Update, 8/14--from CNN via Kos, the Obama and Clinton camps have "agreed" to allow her name to be placed into nomination at the convention...although truthfully the normal procedure would have required it, so what this really means is that Obama has backed off any idea of trying to prevent it.
[posted on Steve's behalf--great to have the Candidate keep up his rep as the Commentator as well...]
Let Them Vote!
I wasn't Hillarious in the primaries. I was with Edwards (I know, I know), then Obama. But I can't for the life of me figure out why the Obama forces would think for a second that they shouldn't let Hillary's name be placed in nomination, and let her delegates vote for her.
Pride may or may not be inherently a sin, but messing with someone's pride for no particular reason is definitely a sin. Some historians blame the rise of Hitler on the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles, at the end of WWI, which Germans found humiliating. Among other things, the treaty required Germany to take full responsibility for starting the war. My recollection from history classes is that that might not have been completely off base, but even if it was true, what was the point of requiring the Germans to sign on the dotted line? The lesson of history is clear: If we don't let the Hillaryites have their day in the sun, are we prepared to take responsibility when, twenty years from now, their tanks go marching into Prague?
Hillary's people worked hard. They won a mess of states. They won a lot of delegates. They'd like the country to see how well they did, at the Convention. They want to proudly cast their votes, raise the roof, hoot and holler. They do that, they feel good, then they get on board for Obama.
What's the problem? Do we think that, by avoiding a vote, we're going to make the American people think that Obama won all the primaries? I kinda think they know he didn't. Keeping the Hillary delegates from voting strikes me as a lot like asking the losing team in a 4-3 National League Championship Series to forfeit its three victories to show 'solidarity' going into the World Series.
One of my fondest political memories is of Mo Udall's speech at the 1976 convention. Udall had been the leading progressive alternative to Carter. (Udall was blind in one eye, prompting The Village Voice to write an article with the cute headline, "In The Country of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man Is Not So Bad.")
At the Convention, his name was placed in nomination, by Archibald Cox, no less. His 300 delegates voted for him. The demonstration as he began to speak was so loud and long that Udall began by saying: "If this goes on much longer, I might have to accept the nomination." But later he said: "yes, Jimmy, I'll be wearing one of your little green buttons." There was no harm done to Democratic unity. Carter left the Convention with a 30-point lead.
So c'mon, Barack, let them vote. It'll be fine. Let them vote, and then remember not to give any interviews to Playboy about lust in your heart.
Over at Steve Novick's real job--Pyramid Communications--he's put up a piece that dives into the concept of the "Steve Novick brand," and how it impacted his race for Senate. As you might expect, he's brutally honest about what worked and what fell short--but the bottom line is that even with a great campaign, being outspent 2 to 1 is a bitch. Hearing it from the candidate's mouth--perhaps contrasted with the smug Jon Isaacs post-mortem validating old politics--makes for some interesting reading. To wit:
Now, again, we lost, so apparently branding isn’t everything. But I think it’s fair to say that we did better than expected. As a first-time candidate running against the speaker of the State House, I was outspent by roughly 2-to-1, and lost 45 percent to 42 percent. Compared to other recent “progressive underdog vs. moneyed establishment candidate” Northwest races, that’s not bad. In 2000, Maria Cantwell outspent progressive underdog Deborah Senn in Washington’s Senate primary by about 2-to-1—and won the race by an even larger margin.
What kind of brand did we create, and how did it relate to my substantive positions? Well, like thousands of other candidates before me, I ran as a “different kind of politician” who wasn’t going to play “politics as usual.” My version of being “different” and “unusual” consisted of being a plainspoken, truth-telling progressive sort who wasn’t going to pretend we can have everything for nothing.
I didn't know this was going to be published, I have no idea who the author was, and I first heard about it when it showed up in the Lefty Blogs wire. I don't think there's any new knowledge being dropped since we covered the big exdpenditures from the June report (still waiting on Q2 numbers for the Senate race that I know of; should know after the 15th), and so it's a little apropos of nothing, beyond the diarist's discovery that Chuck Schumer's DSCC laid out a lot of money to beat Jim Neal and Steve Novick with Kay Hagan and Jeff Merkley, respectively. They're not the same kind of candidate, and many consider Neal to have been far less competitive--but their discovery makes the same point we did at the time, and continue to make: why is the DSCC spending so much of our money to defeat other Democrats? For instance, wouldn't that $800,000 dropped on behalf of Merkley be really helpful right now?
