Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Salon: Warner to be given prime speaking slot at Kos Convention in Vegas.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 03:54 PM
Original message
Salon: Warner to be given prime speaking slot at Kos Convention in Vegas.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/05/31/armstrong/print.html

The Blogfather

Jerome Armstrong introduced Democrats to the Net. But can he sell Mark Warner?
By Michael Scherer

May. 31, 2006 | Jerome Armstrong, aka "The Blogfather," greeted me recently in the office of former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner's political action committee, a block of brick and glass that overlooks the Potomac River in old-town Alexandria. Long before he helped pioneer the netroots movement by launching the blog MyDD in 2001, Armstrong served two tours with the Peace Corps, in Costa Rica and Sierra Leone, and was arrested repeatedly at protests with EarthFirst! and Greenpeace. He then spent a year and a half at Buddhist monasteries, meditating sometimes for 14 hours a day. It's an odd résumé that has left him with a calm, almost Zen-like demeanor, a rare feature for a political consultant in the overcaffeinated world of presidential politics. Shunting the traditional preppy blazer and tie, he wore short sleeves and dun-colored Levis.

But then Armstrong, 42, bills himself as a different kind of consultant, an online insurgent who, with Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, aka Kos, is leading "a bloodless coup" in national politics. "We are at the beginning of a comprehensive reformation of the Democratic Party -- driven by committed progressive outsiders," Armstrong and Moulitsas write in their recent book, "Crashing the Gate," which sold 5,000 copies online before it was even published. Something is certainly happening. Guest blogging at DailyKos, which gets about 4.5 million page views a week, has become a rite of passage for Democratic bigwigs, people like John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Elizabeth Edwards (under a pseudonym) and Nancy Pelosi. Many of Armstrong's former blogging pupils, who are known by critics as the "Blog Mafia," have been recruited to work for 2006 House and Senate campaigns as varied as those of Connecticut's Ned Lamont, New Jersey's Bob Menendez and Ohio's Sherrod Brown. And next week, roughly 1,000 blog faithful are set to descend on Las Vegas for a four-day conference with the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate, party chairman Howard Dean, and at least three presidential hopefuls.

<>Moulitsas says he does not identify Warner with the DLC, especially when compared to other prospective presidential candidates. As for the lack of recent rants against the organization, he says he no longer rails against the DLC because he does not want to raise its profile. "I realized that the more I talked about them the more relevant they became," he said. "That was my realization last summer." As for his friendship with Armstrong, Moulitsas makes no apologies. "There is no doubt that Jerome impacts my thinking and my thinking impacts his," he said. "The fact is that Jerome and I talk a lot."

<>Next week, Warner will be given another opportunity in Las Vegas, at YearlyKos, the first national liberal blogger convention. According to the schedule, Warner is the only presumptive presidential candidate who is scheduled to address the entire convention, as the host of a Saturday lunch. He will appear in person, without any bells or whistles, without online video streams or blog endorsements. Just like politicians of old, he will have to take his message directly to the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. Won't sell.
Bloggers are sophisticated enough to research Warner and, while he may pass the "electability test" because he's a Southern governor, the netroots is NOT going to like his DLC and corporate ties.

So, no, I don't think he can sell him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. Please speak for yourself
You don't speak for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-01-06 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #16
32. OK
Edited on Thu Jun-01-06 02:20 AM by Clark2008
But, I must remind you that I'm Southern.

You NEED my vote.

So there.

Na, Na, Na, Na, Boo, Boo...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
2. So, let's get this straight - he railed against Kerry who was furthest
LEFT of the DLC membership, but stops railing against the DLC when the furthest RIGHT is a candidate?

