Governor Mark Warner launches first ad...

[nickshepDEM]

Not really a 2008 presidential ad, but I think it definite sign that he's running...

http://www.forwardtogetherblog.com/story/2005/12/22/01954/586

Click Play and let me know what you think!

[JDPriestly]

1. The ad is slick, well edited, effective.

The numbers -- 138,000 more children insured, 35,000 or was it 38,000 GEDs, etc. are not impressive by California or national standards. Virginia is not a huge state, and those numbers suggest Warner's successes have been modest. Also, I believe he has only served one term and can only serve one term. He is certainly running, but, having seen this ad, I am not impressed by his record of accomplishments. His record of public service is not as lengthy or impressive as, let's say Howard Dean's or Kerry's. And, he manages media well, but he does not have the political savvy of a Dean or a Kerry or a number of the other potential candidates. Hillary, for example, outdoes him by far when it comes to understanding the current vicious political game the Republicans are playing. I think Warner comes across as a bit naive in this video. Virginia is just not a very tough or competitive playing field. Out here in California, and up in New York and the northeast and some other states, governors get tested. A Democratic governor who can handle California or New York is ready for the presidency. As we have seen with Bush, the fact that you have "succeeded" as governor in some states is not enough to qualify you for the presidency. I suspect Virginia is one of those states. I also suspect that Warner gets along so well with Republicans because he agrees with them on a lot of issues. I don't, and I might vote for him if he is nominated, but I probably wouldn't work as hard for him as I would for a more liberal candidate.

[nickshepDEM]

4. Thanks for the critique...

You said his numbers on health care and ged's are not impressive. Do you have the numbers for other states?

Your assesment that a Governor from a small state like VA is not cut out to be president is off, IMO. Its probably a bit off in your opinion too. You cited Dean serveral times in your post, but you do realize that he hails from one of the smallest states in the nation, right? And as you will recall a Gov. named Bill hailed from one of the smallest states in the nation.

Not sure what you mean by, 'politically savvy like Dean or Kerry'. If Dean and Kerry are among our most politically savvy, well, we're in deep shit.

[JDPriestly]

55. I'll be watching Warner. I have a friend who favors him.

The video makes him seem a little overconfident for my taste, but then it is just a video. I will want to know how Warner stands on issues like health care, education, student loans, reigning in the power of corporations and many, many other issues.

Also, I will be watching to see how he gets along with other Democrats. The video depicts Warner as a uniter. If he can unite Democrats around him, he may be able to win. Not since Clinton has a Democrat been able to unite and excite Democratic voters behind him or her early enough to be able to focus on winning a presidential election. (Gore, as popular as he was and, even though I believe he actually won, bored a lot of Democrats, I fear.) I think uniting the party will be the key to winning the next nomination. Face it, Kerry actually has a good head start on that point even though a lot of activists even those who like him viewhim as having too little charisma to win.

The nomination will probably go to the candidate who can unite the party, including his or her rivals for the nomination, behind his or her campaign. This is especially true for Warner, because he is not well known among Democratic activists outside Virgina. If Warner really can unite us, he will have a great advantage.

Do you know who Warner's major funders are? Is he a front for corporate interests? Where does he stand with regard to the DLC? Does he get along with Dean? Does he have a grassroots movement? Who are his friends in California? Does he have on-the-ground contact people or grassroots organizers in California? Same for New York? And Massachusetts? Same for New Hampshire. Same for Iowa. These are the factors I will watch. Regardless of how well he is liked in Virginia, without well organized support in the most important blue states Warner will get nowhere. Much as we need to swing one or two red states our way, the energy, the big money and the activists are in the major blue states. Without us blue states, a politician from a red state can get nowhere in Democratic politics because he or she will never swing enough red states to win in the end.

[spooky3]

12. VA is "not a very tough or competitive playing field"?

By what standards?

Warner got tax increases through a very RW Rethug-dominated legislature. They do not play nice in Richmond. But he figured out a way to get it done--and to win over the vast majority of voters, who are about as diverse politically as you will find anywhere in the nation. VA is by no means small, and is also a much more rapidly growing state (in terms of people moving in) than are Calif. or NY and there are challenges growth imposes. Warner met them much better than his predecessors did.

edited to add link re: population changes:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051222/ts_usatoday/peoplefleeingpriceycoastalstatesforsouthwest

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102035.html?nav=rss_metro/dc

[napi21]

28. "Fit for the Presidency" depends on the person not the State.

You used Shrub as an example of NOT being ready. Well, I'll use Clinton as one who was.

I can only go back so many Presidencies where I actually remember what a background means to the person and what they did with it.

