"So, what happens if Hillary Clinton doesn’t run in 2016? It is hard to imagine the presidential field without a woman contender..."

"... and here’s one to keep your eye on: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Napolitano is quietly making it known that she is considering the race, and there is reason to take her seriously...."

"Anybody on the Republican side even thinking or talking about running for president in 2016, I’ve said needs to get their head examined..."

Says the ever-helpful Bobby Jindal.

ADDED: In Jindalworld, the GOP is, right now, the stupid party, so anyone who currently believes he should be the candidate is stepping up to lead The Stupid Party and must be stupid. First, make the party smart. Then, we can talk about whether who should be leading it... obviously, someone who stepped up not to lead it in its present stupid form but who stepped up to make it smart. Which would be Jindal. Get it? He's running.

There! Did I examine his head well enough?

"Senators keep 2016 in focus as Hillary Clinton grilled on Benghazi."

"You will be sorely missed, but I, for one, hope not for too long," said the Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, and "I wish you the best in your future endeavors — mostly," said Republican Rep. Steve Chabot.

I don't picture Hillary Clinton as the candidate in 2016. Someone new will emerge. The Democrats gravitate toward youth (even as the Republicans duly cede the candidacy to the next oldie in line).

74 conservative bloggers answer the question "Which of the following candidates would you most prefer to see as the GOP’s 2016 candidate?

There were 19 names to choose from, and Marco Rubio got a clear plurality, which was not surprising. What was surprising was Rand Paul at #2 and Scott Walker at #3. Have people heard that Scott Walker does not have a college degree? Could that possibly work? (I know I was disparaging college in another post this morning.)

Chris Christie is down at #10, with only 2 votes — including mine — and he's #1 on the list of who would you least like.

In 2008, the least wanted candidates for bloggers were…John McCain and Ron Paul.

In 2012, the least wanted candidates for bloggers were…Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

So, going by those results, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush would have to be considered the early favorites for 2016 based on the fact that conservative bloggers don’t want either of them as a nominee.

"Upwards of 15 prominent Republicans are privately contemplating 2016 campaigns for the presidency..."

"... and the most serious and ambitious of the bunch are already plunging in, some quite publicly."

There's a gallery of 18 at the link. Can you predict them all before looking? Who were you happiest to see? Who are your top 5 picks? Are there 2 from your state? There are 2 from mine.

It's back to the House for Paul Ryan.

He ran for and won his House seat.

And what else? Do you see him as the frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2016?

Oh! I don't want to talk about 2016 yet. It's time for a respite from campaign talk... isn't it?

"Does Barack Obama really want to be president?"

Asks WaPo's Melinda Henneberger, presumably laying the foundation for the argument that Obamaphiles will make if he loses the election: He wanted to lose. He meant to do that. It's a brilliant and subtle strategy to rotate out of office, allow Mitt Romney to come in and do the complicated scut work of fixing the economy, taking the political damage for anything that hurts, creating a memory space within which people will feel dreamy and altruistic about Obama, who can rest and relax, swan about speaking to those who love him, collect money, and build immense longing on the part of the American people, upon which he will build his Obama 2016 campaign. He'll come back in glory. And he'll nail those debates.

Prediction: Russ Feingold will run against Scott Walker in the recall election...

... if there is a recall election. I'm not predicting that the governor's antagonists will succeed in getting 540,208 signatures in 60 days, which is what they need to force an election. Once they've snapped up the easy signatures in Madison they've got to venture out to chillier places. For example, at yesterday's Packer game:


(Ha ha. The last guy in that video is great)

I'm only saying that if they get the signatures, Russ Feingold — despite repeated statements to the contrary — will step forward and run to take the governorship away from Scott Walker.

The fact that the signature effort may fail is just one of the reasons why Russ Feingold has taken the official position that he will not run. Yes, some people might be more willing to sign the recall petition if they knew the strongest-polling Democrat was ready to go, but the signature-gathering-effort would turn into a discussion about whether Feingold is preferable to Walker, and — as I read Feingold's mind — Feingold would prefer for people to leave him out of it and concentrate on how bad Scott Walker is.

