Feingold will not run in '08
By Michael J.W. Stickings
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is reporting that Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold "will not seek [the Democratic Party's] presidential nomination in 2008". He told the paper that "[i]t would have required the craziest combination of things in the history of American politics to make it work".
Feingold posted his statement at Daily Kos: "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."
The question now is, who, if anyone, will emerge as the candidate who runs from the left, who, in Chris Bowers's words, "can not only articulate a progressive vision for America, but who can also lead America toward progressive positions in the way Senator Russ Feingold has done for over a decade now," that is, who can effectively challenge Hillary Clinton (if she runs) and Barack Obama (if he runs). John Edwards is one possibility, given his commitment to progressive social and economic policies. So, too, is Al Gore.
Feingold is an honourable man and I think he would have contributed a great deal to the race, not least as one of Bush's most ardent critics. But he would have been a long shot, at best, and it makes more sense for him to remain in the Senate, where he'll be in a good position to advance a progressive agenda -- progressive ideas, values, and policies. Far better for him (and us) to keep his current position than to run and lose.
For more, see DownWithTyranny!, The Democratic Daily, and LG&M.
And see also Greenwald, who argues that Feingold "has spent his entire idiosyncratic political career espousing views because he believes them, even when those views are so plainly contrary to his political interests". In contrast, "[i]t is hard to overstate how ignorant and wrong Beltway pundits are about everything, and how barren and corrupt inside-Washington conventional wisdom is". Read the whole post.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is reporting that Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold "will not seek [the Democratic Party's] presidential nomination in 2008". He told the paper that "[i]t would have required the craziest combination of things in the history of American politics to make it work".
Feingold posted his statement at Daily Kos: "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."
The question now is, who, if anyone, will emerge as the candidate who runs from the left, who, in Chris Bowers's words, "can not only articulate a progressive vision for America, but who can also lead America toward progressive positions in the way Senator Russ Feingold has done for over a decade now," that is, who can effectively challenge Hillary Clinton (if she runs) and Barack Obama (if he runs). John Edwards is one possibility, given his commitment to progressive social and economic policies. So, too, is Al Gore.
Feingold is an honourable man and I think he would have contributed a great deal to the race, not least as one of Bush's most ardent critics. But he would have been a long shot, at best, and it makes more sense for him to remain in the Senate, where he'll be in a good position to advance a progressive agenda -- progressive ideas, values, and policies. Far better for him (and us) to keep his current position than to run and lose.
For more, see DownWithTyranny!, The Democratic Daily, and LG&M.
And see also Greenwald, who argues that Feingold "has spent his entire idiosyncratic political career espousing views because he believes them, even when those views are so plainly contrary to his political interests". In contrast, "[i]t is hard to overstate how ignorant and wrong Beltway pundits are about everything, and how barren and corrupt inside-Washington conventional wisdom is". Read the whole post.
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
3:01 PM
3 Comments:
Damn.
By
., at 4:33 PM
And you're right, that Greenwald post on Feingold is very good, although, as is usually the case, it's much too long and repetitive.
By
., at 4:56 PM
Although I really do think we're better off with Feingold in the Senate. And this could leave open the door for Gore.
By
Michael J.W. Stickings, at 7:45 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home