What's really ironic LT, is that you spent months warning people what Novick's behavior might do to prevent party unity--when it turns out it's Merkley whose behavior strained that process. And yet you never had a word of caution for Jeff, one time.

After a spirited and mutually respectful campaign in Jackson County where Merkley received 48.7% and Novick received 34.2% from Democrats I congratulate both candidates. The goal is to defeat Senator Gordon Smith now. Imagine combining all of the Democrats who voted for Steve and Jeff to defeat Gordon Smith. It's time for round two now. Let's put the gloves back on and work for a much deserved KO!

Well said, Charlie and Jeff. I'm not planning on remaining a Democrat as it was never my intention to remain one. However, that is a technicality as far as I'm concerned. Common cause dictates to me that I am still on the same team.

I am also happy to applaud the spirit in which this post is presented. Given the state of our country on so many levels, we have bigger fish to fry than arguing over who won, should have won.

I thought Jeff Alworth and Charlie Burr wrote above in an effort to bring Democrats together. Isn't bringing John Frohnmayer into the discussion doing just the opposite?

Miles, obviously I am so with you on your sentiment, and some of the things I've heard from Frohnmayer have been appealing, but I can't see voting for him as a wise choice. He has no funding, no visible network to secure funding, and no real platform for gaining exposure. Moreover, while I agree he's taken more progressive positions, so did Steve--and yet the Ashland paper was pretty much the only media outlet in the state to actually notice. Everyone else said they were the same. Point being, if the level of distinguishment between N and M was not enough, I don't think it will register when comparing M to F either. And thus those on the left will simply vote major party.

And the WORST thing we could do is take a guy who might get 3%, and turn him into someone who gets 8-10%. Those votes will come out of Merkley's hide, I wager.

I'm totally sympathetic, but I would urge you to consider Steve's response at WWeek--he prefers Frohnmayer, but is voting for the Dem nominee because we can't afford to lose on a spoilage.

Local mom, as far as I'm concerned, Miles asks a good and relevant question, one that I am more than happy to respond to. So:

Why should I support Merkley instead of Frohnmayer, who is arguably going to be a stronger progressive?

One obvious point arises. Frohnmeyer's only possible role in this campaign is as a spoiler. He's raised a paltry $77k and hasn't evinced any real interest to join the race as a real candidate. So if you want someone to actually beat Smith, Merkley's the guy.

Second, Merkley's bona fides as a progressive politican are incredibly strong. No candidate is going to please every voter on every issue, so you'll have to make your call about whether his positions satisfy you. His record as Speaker was remarkable. Just look at what got done: domestic partnerships, employment non-discrimination for gays and lesbians, bottle bill, rainy day fund, cap on payday loans, schools funded, and a series of green initiatives just to name the headliners. To suggest he's not a true progressive is to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the damn good. In less adept hands, we might have seen few or none of these laws get passed. Instead, he was deft enough to get them passed by large majorities.

Third, and this one is really key, keep in mind that you're comparing a guy who has legislated for ten years against a guy who has just offered promises. If Frohnmeyer had served as a legislator, he would be forced into nuanced positions. As a fringe candidate with no record, he is free to offer red meat to the 5% of the electorate who wants it. Merkley is trying to run as the candidate for the entire state (including those red-meat 5%) and so he's trying to demonstrate his good judgment and willingness to listen.

And finally, on the indie issue. major parties always work to protect their estatus, so the indie argument could--and always is--used by third parties against them. That's not a right/wrong issue and you have to make your own call. I think we need more robust participation by third parties, but I think this is absolutely the wrong election to try to make that point.

Miles,

With respect and zero ill-will, as long as you are supplying your own counter-arguments to your own premises I don't see the point in trying to engage you on any of it.

As Dale Carnegie once said, "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

"To suggest he's not a true progressive"

That's an unfair characterization. What was suggested was that merkley is not AS progressive as either Steve or John, which I think is provably true certainly for Novick--I need to know more about where Frohnmayer actually stands on some other things.

It's also rather myopic to speak of a 5% red-meat electorate, when clearly a pretty big chunk of the Democratic base at least seems to feel that way...49% of it, in fact.

TJ, I was responding to Miles.

