Warner seems unaware of the 50 State Strategy. And other gripes I have.

[madfloridian]

Maybe he knows, and mentioned it in his speech... the media did not cover it. Maybe they are misquoting him. Maybe they are taking things out of context.

But he really should be aware of the fact that our party chairman is putting money in all 50 states, and that VA got more than its share in 04. I think fair is fair.

Dean has given over 100,000 to such unlikely states as Wyoming where the governor can't even be polite to him....and the Florida exec director this Saturday criticized the DNC strategy because Florida was not getting enough money...although it is in the top 50 expenditures. And now Warner thinks we have to put money everywhere? Guess what, Governor Warner...he is doing that and many of us are contributing to make it happen.

I want to tell them all to wake up, figure out what is going on. If your state Dems are getting 120,000 over two years in a state that supports Bush still, and your governor disses the chairman anyway..then WY is unaware. People there should be told what is going on, that their state is getting money and workers.

If Warner is unaware his state got millions, far more than any others...if Luis Navarro of Florida's party thinks other states don't count...then I have news for them. Get a clue, read the DNC plans, wake up. Stop spouting off until you know what the chairman is doing. And at least be polite to those of us who are giving the party money to send to your state, and at least be polite to the chairman who is doing it and don't diss him in the media. Or privately like Luis Navarro did Saturday.

Here is what Warner said, and he really seems unaware the 50 states are being funded.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14575183/

Warner voices frustration with Dems
Potential 2008 presidential candidate questions party's strategy

AMES, Iowa - Mark Warner, a potential 2008 presidential candidate, voiced growing concern Tuesday with his party's electoral strategy, arguing that Democrats' willingness to write off sections of the country could make it nearly impossible to win the White House.

"I got pretty frustrated after 2004," said the former Virginia governor. "We are making a mistake if we put up candidates that are only competitive in 16 states and then we roll the dice and hope we win Ohio or Florida."

In an interview with The Associated Press, Warner insisted he wasn't being critical of 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry, whom he called "a very strong candidate." But Warner said Democrats must stop conceding entire regions of the country.

"We do our party and the country a disservice if we're not competitive in the South and the balance of the Midwest," Warner said. "I'm disappointed in campaigns that write off the South and leave behind wide swaths of our country."

Extending beyond bastions
Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean has steered money and staff to all states, contending that the party needs to build its operation in Republican bastions.

Pay attention, and think before you speak is my call to our Democratic leaders. Know what is going on before you start saying it isn't.

[blm]

1. I said the same - Dean HAS a 50state strategy for the Dem PARTY that he

will have worked on for FOUR YEARS by the next election.

The candidate isn't known till 6months before the election.

What did McAuliffe work on for four years?

[politicasista]

2. Has he said anything about election fraud?

or election reform? Hope he is aware that this is not 1992 anymore.

[acmejack]

3. A good way to make sure I don't support him.

I don't particularly like him anyway. Like him less now.

[madfloridian]

4. I am having trouble taking it in...how can a Democrat not know?

How can they not know about the 50 State Strategy? Maybe he said more about it and no one covered it.

[DemPopulist]

5. He isn't talking about Dean or the DNC

IMO, he's clearly talking about the party strategists in presidential campaigns who decide to "target" only twenty states or so. I think this is more directed at people like Shrum, Tad Devine and others around Kerry last time who wrote off all the South except Florida and even pulled out of historically competive border states like Missouri.

The way I see it, Warner and Dean are on the same page as far as wanting to widen the Democratic playing field. Now, Warner, because he's running for president, may be a little more self-serving in his argument, but the goal is essentially the same.

[skipos]

6. Please don't interrupt our Warner hatefest with "facts"

You are absolutely correct in your assessment. We would be jumping for joy if Kucinich said it, but mean old Warner said it so we are going to tear into him.

[madfloridian]

8. I was being fair in my OP.....sorry you took it as attacking.

I really do not think our Democratic leaders in general are especially well-informed about the DNC or what it is doing. So I said that.

[skipos]

11. You know Warner is talking about presidential campaigns

and you know that Kerry had about 15 states he was focusing on in 2004, right?

[madfloridian]

12. I did not know what Warner meant.

I see I am not the only one either. I just now saw a post in GD and many felt the same way.

I do know that every single candidate should be well-informed about what is going on in the states. Since Warner was at YearlyKos as a speaker, I just assumed he was in the know about it.

Yes, I do realize the normal thing Dems have done are to target just a few states. I am glad that is changing.

I have no choice yet in 08, it is too soon. I just don't like to have my post treated like an attack when it isn't.

[skipos]

13. "many felt the same way" Yeah, right.

In a few weeks, make the same exact post except change "Warner" to "Feingold."
As you and I both know, the response will be very, very different.

