More About This Website


"Give me your tired, your poor

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore

Send these, the homeless, tempest-toss'd to me

I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door."

Hundreds of Oregon Corporations Escape the Minimum Tax


Half of the US Is Broke


The myth of the Christian country


“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

FDR, 2nd Inaugural Address, Jan 20, 1937


Middle East friendship chart


Corporations enriching shareholders


Facts not fiction on universal gun background checks



"Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere"

Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963

Martin Luther King, Jr.

The GOP - Not One of US.

Wall Street, our new criminal class...       

   Business in the USA is sitting on $2 trillion dollars refusing to invest their own funds in expanding and hiring workers.  

   When one adds to this the reserves that banks, equity firms and hedge funds have - the picture is clear - "capitalism in the USA is on strike." 

   The engine of our economy - the spirit of entrepreneurship is not in evidence today.  So much for business being dynamic and risk taking. 

   They hire K- Street lobbyists and their ilk at the state level because they are averse to risk taking - pleading for tax breaks, tax credits and endless loopholes. 

   The "business of business" in America today is not about job creation, it's about wealth hoarding and redistribution from the middle class to the top 1%. 

   So for those who claim government doesn't create jobs, my response is that business doesn't either until given "corporate welfare" by government.  The fact is that the private and public sector are highly integrated, something the anti-tax, anti-government Tea Party types don't understand. 

   Job creation requires public/private partnerships but the benefits of such collaboration should go to the 99% not just the 1%.  





  • A Middle East View      

Rami G. Khouri

  • RealClearPolitics:


  • Jim Hightower:

  • Robert Reich:

Robert Reich

  • Thomas Friedman: 

Friedman Column

  • Nicholas Kristof: 

Kristof Column

Oregon's Motto: 

She flies with her own wings! 

Hard Times in Oregon: 


The Oregon story - the rich get richer, the poor and middle class lose ground.  Check this front page Oregonian article out. 

Oregon wage gap widens

Homelessness in Oregon - a call to action

Chuck Currie The crisis of homelessness


      Oregon's coming 34th out of 41 states in the Obama "Race to the Top" illustrates the failure of leadership from Governor Kitzhaber and his predecessors as they have built an educational bridge to nowhere called high stakes testing.

   Instead of being in a race to the top we seem to be dumpster diving to the bottom despite doing education reform since 1991.  Insanity is termed doing the same thing over and over again.  When can we put a fork in this stupidity? 

   To confuse matters more the Oregonian's editorial board has pontificated that this was a lost opportunity to get federal funding for innovation.  How firing principals and teachers equals innovation is a mystery to me.   

   The way to reform schools is to reduce class sizes, to encourage teacher collaboration and to support their continued education.  High stakes testing and performance based assessment of teachers are NOT the answer!    

   If you want students to succeed you first have to resolve the issues they confront before they come to school.  Children who face poverty, hunger, homelessness, health care issues and family instability require wrap around services for them and their families, 24/7.   

   Every child needs a safe home of their own and parents who know how to be good parents.   

There is only one way to address this impending crisis.  Schools must have a stable source of funding. Until that happens - we will limp from crisis to crisis.   




    Why does the richest nation in the world have the moral blight of homeless people?

Invisible People


    Connecting the dots between homelessness & hunger in Oregon and Washington County: 


•    The faces of the homeless are families with children, single men and women, vets, and many who are impaired. It is estimated that in Washington County up to 56% of homelessness occurs to families.


•    Hunger is highest among single mother households (10%) and poor families (15%) as well as renters, unemployed workers and minority households. 

     In Washington County, Oregon's "economic engine," the divide between the affluent and the working poor continues.  We have a 19,000 unit gap in affordable low income rental housing.  County political and business leaders are indifferent to this crisis...   
















































RAD Lines

See my FACEBOOK @ Russ


  • He lost by 2.9 million votes...

  • He's a con artist...

  • He's a pathological liar... 

  • He's a failed business man...

  • He's a fascist... 


