So, I’ve decided to go all King Solomon and split the difference: I’ll be brief.

With that, I’ll tell you what happened in Duluth: Tom Rukavina dropped an A-bomb on the convention hall. It’s conventional wisdom at this point, but I believe it: Tom Rukavina was the surprise of the convention and his impact on how the events unfolded was immense.

At first, I thought Tommy’s strong 1st ballot showing might change everything in a manner favorable to RT Rybak.   My thought process: if Rukavina comes in 3rd and Thissen in 4th, it will be such a surprisingly bad showing for the latter that the bottom would drop out of Thissen’s support; and if Thissen’s bottom dropped out, not only might his supporters start jumping ship in Rybak’s direction, but it would surely push reNEW.mn into Rybak’s hands. In fact, I still stand by that analysis—reNEW.mn came into the convention slightly favoring Thissen and if he had faded faster, they likely would have consolidated behind Rybak when it still mattered; on the second or third ballot, that would have been a game-changer.

But none of that happened.   Thissen held on to the third spot and Rukavina threw his out-sized support to Margaret.   When that happened, it was the end of the convention, and that was only on the 4th ballot. By the way, Rukavina’s endorsement was pre-planned (see: lit-drop), but I don’t think the Kelliher campaign imagined in their wildest dreams how pivotal his endorsement would be.

Quick aside: Rep. Rukavina displayed this weekend why many of us will always have a soft-spot for him and Rep. Thissen solidified his position as one of the brightest stars in our party.

Going back a couple steps in this analysis, David Kaplan (@DEKMinn) had the tweet of the night: “How much did ReNew spend to NOT sway the endorsement?  I didn’t sway it either and it cost me nothing… #justsaying” They blew it. Enough said.

Finally, Margaret’s crew simply outworked the floor; there’s no two ways about it.   From start to finish they seemed to be one step ahead of any other campaign out there and that edge was crucial in a convention where much was decided at the margins. Furthermore, while Rybak consistently outperformed Kelliher when addressing large audiences, Margaret was killer one-on-one—I talked to numerous delegates who said that his or her conversation with Margaret is what decided their his or her vote. Despite the concerns expressed by some in the comments on this blog, make no mistake, Margaret is a very good campaigner and a formidable candidate. Take the time to get to know her and see her in action, and I have no doubt that you’ll be as excited about the next few months as I am.

This has been quite the race so far. No, there haven’t been any salacious scandals (unless you count the rampant rumors about Zack Stephenson and that broom closet). And no, the horse race isn’t quite at a full gallop yet. But anytime you have close to a dozen (mostly) well known candidates vying for a the honor of being a party’s candidate for governor, well, things are going to get interesting. And with the DFL convention just over two weeks away (I hope you have your hotel reservations set!), it’s time to do some good ol’ political handicapping.

Let’s cut to the chase here:  Barring some unforeseen event (and let’s be clear, there is a lot of room for an unforeseen event or two) this convention is all about Rybak and Kelliher. Some of the remaining candidates still have an outside shot at the endorsement, but it’s just that: an outside shot.  But, that being said, every candidate still has the ability to impact the outcome here.  Whether through endorsement, floor lobbying, delegate bargaining, policy demands, or an outstanding speech, each candidate could tip the scales.  And part of that is because the scales are just so evenly balanced right now.

THE SECOND TIER: MARTY, RUKAVINA, & THISSEN

I’ll get back to RT and MAK in a moment here, but let’s look at those second tier candidates.  Remarkably, the second tier is as tied up as is the first tier. All three have somewhere around 70 delegates (quick note: delegate estimates are a moving target, so while no delegate total I’ll cite in this post is 100% accurate, they are fair estimates):  Senator Marty has about 75; Representative Thissen has around 70; and Rukavina has around 50, but with Bakk’s exit I think it’s safe to bump that to around 60 or so (Bakk had 25 pledged delegates and 18 superdelegates).

