Mark Warner raises $2.5 million at Tysons Corner fundraiser

[DeepModem Mom]

WP: Warner Prospers In Larger Endeavor
Tysons Fundraiser Nets $2.5 Million
By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 7, 2005; Page B09


More than 600 people collectively paid $2.5 million last night to gather among ice sculptures of the Golden Gate Bridge and the Statue of Liberty with Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner (D) -- the man they think might be the next president of the United States.

A year ago, Warner celebrated his 50th birthday at the same Ritz-Carlton hotel in Tysons Corner with a record-breaking, 1,000-person soiree that netted $2 million for his statewide political operation.

Last night, he outdid himself, once again breaking the one-day record for fundraising in Virginia, according to his political advisers. This year, President Bush raised $2.1 million at a McLean fundraiser for Republican gubernatorial candidate Jerry W. Kilgore.

The largess of Warner's wealthy friends is headed out of state as part of his nascent, if not yet acknowledged, campaign for the presidency in 2008....

***

The "Taste of America Gala Celebration" featured food from parts of the country rich with culture and electoral votes: California rolls from the Golden State, fajitas from the Southwest, cheesecake from New York, clam chowder from New England and desserts from the South, including peach cobbler and New Orleans beignets....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/06/AR2005120601855.html

[HillDem]

1. Good sign for 08

I think money is the only reason Hillary could possible beat him in a primary.

[Totally Committed]

2. DLC Affiliation = $$$, and lots of it. (n/t)

TC

[Clark2008]

20. I wish I could afford to give someone nearly $5,000

Of course, it wouldn't be him - but that's the average on this gala. Of course, my giving someone, individually, $5,000 is against campaign finance laws.

Who were these 600 people and what companies do they represent?

[SoFlaJet]

3. I was watching Mark Warner on Charlie Rose

the other night and it sure is nice to hear a candidate with that"vision thing".I haven't heard an original idea out of Bush since I originally thought about looking at possibly voting for him back in 99.That's the truth folks-I was considering him when I first became aware of him because I had young children in school.He had a good rep on education-don't believe the hype. What he has done instead is make me a devout democrat forever-never again will I ever vote for a republican.I like Warner a lot-and I'm pretty good at picking 'em.

[SCDem]

14. Also all the TX education hype got exposed

I'm sure you already know about this. But with administrators not counting children who were dropping out... padding test scores and the like.

But congratulations on your democratic ways!

[skipos]

19. There are many things to like about Warner,

in my opinion (I admit there are plenty of DUers who disagree will with me, you will likely hear from them shortly.) In addition to his excellent track record in VA, I find his ability to accomplish a lot in a red state very appealing. It is getting uglier and uglier in DC, and I hope our next democratic president can find away of handling repubs so he can get things done. I also find him very down to earth and very easy to understand. He knows when he has a position that may be unpopular and he is comfortable with that. And while our dem nominee needs to do a lot more than cross his fingers and hope to cherry pick a couple of red states (something else Warner has recognized) the fact that Warner would realistically flip VA is a bit of a plus.

[FreedomAngel82]

94. Yes

He's a family guy who works well with others and in a q&a on CSPAN I saw of him he said he was the first in his family to go to college. I think he said he wanted to be a lawyer but it didn't work out. I believe it was Lincoln who appointed enemies and people who disagreed with him politically in his cabinet cause they could get the job done and I think that's what Warner does too. I remember the day after Kaine won the race in Virgina that Rhandi talked about it and she said that Virgina was the number one state with the economy. Does anybody know about that?

[Clark2008]

22. But, what's his vision of Iraq?

He hasn't said.

[SoFlaJet]

30. I'm pretty sure

that it's a lot better than stay the course unless the polls are saying I'm about to lose the House and get impeached-which we all know is the Bush/Cheney policy.

[AmericanDream]

34. He'll let us know when the time is right to have a vision of Iraq. n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

92. He's growing on me

Yes, he's DLC but so is Kerry. I look at the actual canidate and what they have to say. I have heard he is pro-choice and for LGBT rights which is nice too. :) If Kerry doesn't run again in 2008 I will support Feingold and/or Warner. I would love them two as a team!!

[snowbear]

95. Kewl, and would you also support..

Warner and Clark if Feingold or Kerry don't run? :hug:

[1932]

4. Who is giving this guy that much money and why?

[win_in_06]

5. Northern Virginians are, because he has done a great job as Gov

and has a political future on the national scene.

