Stoller responds to Senator Russ Feingold’s praise of McCain:

There are literally no competent progressive elites. If you asked average Democrats who they believe are good leaders, they might mention Al Gore, Russ Feingold, or Barbara Boxer. These are the best we have.

We’re supposed to be a political movement, but how can this movement continue to exist without any elected leadership that gets our mix of partisanship and populism, and couples it with a bullshit detector against insiders like McCain? Where’s our Jesse Helms or Paul Laxalt or Ronald Reagan? These were uncompromising political figures constantly preached the virtues of their ideas and built up farm teams of staffers and politicians. We have no one.

And we have ourselves partly to blame. We claim a sort of pseudo-ownership over Democrats serving at the national level, but “they” are not “us.” We’ve placed our eggs entirely in one basket: electing people to national office. For all the talk of “people-powered politics,” it’s a surprisingly top-down approach, and one whose results are unproven. The current strategy certainly has not helped achieve major progressive goals so far. The picture may change once candidates who connect more with - and owe more to - the netroots are in Congress, such as Donna Edwards or Darcy Burner. Or the picture may not change as much as we hope. Winning isn’t enough, and more Democrats isn’t enough, as 2006 showed. What if the grand prize of “better Democrats” proves not to be enough either?

We need to look for other leaders in addition to national figures. If we define “progressive elites” as congresspeople only, we find a shortage of heroes. But if we expand the circle to include figures like Newark Mayor Cory Booker or Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, we’ll see we do have competent progressive elites. The Bush presidency, which has left Congress as many people’s sole hope for change or accountability, and the inundation of senators in this year’s presidential primaries has given progressives tunnel vision. But Congress isn’t the end-all and be-all of political leadership. To put things in perspective, no one has been elected directly from Congress to the presidency since JFK, and before him Harding. For every senator-turned-president, for every Obama or JFK, there are several governors-turned-president, like FDR, Reagan, Carter, Clinton, and Bush. In other words, we need to look to the state and even city level for leadership just as often as we look to the House, the Senate, and Pennsylvania Avenue. This year aside, I still believe Americans - myself included - see executives, rather than legislators, as the best leaders.

And that means a different style of coverage. Where is the coverage of governors’ races on national blogs? With a new generation of women leaders taking on Republicans in North Carolina and Indiana, do these races have no national significance for progressives? Where is the national coverage of mayoral races? If the election of Alaska’s congressmen, who represents less than a million people, is important, what about progressive mayors who might represent millions?

For all the talk about movement-building, the major national blogs are only succeeding at some of the building blocks of that movement: they can fundraise, they can raise awareness, and they can offer an alternative pundit class. But in some dimensions of politics, particularly the process of helping to form new leaders, they’re still mostly spectators. Couldn’t all the time spent hand-wringing over Obama’s campaign be better spent? Couldn’t we be looking ten years down the road instead of 100 days, marking out future progressive leaders who may be at the state or local level now, but a decade hence will be crafting national policy? That’s not just the job of state bloggers - that’s the job of the movement as a whole. We want a Reagan? Well, Reagan’s rise took longer than eight years.

Let Feingold talk. He wasn’t ours to begin with. Let’s stop assuming that the process of building a progressive nation is simply a math equation, and that reaching x number of better Democrats in Congress and the White House will automatically usher in the dreamed-of progressive era. Let’s look for leadership where it already exists - far away from Capitol Hill, or even the Act Blue pages, in the states, counties, and cities of our nation.

I was reading over what I wrote a few weeks ago in regards to my endorsement for a Presidential Candidate, and I must say I am kind of disappointed in myself. I should’ve had the onions to say what I really feel, what is really going on in the attic and what I feel deep down in the basement. So here it is: I’m not happy with anyone running for President, on both sides of the aisle. The Democratic Party is truly squandering an amazing opportunity to remake the party into the party that President Truman believed it to be: the party for all (yes, history fans, look it up). Why do I have to choose between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama or John Edwards? Is this truly the best that we, and I’m speaking as a card-carrying voting member of the Democratic Party, can do? Same ole shit with different people, sort of, saying it over and over again. So tonight, as I sit and think about it, I’ve decided on a new way of viewing elections:

From here on out I refuse to endorse or vote for anyone who is linked to an individual who has already been in a major office. No more Jr’s or the III’s or spouses or anything. One family gets one shot. This is America, and last I checked it’s a democracy, so why should families “own” Senate and Congressional Seats, be entitled to the Governors’ Mansions, or even worse the Oval Office? Hillary is the most qualified? Why? Because she slept with, at least once, President Bill Clinton? Why don’t I see Monica Lewinsky on the ballot in Iowa, if that’s all it takes (and she might’ve earned it more!). I’m flat out tired of these no-talent ambitionless hacks running our government, and that goes for my good friends Ted Kennedy, Evan Bayh, and Bob Casey Jr. Granted, Senator Kennedy may go down in history as one of the greatest United States Senators ever, and perhaps the best overall ‘politician,’ but he certainly rode the coat-tails of his brothers, he’s just unique in the sense that he didn’t get close to the Promised Land. Also, if Senator Kennedy’s name was, perhaps, Senator Smith he’d go no recognition for what he does…in other words he’d be Senator Robert Byrd.

