Why should those of us that are disgruntled with the system as is give into it when the nomination goes to pinheads (mainly I'm referring to Kerry) who lose the election.

Maybe Kerry and Gore are only losing elections to Republicans like Bush because people like you are refusing to vote for them? Given the closeness of the last two elections, can you discount that theory?

And one more candidate ignores the 2/3's of Oregon east of the Cascades.

Hillary's biggest enemies are not on the Right, English... they are on the far left. Get it? The Right will ruthlessly attack ANY... ANY... ANY... Democratic candidate with equal vigor. Please don't fool yourself. You are a prime example of that hatred and loathing that you would choose to vote for a conservative neo-con... yes, pretty much all of the candidates running on the Republican side are neo-cons... than voting for Hillary should she win the nomination. That arrogant philosophy will be your undoing.

As to the argument that 2/3rds of Oregon is east of the Cascades... if you are talking about geography, you'd be correct. If you are speaking on population and potential voters, you are incorrect and ignorant. If this weren't true, then eastern Oregon would have more than a mere ONE US Representative, wouldn't they?

So, let's get off the "Hillary is too hated by the Right to win" crap. Look in the mirror English and see where that hatred's heart really is located.

Maybe Kerry and Gore are only losing elections to Republicans like Bush because people like you are refusing to vote for them? Given the closeness of the last two elections, can you discount that theory?

No maybes about it. Gore and Kerry lost their elections in great part because of the incompetent campaigns both ran. I was going to vote for Gore despite many misgivings, but he disgusted me so much I voted for Nader. Many others were affected by Gore the same way and voted for Nader. In some cases, they voted for Bush on the mistaken belief he was a man of his word - something they didn't believe about Gore. The only reason I voted for Kerry was because he was "Anybody But Bush."

Considering both Gore and Kerry folded when evidence became available that elections in Ohio and New Mexico were rigged they couldn't have been that concerned about their Democratic supporters whom they let down or the civil rights of thousands of Americans who didn't get to vote or whose votes were not counted if they did cast votes.

Now we are looking at Hillary to represent the Democrats. She's not the best the Democrats can do, but it looks like the Democrats will chose the greatest evil in the primary to run as the lesser evil in November 2008.

I have a wee problem with the verbiage:

"Also absent from the committee is notable Clinton supporter Rep. Darlene Hooley"

It's not in bold "in the news" above but it does stand out as a contrived "headline." Given the text quoted from the Oregonian just below the fold, i could have spun it like this:

"Rep. Darlene Hooley was given a notable national role in Clinton's campaign."

[Disclaimer: I'm an Edwards fan.]

My problem is, if we get stuck with the lessor of the two evils, what does that really leave us with.

David, you apparently know the answer to this question, but equally apparently most of the American people don't or don't care. You get evil, and a good case can be made that with each succeeding election the evils become progressively more so. Perhaps that helps to explain why somewhere around a third of eligible voters have elected to become independents with an attitude of a well-deserved pox on both parties.

I guess as a Democrat, if I vote for anyone else I'll be deemed a traitor. It would be sad to have to abandon the party if it comes down to it.

How about if the parties (Democratic and Republican) have abandoned the people? The caging and other dirty tricks by the Republicans and the fact that the Democratic oligarchs let them get away with it strongly suggest that neither party gives a damn about "the people."

Roughly half of the elected Democrats in Congress abandoned their oaths to the Constitution and wrote Bush a blank check for his war on Iraq. Did they care about the thousands of ordinary Americans who would be slaughtered and maimed in a war? Or the trillions of dollars that would be wasted on destruction instead of maintaining infrastructure, schools and health care for children?

You want to lessen the hatred some Muslims and Arabs have for the U.S? Consider this. Hillary was co-president when US-sponsored, UN sanctions took the lives of an estimated half million children in the Crusade against Saddam Hussein and in effect the Iraqi people. These angry Muslims still stew over the First Crusades that took place centuries ago. Unlike Americans, politically active people in the Middle East have historical memories that extend beyond a couple of weeks so they are not going to be amenable to a truce with Hillary in the White House.

The problem with most people locked into a political party is that they are like parents who think their kid is a good child without being able to recognize when the kid is a spoiled brat. In the long run, that doesn't do the kid anything but harm.

The MSM and Hillary machine may have her as the presumptive candidate, but it certainly looks like somewhere between 62-70% prefer somebody else...

And one more candidate ignores the 2/3's of Oregon east of the Cascades.