Oh, and Northern Virginians have a lot of cash.

[Totally Committed]

7. He's taken "the pledge", and joined "the cause"...

the corporations will find a way to make sure he's fully funded, so that none of the pesky Democratic Party "helping the least among us" bullshit gets in the way of owning whoever is in the White House. It's an investment in making sure their bottom line is his bottom line.

DLC affiliation = $$$

TC

[SaveElmer]

15. Yes and I'm sure...

The Republicans are gonna forgo any such donations...

[Totally Committed]

39. My point exactly! Thank you for making it!

The DLC and the Republicans are not that far apart, after all, are they?

TC

[SaveElmer]

42. Yes so lets disarm and continue with the type leadership

We have today. No debate on how great of a governor Warner has been, no debate over his sincerity...hailed as the conquering here...but then...nope he took corporate money so he is unacceptable...

Pretty naive and self destructive strategy...

[Le Taz Hot]

46. LOL!

Bada Bing! Excellent response.

[AmericanDream]

8. Most of these ppl are his friends from the business community. nt

[1932]

9. What industries? And what do they want?

[HillDem]

10. Warner made his money

in the telecom business.

[AmericanDream]

11. Well, he made his millions in the business community...

He was involved with cell phone and other communications ventures. And, in business, you obviously make contacts, which if treated well can always come in handy ... like this fundraiser. I don't think a regular person would pay 5000 bucks to see warner (or any regional figure.. he is not a national commodity yet)... it was a b'day gala, so there were obviously friends and family involved. I don't see that as that big an achievement. If you have wealthy friends and business contacts... it is easy to raise that kind of money. However, the test will be if he can go out there and convince other Americans, the ones out of his personal circle, to contribute to his campaign.

[Zynx]

65. FDR was seen as being close to the business community when he

ran in '32. Of course, that rapidly changed, but it is worth noting.

[Zynx]

13. There is a good deal of big money in VA.

Northern VA is loaded with wealthy business types that have appreciated Warner's government even though he raised taxes.

[AX10]

43. Just like Scandianvia. The business community does not mind...

the higher tax rates so long as businesses/the economy is successful.

[Zynx]

50. There are the doctrinare types that care about tax increases regardless

whether or not they are good for the economy. My father has some friends in the investment business that always want ever lower tax rates. Those who are wise and understand that a healthy society is crucial for a healthy economy, and indeed the maintenance of the overall capitalist system and by extension their business interests, will support tax increases when they are clearly needed.

[AX10]

63. Capitalists such as Warren Buffett and myself understand..

the importance for balancing priorities. Higher taxes will have to come regardless of who is in power.

[AmericanDream]

6. Well, so he has the wealthy by his side to start with... good..

he'll need that to beat Hillary. 2.5 million divided by 600 is approx. 4167... interesting.

[Zynx]

12. They said "more" than 600 so it could have been an even 4000 a piece

meaning they and their wives or husbands both gave the max of 2000 a head.

EDIT: I read on that one can pay up to $5,000 to a PAC which is something I didn't know.

[AmericanDream]

16. Umm..

It didn't say 600 couples.. it said 600 people and last I checked husbands and wives are still separate individuals. And, each would have to pay 4000 to make it a total of 2.5 million. Nevertheless, that's unimportant stuff.

[DancingBear]

17. As for who is giving the cash - a LOT of ex-Republicans

I can't say how I know this, but I know it (almost) first-hand and it is accurate.

[skipos]

21. I hope General Clark is one of them!

:)

[AmericanDream]

23. LOL... wait till the Clark groupies go after you.... nt

[Clark2008]

26. "Go after"?

Naw... just correcting the poster's "facts."

Clark was a registered Independent until he registered with the Democratic Party in Arkansas in 2002.

[AmericanDream]

33. I was just kidding ;)

[Clark2008]

36. I know.

And I wasn't mad.

I just have this visceral need to defend anti-Clark memes. The press spreads those lies enough. :hi:

[Clark2008]

25. General Clark is not an ex-Republican

and I doubt he's giving money to Warner.

[skipos]

29. OK, so Clark voted for Reagan but wasn't a republican

I was just making a joke because I knew the pro-Clark/anti-Warner people were going to be here. It was just a harmless joke! I voted for Clark in 2004. :)

[Clark2008]

32. I'm not so much "anti-Warner" as I just have some

serious questions regarding him.

