Almanac: At the Capitol

News has broken that this State has lost one of it's greatest and bravest leaders with the death of Former President of the State Senate Allan H. Spear.

Allan's bravery in coming out as a proud Gay man so many years ago was a model for generation's of GLBT activist's to follow. During times when many people feared losing jobs and more if they came out Allan's calm but forceful presence made it possible for many more to live proudly.

The Stonewall DFL released the following:

Stonewall DFL Honors the Life of Allan H. Spear

(Saint Paul, MN) October 12, 2008 - Members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community throughout the State of Minnesota are called to remember the life of former State Senator, Allan Spear who passed away on Saturday night at the age of 71 from complications following heart surgery on Thursday. Spear served as state Senate president in the Minnesota Legislature for nearly 30 years and is noted as one of the state's first openly gay politicians.

"The influence of Senator Spear can be seen throughout the State of Minnesota and will live on as LGTB leaders continue our fight for equality," said Del Jenkins, Stonewall DFL Chair. "We mourn his passing and offer our condolences to his family and those in the community that knew him."

In the April of each year, Stonewall has presented the Allan Spear Award to the political leaders of tomorrow in recognition of the Senator's lasting influence on LGBT politics in Minnesota.

As an officially chartered caucus of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota, Stonewall DFL is Minnesota's first political organization of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. Visit stonewalldfl.org for more information.

Note that no points are offered on why Franken or Barkley necessarily won -- just how Coleman lost. This point started showing up last night in Franken campaign spin on the debate overnight, and is being confirmed by the traditional media, here by WCCO's Esme Murphy. Check it out:Anyone who has been involved in a school yard fight knows the old rule, 2 against 1 will win every time. At tonight's debate Norm Coleman sat literally in the middle of Independent candidate Dean Barkley and Democrat Al Franken. He was eviscerated by both men.

The most devastating moment came when one of the moderators asked, "What do you think is the greatest threat to our country"? The moderator went on to say it could be any threat, not just of the military kind. Al Franken went first and said the biggest threat was Al Qaeda, and that the Bush administration had squandered the past eight years pursuing the war in Iraq, instead of pursuing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. At the end of his comments Franken ripped into Coleman for his support of President Bush's policy in Iraq.

Then came Dean Barkley. He said the greatest threat was the skyrocketing national debt. He lashed into Coleman saying "this happened on your watch". Barkley's comments echoed a recurring theme by Franken tonight, that President Bush had inherited the largest surplus in US history and was leaving office with the largest deficit.

Then it was Norm Coleman's turn. Coleman said the biggest threat to our country was the "partisan divide" in Washington. Huh? Yes it is a terrible problem, but Coleman kept repeating this line over and over again throughout the evening. Is that really the single greatest threat facing our country?It takes a lot for the word "eviscerated" to appear in debate roundups. And it's worth noting that Coleman did go last on this question, and two of the biggest threats to America's future were already taken. Looking like a Johnny-come-lately is a tough thing to stomach, and Coleman had the bad luck to go last. However...

--nuclear proliferation?
--biological/chemical warfare?
--poverty?
--government corruption?
--Threats to the Constitution?

As Murphy notes, the partisan divide can be an issue in Washington...sometimes. Sometimes not. When it is, shouldn't at least one or two of the issues above come before it? Plenty of choices were before Coleman, and he stuck to his "I get things done across party lines" talking point.  

Have a look at this quote from last night's Senate debate:"Social Security, by the way, is an issue that's too big for one party to solve. And unfortunately, reality has shown us that it gets mired in politics, so you take it out of the politics. And Dean, it's not another commission. We can set up Social Security, the resolution of that, much like we do with base closings. And so you put the commission together and they come out with recommendations and then they are - they're there. And the Congress votes them up and down. But you've got to get it out of politics. And I want to come back to the issue of how you get it done, because we have these philosophical debates. Al, when it came to the Wellstone Mental Health Parity bill, had your vision prevailed, had a no vote prevailed, we wouldn't have had mental health parity. That was the last shot to do it. You can't simply say, "Well, I think we should put it in a separate bill." We need to be measured not by what we say, but by what we do and the ability to get things done. [Emphasis added]Let's leave aside, for a moment, the reality that Coleman still appears to support putting Social Security funds on the private market that's destroyed so much American wealth over the past several weeks. Instead, let's focus on what he said in the debate -- first, he said a commission should come up with recommendations, and Congress should give them a yes-or-no vote. Next, he said that Jim Ramstad's Mental Health Parity bill would not have passed Congress on its own (it was eventually passed as part of the recent Wall Street bailout bill).

