The DSCC has every right to provide a candidate with contacts, and as long as Merkley and his campaign staff are the ones making decisions on what to do in the campaign, there is nothing to worry about.

I would be surprised if the Novick campaign would turn down similar assistance from the DSCC (or another outside organization) if it were offered.

As long as Merkley's able to run his campaign his way, I'm happy that he has this additional support. It will only help him once we get to the general election.

It's a shame the "neutral voice of BlueOregon" didn't pick up on this story before one of Merkley's Mandate Machine put his spin on it in the post above.

When i first heard about Chuck Schumer trying to pick our candidate for us, i had this to say: “A true grass roots candidate needs to be organic and locally grown, without any Washington DC Miracle-Gro.”

My opinion hasn’t changed. What do we need with that fake blue stuff? Oregonians are true blue!

How is the DSCC any different from Emily's List or the ACLU? It is a national organization that has a goal and if it wants to support a candidate it has every right to. Should they be open about it? Sure. The idea that Schumer is picking the candidate is insulting to Oregon's voters and suggests that they'll merely vote for the candidate with the most money. Seems like a weird thing for supporters of a grassroots campaign to think.

That’s about all DSCC spokesman Matt Miller will admit to. He refuses to confirm to Oregon reporters that Schumer recruited Merkley to run and that the DSCC is helping Merkley to defeat his Democratic rival, Portland activist and former federal lawyer Steve Novick.

Why can't Schumer and Merkley be open and honest about their relationship, if any? This just suggests that Schumer is working a modern version of the old deal making in smoke-filled rooms where the attitude is that the oligarchs will decide for the people what is good for the party, if not necessarily the people. This smells, and I don't mean of smoke, so I'm more convinced that if Oregonians want someone to represent them and not the party leaders in Washington, DC Steve Novick has to be the unquestioned choice.

I hope you're not goin' fishin', Jeff. Because this can of worms has been well picked.

But ...

Steves'--and I assume the Novick campaign's--speculation is that the DSCC is trying to "swing the nomination." But is that actually true?

Actively (albeit) covertly supporting one candidate over another is the very definition of trying to "swing" the outcome isn't it.

Are they supporting Merkley for the primary or are they betting on Merkley as the horse who can nip Smith at the end of a long race next November?

Unless I'm mistaken, you're implying that the two are mutually exclusive? I think they're cause and affect.

charlie could you please pick a different screen name so as not to confuse yourself with Charlie Burr, a Novick support. ;-)

The insult to Oregon voters is that Chuck Schumer would try to intervene in the Oregon primary. I would like to know what Schumer and Merkley talked about in DC to persuade one other "he's the man"?

Pat,

They may be cause and effect, but the intention of the DSCC shows a lot. If they are betting on Merkeley for the long haul, giving him some support now is fine. (If Novick bests him in the primary, then they will surely switch horses in mid-stream.)

If, however, they are sticking their noses into a local primary, that is something different altogether.

For my money, I always want the underdog to win. I like Novick's politics and his presence much more. But when I'm betting, I know to bet with the owners of the track.

It's a shame the bigwigs in the Democratic party can keep holding the progressives down, and keep our party "republican-lite."

The reason this is an issue at all is because under-funded campaigns like Novick's are left with a pretty damn narrow script from which to operate. Before this primary is done, Novick will also attack Merkley for raising money that will allegedly make him beholden to "big, powerful interests" and for failing to debate him some magical number of debates (x = number of actual debates + 5). It's not like Novick can credibly say that Merkley is a Gordon Smith conservative. They are both outstanding progressives, and anybody who claims otherwise is pretty full of it. This leaves him with the underdog's script which, while more fun to spout, traditionally loses (see Hill, DeFazio, Sorensen, Hackett, . . . )

The DSCC's involvement is no more or less nefarious than the involvement of the Senate or House Democratic Caucuses in making recruiting and resource decisions in order to maximize limited resources.

The only legitimate thing to argue about, if there is anything to question, is whether the DSCC got the decision right. They obviously believe that Novick has no chance of winning, so that makes their decision a rather easy one. Time will tell if they got that one right, but if Novick can't beat Merkley, he sure as hell can't beat Smith. If he beats Merkley, Oregon progressives will likely storm the DSCC and demand resources for the nominee.

