I heard it on NPR this afternoon, and Mass for Feingold has the statement he sent to his supporters.
I want you to know that Ive decided to continue my role as Wisconsins Junior Senator in the U.S. Senate and not to seek the Democratic nomination for President in 2008….
Im 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.
No Warner. No Feingold. What’s going on here — is everyone clearing the decks for Hillary Clinton? Is she that much of a shoo-in?
for a half decent person – Al Gore deciding to throw his name in later in the game. He’ll be able to raise the cash – and if keeps to his beliefs during the past year or two, he has the ideas and message to beat Hillary in a primary. Plus, he’s won the plurality for a Presidential contest before – not too shabby.
The right-wing noise machine in the ’90s spread enough disinformation about Hillary that she has become a polarizing figure. I’m willing to wager that more conservatives and independents hate her with a vengeance than moderates and liberals support her wholeheartedly. I also think her shift to the center-right is a bad political move. Democrats win when we stick to the core bread-and-butter issues that appeal to the disenfranchised working- and middle-classes.
Bill Clinton’s moderate appeal was also bad, leading to his bruising losses in 1992 and 1996. I still can’t get over the Bob Dole presidency, that was a low period.
n/t
with your first comment Kathy. Also, I think moving to the center during a presidency is a pretty irresistible thing with a legislature in the opposite party – making compromises to get stuff done will pull a president to the center.
Funny, even the Wikipedia doesn’t think there’s much question about the fact that he ran as a centrist.
<
p>
In fact, his was the opposite of a liberal run (See Gore “People Versus The Powerful”). Clinton was “Third Way.” What were the other two ways? Traditional conservatism and traditional liberalism. He specifically disavowed liberalism (and conservatism) in his announcement speech: “The change we must make isn’t liberal or conservative.” He was closely affiliated with the moderate DLC the whole way through. He focused on middle class tax cuts as a key campaign theme. Perot’s run just pushed him more to the middle, talking about balanced budgets.
<
p>
It’s impossible to imagine a MORE centrist campaign. He threw in health care for all with zero details as a way to sound the theme (once he actually tried the liberal Hillary health care plan, his ratings plummeted).
<
p>
And his centrism worked not just in the general (everyone moves center in the general) but in the primary in part b/c Bush 1 seemed so unbeatable in 1991 that all the top Dems bailed, leaving Clinton as the leader of a weak field.
If David Gregory can be trusted, Gore will be in for 08.
<
p>
If no Feingold, who was my first choice, then I’m Gore all the way. Gore/Clark is not a bad way to go.
I think Obama and Wes Clark have the best chance to be the Hillary counter-weight.
<
p>
Gore will not run if Hillary does, because he knows that obviously Bill Clinton’s people will only go with him if Hillary opts out. Edwards doesn’t have the broad support necessary.
<
p>
Obama is youngish, but this will be his best chance. The fact that he is younger helps him establish “time for a change” credentials. If he doesn’t run now, when will he have a better chance? After a while, senators tend to get weighed down by their legislative record, so I think his lack of a long record is actually a plus. Obama is also the only one who could concievably break into Hillary’s lock on minority voters, who make up a considerable percentage of the Democratic primary scene.
<
p>
Wes Clark has a lot of goodwill with all of the candidates he’s help over the last couple years, and he’ll make a play for the grassroots/netroots. He’s got a problem with fundraising, but if he can set himself up as the outsider/Hillary alternative, he’ll raise money quick.
I agree completely with Sabutai’s assessment here:
<
p>
<
p>
I think this is spot on. Obama will have trouble on multiple fronts, not the least of which will be the Hillary machine that will bear down on him like a tank in Tiananmen Square.
<
p>
Gore is somewhat immune, at this point, to the Clinton machinery given they through him under a bus in 2000. He won’t be cowed by Hillary or Bill.
three words
<
p>
WESLEY CLARK 2008
I’m with Wes as well. He’s extremely progressive on the issues, and has the guts to stand up for his values. Example: Wesley Clark is one of very few Dems who went to CT to help Ned Lamont vs. Turncoat Joe, and he went twice, plus cut an ad for Lamont.
<
p>
Clark is a strong progressive whom moderates will vote for due to his background.
He just was not good on the campaign trail last time around. Unfortunately, that matters.
Glenn Greenwald has a must-read, excellent post on Russ Feingold today.
<
p>
Building on Greenwald’s thoughts, I think we can usually take Russ at his word, including the reasons he gave for not running. He simple thinks he can be a more effective force for progressive reform in a Democratically-lead Senate than he would as a presidential candidate. So I don’t think he’s clearing the decks for Hillary. If he thought Hillary were about to coast to the nomination, that probably would have only increased his interest in running.
