As a member of the community, I have always been an admirer of Gov. Howard Dean because of his efforts to promote GLBT equality while governor of Vermont.

My question is this: why did Meredith choose to support Donnie Fowler for DNC Chair over Gov. Howard Dean? What led Meredith to think Gov. Dean wouldn't be the best choice for DNC Chair at the time? And, in retrospect, given the enormous success of Gov. Dean and the 50 state strategy, was it a mistake to support Donnie Fowler over Gov. Dean? (Meredith should just say so if she thinks it was a mistake and not pull a Hillary here.)

[off-topic comment about medical marijuana deleted. -editor.]

I'm so tired of the Dean thing being an issue. Meredith has done more for the Party than anybody else in Oregon. Give it a rest already. Let's move forward and look toward the future.

Meredith has done more than anyone else in Oregon? That suggests a hubris that is beyond absurd.

But on the point of not supporting Dean. The fact is that it's easy to say now that you support Howard Dean in the same way that Gordon Smith now says he's against the Iraq war.

The issue is not about making a mistake, but for Dean supporters like me, raises a serious question of judgement. I read Meredith's response and there are all sorts of rationalizations that take like 10 paragraphs to explain why she did it. Personally, I didn't find reassuring. At the end of the day, she chose Donnie Fowler a political consultant over a MD and former governor in Howard Dean to lead the Democratic Party.

This was a profound display of poor judgment. Plain and simple. It could be an isolated incident, but if not, serious questions should be asked how other big decisions would be handled.

In contrast, Dean and all Oregon Democratic members of Congress had good judgment and were against the war from the outset. Perhaps Ms. Smith shares Sen. Smith's judgement. I've heard a rumor that they are both mormon, true? If so, is anyone concerned she launched a "faith caucus" in the Democratic Party? Aren't mormons and a lot of faiths virulently anti gay?

I think what set Dean apart and inspired so many at the grassroots is he wasn't afraid to stand up for what was right even when it was unpopular or risky. He's shown that leadership is about making good decisions at the time, not making excuses or amends later. Admittedly, I'm not a party insider and don't know Meredith or any of the other candidates -- but on here it sure feels like the usual old insular party people defending one of their own -- and that's why I choose to support MoveOn and DFA instead.

Watching closely.

Goodness - what a flury of controversy over the endorsement of the DPO-GLBT caucus endorsement of Meredith Wood-Smith. I will admit to not knowing any of the four candidates personally. But if I give them all a fair shake and look at each of their candidate statements on the DPO web site I find that Meredith is the ONLY candidate with the ca-hones to mention her position on GLBT issues in that official statement. If all four candidates are such supporters of the GLBT community, where is it in THEIR candidate statements.

Candidates, put your money where your mouth is or don't be surprised when you get left at the gate. Meredith is an outspoken advocate on GLBT issues. She has paid her dues and put it out there for everyone to see. I respect that.

See for yourself:

http://www.oregondemocrats.org/mac_prichard http://www.oregondemocrats.org/carol_voisin http://www.oregondemocrats.org/dan_carol http://www.oregondemocrats.org/meredith_wood_smith

PS: I was a Dean supporter as well ... Meredith is entitled to her own opinion. It's not like Kerry was the right answer either. He abandoned the GLBT community at a critical juncture. I held my nose and voted for him but I don't have to like it.

I’m sure as a supporter of hers, you’d like the “Dean thing” to go away. The truth is, it is one of very few meaningful decisions that exists as a “record” of Ms. Wood Smith’s judgment. (Attending County X's salmon bake or County Y's fundraising auction is not sufficient to prove you can run a statewide party apparatus and deal with the national party.)

People - especially Dean supporters - should read her explanation and realize she basically refuses to discuss the issue. As alluded to above, if you're frustrated and disgusted with Hillary's explanation on the war, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Under the auspices of adding “background” Ms. Wood Smith goes on for more than 500 words about procedural matters and other minutiae that simply aren’t pertinent to the question. (It’s like she's filibustering by reading out of the phone book.) Most of what she says is no more relevant than what she ate for breakfast the day she voted against Dean to be DNC Chair.

I'm cross posting this comment from the other thread on Ms. Wood Smith's candidacy which is buried now. I hope she (or Joe) takes the time to address this.

Ms. Wood Smith:

With all due respect, what does the "agreement" about when DNC members would endorse (vis-a-vis a recommendation by the ASDC) have to do with how you voted?

