Stephanine V I think Merkley can respond through surrogates if his opposition can post here themselves.

I'm happy to see this. I hope it will help put a stop to the flap over the 2003 nonbinding resolution so that we can move on to more relevant issues.

Steve Novick has never served as an elected official and has never had the lovely experience of being put on a very public spot by Republican strong-arm tactics. He does not have the high ground on this one and should back off.

I also read Reinhard's column as a clear indication that the Republicans are worried about Merkley and would much rather have Novick as Smith's opponent in the general election. Maybe Novick should pay attention to who he's agreeing with.

TJ, it sounds like you are saying that anyone who admires one of the 3 veterans shouldn't say that this puts the 2003 resolution to rest.

You are welcome to your point of view just as I am entitled to be thrilled that 3 men I admire greatly have gotten veterans involved in this race.

Where is Steve on veterans issues? Are they a priority? The 2003 resolution is not a valid answer to that question.

And do you really want to tell Democratic voters to support Steve because Reinhard's analysis is accurate? Think how that would sound if on another issue someone told you that.

I do give a rip about the 2003 resolution. The big deal about three retired soldiers backing this candidate does not appeal to me-

Lionizing the military is foolish ( disclaimer, I am former military ) as they are folks who are paid to break things and kill people. If you want to impress me, lets see more community builders come out for Merkley.

Personally, I feel that the military should be apolitical. I am tired of both parties taking soldiers, aggrandizing them and making them mighty heroes. High ranking officers are merely another form of politician- 
Regular soldiers are just guys doing a job- or these days folks who want the enlistment bonus.

 I want to see Merkley get endorsed by folks who are trying to make this state better, who are working and building for a better life for all of us.

 Spend some time in a barracks, or on a military base, and see what kind of enlightened conversation you get.

  Sorry, I'm not anti military. I am just against the meme that because they are members of the military they are heros.

Pete: FYI, these three men have earned their praises. Jim Rassman has been very involved in veterans' issues and was important in the Kerry campaign; Gen. McPeak, besides being a general, was the Air Force Chief of Staff; and Paul Evans has served overseas as recently as 2006 (despite concurrently running for office) and has been working on veterans' issues with the Governor's office since then. I've seen firsthand how all three are committed to working for a better Oregon.

"none of them addressed the issue that has cropped up around the resolution. "

cropped up where? In Reinhard's column, on Blue Oregon, in conversations among your friends?

I agree with John Calhoun "Frankly I don't think that 99% of the voters give a crap about the 2003 resolution and they do understand the difference between Merkley and Smith on the war." and appreciate Bradley Dunn's comments.

Folks, this is what real debate looks like. Those who agree with Steve have every right to do so, but then there are those who reserve the right to agree with the John C. statement.

Folks, I have seen this movie before. By definition many people would believe that activists who drive to a state central comm. meeting (esp. the ones who are elected members) are by definition "good Democrats".

Yet I recall a meeting my first year on state central comm. when some people passed a resolution on a ballot measure--opposing the position of the Dem. House Speaker and Senate President. Then tried to paint all of us who voted against the resolution as "not real Democrats". It was a close vote--margin of 6. So, outside of making a point, what did the supporters of the resolution gain? Most of those folks who had opposed the resolution found other ways to occupy their time outside party politics so that they wouldn't constantly be told what terrible people they were for choosing the wrong side of an issue.

Those of you who think nothing is more important than the 2003 vote, by all means spend your spare time campaigning for Novick. Talk with your friends about it.

But don't think blogging will change the minds of those who think Senators have more important duties than taking a position on resolutions.

And don't think a candidate who has no public voting record attacking an elected official's voting record is going to impress those who like the guy with the voting record.

Actually, there were people I knew in 1996 who were leaning towards Smith (or 3rd party knowing it would help Smith) on the basis of "at least he has a voting record".

Novick fans might not like that sentiment. But it does exist and talking about a 2003 vote every day from now until next Spring won't change that. Individuals have the right to think for themselves.

Dem's have been making a major campaign point of Smiths support for the war and his 11th (13th?) Hour conversion.

Now Mr. Merkley has two problems, first he will be spending way too much time and capital explaining his vote for the resolution. And, second like it or not, if he has to explain his vote by reciting his floor statement, and how it wasn't really a vote for the war but in support of the troops, you've lost that debating point in the swing voters minds.

This is a tough one, because there are many reasons why Mr. Merkley would be a better candidate than Mr. Novick. But if the Dems want to focus on the Smith war position, Mr Merkley may not be the right candidate.

And as some have said before, the biggest thing about these three gentlemen coming together is the fact that they've been reached out to. A Senator should be a community builder and form coalitions; isn't that what this is? What else would you call a group of people coming together?

