Warner Is The Most Electable

[dtotire]

I believe that Mark Warner would be the most electable candidate. He has been a successful businessman and a successful governor. He has no skeletons that the Republicans would be able to stick on him. He has said that he supports the basic goals of the Democratic party. He has no foreign policy experience, but neither did Clinton, who had a better foreign policy than Bush. Bayh would also be a good candidate, but I feel Warner has the edge. For a running mate, I would select Kerry, who has had a great deal of foreign policy experience, speaks a few foreign languages, and would do a great deal to restore our image abroad. There are several others who would make excellent presidents, including Clark, Edwards, and Feingold, but I think we should nominate someone who has the most chance of winning.

[w13rd0]

1. but I think we should nominate someone who has the most chance of winning

...yeah, because that worked out so well last go-round as a rallying mantra. Maybe, but I remain unconvinced.

[napi21]

2. I'm also leaning toward Warner.

I don't think the foreign policy experience is a problem. After all, Shrub had NO EXPERIENCE at anything!!!!

I think Warner could overcome the foreign policy thing by chosing a VP who has that. There's also the sign of a GOOD LEADER, who always hires GREAT people to work for him in the areas where he lacks expertiese. Of course you HAVE to listen to their suggestions, unlike Shrub!

[Pithy Cherub]

3. A hole that big in one's resume doesn't get filled with a VP pick. n/t

[Benhurst]

4. I have nothing against Mark Warner; but I think we should stop

thinking in terms of the person perceived has having the best chance of winning.

We need a candidate who does the best job standing for and enunciating traditional Democratic values, and who offers alternatives to the fascist policies of the unelected Bush administration and their fellow travelers.

Such a candidate can win, if -- and ony if -- we regain our franchise from Diebold et al.

If Warner turns out to be that candidate, fine.

[ClassWarrior]

5. Wow, if that's the most he has going for him...

...I don't think he's qualified to be my President. Besides, these kinds of threads are DISTRACTIONS FROM MAKING DEM VICTORY 2006 HAPPEN.

Focus please.

NGU.

[ashling]

6. Sounds like I have heard this before

At the caucus in WA in 2004 there were folks in my precinct (and apparently others as weel) who liked Dean better, but thought we
should nominate someone who has the most chance of winning.

I am not saying that this should not be a consideration, but that it is a little too early to zero in on someone because he is "most electable."

As for your not skeletons assertion, I am not that familiar with Warner's background, but I also think its a little too early to be challenging the Republicans to dig up dirt on any of our guys. I've seen "skeletons' drop from unlikely places

I know that there are a lot of Warner supporters on DU - I am ruling nobody in or out - well, almmost nobody (Biden is OUT)
I am just saying that it is a little early to be making this statement

[AndyTiedye]

9. If There Are No Skeletons, They Will Manufacture Some

There were no skeletons at all in Kerry's closet, not a one.
So they invented some.
They will do the same again, no matter who we nominate.

They can, and will, swift-boat anyone.


I have no idea how you fight that sort of thing.

[roguevalley]

7. what's his record and who is he? If I don't know him, he's got a

problem.

RV, twenty-four/seven news junkie

[sweetladybug]

8. Gore/Warner would be a great ticket in 2008!

[silverstateD]

10. Yes, Yes, oh god, yes

The more i learn about MW the more i think you are correct. For VP
i like Clark or Richardson. either helps in swing states (Ark. and NM) both have good Foreign policy cred. Richardson would help pump up Hispanic turn out. which could be key in taking the south west.
Warner's southern charm and pro gun stance will really help out in Ohio and MI. and Mo. and NV and AZ and CO and NM not to mention Fla. and Ark.
Plus the more Conservative dems in Minn. And Iowa and Wiss. wont require all the attention that Kerry had to give them to hang on in those states.

[sleipnir]

11. "Electable" should be banned from the lexicon.

I am sick of hearing that word, violently sick!!!

:mad: :puke::mad: :puke::mad: :puke::mad: :puke::mad: :puke::mad: :puke::mad: :puke::mad: :puke::mad: :puke::mad:

[Kahuna]

Yeah? Well I'm not sick of it. When we pick Mike Dukakis and John

Kerry to carry the day, we need to be reminded about how important "electability" is at every opportunity. I never thought either one of them were electable. Especially Dukakis. My GAWD, what were we thinking?

[I Kant]

59. "Electable", is what it is all about...

Everyone here needs to get over that. The important issue is having a Democratic Administration. The front guy is not the key, Owning the Executive Branch is paramount. Cheney has proven that. I hate him for it, But, he has at least proven that to be true.

[Kahuna]

64. The ONLY reason,. Bush 41 had any chance at all was because we..

chose the worst challenger possible. Was Mike Dukakis worthy of being a presidential contender? Yes he was. Was he "presidential?" No, he was not. And THAT is all it came down to. When voters looked at the diminutive, swarthy, technocrat Dukakis, they simply could not envision him as president.

