Feingold is as smart and honest as they come, so I take his opinion seriously.

But why is he attacking Edwards now when he's pretty much out of it? Where was he when Edwards was actually contesting in Iowa?

Speaking as someone who is supporting Edwards now after my first choices, Al Gore and Russ Feingold decided not to run - it sounds like Feingold is displaying a little jealousy and regret about his decision not to run.

I had to to take what Feingold said in my decision making process when I made my selection and he raises valid points; I saw Edwards in person in NH at least 6 times ( 5 times for Obama 3 for Clinton I managed to see all 8 in person this cycle) and nothing he said made my bulls*** detector go off. He sincerely appears to regret his votes. More importantly for me - he's embracing progressive populism and Obama is running from it.

I also took into consideration that Edwards did run a 2 Americas theme in 2004 so I think he's been consistent there.

These are all intangibles that voters must weigh.

Feingold is making himself look small until he endorses either Clinton or Obama to make these statements as some sort of advocacy for them. Now he just looks jealous and regretful that Edwards has taken his stances while he himself isn't running.

I'll post it until you do, son.

http://thepage.time.com/clinton-on-the-today-show/

FDR was a fancy-pants fop who ran on a little understood tarrif issue but once faced America's need he became greatest President.

Once Edwards saw the reality thirty years of Republican rule, he grokked the obvious. A President leads through words and creates opportunities for Congress to act. By saying the correct things, Edwards is giving America a chance at a future . . . Even if his heart were not fully in it.

Obama and Clinton are blatant money whores with serious right-wing leanings. That is far worse . . . It continues our course to destruction.

Feingold is missing the point.

I think Feingold is way off base on this. Those votes were a long time ago. Plus, Edwards was a Senator from North Carolina, not Wisconsin. My guess is there must be some personal animus between the two.

What could Feingold be jealous with respect to Edwards at this point? Edwards political career will be over at some point this spring. Feingold still will have his.

I'm sympathetic to what Feingold's saying, re: some of Edwards' pretty bad votes (Iraq, China, first bankruptcy bill attempt, etc.) But I've been to Edwards events in NH, and I've followed his campaign pretty closely. The man is sincere. I think he's had a bit of an RFK-like transformation on some big issues and priorities, and Democrats would be wise to support him. He's making sense, and he's not hiding from his bad votes. Look, the guy has faced far worse than the GOP attack/smear machine (loss of his son, wife's serious illness), and would be a strong, strong candidate in the fall.

Russ is right that Edwards voted with the credit card companies, along with 36 other Dem senators. Feingold was against, so he has credibility here, but at least Edwards is talking the talk and focusing the debate on issues Russ champions. How about a little credit, Russ, as without John we'd simply be offered warm Bush light.

Feingold doesn't believe Edwards' is speaking straight because of the disparity between Edwards' CURRENT words and PAST actions.

IF there were similar disparities between his CURRENT words and CURRENT actions it would be more relevant and I would concur.

I think that Edwards had an epiphany or an education, and changed. I am voting for Edwards because he is speaking about the corporate morass that lies beneath our American politics & government. The alpha point.

just doesn't believe that Edwards is truthful?

As I remember it--and, probably like many here, I was intrigued at the least by the idea of a Feingold candidacy--he didn't go because of his divorce in 2006 or last year. I think the read of jealousy and pique that Edwards has appropriated his message is probably correct.

I'm on record in predicting that if Clinton wins, Feingold primaries her in 2012. He's not an old guy; he'll try for it at some point. Between the two divorces, the Jewishness and the liberal record, he seems like a longshot, but in WI he's won the trust of those who don't agree with him, and that's something.

President of the National League of Contortionists, Frankly0, ladies and gentlemen.

Yes, Feingold is jealous of Edwards' third-place status and his own lack of "prominence."

I have enormous respect for Feingold, and I don't disagree that Edwards' voting record in the Senate was clearly at variance with what he is saying now. No question that there is some opportunism at work: it's easier to bitch about votes you no longer have to take.

But it is also possible there is growth at work, too, as was the case for politicians like RFK (cited earlier by Bill) whose early-career behavior was sometimes appalling).

There were other strategies Edwards could have chosen rather than making an old-fashioned populist case for poor and working class people who are underrepresented in the voting booth and even more underrepresented as contributors.

I am willing to believe that Obama has the potential to be a transformational president. I am also willing to believe that Edwards, if somehow he were to be elected on a platform like the one he has presented, would be more likely to govern with FDR's creativity and commitment to economic justice than either of the other two would.

