This is an extremely impressive victory. Of course, it would make sense that teachers would overwhelmingly endorse Steve since he was such an incredible pupil. When I first met Steve, we were first year law students. The kid was 18 -- a boy among men -- and yet he totally held his own at Harvard. Kind of freakish, if you think about it. Novick was a true intellectual who had no trouble thinking on his feet and clearly enunciating his thoughts. Plus, his social skills enabled him to make friends with just about everyone. The sense of humor that is now nationally known in political circles was around back then.

I would hope that the folks at Blue Oregon -- even Kari, who works for Jeff -- would realize by now just how formidable a challenger Steve could be in the fall if the Party gives him a shot. Is he further to the left than most? Sure. But when you see him open that beer bottle with his "arm," how can you not root for the guy, regardless of your political views? That's always been his secret. That's why he was so universally loved at Harvard Law School. He cares deeply about justice and economic equity, but he cares even more about not taking ourselves too seriously. I could see him being a real difference maker in the Senate.

Congratulations to Steve Novick on this important endorsement.

And to Senator Obama who also received the OEA endorsement by a close margin.

That's one shiny apple on this post. And a shiny apple on Novick's desk.

"it looks like Hofstra just scored another touchdown against the Pats."

Is that even possible?

Has Steve consulted/lobbied for the OEA in the past? I think that's what "Novick said the vote was the culmination of 11 years of working with the 48,000-member union" means, but I'm not sure.

This is a simply stunning victory for the Novick campaign. Kari described Bill Foster's inspiring win in Saturday's Illinois 14th congressional special election as "the first ripple in a tidal wave"; I think the same words ring true for Saturday's OEA endorsement. For someone running from the independent-minded, Kitzhaber-Keisling periphery of Democratic politics to gather institutional credibility in the primary, this is a huge pickup and a significant shake at all those people who say Steve's not viable and not Democratic enough to win.

When I got interested in Steve's campaign last summer, I never imagined his name would be mentioned anywhere in the same clause as the phrase 'front runner,' two months before the voting. As such, I'm growing increasingly convinced that Steve can actually pull this off, especially down-ballot from Barack Obama. He essentially apeals to the same challenge to politics as usual. If Steve can mix independence, labor, and widespread resentment of Republican mess-making, he might win this thing.

Really, the biggest loser in this is anyone who shows up for Ninkasi's Left Hook Lager when Steve comes to the Vets Hall in Eugene next Saturday. If the tap's dry and I can't get past the crowds to hang out with Steve, Bill Morrisette, and Tony Cochoran, I'm blaming OEA.

This is great news. Too bad Chisholm bumps it for some non-Oregon "client news" update! (Typical.)

Oh yeah, Merkley is Chisholm's client too, right? Now it's all coming together...

What stinks is that I'm having my annual Purim party in two weeks (that's a Jewish holiday, for those of you who are Gentiles), and alcohol is an institutionalized part of the religious ritual -- seriously. A number of us would just LOVE to have some Left Hook Lager around for the party, but ... how can anyone get it out here to Maryland?

Merkley tried to argue that the Lager was illegal, because Novick lacked the requisite license. Merkley was wrong. (Isn't that like correcting someone's grammar when they're speaking, only to find out later that they're grammar was correct?) Still, if someone from the Novick campaign were to ship the beer out here and Merkley were to call them on it, this time he'd be right. :(

Sadly, I'll have to get beer brewed by less inspired people instead.

Oh my God, this is huge! I am so excited that I am actually allowing myself to envision Steve crushing Smith and becoming our Senator!

I cannot agree with Peter Bray about Kari being involved in some great conspiracy to bury Novick news, however (this time). The Ohio story is national political news and even most Oregon newspapers will pay very little attention to one union endorsement. We ought to save the yelling at Kari for when he really screws up because I worry that over-doing it makes us look like a bunch of whiny emos. Sorry Peter, but I am with you on Steve!

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

And a cheer goes up throughout Gordon Smith land.

The Merkley campaign needs to get its shit together. This is ridiculous.

Nobody defeats Gordon Smith by getting media attention for being short and having a hook for a hand. And before the Novick rabids start foaming at the mouth all down the rest of this comment page--get real. Novick has shown since April that he can't raise money. He can get minor blog attention and some local media attention. But 95% of the state doesn't get their politics that way. They get it from commercials. That takes money and big infrastructure backing.