Bush 41 was not popular. He was tarred by Iran Contra. Yet he won, ONLY because we did not present an "electable" alternative.

[MADem]

84. Mike made a lot of sense, but he had three problems

He was a bit wonky, and his wife had a real booze problem, which likely was a stressor to both of them. Plus, he was SHORT.

Yes, the third item should not matter, but there are a lot of dumbass voters out there. (They also didn't like his eyebrows, FWIW.)

And those idiots go to the polls...

The Bernard Shaw question about the death penalty was the nail in the coffin.

One on one, the Duke is a great guy. Smart sonofabitch, too. Very even keel....he just did not translate well to TV, and Saturday Night Live had way too much fun with him, which didn't help, either...

[AmericanDream]

32. Same here... vote on convictions, and electability will follow!!!!!!

Vote for the candidate you believe has the best ideas for this country and the best credentials to be a strong leader... if you believe in him, chances are that if exposed to the public, they will believe in him too. Wasn't McCain more electable than Bush in 2000? Well, the republicans voted for the guy who carried their message; we need to vote for the guy who speaks clearly to mainstream America about the democratic ideals and has great ideas for reform. I have my own ideas for who is such a candidate and others might have their own... but we need to vote based on convictions. IT'S ABOUT TIME!

The electability criterion is the most lethal way of thinking to our democracy.. it propagates the candidate who is the most superficial over the one who has the real substance and merit to be a true leader. And, we need a real leader in the WH after the Bushco disaster, not some political hack.

[ProudDad]

60. Ditto

It's a bullshit concept.

bush is NOT electable -- he failed twice -- but the system is so totally corrupt, he still occupies the white house.

[Vinca]

12. I want to see more of him and learn more about him.

He's definitely on the "possibles" list.

[Vektor]

13. Everyone has skeletons the Republicans can pin on them...

because the Republicans invent skeletons whether they exist or not. God forbid Warner trips over a sentence or earns some war medals without dying...

They'll be all over it. You don't need real skeletons to be smeared by the Repukes. They'll fabricate them for you.

[HockeyMom]

14. At the risk of alienating half the people on this board

I am SICK of SOUTHERN MEN. WHY a Southern Man (as much as I liked Bill Clinton)? Who says they should have a strangle hold on this country?

Ok, so a Northeastern Liberal cannot "win". So, what is wrong with the MIDWEST? Or even the West, or the Southwest?

By the way, I am also not exactly thrilled with my own Senator either (woman or no woman), whom I did vote for, and will again for Senate, over any Republican.

[BluegrassDem]

16. Southern men WIN!

Well the truth hurts. I'm sorry. It's no accident the last 3 Democratic presidents were southerners. Gore would've been the 4th southern Dem. president had the S.C. not elected Bush.

Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale are all wonderful guys, but sadly, they didn't win.

I think a westerner would do fine as well. Someone like Gov. Schweitzer of Montana would really appeal to a lot of Americans. I think Bayh from Indiana could be successful too.

[karynnj]

39. The Southerns thing is easily due to chance.

LBJ was the VP for Kennedy. He ran as an incumbent President, the succesor of JFK who was still greatly mourned against a (then) perceived extremist.

Carter won in the wake of Watergate. People were sick of Nixon, Ford was unimpressive and had pardoned Nixon. Clinton is Clinton - but even he ran against a very weak President (much lower ratings than W) and a third party candidate throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Bush.

The problem with looking at patterns for winning the Presidency is there really are very few data points. Consider that if there was no Bin Laden tape or if the media were even slightly fairer or Ohip had a well run Democratic party that had prior to the election checked the "bi-partisan" assignment of number of machines - we would have a MA Senator as President. Then would you say Senators can win, but only if they're from the state of Massachusetts. Or even, that they have to be MA Senators with the initials JFK - and with thick hair.

That sounds ludicrous, but the underlying "data" would have been the same - there were 2 Southern Democratic Governors elected and 2 MA JFK Senators.

[depakid]

62. And then they screw everything up so badly

that we end up with a Nixon, a Reagan and a Bush afterwards (and in Clinton's case- he gave the far right complete contol of the media to boot).

After the way the last three turned out, I think we can do without ANY more Southerners for a while.

[ruggerson]

89. Warner grew up in Connecticut

hardly a Southerner by nature.

[Upfront]

15. He is wrong on the invasion

Says we should hold the line. No way!

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

17. Warner is actually originally from CT, so technically,

he's not a southern man.

This Virginian would like to see Warner get the nomination. He appealed across party lines in the governor's race and is leaving office with a 70 plus percent approval rating; let's see him work that magic on the national level.

[nickshepDEM]

80. Actually he was born in Indiana.

Moved to CT. And has spent majority of his life in VA.

[Kahuna]

25. That's not what he says at all. I challenge you to produce

proof that that is Warner's position.

[Skwmom]

18. Just like Kerry was the most electable. N/T

[Kahuna]

26. But he wasn't the most electable. He was just the most electable..

of the ten running for the nomination. That never meant he was the most electable Dem we had.

