Election 2008: Pope Benedict and the Catholic Vote

From the New York Times:

Many years have passed since the Democratic Party was as much a part of American Catholic identity as weekly Mass and parochial school. But it still came as a shock to many Democrats to lose the Catholic vote, a key group in must-win states like Ohio, in the 2004 presidential election.

It is an experience they are determined not to repeat.

I think that opening sentence is awful.

At one time, more Catholics voted for Democrats than Republicans. OK, but don't say that affiliation with the Dems was as integral to American Catholic identity as weekly Mass. It never was.

That's terrible. Identity as a Catholic has no politics. Catholic values can affect one's politics but that's not the same as one's identity as a Catholic.

The presidential candidates are in the middle of an escalating battle for Catholic voters — most immediately between Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, but also between the two parties as they look ahead to the general election. This struggle is an important part of the backdrop for Pope Benedict XVI’s trip to the United States starting Tuesday, which has drawn gestures of respect from all of the presidential contenders.

There is widespread agreement that American Catholic voters are far more diverse than monolithic. Even so, both the Clinton and the Obama campaigns have hired Catholic outreach directors, deployed an army of prominent Catholic surrogates testifying on their behalf and created mailings that highlight their commitment to Catholic social teachings on economic justice and the common good.

Dismayed at losing so many Catholic and other religious voters to the Republicans in 2004, Democrats talk far more often, and more comfortably, about their values and the importance of their own faith these days.

Essentially, they have tried to broaden the definition of “values” issues beyond abortion rights, on which they disagree with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and many religious conservatives.

There is no way for any candidate to devise a plan to win over Catholic voters. As a group, we are far too diverse.

Furthermore, I'm not viewing Pope Benedict's visit to the U.S. in terms of the presidential election. I don't associate the Holy Father with Obama or Hillary or McCain. The Pope isn't coming here to address American politics.

...Mrs. Clinton, a Methodist, carried the Catholic vote overwhelmingly in Ohio, Texas and several other major states that have held primaries and caucuses this year, according to surveys of voters leaving the polls; she hopes to do so again in Pennsylvania, which holds its primary next week. (Aides say she is particularly popular among nuns.) In an open letter to Pennsylvania Catholics, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., two children of Robert F. Kennedy, wrote, “Catholics have a partner in Hillary Clinton, one who will work to advance the common good of all Pennsylvanians and all Americans.”

Catholics certainly don't have a partner in Hillary Clinton if they're interested in advancing the common good for all unborn Americans.

...[O]n Friday, the Obama campaign unveiled its national advisory council of prominent Catholics, including elected officials, theologians, academics, nuns and social advocates. On a conference call, Representative Patrick J. Murphy — who represents Bucks County, Pa., and prefaced his remarks by noting that he was St. Anselm’s Altar Boy of the Year in 1987 — said that Mr. Obama spoke “to the better angels in all of us.”

Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, another prominent Catholic supporting Mr. Obama, noted: “I don’t agree with him on some issues. We disagree on abortion.” But Mr. Casey said he believed that Mr. Obama, as president, would advocate for “the least, the last and the lost.”

Obama is so radical when it comes to abortion that he refused to take a stand against infanticide. He's very much like Russ Feingold in that respect.

Casey's assertion that Obama would be an advocate for "the least, the last and the lost" isn't true. Obama selects only some of "the least, the last and the lost" to defend. He doesn't want to protect the unborn. He wouldn't even agree to protect a child "accidentally" born during a botched partial birth abortion. Obama would not protect the disabled, like Terri Schiavo.

...“We’re going to devote substantial resources to winning the Catholic vote,” said Frank Donatelli, deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee. “I think the natural home of Catholics is the Republican Party.”

The campaign of Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, recently rolled out his National Catholics for McCain Committee, with Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, as a co-chairman.

Mr. Brownback’s chief of staff, Rob Wasinger, said Mr. McCain was “the full package” for Catholics, with his opposition to abortion and his support for overhauling immigration laws, a major issue for Hispanic Catholics. Against this backdrop, the pope’s words and gestures will be scrutinized not just by the faithful and the theologians, but also by political professionals in both parties.

