I am so glad that Mark Warner is not running

[Lydia Leftcoast]

The last thing we need in 2008 is another political lightweight in the White House.

The rah-rah Warner crowd was always more about image than substance, and instead of saying, "This is strong personality with a clear vision for the future of the country, who can lead us in cleaning up the mess left behind by the worst administration in American history," they were going on about how he had won a Red state.

Well, woop-de-do.

If the Democrats are going to win in 2008, they need someone with vision and determination. They need someone who won't flounder in trying to set a course correction. They need someone who fully appreciates that we NEED a course correction, not just kinder, gentler corporate rule. They need someone who is savvy enough not to listen to the Republican moles. They need a strong personality who doesn't give a damn what the Republicans say about him and who sets the agenda instead of reacting to the Republicans. They need someone who knows how to appeal directly to the American people to gain support for his initiatives.

What we do not need is a pretty boy who just bumbles along with business as usual, basically accepting the Republicans' framing of issues and continuing some of their programs, only in slow motion.

In other words, we don't need a Tony Blair. We need an FDR.

[blm]

1. They need someone to open the books on BushInc. and let the chips fall

where they may.

And someone who knows that the machines get rigged and will stay on top of the DNC to make sure the election process is secured for ALL the candidates on the ballots and for the voters who want to cast their ballot for them.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

3. Yes, that too

:thumbsup:

[Mr Rabble]

35. Never going to happen. Ever.

This would be such a a great start that it will be avoided at all costs.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[blm]

41. I disagree. There are some who believe in open government and sharng

documents with the public citizens.

In fact, some have even gone to court to force release of documents that most powerbrokers want hidden.

[SteppingRazor]

2. What I liked about Warner...

was that he was not in Congress and that he was from a borderline red state.

I'd like to keep all our Dems in Congress, and running someone from an easily flippable red state seems a good idea.

Of course, this is all just pure politics, not issues or policy

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. As you yourself say, you're thinking game plan, not

actually governing the nation, no, LEADING the nation away from the edge of a cliff.

The people are sharply divided these days, and we need someone who is literally INSPIRING.

(If anything, I like Bayh even less.)

[SteppingRazor]

5. Granted. And, there are a couple others who meet those same criteria...

For example, Wes Clark and Al Gore

[blm]

6. You make a good point - but how divided would the country be if they

were able to see for themselves the entire back stories to everything happening today?

I think many who supported BushInc all these years would be horrified to hear about the 30 years of protecting and facilitating the terror networks and nuclear proliferators.

Once that cat is out of the bag and documents aired, there will be no turning back for this country, and we really WILL be able to move on and correct course for the long haul.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. And we need someone who is willing to put all the skeletons on

display. I don't see inexperienced state governors as appropriate for the role.

We need someone with guts, with high intelligence paired with the ability to talk to all types of people on an easy basis, a clear vision of the future, and a willingness to let the chips fall where they may.

[Virginia Dare]

31. What makes you think Warner wouldn't?

with the right team behind him, he could accomplish that, I fail to see what he has or hasn't done to make you think otherwise.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. Would he do it if he had the wrong team behind him, i.e.

the usual gang of Beltway figures whose major concerns are 1) How will it look in the polls? and 2) Will the Republicans criticize us?

Would he buck chicken-livered advisors, or would he be dependent on them?

[hijinx87]

20. and you can't govern if you don't win.

and warner would have been a formidable candidate.

and I flatly reject the notion that a man who successfully governed a
state as large and diverse as virginia for four years is somehow less
qualified or inspiring than anyone else that has been mentioned.

he just doesn't pass some people's personal litmus test.

the man left office with approval ratings damn near into the 80's for
heaven's sake. warner is a winner. we should make him our winner.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. Four whole years? Wow.

But what's his vision for America? Seriously. What is his vision for America and where does he want to take it?

Does he want to make bold plans that reverse the depradations of the Bush era? Or does he just want to put band-aids on a few of the owies?

If the latter, then he's just an American Tony Blair.

[hijinx87]

42. well, it's not exactly his fault . . . .

the VA governor is limited to a single term in office.

and I'm not sure any of the potential candidates have
filled out the mandatory "DU Vision Declaration Statement"
yet.

[loyalsister]

47. when does it stop?

