Mark Warner on Al Franken today...I'm sorry, I wasn't impressed.

[Gloria]

Anybody hear it?

Talking about how he's traveling the country with the Democratic message, etc etc. Franken commented in his wry way how some are saying he's running for President. Warner came out with, "I'm shocked, shocked!" Now, I know he was probably trying to be "light" or self-deprecating about it, but he hasn't mastered it. He came across to me as almost being sarcastic or self-absorbed...the tone just wasn't right--it sounded like he was mocking the ones with the opinion. It was just off.

Franken talked about his term as Gov., his approval rating, etc. Warner, of course, talked about how another Democratic succeeded him....but I remember talking to my very astute friend, how if Warner was really so popular, why wasn't Kaine running away with the election? I mean, were Warner's coattails all THAT strong? I don't really think so--I know Wes Clark went into some very red areas to help out.

Anyway, Franken wanted to know about his main messages and he said it was about bringing jobs to "small town America" and education and a couple of other things and he saw the real big idea about all this as bringing BROADBAND in. Well, his Nextel background would certainly make him lean that way, but that was his main thought on the matter.

Franken brought up healthcare. I was initially taken in when he revealed that he had a child with juvenile diabetes. That was the first WARM thing he said. But he then volunteered that he is AGAINST a single payer system because of "efficiency" problems. Franken sounded really surprised. He didn't mention that Medicare is incredibly efficient, with something like 2% in administrative costs, but he did say that things are inefficient now because Republicans are running things. He mentioned Katrina and a couple of other things as further examples. Warner actually poo poohed Franken's mention of Republicans!! I nearly fell of my chair!! Warner mumbled something like "Now, now, we don't want to go there" (sic) in a mildly dismissive tone. Franken persisted though and reiterated his thought.

Warner said that he thought medical care should be "delivered by private companies"--excuse me, but don't we have that in place now?? I mean, private companies under CMS handles Medicare, and there are Medicare HMOs, etc. Franken the pushed him by asking if he at least wanted universal healthcare. Warner said there should be some basic level of healthcare available and I immediately wondered about that. What, do different people get different levels of healthcare???

Anyway, I thought he was very sloppy in what he was saying, he didn't sound very certain of what he was saying or very convincing. I didn't get any sense of passion or even compassion. He sounded very cut and dried, very business like, curt and I later thought that he smacked of being another businessman dripping with DLC credentials.

I've watched him on CSpan and his set speeches have been a little better. But today, I was very suprised at how disappointing he was.

Something just didn't ring true.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Clarkansas]

19. I am a Clarkie who would love to see a Clark/Warner ticket

I didn't hear the interview though. I agree that Warner bashing from Clarkies gets a bit old.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whometense]

68. Didn't sound like bashing to me.

Sounded like she was voicing an honest opinion.

I heard Warner interviewed a month or so back on This Week, and my reaction was very similar. He refused to offer an opinion on any foreign policy issue, or on the federal judiciary. He may be a good guy and a moderate and all that, but he didn't sound to me like someone who was ready to be president. I very much wish he had challenged pinhead George Allen for his senate seat.

And I'm not a Clarkie, btw.

[lastknowngood]

2. He's alright for a repug but I think we should have a dem as our candidate

n/t

[Upfront]

3. Thank You

Good input, and I was wondering.

[MADem]

4. Let him speak--it's way too soon to tell yet

I hope we have a good sized, interesting field from which to choose. Everyone gripes about this one or that one being the "anointed" candidate, but when others try to put their toe in the water, there's complaints about that too.

The people who know this guy best are from VA. Either he'll find a way to impress the rest of the country, or he won't. But if he doesn't get a shot, we'll never know.

So speak, Mark Warner, and anyone else who wants to run...'anointed' or otherwise.

[pat_k]

5. Sally Quinn was out there pushing Warner a day or two after Bush occupied

. . .the White House.

As the self-proclaimed voice of Washington society, it was clear from the moment Quinn put his name out there that he was the darling of the DC analstocracy -- i.e., someone to vehemently oppose in the primary.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. I was at work

when he was on, and couldn't give it my full attention due to my duties, but I agree the "I'm shocked" statement came off as really phoney. I wasn't quite sure what he was going for, but it didn't go over in a positive manner. Living in a rural area with service problems, I related to the broadband comment, but in no way do I see it as a panacea that will bring home jobs that have been outsourced to Bangalore. And I had a problem with his assumption that all doctors were stuck in the dark ages and that putting files on computers would solve their problems. Making every insurance company and government agency and lab use the same freaking code numbers for the same medical procedures makes a lot more sense. Plus there are doctors who are-shocking though it may seem-interested primarily in healing people and keeping them healthy and not lining their own pockets. And letting insurance companies keep on handling health care in this country is not the answer, but rather the problem.

[Donna Zen]

7. Interesting...

Warner blogged at Kos today; however he didn't stay around to respond because he was headed for Iowa. I'm shocked! Shocked!

Personally, I don't think it matters what any of them say they're gonna do. To do anything you need money, and if they are show me the money, they must go after the Pentagon waste (51% of the revenue) sit there. Warner will never challenge the military spending; he can't without the crendentials.

Anyway, Warner is currently courting the "roots" and announced that he would be at the Yearly Kos. Well, duh! Jerome runs Warner's net operations which was a smart move by Warner. Nevertheless, hiring a netrooter for money doesn't mean ya get it.

Warner leans toward the corporations, doesn't want any questions asked about how we got into this war, and has the stamp of approval from the Bilderburg. What more can we want?

[mdmc]

8. i saw him on road to the white house

very lame

[Mojambo]

9. I was underwhelmed as well

He's obviously a very effective centrist, but I don't like him at the top of the ticket. He's got a place in the Democratic party, but I just don't think he'd hold the base very well as our candidate.

I too was a little put off by his positions on healthcare.

(edited for typo)

[nickshepDEM]

10. LOLOLOL... Yeah, Clark really pulled in those red areas for Kaine.

Warner only played a minor role... :eyes:

When the election began Kaine was down by high double digits. When election day rolled around and Warner went to bat for Kaine, his numbers shot up.

Kaine was elected because it was the closest VA could come to a 2nd round of Warner.... PERIOD.

The man left office with a 70%+ approval rating for Christ sake.

[ruggerson]

11. That's truly the most insane thing about this post

the suggestion that it was Wes Clark rather than Mark Warner who had an impact on Virginia voters in electing Kaine.

The mind boggles.

