Quantcast

The Nation

Feingold Won't Seek Democratic Nod

U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, who many progressive activists had encouraged to seek the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 2008, has decided against making the race.

In a letter to be sent to supporters on Sunday, Feingold writes, "I want you to know that I've decided to continue my role as Wisconsin's Junior Senator in the U.S. Senate and not to seek the Democratic nomination for President in 2008."

Feingold, the sole senator to oppose the Patriot Act in 2001 and the first senator to advocate a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, stoked speculation about a possible presidential run during the 2006 congressional campaign season. His call for the censure of President Bush for authorizing warrantless wiretapping was wildly popular with party activists -- even if most of his fellow Democratic senators shunned the move. Feingold's addresses to state party conventions and campaign events across the country were well received. And he began to develop the infrastructure for a candidacy by setting up a new campaign group, the Progressive Patriots Fund, which aided candidates around the country who shared his anti-war and pro-civil liberties positions.

But Feingold was always torn between the lure of a presidential run and his love of the Senate, where he has served since 1993.

The Wisconsinite, who has spent most of his Senate career serving as a member of the minority party, decided after Tuesday's decision by the voters to shift control of the chamber to the Democrats that he was more interested in making the Congress work than in spending a year or more on the campaign trail in New Hampshire, Iowa and other early primary and caucus states.

"I'm sure a campaign for President would have been a great adventure and helpful in advancing a progressive agenda. At this time, however, I believe I can best advance that progressive agenda as a Senator with significant seniority in the new Senate serving on the Foreign Relations, Intelligence, Judiciary and Budget Committees," the senator explained. "Although I have given it a lot of thought, I cannot muster the same enthusiasm for a race for President while I am trying simultaneously to advance our agenda in the Senate. In other words, if I really wanted to run for President, regardless of the odds or other possible candidates, I would do so. However, to put my family and all of my friends and supporters through such a process without having a very strong desire to run, seems inappropriate to me. And, yes, while I would strongly prefer that our nominee in 2008 be someone who had the judgment to oppose the Iraq war from the beginning, I am prepared to work as hard as I can through the Progressive Patriots Fund, and consistent with my duties in the Senate, to maintain or increase our gains from November 7 in the Congress and, of course, to elect a Democrat as President in 2008."

Feingold's decision gives a boost to the all-but-certain candidacy of former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, the 2004 Democratic nominee for vice president, who has positioned himself to the left of the current field. Of course, if Illinois Senator Barack Obama decides to run, he could well eclipse Edwards as the choice of progressives who worry about handing the nomination to the presumed frontrunner, centrist New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

Last week, another centrist, outgoing Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack launched an exploratory bid for the Democratic nod. Vilsack's move was seen by some as narrowing the options for Democrats, such as Feingold, who might have hoped to jumpstart an outsider campaign with a strong showing in Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses. But Feingold had developed as much support in New Hampshire, the traditional first-primary state, where anti-war candidates ran especially well on Tuesday.

In the end, Feingold came to the conclusion that the enthusiasm he detected as he visited states across the country in 2006 had more to do with the boldness of his progressive positions than with his own potential candidacy.

"(While) I've certainly enjoyed the repeated comments or buttons saying, 'Run Russ Run,' or 'Russ in '08,' I often felt that if a piece of Wisconsin swiss cheese had taken the same positions I've taken, it would have elicited the same standing ovations," mused Feingold. "This is because the hunger for progressive change we feel is obviously not about me but about the desire for a genuinely different Democratic Party that is ready to begin to reverse the 25 years of growing extremism we have endured."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism is being published this month by The New Press. "With The Genius of Impeachment," writes David Swanson, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, "John Nichols has produced a masterpiece that should be required reading in every high school and college in the United States." Studs Terkel says: "Never within my nonagenarian memory has the case for impeachment of Bush and his equally crooked confederates been so clearly and fervently offered as John Nichols has done in this book. They are after all our public SERVANTS who have rifled our savings, bled our young, and challenged our sanity. As Tom Paine said 200 years ago to another George, a royal tramp: 'Bugger off!' So should we say today. John Nichols has given us the history, the language and the arguments we will need to do so." The Genius of Impeachment can be found at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com

Listening to a Veteran

Next week, one of the greatest war heroes to ever serve in Congress will return to Washington to discuss how the U.S. should extract itself from the quagmire in Iraq.

