2008 Hopefuls: Warner had the best 2005. Frist had the worst.

[nickshepDEM]

Chris Cillizza's Politics Blog -- The Fix The Friday Line: Grading the White House Hopefuls' 2005


The Best

Virginia Gov. Mark Warner (D) entered 2005 as a little-known figure on the national stage and leaves it, arguably, as the leading anti-Hillary candidate in the Democratic field. Warner took a major risk by making the November gubernatorial election a referendum on his four years in office and was rewarded when Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine (D) won a surprisingly strong victory.

Warner also showed he was ready to compete outside of his home state by making a splash on both the staffing and fundraising fronts. He recruited Monica Dixon, former deputy chief of staff for Vice President Al Gore, to run his Forward Together PAC -- a hire that drew plaudits from Washington's insider crowd. Earlier this month he held an event that raised nearly $3 million for Forward Together -- a sum that wowed many in the donor community. Expect Warner's 2006 schedule to be packed with events in places like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina as he seeks to capitalize on his current momentum.

The Worst

Singling out Tennessee Sen. Bill Frist (R) as the presidential hopeful who had the worst 2005 was a no-brainer. Everywhere Frist turned in the past 12 months he found bad news. In March, Frist was roundly criticized by the medical community for alleging that a comatose Florida woman -- Terri Schiavo -- may have been misdiagnosed by her doctors. Two months later, Frist's attempt to invoke the so-called nuclear option on judicial nominations -- a pet issue for conservatives -- was thwarted by a group of moderate senators from both parties, raising doubts about Frist's ability to lead his own caucus. Then in July, Frist announced his support for legislation that would expand the use of stem cells for medical purposes -- a move that drew considerable ire among social conservatives and was seen as at least a partial reversal of Frist's previous position on this issue.

Finally, in October, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced it was opening an investigation into a stock sale Frist authorized involving a company his father and older brother founded. Despite that laundry list of political pitfalls, those close to Frist insist he is still planning to run for president. If he has any chance of winning the nomination, he needs his final year in the Senate to be much better than the year just past.


The best of the rest include: Sen. George Allen (R-VA), Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), Gov. Halley Barbour (R-MS), Fmr. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

***Click the link for more details on other potential candidates and the year they had***

[nickshepDEM]

1. Part of me is sad that Frist had such a horrible 2005.

Mostly because it derailed his presidential bid.

He would be a great candidate... For us Democrats.

He's incredibly boring, horrible on the stump, a pathetic leader, etc... Just about any Democrat could whipe the floor with him.

[FreedomAngel82]

20. I wonder if he'd still run though

For the ego and everything. And I also read Warner hired someone from Dean's campaign. Is that true?

[BigYawn]

74. Not to worry about Warner, Hillary will be the nominee in 2008 if

Bill Clinton does not succumb to a heart attack before that.
Bill wants to live in White House again real real bad, he
loves being at the center of power and all the policy meetings.

Not only that but Bill, as the most successful democrat since
Roosevelt, wields enormous power amongst the powers in DNC
and DLC. So, I can't imagine him not working his heart out
(no pun intended) to get Hillary nominated.

[tx_dem41]

2. I still predict George Allen will be the eventual Republican nominee...

and that makes me nervous for some reason. Expect to see him trotted out a lot next year to increase his "gravitas".

[nickshepDEM]

3. He scares me too. He has that whole cowboy image going for him.

He's good on the stump, brings together social and economic conservatives, and judging by past campaigns... He is an electoral badass.

Hopefully voters dont fall for the whole fake cowboy image again in '08.

[tx_dem41]

5. I think the key for Republicans is that he brings both wings of the

party together. Thanks for responding.

[FreedomAngel82]

57. Does he pander to the "religious right"?

[ruggerson]

59. You bet he does.

He recently voted for a bill which included an amendment which added sexual orientation to the list of characteristics (race, ethnicity, religion, etc) included under Federal "Hate Crime" statutes.

The religious right raised holy hell and he indicated last week that when the bill came out of conference he would vote AGAINST it if it still included the provision adding sexual orientation.

Major flip flop due to pressure from the religious right. What a wonderful guy.

[FreedomAngel82]

69. Ugh

I get so tired of that crap! Whatever happened to the republicans wanting privacy? :shrug: I think it'd probably be him too. McCain is still trying I think. Crooksandliars.com reported back in October that he met with Jerry Falwell.

[PsN2Wind]

7. Another Repub

that pulled himself up by his daddys bootstraps.

[ruggerson]

4. Warner could defeat Allen

but I'm not sure if anyone else could. Allen comes across as a good ole boy, which is kind of worrisome, because Americans buy into that horseshit. I know he has a racist past, but I don't think that's going to make one whit of difference.

[tx_dem41]

6. I hope you're right. I'm kind of riding the Warner bandwagon right...

now, but he needs to do a LOT of studying this year on foreign policy. A LOT of it. He has to surround himself NOW with foreign policy experts from the Left. He better be making those phone calls now.

[ruggerson]

10. The guy is as much of a policy wonk as Clinton

so, I would be surprised if he isn't doing exactly as you say.

[tx_dem41]

12. Not to ask anything too personal,....

but are you from Virginia? I'm hoping to dialogue with some folks that can tell me more about Warner.

