This is encouraging:

This will be a campaign not won with millions of dollars in television ads, but in discussions in living rooms and union halls and neighborhoods across this state."

This is the sort of campaign we deserve. Any time any candidate in a Dem. primary can go to county Dem. central comm. meetings in multiple counties and answer any question asked (incl. a question where the first part of the response is a sigh and "that's a tough question" before giving an answer of substance) that is healthy for politics in Oregon.

My primary vote for Gov. in 2006 was for the candidate who answered all the tough questions at the local county central comm. appearance.

Announcement is not necessarily the time to talk specifics, but that time is coming very shortly.

Bill Bradbury 2010: Over Before It Started.

@Pat Ryan: accurate.

"Protect the environment".

Isn't Bradbury the guy that clear cut his property in Southern Oregon just before a law went into effect that would have prevented it?

This guy is unqualified because of the way he screwed voters as an allegedly non-partisan Secretary of State. Even the 9th US Circuit Court said he went out of his way to do this.

But now he can get on the ballot because of the advantages the two parties have given themselves.

Bob Tiernan Portland

I think Bradbury tried to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot in either 2000 or 2004. I'm no fan of Nader, but that was BS.

What I've heard from people who Bill has called asking for money, is it seems this is a clever way for Bill to raise some money before dropping out and writing a big check to Kitzs. Maybe for some promise of a job in his administration?

I have to say that, having attended some presentations and events where Bradbury spoke, I don't think he's a viable candidate simply due to his chronic (and progressive) disease. It's unfair to him, but it's definitely there, and it's quite apparent when you see him up close -- he's palsied. If he was campaigning on bringing a single-payer, universal coverage plan to Oregon his story might be a plus, but I don't think that's the case now.

This guy is unqualified because of the way he screwed voters as an allegedly non-partisan Secretary of State. Even the 9th US Circuit Court said he went out of his way to do this.

Secretary of State is a partisan office. Bradbury may have made decisions you don't like, but the Republicans should be blaming themselves for his being in office. They stupidly opted for ideological purity over an almost certain victory when they kicked Lynn Lundquist in the teeth and selected the bitterly partisan and far-to-the-right Lynn Snodgrass as their SOS standard bearer. Had the R's been more practical, they would have had a Republican SOS making decisions you would likely have been happier with. Instead, with a Republican legislature and a Democratic governor, Bradbury was left to draw the lines for the legislative districts. He did that in a way that benefited the Dems. Big surprise. Republicans should have known that would be one of the results of that election.

George A. S. ... I fear that you're right, but it would be disappointing if Oregon discarded someone because of a physical disability. One of our greatest Presidents (if not THE greatest) was severely disabled--and was still elected four times. I would hate to think that we have gone that far backward in the past seven decades.

George --

Bill Bradbury had MS when he served as a State Representative.

Bill Bradbury had MS when he served as a State Senator.

Bill Bradbury had MS when he served as Senate Minority Leader and when he served as Senate President.

Bill Bradbury had MS when he led For the Sake of the Salmon.

Bill Bradbury had MS when Phil Kiesling resigned as Secretary of State in 1999, and former governor Kitzhaber looked around to find the best leader in the state of Oregon to replace Kiesling for the second highest constitutional office in Oregon, the person who would have succeeded Kitzhaber and become governor if anything had happened to Kitzhaber between 1999 and 2002. Doctor Kitzhaber chose Bill Bradbury.

Bill Bradbury had MS when he was elected SOS by the people in 2000 and 2004. Doctor Kitzhaber endorsed Bradbury for SOS in both of those elections.

But perhaps your assessment of Bill Bradbury's fitness to serve Oregon is better than Dr. Kitzhaber's?

Bill Bradbury made four public appearances today in four cities in Oregon (Portland, Salem, Eugene, and Medford). I was fortunate to attend his morning appearance at PCC Sylvania. His energy is infectious, and it's no accident that a veteran reporter like Harry Esteve reported this appearance as a "spirited talk surrounded by supporters."

