Is DeFazio really a quantifiably tougher candidate for Smith than, say, Blumenauer, Westlund, or even Kate Brown? Many of the national winners in '06, in fact, had no such establishment pedigree, so who's to say a Novick or Pettit wouldn't mount the toughest bid?

It's not that I don't see DeFazio's merits, I'm just confused by talk that he's the white knight who will rid us of Smith.

Don't get overly excited, Kari. Incumbency is a powerful ally, even if Smith is out of sync with Oregon voters.

The obit writers need to check themselves. Even with a challenge from the right, the chances of Smith losing his primary are almost nil. Likewise the chances of him choosing not to run.

Even with a repub challenger, after the primary the right will line up behind Smith and they'll be ready and willing to use the full menu of swift-boat tactics to return their boy to office.

I'm not saying this isn't a great opportunity to get a progressive dem in that seat, but wouldn't start choosing the new drapes just yet.

John

I second Kari's "Run, Peter, Run" battle cry. I'm currently doing political consulting work out here in New York City, but I've been following this news closely. Folks out here in New York are talking about the DSCC poll, as are a lot of people in Washington. The fact that this news is coming up in the Hill and the Wash Post is huge. I went ahead and made a call to DeFazio's offices in DC and Eugene last week and it sounds like others are doing the same. Schumer et al at the DSCC are putting a serious squeeze on DeFazio and for a good reason. We need him to step up to the plate and take on Smith. No two questions about it. I understand the concerns of progressive Oregonians outside of the 4th Congressional District. They don't know DeFazio that well. Having lived in CD 4 for 18 years and seeing his appeal to Republicans and especially Independents I can think of no better Democrat who could drive the nail in Gordo's coffin. Look at his percentages from 2004 and 2006 for heaven's sake!

I have a great deal of respect for Peter de Fazio and would love to see him replace Gordon Smith in the Senate, but we are a long way from even the primaries so let's not just focus on de Fazio to challenge. Let's check other potential candidates. In the meantime, we can build our own 'surge' against Smith and carry it through the election. Maybe we can change enough voters to overcome Smith's advantages of incumbency and his good looking head perched on top of his empty suit that will get a fair portion of the more shallow voters.

Shane, You really hit the nail on the head with this comment, although maybe not the way intended: "Folks out here in New York are talking about the DSCC poll, as are a lot of people in Washington."

Oregon elections are decided in OREGON!

Anyone who doubts that ought to talk to folks who were involved in Oregon politics in the 1990s. To the surprise of many in 1990, Harry Lonsdale got about the same % of the vote against Hatfield as Wayne Morse did way back when Hatfield was a freshman senator.

Either DeFazio or Wyden would have been a great January 1996 candidate because they were well known to Oregonians.

In the May 1996 primary, there were 3 candidates well known to politically active Oregonians and any of the 3 would have had a good chance against Gordon ---except the DSCC decided we should all support Tom Bruggere because he looked good to the DSCC. Who gave them that right? Whatever happened to "we the people", or to the progressive idea that nominees are chosen in primaries, not in a closed room?

I will support Peter in anything Peter decides to do. But if he decides not to run because he wants to remain in the House, that doesn't mean Gordon is re-elected. Earl would be an excellent candidate.

The DSCC has to decide right now if they will support the candidate who wins the Oregon US Senate primary, or if they think Oregonians (regardless of what happened in 1996) will obediently support whoever the DSCC tells them to support.

How the DSCC answers that question will show us if they learned any lessons in the last decade or so. Schumer said they did all the choosing of 2006 candidates because he was hearing "so win already". OK, they won the majority. Now, are they going to let states choose their own US Senate nominees in 2008, or is their attitude going to be "people screamed about Paul Hackett but S. Brown won anyway, so we have the right to choose nominees in any state and the registered Democrats have no right to say otherwise"?

If they adopted the latter attitude, I would say "my grandfather was an anti-machine politician and so am I" and ponder why it makes sense to belong to a 21st century political party whose caucus leadership reserves the right to choose nominees. Even 7 or 8 decades ago that was controversial. Why is it a good idea now?

"As Smith tries to dive to the left to recapture the Oregon moderates and independents that are abandoning him..."

Smith voted the same way Blumenauer did on the supplemental. Neither vote was progressive. Only in America is peace and/or justice a "far left" notion. Why not support a progressive in the next Senate election? You are progressives, aren't you?

is there anyone in Salem that would make a good candidate agaisnt smith?

I went to YouTube to get a sense of DeFazio's rhetorical style. He might want to refine it a bit. Yeesh. I agree and all, but my ears hurt.

I'm just hoping that Smith is not going to get plucked for a VP spot on the GOP presidential ticket. Even if the chances of winning are remote, it still gives me a chill.

David, I have known Peter since before he was Congressman DeFazio. He is the genuine article, not a generic politician. Like Jim Webb, John Tester, and some others, no one will ever confuse him with any other politician.

I think we are better off with those who are themselves than with a candidate who seems designed by a consultant.

In 1996 when my friend made reference to what didn't seem like much of a choice in the general election for US Senate, he called the major party candidates "the slick one and the chinless one".

Say what you will about Peter, you know where he stands.

Well, this is a pretty superficial thing for me to be picking on, I admit, but I'll try to clarify what I meant. It just sounded to me like he was trying to express his passion in an unnatural way, by sort of randomly turning up the outrage dial to max on the words "is not and never was Iraq, it was Afghanistan." Right up to that point, which admittedly was only a brief period, he was just as passionate and forceful -- I would argue more so -- without yelling. The rest of his speech sounded like every sentence in the transcript should end with a handful of exclamation points. But again, I know this is just one speech.

Gordon Smith has parachuted into the state for the congressional recess. Have there been any sightings? Probably not. He likes to run a stealth campaign, meeting only with supporters and underwriters. Just before the election he'll ramp up the mass media, reminding people he's the incumbent Senator from Oregon. Apparently he's just petrified at the thought of meeting ordinary voters. What a turkey!

DeFazio is very good at town hall meetings, explaining issues and his positions to voters.

I watched a few minutes (that was all I could tolerate) of a program this morning on C-Span that could suggest some good news for Gordon Smith. It was a speech given by Newt Gingrich to a Republican women's organization. One introduced him with glowing praise and she was followed by a standing ovation for Newt. So what does this have to do with Smith? Most likely it suggests that no matter what a Republican male politician does these Republican women will stick with him. It is probably too much to expect people these days to be offended by a politician who commits adultery, but here is a man who asked his wife for a divorce while she was in hospital undergoing treatment for cancer. Don't these women draw the line at some point? So, most likely they won't care about Smith's support for the war and the thousands of people that have been slaughtered and maimed while it has bled the nation's treasury. Nor will they care about his support for a medicare bill written by Big Pharma that is ripping off American consumers. Maybe they like thick heads of hair.

I hate to be the downer at the party, but is there evidence that Smith is really that vulnerable? His approval/disapproval isn't great, but it's also not horrible. He'll be able to raise the necessary millions. And he has a number of conservative positions to point to in the primary and moderate positions to point to in the general. And let's face it, he's a good politician -- calm, articulate, confident. I know it's en vogue to predict his downfall, but if I had to bet $10 today on whether he wins or loses, I'd put it on "win."

Incumbency is a powerful ally, even if Smith is out of sync with Oregon voters.

Last thought: Is Smith really out of sync with Oregon voters? On important domestic issues, I see him out of sync with Portland voters, but not with the rest of Oregon. On the Iraq war, his views seem to mirror public opinion -- he was for the war at the beginning, and he now opposes the war and how it's been managed. I haven't seen Oregon-specific polling on this issue, but those views almost exactly mirror national public opinion on the war.

Apologies to Defazio, but I don't see anyone out there who I believe can beat Smith in a general election, so he has to go down in the primary or I think he's home free. Sizemore certainly couldn't take Smith out, but it would be a heck of a lot of fun to see what sort of hilarious things Sizemore would say while trying, not to mention seeing how Smith would handle the awkward job of ignoring him, so as to avoid creating the appearance that Sizemore has any level of credibility, while also keeping the dolts on the far right from abandoning him.

Egad, that's all we need - another economic-know-nothing protectionist Democrat in the Senate, who will do his best to:

1. Make sure protectionist rules harm our long-term economic competitiveness.

2. Throw away vast foreign markets for American goods for the chimera of "America First" economic policies.

3. Make sure our Latin American neighbors remain in penury by rejecting the one thing that can bring them out of it - free trade agreeements with the U.S.

4. Make sure American workers are trained for "politically correct" jobs instead of the jobs the world economy needs highly trained and educated American workers to fill.

Despite all that, if the Republicans nominate someone like Bill Sizemore or Kevin Mannix or Jason Atkinson, I"ll hold my nose and vote for DeFazio. But Gordon Smith v. DeFazio? It's no contest.

And I'm surprised that Kari Chisolm would tout DeFazio over the much better Democratic alternatives (Westlund, Blumenauer, etc.)

<h2>I would donate time and money for a DeFazio campaign, but I would vote for Gordon over David (DLC) Wu...</h2>