I’m sure a campaign for President would have been a great adventure and helpful in advancing a progressive agenda. At this time, however, I believe I can best advance that progressive agenda as a Senator with significant seniority in the new Senate serving on the Foreign Relations, Intelligence, Judiciary and Budget Committees. Although I have given it a lot of thought, I cannot muster the same enthusiasm for a race for President while I am trying simultaneously to advance our agenda in the Senate. In other words, if I really wanted to run for President, regardless of the odds or other possible candidates, I would do so. However, to put my family and all of my friends and supporters through such a process without having a very strong desire to run, seems inappropriate to me. And, yes, while I would strongly prefer that our nominee in 2008 be someone who had the judgment to oppose the Iraq war from the beginning, I am prepared to work as hard as I can through the Progressive Patriots Fund, and consistent with my duties in the Senate, to maintain or increase our gains from November 7 in the Congress and, of course, to elect a Democrat as President in 2008.
True progressives just lost their best hope for the presidency. I suspect Russ saw the all the oxygen that Obama sucked up with the mere speculation in the media that he might run, and also the formidable Clinton wing of the party rallying behind Hillary, and made a decision not to subject himself to the stress of a presidential run where he would have been running a shoestring campaign at best. Trust me, this is a victory for the DLC crowd today, and a blow to all the rest of us seeking real change in the direction of our country.
UPDATE by Jerome: check Senator Feingold’s very own diary here on BT on the topic.
I’m glad he isn’t going to waste money and effort on something that wouldn’t be successful. Running for President is a huge distraction from candidates’ current jobs, and we need Feingold’s concentration on the Senate because there aren’t many true progressives there (Obama certainly hasn’t been one so far, much to my disappointment). On the other hand, Feingold would make a terrific Vice-Presidential choice for one of the more centrist candidates and that would set him up nicely to be President in the future. We should start pushing Feingold for VP now.
not trying to tell you what to do but imho out of respect for Russ posting here, why not take this diary off the front page? Just saying.
Well I have all the respect in the world for Senator Feingold, but this will stay on the front page for now.
I was looking forward to a primary campaign with Russ
Feingold in it. Now it looks more like the way is being cleared for Hillary. Saw something over on the orange site yesterday that indicated Al Gore is interested. That might change the landscape a bit if he were to throw his hat back in the ring. Looking for someone a bit more left of center who has some national appeal looks like a real challenge.
Well, Gore would be a good sight better than any DLC backed candidate, Hillary or Obama or anyone else.
Personally I’d love to see Gore run. The time for Clintonesque triangulation is long past.
I can’t forget Gore picked that blowhard Lieberman as his VP, which not only hurt him in the election but foisted this Republican in Dem clothing out of obscurity where he belongs.
Just listening to him now droning on Meet the Press is a chore, he’s the ultimate narcissist who is the last person i want with any power in the Senate.
Personally, I feel that Gore has been liberated by his years out of office. And don’t forget in 2004 he endorsed Howard Dean and then stuck with him even after many others abandoned Dean after Iowa.
Please do not forget that picking Lieberman was an extremely enlightened act, and you got to give credit to Gore for doing it. It is just too bad the country was not ready for such a VP candidate a heartbeat away from the presidency, and given how close that 2000 election was, I feel this Lieberman choice actually was a bad one (although still enlightened) and cost us the election resulting in the 6 year catastrophe known as the Bush administration!
are you referring to Lieberman being Jewish? If it’s the wrong candidate his religious affiliation is irrelevant. We need the first Jewish VP, the first black VP, the first gay VP, the first woman VP only when they are the best candidate for the job.
JoeMentum is a crashing bore, the creepy uncle who lectures you at family parties that you literally can’t get away from fast enough.
2 out of every 3 votes Lieberman just got were cast by Republicans. He’d go over to their ranks now but he knows he can wheedle the now winning Dem party like the annoying man he is. I so pity those who are now on the receiving end of his droning admonishments.
