I have said before and will say again, someone with elected responsibility is only as good and as effective as those around them. Without going negative, I have been warning and hinting at the entire negative approach those around the campaign has taken. It was a factor (but not the only one) which made me reconsider my support and look seriously at the Merkley campaign, which I am now a proud supporter of.

I hope that Novick can change the course of his campaign, and stop the sort of hack, negative misleading approach that some of the more noticeable supporters (with tacit approval of the campaign) have engaged in, which we see more manifestly apparent in what the Novick online netroots organizer has tried to pull here.

Novick deserves better, the party deserves better, the race deserves better, and Oregonians deserve better.

Key sentence from the Register Guard piece:

She said the endorsement will be determined by the vote of all PDA members present.

So in context, 48 hours after the local chapter is formed they call an endorsement meeting in less than 4 days for PDA members around the state to attend in Portland, and the endorsement will be determined by the few that show up at this less than a week old chapter's called for meeting which is chaired by the Novick campaign's online organizer.

My gut sense on this is that Kari's right - that Steve Novick wouldn't have gone for a dirty Rovian trick like this. I'm confident that he'll prove us correct by severing his ties to whomever is responsible.

Obviously Liz Kimmerly's fingerprints are all over this. The question in my mind is who else on the Novick campaign was in the loop on this?

I have had this story up on my blog for some time now and I really find it deeply disturbing.

How complicit is Steve Novick in this huge breach of ethics by his staff? Did Novick know? Did his campaign? Did they put her up to it or just tacitly approve of these immoral tactics? If she is rogue (which I don’t think she is, considering Novick accepted the interview invitation), what actions will they take to hold her accountable for what is clearly an unethical conflict of interest?

These details about the recentness of the creation of the chapter are even more disappointing than Steves' article. We need to replace the Karl Rove culture in Washington with people that have respect for fair play and who will restore honest and progressive discourse to our nation's capital. With unethical tactics like this it is clear that Steve Novick cannot be trusted with that crucial task.

If she was acting alone, Novick needs to fire Kimmerly immediately, and if Novick was complicit, voters should punish him for this unethical Rove-like behavior at the ballot box this May.

Posted by: Harry | Jan 18, 2008 5:36:08 PM

I did seek comment from the Novick campaign for my blog piece. They have thus far refused to comment. They have had more than their fair share of opportunities to respond.

oh, the mock horror! If only there were an award for mortified concern trolling. I'll let the campaign unravel this one, but a couple of notes of interest on this bit of manufactured outrage:

There hasn't been an endorsement, but Kari already has it pegged as a fake one. Prescient! To my knowledge Ms. Kimmerly was involved in PDA before coming to Oregon, and as Kari discovered, the chapter was apparently created properly and with the full approval of the national. Yet Kari calls it a sham organization. ?? Moreover, he nominates HIMSELF to create a chapter instead. As if that clears up any suspicion of bias?

Forgive me if I don't buy the disillusionment surrounded by tabloid rhetoric that doesn't appear to match the facts he was given.

Posted by: Pat Malach | Jan 18, 2008 5:37:38 PM

Right on cue with the negative obfuscating crap flinging to divert attention from the issue, which is that Novick is being harmed by the approach of those around him (officially or unofficially) who signal the direction and set the tone for their supporters, and in this case apparently willing to behave unethically to try and get a wholly compromised "progressive" endorsement which, if history is any indication, while be used by Liz's netroots volunteers to go negative against Merkley with to mislead progressives about Merkley.

Steve is a solid progressive as is Merkely, and unfortunately those who Steve has around him are not serving himself, his candidacy, the party, the race, or the state well.

TJ:

If this was a Merkley staffer you would be howling demanding that whoever responsible was fired. Your lack of response just shows your bias.

You have previously made the argument that the Novick campaign runs a tighter ship than Merkley. These actions just prove that Novick campaign is about shenanigans and doesn't have the ability to seriously take on Gordon Smith.

one other thing--does it seem at all plausible that Kimmerly figured the Merkleu campaign wouldn't recognize her name in the emails? They know who's staffing Nocick at senior levels.

Posted by: James X. | Jan 18, 2008 5:44:09 PM I mean, his own senior staffer emailed him directly, telling him that she was holding a surprise meeting to endorse a candidate. Didn't that smell funny to him?

Exactly. Steve is a good guy, and wants to fight the good fight, but this is a valid point which, Unfortunately for Steve, only comes from building a team of people who can effectively keep you on track. That takes someone with the experience to build that team, know how to lead it, where the red flags are, how to work within a team (while being responsible for it and leading it) to be effective not just as a candidate, but to the real things that ultimately matter, being responsible as an elected official, particularly at this level (United States Senate).

Steve is there on the issues, is there on the passion for wanting to affect change, but it takes more than that. It takes not being a one man show and takes having the right skill-set to be a team leader and assembling that team and setting the standards, direction, etc.

That is not to say that Steve is incapable of that, but for me alarm bells went off long ago to take an assessment of who would better serve to take the fight against Smith and have that needed skill set which goes beyond just being bright, wonkish, and heartfelt commitment to effectively bringing about the changes needs at the Federal level for Oregon and the country (which both men share).

Posted by: Jake Weigler - Novick for Senate | Jan 18, 2008 5:55:23 PM Wow. We have a good week and the attacks are unleashed on Blue O.

Jake,

Read the short comment thread (before Kari shut it down) and the comment thread at the linked blog and you'll see that multiple Merkley supporters chimed in in defense of Novick. That's hardly a partisan attack.

That said, Blue Oregon didn't originate that story. They linked to it from two different sources, one of which was a journalist with the newspaper of record for this state.

This looks pretty lousy, for sure.

I am curious about the discrepancy between what Kari reports from Tim Carpenter, that the PDA chapter was formed Tuesday or Wednesday (not quite clear when you talked to him, Kari), and David Steves statement at the R-G blog that it was formed a month ago.

Liz K's last e-mail looks to me like it might not be a response to the R-G but from PDA national. What it describes looks as if it would fit the PDA rules that Tim C describes. Part of what is at stake is rescuing any sort of legitimate PDA endorsement process according to the rules. Clearly Liz Kimmerly couldn't be part of it.

Since PDA has 2300 members in Oregon, according to information at the R-G blog, I'm not sure the "shotgun chapter" characterization is quite fair -- it looks like Liz K hijacked what might otherwise have been a legitimate chapter formation process. The logic Kari outlines for having one, vis a vis the effort to unseat Gordon Smith existed on Monday as well as today. An Oregon PDA activist writing over at the R-G, who is quite disgusted at the whole thing both as an illegitimate endorsement process from a local PDA point of view and in terms of the Novick campaign, says that "Coordinator" is a real title and that chapters are in fact created by coordinators in the usual order of things.

Kari's account of his conversation with Tim Carpenter says Tim C called Liz K "an overenthusiastic volunteer." Does that mean she was lying in claiming the title of Coordinator? Or can coordinators be volunteers? In other words, did she hijack a legitimate chapter-forming process in which she had a legitimate role (one that may embarrass Tim C at this point), or was she illegitimately claiming a role that wasn't really hers, in addition to abusing the endorsement process? Again, a comment posted over at the R-G suggests reasons to think Liz K has legitimate & high-level connections with PDA, & indeed it seems Tim Carpenter knew who she is though not some important things she's been doing.

While I hope it's clear that I do think this was abusive and it reflects badly on the Novick campaign (& at least one of our usual suspects in inter-campaign rancor here is less fastidious than Kari in not accusing Steve himself, over at the R-G), I do have to question your writing Kari when you write of "Novick operatives." As far as you've yet revealed, Liz Kimmerly appears to be one person :->.

Mitch Gore / Lestat also makes ominous noises about this being characteristic of the campaign in general, linked to comments about rancor on this blog. But are those commenting here really part of Steve's campaign?

Finally, Kari, I'd suggest that it might be best for PDA if the work of creating a fully fledged, fully legitimate Oregon chapter, able to survive the vicissitudes of wherever this episode and the primary more generally go & be in position to work well in the general, were not handed from someone who does web work for Novick to someone who does web work for Merkley :->.

I'm not suggesting you'd do anything similar, just that both from the point of view of appearances and of damage control to unified party effort in the general, you might not be the ideal candidate. Surely there's someone who could be found to take over the work who has a more neutral profile?

The conflict of interest perception alone, much less the clear violation of PDA rules and norms, should have made this move a non-starter. Jake's comment (non-denial denial), lack of judgment in seeing this should have been a no-go form the start, and spin (this got moved because of the Merkely campaign) is troubling, and underscores what I said up-thread.

Posted by: James X. | Jan 18, 2008 6:08:24 PM

Timely and appropriate questions, James. I'm going to edit them slightly and organize them a bit because they do go to the very heart of the matter here.

1. Ok, the Novick campaign's position is that this was completely legitimate, and that Kari is attacking with malice. But why does the executive director of the organization say "that's not how we do things here?"

1. Why was this organization set up with the intent to meet about endorsements within a week, if it wasn't created ad-hoc to endorse a candidate?

2. And why do you assume malice? You don't hold yourself to the standard of "involved with a campaign, therefore conflicted," so how can you hold others to that standard?

Jake,

Would you be so kind as to answer each of these questions one at a time?

Thanks!

Kari's account of his conversation with Tim Carpenter says Tim C called Liz K "an overenthusiastic volunteer." Does that mean she was lying in claiming the title of Coordinator? Or can coordinators be volunteers? In other words, did she hijack a legitimate chapter-forming process in which she had a legitimate role (one that may embarrass Tim C at this point), or was she illegitimately claiming a role that wasn't really hers, in addition to abusing the endorsement process?

I can't speak to the process, etc. which you raise, but it it worth noting that the PDA page for Oregon, on the national site states Liz as the coordinator.

if the national approached Kimmerly first, that makes it awfully hard to charge that the chapter was created under false pretenses, no?

If the endorsement process is not being properly followed, it should be. And it looks like now it will. The rest looks like faux outrage. Particularly when Steves took time to ding Merkley for flopping around on NCLB, and here at BlueO there were only crickets...

Posted by: Jake Weigler - Novick for Senate | Jan 18, 2008 5:55:23 PM

If every member of the PDA was contacted how do you respond to claims in the comments of the Steves' piece that members of the PDA were not previously contacted.

Further, it is disappointing that in response to such serious allegations the Novick campaign resorted to its one trick pony, bashing the DSCC. Well, I hate to break it to you Jake but Merkley doesn't employ Chuck Schumer. Your campaign clearly crossed significant moral/ethical lines and Kimmerly should be fired.

If something like this were to happen this summer then you can bet that Smith would mop the floor with the culprit, brand the entire campaign as complicit and cruise to reelection.

Scratching my head on Mr. Weigler's comment,

My understanding of the emails you posted is that the Merkley campaign said that holding the endorsement vote this Saturday would not work for them and so the vote was moved to next month to accommodate them.

and ignoring all of the special pleading regarding the truly remarkable coincidence that Ms. Kimmerly apparently decided to form the Oregon chaper of the PDA about two days before she sent the emails offering the candidates four days to respond, the best that I can glean from the text of the emails above:

Progressive Democrats of America will be meeting on Saturday, January 19th to decide on its endorsement for Oregon's US Senate race

Just saying, that if I received this email, I would understand it to say that the PDA was going to meet on Friday to decide on its endorsement.

Hey, that is exactly what it says. But then comes the second email which doesn't address timing at all, and finally on to email #3 which says:

Please note that not all candidates have responded to me in regard to Saturday's PDA meeting. We will be holding our endorsement vote during next month's meeting.

So while it indeed changes the date, there is no mention in that email or any others as to the reason.

So if Mr. Weigler read something else it was not, as he avows, in any of the above emails.

Somewhat off-topic, while I applauded her heartfelt convictions and activism to hold Bush accountable for this administrations mendacity about the war, I find it odd that Cindy Sheehan, whose rather sad public break and attacks on the Democratic Party, as being on the advisory board of the national PDA rather incongruous with the purpose as a grassroots PAC operating inside the Democratic Party, and outside in movements for peace and justice. Perhaps Liz's screw-up may be an electoral blessing in disguise if nobody gains the PDAs endorsement.

There are real people involved here, folks. And this time they're Democrats.