[ruggerson]

13. Not from Virginia

but try here, there's tons of Warner info:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=261

[tx_dem41]

16. D'oh! I need to participate in that group.

I've been here for 13 months...and I still forget about the groups a lot.

Thanks. :)

[nickshepDEM]

14. Not from VA, but Ive been following and talking up Warner for over a year.

Just fire away...

[tx_dem41]

17. Let me read thru the Warner group some.

I assume you participate in it.

Thanks! :)

[DancingBear]

18. I am

But perhaps my answers may not be to your liking, for I find him to be Clintonesque in both personality and policies.

The former is nice, but in this political climate the latter is a death wish.

[tx_dem41]

19. Feel free to speak freely!

What policies do you think are killers for him? I remember reading something about a car tax early on. As I remember that was an election issue he first ran on. I'm honest enough to admit that this is the limit of my knowledge on it.

[DancingBear]

27. The elimination of the car tax was the campaign linchpin of Gilmore,

the Repub who was Governor previously. Virginia has what was perceived to be an egregious car tax, but in reality int was no better/worse than handfuls of other states. Gilmore ran a one-trick pony campaign to "eliminate the car tax!!". then found out he couldn't completely eliminate it, for the state was hemorrhaging money.

Here is a link to a post I wrote some time ago that outlines my concerns about Warner. if you'd like to know anything further from a Virginia perspective, just ask. I'll do what I can.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5360797

[nickshepDEM]

33. I read your post... Good stuff for the most part.

I agree with most of your positives...

Now, the negatives.

1) I’ve defined Warner as great on the stump, enjoyable to listen to, willing to listen, and willing to extend the olive branch when things need to get done. Sound like anybody we know? How about Bill Clinton, and how about John Edwards? Let’s look at these two people. Clinton was able to win using the very same attributes that Warner possesses, but (and here is the very huge difference) in a different culture. There was no “war” going on while Clinton was running – he was able to define his opponent in economic terms. Imagine if you will if Iraq was on the table when Clinton campaigned on his platform of populace. Draft dodger. Oxford. Letters to get out of the military. Get the drift?

Now, let’s look at Edwards. Anyone remember the painful debate with Cheney, where John got his hat handed to him foreign-policy wise by one of the biggest draft dodgers the world has ever seen? Face it, he was so out of his element re: “terrorism” that it was almost painful to watch. NO swing voter bought his “tough stance” – hell, I didn’t buy it. He gave a great speech, he was wonderful to listen to, he has a great family and a wonderful wife, and Bush is in The White House (vote-stealing not withstanding).

So along comes Warner – a Clinton/Edwards clone if there ever was one, and we will soon find ourselves once again in an election where the boogieman “terrorism” will be front and center. On one hand we will find the hand picked replacement for The Buffoon, on the other (if some have their way) Warner. Buffoon’s replacement will be, one can be assured, armed with whatever foreign policy/terrorism/military gravitas that the Repubs will think will work. Warner will come with NO foreign policy experience. Do you really want to roll the dice on someone like that? Granted, the Repubs will be badly hurt by Buffoon’s massive fucking up of everything military, but wouldn’t it be a bit more prudent of us as Dems to put forth a candidate who can neutralize any perceived “strong on terrorism” pitch? Warner can’t - not his fault, to be sure, but he just can't.

2) Warner became Governor of Virginia by doing two things: convincing people in the Republican strongholds that he really wasn’t a Democrat (as defined by hate radio) and appealing to their economic concerns on a local level (emphasis mine). If this was 1992 the latter would work, but it will be 2008 and it won’t. He (Warner) was brilliant in concocting a strategy that took advantage of what was affecting his constituents. Edwards tried the same tactic (“two Americas”) on a national level. End of story.

3) As for Warner helping get Kaine elected, he did. But guess what – so did Kilgore. He ran what many here are calling one of the worst campaigns since Manassas was a battlefield and not a city. It was awful. Every major news outlet in the state (and many nationwide) carried reports of his insane “Kaine wouldn’t execute Hitler” ads. Those ads literally disgusted people, and were one of the reasons the independents broke for Kaine because of it. So let’s not give Warner too much credit – he was a huge help, but Jerry Kilgore stuck the knife into his own chest.

4) He is a DLC Democrat. I don’t mean to start fights here, but his governing style reminds me of an old Steve Goodman song – “take two steps to the left, two steps to the right, then you stand in the middle and you hang on tight.”

5) Question – where does he help nationally? By this I mean what states can he put in play that any other Dem candidate couldn’t? Virginia, you say? I’ll just bet that if Mark Warner gets the Democratic nomination for President then the GOP is gonna have either Virginian John Warner or Virginian George Allen sitting on their ticket. Say what you will about the cranial capacities of either, but one has this “Armed Services Committee” thing he can carry around, and the other is the son of a legend. Virginia ain’t no slam-dunk anymore.

1.) Personaly I do not think Iraq will be as big of an issue in '08 as most think. I think we'll see significant troop reductions long before '08. I believe issues like, Saving SS and Medicare will be front and center come '08.

I wont argue that Warner lacks Froeign Policy credentials, but if you really know Warner as much as you say, then you know he is probably surrounding himself with some of the best policy wonks in the country. On top of that, a solid VP choice like Biden, Rockefeller, Richardson, or even Clark could help him overcome the lack of foreign policy cred.