It is obvious that Warner is talking about presidential elections, and EVERYONE knows that presidential elections focus on very few states. This is just an opportunity for people to take his words out of context and rage against Warner.

[madfloridian]

14. I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

I really do not.

Is it going to be this way until the O8 primaries are over? Where we can not question anyone about anything.

I have no intention whatever for apologizing for what I posted. I have no idea what the heck you mean by infusing Feingold in here.

Not going to fight with you about it.

[skipos]

15. I'll be very clear then

1. Everyone who takes the time to read the quote knows that Warner is talking about PRESIDENTIAL elections
2. Everyone knows that in PRESIDENTIAL elections, our candidates to indeed ignore large parts of the country
3. But because this WARNER (who is not loved on DU) saying these things, threads become Warner rip fests.
4. If Feingold had made the same exact statement that Warner did, and you posted about it, the thread would be filled with positive posts about Feingold.

You are obviously free to post whatever you want about whatever candidate you want. I just get a bit tired of the "anything any moderate Democrat says is crap" sentiment on DU.

[madfloridian]

16. I don't do that kind of stuff.

So don't go smearing me with what others do.

I intend to vote for Gore if he runs, or Edwards if he runs....otherwise I will just vote for whoever the party decides...since Florida's vote doesn't count in the primary anyhow.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Why is Warner talking "Presidential Campaigns", when we have an

non Presidential campaign coming up in just a couple of months.

Can't he just wait. Sheesh! :eyes:

[Radical Activist]

24. The same reason you have a Clark picture in your sig file I guess?

:shrug:

[skipos]

28. Good one! But Frenchie's reponse has nothing to do with the elections

and everything to do with Warner. You will rarely see a Warner thread without a negative post from Frenchie.

[FrenchieCat]

29. Right......

Attack me, a DUer.......and insinuate what you'd like.

There must not be any Warner Threads then....cause I ain't commented on Warner in Months! :eyes:

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

34. Was that a Warner thread?

......Didn't think so.

What would we do without your hard work at tracking DUers who might offend your wonderful candidate! :eyes:

[skipos]

35. Seriously, that was AWESOME spin!

I hope you are in politics! :)

I don't feel like duking this out anymore. It's a free country, you can fling as much poo at Warner as you want. And when you lie, I can call you all out in it. It's all good. :patriot:

[FrenchieCat]

38. Seriously, I hope you are someone's bodyguard!

and boy! thanks for this... It's a free country :patriot: Whoo.....wow.....What a relief!

But, just to reassure myself .....think I'll try it again, just to see what happens this time....by repeating my original "poo" post that seemed to have justified all of the outrage and indignation and being called a liar, etc.....

Hopefully, I won't get attacked personally for having the guption to make such a horrifying :scared: and treasonous post--this time round!

"Why is Warner talking "Presidential Campaigns", when we have an
non Presidential campaign coming up in just a couple of months? :shrug:

Can't he just wait. Sheesh! "--FrenchieCat

[skipos]

40. I am not attacking you personally.

I just said you post a of negative stuff about Warner. I am not the only DUer who has made this comment. Regardless, I wasn't even addressing you when I posted it.
When you said you hadn't posted about Warner in months, I showed that, intentionally or not, you were lying.

I don't consider that an "attack." Nor did I ever use the word "treasonous."

[FrenchieCat]

44. You indeed did attack me....personally, at that because

your response to my post was to focus on me and my actions....rather than to continue to discuss the public figure brought up in the op.


Had you responded...."Well Mark Warner has done plenty of 2006 candidates, like...."
it could have made you look the better for it, and me the worse to those reading this thread.

But hey, I'm not here to tell you what to say.....so go ahead and be overly defensive and paranoid based on a "not so flattering statement", but nothing so terrible that it should compel one to go on personal attack route!

I mean, was there something that I stated that wasn't factual about Mark Warner or something?
IF Warner is doing work for 2006, then what I said shouldn't add up to a hill of beans...but based on your posts, one will never know what he's been doing....and so, in the end, you really didn't do any great service for a public figure you seem so protective of! :eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

30. So Warner has been supporting Clark for President since 2003?

Well Good for him!

[Radical Activist]

32. huh?

I'm not sure what your post has to do with mine. Telling people they shouldn't focus on '08 sounds a little hypocritical when you have a Clark picture in every post you make, some of which are obviously to promote Clark. I'm just making an obvious observation. Practice what you preach.

[FrenchieCat]

33. I'm I a candidate or a politician or something?

FACT: A Prominent Democrat who can make a difference in 2006 is busy commenting on 2008....and this information is posted on DU in a thread for the public to see and make comments.

FACT: So I, a DU member in good standing dares make a comment, based on my opinion.....as all DUers who wish to would.

