Carla's back! Happy days are here again.

;-)

Wow, that's all fantastic. Great job, everyone!

carla is co-founder of the current LO as well. It will be interesting to see if BlueO is as unafraid to take on wayward Democrats when necessary, as LO was/is. That hasn't always been the case in the past (unless they were running agamst a client of Kari's).

I don't know about "BlueO" being afraid to "take on wayward Democrats when necessary", but I've been told to write what I want to write, how I want to write it. The only rules I have are to use my whole name when I leave comments (still getting used to that one) and to keep it Oregon-centric most of the time.

Of course YMMV on what is considered a "wayward Democrat". I'm not terribly interested in feeding the beast of other people's perceptions of bad actors. When I wrote at PK and LO, I tried to write stuff based on my own research and investigation, not somebody else's idea of what that was. I won't be veering from that.

I've had to spend a lot of time lately having to give a shit about what other people thought of my writing. Its a good way to learn discipline and wore the hell out of my thesaurus.

That said, I now get to write for me again. In other words, I'll write about what interests me from the angles that I find worthwhile. I'll leave it to others to write about their grievances and interests in their own time and space.

Good choices, all.

Let's win together in November!

Many thanks to Nick for his great work, and welcome to Carla and Karol!

I'm especially excited to see our new folks come on. Everyone knows Carla's work, so that's a clear score. People who don't read the comment threads may be less familiar with Chris Lowe. He's a very careful thinker with loads of information and a wonky bent--nice for a site that sometimes gets too involved in campaign activities. And Karol has already begun working behind the scenes with Kari and I--and I think she'll help the site broaden its appeal.

With Karol and Carla on board, it may be less of a boy's club. I know we tried to be sensitive to issues of gender, but three male editors can't personally bring a feminine perspective. So it's good news all around.

Couldn't be happier, about every one of these changes. Carla, Karol, and Chris are definitely among the most interesting and informative voices around here, and any kind of expanded role for them is great news. Nick's contributions have been a great improvement to the site's content and also to the community, and he has been accessible and helpful outside his posting, as well.

While we're on the navelgazing subject, I'd like to reiterate the request -- which has come from a number of people -- that all items, including "in the news" and "elsewhere," be signed. This simple and straightforward change would be a great service to the reader, and I don't know what possible downside it could have.

Dan Balm!!

Duuuuuude...I totally need to call you.

While we're on the navelgazing subject, I'd like to reiterate the request -- which has come from a number of people -- that all items, including "in the news" and "elsewhere," be signed.

So... I've referenced this before, but I'll be more explicit: The new BlueOregon - entirely re-engineered and reconceived - will have a strong bias against anonymity... both in the comments and the content.

So, stay tuned. But rest assured that we've heard the feedback loud and clear.

Does this mean that trishka and I can't fight for Chris now?

"Of course YMMV on what is considered a "wayward Democrat""

A Democrat who refuses to vote for land use reform until a Republican agrees to vote for it, is a wayward Democrat.

A Democrat who presses to turn DMV into Homeland Security is a wayward Democrat.

And a Democrat who attacks other Democrats on spurious, character-based grounds in order to do whatever it takes to win an election, is a wayward Democrat.

Mileage may vary, but we're all burning the same gas of common sense.

Two questions: 1) Is BlueO Fellow a paid position? 2) Is it paid through Mandate Media, or is there any other remunerative arrangement involving MM?

Good times ahead for all. I'm excited to see the ladies coming to the table - yes, pull out our chairs - and giving a little balance to BlueO. Plus, it's just fun!

1. Yes. A few hundred bucks a month. A far cry from anything approaching real money.

2. Technically, yes. For various legal reasons, BlueOregon is a publication of Mandate Media Inc. But it's basically funded by the blogads and google-ads that appear here.

Carla asked me lots of questions about whether she'd be expecting to write anything in particular, or avoid any topics. The answer is no.

As Nick Wirth has commented many times before, we never asked him who he supported, and never told him to shade the coverage one way or another.

Certainly, we talk all the time backstage about what stories are worthy BlueOregon fodder - but once someone is a contributor, they can write whatever they want.

And that's true for Carla as well. I've told her that she can write whatever she wants. As long as she doesn't suddenly reveal herself as some kind of cryptofascist right-winger mole, she's welcome here.

Even if (especially if!) she goes back to coining awesome phrases like "the double-dealing douchebag of dirt", etc.

Does this mean that trishka and I can't fight for Chris now?

Actually, that means you can now fight for him in comments of his very own posts! Plus, we'll have a photo -- so you can get all dreamy and stuff.

Thanks for the honest responses, Kari. They were in fact honest questions.

Great moves with Karol and Carla, hope Nick will keep contributing.

A Democrat who refuses to vote for land use reform until a Republican agrees to vote for it, is a wayward Democrat.

A Democrat who presses to turn DMV into Homeland Security is a wayward Democrat.

And a Democrat who attacks other Democrats on spurious, character-based grounds in order to do whatever it takes to win an election, is a wayward Democrat.

As I said upthread, if those are your definitons, then by all means do your thing on your time with your space. If I find it interesting and worthwhile, I'll do my thing. I'm not terribly overheated about the expectations of others. I write what suits me.

And speaking of common sense, I've seen some pretty interesting levels of "common sense" in the last nine months. Frankly, I'm not terribly concerned about the idea that its my job to somehow meet someone else's standard of that threshold. Especially from those who I've witnessed bearing less than a thimble-full.

So now I'm part of the great Mandate Media empire. Let the conspiracies commence!

Of course, I'm writing other places too. I'm helping NPI get their Oregon on, for example. I'm also hatching a plot to start my own blog that will no doubt seal me as the great evil goddess I was meant to be.

Or something like that.

"Frankly, I'm not terribly concerned about the idea that its my job to somehow meet someone else's standard of that threshold. Especially from those who I've witnessed bearing less than a thimble-full."

I don't know who brought up that idea, actually. It certainly wasn't me. You'll notice I didn't ask whether Carla would be unafraid to hold Democrats accountable; I asked whether BlueO would be, in light of their new hire--intimating of course that you'd be willing; the institution might not be.

First off, I would like to congratulate Carol, Nick, Chris, and Carla. I think they're excellent choices.

I also admit curiosity as to why Carla left the Merkley campaign, as I thought she was excellent for them. ( My suspicion is she just couldn't afford it. Most campaigns pay starving college student wages, and make having a second job nearly impossible. )

Insofar as TJs purity trolling is concerned, I'm really not sure it's worth engaging him. As I noted long ago, Kari's successful strategy of donating to Democrats to drive off GOP-trolls won't work on purity trolls. The DLC may represent the other extreme of the party (and much like TJ's fringe, they're filled with anger against mainstream Democrats), but I can't quite bring myself to donate to them.

So instead, I'm working on some sort of stock answer to post instead. Something like: "When you grow up and realize that representatives have to at least occasionally represent the views of their constituents, then people might start respecting you".

It's a work in progress.

And a Democrat who attacks other Democrats on spurious, character-based grounds in order to do whatever it takes to win an election, is a wayward Democrat.

Y'know, irony really isn't that difficult of a concept to grasp.

I don't know who brought up that idea, actually. It certainly wasn't me. You'll notice I didn't ask whether Carla would be unafraid to hold Democrats accountable;

That wasn't directed at you personally, Mark. That was me reasserting my independent badass-ness for the general audience (heh). But honestly, given that I'm part of BlueO now and that's in part what this thread is about, its kind of weird to try and extricate me from the comment you made.

The "institution" here has asked me to do what I've done at previous blogs--write about stuff that interests me in my own way. They know the drill and they know I'm a package deal: sometimes I grill the D's and Indys and NAVs (and media) just as intensely as I do the R's. And I would imagine I'll hear about (and from) the toes I step on. Its part of the gig.

But...I won't do it without the requisite research that meets my standard and I won't do it if I think its stupid and/or boring. There are other blogs (and other writers here too..the contributor list here is insanely long) and other bloggers who I'll happily concede the stuff that I don't care to write about.

I'm basically attempting to nip in the bud any idea that I'm going to stooge for anyone, whether it be critics or fans or perceived overseers. I'm too old and set in my ways--and have no interest in agreeing to that kind of situation.

Kari said:

So... I've referenced this before, but I'll be more explicit: The new BlueOregon - entirely re-engineered and reconceived - will have a strong bias against anonymity...

I've heard the general plan before, but had not heard that this specific bit of feedback was being incorporated into the design. (Likely due to my own failure to read through every comment thread on the subject.) So, thanks very much for clearing that up. Looking forward to the 2.0!

Carla said:

...attempting to nip in the bud any idea that I'm going to stooge for anyone

Ah, save yer energy for something important! ;) Looking forward to your contributions, Carla.

Steven, you appear to be suggesting that America would like to keep the war going, deny habeas and give telcos immunity. Otherwise your statement about representatives needing to represent makes no sense.

And until you look up the phrase purity troll, you should stop using it. For one thing, it makes you look pretty stupid to whine about phantom personal insults, and then continue to hurl them yourself, regardless of whether they make any sense or not.

The DLC are against mainstream Dems. Really? They're against themselves?

also admit curiosity as to why Carla left the Merkley campaign, as I thought she was excellent for them.

Steve, I'm sure you remember this old chestnut:

Stress: The mind's reaction to suppressing the urge to beat the shit out of some moron who really deserves it!

Not speaking for Carla here........

I also admit curiosity as to why Carla left the Merkley campaign, as I thought she was excellent for them. ( My suspicion is she just couldn't afford it. Most campaigns pay starving college student wages, and make having a second job nearly impossible. )

I left for family reasons--mostly because I'm a 43 (almost 44) year old woman with two teenagers who need their mother more prominently in their life than I was able to be while working on a campaign.

Of course, that's not the campaign's fault per se. Its all-consuming work and I've never been one to not jump in, full-throttle on a project. They warned me that it would be really tough. They were right. :)

Thanks for the kind words about my work with the Merkley campaign. I absolutely loved doing the job--it was a tremendous learning experience. I also think that Jeff Merkley will be an incredible Senator for Oregon and I'll be passionately supporting him in whatever capacity I can (sanely) do so.

Oh yeah..and what Pat said.

there's nothing ironic about lying and misrepresenting your way to a nomination, kevin. I'd love to hear what character based lies about Merkley you heard from the Novick campaign.

I'm also hatching a plot to start my own blog that will no doubt seal me as the great evil goddess I was meant to be.

Hey at least you are a great evil goddess...right?;)

I'm glad to see you back in the public sphere. Your commitment to what you believe and example of quality work do not go unnoticed ma'am.:)

Great moves with Karol and Carla, hope Nick will keep contributing

I look forward to posting as a contributor, however I am working on the Schrader campaign this summer, and as Carla noted working on a campaign (unfortunately) leaves you little room to embarrass yourself in public. So for the time being, I might be quiet, but I'll be posting in due time.

It's been great working as the Fellow this year, and I have appreciated the opportunity immensely, as well as everyone's warm welcome on the site. I'm looking forward to reading Carla's work.

... and I thought these sorts of battles would end with the primary

I didn't ask whether Carla would be unafraid to hold Democrats accountable; I asked whether BlueO would be, in light of their new hire--intimating of course that you'd be willing; the institution might not be.

There's no "institution" here. Just a blog, run by people you know.

And as the disclaimer has said since day one: Obviously, the posts and comments here are the views of their authors, and not of anyone else. ... Our contributors, however, reserve the right to embarass themselves in public.

there's nothing ironic about lying and misrepresenting your way to a nomination, kevin. I'd love to hear what character based lies about Merkley you heard from the Novick campaign.

Can't you let it die already, Mark?

Seriously.

"Can't you let it die already, Mark? Seriously."

You'd like that, I'm sure. Did you really think people would just magically forget Merkley's ethical problems because he won? Maybe you guys should have thought of that beforehand...

...and in any case, YOU'RE the one who brought it up, professing the variability of the concept of "wayward Democrat." I provided examples, one of which hits a little too close to home, I guess.

Clearly, the answer is "no". He can't. And, like the hillaryis44.org loons, he's decided that because he wasn't with the majority of Democrats on all the races (though as far as I can tell, he did pretty good considering - better than Kari, actually), he's going to go petulantly attacking the progressive candidate and boosting the chances of the conservative Republican.

And he gets all upset when I describe this as "purity trolling" - which is exactly what it is.

TJ said:

"And a Democrat who attacks other Democrats on spurious, character-based grounds in order to do whatever it takes to win an election, is a wayward Democrat."

TJ, if that's the definition of a wayward Democrat, what do you call someone who makes character attacks on a Democrat without even the motive of winning an election? Because then you said,

Did you really think people would just magically forget Merkley's ethical problems because he won?

Or is this an announcement that you've signed up with Democrats for Smith?

Torridjoe: BORING. Celebration day, not "bag on cool new contributor day." Carla's awesome, let her revel in it a bit, can you?

I'd love to hear what character based lies about Merkley you heard from the Novick campaign.

When were you on the Novick campaign's payroll, Mark?

the majority of Democrats on all the races (though as far as I can tell, he did pretty good considering - better than Kari, actually)

I have no idea what this means. I do know that my clients went 8-1 in competitive primaries. There were precious few races were my preferred candidate didn't win out.

Hmmmm....

I count at least two: you were a major John Edwards supporter, and also a supporter of Greg Macphearson.

Yup and yup -- not that Edwards made it to the Oregon primary. (And he certainly wasn't a client of mine.)

"like the hillaryis44.org loons"

Still eschewing and decrying the use of personal insults, I see, Steven. And you might want to check with (I think) Pat R--he says I'm irrelevant, so what high praise that you think I'm helping the conservative Republican to the detriment of the semi-progressive.

Karol: who's bagging on the new contributor? Not me. I'm happy for Carla, and I'm glad to hear that she promises being on the MM payroll won't have the same effect as it has had on others.

Pete:

TJ, if that's the definition of a wayward Democrat, what do you call someone who makes character attacks on a Democrat without even the motive of winning an election?

Principled.

Kevin: Never. Point?

What I've always admired about Carla's blogging is the research on which the sharp analysis and vivid expression has rested. It's often brought me new knowledge, as well as interesting reflections to chew on. I look forward to more of that, and on matters other than horse-race stuff, with due respect for the priority of family matters.

While not exactly sure about the roles BO editors play, assuming that recruiting guest columns might be one of them, I'm guessing that BlueOregon has extended its reach by putting Karol into the role -- though it's good even if it's just giving her credit for stuff it sounds like she's been doing anyway. And I look forward to her continuing to be a provocateur of thought.

It would be cool if some of the extant contributor list could be induced to write more often -- there are a lot of interesting sounding people there. But life makes people busy, and despite the weird thinking about BO being some kind of blog equivalent of a command economy, with Kari in the role of Fearless Leader, that list and dips into the archive convince me it's much more of evolving amorphism. Bringing Karol and Carla forward should bring new impetus to the evolution.

Raskolnikov -- I've gotta run ... bb

Well, for what it's worth Kari, even though I disagreed with you on the Kroger/Macphearson race, I've never believed that bulls**t about you shilling your opinions for anyone.

In fact, I see it exactly the opposite way. There is honor in being a political consultant who refuses to work for someone he doesn't believe in. There is dishonor in being like Dick Morris - willing to sign on to whoever is the highest bidder, no matter what they plan to do to the country. So I expect that every time I see a disclaimer from you, that you really do support that candidate with your heart and soul. And I try and take that into consideration even when we end up disagreeing.

this is a great move. i've enjoyed Karol's contributions, and know she even has (what i would consider) the right kind of sense of humor. i met Chris at Steve Novick's victory party (i'm sorry, the guy didn't lose a thing, just an election). i'm looking forward to seeing his take on things.

and Carla is going to be a great addition. i am really excited about the kind of things she'll bring to the fore. the work she did at LO was terrific and sorely missed in her absence on Senator Merkley's campaign. i know i'm not that kind of researcher, and apparently not many other people are, either. this should bring a new dimension to BO. good moves.

and especially good to expand the demographics of BO leadership.

And for the record, I didn't prefer Schrader (although he was a lock to win), and I didn't prefer Brown (I'm well satisfied with her; I voted Walker however). The best/most progressive candidate doesn't typically win, so I don't really see the point of using W/L records--but there it is.

But now I'm trying to juxtapose your variable party affiliation with your comments about who's a true Democrat and who's not. Do you consider yourself to be a true Democrat? Or are you a temporary Democrat? Or have I misinterpreted your comments?

Now, let's start by noting that I never said "true Democrat;" I said "wayward Democrat,"--literally a Democrat who has lost his or her way. As an example, on the war Joe Lieberman is so wayward that he may not find his way back in time to save his committee chair next session.

I believe that those Democrats are best, who hew to traditionally progressive principles like tax equity, social equality and non-agression military policy. Not all progressives are Democrats, in part because not all Democrats are progressives.

If you'd like to advance the suggestion that being a Democrat shouldn't necessitate predominantly progressive positions, we can have that discussion. I think there may be electoral reasons to broaden the tent in some cases, but not ideological ones. (And doing something primarily for electoral reasons not only chafes my sensibilities, it's often a losing strategy to chase votes instead of persuading on principle).

Did that help?

(and yes, I'll be back in the WFP when I can get over to Oregon City again)

"Aren't you by definition a wayward Democrat?"

So far all I've done is come to Jesus. I won't be wayward, literally speaking, until I leave. Although it was never about supporting the Party as it was supporting the best candidate for office, a singular candidate who only comes around once a generation or so.

torridjoe: Still eschewing and decrying the use of personal insults, I see, Steven.

Hate to get all kindergarten on your ass, TJ, but you started this first. A long time ago. You don't get to spew all sorts of insults, and then go whining when people respond to you in about the same way. That turning the other cheek sure sounds good, but everyone has their limit.

Especially when you see any any hint of a reconciliatory olive branch from people you disagree with, as a new opportunity to insult and defame.

Again, it would be nice not to have this kind of invective. It really doesn't change anyone's mind. And I certainly don't start with attacks on anybody. But about 20 years ago, I decided the technique (used by such notables as Jimmy Carter and Michael Dukakis) of "rising above" insults, only invited more, so the best way to stop such attacks is to forcefully call people on them.

Sorry TJ. My bad. I'll be mean to others :)

Pete:

TJ, if that's the definition of a wayward Democrat, what do you call someone who makes character attacks on a Democrat without even the motive of winning an election?

TJ:

Principled.

OK. The words that come to mind for me are "bitter" and "sore loser." I say this from the perspective of a supporter of both Novick and Merkley, who struggled not to lose hope in the face of things I saw coming from supporters of both, during the primary.

If you see a problem with Merkley's character, I'd say there are two options: (1) work to correct the problem, or (2) work to get him defeated by a better candidate.

(1) is best accomplished via private communication, not on a blog. (2) is not a practical option, unless (as I asked before) you believe Gordon Smith offers a better option.

So, can you explain to us exactly what you're trying to accomplish?

Pete, I'm not really saying anything differently than before the election, so how couldn't be born of sore loserdom or bitterness? What I'm trying to accomplish is to express an opinion at Blueo, and take feedback. Not everything has an agenda behind it.

I couldn't be happier. I'm not too familiar with Carla (welcome, though!) but Karol and Chris are among the smartest people on this blog and always, always, always contribute well-considered and intelligent thoughts to processes that can sometimes be otherwise dominated by flamethrowers. I'm totally thrilled.

James, a good part of the reason I have no party loyalty is the profusion of leading Democrats who have no loyalty to the progressive principles that define the Democratic Party (or did). It's what makes you wayward, that straying. I mean, do you have to join a union to believe some unions have lost their way?

It sounds as though you disagree that the Platonic goal of the Dems shoyld be progressivism. If that's the case, then there's our disconnect. Otherwise, you may have to try again to indicate where you're coming from.

that line to Pete F should say could IT, not couldn't. Stupid autocorrect!

Carla is wonderful addition to BO as is Chris. Nick your work was top notch!

TJ go tend to LO. Enuf, enuf, enuf!

How about we not respond so that we can "organically" go back to the original topic of this thread?

Actually, TJ, by olive branch, I wasn't referring to anything I've written here. But apparently I can't even write something nice about Steve Novick, without you getting your panties in a twist. This is hardly the first time you've done this. I doubt it will be the last.

TJ, I'm not making any arguments about where the party is or should be ideologically, I'm just trying to figure out why you're talking about "wayward Democrats." It seems like you're peeling off other people's Democratic label because you feel they're not worthy of it, while at the same time you're peeling off your own Democratic label because you feel it's not worthy of you.

That's a reasonable way to posit it, although once again you seem to be conflating errant with faux when it comes to "Democratic credibility." But the point that individuals within a group can be assessed by a particular standard for the group, while the group itself can be assessed from the outside on the ability of its members to meet that standard, seems logical enough. Do you not agree?

The equation you posit hypothesizes a mathematical process of evaluation, which I don't find appropriate. It continues to place "Democratness" in a dichotomy rather than a continuum. The home for progressive belief is within the Democratic Party, regardless of how many householders maintain those beliefs. But I believe you can evaluate each member on their maintenance, and in the aggregate decide whether that maintenance is cumulatively enough to warrant throwing in one's lot with them.

To try to put it another way, Rev. Wright represented Trinity Church, but he didn't necessarily EMBODY it. I might rebuke Wright as Obama did, but find the aggregate membership of the church to be worth supporting despite that. If one finds that a substantial crossection of other members hold similar beliefs to Wright however, then you begin to question the worthiness of the institution rather than just its membership.

And you might want to check with (I think) Pat R--he says I'm irrelevant,

AND

You've hijacked this post, which is about a transition at BlueOregon....

AND

I didn't hijack a thing, Tiresias.

In some very real way, TJ's correct on this one. To those of you who continue to engage him and his bottomless reservoir of bile, I would remind you of The Scorpion and the Frog

He seems unable to help himself. It's in his nature, so to respond is to enable hijacking, IMO.

There is zero chance that he will respond or conceded points in an intellectually honest manner, so you are in fact feeding the troll.

TJ said:

What I'm trying to accomplish is to express an opinion at Blueo, and take feedback. Not everything has an agenda behind it.

But some things are so obvious in their effects, that any well-informed and savvy person (such as yourself) can reasonably be expected to take the effect of their words under consideration.

If you're motivated by a mere need to express an opinion, that's what the tavern down the street is for. Or a shrink, or your poker buddies, whatever. Not a web site that will be read by an audience far broader than those to whom you're replying.

"If you're motivated by a mere need to express an opinion, that's what the tavern down the street is for. Or a shrink, or your poker buddies, whatever. Not a web site that will be read by an audience far broader than those to whom you're replying."

It's not what a "progressive water cooler" is for? It's pretty shocking for you to want to tell people where and when they can offer an opinion in various public fora. I think you just don't like the opinions, is all.

It's pretty shocking for you to want to tell people where and when they can offer an opinion in various public fora. I think you just don't like the opinions, is all.

Okay- you're wrong, but you're entitled to your opinion. I'm done with this.

bottomless reservoir of bile"

Pat R--he says I'm irrelevant

He seems unable to help himself. It's in his nature

zero chance that he will respond or conceded points in an intellectually honest manner

feeding the troll

...if I ever run out of bile, at least now I know whom to ask if I want to borrow some more.

(Sorry, I'm actually interested in this thing TJ is saying that I still don't understand. I hope others can ignore him and me for the time being.)

Shhhh....you're screwing up that whole hijacking, intellectually dishonest meme!!

"Okay- you're wrong, but you're entitled to your opinion. I'm done with this."

See how easy it was? Hard to evaluate substantively without anything beyond the statement of disagreement, but at least you're on the right track.

What I've always admired about Carla's blogging is the research on which the sharp analysis and vivid expression has rested. It's often brought me new knowledge, as well as interesting reflections to chew on. I look forward to more of that, and on matters other than horse-race stuff, with due respect for the priority of family matters.

Thanks, Chris. The admiration is mutual.

Your comments here are refreshing and thoughtful--as I'm sure your blog posts will be. I look forward to reading your pieces.

And while we're all about me on this thread (hehehe), I'd love to speak with you privately sometime. Please send me an email: carla.axt (at) gmail (dot) com.

No wonder no one shows up! Apparently LO is 404ed!

I don't run a water cooler, I run an open community site. Anyone can participate there.

And since the post-primary MO is the same as the pre-primary MO, you may just be off track in your analysis.

Great addtions and I'll add my thanks to Nick for helping keep us informed.

Congrats all around. Karol always seems to hit the right balance between information and entertainment. She seems like someone who would be fun to sing showtunes with after slinging a few shots of tequila.

I think these changes should be celebrated with a Kegger! When and where?...the first one is on me.....LOL

Way upthread Chris commented that it would be cool if regular contributors wrote more often. I agree, but I also understand. I used to write more often, too--navel gazing stuff I was accustomed to offering as a blogger. But BlueOregon has gotten kind of serious, and I recognize that people don't want navel gazing here. So I try only to write things I think the readers will enjoy (not to mention those things that I'm confident enough about to handle the inevitable heat).

So give Chris and the new writers kudos and a little space before you hit them with the hard stuff. You know, bait and switch, lure them in with honey...

Dena, She seems like someone who would be fun to sing showtunes with after slinging a few shots of tequila.

I resemble your assumptions, except for the tequila. I'm much more of a vodka girl :) Also, I would sing "Seasons of Love" from Rent. Who's ready? Chopsticks III baby!

Show tunes!!!

Be still my beating heart!

Last time I did karaoke with the Merkley staff I sang "Anything You Can Do" with another staffer....! (From Annie Get Your Gun, for the uninitiated)

I'd totally sing that with Chris Lowe as an inaugural new contributor thingie. LOL

Don't tease me with the opportunity to get together with good people to sing musical numbers. Perhaps an additional summer outing for the BO community ? Let's see, a partial list of songs:

Its Not Where You Start ( Its Where You Finish) You Gotta Get a Gimmick Keep Moving On Everything's Coming Up Roses Who's That Woman? ( In honor of Carla and Karol)

Guys: Who's up for The Full Monty

Might be a fun night before ( or after) the state convention.

Don't tease me with the opportunity to get together with good people to sing musical numbers. Perhaps an additional summer outing for the BO community ?

I've heard that there are occasionally sing-along parties for movies. In particular I remember one in Portland last year (I think) for the movie "Grease." I remember mentioning it to Carla since I know how much of a song savant she is. Maybe she'll remember more of the details than I do. Seems to me that it was some kind of OPB fundraiser...

"TJ, if this issue is really important to you, perhaps you can answer a question I have wondered about. Which campaigns had your active participation in the 1990s? 1980s? 1970s?"

Not old enough to participate until the mid 80s. I worked for Richard Saslaw in 84, and that's it. My political volunteering until Novick was limited to registering my neighborhood and doing ballot collections on Election Day.

<h2>And why do you ask?</h2>