I take it from your comment, Candy, that some group of people are bashing you for having the sheer gall to run in the same race Steve Novick was in. That's absurd. In fact, given the widely held view that contested primaries are good for the party, it's downright hypocritical. What right does anyone have to attack you for competing? Hell, I've never seen anyone in the Merkley camp ever attack the right of the other candidates to enter the race - not even crazy Pavel.

What I don't think is that this should be the last campaign for either you or Steve. It's hard at the end of a non-winning campaign, even one you anticipated, but the truth is that people have heard of you now, and they like you. So keep it up. There will be other opportunities out there.

Any signs of more Oregon superdelegates making an endorsement of Obama?

Stay tuned. I'm hoping to convince a few superdelegates to announce their intentions right here at BlueOregon.

..I am wondering if the school districts and police departments of Bend and Redmond have been reimbursed or if we taxpayers will be left holding the bag.

It's not customary for campaigns to pay police departments. Portland sends bills but it's all symbolic.

There are better uses for everyone's time than looking for stupid stuff to use to rag on the Clinton campaign.

Do the math.

The saner members of the Novick campaign already know that you did not cost Steve the election. Most of the rest of them will sober up over time.

"I can assure you that the party machine did not work against Novick -- at least not the Oregon Democratic party"

Aren't you forgetting the head of the party lying about Steve in a letter to every county chair??

There are no "spoilers" in a primary campaign. You're a Dem, you run, good for you. Last night Jeff Merkley thanked Candy and Steve for making him a better candidate. That's what primaries are for, as many of us have been saying here for months.

Based on some of the comments I see here this morning, there's still a little work left to do to build bridges after a contentious fight. I'm sure Merkley will be happy to do his part.

This race was always just a little bigger than the indvidual candidates--it was an intra-family discussion about who should represent us in our fight against Gordon Smith. The family has voted, and now I hope we can come together and focus on the goal we set for ourselves last year.

I personally appreciate the excitement and energy Novick and his supporters brought to the campaign. It got a little rough there in some patches, and the blogs have acted as an accelerant for passions, but at the end of the day I look to folks like Stephanie and TJ and co. as good friends. I hope they can find some passion and energy to direct at Gordon Smith. Having been on the receiving end, I know he's not looking forward to it.

Cheers all around to the donors, volunteers, and supporters who worked so hard on all these campaigns.

"I hope they can find some passion and energy to direct at Gordon Smith."

You'd better believe it. That's where I'll be focused this summer and fall.

sorry, should have made this one comment:

"This race was always just a little bigger than the indvidual candidates--it was an intra-family discussion"

Chuck Schumer isn't in my fucking family, I'll tell you that much.

Posted by: torridjoe | May 21, 2008 10:13:30 AM Chuck Schumer isn't in my fucking family, I'll tell you that much.

Proving once again how obtuse, petty and in the end counterproductive you are for your professed goals. You won't beat Gordon Smith by attacking the DSCC no matter how personally cathartic you may find channeling your anger at them instead of Smith.

Posted by: Pat Malach | May 21, 2008 10:20:15 AM To quote Jeff Merkley: "The race doesn't start 'til you get on TV." (Monmouth debate)

And when did Novick begin to lead in the polls awhile back...? When Novick started airing ads. Did Novick try and get the DSCCs support...? Yes.

Physician, heal thyself.

"Proving once again how obtuse, petty and in the end counterproductive you are for your professed goals. "

Getting the shitbags out of the Democratic Party has been my goal for a long time. Schumer's in the top 10.

"And when did Novick begin to lead in the polls awhile back...? When Novick started airing ads. "

That's not true. Novick led from the beginning, including polls in August, October and January before the ads.

Posted by: Eric Parker | May 21, 2008 10:26:34 AM

I lived in his district for almost 5 years, and he didn't just sit back. He took the reigns of FuturePac, and was instrumental in getting a majority so we could break the gridlock in Salem and get things passed for not just the district, but for the state as a whole.

Even if your fears of "hand-sitting" are realized (which are not well founded) getting Smith out who counteracts almost every progressive vote Wyden casts is a huge boon to the state (and country) right there. ALso, and with all due respect to Senator Ron Wyden, Merkley is more progressive by a long shot, and will help push Wyden to be more progressive as well. Add to that Merkely's low-key positive engagement style it will make him even more effective in the United States Senate than a partisan bomb-thrower approach would be (even though it would be satisfying on some levels to go in with a chain-saw).

Jeff said exactly what I wanted to say. It was a great, hard-fought race, and it's time now to bring down Smith.

It'll be tough, for sure. But, you know, we can do it. Smith's a big fat crony, and it's time he got the boot.

And, for my part, I think Jeff Merkley can take him out. It'll be sweet.

Ack! Thanks, Jonathan. I added Nick Kahl to the list of winners.

Candy,

Thank you for your energy and passion. In many respects your campaign was the epitome of what American style democracy is all about. You had the courage of your convictions and I admire you for it.

Posted by: torridjoe | May 21, 2008 10:27:59 AM Getting the shitbags out of the Democratic Party has been my goal for a long time. Schumer's in the top 10.

Then move to New York and vote a different person into his seat. Meanwhile here in Oregon we have to work on getting Gordon Smith out of office and that will require the help of the national party and the DSCC.

It is also richly ironic that someone who is not even a registered Democrat and not working within the party to change it, to then foam at the mouth about getting the "shit-bags" out of a party they are not even members of is a bit... disingenuous.

And I am sure that a newly minted Senator form Oregon coming into the Untied States Senate with that attitude towards ranking members of their own caucus will get so much done for Oregon when they need to work with Schumer on something, or Clinton, or Obama, or anyone else who is deemed being a "shit-bag".

Don't get me wrong, I share a few of your frustrations at the weakness often exhibited in the Democratic caucus in D.C. and the center-right drift of the party over the past decade+ but I reject your misplaced and counterproductive approach to affecting positive change which results in a self-defeating outcomes that end up strengthening the GOP and guys like Gordon Smith who have decimated our nation.

I'm sad Cyreena Boston and Regan Grey didn't win. In one of those gray areas where a woman wants to support a smart woman who is equally qualified, I feel disappointed that two women-held seats will now go to men.

I'm bummed about Novick. I was on the fence for a long time and then his campaign took the time to answer a possibly difficult campaign question. Merkley's campaign never returned my message on an equally difficult question. That speaks volumes to me as a potential constituent.

I'm frustrated that Hillary Clinton is playing up the idea that sexism is the reason she being asked to leave the race. I call bullshit. She's quite the chameleon when she wants to be and it takes some nerve to say that. Notice I didn't say "balls." She'd been pegged as the front runner for president since she ran for senate! Barack Obama out campaigned her and there is nothing or no one to blame but her political machine.