Let me be crystal clear here:  I don’t think any of these three is going to get the endorsement. Honestly, I hesitate typing that both because all three are tremendous public servants and have run stellar campaigns (especially Thissen on the latter count), and because conventions can take weird turns; but the odds are slim.

That being said, each of these three candidates can still have a significant affect on the convention.  With RT and MAK in virtual dead-heat, an endorsement from any of the three would be a huge deal.  It’s difficult to assess, however, what direction each candidate might turn.  And the reason its so difficult is because the policy differences between RT and MAK are not all that significant.  One might be tempted to favor MAK here because two of the three (Thissen and Rukavina) are House members, and there may be something to that, but it would be difficult for either one to rally their delegates to MAK merely because she’s also a House member.

When there’s an absence of a factual basis for an opinion, bloggers turn to a time-honored tradition: talking out of our ass.  So, in the spirit of that tradition, my gut feeling is that all three candidates will shy away from a public endorsement of either MAK or RT—it’s just too close to interfere without causing a lot of personal political problems.  Out of the three, I’d probably place Rep. Thissen endorsing MAK as the most likely occurrence.

And one last observation: with 1300 delegates at the State Convention, there will potentially only be small window for these candidates to affect the balance of the endorsement. If momentum starts to swing in either direction (to MAK or RT), 70 delegates is going to start looking like a small prize and it will be increasingly difficult for the candidate to herd those 70 delegates in one direction.  Still, a strong endorsement coupled with a strong speech, could have a much broader affect than the candidate’s pool of delegates.

Bottom line:  Marty, Rukavina, and Thissen inject a whole lotta wild card into the convention.  But it’s beyond the powers of a mortal to divine how those wild cards might be played.

THE RACE:  MAK & RT

Mayor RT Rybak and Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher are entering this convention in a virtual tie.

As far as pledged delegates, that’s literally true (like I said, the counts aren’t completely reliable, but both are around 170-190 pledged delegates); but MAK clearly has an edge in pledged superdelegates (I believe it’s 46 to 8, but correct me in the comments if I’m wrong).  On this front, I think Rybak’s recent announcement of 7 legislator endorsements was a bigger deal than it seems at first blush—it signaled to all legislators that its okay to take a look at Rybak.

But the big story here is how many uncommitted delegates there are:  it’s well over a third of the 1300 total. So, with a virtual tie going in, the question obviously becomes: who gets the lions share of the uncommitted delegates?  This is where I enter the realm of unsubstantiated guesswork again.

First, let’s take a look at those uncommitteds. There’s been a fair amount of talk about the “hidden” delegates—delegates that are formally in the uncommitted pool but actually know who they support.  Some have suggested that on balance more of these hidden delegates are in Rybak’s camp, both due to incidental evidence and the lot of reNew.mn delegates (156 be their count) that are more likely to go RT because reNEW.mn voted for him as its #1 preferred candidate (although MAK still came in a close third).  I buy this, but it’s far too difficult to weigh how substantial this force will be—after all, these delegates said “uncommitted” for one reason or another.  If anything, this just firms up the belief that this is a virtual tie (given MAK’s slight advantage due to superdelegates)

Second, let’s take a look at the big institutional players that have yet to make a move: SEIU, Education Minnesota, and the Trades Council. An endorsement from any of these three (particularly SEIU or EdMN) could really shift the momentum going into the convention.  Now, I jumped the gun last week by wildly speculating that Rybak’s big announcement could be a union endorsement (it was the announcement of the 7 legislator endorsements), but the reason was because I had been hearing that SEIU was leaning towards RT.  These are just rumors, but they have been fairly persistent.  That being said, it’s only two weeks out and we’ve still heard nothing.  Other than SEIU, it looks like EdMN may not endorse and the Trades Council sounds like its heading in MAK’s direction.  Let’s just say the rumors are true and SEIU announces an RT endorsement with the Trades Council going for MAK; that would be a virtual wash, but would boost Rybak’s momentum more.  In the end, these are all rumors, but there’s no doubt both candidates are lobbying hard for these key endorsements.