As for the DSCC not owning up to its involvement, why should they help Novick's campaign? Steves is right, of course about the DSCC's role, but I can think of a lot of stories that were obvious to a lot of us where the MSM snooped around but failed to get folks to own up. That's life in the big leagues. Steve's will get his story when the FEC reports come out.

Until then, I'll be occupied yawning about the DSCC, who has more money, how many times they debate, etc.

Some comments: At least this is getting more publicity than 1996 when too many in politics and media were saying "and in Oregon the candidate is Bruggere" but no one would admit the DSCC role.

Schumer has been quite open about interfering in the 2006 election, but I think this is different. For one thing, Novick's friends screamed bloody murder--as well they should have.

But by the same token, I'm not going to support Steve simply because he is not the DSCC candidate. I am not involved in any US Senate campaign, partly out of a sense of "been there done that" in the 1990s. If I think Steve did something intelligent one week and Jeff another week, so be it--it is still 2007!

We need to have a lot more discussion about the difference between caucus groups wanting to pick their own members (what DSCC is doing) vs. interest groups like Emily's List or NARAL, vs. the actual party (DNC chair is voted in by DNC members who are voted in by state central comm. delegates who are chosen by their county parties).

Fight those who talk about "the Democrats" as some sort of single celled organism, or there may be people who saw the recent John Frohnmayer Oregonian guest opinion who say "to heck with all this partisan stuff, I'm going with that guy outside the party structure who makes sense".

Many good points, Caelen,

But technically, Merkely isn't running against Smith, yet. He's running against Novick (and Neville?).

So if the DSCC is supporting Merkley now (albeit covertly), they are definitely "sticking their noses into a local primary."

How one may feel about that "help" is a matter of personal taste (or gag reflex), as the case may be.

But when I'm betting, I know to bet with the owners of the track.

I wouldn't bet with the owner of the track if the the only time the owner of the track seems to be able to win is when the other horse's jockey shoots his ride in the foot before the race even starts.

That's not competence. Is being a little less repulsive than the other choices. And that seems to be what a lot of democrats in Washington are specializing ion these days.

Does anyone contend that some aspect of Merkley is "fake blue" or "Republican-lite?"

I do believe that calling the DSCC "the Democrats back in Washington" is a fair characterization, though.

Let's remember that this is the same Chuck Schumer who begged, pleaded, and cajoled Paul Hackett into declaring for the Senate in Ohio and then treated him like dog doo on his loafers as soon as S."Hamlet" Brown realized that the campaign might not be as hard as he thought.

With friends like that, Mr. Merkley might want to go out and buy a kevlar backpack.

For full disclosure, I've sent money to both candidates, but it's all going to Novick until the primary is over.

Do the same people who celebrate Howard Dean's "50 state strategy," which includes identifying, recruiting, and supporting viable Democratic candidates nationwide object to the DSCC doing the same thing?

Although it's called the "50 state" strategy, the plan actually involves identifying, recruiting and supporting viable Democratic candidates in traditionally Republican strongholds -- not nationwide, as paul g. asserts.

This plan was about trying to create support where there usually is little-to-no interest or candidates.

Oregon, with it's Democratically controlled house and senate -- and ONE statewide elected official, who is seen as vulnerable -- is by no means a traditional Republican stronghold that is regularly written off.

That's a pretty long stretch and a paper thin case if that's the justification for the DSCC's early involvement.

Bill, in Steves' (sic) piece, and iterated in mine, the Merkley camp IS open and honest. Careful who you tar.

Jeff: I appear to have missed Steve's piece since I was away from Blue Oregon much of September. My point, or "tar" as you put it, was based on the latest version quoted in your opening piece: "That’s about all DSCC spokesman Matt Miller will admit to. He refuses to confirm to Oregon reporters that Schumer recruited Merkley to run and that the DSCC is helping Merkley to defeat his Democratic rival, Portland activist and former federal lawyer Steve Novick."