Yes, I know who you were responding to, Jeff. But it was off the mark, given that what Miles said was "Why should I support Merkley instead of Frohnmayer, who is arguably going to be a stronger progressive? "

"Asking anyone why you should vote for someone is silly because then it gets into that whole phony game of a Merkley supporter brings up a point and then it get's undercut by a Novick supporter."

...except I'm telling Miles to vote for Merkley. I don't imagine a Merkley supporter will say any differently.

Damn TJ, you're parsing today. But I agree, we should support Merkley. And you're the man for suggesting so. Although I rarely venture out into the public, if I do, and see you there, next beer's on me.

It's no surprise the ads are still running - it's one of the downsides to the Blog Ads service is that they don't make it easy to pick your ending date on an ad. You can buy for a week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, etc. But if the election is in 12 days, you buy for 14 days and it runs longer than needed.

I think that John Frohnmayer is an important part of this discussion. There are a number of people who voted for Novick who hold no allegiance to the party - people like my husband. And a number of them are looking at voting for Frohnmayer this November. We have to change that - we've got to get every vote that went for all the other candidates in this race as quick as we can. Defeating Gordon Smith is extremely important if we want to grow our majority in the U.S. Senate and have a Senator who actually represents us.

I've already signed up with the Merkley campaign to do what I can in this regard.

Damn TJ, you're parsing today. But I agree, we should support Merkley. And you're the man for suggesting so. Although I rarely venture out into the public, if I do, and see you there, next beer's on me.

Don't think I'm parsing; it's something that was tried over and over again--turning the very real argument that Novick is MORE progressive than Merkley, into some kind of attack that Merkley is not a "true" progressive. A moderate Dem is someone like Metsger or Schauffler or even Schrader. Merkley is to the left of them, and to my mind qualifies easily as "progressive." But within that narrow sub-category, I find him on the right half, Novick on the left.

I didn't however say we should support Merkley, I said Miles should vote for him (and that I definitely would). I can't in good conscience argue that he'd make a great Senator, or that I think he's the best person to take on Smith--but he's the best person we've got. Which is why being called a purity troll was always so baffling to me--if I were a purity troll I'd be saying if I can't have Steve then I'll take no one. I've consistently said the opposite.

torridjoe: the very real argument that Novick is MORE progressive than Merkley

If that what was really being asserted, Mark, I would have disagreed - but would not have been offended. It's this "Merkley is DLC" BS that is way over the top offensive - at least to me.

First off, Merkley is not DLC. Second, people who are saying that have to be trying to offensive, because to real DLC supporters it wouldn't be. You don't go hurling the insult "Republican Lite" at real live Republicans. Or if you do, you expect them to be offended at the word "Lite".

"If that what was really being asserted, Mark, I would have disagreed - but would not have been offended. It's this "Merkley is DLC" BS that is way over the top offensive - at least to me.

First off, Merkley is not DLC. Second, people who are saying that have to be trying to offensive, because to real DLC supporters it wouldn't be. You don't go hurling the insult "Republican Lite" at real live Republicans. Or if you do, you expect them to be offended at the word "Lite"."

You agree none of the DLC stuff ever came from me, right? I know the difference between DLC, DNC and DSCC ( or DCCC for that matter)

Jeff trails Smith 45-42 head's-up. Although I don't know if Frohnmayer has been polled, I can sure as hell say that Jeff is viewed by Oregon as electable (as was Steve) based on the results of this and other polls.

Steve is fundraising for Merkley using his campaign subsciber list. Ask Steve Novick who he is voting for and he'll say it loud and proud, Jeff Merkley.

Here's what paulie's talking about--for someone who apparently was in this for his own ego if you believe his former opponent's supporters, he's a shitload more gracious than I would have been:

I am looking forward to talking to and seeing you in the future without asking you for money. But since that has become such a habit, there are two causes I would like to draw to your attention. 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!

I think that in a race like this, you know right up front that there's at least 35% of the voters that will vote for Merkley because he is a Democrat and that much that would vote for Smith because he's a Republican. The numbers could actually be higher, but I'm using a conservative number.

That leaves only maybe 30% of the vote left that could potentially be swayed one way or another. Although I think it a year like this where Democratic activism is so high, that number is actually lower and Merkley's base amount even higher (more around 40-45%).

But even if Frohnmayer could pull every vote that isn't going to the Democrat or the Republican, it wouldn't be enough for him to win. But if he pulled more votes from those who lean D than he does from those who lean R, he becomes a spoiler.