I wonder if people feel they were had?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
26. Kos= Self Promotion. He doesn't give a cra pabout anything else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
3. So Kos will not deal with the DLC then?
Edited on Wed May-31-06 03:59 PM by AX10
I must ask, why does Kos NOT consider Mark Warner a DLCer?
These are two conflicting statements on behalf of Kos. Clarification is needed ASAP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Warner is after all, one of DLC Al From's "Candidates--Clinton, Vilsack,
Edited on Wed May-31-06 04:05 PM by flpoljunkie
Warner & Bayh"--listed in that order by Al From in a Washington Journal appearance on October 25th, 2005.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killerbush Donating Member (822 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
4. Kos is not leading a bloodless coup
He just censors anybody who doesn't agree with him. As for Mark Warner, the reason Kos doesn't think of him as part of the DLC is because he actually might do well, and Kos wants to jump on the bandwagon, plus, he hates Hillary. When will this party conclude that ALL points of view should be welcomed, and not just the liberal side?? The DLC already has a high profile. Kos is just pissed off because he can't get rid of them. The DLC is here to stay folks, get used to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yngliberal Donating Member (174 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I have something to say also...
Go tell the DLC the liberal wing is here to stay also.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killerbush Donating Member (822 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Well, the liberals and moderates are going to war then
I'll take Bayh and Warner, you take whoever, and we'll see who's there in the end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-01-06 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #12
33. I'll take Clark
He'll kick both Warner and Bayh's ass in the red states - given a fair chance and media coverage, which, of course, won't happen, since the media likes Republican-Lite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Then the DLC better understand that the moderate and liberal
Edited on Wed May-31-06 04:04 PM by AX10
wings of the Democratic party are here to stay.

:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
20. Very good point Killer....
Kinda blows me away that so many here just hear the letters "DLC" and immediately start screaming bloody murder.

With close to 90-some thousand people having created memberships here at one time or another, it really is hard to say how many are truly sincere in those comments, and how many just pop in to intentionally stir up controversy?

I guess we'll never know. :shrug:

From what I've seen.. these comments will continue on throughout the primary season and of course, will become much more frequent as we're deciding on a nominee.

It's weird though. If our nominee winds up being a DLC'er.. you won't even remember those three letters. No one will bring them up because it will be IRRELEVANT at that point.

I don't care if our next president is a DNC'er, a DLC'er, a DCCC'er, or a D-Cupper.. .... I just want the ReTHUGS OUT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-01-06 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #20
34. Not so. I don't think a DLCer would win, for one thing, and
I KNOW, he/she would have less-than-adequate support on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frankenforpres Donating Member (763 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #34
57. is clark not a dlc'er?
wasnt he bill and hill's choice in the primary???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-04-06 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #57
69. Clark is NOT DLC
I don't know whether he was the choice of the Clintons in '04 or not. Bill Clinton said some pretty nice things about him, and may have encouraged him to run (I don't recall any real evidence that he did, just a bunch of GOP blathering about being a "stalking horse" for Hillary), but neither one of them endorsed him.

But even if Clark was the Clintons' choice, it doesn't make him DLC. It's pretty clear to me that, right or wrong, Clinton didn't think Dean could win the general election and wanted someone he thought could win. That might have been Clark, or it might have been Kerry, or someone else. Clinton would probably have supported Sharpton if he thought he could win the general.

But whatever support he got or didn't get from Clinton, Clark is definitely not DLC. He's way too far to the left to go along with DLC positions on just about everything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frankenforpres Donating Member (763 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-04-06 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #69
76. where does he differ
can you point out to me the DLC's official position on some issue where Clark has a different position. i ask out of ignorance, you can just direct me to a place where i can find clark's position papers, if you dont want to take the time to compare and contrast
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #76
81. In reference to the DLC, I don't know what their "platform" is.....
So I have to imagine that Clark lines up on some issues, and differs on others....like most who are Democrats but are not DLC members.

First off, he warned against going into Iraq.

In reference to policies, here's a good article here.... http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html

Here's some of his '04 policies, here.... http://www.clark04.com/issues/

Know that he is currently for our transitioning to a single payer health system.

Plus, He doesn't want "war" with Iran.....

What is it that the DLC are "for" that makes them DLCers? Please do respond.

Thanks! :hi:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #76
82. What Frenchie said, and this...
Sorry to be so long getting back to you. I was out canvassing most of yesterday.

I'm not sure the problem most liberal Dems have with the DLC has much to do with their positions on issues, altho they do tend to be more moderate/centrist than most of us would prefer. That said, I think most DLC positions are supported by most non-DLC Democrats--there is a core of Democratic values that even the DLC doesn't stray too far from. In my opinion, their worst "crime" is how they attempt to control the party overall, and shut out anyone who is not DLC. In fact, it's my opinion they worked against Clark during the '04 primaries because he was (and is) not DLC, favoring Kerry and Edwards because they were DLC members.

But in any case, Clark is certainly more to the left than the typical DLC member. Especially on the Iraq war and foreign policy in general. He agrees with them that Democrats must reestablish our reputation for being "tough" on national security and defense, but he doesn't believe we need to do so by supporting overseas intervention before all diplomatic and other options have been reasonably exhausted. That is why he testified against the IWR, saying it gave Bush a "blank check" to invade Iraq without pursuing other options, when most DLC members (maybe all?) voted for it.