We must also remember that as Governor, Mark Warner, is commander in chief of the VA Nat'l Guard. He is also Governor of a state that borders Washington DC and has a fairly large Homeland Security Budget.

And whos to say he wont square off with another Governor like Haley Barbour who also has zero foregin policy cred?

2.) That was before Warner built an extremely strong record which includes balancing a billion dollar budget shortfall (hello? nat'l budget defecit anyone?), making record investments in education, reforming the tax code, creating jobs, and expanding health care. If he can transfer his ability to capitalize on key issues plaguing the state electorate to the nat'l level... He will be golden!

3.) Ive never once heard that Kilgore ran a bad campaign. Ive actually heard the complete opposite. Some VA conservatives are still baffled as to how their GOTV came up so short. Ive heard that Kilgore was a poor candidate, bad on the stump, refused to sign a no tax pledge, but a horrible campaign? Thats the first Ive heard.

4.) The DLC attack line really does get old. His governing style reminds me of Bill Clinton. And when I think of Bill Clinton I think about how good we had it during his 8 years in office... Any questions?

5.) The latest Rasmussen Poll shows Warner beating George Allen in a potential 2008 Matchup. If he can beat Allen in VA, he can beat anyone the Republicans put up.

Warner's governing style would also playout well in Iowa and New Mexico at the very least. So thats the Kerry states + VA, + IA, + NM = A Democratic win and a Democratic president... Ill take it.

[FreedomAngel82]

58. I agree with you about issues on 2008

I think in 2006 it will be Iraq and a lot will probably be taken care of than. I think by 2008 it will be a more serious campaign about everything, like you said, from SS and medicaid to getting jobs. I think that's why Warner would be a good canidate. With the right VP he could do a good job. Right now I'm liking a Warner/Feingold ticket. And I've seen Warner a couple times now on "Road to the White House" and he interacts with people very well and it comes across the screen too like with Clinton. And I like how he reaches out across the isle with people like how Lincoln did. I think people are getting tired of attacking and fighting with each other. We need to get someone who can get into bipartisianship and work on getting back to actually governing instead of fighting all the time. It really is draining. With the DLC I look at the individual canidate and their record(s). Actions speak louder than words and who you hang out with personally. Just because I might hang out with someone who isn't "good" to someone else doesn't mean I'm that way too.

[DancingBear]

81. Responses

1) Oh. yes it will. It is the ONLY thing Repubs can point to and try to win on. Tax cuts? Environmental record? Job creation? Hardly. No, all they have is their trump card of 'we'll keep you safer", and they will use it. Troop reductions? Try this line: "You see, we're doing exactly what we said we'd do. As Iraq becomes a true democracy, we are withdrawing our forces so as to let the Iraqis govern themselves." The only chance we have is to run someone who can look whatever Repub that is running straight in the eye and say "bullshit" - then PROVE it. I must argue that Mark Warner can not do this.

As for your policy wonk statement, well I think your belief that Joe Biden(!) could add anything to the table shows we are worlds apart in our beliefs in where this party should be going. :)

2) True. He did what almost EVERY Democrat has to do after a Republican leaves office -clean up the mess. He gets points from me in his ability to convince Virginians of what needed to be done, but I think a good many of us realized it anyway.

3) Check the Washington Post, for starters. It is commonly known here that Kilgore was, well, an idiot. His "Hitler" ads were universally condemned, and Republicans to a fault (save for the true believers) blame Kilgore for not being able to defeat a charismatically-challenged guy like Kaine. Plus, if you saw any of the debates you'd know that Kilgore literally made Bush look like Einstein.

4) His governing style IS Bill Clinton, and this is where we differ. In this climate someone who can not come out with foreign policy credentials will lose. Period. If Clinton ran in '08 as an unknown Rove and the boys would tie the "draft-dodging" label around his neck like an anchor. The "war" is the story. Sorry. I wish it were not so, and I wish someone didn't have to "prove" jingoistic patriotism in order to break this crazy cycle. But they do.

5) Rasmussen? The same guys that currently have Bush at a 50% approval rating? If you're looking to convince me, Rasmussen won't do it. Let me just say that myself and countless others here do not find Rasmussen credible.

[nickshepDEM]

82. Love em' or hate em', Rasmussen was accurate in 2004.

They did 'ok' in the VA 2005 Gubernatorial race too.

Rasmussen obviously tilts to the right (see: Bush's approval), which means Warner is probably in much better shape than the 2008 poll shows. Possibly over 50% against Allen? The ONLY democrat who can put VA (13 EV's) in play? Ill take that all day long.

[Tom Rinaldo]

83. It's just your opinion Warner is the ONLY Democrat who can put VA in play

Virginia is no longer a deep red State. Virginia is also Washington DC's suburb. Yes Virginia is still Red, and yes Warner is the SUREST bet to put Virginia in play. But the ONLY Democrat who can, that's a real stretch Nick. I would accept that type of argument if someone were to say something like Brian Schweitzer is the only Democrat who can put Montana in play. But Virginia? Only Warner? No, I don't buy that.

[nickshepDEM]

84. Well thats your opinion...

I guess theoretically other democrats could compete and win in VA, but VA still leans a good 7-8% to the right, and is not even close to a swing state. Warner is the only candidate who immediatley places VA in the battleground column for 2008.

Assuming George Allen receives the Republican nomination... I have NO DOUBT that Warner would be the only democrat who could compete in VA.

