where can I get a free copy of the full interview. Also sounds like he is leaning towards Novick based on the partial interview you guys posted.

It is the only thing Tom could say that would not potentially land me -or him- in jail.

And as far as something about Tom....Have you ever seen the socks he wears?

Watch out for that endorsement process. It can get really interesting. When Norma Paulus ran for Governor, there were 2 large women's groups doing endorsements: Oregon Women's Political Caucus and NOW. If I remember correctly, one group did a process with questionaires and interviews and did the endorsement process as a result of the answers, while the other endorsed the woman candidate and didn't ask many questions. The endorsement was split--one group endorsed Neil, the other Norma.

In another instance, I think it was OWPC which announced an endorsement conference where there was to be a democratic process of endorsing nominees. St. Sen. Margie Hendricksen was running for the open seat nomination for 4th Cong. District against DeFazio. I went to a local luncheon meeting with a friend who lived in Eugene and was registered to vote in the 4th District, but was in Salem on business. A local woman not registered to vote in the 4th District was giving a report on the upcoming endorsement convention and the races involved. "In the 4th District, we have Margie Hendricksen...." she said. And my friend got angry. "Are you saying the official position is that Margie has already been endorsed and Peter might as well not attend the convention?". There was a bit of backtracking and on to the next name, but the damage had been done.

I have known union endorsements to win the election, and endorsements that lost. I have no problem with whatever the 2/3 endorsement is---perhaps neither candidate will get even 60% of the vote, much less 2/3.

But it is important to keep "eyes on the prize" and not alienate people in the process.

Thanks Kari.

Here it is: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

It was posted four days ago, interestingly enough.

The Merkley/Novick discussion, by the way, is at the 2:10 mark in part three.

Don't discount his remarks about the process. Unlike many organizations, the AFL-CIO's endorsement process really will be very democratic.

I hope that is the case now. When I was involved with unions decisions were mostly made at the top and often with little regard for the rank and file.

I swear I'm not picking on David.

I could have easily chosen a similar comment from Stephanie V. or t.a. barnhart. But this strikes me as a common theme from the Novick crowd:

Posted by: David English | Sep 3, 2007 3:35:29 PM It would nice if they would co-endorse both candidates and give both money just to see who is the stronger candidate in the primary and then endorse that person for the general election in November.

This is on the heels of about a billion comments lamenting the involvement of the DSCC in this primary.

I don't remember any of the Merkley folks making similar comments, probably because they are the likely beneficiaries.

But it leads me to ask whether the Novick regulars think there are ANY groups that should offer a primary endorsement? If so, how do you choose who should endorse and who shouldn't? If not, why not?

If both candidates are friends of labor, labor has nothing to lose by keeping quiet in the primary.

Stephanie V and others have mentioned Party leadership, I don't know exactly who they are referring to, but, DPO is the Party apparatus and DPO will not endorse in a contested primary, finance, or otherwise interfere in the process. County Parties are free to do as they please, but most stay out of the endorsement business. The Congressional PACs are not State organizations and are not bound by DPO and DNC policies. I have seen their interference blow back.

In recent years we have stopped giving money to certain liberal advocacy groups because they made endorsements in Democratic primaries where a number of qualified candidates were competing.

From the interview, it would appear the AFL-CIO has a democratic process for making endorsements. Such was not the case with the other groups i have in mind.

I think the DSCC shouldn't make endorsements or donations in Democratic primaries. Respect our judgment as to which Democrat we want to represent us, then work with us to get that Democrat elected to the Senate.

I've got to disagree with you there, Kevin. But i really appreciate the sentiment you express. If the governor or former governor or any individual wants to weigh in on the primary, goodness, this is America... freedom of speech, etc. Regardless of their day job, it's their right. (In my mind, the insider endorsements just begin to solidify the notion that Merkley's a party animal, and from my view in the really cheap seats of the NAV bleachers, it doesn't look too appealing.) As far as the Party throwing it's considerable weight around through the DSCC, i voted early on this topic, so don't feel the need to vote more often.

I wrote upthread about how certain private groups have tried to influence primaries, and how i was sufficiently miffed that we took our ball of money and just went home.

So what makes unions different? My computer's dictionary describes a union as "the action or fact of joining together or being joined together, especially in a political context." In in other words it's a collection of working folks' voices come together to speak united. If their process for endorsement is in fact fair and democratic, it's something i'd accept... even if most of the members decided the best way to go was the establishment route.

Steve and Jeff both have good labor records, and therefore unions should be neutral in this primary. Unless, a candidate is immensely better that another on workers issues, a union endorsement is a violation of workers trust. I was appalled when SEIU and AFSCME endorsed Howard Dean. Dean's labor record was weaker than most of the other candidates, and AFSMCE in particular seemed to have no endorsement process other than their national pres., Gerald MacIntee, jumping on Dean's bandwagon. Both union squandered millions on a loser. Gephardt at least deserved the support of the unions who endorsed him, although Kucinich probably deserved them as much.