Giving those involved a pass because they happen to be Democrats is symptomatic of the very "the ends justify the means" mentality that allowed this to happen in the first place! More to the point, it's exactly what the Republicans have been doing for YEARS.

I'd like to believe that Democrats are capable of holding themselves and their own to a HIGHER moral and ethical standard than the party of Rush Limbaugh, Tom DeLay, An Coulter and the rest of the gang.

From the first email Liz sent:

Please remember that this will also be a regular business meeting for the chapter and you will need to stick to your time limit.

How many meetings has the less than a week old chapter held so far, regular business meeting or otherwise?

Posted by: Pat Malach | Jan 18, 2008 6:30:47 PM

Considering that the progressive community has condemned these tactics for years and demanded that Karl Rove and the other Republican perpetrators of such dirty electioneering get fired, it is only fair that we apply the standard to our own when they cross the line and engage in unethical tactics.

Pat you don't seem to be concerned about the real harm perpetrated by the Novick campaign here on real people, members of the Progressive Democrats of America. PDA on a national level is a good organization and did not deserve their hard work to be tainted by such unscrupulous opportunism by the Novick campaign looking to shore up a poor list of endorsers with such a cheap political ploy.

How can the Oregon PDA give a legitimate endorsement for the state-wide race at all given this:

State Caucus The Oregon State Caucus needs your help in forming. For information, please contact our State Coordinator(s) listed below.

Only coordinator listed is Liz of the less than week old coordinator?

So how does this endorsement process work exactly for statewide races?

Who votes since from their web-page, the state caucus hasn't even been formed?

Maybe there website needs some serious updating, can anyone even clarify what the membership is, it processes, how it meets, how it votes for statewide race endorsements, how the local chapter works?

Before heads are called for and the Rove name is K-bombed, I think we need some clear answers on a whole raft of issues this seemingly Astroturfed "endorsement" process which raised red flags (rightly so) for the Merkley cmapign are addressed. I would find it highly unikely that Steve would embrace anything or condone Rovian.

Personally, I have to step away for a few hours from the keyboard, and with luck at least some might be forthcoming when I get back on later tonight.

Ugh... should have read as:

I would find it highly unikely that Steve would embrace or condone anything Rovian.

Even if Kimmerly has no influence on the endorsement itself, it does seem like a conflict of interest for an online director of a campaign to be involved whatsoever with the process. She should be excluded completely from the endorsement process and that includes setting up the meetings with the candidates. Kimmerly should have just stepped aside and let someone over at Progress for America take the reins on the meetings etc.

Posted by: Katie B. | Jan 18, 2008 8:08:03 PM

The reason why this unethical endorsement process didn't go through is because people strongly objected to Novick's unethical stiff arming tactics.

Posted by: Pat Malach | Jan 18, 2008 8:19:58 PM

Just because the person on trial professes their innocence doesn't mean it true. Even if it Novicks claims of innocence are true, the inability for Novick to see the inherent conflict of interest and the ethical quagmire that Kimmerly's actions put him in shows that he is in no way prepared for the rigors of taking on Gordon Smith. If this happened in the general election, Smith would have the entire MSM condemning Novick as a morally challenged hack and would demand Kimmerly's head. We can't afford to nomination such a huge liability with such poor judgment.

My understanding of the emails you posted is that the Merkley campaign said that holding the endorsement vote this Saturday would not work for them and so the vote was moved to next month to accommodate them. Apparently that was insufficient as they have now passed these emails on to you to throw attacks at Steve.

Then your understanding of the emails is false.

The Merkley campaign has never responded to those emails. When we saw the four days notice and the fact that it was being led by a paid staffer of the Novick campaign, we contacted the national chapter.

We were told by the director that the Portland chapter of PDA was 48 hours old. He also told us that the endorsement meeting wouldn't happen this weekend because it would be a violation of their rules. The change in the meeting had nothing to do with Merkley's schedule and everything to do with the fact that it was going outside the organization's own processes.

They also had no idea that Liz Kimmerly is employed by one of the potential endorsees.

It's apparent that had we not contacted them, this sham endorsement process would have gone forward.

Carla--Netroots Outreach, Jeff Merkley for Oregon

Let me get this straight:

Liz Kimmerly is being crucified for her conflicts of interest while Kari Chisholm points the finger?

Posted by: Stephanie V | Jan 18, 2008 9:23:37 PM Let me get this straight: Liz Kimmerly is being crucified for her conflicts of interest while Kari Chisholm points the finger?

Kari Chisholm wasn't involved in a rogue endorsement process.

Liz Kimmerly was involved in a rogue endorsement process. Not only was she involved in it but she was the coordinator of it.

See the difference?

A more relevant comparison would be to compare Liz's ethical choices, as illustrated in this post, with those of her counterpart on the Merkley campaign - Carla.

Carla cut ties even to the two blogs she'd cofounded (Preemptive Karma and Loaded Orygun) even though nobody demanded it much less asked it. She did it, on her own initiative, to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Kimmerly's not a volunteer, to be clear. She's online director, a paid professional position (something I'm happy to say is a new phenomenon, but a spreading one in following elections. Career FYI!).

Also to clarify this statement: "even though nobody demanded it much less asked it."

I think suredly there was no doubt in Carla's mind that she'd separate, not least the conflict with the blog's endorsement--but primarily on the basis that you just can't run a private blog and be a candidate's online messenger. The campaigns shut you up. Carla had a looser leash for a couple of weeks it seemed, but that stopped pretty quickly. I know for a fact that Novick's requirement was almost total online silence that isn't on message. It's understood.

Neither of us really needed to bring it up, it was understood. But I certainly would have asked and then demanded, were it someone less gracious and forthright than Carla.

I apologize for the lack of follow-up this evening. I've been in Cannon Beach with family, and they had a fire last night at a fiber optics switching station. Both Qwest and Verizon have been down for nearly 24 hours - rendering Cannon Beach a telecom-free town all day today. (I had to drive out of town to post this at 5 p.m.)

Anyway...

At 5:32, Harry asks if I called Novick for comment. I did not. On another story a few weeks ago, which I did not publish, I was told that the Novick campaign wouldn't provide comment to me when I write for BlueOregon - because of my role as a consultant to the Merkley campaign. That's fair and quite understandable. Of course, the beauty of a blog is that Steve Novick himself is able to respond here instantly.

At 5:37, Pat Malach says that I am not a "fountain of objectivity." That's right. I'm not pretending to be a journalist. As I thought I made clear in the post, I'm quite clearly an active participant in this situation.

At 5:55, Jake Weigler responds. I'll leave his hyperbole alone, and simply respond to the facts. The meeting was moved to next month after Tim Carpenter, the PDA's executive director, was alerted - and he told me that the PDA requires a 30-day notice to all of its members. A 30-day notice that Liz Kimmerly didn't provide originally. The endorsement vote was moved purely and simply because the original vote as scheduled by Liz Kimmerly violated the PDA's rules.

At 5:57, Jake whines about me not calling for comment. Jake, don't you remember when you told me that the Novick campaign would not comment to me about stuff I write on BlueOregon? It was only, what, three weeks ago?

At 6:11, Chris Lowe asks about volunteers versus state coordinators. Chris, I think it's legit that their coordinators ARE volunteers. Tim definitely knew who she was - but didn't know that she had organized an endorsement meeting in a US Senate just 48 hours after forming the local chapter.

And yes, Chris (and TJ, above) it would certainly be bogus if I were put in charge of the PDA Portland chapter. That's not what I offered. (I'm too busy for that.) I simply told them that I'd be available, if they wanted my help, in publicizing the effort, etc. I don't want to be in charge. I've got a brand new baby, remember?

At 6:30, Pat Malach once again confuses my role with that of a journalist. I'm a participant here, not an objective observer. I'm posting over my own name, and you can judge what I write on its face. As for whether someone should be fired, that's up to Steve Novick. I do know this: This is the dirtiest thing I've ever seen from a Democratic campaign in Oregon. The Novick people and the Oregonian went nuts when the Merkley campaign did a few still-legal robocalls. This is 1000 times worse. Someone needs to be held accountable.

At 8:08, Katie B provides unintentional comedy and hilarity. Let me understand, Katie. It's not unethical because when I blew the whistle on it, the national folks yanked the chain on their local volunteer and made sure she wasn't doing any unethical. Can we call it an "attempted dirty trick"? I can live with that. (And stop calling me "Carl", please.)

At 9:23, Stephanie V implies that I've got some similar conflict of interest as Liz Kimmerly. Here's the difference: #1, BlueOregon isn't part of any national organization. #2, BlueOregon predates this campaign by years. #3, my conflicts are clearly stated. #4, BlueOregon is owned by Mandate Media, my company. #5, BlueOregon is just a blog.

At 11:37, Peter Bray is confused. I did not build the Novick campaign website. I do have friends at the Novick campaign. I continue to consider Steve and Jake good friends. Jake and I talk regularly (though not as often as before). I don't know how they feel about me today.

My take:

Bad: Liz Kimmerly trying to pull this fast one. Inexcusable. Period.

Worse: Jake Weigler chiming in here before all the facts are known and a communications strategy is in place to handle this.

Worser: The attempt by Jake and other pro-Novick partisans to shift blame by attacking Kari. Do they seriously think people are that stupid? That that would work?

Worst: The inescapable conclusion that Steve has simply not put together a remotely credible campaign organization. Massive tin ear, bunker mentality, shaky ethics, maladroit media management - this is the crew that's going to take on Gordo and the Republican attack machine?

If they are, say hello to six more years of Senator Smith.

Posted by: Steve Maurer | Jan 19, 2008 12:32:51 AM

Steve, get outta my head.

Oh Boy! In't it great bein a Democrat!

What a sad situation. Leave it to a woman to use a sports metaphor, so here goes. A team is only as good as it's coach. In this situation I expect a team meeting held by Coach Novick and Coach Merkley in seperate locker rooms reviewing campaign ethics yet again, (good sportsmanship) before they hit the field to play. As coaches they are the stewards of fair play.

I think suredly there was no doubt in Carla's mind that she'd separate, not least the conflict with the blog's endorsement--but primarily on the basis that you just can't run a private blog and be a candidate's online messenger.

Indeed. You can't. Nor should a paid staff of a campaign be shoving through a shotgun endorsement as the volunteer state coordinator for an organization. If it's an unethical conflict to run a private blog, then surely it's a more unethical conflict to do what Liz Kimmerly has done.

I feel comfortable saying that had I been caught setting up the state chapter of an organization and gone around the organizations rules to set up an endorsment process that my boss is participating in--my ass would be on the curb.

In other words, I'd be fired and the the local press would pillory me. And they'd be right to do it. Not to mention the fact that I'd probably be nuclear in Oregon politics afterward.

The campaigns shut you up. Carla had a looser leash for a couple of weeks it seemed, but that stopped pretty quickly. I know for a fact that Novick's requirement was almost total online silence that isn't on message. It's understood.

Actually, most of the shutting up has been my doing, not the campaign's. I felt it was inappropriate for me to comment most of the time because of my paid position.

I'm also reasonably intelligent--and I have an obligation to Jeff Merkley to represent him and the campaign appropriately. That's why I would be fired if I'd done something like what has been described here.

Neither of us really needed to bring it up, it was understood. But I certainly would have asked and then demanded, were it someone less gracious and forthright than Carla.

Exactly. You would have demanded that I act appropriately and ethically. And you'd have been right to do it.

I look forward to seeing you carry that standard in this case as well.

Carla--Netroots Outreach, Jeff Merkley for Oregon

Pat Malach

Please stay on point. The Eugene Register Guard and the Oregonian published the story yesterday. My concern is the shame brought to our political party.

Liz Kimmerly -- (I'm sure you're reading this), one of the best lessons from the Clinton (Bill) machine is that they responded immediately when put on the defensive.

I heart, heart, heart Steve Novick, would hope that someone that smart could be my senator someday. Would you do some very loyal Novick supporters (aka, me) a favor and let us know your side of the story? Please?

Posted by: Peter Bray | Jan 18, 2008 11:43:35 PM If he only built the Merkley web site (from his comments, this doesn't seem to be the case), then he should not comment on this... to do so calls into question his objectivity.

