Honestly, I don't really care who wins the Democratic New Hampshire Primary. Honestly, I don't really care who wins the Democratic nomination. I think all the candidates are good people, good Democrats, and have the potential to be great presidents. But, honestly, they are all so far down on the list of who I wanted to see as Democratic nominee (behind Feingold, Gore, several other folks who didn't run, Biden, and Dodd) that I just can't get that passionate about any of them, although I'm leaning Edwards. But I don't really care.

What I care about is restoring America's reputation around the world. What I care about is seeing that America has leadership that knows that civil liberties cannot, must not, be sacrificed for "war on terror" or we've already lost that war. What I care about is making sure that the global economy works for everybody, everywhere. In short, what I care about is making sure that the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, wins in November.

I want to believe that this is what everyone here cares about, but during this primary campaign I've had reason to doubt this. The closer we got to votes actually being counted, the more heated the debate became, and the more and more I saw the phrase "If candidate X wins, I won't vote" or "If candidate Y wins, I'll vote for a third party" or "If candidate Z wins, I'll vote for the Republican". Now some people might read this stuff and think it is just written in the heat of the moment. Some may read it and think it's just sour grapes. Some may read it and reply "Good riddance, you lousy piece of Naderite scum!" I read it and think, "I need to change their mind". Not because I love candidate X or Y or Z, but because I love America, and I don't want to see this country after another four years of Republican rule.

So, this diary is the beginning of a project I'm going to dedicate my free time to from now to November, to ensure that all voters realize the importance of voting for the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, in this election. I hope to do this, and I hope others will do this as well, not by bashing any third party candidates that may run, not by calling anyone who is considering not voting for the Democratic nominee insulting names (i.e. "lousy piece of Naderite scum"), not by putting down any of the unsuccessful Democratic primary candidates, but rather by emphasizing the importance of this election. I want to persuade folks into recognizing that no matter who gets the Democratic nomination, there are differences that matter between the two parties, and the Democrats need every vote they can get.

I'm not usually a person who pays much attention to anniversaries. I'm pretty good at remembering the birthdays of my siblings, and my parents, and even some of my cousins. And I usually have a good idea when major national holidays are coming up. But otherwise, I'm pretty clueless. I couldn't tell you if this week is the anniversary of the release of "Blonde on Blonde" or the passage of the Wagner Act, or anything I else I might find really exciting if I knew about it.

But earlier this month, I realized an anniversary was coming up that would probably be forgotten by most, but is incredibly important to me. It was one year ago tomorrow, November 12, that Senator Russ Feingold announced he was not going to run for President of the United States. And for me that was, with the exception of the brief satirical goodness that was Stephen Colbert's campaign, the last time I was really excited about the 2008 presidential campaign.

So, in this diary I am going to try to write about why I wish Senator Feingold had decided differently, and, since I love reading alternate history novels, try to realistically speculate on how things might be different if Senator Feingold was in the race.

A note for those passionate supporters of our Democratic candidates: I think all the candidates in this race are good, or at least good enough. I'll happily support any of them in the general election. But part of the reason I'm writing this diary is because I can't get particularly fired up about any of the candidates in the race. If you feel like rationally stating in the comments why you think maybe I should get excited about your candidate, that's fine. I'd be glad to read it. If, however you feel like posting, "FEINGOLD SUX! Hillary/Obama/Edwards/Biden/Dodd/Richard son/Kucinich/Gravel/Ron Paul RULES!" I'd request that you don't. Don't you have something better to do? Look, on that other thread over there...someone is attacking your candidate!

Cross posted at Still Going Forward

Alberto Gonzales must to be impeached.

That idea has been lodged in head ever since I was watching the news a few weeks ago and heard about former Deputy Attorney General James Comey's testimony about Gonzales' attempt to get an ill, almost unconscious John Ashcroft to reauthorize the Bush Administration's wiretapping program. While the story by itself is certainly distasteful, its not enough to impeach Gonzales for. But Mr. Comey also testified that he, Attorney General Ashcroft, and FBI Director Robert Mueller were so upset by the Administration's decision to reauthorize the program that they threatened to resign. Funny, then, that in Mr. Gonzales had previously told Congress that the program was not a subject of serious disagreement within the Justice Department.

Funny is one word for it. However, in the Corporate and White Collar Crime class I took last semester there might have been another word for it: perjury. Perjury by our nation's chief law enforcement officer. And then Monica Goodling testified, and it looked like there may have been more perjury by Mr. Gonzales, with some witness tampering thrown in for good measure.

Yet despite the ever increasing likelihood that our nation's top law enforcement official has committed crimes which undermine the foundations of our system of justice, there has not been much talk of his possible impeachment on Capitol Hill. There have been calls for his resignation, and a no confidence resolution was thrown around. But not much talk about Congress using the power it was given by the Constitution for cases of executive and judicial lawbreaking: impeachment.

Now, I have not been calling for the impeachment of members of the Bush Administration for a long time. Like many others, I felt that after the Clinton impeachment another impeachment would just be too hard for the country to take. Congress could just get the administration to change the policies we dislike, right? And they'll all be gone in a few years, right. No need to go after this administration the way Newt and the gang went after President Clinton. And I'm still not calling for the impeachment of the President or Vice President (at least not here and now.) But Alberto Gonzales must be impeached, and below I will make the legal, political, and moral case for his impeachment.