Joe now calls himself Independent, what a joke except he truly is the only one living in his own little JoeWorld.
are you referring to Lieberman being Jewish? If it’s the wrong candidate his religious affiliation is irrelevant.
But at the time, Lieberman was a Dem in good standing because this was before the Iraq war and before 9/11. Lieberman’s main problem is his strong and blind allegiance to Israel, and that has been what tipped him to the neocon way of looking at Iraq anyway.
However, I digressed. You asked the wrong question above. The correct question from my perspective in this thread is
If it’s the RIGHT candidate, IS his religious affiliation irrelevant???!
In an ultra close election, are you willing to give up a real potential win because America may NOT be ready yet for a Jew or Black or woman president?? Given the closeness of the electorate and the relatively conservative leanings of this country today, is this the best time to try and hit an inside the park home run?? I would settle for a triple with just a Carter-Clinton like candidate.
If it’s the RIGHT candidate, IS his religious affiliation irrelevant???!
I’d have to say two things, of course religious affiliation is irrelevant for any candidate, unless that person is part of something that is a cult more than a religion (i.e. Mormons, Scientologists and Moonies).
Secondly the role of a VP officially is to be the best person to succeed the President in case of death or incapacitation. Unofficially it’s for 2 other reasons, to help get the President elected and to give the party in power a leg up on it’s next nominee. So one has to weigh out all 3 things. I don’t think Lieberman worked as a first tier candidate on any level.
This is bad news indeed for all Americans who deserve a better government.
I too got the same email. I almost fainted when I saw it for I was truly hoping for his win in 08. I will not vote for mrs clinton. That is a statement I have been saying for a very long time. Except for gore, I do not see anyone among the group I would be happy with. I am very disappointed with Russ’s withdrawl. I do see him doing the very best he can in the senate to get the job done. I am like shalimar, he would make a great vp canidate and set him up for a presidental run in the future. My next work is for the state of Conn. I want leiberman out! period! he is a traitor to his party. period. He needs to be taken out at all costs. Just you watch and see what he does now! This has angered me me the most of all things.
I will be behind Russ’s work that he does no matter where he is at. He is a great progressive.
Too bad indeed. Now if we could only convince Bill Moyers to run.
I was hoping for a Feingold campaign, even though I knew it would be an uphill battle. It would be nice to have a candidate I could actively support rather than voting for Tweedle-Dum because he was a little less objectionable than Tweedle-Dee.
But at the same time I can see Russ’ point of view. Here he is, finally with a chance to accomplish some of the things he wants to do in the Senate, and really he needs to make a choice now between running for President — a nearly full-time activity over the next two years — and making some progress in the Senate for pretty much the first time since he was first elected.
And yes, he would make an excellent vice-president, with an eye toward running for President in 2012 or 2016. Just sayin’ . . .
Completely agreed, Omir.
I think you should give Feingold the benefit of the doubt about his stated reasons for deciding against a run.
I say this having spent the past year as part of a nominating committee to select nominees for the next bishop of my diocese. “Discernment” is the term used in religious circles for the process of evaluation and decision making and this past year the committee members and the bishop candidates engaged in that practice, and I got to learn the process in a way that almost seems like a comfy old sweater warming my bones.
That’s why when I read Feingold’s statement
I felt he had been through a process very similar to the one I had been going through for the past year. The honesty of the statement is one the comes out of such a process.
I’m not calling him dishonest. He’s probably being realistic, at least in terms of how the landscape appears today. And weighing the cost of running on his family, his health and his position in the Senate against what many perceive as a slim chance to obtain the nomination is not necessarily the wrong choice for him. But I can still lament it.
I didn’t mean to imply that you were calling him dishonest. But I thought you were being very analytical, where I saw Feingold’s statement coming from somewhere deep inside himself.