[nickshepDEM]

12. I literally stopped reading the post after that comment...

UNBELIEVABLE

[Clark2008]

23. The mind boggles that you both think that in a national

election that some aristocrat who talks like the epitome of the much-maligned Yankee will, oh, you know, win the South (I'm married to a Yankee, so the slight is general, not personal).

Think Edwards - who didn't do jack shit about bringing in Southern states.

Sorry, buds, a General has more creds with the reds than an elitist.

[Gloria]

13. I did not suggest that Clark did it for Kaine...I simply wondered

about the strength of Warner's coattails...and added that I know Clark went into some very red areas to help, targetting the military, I supposed. And there were others helping, too.

Regardless, Kaine wasn't burning up VA....and you would have thought with Warner's numbers that that would have almost made Kaine the heir apparent.

That's what I was talking about. Don't get your knickers in a knot. I wasn't bashing Warner...I just don't find him particularly compelling. He sure doesn't have much to say about Iraq....

[ruggerson]

43. I've said before

I think '08 is going to surprise a lot of people and is going to be an outsider's election.

I would not be surprised if NONE of the current crop bandied about ends up being the nominee.

I think it's a dark horse year.

And I don't buy into the notion that everything's changed since 9/11. I find that premise to be nothing more than neo con spin.

[Jai4WKC08]

72. In politics, perceptions are usually more important than reality

Whether anything has changed in the world outside politics since 9/11 is debatable. I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't see a greater terrorist threat than before 9/11. And yes, the GOP has definitely used 9/11 to scare the hell out of people, and worked very hard to make them believe that it's only the Repubs that have saved us from being hit again. In that sense, it's a lot of "neo con spin."

But politically? Because of the success of all that 24/7 spin, many voters are afraid. And to the extent that they believe the Repubs are keeping them safe from "terrah," they will be more likely to vote Repub. So the world may not have changed, but the political climate has.

Fortunately, I think most people are getting over their fear, or at least are letting it be overshadowed by their disgust with the corruption and incompetence. And that even those who may still be afraid are beginning to catch on that the GOP has not made them safer, and is in fact putting them in more danger on just about every front. Not just terror, but FEMA's failures with Katrina, a possible war with Iran, economic crisis thanks to the deficit and high oil prices... the list goes on and on.

Fwiw, I too will not be surprised if a dark horse ends up with the nomination. Not saying I'm convinced -- the ability to raise great gobs of money becomes more important every day, making it hard for an unknown to compete -- just saying I won't be surprised. I completely agree that people are tired of the usual politicians and will be more easily impressed by whomever they perceive to be an "outsider." But they will also want someone who has some sort of proven record of integrity and competence. That is an advantage for both Clark and Warner... and maybe someone new.

[Donna Zen]

25. Warner had a large impact for Kaine

Kaine had an even greater one, along with thousands of volunteers. And yes, other Democrats campaigned for Kaine. If Kaine was to be a second Warner, then why was the election close? I'm sure Kaine is happy for all of the help he received, including my money, thus, his supporters dissing Clark is very sad.

[dolstein]

39. "If Kaine was to be a second Warner, then why was the election close? "

Kaine was generally perceived as being more liberal than Warner was, especially on the death penalty. If Warner himself had been on the ballot instead of Kaine, I'm sure the margin of victory would have been greater.

[Sparkly]

40. More liberal on the death penalty...

Interesting. I continue to wonder why Warner spent 4 years making the decision to re-test DNA in the case of Roger Keith Coleman, giving final authorization during the last days of his term.

Coleman had been executed, and Warner had nothing to do with it. So why was it so hard for him to authorize the DNA tests to prove Coleman's guilt or innocence one way or the other?

If the DNA proved Coleman's guilt, Warner was home free. But if it proved Coleman's innocence, Warner and his rightwing postures (and support) could suffer, but Kaine's view might have seen gains -- indeed, the entire liberal view of the death penalty would gain (see "The Life of David Gale").

As it happened, Coleman was confirmed guilty by the DNA re-test. Why on EARTH did Warner wait four years to authorize the testing??

[SaveElmer]

70. It wasn't that close...

For a Democrat in Virginia it was a blow out. And Kaine even took some traditionally Republican areas that Warner lost, including Virginia Beach (Pat Robertson's home turf), and Lynchburg (Jerry Falwell's).

It was a stunning affirmation of Warner's term as Governor, as well as a good campaign run by Kaine!

[ruggerson]

41. Who's dissing Clark?

The OP is dissing Warner, from what I can see.

[Zynx]

63. It was not that close in the end. Kaine won by a large margin.

Secondly, Virginia is a red leaning state, Kaine is Catholic(always a drawback in the south), anti-death penalty, and also more liberal than Warner. The fact that Warner could get a guy like Kaine elected in Virginia by a large margin speaks well to his electoral prowess.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[judy from nj]

14. Well, he doesn't know anything about healthcare

Private insurance has a 15-20% overhead, while VA, medicare have 2-3% overhead. This is enough to turn me off on Warner. It seems to me he is really running to be VP. I don't think he has the experience to be president yet.

[OzarkDem]

103. He'll lose for certain

Health care is one of the top 3 or 4 issues for voters. No Dem will win unless they have a solid policy platform for affordable health care for all.

[LittleClarkie]

15. I've seen him described as a "big time capitalist"

but I don't know what they mean about that.

He does seem centrist. And I do believe he is indeed on the DLC list.

[Mojambo]

18. It means he has no problems with corporations having the kind of influence

that they currently have.

In my book that drops him pretty far down the list.

[LittleClarkie]

26. This says as much as anything about him

http://www.wvec.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8AIVP6G0.html

Here he is criticizing the last election. Only he appears to be complaining because Kerry was too liberal. I think that's what he means by orthodoxy.

[Sparkly]

29. "party of the status quo"...

"The congressional wing of the Democratic Party is kind of the ultimate 'party of the status quo,'" he said.

I agree with him that we need more people to vote for Democrats -- that's a given. I don't have a problem with moderate Democrats, although I generally prefer liberals. But moderate or liberal or anything else, I don't like the approach he's taking. I don't just disagree with it, I do not like it.

Democrats in Congress are working their butts off, taking heat from all sides, and they're in a position where often the best they can do is stall or slightly modify the rightwing's agenda. They don't need criticism from Democrats outside Congress -- they need support both individually and as a party.

Whatever their politics -- which generally reflect the constituency who elected them -- I admire most the ones who stand up and speak out. On many issues, it's less Lieberman's policy positions that bother people, and more his unwillingless to take a strong stand. Murtha is likely more moderate in many of his views, but he calls it as he sees it. Wellstone, too, was a hero not so much because of his positions, but because of the passion with which he took a stand, especially on education. And we've got Conyers and Waters, Kucinich and Kerry, Feingold and Leahy, Pelosi and Reid and so many others fighting the battles, taking on the administration, and trying against incredible barriers to express their resistance effectively.

