Tim Nesbitt's on board? This is my first moment of confidence that Ted will win. He'll find every vote under every couch cushin and get them in on time. This is good news for Ds.

"...a deep understanding of the political landscape — and how to shape it."

Sounds like a line out of Joe Klein's recent book, "Politics Lost," which points to the reality of modern political campaigns being less about ideas and leadership than they are about heavily scripted marketing strategies.

Over on Thin Blue Line, listensecond has some great responses to "ask questions first".

Ask had said
"The failure of the progressive side right now is to clearly articulate a set of progressive values which trumps the set of values people are voting on now. "

But what if voters aren't looking for "a set of values"? What if they are looking for candidates who engage in dialogue with the public, demonstrated accomplishments, a willingness to fight for what they believe with actions as well as words (Kitzhaber was a stronger believer in using the veto to show what he believed in and who is boss)? At a social event tonight, I heard a couple interesting comments. Someone said Minnis was called Queen Karen because there was no king in the Capitol. Anyone saying "Minnis felt strongly about this bill" should have been answered with "And your point is...? What do you intend to do about it, or are her strong feelings all that matter?".

About the heavyweight politicos, that is good and maybe the campaign will be stronger in the future. But this news story made me remember a newspaper story about a multi-candidate primary years ago. One candidate collected lots of endorsements and the reporter called that "an excellent 19th century strategy". That candidate ended up coming in 2nd.

Recently in a conversation, someone was really startled that an incumbent state rep. wasn't strongly supported for re-election. It is one thing to say the incumbent is well thought of in the community. It is another to discover that members of the community are not happy, have never met the incumbent, like what they hear from the challenger--or just that the challenger showed up. For instance, if the incumbent never held a general town meeting where anyone could ask about what had gone on in the legislature, the challenger could campaign on a promise to hold regular town hall meetings. After all, it is the consituents who decide who is elected every other November.

I told this friend of the incumbent to give a message to that friend the next time they talked--that the state rep. and the current governor (although of diff. parties) have something in common as far as I am concerned. "In both cases, I voted them into office originally, and have been disappointed. It is a free country, and being disappointed in incumbents I have the right to look at challengers".

Kari... last session the Democratic and Republican parties united to pass HB 2614. In effect, it forced all members of their respective parties to choose between involvement in any portion of the primary election... or supporting that an alternative candidate so much as make the ballot.

That sounds to me like a restriction of a voter's consideration.

Ted wasn't the only one adding staff last week:

Independent gubernatorial candidate Ben Westlund must be hoping his new staff hire, Alisa Simmons, is overdue for some election success. Simmons has recently been both a political organizer and co-head of the political action committee for Basic Rights Oregon, which failed to stave off a statewide gay marriage ban in 2004. In the spring, Simmons was campaign manager for Multnomah County Chairwoman Diane Linn, who was trounced in her re-election bid.

• from WW

While Alisa was campaigning against the gay marriage ban, her new boss was supporting Bush and publicly campaigning for Measure 36. Can't beat em, join em I guess.

Of course you have the right to consider any candidate you want. And those of us who have made our pick have the right to make the best case for our candidate...

Kari, you may not realize this, but there have been Ted supporters in all sorts of venues saying something along the lines of "either people who voted for Ted last time make it their top priority to spend all their spare time backing Ted for re-election, or those people will be held individually and collectively responsible for a Saxton election as Gov. "

You are smart enough (I hope) to know that is a stupid, insulting thing to say. BUT, this year (as in years past in all sorts of situations) there are Democrats stupid enough to say such things.

I run into people who think I owe my state rep. re-election, just as there are those (like on the COURAGE topic) who seem to think Democrats should buck up and give Ted their unquestioning support--as if voters have more responsibility for this sort of thing than candidates have.

Which is why I developed the sound bite "I originally voted both my state rep. and the Gov. into office. I have been disappointed with both. Therefore I have the right to look at challengers." Amazing how many cocky, arrogant political operatives that little sound bite stops in their tracks.

In a perfect world, we'd hear "re-elect the incumbent because of these accomplishments...". One reason I am not the active Democrat I once was: activists (mainly political newcomers) DEMANDING support rather than asking for it.

No, I cannot document that at such a time on such a date someone from the --- campaign said that to me. Neither can I provide a link to a particular statement on Blue Oregon. But it is no straw man. It has happened WAY too often over many years. The reason I was home watching TV in 1996 on election night was that a friend came over and we baked cookies and watched election returns--too many people I'd had the "gall" to argue with would have been at election night parties. I'd been told a surprising number of times in the summer and fall of 1996 by "friends" (no they weren't) that the only reason I was asking where Tom Bruggere stood on issues was because a friend of mine had lost the primary (talk about brainless). Maybe I am as sensitive to this as a dark skinned person might be to racial slights.

I hope, Kari, that when you turn 55 you will be able to say no one ever pulled this nonsense on you. But don't tell me it is a straw man. I know what has happened in my own life. AND, I know people who campaigned for Ted for Gov. in 2002 who aren't doing it this year. That is just stating a fact.

If "this is what happened in my own experience" is a "straw man", then Blue Oregon isn't a "water cooler", it is a club where everyone is expected to have had the same personal experience.

LT, it's a strawman arugment here at blueoregon -- where no one has ever made the argument that you or anyone else shouldn't have the right to question a candidate. I also tire of listening to your diatribes against the Bruggere campaign.

Do I have the right to say that dredging that up from a decade ago annoys the bejeezus out of many of us? Great, you've followed Oregon politics for a while. We all get that about you.

I don't believe that makes you the ultimate arbiter of how everyday voters process information or how campaigns should be run.

Themes of your posts may be true -- ie many swing voters chose based on the candidate, not the issues or ideology -- but that doesn't make them profound. There are other grown-ups who have a firm grasp of this concept without your relentlessly self-important reminders.