They're going to meet to encourage people to work for Obama in N.H. Good lord people, that outcome will be determined in smoke-filled rooms somewhere other than N.H. Stay in Vermont and work locally for local candidates. And give those candidates some money! Don't give it to Obama.
 

Vermont Democrats should think twice before giving big bucks to Obama. Today's LA Times has polls from key early primary states showing that Hillary Clinton is doing well in NH, IA, and SC. Hillary will probably have the nomination wrapped up well before the Vermont primary on March 4.

Obama appears to have raised over $400K in Vermont so far. As Anonymous 12:48 notes, this money could go much farther right here in Vermont than to a presidential candidate who has more than enough money for his campaign and will likely be out of the race by the time Vermont votes. But imagine what $400K could do for a Democratic candidate for governor - it might even match the contributions from national Republicans and corporate lobbyists that will come to the Douglas campaign.

Hillary isn't the most popular Democrat in Vermont, and she might not appeal to the MoveOn crowd as much as Obama on Iraq, but she's likely to be the person taking the oath of office as President on January 20, 2009. And what an improvement that will be on George W. Bush!
 

Ah, yes! The good old days! Hillary getting $850,000 from Norman Hsu, just like Bill and his "Lincoln bedroom" donations from his Taiwanese friends and Al Gore "praying" at the Budhist temple! Terry McAuliffe, George Soros (recently fined $775,000 for being a crook), and the rest of the bottom feeders crawling out from under rocks.Maybe we could get back John Deutch, Janet "Waco" Reno, Henry Cisneros, and best of all, that pants-stuffer, Sandy Berger! Of course, with all of the special interests to look after, we will again just have to forget about national security and defense of our country. Sort of makes you nostalgic, doesn't it?
 

I'll take the price of gas and strength of the economy we had under Clinton.

You want bottom feeders crawling out from under rocks:

Alberto Gonzolaz
John Ashcroft
Michael Brown
Donald Rumsfeld
Karl Rove
Harriett Myers
Condi Rice

Etc. Etc. Etc.
 

What Democratic candidate for governor?
 

Is Matt Dunne running for Governor?
 

zzzzzzzzzzzzz
 

Dunne's result against Dubie isn't so earthshaking. He did so well because he's not Cheryl Rivers.
 

Dunne vs Brock -- now there is a race!
 

Barack Obama is a politician. No more, and no less.

He is nothing new. Sure, there's some new packaging. But he is more of the same.

I discovered this when I heard him talk about his own history, and then about marriage equality for same-sex couples.

He speaks passionately about the days of Jim Crow, when black Americans were told to accept "separate but equal" schools, water fountains, lunch counters and all the rest. He reminds us that history shows us that separate is never really equal.

He recalls the fact that when his parents were married, their inter-racial marriage was still illegal in some states. Prejudice was codified in our marriage laws, he says, and that was wrong.

Obama says he is about hope and equality, and bringing America together.

Then he was asked about marriage equality for same-sex couples.

Never before has there been a candidate for president better positioned to lead the American people in a meaningful conversation about this issue. He could have used his own experience to explain why discrimination under the marriage laws is wrong. He could have applied the lessons of past struggles for civil rights, to place our nation's current struggles in a historical context. He could have shown us that he really is about hope, equality and inclusion.

Instead, he said that same sex couples should get all the rights of marriage, but that they should have to call their marriage relationships civil unions.

Suddenly separate IS equal. Suddenly equal treatment under the law doesn't matter.

As a U.S. Senator, Obama is now himself a part of an American government that enshrines discrimination in the marriage laws.

Obama has also been a professor of constitutional law at a top law school. He is well acquainted with the landmark cases of the civil rights movement that declared separate but equal treatment under the law unconstitutional. Yet now he says that sometimes separate is “equal enough.”

And as president, he promises only more of the same.

Either Barack Obama doesn't recognize the lessons of his own history. Or he is willing to ignore those lessons if it serves his own political ambition.

Given his intelligence and experience, it can only be cowardly, cynical, political hypocrisy. It is shameful and unforgivable.

Does he think that if his parents were told that inter-racial couples could have all the rights of marriage, but their marriage relationships would have to be called civil unions instead of a marriage, that would have been acceptable?

When racists set up separate water fountains for blacks and whites in the days of segregation, they weren't denying blacks access to water. They were denying them access to equal treatment under the law.

Now, as a candidate for the presidency of the United States, Barack Obama has the audacity (and I don’t mean the Audacity of Hope!) to say that as president he will follow in the footsteps of the rogues gallery of politically-motivated bigots before him, and seek to deny same-sex couples equal treatment under our marriage laws.

I call that more of the same.