While we're cheering them on, urging them to be even tougher, it doesn't help to have someone on the sidelines who's happy to take the spoils of their fight and embrace BushCo's negatives, yet sets himself apart with nice clean hands saying things like, "THIS Democrat doesn't think we need to re-fight how we got into (the Iraq war)." I'd even think differently if he'd said, "I disagree with them, but they have a right, and a patriotic duty, to say and do what their consciences tell them."

Similarly, it doesn't help when any Democrat SO takes the urban, northern, liberal vote for granted that they pander with a platform about more rural jobs, more "sensible center" for red-state appeal, more NASCAR image, less "orthodoxy." Pardon this northeastern liberal's "elitism," but I think we can appeal to ALL voters without focusing solely on the voters who are farthest from our base.

In Virginia, all of this made sense, and made Warner very successful. Pandering to the NRA worked for him. And I still don't know why it took him 4 years, right to the end of his term, to order DNA tests to prove the guilt or innocence -- one way or the other -- of a man killed by the death penalty. How much courage did THAT take? What questions were going through his mind? Nobody's been able to explain that to me, but I guess it worked for him.

In my view, it all points to a Politician with a capital "P" -- self-serving, smarmily glad-handing, finger in the wind, and wishy-washy (which is different from "moderate").

And yes, I AM a Clarkie. (Sue me.) For the record, I never felt nor said these things about ANY of the candidates who ran in 2004.

[LittleClarkie]

32. I, on the other hand, am just a "little Clarkie for Kerry"

which is how I got my name.

I thought our last crop of candidates were for the most part good men. I could picture them all in a cabinet together. Each had their own strengths.

[Sparkly]

36. They'd have made a fantastic administration

in various combinations -- there were all sorts of possibilities there.

And second to General Clark, Kerry was next on my list. I must admit Kucinich was closer to my heart, but my vote was with Kerry. (I know I don't speak for all Clarkies -- but as a whole, we all got on board when the General endorsed him.)

It's amazing to me that Kerry was pilloried here, by so many, for being insufficiently liberal (he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't vote for the IWR, imho), despite his solidly liberal record. I think of that and cannot imagine how Warner would fare here. I don't think I could stand the task of urging people to vote for him -- if he won the nomination, I'd still try -- but for me, it'd be worse than trying to convince people to vote for Lieberman.

[LittleClarkie]

37. I know what you mean. There's a smarm factor there

that seems lacking in Lieberman. At least Joe seems sincere, if wildly wrong.

I'd have the same problem with Hillary.

[Sparkly]

38. Yes, and part of that is a "gut" reaction.

They all play on getting the "gut reaction" -- they work at that.

Somehow, Warner isn't good at that with me. I see right through it.

Then I even check my own "gut" to see whether there's just something about him that bothers me on a non-rational level.

But nope. It took awhile before I wrote a word against him. I am convinced that if there even IS such a thing as a "DINO" (and I hate that term), he is it.

I know what you're saying about Hillary -- she seems sort of "studied" in politician school, too. But she has a background as a person that brings a different light to it. I see her as an incredibly smart, accomplished, ambitious woman when it was still difficult for women to be so smart, accomplished, and ambitious. She's had to study how to be a woman in politics -- and, unfortunately, we haven't gotten far from Geraldine Ferraro's bid for VP. It's an impossible tightrope. (She might even have been better off if she'd never married Bill Clinton and moved to Arkansas.)

Anyway, I could take either of them over Warner.

[WildEyedLiberal]

47. You know who my nightmare candidate is?

I agree with you and LC about Warner - IMO, his schtick was good for Virginia, but it doesn't work at a national level. At all.

But my nightmare candidate is Joe Biden. He makes Mark Warner look like a pillar of consistency. I don't honestly know if I could suppress my distaste enough to be an effective campaigner for Biden.

[Sparkly]

48. I could take Biden over Warner. nt

[Telly Savalas]

97. Excellent job at articulating what a lot of us feel.

:thumbsup:

[blue cat]

16. I'm keeping an open mind

so far. What's up with Jeanene Garafalo (sp?) not liking him? I won't make a decision until the debates.

[kentuck]

17. It really doesn't matter ...

He has no agenda. He will follow wherever he is led.

[bunkerbuster1]

20. Put him in the "might work as a Veep" kinda guy

if we're desperate to have a white Southerner on the ticket.

Otherwise--a "Democrat" who's poo-pooing a single-payer system? yuck.

[Clark2008]

24. And, he's not even a Southerner.

He grew up - completely (not from a small age or anything) - in Indiana.

I guess he's more like Evan Bayh than Jimmy Carter.

[Pithy Cherub]

21. He's campaigning for Secretary of Commerce.

Everything goes back to business and private enterprise with him, even health care.

[The Gunslinger]

27. I was only half listening,

And didn't know who was talking. Until later in the interview, I thought it was one of his Republican buddies he sometimes has on.

[sendero]

28. Warner..

... BBBWWWWWaaaaaaaahahahahhahahahhahahhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Yeah, right.

[zulchzulu]

30. MP3 of interview

18 minutes long

[Sparkly]

31. Thanks... listening now... nt

[Sparkly]

34. I listened.

I was glad to hear him say some of the things he did, and agreed with many of the things he said, but at so many turns in the conversation I went cold. Instead of bringing it back to BushCo, these elections, the real peril our nation is in, what he thinks about it, what listeners can do about it, etc., I hear superficial, easily-agreed upon platitudes.

(And although Franken helped it along throughout the interview, I heard rhetoric that turned continually back to himself and his own strengths, as a candidate for the election he SAYS he's still just thinking about -- a poise which seems in itself dishonest, considering how obviously he's touting himself and didn't demure a bit from questions about his own accomplishments and abilities, etc...)

So I still feel like I'm listening to a politician who's saying the things Al Franken's audience wants to hear. AND, at the same time, I hear him making subtle cracks at other Democrats, like he's already in the primaries. Whatever he's doing for this year's candidates (what IS he doing, btw, besides the two he mentioned?), his reproaches about the problems of criticizing BushCo without an alternative plan (rightwing talking point -- and where is his plan?), appealing to all states (heard of Howard Dean?), and all the things that worked in Virginia (which do NOT all translate to the rest of the country!) do not seem aimed at helping this year, but seem geared to his own ambitions in 2008.

