To quote one of the foremost social theorists of our age, Dave Chappelle: "Boom! Pow! Ka-Bam!"

I don't consider:

"Obama is just another captive-of-special-interests fraud who doesn't really care about global warming and doesn't deserve to be hailed as some great Kenya-Kansas hope"

telling the truth... but I guess what ever suits you.

And this rather quirky ad will appeal to the cross-over (Republicans Kevin talks about in his post today)and less liberal voters how?

local mom,

In fairness to Novick, his task right now is the Dem primary. Republicans and apolitical moderates really aren't who he's trying to target right now.

That said, I happen to believe that Novick has effectively framed himself out of serious contention with moderates in the General with his recurring foot-in-mouth disease. But right now none of that is relevant to what his short-term goal is with this ad.

Actually, my husband (who is completely politically inactive, hates discussing politics, etc.) loved this ad. He liked the other ones, but he thought this one was great.

brad, it's almost impossible to assert a truth IN A QUESTION, which is what the entire phrase you misquoted turns out to be, in original.

But you go ahead with the Hillarization of Jeff; all those negative videos about Steve that he's come out with last week, I'm sure are zooming Jeff up the polls.

Creative ad, but it didn't hit home for me. I want to see ads addressing the big issues, health care, economy, Iraq and environmental/energy issues. What I'm really hankering for are the attack ads against the Republicans. I know I have to wait awhile, but I really want to see their anti-family voting records hitting the airwaves.

local mom

if you've been paying attention, the cross-over voters this year are more liberal than less. voters who are not sworn by blood-oath to vote Republican will actually be drawn to Steve's message. not because they favor "raising taxes" -- as Gordo's shills will label this SS message -- but because of Steve's honesty and his willingness to say exactly what he means. Obama's career, not to mention this campaign, has had a fair amount of support from voters who oppose him on many issues yet support his honesty and scrupulous adherence to principal. it will work for Steve in Oregon, too. and set an example for the future.

(and i'm glad to see Dr Dean quoted: his example in 2003 set the tone for the campaigns that have followed, and succeeded)

voters who are not sworn by blood-oath to vote Republican will actually be drawn to Steve's message. not because they favor "raising taxes" -- as Gordo's shills will label this SS message -- but because of Steve's honesty and his willingness to say exactly what he means.

This would describe my husband. He's considered leaving the Republican Party because he's been so unhappy with them over a variety of issues, from the War in Iraq to the economic situation of this country.

Now I just gotta work even harder to get him to change his registration, even if it is just for the primary.

Clever, as usual, but I liked the first one the best (multiple Novicks).

And I agree with Sarah, although I felt Novick's first ad did both better, mixing humor and issues.

Also, is ad ad "news"?

Yes. On a blog devoted to Democratic politics in Oregon, a US Senate candidate in Oregon releasing a TV spot is definitely news.

"Yes. On a blog devoted to Democratic politics in Oregon, a US Senate candidate in Oregon releasing a TV spot is definitely news."

Absolutely. I would expect to see all of Merkley's videos, and would wonder why they weren't here--even if he wasn't a client of Kari's. Videos are news, regardless of who they come from--and as a blogger, they're very effective at drawing views.

Yes, Mr. Novick's out-of-state ad consultants are clever. But will Novick be a better Senator than Merkley?

The first relevant question is which candidate is more likely to get from here to there, electorally speaking. Someone could be a great Senator from a policy standpoint, but if they don't know how to campaign, then the point is moot.

Ok, that ad did it. My husband is about to fill out his change of registration so that he can vote for Novick in the primary.

I watched Novick's ad again last evening, and then saw it on tv a short time later. While I admit it is clver, what struck me was that it started out pretty well, but then switched to a brief statement on Social Security (will uninformed people really get what he's saying?), and ended with a seemingly angry Steve Novick stomping off the stage.

His supporters keep trying to compare him to Barack Obama. In this ad I think he looks more like a man with the temperament of John McCain, or maybe Bill Clinton.

I'm still supporting Jeff Merkley's style of bringing people together to get things done.