Eisenhower was a Military General, and although he wasn't a rough and tough as some are, there's a tremendous amount of politics in the Military, and if you aren't good at it, you sure will NEVER be a General. Lots of people interaction and knowing how to command helped him in his leadership abilities.

I can only go back so many Presidencies where I actually remember what a background means to the person and what they did with it. Jack Kennedy did a fairly decent job, and his background was the Navy and being a Senator...both helped him, I'm sure.

Lyndon Johnson also got most of his experience in the Senate, and he presented himself as a Bigger than Life Man. You might have disagreed with his policies, but when he gave an order, it got done!

Nixon was a very smart man and gained his experience in the House & Senate, and through the VP under Ike. His major problem was his paranoia. I suspect he would never have had the scandal problems if he could have just followed his instincts and trusted, at least his supporters, not to try to hurt him.

Carter also had a strong Military background in the Navy, but he wasn't a strong leader. He worried about far too much of the little day to day stuff, and wasn't willing to delegate all that to the people he chose. I suspect ihe just never felt he could trust them completely. Carter is an interesting example of the kind of President the public THOUGHT they wanted. They elected him, mainly because he was a GOOD religious man, and they knew he would NEVER bring additional scandal to the WH. Well, he didn't bring scandal, but the public never really liked the man they got.

Reagan god his ledership ability mostly from being the Head of the Actors Guild. I don't recall how long he held that spot, but you can just imagine the leadership and negotiating ability one would need to do a good job. As far as President, he was an ACTOR, and probably played the best role of his life in the WH. He knew how to gt people to really like him!

GH Bush was the head of the CIA, and got a lot of foreign experience through that experience. He also was Reagans VP and that helped to teach him a lot obout how the WH really works.

Clinton got most of his experience by being Gov. of the fairly small State of Ar. He was one of our most intelligent Presidents, and a political natural. People liked him, and they weren't even sure why!

Then there's Shrub. Yes he was the Gov. of Tx, but that's really a figure head position. He had the least experience of ANY POTUS as far as I know. He also failed at almost ever venture he ever did in his past. Perhaps if the voters would have looked a little closer at that, they wouldn't have elected him, or at least made the election close enough to be stolen.

I think it's much more important for everyone to look closely at the 2008 Candidates and what they really are like. Campaigns are all Ads now, and we have to be able to get beyond that. Past accomplishmenets and positions are more important than if they were a Governor, and in which State.

[JDPriestly]

54. Clinton served as governor for several terms.

Also, Clinton learned by losing not to be too cocky about himself. I don't see Clinton's humility in Warner.

[MadisonProgressive]

40. .

:popcorn:

[socialistrot]

58. A Democratic governor who can handle California or New York...?

That would be a piece of cake. How about a Democratic governor who can handle a Republican legislature?

[SoFlaJet]

2. great job

2008....

1;Mark Warner
2;Russ Feingold
3;everybody else

[Jai4WKC08]

5. Based on what?!

Warner is a DLC moderate whose only statement on anything having to do with national defense indicates he wants to stay the course in Iraq and has no interest in holding Bush accountable for taking us there. I don't recall that he's taken any position on the Patriot act, or Bush's abuse of power... which in itself may be instructive... but his record in VA is certainly one of compromise with Republicans--not necessarily a bad thing, but very much a typical DLC stance. And then there are his corporate connections. Again, not always bad--the business community is, imo, important--but it's still puts him way to the right within the Democratic spectrum.

Feingold is pretty much the exact opposite, or as close as we're likely to get.

How on earth can these almost diametrically opposed Democrats (as far as it goes within the party) be your top two choices? I'd be the first to admit that issues aren't everything, but you'd think a philosophy of governance at least should be a consideration. I can't see that Warner and Feingold have much in common.

[nickshepDEM]

7. Ill take the bipartisanship Warner has demanded in VA...

over the partisan bullshit we have in DC... any day of the way week.

Bipartisanship on the behalf of Gov. Warner has landed VA with...

A surplus rather than a defecit.
Solid job creation.
Record investment in schools.
More children with health care.
Economic development in rural areas.
etc...

Like I said, Ill take that over the partisan BS we have in DC... any day of the week.

I think the vast majority of Americans would too.

[Jai4WKC08]

11. I happen to agree with you

In principle, anyway.

Personally I prefer Feingold, altho obviously he's not my first choice. I prefer him mostly because he strikes me as being a fighter and I haven't seen that in Warner yet--I sincerely hope I do. I also don't see a contradiction there, btw. It's certainly possible for someone to be a fighter and still know when bi-partisanship is in the best interests of the people and our system of government. But ultimately, whoever we nominate will be painted as an extreme liberal by the GOP no matter how centrist he or she might be. The only hope we have is picking someone who is willing and able to fight back.