Trump & The Mob


Trump's role models are Vladmir Putin and Benito Mussolini.  He has contempt for our checks and balances system.  He wants to "rule" not govern like a strong man, a despot.  He will shredd the Constitution anytime he feels the urge to do so and like all despots he only listens to his inner circle.  And he is paranoid and narcissistic. 


Hundreds of Oregon Corporations Escape the Minimum Tax


Half of the US Is Broke


The myth of the Christian country


Housing Needs in Oregon 




"There are men who believe that democracy... is limited or measured by a kind of mystical and artificial fate [and that] tyranny and slavery have become the surging wave of the future..." 

FDR, 3rd Inaugural Address, Jan 20, 1940

  • "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild

  • Miguel de Cervantes, from The Duke - "I accuse you of being an idealist, a bad poet and an honest man."  Cervantes' response - "Guilty as charged, I have never had the courage to believe in nothing."   from Man of La Mancha  

Professor Kingfield, from the Paper Chase

   "I'm not a teacher: only a fellow traveler of whom you asked the way. I pointed ahead – ahead of myself as well as you." 

- George Bernard Shaw



From the Left Wing:

Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman - The New York Times

Democracy Now

The Daily Kos

Blue Oregon


"Children are made readers on the laps of their parents." 

- Emilie Buchwald 


    "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law." 

- Justice John Paul Stevens, Bush v. Gore, 2001

    The state of our union - check out the map, it's a reality check for those who can't figure out why people are so ticked off... 



"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war"

- John Adams

"Loyalty to country always.  Loyalty to government when it deserves it."  

- Mark Twain  

“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”  

- George Santayana 

"The love of one's country is a natural thing.  But why should love stop at the border?" 

- Pablo Casals

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, the blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned; the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." 

- William Butler Yeats  


"You see things; and you say, 'Why?' 

But I dream things that never were; and I say, "Why not?"  

- George Bernard Shaw, "Back to Methuselah" (1921) 

"...the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society...  The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government..."  

- James Madison, Federalist Papers #11 

"Why … should we have government? Why not each individual take to himself the whole fruit of his labor, without having any of it taxed away?”   

The legitimate object of government, is to do for the people whatever they need to have done, but which they can not do, at all, or can not do, so well, for themselves – in their separate and individual capacities … There are many such things … roads, bridges and the like; providing for the helpless young and afflicted; common schools … the criminal and civil [justice] departments."    

- Abraham Lincoln 

Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society  

- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. 

"Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates, but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole..." 

- Edmund Burke  

“It is a maxim among these lawyers that whatever hath been done before may legally be done again, and therefore they take special care to record all the decisions formerly made against common justice and the general reason of mankind.  These, under the name of precedents, they produce as authorities, to justify the most iniquitous opinions.”  

- Jonathan Swift 

A RAD rhetorical question - Were Madison & Marx "Marxists"?  


"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments."   

