The Slate In 2008

In recent weeks the names of Russ Feingold and John Conyers have been mantionedmany times in relation to the men or women who will carry the banner for us in the next Presidential election.

And for the most part, I agree with the attractiveness of both Feingold and Conyers as runningmates but I have a question. Would it not be better to have them remain in Congress so that they could run the show there, once we regain control?

When it coimes to Congress, you cant hav novices in charge. Yopu need men who know how to get leguislation moving and approved with maximum speed and a minimum of problems. They might be the guys.

As a personal aside: I don't wish to be either presumptive or offensive, however, if you wish to be taken seriously, a liberal use of spell checker would be highly recommended-especially when you are the OP of a thread.

Remember, this time last round, the one who topped every list was Lieberman.

Second, I am really hesitant about selecting sitting senators. As was pointed during the Kerry campaign, the last time a sitting senator was elected was JFK - before many DUers were even born and when most Southerners voted Democrat. Before Nixon and the Republican grabbed the race issue and before "social issues" became the tool of the demagogues.

One reason is that senators have long track record of how they voted. And while such votes can be explained in the context of the Senate being a major debating body, they cannot in the sound bites of the campaign: "I actually voted for this before I voted against it."

Last, a lot of things can change. There can be another terrorist attack, or another natural disaster. There can be more fuel shortage and massive layoffs. There can be more corporate scandals and more involving well known politicians.

Last, if Rumsfeld really will bring back the troops, stories from Iraq will no longer be in the headlines - which will not mean that the misery and blood shedding has ceased - and it will no longer be a campaign issue. And this can happen even for the 2006 elections; this is certainly Rove's goal.

The shifting political sands ensure that some prospective candidates two years from now will be noboby on the radar now. All this idle talk of Hillary and Kerry is just that. The fact is that we've just had a presidential election one short year ago. It's way premature to be talking about, let alone thinking about the 2008 candidates.

For one thing, one possible Dem candidate for 2008 is an incumbent Nancy Pelosi.

We need someone with the vision, clarity and courage of Conyers in Congress, to force attention to all of the critical issues that too often get wrapped in tin foil by the media. Conyers can do that because of who he is, and also because of the support of his constituents in his district.

On a National Ticket there are a zillion votes Conyers has taken that are perceived to be outside of the mainstream, and they would serve as a constant source of attacks and distractions during the 2008 race and I think overall would hurt our chances of winning as a result. Conyers, like I said Bless his heart, has often cast a lonely vote in Congress that would offer meat to the attack dogs.

To stay in the House because when we take back the House he's going to be chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Conyers would make a kick-ass Attorney General!