Charlie:

Yea, I love REM, but I have to go with Nirvana for #1. I don't know what song I'd pick, though. There were too many good ones - I especially love the Unplugged stuff.

YEA! REM #1

Huh.

Now, I'm a huge fan of almost all these bands (and have seen nearly all of them live), but this isn't exactly surprising.

After all, Krist Novoselic and Stone Gossard are both clients of Steve's consulting firm.

It'd be surprising if they didn't endorse him.

Full disclosure: Jeff Merkley is a client of my firm, but I speak here only for myself. Oh, and I've also endorsed Jeff Merkley -- big whoop.

Yea, I love REM, but I have to go with Nirvana for #1

I've never read biographies or critical accounts but I always felt that the angular melodies and imagist lyrics of early REM were an influence on Nirvana. But then Michael Stipe was a big influence on me when I was beginning songwriting - I thought is was like Faulkner sitting next to a phonograph spinning the Byrds under a willow tree.

It is cool, even if I am so middle-aged and lame that I had to look a couple of these guys up.

But now I feel guilty because Rufus Wainwright was playing in Sydney while my husband and I were there in February, and we didn't go! I couldn't talk him into it. The theater was only three or four blocks from our hotel.

Next time for sure...

Yeah, I won't argue that these endorsements are cool. Other than Garrett, I'm not sure many voters will pay attention - but yes, it's cool.

Meanwhile, Willamette Week adds more detail to the "Novick clients endorsing Novick" list:

I spoke by phone with Seattle's Dederer, 43, in California this afternoon about Novick, whom Dederer knows from their work together at Pyramid Communications, a consulting firm.

How those grapes tasting, Kari? A bit less than sweet? I guess the next step after adding Kevin Kamberg to the contributor list as Merkley hitman/oppo researcher, is to start taking your rhetorical cues from him?

Do you think just MAYBE, Max Cleland is endorsing Merkley because he works with and was (possibly) introduced by mutual buddy Chuck Schumer?

Do Meloy, Tucker and Lauderdale have pernicious connections to Pyramid too, or are they just crazy enough to live here and back Steve?

Obmusic: (thanks Charlie!)

I'm listening to Lifes Rich pageant, and while begin the begin is great, my favorite is These Days. My hearing of the chorus:

We carry each his burden We are young despite the years We are hope despite the times Oh it's sunny on these days happy throngs, take this joy wherever you go

Always found that inspiring.

I like Words and Guitar by S-K, and was privileged to make my first show of theirs, their second to last at Crystal.

Valencia and The Sporting Life are fave Decemberists songs.

And even if I didn't like PJ's music, they are forever heroes for fighting Ticketbastard. Really, all of these artists are known for intelligence and integrity. No wonder they support Steve.

Do you think just MAYBE, Max Cleland is endorsing Merkley because he works with and was (possibly) introduced by mutual buddy Chuck Schumer?

Nope.

Max Cleland is coming out because of Jim Rassmann, who many might recall was rescued during the war in Vietnam by John Kerry. Rassmann came to Kerry's defense after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" lied about Kerry's military service record to undermine his run for the Presidency.

Rassmann and Cleland have been friends for a number of years.

Jim Rassmann is one of the co-chairs of Veterans for Merkley. He called Senator Cleland and told him about Jeff.

That's why Max Cleland is coming to Oregon to support Jeff Merkley.

Carla--Netroots Outreach, Jeff Merkley for Oregon

ah, mutual buddy Jim Rassman. I stand corrected. That's the guy who said Chick Schumer should ne drummed out of the Senate, right? Has Merkley ever said whether he agrees with that?

John Edwards is currently fundraising for the DSCC right here in Oregon.

It's interesting to me how the more time that passes since John Edwards dropped out of the race the more of a fundamental disconnect there appears to be between his values and the values of some who claimed to support him here in Oregon.

I think that these endorsements are right in line with support for Steve.