But your entitled to your own opinion.

[Tom Rinaldo]

85. If Allan is the Republican nominee, then I most likely agree with you

That would pit a native Republican Virginian running in a Red state against the Democratic candidate. That's a lot for any non native Virginian to overcome. But it is far from certain Allan will be the nominee, though he is among the favorites.

[Tom Rinaldo]

86. And I will also agree that any Democrat who can be painted

as a North East or California type Liberal is very unlikely to win Virginia in 2008. Warner, unless he self destructs in some way on the National stage which I am not suggesting he will, is the strongest bet, certainly. But there are other possibilities who might be able to swing Virginia, not all of whom I would be pleased to see running by the way. They include (in alphabetical order) Bayh, Biden, Clark, Edwards, Richardson, and Vilsak. And that doesn't even speak to the possibility of one of those men running for President with Warner as his running mate. I think one of those tickets could stand a good chance in Virginia.

[DancingBear]

87. Let me say that even in VA - against Allen - Warner is no slam dunk

Remember, southern VA is VERY conservative, and is home to a large military contingent.

The (false, in my estimation) belief that many here hold to is that Warner's triumphs as a governor will translate nationally.

I don't believe they will. If a Warner/Allen scenario came to pass, national issues will trump VA issues here - I can almost guarantee it. Remember how everyone said Edwards put NC in play, and how everyone pointed out time and again his success against the Helms "machine?" Sure enough, he was looked at by NC voters NOT for what he did locally, but how he could "protec"' them on a national level.

We know who won NC. Allen can point to his "national security" credentials, and Warner can not answer back.

The wild card here, of course, is Bush's impending (dare I dream?) implosion. If this indeed happens, then the charisma/compassion daily double that Warner brings may hold sway.

If not, and if the terra/terra/terra straw man still lives, then we can not afford someone like Warner at the top of the ticket.

Notice I said 'top." :)

[nickshepDEM]

88. Comparing Edwards to Warner is like comparing Apples to Oranges.

Edwards spent his entire term running for president. Warner spent his entire term cleaning up a state, building an outstanding record, and electing his protege. Hence Warners 70% approval rating.

Your also missing the point that Edwards was on the back of the ticket. We have been discussing Warner as a presidential candidate, not a VP.

Warner should be able to paint Allen as a 'DC insider' and link him to all the wrong that we have seen in Washington over the past 6 years. So Allen pointing to his experience in Washington really could backfire and play right into the hands of Warner. Especially on issues like the budget defecit where Warner can point to a balanced budget and Allen can be tied to the largest budget defecit in the history of the nation. Even Allen's experience on the Armed Services committee could hurt him considering the publics dissatisfaction with the War in Iraq.


For the record: I voted for Edwards in the 2004 primary and to this day still hold a high opinion of the man. I just do not belive the Edwards/Warner analogy is a fair comparison.

[DancingBear]

89. It has nothing to do with "ticket position"

What you are trying to do is project regional success onto a national scale.

What Mark Warner did in Virginia means NOTHING when the Republican playbook will be once again centered on "who can keep us safe".

I know you'll never agree, but for those of us who feel it to be true we can not take a chance on another charismatic leader with NO background in national security issues.

Here is an interesting Warner anecdote to think about. Due to interesting circumstances , we sometimes get invited to big money fundraisers, but we never go. We were invited to the Warner $1000 a plate fundraiser in VA - by a Republican. They know that if Bush fucks up so badly that a Dem is going to waltz into The White House, they want somebody that will not upset the applecart - someone that will protect their interests and not start any of that "populist" crap that Dean and the rest of the activist Dems are advocating. The big money all came out of prosperous noVA towns for this fundraiser, and you'd be correct if you said that all the "inside baseball" people were ponying up the cabbage. No Dean 'bat" here, that's for sure.

They LOVE Warner as the Dem candidate - and that scares the hell out of me.

If you, as I suspect, find common ground with the DLC wing of the party then I can understand your fascination with Warner. As you can surmise, I find the DLC wing to be the reasons we can not win on a national scale, and why every time a Dem with balls steps up and makes a strong stand on an issue like Iraq (see Pelosi, Conyers, Murtha) there is always a Biden or a Hillary Clinton there to scream "no- not me!."

Finally, just a quick question. Based on everything we have seen from the Republicans in the last (almost) 6 years, could you tell me why on earth you don't think they'll run on national security in '08? They destroyed Kerry, they made Edwards look like a fool - you think Mark Warner will get a free pass? They are probably building the "Mark Warner -another Dem weak on national defense" campaign as we speak.

Because of Bush, they're a one-trick pony. I implore you not to discount this, for despite our massive differences on who should get the ball in '08 we all want to make sure it ain't the other team. Again.

[ruggerson]

90. Having to trump them on national security

means we've bought their entire premise that there is a "War On Terror" that will last hundreds of years.

I don't buy that premise in the least, and I think if we put up a competent candidate who takes tough positions with regard to national security, we will do just fine. We don't have to run a far right hawk and we don't have to run a five star general.

Reagan had no foreign policy experience and neither did Clinton or Carter. And if your response is, ah, yes, but that was before 9/11, then you have bought THEIR argument that 9/11 somehow "changed" everything. I don't think it did and I think America knows that deep down as well.

[DancingBear]

91. Um, we tried your way in '04, yes?

How's that working out for us?

As for you 9/11 stretch, it matters little what I believe. It matters what a given presidential candidate can MAKE the American people believe. You're dreaming if you think another "terra attack" on U.S. soil won't ramp up the Repubs "advantage" on national security issues. I know the reason we're being attacked is because we're hated now more than ever, and you know it, and this message board knows it. Trouble is, we knew it before the election as well.

Taking "tough positions on national security" - I like it. Could you tell me what Mark Warner's position on that is? And how he came to such a position? And how he can prove it to the voting populace? Edwards tried - and America cringed. Now, if you think that a guy who founded Nextel has those qualifications, then I'm all Ross Perot - I'm all ears.

I watched the most charismatic politician I have seen since Clinton get destroyed by one of the most vile during the VP debate in '04, and I'll be damned if I'm taking the "well this time it will be different" stance that some here wish.

So please tell me who we can run to diffuse this Republican advantage - and it IS an advantage, for the MSM will make it so, just like they did in '04.

I'll listen, and I'll ignore the "far right hawk/five star general" crack.

You're probably just tired.

[nickshepDEM]

92. ...

I guess we're just gonna' have to agree to disagree on this point. I happened to believe Warner is the type of candidate who can transfer his success on the state level to the federal level. After all, it was you who said,

"He (Warner) is an absolutely fabulous campaigner, and he has charisma coming out the wazoo. He comes across as eminently likeable, he can converse across a wide spectrum of topics, and is just as comfortable talking with NASCASR dads as he is with policy wonks."
...

I know you'll never agree, but I do not believe one must have served in the military or on the foreign relations committee for the public to trust them with national security and defense issues. See: Roosevelt, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, W. Bush. If our candidate presents himself as a strong leader... I believe he/she can overcome a lack of 'foreign-policy/defense credibility'.
...

Unlike you I have no problem with Warner being DLC. I hold a great deal of respect for past and present DLC members including: Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Edwards, Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Martin O'Malley, and John Kerry just to name a few.

Of course Republicans would rather see a left of center democrat like Mark Warner in the White House over a far leftist. Thats just common sense. So I really dont see where your going with this one? Are you implying that Republicans like Warner because he is actually a Republican at heart? I think his record states the complete opposite. A balanced budget, increased education spending, health care expansion, and a fair tax code arent exactly part of the Republican agenda these days...
...

Finally, just a quick question. Based on everything we have seen from the Republicans in the last (almost) 6 years, could you tell me why on earth you don't think they'll run on national security in '08? They destroyed Kerry, they made Edwards look like a fool - you think Mark Warner will get a free pass? They are probably building the "Mark Warner -another Dem weak on national defense" campaign as we speak.

Your making it sound as if security and defense will be the only issues in 2008. That is completely false. The public will decide which issues are tops in 2008, and Im fairly confident that SS, Health Care, and the National Debt will be right up there Nationaly Security and Defense. We as Democrats would be foolish to avoid these topics and allow the campaign to revolve soley around security and defense issues.

So what are you suggesting we do? Run a candidate with tons of national-security/defense/foreign-policy credentials, but no domestic experience?

There really is only one candidate who has significant domestic and foreign experience. And that candidate is Bill Richardson.
...

Finally, just a quick question for you...

1.) Who do you like in 2008?

[CarolNYC]

32. speak freely...

Speak freely? Heh, any attempt by someone who thinks highly of Clark to speak freely in a thread generated by this guy will result in the inevitable put down of "them"...as can be seen further downthread....

[tx_dem41]

37. I don't want to get involved in any inter-necine warfare.

Just want to learn about Warner right now.

The shame of it is, that Warner and Clark just might be the ticket in 2 years. In either order.

[FreedomAngel82]

60. How so?

LOL. I'm glad you have your crystal ball infront of you. :eyes: This thread is about Warner so please stick to it.

[tx_dem41]

62. Peace, FA....

read my posts on this thread. I'm the "innocent" that wandered into this war. I was curious about Warner, and find myself in the middle of a high school pissing contest getting wet. Hopefully this isn't the way either candidate's campaigns will be run.

[FreedomAngel82]

64. About Warner (which this thread is about)

go to c-span.org and type in his name and watch some of his speeches from "Road to the White House." He does pretty well. His stance on Iraq now is worrying about getting out and not how we got in.

[tx_dem41]

66. Thanks. n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

68. There's also a good q&a interview

Definitely check it out. :)

[ruggerson]

40. It's you guys who hijack threads

and i've got to tell you, it REALLY puts people off.

Every thread about Warner, every damn one, is hijacked by Clark proponents, who want to discuss how great their guy is and how terrible Warner is.

It's puerile, disruptive, rude and stupid. And it does nothing to advance the cause of Clark. Matter of fact, it probably does just the opposite.

[CarolNYC]

50. hey, ruggerson,

I must admit I don't read all of the threads, but it seems to me that you're the one who wants to turn every thread into a discussion of Clark...or at least Clark supporters.

As for me, I think the most I've actually said about Warner is that I know someone who saw him speak at an event and they were very impressed with him...but, if it makes it easier for you to think of me as one of "you guys", go right ahead, I guess....

[ruggerson]

53. Wow, congrats, that's the most disingenuous post i've read in a while

show me where I have ever been the person to initiate a discussion of Wesley Clark in a thread at any time. Ever. In the history of mankind. In this universe.

Once again, you guys have succeeded in turning an interesting discussion into something all about you and wesley clark.

My group of friends has a running joke about drivers who don't pay attention to anyone else on the road, they are talking on their cell phone, or jutting out into traffic, oblivious to the havoc they are causing everyone else. Their attitude is "me me me me me me me me me."

It's somehow very apt in the context of this discussion.

[Tom Rinaldo]

54. I think her point was that your frequent complaints about Clark supporters

often end up taking threads further down a path away from that initially intended. You obviously think that your complaints about "Clarkies" are warrented, and important enough to keep raising. I know it is your belief that you have been forced to keep raising those complaints, but that really is your perspective on this. One could also look at a thread like this one and wonder, was it really necessary to turn this into a debate about the supporters of a specific Democrat when that has nothing to do with the OP? That is at the least also a valid viewpoint for debate.

[ruggerson]

55. All one has to do is look and see who initiated this discussion

and it wasn't me, nor was it NickshepDem.

We were discussing the original post, before all the off topic remarks.

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. You know from posts below that I disagree about what was "off topic"

I've already made my point about that so I won't keep repeating it. But this is the way of many disputes isn't it? A fundamental difference of opinion, one in which both parties can sincerely see things differently. I think the "off topic" part of this thread was the veering away into a series of complaints about supporters of one possible candidate. The OP talked about 2008 hopefuls, not the activists who support 2008 hopefuls. No one dragged Warner supporters into this thread as a topic, but Clark supporters were. See, I honestly found that to be "off topic".

[FreedomAngel82]

61. Exactly

That's the main reason why I hardly come to this place anymore (GDPolitics). It's really damn annoying. Start your own freakin thread and stop hijacking others! It is rude and makes you want to stay away from Clark (and I like him for the most part but he NEEDS EXPERIENCE IN POLITICS!). Nobody else's group does that which really says a lot.

[wisteria]

72. I disagree, this post is to promote Warner, by influencing others.

I would think it would be healthy and helpful for others to present their candidate as an alternative to Warner. Comparisons can be made and weaknesses exposed and everyone has a better understanding of all the candidates. What's the problem? Don't you think Warner can withstand the comparisons?

[FreedomAngel82]

24. Foreign policey isn't the whole thing

People like someone who can actually govern and we know Warner can do that. I think if he put Feingold on his ticket he would do well. Isn't Feingold on the foreign relations committe?

[tx_dem41]

26. I like Feingold

And yes, he is on the Foreign Relations committee.

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0972103

At this present time, I would definitely be interested in him as a possible Veep nominee.

I do have to disagree on one thing. I think that foreign policy right now is the Democrat's achilles heel. And, it could very easily be a slam dunk for us. For whatever reason, we have been fairly silent on proposing a counter-policy that is wide-reaching in scope. I'm hopeful this will change in 2006. I think it has to change.

[DancingBear]

8. Clark would - handily

And boy, are some people here gonna be upset when they find out Mark Warner is Hillary Clinton with better hair.

[ruggerson]

9. but this is not a thread about Clark, now, is it? n/t

[DancingBear]

11. Nope

You asked a question.

I answered it.

Sorry if you didn't like it, but hey, that's what makes it all so much fun, eh??

[nickshepDEM]

21. You should know how they are by now...

When Clark doesnt get as much play as they would like... They pop into threads and trash the candidate being discussed in an attempt to prop up Clark.

So predictable. So sad. ::Yawn::

[DancingBear]

28. I trashed no one

Would you have been so snide had I answered "Biden", or "Obama", or "Hillary", or "Kerry"?

Of course not.

Your response is totally uncalled for, but sadly not unexpected.

So long.

[nickshepDEM]

29. You were using your little...

'Hillary with better hair' comment in an attempt to trash Warner.

So long. :hi:

[robbedvoter]

31. Some here will call that a compliment - many Hillary fans on DU

you know. So, he is better than her not because the hair but what then? gender?

[nickshepDEM]

36. I never said he was better, but its pretty obvious that the previous

poster was using the Hillary comment to degrade Warner. Why else would they say, "And boy, are some people here gonna be upset when they find out Mark Warner is Hillary Clinton with better hair."

By the way, I think the Hillary haters outnumber the Hillary lovers on this site... By a mile.

[FreedomAngel82]

65. He actually has experience in governing

Hillary's been in the Senate since 2000. What can she do for me? Warner can get rid of the deficit and get jobs. His record in Virginia speaks for himself.

[ruggerson]

34. YOU hijack a thread about Warner and Allen

and then YOU have the temerity to tell HIM that his response was uncalled for?

ROFL.

[robbedvoter]

42. Thread purports being about 2008 hopefuls. Obviously deceitful.

I never even open threads about people I'm not interested in.

[ruggerson]

44. The title of the thread is about Warner and Allen

and if you read the link, the story additionally mentions a number of others.

But nowhere, not in the title of the thread, nor in the Washington Post story, is Wesley Clark mentioned. This is not about Wesley Clark. Not every thread at DU needs to be about Wesley Clark. Enough.

