Feingold thinks he could beat Hillary

[samclemens]

http://www.examiner.com/a-293244~Meet_the_...t_he_wants.html

 

Feingold says Clinton, the early favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination, is “absolutely” too timid on the Iraq war issue. Unlike Feingold, the New Yorker voted for the war in 2002 and now opposes a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops.

 

Feingold calls this “the wrong approach” and says it will make it harder for Clinton to win the Democratic primaries, which are dominated by liberal voters.

 

“Given some of the feelings among the grass roots of the Democratic Party, it’s certainly not a sure thing,” he says of a Clinton nomination.

 

“And I don’t know if I’m going to run, but I guarantee you, I wouldn’t choose not to run because I don’t think I can defeat her. If it was one-on-one, given the issues that I’ve taken, I think I’d have a shot. It would be an upset, but I’ve been out there in many, many states and people are looking for an alternative,” he adds. “There are a lot of people out there that want to have some choices here and I think they’re willing to vote accordingly.”

[NorthSideSox72]

Is death an option?

 

I cannot think of two names in the current Dem Prez pool for 2008 that I'd like less to see on the ticket. They are both sure losers in 2008 against any decent Republican candidate.

[Rex Kickass]

Russ Feingold would be a fine candidate for President in my opinion.

 

A Democrat with balls. And not nearly as radical as many think. I believe, the more that people see him, the more people will be inclined to support him. He votes his conscience more than most.

[Balta1701]

Russ Feingold would be a fine candidate for President in my opinion.

 

A Democrat with balls. And not nearly as radical as many think. I believe, the more that people see him, the more people will be inclined to support him. He votes his conscience more than most.

But here's the problem Feingold is going to run into. I agree that he votes his conscience more than most, but I think Americans are so jaded with politicians that when a politician says they don't listen to polls and just vote their beliefs, no one believes them.

 

I'll give you a prime example. Early this year, Russ Feingold proposed censuring the President over the warrantless, illegal NSA wiretapping program. What was the media's response? Other than the usual "This will finally be the thing that helps Mr. Bush's polls rebound" which they'd repeat even if he started biting the heads off of chickens, the other thing was "oh, Feingold is just trying to help his Presidential bid". It wasn't that Feingold thought it would be the right response, something short of impeachment but at least saying something, it was solely viewed through the political lens.

 

No one believes these guys any more even if they are trying to be honest. The best "Straight shooter" the media has found, John McCain, keeps flip-flopping all over the place on issues to try to beef up his conservative credentials while still appearing to be a moderate, and even has taken to casually dropping his support of campaign finance reform bills he supported a few years ago so that he can raise more funds.

 

I don't really know if the public would know how to recognize a guy who was being genuinely honest about his votes. I don't know if I'd recognize it. For all I know, Feingold could just be putting on a good show.

 

You want to seriously know what Feingold's biggest asset in 2008 could well be? His vote against the Iraq war. That's going to be his biggest advantage by far, especially after 2 more years of "adapting to win". His vote against the Patriot act won't hurt either, but Feingold's vote against it, and the fact that almost all his potential opposition, Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, all voted for it will be a club he can use against them.

[NorthSideSox72]

Russ Feingold would be a fine candidate for President in my opinion.

 

A Democrat with balls. And not nearly as radical as many think. I believe, the more that people see him, the more people will be inclined to support him. He votes his conscience more than most.

I guess I don't see that in him. To me, if you want a candidate to the left of the Dem center with the balls to stand up for their beliefs, I'd go with Kucinich.

 

Feingold has two problems for me. One, reality or not, is national image is that of someone far left. Two, he is a complainer extraordinaire. I mean, they all complain. But Feingold tends to be too strident in his complaints, almost to the point of being corny. He doesn't come off as a President, is what I am trying to say.

 

If we are asking who the best President would be, I'd take Feingold over Hillary, and possibly over John Kerry as well. But Feingold isn't electable is the problem - he'll get stomped on. So I don't want him getting the nomination.

 

Give me a candidate who is NOT one of the big names that are already muddied (Clinton, Kerry, Edwards), who is moderate but somewhat honest (not moderate by way of waffling), and who has a history of ascendent success (not someone who has been in the same political post forever). That, to me, says Evan Bayh or Bill Richardson. Unfortunately, they both need a much bigger national profile than they have now to pull it off. But if they did, I think either one would kick any Republicans rear in the election.