He is clearly fit to serve, and has the experience and consensus building skills to do great things as governor.

<hr/>

re anon:

You're repeating a Karl Rove style cheap shot from the Gordon Smith campaign in 2002. Smith by that time had accrued more than half a million in campaign dollars from timber companies. Bradbury got nothing from timber companies. Bradbury has been routinely endorsed in all his elections by groups like the Oregon League of Conservation Voters and is highly respected by environmentalists in Oregon.

Why not heed Obama's call in his inauguration address to put childish things aside, and leave the Karl Rove crap where it belongs?

denise, I made no assessment of any of Bradbury's estimable qualities, and I know all about FDR . . . including how much the press did to keep quiet about his condition, and how the total absence of TV made it a non-issue for most folks.

As for whether he is qualified and capable of being governor, the only person qualified to be governor is the one who can persuade enough voters of that. I think Bradbury is going to have a hell of a time doing that. I'm someone who is quite fond of his positions, but I'm not optimistic about his ability to sell the voters. His condition isn't a "strong left hook" -- it's a debilitating disease that can deteriorate in fits and starts (there's a reason the writers of West Wing used MS as their plot device).

George --

You haven't made an assessment of Bradbury's estimable qualities (which are many), because you've written him off based on a very inaccurate notion of his physical condition.

I've never watched West Wing, so I'm not familiar with how MS was depicted in a fictional tv series. I'm guessing the aim there was drama to attract viewership and sell advertising, not unbiased educational content.

MS takes various forms. Bradbury has a mild form of MS, and some minor physical limitations. This has been the case since he was diagnosed in the early 1980s.

His long and steady career of public service in Oregon, and his trips all over Oregon the last couple of years to give more than 200 presentations on global climate change and its effects on Oregon -- those activities don't square with your depiction at all.

He left the SOS office barely nine months ago, after serving for nine years. I don't think anyone handles the duties of that office while deteriorating by fits and starts from a debilitating disease. And, again, the SOS is second in line to the governor. One year ago, no one was concerned that if something should happen to Kulongoski, Bradbury wouldn't be able to step in and serve the state.

He was fit to serve then, and he's fit to serve now.

Perhaps if you had heard John Kitzhaber's glowing praise of Bradbury at a celebration honoring his service as SOS earlier this year, you'd realize how inaccurate your statements are, and how truly fit for office Bradbury is.

Nick Wirth:

You're posting on a liberal political blog and you've never watched The West Wing? You're actually underestimating the show, it was extremely intelligent and not prone to inaccurate ratings stunts.

Bob T:

One of the the best shows I've ever seen. Didn't watch it when it was being broadcast (I pretty much gave up network TV shows cold turkey about 1975) but try some on DVD years later. It was easy to get hooked on West Wing and yes, it had a lot of input from people who'd worked in various administrations.

Bob Tiernan

rural resident:

Secretary of State is a partisan office.

Bob T:

I should have been more clear -- I know it's a "partisan" office in that candidates get to run for it with party endorsements and nomination, but unlike an executive with a political agenda and like-minded legislators for support, a secretary of state needs to step away from that and put voters first, and treat all candidates fairly. Bradbury wasn't interested in doing that, and it was quite obvious.

rural resident:

Bradbury may have made decisions you don't like

Bob T:

And I didn't like them from the standpoint of a voter, and of someone who despises the way the two major parties have given themselves close to a lock on ballot access and thus most of the money.

rural resident:

but the Republicans should be blaming themselves for his being in office. They stupidly opted for ideological purity....and selected the bitterly partisan and far-to-the-right Lynn Snodgrass...they would have had a Republican SOS making decisions you would likely have been happier with.

Bob T:

Don't assume anything like that. I'm really not that interested in this garbage -- Bradbury's decision to be a n unethical slimeball was his own, and any mistakes the Republicans made that helped him get elected don't excuse his behavior at all. Personally, I feel we'd all be better served having Keisling in there again. And again. Even Kate Brown has proving to be far superior to Bradbury. Now, you were saying......?

