President Russell D. Feingold.

[UrbScotty]

How does that sound to you?

Feingold is a common-sense progressive who does what he says. He's not that wealthy, mainly because he doesn't accept big corporate contributions for votes and he refuses pay raises.

He also gives a darn about the environment, education, and health care, and voted against the unPATRIOT Act.

He was recently re-elected by a wide margin, while Kerry barely won the state.

Find out more here:

http://www.russfeingold.org/tenthings.php

So... What do you think?

[Warpy]

1. If the DLC gets to him

and runs him as a bland globalist, corporatist, antilabor piece of shit like they do everybody else, forget it.

[aquart]

2. I want less campaigning and more action for the next two years.

From everybody.

[elfin]

3. NOooooooo

I live in Wisconsin and support and vote for him..... as senator. He would be CRUSHED in a general election, tho would probably do well in primaries.

I soured on him when he toadied up to Ashcroft in those confirmation hearings - then he took a very back seat to McCain and always looked like Soupy Sales bobbing up and down to get the reporters to notice him, too.

Plus for those factors which SHOULDN'T matter, but do - he is short, he "looks" Jewish and has an ego bigger than he is.

If he runs - will garner a lot of attention and primary voters hungry for a "difference" and then be absolutley CRUSHED by Pretty Boy Hagel (who I think will squeak thru the Rep primaries.)

I say bring back Wes Clark, my choice before Kerry.

[Lenape85]

5. I don't think people would care about his Jewishness

I mean, Wisconsin does not have the Jewish population that the Northeast has. Also, he won by 12 points this year in a state that Kerry had to move heaven and earth to win. If he can win big in a midwestern state, then he possibly could win the nation.

[IronLionZion]

6. Wisconsin is different than other states

they tend to prefer mavericks regardless of politics.

[amandabeech]

51. Is he on his second or third divorce?

A candidate can get away with an early divorce, but after that, you better stay with the next spouse if you want to sit in the oval office. And males should stay away from marrying someone much younger and less accomplished. Many women of a certain age think poorly of guys who dump their same-age spouse for a much younger model.

[liveoaktx]

4. He'd be great-2 vid clips of him with Torture Pimp Gonzales

Feingold

Feingold about Gov Bush

And here he is about the Patriot Act
Patriot Act

He's a great example of a Dem that stands up for his principles.

[nickshepDEM]

7. What state could he realistically win that Kerry did not?

[UrbScotty]

9. For starters, Iowa and Ohio

Nothing against people and candidates from solidly blue or solidly red states, but running someone from a battleground state would put that state out of contention, so we could focus on such states as neghboring Iowa.

Iowa voters, and frankly Ohio voters as well, will be able to connect to a Midwesterner like Feingold, since he shares their values.

Of course, then there's Diebold, but that's another story for another thread.

[fujiyama]

32. Why would he lose MI

but lose OH and IA?

BTW, Carl Levin (a great liberal senator) is Jewish. So is his brother and several other reps.

Also both of our senators voted against IWR. Granted Stabenaw is up in '06. Hopefully she should win. The state leans blue (ever so slightly). I will admit though it was too close for comfort this time though.

[iwantmycountryback]

37. I imagine being Jewish will help him in Florida

And I also think Iowa and Ohio, and would take away Wisconsin as a battleground. He could win New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado as well, all of which were very very close this time.

[pstans]

43. Don't forget Minnesota

Takes Wisconsin and Minnesota away from being battleground states. Helps in Ohio and Iowa. Him being Jewish would help in FLA.

[IronLionZion]

8. Better choice than Hillary

People don't hate him the way they hate Hillary. Jewishness means he may win Florida and lose Michigan. And he'll win Wisconsin obviously.

He seems like a good guy. I'd support him.

[UrbScotty]

10. Lose Michigan?

Why would a left-leaning state like Michigan suddenly turn against Democrats for the first time in 20 years just because Feingold is Jewish?

I don't think the Arab-American vote would be any stronger against Feingold than it was against the Gore-Lieberman ticket.

[IronLionZion]

12. OK

If Holy Joe can win it, so can Feingold. Feingold maybe liberal enough to cancel out any Nader/third party factor.

[UrbScotty]

16. Yeah, and another thing...

Our Jewish Senator, Carl Levin, won his fifth term in 2002 with 61% of the vote.

[IronLionZion]

21. That's awesome

I like Carl Levin a lot. Had no idea he was Jewish. That's great that he has that much support. My own Jewish NY senator, Chuck Schumer, won in a huge landslide here but this is NY.