[dtotire]

50. Kerry Would Have Made a Great President

He was smeared by the Swiftboaters and on the abortion issue.

[nickshepDEM]

75. Im so tired of hearing Kerry was the most electable.

Gephardt and Graham were the most electable.

[Awsi Dooger]

19. Comparing this situation to Kerry 2004 is idiotic

That's my primary fear heading to 2008 and it's already been expressed multiple times in the few number of posts in this thread, that we run scared from the electability angle in regard to Warner simply because it was incompetently applied to Kerry in 2004.

In regard to Warner the foundation and fundamentals are legit, especially since he potentially drags along a vital state with 13 electoral votes that completely reverses the margin for error factor toward our side for a change. I'd love to bet that some of the same posters who are scared of Warner and the electability tag after what happened with Kerry are the same ones who will eventually insist we don't need Florida or Ohio or Virginia because we'll just sweep Nevada and Iowa and New Mexico and Colorado and whatever else we need among the small fry states. Not going to happen that way. At least no chance you can depend on it, no more than you want to start the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl 14 points behind. That's essentially been our electoral position of late and only Warner seems to grasp it. I loved it on Face the Nation when he chided Democrats for contesting 16 states and "trying for a triple bank shot in the 17th."

I'll never understand how a New England senator without great charisma was considered most electable in 2004, especially while trying to oust an incumbent. We should have looked at recent history and realized that scenario requires personality and likability, not a military resume. I wrote that here many times beforehand while supporting Edwards, so it's hardly Monday morning quarterbacking. I admit Edwards was somewhat flawed himself and hardly a cinch to win although I'll always believe he had by far the best chance.

I'm switching to Warner because an open race requires less in terms of personal favorables and more in terms of the electoral mathematics in a race that figures extremely close. Just look at the elections of 1960, 1968, 1976 and 2000. Each one featured the 2008 situation, one party holding the White House for exactly two terms and the out party desperate to take over. They were among the closest national decisions in Americans history and we can't ignore that and nominate someone other than the person who gives us the best chance to win the electoral college in a 50/50 popular vote atmosphere. Without question, that is Mark Warner.

[skipos]

20. You are going to catch some heat

as many around here don't want to think about electability. Maybe they are more optimistic than I, but as far as I can tell, millions of people vote for simplistic reasons (likeability, etc) and we need to win those folks over, in addition to progressives. Winning over progressives and no one else will not get us in the White House. We need to swing a few folks, and I don't think we need some centrist to do it either.

I never got the memo that Kerry (Massachusettes librul, mulitmillionaire, anti-war senator) was the best person to win over independents and beat an incumbent in a post-9-11 world of fear, in the middle of a (at that time) modestly accepted war. I would have thought the most electable person would be a 4 star General from Arkansas. I guess we will never know.

I saw Warner for the first time and I was really, really happy. A little to giddy at times, but had a genuine, non-politician vibe to me. YMMV. I do think people should consider Kerry's 252 electoral votes plus 13 for Virginia means only 5 to go.

I think we should nominate the greatest candidate with the greatest chance of electability. I like Clark and Warner right now, but we have a few years for people to pop up.

[BluegrassDem]

21. I never thought Kerry was the most electable

I knew that Kerry nor Dean could win the electoral college. Clark would've been the most electable, then Edwards. I knew Kerry would not play well in the heartland, though I supported him intensely.

We need to look at the map and be realistic. We need to pick up at least 2 southern states or a few states out west in order to win the election! Warner from Virginia, Clark from Arkansas, maybe Bayh from Indiana, gives the party a chance to flip some red states to blue. Someone from Arizona, N.M., Colorado, or Montana would be just as great too.

I'm certain if Warner was the nominee, Virginia would almost certainly flip. That's 13 EV's all by itself! Not to mention, the spillover affect in West Virginia and Kentucky. That would almost guarantee victory, no matter what Diebold does in Ohio!

[skipos]

23. I am totally with you.

I really hope to have many really good candidates from winable red states in 08, and Clark and Warner qualify.

[Clarkie1]

22. Clark has the most chance of winning AND advancing liberalism.

Americans are sick of both political parties. The approval rating for Democratic politicians is a measly 25%.

Clark is the most electable because he is a true Democrat who can market himself as someone who is above partisanship (frankly, he is) and can reach out to the other side without compromising true liberal and progressive principals. He can persuade others to join the Democratic Party who belong to no political party, just as he did a few years ago. Because he is not a "lifer" in any political party, he can speak with credibility so the vast number of Americans who are ambivalent about both parties. Better yet, he can tell them why he chose the DEMOCRATIC Party and why the DEMOCRATIC Party is the party that can heal the nation.

Yes, I know you will say Warner did that in Virgina, but it's not the same thing. Warner is a politician, and that's one strike against him already (at least in the mind of 75% of Americans). Whether that is fair or not is beside the point, prejudice against politicians in this country is real and it isn't going to go away anytime soon.

