{ Cross-posted at Blue Mass Group }

This great article in the Boston Globe by Frank Phillips exposes the blatant hypocrisy of Governor Patrick’s “self-styled political identity as a reformer”. Kudos to Phillips for summing it up beautifully in that one biting phrase.

Curran, whose client list has included such blue-chip technology companies as IBM and Cisco Systems, has arranged gatherings at Patrick’s Milton home, where Democratic heavy hitters and corporate executives – for $5,000 a piece – get to shmooze with the governor. He has set up events at trendy Boston restaurants, where executives discussed public policy issues affecting their industries. And he is listed as a cosponsor of fund-raisers for Patrick in Atlanta and Washington.

Indeed, those who have worked with him say that Curran, a hard-charging, 39-year-old lobbyist who makes more than $300,000 each year in client fees, has played a pivotal role in putting Patrick’s finance operation into high gear after several years of relative neglect by the governor, who has said he has a strong distaste for asking for money.

…

At a Finance Committee meeting in late March, Curran, whose position with the campaign is unpaid, was singled out as Patrick’s top fund-raiser of 2010 – twice as much as the second-best fund-raiser, according to a person present at the meeting, who asked for anonymity to discuss a private event.

Conveniently, they have the perfect distraction from the obvious conclusion that this lobbyist dough has any influence whatsoever on Patrick’s governing… the ethics reforms he championed into state law:

“Governor Patrick proposed and helped pass some of the strictest ethics and lobbying laws in the country, and these laws help to draw a bright line between the necessary raising of money for campaigns and the important work Governor Patrick does every day on behalf of the people of the Commonwealth,” [campaign manager Sydney Asbury] said.

When I blogged about the Suffolk Poll results, I was focused on the negative numbers. Yes, the 8% was astounding (representing a greater than 50% surge from one poll to the next). But the un-likability of the 3 suits blessed by the corporate media was what caught my attention. That's Jill's opening for sure.  

But the more I thought about it, the more I focused on Jill's likability as borne out in the numbers. To this point, my optimism for Stein's chances has been based on her demonstrated ability to speak up for everyday people in a clearheaded, passionate, and visionary manner. Her debate appearances in 2002 — well, the 2 they allowed her into — were powerfully persuasive. She'd make a point, you'd think "why didn't I ever think of that?!", and then you'd go and tell your friends. She was speaking truth to power, but not in some theoretical vacuum. There was real power in each word she used, the power to transform. But that's all subjective.  

Now in May 2010, a full 5 months+ before election day, I'm looking at this latest poll result.. and realizing what it really means…  BEFORE we even get to see her make a case for herself as the best candidate for We, The People.