Kari,

I'm wondering if you or your "mutual friend" asked Liz's permission to have her statement included on BlueOregon?

This is great news for the PDA.

If my understanding of this is correct then the Steve Novick campaign has essentially avoided taking any responsibility for it's failure to disclose, both by his staffer and by the candidate himself who was also at the meeting. But, that is what it is. Liz at least has taken concrete steps to remove any hint of ethical impropriety involving the Oregon chapter of PDA and that's a good thing, both for her personally and for the PDA.

This is good for Novick, good for the PDA, and good for progressives. I am heartened to hear this, so we can all turn towards the real issues facing our state, and the failures of Gordon Smith and the GOP to govern effectively and make the progress on the issues which are vital to us all.

Miles, I don't have the foggiest clue what she's talking about there. I was the person that the Merkley campaign delegated to talk to Tim Carpenter and Diane Shamis.

Carla made it clear here that there was no other response from the campaign.

I should also note that after I called the PDA's executive director, Kimmerly announced that the vote would happen at next month's meeting. I included her email to that effect in my original post.

So, while it's true that my/our immediate concern about a vote happening Saturday was alleviated before I posted, that doesn't change a thing about what she attempted to do. An attempted dirty trick still matters.

I hope that clarifies the timeline a bit.

And, I should note, it also doesn't change the fact that until she sent the email posted here, she was still the state coordinator of an organization proferring an endorsement in a campaign where she was a senior staffer.

But it's over now. She's done the right thing.

Kari,

No, no -- wait. Je suis confused. "So, while it's true that my/our immediate concern about a vote happening Saturday was alleviated before I posted, that doesn't change a thing about what she attempted to do. An attempted dirty trick still matters."

Was Merkley contacted by Kimmerly after she realized there might be an impression of bias and was Merkley then OK with her side of the story? Was Merkley pissed at her when you wrote your post, or was Merkley all okeydokey with the whole thing -- misunderstanding coped to and cleared up, etc, etc.

Also, (again) did you or your "mutual friend" get Kimmerly's permission to reprint her e-mail on BlueOregon?

I don't have the foggiest clue of what Jeff Merkley himself thought. I've never discussed it with him.

I didn't get her permission to reprint the email. It was described to me as a public statement, rather than a private correspondence (and I think the tenor of the text bears that out.) That said, I'll happily pull the full text and link to it somewhere if it's posted somewhere else. I'm pretty sure there would be all kinds of squawking if I just excerpted the two portions I excerpted and didn't include the rest (especially the part where she slams me.)

Now we're having meta-discussions about meta-discussions. I'm done. Good night, everyone. Have a nice weekend.

Kari,

Well, I get that you're done, but questions still remain about the integrity of the original post, given Liz's statement. It seems totally bizarre to me that Merkley (from Liz's statement at least) could have been just fine with what might have been a misunderstanding BEFORE the original post threw some gasoline onto the situation. If the campaign that was supposedly the victim in this scenario wasn't upset, and Kimmerly explained her role to them, then what's the deal?

And yes, have a nice weekend.

The Republicans are watching.

If the campaign that was supposedly the victim in this scenario wasn't upset, and Kimmerly explained her role to them, then what's the deal?

One more time. To my knowledge, no one from the Merkley campaign talked to Liz Kimmerly - and the only one who talked to the national PDA office was me. (At least until Jon Isaacs, campaign manager, appeared at the meeting last Saturday.) I can assure you that the Merkley campaign was most definitely not "just fine" with anything - nor was this a misunderstanding.

p.s. Yes, I too am confused by what Kimmerly means when she writes "after that campaign had spoken with PDA and found a solution to resolve these issues". But I'd suggest addressing your questions to her, not me.

Last thought before bed: A lot of clarity can be achieved in this business if words and actions are ascribed to individual people - not organizations. Organizations do not speak, people do.

It's one of my everlasting pet peeves when I hear news reporters say absurdities like, "The White House said today..." The White House does not speak. It is a building made of white marble.

By the same token, campaigns do not speak. People do. You might say "A campaign spokesman..." or "The campaign manager..." or "The candidate..." etc.

"She's removed herself from the leadership of the PDA Oregon operation"

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, here. She's still state coordinator, as far as I know. She never WAS intended to be a leader of one of the invidual chapters, because she was...the state coordinator. Her job was to set them up, which she was doing. There isn't anything in her letter to suggest she removed herself from anything--certainly not as the result of anything YOU or the Merkley team did. It's like you want to claim credit for the rain eventually stopping, after telling us for days of rain that you would.