There is a reason that Smith pays no attention to Novick. There is a reason that the Oregon GOP, as inept as they are, pays no attention to Novick.

If Novick wins the primary, Smith wins. "Little and different" isn't going to overcome $10 million. You can't get change if nobody can hear about it over the din.

And for those that think the DSCC will swoop in and save Novick: If the DSCC thought Novick could beat Smith, they would have given him the support in the first place. There are 8-12 Senate seats in play and a fixed amount of cash.

Gordon Smith's campaign is thrilled today. I don't know what is going on in the Merkley campaign, but they need to figure it out. I'm a pretty pissed off Democrat today.

Why is anyone surprised? Haven't people been following the Merkley-charter school issue? OEA isn't going to endorse anyone who has ever uttered the words "charter school."

GO, STEVE, GO! I'm proud supporter of Steve's and I am delighted that OEA gave him the endorsement.

Sharp, articulate, great on our issues. He can win against Smith. It's just that no one has seriously taken a look on what that strategy would look like, because the DSCC decided that they know what's best for us.

We're perfectly capable as Oregonian of deciding for ourselves who our nominee should be. Steve's campaign is on point, original and has a message that people can identify with. GO, FIGHT, WIN!

"Client news"

Thanks for that one, Peter. I'm going to have to start using it.

Much appreciated, Kevin. Rock on.

give it a rest already

For the love of God, thank you, Charlie.

Here is a totally new take on this:

Steve says in the video: Head Start should be fully funded The promise about the funding level of special ed should be kept *Health care costs of school employees are a real concern when it comes to school funding.

Those are the statements of a serious candidate. A candidate from this day forward who speaks to those issues would be worthy of the nomination.

But is Steve a candidate who can talk that way from this day forward? Can his supporters say "Vote for Steve! He has the OEA endorsement and his proposals include full funding for Head Start, the federal government keeping their promise to fund special ed at the level they promised, and part of the problem of school funding is the need to provide health care for school employees"?

Or would the supporters rather take verbal potshots?

This is an important question. The announcement of the OEA endorsement doesn't make people who admire Merkley's work in the legislature say "all that is forgotten now that Steve got the OEA endorsement". Remember, not everyone at the convention voted for Steve, just a majority. And each one of those who didn't support the majority vote has friends and co-workers, and they are not obligated to go back home and say Novick is the one infallible candidate!

The title of this post is "Classroom teachers of OEA deliver stunning victory for Novick", but what really happened was that a majority of less than 400 delegates to a convention (not every teacher in the state) delivered the victory.

A former neighbor who was once our Dem. pct. person was discussing this today. He admires Merkley's work in the legislature, and didn't understand the endorsement unless it was just people who had been impressed by a speech. Do you really expect him to vote for Steve simply because the OEA voted an endorsement?

The Statesman Journal article about this contained a couple of interesting comments from rural teachers.

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080309/NEWS/803090322

A teacher from the South Umpqua school district, near where Merkley was born said, "I felt that Jeff had experience, and has been 100 percent supportive of OEA. I shouldn't change and take a chance, because he has been loyal to us."

.........a teacher from La Grande, told his fellow educators that it was Merkley who stood a better chance of, "beating Gordon Smith in the hinterlands, or at least running even with him."

This is a reality check, folks. One thing my former neighbor and I talked about was when a local union activist ran for office, won the AFL-CIO endorsement, and lost the primary. These things happen.

One more thing. Yes, I know Novick supporters are fans of the beer ad and Left Hook Lager. But there are Democratic voters who don't drink alcohol. Esp. if they don't drink alcohol either for religious reasons or because they or someone they know is a recovering alcoholic, why would they vote for the Left Hook Lager candidate? There seems to have been more emphasis on that recently than the serious statements on issues. Also, I have heard a comment from a longtime Democrat that the beer ad isn't serious but more like a circus side show.

With this big endorsement to brag on, there is no further reason for snide remarks from anyone supporting Steve Novick's campaign. Because, as Steve Duin says in his column today, funny/witty Novick is a lot more appealing than angry Novick.