He has no known stance on Iraq and he's too cozy with the corporists.

I wouldn't mind seeing him as the VP candidate with Clark, though, because I think that ticket would kick Republican ass.

And - I've voted Republican a lot of times (in many cases, there are no Democrats running for offices around here) and I'm not a Republican. I'm a registered Independent, if you want to know the truth. The point is that he was never a Republican in name - he only voted that way 20-something years ago. He's learned the error in those ways. ;)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. Do you really think that wealthy northern Virginians would give money

to someone who was proposing the drastic changes of course that this country desperately needs after 8 years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush Sr., 8 years of appeasement of the Republicans, and 8 years of the disaster that is BushBoy?

'Fraid not. Those "wealthy northern Virginians" by definition have been doing just fine in the past 25 years. I have no doubt that they see Warner as a harmless, telegenic supporter of the status quo who will tweak the system a little bit to make life more comfortable for affluent suburbanites but won't rock the boat.

[SoFlaJet]

28. Lydia oh Lydia

(didn't Groucho once sing that?) It's a National election he's looking(very good)at running for.I know you already know that.Please Hillary stay in the senate-don't make me vote against you.But you are exactly what the GOP wants to happen.Don't do it to us-or yourself and especially to Bill and Chelsea

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. I doubt that the Republicanites would mind running against Warner either

"Hey kids, I've got an idea! Let's put up our telegenic empty suit businessman against their telegenic empty suit businessman and make sure that our guy doesn't do anything to offend the fat cats!"

[Progressive420]

67. I am a Citizen of VA and I have seen the things he has done in this state

and I tell you to do some research before you call Mark Warner a "telegenic empty suit businessman" given a chance I think he could be a great president and if not great at least a large improvement over what we have now.

[skipos]

75. Hey, I like Clark and Warner too!

Feel free to drop on in these Warner threads more often, they can get kind of ugly. We could use your input!

[Zynx]

35. If you expect broad support for a political revolution in this country...

you are sadly mistaken. It takes dramatic events to rouse Americans to decisive action.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. I'm not advocating "instant socialism"

I'm advocating being as bold in fixing the country as the Republicans have been in wrecking it.

There was no "broad support" for what the Republicans did, especially not in the past five years. Even Reagan won more by calculated show biz charm than by support for his policies.

[Zynx]

52. It is a grave mistake to view the "Reagan Revolution" as being that

radical. In truth, he changed relatively little. Sure, he shifted the tax burdens around, but there had been so many exemptions and deductions previously that the effective rates had been much lower than they appeared.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. Shifted the tax burdens, revved up the Cold War,

invaded Grenada, meddled in the Nicaraguan elections and sponsored a guerilla force against an internationally recognized government, supported bloodthirsty military dictators in El Salvador, broke the air traffic controllers' union and emboldened anti-labor elements throughout the country, built up the military to obscene levels and wasted billions on Star Wars while our infrastructure was beginning to crumble (as it continues to do today), allowed the destruction of the family farm and by extension the small towns of rural America by not helping farmers crippled by usurious interest rates and low crop prices, coddled the fundie right, demonized the poor, ridiculed people with environmental concerns, preached the gospel of privatization, cut aid to students other than ROTC...

If you think "all" Reagan did was shift the tax burdens, you either don't remember his era or don't care about anything but your own wallet.

And I haven't even started on Bush I and Bush II.

[Zynx]

62. I could point to plenty of things Democrats did that weren't particularly

progressive. My point is that the "damage" Reagan did to the New Deal and social programs is vastly overstated and he wasn't the conservative revolutionary that both the right and left wings give him credit for. Sure, he was a horrible man who supported nasty regimes in El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and elsewhere, but an FDR of the right he was not. The social programs stayed largely intact and there was no lasting retrenchment of any significant programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Department of Education, etc...

There have been very few instances in history where a president is able to come in and bring about dramatic changes. That is my major point here. Most of what goes on is "tweaking". Very little revolutionary has ever come out of our electoral system and it certainly won't happen in 2008 unless we have some utter disaster economically before then. Like it or not, economics drive politics more than anything.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. Geeze, Reagan's moves weren't drastic?