[Tom Rinaldo]

47. Bringing up Clark on a thread about possible 2008 candidates

is not "making this thread about Clark". That is a ridiculous stretch. DU has never grovelled at the foot of any mainstreet media pundit and allowed his or her opinion dictate who we can or can not consider as serious 2008 contenders. Hosts of DU threads exist in fact where most of the discussion focuses on the failure of the media in specific articles to cover matters from anything other than a "conventional wisdom' perspective.

If you want to score points for Warner or anyone else by stressing that this writer must know what he is talking about and he doesn't take Clark seriously, fine, do so. That too would be on topic.

[robbedvoter]

48. Again, title doesn't match your intentions. Suggested title:

Warner & Allan are the bestest" I promise you, this way it will stay only in your mutual admiration society, no intruders.
Another solution : don't post it on DU - but on your little club's venue - whatever that is. No one needs to know ;-)

[robbedvoter]

93. Which was exactly why it was added to this relevant theme.

Story was incomplete obviously. Not everyone found it a virtue. :shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. This is not a hijacked thread

Argue about how your guy or another is being treated by a poster if you want, but this is not a hijacked thread. The basis of this thread is one pundit's speculations about 2008 viability. 2008 speculation is the basis of this thread, that is what it is about. The writer of the article that serves as the launching pad for this thread had an opinion about the potential field, not about one Democrat. Far as I can tell the tradition of debate on DU has never been to not question the wisdom of a media piece as written. Sure it is relevant to point out things you agree with about the article, and it is relevant to point out that someone in the media has the opinion that she or he does. But when the topic of a thread involves wide open 2008 candidate speculation, discussion of any possible 2008 candidate is on topic.

[ruggerson]

46. Tom

Every single thread about Mark Warner devolves into a discussion about Wesley Clark.

There ARE, believe it or not, people who want to discuss Mark Warner and his prospects for President without getting sidetracked into yet another discussion of Wesley Clark.

I have no animus towards Clark whatsoever. But some of the behavior of his supporters here is absolutely ridiculous.

There are plenty of threads discussing Clark, and I've never seen ONE of them where it gets hijacked by people wanting to talk about Mark Warner. Yet, every Warner thread gets disrupted. It's annoying as hell.

Having said that, I enjoy reading your opinions and always respect what you have to write.



on edit: typo

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. I understand where your complaint comes from

This isn't a good thread to point to about that however, in my opinion. It really isn't. The thread Nick started asking for feedback on a specific Warner ad would put you on much stronger ground arguing than this one does. And I have no animus against Warner either, as I think you know. All these folks can be debated obviously.

[robbedvoter]

30. "They?" Weren't you asking about "what other candidates?"

You didn't mention it was "Anyone but Clark". Now we know.
It's the "Boost Warner thread under the guise of talking about all candidates (except Clark)"

[nickshepDEM]

38. 'They' was a reference to 'Clarkies'.

Clarkies often bust into my pro-Warner threads and do the following.

*Trash Warner with the typical talking points (Warner is DLC, just like Hillary, and only a one term Governor).

*And then they praise Clark

(With the exception of Frenchie and Tom Rinaldo. They are often insightful and respectful.)

So its not like this incident is the first. This is an almost everyday thing.

[robbedvoter]

43. "They" feel entitled to burst in a thread on "2008 hopefuls"

Next time, be more specific when headlining your PR efforts. Clarkies don't need to go in threads that are irrelevant to them - they Do have a life, you know.

[FreedomAngel82]

63. And if this was anyone else

doing that they'd be screaming. If this was a Clark thread with us Kerrycrats coming in or Deaniacs or Warner fans coming in and doing that of course it'd be a big old fight. As I mentioned it's a big turn off and one reason why I don't come to GDPolitics anymore. Isn't there a Wesley Clark forum? I didn't know GDPolitics was the Clark forum now. When did the name change?

[Tom Rinaldo]

70. I will make one point

Previously I disagreed with the position that "this thread is about Warner" (and I strongly disagree that the OP for this thread indicated that "this thread is about Warner". I won't go into those points here, you can read them elsewhere on this thread.)

But you are wrong in your assertion here. If people come into a Clark thread and say something like, "Clark wasn't a good campaigner in 2004" for example, yes it will almost certainly lead to a spirited discussion. But that discussion would be substantiative. There would be a discussion of learning curves, there would be a discussion of the speech Clark made to the Democratic National Convention, or how well Clark connected at pancake breakfasts in NH, or how he beat out established national Democrats who had been campaigning for a year, etc. etc. In other words, there would be a debate with that poster over the matter. Now if someone came onto a Clark thread and spouted off Republican talking points "He was a Republican three years ago, He wanted to start World War Three, He favored going to war against Iraq" etc, then the debate would become more heated and charged and it would most likely not be civil.

But you know what would NOT happen? No one would start attacking all "Kerrycrats" or "Deaniacs" or "Warner fans" as a group as if someone had just granted them a hunting license to attack anyone associated with that Democrat. That is where you are dead wrong. It doesn't happen. I can go back and show you dozens of threads where an individual supporter of another Democrat says harsh words about Clark OR about Clark Supporters and it NEVER results in a wholesale smear of all supporters of that candidate being made by any Clark supporter. On DU though it seems it is always legal hunting season to attack all Clark supporters anytime one is spotted on a "non Clarkie" thread.

