Another good one Russ -

I think your analysis of Smith's weakness is spot on.

As of today your analysis of the challengers is also spot on - if Westland became a Democrat today, he might well beat Smith in 2008.

But, the Democratic primary when we select our opponent to Smith is still 17 1/2 months away. Lot's can happen between now and then. I look forward to watching how all of this develops, and I can pretty much guarantee that it will all took different in 15 months, except that Smith will probably look worse, bringing out the hungry lions to feast.

Interesting!

I think it remains to be seen whether the "Blue Tide" is sustained in 2008, a lot can happen. Having said that, politics is cyclical, and I doubt we've finished swinging back toward the left yet. Smith is an attractive target, no doubt, and I agree he is no moderate, no matter how desparatly he would like you to think so. I do have doubts about how he vulnerable he may be.

I also agree with your assesment of the Hotlist potential challangers list, until you get to Westlund and DeFazio. As I have said before, Westlund is an affable guy, not stupid, not brilliant, but he is all about himself. He can, and has done good in the process, but at the end of the day, it's about what gets his name in the paper. This guy is no Wayne Morse, and he never would have the stones that Wayne had should we face another Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. And I think the people of Oregon are smart enough to see that.

Defazio on the other hand, has stones to spare. Peter has that classic Oregonian quality, you get what you see. No hidden agenda, just pure populism. This is the kind of guy Oregonians would brag about as their Senator. And remember, he has run before, and credibly, so it's not like he's opposed to the idea in principle. Put Peter up against Plastic Gordon and you are attracting a big chunk of the Independent vote that will see something they like in Peter. And I say that as an R.

One caution though. I've said this before, Gordon is a lot like Vicki Walker, he finds a way to win, and he is not afraid of hard work to do it. He is a formidable and well financed candidate. Peter risks much if he challanges him.

My money is definitely on the Kitz.

I spoke with him about this very topic last week, and without revealing too much about what he told me in confidence, his eye is definitely on this race while he awaits for certain conditions to be fulfilled on the national political scene. I see him declaring by sometime late next summer if he does it at all. (Dr. Kitzhaber, if this gets back to you, remember that you have all the cards here to play and can influence whether or not those conditions are fulfilled by tipping your hand to the appropriate people).

He would beat Gordon in a heartbeat, and knows it, and also knows that a Democratic Senate would be the perfect setting for implementing his healthcare agenda, and it's a safer bet that the Dems will retain the Senate for a meaningful, productive timeframe if he takes out Smith than hoping the Democrats can win the White House in '08.

Russ; good post, though I would also mention in the assessment of Sen. Smith's willingness to tow the corporate line, and the outlandish war chest he amassed with the help and conniving of Karl Rove at the expense of Oregon Watershed and salmon.

I believe the strong case can be made that his ties to corporate donors runs deep, and that when time comes that he is called out to stand for civil liberties, property rights, or the common interest of Oregonians they can count Sen. Smith’s vote with his corporate facilitators, no matter habeas corpus, privacy, or our very form of governance!

On the matter of who would make the best candidate to face what may be one of the best financed candidates in the Senate? I think name recognition, and national links in policy experience that is uniquely Oregonian would be the strongest strategy to put a Democrat in the seat. A candidate like Gov. John Kitzhaber is a no brainier in everyone’s mind, but the name that confuses me that hasn’t been put on the table is our enormously popular, highly respected Secretary of State Bill Bradbury.

I like Bill Bradbury as a candidate for a number of reasons, firstly that he has no fear to make his opinion precise to the issue, he sticks to what he knows, and he seems very capable in learning new material and implementing policy with coalitions of diverse backgrounds. He has served the state with his own special distinction, and has held up to statewide scrutiny in elections while facing down controversy with his good standing, and ethics in tack.

I also like that he is at least as tall as Sen. Gordon Smith, and will not be intimidated by the seasoned Senator. I like that he is part of the Bus Project, I like that he seems unassuming, and easily accessible to the most important executive, and the smallest business man/woman while maintaining an equal footing.

