Losing A President

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 17:48


Eliot Spitzer's statement:

I have acted in a way that violated the obligations to my family and that violates my - or any - sense of right and wrong. I apologize first, and most importantly, to my family. I apologize to the public, whom I promised better. I do not believe that politics in the long run is about individuals. It is about ideas, the public good and doing what is best for the State of New York. But I have disappointed and failed to live up to the standard that I expect of myself. I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family. I will not be taking questions. Thank you very much. I will report back to you in short order. Thank you very much.

This is a serious blow. I feel as though progressives have lost their top bench contender for President of the Unites States. Spitzer could have run against a Republican in 2012 or 2016. He could have run for an open seat in 2016. He could have even been a possible primary challenger in 2012 if a Democratic President had screwed up and sold us out really badly.

Even though the two actions are not comparable, I feel about the same today as I did back in April of 2005 when Russ Feingold announced that he was getting a second divorce. The progressive bench for possible presidents is pretty darn thin, suffering from the electoral bloodbaths progressives received, both in general elections and in primaries, from 1980-2004. And yes, obviously, when I talk about progressive presidents I mean something different than either Obama or Clinton (or probably Edwards for that matter). Centrist policy positions and faux transformative progressivism dominate even non-DLC Democratic politics these days. Remembering how much days like these hurt reminds us that we need to embrace the few progressive we have, and help incubate a bunch more, in order to one day build a progressive national leader. It takes a long time to build a President.

Among Democrats who have never run for President, who do you see as possible leaders in four, eight, or even twelve years time?

Chris Bowers :: Losing A President

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Losing A President | 163 comments
Damn, that's hard (0.00 / 0)
Possibly Jon Corzine or Deval Patrick?

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
Both of those guys (0.00 / 0)
need to, you know, get something done first.  New Jersey and Massachusetts are probably in the Top 5 hardest to govern list, because there are entrenched forces (of the same party) that really make it hard to push things ahead.  So it's hard to claim the ability to govern a nation when you're having trouble cracking 40, much less 50, points in your state approval rating.
[ Parent ]
I wouldn't totally count Spitzer out (4.00 / 3)
since so much is forgiven in today's political environment that wouldn't have been not that long ago--note how Reagan's divorce, which would have disqualified him in the 50's, was no obstacle in the late 70's (nor, for that matter, his being a nutjob, but I digress). And Clinton's "bimbo" reputation didn't prevent him from being elected president twice.

Then again, we all know how those presidencies turned out...

As for potential rising progressive (or progressive-leaning) pols who could run for president, or become top Democratic leaders, over the next decade or two, in no particular order:

Sherrod Brown
Darcy Burner
Tim Ryan
Deval Patrick
Mark Warner
Christine Quinn (NYC City Council Speaker)
Janet Napolitano
Christine Gregoire
Robert Wexler

Just off the top of my head.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

Nice list (4.00 / 1)
  I loves me some Tim Ryan, especially.

 Like I said below, I don't see Spitzer surviving this. This isn't a divorce, or even a bimbo eruption -- this is a prostitution ring. And Spitzer, being a liberal Democrat, is not going to be forgiven all that readily. Remember IOKIYAR.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
The problem with Ryan (0.00 / 0)
is that he's pro-life.  Maybe Senator from Ohio, but never president.
[ Parent ]
I don't mind pro-life... (4.00 / 2)
  ...if it's applied to war, health care, and capital punishment as much as it is to abortion.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn
[ Parent ]
It's just (4.00 / 2)
I will never, ever, in a million years, vote for someone who is not strongly supportive of reproductive rights.  I try not to have too many make or break issues in terms of choosing my vote, but reproductive rights is absolutely one of them.  As someone who is a pro-choice activist at a university that doesn't even have a pro-choice group, prohibits the distribution of condoms on campus, rips sexual health pages out of informational booklets in the infirmary, and invites the worst of the worst to speak (Paul Cameron, Ann Coulter) on a regular basis, this is an absolutely central issue, and as progressives, we cannot cede an inch on it.

/rant.

[ Parent ]
I hear you (0.00 / 0)
  I'm just talking in terms of intellectual honesty, which very few self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" actually have. Tim Ryan is the exception.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn
[ Parent ]
In that respect (4.00 / 1)
I would agree.  I just tend to get fired up very quickly on choice issues, as you can probably tell.  I was pretty political in high school, and people hesitated greatly to bring it up around me, because I did tend to take a very strong-minded approach to the subject, but only because I feel so strongly about it.
[ Parent ]
Paul Cameron? The "all gay men die at 40" guy? (0.00 / 0)
Wow.  

I didn't think anyone, anywhere listened to him anymore.  Much less pay to have him give a lecture on campus.

How did a highly political high school student wind up at a school like that?  What the hell school is it anyway?  Ouachita Theological Seminary?

[ Parent ]
Nope (0.00 / 0)
Boston College. It's really kind of unbelievable.  They do a terrific job of selling the school as a secular institution to anyone on the outside who will listen (especially to applicants), Catholicism is purely optional, etc.  The reality is quite different.
[ Parent ]
*Boston College* is booking Paul Cameron?!?!?!?! (0.00 / 0)
Ugh.

I honestly thought the gay movement had gone far enough that a respectable institution, Catholic or not, couldn't book Paul Cameron without running into enormous pushback.  This guy has been discredited nine ways from Sunday.

Yuck.

If Paul Cameron still gets paid to speak at Boston College, then my position in society is more tenuous than I thought it was.  That's what it feels like when you realize that your own civil rights movement has progressed less far than you'd thought.  Your own sense of the security of your place in society is weakened.

I'm not trying to be melodramatic, obviously it's a minor thing, but still it's a surprising and unwelcome discovery.

Maybe they just have one of those deals where the admin allocates money to some student groups, and then the conservatives get to invite whoever they want and the liberals get to invite whoever they want.  Because I'd sure rather not think the admin chose Paul Cameron than for any reason other than to "balance" out their speech docket. (Probably to balance Barney Frank, or some completely mainstream figure.)

Anyway, interesting stuff regardless.

[ Parent ]
If only (0.00 / 0)
BC has a nice little policy in which the administration reserves the right to block any funding for speakers who are not in line with Catholic doctrine, but they never apply this to the conservative sides.  They did actively solicit Condoleeza Rice as a commencement speaker, and gave her an honorary degree (which was total bullshit), and they allow student groups to bring the right wing crazies, like Cameron, Ann Coulter, Jesse Lee Peterson (he's another good one).  They can't actively deny pro-choice politicians, like the Kennedys and others, from making appearances (assumin they're high profile enough), but the way the system is structured, conservative groups have the green light to bring whoever they want, and liberal groups, much less so.  The speaker policy has yet to be challenged head on (that's for next year - hard to be a campus subversive from across an ocean), so we'll see.

It's interesting you mention the progress of the civil rights movement at all -- I sometimes get some grief when I complain about the state of things, and how my generation has a lot to do, etc. etc., and I sometimes I not so covertly imply that the leadership of our political, cultural, socioeconomic institutions, etc. for the past 20 years hasn't done much to help matters, because of a disappointing generation of leadership.  The kind of stuff I see at BC is what makes me think that, because I know it's not that far out of the American mainstream, unfortunately.  I only hope for things to be better 10, 20, 50 years from now.

[ Parent ]
Pro life (4.00 / 1)
I will always support reproductive rights, but I think abortion is sort of like what playing the fear card has become. An issue brought up often but seldom on the agenda.

Realistically aside from appointing judicial appointments abortion rights are being fought at the local level. What is most important as far as reproductive rights right now is access to contraceptions, sex education, etc. One can be pro life and still pro sex education/condoms. Most pro life people I know support these things. Any pro life democrat probably supports these things.

I can respect a democrat who says " I personally believe abortion is wrong. But I believe there are actions we can take to prevent that situation from getting that far."

[ Parent ]
it's not pro life (0.00 / 0)
it's Antichoice.
[ Parent ]
Sometimes (0.00 / 0)
I slip up in these quarters, because I know lax framing here won't kill my cause.
[ Parent ]
Tell me how pro-life in any way, shape or form (0.00 / 0)
qualifies as progressive?  Wasn't that the question?  Which progressives?  I done with Ds that walk and talk like Rs.  
[ Parent ]
not just sex (4.00 / 2)
It's not just sex; it's corruption. It's a federal sting. It follows previous scandals. I don't want him to be my governor anymore.
[ Parent ]
Well, his role in it was just sex. (4.00 / 1)
He wasn't running the ring, or participating in the management, or profiting from it.  He was Client Nine.  He was just having sex.