Next we'll hear "We can't win again in '12 if we govern during the first four years."
I have heard this line about waiting until we win to stand up for Democratic values before, and it doesn't fly for me.

[Clark2008]

57. Personal litmus test?

It's "personal" to want someone with some foreign policy and national defense creds, particularly when Bush has made it so the rest of the world would sooner set us ablaze that spit on us if we WERE on fire? I should think that, to beat the alleged "party of national security" (and, yes, I know this week, they're not, according to the polls), we would need someone with some FP gravitas. That's not "personal," that's good judgment.

Don't you want someone who, not only can lead from the position of having known what it's like to be middle class in America, but also someone who knows how to handle foreign affairs?

I don't know much about Warner's background, so he may have been middle class at one time, but I do know he didn't have much FP experience.

[amitten]

8. We need Al freakin' Gore.

PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. At this point, I don't know who we do need (I'm concentrating on 2006)

but I will not vote for any pretty boys who have no vision of their own and have to rely on Beltway advisors to figure out how the federal government works.

[Ninja Jordan]

10. We don't have an FDR.

This helps Edwards and Gore (if he runs).

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. And why not?

Is it because the party establishment tends to support and put forward only those politicians and candidates who play along with conventional wisdom?

Is it because the corporate interests will not fund any bold thinkers?

[Ninja Jordan]

16. The latter I think.

the era of 24 hour news is not condusive to helping an iconic candidate.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. But also some of the former, from what I've seen

The Democratic bigwigs don't actually want someone who will rock the boat and ruin their cocktail parties with their golfing buddies across the aisle.

[SaveElmer]

23. FDR did not run as FDR....if you take my meaning

FDR ran on a pretty conservative platform initially...

No one runs on a platform of that kind of profound change as it always results in defeat. FDR only became the FDR we know and respect now once he was in office...

He had the most important mark of greatness...being able to overcome his own inclinations to recognize and act upon the solutions that were best for the country...


Mark Warner, or any of the other candidates we have could end up being equally as great.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. I haven't been able to google up any quick &dirty info on FDR's

1932 campaign. However, as I recall hearing from my older relatives (my mother is 85, my grandmother died a few years ago at the age of 100, and I have plenty of relatives over 70), Roosevelt indeed did not offer a set of wonkish (I'll add the smirk, so you don't have to) "far left" programs, but he did offer a credible VISION of a better America. I do recall that he said he was running for the "forgotten man." (I'll excuse him for that--it WAS 1932.)

It could well be that he won because he was the first to acknowledge that whole classes of Americans had been "forgotten" and to do so credibly. If that was his overriding vision, then the details could wait. But once he figured out the details, he had them ready to go. Remember "the first hundred days"?

What I see from too many Democratic candidates is word-heavy websites full of wonkish position papers that spell out details only legislators really need to know. On the website of the current candidate for governor (Mike Hatch) you actually have to read a whole damn paper full of historical background and to find out what he thinks about an issue.

I am sick to death of politicians who are nothing but the sum of their position papers and their much vaunted managerial ability. I'm sick to death of politicians who won't adopt a firm position unless it plays well in the polls.

Bush brought two elections close enough to steal because he was able to FAKE an image that a lot of Americans find attractive. A candidate who can project a TRUE image of understanding and caring about ordinary Americans could go a long way, if the corporate establishment Beltway pundits didn't tear him to shreds first.

[SaveElmer]

32. Well I agree with you in part...

A politician has to offer something more compelling than their stands on the issues. Although from what I hear Hatch is giving Timmy a run for his money!

FDR's 1932 platform was actually indistinguishable from Hoover's...and even through the entirety of the 1930's FDR was loath to run a deficit. He did offer hope, and he rose above his class...that is what made him great.

However, there was precious little inkling of that future greatness in his first campaign.

[PeaceProgProsp]

45. FDR was considered a lightweight when he ran.

He was mediocre student in college and law school and people thought he got ahead only because of his wealth and his name. He hid from the public his polio, which was the thing that built in him the character that America saw when he fought for the common person.

America didn't know it was electing "FDR" when it elected FDR, which is, perhaps, an important lesson for people who think we need to elect the most heavyweight candidate out there.

[Clark2008]

58. Edwards = another pretty boy with no experience.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. He was in the Senate. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Poverty is an issue, but, guess what, the Dems already win on that issue.

