Forward Oregon

On Monday, both Oregon Democratic US Senate candidates “endorsed” my candidate for President, Barack Obama. For both, John Edwards was their previous choice, but has long since departed the race. That was the end of the similarities, as Jeff Merkley gave a full throated endorsement of Obama, based on shared values and belief in the grassroots. Novick on the other hand, spent 13 paragraphs praising Hillary Clinton, repeated some of the worst smears against Obama, and doesn’t use the word “endorse” once. Whose “endorsement” would you rather have?

Speaker of the Oregon House Jeff Merkley, the co-chair of the John Edwards, was the headliner in the Oregon Edward’s leadership team’s recent endorsement of Obama. Jeff emphasized the shared values between the two:

“Barack Obama and I share something more in common than simply our determination to change America for the better,” said Speaker Jeff Merkley, “Both of us come from the grassroots, where real change is sewn… Both Senator Obama and I understand what it means to empower Americans house-by-house, community-by-community. That’s the reason I’m running for U.S. Senate – to put that kind of power back into the hands of everyday Oregonians again. And that’s the same reason I’m endorsing Barack Obama for President today.”

A solid rationale coming with the added bonus of the former Edward’s campaign’s help.

Lets compare Merkley’s approach to Steve Novick. Novick, who was recently outed as a former Nader supporter, was more disparaging towards Obama than in any other “endorsement” I have ever read:

I can recite the arguments against Obama in my sleep. No, his health care plan isn’t as good as Hillary’s; we do have to require everyone to have health insurance (or go with single payer), or the math doesn’t work. He’s voted for at least one ugly “tort reform” bill, and has made unnerving comments about the civil justice system. And yes, he did say very disturbing things about Ronald Reagan. Sure, the Clintons exaggerated it - but what does it mean to say that for years, the Republicans were the party of “ideas”? Slashing taxes for rich people is an original idea? And what does it mean to say people welcomed Reagan as a response to “the excesses of the ’60s and ’70s”? What “excesses”? Medicare? The Clean Air Act?…I might ultimately be disappointed, I’d rather be disappointed in new ways, rather than the same old ways.

[Hillary Clinton] knows, possibly better than Obama, what’s wrong with the country, and she knows what we need to do to fix it.
[emphasis mine]

While hitting someone in the face with a frying pan before saying that you support them is quit surprising, this quote from the Willamette Week’s Super Tuesday coverage should have given me a heads up that Novick’s penchant for attacking good Democrats extends beyond his primary opponent:

Even Novick, known for his direct talk despite his career as a political activist, waffled before finally naming his candidate.

“I go back and forth,” Novick said. “I suspect I’ll be disappointed with either one of them“

So why endorse a candidate if you think you think a candidate will disappoint you? I generally don’t like to write about peoples motives but one of the biggest Novick supporters on the internet did just that with Merkly’s endorsement, so lets go there.

Could it be that Novick is trying to run his campaign almost exclusively on the internet, yet he has failed to get traction on Daily Kos except when pimping presidential candidates (4 out of his top 10 most rec’ed diaries about or by Novick were presidential candidate diaries)?

Or maybe it is because he got word that his opponent had scheduled a press conference and was about to throw some real weight behind Obama and didn’t want to get outflanked?

Or maybe it was just another reason to have his internet goons attack Merkley for “disrespecting the legacy of John Edwards” (this from a candidate that didn’t join the Oregon for Edwards team or put forth any noticeable effort to get him elected)?

Or maybe it was what this hardcore Novick supporter claims:

Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Feb 25, 2008 6:58:36 PM I suspect Steve was simply trying not to piss off those of his supporters who feel passionately about Hillary

Man am I glad that we have Steve Novick in the race because he speaks truth to power and will always fight the good fight regardless of the consequences…. Oh wait never mind.

Time and time again, Steve Novick tries to present himself as a straight talker, a kind of liberal maverick, but when push comes to shove Novick is calculating, wish washy, and is never seen far from his immediate political interests, just like politics as usual. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

If Hillary Clinton had run her campaign with this statement as a guiding principle she would have easily become the Democratic nominee for President. Throughout the race, her campaign sought to portray her as something that was ruthless, cold, calculating, and brutal. They got their wish. The media remembered the ugly Clinton wars of the 1990s and painted her with all of the animosity that they could muster. When compared with a truly transcendent political figure of Barack Obama, she became an ugly embodiment of what is wrong with American politics. I believe that Barack Obama won the debate tonight, but Hillary Clinton delivered the most transcendent line of her campaign. Unfortunately, I believe it is far too late, as for her to win the nomination at this juncture would require destroying the Democratic party and ensuring her defeat in November. However, if this is truly the last throws of her effort, may she not be remembered for the race baiting, consultant driven, nasty campaign that has obscured her humanity but for this. Let her keep this vision and return to the Senate to resume the people’s work.

UPDATE: I knew I liked it for a reason, cuz it was an Edwards line:

Who is plagiarizing now?  I am pretty sure that Edwards isn’t one of Clinton’s campaign co-chairs either.  Every time I start to quell my distaste for the Clintons, they pull crap like this.  Ignore what I previously said, with the way they have attacked Obama on this very issue they should be roasted.  How do you spell hypocrisy?