[Balta1701]

Give me a candidate who is NOT one of the big names that are already muddied (Clinton, Kerry, Edwards), who is moderate but somewhat honest (not moderate by way of waffling), and who has a history of ascendent success (not someone who has been in the same political post forever). That, to me, says Evan Bayh or Bill Richardson. Unfortunately, they both need a much bigger national profile than they have now to pull it off. But if they did, I think either one would kick any Republicans rear in the election.

Richardson I could understand. Solid record all-around, hispanic background, position as energy secretary on his resume (something that becomes more important every year). And he wasn't in Congress, so he had no opportunity to vote for the Iraq war, which again, I think by 2008 is going to wind up being an albatross 3x as big as the one it's hanging on the Republicans this year.

 

Bayh though I'm still just not a fan of at all.

 

But if you're talking about a history of ascendant success....well, let's just say that if Obama were to toss his hat into the race, I think he's got my vote even over Gore already.

[Rex Kickass]

I guess I don't see that in him. To me, if you want a candidate to the left of the Dem center with the balls to stand up for their beliefs, I'd go with Kucinich.

 

Feingold has two problems for me. One, reality or not, is national image is that of someone far left. Two, he is a complainer extraordinaire. I mean, they all complain. But Feingold tends to be too strident in his complaints, almost to the point of being corny. He doesn't come off as a President, is what I am trying to say.

 

If we are asking who the best President would be, I'd take Feingold over Hillary, and possibly over John Kerry as well. But Feingold isn't electable is the problem - he'll get stomped on. So I don't want him getting the nomination.

 

Give me a candidate who is NOT one of the big names that are already muddied (Clinton, Kerry, Edwards), who is moderate but somewhat honest (not moderate by way of waffling), and who has a history of ascendent success (not someone who has been in the same political post forever). That, to me, says Evan Bayh or Bill Richardson. Unfortunately, they both need a much bigger national profile than they have now to pull it off. But if they did, I think either one would kick any Republicans rear in the election.

 

We worried about who was electable in 2004. Fat lot of good that did us.

[Balta1701]

We worried about who was electable in 2004. Fat lot of good that did us.

After Kerry...there's a decent shot that if the word "Electable" starts getting thrown around in the Democratic race, it's going to be thrown around as an insult.

[NorthSideSox72]

We worried about who was electable in 2004. Fat lot of good that did us.

People called him "electable" because he was moderate and is a solid crusader, along with his war record. Problem is, he came off like a fish flopping around on the bottom of the boat against a brick wall Bush. The Dems looked at the wrong factors, IMO. I said it then. Edwards wins in 2004 if he gets the nomination, even though I'm no fan of his. Kerry was too close to call.

[mr_genius]

I'll give you a prime example. Early this year, Russ Feingold proposed censuring the President over the warrantless, illegal NSA wiretapping program. What was the media's response? Other than the usual "This will finally be the thing that helps Mr. Bush's polls rebound" which they'd repeat even if he started biting the heads off of chickens, the other thing was "oh, Feingold is just trying to help his Presidential bid".

 

 

 

 

suuuure

[Rex Kickass]

People called him "electable" because he was moderate and is a solid crusader, along with his war record. Problem is, he came off like a fish flopping around on the bottom of the boat against a brick wall Bush. The Dems looked at the wrong factors, IMO. I said it then. Edwards wins in 2004 if he gets the nomination, even though I'm no fan of his. Kerry was too close to call.

 

Actually, I'm less and less convinced that Edwards would have been a good choice.

 

My pick you still haven't heard from yet.

 

Retired Governor of Virginia Mark Warner. I think Hillary doesn't even formally run.

[southsider2k5]

But if you're talking about a history of ascendant success....well, let's just say that if Obama were to toss his hat into the race, I think he's got my vote even over Gore already.

 

For a guy who is "not running" he sure is getting a lot of media play, and hanging out in Iowa an awful lot for a Senator from Illinois... I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin.

[NorthSideSox72]

But if you're talking about a history of ascendant success....well, let's just say that if Obama were to toss his hat into the race, I think he's got my vote even over Gore already.

 

Here is the thing with Obama. He hasn't even said "maybe" for 2008 - he has said NO. Multiple times. And herein lies the problem for him. A big part of his appeal is as a non-politico, and as someone who is candid and honest. So if he does run, those very same people calling for him to do so will end up disliking him for changing. It would take the sheen off of him. I think he is roaming Iowa because he wants to get in peoples' heads for 2012 or 2016 - that is my guess.

