Maybe i'm just waking up on the wrong side of the bed, but my first reaction to the DSCC is "stay the hell out" until We blue Oregonians nominate OUR own candidate. Then come in with your truckloads of cash to battle Smith's loads of cash.

A true grass roots candidate needs to be organic and locally grown, without any Washington DC Miracle-Gro.

I'm thrilled Schumer is involved. Sends a message to his good buddy across the aisle - Gordon Smith. Look out, Bush-enabler. We've had it with you.

I also think Paul Evans would be a great candidate.

I'm with East Bank Thom on this. If Schumer, who voted for the war on Iraq comes in with his bags of money he will most likely buy the candidate for the DLC oligarchy which is only slightly less problematic than the Republican plutocracy. Donate to independent-minded Democrat Steve Novick today to boost his second quarter score.

With the K Fall's fish kill story we now have the opportunity to tie Smith to Cheney even though the Oregonian failed to do so this morning in their editorial.

It would appear the DSCC is in panic mode and rather un organized in their apparent desire to find somen, anyone who can mount a serious bid to unseat Smith. Maybe they should stay the heck out of Oregon politics and let OREGONIANS decide who should run for US Senate?

Oregon Democrats WILL select the the nominee

Not if a hand picked DC darling gets a few hundred out-of-state dollars so he or she can challenge a grassroots hopeful...

Below is the e-mail that Paul sent to his e-mail list. This part is most interesting- (i> Yesterday, the DSCC informed me that they have made a decision: that decision will be made public within the next few weeks. Though I was not their final choice, it was humbling to be asked to participate as a candidate -- it meant a lot to our family to have been seriously considered for the opportunity to fight for the values we cherish. .

ALthough there is no doubt that the DSCC wants to control the process, they generally do not pick sides in primary fights unless an incumbant is being challenged. I can't imagine what kind of decision they would announce publicly. ANy ideas?

E-mail from Paul

Hello there -

It's been a while, but I wanted to share with you (in this brief email) something that will be "out" soon. A few weeks ago, I was asked by the DSCC meet with them about the US Senate race. I took time off, paid airfare, and flew to DC for a conversation about the future. I met with Senators Reid and Schumer as well as their executive director and political staff. We talked about the America we knew possible, the kind of election and candidate required to make our America reality.

As you know, 2008 is one of those special election years. We have a lot of work to do and need serious people to lead us. America must come together and demand change: we need a responsible foreign policy, we need to gain control of our mounting debt, and we must find common ground for the kind of America that lives up to its promise.

I believe Oregon wants a strong contrast -- a solid case for the future. This year it won't be enough to be against an incumbent, there must be an alternative vision for the future that people can connect with. I think too much is at stake for a "us/them" conventional campaign: our passion and our vision will determine our success.

Yesterday, the DSCC informed me that they have made a decision: that decision will be made public within the next few weeks.

Though I was not their final choice, it was humbling to be asked to participate as a candidate -- it meant a lot to our family to have been seriously considered for the opportunity to fight for the values we cherish.

For the foreseeable future, I will continue to try and make a difference from where I am at. Governor Kulongoski has given me an opportunity to play a role in crafting policy on emergency preparedness, veterans' care, and reintegration for returning troops. And I appreciate his leadership and the team he built. Our family has been blessed these last several years -- and we know it.

Have a great summer. And remember: if you don't have a place to go for an old-fashioned 4th of July small-town celebration... come to Monmouth! My front porch will be open: the beer will be cold, the barbecue will be working overtime, and the parade is... priceless!

• Paul

I'm glad to see Paul is finally getting the attention he deserves. He's a very creative thinker when it comes to this Senate race and politics in general. Unfortunately, while Oregon will pick the candidate in the primary, it would be very hard for Paul to go against the DSCC's handpick money-wise and politically. It's too bad that the Democratic leadership can't think outside the box. Schumer wasn't for Paul Hackett running and though he didn't win he took what would have been an easy race for the GOP and made it close.

Schumer wasn't for Paul Hackett running and though he didn't win he took what would have been an easy race for the GOP and made it close.

Again with the revisionism. What is it with you people?

Adrian, you're conflating two separate races. Hackett ran an underfunded, insurgent campaign during the special election against Jean Schmidt. He made it a very very close race in an overwhelmingly Republican district. Kudos to him for that.

But like many Steve Novick die-hards, activists lined up behind him for the Democratic nomination for Senate the next cycle because they knew him and he called dibs.

Then Sherrod Brown decided to throw his hat into the ring and activists went nuts because he had the temerity to challenge Hackett. Nevermind that Brown is one of, if not the most, progressive members now of the U.S. Senate. Nevermind that under any other circumstances activists would have been salivating over a Brown candidacy.

Rightfully, most activists lined up behind Brown after Hackett dropped out, but some chose to hold a grudge - and apparently still do.

But let's get one thing straight. Besides the name-familiarity aspect, the reason that activists loved Hackett is the same reason the national party folks liked Paul Evans, Tony McPeak, Wes Clark, Tammy Duckworth, Patrick Murphy, Joe Sestak, et al. They are Dems with military cred who are against the war. They are not progressive heroes. Heck, some are former GOPers and the rest, like Hackett, are VERY conservative Dems.