That is the ugly little game that gets played here, on a message board that supposedly has Democratic values. A Warner or Kerry or Dean supporter (to use your examples) can say harsh things about Clark any time they want and they may get a fight over it, but that fight will never generalize into a condemnation of "all" or "most" supporters of that persons favorite Democrat. However if a Clark supporter says anything negative about another Democrat (or in many cases if they say anything at all on a thread where supporters of multiple other Democrats have already been posting) someone inevitably launches into an attack on "Clarkies". And that passes for perfectly OK behavior around here, and Clark supporters are further criticized if we defend ourselves against those types of group slurs that no other group of candidate supporters ever faces.

I may be wrong, but I bet you I will get a response to this post that says, Well that's because Clark supporters are jerks or assholes or manipulative or devious or whatever put down someone wants to make. In other words, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Not only are you guys guilty but now you won't even admit to the facts".

I thought Liberals were against racial profiling, but it seems "Clarkie profiling" is fine and dandy, even though Clark supporters NEVER attack supporters of any other candidate as a group.

[imlost]

75. Completely Agree

I very rarely post. I just watch and read. For some reason Clark fans are disliked just for bringing up his name. If I posted a thread about Hillary, Dean, Clark, Edwards, or Kerry, I can expect negative comments or a discussion to ensue. That's why it is a discussion forum.

It's a total turn off when groups are lumped into one negative category. Even so it the person's prerogative to make such a comment, but it just turns me away from the whomever they're supporting.

[CarolNYC]

77. Hey Tom, you wet blanket you

There you go throwing facts on a perfectly wonderful pissing and moaning session. Killjoy! ;)

[Tom Rinaldo]

79. I wish poster #22 wouldn't hijack a Warner/Allan thread to discuss Romney

Supporters of whichever candidate s/he likes should instead all go to their own private area of DU and let good Democrats discuss whoever it is this thread is supposed to discuss. I'm told that's Warner and Allan.

[dsc]

94. I beg to differ with you

I have many times seen and been involved with discussions about Dean where this exact type thing occured (all Deaniacs are fill in the blank). It isn't only Clark supporters that this is done to.

[Tom Rinaldo]

95. Friendly amendment accepted

Strongly so when Dean was running for President, only a little less so when he went for DNC Chair, not as much lately I thought but I may be wrong on that.

[wisteria]

73. Sorry, but I believe one of the unwritten rules of DU is that no post

can be an uncritical love fest for one candidate. You can't keep those that don't love your guy out of the posts.

[FreedomAngel82]

22. What about Romney or whatever his name is

from Mass? He was on "Road to the White House" earlier this month before Warner when he went to South Carolina. I think Warner/Feingold would be great. Warner did a lot of great things in Virginia and I'd support him. Plus, I've read he is for LGBT rights and is pro-choice. :)

[nickshepDEM]

23. He is listed as "The jury is still out"...

[ruggerson]

25. The fundies don't trust him

and they pretty much call the shots during the primaries.

They think he's an opportunist mitt-come-lately on abortion. (he used to be pro choice, all of a sudden he's now anti-choice)

[AntiCoup2K4]

51. George Allen is the perfect third empty suit puppet for BCE/PNAC

Every bit as dumb as Chimpy or Reagan.

[0007]

15. Mark Warner would make a good president

The guy I indeed like is Spitzer, bar none this guy is tops, tough and down and dirty. I respect him as much as I respect Warner.

[Auntie Bush]

35. Bummer! Clark wasn't even considered.

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. That is temporary. You can mark my words.

Clark is getting his house in order and he will be heard from and so will the thousands of activists who feel Clark is the best hope for restoring common sense, vision and integrity to the White House, and the Democrats to majority status once again. Some pundits will finally figure out that they will look good by pointing out that Clark is a real contender Before the Primaries make that obvious to everyone. Until then there is work to be done. First focus is on 2006. Pay attention to Texas where a number of strong candidate allied with Clark are running.

[NJ Democrats]

39. I like Warner....

I want him and Feingold on the ticket together.
I also think George allan will be the Republican nominee. And I Warner can beat him which is very very good.

[FreedomAngel82]

67. That would be a kick ass team

Warner does well on the governing and Feingold has the foreign policey experience and look what he did on the "Patriot Act" deal. He's one amazing man. *sigh* He'd kick any Veep ass the republicans choose in the debates. If Feingold isn't the nominee I'm hoping for Warner. And for those who like astrology apparently his (Warner) chart looks pretty good.

[wiley]

52. It's not a blog I will visit after the last visit

some time back. Once again, an Edwards cheerleading session disguised as analytical or inclusive. So tiresome. I wouldn't stoop to hijack such a thread in the name of any candidate, especially not the clear frontrunner.

[wisteria]

71. So what, Washington insiders are pushing Warner. He is too packaged

and just because he meets the so called litmus test of win- ability doesn't mean he is appealing or even right for the job of being President. Actually, I get the impression listening to his speeches that he thinks he is owed or has earned the right to this position. Where is the real caring for the people, it seems to be all about him and what he has done. For me, Warner is a No Thank You.

[skipos]

76. Warner and Clark would be a great combo.

Warner's domestic and elective experience and Clark's foreign and military experience.
That sounds really good to me.

[angrynwhite]

78. Two men headed in opposite directions.

It’s truly comical when one considers that some folks actually take Frist seriously with respect to being presidential contender.

Warner and Allen are definitely the two to watch.

[Clarkansas]

80. I like Warner and Clark as well.