Russ Feingold won't be running for president. Personally, I'm glad he's not because this allows me to avoid making up my mind about what to say about a Feingold presidential campaign. On the one hand, I'm very substantively enthusiastic about Feingold and what he stands for, and thus would be disinclined to say bad things about his candidacy. On the other hand, it seems to me that he would have been a terrible messenger for a Feingold-style message and that nominating him as a presidential candidate would be a pretty poor tactical decision.
« Chinese Stability | Main | Bakruptcy "Reform" Reform »
No Russ For You
12 Nov 2006 03:25 pm
Comments (11)
I saw a diary at Kos suggesting a Sebelius/Webb ticket. You could take 50 states with that.
Feingold seems like a fairly skillful politician, as evidenced by his 92 and 98 wins, who wouldn't be seen as an insider or elitist, or flip flopper. Being so consistently, and unapologetically liberal would have been a problem, but calling him a terrible as opposed to decent or mediocre messenger seems wrong to me.
Feingold's not a terribly magnetic speaker in front of crowds. This is a link of Russ speaking in Minnesota in June.
Feingold can be persuasive in other settings - he sounds like a lawyer talking to a jury - but working a crowd just isn't his format.
An interesting question is, should liberals have wanted Feingold to get the nomination? I'm maybe inclined to say yes, because it's rational to choose a candidate who'll give you 90% of what you want over a candidate who's somewhat likelier to win, but will only give you 30% of what you want (like Clinton, Richardson, Bayh). Also, people always seem to oversestimate their ability to pick a winner, it's very hard, and you should only second guess yourself if your sure there's a very clear difference in electability. But Edwards and Kerry might be good enough, that it would have been smarter to support one of them, instead. But it's too early to tell, a year from now one might make a slightly informed deciosion at least. You'd at least wanted Feingold in the race.
So who is a good messenger for a Feingold style message? Who becomes the leading out now antiwar candidate?
Feingold is a twice-divorced, secular Jewish man. He's not a terrible national messenger because of his speaking skills (or lack thereof), but for basic identity politics reasons.
Non-Christian. Non-religious. Unmarried. I'd love it if that shit didn't matter, but I think I'd be crazy to say it doesn't.
On the antiwar message, John Edwards has called for the immediate withdrawal of 40,000 troops as a start to disengagement / redeployment from Iraq.
I've been living in Wisconsin since 2000 and have been impressed to see how well regarded Feingold is in what I assume is about as "purple" a state as there is in the country. - Brandon Claycomb
I've never lived or even been to WI (my main connection with that state being that my mom was born there and lived the first four years of her life there) ... but this was my understanding of the situation: so I'm confused about what MY meant by "not a good messenger". I've thought Feingold was a pretty persuasive person, but I've never heard a speech of his, only interviews, etc.
Barbara Boxer is similar to Feingold in being a strong liberal/progressive who plays well to some very purple if not downright red audiences. CA does have more than it's fair share of wingnuts -- it's the home of Orange County, CA, the Reagan revolution, etc. -- yet many CA conservatives like Boxer much better than the more conservative Feinstein whom they find to be a wanker while Boxer comes off as someone deeply concerned about moral issues.
Will Boxer be running in 2008?
Yeah, Feingold is a great campaigner. There is no reason why Wisconsin would have elected him otherwise, especially when it was in full Tommy Thompson swoon. But him being single and Jewish isn't helpful. (Yeah, Wisconsin has two single Jewish Senators. Explain that.)
Give me a break, Matt. Aren't you the smartest guy in the room? How can you put up a sentence like this:
"it seems to me that he would have been a terrible messenger for a Feingold-style message"
without even a shred of evidence, an example, even a flipping description of exactly *how* Feingold is such a terrible messenger, and expect not to get called on it? When I've seen him on the talk shows, he's been articulate, concise, and unflappable. I think he's an *excellent* public speaker. So where exactly are you pulling this from? Are you just mindlessly buying into the CW that *equates* liberal positions with unelectable and bad campaign performance *automatically*?
I see the comments have told us that he's unmarried and Jewish. Let's get serious. Is someone going to make an attack ad that says "Russ Feingold got divorced. Baaaaad for America! You homewrecker!" Something like half the country has been divorced! Barring an *actual* scandal, this should be no problem.
glasnost: Have you ever seen an attack ad that was that blatant? Here's how you attack Feingold for being single and Jewish:
* First, you make your wife a prominent figure in your campaign. She's introducing you at rallies, taking every single interview request, etc. Then she cuts an ad with Laura Bush that's all about how awesome it is to be First Lady. The ad seems to make no sense until CNN, Fox and MSNBC begin to play it 50 times a day while talking about how awful it would be if we didn't have a First Lady for some reason, wink wink.
* You can follow that up with an ad about all the money he must be raking in from New York bankers. Bonus points if the setting of the ad is a brightly lit breakfast nook, and the characters are two middle-aged women, one white and blonde and one black, both wearing crucifixes, gossiping over coffee. "Did you hear about all that money Russ Feingold took from bankers in New York?", etc. Bonus bonus points if the ad airs only three times, and only in Ohio, New York and DC. Bonus bonus bonus points if they're eating english muffins with the coffee, because that's the closest thing I can think of to a goy bagel.
I should say that I live in Wisconsin, voted for Feingold in '04 and own a Feingold For President t-shirt. I think he could've won (and still could win the VPship) -- as someone said up-thread, it's no more unlikely now than Clinton's win was in late 1990. I just also wouldn't fool myself into thinking no one cares about him being a single Jew.
Comments closed November 26, 2006.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I've been living in Wisconsin since 2000 and have been impressed to see how well regarded Feingold is in what I assume is about as "purple" a state as there is in the country. His strong stands against the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act did not seem to hurt his reelection efforts in 2004 in the least, and he ran about 6% better than Kerry -- though against an opponent who I think had only about a quarter of campaign cash Feingold had. Still, I thought that this all offered a prima facie case that Feingold might be successful making his presidential pitch to the country.
But just a prima facie case, I'm afraid. I don't know that his winning would have been radically less likely than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, but I still don't think it would be worth betting on. I have some suspicion that his voice will be missed in the race, and that he would have done more good than harm by promoting liberal values in a way that, I think, would not in any way have undermined the party. We'll never know now, though.
Posted by Brandon Claycomb | November 12, 2006 3:58 PM