Is Coleman willing to fight for an up-and-down vote on Social Security, but not on a high-priority bill pushed by both a respected Republican colleague and the Democrat who preceded him in the Senate before his untimely death? Interesting difference of opinion here between Coleman and Coleman.

In any case, the deeper frame Coleman is employing here is a nefarious one: Government doesn't work! Let a commission do the hard work for us, and we'll vote on them! It's a standard Republican line -- get the politics out of politics, shrink government because it doesn't work anyway, and all will be better. Whatever you think of Franken, he's used a great line on this topic -- "Republicans like to say government doesn't work. Then they get elected and prove it." Franken is right on this point -- it is incumbent upon Democrats to prove that Government-with-a-capital-G CAN work for the betterment of the people -- by truly protecting Social Security, by balancing the federal budget, and by tackling the single biggest economic issue facing the American people today -- the cost of health insurance.

If an Obama Administration and huge Democratic majorities in Congress can actually pass legislation guaranteeing health coverage to every American (or something getting significantly closer to it than we have today), we'll be looking at the potential for a true political realignment in this country -- leftward. Prove that government can work for the betterment of its citizens, and the people will follow.

Pie in the sky? We'll see.

Yesterday Norm Coleman announced that he would remove all negative advertising from his campaign's media battery, and although he was careful not to offer direction to independent groups, he said he "hoped" they would follow suit and remove negative advertisements against his opponent, Democratic nominee Al Franken.

Chris Cillizza's take on Coleman's "surprise" press conferenceAnd, in truth, it's hard not to see such a move as an acknowledgment that his campaign's attempt (willingly matched by Franken) to turn the race into a mud fight has backfired.

As much as voters decry negative ads, any political operative will tell you that the reason politicians keep running them is because they work. Voters -- whether they admit it or not -- are influenced by negative information about candidates and election after election has shown that if one candidate goes negative and the other doesn't respond, voters tend to believe the negative information. (See John Kerry and Swift Boats Veterans for Truth.)

The only reason for a candidate to take down all his negative ads so close to an election is because his campaign doesn't believe he can win if the race continues on its current arc. While Coleman would never say that (politicians talking about process is a recipe for disaster), it's hard to see any other reason behind his decision.Good points. However, I would add this as well. From the recent MPR/Humphrey Institute poll:Who Is Running More Negative TV Ads?
N. Coleman 48%
A. Franken 21
No difference 23There's polling backup for the "negative ads are backfiring on us" theory. But the issue now gets a little deeper.

To a certain degree, the incumbent is at a disadvantage when it comes to negative advertising. It seems the incumbent should, regardless of party, be able to run on their own record -- after all, they got elected and have served in office. It's a double-whammy when the opposition gets to frame that record negatively, as Franken and his allied groups have done with some success, while Coleman's campaign has gone negative on issues from Franken's support for the Employee Free Choice Act to meta-issues like "being angry."

But as Cillizza says, negative ads work.

More after the break
Coleman and his allies and flunkies on the internet have been trying to keep Franken's positives down since forever by raising issues that, really, have nothing to do with work in the Senate. This move, with three weeks to go before election day, appears to be a third-and-long Hail Mary pass -- whether to change the Coleman campaign's internal poll numbers or to change the storyline away from questions about a political contributor's inappropriate gifts of suits from Niemann Marcus...or both...we may never know.

The odd thing about the whole press conference dog-and-pony show was how Coleman hoped out loud that independent groups would follow suit. Some groups are legally NOT ALLOWED to do that -- depending on whether they are 501(c)3, 501(c)4, or another classification, some groups are only allowed to run advertisements against candidates, not for them. Some can run issue advertising, which is usually accompanied by "Call Norm Coleman and thank him for the super-awesometastic job he's done on our pet issue." Some, like the NRSC, may be able to do both, but they are limited to a tiny budget for on-behalf-of work, and we don't yet know if they've spent that budget on other items like field or direct mail.

So at least some of these interest groups are unlikely to obey Coleman's guidance. How will voters react when, knowing that Coleman said he would suspend negative advertising against Franken, they see ads biting at Franken's ankles over ridiculous non-issues?

Definitely a Hail Mary. Four Wednesdays from now, we'll know whether it had an effect.

Under no circumstances should Franken follow suit and let Coleman get the "leadership" mantle. And it doesn't sound like they're going to -- from a campaign statement:"From the start, our campaign has focused on the change Minnesota needs. And we will continue to focus on our competing views of how our country has gone in the wrong direction, how we can curb the influence of special interests in Washington, and how we can get out of the tough economic situation we're now in.

