"Feingold can't win because he's Jewish and divorced"

[Cocoa]

I can hardly believe I'm reading that here at DU.

Not so much because of any PC thing, much more because the reasoning is so stupid.

It doesn't take much thinking to realize how stupid that statement is, and how pointless.

One thing that's stupid about it is simply because it's wrong.

Another thing that's stupid is, who the fuck at DU would be persuaded by such a stupid argument? Do the people that are saying this really think democratic voters, especially DUers, are going to be so ruled by fear of something so stupid that they will disqalify Feingold on such stupid grounds?

Feingold knows he's Jewish and divorced, and he knows what it takes to win, and he's running.

Go ahead, say this stupid thing as much as you want. I don't see why you would.


edit: and by the way, an endorsement by a friend, Jewish or not, doesn't make it any less stupid.

[UrbScotty]

1. 56% in battleground Wisconsin last year

Need I say more?

[Cocoa]

5. no

that says it all.

I mean, come on, the "fear of the unknown" stuff makes absolutely no sense with a Senator that has won three times in Wisconsin.

[nickshepDEM]

13. Amen?

[whistle]

2. Feingold can't win because he is now on record as a BushCo capitulator

...and therefore political poison should John McCain run in 2008.

[Cocoa]

4. that's a given

that argument will with 100% certainty be made against Feingold and every other dem running in 2008, DU wouldn't be DU without that boilerplate stuff.

The Jewish/divorced stuff is another matter entirely.

[mcctatas]

14. Don't forget short...

I think the OP said short. I've met him a few times, and he never struck me as short...of course even my 11 year old daughter is taller than I am so I guess short is relative:)

[1932]

26. Barak Obama on Feingold:

In such circumstances, attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense. Russ Feingold, the only Democrat to vote not only against war in Iraq but also against the Patriot Act, doesn't become complicit in the erosion of civil liberties simply because he chooses to abide by a deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution's design.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/30/102745/165

[JDPriestly]

3. Reagan couldn't win because he was just an actor

and divorced. Kennedy couldn't win because he was a Catholic. Don't worry.

Kerry thought he could win because he was a veteran with lots of medals and commendations, and look what happened to him. It's not what you got, it's what you do with what you got.

Every candidate has handicaps. Let's see whether Feingold makes these lemons into lemonade. He's a smart guy. If anyone can do it, he can.

[UrbScotty]

6. Good points all! (nt)

[BayCityProgressive]

7. Feingold

could and should win. We need to get this country back on at least a moderate road.

[pennylane100]

8. That argument is sometimes made to deflect from the real reasons.

If he does not win, it might be because he voted for people like
Ashcroft and Roberts. (If any of this is wrong, I stand corrected.) The point is that politicans must stand on their record and if people disagree with them they have every right to vote against them without being called bigots or sexists or racists or whatever.

[depakid]

12. That's exactly why he won't win

He's abdicated his responsibility in the senate as to advice and consent. Who would trust a person like that as President?

I wouldn't.

[election_2004]

9. The Jewish/divorced factor...

...is a concern, which might be why Feingold could be a better choice as the V.P. pick.

From my observations, it seems as though a lot of fans of the good General would be pleased with a Clark/Feingold ticket in 2008.

[Cocoa]

11. very few voters will be as FEARFUL as you

thank God! of all the things to be afraid of!

[dandrhesse]

10. I have been a huge Russ supporter but I am very disappointed with the vote

today on Roberts. Feingold said that Senate Dems were not doing all they could to fight the injustice of this administration and then today he voted to confirm Roberts! To me that is unbelievable. I am sick and tired of the Senate Dems claiming they've made a concession on a vote in hopes of some kind of deal on the next vote. That's blackmail folks and the Dems are stupid if they believe that any longer and more to the point if they think we actually believe that line.

The GOP does whatever it damn well pleases and the only way that we are going to fight anything is to fillabuster, make them read every damn thing that comes in and generally raise hell in the Senate and House each and every day. This is absolutely ridiculous that so many Dem Senators are fund-raising and promising to win back the Senate! With what?

The GOP owns the ballot box and it looks as though the Dems are just gonna sit by and let them take the rest of the country. Our elected officials, except for a valiant few are completely worthless, we may as well just have the CEO's of the corporations sit in the Senate and pass the laws in person instead of going through the expense and dog and pony show called Congress, it is a complete disgrace!

[shance]

15. Feingold won't win because he doesn't have what it takes.

which, on the other hand, may in fact be just the recipe to get him the nomination.

We seem to be rewarding tepid mediocrity (and/or worse) these days.

[UrbScotty]

18. Are you calling Feingold mediocre?

If so, who isn't?

[shance]

28. It's more a systemic problem we have that breeds mediocrity and

punishes those who are pushing for the vital changes necessary to maintain a healthy Democracy.

