"Hey, there's going to be a new president in a year."

"I'm having a hard time deciding between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama,"


This is Political butt kissing at its finest! If you don't know whose butt to kiss, kiss them all.

Thank you! Finally someone starts to talk about John Edwards' hypocrisy in such an articulate way.

whatever force blackmailed him into NOT running for prez will probably force him to vote for HRC.

Survival of the DLC is top priority.

Thanks, Feingold. You managed to give an endorsement without actually being honest about it. The fact that he can't choose between the two most popular contestants in this corporatist media-designed beauty contest just goes to show that "...there isn't a dime's worth of difference (in Nader's prescient comments from 2000)" between them. Obama and Clinton are owned and operated by the big monied people/multi-nationals/big corporations that have control of our country,as is clear when you review their largest contributors. Ask them the question Edwards asked in the debate -- what do they think those contributors expect for their investment? For Feingold, maybe he should consider WHY his populist agenda has so little chance of getting done and WHY all he can expect to do is 'move the needle forward'. The answer lies in who would benefit from his agenda -- the citizenry or Wall Street/Multi-nationals/Major Corporations.

We are tired of the Bush/Clinton nightmare world.
We want Huck and we want him now!!!!
Let's get Jesus on line.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzEAc7QqVjo&feature=related

hear the voice of youth
hear progressives.
We don't want any 20 year study
we want health care and we want it now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOdWxf1tRmI&feature=related

Feingold is making a good point about Edwards voting one way as a junior Senator (Edwards would have voted with the Senate Majority Leader at the time - Daschle - remember Daschle's office got the anthrax which made him much more conservative and supportive of GW Bush as most Democrats were). Edwards was a junior Senator and it takes at least one term to vote independently or to pass legistlation. Edwards failed to pass any legistlation as neither has Obama. Obama as a current junior Senator has voted the way Reid wants him to or doesn't show up to vote. Obama hasn't shown any independence either.

Fiengold's point on Edwards should be the same point on all of them, that Edwards mistakes of voting with the Democratic party and now all Democrats regret these votes is - well...America changed and Bush changed us.

Never again....

I don't know why any thinking person would vote for Obama whose voting record is equally pale in the Senate.

If I weren't adamantly opposed to polls...I'd say Russ Feingold just dropped 99 points in the latest Ernestine poll.

I'm crushed.

That's not a very progressive agenda, especially for "The Prgressive Leader Feingold". lol

In fact, it's downright disappointing.

I am also disappointed by his comments on the three presidential candidates. I expected a more thoughtful, if not thought-provoking words from Senator Feingold.

Washington sticks together.

Every vote that Wuss criticizes Edwards over, Clinton voted the same way.

Obama voted for Cheney's energy bill, AGAINST Feingold's Censure resolution, AGAINST Kerry-Feingold's Iraq Bill that was intended to end the war, FOR Condoleeza Rice, FOR Iraq War funding over and over and over again, and AGAINST capping credit card interest rates.

Clinton and Obama aren't running on THOSE votes.

But Feinsilver wants to criticize John Edwards for not mentioning his bad votes?

Why doesn't that BELTWAY INSIDER criticize Clinton and Obama for their equally bad votes that they never mention on the campaign trail?

Because DC sticks together, that's why.

Feingold really disappoints me on health care. Creating a commission to launch pilot projects is the classic bureaucrat's way of stalling. Conducting and evaluating those pilot projects would take 10 or 20 years, and afterward the same battles with the insurance companies would have to be fought. No, that's BS. We need universal, single-payer health care NOW!

Ok, here let me try...

The one that is most problematic is Obama, who voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act, but campaigns against it. Voted to implement No Child Left Behind in Illinois, but campaigns against it. Campaigned on support for the Peru trade deal, but complains about others support for free trade deals. Voted to repeatedly fund the Iraq War... He campaigns on a progressive platform, but votes against it.

Or maybe the most problematic is Clinton. She voted for the Patriot Act twice, but has campaigned against it. She voted for No Child Left Behind, but has criticized it. She supported NAFTA when she was First Lady but flip-flopped and voted against CAFTA (she was for it, before she was against it). Voted for the Iraq War, and repeatedly voted to fund it, but campaigns against it.

Based on Feingold's voting record, I used to think he was the conscience of the Democratis party. But this kind of commentary is giving me second thoughts.

Edwards '08!!!

I've heard indecision is a decision in itself.

Vote Kucinich!

Feingold loses his stead in my eyes by endorsing the hundred-million dollar candidates over a guy like Edwards, who doesn't, and has never taken donations or gratuities from lobbyists and PACS. Way to show your progressiveness Feingold.

I agree that Edwards' platform looks like one you'd expect Feingold to run on. I also agree that it's easy to be cynical about Edwards' change of heart.

But what alternatives do we have?

Neither of the frontrunners have really adopted the progressive platform. I absolutely feel and understand Feingold's quandry, as it's one I've gone through, and on some levels continue to ponder.

I just wish Russ would run, as he is one of the rare individuals, principled and on-target ideologically, who is left in the democratic party.

Since Feingold is not in the race, I have to cast my lot with Edwards. My feeling is this - if he is elected on this platform, he will be bound to make good on it.