There was a graph made of how the likely 08 candidates stack up, to the right or left, on both economic and social issues. I'll post the image, but information on which issues were used to rank them is available at the link http://headstrong-america.blogspot.com/2005/12/graph-rates-2008-hopefuls-on-issues.html and the specific issue positions at http://www.ontheissues.org/


I'm not up on who exactly is in the DLC, but I'm pretty sure Warner, Bayh, and Lieberman are, and that Gore was when he was in office. Not sure about Richardson, but other than him, there does seem to be a pattern.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Placebo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-04-06 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #4
61. Couldn't agree more.
The KOS article on Hillary showed just what a biased, sloppy, hate-filled little guy he is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
85. The DLC is here to stay.
Millions every year from the Fortune 500 and war contractors buys a lot of longevity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
7. '...the more I talked about them
the more relevant they became...'

What does he think warner is going 2 do?

NO MORE DLC CANDIDATES! They are enablers and losers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Especially when Kos said this about the DLC in August, 2005...
Edited on Wed May-31-06 04:26 PM by flpoljunkie
"... bloggers have wondered if Armstrong's work for Warner caused Moulitsas to abandon his once ferocious campaign to shame any Democrat who associated with the DLC. "We need to make the DLC radioactive," Kos wrote in August 2005. "No calls for a truce will be brooked."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/05/31/armstrong/print.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. Do you remember what happened to someone else who...
stood up to that group and criticized them? I do. We need to have a stronger power base before it will work to confront.

I can only imagine some of the calls Markos got.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. how are they "losers?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killerbush Donating Member (822 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. wyldwolf, they're not losers
The DLC bashers are at it again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. hell, I know that. I just like to watch them tap dance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
10. If Mark Warner is our candidate, I'll support him to the bitter end..
It's too early to know who will lead the pack though...

I do know one thing.. Once our Democratic nominee is chosen.. regardless of whether they're a member of the DNC, DLC, or both.. I'll still support them.

Funny too if you think about it... that argument (DLC v. DNC) is never even discussed on here once we're down to one candidate.

It's just not something talked about any longer once the nominee is chosen.

And despite Tweety's continual "Hillary talk" --> ... .. I don't think she'll run. I just don't.

But whoever our eventual nominee is.. I'm in!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killerbush Donating Member (822 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. larissa, Hillary was born to run, she's in
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Bruce Springsteen was born to run... Hillary? No!
For senate, yes.

For president? Fagettaboutit!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killerbush Donating Member (822 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. You watch, in late 2007, she will announce, GUARANTEED!!!
She can't help herself:dilemma: :dilemma: :dilemma: :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. Okay KB.. I guess we'll just have to place a bet with each other!
I'll make a bet with you in oh... December or so..

But be prepared cuz I'll beat your butt in the bet!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killerbush Donating Member (822 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-01-06 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #24
39. Bring it on!!!!
You'll beat my butt? No way!!!:scared: :scared: :scared: :loveya: :loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickshepDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
52. You're a great Democrat, larissa.
Fine American too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catmother Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #52
56. hi nick. i suspected we'd meet up on a warner thread. i've
missed you.:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickshepDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-04-06 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #56
75. Great minds think alike...
and meet up on Warner threads too. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-04-06 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #52
60. Nick!!!!!!!!!
Geez... I haven't see you here in eons... Either I'm not around.. or your not around.

Glad to run into you again! I'm sure we'll chat more as the elections actually take place. I really do think Warner, as hard as he's been working behind the scenes and as much money as he's been raking in, is going to be a considerable factor that most will realize later.

Anyway ~~~ good to see you Nick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catmother Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #10
55. i like warner. i don't think hillary will run either. but if you listen
to tweety you would think that she's the nominee. i'm tired of hearing about hillary. if she runs i'll support her, but all this speculation that's gone on for years is boring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
21. IMO, this makes Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, aka "Kos"
the ultimate hypocrite. Warner is as DLC as Hillary, Bayh or Vilsak. I'm very disappointed he has made this decision.

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
22. Moulitsas may be the only one to not associate Warner with the DLC.
Warner is DLC, he lives and speaks DLC. Warner, takes fence sitting positions on issues and fits the "LDC elect ability criteria to a tee- Southern and a Governor.
Don't let Moulitsas fool you, he is no liberal progressive, he supports what I like to say are almost Repubs. candidates. He also, is only interested in whom he considers winners. It makes no difference to him if they are qualified or ready to be President.

Personally, I feel Warner isn't ready to become President. Not in 2008 anyway. He is a one term Governor for Pete's sake. We will need much leadership experience and foreign policy experience in 2008-Warner lacks in both area. It is also obvious that Moulitsas is pushing Warner because he meets Mouolitsas criteria for elect ability. However, I will make up my own mind, Moulitsas's helpful exposure for Warner will not persuade me otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killerbush Donating Member (822 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Oh pleeeeeze, Markos is a flaming lefty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. no, he isn't - he never was. He liked Dean because he knew Dean's record
as governor was centrist but had enough liberal views during the primary that Kos could promote his candidacy over Kerry's who he attacked for being a member of the DLC even though he accrued a decidely left record his entire career.

Kos spread alot of bad information against Kerry. He is no liberal, and never has been. He did USE liberals to build up his website.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killerbush Donating Member (822 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Read his posts, he's a flaming lefty. Hates Lieberman e'nuff said
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Markos is most definitely not a lefty, as the DLC likes to call everyone.
He is no more a loony lefty, which is the latest term for us, than I am.

Jerome lives in VA and works mostly for candidates from there, it is his home state. He has banned people from his blog for criticizing the ones he worked for. Since then he has pretty much turned it over to others when he is on a campaign.

Neither are lefties. I am not really a lefty per se, but would like to be one if they were not so demanding of perfection.

Dean is not a lefty, never was. Most of us who supported him are pretty moderate, just independent thinkers as he is.

That term lefty is making people so angry with the DLC, their haughty attitude toward anyone who is not on board with their corporate agenda. Which, BTW, includes spreading Democracy, and at gunpoint if needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-01-06 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #29
42. heh - well, us longtime lefties welcome you, mf....
you can put up a fight alongside us any day. ;))))))
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. I've read his posts and know his background BEFORE the website - he is NOT
a liberal and never was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-01-06 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #27
40. Lieberman is a liberal on many issues
His problem is his forign policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #27
49. Well, I hate Lieberman and I'm not a flaming liberal.
I'm pretty moderate, leaning left, actually.

I dislike Lieberman because he's a wimp - he would rather compromise on some of the most important issues - like this uncessary war - rather than stand up. I also consider him a traitor because he puts his support of Israel over his support of the United States. As a senator, that's the very meaning of "traitor."

As far as the DLC is concerned, as a moderate, I don't support them, either (unless I have to - like in my state where the only Dem running for Senate is Harold Ford Jr.). The DLC is NOT moderate, they're corporate apologists.

Moderate means you're not willing to over-tax or over-spend. It means you can and will compromise on the "no sweat" issues, like supporting a moderate Republican's bill for something that doesn't violate civil rights or Constitutional law. It means you're willing to find a compromise on gun-control, like the Brady Bill. It means you support a woman's right to choose, but you might not think it's a good idea to allow said choice without a medical reason once the fetus is viable (usually about 21 - 23 weeks) - but you're still willing to admit that medical reasons can and do occur past the age of viability. It means you support initiates to give tax cuts to small businesses (not the owners, the business) to create jobs for Americans IN America. It means you work for the people and small businesses and not for huge corporates, like Republicans do. It means you may be religious, but you don't feel it necessary to shove it down anyone else's throat.

It does NOT mean that you kiss corporate ass for donations. It does NOT mean you support pacs like AIPAC, an organization who's sole purpose to forward Israel's well-being over the good of America's well-being (and the same would go for a Palestinian pac, btw. It has nothing to do with whether the pac is Christian, Muslim or Jewish. It has to do with the fact that what's good for Israel, for example, is not always what's good for the United States). It does NOT mean that you back-bite liberals and environmentalists by using smears common amongst neo-conservatives. And it does NOT mean you belittle the American worker by agreeing to outsource their jobs.

In short, a moderate Dem is not necessarily a DLCer and we should stop confusing the two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-01-06 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #23
38. anybody who trashes anti-war protesters like he does IS NOT
a flaming lefty though to a chickenhawk Joe supporter like yourself he might seem like one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. Wisteria....
I may be wrong.. but I highly doubt that the fact Mark Warner was a "one term Governor" is going to be a factor in the slightest.

In the state of Virginia, there is no such thing as a "two term Governor".

And during his time as Virginia's governor, the guy took the state from one of the bottom of the barrel states.. to the "Best Managed State in the Nation"

That's HUGE when you consider what Mistah Boooooosh did in his one plus a partial term in Texas. Bush had nothing -- zero, zilch, NOTHING to be proud of during his term as the Texas Governor.

