Interesting numbers - Obama.

Guardian gives a listing, check it for more states - but this part of it, on Feb. 6, after the big day, is the part I find most interesting:

For Obama (delegates allocated proportionately)

Alaska - 74%
Colorado - 67%
Idaho - 80%
Illinois - 64%
Kansas - 74%
Minnesota - 67%

In Minnesota, in the Sixth District, it was a local district caucus split very close, but a slight majority for Obama.

Idaho and Alaska are small states, without major urban centers, that seem to have clearly voted with the idea that - in Dem ranks at least - they want a change.

Neither has the image of being a strong union state. Nor does Kansas or Colorado.

The status quo is represented more by Clinton than Obama. The status quo seems most strongly supported, two states:

Arkansas - 69%
New York - 57%

Obama and Clinton each took about 2/3 of the home state vote; Illinois and Arkansas respectively. The Senator from New York took New York, but not by any margin resembling some of those really lop-sided Obama margins.

California and Connecticut, populous west coast and populous east coast, nearly evenly split, 52% Clinton in California, 51% Obama in Connecticut.

But Idaho and Alaska and Kansas - the whopping big margins? There must be an explanation.

_________UPDATE__________
Guardian has an informative article here, on the remaining Dem state scheduling, and naming advisors to the several campaigns. The names mean nothing to me, just names, but political junkies might have insights from saying, "Oh, he's with Hillary this time." Guardian says if it's not determined in Ohio, Pennsylvania might be the pivotal state. With that being the ending scenario - the famous final scene, there is this, for opera fans -

I guess the problem with Wagner specifically is that where a lot of other opera uses recitative for the conversations, Wagner makes all the drama part of the composition. Often, the singer sings a line, and then the orchestra replies with a phrase to show you what the character is feeling or thinking -- or to point out some connection or significance that the character themselves may not be aware of. This can mean that the singer is competing with the orchestra, particularly, say, in the final scene of Gottedamerung where Brunhilde and the orchestra are both going at full strength.

It's what Yogi Berra said more succinctly.

Larry Schumacher mentions the Tinklenberg lobbying problems, and my status inquiry to the local U.S. Attorney.

Very interesting, the response of the Tinklenberg camp, as Schumacher reports:

UPDATE: Tinklenberg spokesman John Wodele got back to me Monday and said he considers the accusation to be not a legitimate news story, since he said the US Attorney's office has rejected the letter's request.

For the record, Wodele said, Tinklenberg is not registered as a lobbyist and does not need to be registered as a lobbyist, under the 1995 Federal Lobbying Disclosure Act.

Further, he said, if Tinklenberg had met the criteria to register as a lobbyist and had failed to do so, the only consequence would be that he would be required to register in order to get everything straight.

That seems right, as I remember covering a similar episode during the 2005 state Senate special election in which then-lobbyist Tarryl Clark was tardy filing required state lobbying reports. She updated them and that was the end of the story.

In any event, Wodele said Tinklenberg does not meet the following criteria, from the act:

Who is a Lobbyist?

Any person who:

- Receives compensation of $5,000 or more per six-month period, or makes expenditures of $20,000 or more per six-month period, for lobbying;
- Makes more than one lobbying contact; and
- Spends 20 percent or more of his or her time over a six-month period on lobbying activities for an organization or a particular client.

That is an excerpt without Schumacher's helpful links, so have a look at the original. Blue man has a view. As does June Cleaver.

I had this to say, and the Tinklenberg camp is saying it got shipped upstairs to be pidgeon-holed. One email I received said, welcome to the world of government investigating itself.

My expectation - it will grow legs, unfortunately, after the endorsement process, if Tinklenberg is the MN 6 candidate. The GOP has to be loaded and ready to fire. This up-the-chain-of-command is within a GOP Justice Department.

We wait. We see. The coherent record pieced together from a number of individual items is in the letter, which has been posted here. Even if it is just this soapbox and the ballot box that pays attention, that is something. I continue to believe it had to be sent - the process of official questioning had to be moved off the dime. The revolving door lobbying problem is that sapping to the strength of our nation's political processes that it needs to be challenged at every chance.

Unfortunately, mainstream media believes Tinklenberg's Revolving Door Group, for now at least, is a non-question.

We wait.

We see.

The two party system - a thought experiment, "What if it had worked this way?"

This election cycle, no broader perspective back into history, ahead into the brave new world order - just, what about a November general election choice between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich? That would have involved a choice - a chance to see change and differences in sharp focus - no Tweedle Dee, Twedle Dum pattern there. If more than two parties, they could have been contenders.

Dems to Caucus and party. I wish them well.

I am on the mailing list and got another caucus/party reminder, saying:

Tuesday evening, starting at 6:30, you can finally have your say not only in the presidential race, but in the future of our party, our state, and our nation — by going to your DFL precinct caucus. The caucus is where change begins in our party, our democracy, and our future. It’s that fundamental.

