U.S. Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT) To Do The Colbert Report On Monday

Honestly, the jokes just write themselves.

And while our poor little Vermont might think that the Colbert audience will be laughing with us Monday night, they won't be. They'll be laughing at us.

h/t Tabby C. for the alert.

New Media's Oedipus Complex

When my good friend Phil Baruth over at Vermont Daily Briefing is right, he's right (even though he's always Left).

The same may be said of The Note's Mark Halperin (who's always right without being Right or Left), Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post (who leans Left even when he's right but we still love his sharp media commentary) and Dan Balz also of the Washington Post (who breaks all the right political stories while managing to lean towards both John Weaver and Robert Gibbs at the same time).

And, when the Gang of 4 is right together, as they are today, Monday Morning Clacker sits up and takes notice.

Today the Gang of 4 all wrote about the effect New Media is having on two traditional institutions - The Mainstream Media and American Style Politics.

The Gang of 4's theme: New Media is slashing Mainstream Media's throat, forcibly taking American politics to bed and changing the whole world as we know it.

Ah Oedipus.

Baruth's Vermont Daily Briefing post is on the "transparency geeks" at the Sunlight Foundation who are helping end government corruption one interactive website at a time:

Transparency geeks begin from a seemingly simple proposition: political information — of any and all sorts — must be free. If it is not, then it must be busted out of whatever institutional lock-up currently confines it.

Once free, the information will then rat out its captors — expose potential corruption, in other words.

It’s pretty much the plot of every A-Team episode from 1983-1987.

Except, you know, with software instead of Mr. T.

It's no wonder Phil is known around these parts as "master scribe of the liberal dinner party set." He's hillarious (even when his "Leftist at any cost" tendencies make me want to scream).

Baruth goes on:

The mission of the Sunlight Foundation, according to their website, is to “reduce corruption, ensure greater transparency and accountability by government, and foster public trust in the vital institutions of democracy. We are unique,” they go on to add, “in that technology and the power of the Internet are at the core of every one of our efforts.”

Using the internet to watch over the people's interest. I love it. I'm sure Capitol Hill hates it.

Which is generally a good way to judge that you're doing something right.

Meanwhile, over at ABC's The Note, Mark Halprin Noted Howard Kurtz's Washington Post story, which has a slightly different take on the benefits of New Media to our Republic:

Kurtz's tour de force story — tracking the right-wing Freak Show's first-of-many attempts to muddy up Clinton (and Obama), in this case using the Washington Times-Fox News conveyor belt — leaves out the key talk radio piece. So: has the Clinton campaign found a way to track right-wing talk radio?

Both Halprin and Kurtz have been tracking New Media's explosion into American politics for some time.

And, what an explosion it has been. New Media is the foundation upon what the Political Freak Show is built - The Drudge Report, Blogs, talk radio, shady websites and stealth YouTube videos - until you have such a combustible media environment that Kurtz writes:

There once was a time when major media outlets refused to touch unsubstantiated allegations. When Gennifer Flowers sold her account of an affair with Hillary Clinton's husband to the Star tabloid in 1992 -- allegations that turned out to be true, at least in part -- some news organizations went with it and others shied away for days. These days, the time elapsed between a flimsy charge from some magazine or Web site and amplification by bigger media outlets is often close to zero.

From zero to hero and back again in the speed of bytes.

But, it's not all bad. Really.

Dan Balz's piece in the Washington Post highlights the ways that '08 Presidential campaigns are adapting and even thriving in the New Media environment:

Not long ago, an anonymous video on the Internet would have elicited little more than amusement from the candidate under attack. But the 2006 midterm campaign -- in which then-Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) saw his hopes for reelection, not to mention the White House, torpedoed by his now-infamous "macaca" moment captured on a widely seen video -- changed the rules.

But if last year was the year of the rogue videographers, the already-underway 2008 presidential campaign is likely to be remembered as the point where Web video became central to the communications strategy of every serious presidential candidate.

Playing defense is only one use of Web video. Equally important, the candidates and their staffs see Web-based video as an inexpensive and potentially significant tool for telling their campaign story without the filters of the traditional media.

Call it the YouTube effect, and it is only growing. The video-sharing site, which less than a year after its founding was bought by Google for $1.65 billion, has revolutionized the transfer of information via video, spawned a number of imitators and forced candidates to recalibrate choices, from their announcement strategies to their staffing decisions.

Bypassing the filters of the mainstream media? Taking your message right to the people? The unwashed mob?

Good heavens. Is that OK?

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton thought so. They are the first major presidential candidates in the history of politics to announce their run for the Presidency via their website and not through a traditional press conference.

Which must have driven Rupert Murdoch crazy.

And I've always believed that asking "does it drive Rupert Murdoch crazy" is a good way to judge whether or not your doing something right.

New Media. It's here. And it's fantastic.

An Open Letter To My Friends In The Vermont Press Corps

I like you guys (and gals). Most of you are hard working, decent and fair reporters. And those of you that are not, well, you print outrageous things that make me laugh and so I consider us even.

The good, the bad and the ugly of the 2006 election is behind us. There were winners. There were losers. And there were casualties who are just now trying to get back into the game. God bless all of them.

I think that we can all agree that the Iraq War was the deciding topic of the Vermont U.S. House Race. The candidate that won the election, Peter Welch, promised to take America in a "new direction in Iraq" and "hold President Bush accountable".

Not surprisingly, you and your brethren seemed to like writing about the Iraq War. No question was too small and no candidate answer too complete to remove the topic from your queue.

My personal favorite were questions that dealt in hypothetical hypotheticals. Such as: "Candidate X, if you knew what you know today and if you were a Member of Congress when the vote to authorize the President to go to war was taken, how would you have voted?"

No doubt valuable questions from the valued Fourth Estate.

My purpose with this tongue-in-cheek open letter is not to pick a fight with you. You buy your ink by the barrel, have teams of corporate lawyers just waiting to pounce and I have more than enough skeletons in my closet that I would like to see stay there thank you very much.

My purpose of this letter is to ask a simple question of you. Three days ago it became public that President Bush is planning on sending between twenty and thirty thousand more American troops into Iraq and I want to know what does our Vermont delegation think about this?

What does the anti-war candidate Peter Welch, a man who just today had two large news articles and one large editorial discussing the freshman's take on the DC housing market, have to say about this?

Twenty to thirty thousand more troops? Not only is this a radical development in the Iraq War as a whole, but is this the "new direction" that Peter promised the voters?

We won't know until you ask him and write about it.

Look, its hard for me to. Its hard for me to believe that one of our Senators is Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. One of our Senators was labeled by USA Today as "one of the most important members of the Senate". And our freshman Congressman is on the Rules Committee, which is as inside-the-beltway as you can get.

All three are "shot callers". Our delegation has the power to raise a big stink over the current troop increase the President is calling for if they so choose.

Help our delegation stay honest. You don't have to go back to the hypothetical hypotheticals. But less comment on the real estate market and more comment on how our elected officials are keeping their campaign promises would be appreciated.

Many thanks and merry Christmas!

A Tip Of My Cap To Phil Baruth

Master Scribe of the Liberal Dinner Party Set.

Monday Morning Clacker Wakes Up With a Bad Case of Blogger "Over-Speculatitis", Runs Through Brattleboro Screaming, "Shumlin for Gov in 08!"

With a nod towards Terri Hallenbeck (I've learned that it's very important to cite your sources), I awoke this morning with a raging case of over-speculatitis regarding the 2008 Vermont Governor's race.

Thankfully, my case of over-speculatitis was not so severe as to cloud my good judgement and force me to make completely insane predictions such as Estes 08', or Salmon 08' or even Dunne 08'. I leave crazy talk like that to the less balanced of the Blog World. You know who your are. Take your meds.

My prediction for Governor 08' is Peter Shumlin. As far as I am concerned he has best positioned himself for the Democratic nomination and would be (if Douglas retires after this term) the general election front-runner as well.

Why incoming Vermont Senate Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin you ask? Good question.

First, Senator Shumlin proved to fellow Democrats that he's still got "juice" and can stand the squeeze when he edged out John Campbell for Senate President. If Senator Campbell, who is savvy himself when it comes to legislative knife fighting, has an 80 mph fastball, Shumlin's got a 100 mph fastball.

So, less than 1 month into his new, old job, Senator Shumlin is an official member of the Gang of 3. The other two gang members are, of course, Governor Douglas and Speaker Symington. And, this Gang of 3 will set the entire political agenda for the state of Vermont over the next 2 years.

Oh, so you're a Vermont House/Senate/Mayor/Select Board/Police Chief/Fire Chief/City Councilman/Reporter/Blogger? Nobody cares. Go talk to the Gang of 3.

The Gang of 3 are savvy enough to realize that they must have at least the appearance of hanging together to "get things done at the Capitol" in this new age of bi-partisanship or the voters will hang them separately in 2008.

So Speaker Symington, who holds the "real" power with a veto-proof majority in the House, sat down with our beloved Governor Douglas, who holds the "public opinion" power, after the election and pledged to work together on the issues that Vermonters care about.

(Note to Douglas: Symington likes where she is sitting better than where you are sitting. Its going to be a loooong session for you Governor.)

And the issues that they said Vermonters care about? Primarily property taxes.

But 2 is not 3. Where was Senate President Shumlin on the issue of property tax relief?

"On that issue I'm as lukewarm as a baby's bottle," said Shumlin when attacked for comment by the news media outside of the statehouse.

Just kidding. First, Shumlin is more likely to attack the news media than the other way around. Second, the incoming Senate President did say that property tax relief was important.

But, and this is of paramount importance, before Shumlin is talking property taxes he is talking global warming and how Vermont will do its (small) part to combat carbon emissions.

Shummy is going green. And why shouldn't he? Green is the new red, white and blue.

Look, maybe Shumlin got into global warming because, "I went hunting this year and I should have been wearing my fatigues but instead I was wearing shorts and a t-shirt."

Or, maybe the guy who was a private citizen up until a month ago and is now the 2nd most powerful man in the state, knows what Bill Clinton (who is the greatest politician in the Democratic Party hands down) knows. Going Green in 06' is the perfect issue to take you to the top in 08'.

Moving America away from fossil fuels is good for our environment (Democrats like), it is good for our national security (Republicans like) and it is good for our economy (which everybody likes). Toss in the fact that ending our appetite for fossil fuels will be a major issue in the 08' presidential race and Shumlin's proposed agenda is starting to look mighty savvy.

Is it a slam dunk for Shummy? No way. There are many hurdles (not the least of which is Douglas retiring in 08' because there ain't no one in Vermont who is beating that guy). But, the Senator has shown that he still knows the Potomac two-step. And, if a few things break his way...

Just you watch.