For those who think Obama has been a progressive crusader all his life, think again. While in the Illinois senate, he voted to block efforts to hold wrongdoers accountable by voting for a $500,000 cap on non economic damages (pain and suffering) in negligence cases. If a company does a cost benefit analysis and decides it is more profitable to fight off potential lawsuits than fix a life-threatening defect in a product that explodes and burns your face off, and you spend the rest of your life with that injury and the physical pain that comes with it, the most you can get for that pain and suffering is $500,000. Doesn't sound too progressive to me. Also, consider his "present" votes (not "yes," not "no," but "present")on woman's rights and other issues while in the Illinois Senate. Obama's a good guy, but he's had some dumb votes in his past too that Feingold should look into.

Edwards has had some bad votes too. But he has acknowledged them as bad, says he regrets them, and truly believes what he is saying now. His campaign positions perfectly consistent with the life he has led, which includes significant devotion to Urban Ministries, a charity that benefits the poorest of the poor.

Also, would poverty, healthcare, etc. even be in the Democratic agenda were it not for Edwards? He's led the charge on all important issues and shifted the Democratic debate to a more progressive spectrum.

Evergreen:

Okay, let's ignore Edwards's past votes when he had a real personal opportunity to "send a message to Washington," the ones mentioned here and his votes along with every Republican against the Wellstone Amendments to the Bankruptcy Act (and against all the Senate liberals, including the Evil Corporatist (BOO!) herself).

So let's look at his more current actions since then:

1. After his loss in 2004 - after campaigning against offshore tax dodges in his stump speeches, he immediately went to work for Fortress Investments - a company noted for its offshore tax dodge hedge funds.

2. As his personal committment to populist principles re land use, energy conservation, the ecology, and labor unions - he clearcut a huge swath of virgin timberland animal habitat and built a 28,000 square foot gated estate not using union labor (I know NC's a "right to work" state, but he could have made a statement by requiring his contractor to use union laborers as much as possible).

3. His 2008 presidential campaign cheerfully accepted over $167,000 in corporate and individual contributions from the aforementioned Fortress Investments (who, of course, are a large corporation that isn't a lobby group, it only hires lobby groups extensively - parse that one for me please).

I won't even go into the haircut thing and the "poverty centers," and the like, but Russ Feingold clearly sees this guy for exactly what he is. Sorry you've been "taken in" by him, but I used to like him myself until I started seeing what he did and still does as opposed to his fine rhetoric.

But at least TPM isn't ignoring Edwards anymore!

When Russ Feingold starts criticizing Hillary Clinton for the same votes, then I'll start to take him seriously again. Russ sounds really desperate to be known as the only "real" progressive. His rhetoric is beginning to sound just like what we hear in the nasty attacks between Clinton and Obama.

Assuming Dems lose, with either Hillary or Obama, who stands a better chance of successfully running for President in '12, Edwards or Feingold? Or assuming Dems win, with either Hillary or Obama, who stands a better chance of successfully running for President in '16, Edwards or Feingold? Now tell us again why Feingold is jealous?

I have no reason to suspect Mr. Feingold's sincerity about Mr. Edwards, though it does seem to contradict Mr. Feingold's other positions.

We all evolve. Our positions mature. Mr. Edwards positions have been very stable during this campaign, even when they were unpopular. Moreover, I feel confident that they are Mr. Edwards' positions and that they will not change post-election to pay back lobbyists and big money supporters. He's doing this on a slim budget with no big support.

That's good enough for me. I think we have to start by addressing the corruption in the system. Mr. Edwards is the only candidate positioned to do that.

My dog has also taken a position on this. See her video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk2Yfw0myY4

So is Feingold perfect? He voted to confirm Chief Justice Roberts.

There is nothing wrong with Feingold supporting Clinton or Obama, but he should think before he criticizes supporters of Senator Edwards. We could support him because Edwards has already transformed this race and forced both Clinton and Obama to get out and advocate for health care reform, environmental reform and economic reform. By any measure, the Edwards agenda has already won. Feingold, on the other hand, has won nothing and had no impact on this race at all.

At least Edwards apologized for his vote on Iraq. What say ye Oh Great Feingold about our Chief Justice?

Colonpowwow, did you see that the ny times called your candidate MRS. CLINTON. The sexist mysogynists. I was shocked, shocked I tell you. I am sure that you will be writing a nasty letter to the times calling them out on being sexist, right.

I respect Senator Feingold, but there's a big difference in being a senator from Wisconsin and North Carolina, and he knows it. The primary responsibility of any elected official is to represent his constituents. I'm sure Feingold can take a liberal position on almost any issue and not offend most of his voters. But a democrat from a red state like North Carolina has to carefully pick and choose where to take a stand and where to punt.

I trust Feingold more than any other politician in the US, but the question at this point is one of rewarding good behavior. Neither Obama nor Clinton has shown leadership on issues important to progressives, despite ample opportunity.

Practically speaking, Obama would be my choice between HRC and Obama. I cannot ever forgive Hillary for the AUMF vote -- she _knew_ better, and took the politically easy choice. I can't see Obama doing that. But neither do I see him currently _making_ decisions. It only gets more difficult, Barack.

Edwards, on the other hand, has been pretty consistent lately. To be honest, though, I've never felt Edwards was particularly sincere, even in 2004, but it may just be his southernness. If I can't get over that, I may have to write in "Dodd" or "Feingold."

I would venture to say that 80% of this whole Clinton-Obama controversy that is damaging our chances in the general is his fault

Wow. That is truly insane.

Dear Russ:

There were opportunities to vote against the confirmation of Ashcroft and Roberts, too.

If you want to start parsing voting records, what comes around, goes around.

First, I like Feingold, very much.

But, while I can understand endorsing someone...that's his choice....I CAN'T understand the "anti-endorsement." What Democrat does that, to a Democratic candidate? Yes, it does seem like a personal thing.

I know it's a huge longshot that Edwards will win the nomination, but what if he does? What if, in the more likely circumstance, he can uses his delegates as leverage to play king(or queen) maker?

Michael A.

I've called Senator Clinton, "Mrs. Clinton" many times. That's her name and I'm sure she's comfortable and fine with it. What's your point?

I have never, however, ever called the Senator from New York, "Mrs. Bill" like some others here have.

Would Feingold have also attacked the banker known as FDR who changed his positions to fit the times, as well?

John Edwards HAS SHED THE CONSULTANTS, and he's saying what he wants to say, now.

He doesn't have the consultants of 1998 and 2004. His 2008 platform FITS THE URGENCY of the situation that he has seen over the last few years traveling the country.

That's what politicians are supposed to do. "PROGRESS" to meet the needs of the day.

Feingold needs to get a clue. If he's too RIGID to understand this, then I understand why he can't stay married.

I can easily understand the animus. Feingold always seems sincere, and I think most people here agree that Feingold's point -- Edwards is running on positions consistent with Feingold's record, not his own -- is true. There's only one relevant question here: if you're a progressive, are you tied to the sinking Democratic Party ship or not. If yes, now that Kucinich is gone and Gravel is even worse off, I guess you have to go for Edwards. Feingold’s point is valid but considering the three big guys, I’d rather have somebody talk the talk than what Obama and Clinton do. Their legislative records are so thin, indistinguishable, and undistinguished that if you’re limiting yourself to a choice among Democrats, then as usual, I suppose you pick the least worst.

My fear with Edwards is that despite his fightin’ words, he’d be a pushover for whatever influences convinced him that he should support the Patriot Act and the Iraq war in the first place. Having these epiphanies as an adult and only after leaving office (*coughcoughAlGore*) seems too convenient. My suspicion is that he was cornered by party loyalty and the financial incentives to siding with lobbyists. I have little doubt he’s sincere now, but to come out and say directly “I was bought and sold and I regret it” would be political suicide, since a vast majority of the electorate is content to pretend that stuff doesn’t happen.

For those of us who aren’t chain-gang-bound to partisan politics, we’ll just wait and see what the Greens and/or Nader do next. I think I’d rather vote for Mike Bloomberg than the hacks currently preening for the cameras.

We know what skeletons lie in the closets of Hillary and Edwards. We are just learning what skeletons and views Sen. Obama is taking and has taken.......he is a much greater risk than either Hillary or Edwards. A 3 year Senator who has spent half of that time running for president.
I am concerned about Feingolds
interest(s) and I am wondering why now? Seems odd.

So now the so-called Democrats - the leftist-behind wing of the progressiver-than-thous - are going after Russ Freakin' Feingold for speaking his mind about Edwards, the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do populist!?!