 

Actually, I'm less and less convinced that Edwards would have been a good choice.

 

My pick you still haven't heard from yet.

 

Retired Governor of Virginia Mark Warner. I think Hillary doesn't even formally run.

 

Warner may be a very good choice. I certainly like him better than any of the big 3.

 

And just to be clear, I wasn't saying I liked Edwards. I didn't - I think he is a bit smarmy, and I don't think there is as much depth behind the southern charm as people are hoping for (he's basically a shallow Clinton). I just think he would have beaten Bush.

Edited September 19, 2006 by NorthSideSox72

[southsider2k5]

I guess I don't see that in him. To me, if you want a candidate to the left of the Dem center with the balls to stand up for their beliefs, I'd go with Kucinich.

 

Feingold has two problems for me. One, reality or not, is national image is that of someone far left. Two, he is a complainer extraordinaire. I mean, they all complain. But Feingold tends to be too strident in his complaints, almost to the point of being corny. He doesn't come off as a President, is what I am trying to say.

 

If we are asking who the best President would be, I'd take Feingold over Hillary, and possibly over John Kerry as well. But Feingold isn't electable is the problem - he'll get stomped on. So I don't want him getting the nomination.

 

Give me a candidate who is NOT one of the big names that are already muddied (Clinton, Kerry, Edwards), who is moderate but somewhat honest (not moderate by way of waffling), and who has a history of ascendent success (not someone who has been in the same political post forever). That, to me, says Evan Bayh or Bill Richardson. Unfortunately, they both need a much bigger national profile than they have now to pull it off. But if they did, I think either one would kick any Republicans rear in the election.

 

After watching Bayh's assension to the top of Indiana with the big D attached to his name, I think he is a guy worth watching during this cycle. I could really see him ended up as the VP nomination from his party in an attempt to balance out the ticket with a little midwestern flavor.

[NorthSideSox72]

After watching Bayh's assension to the top of Indiana with the big D attached to his name, I think he is a guy worth watching during this cycle. I could really see him ended up as the VP nomination from his party in an attempt to balance out the ticket with a little midwestern flavor.

I do like Bayh, though he did something that bothered me recently. He voted in favor of the flag desecration amendment. Just my opinion, but I found the amendment to be distinctly Unamerican. Of course, Bayh was probably following the wishes of his constituency - Indiana probably favors such an amendment. It just is antithetical to my beliefs.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I am REALLY hoping Obama runs. He is one fo the last hhopes we have as a country right now.

[mr_genius]

McCain would easily defeat Obama

[HuskyCaucasian]

McCain would easily defeat Obama

And I would be ok with him as well. McCain and Obama are my favorites for Prez.

[EvilMonkey]

I am REALLY hoping Obama runs. He is one fo the last hhopes we have as a country right now.

When is Obama going to tour the ancestrial homeo fhis mother? I guess there is no political capital to be had touring Kansas and letting black voters know you are half white.

[CrimsonWeltall]

What is there to see in Kansas?

[GaelicSoxFan]

I do like Bayh, though he did something that bothered me recently. He voted in favor of the flag desecration amendment. Just my opinion, but I found the amendment to be distinctly Unamerican. Of course, Bayh was probably following the wishes of his constituency - Indiana probably favors such an amendment. It just is antithetical to my beliefs.

I actually think that flag-burning is very American. It says that you have the fortitude to speak out against those in power, one of the tenets that America was founded on.

 

BTW, I'd like to see Obama run. I think he'd whip anyone. I think America is ready for a President who happens to be non-Caucasian (and yes, I know he's biracial). Plus, it'd give me the chance to say 'I remember when the President represented me in Springfield'. I used to live in his old district.

 

Look at how popular the show 24 is, and for the first few seasons, they had an African-American playing the President. You know Hollywood wouldn't do that if they didn't think it'd go over well with the popluation.

[NorthSideSox72]

When is Obama going to tour the ancestrial homeo fhis mother? I guess there is no political capital to be had touring Kansas and letting black voters know you are half white.

What was the point of this post? I'm pretty sure most people are aware he is multiracial.

 

 

I actually think that flag-burning is very American. It says that you have the fortitude to speak out against those in power, one of the tenets that America was founded on.

 

I agree that the freedom to do so is very American (though I don't know that I'd go so far as to say actually burning it is). That's why I disliked the amendment.