I don't know what you would consider drastic. He sure laid the foundation for Bush Sr. and later Bush Jr. to wreck the nation further.

The whole mood of the country changed after Reagan had been in office a couple of years.

[Zynx]

72. Compared to what could have happened, no.

They may seem drastic to you, but in the grand scheme of things they were most certainly not. They were merely incremental changes. Bush Sr. didn't do all that much either. Indeed, he increased taxes on the wealthy, albeit at the urging of Democrats. Shrub has attempted major changes to social programs such as Social Security, but fortunately has not gotten that far.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

81. "Compared to what could have happened"

Yeah, I suppose he could have instituted out-and-out fascism, but the whole mood of the country changed, and not in a good way.

The worst thing he did was accelerate the military buildup, spending more on the military than all the previous presidents combined. In doing so, he made sure there was "no money" for domestic programs, and he repeatedly told people that they were too heavily taxed and that government was bad. There continues to be "no money" available for anything but the military.

Sure, change was incremental, but the Reaganites had a dark vision of where they wanted to take the country, they talked about it in deceptive terms, and as of 2005, they have come a long way toward achieving it.

Reagan prepared the masses psychologically for what Bush has done. The reason there has been so little outcry against Bush is that the American people have been psychologically primed to accept these measures over the past 25 years.

Do the Democrats have a vision of where THEY want the country to be in 25 years? Do they have a road mapped out to get there? Do they have a plan for repairing the tremendous damage that the Republicans have done, or are they just thinking that they'll figure out what to do once they find the right telegenic candidate to set up in front of the cameras in 2008? Do some of them even think that what the Republicans have done is damaging?

[Zynx]

85. With all that said, it is not as though they managed to reverse 60 years

of growth in the government's social welfare programs. They merely halted it, cut a few, but overall it largely remained intact. The way I view it is that we have gone through a conservative era and it will soon end since it has lasted basically since 1968 and a liberal trend will take hold again with the natural ebb and flow of American politics. However, there will not be anything approaching revolutionary change. If either party pushes it, they will be defeated.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

86. But will half-hearted measures--

"Let's drive the country off a cliff at 30 miles per hour instead of at 60 miles per hour"--do the trick, after all the damage the Bushies have done?

There is deep disillusionment with politics in this country. Is this not an indication that "business as usual" is either annoying or boring people into apathy?

[DancingBear]

38. Ding! We have a winner!

I live here in NoVa, and I know who was at that fundraiser.

Believe it - the folks throwing money at Warner would throw Howard Dean off a cliff.

[Pithy Cherub]

55. What are the chances that money was bundled

so that it would create the illusion of lots of well funded supporters and create a buzz so people will believe he can fundraise that kind of money often? :shrug: Hmmmmmm. Just sayin'. Until Warner can collect money outside of Virginia, it is just a multi-million dollar blip on the radar. New York can do that for a tea and in California that's a power biscuit at the Beverly Hills McDonald's. And in Texas....

Warner can't raise that seven figure ca$h in CA - and he's already tried. Clark has, Hillary can and will and that's just for her senate race.

[second edition]

24. Well he has a right to run and I have a right not to vote for him.

I personally don't care for him no matter how many VA people think he is wonderful and I just couldn't stand to see him as our President. This is a media PR move to get his name out their and sell us on him. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

[Clark2008]

27. Yep - the media's trying to set him up as the anti-Hillary

But they're both DLCers. x(

How can he be the anti-Hillary?

[SoFlaJet]

41. I don't see it that way

I just see him as an attractive candidate and the most appealling to me a little more than 2 years out-hey things change fast up there in WDC.Hey I was a big Dean supporter and really loved his message until they took him apart and pretty much ruined him in the press.

[election_2004]

40. Where is the MSM in reporting this fundraiser????

Nope, Senator Clinton is definitely the media's choice.

[Zynx]

51. They also always love to say how good Bush is at fundraising.

However, Warner beat his number big time.

[AX10]

44. This is NORTHERN Viginia. This is a very blue area.

That money he's raising is "blue leaning" money. It's not oil, big pharma, Bushco money!

[AmericanDream]

45. Yeah, it's the Clinton corporate type money. I think we realize that. n/t

[capitalistdemocrat]

47. Warner will be the nominee.

And this time we will win.

However, there is one caveat. :kick: Dean must go! Just don't kick him too hard.