As an example, the last question about foreign policy. He made sure to say that people in Congress don't necessarily know about it, either. What was the point of saying that, especially right now?? And then (I'm paraphrasing here): "What I bring is a worldview..." and the worldview is?? A global vision of corporate development... On he goes about Nextel... Okayyyyy -- global commerce is an issue, too. But if that's all he "brings" to foreign policy, he should stick to helping Democrats in red states, imho.

And this is just that -- my humble opinion.

[zulchzulu]

56. Lack of foreign policy will be big "issue"

It seems he would be great VP material to a candidate that has foreign policy experience. Governors always get that rap about lack of foreign policy. He'll have to memorize obscure African and sub-Saharan leaders and string them into meaningful soundbites to get a little over that hump...maybe visit the Gulf region with a good photographer...

[OzarkDem]

104. John Edwards is better VP material

He has much more depth, intelligence and appeal to voters.

[wisteria]

33. I haven't been impressed either. It may come down to a lack of

polish, inexperience and comfort level. I just don't think he is ready to lead this country as it's President. We are going to need someone with a lot more knowledge and expertise than Warner displays. I also find his manor to be dismissive and cold.

He wouldn't turn my head. I still fully support Senator Kerry.

[Sparkly]

35. Oh, I think he's polished.

TOO polished.

He may or may not have Kerry in mind in what he's doing and saying, but there's a pretty stark contrast there... I'd vote for someone like Kerry over someone like Warner any day of the week.

Having said that, if Warner succeeds in winning the nomination, I will vote for him. But man oh man, I never thought I would be a nose-holder!! (Well, Lieberman might have had me closing one nostril.)

[saltpoint]

42. I'd never discount a successful Dem governor of the Old Dominion.

Not all interviewers and interviewees click.

I have two political operative-type friends in Virginia and although they praise Warner's work as governor there very strongly, they believe that Edwards is the more electable Southern Dem for 08.

[Clark2008]

46. As I Southerner, I never thought Edwards had any eletability

in the South.

Mainly - and yes, this is going to sound superfiscial, but many - to many - voters are - because he is too "pretty." Southern men and women go more for rugged. Bill Clinton was a tall drink of water with broad shoulders and a healthy, rotund physic. Edwards doesn't have that. Edwards comes across as too fluffy for Southerners to accept as a "man's man." Therefore, I not quite sure which "South" your political operative friends are from. In Virginia, the distinction between voters in the northern and southern ends of the state is very pronounced.

[saltpoint]

49. The airy salons of the Potomac in the north and say, 10 or 20 miles from

Blacksburg in the SW -- I hear you on the disparity.

But Edwards did awfully well in the Iowa caucuses in 2004, and he did it with hardly any funds, and it was enough to finish a very strong second.

I really don't think people in Iowa are a bunch of wusses, do you?

They're pig farmers, corn and soybean growers, and they hunt and fish and play sports like nobody's business.

And in very large numbers, they supported Edwards.

[Sparkly]

50. Imho, Edwards was 2nd among "Not Dean."

He was "undamaged goods," and media has kept him that way.

Edited to be clear: Nothing at all, from me, against Dean or Kerry.

[saltpoint]

52. Hi, Sparkly. Way early on, I thought Dick Gephardt would win Iowa.

Ha, ha. He finished 4th with 11%. But he had won there before and had significant support, so I thought he could build on that. I wasn't a Gephardt voter, though, but still I thought Iowans would once more reward their neighbor and pal, Dick Gephardt.

Toward New Year's of 2003, it looked very strong for Howard Dean. So I thought, ok, Dean or Gephardt, with Dean in a possible upset.

Wrong again.

Finally when the caucuses rolled around, Kerry came from behind (his townhall meetings in the NW part of the state -- I saw one of them -- were magnificent. Completely took me by surprise.)

Lieberman and Clark did not contest Iowa, so that skewed the thing toward the others, at least for Iowa, I mean.

Edwards was wowing crowds. On one campaign stop he told a large, appreciative gathering to keep up the hope, even though he didn't have enough money for a full staff and a lot of the mike and visual equipment. When he placed that strong second, I was surprised again, but since then I've heard him now and again on C-Span and other sources, and he's sharpened his message on the unions (strongly in favor) and on poverty (that there should only be one America, not two).

I could see him passing on 2008 or jumping in. He's keeping all options open. He told a New Hampshire gathering of party workers that it would depend first and foremost on Elizabeth's health and well-being.

Iowa is going to be REAL interesting in 08, if Clark and Gore and H. Clinton are in the mix. I'm forgetting Biden and Bayh, and Richardson, and so on -- a whole lot of good folks driving around pig farms and soybean farms.

[Clark2008]

61. Didn't Kucinich's people make a deal to vote for Edwards

because he wasn't Dean or Kerry?

I can't remember, but I think the caucus atmosphere in Iowa lends itself to choosing based on some clique-like loyalties and not who the better candidate is.

[saltpoint]

64. Politics is politics. Always has been. We should not blame Iowans who

participated in large (and in some cases RECORD numbers) in their democracy. The right to vote is both a duty and a privilege of citizenship. Iowans did better than many other states in percentage of participating adults. I salute them for it. It's not possible for every single person's favorite candidate to emerge the victor.

[saltpoint]

54. Here is a slew of research poll data from Strategc Vision, which is

neither my favorite poll site nor most-visited by any means, but the data are current (April 7-9, 2006):

http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/pa_poll_041306.htm

Scroll down to the 2008 Democratic nominee questions. The results show H. Clinton at 34%, followed by:

Gore -- 15%
Edwards -- 12%
Feingold -- 8%
Kerry -- 6%
Warner -- 4%
Clark -- 2%
Biden -- 2%
All others: 1% each
Undecided -- 12%

- - - -
It's still early, but that's a fairly current look for right now.

[RedTail Wolf]

44. Don't apologize for not being impressed

I've heard him speak many times and I have never been impressed. I'll sure not say I'm sorry I was not impressed, he's got to get more charisma or something to change my mind. Seems like a middle of the roader on most issues as well. He just doesn't have IT. The x factor that say Clinton had. We need a new Clinton like person, who can speak about every issue with conviction and passion and make people feel something when they speak. This has been sorely lacking from all leaders in the Democratic party as of late.

[Sparkly]

45. In style, there will never be another Clinton.

I think President Clinton has a gift for communication we won't see again in our lifetimes. He has a way of getting beyond a camera, beyond a script, beyond the media and speaking simply and sincerely to YOU. He is just phenomenal at that. So that's a high standard to set as a bar.