And you come to that conclusion how precisely? <<

Personally, I didn't recognize many of the names--although the descriptions might impress those looking for a campaign with famous people. And there without doubt there are activists in Portland who know several of the members of this group well. There are some famous people on the list, but to what extent are they "worker bees" with grass roots political experience?

Let's see. Only one person on the list is from Gordon Smith's home town of Pendleton, lots of Portlanders, plus Andy "green in their wallet is better than green in their past political record" Kerr, and Paddy who I don't recall doing much grass roots politics in rural Oregon. Wasn't he involved in moving the state party office from Salem to Portland?

Anyway, the steering committee only helps if they do the behind the scenes work to establish infrastructure: county organizations mobilizing volunteers preparing for events (incl. visits from candidate or surrogates) get out the vote.

Having been a volunteer coordinator on a successful presidential primary campaign where the "establishment" backed someone else, this doesn't change my mind that 2007 is too early to choose a candidate.

One reason I loved him: because of who hated him, and how vehemently they hated him. I loved knowing that those people hated him so much.

Stephanie: I have agreed with many of your comments, but the above suggests you need some therapy.

As far as I can tell there are only two factors that explain the affection so many people have for Clinton: Ignorance and indifference for morality and ethics. This Clintonmania has its counterpart with the Republican Reaganmania.

Maybe there is a God after all since Slick Willie got Hillary for a wife. They deserve each other.

I hope it doesn't come across as a) leaning for, or b) against Clinton.

I choose "b"

I just found it curious that Hooley wasn't involved in the campaign in her home state

Just to err on the cautious side, when you want to explore your curiosities, try a "notable comment" or "contributor" byline.

the article itself notes the lack of elected officials in the committee.

"light when it comes to big names" was the quote. The voice's rendering of this editorial note was a bit akin to saying "Dick Cheney passed over for cabinet post. Forced to accept Vice-Presidency."

Say, you aren't the "Nick" or "NIck" from last week's thread? (Speaking of which, why did the old voice go soft on single name or one-time-slogan monikers?) Regardless, all the best, Nick!

[Disclaimer: see previous disclaimer.]

My problem is, if we get stuck with the lessor of the two evils, what does that really leave us with. We've gone through quite a few elections now where that has happened.

Bill and David, this is what I don't understand about your viewpoint. In 2004, when Nader supporters were asked how they felt about possibly tipping the election to Bush, they said that maybe that's what was needed to spark a revolution in the Democratic party. If Bush won, it would be so devastating to the party that we would never nominate weak Democrats again.

So where's the revolution? Nader got his wish, he spoiled the election for Gore, and we got Bush and all the disaster that followed. Yet Dems nominated Kerry in '04, and are poised to nominate one of three mainstream Democrats in '08. In other words, nothing changed (except for the 3,000 dead U.S. soldiers, countless Iraqi civilian casualties, the destruction of American moral legitimacy throughout the world, increased income inequality at home, more uninsured. . . and on and on). Nader voters got exactly what they wanted in '00, and nothing changed. Is the price we paid really worth it? If it didn't work the first time, what's going to make it work the second time when we put Mitt Romney in the White House because you dislike Hillary?

(For the record, I am no Hillary supporter, and will work hard to derail her nomination. But if she gets it, you can be damn sure I'll vote for her.)

Clinton certainly is not the first choice of many Democratic and progressive activists, because of her uninspiring positions and Clinton[M]esque triangulation; but she does well in the polls. First off, voters recognize her, a definite asset early in primary season. Then, many Democrats and women, generally, would like to see a woman president. Hillary is smart, well-spoken, confident, and seemingly competent, especially compared to the present White House occupant. She has already lived there, so it is easy to see her in the oval office.

But let's not fool ourselves. It's the early primaries that count. Where the big money goes during those primaries, and who the news media decides to like, will make a huge difference. Dean was the star of the "04 campaign until somebody up there decided that Kerry was safer. The media promoted "The Scream", and Kerry came from nowhere to become the front runner.

Clinton's steering committee covers many bases, as it should. It's a bit disappointing to See Sten working for the top establishment candidate, but Clinton needs appeal to the urban progressives [boy, does she], and Eric's a good ambassador. Undersecretary at HUD, perhaps?

Nader voters got exactly what they wanted in '00, and nothing changed.

Nader voters didn't get what they wanted. They wanted to wake up the sheep so that they might say "enough" to the constant choice between two evils, but the sheep slept on preferring business as usual, distracted by the claptrap about Nader costing Gore the election instead of facing the facts. And the parties continued to elevate their various evils to the top tiers.

