There is no question that this race depends highly on money. It looks like Macpherson has the money to reach out to the statewide electorate more than Kroger. You have to think these numbers still favor Macpherson.

I am not so sure how the money plays out in the end. Clearly, Macpherson has more money and that is a a plus. However, it is worth looking at how they got there.

Kroger is a first time candidate, so he did not have a personal fundraising operation in place. Macpherson, as he likes to remind us, is a third generation politician, a partner at the state's largest law firm, and chair of a powerful committee. Yet, he only out raised Kroger by $60,406 (I am taking out the money Macpherson started with). Kroger's total still puts him third for state office candidates, behind only Macpherson and Kate Brown (I am discounting the US Senate race because it is a whole different world). It will be interesting to see how this shakes up in the few months, as the public becomes more aware of the race.

Macpherson should be proud of what he was able to pull in, but Kroger did okay too.

Small donor support means a lot. Macpherson is pushing 800 individual donors. $40,000 of Kroger's money has come from 4 people. Great, he has four rich friends. Macpherson has hundreds of friends and supporters who do what they can. And, looking at his website, he has 200 plus not afraid to show it: http://www.votemac.com/2007/08/endorsements.php

That does not change anything I said. Macpherson has raised more money, that is a given. However, that is not the whole story. He did not out raise Kroger by that much, particularly when you consider the level of organization the two started with. Kroger is a law professor who has not run for office before; Macpherson is a third generation politician who also happens to be a partner at the state's biggest law firm and chair of a powerful committee. Those are two very different starting points.

Also, I cannot find the numbers right now, but it looks like both candidates are on pace to out raise Meyers in 2004, who I thought pulled in $400K in the primary (Misha will probably correct me on this).

Very well put, Steve.

And it doesn't seem that Greg's crude appeal to Oregon nativism is working.

LOL. But John's low-class appeal to Oregon nativism and play to the middle by making his campaign for AG almost exclusively about aggressively fighting a bogus drug war against those south-of-the-border to hook into anti-immigrant emotions seems to be playing just fine with Blue Oregon types. And good Republican that he is, he's all for the death penalty because it fits so well into a political message that strokes the reptilian part of the brain. Also, the A.G.'s office is not the right place to deal with treatment of meth addiction if that is Kroger's real goal. It is the place, however, to advance regressive theories and tactics of using medical and psychological need to advance tactics of disempowering more and more people socially and politically by bringing them under the paternalistic and maternalistic institutional control of the justice system.

When the regressive threads of his campaign strategy are set against the reality of the A.G.'s office, it gives a very different picture of his run for this office. I would only propose that he does sincerely want to help Oregon deal with the tragedy of meth addiction, he should sign on to devote whatever time he has available for that cause as a low-paid legal counsel for any number of social-service agencies who could use all the help on the ground from such self-assured, white, upper-middle class professionals they can get. On the other hand, if his public appearance doesn't do justice to what he actually feels, what does that say about him and how he chooses to define his candidacy?

I am consistently amazed how each day in this campaign makes it apparent how many of the people who praise Kroger here are so easily led by the nose. One can only wonder if that is because they are so desparate to feel they are part of something, anything. Remember, most of us only know Kroger thorough the sum of his presented public statements, apart from any personal charisma he may or may not have in personal interactions, and from these facts he looks to be a very, very bad choice for AG. This is in part because of how he "embellishes" his actual record as prosecutor, the very thing he choses to emphasize in his candidacy. (For those who haven't read Chris Matthew's 1988 book "Hardball" when he actually was a political operative, you might want to read that to understand Kroger's game.) I have to suspect if his supporters do actually embrace the negative values of politician Kroger, because they truly delude and embarrass themselves if they actually believe some very unflattering characteristics about themselves don't shine through in their praises for Kroger.

At the bottom line, most of the supporters here --- who I am in full agreement with that Macpherson would be an equally bad A.G. because he is equally bad as a representive of Democratic Party values --- give testimonies that mainly just reflect how easily they are suckered by his apparent charisma and which do not evince an understanding of or fealty to progressive values. Leaving aside the classist and nativist tendencies, their empty arguments really boil down to nothing more than "compared to Macpherson (or Mannix)", which is pretty much just like comparing one spoiled apple to two others. If you don't like this criticism, learn to actually think rather than just being a cheerleader and a follower.

