Who We Need To Run for President in 2008: Mark Warner

[displacedyankeedem]

Here's what I've come up with

MUST BE
1. A Governor or a Senator with heavy Governor experience.
2. Not A Northeasterner or West Coaster, makes the values issue too hard to sell.
3. Someone who can better connect with rural America
4. Someone popular enough to carry their red/purple state
5. Someone with a last name that doesn't rhyme with Clinton

The List Based On These Criteria

Governors
-Mark Warner (Virginia)
-Janet Napolitano (Arizona)
-Jim Doyle (Wisconsin)
-Phil Breadsen (Tennessee)
-Mike Easley (North Carolina)
-Kathryn Sebelius (Kansas)
-Tom Vilsack (Iowa)
-Bill Richardson (New Mexico)
-Ed Rendell(Pennsylvania)

Senators
-Evan Bayh (Indiana)
-Ben Nelson (Nebraska)

Now, out of this list, Vilsack will have been out of office for awhile when 2008 hits. Nelson is likely too conservative to get through the Democratic primaries. Rendell probably has too many liabilities from his time spent as Philadelphia mayor, and I've heard rumors aout Richardson's womanizing. Easley seems to inspire few in North Carolina.

That leaves the following:

Governors
-Mark Warner (Virginia)
-Janet Napolitano (Arizona)
-Jim Doyle (Wisconsin)
-Phil Breadsen (Tennessee)
-Kathryn Sebelius (Kansas)

Senators
-Evan Bayh (Indiana)

Of those one name stands out like a sore thumb as the choice we'll need.

Mark Warner.

Warner is perhaps the single best choice for Democrats in 2008. He's incredibly wealthy ($600 million personally) and is probably willing to maybe spend as much as is necessary to win both the primaries and the general. He ran a campaign in 2001 in which he did incredibly well in rural Virginia while carrying the Democratic base in the DC suburbs. Even the NRA had a hard time attacking him. He managed to push through critically needed tax reforms agaisnt a heavily Republican state legislature. He's gotten absolutely rave reviews as Governor, even from Republicans.

He's popular enough to finally put Virginia in the Democratic column for the first time since 1964. It's 15 electoral votes would come in mighty handy.

He'll be out of office in 2007 and should be well positioned.

Here's a good article about him:
http://www.loper.org/~george/archives/2004/Oct/984.html

As for a Veep, I think he should pick either Napolitano, Richardson, or Bayh.

Bayh would be a help with legislative credentials and might buy Indiana for us (though I have severe doubts about that). Napolitano might buy both AZ and the drive up the womans vote for us, while Richardson would secure NM and the latino vote. Sebelius is a wildcard in my opinion. Or maybe someone who's last name DOES rhyme with Obama.

[Zynx]

1. I think you're right. He would certainly be a good veep choice as well.

[Stinky The Clown]

33. Better as a VEEP with Clark on top of the ticket.

Clark has national name recognition. He has NO legislative record. If he has any baggage, it is likley to be very small and very petty. If you want a Daddy instead of a Mommy, he's your guy. He's an "everyman" sort. Not rich (at least not until he retired and even now he is hardly much better than "well off". He has an organization right now (Wespac). He has support from a fair share of the AA community (Charlie Rangell, for one is very much a booster of his).

And, in support of Kerry, he was even more visible than Edwards.

[LibInternationalist]

2. I couldn't agree more

but we need to make sure that he has a party to head in 2008 -- we can't rely on one person to turn everything around

[THUNDER HANDS]

3. yeah, Warner will probably be the one

he's the only viable guy right now. Richardson will probably be his vp.

I call it first! :)

[neener3]

4. Good choice

But if Hillary wants the nomination... and I think it is obvious she does... how is she persuadednot to run or how does anyone beat her and capture the nominaion?

[displacedyankeedem]

7. The powers that be...

tell her to step aside for the good of the party. Simple as that.

[neener3]

34. Yeah right...

.... and Bill Ckinton says he will camapaign against her usurper. A decipe for a landslide loss.....

[tritsofme]

5. Richardson couldn't produce New Mexico for Kerry; Why not Al Gore?

I am very disappointed in Richardson.

Why shouldn't Al Gore run in 2008?

[0rganism]

11. Gore couldn't produce Tennessee for *himself*

At this point, Al Gore is damaged goods, and brings back ugly memories of the 2000 recount which of course leads to bush's 9/11 "mandate of heaven" mantra: "aren't you glad Gore isn't the president now?"

Gore's negatives are too high.

[tritsofme]

14. That's true

With all this crap going on the past few weeks I forgot about that...

Whoever it is, I'm starting to think a governor sounds very good.