When you answer the actual question from paulie, you seem to be saying you thought really long and hard about your vote, suggesting you read lots of materials and were lobbied by the candidates and their supporters (many more than once.) But then you made the judgment that Donnie Fowler would be the best chair of the DNC, not Howard Dean. (Please, correct me if I'm wrong Ms. Wood Smith.)

It seems like you're making excuses when you say things like: your vote was non-binding, and you supported Howard Dean in later rounds of the vote (once it was clear he was going to win.)

Regarding your support for Donnie Fowler: Are you saying, by implication, that you didn't think Howard Dean would bring new "energy" into the DNC and that Dean didn't, in your judgment, seem to have "excellent skills and knowledge"?

You close by asking: What more can I say?

I'd just like an honest, succinct explanation of why you didn't think Howard Dean was our best choice for DNC chair when you represented us at the ASDC. (No essay on the bylaws or discussion of the period when you finally threw your support to him, like everyone in the DNC ultimately did once it became clear his election was inevitable.)

Why didn't you initially support Howard Dean and in retrospect was your judgment wrong?

And Mr. Brown, it is completely disingenuous to say Ms. Wood Smith is the only one with the "co-hones" to put GLBT issues in her candidate statement. It's two words, inserted to take some of the credit for formation of the Caucus. I understand the GLBT Caucus to be one of the more successful and active caucuses in the DPO, but I also understand it to be almost entirely an organic effort that sprung up due to the leadership of its members.

(Nevermind the fact that Ms. Wood Smith doesn't even mention sexual orientation when she talks about diversity at the link you posted. Or that your gendered reference to the male genitalia is obnoxious and offensive.)

PartyLurker wrote "Why didn't you initially support Howard Dean and in retrospect was your judgment wrong?"

... would you like snapped heels and a loyalty oath with that explanation? Meredith fully and clearly explained herself, on her original thread, when asked about her vote.

We're Democrats. We're allowed to hold different views, then come back together after we vote. Diversity - including diversity of opinion - is a "good thing", remember?

Anyone wanting to drive partisan post-vote investigations into those who stray from the winning line inside the party should consider switching parties. I hear the Republicans are really into such behavior.

AnotherLurker wrote: "Meredith fully and clearly explained herself, on her original thread, when asked about her vote."

No, she didn't. At all.

In fact, she's done everything but. Read her response: it starts with 400 words of totally irrelevant "context" (so irrelevant it seems like an effort to bog the reader down) followed by excuses about why her vote didn't matter, and a misleading effort to make people think she really did support Howard Dean. The ONLY thing she wrote that was responsive was:

"I read a lot of materials, and had phone conversations with the candidates and many of their supporters (many more than once) between the meeting in FL and the ASDC Exec Committee Meeting in NY in late January 05. After careful consideration, I voted (non binding) for Donny Fowler at the ASDC Exec Committee meeting because I thought he would bring new young energy into the DNC and he had excellent skills and knowledge."

Almost unanimously, party members in Oregon thought Howard Dean was the candidate to inject new energy into the DNC. I don't know what the Clintonistas' spin to her was, but Howard Dean was certainly someone with a clear vision and "excellent skills and knowledge."

And yet Ms. Wood Smith showed up at this important ASDC meeting, an Oregonian representing the Western states in this crucial decision-making process, and made the judgment that Donnie Fowler would be the best chair of the DNC, not Howard Dean.

(In her 700 word explanation, she can't even offer the two responsive sentences without parenthetically making the "non binding" excuse.)

Loyalty oath? No.

But telling the (whole) truth about what happened and taking responsibility for the decisions you make as a leader are pretty important. That frankness and accountability are totally lacking in her version of the story.

Posted by: lestatdelc | Mar 3, 2007 11:46:05 AM

Posted by: GLBT 4 Dean | March 03, 2007 at 06:09 AM

The court forced the issue in Vermont, and Dean took the CU option instead of full equality (i.e. marriage). To view that and morph it into him being some trailblazer for GLBT equality is re-writing history and ignoring the reality of the situation.

See...this is the kind of blind liberal absolutist Portland thinking that gets the Democratic Party in trouble.

As Governor of VT Dean signed the 1st civil unions bill in the nation. That's pretty trailblazing no matter how you cut it. It's also huge progress for the GLBT community.

I fear Meredith and lestatdelc prefer the Multnomah County option of forcing their will down the throats of the rest of the state. And now b/c of their righteousness, we have a statewide constitutional ban on gay marriage.

I guess you call that progress!

