Tarryl Clark gets a first paragraph mention, but Frannie Franken's slapdown of Michele Bachmann's show boating fear mongering over Social Security is the story. Go, Frannie.

HufPo has the story, this link.

Election giving: Critics abound this time of year. Agree? Disagree? Picking a candidate or several, rather than generically handing decision to entrenched political operatives always seemed wisest to me. Or second wisest, to keeping your money for yourself.

Here.

If you like DFL Senate District Convention snapshots and commentary, have a look at the April Knight blog.

Here. No summary, no commentary. Go there. Have a look.

Michele Bachmann has done her share of grandstanding. Is she to be outdone?

This link. Jobs, healthcare, the economy all are key challenges to our legislature.

What's up? Why this? Isn't it, kind of, setting very questionable priorities? And bordering on wasting time, resources, political good will? Isn't it throwing red meat to the "nanny state" naysayers? Am I wrong?

This is troubling to me in ways I will leave unexpressed. Form your own views. Read the Economist item. It is short. It offers a perspective from a distance of something that, in my view, does not reflect particularly well on the State and its legislative priorities.

The only other physician I am familiar with in the House is Jim McDermott, my rep when I lived in Seattle.

And McDermott is superb. This House website. This Wikipedia page. He ratted out Gingrich and Boehner, what more can you say?

I think from what I have seen of Reed, she and McDermott could work together in the right directions. There is no question in my mind that each of the two, Reed and McDermott, will put the public interest in seeing healthcare for all, and cost containment reform that will minimally lessen quality of service while quelling the practice of running up the bill and gaming the system. I think each knows substance from sham, when it comes to how the provider community considers the rules, and adapts to maximize cash flows, given rules as they are. Changing the rules should not be left to lawyers and lobbyists, and people guessing at what's legit and what's undue inflation of the bill, from the outside looking in without having been around that partucular block multiple times.

And anyone doubting the situation will NOT be fixed by anything passed by this congress before the general election is unduly optimistic, in my opinion. There will be a great need to undo a lot of the garbage that the special interests inserted into the current mish-mosh thing, and I would be happier with Reed in DC riding herd as best as any one person can, on a process she integrally understands.

Dusty Trice thinks differently, and were he from the Sixth District and on top of things, he might modify his thoughts. He sits distanced, and says, stripped to the nub, he subjectively fails to trust Reed, without any substantial objective fact to back up that gut feeling. I don't discount gut feelings. I go the other way on Reed, strongly so, is all, and I live in the Sixth District and will be voting here.

And if the general election goes with Reed vs. Bachmann I would hope the Dusty Trice folks would not poison the well. I surely would not if it is Clark vs. Bachmann because Tarryl Clark most certainly is a quality person, fully trustworthy to be a sound and honest Representative in Congress, if she prevails in an MN 6 primary, and the alternative is Michele Bachmann.

I would prefer Reed against Bachmann over Clark against Bachmann, and I think Reed might have the better opportunity to defeat Bachmann. Do I have objective "proof" that is so? Of course not, you cannot prove the future, you just read the tealeaves and guess, and gamble. My bet, Reed.

I had favored Clark earlier. I was more familiar with her legislative public persona, because that it the nature of things. And she's been a superb person and legislator suggesting that she'd continue that way.

But I changed my mind. Tarryl Clark is talented, I cannot say a thing about her other than that. She would be a good rep., yet I sincerely believe Reed would be better. I believe she has a history outside of the hilltop in St. Paul, a broader perspective that way showing a diversity that would season the lawyer-heavy mix now in DC, with their friendly ex-Senator, ex-Rep minions of friends in lobbying. Reed would brook none of that. Clark neither, as I see things. Each would be independent of the worse corrupting influences DC offers the weak of spirit, the compromisers.

So, I trust both Reed and Clark, fully, and like each as a candidate, but I prefer Reed is how it shakes out.

At the SD 48 March 16 senate district convention, I will support John Marty, Maureen Reed, and healthcare reform. For the Senate District challenge to Jungbauer, I support Laurie Olmon. I think she has the energy and experience and understanding to do a well-above-average job in the Minnesota Senate. I hope she gets the opportunity to prove my impression correct.

All of that said, the key race is for governor, there's only one in the State, while the numbers of officials in both houses of Congress suggest a bit more leeway in the event Bachmann gains reelection against her better opponent, and that term "Bachmann's better" fits either Reed or Clark.

