Mark Warner? - not quite yet (a Virginia perspective) (long)

[DancingBear]

Can Mark Warner unseat Hillary? Is Mark Warner the next big thing? Can Mark Warner cure cancer? Because of one Gubernatorial victory in Virginia, these questions are getting asked all over the place, and people are asking about the “real” Mark Warner. Well, I don’t know him, but I do live in his home state, so for better or worse here is one person’s opinion on Mark Warner and why maybe (just maybe) it might be time to stop making DU goo-goo eyes at him.

First, the positives:

He is an absolutely fabulous campaigner, and he has charisma coming out the wazoo. He comes across as eminently likeable, he can converse across a wide spectrum of topics, and is just as comfortable talking with NASCASR dads as he is with policy wonks.

He makes you feel good when you hear him speak, and he makes you believe that your opinion matters.

He took Virginia out of the fiscal hole that the previous governor put us in, and he was able to work with a Republican-controlled legislature to get it done. He was able to convince Virginians that some things were worth paying a little more for, and that “I’ll cut your taxes” is/was not the solution to what ailed this state.

He convinced parts of this state that would vote for Kevorkian before they voted for a Democrat that he was not so much an ideologue, but a fixer of problems, and that what was best for Virginia transcended party lines.

His presense was a big part in the election of Tim Kaine. Kaine can be a very non-descript cautious politician, and had it not been for Warner he would have had a difficult time of it here. However, his association with Warner during the last four years calmed a lot of fears, and it allowed Kaine to present himself in a very positive light (not that he is not a very fine man in his own right). Warner allowed him to be the real Tim Kaine, and not the man who the Repubs wanted to define him as. Having Warner with him during the campaign was a godsend.

Now, the negatives.

1) I’ve defined Warner as great on the stump, enjoyable to listen to, willing to listen, and willing to extend the olive branch when things need to get done. Sound like anybody we know? How about Bill Clinton, and how about John Edwards? Let’s look at these two people. Clinton was able to win using the very same attributes that Warner possesses, but (and here is the very huge difference) in a different culture. There was no “war” going on while Clinton was running – he was able to define his opponent in economic terms. Imagine if you will if Iraq was on the table when Clinton campaigned on his platform of populace. Draft dodger. Oxford. Letters to get out of the military. Get the drift?

Now, let’s look at Edwards. Anyone remember the painful debate with Cheney, where John got his hat handed to him foreign-policy wise by one of the biggest draft dodgers the world has ever seen? Face it, he was so out of his element re: “terrorism” that it was almost painful to watch. NO swing voter bought his “tough stance” – hell, I didn’t buy it. He gave a great speech, he was wonderful to listen to, he has a great family and a wonderful wife, and Bush is in The White House (vote-stealing not withstanding).

So along comes Warner – a Clinton/Edwards clone if there ever was one, and we will soon find ourselves once again in an election where the boogieman “terrorism” will be front and center. On one hand we will find the hand picked replacement for The Buffoon, on the other (if some have their way) Warner. Buffoon’s replacement will be, one can be assured, armed with whatever foreign policy/terrorism/military gravitas that the Repubs will think will work. Warner will come with NO foreign policy experience. Do you really want to roll the dice on someone like that? Granted, the Repubs will be badly hurt by Buffoon’s massive fucking up of everything military, but wouldn’t it be a bit more prudent of us as Dems to put forth a candidate who can neutralize any perceived “strong on terrorism” pitch? Warner can’t - not his fault, to be sure, but he just can't.

2) Warner became Governor of Virginia by doing two things: convincing people in the Republican strongholds that he really wasn’t a Democrat (as defined by hate radio) and appealing to their economic concerns on a local level (emphasis mine). If this was 1992 the latter would work, but it will be 2008 and it won’t. He (Warner) was brilliant in concocting a strategy that took advantage of what was affecting his constituents. Edwards tried the same tactic (“two Americas”) on a national level. End of story.

