The comments about Mike Erlandson being responsible for the Paul Wellstone Memorial Service are so ridiculous I don't know where to even start.

Erlandson and the state DFL Party did not "engineer" the service. In fact... they didn't really have much of any part in its execution. If you were going to criticize him in regard to the service... it should be that the state party did not vet any of the speeches or take more control of the events.

I totally agree with everything else you said Andy. They really are making themselves look pretty bad.

Noone reads Lavender for political coverage any more. The magazine is a joke in that area.

There's two sides to the union story, and Catherine Shreves was an excellent candidate - who would have been an advocate for gays at the legislature (she had good knowledge of tax issues, and that expertise would be good), she'd also taken some leadership on the school board with some policies that related to gays (can't recall specifics now). The story Lavender published about the harrassment by some of Dibble's supporters (not officially connected to Dibbles campaign), threatening Polly and Deb Tallen was true. (The threats were about trying to get Rainbow Families funding yanked if they didn't support Dibble). I doubt Scott knew anything about this, nor approved of it. I think Lavender's endorsement at that convention probably hurt Shreves more than helped him.

I would not want to work for Roqueford, but he was good about one thing - he would pay writers when people wrote for him. Not all gay rags do that. My problem with Lavender is they do no political coverage, but are agressive about trying to squelch competitors in the gay media who do. In that way, they are similar to Outfront Minnesota.

I don't think Lavender has ever endorsed anyone who didn't buy advertising. It's like their bar map that doesn't include anyone who doesn't advertise (i.e. they took Boom off the map when they dropped their advertising a few issues back)

I stumbled upon your site tonight. Good stuff. And yes, I worked at Lavender actually for over 3 years. Everything you said is correct and then some. It's sad that Lavender is the only glbt pub in Minnesota, especially when you consider what they are about. I don't understand why other major gay cities can support numerous publications but Minneapolis can't. Maybe the guys from Boom will start a magazine with real news coverage and honest political endorsements. The midwest can only hope!

As a member and former Chair of Stonewall DFL, I support Keith Ellison. Having sat on the screening committee for these candidates (many of whom, like Ember, are very good on LGBT issues btw) I got the opportunity to hear first hand from each of them on the issues of funding for MN ADAP programs, GLBT homeless youth issues, same-sex marriage, substance abuse in the LGBT community (especially PnP) and a host of other issues that impact our community.

The endorsement from Stonewall was one of the most difficult I have seen in my 3 years on the board because the top candidates were all so good. Keith won out because of his unwavering committment to our community. If I lived in Minneapolis, I know exactly who I would be voting for...and the answer is not Ember.

The rag that is Lavender is a sourge on our community. Its focus on all that is glitzy and shiny manages to demonstrate nothing more than the superficiality of a few select gay men. It definitely does not speak to who I am as a member of the community and probably never will.

While I support and voted for E-R-J on September 12, I found that Lavender's editorial demonizing Mark Erlandson for the result of the 2002 Senate election very unfair. Lavender's editorial stated: "Unforgivably, Erlandson is the man who engineered the Senator Paul Wellstone funeral debacle, which led directly to the election of Senator Norm Coleman, a Republican.

As I recall, the election was impacted by rude behavior of the audience, and by the White House, conservative-run media affiliates (Fox, CNN, etc.), and conservative talk-radio and television hosts that focused on this and effectively "spun" the story in a negative manner, particularly regarding the audience's rudeness to Trent Lott, and the emotion of the memorial that turned it into a political rally.

In addition, you can't ignore the ripples that the nation's media darling, Jesse Ventura, caused when he left the memorial service in a huff. It played right into the hands of the GOP.

To categorize the election as a "debacle" is inaccurate. Mondale finished with 1,067,246 votes (47.34%) to Coleman's 1,116,697 (49.53%) out of 2,254,639 votes cast. What Lavender fails to recognize is that the events of 2001 impacted this election in dramatic fashion (people still frightened after 9/11, the anthrax scare, continued "alerts" from the White House and bin Laden "tapes," and talk about invasion of Iraq). The magazine's editors do not recognize is that a sea change in demographics of the population of Minnesota had taken place, particularly the tremendous growth of the suburbs, increase in personal wealth, and voting habits of the upper middle class in these areas.

To me it is surprising that Mondale, an elder statesmen who was an unknown quantity to younger voters and who he didn't really have a shared history with (along with thousands of voters who had moved into Minnesota from other states and were ambivalent about him), came within 50,000 votes of winning. There truly wasn't anyone to fill Paul Wellstone's shoes like Paul Wellstone when it came to an election.

Perhaps the DFL should have chosen someone of equal political stature to Coleman--Mike Hatch certainly would have been a terrific choice, yet, the DFL had turned its back on him time and time again, despite his record of winning elections. R.T. Rybak comes to mind, but he only had been in office a year.

Finally, was Mike Erlandson responsible for the high emotions of an audience that was angry and leaned DFL ? I don't think so. Was he responsible for the audience's rude behavior towards the GOP representatives at the event? No. From what I understand, no one previewed the speech of Rick Kahn, who was obviously grief-stricken and had an axe to grind. Would that have been 'right' to do so to Wellstone's close friend? No. And Senator Harkin's rhetoric was just as motivating to "win won for Paul." Could Erlandson had stepped in and edited a speech of a sitting U.S. Senator ? Was Erlandson responsible for this ? No.

At the very least, Erlandson could have stepped up to the microphone and asked that the audience treat the guests with courtesy and respect and apologize to the VIP's who were offended. He may have had the duty to do so. An oversight on his part, but perhaps he was just as angry and emotional as everyone else. Perhaps we can "forgive" him for just being human that day.

Jay your comments re Erlandson and the Wellstone memorial service are appreciated by those of us who were there. But one point of clarification. The State DFL Party and then Chair Mike Erlandson did not have any role in the service, which was put together by the Wellstone campaign and the families of those that died in the crash. Erlandson and his wife were seated near me in the "cheap seats" at the service. Erlandson was not a part of the program and was no where near the stage (nor did he have any access).