I like Russ, but it's tough to imagine him winning any Red States.
Posted by dj moonbat at March 12, 2006 10:09 AMDon't discount the red states. Voters like candidates who stand up for what they believe, even if they don't agree.
Posted by Susan S at March 12, 2006 10:12 AMIf Feingold runs in '08 he's got my $$ and vote. Anyone else on the Dem side and I'm voting 3rd party so long as they're antiwar. No way i'm voting for a me-too hawk and triangulator.
Posted by ran at March 12, 2006 10:22 AMMy view: Hillary revvs up the GOP troops for one last all-out life-or-death campaign. Absent Hillary, many of the rank and file will be so disillusioned as to sit out that campaign, or scale back their involvement.
As dj moonbat says about Feingold, it's practically impossible for me to think of one state Sen. Clinton can win that Kerry lost, unless perhaps the candidate is Brownback.
Start with roughly 40% committed to "never" voting for you, and you have an awfully fine needle to thread. Hillary's New York-style "listening tours" won't be sufficient to survive a national campaign against Karl Rove and his many evil spawn.
Absent a credible theory as to how Sen. Clinton can be elected...
...nor the potential support to build a broad national coalition to accomplish anything significant if she were to get elected...
...nor evidence that she even desires to do anything most Democratic voters would find significant...
...I'm bewildered as to why she maintains the support she does, shallow and "name recognition"-oriented as it may be.
Posted by Bill Camarda at March 12, 2006 10:36 AMI actually think—now, don't laugh—that the best candidate for '08 would be Evan Bayh (D-Idiocy). He's stolidly handsome, he's from Indiana (that's one Red State we'd get back for at least one electoral cycle), and he's clearly been taking stances on some recent votes that indicate he wants to cozy up to the base more than he has in the past.
So he's a moron. Big deal. America is totally used to that by now.
Posted by dj moonbat at March 12, 2006 10:50 AMHere is Feingold's statement. I have been arguing for a while now for him.
My fantasy: Hillary allows the media to continue their "Hillary is running" BS all the way til early 2007 - then she turns her money and support over to Feingold/Gore or Feingold/Edwards.
Posted by Anjha at March 12, 2006 11:00 AMI disagree with you, dj moonbat. Don't know if you read Feingold's article on Alabama. But the rural parts of Wisconsin are pretty conservative. And Feingold has been very popular, across Wisconsin. And his stance on civil liberties is much more likely to attract red-staters than most other Dems.
Posted by emptywheel at March 12, 2006 11:06 AMDJ: A moron for President? Woo-hoo. Maybe Bayh can use that as his slogan. "You're already used to an idiot, so vote for me."
I don't know much about Bayh but I did work on Feingold's campaign. Independents and some conservatives really loved him. A phrase I heard over and over again was that he stood up for what he believed in. He can win all of the Kerry states easily, plus Florida (being Jewish won't hurt him there) and Ohio.
Russ is the only one I can support at this point. How the other Dem candidates for 08 treat this resolution will be telling. My guess: they will come out with meandering, meaningless statements of pseudo-support and will breathe a sigh of relief when it doesn't reach the floor, so they don't have a record of voting on it. I hate the thugs in power now, but I am sick to death of cowards.
Posted by Mr. Larry at March 12, 2006 11:16 AMA question that is rarely discussed: what kind of president would Hillary Clinton make?
Based on what I have seen from Senator Clinton, I don't see her as my kind of Democrat. She stands for nothing other than the fact that the right wing hates her. On that basis alone, we find ourselves obliged to support her.
What are the salient differences between Hillary Clinton's politics and those of the Odious Joes?
Posted by James E. Powell at March 12, 2006 11:21 AMWhat are the salient differences between Hillary Clinton's politics and those of the Odious Joes?
There aren't any.
Posted by dj moonbat at March 12, 2006 11:23 AMI have to lean in the direction of Mr. Powell's comments.
While I don't see Hillary as being a clone of Joemental, she does carry more baggage than a handler at O'Hare. She might as well be wearing targets instead of those designer threads she models.
But back to Feingold: he's definitiely pulled the pin on the GOP grenade with today's comments, and the news about him - and the reaction he has generated with his comments today - should be one of the big stories of the week. We'll see if he can stand the heat!
