"It hurts to have one's own dumb, insulting comments set down for posterity, doesn't it? I doubt that those comments render Novick unfit for the US Senate, but WTF, he said those things, didn't he?"

Did you even read the posts they were taken from? And how decidedly unshocked, unoffended and gasp--in AGREEMENT the reaction was?

I mean, really--it doesn't sound quite as insulting when you read it, does it?

The real question however is, how does this ad make Merkley's case? And on what issues important to Oregon does the ad refer to?

How is this going negative? Steve Novick has said time and time again that he stands by those quotes. If Novick always says what he believes and tells the truth I don't see how he or any of his supporters can be mad about this ad. If Novick always tells the truth and these are his positions he should be glad there getting out there.

Further, Gordon Smith has already shown a propensity to use Steve Novick's words and loose tounge in his ads. If Novick can't deal with Merkley doing it and how will he deal with Smith?

The two races I care most about this year are Obama and Novick's. I supported each when they were considered long shots and am incredibly proud of what both campaigns have accomplished.

The important thing fellow Obama supporters should know about Jeff Merkley is that he's incredibly unhelpful to the Obama campaign. This ad, of course, is also unhelpful.

Steve Novick is running the type of campaign we need to beat Gordon Smith. Merkley is running the type of campaign that will win Democrats the trophy for second place come November. It doesn't mean he's a bad guy, but Merkley in the general ain't gonna cut it. The fact that Merkley's pulling up blog posts from 2006 really says everything you need to know about his lackluster campaign.

I hate to disagree with Charlie but I believe it was Barack Obama who said that "words matter." And Obama was right. Words do matter.

Jeff Merkley is agreeing with Obama. Words do matter.

"If Novick always tells the truth and these are his positions he should be glad there getting out there."

I don't recall him writing the original words with quite so many ellipsis. Or did I miss the blog post Novick wrote tearing down Hooley that simply said, "Lie"?

Not a negative ad. How dumb do you think people are? Pretty fucking dumb, I guess. Here's a tip--when your opponent is in twice as much of it as you are, it's not a positive ad.

After all the ways LT thinks Novick has failed to present a positive message for what he would do for Oregonians, it's really amazing that somehow THIS is an appropriate use of 30 seconds for her. Raising funds with a creative beer idea? Terrible. Smearing your opponent with decontextual quotes? Sign me up!

The fact that Merkley's pulling up blog posts from 2006 really says everything you need to know about his lackluster campaign.

Lackluster? Do you know how overwhelming an advantage in endorsements Jeff Merkley has? He has bested Steve Novick on every single front except for newspapers. Everything else has been totally dominated by Jeff Merkley. And the endorsements continue to roll in. Just today they announced the endorsement of the influential 21st Century Democratcs.

21st Century Democrats don't make endorsements lightly, particularly in contested Democratic primaries," said Mark Lotwis, the Executive Director of the 21st Century Democrats. "But this Senate race is a real opportunity to defeat an entrenched Republican in Gordon Smith, who consistently works against our core values of universal health care, a clean and sustainable environment, living wages and secure jobs, and fair taxation. "Jeff Merkley has been a leader for progressive values in Oregon and a fighter for working families. 21st Century Democrats enthusiastically supports Jeff's campaign because Jeff brings the courage and skill needed to take our nation in the right direction."

It's worth pointing out that several of Merkley's biggest endorsers have also endorsed Obama and are actively helping both campaigns. AFSCME and the SEIU being two well known examples.

Hey folks...

A couple of things.

Anybody know who built that website?

Yes, I built that one-page website. No, I didn't make the TV spot.

Who's Jeff Merkley's chief media consultant...

It's certainly not me. I'm not a media consultant. I'm an internet consultant.

I've got my own post going up in about one minute about this. You can see the rest of my thoughts over there.

"He has bested Steve Novick on every single front except for newspapers."

Earned media? Polling? 2008 financial support from Oregonians?

My count indicates Novick's dominated all three.

Lackluster. Find me ONE journalistic observer who has said Merkley's run a solid campaign.

Gordon Smith has already shown a propensity to use Steve Novick's words and loose tounge in his ads. If Novick can't deal with Merkley doing it and how will he deal with Smith?

