Got my first dose of Warner last night, and as a Clark supporter

[skipos]

I have to say I'm glad that I now have two '08 hopefuls I am excited about.

(I realize the election is year away and '06 is the focus now. I also realize that despite our successes in VA, NJ and CA in '05, many here feel that we can never win elections so there is no point in talking about them. I also realize that many here will never consider any candidate but Kerry or Hillary or Clark or whoever. If so, please feel free to ignore this thread!)

Anyway... I think I am different than many DUers in that I am not nessesarily looking to support the dem candidate who I feel represents my views the best. Ultimately, I will support the candidate who I feel is the most progressive but electable of the bunch. If I wanted to vote for someone who I really agree with, without any consideration of electablity, I'd write myself in. ;-)

I have been interested in Warner for a few weeks now from what I have read about his views and his undeniable successes in Virginia. I also liked the fact that he would definitely carry a red state that we don't normally win. If he won all the states Kerry won, and added Virginia, he would only need 5 more electoral votes. If he was able to win either of the states that Gore won but Kerry lost (Iowa or New Mexico) he'd be president. I am well aware that the republican candidate will factor into this, but I think it is worth considering.

I think there are a number of reasons why, in the last 30 years, our three best electoral performances from a first time candidates have come from the south (Clinton-AK, Carter-GA, Gore-TN) and our three worst have come from the north (Kerry-MA, Dukakis-MA, Mondale-MN). And in the last 30 years, presidential candidates have won their homestate about 90% of the time. Personally, I don't care if where our candidate comes from regionally, I just hope to have a candidate that comes from a red state that we normally don't win, the more electoral votes the better. Warner qualifies.

I think one of the reasons that a senator hasn't been elected president in about 40 years is the fact that voting records are so easy for the other side to distort. "So and so voted against body armour for our troops!" "So and so voted to raise taxes 378 times!" In my opinion, governors, especially ones with such high approval ratings, deserve extra consideration.

So I finally got to see Warner in action on Cspan last night. He was speaking and taking questions from an audience of democrats, very different from a real debate, so take my reactions with a grain of salt.

I think the time is right for a politician who doesn't sound like one. I think one of the reasons 20 million people voted for Ross Perot, even though he had never been elected to anything, is the fact that he didn't sound like your average politician. In the 60 minutes I saw of Warner, he was able to capture some of that non-politician spirit, to speak *with* the audience instead of *at* them.

He came across as someone who said what he felt, not what he thought the audience wanted to hear. He even addressed the fact that he had views that the audience my not share with him (guns for one) and he was comfortable with that. He was able to easily answer questions in a clear manner, without notes, using his experiences in VA as examples.

He said many things that I really agree with, but this one stuck out to me. Every candidate likes to say they will be a "uniter" but I have never heard a candidate explain how. Warner was able to point to the fact that, in addition to successfully working with all the VA republicans, he kept many republicans that he could have replaced because they were doing their job well. What a difference from this administration's policy of surrounding itself with yesmen. On a side note, Warner's strategy reminds me of the strategy addressed in "Team of Rivals : The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln," a book I have looking to buy.

He strikes me as someone who rises above the political name calling, but has no problem defending himself.

He strikes me as someone who not only has an agenda, but considers how to work with democrats and republicans alike to make it happen. Again, what a difference from this administration. Good luck getting anything done in the next three years George!

And he looks really good for his age by the way.

My only criticism is that I wish he would relax a bit and speak a bit slower, a la Clinton. Alas, a lot can happen in three years, and I hope more candidates pop up that are as solid and electorally sound as Warner. I don't expect everyone here to agree with me. Just thought I'd give my first impressions of him. :hi:

[catmother]

1. i totally agree with you. i watched him on C-span a few weeks

ago and i was impressed mostly with the things that you mentioned. also my husband who is a republican said warner would get his vote. and yes we need someone who's electible. we need to take this country back.

[ruggerson]

2. He's the real deal

and as you noted, comes across as very genuine and authentic. The assholes on the right will be hard pressed to "Kerryize" or "Goreize" him as a politician who sways with the wind.

He has core convictions and it shows.

[Kahuna]

3. I consider it a blessing to have TWO potential candidates of their

caliber.

[JayWyss]

4. Governor Warner has done well for us in Virginia

What I like about Warner, as a Virginian, is that he really does represent the future of our state - telecommunications (If you didn't get why he went "Cha-ching" when the cell phone went off now you know...the cell phone business is where he made his fortune).

I think he can relay that to the whole country. He's so right when he says it's not about democrat/republican or who gets who on what. It's about future versus the past, about if an idea is a good idea not where the idea came from. The man is an optimist and is someone who is looking forward, not backward.

[kansasblue]

5. I like Warner but..................

isn't his experience way too thin for Pres? Maybe VP. But his first elected office was VA Gov. That's only 4 years. No second term.

[ruggerson]

6. Carter had one term, Bush had one and a half terms

and Warner is far smarter than Bush and a better politician than Carter.

Plus he's an outsider. He hasn't spent thirty years in Washington.

[snowbear]

11. Kansas~

Mistah Bu$h only had two more years as a Governor than Mark Warner has had.

Difference is.. Bush sucked at it, Warner is one of the top 5 Governer's in the nation. Bush, even with dismal approval ratings could be re-elected in oil rich Texas. Governor Warner, with his 70-something approval rating can't run a second term.

Check out Governor Warner's appearance in NH on C-Span if you haven't yet. :o =WOW= :o The NASCAR Democrat is going to knock some socks off come primary time.

[nickshepDEM]

7. Putting my obvious bias aside... Great rant.

A lot of the things you mentioned are also what won me over into his corner.

Everyone has their time -- I believe Warner's is 2008.

[Gloria]

8. I caught him on CSpan and was actually disappointed....

he seemed very wired and jerky in his body language, and when he grins he reminds me of Jim Carrey. I was really unimpressed by his presence and his rushed speech. He has a lisp that began to "stand out" the more I listened. Something just didn't seem to jell in terms of his presentation skills....

[Texas_Kat]

9. Imagine my surprise to find that he is NOT an "outsider"

November 21, 2005

A New Warner?

For those who have closely followed VA Gov. Mark Warner's (D) career in the Commonwealth, his address to NH state Sen. Dems on 11/18 (rebroadcast on C-Span's Road to the White House last night) offered a few surprises. Well one, actually: his forthright acknowledgment of -- and pride in -- being a Dem.

Yes, he sounded his usual Warnerian themes about the importance of getting past the old political labels, but we cannot recall the last time Warner touted his credentials as an ex-DNC staffer AND former Hill staffer. Best, though, was telling the Yankee audience: "I'm not actually from VA" and then going on to explain his New England roots.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2005/11/a_new_warner.html

Coupled with his DLC roots and this bit of news, I would call him an ultimate 'insider'.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Then just add a sprinkle of

Bildeberg meeting this year, and we're "good to go"!

[Texas_Kat]

12. Nope, Warner's definitely not for me.