[ Parent ]
Problem is (4.00 / 3)
That most Americans have a problem with "just having sex."

However, Sen. Vitter (R-LA) got away with it.  I guess it really is OK if you are a Republican.

[ Parent ]
No (4.00 / 1)
He was PAYING for sex.

An preposterous amount, incidentally.

[ Parent ]
I've never understood why that's a crime (4.00 / 1)
so long as it's consensual, non-exploitative and non-coercive. The fact that SOME (silly) people object to such acts on a moral basis should not be sufficient to make something a crime. Same as with private recreational drug use. Way too many criminal justice resources wasted on persuing "crimes" that hurt no one but possibly those who "commit" them. I'm totally a libertarian on such things. Especially since most of today's pols have probably done vastly worse (e.g. promoting certain policies in return for campaign donations).

But, today's political and media climates being what they are, and such stories so easy to cover and great for ratings, no doubt we'll be hearing about this for days and weeks, while continuing to ignore boring stuff like the war and telcom immunity.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
You are right, of course (0.00 / 0)
But, regardless, Spitzer knows that what he did was illegal and he knows that he has prosecuted prostitution rings in the past, and he knows that his political enemies are spoiling for a fight - but, still, he can't summon up the self control to keep his dick in pants.  Poor judgement?  Arrogance?  Addiction?  

After that fairly negative assessment, let me say this - I think he should be commended for his forthright acceptance of responsibility of his actions - he's not trying to shift blame and play the victim.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
You wouldn't know it from the nytimes.com homepage (0.00 / 0)
He wasn't running the ring, or participating in the management, or profiting from it.  He was Client Nine.  He was just having sex.

The times byline is "Spitzer Is Linked to Prostitution Ring" I would hope the byline for tomorrow's print edition is better worded.  

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
-Lawrence Summers

[ Parent ]
Please please please (4.00 / 4)
don't go out of your way to help push him out in order to "prove" that Dems are "fair". If Pubs want him out, let them do all the work. I'm not going to lift an accusing finger towards him until every single GOP creep and criminal is forced out of office for vastly worse offenses. Until that happens, whether or not he stays should be up to party leaders, and himself, and voters.

If that lying crook McCrazy can run for president and be sucked up to by the media, Spitzer can stay in office as far as I'm concerned.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Re: please please please (0.00 / 0)

It's not about proving anything. It's not about partisanship.  My governor patronized a black market industry while sending some of its practitioners to prison. It's worse than Larry Craig; it's Roy Cohn territory. Breach of public trust. Out.
[ Parent ]
On that basis, I'm ok with this (0.00 / 0)
But on the basis persued by SOME Dems in the past, of showing what good sports they are, no. This should follow the legal process, and not be used as yet another Liebermanesque attempt by people who are technically "Dems" to attack their own side to score points with the other side, media and public, as being "fair and balanced" and all that hypocritical crap.

Not saying that you're such a Dem, but I can already predict how some "Dems" are going to exploit this to prove what great Broderites they are.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Please Please Please (0.00 / 0)
Let's not put Craig and Spitzer in the same group.

While Spitzer has made a public statement in which he accepts responsibility for his actions - Craig has pretty much tried to turn the situation around and cast himself as a victim.  That's night and day, in my book.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Exactly what is hypocritcal? (0.00 / 0)
Campaign contributions and golf trips with lobbyists - not a problem!  Sell your vote, okey dokey.  Treason?  Fine.  Lie the country into war?  God bless America.  Collude with companies you own stock in to set energy policies?  None of your business.  But sex, hell no, unless it's free and in the men's bathroom.  We have so many double standards, I need a score card.  
[ Parent ]
Few points about your list (0.00 / 0)
Darcy Burner first needs to win an election before we consider her a rising star in the Democratic Party.  Gregoire also needs to win a tough re-election bid this November to remain on that list.

As for Mark Warner, he's very far from being a progressive, despite the tepid support his nascent Presidential flirtation received - he's very much a centrist.

I don't know enough about the policies of the other governors on your list, but one person that would also certainly be on my list would be Sherrod Brown --- he's a true progressive, he's young, and he already holds a high office.  I'd also add Dick Durbin, and despite what Chris wrote, I still have hopes that Russ will take the leap at some point down the road (I mean, c'mon, is a divorce or two really political suicide?)

Netroots for Gore

[ Parent ]
Burner will beat loyal Bushie Reichert (4.00 / 1)
and there's simply no chance in hell that that smirking fool Rossi will beat Gregoire this fall. And it won't be anywhere near as close this year. Obama's coattails will assure her of victory, if nothing else, but she's got a number of things going for her as well despite her less than stellar first term. But most of all, she's smart and honest, and he's dumb and corrupt (e.g. his attempt to steal the '04 election with the help of his good buddies Rove, Hastings and Gonzo).

And I think that Burner will win because Reichert is too closely tied to Bush despite his "moderate" stance, and has voted in lockstep with the most far-right Pub wingnuts nearly every time in congress. The Carnation murders and rise in local crime rates notwithstanding, law and order just isn't yet on most peoples' radar screens this year, and likely won't be by the fall. The economy and Iraq will, and Burner's business background is sure to help her as the nation and region's economy take some hits, as well as her war opposition.

I don't know about Durbin. He's made some fine speeches in the senate and cast good votes, but he's caved in to the GOP too many times for me to be able to fully trust and respect him--e.g. comparing torture at Abu Ghraib to Nazi-like tactics, which is excactly what they were and which he should not have backed down from. The more we compare the right to their closest historical analogs, the better for us, and the more voters will start to realize it. I can't stand weakness in the name of false civility and avoiding confrontation.

Off-topic, but anyone who claims that comparing today's Pubs to Nazis is way over the top is either delusional or ignorant. You don't have to lock up innocent people and torture and kill them, start immoral and illegal wars that kill mass numbers of innocents, flagrantly break the law, and institute tyrannical rule, to be like the Nazis. Oh, wait, they've done each and every one of these things. Never mind. Dems should not be going out of their way to paper this over in order to appear to be "fair and balanced". I like and respect Dems who call out the right for what it clearly is--white supremacist fascist ratfuckers who hate anyone not like them.

</rant>

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Sherrod Brown (0.00 / 0)
He's not that young.  He's 55.  But that does give him about a 15 year window in national office.
[ Parent ]
And how could I forget (4.00 / 3)
As long as Al Gore remains viable and keeps the door open, he will forever be my #1 guy to run for President.  He's a strong progressive - right about Iraq since day one, single-payer health care, gay marriage, climate change (I could go on) - he has a tremendous amount of experience, is a veteran, and should've been President the past 7+ years.

There's still a very small chance he could come in as a unity candidate this year in the event of a deadlocked convention, but if not, he's my #1 guy in 2012 in the event of a McCain win this November and, if not, will be my #1 guy in 2016.

Netroots for Gore

[ Parent ]
Gore is not a progressive. imho (0.00 / 0)


Jeff Wegerson
[ Parent ]
Are you kidding? (0.00 / 0)
That must be why he netted over 70% in Daily Kos polls when included.

Netroots for Gore
[ Parent ]
Give up (4.00 / 1)
Give up on Gore

He is great on global warming, but show me what else he has done! I love him for his global warming stance.

But if he won we would have Lieberman as our incumbent!

Come on man this was a guy who held hearings on rap music!

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

[ Parent ]
That was nearly 20 years ago (4.00 / 4)
People change. Give it up. Sheesh.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
20 years? (4.00 / 1)
I know the Bush presidency has felt like a long time, but it hasn't been 20 years since Gore picked Lieberman. :)

and yes, people can change.  

[ Parent ]
Lieberman in 2000 was the Lieberman during the Bush (0.00 / 0)
presidency. I don't remember people having huge issues with Lieberman as Gore's VP. Lieberman would have been forgotten as  someone who had once been on the ticket if he hadn't been in Bush's corner in Iraq. VPs have been nobodies in office until Cheney. Other than Pappy Bush have another VP actually carried the torch in recent or distant history?
[ Parent ]
I remember people having huge issues with Lieberman. (4.00 / 1)
It's what kept me from voting for him. I know that guy was a slippery, lame conniving, arrogant ass then.