Jenni -

I have no doubt that Meredith supports Dean 100% now. That's not the issue. As I said before, this is about one's judgement. A vote for or against Dean isn't the litmus test. The issue is that the grassroots and apparently other OR DNC delegates were overwhelmingly for Dean. She went a different way. Her judgement said that was the right way to go. I think most would agree that was a mistake.

My fear is with the next big issue that will inevitably come up where will the party be? I suspect Ms. Smith would have had the party leading the cheers for Linn and the "mean girls" as they set back the GLBT community probably a decade or more. The issue was right but the tactics were tragic.

Perhaps Ms. Smith could answer what she would have done in the Mult gay marriage example? Or provide some other example of more sound reasoning...

Thanks

I have personally seen Merediths judegement at work. And i can safely and without reservation that I don't trust her judegement any farther than i can throw Joe smith. I think all of you need to seriously question her ability to lead a state wide organization that is about far more than organizing. She would be the person hiring and firing staff, she would be the perosn talking to the media, she would be the person decididing how much moeny goes to what projects and or candidates. i have seen nothing in her BIO or her actions that shows she has the political savey or ability to make those decsions. She has never been an elected, she has never run for office, she has never run a statewide campaign. If you think any of the other candidates do not strongly support the GLBT community you are crazy, wrong and insulting to thier character. THINK Please for i can not vote and so i hope that there are those out there who can who see the forrest for the trees and look seriously at who brings the most to the table who brings the most political knowledge and experience who can run the party the most professionaly. I like meredith i just think she is wrong for this job and I think DeanForOR is entirely right in questining her judgement ans asking you all to do the same.

Let's keep these a little more civil.

First, I trust Meredith more than I trust your spelling.

Second, major decisions would be made with an executive committee, and Meredith could certainly work with others.

Third, while none of the other three candidates has served as a major elected official, Meredith has been elected as chair of the Jackson County Democratic Party, and more recently as the Vice-Chair of the State Party. I think those are more significant elections than any won by at least two of the other candidates.

To me, there is clearly no candidate who would be better. It should be clear to anyone that she has done more for the State Party than any candidate.

But regardless of anyone's personal feelings, let's not poison the well with personal attacks, including my own stupid comment about spelling. Regardless of who wins, we need to be ready to support them, and we shouldn't make that harder by going negative.

I think we need to ask Mac Pritchard's team not to go negative. The Howard Dean talkng point is so clearly a talking poitn hatched in a campaign planning living room.

It smells of Mac supporter Jesse Cornett, who probably cost himself the eletin with Rod Monroe by resorting to that negative campaigning crap. But I don't want to cast aspersions on Jesse. Too much of that would be hippocritical (sp?!). But that's the terrible thing about going negative. It sucks everyone into the muck.

I have a lot of respect for Mac Pritchard. I don't think he's posting the negative stuff himself. But he should ask his team to get off that stupid, negative, broken record Howard Dean talking point.

Also, I want to make it clear I am not in anyone's camp. I actually think Dan Carol might be interesting, although his lack of past involvement in the State Party will probably practically disqualify him.

Mac the poke -

People don't understand that Mac Prichard and Jesse Cornett have been lovers for years. I'd say more about Jesse, but I understand that I have to go into rehab if I use the word "faggot"

LOL

Yes, Pat, those asking hard questions just hate freedom. They don't want the people to speak, they are scared of democracy. Hmmm...this rationale sounds vaguely familiar.

I honestly don't know the other people posting and am not in anyone's camp or part of a conspiracy. I am frustrated b/c NO ONE will address my question.

I challenge all of the candidates for chair to come on this thread (which was about the GLBT endorsement) and answer would you state chair have publicly supported the Multnomah County commission's action to legalize gay marriage? This was advocated strongly by Basic Rights Oregon and is consistent with the values of the Dem Party in Mult. Cty, but was obviously controversial to the rest of Oregon.

This is a legitimate issue to understand how each of the candidates would have handled. It's a hard issue, it's complex, unless someone is omnipotent, I'm not really sure there is perfect answer...it's just a window into how someone as chair would handle thorny but real issues.

If the candidates can't answer, perhaps this is information that caucus considered and can share.

Thank you.

p.s. I chose to post anonymously b/c I think these are legitimate issues but wanted to avoid getting personally involved in ongoing politics in the GLBT community - which can be quite viscious if you don't agree with the majority view - it has nothing to do with the party. If that makes me a coward, so be it.