Indeed it is that fundamental. I had strong reservations after the mob of whoevers killed Kennedy and Johnson came in like a bully-emperor telling lies about Gulf of Tonken and sending half a million strong occupation force into a land where they grew rice and the most pressing thing for the regular people was not Ho in Hanoi or Diem in what is now showing who won, the place called Ho Chi Mihn City, but aside from Ho and Diem back then, the big concern there was the health of the family water buffalo.

That soured me. Then I totally quit on the two party system over the shabby way the McGovern people were treated when the party regulars closed ranks to screw the new people over royaly. The one real chance for true betterment and reach into the hearts of the populace that the party faced since before Woodrow Wilson and they closed ranks to stiffle it. The insiders did that consciously and with the strength and resolve of feudal lords putting down a peasant rebellion. And that is history.

I will caucus DFL. The alternative - the other choice out of two - is less impressive. Obama looks okay, says he likes change, and I will believe that when I see it. So strongly he is for change, so passionate and eloquent, that the Kennedy family and James Oberstar endorse him. Next it could be Dan Erhart. Oberstar and Erhart have been entrenched politicos since God was a child and Blatnik was in Congress mentoring Oberstar - and who thinks they'd want any of their power changed? Get real. Change will not happen except perhaps an unwinding as best as possible of the mess that the second Bush president leaves behind as legacy of his mismanagement and neocon fantasies. Sad in a way. But at least that minimal degree of change will have to happen.

Short of a coup, Bush, he's had his two terms and must exit.

The DFL e-mailing continues:

Then, once you’ve gone to caucus, join us at our first-ever Caucus-Night Party. We’ll be getting together to watch returns from Minnesota and around the country, hear from elected officials and candidates, and celebrate our sure-to-be-historic night:

DFL Caucus-Night Party
8:00 p.m. – 11:30 p.m.
Carpenters’ Union Hall
710 Olive St., Saint Paul
(click here for map)

Well, I will caucus because I think Obama is interesting and Clinton already had her shot at healthcare reform and came up with a thousand plus pages of garbage that had no support to go anywhere and went nowhere during the honeymoon period of the first Clinton term. That's the track record, experience shows, and I prefer Obama to that. Personal, not a passionate endorsement, not lesser-evil, but the better candidate. At least I have to say that, rather than better man. At least this time it will not be a choice between two rich white guys. I will see if new Obama people show up at the local caucus level or whether it's same as before. I will support Olson over the revolving door, a no brainer there because the revolving door is a problem and not a solution to much of anything; and because Olson really does seem to have it together, witness this, as commented on here and here. You have to love Olson's sense of irony. Let Bachmann choose the venue, he says - a tax debate any place any time, even the Jason Lewis show. That so aptly summarizes Michele Bachmann as who she is, and has to cause a chuckle in the process. Blue Man quotes Obama:

And let it be said that we are the party of open, honest government that doesn't peddle the agenda of whichever lobbyist or special interest can write the biggest check. The party who believes that in this democracy, influence and access should begin and end with the power of the ballot.

Again, I believe it when I see it. Not the party of lobbyists? Huh? Yeah, sure. Go ask Tinklenberg about that. Not the party of special interests? Go up to the Iron Range, ask Oberstar. Does he really agree with Obama, end that stuff at the ballot box? Sure,ya betcha - No playing favorites from that guy. But don't take my word for it either, go ask Tinklenberg. And they want me to go to their party?? With that stuff being served??

I will caucus DFL. Lesser of evils in general. Far, far better in having three better Senate choices over Natural Norm, the guy we all identify with as who we'd enjoy sharing a beer with sometime. Find out where it is he's from, what made him move here, what besides ego drives the Coleman vehicle. And with Olson looking better the more I see, which is the opposite of political business as usual [witness the Clintons] and Obama head and shoulders above the pack of mental dwarves the GOP is sifting through to run the economy and end the war - or perpetuate it forever, if McCain holds sway.

You have to like the DFL package much better than the other choice of the two, but that does not mean go to the party's party, drink the Koolaid.




Party with the group of union bosses who cannot even deliver a solid rank and file vote for Wetterling, or did not care to, who again want a Tink cramdown?

Party with Dan Erhart?

Hear about the teachers not paid enough, while they have not pushed hard enough on class size reform which is what's always been the thing needed; hear that we have not enough "civil servants" after having seen the DEED UI hearing process at play? An exercise in brueaucrats run amok at that DEED hearings snake pit.

Give me a break.

No, thank you, other things to do, pressing other activities, sorry cannot make it.

Does anyone except the insiders believe there is a pinch of value to the two party system and to many of the kinds of people it elevates as candidates? I would call it, the two party system, an experiment that has lasted long enough to be recognized by cognizant people as a sad failure.