Nobody we'll see will EVER be like Clinton that way, I don't think...

However, many will try. I think there's a balance between knowing the game, and polishing up, and being genuine in conviction. I see Warner as going for the "charisma" (I agree with you, I don't see it myself), learned and studied in the game and the polish, but superficial in everything he says, does, and stands for.

I'd rather have somebody with bad hair, or somebody accused of "screams," or somebody termed "radical" over this guy.

[RedTail Wolf]

53. Amen Sparkly! nt

[Renew Deal]

51. Of course not. His last name isn't Clark.

;)

[fujiyama]

55. What does Clark have to do with Warner?

I don't think there is any problem in being critical of Warner (we should be critical of all pols), but I don't see how someone so little known as Clark (and face it to non political junkies he's not recognizable), would have more of an impact than a very popular governor.

[Zynx]

67. It is something that the hard core Clark supporters like to think.

The fact is that Kaine won by a huge margin and everyone tied in with the campaign knows that Warner made the difference.

[Jai4WKC08]

69. Well, that's what campaigns are for

I agree that, among typical (non-junkie) voters, Clark is practically unknown. Even in some of the states he ran in last time, his name recognition is comparatively low... one reason he lost. But outside VA, Warner isn't well known either. Being an ex-governor is not gonna help him in that regard. We can only wait and see if either of them get any traction if/when they start campaigning for real after the November elections.

That's why I don't put much stock in any polls right now. They're all pretty much about name-recognition.

[fujiyama]

77. Warner isn't well known either

outside of VA, but my post was directed at the OP who mentioned that Clark went to military areas and speculated that Kaine didn't ride Warner's coattails. Overall, of course, Clark would have more name recognition than Warner, being that Clark has been a CNN military analyst and a presidential candidate.

It's always worth remembering that this far ahead of the '04 primaries (not that I'm comparing Clark to Lieberman - Hillary would be a better comparison since she has the lead in many polls right now), Lieberman was still in the lead for the nomination so we shouldn't get hung up too much on who has the lead in the polls at this point. Name recognition is what helps early in the game, but only takes you so far.

We'll have to wait and see how this plays out.

[Jai4WKC08]

78. Sorry. I guess I got side-tracked

By Zynx' snide remark about Clarkies and thought you were replying to the post above and not the OP.

I probably shouldn't try to speak for Gloria, but I don't think she was saying Warner wasn't a factor in Kaine's win. She seems to have just been suggesting that the margin should have been greater, and then threw in that Kaine brought in Clark to campaign in red areas, so he obviously wanted all the help he could get. But who wouldn't?

Here's what she said exactly:
"...but I remember talking to my very astute friend, how if Warner was really so popular, why wasn't Kaine running away with the election? I mean, were Warner's coattails all THAT strong? I don't really think so--I know Wes Clark went into some very red areas to help out."

I remember that Kerry and Bill Clinton also campaigned for Kaine, but they stayed completely in the NoVA/DC environs. Clark was the one Kaine took to redder counties. That's just a fact. If Clark doesn't have much name recognition in VA, and I agree he probably doesn't, the introduction as "retired general and former Supreme Allied Commander," as well as his now fine-honed speaking skills, were apparently good enough to compensate.

But don't get me wrong. I'm sure Warner campaigned for Kaine all over. He and Clark are on the same side thru November, afterall -- we should all take a lesson.

I'm not really arguing with you, btw. Just sort of rambling around to make sure I understand the controvery here.

[Catchawave]

58. What's with a "bash Warner" thread ?

I thought this was against DU rules :shrug:

[underpants]

75. He's is not perfect- he is flawed and therefore must be exposed

Something like that.

[Zynx]

81. There has never been a perfect candidate.

EVER. I can point out a great many flaws about all hopefuls. No one we have has the complete package. Clark comes off as only vice-presidential material at best to me on a visceral level. Kerry is a proven bad candidate despite an apparently great record. Edwards is a light-weight. I could go on and on. They all have their problems.

[Totally Committed]

76. Would you be this concerned if it was a

"bash Clark" thread? I don't see you in those threads speaking up, but I could be mistaken. If I am, I apologize.

TC

[Zynx]

82. I haven't seen a "bash Clark" thread in a while.

Could you point me towards one?

[Tom Rinaldo]

86. There was one, but it got zapped for having the facts wrong, lol

The original OP poster asked it to be locked when that became clear, and then started a separate apology thread, which was a much appreciated classy act. What is much more common from time to time is someone entering Clark threads, not to discuss the OP of that thread, but to bring in all of their personal reasons for not trusting or liking Clark, dredging up often discredited (in my opinion of course) arguments and factoids from the past. But that is by no means unique to Clark threads. Kerry gets an awful lot of that also, probably more than Clark nowadays, and I'm sure it happens to others besides Hillary, to whom it happens all of the time on DU.

In my opinion this wasn't a Bash thread though. A classic candidate Bash thread makes a broad case for why someone should not be allowed to become President. While the OP obviously wasn't flattering to Warner, it was I think an honest set of reactions to that person's experience of listening to him talk that day. And DUers from across a wide spectrum shared that impression, it wasn't a "Clarkie" thing. Of course others had and have a different and positive impression of Warner also.

And yes I think that Warner, other than Kaine himself, can take the Lion's worth of credit for Kaine getting elected Gov. of Virginia. Warner clearly impressed most people in Virginia as their Governor. Whether or not he will impress most Democrats outside of Virginia is an open question yet to be fully answered.

[Totally Committed]

59. Aside for being DLC...

He's the human equivalent of the color beige.

I have never been impressed.

TC

[leesa]

60. He also thinks we shouldn't look into the cause of the war in Iraq. This

IS NOT a man we want in office. Staus quo, "nothin' to see here, move along", corporations first, etc...

[nickshepDEM]

79. Please get your facts straight.

He said, and Im paraphrasing here, we should focus on getting the troops home first, and for most. He never once said we should forget about the cause of the Iraq War.

[FrenchieCat]

84. and Warner's never said that we should examine how we got into

this war....so by omission of any statement in where it comes up as his priorities, it ain't anything that he's concerned about. Far as I'm concerned....he should be concerned....and it should be one of his priorities.

Because....come'on! There are too many of us out there who are concerned about BOTH getting the troops home safely ASAP under the circumstances AND how they got there in the first place. To make it be so that one can be discussed but the other has to wait is a bit ridiculous a premise that could only have been thought up by one who is a self serving politician....not wantin' to get pinned on much......doncha think? I mean....Are we supposed to be that stoopid to buy that rationale? It ain't like Warner has offered any kind of plan of his own on Iraq.....beyond the usual one already given. If that's how he treats his priorities....I hate to see what happens to those things that are just on the "back-burner".