I don’t get excited when I see a woman running for President, and I don’t get excited when I see a black man running for President. Many people scream “Hillary” and pledge to vote for her when the time comes, but I can name several women in American politics who aren’t just better leaders but also better politicians. For example, Kathleen Sebelius, the current Governor of Kansas, is a far better leader and politician than Senator Clinton. She’s also the current popular governor of a state that, well, has better “values” than New York when it comes to the general election. What about my girl Janet Napolitano? Being a 2-term Governor of Arizona, a border/swing state (in my opinion) is not merit enough for the egg shaped room? Gimme a break, this woman has bigger stones than McCain. Maria Cantwell, Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer…all three of these women can beat Hillary on what appears to be, according to her stump speech and advertisements, her greatest ‘strength’ which is that she’s been in the Senate a whopping two more years than Barack Obama. As for African American men who are more than qualified to be President? Cory Booker, the current MAYOR of Newark, NJ has more credibility than both Clinton and Obama combined. Some would say Harold Ford Jr, but he’s another son of privilege (and by that I mean his Dad was a Congressman) in Tennessee, albeit Memphis, but he’s just another person who won’t pick the color of his polo shirt without a consultant giving him a statistical breakdown of what color is right for certain weather conditions.

Mr. O-Bam-ma! Brother Barack! Senator from the great state of Illinois! At this moment, know that you have my vote. Know that you have my admiration, my adoration, and my undivided attention. Heck, you even have my Seminal endorsement. But!!!!! You no longer have my heart, my mind, or my unquestioned loyalty. That should worry you, Senator, for I was BORN to support you. Father from Africa, childhood west of the Mississippi, education east of it, and a strong affinity for the windy city.

Much of my support for you is drawn from the personal guidance and inspiration your life provides me, for in many ways you represent both where I’ve been and where I hope to be. After hearing you speak at a Northwestern graduation ceremony I remarked to myself how unique you seemed to be, a capable and charismatic person who was also in a position to bring about sorely needed change. I felt as though you called me to arms that day, reminding me that there’s a whole lotta crap to clean up and a million places to start. You talked the talked, having walked the walk: organizer of communities, driver of voter registrations, advocate of civil rights, and professor of all things constitutionally legal. That day, I saw a man captivate a crowd rich with ethnic, economic and political diversity. I saw a man whose love for the people seemed deep and unwavering. I was ready to view you as the next great orator in American politics. I was ready to listen to you, eager to follow the man from Chicago (by way of Kenya, Kansas, Hawaii, Indonesia, and New York City). I’m still ready, and still waiting.

As I don’t currently live in the US, and have only half an ear turned to the primaries, I was planning to abstain from this month’s focus on the election. However, having recently gone head-to-head on the issue over pints here in Britain, I decided I just couldn’t contain myself. Though I am, perhaps, not the most informed voter these days, here are the top ten reasons I shall be voting for Barack Obama:

Despite avidly following politics, I don’t put a lot of stock into our government. The American public doesn’t seem to either. The Democratic Congress hasn’t held its part of the election bargain: to put an end to the Iraq war in a responsible manner, to remedy the mistakes of dealing with Hurricane Katrina, to repeal No Child Left Behind, to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, and on and on, whine whine. I can’t say I’m that surprised that it’d be business as usual after 2006 because it’s still going to be that same old Washington, from now until the fall of the US Empire (it’s going to eventually fall, mind you. The USA is not immune to history’s inevitable dramas).

It’ll be the same during the 2008 election as well. No matter who gets into office, the situation will remain dire in Iraq, the predominance of the US as an effective ally in foreign affairs will stay awful, and the “American Dream” will be unattainable by the shrinking middle class. I don’t want to sound horribly dismal, but them’s the breaks.

So my endorsement in the primary is one based on principle, rather than actually being elected and winning the presidency. And the candidate that has the strongest set of principles with which progressives can agree is Dennis Kucinich. This man has been repeating the same mantras throughout his House career, ones of establishing peaceful relations in foreign affairs and using the military as a last resort. He wants every American to have health care under a single-payer system. He wants to restore the middle class in this country by getting rid of free trade agreements like NAFTA and the proposed FTAA. The list goes on, from education and poverty to racism and sexism. The man is on point.

I was only vaguely aware of Barack Obama when he won his Senate seat in 2004, but I knew who he was when he came to Evanston, IL to deliver the commencement speech at my graduation from Northwestern University in 2006. He had electrified the country with his famous words at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and Chicago was basking in the glow that comes with a rising political star.

