Wife and I are long time Democrats and we have our insurance with Blue Cross, Blue Shield.

Last week we get a letter that our premium is increasing. Why? Not because of greedy insurance companies as our party has been telling us, but because of the greedy Blue government of Oregon now taxing the health premiums of individuals.

Also, local taxes and fees - again, by our own Democrat party - are increasing, yet we are getting less service at more cost. Something is wrong with this picture.

We are seriously thinking of changing parties. Reality does not seem to be matching the party lines.

@ Crushed in Eugene

The greedy blue govt. of Oregon decided that poor children should have health care. If you can afford Blue Cross/Blue Shield you're not hurting any. And expect more increases from Blue Cross as they and the other corporate insurers pump a million dollars a day to defeat health care reform. Why don't you ask your insurer why they are pumping your dollars to CEO bonuses and to pay for the defeat of health care reform, instead of blaming poor children. Go ahead and vote for Rush Limbaugh if that's where your values are.

local taxes and fees - again, by our own Democrat party - are increasing

Memo to trolls: If you're posing as a member of the Democratic party, helps to get the name right.

It would be the greatest thing ever if just once, a pol went through this whole shitshow of an announcement tour - while "officially" still being coy and refusing to confirm their intentions - and then said they're passing. I'm just saying.

I disagree, T.A., that "this is an easy choice given the Doctor's demonstrated understanding of the nature of progressive politics and what it takes to get things done here at home."

That's really vague. Perhaps you'll have to elaborate on that demonstrated understanding of Kitzhaber's. He pronounced the state "ungovernable" when he left office, because he couldn't get things done.

And as for the nature of progressive politics...did you read Kitzhaber's announcement? He blathered about partisanship repeatedly and called for something he termed "post-partisan" politics, so I don't follow how he becomes the progressive leader of the Democratic Party in Oregon.

Progressives didn't quit in 2002 and accept that Oregon was ungovernable. Instead they worked their rears off to elect solid majorities in both houses to make Oregon governable. Those hardworking, full-time Dems demonstrated an understanding of progressive politics and how to get things done. Kitzhaber sat on the sideline and played no role whatsoever in building those majorities.

We need a real choice in this race, not cheerleading for a mulligan and an anointment. I'm glad to see Bradbury has the backbone and wherewithal to run against Kitzhaber, and with allies like Barbara Roberts, who unlike Kitzhaber has never stopped working for Democrats, Kitzhaber should be worried.

Sharon, I agree with Carl,

"The good thing about a campaign is hopefully this issue and many more will be flushed out and debated between the candidates. Then we will know where both stand on it. "

As for which candidate should be worried, if there is a debate on any issue and one candidate goes into specifics while the other uses vague talking points, the vague candidate should be worried.

There are those of us who are demanding serious debate and not getting on any bandwagon until we see who has the most serious debate on issues.

For those with shorter memories, Kitzhaber forced Barbara Roberts out of a 1994 race for re-election by announcing a primary challenge. So there's no love lost between the two.

UPO... it wasn't quite that cut and dry.

But certainly Kitz' choice to challenge her was ONE of the reasons she chose not to run for re-election.

On topic: At least within the Democratic party, B. Roberts is a well loved figure. And by throwing her weight behind Bradbury, she will certainly make many Oregonians stop and put some thought into the primary rather than just crown Dr. K.

Hello!

I'm a writer from the Portland Spectator and I will be attending and interviewing Mr. Bradbury's announcement speech tomorrow. Sadly, I don't know too much about Mr. Bradbury, so I was hoping you could fill me in a bit.

Perhaps some concerns you have for a new governor, challenges you hope they address, wants or what not?

Thanks very much for your time!

-Xander

UPO--I remember that time vividly, and "forced" is rather strong.

I recall there were those friends of Barbara who were worried about another campaign so soon after her husband died. She'd lost her Dad during the 1990 campaign, she'd lost her husband, the Speaker of the House (newly Republican) had been openly hostile, she'd survived 2 recall attempts. There were debates among active Democrats who cared about her over whether it was wise for her to run again, just due to the stress level.

That said, there were in many ways 2 wings in the Democratic Party back then which were not entirely ideological. Everyone loved Barbara--she'd been the consensus choice to deliver the vote on the national convention floor. The land of clean air, clean water, and clean politics..." is something we should still aspire to.

But she was a supporter of the presidential candidate who had gotten maybe 30% of the primary vote even though 95% of the party establishment had supported Mondale.

The division in the party back then was largely between "we've always done it that way" and "let's try this for a change".

That there were individual Democrats supporting Kitzhaber as a breath of fresh air who had done a good job as Sen. President does not mean John "forced" Barbara not to run.

Now, unless someone wants to get into the debate on whether Kitzhaber had a right to run (is any elected official ever entitled to a nomination to the point that it is heresy to challenge that person?), let's dump this "he forced her out" nonsense.

Both great people. Friends worried about the stress Gov. Barbara was under. I was there, and no one will ever convince me that she was "forced". In the oral history which appears regularly on Oregon Channel, she says that a primary challenge entered into her decision not to run for re-election. But is that really the same as "Kitzhaber forced Barbara Roberts out of a 1994 race for re-election by announcing a primary challenge."?

I admire both of them. But if endorsing Bradbury is seen by some as payback, that does not help the Bradbury campaign. We need Bill to debate John on issues, not on what might have happened over a decade ago. I would much rather hear Bradbury on kicker reform or tax reform or campaign finance reform than to hear the early 1990s rehashed.

Remember, those young voters who don't remember back that far are not likely to be impressed by an old battle.

I may actually become a member of the democratic party in order to vote in this interesting primary.

<h2>For the benefit of Mr Kite as well as Crushed in Eugene, it's obviously time to organize something actually called the DEMOCRAT PARTY.</h2>