Do the same people who celebrate Howard Dean's "50 state strategy," which includes identifying, recruiting, and supporting viable Democratic candidates nationwide object to the DSCC doing the same thing?

Howard Dean and Chuck Schumer are two different people with different, shall we be kind? and say, "philosophies." People who have been observing both might not be as alarmed with Merkley having a meeting with Dean, but they would have an understandable concern about a meeting with Schumer who also appears to have thought it politically expedient to vote for war on Iraq - something Dean was opposed to.

I see the 50 state strategy as helping candidates run in the general.

I don't see getting involved in a contested primary where there is more than one viable candidate as part of the 50 state strategy.

Really? With presidential debates occuring over a year before the election? The DSCC, and any serious political organization, would be crazy to wait until primaries to become involved. Unless, of course, they are a small political organization and don't have the resources to begin early campaigns (I say that because I volunteer with the Bus frequently and wish we had the resources to help earlier but don't. Yes, that's my way of asking everyone to become a monthly member!).

In terms of the DSCC putting their hands in the pot, I say all politics is local, especially in today's blogosphere. We've heard for months of the DSCC's involvement; this is nothing new. And if we choose to care about their involvement, then Merckley with have to deal with that. It's just another factor people judge in making their decisions. I mean, how many people are going to vote Yes on 50 partially because of where the No on 50 money is coming from? That's exactly my point.

Bill: It's David Steves, so the possessive is Steves'.

Thanks for the correction. Your point.

lestatdelc, are you saying DSCC and DCCC are responsible to the DNC as "part of the party"?

Or are they just a group of elected officials who don't really care about activists who might actually KNOW the candidates since before the caucus knew they even existed?

I suspect caucus power at any level is defacto, not de jure.

I seen Dean as saying "show up everywhere, contest everything" and caucuses saying resources are finite and only caucus people know which races are important and which aren't.

Caucuses don't come into the state or district and actually do the hard work, they just send money and expect the loyal footsoldiers to go out and do the volunteering as they are instructed to do. That doesn't sound like 21st century party, that sounds like early 20th century political machine.

I will wait until 2008 and decide which candidate is making more sense. But I don't see this as 1996 when there were 3 candidates actually able to discuss issues in detail (2 had been officeholders, one a previous nominee for the position) while the DSCC choice often seemed not to have a clue.

Whatever one thinks of Jeff or Steve, they both have many good ideas.

If Steve Novick could get the DSCC's support, he would. I've always assumed that he tried to get their support and failed.*

From LO:

We've said all along that Steve may have to run against the DSCC's chosen candidate, so we already know that it may be a fight waged at the ultimate retail level if that's the case. But it's certainly going to be easier if Steve IS the chosen candidate of the party elites, and so it's vitally important that he show the ability to raise money.

The DSCC plays to win. Nothing else matters. If they recruited a candidate after Steve Novick was in the race, then the answer is obvious: They didn't think he could win.

(* If he didn't work hard to get the DSCC support, he's a dumb guy. He's not a dumb guy, so he must have tried at least.)

As I've watched the verbal tennis match that this primary has become on Blue Oregon, I'm left with (at least) one unanswered question. In all the accusations of illicit DSCC support, out-of-state meddling, etc. to help Merkley, I've never seen any suggestion that any group has actually refused to help Novick. As I understand it, he just hasn't asked the DSCC, or Jon Tester, or anyone, for outside help. Could someone from the Novick campaign confirm that this is accurate?

The reason I bring this up is because I think it puts things in a different light. If Novick has asked various Democratic Party organs for assistance and been turned down, that's one thing. But if he hasn't asked, that's another. From all I understand about Merkley's campaign, the DSCC came to him, and he accepted their offer of help. Obviously, it would sell better in Oregon if the DSCC had offered to help both candidates, but let me ask a question of people who have campaign experience: If someone with a lot of money came to you and said "Hey, I really like you, and I support what you're doing and I want to help you with this big check," would you turn them down because they weren't helping your opponent too?

I mean, seriously. Merkley's not just running against Steve Novick right now. Both Merkley and Novick are gearing up to fight a long battle with Gordon Smith. If I were with either of those campaigns, I'd take all the help I could get.