In the North Carolina and Oregon Democratic US Senate primaries this year, two great progressive candidates ran for the nomination: Jim Neal (NC) and Steve Novick (OR). The DSCC, who is not supposed to pick sides in a primary, appears to have secretly funded their preferred candidates anyway (Kay Hagan (NC) and Jeff Merkley (OR)).
If the DSCC leaders personally had a preference, that’s fine. BUT IT IS NOT OK TO FUNNEL MONEY TO ONE CANDIDATE OVER ANOTHER IN A DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY!!!! That's unfairly taking sides and deliberately influencing an election, and that is not what the Democratic Party is about.
The diarist, who goes by the poetic handle of spnj889, shows exceptional acumen by quoting my story on the financials from the June reports at length, specifically the part where Chuck Schumer pays Jeff Merkley's light bill so Merkley has the money to buy expensive air time for his commercials attacking Novick.
Again, I don't think they had quite the same race in NC--but the point is that it doesn't matter. It would have been just as wrong for Schumer to funnel a bunch of money to Novick, because they suddenly felt with exposure he could really win. (Oh, to wish). It isn't any more right to spend money to defeat the less progressive Democrat, than it is to spend it defeating a less progressive one. It's using Democratic donor money to beat Democrats. Not good for the party, not good for the movements in each state. Leave them alone.
The anger at Schumer putting his thumb on various scales before primaries is not limited to Oregon, it would appear. I just happened across this diary. Just sayin', is all.
While we're certain to elicit cries that this reportage represents mere Surreptitious Succor for Smith, something else seems to be motivating Congressional Quarterly and Oregonian political reporter Jeff Mapes--twice--besides lingering bitterness over Oregon's Senate primary.
No, the noteworthy reaction is based on the release of May's expenditures in the federal races, which you can peruse here (click on the "June Monthly" link; watch out for the file size--it's 1000+ pages). Folks who want the details can read on beyond the quotes below, and there's a good lively diary at LO already on the subject (which I'm now poaching attention from; sorry Larry). But here's the professional analysis, dry from CQ and with a little more local color from Mapes. From CQ's Greg Giroux, a pretty good reporter himself:
The DSCC reported $409,000 in “independent expenditures” to produce and air a television advertisement opposing Republican Sen. Gordon Smith, whose November opponent is state House Speaker Jeff Merkley. Party committees can make unlimited independent expenditures, so long as the spending is done independently of candidates’ campaigns.
The DSCC also reported $279,000 in “coordinated expenditures,” which are limited by law but can be made in concert with candidates’ campaigns. The largest share of these funds went to assist Merkley, whom the DSCC preferred in the May 20 primary election over Steve Novick, a lawyer and liberal activist who lost by 3 percentage points. The DSCC also used coordinated funds in May to boost the campaigns of North Carolina Democrat Kay Hagan, a state senator who is her party’s nominee against Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole ; Kentucky Democrat Bruce Lunsford, a businessman who is challenging Minority Leader Mitch McConnell ; and Landrieu, whose Republican opponent is state Treasurer John Kennedy.
Note who else got the money; we'll compare Merkley's situation to theirs, and what was done for each. But last above the fold is Mapes, including a flattered Steve Novick:
[T]he level of direct support was remarkable. All told, the committee spent $386,000 in coordinated expenditures with Merkley, which doesn't count the advertising the DSCC produced and paid for on its own. It helped give him resources Novick couldn't match.
I called up Novick, wondering if he thought he could have won if the DSCC had stayed out of the state. He said he was now backing Merkley, but he couldn't resist saying:
"I'm very proud, and I think my supporters will be extremely proud, that it took that kind of humongous effort to beat us. They clearly gambled that Jeff Merkley had a better chance to beat Gordon Smith and they had better be right...If they're not, a lot of Oregon Democrats will justly be mad at them."