And the question that's important is not "did you post after the situation was resolved," but "did you SEND THE EMAILS TO THE PRESS after the situation was resolved." And I think I know the answer, as others here are suspecting. When she's talking about the "Merkley campaign"--that's YOU, buddy. As you say, you were the official designate from the campaign to talk to Tim and Diane.

I think people are catching on to the idea that you guys just might have pulled a Cheney--dump a story on David Steves with your emails from PDA AFTER it was clear you'd gotten the changes you wanted from them--then post a story of great regret, with Steves as your MSM source.

Can't say I wasn't prepared for this; I had a pretty good idea that's likely what they'd done. Perhaps Novick was just waiting--for the Merkley team to self-immolate on their own fiery righteousness. :)

And hey--now that you're moving on and all, is there any time left in the day to mention Novick getting the CWA endorsement and being declared the winner of the first debate by the East O op-ed board? Seems vaguely newsworthy, if you like that kind of thing.

You go, LT--rock on into the night with your non-sequitur false dichotomies, and your oblique and repeated threats to take your political ball and go home!

Do you really think that if Steve wins the primary all the Merkley supporters will give Steve all their volunteer time when there are other campaigns where they have not been insulted by the Novick blog brigade?

Actually, that's a comment that goes both ways. That's why I try to stay out of all the personal attacks and stuff - we all have the goal of replacing Gordon Smith and I don't want to be the one who chased a volunteer away. Volunteers are way too important for that.

if someone watches the TV ad and says "cute ad, but how does he plan to help the little guy, specifically?", all the endorsements in the world and attacks on the Merkley campaign will not answer this question.

LT, have you heard or read somewhere that Steve Novick will never have another TV spot or another communication with the voters?

I of course lack your deep and storied history in Oregon politics, but it seems obvious to me that if a candidate wishes to build a relationship with the voters, his or her first step is to say "Hello! I'm [name here]," in the catchiest possible way, in the hope of being remembered. Upon that foundation the relationship can be built.

I think Steve has done that here, and if he's smart (which I know him to be), he will continue introducing himself to the voters and, then, along the way, providing them with the information they need to make a decision.

One more time. To my knowledge, no one from the Merkley campaign talked to Liz Kimmerly - and the only one who talked to the national PDA office was me. (At least until Jon Isaacs, campaign manager, appeared at the meeting last Saturday.) I can assure you that the Merkley campaign was most definitely not "just fine" with anything - nor was this a misunderstanding.

Kari is correct.

The Merkley campaign hasn't been contacted by Liz Kimmerly or the PDA national. Jon Isaacs did attend the Portland meeting--but noone spoke to him in any attempt to clear up the issues Kari and others have asked about.

None of those questions have ever been resolved or clarified with the campaign.

Carla--Netroots Outreach, Jeff Merkley for Oregon

The Merkley campaign hasn't been contacted by Liz Kimmerly

To be crystal clear, the campaign wasn't contacted by Kimmerly except the initial endorsement meeting and a follow-up or two that week to ask for an RSVP to it.

Carla--Netroots Outreach, Jeff Merkley for Oregon

Posted by: Kristin | Jan 25, 2008 11:27:14 PM Kari, Well, I get that you're done, but questions still remain about the integrity of the original post, given Liz's statement.

Kristin,

Other questions still remain:

Such as why, when she opened the PDA meeting in question, she didn't fully disclose her affiliations with entities present at the meeting.

Or when she got up to close the meeting, after Steve Novick had spoken, why she didn't fully disclose her affiliations with entities present at the meeting.

Or when she was interrupted by a member of the audience with the blunt question, "who are you?" she didn't fully disclose her affiliations with entities present at the meeting.

Or why Steve Novick, after having watched and listened as she opened the meeting and having watched and listened during Moses Ross' Q&A session where the backdrop of "politicization" was explicitly referred to, why he didn't practice full disclosure for her and on behalf of his campaign.

Think about this. Liz turned the meeting over to Moses Ross after she'd opened it. Why? The email and previous PDA statements make clear why. But none of it explains her refusal to practice full disclosure when to do so would have made much more common sense than not doing so.

So while you're pondering the slam on Jeff's campaign, ponder also her motives for doing so and whether her having done so seems consistent or inconsistent with the ethics of someone who chose to lie by omission when telling the truth clearly would have been easier and far less controversial.

Yeah, Kevin, I guess I can't say that I'm happy any way around. I'm not happy with the way the meeting was put together, not happy with the way it came out on BlueOregon, not happy with how it's been handled since by either side. I've tried all week to get some clarity, some sense that one side or the other was the pillar of integrity, and I unfortunately can't get there. I'm gonna stand back and see if really it is all done...ain't politics fun.

