I don't understand why Novick's team thinks they are going to get mileage out of that vote, especially when they selectively quote out context from the entire resolution--which (as they well know) also expressed support for our troops that were about to get sent off to war. The bill was for the troops, not Dubya.

It's especially silly to see this kind of nonsense when Novick has demonstrated such a grasp of real issues. He could do better than this, and I'd like to see him take charge of his campaign and say no to his wonks on bad campaign ideas if he expects to win votes. This does not build confidence in me about the kind of senator he would try to be.

first of all, the headline needs to be changed for accuracy; it's only Merkley and his out of state support who calls it a negative ad.

Secondly, Jamais--come now. In no way do you really believe that was a resolution about the troops, do you? It was a Bush endorsement bill from start to finish--except for the very last line, put there only to bait hapless and worried Dems into voting for it. Even greenlick and Nolan acknowledged that when they smeared Novick about it. I can't wait to put someone into the Senate who can easily recognize bullshit bills like that, and I fear voting for someone who can't.

I'm sorry, but I get really tired of this "but I was doing it for the troops" stuff. I didn't agree with Merkley back in 2003 when he voted that way, and I still don't agree with him now. He could have voted no along with the other legislators who did and he could have used his speech to praise the troops and say that he was against the war and Bush's policies and therefore could not vote to praise him. He could have also tried to bring up his own vote that strictly praised the troops and nothing else.

This is a matter of one candidate doing something and the other disagreeing with that vote. It's Merkley's record and he's going to get called on it. And I'm sorry, but if he ends up being our nominee, I can assure you that Smith will hammer him on issues a lot harder than this vote.

And in today's endorsement piece for Novick, the Willamette Week also brings up Merkley's vote as one of their three chief concerns with him:

On the war, we think Merkley's yes vote on House Resolution 2, the state measure to declare support for Oregon's troops and "the victorious removal of Saddam Hussein from power," would hamstring him from making the case that Smith's flip-flops on the war were unconscionable.

I also find it funny that this ad that talks about Merkley's record is negative, but at the same time, all is just fine with the "Mac" ad.

And folks wonder why people are so sick and tired of politics and politicians right now and are coming out to support those who either aren't the typical politician (Obama) or are those running for their first elective office.

and has cleland ever SEEN HR2, or is he just reading from Merkley's notes? Because even if you somehow think it was about the troops, there's no possible way to say it's focused on the troops, with the war as an afterthought. Usually "the focus" doesn't come in the last line, after several paragraphs of unrelated material. Thanks for the help, Mr. Georgia Person!

Steve Novick stands apart as an accomplished advocate who's chief tool is to be combative.

The truth is that Novick is the big shifter and Jeff Merkley is rock steady. Novick declared in a public debate that he would choose Frohnmeyer as best qualified after himself. Then a week or two later, he was emphatic that Frohnmeyer should drop out of the race. Early in the campaign he called Hillary a "traitor" and Obama was a "fraud". This is vintage Novick. His immoderate language makes him unsuited to be the second Democrat in the US Senate. Merkley is steadfast, Novick is shifty. Merkley is disciplined and has exactly the skills we need to change the direction of the country. Send Jeff Merkley to Washington to build a new working Senate.

Ok TJ and the Novick,(not so merry) pranksters hit squad..do your job..go negative and combative like your master.

So after all the faux weeping and gnashing of teeth by Novick partisans over Merkley's message testing - repleat with predictions that Merkley would "go negative" on Novick with TV ads... Novick is the one going negative.

Why am I not surprised?

There is a huge difference between disagreeing with someone's vote on an issue and bashing a fellow Democrat for being a "pro-tax advocate."

Of course a candidate is going to point to specific votes, issues, etc. that they disagree with - and it's not negative to do so.

"Of course a candidate is going to point to specific votes, issues, etc. that they disagree with - and it's not negative to do so."

Particularly when it's one line, and they're not even named!

I don't consider Novick's ad more negative than Macpherson's posted at "Kroger & Macpherson hit the airwaves".

This really didn't seem like a hit piece to me.

In four seconds of the 30 seconds he mentions the vote. He doesn't mention Merkley by name, nor by image, nor... anyway, it seemed more about politics as usual, and how Steve's not politics as usual.

Go Steve!

Posted by: Clelland is a sad case | Apr 30, 2008 8:58:23 AM

I suspect that most who defended him know how to spell his name.

FYI - It's spelled Cleland.

little xperience putting his neck out for Oregonians? How about running to beat smith when no other Dems stepped forward? Hello?

