A Vermont Democratic Party mailer that hit houses around the state this weekend was an all-inclusive affair.

Mostly.

Featured on the front — alongside Democrats Peter Shumlin, Patrick Leahy and Peter Welch — is a photo of Vermont’s self-described socialist, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who caucuses with the Dems but is running for reelection this November as an independent. On the back — alongside Democrats Beth Pearce and Bill Sorrell — are three statewide candidates running under the Democratic and Progressive umbrella: Jim Condos (a “D/P”), Doug Hoffer (another “D/P”) and Cassandra Gekas (a “P/D”).

But in versions of the mailer sent to Chittenden County, one candidate is conspicuously absent. Five of the six state Senate candidates who won the Democratic primary are listed as the party’s county slate, but not David Zuckerman, who, like Gekas, is running as a “P/D.”

So where’s Hinesburg’s ponytailed Prog?

Got something to say?

Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!

Paul Heintz was part of the Seven Days news team from 2012 to 2020. He served as political editor and wrote the "Fair Game" political column before becoming a staff writer.

12 replies on “The Zuckerman Shut-Out Continues”

  1. Jake Perkinson: “The way the Vermont Democratic Party operates with respect to those campaigns is we take direction from the [House and Senate caucuses], …”
    Was the decision not to include Zuckerman’s name on the mailing made by the caucus collectively, or by Campbell individually? How much internal democracy is there in the Democratic Party on matters such as this?
    By sending out a mailer with only 5 Senate candidates listed, Campbell could be seen as giving tacit support to incumbent Republican Diane Snelling.

  2. David pounded Democrats for years and now he finds it “unfortunate”. You reap what you sow, Farmer Dave. And Ashe is the one who finds political parties “tedious” which is strange when he has so many letters beside his name. Are there two bigger phonies running for the Senate?

  3. Sad to see the VT Democratic party act this way…heck they’re a Senate majority…why is Dave a threat? Campbell is Shumlin’s proxy in the Senate and attempting to stifle Dave for an incumbent (and a Chittenden R at that) is not gonna sit well with the Vermont public-at-large. Also could be political payback for pre Gov Shumlin when he was Senate Pro Temp. I could be wrong but…

  4. Dave’s got my vote. He talked with (not at) me and a few other people for almost an hour at a Democratic Fund Raiser this summer. There are a lot of us Ds in Burlington who support Dave.

  5. ‘”It’s unfortunate,” he says. “I reached out to work cooperatively and this is not exactly the response I was expecting, but I’ve got a campaign to run and I’m going to work on the issues when I get to Montpelier.”‘
    As Lassy points out, just how short does Zuckerman think the Dems memory is? And just how blatantly opportunistic is he being now? Zuckerman gained his first seat in the House by knocking off an ultraliberal Democrat. What was the policy need for that? None. That race was about Dave’s personal ambitions, that’s all. And then he spent the next 15 years in the House, and as an almost candidate for Congress, bashing Democrats. Now he thinks they should just forget all that and give him money because he added a D to his name?

  6. Maybe the VT Democratic party doesn’t want to endorse someone who not only admits to taking taxpayer money for expenses he didn’t incur as a legislator, but takes a holier-than-thou attitude about it. He hasn’t had my vote since. http://www.7dvt.com/2010vermon…

  8. Exactly, the party is trying to exclude someone who admittedly committed fraud from bringing down there name. The Dems supporting a thief would provide ample fodder for republicans. I thinking Kiss was not supported as an “independant” for the same reason, political suicide in what maybe tight elections. Sorry Dave, you screwed VTer’s and you screwed yourself with your own actions. You’re on your own from now on.

  9. I need to come to David’s defense. The supposed scandal about taking mileage money when he was a legislator when he was car-pooling is a sham. All legislators get an allowance for mileage or housing, and food. It is money that legislators are entitled to for doing their job. I stand with David because of his strong stance against genetically engineered crops and food, among other issues. As a farmer, he represents small, sustainable and organic farmers. We need him to represent us in the Vermont Senate.

  10. “Every day I claim the mileage, and I probably shouldn’t,” says Zuckerman
    How in the world is that “supposed” or a sham, he flat out admitted it.
    FYI, they are not entitled to that money, they are allowed that much money IF THEY USE IT. If it was entitlement for their job, it would just be pay. It’s not, if you eat $25 in food that is what you get reimbursed for, taking an extra $40 is stealing. It’s no different then the trooper who was tacking on extra OT hours he didn’t work.

  11. Maybe, but how do you trust a person who spent his political career bashing Democrats and now has become one in order to be elected? What we need more are politicians we can trust.

  12. jcarter has it exactly right. Zuckerman took what he wasn’t entitled to. That’s stealing. He stole. Pretty shitty, for a guy who’s all high and mighty and holier-than-thou all day every day.

Comments are closed.