It's the reason why Ben Westlund dropped out of the governor's race in 2006 - the numbers just start to show that you don't have enough to win, but are instead taking votes away from the candidate you'd want to win if you weren't in the race.

anyone remember 2000? the idea that Gore wasn't good enough, that voting on principle for Nader was an honorable thing? that it really didn't matter who won?

do we really want Smith back in DC? under what set of conditions is this a good idea? there are only 2 people who have a chance to win the election in November, and John F. is not one of them. i'm not sure what clarion call he heard to take this step, but he was a no-hoper from the beginning and he's run a no-hoper campaign. Steve was a no-hoper, too , but he worked long and hard to change that. Frohnmayer hasn't, and there isn't the desire among voters for a third-party candidate as their was desire among Dems for someone different.

Miles: As for Merkley's "strong" legislative record... the new bottle bill didn't include bottled water

It does, Miles. It does.

The rest of your complaints are some of the worst armchair quarterbacking I've seen in a long time. Trust me - keeping a caucus together without a single defection is harder than it looks.

Now if you want to bring up what Speaker Pelosi did with her 30 vote margin, then we might have something to talk about. But in truth, I doubt there is a Democratic Speaker in the entire United States - State or National - who did more with less than Jeff Merkley last session.

It shows his talent.

There were plenty of times where Merkley and I disagreed on something, but I've said over and over that he was a great Speaker of the House. And yes, the bottle bill included bottled water. If I remember correctly, it takes effect in January.

While Merkley may not be the person I wanted to take on Smith, he's still a really good candidate for the position. And I'm going to be doing my hardest to convince people I know who are considering voting for Frohnmayer of why they should vote for Merkley.

Well, since we're not parsing, let me take issue with this then:

To summarize: If the only reason we have to support Merkley over Frohnmayer is that Frohnmayer may be a spoiler, we're in a world of hurt come November.

Work for whomever you wish Miles, and even ignore my arguments, but don't say I gave you only one reason. My reasons are clear: Merkley is a great progressive candidate, whom--as you admitted exercised "remarkable talent" at getting legislation through. What else is there? How will Frohnmayer convince you he can achieve this kind of success?

Each voter has to make his own choice. All I can do is offer the reasons I find compelling.

The third party argument is a one-off, and I'm not going to get into it here. But as someone who votes third party on a fairly regular basis, I have to say that using this race to advance that cause is folly. We'd only sabotage the campaign of a good progressive, further alienating third-parties from the process. Look at Nader in 2000--how much good did he do the Green Party?

Jeff and Charlie,

I was one of the BlueOregon contributors who supported Novick and I did some volunteering for the campaign...put up a lawn sign...completely went off on people who said Novick was "an obnoxious little midget..." I was a psyched supporter who would have danced a killer jig if he won on Tuesday.

That said, where do I get the Merkley bumpersticker? Lawn sign? Need someone to make phone calls? Where do I sign up? John Frohnmayer is not the answer...

Switching back to NAV after the primary is more than a technicality. For me it is a statement that I don't think much of either party.

It is for me too. But I was trying to make a different point when I referred to it as a technicality.

I don't think much of either party as entities. I have common cause with Democrats on a very wide variety of issues and I vote accordingly. But... I gotta say that the ideological purity litmus testing I witnessed in this Primary reminded waaaaaay too much of the ideological purity litmus testing that turned me off so thoroughly to Republicans.

Interestingly, I believe Steve and Chuck talked, and Chuck said he would have backed Steve if he'd won. I don't think there was ever any question; Chuck's craven but he's not stupid. They want that seat, and Novick did more than enough to convince people he was up to it.

Miles, John Frohnmayer is in many ways appealing to me as an intellectual. He has a number of strongly progressive positions: favoring single payer health insurance and naming the fact that we have a constitutional crisis being two that stand out for me. On impeachment he says he favors it for Bush even up to the last day that he is in office. Also he has strongly anti-neoliberal positions on the global trade regime.

But he is not a very effective communicator of some of his positions. His "issues" page on his website has "The War on Terror" which turns out mostly to be about civil liberties and the constitutional crisis.

He has no clear or obvious way to identify his position on Iraq. Dig way down (about 2/3 through) into his announcement speech and you will find strong words about having opposed the war from before it started and about the opportunity costs of the occupation. But he doesn't actually say anywhere what he'd do about stopping it.

