This isn't about BlueOregon, Kari, it's about you. You have used your position here to elevate Merkley and oppress Novick. I might point out this particularly egregious set of posts you made in January, all in a row:

January 22, 2008 - Even Novick's supporters are worried about the Kimmerly fake-endorsement debacle

January 20, 2008 - On Saturday night, Liz Kimmerly continues to pretend she doesn't work for Novick

January 18, 2008 - Fake endorsement backfires on Novick campaign operative

You can go through Kari's post history here to find countless more examples of him abusing his power on BlueOregon in favor of Jeff Merkley. We shouldn't allow BlueOregon to be treated like this.

Kari, will you recuse yourself from all posts having to do with Novick-Merkley until after the primary?

If they're editorials, where are the disclaimers telling us you work for Merkley?

I'm not billing myself as objective, Kevin. I'm not. I'm saying that Kari's bias is filtering through to affect BlueOregon's discourse. Clearly, the campaign manager for Steve Novick agrees on the basis that his candidate cannot be treated fairly here.

Looks like BCM needs some chicken soup to calm down. Better yet, lets just lable him a "troll" and be done with it.

It is amazing how someone can get so overzealous and uptight that they lose sight of the reality here. BO is a blog - one that is to facilitate conversation and ideas, and not to be the end-all of someones campaign. Kari does a good job of being a facilitator (in a manner of speaking)and clearly lables some of his comments with his "disclaimers" about who he is working for.

We need to calm down and realize that BO will not make or break anyones run for any seat - that is because it is just a blog. And how it has gotten to a lofty status in the mind of BCM is beyond me.

Lets chill and hope Portland State makes the big dance in men's B-Ball.

Looks like BCM needs some chicken soup to calm down. Better yet, lets just lable him a "troll" and be done with it.

Easy to label and dismiss, hard to respond, I know.

We need to calm down and realize that BO will not make or break anyones run for any seat - that is because it is just a blog. And how it has gotten to a lofty status in the mind of BCM is beyond me.

I never put BlueOregon on a pedestal. Please, look through my comments again and tell me where I did if you disagree. And just because BlueOregon may not affect the outcome of the race, doesn't mean I should disengage like yourself.

Eric, are you incapable of responding intelligently to my points? It seems you are comfortable conjuring up reasons not to enter the debate, such as labeling and dismissing me and my claim. I don't see you making any counter arguments, which is a pity, because we could use more dialog and less demagogery.

kari,

you yourself have acknowledged that the "in the news" (etc) posts are not neutral:

"We post news items here all day long, that's true -- but they're certainly not original journalism (they're clips from other places) and they are often loaded with language that journalists wouldn't call neutral.

As our BlueOregon Fellow, Nick Wirth, likes to put it -- even our news posts come with some 'mustard'".

i have to assume that you are acting on good faith, and not just ignoring me; perhaps you are busy doing other things, but why do you not respond to my suggestion that the best solution to this issue would be to no longer post these items anoymously?

why not engage in total transparency?

...why do you not respond to my suggestion that the best solution to this issue would be to no longer post these items anonymously?

why not engage in total transparency?

I second this.

Is this not a little more than disingenuous, Kari?

On the jump, I've posted a complete listing of the Merkley and Novick news coverage since April 18, 2007 - the day that Steve got in the race. I invite you to review it for yourself.

I'm not going to waste time counting and comparing numbers but a startling number of oranges show up in your count of apples. Alan Bates, John Frohnmayer, and Gordon Smith (repeatedly) among others show up as the topics on your list.

I have too much respect for your wordsmithing to think that you didn't consciously choose to describe the list as "Merkley and Novick" coverage when, in fact, you were listing postings on the whole race for the senate and all the players and commentators that includes. Intentional or not, throwing in all those oranges certainly makes it harder to sort through the apples for the rotten ones... and we know there's at least one of those.

quote "Kari stated that I post around 80% of the in the news and elsewhere stories. Kari posts some of the others, as do Jeff and Charlie."

nick,

if those posts were signed by the authors, then we would not been in the dark as to who is responsible for what.

and fwiw,

"i normally try to avoid the debates that take place over the perceived injustices of BlueOregon, they're silly, often far-fetched, and ultimately pointless."

nice way to start out your first contribution, then, by brazenly writing off the concerns of your readers.

Kevin, I'm not accusing you of bias. You have every right to be. Editorials are meant to be biased. Kari is correct in that assertion.

