Tina was with Rybak, then Dayton, as an administrator not a policy person, and when tasked with Wilfare she delivered what the company wanted, Ted Mondale having a paycheck and all.
Feelings here are that Wilfare was an insult to every hard working Minnesotan - the rich getting welfare for their investments; the poor paying; but Smith was implementing a decision of others, and cannot be blamed for the policy. Painter has been vocal about Wilfare being distasteful and a perversion of governmental sound practices.
More on Painter: here, Wikipedia and here (a personal and not a site endorsement).
Also, left.mn in reverse chrono order, here and here.
Having voted absentee and early, opening day of early primary voting, for Smith, nonetheless, Painter's candidacy remains the most interesting question of who to choose - and never forget the Smith-Klobuchar Polymet amendment removed in conference. That backdoor amendment had nothing to do with the big bill it was hung onto, but it surely was not lost in the interstitial recesses of a major long bill, whatever intentions might have been.
And that stuff out of Camp DFL about "Painter will not call himself a Democrat" is Ken Martin's published obsession, certainly not mine. Let Ken Martin justify the thought. I cannot. Martin is showing something of an inner-party clique infirmity I do not suffer. The DFL inner-party needs fresh air.
I believe Ken Martin's let his superdelegate biases show. And I dislike superdelegates as a concept, and as best represented last cycle by super Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and her dumping on Bernie. Inner-party means only that. It does not mean smart. Nor fair.
Last, welfare for the wealthy - think medical device tax shenanigans - with Archie Smith having so heavily invested the Smith family portfolio that way. Painter says it's an ethical eyesore, and he is correct.
Smith, with all the inner-party love, is the likely primary victor which would be okay. She'd be another Klobuchar on voting and policy, but is it not overdue to go beyond that to progressive expectations, which Painter offers on some policy issues beyond what Smith has articulated - each candidate offering "Trust Me," on sincerity. Painter has not touched the question of long-term income inequality - the 1% vs the 99% - but Smith's been in a position to influence Dayton in that direction whereas "Tax the Rich" as only a slogan without real intent behind it seems okay with Lt.Guv. Smith.
And clearly "Tax the Rich" was only slogan, while Ken Martin calls Painter a wolf in sheep's clothing. For all I know promising "Tax the Rich" was Ken Martin's slogan idea instead of Dayton's.
The Franken ouster, how Smith got an incumbency, none of that really separates her except for being the inner-party darling, up through the ranks unlike Painter, but like Painter, never elected to nothing, ever, anywhere. Each seeming to be a person of privilege; dueling millionaires, Painter with mutual fund investments while Smith is heavy in medtech sector individual investments.