By disclaiming the desire to take power, Feingold is able to present himself as a statesman, appearing at numerous anti-Walker events to bolster the morale of the protesters and, seemingly selflessly,  to criticize Walker. Here he was at Saturday's recall rally. Here he was at the Walkerville protest in June. And here he was embodying the Wisconsin protests for Netroots Nation people. That was back in March, before he'd done much at Wisconsin protests (oddly enough!), but when folks outside of Wisconsin, like FireDogLake, were straining to connect Feingold to the protests. FireDogLake noted that "practically every rally in Madison has included some variant of a 'Feingold for Governor' sign."

Back then, Feingold had only appeared at — I think — one anti-Walker protest: On February 18th, he marched with some firefighters. That was 2 days after he announced that he was starting a new organization called "Progressives United" (which hasn't made much... progress), about a month after he signed on to teach "Current Legal Issues: The U.S. Senate" at Marquette Law School, and 3 months after he was humiliated by the loss of his Senate seat to a political newby, the tea partier Ron Johnson.

As the protest season unrolled, and Walker-haters chanted "Recall Walker" and carried signs picturing Feingold with the slogan "This is what a Governor looks like," Feingold had to be careful not to look too eager to grab the governorship. Under Wisconsin law, there could not be a recall election until early 2012, and the time-line had to be managed. Feingold figured out — I'm guessing — that he needed to stay in the background, act as though he wanted nothing for himself, and let the demand build. People would have to beg to run.

If and when the recall Walker campaign come to fruition, there will be a painful, embarrassing dearth of willing Democratic candidates. The cry will reach a crescendo: Help us, Russ Feingold, you're our only hope!

And then, not for himself, not because he lost the Senate seat, not because he'd like to set himself up for a run at the presidency in 2016, but humbly, out of a pressing sense of duty, for the sake of the People of Wisconsin, Reluctant Russ will step forward. Oh, the liberal love that will gush forth that day!

Will he win? I don't know. He could be rehumiliated. First, that tea partier Ron Johnson, and next, that weasel Walker!

But what else can Feingold do with himself? Teach more courses about law and politics at Marquette? No, he has big ambitions, and the most ambitious path leads to the presidency. Russ wanted the presidency in 2008, (and his campaign collapsed early). What is the one thing that would — by far — help launch Feingold to the presidency if anything is going to launch him? Executive experience — successful executive experience — running a state.

He can't wait until 2014 — when Walker's term runs out — to run for governor. He must have realized that when he lost his Senate seat. This recall is exactly what he needs to restore his political career. Note that he declined to run for the Senate seat Herb Kohl is vacating. Why? I think it's that he already had fixed his ambition on the governor position. Why? It would be too small an accomplishment to crawl back to the Senate, where Ron Johnson is sitting in his seat. And the Senate is not a good path to the presidency. Feingold learned that the last time around, in the 2008 campaign. You need executive experience (or you need to be Barack Obama). Senator doesn't cut it. Especially for 2016, after Barack Obama.

So you take over as Governor of Wisconsin. You bring peace to our state after all of this discord. The liberals lapse into a snooze of bliss. Realistically, they know you can't do anything, because the Republicans hold the legislature. All you need to be is our dear Russ, the liberal, who ended the pain that was Scott Walker. While the liberals are sated and sleeping it off, Russ will build his new reputation. He'll demonstrate bipartisanship, working with the Republican legislature, gathering in a few symbolic accomplishments. The economic outlook will probably brighten — with Walker's reforms remaining in place — and Governor Feingold will glow over every tick upward. Feingold will seem so mature and moderate, so responsible and effective, so intelligent... so excellent!

Blah blah blah...  

President Feingold!!!

"I think there's a reason that the AP and the New York Times are lining up against Obama."