They seemed like they could win. And some did. But this attempt to assert the activists' undeniable superiority over the DC insiders in candidate selection is ridiculous.

And now we've got it here in Oregon. The pro-Novick, anti-anyone else talk stinks like the pro-Hackett, anti-Brown sentiment that pervaded the Ohio Senate primary last cycle. Instead of waiting to see who gets in and throwing your support toward the most viable, progressive-friendly candidate, you hitch your wagon to whoever got there first, ESPECIALLY if that person has the slightest name recognition among the progressive cognoscenti.

Everyone's an insider somewhere. Just like the DSCC folks are DC insiders, Steve Novick is a Portland-progressive insider. The voters in Roseburg, Ontario or La Pine probably think as much of you trying to force an insider from the Portland progressive activist circuit on them as you think of the DSCC forcing their hand-picked candidate on you. It's all relative.

When did it become illegitimate for 51 U.S. Senators to take an interest in who might become their 52nd? And when did Steve Novick become the default candidate?

I suspect it's because he got in first. And because the people who write and respond on this and other progressive Oregon blogs know him.

Nothing wrong with that, but let's stop pretending like you have any more right to anoint a candidate than anyone else does.

Nothing wrong with that, but let's stop pretending like you have any more right to anoint a candidate than anyone else does.

... trying to force an insider from the Portland progressive activist circuit on them ...

I haven't taken time to check my dictionary and thesaurus, but I don't believe supporting a candidate is synonymous with anointing or forcing that candidate on someone else. If I recall correctly, the Schumer and Emanuel factions disagreed with Howard Dean's 50-state strategy which was later hailed as a success.

E. Bank Thom is right to be concerned. I believe we have Gordon Smith because DSCC decided they would get behind Bruggere even though he was incapable of any statements on issues besides he speech text and the 3 short sentences that were his ad slogans. Even had the national press bamboozled into saying things like "in Oregon the candidate is Bruggere" before the primary when all he had going for him was money and powerful friends. If ever there was an election proving that money and powerful friends alone won't elect someone to office, that was it.

Not a fan of Steve Novick, but from the Q & A at Demoforum in Salem, I know he is able to give intelligent answers to questions on issues.

Here is where I stand. If the DSCC declares they have chosen their candidate (as they did when they anointed Brown and Hackett's fundraising dried up--it wasn't just Ohio activists who got angry about that); if we are all supposed to be good little boys and girls, ignore any candidate other than their anointed, and just salute and follow orders, I will register NAV the day after the primary (as I did right after the 1996 May primary ) so that no one can say "as a Democrat, you are required to support the nominee and not ask questions".

If anyone doesn't like that attitude, tough luck. I didn't donate thousands of hours over the decades to Democratic campaigns (and years on State Central Comm.) so that some day someone could dictate to me that I wasn't allowed to make my own decisions on primary candidates. My grandfather was an anti-machine politician and so am I.

NY is not Oregon, as Schumer would know if he spent any time here. If he wants to annoint a candidate, he can come to Oregon, appear with that candidate in a press conference, and then see if that candidate attracts local support.

In 1996, some of the "Kerrey millionaires" lost the primary (voters unwilling to march in lock step with the DSCC) and the rest lost in the general.

Schumer once said in an interview that his prime directive in the 2006 elections was "so win, already!". OK, he has the majority. But if he thinks I will support his choice announced in 2007 for the 2008 primary without listening to the various candidates, asking them questions, and deciding who makes the most sense to me, he has another think coming. Are we supposed to take it on faith without knowing that person's name that they will choose more wisely than in 1996---someone whose name is well known and perhaps someone whose name has already appeared on a ballot in the past? Or is this another "good ol' boy" situation?

Oregon has a history of contested primaries yielding a winner in the general election---DeFazio in 1986 is a great example. Peter won that primary fair and square, by winning more votes than the other candidates, not by being anointed the party candidate months in advance. If Schumer and other out of state Democrats don't understand that, they are saying they don't want me to be a Democrat outside of voting in the primary.

Some good points made on both sides here. Just remember, for the majority of us here, we are in this together to defeat Rubber Stamper Smith.

I want Oregonians to choose who we are excited about and want for the candidate, then let the the Dem Party come in with their cash to help out against Smith's $25 million corporate/elitist war chest.

Personally, not a fan of the Schumer/Emmanuel Insider game. Without much digging you can find plenty of evidence that Schumer and Rahm came in after the Dem victory last fall to claim credit when, IN FACT, the progressive candidates did better then those picked by the DSCC and their house counterparts. And these progressives did so despite not being the hand-picked choice of The Party or getting financial help from the bigwigs at all in some cases.

Btw, Tester and Webb were also progressive candidates, and only picked up DSCC support after it became clear they were the Dem candidates and had a shot. Yet another perfect example, Tammy Duckworth was named in the last comment and she was Rahm's personal choice over a more progressive candidate and she got beat despite the DLCC's money.

And, btw, it's worth noting that the vice-chair of the DSCC is Senator Ron Wyden. You can bet that he's gonna have something to do with the Oregon campaign.