You all are just too much. Here's my favorite example. The hateful way that Hillary's vote on Iraq War authorization is framed by the progressiver-than-thou Hillary haters on this board.

I remember this being a huge issue - HUGE - when, in 2004, we were running the pro-Iraq-War-Authorization ticket of Kerry/Edwards.

I like Feingold, but his criticism seems a bit catty/personal.

I think Edwards has demonstrated that he's learned quite a bit about politics and government work and now understands that you can't play the Washington Democrats' favorite game of not being "too liberal". Edwards has learned, IMO, that you can't serve two masters and you have to come out and clearly and honestly be the liberal you are instead of playing this game of footsie with the corporate interests where you "balance" (aka surrender) your ideals, decency and all claim to be fighting to restore the power of the people.

I'm satisfied that he made those mistakes before and clearly is committed to not making them again.

Colonpowwow:

You are a class A jerk (and more but I don't want to offend others who know it is true too). Go away for God's sake.

In comparing the platforms of the three remaining (viable) candidates (Kucinich's was the absolute best), I see Edwards' as the one that has the most specifics about what to do and the best strategy that links all his progressive positions to one another. None of the things he proposes are standalone, and that in itself is a tremendously bold move.

I don't think that Edwards was ever a "bad" man (in terms of progressive ideals), but he was--and in some ways still is--a product of his upbringing and environment. But, like FDR, he has demonstrated something I haven't seen from the other candidates: the ability to change.

That said, I don't share MarkZ's worries:

"My fear with Edwards is that despite his fightin’ words, he’d be a pushover for whatever influences convinced him that he should support the Patriot Act and the Iraq war in the first place. Having these epiphanies as an adult and only after leaving office (*coughcoughAlGore*) seems too convenient. My suspicion is that he was cornered by party loyalty and the financial incentives to siding with lobbyists."

Whereas Edwards may never get over his personal problems with issues such as gay marriage (but neither HRC or BHO has given that issue support), I feel that these "epiphanies" are deeper than MarkZ does.* Edwards has had ample opportunities to make his positions on social problems more palatable to moderates, and, unlike the other two, he hasn't done it.

And it's a big thing that he's using public financing for his campaign. That really says a great deal.

*Remember something, folks. Bill Gates only endowed buildings for universities that bore his name before he got married and had children. Look at him now. Talk about change!

Come on now. Had Russ ran in 2008, he'd have gotten less attention than either Biden or Dodd.

This broken and corrupt nominating process that favors celebreties (Yes, I'm looking at you Hillary, and you Barack) isn't ready for a smash the system campaign that Russ would need to rise above a crowd of medicore establishment candidates.

And please let's give it a rest about Dennis being an good example or a worthy progressive agenda setter. Quixotic vanity campaigns are laughable no matter how passionate the candidate. This game is for grown ups.

Lastly: Russ' Ashcroft vote was one of character, along with simple and honest common sense. Elections matter and presidents are entitled to their choices. Like it or not, we lost in 2000 and we'll want the same treatment and courtesy from the GOP senators for either Hillary's or Barack's AG picks might they win.

Likewise Russ' vote to bring impeachment articles to the floor against Clinton. Senators have a job to do and Russ does it every single day regardless of the political winds or expediency.

If there was ever a model for an ideal president it's Russ. And if it were up to this lifelong Democrat, I say the hell with 2008. Give the Oval to McCain and let the ship sink on his watch. We'll have four years to smash the system and with that provide an opportunity for a guy like Russ to have a fighting chance for the office.

Perhaps one of the reasons Russ hasn't chosen between Clinton and Obama is he feels these are two strong candidates, and he would rather build unity among Democrats rather than division.

Clinton/Obama '08

Q: "Feingold didn't endorse anyone. What does that mean?"

A: He's a punk with an agenda.

Yeah, Russ...Edwards is staking out the most progressive position because he wants to fool everyone on the left into voting for him. He's a corporatist in sheep's clothing running on "your record".

Transparently absurd crapola.

Buh Bye, Russ.

Ok, I'll say it: Feingold is one weird dude. Sometimes, he just seems too quirky and his principled stands just come off looking pointless. Like that whole Clinton impeachment thingy? I just didn't get that at all. What was the principle involved there? And then the MoveOn vote last September? Didn't he just not vote or something? I couldn't wrap my head around that one either.
Most of the time he's pretty astute though. And I think he has Edwards nailed pretty good. Now, it could be that Edwards came from a fairly conservative state and he was constrained by his constituency. I can understand that. But he didn't exactly distinguish himself in legislation either.
And now he's out there breathing fire but his campaign is aiming for the base because, er, it *had* to. His campaign was sandbagged by the Obama campaign. So, even though he might be a passionate populist at heart, his actions don't match his rhetoric.
Now, knowing this about Edwards, I can't quite figure out why Feingold is dithering between Obama and Clinton.

Well, I don't see Martin Luther King, III, saying this to Russ Feingold:

So, I urge you: keep going. Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father's words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud.

"I can't quite figure out why Feingold is dithering between Obama and Clinton."

That one is easy. He's going through the same thought process the NYT editorial board went through to get to the Clinton endorsement. He takes their arguments seriously. He sees Obama as being about hope and change, he sees Clinton as being about experience and change. Both are powerful messages. Obama's problem is that, unlike Jesse Jackson in 1988, he has not put forth a convincing plan for change yet.

I am shocked that there are readers here who only know the NYT only second hand through blogs. They don't seem to know that Mr. and Mrs. is a matter of style with the NYT. And, apparently, some readers don't visit the Senate or watch CSPAN, or they would know that Barack Obama styles himself Mr. Obama for roll calls, and Hillary Clinton styles herself Mrs. Clinton.

Oops. Wisconsin, not Minnesota. Same thing--large upper midwestern state that used to vote democratic pretty reliably.

I love Feingold, and he is right about Edwards. The reason I've supported Edwards anyway is that his Senate voting record occurred after he was elected in North Carolina in one of the most conservative Senate seats there is (remember Jesse Helms, anyone?). I assume that if he had wanted to extend his Senate career, he knew he couldn't do it by voting as a progressive, that he probably had to compromise. That's a poor excuse, perhaps, given the fact that he didn't run again and he probably wouldn't have been reelected anyway, but he is the person who's giving voice to some really important issues now. I'm probably jumping ship on Edwards though, in favor of Obama. I'm tired of Clinton's political style, although I'll vote for her if she's the nominee. I worry that lots of people really can't stand her though, and she hasn't done herself any favors lately.

Obama also voted for the Bankruptcy Bill,

are you talking about the bill edwards voted for when obama wasn't yet in the senate? or the later bill that obama voted "no" on? do tell.

and for once i gotta agree with colin powwow, seeing this as some spiteful move by feingold is laughable. feingold has a far better record than most senators. if you start ascribing some dark agenda to him cause he goes after your man, you need to grow up a little.

I've deeply admired Feingold for his progressivism, but something's off here, and I'm left baffled.

Why would Feingold criticize Edwards for his votes (for which it seems to me he's genuinely remorseful), by going out of his way on two occasions now (or is this report really just the earlier one, re-hashed?) to criticize Edwards' change of heart, but give Clinton a pass for her odious votes on Iraq war funding and Kyl-Lieberman, for which she NEVER indicated any sort of recognition of error, nor apologized for. And is it better, in Feingold's view, to simply not bother to show up, as in the case of Obama?

Nope. Something doesn't add up here. Feingold's actual intent appears to be hidden at this point, but Feingold's dissing of Edwards should be viewed with a considerable amount of scepticism.

I am appalled by Russ Feingold's actions as it pertains to John Edwards. I've heard of politicians throwing their favorable support and endorsement for people in their party, but to pubicly deride a candidate seeking the Presidency is outrageous to me. Furthermore, Feingold's liberal agenda as well as the issues he's currently advocating for are most closely and frequently addressed by John Edwards. To give Hillary Clinton a free pass on voting for the Iraq war and never apologizing it or taking responsibility for it - which is one of the worst mistakes as far as votes go - a free pass and knocking Edwards on a few votes which at least he's had the courage to admit were wrong is very misguided. As a public official if he wants to support a candidate than fine...but it's up to the voters to eliminate these candidates from contention not sour puss, puting Russ Feingold.

Well, so now what?

Obama has a good chance to become president?

Billary? Well, lets see.

Mr Feingold is banking on a Republican for president.

Why not?

Has any one paid attention to the Democrats in Congress?
Whatever Bush wants, Bush gets....

Why does the link on the front page to this article read "Sen. Feingold Blasts Obama"?????

Please fix this error!

Eric Kleefield, your [freudian ] slip is showing.....
the sub-headline in the box on the front page indicates that 'Feingold blasts Obama', when this is a story about Feingold on Edwards. Care to correct?