Although Charlie didn't post his favorite Decembrist tune, I took a minute to check out the lyrics posted and it was that satisfyingly adolescent formula of:

vague alienation,

outsider anarchism (with a decent vocabulary of course)

over the top lyrics extolling disengagement.

<hr/>

Don't get me wrong, I love overt cynicism with a backbeat as well as the next guy (who did Alice in Chains endorse? I've got most of their stuff.), but it's all the usual self-indulgent indy/college rock that's been around for decades.

I fail to see how any of it's relevant to either good governance or even clarity for that matter, except that it seems to reenforce my opinion of Novick's overall vision for citizen participation in The System.

ROck on.

I'm not surprised they've gotten the Edwards to do fundraising for the DSCC - he is a former senator and presidential candidate, after all.

I've been critical of the DSCC, yes. But does that mean I absolutely hate them and everything they touch? No. I'm just not always happy with what they do.

My biggest gripe with organizations like DSCC is them getting involved in primaries. I wish they'd take the same position as the state and national party and either stay out completely or offer equal services. And I'd have no problem with them raising funds for the eventual nominee (like you can through Act Blue). I just hate seeing an organization whose main duty is supporting Democrats for a certain office (whether it be U.S. Congress, state legislature, etc.) picking one Dem over another in a primary.

The same has been true for other organizations, such as Future PAC. But I recognize that even though they might make what I consider to be stupid choices sometimes, their end goal and mine is the same (elect Democrats) and I still support the organization.

Just because you're critical of an organization or person doesn't mean you hate them. Some people seem to have a black or white view of Novick supporters, and it just isn't the case.

Some people seem to have a black or white view of Novick supporters, and it just isn't the case.

Gee whiz, Jenni. Do you think that just MAYBE that's because you Novick supporters have been framing stuff like... oh, I don't know... Gay Marriage in starkly black and white terms for months now??? But now you want to put the onus for your own tactics on everyone else???

Hello!

there you go, Pat! If you can't get the endorsement of a highly popular figure with about a fifth of the electorate, just say their music sucks! I wonder, is the classically trained lounge jazz of t Thom Lauderdale self-indulgent music for Portland's liberal elite?

There is a lot of latent worry spilling from the comments of Merkley supporters this week. Can't imagine why. Maybe it's because Hofstra just added a TD against the Patriots to extend their lead?

Good question, UPO.

I'm pretty sure that Max Cleland would never win American Idol, therefore what he has to say can't possibly be relevant to a United States Senate campaign.

Like I just said on the other thread, I'm done battling it out with you, Kevin. You twist everything around and anything that is different from Merkley's responses must be wrong. I'm done. It doesn't matter what any of us say, we're in the wrong. Fine, I get it.

I have much more important things to do than battle it out with you - such as contacting voters or actually helping my candidate win instead of trying to chase off needed general election supporters.

krist isn't just an activist, he's a Democratic committeeman in WA.

For R.E.M. fans here: when I was looking through YouTube, the band had more obscure and wonderful videos online than any other artist on this list. Included were some great clips of their first appearance on national television (David Letterman) -- doing "Radio Free Europe" and "South Central Rain" -- as well as a lot of arty, southern Gothic videos from way back. Clips like "Driver 8" have a gritty, Eggleston feel that hold up really well.

It occurred to me when I put this up that I've been listening to them for twenty five years now. Yikes. Obviously they're from Athens, but they had a lot of Memphis connections too. The band recorded their album Green at Ardent Studios down the street from my house. Among the many things that melted in a house fire a few years later were a bunch of very rare, high-quality bootleg tapes of shows from 1983 to 1985. Bummer.

To return to the competitive spirit of this primary, I will say the other real story here is "Novick fails to win coveted Talking Heads nod."

Charlie, they did a whole 25 minute movie/video for Reckoning (or maybe it was Fables, but I think it was Reckoning. ) it's really visually beautiful stuff, 180deg from most music videos of the day.

