Peter Welch and Martha Rainville have been so busy congratulating themselves on running a clean, civil campaign that I'm tempted to leave the job to them. But, given the nastiness of campaigns across the country, and Richard Tarrant's attack ads here at home, I guess I do need to add my thank you to their self-praise.

Tarrant ran a nasty campaign and lost big. Rainville ran a positive campaign and lost small: Future candidates take note.

I take the two candidates at their word that they ran clean because it was the right thing to do. I'm sure they are sincere. But I do have to point out that running clean was certainly to each candidate's advantage: Snarling attack ads by the Rainville campaign would have damaged her soccer-mom-in-Army-fatigues image, perhaps her most powerful appeal. And what would Welch have gained trying to slime a woman who had become the face of Vermont's National Guard troops serving in Iraq? Whatever Vermonters think about the war (and we certainly know what most of them think), support of the troops has been universal.

Rainville lost because she was a Republican in a year when Vermont voters turned out to vote against President Bush, the Iraq war and the direction of the country. They were happy to put a Republican back in the governor's seat, but they weren't sending any more GOP votes to Washington.

But it's also true she didn't run a perfect campaign. She was very clear on issues like personal integrity, but less clear -- not to say waffling -- on Iraq, on wilderness, on global warming. She spent too many days on the defensive when a campaign staffer was caught plagiarizing issue statements (stealing Hillary Clinton's words!) for her website.

Don't count her out down the road. She ended the race gracefully, her attractive persona intact and, as she said, "looking forward to the future."

-- Candace Page