Interesting item from Radar

[whometense]

http://www.radaronline.com/fresh-intelligence/2005/11/28/index.php#report_004538

11282005
Is Bubba Hedging His Bets For ‘08?

Though the pundits have all but ordained her as the Democrats’ next presidential nominee, it hasn’t been all smooth sailing for Sen. Hillary Clinton. Publicly at least, the junior Senator from New York still insists she hasn’t made up her mind about a presidential run. But while her coy denials and growing war chest have kept many Democratic opponents on the sidelines, at least one party poobah has not been shy about checking out her competition. Sources close to the Democratic National Committee claim that Bill Clinton has recently held a series of secret meetings with Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, a much-hyped party moderate who is rapidly emerging as his wife’s most significant challenger for the Democratic nomination.

The affable, press-friendly Warner recently sealed his star status in the party after engineering the election of his lieutenant governor, Tim Kaine, to take his place in the governor’s mansion, handing the Dems one of their most significant electoral victories in traditionally red-state Virginia earlier this month. Sources say the former president has grown enamored of Warner, a detail-oriented policy wonk who, like Clinton, rose to prominence as the moderate governor of a conservative Southern state.

Even as she fights off competition from the right, Hillary has other problems to worry about. As a host of prospective opponents, including senators John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama, have lined up to demand a swift departure from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton’s stay-the-course message has eroded her support among the party’s progressives. Furious over her refusal to join a growing chorus of Democratic voices calling for an immediate withdrawal, a few leading party doves are accusing the former first lady of putting politics before principle in an effort to cultivate New York’s Jewish vote.

“I think a lot of Democrats were surprised when she said that we should stay in Iraq at least through the December Iraqi elections,” says one high-level party insider. “But you can’t win New York State without the support of the state’s pro-Israel Jewish community.” While pundits claim that Democrat contendors historically need two thirds of the Jewish vote in New York to win a Senate campaign, Clinton received a mere 53 percent in her 2000 run against Rick Lazio—a scare she presumably doesn’t want to see repeated.

But the senator’s supporters dismiss this charge as “ridiculous,” pointing out that polls show that the state’s Jewish community is as divided about the war as the general electrorate is. “It’s just race baiting,” claims an aggreived Clinton pal who is outraged by the Washington whisper campaign. “Their justified opposition to the war has caused them to adopt the GOP’s worst tactics, but the poll numbers disprove the whole theory.”

Due to the Thanksgiving holiday, reps for the Clintons and Governor Warner could not be reached for comment.

[whometense]

1. P.S.

Radar has jumped on the Warner bandwagon pretty hard.

http://www.radaronline.com/fresh-intelligence/2005/07/11/index.php

[beachmom]

2. This proves something which I hadn't thought of before

I've been defending Warner on this forum, but I wasn't sure why. And now I know. He's actually more of a threat to Hillary than Kerry. The criticisms he has made against Democrats, that were seemingly directed to Kerry, in fact, also work for Hillary -- you know, like not being competitive in 50 states. She is, after all, a blue state Senator and very polarizing. It doesn't look likely that she will win in any of the states that Kerry lost. But here's the thing. Mark Warner's main weakness is his lack of foreign policy and national security experience. It's true that Hillary is on the Armed Services Committee, and was privy to pillow talk and presence in the WH when Bill was president, but she's not a veteran, she doesn't have the incredible bredth and depth of experience on a variety of FP issues like Kerry does. She's going to attempt to play the "centrist" Democrat in '08 if she runs (her votes have proven this). Kerry is definitely going to "play" who he actually is -- a JFK (as in Kennedy) liberal and a foreign policy guru (the Vietnam war veteran will be largely in the background only, yet present in our subconscious). So who is more threatened by Mark Warner? Why Hillary, of course. He's everything she wants to be plus an excellent governor's record with actually DOING what he talks about. The Republican Noise Machine will have a much harder time branding Warner as a hated liberal as they will with Hillary (even though, didn't she vote for Goldwater?).