I am concerned that Kari's bia$ is hurting the BlueOregon ethos: that everyone should have a fair shake. The "in the news pieces" and even Kari's editorials are highly misleading.

In many, but not all, of his pieces, he has no disclaimer saying that he works for the Merkley campaign. The fact that he is receiving money from them might, in some way, cloud his judgment. Moreover, even though Kari has tangible bia$ for Merkley, he maintains a solid check over what content makes it, or doesn't make it, on to BO, including news.

We get on FoxNews for putting a slant in their news pieces and then we allow it to happen here too. I don't know about you guys, but when I hear news I think of at least some attempt to remove bias. There needs to be a disclaimer about that 'mustard' so people are not confused into thinking BO news is purely neutral.

kari,

thanks for finally responding, i seriously hope you guys decide to change that policy for the better.

I've been on this blog fairly consistently for the past few years (though I rarely post) and I have to say Kari, in my opinion you have been disingenuous with the way you have handled, or covered candidates that you aren't working for.

To call this site neutral and progressive is laughable when it is painfully obvious when reading your coverage to see which ones you work for. And you don't need a disclaimer (if you put them on there) to figure it out. It's like this with every candidate you work for. If it's not, then why don't you ever put out positive information about opposing candidates? Is it because you only choose to work for the "good candidates," and there is absolutely no positive kudos to give out to opponents?

Kari, don't project on us. You get called out regularly because it is obvious to many readers.

Now, don't take this the wrong way, I love this site and I come here often. And we all appreciate your work, Kari. I just believe the time has come to broach this important subject because in my opinion, and many others, this conversation is a bit overdue.

also, i would hope that in considering this policy of complete transparency you also add "update" information, so in the case were one person post something, and then another edits the title, that edit is noted somewhere in the body of the post. (as in this post)

The petty bickering between Merkley and Novick partisans has left a VERY bitter after taste for me. I will be voting for Novick, however not lending him any money or time or energy because of his rapid supporters' behavior. I have a feeling that both camps have spoiled an opportunity in a good year for a progressive to take down another Bush-loving, progressive-obstructionist...Gordon Smith...through their behavior and campaign rhetoric. If that's true than I think that we as Democrats get what we deserve. Just a bit of advice for folks (in both camps) who can get a little overly worked up (e.g. TJ, Kevin, Kari)...consider eating a piece of shut-the-hell-up pie as the best thing you can do to promote your own candidate.

jeff,

"We do a great job of offering disclosure here. At the end of the day, what people are whingeing [sic] about is content, not disclosure... "

that is just not true, i, for one, have been pretty darn consistent in my complaints about lack of transparency, and the problems that creates for the proclaimed neutrality of certain parts of the site (as have others, hubbird comes to mind).

however, since it is not gettign through, i'll say it once again:

it's not the content, it's the transparency. though, i will admit, i think the content has been pretty bad in certain regards, but hey, if kari wants to put sleazy content on this site, that is his perogative.

Maybe I missed something: Is BCM in charge of Blue Oregon now? (I hope he pays you well, Kari... he sounds like a classic "bad boss.")

John

Maybe I missed something: Is BCM in charge of Blue Oregon now? (I hope he pays you well, Kari... he sounds like a classic "bad boss.")

I'm just trying to be the ombudsman. Which is, in my opinion, a role BlueOregon should create considering the fact that this issue has simmered for almost a year now.

Honestly, anyone reading blogs expecting unbiased news is living a life of self-delusion.

I don't mind bias in the news as long as I know where it's coming from.

Blue Oregon editor Charlie Burr hits the nail on the head:

"This site has Novick and Merkley supporters, but I'm hard pressed to think of a single post on Blue Oregon -- comments section aside -- since this race began that lays a finger on Jeff."

And it's not like there haven't been plenty of mainstream media reports to choose from that did "lay a finger" on Merkley. The only time those reports are mentioned on BlueOregon's front page are as part of a reaction piece defending Kari's client.

But there's clearly a different standard for Novick (not kari's client). He's been repeatedly dogged by negative stories splashed across Bo's front page.

But you'd never know it from reading Kari's not-so-comprehensive list posted above.

It conveniently excludes:

• The Greenlick/Nolan hit piece on Novick.

• The four-part hit piece Kari himself authored about the trumped up PDA-gate.

• The list Doesn't even include Kevin Kamberg's most recent hit piece; Oregon Senate Race - The OEA Endorsement

...and there's

• Republicans, Novick press attack on Merkley

• Beaver Boundary: Novick and Taxes

• Could Steve Novick's height cost him the election?