This is true esp. outside the circle of his friends in Portland and elsewhere.

Does friendship mean "my friend running for office is incapable of making mistakes", or does it mean quietly talking to a friend running for office and saying one strategy is more effective than another one?

Yes, I know Novick supporters are fans of the beer ad and Left Hook Lager. But there are Democratic voters who don't drink alcohol... why would they vote for the Left Hook Lager candidate?

Will somebody please just shoot me.

Teachers are an independent lot, that's true. They aren't just going to vote for their union's choice because their union says so.

Neither will members of the AFL-CIO for that matter.

It's insulting to the delegates to paint them as a bunch of folks who were easily swayed by a speech. They heard the candidates speak on policies that matter to them. They carefully weighed the comments of their colleagues and they voted. Now they're going home to their locals to share their experiences. They're taking home their in-person impressions, and telling their friends. That's what's going to get the primary votes.

I wish you would have taken the whole quote from that fellow from La Grande who thinks that Merkley's got a better chance of beating Smith in the hinterlands. He starts his comment by stating that Merkley's from a rural area, and that's why he's got a better chance to beat Smith. Well, I guess he must be right, since Steve's from the booming metropolis of Cottage Grove.

"They're taking home their in-person impressions, and telling their friends. That's what's going to get the primary votes. "

This is very true.

About the other point. Actually, there isn't a lot of distance between S. Umpqua and Cottage Grove. Yes, both men have roots in S. Oregon.

But isn't that like saying Tim Russert and Mark Russell are from Buffalo, NY when everyone knows them as the NBC Meet the Press host and the satirist who plays the piano and makes fun of politicians in DC?

Yep, LT. I agree with that. I didn't say that I understood and/or agreed with the guy from La Grande's point, just that his if/then statement applied to either guy equally.

By the way, I heartily concur with your comment about keeping this about the issues, instead of knee-jerk attacks from either Novick or Merkley's camp.

isn't that like saying Tim Russert and Mark Russell are from Buffalo, NY when everyone knows them as the NBC Meet the Press host and the satirist who plays the piano and makes fun of politicians in DC?

Are you comparing a former DOJ environmental litigator, chief of staff to the OR Senate Dems, and governor's advisor to a piano-playing satirist? What the OEA endorsement (and especially the endorsement's margin) shows is that Steve's for real. Some of his supporters like to brew, donate, and drink in his honor; that's not an insult to non-drinkers, it's a locally-flavored celebration of the civic process. Steve's more than the Left Hook Lager candidate- he's the whip-smart environmental candidate, the anti-war candidate, and after Saturday, he's officially the education candidate now, too.

Some people don't have a sense of humor about alcohol, including recovering alcoholics and those who work with them.

My only point was that a successful campaign recruits voters who don't agree with them on everything. If someone likes what Steve says about poverty and education but is in the family of a recovering alcoholic, people saying they should have a sense of humor about beer is not necessarily going to gain their vote---whatever you say about me.

OK, Steve is real. He has the OEA endorsement. But does that mean everyone who is a Cottage Grove Dem. (or any other similar sized rural town/city) is going to vote for him? That was my point. Perhaps it was lost on you.

If I were working on the US Senate campaign, I'd be cautioning my candidate not to take the views of others lightly.

But apparently there are people who believe that someone in a downstate community who has never met Steve is going to vote for him because, "Steve's more than the Left Hook Lager candidate- he's the whip-smart environmental candidate, the anti-war candidate, and after Saturday, he's officially the education candidate now, too."

If any of you choose to believe that everyone who is involved with schools, is opposed to the war, is an environmentalist is going to vote for Steve because you say so, that's fine. I'm just saying my bitter experience says otherwise. We will find out the results in late May.

Thank you Lifeisgood for saying this:

I heartily concur with your comment about keeping this about the issues, instead of knee-jerk attacks from either Novick or Merkley's camp.

There may well be people who agree with Steve on some issues and disagree with him on others. Let's debate the issues rather than saying "this person is good, that person is bad, don't ask questions but just vote for our guy".

I've known Steve long enough to know he is capable of more than that.

