Norm Coleman and I are very, very different.

If I had held elected office for the better part of six years, and at the end of that period, an election was held, and I could not successfully persuade 50%+1 of my constituents that I was the best person for the job going forward, and further, if one of my opponents had managed to duel me to a stalemate, demonstrating the presence of a viable alternative . . .

I WOULD RESIGN.

I simply do not understand how Norm, having witnessed nearly 60% of his constituents saying "it's time for a change" on Election Day can, without apparent embarrassment, press his claim to return to the Senate. I'm not naive — I understand his obvious attachment to power and clearly nobody wants to be looking for a new job in this climate. What I do not understand is the lack of apparent mortification at the current result . . . the lack of humility scaled to the settled judgment of most of his constituents that his tenure has been a failure.

While Al Franken could and should have run a better campaign, ethically his claim to the office is much stronger than Coleman's. If we understand the election as, effectively, a stalemate, does the incumbent who failed to make his case for more of the same deserve the office more than the insurgent who, despite the incumbent's inherent advantages, managed to match the incumbent's total?

For me, the answer is clear.

For Minnesota, not yet. But if you'd like to see some awesome coverage of these events as they unfold, go see my pals at The Uptake.