Comments from Feingold on the Democratic Candidates

Senator Russ Feingold did make a handful of comments to the Appleton Post Crescent editorial board that narrows down who he may eventually endorse. In a Q&A published Thursday Feingold said, "I'm having a hard time deciding between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as are many people. Those are the two I take the most seriously."

Why not Edwards? Feingold says it comes down to what Edwards voted for and what he is saying now:

Quote:
The one that is the most problematic is Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it.
Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it.
Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.

When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn't, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you're playing the game in Washington and another way when you're running for president, there's some of that going on.

Strong stuff from the Senator, especially to a paper in an area of the state that is otherwise very supportive of Edwards and his blue collar, labor friendly message.

While Edwards appears to score fairly low on Feingold's report card, Clinton and Obama aren't exactly receiving gold stars either:

Quote:
I did notice that as the primaries heated up, all of a sudden, all the presidential candidates — none of whom voted with me on the time frame to withdraw from Iraq — all voted with me and when we did the Patriot Act stuff.

Will Feingold endorse before February 5? I wouldn't bet my money on it.

Senators Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold for make Wisconsin one of only two states with perfect Senate attendance voting records in 2007.

http://www.dane101.com/current/2008/01/18/and_the_endorsement_from_senator_russ_feingold_goes_

Wisconsin is a very Edwards-friendly state- hey maybe that's because he reminds us so much of Senator Feingold, who is the one who gets it right the first time and really should be president. :shrug:

Unless Feingold can show us how keeping the same Dem crowd in control of the WH will make a difference, his arguments aren't worth anything.

Feingold is not going to endorse him or anyone...

I normally like Russ a lot, but he has some votes that are a bit sketchy, to be nice about it.

For that matter, so do ALL of them. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.

Clinton and Obama represent the status quo. Replacing corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats will get us nowhere. We need CHANGE. I see only one candidate that is in a position to do it, and it's Edwards.

NT

:eyes:

DC Dems are very uncomfortable with any candidate who isn't part of the club. Their lackluster record since getting the majority in Congress shows they don't intend to change from the status quo and feel threatened by anyone who might make them do it.

with Dems who will actually vote like Dems.

The House, maybe. But the Senate?

Absurd on the face of it.

There is nothing in the Congressional record showing Edwards was anything other than a go-along, get-along Democrat. So the patina of "outsider" is forever gone. That being said, this is also true of virtually every other politico in D.C.

You need 268 "outsiders" in Congress to foment real change. 353 if the President isn't an "outsider."

We're doomed, I tell ya! DOOMED!

:)

seems like he should...seems like everyone should...


http://peacecandidates.com/

At the Senatorial level, this is what they are - with Feingold as one of the few exceptions. (Most of them vote with courage once in a while - only Feingold did so on the USA PATRIOT Act.)

Feingold attacks Edwards for saying the right things after always voting the wrong way (which probably means Edwards is a phony, but at least he's saying the right thing). HRC did all of the same wrong things as Edwards, except she still stands by every vote. How is that better? And Obama didn't have a chance to do all of the same wrong things, but he's tried hard to catch up with his votes since 2004, and as for his rhetoric, let's face it: He says no thing at all.

For now, I'll go with the hypocrite who at least is currently speaking truth.

He is just recognizing that Edwards has re-invented himself. That's the problem a lot of people have with Edwards, he's not the same guy. Obama hasn't been around long enough to be inconsistent. Hillary is inconsistent, but on different issues. Edwards is really confusing.

then just think of Edwards as coming out of the closet as a liberal. Any gay person knows that sometimes you play the game to get ahead. A politician sometimes has to do that too. Here's a good article on Edwards from someone who works on his campaign. http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/interviews/articles/2007/06/david_mudcat_saunders

zalinda

Inconsistency is not the only sin, however. Obama hasn't been around long enough to be inconsistent, true, but also he has no program from which to deviate (hope, change, and some wishy-washy non-positions on health care and Iraq). His blank-slate career as a first-term senator and his vague program really raise questions about why he's running, and more importantly: how exactly he's turned into a "frontrunner." I see Brzezinski is his adviser, I see the media basically crowned him as golden-charismatic a year ago, I see nothing there to trust.

who is charismatic and capable. A lot of people will try to use him for their own ends. I hope he has a lot of moral fortitude.

