Speculation on the 2008 presidential race has been going strong ever since President Bush declared victory last November. A countless list of names has been tossed around for both parties, as neither the president nor vice president will be on the ticket for the first time since 1952.

And one of those names on the short list of potential commander-in-chiefs is none other than Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold.

Sen. Feingold has many convinced he is eyeing a run at the presidency, as he became the first U.S. Senator to officially call for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and also has found the time to visit New Hampshire, the first primary (the Iowa contest is a caucus).

Although many would claim otherwise, the Wisconsin senator has a fighting chance of winning the Democratic nomination and even the White House.

Sen. Feingold has managed to strike a chord with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party — the wing that matters in a primary. He voted against the invasion of Iraq, he was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001, and he voted against the partial-birth abortion ban in 2003.

Voters in the Democratic primary are going to fall further to the left than those in the general election, so any politician hoping to win the nomination needs to have at least a modest level of support among those advocating homosexual marriage, an immediate end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and universal health insurance. The same basic principle applies to the Republican Party as well; any candidate vying for the Republican nod needs to cozy up to the religious right, which can at least partially explain why John McCain endorsed teaching intelligent design in the classroom earlier this year.

The number of politicians running for the nomination could also influence Sen. Feingold's chances; if the field becomes crowded with several anti-war candidates, Feingold could ultimately face the same fate as Dennis Kucinich. Yet all the names being thrown around today — Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Bill Richardson, Mark Warner, etc. — are those representing the moderate wing of the party.

Although his name today does not command the same recognition as Hillary Clinton or John Kerry, previous political prominence does not necessarily guarantee an impressive showing in the primaries.

The 1972 Democratic primary is an excellent example of name recognition not translating into success. The primary ultimately came down to three men — former Vice President Hubert Humphrey, and Sens. Ed Muskie and George McGovern. Sen. Muskie had the will of the Democratic establishment behind him as he garnered the endorsement of virtually all prominent Democrats, and Humphrey had all the name recognition he could possibly want — he narrowly lost to Richard Nixon in 1968. However, faced with a war becoming increasingly unpopular at home, voters instead opted for George McGovern, the only true anti-war candidate of the pack.

Is Russ Feingold the current-day George McGovern? His campaign manager would cringe at the comparison, as Sen. McGovern holds the dubious distinction of being on the receiving end of one of the most lopsided election beatings in history. However, circumstances beyond Mr. McGovern's control certainly contributed to his defeat, including the revelation that Thomas Eagleton — his original VP running mate — underwent electroshock therapy, Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam (which actually meant expanding the war to Cambodia), and the robbery of the Democratic National Committee headquarters — located in the Watergate Hotel.

If Sen. Feingold runs a successful campaign and wins the primary, he then would direct his attention toward his Republican opponent and a more moderate electorate. This is traditionally known as the primary paradox — a politician needs to appear more liberal/conservative in the primary and then must moderate his or her views to appeal to a wider range of voters in the general election.

However, President Bush proved the paradox at least partially fallible least year when he dropped the "compassionate" and simply ran as a conservative. And since polls consistently show slightly more Americans consider themselves Democrats than Republicans, there is no reason to believe a liberal Democrat cannot win the presidency.

However, certain problems exist that Sen. Feingold will almost certainly encounter during his campaign. For instance, no sitting U.S. Senator has become President since John F. Kennedy in 1960. Sen. Feingold will also have to significantly add to his war chest, as past elections have shown the necessity for generous campaign donations and vast amounts of spending. If a politician has serious aspirations about running for president, now is the opportune time to begin.

Robert S. Hunger ([email protected]) is the editorial page content editor and is a senior majoring in political science and journalism.