Bob Tiernan Portland (never lived in Lake Oswego)

Kari:

Uh, Bob, could you be more specific? What court case are you citing?

Bob T:

It had to be one of the Nader cases, and I'm pretty sure that the challenge over how the petitions were mid-handled went to the 9th, and that I'm not thinking of the Oregon Supreme Court.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Actually, denise, rather than "writ[ing] him off based on a very inaccurate notion of his physical condition," I'm simply reporting the impression he gave appearing in several public settings. If he strikes many voters as he struck me (and others I spoke with) then this will not bode well for his campaign. The first time I heard him speak, I was astonished to learn he planned to run for Governor. Maybe he was just having a bad day -- but a statewide campaign is a pretty long series of brief encounters and first impressions.

My sense of history tells me that candidates must first sell themselves and then they can sell their candidacy. The guy who appeared in his announcement video (from the chest up only . . . sitting?) appears quite hale and hearty. If that guy shows up at every event, then good for him. But if the guy I have seen (including some when he was sitting SOS) shows up at many campaign events then I think voters are going to have real concerns.

If Bill has spent as much on polling as he should have, he's got to have some sense of how to address his MS. As I said earlier, it's an obvious peg for a serious, aggressive commitment to universal health care ... no longer just rearranging who's in this biennium and who's out, but ending the whole cruel practice of treating access to health care as a commodity.

That video was horrible...

"Bill has enthusaism, energy and integrity. And, yes, unlike John Kitzhaber, he has shown interest in his party and party-building, because Democrats hold the ideals he beleives in. I'm surprised that, on Blue Oregon of all places, that's so frequently not considered a plus. "

In a state where so many people don't register with a major party, that is a statement worthy of a Dem. primary but not a general election.

AND, remembering back to the 1980s, I do remember sitting with Bill and Katy at a Democratic luncheon during some meeting or other.

Kitzhaber was part of a statewide steering committee for an upstart presidential candidate in 1984. Establishment candidate was supposed to win, upstart was supposed to lose. So how did the upstart campaign get 59% of the vote? If you think party establishment were happy at all those pct. people, district and state central comm. members elected on the strength of the presidential organizing and welcomed us with open arms, you'd be mistaken.

I also remember a State Central Comm. vote in 1985. There were some members of that body who did not like something making its way through the legislature, and so they held a vote which was supposed to be an "all good Democrats agree with us" resolution. The one state legislator at the meeting spoke against this resolution, as did others. The people behind the resolution were upset at the presiding officers (Speaker Katz and Sen. President Kitzhaber) and the other legislators supporting something they didn't like.

The vote came down 25-19, with that one state legislator and 18 other voting delegates opposed. I was one of them. The result was that the next time Douglas County Dems. met, they passed a resolution disavowing the state resolution and standing by their Senate President. Elsewhere, people like me who had voted to support the legislators were yelled at as "not real Democrats". There were debates about whether legislators were supposed to represent a district or follow orders from the party (echoing later debates on whether legislators were elected primarily to represent a district or to be a loyal member of a caucus).

Gradually, people who had voted on the "infamous 19" side began to ponder whether it was worth the time, money, hard work etc, to be involved in a party where "real" Democrats allowed others to tell them how to think. By 1991, only one of those 19 was still a member of State Central Commiteee.

I realize that children born in 1985 are young adults now. Debates now are as often as not about "professional" politics--must everything revolve around polls and fundraising because that is what "political professionals" tell us to do? When was the last time there was a huge issue debate among Democrats?

Those like Mark who believe in the importance of party politics should state the affirmative as he did, "he has shown interest in his party and party-building, because Democrats hold the ideals he beleives in".

Then state those ideals. Do they include campaign finance reform? Do they include discussing kicker reform openly? (One Democratic legislator earlier this year tried to treat it like an issue that dare not speak its name---everyone should trust it would be discussed in Feb. and not breathe a word about it before then.)