There's the rub, isn't it?

Charlie I have a ton of respect for you but you really need to substantiate the statements you just made.

1. I find it hard to see the ad as unhelpful when it puts Novick's attacks against Clinton to the front and center just like Novick's attacks against Obama. Further if you want to blame someone for having crappy things about Obama floating around maybe you should blame the person that said them... Steve Novick

2. Secondly I would dispute your last contention as well. Steve Novick is showing right now exactly why he is a poor choice to go up against Gordon Smith. Merkley has in three weeks obliterated the lead that Novick earned because he was the first candidate to raise his name id, a luxury that Novick won't have against Smith. Novick is showing that his loose tongue will get him into trouble when it counts against Smith, who has already debuted his use of the tactic in his first attack ad. Finally, Novick is showing that his campaign is going to get swamped when it doesn't have financial parity. Merkley picking up 10pts in three weeks shows that Novick will get rolled by Smith's massive war chest and we already know that Novick won't get national money to help make up the difference. Further Merkley has gone after Smith in two ads already and Im still waiting for Novick to go after Smith. Merkley is dominating these last several weeks and if Novick cant handle the heat he should get out of the kitchen.

In contrast Merkley's campaign has shown the affinity that Oregonians have to his message of bringing people together and fighting for real policy changes like universal health care. When Oregonians hear Jeff Merkley's message and the style they respond positively. Merkley has been running on his record of positive and proactive legislative achievements for Oregon which is what people want... not someone who goes around insulting people.

"There's the rub, isn't it?"

You think Smith is going to attack him for saying things about Democrats??

And is your point that Gordon Smith will unleash smears and lies all over Novick, so Merkley going sleazy on him first is really doing everyone a favor? Thanks, Hillary.

The really sad part is that it's MERKLEY who doesn't know when he's gone too far attacking people. Ad about Karen Minnis and her protection of her brother in law on a sexual assault beef? Reasonable. Making her out to be Mark Foley? Too far. Clarifying your position on HR2 and criticizing Novick for misconstruing how he (Merkley) saw the bill? Reasonable. Claiming you were against it with columns and speeches that weren't against it, claiming your opponent wasn't against it when he was, and having surrogates smear your opponent with character attacks that you approved? Too far. Lobbying your Democratic colleagues hard on a bill you really, really want to pass for your Senate campaign? Reasonable. Threatening your Democratic colleagues with the nuclear option after they've already said no? Too far.

Back Jeff Merkley into a losing position, and he freaks, quite frankly. Is THAT what we want?

Also I would like to remind everyone that Novick has already aired the first negative attack ad of the campaign.

"Charlie I have a ton of respect for you but you really need to substantiate the statements you just made."

{follows with several paragraphs of unsubstantiated statements like "we already know that Novick won't get national money to help make up the difference."}

Does up HAVE to be down to support Merkley, or does it just help?

Bdunn: I've got a respect for you too, but ask yourself, if you were working in Obamaland, would you want to see the words "fraud" and "Obama" on TV over and over? Of course not. And the truth is this quote is pulled from a 2006 blog post in which Novick also asked if we should deport all Scotch-Irish back to the old country to reduce crime. It was an intentionally stylized piece of writing.

To tell you the truth, if I was working with Clinton I'd be equally annoyed with Merkley for amplifying this negative messaging 1000-fold. The fact is that although Novick endorsed Obama, Novick had a lot of praise for Clinton and her campaign.

Oh, and I should mention that this original story was leaked to media three days before Obama got to town last. Is that helpful, from Obama's perspective? Of course not.

"Also I would like to remind everyone that Novick has already aired the first negative attack ad of the campaign."

Untrue. KGW aired it, on their own mistake. And if I have this straight, the Merkley ad discussing Novick by name for 2/3 of the commercial is NOT a negative attack ad...but the Novick ad that does not name Merkley and takes about 2 seconds to talk about his opponent's legislative record, is a negative attack ad.

No smears or lies, just the words that Steve Novick himself chose to use. However, I understand why his supporters are uncomfortable with having the rest of Oregon find out the kind of nastiness that he is capable of and entirely too willing to use.

