I'd love to hear from Kitzhaber on this. That'd be awesome.

On the Novick thing, I was under the impression that Steve took a job with Defend Oregon, choosing himself not to run with the belief that Kitzhaber is going to pull the trigger. However, if Merkley is pushing to get Novick a job at the EPA..that'd be AWESOME (this is the first I've heard of that rumor). Novick would be kick ass there.

"Sending" or "going with his blessing" -- either way, sounds like news. Merkley was the minority leader following 2005 session, and targeted seats in 2006. Clem was one Dem pickup that made Merkley the Speaker of the House in 2007. There's a relationship there.

I'm sorry..what's the point here, exactly?

Some of Merkley's people might work for Clem..? So what? Some of Merkley's people might work for Hass, too. Or maybe they'll work for Novick. Oregon's a small politics place. I'm missing the relevancy.

The WW story referenced in comments earlier has no link between Merkley and getting an EPA job for Novick. Frankly, if Merkley were doing that..it'd be a service to the country. Novick would be superb in that job. But that's creating an inference where no facts appear to live.

But back to the point of the post, which is Mark Hass. If we could get back on topic, I'd appreciate it.

Just to close the loop on the Novick EPA thing: Yes, Senators Merkley and Wyden asked the President to consider Steve Novick for the post. From an earlier WW murmur:

U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley have recommended to President Obama that he appoint Steve Novick to a top administrative post with the Environmental Protection Agency. In a letter obtained by Murmurs, the Democratic senators ask Obama to consider Novick for the job of EPA regional administrator, overseeing the agency’s work in the Northwest. Novick, who lost last year to Merkley in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, says, “It would be a great job.”

As for the Brian Clem not-quite-campaign: If he gets endorsed by Senator Merkley, that'll be big news - and you'll hear about it on BlueOregon. I can tell you that nothing of the sort has happened yet. Brian's not even running for anything yet; just traveling the state talking to Oregonians about the possibility of running for Governor.

Now, back on topic, please.

[Full disclosure: My firm built the campaign websites for Mark Hass, Ron Wyden, Jeff Merkley, and Brian Clem. I speak only for myself.]

Looks like Clem is running, and may be hiring Merkley's campaign manager. You're telling me that's not relevant? What the heck is Blue Oregon for?

There's a whole other post about Clem you can post comments on.

Clem might be hiring the guy who ran Merkley's campaign? So..? Clem might hire someone else too. He might run the Boston Marathon while drinking Yoo-Hoos, for all we know.

IF he hires Isaacs, maybe then it would be newsworthy. But it sure seems like you're trying to use it to create nefarious intent on the part of Merkley..and that's where stuff doesn't add up.

You're essentially claiming that Merkley is trying to get Novick out of the way so Clem can run for Gov, then stuff Clem's campaign with his own people. There's no evidence that this is happening.

And frankly, I have a tough time believing that if Novick wants to run for Governor--he'd accept a job in DC with the EPA. I suspect that Merkley and Wyden recommended him because he'd kick ass at it. And why would Wyden be incahoots with trying to get Novick out of the way for Clem...? Makes no sense.

I wouldn't say "nefarious intent" at all. Just good old politics.

A distinction, based on your tone, without a difference.

And I thought Blue Oregon's reason for being was to track such developments. Are you journalists, or bloggers, or what?

There's not a "development" to track. That's my point.

So what's your take on Hass not running?

While its always flattering to be included in rumors of political conspiracies and intrigue....

My choice to leave a great job with Senator Merkley is mine and mine alone. As I've said to several people, I'm resigning from the Merkley team to take some time off. I don't have any immediate professional plans. Anyone who knows me well will tell you that I have been considering this since the 2008 campaign came to an end. I don't expect to be back in the working world until some time this fall.

There are days where I feel like an idiot for leaving a great job working for an amazing leader, but for once I've decided to put my family and my emotional/mental health ahead of my career.

I should think a journalist would take notice.

If so, why don't you go bother some journalists? Because around here, we're all activists.

From time to time, some of us might commit a rare act of journalism, but that doesn't make us journalists.

So, when you acknowledge that you are activists, the question that follows is, activists for what? Issues or candidates?

I'm presuming you're asking me. My answer is: the ones that I decide are worth my activism.

I appreciate your kind words on my Metolius work. I don't think I rise to the level of plaque-dom, but the sentiment is nice.

But the troubling question is when does that activism crossover to activism for a candidate, and if it does, will any other candidates get a fair shake here at Blue Oregon?

Why is it a troubling question? And why do I have to give everyone a "fair shake"? I write what interests me. I do activism for the issues/people I think are worth doing. I don't claim to be objective. I don't claim to work from a platform of complete equity.

What I do is research and write about the issues and people that interest me and inspire me.

I just think it would be fair and honest of you both to declare your sympathies up front and let the readership of Blue Oregon know you're supporting a candidate for governor.

You assume that I have a sympathy for a candidate. There's your first mistake. You can put that in the long line of other assumption mistakes you've made in this thread.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that Carla is a big fan of Brian Clem. She posted a profile of Clem back in late March -- a pretty flattering profile.

I didn't post a profile of Clem. I posted a profile of Clem's House district. I did the same for the House districts of Jefferson Smith and David Edwards. I hope to do them for more districts as the opportunity arises.

And I think it's inevitable that folks will wonder if your sympathies for Clem will affect your activities here. Like, maybe you're sitting on some info that in other circumstances you'd pursue and post to feed the water cooler here at Blue Oregon.

That's the problem of the wonderers, not me. I honestly could care less.

You completely pooh poohed the story yesterday that one of the state's best campaign managers looks to be on his way to Clem's campaign. You both appear to be pretty tight with Mr. Isaacs.

That's because there isn't any evidence that Isaacs is on his way to Clem's campaign. If you've got it (other than the stuff you're pulling outta yer backside) then post it. I'm not interested in fluffing up your rumor mill. It's a waste of my time.

Russell: You're clearly operating under the delusion that it matters to me what you think is possible or not.

My House district profiles on Jefferson Smith and David Edwards have lots of paragraphs that include their names too. When you interview the Rep. about the House district they represent, that's the way it works.

Even if I were completely in the bag for Clem, that's up to me. I write about what interests and inspires me. If you're worried about getting an unbiased POV, then a blog that is very open about having a progressive point of view isn't probably your best bet.

People are free to ponder their wonders. How my efforts are interpreted is up to those who choose to interpret them.

If that causes a "loss of faith", then it does. I see nothing compelling in writing for the sake of making other people comfortable with my positions or biases (or lack thereof).

That this somehow suggests a lack of forthrightness is both wrong-headed and silly. I'm quite clear about what inspires and motivates me by virtue of what I choose to write about. If my work is unsatisfying to another's sensibilities, then they should do that which satisfies them and disregard me.

Russell, you must be new around here. Because you're asking a whole lot of questions that have been asked before, and throwing around accusations that have been made before.

I don't much care to rehash old discussions. Do the Google if you care. Try "rigged game" and "ethical blogging" if you're interested in how these conversations have evolved over the years.

To recap:

• I'm not a journalist. I explicitly say that, here on this blog and to actual journalists, all the time. I have never claimed otherwise.

• BlueOregon is a labor of love. If you want to pay us editors a full-time salary to run it, I'm sure we'll happily quit our day jobs.

• My day job is to work with political candidates and nonprofit organizations on their websites. Yes, that creates all sorts of difficult situations. For a while there, it looked like a half-dozen current and former clients were planning to run for Governor. The only two people who are actively exploring the race now - Brian Clem and Bill Bradbury - are both good friends and current/former clients.

• Part of my day job includes helping my clients with their various strategies. Naturally, that includes confidential information. If you're coming here with an expectation that I'm going to blog about their not-yet-public plans or strategies, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

I am not a journalist. I am not neutral. I actively promote those issues, candidates, and causes that I care about. I am, however, entirely transparent about my affiliations. The only reason that you know about my affiliations and can make up conspiracy theories about them is that I always disclose who I'm working with - both in context here, and on my company's website.

If you don't like it, don't read it. If you don't think I'm credible, then don't waste your time. Move on. There are plenty of web pages on the internet. Better yet, start your own blog. And then we can make up stories about you!

Russell --

I'll refer you to the front page Sunday Oregonian item about blogging by Jeff Mapes from September 17, 2006. (Sorry, not online anymore.) A relevant section:

In the new blog frontier, it's definitely buyer beware. Inaccuracies are common, as is leaping to a conclusion without all the facts. Bloggers acknowledge that balance and fairness are not usually seen as virtues. "It is not dispassionate commentary, to say the least," says Bogdanski. "This is just talk radio on the screen, in some ways." Chisholm cheerfully admits to a welter of conflicts that would send conventional journalists to the unemployment line. "I'm not a journalist, I'm an activist," says Chisholm. "I don't pretend to have a neutral point of view." He says he makes it clear when he's commenting on a client. But readers might not be aware of all the ties: The site frequently promotes legislative candidates backed by the House Democratic Caucus. And BlueOregon often links to Saxtonwatch.com, a blog owned by the Oregon Democratic Party that depends heavily on material from the Kulongoski campaign. Both are Chisholm clients, and he designed the Saxtonwatch Web site. Still, Chisholm says he's protective of BlueOregon and is not afraid to irritate clients. Asked what he'd do with a piece praising Saxton from a Democratic perspective, Chisholm sounds like a traditional media mogul. "I'd probably post it," he says. "Our traffic would explode. I'd love to see that debate."

The issues you're raising are old and tired.

Like I said above, if you don't think it's credible, you're welcome to start your own blog - or just go read somewhere else.

So, if you know how Clem is spending his money, who he might be hiring, and what his strategy is -- and you might well know those things -- you might just blow smoke here to put off some honest inquiries about what's going on in the Oregon governor's race.

One more thing: I don't lie. I may not tell you everything I know - the day job would evaporate if I did - but I won't lie. That's why most of the blogging I do is about Republicans behaving badly - or just the daily tick-tock of what's in the news. That stuff doesn't generally create the same kinds of risks.

I don't see my job as being an investigative journalist, digging up secrets and exposing them. And I don't pretend to either.

Russell, we've been down this road before. If I didn't comment on any campaign where I have a current or former client involved somehow, there wouldn't be a blog here.

And no, I'm not going to develop some long two-paragraph disclaimer to post each time I comment.

Seriously, go back and read Alworth's "Toward Ethical Political Blogging". He's never worked for any campaign, and we all work hard to abide by those guidelines. They're good enough for a free publication written entirely by volunteers with day jobs.

If you don't like it, don't read it.

And now, I'm bored. Good night!

The EPA Regional Administrator's job for Region 10 is located in Seattle, not DC. Just to clarify "Washington."

Has there been an EPA job offer to Steve? A promotion effort, it seems. He hasn't said one way or another whether he was informed of it but it seems rather hard to believe he wouldn't have been or wouldn't have nixed it if he was simply uninterested.

And what about Steve's apparent choice to work against the expected effort to roll back the legislature's tax increases to meet the budget crisis? Was the offer to do that, or solicitation of interest, or whatever form it took, also a nefarious scheme to keep him from running for governor?

Or do both of these jobs / job possibilities reflect abiding interests of Steve's & relationships with folks involved? The latter appears to be the case to me. On the EPA, my recollection is that during the primary some of his opponents tried to pooh-pooh his environmental record in past EPA work, which was as a lawyer. A high-level administrative job would add dimension to his strong advocacy record.

John Isaacs' stated timeline would not be incompatible with taking up a campaign role in the fall, but that's weak beer for evidence. The claim that another Merkley staffer says s/he is going with him to Clem is unsourced & repeated by an anonymous commentator. Still weak beer, in the "not impossible" category. Another not impossible would be the Isaacs could have other potential offers from potential candidates who potentially might decide to run or not at some point. Such potential!

People should look at Kari's standard disclaimer carefully to understand what he is saying. He a) identifies a potential conflict of interest, and b) makes clear that he his not speaking for his client.

This is about protecting his professional relationships to his clients, i.e. not affirming accuracy or fullness -- in fact limiting fullness as he says above -- or any other particular attempt to respond to the conflict or to "protect" readers from it, except to acknowledge it.

At other times he is not so up front about the limits of what he's saying is in the comments here, but it's clear enough if you think about the actual words for a few seconds.

Both the strengths and the weaknesses of BlueOregon as a blog derive substantially from the networks in which its editors are enmeshed. They also derive from the consistency and inconsistency of columnists with varying viewpoints in getting those out there. But for that, blame the columnists.

A lot of people who blog here have organizational affiliations that affect their viewpoints & vice versa. A lot of commenters do too, including probably many of the anonymous ones whose conflicts we can't know. Does Russell have a an anti-Clem dog in the fight? Is it just personal preference or are there financial or professional or other interests involved too? Who knows?

P.S. I have almost no knowledge of Brian Clem and do not support him or anyone for governor at this point.