But one year ago something turned him overnight from a no-name into one of the only two possible Democratic nominees in the eyes of the corporate media, fundraisers and "credible" pundits.

For a no-name, I see only two possibilities for such a surge: first, that he was catapulted forward by embodying previously ignored groups or issues, that he became the symbol of something that no one else was seen as representing, or that he did something utterly remarkable and unforgettable. But none of that is true of Obama. He stays vague and hypes keywords like change and just looks good.

The second possibility is that he is a product roll-out by backers who are the ones who actually own him and created him as a candidate. And this is consistent with the vagueness and good looks.

He was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. I met his wife in front of the grocery store collecting signatures. He was running for Congress against Bobby Rush, and he lost. So, back then, he was undiscovered, and he couldn't get a seat in Congress. But at that time- I talked to his wife and a few law students, and they said, sure, he's a great guy, he's brilliant, and he'd be great in Congress. But he was unknown.

Still- how many people have those kind of academic achievements and a good personality? The last person who went to Washington from U of C law school was Scalia. Well, there have been a couple others, but they're usually conservatives and they don't make us proud. And its home of the neo-cons...

I don't think anyone invented him.

Again, no amount of intelligence or charisma explains his instantaneous rise from a no-name on the national stage, even within the party outside Illinois. You tell me how he got the attention - by being a great guy? Please.

Obviously Obama wasn't a heavyweight politician who's been known for decades. So, how did he get here? Did he A) pick up a national constituency that no one else was representing? Was he B) at the center of some event or cause that catapulted him forward as a leader? Or was he simply C) bang! presented from one moment to the next by the corporate media as the only possible alternative to HR Clinton?

I remember C. What do you remember?

he was trying to self propel, like many people do. You don't get to the national stage by self- propelling unless you're Madonna. So he didn't get where he is now by pure audacious hope- he had a lot of help from someone. If you could, Dennis Kucinich would be there by now. He has a lot more spiritual gumption.

But the specifics of C I'm not sure about.

that catapulted him to the National Stage.

I know that Kerry started advising Barack's campaign before he publicly endorsed him.


I don't understand the media circus over Clinton and Obama. They act like a Black Man and a Woman has never run for president before. During the 04 (S)election the Democratic Party had an African American Woman running for president. Maybe you might remember her, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun. I certainly don't remember the media going all ga-ga over that HISTORICAL event.

How many people here know about Carol Moseley-Braun???

How many here remember how the media just couldn't get enough of her???
Always there to follow her around, like she was Oprah or something.

How many here remember ALL the talk shows that gave her sooooo much coverage, for being an African American Woman, running for president???

How about the FACT that Carol Moseley-Braun was the FIRST African-American to serve in the SENATE, that should have been BIG NEWS................. Right


I hope you understand the point I'm making here. If not, then let me be perfectly clear THE MEDIA DECIDES EVERYTHING.

It has been this way for a very very long time. I called CNN back in the late 80's and early 90's, wanting to know why they weren't covering ALL tha candidates running for office of president. They're were more than two parties back then and me thinking this was a democracy and the media being part of OUR PUBLIC AIRWAVES, that they should inform us of ALL the candidates.

CNN told me way back when, the reason they couldn't cover other parties was because they didn't have enough reporters to cover everyone.

You would think the corporate media could hire seasonal employees, say like interns who would probably love to have the experience to cover a campaign.

But no our public airwaves do not belong to us, and quite frankly I'm not so sure about our democracy either:cry:

BTW: there have been 12 female candidates, in which two were African American and one of color.

