I'm eager to see it! Do you have a time frame for the relaunch?

The Digg-like submission and rating system sounds promising. I'm also interested to see how you will discourage anonymity and encourage real names. If I can add one more suggestion, and this should be a simple one, could you add a timestamp to posts, as opposed to a date only?

Congrats on all the hard work!

To this point, I think it's fairly obvious that BlueOregon exists for one reason and one reason only: To elect Democrats and be their biggest apologist. Often to the detriment of truly liberal, er excuse me, progressive goals.

It's an all-but-official organ of the Democartic Party. And it's run by someone whose income comes directly from the Democratic Party and its candidates -- an all-but-official employee of the Democratic Party.

Let the flogging begin.

I like the anonymity approach. I used to post with my real name, but I'm a public employee. Yes, I know that I have free speech rights still, but I both like my boss personally and disagree with him professionally on some subjects. Rather than subject him to criticism for my beliefs or have them erroneously attributed to him, I use a pseudonym. I suppose this dilutes the impact of my comments, but we all have to find a balance in life. BlueOregon's approach works well in that respect.

I love what you've done to provide an outlet for the progressive voice in Oregon, thanks! One suggestion would be to change the authors' bylines when you reorganize the site. Currently, the author doesn't appear in the RSS feed, where I do the majority of my reading. That'd be nice to have. Keep up the good work!

Kari, How will the new comment sign-in work? Lately I have not been able to use the "remember personal info" check box and have had to type in name, email, etc. every time.

Often to the detriment of truly liberal, er excuse me, progressive goals. Democrats have to make a choice. They can ask for the votes of undecided voters for Merkley or Schrader or a local Democratic candidate even if that person is voting McCain. Recently while going door to door I had a woman tell me that she never took literature from Democrats. But lots of people were glad to have someone coming to their door for a local legislative candidate (esp. the man who knew the candidate from work) whether or not they buy into the entire Democratic platform or even consider themselves to have an ideology. My guess is that if a pollster or someone stopped people randomly at a large event, in a large parking lot, etc. and asked for their ideology, they wouldn't get many "proud to be a liberal/conservative" or whatever. My guess is they'd get turndowns, they'd get "independent cuss", they'd get "who says I am required to have an ideology--I vote for the person who impresses me".

Pat, who defines liberal/progressive goals? Over the decades there have been fights over the Democratic platform, among primary campaigns, over ballot measures, over resolutions in State Central Committee, even over the Dean grass roots 50 state strategy vs. the Clinton/McAuliffe top down "money and professionals are what matter" strategy. These existed long before blogs, long before the Internet was a gleam in the eye of techies, long before computers.

Could those goals be things talked about on a Democratic Yahoo Group, or at a Democratic dinner--even if those took place in counties where you don't live and among people with diverse backgrounds in rural as well as small town and urban settings?

Kari, you and your co-founders provided something not technologically possible in previous decades--the ability to have the kind of discussions while sitting at a computer that once required going to State Central Committee or other gatherings. One result has been to point out that differences may well be geographical as well as ideological. Jenni in E. Mult. County, Steve B and Paulie in the 2nd Congressional District, many of us in the Willamette Valley, and all those folks out there who read but don't comment can be and are part of an offline debate. They might call up a friend to discuss something, they might say in a personal conversation, "did you read on Blue Oregon...?".

Finally, a note to those who passionately believe something and try to convince others. As far back as Aesop, the parable of the Wind and the Sun showed that persuasion is more effective than coercion. Some decades ago, a famous politician was saying "you catch more flies with honey than by hitting them over the head".

I only recently discovered this wonderful site (well, I live in Josephine County, so the site seems really extraordinary). Thank you so much for the site and fortoday's background. I look forward to reading yet more great commentary.

Congratulations for creating a really important institution, Kari.

What proves that it matters are all of the comments you get from so-called conservatives who feel its worth their time to waste our time with their often ridiculous nonsense.

I would like more reporting from your editors and columnists. Everyone can have opinions. When you build off a factual base, it helps credibility. Avoid the cascades of false information -- they are out there.

You certainly have been succesful, not just being a gathering place for Liberals, but also an interesting and informative blog for Conservatives and Moderates to read (though sometimes a little irritating too ;-).

The rating system is also a good idea it think, although my comments will get voted down really badly :-o

LT, I have the same problem you do. It never remembers my info. Hopefully that will change...

I dont agree 90% of the time, but I love this site. Kari, nice head shot, you are all right.

"BlueOregon will be the water cooler around which Oregon progressives will gather. A place for news and original commentary. (And sometimes gossip.)"

How many people hang around water coolers with bags over their heads while altering their voices?

Eliminating anonymous comments or pseudonyms - even if it were possible- would certainly lower the quantity of comments. But the quality may increase. I suggest BO give it a try for a month and see what happens.

There's a lot to like and dislike about BO. But congratulations are in order. Four years is many, many moons in the blogosphere.

Eric, I am tech savvy enough to know what is written here stays here forever. I don't want a person interviewing me for a job this year or 5 years from now to do a web search and read every comment I have ever left on a blog. So if there was a one month trial where everyone had to give their first and last name, I would not comment that month.

There are several very different Eric Bergs listed if one does a web search. My name is less common.

An eaxample:

NC Blue, a progressive water cooler blog, had several lively discussions about the DSCC choosing one Democratic candidate over another in the primary and the amount of money they funneled to that candidate during the primary.

It was an issue that the folks at NC Blue thought that "progressives" and democrats should know about and discuss.

BlueOregon's coverage of the DSCC's similar actions in Oregon was covered at BlueOregon with one sentence that was designed to bury the real; story (how much DSCC money got funneled to Merkley int he primary) but still aloow Kari to say "we covered it" when questioned.

BlueOregon went out of its way to bury an important story that might be embarrassing or damaging to the Democratic candidate.

Why? Because BlueOregon exists to elect Democrats, and bringing up something that is embarrassing or damaging to a Democratic candidate is out of the question --even if it's actually an important issue that other Democrats and progressives on other blogs not tied so closely to the democtatic Party find important enough for multiple posts and discussions.

That's the difference between a "progressive watercooler and a Democratic Party blog.

So I'm calling bullshit on what you claim BlueOregon is.

I believe now is the time for the BlueOregon Chorus of apologists to chime in.

Haaaalleleluiah .. Halleleluiah.. Halleleluiah ,

It may be easy for some of the younger readers & contributors here to take the magic of the internet, blogospere, and blueoregon for granted. My first interaction and involvement in politics took place when I was 17 and helping out by being a gofer for the McCarthy campaign in 1968. His local headquarters in Racine WI were in an empty 1890 vintage downtown storefront. (It's probably still unoccupied especially since NAFTA sucked what manufacturing jobs survived after the unions died.... right out of all the industrial towns around foot of Lake Michigan).

Back then, with the Viet Nam War raging that election was so critical to us. And communication, getting the message out, and the exchange of ideas was just short of drums and smoke signals. Newspapers had unchallenged power to sway voters, and that often meant just one man's opinion. We ran thousands of smelly purple ink mimeograph copies, and sent people out on the street to pass them out. On election day we rented tandem bikes and dressed in red, white and blue and rode around town with banners encouraging people to vote.

Now look what we have in sites like blueoregon, and Huffpo...and all the rest of the wonderful opinionated, biased and informative blogs and websites. It's a miracle. We can vocalize in detail with the click of a mouse. I don't have to know who everyone is....it doesn't matter. I will be seeing sides of an issues I might not have thought of, and grey areas might be clarified. If I want to recapture the comradeship of meeting like minded people to bolster my commitment and further our cause....well there are plenty of gatherings and campaigns to join, well promoted here on BO. Though I sometimes sense a sort of elitist insider entitled tone in some of the comments....I rarely get that from the regular contributors. I've never felt my humble opinion would not be welcome here.

In 1968 we never could have dreamed of this kind of lightening speed interaction and broad range of ideas and opinions, nor the easy access to vast resources that expand our knowledge and understanding. Bravo blueoregon and all the other tech miracles that have made us so much smarter about how we place our votes. Whatever 'bad' any readers perceive in this endeavor is completely overridden by the good.

That popst was from October 4th 2007, kari.

You're such a dishonest turd ball. It's your DNA.

Second, 18 months ago -- before Novick and Merkley got in -- the whining from folks like you went like this: "We'll never beat Gordon Smith because the stupid people at the DSCC will never fund a strong challenger against him. It'll be like 2002 all over again. The DSCC sucks."

Any other words you'd like to put in my mouth. Are you channeling LT now.

And a response to your strawman is that I welcome DSCC money and support to defeat Republicans, not to smear fellow Democrats during a primary.

I think even a half wit can see the difference there. The fact that you try to spin this as a complaint about DSCC help in the general, rather than the primary, is either an example of the disingenuous nature of a political hack, or you really JUST DON'T GET IT.

Nuff said.