I was on the fence, but there was no way I was voting for good ol' Mr. PMRC.

[ Parent ]
so you voted for Bush or Nader (0.00 / 0)
instead? who votes for a presidential ticket based on the VP?
[ Parent ]
Lots of people (0.00 / 0)
if the Prez keels over, he's running the country, so he'd better be somebody you'd vote for at the top of the ticket.

Not quite the same: a lot of people voted for Bush in 2000 on the assumption that Cheney would keep him running on an even keel.

[ Parent ]
but nobody votes for Gore instead of Clinton (0.00 / 0)
or that a Republican would not vote for Bush because of Cheney. I realize that in theory, people consider the veep in case something happens, but the veep is never a ticket breaker. Not in my life time anyway. Even "potatoe" Quayle didn't kill Pappy Bush.

Maybe that will change this year with the Unity Obama/Hillary or Hillary/Obama ticket. I'm beginning to think the Unity ticket is a wet dream never to happen.

[ Parent ]
Yes (4.00 / 2)
I collected signatures to get Nader on the ballot.

I did this partly because I did not like Gore, and because I was tired of the Dems drift to the right. But it put me over the edge when he picked Lieberman. Everyone talked about Lieberman as a conservative Dem and as them desperate to run a middle ticket.

And before you attack me for 'putting Bush in office' let me say this:

Nader didn't spoil the election.

Gore-Lieberman spoiled the election. Nader only had thunder because G-L were running on such a conservative ticket and Nader had progressive issues he was running on.

Now if Nader runs, he will have little to no backing---because people like Obama are new energy and new hope for the Dems (I think) and even Clinton is running on ending the war, universal healthcare, and a so-called time out on trade.

Now granted neither Obama or Clinton are perfect. But I am more excited by many of their policy promises than G-L's. They are running a more progressive ticket than GL did for sure. IMHO

Anyway, my 2 cent

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

[ Parent ]
you're defensive about Nader ... (0.00 / 0)
that's almost as bad as admitting you support Hillary.

No, I'm not in the Nader put Bush in the WH school. I think (no way to prove it) that Nader's voters would have stayed home instead of voting for Gore if Nader didn't run.

Florida wouldn't have mattered if Gore won Tennessee, his home state. How can you lose your home state?

[ Parent ]
as we've just seen in NY. (0.00 / 0)
a candidate's running mate is very important.
The idea of Lieberman as heir apparent was too much to take.

I voted for Nader in 2000, California went safely for Al Gore,  save the speeches and finger waving because i'm not interested.

Nor do I support Ralph's runs in 2004 or 2008.

The scapegoating of Ralph Nader in 2000 was one of the lamest things about an election cycle that was pretty lame overall. It was, however, very effective, many people were convinced Ralph is why we lost. It isn't.

-C.

[ Parent ]
I was referring to CD label and censorship (4.00 / 1)
I.e. Tipper's War on Dee Snyder and Twisted Sister. Not his horrible VP pick. I thought that was implicit given the comment that I was responding to.

And yes, he has changed. Anti-war, pro-environment (always has been, actually), anti-corrupt and polluting corporations, pro-constitution, pro-reason, etc. Anyone who doesn't consider him a progressive now is obliged to make a solid case to support it.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
haha many people have forgotten Tipper's (0.00 / 0)
war on music.  
[ Parent ]
Did you ever read .. (4.00 / 2)
"Assault on Reason"?  .. it sounds like 2000 has made Gore into a DFH
[ Parent ]
20 years is nothing (0.00 / 0)
The GWBush Administration is the result of 35-40 years (at least) of effort on the part of the NeoCon Junta.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Gore is not a progressive (0.00 / 0)
The perceptions of the Kos Krowd notwithstanding.

I admire his environmental advocacy and his opposition to the Iraq war, but when it comes down to it the guy is a corporate Dem all the way.

The Clinton administration was unacceptable to progressivism on many levels, and Gore was on board for almost everything.

[ Parent ]
That was a decade ago (4.00 / 2)
Can you please provide examples of his being pro-"corporate" and anti-progressive since 2000? I can't think of one. But I'm sure that you have a ready list.

And please stop lowering the level of discourse here by engaging in adolescent ad hom attacks against the most popular and visited progressive blog in the country right now. You just come across looking silly.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
even if he were interested in ever holding office again... (0.00 / 0)
he would still have to prove that the elected gore would do the same things as the elected gore.  in other words, that the change is real and not a product of different circumstances.

and since when is ANY politician not up for critique?

[ Parent ]
Unbelievable (0.00 / 0)
So if the Clinton 90's sucked so bad, like people in the blogosphere like to claim/imply, please tell me what the  holier than thou progressive movement done for me in the last 20 years?

[ Parent ]
kept social security alive (0.00 / 0)
legalized gay marriage or civil unions in a few states
raised the minimum wage a bit

Mostly it's been bad but that's the point of calling for change.  The progressive movement hasn't really been in charge since 1968 or maybe even FDR.  

Bill Clinton was good at preventing even worse damage by the right wing but he did fail to turn the country back left.  He just slowed down the right for awhile.  

[ Parent ]
Gore isn't progressive (0.00 / 0)
Gore isn't a progressive, he's a democrat who stands up for what he believes in.

I have a real problem with the label of progressive, and the entire mindset, as typically used in the blogosphere.

When people talk about "progressive issues" and try to make a distinction usually they're just talking about core democratic principals that the party has gotten away from, not value wise but politically.

I'm not defending this shift, though I do think it merrits a major discussion among all factions of the party, my point is that being a moderate center left democrat shouldn't be a strike against a fellow democrat.

I swear some people act like center wing of the party has eaten all pie and left the rest of the party with crumbs. I don't know about you but I haven't gotten much I wanted politically in quite some time and the things I was pushing for were the same things you were pushing for.

I was glad to see Al wynn go and I'm sad to see Spitzer fall.

I'm just saying, the problem with the party isn't ideological its the fact that it lacks guts, organization, and a message.

[ Parent ]
Others (0.00 / 0)
Kathleen Sebelius
Bill Richardson (although he's the reliable bet for VP this year)
Jim Webb (if he can stop doing stupid things like voting for telco immunity)
Tim Kaine
Harold Ford, Jr. (if he can get a brain transplant)
Claire McCaskill
Maria Cantwell
[ Parent ]
Harold Ford? (4.00 / 2)
  He needs a new brain AND a new heart.

 He belongs on that list as much as Joe Lieberman.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Kathleen Sebelius? (4.00 / 3)
Give me a break.  The woman gave the most banal state of the union rebuttle that I have ever seen in my life.

Harold Ford has NO place on any list discussing Progressives.  The guy is the chair of the DLC and praised Rep. Shays (R-CT).

Bill Richardson showed that he is a horrible campaigner this season.  Remember the gay debate?

Maria Cantwell is only mildly popular in her own state (WA, of which I am a resident)

Tim Kain and Jim Webb will be great leaders, but let's not pretend that they are progressives.

[ Parent ]
Cantwell's been good on energy policy (0.00 / 0)
And anyone who stands up to Hulk "Tubes" Stevens and makes him break out in a childish rant on the floor of the senate is ok in my book. And she appears to be fully supportive of the effort to defeat immunity. Not sure if I'd call her a progressive, but she has tendencies in that direction. Murray has turned out to be more of a disappointment (stupid aside, but she always appears to be in a sour and sad mood--does she EVER smile?), especially after I saw a NOW segment on local WA Dems who were hugely into defense pork (for unneeded contracts).

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
she's great on policy (0.00 / 0)
short on charisma.  Same with Gregoire - not prime time tv material.
[ Parent ]
I wouldn't put either into Dukakis territory (0.00 / 0)
More like Gore territory. Not the most "inspiring" (in his 2000 guise), but not soporifics, either. But, frankly, I never really gave a damn about this superficial aspect of politics. I'm not electing a motivational speaker or charmer, but a politician. Of course, I'm kind of in the minority on that, nation-wide. I'm probably one of the few people alive who've yet to (willingly) see an entire episode of American Idol, Survivor or that ilk of crapshows (I have been forced to sit through one or two when with friends or relatives, ech).