3) As for Warner helping get Kaine elected, he did. But guess what – so did Kilgore. He ran what many here are calling one of the worst campaigns since Manassas was a battlefield and not a city. It was awful. Every major news outlet in the state (and many nationwide) carried reports of his insane “Kaine wouldn’t execute Hitler” ads. Those ads literally disgusted people, and were one of the reasons the independents broke for Kaine because of it. So let’s not give Warner too much credit – he was a huge help, but Jerry Kilgore stuck the knife into his own chest.

4) He is a DLC Democrat. I don’t mean to start fights here, but his governing style reminds me of an old Steve Goodman song – “take two steps to the left, two steps to the right, then you stand in the middle and you hang on tight.”

5) Question – where does he help nationally? By this I mean what states can he put in play that any other Dem candidate couldn’t? Virginia, you say? I’ll just bet that if Mark Warner gets the Democratic nomination for President then the GOP is gonna have either Virginian John Warner or Virginian George Allen sitting on their ticket. Say what you will about the cranial capacities of either, but one has this “Armed Services Committee” thing he can carry around, and the other is the son of a legend. Virginia ain’t no slam-dunk anymore.

So what we have then, is an extremely charismatic moderate Democrat with no foreign policy experience who wants to be president. I’ve seen that movie before, and I don’t think I’m quite ready to pay to see it again. You find me someone who can take the “war on terrorism” bullshit out back and shoot it dead and then we’ll talk. Until then, I’ll root for Mark Warner to win his next election – as a U.S. Senator.

Just my .02.

[Carolab]

1. Excellent. Thank you for this perspective.

Now, who can take the war on terrorism bullshit out back and shoot it dead?

[DancingBear]

2. Well, I did volunteer for just such a fellow in the last Dem primary

Generally speaking, of course. :) :)

Aside from him, we shall see - it'll be a big field. I mean, any Dem with a pulse wants a piece of the '08 race.

[Carolab]

3. You are right about this and the "New Democrats" are trying to prove it.

The indispensable enablers of war are the New Democrats and potential presidential nominees, Sens. Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Biden, and Bayh, who are trying to sell their "tough on defense" stance. PLUS they are DLC.

I don't want to support them, do you? They are the flip side of PNAC--the PIP. Neoliberals are no better than neocons, when it comes to war. They are ALL pushing the New World Order, US imperalism agenda.

No DLC.

[FreedomAngel82]

18. The only one I would really support from your list

is Kerry. He is the more progressive one. I don't think Edwards has enough experience (even though I do like him) and I don't trust the other three sadly.

[electropop]

36. Who's tough enough to blow up all the Bushit?

Boxer/Conyers, of course. They love to spit in the face of the GOP and they're smart, compassionate, real Dems.

I am a Virginian, and I like Warner. Yeah, he's DLC, but he's also very very competent. Remember competent government? That's what voters are craving. Whether it's the "War On Terra" or the economy, they are finally seeing what incompetence does to us and they want competence. Warner has demonstrated that. So I think he'd be a perfectly strong candidate, though I would prefer a strong Democrat.

[MuseRider]

4. Thank you.

I needed your perspective to balance out some of the others. Now I can store this all away and see what plays out. We have a long way to go till then and miles and miles to cover.

I really appreciate this.

[Mass]

5. 2008 is a long time ago - May be it would be more important to focus

on what happens NOW and for 06.

[SCDem]

6. That's why we should have Clark as his VP or Warner as Clark's VP!

[corporatemedia]

7. Just wondering....

"...apealing to their economic concerns on a local level (emphasis mine)."

Who do the words belong to ???

[DancingBear]

8. Me

Why do you ask?

[corporatemedia]

21. Because...

Normally "emphasis mine" is used when altering a quoted article where the emphasis was not in the original piece.

For original work, of course the emphasis is yours as is the entire article.

I've just never seen "emphasis mine" used in that way. That's all.