What does he know about the world? Other than that time he attended the Bilderberg conference and that time he voted for the Iraqi War Resolution and that time he co-wrote the Patriot Act?

:eyes:

Al Gore, I'll fully accept, except he's probably not going to run (and I say this as a Tennessean).

[Jai4WKC08]

72. Nonsense

You're not looking hard enough.

[Virginia Dare]

11. I would take him over ANY puke out there...n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. That's not a very high level of recommendation, is it?

Have we set our sights so low?

[Virginia Dare]

29. Warner wouldn't be that terrible...

he was a good Governor for Virginia anyway, and he was very good at keeping the right wing fundies in line.

I have no complaints about him.

[indygrl]

12. I wish Bayh would drop out

He wasn't a bad gov. but since he's been in the senate until recently he has been a 'me too' Bush man. I like Edwards but not for pres. My choice is still Wes Clark, Bill Richardson, or Hilary.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. I wish Bayh would drop out, too

Don't know enough about Richardson, and if Hillary runs, we may as well just throw the Republicanites' victory party for them.

[TygrBright]

56. Richardson has charisma in gobs...

...and we could do a lot worse.

Charisma... ay, yi-yi! He's got the Clinton thing DOWN. Walks into a room, instant center of attention. People want to be around him. When he's talking to you, he's LISTENING, and you're the only person that matters. Plus, he's just so damn' cute... looks like someone's good-natured uncle, with the unassuming charm of a jolly taco vendor. Without for an instant seeming undignified or awkward or unsophisticated. Smart without being offputtingly wonky or pencil-neck geek or elitist.

He's got way better foreign policy chops than most Goobers, since he spent a term as Clinton's UN Ambassador. He's a good negotiator, good diplomat, and believes in the value of talking and listening BEFORE acting. (Whoa! What a concept, eh?)

He's done very well as Goober in a state with a diverse population and many strands of us-vs-themness. A poor state that until recently was pretty much a two-industry enclave (military and tourism) without any real economic base. A state with real challenges facing its education system (bilingual population, inadequate and aging infrastructure, terrible teacher shortage.) He's made solid steps in getting a robust economic base started (high tech, sustainable energy, and entertainment,) and made some real solid improvements in the education system.

He's one of the few who can speak authoritatively on immigration issues without sounding like a zealot or bullshit artist, and he is an excellent public speaker in general. In domestic policy he's more centrist than I like (gung-ho on globalization of the economy, for one thing,) and pretty DLC in many of his economic positions. OTOH, he's a very solid environmentalist. On labor he's mixed, mostly good.

As I said, we could do worse.

With all that in mind, he's got downsides. He's definitely a Good Ol' Boy, relies on Business As Usual in politics to get things done expediently. Cozier than I'd like to see with some big business interests. Definitely a grandstander and a self-inflator, can certainly be tarred with the "will say anything his audience wants to hear" brush. On rare occasions, he shoots off his mouth without thinking, and sometimes, it's a doozy. That would all likely come back to haunt him. And of course, he's BROWN (his mother was Mexican,) which would send the bubba vote shrieking for Pat Buchanan's apron strings, for what THAT'S worth (not much, by me, but then I'm not responsible for pulling out a Presidential victory for the Party.)

On a "liberalism" scale of 1-10, with Lieberman being a 1 and Chomsky a 10, he's probably not much better than a 6.

That's the skinny on my Goob. I like him, but I'm ambivalent about whether I'd want him to be Prexy.

helpfully,
Bright

[Clark2008]

59. Richardson has charisma?

I'm sorry, I don't see that.

He's sort of, well, "blobby," in my opinion. Cute? I guess to each his own - I'll foot you that - but I'm pretty much guaranteeing that most people wouldn't agree with you on the "cute" part. I mean, I can't stand Edwards, but I can see why people might think he's cute.

I'm sure Richardson is a fine Democrat and a great governor, but I don't get the charisma part.

[TygrBright]

65. Watch him work a room, sometime...

...it's amazing. People just light up as he approaches. I don't really get it, either, but then I was pretty immune to the Clinton thing as well.

And he has dimples. I don't mean "cute" in the sense of "hunky." I mean "cute" in the sense of "golden retriever puppy." Killer grin. He may look dumpy on TV, physically, but in person he's just a big guy. He rides and fishes and does all that he-manly stuff, too. In decent shape physically.