FACT: so then, I am called out by a DUer poster....because that poster chooses to equate what my sig line says (a quote from Wes Clark about the war from 2003) with what Mark Warner, the politician, is actually saying or doing in 2006 about 2008--and so according to poster, I'm guilty of something and whatever Mark Warner is saying is besides the fucking point?

In other words......it appears that anything I have to say is to be discounted because of a pic in my sig line?..... :crazy:

What does the fact that I am Black and a Woman disqualify me from talking about?
Please let me know!

I wouldn't want to make a comment when my order of the day is for me to shut the fuck up!

Please let me know....so I can follow your directions, ma-sser (shuffling my feet, with eyes looking down at the floor, I ask my "superior" posters that make the decisions on such matters).

[Radical Activist]

36. what bullshit

If you want others to focus on '06 then you should focus on '06, which you are clearly not doing. You post about the '08 Presidential race often but you're arguing that Warner is not allowed to talk about '08. That's hypocritical. I don't know what the hell the rest of your post was about. It's also hypocritical bullshit for you to complain about people telling you to shut up when you're telling Warner he should shut up and wait. I didn't tell you to shut up. I just suggested you apply your own standards to yourself.
What exactly does you being a black woman have to do with it? Nothing? That's what I thought.

[FrenchieCat]

39. The nastiness exhibited by you based on my initial post is truly

ridiculous.

I'm not a politician, Warner is. For you to compare me to Mark Warner is assinine. Plus, in reference to 2006, you don't know what I am doing, cause you don't know me.

When Mark Warner, a public figure and a politician makes a comment and it is posted on DU with an op title "Warner seems unaware of the 50 State Strategy. And other gripes I have.".....I have every right to comment on that OP, just like you.

The small point that I made about Mark Warner, based on the OP was valid. Had you responded by stating what Warner was actually doing for 2006.....I would have found that perfectly reasonable and NOT ridiculous. But for you to think that my comment would allow you to attack me personally because you don't "like" what I said is really simply "out of line".

That's what my fucking post was about. Do you get it now?

[Radical Activist]

42. You can complain about personal attacks

when you edit your comment implying that I'm a racist.
I don't think there's anything out of line by my simple suggestion that if you think others should focus on '06, then you should take your own advice.
Don't worry, I won't compare you to Mark Warner. I'm sure he has some level of tact.

[FrenchieCat]

43. What I am implying is NOT that you are racist......

But rather that somehow you deem yourself superior enough that you think it to be perfectly within "your 'given' right to determine who can say what", i.e., those with pics of other politicians shouldn't be allowed to post their thoughts (if it's not what you think) about a public figure in an OP about that particular public figure unless they want to be attacked personally by you.

But, considering the depth of your limited understanding, however, I can see how you would not get what I was saying, and would equate my posts as calling you out of your name....

That's sad but obviously it's not my problem.

[blm]

22. Dean's 50state startegy is working on Dem party INFRASTRUCTURE in all

states. He's strengthening those left to collapse since 1996.

Kerry wasn't the known candidate till spring 2004 and he had to make do with the party infrastructure undeveloped and collapsed as it was from years of neglect in crucial states.

[madfloridian]

10. I resent the word "hatefest" being used about one of my posts.

I don't do hatefests at all. Actually I kind of like Warner, but it seemed to me that he was unaware that was what the party was doing.

And I said so. I said it nicely.

I don't do hatefests, and it is not fair for you to say so.

[madfloridian]

7. I have no gripe with Warner at all.

Maybe the media is starting its misrepresentation early on. They do that, you know.

I criticized in general several people who are not really aware of things. If he is, then I apologize.

I actually think he is ok, but you and I are reading different meanings into it.

[snowbear]

9. Best way to find out is ask him on his blog..

I haven't checked out his site in a while, but he actually does stop in.

You can leave a question over there and former Deaniac now Warnerac will answer you. http://www.forwardtogetherpac.com/

~~ ~~ ~~

[DemPopulist]

20. I'm actually not a big fan of Warner

Too bland and centrist for me. From one of your other posts, I see that we have the same candidate preferences for '08 (Gore & Edwards).

But I have read a few articles on Warner, and this seems to be a consistent theme of his would-be candidacy, going back to when Dean was barely settled in the DNC chair. Again, I think it's a way for him to differentiate himself from candidates that might have a more limited strategy (Hillary & Kerry come to mind), not a diss on Dean or the DNC's efforts. He used to be a state party chair himself, if I remember correctly.

[Ninja Jordan]

26. Jumping the gun?

Jeeze.

[Sparkly]

17. This is CLASSIC, mf....

This is classic "I'm a Democrat but *DIFFERENT*" eat-the-bread but not grind-the-wheat positioning.

This is another classic reason that Mark Warner pisses me off, quite frankly.