Third, let’s take a look at floor performance.  And this is where the whole process is kind of funny:  uncommitted or not, any delegate can vote for any candidate.  Sure, it’s a pretty big faux pas to vote for someone other than who you’re committed to on the first ballot, but you can. And after that first ballot, all bets are off. This is where I really think RT has an advantage. RT thrives in these retail politics situations—he loves the stuff, he’d good at it, and I think he can move feet in this scenario. Furthermore, Kelliher’s campaign has (to this humble blogger) been less visible over the last month.  The difference isn’t huge, and can likely be attributed to her necessarily being tied up in the important work of, you know, being the second most powerful person in state government, but whatever the reason, the difference is there.  And I think this slight difference, combined with outsized expectations, has given RT a momentum advantage.  He fared better than expected in the delegate race and has been pretty visible in the news ever since.  Finally, I think there’s a growing worry among the party faithful about the ability of MAK to pivot from the legislative session.  And to no fault of her own—I’ve been very impressed with her ability to make lemonade out of lemons thus far this session—this session is a brutal one in the state’s history.

There’s also the question of running-mates, but as Zack pointed out, “the sine qua non of running mates is ‘first, do no harm.’”  In short, I don’t really expect the running mate choice to tip the balance all that much.  Even if one makes a fantastic pick, it’s likely to be checked by the other’s pick.  There’s room for surprise, as there is in all of this, but I don’t put too much weight here.

MY PREDICTIONS

So, after all that hot-aired analysis, and there was a lot of it (sorry, I haven’t blogged in a while, so there was a lot of hot-air built up!), where does that leave us?

If we walk into the convention in roughly the same spot as we are today, Rybak takes it. Now, that’s a big “if,” and I’ve pointed out above all the ways it could change, but if these two are still roughly tied when they hit the floor, I think Rybak’s knack for face-to-face politics and his edge in perceived momentum will carry him to the endorsement.  I’ll even put a finer point on my prediction:  If MAK doesn’t have a perceptible lead on the first balance, Rybak will take it. There are so many ways I could end up being dreadfully wrong that it makes my head spin, but it would be too big of a cop-out to write this loooong post and not make a prediction.

Let me try to salvage friendships one last time:  this is just my best shot at a prediction.  It’s not an endorsement and I sincerely haven’t decided to support one candidate in particular.  Moreover, I could easily be wrong.

As I said some time ago, I think the primary will be between the endorsed candidate and Dayton.  Whether the DFL candidate is ultimately Margaret, RT, or Dayton (or the off-chance of Marty, Rukavina, or Thissen), I’d be exuberant to throw any of them up agains the GOP’s best.  I’ve said it time and again, we have an amazing slate of candidates.  And because of that, even in this dark chapter of Minnesota’s history, I feel very optimistic about our future.

With that, take to the comments to yell at me about how big of an idiot I am!

Minnesota’s hospitals are the latest victims of the “St. Paul shifts,” which dump the additional costs of essential services on them, on school districts, and on local governments. State government increasingly asks: “Who else can pay for this?”

Their answer this week was, unfortunately, rural hospitals and the communities that support them. According to the Minnesota Hospital Association, two hospitals: St. Luke’s Hospital and SMDC Medical Center stand to lose millions each as a result of the new GAMC bill. On top of this slash to rural health care, local governments are slated to lose hundreds of millions of dollars statewide as cuts to Local Government Aid go deeper. Duluth alone stands to lose more than $5.2 million in funding for critical services like police and fire.

I followed the GAMC debacle very closely—this is a defining issue for this state and this governor for a variety of reasons, both substantively and metaphorically.  Seeing the legislature and governor hack out a compromise was bittersweet.  On the one hand, I was happy to see the legislative leaders finally force Pawlenty to compromise, but on the other, the details of the deal still evidenced a very painful set of cuts would be enacted.

