From Politicalwire.com:

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) said “that he’ll decide whether to run after ‘going around the country’ working to return a Democrat to the White House,” the Daytona Beach News Journal reports.

Feingold’s decision to run hinges on “whether I feel I’ll be the best candidate to win. I’m not going to even worry about that right now.”

“Feingold conceded the Democrats are unlikely to win back the House or Senate in the next mid-term elections because Republicans dominate both chambers by wide margins. Retaking the presidency in 2008 is likely the party’s best shot at getting back into power.”

original story

A bias-free interview on the recent Inaugural festivities. Only from Fox News.

View Clip

In response to the recent demonstrations for and against abortion rights in light of the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Sen. Clinton made remarks showing her support for decreasing teen pregnencies and, as a result, abortions in the U.S. According to the NY Times article:

Mrs. Clinton, widely seen as a possible candidate for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2008, appeared to be reaching out beyond traditional core Democrats who support abortion rights. She did so not by changing her political stands, but by underscoring her views in preventing unplanned pregnancies, promoting adoption, recognizing the influence of religion in abstinence and championing what she has long called “teenage celibacy.”

In response to her comments, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council in Washington had this to say:

“If you look at Senator Clinton’s voting record on this issue, it’s like Planned Parenthood’s condoms - it’s defective.”

Full NY Times Article

Phil Bredesen is the Governor of Tennessee and from what Glenn Reynolds writes, it seems like he might be the best shot the Dems have at getting an electable candidate. I’m still hoping the Feingold will run, I can’t think of anyone better to honestly represent America.

Bredesen’s secret is no secret at all: It’s respect. He doesn’t view rural people, or southerners, with the thinly disguised contempt that is found, all too-often among national Democratic figures. And he’s also not afraid to talk with people who disagree with him. In fact, one of the striking things, to me, is that he does so well on conservative talk radio. He speaks clearly, doesn’t duck questions or retreat into soundbites and blather, and treats others with respect while not acting ashamed of his own positions. The result is that talk-show hosts, and listeners, respect him too. If this is hard to replicate, it says bad things about the rest of the Democratic field; this sort of thing ought to be Politics 101, not the advanced class.
But at least Bredesen gets it.

The original article from The New Republic

Every wednsday morning the British Parliment has “question time” with the Prime Minister where they get to ask him pretty much anything they want. The questions are pointed and the discussion is heated. It really doesn’t matter if you know what they’re talking about, it’s just fun to watch.

8PM CST C-SPAN or watch it online

I’m still not sure what my own stance on social security privatization is, but this article from Slate.com (Jan. 17) does a good job of clarifying the issue and sifting out what the true reasoning is behind the positions of both Democrats and Republicans.

The article analyzes Bush’s comments on how privatization will save the system and shifts focus to the underlying argument:

Here’s what a straightforward discussion of the philosophy behind the Social Security system would look like: Democrats support welfare for old people, on the grounds that it creates a safety net for capitalism’s losers, who might otherwise live in poverty. Republicans oppose welfare for old people, on the grounds that it reduces incentives to work and save, it gives the government too much money to spend, and it makes people overly dependent on the government for their retirement. That’s an honest debate. Let’s have it.

You know you want it:

Link