O.k., if "In the News" is going to editorialize ("accidentally") the commentary should be signed, or at least explained. What does "accidentally" mean?

anonymous: "Ok TJ and the Novick,(not so merry) pranksters hit squad..do your job..go negative and combative like your master." After "Merkley is steadfast, Novick is shifty." etc. Passive aggressive much?

IMO this is a weak issue for Steve and a bad issue for the race in general (ends up weakening both candidates). But in a way I think Merkley has resurrected it himself, with his exaggeration of his cautious expressions of possible doubt about the war into strong unequivocal opposition early on.

Unless Steve's campaign has misled themselves because WW cited it. The WW editorial board has their own image agenda that makes their reasoning suspect and certainly not representative of many voters if any.

But the idea that this was not a praise Bush resolution is bunk. It was both. The point was not just to jerk Democrats. It was also to create propaganda defining "supporting the troops" with triumphalist imagery of "courageous President Bush." For the Rs it was a two-fer, though I'm not sure they could have imagined that the "tie the Democrats in knots" part would work so well that it would be causing us problems in 2008, even when Bush's rep has tanked because his war was not only revealed as an aggression based on lies but also as incompetently planned and executed beyond the initial campaign of superficial territorial conquest. They're still playing us.

The real question about the war is not where they were in 2002 but where they are now. Both have endorsed the so-called "responsible plan," which is largely composed of measures already introduced that have failed to be passed, in many instances because of passivity, obstruction or unwillingness to fight by the Democratic congressional leadership. What will each do to change that dynamic? Will Steve's forthrightness help do that? Will Jeff's quiet diplomacy approach? Or will Steve just alienate and isolate himself? Or will Jeff just fall in line with the culture of excessive passivity in the Dem leadership in DC?

Because I am so critical of the DC leadership, and because for me the war is not a partisan issue to be used in elections and then discarded for insider pseudo-"realism" (I am SO pissed about 2006, on the war, though secondarily also because of what the "leaders" have squandered for 2008 prospects), Steve's fighting approach seems necessary to me.

I think Jeff is going to get rolled by the "leaders" into their "roll-me" approach to the Republicans.

But I genuinely would like to hear from the Merkley supporters why I'm wrong to think this about Jeff and what he would do to challenge the "leaders" & shake up the Democratic culture of passive timidity in Washington.

Not what's wrong with Steve, I know what you think about that, but why I'm wrong about Jeff, if you think I am.

Or, if you think I'm wrong about the "leaders" so that it would be good to have a senator who would work with them the way they work now, it would be good to hear about that too.

O.k., if "In the News" is going to editorialize ("accidentally") the commentary should be signed, or at least explained. What does "accidentally" mean?

Chris, I've updated the post to expand and clarify. But it's worth noting that the "accidentally" thing was fully explained in the post.

As for "negative", of course it's a negative ad. (Just like Macpherson's, Jenni.) Thus the AP line - "Steve Novick took direct aim his rival".

Full disclosure: I built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak only for myself.

Oh, and Pat, as I mentioned on the other post, your feed on LeftyBlogs is fine. Just delayed, along with 300 other blogs that were slow to respond yesterday.

"As for "negative", of course it's a negative ad. (Just like Macpherson's, Jenni.) Thus the AP line - "Steve Novick took direct aim his rival"."

Stuff and nonsense. Macpherson conjures up an unflattering image of his actual opponent, names him, and then ascribes to him negatives that are poorly verifiable by fact. THAT is a negative ad.

Taking one moment out of 30 seconds to draw a single, factual contrast between you and your opponent is not a negative ad.

And it's delightful to see you place your trust in the editorial alacrity of Associated Press, Kari. They've done such a fair job the last few years with that...

"Unlike my opponent, I would never praise George Bush for invading Iraq." (from the ad)

Sounds like a theme that could be used against Smith in the General as well as against Merkley in the Primary...

Chris Lowe: I think Jeff is going to get rolled by the "leaders" into their "roll-me" approach to the Republicans.

How did Merkley perform when he had a razor-thin 31 to 29 advantage in the legislature?

Didn't the Oregonian try to ding Merkley for having burned bridges with legislative Democrats in the recent special session?

You can't have it both ways. Either Merkley is timid and the 2007 session never happened - or - Merkley fought hard against daunting odds to the point of being accused (falsely) of having burned bridges on his own side of the aisle.