It was one thing when it was just the political junkies reading Blue Oregon. It was another when it made the City Club debate footage. But even that gets ignored by most swing voters. Now everyone gets an opportunity to see Steve Novick's style contrasted with Jeff Merkley's style.

Hey folks... Just a bit of clarification: The "baggage" ad wasn't the only Novick ad that popped Merkley. The "pull the plug" ad does too.

We can spend all day arguing what the definition of a "negative" or "attack" ad is... but creating a classification system for political commercials ought not be our goal.

I suggest actually debating the content of the ads themselves. Much of the commentary above does just that - keep it up - but I'd try and avoid debating what the meaning of "negative" is. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

Or as they say, the beer holder.

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

"but creating a classification system for political commercials ought not be our goal. "

Yes, let's just use the traditional systems--when you pull a bunch of old quotes out of context and talk about your opponent for the better part of the valuable ad time you're purchasing, you have made a NEGATIVE AD.

If you have to twist and turn away from obvious realities so madly in order to support your candidate, is it really worth it?

Let me add yet another voice asking what Novick supporters' problem is with this? From the very beginning, Steve touted himself as the guy willing to tell people exactly what he thought - the unvarnished "truth" as he saw it. His most vocal supporters - like tj - clearly stated that they were attracted to his full throated anger against Senate comity, equating civility with appeasement.

So now they're getting all their panties in a bunch when Jeff Merkley puts out an ad that asks voters if this is what they really want? What happened to all those 'Steve is a fighter!' posts? The 'Steve fights with everyone who isn't 100% lockstep at all times with downtown Portland progressive principals!!' posts? Why aren't they proudly proclaiming - as they've done for several years - that this is the way Democrats should behave? Why chicken out now?

Where are all the purity trolls, willing to forthrightly defend purity trolling, when you need them?

Charlie: Maybe I don't work in Obamaland but you and I were both in Washington organizing supporters for the caucuses, I have made a crapload of calls, and organized events on his behalf. To me the absolute ridiculousness of all of Novick's attacks against other Democrats kinda makes me as the viewer just dismiss Novick and his attacks.

This is about who would be a more effective Senator, the guy who has shown time and time again in the state legislature that he can build coalitions to methodically pass progressive public policies or the guy who sits on the outside playing monday morning armchair quarterback yelling at Tom Brady and calling him a failure?

I'm sorry, but saying you're for SS taxes for those over $100k and your opponents aren't isn't an attack and it isn't negative. It is pointing out an exact issue where you disagree.

That's quite different than what was found in this newest Merkley ad. It's one of the worst ads I've seen in some time, and it made me cringe much in the way those Minnis ads did back in '06.

This campaign is getting more and more ridiculous. Just when I thought things have gotten as bad as they can, something else like this pops up.

Like I said, what's "negative" is in the eye of the beholder. Some purists never want any kind of contrast in an ad; some anti-purists think anything short of a flat-out lie is OK.

Suffice to say, some people think this ad does exactly what you say you support: "pointing out an exact issue where you disagree."

I'm less interested in defining "negative" than in talking about the substance of the ad.

Kari, did it ever occur to you that you might not have legal rights to use the image of Novick in your knock-off of the site? Did you just steal it from the Novick home page?

Oh, yeah, I see you did just steal it from the site.

Hmmm... I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure it falls within the "criticism and comment" exception of the fair use clause in the copyright law.

"the substance of the ad."

HAHAHA!

What substance, Kari? It's an attack ad about BLOG POSTS he made in 2006, for heaven's sake. It's not even about sugar tarrifs or privacy or any of the ISSUES Novick was referring to.

Steven,

As one Novick supporter, I'll try to explain why I have a problem with the ad. As you might expect, the problem is with the ellipses.

I'm fine with Steve's comments, and actually find them quite amusing, but I have a problem with bits and pieces being cherry picked out of larger sentences and paragraphs without context. I've called Bdunn on this about a dozen times on Kos and other sites about the interwebs, so it's not a new argument I'm making.

I'm fine with Merkley supporters trying to make hay out of blog posts from 2006 if they like, but only if the information is presented in FULL and with context. Otherwise, it's an intellectually dishonest effort. That's the problem.