You are right -- the Democratic party, in the Senate, in the House, and under Dean's leadership at the DNC -- are doing what they can (especially at DNC headquarters). SOME "Democrats" want to leverage the EFFECTS of their work to lift themselves up, while dissing them to propel themselves up even higher. It STINKS.

Terms like "sensible center" stink -- because they demean Democrats who aren't "center."

Campaigning on "South and Midwest" without recognition that the northeast even *exists* is demeaning.

I'm a proud New England "liberal intellectual" and I want MY region recognized and represented, too.

YES, we need to appeal to other states and regions -- that is what Dr. Dean is saying and doing! -- but this need to pretend we AREN'T is, in my view, a platform to "rise above" a strawman depiction of the party.

Dr. Dean continues to prove my opinion of him correct -- he knows what he's doing.

Conversely, Mark Warner continues to prove my opinion of him correct -- no further comment necessary.

[JI7]

19. has Warner made any comments about George Allen ?

any criticisms of Allen ? especially the Macaca thing ?

or is Warner's version of reaching out include reaching out to those Allen was reaching out to with the Macaca comments ? is he afraid to offend those who support Allen and the Macaca comments ?

[Awsi Dooger]

21. That's his standard "triple bank shot" theme

He's used it for at least six months, clearly referring to a presidential campaign.

I could see how it would be frustrating or or seemingly out of place at this time of year, but look at the words. "Candidates that are only competitive in 16 states..." Only in a national election does someone run in more than one state so he's talking about the presidency.

I love it. In four years at DU I've written lousy handicapping thousands of times and Warner is one of the few who allows me to reverse that; excellent handicapping. It's world class idiocy to do saturation campaigning, reversing course to the same handful of states and back. A presidential race is essentially a national preference number dumped atop the individual states, which adjust it via their natural partisanship. I guarantee if you campaign with a national message and campaign in more states, even if you have no prayer of winning some of them, it boosts your overall favorability rating and makes you an intriguing candidate. You'll gain in the vital states and everywhere else.

Warner is seemingly the only one who gets that. He's actually embracing Dean's 50 state strategy, not unaware of it.

And Warner is also very astute by not injecting himself into every mini crisis, like Lamont/Lieberman or macaca. You gain zero in the long run. Remember when Gore was desperate to win every subject, like when Bush couldn't name the major national leaders in late '99 after being quizzed by a left leaning reporter? Gore felt compelled to put out an immediate release saying he would have known all of them. I wanted to scream.

The one complaint I have regarding Warner is he needs to vary the not-so-funny-anymore cutesy lines from his standard speech. The cell phone cha-ching line has worn its welcome along with several others.

[Radical Activist]

23. Looks like he was talking about the DNC in '04 with Kerry. Not Dean.

He has a good point there and what happened in '04 is what Dean is responding to.
I guess asking you to chill out and not be so defensive would be expecting way too much.

[MaineDem]

25. That was my thought, too, as I read the quote

I don't think Warner was being critical of the 50 state strategy at all. That strategy won't work if our nominee is unable to garner support in all states so I think Warner is probably right. The infrastructure will be there in '08 thanks to the DNC's planning; now we have to select the right candidate.

[madfloridian]

27. Warner was apparently "unaware" of the plan.

We work closely here with state level people who are "unaware" of what is going on. They think in terms keeping things as they used to be, and they are simply unaware of the rationale for putting money in all the states.

Navarro is a political veteran. His latest was with the DNC in some position, then SEIU, then the Kerry campaign. He should be aware of what is going on, and he should not be critical in state meetings of the strategy of all 50 states. It is petty. He is also critical of DFA, which is wrong. We do a lot of physical work, hold a lot of county chairmanships, and work hard for the party. So he is wrong as well.

The WY governor's state party is getting more money than they have in many years, yet he puts those efforts down in the public media. He has done it at least twice, very publicly.

Warner should not have talked about all this if he did not say he knew it was going on. It is not fair. He should, in his position as a DLC leader as well as candidate, be totally aware of the unpopularity of the DNC plan among his colleagues.

I read this when I came online this morning, and I am really glad I wrote it. It is starting to get the theme like things do....using words like don't be "defensive", don't be touchy, and the biggy..that I "misinterpreted". No, I posted what I thought. It was clear and non threatening.

I think the supporters of some candidates need to stop being so "defensive". I find it offensive. I think some should stop being so touchy about everything that is posted. And some need to stop acting paranoid about things in general.

Hey, good thing I actually like Warner....can you imagine what a nasty post I could have done if I didn't? Wow.

[Radical Activist]

37. paranoid and defensive

Is when someone agrees with you and you still find a reason to be angry over it.

[FrenchieCat]

41. The Irony is not lost......Paranoia and defensiveness

Can manifest themselves in several ways, doncha think?

Could it also be when someone disagree with you and so you attack them personally?