<
p>
This definitely boosts that chances of Edwards, Gore, Clark, and Obama.
now I have to find a new first choice to answer in all those Zogby polls I get in the e-mail.
She dropped 29.5 million on a virutally uncontested senate race.
<
p>
She gets headlines whenever she wants
<
p>
She has I believe hired Peter Daou to cover her internet back.
<
p>
She can be the toughie while Bill plays good cop in the media.
<
p>
She will be hard to stop if she runs. No other Dem has anywhere near close to her money or media access.
<
p>
Gee folks where is all the John Kerry support from everyone here. And no, the real world does not view Hillary as a shoo-in. Nomination quite possible, in a general, well…..bring it on.
<
p>
Obahma?……..he should talk to Harold Ford for a reality check.
<
p>
I’m not seeing a Dem yet as Prez in 08.
being a Republican and all. How’s Kerry Healey doing? Maybe you guys should put her up in 08?
Maybe they can both get a gig on Judge Mathis.
Deval ran the better race. Nuf said.
…from the rightwing zealots when they tear into him on the “values” issue.
Yes admittedly Rudy is less conservative than those who have won the nomination in the past. But if us R’s think we can continue to do business as usual we will get thumped again.
I am supporting Kerry should he decide to run.
Can someone please tell me why there is so much animosity in both the Democratic and Republican parties toward Hillary?
<
p>
Let me preface this by saying that my first choice for President in ’08 is/was Russ Feingold. I also like Obama, Gore, Clark, and yes, Hillary. I could be happy with any of those candidates, and probably other Democrats as well. More than anything, I want a Democrat in the White House.
<
p>
I realize that Hillary is a bit more of a centrist than some of the others I mentioned, but then so was her husband. And I think he was the best President so far in my lifetime.
<
p>
Hillary isn’t my first choice…and I don’t agree with her on everything. She’s not quite as liberal or progressive as I would like. I didn’t like that she voted for the Iraqi invasion. But, look, we can’t agree with every candidate on every issue. The only person I always agree with is me!
<
p>
A lot of folks say that Hillary is polarizing…I’m not sure why that is the case. Is it because she is a strong, tough woman? I really would like someone to enlighten me here. Is she really all that bad? The voters in New York seem to think she’s a great Senator.
<
p>
I’ll support whoever the Democrats nominate in 2008 — within reason — but I really am sincere and I really want to know…what’s so bad about Hillary?
I think that the right-wing media made her unpalatable to many swing voters and independents. It will be very difficult for her to overcome the damage that they did. There is still a sizable number of people who believe that she killed Vince Foster. The media still paints her as a flaming liberal, and she is anything but. If she gets the nomination, I will vote for her, but I’m hoping that Clark or Edwards make it through the process.
i think people dont like her cause they see her leading the pack as of right now and she is perceived as not being able to win a general election. why is that? cause shes a very polarizing figure, and for some reason, people feel they need to take it out on her, when its the other side who has done this, even before she became firs lady, during the 92 campaign. if she gets the nomination i will support her with much pride. and she CAN win. all she had to do is win the same blue states Kerry won in 04, plus one more basically. shes a smart woman. she will think it through, and if she decides not to run, its cause shes knows for sure she cant win, and if she decides to, i think she knows something we dont know, and has more faith in what she can do that everyone else. even though im all for Clark, i hate seeing people rip her to shreds. shes a great person and a great senator, and i hope we all have her back if she gets the nomination.
…as you spoint out, Hillary is no one’s first choice. Sure I’ll support her. I don’t hate Hillary, I just don’t see any real–passionate–support for her. Not a good sign.
IMHO:
<
p>
1) I don’t think she can win if the Repubs nominate anyone even reasonably non-polarizing–and, as much as I might think he’s a fraud, that includes McCain.
<
p>
2) Her husband. In the inimitable words of Molly Ivins, Bill Clinton was ‘as weak as bus station chili’. She’d be more of the same.
<
p>
3) I don’t like dynasties, I think they’re bad for this country, we’ve already perpetuated one, I think it would be horrible for this country to go through a stretch where our presidents are Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. New blood.