That said -

SHOW UP FOR CAUCUS. IF YOU DO NOT, YOUR CHOICE IS TO CONTINUE LETTING OTHERS MAKE YOUR CHOICES FOR YOU. WHATEVER THE LIMITATIONS OF THE PROCESS AND TWO-PARTY POLITICS, DOING NOTHING IS OPENLY EMBRACING A FLAWED STATUS QUO.

___________________
Finally, as a footnote, something I found interesting. That link to the map, putting it into the post was insightful. I started to do a click and copy-the-link and saw it had my email address at the end of it. Really. A tracking cookie kind of thing. Click for the map and Google gets 18 ten-millionth of a cent for my follow-up of the link, as part of its advertising presentation and revenue; and Microsoft is swallowing Yahoo with that nice Mr. Balmer set to do great things with the acquisition to improve the user experience; turn it into another Windows Vista. It all says something about where we are as a nation; and the NSA is probably reading and filing away this post as I type it. Bless everyone who goes to caucus. It is how we dig our way out of the deep pit, one handful of dirt and sand at a time. Obama is a Harvard educated lawyer who has that above the pack of others, the better brain, or seemingly so. On the GOP side -- well, at least it's not Bush-Cheney again, so the sun shines a bit brighter.

Mother Goose goes to Caucus.

For those intent to go to caucus, please, understand the "to caucus" process this way:

TO MARKET

To market, to market, to buy a fat pig.
Home again, home again, jiggety jig.
To market, to market, to buy a fat hog,
Home again, home again, jiggety jog.
To market, to market, to buy a plum bun,
Home again, home again, market is done.

Then, if your chosen candidate does not fare well and you wonder about the cluster of absolute idiots who outvoted you:

FOR EVERY EVIL

For every evil under the sun
There is a remedy or there is none.
If there be one, seek till you find it;
If there be none, never mind it.

A sound result, so far. Acknowledgement of a letter inquiry to the U.S. Attorney about Elwyn Tinklenberg's federal lobbying status has been received.

To me this is about as good as it gets. In response to the letter sent U.S. Attroney Frank J. Magill, Jr., last week posted here, Jan. 29, 2008, Mr. Magill replied that the matter is not within his jurisdiction, but my letter has been duly forwarded - it was a joint letter sent Feb. 1, to Jerry Hiniker and to me.

It is fortunate that it takes the local U.S. Attorney's office out of something that otherwise might have been politicized to harm that office - or at least had that potential.

It appears the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House have jurisdiction over matters concerning registration of lobbyists under the statute. That is something I was unaware of, in contacting the Justice Department. It is a statute I am unfamiliar with and I erred.

However the letter is being forwarded to the Department of Justice's Office of Legislative Affairs "to determine whether the matter should be forwarded to the Secretary or Clerk."

The courtesy is appreciated. It takes the burden off of Jerry and me to redirect our inquiry, and allows an official at DOJ with experience to handle things instead. If the letter is in any way insufficient or not meriting forwarding, it would have been so if sent by Jerry and me to the legislative branch offices had we initially routed it that way. Also, if raising a suitable question for the legislative offices I am certain it will be promptly and duly handled by the DOJ's Office of Legislative Affairs.

This is an opportunity to publicly thank the local U.S. Attorney for his prompt and courteous handling of the inquiry, and an opportunity to let anyone reading this know that the matter is moving in due course.

Olson puts his money where his mouth is. Tinklenberg, milking cash cows all over creation, does not.

If you do not have much cash, letting a friend pick up the lunch check is okay.

If you are raking in funds hither and yon, who are you, if you defer entirely to your "friends?"

Consider this:

FEC information for Olson and Tinklenberg are out.

I am very deeply troubled by what I see in a candidate of principle and commitment, Bob Olson, putting his own money into his candidacy, standing up for what he believes in enough to put personal wealth at risk for public service; when his opponent is using PAC money and out-of-state money (primarily out of state DC dollars), to freeload without putting a single penny of any of his own wealth at risk behind himself and his candidacy.

And he has, personally and Tinklenberg Group-wise, been raking in all that lobbying/consulting cash for probably every day since the operation was incorporated and the trade name reserved, back in November, 2002. He started consulting for cash in Ramsey, early in 2003. That's years ago, thousands ago, six-figure thousands I believe, if my understanding of the numbers is correct.

Bob Olson believes in himself. With loans and a few paybacks, he still stands $97,500 in the hole, as of the FEC reporting date/data cutoff.

Tinklenberg believes in what? DC friends and friendly PACs, who believe in him?

They believe in one another?

Bob Olson deserves the respect of every Sixth District citizen wanting a choice, for doing such an honorable and selfless thing.

There seems to be no selfishness at all, in the Bob Olson effort.

ANYBODY WHO WILL STAND AS HE DOES DESERVES YOUR CONTRIBUTION. The Olson for Congress campaign website will give details - contribute online or check it to see where to send the check.