Now, back to Hillary. How will she run her administration if she is elected? Well, like all previous and current administrations she will take care of her base - the corporations that backed her and not the people. Included in that bunch Rupert Murdoch will be in the lead, and if he wants to become the de facto Minister of Propaganda then the job is his. Slick Willie's appointee to the FCC, Michael Powell, son of the grossly over-rated Colin Powell, facilitated greater consolidation of media in fewer corporations to ensure the public would be less informed than before. Murdoch may very well during Hillary's presidency add the New York Times and the Washington Post to his empire. And, of course, her old friends on the Wal-Mart board can count on spending a night or two in the Lincoln bedroom and other perks. And, using the excuse of needing a strong military to prove she can be as tough as a man, she will continue diversion of billions of dollars to the military-industrial-mercenary complex.

I have reservations about Obama and Edwards, but I hope they get together on the same potential ticket and take the nomination away from Hillary. It would be too much to hope for a Kucinich nomination since he is the straightest shooter and most progressive among the Democrats.

Sten? Does that mean that Walmart will finally get a location in Portland??

Bill, is "waking up sheep" why the Nadershouters yelled LET RALPH DEBATE trying to drown out Tipper Gore's speech in Salem? How could Tipper Gore have influenced that decision? And how did the impression of Nader supporters as obnoxious and Republicans as "street smart" for just quietly holding signs at the speech help the cause?

Sometime after the event, a friend told me of supporting Nader and I remarked "but you have good manners" and that most Nader supporters seemed to be people without manners.

If one candidate (or candidate's supporters) try to drown out the opposition, my inclination is to look at the candidate who is the brunt of the attack, not the loudest one.

Tom, " Where the big money goes during those primaries, and who the news media decides to like, will make a huge difference." ignores something frontrunners forget at their peril.

Whoever the media builds up, they can also tear down.

Look at how few reporters actually explained that a background noise drowning microphone made it sound like the hall was quiet and Dean was screaming, where an ordinary microphone would have picked up the background noise.

These steering committees usally don't do jack. They are often filled with "important" people who we are supposed to be, oh, so impressed with. In 1999 I and some other activists did what we could could for Bill Bradley in Oregon; setting up tables at party events with material and sign up sheets, developing an e-mail list, volunteering for Bradely in Vancover, as WA had a very early caucs. The OR steering committee was headed by Neil Goldschmidt and eventually included Kithaber and some state legislators. GOldschmidt did helps set up a big fundraiser at Jerry Bidwell's house in Vancouver, but we had no contact with the crew . I guess they jumped ship when Bradley dropped out. The DPO gave my name to a Portland talk radio station (I think KEX) the day that Bradley quit in March 2000, and they interviewed me. Where was Neil?

Sometime after the event, a friend told me of supporting Nader and I remarked "but you have good manners" and that most Nader supporters seemed to be people without manners.

Obviously, Nader supporters, like supporters of most other candidates come in a variety of qualities. Whether people are inclined to attribute the qualities of one group or another to the whole depends on their point of view and in some cases a lack of intellectual honesty.

Unfortunately, many candidates attract extremists, but they should not be confused with the candidate unless he or she encourages them. Based on Ralph Nader's history, I find it difficult to believe that he would encourage outrageous behavior.

How could Tipper Gore have influenced that decision? Maybe you can get an explanation from the political consultants who stage-managed the Al-Tipper kiss and encouraged Tipper to share with us during one of her speeches that Al was sexy.

Maybe I'm a baaaaaa-d boy, but I'd rather be a Democratic "sheep" than a certified kook.

People who continue to blindly follow political parties that get them into unnecessary wars and ship jobs overseas and promote corporate-written policies that work for the authors and against the people are like sheep being led to slaughter. Now there are the "kooks."

Bill Bodden, keep up the good comments. The main blowhards on BlueOregon (DLCOregon) should hear from traditional Democrats from time to time.

There is definitely a trend toward name calling here. TA calling anyone who dissents children was pretty bad but SM's little snipe is over the top.

Steven Maurer,

Actually, I was not a Dean supporter, but I would have preferred him to Kerry by a large margin. Yes, "The Scream", which LT points out was a media fabrication, came after Iowa, and it ended Dean's chances. It's pretty clear that there was a conspiracy against Dean, if that is what you'd like to call it. My guess is that he was seen as too independent to be a reliable caretaker of the status quo.