[Jai4WKC08]

107. Sorry, but you're both wrong

In Nov 05, Warner said, "This Democrat doesn't think we need to re-fight how we got into (the Iraq war). I think we need to focus more on how to finish it," Warner said. "To set an arbitrary deadline or specific date is not appropriate," he said. "... It is incumbent on the president to set milestones for what he believes will be the conclusion."

Now, you can spin that any way you want. But at the time, Murtha had just proposed his plan for redeployment, Feingold had mentioned a timeline, the Downing Street Memo was still in the news and Conyers had drawn up articles of impeachment. In that context, when Warner separates himself from all those OTHER Democrats and says there is no "need to re-fight" that battle and that it is the president who should be setting milestones, it means precisely that holding Bush accountable is unnecessary.

[flpoljunkie]

62. Yep. He is one of DLC From's presidential candidates-"Clinton, Vilsack,

Warner and Bayh-- listed in that order (from an October 25th, 2005 Washington Journal appearance by Al From. From also described them as "our candidates."

[napi21]

66. I was impressed by a few things about Warner that I heard from

2 guys who wrote a book and were interviewed on Booknotes or Q&A a few weeks ago. Sorry I don't recall their names, but one's nickname was a funny name like Dusty or something.

Anyway, they were talking about how Warner didn't try to pretend to be a NASCR fan, but when he ccampaigned in Va, he told the NASCAR folks he didn't know anything about Nascar, and they said "Well, come on, we'll teach ya" and they took him around and introduced him to the different drivers, pitcrews etc. Seems he did a similar thing each time he met a group he wasn't familiar with. I think that's GOOD POLITICS!

Personally, I'm not convinced I've seen ANYBODY who's "supposed to be" running in 08 that I said "WOW, THAT'S the one!" Each candidate has some positives and some negatives.

I'm going to wait for about 1 to 1 1/2 years and see what happens, who surfaces, and then I'll decide.

[Virginia Dare]

65. As a Virginian..

all I can say is that he was a good Governor, and he was great at keeping the RW wack-job fundie dominated legislature under control.

It's too early to make judgments about what kind of President he'd make, but I'm keeping an open mind about all of them.

I don't need the perfect idealogical Democrat in office, I certainly didn't have that with Clinton, but at this point I need someone who will decisively win the White House for us.

We are on a dangerously slippery slope heading straight to hell.

[Catchawave]

73. Well stated Virginia Dare.....

What.you.said. :hi:

Is Mark Warner perfect? No. Is he better than Bush? Yes. :hug:

So, I really, really, really have problems with my (generic) fellow DUers bashing any Dem '08 wannabe at this point. It just polarizes us as a group, and gives Rove a "hard on"...politically speaking that is.

I guess I'm just judging future candidates by their (DU) supporters here and now. Not that my opinion matters, but, oh well, see my sig line :)

[spooky3]

85. I'm with you two.

[nickshepDEM]

94. 3

[FrenchieCat]

71. Whatever Warner is, he is....and it will become more apparent to

Active Democrats as times goes on...although the Media might "help" Warner into fooling the mass voters; but that is nothing new. The media does it all of the time, which is why Bush is in the White House right this minute. So that's no anything we can do much about.

What I will say is this: To think that we should even think of running a Governor with NO experience in Geopolitics, Security, and Foreign policy at a time when those are the issues that dominate our news day in, day out would be foolish for Democrats. It would mean that we don't even understand what is going on in the world today, how the U.S. has affected geopolitics, and what the Republican's achilles heel is (it's the Foreign policies and War, stoopid!)

Considering the issues that will determine who represents our next congress and possibly the next presidential race, discussing Mark Warner as a serious contender shows how "off base" Democrats in general are. As much as I hate to say it.....Those supporting Warner should see Evan Bayh as a smarter choice fit to discuss....as he fits the Warner mold but with additional experience, a better telegenic "look", a repeately tested "winning elections in red state" track record (5 statewide elections won by Bayh vs. 1 statewide election won by Warner) who has done what Warner did (successful gov of a Red State--but he's really a native son...without the thick corporate ties) and then some.

On the Republican side, we keep hearing names like McCain, Rice, Guliani and even various Senator's names thrown around out there, not by accident.....but for a specific reason.....which is precisely because they are all considered much more experienced with the issues I mentioned (although I personally don't think that Guiliani really has any experience expect 9/11....but you know how that goes--they still portray him as "tough").

Mark Warner's wimpish demeanor does not "fit" the 2008 election persona Democrats need in order to win. It's really just that simple.

Possibly good candidate; wrong era! (IMO....of course! :hi:)

[Zynx]

80. Do you know who was the most experienced president in history?

Oh it must have been one of the good ones! Lincoln? No. FDR? No. Washington? No. Give up?
It was James Buchanan. Secretary of State, Senator, Representative, Ambassador, etc... he had virtually every job except Vice President. Same goes for Bush's father. Lots of experience, very ineffective and lousy president. FDR and Lincoln both had very limited experience and proved to be very successful presidents. FDR had a brief stint as Secretary of the Navy, but give me a break. Experience is a canard used by people only when the candidates they don't like don't have it. It was used against Clinton heavily and he was a pretty damn good president.

[FrenchieCat]

83. Your little repertoire of history will mean nothing to those who go into

a voting booth.....if their primary concern in how they pull the lever will be ending this war and repairing our foreign policy.......

From a broad view and to be real, we are living in a time different from any other...and our media is different from anytime since.

Plus FDR with the brief stint as Secretary of the Navy as experience to deal with what ultimately came to be; World War II....

beats Warner with a brief stint as a governor of a small state as experience to deal with what has already come to be; the Iraq War + the War on Terror + Iran's nuclear threat.

"Gimme a break" doesn't really "do it" for me....cause ain't no one gonna be giving us a break as the election results pour in. Sorry! :shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

87. FDR also had 2 two year terms as NY Governor but

I agree with your basic point. FDR was special stuff.

[Tom Rinaldo]

90. The point I thought I was agreeing with was this

Extensive experience in elected and appointed civilian roles does not prove someone will make a good President, and vice versa. Ultimately it rests on the quality of the person. But having the experience needed to manage the problems our nation is now facing is overall a very good thing. FDR had plenty of experience dealing with the Depression when he was Governor of New York, before he became President of the United States. Right now experience in international affairs is critical, a point driven home by the election of ex Texan Governor George W. Bush as President.