None of which has anything to do with what I posted.

I just don't get how anyone can favor Warner and Feingold as their two favorites--above anyone else, if I recall the way the poster worded it. They are about as far apart politically and in background as any two mainstream Democrats can get, and I don't see any great similarities in character or electability or any of the other factors that people sometimes put over issues or political philosophy.

[SoFlaJet]

10. the main thing they have in common

is they are NOT republicans.I base these things on a feeling about a guy-always have.I picked Clinton out of the crowd early on and was a Deaniac-always have liked Kerry.Warner?There's something about the guy,I don't know call it elect-ability

[ruggerson]

13. Well, you'd have to ask the same question of me

since I'd be very happy with a Warner/Feingold ticket.

Warner brings executive experience, someone who can actually win, someone whose record is that of a consensus building progressive, someone youthful and exciting; Feingold brings passion on individual issues, thoughtful and insightful, an original thinker, more of an ideological firebrand.

Personally, I think they complement each other enormously. Which is exactly what you want in a national ticket.

[nickshepDEM]

14. Perfect.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[Jai4WKC08]

17. Wanting them together on the same ticket...

...is completely different from having them choices #1 and #2 for the top of the ticket.

It's not at all unusual for opposites, at least in some ways, to be running mates. Precisely because they do complement one another, and appeal to different segments of the electorate.

But I was reacting to someone who said they were his/her first two choices for the nomination and that's what I still don't get. Besides, we don't get any say in choosing the running mate, so while it might be interesting to speculate about, I don't see much point in debating it.

I totally agree on executive experience. Four years ain't much, but being a corporate CEO compensates to some extent. I'd prefer to see more of it in government. The federal bureaucracy is a monster--way beyond anything you'd find in a private company or even at state-level. But I suppose a good manager and leader can learn the ropes. More foreign policy experience, which you don't get as a governor or CEO, would be even better, especially given the mess he would inherit. A record of consensus building is very good, but not unique. I don't think youth is a big seller, but maybe I'm just too old. Still, we old farts vote more reliably than younger folk, and a LOT of us are skeptical of anyone too young. That said, Warner actually doesn't come off as young. Not the way Edwards did, for example. Or Bill Clinton or Jack Kennedy. I wouldn't call Warner "exciting" but maybe he'll learn that too. Progressive? Compared to any Republican, yes. Compared to most of his 2008 competition? Naah...

Funny, but I prefer to have the candidate at the top of the ticket be the one who "brings passion on individual issues, (and is) thoughtful and insightful, an original thinker..." Those are characteristics you must not associate with Warner, or you wouldn't use them to show how Feingold contrasts. Those are pretty important to me, and precisely some of the major reasons I support Clark. But I guess we all have our priorities.

I'm also not ready to buy the electability argument for Warner yet. One election (out of two total) in a state that does on occassion elect Democrats, and with a boatload of his personal cash to run on, isn't all that impressive to me. Altho I do agree he's probably more electable than Feingold. I guess I'm not all that crazy about the conventional wisdom on electability anyway--it gave us Kerry. But that's what primaries are for, imperfect as they might be. Looks to me like Warner will get a chance to show us what he can do nationally in 2008. As will Clark. Either one is a better choice (on electability--ideology is a different matter) than a yankee senator (Kerry, Clinton, Biden... Feingold is more midwest, but still won't play well in the South), so if either one can win broadly enough to win the nomination, they will have proven their electability to my satisfaction.

'Course, I'll support whomever we nominate, so it's a moot point. And if we don't win back Congress and push thru some election reform, it may not matter anyway.

[jackpan1260]

8. Agree. I like Warner and Feingold too. eom

[nickshepDEM]

9. Me too actually.

Ive always said if Warner decides not to run Id consider supporting Feingold.

[skipos]

3. He looks really good to me. Warner and Clark my faves.

Clark's foreign/ military experience and Warner's domestic/elective experience = a winning combination.

[jackbourassa]

6. Warner has the potential to really surge in the minds of Dems...

...who want anybody but Clinton.

But he has to do more than promote modest gains in his state if he expects to have any real traction.

If Warner came out against the war, and offered a smart plan for withdrawl - my prediction is that he would win. Also, he has to change the dynamics of the Democratic Party by removing those "corporatists" that think they are in charge.

Otherwise, he won't get past Hillary.

That's being realistic.

