SOS: Kate Brown wins big national endorsement

Today, Secretary of State candidate Kate Brown announced the endorsement of the 21st Century Democrats - a prominent national progressive organization. 21st Century Dems are known for making substantial donations of field organizing staff to candidates they endorse.

"Kate Brown is the type of candidate we dream about at Twenty-First Century Democrats. She is a strong progressive leader who has championed equality and fairness in our government and consistently produced the kind of positive change that our nation desperately needs," remarks Dan Lucas, National Political Director for Twenty-First Century Democrats.

Previously, the 21st Century Dems had targeted Oregon for protecting the legislative majority - and as a possible swing state in the presidential election. From their 2008 program page:

We will establish a field infrastructure in Michigan and Ohio by launching state field offices to find, support and elect progressive leaders and train activists in those states. Later in 2008, we will expand to additional states critical in national elections. Possible states include Florida, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, and Oregon. ...

We are committed to shifting the balance of power at the state level – where we have learned our grassroots strategy can have the greatest impact. Redistricting is a few short years away and it is critically important to protect majorities or flip control of state House chambers to build a Democratic majority in Congress. Our targets for 2008 and 2010 are Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, and Pennsylvania.

Learn more at the websites for the 21st Century Democrats and Kate Brown for Secretary of State.

  • Curious (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I thought 21st Century Democrats imploded in 2004, bankrupt and defunked.

  • Fair and Balanced? (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I would like to say congratulations to Kate Brown for her endorsement. But the basis on Blue Oregon is front and center with this post.

    You guys posted Senator Brown's endorsement release yet neglected to post Vicki Walker's Election Reform plan or Rick Metsger announcement of his Campaign Chair Bill Walton.

    These are the kind of actions we see on Fox News all the time but I expect better from progressives. A little fairness and equal time for candidates would be appreciated and would lend your blog more credibility.

  • Congratulations Kate (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A well-deserved endorsement to the best candidate in the field and our next Secretary of State. I couldn't be happier for her.

  • sadie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm not sure why 21st Century Democrats cares to endorse a candidate in a contested Democratic Primary where we have four progressives running for SOS of Oregon.

    I read their rules for endorsement, and they evidently will only endorse one candidate in a given race. But importantly, not endorsing a candidate in one race does not preclude them from doing so in another. Which means if we select one of the other progressives, they could likely still give them their endorsement and financial backing in the November election.

    So basically this endorsement ammounts to money for a contested primary against three other progressives when they could be spending their money to defeat non-progressive Democrats in other races in other parts of the country, like MoveOn is doing in the Maryland race for Congress.

    Frankly I can't see why this is news worthy, except that it points out that 21st Century Democrats is not using their funds very wisely, IMO.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Fair and Balanced has a point. Having seen all 4 in a joint appearance, however, I was less impressed with Kate than with the other 3.

    What would impress me more would be if all the candidates were questioned on various issues like campaign reform, whether the Sec. of State should be nonpartisan as the Oregonian editorialized last November, what they would do about campaign finance reform, things like that.

    Endorsements, as has been said elsewhere, are more important at the local level ("my old friend is running for...", a woman at work watched a candidate grow up, etc. ) than at the statewide level. Kate is a legislative leader from Portland and perhaps the most famous. Why is she the best candidate simply because of an endorsement?

  • Mark Lotwis (unverified)
    (Show?)

    21st Century Democrats endorsed Kate Brown for SOS because we believe she is the best candidate for the job. Kate is a bold progressive leader and will be an amazing Secretary of State in the mold of Mark Ritchie (MN) and Jennifer Brunner (OH). We have worked with Kate in the past and know that she is someone who can get the job done. We believe she can build a model in Oregon that will be replicated across the country.

    It's true that there are a lot of races around the country where we could spend money this cycle, but we are confident that supporting Kate Brown is a wise investment.