Maybe the right strategy is for we Democrats here in Oregon to tell the DSCC we'll let them know who we pick, and we expect them to shut up and fall in line behind that candidate. And to let any Democratic hopeful know that we will turn getting a nod from the DSCC before we make our choice into a huge liability, particularly if they are Ron "sellout working people to the private for-profit health insurance and credit card industries, John Roberts' is well-qualified to be a Supreme Court Chief Justice" Wyden's choice. Any money the DSCC would spend in Oregon dividing our party before we make our choice in the primary would be much better spent doing branding for true Democratic Party values until we let the DSCC know what we decide.

By the way, is anybody handicapping the choices? We've heard Kate Brown, Jeff Merkley, and now apparently not Evans if the letter is authentic (and I certainly have no reason to doubt that it is.) Everybody seems to agree it won't be Novick, so let's assume for now that is true. We've also previously heard Eileen Brady's name floated, could she be the perfect faux insurgent candidate for the DSCC?

Does any Democrat here really want to argue that a candidate who gets the overt support of arrogant elitist and unapologetic hawk like this before we've made our choice known:

Another Encounter with Chuck Schumer Just as Hawkish as Hillary, But Nastier http://www.counterpunch.org/singer07032006.html

Next Stop: Tehran http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_02_12/article3.html

Those who hope that Democrats will stop the rush to war need only note the repeated excoriation of Iran by party leaders like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and Charles Schumer. Howard Dean has declared that the U.S. attack on Iraq was directed against the “wrong enemy” while Iran is “the right enemy.”

and even if Wyden does like to pal around with him, is the kind of person we want to nominate?

Thank you TJ.

And Kari, this message for you. I know that Schumer is not Kerrey. Glad to see you realize Kerrey's millionaire strategy was a horrid mistake. But sarcasm will get you nowhere.

My point is this: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. I have no faith in the DSCC. Am I supposed to have faith in them as a registered Dem., or are registered Dems allowed to think for themselves?

I like all kinds of Democrats, but I want to see a contested primary. If DSCC announces a candidate publicly, at least that will be better than the whisper campaign ("forget the guys with actual ideas, the party wants you to support Bruggere") run by Kerrey et al in 1996.

I would love to see Bates or Golden (2 from Jackson Co. might get a little sticky) debating Novick and anyone else who decides to run so that we can make our own decisions. Those who have a problem with that are saying they don't want my vote.

So, POD, is there a single Democrat that you DO like?

There is one I prefer over the others, but I'm sure he or she would just as soon not have my support in this debate. In addition, I'm currently not enthusiastic about any of the possible candidates, since most of them are pale blue at best.

I'll also say this. I'll be voting for whoever wins the Democratic primary in the general against Smith, except in the extremely unlikely event that the chance to really shift the power structure presents itself: If whoever is the Democratic candidate does not come out unequivocally for a public national insurance system, I'd really prefer that disaffected Democrats and blue Republicans and NAVs consider forming a new party by and putting forward a candidate who runs chiefly on immediately ending the occupation of Iraq, prohibiting any attack on Iran, rejecting the current shameful framing of the immigration issue, and creating a public national health insurance plan.

As far as a contested primary being a good thing, the arguments here that this in itself would be a good thing are just plain silly and naive. Whether a contested primary is a good thing depends entirely on the matters at stake in the debate and who contests them. Right now I see absolutely no value in the DSCC turning this into a contested primary by putting a Schumer/Wyden-friendly candidate forward instead of using their money in the primary race to build the Democratic Party brand.

I'm not quite ready to let this thread die. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around Kari's comment that "Schumer's DSCC has a tremendous record of success." Can you say Joe Lieberman? Just look at the travesty of SC rulings in the past two weeks? Did you watch what Holy Joe had to say about Dems this morning? And yet he continues to chair the Homeland Security Committee which has done what exactly? Now imagine a real Dem, Sen. Lamont, in office instead, the primary winner that Schumer refused to lend any support to against NeoCon Joe. Disgraceful, and just one in a long list that keeps me from rejoining the Democratic Party. Sherrod Brown is listed as one of Schumer's successes yet he voted Aye on the bill that gutted habeus corpus right before the elections, hardly progressive, and he hasn't done anything yet to make up for it. (Don't get me wrong, I like some of the things Schumer does as a Senator, but running Insider elections is not one of them.)

As bad as the DSCC is, Emmanuel's DCCC is even worse. Here's just a couple of examples from the last election: Dems triumph despite DCCC primary snubs. Rahm did everything he could to lose the House. What Happened Last Night.

I'll take Dean's 50-state strategy every day of the week over the Schumer/Emmanuel game. Kari, are you really going on record as supporting the cast of Blue Dog Dem candidates these two like to run over true progressives that we know will stay true to their ideals once they reach DC? I'd much prefer a Tester/Webb type as the next Oregon Senator over the Lieberman/Casey types. Let's make sure we give the former a chance in this race.

Too all the Bashers of the DSCC. The DSCC recruits the strongest(most electable candidate). They first started with Kitzhaber- the popular former Governor. Kitzhaber said no. They asked US House Members- DeFazio and Bluemenaur- Both said no. Other Statewide Elected Officials such as Bill Bradbury and Randall Edwards have also said no.

The announced candidates are Steve Novick,Ty Pettit,and Paul Goberman. Out of the 3 names- Novick has the most experience. Being a government lawyer and a state legislative aide.

The potential candidates are members of the state legislature. Some of them hold leadership positions.