I'm fine with Steve's comments, and actually find them quite amusing, but I have a problem with bits and pieces being cherry picked out of larger sentences and paragraphs without context.

That would be a valid criticism if every single quote were not linked to the actual full text, which these are.

The point being made by the Merkley campaign is that Novick is an intemperate person who glorys in the cutting insult as part and parcel of his routine discourse.

This ad suggests, and I agree, that Novick will have trouble getting anything done in the US Senate at all given his propensity to insult allies at the drop of a hat.

"And you're right, its not about policy. That's the point. Novick didn't attack policy--he attacked PEOPLE. That's what Novick does."

Absolutely false. Novick specifically attacks on policy each time. Jeff Merkley is the only one in the race who has attacked people--Steve Novick. Same old weasel politics from a same old politician like Jeff. You knew it was coming; it's his history to panic and lash out recklessly!

"Saying that Obama is a special-interest fraud because he supports them is ATTACKING OBAMA, the person. "

Actually, he doesn't say it at all. He asks Earl Blumenauer whether it's true.

Let's think for a minute about the general election.

The difference between the primary and the general is that the primary contains only Democrats, while the general contains all voters, even those who choose NOT to be Democrats.

Who is more likely to win the respect of voters who have chosen NOT to be Democrats -- a conventional pol who will never criticize a D for anything? or a courageous Democrat who is willing to say, "sometimes Democrats are wrong, and when they are, they should be called on it."

I know that back in the day, when I was a Republican, it would have been very easy for me to choose the latter in a general election.

I wonder how much extra it costs to get the services of one of the more recognizable "scary narrators."

Hmmm... I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure it falls within the "criticism and comment" exception of the fair use clause in the copyright law.

I'm not an IP lawyer, either, Kari, but the "criticism and comment" in the fair use clause refers to the material you are commenting on or criticizing. I'm not sure that reproducing a photo -- offered without criticism -- without an attribution to the photographer counts.

"That comment was meant as a direct personal shot at Obama. Because its couched in the form of a question to Blumenauer changes nothing about its meaning.

You're parsing this. Novick hasn't backed off these statements so why are you trying to do it for him?"

If it was meant as a personal shot, why did he discuss a specific policy issue? Why not just call him a fraud, rather than posing it as a hypothetical attached to a question of policy?

I'm not backing off his comments at all--I'm pointing out the fairly obvious truth that they're not personal, but policy based.

Selfish. Petty. Backbiting. THOSE are personal attacks, lodged by the Merkley campaign.

Are you disagreeing that you were wrong to claim Novick said he was a fraud, rather than asking whether the policy evidence suggests it?

The "copyright" stuff is a non-issue. My question: did the Novick campaign call or e-mail Kari or the Merkley campaign before the released their open letter... or do they prefer to try to drag him out on the floor over the criticism?

As for the ad, I think Pat Ryan has summed it up well in his above comment.

Late getting to the party, but it's amusing to see this post attract the usual conspiracy theories from Malach and others. And of course, had it not gotten posted, we would have attracted the same people with the same theories.

Fortunately, David Steves of the Register Guard recognizes this ad for the dreck it is.

It is worth noting the context of some of these comments highlighted in the Merkley attack ad. If you click on the links and read through the comments, you’ll see that Novick started some fairly engaged dialogue among fellow progressives about policy and election issues, but hardly stirred up the kind of outrage Merkley is trying to whip up.

And like a responsible journalist, Steves actually provides the context for the statements.

"The "copyright" stuff is a non-issue. "

Where does your experience in web property law come from?

I've worked in journalism.

The "copyright" stuff is a non-issue.

So, Jeff Merkley's weak on intellectual property rights? That might make the lawyers at Oregon-based Nike and Adidas USA a little jumpy.

Adidas wins $300 million stripe payout OUT-LAW News, 08/05/2008 Adidas has won a $300 million trade mark case against a rival shoe maker over its three stripe logo. The sportswear giant alleged that the rival's two- and four-striped shoes violated its trade mark rights.

I don't claim to know everything about how fair use works, but Kari simply stole the image and look and feel of the Novick site for Merkley's use. It's treading the edge of IP rights if it doesn't actually go over it, even as commentary or criticism.