Pat...call their bluff. Who called you? Name names. We need to get rid of these people once and for all.

I think we should know if the negative campaigning is organized by any of the other candidates. I want to keep a list for when Meredith wins!

Mr. Dean for OR: I'm not quite sure why you would feel so threatened by getting personally involved in the ongoing politics of the GLBT community. Are we that intimidating and viscious? I thnik not and invite you to hang out with us to see for yourself. First of all the politics of the GLBT community are really the same as the rest of the country and the Democratic Party. We have priority issues as any other community. The bottom line is we're all in this together and that does include you too! I can't speak for the candidates as to the question of support of the Multnomah County Commissioner's action to grant same sex marriages or how they would have handled it. The times have changed and that's ancient history. You said, " This was advocated strongly by Basic Rights Oregon and is consistent with the values of the Dem Party in Mult. Cty, but was obviously controversial to the rest of Oregon." I feel this is another attempt to muddle the present, just like the bruhah over the exagerated claim that Merideth did not support Dean. We're not in the past, we are in the present. Our platform and legislative action items adopted at the last state convention clearly address those questions. So maybe it's not so controversial as you would make it out to be. Here's what I can tell you. The GLBT Caucus endorsed Merideth for chair. She was one of four candidates. What value would an endorsement be if all of the candidates were endorsed? We can't have all of the candidates be elected to the chair. As a member of the GLBT caucus who was involved in the endorsement process, I can tell you that all the candidates were asked to respond to the same questions. No, we did not ask how they would have handled the situation you asked about. We considered the endorsement process very seriously and put our names on the endorsement despite the risk of getting personally involved in ongoing politics in the blue oregon community - which can be quite viscious if you don't agree with the majority view To Merideth's credit she earned the endorsement of our caucus.

Ms. Calvo -

How stereotypical that you would assume I'm a man - "Mr. DeanForOR." I am a proud progressive, female public employee union member and I despise as much as anyone the hate that right wingers have been spreading in this country.

But maybe because I don't live in Portland, I seem to have a little better sense of how the other half lives and thinks.

Anyway, I do credit you for providing some context and attempting to answer. Other than being instictively a touch sexist, kudos to you for at least answering thoughtfully.

If same sex marriage is the "ancient past," how about a current issue: Sam Adams domestic benefits legislation or non-discrimination?

But like Ryan, I'm not a voter and haven't been actively involved in the party in years. I have been impressed by what Howard Dean has done nationally though.

Good luck everyone...I'm out.

Ms. DeanForOregon, I sincerely apologize for being steretypical, mea culpa.

However, I think I gotcha on this one! You are equally steroetyping me as well. What makes you think my perspective is strictly Portland driven?

I too am a proud progressive female, retired public employee, former military, and was a teamster to boot. I also, for good reason, despise the the hate and bigotry spreading across the country. However, I lived in the heart of the Rogue Valley for 24 years. So I'm not quite sure you have the the lock on all the knowledge of how the other half lives and thinks.

In regards to Sam Adams, Same Sex Marriage, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and any other GLBT issue, let me say this very clearly. The DPO GLBT Caucus followed it's own endorsement process in this mater. Each candidate was asked the same set of questions which we as a caucus identified as our own criteria unique to our situation and with an emphasis on the endorsement being in the best interest of not only the GLBT Caucus, but also the entire DPO.

DeanForOR wrote: "If that makes me a coward, so be it."

Yes, DeanForOR, you are certainly a coward.

Before I read these comments, I had no position in the election of the DPO chair. I cannot vote for chair, and I was still riding high on last fall’s election results. But not anymore—I see just how crucial and important this election is to the DPO structure, expanding party membership, and maintaining a majority in 2008.

As a life long Democrat, I have serious concerns over the position of chair. The purpose and scope of the position has already had its importance accurately conveyed by supporters on both sides. Needless to say, it is a vital component to the success of the Party.

<h2>I honestly don’t know how I could become so disappointed in the advocates for the Chair candidates. I have immediate reservations about what makes someone a progressive Democrat who communicates disdain for alternative opinions:</h2>

(posted by smithbacker) Pat...call their bluff. Who called you? Name names. We need to get rid of these people once and for all. I think we should know if the negative campaigning is organized by any of the other candidates. I want to keep a list for when Meredith wins!

<hr/>

Wow. Seriously? I almost fell out of my seat when I read this. Why Meredith Woods-Smith has not personally sent out a response negating this posting frightens me. At least when accusations emerged about Mac Prichard being behind negative postings, he responded. I am wondering why Meredith Woods-Smith has yet to step up and calm some of her supporters.