We ARE in the post-primary period, right? Whether Clinton believes it or not, they are actually over, correct? I suppose we can at least definitively declare Oregon's primary to be over (although it doesn't count because Obama won), and take a little stock looking both backwards and forwards. We'll do that with two short blurbs from The O's Jeff Mapes.
The Wisconsin Advertising Project estimates that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton spent nearly $1.7 million on TV advertising in the state. That's more than all but 15 other states, which is not bad considering that Oregon is only 27th in population.
Overall, the Democratic and Republican candidates have spent nearly $200 million on television advertising so far. Obama has spent nearly $75 million and Clinton is next at $46 million. On the Republican side, the biggest spender was one of the losers: former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who bought $31.7 million in TV commercials. GOP presumptive nominee John McCain spent just over $11 million.
Obama, who handily won Oregon, spent an estimated $1.05 million on television in the state, compared to $609,000 for Clinton. This does not include advertising from independent groups supporting one or another of the candidates.
They also spent money on radio ads, mailers and maybe even a newspaper ad or two. Obama and Clinton also opened a total of more than two dozen campaign offices and, I'm sure, provided a nice bump in business for any nearby coffee and pastry shops. But it is Oregon broadcasters who made off with the real money. So for all you TV worker bees, don't buy all the hard times talk from your bosses if you're in contract renegotiations.
Woo doggie! I knew while working on Steve Novick's Senate campaign that TV commercial airtime was being made frightfully expensive; Novick smartly made an early lock-in at lower rates but was left generally unable to respond to or match Merkley and Chuck Schumer late, in part because of the prohibitive pricing for ads by that time.
So for his 358,000 votes in the Oregon primary, Obama paid about $3 a vote just in TV advertising. Clinton spent about $2.50 per vote for hers, which may have been about $2.49 too much given her chances--but what choice did she have at that point?
{slightly stale but newly released polling, below}
Oregon Secretary of State and Democratic superdelegate Bill Bradbury Tuesday endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president.
Bradbury said he admires and respects Sen. Hillary Clinton but feels Obama would be the best choice for the Democrats in 2008.
“This has been a difficult personal decision for me because of my friendship and admiration for both Hillary and Bill Clinton,” Bradbury said. “We have been fortunate to have two enormously skilled Democratic candidates this year. Sen. Clinton has run a tremendous campaign and I am confident she will remain a leader in the U.S. Senate and the country."
“Our challenge now is to defeat the Republicans in the fall and that will accomplish us working together. Sen. Obama has the vision and commitment to bring people together. This country needs a lot of repair and Sen. Obama will be well-suited to accomplish that.”
It looks like enough superdelegates and oddball pledged delegates (like John Edwards' remaining supers) were already lined up to put Obama over the top by the time the Montana and South Dakota results begin rolling in, but Bradbury will now be part of the happy overall group that puts him into the nomination. I believe that makes 8-2 among supers for Obama, with Kulongoski apparently ready to make the switch.
That leaves Frank Dixon* and Sen. Wyden as the only still-undeclared supers. That will change pretty quickly once the evening's over, I'm sure.
*Dixon announced between the time of the press posting of the Bradbury story (around 4) and the lifting of the embargo (7pm, after the last primary polling place closed for the cycle). He endorsed...Romney. No wait, Obama. Wyden still out, waiting for orders.
Some day soon, I hope that somebody more important than I am is going to point out to Senator Clinton's camp that if she insists on this irrelevant issue of the popular vote, she could soon be hoist with her own petard – she may have more popular votes than Senator Obama but MANY MANY More Voters in Democratic Primaries and Caucuses Voted Against Her Than Voted For Her including 40% of the voters in Michigan who essentially voted for Anybody But Hillary.
We stopped running Alex Miel's Tales from America series about the time they stopped running, but there were a few that came out after, and on the day that the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee meets to hash out what to do with Michigan and Florida--and this being a Saturday, the home of Saturday Toons--here's one last panel. I think Alex really has a keen eye for boiling down current events, does a nice drawing job, and can be wickedly funny.
Among the superdelegates, Wyden is prepared to wait the longest to choose sides.
“He said something about a hot August night in Denver,” said spokesman Tom Towslee when asked when the senator would announce which candidate he’d back for the nomination.
Towslee said Wyden’s healthcare proposal was too important to jeopardize a potential vote in the Senate from whichever candidate he doesn’t endorse if an early pledge of superdelegate support is perceived as a slight.
That struck me as...oh, what's the word--chicken?--but after seeing this report detailed by Mapes at The O this morning you have to wonder if there's a little message indiscipline going on, if not a shift in urgency for Wyden' endorsement:
Wyden on Thursday announced that he would make his endorsement by June 13, not long after the end of the primary season on June 3. You can take that as a signal from Wyden that he wants to give Clinton time to make her case to all of the voters - but not that much time after that. You can bet Clinton knows and appreciates that Wyden has given her a lot of help in Oregon by allowing Kardon to work for her, but that he's not going to go against the will of the voters here.
What's the deal? Has there been a change in schedule, and what prompted it? I asked Wyden Chief of Staff (and Clinton Steering Chair in OR) Josh Kardon for an explanation, which is that "Tom's comment was not accurate...no one called, no one "knocked." To flesh the explanation out a little further, Kardon noted:
[P]olitics can be an extraordinarily personal business, but we view both Obama and Clinton's potential value in this health reform effort in a purely positive light. It's not that they might hurt Ron's cause, but that we want them both to enthusiastically help the cause.
One could reasonably infer...that Ron is fully aware of continued suggestions that this presidential campaign might extend all the way to Denver, and he feels it is important to send a message that he intends for the campaign to end long before that time.
OK, there's seemingly no longer any confusion about what his current plans are, but what I still can't get an answer to is whether June 13 represents a recent forward change in Wyden's timetable. Given Mapes' assertions that Kardon's presence in the Clinton campaign and the friendship between Wyden and the NY Senator make his choice a delicate one, it's not hard to believe that his greatest hope would have been that he might quietly cast his official vote in Denver, and not be needed to help bring the nomination process to a quicker and smoother close.
Ah, but the best laid plans! A smart guy like Wyden knows that a riven Democratic Party going into August doesn't help anybody get closer to UHC. And as our friend darrel pointed out in our previous story, the enthusiasm for major legislative health care change is already waning, so why sacrifice expedited party unity for a discussion on health care coverage that stands to be incrementalist in the first place? We may not get Wyden to admit it, but my personal interpretation is that events on the ground have scotched his original plans to stay mum as long as possible, and June 13 represents the best compromise between saying nothing and declaring immediately.
And then there were three (Oregon supers who haven't endorsed, that is):
This primary election season has been historic on many levels. As one who believes in the power of civic responsibility, I have been thrilled with the level of participation. We have witnessed record turnout both in Oregon and across the nation. Voters have had the opportunity to have a real voice in the process. It will be an honor to cast a vote at the Democratic National Convention in honor of the support shown in Oregon for Senator Barack Obama.
Our Democratic Party of Oregon will be the hub for the presidential campaign in Oregon. I hope you will join me in volunteering with the DPO to turn Senator Obama into President Obama.
That's the statement from OEA honcho and Oregon "superdelegate" Gail Rasmussen, adding to the stack of endorsers for Obama in the state, and following similar endorsements from Jenny Greenleaf, Meredith Wood-Smith and Wayne Kinney. That leaves only Frank Dixon among unelected supers, joining Secretary of State Bill Bradbury and Sen. Ron Wyden as those without a stated preference. Wyden's take:
Wyden told KDRV-TV in Medford on Wednesday that he expects Obama to wrap up the presidential nomination shortly after Montana and South Dakota hold their last-in-the-nation primaries June 3.
But Wyden, whose chief of staff ran Clinton's campaign in the state, said he prefers to stay neutral for now.
I chose to remain neutral until the Oregon votes were counted. It seemed right not to attempt to influence that vote, to listen to both candidates' messages to Oregon voters and to wait until we knew the pledged delegate count.
I have decided to support Sen. Barack Obama.
Why Obama? Because he received the majority of the votes in the Oregon primary, and he demonstrates the leadership needed to get us out of Iraq, restore our economy, begin the tough job of providing health care for all Americans and, most of all, heal the divisions in our nation. His commitment to grass-roots organizing, similar to Howard Dean's "Fifty State Strategy," will help Democrats win our down-ticket races. His deep understanding of our Constitution ensures that he will appoint judges, to both the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, who will truly defend our constitutional rights and freedoms.
In 1960, I was too young to vote, but I was so inspired by John F. Kennedy that I worked on his campaign and continue to be motivated by his legacy of social and civic responsibility. He is one of the reasons I became chairwoman of Oregon's Democratic Party. I believe that Obama is providing that same inspiration for our next generation of leaders.
Finally, the contrast between Obama and Sen. John McCain could not be clearer. On bringing troops home from Iraq. On commitment to our Constitution. On telling the American people the truth. Obama has the ability to build -- not just talk about -- a governing majority to actually solve the major challenges facing America.
She goes on to praise Clinton, which I'm not about to reprint here; it's utter crap. I suppose Smith doesn't have the ability to call it like it is, and declare that the choice was easy because one of the candidates has turned into a reality-bereft harpie bent on destroying the party to serve her own ego--but she didn't need to go overboard and declare deep respect for someone who's just waiting around in case they let Sirhan Sirhan out of prison. Let's hope Smith was simply bullshitting for party appearances, and like the rest of the country is appalled at the pathetic descent of the Clinton family.
And of course, that's peripheral to the important news--chalk up another for Obama! According to DemConWatch, that brings his total down to just 46 for clinching the nomination. There are comments at DCW, but if you want more national reaction to Wood's endorsement, here are some at Kos in the daily superdelegate count thread...
Hot off the press from the Democratic Party of Oregon:
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has won 31 of Oregon’s 52 pledged delegates. He also has seven alternates.
U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has won 21 of Oregon’s 52 pledged delegates. She will have two alternates.
Of those 52 delegates, 34 are apportioned by congressional district and 18 are apportioned by statewide totals.
At the state level, Obama won 11 delegates and two alternates. At the state level, Clinton won seven delegates and two alternates.
At the congressional district level, Obama won 20 delegates and five alternates. At the congressional district level, Clinton won 14 delegates and no alternates.
The party provides a detail page for the results by congressional district (and a further pdf on the details of the calculations, although at this very moment the link is broken). Here's how they broke down by CD:
CD 1 Obama 4, Clinton 3 CD 2 Obama 3, Clinton 2 CD 3 Obama 6, Clinton 3 CD 4 Obama 4, Clinton 3 CD 5 Obama 3, Clinton 3
As noted above, the at-larges broke out 11-7 for Obama.
Someone want to explain the deal with alternates? How does that work?
Looking these over they're about what I expected--Obama didn't lose a district, but couldn't pile up enough of a margin to get the extra delegates anywhere except Portland's CD3 (and tied in the slightly blue CD5, where I live).
However, I was seeing predictions of 29-23 coming from much of the punditry--with an outside shot at 30 for Obama--so this has to be seen as somewhat of an improvement over that.
Of course it all doesn't matter TOO much in service of 2026, but there you have it. Obama comes out of Oregon +10!
One thing that I like about Survey USA is that they are interested in accountability and track record, and make an effort to go back after election contests are over to see how they (and other pollsters) performed.
For the Oregon primary, here's a look at the final poll result for each of four different pollsters, compared to the actual tallies:
Clearly, PPP was right on the money here, with an impressively small gap of just 3 points between expected and actual outcomes. Only PPP was able to forecast an appropriately high number for Obama, but SUSA actually did a better job with Hillary's total. As many observers have indicated, ARG and Suffolk are best ignored; their numbers are terrible predictors.
So like Progressive Insurance, SUSA has compared the pollsters and printed the results even when theirs were not the most accurate. Kudos to them.
One other note: also released during that time was the Hibbitts poll, which had Obama winning by 20% at 55-35. The margin is close, and you could ascribe the undersell of both candidate figures to non-pushed undecideds, so perhaps we'd put this one just ahead of SUSA and behind PPP.
I think we can probably dispense with the background on Senator Hillary Clinton's latest "who knows what could happen?" comments about her vulture status for the nomination, and move on to note as a lead-in the reaction to her comments by Josh Kardon, Chief of Staff to Ron Wyden and Clinton's Oregon Steering Committee Chair:
I realize some of you find it outrageous and unforgivable that I remain loyal to one of the greatest Democratic women in our history. My loyalty to a woman I have known for 15 years is based on my enduring belief that she happens to be the best prepared progressive for the job and my knowledge of her extraordinary intellect, strength, and decency. As I stated last night, the race is about to be concluded, and I won't be surprised if I am soon busting hump for a candidate I don't know personally, but whom I already admire a great deal.