That would be analogous to, if Novick drove a Ford Taurus, Bill Ford (executive chairman of Ford Motor Company) not being able to comment on anything Novick does because his company built the vehicle. Let's be blunt here, that's what a web site is - a vehicle. Nothing more and nothing less. The website builder isn't responsible for content any more than Bill Ford is responsible for what drivers of his cars say.

At 9:22 this morning, Pat Malach complains that I'm "the only person covering this for BlueOregon." First, I'm not the only, I'm the first. And second, as I think I've said over and over now, I'm not "covering" it. I'm describing MY ROLE in what happened. I am an active participant here. I called the PDA. I told them what Kimmerly was up to. I blew the whistle. Me. Active participant. Not disinterested observer. Not journalist. Not "covering" it. Participating. Telling you what I'm up to. Got it? (And as always, feel free to evaluate what I have to say. I don't have some monopoly on the omniscient truth. Just what I saw and heard and know.)

At 9:58, Pat hangs his hat on a throwaway quote from Moses Ross. Look, Moses is entitled to his opinion. That's fine. He's trying to make peace, and he's trying to salvage the reputation of the local PDA chapter. Personally, I think the smart move for the PDA is to make clear that Liz Kimmerly wasn't acting on their behalf - and to jettison her immediately. But that's up to them. As for the "facts"... The basics aren't disputed here. Moses has an opinion about Kimmerly's intent. I disagree. But he doesn't dispute what happened.

Pat Malach, Moses Ross was brought in after the impropriety of what Liz was doing was brought to light. So your strange assertions that Kari is being remiss to "investigate" the situation is absurd and changes nothing about the facts of what Liz did, and what Kari is reporting here.

Kari is not however the issue or the story here, as much as you would like to make it. Aside from the (at best and most charitable interpretation) dumb and improper thing Liz did, the larger issue this incident exposes which I and others have touched on up-thread, is the questions it raises about Novick's skill-set at building a team, know how to lead it, his skill at spotting the red flags as they pop-up, and how to work within a team (while being responsible for it and leading it) to be effective not just as a candidate, but where he to hold office, being responsible and effective as an elected official, particularly at this level (United States Senate). While the candidate/elected official are the leader and are ultimately responsible, they are actually just the most visible and central member of a team if they want to be effective at all. No matter how smart or intelligent they are, at this level it is impossible to be effective and responsible as a one-man team.

Kari, you are correct. The facts are what they are. I do not dispute what happened. However, I don't know what her full intentions were. It was not completely shared with me. One can make their own assumptions based on her actions.

I do know that I was approched by her to facilitate the endorsement process section of the meeting. I was not involved in the actual chapter organization details.

I warned Liz of legitimacy problems due to the shortened time periods but was assured that she was in contact with national PDA folks and that they knew of the situation. I never spoke personally to anyone at PDA national.

All I do know is this. If I am involved in this local chapter being organized and in this local chapter's endorsement process, I will make it as fair and transparent of a process as possible, in regulation with the national PDA charter, to assure legitimacy.

Lets keep in mind that the Progressive Democrats of America is an excellent national organization, with some high caliber progressives in their leadership. They do great work in supporting the grassroots via education and activism. So starting the state chapter is a good thing. However, for this to work, given what has happened, we need to make sure that the organizational process and the endorsment process is legitimate and not tainted due to some over-enthusiatic campaign activists.

Admiral Naismith makes a good observation. But the ethics of this are such that given how much weeping and gnashing of teeth the Left has vented at the shenanigans of the Right, we can hardly keep quiet about shenanigans by the Left and be surprised when Centrists and Righties call us hypocrites.

That said... does anyone honestly believe that if nobody had said anything and Liz had gone ahead with the sham endorsement... that the Smith campaign a) wouldn't have figured it out and/or b) wouldn't have used that silence to bludgeon the Democratic candidate (even if it's Merkley) in the general election as being ethically challenged, if for no other reason than for his silence? If you do then I'm here to suggest that you pull your head out of your posterior and begin dealing with the real world.

Thank you, Moses, for playing a responsible role here.

Katie asked, Is it OK for campaigns to try to gain a procedural advantage when seeking organizational endorsements, or are they ethically obliged to make sure the other guy gets an equal opportunity at it?

Working hard and fighting hard for an endorsement is to be expected. For example, it's reasonable for both campaigns to campaign hard for the support of local OEA members in the OEA endorsement process that's underway right now.

What's not OK is breaking the rules. Liz Kimmerly broke the explicit endorsement rules of the Progressive Democrats of America. That's not at dispute here. Beyond that, there's an ethical question as to whether it's appropriate for a campaign staffer to play any role (even just setting the meeting date) in an endorsement in that campaign.

Posted by: Moses Ross | Jan 19, 2008 11:53:13 AM

Thanks for posting here to give more information on this Moses (Mitch Gore here). Do you know of what steps were taken to actually notify the PDA membership in Oregon about the rushed endorsement meeting beyond Liz posting it on the Novick campaign site?

When were you asked by Liz to facilitate the endorsement process section of the meeting?

When were you made aware of the problems of timing and when did you express your concerns to her about it?

When/where were you aware that she is a high-level paid staffer in the campaign for Novick?

I realize you are now in a situation filled with a few land-mines because of what Liz has done here, but I hope you can fill in the answers to some of these questions.

Posted by: Moses Ross | Jan 19, 2008 11:53:13 AM

I warned Liz of legitimacy problems due to the shortened time periods but was assured that she was in contact with national PDA folks and that they knew of the situation. I never spoke personally to anyone at PDA national.

Moses, you don't consider someone lying to you about getting the national organization to sign off in order to pacify your fears of bias in the endorsement process proof of unethical intent?

What a mess... I hope all outstanding questions get answered, as this is just strange and mystifying.

Phil Philiben, best comment on the thread.

Kari, Peter B's confusion results from a very confusing disclosure. You are normally very good with those, but this one was very bad. Read it again.

None of this, on any side, is "Rovian." Rove put a former governor in federal prison. Rove reshaped the Justice Department to serve his politics. Some perspective here, please.

Isn't it a campaign's job to assess the value of an endorsement before pursuing it? I'll admit this smells fishy, but anything beyond that is hyperbole -- and very damaging hyperbole, at that. All this head on a stick stuff. Geez.

Hyperbole? Really? I think the story speaks plainly enough for itself for hyperbole to be mostly off the table...

Let's imagine that a paid campaign staff member of a campaign inserted themselves as the chair of Washington County Democratic Party without disclosing that they were a campaign partisan. Gained access to the statewide party membership list, had sole control over that list, then "announces" an organizational meeting (the first) of the country party which nobody has yet to have actually seen, brings in another Democratic volunteer and tells them that the DNC is all onboard with having an endorsement meeting even though the process and timing of the meeting violates the DNC rules and guidelines, even though we have from the DNC that no such approval to break the rules occurs, is questioned about the timing by the volunteer she brought if she has made sure that the process and timing are legit and reminds them that they need to make sure each and every candidate is properly invited, then this person invites their main rivals campaign, to this endorsement meeting that who knows who has actually been invited to, and at this meeting they are to decide who the DPO (which has yet to even been formed) is going to give its endorsement for the U.S. Senate race.

How would Multnomah County Democrats feel about that? How would Marion County Democrats feel about it? How would any Democrat who was not privy to/ad or was not able this sudden organizing/endorsement meeting feel about the legitimacy of the endorsement or the process?

And that analogy is with using parties who have verifiable membership and established by-laws, etc. which the organization in their case (PDA) has had no formal establishment at all in the state of Oregon until Liz began this by trying to arrange this endorsement meeting.

Hey, remember when someone spoke directly with Jeff Merkley at a cocktail party and reported back what they heard from the conversation? If you like, I can go back and reprint the litany of "well, just because you say so doesn't mean that those things were said, or even that the meeting actually happened," from several folks, including Kari specifically.

So here we have Kari--openly admitting his bias on the matter--reporting back to us what he got from the PDA national. And the conclusion from the peanut gallery (at least many of the Merkley peanuts) is to start looking for rope.

It's a long weekend. Perhaps we should wait until we hear DIRECTLY from the national. I'm sure at some point they'll speak officially, right? Either to sanction or back up Kimmerly? I think what their position is will say a lot about how seriously to take any of this. And forgive me if I don't prima facie accept Kari's version of things.

I'm still confused about how you get a fake endorsement by inviting the opposing candidate to participate. Did Merkley's phone banks go out this week, preventing them from rallying supporters in the PDA to the endorsement meeting? (I warned them about that burn rate!) I'm also confused about a 'sham organization' apparently being duly and properly constituted. Or a rigged process, when Moses Ross is standing there waving his hand saying, "I was going to run the vote, people." (And contrary to lestat, I think he was involved in that capacity with the prior knowledge of PDA when they were contacted by Merkley's campaign). So let's stand by a bit here until we get a proper explanation.

At 12:51, Pete Forsyth: Kari, Peter B's confusion results from a very confusing disclosure. You are normally very good with those, but this one was very bad. Read it again.

Aha. I finally see how my statement in the post could be read to suggest that I work for Novick. Of course, I've written several hundred times that I built Merkley's website. And Jenni Simonis has written several dozen times at least that she built Novick's website. I'm not sure any of our regular readers would misunderstand this. But for the record: I built Jeff Merkley's website. I did not build Steve Novick's website. As always, I speak only for myself.

At 1:08, Miles takes issue with my description of this as "the dirtiest thing I've seen in a Democratic campaign in Oregon." OK, Miles, I'll bite: What Democraic campaign has committed a dirtier trick in Oregon politics? (I'm sure there is one, sometime, but not one that I can remember.)

As for hyperbole, I'm with Ben Dupree at 1:11. This incident doesn't need any hyperbole to get off the ground. It's outrageous on its face.

At 1:13, Katie: That's right, Katie. We can call it an "attempted dirty trick" that was averted when I called the executive director of the PDA. I'm thankful that Moses Ross is going to do this right. And yes, I don't think people who are on campaign staff with a candidate should play a leadership or coordinating role in the endorsement of candidates in that race.

At 1:26, LT wonders aloud "Are there more than a handful of comments on this blog from people who don't live in the Portland metropolitan area?". Actually, LT, you'd be surprised about how outside-Portland BlueOregon's commenters are. On this thread alone... Bradley Dunn is in Salem, John-Mark Gilhousen is in The Dalles, Pat Ryan is somewhere up on Mt. Hood, Phil Philiben is in Deschutes County. I don't know where a lot of our commenters live, but of those I am aware of - roughly 50% are outside Portland. In any case, thanks for your thoughtful comments here.

At 1:27, Pat Malach again complains that I didn't contact Novick for comment. Once again, Pat, the Novick campaign has made it clear to me that they won't comment to me. Which is their right. I didn't tell the PDA my version of the facts. I asked them what they knew. Tim Carpenter is the one who told me that the Portland chapter was created 48 hours before the endorsement meeting was called - and Tim Carpenter is the one that told me the endorsement rules had been violated. "That's not how we do things", he said.

1:56, Katie (whoever you are) keeps spinning this as not-a-big-deal: Listen, Kimmerly may not have been successful in getting a shotgun endorsement from a local organization that she set up 48 hours prior to announcing an endorsement meeting. But that doesn't mean she didn't try.

Beaming in from Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, where I finally managed to get an internet signal. Interesting thread. After all the chaos dies down, here's what I'd like to know: has/will the Novick folk clarify their role in this? Kari cites facts above that no one has disputed and a lot of people, including Kari, make the assumption that Steve Novick wasn't trying to pull a fast one. The only defense anyone has yet offered is the yawn-proking, "but Kari's a rat bastard and Merkley's a stooge for the DSCC!" maneuver. So as I read this with the distance of time and space, I'm left wondering--has Steve issued a statement washing his hands of this? That's all it would take since that appears to be all anyone thinks has happened--an overactive staffer has made a misstep and the campaign just needs to step back from it.

Yeah yeah, we know certain commenters think Merkley's a stooge and Kari's Darth Vader--still, what about the facts presented in this post?

Posted by: Pat Malach | Jan 19, 2008 1:27:24 PM As Jake pointed out earlier, Kari, who claimed in another thread that his role in this incident was to "investigate," failed to contact one of the involved campaign's to give them a chance to tell their side of the story -- as common courtesy (not to mention an actual quest for the truth) would dictate.

Pat's selective recitation of comments here demonstrates why his credibility is nonexistant.

He has already commented directly (here) on Kari's comment (a href="http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/01/fake-endorsemen.html#c97739468">here) where Kari explicitly pointed out that Jake has already established a policy on behalf of the Novick campaign of not offering Kari any comments on behalf of anything he writes here at Blue Oregon. Thus there would have been no point in Kari asking Jake for a comment. Duh!

Is there any doubt that Pat Malach is practicing rank demagoguery here?

This is precisely the kind of dishonesty that drove me from the GOP many years ago. I'll be damned if I'll tolerate it from Democrats now or ever!

"TJ, the very clear difference here is that the story began with David Steves, a journalist who works for a newspaper."

Perhaps so. Already, however, we see that Kari is contradicting Steves' account. To wit:

" Kimmerly may not have been successful in getting a shotgun endorsement from a local organization that she set up 48 hours prior to announcing an endorsement meeting."

Now Steves:

Liz Kimmerly isn’t just the PDA state coordinator in Oregon, a position she accepted a little more than a month ago when the chapter formed.

2 days, a month--hey, details, details!

Like I said, trusting the Merkley operative to tell the full story about the Novick operative is a risky strategy.

Kari and Mandate Media didn't build Novick's web site, I did. There's a line right towards the bottom of the site that says so.

"If the national bylaws say 30 days notice, then 29 or fewer days notice are in violation of the bylaws. That is a single standard. A double standard would be "OK in this case to have less than 30 days notice because that would be in favor of our guy" when many would guess that if the tables were turned there would be a demand for at least a month's notice."

You are making the assumption that the bylaws, if violated (which they actually weren't since no endorsement meeting has taken place), represent an intent to defraud the process rather than a poor reading of the rules.

As for your 2,000th made-up hypothetical about what the perspectives of others are, please refer to my clear statement above that if the endorsement rules are not being followed, they absolutely need to be. And if they weren't going to be for whatever reason until someone checked them, they should have been. You can ascribe motives to your heart's content, but realize they are not necessarily THE motives.

If it's PDA's bylaws that have been violated (or intent to violate them is shown) then I assume the organization in charge will decide what to do to maintain its own integrity. That's all I'm suggesting we wait for, some formal reaction from the theoretically aggrieved party.

You are making the assumption that the bylaws, if violated (which they actually weren't since no endorsement meeting has taken place), represent an intent to defraud the process rather than a poor reading of the rules.

You are confused, TJ. The bylaws don't have to actually be broken in order to represent "an intent to defraud." That only requires an attempt to break the rules, which is what we appear to have here. If nobody intervenes and they are actually broken then "intent" has been left in the dust and it's moved into actual fraud.

As for whether Kimmerly is guilty of "a poor reading of the rules," it's been asserted in her defense that she has a long history with the PDA, which you ought to remember since you and Jake both made that assertion. If that's true then she really has no excuse for not having known the rules long ago.

What argues most pursuasively against your floated explanation is the fact that she moved to set up this rogue chapter long after having joined the Novick campaign (red flag) and then immediately tried to set up a nomination meeting, ignoring a wide variety of glaringly obvious ethical conflicts of interest in the process (lots of red flags!!).

It's a conspiracy!

Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 19, 2008 3:12:46 PM

Steves' report seems to indicate that he got his information from the Novick campaign rather than seeking it from the national PDA.

Also Mosses' comment that Kimmerly lied to him about the involvement of the national chapter to pacify his concerns about the possibility of impropriety. Attempting to deceive others proves malicious intent in my book.

since kimmerly was appointed to pda by the national chapter a month ago

There is one factual disagreement here that hasn't been resolved.

David Steves, relying on the Novick campaign, says that the Portland chapter was formed a month ago.

I quoted Tim Carpenter, the executive director of the Progressive Democrats of America, who says that the Portland chapter was formed "48 hours ago" (speaking to me on Wednesday.) He said that to me, laughing, by way of explaining how there couldn't possibly be an endorsement meeting on Saturday (today.)

I don't know how to reconcile those two statements. I'm just reporting what Tim Carpenter said to me.

Some more information about the rather incredulous claims by Jake Weigler which is being pushed here by TJ about there being a local chapter formed a month ago since there is no local chapter until this Saturday meeting. There is no Oregon caucus organization yet. This "endorsement" meeting was the first ever "meeting" for the local chapter. When Liz became the local chapter organizer is not actually confirmed at all, or if she approached the national PDA or vice-versa. Even if she became the local chapter organizer, this endorsement meeting was the first, and so far only thing this local chapter has done.

I have spoken to someone involved in this directly and as of this afternoon there is no actual local chapter, and that this meeting was intended to be an organizing and endorsement meeting. So until this meeting for organizing the local chapter, there is no local chapter. Only a volunteer to be the coordinator, and a list held by national of people who signed up to join the PDA and became members who happen to reside in Oregon. A list which BTW, is what apparently Liz was given by national for organizing purposes to form the local chapter (i.e. hold this evenings organizing/"endorsement" meeting) from the national list. So as I posted up-thread, she is the sole gatekeeper on this list of people signed up to be PDA members with the national organization online, who have an Oregon address.

We have so far, zero confirmation by anyone about any notification to Oregon PDA members (who only need sign up via email at the national PDA website to be "members") about any meeting until the one moving back this endorsement to February, which came after this conflict of interest alarms went off and it began to break online.

Nobody has received this claimed notification email about the Saturday endorsement/organizing meeting on Saturday. Only the one sent to the Merkley campaign on the 14th. If anyone has received this PDA notification email from the PDA please share with us when it was received what it said, etc.

Correction, looking back it was not Jake that asserted that Liz was made organizing coordinator for the PDA here in Oregon, but others in this thread based on the Steves assertion in the original post, the source of that claim which Steves used for that information is unknown.

If Novick becomes the nominee, and Gordon Smith hits the Novick camp, are they going to take this long to respond to serious allegations of wrongdoing?

Why isn't someone, Novick or someone else from his campaign, clarifying the facts if they are incorrect or making heads roll and cleaning up the matter if the fact are as reported?

Campaigns, not candidates, win elections and even if this fiasco gets cleaned up, the way it was handled hasn't given me much confidence in Novick's campaign.

I had the PDA e-mail forwarded to me a few times by people who thought I might be interested since they knew I was involved in progressive/dem groups.

I received the first one on Tuesday (and several more copies on Wednesday and Thursday). I'm including the full text of what was forwarded to me below, other than removing Liz's e-mail address since it's not nice to post people's addresses on the web without their permission (opens them up to major spamming):

Dear PDA Members,

My name is Liz Kimmerly. I am the State Coordinator for the Progressive Democrats of America and I want to let you know that Oregon's only chapter of PDA will be meeting in Portland, this Saturday evening at 6:30. This will be held at 131 NW 2nd Ave in downtown Portland.

We are holding this meeting with the intention of igniting the PDA movement in Portland and around the state. This will be a space for members to meet each other and to strengthen our PDA community.

Items for this meeting's agenda:

6:30 Meet and Greet 6:45 Endorsement process for Oregon's US Senate Race 7:40 Discuss the plans for PDA Portland, the Progressive Challenge 2008 (http://www.progressive2008.org/ ) and Portland bird-dogging in general.

Your attendance and energy is appreciated.

In solidarity,

Liz Kimmerly Progressive Democrats of America

[email address removed]

NOTE: If you have already unsubscribed from the list, we apologize and ask you to unsubscribe again using the unsubscribe link at the very bottom of the page.

Progressive Democrats of America is a grassroots PAC that works both inside the Democratic Party and outside in movements for peace and justice. Our goal: Extend the victory of Nov. 2006 into a permanent, progressive majority.

PDA's advisory board includes seven members of Congress and activist leaders such as Tom Hayden, Medea Benjamin, Cindy Sheehan and Rev. Lennox Yearwood. More info: http://pdamerica.org

Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy

The behaviors alleged and described by Kari, if they can truly be attributed to Liz, are troubling. No question about that.

However, it's clear that (a) we don't have all the facts here; (b) Kari has made a point of writing his account in the most prejudicial manner AND has the world's largest (if not the sharpest) ax to grind; (c) the emotional temperature of this primary campaign is so overheated that both sides are eager to believe the worst of each other; and (d) most of us here are under the illusion that what we write on blogs matters to anyone who doesn't read blogs.

This is what I know: Steve and Jake are both very honorable men of great integrity and decency (as Jeff Merkley appears to be - I just don't know him as well). I am confident that neither of them would tolerate or condone behavior like that alleged here IF IT HAD ACTUALLY OCCURRED THE WAY KARI DESCRIBED IT. Because they are both caring and humane guys, though, and because Liz is someone they have known and trusted, it is entirely reasonable for them to take more than 24 hours over a holiday weekend to investigate the matter themselves, figure out as best they can what actually happened, and then, based on what they learn, decide what to do. In fact, it would be unreasonable for them to do otherwise.

Liz mentioned to me a month ago that she was organizing a PDA chapter here and asked me if I wanted to join. I said sure. Later when I found out the date was 1/19 I also told her that I couldn't make a 1/19 meeting because I would be out of town (which I am - I'm in the international lounge at SFO waiting for a flight to Australia). I'm very sorry that I couldn't be there myself. My understanding is that it was originally scheduled for a different date but was then rescheduled to take place on the 19th so that these guys could be there as they traveled up the west coast. In other words, I was under the impression that this talk was the real central purpose of the meeting:

U.S. Tour of Duty: The Iran Talks SCOTT RITTER JEFF COHEN Immediate Release Contact: Jeff Norman 310.842.8794 (office), 310.621.4659 (cell), [email protected] SCOTT RITTER, JEFF COHEN & EDWARD PECK TO SPEAK AT NATIONWIDE TOWN MEETINGS: What Mainstream Media Don't Tell Us About Iran, Iraq and U.S. Foreign Policy What: U.S. Tour of Duty presents The Iran Talks When: January 14 – February 28, 2007 Where: Various U.S. communities Join former UN weapons inspector SCOTT RITTER (author of "Target Iran"), media analyst JEFF COHEN (author of "Cable News Confidential"), and AMBASSADOR EDWARD PECK (former Chief of Mission in Iraq) for a discussion on the corporate media's coverage of the U.S . occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration's secret plans for the "War on Terror," and the need for diplomacy. Find out why Ritter, who visited Iran on a fact-finding mission, commented, "We are seeing history repeat itself." In addition to appearing at public forums, Ritter, Cohen and Peck are meeting with legislators, journalists, and high school students to stimulate a national dialogue about global engagement in general, and how to deal with Iran and Iraq in particular. Additional talks will be announced soon. For more information visit http://www.ustourofduty.org. The Iran Talks are co-sponsored by U.S. TOUR OF DUTY, PEACE ACTION, and FELLOWSHIP OF RECONCILIATION. Many other groups are co-sponsoring individual events. A book sale and signing will immediately follow each presentation. SCOTT RITTER, author of TARGET IRAN and IRAQ CONFIDENTIAL, was one of UNSCOM's most senior weapons inspectors in Iraq between 1991 and 1998, after having served for eight years as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Marine Corps. As a Marine, he conducted arms inspections in the former Soviet Union, and provided analysis of Iraq's missile capacity to General Schwarzkopf in the 1991 Gulf War. Nation Books is the publisher of "Target Iran: The Truth About the White House's Plans for Regime Change" and "Iraq Confidential." "The important thing to know about Scott Ritter is that he was right." - Seymour Hersh JEFF COHEN worked for MSNBC as an on-air commentator and senior producer of "Donahue" until the show was terminated on the eve of the Iraq war. He founded Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), co-hosted CNN's "Crossfire," was a weekly panelist on Fox News Channel's "Newswatch," and appeared frequently on many national TV and radio programs, including "The Today Show," "Larry King Live," "The O'Reilly Factor," C-SPAN, and NPR. U.S. TOUR OF DUTY promotes dialogue about civic issues by organizing public forums, developing media strategies and producing audio/video content. http://www.ustourofduty.org PEACE ACTION is the nation's largest grassroots peace network, with chapters and affiliates in 30 states. It organizes its grassroots network to place pressure on Congress and the Administration through write-in campaigns, internet actions, citizen lobbying and direct action. http://www.peace-action.org FELLOWSHIP OF RECONCILIATION seeks to replace violence, war, racism, and economic injustice with nonviolence, peace, and justice. It is an interfaith organization committed to active nonviolence as a transforming way of life and as a means of radical change. http://www.forusa.org

Liz had mentioned to me her hope that Steve could get the PDA national endorsement but at no time was I personally under the impression that tonight's meeting was to be an "endorsement meeting." Believe me or not, as you choose, but that's what I knew about it.