"Given that this week's polls are clearly showing that Minnesotans are sick of Norm Coleman's campaign of character assassination, today's stunt rings as a cynical ploy designed to change the subject and avoid scrutiny of his own record. It's like an arsonist burning down every house in the village and then asking to be named fire chief.

From my colleague Political Muse at  Liberal in the Land of Conservative: 6th District candidate El Tinklenberg has one of the most brilliant ads I've seen all year. Unfortunately, it seems to be "web-only." El, if you've got the cash available, you should get this ad on TV immediately! Folks, we need to help. Donate at his ActBlue page now!

The ad, posted to the front page of Tinklenberg's website, asks: Have you seen Michele Bachmann? El then proceeds to spend 45 seconds hunting through the 6th district for her. The video is hilarious, and will surely tap voter resentment over Bachmann's absenteeism. About a month ago, Political Muse wrote her an open letter that pretty clearly captures the frustrations of her constituents:
Over the past few months I have watched intently as you have attended forums in Washington DC and Texas while coming home to the 6th District only to ride atop floats in a number of parades. I have watched as you make appearances on national television shows such as Bill O'Reilly and Larry King while coming home to the 6th District only for river cruise fundraisers involving a select few individuals. I have watched as you avoid and ignore offers to debate or discuss issues from your opponent. I have watched as you avoided Farmfest and opted to send low level staffers in your place.
Bachmann has got to come home and campaign in Minnesota! Let's help El Tinklenberg get this ad on TV. Donate at his ActBlue page now!

Originally posted to the Twin Cities Daily Liberal

On Wednesday, Zack posted a story about sources indicating that former House Minority Leader Matt Entenza is planning a run at the Governor's office in 2010. We'll get to the merits of that decision in a moment, but right now, here's the DFL field as it currently stands, in rough order of announcement of intention:

Already declared intention:
Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner
Former U.S. Senator Mark Dayton
State Sen. Tom Bakk
Former House Minority Leader Matt Entenza

Possible candidates:
House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher
Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak
St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman
Congressman Tim Walz?
State Sen. Tarryl Clark?

Am I missing anyone? It's already a ridiculously long list. In 2006 there were a few outside possibilities mentioned, but ultimately only three candidates showed up with any serious efforts to win the DFL endorsement. None of the three had the financial resources to self-fund, and only eventual nominee Mike Hatch had served in an office with a greater political stretch than State Senator.

Dayton may be reviled by Minnesota conservatives, but I've seen him at several events around the state -- fundraisers, party conventions, and the like -- and for whatever reason, DFL regulars (read: frequent convention delegates, especially in non-presidential elections) already know and love him. I have to admit, at first it sounded odd that someone who voluntarily departed from the Senate after a single term would throw his name in the gubernatorial hat just an election cycle later, but Dayton would almost certainly be a powerhouse in the DFL endorsement contest.

This, from the peanut gallery, seems like a great reason for Entenza to enter the fray and declare that not only will he bypass the endorsement, but is prepared to spend upwards of $6 million on the race. Convention wisdom says that Dayton despises fundraising, and while he is well-off financially, may balk at having to spend another significant portion of his family's fortune for a chance at the corner office in St. Paul.

Continue after the break
At this point, Bakk and Gaertner are in a tough position. They probably cannot compete with Entenza or Dayton financially, and so would be depending on party support to first win the endorsement, then survive a primary, and then have enough resources left over to run a credible race against Tim Pawlenty (assuming the Governor seeks a third term). Neither Bakk nor Gaertner has a huge demographic or geographic advantage, although Bakk would almost certainly carry the Iron Range delegation and do extremely well among socially moderate union and working class voters around the state. Kelliher is in much the same position -- she would have advantages among her peers in the elected party leadership, but would face other obstacles against a wide field.

Rybak, Coleman, and Walz, on the other hand, have geographic advantages. If any of them were to run, they would bring their home turf along for the ride in an endorsement fight, and each of their home areas -- Minneapolis, St. Paul, and southern Minnesota, respectively -- could be very important both in a primary battle and in the general election.

Rybak in particular has another advantage, especially if he faces Mark Dayton: their presidential endorsements. Dayton was an early supporter of Hillary Clinton, and R.T. Rybak jumped onboard the Obama machine. Both spoke passionately around the state on behalf of their candidates (read: getting their own faces in front of DFL regulars) but Rybak's horse won by a couple of lengths. The potential to have the President of the United States drop in for a couple of rallies and fundraisers could be a powerful driver.

However, there's a bottom line that needs to be drawn here. Some have stated that the endorsement needs to be honored, and that a contested primary would lead to near-certain defeat in November 2010. That's definitely a debateable point, but what's certain is this: if the field is too large going into the convention, it opens a door for several candidates to throw up their hands at the process, say it wasn't fair, or offer another reason for going to a primary.