Warner had some of the highest approval numbers of any governor in the nation and was selected as one of the "five best governor's in the U.S."

Given all that he's accomplished in a state where he could only serve one consecutive term.. along with the fact that he's outpacing everyone in fundraising, plus the fact that he's filthy rich (self-made) and squeaky clean.. I think he may wind up doing a little better than you're giving him credit for.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_R._Warner
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-01-06 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #28
41. Different times - Foreign policy is more important now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #28
47. "One term governor" does mean something
It's totally irrelevant that he's only one-term because of VA law. No one is blaming him for that, just stating a fact that it doesn't give him much preparation for heading the entire federal executive.

And that Dubya was even less qualified doesn't mean jack.

The fact is, Warner has only four years of public service.
He's run in two elections, largely self-financed, and won one.
He should be running against Allen for the Senate, but it appears to a lot of folks that he thinks he has a better shot at being someone's VP than beating Allen. He's looks afraid to try.

I'll grant you that Warner's record as governor is strong. I know that having been a governor, especially in a Southern state, even for a short time, is a big advantage in a presidential race. I'm sure Warner is a smart guy, and very capable. And his experience as a CEO counts for something as well. I actually think he's fairly progressive on most domestic issues, except maybe workers rights, but woefully too conservative on Iraq and civil liberties.

But my point is, don't think for a minute that his limited government experience and total lack of foreign policy background means nothing. And don't assume that because red-state Virginians like him that primary voters in places like NH will. Or that he can appeal to unions. Or to minority voters. Or to many other traditional Democratic constituencies.

Mostly it's gonna come down to how well he can campaign and raise money. I haven't been impressed with what I've seen of the former, and who knows how anyone but Clinton, assuming she does run, will do on the latter?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #28
54. Just because
Edited on Sat Jun-03-06 07:45 PM by politicasista
he is "squeaky clean" doesn't mean that he won't be smeared. The RNC will lie, distort, and visciously smear any democrat that interferes with their agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-04-06 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #22
77. Isn't one of Moulitsas friends working for Warner?
He's just shilling for his friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-31-06 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
31. Don't worry.....Warner isn't going to say anything to incriminate himself!
while in Las Vegas.

I don't even see the electibility that others speak of when mentioning Warner. I mean, everyday all we hear about in the news is issues directly linked to foreign policy and National Security--day in, day out.

but somehow Democrats are supposed to start thinking that Mark Warner, who has nada experience in either issues constantly in the news.... is "the one" because?

Sorry, I really just don't get it! :shrug:

I think those supporting Warner to date, including Jerome and Markos are caught in a time-warp...and think that they are reliving 1992. They are not, and somebody needs to drop that piece of info on them two! :eyes:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Awsi Dooger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-01-06 04:31 AM
Response to Reply #31
36. We need Virginia's 13 electoral votes
How is that 1992?

I'm sick of rooting for Florida or Ohio, and knowing it's like betting on two horses who can't match strides with the winner.

Warner was fairly bland in the last speech I saw, a commencement at Wake Forest. He's more impressive talking politics than a venue like that, where the attempts at humor generally didn't work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-04-06 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #36
71. Does VA put us over the top if...
If we lose FL and OH? I was thinking not, but admit I haven't looked up the numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Awsi Dooger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #71
80. No, but it means only one more state is necessary
Edited on Mon Jun-05-06 01:15 AM by Awsi Dooger
Holding Kerry's states is hardly a given. Some of them were extremely tight like New Hampshire, which isn't exactly a dependable blue state.

But it we keep everything Kerry won and Warner adds Virginia, suddenly the margin of error is smack in our corner instead of the GOP's. We would have 265 electoral votes and only need one of 6 states -- Florida, Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado.

Those are the six closest to our grasp, based on 2004 results and apparent partisan trends. I suppose a Missouri or Arkansas and perhaps something like West Virgnina could also be in play.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #31
44. Warner is running for VP.
It's a damn shame he didn't run for Senator. Guess that didn't fit his career plans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kick_them_hard Donating Member (134 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-01-06 03:28 AM
Response to Original message
35. I like Mark Warner. I hope he runs n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hollowdweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-01-06 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. Feingold is my #1 pick but although a bit too timid I like Warner too


Warner is not as progressive as I would like on some stuff, and a lot of times he seems to me almost to kind of run from being seen as a democrat in some of the interviews I've seen.