    Mark Lotwis, Executive Director

    (full disclosure: Senator Brown was the only candidate for Oregon SOS who asked for our endorsement)

  • Curious (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mark-

    You say "(full disclosure: Senator Brown was the only candidate for Oregon SOS who asked for our endorsement)"

    I talked to a friend who works on one of the other campaigns and they said 21st Century Democrats never even contacted or interviewed the other candidates.

    I have never heard of an organization endorsing one candidate without at least learning about the other candidates running for the same office.

    And you are the head of a group that is supposed to help Democrats beat Republicans. If you are going to be active in Oregon, why aren't you going after Gordon Smith?

  • DSS (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mark, saying that a candidate is the "best candidate" when there are three other Democrats running kinda implies that you've looked into the other candidates.

    Have you?

    Curious suggests that at least one of the other candidates wasn't contacted at all. Did you contact Avakian? Metsger? Walker? Because otherwise, you're asking Oregonians to make this decision based solely upon the distinction that Brown called you guys first. I certainly hope that a national organization such as yours isn't asking Oregon to make a decision based on something that trivial... Please tell me that you sent inquiries to all the campaigns!

    (Also, you may want to revise this mission statement on your website: "We choose tough races—races that other political action committees shy away from because they’re hard to win.")

  • (Show?)

    F&B wrote: You guys posted Senator Brown's endorsement release yet neglected to post Vicki Walker's Election Reform plan or Rick Metsger announcement of his Campaign Chair Bill Walton.

    F&B has an excellent point. Of course, we can't post what we don't get. No press release equals no coverage. Pretty simple.

    Of course, we can't promise that we'll post a news story on every press release every campaign sends us. (That would make for a very boring blog.)

    A big national endorsement that comes with donated field staff is bigger news than a celebrity endorsement from a former Trail Blazer. I can't speak to Vicki's policy proposal because I haven't seen it. (Though I must say, policy pronouncements from campaigns are a dime-a-dozen.)

    And for the record, to recap, each of the campaigns has a BlueOregon contact that is not me.

  • DSS (again!) (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Also Mark, the part of your mission that most related to a Secretary of State race is electing candidates who ensure "fair election laws enabling maximum voter participation."

    How do you reconcile that with Senator Brown's support for HB 2614 (2005) and her burying of Fusion Voting in 2005? Brown is generally a great Democrat, but I disagree with her on these issues, so I am interested to know why you would plan to "replicate this model across the country."

    I assume that you know about these issues since you guys obviously have done your homework, as indicated by your use of bold font type and the fact that she is a "wise investment."

  • (Show?)

    Fair and Balanced? (Not a good criterion btw -- balance should not outweigh objectivity. Balance = make everything look even when it isn't. Objectivity = apply critical reason to truth evidence and show imbalance when things actually are imbalanced.)

    Do you know that either the Walker campaign or the Metsger campaign made any effort to get this info to BO?

    21st C. Dems vs. 20th C. Fox = comparison, or contrast? ;->

    I would be interested in Walker's Election Reform plan. This sounds like it deserves to be on BO both for the race and for the issue it addresses.

    Care about Bill Walton as campaign chair? Not so much. But 1977 was my first year in Oregon so maybe it carries more political weight than I understand.

  • Sadie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    @ Mark - I appreciate that you feel Kate would make an excellent SOS, but are you implying that without considering the other candidates, simply because your organization has worked with one of our Progressives in the past, that the others are somehow unworthy of your support in the General Election if they should beat her in the primary?

    @ Kari, if you are suggesting that 21st Century Democrats are going to put field organizers in our state in time for a May Primary to elect their choice candidate for us, then I'm afraid that The 21st Century Democrats are looking to become unappreciated by the Progressives of Oregon.

    We already get to listen to the rest of the Nation's Democrats tell us who we get to have for our Presidential Nominee without having a say. Now evidently, we should be excited for Kate Brown because she wants to have 21st Century Democrats come to our state and mobilize to help us select her as our SOS nominee.

  • Huh... (unverified)
    (Show?)

    F&B has an excellent point. Of course, we can't post what we don't get. No press release equals no coverage. Pretty simple.

    Kari - I'm confused. Here, you say "we don't post press releases."