Okay, will Merkley vote against war funding, even if it means he's vilified for not supporting the troops?

Will Frohnmayer? He doesn't say.

Will Merkley filibuster on the Senate floor to prevent bills like those that allow warrantless wiretapping and torture?

Will Frohnmayer? Seems possible, even likely, but he doesn't say. BTW, we should be demanding filibusters over the occupation & war, though today more than half the Senate Democrats sold us out on that one. But again, Frohnmayer doesn't say.

Will Merkley use all of the power of the legislative branch to reign in the excesses of the executive?

This is badly formulated insofar as single legislators can't use all the power of the legislative branch. They have to do it collectively. John Frohmayer is quite clear that reining in and rolling back the Bush power grabs are a priority, possibly his top priority. But how will he do that as an Independent? He doesn't describe how he would function. Would he caucus with either party? His antipathy to both parties suggests maybe not, but how would he function?

Will Merkley advocate for the repeal of DOMA? Will he push to legalize gay marriage? Will he support legislation prohibiting the military from discriminating against gays?

Will Frohnmayer? Doesn't say, on any.

Will he support measures to bolster Social Security and Medicare, even if it means higher payroll taxes on those making more than $100k a year?

Frohnmayer is not quite clear on Social Security and Medicare, though he identifies them as a problem. He criticizes failure to raise the cap and bipartisan agreement to raise the payroll tax for SS in 2003. This probably means he would vote to raise the cap. He also says the costs of Iraq could have made SS solvent for 75 years twice over.

But at the same time he makes a mantra of his fiscal conservatism. Would he actually have supported direct investment of general fund dollars to settle the worry about Social Security? I don't think so. Would he go for benefit cutting & retirement age raising a la the Concord Coalition? It seems entirely possible, as he says he would work in a bipartisan-nonpartisan fashion, taking "the best" from each party (without defining what he sees as best) -- that rhetoric is entirely compatible with the Concord approach to Social Security and the "fiscal conservatism" rhetoric, esp. given his focus on the huge national debt (which he wrongly calls a deficit).

What does fiscal conservatism mean to him, in that context? What would be cut for us to "live within our means"? He's willing to raise upper income social security taxes and to eliminate the capital gains tax advantage. Position on sunsetting Bush pro-wealthy tax breaks not clear.

If the next president takes the same liberties that Bush has with the constitution, will Merkley push for impeachment -- even if its against President Obama?

Pretty clearly Frohnmayer would do this.

Position on abortion rights? Not clear, nothing about the judicial branch at all, actually. Gun rights/gun control? Not clear. He's against corporate money in politics & is critical of organized labor for backing Democrats, because the latter take big business money -- but positions on matters relating to corporate power? Not much said -- does call for a moratorium on foreclosures. Nothing on media consolidation or other anti-trust issues. Nothing on restoring the right to sue for proven discrimination cut off by an absurd interpretation of the Civil Rights Act remedies. Nothing on labor right to organize issues.

So I can see certain things that I would say are progressive, strongly so. But I also see general statements that could hide much less progressive stuff, particularly since I don't know what he considers "good" on Republican positions, and I don't know what he means by "fiscal conservative."

Obviously I haven't got into the electoral aspects. But taking ideas and positions seriously, which I do because that's what I do, the case seems decidedly mixed. And I don't see an argument about how he'd promote the ideas as a practical matter, which seems possibly of a piece with the lack of vigor in his campaigning that TJ points out here and to which Sal Peralta has alluded in other places.

Let me conclude by repeating the quote cited by TJ from an e-mail that Steve Novick sent out to his e-mail list today:

"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!"

Clearly Steve Novick is actively backing Jeff Merkley & not just saying he'll vote for him.

I'm not planning on remaining a Democrat as it was never my intention to remain one.

My cat always skedaddles after he's tossed a couple of desultory pawfuls of litter over his latest contribution to the cat box.

"My cat always skedaddles after he's tossed a couple of desultory pawfuls of litter over his latest contribution to the cat box."

Oh man, Darrel. Priceless. :)

Chris's comments are comprehensive and I appreciate them.

The remaining point is one Chris alludes to when he writes of Frohnmayer, "I don't see an argument about how he'd promote the ideas as a practical matter." It was a point Kitzhaber made yesterday in the unity gathering at PSU--that it's not enough to get power, but to use it to implement progressive change.

This is the area Merkley has a proven track record. Coming into the 2007 session, there was optimism about some changes, but some pretty big barriers, including the bare 2-vote majority Dems had in the House. From that 2-vote majority, Merkley managed to get a whole raft of legislation passed. My question back to you is, how would a legislator have been more effective? You assert that my argument is "Of course he's progressive, he was Speaker!" . No. My argument is that his tenure as Speaker demonstrated a rare gift for passing progressive legislation.

If there was a failure of will or political ideology there, I'd like to hear someone make it. I can't see how you possibly look at this evidence and come up with a conclusion other than that he's both progressive and--more importantly--effective at passing progressive legislation.

"My question back to you is, how would a legislator have been more effective?"

Don't punt on land use. Don't punt on a permanent kicker solution. Don't punt on the corporate tax. Don't punt on child health care. Don't punt on raising the bottle deposit.

In any case, for the legislation that DID get passed, of what use is that to Senator #100? Maybe in 12 years we can afford to have a statesman who can call back on their leadership experience, but right this minute we need a backbencher with a loud voice to stop the Senate from shirking their duties any further.

Don't like the DLC and the machine politics any better than anyone else, but I've yet to be convinced that any of the minor party stuff offers any significant alternative except for the DLC types to sneer at and claim that lefty sorts will of course bolt for the purity of the minor party, so why should we make concessions to them?

I think there's some misunderstanding of what the DLC was. I regularly see a conflation between it and some vague sense of insidery, machine politics. There are many things wrong with this view. To begin with, the DLC was an outsider's group that originally defied machine politics in the mid-80s. It only became ascendent under Clinton/Gore.

But more importantly, the DLC has a very specific political agenda. It has argued for a “third way”—a politics that balanced the social and economic gains of traditional liberalism with support for deregulation and free markets. Over the course of 20 years, the Party was refashioned by DLC-ers to emphasize “non-bureaucratic market-based solutions,” smaller government, lower taxes, and a muscular military--all their language.

If you want to talk about "DLC Democrats," recognize that it is a specific, not vague designation. Merkley is not a DLC Dem.

Come on, TJ, how? There's no wand-waving in politics.

How? Publicly applying pressure, for one thing. Make the Republicans vote on bills you know you will lose, don't let people like Schaufler get away with holding the caucus hostage for one symbolic GOP vote, stand up to the distributor lobby, ignore the nonsensical idea that a referral vote raises taxes, etc.

The key is not always success, but the attempt.

Posted by: darrelplant | May 23, 2008 9:22:55 AM I'm not planning on remaining a Democrat as it was never my intention to remain one. My cat always skedaddles after he's tossed a couple of desultory pawfuls of litter over his latest contribution to the cat box. Posted by: torridjoe | May 23, 2008 10:03:15 AM "My cat always skedaddles after he's tossed a couple of desultory pawfuls of litter over his latest contribution to the cat box." Oh man, Darrel. Priceless. :)

LOL - still having gotten your respective Irony Meters fixed yet, eh guys? I don't think they were designed for the kind of excessively high loads y'all generate as a matter of course.

what?

The key is not always success, but the attempt.

That's really where we part company. We have different visions. I love Dennis Kucinich's policies, and for a few months in 2003, I was a big supporter. But though he's right on the issues, his success rate approaches zero. By your definition, he's the best progressive congressman.

Progressive changes happens in increments, by building coalitions and creating broad-based buy-in. Looking at landmarks like our land-use planning, free beaches, bottle bill, etc, this is the conclusion I take away.

Jeff,

Dennis Kucinich is a straw man here.

The comparison would be to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Steny Hoyer etc.

I'm not backing up TJ's specfic points necessarily, but he is right that sometimes it can make strategic sense and advance the possibiities of real progress (or on the other side, regress) to fight public battles that you lose, or might lose.

It's not like Jeff doesn't do that sometimes -- on Measure 50 he chose to avoid one such fight -- court battles over whether or not direct referral based on a simple majority of a tax referendum was possible -- by taking up another -- the electoral cost of having the proposed tax as a constitutional amendment. He lost, fairly predictably. He thought the issue was worth it (I disagreed, TJ agreed, based on the substance).

Ronald Reagan didn't transform the Republican Party by your methods. He did it by fighting a losing fight in 1976 but using it to lay the groundwork for a continuing campaign by putting a bunch of issues and frames out into the public debates that gained enough traction for him to turn them into winners in 1980.

TJ isn't (I think not anyway) saying always fall on your sword for purity. Maybe the selection of issues for strategic fighting should be smaller. But I strongly believe we have a problem with the Democratic leadership culture, a problem of timidity as well as conflicts of interest, and I'd really like it if Jeff actually worked to change that.

Oh, and on M50, even though I argued against it for a long time around here, eventually I voted for it, reluctantly, persuaded by John Kitzhaber and a few others around here, though not TJ. If his arguments had been the main ones, I'd have voted no. :->

Point again being that having the debates can change minds. With due acknowledgement that such things work differently in the bigger public. But still, minds can and do change, over time, but not if the ideas and choices never get posed.

the DLC has a very specific political agenda. It has argued for a “third way”—a politics that balanced the social and economic gains of traditional liberalism with support for deregulation and free markets.

Yep, and we have seen that in the implementation of their Third Way vision they have become corporatists, unable to distinguish the difference between what's good for the country and what's good for their monetary masterws. About the time that they let Phil and Wendy Gramm white out all of the necessary finacial regulation, ushering in a new Gilded Age was when I got off of the train.

Balance betweensocial and economic gains of traditional liberalism with support for deregulation and free markets became a hollow and distant memory, and to this day they seem to have no understanding that they have completely sold out in the class war.

will Merkley vote against war funding, even if it means he's vilified for not supporting the troops?

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" - Dale Carnegie.

Miles, you could answer your own question by rephrasing it to be posed about the man who mentored Merkley on these very issues - Senator Mark Hatfield.

Then Gov. Hatfield, of course, was faced with the very kind of nonbinding vote on the Vietnam War that Merkley was faced with Iraq. We all know how he voted and that he took a lot of heat for it. At the Governors Conference he attempted to insert language expressing support for the troops as well as for the War which the resolution already did and which he stridently opposed. It was only after Hatfield's amendment was shot down that he voted against the entire thing.

Hatfield went on to famously vote against the vast majority of Defense spending bills as Oregon's Senator.

Chris does a pretty good job answering for me. Nobody who switches from Dean to Kerry or Edwards to Obama can really be called a purity troll with any fairness, IMO. Kucinich is a flake on too many issues to be effective, and seems Nader-like in his interest to run for President. He should know by now it's not there for him.

I'm thinking of a Feingold or a Dodd, a Wyden in some cases. I wish I could come up with more examples, but that's rather the point--there are precious few.

It's not like Jeff doesn't do that sometimes -- on Measure 50 he chose to avoid one such fight -- court battles over whether or not direct referral based on a simple majority of a tax referendum was possible -- by taking up another -- the electoral cost of having the proposed tax as a constitutional amendment. He lost, fairly predictably. He thought the issue was worth it (I disagreed, TJ agreed, based on the substance).

Oh, I didn't close the circle on this one. Taking the fight for insuring all children public, even in a way imperfect twice over (regressive tax, constitutional amendment) did I think advance the struggle to make it real.

So Jeff deserves some credit on this one on the basic principle I'm arguing, even if tactics are debatable. And thus it appears that something of that sort can be in his repertoire or playbook, which is good.

Likewise it is good that he's signed on with the "responsible plan" for getting out of Iraq, which could be a vehicle for pressure on the Congressional leadership and on a President Obama to move farther and faster -- or a vehicle with which to fight a President McCain, heaven forfend, and press the Dem leadership to fight him rather than avoiding the fight, as with Bush.

The optimistic scenario from my point of view would be that a) Jeff really is committed to this and b) the skills vaunted by his supporters lead him to take a lead among the new crop and 2006 crop to make contact with people of greater seniority and work out how to make the vehicle go, so to speak. That wouldn't necessarily be in conflict with building good relationships more generally with more senior people and the leadership over a wider range of issues. His strong pro-veteran position is a plus here I think, for example.

The pessimistic scenario would be that he supports the "responsible plan" only passively, and concentrates purely on insider leadership relationship-building.

But gotta get him there first, before time will have a chance to tell.

For inspiring activity, clear commitments to be finding the best ways to push harder on Iraq would matter a good deal to me, and I suppose some others.