Further developing on what I stated in the above paragraph: I really think all of the current candidates would be decent presidents. I think they are all, as I said, "good enough". But, to me, they all seem pretty average. That's not to say they are all the same: there are differences on issues, experience, personality, favorite TV show, the list is nearly endless. But factoring in all the differences, to me, they all average out to being average. None of them seem, to me, like someone worth getting excited about.

Russ Feingold may be called many things, but I don't think "average" would ever be one of them, at least not when it comes to politics. To take an example from this week's headlines: Senator Feingold was one of, I believe, two Democratic Senators to vote against overriding President Bush's veto of the Water Resources Development Act. He thought it had too much pork, and didn't do enough to reform the Army Corps of Engineers. You can agree or disagree with that, I don't really know enough to have an opinion on the issue, but we can agree on one thing: it's yet another indication that Russ Feingold is not an average Democrat.

And I don't think our president, or our presidential candidate, should just be average, even if it is an average Democrat (although that is much preferable to an average Republican). And that's why I wanted to see Senator Feingold to run for president, and why I think he'd be a great president: because he stands out. Not just on votes about reforming the Army Corps of Engineers (which again, I know nothing about) but on issues from trade, to our civil liberties, to the war in Iraq.

Okay, before this turns into another Feingold for President post (I've written so many of those, I guess its kind of an instinct): when I was supporting Senator Feingold I felt like we had a chance (although an outside chance) to get a Democratic nominee who was not only spoke the progressive language but had a legislative record to back it up: a record of vision and leadership. When I look at the candidates now, whenever I think about supporting one it is always with an air of resignation...I feel like I'm sacrificing (at least) one of things I care about, (at least) one of the reasons I supported Senator Feingold in order to support someone I grudgingly think may be the Next Best Thing. And that's why I'm still undecided. And that's why I'm one of the small group (about a third) of Democrats who is not pleased with our field of candidates.

But would this race be that much different if Senator Feingold was in it?

Well, I hope that I would be working for his campaign, rather than taking some occasionally painful law school classes, but my life is really incredibly irrelevant to the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. So how would Senator Feingold being in the race change important things like issues and poll numbers and what folks are saying on MyDD?

Honestly, the changes might not be as great as I wished when I was blogging to Draft Feingold for twenty-three months, ending one year ago Monday. In some ways this is a good thing: the field is more progressive than I had thought it would be. I thought Senator Feingold would be running against Evan Bayh, Mark Warner, and a field that might generally have a more centrist taste. Instead, it's a field where all the candidates are talking about their universal healthcare plans, and except for small moments (like Richardson saying Democrats raise taxes too much, or Dodd calling himself a "pro-growth" Democrat) it doesn't seem like there is a lot of the "I'm more electable (read: conservative)" stuff going around this time, and I'm glad about that.

If Feingold was in this field, I'm not sure how well he'd be able to distinguish himself on the issues. I just don't know that the differences that would matter to me, as a Feingold supporter, would really have as much resonance to primary voters: does it matter that Feingold voted against the war, when Obama spoke out against it, and when Richardson is saying he's got the plan to get the most troops out of Iraq the quickest?

Where would Feingold be in those polls that we are seemingly obsessed with here? Really, I can seem him taking some voters from all the candidates except Clinton, but probably ending up somewhere in the second tier, below Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Perhaps that's too conservative an estimate: as a Feingold blogger I remember seeing state polls that put him at 7% in places like Pennsylvania and Washington, below only Clinton, Kerry, Gore, and Edwards. I really do think the Feingold netroots/grassroots movement was pretty incredible. Part of that is bias from being involved with it, but even as an observer I think I would have been impressed by the numerous state blogs, by Russ' performance in the internet straw polls, and by the wonderful RunRussRun.com website that existed in those few exciting days between last November's election and Senator Feingold's decision not to run.

I liked to think that Senator Feingold would have been THE netroots/grassroots candidates if he ran...but looking at MyDD these days, and the many passionate supporters of all the candidates, I don't really know if it's possible for there to be a single netroots/grassroots candidate. And I don't know if Senator Feingold could have kept up his momentum in the grassroots and netroots with the other candidates entering the race, especially Senator Obama. I must admit that I watched Senator Obama's entrance into the race with a bit of jealousy: I think he appealed to a lot of the same people as Senator Feingold-young, anti-war voters looking for something different. Yet, while Feingold fans got excited at some obscure poll saying he was at 7% in Pennsylvania, Obama burst on to the national polls with numbers in the 20% range. It was the same feeling I had as a fan of TV shows like "Firefly" and "Veronica Mars", always teetering on the brink of cancellation, wondering why and how shows like "Lost" can immediately go to the top of the ratings.

So to summarize: I don't know if Senator Feingold being in the race would make much of a difference in the issues being discussed, the standings in the polls, or the discussions on the blogs. Yet I still wish he was in the race. Logically, that doesn't make much sense. But I'll leave logic to the Vulcans, because perhaps my wish to see Senator Feingold in the presidential race is as much about emotion as anything. It's about my desire to have the chance to vote for the person I think would be the best President. It's about wishing that I didn't have to settle for the Next Best Thing (whoever that is!). It's about wishing to see what could have become of all the hard, fun, exciting work that myself and many wonderful others put in to the Draft Russ movement. And it's about the fact that, despite my user name being a tribute to Russ Feingold's 1988 presidential choice, I think I'll always consider myself a Russ Feingold Democrat. I think my work  for the Draft Russ movement says much more about who I am politically than the congressional campaign I worked on for 11 months in 2003 and 2004, or the labor union I worked for this summer. And I don't even list the Feingold stuff on my resume!

So, thanks to all that read this far. I'd love to hear your thoughts, especially from others involved in the Draft Russ movement.

(The title of this post comes from a line written in either an email or a blog post by another Feingold blogger, I think Jerry Troiano of New Jersey for Feingold, but I can't find it or really remember. It is not meant to be a disparagement of any of the other campaigns that never were, just a sign my affection for the Draft Russ movement.)