Feingold will be the new front runner for the Democratic nomination.

He is standing up for things Democratic voters truly want that most Democratic leaders won't give them. That's how Dean became so popular in '03: by standing with Democratic primary voters against the cowering hesitation of DC party leaders. Now its Feingold's turn. It gives him an advantage that neither Hillary nor any other play-it-safe Democrat will have.

Plus, Feingold has the advantage of a larger fund-raising base in his home state and national recognition that Dean didn't have at this point. The numbers don't show it yet, this is very early, but if Feingold runs for President he will very quickly become the favorite of primary voters in Iowa and elsewhere. Feingold's conviction and early organizing may give progressives their best chance to nominate and elect a progressive President in decades.

His biggest obstacle will be negative naysayers on the left. "We can't elect a Jew." "We can't elect a liberal," they'll say. Liberals will be their own worst enemy again in 2008.

I admire his courage but think the nomination will go, as usual, to a centrist like Clark or Warner.

The left never had a strong candidate to unite behind in '04. Dean was merely a centrist pretending and Kucinich was never taken seriously. If Feingold can mobilize the same sentiment, but with better organization and execution...I can easily see him succeeding where Dean and Kucinich failed.

but far be it from me to burst your bubble. Although Feingold has cojones unlike many of his compatriots, I think the rank and file will get behind a moderate.

you forgot to add that. <g>

Actually I could see him starting with an advantage similar to how Dean did it.

the frontrunner far beyond Kos and DU? Then why not Feingold? He is a much stronger candidate than Dean ever was in many ways.

I think Governors usually have a slight edge over Senators with muddy voting records.

But I see Feingold getting a lot of online contributions like Dean. And I see him getting this support because of the votes where he took a principled stand and all that. So he has a shot sure. But there are some votes the left isn't going to be as thrilled about too.

that there will be votes people don't like. I guess in some ways it is easier to get behind a wild card or enigma that cannot be defined or verified with a voting record. It worked for Dean and Clark who are able to re-create themselves in any fashion they please. Still others like to know what they're getting. My hunch is that Feingold has enough in his record for the large majority of progressive to be satisfied with.

based on his actions as Governor for 12 years - he had no record on foreign policy - but on domestic issues he did have a record and had to back things he said with what he did.

I assume had Clark become a frontrunner - we would have learned more about his whole career - likely the stuff the Clark people have read and posted (thanks)- but questions would likely have brought out more. Point is he does have a record. No one would elect someone without a record.

.....that is just two hundred people in one city. Of course everyone at DU has had a hand in educating me and I've passed on all the information too. I even print some of the stuff out so residents who don't have computers can pass it around for everyone to read. OMG, you should have heard the talk when I showed them how Feingold wanted to censure Bush. It was all anyone talked about for three days. All you hear these days are former republicans railing on Bush and saying stuff like, "Those damn republicans." Of course I challenge their hatred of Bush by reminding them that Bush couldn't have done any of this without a whole lot of help. One resident actually thought for a second I was defending Bush and said, "If you like those republican idiots in Washington that is fine but I hate them and I'll never vote for a damn one of them again." I quickly set him straight as to my political beliefs too. Just a update on life at my end.

good to hear!

I like Feingold, and I am for Censure. Though hope he can get more to come abord, we need to see how this will all play out. 2008 is a long way off. This is why I say we need to focus on 2006 and continue to hold this administration accountable for their criminal and tragic mistakes.

Most of all, it shows Feingold to be a leader.

this is helping his chances because the publicity means people will SEE Feingold.

To see him is to like him, imo.

will realize that he is an exceptional politician. He was totally forthright, quick, very articulate and obviously focused on the message. The only Democrat who could hold candle to him as a speaker is Bill Clinton, and nowadays he seems to be preoccupied with making money.

I was hoping that the ticket would shape up with Gore and Feingold. Gore for the maturity, Feingold for the courage and foresight. Both for their integrity. But, I would be enthused with a Feingold plus his choice for Vice Pres.

We've got to get involved with the rigged voting machines are all bets are off.

and I think putting Feingold and Edwards on a ticket together would be a brilliant move for victory.

Tho she was Feingold/Edwards and I was Edwards/Feingold, either combo sounds great to me.

he is not the best speaker we have in the party.

The best speakers in the party right now are John Edwards and Barack Obama. And, in my opinion, they are actually better than Bill Clinton. But I bring that up only because you mentioned this attribute.