Look at HR2. Congressman AuCoin tried to lay the onus for no organized push-back on Merkley. Turns out Merkley wasn't the minority leader, Ms. Kafoury was. She was the kind of passive Dem leader who Merkley simply bypassed and later, when he was elected Speaker, showed how a strong Democratic leader can perform. Mind you, Governor K and many other Dems have bluntly stated that they flat out didn't believe ANYONE could have made much headway with a 31/29 advantage. Yet Merkley did what nobody thought possible.

Well, I don't know about the entire AP - but Julia Silverman does good work.

BTW, I'm not a person who thinks there's anything wrong with a negative spot. Voters have to make a choice, and it's the campaign's job to draw a contrast.

In general, the only thing that's bad is when the negative spot mischaracterizes or mis-states the opponent's views. But a negative spot that fairly describes the opponent's views is 100% fine.

With respect to this ad, I'll leave the discussion on that score to others.

One thing I like about Steve's ads is that he's the guy doing the talking. If you look at every ad that Merkley has produced -- and for that matter, every ad that Isaacs and whomever (Hiram or Compass or someone) does his spots produces -- it's always someone else speaking on behalf of the candidate.

As for the specifics of this spot...

I couldn't get the audio to work on Real Player 11. If the point is about Merkley's bad vote on HJR2, then my question is this:

Every time someone who supports Jeff on that issue defends him, the defense is that Novick is "going negative" by using a Republican talking point.

Here's my question: Let's pretend for a minute that Merkley makes it through the primary. How is he going to counter the same charge from Smith?

Somewhere else, Kevin said that Smith won't want to discuss the war. That may be true, but when Merkley raises the issue, Smith's response is going to be something like: "It seems to me that my opponent was for the war before you were against it. Isn't it hypocritical of you to criticize my votes when you, yourself cast a similar vote in the Oregon House? Why else did you praise the courage of te Commander-in-Chief for taking action?".

And the spots that he runs will be a helluva a lot tougher than that. They'll say that Merkley supported the largest tax increase in Oregon history. They'll say that Merkley is a politician who wants to play both sides of the fence on the war, etc.

That was one of several items on the list of reasons why I agreed to help Frohnmayer after it became clear that Merkley was the establishment pick in this race.

I knew then, what this primary campaign has proven out: That Jeff was a good speaker, and is a good man, who will run a very cautious, very conventional campaign that stands virtually no chance of gaining the traction he needs to defeat the better-funded Gordon Smith in the fall.

Novick has shown much greater resilience than I expected. He has run a fantastic campaign -- gaffes and all. Oregon voters will forgive a guy for making a few mistakes if they believe that he is really in this race to shake things up. But they will not rally behind a guy who is being overly-cautious, running a tepid message, and still making fairly regular mistakes on the campaign trail.

At this particular time, Steve has the best chance of blocking a challenge from the left and of rallying people around a populist, change-oriented message.

Just my $0.02

Sometimes, Kari, sometimes.

As for Baghdad Kevin: "Merkley fought hard against daunting odds to the point of being accused (falsely) of having burned bridges on his own side of the aisle."

Falsely? What do you base that on?

but when Merkley raises the issue, Smith's response is going to be something like: "It seems to me that my opponent was for the war before you were against it.

:::rolls eyes:::

Sal, look at Smith's own record on Iraq. Do you seriously believe that he wants to compare his own "for, then against" Iraq record to a non-binding resolution???

The timeline on Smith's flip-flop is most damning of all the fact surrounding it.

He claims to have read a book in the summer of 2006 which changed his mind. But did he speak out? No. He waited and waited and waited until after SIX Republican Senators got booted in the November election before he spoke out.

And you think he's gonna want to get anywhere CLOSE to opening that can of worms?

You really disappoint me, Sal. Most Independents exhibit much better critical thinking skills...

Kevin said:

So after all the faux weeping and gnashing of teeth by Novick partisans over Merkley's message testing - repleat with predictions that Merkley would "go negative" on Novick with TV ads... Novick is the one going negative. Why am I not surprised?

Kevin, that's a straw man. The bulk of the criticism was not of the fact that the Merkley campaign suggested negative things about Novick, but the kind of things it suggested.

I don't happen to agree with Novick on this point, but the message is fair game. On an ethical level, it's always acceptable to question a political opponent's political stands.

I guess we'll see how it plays out politically. And I'm sure Merkley's decision not to run with the tax crap was a political call too, not an ethical one.

