Are US Senators by necessity just too cautious to be good pres. nominees?

[MoonRiver]

I ask this with all sincerity. It's not meant to bash Kerry or any other Senator.

The Senate is the biggest good old boys (and girls) club in Washington. Stuff gets done by compromise and deals struck in smoke filled rooms. The party leadership (whether Repub or Dem) is, with few exceptions, intimately involved in both how Senators vote and what they state publically.

Democrats are becoming increasingly determined to have a presidential nominee who won't take shit from the thugs running our government. We made sure that Dean got the chairmanship despite DLC intense opposition. I'm starting to feel that we will not tolerate any more of the hemming and hawing, tap dancing around issues we hold dear, and, let's face it, outright sell-outs to corporate lobyists as well as Repukes, we have witnessed from our Senate representatives. I like Feingold and a couple of other Senators who are eyeing 2008, but I'm becoming increasingly skeptical that any Senator will be able to loudly and clearly address Democratic needs.

on edit: My premise particularly applies to Senators who are eyeing presidential runs in the near future.

[BamaLefty]

1. They're not good nominees

Why? Because they VOTE and they can have their votes "played with."

Ex: The 87 billion :(

[Weembo]

2. I have believed the essence of your statement for some time.

I don't cast aspersions toward the senators, however. They have a purpose, both in their mission and in their procedure. Because that body is, by nature, deliberate (i.e., slow), it can be frustrating but often that will allow time to cool off the fringe ideas and elements that seemed worthwhile initially.

[MoonRiver]

3. I agree. Senators have their place, and its an important one.

But now I believe Democratic citizens want a more intense and activist, or at least less compromised candidate.

[Totally Committed]

5. I agree.

No Senators next time.

They, by the nature of their own fundraising, and need for re-election, are rendered nothing more than corporate/special interest whores over time.

TC

[kevinmc]

4. I think long term Senators make lousy Pres. Contenders. n/t

[CWebster]

6. Contrary to "bashing" Kerry

this only serves to provide him with convenient cover in the suggestion that all Senators are as "cautious"(cowardly) as he is.

Boxer is not "cautious" (cowardly)--neither is Kennedy or Durbin or Feingold for that matter.

[MoonRiver]

9. I should have qualified that statement.

I believe my premise mainly applies to those Senators with presidential aspirations.

[Totally Committed]

10. I never thought of it that way...

Boxer isn't "cautious"... that is true. But, she does have her own PAC for fundraising, which keeps her from needing so much corporate/special interest involvement and approval. She is golden.

Kennedy has no aspirations beyond the Senate. And, Feingold has never given a rat's petoot what anyone thought about how he voted. So, both are golden, imo.

I am the wrong person to comment on Kerry, so I will abstain. I have nothing positive to say.

TC

[havocmom]

7. No Senator would be a good nominee

History should teach us something about how voting records get used against the best of them. When you consider all the crap that gets put into must pass bills, it is easy to see how anyone in the Senate is vulnerable to charges of voting FOR something bad and AGAINST something good. Smear campaigns can cherry pick those tidbits out of the main bills and launch attacks against anyone with a voting record.

Sure there are a lot of Senators who truly feel they deserve to be President, some of them even decent enough to probably do a good job at it, but the fact is they are ground to dog food before they ever get out of the gate for the race.

The Senate is a place of deal making and compromise (well, it's supposed to be anyway) and the Presidency is an executive job. The skills for one are not necessarily the skills for the other. And the record one builds at one job will likely be used against them when campaigning for the other.

Plus, anyone inside the Beltway will be perceived as one of the authors of the current mess by a lot of voters even without a check of their records.

edit: typo

[Felix Mala]

8. Machiavelli Rules: They keep their jobs by doing nothing sub-

stantially wrong. They do nothing wrong by not attempting to do much of anything. They rarely go on crusades and prefer to let the times dictate their issues. They have a 6-year gig - why spoil that?
In the house, you have to get a lot done in your meager two years, so you're going to see more risk, bigger ideas. They all must dream of being Senators where every day isn't scrapping for mere existence.