Ready or not, here it comes

The midterm elections were, let’s see, six days ago, and the results rocked the political landscape. We’re still trying to digest what happened, why, and what it all means. Everyone, on both sides of the aisle, is slowly beginning to make plans for the lame-duck session, and then figure out what happens come January.

There is, however, no rest for the weary. The [tag]president[/tag]ial [tag]race[/tag], which some of us have been looking forward to for quite a while, is just starting to get interesting.

A few weeks ago, former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner (D) surprised everyone by announcing that he’d skip the race. On Friday, Iowa Gov. Tom [tag]Vilsack[/tag] surprised no one by announcing he’s forming an exploratory committee. And over the weekend, Sen. Russ [tag]Feingold[/tag] (D-Wis.), a liberal favorite, threw a curveball by announcing he’d forgo the race.

In a letter posted on his political action committee’s Web site, Feingold said he was excited that Tuesday’s elections gave Democrats control of both chambers of Congress, giving them the chance to “undo much of the damage that one-party rule has done to America.” […]

Feingold, 53, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel he realized he would be a long-shot candidate in a bid for the presidency. He said running as an underdog appealed to him, but not the way it would “dismantle” his work in the Senate and his personal life. […]

“I began with the feeling I didn’t really want to do this but was open to the possibility that getting around the country would make me want to do it. That never happened,” he told the newspaper in a story posted on its Web site late Saturday.

Feingold’s departure from the race leaves Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as the only possible candidate to oppose the war in Iraq from the beginning.

Of course, that’s barely scratching the surface of the ’08 positioning we’ve learned about over the last 48 hours.

Sen. John [tag]McCain[/tag] (R-Ariz.) inched a little closer to formally declaring his candidacy.

Senator John McCain of Arizona is about to form an exploratory committee for a possible presidential campaign, advisers said, taking a concrete step toward a full-blown campaign in 2008.

Advisers to Mr. McCain said he had not made up his mind whether to run, although he has acknowledged that he is strongly considering doing so. […]

Mr. McCain’s advisers said he was moving forward with a committee — likely to be formed next week, and almost certainly by the end of the month — because he did not want to skirt regulations that forbid using money from his existing political action committee toward presidential costs, even preliminary ones like travel.

Sen. Joe [tag]Biden[/tag] (D-Del.) is still moving forward with his plans to run.

Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with the Democrats takeover of Congress, confirmed his interest of moving up even higher on ABC News “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.” He said he will set up an exploratory committee in early 2007. “I’m going to address that after the first of the year, George. I still plan on running.”

Former Wisconsin Gov. [tag]Tommy Thompson[/tag] (R), who also served as Bush’s Secretary of HHS, is also dipping his toes in the presidential waters.

Thompson says he will be at the game testing the waters for a possible presidential bid that would begin with the Iowa caucuses in January 2008.

“There’s no question I’m very interested,” Thompson told reporters during a press conference promoting organ donation on Friday, adding that he is “seriously considering” such a bid and believes it is “doable.”

Thompson said he has already set up a political action committee to raise money for the race, “and I’ll probably set up an exploratory committee after the first of the year.”

And Sen. Sam [tag]Brownback[/tag] (R-Kan.) is undeterred by the midterm results.

Brownback and his aides [are] interpreting the election instead as a message to Republicans to “get back to basics,” including a focus on social conservatism, said Brian Hart, Brownback’s spokesman.

“This is still a center-right country, trending more and more conservative,” Hart said, pointing out that gay-marriage bans passed in seven other states on Tuesday and that many newly elected Democrats ran on conservative platforms.

Nothing about the election factored into Brownback’s decision-making process about whether to run, which is nearly concluded, Hart said.

Should Brownback run, Hart said: “He will lead with social issues as well as fiscal issues. There’s still a big need to talk about the renewal of our culture. That still resonates across the country.”

For what it’s worth, Newsweek’s new poll gauged the relative popularity of the leading candidates. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) fared quite well with high positives, but also high negatives. McCain and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) had lower negatives, but also lower positives. Obama was somewhere in between, with a surprising 34% of voters saying they’re not familiar with him. John Kerry and Newt Gingrich fared poorly, with low positives and very high negatives.

This is going to be fun….

“Feingold’s departure from the race leaves Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as the only possible candidate to oppose the war in Iraq from the beginning.”

Ruling out Dennis “The Menace” Kucinich already?

  • Ruling out Dennis “The Menace” Kucinich already?

    Actually, with all due respect to the gentleman from Ohio, yes, I am.

  • I was sorry to learn of Feingold’s decision. Win or lose, his presence would have brought the debate more in the direction the Party needs to go (i.e., acknowledging its soul). Given the choices, I’m for Obama.

    McCain has “not made up his mind”? Gimmie a break! What’s all the asskissing (okay, Bush kissing) about? The man has no shame. No shame at all. A grinning marshmallow willing to do whatever it takes.

    Biden’s a blowhard (“signifying nothing” would be the quote). Thompson’s a nebbish. And Brownback is a throwback knuckle dragger who would probably throw up if he ever set foot in a blue state. Kerry’s a foot-in-mouth loser, and Giuliani’s a has-been photo-op.

    Great candidates our “system” has produced, huh? I always wonder how many truly stellar candidates simply refused to run for city council in the first place, given the costs (in money and the loss of personal integrity). Even King Ferdinand of Aragon (of Columbus fame) had more dignity left when he underwent the traditional coronation ceremony, which involved a citizen announcing to the assembled throng: “We, who are as good as you, crown you, who are no better than we, king.” Supposedly this rendition was made up in the 16th century, but according to the Encyclopedia Britannica it did “summarize very well the relations between the kings of Aragon and the Aragonese nobility.” By comparison our “leaders” are doormats.

  • “’This is still a center-right country, trending more and more conservative,’ Brian Hart, Brownback’s spokesman said, pointing out that gay-marriage bans passed in seven other states on Tuesday and that many newly elected Democrats ran on conservative platforms.”

    Where does this delusion come from? States are passing gay-marriage bans because more and more Americans are realizing that there is no reason under a constitution with a equal protections clause to deny marriage to homosexual couples and the Theocratic Reactionaries are desperately fighting back.

    Believe me, the trends are going in the other direction and gay marriage bans are going to end up like miscegenation bans, seen as a shameful episode in our nation’s history.

    I’m sorry to see Feingold drop out. As for not having voted for the war as a requirement to get the Democratic nomination, I don’t hold with that. After all, I supported the idea of a war with Iraq for very liberal reasons (support the authority of the U.N., bring human rights to Iraq, avenge the Shites for the 1991 Republican’t ignored massacre) and not for the lies told by Boy George II and Dick Cheney. I’m just pissed that I bought into the belief that we could accomplish this war without the several hundred thousands of soldiers Genereal Eric (Ric) Shinseki (Chief of staff of the Army) said we needed.

    I suppose at the time I thought Rumsfeld was actually smart.
    I confess my error.

    But I’m not going to hold a vote for the war or funding it afterwards against any potential Democratic nominee.

  • Oh, and while I’ve been very unhappy with Biden recently, I still have some residual good feelings from reading 1988’s “What it Takes” which gives some very good insights into him.

  • I hope you are right, CB. And I also hope that the Dems work to limit their field of candidates to 6 or less by the time the few months before the primaries get here.

  • “Feingold’s departure from the race leaves Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as the only possible candidate to oppose the war in Iraq from the beginning.”

    What about Al Gore?

  • That’s right – what about Al Gore?? Here’s a link to his Commonwealth Club speech of September 22, 2002 where Gore came out against the war.

    Some money quotes in case you’ve forgotten:

    – “I am deeply concerned that the policy we are presently following with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century”

    – “At this fateful juncture in our history it is vital that we see clearly who are our enemies, and that we deal with them. It is also important, however, that in the process we preserve not only ourselves as individuals, but our nature as a people dedicated to the rule of law.”

    – “If we end the war in Iraq, the way we ended the war in Afghanistan, we could easily be worse off than we are today. When Secretary Rumsfield was asked recently about what our responsibility for restabilizing Iraq would be in an aftermath of an invasion, he said, “that’s for the Iraqis to come together and decide.” … The events of the last 85 years provide ample evidence that our approach to winning the peace that follows war is almost as important as winning the war itself…. What is a potentially even more serious consequence of this push to begin a new war as quickly as possible is the damage it can do not just to America’s prospects to winning the war against terrorism but to America’s prospects for continuing the historic leadership we began providing to the world 57 years ago”.

  • Gore and Clark both opposed the war from the start. They’d be an incredible ticket. I’d give Edwards a pass on the war, but I don’t think 2008 is going to be his issues. All these three have great wives to assist on the campaign trail, as well.

  • I’m deeply saddened by Feingold’s decision not to run. My personal ranking for 2008 is now 1) Edwards, 2) Clinton, and 3) Obama.

    Has anyone seen the movie Borat? Brownback would probably get 100% of the votes from that freaky church group shown in the movie, but who else? (BTW, that movie was terrible. Worse than Beavis & Butthead the Movie.)