I guess I'll be honest with you all. I have read all of the names of people who want to be president on the Democratic side. The only ones in the running, IMO, are Hillary, Warner and Kerry. There are fundamental problems with all of the others. Biden won't be able to shut his mouth, the other governors are not half as distinguished as Warner, Edwards is too much of a lightweight (sorry that Cheney debate speaks for itself), Clark is just not a natural pol, and I guess I don't know enough about Evan Bayh (is he any good?) to opine on him. Hillary is the star power, Warner is the press darling, and Kerry is the . . . well, he's the real president.

I know that officially we are focussing on '06, but let's get real (yeah, like Dr. Phil). It takes nearly 4 years to run for the president so people need to get going now. I would say Hillary is a little behind already, because she has that '06 election, but on the other hand, she is very tough and smart and should never be discounted.

[whometense]

3. I mostly agree with your analysis here.

I can't support Warner for president (I'm talking in the primaries here) because he's too conservative for my taste, and too inexperienced with foreign policy. I think he'd make a hell of a good VP choice, though, and fair or not he does come across as more of a heavyweight than Edwards.

I'd never discount Hillary, but I'm having trouble understanding her current strategy. I don't see how tacking towards the Lieberman position gets her anywhere, and in fact her avowed conservative positions on foreign policy, IMHO, make her look calculating and manipulative. But what do I know?

[ginnyinWI]

5. would Warner be able to run on a ticket with Kerry?

Or are they simply too far apart politically? He is Southern, after all. If Kerry were to win the nomination again, the veep choice would be tricky--he'd have to show why he didn't choose Edwards again, assuming he didn't. I know I'm getting waaay ahead of things.

[beachmom]

11. Actually, I think it would work

Warner cares about the same bread and butter issues as Kerry, like health care and helping the poor. It's only on cultural peripheral issues that they supposedly differ but actually not really, especially considering that under the radar hunting trip Kerry went on. I guess Warner may be more "pro-business", but I never thought Kerry was against business; it was only that he felt that workers deserved rights like healthcare and a liveable wage, too. Warner didn't always have money, and he is, after all, a Democrat. Warner knows he needs to be better on the environment so I think they would have that in common, too. Warner was upset with Kerry a little for pulling out of Virginia -- he said the SBVT took its toll in Virginia. But other than that, it comes down to will they get along. That is the unknown.

[ginnyinWI]

12. I think JK is pro-business,

as long as it doesn't hurt the workers in the process.

Take healthcare as an example: his healthcare proposals are pro-business as well as pro-worker, because one of the major reasons businesses can't get ahead here is when they are required to pay for health care for workers--the big businesses are, anyway. A government assisted healthcare plan would relieve businesses of much of that burden, and just maybe they'd decide they can compete without sending jobs to India.

Raising the minimum wage should also be a no-brainer; the problem is so many businesses short-sightedly look at their immediate bottom lines, rather than the big picture. That's when government should step in and require it.

[TayTay]

13. It's amazing what a little perspective will do for you

Sen. Kerry was always perceived as a centrist in MA (mostly) for his economic proposals. His positions are pro-job creation and a lot of other stuff goes with that. Health care reform is big because it is a moral issue all by itself but also because it is driving companies to outsource. Education is a big issue because it creates the competitive workforce and the jobs of the future. Even the energy initiatives, which are worthy in and of themselves, are also seen as engines of job creation. At least, this is my impression of his record. (He is a champion of 'pay-as-you-go.' That implies fiscal responsibility.)

[_dynamicdems]

14. How about a Kerry/Clinton ticket? How would that fly?

I've heart this put forth from a couple of different people and it makes me wonder. Any thoughts on this ticket? :popcorn:

[FreedomAngel82]

7. You forgot Feingold

He could give Warner a run for his money. I think with governors like Warner aren't expected to have foreign policy experience. It all matters who he puts in his cabinet and his VP choice. Clinton didn't have any foreign policy either.

[karynnj]

4. I dont believe the 53% number

typically Jews vote pretty overwhelmingly Democratic, nation wide, Kerry got somewhere around 75%. Kerry also got over 80% of the NYC vote - much of which was likely Jewish. Many neo-cons may be Jewish, but only a small portion of Jews are neo-cons.