After hearing more about the GAMC deal cut, I’m more cynical about what it was. (note: it’s passed and signed, so this is all somewhat moot) Pawlenty knew he was in a corner because a vet0-proof majority voted for the original compromise bill (but a sufficient number refused to override his veto when push came to shove).  Sure, by refusing to overturn the veto, the GOP House caucus bought him time, but behind closed doors they were pressuring the Governor to come up with a plan or, eventually, be overridden.  The current proposal then, in my view, is the bare minimum Pawlenty thinks he has to provide in order to placate those GOP House members.  It’s not responsible governing (I don’t expect that from him anyway), but even worse, it’s not necessarily even better than the original elimination.  I know that may soundbombastic, but the cuts it makes in other areasjust create problems in other areas that are, possibly, more problematic than the original cut.

Solidifying my view of the problematic nature of the current compromise bill is the fact that it doesn’t reflect the recent passage of the national health care reform bill.  As Rep. Paul Thissen points out, the federal bill potentially has significant implications for the GAMC population and the amount of money the state has to expend to cover them to the same degree (as in, a much lower cost for the state).  DFL legislators made a last-minute push to adopt some of the federal provisions that could have possibly saved Minnesota millions, but Pawlenty’s national ambitions makes any acknowledgment of or reliance on the healthcare bill politically impossible, so he promptly shut those talks down.

At the end of the day, I’m with Thissen:

It has become clear that the GAMC “compromise” will not work.  We’ve heard that from hospitals and other providers from all across the state.  We have heard that from advocates for the clients currently served under GAMC.  We should not enact bad public policy simply because of a “deal” reached behind closed doors.

How many times are the citizens of Minnesota going to have to fall on a sword in order to placate the Tea-Party constituents Pawlenty is trying to butter up to nationally?

Tom Bakk (D):

• Total: $361,927 (began fundraising in mid-2008)
• 2009 Total: $208,682
• Cash on Hand: $133,000
• Other: none reported.

Mark Dayton (D): [NEW]

• Total: $641,821 (committee registered in early 2009)
• 2009 Total: $641,821
• Cash on Hand: $16,772
• Other: He loaned $570,00 to his campaign (!)

Matt Entenza (D): [UPDATED]

• Total: Over $400,000 (began around January)
• 2009 Total: $405,286 from contributors in 2009.
• Cash on Hand: $73,917
• Other: Matt made a $10,000 contribution to the campaign and loaned the campaign $70,000.

Susan Gaertner (D): [NEW]

• Total: $200,411 (began in 2007!)
• 2009 Total: $110,828
• Cash on Hand: $4,347

Steve Kelley (D): [NEW]

• Total: About $200,ooo (he never closed out his 2006 committee, so there are nominal contributions in 2007 and 2008, but he didn’t really start his push for this cycle until 2010)
• 2009 Total: $187,249
• Cash on Hand: $39,541
• Other: Loaned $16,400 to his campaign

Margaret Anderson Kelliher (D):

• Total: $254,000 (formally announced in September, not sure when she began fundraising)
• 2009 Total: $254,000 from contributors in 2009.
• Cash on Hand: $81,000
• Other: She made a direct contribution of $250 to her campaign.

John Marty (D): [NEW]

• 2009 Total: $105,895
• Cash on Hand: $18,910
• Other: None reported.

Tom Rukavina (D):

• Total: $135,000 (announced exploratory committee in the summer of 2009)
• 2009 Total: $135,000
• Cash on Hand: $60,000
• Other: None reported.

R.T. Rybak (D):

• Total: $278,000 (started fundraising at very end of 2009)
• 2009 Total: $138,000 (additional $140K raised in January, 2010)
• Cash on Hand: $25,000
• Other: None reported.