By far, McCain's position on prolife issues makes him a superior candidate compared to Hillary and Obama, but he's not quite the full package. McCain has repeatedly voted to increase taxpayer funded embryonic stem cell research.

“The Republicans are just hoping and praying he’ll say something about abortion and gay marriage, and the Democrats are terrified he will,” said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a senior fellow and political scientist at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. “But at the United Nations, he will also say a lot of things to the left of Hillary and Obama.”

In fact, some conservatives worry that the war in Iraq, opposed by the Catholic Church from its inception, is hurting the Republican Party among Catholic voters — just as it is with other independent and swing voters.

“There’s one big question mark hanging over the Catholic vote, and that’s the Iraq war,” said Deal Hudson, an informal adviser to Mr. McCain and a longtime adviser to President Bush on Catholic matters.

There's no "one big question mark hanging over the Catholic vote."

Of course, the war in Iraq is of great concern to most Americans. It's an issue that's sure to factor into this election. However, I don't think it will determine the Catholic vote, mainly because I don't think there is a "Catholic" vote.

Catholics are far too diverse to be defined as a voting bloc.

In spite of how the media are approaching the Pope's visit, he isn't coming to America to endorse a candidate for president. I don't think Catholics in America are looking for that. The Pope is on a spiritual mission. He wants to encourage change and give us hope. (He sounds like a candidate, doesn't he?)

Whatever the Holy Father says to Americans, I'm sure he won't pander.

Barack Obama, Abortion, and Infanticide

Barack Obama doesn't like the liberal label.

At the core of Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars, and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, "we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done."

It is a promise that convinced 67 percent of all registered voters in the last New York Times/CBS News Poll, in late February, that Obama "would be the kind of president who would be able to unify the country" - far more than those who identified his Democratic rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, or the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, that way.

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

Also, and more immediately, if Obama wins the Democratic nomination, how will his promise of a new and less polarized type of politics fare against the Republican attacks that since the 1980s have portrayed Democrats as far out of step with the country's values?

Obama, in an interview, said that "a lot of these old labels don't apply anymore."

He said he was a progressive and a pragmatist, eager to tackle the big issues like health care and convinced that the Democrats could rally independents and disaffected Republicans to their agenda.

I don't see that happening at all.

I don't think Obama can bring Republicans and Dems, or liberals and conservatives together.

There is no way that any staunch pro-life voter could ever support someone as extreme as Obama.

Read about where Obama stands on abortion and other issues of interest to people who care about the sanctity of life.

On abortion issues, Obama scores a 0% from the National Right to Life Committee.

A 0% is pretty extreme. Agreed?

And then we have the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.


(Chicago Sun-Times)

A pro-life nurse is seconding a statement made by Alan Keyes that Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, pointing to his support for infanticide.

Jill Stanek is a nurse who discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms while working at a hospital in Illinois and since has been a strong advocate against partial-birth and live-birth abortions.

According to her commentary on WorldNetDaily.com, Stanek explains why Keyes made his statement.

At the federal level, legislation was presented called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) which stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote and by an overwhelming majority in the House. President Bush signed the bill into law in 2002.

Stanek wrote that, “in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.”

“Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.”

“So, the reason Keyes said Jesus Christ wouldn't vote for Barack Obama was because of Obama's fanatical support of abortion to the point of condoning infanticide.”

In a recent USA Today opinion piece, Obama admitted being "nagged" by the Jesus-wouldn't-vote-for-him statement, but only because he wished he'd given a different comeback.

Obama’s initial response, as stated in USA Today was “that we live in a pluralistic society, and that I can't impose my religious views on another.” He added that he was running to be the U.S. senator of Illinois, and not a minister.

Obama reminds me a lot of Russ Feingold when it comes to infanticide.

Like Obama, Feingold is rabidly pro-abortion.

On September 26, 1996, during debate in the Senate on partial birth abortion, Feingold revealed just how extreme he is.

Transcript

Sen. Santorum: Will the Senator from Wisconsin yield for a question?

Sen. Feingold: I will.