I personally don't think you have to be an exceptional speaker to become President - look at Dubya.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He'll excite some of the young activists in the party, but won't go all the way. I do realize Feingold is a real-deal progressive, unlike the pretender to the throne that Dean was, but I still think Kerry or perhaps someone like Clark or Edwards with a populist message will win with the working class/middle class that is the backbone of the Democratic party.

I could be biased though ;)

and that is in the midwest. Alot of WI is conservative and many of the Bush voters their also voted for Feingold in 2004 instead of the candidate the Bush administration backed. Feingold is not a member of the wealthy senate elite and is fiscally very conservative. I consider him an outspoken independent populist rather than simply a wealthy politicians with a populist message. He may be painted as an extreme liberal because he has the courage of his convictions but I think his appeal will be as a populist for working Americans.

You say he is fiscally conservative, yet populist. The two are rather mutually exclusive to me, as populist has always implied "New Deal/economic liberal" in my book - someone who is friendly to labor, consumers, the environment, and fair trade over big business. If Feingold supports those things - labor, fair trade, business regulations - then I would not call him a fiscal conservative. Balancing the budget is just common sense, not necessarily fiscal conservatism. I don't really know much about Feingold's economic positions though so I do not where he stands, but your post seemed contradictory to me, as one cannot be fiscally conservative and also an economic populist.

Its one of the things I like best about him as a candidate. Did you see the news articles about his trip to Mississippi last year? The McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform bill is an anti-corporate populist bill. Its a theme he'll be able to use very effectively with middle and working class voters, more so than a patrician like Dean or Kerry.

It cracked down a LOT harder on soft money than McCain/Feingold, but as I understand it, since it was submitted by two of the senate's most stalwart liberals, McCain/Feingold was submitted and passed as the "compromise" bill.

FWIW, I'm a middle-class daughter of a union laborer and I have met Kerry and find him to be warm, personable, and charismatic. Not a HINT of pretention or "better-than-thou" airs about him. It's a shame the lengths the RW media went to to portray him as an out-of-touch elitist, because that couldn't be farther from the truth.

I met Kerry in New Hampshire and he came off a million times better in person in a small group that he did on TV. Kucinich was still my choice back then but I viewed Kerry a lot more favorably after that. He's not the best at exciting crowds on TV and his background does make it easier to paint him with the elitist brush.
What I read Feingold saying in Mississippi was straight out of "What's the Matter With Kansas?" which got me excited because I think that's the way to victory.

but you're also spot on regarding which type of candidate the majority will vote for - a centrist populist.

She's just that strong.

After that, your guess is as good as mine; however, I think its gonna' be Warner

By the way, did you see his front page spread on the NYT magazine?

But he definitely made a serious move this week. I think this censure resolution has illustrated how he is different from many of the other possible 08 Dems.

and my dem friends as well... though most never heard of him up here in new england. i think he has cross party appeal.

i know we on DU were right about deans appeal way before most had even heard of him and if russ stands firm on his convictions and continues to hold the powerful to account he will have a ton of grass roots support which is CRITICAL in raising the capital necessary to compete.

go Russ :bounce:

peace

moment.

Besides, do you really think the "winner" of the 2008 "election" isn't being chosen by the Imperial Famiy RIGHT NOW?

I'd laugh, but the Fall of the Old American Republic (1776-2000) is a tragedy which will echo through the next 1000 years of Dark Ages and Totalitarianism.

and cry woe is me because democracy is destroyed. If you're that negative fine, but spreading it around doesn't help anybody.

Not just empty words, pal.

However, in spite of the fact that I will again be a bit player in the Crooked Reality Shows that are Imperial Amerikan National Elections. In spite of the fact that, as in 2002 and 2004, I will donate dozens of hours of my time and hundreds of my dollars to the Democratic Party, I have no illusions about where I live or what is going on.

I feel as I feel, but trust me, I will also be keeping it to myself so as not to dmeoralize the campaigns I work on.

How many hours and dollars are YOU going to donate this year?

for the party elite. We need to make sure the DLC's manipulations in Iowa and New Hampshire do not work this time.

:hi:

;)

his naysayers on the left as you said in the OP.

The first time some right-wing shill reporter asks Feingold, "Senator Feingold, do you believe Jesus is the son of God?", the election could be in jeopardy.

I honestly doubt that this country is mature enough yet to elect a Jew, which is very unfortunate. Feingold would be a good president, IMO, and it's a shame to think religion could interfere so much as it does..

It's a crying shame the extent that religion plays in the game of politics. Half the country still can't get over the fact that a Catholic was elected president once. What's ironic, though, is how Catholics cost Kerry the election in Ohio just as much as Diebold did, probably even more. And it's so ironic because the Catholic faith turned on one of its own.

sure. :eyes:

I'd vote for that ticket in a heartbeat.

Gore & Feingold debate would settle it.

They said Kennedy couldn't be elected as a Catholic. Never underestimate the American people, we are, despite posturing by some to the contrary, a decent people with bad leadership.

Sounds good. How about a woman from the South? Any suggestions?

"But the Constitution does not require us to go down that road,
and I hope that in a sense I'm a voice of moderation on this point,
where I'm saying it may not be good for the country to do this, it may
not be good for the country in a time of war to try to remove the
president from office, even though he's surely done something wrong."

-Senator Russell Feingold, 3/16/06

and makes the Republican's failure to investigate an election issue. Very smart. Its premature to call for impeachment until all investigations and hearings are concluded anyway. If we jump the gun we look like the Republican witch hunt of Clinton

Yet, that is not what Feingold said and exactly the opposite of what he implied.

"But the Constitution does not require us to go down that road,
and I hope that in a sense I'm a voice of moderation on this point,
where I'm saying it may not be good for the country to do this, it may
not be good for the country in a time of war to try to remove the
president from office, even though he's surely done something wrong."

-Senator Russell Feingold, 3/16/06

Edit: How badly do you want Dicky to be "officially" president?

didn't give us Gore in 1998-1999. I don't know how to feel about the issue as a whole honestly. In order to remove the president from office, you need a 2/3s vote in favor and thats why even if all the republicans supported removing Clinton he still would have remained president.

OK, so far he is advocating the most active, aggressive approach of any Senator. Feingold is doing a good job of attempting to hold Bush accountable without sounding like someone who can be dismissed as an extremist kook.

And if Bush's crimes are serious enough, then the investigation/hearings that will precede the censure motion are what will lead to impeachment, regardless of this quote. Those hearings would also give the public a real education as to just how corrupt these people are. That can only help us.

But if there isn't, then we can use that issue against the Republicans during the election. See how nicely that works and how smart it is? Of course, we can't use it as an issue in this election if we sit quietly and hope we win without discussing anything substantial.

Because the Republican's failure to hold hearings makes them close allies of the administration. Bush's popularity ratings are dismal. Its a way to tie Bush's unpopularity to individual Congressmen who refuse to challenge Bush. It forces Republicans to go on record for not supporting the Constitution in the face of executive abuse of power. Its an effective way to use Bush's unpopularity to our own advantage.

More than anything else, that'll determine who ends up as the 2008 Democratic candidate. Somehow, I have trouble seeing them line up for Feingold. They'll get behind someone who is more "cooperative," and we won't get the candidate we want. But without substantial election reform, it's all moot anyway.

And he still lost. In '04 we proved that money doesn't always win, and that it is in fact possible to raise money outside of the usual corporate backers. So I think the premise of your post is based on false assumptions.

Feingold will have a substantial fundraising base in Wisconsin and will benefit from having an early organization that can raise funds from progressives nationally.

I haven't done the research, but did corporate donors support or prefer any Democratic candidates in 2004?

Conservative Bush supporters in Wisconsin don't vote for Feingold for being liberal. They vote for him because he listens to them in each of their counties every year and uses their tax dollars wisely as if it was his own. He values freedom. He's fiscally responsible and socially responsible. One of his specialties is exposing wasteful taxpayer boondoggles. If you want to slap a label on him, I think "libertarian Democrat" is more accurate.

But what's really going to hurt is that Russ Feingold is a maverick who thinks for himself and does what he feels is right even when it's not popular. (USA Patriot Act, Iraq war, judges)

Principles are great but you pretty much have to be a whore for special interests and corporate interests to win the presidency. I hope Russ doesn't go down that slippery slope of corruption.

"he's Jewish" our country isn't ready to elect a Jew, a Non-Christian.

"He's twice divorced and single" (will be) "America needs a pretty little stepford wife in the white house"

He's "too progressive" - "America isn't ready for a Progressive"

He's too Moderate - "His record isn't Liberal enough for Democrats"

He's too independent - He isn't a leader, he doesn't get permission from the Caucus to take a stand on issues like Domestic Spying, the Iraq War, or the Patriot Act... tsk tsk tsk.

bad boy! bad boy! what a bad bad bad boy russ is...

on our list. Is there one there and I just don't see it?