I agree with you Charlie. I hope voters were watching.

I think very highly of Jeff Merkley, but this Senate choice isn't even close; Steve is right on. (Now if he'd only stop despising Merkley and quit taking the attacks so personally!)

I remember watching one high profile Dem after another pass on this race last year. Steve's been the best surprise of our state's primary season, in any race, by far. TJ (I think) previously pointed out that the last time we elected a non-office holder to the Senate, we got Wayne Morse. After seeing Steve in person and watching this clip, I'm starting to think that the Morse comparisons are not overblown.

Thanks for posting this video Charlie.

I like Novick and have given him money, but as the Dem. presidential primary bogs down into a mud wrestling competition between Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama, I think the Repubs have a pretty fair shot at keeping the Presidency, and I don't think Gordo can be beaten.

How to beat Smitty:

Run the above ad four times as much as Smitty runs his ads. Which will cost about four times what Smitty spends. Novick needs to win the seat the old fashion way: Just buy it. For $40M. How much does he have so far?

The way to beat Gordon is the way Ron Wyden did in Jan. 1996-- town hall meetings which in Ron's case had the draw of ice cream in January (the one I went to, the ice cream was melting because people were so thrilled to hear someone with experience talk in great detail responsively answering their questions, and Ron did that Q & A for over an hour), run the kind of commercials Merkley is running---or better yet the candidate talking straight into the camera (Novick's poverty video which unexplainably is not linked to the front page of his website would be good for that) run the kind of grass roots campaign that was part of Wyden 1996 realize that people who went to see their kids in a talent show recently (or otherwise are not consumed with politics) may care less about Left Hook Lager or "progressive principles" and more about specific problems (NCLB and overcrowding in schools, a relative about to do a 2nd or 3rd tour of duty in Iraq, gas prices, infrastructure, etc. ) than about whether someone does something as vague as "standing up for principle".

Yes, I mentioned both candidates. The people who will decide this election probably aren't aware of all the ins and outs of this primary.

Novick is Da Man! He definitely has the charisma to give the Democrats their best chance against Smith. But even he will lose, IMHO, unless the good people of Pennsylvania and North Carolina give Obama the kind of victory Barack will need to end this Presidential race quickly and allow the Party to come together. With a unified Democratic Party, Barack's coattails should be devastating for Smith in Oregon. If Hillary fights this thing until August, the Democratic Party could be in for a world of hurt on many levels.

By the way, to those who promote Merkley's campaign, let me make one point -- I sure wish he hadn't taken Novick on when it comes to taxes. I agree with Steve that we need to make the tax system more progressive. Indeed, I think that's the cornerstone of what it means to be a progressive. Of all the issues in which the desperate Merkley should have avoided a "Kitchen Sink" strategy, taxes top the list. (My analogue on the Presidential level is when Hillary insulted Barack as a Commander of Chief but praised McCain; I still haven't forgiven her for that one.)

While I think the substance of Novick's message was good, it seemed too scripted to me. It almost looked like he was looking right into the camera because it was a teleprompter. Don't get me wrong, Novick would be tons better then Smith in the Senate, but this message didn't really seal it for me.

Stephanie, for once you and I agree:

"As I said in the other thread, when Steve Novick is at the top of his game no one can touch him",

but we disagree on this: "and this clip demonstrates why that is. "

I happen to think "the top of his game" is the serious videos on the website (like the poverty video), the Q & A at Marion Demoforum, things like that.

Steve is a very bright guy, alhough Duin was right in saying humor serves him better than anger. But the point is that he seems to be speaking to a selected target audience, and one wonders if that audience is large enough.

Do the young people whose first exciting candidate ever has been Obama really care what Steve did to defeat Sizemore? Will parents trying to teach social skills to their children really be impressed with his snarkier remarks? Is Steve's target audience only beer drinkers and people who never tire of seeing either of the clever (but not really issue-oriented) commercials?

Suppose someone who has just learned there is a US Sen. Dem. primary turns on the TV and sees the To Tell The Truth ad and either of the Merkley ads in the space of one TV program. Do you Novick supporters really believe there are more people who will remember To Tell the Truth ad and think the Merkley ads are "generic"? What does that term really mean to college students who also work, or to working parents who drop the kids off at Before School Care a little after 7 AM and pick them up from After School care between close to 6 pm and then have to deal with dinner, homework, etc.? Is it any wonder some people's lives are just too busy to pay much attention to politics?

Personally, I thought with all of Steve's background he could have been more specific than he was in this closing statement.

But I realize that some here consider me a "Merkleyite", as if that will gain my vote or the vote of anyone else.

A divided em electorate will not defeat gordon Smith. with infighting at both the national and state level it appears the party will rip apart under petty jealosy and lose the momentum for the change that progressives claim to seek so desperately.

The wisdom of Harry's post from the other thread is worth reposting here, if I do say so myself!

Just do a global search and replace of the Prez candiates with the Oregon senate candidates.

------from the other thread------ That which doesn't kill you, makes you stronger!

Hillary (Novick) is making Obama (Merkley) stronger, not weaker. And if she is successful, she will "kill" Obama (politically), which is her obvious intent, and right, to do.

And who knows, if she can did up more 'dirt' on Obama (ie another close associate worse than Wright; more self inflicting elite comments; closer inspection of Obama by the fawning press), then maybe the Democrats (via the SupaDelegates) will shun Obama and go with Hillary.

But if she can't dig up enough dirt on Obama, then maybe he doesn't have any more dirt out there. And thus, Hillary would have made Obama stronger, not weaker. I mean, really, ya think that the Republicans won't find the dirt on Obama, and then blast him with it in the fall?

Harry

<h2>full disclosure: As a NAV, I have no vote, but probably would vote for 'Bama over Hillary. (ditto Novick/Merkley)</h2>

Ways to beat Gordon Smith in 2008:

1) Run Peter DeFazio 2) Run Darlene Hooley 3) Run Bill Bradbury 4) Run Jim Hill 5) Run just about anyone except the trio I saw in the debate.

It wouldn't hurt Jeff if he would smile every once in awhile or show that he has any personality at all. Learning how to speak without that monotone that puts me to sleep might help him get his message (if he has one) across. His TV ad voiced by Mary Merkley makes me want to vote for her.

Steve's take no prisoners attitude turns me off. As much as I've tried to accept him he just reminds me of someone who rather than see Oregonians lose and be represented by Smith if he can't be the candidate.

I watched the debate with an open mind hoping that Candy was for real. About halfway through though I realized her real estate brokerage will remain open for business for at least the next six years.

David Wu, yes that David Wu, would be able to run a better campaign than the three I watched in the debate.

One of these three idiots better step up and answer the call or I may be faced with having to vote for Frohnmyer (sp?) in order not to be represented by Smith.

In a year when Elephants in general and Smith in particular are the most vulnerable, we have failed as a party to attract a winning candidate in this race.

Unlike the presidential race which is similar because Democrats are damaging other Democrats all day , I hate all the choices that will appear on my primary ballot.

Please feel free Merkley and Novick partisans to tear me apart.....

Proud life long Liberal (Progressive) Donkey, Union member, and Oregonian,

Pedro

local mom asks, Do we really need more attorneys in the Senate?

A partial, albeit selective list of Democratic lawyers (with their alma maters) who serve or have served in the US Senate:

Ron Wyden (UO) Barack Obama (Harvard) John Edwards (UNC) Ted Kennedy (UVA) Claire McCaskill (UMiz) John Kerry (BC) Amy Klobuchar (Chicago)

Robert Kennedy (UVA) Jack Kennedy (Harvard) Wayne Morse (UMinn; UO Law Dean)

Law school (at its best) trains students to become skilled at critical thought, clarity of expression, and diligent advocacy. These are excellent abilities for public servants! Sure, Gordon Smith was a lawyer, as was Virginia's George "Macaca" Allen (to cite two more egregious examples). But then law school can help Republicans like Smith become more polished. Training in critical thought can't necessarily un-make a creep like Allen, either.

But your argument for fewer lawyers in the Senate is about as specious as saying that Jeff Merkley worked as a budget analyst for the Pentagon in the 80s, and everyone knows the Pentagon can't control it's budget and was directed by Dick Cheney, so why should we trust Merkley?

I'd love to have more smart lawyers in the US Senate. I'd go so far as to say that being a lawyer (especially a top-notch environmental protection lawyer) is a plus qualification for Novick.

Kevin argued against voting for Novick based in part on the following: "How many Senate lawyers voted to give Bush a blank check on Iraq?"

This IS a joke, right? Merkley is the one who voted for that awful resolution when the war started. Novick has opposed it in every way possible.

I've taken to the streets to protest that awful war on several occasions, sometimes with my kids and sometimes alone. And I went to law school with Novick. What are you suggesting, that I'm a lousy lawyer?

Admittedly, Merkley supporters have to swallow hard to suggest that their guy is more talented than Novick, but must you resort to the kind of argument that would have us vote against Abe Lincoln if he were in politics today?

"The real difference is that only Merkley has a proven record of effective leadership in public office."

is the essence of the debate.

I speak as someone who has pretty much decided to vote for 2 legislators over their opponents who have lots of experience but that experience is not in elective office. I am still undecided on the 3rd (people who read BO will know which one I have yet to decide on).

If the slogan is "vote for Steve because he has never held public office", that could apply to both Novick and Marks.

But there are those of us who think it would be keen in the US Senate race this fall to have the current Speaker of the House running against a former President of the State Senate. There goes the "not qualified for US Senate" argument.

There was a time I might have considered voting for Steve, but on multiple occasions I found his campaign disappointing.

Steve Novick is unelectable in a general election.

Over the last 13 years, he has said far too many things that will shock and offend all but the most liberal 10% of Oregon.

Deep down, even though they like him personally - Everyone who has known him for any length of time knows this to be true.

Gordon Smith will find these quotes and destroy him with his own words. "Obama = Fraud", "Hillary = Traitress" were just a very small sample and there are WAY too many more.

Nearly all Democrats anywhere but inner city Portland will have to disavow and disassociate themselves with him as these statements are found and publicized with Gordon Smith's 8 million plus.

It will be a disaster.

Kevin, your comments regarding lawyers display a fundamental ignorance of the work of Senators. A key part of a Senator's job is to draft, support, amend, and vote on legislation. This is called making law, and good lawyers have been trained to study, understand, and shape law. You point out that John Yoo drafted legal memoranda supporting torture. Well, guess what, it takes Democratic lawyers to fight back against John Yoo and clearly establish that he was working outside of the law!

You sound like a blind Merkley partisan. Jeff has valuable qualifications as a legislator and public policy analyst. (Although, stop trumping things up- he was president of Oregon's chapter of World Affairs Council, which is pretty humble in the realm of US think-tank positions.) Does Jeff's lack of law schooling really make him a better candidate? I don't think so.

On top of it all, it's ridiculous to say that the Senate has too many lawyers when most of the best Senators have been lawyers! My point wasn't that Steve's experience makes him a fundamentally better candidate- it's that Harvard law school and work as a US Attorney (pre-Gonzales) are plus qualifications for any US Senate candidate.

So, good work on employing a 1970s OR Assistant Attorney General, and good luck with your insurance claim. How that has any bearing at all on your take on the US Senate race simply confuses me.

Statebluer, thanks for saying here what is being said privately.

Whatever anyone says here, conversations like "I've known Steve Novick for years, and don't want to associate myself with some of his past remarks years before he announced for US Senate" in localities far outside Portland are out of the reach of blogs, activists, and Portlanders.

Charlie, your work here at BO is top notch. Thanks.

Before the primary, I hope people naysaying Steve's candidacy remember what happened the last time Oregon Dems fielded a challenger to Gordon Smith who had stepped up the state electoral ladder with legislative accomplishments but relatively lackluster charisma: Bill Bradbury in 2002. Remember what happened? Bradbury lost 56-40. With Smith's alleged pivoting on his war boostering, big financial advantage, and well-crafted media impression of being a moderate, I don't see how Merkley realistically closes that gap.

I agree that because of his lack of elected experience Steve isn't a safe bet to win, and has a higher downside than Merkley. But Steve's got a much clearer path to distinguishing himself from Smith, who is the king of the Oregon GOP status quo. I'd rather go into this fight with someone who inspires voters and speaks his mind than a cautious, Bono-praising pol who co-opts the unity message after he sees it work for someone else. In Novick Democrats have a candidate who will speak up and make waves in a race that desperately needs some.

Thank you Taylor M:

"I agree that because of his lack of elected experience Steve isn't a safe bet to win, and has a higher downside than Merkley."

This is all some of us have been trying to say.

If a voter anywhere prefers someone already elected to public office, they will vote Macpherson, Schrader, Merkley. If they look at other individual characteristics, they may vote for people who have not held public office.

Having recently attended both a children's talent show and a family reunion involving 4 generations, I know many people are thinking about other things than politics. Also, I know if someone realizes a friend, former neighbor, etc. is running for office, that I KNOW HIM! could easily trump all other reasons for voting.

Voters are individuals, and those who stereotype voters (saying all women, all progressives, all people of color, etc. vote a certain way IS stereotyping!) are likely to be shocked.

Kevin, as an Obama partisan I hate to say this, but the world is not exclusively defined by the Iraq war vote. Why not choose a slightly less arbitrary criteria to arrange those voting Senators on? How about gender; after all, only four female Democratic Senators voted against the war, and five voted for it. So a higher percentage of Democratic women in the Senate voted for it than non-women! This must mean there's too many female Senators, and a majority of them "can't see through bullshit." Give me a break.

I said that a background in law, especially one in public service practice, is a plus. And that Senate Democrats with backgrounds in law have long been among the most progressive and efficient advocates. Take your beef with lawyers elsewhere- this topic has gotten absurd.

Lastly, conflating legal battles against the torture regime with voting for the war is really dumb, and I fail to understand your point. Having a training in law doesn't by definition equip you with a capacity for moral outrage. That's what's most important in the torture issue right now. Pretty soon though, it's going to take top-notch constitutional attorneys to get violators of the rule of law like Yoo and Addington to justice.

The same people who are saying Steve can't win a general are the ones who never gave him a prayer in the primary.

Maybe you're right, Charlie.

But it seems like there are some very legitimate reasons for the belief that Novick's candidacy gives us six more years of Gordon Smith.

Those who stridently support Novick will of course, disagree. And they might point to reasons why Merkley's candidacy doesn't resemble one that can beat Smith. But given the statewide infrastructure that Merkley seems to have built, along with his ability to raise substantially more cash (and yes I know "substantial" is an objective term) and the obvious lack of real policy differences, the better candidate is Merkley.

Does that make Merkley "safer"? It might. But this might be the best, last chance progressives have to take Smith out. I'd rather bet on the man with the substantially better odds.

But then I've always believed that the most important goal here is to defeat Smith.

LT concurred with the following statement:

"I agree that because of his lack of elected experience Steve isn't a safe bet to win, and has a higher downside than Merkley."

But it is simply wrong. Merkley is solid, but I find him a snoozer. Gordon Smith is the incumbent who has positioned himself as a "moderate" and has a lot of money. To beat him, Oregon had better think out of the box. Playing it "safe" is what got the Democratic Party to support the Iraq War. It was anything but a safe strategy, and a vote for Merkley is equally imprudent, if people want to beat Smith.

Wow! Charlie... nice job removing the context from that clip you cite without proper ellipses.

Here's the full clip, and I'm sure you didn't mean to delete that sentence in there, right?

Former state Sen. Charlie Ringo, who is helping the Merkley campaign negotiate the debate schedule, used the opportunity to wing an insult or two at the Novick campaign. Novick, he says, wants the debates limited to "realistic" candidates. "From our standpoint, Jeff is the only 'realistic' candidate," Ringo said. "Steve's a good guy, but I don't think he's got what it takes to run this campaign. He doesn't have the background, doesn't have the credentials."

So Novick wanted to exclude people. That's interesting. Certainly "democratic" of him.

Also seems like he teed that one up for Ringo...

"But it is simply wrong. Merkley is solid, but I find him a snoozer."

Fine, Daniel, work your heart out for Steve. But there are those of us who think Merkley is reliable, hard working, has a record of having won elections and made the hard decisions while holding elective office. Call them not progressive or any other name, but those who like Merkley's approach are allowed to vote that way!

I have no problem with people who admire Steve strongly supporting him. The problem I have is with those who make remarks like "Merkley is a snoozer, therefore all good Democrats should vote for Steve" as if no one has the right to question anything Steve has said over the last several years. "But at least he is never boring" is no way to win back someone still telling friends about a questionable remark Steve made years ago.

Those of us who have been involved in campaigns for outspoken candidates in the past (Steve is not the only outspoken candidate ever to run in a Dem. primary) reserve the right to say "been there, done that, want a candidate who can appeal to those who don't want outspoken politicians".

To the extent Steve's supporters understand that, he might do very well. However, anyone supporting Steve because all voters should like what Steve's supporters like is heading for a disappointment.

Not after 7 years of an illegal war, Americans implicated in torture, hard working people being turned out of their homes without the most rudimentary consumer protections, and lots of other things to be bent out of shape about.