I guarantee you the Republicans are going to nominate a politician, but we don't have to. And, if we are smart, we won't.

We'll nominate a liberal:

"I am a liberal. We live in a liberal democracy. That's what we created in this country. It's in our constitution! We should be very clear on this... this country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment. It was the idea that people could talk, have reasonable dialogue and discuss the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get struck by a divine inspiration and know everything, right from wrong. People who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, and dialogue, and civil discourse. We can't lose that in this country. We've got to get it back." -Wes Clark

[Kahuna]

66. My take. I pray that it comes down to a choice between Clark

and Warner. Instead of a choice between Hillary and Kerry. Or Hillary and Biden. Or Hillary and Edwards.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

24. Electability again!! OMG!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Kahuna]

28. It all depends on what the meaning of "electablity" means. When you take

into consideration that we let NH help to determine Dukakis and Kerry for our nominees, that is part of the problem right there. NH, must like a lot of DUers don't look for the candidates who will have appeal outside of the base. As long as we keep thinking that we are so superior that we can force our taste on the rest of the country we will keep losing.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

29. It doesn't mean you go to middle.

[BluegrassDem]

31. But a winning candidate appeals to the middle

Let's face it, most of America is in the middle. We need a candidate who can appeal to regular folks throughout the country. And yes, sometimes being from the middle of the country goes a long way in winning over people in the middle. Dean and Kerry are super guys, but Vermont and Massachusetts aren't gonna help us win elections.

I don't like the fact that N.H. gets to pick who the party's nominee is. There's no diversity there at all. They didn't even pick Bill Clinton, but he managed to pull out the nomination anyway, which is very rare.

[Kahuna]

53. Actually it does. And if you don't believe it does, tell me what "liberal

was ever elected president?

[Crazy Guggenheim]

55. Aaaah. Not one liberal has ever been elected.

[Kahuna]

65. Right,. Glad you agree with me. Soooo

What's your point again? :crazy:

[Crazy Guggenheim]

73. ..........

:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[renaissanceguy]

72. FDR.

I'd like to see ONE "centrist" come up with something as revolutionary and as important as the New Deal.

Mind you FDR won FOUR TIMES.

[charlyvi]

86. FDR, JFK, LBJ

Once, it was considered a plus to be called a liberal. Why do you think the right demonized "liberal" to such an extreme? Liberals were too powerful, so they attacked their strongest quality; they demonized our core values--a trick Karl Rove has taken to the nth degree.

FDR--The New Deal
JFK--The New Frontier (Peace Corps e.g.)
LBJ--The Great Society (Medicare, Head Start e.g.)

So, don't say a liberal has never been elected. Read your history. The history of the Democratic Party is replete with "elected" liberals--going back to Thomas Jefferson.

[high density]

27. Can somebody give me a link to Warner's positions on things?

I'm rather ignorant about him. How liberal is he? I'm not going to actively support any Hillary-like "Look at how moderate I am" candidates, because people like that aren't going to win anything.

I'm a Clark guy because I know he is a real liberal and I think he's able to present everything in a way that's friendly to many Republicans. I'm willing to consider other folks but this far out I fail to see anybody more appropriate for the job than Clark.

[nickshepDEM]

76. Click the pic in my sig.

[OneBlueSky]

30. not necessarily . . . I think Robert Redford would do better . . . n/t

.

[Thom Little]

33. Warner is not "the most electable." He's the BEST!!

[AmericanDream]

34. ... and one of the most conservatives.... n/t

[nickshepDEM]

77. Indeed.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

35. But in the polls Senator Clinton scores 43%,

miles ahead of the next two highest scoring candidates, Al Gore and John Edwards at something like 14% and 12%. I don't even remember seeing Warner's name on the list.

I have noticed that we DUer's lean harder to the left than the majority of the party, and so we like to diss the more "to center" candidates like Clinton, but that doesn't mean that they aren't out there and extremely popular with the more moderate faction of our party. So if you bring these other names, but don't include the front runner in the polls, I think you are letting yourself in for a disappointment.

:hide:

[LWolf]

36. Sorry.

The "most electable" campaign burned me in '04 for the last time.

I want the best we've got. I'll work hard to elect the best.

I won't show up to hear the masses beating the "electable" drum again.

Ever.

For the record, there is only one possibility listed in your post that I would even consider. I don't see the best we've got listed anywhere in your post. It's early to be deciding, 3 years before primaries, who ought to be the nominee. Why not let many worthy Dems run in primaries before making a decision, or choosing a bandwagon to jump on?

[win_in_06]

37. I think he is a relative unknown nationally. He will need some major

exposure.

Who knows? That could be a good thing.

[Kahuna]

54. That's why like Howard Dean did he's starting early...

Next.