[AP]

24. Kerry campaigned in NM. Gore did not campaign in TN.

[0rganism]

6. I largely agree with your assessment, and I would go one step further

We should eliminate from vp consideration any current senators, such as Obama. We desperately need to preserve and regain both seats and seniority in the Senate, and that means preserving incumbency among the current crop wherever possible.

[displacedyankeedem]

16. I agree

I'm not that wildly enthuastic about Bayh in the first place. Maybe Clark could bring national security credentials to back Warner along.

[0rganism]

20. Warner/Clark would be a solid combination

Geographically, it gives us inroads into two of the pinker red states.

Politically, Warner is about as moderate as you can get without being a de-facto republican, and Clark is a rational independent with a thorough understanding of economics and foreign policy experience.

WRT personal liabilities, I don't know much about Warner's skeleton closet, but I imagine ex-General Clark's would have to be pretty small -- more of a footlocker.

Warner's main difficulty will be winning in the primaries. He wil have to make the case to the base that winning in the South is not optional, and that he's positioned, realistically, to do this.

[Blue Wally]

38. Clark maty have baggage

He cut some corners in the Army and had a repution as a "slick operator". He was also not very careful about stepping on other people on his way up the ladder. Could be a lot of "Swift Boat Vet" types out there hungry for payback if Clark becomes part of a presidential ticket.

[FrenchieCat]

42. can you back that up????

He had a reputation as an intellectual....not a slick operator. He didn't step on anyone on his way up....like who?

This sound like Freeper talk to me. Don't do this unless you've got something more than rambling rumors.

They could make something up certainly.......but proving it would be really difficult.

Also, we will not find someone "safe" anyways........

People thought that Kerry was so "electable"....and look what happened to him.

[Blue Wally]

44. I am not saying that he is not electable

I am saying that being out of the public eye all of these years means that the press and public didn't "know" him until recently. He did move in a very closed society (and had a reputation there).

[Tom Rinaldo]

64. Surely you have figured out how the Rowe machine works by now

They don't wait until the General Election to deal with threats to their power. Clark was a threat because he had/has the credibility to uncover and confront their imperialistic military mind set. Clark was a Viet Nam Hero who did NOT become a protester. They went after Clark with all guns blazing as soon as he announced. They knew it was easier to make Center Left Primary Season Democrats suspicious of a relatively little known General than it would be the public at large in a General Election. They wanted Clark completely discredited and made into a caricature of a loony sooner rather than later so the public would tune him out immediately rather than take him seriously. They got in enough blows to hurt Clark in the Primaries, but he came out standing and subsequently gained respect, not lost it, with Democrats and the public.

Clark was one of a handful of major surrogates for Kerry during the campaign. He was on all of the top shows speaking for Kerry. If the Republicans had been able to sink him they would have, it's that simple. Yes they would try again in 2008. They never give up. But they will with any Democrat, inventing lies if need be. Clark is solid. Better than that, they can't drag up 'Liberal" voting records to use against him by taking out of context every vote he's made over 30 years the way they will with any Democrat who has held office.

[Snellius]

8. I'm sick of living in the United States of the South

Just because Kerry lost and is from Mass. doesn't reflexively mean we can only elect a President with a Southern twang. We should spend more time standing up for what we believe than pandering to some mythical red religious Southern white boy securing mom moral majority just to get their vote. We lost because we lacked a defining vision not because we were not enough like them.

[displacedyankeedem]

18. Either way....

we're gonna have a Southerner in office. Would you rather it be ours or theirs? And to assauge your fears, he grew up in Connecticut.

[AP]

25. You're not. Boston-NYC-DC make all the decisions. When a southerner runs

it's because people from Boston-NYC-DC made the choice.

[SaveElmer]

29. Exactly right

eom

[Eric J in MN]

35. We won in 1992 and 1996 with 2 Southerners on the ticket.

Democrats should always put 2 Southerners on the presidential ticket.

Minesota will still vote for that ticket, and maybe Virginia or West Virginia or Florida will, too.

[theHandpuppet]

52. Thank you!

I'm tired of us bending over and grabbing our ankles to please the "southern vote". If Northerners have no problem voting for Southern Dems (LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Gore, Edwards) then the reverse should also hold true. I'm not going to pander to any bigotry against anyone who happens to live north of the Mason Dixon line.

[Kahuna]

61. It kinda does mean that.

nt

[BurtWorm]

9. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOORING.