In Feingold’s statement that I quoted, if you parse his words, he says that he would take the support of his friends and family and think it worth it if he really wanted to run. I really think his decision came from something much deeper.
My first thought: Goddamn it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have always felt that the electorate in this country is almost 50-50 split between old school prejudices and new school enlightened types. Slowly the enlightens were gaining, but since 1994 there has been a setback, which maybe has ended. Still, the 2000 election was so close that I cannot help but wonder if the prejudices against Joe Lieberman could have made the difference that has cost us so dearly resulting in these Bush years. These Bush years almost caused the end of our democratic experiment and still may!
Okay where am I going with this, can you guess?? I think Obama is a smart and skilled politician, and if he was a moderate white, he could win in 2008. However Obama and/or Hillary Clinton and/or Feingold fit the Joe Lieberman model of possibly tilting the close electorate toward the prejudice side AGAIN. Since the country is trying to come out of these dark times, and 2008 will be a very delicate place in that time, why even tempt fate with a non-white male mainstream presidential contender??? As sweet and as nice as a Obama victory might be (or even better, a Feingold victory), at this delicate point in our history, I think we better stick with a moderate southern Carter-Clinton style nominee if we want to win the presidency! I REALLY hope I am wrong here, but I do not believe I am, again at this point in time!!
Comments?
My complaint with Obama isn’t with his race (though I believe a discussion of the effect race has on the Democratic party is long overdue) but with his public statements bashing progressives in his own party. He has positioned himself to be the alternative to Hillary most likely to pick up her support should she fall short. And that is not the kind of Democrat I want to see as the nominee of the party. My problem with him is the same one that I have with Hillary — both want to ressurrect Democratic ties to corporations and industry lobbyists under the guise of being centrists. Hillary may have once been a progressive but she has hitched her wagon to the DLC appartchiks who helped her husband gain the White House even as they destriyed the base of the Democratic party.
If everything you say here is true, it is still a different discussion than what I am referring to, as you likely know as revealed by your race comment above.
Given everything you say, if you could find your ideal candidate, always remember that there is more than one ideal candidate! The old-school prejudices are there, and in a closely divided electorate, find your ideal economic candidate from the possible candidates that fit the mainstream Carter-Clinton mold if possible. Otherwise, you may well lose in a close race to the old-school prejudices that are still enough to tilt elections. We, meaning the entire country, just cannot afford to lose in 2008 so let’s take baby steps in the right direction concerning these deep-seated prejudices. BTW, I am trying to be forthright and objective here, and am not looking for a race fight online. Let’s not violate any strongly held principles, but always keep in mind there is more than one ideal candidate!!
I guess I am of the school that there are no ideal candidates. And I don’t expect to agree with the Democratic candidate on every issue. But I do expect them not to bash their own party in their desire to appeal to some mythical middle. Frankly, I think the middle is a lot closer to progressive values today than it has ever been. Running to the right and claiming you are a centrist is an exercise in generating oxymorons.
My problem with your statement starts with the hypothetical “and if he was a moderate white”.
I’m not quite sure how to interpret your use of that phrase. Are you saying that Obama is a moderate and that if he were white he could obtain critical mass?
The problem is that many of us do not see Barak Obama as a moderate or, to the extent that we do, it’s a right of center moderate.
I would much prefer to see a progressive who starts leading from the center outward toward a progressive agenda, rather than lurching sharply to the left. That definitely does not describe Barak Obama to me – either the leading from the center out to a progressive agenda or (and definitely not) lurching sharply to the left.
As an aside, it’s interesting to see the very different reactions to different possible Democratic 2008 candidates.
You got it backwards. You have to have a progressive that turns moderate for the general election. Also, Obama needs more expierence before running.
I wasn’t referring to how a politician presents himself (or herself) during a campaign, but what the politician actually stands for. IMHO, Barak Obama is right of center and I think he’s right of center no matter how he packages himself.
You mention screaming. I’m not sure who you mean here. I wasn’t screaming and presenting another point of view isn’t screaming.