- James Madison



















































    On scoring debater points, Hillary Clinton clearly won the Vegas debate by sounding presidential, hitting a home run with the president as manager answer and trapping Barack by the question would he support her in opposing permanent bases in Iraq - forgetting that was HER position only months ago.
    However, on substance, I thought John Edwards was the best of the three.  His I'm for the little guy rhetoric is compelling given the sub-prime loan scandal.  It's too bad he bailed on the McCall Forum last spring.  The topic of "Reclaiming the American Dream" was perfect for him. 
    Clinton and Edwards lost an authenticity as Brooks and Shields said last night on The NewsHour.  While Barack acknowledged his shortcoming of not being a good paper shuffler, Hillary and Edwards came up with soppy non-answers on what are your weaknesses. 
    But worse than that is Hillary's getting off on how the economy is hurting folks these days.  Well her claimed experience factor includes the co-presidency with Bill which saw the economy run up to historical levels only to come down as he was leaving office. 
    And what did Billary preside over along with the help of Newt Gingrich often with the Dems opposition - NAFTA, the WTO and deregulation of the economy - the very things that have cost American workers their jobs, put their children at risk to lead based toys from China and a banking system that created the sub-prime loan scandal. 
    Hillary wants to enact a 60 day moratorium on home foreclosures!  Wow - that will really help the working poor who bought the farm of the American Dream on margins.  So Hillary your economic stimulus package is a little late.  New York is the center of the financial world.  Why didn't your figure this out a long time ago? 
    So, the price of your "experience" has added up to a failed health care scheme; your support of the war; your belief in globalism without restraints or an even playing field; and the end of welfare as we knew it.  Your crocodile tears don't persuade me that your experience quotient is reason to rent you the West Wing again!
    Yes, Hillary probably would be a good CEO but the USA doesn't need another control freak Nixonian-like president who talks like a progressive but governs like a Reagan lite. And we don't need another president who suffers from TAP syndrome - terminal arrogance of power syndrome.
    For those working class Democrats who voted for Hillary in Iowa and New Hamsphire, you need to ask yourself an important question.  Why are you voting for Hillary whose mentor husband sold you down the river with Newt's help by outsourcing your jobs to India, Mexico and China, while Bush lite has outsourced your sons and daughters in the military to Iraq and Afghanistan - in both cases with Hillary's blessing?
    If you can't find it in your heart to vote for Barack, at least have the common sense to vote your "class" interests and vote for John Edwards who has spent a lifetime as a trial lawyer defending hard working people who played by the rules only to be screwed by corporate America.  It's time working people in the USA took their blinders off and realized who their political allies really are!
    Bill and Hillary Clinton say they feel your pain, but they don't govern in your interests.  Slick Willy used a slightly benign version of Reagan's trickle down economics tilted towards middle class tax cuts but primarily targeted to the yuppies on the east and west coasts only to see it all crash after his party was over in 2000.  It's time for the traditional base of the Democratic party to wake up and smell the roses.
    Your brothers and sisters in Illinois, eulogised by Studs Terkel, got the message in 2004 electing Barack Obama.  It's time lunch bucket Ds learned the hard lessons from Reagan's betayal of your interests and the Clinton false pandering to your interests.  It's time for the working class of the USA to quit being distracted by wedge issues of race and gender and to embrace a candidate who like FDR can unite the party, not energize the opposition party.  
    PS:  Bill Clinton's verbal thrashing of a reporter in Vegas yesterday denying Hillary's campaign had anything to do with the NEA lawsuit to stop casino workers caucusing on job sites was over the top.  "SLICK" - LIAR, LIAR PANTS ON FIRE... 



    The public spat between Team Clinton and Team Obama over Hillary's comment that "it took a president" - LBJ to realize Martin Luther King's dream simply won't go away.
    Today's op ed in the Oregonian by Joe Califano, special assistant on domestic policy in the Johnson administration, adds important details from an insider to history.
    Unfortunately, Califano in correcting the record begins the column with Slick Willie's "fairy tale" barb thrown at Barack. Well Joe is one of those DC insiders John Edwards pummels and lives in NY,NY.
    But title of his commentary says it all - "For civil rights, it took a partnership." If you read the column you'll see the partnership between LBJ and MLK, Jr. was written in often tragic blood, sweat and tears.
    The problem with Hillary Clinton's version of history is that she implies LBJ did it all on his own. Her candidacy is premised on the concept of the president as hero. In doing so Hillary is mythologizing history and marginalizing other's sacrifice because she wants to cast herself as a modern day Joan of Arc.
    If you buy Hillary's covert message then you believe the great person view of history. WW II was a confrontation between men in white hats, FDR and Churchill versus men in black hats, Hitler and Mussolini. The trouble is that it leaves out our "evil" ally Uncle Joe Stalin and the other axis of evil - the militarists of Japan.
    But even this factoid doesn't tell the story. WW II was won by what Tom Brokaw has called the Greatest Generation. But Brokaw's American centric view obscures the more complex reality that the battle in WW II was carried out on the home fronts and war fronts not just in the USA but also in Britain, France and far away Philippines.
    So what does this trip down memory lane teach us? Is Hillary Clinton a closet racist? No. Is Bill Clinton a closet racist? No. However, do the Clinton twist words to attack their enemies and/or cover their triangulating tracks? To steal  Groucho's line - "You bet your life."
    And the Clinton's do it so well. Any objective person of this sorry spectacle would have to agree that Team Clinton has won the PR war over an often ham handed Team Obama. Even in last night's Vegas debate while Barack took the fall for his side, Hillary spun her way out of admitting personal culpability. 
    But there was a singular moment in the debate when each candidate was asked do your opponents at this table have what it takes to be a good president? Barack and John said yes. Hillary said that's for the American people to decide. That's Clinton hubris in action!
    History is a messy dialectic fought in the halls of the academy, in the centers of political and economic power AND on the streets where average everyday people risk it all in war and peace to do the right thing, often making the ultimate sacrifice.
    The real heroes of the Civil Rights Movement are people most of us have never heard of - what in biblical circles are called the saving remnant. My dad once suggested to me their are two types of people - the doers who often work in obscurity and the ones who get the credit.
    When you look at Hillary and Barack - who is the doer, who is the one who craves the credit? The answer to that question will probably tell you a lot about their personality as well as what kind of president they will likely be.
    Do you want someone guided by John Dean's term "blind ambition" or somebody whose ego doesn't need constant stroking?
    When I watch Hillary on the campaign trail I see a candidate who needs constant reassurance, when I see Barack Obama I see a person who can admit a mistake and learn from it.
    At the end of the day who is the adult here? And we haven't even gotten to the GOP guys yet.
    PS:   Team Clinton has the NEA (teacher union which supports Clinton) challenging the Nevada caucus rules which allow casinos to hold at large caucus meetings to accommodate the service workers in this industry whose union has endorsed Obama.
    This is a despicable ploy which disadvantages the working poor, among them Latino and women service workers.  You'd expect this of the GOP tricksters, but not the Friends of Billary.  I guess not all working poor, Latinos and women are equal in the Queen's world after all.
    God forbid one calls this playing the class/race/gender card - oh no that would be a fairytale, right Slick?  RAD - LOL... 



