Thanks, Mark! My feeling as well.

A state party must represent the Democrats in the whole state and not just the consultants or the folks from big cities. When ordinary voters look at politics they see people of a party or no party and don’t look at the fine print. Thus a person they speak to during a campaign, in elective office, etc is a representative of that party. If they call a majority or minority office because that Leader just said something on the news, most people don’t care about the fine print of whether that legislative office is connected to the state party or not.

In the next 2 years the state party will not only have to deal with statewide and legislative elections, it will have to prepare for delegate selection for nominating a presidential candidate. The state party should now begin the process for setting up Oregon delegate selection, finding out if the delegate selection rules have yet been finalized, etc. Lots of logistical details involved in that process, and most people who understand the process only stay involved for a few presidential cycles. The state chair speaks for the party and a discussion should take place about whether the chair or the executive director should do most of that speaking publicly. But the state chair does not speak for all Democrats (being a Dem. activist does not mean having to agree with whatever the state leadership says) and should never claim that every registered Dem. owes allegiance to the state party. Democrats should be the party that allows internal debate, not the party that demands, “agree with us or leave the party”. Most elections are decided these days by ticket splitters and NAV, so politics should reach out to all and not imply everyone must choose a team and stick with that team on all issues.

I have heard discontent about current party leadership, and the fact that Future Pac doesn’t seem to have any place in the party hierarchy. As I recall, DPO was mentioned on the FP C & E report. Even if that was only paying rent, there should be a broad discussion of whether there should be any part of the Democratic Party that doesn’t answer to the elected members at the county, district, and/or state level.

It is great that there is a Democratic legislature, but there were lots of folks outside the major cities who were unhappy about aspects of the last election. It seemed like there were target candidates and forgotten candidates. A party that wants grass roots support going forward should have some written policies on things like that. As I recall from my experience in the group re-writing delegate selection rules in the 1980s, the basic format started with the first section titled An Open Party and there were those who said a lot of history and debate went into those opening paragraphs.

Rural county Democrats (Polk, Yamhill, Clatsop, Curry, et. al west of the Cascades and most of the counties east of the Cascades) should feel they are as much a party of the Democratic Party of Oregon as the members in Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington Counties.

Howard Dean as DNC chair is the best thing to happen to Democratic politics for over a decade, and if the “professionals” don’t like Dean’s approach, they should darned well do the volunteer work themselves and those of us who have been around a long time can just support any candidate we find impressive and otherwise ignore the party. As I recall, the Assoc. of State Dem. Chairs was a major factor in that DNC Chair election, and the new state chair should be able to attend all DNC and ASDC meetings.

There will always be a clash between elected officials and party people. Many years ago there was an issue where a state central comm. “majority” (something like 25 of 44 voting delegates) were just sure that “all real Democrats” supported their side of a piece of legislation during a legislative session. The Democratic Speaker and Sen. President were on the other side—were they “not real Democrats”? It didn’t hurt the political careers of that Speaker and Sen. President, and the month after the vote the Senate President’s home county voted to disavow that state vote / proudly support their local legislator who was Sen. President. This should be a representative system where a county has the right to disagree with the state party.

If there is any reason for a party outside of infrastructure (like putting on the delegate selection convention) then it should be to allow a non-threatening atmosphere for issue debates (without saying an elected Democrat is on the “wrong” side of an issue) and the mobilization to win elections.

Some think the Bus Project has been as important as the party in recent years to electing high quality legislators. To the extent that DPO vice-chair Meredith Wood Smith understands that, she might be a breath of fresh air as State Chair.

I’ve been around so long I recall State Chair Dick Celsi . He was a great state chair who understood the importance of grass roots Democrats.

No novel, just lots of legislative seats outside of the Portland area. Not to mention statewide races in 2008.

Here's a sentence for Wayne K. to complete:

Jim Edmunson deserves another term because.....