I'd like to know what the party Bylaws have to say about policy making. Why has Howard Dean advocated this role to those currently in office? Don't they have to stick with the platform, and why not? And most importantly...why don't our party delegates get to select the leadership, i.e. Pelosi and Reid?

We need more and better Dems. Schumer should stay the hell out of our state for a bit longer. I'm not impressed with what he is accomplishing right now....where are the subpoenas? why aren't they forcing them to give up the documents? These inside DC Dems are not impressing me. I have draft age sons. FIGHT AND GIVE ME MY RED MEAT SCHUMER OR GET OUTTA MY YARD.

Frohnmayer probably has the best appeal outside of Portland of all the candidates. And he has a fire in his belly to get the Constitution back.

Jeff Alworth: Merkley's spokesman acknowledges the DSCC's support. Did you read the post?

With emails like below, it would be difficult for Mr. Merkley to deny his relationship with Chuck Schumer et. al... Merkley talks about "change." I think "same old, same old..."

From: "Sen. Chuck Schumer" [email protected] Subject: Mark, Mark, Jeff and Tom Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007

Dear Thom,

I've been traveling the country since January on a single-minded quest: to recruit Democratic leaders who've got the smarts and fortitude to win Senate races in 2008. And let me tell you, we've got 'em.

Former Gov. Mark Warner in Virginia. State House Speaker Jeff Merkley in Oregon. Rep. Mark Udall in Colorado. Rep. Tom Allen in Maine. These are first-class candidates.

lestatdelc makes the common mistake of identifying the presence of Democrats in an organization with it being a Party organization, DSCC is not DNC, it is not a part of DNC, in fact it doesn't much like DNC. DSCC see's Dean's 50 State Strategy as a waste of money and resources, typical immediate gratification motivation. As for blue Oregon not being a part of the 50 State Strategy, DPO has field staff funded by DNC as a part of that strategy, valuable staff.

DNC is resolutely neutral in Primaries and so is DPO and most DPO County Parties. Baker County Democrats are neutral, I am County Vice-chair and SCC delegate and an event organizer so it behooves me at this point to be neutral, that and I like both candidates at this point. I am not precluded from campaigning for one, but I currently have local projects that make it unwise and I am definitely precluded from involving the County organization directly or indirectly in partisanship.

The DSCC is described by its name and its function as a PAC is derived from its name, its interests are narrow and of benefit to itself, which may or may not coincide with the interests of Oregonians - and particularly Oregonian Democrats.

It is very nearly silliness to confuse the Democratic Party with some monlithic organization, especially so the active Party, whether DPO or DNC, these organizations operate through the efforts of activists, people who care enough to go to meetings, raise money, phone, walk, etc, which scarcely defines the general Democratic voter.

The Platform is composed by activists within the activist membership, then modified and ratified by the organization. It is the "understanding" of the Party as conceived by activists and unenforcable on candidates. Candidates who are Democrats by the methodology of placing a "D" after their name in their filing. The Party, of course, has a choice of whether or not to put money and work into a campaign by a "D." It may be useful for candidates to be able to hold up the Platform or Resolutions and say, "Yes we Democrats stand for ***," but they certainly can also ignore it. Resolution 08-05 in support of the 2nd Amendment had candidates who were very happy to hold it up, and a few who opposed it vehemently (SAL). It is a candidate's choice to support or oppose and the Democratic Party has no need to ape Republicans' policy in that direction, and certainly would be ill served to do so. Orthodoxy is for small minds and its enforcement leads to the current straits of the "Rs". Orthodoxy kills innovation and I'd sooner not be a member of a Party Of the Dead Past (GOP).

I don't get it.

You can say that again, Kari. Oregon will appreciate the help of the DSCC after we pick out own candidate. It's their meddling beforehand that some don't care for. You and the rest of Merkley's machine obviously welcome DC's involvement. I guess you gotta dance with the fella what brung ya, eh? Our fear is that Mr. Merkley will be dancing to Chuck Schumer's tune.