204px-John_F._Kennedy_White_House_color_photo_portrait.jpg    Much has been said about comparing Barack Obama to JFK.  Those who favor Obama see the connection the soaring rhetoric of each.  Some have wondered if JFK speech guru Ted Sorensen (in his 80s) is ghost writing for Obama.
    Obama detractors including Hillary Clinton suggest that Barack, unlike JFK, is not ready to hit the ground running if elected - "he's not seasoned enough."  Before one goes too far in either line of comparison, a little historical perspective is warranted.
    Some suggest that Barack Obama should have waited his turn to run for president citing JFK's 14 year career in the House (1947-1953) and Senate (1953-1961) compared to Obama's 4-year career as of the end of 2008.  This dismisses Obama's 10-year legislative career in Illinois. 
    However JFK skeptics derided JFK, as they now do Obama, as callow and ill versed in substantive issues.  JFK was well known to be a dilettante with no substantial track record in his Senate career.  He was simply bidding his time for a presidential run.
    JFK was known more for his womanizing but under the "don't ask, don't tell" journalistic rule of thumb at the time - the public was not clued in the JFK's penchant for women other than Jackie. 
     JFK was living out the dream of his father Joseph Kennedy, also known for his infidelity, that one of his sons would be president.  The anointed son was war hero Joe Kennedy Jr. who died in WW II. So Jack stepped into the breach.
    Barack has been a journeyman but serious Senator noted for his willingness to collaborate on issues like lobby reform.  By contrast JFK's spotty voting record suggests his "experience" was problematic at best. 
    JFK voted the Civil Rights Act of 1957 but he voted for the "Jury Trial Amendment" to that act which effectively rendered the Act toothless because convictions for violations could not be obtained.
    JFK's less than courageous civil rights vote would later be forgotten because of a politically well timed call to Coretta Scott King when MLK, Jr. was jailed in Montgomery, Alabama during the 1960 presidential campaign, a ploy urged on by brother Robert, Jack's campaign manager and widely considered the Darth Vadar of the team. 
    Staunch segregationists such as senators James Eastland and John McClellan and Mississippi Governor James Coleman were early supporters of Kennedy's presidential campaign.[11]1
    It's also noteworthy that the Kennedy clan was close to the right wing anti-commie GOP US Senator from Wisconsin "Gunner" Joseph McCarthy.  When it came to censoring McCarthy neither JFK nor RFK were profiles in courage.
    JFK tossed his hat in the ring in 1956 running against Adlai Stevenson as a trial run for 1960, declining to be a VP candidate with the two-time loser to IKE.  So, pro-Hillary talk show hosts like Portland's Thom Hartmann should do their homework before mouthing off about the JFK/Obama comparison! 
    So much for the "experience" factor.  As Nixon said, "watch what we do, not what we say."     
    PS:  Just for the record on the "experience" factor:  Hillary loves to cite her 35 years of experience.  Well if one wants to peg one's appeal based on "life" experience then Barack can make a similar claim having been a community organizer, a civil rights lawyer and law professor.
    Of course JFK was a war hero.  Neither Hillary nor Barack can match that.  But there is a comparison here - between JFK and Hillary.  JFK was a "can do" cold warrior and we all know that Hillary voted "pro war" in 2002. 
    Hillary's legislative career began in 2000, she's in her 8th year in office.  Barack Obama is serving his 14th year of legislative experience, the same as JFK's. So who's got the most experience - Hillary or Barack?
    Its very simple math, folks. 