[AmericanDream]

48. "Capitalist Democrat" ...that says it all. I'd much rather keep Dean. n/t

[Fabio]

49. Yes.

We need someone to lead who works outside of our economic system. (?)

[AmericanDream]

53. I'm not Dean fan... but why bash Dean to put Warner on the radar?

[snowbear]

54. You've got to love that Bush raised 2 million for Kilgore for NOTHING!!

Betcha they wished they had those donations back.. http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/lol!.gif

Congrats to Governor Warner BTW.. Pretty damned impressive $$!

[robbedvoter]

56. MSM going with their Designated Loser campaign

Do we know how much ANY of the other candidates raised? No. Will they compare them? No. Why? because they picked mr "no reason to wonder why we went to war" as the designated loser to the bush Junta.
But wait, I just read another thread here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2297119
It says Holly Joe has about 3 million - so, let's go with him, boys and girls! :sarcasm:

[nickshepDEM]

57. Dats my boy. He is the only dem who can go $ for $ with Hillary.

:woohoo:

[AmericanDream]

59. Does that mean he is as much in bed w/corporations as the clintons?

Btw, everyone from Edwards, Clark, to Bayh, etc. have raised great amounts of money. Getting millions at your home turf where you are popular would not be considered an achievement by most. Can he raise that kinda money in California? New York? the Carolinas?

[Le Taz Hot]

61. I'll answer your question

regarding CA and the answer is NO! We went overwhelmingly for Dean in 2004, remember? Unfortunately, the most populous state in the union was drown out by Iowa who chose Kerry who proceeded to LOSE (surprise!). Warner and Hillary are the two DLC candidates being shoved down our throats this time(we didn't have enough of this with Kerry?). Hate to tell you this boys and girls but CA will NOT be going along this time.

[skipos]

66. Dean came in 4th place in CA with only 4%

2004 Primaries
California
Kerry 1,858,382 64%
Edwards 569,564 20%
Kucinich 133,656 4%
Dean 121,837 4%
Sharpton 55,014 2%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/states/CA/index.html

[NCarolinawoman]

58. Abe Lincoln never would have made it today.

No money and not photogenic. Sad. Maybe our best days are behind us.

[Catchawave]

64. Warner would be good !

BUT...we are still 3 years away! Hope he's pacing himself :)

As of today...I'm supporting Edwards, Feingold and Warner !!!!

[Sparkly]

69. You're in luck!

The MSM adores Edwards and Warner! (I haven't seen enough to know about Feingold yet.) You wouldn't have to write letters complaining about their coverage until or unless they won nomination.

Lucky you.

[AmericanDream]

77. Nah, they adore only those who are riding the polls...

Right now it's Hillary all over and Edwards is second. Warner has gained traction due to his positive response in NH and fundraising. I guess you are unhappy about Clark's coverage... well, he performs poorly in all national polls (I'm not talking about online ones, btw) and that is why they don't give him coverage. If he was to build a more solid following and rise in the polls, they'll be after him too. They only worship power... not people.

[Sparkly]

80. I disagree.

Even when state polls showed Clark far ahead, the MSM gave Edwards positive coverage, for example. On potential VP picks, they'd mention the most remote of dark horses before they'd EVER say Clark's name, but they put Edwards right out there as "the man Republicans REALLY fear running against" -- uh huh, right. And at this point, looking ahead, it's common knowledge that it's all about "name recognition," which means in essence, who the media is talking about. And guess who the media is talking about? Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Mark Warner. What a surprise.

Don't think they'll start talking about General Clark anytime soon. They love him just like they loved Al Gore. They will continue to marginalize him as far as possible, rightwingers will continue to say, "Oh, HIM?!?" and the somnabulent populus will continue to ask the probing question, "Huh?"

But look at the polls among Democrats who pay attention -- DU, or Kos, or wherever. It's about getting the truth out there, as with EVERY issue from the DSM to the CIA leak to the WMD scam to the Diebold machines to everything else... The people who KNOW, know. And the MSM, in the business of deciding what people should know and shouldn't know, will continue to promote Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Mark Warner.

Just my opinion.

[snowbear]

82. Abbi Tatten talked a LOT about the General on CNN....

.. a couple days ago!

She was doing a piece on how the internet has changed politics and how sucessful the "Draft Clark Campaign" turned out to be.

I just read the transcript of his on-line chat today. AWESOME job!