I want a Senator who will take the opinions of his constituency and make the best judgement, someone who will actually go get people's opinions and not sit back from people to come to him/her. That's what it looks like the Merkley camp did here, and it's what he had to do in state politics.

And having a voting record definitely is a mind settling thing. As a wise man once said, 'you don't know what it's like being the candidate until you're the candidate.' Same goes for being a representative. Jeff has that, and I like that.

I'm chomping at the bit to support a bright, honest candidate with guts. Novick is playing politics with Merkley--and he expects to score points with us? Please. How disappointing that both Merkely and Novick are too wimpy or take a stand for impeachment. They seemingly have no idea what a groudswell of support they would get if they just had the guts to do the right thing.

This is politics, it ain't tiddlywinks, you get to pay for what you say and what you voted for. Merkley could read and he voted, Novick knows who is saying what and what he's saying. Novick is making the calculation that Merkley's political vote is worth poking, Merkley made the calculation that calling GWB courageous was worth the rest of it. How any of this will play with the voters may be an open question, this is a Democratic Primary, not a General.

I know of one very respected individual that got very badly burned at the federal level on a vote that had poison in it he was mislead into believing could be dealt with - it wasn't. It is now a matter of national shame and he has his name on it. One needs to be very careful. Merkley's vote comes nowhere near the other, but Novick believes he has something with it.

I'm not in anybody's camp at this point, I want to see how these guys do as this goes along.

I'd like to address this activist thing, the very fact of being an active DPO disqualifies one from being an average Democratic voter or none of the County Parties could find meeting space. That doesn't mean those activists are somehow special in more than their dedication, but it also certainly doesn't disqualify them as intelligent thoughtful people either. Like anyplace else you have a real mixture of types of people and if you expect different you need to pay more attention to the world around you.

Mostly they're reasonable people, but if you have something important you sure better understand how and whom to lobby your position to. And expect to lose sometimes, and get along with it.

"Veterans for Jeff Merkley". And who is for Merkley? Who do not think. Merkley is not convicted yet criminal: he is violating the Constitution of the USA. And: what good he did for state beside talking only? Position and name is not good enough to run for US Senate. Oregon Democratic Party, Moron R. Wyden with conspiracy of US Senator C. Schumer, the Chair of the Democratic Senatorial Committee (DSCC) did conspiracy against me: invited Merkley to talk to Schumer. It is a real face of the Democrats. Who are supporting Merkley, a narrow minded man, and Novick - are creating a danger to our national security.

Pavel Goberman - Candidate (D) for US Senator

While I have a tremendous amount of respect for anyone who has served in our nation's military, I don't personally care if Merkley can get three veterans to stand up and endorse him publicly. Then again, I also don't care that much that Merkley wimped out in supporting an offensive resolution back in 2003. (Technically, Merkley was right to praise Bush's courage in invading Iraq based on minimal intelligence; it takes a lot of courage to try to turn a country of 25 million people who hate you into the de facto 51st state.)

What I do care about is what gutsy things Merkley is willing to say and do if he's elected.

Folks, I love Novick and I'll support Novick in the primary. But I recognize that in a race like this, anyone can win. And if Merkley prevails, I'm interested in seeing how enthusiastically I can support him. Is he just Smith-lite, albeit on the Democratic side? Or is he someone who's going to come to Washington with a passion to fight like hell for progressive interests.

Those who accuse Novick of Swift Boating should people leave the Democratic Party, find Karl Rove, and ask how they can be of service. There's no reason to attack Novick simply for acknowledging the truth about a lousy vote Merkley cast. We want politicians to tell the truth when they are asked direct questions, don't we? (Well, Rove and his minions might not, but I do.)

Instead of worrying about people who tell the truth, Merkley's supporters might want to encourage their guy to start telling the people of Oregon some truths. What should this nation expect from him if is elected? Is he going to join Gore's crusade and breathe fire into the issue of climate change? Is he going to expose the sham of this horrid (albeit "courageous") war? Is he going to take steps to alleviate the insane scourge known as rampant-poverty-amidst-ostentatious-affluence?

Or is he going to just sit back, try to collect endorsements from old white guys, and ... well ... bide his time until he can take on another old white guy, albeit one with a lot more name recognition and a whole lot more money?

The reason why the resolution has had resonance with so many progressives is because it seems to suggest that Merkley is a business-as-usual politician. But he has time to change that impression by giving some courageous speeches of his own. Let's see him do that, and I mean now. If he does, and if he manages to defeat Novick next year, he could still get my whole-hearted, full-throated support -- and that would give him four old white guys who endorse him, not just three.

While I have a tremendous amount of respect for anyone who has served in our nation's military, I don't personally care if Merkley can get three veterans to stand up and endorse him publicly. Then again, I also don't care that much that Merkley wimped out in supporting an offensive resolution back in 2003. (Technically, Merkley was right to praise Bush's courage in invading Iraq based on minimal intelligence; it takes a lot of courage to try to turn a country of 25 million people who hate you into the de facto 51st state.)