Quite surprisingly, I heard from some rural folks in Sept. who don't accept the premise of that statement, and think he should already be gone. Of course they live in a part of the state where there are plenty of opportunities for Democrats to take on Republican incumbents.

Herding cats.

I promised myself I wouldn't comment on the Chair race, and I won't, but Paulie's comment is so naive as to demand a quick response.

Howard Dean's 50 State strategy did not work as indicated. Oregon has 36 Counties. In 14 of those Counties it worked as Paulie indicated. In the 22 Counties of the Second Congressional District, it might as well have been the year 1, not 2006. With less than 2 weeks left in the race before the election, with the ballots already mailed out, then and only then did the Democratic Party donate their first dollar in the Congressional Race. $10,000 was donated at the last minute - hardly notable. The Howard Dean staff were co-opted to be part of the "Coordinated Campaign", supporting the race for Governor and at least in the Second CD had nothing much to do with the Congressional race.

e.g. The Democratic Party didn't do what they said they would do in the Second CD, so Paulie, let's not pretend it happened.

Just to second "Old Insider".

I've been around long enough to remember the days before the "Coordinated Campaign".

Some people may not realize this (perhaps it depends on where they live) but there is a perception in many downstate areas about "DPO" standing for Democratic Portland Organization or some such. A feeling that the party leadership thinks of itself first. A feeling that some people work their tails off with little or no help outside the people they know in their own area. Almost a feeling of first class and second class Democrats. Not as bad as 2004, but still a problem.

Yes, this election went very well. But, to use an example seldom talked about, who could have predicted Gilbertson would do so well against St. Rep. Dallum over in the "red" part of Oregon? Wasn't the final margin something like 200 votes? I met Gilbertson on Filing Day and that was the only time, so this isn't a race I know anything about. But was he given a chance in the world? What exactly was the role of DPO or FP in that race, or was it all the work of the Gilbertson campaign and maybe local party activists?

Someone at a state central comm. meeting said something like "DPO doesn't get involved in individual races". OK, exactly what did they do which helped all the candidates win? Did they write off those E. of the Cascades (Gilbertson, Voisin, etc) and other candidates in rural areas and just concentrate on getting out the vote in metropolitan areas? Did they contact all Dem. candidates and offer assistance?

There is a sense among some activists (incl. the ones who worked so hard this election that they've pulled back to rest and decide if they want to do it again)that some Democrats are valued more than others. Like maybe there is more sympathy for the Carville/ Emanuel view of politics than for the Dean view.

Seems to me the new chair has 2 tasks:

a) projects to better the party brought to completion (maybe codifying procedures after open public debate, maybe outreach to rural Democrats who understand what Old Insider is talking about, maybe setting up infrastructure for 2008)

b) making sure no active Democrat feels like a 2nd class citizen.

I mentioned Dick Celsi earlier. He wasn't famous for breaking fundraising records, or hiring consultants. He was chair before the Coordinated Campaign, and his Vice Chair was a social studies teacher from E. of the Cascades. What they did was make all activists (even those working for primary candidates not supported by party establishment) feel valued. Seems to me the party was stronger back then.

I'm 100% behind Howard Dean and I am thrilled with what he's done for our state party, for state parties across the country, and for the national party.

So, I have one question: Which candidate would Howard support?

OK, two questions: Which candidate supported Howard's election as chair, and which one didn't?

What is it about this situation that makes it a "fight"? So there's a leadership contest. Let the debates begin and the best candidate win. "Fight" makes it seem like a divisive thing.

The contest should be over who can do the best job of uniting us around the mission of recruiting, assisting and electing good Democrats to office.

Thank you Phen. Great sentence, "The contest should be over who can do the best job of uniting us around the mission of recruiting, assisting and electing good Democrats to office."