I was bummed though when he wrote that his Fox contract will not allow him to be on MSNBC or CNN.

[Sparkly]

84. I don't know who she is, but good for her!!

The online forum from today was fantastic, I agree!! A MUST-READ for anyone who claims to know anything about The General's stand on Iraq.

As for MSNBC and CNN, I was surprised to learn that, as well -- and I'd JUST written to Hardball insisting that if they were going to do a series on proposals for Iraq, they MUST interview General Clark... Oh well... :)

[skipos]

83. Daily Kos has Warner at #3 and Edwards at #4

"look at the polls among Democrats who pay attention -- DU, or Kos, or wherever"

You seem to be complaining that MSM only talks about Clinton, Edwards, and Warner. But two of those people seem to be doing ok at Kos too.

1. Clark 26%
2. Feingold 19%
3. Warner 14%
4. Edwards 12%

Or are you saying that MSM only ignores Clark? He definitely gets the least amount of coverage of the 4 people above, but I don't think it is due to some conspiracy. Governors and senators are going to get a bit more coverage due to their daily activities in elected office. Regardless, I think Clark's time on Fox is well spent and great way to get more screen time. I see that doing a lot for him over the next few years.

[Sparkly]

88. And who's at #1???

This is my point.

The post I responded to claimed the media responds to national polls. I pointed out that polling among informed Democratic bloggers varies from national polls toward truth in all areas, and favors Clark.

And you say:

"Or are you saying that MSM only ignores Clark? He definitely gets the least amount of coverage of the 4 people above, but I don't think it is due to some conspiracy. Governors and senators are going to get a bit more coverage due to their daily activities in elected office."

That's just silly, skipos. You point out that Clark is #1 in polls among politically-aware Democrats and other lefties, you admit he gets less MSM coverage than other Democrats and STILL merits that rank, and then you attribute that to an MSM bias toward some "bully pulpit" of governors and senators. Well, Edwards is neither a governor nor a senator, and Warner's pulpit faces the door marked "exit."

It's clear the MSM's first choice right now is Hillary Clinton. It's also clear that they wax enthusiastic about Edwards and Warner. But there is no doubt that among the best-informed bloggers, all of the MSM and the pulpits have been hurdled in favor of General Clark.

As with so many other issues, it's only about us getting the truth out there.

[AmericanDream]

91. Once again, Kos and DU are not scientific polls... n/t

[Sparkly]

97. Gee, no kidding.

They reflect the opinions of the same people who know what the DSM is about, what the CIA leak is about, what the war in Iraq is and was about, what the MSM is about, what the PNAC is about, etc. etc. etc...

What they do NOT reflect is what the rightwing's "name recognition" game is about. They want Hillary, just to knock her down, and then their real pins will be all set up: so far, Edwards and Warner.

They did the same thing in 2003-04 with Dean, knocking him down for Edwards and (I think they really believed) Gephardt, and maybe thirdly Kerry. Who did they hit the hardest? Who did the MSM most ignore? That should tell us something, loud and clear.

They were more worried about Sharpton than Edwards -- they made sure he was seen as a cartoon early on. But their main target was Dean: they took him on as THE front runner, they ran with his momentum, then they started publishing shots of him looking as maniacal as possible with titles like, "Please Nominate THIS Guy."

Imho, that's what they're doing with Hillary Clinton right now -- except they intend to force her grassroots, whereas Dean's were real. "Here she is! They all love her! Just how great IS she? She's topping the polls!!!" And the voters are going, "Okay, yeah, I'm there, duhhhh." (Because, sorry, most of them really are in "duh" mode.)

They've already put Edwards and Warner into the race, along with people like Biden and Vilsack -- they claim Feingold and Clark are "dark horses" (which I must say makes me think I should take a closer look at Feingold).

Imho, they wanted to run against Edwards in 2004 above anybody else. And this time around, they'll want Warner. Just a hunch.

[AmericanDream]

98. I'm sorry you are just lost...

They were worried about Sharpton? They wanted to run against Edwards? Whoa, you really are too wound up in your own wishful theories.

As for Kos and Du... umm, aren't these the same polls that Dean was leading? Btw, they started pulling down Dean after he came so far behind Kerry and Edwards in Iowa... like I said, the MSM likes a winner, they go with whoever has the big MO. I'm no defender of the media, but the fact that the candidates that are popular in online polls do not necessarily go well with the rest of the populace is no rocket science. The online activists might be greatly informed, but they are far from representative of the whole party, including those who vote in the primaries.