Kristin, I doubt that anyone is happy all the way around. No matter how one looks at it, it would have been much better if this sad episode had never occured. Setting the ethical considerations aside, this was just dumb, dumb, dumb!

From where I sit the only winners seem to be Frohnmeyer and Smith.

It's not enough to demand better of Dems already in Congress. We HAVE TO demand better of Dems who want us to send them there to clean house. If nothing changes, nothing changes.

Kevin,

Yes, I have high expectations all around. I wish the issue was addressed by Novick -- makes me concerned about what will happen when Smith lobs a bullet his way. I wish more thought had gone into the fact that this series of posts could have possibily ruined the reputation of someone who was perhaps not trying to pull off the so-called dirty trick and was instead perhaps something that could have been resolved with a couple of phone calls instead of such a public roasting of a fellow Democratic activist. I have high expectations of those involved in Democratic politics that debates like this won't devolve, as they seem to, in self-destructive hyperbole.

None of it is particularly good, none of it helps us defeat Smith. Portland is just too small of a town for Democrats to be burning bridges that lead to one another.

TJ, your East Oregonian link shows, even on the excerpt on Loaded Orygun, that the ed. board did not "declare Steve the winner" but "gave him an edge" on style for engaging the audience more directly than Jeff did, within a context of there being little substantive difference between them. In the boxing metaphor, it was a narrow win on points, with the editors explicitly saying that Steve could have been stronger if he'd addressed points of substantive difference.

I'm glad he engaged the audience, which fits with what Stephanie says about introducing himself. But excessive self-congratulation among supporters isn't what he needs from us.

In this context, I think LT's comments are apt. Steve not only needs to establish his differences of style, but make clear over and over again what is priorities will be in applying that style. For instance, the CWA local endorsement is good, but Steve being out there saying that the Employee Free Choice Act will be a priority for him is what is likely to make the endorsement meaningful in terms of generating action by union members on his behalf.

Maybe he's doing that in his campaign appearances. But I'd suggest that you as a supportive blogger could also draw those lines out, framing why the local would make that choice. And that it would benefit the campaign more than continuing in attack mode here. Your point's been made. We can read it and judge what we think.

<hr/>

Is it really the case that no communication went on after the invitation e-mail went out from Liz K involving Jon Isaacs' participation Saturday night? No, "o.k., Jeff can't be there but we're sending Jon Isaacs" [or maybe direct from Jon "I'm coming to represent the campaign"] message?

Working backwards, Chris Lowe:

"In the boxing metaphor, it was a narrow win on points,"

I agree. So what's your argument about them not declaring Steve the winner? You literally use the word "win" to describe what they did. That's what giving someone the edge in the debate means--who did better. ??

It's not my place to expound on Steve Novick's particular positions in a comment thread of another trumped up, exaggerated column. It WOULD be a good place, if there were a column noting the endorsement--which was my point in mentioning there was not. And LoadedO will certainly have something on it.

Kristin:

I wish the issue was addressed by Novick -- makes me concerned about what will happen when Smith lobs a bullet his way.

I would hope he'd respond exactly the same way if one of Smith's surrogates launched a false blog attack on him, one that failed to garner even enough attention to rate a question in a debate the same week.

Kevin:

Think about this. Liz turned the meeting over to Moses Ross after she'd opened it. Why? The email and previous PDA statements make clear why.

Yes, they do: THAT WAS ALWAYS THE PLAN. If you ask the national, you'll discover that they were assured that Moses was going to handle the actual endorsement, if there was to be one. Which is likely why they--and Novick--had no issue with it.

Carla:

The Merkley campaign hasn't been contacted by Liz Kimmerly or the PDA national.

First of all, this isn't true on it's face; Kari has discussed multiple contacts. Since it was at the request of the Merkley campaign, Kari in fact represented the campaign in his calls. The idea that he is not officially involved is nonsense. He has been an official spokesperson for the campaign in the past, speaking for it on their website, and as I said represented the Merkley campaign in discussions with the national.

But I want to ask one more time: There was NO contact? None? Diane Shamis did not interact with anyone with the campaign (besides Kari) on either Wednesday or Thursday before that meeting? Will Diane confirm that?

TJ --

I wish I had had as much Kool Aid -- I am a supporter of Novick, still going to vote for him, still planning on forking over some big dough when our tax return comes in, BUT it hasn't been entirely clear what transpired and a number of folks simply wanted to some questions answered -- is that not fair?

