Ann Althouse asks if the Democrats have anyone better than Russ Feingold. I think the guy in the bunny costume might be a start.
But since she asks a serious question I'll give the serious answer: well, maybe. Election cycles have a way of producing candidates unseen at the end of the previous cycle. We're seeing the end of the last cycle play out with a lot of wrath, venom and holy heck. There could emerge a star for the Democrats out of the current governors like Phil Bredesen. Or someone new might emerge. "The dark side clouds everything. Impossible to see the future is." Which reminds me, Senator Joe Lieberman may find a way yet to make himself look like a real candidate for his party.
The Democrats have been here before after 1988. Arguably their congressional standing is worse but the margin of victory between them and the White House is actually closer. After 1988 their great hope was a powerful figure from New York (Governor Cuomo) to come and magically rescue them. Who woulda thunk a Governor from Arkansas would be the one to do it instead?
As for Feingold himself, Wisconsinites tend to exaggerate the virtues and the abilities of their elected officials. Heck, the Journal Sentinel is still in awe of former Governor Tommy Thompson. Feingold is a single issue Senator, campaign finance reform, and we know how well that's working. On issue after issue the senator is way too left wing for Wisconsin, let alone the swing states. The fact the Republicans weren't able to bump him off the last time just shows how weak their bench strength was, a situation quickly improving. If someone asks Feingold to run for President, it's gotta be a consultant looking for a job.
I think the Democrats could do better by being bold. Reach out to the new governors, especially in swing states. Anyone ask Governor Kathleen Blanco (D-LA) what she's doing in 2008?
