But not too busy to enmass tear into a post on a newbie blog that wasn't even about Novick... A newbie blog that can't possibly be getting more than a small fraction of the traffic that Blue Oregon gets, by the way.

Apparently that's how "a real campaign" is run?

Kevin,

The attention that Lefty Lane got was due, in part, to the pattern of new local blogs that happen to be strongly pro-Merkley to get highlighted on BlueOregon.

First there was Beaver Boundary, then Oregon Liberal, and now Lefty Lane.

All BlueO announcements happened very shortly after the blogs' inceptions. In Beaver Boundary's case, it was on the second day. In Oregon Liberal's case, it was at the end of the month (this September) it launched, and in Lefty Lane's case, it was about a week after launch.

New blogs get launched all the time, but only rarely do they warrant posts at BlueOregon.

All BlueO announcements happened very shortly after the blogs' inceptions

FYI, when Loaded Orygun started--Blue Oregon noticed us right away. And they generously linked to us and drew attention to us.

One of the things the founders here have consistently done is draw attention to new Oregon blogs. It's hardly shocking that during a campaign cycle that includes US President, US Senator and a host of other races and issues, that new blogs would start up.

It's hardly the great conspiracy some would like it to be.

If you want to be linked here--I've found the best way is to write good stuff. And it doesn't hurt to drop one of the founders a note and show it to them, either. They're pretty good about linking.

That was my experience when I wrote at Loaded Orygun, anyway.

Incidentally, I hope everyone turns in to see Jeff Merkley on Outlook Portland. Or if you don't like to get up at dawn on Sunday morning--fire up your Ti-Vo.

(Carla--Netroots Organizer for the Jeff Merkley for Oregon campaign)

I hope everyone turns in to see Jeff Merkley on Outlook Portland

Or you could just tune in, which might be more effective.

So what you're saying, Colin, is that a preemptive strike by the Novick Blog Team on a newbie blog, and on a post which wasn't even about Novick, was warranted because of Team Novick's perception that it was unduly highlighted here at Blue Oregon because it's author is perceived as being strongly pro-Merkley?

Is that how "a real campaign" is run? By attempting to intimidate a new blogger.

Perhaps most telling was the comment by Liz, Steve Novick's new Online Director, who said, in part:

Then why bother writing this blog? Why devote energy to it at all? Other people in the online community have already voiced your feelings that have given you an "aching stomach".

WTF???

Kevin,

1) I'm not speaking for anyone but myself, and I'm not going to attempt to "explain" or defend anyone else's comments but my own. (I don't, by the way, work for the campaign. If you have questions as to how a "real campaign" operates, I suggest you direct them to someone who operates a campaign.) My comments, by the way, were relevant to the thread in which they were made.

I don't see the response to the post to being anything close to what you're referring to as a "preemptive strike." Most commenters seemed to be in agreement that Eastern Oregon is important to winning the race against Gordon Smith.

2) Sarah Lane isn't a "newbie" or a "new blogger." She's been writing stuff over at Kos for some time now. (First stuff seems to have been in August 2005. It's mostly pro John Edwards (which I like), and recently a good dose of pro-Merkley stuff as well.

3) My point was not about Sarah Lane's blog at all, but about a pattern here on BlueO. There does seem to be a pattern (3 blogs in 3 months) of pro-Merkley blogs getting highlighted right "out of the gate." Someone at BlueOregon made the post highlighting the blog, not me.

Kevin says:

So what you're saying, Colin, is that a preemptive strike by the Novick Blog Team on a newbie blog, and on a post which wasn't even about Novick, was warranted because of Team Novick's perception that it was unduly highlighted here at Blue Oregon because it's author is perceived as being strongly pro-Merkley?

Colin can speak and has spoken for himself. But I have my own point of view, which is a little bit different. Since neither Colin nor I are employed by the Novick campaign, we are expressing our own views.

As I commented over there, it didn't have to mention Steve to be germane to a recurring campaign theme. For those with short memories, the theme is: Merkley and his supporters and surrogates constantly characterizing political criticism as "smears" (or in leftylane's case "slime").

That characterization of the criticisms involved (HR2 vote, level of activity in Eastern Oregon) is NOT legitimate and its persistence among the Merkley contingent is very disturbing, because it suggests a fragility / brittleness that would be fatal in a general election.

Colin,

I will readily, happily agree that your single comment over there was not only germane but was not an attack by anyone's definition.