There will be two candidates standing after the first couple of primaries (there always are):

1) Hillary Clinton, who will have the total backing of the Washington Establishment (the 'consultants,' the 'strategists,' the Senators, the DLC, the Clintonistas, etc).

2) The grass roots candidate, who is yet to be determined at this point. Whose backing will come from the people, the states, local associations, etc.

Warner has the potential to be this candidate. But i'm not sure he isn't pulling an Edwards and running for number two. Because unless he is willing to make some waves and not play it safe, I can't see him moving beyond number two at best.

[Clark2008]

16. But Warner is from the same wing as H. Clinton.

How can he be the anti-Hillary when he's nearly the same thing?

I don't get that.

[thatsrightimirish]

18. I think what he person means is

That Warner isn't as controversial as Clinton.

[jackbourassa]

43. Clark 2008 that's my point

I agree with you. What i'm saying is that if he doesn't move beyond that, he won't be able to beat her. It will be impossible.

[thatsrightimirish]

15. Warner will be good

I hate listening to people that say he doesn't have national security experience like FDR or Wilson did. Kerry was in the army and that did everything but help him.

[Jai4WKC08]

19. Kerry was in the navy.

But being a junior officer for a couple years has nothing to do with national security experience at the national level. Nor was it meant to. It was supposed to show he had sacrificed for the country in a way that Bush and his cronies never did. The GOP noise machine turned it around on him. As they will turn around anyone's record. Anyone. We either pick someone who's tough enough and smart enough to fight back, or we throw up our hands and give up.

[thatsrightimirish]

20. my bad

Kerry was in the navy my mistake. But is their any indication that Warner is not tough enough or smart enough to fight Republicans. Being elected in Virginia and helping the Democrats gain seats in Virginia sounds tough to me.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. He may end up being tough enough

But "Being elected in Virginia and helping the Democrats gain seats in Virginia sounds tough to me" does not establish that. Of course that's way better than not being able to get elected in Virginia and helping Democrats lose seats, to state the obvious, but it doesn't even prove that Warner is tough enough to win Democratic Primaries in 2008 let alone go up against the full weight of the National Republican Party. Could be, time will tell.

Bob Graham, who was tough enough to routinely coast to victory in Florida for both Governor and Senator, couldn't put a dent in the 2004 Democratic field. The primaries always draw a strong field of candidates whether the media admits it or not. Vilsak from Iowa and Bayh from Indiana (talk about Red State credentials) will likely be running also in 2008. I remember when Bruce Babbit was a popular Democratic Govornor of a Republican State (Arizona when it really was Goldwater country) and he didn't make the cut. So no, doing well for one term as Governor of a Republican leaning State is very well and good, but that isn't National politics. The jury on Warner must remain out.

[thatsrightimirish]

23. Well there is

Jimmy Carter Governor of Georgia 71 -75

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. Yes, it's been done before

My only point here is that Warner is still untested on the National stage, and that some people who went before him who looked like sure winners two plus years out from the primaries became train wrecks during the campaign, with many more simply falling short because they lacked something, whatever it is.

[Texas_Kat]

25. Is that his most salient feature?

That he's a democrat who won statewide in a red state?

God help the democratic party when pandering to the republicans seems to be like winning.

[thatsrightimirish]

26. no

Its building coalitions and actual governing that make him attractive

[nickshepDEM]

27. They dont name you one of the five best guv's in the nation

just because you win a in a red state. They dont tag your state as the best managed state in the nation just because you win in a red state. They dont name you public official of the year just because you in a red state. You dont get elected as the chairman of the nat'l governors association just because you win in a red state.

Its a strong record, outstanding results, and a proven ability to lead.

[Jai4WKC08]

31. It's one flippin' term!

Four years. Total time in government. That's NOT a "strong" record. It's ok, but it's not strong.

Please. I'm not saying he's a bad guy. He may turn out to be a very good guy. But let's not act like he's more than he isn't. A single term governor who spent his life making millions in the business world... not that there's anything wrong with that, but it just doesn't leave him with a very long record of public service to judge.

[ruggerson]

32. And tell us about Wesley Clark's elective offices

And I did say elective. Meaning offices that VOTERS put him in.

[Jai4WKC08]

33. So what?

Being elected isn't everything, imo. If you think it is, fine. But there's still a 38 year record of government service, doing pretty much everything Warner has done as governor except the campaigning part. And more, because of the foreign policy/national defense part.

Like I said somewhere up stream, it's a matter of priorities. No potential candidate will every experience you or I might want him or her to have.