Jim Hightower, Commentary, January 16, 2008
    George W, a devout worshipper at the alter of corporate ideology, believes it is sinful for modest-income families to get health coverage through the government.
    Thus, he is now telling state officials in Ohio, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and elsewhere that they cannot expand their Medicaid programs to reach millions of uninsured folks. Technically, these families are not poor, yet their limited paychecks are eaten up by the basics of rent, utilities, food, clothing, and gasoline – so they don't have private insurance.
    Tough luck, George declares, piously insisting that any expansion of Medicaid to meet the needs of these people would "crowd out" private insurance corporations, and we can't have that. In his mind, market ideology trumps human need.

    Astonishingly, the Bushites insist that this ban on state action "demonstrates the president's compassion." Say what? Well, declares a White House PR flack, Bush "wants to direct scarce tax dollars to those with the greatest needs."
    How touching. However, there are several flaws in the president's ideological stand.
    First, helping the near-poor would not take any dollars from the poor – it's an expansion of the program.
    Second, how ironic that the Bushites would mention "scarce" tax dollars, since they're the ones who've made them scarce with their misbegotten Iraq occupation and their tax giveaways to the super-rich.
    Third, leaving people without health coverage is a proven tax drain, since they must resort to expensive emergency rooms when their families fall ill.
    Besides, Bush's ideological purity is nothing but bovine excrement. Notice that while he is denying government-financed health care to hard-hit working families, he finds no sin in using scarce tax dollars to provide-platinum level health care for his own family, even though he's a multi-millionaire with no need for government support.
    "Curtailing Bids to Expand Medicaid Rolls," New York Times, January 4, 2008.
    PS.  Bush push on this issue shows his inconsistency as a so-called conservative.  I thought the GOP crowd believed in states taking the lead rather than the big bad feds.  This illustrates that Bush is really a "corporate" big government conservative masquerading as a "compassionate" conservative.   



