Not totally surprising as Kitzhaber tends to be much more of a maverick whereas Roberts and Ted K. are party regulars. Still, this is a huge endorsement for Kroger. Had Dr. John gone with Greg McP., it would have effectively been the end of Kroger in the eyes of most D voters. This breaths new life and legitimacy into Kroger's campaign.

Very interesting. But has Dr. John given a reason?

Kitzhaber himself gave the reason: he thinks Kroger is more qualified.

This is great news for John Kroger's campaign. I don't think Gov. Kitzhaber often endorses candidates and it shows John Kroger is quickly expanding his base of political support.

I also appreciate that Gov. Kitzhaber waited till the Democratic field for the AG's race was set before making an endorsement. There are normally only two reasons for an individual to make an endorsement, either because they think one candidate is more qualified, or for political payback and favors. I would assume that Gov. Kitzhaber endorses John Kroger because he truly thinks John is more qualified. I don't think there has been an official announcement yet, so we can't know his exact line of reasoning until then. I look forward to the official announcement and congratulations John!

I have seen both Kroger and Machpherson speak on a number of occasions and I am decidedly a Kroger supporter. Machpherson has consistently failed to impress me. Over the past two months I had the opportunity to see both of them speak at Multnomah Co. Dems meetings.

Kroger presented an issue-driven agenda, drawing upon his extensive prosecutorial background. His solutions for the Meth crisis, for example, (treatment and prevention) were both realistic and achievable. Furthermore, as a former prosecutor of drug dealers, he has the legitimacy so as not to appear soft on crime.

Machpherson on the other hand largely seemed to rely on previous legislative action, his native Oregonian status, and his performance as a corporate attorney. His platform, retty much was, you know him for what he has done. What was missing is what he will do and any detail regarding what he hopes to accomplish.

Furthermore, Machpherson seemed to discount the value of courtroom and prosecutorial experience; implicitly referring to Kroger as a "courtroom cowboy".

If that is what it takes to protect our interests as Oregonians I am all for it. With Machpherson it will just be business as usual, which is frankly not good enough.

Wait, isn't Kari doing Macpherson's website? If so, isn't Blue Oregon only supposed to do pro-Macpherson coverage.

Oh wait, there is balance here, that's right.

I think Kitzhaber has ensured that we will have a real race for AG. The endorsements of Kulongoski and Roberts are tough to counter in the Democratic primary- but I think Kitzhaber matches them and will cause Democratic voters to take a closer look at both Greg and John. This is great. When was the last time there was a competitive AG primary? Mabey Myers against Mannix in '96, although that turned out be no contest. The Kulongoski- Jan Wyers race in '92 was probably the last close AG Democratic primary.

I think it's even telling how these announcements are coming out. If I remember correctly, Macpherson issued a press release saying Kulongoski and Roberts had endorsed him. There was no speech or press conference. The former governors didn't discuss the specifics of Macpherson's plan for the state. It was just a quiet press release.

With Kroger, it seems he's really announcing with Kitzhaber at the Depaul Youth Treatment Center on Thursday. They're speaking about the importance of drug treatment because it's something that's important to both of them. That's an endorsement that's not just paying lip service but shows that Kitzhaber wants to be involved and that Kroger is the right guy for the job.

Message to everyone in Oregon-

John Kroger is the man for Oregon's future. You want action to reduce Meth use? Vote for John Kroger. You want action against those who foul our environment? Vote for John Kroger. You want a reduction in child abuse? (of course you do) Vote for John Kroger.

John Kroger means it!

I'm voting for John Kroger because I believe he will not only do good things for all of Oregon, but my neighborhood will become a better place, too.

Our lives will be better with John Kroger as Oregon's Attorney General.

T-

The rarity of ANY Democrat with fire in the belly is enough to get the attention of us endangered species types. Moreover, an effective prosecutorial Dem AG subsequently would have obvious appeal for higher elective office in this state. Just saying...

Kitzhaber's endorsement trumps the other two hands down for me. This is coming from a non-affiliated voter who leans toward the Libertarian side (or despicable "troll" to some of you), but I like Kitz, even though I disagree with his views on certain issues. Full disclosure, I lived next door to the man for a short time and believe he's a sincere man who is guided more by principle than politics.

I'm glad Gov. Kitzhaber made an endorsement and makes this a truly contested campaign.

But I recall the Kulongoski/Wyers primary. 2 very well known Oregon legislators (very different people) ran against each other in the primary.

In this case, we have the legislator who is the son of a legislator, and we have someone with a national resume who we are told is a "rockstar", his students love him, he is the future, he "means it", etc.

Would it be possible to get Kroger himself (not just a supporter who talks about what the candidate sees) to write a column here talking about uniquely Oregon issues? How is the Oregon AG office (and laws which set it up) different from NY? What does he think about the current structure of the Oregon AG office? Which parts of it would he strengthen? What does he see as the role of Oregon AG when it comes to ballot measure rulings, campaign finance, response to the PCOL and Oregon Law Comm. proposals?

So far, outside of the Kitzhaber endorsement, support of Kroger seems to be "trust us--he hasn't lived here long but he is great!".

AG is too important an office not to have more substance than that.

LT-

Have you thought about contacting John Kroger and asking him your questions? That's what I did.

T-

I think this is good news.

FuturePAC and the powers that be in the reigning majority shouldn't have the call or say on who gets the favoritism and who doesn't.

I don't think Kitzhaber's choice was anything MAVERICK. I just think it was the SMART call.

I hope we can hear his thoughts on other candidates as well. Heck, I'd like to hear all of your thoughts on all the candidates.

In response to LT:

While it was interesting to see someone break from the discussion board's so-far unanimous support for Kroger (myself included), I'm a little disappointed in the quality of the critique. Is this really the best the MacPherson supporters have? That Kroger's specific plans don't address problems that are unique enough to Oregon?

The fact is, all 50 states struggle with a lot of the same problems (e.g. meth use, deadbeat dads, environmental degradation). I guess I don't understand how whether or not we share a problem with another state matters in determining whether or not it needs to be a priority.

Furthermore, where are MacPherson's ideas on how to be an AG? Like everyone who has thus far posted, I have met the man and walked away feeling underwhelmed by his stark mediocrity and lack of vision. I'm sure MacPherson would do a fine job. But I think Oregon can do better than fine in electing Kroger.

If you feel that you do not know enough about Kroger's specific plans I encourage you to contact him or his campaign. If you haven't heard enough from him it is certainly not because he is unwilling to make himself available to the public (the guy seems to be everywhere). And regarding what he "think about the current structure of the Oregon AG office," really!? The guy's gotta win votes. Although it may truly be important, how many people outside of the AG's office care about it?

The fact that you would ask that question is revealing. I think it demonstrates the two men's differences in how they approach this job. MacPherson sees himself as an administrator, there to make sure the train shows up on time each day. Kroger sees himself being an advocate for all Oregonians by taking the fight to the those who need to be taken on. While you are entitled to prefer the former, I'll take the latter.

Sorry to spoil the Kroger puff pieces, but I have to admit I was not impressed by Kroger at all. When asked challenging questions about managing the AG's office he was elusive and frankly uninformed. His knowledge was based on out of date information and I found his tone to be very condescending. Kitzhaber may garner him the much needed attention he needs right now, but it will fade and voters will see through him.

NALS, what "hard question" was ignored? Just a general statement is not very helpful during a debate.

Not a Law Student- Do you have any specifics as to the outdated information John Kroger provided or how John Kroger was uninformed?

Dear "Not a Law Student"

Please give an example or two of "out of date information" as opposed to "up to date information" regarding the management of the AG's office. You are writing to inform rather than "spoil" - correct?

T-

I was just reflecting on my own personal feelings on my interaction with Kroger at a meet and greet. He talked down to anyone who put any pressure on his positions which I found extremely inappropriate. Am I not permitted to disagree?

Dylan, are you really saying that everyone who will vote in the AG primary has already chosen up sides?