  • Jack Murray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Huh:

    It's pretty simple, actually. BlueOregon doesn't post whole press releases, as does Oregon Catalyst and small-town newspapers. Like any other legitimate media outlet, they take snippets of that press release and incorporate that into the timely events of the day (and vice versa).

    This post isn't just the cut and pasting of a press release. It's an 'in the news' that was also covered by The Oregonian political wire, in a report pretty similar to this one.

  • steve HD26 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I mistakenly contributed money to 21st Century Democrats because I liked their mission statement. However, I was not happy that they hire out-of-state staff and the candidates have little or nothing to say about the assigned staff person. In the only race I know about, the staff person was of little help and may have hurt the campaign. When I asked about hiring locally, I was told that it was not policy. So, my money now goes elsewhere. I do hope that the organization has improved and that Kate derives some benefit.

  • (Show?)

    Bill Walton as campaign chair would make excellent Borowitz material. I'm having a hard time coming up with anything else interesting or useful about it.

  • JHL (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Doretta, maybe think about what that says about the candidates' styles and how they'll perform as Secretaries of State.

    They all say that they want to engage more people in the Democratic process...

    1) Brown's news of the week is that she landed an endorsement of a DC-based PAC looking to influence Oregon politics by virtue of the fact that she called them first and they didn't bother to talk to the other candidates.

    2) Metsger's news of the week is that he is teaming up with Bill Walton -- a long-time Oregonian with whom many ordinary Oregonians can connect with and relate to -- to try and "generate interest among people who typically are not politically active."

    Kinda speaks to the candidates' priorities and strengths.

  • (Show?)

    If you look at 21st Century Dem's list of past endorsements / support in 2002 there's a very interesting cohort of state leg. support in Oregon, including Brad Avakian and Greg McPherson. Darlene Hooley is one of their many honorary co-chairs. The prominence of Steny Hoyer on the site currently, tied to a recent event, put me off & I am not sure if it signals any kind of new direction, but their overall list of backers seems to lean progressive.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I would call Kate Brown liberal, not progressive. She is good on the issues that define liberals: civil rights, human services, education, and environmental protection [as long as it does not disturb business interests too much]. Like other liberals, though, she is not likely to challenge powerful interests on their core issues. That is what true progressives do. That is why, as a progressive, I support Vicki Walker for secretary of state. Walker has demonstrated the willingness to take on the big boys when it matters, big boys like Neil Goldschmidt and Portland General Electric.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's a poor reflection on 21st Century Dems that they endorsed someone who supported and pushed for HB 2614, which strips Democrats (and Republicans) of their right to participate in their primary and also support a third party candidate -- even for an office which they abstained from voting for in the primary. The bill is partisan politics at its worst, it is anti-progressive, and I guess it's also a reflection of the values of the 21st Century Dems.

    The Secretary of State needs to have the integrity to put aside party politics. Kate Brown's vote for this bill (along with Avakian and Walker) makes her uniquely unqualified to be Secretary of State.

  • Mark Lotwis (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I’m glad to see so many engaged in the Secretary of State’s race. For the record, I would like to address some of the issues raised by comments regarding our endorsement of Kate Brown in the Democratic primary.

    It has been suggested that all the candidates in the Democratic primary are progressives and that 21st Century Democrats should not endorse in primaries such as these. We endorsed Kate Brown because she had a unique combination of progressive values and leadership skills in one package. She has the leadership skills we look for that go beyond the values (that we look for and find terrific) that motivate her – fairness, social justice and full equality. Kate spent years of hard work raising money, organizing, recruiting candidates and mapping out a strategy to take control of the Oregon State Senate back from the Republicans. Kate got the job done. This is the kind of person who can be a great statewide – and national – leader.