As to fine Democrat, well... he's OK as a Democrat. "Fine" might be going a tad far. He's definitely a GOOD Governor, for New Mexico at least. Greatness is something history has to judge.

equably,
Bright

[Jai4WKC08]

71. Working a room doesn't mean a damn

Outside of NM, 99% of the voters will never meet him in person, and 90% will never know anyone who ever met him in person.

Richardson comes across as dumpy and winkish on TV, and that's how the voters will see him.

No wait... that's the BEST that the voters will see. They'll see far worse from the GOP slime machine.

[SaveElmer]

18. Mark Warner was an incredibly competent and effective Governor...

Part of what the American people are going to be looking for in 2008 is an antidote to the bumbling, childish incompetence of the current buffoons in office. Mark Warner exudes competence and intelligence. Precisely the type of person I believe the voters will be looking for.

Governing a red-state like Virginia, dealing with an overwhelmingly Republican legislature and still getting much of his agenda through, and becoming the most popular politician here hardly warrants the designation lightweight.

Had Warner made a run for the White House, not only would he have been a very strong contender for the nomination, but had he gone on to be elected, I believe he would have been a very effective President...

[hijinx87]

21. well spoken.

:applause:

it's obvious that the key to winning in 2008 is retaining all the blue
states while flipping just one or two (possibly southern) red states.

a former red state governor would have been a freaking home run.

have we all already forgotten the lesson we learned from bill clinton?

[Eurobabe]

22. Yes, I lived in VA while he was gov., he did a fine job

managed to overcome all the partisan bickering and get things done. I am sorry that he is NOT in the running.

[loyalsister]

50. One question

In some southern areas, the differences between Democrats and Republicans seem to dissipate. That is true in Missouri.
Is there a huge difference between a lot Democrats and Republicans in Virginia?

[Hippo_Tron]

40. Governing a state and governing the country are different things

I'm not saying that Warner wouldn't make a good President, because I think that we don't know all that much about him. However, his governing of a state alone hasn't proven to me that he'd do well in the oval office. I know that you could say that I would've been saying the same about Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter, but both of those men are absolutely brilliant and had an understanding of foreign affairs that I haven't seen Mark Warner display yet. I don't doubt that Warner was a smart guy but Clinton and Carter were two of the most brilliant men that we've ever had in the oval office and this I think made up for their lack of experience in foreign affairs.

[SaveElmer]

43. I don't think there is anything like governing the country...

The closest thing is governing a state - assuming you govern in a state where the Governor has real power (unlike Texas).

Having been a constituent of Mark Warners I have absolutely NO doubt in my mind that he would be a very quick study on foreign affairs...

[MrCoffee]

62. Great post. n/t

[madfloridian]

19. I respect him for doing what he needed to do early on.

I really do. He had a pretty good amount raised overall in his PAC, a whole lot more than some others.

And there are others who are already pretty much aware they are not going to run, and they need to be forthcoming as well.

[Radical Activist]

24. Conviction and vision win votes.

I'd like to think we can find a candidate who has vision and conviction...if they have also won in a red state and look good on TV, that's a bonus.

[saltpoint]

25. I consider Warner a real thinker with plenty of intellectual heft,

and a brave soul to oppose the death penalty in a state where it has enjoyed strong support.

I attribute the rise of the Democratic Party in Virginia in significant part to Warner's efforts to build the party and inspire its operatives and volunteers.

He appeared to me to be a formidable contender for the nomination and would have received my vote over any Republican you can name except Pete McCloskey.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. But what would his vision for the country have been?

What would he have done to reverse (not just paper over) the damage done by the Bush admin?

[Virginia Dare]

30. He may actually have been a uniter...

we have to find some common ground again, we can't continue on in this divided and bitter state.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. A uniter to do what, though?

One who can inspire the people to allow him to make sweeping changes that get the country back on track?

Or one who can do minor repair work because he doesn't scare the Republicans too much?

[Virginia Dare]

37. We won't know now, will we?...

at least for another 6 years!

[saltpoint]

69. A fair question, one I can't answer without somehow knowing in

advance Warner's specific take on policy.

Any new president of either party is going to have to re-establish better diplomatic relations with other nations generally and our European allies especially. Bush has done a lot of damage there. I'm with you all the way on that, and can't say whether this Democrat or that Democrat would be better at it. Only to say that I'd vote for any Democrat over any Republican to undertake the process.