And I have some of those old boots still (including an amazing one called Georgia Peaches Ripe!) from 1981. They do some incredible tunes on that, sound like a totally different band. Email me offline and maybe I can restore some memories for you.

That's the guy who said Chick Schumer should ne drummed out of the Senate, right?

Hafta agree with Rassman on that one, but I don't have a tally of which of the 435 reps should be on Merkley's list.

Maybe Steve has an enemies list compiled, but I'm betting that Merkley's more focused on getting credible veterans like Cleland and Rassman to publicly endorse his stated positions regarding foreign policy and military issues.

Just going by what he (and his endorsers) are actually stating. No need for mind reading, translation of obscure (but weighty) lyrics, or conflation, or guilt by association there.

Just read their actual statements regarding why they support Jeff's policy positions.

It's kinda the old Occam's Cigar thingy.......

really, LT? Less heavy handed? Did they support their candidate to the tune of 3x more than any other endorsee had gotten to that time, and do it six months before they typically start disbursing funds? Cause that's what they've done here. Why does bringing it up in this race mean people think it's never happened before? I swear, the false constructs you assemble are baffling sometimes.

LT:

Did I ever say it was all right for them to get involved in '96? No. I don't think they should get involved, and the fact that they have in the past has been something I have disagreed with them on - and it is something I have written them on long before the Novick-Merkley race ever came to be.

Thanks, Jack, for that interesting link to Cilizza.

He was talking presidential endorsements, so for the purposes of an in-state race, perhaps we'd redefine "state-specific" as "organizational".

The State-Specific (Statewide) Endorsement: This sort of endorsement comes from an elected official with a proven network -- either financial or organizational -- in a state.

That's why endorsements from small-town mayors are important in a US Senate race - they have a local network that can be put to use. Same for labor unions, etc.

ah, more desperate attempts at dismissal! Jack m, are you trying to say Cleland's endorsement is symbolic of his failure to answer a smear pushed against him, sufficiently to retain his seat? Given Merkley's trouble with GOP tactics, maybe you should find another symbol.

Wouldn't Meloy, Tucker, Lauderdale, and as I understand Daniels be considered state-specific?

I'm also curious as to the definition of B list. Does being an international recording star (as Stipe, Gossard, Novoselic and Wainwright are) not get you off that list? I recall Decemberists have toured and sold outside US as well; can't speak to Spoon or the POTUS.

And you'll have to cite who from the campaign has been using band names rather than individual names, cause I haven't seen it (except to identify the person's affiliation after citing the name).

But definitely keep trying to belittle these people's value! I'm sure it's very persuasive.

As Chris Cillizza/The Fix writes, there's an endorsement hierarchy when it comes to primaries. Some help, some hurt, and some are just weird.

I'm a big fan of REM and am hoping to take my teenage daughter to see them and The Flaming Lips this summer at a festival, the name of which of course escapes me at the moment.

All else being equal, these musician endorsements might mean something. But against the backdrop of reality it seems to me that they just underscore how many progressive organizations and unions considered and then rejected an endorsement of Steve Novick for Senate in favor of endorsing Jeff Merkley. Which to me places most of these under Cillizz's "just weird" heading.

TJ bringing Max Cleland into it here does the same thing, IMO. And for the very reasons Jack listed.

For folks analyzing how this endorsement will be used, I'd encourage you to look at the actual letter of endorsement. Any single endorsement only gets you so far, but endorsement tied to specific issues always work better.

For example: "Michael Stipe endorses Steve Novick" is only moderately compelling.

"Michael Stipe endorses Steve Novick as the candidate best suited to be an environmental champion and voice against media consolidation in the US Senate" is more compelling.

Steve does well on this front. The artists endorsing Steve signed a joint statement specifically mentioning Steve's positions on economic fairness, ending the war, fighting global warming, net neutrality, and fighting media consolidation.

I'd note that this year's primary will include a lot of first-time young voters who might weigh these more than a typical universe you'd see in a low-turnout primary. I also think the local artists -- Thomas Lauderdale and Corin Tucker for example -- matter every bit as much as a high-profile, bigger selling act because it's more credible that they've given this local race more thought and consideration.

But it's easy to overthink this stuff. Mostly, it's just another example of how Steve is doing very well for himself by running a campaign that closely reflects his personality and who he really is.

But it's easy to overthink this stuff.

Too true Charlie.

For example:

I never miss a chance to bash Kitzhaber;

He and I both endorse Obama;

I might fit into either the pariah, wierd, or (most likely) WHO???? category, while Dr. No might bring some on board while simultaneously driving some away.

I'm guessing that voters, when they finally tune in, will be looking at the vets' endorsements and the rock 'n rollers endorsements while staring intently at the Voter's Guide, and there'll be a lot of head scratching going on......

Oh, yeah, and I do totally respect Stipes' choice of hairdos.......

"I'm guessing that voters, when they finally tune in,"

According to SUSA, well more than half are already tuned in enough to state a preference.

Also, curious: "Maybe Steve has an enemies list compiled, but I'm betting that Merkley's more focused on getting credible veterans like Cleland and Rassman to publicly endorse his stated positions regarding foreign policy and military issues."

If you're going to take a bizarre pot shot at Novoselic, is Merkley planning to disavow "credible veteran" Tony McPeak, who has a recent DUI on his record and was referring to the Clintons as McCarthyist just a couple weeks ago?

You know, this is an interesting counter to Cillizza, from Jeff Mapes:

Given today's celebrity drenched culture (and the large number of young people who I expect will be voting in the May primary because of the presidential race), these well-known musicians are probably worth more than a roomful of legislators. [emph me]

I don't think Jeff Mapes is some God of demographic electorate analysis, but he does garner respect for his political acumen. FWIW.

Bridget:

When I think of them, it's always Lump or Peaches that come to mind. My sister and I were singing the two songs just a few weeks ago.

If you're going to take a bizarre pot shot at Novoselic,

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about......

is Merkley planning to disavow "credible veteran" Tony McPeak, who has a recent DUI on his record and was referring to the Clintons as McCarthyist just a couple weeks ago?

I sincerely hope not, as I'm a big fan of McPeak as an intelligent spokesperson on military matters. I'll be sure not to consult with him for driving tips, and as for the McCarthy comment, do you agree with him on that one Mark?

As to what Merkley's going to do, I'm guessing that'll be up to him.

I will second the recognition of Mapes' political acumen.

Here's what he had to say today:

Merkley is clearly winning some endorsements because he has been able to deliver as speaker of the House (Planned Parenthood and Basic Rights Oregon sure made that clear when they gave him their nod). And he's also got the support of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and for many groups that is the sign that he is the most electable Democrat. - emphasis supplied

While musicians such as Bono are certainly entitled to use their fame to further progressive causes which they feel are important and have surely earned the gratitude showered on them for have a social conscience. They don't bring the kind of single-minded gravitas to those issues that less infamous but infinitely more invested progressive political organizations, such as Basic Rights Oregon, Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club do.

Steve Novick pursued all of the same progressive organizations and unions that Merkley did. Obviously he wouldn't have done so if a bunch of musicians would have sufficed.

"as for the McCarthy comment, do you agree with him on that one Mark?"

who cares? I'm not the one who's making his campaign mostly on whining about attacking Democrats, when he's attacking Democrats and claiming Democrat-attackers in his circle of advisors/endorsers.

To answer the question however, the answer is No. Exploitation of racial fears and mendacious about the political process, were not something McCarthy was necessarily known for.

As for Kevin, I agree with Mapes--most of them DID endorse "because he has been able to deliver as speaker of the House," rather than necessarily whether he might be the best Democrat to run against Gordon Smith. I would use the word "payback" or "concern for a future relationship" (which Mapes points out as the potential reasoning for Kulongoski's endorsement of Clinton and Merkley, in an earlier article).