1)Alan Bates- State Senate Majority Whip,A Doctor and Vietnam Veteran- Represents Ashland(Jackson County).

I'd much prefer a Tester/Webb type as the next Oregon Senator over the Lieberman/Casey types. Let's make sure we give the former a chance in this race.

Tester and Webb narrowly won their Senate Races against flawed opponents.

Burns was going to lose despite his narrow election victory against Schwietzer- who in 2000 was a political novice. Burns was involved in the Abramoff Scandal. Plus He had a foot in the mouth desiese. Despite all of Burns vulnerabilities. Tester beat Burns by a less than 1% margin.

Webb is a Reagan Republican. He narrowly defeated Allen a popular former Governor of Virginia due to the maccaca flap.

Casey defeated Santorum by a landslide margin 59-41.

The problem with Smith is he is not as Conservative nor as controversial as Santorum,Burns or Allen.

Pete, research the history of the Tester and Webb campaigns and you'll find that the DSCC wasn't there to support them in the early going. They jumped on a good thing when they saw it. The progressives and orgs like Blue America were there for them early on.

Neal, it's not about margins of victory. Casey is an anti-choice conservative, not the kind of candidate I'm looking for, and he had a much easier race against the very unpopular Ideologue Santorum. Not sure why Burns was popular in MT but he was, despite his obvious shortcomings, and in VA they were talking about Maccaca as a presidential contender, so Webb also faced a major uphill battle. Point is, they won, and might have won by more with proper DC support.

And this: "The DSCC recruits the strongest(most electable candidate)." I don't agree. Read the links I posted in my previous comment. They recruit who THEY think are the strongest candidates, when oftentimes they are not. I believe that if the Dems had followed Dean's 50-state strategy instead, the Dems would have an even bigger majority in the House. The Senate was amittedly a tougher climb, with the only other possibility being Harold Ford (another Dem conservative) and he lost. Let's see how Schumer does this time with a 33 Goopers having to defend their Senate seats and only 21 Dems. In the current political climate, if the Dems don't win a filibuster proof majority then maybe you will see that The People are clamoring for something much different then what the DC Insiders think we want.

I don't want victory at any cost, I want good progressive candidates willing to face the very real difficulties we face as a nation. The Congress has their worst approval ratings in decades because of that inbred politics-uber-alles mentality. That's why I stay an Independent.

If Schumer and the DSCC start throwing their weight around ...

Shouldn't this be "continue throwing their weight around?" And where were they when Lamont in Connecticut could have used unequivocal support from the party leadership? Putting up a front hoping their fellow war-monger Lieberman would win!

this: "The DSCC recruits the strongest(most electable candidate)."

What I mean is the they pick a candidate that has a track record of winning Statewide Elections in Oregon. John Kitzhaber has to be on the top list followed by DeFazio,Bluemenaur,Edwards,Bradbury.

Before the DSCC coalesces around Novick-

They have to wait until (Bates,Brown,Merkley,Walker,and Westlund)-members of the Oregon State Legislature.

With regards to Casey- The DSCC choosed Casey because he is a popular statewide elected official in Pennsylvania despite his views on Abortion. Casey has won three statewide elections in Pennsylvania. He is popular with voters in Penntucky(Central PA).

Pete, I am advocating that Oregonians decide who we want as the Dem candidate without interference from Chuck. NY is not Oregon, which means that I don't trust someone from NY leading the candidate search for us. That's nothing against Paul Evans or any of the other candidates Chuck has met with, but like it or not once DC starts meddling they have a huge impact on who survives or not. After that, if he wants to jump in with Party money for the main contest against Smith, it would be expected.

I wouldn't call it venting either, just being honest. I don't like or trust the powers that be in DC and I still don't agree that the DSCC was as successful as portrayed here. I don't buy into the triangulation of the Centrists. What have they done for us lately? They rolled over for the Impeach Clinton brigade, they rolled over for the Cheney regime and the warmongers, they rolled over for the SC Justice confirmations, and they rolled over for the rewriting of the Constitution and our basic rights. They also don't seem to grasp the idea of framing and lose every PR battle. I believe the only reason the Dems won the last election is because the alternative was so horrible. That can't and won't work for too long. As one example, listen to Hillary and ask yourself: how different from the current criminals will she actually be on foreign policy? Sometimes I truly wonder if they don't think more like the Goopers (and Liebermans) then they, or we, are willing to admit. When they start tackling the truly difficult issues like energy independence, global warming, equitable health care, getting us out of Iraq now, and undoing the damage to the Constitution I'll be there to give them credit. At this point, I'm staying Independent and taking notes.

wouldn't call it venting either, just being honest. I don't like or trust the powers that be in DC and I still don't agree that the DSCC was as successful as portrayed here. I don't buy into the triangulation of the Centrists. What have they done for us lately? They rolled over for the Impeach Clinton brigade, they rolled over for the Cheney regime and the warmongers, they rolled

Are you suggesting that we should support a candidate who is a political novice- has not ran for nor won any elected office from the local city council to the US Senate but that candidate is a pinko commie liberal. The rational for supporting Novick is his left wing pinko commie ideology.

The rational for the DSCC to support Bates,Brady,Evans,Golden,Walker and Westlund is their ability to win in Republican leaning Areas outside Portland.