I'm thrilled that Sam Adams won outright. I was nervous about it and I'm glad that he can start building for a fresh Portland starting NOW.

Finally, I'm very sleepy from last night and this coffee isn't cutting it.

"It is also richly ironic that someone who is not even a registered Democrat and not working within the party to change it, "

I'm a registered Democrat.

Not for long, however.

One doesn't need to vote Schumer out of office to work on removing his toxic influence on Democratic politics.

I don't know where you got the idea that Novick called Schumer a shitbag; that was me. "Positive change" is allowing Oregonians to choose their nominee; we were not afforded that opportunity. Schumer's worse than Loren Parks; Parks is a private citizen, while Schumer is supposed to represent the entire party.

Posted by: torridjoe | May 21, 2008 10:29:11 AM That's not true. Novick led from the beginning, including polls in August, October and January before the ads.

Sorry but jokes of Riley polls that Novick paid for are just that. The point however, is that when any candidate has very low name ID (which both Novick and Merkley had) the importance of television advertising in a statewide race is absolutely vital. To then point to a candidate mentioning that campaign reality as somehow indicative of some outrageous thing for some candidate to say is.. unhinged.

"Sorry but jokes of Riley polls that Novick paid for are just that."

Novick didn't pay for that poll, WTF? I saw the one they paid for. And you somehow omit the other polls...

The point is that you said Novick didn't start leading polls until he ran ads. Which is false; way to change the subject.

Progressives who vote for a third party might as well vote Republican. Yes, I'm dismayed at some of the choices voters made in the primary, too (Vicki Walker would have been a fantastic SOS!) But I'm more dismayed at those who continue to think ideological purity is more important than ideological coalitions.

You want Gordon Smith??? REALLY????? Give me a break.

I sincerely hope we have not heard the last of Steve Novick. But regardless of who you supported in the primary, in the next few days it's time to shift into high gear getting behind Merkley, Brown, Schader, Kahl and other candidates who we really need to promote a sane political agenda in Oregon and D.C.

I didn't hear a single person boo Jeff Merkley at Novick's better-attended party, Jack. Maybe you should flip your comment.

Posted by: torridjoe | May 21, 2008 10:52:39 AM "It is also richly ironic that someone who is not even a registered Democrat and not working within the party to change it, " I'm a registered Democrat.

So you were being disingenuous when you we're making a point of being the in Working Family Party?

I don't know where you got the idea that Novick called Schumer a shitbag; that was me.

Congratulations on slaying your strawman. I never said Novick explicitly called Schumer a shit-bag, but the same sort of attitude was on full display live on television in the politically tone-deaf concession speech last night. Attacking your own party for your loss is a tight primary is a tellingly stupid move from an otherwise bright person.

Point blank, are you going to vote for Merkley and support the effort to defeat Gordon Smith between now and November?

Posted by: torridjoe | May 21, 2008 11:02:37 AM I didn't hear a single person boo Jeff Merkley at Novick's better-attended party, Jack. Maybe you should flip your comment.

And why were they booing Mark?

Because Novick was slagging off the party for his loss. Just like he got a frosty response in Sunriver for the same kind of shit. You just don't get it.

Eric Parker, Didn't you make the same comment about Sam and Randy on another thread?

I know the men on the City Council get a little rough. I hope they will find a way to deal with the issues and get some things done for real people - those losing their homes, encouraging green living to regular people and not just those who can afford it, and fixing some very bumpy streets. But it has to start somewhere and I think Sam can and will be the leader to get those things done.

"So you were being disingenuous when you we're making a point of being the in Working Family Party?"

No, I was being honest. I was in the WFP, but I re-registered to vote person over party.

And now that's done.

"Attacking your own party for your loss is a tight primary is a tellingly stupid move from an otherwise bright person."

They're largely responsible. Why is it stupid? It's what badly needs to be changed, and what Novick was fighting against. Don't know what was tone-deaf, particularly--you admit yourself that you feel the same frustration about the antics of the national party.

I have repeatedly maintained that Merkley has my vote in November; you can confirm with Carla that I told her the same thing this morning privately. I've already said in this thread I'll be on Gordon Smith like lobbyists on McCain.

Posted by: Jamais Vu | May 21, 2008 10:59:13 AM

Well said.

I too voted for and hoped Vicki doing better last night, but I am more than comfortable with Kate wining, who was my close second choice. Your points about people pulling a Taylor Marsh out of pique, and thereby handing a win to Smith (and/or McCain) by taking their ball home, is spot on.

Well said.

"Because Novick was slagging off the party for his loss. Just like he got a frosty response in Sunriver for the same kind of shit. You just don't get it."

Highly selective memory. He got as much applause as Merkley did.

I get it. Merkley and his supporters thought they deserved to have the nomination given to them. But it's highly instructive to see you stick up for their booing. It follows the pattern.

"I think Sam can and will be the leader to get those things done. "

Sam and Randy might find themselves on the short end of a Fish-Fritz-Saltzman coalition in a lot of cases. I wouldn't suggest Adams is going to be able to roll over anyone. But I think he'll be a successful mayor. And I love that his orientation was a complete non-issue in the race. Who could have said that 10 years ago?

Eric Parker wrote: Is there some way Jeff can guarantee us that he won't just sit in the back, on his hands, and wait another long batch of years to do anything significant ... ? We need to send someone to D.C. who will hit the ground running, not slip to the back and wait 'for the good fight'.

I think Jeff has amply demonstrated that he will not just sit back (like Gordo did for his entire career in the Senate). The guarantee lies in what Speaker Merkley did in the way of leadership for change in his term as Speaker. Personally, I am grateful for his support when I ran for the legislature, for his support for curbs on payday loan sharks, for his support for equality, and for so many other signs of progress in this state.

Last but not least, I hope to see solid money flowing to Jeff's campaign against Gordo from every person who has commented this morning. I just need to add that I am so disappointed to see the distaste and distrust expressed so far today. It's just not right.

Regarding Schumer: look folks, the DSCC is doing a job for which we all should be very grateful. Progress can only be made in Congress if we have a veto proof majority in both the Senate and the House. Schumer is integral to getting there. Shumer is not the execrable name some have applied to him.

Posted by: torridjoe | May 21, 2008 11:09:49 AM No, I was being honest. I was in the WFP, but I re-registered to vote person over party. And now that's done.

Thanks for proving my point.

They're largely responsible. Why is it stupid?

Because it is false, and it is the sort of sour grapes that lead to GOP victories.

It's what badly needs to be changed, and what Novick was fighting against.

Yeah, by Novick approaching Schumer and the DSCC to back him, put down the kool-aid and the myopic victimhood.

Don't know what was tone-deaf, particularly--you admit yourself that you feel the same frustration about the antics of the national party.

Proving once again how oblivious you are to the politics. F.Y.I. my beefs with elected Democrats in D.C. is over their voting and capitulation in chambers, not against Dean, the DNC or DSCC for how they run shop.

"Regarding Schumer: look folks, the DSCC is doing a job for which we all should be very grateful. "

Interfering in who Democrats select as their nominee is not his job. Spending money contributed by Democrats, to defeat Democrats, is not his job. Continuing to press for a contested race when the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th choices all say no, is not his job. And doubling and tripling down when it looks like he might lose, is definitely not his job.

HUGE CONGRATULATIONS to Kate Brown (Kate for State in 08) John Kroger (an active AG office)

I am delighted that I was able to contribute money and hours on the phone for both of these great folks.

Of course, I'm grateful to Kate Brown for her leadership over the years on equality issues and iniative reform. And I'm looking forward to important changes at the office of Secretary of State. Perhaps now we can control the pests who mount nuisance ballot measures.

I am also delighted that we now can look forward to an Attorney General who will transform that office into a pro-active law enforcement agency. Election of John Kroger's opponent (who has the distinction of having run the single most dishonest campaign this year) would have continued the ho-hum attitude that has prevailed at our Dept. of Justice for decades. Thank goodness we will have an active anti-meth, pro treatment approach to that scourge. The same applies to the pollution criminals. It's about time!

Eric Parker - aren't you a shifty, cynical little thing? Cutting up what I said for your purposes? Are you sure YOU shouldn't run for office?

Pat Malach: Steven Maurer has repeatedly proven himself to be a very, very angry man who apparently has an infatuation with straw men.

You're projecting, Pat.

Given that, except in the instance of a single Washington County judge I now feel very guilty for not making the time to canvass for, absolutely all of my candidates won. So not counting a completely unrelated recent family issue, I'm very happy indeed.

I'm happiest for John Kroger.

"Yeah, by Novick approaching Schumer and the DSCC to back him, put down the kool-aid and the myopic victimhood. Don't know what was tone-deaf, particularly--you admit yourself that you feel the same frustration about the antics of the national party. Proving once again how oblivious you are to the politics. F.Y.I. my beefs with elected Democrats in D.C. is over their voting and capitulation in chambers, not against Dean, the DNC or DSCC for how they run shop.

Novick never asked Schumer to create a contested primary, I don't know what you're talking about.

Who said anything about Dean or the DNC? They stayed neutral, as the DSCC should have.

If your beef is not with sad sack Dems using K Street to beat down the progressive movement, it should be.

RE: "Interfering in who Democrats select as their nominee is not his [Schumer's] job. Spending money contributed by Democrats, to defeat Democrats, is not his job. Continuing to press for a contested race when the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th choices all say no, is not his job. And doubling and tripling down when it looks like he might lose, is definitely not his job."

WRONG! It is the DSCC's OBLIGATION to support in any way possible that candidate who is most likely to beat the Republican incumbent. Any objective observer who knows Gordon Smith, Jeff Merkley, and Steve Novick knows that Gordon wins against Steve and can lose to Jeff. Schumer can not be faulted one bit for supporting the candidate with the greatest potential for defeating Gordon Smith.

I do happen to know Gordon Smith a bit -- he's a very slick campaigner; very glib. I do happen to know Jeff Merkley a bit -- he's sincere, progressive, and a communicater. Given that we attained a near two to one ratio against Republicans in the presidential vote, with solid support from us for Merkley in the next 5 months, Merkley's going to be our next Senator -- and it's a damn good thing too that Schumer did his job by supporting Merkley!

Karol, on the woman side, Kate Brown is now in a very good position to replace a man, as is Amanda Fritz. So score two for the double x set. But I totally agree that we have to do better at recruiting and supporting women. (Still, I voted for Jules!)

"WRONG! It is the DSCC's OBLIGATION to support in any way possible that candidate who is most likely to beat the Republican incumbent. Any objective observer who knows Gordon Smith, Jeff Merkley, and Steve Novick knows that Gordon wins against Steve and can lose to Jeff."

That's not how Smith sees it. He got the candidate he wanted. You'll have to back up your claim about "objective observance," with something.

The DSCC has no business trying to defeat Democrats with Democratic money. None. They chose the safer, more moderate candidate, as they always do, because they are afraid of the Republicans and the electorate.

Posted by: torridjoe | May 21, 2008 11:38:03 AM Novick never asked Schumer to create a contested primary, I don't know what you're talking about.

Of course Novick wasn't asking Schumer and the DSCC to field an opponent against him. Stop playing stupid. He was asking Schumer and the DSCC to throw their weight behind him before anyone else got in the race.

If you really want to know why Novick lost, look at how many counties Clinton carried up-ticket and then think long and hard about Novick using Clinton as a proxy to attack Merkley.

Take your conspiracy "Schumer is a shitbag" blinders off and consider the advice that you and Steve might benefit from looking in the mirror as to why you guys lost the nomination, despite being bright people who, like Merkley are solidly progressive on the issues.

Steve is a bright guy, and can be a strong voice for the policies that we need put in place on a whole range of issues, and I don't want him to exit the political stage. But this is a chance to learn the lessons that are there if you are willing to stop blaming others for problems of your own making and realize that partisan bomb-throwing, and simply holding good positions on the issues is not all there is to not only getting elected, but being a good legislator should you be elected.

Posted by: torridjoe | May 21, 2008 11:50:58 AM

You simply do not know what you are talking on this and are throwing out absurdities at this point to ease the sting of a close fought contest you lost. Please stop.

I think reasonable people can differ on whether a congressional and/or senatorial campaign committee should indicate a preference in the primary. But from the sparse amount of money the DSCC gave to Jeff, it clearly wasn't much help at all. A single $100,000 donation? For a national Senate seat? On the coast, Jean Cowan's state house race cost $500,000. So please don't pretend their support was anything much more than moral.

And certainly Speaker Merkley doesn't owe Schumer a thing. Frankly, I'm not sure the DSCC endorsement was more trouble than it was worth.

Posted by: torridjoe | May 21, 2008 11:12:51 AM "Because Novick was slagging off the party for his loss. Just like he got a frosty response in Sunriver for the same kind of shit. You just don't get it." Highly selective memory. He got as much applause as Merkley did.

Until he went negative and slagged off Merkley using GOP bullshit talking points on Iraq, when the by and large the reception went cold, and rightly so. Seriously Mark, you seem oblivious to the what did, and has occurred and why because of your ardent partisan support.

"He was asking Schumer and the DSCC to throw their weight behind him before anyone else got in the race."

And the problem with that is?

"If you really want to know why Novick lost, look at how many counties Clinton carried up-ticket and then think long and hard about Novick using Clinton as a proxy to attack Merkley."

It's not like Novick won Obama counties and lost Clinton counties, so that doesn't seem like a very thoughtful analysis.