Kari's comparison is nothing but spin, and he knows it. Could that be why he was unusually breathless on KPOJ this morning when pressed to defend some of the Merkley campaign's actions this past week.?

Charlie Burr is being honest.

Meanwhile, fellow BlueOregon editor Jeff Alworth has been reduced to that little dog in the cartoon following his big bullying buddy "butch" around saying', "What are we gonna do now, Butch huh, huh? Ya wanna go turn over a garbage can, Butch, huh, huh, Do ya do ya?"

I think the biggest problem for Kari and Blue Oregon is that it has become the "blog of record" for political discussion in Oregon. As such, the bigger Blue Oregon gets, these kinds of disputes and accusations are only going to intensify. As a disinterested party in the Novick/Merkley race, I can't say that I've noticed a bias in either direction, but then, I'm not dissecting every article looking for it. As I've mentioned before, it's the petty bickering here that gets to me. The people who've tried to make bias the main subject discussed have been somewhat successful. Blue Oregon is itself the subject, rather than the issues. And that's not very interesting at all.

Jeez... thanks, Pat. Here I thought I was color blind because I couldn't find the rotten apples among the oranges.

Oh Dummy Me! It was because they were cleverly disguised as Asian Pears and then kept under the counter.

Just to respond to the 'it's a blog!' line of thinking:

BO is indeed a blog. Blogs are centered around opinion. But, that shouldn't mean that BO ignores citing bias. For example, BO noted when Josh Kardon wrote a pro-Clinton piece that he was her state chair because that obviously weighed heavily on his opinion.

Everyone has biases, but not all are concrete. Kari's is a bia$. He is paid by Jeff Merkley. Yet his posts, both anonymous and not, don't always make this bia$ obvious. I'm not asking BO to put disclaimers up of who supports who, unless they are actually working for that person or cause. Then I find it only prudent and fair that that connection is made clear.

Certainly BO is welcoming to Steve Novick posts. This is not a matter of censorship, it is a matter of spin: using "in the news" authority to post about the senate campaign without telling us who (and whose bias) is framing the piece. It is a matter of Kari not telling us that he works for Jeff Merkley on every one of his posts about the election. Hatchet jobs like this go without a disclaimer.

I'm not saying biases should be removed, but they must be acknowledged. Hiding behind anonymous "in the news" posts and posting without a disclaimer even though you have a tangible bia$ should not be welcome.

I apologize if this has been mentioned before, because I was only able to read halfway through the comments. Who the **** cares if a blog is biased? They're completely allowed to be. Absolutely, completely, allowed to have any point of view. And if a blog only wants to allow supporters of one candidate or another to contribute, they're completely, absolutely, and unimpeachably able to do so. And politicians really should not get themselves involved in "playing the refs" with blogs, because it smacks as attempting to limit the freedom of speech and association of private citizens expressing their opinions.

Yikes. This is crazy. And what concerns me more is the Novick supporters on this thread seem, well, unhinged.

This is important: BCM and others are reflecting poorly on Steve Novick and his campaign. You guys are coming across as angry, petty, small and argumentative. Even if you're right about the bias (which doesn't seem egregious to me), you're harming your candidate.

By acting this way, you can't destroy either Kari Chisholm or Jeff Merkley. You won't persuade the persuadables. And you're harming your chances in the general election. No one wants to join a campaign filled with irate bickerers.

Stop now before you alienate those of us who will work for you in the general election.

Bert, please don't exteriorize this discussion by making it personal. Character attacks are really not necessary. Feel free to counter any of my points, but please don't attack me for holding an opinion -- it's very un-democratic.

I'm not trying to 'destoy' Jeff Merkley or Kari. You can re-evaluate my posts if you disagree, you'll find that I have presented only criticisms, not body blows like you. In fact, I haven't even criticized Jeff Merkley once today.

Labels like 'unhinged' are really synonymous with 'I'm incapable of responding to his points.' If you are, I'd love to be corrected.

BCM, that's precisely what I mean. How likely do you think it is I'll work with Novick if it means I may have to be in the same room as you. You may be smart, but you're terrible at politics. I'm trying to help you guys. Really.

Blue Oregon owes BCM nothing. He is, however, free to start his own blog where he can call himself the 'ombudsman' or whatever, and use that title as a license to bludgeon those who disagree with him.

He may or may not be a Republican troll; either way, his style of discourse is destructive to the stated purposes of Blue Oregon.