LT,

I don't know if you were referring to me when you said "my friend running for office is incapable of making mistakes," or whether you were referring to someone else. But that comment sure doesn't apply to me. I took Steve to task for endorsing Edwards and then saying so many nice things about Hillary in his endorsement about Obama. I could never bring myself to say so many nice things about her as Steve did, and I would have never endorsed Edwards when Obama was in the race. It's clear to me that neither Steve nor Merkley fully appreciates just how great Obama could be for this country. Edwards doesn't hold a candle to the guy in his ability to inspire the country to implement progressive changes.

That said, I'm really sick of people taking shots at Novick in threads like this one. The guy gets a great endorsement, and what happens? Multiple people try to hijack the thread by sounding like Chicken Little. "Oh my God. An honest to God progressive might actually win the nomination. And a beer drinker at that! Surely we can't let that happen. The Republicans will cream us"

Some of you Merkley fans -- not most of you, and certainly not Jeff, but some of you Chicken Littles -- should just cool out. "The Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" can indeed win some Senatorial battles, just like it did when Wellstone ran. Steve has the right combo of intelligence, knowledge, sense of humor and compassion to win in November. Stop being afraid of your own shadows. Please.

LT,

I don't know if you were referring to me when you said "my friend running for office is incapable of making mistakes," or whether you were referring to someone else. But that comment sure doesn't apply to me. I took Steve to task for endorsing Edwards and then saying so many nice things about Hillary in his endorsement about Obama. I could never bring myself to say so many nice things about her as Steve did, and I would have never endorsed Edwards when Obama was in the race. It's clear to me that neither Steve nor Merkley fully appreciates just how great Obama could be for this country. Edwards doesn't hold a candle to the guy in his ability to inspire the country to implement progressive changes.

That said, I'm really sick of people taking shots at Novick in threads like this one. The guy gets a great endorsement, and what happens? Multiple people try to hijack the thread by sounding like Chicken Little. "Oh my God. An honest to God progressive might actually win the nomination. And a beer drinker at that! Surely we can't let that happen. The Republicans will cream us"

Some of you Merkley fans -- not most of you, and certainly not Jeff, but some of you Chicken Littles -- should just cool out. "The Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" can indeed win some Senatorial battles, just like it did when Wellstone ran. Steve has the right combo of intelligence, knowledge, sense of humor and compassion to win in November. Stop being afraid of your own shadows. Please.

Daniel, I still remember more than a decade ago some wisdom from a friend of mine who has been an elected official and had a lot of friends and admirers.

Maybe my experience is different from yours---is that a bad thing? Is there room in Democratic politics for the proverbial "5 people in a room, meaning 4 factions and a moderator", or should we all think alike or leave politics?

After we hadn't seen each other for a couple years, we saw each other one day in the state capitol. He asked me what I had done on the most recent election. I mentioned a campaign I worked on and all the different things I had done as a volunteer, ending with "...and besides that, being a friend of the candidate".

He said, "Sometimes that is the most important thing you can be on a campaign".

As a friend of Steve, you are playing a very important role, but don't ever let it slide into peer pressure. As Steve may recall from 1996, peer pressure for all good Democrats to devote their energies to electing Bruggere didn't prevent the election of Gordon Smith. Steve is a lot smarter in a lot of ways, but does he realize that is what went wrong with the campaign he worked on in 1996?

I am not saying every Novick supporter thinks he is infallible, but some sure don't like to see him questioned. If a campaign can't deal with tough questions in the primary, how well will they deal with them in the general?

(How many supporters of Gordon Smith might not find Left Hook Lager amusing, or don't their votes matter? Do the votes of those who previously voted for Gordon Smith form part of what it will take to defeat Gordon? Or is that not a valid question?).

What I am saying is the3 importance of those who were friends of Steve long before the primary and will still be his friend 6 months or a year from now no matter what the election result (and I've been in that situation multiple times). These friends would do well to pay attention to what others who are not devoting all their spare time and energy to any campaign in March of 2008 are saying about the campaign.

For instance, today's Steve Duin column: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf?/base/news/1204950303284110.xml&coll=7

It says a humorous Steve does better than angry, acerbic Steve.