Kev, you missed the point: Regardless of whether or not Smith wants to talk about Iraq, what I have given you is his likely response to an attack on the war from Merkley.

How does the Merkley camp respond?

"Uh... those are GOP talking points." Is not going to work in the general election.

As for critical thinking ... There is nothing critical about wishing or hoping or praying that Smith won't respond to that criticism in exactly the way that I've descibed.

So I'll ask again, when Smith says that Merkley was before the war before he was against it, how does Merkley respond?

Kevin,

Not really responsive to my question, which is about how Jeff will approach the problem of passivity and timidity in DC. Is he critical of how the current leadership has handled Iraq? If he's serious about the "responsible plan," how does he propose to get through the items they have obstructed, not moved on, or not fought for?

But let's take your analogy further for a sec. It has two parts, how Jeff functioned as a leader, but more implicitly, how he functioned as a follower. Did Jeff try to get the Kafoury leadership to do anything different when he was more of a backbencher or rank & file rep or whatever? If so, what? His actions as a leader may be relevant in two terms if he gets elected -- what I want to know is how he will approach the Iraq issue in 2009.

Did Jeff ever publicly disagree with or criticize D leadership when he wasn't in it?

I am not trying to have anything both ways, & I am not responsible for the Oregonian's editorial positions. I am honestly expressing a real perception I have, specifically in relation to the occupation-war issue in Iraq.

It really isn't about point scoring. The war issue matters more to me than any candidate.

Among other things it's about trying to figure out how I will need to relate, as an anti-war activist, to Jeff, if he is the nominee.

Despite my support for Steve, I was grateful for the Merkley presence at the March 15 rally & march.

But I was grateful for Earl Blumenauer's speaking from the podium in 2006, and yet have been disappointed in his not pushing harder for standing up to Bush on war funding. Disillusionment with the Dems failure to follow up on their promises led to a decision this year not to invite any elected officials to speak.

Falsely? What do you base that on?

Rep. Phil Barnhart: "Yet, Jeff held us together through the 2007 and the short 2008 session to pass some important progressive legislation. And he has the deep respect of all of his colleagues after all of it."

Sal, I was just over at the Frohnmayer website, and as far as I could find, there was not a single word about Iraq.

Is John dodging the issue? Is he giving Smith a pass on it? Will he caucus with the Republicans if elected and either support McCain's militarism or obstruct a Democratic president's efforts to get out of Iraq? Or will he caucus with Dems like Bernie Sanders (or Jeffords before, perhaps more comparably)?

"And I'm sure Merkley's decision not to run with the tax crap was a political call too, not an ethical one."

There's still time, and $250,000, for him to do something. He's not going to spend that extra dough from his house on more face time for his wife, I don't think.

Sal, I was just over at the Frohnmayer website, and as far as I could find, there was not a single word about Iraq.

I can't say. When I helped him launch in September and October, we had a video clip that prominently featured his comments about Iraq, which we released on YouTube.

It didn't get anywhere near the play that his comments about impeaching Bush got.

At this point, given that he has failed to raise enough money to run a credible campaign, I hope that John will participate in the debates and then throw his support behind the Democratic nominee -- though I believe that there is a stronger chance of that happening if Novick wins the Democratic Primary since Steve is doing more to speak to John's issues.

Did Jeff ever publicly disagree with or criticize D leadership when he wasn't in it?

GREAT question, Chris. Finally we are getting down to something that is truly important.

No, Jeff doesn't make a habit of taking public shots at his fellow Democrats, very unlike Steve Novick's long and sordid history shows.

I submit to you that there is NO WAY in Hades that Jeff could have accomplished what he did in the 2007 session and this year's short special session if he were like Novick and ran around spouting insults at elected Democrats.

Right now Oregon serves as an example to the rest of the nation. No other state legislature matched what Merkley et al did in the 2007. Not a single one.

Kevin,

You still are dodging my question about how Jeff would handle the problem of timid Democratic Senate leadership on the Iraq issue, if elected, and if he is seriously anti-war.

Regarding your responses above, you have blamed timid Kafoury leadership for lack of more & other kinds of pushback to HR2. Did Jeff press for such pushback "behind the scenes"? Try to organize any other kind of response, that need not have criticized the D leadership but still called the Rs out more? Or did he in fact share the analysis of the Kafoury leadership about how to respond?

Did Jeff press for such pushback "behind the scenes"? Try to organize any other kind of response, that need not have criticized the D leadership but still called the Rs out more?

