Count me in as a supporter. Hill's solid, credible, and can raise money. He's not easily labeled a lefty liberal either.

Two things: First, I remember that a young couple I knew who voted for him in the primary in 2002. As I recall, they not only supported him with their votes, they thought he was "cool".

Second, about this quote: Hill said he would emphasize his economic development credentials, an area where he thinks Kulongoski has fallen short. "Ted does not have an economic development background, and I think that shows," Hill said.

There are a considerable number of people in this state who are underemployed (college graduate in 2 retail jobs, people working multiple part time jobs because they can't find one full time job) or unemployed do to layoff/ downsizing. Some of those people have been unemployed over a year. Any successful candidate will talk about that and not just generalities about economic development. Those people vote and pretending they don't exist won't earn a candidate their support.

A Republican friend of mine says a major complaint he has with Kulongoski is "He keeps talking about how the economy is getting better and jobs have been created. But anyone unemployed, underemployed, or knows someone who is won't buy that because that is not the reality they see".

This same friend has said for months there was a potential for a totally unexpected "darkhorse" candidate--more so than in decades. He has refused to support ANY candidate for governor until there is one who fulfills his criteria A vision for the next 10 years A specific plan to carry it out.

And sorry, What's The Matter With Kansas fans, but this is someone who does business consulting after decades working in a corporation and says we should ignore abortion, gay marriage, and all other social issues until there is a booming economy where people are working full time.

Personally, I'll just be a spectator for now and see how the campaign transpires.

Didn't he do well at the politicalstaffer straw poll taken in Sunriver? Can that be taken as a sign that he already is gathering support for another run?

He was one of the top 3 who got double digits (Kitzhaber and Westlund the other 2). But who is he trying to impress with the "not a real Democrat" crack?

Look at the reaching small town Oregon topic. We need specific solutions, not just sound bites, from candidates for statewide office.

Unfortunately, Soundbites are what news is about. They don't print details or content. For that you will have to talk personally to Jim or wait until a campaign is up and running and releases details.

I use to work for Jim. A good guy, honorable and a "statesman". I'm excited by the possibilites.

Jim Hill had my vote last time and he conducted a clean and good campaign. I remember seeing him out at a number of events and seeing him interveiwed on TV. He always made sense and came across as a man who had common sense and uncommon poise plus was honest and straight forward. I do not know about the innards of the campaign organization but he sucessfully raised a lot of money. I actually thought he might win the primary. And he is not a Goldschmidt suckup! I hope that he gets out front and goes for it and the other nonincumbent candidates consider backing him. L.W.

Gee, ya think Bev might be getting in the race, too? After all of Diane Linn's gaffes, she's looking a lot better.

My impression of Jim Hill is that he is a stand up guy, but I'd like to know here he differs from Kulongoski on public policy.

I think it is a good sign if Hill does run. We need some decent people to run against the current governor who might have better ideas of how to improve the economic condition of the state.

I'm not saying I'd definately support him, but he is someone I'd consider voting for.

Personally, I am glad to see Jim is considering the race. His entrance is no surprise as many of us had heard of his feeling out the race as early as last spring while we were in session. Jim would certainly contribute to the debate. I will be making my own decision shortly, as I told Sen. Brown and my Senate colleagues that I planned to have a decision by the first of November. Sen. Brown told the caucus that she has a potential candidate for my seat she believes can win my district so that is helpful in my own decision making process.

As for Jim, those who have discussed his fundraising abilities are accurate. Jim through his Treasurer ties had connections on Wall Street that probably will continue to serve him. All of us considering running know how daunting that money aspect is for a race like this. My good friend and colleague Sen. Walker and I certainly don't have Wall Street to back us but that doesn't mean hard work and a sound message can't generate the support needed.

This is where we as democrats must really look inside ourselves. As Governor Kitzhaber pointed out so well in Sunriver last week, we need to address the issues that Oregonians really care about and have a plan of action that is credible and resonates with our citizens. All the money in the world won't push any of us past that hurdle. I remember Jim Hill standing up strongly for some issues in the 2002 primary but still garnered only about 1 out of 5 democratic votes in key Multnomah County ( I believe it was about 22.6% give or take a hair.) Whoever turns out to be our nominee must not only energize the base with a credible message but also must be able to generate enough support from R's and 's to win in November. That is the challenge we all face, including Governor Kulongoski.

Still, I believe we as democrats are best when we participate in that process and challenge each other thoughtfully and respectfully. This is in sharp contrast to many on the other side who practice the art of personal attacks to advance themselves when confronted with competition. I believe our nominee will be a better candidate and a better governor because of that debate. Jim would contribute well to that discussion. I respect him as I do the others considering this run. As Governor Kitzhaber said, this should not be just about winning elections( which is important naturally) but winning elections should be based on winning ideas. Annointing a candidate in a primary without challenges from within the party weakens that discussion, weakens consideration of new ideas and leads to a risk avoidance strategy for election. That, in the end, weakens the ability to govern. As a potential candidiate for governor I welcome Jim to the table and any others who, like me, are tired of travelling without a road without a clearly defined destination. It is time we stopped lamenting the loss of the 'good ol days' and looked ahead to the bright future Oregon has ahead of it. That future however will only be bright if good men and women will aggregate their energy to make it so. We can do it as Oregonians and democrats should lead the way.

Good for you, Rick! You summed up what many have been feeling by your quotes of Gov. Kitzhaber. Anyone who runs for Governor should keep these in mind. If people are looking for a vision and specific proposals, they won't vote for someone just because they are well known and have lots of funding. If voters want someone with vision and specifics they will vote for someone who says "this is my vision and this is how I intend to do it" rather than someone who takes verbal potshots and does vague, generalized ads.

