illumined horizon

On the left of the Democratic Party there seems to be quite a bit of talk and excitement about a Presidential run for Russ Feingold. His recent censure proposal has placed him squarely in the spotlight, and makes him stand out as presidential fodder for 2008. Feingold, though, I think really arouses the left only of the party and, indeed, the country as a whole. So instead of running Feingold or some one like him I think the Democrats need to run some one who appears centrist, but is progressive enough on enough issues that s/he really stands for the party's traditional platform and values as well.

I think in 2008 the best options for the Democrats are Al Gore, John Edwards (probably doesn't have the credentials but being from the South may help him), and Mark Warner (who is not very liberal but highly electable, I think). I also want to take a long hard look at Gen. Clark, Tom Daschle, and Bill Richardson, and the party should take them seriously as candidates as well. It would be nice for a change for the Democrats to run a strong liberal and see what happens, but a McGovern-esque turn of events would a terrible turnout in the 2008 race.

I think the time to run a liberal was Howard Dean in 2004 because Bush had successfully bullied the country into submission and what was needed was some one to stand up strongly to Bush's bullying. Now that Bush has so successfully sullied his own reputation and that of his party, I think even though he and the Republicans are much weaker than they were in 2004 it makes more sense for the Democrats to run a pragmatist rather than a pugilist. The American people will be looking, in 2008, for competency much more than some one presenting a strong alternative direction. I feel even though the country is on an abysmal path under Bush there may be some trepidation among the voters about going down a radically different path, so the voters will want some one to correct the course of the country without doing anything extreme or drastic.