I have every reason to believe that Jeff Merkley is the most effective individual in the Senate race from any party to address the issues listed above. His excellent leadership skills have been more than demonstrated.

I have less reason to believe that Novick can accomplish those things. He certainly can't do it all by himself. I have seen little evidence that Steve is ready or able to do the sort of bringing together that must happen among the caucus (or beyond it, if necessary).

Novick has done good things in Oregon and I applaud him for it. But even Novick himself had trouble in the Willamette Week interview coming up with a time when he had to really work with those outside his coalition to do something effective for Oregon. That makes his candidacy on a statewide level a shaky one, at best. Merkley was able to easily show how he'd built coalitions across the board without having to once give up his progressive values and without alienating his party. That's a guy who can win a statewide race.

If you are really angry about the direction this country has gone (and I am furious), then the first priority must be to get rid of Gordon Smith. Based on the campaign Steve has run, he is far less capable of accomplishing that goal.

Charlie, thank you for your measured comments.

But the problem some Democrats of long experience have with Steve is just the wild card element. Some of Steve's less measured supporters seem to think it is heresy for someone who has known Steve for many years to say something like "his previous comments which grated on me were the first 2 strikes, and during the campaign when he said......., that was the 3rd strike." Steve Novick for US Senate because Democrats shouldn't think for themselves? Somehow that doesn't sound like a winning slogan.

Steve might be the salvation of the Senate for all I know, but he has never said what he learned from the Bruggere loss. And yet we should all have faith that he will win where his 1996 employer lost, and never question any of his campaign decisions?? My impression over time (this is not a complete list) is that Steve and his supporters want the support of beer drinkers who find the "flammable pants" video and the popping open the beer bottle commercial amusing, but not the support of those who ask why Steve doesn't make that excellent poverty video part of his website front page AND a TV or web commercial.

In other words, we've seen the serious Steve and the sarcastic Steve, and worry the latter would hinder his chances in the general election---esp. with those who have voted for Gordon in the past but might be ready to change and vote for someone without a public sarcastic streak who has the experience of being Speaker of the House.

I have no problem with people supporting Steve, but I do have a problem with the attitude "I find Merkley boring and his ad generic, so you should see things that way also".

I will say, for what it's worth, that the Republicans I know -- and I'm talking about the folks who've worked as consultants and for guys like Haley Barbour and such -- think Novick would be stronger. A direct quote: "We know the campaign we'd run against Jeff. There are 20 TV spots that we could take off the shelf the day after the primary. With Novick, he's a wild card. It's hard on some level not to root for the guy. He'd make us work for it."

With all due respect, those Republicans are polishing your apple pretty hard.

Just based on the silly and inflammatory things Novick has said that have been recently brought to light, the Republicans can't think of how they'd go after Novick? I find that very difficult to believe. Novick's unflattering behavior in the Willamette Week endorsement interview also demonstrated another way that Novick is quite vulnerable.

I'm just a layman but I can see that much.

It might very well be that the GOP can think of all sorts of "off-the-shelf" ways to attack Merkley. That's what the GOP in the House races and legislature spent their time doing and by most all accounts Merkley beat them time and again.

look, it's really simple.

with all the institutional support that merkely has from the DSSC, the unions, the state party insiders, &c, he should be slaughtering steve novick in this primary. honestly. and that he's not, speaks volumes.

i made my decision on whom to back last fall, based on some research, hearing the candidates speak, and not a small amount on my gut instinct.

and it's turning out that my instincts were correct.

jeff merkley should, by all rights, be ahead of novick by double-didgets in the polls and not the other way around. with all the money being thrown his way by the DSSC et al, plus the endorsements, if he were running a half-way decent campaign this election would be a done deal.

but he's not.

steve novick? what has he got? his brains, his wits, his humor, and the ability to galvanize a grassroots movement around him. looking around my community, i have seen quite a few novick lawn signs & bumper stickers, and not belonging to people that i've given them. i have seen zero physical evidence of the merkley campaign. if folks are sporting lawn sighs anywhere, it hasn't been in any neighborhoods i've been visiting.

it's crazy. i happen to think steve novick will make a great senator. but you know - honestly. if jeff merkley can't beat steve novick in the primary, not without barely squeeking it out, with the institutional advantages that he has over him, how is he going to beat smith, when he is going to be outgunned on every level?

Were people watching, or listening? If I were simply listening, this was a good clip. But Steve's wag per word of his hand was a distraction from his words. Who didn't advise him to not do that?