If you don't want a primary, a big field is a very, very bad idea. So these candidates have some thinking to do, and as the 2008 cycle marches inexorably onward, these candidates are running out of time.

If there was ever any doubt, this piece from MinnPost's David Brauer entitled "The Essential Stupidity of the 'Blogger' Evasion" should tell you all you need to know about how the traditional media and its alumni feel about Norm Coleman's non-denial of wrongdoing in the rapidly expanding Suitgate...Says Coleman, "The idea of responding to the things bloggers throw out is something I'm not going to get into. There are very awful things that are said about people on blogs. And the idea to make it a legitimate story is something ... I just don't respond to it."

Now, what if Coleman had instead said:

"The idea of responding to the things reporters throw out is something I'm not going to get into. There are very awful things that are said about people in stories. ... I just don't respond to it."

Sort of Palinesque, right?

The original post's author, Ken Silverstein, may be a blogger, but he's also an internationally award-winning journalist for Harper's Magazine, on whose site the "Suitgate" story broke. Silverstein, an ex-L.A. Times and Associated Press reporter, relied on public documents and interviews. (More on the latter in a moment.)

In other words, Coleman isn't ducking a standards-free amateur's attack -- he's evading an investigation from a colleague of Dave Orrick's, or Tom Scheck's, or Pat Lopez's. And Norm should be called on his spin.Meanwhile, my former colleague Eric Black has more on the issue, and it's quite damning for Coleman campaign manager Cullen Sheehan:Not wanting to be tricky, I directly asked Cullen Sheehan whether there had ever been any such arrangement.

He replied that Coleman had disclosed all gifts he was required to disclose.

I suggested that this non-denial denial seemed to lend credibility to the rumor. The question was not about the reporting requirements but about whether Coleman and the businessman had any such arrangement. On the second round, Sheehan repeated that all required disclosures had been made and added: "No, he has never had such an arrangement."

I left the story there for several weeks, until the Harper's piece ran. I called Sheehan back and asked if he was prepared to rebut the Harper's piece, or whether he had been less than candid with me when he told me that Coleman "never had such an arrangement." After a couple of rounds of Coleman-disclosed-everything-he-was-required-to-disclose, Sheehan told me that his no-such-arrangement answer to me had been based on the word "arrangement." In other words, Sheehan was not denying that Coleman received clothes from Kazeminy, only that he never had an "arrangement," such as the one I suggested by my question, under which Coleman could pick out whatever clothes he wanted and Kazeminy would pay the bills.I've said it before -- the correct answer was a simple "No." But it looks more and more like Sheehan has known from the beginning that such an answer would have been a lie.

Not a good week for Team Coleman.

As I wrote yesterday, this week has been absolutely phenomenal for Ashwin Madia. First, a poll showed him ahead of Erik Paulsen by 5 points. Then, the NRCC canceled a week of advertising for Paulsen. Yesterday, a second poll showed him ahead. And now, team Madia has come out with fundraising numbers that blow even their own previously impressive hauls out of the water.

A source has told MN Campaign Report that, at 2 p.m. today, the Madia campaign will announce that they have raised $997,632 for the quarter. This is a massive number. Madia has now raised over $2 million for his Congressional campaign.

This is a big one-two punch against Paulsen. First, Paulsen is going to be dealing with fewer resources as the NRCC gives up on him. Second, Madia now has a huge boost for his bank account. These two factors combined are going to allow Madia's positive message of change in Washington to drown out Paulsen's nasty, substanceless attacks.

Warning: feminist deconstruction ahead.

As I watched the funnier than "H E double hockey sticks"  the video of Norm Coleman's campaign manager stonewalling on Suitgate I was struck by the use of first names by both the staffer and the reporter.

It seems that when replying to Rachel Stassen-Berger he used her first name, but never addressed the male reporter by his first name. Time was when this was a common, if sub-conscious, method of talking down to and diminishing the female colleague you were working with. It is/was a way of indicating that this woman was not worthy of the honorific of a formal title. It was/is a way of declaring power over the person you are dealing with. Just say to yourself .... "Now Megan you know that is not true anymore" and then "Now Ms. Thomas you know that is true anymore". It may seem way to subtle for real concern but when it is happening to you, you know what is happening.

However, what I observed about this particular exchange was first that Ms. Stassen-Berger (see how that works), whether consciously or unconsciously, shot the method back at the staffer by addressing him by his first name.