Posted by pessimist at March 12, 2006 11:28 AMI've said it before, do we really want 28 years of two family rule??? NO TO HILLARY!
Please write Feingold and encourage him to continue his fight as the lone voice in the wilderness.
russ_feingold@feingold.senate.gov
If he continues to speak out, he will have my vote for President.
http://www.russforpresident.com/
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/feingold
Ideology aside, I have to think Feingold would be tough to sell. He's Jewish, right? That's going to be a sticking point for a lot of people. Plus, he's on his third marriage.
Posted by dj moonbat at March 12, 2006 11:39 AMFeingold's resolution is at least as much a shot across the bow of the Vichy Democrats as the GOP.
If it comes to a floor vote, and there aren't 44 Democratic aye's, a lot of us will want to know why.
The Democratic nays -- and we can all name them -- at that point, might as well tattoo 'Collabo' on their foreheads and cross the aisle.
It will end at least one Democratic presidential candidacy -- and it won't be Feingold's.
Posted by Davis X. Machina at March 12, 2006 11:40 AMWhen the T-REX riders re-elected Bush, the fact that we are sharing this country with morons was confirmed.
When Felonious Frist won the straw pole, Dr. Shockley's Theory of Genetic Discourse was confirmed.
Voters should have to pass a rudimentary current affairs test, before they can vote.
Posted by TIKI AL at March 12, 2006 11:46 AMFrist bit himself in the ass today. Blitzer asked him if he would allow Feingold's Resolution for a vote. Frist would not answer.
If he does not allow it on the floor for a vote the whole world will see that he is complicit in the illegality of Bu$hCo's acts.
Frist tried to frame it as the Censure being a signal to the enemy that America is weakened. Then he framed the "enemy" as IRAN.
Meanwhile faux news is having specials about Iran's nuclear threat. Which any moron can tell us is 10 years away.
They are itchin for a war with Iran to deflect from all of the fuck-ups of this admin and more profiteering.
Not gonna work. American people are not with it.
The whole world is looking for Americans to stand up against Bu$hCo. The only way that we can regain moral standing in the eyes of the world is to hold him accountable; first through Censure, then through impeachment.
It is a brilliant move. There is no way out for the Repukes, they must allow the vote. Then the Country can see what is the truth about this Congress.
Feingold is very clear about where the prez has broken the law and he is not afraid to say it.
I have not been this happily jazzed since Reid shut down the Senate with Rule 21.
Posted by Anjha at March 12, 2006 11:51 AMIf it comes to a floor vote, and there aren't 44 Democratic aye's, a lot of us will want to know why.
Because there are some D's who have to represent their state and that state is red. The question that should be asked is "Why aren't blue state Republicans supporting it?"
Posted by Ga6thDem at March 12, 2006 12:08 PMBecause there are some D's who have to represent their state and that state is red.
Sez you.
Me and Edmund Burke -- we say different:
Certainly, Gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinions high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his satisfactions, to theirs—and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own.But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure—no, nor from the law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
(Speech To The Electors Of Bristol At The Conclusion Of The Poll, 1774)
Posted by Davis X. Machina at March 12, 2006 12:26 PMHillary Clinton stands four-sqauare behind this odious war. Voting for her would be unthinkable. If Clinton is the Democratic standardbearer in 2008, it will prove to a metaphysical certainty, Gore Vidal's assertion, that "America has two right-wing parties". What is the desperation that would drive a weary nation into the arms of Hillary Clinton? What suppliant cowardice would usher Democrats into her camp? It simply feels like my head will explode whenever I imagine such a political surrender, such a death in the soul of the Democratic Party.
It will be political suicide for our party to have such a candidate at the critical moment in 2008. And it is likewise irresponsible when there are many candidates who are presently available. There has to be a rebirth of values instead of another gutless surrender to the princes of jingo, the counterfeit social engineers, the corporate filters, the frigging lords of darkness who pose as democrats in the DLC infrastructure.
We have alternatives: Kerry (if he shows some courage about the war issue), Gore (for Christ's sake. Who's up for a little national atonement?) Edwards and/or Clark who are real persons and not the fakes America has grown so accustomed to), Feingold (a champion, a steady hand, a man of responsibility and accountability)
We have choices and our childen and grandchildren will rightly blame us for the consequences if we allow another corporate shill or charlatan to sit in the Oval Office.