We have individuals in power, a media machine and corporations in power that are promoting a destructive mentality which prevents what I believe this country needs most: citizen involvement and an interactive community where everyone's voice has the opportunity to be heard.

I think Senator Feingold has done some great things. However, when we see good senators like him and Senator Leahy voting for the appointment like Roberts for Chief Justice, I think we have to conclude that something is just not right.

I think its a deeper problem that results from a system where profit and power have become one in the same. That will destroy any civilized entity eventually because the natural order and balance of things is being interfered with by a minority faction that wishes to control everything.

[AntiCoup2K4]

16. Feingold can't win because he's a Senator

Being divorced doesn't help. When was the last time there was an unmarried President?

Being Jewish shouldn't be an issue, and hopefully wouldn't be much of one. It was certainly the least of the issues with Holy Joe.

[UrbScotty]

19. John F. Kennedy can't win either because he's also a Senator!

:sarcasm:

[AntiCoup2K4]

20. That was 45 years ago, and nobody's done so since.

Can't take that kind of chance in 2008.

[UrbScotty]

22. It was 40 years from Harding's win to JFK's win.

If Dems followed your advice in 1960, Kennedy would never have become President.

[safi0]

23. Only 2 Senators

Have run against non-incumbents in the last 108 years I believe is the number and both were successful. If RFK a senator had been able to run in 68 we would have won. If Gary Hart a senator had run in 1988 we would have won.

[1932]

27. So true.

I think if you're running against a president, you need to look like you have executive experience, and only governors come close. Furthermore, Senators are seen as being beneath the president in heirarchical terms, but Governors are seen to be rival leaders of their own fiefdoms.

But with two guys who have never been president, being a governor isnt' that much of an advantage, and often Senators are better known nationally than governors (I think I could name many more Senators than governors).

[safi0]

30. Your completely right.

I think every American that votes regularly knows the identity of at minimum 4 Senators: Hillary, Ted Kennedy, Kerry and McCain. This number only goes up as the people becomes more politically savvy. I could probably name every single Democratic Senator and probably half of the Republican Senators. Which puts me somewhere between 80-85 on the other hand I probably couldn't name half the Governors in America. The average voting American probably knows 2 Governors: there own, and for non-CA residents Arnold.

[AntiCoup2K4]

32. So you'll go back 108 years, yet ignore the last 30 years of history?

1976 - Carter - governor
1980 - Reagan - governor
1988 - Bush Sr- sitting VP
1992 - Clinton - governor
2000 - Gore - sitting VP
or
2000 - Chimp - governor

I have no doubt that Bobby Kennedy would have been the nominee in 1968 had he not been murdered. And he would have had a damn good chance of taking the general election. And I also believe Gary Hart was on the fast track to being the nominee, before the "Monkey Business" de-railed him. And he probably would have beaten Poppy Bush.

But these two events, man made or not, are part of the history, and that history says that Senators did not win those elections.

Under your logic, Kerry would be included as well, since many believe his loss was due only to Ken Blackwell and his fellow thieves in Ohio. Yet once again, man made history is history never the less. A Senator did not win the election.

It's entirely possible that someone might beat those odds one day. It's entirely insane that we take that chance in 2008. This country simply cannot afford, in any capacity, another administration of neocon globalist criminals.

[safi0]

37. All the recent

Senators who've ran: Goldwater, McGovern, Dole, Kerry all ran against incumbent Presidents. There's not going to be an incumbent running in 08 and the two times in the last 108 years where a Senator has gotten the nomination in that scenario they've been successful.

[Dr Fate]

17. He could win if he ignores all these failed DEM strategists.

I barely know him from Adam, but I'm still sticking to my story!

[janx]

21. Where did you see this? I can't believe it.

?

[KurtNYC]

24. Those 2 things have not stopped Bloomberg nt

[1932]

25. I agree 100%, Cocoa.

[ShaneGR]

29. I wouldn't vote for him, but not because he's Jewish or divorced

I wouldn't vote for him because he's responsible for BCRA (Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act) better known as the McCain Feingold bill. Perhaps the worst campaign finance bill in the history of our country, 125 pages of worthless drivel which has done nothing but weaken the national parties and INCREASE the amount of corporate money going into election advertising.

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

31. My response to this argument:

Anybody who'd vote against a candidate simply because of their ethnicity, probably would never vote for a liberal anyway.

[Zen Democrat]

33. But hasn't he been divorced 2 or 3 times? That's Giuliani numbers.

[eyesroll]

34. We've had this discussion already.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2118283

[Chewy_dKos]

35. I'd vote for him...

....but you just know the "Family Values" repubs would hammer him to death on him being divorced. Have you ever seen a pres w/o a First lady?

[dolo amber]

36. Good point...

I'll take one for the team and marry him. Just to serve my country.

:patriot: