I know that his state (VT) and his age are not sexy enough in the schemey world of politics to make a serious Presidential run, but I would vote for this man in a heartbeat. Independent, schmindependent. And I know he's a politician who's benefitted - although not as egregiously as many others - from smoky back room deals and has secured his fair share of pork. But if VT speaks to one thing it's simplicity. If there were rampant pork being thrown around that state, it would be an eyesore. And un-Vermont-like.

Bernie is a realist. You're born: healthcare or health insurance. Healthy babies, good hospitals, education, care, facilities and budgets and JOBS. You live: Food, family, education, big/small businesses, recreation, opportunity, police and fire corps, roads and highways, farming and agriculture, taxes and accountability. Open discussion, transparency in government from local and state, balanced reporting and advertising, clean towns and cities, safety nets, youth and elderly programs, and essential services. You age: Social Security, disability, death and veteran benefits, health care for seniors, modern medical facilities with physicians/nurses and support staff who can handle the elderly, retirement communities and assisted living ceneters. Maintaining and encouraging the arts - museums, shows, fairs, exhibits and public forums -and providing access to theaters, movies, stages, and sites.

Other than the obvious tags - Communist, Socialist, Progressive - Sanders represents a state that is quite frozen in time. Can an Independent Party be mobilized and smart enough to launch a campaign for a man from a state that is so "untouched" by human hands? Would the media strike so hard to uncover what "must" be wrong with VT stain what VT is and always has been? How can this person (state) be so "not cool" or in touch with today's realities? Not so much HOW they do it but WHY they do what they do in VT when the rest of the nation is engulfed in trench warfare over everything. Isn't there anything contentious about the place? Only when you go and try to find dirt and start mucking around looking for trouble. You won't find much.

Yes, there is crime in VT. Small crime, relatively big crime. Some scandals in its history. The Statehouse has had its share of characters and crooks. There are disgruntled teens who quit school, do drugs, and run away. Children do go missing. There are car crashes and death by suicide. It snows a ton and summers can be hotter than Hell. There are drunk drivers and snotty tourists. There are goobers and boors and yahoos and incest happens in VT. But there are synogogues and churches, large and small. The Boys and Girls Scouts have troops and dens. People marry, have kids, raise families often in the same homes or on the same farms their parents and their grandparents raised their own. There is a counter culture left over from the 60s and alternative lifestyles who live peaceably among the lifers.

It's all just so understated and powerful simultaneously. Picnics, parades, honor ceremonies, holidays, and bake-offs. Fair grounds and livestock judging, barns and cabins, hunting and fishing, and tourist attractions. It is not cosmopolitan or snarky, it's a foreign concept to most Americans. Gorgeous scenery and complete with four distinct seasons. Home to some of this country's most prized universities and greatest American citizens - artists of every genre, e.g. - and libraries flush with unique history of both state and country.

So, can a man from such an iconic, small Northeastern state generate enough support for a Presidential run? Will the shadow from Howard Dean interfere or mix the message? Who would Sanders partner with to balance the quiet and self-determination of VT with a politician from a state with BIG state issues and crises? Would the Red Midwest like the man with basic, small town midwest values and honesty? Can Sanders engage the younger crowd tired of the flaming rhetoric and slash-and-burn of the Dems and Teahadists that devour the media and the messages? His forthrightness should appeal to seniors. He is strong on advocacy for veterans and is anti-war. Sanders is distinctly middle class and speaks to the unemployed and broken safety net issues. But would he play on Broadway?

That was a great analogy last night. I hope Limbaugh saw it.

The reason I mention Limbaugh is that I heard Limbaugh a few months ago talk about the NFL. He said that the reason why the NFL is so much better than the reality shows on the networks is that those reality shows are produced by unions. He said that the NFL was "real" and "unscripted."

Does Limbaugh not know that the NFL players are a member of a Union? Does he not know that they are threatening to go on strike next season? Does Limbaugh also not know that many of the workers who put together the broadcast of an NFL game are likely members of unions?

I agree with Limbaugh that the NFL is much better than reality shows, but it's not because of any union involvement on those reality shows. I wonder if Limbaugh will stop liking the NFL as much as he does because of its union involvement?

There are very large differences in NFL team salaries.
Highest:Raiders @ $152 million; lowest: Chiefs @ $84 million.
In 2010 the Padres almost beat the eventual World Series Champion Giants in the NL west with a payroll of $38 Million.
The AL Champion Texas Rangers had a team salary of $55 million.
From: http://blog.surepayroll.com/when-a-low-payrol...
"In 2003, however, the Florida Marlins defied the odds. They won a World Series with a modest $63 million payroll, which ranked 20th in the league and was far less than the Yankees, who spent more than $180 million that year."

Bill is often full of it.

Bill is being simplistic, not for the first time. First of all, the SF Giants won the Series this year; their payroll bears little resemblance to that of the Yankees, Red Sox, or Phillies. Second of all, people like football because it is militaristic and violent, not because there is a salary cap and revenue sharing. Speaking of which, the NFL busted up the last attempted strike and the owners keep a whole lot more money vis-a-vis the players in the NFL than they do in MLB. Is this really what Bill is advocating? He's a smart guy. He should think a little more critically. I think he is intellectually lazy, and would offer up "Religulous" as Exhibit A.

When more people can compete there's more competition. When there's more competition, there's more innovation. When there's more innovation, everyone benefits.

is that comparing sports to poltics is as silly as using movie quotes and characters to describe the people in politics. Which is why it is popular to do it.

That was a great defense of the Democratic Party's philosophy and goes a long way toward explaining why their policies, almost without exception, produce or preside over far, far better economic results than those of Republicans.

But where was Maher with this clear CHOICE presentation before the midterm elections? Where was Chris Matthews with his clear CHOICE presentation and defense of the Democratic Party before the midterm elections?

These guys always find the clarity of presentation on these issues and drop the False Equivalency bullsh*t in non election years.

Look for Bill Maher, Chris Matthews, Michael Moore, Ariana Huffington, Jon Stewart, Keith Olbermann (wherever he emerges) and others to revert to their usual "The Democrats are SPINELESS WIMPS!" pre-election mantra sometime around, oh, 6 months before the next election. Not exactly the clarion call for Democratic support for the all-important Blue-Collar White Male demographic voter.

They never fail to revert to that message leading directly into an election and then find clarity of vision and Democratic Party 'religion' AFTER the election when it no longer matters. Like now.