[This is where you come back and protest how independent your guy is and we agree to disagree...]

We need their help defeating Gordon Smith

Exactly, Kari, but we don't need their help choosing the candidate who will do that.

DSCC that took back the U.S. Senate in 2006.

let's give credit where credit is due. The Republican actions and overreaching were more Responsible for the 2006 swing than anything else. Remember all the attempts to link local Republicans to Bush and the national party?

working closely with people like Kate Brown and Cliff Trow to help turn the Senate around

TJ will you please stop insinuating this? A Chief of Staff does not run campaigns, and you've been clearly refuted on this on daily kos and lo.

Okay, try this thought experiment. I'm a Republican (and former Libertarian). Suppose I were to back and vigorously campaign for my friend Steve Novick. Would that be unfair, or bad, or wrong? Would the Merkley camp try to paint my support as illegitimate "interference" in a Democratic Party primary?

Maybe not - at least I'm an Oregonian, someone who will be voting in the general election and will be represented in the Senate by the winner.

Then take it one step further. Suppose an out-of-state Republican group were attempting to influence the Novick/Merkley race. Clearly one or both sides would howl with outrage - at least one of them unfeigned.

So what is it about the DSCC that makes it okay for them to meddle in Oregon affairs when others cannot? Apparently, it's (a) that they would benefit from one out come more than another, and (b) they are Democrats so the rules should be bent for them. (An out-of-state Republican group could claim reason (a) above, couldn't they?)

My own inclination is that the DSCC would be better served if they, like the Oregon State Democratic Party, remained officially and practically neutral in the primary. Not because it's evil for them to interfere, but because it shows a profound disrespect to Oregon voters.

-Tom

PS: Yes, I do prefer Novick over Merkley. I've worked with him, and I respect him. Novick has a will of iron and a spine of steel. We could do a lot worse.

"But the DSCC is not part of the party..."

that may be technically (or legally) true , but come on now...

the dscc is the fundraising branch of the national party for the senate. they are not a PAC, they are not a 527; they are a party committee. they my not be "the party", but they are officially affiliated with the party, call them up yourself and ask.

while you're at it, ask if they get involved in primaries. they will tell you that they don't. of course anyone observing the race in oregon knows that stating they are not "involved in the primary" is about as honest as stating they are not "part of the party". whatever legal truth exists therein, is eclipsed by the obvious practical effects of their actions.

"disclaimer": i donated my oregon tax break to steve novick the first week he declared, since then i have not donated any money to either candidate.

What's missing in this discussion is exactly what it means when out of state interests override grassroot political processes. Sadly, national Democrats have their own hidden agenda, includng "an assault on their grassroots-supported opponents who [run] on platforms that included a full withdrawal of US forces from Iraq."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/090607J.shtml

Merkley must have bought into their agenda, else the DSCC would not be supporting him. Unfortunately, we'll find out his true positions only AFTER he's been elected. Whatever he says during the campaign is only a sales pitch for purposes of getting elected.

I remember a poster on the blog once said something like, "Democrats are good, it's the office holders that are bad." Now we know why.

my position on this is that i think it is fine for the DSCC to involve themselves at whatever level they want to, and for which ever candidate they choose to support to accept that help - BUT ~

said candidate, in this case merkley, needs to understand that taking that help doesn't come without a price. that price being the potential to lose the support (& VOTES!) of those democrats so disaffected with the national party that they see DSCC support as big black mark in the negative column. it may be ill-advised for any voter to base their entire decision on that criteria, but that it WILL have some negative effect in some voter's minds is something that jeff merkley needs to accept and deal with.

as steve novick would were their positions reversed. there's cost and benefit to being in both positions.

Many good points, Steven.

That means making judgments on the electability of the people asking for their support.

When it comes to deciding electability in Oregon, isn't the judgment of Oregon voters more important than that of a group led by a senator from New York who live in Washington, D.C.?

That group hasn't really lit the ground on fire with its imagination and creativity in out-communicating or beating back the Republican schtick, even with a majority.

They only have limited resources. It's their job to apply them in the most effective manner.

Well, they could save themselves some money for the run against The Gord by not spending it early to influence local primary decisions. No?

i want to follow up my above post with the note that one way merkley could potentially deal with the situation is by fully and honestly disclosing any deals that have been made, or not made, in exchange for DSCC support.

I just love how Kari and others conveniently ignore the fact that John Frohnmayer is running and is perhaps the most highly exerienced and credible candidate of all. Why are you ignoring his effect on how this race will go? All of this conventional wisdom, fueled by the DC Dems, fails to account for this. You've got to beat both Smith and Frohnmayer.

Thanks for the info Kari. Any possibility that a wingnut will challenge Smith?

Kari, one more question if it isn't too untoward. I've fished around Merkley's website and don't see what, if any, religion he is. Just curious.

The Oregon netroots all desperately wanted them to convince some current or former statewide leader to get in the race. And you know what? The DSCC did exactly that. And now some folks want them to go away.

Granted, you're the editor of "the biggest blog in Oregon," Kari, but you really don't speak for "all" netrooted blue Oregonians. Mayby some of the folks who wish the DC Dems would wait before they meddle don't belong to the desperate masses you mention above.

(Or is there some other angle to your straw man?)

And why not Candy Neville, Roger Obrist, or Pavel Goberman? They've all filed, too.

Are you saying that Steve Novick hasn't earned the right to share the same stage with Mr. Merkley? Is that why Merkley is avoiding debates? (Oh, i forgot... there's that "joint appearance" coming right up.)

I know it can be hard for some people to believe this, but we don't actually count dollars to see who wins our elections. We count votes.

oh how disingenous can you be? to suggest that votes obtained does not in any way correlate with the amount of money collected and spent.

...we don't actually count dollars to see who wins our elections. We count votes.

I remain unconvinced, Steven, as to the veracity of that scurrilous allegation.

But seriously, money plays an even more exaggerated role in a primary season where so much "electabilty" cred is based on dollars raised.

Also, I think the support reaches further than simple cash monies.

i'll be voting for Steve in May, but i'll gladly vote for either in November. i love the choice of Dems we have here.

Second!

mitch, of course there is not the linear correlation that you imply needs to exist for one to exist at all.

but if money didn't have an effect, why would candidates work so hard to raise it? and why would people donate?

seriously, have you given any money to any candidates in any race? do you plan to?

it's just absurd to suggest that money has nothing to do with the voting process.

mitch, nowhere in my posts anywhere did i state that there is a linear correlation between money & votes. i just said "correlation of any kind". if you inferred something from that, that's on you, not me.

it's like advertising money. one company may spend less on advertising their product than another and manage to sell more of the product for whatever reason, but generally and overall, spending money on advertising helps sales, and that's why companies do it.

I find the comments section all very fascinating, especially the contention that the DSCC will and should remain neutral in all of this. Since your primary is somewhat late in the calendar year, they want to ensure that their pick has the resources ahead of time to defeat Smith. That plan is all well and good, but it has the effect of burning out the activist base, which the DSCC doesn't really concern itself with anyway.

I'm just a neighbor to the north, but I know very well what happens when the caucus campaign committee decides to push their candidate in a primary. The party activists are told "remain neutral!" while the campaign committee goes about their business of making sure that lobbyist dollars are directed to their candidate.

What happened in our case is the grassroots backed candidate did win the primary, but was frozen out of caucus campaign committee funding for the general. There was simply too much bad blood at that point. Also, since the campaign committee had lost, they had egg on their face, so they weren't about to support the grassroots candidate.

Again, I'm a neutral observer here, just telling you how this is going down.

Aneurin is spot on.

Thanks for that.

Stephanie V

several reasons: 1. people who are agnostic are not "allowed" to run for pres, even though "no religion" is Oregon's biggest segment, according to USA today. (more people in OR choose "no religion" than any particular one.) 2. the religious wackos may well draft and kill my sons, so it matters to me. Normally I would not give a damn about what their religion is, but bush and his people are nuts. 3. one normally sees this info on candidate bios, and i'm flabbergasted that kari does not even know the religion of his candidate.