This diary is an expanded/revised version of a comment I made in response to a post entitled "Substance" < http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/29/1339 50/425> by Sam Graham Felsen, an official blogger for the Obama campaign, responding to some of the recent criticisms that had been surfacing about Senator Obama, particularly about whether he is all style and no substance and whether he lacks the experience needed to be president. While I was pleased to see a response from the Obama campaign to these criticisms I was disappointed that it seemed to boil down to "Our critics are all a bunch of cynics who don't understand our unique campaign." Indeed, that seems to be a constant Obama campaign theme, and one that troubles me greatly. Unfortunately, Sam never responded to my comment; and while I am grateful to the one Obama supporter (aiko) who responded, I'm hoping that, perhaps, posting this diary will allow me to have a further dialogue with Obama supporters.  

First off, I want to state that I don't support any of the current Democratic presidential candidates. I spent 23 months running a blog encouraging Senator Russ Feingold to run for president...and, since he decided not run, I've spent most of my time wishing he had decided differently.

Second, I'd like to state that I really want to like Senator Obama. I grew up in Illinois and, while I was home from college in Summer 2003 I emailed the Obama campaign, as soon as he announced, to see if they needed interns/volunteers (I knew about Obama because of the Illinois campaign finance/ethics reforms he worked on with Senator Paul Simon.) I ended up getting involved with the Dean campaign and never got to help the Obama campaign, but I stayed excited about Obama, and his 2004 convention speech made me an even bigger fan.

But I can't help but be skeptical about Obama's presidential campaign. And Sam's post just reinforced my skepticism.

I believe questions about both Senator Obama's experience for the presidency and the positions he'd pursue as president are totally legitimate questions for voters to be asking. Yet it seems that the Obama campaign thinks that makes me a cynic. (Which I may well be...but not because I have those questions about Senator Obama).

Back in December of 2004, I started one of the first Russ Feingold for President blogs. Pretty much every comment or diary I ever made here was about Feingold for President. And then, last November, Senator Feingold decided not to run.

As the Democratic candidates have made their announcements, I've tried to read each one. I've gone to almost every candidate's website trying to find out where they stand on the issues. And the truth is, I still feel pretty ambivalent about all of them. Now that the field is almost fully formed (with the rather large question marks of Al Gore and Wes Clark) I began wondering what my fellow Feingold fans think of the field: are they as ambivalent as me, or are they supporting someone new as eagerly as they supported Russ?

In the extended entry there is a poll (hopefully, if I figure out how to make it work) and my thoughts on the Democratic candidates I have thoughts on, if you care what I think...  

As you may have heard by now, Senator Russ Feingold has announced he is NOT going to run for President in 2008. In his letter to supporters he states that a piece of cheese could have taken the same positions as him and gotten the same ovations. That's the first blatantly false thing I ever remember Senator Feingold saying. Or, if it's true, that piece of cheese would be a better, more intelligent, more courageous person than a sizeable number of human beings.

So, in honor of Senator Feingold and the 3,547 members of RunRussRun.com, I here crosspost what turned out to be the last entry of my Feingold for President blog...

Turns out the answer to "Why not the best?" is "He isn't going to run."

So, as I listen to Warren Zevon's "Looking for the Next Best Thing" and cry myself to sleep, I hope some of you enjoy this...

And, for those you who weren't Feingold supporters, and who I may have gotten in disputes with in the past, I am pleading with you not to respond to any of the points I make, or try to to, in this diary. After all, the guy's not running.  

After reading the comments on this month's straw poll thread, I felt compelled to write on this subject. I am sick and tired of reading comments mindlessly repeating the mantra, "No more senators! Senators can't win!" I am writing this diary in the hope of addressing the major arguments put forward by the "No more senators!" camp, and having a more intelligent debate on this subject and possibly changing some minds.

As a disclaimer, if you don't already know, I have a horse in the 2008 race, and it is one of the senator breed: I've been blogging in support of Russ Feingold for almost a year. However, as I do not wish this to become another tiresome debate about his marital status, religion, or position on the First Gulf War, this is the last time I'll mention him in this diary.

And now, our feature presentation...

Most of you probably don't know me. I posted a few comments a couple of months ago but I've pretty much been a lurker here. That's just my natural way to act in online communities. However, those of you who are really into the Feingold for President movement may know me as Dan K. from the Russ Feingold for President blog at http://russfeingold.blogspot.com

Anyhow, what follows is a commentary I posted there today that, with a little encouragement, I decided I should share with people beyond my fellow Feingold fans.

I wrote this as a response to all the commentaries I've read comparing Senator Feingold to previous presidential candidates (most notably Eugene McCarthy, but I've seen him compared to everyone from George McGovern to Howard Dean). Whether those comparisons are positive or negative they bother me because I believe that presidential campaigns should be about the future, not the past. So, this is what I wrote. I think of it as a very brief surrogate stump speech. I call it "Forward with Feingold".