Also, even as I noticed the use of the first name by the staffer I also realized that the diminishing effect of addressing a woman by her first name may be reaching it's end as a useful tool. The fact is that women are well integrated into the workplace and more importantly, being portrayed in our culture as professionals. This combined with the reduced formality of the workplace (who here has to call their boss "Ms. Xxxx" anymore) means that most of you reading this would never even think of this as a patriarchal tactic of reducing women.

On the list of feminist concerns this has never really been a hot-button issue for me. If calling me by my first name to try and diminish me is the most sexist thing I have to deal with I'll probably be too busy partying to get to bothered.

As for the video itself ..... I have a feeling that not only is it going to be a political classic but it is probably going to be a shown in classrooms for years to come as a lesson in how not to deal with the press.

According to Rachel Stassen-Berger at the PiPress, the video of Norm Coleman's campaign manager stonewalling on Suitgate was viewed over 18,000 times after being up just four hours, and it sounds like Stassen-Berger and the Capitol Press Corps have had it with Coleman's refusal to answer any questions:It may be a very minor issue in the Senate race but the non-answers are begining to mount and are making the blogs, the online news outlets and, of course, the Democratic campaign circles.

...

Meanwhile, despite asking Sheehan today and a half a dozen calls to Hays Company since Monday, we also have no idea what Laurie Coleman, the Senator's wife, did for the "risk management, commercial insurance, and employee benefits" company. Hays Company has not returned my calls.Let me guess, it's the nasty bloggers' fault, right? I stand by my original assertion: the most logical explanation for Sheehan's conduct (and that of the entire Coleman campaign, for that matter) is that they know a simple "No" answer would be a lie, and a "Yes" answer would be an indictment of Coleman's conduct in his current office.

Liar, or admitted Senator-for-Sale? It's a tough call, folks. But the choice is Norm Coleman's to make.

In other Senate news, DFL candidate Al Franken is hammering Coleman this week on Social Security, calling on Coleman to admit that putting Social Security funds in the stock market (which would have happened under the unsuccessful Bush privatization plan) was a terrible idea.  The Franken campaign is highlighting quotes from 2000 and 2005 in which Coleman stated his support for Bush's plan, especially this one:'You can't keep the system the way it is, because it's broken,' Coleman said. Bush showed 'bravery and courage' by making a proposal that he knew might not be popular right away. 'Leadership sometimes requires you to lead people to places they may not be prepared to go,' Coleman said. 'George Bush would rather be right than be popular, and time will prove him right on this one.'Hmm.  Good luck with that, Mr. Coleman. With polls essentially deadlocked less than a month ahead of Election Day, Franken's biggest task will be to prove that while Coleman has taken favors from political fixers and stood by George W. Bush on important issues, Franken would be a voice for better, cleaner government and better, smarter policy solutions.

It's going to be a dogfight right to the finish.  Very exciting stuff.

Health Care for America Now! is hitting the airwaves with ads focused on Republican officials and candidates on health care -- and Third district Republican candidate Erik Paulsen is on the list.

Have a look:

Similar ads are running against vulnerable Republicans in districts across the country, as well as against John McCain in the presidential race.  From HCAN's press release:"With less than thirty days to go before Election Day, it is urgent that voters know where the candidates stand on health care," said Richard Kirsch, National Campaign Manager, Health Care for America Now. "For families struggling to make ends meet, the high cost of health care has been a leading economic indicator.  Now is the time to convince every candidate and member of Congress to stand on the side of quality, affordable health care for all and not on the side of handing over more control to the private health insurance companies. Our goal is to get the next President and a majority of Congress committed to the principles of quality, affordable health care for all in 2009."It is worth noting that while the organization is non-partisan and does not mention which party they support, all their targets are Republicans. That being said, in today's political order, it's those same Republicans who generally serve as roadblocks to universal health coverage and come up with ridiculous ideas like John McCain's proposal to tax health care benefits, so perhaps that's a case of correlation and causation not being quite the same thing.

Ashwin Madia is getting closer and closer to becoming the first Democrat to represent the 3rd district in over 50 years.

This week has been absolutely phenomenal for Madia. With each day, the news makes it more apparent than he is beginning to pull away from Paulsen. First, a poll from the DCCC showed Ashwin Madia ahead of Erik Paulsen by 5 points. Then, the NRCC canceled a week of advertising for Paulsen. And now, a second poll has Madia leading. A KSTP/SurveyUSA poll shows Madia leading Paulsen 46 to 43, with David Dillon at 8 percent.

Not only that, folks, the crosstabs [pdf] show that Ashwin has a greater lead over Paulsen in this poll than Obama has over McCain in the 3rd district. They also show that he has more crossover support than Paulsen, gaining the support of 11 percent of conservatives, while Paulsen only got the support of 6 percent of liberals. Even more impressive is that Madia received the support of 54 percent of self-described moderates, compared to only 35 percent for Paulsen.