Kardon's pose is that as soon as the primaries are over (as well as the rules committe meeting of the DNC on May 31st), it will all be over and we can join hands.
Among the superdelegates, Wyden is prepared to wait the longest to choose sides.
“He said something about a hot August night in Denver,” said spokesman Tom Towslee when asked when the senator would announce which candidate he’d back for the nomination.
Towslee said Wyden’s healthcare proposal was too important to jeopardize a potential vote in the Senate from whichever candidate he doesn’t endorse if an early pledge of superdelegate support is perceived as a slight.
I have received several email communications in the past few days suggesting that my write-in campaign is about being a sore loser, but that's not the case at all.
I stated from the beginning that my campaign to win the Senate District 23 seat representing NE and SE Portland neighborhoods and the City of Maywood Park would be unconventional and web-based.
I didn't get much more specific about my plans than that, even with my campaign steering committee, but I was thinking about ways in which technology was evolving, moving opportunity in ways the party structure and other traditional gatekeepers could not control.
I only disclosed the post-primary write-in phase of the campaign to a few people, and to them only a couple of weeks before May 20.
My premise is that, in the wired world, citizens can overcome the advantages career politicians have at every point in the process, and reach directly to the "Write in" blank that is printed in every race on every ballot.
One of the chief factors causing undervoting and voter lethargy (both of which help keep incumbents in power) is single-candidate "races."
They have ballots like that in Cuba and North Korea, too, and in the old Soviet Union.
"Totalitarian systems depend on a monopoly of information and force (and political opportunity-sc)." -Thomas L. Friedman, The World is Flat
The gatekeepers want to limit the voters' choices in Senate District 23 to a single name, and I say that is no choice at all.
The cost of getting a name out there has been the single most important barrier to effective write-in campaigns, but that obstacle is falling like the Berlin Wall.
Oregon is possibly the best place in the nation to test out my theory, with its mail-in ballots that are like an open book test, and an electorate largely unaffiliated with any political party, increasingly computer literate and comfortable with searching out information individually.
This is really scary to the party functionaries, the special interests and the lobbyists, bent on promoting from within.
As a resident of Senate District 23 and House District 45, which are both getting a new legislator in 2009, I am offended that there was no public debate or forum throughout the entire primary period that addressed the voters' choices.
The fact is, incumbents don't want debates or forums with challengers. The more they can ride out the election with name familiarity alone, the less likely an upset will ensue.
Here we are, four days after the election, and there has still been nothing in the media, no analysis at all, about any of the contested East side legislative races.
We had months of buffoonery in the Portland City races, much of it fueled by public dollars, but no thoughtful discourse on the election of two state senators and two state representatives on the East side.
I styled the Primary stage of my campaign, after Muhammed Ali's famous Rope-a-Dope strategy, which won him the Heavyweight Championship over a heavily-favored George Foreman in his prime.
I took a fearful beating from the Dingfelder-Gainer machine, an opponent with the relentless determination of the Terminator's nemesis, but I knew it was coming, and I knew it would end. Eventually, we would get to the issues that matter to the voters in Senate District 23.
Technology makes this possible, its low cost and its infinite reach.
Phase II, post-Primary, is also styled after Muhammed Ali: "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee," all the way to the November General Election.
I have a great deal of information to share with the voters over the coming months, lots to talk about, lots of light to shed.
None of the several people who wrote in complaining about Phase II is a resident of Senate District 23, which brings us to an interesting point for further discussion: most of the Dingfelder supporters and endorsers in the primary weren't residents of the district either.
What unfolded was a by-the-book machine-politics campaign led by a small group of insiders, some with motives that have nothing to do with the district, most of whom live elsewhere. Plenty to talk about here, too.
I intend to demonstrate that a write-in campaign is feasible in Oregon. I may or may not be successful in my race for Senate District 23. We won't have the answer to that until November, but if my race inspires other citizens to step up and take on the machine, then it will have been worth the effort.