However I admire a lot of the stuff he's done as a governor, solid democrat stuff in action and I think that he would make a good candidate that I could for sure support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kick_them_hard Donating Member (134 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #37
43. I agree with you that Warner isnt
progressive enough, but he can get alot of Republican to vote for him. I think if he is chosen, a good vice prez running mate would be Clark. Warner knows how to govern and Clark has the military clout. Warner/Clark 08?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #43
53. I like Warner/Clark for the reasons you state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #43
84. I like Clark/Warner a lot better
And, you may think it odd, for largely the reasons you give.

Clark knows how to govern. That's what base and regional commanders do, and Clark has been both. And they don't just give orders and it all falls into place. They have to negotiate with Congress, federal agencies, state and local governments (in the case of a stateside base), worry about healthcare, education, housing and infrastructure... pretty much just like a governor or mayor.

But as you say, "Clark has the military clout." I would add the diplomatic clout, since he has done so much of it, both on the Dayton Peace Accords and as NATO commander.

Both diplomacy and military belong to the commander-in-chief, not the vice president. You can't effectively delegate those two. Bush did that with Cheney, and it's ONE of the reasons we're so screwed up in Iraq and around the world. Not to say we'd be any better off if Bush had been doing it himself, but if you listen to Wilkerson (one of Powell's senior guys at the State Dept), Cheney pretty much ran a "cabal" with Rumsfeld and Rice that shut Powell out of presenting his views to the President. Also not saying Clark would do the same as VP, but the idea is that if the President doesn't know enough to see that happening, and to make the decisions himself, it becomes too easy for him to manipulated by "the experts." If not the VP, someone else.

Besides, Warner is more than young enough to do 8 years as VP and get his foreign policy legs, then run for president in 2016.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
45. Markos has never been known for his consistency.
If anybody thought he was a progressive, I think this is the best proof he is not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boo Boo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
46. I think I read that Clark will be there. Maybe they should have
a debate: Clark can explain why invading Iraq was one of the worst strategic blunders in the history of the United States, and Warner can then tell us why, exactly, he thinks it was a good idea.

And the first person to say "9/11" loses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NCarolinawoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. Clark has called for investigations for how we got into this war,
but Warner has said that "it is does not matter how we got into this war". Telling a military man that it does not matter how we got into a war which has turned out to be a monumental blunder and taken such a toll on the nation and the military itself, is like waving a red flag.

Since both of these guys are going to be at the Kos convention, I'd love to see them cross paths. (Although I think I read somewhere that they are actually friends. Just as Clark and Kerry are friends.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickshepDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. Source please?
Dont worry, Im not expecting you to find one, because you and I both know you totally misquoted and misunderstood Warners real quote.

Have a nice day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-04-06 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #50
67. Oh fer cryin' out loud... here's the quote
"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.
It's from a Reuters report that can be found at http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N28277588.htm

I interpret that pretty much exactly how NCW did. And my reaction as a vet is pretty close to how she assumes Clark would react. You of course are free to interpret however you want, altho honestly, I don't see how you can get anything different out of it. Other DUers can decide for themselves.

Butcha know, this has been discussed many times before. I'd bet money you've been a part of those discussions, so it seems a little disingenuous for you to to imply that that a quote doesn't exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-04-06 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #48
66. I don't think they'll be there at the same time
Altho I don't know for sure. Clark will be participating in the Science panel at 8am in the morning, and has to leave shortly afterwards to give the keynote speech at the Texas Democratic convention that night. Not sure when he'll arrive, but usually his schedule is tight and he doesn't have much time for the more informal parts of any event. Altho he usually tries to make some time to meet with bloggers and WesPAC supporters (many of whom will be attending), so maybe he'll get there early on the evening before. That's just speculation tho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickshepDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #46
51. Same goes for you. See post #50.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boo Boo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #51
58. I don't need a source. I've seen Warner state his Iraq position with my
own eyes, on national television. Frankly, I think his position(s) on Iraq are formulaic, and now that even Clark is calling for withdrawal I expect that Warner will work his way towards that position as he becomes certain that it is politically safe. By "formulaic," I mean that he's licking his finger and holding it up to the wind.

Personally, after having watched and read interviews with him, I don't give much credence to his opinions on Iraq or other foreign policy matters. I don't see him as any better or worse than, say, John Edwards in that regard. Although, if I had to choose between the two I'd take Edwards over Warner for Pres.

