I know that many of you will dismiss the following diary as premature, but with all of the uproar about Sarah Palin, there is a point that has been lost here. We, in the Democratic Party, remain the more favorable party for female candidates in politics by almost any measure. And we, the Democratic Party, have numerous up-and-coming female candidates that will absolutely be in the running for our Presidential nomination in 2016.

Some are better known than others; most will be well-known within a decade.  But we, as a Party, should recognize that gender equality in politics is not the politics of tokenism, of appointing someone hopelessly overmatched for the position solely on the basis of gender. Rather, gender equality in politics is a Senate and Congress composed of equal parts men and women. Gender equality is a slate of Presidential candidates comprised of equal numbers of men and women.

There's more...

I'll say it up front, I've always been bullish on Al Franken, even when others here were ripping on him, and already giving up on the race, and lamenting how the race would've been better with Ciresi or Nelson-Pallmeyer.  And one of the arguments used against Franken was that he had pissed off some other prominent Minnesota Democrats like Congresspeople Betty McCollum and Keith Ellison and Amy Klobuchar.  There was quite a bit of hand-wringing going on.

Well, take a look below the fold to see what's happened in the last couple days.  (And from the links, yes, I got this stuff from MN Publius.

There's more...

When I heard that FISA was back, and this time at the behest of our own side, I determined that I wouldn't get complacent... that's what this is all about:  If they keep bringing it up, and we stop caring, the Bush Administration and the complicit telecoms will get away with spying on us and abridging our rights.  

This is not good bipartisanship, this is the bipartisanship of a bad date: they walk out on you, and you get to pay the bill.

Glenn Greenwald has some analysis on the issue here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2 008/06/19/telecom/

It's even worse than expected. When you read it, it's actually hard to believe that the Congress is about to make this into our law. Then again, this is the same Congress that abolished habeas corpus with the Military Commissions Act, and legalized George Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program with the "Protect America Act," so it shouldn't be hard to believe at all. Seeing the words in print, though, adds a new dimension to appreciating just how corrupt and repugnant this is.

There's more...

Just a quick blact, as I am busy watching theUpTakes's feed.  Anyway the MN DFL convention is going on live.

Gov Dean is speaking at 2 pm CST. Get over to theuptake and watch!
Sen. Klobuchar is speaking live now! She is off to a great start.
Steve Sarvi just talked to the convention, he got a great reception. There will be analysis of his speech and race now at TheUpdate I am guessing.

There's more...

Star Tribune, 9/13-9/15, 820 LV, MoE 3.4 (7/6-11 numbers in parenthesis)
Klobuchar: 56% (50%)
Kennedy: 32% (31%)

Before this campaign even started, I remember nearly endless Republican hype, often lapped up by the press, about what a great candidate Mark Kennedy was. No one ever seemed to bother to mention that in 2004, he under-performed Bush in his own district. And oh yeah--Bush lost Minnesota. And oh yeah--Bush has dropped at least 15 points in Minnesota since 2004. And oh yeah--in 2004, Kennedy edged out Patty Wetterling, who was getting crushed by Amy Klobuchar in the Democratic primary in Minnesota before she dropped out.

What amazes me is that anyone expected this race to be a nailbiter. What amazes me is that even many Democrats considered Kennedy a strong candidate, lapping up the same nonsense the press has lapped up all along. This poll probably exaggerates Klobuchar's lead, but no poll has shown Kennedy ahead in this race, ever. Most polls have down double-digit leads for Klobuchar. The truth is that Mark Kennedy is a sub-par campaigner and candidate who has an ability to woo Republican activists, largely because he is a hard-core conservative. For example, Kennedy was one of only 50 members of Congress who voted to build permanent military basis in Iraq. He wooed the Republican machinery, and so the Republican machinery pushed out lies about how he was a strong candidate. Not surprisingly, the media and many Dems bought into it. However, just taking a look at Kennedy's election history should have told anyone the truth from the get-go. For crying out loud, in 2000 he won an open seat his seat by 1% in a district that Bush won by 13.8%. No one who does that is a strong candidate. Republicans got suckered by a turkey in Kennedy, and a blow-out loss in Minnesota is their reward. I just hope that in the future lies about supposed Republican "rising stars" aren't swallowed so easily by people outside of the Republican infrastructure.