This is historic, everyone. This is a huge chance to pick up a seat that has been in Republican hands for a very long time. Help Ash make the final push: volunteer or contribute today.

How do you know something is very, very wrong in a political campaign? When a candidate or his staff stonewall desperately on a simple yes-or-no question.

It seems pretty simple to me -- I think Sheehan knows that if he answers the question affirmatively, his boss's already tenuous claims to not being a bought-and-paid-for shill on Capitol Hill go out the window, since he will be admitting that yes, Coleman has accepted gifts from a political benefactor in violation of Senate rules and reporting requirements. Alternately, Sheehan knows that if he answered the question directly and negatively, he would be lying.

So the only alternative is to stonewall the question to death.

Good luck with that.

Need a transcript?  You can find a full one after the break. In the meantime, the Huffington Post (not a blog) has a great take on the whole issue:The obfuscation would be comical if not for the incredible damage it has done to the Coleman campaign. Revelations that the Senator had received the clothing gifts from Minnesota businessman Nasser Kazeminy emerged earlier this week in a posting by Harpers Magazine. Coleman offered what amounted to a non-denial denial when asked about the matter, blaming the entire episode on the vitriol of the blogosphere.

The problem, however, is that the issue fits into a bigger meme: mainly, that Coleman has often played a bit loose with ethics laws in order to repeat the superficial benefits of power. As the Huffington Post reported, Coleman has received discounts on his apartment rent, his utilities bill, and private travel as well. In addition, as Harpers reported, Coleman's wife, Laurie, has been employed by Minneapolis-based Hays Companies, a risk management firm that has donated thousands to the Senator's campaigns. Laurie, an aspiring actress, has no background in risk management.
REPORTER [Pioneer Press reporter Rachel Stassen-Berger]: On a different subject is there a reason that the Senator won't say whether or not someone else bought some suits for him.

[Coleman Campaign Manager] CULLEN SHEEHAN: Rachel, the Senator has reported every gift he has ever received.

REPORTER: That wasn't my question, Cullen.

CULLEN SHEEHAN: The Senator has reported every gift he has ever received.  We are not going to respond to unnamed sources on a blog.

REPORTER: So Senator Coleman's friend has not bought these suits for him?  Is that correct?

CULLEN SHEEHAN: The Senator has reported every gift he has ever received.

REPORTER: Why would say that?  Why wouldn't you give us an answer yes or no on that?

CULLEN SHEEHAN: The Senator has recorded every gift he has ever received.

REPORTER: We haven't asked whether he has recorded every gift he has ever received and I will take his word that he has recorded every gift he has received.  Has he ever received a gift of suits?

CULLEN SHEEHAN: The Senator has reported every gift he has ever received.

REPORTER: If the answer is no, then why don't you say no.

CULLEN SHEEHAN: He has reported every gift he has ever received, Rachel.

REPORTER: What about Laurie, Mrs. Coleman's job at Hays Company?  Do you know what she did there?

CULLEN SHEEHAN: Again they have disclosed everything they need to disclose on the Senate ethics forms.

REPORTER: So the Senator will only go according to the Senate ethics laws or rules rather than answer questions?

CULLEN SHEEHAN: He has done everything that he is required to do, Rachel.

REPORTER: That is not my question, Cullen.

CULLEN SHEEHAN: But that is my response.

REPORTER: Senator Coleman has talked a lot about campaign finance and transparency.  He'll repeat that transparency - transparency - that's what you need to have.  If there are questions about whether he was a recipient of some very expensive suits and whether those they were gifted to him in an appropriate way - why not just clear it all up because it is very unclear to us?

CULLEN SHEEHAN: He does that every year as a United States Senator on his Senate disclosure forms.

REPORTER: And will we find information about clothing on those forms?

CULLEN SHEEHAN: If it exceeds a gift limit, yes.

REPORTER: So is it possible that he received these suits and it was below gift level.

CULLEN SHEEHAN: The Senator has reported every gift he has ever received.

REPORTER: It is a little puzzling Cullen why you won't say whether or not he received these gifts and I understand that you don't have respond to everything on the blogs but you are getting questions from reporters and I don't see why you aren't answering them.  Can you explain that a little to me?

CULLEN SHEEHAN: Rachel, we are not going to respond to unnamed sources on blogs.  That is what we are going to do from now until election is over.  The Senator has disclosed everything that he is required to disclose and recorded everything that he is required to record.

REPORTER: But Cullen if the Senator did nothing wrong here and that is what you are saying then just tell us that and the issue will go away.

CULLEN SHEEHAN: The Senator has reported every gift he has ever received.

REPORTER: Did the Senator done something wrong here?

CULLEN SHEEHAN: The Senator has done nothing wrong and reported every gift he has ever received.

REPORTER: And you don't know what Mrs. Coleman did for Hays Companies?

CULLEN SHEEHAN: And again whatever has been required to be disclosed about her income and what she does has been disclosed.  

From Rachel Stassen-Berger at the PiPress's Political Animal:Pioneer Press reporter Dave Orrick bumped into Republican Sen. Norm Coleman at the Viking Cafe in Fergus Falls  today and asked the Senator the question of the moment: whether Nassar Kazeminy ever bought Coleman any clothing? (A Harper's Magazine blog item suggested that indeed Kazeminy had picked up the tab for some Coleman wear.)

The answer from Coleman, who was not wearing a suit today, was no more forthcoming than the answers his spokeman gave yesterday.

"First of all, every gift I've ever received has been reported, ok. But the idea of responding to the things bloggers throw out is something I'm not going to get into. There are very awful things that are said about people on the blogs," he said.

Orrick then asked for a simple yes or no answer on the suit question.

"That's the answer, period. You can read it in the answer," he said. How about some video of the exchange, showing Coleman getting, shall we say, flustered?

I have a good deal of disdain for blog posts that consist of another blog post quoted whole cloth, so here's some additional analysis:  This is a really, really, really, really, really bad story for Norm Coleman right now. After all we've learned about his questionable living arrangements in Washington, the last thing he needs is ANOTHER story about a political benefactor buying him things and flying him to tropical locations on his private jet.

But I'm particularly insulted that Coleman would fall back on Republican Party Escape Hatch Talking Point #17: Blame the Bloggers. Senator, the article came from Harper's Magazine (not a blog), was picked up by Huffington Post (also not a blog), then again by the Politico, and you immediately attack us when the PiPress comes knocking?

How desperate are you to avoid talking about this story, Mr. Coleman?

Where has CNN's focus group been all my life?

In an age where debate questions, answers, formats, and other features are parsed down to the letter, resulting in a discernable element of kabuki theater, CNN's focus group made for an interesting viewing experience. Along the bottom of the screen during the debate, CNN displayed the warmth meter -- an average of the dials held by a group of undecided Ohio voters, with warm on one side and cold on the other.

By that measure, Barack Obama had several moments last night that bested his opponent in terms of strength and duration, especially when he was able to get moving with his rhetoric comparing the federal government to a family trying to live on a budget. The gender differences were interesting as well -- women responded warmly to John McCain's rhetoric on national security, but also to Obama's talk on fixing the economy, while both men and women seemed to respond favorably to Obama on energy issues.

Really interesting stuff.  Among that focus group, 10 members said immediately following the debate they thought McCain won, while 12 said Obama won, and 3 didn't know.  That means a win for Obama -- McCain spent more time -- a LOT more time -- last night talking about Barack Obama and his proposals rather than what John McCain would do; his efforts to produce a game-changing performance were unsuccessful.

Advantage: Obama.

Tom Scheck, one of the hardest-working journalists in the Twin Cities, comes up with a nice little gem:I checked the ad buys at WCCO-TV today and found that the National Republican Congressional Committee has canceled a week of ads that were scheduled to run on Republican Erik Paulsen's behalf.

The public file at WCCO shows that the NRCC cancled 66 spots that were reserved between October 14th and October 20th. The political committee still has $216,450 in time reserved from October 21st to election day on Paulsen's behalf. The NRCC has also reserved time at KSTP, KMSP and KARE. No word yet on whether the ad buys were scaled back at those stations. The NRCC has been forced to play defense this year so the money reserved for Paulsen may be going to an incumbent in a tough race.

Meanwhile, the NRCC will also run ads on GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann's behalf. The NRCC has reserved time on Bachmann's behalf to run between October 20th and election day (at a cost of about $126k) at WCCO. Fantastic news for DFLer Ashwin Madia, who still has the full support of the better-funded DCCC running ads against Paulsen. One has to wonder whether the NRCC is worried about El Tinklenberg's campaign to unseat Bachmann in the Sixth...I have to admit, while I haven't been very high on Tinklenberg's chances previously, it would be categorically freaking fantastic to get rid of Michele Bachmann.

Drop a few coins in Tinklenberg's bucket at ActBlue to help him stand up against the inevitable and disgustingly perverse attack ads the NRCC will sling his way.

There are a couple of paid advertisements running in the sidebar here at MN Campaign Report that are worth attention.

Note that I said "attention" without a positive or negative adjective attached to either one, because there are issues to discuss about each.

The first is an ad for the Pickens Plan, a series of proposals from natural gas magnate and billionaire T. Boone Pickens, who sounds like he's seen the light on energy issues. Sort of. I have some serious issues with his plan. Wind power is great, but in the process of shifting from foreign oil to domestic natural gas, we're going to incur massive expenses in the conversion process with no long-term benefit. Instead, we should be spending that time, effort, and money implementing clean transit technology now.

See the following links from Adam Siegel and others on the topic:

Pickens' Plan vs Pickens' Problem
Picking at Pickens' Plan
The Big Green Tent
T. Boone Pickens Loves You and Wants to Use Your Credit Card

The second is a big ad from the Vote Yes Campaign. In the spirit of full disclosure, I helped a representative of Vote Yes set up their ad buy, but as I've noted previously, advertising policy is separate from editorial policy.

So here's the deal: Vote Yes is trying to pass the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Act, which would provide a statewide sales tax increase of 3/8% and would dedicate those funds to the outdoors. According to their website,The Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment will provide funding for clean water, game and wildlife habitat, arts and parks and trails. 40% of our lakes and rivers are polluted. Minnesota is set to lose one million acres of open space in the next 25 years. We can change this. We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to make sure that we invest and protect in our state, passing it on to future generations.These are incredibly urgent issues, so in that respect, I hope that money gets appropriated. We're talking about resources that every Minnesotan citizen uses and shares regardless of economic stature or living conditions, and we need to restore them.

That being said, in the long run efforts like these aren't my idea of the best way to bring about these changes. Public policy-by-ballot-initiative is how things are done in California, and it doesn't work very well there -- it's an excuse for gridlock. We elect leaders to make these decisions, and it is our responsibility as informed citizens and voters to vote for leaders who make the right decisions and against those who make the wrong ones. In that respect, I think the Vote Yes campaign may set a bad precedent.

However, despite the issues involved in the effort, the urgency of their cause takes the cake for me. The organization has put herculean strength into their effort, with a great web presence, smart media and new-media strategy, and several staff for whom I have great and abiding respect. A recent poll showed that nearly 60% of voters support the general outline of the amendment, and there doesn't seem to be too much organized opposition to it -- these things work in its favor.

Although I hope it does not become a precedent for the policy-making process, I can definitely get behind the lofty goals of this amendment. But don't just take my word for it -- inform thyself, and check it out at http://www.yesformn.org. Let us know what you think in the comments.

According to a poll just released by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic candidate Ashwin Madia is leading Republican Erik Paulsen by five points, 44-39.

Independence Party candidate David Dillon received the support of 8 percent of respondents, while "undecided" got 9 percent.

Key points:The survey was conducted September 29 - 30 and has a 4.9 percent margin of error.  

In the survey, 82 percent of respondents said that the country is "off on the wrong track" and when asked who would "take us in a new direction," Ashwin Madia led 40 - 16 percent over Paulsen. The DCCC would not immediately release any of the underlying data, unfortunately. However, a statistically significant lead like this represents great growth for the Madia campaign, and puts Paulsen's immediate shift to all-attack-ads-all-the-gosh-darned-time campaigning in perspective. My suspicion is that the Paulsen campaign's internal numbers reflect this poll's results, and they recognized a couple of weeks ago that going on the attack was their only viable route to victory.

Madia, on the other hand, has remained generally positive on his own account (the D-trip's attack ads against Paulsen and a punch-back response to Paulsen's attack notwithstanding) and is building a winning machine with support from Sen. Russ Feingold this past weekend, U.S. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) tonight and Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) tomorrow -- not to mention the many committed volunteers making the whole thing happen on the ground.

/cheer

I'm feeling like playing devil's advocate today, so I thought I'd throw out a question: is the Democratic party ready to be 100 percent in charge during of one of the largest financial crises in the history of our nation?

We've been itching to get back into power for years, but now, ironically, we will find ourselves taking control of the Presidency, the House, and the Senate at the worst possible time. With the economy in turmoil, the buck will stop with the Democrats. Beginning November 5th, the Republicans will begin painting the economic crisis as a Democratic failure. As the party in power beginning in January, the Democrats will have very little time to start making progress toward a solution and spare themselves the voters' wrath.

Let's be honest: the only question left about the 2008 elections is whether the Democrats get 60 seats, or only 58. It's time to start thinking about governing with an eye toward gaining, not losing, during the midterm elections. Given the mess in our country, we need to start talking strategy now. So, I have two questions for you.

1. What should the Democrats do to turn the economy around?
2. What is the best strategy to avoid getting the Republicans' political garbage dumped on us once we're in power?

Watch the debate from start to finish after the jump