"Take your conspiracy "Schumer is a shitbag" blinders off and consider the advice that you and Steve might benefit from looking in the mirror as to why you guys lost the nomination, despite being bright people who, like Merkley are solidly progressive on the issues."

Merkley's not solidly progressive on the issues, let's get that straight. He repeatedly ran to the right of Novick. Novick had the greater active support in Oregon, but it's extremely difficult to beat money, and money is what won the race. Again.

"But this is a chance to learn the lessons that are there if you are willing to stop blaming others for problems of your own making"

Like Merkley was doing in interviews this week, blaming Gordon Smith and Steve Novick for his troubles?

"But from the sparse amount of money the DSCC gave to Jeff, it clearly wasn't much help at all. A single $100,000 donation? "

Try $400,000, pal. By far the most spent on any primary this year.

"However, Novick more or less got himself branded as a loose cannon"

And who did the branding? His fellow Democrat.

"Until he went negative and slagged off Merkley using GOP bullshit talking points on Iraq, when the by and large the reception went cold, and rightly so."

You still can't tell the difference between "voted for the war" and "duped pawn of the GOP", can you?

I was there; he received as much applause as Merkley AFTER the HR2 comments.

The DSCC has no business trying to defeat Democrats with Democratic money.

Why not? It's a private organization that does its own fundraising.

That'd be like saying, "The Sierra Club has no business trying to defeat an environmentalist with environmentalists' money."

They clearly believed that Jeff Merkley has the best shot at defeating Smith. You can disagree with that analysis, but they have the right to make their own decision on that score.

"That'd be like saying, "The Sierra Club has no business trying to defeat an environmentalist with environmentalists' money." "

That makes no sense. The Sierra Club does not organize by party. And if I was in Sierra and they played favorites between two good environmentalists, I'd be upset with that, too. Why not stay neutral?

Posted by: torridjoe | May 21, 2008 12:16:16 PM "However, Novick more or less got himself branded as a loose cannon" And who did the branding? His fellow Democrat.

No, his own words and actions. Stop blaming others for what you and your guy did to himself. This can be a good (though uncomfortable) learning opportunity. Will you and Steve take advantage of it or not?

"No, his own words and actions."

I'm pretty sure the person creating a character attack ad most observers agreed was completely out of context, was Merkley.

Those were Jeff's actions.

Oh, it's a learning opportunity all right. We've learned the Democratic Party is still a power coveting beast hostile to progressive interests and a fuller democracy.

It was a tough race and I think Neville, Novick and Merkley all deserve credit for running a good race focused on progressive issues. We really don't know how lucky we are in Oregon to have progressives fighting it out rather than moderate or conservative Dems vying for the spot.

I'm excited to start peeling away at the moderate facade Smith likes to pull out around election time. We have a really important opportunity to add a seat to the Senate, which could have a huge effect on business as usual. You never know, Merkley may end up being lucky number 60 in November.

Posted by: torridjoe | May 21, 2008 12:16:16 PM "Until he went negative and slagged off Merkley using GOP bullshit talking points on Iraq, when the by and large the reception went cold, and rightly so." You still can't tell the difference between "voted for the war" and "duped pawn of the GOP", can you? I was there; he received as much applause as Merkley AFTER the HR2 comments.

Almost everyone there, with the exception of a the few Novick partisans, disagree with your perceptions of what went on... from party chairs on down.

"Rather than ranting over here, why don't you assemble all your thoughts and post something over at Loaded Orygun?"

Think I can't multi-task?

"Almost everyone there, with the exception of a the few Novick partisans, disagree with your perceptions of what went on... from party chairs on down."

They're welcome to. They must have closed their ears. The applause was essentially equivalent.

And when did you get a chance to poll everyone there?

"TJ, are you saying that after Steve announced, no one should have run against him? Or is it your position that Novick supporters should be as angry at DSCC as Paul Hackett supporters when S. Brown was chosen by DSCC?"

Yes on 2, Nearly on 1. Not that no one should have run, but that the national party should not have recruited 8 different people to run against Novick. And what Schumer did to Hackett was worse, but similar. Perhaps he was telling people not to donate to Steve as well, I don't know. I wouldn't doubt it.

Posted by: torridjoe | May 21, 2008 12:26:08 PM "No, his own words and actions." I'm pretty sure the person creating a character attack ad most observers agreed was completely out of context, was Merkley. Those were Jeff's actions. Oh, it's a learning opportunity all right. We've learned the Democratic Party is still a power coveting beast hostile to progressive interests and a fuller democracy.

You have become completely unhinged Mark. Seriously, you might want to consider taking some time off from the political scrum for a few days and recharge, then get back into the fight to take out Smith. Merkley, Schumer, the DSCC, "the party establishment" are not the enemies in this race... Gordon Smith and his rubber stamping the death warrants on thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives for the big lie... those are the deserving recipients of animosity and who should be on the receiving end of our collective fire.

That $400,000 figure isn't anything I've seen, TJ. I'm not disputing it, but I'd be interested to see where you got your numbers.

I'm certainly not hoping you're counting the money the DSCC spent for anti-Smith ads in that.

"Merkley, Schumer, the DSCC, "the party establishment" are not the enemies in this race... "

I never said anything about Merkley being an enemy. But Schumer, the DSCC and the party establishment are definitely the problem with the Democratic Party, and are in large measure why we're still in a war and no one is holding the administration accountable. They are about power and money and control, not democracy. And as such they were indeed the enemies in "this race," when "this race" is the primary. In the general they are simply necessary evils.

Merkley ran dirty and unethically, but he should have been allowed to rise or sink on his own merits, and if that's how he wanted to play it then OK. Validating that kind of unfortunate process from on high in NY and DC was what was unconscionable.

"I'm certainly not hoping you're counting the money the DSCC spent for anti-Smith ads in that."

You mean the pro-Merkley ads? Are you saying they were beneficial to Novick??

Posted by: torridjoe | May 21, 2008 12:29:10 PM "Almost everyone there, with the exception of a the few Novick partisans, disagree with your perceptions of what went on... from party chairs on down." They're welcome to. They must have closed their ears. The applause was essentially equivalent.

Then you are being delusional.

And when did you get a chance to poll everyone there?

I have had conversations with quite a few people that were there, about their take and the general reaction, many of whom who were neutral in the race, over the past 8 plus months... from the day he shot his mouth off last year up to last night with a county vice-chair in a must win county, after Novick conceded.

I, for one, am thrilled at OLCV's victories in some tough legislative primaries.

While we have to work hard to ensure Garrett and Kahl win in the fall, Kahl, Garrett, Dembrow, and Kopel-Bailey will provide exceptionally strong new environmental leadership to the Oregon House.

And of course I'm thrilled to have Dingfelder join the Senate.

Jeff A:

Spoiler: In politics or game, gaming: an individual unable to win an election or game for him- or herself, but with the power to determine which player or candidate among two or more others does win.

By my read, any > 2 candidate race can have a spoiler.

Posted by: torridjoe | May 21, 2008 12:46:22 PM Merkley ran dirty and unethically...

You are completely unhinged Mark and in a bunker-mode that would make Howard Wolfson or Terry McCaullfe blush in its lack of being tethered to reality.

Ah, I see now where the dispute lies. In your view, the DSCC calling out Smith for lying about a Democrat isn't an attack against Smith, it's money "contributed" to the Democrat. You're perfectly fine with GOP smears against Democrats so long as they're Democrats you're against.

Which appears to be most of us.

"I have had conversations with quite a few people that were there, about their take and the general reaction, many of whom who were neutral in the race, over the past 8 plus months... from the day he shot his mouth off last year up to last night with a county vice-chair in a must win county, after Novick conceded."

So you've come down from "almost everyone" to "quite a few." But what you're saying is you asked each of them, "Did Novick get as much applause from the crowd as Jeff?" Is that correct? And they all said no?

Posted by: Evan Manvel | May 21, 2008 12:49:11 PM While we have to work hard to ensure Garrett and Kahl win in the fall, Kahl, Garrett, Dembrow, and Kopel-Bailey will provide exceptionally strong new environmental leadership to the Oregon House.

I had the chance to sit down with Nick Kahl a few months ago and talk at length in a social setting, and came away with a very positive impression of him. While not in his district, I look forward to helping out his candidacy where I can.

"Ah, I see now where the dispute lies. In your view, the DSCC calling out Smith for lying about a Democrat isn't an attack against Smith, it's money "contributed" to the Democrat."

The ads not only called out Smith, they supported Merkley--much as the phonebanking did as I understand it. There was no reason to get involved. Smith attacked Novick too; why didn't Schumer make an ad for that?

Smith didn't lie about a Democrat--Merkley took lobbyist money during the session.

Posted by: torridjoe | May 21, 2008 12:53:24 PM So you've come down from "almost everyone" to "quite a few." But what you're saying is you asked each of them, "Did Novick get as much applause from the crowd as Jeff?" Is that correct? And they all said no?

I am not going to follow you down the rabbit hole of your parsing, pedantic attmepts at the Chewbacca Defense. It has been more than a dozen, and the conversations included 'what are you hearing from others there about it?'.

You can ignore, dismiss or attack what I say if it makes you feel better, but I posit you do so to our collective detriment.

Posted by: torridjoe | May 21, 2008 12:55:46 PM why didn't Schumer make an ad for that?

Why should the DSCC run ads for someone attacking the DSCC, our presidential front-runners and the Democratic party?

torridjoe: Smith attacked Novick too; why didn't Schumer make an ad for that?

I was unaware that Smith ever put an ad up that attacked Steve Novick. When did that happen? Do you have a link?

"I am not going to follow you down the rabbit hole of your parsing, pedantic attmepts at the Chewbacca Defense."

Of course not--because doing so would force you to admit you're full of crap. Here's what you said:

"Just like he got a frosty response in Sunriver for the same kind of shit."

I noted that this account varies with the truth, which is that Novick's response was generally equal to Merkley's, and certainly "frosty" bears no relationship to reality.

You persisted in pressing this line by saying almost everyone felt that way, then when called on to verify that they all said there was a frosty response, you admitted that wasn't what you talked about.

"Why should the DSCC run ads for someone attacking the DSCC, our presidential front-runners and the Democratic party?"

Why is that rather falsely framed question at all relevant to whether the ads that DID run were intended to support just one of the candidates? When you get called for silly things you say that you can't back up, you just change the subject.

"I was unaware that Smith ever put an ad up that attacked Steve Novick. When did that happen? Do you have a link?"

It was the first one of the series, saying he "celebrated taxes." Which was really uplifiting actually, because if that was the worst Smith could come up with against Steve, Gordon was in trouble. By contrast, there is a wealth of legislative policy and hypocrisy Smith can point to from Merkley.

Did Novick piss off one of Schumer's buddies during the love canal thing or something? What did Merkley promise him? Will Merkley accept AIPAC funds?

Rather than these conspiracy theories, maybe the DSCC just thinks that Jeff Merkley can defeat Gordon Smith - and that Steve Novick couldn't.

You can disagree with that analysis, but that would seem to be their analysis.

Sometimes, the most obvious answer is the right answer.

Hey TJ, don't you think 28 comments on one thread is enough? Let's give some other folks a chance at the open mic, OK?

Last night was a very good one for the most part -- I am truly proud to be an Oregonian.

The precedents of having an openly gay mayor and a bisexual secretary of state make me giddy, and I could not be more pleased that Nick Fish won.

I am sad about Regan Gray and very sad about Steve Novick. As for Novick, I know that he has a very active and esteemed political career to come if he wants it, whether it be out in front or behind the scenes.

I was one of the BlueOregon contributors who supported Novick. Now, that said, a Merkley bumpersticker is going on my car as soon as I can get one.

Charles Shumer is not my enemy. Jeff Merkley is not my enemy. Gordon Smith is my enemy. I have my priorities straight.

Any hey! How about Deborah Kafoury! I am so psyched to have her back in politics...

oh, and I shoulda written Schumer, not Shumer....

Er, with all respect for my fellow travellers, why aren't you just treating TJ as an out and out troll at this point.

I was pretty clear on his game months ago. You may not debate this guy, because he will never concede a point, constantly moves the goalposts around, ignores logic, factual history or anything else that might impede him from making whatever point, and so on. Under these conditions, conversation does not occur.

There are plenty of Novick supporters on this site that fought a good hard fight for their guy all over the net.

People like Stephanie, Colin, Bill, EBT,Backbeat, Jenni and many more share concerns with me about the leadership overlap between the DLC and the DSCC. They are also concerned as I am, about the whole AIPAC-Neo-Con tie in.

Most of us will get down from the fraticide and go after Smith.

TJ seems to be a special case, as he acts in this thread as if an election had not even occured. I look to him returning very soon with attacks from the bosom of the Frohnmeyer campaign where he will most likely resume attacking the Democratic nominee.

Reconciliation and acknowledment to intelligent activists who fought hard for Steve. As for TJ, maybe a contribution to Act Blue every time the Troll posts a comment, but discussing anything with him seems to be an excersize in futility.

"Hey TJ, don't you think 28 comments on one thread is enough? Let's give some other folks a chance at the open mic, OK?"

Are you running out of internet?

I'm responding to comments addressed to me.

TJ is not my cup of tea, Kari, but a blog isn't a mike. He's not preventing anyone else from posting.