Said Rush Limbaugh yesterday, looking at AP's "Are rich taxed less than secretaries?" and David Brook's "I'm a sap" column in the NYT. So what's the reason? It's got "nothing to do with taxes and who pays and who doesn't," he says:

I think there's a whole other reason why that's happening...  And that is, they see their ideology on the line here.  This guy is going to sink liberalism if he is not propelled to victory or if somebody doesn't take his place.  They have figured out on the left that Obama's not worth saving if it means bye-bye liberalism....  And they were ecstatic, finally got somebody in office that they thought was gonna be the standard-bearer to take 'em to utopia and, instead, we have a country on the prospect of ruin.  And they cannot allow for people to associate the ruination of this country with liberalism...

The New York Times is leading it; the others have caught onto it. Even the Chicago Tribune had a column yesterday -- the Chicago Tribune! ["Why Obama should withdraw."] The best thing he could do for the party and the country, just not run. The only way the party is gonna stand a chance of winning under current circumstances is if Obama's not on the ticket.

Is it really such a strong phenomenon — liberal media turning against Obama? And, if it is, is it that they're trying to bring in a new Democratic candidate? The Chicago Tribune piece assumes that new candidate would be Hillary Clinton. But, I'm sorry, I can't see the Democratic Party thriving by ousting Obama. What chaos! And Hillary would have to compete in the primaries. Presumably, other Democrats — those characters who are otherwise waiting for 2016 — would jump into the fray. (But who are those other Democrats? What is the next wave of presidential-seeming Democrats?) I think it would be an awful mess if he were publicly hounded into withdrawing.

If some powerful alliance of liberals really wanted Obama to withdraw, they would — I imagine — be operating in private. It would be handled in a way that would preserve Obama's ability to come forward and present his withdrawal in a very grand and lofty style, as a matter of his own decision and not out of desperation and for highly altruistic reasons.

ADDED: Who are the Democrats for 2016? The Mayors Emanuel and Bloomberg? Andrew Cuomo? Janet Napolitano, Claire McCaskill, Kathleen Sebelius, Mary Landrieu, Kirsten Gillibrand, Sonia Sotomayor, Gabby Gifffords?

Russ Feingold: "While I may seek elective office again someday, I have decided not to run for public office during 2012."

That means he's not running for the Senate seat that Herb Kohl is getting up out of and not going to be the one to challenge Gov. Scott Walker in any recall that becomes a possibility beginning next January.

In an email going out to supporters early Friday morning, Feingold called it a difficult decision but said he wanted to devote his time to teaching full time at Marquette Law School, finishing the book he is writing on the U.S. response to the Sept. 11 attacks and leading the political committee he founded, Progressives United.

I take that to mean that he doesn't think he'd be able to win. I mean really, a book on the U.S. response to the Sept. 11 attacks? Shouldn't that have been done and ready to go on the 10th anniversary of the attacks? Or is it possible that Russ Feingold is a serious law professor writing a scholarly book of real depth?

I assume he'd rather be Governor now than Senator again, and I think it's sound judgment to stay away from the recall context. Wait for the next regular elections. Recalls have a nasty edge to them, and Feingold needs to reclaim the middle ground politically to win a state-wide majority. Being the hero of the protesters won't get him anywhere near far enough. Remember this Russ Feingold?



"This game is not over until we win" is not — ironically — what will win the governorship in Wisconsin. Better to be a law professor for a while, publish a serious book on national government, and be reborn as the wise moderate. Take the governorship and, with all that moderation and executive experience, there's still time to run for President. Even in 2016!

I'm creating my "2016 campaign" tag right now, in honor of (that insight about) Russ.

And by the way:

His decision leaves the Democratic Senate field wide open, though many Wisconsin Democrats will now regard U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, with her political base in vote-rich Dane County, as the early favorite for the party nomination.

Dane County — basically, Madison — may be "vote-rich," but having the Madison brand on you — and Baldwin, of course, deserves it — is going to hurt you elsewhere in the state. But, go ahead Tammy, run.