A. Rab.-- Since Hardy did not have a primary opponent in 2004, he raised almost no money before the primary. He also started fundraising that cycle with a near-zero balance in his campaign account.

Wow, three really empty but snarking comments in a row:

Almost exclusively about a bogus drug war? I guess you've overlooked the more than half of his campaign dealing with consumer protection, environmental protection, collecting child support, etc. - all items clearly within the AG's jurisdiction.

Jenni must have missed Kroger's own comment Jan. 3 on this very blog arguing for his candidacy which was primarily dedicated to different facets of his particular crusade against meth, including the inherent appeal to nativism that we know have to go against organized criminals from south-of-the-border. That is because the simplistic solutions he and Macpherson supported didn't do a thing to reduce meth trafficking, but did escalate the problem in line with the standard Republican tactic of internationalizing and militarizing U.S. drug enforcement. His drug treatment "plan" is window-dressing when viewed against his inherently impoverished viewpoint as a prosecutor (his choice of how he defines himself to voters, not mine).

Ah yes, anyone who supports someone other than your candidate has been duped.

Nate and Chris, as I made clear, neither Mannix, Macpherson, or Kroger are anywhere close to being good candidates. As far as why you are led by the nose, that too was laid out and you continue to provide evidence for that too. Whether you like it or not it is quite fair to judge the values of someone who is running for office and is asking for your vote, as well as to judge the values of those who support him. Kroger's values demonstrate he doesn't deserve my vote and comments like yours strongly confirm that.

I doubt it. Otherwise that purity troll, self appointed guardian of all true Democratic values, wouldn't be pretending meth isn't a problem in the State.

Steve - Interesting how you respond to substantive criticism of the failure of the meth policies advocated by Kulongoski, Macpherson, and Kroger, based on the facts such as no significant reduction in consumption, an exacerbated crime problem that has led to replacement supply at costs the market will bear, increased health care costs and interference in medical decision making, with a laughable claim that I'm pretending meth isn't a problem. In fact, it is those who just go blind with rage when the fraudulence of those policies is exposed who are the deniers, because mainly what those policies have done is just remove the meth problem from the immediate view of average (mostly white) middle and upper-middle class Oregonians who are fortunate enough to not have a family member or friend with a meth problem.

As I pointed out, if Kroger really did have the level of concern about the destructive impact of meth on our state equal to how he is using this issue for political mileage (and I hopefully assume he does), he could use his talents in better ways than running for A.G. The facts suggest that either my desire to believe that he does care is misplaced, or that his judgement is lacking because he has chosen to aggressively run for A.G. on a platform that structured on the limited viewpoint and values of a prosecutor. Either way, this demonstrates that on the substantive grounds of his own deficiencies he doesn't deserve my vote.

So here's the bottom line to people like Steve, Jenni, Nate, and Chris: If you are so ticked off with substantive criticisms of both candidates, the fact that I assert that he and Macpherson are embarrassing representatives of the Democratic Party (as I am finding you to be), and that I exercise my right as a voter to judge Kroger's and your values if you are asking for my vote, do you want me and people like me to leave the party and take our votes with us? If so, just have the guts to say that, rather than snarking If not, I suggest you might want to try different tactics rather than snarking about substantive arguments demonstrating why Kroger's character and values make him such a bad choice for the job.

I haven't heard Kroger suggest any kind of a "crusade" against meth users.

You also need to learn to read carefully Stephanie V. The statement was: "which was primarily dedicated to different facets of his particular crusade against meth, including the inherent appeal to nativism that we know have to go against organized criminals from south-of-the-border." You see the word "users" in there anywhere?

My other point is that with regard to meth and Kroger is that his stated polices are in step with the only role the A.G.'s office can statutorily play, which is to exploit medical and psychological need "to advance tactics of disempowering more and more people socially and politically by bringing them under the paternalistic and maternalistic institutional control of the justice system."

John has the prosecutorial experience and expertise to convince voters that Kevin Mannix is just a fear-peddler.

Kroger's formulation is every bit as much peddling fear, just in a way that appeals more to the degenerated segment of Oregon Democrats he clearly chooses to rally to his cause. He clearly is actually more in tune with Republican political values for that reason and doesn't deserve my vote.