It seems to me that there is a continuum & that we're not likely to agree exactly about where to divide it, either in principle or in reading a given ad.

However, I'd like to suggest that there are at least three parts. I'll accept what James X. says about "positive" vs. "negative", but still say there's a further quite important distinction between negative ads that focus on substance and "attack" ads that are about smearing your opponent with labels (the latter may also have a worst end of smearing them with lies).

Part of the reason this matters is that it is the really hostile smeary ads that gave "attack ads" a bad name & are the things people dislike if they think candidates are doing it. Which produces the involution of accusing an opponent of "going negative." But there really is a meaningful distinction to me.

In this case I think those who say that Steve opened the door by making his character as a fighter (one that Jeff now claims too btw) part of his pitch have a point. But I think those who say that chopping up the quotes (call it parcelling) and taking them out of context have a point too.

So for me this is borderline between a legitimate negative ad and an attack ad.

It could be a lot worse as an attack ad.

It could also be more honest as a straightforward negative ad about a contrast in style that Novick himself raised.

My understanding as a non-lawyer who worked on rights clearance issues for an OPB documentary project on the IP issues would be that 1) candidates do not have claims under what are called rights of privacy and publicity -- i.e. if you are a private person and someone uses your image without permission you may have a claim, and a famous person whose image has economic value may have a claim, but if you are current news you don't; but 2) that either the original photographer or that photographer's employer probably has a copyright in the specific image.

Now I think I first saw this specific picture in Willamette Week, actually. If so, the copyright either remains with a freelance photographer who WW used, or that it was a "work made for hire" by a WW employee, so that WW has the copyright and Novick's campaign has obtained rights to use it, or it is a Novick publicity shot that WW used, with copyright either being with the Novick campaign as a work made for hire, or a freelancer.

In any case I think the website is infringing someone's intellectual property rights. Whether the infringement has a financial value that would make suing worthwhile is a different question, unless the rights owner wanted to make a point of it.

Looking at the quotes I personally don't have a problem with most of them. Calling Hillary Clinton a "trait[or]ess" bothers me because I don't think what he's accusing her of really is treason -- also seems dodgy because as far as I know "traitor" is not specifically male gendered, so that putting it in a feminized form I think invokes some misogynistic stereotypes about women that are very deeply rooted in our culture, not least through the bible.

On the other hand, the Al Gore example is a hoot, and a little bit of a lying smear.

Steve is actually praising Gore in the quote. Who he's really attacking is Hillary Clinton again, as in "Gore is the only Democrat with the stature to beat the warmongering, First-Amendment-shredding front-runner."

To me that's fair comment; "Obliterate 'em" Clinton hadn't gone quite that far until recently but she was not one of those who was persuaded to vote for the war powers resolution against her better judgment either.

But what follows that may the most troubling thing I've read Steve having read or said:

Does everyone know that Hillary Clinton supported a Constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning? To me, that's at least as bad as the war.

To me, Steve is dead wrong on that one, in a way that bothers me considerably.

But I voted for him, and none of this makes me regret it.

As someone who has also worked in journalism, I can tell you there is a HUGE difference between using a photo, logo, or image in a news broadcast or newspaper and copying the css, logos, etc. for a web site.

The news station's use does indeed fall under the fair use rules of copyright law. At no time does the station, newspaper, etc. act as if they are the ones who took/created the photo or image (often times they even state on them where they got it from).

You can view information on the fair use doctrine here: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Part of the fair use doctrine is that you only use small portions of the work when you're dealing with items like written work and coding. If you only use a few lines of coding on a site that your person site and you're not making any money off it, you may be fine. If you copy the entire look and feel on a site and it's something you're doing for a client, then you're in violation of the law.

Besides my past work in journalism, I now work in web design. And I get requests all the time from people to "just copy that site" or to lift entire themes from sites. I refuse to do it. If you like the general layout of a site, that's fine. If you like the colors used on this site or the way the text looks on that site, that's fine. Doing so helps to tell a web designer what you'd like and don't like on a site. It's like looking through design books and magazines to pick out things you like for your home.