Paul Thissen (D):

• Total: $370,000 (began fundraising in late 2008)
• 2009 Total: $233,000
• Cash on Hand: $85,000
• Other: He also loaned his campaign $20,000

Marty Seifert (R):

• Total: $262,753 (stepped down as minority leader in June to form exploratory committee)
• 2009 Total: $262,753
• Cash on Hand: $133,072.
• Other: He also loaned his campaign $20,000 and transferred $20,000 from his now defunct MN House campaign

Tom Emmer (R): [UPDATED]

• Total: $114,852 (began this summer)
• 2009 Total: $114,852
• Cash on Hand: $19,154.
• Other: via Scheck: “His spokesman said he loaned the campaign and gave in-kind contributions that amount to roughly $10,000.”

I said it once, and I’ll say it again:  The DFL numbers are blowing the GOP numbers out of the water. In fact, just for fun, let’s compare totals here:

Party Totals (so far): [UPDATED]

• DFL Candidates: $1,849,761 ($2,419,761 counting Dayton’s $570K loan to his campaign)
• GOP Candidates: $429,463 (includes GOP candidates I didn’t bother listing above)

Let’s not get overly-confident, but let’s also not fall for the argument that our cluttered field has dampened enthusiasm, because that is obviously not the case.

Yes, Rep. Paul Thissen has managed what can only be described as a minor coup by raising a whopping $370K so far.   The campaign states that the total comes from “nearly” 1900 donors.  While Thissen’s 2009 number alone is $253K, it’s splitting hairs at this point to discount early efforts; after all, candidates like Rybak only announced very recently, so each candidate has to be evaluated on their own timeframe.  I’m not sure if this compares with Ted Mondale or Mike Hatch’s pre-election year fundraising efforts (anyone have those numbers?), but it certainly places Thissen in the league of former major candidates.

A few comments on Thissen’s accomplishment:

1. This will provide Rep. Thissen a very nice boost in both credibility and excitement as the caucuses approach.  Thissen has recently restated his intentions to abide by the endorsement, so he has certainly set the bar for himself very high given the super-delegate advantage both Kelliher and Bakk enjoy.
2. Rep. Thissen has always been in the under-dog category of candidates but he has really taken advantage of these preconceptions by consistently outperforming and surprising.  He’s been a fun force to have injected into this field and his campaign (and campaign manager Gia Vitali) deserves quite a bit of credit for the impressive show.

Finally, and most importantly:  Between the three candidates that have announced numbers (and there are still some big-dogs to show their hand) we’re looking at nearly $900K in pre-election year DFL fundraising.  That DFL candidates will collectively break $1 million in 2009 gubernatorial fundraising is a fore-gone conclusion at this point. This is simply amazing and a testament to the fact that an admittedly crowded field has not interfered with, but perhaps enhanced, the appeal of these individually tremendous candidates.  I truly mean this (and this is why I haven’t made a decision which to support over the others), I would be ecstatic throwing my support behind any one of these guys or girls:  Entenza, Dayton, Kelliher, Rukavina (how fun would that be!?), Gaertner, Bakk, Thissen, Kelley, Marty, Rybak, the list goes on—these are all amazing individuals with very Minnesotan visions of how to govern this state and the direction we need to head to survive in this increasingly competitive world.

The DFL is fired up and ready to go.  If I were the GOP and I saw the numbers these guys are posting, I’d be shaking in my boots.

Below are my impressions for each candidate:

Steve Kelley: Kelley didn’t show me anything new in this debate.  That’s not a criticism, just an observation.  He’s the same candidate he was in 2006.  He did have a couple of odd moments.  He  took a question about the state budget deficit and ended up talking about the public option in the national health care bill.   Later on he stumbled a bit when asked how he would deal with Pawlenty’s disastrous record with the Department of Human Serives.  Kelley said he has not decided on whether to abide by the DFL endorsement.

R.T. Rybak: Came right out of the gate strong and was the feistiest candidate by far.  I already mentioned his hit on the legislators, but he also took a direct shot at Dayton at the end of the debate when all of the candidates were asked whether they would abide by the DFL endorsement.  Dayton had called the endorsement process undemocratic and said he would not abide on principle.  Rybak responded, “I will absolutely abide. No games, no equivocation.  I don’t get this baloney that a party endorsement process isn’t a democratic process.  I don’t get that.”

Mark Dayton:  This was Dayton at his best, passionate and articulate.  He had a great line when asked about jobs, “Pawlenty believes the solution to the jobs problem is to furlough [AFSCME members] from their jobs and then not show up for his own.”  Zing.  As previously noted, Dayton will not abide.

Matt Entenza: He opened up the debate by noting that he is from Worthington, which is so far south that he “doesn’t like Iowa jokes.”  I’m not sure I can support a candidate who doesn’t like Iowa jokes.  On a more serious note, Entenza did a great job of using his compelling personal story to his advantage.  It was a strong performance from Entenza.  When asked about the DFL endorsement, Entenza gave his standard answer, which is that he will abide if everyone else abides.  Of course, he said this just minutes after Dayton said he would not honor the endorsement and would run in the primary.  Pretty obnoxious.  Closed circuit to Matt, just say you are not going to abide.  You are not scoring any points by playing this little game.

Tom Rukavina:  Was entertaining as always.  Described himself as “the love child between Paul Wellstone and Jesse Ventura” and then bragged about his union made underwear.  He had a great moment later when talking about Norman Borlag.  Said Borlag only graduated from the U because of financial aid.  Asked, “how many Norman Borlags are we cheating?”  Said he would abide by the DFL endorsement.

John Marty:  What struck me most about Marty was that he is clearly stuck in the past.  He took every question and used his time to talk about budget votes in the 90s and was also the only candidate to bring up the Time “the state that works” magazine cover.  Get into this decade Marty.  Will abide (and said if he didn’t get the endorsement he’d return to the Senate).

Paul Thissen:  If you are wondering why everyone has been talking about Paul Thissen, you should listen to this debate.  Thissen sounded sharp, engaging and fresh.  Had a nice moment talking about his kid’s struggles with the health care system.  Will abide.

Susan Gaertner: Did a nice job using stories from her time as County Attorney and her personal life.  My favorite line of hers was, “I’ve raised three teenage girls, you think I’m going to have a hard time making the hard decisions?  I’m not.”  Will abide.

Tom Bakk: Spent the whole debate touting his union credentials.  Maybe not a bad strategy given this was a union audience.  Otherwise, he was pretty forgettable.  Said, “my plans are to abide by the DFL endorsement.”  Does that leave the door open just a bit? UPDATE: Sen. Bakk’s campaign emails to say “Sen. Bakk will abide by the endorsement.  The door is not open.”

Margaret Anderson Kelliher: This was not the same MAK I’ve seen in dozens of Capital press conferences.  She was very strong, sharp and showed some passion.  (that’s not to say she isn’t good in the pressers, she just usually doesn’t show a lot of passion).  She had a great answer when asked about the deficit.  A very nice performance.  Will abide.

The Bottom Line

Top performers:  Kelliher, Thissen, Entenza, Dayton, Rybak

In the middle: Rukavina, Gaertner

Not very good:  Bakk, Marty, Kelley

Tim Pawlenty

T-Paw raised $750k last year.  That’s a lot of money.  There are a couple of ways to look at this.  Most obviously, it could be a sign that Pawlenty plans to run again.  I have to admit the potency of this argument, but I’m still a skeptic.  As we have noted time and time again, if Timmy has national ambitions (and he does) it makes very little sense for him to run again in 2010.  So why would he raise all that money if he’s not running for re-election.  One question to answer first: how much of that money can be transfered into a federal account?  I actually have no idea, but my gut tells me that most of it should be transferable (Minnesota has tighter campaign finance laws than the feds).  If it can be transfered, then the fact that T-Paw has a huge chunk of money sitting around means nothing in terms of his re-election prospects.