Posted by Copeland at March 12, 2006 12:30 PMWhatever the merits of Clinton (I see very few) a big strike against her will be the inevitable 24 month barrage she'll get from "the liberal media" as the liberal frontrunner. To some extent that's what did Dean in--everybody guns for the circle in your back when you're in front.
I pray that Al Gore waits patiently and then gets in 40 days before Iowa. At 30 days out he'd bring in $500,000 a day through the netroots. Poor Hillary wouldn't know what hit her.
He'd stomp her. Then tattoo her. Then kick her ass back to New York or wherever she says she comes from now.
I hope. We shall see.
Posted by paradox at March 12, 2006 12:32 PMI think the American people are so hungry right now for someone to display leadership, speak the truth, and the courage to not backdown on their convictions, that someone of Jewish descent will make no difference. It's time we grew up as a Nation, and stop being silly children.
Posted by Judith at March 12, 2006 12:33 PMYeah, what the fuck's up with a lot of national atonement?
Hillary Fencepost Up Her Ass Clinton will be precisely in the same position Kerry was in 2004 on the war--slushily trapped in a waffling flurry of contradicting signals and statements. Just what do you stand for on this, girl? If I have to ask I really dont' wanna fucking know, you know what I'm saying.
Go Al Gore. Go!
Posted by paradox at March 12, 2006 12:36 PMCopeland, well said.
Posted by Judith at March 12, 2006 12:50 PMfrom the Chicago Tribune
BY JILL ZUCKMAN
With public angst high about national security, virtually every senator is lining up to vote for renewing the Patriot Act as early as Wednesday, following exhortations from President Bush that the bill is necessary to fight terrorism.
Not Sen. Russell Feingold. The Wisconsin Democrat is crusading against the bill, and he finds himself in a familiar place. He has almost no support – and some outright hostility – from his colleagues, just as he did after the Sept. 11 attacks, when he provided the sole vote against the original Patriot Act, just as he did when he was one of the few clear voices against the war in Iraq, and just as he did when he was first in the Senate to call for a reduction in U.S. troops there.
http://progressivepatriotsfund.org/
Well, exactly how does someone like Ben Nelson owe me? He represents NE and I live in GA. You are offering up the same strategy that the GOP is-represent the party and no one else. This crap is the reason why I have NO representation in GA. My joke of a Senators don't represent 1/2 the state, they only represent the wingnuts.
Posted by Ga6thDem at March 12, 2006 01:25 PMLet's all remember who we are dealing with...Rove et al...given all we've seen in the past six years, how far-fetched is this:
Feingold moves for censure...Rove confers with the Repug players and helps the censure make it through. Now, going into 2006 the Dems are painted as the mean/nasty sort, all the Repugs that voted for censure can count on their conservative base, and Rove hooks up with his next boss (Frist?) and helps him cruise to victory in 2008.
Posted by Roy Batty at March 12, 2006 01:30 PMI like Russ. There's more I like about him than dislike.
I know, the naysayers say he's unelectable because he's Jewish and divorced, but I don't buy it.
He's hands down better than Hillary the Hawk.
Posted by Christopher at March 12, 2006 01:32 PMI'm from Wisconsin, and FYI there were many yards out there in the rural areas with both a Bush/Cheney sign and a Feingold sign. Russ was running against a photogenic, Bush-can-do-no-wrong, 12 years as an army ranger Republican named Tim Michaels. He beat him pretty handily - 56/44. By contrast, Bush-Kerry was 50.2% Kerry to 49.8% Bush. Feingold, one of the most liberal senators we have, clearly had significant Republican support. He has clear convictions and integrity. He's also extremely smart and articulate. People respond favorably to him. He'd be a fantastic president.
Posted by Doug at March 12, 2006 01:38 PMFeingold would be good. Another guy I would vote for is John Murtha. Hillary should just forget about it. BTW can't the Repubs come up with somebody better than Frist? What is the reason Jeb is not running? He's the smartest of the Bush brothers....maybe too smart to even want to be Prez?
Posted by howard hughes blues at March 12, 2006 01:38 PMFuck Rove and the rest of them.
We have what is good and true on our side.
Feingold is a man of integrity. He is a man of conscience. He speaks the truth.
I just volunteered to help him. Whatever it takes.