Looking at the agenda just posted above, "endorsement process" strikes me as a wholly legitimate subject of discussion at the organizational meeting of a political organization in an election year. That circles back to what I said above about each side being eager to believe the worst about each other. Whatever.

Stephanie V, so how do you reconcile your interpretation of the "agenda" in the email from Liz forwarded to Jenni which you take the term "endorsement process" from, with the words in the email from Liz to the Merkley campaign on Tuesday (the first they were even made aware of this event) where it it states:

I'm writing to let you know that the Portland chapter of the Progressive Democrats of America will be meeting on Saturday, January 19th to decide on its endorsement for Oregon's US Senate race. You are all welcome to state your case and will be given a 10 minute window to present yourselves to the chapter. (emphasis mine)

If you joined the PDA at Liz's suggestion, did you receive the email notification that has been asserted that Liz sent out to the PDA membership announcing this meeting?

Posted by: Stephanie V | Jan 19, 2008 8:18:27 PM

I reject this statement:

(b) Kari has made a point of writing his account in the most prejudicial manner AND has the world's largest (if not the sharpest) ax to grind;

Secondly,a random email that says nothing about a PDA meeting but rather has to do with speakers talking about Iran doesn't prove anything, let alone Kimmerly's innocence.

Thirdly:

Because they are both caring and humane guys, though, and because Liz is someone they have known and trusted, it is entirely reasonable for them to take more than 24 hours over a holiday weekend to investigate the matter themselves, figure out as best they can what actually happened, and then, based on what they learn, decide what to do. In fact, it would be unreasonable for them to do otherwise.

If that was the case, a Novick media person should post here and elsewhere that they are conducting an internal investigation to establish the facts and that if they are congruent with reports, that Kimmerly will be dismissed and an apology will be offered.

Posted by: Stephanie V | Jan 19, 2008 8:18:27 PM ... Looking at the agenda just posted above...

The agenda in the email from Liz that was forwarded to Jenni mentions nothing about any guest speakers talking about Iran, whose press release you somehow thought was relevant to post here.

I attended the PDA event tonight. I'll write about it tomorrow when the nausea has passed.

Not once did Liz practice anything close to full disclosure. In fact, an old man interrupted her when she rose to address the meeting towards the end and asked her, "who are you?" She responded with, "my name is Liz" and proceeded to describe herself as the state coordinator of this PDA chapter.

Mind you, during the entire meeting, everyone who formally addressed the meeting stated their full name (first and last) and what their affiliation was, both past and present. Liz game only her first name and not once did she indicate that she has anything at all to do with the Novick campaign, much less that she collects paychecks from Novick.

Steve Novick, for his part, didn't let on that Liz has any connection to his campaign. Not even a hint!

Considering the grief that Stephanie, TJ, Pat and the rest of the Novick partisans give Kari anytime he omits anything less than total 100% disclosure, it was nauseating to see the entire Novick campaign staff present(at least one other was there in addition to Steve himself) go through the entire meeting without informing anyone that "oh, by the way... Liz here is a PAID staffer for the Novick campaign."

Nothing, nada, zilch!

So when my fellow progressives witness the big crocodile tears of faux outrage by Pat, TJ, Stephanie, et al over lack of full disclosure, know that you're being played for an utter fool.

Oh... speaking of lacking full disclosure...

"Hawthorne", you wouldn't happen to be a Novick intern named Henry would you?

Ben of Witigonen was there too.

You can read his post about it here.

He is a very nice young man who I met during the 2006 election. Unless you have seen him with a Merkley pin or bumper sticker, don't make assumptions.

I have had the opportunity to meet bdunn. And he is definitely a Merkley supporter. I've seen him work the table, and I believe with both a shirt and a button on. He's probably one of the biggest Merkley for U.S. Senate supporters I've met.

We may disagree on candidates, but we've had good discussions and agreements on other topics. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before I come across bdunn working on the same candidate/issue/project that I am. I'm glad to see more young people like him getting involved. After all, a lot of us "young people" are turning 30.

Posted by: petrichor | Jan 19, 2008 10:41:20 PM if you removed the comments from merkley attack bots bdunn, lestatdlc

I defy anyone to point to a single "attack" I have EVER launched against Novick unless you think calling for the negative campaigning by his volunteer blogger group members time and time again is "attacking". I raised money for his campaign and was a supporter of his candidacy until, with tacit support of his campaign, his online blog group member Web Wonks 4 Novick began going full tilt negative from the day Merkely formally announced. The only thing that could be remotely misconstrued as being an "attack bot" in any of this by me, is ringing the alarm bells for months that the negative attacks and dishonest spin and misdirection by his volunteer blogger group is a bad direction for him to take and is burning bridges he can ill afford.

Unless you somehow view refuting the negative smears and dishonest arguments leveled against Merkley, and have damn near bitten through my tongue on an almost daily basis to not say a negative word about the man. I ask that you point to my "attack bot" behavior with specific examples, because it simply is not true.

Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jan 19, 2008 11:41:48 PM

Jenni's comment above is accurate, bdunn is a supporter of Merkley. I don't think that was ever legitimately in doubt, and I second your point about getting more and more college age people into being actively involved in progressive and Democratic politics.

Posted by: Hawthorne | Jan 19, 2008 11:32:29 PM LT, I went back through the comments to see where bdunn was called a bot. Can you show me where?

petrichor said it here, and called me an attack bot as well, along with a list of others. Which I reject in this post above.

Ugh...

I defy anyone to point to a single "attack" I have EVER launched against Novick unless you think calling for the negative campaigning by his volunteer blogger group members time and time again is "attacking"

Should read:

I defy anyone to point to a single "attack" I have EVER launched against Novick unless you think calling for the negative campaigning by his volunteer blogger group members to end, time and time again is "attacking"

I'm glad that Jenni chimed in here. I'm angry and disgusted at what I witnessed tonight by members of the Novick campaign and by tactics of some of his online supporters. BUT... I want to say as clearly as I know how that in no way do I conflate the ethical morass of some in that campaign to everyone who supports Novick.

Jenni Simonis, Charlie Burr and Bill Bodden, just to name three that readily spring to mind, are all Novick supporters who have, in my estimation, been pillars of integrity and are each in their own way as fine of an example of progressive Oregonians as one could hope to find anywhere. Anyone trying to tar them with the ethical lapses of Liz Kimmerly and Steve Novick ought to assume that I won't idly stand by and watch it happen.

Good point Kevin, I know Jenni from the Dean campaign and have always viewed Jenni as a straight-shooter.

Well that explains it right there, Mitch. I'm a fellow Deaniac going back to before I caught the blogging bug. In fact I was first turned onto blogging by a couple guys who ran the old "Independents for Dean" blog!

It's a damn shame he's not sitting in the Oval Office instead of that shrub...

Hayes,

I spoke to Jon Isaacs, Jeff Merkley's campaign manager after the meeting. He told me that everyone on that campaign had to read and sign a detailed and explicit ethics policy before being hired and that if any of them had done anything even remotely like what Liz has done here they'd have been fired. Period. He was very emphatic about it.

So this seems to be as much a campaign culture difference as anything else.

Where my mind wanders when I ponder a culture of "the ends justify the means" is the every-six-years conversion to moderate positions that Gordon Smith seems to have.

Perhaps I'm too idealistic about it but it seems to me that all political candidates fall into either one of two camps.

1. You can trust them.

2. You can't trust them.

I have no use for those in the second camp, even if they're saying things that I want to hear. In fact, I trust those even less. I would much rather vote for a candidate who says things I don't necessarily agree with but whom I trust to be honest with me than a candidate saying what I want to hear but whom I don't know when or where I can trust what he/she says. At least with the honest one I know where I stand and can plan accordingly. The dishonest one is only on my side until he/she sees a greater benefit to selling me down the river.

Jeff Merkley is clearly in the first camp. Unelectable though I'm positive she is, Candy Neville is solidly in the first camp too. Gordon Smith is in the second camp for stunningly obvious reasons. I'm honestly not sure where Steve Novick comes down and after tonight I'm not at all sure that I'll ever be able to fully trust him.

LT, Probably this would not help downstate if you say so, but this seems like one of the cases where your frequent "normal people don't pay attention to inside baseball" line might apply. I'm pretty sure that Kari regards PDA as important for GOTV kind of work. What the geo distribution of PDA is would affect where that would matter.

On the timing of the formation of the PDA chapter, I agree with Mitch that it's not even clear if it happened before tonight. Moses Ross above both says that he was not involved in chapter organizing (suggesting it had occurred) and describes how he will act if is involved in chapter organizing (future). What did Jim Carpenter mean in saying earlier this week -- that there was go-ahead to have a first meeting tonight? Liz K's e-mail Jenni S. got speaks of "igniting" a PDA movement -- that could be launching a chapter, or taking a formally existing chapter to a new level of substance.

The use of the phrase "endorsement process" in that relatively early e-mail muddies the "endorsement will happen" e-mail to the Merkley campaign somewhat in my mind. Getting an "endorsement process" going could be a legitimate order of business if there wasn't meant to be an actual endorsement. Overall I have an impression of a not terribly-well-organized organizing process.

Some PDA members got notifications, apparently, and some didn't. That is disturbing. What I would like to know most at this point, if it were possible, is whether there is a pattern in who got notified and who didn't that would suggest an effort to stack an endorsement. Was there pro-Novick selectivity?

Katie, the question is not only whether or not an endorsement occurred. It also is whether Liz K tried to hijack an endorsement process in favor of her candidate. There are a lot of circumstances that make it look as if she might have. And yes that is unethical if it happened, both in terms of the campaigns, and in terms of Liz Ks duties to PDA. If she did this it would be a significant betrayal of PDA. Given her apparent strong ties to them predating Novick involvement, that might suggest a reason to think she wouldn't do it.

To me the question of whether it was a hijacking effort turns on whether Liz K a) had the ability and b) made the effort to stack who would turn up.

I guess we know she had access to the PDA individual member list. Do we know if she had access to information that would let her identify Novick supporters out of the main list? if so, the answer to a) is yes. If not, much less clear. Whether she actually made such an effort would depend on knowing who got notices.

From what I understand from the footer of the e-mail, it was sent via the PDA system. Typically, those systems work to where you can blast everyone on the list. All the time I've worked as an organizer on something like this I couldn't narrow down who the e-mail list based on names. Sometimes I could select people by city, rep district, etc. But that was about as narrow of a selection as I could get.

Usually the only way I could target individual people was to send them an individual e-mail through the system. But the footer clearly shows it to be a bulk mail thing and not an individual e-mail.

My guess is that some people didn't get it because their e-mail was set incorrectly, it got caught by the spam filter, etc.

Since I wasn't involved in any of this, I can't say for sure this was the case with the PDA e-mail. I've just worked with a lot of these systems and how they typically work.

LT: I think my support of Merkley is fairly well know especially to those who read Forward Oregon, but I appreciate the benefit of the doubt and the kind words.

Perichtor: LT can attest that I am no bot, but rather I am a real live boy < /snark>. Seriously, I don't understand how all Merkley supporters are "bots" and similar name calling isn't leveled at Novick supporters. The ad homiens are just over the top. I encourage people who disagree with me to use logic, reason, and evidence to dispute my claims. Unfortunately, this primary race has had very little productive debate and a whole lot of name calling. How bout dealing with the substance of my points?

Hawthorne: Yes they should have responded immediately. This fiasco has huge ethical implications in addition to being a PR disaster. It has been two days. The Novick campaign had the time to show up to the PDA meeting they could have addressed the PR crisis in a cursory manner like I wrote.

Jenni: We have worked on the same cause, the Bus Project, though not at the same time. I expect to see you at the Tazo building in the future.

As long as were throwing out people we respect on the other side Andrew Palmbeck, despite our inability to get a good game of beer pong going, is someone that I respect a lot, as he usually makes quite thoughtful comments.

My advice to Merkley's supporters is that they spend less time bathing in Merkley's DSCC money and criticizing Novick (and not necessarily in that order) ... and more time telling the rest of us what makes Merkley an outstanding candidate. Because if he's not, even if he beats Novick, he's going down in November to the better-funded, better-looking, and supposedly moderate Gordon Smith.

That's a huge part of the irony here, Daniel. It has never been Merkley supporters bathing in the issue of DSCC money. That has consistently been the sole domain of Novick supporters. And the vast majority of the time when Merkley supporters are criticizing Novick it has been a reaction to Novick criticizing Merkley.

Left to our own devices, we Merkley supporters have ALWAYS focused on Merkley's positives exactly as you suggest.

Perhaps you and your fellow Novick supporters would be wise to follow your own advice.

Bottom line: Which D candidate for US Senate can defeat Gordon Smith?

LT,

bdunn may be a nice young man, probably is since he has testimonials from a neutral (you) and a supporter of Steve Novick (Jenni). But he has been a relentlessly aggressive critic of Steve Novick on the order of torridjoe on the other side, and equally quick to seek out marginally plausible views for things favorable to "his" side in the comment debates here. Take his first post on this thread. He starts by raising the "What did Steve know?" question that is legitimate but aggressive in the context of Kari's comments, and ends thus

With unethical tactics like this it is clear that Steve Novick cannot be trusted with that crucial task.

imputing that they were Steve's tactics, i.e. showing that his original question was only rhetorical and not the legitimate genuine factual question.

Mitch, the one place I see you attacking is where you blur the line between bloggers and the actual Novick campaign.

That said, I find Kevin's report of the PDA launch disturbing, partly because Steve was directly involved.

I do wonder, rather idly, why Kevin apparently didn't bring out the relevant information himself? It might have been a good thing for PDA Oregon, but maybe there's another way to look at it.

Was Merkley there? Anyone from the Merkley campaign? Any Merkley supporters other than Kevin? Why didn't somebody bring out the situation?

But that question has no bearing on what Liz Kimmerly did and didn't do earlier, or what Steve Novick is, isn't or should be doing about it. Or on the meaning of the reported non-disclosure by Kimmerly or Novick of the relationship.

I think the PDA people need to look at this situation, because if Liz Kimmerly is not being open about her affiliations, it has the potential to be damaging to an organization that we should all want to function for the long haul and not only in relation to this one primary.

If Liz Kimmerly really cares about PDA, she should step back and get someone else to be coordinator.

and this crap I've read at Blue Oregon about a staffer who works for Novick hardly disqualifies Novick's candidacy either.

Daniel, Steve Novick was there at the supposed PDA meeting last night. He had ample opportunity to practice full disclosure or to instruct his employee, Liz Kimmerly, to practice full disclosure. He chose not to do either.

Liz Kimmerly is responsible for her own ethical choices.

Steve Novick is responsible for his own ethical choices.

That he willfully chose to go along with a blatent conflict of interests says a great deal about him and his own values, just as Liz Kimmerly's role in all this says a great deal about her own values.

Chris,

The short answer to why this stuff wasn't hashed out last night was that we were trying very hard to err on the side of caution and common cause. We didn't want to have the launch of the first Oregon chapter of a very important progressive organization devolve into an intra-campaign spat. Particularly since it seemed pretty obvious that at least half of the crowd knew what the backstory was.

Nobody on any side seemed interested in souring the enthusiasm of the assembled progressives with a spat. Moses Ross, who took over after Liz started the meeting (and later turned it back over to her at the end) set the tone in this respect by very obliquely referring to the controversy and seemingly deliberately avoiding getting into the details. The three Merkley supporters there honored his apparent wish and, frankly, I think we both agreed and empathized with his apparent reasoning.

Jon Isaacs, Merkley's campaign manager, was the only member of the Merkley campaign in attendance. He tried repeatedly to get folks to take a step back and not rush into what he termed an overly politicized situation. He offered it as his own personal opinion and went out of his way to praise both the PDA and the larger progressive cause and what motivates us all to be progressives in the first place. Like myself and Ben of Witigonen (the only other Merkley supporter in attendance), Jon seemed very keen to avoid saying anything that would reflect badly on the national PDA or bring it into any further controversy than Liz's shenanigans had already caused.

Bottom line: Liz Kimmerly and Moses Ross ran the meeting. Both knew the full scope of what had gone down. The primary onus of responsibility for getting into the specifics is on them.

For his part, my sense is that Moses Ross was very much trying his damndest to make the very best possible of a bad situation. He meant well, of that I have zero doubt. But, honestly I have to say that he was being very nieve about the implications of how this chapter came to be founded in the first place. He sought to avoid the appearance of impropriety by insisting that any endorsement process be delayed a minimum of 30 days. But that doesn't do anything at all to address the inherent conflict of interests posed by Liz Kimmerly continuing to be the state coordinator of record. Indeed, Moses repeatedly deferred to Liz as the state coordinator.

As long as Liz Kimmerly remains the state coordinator of this alleged chapter of the PDA, no endorsement by this alleged chapter can possibly be credible. I just don't see any way around that reality.

Any tainted endorsement by this alleged chapter will reflect badly on the national PDA. I just don't see any way around that reality either.

All indications are that the Novick campaign, top to bottom, stand willing to throw the national PDA under a bus for their own perceived gain.

Oregon deserves much better!

OK -- so I've been a strong Novick supporter, I've volunteered, I'm on all of the lists, even wrote a pro-Novick post for this blog, but I REALLY, REALLY wish they would respond to what's going on here, beyond what Jake has done. I ask the following questions because I want to still believe in the campaign.

Why did Liz not disclose her alliance? Why has she yet to respond, considering the issue is being covered now on several blogs? Why did Steve allow her to continue without disclosure? Why did this whole issue go seemingly unaddressed at the PDA meeting?

Also, why did the Novick campaign basically blacklist Kari -- while he supports Merkeley, isn't he at least worth talking to? Particularly when a response to this story might have gone a long ways towards diffusing what has now turned into a bit of a forest fire? While Kari and I may have planned on voting differently, his role within activist communities and the Democratic Party should at least have earned him a returned phone call.

So, again, please, Novick campaign, coming from someone who has been a true blue supporter, and coming from a place of great respect, could you all take a minute and answer some of these questions? I want to stop (I say so hopefully) worrying.

Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jan 20, 2008 10:12:27 AM Mitch, the one place I see you attacking is where you blur the line between bloggers and the actual Novick campaign.

As I have touched on before, most of the most aggressive bloggers here who attack Merkley as Novick supporters are part of the" Web Wonks 4 Novick" which has tacit approval and active participation by Jake Weigler and Liz Kimmerly. I also would like to see you point out any "negative attacks" I have leveled against Novick supporters, unless you think refuting negative attacks against Merkely by said bloggers who have the tacit approval of the Novick campaign is "negative attacks".

So it is rather interesting that you have that impression, and I challenge anyone to point out a negative attack I have leveled against Novick or his campaign, even when aggressively calling bullshit on the steady stream of outright negative attacks launched by Novick bloggers who are part of the "Wed Wonks 4 Novick" group, which has active participation by both Liz Kimmerly and Jake Weigler.

Thanks Kevin. That makes sense. Saving PDA from this debacle so that it can matter long after this primary is what's important.

At 5:18 a.m. today, Daniel Spiro wrote: "Steve Novick is a trustworthy person. I don't know all his staffers, but I know him ... a heck of a lot better than Kari will ever know him. And to those who have condemned Novick for this, I'll match his morality against yours any time."

I don't know how well you know Steve, but I've known him for nearly a decade - and have worked as allies on any number of campaigns. That's why I wrote this in the original post: "Steve Novick himself would never condone these sorts of dirty tricks. He needs to figure out who on his campaign is responsible, and remove them from his operation." I have yet to "condemn" Steve Novick personally on this, but he needs to clean house to get on the side of goodness here. Ethical leadership is hard, and sometimes it means cutting loose someone who has worked hard for you, but it's necessary to maintain an ethical organization. I'm confident Steve will make the right move here.

At 11:41, Kristin asks "Also, why did the Novick campaign basically blacklist Kari -- while he supports Merkeley, isn't he at least worth talking to?"

Actually, I respect their choice here. I'm not just a Merkley supporter. I'm a consultant to the Merkley campaign. Also, I'll note that I did NOT call them for comment this time - because the last time I called to confirm a source on something Steve had said, Jake Weigler said (and I'm paraphrasing here), "I'm not going to comment about this to a Merkley campaign consultant. If a real reporter calls me, I'll talk to them." Which is absolutely fair. What's not fair is then complaining that I didn't call them for comment. It's either one way or the other.

I couldn't agree more, Chris.

For what ever it's worth, it was very hard to bite my tongue last night. Jon Isaac's frustration was very evident too, as was Ben's. But ultimately I think we made the right choice. Considering how stacked the room was with Novick supporters, no good would likely have come from airing the dirty laundry there.

Hopefully, members of the national PDA who are aware of this debacle will move decisively to protect the PDA's reputation. You can bet that if it goes unfixed that Gordon Smith will not hesitate to splash it all over the TV and radio with his massive war chest. It seems very likely that other Republicans in other states will be tempted to use this sad situation to discredit any PDA endorsement of their opponents too.

No good can come from this situation.

Kevin, I doubt Gordon Smith gives a rip about any of this. However, as another poster noted up-thread, f our nominee does get this endorsement, you can make a fairly safe bet that Cindy Sheehan and Tom Hayden's name might get a "creepy music" name check in an ad or two, and be red meat fodder in the right-wing blogsphere and the chatter on the other side of the aisle. All for the "endorsement" of a chapter endorsement that for any practical purpose doesn't even exist yet.

That however doesn't really address the issue of the poor judgment of the Novick campaign in addressing the ethical FUBAR with regards to their approach in all this. BTW, I guess this comment qualifies as the first negative "attack" against Novick.

How many people attended that meeting? 50, 100, 200, 500?

Roughly 50. About half or more of whom were Novick partisans. Indeed, Steve Novick was there working the crowd from the very start and he wandered from front to back greeting numerous attendees by name, which is how I'm able to estimate how many were Novick partisans.

There were three known Merkley supporters, myself, Jon Issacs and Ben of Witigonen. Three individuals to our immediate right appeared to have come up with Candy Neville and were her supporters. The remainder were probably reasonably objective attendees without an apparent axe to grind.

Compare that number to the number of registered Democrats, and add in the number of people who might register Dem if they were inspired to do so.

That's precisely why this is important. Endorsements mean something, otherwise nobody would have shown up. The vastly larger population of potential Oregon voters rightly assess candidates in part because of the endorsements each candidate receives. And the endorsement of a populist group like the PDA could very well motivate Oregonians to register to vote and/or to join the Democratic party and get involved.

Imagine how jaded towards any and all politicians that such inspired converts would likely become if this process had gone unchecked and we'd all just sat on our thumbs here instead of expressing outrage.

Voter turnout in this country is already pathetic compared to our peers in Europe. Vast numbers of Americans don't even bother voting because they flat out don't trust any politicians. If you investigated the circumstances of their having become jaded, I'm positive that many (most?) would boil down to having felt conned by a politician or a political party/organization.

Why shouldn't those of us who wish that MORE, not less, Americans would get involved in the political process by voting express our anger and frustration with members of our own perceived side trying to game the system? How would America, Oregon, our communities or our own families and friends be benefitted by that?

Where to start? I don't know Liz Kimmerly..never met the woman, so I'm not prepared to assume and presume her motives. At the very least, she has made a really big mistake that is not doing her boss any good. However,if what's been written here is true, and I have no reason to doubt it yet, I am definitely unimpressed with the lack of response (Jake's response on this thread does a disservice to his boss)and action from the Novick campaign, particularly when given the perfect opportunity at the PDA meeting. Being polite and hoping it will go away doesn't work. Just look at how many times we have had a heart attack over "who knew what when and what action did they take?" situations from the local all the way to national level, and then judging (rightly or wrongly) office-holders for their actions (or non actions). This whole thing could have been nipped in the bud, one way or another, and should have been.