Great quotes from Jack Roberts (bright guy whose remarks have sometimes been noted and long remembered as a candidate and office holder)

As Jack Roberts, the former state labor commissioner said when the applause died down, "Funny Steve plays a lot better than Angry Steve." ........................... On occasion, Novick came off as the acerbic attack dog, too clever by half, particularly when he framed Merkley's attacks as slams on other Democrats, including Obama and Peter DeFazio, who agree with him.

<h6></h6>

Once upon a time someone who only lives a few miles from my house ran for office for the first time (had been appointed but never elected). Some parts of the election process came as a surprise, most notably "It is amazing how people won't listen to what you say unless they like you!".

All I am saying (beyond never hearing Wellstone being as acerbic as Steve Novick) is that Steve could have gotten every endorsement in sight, be the darling of the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party", but that does not ensure that he earns the votes of more registered Democrats than any other candidate.

There are some "blue dogs" in this state who have in the past been very active in Democratic politics. There are also people who have admired the work of the Speaker in the 2007 session, even if they didn't always agree with him.

Such people (and young voters who may see Steve and not be overly impressed--I know one young person in that category) are not going to vote for Steve simply because his friends think he is the greatest candidate ever.

Which is why the true friends of Steve might want to talk to him, friend to friend, and discuss what kind of candidate he wants to be from this point forward. Issue ads or just the beer ad from now until May? More humor and less acerbic, or is the current mix working just fine? And how's that grass roots infrastructure coming?

Regardless of what some people here might think, there was no date in 2008 when every activist Democrat was required to choose up sides and either Stand Strong With Steve or spend their spare time saying Merkley is a flawless candidate.

Saying the above is not "being afraid of shadows". It is "some of us have had a lot of elective campaign volunteer experience, but if you don't think that experience matters, why should we support your candidate (regardless of who that candidate is or what they are running for)?" .

Your friends may all be Wellstone fans. Some of mine have voted for Gordon Smith in the past, and some of them have been Democrats of the blue dog variety as befits small town / rural county politics. I don't think the way the current campaign is being run is going to convince the Smith fans to switch and vote for someone else in the fall, or the people who admire Merkley to vote for Novick simply because he's had good publicity recently. Many people guard their vote zealously and are likely to vote against someone who demands their vote rather than trying to earn it (a mistake Hillary is making, in my opinion).

" Steve has the right combo of intelligence, knowledge, sense of humor and compassion to win in November" is a matter of opinion. And a campaign which hopes to win the primary and have a strong volunteer army in the general election will not demand that in March everyone who is a Democrat agree with such a statement or deserve flak from bloggers.

I think Steve started with the beer ad and the "To Tell The Truth" ad to raise awareness about him. Once he has the attention of people, I bet he'll change to issues-oriented advertising. There are so many differences between his approach to fixing this country and Gordon Smith's. I think he'd do well to articulate these.

My stories are also anecdotal, and maybe I know different people. I'm not saying anyone I know represents anyone but themselves. However, I have heard a couple of "a statewide campaign introducing a beer? " comments from people who thought it was a dumb idea, some who will believe that there will be serious Novick ads the day they see them (not willing to take that on faith), and this email from a friend. "I wonder if Novick has any idea how many votes he lost from the ranks of recovering alcohol and drug addicts. There are about 75,000 to 100,000 in Oregon."

Now the statistics could be wrong. Half the people in AA or other substance abuse programs could think the ad is highly amusing and want to learn more about the candidate. We don't know. But I don't see what is gained from cracks like "somebody shoot me" or "about to have a stroke" just because there happen to be Democrats who don't drink beer. It was either Wayne Morse or Ernest Gruening (if you don't recognize the names, they were the only 2 Senators to vote against LBJ's Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which escalated the Vietnam War) who was a teetotaler but had such profound respect for the other one as to always have the other Senator's favorite liquor to serve when the other Senator came to visit--or so the story goes.

Now, we could all be wrong. Steve could start with ads using the video we have seen here about education or the one on Rev. Currie's website about poverty. One of the candidates could make a major mistake. One of the candidates could happen upon a rallying cry which got everyone talking. There is an old Spike Jones line (if you don't recognize the name, Google it--some of the best novelty recordings of all time!) "It will either be a photo finish or an oil painting".