Less than a month before the 2004 election, our local Jewish newspaper printed an article on the Jewish Republicans(aka neocons) and the Iraq war. The article was written factually and was neither pro or con. I was concerned that this front page article could be taken as THE Jewish position, so after talking to my rabbi (who is often featured in the newspaper), my husband and I wrote a concerned email to the editor that questioned how this could really be good for the US or Israel. In a personal email (that would be wrong to post), the editor responded that they were usually accused of being too left wing and pro Democrats - even when they printed poll results showing that Northern NJ Jews were OVER-WHEMINGLY pro-Kerry. The editor turned the email into a letter to the editor, titled it and placed it as the top LTTE in their a late October issue. Here's what they printed.

ISPIRE, NOT INFLAME
In your October 7th issue, in the article, "Party of one issue", the primaray issue of Jewish Republicans who support President George W. Bush was whether the war in Iraq was good for Israel. Although this should be an important concern for Jews, we have other concerns as Americans.

Even as it concerns Israel, how can inflaming the entire Middle East possibly bode well for Israel? Down the road even if we manage to avoid chaos and civil war the Iraqis may create an Islamic state like Iran which will be more dangerous for Israel, the United States, and the rest of the world. A more judicious and less bull in a china shop policy in regards to Iraq, such as the policy advocated by Senator Kerry, would lead to a safer world.

We strongly believe that the core Jewish value of Tikkun Olam is embraced by many of the positions that Senator Kerry has taken on the key issues in this presidential campaign.

[FreedomAngel82]

6. Wow very interesting

You should post this in GD. Makes me wonder if Hillary is running in 2008 since Bill secretly has been meeting with Warner. I do like Warner and he's my third choice for 2008 (after Kerry and Feingold). I think the DLC is going to triump Warner. Ever since I read he went to the Bilderberg group last March or so I knew he was going to be running. I think maybe Hillary is going to pretend to run so the rightwing attack machine will spend all their time on her and than whoever is the real nominee they'll run out of time and money on. I find it very interesting (the article).

[sandnsea]

8. This is bizarre

The whole Clinton-Warner thing aside, is this writer trying to differentiate Clinton calling for troops through the election and Democrats and a supposed "swift departure"??? That's just so wrong as to be psychotic. Nobody has called for troops out before the December election and that isn't even among the objections to Hillary's Iraq position.

I suspect Thanksgiving had nothing to do with this writer's inability to reach reps for comment.

[Mass]

9. The positions of the Dems in Iraq becomes incomprehensible

and today does not do anything to make it clearer:

Here are the different factions as I understand them:

- Lieberman wants a War cabinet and that the Democrat stop to criticize Bush.

- Warner, Clinton, ... say that we should not rush to leave. As of today, Clark added his weight in this column in the NYTimes, saying that the US troops should protect Iraq from Iran "?"
- Biden want to withdraw 50,000 troops in 2006.
- Dean is supporting the Korb plan (as far as I can understand) - 80,000 troops (NG and reserve) out early this year (I am all for that) and the rest in 2 years with redeployment in other countries in the Middle East.
- Kerry is proposing 20,000 + troops now and a withdrawal in about one year with troops in garnison inbetween except for special forces. Feingold seems to have something of the same type, if I understand correctly what they are proposing.
- Murtha is for a redeployement in 6 months, with part of the troops redeployed in the ME and offshore.
- Kucinich, McGovern, and others want a withdrawal of the troops as soon as possible.

Now, it is good to see that Democrats have plans, but I doubt that journalists can really report correctly report on that, and GD is giving me a headache today, with people defending the plan of their preferred person, whomever it is.

[sandnsea]

10. Kucinich target date, Oct 2006

Add that to the fine print.

We did seem to be moving towards a drawdown plan in 2006, with only some details to be decided, like how many troops were left in the area and where.

Now, especially with Clark's piece, we are back in free for all territory.

But the differences aren't what the writer said. It isn't between Hillary leaving the troops in through the election and other Democrats calling for troops to leave right this second. If he/she wants to write a piece on the differences, then it ought to at least be accurate.