It is naive to think that no one outside of the political blogosphere is, or will be paying attention to this, and to how the Novick campaign responds. A few years ago, that might have been true, but not now. The volume of discussion on this single thread indicates that. Now other blogs are discussing it. How many people are the people on this thread talking to? How many people are just reading and not responding? Blogs don't exist in a bubble anymore. Soon, it will become a media news story. The story broke on a newspaper's blog to begin with. Anyone who thinks that Smith's campaign won't have a field day with this later gives too much credit to Smith.

As far as Kari's objectivity, when did he ever claim to be objective? Every other sentence he writes has some kind of disclaimer on it (Yes Kari I know that's overstated, but you get my point). For some reason, no matter how many times he says it, someone always dogs him for not being a "real" reporter. Well, guess what? He's not a reporter. He's never claimed to be. Why does it continue to be a point of discussion?

As near as I can tell, the Merkley supporters on this thread have gone out of their way to separate Novick's ethics and reputation from their questions about the campaign itself. Those questions need to be asked. It's been made quite clear from the start that if Novick wins the nomination, the Merkley supporters will dive head first into a Novick campaign in the general election. No matter who I vote for in the primary, for myself I want to know that whoever the Democratic nominee is in November isn't going to run and hide (intentionally or not)from what Smith is going to throw at them. Wanting them to have the ability to manage and be transparent in office is a given. My impression is that Merkley supporters want that, too. They are all but rooting for Novick to step up and handle this.

We have a need to know that come November, our candidate's campaign (whether Merkley or Novick) is going to have the kind of strength and ability that their respective candidates have. Without that, it won't matter where they are on the issues, Smith's campaign will mop the floor with them. Both candidates have what it takes to win, but that won't matter if their campaigns don't.

LT, You wrote as if bdunn were not a vociferous attacker against Novick, which he is, and as if it were not obvious from numerour writings here that he is strong Merkley partisan, a title I would expect him to claim proudly. If it doesn't matter now it didn't matter when you brought it up.

And once again you are now saying you want detailed positions from candidates, which is fine, except for all of the times you say details are too detailed for ordinary voters.

It may not matter to you but it matters to me. I've been a Novick supporter though not as much as Kristin -- no volunteering, just a little money. But this bugs the heck out of me and if his campaign doesn't get its act together to give us some answers, let go Liz Kimmerly or tell us why they're not, and get Kimmerly to step down from her PDA role whatever else they do in order to help repair the damage she & now others including Novick have done to the organization, I won't be sending in my mites anymore.

I'm not an insider like you, LT. I'm just an unusual ordinary guy who happens to get some of his news about Oregon from this blog. I don't make any claims about the importance of blogs and not much about the importance of my opinion. But as an ordinary guy I count as much as any of your other anecdotal ordinary people. My vote's just one vote. But it is a vote, I always vote.

The Novick I'd like to see in the Senate would be a progressive force along the lines of Paul Wellstone. But if Novick is really a guy who's willing to wreck a progressive organizing effort in order to get a worthless advantage, that matters to me and it will affect my vote. As far as I am concerned the ball is in his court at this point.

And the thing of it is, it is so stupid. If Kimmerly was making the play suggested, and had succeeded by virtue of violating the PDA rules, national PDA would have repudiated it within weeks at most with worse publicity cost to Novick's campaign. It is so stupid that the sheer stupidity of it has counted as a reason for thinking there must be some other explanation.

And the thing of it is, it is so stupid. If Kimmerly was making the play suggested, and had succeeded by virtue of violating the PDA rules, national PDA would have repudiated it within weeks at most with worse publicity cost to Novick's campaign. It is so stupid that the sheer stupidity of it has counted as a reason for thinking there must be some other explanation.

(Sorry about the itals cl)

Ditto, Chris. If Liz Kimmerly is a political neophyte who just stumbled mightily along her otherwise well-meaning learning process, could someone cop to that? If it was part of some thought-out strategy, will someone at least let us know? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Kristin,

Liz Kimmerly says she's been a member of the PDA for quite some time, dating to sometime back to when she lived in California. She's also listed in a variety of places as a member (former?) of Code Pink. So I don't believe that a) she is a political neophyte or b) that Novick would have hired a political neophyte. That's not to say that she's some seasoned political operative. She may be, but I'm not aware of anything which would indicate that. But there is lots of room inbetween seasoned political operative and a political neophyte.

Obviously if Liz has this long association with the PDA then she really ought to understand how the organization works, even if she were a political neophyte otherwise.

Harry,

You might be surprised at how many of us are fellow NAVs.

My creds: The Independent Voter established 2000 (and largely ignored since 2005 when I got into blogs). I've been NAV long enough that I remember when my voter ID card listed me as an "independent" back in the early '90s. Also, the other primary writer at my blog, Becky, is another fellow NAV. And I'm currently negotiating with a member of the Oregon Independent Party as another writer at my blog. Mac is my sole Dem writer and his nonconformist streak is easily wide enough that he fits in perfectly with us NAVs.

I personally know other NAVs who support Merkley. Likewise, several very visible Novick supporters in the lefty Oregon blogosphere are known NAVs.

This Senate race is far from a Dems Only Club. I know that some of them don't like that fact but what are they gonna do about it? ;-)

Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Jan 20, 2008 8:19:58 PM

Daniel,

I was at the PDA meeting last night, live and in person. I even shook Steve's hand before the meeting began.

He didn't once let on that the same Liz Kimmerly who was clearly running the meeting and who announced herself as the state coordinator of this upstart chapter also happens to be a paid member of his campaign staff. Not even when he went up and gave his pre-endorsement speech.

Similarly, Liz didn't let on that one of the candidates seeking her group's endorsement happens to sign her paychecks. She didn't even give her last name when bluntly asked by an old man in the audience who she was.

Now, I'm not a lawyer and don't profess to know how you legal beagles parse things like fraud and conflicts of interest. Heck, I only have a high school diploma. But I do know that by every measure of ethics which makes a whiff of sense to me, both Liz and Steve ought to have at the very least fully disclosed their political relationship up front and in no uncertain terms at the very first opportunity. We were all there for a minimum of two hours and during that entire span of time neither of them disclosed their relationship.

Mind you, I'm not even getting into how this alleged chapter of the PDA came into existance and the ethics thereof. Kari wasn't there last night so there's no reason to even bring him into that.

Pretend that you don't know any of the individuals involved. Let's say that candidate X was there and senior paid staffer Y was running the meeting and talking about the endorsement process for the chapter for which candidate X was there to ostensibly vie for. Would you see any red flags? Would you wonder if perhaps it was a rigged... dare I say, fraudulent, game in which candidates Z and W likely have no realistic chance at winning the endorsement because of senior paid staffer Y's leadership role?

Is the goal to have a US Senator who is a Democrat, or is the goal to "beat" the opposing primary candidate? Time to ponder that question.

Context, LT.

Most of us have profound problems with Gordon Smith's ethics. Are ethical standards only a thing to bludgeon Republicans with? If so, wouldn't that make us all nothing more than a bunch of flaming hypocrites?

He didn't once let on that the same Liz Kimmerly who was clearly running the meeting and who announced herself as the state coordinator of this upstart chapter also happens to be a paid member of his campaign staff. Not even when he went up and gave his pre-endorsement speech.

And? Can you be specific about the conflict of interest at play here? What impact did "running the meeting" (except for the vast majority that you say Ross ran) have on either the endorsement process or any pending vote? What potential impact is it you ascribe?

If all you have is "it looks bad," please note that.

-Novick and his staff missed a big opportunity to followup this Kari post with something official, ANYTHING official. As a NAV voter (who is not happy with Smitty, and is actively looking for something {ANYTHING} reasonable as an alternative), I was very much expecting an official counter-point from the Novick campaign.

First, this was dumped late on a Friday before a holiday. Secondly, I think responding to the Merkley consultant's allegations before a broader establishment of the facts may be unwarranted. If you have concerns that's certainly legitimate, but holding the campaign to such a tight response window, on something that is blowing up on the Merkley blogs and almost nowhere else, may be overexpectant.

I think the first order is to find out the national's official position, one that comes directly from them rather than via telephone. One might not expect them to be able to respond until Tuesday at least, given MLK Day. Or maybe they'll say something tomorrow, or not at all I suppose. But 48 hours of ranting on Blue O and the echo chamber seems not to be pressuring them, in any case.

Can you be specific about the conflict of interest at play here?

With respect, if you have to ask that then no possible explanation could enlighten you. None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 20, 2008 9:40:44 PM And? Can you be specific about the conflict of interest at play here? What impact did "running the meeting" (except for the vast majority that you say Ross ran) have on either the endorsement process or any pending vote? What potential impact is it you ascribe?

Are you serious TJ? You can't plainly see the conflict of interest?

Let's move past the clear rule violation about the PDA's endorsement process, and move to this question that can be asked right out of the gate?

How does anyone know that Liz didn't beat the invitation email list from the PDA against the list of Novick supporters the Novick campaign has, and only invite to this meeting only PDA members predisposed to "endorsing" Novick?

Liz's intentions might be 100% legitimate, but because of the inherent conflict of interest, the entire credibility of the PDAs endorsement in the Oregon Senate race is suspect (at best).

Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 20, 2008 9:50:14 PM

They had time to attend an aborted endorsement meeting run by a member of their staff but can't be bothered to answer questions asked by their own supporters?

Really?

By organizing the chapter and determining the nature and process of the embryonic chapter's endorsement, Kimmerly has unduly influenced the outcome of the endorsement decision.

In what specific way, please?

By the way, the email I received about the meeting is like Jenni's--and my disappointment in not being able to make it centered around not being able to see Scott Ritter, who is one of the few heroes of the pre-war period. You'd think that since I can't vote for Novick at the polls, I'd be more bummed about not getting to actually cast SOME kind of vote for him, if I thought that was on the agenda. I was also told the "actual endorsement meeting" would be "later in the month"--ie, NOT at the meeting yesterday. That was written on Jan 10. Kari's allegations are based at least in part on what he believes was due to happen on Jan 19; his beliefs may or may not be correct.

"With respect, if you have to ask that then no possible explanation could enlighten you. None are so blind as those who refuse to see."

Clever. Why not indulge me, lest your response lead some to think you can't actually come up with something.

"They had time to attend an aborted endorsement meeting run by a member of their staff but can't be bothered to answer questions asked by their own supporters?

Really??"

Like I said, perhaps responding to allegations from the Merkley campaign and its minion before receiving a formal indication of misconduct from the PDA doesn't seem prudent.

Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 20, 2008 10:12:44 PM and my disappointment in not being able to make it centered around not being able to see Scott Ritter, who is one of the few heroes of the pre-war period

And did Scott Ritter even attend this meeting? Was that part of the meetings "agenda" even mentioned or addressed at the meeting?

"And did Scott Ritter even attend this meeting? Was that part of the meetings "agenda" even mentioned or addressed at the meeting?"

I don't know, as I said I couldn't make it. But yes, that's what I'm telling you--it was the major item on the meeting agenda.

Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 20, 2008 10:14:51 PM "With respect, if you have to ask that then no possible explanation could enlighten you. None are so blind as those who refuse to see." Clever. Why not indulge me, lest your response lead some to think you can't actually come up with something.

It wasn't a clever response. It was the truth.

I'm not interested in playing games with you, TJ.

"I'm not interested in playing games with you, TJ."

And yet here you are. Should be easy, right? How did opening and closing the meeting impact the endorsement process, much less any vote?

"The main point here is that she did not follow the rules that are intended to let candidates know and sufficiently prepare for the endorsement meeting."

And who is your source on that? What is your source on what was expected to happen at "the endorsement meeting," and which parts of the PDA process are relevant to those specific actions?

And to follow up, you've restated what you believe are facts on the issue. What you did NOT do, is explain what impact chairing the meeting had on the endorsement process or vote.

Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 20, 2008 10:40:24 PM And who is your source on that?

Tim Carpenter - the executive director of the PDA. Read the article we are commenting on here.

"Tim Carpenter - the executive director of the PDA. Read the article we are commenting on here."

Oh great, when did you speak to him? Or read the statement he made on behalf of his organization? That would really clear things up. See, right now all we have is what the Merkley consultant says he said.