[DancingBear]

25. Got it!

English teachers all over America are cringing at my ignorance. :)

[newyawker99]

29. delete

[Zynx]

9. If the "War on Terror" is still a top 3 issue by 2008(it isn't even now)

I will eat my shoe. When the Republicans try to invoke 9/11 in 2008, 90% of people won't give a shit and those that do only want to give a shit because they think it will give them political advantage.

I will respond to the rest of your points when I have time.

[DancingBear]

11. Looking forward to it

I will say, however, in a "pre-emptive" defense that the Repubs will take their perceived strong on national defense mantra and run with it.

To combat same, we as Dems must have at our disposal a comprehensive plan for ending the occupation of Iraq.

I'm curious to see how someone like Warner will be able to deal with both issues.

[FreedomAngel82]

19. I think that's all they'll have in 2008

All they'll have in 2008 is defense and playing the "blame the democrats" game and all that stuff. I also wonder about Warner with Iraq. Anybody know where he stands on that? But I think that's why his VP nominee will be important if he is the nominee such as Clark or someone from the foreign relation's committee.

[electropop]

37. The GOP has handed Defense to US as OUR issue.

Everybody in America (except the bottom 35% in IQ) see the Republicans as dangerously incompetent, dishonest and insane on defense matters. We OWN this issue and we have to take advantage of it.

[Zynx]

38. Okay. Now I have time.

The truth is that the "War on Terror" ranks as only 10% of voters' top priority. Getting out of Iraq and the economy are higher. If we decided to raise a large-scale healthcare debate in the country, that would be up there too. The truth is, terrorism isn't as important as it used to be as an issue. It diminishes constantly. If there is a terror attack on this country between now and '08, I may reconsider the argument, but until then I think the Democrats should virtually ignore it except for advocating more money for homeland security spending. We should stick to our bread and butter issues and Mark Warner has always been successful at campaigning on those issues.

On your second point, Warner has a different approach than Edwards from what I have seen. Edwards really spoke in general terms whereas Warner was the "businessman" approach where he looks at specific problems and says "What can we do to fix it?". People prefer the businessman approach. Also, Edwards, quite frankly, just did not come off as credible. I don't know what it was about him, but he just didn't. Thirdly, I'm actually not entirely sure I understand what you mean that this won't work in '08 and is a more '92 strategy. The likelihood is that we will have a recession between now and 2008(simple economic probabilities) and thus economic issues will be even more at the forefront.

Kaine would not have won in Virginia if Warner was not popular. Do you really think that Kaine could have won if Warner had a 40% approval rating and had done a shitty job as governor? The reason Kilgore's campaign was lousy was because he couldn't attack the success of the Warner/Kaine administration so he had to use social issues and absurd labels.

Americans are not looking for an ideologue as president or for any office. They are looking for competence. There is no groundswell for a social revolution in this country. Indeed, there rarely is. If we try to run a liberal ideologue, we will lose the next election. We need to run as a pragmatic party opposed to the Republican ideological bullshit that has turned people off. Warner is the perfect candidate for this sort of campaign. I'm sorry if you're looking for a social revolutionary because you will be disappointed election after election for many years to come. Americans are not in the mood as they showed by rejecting the right wing social agenda and appear to be very lukewarm at best to our own social agenda. They're just not up to it right now.

Finally, John Warner, who is possibly the only one in Virginia as popular as Mark Warner, will not run. I don't know where the hell you got that idea. I know one magazine article cited that, but it ain't going to happen. The guy is ancient. As for George Allen, even a Rasmussen poll showed Warner beating Allen 47-41% in VA and Warner would probably do a lot better in the south as a whole than Hillary Clinton or most of the rest of the Democrats thinking about running. He may make TN and AR competitive as well considering they are both more moderate southern states.

Also, we went with a candidate with lots of "experience" in foreign policy last time and that didn't convince the American people. Experience does not impress the American people. If it did, Gore would have won in landslide, Clinton would have been crushed, Reagan would have lost, Carter would have lost, and people would have voted for Nixon over Kennedy.

