My rule of thumb, the more glossy it is, the more it is a marketing lie. I have been doing homemade black and white flyers off of my printer, with the note "Written by Grace Kelly", in fact totally unknown to or even read by the Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer campaign. I'll bet my 9 cent copies, delivered with my heartfelt one minute speeches, are doing more than the very expensive glossies.

Put out a flier telling the truth about Franken's health care "plans" and it gets called an attack. We've been being nice to Al... just think what attacks the republicans have waiting for him. And Grace, you might want to remember than Jack can't win an endorsement without Ciresi delegate's support. I'd suggest you not insult their intelligence, and try to maintain the good relations our campaigns have had.

...on the war. And continues to be right. Al is a newcomer to the Democratic position on the war. (And, to be fair, there are a fair number of Dem officeholders who are new to that position too.)

But now that I know that Dyna is supporting Ciresi... *sigh* Back to the drawing board.

...but I do find it interesting how Ciresi's campaign is going. The comment that his grassroots campaign has not been built as hoped rang true to me with what I observed this past weekend.

Last Saturday I did volunteer work for the Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer campaign and was dispatched to the Waseca County Convention where they would select 6 half-vote delegates to go to the state convention. Although many would consider the Waseca County DFL to be less significant than the other district/county unit conventions going on that day, I was sturck by the fact that the Ciresi campaign had ONE person to work at the convention (we had 4 volunteers and Team Franken also had 4 people there), and this person was a PAID staffer. He told me that the conventions he's been working at have been like that, where its either him alone or maybe one or two other people to help him out.

The results of the convention were good news for Franken---all 6 half delegates that were elected were pledged to him. Of the six alternates chosen 4 were for Franken and two were uncommitted, but leaning JNP or Franken. Ciresi was totally shut out.

I know that a small county convention in a "red" area of the state is not necessarily representative of a whole campaign, but from what I saw, Ciresi is not getting very good "bang for his buck(s)".

I wonder of "attack" is the correct word here, Eric. I have a lot of strong positive feelings about Jack's campaign, but I also respect that there are honest differences of opinion. I came across someone last week who said he mistrusted Jack because Jack had been against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, but he trusted Franken because Franken had come to that conclusion several years later.

Obviously, my jaw dropped, since my personal opinion is that there was PLENTY of evidence that we were being duped into the war. But this person explained that Jack's initial opposition suggested that Jack was categorically against ALL wars, whereas Franken obviously approves of some wars, but was misled by Colin Powell and others about this one.

There are differences of opinion, obviously.

But is it really attacking Franken to say that he was initially in favor of the war and remained in favor of the war for the first few years? Is it attacking Franken to maintain that Franken opposes a single-payer health plan, while favoring a 50-state smorgasbord scheme? Is it attacking Franken to indicate that he completely dismisses the idea of a Department of Peace? Is it attacking Franken to suggest that he believes that nuclear power should be considered as part of the solution for global warming? Is it attacking him to suggest that he would keep an attack on Iran "on the table"? Is it attacking him to suggest that he would prefer to keep some troops in Iraq and others nearby, just in case?

Really, I don't think any of these statements are attacks on Franken. They are policy statements from Al Franken and from his campaign.

The disconnect I hear every day is from people who have false impressions about Franken's positions. In my view, if someone wants a candidate who supports single-payer, they should support Jack. If they want a candidate who opposes nuclear energy, they should support Jack. If they want a candidate who was public in warning us of tragedy in our war of choice with Iraq, they should support Jack. If they want a candidate who opposes war with Iran as well, they should support Jack.

But if you like nuclear power, feel like a thoughtful and reasonable person would have naturally been fooled by Bush, think we should consider war with Iran, like hybred cars because of improved SUV performance rather than fuel efficiency, well then go with Franken.

It's your choice. It's a democracy, and in a democracy we can elect whatever sort of senator we want. As a people, we can decide to become a Third World country, we can decide to fight continuous wars, we can decide eliminate all public institutions and privatize everything. It's our choice to vote for whatever we want. But I really don't think it is an attack to describe the real differences between the candidate.

Wouldn't you rather know what you are likely to get, rather than not know what you're voting for?

Shall we talk about this now, or wait for Coleman to start running ads in the general election that point out how Al was "for the war before he was against it?" As a Democratic base voter, it is very important to me that my next senator did not support the invasion of Iraq. Why would we replace a courageous senator who was willing to put his re-election on the line and vote no on the Iraq war resolution, with someone who was FOR the war? That doesn't make any sense to me.

was the Al Franken/Impeach Bush Now! subcaucus called in North St. Paul a couple weeks back. It speaks directly the fact that many of the Franken supporters are either confused or uninformed about the specifics of Al's positions. Al won't touch the subject of impeachment, though I did get this gem out of him awhile back in Duluth when I offered him a PDA Impeach sticker. "Well, here's what I'd do if I were in the Senate. I'd introduce a bill that said if the President invades Iran, we'll immediately start impeachment hearings." Al had no response to my reply..."So, one illegal invasion is OK, but not two?" Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, for the record, was the one Senate candidate who got up and gave his speach, an Impeach sticker displayed prominently on his lapel. This kind of leadership is one of the multitude of reasons I am proud to support Jack, the best candidate running for the DFL endorsement for US Senate. And the one, I have absolutely no doubt, best prepared to defeat Norm Coleman in November. Watch a debate with the 3 candidates and see for yourself.