--Sean Cruz, May 23, 2008
www.blogoliticalsean.blogspot.com
========
The Oregonian Editorial Board on Senate District 23:
"Cruz...knows the issues well..."
"Sean Cruz, who has served as (Senator) Gordly's legislative aide and chief of staff for the past five years...is qualified for the job. He knows the issues that are important in the district, and he certainly knows how things get done in the Legislature. Most notably, he persuaded Gordly to push legislation, called 'Aaron's Law,' that gives families tools to punish parents for the crime of child abduction. "
I have to say I am not keen to trust Hillary Clinton either to bow out gracefully, or to not lay siege at the May 31 Rules Committee meeting, where her fate may finally be decided on the basis of whether and how Florida and Michigan are seated at the convention. What I'd really like to see, based on what is painfully obvious to everyone, is for 65-75 superdelegates to end the suspense, put him over the 2025 mark and give Clinton essentially no toehold on which to rest her claim to the nomination. The only thing appearing to hold them back is the surname and a pathological fear that her supporters will sit on their hands in November.
I had heard that members of the Oregon DNC delegation were planning on announcing en masse as soon as Monday, but the pressure is on, as Arianna Huffington details in her column:
I understand there are still three more primaries to go. But there is nothing that is going to happen in Puerto Rico or South Dakota or Montana that is going to convince Hillary Clinton to leave the race. Her argument isn't about pledged delegates, which is what is at stake in these remaining primaries. Her argument is about Florida and Michigan and convincing the superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegate majority Obama has won.
And there is also no reason for the superdelegates to wait until the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting on May 31st. Not even the Clinton camp is delusional enough to think it is going to walk away from the meeting with enough additional pledged delegates from Michigan and Florida to overtake Obama.
So it's time for the uncommitted superdelegates to stop their dithering, come out of hiding, hop off the fence, endorse Obama and officially bring this nominating process to an end.
The Democratic leadership -- starting with Pelosi, Reid, and Dean -- should begin working behind the scenes to get all uncommitted supers to immediately commit. Let Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana have their say, but start bringing the curtain down now.
Heck, even USAToday is wondering when the OR supers might decide, suggesting some are on the cusp of a decision. Maybe it's pushed one of our own over the edge? Well-placed sources have told me tonight that DNC Committewoman Jenny Greenleaf, a smashing woman who also happens to be a super or "automatic" delegate to the Democratic Convention in Denver, has reportedly told friends, associates and other superdelegates that she will announce her endorsement of Barack Obama as early as tomorrow--apparently ahead of the other state party officials.
I did manage to get ahold of Greenleaf by email, who wouldn't confirm--but specifically didn't deny--her plans. This is certainly big news within the state and even among the national netroots, and you heard it here first.
By and large, the evening went both as I'd hoped and predicted, particularly within Portland--I pegged Sam Adams to win outright, Nick Fish to romp and Charles Lewis to back up Amanda Fritz in the other Council race. I was pretty sure Kroger would win AG, although I was shocked by the margin. Kate Brown seemed an easy call and I'm fine with her victory, although I voted for Vicki Walker. I even suggested that Mike Erickson would hang on to win. I didn't think Cyreena Boston would lose however, and in HD 38 I thought Linda Brown might have enough support from parents with kids to back her against Chris Garrett.
And then there was the Senate race, which confounded expectations and polling on what appeared to be a disconnect between the President line and the ones below it. Reports of over 100,000 undervoted ballots for Senate would go a long way towards explaining why the surge for Obama failed to pick Novick up, who at last count this morning fell fewer than 17,000 votes short. Did Candy Neville's rather surprising 7%--including double digit showings in a number of counties---spoil the race? What happened in Lane County, where Novick grew up but which favored Merkley by almost 15%?
All of those things were certainly factors, but the biggest finger has to point towards the $400,000 thumb of Chuck Schumer and the DSCC, who rescued their foundering candidate with the resources to drag him across the finish line. In a race where all of the candidates struggled to find oxygen in the last month not being used by Obama and Clinton, information and attention for the contest was tough to come by. And in that environment, slashing attack ads and help from the big boys in DC provided some of the only reference points for lower-info voters.