No surprise, I supported Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer for Senator, and I now support his endorsement of John Marty. Two really fine individuals

MPR Polinaut reports:

Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, a DFL candidate for U.S. Senate and Congress in the past, is backing DFL state Sen. John Marty's bid for governor. Nelson-Pallmeyer said in an e-mail to reporters that Marty is the most progressive candidate in the field. Here's part of the e-mail:

John is the candidate I have faith in to carry our progressive vision for Minnesota. John is principled and honest and he has been a leader on the key issues Minnesotans care about. In a time of high voter cynicism I believe John is the DFL candidate who can win the general election.

John has become a good campaigner, and I have seen how well he relates to voters throughout the state. People are hungry for real change, tired of money dominating politics, and eager for real leadership. They see John as a governor who will lead and partner with them to achieve health care for all Minnesotans and to address other pressing needs.

John stands for a better Minnesota, one that speaks to our better selves: a Minnesota where we care for one another, especially the most vulnerable among us; a Minnesota where all people are treated with dignity and respect, whatever their race, their abilities, their legal status or their sexual orientation; a Minnesota in which the air, the land and the water are protected so we and our children and their grandchildren can enjoy a sustainable future.

John has accomplished much in the Senate. He's led the state for two decades in government ethics and campaign finance reform. He's leading a bold effort to make Minnesota the first state in the country to establish a single-payer, truly universal, affordable health care system. He's brought the issue of same-sex marriage out of the closet and into hearing rooms in St. Paul. And he's the one candidate who works to address the broader economic crisis we're in - and he isn't afraid to point out the budgetary "elephant in the room," the morally and economically outrageous cost of our nation's ongoing wars and subservience to the military-industrial complex.

Maureen Reed had a greeting and discussion session last evening at Anoka County Rum River Library.

It was the first time I had seen her speak, and it was a small group with chances for discussion and questions. The main focus of her presentation was healthcare, the substantive realities that something will be passed which will be better than the status quo but flawed, and needing attention again, probably sooner than later. My view, and I think that's what she said, what I heard, but if I misstate things I hope there's no harm to it. The theme though, which I believe, is that there will not be any final resolution but a step out of this congress before elections, and her background fits the task. Again, nothing there to dispute. There is nothing theatatrical to her, as with Bachmann, who seems to have wanted to be an actress but missed the bus to Hollywood, caught the one to DC. None of that. Smart. Direct. Responsive to questions indicating views and understandings of issues beyond healthcare. Not hesitant. Not lecturing. Good bedside manner, if that's the right way to say it. Late for the meeting, mis-navigating between her and the staff aide looking for a site they'd not been to before. But doctors always keep you waiting.

General impression. I have not seen Tarryl Clark but I have great respect for her. I am leaning toward Reed however. At the March 16 Senate District 48 convention I expect that is how I will go unless something unexpected happens. The weakest part of the presentation - the feeling of a need to give the "How I can beat Bachmann" speech. The strongest, moving from that to thoughts and approach that will be taken when going to DC. The what if elected, vs the why elect me.

Really, for most there, the why elect question is answered by the what if, what I would do, think, and set as priorties. All there realized Bachmann needs more time at home in Stillwater and this election will be a chance to get that for her high heels and pearls personality.

Reed undoubtedly would represent the district well, something that's been lacking for quite some time. How her winning might affect redistricting, vs. if Bachmann returns, is an intriguing question.

Between now and March 16 I will be posting more about who I will go there supporting, and why. Not as if it's an endorsement - for the three readers I probably have with two disagreeing, but simply to express a view of what critiria I have, and ultimately, gut feelings of who I would want having the job.

I have come to view a thinking approach of who is winnable, vs who would you really like best to represent you and community interests, leads to wrong choices. Winnable is how the post hoc vote count turns out.

Was Franken more winnable than Jack Nelson Pallmeyer? Who can say. I liked Jack better. Franken got the endorsement and support, and the seat in Congress. Now let's all goad him toward public option, ASAP, and ultimately single payer. He's what we have, and far better than Norm Coleman, although that's faint praise. I expect he will do well. It's the "culture" and norms of both houses of Congress that need change, but Franken is an asset not a liability in the process, and vastly better than the intervening interloper on the Wellstone seat.