John

OK, call me crazy but reading BCM's comments- the phrasing, the attack styling, the "logic," and the self-righteousness has me believing that the writer's true initials are KK(K), a new regular on BO.

(Does Preemptive Krap ring a bell?)

Bert and John: What's destructive is when personal attacks come into the fray. Like I've said, feel free to rebut my points, I've made many, please do not attack me personally for holding an opposing view -- it corrodes decorum.

Please forgive me for reposting one of my comments everyone, I would just like to provide material for said gentlemen to respond to:

Posted by: BCM | Mar 11, 2008 5:45:47 PM

Just to respond to the 'it's a blog!' line of thinking:

BO is indeed a blog. Blogs are centered around opinion. But, that shouldn't mean that BO ignores citing bias. For example, BO noted when Josh Kardon wrote a pro-Clinton piece that he was her state chair because that obviously weighed heavily on his opinion.

Everyone has biases, but not all are concrete. Kari's is a bia$. He is paid by Jeff Merkley. Yet his posts, both anonymous and not, don't always make this bia$ obvious. I'm not asking BO to put disclaimers up of who supports who, unless they are actually working for that person or cause. Then I find it only prudent and fair that that connection is made clear.

Certainly BO is welcoming to Steve Novick posts. This is not a matter of censorship, it is a matter of spin: using "in the news" authority to post about the senate campaign without telling us who (and whose bias) is framing the piece. It is a matter of Kari not telling us that he works for Jeff Merkley on every one of his posts about the election. Hatchet jobs like this go without a disclaimer.

I'm not saying biases should be removed, but they must be acknowledged. Hiding behind anonymous "in the news" posts and posting without a disclaimer even though you have a tangible bia$ should not be welcome.

Hang on here, Darrelplant.

Is it "Kari's right, though, it is his blog..." or is it, as Kari loves to describe it, a Kumbaya gathering of "the combined effort of several dozen contributors, and several hundred guest columnists"

I guess it can be both but I haven't yet figured out how.

Will Jake Weigler be posting about how its a "Rigged Game" on Loaded Orygun as well, since it is essentially a Novick site?
Not to mention that 80% of the comments on every Blue Oregon post about this race come from the same people over and over and over.

OMG It's true, Jack Roberts IS a Republican Brain!

He was given the title on "Think Out Loud" this morning, and his comment confirms it. I must warn him to remember the lesson of many SciFi movies about brains that end up in bubbling beakers: when they lose their humanity they get really cranky!

I've been out of town for a couple days and have missed a great thread here on Blueoregon! I chose to remain anon because what I'm about to say will probably offend some people. Look, if you're jealous that Kari started a successful blog my suggestion is to go start an equally successful blog. BO is fun and good way to keep up on daily progressive news and opinions in Oregon BUT IT IS NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE. Seems many here have been logging on every day all day and completely losing their shit. I suggest you find another way to calm your frustrations but freaking out on Kari and blaming him for whatever problems you're currently having is not going to solve your problems. BO may be the center of you're world but you need to remember; it is not the center of everyone's world. Although very awesome, it's not going to make or break a candidate for crying out loud. Instead of whining about what Kari is or isn't doing why don't you go out and work in a positive way for the candidate you like?

Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 11, 2008 7:59:38 PM

"Hatchet jobs like this go without a disclaimer."

You're on crack, BCM. Read the damn post. My disclaimer is right there in the first comment - which is a typical place for it.

I didn't think you'd stoop to the personal attacks level, Kari...

I did read the post. Here's the first comment, suspiciously not by you and obviously without a disclaimer:

Comments

Posted by: Missy | Jan 18, 2008 5:27:47 PM

Steve needs to protect his brand better than that. If he's a different sort of politician, he can't employ a standard, dirty-trick campaign.

Did anybody see The Daily Show this week with the guy who went to jail for jamming Democratic Party GOTV phones in New Hampshire on election day? He was arguing that everybody does these sorts of dirty tricks. I thought to myself that, no, it is just Republicans who do this stuff. Apparently, I was wrong.

This stinks.

It's like finding Waldo. Where's Kari's disclaimer? Methinks it's not existent.

Anctually, I have no problem with Kevin giving his opinion. Provided he backs up that opinion with actual facts.

But when he (or someone who supported Novick, for instance) bases their opinion on falsehoods, that's a whole different kettle of smelt. That's like reading a David Brooks column. And it's painful.

Kevin wrote something false? Then prove it. Quit whining and acting like a bunch of crybabies and write your own damn blog post debunking it.

The Novick campaign and it's commentors have reduced themselves to childish schoolyard bullies. This is now a U.S. Senate candidate and his team manage themselves?

Not one with a chance in hell of winning anything.

I think Blue Oregon does a good job and even if it gets only 2% of the hits that the Oregonian site does, that's still pretty successful for a blog.

My only comment on the Merkley vs Novick thing is that some of the stuff offered up is pretty boring, which leads me to ignore it. Neither candidate seems very impressive to me and I wish we had a ringer like Kitzhaber in there to take Smith out for good. I'm not so convinced we're not in for another term of Gordon Smith, especially if it's close going into November.

In terms of overall content on Blue Oregon, I do not think it's really a place for "progressive Oregonians to gather..." It seems to me more of a place to drink the official Democratic Party cool-aide. Yes, it's a blog reflecting its own bias and that of its contributors, but the scope seems quite constrictive in terms of what gets published. Progressive politics is much broader than the mantra of dialectic soundbites we get from our two party duopoly. If Blue Oregon wants to really call itself progressive, it should stretch further to the left end of the political spectrum and incorporate the views of Greens, Termi-Naders, certain aspects of the libertarian platform like Ron Paul's staunch defense of Constitutional freedoms over all this Orwellian Homeland Security crap, etc.

Kevin wrote something false? Then prove it. Quit whining and acting like a bunch of crybabies and write your own damn blog post debunking it.

The Novick campaign and it's commentors have reduced themselves to childish schoolyard bullies. This is now a U.S. Senate candidate and his team manage themselves?

As for schoolyard bullies, I think one only needs to gander up top to see the personal attacks I've received to know that it's your assumption is inaccurate. I won't stereotype, but the personal attacks seem to be coming from people who are incapable of articulating a response to my concerns. Thus they resort to throwing up red herrings instead of entering the fold.

I don't have a problem with Kevin, I have one with anonymous posting ("in the news") and hiding credentialed bias. I've brought these issues up before and they continue to date.

BCM, You need a vacation. Bad.

I don't have a problem with Kevin, I have one with anonymous posting ("in the news") and hiding credentialed bias. I've brought these issues up before and they continue to date.

So then don't read it. What's so hard? You do get that this is a blog, right?

Getting your back up over perceived bias at a blog may be one of the lamest wastes of time in the history of time wasting.

The "it's a blog" straw men need to stop. Once again:

BO is indeed a blog. Blogs are centered around opinion. But, that shouldn't mean that BO ignores citing credentialed bias. For example, BO noted when Josh Kardon wrote a pro-Clinton piece that he was her state chair because that obviously weighed heavily on his opinion.

Everyone has biases, but not all are concrete. Kari's is a bia$. He is paid by Jeff Merkley. Yet his posts, both anonymous and not, don't always make this bia$ obvious. I'm not asking BO to put disclaimers up of who supports who, unless they are actually working for that person or cause. Then I find it only prudent and fair that that connection is made clear.

Certainly BO is welcoming to Steve Novick posts. This is not a matter of censorship, it is a matter of spin: using "in the news" authority to post about the senate campaign without telling us who (and whose bias) is framing the piece. It is a matter of Kari not telling us that he works for Jeff Merkley on every one of his posts about the election. Hatchet jobs like this go without a disclaimer.

I'm not saying biases should be removed, but they must be acknowledged. Hiding behind anonymous "in the news" posts and posting without a disclaimer even though you have a tangible bia$ should not be welcome.

BCM, about this: "This isn't about BlueOregon, Kari, it's about you. You have used your position here to elevate Merkley and oppress Novick. I might point out this particularly egregious set of posts you made in January, all in a row..."

If Kari were never to say another word, and declare the pressures of work and fatherhood too great to have anything to do with BO until after the primary, would that make you happy? How would that affect the campaign? And, someone might ask cynically, what would you have to complain about if Kari never appeared here until after the primary?

I have friends who support Novick, friends who support Merkley, friends who aren't happy with the tone of the campaign. By and large, these are people who don't live in Portland. BCM, do you really think their views are controlled by Kari? Do you know they even read BO?

Today I was at the capitol to see Filing Day first hand. What I heard from a couple friends was a different idea than I have seen here. It is "Merkley for Senator, Novick for Chief of Staff because he does so well behind the scenes". No one was talking about staff of any Senate candidate---they were talking about who was filing, seeing old friends, meeting new people. THAT sort of in-person discussion is the real world, blogs are not.