This kind of diligence and discipline with politically charged issues like elections, corporate due diligence, as well as a government budget watchdog has made him uniquely qualified and attractive given the nasty baggage that includes a historic federal deficit that Sen. Smith must detract from at all cost!

Should Sen. Smith adopt a negative attack strategy against Secretary Bradbury I believe it would play well into the hands of a Bradbury campaign, meaning Sen. Smith would be spending that vast war chest to dig his own grave thus neutralizing the financial disparity.

I believe Oregon’s Progressives have come into their own in developing a find new generation of devoted public servants and politicians, and it’s time to take advantage of their considerable talents for the future of Oregon, and Oregonians.

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

Dan, With all due respect (I'm a big Bradbury fan) it seems to me we should say "been there, done that" and nominate someone else. And that's without inquiring about Bill's health.

Having worked on some US Senate campaigns, I think these should be the paramters:

Ability to debate specifics of issues and inspire people Support from a diverse cross section of folks Support (or at least not opposition) to our chosen candidate from DSCC (and don't ever let them again tell us who our nominee should be after the Bruggere fiasco) A campaign as well organized as Wyden-Jan. 1996, as people oriented, and perhaps with something like the promise to visit all 36 counties every year.

I'd love to see Dr. John Kitzhaber run. But as the grandchild of a politician I must say that anyone who doesn't allow family considerations to enter into the picture is clueless. Besides, having known him for a couple decades, I know that Kitzhaber will do whatever Kitzhaber decides to do, regardless of outside pressure.

With all due respect (I'm a big Bradbury fan) it seems to me we should say "been there, done that" and nominate someone else. And that's without inquiring about Bill's health. // Bruggere fiasco??? // L.T.

I'm confused as your criteria speaks loudly to either Kitzhaber whom seems on the fence about higher office, and a statewide elected official with real credentials like Bill Bradbury??

Please explain the insinuations implied with these above statements as I’m not understanding, as though I missed the meeting or something!!

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

I agree on Smith's vulnerability and enjoy the speculation on possible Democrats. For me the big issue will be how each candidate approaches China related issues. With Thomas Friedman thinking China will divide Democrats nationally (generally, protectionists vs free-traders), I will be looking for candidates with thoughful positions on the complexitites of our relationship with China. For candidates now holding office at the state level that means candidates who understand that our educational system can create our future foreign policy - that having less than 1% of our high school graduates with two or more years of Mandarin is just not acceptable in this flat, interconnected 21st century. If they lack that vision, they are not for me.

1) My impression of the Bradbury campaign is that it wasn't well organized or something. Just never seemed to catch fire.

2) 10 years ago (similar to what happened to Paul Hackett and some others this year, but organized along a "Kerrey Millionaire" strategy that since Bob Kerrey was a business man before being a US Senator, therefore other businessmen would make good Senators? or so DSCC chair Kerrey said) the DSCC squelched competition in some primaries because they "knew " their strategy would elect lots of Senators. (Rumor had it they told DeFazio if he ran they wouldn't help him financially because they'd already picked their candidate or some such nonsense)

Except unlike Sherrod Brown and Bob Casey, NO DSCC chosen candidate won in 1996 (those who won their primary lost the general and some lost the primary). And the most inspiring candidate that cycle was Victor Morales, the teacher from Texas who unexpectedly won the Senate primary and went on to do better in a state Dole carried than Bruggere did in Oregon which went for Clinton. Bruggere couldn't say where he stood on most issues, and too many of his campaign supporters ran a "hold your nose and vote for him if you are a true Democrat" peer pressure campaign which drove lots of people to voting 3rd party for US Senate. Gordon was elected (as Ron Wyden that January) by a margin less than the told of the 3rd party vote. I was involved in that primary as 3 men I'd known for a total of a few decades ran the kind of campaign I admire--serious discussion of issues. Bruggere was generally quoted in news stories (after long descriptions of the issue positions of the others) as "Bruggere had no specific thoughts on this issue". But he outspent his nearest opponent 10-1 and next nearest opponent 100-1 and so Democrats weren't supposed to ask him any issue questions because after all, he was the nominee, and we owed him our support???? We were told the "professionals" knew what they were doing, that all Wyden did is win, but he didn't run his campaign the "professional" way or some such nonsense. This is not the Democratic Party I belonged to in the 1980s, and as a result I left and didn't get involved in politics again until about 2002.

Let me be clear--I would love to see Kitzhaber and / or Westlund (as fresh faces who haven't run for Senate before) run against Gordon Smith. But that is their decision, and it is a family decision. Don't tell me candidates look good on paper, tell me how their campaigns are organized, what their issues are, whether they will run a people-oriented and issue-oriented campaign or just tell us they know what they are doing and we should support them as loyal Democrats. That won't get NAV voter support, will it? The Republican staffer who said 10 years ago "the fastest growing party is no party at all" was speaking about the fall, 1996 Senate campaign.

I remember Gordon didn't take Bill Bradbury seriously as a candidate--of course in 2002 the climate was different. Did that televised debate really inspire anyone?

And the nomination will be decided by voters, not on this blog. For all the debate here, the nomination could well be decided by the folks who this month are more concerned with holiday potlucks, shopping, etc. than by politics.

Dan, how heavily were you involved in the 2002 Bradbury campaign? Any previous Senate campaigns? Or are you looking at this as an academic exercise?

The clearest indicator that Smith's MO is derived not from the center but from the reactionary, anti-democratic right is that he sought and got the endorsement of Judy Shepard....and turned around and voted for DOMA and gave public support to Yes on 36. He's a bigot, and he needs to go.

remember Gordon didn't take Bill Bradbury seriously as a candidate--of course in 2002 the climate was different. Did that televised debate really inspire anyone?

And the nomination will be decided by voters, not on this blog. For all the debate here, the nomination could well be decided by the folks who this month are more concerned with holiday potlucks, shopping, etc. than by politics.

Dan, how heavily were you involved in the 2002 Bradbury campaign? Any previous Senate campaigns? Or are you looking at this as an academic exercise? // L.T.

I don't believe on the heels of 9/11 and the Republicans height of power and popularity, with a nation on the same page standing with the government right or wrong that any Democrat had any chance of unseating a well entrenched, incredibly financed campaign like Gordon Smith in '02.

The worm turned and Bill Bradbury put up a good campaign with little resources, and no help from the DLCC or the DSCC as they saw their money better spent in only select races in states of best return. That strategy put such restraints on the Democrats that it left them playing all their options in a small number of races and never got a real chance out of many of the races that could be real races. Howard Dean has changed that to make Democrats a viable in most races in all states.

I believe that Bradbury made himself very viable in the debates, and I believe his reputation has only grown, and he would be seen as a wise and consistent candidate that the state would embrace. I think we should give Bill Bradbury a real look. The more I toss this around the better it seems to me. I believe if a negative attack is mounted against him by Smith he will sour himself from the moderate Republicans, and Independents that may not have similar politics to Bradbury, but never the less respect him greatly.

I think if Kitzhaber doesn’t come out of his shell to run we would have to look to Beltway Veterans that have Beltway Baggage to carry along that would be a real drag on a Democratic effort on to take this seat from the Republican.

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

I have consulted my crystal ball, and it tells me that if Hillary is the presidential candidate in 2008, Gordon Smith will be very difficult to beat and it would be dangerous for a Dem incumbent with a safe seat anywhere to run against Gordo. If the Dems choose a less divisive candidate for president, Smith will be quite vulnerable.

Now, back to my football predictions.

I will raise your crystal ball and remind you that anyone whom thinks handicapping football will ever lead to winning money consistantly is lying.. Baseball and NBA basketball is the only money sports buddy. A crystal ball would be as accurate as a handicapper. The book plays the tendacies, and paramutual, the player could be using a dart board for all the good it would do them. Pro Football pays the bills for the rest of the sports put together.

That being said I would love to see a Hillary montage of Republicans belittling her from the days she was the envoy for national insurance leading up to today. Like Jimmy Carter it would reveal aforethought, and insight into the issues well ahead of the Republicans of our time, and a reflection of the narrow minded, and incompetant leadership that is the history of Republican leadership.