[Telly Savalas]

98. FDR is a northeastern liberal elitist.

Totally unelectable.

[Jai4WKC08]

89. Now wait just a minute

FDR was in the Dept of the Navy for SEVEN years. Not exactly a "short stint." He had two years in the NY legislature and four years as NY governor -- NY is no small potatoes. Perhaps most importantly, he had been president for almost NINE years when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and the nation went to war.

In case you hadn't noticed, we're at war already. And likely to be in 2008.

And just because the GOP tried to paint Bill Clinton as having no experience doesn't make it true. He was governor for over ten years. That's executive experience in spades. And Clinton had worked for Fulbright way back before, so he had some exposure to Washington and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Experience may not be everything, but it's no "canard" except maybe when people like candidates who have none.

[Zynx]

99. By the logic you are presenting we would not have elected him in 1932.

The world clearly had crises approaching with the rise of the Soviet Union, fascism on the rise in Portugal, Italy, and last but not least Germany, Japan going down the tubes, the world mired in severe depression, so we trusted a four year governor of New York with experience limited in war time to one and a half years as a war time Secretary of the Navy, not exactly a massively important job.

[Jai4WKC08]

106. In 1932?! I don't think so...

Stalin was still consolidating power, mostly by purging his military and enforcing his economic programs by murdering farmers. Wasn't much of a threat. Hitler didn't become Chancellor until 1933. Portugal had a left-leaning government between 1931 to 1933 (Franco didn't take over until 1936). And while Mussolini had a firm grip on Italy, he actually opposed Hitler (to protect Austria) until he needed his help in Ethiopia in 1935. I wouldn't say Japan was "going down the tubes" since they were already taking over parts of China, but they had been our allies in WWI and didn't pull out of the League of Nations until 1933.

None which was probably known to the average American voter. News didn't travel the way it does now, and America was pretty isolationist because of the feeling that WWI was pointless and we never should have gotten involved.

No, in 1932, the only "threat" perceived by the vast majority of Americans was the Depression. And I would submit FDR was at least as well qualified by his experience as anyone else. He had served over 13 years in government at the state and federal level, four of it as governor of a state where much of US economic policy is made. I doubt any of his competitors could have claimed more.

Besides, just about any Democrat could have won in '32, imo. People were that unhappy with Hoover.

[yurbud]

74. he's like top ramen, warm and temporarily filling, but empty calories...

and like the urban legend in college about the student who only ate top ramen, we would probably starve to death on the Warner diet.

[Catchawave]

88. How my military friends feel about Clark....

Life's not fair and balanced afterall, heh?

Kerry on :)

[FrenchieCat]

92. Well my military friends love Clark.....

so that does balance things out, doesn't it?

Here's some of his peers that seem to find him to be a fine man, worthy of te Presidency....and some ambassadors as well.....and I'm sure there are more now, then there were then...considering how all that he has stated as become so.

I'm sure Mark Warner will have his own list of those who can't wait to make him their commander in Chief as well!

MAJ. GEN. ROBERT SCALES: SCALES: I've known Wes for 40 years; he's also a passionate, committed, empathetic individual. So, soldiers in wartime have to lead soldiers into battle and the lives of men and women are at stake. And sometimes that requires a degree of flintiness that you don't need in other professions.

HUME: What about those who suggest that his character reflects a kind of unbridled ambition that puts his career above all things, fair?

SCALES: No. No. Unfair. Again, like I say I've known him all my adult life. He is an individual who is committed to a higher calling. I mean he's got three holes in him and a Silver Star from Vietnam. He has a…the word patriot only partially describes his commitment to public service. And for as long as I've known him, he's always looked, you know, beyond himself and he's been committed to serving the nation. And I think what you are seeing happen here recently is an example of that.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97689,00.html


Lt. Gen. James Hollingsworth, one of our Army's most distinguished war heroes, says: "Clark took a burst of AK fire, but didn't stop fighting. He stayed on the field 'til his mission was accomplished and his boys were safe. He was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. And he earned 'em."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34738


General Barry McCaffrey :"(He) is probably the most intelligent officer I ever served with," McCaffrey said. "(He has) great integrity, sound judgment and great kindness in dealing with people. He is a public servant of exceptional character and skill."

McCaffrey told the Washington Post: "This is no insult to army culture ... but he was way too bright, way too articulate, way too good looking and perceived to be way too wired to fit in with our culture."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1047429,00.html
"I have watched him at close range for 35 years, in which I have looked at the allegation, and I found it totally unsupported," said retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who taught with Clark at West Point in the 1970s. "That's not to say he isn't ambitious and quick. He is probably among the top five most talented I've met in my life. I think he is a national treasure who has a lot to offer the country."
McCaffrey acknowledges that Clark was not the most popular four-star general among the Army leadership. "This is no insult to Army culture, a culture I love and admire," McCaffrey said, "but he was way too bright, way too articulate, way too good-looking and perceived to be way too wired to fit in with our culture. He was not one of the good old boys."
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html


Defense Secretary William Perry: who as deputy defense secretary first encountered Clark in 1994 when he was a three-star on the Joint Staff. "I was enormously impressed by him," said Perry, a legendary Pentagon technologist who served as defense secretary under Clinton.

Perry was so impressed, in fact, that with Clark facing retirement unless a four-star job could be found for him, Perry overrode the Army and insisted that Clark be appointed commander of the U.S. Southern Command, one of the military's powerful regional commanders in chief, or CINCs. "I was never sorry for that appointment," Perry said.
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html

Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs overrode the Army once again and made sure Clark became Supreme Allied Commander Europe, traditionally the most powerful CINC, with command of all U.S. and NATO forces on the continent.
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html

Col. Douglas Macgregor: There is this aspect of his character: He is loyal to people he knows are capable and competent," Macgregor said. "As for his peers, it's a function of jealousy and envy, and it's a case of misunderstanding. Gen. Clark is an intense person, he's passionate, and certainly the military is suspicious of people who are intense and passionate. He is a complex man who does not lend himself to simplistic formulations. But he is very competent, and devoted to the country."
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html

Col. David Hackworth: I'm impressed. He is insightful, he has his act together, he understands what makes national security tick – and he thinks on his feet somewhere around Mach 3. No big surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point, which puts him in the supersmart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell Taylor.
Clark was so brilliant, he was whisked off to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar and didn't get his boots into the Vietnam mud until well after his 1966 West Point class came close to achieving the academy record for the most Purple Hearts in any one war. When he finally got there, he took over a 1st Infantry Division rifle company and was badly wounded.
He doesn't suffer fools easily and wouldn't have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even cut the White House lawn. So he should prepare for a fair amount of dart-throwing from detractors he's ripped into during the past three decades.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34738

Andrew Young: "I asked a whole lot of my friends who were generals and colonels and majors, who served over General Clark and under General Clark and every last one of them said to me that this is a good man, and if he were leading our nation they would be proud. son of the South capable of making a dangerous world a safer place for everybody. A man we are going to make the next president of the United States."
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/asp/FullConv.asp?forumId=F100000035&lastConvSeq=9789

and Ambassadors :loveya: Wes Clark! In fact these ones endorsed him during the primaries....