Reading several blogs today, it is apparent that a lot people feel that we have to prepare now for 2008. That means discussion and debate about where we’re going. That isn’t screaming.
Now, on the other hand, if by screaming you mean Carville’s call for Howard Dean to be ousted as DNC chair, that’s another story.
I’m not quite sure how to interpret your use of that phrase. Are you saying that Obama is a moderate and that if he were white he could obtain critical mass?
You people just think too much!
I am only saying that if we find the ideal candidate who can spin straw into gold for us, we would likely win if that candidate is a Christian white male preferably from the South. Most especially if that candidate is not Christian and/or not White, we may risk losing in this close and charged political climate just because of old prejudices. Therefore, let’s have the debate on what stances we want as a party, but lets find a Christian white male to carry these stances into battle at least this next time and preempt the Joe Lieberman 2000 election effect! That’s all!
Therefore, let’s have the debate on what stances we want as a party
yes, yes yes!
As to who carries us into battle, that will emerge from the debate.
If there’s one thing I don’t want to do, it’s “find a Christian white male”
For a good discussion on this topic, see Big Tent Democrat’s post at Talk Left.
Think about this. In 2000, the country was basically at peace, there was good prosperity, we had a surplus, and people were happy! There was no reason to change parties, and Gore was even part of the Clinton success team! So why the heck did he lose?????????????????????
Answer: Even the 1996 election was fairly close because the fundies were never going to vote for anything related to Clinton. The main impulse that pushed away the potential 2000 presidential victory from Gore was his choice of Lieberman as VP, IMHO!!
Also IMO, the problem with progressives, myself included, is we cannot compromise even a little on those ugly but real world areas that make a difference in the end!
I think Feingold is stepping aside to maintain the viability of Edwards’ candidacy. OBama is a stalking hborse against Edwards, who because of the timing of the early primaries has the inside post. By cutting into his vote, OBama opens the door for a more conservative Democratic candidate, Hilary or someone else. His candidacy is being promoted by that segment of the party. Feingold’s stepping aside gives Edwards some help. Feingold’s chances were always low, and now tht the Dems have won Congress, his role there is more important than it could ever be as a Presidential candidate. He’s like Dean. He puts his country first.
I imagine that I’m not the only one around here who had crafted a “short list” of those I could support for President in 08. Here’s mine:
Feingold – decided not to run
Gore – don’t know if he’ll run
Edwards – pretty sure he’s running
So, unless and until Gore decides to get into the race, I’m with Edwards for now.
I learned a while ago that my place in electoral politics is in the primaries. I can hold my nose and vote in the general for the “least worst option” but I need somewhere that I can get engaged with my heart and that’s likely to be the primaries. So, I’ll hang my hat with either Gore or Edwards to be the alternative to Hilary!! Obama has a lot of ‘spainin to do before I’d consider him.
Good choice. Russ knew he didn’t stand a snowball’s chance in Guam. Stay in the Senate Russ, you’re better off for it. Looks like Hillary’s get rid of her challengers one at a time.
Hate to burst your bubble ECM (not), but this just solidifies support for the “anyone-but-Hillary” candidates, ie Gore, Obama, Edwards and makes them stronger contenders. Definitely NOT good for Hillary.
here is one old gal who will not vote for Hillary ever! I am not a democrat so that makes me ineligible to say anything, I suppose. We do not need dynasties in the WH. Got me there Kid!
Makes two of us! Obama? Underwhelming. Gore? Still p.o.’d re: crack he made about autoworkers which is why I voted Green. Edwards? Has to prove he is more than just a good speaker. Kerry? Nope, as he did nothing re: contesting the 04 election.
One of 2 possibilities. Either a brokered convention resulting in unelectable nomineee and someone else gets pissed about something, runs as 3rd party candidate and vote is split. Or, someone comes completely out of nowhere and takes everyone by storm.