Sen. Santorum: The Senator from Wisconsin says that this decision should be left up to the mother and the doctor, as if there is absolutely no limit that could be placed on what decision that they make with respect to that. And the Senator from California [Sen. Barbara Boxer] is going up to advise you of what my question is going to be, and I will ask it anyway. And my question is this: that if that baby were delivered breech style and everything was delivered except for the head, and for some reason that that baby's head would slip out -- that the baby was completely delivered -- would it then still be up to the doctor and the mother to decide whether to kill that baby?

Sen. Feingold: I would simply answer your question by saying under the Boxer amendment, the standard of saying it has to be a determination, by a doctor, of health of the mother, is a sufficient standard that would apply to that situation. And that would be an adequate standard.

Sen. Santorum: That doesn't answer the question. Let's assume that this procedure is being performed for the reason that you've stated, and the head is accidentally delivered. Would you allow the doctor to kill the baby?

Sen. Feingold: I am not the person to be answering that question. That is a question that should be answered by a doctor, and by the woman who receives advice from the doctor. And neither I, nor is the Senator from Pennsylvania, truly competent to answer those questions. That is why we should not be making those decisions here on the floor of the Senate.

That exchange is chilling, so chilling that Feingold had the Congressional Record altered.

Does Obama really believe that he is the candidate capable of bringing all Americans together when he holds a position as extreme as being against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA)?

About a month ago, Rick Santorum wrote a piece on Obama's extremism, "Obama: A harsh ideologue hidden by a feel-good image."

This is a "must-read:"

American voters will choose between two candidates this election year.
One inspires hope for a brighter, better tomorrow. His rhetoric makes us feel we are, indeed, one nation indivisible - indivisible by ideology or religion, indivisible by race or creed. It is rhetoric of hope and change and possibility. It's inspiring. This candidate can make you just plain feel good to be American.

The other candidate, by contrast, is one of the Senate's fiercest partisans. This senator reflexively sides with the party's extreme wing. There's no record of working with the other side of the aisle. None. It's basically been my way or the highway, combined with a sanctimoniousness that breeds contempt among those on the other side of any issue.

Which of these two candidates should be our next president? The choice is clear, right?

Wrong, because they're both the same man - Barack Obama.

Granted, the first-term Illinois senator's lofty rhetoric of bipartisanship, unity, hope and change makes everyone feel good. But it's becoming increasingly clear that his grand campaign rhetoric does not match his partisan, ideological record. The nonpartisan National Journal, for example, recently rated Obama the Senate's most liberal member. That's besting some tough competition from orthodox liberals such as Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer.

John McCain's campaign and conservative pundits have listed the numerous times in Obama's short Senate career where he sided with the extremes in his party against broadly supported compromises on issues such as immigration, ethics reform, terrorist surveillance and war funding. Fighting on the fringe with a handful of liberals is one thing, but consider his position on an issue that passed both houses of Congress unanimously in 2002.

That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. During the partial-birth abortion debate, Congress heard testimony about babies that had survived attempted late-term abortions. Nurses testified that these preterm living, breathing babies were being thrown into medical waste bins to die or being "terminated" outside the womb. With the baby now completely separated from the mother, it was impossible to argue that the health or life of the mother was in jeopardy by giving her baby appropriate medical treatment.

The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive. To address the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that said nothing "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right" of the baby. In other words, the bill wasn't intruding on Roe v. Wade.

Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide - I wonder if he'll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: "Yes, we can."

How could someone possibly justify such a vote? In March 2001, Obama was the sole speaker in opposition to the bill on the floor of the Illinois Senate. He said: "We're saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month child delivered to term. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal-protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child." So according to Obama, "they," babies who survive abortions or any other preterm newborns, should be permitted to be killed because giving legal protection to preterm newborns would have the effect of banning all abortions.

Justifying the killing of newborn babies is deeply troubling, but just as striking is his rigid adherence to doctrinaire liberalism. Apparently, the "audacity of hope" is limited only to those babies born at full term and beyond. Worse, given his support for late-term partial-birth abortions that supporters argued were necessary to end the life of genetically imperfect children, it may be more accurate to say the audacity of hope applies only to those babies born healthy at full term.

Obama's supporters say his rhetoric makes them believe again.

Is this the kind of change and leader you believe in?

Obama has earned his liberal creds. No doubt about it.

Supremes Uphold Partial Birth Abortion Ban

This is an encouraging victory for life.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.

The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The opponents of the act "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

The administration had defended the law as drawing a bright line between abortion and infanticide.

Reacting to the ruling, Bush said that it affirms the progress his administration has made to uphold the "sanctity of life."

"I am pleased that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that prohibits the abhorrent procedure of partial birth abortion," he said. "Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America."

The decision pitted the court's conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.

It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how — not whether — to perform an abortion.

Culture of Death proponents are beside themselves.

NARAL considers the decision an attack on freedom.

Understandably, Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in America, denounced the ruling.

It claims the decision "Threatens Women's Health; Criminalizes Safe, Early Abortions."

No, it doesn't.

It criminalizes a ghastly procedure, one that's sometimes indistinguishable from infanticide.

..."Today's decision is alarming," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent. She said the ruling "refuses to take ... seriously" previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.

Ginsburg said the latest decision "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."

...The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.

Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method — dismembering the fetus in the uterus — is available and, indeed, much more common.

It's mind-boggling to me that people are troubled that a law prohibiting this gruesome late term procedure, "partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion," has been upheld.

Reread the description of the procedure. It's a violent act.

There has been so much discussion in the country the past few days about violence.

For instance, during an event in Milwaukee, Barack Obama compared the horrific, cold-blooded murders at Virginia Tech with the "verbal violence" of Don Imus.

Although Obama is clearly misguided, everyone seems to be speaking out against the violence that permeates our culture.

I think it's a hopeful sign that the Supreme Court has ruled against the violence of partial birth abortion.

Personally, I find the "common" practice of "dismembering the fetus in the uterus" an unacceptable act of violence as well, and the sign of a sick society.

I think the following verbal gymnastics are very telling.

...Doctors most often refer to the procedure as a dilation and extraction or an intact dilation and evacuation abortion.

Those terms are no less inflammatory than calling it partial birth abortion.

In a way, I think they're more disturbing because they completely dehumanize the procedure.

"Dilation and extraction" or "intact dilation and evacuation" are attempts to deflect from what's actually happening -- brutally murdering a human being.

The Supreme Court got it right today.

The ruling is a step toward a less violent America.
_________________________

So far, I haven't found any response to the ruling from Russ Feingold, rabid supporter of partial birth abortion.

On September 26, 1996, during debate on partial birth abortion, Feingold revealed just how extreme he is.

Transcript

Sen. Santorum: Will the Senator from Wisconsin yield for a question?

Sen. Feingold: I will.

Sen. Santorum: The Senator from Wisconsin says that this decision should be left up to the mother and the doctor, as if there is absolutely no limit that could be placed on what decision that they make with respect to that. And the Senator from California [Sen. Barbara Boxer] is going up to advise you of what my question is going to be, and I will ask it anyway. And my question is this: that if that baby were delivered breech style and everything was delivered except for the head, and for some reason that that baby's head would slip out -- that the baby was completely delivered -- would it then still be up to the doctor and the mother to decide whether to kill that baby?

Sen. Feingold: I would simply answer your question by saying under the Boxer amendment, the standard of saying it has to be a determination, by a doctor, of health of the mother, is a sufficient standard that would apply to that situation. And that would be an adequate standard.

Sen. Santorum: That doesn't answer the question. Let's assume that this procedure is being performed for the reason that you've stated, and the head is accidentally delivered. Would you allow the doctor to kill the baby?

Sen. Feingold: I am not the person to be answering that question. That is a question that should be answered by a doctor, and by the woman who receives advice from the doctor. And neither I, nor is the Senator from Pennsylvania, truly competent to answer those questions. That is why we should not be making those decisions here on the floor of the Senate.

That exchange is chilling, so chilling that Feingold had the Congressional Record altered.

A CHEESEHEAD PRESIDENT

Senator Russ Feingold from Wisconsin has been busy positioning himself for the 2008 presidential election. Thanks to the eager Leftist mainstream media, he's been getting a relatively good deal of attention lately.

This morning he appeared on ABC's This Week. George Stephanopoulos actually flew to Madison to tape an interview with Feingold on Saturday. Before a crackling fire, the two talked about Iraq and other issues.

The ambiance was no accident. Rather than sitting in a cold studio, Feingold was steeped in earth tones and warmth and coziness.

Although Feingold is not an unfamiliar face on the national scene, this interview presented the presidential wannabe in a carefully staged setting. Certainly, what Feingold said was important, but maybe not as important as the images. He came off as a likable, approachable nice guy.

Both Steph and Feingold wore suits. Feingold did not opt for his more rustic look or the flannel shirts he typically wears in his Senate campaign commercials, spots that have played a crucial role in propelling him to Washington. Still, the mood was relaxed and intimate. For the national spotlight, Feingold wanted to appear presidential while maintaining a Mr. Rogers persona. He was serious, yet quick to smile. Nice.

It would have been fitting for Steph and Feingold to start singing:

It's a beautiful day in this neighborhood,
A beautiful day for a neighbor.
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?...

It's a neighborly day in this beauty wood,
A neighborly day for a beauty.
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?...

I've always wanted to have a neighbor just like you.
I've always wanted to live in a neighborhood with you.

So, let's make the most of this beautiful day.
Since we're together we might as well say:
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?
Won't you be my neighbor?
Won't you please,
Won't you please?
Please won't you be my neighbor?

Of course, Feingold wasn't inviting the audience to be his neighbor. He was inviting them to support him to be the president.

As usual, he sold himself as an independent thinker, a man of values.

Steph highlighted Feingold's maverick streak by pointing out his willingness to vote his conscience rather than march in lockstep with the Dems.

Feingold was the only senator to vote against the USA Patriot Act in 2001. In addition, he's the only one among the current Dem potential presidential candidates to have voted against the war in Iraq. Solidifying his anti-war stance, back in August, Feingold was the first to advocate a timetable and a specific date for troop withdrawal from Iraq, December 31, 2006.

In the November 21 issue, The New Republic gave Feingold the cover, headlining him as "The Hillary Slayer." A cartoon depicted Feingold as David to Hillary Clinton's Goliath.

Without question, Feingold is setting himself up as an alternative to Hillary.

Will David have what it takes to slay Goliath?

No way.

While Feingold may be the darling of the radical Left, he won't be able to win the support of all those states that went for Bush in 2000 and 2004. I don't think that Feingold can win on one issue, opposition to Iraq. The fact is Feingold is an ultra-liberal.

Steph tried to counter Feingold's alliance with the libs by pointing out that Feingold voted for John Roberts. Although Feingold disappointed NARAL, it really was not a risky move. He has NARAL in his pocket, with a 93 rating.

In response to his vote on Roberts, NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin wrote:

Clearly, we’re disappointed. Wisconsinites expected Senators Kohl and Feingold to stand up to this anti-choice nominee. Both have been key allies in the past and have led the Senate in protecting the rights and liberties we all cherish.

NARAL knows that Feingold is rabidly pro-abortion.

On September 26, 1996, during debate on partial birth abortion, Feingold revealed just how extreme his views are.

Transcript

Sen. Santorum: Will the Senator from Wisconsin yield for a question?

Sen. Feingold: I will.

Sen. Santorum: The Senator from Wisconsin says that this decision should be left up to the mother and the doctor, as if there is absolutely no limit that could be placed on what decision that they make with respect to that. And the Senator from California [Sen. Barbara Boxer] is going up to advise you of what my question is going to be, and I will ask it anyway. And my question is this: that if that baby were delivered breech style and everything was delivered except for the head, and for some reason that that baby's head would slip out -- that the baby was completely delivered -- would it then still be up to the doctor and the mother to decide whether to kill that baby?

Sen. Feingold: I would simply answer your question by saying under the Boxer amendment, the standard of saying it has to be a determination, by a doctor, of health of the mother, is a sufficient standard that would apply to that situation. And that would be an adequate standard.