  • >Gore and Clark both opposed the war from the start. They’d be an incredible ticket.

    Yes, they would.

  • What about Al Gore?

    Just to clarify, I left Gore out of the equation because it appears he will not run in ’08. Commenters are quite right, however — Gore was against the war from the outset.

  • “The Day of the Dennis” (I know the guy; he’s really a pretty good person) has passed; America may never see such a window of opportunity for Liberalism again, due to Libertarianism, Neoconservativism, and the unmitigated Fraud of the Green Party.

    McCain—hey, didn’t the guy promise to commit suicide? Talk about your flip-flops! I’d never vote for the man—but I’ll vote twice for the free lunch after his funeral.

    And if Gore wants another shot at this, he’s got to say something soon; “soon,” as in within the next six weeks. Once past Christmas Day, and he hasn’t said anything, his reflection on the political scene will start to blur, and it’ll be a two-way race for the Dem nomination—Barack or Hillary—with that tandem being the likely 1-2 punch for the ’08 race. If that’s the case, then the Dem primary will probably be just to decide which one runs for President, with the other being the Veep nominee….

  • I am supporting Bill Richardson. I think that he has the resume we need right now. If he doesn’t run – then probably Wes Clark or Al Gore. I could support John Edwards, but I don’t think that 2008 is going to be a year about his issues.

  • What about Murtha? He hasn’t announced he’s running for Prez, but he’s about to get a big new profile…

  • Dennis K is a good person. Much better legislator than an executive, though, and I think that is supported by his record (and temperment).

  • As a Northeast Ohioan I was glad to see Kucinich get re-elected to the House with a 66% majority… I’m looking forward to seeing him in his new role as Chairman of the “National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations” Subcommittee.

    Das news from Feingold. Isn’t it a shame that a man like that has to withdraw due to fear of his daughter being dragged through the mud of certain Republican attacks on his personal marital history, while a dishonest backstabbing warmonger like McCain gets serious consideration? Campaign finance reform my ass.

  • I’m certainly going to take a close look at Governor Richardson, who avoids three serious problems: (1) he’s not in Congress, so he didn’t have to vote on the Iraq debacle; (2) he’s not from New England; (3) he’s not easy to portray as a radical liberal, not that that will stop the Republicans from trying. I believe the Tennessee Senate election shows that there are a lot of people who won’t vote for a black man for president, and there are a lot of people who won’t vote for a woman for president, especially in a time of war, even if they might otherwise vote Democratic. And there are a lot of people who wouldn’t normally vote who will come out to vote against Obama and/or Hillary. Given how close elections are these days, we just can’t afford it. Speaking of Tennessee, there was talk of Governor Bresenden (sp?) running – how’s that looking these days?

  • “Feingold’s departure from the race leaves Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as the only possible candidate to oppose the war in Iraq from the beginning.”

    I don’t buy this. Did Barack Obama have to vote on the IWR? Or Al Gore? Or are we now saying that anybody who raised doubts about the possibility of war is on an equal footing as someone like Russ Feingold or Lincoln Chafee?

    We went through this in 2004 with Dean saying he was against the war from the beginning, when he didn’t have to vote and he wasn’t clear about his own positions at the time of the IWR vote. Then there’s the question of whether voting to authorize force is the same as voting for a war. I say it isn’t, but most people just like rounding up and saying it is.

    What about people who voted to authorize force, but who then came out against the war before it even started? That’s where Kerry lands in all this.

    I get that the one key trait progressives are looking for in an ’08 candidate is antiwar cred, but I don’t think post-vote antiwar rhetoric or even pre-vote antiwar rhetoric rises to the level of having to vote. Even if Feingold and Linc Chafee were making their own political calculations with their votes — and I think it’s clear they were — they still had to pull the trigger.

    For reference, here’s the vote:

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

    And here are the Nays:

    Akaka (D-HI)
    Bingaman (D-NM)
    Boxer (D-CA)
    Byrd (D-WV)
    Chafee (R-RI)
    Conrad (D-ND)
    Corzine (D-NJ)
    Dayton (D-MN)
    Durbin (D-IL)
    Feingold (D-WI)
    Graham (D-FL)
    Inouye (D-HI)
    Jeffords (I-VT)
    Kennedy (D-MA)
    Leahy (D-VT)
    Levin (D-MI)
    Mikulski (D-MD)
    Murray (D-WA)
    Reed (D-RI)
    Sarbanes (D-MD)
    Stabenow (D-MI)
    Wellstone (D-MN)
    Wyden (D-OR)

    No Obama.