Schumer - get offa my lawn until we pick our own candidate! Thanks, "white suburban sports-music mom, mad as hell and can't take it anymore."

Well played, Kari. So perfectly Rovian of you! Why "snark back" when you can simply avoid an issue by declaring victory and moving on.org? Then you can trot out your "stop beating my dead horse" defense, later.

For the record, when i ask "are you saying?" i am posing a question, not putting words in your mouth. An example of the latter tactic (as employed by you) was the time you boldly declared you weren't going to defend [my] "equal time" argument?. You even put the phrase "equal time" in quotes, as if quoting me. Yes as a parting cheap shot, you tried putting words in my mouth (just like when you accused me of using the N-word).

Back to the issue that you (and your man, Merkley) are avoiding... Why is the Speaker avoiding debates. Floor speaches and campaign stops (yes, even "joint appearances") won't enlighten us as to the substantive differences between the candidates. If you can't come up with any credible reason why the Speaker shouldn't debate Neville, Obrist, or Goberman (and, your god willing, some day the guy you call "Phoney Frohnie") then maybe Merkley shouldn't shrink away from them either. Your call...

Stephanie V you're right, it just worries me so

EBT: If it gets to be March 2008 and Steve has not been even in a joint appearance with Jeff because the Merkley campaign avoids even being in the same room with him, then I would worry.

But how many people really want to see a Senate debate before Thanksgiving 2007?

But how many people really want to see a Senate debate before Thanksgiving 2007?

Ok... so tabulating... That's a 'no' vote for LT, a 'no' vote for Jeff Merkley...

Speaking of polls, was that Mike Riley at the Sam Adams kickoff?

Thank you Jeff, I was going to post something like that myself.

According to Wikipedia, the first chair of DSCC was in 1976. However did all those great Democratic Senators of my youth get elected before 1976--could there be a better way of winning in the state where they live rather than centralized fundraising and campaigning?

Could it be that 3 decades later it is time to change the system? Not just DSCC but all caucuses should be required to show why they are the best/only way to elect members.

Does democracy mean insiders choosing the members of supposedly representative bodies? Bylaws of an organization list who is answerable to which part of an organization--an organizational chart can be drawn. As I recall, DNC chair Terry McAuliffe was very big on top-down campaigning. He knew all and Democrats in non-target areas would just have to live with that. As I recall, one radio host (Air America?) was so excited about Dean as DNC chair as to give a colorful version of "Terry, don't let the door hit you on the way out". Could it be Chuck and Rahm were so mad at DNC chair Dean because they liked the McAuliffe approach better than actually listening to rank and file Democrats in all 50 states?

I think DSCC and all other caucus organizations are a way for insiders to have things their way--whether rank and file voters like it or not.

That said, Sal ought to be watching this with great interest lest some of the arguments make people want to opt out of the primary system. We are supposed to like Steve because his friends like him and he has a strong left hook? We aren't supposed to like Jeff because the DSCC likes him? Any nice word about John Frohnmayer (complimenting his book or recent Oregonian guest opinion, for instance) is one step away from re-electing Gordon?

Those of you in the thick of this battle need to take a deep breath, take a step backwards, and see if that all sounds terribly shallow to you.

If someone thinks the war in Iraq has always been a mistake but it would be a worse mistake to leave Iraq the way we left Vietnam---and after all they have been through we shouldn't leave until the Kurds have military protection because they don't forget who their friends and enemies are--which one of the US Senate candidates should they vote for?

If someone would like to hear campaign finance reform talked about, or the possibility of impeaching Cheney while leaving Bush to finish out the term unless the Cheney hearings bring the kind of concrete evidence against Bush that folks in Republican states would think calls for impeachment, or if someone wants to hear concrete proposals on other issues rather than the sort of debate which goes on here among insiders, which candidate should they back?

Eyes on the prize, folks!

For the record, I still want to know what Merkeley's religion, if any, is.

Thanks Stephanie V. I just called the campaign and the nice fellow told me...I was about to post it.

OK Stephanie, what is Novick's religion?

LT, don't pick on Stephanie V, I'm the one who asked. Good question - what is Novick's? Thanks