I was at a state central committee meeting once years ago and we had a guest speaker who was a former Gov. of another state. He said "the purpose of the Democratic Party is to win elections". When I heard some in the audience argue with that thesis, I knew my days in party politics (as opposed to candidate or issue politics) would be numbered. There are people who are willing to donate their time to the most mundane tasks (like signs and nametags or refreshments for party gatherings) if they think it is for a larger purpose. But not just so insiders seek personal glory or play political games.

Sometimes it seems as if people in positions of power need to re-read the definition of VOLUNTEER. Activists want good people elected--party office should not be for the greater glory of anyone in a position of party authority.

Recently I heard someone being interviewed on the election results who said "It is only in places like DC where there is discussion of the red team vs. the blue team. Voters just want problems solved".

Paulie, congratulations on what you did in your county.

A lot of that has to do with the people involved. In my county and a neighboring county we had more people involved than probably any time in a long while. It was great, but there is no guarantee that those people will be willing/ able to do the same thing next time. Work situation changes, family situation changes---as many of us learned years ago now when one of the best county chairs we ever had needed to quit and hand the job over to someone else for that reason.

Which is why there needs to be a state chair comfortable with an approach which treats all counties as potentially full of activists rather than as underlings which must jump through hoops to prove they are worthy or whatever.

The contest should be over who can do the best job of uniting us around the mission of recruiting, assisting and electing good Democrats to office.

Yes. Here's a question for all current and future candidates for this job -- is that the mission of the state party? If not, what is?

p.s. Phen's mission statement is controversial in some corners of the party.

Let's start with Howard Dean and DPO, on 12/2/06 the SCC by unanimous voice acclamation approved Resolution 2006-027 thanking Dean for the 50 state strategy, I noted elsewhere, that's a "take a hike" for those like Carville.

Jim Edmunson and Meredith Wood-Smith are both capable dedicated leaders of DPO. The Chair is, by definition, the CEO of DPO.

The role of the DPO is to elect Democrats and advance Democratic politics.

DPO and DNC have a symbiotic relationship, each is a part of the other. DPO obviously has elements of independence just as Counties have elements of independence and even farther members have independence.

As stated, the State Central Committee supports Howard Dean, the DNC delegates are elected by the SCC, the Chair is elected by SCC - Howard Dean is supported.

The State Party is most effective by getting Democrats elected, at least a part of that is getting out a message about Democrats to the entire state's electorate. Methodology is always evolving and always under discussion and can always use improvement. Coordination and cooperation between DPO and elected officials and candidates is hugely important and can always be improved.

Party bylaws define responsibilities of officers and staff. This is probably a poor venue to discuss or debate that.

In the end run the reponsiveness of the State Party is determined by the participation of Delegates. The structure of Committees, Caucuses, and Executive Committee Delegates and Officers places the burden squarely on the Delegates and thus the Counties they represent. The stronger County Parties are in participation at county level and in Delegation the more representative the State is of all levels.

Probably the primary ability a Chair has to have is the ability to "herd cats." Included in that is an ability to communicate, to show regard for competing interests, an ability to control debate or discussion, to be the face of the DPO, it's a long list - not many would want this job.

When it functions at its best, DPO is not a really nimble organization, this is in some respects good and in some not so hot. Sometimes the lack of nimbleness contributes to dissention, this isn't to say dissent shouldn't be addressed or that it isn't, but sometimes it takes more time than folks like. It is important to remember that this IS a grassroots Statewide organization that attempts to function in a widely varied state in the political arena with limited revenues using activist volunteers, expecting a well-oiled machine is ludicrous. Can DPO do better? Of course it can and there are plenty of people trying to help it do so. But, frankly, standing outside and throwing rocks isn't helpful, participating is.

One other thing, there are vote reqirements for the SCC to take actions, they vary by the type of action, but the SCC cannot be dictated to or run as a fiefdom by anyone and in the final analysis, the SCC runs DPO. I know the current and previous Bylaws, this is a fact.

I currently hold or have held several responsible positions within DPO and Baker County Democrats.

I agree with Phen. Calling it a "fight" might make better headlines, but I can't imagine Meredith and Jim duking it out. Both are great assets to the DPO. If Meredith becomes Chair, do we lose Jim? If we keep Jim in place, will Meredith continue to work full-time and travel the state to train activists and move the party forward?

On the subject of Future PAC, their mission has been to fund the most winnable state House races and ignore the rest. However, this year they were supposed to institute a "rural initiative" to help candidates in rural districts. The plan was to give a whopping $100 to each non-targeted Dem candidate after the primary as a starter contribution -- But the candidates I know never received it, even after repeated promises by FP to make good. Next, Future PAC offered to donate $800 to any rural candidate who received donations from at least 100 individuals by a certain deadline.... only to reveal come the deadline that this was really an offer to purchase the candidates' donor lists. FP could then divert new contributions to?... you guessed it, targeted candidates. A reverse Robin Hood scenario. Is this how we build a strong 36-county party or treat those candidates who put themselves out there to promote Democratic values in rural districts? I, for one, will be looking to see how candidates for state Chair plan to address this issue. If we want to bring Democrats out of the closet in red districts and build the party in the long-term, we need to look at supporting rural campaigns/counties, too.

Rainie, you are a hero! About time we have an open public debate about what you state. Rings true to me and people I know.

Let's have all the state chair candidates tell us their view of the role of FP. Is it to help target candidates and ignore the rest? Or should it be curtailed, remodeled, eliminated? If it does continue to exist, shouldn't it be in the state capital or somewhere else outside of Portland --if for no other reason than FP staff needs to see how folks in the rest of the state live? Or is it just about raising money in the state's largest city and we should never expect it to be anything else?

I think Frank Dufay is right to a certain degree; this post is truly an insider wonk issue. But this where a huge flaw is within DPO and all the county parties; the lack of the voter/individual to be part of Party via becoming a PCP or a volunteer without BURNING THEM OUT TO NO RETURN PER ELECTION CYCLE.

For the issue of county party PCP recruitment, participation and longevity—this is a huge issue that the DNC/DPO need to address NOW so the Party has more stability and fortitude at the block-level; especially on those election years.

If there is a more stable environment to maintain volunteers the DPO and the counties parties need to find it sooner than later. We do have things called calendars and databases---we should not be calling these volunteers on a weekly basis to have them come and volunteer. So DPO and the counties do some coordination. Do ask once a month, and then move on to the next name. If you don’t have a long list then you need find events and ways to bring in more volunteers. As well, I know that there are a good amount of individuals through the state that volunteer for the state and county parties more than once per month—as strictly a volunteer; not a county PCP or an employee of a county or state party.

Yes, we need a better plan of support and growth in the 2nd CD by not making half-hearted gestures to those DEMOCRATS that live out there. Bend is growing like wildfire and Pendleton, K-Falls and Baker City are good sized cities as well; those house/senate districts should be targeted by DPO(every year), House and Senate caucuses(even years) with greater amounts of resources without “Portland-centric/valley-centric issues bias” to get the Democrats to vote Democrat.

Pertaining to the issue of the post; oh what fun.

Howard Dean's grassroots approach to the party is the best thing to happen to Democrats since we rejected racial inequality. Whoever best supports Dean's work should be chair of DPO.

Jim Edmunson and Meredith Wood-Smith are both highly capable leaders.

That said, I tend to agree with Phen. I don't see it as a sign of party loyalty or cohesion when ANY internal office (or primary race for that matter) is won through an uncontested election. A party of ideas is a party that challenges itself via internal dialog, and contested elections are a great way to make clear the choices facing the party and to allow candidates the opportunity to articulate their views.

Thanks Pat Which potential candidate has given public lip service to the grassroots, while privately treating them as naive idiots who at best are useful for small donations, and at worst waste the time of their betters, which should be spent sucking up to wealthy donors?

This is not a new debate--as I recall it was a large part of the debate about moving the state party office from Salem to Portland way back 15 years ago.

Zak is also right when he says A party of ideas is a party that challenges itself via internal dialog, and contested elections are a great way to make clear the choices facing the party and to allow candidates the opportunity to articulate their views.

This should be considered a "party at the crossroads " debate.

A candidate for chair who thinks big donors are really more important than grass roots volunteers (and that consultants know more than the people who actually live in the district esp. the long time volunteers) will take the party in one direction.

A person whose actions show them to be a believer in the Dean philosophy (rather than the attitude of his DNC predecessor) will take the party in another direction.

It is time to debate this openly and decide which direction DPO heads as 2007-8 approach. And activists are free to decide, given who finally becomes chair, whether they want to be active in the party this next cycle or just wait and see if a friend runs for office or if a candidate who really inspires them is more worthy of their energy, time, and efforts.

Full, free, and open debate on this issue in face to face conversations as well as on blogs and in emails is the most healthy thing that could happen to Oregon Democrats these next few months.

Two things:

LT & others, I think that Blue Oregon should have a rule that any comments exceeding the word count of the immediate post will be deleted in their entirety. Calm down, use less words. Some of us would like to follow comments but if I wanted to read to written history of the world to get through every post, we'd have to quit our jobs.

Carper's Question: WWDS (Who would Dean support). Edmunson. Would. Does. No question.

thanks, wannabe. that still leaves my second question.

i'll be blunter: is it true that meredith wood smith opposed howard dean's election against the wishes of the rest of the dpo leadership?

i don't want a state party chair that didn't understand what howard dean did in 04 and why he would make a great dnc chair in 05.

I don't live in Oregon, but an incredulous friend forwarded me this friend.

I was an active supporter of Gov. Dean's campaign for DNC chair. Like everything he does, the campaign was well organized, we counted votes and we talked about who did what. This was a huge deal about the direction of the party that lost miserably in 2004. Were people in Oregon not paying attention or do the yahoos on this site just not have their facts straight?

The record shows that Meredith Wood Smith of Oregon voted against Dean -instead supporting Donnie Fowler. Mr. Edmunson and the remaining Oregon delegates supported Dean.

Thought you'd like to know.

Meredith apparently voted in the ASDC Roll Call when they got around to the O's and Oregon for Fowler even though it was crystal clear the endorsement would go to Howard Dean. That sounds like a statement against Dean to me. I'd sure like to know what kind of a statement she was trying to make or find out if Fowler's a family friend or some other acceptable oddity.

As someone who was on ther DPO state central committee from 1997 through '02, I think that many people overestimate the role that DPO, or any state party for that matter, plays in a state. Yes, the state party has grown noticably in ten years. After '96 the party was broke, couldn't pay the executive director, and was still hounded by the old "post office debt", as well as a '96 money funneling charge. Things improved with the election of Jim Edmunson and the hiring of Neel Pender. Today they have a solid budget and a much bigger and quality staff, but frankly I don't think they have enough of either to make a noticable difference throughout the state.

The fact is that effective organziations have to be built by canididates and county parties, and that effort has to be ongoing. I was fortunate to have been president the OSU Democrats in 1994 when the Benton COunty Demcorats were probably the most effective county opperation in OR (They might still be). From what I heard, in the 1980s', the BCD languished under the leadership of a few old timers who sat around HQ smoking cigarettes, wouldn't give a key to paid staffers who actually worked, and were shocked when some activists suiggested that they pay for more than one phone line.

In 1988, a group of dedicated Democrats led by Harry and Merry Demarest and my "Gramma" Edith Thompson, took control of the BCD and kicked the smokers out of the office. By 1994 they had a big bustling HQ with multiple phone lines and dozens of volunteers that housed several campaigns. Phonebanking, canvassing , and voter ID and GOTV were neverending, and on Election Day every Democrat from Gov. to COunty COmmish. won by at least 10% in a very Republican year.

It takes that kind of ambitious and continous effort to create an effective local organziation. The state party can't make it happen from Portand, it has to rise up from the city and couty level. To give credit where it is due, the DPO has helped counties and candidiates immensly by investing in a voter file for nearly a decade. During most Elections years they have had coordinated campaigns to work with activists in the larger counties.

I think that Jim Edmunson has fulfilled his purpose of being a unifying, not a devisive, chair. He has probably done as much as anyone could, especially as he has a full time job. Meredith is great, and probably has more time to offer, but, again, the question is, how much of a difference can the organization make statewide, regardless of who the chair is?

Having volunteered for a whole 80 minutes at DPO HQ in Portland in the current administration, I'd suggest a VERY large broom.

If Meredith Wood Smith offers that, I'm with her.

I'm also with ANY rule that offers reasonable Kaopectate to all these incredibly intelligent people with verbal diarrhea.

"Because again, without their direct, public, input, we have no way of knowing what they're currently thinking " is perhaps the most intelligent thing said here.

For all I know, a 3rd candidate for DPO chair would shake things up. I have no dog in this fight.

What I do have is great admiration for the debate which has gone on here---to the point of telling others this is a great thing to read. One friend said it was high octane.

For the record, Wannabe: Aaron | Dec 7, 2006 10:19:09 AM could have stayed within that word limit by eliminating the qualifers "Bend is growing like wildfire and Pendleton, K-Falls and Baker City are good sized cities as well" when talking about the 2nd CD, and rainie was well within that word limit.

I happen to think Aaron and rainie have the 2 best comments on this topic.

To whomever is the next DPO leader:

The challenge is to keep what has worked and build on it.

A piece that I think has been missing is consistently meaningful coordination between state elected leaders, DPO, and the County Parties. To keep volunteers engaged, volunteers need opportunities to participate in policy making, not just be treated as unpaid campaign staff. I would love to see (and had proposed) that the Governor plan monthly initiatives, months in advance, and then line up Precinct workers to write letters to editors, provide testimony (if the initiative involves a Bill), and engage in other activities in support of the initiatives (such as press-conference rallies). Where this has been tried (e.g, Social Security parties) it has been pretty successful.

I'd like to see a greater effort to link the rank & file to policymakers.

That said, I think it's critical that the party not get into developing policy. The days of the 80-page party platform are and should be over.

Well said, Kari. Also, there are downsides to party people being too vocal to the point of insult. There was that incident back in the late 1980s when an issue debate got heated and someone who was part of a DPO created committee on the issue went on cable access TV to say all legislators on one side of the issue were scum or some such nonsense. One of them called the state chair and said "Fine, if that is what a representative of the party says about me, I won't support the party any more" or something like that, and the chair got someone else from the same committee to call the legislator and offer an apology. Always remember--especially in the 21st century--how many legislators would not have been elected without the votes of people who are independent/ not strong partisans.

The party should be about logistics for elections and issues, but the leadership should be honest about it. And we should know the division of labor between the chair and exec. director.

rainie said A reverse Robin Hood scenario. Is this how we build a strong 36-county party or treat those candidates who put themselves out there to promote Democratic values in rural districts? I, for one, will be looking to see how candidates for state Chair plan to address this issue. If we want to bring Democrats out of the closet in red districts and build the party in the long-term, we need to look at supporting rural campaigns/counties, too.

Let's hear what the chair candidates have to say about that in public. Or isn't that how the game is played?

Thanks Kari for creating the opportunity for folks to give their ideas,suggestions,input on the Democratic Party of Oregon and it's direction and leadership.

I am going to respond with two different comments-at two different times. FIRST--I will answer questions and comments (up to 8:51AM Dec 8th.) SECOND I will respond directly to Kari's questions.

THE "FIGHT" IN THE DPO (Beware of media slant-I'm not ok with the WW or any other media outfit determining what is going on in our party!!)

To the best of my knowledge,there is no"Fight" for or in the leadership of the Democratic Party of Oregon. I am the only candidate that has declared for the Chair position and would welcome others. I hope we will have an open respectful discussion over the next three months, decide who will be our leadership, pull together and continue to build on our success. There are also other DPO offices up for election: 2 vice chairs (male/female)and secretary.

MEREDITH HAS BEEN CAMPAIGNING FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS I have not been campaigning for the last two years.I have been doing whatever I could as Vice Chair to elect Democrats and build the party, if working with county parties, doing presentations and trainings, assisting with the establishment of DPO caucuses, canvassing with candidates, representing the DPO/Western Region on the Exec Com of the Association of State Democratic Chairs,phonebanking etc is "running for office" so be it--I just thought it was how I could fulfill my "job" of the vice chair.

DPO-FUTURE PAC--DEMOCRATIC SUCCESS We are two entirely separate organizations but we look for opportunites to work together to build a stronger Democratic Oregon. The discussion of "early money" vs "late money" is whole separate blog. Did either organization do EVERYTHING that EVERYONE expected--NO.Were we successful-YES!

Do we(the Democrats) hold all the constitutional offices in the state?-YES. Do we have a Democratic Governor?-YES and I am proud to say that I supported Ted Kulongoski in 02 and 04--in the primaries and general.

Do we have the majority in the Oregon House and Senate?-YES.

Holding the majority means we can set the rules for debate and conduct,work to build coalitions/consensus to pass legislation that will benefit ALL Oregonians and continue to work on increasing the number of Democrats elected from ALL over the state--this is no small thing folks--let's build on our success!!

Will both Organizations(DPO-FP)continue to build the party and support candidates throughtout the state?-ABSOLUTELY. I suggest folks contact Rep.Peter Buckley regardinbg FP "Rural Initiative" or any of the DPO officers and staff about how we can continue to build the party.

SUPPORTING OF HOWARD DEAN As an FYI-it was through the efforts of the ASDC that moved the discussion and election of the DNC chair out of the Beltway, set the initial criteria for the 50 state strategy, revenue sharing, etc.

Yep! In the Exec Committee vote of the Association of State Democratic Chairs I did vote for Donnie Fowler--he is a very bright savvy articulate capable young man and I thought he would bring a new perspective to the party.It was a decision I made as the Western Region Vice Chair of the (ASDC)--it was NOT in opposition of our DNC delegation.

Did I support Howard Dean in the final vote and have continued with my absolute support since his election-YES. Why because, our DNC delegation works as a "team" and we wanted to give our complete support to Gov Dean.

Do I think Howard Dean is doing a great job-ABSOLUTELY! He has followed through with every commitment (under previous DNC leadership that was not the case), created "state party" responsive staff, encouraged all DNC staff and officers "to get back to us" in a timely manner and has had the courage to also tell us what they can't do.

Have I spoken up in support of Gov Dean since his election -YES (and will continue to do so)

Does Howard Dean ONLY support and work with State Chairs and Vice Chairs that supported him in his bid for the Presidency, vote on the ASDC Exec Com, and final vote--I don't think so--does he work with all of us ABSOLUTELY.

AS CHAIR OF THE DPO:

I WILL WORK WITH YOU TO CREATE TRANSPARENCY IN OUR PARTY, BY COMMUNICATING WITH YOU AND SEEKING YOUR IDEAS;

I WILL WORK WITH YOU TO BUILD AND IMPLEMENT A 36 COUNTY STRATEGY;

I WILL WORK WITH YOU TO BUILD STRONG WORKING RELATIONSHIPS WITH OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS.

I appreciate folks who ID themselves with their full name not a "code name", if we want a transparent party it begins with all of us.

If I have not answered your questions please ask again here or on my blog-meredithforchair.blogspot.com/ --please remember I am a novice at blogging, so be patient with me

I hope this did not exceed the "word limit" My responses to Kari's questions will come later today

Very interesting comments, Meredith. Has the new State Central Comm. and Exec Board (ie the folks who will elect and work with the new state chair going into 2008) been selected yet, or have some counties not yet elected new chairs, new SCC delegates, etc? If the latter, perhaps there will be new members who don't know all the ins and outs of what has gone on recently. Seems to me I heard some counties have new SCC delegates.

DPO-FUTURE PAC--DEMOCRATIC SUCCESS We are two entirely separate organizations but we look for opportunites to work together to build a stronger Democratic Oregon.......Will both Organizations(DPO-FP)continue to build the party and support candidates throughtout the state?-ABSOLUTELY. I suggest folks contact Rep.Peter Buckley regardinbg FP "Rural Initiative" or any of the DPO officers and staff about how we can continue to build the party.

Is the relationship between FP and DPO formal and clearly spelled out, or is it ad hoc? Can it be discussed openly at party meetings? Or is it just something cooked up by a few individuals? If there are new members of SCC, new county chairs, etc., do they understand all these relationships? What if they question some of the status quo?

I hope that Peter Buckley sees this particular discussion topic--many of us have communicated with him on these topics in the past. But if the FP/ DPO dynamic is "never the twain shall meet", where is the venue for active Democrats (esp.elected officials/ candidates/ activists as well as state central comm. members) to discuss if the twain should meet, why or why not?

I WILL WORK WITH YOU TO BUILD AND IMPLEMENT A 36 COUNTY STRATEGY; The question here is how? What about those who agree with rainie who said:

".........A reverse Robin Hood scenario. Is this how we build a strong 36-county party or treat those candidates who put themselves out there to promote Democratic values in rural districts? I, for one, will be looking to see how candidates for state Chair plan to address this issue. If we want to bring Democrats out of the closet in red districts and build the party in the long-term, we need to look at supporting rural campaigns/counties, too."

There are others who describe the same scenario as "target" and "forgotten" races in 2006. Yes a legislative majority was elected, but 2008 is the year a president and multiple statewide positions are up for re-election. What is the strategy for winning those races which were lost (sometimes by amazingly small margins) in 2006--and would it be relative to the district or one size fits all? What if someone who knows one of those "forgotten" candidates is active at the state central comm. level? Will their point of view be heard? Or is the attitude that 2006 worked so well there should be no discussion about what didn't work?

I appreciate folks who ID themselves with their full name not a "code name", if we want a transparent party it begins with all of us.

That discussion goes on here periodically. There are people whose jobs would be impacted if their identities were made known here. There are those who heed the advice of a political staffer that anyone who is now or plans to be looking for a job in the future is crazy to blog under their own name because those comments might show up in part of a vetting process for a job.

Such people might never comment here if they had to use their full name--would that improve the dialogue?

Maybe it is time for a totally new chair who wasn't part of the party leadership in 2006 and has a fresh perspective.

this where a huge flaw is within DPO and all the county parties; the lack of the voter/individual to be part of Party via becoming a PCP or a volunteer without BURNING THEM OUT TO NO RETURN PER ELECTION CYCLE.

This is a real concern. Tonite I talked on the phone with a friend who has been very active in a neighboring county--a county that just went gangbusters all during 2006 in a way that county hadn't been active in years.

But time spent on politics is time that isn't spent on other things like work, family, leisure. My friend is concerned that some/all of the current county officers aren't running for re-election because it is time for someone fresh and new--but what if no one new wants to run for the various offices?

It was a pleasure once when I went to their county meeting--well run, good atmosphere, really cared about all their local candidates.

But I don't think there were 40 people at the meeting. It was in a conference room with the long tables going down the sides of the room, tables at each end, chairs along the side walls. Not every county always has people with the time and resources to be active in party politics--esp. if it involves regular meetings, travel to other counties for district/ state meetings, etc.