But don't ask me to copy the look of a site - I'm not going to do it. It's wrong and it's illegal. And unless a graphic designer sent me over Illustrator files that are based on the exact copy of a site, I've never copied a site from anyone. And I've certainly never downloaded all their images, css files, etc. and just reused them.

Having worked on the Novick site in the past, if this had been my coding that had been copied, I too would have followed the same process. I would have immediately requested that the live site be removed until it was rebuilt using coding not designed by me.

colin maloney: As one Novick supporter, I'll try to explain why I have a problem with the ad. As you might expect, the problem is with the ellipses.

That's a fair point, Colin. And quite honestly, if I thought for one moment that this ad was significantly distorting Steve's record, I would have had a much different reaction - like even going down to my local County election's office and revoting kind of reaction.

But the truth is that this ad, though necessarily brief to fit in the 30 second format, accurately characterizes an issue that concerned me about Mr. Novick for almost a year now. He bashes progressives. Instead of working with them, he bashes them. And not because he's drawing distinctions because he's campaigning against them, but seemingly just because he enjoys it.

Honestly, I think this isn't even the most devastating ad the Merkley campaign could have thrown up. The scene at the Cityclub debate where Jeff says, with honest incredulity: "You think Bono is the most hypocritical guy on the planet?" and Steve immediately interrupts him and says "Yes!!" - is even worse for Steve. And its all there right on tape.

"Instead of working with them, he bashes them."

You know that's crap, Steven. He wasn't working with them in the State Senate? Wasn't working with them to beat Sizemore or McIntire? Wasn't working with them in Ted's office?

Even Merkley's not dumb enough to bring up Bono again. People were laughing at what a stupid call THAT was. Bono has no relevance whatsoever to the race, and it would only make Jeff look ridiculous to bring it up again.

Since it appears that this question is being raised in multiple threads, I'll post my response to Andrew Gorry (from Team Novick) here too:

Andrew --

First, let me apologize for the tardy reply. I was offline all day today at a family function. Of course, I probably would have seen this sooner if you'd bothered to email me your "open letter" - but oh well.

Second, I apologize to you if anyone mis-perceived the design as being created by me. In fact, when the site first went up, I didn't have any credit line on it at all - and only added the usual "powered by" line when questions were raised about who created it. I'm certainly not interested in hiding my identity nor taking credit for other people's work. I probably should have thought more carefully about the exact credit line used.

Third, it should be fairly clear to most observers that the site design of NovickInsultsDemocrats.com is a parody of NovickForSenate.com. I'm certainly not a lawyer of any sort, but I've always enjoyed the history of the great free-speech case Campbell vs. Acuff-Rose (more commonly known as Two Live Crew vs. Roy Orbison) in which the Supreme Court held that parody is protected under fair use.

I've changed the credit line on the site to read: "This site is a parody of NovickForSenate.com. Hosted by Mandate Media." I think that's a clear way to describe it.

I'm really looking forward to the end of the primary season, when we can all get back to aiming our fire at Gordon Smith. I hope you'll let me buy you beer or two sometime this summer.

-kari.

p.s. I'm pretty sure that's the state seal in the header of the real Novick site. You might consider removing it, per state law.

torridjoe: You know that's crap, Steven.

Oh please, Mark. Even the worst boss in the world gets some work done with other people. But that doesn't mean I would want to work for them.

And let's just agree to disagree about whether Mr. Novick's penchant for bashing progressives - even to the extreme of bashing an internationally known Irish rock star who's popularized progressive causes in the way no politician can - is relevant or not. I think that people with a habit of sticking their foot in their mouth don't make very good Senators - and don't win general elections. You, clearly, think they do.

"I think that people with a habit of sticking their foot in their mouth"

And there is the Merkley campaign in a nutshell. Telling the truth is now putting your foot in your mouth, because as we all know from traditional politics, a "gaffe" is when you tell the truth.

Sticking your foot in your mouth is claiming you wrote a paper opposing the war--and then being forced to release the paper, which says no such thing.

torridjoe: Because as we all know from traditional politics, a "gaffe" is when you tell the truth.