[karynnj]

38. It's interesting that you credit Kerry with the skills and abilities

that will likely be most needed - but pick Warner. Warner's resume is pretty slim at this point. As I thought with Edwards, another attractive candidate, he should build his skills in another job before running for President. In Warner's case going after Allen's seat, would likely have given us a seat we're not likely to get otherwise. In the Senate, he (because he would come in a superstar) would likely be able to choose his committees and get foreign policy expertise.

I also think the Southern Governor theory is based on way too little. There were TWO Southern Governors - Carter won in the wake of Watergate. People were sick of Nixon, Ford was unimpressive and had pardoned Nixon. Clinton is Clinton - but even he had a very weak President (much lower ratings than W) and a third party candidate throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Bush. The problem with looking at patterns for the Presidency is there really are very few data points. (consider that if there was no Bin Laden tape or if the media were even slightly fairer or Ohip had a well run Democratic party that had prior to the election checked the "bi-partisan" assignment of number of machines - we would have a MA Senator as President.

[dtotire]

41. Link to a "Draft Warner" site

http://www.draftmarkwarner.com/

[1932]

40. I like Warner too, with 2/3 hesitations. He has a great biography, but he

has one bad part of his biography, or at least one part that could backfire significantly: "successful businessman."

I don't think the democrats should run against corporate America. But I definitely think that -- because one of the real problems in Ameirca is that corporate America is responsible for the polarization of wealth that is pushing us to the brink of economic collapse -- the Democratic nominee is going to have to appear to have some critical distance from corporate America. You don't create that political distance by being a huge beneficiary of the habits of American corporations to make insiders fabulously wealthy while killing 401k investors and the general public. This is important in two ways: to win, Democrats will need people to be in that frame of mind (it is a reality of people's experience that we'll need to tap into to get people to vote) and once a elected, the presidentn is going to have to be perceived as having a mandate to fix that problem, and I'm not sure a rich businessman is either going to be able to run on that issue or address it once he gets elected.

For comparision, JFK: his father's career notwithstanding (actually, his father told him never to trust corporate America) did not work in corporate America, did not get rich from corporate America, was suscpicious of corporate America, and fought Wall Street when their interests conflicted with the interests of working America one he was elected.

If Warner were the nominee, the one part of his bio that Republicans would definitely want the public to know is how many millions he made from his telecom company. It would be the equivalent of Kerry's billionaire wife, and Gore growing up in a hotel. going to Sidwell Friends and going to Harvard. It would create the mixed message which would make many Democrats wonder why bother to vote.

Another thing that isn't great about Warner is the Harvard degree, especially if the Republican nominee doesn't have an Ivy League degree. Even if Warner went to Harvard on a need-based scholarship, I think the Democratic nominee really need to look like he or she had the same opportunities as the working and middle class whose interests they're trying to represent, and that doesn't include a Harvard degree (just as it does not include making millions off Wall Street).

The third hesitation -- and this only has to do with the fact that it's so early, and has nothing to do with Warner -- is that I have no idea what his political convictions are, and how they manifest themselves in policy. Basically, I want to know if he's a Keynesian in the mould of FDR, Kennedy, Galbraith, and Johnson (domestically). I can't be super enthusiastic about him until I'm sure that he believes in investing in the infrastructure, taxing income progressively (and not undertaxing capital gains and dividends of millionaires) and protecting the value of work even if it threatens the profits of the finance industry.

[dtotire]

42. David Broder's Column on Warner

RICHMOND -- As awards go, this one was nice enough. The honor that Virginia Gov. Mark Warner received the other night from the Council of Chief State School Officers saluted his work not just in his home state but also in the broader movement to overhaul and improve high schools in this country.

It was an honor previously bestowed on Bill Clinton, among others, and was one more step in Warner's path along what might be called "the Clinton route" toward the White House: the successful stewardship of a conservative-leaning Southern state, a leadership role in the Education Commission of the States and the National Governors Association, and a growing following among fellow Democrats.




But the applause that greeted Warner at the ceremony here was hardly the highlight of his week. Earlier in the day, in his first foray to New Hampshire as an unannounced 2008 presidential hopeful, he had found a turn-away luncheon crowd of 200 state legislators and political activists at a Manchester restaurant and had been a hit. "An extremely favorable reaction," state Sen. Lou D'Allesandro told me. "I don't know him very well, but he's a very impressive guy."

Earlier in the week, Time magazine saluted Warner as one of the five best governors in the country. And a week before that, he had the satisfaction of seeing the Democrat for whom he had campaigned all over Virginia, Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine, win an unexpectedly strong victory over Republican Jerry Kilgore, who received a last-minute endorsement visit from President Bush.

Bush won Virginia in both of his own races, but Warner -- barred from seeking a second term by the state constitution -- has a towering 70 percent job approval rating and clearly provided coattails for Kaine.