By the way, I decided I had more to say above, before I saw your reply. You're awfully quick on the trigger.

[ruggerson]

34. If you look at the history of people running for Prez

the shorter length of time in public office prior to their Presidential run, the better. I think one study shows that anyone who has served MORE than 14 years has never won the White House.

'08, in my humble opinion, will be one of those every-so-often "change of direction" elections. The national mood will augur well for an outsider. Someone NOT of Washington. I think there well may be a big "throw the bums out" sentiment in both 06 and 08, especially if the scandals keep coming, which it looks as if they may.

All this bodes well for candidates like Warner, Schweitzer and, arguably, Clark and bodes poorly for candidates like Biden, Kerry and CLinton. The former are not seen as being of Washington, the latter are.

[Jai4WKC08]

36. Well, there was Eisenhower

He had a very very long time in "public office."

But as for the "throw the bums out" attitude, I think you may be right.

In fact I hope so. I don't particularly want a Washington insider either. It may be my biggest heartburn with Feingold, altho I think his divorced status and being Jewish hurts him terribly too (and I'm Jewish--I like that in him, but I know many voters won't).

But the public is a funny animal. There have been a lot of times they complain about the office holders and then vote them right back in. I don't know if it's wanting the devil you know vs. one you don't, or if they just think that everyone else's congress-critter is a bastard, but theirs is ok.

What it'll probably come down to is who runs the best campaign. And can pull the most strings inside the party apparatus, which is sad. Of some days, I feel cynical enough to figure the corporate media will just hand us our nominee--they are extremely powerful and in the Republican pocket. The more primaries we move forward, the greater role free media will play.

[nickshepDEM]

45. Clark is no Eisenhower, sorry.

And 2008 is not 1956.

Yeah, yeah, I know... Clark is the most decorated officer since Eisenhower. But he is not the univseral icon Eisenhower was.

[Pithy Cherub]

46. Thank goodness! Clark believes STRONGLY in minority causes

and has many in and out of uniform that will attest to his beliefs in actual practice over a lifetime. The leadership of the Democratic Party consistently and continuously contact Clark for his military, national security, foreign policy advice. Eisenhower is from a past era.

[Tom Rinaldo]

47. And that's why he isn't a shoo in. Nor is Warner an FDR

Both parties wanted Ike, and World War II was on a slightly larger scale than Kosovo by all accounts. Washington Grant and Ike were the only Generals who got to command such a large stage.

But Warner is no FDR as a Governor either. Everyone works with the hand history deals them:

"FDR’s political comeback began in earnest in 1928 when he won the governorship of New York. The crash of the stock market in October 1929 served as a harbinger of tougher times to come and led Governor Roosevelt to focus on combating the state’s economic woes. FDR implemented a number of innovative relief and recovery initiatives -- unemployment insurance, pensions for the elderly, limits on work hours, and massive public works projects -- that established him as a liberal reformer. FDR’s efforts also won him reelection as governor in 1930, a rare feat in the midst of depression.

By the presidential election season of 1932, the Great Depression had only worsened and showed no signs of abating. Democrats turned to FDR, a popular and successful two-term governor with a recognizable last name, to challenge President Hoover. Promising a "New Deal" for the American people, FDR was swept into office in a landslide. In his inaugural address, Roosevelt gave hope to dispirited Americans throughout the nation, assuring them that they had "nothing to fear but fear itself."
http://www.americanpresident.org/history/franklindelanoroosevelt/

Compared to that not many Governors sound very impressive either. Fair is fair.

[nickshepDEM]

51. I never compared Warner to FDR.

[Tom Rinaldo]

52. I know. I was just making a point

I remember when Clinton was President some people mused that the world was too peaceful, and that there were no domestic emergencies dramatic enough to give Clinton the chance to step up to the plate and establish his potential greatness. Ike and FDR were two talented men who history tested on a truly grand stage. Conversely neither Clark nor Warner have been put to that scale of challenge yet. So Clark is no Ike and Warner is no FDR. If we are lucky, even if one of them does become President, neither will be given that scale of challenge, though I worry that both the United States and the World are potentially slipping toward that magnitude of crisis.

[Jai4WKC08]

48. Correct. Because Clark is better than Eisenhower

For one thing, he's a liberal Democrat.

Look, of course 2008 is not 1956 (or '52... duh), altho there are some commonalities. And there are many ways Clark is more capable than Eisenhower ever was. But I'm not going to get into that here. Ruggerson made a blanket statement that no one with more than 14 years in "public office" had ever been elected, and I was giving an example of one.

Sheesh.

[thatsrightimirish]

35. ok

we all know that if the law allowed him to warner would have won again. now 4 years of good governing is certainly better than the 4 years of Bush and he obviously won in 04. And I certainlly think that Warner would do better in the primaries than Clark did last time around. He has already raised a ton of money. Like I have mentioned FDR and Wilson had no national security experience. FDR was governor of New York. Wilson governor of New Jersey. Reagan was President of the Screen actors guild before he was governor of California . And Clinton had no security experience. Right now I think Warner/Feingold/Clark are fine canidates and qualified. But as of now, I'm leaning towards Warner.

[nickshepDEM]

44. Still more flippin' terms than Clark has under his belt.

And please do not try to spin Clarks military service ino executive political experience because Im not buying, sorry

Now, dont get me wrong, I like Clark. I always tune-in to his appearances on FOX and various other news outlets. His voice on foreign issues is very, very strong. I sincerely hope Warner takes notes from Clark on foreign issues.

But I just cant take him serious as a presidential candidate when he has yet to prove he can win an election.

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. You are either over reaching or you are being foolish

I accept that Clark not having previously won an elected office is a valid argument to use against him. I think it goes without saying that had he gotten himself elected to a single term some place it would have put this line of attack against him to rest, and that would have been an advantage. And it would give people some more data points to evaluate him from.

But when you make this comment:

"But I just cant take him serious as a presidential candidate when he has yet to prove he can win an election."

Are you saying that you would not have taken Ike seriously, or Colin Powell? By a similar standard one could say that U.S. Senate Seats and Governorships should not go to people who have never held public office before either. Why not expect them to run for City Council, or County Legislature, or State Assembly or Mayor, or Congress first?

Ronald Reagan was a rookie when he became Governor of California which had, what was it, the 8th largest economy in the world? He won, didn't he? John Edwards made it to the United States Senate without any prior record in government. So did Jon Corzine. Jesse Ventura and Mark Warner were elected as Governors without ever having held prior political office, and the list goes on and on and on.

And I will argue with great passion that Wes Clark has far greater experience in ways that are relevant to the position of President that he might again seek than any of the other Senators and Governors that I list above had for the positions that they ran for and won as political rookies.

Nick, like I say, Clark not having won an office before can be honestly argued as a liability, but I have (or had maybe) too much respect to accept, coming from you, the type rhetoric you throw out here. You know damn well Wesley Clark is a serious presidential candidate.

[nickshepDEM]

50. Im not being foolish.

I just dont understand how anyone can compare Clark to Ike or Powell. No offense, but he's not nearly as popular as Ike or Powell. He's not the unviersal icon that they are/were. If you walk up to someone on the street and ask them if they know Dwight Eisenhower or Colin Powell the odds are they will know both. Do the same with Clark and maybe one in ten will know him. So the Clark/Eisenhower analogy really doesnt hold any weight.

You are correct about those who did not hold political office before, but they are not running for POTUS. They ran for lower office as a stepping stone to possibly running for president.

Electability is a big part of my litmus test. There are a ton of politicians, business professionals, and scholars who would make great presidents, but only a select few would make good candidates.

Would he make a good president? Of course. Would he make a solid presidential candidate? Maybe, maybe not. But theres realy no way to judge when he's never won a race before and in his only political campaign he came up short. Had he faired better in 2004 against argueably one of the weakest democratic fields in decades... maybe then I would be more impressed.


And Tom, dont get upset with me. You know Im really not that hostile towards Clark. It just gets old when the same old thing takes place in every pro-Warner thread. Someone questions Warner's experience. The the topic quickly shifts towards Clark. Then I or someone else questions Clarks electability and lack of holding elective office. It so predictable its pathetic. Thats the only reason I pulled out the shallow Clark talking points.

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. No offense taken. Sticking to any script gets shallow

That really is the bottom line, and neither of us are blind to either the positives or negatives of Clark or Warner. Their demonstrated areas of strength are for the most part different which sets up some apples and oranges type comparisons.

I never trash Warner. I took issue with where he placed an emphasis on one matter, which was I thought legitimately open to debate. And I place different values on different sets of experience than perhaps you do. I also give Warner a lot of credit. On this thread mostly I've commented on the fact that Warner is just arriving now on the National stage after getting rave reviews at a regional theater. Let's see how he does on Broadway first before people start anointing him as the chosen one. Warner bears being seriously looked at.

Regarding Clark and Ike and Powell etc. Had you not gotten irked by the dynamic you speak of above, and thrown out a sweeping statement like "can't take seriously anyone who hasn't won at least one race" (that is probably not your exact words) I would not have brought them up as examples of people who had not won a race who needed to be taken seriously. I was just rebutting the logic of your comment, not otherwise making a direct comparison.

Again, we don't see things so differently. There are very few people with a set of experiences that in my opinion can justify them running for President, period. And that includes elected officials at all levels. I would not rule out a Powell or Clark based on inexperience while ruling in Ohio's Governor Taft or Jesse Ventura simply because they have been Governor. Both Clark and Warner have excelled at positions they have held and both show great intelligence and competency. After agreeing on a few things like that we are back to mostly looking at apples and oranges again, except for the fact that both men share many values that place them inside the Democratic Party.

[Jai4WKC08]

60. No, not "more flippin' terms than Clark"

Because it ain't plural. ONE more flippin' single term in elected office. 34 years LESS time in government office... wouldn't that be the equivalent of 8+ terms? Granted, some at fairly low level, but most professional politicians start out as some minor functionary. Not many run for US senator their first time out, or sit as Governor the first time they win. And whether you buy it or not, there's NO spin to saying Clark's later assignments gave him plenty of political experience (the executive part doesn't even warrant discussion). Getting what you want from 19 heads of states, both Houses of Congress, and dozens of federal agencies and departments is all about politics.

Well, whatever. It all only means Warner has won one more election. I could point out that he's has lost one more election as well. There's a significant difference between winning office, and actually serving in it afterwards.

The thing is, what I'm trying to do here is hold your feet to the fire for precision and accuracy in your language. My posts in this sub-thread have been solely about that. In fact, if you check my record at DU, search by my handle, you'll see I seldom go into other candidate threads at all, and when I do, I honestly try NEVER to trash another good Democrat. And I haven't trashed Warner here; in fact, I've said some very nice things about him, because I do think he's a very good Democrat. I just won't let you all make, unchallenged, claims that either over- or mis-state the facts.

But I gotta point out, Nick, that it was YOU (and ruggerson) who seem to have felt the need to turn a Warner thread into an attack on Clark. And I gotta ask, why should Clark even come into this conversation? Why did YOU bring him up? Because I wear a Clark avatar and WesPAC sig line, do I have no right to discuss the pros and cons of a Warner presidential candidacy? I ask with complete sincerity: How would you answer my concerns if you didn't know I am a Clarkie? Because I don't see that you many any response to a single Warner weakness I mention that doesn't come back to saying Clark, in your opinion, is weaker.

Alright, that about all I have to say on that subject.

I do want to digress into the Eisenhower comparison a bit, because twice you say Clark is no Eisenhower. Even tho I never said he was, but only corrected ruggerson's statistic about 14 years in public office. (And just fwiw, I think you overestimate Powell's name recognition and popularity, but it's a bit of a red herring since Powell's not running and never has run for anything).

Actually, I think Tom answers you pretty well overall, altho I disagree with him that the scope of Clark's responsibilities wasn't just as great as Ike's, and the political aspects even greater because Ike didn't have to do much in cajoling and pressuring his counterparts, and even superiors, along.

But your point on Ike seems to be that Clark is not as well known, loved and respected. Ok, no argument there. But what relevance does that have? That it will be harder for him to win the nomination than Ike had in 1952? Absolutely. That it makes one whit of difference in the general election? Not that I can see. There's not one person who will walk into a polling booth in November '08 who won't have heard of whomever the two parties nominate, and have some opinion, informed or otherwise, of which nominee is more qualified to serve. If Clark wins the nomination, he will have the exact same opportunity to make his case before the American electorate as any other possible man or woman we might nominate. He might not get the automatic support that Ike got from many (altho I would submit that being a general will win him some), but he won't be hurt by it either.

[ruggerson]

61. Wrong, buddy

You state in this post that it was me and NickShepDem that brought Clark into this conversaton:

I gotta point out, Nick, that it was YOU (and ruggerson) who seem to have felt the need to turn a Warner thread into an attack on Clark. And I gotta ask, why should Clark even come into this conversation? Why did YOU bring him up?

But, the fact of the matter is that in this thread, two days ago, you posted the following:


Dec. 23 at 11:42 AM


Funny, but I prefer to have the candidate at the top of the ticket be the one who "brings passion on individual issues, (and is) thoughtful and insightful, an original thinker..." Those are characteristics you must not associate with Warner, or you wouldn't use them to show how Feingold contrasts. Those are pretty important to me, and precisely some of the major reasons I support Clark.

I never mentioned Clark until YOU BROUGHT HIM INTO THE THREAD, Jai4WKC08. My posts were about Warner and Feingold and why I liked them. I didn't even mention Clark until after YOU did. And the reason I then got irked was because EVERY FRIGGING THREAD about Warner gets invaded by Clarkies like you with nothing but negative shit to throw around, and frankly, it gets really old, dude. I don't see folks who are supportive of Warner going on Clark threads and bashing him. Yet you guys seem to feel incredibly threatened by Warner, to the point of utter childishness. Why don't you try contributing something positive for a change. Maybe then, when people like you stop behaving this way, we will have a shot at taking back the WH. You have every right to support Clark, I applaud your involvement. But repeatedly hijacking Warner threads is not winning you any allies.

[Jai4WKC08]

62. Writing Clark's name is hijacking a thread?

I think you're grasping at straws--that was a whole different discussion than this one. I guess I should have said sub-thread, but the point remains the same. Up above, I went into no detail on Clark, didn't advocate for him. I merely said that I thought he shared two specific qualities with Feingold, qualities that someone else brought up. I still don't get how people can put both Warner and Feingold at the top of their list. But you didn't reply to that message anyway. I wish someone would. I'd like to understaand better.

But what does that have to do with this discussion?

And I'm NOT a "buddy," thank you.

I'm taking off now for the holiday. See ya later, if this thread is still alive. :hi:

[Eurobabe]

22. I will give him this, Virginia is TRULY the best governed state

in the USA. I know, I lived there all through the Warner years. Right now I live in Ohio and I hate it. We are moving overseas and going to buy land in Virginia for a home base. I can't think of any other place I'd rather be. Virginia ROCKS!

[JudyM]

24. His 'One Viginia' mantra sounds a lot like Edwards' 2 Americas.

Laying the groundwork for prez bid; else why bother to put this together?

[Clarkansas]

30. Clark and Warner sound really good to me.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

37. He was a speaker at the Florida Convention a couple of weeks ago.

I don't remember anything about his speech. On the other hand, I remember the speech that John Lewis made, almost word for word. And Barack Obama and John Edwards had some powerful moments when they spoke to the delegates. I guess I would honestly say that Warner was the least impressive guy out of dozens of speakers. I don't know what that means, but if I were him, I'd find some new writers...or learn some magic tricks. :)

[Kahuna]

38. That's your own personal assessment. A lot of us first became aware..

of Warner a couple of years ago at the convention when we watched his, Why I'm A Democrat speech. You know -- Different strokes and all that jazz.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ruggerson]

41. Before you get tombstoned

Yes, this guy is the real deal.

Why?

Because he's center-left and will not bend to the whim of the barking moonbats on the religious right, like Bush has.

The extremists are in charge of your party, which means you are at the very end of your generational run.

And, trust me, on privacy rights issues and social issues, the under 40 generation thinks the religious rightwingers are absolute foaming nutjobs. The demographics over the next few decades favor our party far more than yours.

Cheers! Merry Christmas!

[blue neen]

42. "...let me know what you think!"

Okay. It was a good ad, but not a powerful one. IMHO, the most effective part was near the end when his accomplishments and relevant numbers were flashed on the screen. Warner should concentrate on emphasizing those accomplishments because they ARE impressive.

I personally know many people who live in Virginia who were quite happy with how he governed. He could be a very strong candidate in '08. My mind is not set on anyone yet; there is a lot of time left, there are many names being tossed into the ring.

Eventually the strongest of the candidates will rise to the top of the field. Warner could definitely be one of those. His coattails were definitely a good thing for Tim Kaine! :)

[The Blue Knight]

56. "but he does not have the political savvy of a Dean or a Kerry"

Yes, because we know all about the political saviness of Dean and Kerry, which resulted in their successful campaigns for the White House....



I like Warner. He knows what it takes to win, and he has all the tools needed. I hope he runs.

[wisteria]

57. Frankly, it was a bit to long and boring. I hated those

"achievements" flashing in front of my face. All this tells me is he was an exceptional Governor. Bush was an exceptional Governor also. I also question his bringing both sides together. I think it is more a compromising with the Rebubs. Look, he is over the edge DLC and comes across as a Rebub lite. I am still very angry over his "this Democrat" remark in which he said we need to forget about how we were lead into this war and just consecrate on getting out. This demonstrates two things to me, one, he isn't comfortable taking about the war or perhaps even foreign policy issues and two, he supports or at least thinks we need to overlook Bush's intelligence "mistakes".
I think Kerry is still the more experienced and wiser of the two. I'm not voting for someone simply because the DLC says he is acceptable and electable to them and the corporations.

[jackpan1260]

59. I like it. Warner and Feingold are my top picks right now. eom