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Uh... (4.00 / 1)
I don't think a single person on that list is a bonafide progressive, save perhaps Cantwell.

Netroots for Gore
[ Parent ]
Cantwell (0.00 / 0)
Unapologectic Iraq war supporter.  

USA: 1950 to 2010
[ Parent ]
No (4.00 / 2)
That list is the exact wrong direction. They are all to the right of Hillary Clinton, and by decent margins.  
[ Parent ]
I'd cross off almost everyone on that list (0.00 / 0)
Except Brown, Burner, and Wexler. Maybe Patrick can get back on if he changes direction.  
[ Parent ]
Hmm (0.00 / 0)
I wonder what Burner will be like in office. I sure hope she doesn't disappoint. But I don't see any time she can move up. Maybe she could run for governor in 2012? That might work.

It will be interesting to see if Wexler runs for senate in 2010.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Like I said, off the top of my head (0.00 / 0)
And I agree that the bench isn't very deep--some of these are stretches. The real question is who's coming up in the "farm system"? I imagine that being heavily involved in local (as well as national) politics, you'd be a lot better clued in on that. Any up and comers that you see?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Some of these folks are REALLY untested (0.00 / 0)
Like Darcy Burner, who hasn't won any office yet, and some who are really new.

That said, who would have guessed 4 years ago that Barack Obama would be the top contender for President in 2008?

Watch what happens in 2009-2010 to get an idea of our bench.  Several big and medium states will elect governors in 2010, and that has traditionally been our best bench.

And lets win 2008 before we start talking about 2010, let alone 2012 or 2016.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
I disagree (4.00 / 1)
Sure, we shouldn't be counting any chickens yet, for '08 let alone beyond. But thinking about and planning for the next 5, 10, 15 years and even beyond is absolutely not premature. Successful movements always think and plan ahead and come up with contingencies to handle unforseen losses, setbacks, gains and opportunities.

Google the Powell Memo to see how the right did this.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Mark Warner and Janet Napolitano (0.00 / 0)
I've yet to see true progressive cred from either of these.  They aren't DLCers but they sure haven't shown themselves as progressives either.  
[ Parent ]
WHAT WAS HE THINKING???? (4.00 / 7)
  I found out about this at the gym this afternoon, where every TV was blaring the press conference. I set a new personal best for my pulse rate.

 I've come to the conclusion that Spitzer was NOT presidential timber anyway. There's no way any high-ranking Democratic politician who would get involved in a prostitution ring and expect the media to never find out could possibly have the savvy and the judgment to run anything resembling a competent campaign.

 Leaving aside the actual allegations, which are bad enough, I just have to wonder if the man has packing foam for brains. How did he expect to get away with this??? He's a DEMOCRAT to begin with, and a PROGRESSIVE one to boot -- the ethical bar set by the media and power structures for such politicians is set much, much higher than it is for the likes of David Vitter and Larry Craig and Rudy Giuliani. It's NOT okay if you're a Democrat -- and any Democrat who doesn't understand that needs to get educated, quick. It's not fair, but it's reality  -- if you're a progressive Democrat, you're not allowed to screw up, ever.

 Sorry, just needed to get that out of my system. I'll try to come up with an answer to the question later.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

And Spitzer Was... (4.00 / 1)
A prosecutor, right? He had a special role fighting the bad guys. Boy, did he screw up.
[ Parent ]
Agree 100% (4.00 / 2)
I was so excited about Spitzer when he was elected but after watching him for a year as NY Gov I have to agree with the keystone cops description in Matt's post.  This guy was a long, long way from being Presidential timber even before this scandal.

If Spitzer resigns, he'll be replaced by David Patterson who is actually very progressive.  He is sharp guy with an interesting story - he is African American and legally blind.

[ Parent ]
it blows my mind (4.00 / 1)
that elected men can't keep their pants zipped.

it leaves me to believe a) everybody does it and only a few get caught or b) power, sex, and money are co-addictions; or c) men are stupid.

[ Parent ]
I think I'll go with b (0.00 / 0)
I think especially so in Spitzer's case.  I think he really believed that he was above it all, above getting caught - classic hubris, I suspect, more than factors related to gender/sex.
[ Parent ]
D -- all of the above (0.00 / 0)
My strong but uninformed hunch is that A is true.

B is definitely true.  Power and money are co-addictions, and while sex is not a co-addiction along with those two particularly, it is one of the very few things that those with money and power are still not allowed to buy.  They can buy mansions and lavish vacations and $5000 meals, but they can't buy a few hours worth of sex?  How bizarre must that seem to them?

And C of course is self-evident.

[ Parent ]
Cory (0.00 / 0)
I believe Newark, NJ mayor Cory Booker tends to show up in these conversations. The documentary about him was moving in any case.
The documentary (4.00 / 1)
of Cory is much better than Cory the Mayor (who has really dropped the ball in a lot of respects, and lost the edge that made him so strong back for the first election).  As I pointed out upthread, you have to actually get things done as an executive to claim a mandate for pushing yourself further up the ladder.  Plus, it's suspected by virtually everyone in Jersey politics that he is of the McGreevey persuasion, if you know what I mean.
[ Parent ]
it's hard for Booker to turn that city around (0.00 / 0)
with 2 years in office. but that is the city he chose to start his political career in. NJ is a strange state politically. Sharpe James, the former mayor of Newark, also served as a state senator at the same time.
[ Parent ]
Ah, yes (0.00 / 0)
Nothing like dual office holding (or triple, or quadruple, for that matter) in my beloved home state.  It's especially hard to turn around Newark when you're prone to the same corrupting forces that have damaged every reformer there for the past 40 years, especially the temptation to reward friends and allies rather than getting things done no matter what the cost.  Plus, he's had some flirtations with conservative pet issues like school vouchers, if I remember correctly.
[ Parent ]
so he's gay? so the fuck what? (4.00 / 5)
that's a fucking awful thing for you to say.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.
[ Parent ]
It's just that (4.00 / 1)
Cory Booker and president are spoken frequently in the same breath.  I have no problem with the fact that he's gay, at all, but he's not openly gay, and that's a bombshell waiting to happen.  If we're talking about who is the best candidate for progressives, I would be less inclined to support someone who has unrevealed secrets from the past than someone who doesn't.  

It's one of the main reasons I wouldn't support Richardson, and it has nothing to do with being gay or not, though I do suspect that a sex scandal involving a closeted public official (as in the McGreevey instance) would be more damaging to a candidacy.  

But even if it's not a sex thing, if it's some shady business transactions or whatever else - those are the things that give me pause, and all I'm saying is that I would prefer a candidate with the best combination of the cleanest slate possible and the more progressive agenda possible.  Combined with the fact that Booker's not terribly progressive on some things, and has corruption issues too, that makes me less inclined to support him.  

You might also note that I chose Tammy Baldwin for my list of future progressives below, and she's openly lesbian.

On the other hand, now I know what it feels like to be troll rated, after having never been so here, on Kos, anywhere, but feel free to lift it if you feel like I've offered decent enough justification for my previous statement.

[ Parent ]
i don't know if it is fair to measure Booker (0.00 / 0)
by progressive ideals. The previous mayors were Democrats, and there were decades of corruption. there are barely any non- government jobs, and patronage and political favoritism were used to dispense city jobs. in the 1980s, during a water supply problem, they found out that the water system's chief of security was living in Florida.

the guy who volunteered to drive Booker's parents around during the campaign later expected a city job once Booker became mayor. the issues for Newark don't really include whether the previous or current mayor is progressive enough.

[ Parent ]
lifted. I just felt like it seemed that being gay was a "negative" for a future (0.00 / 0)
office by the tone of your post.  but i now know what you meant.