You want to seal the deal right now? Why not? He can start his positive values campaign right now? :eyes:

[arewenotdemo]

10. Dean/Warner in 2008

could be a winner

[Hatalles]

13. We need Dean or someone like him.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Not Howard Dean...please!

Howard Dean would not have fared any better than John Kerry did in 2004....nor will he win if nominated in 2008. Howard Dean is an acquired taste. We will still be involved in a "War on Terra" in 2008 (don't see us "winning" it prior to then) and possibly other foreign policy blunders perpetuated by GWB. Dean will be hard pressed to get the bonafides required to finally run on a Daddy Party platform....as opposed to the usual Mommy Party platform during WarTime. Howard Dean will still be a northeastern Democrat who went to Yale, One who dodged the Vietnam draft and signed Civil Unions into law. His scream will not be erased from the videos of history. If Al Gore did not choose to run again in 2004, I don't know what would compel anyone to believe that Howard Dean (who came 1/10th of the road Gore travelled) will be a viable choice in 2008.

When the Republicans put up McCain or Jeb Bush as their 2008 nominee, I doubt that an ex-Governor from one of the smallest and most liberal state in the Union will stand a chance. That's the reality.......

Wishing for a Howard Dean replay is a fantasy that will not end with a President Dean.

In fact, until we do something about the Dieboldt voting machines and media manipulation, we will not see anything other than Republicans elected as President.

[Bush was AWOL]

12. You're exactly right

and that kind of ticket would destroy Rudy or McCain, even in the south.

[dolstein]

17. How about Mark Warner/Wes Clark in 2008?

I could go for that.

The greatest advantage is that neither of them have served in Congress. I think that's the problem with Evan Bayh. He was a popular two-term governor of Indiana, but now he's gone and saddled himself with a legislative record.

[displacedyankeedem]

19. Agreed

legislative records are to be avoided. Though its not nearly so bad in the Veep slot. Witness Cheney, Gore, Bush 41, and Mondale(all Senators or house Reps).

[0rganism]

21. I like it.

'nuff said.

[Bush was AWOL]

22. That would be a great team

[maxsolomon]

23. sure you don't want to say hillary clinton?

seems to be all the rage amongst low-total posters today.

[BluegrassDem]

26. I'm all for Warner

He's a businessman, so the Republicans couldn't say he's anti-business. He's a moderate Democrat who's popular in a conservative state. He's almost an ideal candidate. I'm a liberal, but I WANT TO WIN DAMN IT! If it takes a moderate southerner to get us back in the White House, then so be it. Bill Clinton ran as a moderate Southerner too and looked how good he was for us.

I was thinking that maybe if he had to put a woman on the ticket, then Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas would be pretty good. We need to get some people on the ticket that can give us a shot at picking up some of the ligher red states, like AR, NM, or AZ.

[Tweed]

27. Is this one of those coming out threads? Wasn't that Nov. 2nd?

Kidding, Warner will probably be the candidate. He better use more populist language.

[Democracy Died 2004]

32. Well if we are throwing names around

Warner/Manchin. He is the new Democratic govenor of WV.. Mayb be too early but has some remarkable attributes. Sportsman, 37 year marriage to local girl, and would be better accepted in Ohio, WV, Kentucky. Just a thought.

[SaveElmer]

28. Great Governor...not very articulate

eom

[0rganism]

39. Look at what we have now. Does "articulate" even matter?

If there's one thing we should have learned by now, it's that demeanor trumps articulation every time.

[redherring]

30. No more senators

I agree that the next candidate we choose needs to be an outsider, because chances are slim that he'll depicted as a flip-flopper by our opponents. Kerry's "flip flops" hurt us quite a lot. Of course, those who can reason clearly know why Kerry reverted his minds on certain issue. Frankly, flip flopping is the hallmark of an intellectual.But the masses will never buy the reasonings. All they know is that he changed positions.

So, I think the best choice is indeed Governor Mark Warner. Generals are good choices too. My second pick would of course be Wesley Clarke.

[BluegrassDem]

31. Warner just neutralizes a lot of attacks against us

just as Bill Clinton did in 1992. We need someone that can't be easily labeled.

You know, I would love to see Hillary as president, but we have to be pragmatic as well. I'm more interested in winning than anything else.

[Doomsayer13]

36. fantastic choice

fanstastic record, can carry major states in the south, strong where democrats are weak, strong where democrats are strong. Great.

[LSdemocrat]

37. Why not Edwards?

[dolstein]

40. I'd say Warner has a better shot of carrying his home state than Edwards

Just a hunch.

[Nancy Waterman]

41. Warner is a terrific choice!!

He has done very well for Virginia. Forget Hillary, unless you want to lose every single red state we just lost again. The red states hate her. She symbolizes all kinds of demons to them, whether fairly or not.

[Kahuna]

63. Warner trumps Edwards on so many levels. Beginning with having..

executive experience and not having to explain voting to give * authority to wage war on the world.