I must be watching too much Fox News or something. :hi:

[renaissanceguy]

14. Jewishness?

Let's stop treating these candidates and voters categorically.

The best candidate will win the hearts of voters. Bottom line.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/477746
http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/454063
http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/454061

[Renew Deal]

44. Isn't idealism great?

[Deaniac20]

49. remember what happened to Gore in Tenn.

because of his Jewish running mate Joe Lieberman. We need a ticket who can fight the Robertson/Fallwell ticket. And having a Jew on the ticket will only galvinaze them to come out and vote against the "Godless Jew" in their eyes. I think if he converts, he has a shot. He oughta convert to Protestantism and say he found the Christ.

[amandabeech]

52. On the other hand, the Christian Zionists might love him.

Don't they need the Jews to take over the Holy Land completely in order for the second coming to occur? He can convert after he's helped them with their goal, so that they won't have to kill him.

[More Than A Feeling]

11. Great vice president material

I do not believe the Democratic Party should run a senator again for President in the next election.

[IronLionZion]

13. Yes, he'd have years of votes

that Republicans can spin and use against him

[renaissanceguy]

15. Good. And we should attack right back.

I think that's what Kerry's campaign lacked. It didn't slam back hard enough, or quick enough.

I don't care if Repugs get mad at our candidate--that's a GOOD thing for us. It means our candidate is on message.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/477746
http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/454063
http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/454061

[More Than A Feeling]

17. attacks or not, when only 2 senators can get elected in all our history

directly elected from the senate is what I mean. Obviously, members of congress can become president if they are chosen vice president first. When one of them who managed go directly is the egregious Warren G. Harding, running senators becomes a bad idea from the start.
(and yes, I know the other one was the sainted JFK, its still just two senators)

[UrbScotty]

18. Exactly - it's HISTORY

It's fun to study and important to learn from history, but what difference does it make that only two Senators have gone right to the Presidency?

[More Than A Feeling]

19. It indicates that the chances of winning are lessened

if the candidate comes directly from the senate. If everyone is willing accept that obstacle, given all the other ones we have to overcome, fine. I will work for and vote for that person (assuming I agree with them most of the time), but I would feel much more confident if we had a governor, a general, or a vice president as our main candidate. If I really wanted a certain senator to be president (like, say, Barack Obama), I would hope that he/she gets chosen to be the vice-president. Then, in eight years, they could run themselves, and have a better shot at it.

[leyton]

33. Harding and Kennedy won open seats.

Goldwater, McGovern, Dole, and Kerry all challenged incumbent Presidents. We're coming up on an open seat.

[Michigander4Dean]

20. He makes too much sense to become President.

Remember Dean?

[hopein08]

23. Perfectly put....

"He makes too much sense to become President."

How true that is.

I think many Americans have to be confused by what the candidates say and what they stand for before they will vote for them. Maybe it gives them the idea that the candidate is somehow "above" them in knowledge, which would probably be a good thing. But if you speak clearly, truthfully, and sensibly...you must be extra good at political speak and really be hiding something huge and sinister.

[Zebulon]

22. I like Russ Feingold

and would support him if he ran, but I agree with those who would rather see a governor as the nominee.

What do you think of Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania?

[Wisc Badger]

25. Rendell is an excellent choice

a ticket of Rendell and Feingold would be a very tough one for the GOP to beat.

If that is the ticket Howard Dean for HHS, Bill Clinton SOS.:bounce: :dem:

[UrbScotty]

26. I agree, even if Repubs nominate Santorum. (nt)

[hopein08]

29. I'm not an expert

but there are apparently some things (read...women) that could come out and hurt Rendell in a national campaign. That's the rumor I've heard. Ask on the Pennsylvania board for details.

Haven't some people also said that the Jewish factor would be a problem? Rendell and Feingold are both Jewish.

[Akno21]

31. Please No Rendell...

He is the typical Northeasterner, and he's not even from the "tough" part of PA, that would help him nationally. He's a Northeastern Jew, without a moderate Liebermanish record to appeal to moderates.

[DrGonzoLives]

24. I like Feingold

Not necessarily at the top of the ticket, though. Clark/Feingold? Some Governor/Feingold? Both would work very well, I think.

[JohnnyCougar]

40. I wholeheartedly agree...

I want Feingold to run, asn he has a Maverick attitude that will bode well in the more libertarian swing states like New Mexico and Nevada (possibly even Arizona). Plus, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa would be locks with Feingold on the ticket. We would do better in Ohio, too.

Although I want Feingold to run in the primaries, I think someone else, such as Clark, should run as president. A Clark/Feingold ticket is one a lot of independents and moderate Republicans would swallow. And we wouldn't even have to run to the center on policy.

[Radical Activist]

27. I wish he would stop voting for bad cabinet appointments

This view that the President should get to pick whatever jerks he wants is not what the framers had in mind. First Ashcroft and now Rice. I hope he can at least vote against Gonzalez.

[gdtroiano]

28. the explanation...

this is a perfectly reasonable response:

Q: Any regrets on your Ashcroft vote?
Feingold: No. It was the right vote. When the President picks someone who is his ideological soul mate, that's his right, in my reading of "advise and consent." I do think, though, the more you get up the ladder, when someone is no longer accountable to the President, and more importantly, will stay in office after the President, the standard gets tougher and tougher.
Q: You mean for judges?
Feingold: Well, first, independent commissioners. People whose terms go for five years or longer, like FCC commissioners. That's a higher standard. Then district judges, who are appointed for a lifetime but can be overruled. Then Court of Appeals judges. They're not the highest level, but they're almost the final word. And then, of course, the Supreme Court.

[ProgressiveConn]

30. While I don't agree with his reason for supporting them.

I can overlook that because it is not an unreasonable belief and because I know that he was the ONLY one to stand up against the patriot act. It means that when he does something he does it because he believes it not because it is the best political move. I'd be happy to vote for him. I'd trade either of my senators for him neither of them stood up against the Patriot act. And the Honorable Senator from Likud aint doing us any favors.

[CarbonDate]

35. Regretfully, we're never going to find a perfect candidate....

...probably since they're all human.

Hell, Dennis Kucinich, the general consensus "Most Progressive Candidate", voted for the flag burning amendment. So obviously, none of us (or them) is perfect.

[Hairy Trueman]

34. ..

[CarbonDate]

36. My second choice after Clark....

...the order of which is subject to change. Actually, I wanted Feingold to run in 2000, but he never did. Then Clark came along in 2004 and won my loyalty. If Clark runs in 2008, he's got my vote. But if Feingold runs as well, then I'm going to have to sit back and consider.

[goodhue]

38. sounds good to me

[sellitman]

39. Boxer - Feingold

Now there's the ticket! (In that order too)

[Counciltucky]

41. Edwards/Feingold

Feingold's a great candidate who has been strong for progressive issues and is telegenic. He will make a great President.

In 2016.

Let Edwards run for President again -- he seems like the rare type of candidate who won't get stale. He's a passionate, good-looking, highly energizing candidate. He'll still be relatively fresh because the Kerry campaign didn't use him up to his potential, and the GOP has very little dirt on him.

The GOP will probably have a little more dirt on Feingold, so let him play second fiddle to Edwards.

[Senator Lamb]

42. would it make sense

to have a one term senator (Edwards) on top of a ticket with a re-elected senator (Feingold) that won by substantial margins and has legislation in his name?

Dont get me wrong I like Edwards, I like Feingold, both good men.

[Counciltucky]

45. I do understand what you mean...

...but at the same time, the more Senate experience you have, the more chance of a crapload of dirt being brought up (see John Kerry as an example). In this case, Edwards' "inexperience" (if you want to call it that) could be perceived as a benefit.

[Tweed]

46. Edwards a one-term Senator who just lost a political campaign?

You've got to be kidding me. Here's the thing about Feingold: he can actually win an election!

Please tell me what Edwards is going to do over the next four years to remain close to being relevant.

[Counciltucky]

47. Yeah that's the problem...

That's the only thing, the fact that he's not around for the next four years. Hopefully he keeps himself in the public light.

The benefit to not being in office will be that there'll be no track record to attack over this time.

[Inspired]

50. Got Edwards?

Check out OneAmericaCommittee.com. John Edwards isn't wasting away in the US Senate anymore. (What do they really do anyway???) He is busy working on the greatest moral problem in our country today. Kerry showed us how experience in the Senate can help a candidate. HA!

[UrbScotty]

48. The Russ Feingold Group is now up!

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=332

[ProgressiveConn]

53. It sounds fantastic

He already has my vote.

[keek]

54. divorced

The country isn't ready for a single divorced President. No way. But, he would help shape the debate in a Primary... like Dean did.

[UrbScotty]

55. The country "wasn't ready" for a divorced President in 1980

Look who won that year.

Plus, Debbie Stabenow was elected to the Senate in MI having been divorced. She dodn't remarry until two years into her term.