I don't know, maybe we just see things differently.

[UTUSN]

10. Brilliant Analysis and Painful Truthtelling n/t

[ruggerson]

12. But he isn't running for the Senate

He's going to run for President. While I understand your concerns, history shows, that while the American people get duped by different tactics from time to time, they rarely fall for the same tactic twice. I don't think, with Bush's utterly failed foreign policy, that "terrorism" is going to have the same effect it did in '04. We also had a very uncharismatic, aloof candidate in '04, who, despite his stiffness as a campaigner, came very close to defeating Bush, despite the fearmongering tactics of the Bush/Cheney cabal.

Foreign policy experience, or lack thereof, has never been much of a hindrance to winning the White House. Witness Jack Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George Bush the Junior.

[FreedomAngel82]

20. Oh I had that feeling last year myself

Just from how things are looking I think in the 2008 run terrorism will play a role but not quite so much. I think by 2008 people will care more about having a job, health care, public education etc. and I think the democrats will do really well on those issues.

[Zynx]

40. And in that case we need someone strong on domestic issues.

I can think of no stronger candidate to run on those issues than Warner.

[Virginian]

26. Mark Warner isn't running for the Senate in '06.

But I have heard rumors of John Warner retiring in '08 and Mark Warner running for that seat.

We really do need someone to run against Allen in '06.

[DancingBear]

34. I know he's not not running for Senate

and that he has a (Presidential) PAC set up.

I am (was) just hoping that is the track he will/would take -probably should have made it clearer in the original post.

Bad Bear. :(

[Virginian]

43. Time will tell.

He seems to be gearing up for '08. Maybe, if he is satisfied with the primary candidates for President, he may decide to go for experience in the Senate.

The problem is, we need to get rid of Allen and Mark was the best man to do it. George Allen does not represent the people of Virginia, he represents George Bush to the Senate.

[Sparkly]

13. Food for Thought.

Thanks for this.

[ruggerson]

14. One other thing

This pre 911 thing vs. post 911 thing buys right into a Republican neocon mindset of the world.

The world hasn't changed because WE got attacked by terrorists. Modern day terrorism has been around for decades (IRA... remember?). The inter-state feuding in the middle east has been around for thousands of years.

If we accept the premise that 9/11 changed the planet in some earthshaking way, we've already ceded the playing field to the dark side.

A smart candidate will get the public to hop on board his/her agenda of pointing us in a new direction, making us much safer from terrorism at home, while not needlessly creating a state of anarchy in yet another middle eastern country.

[Pithy Cherub]

15. That is an excellent political analysis. Warner lacks

diplomacy skills on a national and international stage. As does Edwards. Those are exceedingly necessary when America has squandered its moral certitude and it will have gone MIA for almost 7 years by the time of the 2008 presidential elections.

Mark Warner has been able to speak to bringing entrepreneurship and building small businesses within the minority community. Until he can repair his rift with Douglas Wilder (in his own state), speak to minority affairs issues beyond business, and craft policies that deal with minority issues, he will have a hard time galvanizing minority voters which are a part of the base around the country.

Your .02 (worth a million dollars though) gives eloquent validation to the way I feel about one term Governor Warner. Indifferent and not a candidate that would garner my support.

[progressivebydesign]

28. And Bush's diplomatic skills stack up how? exactly?

My point is that the average voter gives NO thought to diplomatic skills. The most important thing in the election is to WIN.

[Pithy Cherub]

44. Actually they do and will. The average voter

knows that American prestige has suffered because of incompetence and a lack of diplomacy. The alleged coalition of the willing kept shrinking and when they see an American president on television being protested on every continent, it's not a huge leap for them to understand that somebody with diplomatic experience is needed. I have more respect for the average voter. Diplomacy skills are a prerequisite that will be an issue because of America's world image. Warner has 0, zip, nada, no diplomacy or foreign relations skills. He would also need to have those same skills to bridge the gap to minority voters.

[Zynx]

39. And who do you support exactly?

[Pithy Cherub]

45. An experienced candidate with international and national security creds,

a proven affinity with minority concerns and issues, economic and domestic policies that are transparent and progressive and somebody proud to be a liberal are the must haves for my candidate of choice. ;)

[Zynx]

54. You're very picky.

And I know that you are refering to Clark or Kerry, I can't tell which.

[Paul Dlugokencky]

60. How about Gore?

Gore/Boxer?

[GoreDean2008]

64. Yes to Gore! We Have to Restore Legitimacy of Presidential Succession

The 2008 presidential election should not just be the Democrats retaking the White House because we have to restore the presidential legitimacy.

George W. Bush was not a legitimately elected president in 2000 and even his 2004 election result is dubious at best because of Ohio. Under this illegitimately selected and questionably elected so-called president, our country is not the same country that we used to know. We have to right the wrong in our country and it begins with the restoration of our presidential legitimacy.

For this reason, we have to re-elect Al Gore. Al Gore is the current president of the United States who was sent to exile by the 5 Supreme Court Justices and kept in exile by Hillary Clinton and her DLC cronies (because she wants to become the president ASAP). Al Gore is America's only progressive statesman with grand future vision. Al Gore is the right person to lead our country in the next decade and we have no other alternative.

[ernstbass]

16. Very thoughtful post

I, too, wish Mark Warner would run for US Senate against George Allen. The one advantage he has in a presidential race is that he's a Washington outsider which has some appeal.

[FreedomAngel82]

22. Yes

I think so too. And he can talk about the corrupt republican's and things like that. I'm interested in getting to know him even more so hopefully I'll be able to do that. :)

[FreedomAngel82]

17. You do make good points and I see where you're coming from

I'm starting to like him and apparently he is pro-choice and for LGBT issues. I think if it came to him signing a bill to recognize gay marriage he would. I think he would be a good canidate for president. He is from the south and as you said he appeals to those NASCAR dad's as well. I think on foreign policey it all depends on who his VP canidate is. Maybe it would be great to have Warner/Clark or someone on the foreign relations committee. I'm not a huge fan of the DLC either and have some iffy feelings with them but I go by actual canidate's instead of the group as a whole. I also heard reported by Rhandi Rhodes yesterday (the first hour) that Virgina was the number one state with the economy. Is that true? If so that would be a huge thing to use with his campaign. We need someone who can run a campaign really well. The Clinton team in 1992 ran a great campaign. If you haven't you should try to see when the Clinton campaign doc "The War Room" will be on again the Sundance Channel. It's something all political junkies would love and what I recommend to anyone running for any sort of political office.
I have been hearing Warner speak on old CSPAN video's and like him for the most part. I think if the democrats controlled the House and Senate when the next democrat is president we could get a lot done no matter how liberal a canidate is I think.

[BonnieJW]

23. I totally agree

Why doesn't he wow them in the Senate and then go for the gold? Ronald McDonald could beat George Allen, who is on the pointy end of the "I'm with stupid" T-shirt. Every time he's been on a Sunday morning talk show, he's a buffoon.

[geek tragedy]

24. A few responses:

1) Warner is a governor, and virtually no governor has foreign policy experience. However, governors make MUCH better candidates for the Presidency than do Senators who have such experience, but also have problematic voting records (and everyone in the Senate has problem votes on their resume--part of the job).

Since 1964, the Dems have won the White House three whole times. It was a Southern Democratic governor in all three cases. Only one Democratic governor, Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts, lost.

In contrast, no Senator from either party has been elected President since John F. Kennedy.

Warner can provide rhetoric, and also point out that neither Bush nor Clinton nor Reagan had foreign policy experience.

He can also have Wesley Clark as his running mate.

2) Kaine had help from a bad Republican opponent, but back to back wins for the VA statehouse is still impressive.