The fact, BlueOregonm buried that post-primary news about the amouint of help the DSCC po0ured into Merkley's campaign to help throw the election to Washington's choice.

You buried that story, and you did it because it might reflect poorly on the Democratic candidate when in fact other liberal blogs like NC Blue had several post primary discussions about the dymanic (and in a state where the primary wasn't even as close as 3% points).

You can huff and puff all you want, kari, but your willy's still hanging out. No matter how much you try and pretend it's not.

is that 'nuff said now?

DSCC was very involved in the 2008 US Senate primary, but in different ways than in the 1996 primary. It was very openly involved, not the sort of "all good people support Bruggere and don't ask questions" way that happened in 1996. Secondly, was there any national reporter who wrote an article on the 2008 primary who said "For instance, the Oregon candidate is Merkley" as if Novick did not exist? That's the sort of thing that happened in 1996. And if there is any Merkley supporter saying "primary is over, forget you ever knew Novick" as was done by Bruggere supporters to friends of Lonsdale, Rust, and Dwyer, they should be ashamed of themselves. I never said no one had the right to support Novick, merely that knowing both of them, I eventually made my individual choice. BTW, lots of people get a kick out of the story about my Merkley bumper sticker--that I only put on a bumper sticker after one too many BO folks told me things like "we knew you were a Merkley supporter even before you did". If there was a memo sent out saying that by a certain date everyone was supposed to decide on their US Senate candidate, I never got it.

Had Novick done a commercial like the Merkley/DPO commercial about veterans, he might have done better. But noooooo--an obscure 2003 resolution was so much more important to Novickians than the 2008 GI Bill. Money would have changed the opinions of the folks who wanted to hear more about current veterans issues?

Here is a thought experiment for those who want to go beyond vituperative exchanges. Suppose Novick and Merkley had the same amount of money in the primary, to the dollar. But nothing else changed. Novick ran exactly the same ads, had exactly the same field operation. BO bloggers attacked anyone who said "I know both Steve and Jeff and have for years, but you have to admit Merkley has a point when he says...." as closed minded "Merkleyites". Novick supporters said all good Democrats admired acerbic language and only DLC types thought of diplomatic political language as a virtue. People who had known Steve for years (going back to his first jobs in Oregon) said "I've known Steve for years, and we have argued frequently" or "I knew Steve almost from when he moved back to Oregon after working elsewhere, and sorry, but I refuse to associate myself with some of his acerbic remarks" (not meaning blog postings, but meaning things Steve had said in person to people which in some cases were flat statements that he had the revealed truth on the issue and polite language was not for people like him)told their friends all their experiences with Steve over the years.

Suppose all those other things were equal, and the money was also equal. How would Steve have won over, for instance, the woman who said she couldn't understand what opening a beer bottle had to do with a US Senate race? How would Steve have won over people who never saw Steve in person because they will go to town hall meetings in public places but have a sense that "house parties" only attract the faithful, and undecided voters might not feel comfortable in such surroundings? How would money have won over the young woman who saw Steve speak at a Democratic luncheon and said he was a nice guy but she was not impressed with his speech.

Money is NOT all that matters. Some people just think it is. Campaign message, field organization, behavior of the candidate and supporters all matter. If money really were all that mattered, why weren't Gordon's "we're all real tired of career politicians" ads successful in Jan. 1996? Steve got 43% of the vote, but in how many counties did he get at least 40%? Was that only about money, esp. in Marion and Polk counties where lots of activists had known Steve over the years in his political roles?

Yes, I know there were ardent supporters who saw Steve as the second coming of Bobby Kennedy, Wayne Morse, and other heroes as well. But people old enough to remember Wayne Morse were not required to see Novick as a 21st century Morse. As anyone who has ever worked in sales or on a major successful campaign knows, such true believers are not enough. People who don't want to buy won't buy---look at how many people have never voted for Gordon Smith. Historically, outspoken candidates have fallen into the category of "there are people who would follow him to the ends of the earth and others who wouldn't cross the street to talk to him". Money doesn't change that.

It seemed the Novick campaign had a target audience: Portland Democratic activist sensibilities (what Jenni has described as "people who live in safe areas" where their friends all share their political views, as opposed to E. Mult. County, downstate counties such as Marion and Polk counties, etc.) That target audience loved the ads and the fact it was a "nontraditional" campaign. Ever wonder that maybe "traditional" campaigns are more successful?

Or you can scapegoat DSCC for choosing the candidate who already held elective office over the activist whose name had never been on a ballot before. Your choice.