Former Sen. George McGovern will address members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Already, conservatives are accusing the Democrats in the House and Senate of being "McGovernite" liberals because some members of the House caucus will meet with the South Dakotan.

Let's hope the conservatives are right - because if this Congress wants to know about issues of war and peace, they should start listening to veterans. And McGovern is one of America's wisest old soldiers. Like a lot of the veterans of World War II, he understands that there are times when it makes sense to fight, just as there are times when it makes sense to bring the troops home.

McGovern never made much of his war record when he served in the U.S. House and Senate from the 1950s to the 1980s, nor when he sought the presidency in 1972. Like many veterans, he was cautious about separating his service from that of the millions of other Americans who beat back Hitler and the fascists in World War II.

As a result, most Americans are probably still unaware of the fact that, as a 19-year-old college sophomore, McGovern volunteered for the U.S. Army Air Force immediately after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. He ended up with one of the most dangerous missions of the war: piloting a B-24 Liberator bomber. He flew 35 missions over enemy territory from bases in North Africa and Italy at a time when flight crews knew that their chances of making it back were often slim.

McGovern got his crew through the war alive and won the Distinguished Flying Cross for his service. Decades later, historian Stephen Ambrose would write about that service in his epic book, "The Wild Blue."

Recalling his support for McGovern's 1972 presidential candidacy, Ambrose wrote, "I felt at the time of the election that he should have pressed the issue of his war record a bit more. For whatever reasons, he chose not to. But yes, I would like the American people to know more about what he did during the war. I hope this will foster, not so much McGovern's appeal to a wider audience, but the understanding that you don't necessarily have to be a hawk to be patriotic. McGovern is one of the greatest patriots I know, and his anti-war stance doesn't make him any less of one."

Those words remain true on this Veterans Day. The crisis of this moment in history is that those who know about war and peace, about when to fight and when to use diplomacy, have not been listened to by the Bush administration. And that refusal to take the wise counsel of veterans has cost this country dearly.

Thousands of young American men and women have been killed in Iraq since Gen. Wesley Clark and other military men warned against invading that country. Hundreds of young American men and women have died in Iraq since one of the most decorated veterans in Congress, Pennsylvania Democrat Jack Murtha, said a year ago that it was time to start bringing the troops home.

The best way to honor those who have fought to protect the U.S. on this or any Veterans Day is to listen to the veterans.

Members of Congress will have an opportunity to do so on Tuesday when McGovern comes to Washington. The decorated World War II veteran will come with a plan to extract the U.S. from the mess in Iraq quickly, safely and honorably. It is outlined in his new book (written with Wiliam Polk), "Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now," and it comes down to a simple fact: "The best way to reduce this insurgency is to get the American forces out of there. That's what's driving this insurgency."

McGovern's book calls for a new approach, one that would center on removing U.S. and foreign troops and establishing a transitional force made up of Muslims from the region to police the country.

"I've talked with a lot of senior officers - generals and admirals - in preparation for this book that say this war can't be won, that the problems now are not military problems," explains McGovern.

The answer is a political one. Congress must act. And it should start by listening to a veteran.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism is being published this month by The New Press. "With The Genius of Impeachment," writes David Swanson, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, "John Nichols has produced a masterpiece that should be required reading in every high school and college in the United States." Studs Terkel says: "Never within my nonagenarian memory has the case for impeachment of Bush and his equally crooked confederates been so clearly and fervently offered as John Nichols has done in this book. They are after all our public SERVANTS who have rifled our savings, bled our young, and challenged our sanity. As Tom Paine said 200 years ago to another George, a royal tramp: 'Bugger off!' So should we say today. John Nichols has given us the history, the language and the arguments we will need to do so." The Genius of Impeachment can be found at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com

Whither the Rainbow in the Blue Wave?

In the midst of Democratic victories on Tuesday, a series of anti-immigrant initiatives passed. In Arizona, voters defeated the worst anti-immigrant hardliners, such as Minuteman Randy Graf who got "thumped" in the 8th district. But voters overwhelmingly approved (by nearly 3-1 margins) Propositions 100, 102, 103 and 300. These initiatives deny some immigrants the right to bail, punitive damages and state child-care and adult education programs. Prop. 103 establishes English as the official language of Arizona. Que paso en Arizona?