First, I am not with Novick. I live in southern Oregon. I don't dislike Novick but he is not my first choice. I don't know where you came up with that one. Personally, and maybe that's my regionalism but I like what Jeff Golden and/or Alan Bates could bring to the race. Schumer probably doesn't know they exist. In reality, I just think they are well-suited to Oregon's geographical/political diversity.

Second, sorry to have baffled you Pete, but you are misinterpreting my words. My initial comments were in regard to the success of Schumer and the DSCC. I am not criticizing Schumer for staying out of VA and MT initially, quite the oppoiste. However, I am thus saying that Schumer doesn't deserve the credit for the wins of Tester and Webb as much as he'd like us to believe (and the same goes for Emmanuel and the House victories). I'd prefer that method - states have very different personalities, so let the primary season run it's course, then let the DC'ers come in with some financial help. Too often the DC Insiders identified Centrists for seats who lost (see Ford and Duckworth), and sticking by Lieberman (I-full of shit) is something I will probably never get over. I don't buy their success, in the past, or in 2006. Voters simply turned away from the GOP and so went with the only real alternative. They could just as quickly turn back if the Dems don't offer PROGRESS.

Last, I am not sowing discord (at least that wasn't my goal), but I have admitted that I see serious short-comings with the Dems on a national level which is why I re-registered as an Indie. I would love to rejoin and be able to vote in the primary but unfortunately, I haven't seen the results or orientation to win me back. Instead of criticizing my stand, understand that there are loads of people out there that feel like I do. We are sick of politics-as-usual (it has only led to very negative results for our nation), we want change, and we want progress. We know the US faces extremely difficult problems...so let's start dealing with them. Like I said, I am with the Dems on oversight (more please), I can plainly see the GOP obstructionist policies, I despise the Neocons and the Rubber Stampers who enabled them, but I simply don't buy into the success of the Dems framing or campaigning.

PS. Your last comment, Pete, is all too reminiscent of what I dislike about the whole damned 2-party structure. Don't take criticism well, and instead of discussing it, or better yet LISTENING, immediately get divisive and ready to blame someone with whom I am not associated. But even if I was, so what? They are still my words, noone else's and I take full responsibility for them. Are we having a discussion here or are we trying to make everyone march in lock step?

Indy,

"Are we having a discussion here or are we trying to make everyone march in lock step?"

As someone who has been reading this thread from the sidelines, I think that you're over reacting. If anyone is seeing the world in a black and white way, I'd argue it is you. And when you say things like:

"listen to Hillary and ask yourself: how different from the current criminals will she actually be on foreign policy?"

I say, that's the kind of thinking that got us eight years of Bush. Idealism? Great. But we need fewer people willing to die on the sword of "progressive" purity and more who are willing to be pragmatic- and yes, that includes listening to and talking with people from NY and DC. Personally, I'm supporting Novick for now. In the end, I'll support whatever candidate the D's put forward- because in the end I do believe that person will be different enough from Smith to matter- on real things that impact our everyday lives. I wish a few more Nader and Kucinich supporters had done the same in last two presidential elections.

We are sick of politics-as-usual (it has only led to very negative results for our nation), we want change, and we want progress. We know the US faces extremely difficult problems...so let's start dealing with them.

The first step to REAL change means replacing Gordon Smith. All those nationl Democrats that defeated GOP incumbents mentioned above MAY have a few votes that are less progressive than desired, but they were reflective enough of their state as a whole to pull in enough independent and GOP voters to win. And winning is everything.

That's also Gordon's strategy. He's been working to pull in enough Indy's and Dems to win... Remember how ...he greened-up prior to the 2002 election changing his position on drilling in the Artic Refuge? ...he joined liberal lion Ted Kennedy on hate crimes (do you remember the ad with Matthew Sheperd's mother?) .. his recent work on mental health and his trips to Portland bookclubs for readings.. ...now his pre-election sudden change of heart on Iraq that he's parlayed into being a "One Man GOP Caucus to end the war." The list goes on. He will try to pull in independents and some Democrats and hold enough Republicans with his immigration stance and on tax cuts.

Let's remember who the enemy is: It's Gordon Smith. Real change means replacing him ...with someone who can win the general election, not just the Democratic primary. Someone who can pull in enough independents and Republicans to win in November.

This will be more critical than ever if the Democrats are strongly favored in the Presidential race, and Oregon is no longer the battleground state it has been the last two Presidential elections.

Let's bring this back to the essential question. If everyone here thinks goal # 1 is defeating Gordon Smith, does that mean people who see different roads to that goal are adversaries?

On Meet the Press today (watched the tape after getting home from work) there was a discussion of polling and study of voters 18-25. It appears they are unlike their elders in certain ways, from opinions to demographics.

There was also discussion about the clash between the "New Guard" in Congress (esp. those elected for the first time in 2006) and the "old bulls" like the people who'd been in Congress for a long time and this was a great return to majority after many years.

It may be that is what is going on here and elsewhere is that "new guard" vs. "old bulls" debate. I mentioned this and other BO topics about possible US Senate candidates to someone at work today who has heard Novick speak, and this young person said that was great because contested primaries are what make politics interesting. She's not a member of the Novick campaign and neither am I, we just went to hear him speak.