Now, you can call me a "Merkleyite" for the above paragraph, but I have friends running for state rep. That seems a better use of my time ---esp. when there are those who say everyone has already chosen up sides in the Senate campaign and has no right to ask questions of the candidates.

For those who are upset by something they consider a slight to Novick's campaign here on BO (like BCM above and others elsewhere), there is an Eagles song I would like to dedicate to you.

GET OVER IT!

Damn... I should have known. I've been saying all along that KK(K) doesn't exist. He's a sock puppet for BCM!

O.M.G. The same personality in two different bodies must make the paranoid pitbull thing really painful!

Ummmm, or maybe they like it.

BCM you really need to take chill pill and relax. This is a private blog and Kari can chose to endorse whoever the hell he wants. I have only recently started posting here and I am a big Hillary supporter and I know Kari has endorsed Obama and there have been many Obama supporting posts, but at the same time there have been Hillary supportive posts. Even if there were 0 Hillary supportive posts, I personally wouldn't care. Blogs are just that BLOGS. Kari has created an open environment on this blog and I sure appreciate the ability to post without my comment being "screened" first, such as on the Oregonian site. If Steve Novick wants presence on BO he should send some smart thoughtful debators to this site vs using folks like yourself and his campaign manager to be his cry babies. Its obvious that majority of folks who comment on here like Jeff Merkely and support him right fully so, because he is better suited for the senate. So deal with it!

I have a strong opinion about this!

Here is proof it is not a "rigged game" and that the US Senate 2008 primary is not the first hotly contested primary here.

I got so annoyed at the Kulongoski primary campaign (that first 2006 Ted for Gov. campaign manager makes even Jake look good!---that first campaign manager had the nerve to tell Marion Dems. "the governor is doing what the people of Oregon want done" as if that was some kind of revealed truth) that I emailed Kari and asked him to please take my name off the address list for Ted for Gov. emails. The last straw, as I recall, was Ted K. saying in an interview of running against Westlund and Saxton "I'm running against 2 Republicans". Anyone who doesn't think people at the highest levels of the Ted for Gov. campaign didn't get an earful about such nonsense (and about where's the old Ted we knew years ago----I don't recognize this guy!)wasn't involved in 2006 Oregon Democratic politics.

Come to think of it, Jake, where were you working in 2006?

To prove my point, part of that debate. If Kari was really the dictator Jake thinks he is, how did this get posted on BO, esp. since Kari has justly been famous for his work on both Ted for Gov. campaigns?

These are excerpts of the post and a comment. The URL is there if someone wants to read more:

http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/03/sorenson_hill_j.html

By initially ducking the debates, the Governor sent out a message to voters that he will run and hide from a fight if he feels that it is politically expedient to do so. Some would argue that the previous sentence pretty much sums up Ted Kulongoski’s entire Governorship.

Posted by: LT | Mar 24, 2006 7:20:04 PM

"unemployment falling from 8.2% to 5.5% and the dems want to hang Ted out to dry. I don't get it. "

doesn't mean much to people who were employed in 2002 and are unemployed now.

And lest people forget, those of us who supported Ted in 2002 did not sign a contract saying we were obligated to support everything he did from then on. He has done a lot of things people questioned................

Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 11, 2008 7:59:38 PM

"Hatchet jobs like this go without a disclaimer."

You're on crack, BCM. Read the damn post. My disclaimer is right there in the first comment - which is a typical place for it.

<hr/>

First comment: Posted by: Missy | Jan 18, 2008 5:27:47 PM

<hr/>

Kari, the first comment in response to that post is neither by you nor is it a disclaimer. Can you please comment on this discrepancy and issue a statement that more accurately reflects the truth?

Kari, it's clear you're a little worked up about being called to task. That doesn't excuse your personal attacks, but I'll take the high ground nevertheless.

Your temper shows that I've made my point. Not that I was trying to make you mad, but at least conscious of the anonymous "in the news" posting and missing disclaimers. These claims are bigger than I, they have simmered for at least a year, ignored by BO and you. I'm sure they are logged into your thinking now and hopefully will be corrected in the future.

Bias isn't bad, it's what this site, like all blogs, thrives on. But, we should at least acknowledge bias if it's concrete, say if we're working for a campaign. BO still has some way to go in that regard.

I think pam gets it right: "There is an assumption that readers and commenters will allow themselves to be defined by the media, a statewide blog or whatever. Get over it. We think for ourselves."