[Onlooker]

43. You're thinking like a Republican

We need someone who can champion Democratic values successfully. The Democrats have to stop playing politics and start talking honestly about the values that the party stands for. We can win if we find someone who is consistent, honest, and convincing. Warner is not a terrible choice, but cowtowing to the south is not the right way to think about the next election.

Your post is about manipulating people. The idea that we should not choose a norteasterner or westerner because of the values issue suggests that the issue is with your values.

[displacedyankeedem]

45. Well...it might just take

that kind of thinking to win in 2008.

[davepc]

53. another principled democrat who doesn't mind losing elections

as long as we go down fighting the good fight.

we keep trying that, we keep getting killed.

[lilsourgoose]

46. He doesn't have the experience, but...

wouldn't ultra-liberal Ron Reagan Jr. be a great candidate?

I'd like to see the Repigs try and trash him!

[davepc]

54. they will, easily

he'll NEVER shake the rumors that he's gay, never.

[geek tragedy]

47. Where does he stand on the issues? eom

[displacedyankeedem]

48. He's....

pro-choice and for balanced budgets.

[geek tragedy]

49. An excellent start!

The Dems need to be the party of personal freedom and responsible government.

That may mean throwing guns off the platform and being less ambitious in social justice programs (for now). But it's better than letting Texas and Oklahoma rule the rest of the country.

[displacedyankeedem]

50. Here's some more things Warner's done

-restored the vote to ex-felons
-began a program to help run schools more efficiently
-nixed a proposal for "Confederate history month"

more here
http://www.ontheissues.org/Mark_Warner.htm

The more and more I read about this guy the more a believer I become.

[TheWebHead]

51. I'd prefer Bayh/Biden

I disagree with the "only a governor" meme. Bayh wouldn't have near the exposure of Kerry w/ his voting record w/ moderates - which is understandable since he represents Indiana, not Mass. If you look at Warner on the issues, he's closer to a moderate conservative than moderate liberal.. Bayh is enough to the left of Warner (though both are closer to being centrists) to survive the primaries but appeal to moderates in the general. Biden adds a plain spoken and experienced foreign policy edge to the ticket, while not being perceived as a snobby northeast liberal. I think two from the south on the ticket, if they are moderates as well, would discourage our base, and perhaps spur a third party that would dangerously chew into our support.

[Azure]

55. Warner/Clark is sounding good.

Mark Warner and Wes Clark are both strong, all-American sounding names. Yes, names do matter -- most of the electorate are not intellectuals and are looking at factors like name, looks, plain-spokenness, reliability, etc. Warner is a highly successful governor and Clark is strong on defense. Both have center-appeal, and Warner could quite likely deliver Virginia. Let's face it, we ought to know damn well by now that we need at least one of the bigger Southern states to win. Virginia's 15 EV would be a big help, and I think a Warner/Clark ticket would have a chance of delivering one or two other Southern/midwestern states as well.

Let's forget Dean. As much as we all love him, he's a Northeastern liberal governer who would give us a repeat performance of this last fiasco. Hillary, the bane of all Republicans, would do the same or worse (we'd probably even lose a couple swing states with her). Obama isn't ready. Gore is out of the question. Edwards is damaged goods. Most of the others have strikes against them as well. This Warner ticket looks good, and right now, I'm thinking Clark in the VP spot.

[displacedyankeedem]

56. Agreed

Do you think Clark could deliver Arkansas for the Democrats?

[captain disgruntled]

58. Two thoughts--

I'm not sure Warner's well enough known. Virginia governors are limited to a single consecutive 4-year term, though they can apparently run again after a hiatus from office, so it doesn't give him a particularly impressive record to run on. Though that didn't appear to hurt Shrub.

I'm not sure it's fair to judge Warner's political ideology from his performance as Governor--we got some sincere fruitcakes to try and maneuver around in Richmond, and the fact that Warner's made headway may not necessarily mean he's conservative, it may mean he's conciliatory. Perhaps with a more liberal Congress to back him, you might see some more radical tendencies.

Personally, I'd rather see him take out that nitwit George Allen before he goes to the White House.

[displacedyankeedem]

59. Actually, isn't a single 6 year term?

And he's been a vast improvement over James Gilmore who was both an imbecile and incompetent to boot.

[Kahuna]

62. Not well known. True. So we have four years to get our guy known.

That's what the repukes are going to do. They've already narrowed down their selection. We should do the same. And for God's sake take it out of the hands of IA and NH. Let's deliver up for the primaries only candidates with a real chance of winning. Because if we don't, IA and NH will muke it up like they always do.

[LTR]

57. I'd say add Russ Feingold to that list

Why not?

[NYsocialworker]

60. At this point I just want to win.

Why not run Edwards? I think if he were the nominee he might have won. I also like Wes Clark.