It seems voters rejected anti-immigrant vitriol when it spewed from the mouths of candidates, but when that same rhetoric came in the faceless form of citizen's initiatives that mixed fiscal austerity with xenophobia -- voters swallowed the bait. Why should your tax dollars go to services for illegal immigrants? This was the message that anti-immigrant forces took to Arizonans. It was classic Lou Dobbs, class vs. race, and it worked.

The apparent appeal of this message is what makes me nervous about the rising blue tide of economic populism in the Democratic Party. Raising the minimum wage and beating back the worst of free-market capitalism are all good things, of course. But Democrats have a long history of pandering to white, working-class "Reagan Democrats" while cutting and running on racial minorities. Most recently, a raft of Democrats voted to build a fence along the US-Mexico border, including Prez. hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It was a do-nothing, symbolic vote, but it doesn't bode well for what will happen next on the "common ground" Bush and Dems hope to find on immigration issues. As Roberto Lovato points out, "The crop of House and Senate members-elect includes many Democrats whose positions on immigration hardly differ from the 'border first' Republicans they ousted."

As a matter of long-term strategy, running tough on immigration is a fool's game. Swiftly and surely the country is becoming majority minority -- some big states (California, Texas) are already there. In this last election, 70% of Latinos voted Democrat -- up from 53% in 2004 -- but this switch was largely a backlash against Republicans, not the product of genuine base-building by Democrats. Dems can keep hoping that Republicans implode on this front, or they can offer up a real alternative.

No one represents the failed strategy of immigrant-baiting more than Tennessee's Harold Ford. Formerly a moderate on immigration issues, Ford shifted his votes and talk in a craven effort to appeal to nativist sentiment in his home state. In an ad attacking his Republican opponent for hiring illegal immigrants, Ford declared, "We've got to get tough on illegals." (As both a matter of grammar and politics, I find this line repugnant. Acts are illegal. When people themselves are made "illegal" -- as in anti-immigrant initiatives or the torture bill -- the law becomes a dehumanizing instrument.) In the end, Ford was the victim of race-baiting ads himself, an irony that is probably lost on him.

Ford ran and lost as the anti-Rainbow Coalition candidate, a black man who disparaged his brown brothers and sisters. Now there's rampant speculation that he'll be drafted to replace Howard Dean as DNC chair. All of which begs the question -- Whither the rainbow in the blue wave?

Listening to a Veteran

Next week, one of the greatest war heroes to ever serve in Congress will return to Washington to discuss how the U.S. should extract itself from the quagmire in Iraq.

Former Sen. George McGovern will address members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Already, conservatives are accusing the Democrats in the House and Senate of being "McGovernite" liberals because some members of the House caucus will meet with the South Dakotan.

Let's hope the conservatives are right - because if this Congress wants to know about issues of war and peace, they should start listening to veterans. And McGovern is one of America's wisest old soldiers.

McGovern never made much of his war record when he served in the U.S. House and Senate from the 1950s to the 1980s, nor when he sought the presidency in 1972. Like many veterans, he was cautious about separating his service from that of the millions of other Americans who beat back Hitler and the fascists in World War II.

As a result, most Americans are probably still unaware of the fact that, as a 19-year-old college sophomore, McGovern volunteered for the U.S. Army Air Force immediately after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. He ended up with one of the most dangerous missions of the war: piloting a B-24 Liberator bomber. He flew 35 missions over enemy territory from bases in North Africa and Italy at a time when flight crews knew that their chances of making it back were often slim.

McGovern got his crew through the war alive and won the Distinguished Flying Cross for his service. Decades later, historian Stephen Ambrose would write about that service in his epic book, "The Wild Blue."

Recalling his support for McGovern's 1972 presidential candidacy, Ambrose wrote, "I felt at the time of the election that he should have pressed the issue of his war record a bit more. For whatever reasons, he chose not to. But yes, I would like the American people to know more about what he did during the war. I hope this will foster, not so much McGovern's appeal to a wider audience, but the understanding that you don't necessarily have to be a hawk to be patriotic. McGovern is one of the greatest patriots I know, and his anti-war stance doesn't make him any less of one."

Those words remain true on this Veterans Day. The crisis of this moment in history is that those who know about war and peace, about when to fight and when to use diplomacy, have not been listened to by the Bush administration. And that refusal to take the wise counsel of veterans has cost this country dearly.

Thousands of young American men and women have been killed in Iraq since Gen. Wesley Clark and other military men warned against invading that country. Hundreds of young American men and women have died in Iraq since one of the most decorated veterans in Congress, Pennsylvania Democrat Jack Murtha, said a year ago that it was time to start bringing the troops home.

The best way to honor those who have fought to protect the U.S. on this or any Veterans Day is to listen to the veterans.

Members of Congress will have an opportunity to do so on Tuesday when McGovern comes to Washington. The decorated World War II veteran will come with a plan to extract the U.S. from the mess in Iraq quickly, safely and honorably. It is outlined in his new book (written with Wiliam Polk), "Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now," and it comes down to a simple fact: "The best way to reduce this insurgency is to get the American forces out of there. That's what's driving this insurgency."

McGovern's book calls for a new approach, one that would center on removing U.S. and foreign troops and establishing a transitional force made up of Muslims from the region to police the country.

"I've talked with a lot of senior officers - generals and admirals - in preparation for this book that say this war can't be won, that the problems now are not military problems," explains McGovern.

The answer is a political one. Congress must act. And it should start by listening to a veteran.

All About the War?

Rahm Emanuel, the hard-charging recent head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, isn't usually a profile in contrition. But yesterday Emanuel admitted it was a mistake for him to dismiss Jack Murtha's brave stand against the Iraq war last November.

"I was wrong, no doubt about it," Emanuel told the New York Times.

Murtha's dramatic break with the Bush Administration's Iraq policy forced Democrats to take a position on the war--and ultimately embrace the issue during their campaigns in order to win.

Now Murtha is running for House Majority Leader against pro-war centrist Steny Hoyer. Because Murtha is to the right of Hoyer on issues like guns and abortion (last year he earned a 0 percent rating from NARAL and an A from the NRA), he is counting on the war to give him the support of liberal Democrats.

"Jack Murtha's leadership sparked last night's victory and has given Democrats control of Congress for the first time in a dozen years," Arianna Huffington blogged on Wednesday. "Now they have to complete the end-the-Iraq-debacle mission the voters have given them. And Murtha's the leader who can take them the rest of the way."

Will House Democrats overlook Murtha's conservative tendencies and vote based primarily on the war? The leadership elections are scheduled for Thursday, November 16. I'll be watching, and writing, more. In the meantime, tell us who you'd support in the comments section.

How Sweet It Is

The virtual political earthquake this week--or what President Bush likes to call "a thumping"--put some truly progressive Senators in line for important Committee chairs. There's Patrick Leahy at Judiciary and Tom Harkin at Agriculture, Edward Kennedy at Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and Carl Levin at Armed Services. But one of the biggest policy divides when it comes to shifts of Committee Chairs is at Environment & Public Works. Barbara Boxer will take control from James Inhofe of Oklahoma--a longtime denialist when it comes to the very existence of global warming. "He thinks global warming is a hoax and I think it is the challenge of our generation," Boxer said yesterday. "We have to move on it." Thanks to a good thumping we're going to see some sanity prevail in Congress.

Veteran's Day: America and Iraq

On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918, an armistice was signed that ended World War I, the first great bloodletting of the twentieth century, "the war to end all wars" that proved but the prelude to World War II. Now, here we are at the 11th day of the 11th month of the sixth year of the twenty-first century and another great bloodletting is underway that, despite the recent electoral thumpin' of the Bush administration and the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, has no end in sight. In Iraq, 2,839 American troops have already died, tens of thousands have been wounded, and unknown hundreds of thousands of Iraqis -- military, insurgent, and civilian -- have been killed in every grim and bloody way possible.