TJ, I explained a right-out-of-the-gate and one of the more obvious reason this is a clear conflict of interest at 10:12:44 PM.

Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 20, 2008 10:52:22 PM

If you are calling Kari a liar, please don't beat around the bush about it. Your attempts to try and inject uncertainty about the veracity of the clear conflict of interest with your antics are rather sad Mark.

"TJ, I explained a right-out-of-the-gate and one of the more obvious reason this is a clear conflict of interest at 10:12:44 PM."

? That's my comment. ?

It is also worth noting how TJ is attempting to throw enough mud to try and drag this into a dismissible he said/she said argument which people (hoping the media no doubt) dismiss and tune out of.

"If you are calling Kari a liar, please don't beat around the bush about it. Your attempts to try and inject uncertainty about the veracity of the clear conflict of interest with your antics are rather sad Mark."

If I were, it would only be in kind response to him calling Stephanie a liar based on her account of a conversation, with more witnesses than his. But I'm not. I'm saying that perhaps Kari is not a particularly trustworthy source to give an objective account, and that any apparent improprieties would appear to involve PDA functions--and as such, I think it would be wise to let PDA speak for itself rather than through a rival campaign. I'm not calling him a liar; I'm questioning the wisdom of treating his account as fact.

"It is also worth noting how TJ is attempting to throw enough mud"

You're the one throwing the mud, pal. I'm consistently suggesting we wait for the man with the hose.

Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 20, 2008 10:57:57 PM That's my comment.

Wrong. It is a link to my comment answering your question.

TJ, your childish attempts at bating people and trying to throw mud, basically calling Kari a liar, etc. speaks for itself.

correction:

baiting

It is also worth noting how TJ is attempting to throw enough mud to try and drag this into a dismissible he said/she said argument which people (hoping the media no doubt) dismiss and tune out of.

Yes, that much is crystal clear. Too many openly pro-Novick individuals have expressed concern about Liz's ethics in this thread for torridjoe's tactics to be taken seriously. He's not just insulting our intelligence, he's insulting the intelligence of his fellow Novick supporters as well as that of the nonaligned individuals who have also expressed concerns in this thread.

"Wrong. It is a link to my comment answering your question."

Mislabeled, then, because the timestamp is mine. The link takes me to a discussion about what you perceive to be a general conflict of interest. My question was what the impact of Kimmerly's involvement LAST NIGHT AT THE MEETING was on the endorsement process, that necessitated disclosure. What happened that required it? I'm curious as to why you'd try to answer, since you weren't there.

"TJ, your childish attempts at bating people and trying to throw mud, basically calling Kari a liar, etc. speaks for itself."

So not only do you take what the Merkley campaign has to say about the incident at face value, even asking for that information to be verified is out of bounds?

If the verified facts are on your side, then insulting people and accusing them falsely seems like a bad gambit for you. What you're doing here--attempting to squelch any inquiry into the full story--is the hallmark of those not confident of their position. Furthermore, it simply provides a dodge for having to answer to the questions being raise.

"Kari's banner says "fake endorsement". Still waiting to be shown an endorsement, so we can decide if it is fake or not."

Don't forget "sham organization," which appears to contradict even his own account of the conversation with PDA. If we accept the "48 hours ago" response, that begs the question of why they'd validate a sham application. Nowhere is it alleged that the chapter was formed improperly...and of course the MSM account notes that PDA INITIALLY APPROACHED KIMMERLY, not the other way around.

I doubt that anyone believes that with well over 230 comments in this thread that a) anyone is trying to squelch inquiry in any way or b) that torridjoe is seriously interested in understanding how or why what Liz did is ethically questionable. The answers are there for those who honestly want to understand. Those who don't want to understand or who don't like what they understood from the very beginning can be expected to kick and scream and do everything in their power to distract attention from the issue here. Which is exactly what we're witnessing here.

Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 20, 2008 11:11:34 PM

Irrelevant TJ. As I already pointed out, right out of the gate the attendees at the meeting could easily been stacked because of Liz gaming who got invited out of PDA email list. She may not have, but because of the inherent conflict of interest, it is but one of myriad ways her conflict of interest delegitimizes the process of a PDA endorsement.

As for the "still waiting's" attempt to make out that since no endorsement has yet occurred there is no problem here is also irrelevant. From what is known at this point, the endorsement could well have taken place on the 19th, violating the DPA endorsement process because it was conceived of, initiated by the Liz, and gamed (a paid staffer) for the sole reason to get a local chapter endorsement, which is a prerequisite to getting a national PDA endorsement, and their email list and potential donor/volunteer base.

This is why the clear conflict of interest is a real issue. It also raises questions about judgment and ethical compass of the Novick campaign that this didn't raise red-flags as to the clear ethical problems that their own paid campaign staffer was organizing a group to give an endorsement in a race that her boss was in.

"Irrelevant TJ."

To you, maybe. You continue to respond to a question you were not asked. Murray said her lack of disclosure at last night's meeting presents a conflict of interest for the events of last night's meeting.

Explain how, Jack.

Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 20, 2008 9:40:44 PM Can you be specific about the conflict of interest at play here?

To lie by omission is to remain silent and thereby withhold from someone else a vital piece (or pieces) of information. The silence is deceptive in that it gives a false impression to the person from whom the information was withheld. It subverts the truth; it is a way to manipulate someone into altering their behavior to suit the desire of the person who intentionally withheld the vital information; and, most importantly, it's a gross violation of another person's right of self-determination. - The Art of Lying

What next? Talking out of turn demerits?

TJ's attempts to shut down the discussion on his demands and his terms. Sorry it doesn't work that way Mark.

That is why Liz Kimmerly's lack of full disclosure represents a conflict of interest on her part.

More...

A lie of omission is the most insidious, most pervasive, and most common lie on the entire planet. Commonly, those who use this type of lie, have conned themselves into believing that to intentionally remain silent when ethical behavior calls for one to speak up is not a lie at all. In spite of overwhelming evidence that their silence deceives, misleads, and often causes untold grief and misery, they refuse to speak the truth. - The Art of Lying

More yet...

The Inevitable Consequences: There is also the common misconception that intentional deception by silence has no consequences. Lies of commission (telling a lie) and lies of omission (withholding the truth) are both acts of intention deception. Both reap the same consequences. What liars by omission do not understand is that one cannot escape the laws of the universe.' - The Art of Lying

Oh, this is a great one too...

A lie is not in the words, or lack of words; it's in the intention of the deceiver. - The Art of Lying

Liz Kimmerly's willful failure to disclose her affiliation with the Novick campaign was a textbook lie by omission. As the site I linked to says, "it's a gross violation of another person's right of self-determination." And THAT is why it was a blatent conflict of interest for both Liz and for Steve Novick. Both of them participated fully in the lie by omission.

Since when do self-respecting progressives willfully violate another person's right of self-determination?

TJ... Even if Liz recused herself from the moderating function (which, let's be honest, is just "OK, you're up next..."), she didn't recuse herself from the most important decisions:

• Liz Kimmerly apparently decided alone that the Oregon chapter should seek to endorse in the US Senate race - despite the national's endorsement guidelines: "PDA National only endorses Democratic candidates for federal office, with our focus on the House of Representatives, and makes no endorsements in local or state races." (That "focus" doesn't preclude a Senate endorsement, merely that having an endorsement at all isn't a foregone conclusion. Someone had to decide to do it.)

• She picked the date and location for the meeting.

• She provided the notice for the candidates. With only four days notice, it was highly likely that the other candidates would have a schedule conflict.

• She sent the notices to the members about the meeting. As others have noted above, there's no way to verify that she sent the notices to all 2300 members -- and we have several folks here saying that they're members and never received that particular email (despite getting all other PDA emails.)

• And finally, given the PDA's loose rules for membership (just give us a name and an email), she has the opportunity to seed the PDA membership list with Novick supporters -- an opportunity not available to other campaigns. (Whether she did that or not is unknown, but it's worth noting that the Novick campaign did turnout calls to people that had never even heard of the PDA.)

For all those reasons, Kimmerly shouldn't be anywhere near a leadership role in a newly-formed organization whose sole or primary purpose, it seems to her, to be issuing an endorsement for the campaign she works on.

Posted by: petrichor | Jan 21, 2008 1:12:18 AM

This mess is entirely of Novick's campaigns making, and Kari's association with the Merkley campaign in no way diminishes the conflict of interest inherent in the issues Liz Kimmerly's actions, with seeming tacit approval and participation by the Novick campaign. The attempts to make this about Kari is subterfuge (at best). Even if Kari were the highest paid partisan operative for the Merkley campaign possible, it in no way would alter the facts that Liz Kimmerly is a paid staffer for the Novick campaign, she has an inherent conflict of interest to be an organizer of local chapter of a national organization (PDA) whose endorsement her boss is seeking. It would not change the fact that she is the gatekeeper of organizing said local chapter, she called for and arranged for the initial meeting for the purposes of endorsement, she violated the rules of the endorsement process of the organization, she made no disclosure at this organizing meeting that she was a part of the campaign of one of the candidates to the group she was organizing for the purposes of endorsing a candidate in that race, has yet to clarify the myriad questions and issues her actions have about the ethical lines she has crossed, and the only public statements made by the Novick campaign is a single post by Jake Wiegler, which contained numerous inaccurate assertions which raised more questions than it answered... but somehow this is all the problem because Kari posts on a blog his company runs and which he started?

Your numerous posts in this thread are the Chewbacca defense done poorly.

Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Jan 21, 2008 1:25:12 AM ... Third, that said, I did notice that you stopped short of calling Novick untrustworthy -- unlike some of the Amen chorus who followed you -- and I do sincerely appreciate your reluctance to go there.

Actually almost everyone here, including more than a few supporting Novick and those unaligned with either campaign, have expressed the hope that Steve step-forward and reassure people who respect him personally that his campaign can be trusted, by addressing the problems in his campaign's actions in all this.

I also find it quite odd that you have issues with the way Kari "handled this" as if this ethical mess of Novick's staffers and the campaign engaging in actions with clear conflict of interest problems is, in anyway Kari's or the Merkely campign's responsibility or doing.

Smacks of more Chewbacca defense.

Ugh..

...has yet to clarify the myriad questions and issues her actions have about the ethical lines she has crossed...

Should read:

...has yet to clarify the myriad questions and issues her actions have raised about the ethical lines she has crossed...

Posted by: lestatdelc | Jan 21, 2008 11:08:25 AM

Shooting the messenger seems to be the new tact favored by the hardcore Novick partisans.

The question that progressive Oregonians ought to be asking themselves is this:

If Isaac Newton had been rhetorically "shot" would that mean that gravity somehow would cease to exist?

For the record, I just sent the following email to Jake Weigler, the campaign manager for Novick for Senate:

Jake -- It should go without saying, but maybe it doesn't, so I'll say it. At BlueOregon, we'd welcome a guest column from Steve or Liz that explains what the hell this PDA endorsement thing is all about. As I'm sure you know, lots of our readers (including some active Novick supporters) have lots of questions that are going unanswered so far. You can feel free to send it to Charlie, who will post directly - without my review. Thanks. -kari.

"Charlie" is Charlie Burr - one of our three BlueOregon editors, who is an active Novick supporter.

Thanks, Kari!(from one of those active Novick supporters)

Posted by: James X. | Jan 20, 2008 10:51:04 PM Oh, I forgot, what's "Web Wonks 4 Novick?" It seems a mystery to Google.

Web Wonks 4 Novick

Posted by: LT | Jan 22, 2008 1:01:09 AM It looks like Web Wonks 4 Novick is a Google group much like the Yahoo group I belong to. In that group of local Democrats, one must be personally invited with an invitation email. Members are locals from 2 neighboring counties who mainly know each other offline. It sends out an email with recent posts, which vary from calendar items to debates on issues and links to local or national stories. It is informational, where people argue politics. Are Web Wonks activists? Doing what?

It is a Google group where (and through which) selected bloggers supporting Novick huddle, with active participation by Jake Weigler and Liz Kimmerly, to discuss, coordinate and cross-promote their efforts and postings, as well as pass around anything they get on Jeff Merkley like email blasts, announcements, etc.

How ... sinister!

Posted by: Stephanie V | Jan 22, 2008 5:28:49 PM How ... sinister!