<
p>
I will admit that my opinion is colored by the fact that I think Bill Clinton sucked as a president and I consider him a DINO with absolutely zero core principles who got elected purely on personal charm. So, people who are more charitable towards Bill probably feel more warmly to Hillary running.
but hate some of the things he did. I respect Hillary for her intelligence and perserverance, but she will not get my vote, primarily because she will never pull in the grassroots. She will be another John Kerry with his idiotic consultants (and idiotic self) telling him to appeal to the center. We need new blood, charisma and some reality. I would support Gore if he could manage to be himself during a campaign — or even Obama. Wes Clark is a great guy, but he doesn’t draw people in because he doesn’t have charisma. Howard Dean would have my vote in a heartbeat, but I don’t think he will do it.
Everyone is anxiety ridden. This blog sounds like a room full of party regulars in a panic over Howard Dean in Iowa or John McCain in South Carolina.
<
p>
There’s plenty of time for things to unfold. Someone who is not in the current top tier is going to emerge. Let’s sit back and watch the campaign unfold before we get into candidate angst!
..I think it wil be McCain/Romney in ’08 now that George Allen lost.
<
p>
I just don’t now the ORDER yet….
Romney better hope so in ’08. Right now I don’t see how he is a contender.
Romney? All those quotes from 2002 about his ‘moderate’ abortion stance will be plastered all over South Carolina and it’ll be all over for the Mittster. If the Bushites could splatter McCain–who’s never been anything but solidly anti-chioce–on ‘values’ in SC, what the hell are people like Frist gonna do to Romney?
After watching the utter devastation that four years of Romney have wreaked on the Massachusetts Republican Party, why would GOP voters nationally want any part of him?
reach out to Catholics and Jews when it serves their purpose, I just don’t see it happening with a Mormon. Sure, he may get the “value vote” for those who show up, but I know too many evangelicals* who believe that Mormonism is a cult. They might not vote Dem, but they aren’t going to pull a lever for a Mormon, and they certainly won’t work to GOTV or donate money. This puts Souther states which aren’t deep red (NC, VA, and AK for example) up for grabs. If the Dem candidate takes VA or NC, its over.
<
p>
Fair or foul, Romney’s religion makes him a non-starter. I don’t think he can survive the GOP primary on good hair alone.
<
p> * I went to college in the south and married a southern(ish?) girl.
Did those southern Evangelicals turn out for Baptist Al Gore?
<
p>
Denomination isn’t what it used to be, and when you look at the stances of the other front runners, the pooh-poohing about him being a Mormon is not really holding up.
<
p>
I still have releatives ‘back home’ and Oklahoma thinks he’s a standout!
<
p>
Mind you, I have mixed feeling about this being a good thing…
I am sorry to hear that Russ Feingold is dropping out of the race, but he probably figured he had little chance of winning. I like him and I think he is a brilliant guy, but he is just way too liberal for a lot of people. He can accomplish more focussing on the Senate.
<
p>
I predict that the Democratic nominee for President in 2008 will be either John Kerry or Hillary Clinton. In any event, I hope when the decision is finally made that all Democrats will support the nominee whole-heartedly and not do what a lot of Democrats did the last time. Too many Democrats (some prominent Democrats) said they supported John Kerry because they supported anybody but Bush. Not the way to win an election.
Rather than pretending to like someone after he or she is nominated, let’s nominate someone who has at least some core of deep support.
<
p> – Dan
I am so tired of hearing this. I, along with thousands of other people, were John Kerry’s “core of deep support.” Many of us went to Iowa and New Hampshire on our own dime to help him win the nomination. We also made thousands of phone calls to the southern and western states. He would not have received the Democratic nomination if he did not have a core of deep support.
<
p>
If John Kerry had not won the nomination, I am sure the people I know who supported John Kerry during the primary elections would have supported whoever else got the nomination whole heartedly. Unfortunately, there were people, some of whom would not give up their orange caps, who refused to whole heartedly support John Kerry. I hope those people get it this time: that if your candidate does not win the primary, you support the nominee. Or don’t be surprised if the Democrats lose again.
All right, poor choice of words on my part — I apologize. And obviously we should support the nominee. But the same goes if it’s someone who’s “too liberal”. There was an implication in your post that we should pick someone toward the center and then rally around them. I think someone further left with a strong base could work out just fine.
<
p> – Dan
John Kerry lost the election all on his own with the help of morons running his campaign and by dismissing the genuine concerns of the grassroots. It wasn’t Dean supporters who lost the election for him — it was pure John Kerry, the Vietnam vet who wouldn’t stand up against the lunacy of another insane war or for his own integrity. And, by the way, I stood in front of a polling place holding a Kerry sign (with disgust). I will not work for another Dem presidential candidate who conveniently switches long held values on and off. The good news is that John Kerry is now history.