3) This is going to sting some people's ears, but the DLC is not the tool of Satan. There are good DLC'ers and bad DLC'ers, just like there are good and bad leftwingers. What most people around these parts don't quite get is that Kerry was a shitty candidate first and foremost because he was a liberal Northeast Senator. I myself am a Northeast liberal, but I realize that folks like me aren't going to get elected President in today's America. Maybe 20 years from now, but not in 2008.

4) He puts Virginia in play, and also North Carolina, West Virginia, etc etc. He plays better with cultural conservatives and populists than does a smooth-talking trial lawyer like John Edwards. Moreover, nominating someone like Warner would tell the NASCAR folks that the Democratic party doesn't look down on them--a perception which has been a big problem the past two elections.

[Virginian]

31. And there we have it folks, TWO very good viewpoints on Warner.

One from inside Virginia, trying to be a realist and one from outside Virginia, with a more optimistic viewpoint.

Both arguments are very good, and both are valid. Only time will tell if '08 is the right year for a Presidential bid from our sitting Governor.

[geek tragedy]

33. Well, I'm from New York, and I can tell you that

Hillary is not the answer.

Neither, of course, is Pataki. *Giggles*

I'm not sold on Warner, though I like what I've seen so far. The #1 priority of course is to get a Dem who seems credible on national defense.

And, as stupid as this sounds, someone with a Southern accent who has populist appeal will have more credibility on the subject with voters than a Northeast liberal. It's not logical, but it's politics.

[Virginian]

42. Mark Warner isn't a native of Virginia, therefore, no accent.

I think he is originally from Indiana.
IMHO He doesn't sound like a Southerner. His accent is about as neutral as they get.

You probably already know that and were using "accent" as a colorful description for that unexplainable ability to be accepted into a culture and supported by that culture as one of its own.

People who are not from the South, sometimes think the accent is somehow connected to stupidity. It is a stereotype that is totally manufactured in Hollywood and unfounded. For those people, Mark will not be mistaken for stupid.

[FreedomAngel82]

47. Exactly

My dad isn't orignially from Tennessee and he doesn't have an accent even though he's been living here and in the south in general in a long time. Look at Jimmy Carter for example. He's a southerner and has a good brain. :)

[Duncan]

35. Warner/Clark - sounds like a winner to me so far.

If I put my liberal dreams of a president Wellstone aside for a moment and think clearly, I think Warner provides our best chance of winning to date, a better chance than Hillary, and I believe he could be a great president. He is a good guy. I would hate to see him get preemptively bashed by progressives for being centrist, he needs all the momentum he can get. I will save my Warner bashing for when he is in the white house, if he needs it, and I currently have no reason to think he will. I did buy Edward's "tough on terrorism" stance and will probably buy Warner's. Why the heck not? Also, George Allen is no threat, the man is not even well liked by the repubs I talk to, and he exudes an air of arrogance, ignorance, and stupidity. He is so much like Bush that he is almost guaranteed to lose.

[geek tragedy]

52. And I'll take an honest-to-goodness centrist over a panderer

like Hillary.

Of course, I'll take Hillary over any Puke as well.

[DancingBear]

55. What you say about Allen is untrue

He is the darling of Beltway Republicans, the (Repub) county that I live in thinks he walks on water, and Limbaugh gets orgasmic over him.

If he runs in some capacity, remember that if need be Bushco will funnel him the pet projects, etc. that he needs to "impress" us Virginians.

You are spot on with the intellect comment, however - he is dumber than the proverbial box of rocks.

I can never see him running on the top of the ticket - but I easily see him as a VP candidate.

[Ignacio Upton]

69. Something to point out - Warner is NOT a native Virginian

Virginia, culturally-speaking, is becoming more and more "Yankified" as people fom the north move down to Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William Counties. Warner himself was originally from Connecticut and also lived in Indiana for part of his childhood. Kaine and Allen are also from other parts of the country. Kaine is from Missouri, near St. Louis, and Allen is from California.
This is not a liability, but I wanted to point this out, because people are expecting him to have a thick drawl like Clinton or Edwards.

[progressivebydesign]

27. And he looks like Bobby Kennedy sometimes.

Heck, I'm open to ANY candidate for our nominee. ANY candidate. I don't prejudge candidates one way or another. I want to see who things shake out during the primaries. I like what I've seen and read of Warner, so far. But.. we'll have to see.

If a charismatic moderate from the SOuth is gonna win it for us, I say Right On!

[mattclearing]

30. He would make a solid VP pick.

His inclusion on a ticket would almost certainly take VA for the blue team.

Clark heading up his ticket would take care of his foreign policy credentials.

[second edition]

32. From my perspective, what you say make a lot of sense. Let's

not just grab Warner and run with him. I also hope he goes for the Senate. I think we need to put to rest the Clinton clone as a sure fire ticket to the White House. IMO, the next President will have to have broad knowledge and experience that encompasses both foreign and domestic issues.

[Zynx]

41. Most experienced candidate ever: James Buchanan Worst President Ever:

James Buchanan

Hmmm...Interesting. Experience does not matter really. What matters is good judgement. FDR was Assistant Secretary of the Navy(big effin' deal) and governor of New York for 4 years. That's not a whole lot of experience. However, he had great judgement.

[FreedomAngel82]

48. I agree

And FDR was elected president four times and the only time in our country's history. :)

[WI_DEM]

46. I'm not sure that he is ready for #1 but maybe #2

He is a charismatic southerner who could, maybe even with Allen, bring Virginia along with a few other southern states. He has executive experience which voters seem to like more than legislative. I could see him being on the short list for the Democratic nomination for VP in 2008.

[On the Road]

49. I Think Warner Will Be One of the Top Three

Unless Gore enter the race, I think Dems will be looking for new blood in 08. Warner is one of the new breed of state-level Democrats who is capable of changing basic political perceptions. That is extremely valuable.

[quisp]

50. I'm a Virginian and I've met him...

You make some valid points, DLC Dem, etc. but I like Warner a lot.

I would be excited to see him run and I would love to see Bill Richardson and Mark Warner together on the ticket.

[DancingBear]

51. I've met him also - I just don't know him personally

I, too, like him quite a bit, but we'll need a lot more than likeability this time around.

Can't say I'm a big Richardson fan, though - strikes me as wanting to be all things to all people.

I either want to hug him or whack him on the head. :)

[quisp]

63. heheh

ain't it the truth,
but now that you mention it that could describe most of the people I know!

[phylny]

59. I'm formerly from Virginia (and will move there again for retirement)

and I really like Mark Warner.

I wouldn't mind him on the #2 spot, either, with Clark.

I hope one of the things that Dems get right this time is that all the men or women running for the Democratic nomination work HARD to NOT denigrate their fellow Democratic opponents. I think it hurt Kerry/Edwards at the outset.

In other words, keep the campaigns positive, and focused on what each candidate wants to do. Any disagreements can be made forcefully, but politely.

[robbedvoter]

53. But, but, but...Times Magazine said we should be impressed, so...

I am flabbergasted at the gullibility of DU-ers to the media new attempts to manipulate our primary (as per orders).
Just came from a mockery of local election in NYC where the media first elevated the weakest candidate through coverage, then called the zillionaire GOP-er "the bestest ever". remember this formula. It's played over and over and over - and people keep falling for it.

[jagasian]

56. Far left and far right don't like him...

The far Left and the far Right seem to not like Mark Warner, which in my opinion means that he is a good pick. Kerry was a boring, spineless lying sack of shit, and Gore was a bore. We need another Bill Clinton, and Warner is just that. Remember how the far Left and the far Right also hated (and still hate) Bill Clinton? Remember how good life was under him? I want more of THAT!

[jenndar]

57. Thanks.

I've been wondering what, specifically, Virginians think of him.

[bakseatbandit]

67. My thoughts as a Virginian

Mark Warner, to my opinion has lead Virginia through common sense policies. His stances on issues reflects my own: balanced budget, he's not a staunch Dem on entitlements, but he's no ax welding hatchet man either, he believes in gun rights, supports the death penalty, he believes in leaders working together, he understands that both sides are right and wrong and he has shown a willingness to whats right ahead of party. I see him as a Democrat version of John Warner. I can say he has done a very good job. He hasn't solved all this states problems. What he did was he led us out of the jungle of fiscal shortages and got us turned back into the right direction. With what was facing him coming in, and having to fix those problems with a GOP majority controlling the state, I would give an A. Like I said, he stance on some issues don't fall in line with the left-wing of the Dem party, such as gun rights, death penalty, both of which he supports consistently. My opinion of him is he would make a good national politician. Oh, and he's a self-made rich guy, he understands economics, big business and so on. I don't think big business would shun him in the way they did Kerry.

[HockeyMom]

58. Why Southern Men?

As a Northeastern WOMAN, I am getting sick and tired of Southern Men. Sorry, all you Southern DU Men. Ok, maybe they don't want somebody from the "liberal Northeast". But WHY does it have to be from the South? What is wrong with the MidWest, then? The Heartland of America.

[Ignacio Upton]

70. Warner is technically not a southerner by birth

He's from Indiana originally, and grew up in Connecticut for part of his childhood.

[oxbow]

61. KERRY, A WAR HERO, WAS NOMINATED...

and the repubs still made him out to be a milquetoast. I say we nominate the best man and not worry about them. Worry about the media is more like it

having said that, I still like Clark better than Warner (though I am proud of Warner's work in my home-state, VA!)

[incapsulated]

65. And yet..

His only negative vs. Bush in polling was... National Security. Their ability to turn his war hero status around on him was as much his own fault as their success, imho.

I fully expect National Security to continue to be a major issue in 2008. We dismiss that at our peril.

[DancingBear]

66. Well stated

It will be a major component of the other sides argument - perhaps their only one.

How will they frame it?

Aye, there's the rub.

[GoreDean2008]

62. We Have to Re-elect Al Gore in 2008 to Restore Presidential Legitimacy

The 2008 presidential election should not just be the Democrats retaking the White House because we have to restore the presidential legitimacy.

George W. Bush was not a legitimately elected president in 2000 and even his 2004 election result is dubious at best because of Ohio. Under this illegitimately selected and questionably elected so-called president, our country is not the same country that we used to know. We have to right the wrong in our country and it begins with the restoration of our presidential legitimacy.

For this reason, we have to re-elect Al Gore. Al Gore is the current president of the United States who was sent to exile by the 5 Supreme Court Justices and kept in exile by Hillary Clinton and her DLC cronies (because she wants to become the president ASAP). Al Gore is America's only progressive statesman with grand future vision. Al Gore is the right person to lead our country in the next decade and we have no other alternative.

[Awsi Dooger]

68. Your take on the 2004 VP debate is wacko

I watched it as recently as last week. Edwards was hardly handed his hat at any point of that debate. News flash: the majority of polls had Edwards the winner of that debate. I'm talking about actual polls, not influential polls. I bet at an offshore site that let you bet on winners of every debate. They specified the polls they would use ahead of time. Edwards was declared the winner by the website based on the poll consensus and they paid off bets on him.

Last year was all about foreign policy so if he had been destroyed in that facet during the debate no chance so many people would have judged Edwards the winner. Just look at the body language immediately post debate. There was a reason Edwards sprang to his feet with a huge smile at debate's end that basically said to Cheney, "Hey, thanks for coming, Dick." Meanwhile, Cheney just sat there with a look that said, "I'd like to clobber this kid."

Anyone who thinks a VP has sizable influence on a presidential race has no clue. In his home state Edwards was worth precisely the 3-4 points I predicted or that anyone would rightfully predict based on historical logic. As far as swing voters, that is probably even more bizarre than the VP debate handicap. Every indication from primaries forth was Edwards had by far the most pull with swing or independent voters. We ignored that at our own electability ignorance. Lousy handicapping once again.