed by many as a strong candidate, since she has historically been one of the most effective voices countering the Governor this decade. The big challenge for her would be name recognition, as this would be her first run on a statewide ballot, and first runs historically don’t work out in this state.

There are, of course the perennial rumors about Leahy State Director and Democratic National Committeeman Chuck Ross which I’ve now heard from three different sources. Seems like we hear the Chuck Ross rumors every time, though, so he either has a perennial trial balloon he launches, or there are some folks who really, really want him to run and who float his name every cycle.

And finally, although I’ve heard of nothing that has come from her, its clear that a lot of Secretary of State Deb Markowitz’s friends are urging her to throw her hat in the ring as well.

A lot of names early on, which is a great sign. The question is, who is going to stay in the mix? Spaulding and Markowitz seem to have little enthusiasm for taking on Douglas (Markowitz was also encouraged to run last time by folks such as Madeleine Kunin, according to hubbub), so if Douglas confirms, they may or may not try it this time around. The fact is that both would be stronger campaigners if the seat was open. This may be unfair, but down-ticket statewides may well start at a disadvantage when running against Douglas, as they often tend to be convinced that they know how to win based on their experiences getting elected to such offices, and often resist advice. The reality, of course, is that running for Governor is a completely different endeavor – and running against a seasoned pro like Douglas is even more challenging still. The challenge with either of them would be to ensure they don’t fall into that trap.

Then there’s the Primary factor. One of the reasons to float ones name early, as Spaulding has done, is to hopefully clear the field and discourage challenges from within the Party. Historically, the VDP has been loathe to have Primaries and tries to avoid them at all costs. But an appeal to Leahy to play the heavy and broker a pick behind the scenes will likely not work out so well during a year he has his own election to look at – and besides, we may well be (thankfully) past the time where such efforts make a difference.

So who might be put off by a Primary? I expect Spaulding and Markowitz would see it as a disincentive. If Dunne decides to get into the mix, he’s be particularly formidable in a Primary context and obviously has no qualms about running in one. I think with Racine and Bartlett its harder to say, and while one might say that Ross would likely to get lost in a shuffle of far bigger Democratic names, it also might give him a chance to raise his profile earlier in the election cycle and make inroads with Party faithful and non-Dems alike.

And I’m stepping in firmly against tradition to say that I would welcome a Primary. I think it would be helpful. It’d force the candidates to get out early and often, and pull press and public attention, interest and enthusiasm far sooner than usual (since nothing else seems to do that). I think we’d have a shot at replicating some of Obama’s success nationally with a scaled down repeat of his protracted Primary. SUre it means the money from the National Dems would be locked up in escrow (if it would come at all), but it’s time we all learned that the National Dems are simply not going to send a candidate going up against Douglas money before the end of the summer anyway, so let’s not kid ourselves. If the candidates in Democratic Primary were to strategically plan high profile forums around the state (and I mean high-profile… debates at County Committee meetings don’t count… the State Party itself should engage in the process and create/broker real debates in real public venues with real press coverage over as long a period as possible to generate attention), the winner would come out in a very strong position, compared to the recent previous attempts.

And then, of course, there’s the Pollina factor. Although it would seem insane for him to run again, I think that’s simply his gig. He has been reportedly making noise about running in a Democratic Primary, though. If he’d done so last time, he would’ve had a decent chance. This time, though, his chances have to be lower – both because of Dem rank-and-file polarization, as well as the fact that his percentage went down against Douglas/Symington as compared to Dubie/Shumlin, putting his viability into further doubt.

And given history, the question of “would he run as a third candidate anyway” seems tantamount to “Is the Pope Catholic?” Clearly, he is never going to be any less likely to run on any given election cycle than any other election cycle, and given that his base is feeling energized from beating the Democrat (or “useless turd” as one enthusiastic follower sees it) by 200 votes (some Symington poll visibility in Montpelier on Election Day morning might’ve changed that narrative right there), he’s gotta be considered a likely factor.

So – would he run in a Dem Primary if he didn’t think it would be handed to him? WOuld he honor the results?

And if not – can we essentially create a primary through IRV, a traditional runoff, allowing the same candidate to appear on more than one Primary ballot, or some other option?

That’s the question, iddinit?

• Pete Miss: (Get it? Like “Peat Moss” Get it? Oh… never mind.) Got my Peter’s scrambled the other day. It wasn’t Peter Shumlin who let Matt Dunne’s gas guzzler tax wallow in Senatorial oblivion, it was Peter Welch. Shumlin II: The Return hadn’t come to the Montpelier theater yet. Woops. Sorry Pete. Don’t mean to make you feel like the Rodney Dangerfield of Vermont politics. I promise next time we beat you up, it’ll be for something you actually did.

  And to the rest of you all – you just let me get away with anything, doncha?

• Not a correction per se, but in the getting-up-to-date department: I mentioned in my diary this morning that the VDP Voter File had lost a meaningful amount of data, while speculating that it should be easily fixed, if it hasn’t been fixed already.

  Apparently it has been. There ya go.