" Is this really the best the MacPherson supporters have? " certainly implies that.

I know Greg and have lived in Oregon long enough to remember his Dad as a state legislator. In reponse to t-spears, I did write a detailed email to the Kroger campaign asking specific questions. The response (if it takes a day or a week to arrive, how detailed the responses are and if they make sense to me) will say a lot about how Kroger is running his campaign. But to assume everyone who asks questions about a first time candidate is a part of an opposition campaign is to show political inexperience or a polarizing attitude unbecoming a statewide candidate.

As far as "the guy seems to be everywhere", Kroger is coming to Salem for the first time on Monday night and I hope to see both candidates Mon. night at the Marion County Dems meeting. If you know of any other scheduled appearances in the Marion/ Polk area, be sure to post them here.

Not all people's lives allow for "drop everything and go see the candidate when he comes to your area". I HOPE to see the AG candidates, but like everyone else it is not my obligation to see candidates in Nov. of the odd numbered year before a primary. One way to judge campaigns is whether their supporters talk about the candidate's specific proposals, or whether they have the attitude "anyone asking questions must be an opposition supporter".

As an elected official, I believe Greg must know something about Oregon election law, the Public Comm. on the Legislature, and the proposals of the Oregon Law Comm. There is plenty of time before next May to ask what his detailed views are.

As for

"And regarding what he "think about the current structure of the Oregon AG office," really!? The guy's gotta win votes. Although it may truly be important, how many people outside of the AG's office care about it?",

one of the most impressive speeches I ever heard an AG candidate give was Hardy Myers doing just what you criticize--laying out the structure of the AG's office and what each division does. That while Kevin Mannix was extolling being an activist AG.

Dylan, you are going to have to face the fact that voters have the right to ask questions and expect responsive answers. There are those of us who remember that before Myers, Kulongoski and Frohnmayer (and a couple of appointed AGs who filled vacancies) there was an excellent AG (later a federal judge) named Jim Redden. There are those of us who were involved in some of those campaigns. Comparing any current candidate to those

If Kroger's law students think he is great, that's fine. But don't expect someone who has lived here for less than 5 years to get elected AG only because he has a nationwide resume, Oregon endorsements and his website talks about generalities.

This is an open race for a serious office, and those of us who think Myers has done some things right and remember previous AGs with long ties to Oregon don't have to vote for a guy who has lived here for less than 5 years just because he has enthusiastic supporters. Just like every other candidate, Kroger has to "make the sale" to individual voters. And saying anyone who asks questions must be a Greg Macpherson supporter does no more good for your candidate than anyone blogging about any other candidate is going to win over votes just by blogging.

I don't know Kroger, however, I must say I am a bit disappointed in his veiled attacks on Greg Macpherson. His use of the "guilt by association" tactic by associting Greg with Enron is completely preposterous. I know I would like to see his veiled attacks on both Greg and Hardy Myers stop immediately.

Not a Law Student – of course you can disagree, but in your initial post you wrote that Kroger was “elusive and… uninformed” regarding “challenging questions about managing the AG’s office.” In a race where both candidates are presenting themselves in the role of advocate-technocrat, your particular impression is serious and deserves to be discussed. I, for one, would simply like to know what were those “challenging questions?”

LT-

Thanks for letting me know you emailed Kroger to get answers to your questions. I would like every citizen to be informed and take the initiative to get informed. I've seen too much "going along with the crowd" stuff in my life. I just can't stand that!

T-

Greg Fan-

You don't know John Kroger? So. . . .you are informed how?

T-

Tonight Macpherson and Kroger appeared at Marion County Dems. potluck and meeting, and it was very impressive. There is a line from an early West Wing episode where Leo says to the staff, "We're going to raise the level of debate in this country and make THAT our legacy".

Politics would be better off if we had more campaigning by this sort of joint appearance. Each gave an opening statement and then they answered questions. Some agreement, some disagreement, lots of substance. Topics covered included meth, ballot measure fraud, treatment of undocumented workers vs. their employers, and a number of other issues.

2 great candidates, we are blessed to have such a choice.