Enough is enough. I am not afraid of the "Rove machine". It is dead. America sees through the lies and the incompetence. I have hope today.
America will see that this Resolution is about saving Democracy; no matter how the Repukes paint it.
This will get media coverage and there is no hiding from how Feingold has framed it.
No one is above the law. Period.
Posted by Anjha at March 12, 2006 01:38 PMActually I think Hillary would make a decent president. If she could get elected.
But I don't think she could beat McCain. And I'm not sure she could beat some of the other Pubs either. As mentioned above, she has a lot of baggage. My husband would not vote for Hillary and if we can't win over independents like him in the next election we are toast.
Posted by JWC at March 12, 2006 01:39 PMRuss is the man. He has my vote, my donation and my continued offer to be his First Lady.
Posted by ann at March 12, 2006 01:40 PMI think you over estimate McCain and under estimate Senator Clinton.
I think the more McCain embraces Bush the more he loses the middle and those Democratic voters dumb enough to fall for his straight talk BS. Bush is radioactive among a clear majority of voters. Also the media will become more critical of McCain if he becomes the GOP front runner (because all the other GOP candidates will be gunning for him and it is their nature).
As for Hillary, let me start by saying I voted for Howard Dean in 2004 and I think Al Gore is the most qualified to be president.
I think the biggest reason the netroots are against her is her vote for the Iraq war resolution. It was not her shining moment and she has dug her hole deeper defending her vote. However, that said, unless you are Howard Dean or Al Gore or Russ Feingold (someone on the record against the war in 2004) your position on the war is likely to have been wrong.
My suspicion is HRC will be better organized than any candidate. Money is not going to be a problem. Her position is a moderate to left Democrat. Like JFK in 1960, she does not have a lengthy senatorial career to defend. Like JFK she is a media star. She has already been thourghly trashed, so the bar for her in a perverse way has been lowered. If there is nothing new, the old stuff will not be enough to stop her.
If she campaigns decently at all, she will have a good shot.
Will I vote for her? If Al Gore or Howard Dean were running, probably not. I'm listening to Russ Feingold, I am not convinced yet. I like John Edwards attmept to make himself over into a RFK on poverty issues and I give him marks for courting labor. Then there is Mark Warner. I have yet to be impressed by him, but since some people I respect are impressed by him, I'll give him a listen.
Bottom line any Democratic President is better than a GOP one. Any 3rd party voter who didn't learn from 2000 is an idiot.
Hillary has moved up a few inches in my personal poll, but she doesn't have a lock on my vote. None of them do (Al & Howard excepted). I am holding my fire until I watch them seriously campaign and what positons they take. I am not a one issue voter (other than the issue of the candidate not being a bonafide member of the GOP).
Another thing I like about Russ is that he seems to have a strong sense of himself as a candidate - an understanding of what his appeal is. I think he might be able to survive the campaign consultants' robot making machinery. A lot of people would go out and vote for someone who comes across as an actual human being.
Posted by Doug at March 12, 2006 01:51 PMWhat makes you think there will be an election in 2008? Bush will instigate another terror attack and then suspend the elections in the name of national security.
Posted by Cookie Monster at March 12, 2006 02:45 PMI like Hillary. I personally think that her husband would bring more to the table than that she is Bill's wife and must be bad. The Clinton name still has cache among those that are not diehard, radical right Repugs. I also think Gore would have won if he had allowed Clinton to help him more. Those that hated Clinton hated Gore on principle. I wouldn't say that all those who Loved Clinton loved Gore.
2004: One of the most important facts that I heard was that besides Kennedy, only 1 other Congressman had gone directly from Congress to the White House. Looking back with this fact, it is easy to see why: Too much of a voting record. Hell, anyone can pick out votes to disparage, and this is what the REPUGS do better than anybody(practice makes perfect). There is no such thing as the "gutter" when it comes to Repug character assasination.
On this premise, most of the Dems and Repugs mentioned are historically disqualified as having a real chance to win.
Any other opinions on this?
Hillary will have lots of $$$ but I, like other independent progressives I know, would probably vote for a 3rd party candidate if the race was between Hillary and McCain. On the other hand there may/will be the Roe V Wade factor which could help Hillary. The Hillary/McCain race would be between two candidates who are not enthusiastically supported by the base.