Great history @ link, which one thing I rediscovered the Equal Rights Party.

http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/Facts/CanHistory/prescand.pdf

and that was a year when a lot of women were elected to the Senate. It was a big deal. Illinois pretty much always has two Democratic Senators, and she was a Chicago official who defeated an old white guy (Dixon?) in the primary. It was a huge day for women and for blacks.

But she blew it. She did some good things, but there were scandals and she ended up being a one term Senator. Chicago also had a female mayor (Jane Byrne) and when it first happened it was a big deal- and then afterwards it wasn't such a big deal. Its the abilities of the person that matters most. We still need to elect more women and minorities to high office- but they have to be good at the job.

What was the difference for their campaigns? As you say! The media did acknowledge Jackson, they had no choice when he went and won a bunch of primaries against their best efforts, and anyway the brainwashing machine has made big strides since then, and Jackson after all was inheriting much of the still-vital 1960s movements. (He's also an ambiguous figure, but what he tapped into was the real thing.)

But here's Obama with no less than Zbig Brzezinski as a senior adviser. Hmmmmmmm!

At some point most politicians will do what their constituents want, whether to protect themselves or from a sense of duty to those who elected them. Feingold is unique, in that he can vote against every other senator and somehow enough of his people like him enough to return him to office. Maybe it's something about Wisconsin. I love Russ, but even he occasionally does something I don't appreciate. As I've grown older as a voter, I've realized that you'll never, never find someone who does exactly what you want every single time. I support Edwards, not because he's perfect (which he's not) but he has many great qualities and he's the best we have running right now. And he can beat every Republican in the field, which is our ultimate goal, right?

:hi:

But I guess- since I am focusing on the congressional candidates in our state who I want to win- I truly believe that more of the Republicans in CD1 and CD6 would take a chance on Edwards than on Obama and Hillary. I know that makes no sense at all in terms of their positions- Edwards is farthest to the left. But he's a southern white male, and conservatives who are sick of the Republican party and are going to take a chance on voting a Democratic ticket just once will see them as all the same and they will pick Edwards before Hillary or Obama. Sexist and Racist, in that order.

Every now and then I see that Feingold votes with Sensenbrenner- and I just have to look it up to see what it was. I know they usually (not always!) have opposite reasons for doing something, and thats just how it is. And I know they both actually read the bills!

:hi:

The holier than thou crap doesn't fly. His willingness to support Hillary Clinton shows that it isn't really about the issues. Just another politician looking at the weather vane and trying to end up on the winning side.

or from the dude in your avatar.

To prefer one candidate over the other, even strongly prefer them, makes sense, but for it to be that kind of litmus test for you where you condemn Feingold for that mild statement is just irrational.

Again, they have differences, but they're not THAT different.

Not much difference at all. I could have as easily said Obama instead of Clinton to make the same point. I didn't condemn Feingold, and with all do respect, I don't think I am irrational. My only point was, for all of you that worship at the feet of Russ Feingold, you seem to fail to consider the possibility that the Senator from Wisconsin is a politician, and his reason for going after Edwards was more likely than not pure political calculation to be on the winning side when the dust settles.

If Hillary wins she will have no friends.

and we agree about Feingold.

Except I disagree with you about it being "pure" political calculation. There is some truth to what he says about Edwards running on Feingold's record, and I believe that Russ is pissed at Edwards about it.

:(

I'm going to need years of serious therapy. :hurts:

in a criticism of Russ's efforts at campaign financing reform-I sure do.

That's just another reason to weigh against $enator Clinton

And he sure remembers it and wrote about it. That's why I can't imagine him seriously considering her. They are polar opposites. He's not sexist- I'm sure he respects her intellect and capability- but they are the opposite extremes of the Democratic party. If he made that move it would be beyond my capability to figure out.

Yup. It's the secret to why he didn't catch fire. Credibility.
"Phony" didn't come from the silly you tube video. it came from this.

I really like what Edwards has to say but Obama is the one with a progressive voting record throughout his career.