  • It’s a sad fact of life. Barack Obama may be the greatest but he is not going to be elected President of The United States. We may not like it but his race and yes his name will work against him. Watch for the Rethugs to push him strongly because they would love to run against him.

  • “Gore/Richardson, the wisdom and wit to save America.”

    “Gore/Clark, because America has a future.”

    “Richardson/Clark, Right in Peace and War.”

    “Gore/Edwards, because Carolina states know best (Tennesse was split off North Carolina)”

    “Clark/Edwards, for the next sixteen years.”

    “Gore/Obama, standing tall for America.”

    “Edwards/Obama – for Americans, not just America.”

    “Clark/Obama – their first names are even funnier”

    As for Murtha, no thank you.

    Maybe best of all

    “Clinton/Clark will make America Click”

    Oh, and clearly we are all ready.

  • While I personally think Biden’s candidacy isn’t going anywhere, I do find it pretty amazing that he’s been able to get the partition of Iraq strategy labeled “the Biden plan” in the MSM. If Baker ends up recommending this strategy, which it looks like he might, and it leads to a way out of Iraq, then it will be a huge coup for Joe. Certainly something for him to run on in ’08.

    Of course, it’s all very unlikely that anything will save the Iraq project now.

  • I agree completely with author “Lance”, the Democratic party just swept the ’06 midterms and there is no indication anywhere that I can find to support the assertion that a)this is a “center/right” nation or that b) the country is “trending more and more conservative”. Indeed, it is delusional and it smacks of the attempt to repeat a falsehood often enough to fool as many people as possible. Free societies have natural democratic majorities. Free people have no natural desire to turn put all their wealth and authority into the hands of a small, self-appointed elite as is the case in an actual republic. And the reichwing, as expected, is spinning furiously to make this election a victory for, of all people, conservatives. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

  • I could see some interest in a Gore/Obama ticket with Clark on tap for SecState and Murtha as SecDef for the military angle.

    Gore has the gravitas, Obama the rising young star with the brilliant oratory, and the two soldiers for their proven prowess in war and leadership.

    Yes, that would be interesting, indeed.

  • Oh, and I vote for Lance for “Secretary In Charge of Making Really Cool Campaign Slogans”. 🙂

  • I’m just going to throw out an attaboy to Feingold who, along with Murtha, I believe really changed the dynamic of the discussions about the Bush Crime Family. Murtha focused more on the war of course but Feingold was doing everything in his power on a variety of issues including wiretapping and other Constitutional issues. He was willing to take a very public stand on issues that the Dems were having difficulty getting the balls to discuss. What I think he did more than anything was help to define where the “Left” stood on these issues, which helped to allow the more moderate voices to stake out their positions as well. Ultimately, I think this helped to show how far right the GOP had become and how out of touch with the coveted 50th percentile.

    PS How sad is it that someone like Feingold who stands up for our civil liberties and wants government oversight and accountability is pejoratively labeled a liberal and a leftie, etc.

  • “Oh, and I vote for Lance for ‘Secretary In Charge of Making Really Cool Campaign Slogans’.” – Curmudgeon

    I don’t need a cabinet post, just personel advisor to the President will do 😉

  • I will seriously consider supporting any Dem candidate who refuses to use the term “War on Terror.” And I will actively campaign for them if they go a step further and talk about how the very term is rank BS. And I would kiss the ground they walk on if they’d declare a war on bullshit.

    Definitely high up on my pet peeve list. Every time I hear a Dem resort to using it my skin crawls.

  • By the way, Ed, I love your capsule categorizations in #3. Talk about cutting to the chase!

  • How come Clark and Richardson are always left out of the polls? Are they really not on the national radar? They seem to get mentioned a lot in the comments section of the blogs….

  • How come Clark and Richardson are always left out of the polls? Are they really not on the national radar? They seem to get mentioned a lot in the comments section of the blogs…. — comstock load, @32

    Both were mentioned in yesterday’s WashPo (Sunday Outlook), with Richardson apparently having some very strong points to recommend him — both experience-wise and as partly Hispanic. Evan(?) Bayah (?) was mentioned also.

    Me, I’d like to see a Presidential Committee of 5: Gore, Clark, Edwards, Obama and Richardson. One for each day of the (working) week

  • #3: What’s all the asskissing (okay, Bush kissing) about?

    You say that like there’s a distinction. I thought it was pretty much recognized by now that Bush = an ass.

    (I swear I tried to resist…)

  • Comments are closed.