I have a group of 5 or 6 Democratic 08 candidates I'm more enthusiastic over than I was Warner, but thought Warner was formidable and had a true shot at the top prize. I'm kind of surprised that he's dropped out.

[rep the dems]

36. At this point I'm not glad.

We really have no way of knowing what kind of President Warner would be, so saying it's a good thing he's not running seems a little premature. And as many people have said, he would probably have a good chance of winning, thus guaranteeing things would at least get somewhat better after Bush leaves.

[depakid]

38. "bumbles along with business as usual..."

That's precisely how I see it, too.

[Rowdyboy]

39. Hopefully, he'll run for Senator Warner's seat in 2008.....

I'd love to see him in the senate.

A presidential run with just 1 term in a governors' chair is a bit premature. Also he could easily be re-elected governor when Kaine leaves office in 2009.

[cnlst8]

48. just imagine Warner (D) v. Warner (R) for senate.

providing Warner (R) doesn't retire.

[SaveElmer]

49. It's happened before...

Mark Warner challenged John Warne rin 1996 I think...

He had bumper stickers that read...

MARKNOTJOHN


He came pretty close actually...

[Rowdyboy]

66. I think he came surprisingly close and I really doubt John Warner will

run again. Its definitely a new day in Virginia.

[Thrill]

44. Happy? PLEASE This is not good at all

He was exactly what the DEMS needed from a candidate. When are you people going to realize that the Hilary Clinton's and John Kerry's aren't going to win. We AREN'T going to win running some Senator with a mile long voting record that can be distored. This is not good. I was putting all my chips on Warner. I'm very disappointed in this news

[Ninja Jordan]

46. Don't want Hillary either

I'm an Edwards fan. I also like Clark and Gore.

[Clark2008]

60. You're right - we wouldn't win with a senator.

But I still would like someone with a modicum of foreign policy experience. I mean, not to put him too far down, but Warner has about the same as Bush did when he started. :scared:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

63. For the record, I am not happy with Kerry and I think that nominating

Hillary "More than anything I want the rich and powerful to like me" Clinton would be suicidal.

I'm looking for guts, an inner core of principles independent of what big business wants, a willingness to fight for those principles, and the ability to communicate that integrity to the voters.

It has nothing to do with being a senator. It has everything to do with not looking like a typical pol.

[leftchick]

68. I completely agree

and I don't know who yet. I haven't seen a non-corporate Democrat throw their hat in the race yet. Edwards seems to be a potential, other than him I can't think of one.

[GreenArrow]

51. "The last thing we need in 2008 is another political lightweight"

John Edwards, anyone?

How about running another Senator? Maybe, if the party gets really imaginative, we can even get two Senators on the ticket again.

Image, not ability or vision, is what the American people are going to buy; otherwise, Dennis Kucinich would be President. Instead, we'll get a milky safe counterfeit.

[blm]

53. Only ONE Reason Gore and Kerry aren't in office - DNC failing to secure

the election process on the state level where the votes are counted, which meant they were overseeing the collapse of the Dem party infrastructure in crucial states all over the country since 1997.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

64. When people actually got to hear Dennis, they liked him

I'm tired of explaining how he was marginalized, but believe me, he was, the last straw being when the DNC had him speak to the convention just BEFORE national TV coverage started.

[The Count]

52. Hear, hear! Another media made candidate...

Let the wishy washy clutter thin a bit. Happy trails, Mark.

[Mend]

54. Did Warner rule out running for Vice President? That might be

a really good choice.

[Clark2008]

61. I would accept that before I would his being at the top of the

ticket.

I just don't like his DNC, Bilderberg connections - but at least we wouldn't have to worry about his lack of FP experience as VP.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

55. That's a relief.

Warner just didn't seem to have anything special going for him except, apparently, that he's a fairly competent governor. He's bland and inoffensive; he doesn't seem to have strong positions on much of anything; and he has no foreign policy experience. We can do a lot better.

[MattP]

67. Warnet

Why didn't he run against Allen?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

70. This is really shallow but

I thought Warner had a whiny voice, and that it would lose him a lot of votes.
Just look at Bush getting in there- people are swayed by the most shallow of reasons.