1. Morton Abramowitz, Ambassador to Turkey and Thailand, Assistant Secretary of State
2. Brady Anderson, Ambassador to Tanzania.
3. Christopher Ashby, Ambassador to Uruguay.
4. Jeff Bader, Ambassador to Namibia, Senior Director National Security Agency
5. Robert Barry, Administrator, Agency for International Development; Head, OSCE
6. J.D. Bindenagel, Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues.
7. Donald Blinken, Ambassador to Hungary
8. Amy Bondurant, Ambassador to OECD
9. Avis Bohlen, Ambassador to Bulgaria, Assistant Secretary of State
10. George Bruno, Ambassador to Belize
11. Paul Cejas, Ambassador to Belgium
12. Tim Chorba, Ambassador to Singapore
13. Bonnie Cohen, Under Secretary of State
14. Nancy Ely-Raphel, Ambassador to Slovenia
15. Ralph Earle, Deputy Director of State, Chief U.S. Negotiator, SALT II Treaty
16. Thomas H. Fox, Assistant Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development
17. Mary Mel French, Chief of Protocol
18. Edward Gabriel, Ambassador to Morocco
19. Richard Gardner, Ambassador to Italy & Spain
20. Robert Gelbard, Ambassador to Indonesia & Bolivia, Assistant Secretary of State
21. Gordon Giffin, Ambassador to Canada
22. Lincoln Gordon, Ambassador to Brazil, Assistant Secretary of State
23. Anthony Harrington, Ambassador to Brazil
24. John Holum, Under Secretary of State
25. William J. Hughes, Ambassador to Panama
26. Swanee Hunt, Ambassador to Austria
27. James Joseph, Ambassador to South Africa
28. Rodney Minott, Ambassador to Sweden
29. John McDonald, Ambassador to the United Nations
30. Stan McLelland, Ambassador to Jamaica
31. Gerald McGowan, Ambassador to Portugal
32. Arthur Mudge, Mission Director for Agency for International Development
33. Lyndon Olson, Ambassador to Sweden
34. Donald Petterson, Ambassador to the Sudan, Tanzania & Somalia
35. Kathryn Proffitt, Ambassador to Malta
36. Edward Romero, Ambassador to Spain & Andorra
37. James Rosapepe, Ambassador to Romania
38. Nancy Rubin, United Nations Commission on Human Rights
39. James Rubin, Assistant Secretary of State
40. David Sandalow, Assistant Secretary of State
41. Howard Schaffer, Ambassador to Bangladesh, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
42. Teresita Schaffer, Ambassador to Sri Lanka & Maldives
43. David Scheffer, Ambassador at Large for War Crimes
44. Cynthia Schneider, Ambassador to the Netherlands.
45. Derek Shearer, Ambassador to Finland
46. Richard Schifter, Assistant Secretary of State
47. Thomas Siebert, Ambassador to Sweden
48. Richard Sklar, Ambassador to the United Nations
49. Peter Tarnoff, Under Secretary of State
50. Peter Tufo, Ambassador to Hungary
51. Arturo Valenzuela, Senior Director, National Security Council
52. William Walker, Ambassador to El Salvador & Argentina, Head, Kosovo Verification Mission
53. Vernon Weaver, Ambassador to the European Union
54. Phoebe L. Yang, Special Coordinator for China Rule of Law, State Department
55. Andrew Young, Ambassador to the United Nations

[Bagsby]

91. warner is talking like he's still running for Gov. of VA

where you have to tip-toe because of the state's redness. For a man who wants the nomination for president, he's gotta let it all hang out.

[FrenchieCat]

93. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[dolstein]

95. Well, in case you haven't figured it out yet . . .

Any Democrat who's serious about running for president has to think about crafting a message that appeals beyond the party base. Kerry never managed to do that, when meant he needed to win nearly every state he contested in the 2004 election. One of the problems with nominating presidential candidates from deep blue states is that they haven't a clue about you to win over voters in red states. Warner knows how to do that. The only question is whether primary voters are smart enough -- or desparate enough -- to nominate a moderate from the South.

[nickshepDEM]

96. You're wasting your time...

If he doesnt know that by now, he never will.

Candidates cannot expect to run hard left in the primary and magically become centrists when the general election roles around. The voters see right through that bullshit.

And no, running left the entire election does not work either.

Its really simple. Just look at the Clinton model from 1992. Talk like a centrist, act like a populist, win the election.

[FrenchieCat]

100. What about running honest and leading .....on the important issues,

in particular as they show up now, in the news...today?

and being out there doing as much as humanly possible to help candidates win in 2006? Yeah...I'm talking about 2006...which really is what should matter to both Warner and his supporters....as it should the rest of this damn country!

How about not worrying so hard about NOT offending anyone (like Republicans), in case one loses some potential votes and instead standing up for something? Anything!

How about not running right or left or center, but rather being a voice that, because of one's passion and common sense position, can make a difference in saying what's right even if the majority isn't there yet? And I'm talking about Now....not saving it up for 2 years from now.

How about NOT working so damn hard at positioning one's self for the future and 2008 aspirations.....

Timing is everything...and the time is now!

How bout that?

[OzarkDem]

105. False choices

Running hard against the corrupt GOP and Bush administration isn't left, right, center or any particular direction. Its the truth.

Most issues important to voters AREN'T controversial. Clearly defined policies, plans and positions on those issues are a sign of good sense and leadership, not ideological.

[Bagsby]

101. I am well aware of that.

Warner has proven he is adept at winning and flourishing in a red state, but he needs to save the centrist patter for the general election. You have to sound off on some red-meat Democratic Party issues if you hope to have a prayer of winning the nomination.

[OzarkDem]

102. Wow, he's underwhelming

His ideas on health care are atrocious. There's no way he'll win with such a lame health care policy agenda.

Next!

[DaDeacon]

108. Edwards / Clinton = win Nuff' said (n/t)