November
2006
A Sad Day as Russ Feingold bows out + The Dems best hopes for the Presidency
Wisconsin's maverick Senator, Russ Feingold, said he will not run for President.
That sucks.
Why? Because Feingold has a keen understanding of what works and what doesn't. He doesn't believe in caving in. He believes in sticking to his core values. He said the President ought to be censured before talking about censuring the President was cool.
It was Feingold who led a movement to show democrats that courage is not a bad word. It was Feingold who led democrats to see that they could be the opposition and they would not have to be stomped.
So now thoughts must turn to who the next best alternative is.
Edwards and Obama spring to mind.
Both John Edwards (former VP nominee) and Barack Obama (D-IL) are young and energetic. Both candidates would do a fine job either as President or as Vice-President. They have to realize that republicans will fall back on their traditional snipes and dirty tricks as they did when the "swiftboated" war hero and Senator John Kerry. On the other hand we can always hope and pray for the Hail Mary (Al Gore making a come back).
Some would still consider Kerry but his time has come and gone. While Kerry would still be a better alternative for democrats than Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), most donors give a candidate one shot and Hillary hasn't yet had her shot. Unfortunately for Hillary, her base will not be terribly strong. She seems to be working in the senate to out-conservative many dems and hasn't shown a great deal of courage in her opposition to the misguided decisions of President George W. Bush. She voted to authorize the war and has been a bit of a Margaret Thatcher type while in the Senate. She is hated by the right wing but that in and of itself does not disqualify her. In fact, it may actually help her win the dem nomination. But inspiring? That's not Hillary.
Clinton has followed a long and arduous path and her work as the first lady gained her notice when she attempted to put together a package of universal health care. Hubby and President Bill Clinton stood by Hillary but a well organized corporate media helped to torpedo any hopes or chances that everyone would have health care coverage.
Feingold's announcement that he will not run could mean bad things for democrats. Who will remind democrats this time that a run to the right is a losing strategy? Last time around it was former Vermont Governor Howard Dean who reminded democrats that there is hope and opportunity that can be gained by not compromising your core values.
With Feingold out, none of the Senate dems who hope to capture their party's nomination for the Presidency can claim the high ground of being able to say they opposed the war. Will this open the field to an as-of-yet unnamed Governor? Stay tuned.
Share
Jim McGuigan
Jim McGuigan
I love Sentaor Feingold. I hardly think he’s the best hope for the Presidency. I have had this conversation over numerous beers with J.D. and while we respectfully disagree I still am amused that so many Wisconsinites think that Feingold has the best chance. I agree with Feingold that we shouldn’t be in Iraq at all. Most people don’t think that. Sure they think Bush, Rumsfeld et. al. have done a miserable job, but folk aren’t going to necessarily get behind someone who opposes the war. Anyone who watches Fox or listens to Rush still thinks Saddam was involved in Sept 11.
Let’s face it, while Democrats won back both Houses they did so with many centrist and even right-leaning candidates. Feingold doesn’t comfortably fit into the centrist category and certainly not the “right-leaning” one. I personally don’t think he’s too far left, then again over half of all Americans believe in the Prophesy of John, aka the book of Revelation. This is the majority in America right now and we have to admit that. Feingold is not our guy.
There is one last, ugly hurdle for Feingold. He’s Jewish, and would be the first member of the Chosen People to run for President of a major party. Let’s not forget that barely 30 years ago, there was oppositon to John F. Kennedy because he was a Catholic. That climate of religious intolerance still hangs over America, it may have actually gained strength in the last decade or so thanks to the “Neo-cons” and guys like Karl Rove who have arguably poisoned the political well for some time to come.
Let’s leave Russ where he is. And be thankful. He’s doing an amazing job and I’m frankly proud to have him as a Senator. I enjoy voting for him every SIX years, no term limits. Right now, Congress has a hella tough job to do. Let’s not talk about winning the Presidency before the 110th congress has had a chance to sit in their new seats.