"Timing is everything in politics," D'Allesandro remarked, "and Bush gave him the best publicity in the world when he came into Virginia the night before the election for Jerry Kilgore. What Warner said then was a killer: 'If they want to compare what's happening in Washington with what we've done in Virginia, that's a comparison I'll take any time.' " When I interviewed Warner after the award ceremony here, his comment on his good fortune was, "When it rains, it pours." And then he quickly added that four years earlier, when he was preparing to take office, the same thing seemed to apply -- in reverse.

His Republican predecessor had left the state with a budget deficit, which soon ballooned to multibillion-dollar dimensions, as the high-tech bubble burst and the economy slumped. The first two years of his term, Warner was forced to cut programs and employees, trying to control the damage.

At the start of his third year, with the economy recovering, he made a critical gamble. He proposed a major tax overhaul, eliminating the sales tax on food but raising other levies more, and toured the state, arguing that added revenue was needed to fund education, transportation and social services. With a major boost from business leaders who have a long tradition of supporting Virginia's superior public universities, he persuaded enough Republicans in the GOP-controlled legislature to join him, and the program passed.

Today, with defense and homeland security spending flooding the state, Virginia has one of the healthiest economies in the country.

As D'Allesandro -- a supporter of John Edwards in 2004 -- commented, "Warner was able to talk about things he's actually done," an advantage that governors have over senators. He has made it possible, for example, for students in every Virginia high school to acquire at least one semester of college credits -- recognized by even the state's elite institutions -- along with their high school diplomas.

Warner is not alone in having a governor's credentials. At least two other Democrats, Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Tom Vilsack of Iowa, are considering the presidential race (along with three or four Republican governors). And Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana talks at least as much about what he did in his two terms as governor as he does about his Senate career.

Warner and the other Democratic governors face two problems Clinton did not have to confront. For one thing, the country is now at war -- and foreign policy and national security loom much larger as qualifications for the presidency. And for another, there is Hillary Clinton. The senator from New York was an ally in her husband's climb to the White House. She looms as a formidable potential challenge to Warner and the other governors who fancy themselves traveling the same route. But unlike her, they have all won in states that went for Bush in 2004.

[e-mail]

[dtotire]

43. Time Magazine Article on Warner

From the Magazine | Nation
Mark Warner | Virginia
A Cell-Phone King's Fine Reception
By KAREN TUMULTY


Posted Sunday, Nov. 13, 2005
The man who was the biggest factor in the closely watched Virginia Governor's race last week wasn't even on the ballot. And that's why Democrats are starting to think that outgoing Virginia Governor Mark Warner may finally have figured out what it will take for their party to start winning in the South again. All sides agreed the morning after the election that what carried Lieutenant Governor Tim Kaine to victory--in a state that hasn't voted for a Democrat for President since L.B.J.--was Warner's popularity. Part of it is style: Warner won narrowly in 2001 by courting gun owners and working the NASCAR circuit, even though he grew up in the New England state of Connecticut and is worth some $200 million. But the real political miracle is the fact that Virginians have only grown to love him more as he has slashed popular programs and raised taxes.

Even Warner, 50, a telecommunications tycoon, admits he had a lot to learn when he arrived in Richmond. At first, the Republican-controlled legislature turned down everything he put forward. Voters rejected his proposal for new taxes to solve the state's traffic congestion. Worst of all, the Governor, who had run promising to help generate high-tech jobs, saw the technology bubble burst, just as he discovered that he had a deficit of more than $3 billion to close.

Warner has never been one to be discouraged by a stumble or two. A Harvard Law grad, he started out as a fund raiser for the Democratic National Committee, a job that left him so broke he was reduced to sleeping on friends' couches, he recalls, and that he finally gave up to make some money. In the beginning, business didn't work out any better than politics. His initial venture, in energy, failed in six weeks; his second one, in real estate, took six months to fold. But in the early 1980s, Warner saw possibility in the far-out idea of cellular telephones and organized investor groups to apply for the free licenses then available. In return he got a stake in the new companies, one of which was Nextel. His friends, Warner recalls, thought he was crazy. Now he jokes, "Anytime you're around me, please don't turn off your cell phone. You hear an annoying sound. I hear ka-ching! ka-ching!"

Warner brought the same long view to his state's fiscal problems. He slashed spending for everything but education, cutting $6 billion in costs, eliminating 3,000 state jobs and even shutting down driver's-license offices one day a week. That gave him credibility as a fiscal conservative, which became important when he discovered that spending cuts were not enough to put the state on sound financial footing for the rest of the decade. Given his one-term limit, it would have been tempting for Warner to simply paper over the problem and pass it on to his successor, as other Governors had done before him. Instead, he pulled together an unlikely coalition that won enough G.O.P. votes to pass a $1.4 billion tax hike, the largest in Virginia history--and put the state on the road to fiscal stability. This year Virginia tied with Utah as the best-managed state in the country, as rated by the Government Performance Project, an academic group.