But, hey, it's a long way to '08... maybe he'll win me over. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-04-06 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #58
73. From the same source I used above
"To set an arbitrary deadline or specific date is not appropriate," he (Warner) said. "... It is incumbent on the president to set milestones for what he believes will be the conclusion."
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N28277588.htm

That's not quite the same thing as saying invading Iraq was a good idea, as you did above. But to me, it seems to express a lot more confidence in Bush's judgment than I'm willing to acceed.

I don't know that I've ever heard Warner say invading Iraq was a good idea, but I don't recall him ever saying it was a bad idea either. I'll admit that I haven't heard or read everything Warner has ever said. So if Nick thinks Warner was against the war, or is against it in hindsight, maybe he should be the one to provide a link to verify that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-04-06 01:22 AM
Response to Original message
59. kos's personal politics: more or less a "New Democrat"
Edited on Sun Jun-04-06 01:27 AM by Douglas Carpenter
I'm not posting this to either attack or defend Kos (Markos Moulitsas Zuniga). He certainly does not however share my personal political convictions. I'm just pointing out that he is not by any means left-wing and is at most only moderately liberal. His complaints with the DLC are strictly strategic and tactical - not ideological. On philosophy he is probably one notch to the left of the DLC. Peter Beinart wrote a glowing review of their book, Crashing The Gate which he highlights at the top of his frontpage:


--an insightful guide to how the Democratic Party can retake power -- Peter Beinart, NY Times

article from Washington Monthly:
link:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0601.wallace-wells.html

"Kos Call
For America's number one liberal blogger
politics is like sports: It's all about winning.

By Benjamin Wallace-Wells

snip:"The conventional wisdom is that a Democratic Party in which Moulitsas calls the shots would cater to every whim of its liberal base. But though he can match Michael Moore for shrillness, the most salient thing about Moulitsas's politics is not where he falls on the left-right spectrum (he's actually not very far left). It's his relentless competitiveness, founded not on any particular set of political principles, but on an obsession with tactics —and in particular, with the tactics of a besieged minority, struggling for survival: stand up for your principles, stay united, and never back down from a fight. “They want to make me into the latest Jesse Jackson, but I'm not ideological at all,” Moulitsas told me, “I'm just all about winning.” "

snip"Simon Rosenberg, the president of the centrist New Democratic Network (NDN), says that “frankly I don't think there's anyone who's had the potential to revolutionize the Democratic Party that Markos does.” This great faith has put Moulitsas—an extremely smart, irascible, self-contradictory, often petty, always difficult, non-practicing attorney and web programmer with no real political experience—in the position of trying to understand, on the fly, what real power is and how it might be exercised, thrust him into a flailing, wild-eyed and bold solitary venture, trying to turn a website into a movement."

snip;"He went after the Democratic consultant hierarchy for its refusal to innovate, and the party establishment for providing a “gravy train” for consultants who keep losing races. He attacked NARAL after the abortion rights organization endorsed pro-choice Republican senator Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) over his predicted challenger, a pro-life Democrat. He has also argued, along with others, that to win back red states, Democrats should avoid talking about gun-control—advice the party has largely taken, with some initial success."

snip:"Moulitsas, for his part, had spent the previous few months focused on taking on the liberal interest groups, urging Democrats to run more pro-life candidates, and to contest rural contests with rural values—all long-held tenets of the DLC. So Moulitsas's beef with the group wasn't over ideology, it was, predictably, over tactics" "

link to full article: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0601.wallace-wells.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-04-06 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #59
63. Good analysis.
I've never understood how these guys by any stretch of the imagination could be considered "left." As far as I can tell they're basically paid Kerry assassins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-04-06 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #63
64. well I'm not knocking these guys either

They are a bit iconoclastic in their own way. They don't stick to strict doctrinaire definition. They may have a few idiosyncratic leftie thoughts here and there that sound more like personal eccentricity than anything philosophic. But they are not left-wing; not by any means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-04-06 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #59
78. Anti abortion and anti-women's rights isn't liberal
Where in the heck does he get the idea those are valid POV's to sell to the Dem party.

Someone should take him aside and remind him that the majority of Dem voters are WOMEN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jbnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-04-06 03:09 AM
Response to Original message
62. Markos and Jerome were on
Edited on Sun Jun-04-06 03:11 AM by jbnow
Tim Russert's MSNBC show Saturday. Very good!

When asked about polls on the site they noted Feingold, Wes Clark and Warner as the favorites, Washington outsiders (though noting Feingold was a Senator).