What I do care about is what gutsy things Merkley is willing to say and do if he's elected.

Folks, I love Novick and I'll support Novick in the primary. But I recognize that in a race like this, anyone can win. And if Merkley prevails, I'm interested in seeing how enthusiastically I can support him. Is he just Smith-lite, albeit on the Democratic side? Or is he someone who's going to come to Washington with a passion to fight like hell for progressive interests.

Those who accuse Novick of Swift Boating should people leave the Democratic Party, find Karl Rove, and ask how they can be of service. There's no reason to attack Novick simply for acknowledging the truth about a lousy vote Merkley cast. We want politicians to tell the truth when they are asked direct questions, don't we? (Well, Rove and his minions might not, but I do.)

Instead of worrying about people who tell the truth, Merkley's supporters might want to encourage their guy to start telling the people of Oregon some truths. What should this nation expect from him if is elected? Is he going to join Gore's crusade and breathe fire into the issue of climate change? Is he going to expose the sham of this horrid (albeit "courageous") war? Is he going to take steps to alleviate the insane scourge known as rampant-poverty-amidst-ostentatious-affluence?

Or is he going to just sit back, try to collect endorsements from old white guys, and ... well ... bide his time until he can take on another old white guy, albeit one with a lot more name recognition and a whole lot more money?

The reason why the resolution has had resonance with so many progressives is because it seems to suggest that Merkley is a business-as-usual politician. But he has time to change that impression by giving some courageous speeches of his own. Let's see him do that, and I mean now. If he does, and if he manages to defeat Novick next year, he could still get my whole-hearted, full-throated support -- and that would give him four old white guys who endorse him, not just three.

While I have a tremendous amount of respect for anyone who has served in our nation's military, I don't personally care if Merkley can get three veterans to stand up and endorse him publicly. Then again, I also don't care that much that Merkley wimped out in supporting an offensive resolution back in 2003. (Technically, Merkley was right to praise Bush's courage in invading Iraq based on minimal intelligence; it takes a lot of courage to try to turn a country of 25 million people who hate you into the de facto 51st state.)

What I do care about is what gutsy things Merkley is willing to say and do if he's elected.

Folks, I love Novick and I'll support Novick in the primary. But I recognize that in a race like this, anyone can win. And if Merkley prevails, I'm interested in seeing how enthusiastically I can support him. Is he just Smith-lite, albeit on the Democratic side? Or is he someone who's going to come to Washington with a passion to fight like hell for progressive interests.

Those who accuse Novick of Swift Boating should people leave the Democratic Party, find Karl Rove, and ask how they can be of service. There's no reason to attack Novick simply for acknowledging the truth about a lousy vote Merkley cast. We want politicians to tell the truth when they are asked direct questions, don't we? (Well, Rove and his minions might not, but I do.)

Instead of worrying about people who tell the truth, Merkley's supporters might want to encourage their guy to start telling the people of Oregon some truths. What should this nation expect from him if is elected? Is he going to join Gore's crusade and breathe fire into the issue of climate change? Is he going to expose the sham of this horrid (albeit "courageous") war? Is he going to take steps to alleviate the insane scourge known as rampant-poverty-amidst-ostentatious-affluence?

Or is he going to just sit back, try to collect endorsements from old white guys, and ... well ... bide his time until he can take on another old white guy, albeit one with a lot more name recognition and a whole lot more money?

The reason why the resolution has had resonance with so many progressives is because it seems to suggest that Merkley is a business-as-usual politician. But he has time to change that impression by giving some courageous speeches of his own. Let's see him do that, and I mean now. If he does, and if he manages to defeat Novick next year, he could still get my whole-hearted, full-throated support -- and that would give him four old white guys who endorse him, not just three.

Republican or Democrats? What is the difference? Both are selling our country and democracy. Because of them so many young guys died and are dying now in Iraq. In the Constitution of the USA is written: "We the People... ', but not "We the Republican or Democratic Parties". EVERYONE MUST BE LOYAL TO THIS COUNTRY FIRST! The President Bush and US government can't win a war in Iraq and nation has a lot of death there because government do not know how to do it, they don't know the history of World War II The tactic of war there is wrong. I have a plan to win a war in Iraq in 3-4 months without loss of our troopers, and bring them home, but I have no authority to do it. Jeff Merkley is an idiot. He and Novick have no life and have no military experience. If one of these moron will be elected (it will NOT happen - I will be elected) - there in Iraq will be more death of our soldiers. And I will do my best to prevent it!

Pavel Goberman - Candidate (D, but honest) for US Senator www.getenergized.com/vote.html