Also, if debate questions are indicators of what the important issues are in campaigns, we're all in trouble...

sorry, supposed to say "wanted to have some questions answered"

Posted by: Kristin | Jan 26, 2008 12:49:21 PM ...if debate questions are indicators of what the important issues are in campaigns, we're all in trouble

In what way?

<blockquote<i>Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 26, 2008 11:56:20 AM

Kevin:

Think about this. Liz turned the meeting over to Moses Ross after she'd opened it. Why? The email and previous PDA statements make clear why.

Yes, they do:

Which of course is utterly beside the point I was making. A convoluted rabbit chase will have to wait for another time.

Bottom line: Liz Kimmerly failed (deliberately?) to fully disclose her affiliations at a point where doing so would have made a great deal more common sense then not doing so. Just as she failed to fully disclose her affiliations at the two next most appropriate times - at the beginning of the meeting or at the end of it.

TJ,

Let me put this as bluntly as possible: your rhetorical and strategic approaches to writing on this blog make me embarrassed to identify myself as a Novick supporter here.

sorry to hear that, chris. Takes all flavors. This has been a smear job from the start, with not the least bit of substance. Kimmerly from the start sought to remove herself from any meaningful position of conflict, and that was fine with the national organization. The way the Merkley camp has (unsucsesfully) tried to make this into the scandal of the century is preposterous, and it needs to be said, repeatedly if necessary given that they continue to press it repeatedly. It's a disgrace. I don't speak for Novick in the slightest, so don't be embarrased on his behalf. My rhetoric is mine, not his.

And hey--now that you're moving on and all, is there any time left in the day to mention Novick getting the CWA endorsement and being declared the winner of the first debate by the East O op-ed board? Seems vaguely newsworthy, if you like that kind of thing.

Oh, I never addressed this. I'm no longer making decisions about news coverage of the Novick campaign here, since I'm obviously not a neutral party.

They've got contact info for Novick supporter and BlueOregon editor Charlie Burr, as well as for Nick Wirth, the BlueOregon Fellow.

FWIW, your comment was the first mention I saw anywhere of the CWA endorsement. Good for Steve.

"Do you disagree, TJ?"

No, because of the scandalous way it was introduced to them. Legitimate concern arose primarily because of the illegitimate way in which it was presented, creating a defensive posture for actions that were characterized in ways that turned out not to be accurate at all.

Both PDA National and the Merkley campaign were apparently able to come to terms with the arrangement that Kimmerly and Ross had previously devised, prior to the sensationalism of the weekend's presentation. That suggests to me that--if legitimate concern is anything beyond asking the terms of the arrangement and being told what they are--that no concerns were raised once the terms were described; that is, the explanations satisfied concerns.

I think it's legitimate to ask what the safeguards are. I don't think concern for nefarious intent was warranted, however--particularly given Kimmerly's identification to the principals. Merkley knew immediately who she was once she signed the email, and PDA knew who she was and what she was doing, so where it counted disclosure was either made or doesn't seem necessary.

If there had been an endorsement meeting, and then a vote, without all the hoopla, anyone participating would have seen Liz get up at the beginning--and then Moses would have run the show. Having been through that process, seeing her have nothing to do with it--what would be the cause for concern at that point?

The way the story was presented caused concern, IMO, because people trusted the Merkley camp's version of the story, and in particular trusted Kari's account of things. Had the question of conflict been raised honestly--and answered with the details created to prevent conflict--I think most anyone with "concerns" would have found them satisfied, as the principals did.

"Please be aware that there are probably more people like Chris than you care to know."

Probably. Some folks are just lightning rods. I have my supporters and my detractors, and I try not to let either influence me too much.

And you don't need to tell me how small the blogging world is. The fact that I can tell immediately when I see "LT" that there will be some kind of "you're missing point X when it's really all about point Y" comment to follow, mixed in with a lot of historical political anecdotes and a fair amount of scolding, tells me it's pretty small. :)

so where it counted disclosure was either made or doesn't seem necessary.

Ah, that explains a great deal. What you are missing is that disclosure to those who already know who you are and what your affiliations are is kind of a moot issue since you'd not be telling them anything they didn't already know.

The ethical issue at stake is when you lie by omission to those who don't know who you are and/or don't know what your affiliations are, like the old man at the PDA meeting in question who bluntly asked Liz Kimmerly who she was.

Both PDA National and the Merkley campaign were apparently able to come to terms with the arrangement that Kimmerly and Ross

That's one heck of a rich fantasy world you inhabit, pal.