This is where we as democrats must really look inside ourselves. As Governor Kitzhaber pointed out so well in Sunriver last week, we need to address the issues that Oregonians really care about and have a plan of action that is credible and resonates with our citizens. All the money in the world won't push any of us past that hurdle.

As Governor Kitzhaber said, this should not be just about winning elections( which is important naturally) but winning elections should be based on winning ideas. We should thank Rick for quoting those here.

Hill must be hallucinating. He might, if the white liberals are being less hypocritical than usual on election day, win a seat on a city council. But, there is no way he will be elected to state office in a state with as racist as Oregon.

Still, I believe we as democrats are best when we participate in that process and challenge each other thoughtfully and respectfully.

With that in mind, Senator, I'd respectfully like to challenge you and Vicki Walker, to NOT run for Governor, especially if Hill is in the race. No, it's not because I think you are unqualified -- you were a hero to those of us who wanted to see an END to private utilities collecting money from rate payers for state taxes they are not obligated to pay. It's because the Dems are going to take back the House in this election, and win the governorship, and I a do not believe that we will win your seat, or Walker's, if you take the plunge and run for governor. It'd be a shame to win 2 of the 3 branches only to lose the Senate in this election.

Dear Mac, Check the facts: The thinking that a white dominated Oregon would elect an African American to statewide office has been a source of discussion before, unfortunately. But the facts show an entirely different scenario. In the 1980's, Jim ran in a white republican dominated South Salem for state rep and then the Senate. He won. Then he ran for State wide office as State Treasurer. Guess what - He won. Not once but twice.

Granted the Governorship is different than Treasurer, but let's not sell Oregonians short. I believe they are smarter than that and will vote for the person, not the color. These racist thoughts have to be put to rest. And we as progressives should lead the way by putting a stop to such talk.

Hill must be hallucinating. He might, if the white liberals are being less hypocritical than usual on election day, win a seat on a city council. But, there is no way he will be elected to state office in a state with as racist as Oregon.

Mac, in 1980, I worked in day care for a woman who had once been a Democratic pct. person in Salem----and who thought I was deluded to campaign for Jim Hill for State Rep. because of course he was going to lose in white S. Salem.

Carter conceded early in 1980 angering W. Coast down ballot candidates ( and supporters) who in some cases lost by slim margins. Jim Hill lost that recount by double digits (maybe 60). In 1982, the Republican nominee was the lady (white S. Salem, well known in Republican circles and a better campaign manager than Oregon presidential candidates have had since Reagan) who ran the Reagan campaign. Jim won convincingly. And was re-elected in 1984. Then was elected to the State Senate in 1986. Later was elected State Treasurer.

If someone wants to disagree with him on issues, or ask what his specific vision is and what his specific proposals are, fine.

But back when Jim Hill was first elected to the House, the district was known as one of the most Republican districts in the state. So please, no more "couldn't get elected because of his race" comments. People who remember all those campaigns know better.

I agree with sjp, there needs to be a conversation in terms of how many democrats abandon seats to run. Sjp makes a good point, if Rick Metsger amd Vicki Walker run for governor, there is a possiblity of winning one or two branches and losing the others.

It makes sense that other Democrats have good things to contribute to the campaign. I for one agree that Governor Kulongoski has had a lack luster proformance in his first term and that someone should make a creditable challange against him.

I admit I know only a little bit about Senator Metsger and very little about Senator Walker. However, neither of the two seem in a position to make that creditable challage that is needed.

One thing I would like to see is someone (Kari would be a good person to start it) have an online discussion among people about candidates they would like to run that is centralized (rather then broken down by candidate).

Somehow it makes no sense to have two or three people give up positions in the senate because they want to run for an office in a field that will be crowded at best.

My point (and I'd hope others would agree) is it would be nice to see common citizens give input to those thinking to run, before they do rather then have them give up seats for something that won't be successful. Only one person can win the party's nomination.

Pat,

I appreciate your comments, however it runs counter to what I'm saying, which is if we want to further the progressive movement, let's work together in terms of input.

Again, I only know a little about Senator Metsger. From what I know, he sounds like a stand up guy. That said, nothing is guarenteed.

Whether we are talking about Senator Metsger, Senator Walker, Jim Hill or whoever, they will have a long tough road. First, if the person wants the nomination, they are going to have to beat the incumbent governor in the primary. That's not impossible, but it will be difficult.

Like I said, I think Governor Kulongoski has had a lack luster performance in his first four years. Short of him bowing out of the race (which probably won't happen), whoever wants to beat him is going to have to put up a hell of a fight.

After that, the nominee is going to have to face the Republican nominee. Granted they've lost 5 straight races for governor, but they came pretty darn close last time. My thought is they will put up a hell of a fight as well.

Again, I'm glad someone could run in Senator Metsger's place. However, it would be nice if us little guys were able to give some input that was actually taken seriously.

Senator Vickie Walker, for those not plugged in to her district, is sitting in a tenuous position. If she gives up her Senate seat, we do not have any identified liberal candidate with the interest and the qualifications to run for her seat. We have two Republican corporatists, nominally friends, who intend to split the November ticket (one running as a DINO).

I agree we need to put Kulongoski out to pasture. I remain undecided on a challenger. I like Sorensen, but don't like his chances thus far.

I have voted for Jim Hill in every election he has run in and each time someone says Blacks can't win in OR. Last time it was the Neil Goldshmit crowd. Well that groups leader is now political poisen. My vote, time and check are waiting for Jim to make it official