Sunday on CSpan at 6:30 pm EDT Feingold and Warner are on on the Road to the White House.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-04-06 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #62
65. I heard that, but what pissed me off
Was that, when they were asked at the end who they liked for 2008, Markos mentioned ONLY Feingold and Warner, saying he wanted someone from outside the beltway. As if Feingold (and don't get me wrong, he's a good man) were more of an "outsider" than Wes Clark. Makes me wonder what Markos really wants, because there's no logic or consistency to what he said.

Jerome is carrying water for Warner, so I don't put any stock in what he says.

I got a really bad feeling about what both of 'em might do to influence the '08 nomination. Why should I assume they're any more altruistic than the establishment Dems (party, DLC, you name it) who try to select our nominee for us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-04-06 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #65
68. I posted about that - it felt like they mention Feingold only
so they can coopt his supporters for Warner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-04-06 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. That's possible, but...
I never have quite understood why anyone would assume Feingold supporters would gravitate to Warner if for some reason Feingold wasn't running. Markos should be smarter than that. Jerome is so infatuated with Warner's supposed electability that he may be blind to the realities of how much they differ on the issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-04-06 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #70
72. I think they feel that THEY can influence Russ' supporters towards Warner.
I'm speaking about internet supporters, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-04-06 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #72
74. Oh, ok. I can see that
We're all just a bunch of stupid sheeple who will support whomever Markos tells us to. Because he's such a great guy, and insightful pundit, to have supported our guy before. LOL. I can believe they think they have that kind of influence, or maybe just want to see if they do.

Seriously, I do worry that Markos and Jerome may be able to manipulate a certain percentage of the netroots, if they somehow limit opposing views at their two websites, or put forward information that supports their views in a way that overshadows what others are saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NCarolinawoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-04-06 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #72
79. blm, that is the way I read it.
Both of them support Warner, but they kind of throw a bone to the Feingold supporters to placate them. Something "doesn't compute" in the reasoning they put forth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
83. Why the mancrush on Warner?
He's milquetoast. 1% to the left of center. If we get the Whitehouse we need to undo all of Bush's damage and then try to make some progress.

A DLC toady like Mark Warner isn't going to focus on the needs of the middle class, just the needs of Wall Street.

The only thing going for Warner is that he won in a marginally red state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #83
87. Perhaps because Jerome Armstrong is a paid Warner adviser, and the "red
Edited on Sat Jun-10-06 09:40 AM by flpoljunkie
state thing." Am no fan of Mark Warner. He is one of DLC Al From's "our candidates--"Clinton, Vilsack, Warner, and Bayh"--listed in that order by Al From in an October 25th C-Span Washington Journal appearance.

I think giving Warner a prime time speaking slot where all Kos convention attendees will be present, reeks of favoritism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
86. C-Spans begins coverage at 12PM EST.
Edited on Sat Jun-10-06 09:34 AM by flpoljunkie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
88. Blogger Emptywheel reports on the Warner party at Kos Convention...
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/06/mark_warners_pa.html

Mark Warner's Party

by emptywheel

There's an underlying tension here at YearlyKos, as 2008 presidential candidates try to figure out how to engage with the blogosphere. The two biggest blogosphere darlings, Gore and Feingold, probably figured they were better off marketing a movie than preaching to the choir. But many of the other potential candidates did show up: Governors Richardson,Vilsack, Warner, and General Clark. (Senator Boxer is not a candidate, but if she were, her stock would be falling, because she endorsed Lieberman yesterday.) Those with real affinities have joined a panel. Richardson endorsed Jerome a Paris' (and Meteor Blades') energy plan. General Clark wowed a lot of people with his scientific knowledge (apparently he goofed on some scientific formula, though I didn't see it), and Vilsack will join Teacherken to talk about education this morning.

Mark Warner, though, chose a different approach. Millionaires, you see, can throw a mean party.

Warner rented out the entire top of the Stratosphere, with a great spread and bars at every corner. I've worked in and out of corporate America for 25 years (and personally witnessed Howard Dean's phenomenal $40 million burn). And I've never been to this kind of truly excessive party.
I don't know whether all the free food and liquor bought our loyalty. I actually never saw the candidate ... I was much more interested in meeting the folks from DKos. But who knows whether that was the point? One person suggested the real audience was Hillary, a giant pissing contest over who could blow money with the greatest abandon. "Hillary, money is no object."

Apparently, the blogosphere is the new Iowa. There are worse ways to travel.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 03:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC