David Wu is most certainly not my "hero". If you've been reading what I've been writing about him over the last month or so, you'd know that I am deeply skeptical about his explanations for his behavior.

We asked him tough questions. Do I have follow-ups that I wish I'd asked at the time? Sure. But I don't think we let him off easy.

In any case, you haven't any idea. Because we've only posted two of the six posts so far. The rest are coming tomorrow.

If there are questions that you'd like to hear answered (and I'm sure you have some, as do I), then let's hear 'em. I'll try and get them answered.

Oh, and while I'm not one to defend the Oregonian, I do think it's worth noting that Janie Har has been all over this story.

There are plenty of criticisms that I've heard of the O regarding their Wu coverage, but this is the first time I've heard "lazy" or "sleepy". Rather, most of the criticism has been of the "why don't they leave it alone already" variety.

The primary function of BlueOregon is to get Democrats elected and re-elected. Wu has made clear that he's not stepping down. And so it's BlueOregon's job to get him re-elected. The "interview" was a nice effort in that general direction. But independent journalism, it isn't.

Quote: Rather, most of the criticism has been of the "Why don't they leave it alone already" variety. Obviously, this would be the story coming out of BlueOregon.

Sorry Kari, but I don't want to leave it alone. He is my representative and he's unfit for the position at this point in his life. Our major new sources in Oregon buried this news about Wu prior to the election as they buried the news about Neil Goldschmidt's sex abuse victim decades ago.

I don't blame Kari for writing about Wu. It's his job. However, he has a conflict of interest that casts a pall over what he publishes. And for the O to pretty much leave it at that and let Wu brush them off is quite troublesome.

"We asked him tough questions."

Fatuous.

"If there are questions that you'd like to hear answered (and I'm sure you have some, as do I), then let's hear 'em."

If Mr Wu's entire staff urged him to seek psychiatric counseling BEFORE the election and then quit after the election (I believe one quote was - I'll never work for him again) - Why was this under such deep cover and kept hidden from voters. The whole thing smacks of a Watergate-type cover-up.

If you are going to say none of your business, my response would be that 1/5 of the population of Oregon entrusted him with making decisions on their behalf in Congress. I think he needs to be held to a higher standard.

Even higher than most of the Rs that BlueOregon loves to lampoon based on the slightest rumors.

For BO, I'd say keep the BS going, keeping Sam and Wu in office are the best things the Ds could do for the Rs.

If the other questions are like the first one:

Q (BO) - "it’s been reported that she wrote an email, in which she said, “No enabling by any potential enablers. He needs help. And you need to be protected.” What was she talking about? Protected from what?

A (Wu) - I don’t know because I haven’t seen the email. And I don’t know if that’s accurate.
Followed by blather on how much he loved Lisa Grove.

More hard-hitting journalism folks? Think about why Wu selected you - He likes feather-balls.

Wu has made clear that he's not stepping down. And so it's BlueOregon's job to get him re-elected.

Touchdown

1. BlueOregon does not exist to re-elect Democrats. BlueOregon is a place for Democrats and other progressives to talk about politics. Naturally, that often means talking about campaign politics, and we're generally supportive of Democrats. But there's been plenty of criticism before -- and we don't censor critical commentary in our comments, so it's an open venue.

2. For the record, David Wu is not and has never been a client of my firm. This interview was the first time I'd talked to him since he was first running back in 1998.

3. No, I'm not an independent journalist. Have never pretended to be.

4. I do think our questions were tough. Could we have had better follow-ups? Sure. But we were given only ten minutes, so we moved ahead to the next question. (Was that a smart strategy on Wu's part? Perhaps, yes.)

5. We're posting the entirety of his answers to our questions precisely so that other people - professional journalists and their sources, hopefully - can match his answers to us up to what they know. If there are inconsistencies, I expect that they'll report on them.

Carol -

In your litany of stories regarding local politicians which the Oregonian has studiously avoided covering until embarassed by the competition don't forget Packwood.

The Washington Post broke that one.

About that time the Zero was running an ad campaign to the effect "If it matters to Oregon, its in the Oregonian."

Quickly, some one started printing up bumper stickers, using the various tombstone typefaces of the respective papers, which read " If it matters to Oregonians its in the Washington Post."

The Zero dropped the ad campaign very soon thereafter.

Steve:

#1. I read him the salient part of the email out loud.

#2. Would I have followed up if I had known that we'd still be talking an hour later? Absolutely! But at that point, we were like at minute 9 of a ten-minute appointment. I wanted to at least get question #2 in.

#3. If you're serious, please suggest appropriate follow-up questions. "Don't let him weasel" is not a follow-up question.

#4. I'm justifying Wu's behavior? Are you on crack? Have you even bothered to read my half-dozen posts before this interview?

"I'm justifying Wu's behavior?"

Read the posts on your own WEBsite every time Sam or Wu engages in stuff like this, you get comment on comment finding excuses for why we can't judge or hwo bad Rs are.

If his staff wants to commit Wu and then everyone just ignores it so he can get elected, you don't see anything wrong with this?

Read the posts on your own WEBsite every time Sam or Wu engages in stuff like this, you get comment on comment finding excuses for why we can't judge

Really, Steve? I'm now responsible for the content of every comment on BlueOregon? Sorry, but no.

If his staff wants to commit Wu and then everyone just ignores it so he can get elected, you don't see anything wrong with this?

Of course I see something wrong with that! But I was interviewing David Wu, not his (former) staff. There's no sense asking him about someone else's decision - a decision that he clearly disagreed with at the time.

"I'm now responsible for the content of every comment on BlueOregon?"

No just the posts by the bomb throwers that love to excoritate Rs for bad behavior and then look the other way with Ds like Wu.

At the end of the day, I guess it doesn't matter, you have an objective to advance certain causes and I am aware of that, so I don't expect much.

However, you might want to re-think what's going to happen on the next cycle with Wu. If you don't think his handler is going to get every opp to pose him with some credible people to re-build his image, then you'll be stuck with him as a candidate.

"Of course I see something wrong with that!"

So what are you going to use your pulpit to do about it?

Sorry, but that's just silly. I shouldn't need a formal disclaimer to make the rather obvious point that each human is responsible for the words that they say/type, we've had that language on the site since the beginning.

Copyright to and responsibility for all posts and comments are owned by their respective authors.

Obviously, the posts and comments here are the views of their authors, and not of anyone else.

I am no more responsible for the comments of the idiots and geniuses that post on BlueOregon than Jack B. is responsible for my comments (and yours) here on his site.