Bob Olson did not get union support running in 2008 for Sixth District DFL endorsement. He caused no divisive primary, and NEVER undercut Mike Hatch.

Bob Olson is a good person. He was the most promising 2008 DFL hopeful, by far. I continue to think he would have defeated Michele Bachmann if he'd been the DFL general election candidate. He would have represented the district admirably.

Maureen Reed is different from Olson in at least two ways.

First, she did undercut the Hatch-Dutcher pairing, giving us more of Pawlenty.

That was not good for Minnesota.

Now, second, after raising an early quarter of a million in campaign dollars, (primarily from family and out of district individuals), she's acting honked off that Tarryl Clark did get union endorsements while Reed did not. I did not like the undercutting of Hatch, and perhaps the union decision makers did not like that either.

Read about Reed's latest -- online -- The Hill, here; and MPR, here.

MPR reports:

"If this isn't an open and a fair process here, maybe I should keep my options open," Reed said.

I had it figured all along the IP was where she'd been in 2008 and where she'd end up for 2010, yet I can sympathize somewhat.

The unions made a mistake in 2008 by putting all their eggs in one basket and picking the basket they did with the result being Bachmann reelected.

But this time there is a promising progressive choice, not a Blue Dog, who has a history as a proven winner. That is State Sen. Tarryl Clark who has proven she can win in the District (as Klobuchar did) by winning repeatedly already in one of the more conservative GOP-leaning senate districts.

By contrast, Reed is unproven. She was not even elected some town mayor decades ago to have at least that in her "public elective offices I have held" resume; nor has she been on a school board or held a town council member seat.

She admittedly is smart and experienced in medicine and in private sector administration and management. But that's separate from having never faced an electorate except as Peter Hutchinson's second fiddle on that ten-percent ticket.

At least one Reed supporter in web commentary has suggested Clark cannot win in the district because she's not conservative enough, and Janet Robert said that a conservative is needed to win in the District; yet Janet Robert decisively proved that running an untested crypto-Republican in hopes of beating a Republican is a very low percentage play.


Patty Wetterling was a progressive, and did well, and with a bit more unity and luck she would have won in 2006.

She certainly did better than Ms. Robert, testing the "it's gotta be a conservative" theory. While fine in theory, it's been tried, and it's failed. And then there is the strong showing Klobuchar, a proven candidate, made in district against the former district Rep., Mark Kennedy, a more formidable and attractive opponent than Michele Bachmann.

Ignore history and you are doomed to repeat it. Conservative "DFL" candidates from the east end of the district now include Ms. Robert, and Dr. Reed.


Has the endorsement been conceded, is that what's at play?

It appears as if Reed has conceded a caucus victory to Clark; and is beating up on the unions so she has someone to blame for her own inability to energize many precinct caucus delegates.

This latest thing - the unions can pick who they like - and again there is history. The second time Wetterling got the endorsement the unions had all banked on a different individual, so the "blame the unions and say I don't have a fair chance" rant doesn't hold up to history.

2006 was a situation where progressives in precinct caucus prevailed against the will of the DFL inner-boss circle, unions and others, and this time for 2010 there's not the dichotomy.

The unions are backing the progressive.

The unions and progressives are on the same page - this time. Only Ms. Reed is on a different page.

Ms. Reed does not like that.

I did not like it when a progressive choice like Bob Olson was passed over in 2008.

The unions went instead with a Blue Dog, hoping they had a winning dog that way, and lost.

It appears there's something of an upward sloping learning curve among the district party bosses. After 2006 and Wetterling being endorsed despite the unions, and then the 2008 Bachmann victory over the unions' Blue Dog choice; perhaps somebody said, "Now wait a minute ..."

Now it is as if the stars align.

A moderate-progressive person with a proven Klobuchar-like electability within the district has progressive and union support, solidly together and together early, by all appearances.

There is that and one sulking dissatisfied ex-IP candidate making divisive noise.

It's not as if Tarryl Clark's eating Reed's lunch. It was never Reed's to start with.

This is far short of stealing Florida in 2000, this is private union decision making of a kind Ms. Reed says should be different than it was because it discounted her as not the most viable candidate. Wetterling in 2006 faced such organized opposition, but she did energize the precinct caucus delegates, and was endorsed.


Let's hope for a Klobuchar-like landslide, not a Franken-like cliff hanger.