Page 1 of 2 1 | 2 Next >>

[npincus]

44. Any military experience?

[dtotire]

45. I don't think so n/t

[FrenchieCat]

46. It's not the "military" experience that I am concerned with......

as I don't believe that need be a prerequisite. However, I do think that Foreign policy experience should be a prerequisite in 2008....due to the fact that our big problems lie in how we are now perceived in other countries. Our Foreign policies have affected our domestic policies. We are almost bankrupt with steeply rising deficits, and a lot of that has to do with these wars we are fighting, and the fact that the Chinese (with whom Bush totally fucked up our relations with) own much of our economy. Latin America hates us too, and they own most of the oil that we buy. The Middle East hates us. Europe hates us. Hell, even New Zealand hates us. Putin hates us too, and is currently working in concert with the Chinese.

Soooo, Barring Warner's attendance at Bildenberg, that secret society who runs the show, what experience does Mark Warner have in the arena that will be most important in the 2nd decade of the 21st century?

That's what I want to know!

[skipos]

49. I am guessing you will never like Warner

Frenchie, you are one of the first names I learned on DU because I came here as a Clark fan. In every Clark thread their you were, singing praises. Now that I also have been reading Warner threads, I see you in almost every one, raising doubts about Warner while still singing the praises of Clark. It doesn't really bother me, you are entitled to your opinion. I like both, you clearly like one. Something tells me for the next three years I will still see you in almost every Clark or Warner thread. It is your right, and I am not claiming to have any real knowledge of you from reading a bunch of posts, but I will very surprised if you ever change your tune on either one.

[FrenchieCat]

56. Sorry, but I post what I think.....

and it ain't about Warner personally, nor is it about me nor about you. I don't like or dislike the man, cause I don't know enough about him to make that kind of conclusion.

However, if you are to be fair, then it is important that you keep in mind why I so strongly support Wes Clark. It is because I strongly believe that we need a leader with strong Foreign policy credentials running this country....especially now. Maybe it's because I am an immigrant.....and therefore I look at things from a worldwide point of view. So I am only being consistent in vocalizing that Mark Warner, no matter how Great others might think he is, doesn't pass the smell test to date in the areas that I consider most important;International diplomatic experience and leadership (his cautioness makes me leery).

Again, it ain't about Mark Warner....it's about what I believe is the experience required for the job that needs to be done.

So I think that you are reading me wrong when you decide to make my critiques personal, when they aren't.

As far as Clark goes, I don't "sing praises", but rather I inform and I use links to back up my information. That's not singing praises as much as it is providing FACTS to those who may be unaware or have a personal vendetta or a personal prejudice against those who served their nation in uniform.....because for some, those in the military are good enough to die in battle, but not good enough for politics. I find that something that I need to fight back about....because it makes so little sense.

So Skipos, you should continue to do what you do, and I will as well. But just remember, for me, it's about the qualifications I think are needed to kick some GOP ASS. As far as I am concerned, my insight may not be any better than anyone else's (although I do try to provide my rationale) but it certainly ain't any worse.

Peace!

[skipos]

57. Sounds good.nt

[BlueIris]

63. THANK YOU. Electability means NOTHING if the candidate can't

govern effectively in any sense after being put in the White House. The person we elect MUST have experience dealing with and credibility in the eyes of world leaders.

[I_am_Spartacus]

68. But what does experience and credibility matter if you can't get

elected? And what does it matter if someone has credibility abroad and experience, but they have a political philiosophy which will make the problems worse. Like, say, they agree that American corporations should take over the world and be taxed lightly in the process? That could be a recipe for inflation, collapse and the end of democracy and of America, if you ask me. But, hey, at least they had "experience" and "credibility abroad"!

[FrenchieCat]

70. I don't think that having experience on the Foreign affairs front

would somehow preclude other attributes such as good economic and domestic policies from being present in a potential candidate......although, for whatever reason, that is what your example illustrates.

IMO, you offer up a "what if?" set of false choices restricted to "either/or"....

[I_am_Spartacus]

71. I don't think it precludes it either. But it definitely doesn't guarantee

it.

My point is that you shouldn't forget to ask the crucial question to which "experience" is not an answer, which is, "what do these people stand for and believe, and what policies are they going to pursue to manifest those beliefs?"

[nickshepDEM]

79. Proving ones electability should be a prerequisite.

Those who have never won an election... Need not apply.

[Telly Savalas]

85. Winning elections isn't a predictor of further success.

Both George Walker Bush and Al Gore won plenty of elections prior to 2000, but one of them lost the 2000 presidential bid. (Which one it is depends on who ya talk to.) Bob Dole won many a Senate election in Kansas, didn't help in '96. GHW Bush had experience with a successful presidential campaign, but floundered in '92. etc. etc.

[Boo Boo]

47. The Clinton/Warner foreign policy comparison is a good one...

neither had any. Big difference: Clinton was elected at a time when Americans did not feel threatened by much, if anything. Our focus in that election was the domestic economy; foreign policy was not really much of a factor. Warner, OTOH, may find himself running at a time of outright crisis in foreign policy.

Besides, Clinton was more than just big hair. Wes Clark called him "the smartest guy in the room." He was a serious policy wonk, unbelievably well-read, and seemingly able to hold forth authoritatively on just about any important subject. The fact that he had no foreign policy experience may have been offset somewhat by his being able to convince people that he understood the problems and was smart enough to deal with them.

So, is Warner "the smartest guy in the room?"

[ncteechur]

48. Never put it past the GOP to make up skeletons where none can be found.

Warner is a very attractive candidate but I don't know.

[LittleClarkie]

51. I like who I like not because I think I can get him elected

I don't approve of how people apparently used that line to the Deaniacs and the Kucitizens.

I also think it's ever so slightly bogus to use the Clinton model as if we have to have a Clintonesque Southern Governor to win ever, ever again.

Surely not.

[politicasista]

52. Let's focus on 2006, then think about who's electable

Not hating, but focusing on 2008 only plays into the hands of the GOP media. They want us talking about 08 because they know it keeps us divided instead of talking about * and the GOP Congress troubles, the war and other serious issues.

Realistic goal: WIN IN 06.

[I Kant]

58. Well Said...

Warner is a good candidate. But 2008 is a long way off.

I wish that he had a better relationship with the camera. TV, especially HD tv, is not kind to Warner's face.

[ProudDad]

61. Do you have a link to his policies?

I couldn't find anything at the draft warner site...

[nickshepDEM]

78. Click the pic in my sig.

[Dinger]

67. I Respect Your Opinion

But my guy has a lot more to offer in my opinion. . . . .

*Leadership experience (ex: NATO Supreme Allied Commander)
*Humble beginnings (ex: Mother was a secretary, lived w/grandparents after father died)
*Intelligence (ex: Rhodes Scholar)
*Economic (ex: Worked in OMB, taught economics at college level)
*Educational (ex: see above)
*Military( ex: 36 years, 4-star general, Led a war that resulted in saving the lives of 1.5)
(million ethnic Albanians, a sadistic dictator went to the Hague, without the loss)
(of one American soldier . . .)
*Diplomatic (ex: One of the authors of the Dayton Peace Accords)


This just scratches the surface. Wesley Clark, all patriot, no act.

:patriot:

[Dinger]

69. All The Dems Are "Electable." It Has To Be By A Diebold-Proof Margin Thou

though (5% +)

[McLuhan]

82. Dinger,

Wes is the man! Hey, let's hope the Packers kick the Eagles butt today,eh.:>)

[Dinger]

83. Well, Yes He's The Man . . .

I hope the Pack wins too.
All this "Don't screw up our draft with a win " bullshit is stupid. Have the game of your life Packers!

P.S. Thanks McLuhan:patriot:

[nickshepDEM]

74. You are a very, very wise man.

He is not only the most electable. He is argueably the most successful governor in the country and would probably make the best president. He has a very rare ability to work bipartisanly in order to achieve what is best for the citizens of his state and country.

[dtotire]

81. Warner on the Issues

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

[kerrygoddess]

87. Warner on the death penalty?

Pro death penalty - not exactly party line is that?

[Sparkly]

88. I'm still trying to get info on a death-penalty issue at hand...

I'm asking about this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/26/AR2005112600737.html

Over here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2276862

So far, no answers. :shrug:

[kerrygoddess]

90. This I think speaks for itself

"VIRGINIA GOV. Mark R. Warner (D), who has less than two months left in office, has not stopped a single execution during his four-year term." - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/24/AR2005112400685.html

I honestly did not know much about him but has been more than one article of late about Warner and the death penalty.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/25/AR2005112500871.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/26/AR2005112601213.html

I personally find it unnerving that he did not stop even one execution - reminds a bit of someone.

[InaneAnanity]

92. Warner is definitely the guy

Warner looks like a Kennedy. He is handsome, articulate, and forceful in his speech. People will trust him.

He isn't a Congressman, and doesn't have a voting record. This eliminates a good portion of Republican attack ammo.

He is a moderate candidate who can appeal to independents and moderates in both parties. He will focus on domestic issues I surmise, rather than the war on terror. This is how to win, from our position. Fighting with the Republicans over their war, no matter how bad its going, is pointless. Our argument will get lost in all the attacks going back and forth.

He is starting early, forming a PAC this year. He should be able to raise alot of money before the real campaigning begins in 2007.

-----------------------------------------
The key is, as many others have stated, electability. What good does a far left candidate do for you if he will never win??? Even if a far left candidate is more in line with your views than Warner is, you have to realize that a far left candidate cannot win in this country.

As for Wesley Clark, I think he would be a good VP candidate, and he could argue regarding the war. His eyes freak me out, he must have gotten plastic surgery on them, they are way too big. Also, while he is intelligent, his oratory isn't that great.

I think you all will eventually realize that Warner is the best candidate. He'll beat anybody the Republicans throw at him.

[wisteria]

91. Says who?

Compared to Kerry, he has a lot to learn. And I will add, he seems to be to much of a compromiser for my liking.