But if I have it clear, you are agreeing with Mapes that yesterday's endorsements for Steve are worth more than the 40-50 state legislators who have backed Merkley? I'll file that info.

"mendacity", sorry

Chris:

Well, it was Nirvana yesterday and The Presidents of the United States today. ; )

Kevin and TJ: I don't think there is anything wrong with Edwards lending a hand to DSCC backed candidates. I also don't think there's anything wrong with Merkley getting the support of the DSCC. Both Novick and Merkley wanted their support, and Merkley was the one who got it. IMO, it just means they get an extra push when it comes to fundraising etc. The Oregon nominee is sure going to need to load the campaign coffers once the GE gets underway.

I think the music endorsements for Novick are cool, especially because I like a few of those musicians. However, I do think that Cleland's endorsement of Merkley is is even cooler. ;) Maybe I'm just not that hip.

"Both Novick and Merkley wanted their support, and Merkley was the one who got it. IMO, it just means they get an extra push when it comes to fundraising etc."

Except it wasn't a contested primary when one of them asked. And $100,000 and staff coordination is some push! Like, 10% of his 2007 take!

Posted by: Sarah Lane | Apr 11, 2008 2:33:45 PM

You're preaching to the choir here, Sarah. I don't have any problem with a great progressive like John Edwards fundraising for the DSCC. Nor do I have a problem with the DSCC backing an early candidate whom they believe has a significantly better chance of winning in the General Election. Heck, I agree with them about Merkley. Apparently so too do Planned Parenthood, Basic Rights Oregon, the Sierra Club and a whole slew of others.

"and a real hero who knows how lowdown and dirty the Republicans play, this year and every year."

--and apparently was ineffectual at doing anything about it to save his own skin. I do sense a kinship with Merkley there.

and then there's this: "Nor do I have a problem with the DSCC backing an early candidate whom they believe has a significantly better chance of winning in the General Election."

Why the FUCK should Oregon give one dime's of interest to what the DSCC thinks? Why does their opinion count the slightest bit? What the HELL do they know about Oregon politics? (Not a lot, clearly, based on their current choice.) Why don't you just send Chuck Schumer your primary ballot? But don't go forfeiting our sovereignity on everyone's behalf just because you support the same old politics that keeps Democrats losing. But I'm sure it's difficult still to transition away from a party that simply told you who to vote for, and you obeyed.

Why the FUCK should Oregon give one dime's of interest to what [Michael Stipe] thinks? Why does [his] opinion count the slightest bit? Why the FUCK should Oregon give one dime's of interest to what [Krist Novoselic] thinks? Why does [his] opinion count the slightest bit? Why the FUCK should Oregon give one dime's of interest to what [John Hodgman] thinks? Why does [his] opinion count the slightest bit?

You mean you don't know the difference between an individual offering his/her opinion and saying "I like the guy"--and the leader of the guild which both men would like to join, who has enormous thumbs to place on the scale, sending staff and $100,000 to elevate one of them?

None of the people you listed above are specifically charged with supporting Democrats for office. Schumer is, and he is actively harming the efforts of a Democrat to seek that office. It shouldn't happen.

I can't tell whether you knew that already when you asked or not, since it's pretty obvious. But you must think the rest of us are a bunch of idiots, to not be able to see the difference immediately.

"I didn't say that, joe"

did I say you did? Nope.

"And because people know the band name and not the individual's name, they'll think that the band has endorsed, when that's not true at all."

Why on earth will they think that? Who will be telling them that from the campaign? On what announcement was that attempt made or that insinuation possible?

Do you live in Portland? I have to think not, otherwise you wouldn't ask how many people recognize Corin Tucker or Colin Meloy or ESPECIALLY Thom Lauderdale. They're kinda, you know, popular.

"TJ, if these endorsers can stand on their own, then why the need to say "...(of Band Name)" after each one (besides Rufus)?"

What does that have to do with your smear that the campaign is trying to insinuate full band support?

"This election is statewide, remember? "

And endorsements have to have universal statewide appeal why, exactly? Do you think the entire state gives a rat's ass who Ted Kulongoski likes? I doubt it.

I don't know if you've noticed, but one of every three people in Oregon, lives in the Portland area. And did you know these bands are also popular in Eugene, Corvallis, McMinnville, and even places where people simply listen to music on their radios and iPods?

Chat with some people under 30.

No! Don't "label it what you want."

A "push poll" has a very specific meaning, and Steve Duin is smart enough to figure this out. It's irresponsible of him to do otherwise.

You may not like the content of the Merkley poll, but it is not a push poll.

Paul-- Steve Duin didn't call it a "push poll" in his piece but rather just reported and opined on the questions asked by the Merkley campaign.

I agree with you that 90-percent of the time a campaign complains of "push polling" it's not the case. It's something of a pet peeve of mine too. Sadly, cries of "push polling" will likely continue as a regular feature of our primary and general election campaigns.

My apologies to Steve. I'm out of town and did not see the column, and assumed that the poster had characterized the column accurately.

Charlie, thanks for the save.

Actually, Novick was answering who, other than himself, was the most qualified candidate. He'd said Frohnmayer - and that Frohnmayer was someone he would vote for. But what keeps getting misunderstood is that he didn't say he was going to vote for him.

It's like me saying that I think Merkley is highly qualified for the office and that he's someone I'd vote for - because it's true. He's definitely someone I would vote for - he's just not the person I am voting for because I like someone else even more.

But Novick quite clearly said he would be supporting the Democratic nominee - something he has said plenty of times. And unless something surprising happens, that nominee will be Merkley or Novick, so he was definitely saying he would support and vote for Merkley if he's on the ballot in November.

We really have to stop using misunderstandings and such to tear apart fellow Dems. As many of us talked about this past weekend, it is going to take all of us working together to pull out all the wins we need this November. We've had more than 40,000 people re-register as Dems already (most Independents, but some Republicans) and that number could double or more by the time the April 29 deadline comes. Why can't we show those new Democrats the best of their new party, its candidates, and its volunteers and supporters?

It's fine to debate the issues, policies, etc. - and we should. It helps the candidates to improve their ideas, get input from the public, etc. and makes for a stronger campaign in the fall. But some of this other stuff really gets ridiculous.

jack, are ya deaf? He DiD commit to supporting Merkley

It's not just about the question - it's also about the answer - the entire answer.

From The Oregonian:

Novick added that Frohnmayer's positions are "extremely progressive" and concluded, "I will vote for the Democratic nominee, but if I could vote for the person I think is best qualified other than myself, I would vote for John Frohnmayer."

His choice for who he would vote for among his fellow candidates was Candy Neville.

But of course, Novick, like many of us, is committed to the Democratic Party. There are a lot of people out there who would love to vote for a minor party or i(I)ndependent who they really like, but they see the reality of the situation. We know that the race is going to be between the Democrat and the Republican. There may be others in the race, but the winner will either be our nominee or Gordon Smith. And if Merkley is the nominee, we'll all be behind him 110%.

I know media outlets like to ask that question, but I personally find it a waste of time. I'd rather hear more on an issue or a position. The answers just end up as butt kissing (because you want to make sure you don't alienate the other front runner's supporters in case you're the nominee), hurt feelings for no reason, selecting the candidates you see as the least threat, not selecting one of your fellow candidates because they've been harsh on you, outraged people over a non-issue, etc.

To me, the answer we need is will the person vote for the party's nominee this fall if that person isn't them. And we have it - he's voting Democratic.

To me, the answer we need is will the person vote for the party's nominee this fall if that person isn't them. And we have it - he's voting Democratic.

Luckily, it does not appear that Steve will be faced with that problem. But if he is, he will vote D. As the rest of us will (I hope), no matter what.

hey, no unhatched chicken counting! Bad karma. There is a lot of work to be done before anybody gets that shot at Gordo. But I'd rather be Steve than Jeff at this point, certainly.