That was great, Jeff.

It was a pleasure to hear you articulate your progressive positions and achievements, and for someone who's heard you speak 3-4 times, I still learned several things about your professional experiences that will inform your policies as our next Senator.

I believe that subprime lending is a lot like Jessica Rabbit...not bad, just drawn that way. There are companies, like Ocean Capital in Rhode Island, that make financing available for sole proprietor businesses that would not be able to secure financing in the traditional marketplace. We've all got to start somewhere and oftentimes a stated income loan is the only means to start one's business.

[Off-topic comment deleted. -editor.]

[Response to off-topic comment deleted. -editor]

Okay, I'll play devil's advocate. I watched Merkley's appearance on the show. While he didn't do anything wrong, I also didn't see much spark. Merkley only became animated when he spoke about how bad Gordon Smith is. Well, of course Smith is bad, but why can't he show some of that passion when talking about himself, his ideas, his reason for running for US Senator? (Presumably the defeat of Smith is only one of many reasons Merkley is running.)

I also found Merkley's answers to be very safe, very consultant-scripted. They're the exact answers that I would expect from a front-runner who is simply trying not to screw up. But I'm not sure that approach is going to beat Smith, who I think is in very good position to be reelected. To beat Smith, the Democratic candidate will need to build a passionate following, the way Dean did in '04. I'm still waiting for Merkley to show me that he can do that.

Did he say "reparations" in that first segment?

Miles, Kari was right.

Miles said: I also found Merkley's answers to be very safe, very consultant-scripted. They're the exact answers that I would expect from a front-runner who is simply trying not to screw up. But I'm not sure that approach is going to beat Smith, who I think is in very good position to be reelected. To beat Smith, the Democratic candidate will need to build a passionate following, the way Dean did in '04. I'm still waiting for Merkley to show me that he can do that.

Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 30, 2007 12:33:58 AM

I saw plenty of passion there, are you kidding? Just because he's not the kind of guy who screams all the time, doesn't mean he's not passionate. C'mon.

<<

The goal is to win over people who might not like a strident candidate, and if Jeff can do that, Jeff wins the primary and the election.

If Steve wins over people who are not already his fans in Oct.2007, Steve wins.

John Kitzhaber beat Gordon Smith in 1994, and Ron Wyden beat Gordon Smith in Jan. 1996 without being like Howard Dean.

Let's discuss issues, not whether a candidate demonstrates the kind of passion someone wants.

One thing I will say about Jeff's answer in the last segment.

When asked about Clinton's praise of Gordon Smith, his last sentence should have been "If elected, I will have an environmental record Oregonians will be proud of" instead of the line that Oregonian's won't be fooled again.

There was another opportunity at the end of the segment to make a similar positive statement instead of the double/triple barreled shotgun against Bush/Smith policies.

If a Democrat is elected in Nov. 2008, that means neither Smith nor Bush will be in office in 2009.

Our Senate candidates (no matter how angry they and activist Democrats are at Bush and Smith) should be saying "if elected I will..." more often than bashing W and Gordon.

If the election is close, deciding voters (either deciding to register to vote Dem. in the primary, or to cast a vote if registered Dem but not excited by the candidates) could be the ones who say "You know, I wasn't that excited about this election until I heard ----- say that if elected, they would----".

Though the question did come one minute before the break, I though that Merkley's health care answer was crap. A brief mention of Healthy Kids and that's about it (healthy kids is a stop gap measure...not a solution to the rising costs and subsequent number of uninsured; without health care reform costs will continue to skyrocket as will the number of uninsured). More of the problem, none of the solution...and poo on Nick Fish for not following up. I'm not voting for Smith or Novick, but Merkley has yet to earn my vote. Perhaps Merkley should read up on Wyden's proposal.

Kari--thanks for catching the mistake. Usually I proofread before hitting POST.

Look, I love Howard Dean. But who did he beat in '04?

The goal is to win over people who might not like a strident candidate. . . .Ron Wyden beat Gordon Smith in Jan. 1996 without being like Howard Dean.

My point above was mainly to point out that Smith will only be defeated if the Democratic nominee has passionate supporters, the type of people willing to canvass, make phone calls, hold up signs on overpasses, etc. The Democrat won't win, in my opinion, if he doesn't light a fire under people. I used Dean as an example above, but I think Obama supporters also have that passion for their candidate. And you're right that doesn't always mean victory on the national stage, but in an Oregon Senate race against a strong incumbent with a moderate image and a huge war chest, it's a necessity. This is a different race than Wyden/Smith in 1996.

Let's discuss issues, not whether a candidate demonstrates the kind of passion someone wants.

Since I don't see much distinction between Novick and Merkley on issues, I'm forced to look at things like passion, electability, etc. Are you aware of any substantive differences between Novick and Merkley on policy?

Perhaps the credit belongs to Blue Oregonian Jenni, but Steve's site has more detail on issues, and the issue segment of his site is better organized.

Maybe the best way to flesh out where they stand is to have them talk about what others are doing. Is there anything from tonite's MSNBC debate (or press coverage thereof) which either agrees/ disagrees with?

How about what Joe Biden has said on Iran, Sherrod Brown on the Consumer Product Safety Comm., the odd couple of Sens. Byron Dorgan and Trent Lott on FCC issues, Jim Webb on just about anything?

Here is an opportunity for either/both candidates to bring a too-often ignored issue out into the sunlight so it can be discussed openly. In response to the Walter Reed /VA scandal, Pres. Bush appointed the Dole - Shalala Wounded Warrior Comm. which reported in a relatively short amount of time. Some of those proposals need Congressional action. The Washington Post published an opinion by the chair of the Sen. Comm. who is impressed by some proposals and worried about others.

Which of our candidates will be the first to talk about this publicly (or will the issue continue to be ignored as it has been so often over the decades)?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201724.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Here is the headline and part of the opening.

Equitable Care for Veterans

By Daniel K. Akaka Saturday, November 3, 2007; Page A19

On the basis of its work over a relatively short period -- the members' first public meeting was in mid-April, and they issued their report in late July -- the commission recommended a restructuring of the Defense Department and VA disability systems. This recommendation has two key components that would fundamentally alter the manner in which the Pentagon and the VA administer those systems.

The first component -- merging the departments' existing systems -- has strong appeal. If enough obstacles can be overcome, it is possible that, for some subset of those leaving the military, it may prove feasible to have the two systems function collaboratively, with one physical exam and one disability rating for those who leave the service for medical reasons .

The second component, that the VA's compensation system should be fundamentally restructured, is far more problematic. The legislation that the White House drafted to carry out this recommendation would have Congress cede responsibility for the proposed retooling of the VA's compensation system to the secretary of veterans affairs, and it would require the secretary to accomplish this monumental task in just a few months.

<hr/>