Hillary does not have that problem, but it's not always apparent what the big money people are thinking about candidates until the contributions are reported.

Now, back to Hillary. How will she run her administration if she is elected?

Better than the Republican nominee, hands-down. And that's why voters have a responsibility to look at the impact their votes will have on the outcome. If you like a third-party candidate then work for them, volunteer, set up rallies, fundraise. But you KNEW on election day that Nader was not going to be president, yet you still voted for him in order to effect change. Your theory was wrong, change didn't happen, we as a country are worse off as a result, and you're responsible. And now you're going to do it again?

As an aside, please drop the whole "Gore lost because he ran a bad campaign" logic. Yes, Gore would have won had he run a better campaign. Gore also would have won if Nader had dropped out. Gore also would have won if Cheney had shot someone in the face before the election. Just because you can point to ANOTHER reason why Gore lost does not absolve you from culpability in Bush's election.

It's pretty clear that there was a conspiracy against Dean, if that is what you'd like to call it.

A conspiracy involving dozens of journalists, in independent news organizations, all coming together in the common cause of defeating one candidate? And not one of them ratted the others out since?

Sorry, there was no conspiracy. Dean's scream was weird (background noise or not), but in isolation it wouldn't have made a ripple. But it personified the fears that many people had about Dean and whether he was "statesmanlike" enough to be president. I'm not saying that was fair, and certainly the Dem establishment jumped on it, but there was no conspiracy.

It's pretty clear that there was a conspiracy against Dean, if that is what you'd like to call it.

A conspiracy involving dozens of journalists, in independent news organizations, all coming together in the common cause of defeating one candidate? And not one of them ratted the others out since?

Sorry, there was no conspiracy. Dean's scream was weird (background noise or not), but in isolation it wouldn't have made a ripple. But it personified the fears that many people had about Dean and whether he was "statesmanlike" enough to be president. I'm not saying that was fair, and certainly the Dem establishment jumped on it, but there was no conspiracy.

Miles,

Gore did not lose. The Supreme Court took the election from him. The members of the majority in the Bush v. Gore decision will burn in eternal fire for that act.

It's a bit disappointing to See Sten working for the top establishment candidate, but Clinton needs appeal to the urban progressives [boy, does she], and Eric's a good ambassador. Undersecretary at HUD, perhaps?

Finally, a reason to vote for Hillary! If she promises to take Eric to Washington with her she might just get my vote.

Stephen:Wow. Way to go, Bill. Every time I think you just can't post something more stupid or arrogant,...

Thank you for the discerning style in which you have expressed yourself. It shows the advantages of good breeding and education and helps to keep the debate going in a courteous and enlightening manner. I'm reminded of a man who reflected on his life and recalled how, as a child, he thought his father was stupid. As he grew older he changed his opinion and noticed his father wasn't as dumb as he once thought him to be. Later he was impressed with how clever his father was.

Did it ever occur to you that what you refer to as arrogance might be candor from someone without party bias? Did it ever occur to you that your determined loyalty to the Democratic party might have something in common with the tribal loyalties found in civil war zones such as the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan? Are you so determined in your loyalty to anyone carrying the Democratic banner that you might be failing in your duty as a citizen of the nation? Does it mean anything to you if a politician takes an oath to defend the Constitution then casts a vote proving that oath was so meaningless he or she was prepared to overturn the Constitution for personal political advantage? How about if that vote was tantamount to a death sentence for hundreds of thousands of people in a war that had no justification?

O wad (would) some Pow’r the giftie (little gift) gie (give) us To see ourselves as others see us! It wad frae monie (would from many) a blunder free us. Robert Burns (1759-1796), Scottish poet.

phastphil,

No, I'm not surprised - Kucinich scores highest by a wide margin. Paul is first among R's, but he is behind all the D's.

Oh Yea, by the way I'm tired of the evil of two lessors

People with rental property don't consider the possibility of two lessors as evil if they pay their lease on time.

I became tired of having to choose between the lesser of two evils a long time ago and switched to independent but primaries tend to still force them on me. or, cast a protest vote.

Hillary is academic. Sophisticated projective polling shows her with a 48% national vote ceiling. To polarizing. The country needs a true uniter.

Al Gore will be our next president. He will win with 60% plus of the vote. He will announce after his Nobel Peace Prize is proclaimed in Oslo this month.

<h2>Hillary is a great junior Senator from New York and that is where she should and will stay.</h2>