I doubt it - my eyes are WIDE open! I'm just describing how I felt when I saw the ad - just as others have done above. "Reasonable people can disagree".

and ended with a seemingly angry Steve Novick stomping off the stage.

That's how it seemed to me too. That message is further reinforced by the upbeat beginning which Novick yanks the plug on, thereby explicitly disavowing an upbeat message of hope.

This anger theme seems to be a thread weaving throughout the Novick campaign. For months his supporters have angrily insisted that Novick is "more progressive" because he allegedly was the only one supporting gay marriage. Then when that was debunked and both Basic Rights Oregon and Just Out magazine endorsed Merkley, Novick's supporters responded with... more anger.

Another great ad.

Angry? Anger? I just don't see it.

To be honest, Steve's campaign could have worked on me - if he'd been running against some other Democrat than Jeff. I've certainly been disappointed by the behavior of some Democrats, specifically the State Senate, which has a solid Democratic majority, yet still can't manage to pass Rep. Greenlick's constitutional initiative to put health care as a fundamental right on the ballot.

This, after they signed a promise to do so.

Here Jeff is, working with a one vote margin. He manages to pass it out of the House. But in the Senate, with a 17 to 13 majority, they chicken out of passing a measure which by every poll would win in a landslide.

No, Steve does have a point. It's just that he's up against a Democrat who does stand up for progressives, while doing it in a way that doesn't burn bridges. And because of that, he really can't differentiate himself this way.

That's very interesting, DE--I got a comment at LO yesterday suggesting much the same thing. The writer lists a set of policy disagreements with Novick--but is voting with him anyway because he stands strong on principle...not, as an example, telling the Arabs one thing about the Middle East and the Jews another, as Merkley apparently has. I think the argument that Steve can draw better from non-Democrats in the general, is beginning to become evident in the primary.

And this is funny: "he's up against a Democrat who does stand up for progressives, while doing it in a way that doesn't burn bridges."

You mean like when Merkley let mortgage reform be gutted to the point that progressives wouldn't support it, and then burned bridges with the Senate? Like that?

torridjoe: You mean like when Merkley let mortgage reform be gutted to the point that progressives wouldn't support it, and then burned bridges with the Senate? Like that?

That bill passed with 28 Democrats in the House supporting it, 3 against. There was precisely ONE Democrat who said his opposition to the bill was that it was too weak. The other two (and most Democrats in the Senate) don't want to talk about it because it's clear they didn't want to see any bill addressing the issue that the banking industry objected to.

So by saying "progressives wouldn't support" the bill, you're saying that 28 Democrats who actually stood up to pass the measure aren't really "progressive".

Typical of you, really.

Seriously Mark, every time I edge towards the thought that Steve is running a good campaign, I'm reminded of their overwhelming blunder of not telling you to STFU at every opportunity. If I was some paranoid Novick conspiracy theorist, I'd say you were secretly on the Merkley payroll.

who said I was referring to legislators, Maurer? I was talking about organizations that backed it; go reread the Sunday O's wrapup. In any case, you're forgetting about the Senators who wouldn't support it, either.

And are you saying that but for me, Steve might be ahead by 20 points or more, instead of 12? Interesting.

Steven, that's why I've ceased responding to him on anything. Anything I could possibly add would only detract from his value to the Merkley campaign.

It doesn't take long on these threads to make conversation about this primary more difficult than it needs to be.

I think it's a great ad. You have to look at it through the context of the viewer and the crowded political landscape. The presidential race is already on TV, down-ticket races are buying airtime, and even some local city council races are on broadcast.

And many of the other spots frankly look the same. Novick's stands out. Not only does it continue to position Novick as not an ordinary politician, the transition in the ad focuses the viewer's attention and amplifies what Steve says about millionaires paying their fair share.

It's also smart strategy for Steve to set the terms of the debate on tax fairness knowing Smith will come after either Democratic nominee on taxes.

"Anything I could possibly add would only detract from his value to the Merkley campaign. "

Not to mention yours...!

The thing that makes this ad potentially very impactful is the way it compares and contrasts to Jeff Merkley's ads as a genre, without actually calling them out. The voters will get the point.

<hr/>