If it is true that DSCC will announce a decision to support a candidate sometime this summer, it seems to me there are 2 choices: a) "DSCC has endorsed this person, it is the duty of all good Democrats to get behind this candidate" OR b) "DSCC endorsement, while interesting, carries no more weight than any other organizational endorsement, and any Oregonian voting in the Democratic primary has the right to give priority to an Oregon organizational endorsement or for that matter the endorsement of any Oregonian the voter knows personally".

I believe this debate is what East Bank Thom started the comments with.

I believe in B. If some here believe in A that is fine, but they won't get my vote with such a statement and I doubt they'd get the vote of the young woman at work.

What is wrong with Oregonians deciding their primary candidates without a national group telling donors not to contribute to any but the chosen candidate or other such nonsense which has happened in the past? I believe it is the responsiblity of DSCC and Schumer to prove they listen to the new guard and aren't just old bulls trying to push voters across the country into doing their bidding. It is not our job to take orders from a New Yorker.

Looking at previous Senate election cycles. Too defeat GOP Senate incumbents DSCC recruited candidates that won statewide office. 2006- PA(Casey)- won three statewide elections (State Auditor and State Treasurer. Son of a popular former Governor. Won by landslide margin against a weak incumbent. OH(Brown)- member of the US House- elected Secretary of State in 1982 and 1986. Brown benifited from the unpopularity of the National and OH GOP. RI(Whitehouse)- former State Attorney General. US Attorney. RI is a solid blue state. MO-(McCaskill)- elected State Auditor- 1998 and 2002 MT- Tester)- State Senate President VA)- Webb)- Secretary of Navy under Reagan.

2002- AR(Pryor)- State Attorney General- son of a popular former US Senator.

2000- DE(Carper)- popular two term Governor MI(Stabenow)- US House Member from a swing district MN(Dayton)- Former State Auditor. elected 1990-1994. MO(Carnahan)- popular two term Governor WA(Cantwell)- Former US House Member and Businesswomen of a tech industry.

1998- NY(Schumer)- US House Member defeated weak incumbent NC(Edwards)- charismatic wealthy trial lawyer defeated an incumbent who was a Helms clone.

Not sure how you can judge my choice to stay Indie "irrational." Even in the midst of what I would call a Constitutional crisis in this country I am not willing to cede my beliefs that the entire political/campaign structures need to be overhauled. I despise the big money that corrupts the process and Chuck represents the Dem side of that as well as anyone. I think the key point, if there is one after all this, is that it's not wise to dimiss the attitudes of a very large and growing segment of Indie voters who are very much needed to secure Dem victories. We want change, not more of the same. The more the Dems can differentiate themselves from the entrenched politics of the GOP, the better...for the Party and the nation.

LT makes an important point about the "old guard" v. the "new guard." I am old enough to have lived with the old guard and it's what drove me from the party. I will be watching this internal fight and if the new guard takes control of the party I will rejoin in a heartbeat.

Pete, we're good, it's not personal. As I said all along this is a discussion. We'll just have to agree to disagree on some of these things. Overall you are correct that we are probably not that far apart and we are definitely on the same side when it comes to ousting Smith.

Thanks Neal for the historical data, and thanks to TA and Indie.

What I am beginning to suspect is that this could be an election cycle as disruptive politically in 1968 (the first year I voted, which will tell you how old I am).

There was no such thing as "the Democrats" in 1968 rhetoric. In presidential terms it was Humphrey (great man but seen as old guard), Eugene McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy. Young people were a potent force in that election (McCarthy campaign was called the "Children's Crusade " because this was before 18 year old vote and there were some who were not yet 21). Many very anti-establishment activists who were young then went on to an adult life full of political involvement.

In my state there was a lot of discussion of how to register because there was a "favorite son" Republican presidential candidate but also a very important US Senate Republican primary where a right winger was challenging a "good guy" incumbent. Those of us who wanted to vote McCarthy or Kennedy in the presidential primary thus had to forgo the Republican US Senate primary.

Especially liked this from TA:

".......we have an abundance of quality candidates, and we don't need the DSCC anointing any of them. in fact, that's likely to prove counter-productive. being "Charlie's candidate" is likely to cost that person a ton of potential support. maybe Ron Wyden can pass along the message that we're grown-ups here in Oregon and don't need help making a responsible decision."

If Ron is as smart as many of us have thought over the years, he will give Schumer the word that there are people in his home state still angry about 1996 saying "those of us who saw this movie once before and didn't like the outcome have the right to say we won't stand for it this time".

If Ron is stupid enough to say "DSCC has made their choice and I will abide by it", he will lose a lot of support and can expect questions about it when he does his annual town hall meetings.

This state badly needs a contested Senate primary because there are people who think parties don't care about the general public, they only care about political insider games.

There seem to be political insiders who get nervous when they confront anyone with such strong beliefs that their attitude is "This is what I believe, and if you don't like it that is your problem. Call me names or subject me to peer pressure and this is still what I believe and I will vote accordingly".

There are political heroes who have taken stands along that line. There is a quote on my wall from Wayne Morse which ends "...cast my vote free of political pressure and unmoved by threats of loss of political support".
Does Schumer know enough about Oregon to know who Morse was and how many ways he has been memorialized over the years? Wyden won the special election to replace the guy who defeated Morse in 1968 in an election which went to a recount.

