Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, one of several Democrats with an eye on 2008, became the first member of the senate to demand a fixed withdrawal date when he called on the White House to bring the troops home by December 31, 2006.
Aside from the obvious importance of a member of the Senate calling not for withdrawal "as early as possible," as Sen. Kennedy has said, but for withdrawal by a fixed date, could there be another positive trend buried in the announcement? Maybe. Possibly.
Russ Feingold voted against the Iraq War in the first place and won by 11% in a state that Kerry carried by less than .4%.
Last month Paul Hackett called Bush a "chickenhawk" and nearly took an Ohio district that supported Bush the way that Iraqi voters used to "support" Saddam, or the way they just can't get enough of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, currently serving his 733rd term.
Clearly Feingold has a history of taking strong stands but he still waited an awful long time to come out with this announcement. Could it be that Democrats are catching on to the fact that taking a strong, ethical stand and aggressively defending it may be the key to electoral success?
Is Feingold staking out a plausible, antiwar stance early in the game? If he does, anyone wanna take bets on his darkhorse candidacy surpassing Hillary's?