We wait. We hope. We see how things turn out. Causing a primary would only enhance Michele Bachmann's reelection chances. Al Franken had to brush aside a primary challenge, and almost lost.

Let's hope, whether there's a primary or not, that the general election is not even close as the do-nothing-but-pose-and-bloviate-on-Fox-with-Bill-O'Reilly-and-ignore-the-needs-of-the-district incumbent prays and fasts in wanting a second reeelction.


_________UPDATE________



Polinaut from MPR also reports the possible primary story. This link.

October 2, Reed issues a press release about her staff hiring. One week to the day later, October 9, Polinaut is reporting on the possible primary.

Why did this thought languish in the Reed camp so long, and then so quickly after naming a staff become an issue? How are the shots being called, by whom, in the Reed camp? Is it coincidence or causation at play? A primary would keep a staff together longer than abiding by an endorsement.

For the best flavor of the pros and cons of the Reed vs. Clark contest, the online posts and comments I suggest are: here, here and then Political Muse, here and here.

I have said before that either Reed or Clark would be a vast improvement over Bachmann, and that belief is unchanged. I favor Clark as a moderate-progressive, not as Wellstonian as I would want but closer to that than Reed who at the start characterized herself as somewhat a "blue dog."

Bachmann is a do-nothing publicity hound; and either Clark, a proven legislator, or Reed, a proven administrator, has vastly more to offer voters than the incumbent.

The hope reduces to Clark looking to be more favored both by labor and progressive precinct caucus voices, with Reed and the newly-announced staff having to caucus among themselves to decide what to do. Keeping the primary-challenge option open is not the same as saying there will be a primary, but seems to be more like testing the waters to see how people react.

For now, each is saying "I am better than Michele Bachmann" and that's almost impossible to dispute in either case. A primary would have Reed and Clark saying "I am better than the other two" and the dynamics of that could be counterproductive to the aim of unseating Bachmann. That is my concern, from the perspective of favoring Clark, first, as a likely stronger campaigner, and, second, for being closer to (but quite distanced from) my view of what a proper political world would look like, how it should be operated, and what goals should predominate.

I view Bob Olson as similar to Clark, and Jack Nelson Pallmeyer as closer to my own views, while the gap between Elwyn Tinklenberg, Maureen Reed, and Janet Robert on the blue dog end of the spectrum seems slight. Bob Olson attended seminary and Pallmeyer was open about his ethics and religion being intertwined; whereas the direction Bachmann takes while contending it to be Christian confuses me.

In any event, one's ethics and belief system need include no beliefs or mythology about supreme beings existing or not, for one to have a compassionate and ethical view of how the weak and disempowered of the the nation and the world should be treated. I think both Reed and Clark have basic compassion, while I view Bachmann as posing any way she feels will maximize attention to her and votes in her column. Now she's discovered Ron Paul. And she still wants the wars to continue.

Bachmann is a marketing type, Reed and Clark both are more substantial. Each of the three has a staff, and there is much time until next November.

[Reed photo is from the Polinaut item]


_________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Everyone should have a look at Blue Man's post on the Reed - possible primary story; this link. His view of why Clark is the front runner is informative. He bases it to a large extent on Clark's history of working with and for other DFL candidates. Compare this [pic from Political Muse]:



It is something to reckon on, the past Reed IP position, and the future it might suggest. As in -- Will a DFL primary be best for Maureen Reed, or a move now or when, to seek only the IP endorsement and to deal then with Bob Anderson there instead of facing a near-certain DFL primary loss [indeed, a whomping] if Clark is endorsed by the DFL as now seems all but certain? I expect the DFL primary possibility will fall on deaf ears; and the IP is the Reed future. If that's the way things develop, will there be an IP primary, and if Reed is the ultimate IP general election candidate will she get ten percent and if so, how will the other ninety percent split?

If Bob Anderson is that candidate, how would the numbers differ? Reed could doubtlessly outspend Anderson if she runs an IP candidacy. Aubrey Immelman seems ready to again run a low-budget primary challenge to Michele Bachmann. If he is not ignored as he was last time by the mainstream media, he could be a factor in exposing Bachmann's vulnerabilities within the GOP, i.e., her factional strength vs her inability to have a broad base of support reaching at all into the so-called RINO end of her party.