Yesterday, the DSCC informed me that they have made a decision: that decision will be made public within the next few weeks. Though I was not their final choice, it was humbling to be asked to participate as a candidate.

Paul's comments are most interesting. The DSCC is supposed to remain neutral in a primary fight. If they did have a favorite, I can't imagine that they would formally endorse him/her. With Kitzhaber and the congressional delegation not running, I doubt if they would have a strong favorite at this point.

It sounds like Paul was, but is no longer considering, making the race?? I'm not sure.

Paul, the question is whether Grant is right in saying "DSCC is supposed to remain neutral in a primary fight"

or whether you are right in saying "endorsement carries both the imprimatur of the national party leaders ".

One of my favorite local party chairs made it a point of honor not to let any hint of endorsement come out before a primary. Should that not be a point of honor because all party organizations should endorse in primaries? Or only selected caucus leadership?

And the concern about DSCC given past behavior (and DCCC behavior, for that matter) is whether the folks on Capitol Hill believe we the people who can vote in the primary have the right to make the decision mentioned as "whether that is a plus or minus is for you to decide". Lots of peer pressure in 1996---who can assure that won't happen this time? Don't expect me to have faith they are smarter now, because I don't.

If, as has apparently happened in the past, the DSCC in the 2008 election were to go so far as to tell a candidate "we've decided you shouldn't run" or tell major donors not to contribute to a candidate they don't endorse, that makes them a political machine.

In 1996 there was a school teacher in Texas (Victor Morales, I think was his name) who took on a sitting Congressman in the primary. AND not only won the election to the shock of those on Capitol Hill but was then given a prime speaking spot at the Democratic convention. Dole carried Texas that year, but the Democratic nominee did better in that "red" state than Bruggere did in Oregon. It was a sight to see how many Oregonians regarded publicly speaking that election result as somehow subversive.

I would never blame anyone (esp. someone who has run before) for saying that if the organizational endorsement wasn't there, running would be an uphill battle they might not want to tackle. (My guess is there are legislative candidates making that calculation over the next several months.)

But political activists need to realize that all the "infrastructure, informational, and fund raising support" in the world is not guaranteed to win over a young person who says a contested primary makes politics interesting, or a cynical person of any age who has gotten angry at Capitol Hill caucus people in the past.

I saw on a repug site a rumor that Vicki Berger will run for Treasurer in 2008, leaving her House seat open. Paul should run for it. He will easily win the open seat. He can hold that office for 6 years, and, should Gordon Smith win re-election this time, Paul could be poised as a strong challenger in 2014. Paul could also build himself up that way to eventually replace Darlene Hooley when she retires, or run for Governor someday.

I would support Paul for State Rep. After seeing him in action for a few terms, I could be persuaded to support Paul for a higher office. But I would NOT support Paul, or anyone else with a similar non-record of legislative achievement, for a run for U.S. Senate at this time.

When the DSCC has to look at such non-viable candidates as Paul as potentials to challenge Gordon Smith, it makes me believe that THEY believe (notice the emphasis on THEY, not me) Smith is unbeatable. Why else would they be scraping the bottom of the barrel, instead of successfully wooing a big name like Kitzhaber or Defazio? If a big name thought he could really win this, the big name would be running.

Other than President, VP, or Supreme Court Justice, there is NO better job in government than U.S. Senator. Seeing people like Defazio turn it down is telling.

unbeatable. Why else would they be scraping the bottom of the barrel, instead of successfully wooing a big name like Kitzhaber or Defazio? If a big name thought he could really win this, the big name would be running.

Other than President, VP, or Supreme Court Justice, there is NO better job in government than U.S. Senator. Seeing people like Defazio turn it down is telling.

DeFazio and Bluemanauer took a pass on the Senate Race because the Democratic Party has majority control of the US House and they occupy sub committee chairmanship position. They don't want to give up seniority in the US House to be freshman US Senators.

Kitzhaber is the 800lb gorrilla. He could have ran and defeated Gordo in 2002.

"As to Oregon primary voters' "rights" to make the choice, I don't see how those rights are imperiled in any way. "

Paul, which candidate did you support in the May primary for US Senate in 1996?

I've seen this from both sides--a friend ran as the Majority Leader-endorsed candidate for state rep. in the 1980s but the candidate who had filed before the endorsed candidate decided to run was the one who won the primary and the general.

I think there are lots of Oregonians who may not know that Chuck Schumer is the head of DSCC (or even what DSCC stands for) who might well agree with Kari on the benefits of a contested primary:

http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/05/a_competitive_p.html

Paul, how do you make your voting decisions? Do you vote for the person most qualified to represent constitutents, or the person most likely to be a good caucus member?

"But I can also see the point of a party official who may prefer one primary candidate over another because she is trying to craft a cohesive governing coalition and win the "whole" election (the Congress, the legislature), not just a single seat."

Seems to me the biggest argument for nonpartisan legislature is that too many run as individuals and then get to the state capitol and become creatures of their caucus.

If you believe we should elect US Senators to primarily be caucus members rather than Senators from Oregon, you make perfect sense. But the candidates should say that when they run so that people wanting an Oregon senator first and a caucus member second can vote accordingly.

Personally, I look for quality individuals first and what caucus they belong to second. Therefore, I don't want an out of state person saying "this candidate will fit into our caucus better than that one", I want someone who will win in Oregon regardless of how the folks in DC see that person. For instance, I'm glad Tim Walz defeated a Republican Congressman, even if his views on some issues are closer to those of the voters in his district than to those of caucus leadership.

Or should "we the people" take a back seat to caucus leadership? And how does a caucus member represent those voters who don't register with a major party--or are those voters just an annoyance?

Jenni: That may be the point of this whole debate--Victor Morales beat a Congressman in that primary, regardless of whether anyone in DC supported him, thought he would win, etc.

There was an Alternative Radio program www.alternativeradio.org

recently called Blue Grit ----- about the Montana successes of 2004 and 2006. It suggests those were bottom up successes of local groups organizing people in ways never done before, NOT a Capitol Hill "we know best" project. You'd be pleased to know the speaker is impressed by Howard Dean.

Pete, Sorry I don't share your optimism.

Rather than

"We (the DSCC) believe that Candidate Y is very strong, due to his ability to draw support outside of Portland (or any other stronghold of local political dollars.)"

how do we know that there aren't myopic people living on the E. Coast who don't say "Portland's where the votes are, and we're going to decide which Portlander has the best capacity to earn votes because there aren't enough registered Dems in the rest of the state to matter"?

Interesting the use of the term "fake candidates". In 1996 there were newspaper articles going into great detail about 3 US Senate primary candidates and where they stood on issues, and then the last line was "Bruggere had no detailed views on the subject" or something like that.

But who outspent his nearest opponent 10-1 and next nearest 100-1 and became the nominee? And then acted entitled, as DSCC's choice, to all Democratic votes and support without answering any issue questions? (Yes, Kari, before you say anything, I realize that Schumer is not Kerrey. But can you assure Blue Oregonians that Schumer or his DSCC staff never said "only Portland matters because that's where the votes are"? Have you actually met and talked to Schumer or anyone working for him?)

Pete, nothing would make me happier than DSCC demonstrating your faith is justified. But I believe it is their job to justify the faith of those like you, not the duty of local volunteers (incl. those who felt burned by the 1996 primary) to affirm their faith in the all knowing, all wise DSCC.

Perhaps there are 2 Democratic parties--the grass roots folks who revere Howard Dean and grass roots activism in general and who believe it should be possible for what you describe as either of these:

"We're giving him enough money to stay competitive in the primary, but not enough to have a determinative effect on the eleciton. We're making sure a candidate who might otherwise get overlooked gets a fighting chance. We see a strong progressive movement in Oregon, and trust them to make a good decision. We're witholding money from the primary, but are prepared to give big once the local electorate has made its choice. "

I'd like to share your optimism, but the old saying is still true--"once burned, twice shy". I had 2 very dear friends in that 1996 election, and I think either would have done better at both running against Gordon and keeping Democrats from defecting to 3rd party candidates. It would be wonderful if your optimism is justified, Pete, but I'm a skeptic (defined as "show me the evidence, and then I will believe".)

And the establishment party which sided with Chuck and Rahm against Dean in the last election, is suspicious of the 50 state project, and claims to "know" more about the politics of any state than those grass roots types who actually live and are active in politics in the various states.

Recently, I heard Cong. Chris Van Hollen interviewed --apparently the new head of DCCC.

What a concept--he was talking about Democrats bringing up the treatment of veterans on the 4th of July, talking about their own efforts and how some in the GOP continually block funding for veterans programs.

Now THERE is a Democratic leader I support. Let's debate issues rather than the folks in DC saying they know which counties contain registered Democrats and thus a candidate who can win should come from one of those counties, or some other "political professional" criteria.

Talk about issues, and people not currently registered Dem might just register to vote in the primary (sure has happened in the past). Talk about data showing that past voting records determine voting patterns in 2008, and people like me will wonder why local party involvement matters.

Pete, I'll make you a bet.

If the DSCC endorses someone publicly who excites Oregon Democrats (the way Jenni talked about Victor Morales a decade or so ago), and we have a debate about issues next year rather than the "he's got the money and powerful friends, what else do you need to know?" of 1996, I will never say a bad word about DSCC again.

But, if they do the we've chosen our candidate, but we won't announce it publicly, just quietly tell everyone not to support competing candidates as happened to Paul Hackett last year because the powers that be wanted S. Brown to be the Ohio nominee, I'll just re-register NAV after the primary and you won't have me to worry about as a Democrat anymore.

It sounds to me like Chris Van Hollen is the smartest choice for DCCC in at least 20 years, and he has earned my respect. All I'm saying is that other politicians have to EARN my respect, because as the grandchild of an anti-machine politician I pledge unquestioning full faith and allegiance to no politician. I've asked tough questions of very dear friends who were in elective office, and I don't expect to treat total strangers any differently.

"Only then he did. He caved. One tiny little push, and he folded like a cheap tent in a sandstorm."

Kari, were you in Ohio at the time? Do you know for a fact that the "tiny little push" was DSCC supporting Brown and NOT DSCC telling donors not to contribute to Paul Hackett?

I wasn't in Ohio, but I read reports that sort or thing happened. If that is the case, the "cheap tent" crack is a cheap shot.