    Robert M. Eisinger, "Is this the year Oregon matters?", Monday, January 14, 2008, Oregonian
    The political process we have now seen in Iowa and New Hampshire is significant to Oregonians precisely because the retail politicking and personalized appeals we've witnessed in those states are completely foreign to the Pacific Northwest, especially since the advent of vote-by-mail elections.
    Iowa's messy caucus process is not exactly the democracy that the founding fathers had in mind. But then again, neither is the notion of a two-party system (noticeably absent from the Constitution) or, for that matter, the concept of ballots, referenda and voting via the postal system.
    And yet the citizens of Iowa and New Hampshire take their politics seriously. Why? Because their votes ostensibly count more than ours. Their caucus and primary dates are earlier than Oregon's -- now set for May 20 -- but more importantly, the small size and rural nature of these early states allow presidential candidates to navigate them with relative ease.
    With amazing consistency, pre-election polls in New Hampshire showed Sen. Barack Obama defeating Sen. Hillary Clinton. The polls, of course, were wrong, as were the pundits who interpreted, extrapolated and opined in a 24/7 news cycle that has become part of the political junkie's diet.
    Six months ago, many of those same pundits declared Sen. John McCain's candidacy moribund. His campaign had overspent on consultants, and the candidate himself sounded adrift and indifferent. But now, after his New Hampshire victory, McCain's journey to the White House appears to be more viable than ever.
    So how do the results from Iowa and New Hampshire affect Oregonians and the other late players in the electoral process? For political junkies and the disinterested alike, it's now more likely than ever that the Oregon primary may become significant in determining both the Democratic and Republican nominee.
    Why? Simple arithmetic.
    None of the top-finishing candidates so far -- Sens. Clinton, Obama and McCain and former Govs. Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney -- has yet to receive a majority of the votes cast.
    Among the Democrats, former Sen. John Edwards continues to receive a sizable plurality of votes. If Edwards continues to do so, his votes, and by default his delegates, will be critically important when the Democrats gather in Denver this summer at their quadrennial convention .
    Among the Republicans, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, once the leader in national polls, has engaged in a peculiar strategy of ignoring Iowa and New Hampshire. Time will tell if that proves to be a fatally flawed plan or prescient beyond the pundits' imagination. Simply put, if he fails to win in Florida, his campaign is almost surely over. If he succeeds there, then he, like Edwards, will be pulling votes -- and delegates -- away from any clear GOP front-runner.
    Imagine the following (plausible) scenario:
    On the Republican side, Huckabee and Romney each procure about 15 percent to 30 percent of the vote in the next few primaries, with McCain winning slightly more, say between 34 percent and 42 percent. Suppose also that Giuliani remains a wild card -- he's either an ace in the hole or nothing more than the three of hearts.
    The thought of a brokered convention is often mentioned by the same pundits who erroneously foresaw Romney and Obama victories, but unless one candidate runs the table of primaries (a seemingly unlikely prospect) or a major one drops out (Huckabee?) and endorses another (McCain?), the GOP is in for a long, arduous ride.
    There's an even more plausible scenario on the Democratic side. Suppose that Edwards continues to garner somewhere between 15 percent and 25 percent of the primary electorate.
    The horse race between Obama and Clinton would then likely endure, with each candidate likely delivering ever more meaty policy addresses, scripted and polished by the likes of political heavyweights such as former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart and Clinton administration Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The campaign spin-meisters analyze the speeches as the public tunes in and out, trying to discern which candidate can defeat the most viable Republican.
    Both Obama and Clinton would gain and lose momentum with each close victory or defeat. On Super Tuesday, say Clinton wins New York, New Jersey and California, while Obama wins Illinois, Massachusetts and Tennessee. The delegate count would favor Clinton, but not by that much.
    As the horse race enters the back stretch, each candidate might announce endorsements from union officials and prominent public officials. Imagine the Obama movement growing, along with a groundswell of support for Clinton.
    Then, all of a sudden, Oregon's late May primary is around the corner. Iowa and New Hampshire's early, retail, intimate voting process is far removed from Oregon's sterile, anonymous vote-by-mail system.
    But unless one of the front-runners distances himself or herself in the next three or four weeks, we Oregonians may hear and see -- up close and personal -- a few political characters who currently remain only television personalities.
    If so, we latecomers may just decide who will become the next president of the United States.
    Robert M. Eisinger is an associate professor of political science at Lewis & Clark College. 
    RAD:  Oregon used to play a key role in decades past when our primary was a week ahead of the California primary.  In 1964 Nelson Rockefeller beat Barry Goldwater halting the momentum of the eventual GOP nominee.  In 1968 Gene McCarthy beat Robert F. Kennedy.  In 1976 Jimmy Carter's charge was slowed by Mo Udall, Frank Church and Jerry Brown who ended in a 4 way tie!  In 1988 Mike Dukakis won Oregon but Jesse Jackson made his best showing earning 35% of the vote.  Go figure!  Who knows, it may happen again.  With Romney's win in Michigan tonight the GOP race is a total scramble.  And if Nevada ends in a 3 way tie on Saturday - the race for the gold will move on to South Carolina which sets up well for Obama.