The Iraqi killing fields are far from us here in the United States and, as yet, almost completely unmemorialized. Even to get a sense of the carnage is hard, but the website Antiwar.com now does a remarkable, if grim, daily job of collating at least what's reported. It puts out a running tally of the dead each day -- including of those nameless bodies found en masse, particularly in the Iraqi capital. ("In the greater Baghdad area, 29 bodies, probable victims of sectarian violence, were discovered late Tuesday into Wednesday…")

Each of these reports in its own quiet, understated way is heartrending. Wednesday's was headlined, "2 GI's, 199 Iraqis Killed or Reported Dead; 3 GIs, 137 wounded." And yet these tallies in words -- which can't account for all the dead who go eternally unreported -- are incapable of catching the anguish of those who cared for the dead or of tallying what the loss of valuable lives cut short means to two countries. How do you take in the American soldier killed Wednesday "in the same incident in Kirkuk Province," or the 8 Iraqis whose deaths in a vast Baghdad slum were relegated to this single sentence: "Mortars killed eight people and wounded 20 when they fell on a Sadr City district soccer game"; or the unnamed duo in this one: "A roadside bomb near a house in Iskandariya killed a man and his 13-year old son."

If only this Veteran's Day were another Armistice Day. Instead, there will be one of those terrible running tallies from Iraq at Antiwar.com this Saturday, too. Doug Troutman, a veteran of the Vietnam War (whose son is now a veteran of the Iraq War), worked in the postwar years for the Bureau of Land Management, and has visited many of the bloody fields of battle of our own history. He wrote a memorial for the dead, "Reenacting War, Reflections on a Country Losing Its Humanity," this Veteran's Day. He concludes it this way:

"Back in 2001, Congress began handing a rather insane little man proof that we had learned nothing from Yorktown, the Alamo, Montebello Bluffs, Fredericksburg, Andersonville, Mang Yang, or the ‘Hanoi Hilton.' Once again, we rode blindly to our fate, like Santa Ana or Custer, overconfident that we held power, that we were ‘right.' And our most recent ride hasn't ended yet.

"Like me, my son is now a veteran. The men and women, who hate war most, are those who were good at it. Veterans -- combat veterans -- recognize something that no one without personal experience can ever begin to put a ‘handle' on. We should neither repeat, nor reenact and glorify, error."

The Crowded Progressive Caucus

What will be the largest of the ideological caucuses in the new House Democratic majority?

Why, of course, it must be the "centrists" affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council's "New Democrat Coalition." Yes, that's got to be the case because all the commentators at the Wall Street Journal keep saying that centrists were the big winners on Tuesday.

Er, no.

Well, then, it must be the more conservative Democrats who identify themselves as "Blue Dogs." Surely, that's the answer because all the folks on Fox News keeping talking about them.

Nope.

The largest ideological caucus in the new House Democratic majority will be the Congressional Progressive Caucus, with a membership that includes New York's Charles Rangel, Michigan's John Conyers, Massachusetts' Barney Frank and at least half the incoming chairs of House standing committees.

The caucus currently has 64 members -- up 14 since last year -- and its co-chairs, California Democrats Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee, say they expect that as many as eight incoming House Democrats will join the CPC. The number could actually go higher, as several candidates in undecided House races ran with strong progressive support. (The CPC worked with labor and progressive groups to assist a number of candidates in targeted races around the country this year, reflecting the more aggressive approach it has taken since the caucus was reorganized under the leadership of Lee and Woolsey and hired veteran labor and political organizer Bill Goold as a full-time staffer.)

The caucus will need an infusion of new members -- not because those associated with it lost elections Tuesday but because they won. CPC members Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Sherrod Brown of Ohio will be leaving the House to become U.S. Senators. Interestingly, the two members of the "Blue Dog" caucus who ran for the Senate, Hawaii's Ed Case and Tennessee's Harold Ford, both lost.

Says Lee: "Some inside-the-Beltway commentators, columnists, and conservatives want the American people to believe that last Tuesday's election results have especially empowered moderate-to-conservative elements within the House Democratic Caucus in the 110th Congress, but that is an incomplete picture of the new political landscape on Capitol Hill."

She's right. The convention wisdom may say that the new crop of House Democrats is conservative or centrist: Political Correspondent Gloria Borger: "the people coming in are going to be these moderate conservatives"; New York Times columnist David Brooks: "For the most part they exchanged moderate Republicans for conservative Democrats."

But, as is so often the case, the conventional wisdom is wrong.

House winners like Jerry McNerney from California, Ed Perlmutter from Colorado, Bruce Braley from Iowa, John Sarbanes from Maryland, Keith Ellison from Minnesota, Carol Shear-Porter and Paul Hodes from New Hampshire, John Hall from New York, stood for election on platforms that echoed the commitment of the CPC to bring the troops home from Iraq, promote economic fairness, make elections more honest and government more ethical, and promote energy independence. Many of the new members of the House, including New York's Yvette Clarke, won hotly-contested Democratic primaries by associating themselves with Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha's advocacy of rapid withdrawal from Iraq.

Do the math. While the Blue Dogs are predicting that the membership of their caucus may grow from 37 to 44 members, and the New Democrats hope their membership will edge up from the mid-forties to over the 50 mark, the Progressives are looking at the prospect that their caucus -- the most racially and regionally diverse ideological grouping in the Congress -- could number more than 70 members once the new House is seated.

Forget the spin. Listen to Barbara Lee, whose habit of deviating from the conventional wisdom in order get things right is now well established, when she says of Tuesday's election results, "It is important to recognize that this was not just a vote against George Bush and the Republican Congress, it was a vote for a Democratic agenda that is rooted in progressive values."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism is being published this month by The New Press. "With The Genius of Impeachment," writes David Swanson, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, "John Nichols has produced a masterpiece that should be required reading in every high school and college in the United States." Studs Terkel says: "Never within my nonagenarian memory has the case for impeachment of Bush and his equally crooked confederates been so clearly and fervently offered as John Nichols has done in this book. They are after all our public SERVANTS who have rifled our savings, bled our young, and challenged our sanity. As Tom Paine said 200 years ago to another George, a royal tramp: 'Bugger off!' So should we say today. John Nichols has given us the history, the language and the arguments we will need to do so." The Genius of Impeachment can be found at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com

Sweet Victories on a Sweet Night

Of the many important wins Tuesday night that made up one, huge VICTORY for all, here are a few by candidates I had highlighted in a recent post:

Jerry McNerney (D-CA) for CongressJerry McNerney defeated seven-term incumbent conservative, Richard Pombo, who chaired the House Resources Committee and was deemed an "eco-thug" by the Sierra Club. McNerney supports Rep. John Murtha's plan for speedy withdrawal and made renewable energy a focus of his platform – even using the slogan New Energy for Congress.

Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) for CongressEd Perlmutter said that one of his first acts in Congress will be to add his name to Rep. Murtha's list of co-sponsors for legislation calling for a speedy withdrawal. He advocates for a "Manhattan Project" to achieve energy independence.

Paul Hodes (D-NH) for CongressPaul Hodes defeated six-term incumbent Charles Bass in a district held by Republicans since 1990 – and he did it with a platform calling for nuclear disarmament and immediate troop withdrawal.

Bob Menendez (D-NJ) for SenateSen. Menendez took a strong antiwar stance in calling for troop withdrawals this year. He also successfully defeated the constant, unsubstantiated allegations of corruption by his Republican challenger.

John Hall (D-NY) for CongressTruly a favorite here at The Nation (and not just because of his music career), John Hall stunned six-term incumbent Sue Kelly while thwarting a flurry of Rove-like tricks down the stretch. In addition to calling for immediate troop withdrawal, Hall told Congressional Quarterly that he hopes to have a seat on the Energy and Commerce Committee where he will pursue an "Apollo Project" for renewable energy. Hall says energy independence "would give the American psyche such a jolt, such a shot in the arm. We would once again feel like a country in control of its own destiny."

Sherrod Brown (D-OH) for SenateWe can't emphasize enough the importance of Sherrod Brown's victory. Read my post about Brown from last night, and John Nichols' recent Nation cover story.

Joseph Sestak, Jr. (D-PA) for CongressMedia consultants advised Joe Sestak not to discuss troop withdrawal and he ignored them. Instead, he made war the main issue of the campaign and called for a withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq by the end of 2007. Sestak defeated a 20-year incumbent.

Bernard Sanders (I-VT) for SenateBernie Sanders defeated his Big Bucks opponent and is one of the most progressive members of the Senate.

These were some of the victories. There were also many candidates who were right on the issues but came up short at the ballot box. Nevertheless, each played a key role in collectively focusing the national conversation on the war, the economy and the GOP's unrelenting assault on our constitution. Their contributions will be felt long past Election Day.