I'm trying to figure out what kind of anti-Smith ad Mark was expecting. Saying Steve Novick "celebrates taxes" is negative spin, of course. But considering that at the time he was attacking Speaker Merkley for not being for quite as much a tax increase as he was, doesn't exactly give the DSCC much to go after in the truth department.

I can just see the ad now: [Ominous Music] "Myth: Gordon Smith said Steve Novick celebrates Taxes Fact: Steve Novick is for increasing capital gains taxes. He doesn't want a phase out for people making less than $150,000 a year. BUT! He's never actually attended any celebration or fiesta whose theme is being happy about tax increases!! Gordon Smith: You can't trust him to correctly split hairs over the characterization to use about how much Steve Novick is in favor of increasing taxes!

Paid by the DSCC - not associated with any candidate or campaign."

"TJ seems to be a special case, as he acts in this thread as if an election had not even occured. I look to him returning very soon with attacks from the bosom of the Frohnmeyer campaign where he will most likely resume attacking the Democratic nominee."

You've spent most of the primary making shit up like this, so I guess you don't recognize the election occured either. It sort of undermines your case to point to me as somehow supporting Frohnmeyer when I've said exactly the opposite on a dozen occasions--and praise others in your list who are ACTUALLY threatening to vote against Merkley in the general.

As soon as you make a good point it will be your first, and I'll gladly concede it.

Oh, it's a learning opportunity all right. We've learned the Democratic Party is still a power coveting beast hostile to progressive interests and a fuller democracy.

TJ, at the risk of sending you spiraling off in fury, can I just point out that many Democrats regard this as a tetch ... insane? A lot of us have criticisms of the party, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many who would sign on to this. Take a breather, my man. Get off the internets for a couple days. Go for a hike or a beer. Relax.

It sucks serious ass when a candidate you really support loses an election. But it shouldn't come at the cost of one's well-being. Seriously, I can't think that debating every person on this thread is helping any.

"TJ, at the risk of sending you spiraling off in fury, can I just point out that many Democrats regard this as a tetch ... insane? A lot of us have criticisms of the party, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many who would sign on to this. Take a breather, my man. Get off the internets for a couple days. Go for a hike or a beer. Relax."

I'd say David Sirota, Markos and Jerome Armstrong believe that pretty strongly still. You don't think most Democrats are disgusted with the leadership of the Democratic Party, and their willing glom onto K Street money? Come on now.

And please don't ascribe this to an election loss. As I said much further upthread, the hostile attitude towards progressives within the Democratic Party is why I have stayed away for so long, and will soon go again.

Ok, can we stop the back and forth now? Yes, the applause was about equal at Sunriver. People didn't clap at the point about the House Resolution, but they also didn't clap at many other points in both candidates' speeches that weren't meant to be applause points. People clapped at the points where they were expected to for both candidates. End of story.

Yes, I'm unhappy with the DSCC. And this race was the last straw and as I've told them already, they lost my support. I'll give directly to candidates now. I think that an organization whose main directive is to elect Democrats shouldn't work against other Democrats. I feel the same whether it's a local organization like Future PAC or a national one like the DSCC. It's something I've said for some time now - long before Novick was ever in the race.

But we've got to get together and work our asses off so that we can win this seat in November. There is a large population of activists who aren't enthused by Merkley and are looking at this as the "anybody but..." vote. We've got to change that dynamic so that we're all working for Merkley and not just against Smith.

Darn it, left the bold on. Maybe it'll turn off now?

Guess Mapes is one of the silly ones...

"For me the City club debate was a lesson I hope Novick learns. "

Don't fuck with someone who will do whatever it takes to win, no matter how sleazy?

"I got involved because I thought there was a chance that we could elect a rogue liberal who would speak his mind and help drain the fat from the party that left me behind a long time ago."

A-freaking-men.

"Has this primary increased or decreased his potential support in the fall?"

The more salient question is whether it's increased or decreased his interest in staying in the race. I'd say the former.

Sheesh -- TJ -- I'm starting to get embarrassed that we supported the same guy....please take a big deep breath. It's gonna be OK....

"Sheesh -- TJ -- I'm starting to get embarrassed that we supported the same guy....please take a big deep breath. It's gonna be OK...."

Sure it is, sure it is. It's not like I'm saying anything different today than yesterday, so it's not the sting of losing, just what I thought then and still do about the way the party behaved in this race.

There's another fight tomorrow, but if we want a more progressive nation we've got to get the Democratic Party on board. They're not there, still.

Jeez guys. The primary's over -- enough with the smearing about Jeff's record as a progressive. Steve's a great progressive. So is Jeff.

Now let's get to work at beating Gordon Smith.

OK Lou, torrid, Mr. Malach, Mr. Kershner, et al,

Here's an earnest question: do you believe Clinton supporters are morally justified in demanding Democratic loyalty if they win, but declining reciprocal loyalty if they lose?

If not, how are you any different? (I mean, other than the fact that you're on the opposite fringe of the party?)

When I was a kid, the answer to "Either HE goes, or I GO!" was always, "OK then, YOU go - but if you do, don't come back." Because, whether you liked someone or not, caving into emotional threats only leads to more.

Most of the regulars on this newsgroup are not just progressive, they're highly progressive. Merkley isn't just a progressive Democrat, he's a highly progressive Democrat - judging by his record, moreso even than Senator Wyden.

We just don't like childish tantrums, especially when it presents even the slightest danger of hurting our best chance to kick an oily fake-"moderate" Republican out of office.

But if you're determined to pull a Lieberman on us, please - don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

But don't ever expect that if you do, I won't point out what a traitor your childishness has made you to the progressive cause.

James, I'd say help Jeff. He's going to need as much as he can get to beat Gordon Smith.

"Here's an earnest question: do you believe Clinton supporters are morally justified in demanding Democratic loyalty if they win, but declining reciprocal loyalty if they lose?"

Loyalty to what? I don't understand the question. Do you mean would Clinton have the right to demand fealty from all Democrats just because she won? She has the right to demand it, but how you campaigned in the primary likely determines whether folks accept.

When Merkley shows 1/10th of the nutsack that Wyden has shown on a number of issues, you can call me. Highly progressive Democrats support tax fairness on both capital gains and Social Security, they back same sex civil marriage, and they seek redress for crimes against the Constitution. And they don't employ sleazy right wing attacks on other Democrats.

We LOST the best chance we had to take out Smith; now we have to deal with the nominee we have.

James:

I'd definitely say the Merkley/Smith race is a big one. It's gonna take every one of us giving Jeff 110%.