[Sparkly]

100. Well DUH....

We do know the informed do not represent the uninformed.

Yes, they DID want to run against Edwards, and imho, they DID want to marginalize Sharpton as a clown early on -- not only in terms of his chances as a candidate, but also in terms of his voice during the primaries and beyond them. They were definitely worried about Sharpton.

The MSM doesn't just reflect the "big MO," they help CREATE the "big MO." No doubt about that in my mind.

[AmericanDream]

102. Who is "they"?

[AmericanDream]

90. That is because...

Edwards topped EVERY poll that asked the democrats and the country as to who they wanted to see as Kerry's running mate. DU and KOS only matter to democrats who are very active online... there are thousands of other democrats out there and they obviously have different opinions. There is not one national poll out there that shows Clark in the top 3... Clark has a good base on the internet, but I'm sorry to say that his showing across the nation is ignorable. I can understand why being his supporter this can be frustrating for you... however, I don't blame the media because why should they talk about the guy that is at the bottom end of all scientific polls conducted by nationally acknowledged polling companies (that doesn't mean they are always right, but they are the most accurate measure we have of the public sentiment). DU and KOS are highly unscientific and obviously represent only the Dems who have a strong presence on the net. Once again, Clark has great net support, but that obviously hasn't translated to a nationwide boost in the polls for him... all that said, at this stage, polls don't matter.

I think you are letting your frustration over Clark's lack of coverage blind you from the actual process of how the media works. Set aside Clark and you'll realize that the media does hype whoever is ahead in the polls. They did that to Dean and when he fell, they stopped. When they saw Kerry was leading, they hailed him as the ultimate winner with great foreign policy experience and what not.

AS for gore, the dynamics change in the general election... in general elections, the pundits do let their own personal preferences dictate their coverage... but not in the primaries.

[Sparkly]

99. Pffffft

Again, I am speaking to the difference between knowledged people like those on DU and Kos and less-knowledged people like those who are polled in basic, national measures.

The first category includes those who follow politics closely through alternative media; the second includes many more who do NOT follow politics closely and get their "news" from MSM.

So the phrase, "DU and KOS only matter to democrats who are very active online," means these forums represent Democrats who know their stuff.

Now, is the issue to get other people to know their stuff? Or to stuff them with what the MSM dictates? And this applies to everything from our perspective on Clark to our perspective on the war, the economy, healthcare, FEMA, and everything else you could name. I think WE know; the task is to let THEM know. The people represented in these "unscientific polls" know what they're talking about and voting about, FAR more than the mainstream polled as scientific representation (many of whom still think Iraq had something to do with 9/11).

The rightwing dictates to the MSM, and the MSM responds. They support whoever they're told to support; they hit whoever they're told to hit; they ignore whoever they're told to ignore.

You inadvertently hit the nail right here:

I can understand why being his supporter this can be frustrating for you... however, I don't blame the media because why should they talk about the guy that is at the bottom end of all scientific polls conducted by nationally acknowledged polling companies (that doesn't mean they are always right, but they are the most accurate measure we have of the public sentiment).

You've put the cart before the horse, and left out the most important factor: the MSM. And who owns them? Need I say it?

You "don't blame the media" because they're just talking about who's showing in the polls, right? You assume they have NOTHING to do with who's showing in the polls... They never even TALKED about Hillary Clinton, or Mark Warner, or John Edwards, never wrote about them, just ignored their very existence -- and lo and behold, whose names are showing up in national polls? Why it's Hillary Clinton first! Imagine that! And then there's John Edwards, Mark Warner, oh I see Vilsack and Richardson and Biden are competitors, and what do you know -- Kerry and Gore are still in the running!

This is the TAIL wagging the DOG. The media does not "hype whoever is ahead in the polls" -- they hype whoever they want down in the polls (like Dean and Hillary Clinton), push vanilla positives about who they want (Edwards, Gephardt, Warner) and shift between assaulting and ignoring those they fear... Three were easy foes, but the one they continue to work hard against -- marginalizing him, demeaning him, ignoring him, afraid even now to respond lest they bring attention to him -- is General Clark.

That alone speaks VOLUMES to me.