It is possible that one of the US Senate candidates gets 55%. It is also possible we see a rerun of 1992 where a recount decided the Senate primary by 330 votes statewide.

I have been saying this for years and some of my friends have also----every activist in Oregon could agree on something and the voters in their wisdom could still make other decisions which might shock those who are political insiders. I don't think this is done deal. And old friend of mine always waits until a couple of weeks before any election to decide unless she knows the candidate really well.

It may all come down to grass roots--for all the ads and endorsements and everything else, candidates have carried counties in the past even in major elections as much because of what the volunteers did as about the endorsements, ads, etc.

But then, of course, I insist on being serious. Maybe some of the people here are bothered by that because they just want to have fun.

One thing Novick is right on is that Merkley is going to have to do a better job firing people up if he expects to beat Smith. That being said, Novick's Portland behind-the-scenes political consultant resume just isn't going to play beyond Multnomah county and a couple other enclaves. That means six more years of Smith. What Merkley's got is a proven track record of getting things done as a lawmaker for the people of Oregon, and he will have the statewide presence and financing it will take to win.

Anon wrote above: 'If Novick wins the primary, Smith wins. "Little and different" isn't going to overcome $10 million. You can't get change if nobody can hear about it over the din.' How true this is.

Ironically, in opposing Oregon campaign finance reform ballot measures 46 and 47, Steve wrote on Blue Oregon in October, 2006, '"Get the money out of politics"? How do you communicate, without money? You can’t knock on a million doors. Try it sometime. And I can give you a pretty good argument that there ISN’T very much money in politics. General Motors spends two billion dollars a year on ads, nationwide. I’d guess the Oregon portion of that (we’re a bit over 1% of the population) is over $20 million. Annually. That’s a lot more than is spent on the Governor’s race every FOUR years.'

The call for inaction on out-of-control money in Oregon state politics and his cynicism about the importance of setting spending limits aside - Measure 46 passed by the way, proving that even an otherwise smart guy like Steve Novick can be out of step with the Oregon electorate - how will Steve communicate with voters statewide without anywhere near the money Smith will have? Cool micro-brew gimmicks and late night tv ads won't cut it. Will Democrats have to find out the hard way this November that Steve's assertion that there isn't very much money in politics is just plain wrong?

The Merkley campaign needs to get its shit together. This is ridiculous. Nobody defeats Gordon Smith by getting media attention for being short and having a hook for a hand.

There are two lessons to take from the Senate primary race so far: 1) If Merkley can't knock Novick out in the primary, he has literally zero chance of knocking off Smith in the general, and 2) Novick's ability to grab the mantle of "front-runner" from the well-financed, polished Merkley may indicate that Novick is actually strong enough to beat Smith.

This is why they play the game.

NCLB? Read the book Manufactured Crisis!Our Highly Qualified in the country is up to 93% and AYP is at 70%.Per a memo tonight, Bush is slashing the Educational budget,supporting vouchers,cutting some 19 educational programs and the list cont.on! Make calls to support the educational budget and they're in there crunching numbers for next year.Congradulations and appreciated comments concerning public education.

Miles, this is brilliant:

This is why they play the game.

What I wonder is how many people got burned out on politics a decade or more ago during the years of "money is all that matters and only professionals know how the game is played" politics and never returned even after the Bus Project and Howard Dean once again began to honor volunteers and ordinary folks.

Is this primary about solving problems in Oregon, or about playing a game?

I think it was in 1984 that an open legislative seat had several primary challengers but 2 stood out: one supported by OEA, one supported by another big union. Not many issues discussed, and oh by the way the Dem. nominee lost in the fall.

There have been other heated debates over endorsements over the years.

There have been times when games were played with endorsements, and one time when the arguments over the OEA presidential endorsement reportedly spilled into the parking lot after the convention (OEA endorsement was different from NEA endorsement, OEA candidate won the primary).

<h2>There are real problems, folks. And politicians who talk about solving specific problems (not just debating NCLB, for instance, but also the role of sports and arts/music and other extracurricular activities in schools vs. the emphasis on tests taking away the time for the other activities, for instance) are more likely to inspire ordinary voters to support them than people who sound like an election is like the Blazers vs. the Lakers with most voters sitting on the sidelines as spectators if they pay any attention at all.</h2>