It's the exact same deal with Janet Napolitano.  It's an open secret in Arizona, but it probably wouldn't survive a national election without being a big deal.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

[ Parent ]
Sharpe James called Booker a (0.00 / 0)
f-gg-t, white boy. Just because he's attractive, and single without a girlfriend? I'm sure he had girlfriends in college. Do you think he will have to hold a press conference and declare, "i'm not gay and have never been gay." i guess he will have to get married, or he can't have higher political ambitions.  
[ Parent ]
It's a really difficult situation (4.00 / 2)
just based on what I know as someone who is really well connected to Newark politics, it's a virtual lock.  I could be wrong, but I really do not think that I am.  I honestly don't care either way, if he's gay, not gay, whatever, and as I said, it's really difficult.  I think it's especially true given the fact that black men face a completely difference challenge in coming out than do white men.  I don't really know what the end result is, or should be, for Cory Booker, but acting as your own true, honest sexuality dictates is the only advisable option, in my view.  Unfortunately, I think the political CW would be cover up to the greatest extent possible if you really want to go somewhere (especially if we're talking about the upper echelons of national politics), despite the pitfalls of many who have covered things up, to their ultimate detriment.
[ Parent ]
i don't know about his sexuality other than (0.00 / 0)
what i've read. but it was part of well-connected Newark politics to attack for him to not be black enough, and part of that was sexuality. James said he didn't have time to teach Booker how to be black, and James (i think) openly had girlfriends.

if Booker has higher ambitions as in running for governor or president, then he will have to have a sham marriage (like Larry Craig), a real marriage or openly declare that he is gay. i don't think Americans are ready for a bachelor (never been married) in the governor's mansion or in the WH. You can be a senator (a lifelong bachelor like Thad Cochran even in Miss.) or Barney Frank.

[ Parent ]
The problem is (4.00 / 1)
that he already faces a lot of institutional challenges, as you mention with Sharpe (who ironically is known not just for his trysts with females, but with males as well, not to mention drugs).  There's racism from whites, racism from blacks, homophobia...plus actual political problems.  He has a lot of potential, I just hope he does the right thing and sorts everything out.  He could be a big star for us down the road, no matter what his race or sexual orientation.
[ Parent ]
we're continuing this on 2 threads (4.00 / 1)
i agree if he succeeds in Newark, he will be a star. but he can't change decades of decline in one term. plus, he's almost too good to be true, if you've read about his background, Stanford football player, class president, Rhodes scholar. and he didn't take the safe political route, going to back to run in the suburbs where he grew up. he wanted to revive Newark, and after working there as an attorney, he figured that politics was the best way. i guess i'm just impressed that he his doing something in politics more concrete for change. it's life or death in Newark.
[ Parent ]
James Buchanan was a bachelor president. And that was 150 years ago. (0.00 / 0)
Btw, most people believe he was probably gay.  

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.
[ Parent ]
he's already generally considered the worst president in (4.00 / 1)
history (may be second worst now), and now you're telling me he's the only president to never married, ding ding ding ;-)
[ Parent ]
He can already be anything except president, if he plays his cards right. (4.00 / 3)
Charlie Crist, Janet Napolitano, Barbara Mikulski, Lindsay Graham, and a half-dozen others prove that you can get pretty damn far already if you stay in the closet just right.

The first two have hit the glass ceiling, because they would both be obvious VP choices but for the sexuality factor.  Still, all four have risen quite far, and I don't know that the Attorney General slot is off-limits to them either (hell, Condi got to be Sec State).

Getting married, however, is a terrible idea.  McGreevey and Craig went this route, and it turns what many Americans already regard as an appropriately private matter into something quite different, the obvious and deliberate betrayal of another human being.  It is really hard to think highly of someone who conducts a sham marriage, unless the other spouse is in on the secret, in which case it just becomes bizarre.

But you can stay unmarried and do pretty damn well already.  Cory Booker can't be president, but there are plenty of people like him who have stayed subtle and become governor.

[ Parent ]
Charlie Crist was married (0.00 / 0)

and his girlfriend was/is pretty hot. unless you think that both were sham relationships.

McGreevey's problem was not his sham marriage, it was giving a job to his lover, which would have been a major issue if the lover was female. 

there is nothing subtle about Lindsay Graham.

i'm not worried about Booker's sexuality. i don't think he's gay. but if he were, i wouldn't care how he handled that.

there are sham straight marriages. i mean, it's not like Jackie O. didn't know about JFK's womanizing.

sham relationships are not all bad. we live in a sham democracy. we don't vote for our  president nationwide. our states decide. i live in Georgia, my vote is wasted every 4 years.


[ Parent ]
Whoever you are, I have got news for you: (0.00 / 0)
Charlie Crist is as gay as a tree full of parrots.  Being gay, my gaydar pings off the charts when I see him.  However, it's an open secret, regardless of anyone's gaydar, down in Florida.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.
[ Parent ]
i'm not gay, so my gaydar doesn't always work (0.00 / 0)
i take your word about Crist.

what does your gaydar say about Booker?

[ Parent ]
haha, I don't know him. Don't even know what he looks like. (0.00 / 0)
Not a Jerseyan.

He sounds like quite the up-and-comer, though.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

[ Parent ]
this link just one of many stories about Booker (4.00 / 1)
Urban Legend,  the New Yorker just did a profile in February. he's almost too good to be true.  there is also a documentary called "Street Fight" about his first campaign for mayor, when he lost.  
[ Parent ]
Both were sham relationships. (0.00 / 0)
The "marriage" lasted all of seven months, ended in annullment, and I think was in his late 20s or something.

The girlfriend is very very recent.  She's in on the secret I'm sure, so it's not like he's taking advantage of her.  I'm sure they really do like each other as people.

McGreevey's problem was not the job.  Straight people give jobs to their lovers all the time.  Remember Bill Richardson having to find a job for Monica Lewinsky?

His problems were 1) this particular job was director of New Jersey Homeland Security, 2) he gave it to a former Mossad secret agent, and 3) his lover was a dude.  It probably would have been handled quietly if it had just been the first two though.

[ Parent ]
McGreevey gave his lover a job he was not (0.00 / 0)
qualified for. i guess it goes along the lines of a live guy or dead girl.

i don't remember Richardson finding a job for Lewinski, it was another internship or some thing minor, not something she was really unqualified for.

to be intern on the Hill, you have to have been connected anyway or very good looking. as someone who grew up in Richmond, and worked in No. Va. in the summers in college, my friends and I would go up to the Hill just to gawk.

[ Parent ]
it was more than that (0.00 / 0)
Richardson got her an interview at the UN after an in person meeting with her at the Watergate.  A job offer for a position in PR that she was at best not really qualified for followed shortly after.
[ Parent ]
are you equating an offer for a PR job at the UN (0.00 / 0)
to "Counselor to the Governor." A PR job is still a minor job, and many women and men who don't service anyone are offered PR jobs if they knew someone. It's not like we live in a meritocracy in our work force.  
[ Parent ]
Booker is the real deal (0.00 / 0)
for one thing, he lived in a housing project, and only moved because it was being torn down. his apartment didn't even have hot water at times. some people said that it was a political ploy or that he didn't always spend the night there. but still ...

if he turns around Newark, almost a lost cause in that the declines have been decades, then he will have a great record. although, Booker has been accused of being a centrist or right leaning Democrat.

[ Parent ]
I'd like to suggest (4.00 / 1)
Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr.  He is one of the few progressives in Illinois who can think boldly and who is willing to challenge the establishment.  Though he may decide to run for Mayor of Chicago, he may also end up staying in the House and advancing in leadership there.  I guess Governor of Illinois is a possiblity but that will almost certainly go to someone a bit more "in line."  One might think he would be a favorite as a replacement for Barack in the senate should Barack go to the White House, but I think he is seen as too much of a boat-rocker for that to happen. And again, there are other people in line ahead of him for that. He may be too controversial to be a presidential candidate, but I think he could be a great progressive leader.
too timid (0.00 / 0)
when he took a pass on running against Daley last year, he decided that being a Congressman was good enough.

I would have scraped every bit of rubber off my soles working for him had he run, but he wimped out.

[ Parent ]
the boldest young Dem in Illinois (0.00 / 0)
is probably Alexi Giannoulias, the State Treasurer.

I'm not sure how progressive he is, but he is disliked by most every other Democratic power-broker in the state, which is a plus in my book.  Madigan hates him, I'm pretty sure that Gov Blowhard does (why couldn't Gov blowhard been busted instead of Spitzer?), and I'm sure that Hynes and Daley hate him to boot.

Unfortunately, winning a Presidential election is probably too much for him, he has a questionable background.

But he is an awesome State Treasurer, and will be an awesome Governor, someday.  Should the good people of my State decide against handing the Governorship to Madigan's daughter.

I hate the nepotism in this State, but I do have a relatively hard time criticizing Lisa Madigan.  But she's still a Legacy.  Much more progressive than her father, sure, but still she's the heir of a powerful politician.

[ Parent ]
ahead of ourselves? (4.00 / 1)
I mean, we haven't even sorted out this years mess yet. ;)

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
Comparison to Feingold? (0.00 / 0)
A divorce and prostitution are not at all the same. I'm surprised you feel about the same today. I think a lot of pundits felt Feingold's second divorce would damage him politically, but I just don't see it. Ronald Reagan solved that problem, and Republicans this year didn't like the guy who hadn't been divorced because he was from Utah. Everybody loves divorced pols, I guess, especially if they serve papers to their soon-to-be-ex spouse as she lies in the hospital. Prostitution, on the other hand, is a bright line pols just cannot cross. Marital infidelity is "OK" -- see John McCain -- but paying for it isn't.
Just to be clear (0.00 / 0)
I do not think they are equivalent, at all. What Spitzer did is entirely different, and corrupt. Just wanted to make that clear, as I attempted to do in the article.  
[ Parent ]
You (0.00 / 0)
were perfectly clear.
[ Parent ]
I'm from CT but would love to have Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D-MT) run for Prez (4.00 / 3)
By 2012, he should be ready for the national scene.  If he can take the lead on energy policy and coming up with practical solutions to alternative energy sources, Schweitzer will be the talk of the nation.
Totally agree but... (0.00 / 0)
...do you know how he fundraises?  Well enough to beat out a DLC-type hopefully?  You don't need much money to compete in Montana.

But he would be my top pick too.

[ Parent ]
Not sure how his fundraising is done (0.00 / 0)
I think he got a lot of small $$ donations along with some PAC money.  David Sirota was on his campaign staff, so don't think Schweitzer took "dirty" money.

In 8 years Schweitzer needs to build a national network of supporters.  I know he went to fundraisers in San Fran, CA recently.  He also helped at one of Spitzer's fundraisers when Spitzer was running for Gov of NY.  Spitzer's scandal should not hurt Schweitzer's future ambitions, but Spitzer was Schweitzer's biggest opponent for Prez in 8 years.  Now that Spitzer is gone, Schweitzer can take a lead on important issues, like energy.

[ Parent ]
Maryland AG Doug Gansler (4.00 / 4)
  When he ran for the office in 2006, he always cited Spitzer and patterned himself after him, and he shares many of the same political values. (Let's hope they don't have anything else in common.) And he's been a leader on progressive issues since taking office, even on controversial topics like gay marriage. He's popular and well-respected. He's still pretty young. I believe he has a future.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn
He seems like a great new leader (0.00 / 0)
Much better then the current Maryland governor. Only 46 years old. Maybe he could replace Babs if she retires?

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
they are going to be standing in line for that job (0.00 / 0)
when she retires.
[ Parent ]
Unlikely (0.00 / 0)
The extant political structure in the US is antithetical to a truly progressive candidate winning even the nomination for president.  Centrist or center-right Democrats will inevitably be the Democratic candidates in 2012 and 2016, barring some enormous reversal of fortune.  The whole issue of plausible progressive candidates is a moot point, since such people would be doomed to failure due to the power the orthodox, center-right establishment.  
Damn that plane crash. Wellstone. (4.00 / 4)
But probably too old for the likes of 2012 2016 etc. anyway.

Jeff Wegerson
He decided against a run in 1999 (4.00 / 3)
He looked into running in 1999, but decided against it for health reasons (he had a bad back from wrestling in high school). I can only imagine how a 1999-2000 Wellstone run would have jumpstarted and changed the face of the progressive movement. It would have been Howard Dean before Howard Dean. It could have prevented Nader. It could have changed a helluva lot.

He will be missed. He was one of the very few.  

[ Parent ]
Yeah... (0.00 / 0)
but he wouldn't have beaten Gore.  He would have been a good VP for Gore though.
[ Parent ]
Wellstone (4.00 / 2)
My hero. He came to Philly in 99 for a fundraiser when he was thinking about running, and wow.  

I first me him was a 17 year old kid who only vaguely knew that he was the guy who proudly called himself a liberal in the mid 90s disaster era, and won re-election.  And, I was considering colleges in Minnesota- one by his house, and one where used to teach.  My dad mentioned that to him, and ol' Paul stopped shaking hands to talk colleges with my 17 year old punkass.

Anyway, I think it was probably more the MS that was later publicly diagnosed than the back that kept him from running.

But, yeah, I always thought the netroots and Wellstone would have been quite well-suited for each other.

[ Parent ]
Even with the MS (0.00 / 0)
I got to see him jump up on a table.

He gave a shit.

Not perfect, nobody is...but he truly cared.

[ Parent ]
Who as leaders or who as progressive leaders? (4.00 / 2)
If we are talking about leaders of the progressive movement or leaders of the progressive wing. It really depends.

We've got a lot of great progressive members of the house but they need to get into the Senate or some statewide office.

Jesse Jackson Jr would be one for sure. Sherrod Brown maybe.

But mostly it will be rising stars that will have a chance. Jared Polis is a big progressive movement funder who is running for congress in Mark Udall's district. I could see him  making a successful run for governor in 2014 which would make him the first openly gay governor in history. But I doubt he'd jump directly to a presidential run in 2016. Maybe sometime later as he is fairly young.

I wasn't ever very exited about Spitzer. He is a member of the DLC and is conservative on quite a few issues. He was a good AG but he needs to go. He violated the trust of all of us and needs to resign.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

Wait (0.00 / 0)
Spitzer is DLC? Not that I don't believe you, but can I see a link to proof; I just a bit shocked, and I think I need some clarification. I always thought of Spitzer as one of the leaders of the Progressive movement. What gives?

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
For one he was (0.00 / 0)
New Dem of the week:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cf...

However to be fair he has distanced himself from the DLC a few times and his work as AG was very anti-greed which is at odds with the DLC. He is not exactly a movement progressive though and I don't see him as having any political future now.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Isn't Obama on that list too? .. (4.00 / 1)
Yet he distanced himself from the DLC too ..  it sounds like the DLC tries to get their hooks into an up and coming pol
[ Parent ]
Probably (0.00 / 0)
The DLC has a history of playing fast and loose with their lists of "affiliated" politicians. They basically spin any association whatsoever, no matter how attenuated, as being sufficient to call somebody one of their own. It's kind of pathetic and leaves one with the distinct impression that they have no principles.
[ Parent ]
which state is polis from, CO or NM? (0.00 / 0)


For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.
[ Parent ]
Mark Udall (0.00 / 0)
Colorado's forth district.

He is very progressive though so it might be hard.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
It's Colorado's 2nd (here's my full list) (0.00 / 0)
Jared Polis is running in a heated 3-way primary in Colorado's 2nd CD (Boulder).  He is a very strong progressive who has the added benefit of being a highly successful businessman.  If he wins the primary, he definitely deserves consideration.

Furthermore, Rep. Mark Udall of CO-2 is running for Senate this year.  He has a great shot to be a progressive leader in the Senate.

Rep. Diana DeGette of Denver has been very outspoken on some progressive issues and stands to be a very vocal leader in the House as long as she stays there.  (I don't see a lot of moves into statewide office that wouldn't hinder her current clout, provided Rep. Udall wins the Senate seat in '08.)

Outside of the greater Denver area...

Sen. Jack Reed is safe enough and unimpeachable on national security to be a forceful leader.
Sen. Claire McCaskill is coming along nicely, but I'd like to see her win a reelection to solidify her base.
Rep. Artur Davis of AL is adamant but could be restricted from moving statewide by his state's demographics (politically as well as racially).
Sen. Jon Tester has been surprisingly direct in support of the left (for a Montanan) from what I've seen so far.
Rep. Steve Cohen of Memphis is excellent.  (He put a rider on a Defense of Marriage Amendment in the TN state senate that included adultery in the same language, perhaps the only poison pill he could have given such an amendment in the south - and one that made some powerful people very nervous.)
Gov. Deval Patrick has me interested, but it's early yet and I'd like to see national leadership on something.
I don't know who is angling for Rep. William Jefferson's seat in New Orleans, but if Virginia Boulet or another strong progressive took the seat they would have ferocious moral capital and a rabidly Democratic base.

And five who aren't currently in office...

Lance Armstrong describes himself as "left of center" and is interesting in running for Governor of Texas.  He doesn't say just how left he is, but consider that he dated Sheryl Crow for a long time and Matthew McConaughy is a close friend.  I get the vibe that he's a big closet lefty.  He has the clout to successfully challenge Kay Bailey Hutchinson in '10, and if he does, the sky could well be the limit.
Elizabeth Edwards could very conceivably move into the Senate from NC.  I think she would make a natural challenger (or successor) to Libby Dole in '14 if Dole is reelected.
John Grisham is rolling in dough, and Virginia will be looking for another, preferably a rich, Democrat to take the Governor's race in 2009.  George Allen has lined up on the Republican side, and with Webb and Warner in the Senate, it's not inconceivable that he'd do it.  He's given six figures to Democrats in his life and spent 8 years as a Democrat in the Mississippi state house.  I'm not sure how he'd govern, though.
Al Franken has some serious potential if he wins the primary and knocks out Norm Coleman decisively.
If Charles Barkley ever ran for office in Alabama (as he's mentioned many times) and won, woe to any conservative who opposed him in debate.

[ Parent ]
We never had him. (0.00 / 0)
This shows he was never Presidential material in the first place. Unless you're just disappointed that he got caught, which I assume isn't the case.
Houston Mayor Bill White (0.00 / 0)
...except that he looks like a muppet.
A muppet for president would be awesome (4.00 / 1)
I'd vote for one.
[ Parent ]
Sherrod Brown (4.00 / 3)
Sherrod Brown. Sherrod Brown. Sherrod Brown. Sherrod Brown.

Arguably the most progressive A-list politician we have, and an AUTOMATIC electoral winner to boot. If we win Ohio, we win.

Brown will have Edwards Syndrome. (0.00 / 0)
Brown does escape several of Edwards' weaknesses: he doesn't have a credibility-crushing mid-career political conversion, he isn't a "pretty boy" who glided through life on his looks (this unfortunately colored a lot of DC peoples' perceptions of him, I think), and he's been in politics a very long time.

That said, in the current media/political regime, Sherrod Brown would get disappeared.  If he did manage to win, he'd get McGoverned, Deaned, or otherwise sabotaged.  Sherrod Brown's economic platform is simply unacceptable to the American ruling class, at present at least.  Their opinions could change, or the structure of media power in this country could change, or Brown could make some conciliatory moves I guess, or a combination of all three, but at present, Brown is a dead letter.

Which, of course, is too bad.  Sherrod Brown would be a brilliant Obama VP, if only his ideas weren't completely unacceptable to the ruling class.  In looks, age, temperament, experience, geography, political history, voting record, etc, he's perfect.  And he'd be a great 2016 president as well.

[ Parent ]
Inside info from an aide - Spitzer hates politics (4.00 / 2)
A friend of my sibling is a longtime aide of Spitzer's (now lobbying - for good guys)

I saw this person last fall - this person said that Spitzer actually hates politics (though he likes doing good) and this person could not imagine that Spitzer would follow thru and run for the Presidency.

This person said that Spitzer wouldn't even run for re-election.  

That is interesting. (0.00 / 0)
What about "politics" does Spitzer hate, I want to know?

Obviously he used to like something he did.  I guess he liked being prosecutor and the prosecutor-aspect of AG, but doesn't like, what, the campaigning, the fundraising, the asskissing, the doubletalk?

I don't know.  My concept of politics is honestly pretty thin, even after four years of this blog thing.

[ Parent ]
Nah. (0.00 / 0)
Spitzer has been a dud from the beginning. The first scandal was the one that did him in, frankly--when you run as a man who is practically above reproach, these things hit hard. For any other pol it might have been business as usual, but for him it was fatal. Then when he failed on the drivers license thing, the other leg collapsed--we elected him because he said he was a steamroller, and he couldn't get anybody behind his first ambitious undertaking?

He was going to run as a tough, honest guy who got things done, and that was all ashes before we found out he liked hookers. This may be the one that gets him out of office, but he killed his dreams long ago.

As for the question of the bench: Chris, do you really spend time thinking about such things? There are about eighty democrats who are governors or senators at the moment, plus hundreds of congressmen and a few other very plausible candidates who aren't currently in office--I really don't think we'll be forced to put up Evan Bayh for lack of a qualified and popular progressive.

Double nah (0.00 / 0)
With his spying on Bruno and his antagonizing health care workers, he was already damaged goods.  And so quickly, too....
[ Parent ]
From Maryland (4.00 / 1)

I think Maryland's Governor Tommy Carcetti Martin O'Malley has a decent shot for the presidency in 2012 or 2016. Yes, he's DLC, but he's got a pretty good record on environmental and labor issues, and he's shown he's willing to raise taxes even at the expense of his popularity, at least in the short term. His civil liberties record, however, might hold him back.

I also agree with the above commenter that Doug Gansler could make a good President, or at least Attorney General. I'll also throw in Comptroller Peter Franchot, who clearly has his eye on higher office. Now if he can just avoid teeing off everybody in the state...


he is a pretty boy (0.00 / 0)
lock 'em up and throw away the key, while I wear my black muscle shirt and play guitar on stage, kind of pretty boy
[ Parent ]
holy moly! (0.00 / 0)
I just now made the Carcetti/O'Malley connection.
wow! nice one.
[ Parent ]
My list (4.00 / 2)
As potential leaders, presidential or congressional:

Russ Feingold
Sherrod Brown
Bob Menendez
Sheldon Whitehouse
Xavier Becerra
Robert Wexler
Gwen Moore
Tammy Baldwin
Hilda Solis
The Udalls
Chris Murphy
John Sarbanes
Rob Andrews
Brad Miller
Rush Holt

DC Mayor Adrian Fenty (0.00 / 0)
While I honestly know very little about him, I have always been impressed the few times I have heard Adrian Fenty
Here are my questions: (0.00 / 0)
How common is it for politicians to consort with prostitutes?  My bet is that it's really damn common.  Really common.  But I don't know, which is why I'm asking.

Why was Emperor's Club VIP being targeted?  

I'm inclined to wonder if the organization was targeted because "a few of the prostitutes came to realize he was the governor of New York."  I realize that's conspiratorial, but, it's also solidly within the realm of possibility I think.  Prosecution is selective.  Prosecutors are the professional politicians in whom professional criminals, and other professional politicians, are most interested.  Prosecution is a politically tinged profession.  Just ask a bunch of ex-US Attorneys.

Anyway, I'm wondering if what we're looking at is:

A) relatively few politicians consort with consorts, and Spitzer was one of them, which means he was practically begging to get caught, just like Vitter

B) around half of all politicians consort with prostitutes, but it was random chance that Spitzer's name and not Bruno's or Silver's or Schumer's or Giuliani's came up this time, just as it was random chance that Vitter and not some Democratic Senator came up in Palfrey's List

C) around half of all politicians consort with prostitutes, Spitzer was among the many politicians presumed (by those with an interest in knowing) to be among them, and at some point this particular means of unloading on him was selected, calls were made to the DA, and the wiretaps begun.

I'd say B and C each have about a 50% chance of being true.

I'd also like to know how this story came to be in the NYT.  Specifically, Spitzer is identified in the court filing as Client Nine.  Is is common for the identity of unnamed figures to be widely known among those with an interest in a given case?  I'd assume it is, so the "leak" of Spitzer's identity from the prosecutor's office to the newspaper is nothing unusual.  I could be wrong about that too though.

The real question is when and why was the investigation into "Emperors Club VIP" begun.  Was Spitzer the reason that particular investigation was begun or did the investigators not even run across him until later?  It's a simple empirical question, but I don't know the answer.  A sidelight question is, aren't politicians supposed to be able to get investigations like this buried?  It would be more true to type if the whole matter was abandoned as soon as Spitzer came up, right?

I suppose that means I have to add:

D) around half of all politicians consort with prostitutes, there's no particular reason to be shocked that Spitzer is one of them, but most of these politicians are able to call off the local DAs when necessary, and it was only due to Spitzer's strong political opposition that he was unable to convince the DA to bury the case

There's also "E) justice in America really is blind", but I have to admit I have a harder time believing that than any of the others.