Oh, and full disclosure: I support Novick and bought some Left Hook Lager (there's still time to buy some if you check out Steve's web site) - Ninkasi makes good beer! Hopefully Jeff won't disagree :-) And Kari: Thanks for Blue Oregon.

I've begun to skip reading blog commentary on a few blogs, and this is one of them.

I haven't found the commentary by the "grumpy half dozen" to be enlightening over the last few months of reading this blog. I stopped reading the blog itself for a while, but now just generally skip the commentary.

While it's admirable for bloggers to open up their blogs to commentary in a hope to allow for open discussion, I see a phenomenon on this and many other blogs where the majority of comments lock down to a few folks with sharp opinions and a love of argument.

Eventually, over the span of multiple blogs with these types of personalities dominating the commentary, I've come to think that some folks are unwilling to start their own blog so they troll others. They want to contribute to the public dialog, but end up looking like trolls or gadflies because they gravitate toward places where they can get their argument on -- over and over again. It appears to be obsessive or addictive for some of these folks.

In general, over time, the commentary on these blogs becomes a heated discussion -- with rivalries, and history, and lots of bitterness -- between just a few people. In most all cases I've observed (this blog being one of them) a level of emotion and antagonism gets to the point where a person new to the blog wouldn't dare comment because of the flaming they'll get. But that flaming often has to do with them interrupting a long-standing (and often irrelevant, often ceremonial) argument as opposed to anything constructive about the post itself.

I will don my flamesuit and leave now. I suspect I'll regret posting this LOL -- but there ya go, a post from someone who reads often but comments hardly even (maybe never here? I don't know).

If all else fails, there's no better way to channel your frustration than a good phone bank or canvass for your preferred candidate.

Lol! A sensible voice here. Thanks, Charlie. I have gotten to the point of flying through the comments to look for new voices and to avoid the most shrill of the regulars. (You know who you are -- I think.)

The best comments are the ones that are spoken in a tone that's conversational -- if you're steamed, go stomp it out at a canvass and then write when you calm down.

Kari, it's clear you're a little worked up about being called to task. That doesn't excuse your personal attacks, but I'll take the high ground nevertheless.

You're deranged.

I took a look at your blog, mainly just to find out what you do when you attract a troll. The answer's simple: Your hysterical prose drives readers away, so not only do you not have trolls, you don't have anybody.

Thus, having miserably failed in the marketplace of ideas, you come to BO to hijack every discussion, smear opponents with unsupported innuendo, and make haughty demands of people who owe you nothing. Then once you've dragged the debate down to nothing but trash talk, you smugly claim to be "taking the high road."

Here's a question: why are you here? Here's a better one: why don't you find something else to do?

John

Members often bemoan that such a small percentage of BO readers actually post and then harangue the large silent readership to post more. Is it any wonder? What effort is made to elicit and welcome and appreciate new and different ideas? What effort is expended to understand, if not agree with differing view? How often do examples of disagreeing without being disagreeable appear?

It is possible to disagree without employing personal attacks. It is possible to defend an unpopular view without resorting cutting remarks. I personally find the most thought-provoking (and persuasive) articles to be those of views different from my own that are presented respectfully, thoughtfully, and honestly.

Often it seems like people consciously or unconsciously post something bombastic, sarcastic, and/or witty, thinking that this is persuasive and/or will shut the other person/side down. That is about as effective as raising your voice and talking slower in a foreign country in hopes that people will better understand English.

I respectfully submit that: 1. the vast majority of Novick supporters will support Merkley should Merkley gain the nomination 2. the vast majority of Merkley supports will vote for Novick should Novick gain the nomination 3. should neither get the nomination, the vast majority of BOTH camps would support whomever is running against Gordon Smith 4. the loud and cutting attacks do nothing to sway people to join one side. Instead, they just turn people off and and away from the real issues 5. the worst things either side of the debate have done are dwarfed in comparison to the real issues one finds with Gordon Smith's tenure (and potential future tenure) as Senator

-tl

"4. the loud and cutting attacks do nothing to sway people to join one side. Instead, they just turn people off and and away from the real issues"

It also makes them say "forget it" and either not vote at all, or just not involve themselves in politics. Who likes to be screamed at by uptight zealots anyway? I sure don't.

John and Pam clearly prefer trash talking over articulating ideas. I'm not going to stoop to their level just to draw even in some primitive pissing match when I have already made my point intellectually.