What about this idea that was floated here, not too long ago, that perhaps Kulongoski might be able to take out Smith in '08?

Any discussion of that possibility?

I am a socialist, and I am married to a very sexy woman who is a communist and a surgeon who was on the faculty of OHSU for quite a few years.

Our consolidated opinions are that Hillary (Bomb the Brown People) Clinton will be a divisive force that will bring every Unibrow voter in the USA to the polls in 2008, which will make it difficult for any sane Dem to win.

But more importantly, I have $500 on the Seattle team this week, and if some of you have advance notice of the results or a "fix", now would be a nice time to let me know.

Congratulations, BlueNote, for beating the odds and winning a sizable amount of cash. That beats any "corporate kicker" any day!

I am a socialist, and I am married to a very sexy woman who is a communist and a surgeon who was on the faculty of OHSU for quite a few years. // BlueNote

Please expand on your definition of a Socialist and a Communist as the exist in a Free-Enterprise driven Democracy?

Does your wife believe as most of the Communists of the past that a Democracy can exist with a Communist leadership, or that all power would need to be centralized?

Do you as a Socialist believe in government insertion to commercial exploitation of the common resourses, natural and societal???

Do you believe in privatization of the oil industry, or mining resourses for example. Would you maintain a free press?? How would Socialism and/or Communism exist with our Constitution & Bill of Rights??

How would you see religion in our society, and do you see any role of government's attempt to regulate religion??

These forms of politics have proven as harmfull or more so than the extremes of Libiterian politics that seem allways to be highjacked by Fascists interests.

I'm intrigued, and curious, please respond.

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

I believe Don McIntire is a communist then. Afterall, Measure 5 was about taking the power out of locally elected school boards and then putting it into a strong centralized government in Salem. Don the Communist. I like it.

Dan claims that the US is a "Free-Enterprise driven Democracy". In fact, our economic system is not "free", nor are we a "democracy".

We live in a country with an economic system based on privatized profits for the rich and socialized costs and risks for the rest of us, hardly "free enterprise".

How many of us have been invited into the halls of power to determine economic, foreign or environmental policy? Democracy requires that the people be able, at a minimum, to participate in decision-making that impacts their lives.

Regardless of our views on socialism or communism, we first need to establish democratic institutions that allow for meaningful political participation.

For example:

Seven in Ten Americans Favor Congressional Candidates Who Will Pursue a Major Change in Foreign Policy

Public Wants Less Emphasis on Military Force, More on Working Through U.N.

A Majority Supports Direct Talks with North Korea and Iran

Going into the November midterm elections, seven in ten Americans say they prefer Congressional candidates who will pursue a new approach to U.S. foreign policy. A new nationwide survey finds a large and growing majority of Americans is dissatisfied with the position of the United States in the world. Most Americans believe that U.S. policies are increasing the threat of terrorist attack and decreasing goodwill toward the United States.

The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)/WPO poll also finds that large majorities of Americans feel that the United States puts too much emphasis on military force and unilateral action. Most say they want their member of Congress to work to shift the emphasis of U.S. foreign policy in favor of diplomacy, multilateral cooperation, and homeland security.

They also stress the need for programs to reduce the United States’ dependence on oil. When given the opportunity to reshape the foreign policy budget, respondents redistribute spending from military programs to other methods of pursuing security.

“It is a rare year that foreign policy takes center stage in Congressional elections. Voters are calling for a sea change in U.S. foreign policy. They want less emphasis on military force, and more on soft power,” said Steven Kull, director of PIPA and editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org.

Our media and the single corporate hegemonist party would like us to believe that all of the above, as well as single-payer, universal health care, is "far left", but it is the populist center that wants these things. The difference between what the people want and what their rulers allow is the ultimate measure of "democracy".

<h2>It was just reported on NPR that Senator Smith gave a speech on the Senate floor saying that he would not have voted in favor of the Iraq war if he had known that the WMD intelligence was wrong. I suspect he is tacking to the center in anticipation of the 2008 election.</h2>