Again, an important question on the meta side of which of these two guys is more tempermentally suited to moving the progressive and/or liberal aqgenda forward.

If you want to get something accomplished either in Oregon, the US, or the world, you don't get all that far by insulting, bullying, and denigrating the people that you will be working with whether they are going to be on your side of the table or the other side of the table.

Standing off to one side of the fray swinging a sword (or a hook) around in circles may get you some nice news clips for the faithful but doesn't do a damned thing to better the country or the world.

Screaming insults may satisfy some primitive urges to get payback, but that's about all it does.

Temper Tantrums are reallyt great theoter, but I'm going with the adult here.

There's too much at stake.

"TJ, both this and Novick's last ad have been negative. The last ad said Merkley's ads suck and so does his tax policies. This one says he's a Bush-lover. Neither ad has used Merkley's name, but both correctly assume we're smart enough to know who he's running against. We went over this a long time ago."

Your definition reduces "negative" to functional meaninglessness, however. By those standards, Merkley's "Fighter" ad is negative (taking on "Democratic inaction," and noting that he was "against the war from the start," having claimed that Novick was MIA), and so is Kroger's first ad (saying he has trial experience, when we know Mac doesn't). I think those are spurious connections to the concept of a "negative ad."

A negative ad, as I would define it, is chiefly aimed at identifying and naming something negative about a specifically named opponent. This ad (like the other two I noted) doesn't qualify.

Kevin, I wasn't aware Rep. Barnhart had begun speaking for the state Senate's Democratic caucus...

Again, an important question on the meta side of which of these two guys is more tempermentally suited to moving the progressive and/or liberal aqgenda forward.

I agree. At this point in our history, I'd like Oregon to send a hard-nosed litigator who will work to roll back some of the power of the executive branch, and who will use the considerable tools available to a United States Senator to ensure that a progressive agenda is moving forward given that it is likely that the Democrats will have majorities in both houses.

Go-along to get-along has a time and a place. Right now is not that time.

Go-along to get-along has a time and a place.

Like taking back the state lege? Or perhaps like leading the most productive, most progressive state legislative session in the nation?

If that's "go-along to get-along" then I say we need a heck of a lot more of it.

C'mon, TJ, I know you can do better than that--- your argument with that statement is basically "Novick has stuck his neck out for Oregonians by deciding to run in this race, so that experience of fighting for Oregonians (i.e. running in this race) is reason enough for us to vote for him."

Not at all. That he's stuck out his neck by running makes hash of your claim that he has no experience in doing so. I never said anything about it being "reason enough." That Novick is the more progressive candidate, the smarter candidate, the more honest candidate, the more principled candidate, and the less partisan candidaste--that's reason enough.

Seemingly unchastened by flinging one line of BS and being rightly corrected on it, you try again!

Being a political consultant behind the scenes won't cut it against Smith, he needs a laundry list of good things he's done for Oregonians before they'll trust him,

ease worked in a team to benefit Oregon's share of tax recovery in Love Canal worked as coach to begin flipping the state Legislature in a terrible time to do so (as opposed to the wave election of 2006) *built teams to stop horrible ballot initiatives.

Maybe you just don't take your clothes to the same laundry...

Like taking back the state lege?

Isaacs and Merkley get a great deal of credit for that, much of it deserved.

Probably George Bush also deserves some credit. Certainly the candidates actually running in the districts deserve a measure of recognition, as does the Bus Project, the County Democratic Parties, and a chorus of groups that got on the "let's get rid of Minnis train" months before Future Pac did.

He was an important player, but there were other important players who are equally deserving of recognition.

As for his role as House Speaker -- No doubt about it. He was EXACTLY the right guy to have in place as Speaker in the last session. I think he will be sorely missed in 2009, which is one of the reasons why I thought it was a bad idea for him to run for the US Senate.

None of that makes him the right guy to take on Gordon Smith.

If the Democratic Primary has proven anything, it is that Novick is the more qualified candidate to campaign against Gordon Smith this fall.

His team has out-hustled, out-manouvered, and out-fought Merkley's team throughout this campaign, despite the fact that Merkley had all of the advantages going in.

Look, whoever wins the Democratic nomination in the US Senate race is going to have an uphill battle to counter Gordon Smith's position.

Smith is entrenched, he's got way more money than either Merkley or Novick could hope to raise, and he has an uncanny ability to come off as a moderate without being tarred as a "flip-flopper" despite his rabid right-wing record.