Thus far you are the only one here addressing whether Sarah herself is new to blogs or not. I certainly didn't. Although since you have I will point out that, by your own accounting, she's never been a blogger. A diarist is to bloggers what the writer of a Letter To The Editor or even a guest columnist is to newspaper staff writers. That both get printed on the same piece of paper doesn't make them of equal stature or status.

The irony here is that the enmass critical commenting over at Lefty Lane by Novick supporters/staffers has produced even more publicity for her blog (which you characterize as "strongly pro-Merkley) and arguably bumps her blog into a stronger position to advocate for Merkley.

I guess I'm not sure why it matters whether Sarah is new to blogs or not.

Stephanie,

Would you be so kind as to define for everyone exactly what is "legitimate" for anyone who doesn't already support Novick to believe?

I'm just wondering if "NOT legitimate" is defined as anything which doesn't politically benefit Steve Novick. In which case I can guess what you would consider to be legitimate" for the rest of us to believe.

Thanks!

Kevin,

You used the term "newbie blog" in both of your previous comments on this thread, and the term "new blogger" in your second. So, I don't agree that I'm, "the only one here addressing whether Sarah herself is new to blogs or not."

Our perspectives might be different because I see regular Kos "diary-ing" as the equivalent of blogging. Considering that Kos grants diarists a "username.dailykos.com" address, I consider that a corollary to anything that's "username.blogspot.com" or "username.wordpress.com" etc... Maybe it's a mostly semantic argument. Considering that "blog" comes from "web log," I would consider an "online diary" to be a type of "blog."

Kevin, I won't presume to tell you or anyone what it's "legitimate" to believe. But I do have a point of view as to what forms of dialogue are appropriate in an election campaign (primary or general).

It is legitimate to make fact- or opinion-based criticisms of a vote or other element of the legislative record of a legislator. Others reserve the right to disagree. Such criticism is not a "smear."

EXAMPLE: "Jeff Merkley was wrong to vote for HR2 because x, y, and z."

It is also legitimate to make fact-based criticisms of a candidate's campaign activities. Others reserve the right to disagree. Such criticism is not a "smear."

EXAMPLE: "Jeff Merkley hasn't been to Eastern Oregon." (If this is accurate, it's a fair criticism. If it's not accurate, it's a lie, which is never legitimate, but it's still not a "smear," and this genre of criticism is generally legitimate.)

It is legitimate to make fact- or opinion-based criticisms of a candidate's qualifications or record of accomplishment. Others reserve the right to disagree.

EXAMPLE: "Steve Novick has never held elective office, and Jeff Merkley has, so Jeff Merkley is better qualified to be a Senator."

It is not legitimate to start whimpering and whining (or worse yet, send out your surrogates and supporters to whimper and whine on your behalf) when you are the target of legitimate criticism.

Actual smearing is never legitimate.

What IS a smear? Here are some samples:

"John McCain has a black daughter from an extramarital affair." "John Kerry was a coward in Viet Nam, not a hero." "Max Cleland was probably drunk when he fell on that grenade."

What's not a smear? It is not a smear to anticipate and point out campaign problems and issues that will likely come up in a general election.

EXAMPLE: "Steve Novick is short and has a hook and the Republicans will mock him." EXAMPLE: "The Republicans are already calling Jeff Merkley 'Gomer.'" EXAMPLE: "If John Edwards gets nominated, the Republicans will dwell constantly on the $400 haircut and the fact that he is a millionaire who lives in a 30,000 square foot house."

See where I'm going with this?

Oops, I meant to say "fact or opinion based" criticisms of campaign activities, too. sorry.

"The irony here is that the enmass critical commenting over at Lefty Lane by Novick supporters/staffers has produced even more publicity for her blog (which you characterize as "strongly pro-Merkley) and arguably bumps her blog into a stronger position to advocate for Merkley."

That's fine with me; the more the merrier--my personal issue with that particular post is along the same lines as Stephanie's: the persistence of a meme among folks who appear to be Merkley supporters (or who are outwardly so such as Greenlick and Nolan) that criticism of any kind about Mr. Merkley is a "smearing" or "sliming." It is having two effects, IMO: 1) it's reducing the meaning of those words to pure drivel, in what looks like a cover job to prevent a candidate from being criticized, and 2) it is preventing Merkley from being tested in a serious primary race--something that frankly BOTH candidates NEED. I wanted Merkley in this race, oxymoronically, despite the fact that I knew he'd be the favorite and would have the backing of the elites. I knew that Steve desperately needed the campaign experience to find the voice to go with that amazing brain (and happily, even now I see him finding it). I also knew that if Merkley were going to win, he would end up a better candidate against Smith having had to deal with someone who simply would not let him skate. Strengths leap out at you. Weaknesses you have to probe the flesh for a little, sorry to say. But voters need to know both.

