Last night the four candidates vying for the DFL endorsement to oppose Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) and retake Paul Wellstone's Senate seat (MN-SEN), met in Golden Valley. Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer had just announced over Labor Day weekend so he joined Al Franken, Mike Ciresi and Jim Cohen. If you'd like all the gory details, there are two sources:

Joe Bodell's play-by-play at MN Campaign Report

mnblue's

I'm jealous because Joe brought his camera and has some good pics. We both caught details the other missed ... funny how that works that we end up complementing each other nicely.

So ... how did the candidates do?

[Updated 9/7/07]

Winner?

Sorry, that's too simplistic. You're not going to find that kind of answer here at mnblue. Isn't it more important to evaluate what they have to say yourself? I've got vids here and here (note: its toward the bottom of the post) of the Almanac debate, Joe and I have the transcripts from last night. I want Minnesota voters to look at where the candidates stand on the issues and decide for themselves.

Both Al and Mike acquitted themselves quite well. While Jack had some rough spots with a couple of verbal stumbles, his vision and passion were clear and his problems aren't anything a few more debates won't solve -- this isn't his first campaign. I'm not a fan of Jim Cohen as a candidate in this race and he did enough to convince me that he should not be taken seriously.

Al and Mike have solid stump speeches and are both used to thinking and answering under pressure. Mike's courtroom experience and Al's radio show trained them both well for debating. They both show that they are passionate in very different ways, but there's no doubt that they're both passionate. They can both clearly state their positions and do so convincingly.

Whether its Iraq, global warming or healthcare, Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer clearly sees to the root of our nation's problems. His background as a Professor of Peace and Justice Studies plus his activism have given him clarity on what the real underlying issues are. This difference between he and the others is most clear on healthcare. The root of our problems are the health insurance industry, HMOs and Big Pharma. The others do not articulate what the root of our healthcare problems are. Al somewhat recognizes and seems to understand who the bad guys are on this issue, but doesn't articulate it as clearly as Jack. Mike is only willing to blame the drug companies -- he doesn't mention that the health insurance industry and HMOs are also the cause. Could this be because he's got them as donors? For example, the CEO of Delta Dental has endorsed him.

I see only two knocks on Ciresi. This point about healthcare is the one apparent from yesterday. While on Almanac, he gave a legalistic answer on the gay marriage issue, his answer was just a bit confusing. He's for civil unions. Legal recognition is important, I guess, but I have friends who would probably like their long-term relationship recognized as a marriage by the state if not the federal government.

On the other hand, Al will have to fend off criticism of his support for the Iraq War. He dealt with the issue nicely last night it seemed to me. He said he's been speaking out against this war for more than four years. He certainly will hold Norm to task for being a cheerleader for the war. Whatever his stance back in early 2003, he is definitely against it now. Personally, his line about getting the troops out works for me.

"We need to start to leave now. I would like us to leave with a whole lot more planning than went into getting us in there in the first place."

I initially was concerned that he was against a single payer healthcare system. It turns out he isn't, but points out that few countries actually have a pure single payer. Last night he said "universal healthcare for all, single payer for kids." Works for me.

So in reviewing where they stand on merely the issues, its Jack taking the best stand on all the issues from a progressive standpoint. Al is good except for his initial stance for the war. I'm concerned that Mike doesn't agree that the insurance industry and the HMOs are evil and I think that supporting civil unions is not as progressive a stance as supporting gay marriage as the other candidates do.

That's not much difference on the issues, eh? Or is there more?

How much does style come into it? How much does the massive grassroots campaign that Al has influence how you view how he stands on the issues? How much does having great vision and passion mean to you when Jack may have no real chance of catching up to Al let alone Mike? Is Mike more electable because of Al's status as an easy target and Jack's lack of any name recognition?

How does the experience of each play in? Al has done tons for progressive causes with his books then on Air America and finally fundraising for midwestern Dems. Mike is very credible because of the Bhopal, Dalkon Shield and Big Tobacco cases, but has he done enough recently? Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer has the progressive street cred because of his long-time activism on peace and justice issues.

I'm going to make up my mind at some point. It was good to hear Jack in comparison to Mike and Al, but I'm still undecided.

[Updated 9/7/07]:Eric Black has analysis over at Minnesota Monitor.