That, Mark, is the kind of response I originally expected from you. Not this disingenuous "You're distorting Steve's record" line. And I think there's honor in saying: "Steve calls 'em as he sees 'em, no matter whose feelings get hurt - I like that". I disagree, because I think the Obama approach of pushing progressivism with civility and style is far more effective. But it is intellectually consistent for you to hold the opposite view, as I believe you do.

But if that's the argument, then what's the beef with this ad?

"Fact is, a small percentage of the population really cares about answering questions like that. "

Yes, and they post here. What's your point?

"But if that's the argument, then what's the beef with this ad?"

Uh, that Merkley is distorting Steve's record. Steve is telling the truth, and Merkley is distorting it into something bad. ??

Kari, I'll happily take up the beer offer if it's transferable. Until then, I am unaware of anyone who's gotten the impression from Steve's Web site that the State of Oregon has endorsed him. But speaking of implied endorsements, I can't help notice that Obama's picture is featured prominently on Merkley's home page. The slide show from the front page:

Slide 1: AFL endorses Merkley. Slide 2: SEIU endorses Merkley. Slide 3: Sierra Club endorses Merkley. Slide 4: Merkley pictured with Obama. Merkley endorses Obama. Slide 5: Lawn sign: Show your endorsement. Slide 6: Volunteer: Real people endorse Merkley.

Immediately to the right of slide show: 1) 21st Century Democrats endorse Merkley. 2) Humane Society supports Merkley.

One of these isn't quite like the other is it? I strongly suspect more voters would get the false impression that Merkley's been endorsed by Obama than Novick's been endorsed by the State of Oregon.

No one can force Merkley to take it down of course. But people should understand: Jeff Merkley is about helping Jeff Merkley. Any resemblance to what's in the best interest of the Obama campaign or "uniting Democrats" is illusory.

torridjoe: Uh, that Merkley is distorting Steve's record. Steve is telling the truth, and Merkley is distorting it into something bad.

Saying "Steve is telling [what he believes to be] the truth, in what we believe is an insulting way" is not "distortion", Mark. You may disagree about whether it is bad or not, but that is a difference of opinion. The Merkley campaign is not fundamentally misrepresenting Mr. Novick's position or behavior.

They are, in fact, just telling the truth as they see it - something you laud in Steve.

Feels different when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it?

"The Merkley campaign is not fundamentally misrepresenting Mr. Novick's position or behavior."

Are you shitting me?

*Novick did not say there was nothing to like about Obama, he said there was nothing to like about his WEBSITE.

*Novick did not say Obama was a fraud, he ASKED if he was a fraud based on the evidence

*The way the comments from the Gore piece are used in the ad is just pathetic, bearing no relation to the point of the column.

The distortions have been well described, you just choose to ignore them because that would cause dissonance.

He wasn't criticizing the format of the website, Mark. He was saying it was content free. He was making the classic Hillaryesque "Empty Suit" argument against Obama. I'm sorry, but that is not criticizing a WEBSITE.

He also pulled the FOX news stunt of just "asking the question". Is he a Fraud? Is he a fifth column Muslim communist who attended a Madrassa and taught his Christian Muslim pastor to say "God Damned America" ?? We're just "asking a question" here.

Steve can't even keep away from the inflammatory rhetoric, even when he's trying to complement a guy.

You can call this a distortion, Mark. I'm sure you believe it. But as I said, if you don't like those examples of Mr. Novick's style, there are plenty of others.

And I must say, it's pretty ironic for you of all people, to be trying to compliment Steve's interpersonal communications skills.

He wasn't criticizing the format of the website, Mark. He was saying it was content free.

No, no, no. And you know better. He was not saying the website was content free or that Obama was an "empty suit" or anything like that. He was saying that as compared to Edwards' website there was little to no content about specific issues of concern to Steve.

I consider Steve to be immensely congenial, but obviously that that is not the consensus view around here. For those who disagree with me about Steve I will offer this.

A friend of mine who has worked on Capitol Hill for 20+ years says, and this is a direct quote, "People need to realize that the most effective Senators are often the biggest assholes, because they get the most done. HELLO! Howard Metzenbaum! Everybody hated him but MAN, was he effective!"

Just another data point!