Novick and his campaign have done a fantastic job of running hard and successfully against someone who, according to conventional wisdom, should have made this race a slam dunk. Novick is tough, smart, and he's a very good campaigner.

As the "David" to Gordon Smith's "Goliath," Novick is best cast in the role. He's taken on big opponents before and, against the odds, won. If we're serious about beating Gordon Smith, Novick is the one who's got a shot. I'm not saying he will win, but he's our "Most Likely to Succeed."

His team has out-hustled, out-manouvered, and out-fought Merkley's team throughout this campaign

Presumably that's why Merkley's labor endorsements represent nearly a quarter million Oregonians to Novick's what... 50K?

The Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, Basic Rights Oregon, Just Out, Citizens for Global Solutions, Council for a Livable World were presumably what... dupes? Politically clueless?

Kevin, were you aware endorsements don't vote? All the institutional backing in the world won't help if, as the Merc says, "they're just not that into you."

The Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, Basic Rights Oregon, Just Out, Citizens for Global Solutions, Council for a Livable World were presumably what... dupes? Politically clueless?

Not necessarily dupes and clueless, but institutionally biased (for practical reasons) in favor of sitting legislators. Perhaps unduly influenced by the support of the DSCC and/or Govs. Kulongoski and Roberts, and the rest of the state House.

And also, now, deeply disappointed in the campaign performance of the guy they backed in good faith.

I should add, the sad truth is, Jeff Merkley "peaked" in AUGUST 2007.

Well, not sad to me, but certainly regrettable from his point of view.

Kev, most of these endorsements are political payback for Jeff's excellent tenure as minority leader and as speaker. A few of the endorsers are simply a reflection of the fact that Jeff was the choice of the Democratic establishment in this race.

They have absolutely no relationship to the relative strength of these campaigns beyond the (admittedly important) fact that they are conduits to money, possibly canvassing support, and will result in a couple of postcards to the members of the endorsing organizations.

LOL - it's amusing to see some of the same folks who crowed so loudly at DKos just a few days ago about Novick endorsements by unions and politicos then come over here and downplay the importance of endorsements when it comes to Merkley's endorsements by unions and politicos.

Wasn't it Karl Rove who said something to the effect that "there is the math and then there is THE math"...?

Kevin:

HUH?!

Jeff's vote on HR2 was political suicide, as it turns out.

It was a craven and cowardly vote, but not political suicide. He could have remained Speaker indefinitely, I'm sure.

Novick never even took a public stand against the war (and as has been pointed out numerous times, he had plenty of platform to do it.

Oh, c'mon.

Novick was against the war; Novick protested the war. Are you telling me taking to the streets doesn't count? Really?

I like your guy and would be happy with Merkley as the nominee. But you are way off base anonymously spreading the falsehood that Steve never did anything against the war. It's untrue and you know it.

I like your guy and would be happy with Merkley as the nominee. But you are way off base anonymously spreading the falsehood that Steve never did anything against the war. It's untrue and you know it.

I agree, Charlie. But it's no more (or less) off base than the "It was a craven and cowardly vote" line being used to malign Merkley. Nor is it any more or less off base than the myriad related distortions surrounding the issue - how Wyden, DeFazio et al voted, Merkley's statements before and after his vote, etc.

Welcome to the partisan spitwad fight. The distortions you choose to call out show your colors as much as the distortions you choose not to call out.

If Merkley voted against that bill who knows what would have happened but when you vote against the troops you are taking a big political risk and without an educated and mobile base it is political suicide.

Boo hoo. That's why Merkley doesn't deserve my vote. He can't refuse to back a shitty war, because he's worried how it might affect his political career. But at least we agree on his motives.

Merkley is educable; case in point: the Iraq war. I won't diss a conversion on that score, since I supported John Edwards till the end.

The key difference I see between Edwards and Merkley on this subject is that unlike Merkley, Edwards freely admits that his pro-Iraq war resolution was a mistake. Merkley still stands by his vote for HR2. Not my idea of "educable."

And Ron, I have great respect for you, but I have to disagree. Steve has not "gone negative." He has not said a word about Merkley by name in his commercials, and has restricted his criticisms to actual public policy (taxes) and Merkley's legislative voting record (HR2). Both of these criticisms are objectively truthful. This is a campaign for political office and in order to vote intelligently, people need to understand the political differences between the candidates.

"Novick is the one who has made this an issue, Charlie."

<h2>Actually, it was Merkley who made the claim of being against the war from the start, while Novick was MIA. We see now that neither is true, at least in public offerings.</h2>