I have made an argument, which I have supported with many points. I'm accused of 'detracting' by two posters who have refrained from having a thought of the subject. Neither of them have posted anything with substance. Does this not take away from the discourse on BlueOregon? Why the double standard?

Pam recalls when BO posts "reflected a variety of insight." No thanks to me, it looks like that time has set sail. I have an opposing view from many people here and it's clear after this thread that opposing ideas are met with vicious personal attacks. Real debate is not welcome here.

And by the way, John and Pam, if you would like to comment on the issues instead of the person I would be happy to read it.

"Pat, It's true I haven't really gone after Jeff. But that's just not where I'm at on this race. If my heart's not in it, trust me, the pieces wouldn't be so hot."

Charlie,

I'm not hoping that Novick supporters with front-page privileges start bashing Merkley there.

I'm hoping that Merkley's supporters with privileges stop bashing Novick, especially with trumped up crap that later has to be retracted (see Kevin Kamberg's most recent post).

But even more important, if the "in the news" posts are going to ignore MSM pieces that reflect negatively on Merkley, Novick should get the same treatment.

That's my hope. It's pretty simple and fair.

Jeff, I stand by every word of my colorful characterization of your role as Kari's Apologist-in-chief.

Let me direct you to something I wrote months ago:

I guess we’ll never know how the Chief Cook and Bottle Washer for “one of the highest trafficked local lefty blogs in the nation” feels about those ethical issues, because he believes they’re silly, boring, childish, slap-fight, tit-for-tat, pillow-fight kind of stuff that nobody's interested in. And co-founder Jeff Alworth agrees. Their vigilance is less than inspiring. And BlueOregon’s level of credibility will inevitably reflect that.

What you choose to ignore is your own business -- until it's not.

Kristin, I welcome you to actually read one of my comments as you are responding to a point that I never made. I said repetitiously that my contention is not about censorship -- BlueOregon posts both Merkley and Novick columns well -- I agree that there is no conspiracy.

Thus, I can only assume you have neglected to read the comments in this thread, which detracts from our discourse. I will gladly respond to any rebuttal to the arguments I have made though.

"A lot of comments in the past few months about this race have been about Kari and his company. Kari is partisan. He is a partisan actor. He is partisan on behalf of folks he believes in."

For the record (if anyone cares):

I don't think Kari Chisholm is for sale. I believe that like the rest of us he supports (and in Kari's case, sometimes works for) people he truly believes in.

If I implied otherwise, I apologize for my error.

But I also think Kari sometimes fails to appreciate the progressive COMMUNITY blog he has created.

Turning Oregon's largest "progressive community" blog into an pseudo campaign site for his candidates is fun to watch when it's Democrats taking on Republicans -- not so much fun when that machine turns against what is supposed to be his own team.

Was there a report on OPB yesterday comparing this senate race to Barack Obama versus Hillary Clinton?

the only reason i check this blog out is to see who of the people i know in the community, who i respect, i can convince on my own time not to use this blog anymore - cause it is rigged!

I agree with Jake Weigler, and the near 100 people who posted so far that agree, Kari Chisholm himself should be questioned, and if some of the other contributors to this blog don't also want their reputations to go down the tubes, they might want to take a stance to reform this community blog and it's preferential treatment of what is posted and what is not posted

BLUE OREGON, in this election is definitely RIGGED

Kari,

Totally off topic, but a technical request I have been meaning to put to you, and I don't know where else to put it.

Could you please add to each post the sequential number of the post, somewhere on the same line as the time and date. I think this will make it easier to remember where I left off with a thread when I come back to it.

Yes, I know the time is there for that purpose, but some of us just find numbers easier to remember. Hope this isn't too much bother. Thanks!

Second, I am SO not going to get into the mudslinging, I have better things to do than waste my time slamming people with whom I am supposed to close ranks with a few months from now.

One of these days, no matter how anyone feels about Kari, the phrase "this is a blog, not a news site" will actually sink in.

I agree. And here is another perspective. While insiders are having this debate, I had a charming conversation with a college student who knows someone working on the Merkley campaign. And was relieved to know it didn't matter where in Oregon she is registered to vote because US Senate is a statewide election.

So the next time anyone is tempted to get into an argument about how one campaign staffer did something unforgivable to the opposing campaign, remember that the objective of a primary election is to get more votes than the other candidates. And any moment spent debating nitpicky details is a moment not talking to a voter and making sure all voters realize it is a statewide campaign, the candidates have different views, there are ways to interact with the campaigns to ask specific questions.

<h2>chalupas</h2>