Russell Feingold...

[ian]

His being Jewish doesn't hurt him, provided that he is an observant Jew.  If he is Jew in name only, then he loses the faith and values issue from the start.

His being a liberal (call him progressive if you want, but he's still a liberal) will hurt him in every Red state and will cost him the close Blue states.

As for the GOP being the home of anti-semitism, I suggest that you look at the Arab-American and African-American communities first.  Those two groups exibit the most virulent anti-semitism in the country today, and if my memory serves correctly, they both voted overwhelmingly Democrat in 2004.

No Arab-American or African-American I've known has ever said or had thoughts that were even relatively anti-Semetic about myself.  All the people--and trust me, there are a lot in rural Arkansas--that have ever said anything even remotely anti-Semetic to me have been white and Protestant.  Don't misenterpret that to say that all white Protestants are anti-Semetic, because most arent, but all that have confronted me in that manner were, in fact, white Protestants.

[ian]

The Democrats who are calling for a moderate are those who want at least a snowball's chance in hell of getting their candidate elected. 

However, I encourage you to go as liberal as you dare.  That will not only guarantee a GOP landslide in the Presidential race, but boost our margins in the House and Senate also.

On this, we can agree.

Liberals are a no-no for any presidential run! The Democrats need to select a moderate to avoid a polarising election in which a conservative Republican has a sure-start advantage, simply, because the facts are simple: Conservatives (34%) outnumber Liberals (21%) by 3 to 2 and Democrats need to pay heed to that

Feingold would make a better VP nominee who can work the 'blue' states, while a bona fide moderate nominee can take the battle to the the marginal , and indeed, the not-so marginal, 'red' states

As long the Democrats go for liberals, they will be fighting a defensive election on their turf, in which the Republicans in 2004 scored a couple of goals: Iowa and New Mexico. It's a trend that bodes ill for the party

Dave

Yep, I'm with you guys on that one.

[ian]

afraid of losing votes?  Blacks were born black and gays were born gay.  Therefore, gays and gay couples should have every single right as non-gays do.  Period.   

This may be a little off-topic but that's the one liberal view I don't share. I think an amendment banning gay-marriage might be harsh but personally I don't care too much. However, I DO NOT think they should have the right to adopt or raise children. You might say that some of them would make better parents than a number of straight couples, but think about the child here! Wouldn't you find it the least bit disturbing if you had two daddies or mommies--and no complimentary parent of the other sex?

That is exactly what sickens me!  Gay couples who have children (and many studies have shown this... read Psychology Today for example) end up having children that are in fact, more well rounded, educated and content with themselves (high self esteem).  Child abuse in gay marriages is NO higher than in regular marriages.  PERIOD.  Also, of course it would be different having two parents of the same sex.  But you can learn just as much about life and become just as great person having gay parents.  Many couple have their child have a mentor of the opposite sex too.  That's like saying, "Think about the child, how would you feel if you had two black parents and were a white baby".  Of course your upbringing could be a little different, but not bad in the slightest.  Would you say that a black couple shouldn't be allowed to have children?  I sure wouldn't hope so.  I just hate it how people, including democrats, are so cruel to this group of people because of the way they were born.  A big part of the right wing agenda is banning gay marriage and democrats are giving in to it when 90 percent of us know it is wrong to do so.  Believe me, in twenty years many democrats will be embarrassed (and rightfully so) for the way they were acting now about this issue.

Well stated, Wallock.