Do those ideals include examining management performance and pay the way teacher and "state worker" pay and performance have been microscopically examined by Republicans?
What are best practices for managers at any level?
Isn't Maryland the state which has a whole div. of the St. Supt. office devoted to improving the quality of school principals? Any Gov. candidate familiar with the proposals for better middle schools on the America's Promise website? As a former substitute teacher, I can tell you the principal makes all the difference---I have worked with excellent principals all the way down the scale to lousy.

Should there be a searchable database for public management salaries? Is it true you get what you pay for?

One other thing: the lines Bill drew. I remember the Republican legislators trying to draw 1991 redistricting maps. HOW DARE an ordinary citizen want to know where those lines would be drawn? That was a secret among Republican legislators! When (after considerable nagging) I was finally shown to a room with a big wall map of congressional districts, the 5th District included Yamhill County. Why? As if the person in the room thought I had the right to answer that question.

Couldn't have been so someone could run in that district who lived in Yamhill County, could it? Or maybe an attempt to make that a "Republican" district? Look at the maps of the 5th Dist. previously. I believe it was the original map which had that little thing down at the bottom (like the little thing at the bottom of the map of Missouri). Joke at the time was that a legislator was contemplating a run for Congress and it was drawn to include that guy's home.

I know Republicans have been after Bradbury for a long time. His map drew Dist. 25 which has been entirely Republican--but we never hear about that.

Let's have the sort of debate on issues which might make some NAV or other minor party voters decide it would be worthwhile to register DEM rather than stay on the sidelines in the primary. That is a better method of "party building" than anything else.

Wise words: "My sense of history tells me that candidates must first sell themselves and then they can sell their candidacy".

Once our state senator was elected to higher office and a replacement was appointed---someone who had never been elected to public office.

Next election cycle comes around and this person experiences campaigning for the first time.

"Gee, it amazes me how people won't listen to you unless they like you!".

Good advice for all candidates. There are people who have liked some of what Bill did but don't know him very well or perhaps once tangled with him or questioned one of his decisions.

There are people who don't always agree with Kitzhaber but really like the guy they have known perhaps a quarter century.

If DeFazio runs, he needs to remember (as he generally does these days) that wit is better than anger. I've seen Peter be friendly, be witty, be angry. I could vote for Peter being one of the first 2, but not for an angry Peter. As Pres. Obama has shown, it is possible to say strong things in a way that doesn't turn people off.

Denise, that is nice hyperbole, but did he or didn't he clear cut his property? I heard he did. If he didn't, straighten me out.

For all those who claim Bradbury's ailment is a reason to vote against him.

F.D.R.

anon --

You heard what Gordon Smith and Karl Rove wanted you to hear, because they had a buttload more money to run ads on tv to put out false and misleading messages (and a whole lot of that money came from big timber companies). Smith had a 0% score with the League of Conservation Voters in 2001, and was pulling a classic Karl Rove strategem in 2002, much like what we saw with the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry in 2004.

It's fairly straightforward: take your opponent's strength, or your greatest weakness (in 2002, Smith's abysmal environmental record, and Bradbury's stellar environmental credentials; in 2004, Bush's service record, which amounted to getting his teeth cleaned in Alabama and drinking a lot, versus John Kerry's distinguished service in Vietnam), then flip it in a smear attack.

This is, after all, the same Gordon Smith who entertained us last year with hysterical ads about credenzas, ads featuring rape victims that alleged Jeff Merkley would not protect us, and an ad showing Jeff Merkley eating a hot dog. Not a credible source.

Back in 2002, Bradbury produced the owner of the logging company, if I recall (it's been seven years), who said some trees were harvested on Bradbury's land more than 10 years earlier, that no clear cutting was done, and that Bradbury had gone above and beyond state environmental laws to protect the health of his land.

