Russ Feingold and Cory Booker come to mind.
It depends how you define good, but Cory Booker seems almost completely self interested so I'm not sure thats the first label that comes to mind for him. This seems more like Democrats that I have some agreement with. I suppose he has made some nice efforts in Newark, but he does things very strategically for personal gain. Not necessarily the mark of a good person. He certainly may be, but he's not at the top of that list for me as much as I like him.
Feingold probably qualifies though, but I agree a lot.
Huckabee seems like the perfect example if I can use someone within my own party. Many may say he promotes bigotry, but I don't think he does it for bigotry's sake like many of the homophobes in the GOP. He seems to genuinely care about other people - evidenced by the one thing I seriously agree with him on that somewhat backfired in his commutations and pardons.
Agree with Vosem that BHO tries to be a very good person.
A lot depends on your definition of good which we debated on the religion subforum a couple months back. How do you judge - the action, intent, result, etc., but I tried to just go withe mostly intent here since that's how the thread title portrays it plus a little but of my own personal belief.
I have a significantly higher opinion of Booker than you do, but then his Technocratic leanings are a plus for me. His tenure as Mayor of Newark makes me see him as one of those old-school practical liberals who knows how to keep the far left at bay, while improving the quality of life on the ground. They tend to do really well in big cities. Eric Garcetti is another one in that vein.
I don't view ambition and self-interest as a real character flaw, more a prerequisite for jumping into politics.
My only real issue with Booker is his rather strident veganism.
