Given Hooley's votes on the corporate-sponsored (moral) bankruptcy bill, the estate tax repeal and other corporation-($$$$)-backed legislation, I'd say liberals are better served not giving her a more powerful platform and instead look to less cynical straightshooters like Steve Novick.

"It's not over until...."

Not cricizing you Leo, but I was there too and started supporting Prichard (though w/out a vote in the back of the room). But Carol totally won me over by a mile. Too bad the GLBT caucus thought getting delegates the national convention was more important than who would do the best job.

I look forward to hearing more from Carol b/c I'll be following him in whatever he decides to do instead.

It would be ironic to win the party's nomination for US Senate, but be snubbed by party insiders for chair. It'd really show how relevant all the county party bosses really are.

I would vote for Hooley but only if she represented "Anybody But Smith."

Jack Roberts has ample basis to dissent from this ranking, as do I. If people look at the fine print, the "Power Score" is based on three components:

1) "Position" - meaning what committees a person has been appointed to by virtue of seniority more than anything else.

2) "Influence" - ability to actually direct the congressional agenda

3) "Legislation" - ability to author, pass, and amend legislation.

If there is nothing malfunctioning with the website, Oregon's entire delegation rates a big, fat "0" on "Influence" and "Legislation". The entire power ranking for each of our legislators is solely based on the "Position" criteria. In all of their cases, this seems to be because they have managed simply be there without accomplishing anything because Oregonians, and in this case Democrats, have been too stupid and lazy to actually choose legislators that are capable of advancing important causes, as measured by national impact.

Jack Roberts points out that DeFazio is virtually alone in the Oregon delegation in getting the blood going at times on issues that matter.

Thank god Hooley is out, we already have one "under performing" Democratic Senator. We need to get someone who actually has competence to offer (And I am far from sold on Novick on that measure.)

My choices, unfortunately, don't want to run: I'd like to see Kitzhaber because the clout of a Senate seat, even as a junior Senator, would give him the platform needed to really move on health care reform.

After that I'd like to see DeFazio because he seems to actually ight more for Democratic values more than the rest of the miserable lot in our delegation combined. Through longevity, he has managed to achieve clout in the House, so he seems disinclined to run also.

"...So now Smith is officially on record of "cutting and running". Wonder how that will be playing in GOP-world?.."

Doesn't matter what some think in GOP-world so long as he is re-elected as a republican. Being against bad government and bad wars will get Smith re-elected in Oregon as far as I can see.

Will the Democrats in Oregon be able to challenge that position? I doubt it. Dems here oppose the war and oppose the work of Bush's DOJ. No Dem who supports Bush will get elected.

What other issue can they develop?

<h2>The attack of Darlene Hooley regarding her votes on bankruptcy and the estate tax are misdirected. Part of the bankruptcy bill contained a provision for improving the equipment of our soldiers serving in Iraq. Representative Hooley was honor bound to support this based on her commitment to these troops. Her position on the estate tax has changed from repealing it to raising the limits at the bottom end. The absurdity of serving corporate interests does not merit response.</h2>