Another Orwellian response by Woods-Smith supporters, Elizabeth, states a poster should be ashamed of “questioning [Meredith’s] loyalty/sincerity” and the poster should apologize to the candidate. Again, I am shocked. If one does not question, one does not need to bother to vote.

Democrats are supposed to be the Party of progress and change, the party of standing up in the face of adversity, the party of diverse thought and speaking up for what’s right.

Is the Democratic Party the party of uniform thought? Is it the party of turning one’s back on oppressive behavior? Is it the party of blind support? From what I’ve learned through these threads, it will be that Democratic Party if Meredith Woods-Smith gets elected.

Give me a break. "Calm some of her supporters?" You almost "fell out of your chair?" This is so silly. It seems to me that most of the posters are responding to the negative comments posted by foks trying to smear her. Personal attacks make me sick to my stomach and if people want to defend her I think it's quite okay. Did you almost fall out of your chair when someone wrote they didn't trust her judgement further than they could "throw Joe Smith?" What the heck does her hustband have to do with any of this?
Everybody let's just grow up a little and stop letting our personal issues get in the way with what's best with the state party. Reading all this crap makes me feel ashamed that I'm pretty sure I know some of the anon posters. Get a life!

I will respond to some of the questions/concerns expressed here (and to the Chair job? Kari posed) later today but I want to ask if any supporters on mine are participating in negative, insulting comments to please stop and keep the conversation about which one of us will provide the most effective leadership for the Democratic Party of Oregon.

Thank you

Meredith Wood Smith Candidate for DPO Chair [email protected] 503-318-5043

Again, I'd like to reiterate that I was not in support of anyone when i wrote this post, and i still don't know who I support now. I don't have any personal issues, I am not some puppet, I am just a Democrat-- with a capital D. Not being personal means not attacking people so please, stop attacking me. I have nothing to gain from this posting except knowing I have spoken how I feel. If you really want to tell me to "get a life", please understand that politics is my life, and why would I post my name knowing the MacCarthy-sized inquisition that will await me when Meredith gets elected. this isn't what i've thought up-- it's what you've told me.

good work, you've almost scared the democracy out of me.

Oh come on, the only examples you used to illustrate how upset you were by all of this were those from supposed Meredith supporters. I was simply trying to point out that after a few attacks on her personally folks probably felt like defending her, whether they were supporting her or not. The whole thread just makes me sad and utterly disappointed in my fellow "blue oregonians."

Hey Carla, Joe Smith has nothing to do with this issue except that he is bigger than meredith and thus harder throw any distance at all. There by more fully illuminating my distrust of Merediths political intelligence. This is not to say that she is stupid or bad at all things political. Albert einstien was a great math genius but that doesn't mean he would have been a great leader after all he often had trouble finding his own home so the rumor goes. The same goes for meredith she is a good organizer and party activist but all of my experience with her proves to me that she does not have the political knowledge or skill to effectively take this party to the next level.

Thanks for illustrating my point.

Well, congratulations on the endorsement Meredith. I've only met you once and don't get to vote, but it seems like the supporters of some or one of the other candidates have shown their true colors here on this thread. It only makes me think you do deserve the endorsement.

I'm new to State DPO activities and will be voting for the new officers. Believing that responsibility should not be taken lightly I took the suggestion on tonight's conference call that Blue Oregon was a place to learn more about the candidates. The Candidate's responses to questions 1 & 2 were very helpful. Coming upon this forum, however, I was reminded of the following quote:

"We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals -- and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship." -- Grover Norquist, 2003

Please tell me Grover won't be calling the tune in my party. . .

Who. Cares.

As a gay man I don't see the Democrats doing much for our rights these days - or women's rights for that matter. Howard Dean is definitely not a leader on LGBT issues, he does not advocate our equal treatment as Americans.

Harry Reid was made leader of the Senate, yet he's against a woman's right to choose, voted against support for Roe v. Wade, and is against same-sex marriage.

Then we have Harold Ford, Jr. appointed as the new chairman of the Democratic Leadership Conference. He supports a Federal Marriage Amendment to change the constitution to never allow gay couples the right to marry. Naral rates him a 60% - that's for women on only 6 out of 10 pro-choice issues.

What's next? How about not much for gays and lesbians in this country and a lot of back sliding on women's.

I am an American, treat me like one.