Also, the "I'm Eliot Spitzer, but I'm registering in this hotel as George Fox, but with my own Fifth Avenue address" detail... that's weird.

my short, short list (4.00 / 1)
Mark Ritchie (MN SoS), arguably the most progressive politico in Minnesota, I've been very impressed with a number of his initiatives surrounding civic engagement and have heard him talk on more than one occasion.

Hilda Solis, Anyone know if she's thinking of making a run at Arnie?

Brian Schweitzer, MT-Gov

Sheldon Whitehouse.

Sherrod Brown.

...and that's it.  Clearly, I'm a progressive--but I'd much rather see someone who is smart and willing to put up a good fight.  If either Ritchie or Solis can raise their profiles within their state/region I feel they might have a shot.

I like your list (0.00 / 0)
And I like Schweitzer, but I don't think he'd ever run for President.  From what I understand, Montana state government is pretty much part-time, and since he's been governor he's never expressed the slightest bit of interest in going to D.C.  Plus, I remember reading somewhere that he was pretty bad on energy? I could be completely off base on that, but it would be great if someone else knew better, because on the face of things he seems to be a great example of a Mountain West Democrat.
[ Parent ]
hmm (0.00 / 0)
Didn't realize it was part-time, but after just about every profile I've ever read I've found myself wanting to have a beer with the man.

This, of course, would avoid what sunk Kerry in 2004.

[ Parent ]
Yep (0.00 / 0)
The Montana Legislature meets only in odd numbered years, and for 90 days at a time, which I suppose makes it easier to feel more comfortable at home than in the mode of constant political engagement. That said, it didn't stop Jon Tester (thankfully).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

[ Parent ]
BO (0.00 / 0)
Whatever happens. I'm glad to have Barack Obama in the Democratic party and he will be 'elder' after this. No matter what.  
Well I'd like to run some day (4.00 / 1)

Hubris and Jung (4.00 / 1)
The hubris of someone who raves daily about corruption, while simultaneously allegedly engaging in "structuring" and (less importantly, in some ways) soliciting prostitution, is pretty extreme.  If that's what Spitzer did, then I think it is a good illustration of the Jungian principle of the "shadow."

Can you imagine how much more damage this would have done to progressive causes if it had come out while Spitzer was actually running for President?

SPITZER DLC (0.00 / 0)
It's a sad day when members of the DLC are described as Progressives.  I see nothing progressive about the DLC.  It is the members of the DLC who have willingly gone along with Bush policies, and have spinelessly refused to hold the Bush administration accountable.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cf...

Does it really matter? (0.00 / 0)
>> I feel as though progressives have lost their top bench contender for President of the Unites States.

>>Remembering how much days like these hurt reminds us that we need to embrace the few progressive we have, and help incubate a bunch more, in order to one day build a progressive national leader. It takes a long time to build a President.

There will never be a shortage of people wanting to run for President.  I remember in 1992 people saying it was all over, no one would take on Bush now that Cuomo wasn't running.

Hogwash, that turned out to be.

And by the way, who are the hot Republican contenders of the future?  Somehow, I can't think of any.  But sure as shit, they'll be lining up in 2012.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

Check out the Republican field this year. (4.00 / 1)
Five deeply flawed candidates.  (And yes, McCain is deeply flawed.)

It is possible to periodically have no highly viable contender for president from an entire party.  It is even more possible to have no highly viable contender for president from a certain wing of a party, such as the progressive wing.  We had no crystal-clear progressive choice this time: Obama 1.0 was progressive, and Edwards 2.0 was progressive, but Edwards 1.0 was not and Obama 2.0 is extremely ambiguous.

Chris is not insane to worry about this.  Of course there will always be people willing to run for president, but a bunch of Mitt Romney-quality candidates is not what we want.  We don't want Kucinich as "the progressive in the race" either.

[ Parent ]
Gov. Martin O'Malley, Rep. Patrick Murphy (0.00 / 0)
My top two.
Brian Schweitzer... (0.00 / 0)
is, I think, the next great progressive... if he wants to be.  The man who would be president is extraordinarily reluctant to assume anything other than his current position.  And yet, since both of Montana's Senate seats are Democratic, there doesn't seem to be anywhere for him to go but up.  Smart (or possibly risky?) money says he'll run in 2012/6.  He's only 52, after all.

Possible others that I like are:
Sherrod Brown
Tim Kaine
Amy Klobuchar
John Lynch
Mark or Tom Udall
Sheldon Whitehouse

Schweitzer (0.00 / 0)
reminds me of Nighthorse Campbell.

Not in terms of his politics, but in terms of his outsiderness, if these stories are true.  Schweitzer goes four-wheeling around the Governor's Mansion frequently.  Schweitzer flies a different flag from one of the seven nations who lived in what is now Montana each day of the week (under the U.S. flag, naturally).  Schweitzer is also very blunt and open to cursing in on-the-record or videotaped interviews.

Might he be interested in mounting a national campaign?  Maybe.

I don't think he's someone interested in playing it safe and building a controlled coalition.  If he came away with a Presidential nomination, I think lightening would have to strike in his favor on the trail.

Don't get me wrong, he'd be a fun candidate.  But he doesn't seem like someone who is angling for higher office.  Wouldn't we have at least heard a peep out of him on the national radar this cycle?

I think we'll see any ambition he has come out when MT has its primary in a few weeks.  If he doesn't make any sort of move to get national coverage, I'd guess he's content where he is.  He does seem like that rare breed, the politician truly happy with his station in life.

[ Parent ]
Schweitzer has the right charisma for a future national run (0.00 / 0)
All he needs is the right campaign manager, innovative, creative, and humorous marketing plan, and aides to help him build a national campaign.

Ronnie Reagan was less talented and charismatic than Schweitzer, but he got the right people together and the time was right for him to run and win.  I hated Reagan, but he successfully built a national network over the years and when he was ready to run for Prez, he had a national campaign ready to roll.

[ Parent ]
incubate progressives (0.00 / 0)
"Remembering how much days like these hurt reminds us that we need to embrace the few progressive we have,"

Funny you should say this and in the same post claim that Edwards isn't a progressive leader. I guess he's just too good to be true to far too many people. Maybe this is why we progressives never win.  

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (0.00 / 0)
Don't know a whole lot about her, but she always impresses me when i see her on TV.

miasmo.com
Interesting history (4.00 / 2)
She was youngest woman ever elected to the Florida legislature (26), and Florida's first Jewish Congresswoman.

She's also a New Democrat, and a national co-chair for Clinton, FWIW.

Here's what distinguishes Wasserman Schultz for me, though. She was involved with student politics at my alma mater, the University of Florida (I was, too). UF politics is dominated by a machine, with an honorary organization (read: secret society) Florida Blue Key at the center. (FBK also dominated state politics for a long time: Bill Nelson, Bob Graham, Lawton Chiles, George Smathers were all members.)

It's hard to go anywhere in UF politics without Blue Key on your side. Wasserman Schultz was never a member of FBK, but managed to become president of the Student Senate anyway (one of the highest offices at UF). For a Senate President not to be "tapped" by FBK is considered a vicious snub.

Well, as the story goes, she went on to succeed in her political career. Years after graduating, the invite came from FBK, to be an honorary member -- and she turned it down.

For people who know, it's a stark choice: FBK wields a lot of clout, but engages in tremendously anti-democratic and plain nasty politics (Google it). She turned it down, even though few people know much about its dark side and she would never have suffered for it. That anecdote says a lot to me about her character.

No, I do not weep at the world — I am too busy sharpening my oyster knife.
    Zora Neale Hurston

[ Parent ]
Sigh (0.00 / 0)
Do any progressives read 'Rules for Radicals' anymore?

Why do some of us keep thinking we'll get where we want to be when we elect the 'perfect progressive' president? Do you not think there are millions of Mike Huckabee supporters thinking if only Mike were elected president the country would be where they want it to be?

Alinsky said: "Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution."

(Which, by the way, is why I am supporting Obama. Give us the reformation for eight years - with ongoing election of progressive congresswomen/men - and get the revolution in 2016.)

Losing A President | 163 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox