Warner-Clark 2008?

[DeepModem Mom]

Just a thought. Good combo -- pick up Virginia and Arkansas?

[Midlodemocrat]

1. But is that enough?

We need states with more electoral votes to ensure a dem victory in 2008.

I think we should be focused on mainstream electability rather than picking up individual states. John Edwards didn't deliver North Carolina.

JMHO.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. I think they're good candidates for anywhere.

VA and Arkansas could have turned it before, and could be easier to turn than NC. But you're right, we shouldn't decide on a candidate based on individual states.

[Midlodemocrat]

8. I agree. I live in VA and I think Mark Warner

is highly electable. I wasn't too big of a Clark supporter in the beginning, but after reading stuff here on DU, I changed my mind about him.

Do you think Hillary is electable? I wonder because although she voted for the IWR, if the Big Dog is behind a run for the WH, I think she could do it. I think she could swing OH for us.

Just a thought.

[DeepModem Mom]

19. I'm not an anti-Hillary person, like some here. I don't know...

about her "electability." I did see her very skillfully make herself electable in upstate New York.

[Midlodemocrat]

21. I have always liked her.

and like I said, if the Big Dog has anything to do with a run of Hillary's for the WH, she could defintely be a force to reckon with.


Wouldn't it be fun to watch the FReepers foam at the mouth over that?

[DeepModem Mom]

25. Their worst nightmare -- Hillary in the WH. Yep, it would be fun! nt

[election_2004]

56. Um, no, it wouldn't....

If Hillary is the nominee in a national race, she will HURT Democratic candidates in red states who are running for Congress and local seats all the way down the ticket.

And then we can kiss goodbye the prospect of having Nancy Pelosi as the new House Speaker. :(

[FrenchieCat]

10. But who says that Virginia and Arkansas would be the only states

picked up by this combo....I could also see New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada (Clark is popular there), and Iowa coming into our column. The Native American Population of those three states very much favor Clark who was endorsed by some of the largest Native American Newspapers during Primary '04 (which is why he came in 2nd, without benefit of free publicity, in Arizona, New Mexico and North Dakota in '04).

However, I would prefer a Clark/Warner ticket.....or even a Clark/Sanchez ticket.

[Midlodemocrat]

14. I was stating, and the OP agreed, that I don't think we should

hitch our star to a candidate based on our perception that he could bring in a particular state. Edwards couldn't deliver NC. Not stating that Warner/Clark COULDN'T deliver, just saying that two small states like VA and AR aren't enough.

[DeepModem Mom]

18. True!

[Texas_Kat]

2. Turn it around

Clark-Warner.

We've already tried the Bush/Cheney model (top of the ticket with no foreign policy experience) and look where we are now.

Warner would make a credible VP choice.

[DeepModem Mom]

6. Yeah -- I worked for Clark in '04. I love him. There's just a lot of...

press about Warner's proven success right now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. how bout we get over the 2006 hump first?

I know I know this is a sport for some but we need to get over that hump first, that is our price right now... 2006

[DeepModem Mom]

7. I agree -- I was just sort of pipe-dreaming for the future. nt

[Midlodemocrat]

9. I agree, but I don't think there is any harm

in sort of 'musing out loud'. I do that a lot, personally.

[nickshepDEM]

5. I like the way you think...

Though Ill take Warner/Anybody. :)

[SteppingRazor]

11. I like Warner/Clark or Clark/Warner for 2008...

I especially value it not just becasue it's a ticket of Southern-based, middle-of-the-road Dems (which, let's face it, is the only way we've won the White House in modern history), but also becasue it avoids removing Dems from the Senate to run for the White House.
With the Seante as close as it is, we need to keep every Dem we can in there, to get close to a majority.

[DeepModem Mom]

12. Good point!

[Clark2008]

47. Clark's not middle-of-the-road, though.

He's very liberal.

He's just PERCEIVED as middle because of his military background. That's why he should TOP the ticket. Elected by the middle to govern from the left.

[phylla]

13. Warner/Clark is great, Clark/Warner is greater

If Mark Warner serves as our VP for 8 years, he would get the needed foreign policy credentials that he lacks now. Then.. wah-lah! President Warner for the 8 years subsequent. Mark is only 50 years old now.

I am truly torn between these candidates. I love and believe in them both.

Am I a Clarkie first and a Virginian second? or the other way around?
This is really tough one.

MArk Warner is the only other candidate that I would even consider. General Clark worked hard here in Virginia to elect Tim Kaine.

Who will be the recipient of my limited donations?

The Warner people are already asking for contributions to his PAC and, of course, I support WesPAC.

No new carpet for me in the next couple of years.

But I s'pose that it is a GOOD problem to have. :-)

As I wrote before, this is tough.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Clark -Warner makes much more sense. Here's why

Slightly rewritten from a post on a different thread:

Warner is impressive. So is Clark, and Clark has much more seasoning than Warner in dealing with international issues and national security, the chinks in Democrats armor that Republicans ALWAYS exploit. Clark has been a player on the World stage and Warner is beginning to be a player on the National stage.

It's early but Warner is a rising star, agreed. He doesn't have much experience though, however good a man and Governor he may be. One four year term is not a lot of experience. Warner would balance out Clark perhaps because Warner's area of demonstrated expertise is domestic at the State level. Put Warner on the ticket as VP and you still put Virginia solidly in play. Both Clark and Warner can campaign well in the South overall.

But here is the kicker. Warner is 10 years younger than Clark. A Clark-Warner ticket presents us with a good chance to control the White House for 16 years. We win with Clark/Warner in 2008. We win with Clark/Warner in 2012. Then we win with Warner/? in 2016 and 2020. Maybe Warner/Obama, it's still early. Eight years as Vice President will fill out Warner's resume making him a very formidable candidate for President in 2016. By the time Warner leaves the White House 8 years later Republican dominance of Presidential politics will be about as relevant historically as the Whigs period of domination during the early to mid 1800's.

[DeepModem Mom]

16. Good thinking, Tom. nt

[Tatiana]

22. I love your thinking. This makes perfect sense. n/t

[Zynx]

24. I like it.

Unfortunately, they may run against eachother next time and may create some bad blood. Let's hope not.

[Awsi Dooger]

31. I think that's flawed analysis

Let's say you've got a football team with two excellent quarterbacks, but six or ten years different in age. You don't automatically play the older guy and assume the younger one will stick around and be the successor down the road. You are forced to pick between the two and play the best guy now. I know I'll get the 49er example but in that case the older guy was also the superior QB, no matter how good Steve Young was.

I like Clark but no chance he fits better atop the 2008 ticket than Warner. Virginia is critical and Warner makes at least twice as much impact on the vote there as presidential nominee not VP.

Plus the 16 year scenario is mostly a myth. Go ahead and name a single time in modern history that's played out. Once a party has been in office two terms the out party has a slight advantage, and after three terms the restlessness apparently soars in exponential proportion.

And one more thing: Warner's greatest impact on Virginia would be immediate, the first cycle on the ticket. No one from Virginia has been on the ticket in decades. Once you stick him on the ticket as VP that curiosity and favorite son aspect fades to semi-blase attitude in future cycles. That's what hurt Gore's chances in Tennessee in 2000.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. You say flawed but we see things differently

"no chance he fits better atop the 2008 ticket" is a foolish statement in my opinion to say about Clark. Partisan as I am I would never be that emphatic. We are both talking opinions here afterall. I will grant you that probably Warner/Clark runs stronger in Virginia than Clark/Warner. So what? We can only win Virginia once afterall. If we win it 53% to 47% that doesn't give us less electoral votes than winning Virginia 55% to 45%. I am as confident as any of us can be looking into a crystal ball that either ticket wins Virginia in 2008.

And Virginia is important but Virginia is not critical, as much as I would like to win Virginia, which I think we will either way. Arizona and New Mexico and Colorado and Nevada and Iowa and Arkansas and Tennessee etc., all of those states are important also as is Ohio, as is holding onto Pennsylvania and Oregon and New Hampshire and so forth. Clark would run strong in Virginia even without Warner though he can run stronger there with him.

I'm sorry but the fact that Warner on top of the ticket increases our already good chance of pulling in Virginia does not overshadow what I believe are Clark's many advantages over Warner as a Presidential candidate in most of the nation. I think Clark is the better guy for our nation, he's not just the older guy. Outside of Virginia Warner plays as a potentially interesting ex one term Governor of a medium sized State with little experience in National politics and almost none in international relations and national security. I think Clark plays far better outside Virginia in many more States than Warner does. We can disagree obviously, but my argument is not "flawed". I think Warner needs those eight years as VP on the world stage to get elected President, that is the main reason why the order works out better with a Clark/Warner ticket than the other way around.

Of course Warner has national press now, he earned it, but the Virginia election was two days ago. Warner is out of office now, he will not hold the spotlight. Carter, Clinton, even Dean, all had multiple terms as Governor to point to when they ran for President. Warner's credentials are good but they are thin in a time when the world is viewed as a very dangerous place. Warner is a good man who maybe should be President some day. Getting the VP slot in 2008 would help him reach that goal.

[Zynx]

43. Carter was a one term governor.

He only served from '71-'75. Look it up.

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. I trust you. I'll just stand corrected. Thanks n/t

[Jai4WKC08]

55. Carter had 8 years in state senate before elected gov n/t

[Jai4WKC08]

53. If Warner doesn't run for Senate in '06

There will be a lot of feeling that he chose not to because he was afraid he couldn't win. It may or may not be true, but it will hurt him just the same. Wouldn't be as big a factor for a VP nominee.

Just a thought.

Personally, I like Clark/Warner all over Warner/Clark. Partly because foreign policy & national defense are important to me and Warner doesn't have any experience there. Partly because Warner is too DLC-conservative for my tastes and has yet to express a position on the war and a number of other related issues--I will be very surprised, pleasantly so, if he's much different from Clinton/Biden/Bayh--but in any case, it's too important for him to stay quiet about just because it's politically expedient.

But mostly because I've come to trust Clark's character and Warner is an unknown in that respect.

[FrenchieCat]

17. But in my opinion, that ticket should be turned around

....to reflect Clark/Warner. Why?

Because I still see the CIC as being the one needing the foreign policy/national security experience, and the "working with the legislature" one as President of the Senate to affect domestic reforms.

I have always resented that fact that Wes Clark is always mentioned as everyone's VP who are in need of a patch for that big Foreign policy hole in their resume......although it is clear that it is Clark who could select just about anybody as his VP to round him out on domestic policies....although he does have some domestic policy experience, as well as an Economics masters, has worked as an investment banker for the past 5 years, has worked as a White House Fellows in the Office of Budget Management, did handle a large budget as NATO Commander, as well as CIC of the Southern Command, and did deal with Education and schools, and health care, etc....notwithstanding that he was a Rhodes Scholar. It is Clark that was wounded an nearly lost his life in Vietnam.....and it is Clark who is older than Warner. It is also Clark's tax program that was touted as the best during the '04 primaries--
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html

Remember, it is Foreign policies that affect Domestic policies, and that the money that we have spent in Iraq could have been spent on domestic policies.....that has been proven a fact when it was revealed that FEMA had been defunded in favor of increasing funding for Iraq via the Homeland Security Budget.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/09/01/levee_fund...
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/20...
Without security issues addressed forcefully, domestic issues take a backseat...which is what the 2004 general election proved. Voters' treasure physical safety first and foremost.

Consider how the attacks in Jordan have wiped up every other news yesterday.

Considering that our defense budget has now been increased to 490+ Billion per year, a budget filled with pork and a great source of drain on our treasury of monies that SHOULD be available for domestic programs....having a slew of domestic programs to offer and campaign on .....but having no approach to fund them short of increasing taxes (still not popular or appealing rethoric)is not an affective election strategy for Democrats, IMO.


The advantage that Wes Clark has over most other potential Dem candidates is that he doesn't have to "prove" himself "tough" on national security and defense....and in fact is the one Dem that carries the kind of gravitas that would allow American voters a real conversation on Defense pork and how to trim it.
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pi...

Whether we like it or not, the Republican's trump card is security (the fact that the WH can and most likely will orchestrate whatever they feel they could get away with to place security on the forefront of voters' minds right before a presidential election cannot be underestimated--a fabricated "attack" from Syria perhaps....no matter how badly they may be faring at the moment).....
http://www.alternet.org/election04/20853 /
http://www.fpa.org/newsletter_info2477/newsletter_info....

The Democratic trump card is domestic policies.....this is where the Dems are strong according to all polls and conventional wisdom.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=269&conte...

So if I have a choice of offering up a candidate that could moot the trump card of the opponent, or a candidate that would offer what we are known to be strong on anyways....personally, I go with strenghtening our weakness as opposed to re-enforcing our already strong point. Voters want BOTH safety and good domestic policies...

In the end, it will be all about strategy....but certainly, I want to think out of the box, and having a candidate that offers new approaches to old problems is something that I believe would work better than offering the same old solutions and trumpeting a 1993 candidate strategy--1993 being a time that we were not at war or hated by most of the world.

Certainly, many Democrats would agree that defunding pork in the defense budget, if offered by the right spokesman, certainly could alleviate some of our treasury woes and the fact that domestic social programs are being cut to the bone as we speak.

So I don't really see why Warner is so much more attractive than Clark for the presidency slot.

2008 will not be 1993 redux....and Wes Clark's qualifications makes him a doable and an unexpected potential powerhouse and the offering of new ideas and a different strategy from all previously used.

That's my story!

Go to my sig link and sign up to make a difference in an issue that is relevant today.....not in 2008! Go! (Please?)

[DeepModem Mom]

20. You make a good case. (I worked for Clark in '04.) nt

[Auntie Bush]

23. Clark/Warner would get my vote. In fact Clark/????? would too.

That's because I trust his judgment 100%.

[kwolf68]

26. Not both

One of them yes...But not both. Right now Gore is still my guy. Gore/Clark or Gore/Warner would be fine by me.

[Totally Committed]

27. Yes to Wes.

No to Warner. He's DLC, and he's Republican-friendly.

"Still, Warner's wide acclaim is based on compromising with Republicans, not defying them. As he assesses his chances for his party's 2008 presidential nomination, Warner has toured the nation urging Democrats to reclaim 'the sensible center' and become competitive again in the South."

http://tinyurl.com/9b9od

No thanks. I'll pass. I want TWO Democrats in the White House next time.

TC

[Ignacio Upton]

34. Republicans control the state legislature with a veto-proof margain

How is he NOT able to work with them when he has no choice? Hopefully the beginning of a realignment will give the House of Delegates or the State Senate to us next time.

[Totally Committed]

37. Don't care. He didn't have to sign on with the DLC, and

spout all the centrist bullshit he does. The only thing being in the middle of the road gets you is run over. Democrats have to learn that lesson, and reject anyone who suggests a "middle" way or a "third" way. I am sick and tired of poll-driven, self-intersted, only-if-it-gets-me re-elected politicians. I want a candidate that is more interested in what the people need rather than his or her own viablilty. And, anyone who belongs to an organization headed by Al From can just bite me.

I hope that clears that up.

TC

[flpoljunkie]

40. Al From:Warner is one of "our candidates": Clinton, Vilsack, Warner & Bayh

And From listed them in that order.

Hear it yourself. It is about 34:15 into the tape.

Al From, Founder & CEO, Democratic Leadership Council
Al From, Founder and CEO of the Democratic Leadership Council, discusses the future of the Democratic party.
10/25/2005: WASHINGTON, DC: 45 min.

http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=Al+From&image1.x=0&image1.y=0&image1=Submit

[Totally Committed]

49. Thanks for the backup! eom

[AndreaCG]

28. Got the order wrong IMO

[billbuckhead]

29. Warner/Richardson is an invincible ticket in normal times

Just like Edwards would have been very hard to beat in 2004 if we weren't engaged in some Orwellian perpetual war.

It might not do us any good to win and not send the right people. When we elect a new American government they will be soon be ambushed and terrorized by the neocons. That's why I trust the ClintonClark ticket.

[Totally Committed]

38. Yeah... invinceable.

We could call them the "Beige and Beiger" ticket.

Get real.

TC

[Guaranteed]

30. Not interested in Warner in the least. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. Yawn, one from column A and one from column B

Warner, Clark, Bayh, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Biden, take your pick.

You're all just tossing names around and thinking of states to pick up instead of ways to inspire people.

Get a simple but inspiring vision and then figure out who really believes in it and can "sell" with utmost sincerity.

[Guaranteed]

33. "Vision" is the key word.

Leadership is the other one.

[Totally Committed]

39. BullGooseLoony...

We don't always see eye-to-eye, but there are moments when what you say is sheer genius. This is one of those moments.

TC

[Hyernel]

36. I'm in!!!

Need to know more about Warner though. Being the flavor of the moment doesn't make someone a President.

Clark/Warner

Hillary for Senate majority Leader
Bill Clinton for United Nations chief.

Hyernel for NASA Administrator.

[FogerRox]

41. yawn- no its not- Conyers and Boxer makes tons more sense-- They are leade

that got spine, they got balls, well ovaries too. Quite frankly Boxer has more balls than Warner any day

[Zynx]

46. Do you think they would be able to win state like IA, OH, MO, and FL?

I don't see it happening. As a matter of fact, I could see us losing WI and MN with that ticket.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. Not necessarily

If they have an attractive vision and the ability to communicate it, it doesn't matter that much who they are.

I'm old enough to remember 1960, when commentators were saying seriously that Protestant America was not ready for a Catholic president.

And remember, back in 1988, Jesse Jackson won the Michigan primary.

Don't count anyone out because of their ethnicity or gender or any other factors that are irrelevant to being president.

Look at their vision, look at their way of presenting themselves, look at the way crowds respond to them.

[Zynx]

51. I wasn't refering to gender and race. I was refering to ideology.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

52. According to your take on the situation,

Wellstone should never have won in Minnesota, Feingold should never have won in Wisconsin, and Harkin should never have won in Iowa.

[JABBS]

42. warner-biden

I think you need a bulldog as your veep candidate. Biden is the best choice.

[nickshepDEM]

48. Ive actually been thinking about that ticket a lot lately.

[Clark2008]

45. Flip it.

Clark/Warner.

Clark's got the commander-in-chef and foreign policy experience like president's need and Warner's got the more executive experience VPs need as president of the Senate.

[DanCa]

54. I like it but electorally speaking would that give us the win?

Math wise that is. I dont know the electoral college well enough without looking at the map