It's basically the same thing Sen. Reid did to Jack Carter. And in Nevada, this was especially problematic, as Sen. Reid basically controls the NV Dems. I don't know about Sen. Wyden's clout among OR Dems. But this generally sucks!

As an Oregonian, and a constituent of both Peter DeFazio and Ron Wyden, I have to say that I am appauled to hear that Senator Wyden will not be campaigning for the Democrat nominated by Oregon Democrats to run against Senator Smith, be it DeFazio or anyone else.

While Senator Wyden has been strong on Net Neutrality and other technology issues, he not been a strong partner on issues that matter to working families. From Senator Wyden's support of CAFTA to his health insurance industry-friendly health care plan (see Senatory Wyden's description of his plan at TPM Cafe, be sure to read the comments below), Senator Wyden has supported big-money positions when it comes to pocket-book issues. In contrast, Rep. DeFazio has taken the lead against unfair "Free Trade" agreements and is a genunine populist.

Perhaps Senator Wyden's announcement that he will not campaign for Smith's opponent is furtner evidence that Smith's opponent will be Peter DeFazio. Wyden and DeFazio obviously do not see eye-to-eye on economic justice issues, and the two battled in the Senate primary that ultimately sent Wyden to the Senate.

I sincerely hope that Peter DeFazio runs for Senate. We need more Democratic leaders like Peter DeFazio. And Senator Wyden - please stop undermining your fellow Democrats.

Not cool at all.  You would think, even as an insider, that Wyden would want to be able to get things done starting in 2008.  To do that, Democrats clearly need more seats.  To me, the worst part about this isn't that he's putting personal relationships above his party; it's that he's explicitly valuing a personal relationship over his OWN agenda!  Very discouraging.  

Like Barbara Boxer not getting why progressives don't like Lieberman. It's like all the Dems in the Senate who expressed their regret that their friend Lieberman lost, their reluctant sighing endorsement of Lamont, the party choice.

Article recommend:http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/ind ex.cfm?mode=entry&entry=FB0166DB-E0C 3-F08F-99B81725D937DE44

Sirota today on influencing conservative Dems, many links to great articles on trade, populism, winning progressives.

Just to play devil's advocate/stir the pot a little bit...

As Adam B and Jedinecny noted above, Wyden isn't the first Senator or statewide politician to steer clear of opportunities to get a home-state colleague of the opposite party booted out of office.  Are there any Senate insiders who might have some reasonable explanation for why you'd stay out of a race like this?

My two theories:

1) The 2 senators from the same state have to work closely with each other on home state issues, so deep involvement in getting your colleague kicked out of office might compromise your ability work with him down the road.  So this isn't putting "personal relationships above agenda," it's more "avoid taking a risk that could further your own agenda in a big way but could just as easily backfire and sink your agenda."

2) If you go out on a limb for somebody in a big way and they lose, you lose face.  Wyden, Reid, etc. decided their involvement wouldn't really help all that much, so why bother?  Beyond raising $, I'm personally skeptical about how much how much clout most Senators have to get influence the outcome of home state races other than their own.

Anybody have examples of Senators who did try to get a colleague kicked out?  The top example I can think of is Frist campaigning against Daschle, and  my take on that episode is that was an example of the exact sort of putting politics above all else (i.e. a functional relationship with the opposition party) that cost the GOP their majority.

and speaker of the house, said this morning on Portland station KPAM that she didn't believe there were any democrats that could be beat Senator Smith. She is a democrat that can't be brushed as a slouch. A real powerhouse in the party. Ouch!!!

This plays such a discordant harmony to the below post about the Democratic base and the "mushy middle."

I've been a constituent of Wyden for his entire 10 years in the Senate, and my opinion of him has, during that time, oscillated from respect and even adoration to outright disgust.

I love Ron for voting against the war. I love Ron for voting against the Patriot Act. But this crap? You might have lost me for good, Ron.

Gordon Smith is not a moderate just because a certain local newspaper's editorial board wouldn't know a moderate if he were kicking them in the balls. Gordon Smith is a member of a wacky religious cult and supported racist Trent Lott's return to leadership in the Senate.

At the same time, Oregon is no longer the swing state Ron knew when he ran in 1996, 1998 or even in 2004. Just look at his margins of victory steadily climbing.

Can we call this BOXER-itis after her disappointing performance in Connecticut last summer?

Wyden didn't have any trouble campaigning against Smith back in 96 when he defeated him for Packwood's open seat. Has Smith changed? Or is Ron Wyden the only person more qualified than Smith to be a Senator from Oregon?

This Oregon liberal worries that Wyden may take the Lieberman path. Yes, the two senators work closely together on many state issues; but that is not a good reason to abandon one's party and progressive responsibilities. DeFazio will be a great candidate, and will win.  Vera Katz is just out of touch with the rest of the state.  What I don't see discussed, or factored into the election calculus, is the distinct likelihood that Oregon state senator Ben Westlund will make the run as an independent.  That will surely have an effect.

...got to be so long that I posted it as a diary.