Sen. Santorum: That doesn't answer the question. Let's assume that this procedure is being performed for the reason that you've stated, and the head is accidentally delivered. Would you allow the doctor to kill the baby?

Sen. Feingold: I am not the person to be answering that question. That is a question that should be answered by a doctor, and by the woman who receives advice from the doctor. And neither I, nor is the Senator from Pennsylvania, truly competent to answer those questions. That is why we should not be making those decisions here on the floor of the Senate.

Yikes!

Infanticide won't win a lot of support in Red States.

Feingold's vote for Roberts will not serve to negate his extremism and his liberal voting record. The Americans for Democratic Action give Feingold a 97 rating.

His vote for John Roberts was a safe, calculated move. The Wisconsin NARAL branch didn't abandon him. He didn't lose liberal support because of his vote, but he may have gained some approval from independents.

At this point, everything that Feingold does must be viewed as preparation for a 2008 run.

Most likely, his role will be to push Hillary and others pretending to be centrists to address their true selves and their Leftist positions.

Feingold may be an appealing nice guy, but he'd be doomed to defeat if he became the Dem 2008 nominee. He’s just too liberal.

I don’t think he has a future as a vice presidential nominee either. I certainly can't see Hillary picking him as her running mate.

Although Feingold eventually voted with his party on Bill Clinton's impeachment, he did break ranks to vote to keep the proceedings alive.

Feingold's Statement

(Excerpts)

The question before us today is: Should the President of the United States be held to a lower standard?

The answer is: No. To the contrary; we can bestow no higher honor than to select one individual to represent us all as President. In one person we endow the character of our nation, as the head of state and the head of government.

It's with great disappointment, but firm resolve, that I have concluded the President has not lived up to this high standard and that he should be removed from office. The House managers have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that, in addition to indefensible behavior with an intern, which was not illegal, the President engaged in the obstruction of justice and, as an element of that obstruction, committed perjury before a federal grand jury, which is.

...The President had it solely within his power to keep the country from the course on which it has been for the past year. First, of course, he could have chosen not to engage in the behavior in question. Having behaved as he did, though, and having been discovered, the President could have acknowledged his own actions and accepted the consequences. This could have been an honorable resignation, or an admission, contrition, and a firm resolve to take responsibility; with a request for resolution in a manner short of impeachment and trial.

Instead, the President chose to deny the allegations, and fight them with a coordinated scheme of manipulation and obstruction. He lied outright to the American people, to his close associates, and to his cabinet. An enduring image of this whole tale will be his finger-pointing lie to the American people, even after admonishing us to listen closely, because he didn't want to have to say it again.

Even in view of these actions, the President missed numerous opportunities to right this matter and get it behind him and the country. At virtually every opportunity, though, he chose an action that further prolonged the matter and led directly to his impeachment.

...As a result of these choices by the President of the United States, the Senate was left with no choice other than to confront the charges and hear the case pursuant to the President's impeachment in the House of Representatives.

Obviously, Feingold didn't consider the impeachment a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Given this history, I doubt Hillary would want Feingold to be her running mate in 2008.

When it comes to presidential politics, Hillary is not divorced from Bill. In the 2008 presidential election, his past is hers. A Clinton-Feingold ticket would be too uncomfortable for the Dems and offer too many opportunities for the Republicans to bring up the impeachment and show Hillary as Bill’s enabler.

As likable and principled as Feingold might be to some, he won't make it through the primaries. I think he'll do no more than stir things up a bit and put pressure on his fellow Dem candidates. In short, he'll be an obstacle as they try to present themselves as being in line with mainstream America.

He's getting attention now because of his anti-Iraq war stance, not because he is a viable candidate.

At the end of his interview with Stephanopolous, Feingold said, "But I do think one thing we can all agree on is that this country is overdue for a cheesehead president. We've never had one."

That's cute. He's showing his Mr. Rogers side. However, his friendliness and his Midwestern charm won't be enough to camouflage his extremist liberal views.

Feingold can't win.

He's the Howard Dean of 2008.