You may not have heard that message. The DSCC provided no funds for the Senate race in Oregon in 2002 to counteract Gordon Smith's misleading attack ads. They were busy trying to save other senators like Max Cleland, a triple amputee Vietnam vet being smeared as unpatriotic by Rove in the Georgia senate race. Rove won that year, and some outstanding Dems like Cleland left the U.S. Senate.

In 2008, the DSCC invested more than $10 million in Oregon for the senate race, and it was, thankfully, goodbye Gordon.

If you're seeking to form an opinion on Bill Bradbury, I suggest you consult the environmental advocacy organizations in Oregon who have routinely supported and endorsed Bradbury over the years. I find them more credible than the dishonest Republican smears you're trying to rehash.

Tough May. I like them both. No matter who wins I will be able to vote D in November unlike last time when I voted Greem in protest to the two major part candidates

No matter who wins I will be able to vote D in November unlike last time when I voted Greem

And you know it's not easy being Greem.

Not a fan, what has he done that makes him qualified?

JDW, you are a hoot.

I was on the Democratic state central committee in the late 90's when Marc Abrams was chair. I like Marc and respect his commitment to the party and the work he did as party chair. It was a tough time when the party was still paying off the "post office fine" from the late 80's , in addition to a fine from '96 before Marc was chair.

Regarding party building, I agree with Marc wholeheartedly about Bill Bradbury's commitment to the party, but I have no doubt that John Kitzhaber shares that commitment, which I witnessed.

I came to the conclusion long ago that party building is done most effectively and efficiently at the local and county level by local activists who step up to work hard for candidates at all levels instead of just talking amongst themselves. I was fortunate to be active in the Benton County Democrats in the mid 90s when Harry Demarest chaired a vibrant organization wth a bustling HQ filled with volunteers phone banking and going out canvassing. There is a reason that in '94, Benton was one of only two counties where the D turnout exceeded that of the R's and that Cliff Trow of Corvallis was the only D who won in a targeted state senate race.

I learned during that time that however excited activists are over the presidential race, and, at times, governor and senate races, helping legislative candidates is of equal importance. I saw John Kitzhaber help those candidates numerous times.

Kitzhaber seemed to check out from party building activities in the middle of his second term, which may be why the former party chair above from the late 1990s is less than enthused about Kitzhaber.

In 2000, Kitzhaber didn't return calls to the Gore campaign and did nothing to support the Democratic ticket. Given 500 votes in one state made Bush the winner, that's troubling.

After Kitzhaber left being governor, can't say he did much of anything. The commitment came from Jeff Merkley when he became minority leader of the House Dems. He helped to take back the House in 2006, which is why all 30 fellow House Dems supported his U.S. Senate candidacy.

The ex-governor who has shown up for fellow Democratic candidates is Barbara Roberts. And she made it clear who she thought should be our next governor on Thursday -- Bill Bradbury.

Here are some Kitzhaber Dem Party/candidiate events I have attended, just to give a sampling. I'm sure there are countless others. All are fundraisers, unless otherwise noted.

Benton County Dems lunch, Corvallis, Oct. 2005 Kevin Campbell for State Senate, Hood River, July 1996 Bill CLinton for Darlene Hooley Portland, June 1998 Dan Wilkerson for State Rep, Lebabon, Aug. 1998 Linn Co Dems GOTV event, ALbany, Oct. 1998 Mike Smith for State Rep., Happy Valey, Sept. 2000 Brian Clem for State Rep, Portland, Oct. 2006

Governor Kitzhaber has also been a big booster of the OR Bus Project, that although not an offical Demcoratic party group, has obviously provided crucial volunteer support to Democratic legislative candidates

Kitz is cleary not a party establishment guy, and often supports candidates who would be considered non establishment candidiates, but who are still solid Democrats: Gary Hart, Bill Bradley, Steve Novick, Steve March and John Kroeger are some examples.

As someone who is active in the Democratic party, I am grateful for John Kitzhaber's hard work in supporting Democratic candidates.