John Kerry is probably the most liberal of the contenders to have a strong shot at the nomination.
And John Edwards is probably the strongest candidate the Dems could run-- those damn southern boys do seem to do well.
Nathan Newman nathan at newman.org ----- Original Message ----- From: <Leslilake1 at aol.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 10:20 PM Subject: Re: feingold for prez/enron/linda lay
<<From: DHK <kessavid at yahoo.com> Subject: RE: feingold for prez?
<<What makes you think there's going to BE a presidential election in 2004? Suspension of normal electoral processes, especially if and when another "terrorist" attack occurs, seems just as likely to me.
I know, I know...but take a look around...the groundwork is all set...and there's a Supreme Court to back him up if he decides that "national security" is at risk by changing horses in midstream.>>
I'm not saying it couldn't happen...but when I start thinking things like that, I remember that during the Clinton admin that those of the "free republic" ilk were talking about the same scenario - they used Executive Orders Clinton had signed, Waco, etc. to justify their arguments. Clinton's gone. I want Bush to be gone too.
Whatever Bush does, whatever happens with the "war," I'd like to see the Dems with a strong candidate. Feingold is the only possibility who seems strong in a lot of ways that I think will be important in the next election. Competent. Not too closely tied to the DLC wing, apparently. Apparently honest (whatever that means in the political world), and out in front on campaign finance, which I think is going to become more important post-Enron/recession. Not tarred with the Clinton scandals. Not tarred with the "wartime" restrictions on civil liberties. Willing to take unpopular positions and dog them. Appeals to young people. Talking about the complex of issues surrounding "globalization."
<<From: rhisiart at earthlink.net Subject: Re: feingold for prez?
with all due respects, les, i don't think it matters who the democrats run as long as bush's "war" continues.>>
Yeah, we don't usually change presidents in wartime. But this "war" is an odd one. I agree with you that another terrorist episode at election time would help Bush. But I don't think a widening of the war to the Philippines or elsewhere, without another terrorist incident, will help him. And you can't just call up terrorist attacks to order - can you?
<<From: Michael Perelman <michael at ecst.csuchico.edu> Subject: Re: feingold for prez?
wasn't Feingold the key to Ashcroft's confirmation?>>
I don't know if he was "key," but he voted for confirmation (see below). Might not like the vote, but IMO, the credibility of not having followed the party line is what might allow him to peel off Republican votes. He was also the only Democrat to vote against the "Patriot" Bill. Democrat, heck. The only Senator.
>Feingold knows he irked both party regulars and those in the progressive
wing
>with some high-profile departures from Democratic Party orthodoxy: He voted
>against dismissing perjury and obstruction of justice charges against
former
>President Bill Clinton, even though he ultimately opposed impeachment; and
>this year he voted to support President Bush's nomination of John Ashcroft
to
>serve as attorney general.
>
>Those votes will require some explaining to the party faithful. But,
Feingold
>said, "I love the challenge."
>
>He is especially interested in discussing the Ashcroft vote in the context
of
>presidential politics. Feingold argues that presidents - even those with
whom
>he personally disagrees - need wide freedom to choose their Cabinets. By
>voting for Ashcroft, Feingold said, he helped protect the ability of future
>administrations, particularly future progressive administrations, to pick
>preferred aides.
>
>"That allows a progressive president to have not just a milquetoast
>administration, but an administration that can have an impact," he said.
<<From: "Max B. Sawicky" <sawicky at bellatlantic.net> Subject: RE: feingold for prez?
The Dems could do a lot worse.
My main beef is he is bad on an issue I think is very important -- budget deficits.
Electability is a bit problematic because he is jewish w/o the shield of an ultra-piety facade.>>
What's his stance on deficits?
On the Jewish question - well, first time for everything, I think. Why is ultra-piety more electable than the inverse?
<<From: "Mark McEahern" <marklists at mceahern.com> Subject: RE: Enron
If you haven't already, you might want to check out John Dean's articles on Enron:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/>>
Thank you, Mark. Yours was the only response I got.
<<From: Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org> Subject: Re: linda lay in the news
Out of an increasingly competitive field, I nominate this for a prize for the best thread title of the month.
Possibly helped by the fact that I had no idea that linda lay was a person.>>
Are you British? :>)