"If the party thinks it can win by taking a cautious and timid approach to the mistakes that have been made with regard to national security, we'll have the fate we had in 2000, 2002 and 2004," when Republicans swept the White House and Congress. "It's time to do something different."
Feingold says Democrats should have learned from the 2002 elections, which came a little more than a year after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"We were winning on every domestic issue. Then the Democratic strategists decided we'd better just go along with the president on Iraq and that issue and cede international issues to them and win on the domestic issues," he said.
"There's no way, post-9/11, that people are going to put a party in power who they feel is not prepared to govern both domestically and internationally. But now it is No. 1 on the agenda, and any Democrat - especially progressives, of which I am one - who believes we can get away without having a firm and strong national security policy is asking for more defeat," he said.
I, for one, certainly hope that Senator Feingold is sincere in his aspirations to the highest office in the land. It is far past time that we had a true progressive liberal manning the helm of our wayward nation. I disagree strongly with the notion, often peddled by the DLC, that the Democratic Party needs to cleave more to the political center in order to maintain its relevance in national elections. What we really need to do is set our platform and stick to our guns. We are the party of the people; we need to support good populist candidates that will stand up for us. Wealthy business interests have their advocates in the Republican Party and it has become clear that those interests run counter to what the people of the United States actually need.
That's not to say that I don't think other potential Democratic candidates wouldn't make good Presidents; I firmly believe that, of the two major parties, only Democrats make good candidates. It should be clear to any reasonable person by now that Republicans cannot govern well; they are too pro-business, pro-war and anti-middle class to make a respectable job of governance. Moreover, that's not their purpose. Their platform and policies clearly define whom the Republicans support, and, sorry kids, but we in the middle class just aren't it.
I would hold my nose and support more centrist Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton (yes, she's a conservative Democrat) and Joe Biden, if only for the above reasons of Republican governmental ineptness. I especially find it easier to support Clinton due to it being far, far past time in the "greatest Democracy on Earth" to have a female President and because that makes The Big Dog the First Gentleman. However, I don't support political dynasties; look at what the Bush family has done to us, after all. Plus, Clinton's pro-Iraqi occupation stance is beyond galling. I don't want an "anybody but the Republican" choice for President.
I want a true progressive and a President that will represent the people in this country who most need representation.
I want Russ Feingold for President in 2008!
Now, if only he read obscure liberal blogs...