    As far as the process questions raised about how 21st Century Democrats operates - there are thousands of candidates running across the country every two years and we simply do not have the capacity to speak to every candidate in every race in the country. When we receive an application for endorsement (see our questionnaire for candidates), we look at the public record and assess the primary and general election opponents, and make an evaluation about who we think is the best candidate based on their vision, values, courage, ability to produce results, and ability to win the general election. We interview the candidates with the best applications, and ultimately, our Board of Directors votes on endorsements. We were impressed by Kate on all these criteria most important to us – her vision, values, and record of getting things done.

    As far as some specific comments – that we should not waste our money on a primary like this – a commenter pointed out the race in Maryland for Congress where MoveOn and other good progressive organizations are supporting a primary challenge to Rep. Al Wynn. Another commenter pointed out our support from House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. I would like to address both points.

    I would acknowledge that Wynn is not a poster boy for progressives and has voted the wrong way on several issues, but Wynn has a 95% lifetime rating from the AFL-CIO, 100% lifetime rating from Planned Parenthood, and 100% lifetime rating from the National Education Association. IMO, while this primary does send Wynn a warning not to get too close to business interests, it doesn’t help us achieve the progressive vision of America. This is in comparison to Kate’s race – an open seat for an important statewide office – that Kate has shown the leadership, progressive values, and ability to win.

    I have known Steny Hoyer for over 10 years and believe him to be a true progressive who stands up for working people. He has a lifetime voting record of supporting organized labor and working families 94% of the time, he has had a 100% voting record from Planned Parenthood, a 100% voting record on education (NEA rating), and he has an “F” rating from the NRA. At this website reviewing his voting record in detail, Hoyer is considered a Hard Core Liberal and Wynn is rated as a Populist Leaning Liberal.

    Mark Lotwis, Executive Director, 21st Century Democrats

  • JHL (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "We endorsed Kate Brown because she had a unique combination of progressive values and leadership skills in one package."

    Good message, but how do you know it's "unique" if you didn't contact the other campaigns?

    You're defending Kate Brown, but it's really the shifty endorsement "process" that's been questioned. Frankly, your overly-broad messaging seems to indicate that you didn't take the time to look into the nuts and bolts of the candidates' records. If you're going to play in Oregon politics, please give us Oregonians the courtesy of making careful and well-thought-out decisions.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The House Progressive Caucus - Senator Bernie Sanders is a member, but not Steny Hoyer:

    Co-Chairs Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-6) Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-9)

    Vice Chairs Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33) Hon. Raul Grijalva (AZ-7) Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-5) Hon. Hilda Solis (CA-32) Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-2) Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)

    Senate Members Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

    House Members Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-1) Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-2) Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31) Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL) Hon. Robert Brady (PA-1) Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-3) Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-8) Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL) Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11) Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-1) Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-9) Hon. John Conyers (MI-14) Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-7) Hon. Danny Davis (IL-7) Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-4) Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-3) Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-5) Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17) Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-2) Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51) Hon. Barney Frank (MA-4) Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-4) Hon. John Hall (NY-19) Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22) Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15) Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-2) Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18) Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30) Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-4) Hon. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11) Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-9) Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13) Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10) Hon. Tom Lantos (CA-12) Hon. John Lewis (GA-5) Hon. David Loebsack (IA-2) Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14) Hon. Ed Markey (MA-7) Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-7) Hon. James McGovern (MA-3) Hon. George Miller (CA-7) Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-4) Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-8) Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL) Hon. John Olver (MA-1) Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-4) Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10) Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15) Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37) Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-1) Hon. Linda Sanchez (CA-47) Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-9) Hon. Jose Serrano (NY-16) Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28) Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13) Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-2) Hon. John Tierney (MA-6) Hon. Tom Udall (NM-3) Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12) Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35) Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12) Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30) Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)

  • (Show?)

    Steny Hoyer is a wrong, big time, on the occupation war in Iraq.

    Mark L.'s remarks are helpful in locating 21st C. Dems.

    He does say that they did examine the public positions of Brown's opponents.

    But if you read closely, it becomes apparent that what they were interviewing for was not Brown vs. her opponents in Oregon but Brown vs. other applicants for endorsement in other races, & accompanying resources. The question they're asking is, "to whom should we give money among those who applied?"

    This becomes really rotten politics at the local level & they ought to seriously rethink this approach if they're going to get involved in primaries. It does lend credence to the statement someone made upthread about arrogance toward local conditions.