I look forward to watching Fish. I thought he did a great job with Steve, asking hard questions that did not resort to "some say" Couricisms, but really presented opposing views in a way that Novick had to confront directly (or he chose to; he could have dodged and did not). I'll be looking for that same directness and specificity of purpose from Mr. Merkley.

Colin,

I feel much more inclined to engage you in large part because your one comment at Lefty Lane struck me as objective and reasonable, unlike those from the rest of the Loaded O Gang. Which is to say that I harbor some hope that engaging you won't result in the two of us simply talking past each other as it does with TJ, Stephanie, EBT, etc.

We can parse what being a dairist means or implies but it's a side issue to what I was saying. Unless the author of a newbie blog is some sort of celebrity (major or minor) then that blog starts out with virtually no influence because it starts out with next to no traffic.

Since Lefty Lane, even with the introduction by Blue Oregon, started out as a very small minnow in a very large and growing ocean it makes no strategic sense for the Loaded O Gang to expend the kind of effort that was expended trying to rebut a post there. Which leaves me with but one seemingly viable explanation for what motivated the enmass attack - that Sarah was meant to be intimidated by the possible repercussions of posting anything which might again place her tiny little newbie blog on the Loaded O Gang's pro-Novick radar screen in the future.

Stephanie,

The fundamental disconnect between claiming that you won't presume to tell me or anyone else what is legitimate to believe and then turning around and telling me and everyone else precisely what you consider to be legitimate for us to believe is obviously lost on you.

C'est la vie.

Kevin,

I'm not aware of any coordinated effort to "intimidate" the author of the blog in question, and I doubt that there is one. I would suspect that Sarah was likely the (unfortunate) recipient of redirected irritation at the management of this blog.

I'm glad that despite that we disagree on things like M50 and our preferences in the Senate race Primary, we can actually dialog. Ears shut as voices get louder...

Cheers!

Kevin, I'm not telling you what is legitimate to believe or not believe. I never mentioned the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, or even the Great Pumpkin. What I wrote was my first shot at trying to define my ideas about legitimate political debate. If you disagree with what I said, please tell me.

You suggested that I was interested only in limiting criticism of Novick. I hope that you can see that that's not my point. Everyone professes interest in a clean and fair primary campaign - I'm trying to figure out what that looks like.

Colin wrote... The attention that Lefty Lane got was due, in part, to the pattern of new local blogs that happen to be strongly pro-Merkley to get highlighted on BlueOregon. ...

New blogs get launched all the time, but only rarely do they warrant posts at BlueOregon.

Not true. We highlight new blogs all the time. That's a major strategic priority around here - helping develop the Oregon blogosphere.

Why are there so many pro-Merkley blogs popping up right now? Good question. I suspect it's partly because U.S. Senate campaigns are exciting. There seem to be quite a number of pro-Novick blogs, so it's not a surprise that a bunch of pro-Merkley people would take to the blogosphere to make their case, too.

One caveat to the above: We can't do a heads-up on BlueOregon if we don't know about a new blog. So, let us know, OK?

If you disagree with what I said, please tell me.

And run the risk of being accused of "whimpering and whining" if you deem my views illegitimate? Why would I want to?

There does seem to be a pattern (3 blogs in 3 months) of pro-Merkley blogs getting highlighted right "out of the gate."

p.s. If there are some new pro-Novick blogs starting up, let us know. We're happy to highlight. The more the merrier.

As for the "new blogger" silliness, the point is that Lefty Lane is a new blog. We highlighted Loaded O right away, even though Carla had been blogging a Preemptive Karma before.

Bottom line: We're going to celebrate anytime we can that new blogs pop up - especially if they're going to say something original or interesting, whatever it is.

And for the record, we noted Beaver Boundary before it had ever written a word about Jeff Merkley - on August 15. Not everything that happens here at BlueOregon is about the Merkley/Novick debate.

Let's try this one step at a time.

Kevin, do we agree that it is always legitimate to express approval or disapproval of a vote or other legislative act of a legislator?

I can't let this go unanswered.

And for the record, we noted Beaver Boundary before it had ever written a word about Jeff Merkley - on August 15.

Beaver Boundary may not have written a word about Merkley, but taoiseach had. The views of taoiseach had been expressed frequently on BlueO and were well known at the time Beaver Boundary launched. Beaver Boundary wasn't exactly a pig in a poke.

