Progressive Leader Feingold Split Over Clinton, Obama

Post Crescent:

Sen. Russ Feingold has a plan. Getting ready to head back to Washington as Congress is about to resume, the Democratic senator from Wisconsin has compiled a list of his top five domestic agenda items for 2008: a health care proposal, changes to the No Child Left Behind Act, improving public financing of presidential campaigns, strengthening the Clean Water Act and giving the president line-item veto powers....

...I did notice that as the primaries heated up, all of a sudden, all the presidential candidates -- none of whom voted with me on the timeframe to withdraw from Iraq -- all voted with me and when we did the Patriot Act stuff.

The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war ... He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.

Read the whole story: Post Crescent

Comments

[Celldumceen]

This is the guy I really wanted to run for the top job! Love this guy, he would have a perfect response to eight nightmare years of George Bush!

[poomplet]

We're all missing the critical point here:

WHAT DOES ERICA JONG THINK?

Why the FUCK does is this 1970's chick-lit lighweight getting daily blog-space here?

It's an embarrasment that drags down the hard-achieved credibility of HuffPo more & more each day.

[OhPlease2007]

These comments from Feingold are particularly surprising and smack of status-quo pandering to the Washington D.C. insiders club.

Feingold is a nice enough guy, but he is clueless in regards to how real progressives, who are the true supporters of change, pick John Edwards, by a landslide, in all the straw polls from progressive blog sites, on the issues.

And how does he explain Obama voting for the reenactment of the Patriot Act -&- continual funding of the Iraq war???

The voters had a mandate for Congress in the last election. Yeah that's right, ... change! And what do we have??? We the people have a congress that has a WORSE approval rating than George W. Bush! Do you think that congressional approval rating would go up if Obama and Hillary didn't have poor attendance records in the Senate? Talk is cheap when it comes to change. How can the empty suits in Obama and Hillary espouse change when they both can't show up on a regular basis in the senate to work for the mandate of change that the public demanded in the last election???

Feingold needs to be worried more about Congress teetering on total disaster and losing Democratic majority than in making wildly outlandish comments about John Edwards.

If Hillary gets the Dem nomination, she will rally the Bushies to come out in droves to vote against her, leading to a very possible loss for Dems in Congress. And with Obama voting 'NO' in the Illinois bill regarding live birth abortions, should Obama get the Dem nomination, Republicans will rally around the abortion issue, citing that Clinton, Boxer, Kennedy, and Kerry, ALL voted 'YES' on the Congressional Bill to protect born alive babies. On this issue alone, Obama WILL get his head handed to him by Republicans, Independents, and some Democrats. On this issue, he too, will rally the Bushies, and will lose in the general.

John Edwards' message scares big business, but doesn't rally the Bushies to come out in droves, because the majority of Bushies are blue-collar workers!

Edwards '08!

[Nutcase]

I have difficulty understanding how someone could be a progressive and be deciding between Clinton and Obama.

cognito ergo populistae

[DietrichMoody]

I would not be surprised to hear him say that " - "with a heavy heart" he supports Hillary Clinton, although the message is clear that Obama reflects that the Country wants a change"

blah blah blah. , I could be wrong but not surprised.
the underlying fundamental problem with the Democratic party AFRAID, No Leadership.

[lynnn]

The interview (warning do not watch if you have the attention span of a Gold Fish or are a bot-this video may contain policy which flies in the face of media narratives)

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&oaso=news.rgj.com/breakingnews

[AnninCA]

I agree with him 100% on all points.

Sensible, pragmatic, thoughtful, and not looking for the moon....ju­st some good solid steps to move us in the right direction.

All doable, too.

My guess?

He's leaning towards Hillary Clinton.

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

Patriot Act
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313
Edwards:Yea Clinton:Yea

No Child left behind
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00371
Edwards:Yea Clinton:Yea

China Trade Relations
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00251
Edwards:Yea Clinton:No Show

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

John Edwards Voted NO on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)

Hillary Clinton Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)

Why again is Sen. Russ Feingold lambasting Edwards?

[rssrai]

I never liked Feingold because he never goes thru his tough stances. He votes when progressive when he knows it won't go thru, but I have never actually seen him fillibuster any funding bills for Iraq. If you are going to talk the talk, why doesn't he go the rest of the way and walk the walk? If he is for Hillary he is obviously and establishment senator.

[tomsfork]

What is with this line-item veto crap? Are we back there again? It is not necessary, and never has been. George Washington settled this a very long time ago. Congress raises monies and establishes how the money will be spent. The president spends the money in the manner prescribed by Congress.

Congress passed a law that Washington didn't want to obey. So, he didn't spend the money, impounding it for other use. After the usual fight in the Supreme Court, this was established as a presidential right, and every president used it, ever since. Until Nixon, the dumbass, abused it. In September '71, he impounded an unheard of amount of money, $15 billion, and gave to the military for use in Viet Nam. The same month, he vetoed the education bill, of some $4 billion, because, he claimed, it was inflationary. Wonderful - drop bombs on the heads of Vietnamese children, that's okay. But educate our own? Egad! Communism! The government shouldn't be responsible for education (Republicans want to get rid of the Department of Education, you know. Communism!) Congress, infuriated, passed a law and forced it down the throat of Nixon's replacement, Ford, forbidding impoundment. And no president has used it since.

And no president has challenged this law before the Supreme Court. They should, SCOTUS has already said it's legal. And will again, if a president just brought it up. Unfortunately, we've had no president since Ford who was not either some right-wing Republican who believes in dictatorship, and is not of a mind to challenge authority. Or some pansy-ass DLC Democrat, too chickenshit to challenge authority.

And you wonder why I'm an independent. What are my choices? Chickenshit or dictatorship, those are my choices.

[Wiredwilly]

DRAFT RUSS FEINGOLD

[marika]

The question is not just to be ready to "do the job" but to know what job is going to be done. Hillary would arrive with all her bagage; or rather "they," as so many journalists speak of her, would arrive with all their old unsettled accounts and conditioned reflewes from the past.

I will never vote for a dynasty. If we cannot get along without the same rotating names that is already a bad sign for the health of the country. I'll just take a pass on those names, Bush, Clinton...­No. Imagine what it would be Laura Bush were to run. Eight years of "experience!"

[Trittydi]

What about Edwards Feingold?

*

[AnthonyMason2k6]

"The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record."--­-and this is why I'm not supporting John Edwards.

[Bulbul]

Senetor Feingold, do the right thing, support the nominee, whoever that may be !