There's not much of what TJ says that I agree with, but his first comment above strikes me as a good summary of what went on here.

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, here. She's still state coordinator, as far as I know. She never WAS intended to be a leader of one of the invidual chapters, because she was...the state coordinator. Her job was to set them up, which she was doing. There isn't anything in her letter to suggest she removed herself from anything--certainly not as the result of anything YOU or the Merkley team did. It's like you want to claim credit for the rain eventually stopping, after telling us for days of rain that you would.

There was certainly, undeniably, a problem with how the first meeting and the endorsement process were initially described. A cause for concern.

But concern was expressed, the process was either clarified or corrected (who knows which), and no endorsement was issued under the allegedly flawed approach. No harm, no foul. But, kudos to Kari and the Merkley campaign for being vigilant expressing their concern.

According to Kimmerly, there was never any intent to hijack the process.

it was always clear with the staff of Progressive Democrats for America that I would be recused from any endorsement process the chapter might choose to undertake.

For all the reading I've done here on BlueOregon (more than I care to admit), I have yet to see a single thing that makes me doubt that claim. Sure, it could be otherwise. But why should I think it was?

As TJ said, the present email doesn't communicate any change; it doesn't read like the "stepping down" letter that the headline of this blog post suggests.

I'm heartened to read that we're ready to "move on." Over, and over, and #$%% over again. I'll be even happier still when we actually do; after all, I've got my primary vote to consider.

Whoops, big mistake. First sentence: There's not much of what TJ says above that I agree with…

Sorry, Joe. I enjoy and appreciate your blogging, just not so much on this thread.

So, here's how I feel about all this.

First, to disclose my bias, such as it is: I feel strongly that Merkley, Novick, and Frohnmayer would each be far, far better Senators than most of those currently in that body. I also feel strongly that Smith is a bad Senator for Oregon. Not the worst out there, but absolutely not somebody who is going to look out for Oregon's interests and help move the country in the right direction.

But I'm concerned about this story not because of its potential impact on the Senate race, which I believe will be miniscule (and I have no idea if it'll hurt Novick or Merkley more.)

I'm concerned about this story because I believe it is actively damaging public perception of the democratic process, and of the ability of the Democratic Party to operate within that process in a way that moves the state and the country forward.

I'll just state my premises up front, because I think several of them are not shared by many in this thread. But I'm pretty sure I'm right about them:

• Lots of people read Blue Oregon. Not as many as read the Oregonian or watch KGW, by a long shot, but still, lots.
• Very few people comment on Blue Oregon.
• Those who comment on Blue Oregon sometimes forget that lots of people read it and don't comment, and assume that the comments reflect the full breadth of public opinion. This view is dead wrong.
• Many people, both the politically-savvy ones and political neophytes, hold this view: "Politicians and their campaign staffs love to wax poetic about the shortcomings of their opponents, and especially salivate over ethical issues."
• Most people, whether they work in politics or not, recognize that things painted by political activists as ethical issues are often no big deal. They recognize this because they encounter ethical issues all the time, and find that their colleagues see them as no big deal; and also, because people accuse them of ethical issues, all the time, when in reality the issue at hand is no big deal.
• People do not like feeling that a political campaign is trying to manipulate their opinions by glossing over minutiae.
• Most importantly: people do not like participating in a system where arbitrary decisions are commonplace, even among those with whom they share some values.

So, this debate — defined, as it is, by those holding extreme positions, like Kari and TJ — is a living, breathing example of how democracy is a complete fucking waste of time.

Kari stands to gain approximately two voters for Merkley if he can convince them that Novick's ethics are tarnished by this nonsense.

TJ stands to gain approximately two voters for Novick if he can convince them that the Merkley campaign's credibility, or that of BlueOregon, has been tarnished by this "debacle."

Yawn. Get over it, or get a room.

Meanwhile, all those folks trying to get their bearings on Oregon politics, trying to scratch a little deeper than the superficial coverage they find in the Oregonian or the Mercury or wherever, and turning to Blue Oregon, are having their time wasted and their intelligence insulted.

How exactly is that good for our state, or for our country? For the love of Pete (and I don't pull that one out too often), CUT THE CRAP GUYS, YOU'RE HURTING OUR COUNTRY.

Thanks, LT. Feels good to get that off my chest ;)

I have little hope of it accomplishing anything, but you know. I have the option to focus on more productive endeavors...an option I've been exercising more and more.

<h2>I see so much potential for BlueOregon as a positive force - and it so often is - but it really frustrates me when "issues" like this move everything backwards, for no apparent benefit.</h2>