  • Sadie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kate spent years of hard work raising money, organizing, recruiting candidates and mapping out a strategy to take control of the Oregon State Senate back from the Republicans.Kate got the job done.

    Wow! It's like our grassroots organization and amazing statewide Democratic Party doesn't even exist. I guess to an outsider, it could seem possible that Kate Brown was somehow solely responsible for winning control of the State Senate in 2006. As a progressive Democratic activist who lives in Oregon and who has spent a good deal of volunteer time helping to get progressives elected, I take offense to you insinuating that State Senators Brad Avakian and Vickie Walker didn't also play key roles in getting the job done.

    I hope that Kate Brown would distance herself from this comment. I happen to see Oregon Democrats as a team and I think that all of our Progressive leaders and activists worked together to turn this state blue in 2006. Perhaps if your endorsement process had been a little more thorough, you may have seen it that way, too.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mark, I know all 4 candidates and Kate is at the bottom of my priority list. But then I have known all 4 candidates for years and don't need to look at a paper record as I know the people. Kate may have "unique skills" at working behind the scenes, but the others have done great things also.

    Steny Hoyer is not one of my favorite people for a number of reasons.

    Oregonians have for years been skeptical of out of staters telling how to vote, esp. in a primary. Often it is done by people who don't know the state well enough to realize Polk County is not Multnomah County is not Lincoln County. Too many of us have despaired at the "well, this worked in my previous state" outsiders who treat local long time volunteers as a dime a dozen because of course they have the revealed wisdom. That may not be you, but I sure won't change my attitude based on this endorsement.

  • (Show?)

    2) Metsger's news of the week is that he is teaming up with Bill Walton -- a long-time Oregonian with whom many ordinary Oregonians can connect with and relate to -- to try and "generate interest among people who typically are not politically active."

    "Whaaa!?!?"

    "Long-time Oregonian?" Did the southern Oregon border get moved to Mexico while I wasn't looking?

    "...many ordinary Oregonians can relate to..."

    William Theodore Walton, III, former professional athlete and current TV personality, was born and grew up in San Diego county. He went to college at UCLA. He spent some time in Portland because the Blazers drafted him. He currently lives--you guessed it--in San Diego.

    Kinda speaks to the candidates' priorities and strengths.

    If you say so. What I'm telling you is that when this "ordinary Oregonian"--who will be working late tonight on account of she plans to hightail it away from work this afternoon to watch the Blazers play Boston in a nearby bar--heard that Bill was heading Rick's campaign, her first reaction was "Oh, gag, you've got to be kidding me. The worst sports commentator on TV and a freaking Californian."

    And I voted for Rick when he first ran for office.

  • Rose Wilde (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm curious about the comments regarding 21st Century Dems process for candidate selection. It seems that Sen. Brown asked for their endorsement and provided information requested by the organization. If the other candidates were invited to submit the same information, and did not, does that mean the organization should not make a selection?

    From the perspective of someone who may be involved in selecting candidates for financial or volunteer support, I am not sure what to take from this. One of the themes from my own decision making process is that the candidate has to WANT my endorsement for it to be worth my offering it. I do expect candidates to remember who helped them get elected -- so if the candidate doesn't show interest, what should a person do?

    However, Mark hasn't quite said that the organization gave each candidate a chance to provide the same information. And, even if candidates don't get around to all the long questionnaires we send them, perhaps a simple phone call could get the gist. It is hard to say whether this out of state group's endorsement is even about all four candidates for the office, or if it is more about investing in someone they expect to run in national elections.

    But I do think we're being awfully purist in this thread.

  • JHL (unverified)
    (Show?)

    That's the thing, Rose: The other candidates were not invited to provide information.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)
    <h2>And why is an "F" rating from the NRA a sign of progressivity? While I am no fan of the organization, I do not see why progressives need be antagonistic toward gun rights. Peter DeFazio, Oregon's most progressive congressperson, has a "B" rating.</h2>
in the news

connect with blueoregon