I'd also look at legislative seats - we have the opportunity to increase our lead in the House (maybe to 36+?) with seats like 49, 50, 51, and 52 in the metro area and others around the state. We'll also have some protecting to do when it comes to other state House and Senate seats. As I've been blogging over at Blog for Oregon, the seat we thought was safe (SD 25, Laurie Monnes Anderson, Gresham) isn't going to be safe. The Oregon Republican Party ran a write-in campaign for that race, and I have the feeling there will indeed be a Republican on the ballot that will be party supported. And from what I hear, he has great community ties.

We've got to protect seats like that so we don't lose seats we already held (like we did in some areas in '04).

So I'd recommend seeing which seats in your area fall into those categories and helping them. If you live close enough to get involved with the Bus Project, go with them to seats around the state that we're working hard to win/protect.

I'd also look locally to see what you have there as far as non-partisan races go. I'm going to be working on my own race for Gresham City Council as well as for Carla Piluso's run-off race for the county commission.

torridjoe: I don't understand the question.

If Steve Novick had won, would you or would you not have been blogging away expecting that Merkley supporters shift their support over to Steve?

Clearly - the answer is that you would have.

But you refuse to shift your support over to Jeff. Just like the worst of the petulant Clinton supporters, who pretend that stopping Bush's third term is the most important thing in the world, now refuse to support Obama.

This is because this race was never about helping others by removing Gordon Smith, it was all about your own ego.

For the record, I promised Steve Novick personally that if he won I would call up an volunteer for his campaign the very next day.

That is the difference between me and you, Mark. You and most of the other purity trolls around here. I am a progressive, not a hypocrite.

Steven:

Actually, TJ has already said he is supporting Merkley and will be doing what he can to get him elected. He's just not happy with some of the party establishment and will be re-registering non-affiliated. Complaining around the "water cooler" about areas where you disagree, where you think there is problems, etc. doesn't mean you aren't supporting the nominee.

Personally, I had my bitch session last night and now I'm ready to go Merkley.

Has anyone else noticed that KATU has its Oregon blog listing wrong? They have a bunch of pro-Republican blog postings under "Blue Oregon" instead of "Oregon Catalyst."

http://www.katu.com/news/election

jenni is kind, but I didn't say I'd do whatever I could to support Jeff. I said I'd vote for him, and work hard to defeat Smith. Jeff can ask schumer for the rest; that's the bed they've made.

I can tolerate Jenni's putting of words in my mouth, because she had benevolent intent. Your rather bizarre presumptions seem merely to support whatever notion you've generated about my motivations. But to answer:

*Why would I blog about expecting and demanding fealty from Merkley voters to back Steve? Are you so focused on the image you've constructed for me that you can't see forced "unity" is what I've been consistently arguing AGAINST? Besides, I know the whole "I won't vote for him if he wins" is just so much fluff. Of course they will. Half of McCain voters said they would never vote for Bush in 00. I'm sure some didn't. Their choice.

If you think I backed Novick for my own ego, you must believe the exact same about Carla, who endorsed him when I did. And the original research on Smith--where does that fit into my ego?

But hey--good luck with your unity tour, starting off the fundraising letter with Dear hypocritical purity troll...

You think that's insane, Jeff. Your naive little schoolboy head is even further up your ass than I imagined.

You're as adroit with words as you gracious and insightful, Pat, as always. I am so often persuaded by your Obama-like ability to stay positive and offer a message of unity. Nice work.

Posted by: Dan | May 21, 2008 2:56:57 PM Wow, you can use other people's names on the internet....

WTF are you blathering about?

Posted by: Runtmg | May 21, 2008 3:37:36 PM Memo to Merkley supporters, give the Novick peeps a couple of days to decompress. They won't be donning any Merkley for senate lawn signs any time soon.

I doubt many were expecting that suddenly Novick supporters would be sapping on Merkley buttons or putting up Merkley lawn-signs overnight. I was however expecting the partisans boosters from a Democratic candidates campaign to stop-the rock throwing at the Democratic nominee since the shared goal is to defeat the GOP incumbent who has the blood of thousands on his hands.

LT,

Oh, how I aspire to figure out what the hell you're talking about..someday I'll crack the code.

I met Nick Kahl and Suzanne VanOrman at the OLCV dinner and liked them both very much. I sent them some money and I'll send them some more.

I'd definitely say the Merkley/Smith race is a big one. It's gonna take every one of us giving Jeff 110%.

Jenni is a better person than I am. As I said in the other thread, I'm ready to vote for Jeff and persuade my friends that Smith must go, but that's as far as I can go right now.

"Support" is not the same as "enthusiasm." My potential for enthusiasm waned mightily during the last month of the primary season.

Yea, that's why I kept trying to get some to stop their bashing, said they shouldn't have gone negative in the way they did, etc. It chased away people who could have been major supporters both in time and in money.

I promised Merkley my support and time if he won, and I'm trying to live up to that promise.

Back to the comment about Steve allegedly "slagging off" Jeff last night, that's actually a bad misreading. What he was doing was giving his disappointed followers props for fighting against long odds. What did he say about Jeff? That he'd been a good rep. and a good Speaker, gave him credit for his role in flipping the house, said "he'll make a great senator" and said it was time for us to get behind him. He may have said one other good thing, but not one bad word. Also quite noticable by its absence in his list of what we were fighting against was any complaint about the content of Jeff's advertising.

My conclusions: 1) Old Merkley people please don't blame Steve for the words of some of his supporters. 2) Also don't attribute them to the many of us who are figuring out how to be new Merkley people. 3) Those who are going further than Steve, please note that you are doing so.

Re Democratic Party -- Harry Kershner makes a distinction about "the right wing" of the party that TJ didn't. TJ probably was writing in haste, had to be to get so much out, but what he wrote, the actual words, condemned the party as a whole, not the right wing, not the leadership (or some of it) -- the whole kit & kaboodle. That's what Jeff A. was responding to, I believe.

Now here's my problem. Nancy Pelosi may sound more intelligent than Newt Gingrich. But lately she's put her intelligence to concoct a scheme that will get Bush's war funding through, plus an extension until April or May of next year, in a way that would give her and others political cover with the large majority who want the war ended soon. It backfired on her a bit, because the Republicans decided to monkey with her monkey business. But it will come out pretty much as expected in the end.

What she didn't do was put that intelligence to figuring out how to take the war funding fight to the Republicans in a way that can advance the cause of ending the occupation of Iraq and that of electing the Democratic nominee to the presidency. Doing that didn't require winning against a Republican filibuster -- but it did require making them actually filibuster.

The issue isn't right-wingedness. Pelosi isn't a right-winger, even within the DP context. The issue is, there's something wrong when the leadership is spending their time trying figure out how to make it look like they're doing more than they are, rather than figuring out how actually to do more.

I can see the argument that going to DC and poking them with a stick, or a hard left hook, won't do much to change that. But I also can see the argument that going there and not challenging that way of going about things won't change it either. I don't care if Jeff Merkley doesn't call out Pelosi and Reid the way a blog commentator might -- but it sure would be nice to hear him saying something along the lines of "I'm going to Washington to join forces with those working hardest to end this damnable war." And so on with other issues.