[AmericanDream]

101. Let me break this to you..

a majority of the American public are "less-knowledgeable" than the online activists... and unfortunately, they do get to vote! You can't just ignore them because they don't fit your idea of the perfect voters. And, actually many of them get their news from various diverse sources... You are assuming that the majority of the mainstream public are fools and can't decide what they want for themselves... yes, they are not as well-informed but most of them make these decisions based on their gut and not what Chris Matthews says. I think you give the Average American far less credit than he/she deserves. There are the kinds who tow the MSM line, but they are the minority.

Anyway, I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make other than to show that the Media somehow picks it own favorites and runs with them. And, I agree with that. I think they pick their favorites based on whoever is ahead in the polls... and that my friend is the fact. And, I don't think they drive the polls exclusively. Btw, I watch enourmous amount of TV but never have I seen the talking heads talk about Edwards other than on a few chosen occassions like Katrina. Clark has gotten much more MSM time than Edwards, Warner, Gephardt combined. He has been out there talking... if you think media influences the public's opinion so much... then why aren't Clark's appearances successful? People don't like him? After all, he is the only guy I know who has been from CNN to MSNBC to FOX since the elections... have you ever considered the fact that maybe, just maybe, Clark isn't the most appealing candidate out there? And, people are more connected with down-home, easily charming guys like Edwards and Warner?

[ruggerson]

68. Amusing to me

that people find it disconcerting that a politician *gasp* raises money in 2005.

He's soiled himself with luchre!

Oh, the humanity!

[wisteria]

70. Blah, to neat of a package for me. To DLC.

Just because he comes from VA, doesn't mean Southerners will vote for him. They've been to redpublicanized. Don't think for a minute that we can fool the South into thinking he is one of them. I say we campaign down South to show we are interested, but we concentrate on the Mid-West. We don't need to pander to the South in order to win the White House back.Beside, I think Warner was actually born in NY, which would exclude him from being a true southerner.

[skipos]

73. The Warner supporters I have talked to have many reasons to support him.

I don't hear anyone saying that they only support him because he is from VA. If you don't like him fine, but I don't see why it matters that you "think" he was born in NY.

[snowbear]

74. Close..

but no cigar! He was born in Indiana.

~~> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Warner

~~> http://www.radaronline.com/fresh-intelligence/2005/07/11/index.php

[AmericanDream]

76. And raised in CT I believe? Enlighten me if I'm wrong...

[snowbear]

78. beats the hell outta me..

[snowbear]

79. Oh.. ok I found it in that Radar article.. raised in Indiana

.."He was raised in Indiana, so he can also speak mid-western, albeit in a Southern drawl."

right'cheer ---> http://www.radaronline.com/fresh-intelligence/2005/07/11/index.php

[AmericanDream]

87. Wikipedia says he was raised in Vernon, CT... I've read that before too...

[snowbear]

89. You sure that wasn't Mr. Bush? Wasn't he from CT?

I dunno.. Indiana, Conneticut..

What counts is where he's been.. He's a Virginian now!

Just like General Clark.. Born in Chicago, raised in Arkansas. :shrug:

What matters is the PERSON themselves!

During the last campaign, they barely ever mentioned that Kerry was born in Colorado..

[AmericanDream]

93. Um... why don't you read the wikipedia bio?

As for Kerry being born in Colorado... wow, I had no clue ... that means you are right it was barely mentioned.

And, of course, it doesn't matter where he was born or raised; it's mainly about what state he represents now, which is Virginia. But I was just curious.

[snowbear]

96. I glanced at Wikipedia.. but I scanned it.. LOL...

..then I read his bio at his website.. http://www.governor.virginia.gov/Governor/GovBioHome.html

I'm not sure I should trust Wikipedia for the 100% truth.. :shrug: Heard on CNN or MSNBC that someone was suing them for printing a bogus story about them..

We both agree though! :hug: ..What counts is the person!

[Tiggeroshii]

103. He'd be a great Senator, but I would certainly hold my breath if I had to

vote for him for Pres if he got the nomination. He represents a red state, not a red country...

By 08, we certainly would want a real change, not a Republican lite in the oval office..

[Tiggeroshii]

104. He'd be a great Senator, but I would certainly hold my breath if I had to

vote for him for Pres if he got the nomination. He represents a red state, not a red country...

By 08, we certainly would want a real change, not a Republican lite in the oval office..