Terry McMahon's Awesome Blog

The odd thing about living in New York City is how much is right here if you want it. Sometimes I hear these random screams from outside my dorm room that turn out to be some superstar showing up at the Tower Records a couple blocks away, and the other day I was walking through Washington Square Park and saw some women with strollers shooing away a cameraman. What on earth he was there for, I have no idea, but it was a serious video camera. I mean, where else do people say "Sorry, no pictures" and mean it? I can even head over to Magnolia and mack on some cupcakes.

The political equivalent of all this is seeing high-level politicians up close on a fairly regular basis. Last semester I went to events featuring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, and just last week I talked to Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski. Yesterday I went to go see U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), possibly the most interesting of them all, because he's expected to take a serious look at a run for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Feingold was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act, he's half the namesake of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, and he's a deficit hawk. He's also twice divorced, Jewish, and a Rhodes Scholar. As a state senator in 1992 he beat an incumbent Republican senator, with clever and funny ads. (My favorite part is when he's touring his house, opens a closet, and says, "huh, no skeletons." Seriously, follow the link.) His most recent reelection was in 2004, where he ran about nine points better than John Kerry in Wisconsin. He is expected to win the support of the more left-leaning Deaniacs from the 2004 primary. I'm not too sure, but then again, Howard Dean seemed like a centrist in 2002 too.

Feingold's general topic was the Patriot Act and President Bush's illegal wiretapping, but he started off saying that America's "greatest priority" is to "stop al-Qaeda and their affiliates." He says we need to fight the war on terror "in the spirit of our country's laws and traditions," and if we don't, then "what is our faith in the ability of our government?" His best line of the night (well, besides the one I linked to before) hit back on Karl Rove's claims that Democrats are stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. The real problem, says Feingold, is not that Democrats have a pre-9/11 mindset, but Republicans have a "pre-1776 mindset." That got a laugh. He called Bush's post-9/11 speech the best speech he'd ever heard by a president, and said that he thought then that Bush would win reelection, and it wouldn't matter. Bush had, he said, "a lot of opportunities to make tough decisions that we would support," but instead, the Republicans seem to have made their primary goal to get as much power as possible and see if they can get away with it.

Feingold said his first hint that Bush wasn't going to be the president we'd hoped was the formation of the Patriot Act. Feingold wanted to add a "process of making sure it didn't go too far" but the president and even Democratic leadership "shut the process down." (Personal side note: has Democratic capitulation on national security ever helped them politically? If not, then why do we do it?) He talked about the filibuster of the Patriot Act renewal he led a couple months ago, "which frankly I didn't think was going to work."

This is where he went into the wiretapping discussion. He said the Patriot Act has become "a retreat from who we are and who we should be," a great line, and said "it's not inconceivable" that the president could be impeached for doing this, since wiretapping American citizens without a warrant clearly qualifies as "high crimes and misdemeanors." He implied that he doesn't support impeachment, since it wouldn't be good for the country, but I suspect he was suggesting that he would support censure. He did say that Bush should apologize for wiretapping at tomorrow night's State of the Union, not an unusual suggestion from a Democrat, but striking from a guy who spent the rest of the speech being so pragmatic.

As for the potentially newsmaking topics, he says he was willing to consider an invasion of Iraq because he wanted to do whatever it took to take out al-Qaeda. Once he started seeing "shifting justifications" for the war, he pulled his support. He had a weird answer on gay marriage, saying he doesn't think the federal government should be getting involved, but seemed to imply that "more successful monogamous relationships" is a good thing. I think he supports gay marriage but doesn't want to say so, but, really, I'm not sure. In terms of the Democrats-as-wusses angle that carried Howard Dean throughout 2003, Feingold said that the real test of Democrats' spines is how they act in the next few weeks and months, as the president starts hitting them with everything he's got. It's been easy to criticize Bush in past months when his approval rating was in the mid-30s, but we're not going to see how strong the Democrats really are until we get into the next few months and campaign season. (Here's hoping.)

Of course, none of this is the reason I went. I wanted to see if Russ Feingold sounds like a normal human being. I am convinced that with every Democratic presidentail candidate in 2007 and 2008: how can we know that you can win? Electability was a serious issue in 2004, and I think a lot of people feel snookered by Kerry. Our candidate in 2008 simply has to be able to a) resist consultants; and b) give short, to-the-point answers. I am not saying this to advocate for or denigrate anyone (except Kerry, I guess), but it's clear that we need a candidate who's proud to be a Democrat and can explain why in a way that people appreciate.

So how did Feingold do? I'd say pretty well. In terms of pure political talent, he's a lot better than the other candidates I've spoken and worked with recently. My Moneyball studies have taught me not to cite "intangibles" as a reason for liking a guy, but I'll see what I can do. He does look presidential, in that he comes into a room and exudes confidence and a sense that he knows what he's doing. It's a neat trick when you see it. He knows the issues cold, he seems genuinely to enjoy politics and the Senate, and his politics diverge pretty frequently from the stale and blunt left-right continuum. All in all, he is one heck of a guy. I'm glad he's in the Senate and he'd make a pretty good presidential candidate.

I'm a little concerned that he sounded too intellectual. Again, this is a Rhodes Scholar speaking at a law school, but I am concerned that his remarks weren't as succinct and featured too much legal and legislative talk. One of Bill Clinton's tricks, worth learning for any politician, was that he always answered every question in one sentence, and then elaborated. It's easy, sure, to start talking on the topic and a couple minutes later say, "So, to answer your question..." It's harder to take a second, think of what the answer is, say the answer, and then explain it. That way you let the audience listen to your answer, instead of spending their time wondering what it is, or if you're even going to say it.

I'm not sure Feingold was that concise, which could be trouble in the long run. He comes across as a completely normal guy though, even while showing all the polish of a top-notch politician. He was funny, he was quick on his feet, and he handled every audience interruption with just the right level of direct response, humor, and appropriate dismissal. I wouldn't say he's our shining light for 2008, but I think he might just have what it takes.