The DFLers

Susan Gaertner raised just $46k despite being in the race since 2003 (and that is just a small exageration).  I am already ready to write off her campaign.  John Marty raised $30k “in the last nine days of December.”  I actually have very little to say about this - I think a thirty point loss (even if it was 14 years ago) should probably be a disqualifier.  Mark Dayton and Matt Entenza both did not file, but we wouldn’t really care even if they had because they both can self-fund.  This brings us to the big surprise of the reporting period:  State Representative Paul Thissen raised $115,000 in “the last seven weeks” of 2008.  For a heretofore unknown state legislator, that is pretty damn impressive.  In fact, Thissen’s campaign has been pretty impressive overall during the last few weeks.  If he can keep it up (and you have to wonder if he can - how much of that 115k came from the Minneapolis legal community?  How much more can he raise with such a narrow financial base?), he might be able to make some waves in this contest.

Of course, the big fish have still yet to get into the race.  Some other commenters have suggested that Chris Coleman and R.T. Rybak’s mayoral re-election bids will prevent them from running for Governor.  Don’t believe it for a second.  Coleman and Rybak will stay quiet until sometime in the late spring or early summer (when it would be too late for a serious re-election challenger to emerge) but I would be SHOCKED if at least one of them didn’t get into this race by this time next year.  Speaker Kelliher is also a good bet to run, but she won’t make a move until the legislative session is over.

If Thissen really does get into the guts of every corner of the state and really does listen, he might have an outside chance. I described my talk with Thissen to a friend this way, and I’ll stick with it now: He’s so damn reasonable. As a health care expert, he strives and generally succeeds to avoid “wonkishness,” showing a clear speaking style that makes sense — especially to independent-minded anti-ideologues. The risk with being reasonable is that voters might lose him in the shuffle of loud, emotional, and better known candidates who might join this race. But the fact is that reasonable people make good governors. Thissen is experienced but not yet a career politician. He has shown something that I have found lacking at every level of government, from dog catcher up to President: curiosity. He wants to learn more about a problem before he decides what the best solution is. And he’s also willing to talk about specific problems. We spent a good portion of our talk last week talking about the woes facing one Iron Range nursing home that is closing later this month, greatly affecting several dozen Iron Range families. Most candidates avoid specifics, but not Thissen.

Check out the whole thing.  Later today, Bluestem Prairie will have an interview with long suspected gubernatorial candidate Tim Walz.  Ollie previews the interview by suggesting that Walz is more focused on staying in Congress than running for Governor.

UPDATE: Apparently I misunderstood the Bluestem preview.  Ollie Ox writes in the comments:

The interview focused on congressional business, since policy and civic engagement is more interesting to this bovine blogger right now. Those who are interested more in the gubernatorial race should follow Brown’s excellent lead and interview declared candidates and potential contenders. Walz’s plans? People should ask him.

Bluestem’s article based on the interview is going to focus on transportation, energy policy, jobs creation, education, rural economic development, that sort of thing.

Apologies for the error. We’re looking forward to the interview regardless.

State Rep. Paul Thissen, who yesterday filed the papers to run for Governor of Minnesota in 2010, launched his new Web site today at www.paulthissen.com. A key feature of the Web site is the “Idea Board,” a forum for Minnesotans of all walks of life to
share ideas and discuss how we can move Minnesota forward together.

“Minnesota faces serious challenges ahead. We all know that. We must meet those challenges the way Minnesota always has — with innovative leadership that offers fresh solutions and new ways of doing things,” said Rep. Thissen. “That kind of openness to innovation and fresh thinking will be a central part of this campaign.”

So, add another name to the “definitely running” list. And just to mark how official we are about 2010 getting kicked off (writing that just made me gag a little; we’re 2 years out!), I’ve created an “MN 2010: Governor” subject category where you can follow all the news that is sure to shortly change from a trickle to a flood.

In related (and boring) taxological news, the “White House ‘08” and “MN 2008: Senate” subject categories will be eliminated soon, but you can still follow the related persons (Obama, Franken, Coleman, etc.) through their corresponding “people we cover” tag. I’m sure you really needed to know that, right?