Until the national and state parties lose the corporatist mindsent of party politics, superior candidates will continue to fall by the wayside in favor of those who will gladly serve the existing power base, no questions asked. We see it even in little things like the selection of state blogs to the DNC in Denver, wherein bloggers were given a story about how the party wanted to embrace and reward blogs that represented their communities--and then gave state parties selection rights or veto power that appeared to involve politics in several cases.
And so, here we find ourselves--proud to have supported the candidate we did, confirmed in our dedication to progressive principles...and still on the outside looking in when it comes to the Democratic Party. It desperately requires a heart-sense-spine transplant, but is clutching a "do not resuscitate" order in its hand and will not let go. Whether Democrats take the Senate seat in Oregon or not (and it's certainly better that they do, no question--they have my vote in the fall), the opportunity for greatness and real change has been sacrificed on the altar of mere competence and change within safe boundaries.
True to form, Novick delivered perhaps the best and most self-deprecating concession speech in Oregon politics. Goddam funny is what it was, but it was also soulful, contemplative and inspiring. The only time I almost lost it was when Mrs. Novick stepped up to hug her son. I thought back to the bio story in The O, and what she had to go through--how firm she had to stand against the medical and cultural establishment of the day just to get Steve born and keeping the rest of his limbs, keeping him mainstreamed in public schools--and I immediately saw where Novick's integrity and passion come from. If you watch the video below, I'll bet you see it too.*
I have no regrets about the path taken in this election, and if you gave me the same choice today--and TOLD ME WHO WAS GOING TO WIN--I'd still back Novick 100%. That my choice wasn't validated by a plurality of others hurts, but ultimately that's the nature of the game and there is always another fight tomorrow. And I will always feel good about arguing for truth, integrity and trusting the voter, even when the odds are stacked against you. It's the only path to true change, and it WILL come. Just not today.
It's Election Day in Oregon, and whether you're a regular reader or a newcomer linking in to follow the state's primary, this is Christmas--real voting! The Presidential race is certainly exciting, but Gordon Smith and the Senate race to replace him have been a primary editorial focus since our founding in 2006, and now here we are ready to pick the person to take him on.
This is definitely the year to do it, so it's been a hugely important decision who that person should be, and in spring of 2007 we formally endorsed Steve Novick for Senate. We haven't diverged from that one bit since, despite the entry of House Speaker Jeff Merkley and subsequent staffing changes. The "Election Pregame" series today is designed to give you a few of the most recent things related to the Senate election--the four most recent polls, the newest videos, turnout statistics and what they imply...so: thanks for coming by! Take a free account if you think you might be round again.
For so long in this race, we had to suffer without decent polling, or use way-too-early general election heats as a stand in for comparing the two major Dem candidates for Senate, Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley. Then when polling finally got going earnestly in January, we discovered why no one was wasting their money all that time before--huge numbers of undecideds, starting at about 70%.. Not only had almost no one heard of the activist with the hook, they didn't know who the Speaker of the House was, either.
Of course, now that we're finally at Election Day there has been more interest and thus more polling--although to a large degree true polling results are STILL hampered by undecided figures approaching 20%.. However, in the last eight days four polls have been done by three different outfits, with two final looks coming yesterday. Let's dive in and see what they tell us, shall we?
{ah, but not before I make you jump below the fold!}
It's Election Day in Oregon, and whether you're a regular reader or a newcomer linking in to follow the state's primary, this is Christmas--real voting! The Presidential race is certainly exciting, but Gordon Smith and the Senate race to replace him have been a primary editorial focus since our founding in 2006, and now here we are ready to pick the person to take him on.
This is definitely the year to do it, so it's been a hugely important decision who that person should be, and in spring of 2007 we formally endorsed Steve Novick for Senate. We haven't diverged from that one bit since, despite the entry of House Speaker Jeff Merkley and subsequent staffing changes. The "Election Pregame" series today is designed to give you a few of the most recent things related to the Senate election--the four most recent polls, the newest videos, turnout statistics and what they imply...so: thanks for coming by! Take a free account if you think you might be round again.
Two pretty great little videos came over yesterday, for different reasons. The best quick take on yesterday's SUSA/KATU poll that showed Novick with a strong surge of +10 in a week is the news report for it done by the station. Forthwith!
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