Posted by Ron In Portland at March 12, 2006 02:55 PMCOOKIEMONSTER stole my theory(kidding about the stealing, unless your Claude Allen).
I also premise that Bush could do this.
BUSH: this is war, I will do everything in my power to protect the people. My war powers trump the constitution, it says that somewhere in the constitution, and to protect you, I have to call off the 2008 elections because my never-ending war is not over and I must protect you.
I largely agree with Molly Ivins, who in a recent column (finally) got pissed off enough to lay it on the line. Damn near every Beltway Democrat is a gutless wonder, Feingold being a notable exception. Barring him, should no state governor with brains and courage emerge as a formidable challenger to the party's establishment, then someone outside the mainstream should be tapped.
As she put it: "What happens now is not up to the has-beens in Washington who run this party. It is up to us. So let's get off our butts and start building a progressive movement that can block the nomination of Hillary Clinton or any other candidate who supposedly has "all the money sewed up."
I am tired of having the party nomination decided before the first primary vote is cast, tired of having the party beholden to the same old Establishment money.
We can raise our own money on the Internet, and we know it. Howard Dean raised $42 million, largely on the web, with a late start when he was running for President, and that ain't chicken feed. If we double it, it gives us the lock on the nomination. So let's go find a good candidate early and organize the shit out of our side".
For decades I have voted a straight democratic ticket. Thus far, I"ve turned my back on just one- congressman Tom Lantos, whose unabashed support for the Iraq war proved the final straw for me after years of general disenchantment with his record. I will not vote this November for Dianne Feinstein, either.
And if the 2008 nomination is gained by H. Clinton, or somehow regained by John Kerry, or won by any of the aforementioned Beltway ilk, I will take a walk. The days in which the lesser of the two evils gain my support by default are over.
Posted by Sonoma at March 12, 2006 03:14 PMI like Sonoma's idea; adding to it a bit: we know who's available; sure, there's room to speculate, i.e., could Mark Warner get hot, etc., but look at who we've got: Feingold. He would start so powerfully, simply because the impossibly simplistic MSM would have to frame him as the only guy to vote against Iraq and the Patriot Act. That sort of foresight, clarity and strength would frame the coverage, the primaries and the general in a way that answers what is probably America's deepest thirst between now and Nov. '08.
So, let's go balls to the wall, and raise $50 million for Russ by Jan., 08.
As soon as I get a job, I'll start kicking in.
But, really: we know who's available, and only one is perfect for the top spot: Russ. Pick up Clark or Edwards for the veep spot, and we'd have a chance of turning this country around.
Posted by JimmyJeff at March 12, 2006 03:55 PMI like the idea of a Feingold/Clark ticket. Two men of principle, and a war hero to boot!
Posted by Cookie Monster at March 12, 2006 04:09 PMStv, hs nyn t th DNC lvl mntnd Ptrck Ftzgrld? My pnt n Ftzgrld s tht h dmnstrts nt nly crtcl thnkng sklls, bt pprs t ndrstnd tht mn’s bsc ntr s flth. Whl dn’t knw f h frs Gd, sspct tht fw crprt RC dds fr Ftzgrld. Frthr, ths typ f mn wld knw hw t hndl th t f cntrl nvsbl gvrnmnt brcrcs: C, Pntgn nd th Stt Dprtmnt. sspct tht h my mps sld cd f cndct tht my ctlly lst, spclly f h wld hv th blls t psh fr strct lgsltn wth r nw pltclly snstv Hll ’fft prfmd sss.
f y wll rmmbr, th gmp, Crtr, f th msscr f st Tmr fm, (ys, h dd fn wth srl/gypt) cm t pwr thrgh th drs f Wtrgt nd ftr chsng th tmblng nd bmblng hls f Frd. Crtr ws, sns, drk hrs nd gnd pltcl mmntm snc h ws DC ‘tsdr.’ Nw, Ftz hs sm nm rcgntn wth r zmb blltrs, bt cld hs lks cnjr th ‘tsdr, ndrdg,’ tc. pltcl tsnm ncssry t wrstl th WH nt nly frm th Rpblcns, bt frm r crprt vrlrds?