Obama’s commencement speech affected me on a deep level. It wasn’t even the content that really got me. He spoke like I imagined the political giants of the past, giants like JFK or FDR, spoke. He projected something beyond charisma. I didn’t just want to like him, I wanted to believe in him. Looking back on it, his connection with young people like me was most impressive. He could address graduates without talking down to us. He could engage our intellect and bring out big themes and deep thoughts without sounding grandiose.

For the first time since 1952, no incumbent is running for President. By this I mean no President is running for re-election and there isn’t a current Vice President waiting in the wings to take things over when his boss retires. Contrary to popular belief, there weren’t many “Draft Alben Barkley” signs floating around the Democratic Convention in 1952. Therefore, this truly is a monumental election. It’s a time for a truly fresh start on both sides of the aisle. The Democratic Party has the chance to show true leadership during a time of struggle and the Republican Party has a chance to re-define itself as the party of the future and the country. Well, neither party is doing this. Democrats are running the same boring campaign that they always run, and by that I mean run to the left/center while trying not to piss off minorities and women. Republicans are avoiding minorities at all costs and trying to get Senator Trent Lott to introduce a bill in the Senate that either involves flag burning or gay marriage. It’s boring. Really boring. Same old slogans with the same old style of speaking, and all the candidates are talking about nothing. But here’s something that no one seems to mention…

A lot of people, fueled by the media, think this election is historic because for the first time, they believe, there is a woman running for President and there’s an African American running as well. But wait a minute, I’ve seen this before. Shirley Chisholm (D-NY) ran for President. Congresswoman Chisholm was a woman, and she was African-American…and she ran for President…so where’s the surprise? On January 23rd, 1972 Chisholm announced her candidacy for President of the United States. This was groundbreaking, monumental, orgasmic if you will.

Obviously, Chisholm did not become the first African American or female President of the United States. But to not even mention her name insults her legacy. Just because Senators Obama and Clinton cover the token Democratic Party response to the other party of White Guys does not mean that they are, by any shape or form, truly the first of their ‘kind’ to take such a bold step. And by the the way, even though people don’t mention the Honorable former Congresswoman, here’s a factoid you may like: She helped found the Democratic Black Caucus and worked on a bill, with George Wallace, to guarantee a minimum wage to domestic workers. Tell me, if you can, what current member of Congress who is running for President has helped pass ANY sort of legislation equal to that, and with the support of an ideological enemy? I raise my glass to you, Shirley Chisholm, for as the first ever female African American member of Congress you truly paved the way for Senators Clinton and Obama, and the fact that you are overlooked for your efforts sickens me. If you’d like to read more on the next great African American leader, other than Oprah, please read up on my friend Shirley Franklin, the current Mayor of Atlanta, Georgia…trust me, you’ll hear her name more in the coming months.

But here we are in the year 2007. A bunch of, for the most part, privileged white males are running for office, but it just so happens that two of these characters aren’t your average white males…in the sense that one isn’t exactly “white” and the other isn’t exactly “male.”

Don’t get me wrong, but I don’t really see a difference when people of privilege run for office. Both Obama and Clinton had very “easy” backgrounds, but one married into power whereas another actually kind of made their own greatness. So here, finally, is my endorsement:

I’m going with Barack Obama. Here’s a few reasons why: I don’t think that he truly does have all the answers, but at least he’s willing to admit that there are many things that he has to learn. It seems as though every political year people are talking about social security this or military spending that, yet in the meantime something like 9.11 happens, and then all of a sudden nobody really gives a shit about what they were talking about the week before. Sound familiar? It should, because it happened in 2000. Obama’s Achilles’ heel, according to his opponent Senator Clinton, appears to be his so-called “lack of experience” in foreign affairs. Well, I’m actually sad to say, she may be right, but here’s the question that needs to be asked: What, exactly, is the litmus test for experience when it comes to being President of the United States? How much experience did Governor Bill Clinton have in 1992 in matters of foreign policy? Or Ronald Reagan?

Here’s a great little tidbit for you. The most knowledgeable President, when it comes to foreign policy, was Richard Nixon. The best President when it comes to Domestic Policy? Lyndon Johnson. You know what those two have in common? They didn’t come a fancy family with a fancy name. Johnson rose to power through his Texas Charm and Nixon rose by being determined to be the best…because winners want to be in the best position possible and winners want the ball. Would it be smart for Obama to “sit this one out and gain ‘experience’”? Maybe…but history suggests that sometimes the right time is now, and that the right time that is now may not be here tomorrow, let alone four or perhaps eight years…and by that point he’s once-run has been, like John Edwards.

Here at The Seminal, we are opposed to the typical mainstream media endorsement. They are too top down, too monolithic. Our authors can’t agree on one candidate to support, and we certainly don’t want to tell you how to vote.

Instead, we offer you a look into the personal reasoning behind each author’s choice in the upcoming 2008 presidential primaries, coming November 1st.