I hope someone asks Novick to justify how many tax dollars have been squandered in Iraq (thanks, Senator Smith!) and how much of it Bono's entire lifetime earnings could have payed for.

I believe the Novick campaign said it will be streamed live at KGW.com. I'm more interested that it's in HD! I wanna see the custom etchings on Steve's hook, the hairs in Merkley's nose because they can't jack up the camera high enough to get a level shot on him...and whether there's ANY evidence beyond her birth certificate that she's really 58 and not 38. That's some good TV! Thank you KGW and Vizio!

whoops, "she" = Neville.

What's custom-etched on Steve's hook?

As an undecided voter, I'm eager to see which of the candidates can resist the temptation to go after the people sharing the stage and land some impressive blows on Smith/Bush/McCain.

joke, ben. (although I haven't looked) .

Yeah, I know, I know! I was hoping you'd say something awesome, like a dragon or Captain Hook. Or at least something political like a donkey or a picture of FDR.

I'd like to see my China questions addressed:

So here's the questions I'd ask our Senate candidates. Is this economic relationship healthy and sustainable? Does it make the US too vulnerable to China? What would you do to change it? How would you strike a balance between engaging China on issues like the environment and trade and registering US outrage over the repression like we've seen in Tibet? How should the US manage its relationship to China as it evolves inevitably as a dominant world power?

More context in the original post.

ah crap, ben. You mean I passed up a sweet straightman line? Damn.

Ah, come on, TJ. You're no fun!

Well, they did ask about China--unfortunately, it was with a 30-second response. Made for a dull debate, I thought...

What happened to the Jeff Merkley of a week ago? At the City Club, I thought Jeff's peformance was very strong. Tonight, Novick delivered another solid performance, with a pitch perfect closing that was smart and authentic. Frankly, Merkley's delivery was a little flat and at times hard to watch.

Yes, relating to the China question, the 30 seconds made good answers impossible.

But, even so, they all failed my vision test. That is do they understand the long term issues in play? Not from their answers tonight. No one acknowledged how important US-China relations are to our future. That China is our most important bilateral relationship for the 21st century. No one showed that they have a strategic sense of the future economic and geopolitical world. That China, going ahead, unlike in the past, could be a key ally on many important issues. No one spoke of the possible opportunities that China presents for our economy, for maintaining global stability, for fighting global terrorism, for confronting new transnational threats of infectious disease, for controlling the proliferation of dangerous weapons, and for developing more of the undeveloped world. Some of that could have been done in 30 seconds.

And, yes, there is a threatening side to China growth in power. But they did not acknowledge that either.

What they did acknowledge were negatives, issues we have over trade and human rights (Tibet) with China, just more or less the current public complaints. And, while I agree we need to get our house in order (so we don’t need to borrow, so we can lead on global warming solutions, so we have international credibility again), that does not even begin to create a strategy for dealing with China.

So emphasizing negatives and failing to recognize either the strategic importance of or potential positives in our China relationship left me feeling none of them is ready for the big time on this issue.

I think their answers will play well with the public. And maybe there will be future follow up questions with more time to elaborate.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Novick owes Candy a beer for bailing him out on the "temperament" question. It isolated Merkley's repetition of the litany, which opened up the possibility that it would turn some off. It was easily the most negative and awkward part of the evening, because Steve played it exactly as I thought he would (and should), staying totally focused and dare I say Senatorial. He didn't even use Merkley's name when comparing his signature tax policy plans (which he certainly hit multiple times), and that was as discordant as he ever got. Merkley took other veiled shots at Steve that didn't reference him specifically, while pushing his agent-for-togetherness theme; if they went under the radar enough I suppose some folks would make the connection between Steve bad, Jeff good, which is what he wanted to convey certainly.

It was his best chance, but Jeff ran the risk about making Steve's performance the focal one in the debate. If Steve failed, Merkley would reap the reward. But if Novick passed, Merkley would be marginalized and sound a bit out of step.

Which do you think happened?

I agree that the mediums are different, but I thought Jeff's performance last week would have translated much better to TV and tonight's much better to radio. I didn't hear the same fire in the belly tonight that makes for a compelling televised debate. It sounded canned.