My pnt s lng: w nd smn lk Ftz: nn-crprt lgnd, frlss, wth th blty t gt th rght thng dn nd nt wrry bt tllng rhds wht thy wnt t hr. Cld Ftz pt th brks n NFT shft, nd th MF nd r 140, r s, Crprt mprl Mltry bss srrndng th glb f crprt vllg hgmny? Wll, smn mght jst wnt t sk hm. r sk smn lk hm, bt bttr.
I have to disagree in part with reader Molly Bloom's comments.
Certainly, Hillary's support for the Iraq Oil War is bad, but that isn't the only reason to oppose her candidacy.
She supported the bankruptcy bill, and then voted to confirm John Roberts. Those alone disqualify her, in my opinion, but many other issues on which her positions inspire opposition are listed here.
If it was just one issue, I could overlook that. but as there are so many, there is no way that I can support to realization of her life's ambition - to be the first female President of the US.
That honor will have to belong to someone else who deserves it.
Posted by pessimist at March 12, 2006 04:40 PMI remembered everyone was saying that Rudy would win but he pulled out because he knew he could not defeat her. and she is listening to Bill. Say what you want about Hillary and Bill, they know their stuff and they would never hire Mr Shrummy so that guarantees a win by all accounts in my book.
pessimist, I agree, no vote for Hillary. In addition to the reasons you mentioned, she would divide the country even more.
Did I really hear Feingold tell Stephanopolous he thought it would be bad for the country to impeach Bush?
Posted by TIKI AL at March 12, 2006 05:34 PMI am not convinced that Hillary is electable. Then again, I thought the same thing about GWB.
Whoever the Dem candidate is, he or she will have some interesting things to deal with in the election, I suspect. The right wing dirty tricksters will be out in full force, as usual.
Posted by DrewL Bucket at March 12, 2006 06:37 PMIn Michigan, women make 67 cents for every dollar a man makes.
In South Dakota, woman are treated like the Taliban treats woman.
Some people here think a woman has a snowball's chance in hell of being elected president of the USA?
When women make up 50% of the CEOs in this country, and men do 50% of the housework and childrearing, I'll take that one seriously.
I like Elizabeth Edwards better anyway.
But Al Gore is the one I want. For president, that is. Haha.
Posted by Sharon at March 12, 2006 06:37 PMHillary Clinton and Libby Dole both opposed the Dubai ports deal as U.S. Senators .Yet, the supporters of the Dubai port deal signed Bill Clinton up as an advocate for the same reason that they signed up Bob Dole: Because both families along with the Bushes' are a part of the transnational elete. The wealthiest 1% of the global population takes care of its own. The establishment will not make true reforms and end the corruption destroying America. Hillary will "safely" be a false reformer who doesn't really change anything. She can not be the solution to the continued selling out of America and its future for she is one of those benefiting from the way things currently are.
Posted by herbal tee at March 12, 2006 08:05 PMFeingold is looking like the last-ditch opportunity for the Dems to get my vote in '08. I absolutely will not vote to keep the long-term momentum on the Republicans' side. Fuck that.
I know, the naysayers say he's unelectable because he's Jewish and divorced, but I don't buy it.
As opposed to what, Junior and his fundamentalist wingnuts? And hopefully he is not a coke-head. At least he is articulate, which is far more than we can say for the Chimp.
Posted by tempus at March 12, 2006 08:58 PMGosh, it took a long time for Clark's name to come up. I'm a pragmatic Leftist, but I saw what I wanted in Clark. He's got the cred for the international troubles, and he can manage - that's half of the job of getting to General. Look for his inner revelation of the pit-without-safetynet world that is the civilian life. Finding that solilioquoy of his will prove to us ALL that his heart is in the right place.
People don't realize that our military is the biggest socialist functionary in our country. The military life is a socialist structure, yet they profess to hate it(socialism). Clark saw that in a mind-changing revelation.
I hope Hillary is beaten in the primaries by a smart and correct brave left person. She has too much baggage. Same with Dean, although I supported him.
I can't believe a simple plagarism has destroyed Biden. He should just go out and say "so what? ... better I should spy on you?"
Gore is the best. Gore was right in '84 when that SuperTuesday killed him. He's still right.
Clark/Gore in '08.
While I live in a Red State Blue City (NOLA), I have enough contact with the really red Red Staters that I can't imagine, sad to say, that many registered democrats in that group (the sort of dems who continued to vote for Billy Tauzin after he switched parties) could bring themselves to vote for a thrice or even a never-divorced Jew.
On the other hand, if Russ were the VP on a ticket headed by Wes Clark or someone liked him, the dems could well carry Louisiana.
I would prefer to not have any more dynasties in this country. Our democracy will be healthier for it. After all, we've had two Bushes - two too many. Let's leave it at one Clinton, please.
Posted by Mary at March 12, 2006 10:34 PMA ticket with two of Gore, Feingold, and Clark on it would be perfection. I hope Clinton, Bayh, and Warner aren't on the ticket.
Posted by Bentley Stanforth III at March 13, 2006 04:45 AMAustralian Prime Minister John Howard has just thrown a diplomatic nuke at George Bush.
http://www.johnhowardpm.org/speech1817.html
Anyone besides a repuke!
Posted by bbtb at March 13, 2006 05:29 AMThe Aussie PM's speech was very interesting. The way he kept quoting old speeches reminded me of Georgy, but the PM also said "I was wrong" in those old speeches, unlike anything that would pass the lips of Deer(intheheadlites)Leederhosen.
Posted by Sharon at March 13, 2006 06:05 AMFWIW, AFAIK feingold is twice divorced and currently unmarried.
Clark/Feingold!
Clark/Boxer!
Posted by benjoya at March 13, 2006 09:30 AMThis country is not yet ready for a woman, black, or Jewish President. The remaining Democrats in Congress have not impressed the base due to lack of their clear agenda. The outsiders will do good. Gore/Clark will be unbeatable combination for Democrats.
Posted by suresh at March 13, 2006 10:27 AMHillary is absolutely radioactive to the right. Wingnuts will come out of the woodwork to vote against her. They hated her far worse than they hated Bill.
Against that, she has done everything she can to piss off her base. If she runs, she will get creamed by almost any warm body the right puts up against her. She will motivate Republicans to vote and de-motivate Democrats.
She has spent her entire Senate career running to the center. There are three possibilities, not mutually exclusive. Take your pick, but they all spell disaster for Dems is Hillary is the candidate:
1. There is no center
2. The center doesn't vote
3. The center is the pawn of the media
Political wisdom from time immemorial has been (a) shore up your base, (b) go for as much of the center as you can get. The DLC believes the strategy is now (a) move to the right of center, and (b) don't worry about pissing off your base, because who else are they going to vote for? We've seen how well that strategy has been working since about, oh, 1994.
As for Feingold, I love Feingold. I think he is the best Senator in the country, maybe in several generations. But can a Jew be elected president in America? I'll vote for him with ribbons on, but I really wish I could believe the answer to that question is "yes."
Chile, a very conservative Catholic country, recently elected a divorced mother of three who is an avowed agnostic. There's no way that could happen here. The rest of the world is moving past us. We're becoming downright Medieval.
OT, but thanks, Craig, for alerting us to Howard's speech. Wow. That's just stunning.
Posted by KM at March 13, 2006 01:43 PMNix that last comment. It's a hoax. Sigh.
Posted by KM at March 13, 2006 02:19 PM"The 800-pound gorilla ABH: Gore"
I don't think he would appreciate these kinds of jokes about his weight and his beard.
Posted by DJTennessee at March 13, 2006 09:57 PMI'm not looking at this on the Liberal-Center-Conservative scale. Nor is my first criterion "electability."
Feingold is much more liberal than I, BUT he has a solid core. I'd happily support him.
Gore seems to have found his core. If he didn't lose it again, I'd be much more supportive than I was in 2000.
Clark seems solid as well and seems to have considerable depth in a field the country desperately needs now, foreign and military affairs. (Note the criterion was not the military cred to him get elected.)
Now to Hilary. She's actually been a pretty good Senator (from my home state, New York). And unlike most, I actually think she'd win regardless of who the Rethugs threw at her. Though I disagreed with her vote on the war, I can understand it (more than Kerry's vote, but that's another discussion) And yes, if she's the nominee, I'll vote for her.
However ...
Where Feingold has an obvious core and Gore seems to have located his, every Hilary move, every gesture seems calculated. That makes me quite uncomfortable. And as Judith notes above "do we really want 28 years of two family rule???" I think not. It's a dangerous, dangerous habit we're developing.
Posted by Pilot at March 14, 2006 05:48 AM