That out of the way… Why are we looking to the presidency now? There’s a lot that can go right and wrong in the next two years. Who knows who our next best thing is? Especially from this vantage point. What will the war look like in two years, or the economy, or any damn thing?
John Edwards? Please. The first and last time we heard from or about that guy was during the last Presidential election. Which he LOST! Between Edwards and Kerry nothing got done except a downhill run for the White House.
Barack Obama? He’s been in office exactly two years and change. Oh, and he wrote a couple of books. The media loves him (the libral bastards) and while I personally think he’s thoughtful, articulate, and intelligent, I don’t know if that is a winning combination. The last six years have shown us quite the opposite actually. Being an African American doesn’t help much either. If we based our politics on personal integrity, then he’s got a shot. Unfortunately politics today is on quite a different path.
Let’s wait and see. How bout that?
I’m sorry to see Russ decide not to run. I understand that suddenly being in the majority in the Senate sealed his decision. He’s been a terrific senator and will continue to be.
Re: the presidential race. We’d all like to take a breather! But the harsh reality of 21st century presidential campaigns is the field will be narrowed down substantially by this time next year. The decision on who CAN run (those who win the “money primary” which starts NOW) will pretty much made by then. With Calif. looking to move its primary up (from June to January or very early February) right next to the first 4 tests (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Georgia), only those who can raise the huge sum needed to compete in Calif. will be able to continue.
If you want to help a candidate, you’ll need to be weighing in by April or May. So, start checking ‘em out.
He could do a lot of damage to someone like Hillary Clinton in the primary, even as a long shot — not as long of a shot as some people think, but that’s an indictment of national dems from the independent Midwest perspective that Russ gives us. And it’s that perspective that makes him so valuable to the nation.
That said, Russ is right, as usual. He could do a lot more good working for progressive values as a ranking committee member or committee chairman than out on the stump trying to hold his Dem colleagues accountable for voting for the war and failing to stand up to the Bush Administration. The American people have been very clear on the war: They didn’t like Kerry’s waffling and they dumped the GOPs out of power last week. Up until that point, you could question whether the stars of the Dem party got it, given how Russ couldn’t get a debate on cesureship in Washington, even though the public and the media wanted to talk about it. They get it now, or at least they understand enough of what that Wisconsin swiss cheese would understand — enough for Feingold to be comfortable backing off for now.
It’s a very different story had the GOPs retained controlled of the Senate. I think we would have seen him on the campaign trail.
I have to weigh in on this from a conservative view. Feingold and I are not in agreement about 75% of the time, BUT……He is as credible as they come. One thing I like about him, is he doesn’t waver. He sticks to his beliefs, and for that I respect him. Now, if only he were a conservative. Ha!
Bad, bad news indeed. Even if Feingold weren’t to win the POTUS primary, his presense in the race would be most valuable. Just as Howard Dean jump started a spine transplanet in the Dem messege overall, at the very least, Feingold would have ensured that!
I’m actually baffeled at Feingold’s decision. With the incredible rise of the netroots and ever increasing return to grassroots, people powered politics in progressive politics, I would think Feingold would be well positioned.
Feingold consistently polled the highest among the netroots for POTUS.
Also, while most candidates would be spending alot of their debate time backpeddling their bad judgements and Bush appeasing decisions, Feingold would have had history on his side more than any of the others.
Perhaps a grassroots movement could rise with enough momentum to change his mind?
Obama? No thanks, he didn’t even have the moral courage to help out Ned Lamont when Lamont repeatedly begged him to simply make a campaign stop. Obama just ignored Lamont in favor of his buddy the Nixonian Lieberman. Besides, Obama is already surrounded by so many DLC strategists, it makes you wonder if he thinks he’s running for 98′ , not 08′.
I’ll take Wes Clark, or even John Kerry over Obama & Edwards at this point. John Kerry has started to win me back over the last year and half.