As most people know, I've been a strong supporter of Al Franken. I now volunteer sometimes for his campaign and I'm a delegate to the DFL State Convention in Rochester this weekend where we will endorse a candidate for U.S. Senate.

Note that I've written this on my own and it is completely unaffiliated with the campaign. I have not communicated with anyone on the campaign about this post and my thoughts below are strictly my independent opinions.

The Issues

I used to think that Al Franken and his primary opponent, Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, were very similar on their positions. In the last couple months I've realized how very different these two candidates are. My support for Franken has increased and I am having a more and more difficult time with Nelson-Pallmeyer.

Briefly, I've found that I've sided much more with Franken's stance on energy and the environment compared to Nelson-Pallmeyer's. In fact, yesterday Al Gore agreed and endorsed Al Franken primarily on environment issues. On Health Care, Nelson-Pallmeyer's stance is staunchly only for single-payer universal health care while Franken's says that:

A single-payer system would be the most effective in terms of reducing administrative costs, and I would be thrilled to support such a system. But I believe that today's political environment requires a creative and flexible approach to covering every American.

Franken then details a realistic plan that is workable and is much more likely to be supported by most Minnesotans when voting in November.

While I'd love to go through all the issues, the most alarming difference for me is their stances on Iraq.

The "Peace Candidate"

It has been disturbing to me that Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer has been labeled and touted by the "peace community" as the "peace candidate" even though his plan to me is extremely dangerous and unnerving. Al Franken's position on heading towards peace in the Middle East is rooted in getting our troops home as fast as possible without making Iraq worse than it is. He has stated repeatedly that he'd work with experts, the military and intelligence to properly get our armed forces home as soon and effectively as possible while working for stability in the region. Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer's position on foreign policy boils down to a six month immediate timetable on withdrawing from Iraq regardless of the stability of the Middle East.

I found a video of Jack talking to activists and bloggers at a Drinking Liberally meeting on February 14th of this year where he lays out his stance on Iraq:

It is interesting (but difficult for some) to watch the whole thing as there's some weird analogies but if you want to hear the key part, skip to 2:40 where Drinking Liberally regular Bruce sets up probably the pivotal and key issue regarding withdrawing immediately from Iraq:

It is inevitable -- I know of no way to avoid this: that [Iraq] will fall into civil war. That [the U.S. military] presence is delaying an inevitable civil war. I don't know of any plan. I've not heard of anybody come up with a plan that will avoid that. Now, that civil war... that will have some serious effects both on the life of the Iraqis, on the propensity to pull other regional governments into a Sunni-Shiite war that could expand... and on the political effects in this country.

Very well put. Nelson-Pallmeyer responds by talking about how Iraq is ruined and how he knew it would be disaster before the war began, like most candidates would. He gives a bizarre egg analogy and then answers his question about the possibility of a civil war if we were to remove U.S. troops right away:

What I would say is that I don't dispute that that outcome that you've laid out may in fact happen. What I would say, is the likelihood of it happening and happening at a more disastrous level -- that likelihood increases with every day the occupation continues. So in other words, the longer the United States stays, the more likely that's the outcome. So that's one thing, I think.

How so? While I agree that the Iraqis overall generally hate our presence there I think that it is hard to dispute, as Bruce said, that we are currently preventing a civil war by maintaining power. Doesn't immediately withdrawing from Iraq without some semblance of stability actually worsen the likelihood and severity of a civil war? I'm a bit dumbfounded at this. Nelson-Pallmeyer continues:

We can't promise people that when the United States pulls out "it's going to be all fun and games - it's going to be fine," we can't say that. That's why ending the occupation is so important but our role doesn't end there. Those of us that want to at least want to try to at least help Iraq repair, our obligation continues. That's where I think we can direct some of those billions of dollars that we are now squandering on the occupation. It could be done in a way that would provide incentives for Iraqi factions within the country. "As you demonstrate a capacity to move forward, you have, let's say twenty-five or thirty billion dollars available to you to help the country reconstruct." Put it in an escrow account that helps makes that possible.

This position is frightening. You cannot be a "peace candidate" if your Iraq exit strategy is to disregard what our troops are doing to prevent a civil war, to almost intentionally create the largest power vacuum in the Middle East and then give $25 billion handouts to factions that say they'll help reconstruct the country on good will. I'm a staunch anti-war liberal and this doesn't fly with me but more importantly it certainly won't fly with most voters in Minnesota.

"Can We Come With?"

I was at an Al Franken meet-and-greet this week where afterwards I was chatting with a few staffers, volunteers and then later Al's daughter, Thomasin. We've chatted at a few events before but I don't know her very well. I mentioned that I was going to meet up later with a couple friends, who are also state delegates, at a pub in my neighborhood, Merlin's Rest. She asked, "can we come with?"

So a half hour later I'm walking into the pub with Al and Thomasin Franken. The entire place lights up with excitement. I assumed they were only going to stick around for fifteen minutes due to their schedules so I nervously tried to make sure they got face time with my friends, those state delegates. I should have just relaxed and had a beer. Ends up that they wanted to talk with everyone that came up to them and they didn't focus on persuasion or making sure they were talking with specific people. In fact, they were there well over an hour, perhaps two, and primarily wanted to socialize.

At one point I was reminded that Monday nights at Merlin's Rest were open mic night because we were interrupted by one of Franken's old jingles from Air America Radio being performed live. The pub cheered and Al mildly blushed, hearing the pub singing along to a song about him being performed off the cuff by whomever was behind the microphone. He was urged to go up, joked a bit and the crowd roared. Al went into a bit about why he's running, why he is passionate about changing policy in Washington and why Norm Coleman needs to be unseated. He left the mic with everyone glowing and cheering then he came back to our table to chat some more.

It hit me, in a way: this guy can walk into a neighborhood pub, everyone roots for him, wants to hear him speak and people come by stressing that they want him to represent them in Washington. He has barely started campaigning statewide and he already can find grassroots support just by walking into a bar. This is a big deal.

Al and Thomasin told me on their way out that they really enjoyed hanging out. I did too.

"Hopes and Dreams"

I received a piece of literature from the Nelson-Pallmeyer campaign two days ago where the key messaging boiled down to asking:

As you think about your upcoming vote, I ask you to consider the following. Some people have told me that I am crazy to think that DFL leaders attending the state convention will choose a candidate based on their hopes and dreams for a better state and nation. They tell me that delegates choose based on who has the most money and the broadest name recognition. How can I compete, they say, without millions of dollars and celebrity status?

If you think my opponent best represents your hopes and dreams, if you think he has the best vision and the courage to fight for that vision, then you should indeed support him. If, however, you share with me a vision to return our nation to its leadership position in the world; if you want to end the war immediately and ensure health care for every American; if you want to stop sending jobs overseas and create a renewable energy economy at home; if you can believe that everyone matters and that no one should be left behind -- then I ask for your vote at the State Convention.

Well, my hopes and dreams for Minnesota and this country are better represented by Al Franken. I believe he has the best vision and has the courage to fight for that vision. He is the strongest candidate on health care, the environment, and by far on foreign policy. As a bonus, he is also the candidate that has raised over ten million dollars while the other campaign can just afford the convention this weekend. Yes, he has that "celebrity status," but it's the kind of recognition where he can walk into a pub and the entire place starts cheering him on. Al has strong, statewide support, fantastic campaign staff and is the candidate with the positions and resources to defeat Norm Coleman in November.

I'm fighting this weekend in Rochester to make sure he gets the DFL endorsement.

Due to the nature of this post, if you comment, please stand behind your comment by using your real name.