"he wrote, the actual words, condemned the party as a whole, not the right wing, not the leadership (or some of it) -- the whole kit & kaboodle. That's what Jeff A. was responding to, I believe."

to clarify then, that part of the party, much of which is in leadership positions, that continues to actively fight the progressive wing of the party and consciously lag behind fairly clear sentiment for change in specific areas--such as the war, as Chris mentions.

I think many Americans feel we need to be in crisis mode on a number of fronts, and I find it very hard to argue. So the idea of a lot of incrementalism and safe consensus for change is robustly unappealing. Some things need to be fundamentally reversed, some feet put down. And that foot, to quote the movie filmed where he grew up, was Steve Novick.

Back to the comment about Steve allegedly "slagging off" Jeff last night, that's actually a bad misreading

Chris... it's a bad misreading only because of the 90 seconds or so that the TV stations aired of Steve's speech. As I've heard second-hand, his speech was quite gracious. But the brief snippet aired had the Merkley party quite upset - and then the TV cut away.

It'd be great if the Novick folks could post the whole speech somewhere.

One other thing: that DSCC money was raised from Democrats under false pretenses.

The DSCC doesn't tell people that they are going to dump hundreds of thousands of their dollars into primaries against other Democrats. I gave to the DSCC a few years ago but I will never do so again. NEVER. I'd rather go poke around online and figure out who the Ds are in the winnable states, and then give to the ones I like directly, instead of helping to fund a corrupt bureaucracy in Washington, DC.

I know no one cares what I think, but here it is: if Jeff Merkley had beaten Steve Novick fair and square, he'd have a much stronger moral and ethical case for the support and loyalty of those in the Novick camp. Because he didn't, and everyone knows he didn't, he is going to have to figure out some way to appeal to us.**

Unfortunately, I have no idea what that is. I wish I did.

**(and as always, I speak only for myself)

Stephanie V: The DSCC doesn't tell people that they are going to dump hundreds of thousands of their dollars into primaries against other Democrats.

Actually, it was just one hundred thousand dollars. The other three were used to attack Gordo for lying, which despite all of torridjoe's straining, cannot be accurately be spun into an attack on Mr. Novick.

But really, I must admit that I too haven't given to the DSCC or DCCC for years, precisely because I feel that I know at least as much about the senate and congressional races around the country as they do. Still, I don't begrudge non-political junkies the shorthand of just giving to those PACs on the assumption that they'll figure out the best place to put money to get more Democrats elected.

Last but not least, this idea that Merkley didn't win "fair and square" is simply lingering partisan spite. Both candidates had plenty of money to get their respective messages out. Both attacked each other. (And by my reckoning, Steve attacked first with the first major distortion.) Jeff got the majority of the votes. Portlanders preferred Steve, nearly the entire rest of the State preferred Jeff.

This isn't even close to the kind of cheating BS Hillary is trying to pull with Florida and Michigan, so yes - Jeff won fair and square.

I agree Jeff won fairly and sqaurely, but he required an emergency infusion of $550,000 to do it. Left to garner support from Oregonians rather than the national party, Merkley would have been pretty badly outraised. Novick simply had more support in Oregon. And that's why his case is weaker.

"Actually, it was just one hundred thousand dollars. The other three were used to attack Gordo for lying, which despite all of torridjoe's straining, cannot be accurately be spun into an attack on Mr. Novick."

You cannot support one candidate without harming his or her opponent's chances. The DSCC spent $400,000 against Steve by supporting Merkley overtly in ads for the Senate. I never called it an attack on Steve to my knowledge, but that of course never stops you from applying your own words to my mouth.

Actually, TJ, I was not putting words in your mouth, I was directly responding to Stephanie's assertion that the DSCC dumped "hundreds of thousands of their dollars into primaries against other Democrats". Attacking a Republican for lying about one Democratic candidate in the primary is not the same thing as being "against" his rival Democrat.

If Smith had actually come out with clear cut lie against Steve, like he did Merkley, and if the DSCC in response, attacked Smith over that lie, but pretended not to notice a lie about Steve, you would have every reason to be angry. But that wasn't what happened. Smith chose to lie only about Merkley, so I don't count the money they spent on those ads as being "against" Steve. They were against Smith.

If Steve had won, and polls showed it was because the public believed Republican lies about Merkley, would you have been proud of that? Would that be fair and square?

you can't support one candidate without being agamst the other. Politics is a zero sum game. So to say schumer wasn't running ads to Novick's detriment is silly.

Also silly is to claim Smith lied about Merklwy, when you and I both know he did in fact take lobbyist money. One of the worst things about Jeff is he's a weasel with language. You can't get a straight answer from him, and he lives within a bubble of plausible deniability. He does it in his ad rebutting Smith, always careful to say he never took STATE money. Smith never says he took state lobbyist money. To say he is lying is just not correct. They're both language weasels really, but smith is better and more audacious about it.

torridjoe: You can't support one candidate without being agamst the other

If you accept that as true, then you must accept the logical inverse as well: you can't attack one candidate in a three way race without supporting the other two.

So any attack on Smith's credibility was an aid to Mr. Novick. It certainly would have helped him if he'd gotten into the general.

Mind you, TJ, I see the DSCC and DCCC as any other PAC. They're not official appendages of the party; they represent the interests of specific caucus within the party - in this case Democratic elected officials - so if they want to dump money into a primary, I have no problem with it. But this insistence of yours to count ads against a Republican as an attack on Steve Novick.... well, let's say I expect that kind of thinking from DLC supporters. I'm very surprised to hear it from you.

Kari, I accept that the t.v. coverage didn't give the whole speech and especially not the looking forward part, which is a pity -- I was just trying to report the whole. Not being close to the campaign I don't have a text and actually they'll need someone to transcribe because it was extemporaneous.

However, today Steve did send an e-mail to his list that had this as its ultimate focus:

"Jeff Merkley did a great job winning back the State House for us; he was a darned good Speaker, delivering solid victories on issues ranging from payday loan sharking to labor law reform; and he will be a heck of a United States Senator. But we need to help him get there. I encourage all of you to donate to Jeff’s campaign. Yes, the DSCC helped him a lot, and will continue to do so—but they can’t do it all!"

That's a pretty good approximation of what he said last night, with a little more emphasis on supporting Jeff with money.

Really, Harry? Which Democrat campaigned for Lieberman after he lost the Democratic primary? Obama? Please tell.

If you really think Democrats aren't the liberals of this nation, you need to get out more. Take a bus outside Portland city limits and talk to people. Try hard not to scream at them.

And you can stop just within Oregon, not West Virginia.