Having said that, I think it's perfectly OK for BlueO to trumpet the birth of new lefty blogs in Oregon. I applaud that. But certain patterns do manifest themselves to the observer.

I would suspect that Sarah was likely the (unfortunate) recipient of redirected irritation at the management of this blog.

Colin, that's a plausible explanation for what motivated most of them to initially go over there but not for Liz Kimmerly, Novick's new Online Director, who I'm told has only recently moved to Oregon.

Liz derisively challenged Sarah's raison d'etre for the blog itself. That's an unambiguous attempt at intimidation in my book. Underneath the words was an open contempt for Sarah's point of view or at the every least for the level of importance it has to Sarah.

And THAT echoes the expressed sentiments of both Stephanie and TJ, here, there and elsewhere, towards anyone who holds what they consider an illegitimate view... but strangely enough, only if that view can be construed as potentially unhelpful to Novick's campaign. Otherwise they both seem much more tactful in disagreeing with others.

I tip my cyber-hat to you. You've behaved honorably and are, IMHO, a credit to the Novick cause. As for the others... somewhat less so.

Kevin, despite your reflexive dismissals, I am looking for an area of agreement between us here.

Do we agree that it is always legitimate to express approval or disapproval of a vote or other legislative act of a legislator?

Or are you saying that nobody has any right to say what is or isn't legitimate or appropriate behavior in the course of advocating for or against a candidate? Based on everything you've said here in the last few comments, that doesn't sound like you.

So which is it? or is it some third point of view?

LT, I'm not trying to make a point right now; I'm trying to engage with Kevin. Thank you.

And I'm not saying that Mitch and Mary had no right to post an opinion piece here, simply that the content of their post was inappropriate. I still think so, and the couple of undecided friends I showed it to were aghast.

As for this...

Or, they might look at the quote about fragility/ brittleness and remember some old proverbs: * takes one to know one * pot calling the kettle black * people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

... I have no idea what you are getting at. I'm not a candidate for office, after all.

Beaver Boundary may not have written a word about Merkley, but taoiseach had. The views of taoiseach had been expressed frequently on BlueO and were well known at the time Beaver Boundary launched. Beaver Boundary wasn't exactly a pig in a poke.

We're getting into angels-on-a-pinhead territory, but I thought I'd actually share the numbers here.

It wasn't my recollection that taoiseach was "well-known" as a BlueOregon commenter here when Beaver Boundary launched.

Here's the tale of the tape: There was one comment from taoiseach in March, one in April, and then nothing until 21 comments from July 11 to July 31. Then, nothing again until late August, after BB launched.

So, there were 23 comments from taoiseach prior to the launch of BB. Contrast that to you, Stephanie V, with 212 comments (and possibly more; I seem to recall another variation of your name now and then) during the same time period.

Whatever. Again, angels dancing on the head of a pin.

But certain patterns do manifest themselves to the observer.

And I can see circus animals in the clouds, doesn't mean that they're there.

I'll just say this one more time, and then drop it. Not everything in this state or its politics revolves around Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick (contrary to what supporters of both campaigns might wish.)

Beyond that, if someone can point me to an Oregon lefty blog that's recently launched, we'll gladly promote 'em (regardless of their views on any one particular campaign.)

That's a major part of the strategy around here. More blogs, more voices, more activism, more opportunities to change the world.

Smart campaigns will encourage their supporters to speak up - through LTEs, house parties, canvassing, and writing blogs. That ain't rocket science. If one campaign is better at it than another, that ain't a conspiracy - that's politics.

Stephanie, rather than spend all your time reacting to what other people write here -- why not start your own blog, and drive an agenda of your own? We'll gladly encourage our audience to visit.

p.s. And yes, you can do it semi-anonymously. Heck, there are all kinds of Oregon lefty blogs that are anonymous or pseudonymous. (Heck, some of the ones that you might think aren't anonymous really are -- try Googling some of the names sometime.)

I'm trying to engage with Kevin.

Again, why would I want to? Particularly when your own comments could just as easily be characterized as "whimpering and whining" and suggesting a fragility / brittleness on the part of pro-Novick forces?

An excellent example:

EXAMPLE: "Jeff Merkley hasn't been to Eastern Oregon." (If this is accurate, it's a fair criticism. If it's not accurate, it's a lie, which is never legitimate, but it's still not a "smear," and this genre of criticism is generally legitimate.)

Merriam-Webster defines this usage of the word smear as:

"a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization —often used attributively "