Steve made much better use of the format. In his closing, he looked directly to camera and spoke to people as if he were in their living room. His pitch played to his strengths, but more importantly, the real needs of everyday voters. When he spoke about fighting for the middle class, taking on the tough issues and not being just another play-it-safe politician, his pitch was very credible and authentic.

I think having two candidates on stage who spoke like everyday Oregonians probably amplified Merkley's weakness tonight. I know he's capable of doing much better, but tonight I just didn't see it. I realize that I'm not exactly an average or unbiased observer, but I did tell co-workers (who also do media training) how much improved I thought Jeff was during this primary. I've also done a lot of debate prep myself so am not completely new to this stuff, but for what it's worth, I think it was Steve's night.

Charlie- I was in the audience and while I know you're entitled to your viewpoint about how it appeared on TV, I can also tell you this: I thought Jeff did an excellent job watching it in-person.

I felt he was forceful, to-the-point, and talked about the issues that we need to talk about. I would completely disagree that he gave a weak performance. I'm a supporter of Jeff's, for sure, but I honestly feel he stood out.

In fact, I feel everyone on stage did a great job. Steve was conciliatory and passionate. Candy was in the deep end but doing her best to swim strongly, giving frank answers with an obvious fire.

I sat and watched the debate in my University Center. I was impressed by all three candidates, they had great composure, clear voices. They each said at different times, "you know, so and so is right, I agree completely" showing that on many issues they are on the same page.

I must say that while I loved watching each of them, if I had to pick someone for the best one liner of the night, it would go to Candy, when she responded to that question about Gordon Smith saying, "neither one of us has done anything progressive in the last six years..." I just started laughing...but now back to my paper on the 1960 Oregon Presidential Primary.

Charlie, I think you're spot on. CC

"Do Oregonians want to vote for someone whose FIRST elected position is US Senator?"

Yeah, last time we fucked up and got stuck with Wayne Morse.

I probably would have to agree with Jeff Mapes that the debate was a draw, but I think everyone did well (other than the moderator). Neville surpassed my expectations, she was charismatic throughout the debate. She has a lot of potential as a lower level candidate, but there were times that her lack of experience showed. I actually think Merkley was a little stronger in the question and answer segment than the others. Yeah, he was a little stiff at times (though I'll cut him some slack for being sick), but all in all he did a good job of mixing in the big picture and smaller policy details in most of his answers. He gave a very good closing statement too.

However, Novick's closing statement was EXCELLENT. One of his finer moments.

One thing I noticed - maybe others did as well - was Steve's change of heart regarding supporting John Frohnmayer vs. the Democratic winner of the primary. I thought he always stands up for what he believes - even if it's unpopular? But he's been beat up about that quite a bit this past week, so did he cave?

mom, novick never said he'd support anyone but the Dem in the general,so there was no cave.

TJ - go to the ww endorsement interview. You won't have any trouble finding it - it's all over. He said he'd endorse John Frohnmayer. Period. Later, when pressed, he said he'd vote for Candy, and from there to his comment he'd support the dem. But in the debate last night, he is all about being Mr. Democrat and said John F. should drop out of the race. Sounds like a flip/flop to me. It was smooth, but a flip/flop just the same.

I was surprised when Novick chose to work Frohnmayer into a response. It seems like a two-edged sword at best for him.

Yes, he was probably trying to do damage control from his WW interview statement. But in so doing he keeps the issue alive. And he has yet to properly explain why he would vote for someone he considers unqualified for the Senate. I mean, isn't that essentially what a lot of Republicans and Greens did by foisting George W. Bush on us in 2000?

I thought the debate really sucked--but not because of the candidates. A forum that allows a maximum of 60 seconds on any topic cannot possibly do anything but elicit rote, stump-speech answers. It meant that the candidates had no chance to delve into the issues, and that viewers would hear nothing but the most superficial bullet points. It's no wonder that for every question, all three candidates essentially parroted each other--with such little time and so little difference in position, there was no way to get into the nuance that distinguished them.

I would have loved a debate with fifteen minutes devoted to four issues: Iraq, the economy, the environment, and health care. Each reporter could have been given the chance to moderate a single issue and probe the candidates.

As it was, I can't imagine anyone but true believers watched. If some undecided voter managed to stick with it, I don't know how s/he could have made an informed decision.

you're simply wrong, mom. Not once has novick ever endorsed frohmmayer for the general. Nowhere in the interview does he say it, and in fact says exactly the opposite before, during and after the interview.

Nor was it ever said that merkley was unqualified, merely less qualified--and its been explained how common and strategically rational it is to cast such a vote. You and kevin are just making it up as you go.

Novick's comments last night about urging Frohn out suggests there was method to the madness, as I'd predicted. A novick win is more likely to cause that dropout.

TJ - I guess it depends on what the meaning of "endorsed" is. I just replayed the part of the WW interview and Steve CLEARLY says "I would vote for John Frohnmayer". It is very disingenuous for you to call ME wrong on this point.

There's method to the madness alright - on the part of the Novick campaign, to try to sweep this whole thing under the rug and turn a flip/flop into a "method". To me, Steve caved to pressure, something he insists he would never do and which is the bedrock of his campaign.

"Steve CLEARLY says "I would vote for John Frohnmayer".

Not in reference to a general election, he doesn't. And since he's got multiple references stating the opposite, you're left without a leg to stand on.

And EVEN if you wish to pretend that's what he was doing, he didn't flip flop last night, he did it about 10 seconds later in the same video. So your statement makes no sense either way.

Whatever....Who said anything about the general? That wasn't part of the question in the WW interview.

I'm not the one pretending. But I understand your need to support your guy.

mom, YOU brought up the general, claiming he said he would vote for Frohn vs the nominee...there's only a dem nominee in the general election. So are you ready to retract that novick ever said anything but that he would vote for the dem in the general?

no, you misunderstand. The only time there is such a thing as a "Dem nominee" is after the primary, so when mom refers to picking someone other than the Dem nominee, what other election could she have been referring to except the general?

I'm retracting nothing. I was not "referring" to anything except the statement by Steve Novick that he would vote for John Frohnmayer if he couldn't vote for himself. There's only one way he could vote for him, and that's in the general because Independents aren't on the primary ballot. So, if your position is that Steve didn't say he'd vote for Frohnmayer in the general, then you are wrong. He said he'd vote for him, and in the general is the only way he can. The only way anyone can, for that matter.

local mom has a valid point. Steve did say that he'd vote for Frohnmayer and there is only one way to do that and that's in the General Election. He backtracked and changed his answer, of course. But that was only after his initial answer was challenged.

I think Steve owes a huge debt of gratitude to Hank Stern or whomever it was that gave him an opportunity to change his initial answer.

The hypothetical was "who do you like best that's not you?" Kevin and mom persist in claiming the question was "who will you vote for if you lose?" Note that was EXACTLY the question asked last night...but not last week.

It is not possible, further, to backtrack from a position you had not deviated from, and which you had already expressed earlier.

At no time are either of you able to claim novick said he'd back Frohn in the general. It didn't happen.

TJ - we just seem to have different realities on this subject. Because I like to have my facts straight, I replayed the clip AGAIN. The interviewer says "Who would you vote for" if you couldn't vote for yourself. He did not say "who do you like best". See my clarification above regarding the general election being the ONLY place anyone can vote for an independent like Frohnmayer. Or replay the WW interview yourself. If Novick had listened to the instructions from the interviewer, which were to name someone "in this room", things might have turned out differently. But he didn't until much later. What he said last night directly contradicts what he said at WW, which is my point. The spin you're trying to put on it is irrelevant. Can we be done about this now?

mom, you can also vote for someone in a hypothetical preference situation, which was the question Novick was attempting to answer.

Regardless, if novick had said he'd support Frohmayer in the general, you'd have a quote that says that to back up your claim. You do not; in fact all you have are statements on the subject that contradict you.

Merkley says when he voted to praise Bush, he was supporting the troops. I think that's BS; he did it to protect his political ass. But that's my interpretation of his motive; beyond that I am forced to accept his answer, absent confounding evidence.

You are in the same situation with Novick, apparently. But you won't extend the same principle to him; you don't accept his contemporaneous explanation of his answer. Which is OK, but don't go pretending what you have is factually supported.

david, if you think he has said he would support anyone other than the nominee in he general, I challenge you to reprint that statement here, verbatim. And he wasn't wrong; Frohmmayer probably is better. His answer never changed, which is probably why he's not felt the need to clarify anything beyond what he said at the time.

<hr/>