That is some true weenieism.
Posted by snark at December 15, 2005 10:49 AMWarner supports this war. I call that immoral and un-American. I will never vote for anyone who supports this war or bush's actions. Never.
Posted by jj at December 15, 2005 10:57 AMWhy do so many men think that the a single term in elected office qualifies them for POTUS? Warner, Edwards, Romney -- sheesh, even two terms is light on experience. (Yeah, I know some of them are so stupid that twenty terms wouldn't change that.)
Posted by Marie at December 15, 2005 11:13 AMWhy do so many men think that the a single term in elected office qualifies them for POTUS?
hmmmm....Hillary Clinton.....hmmm!
Posted by snark at December 15, 2005 11:18 AMWarner is a "stock" Democrat. He's trying to be as generic as possible so that he doesn't offend anyone. Stock behavior for a Red State candidate that had to adopt republican talking points to win.
I'm always amazed that some think a one-term win in a red state is enough to qualify someone to be President.
Warner is pro-war. screw him.
Posted by T2 at December 15, 2005 11:52 AMI sure as heck find plenty of fault with actual things Bush has done: like trying to dismantle Social Security, firing career government employees and replacing them with utterly unqualified cronies, a doctrine of pre-emptive war, and the NCLB unfunded mandate that is now strangling our wonderful public schools.
If he doesn't find fault with any of these, he sure won't get my vote.
Posted by raisin at December 15, 2005 11:54 AMI have to agree with those who question the thought that one term as governor of a state qualifies on to be president. Other than learning the political skills necessary to garner support for a candidacy (GETTING the job), nothing comes from serving one term that generates confidence in actually DOING the job. In the case of state governors, there is no experience in dealing with the regional differences of this nation, especially if the resume only lists one term. Then, there are the international issues,
This isn't to say that such a candidate couldn't be successful, but the odds of that are lessened proportionally to the number of political positions held prior to national office.
One more thing: it is way too early to 'want' to back any candidate, considering that none have been tested about the current national issues. Past statements and actions will count, but they alone are not enough.
Posted by pessimist at December 15, 2005 11:58 AM'on to be president' should read ONE to be president.
My bad.
Posted by pessimist at December 15, 2005 12:01 PMWell Senators never win, so it seems governors are a better bet.
Posted by CG at December 15, 2005 12:41 PMI think this interview with Howard Zinn at Raw Story bolsters your thoughts here.
The insights Mr. Zinn displays puts the Iraq war and the Democratic position on it into perspective.
And it should be mandatory for all of the Democratic leaders.
Posted by brians3 at December 15, 2005 12:43 PMExcuse me. This is the link for the Howard Zinn interview.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/As_Iraq_votes_liberal_historian_looks_1215.html
Posted by brians3 at December 15, 2005 12:45 PMDon't you ever get tired of the mental energy you spend not acknowleding John Kerry, let alone anything he's actually done to help the party of the country? Perpetually leaving Kerry off the list of Democrats who may run in '08 is not only small of you, but it really burns those people who supported him and would gladly do so again. Which of course puts you right back in the position of dividing the party, as you so ably did in 2004.
Keep up the good work
Posted by Melba at December 15, 2005 02:00 PMhttp://rawstory.com/news/2005/As_Iraq_votes_liberal_historian_looks_1215.html
brians3 - thanks for the link above. Everyone should read this.
STEVE how can you support anyone who supports this war. You have lost all credibility with me. Also the dems will just keep losing with this kind of immoral position. What contempt for the people of this country you show and Warner. The people are waking up to bush's lies and you and the dems just want them to go back to sleep. scum - all of you!
Posted by jj at December 15, 2005 02:05 PM...scum - all of you!
Why thank you!
I'll take that as a compliment.
Posted by snark at December 15, 2005 02:08 PMjj:
Which part of the first sentence of this post escaped you?
Posted by Steve Soto at December 15, 2005 02:40 PM"...the best Democrat candidate in the 2008 race...."
I agree w/ most of your post, Steve, but for the love of Pete, can we PULEEZE not use the Republican Talking Point Name for our party?! We're Democrats, in the DemocratIC Party!
"I sure as heck find plenty of fault with actual things Bush has done: like trying to dismantle Social Security, firing career government employees and replacing them with utterly unqualified cronies, a doctrine of pre-emptive war, and the NCLB unfunded mandate that is now strangling our wonderful public schools.
"If he doesn't find fault with any of these, he sure won't get my vote."
Preach on!!
And finally,
"hmmmm....Hillary Clinton.....hmmm!"
Snark, by the time she runs, Senator Clinton will be well into her SECOND term. In fact, she'll have two MORE years as an elected leader than your hero, Smirky McWarHardon (aka Incurious George) did when he decided (or Rove interrupted his GameBoy playing to tell him) he was presidential material.
And I'm not even Hillary's biggest fan, as a Gen. Clark supporter. As for Kerry, I've seen how he "handled" his Swift Boating and I'm done w/ him. I'm looking for a FIGHTER and I don't see Hillary or Clark on an election-night hair-trigger to concede.
Posted by bartcopfan at December 15, 2005 03:05 PMSTEVE - I apologize (ONCE AGAIN!) - I have a terrible temper when it comes to this war - it is life and death after all! My point is we have to STOP THIS WIMPINESS. Why do you even want to consider some one like this? You WANT to support Warner - why? the dems need strong clear positions. And someone who when attacked will punch back with a knockout punch. This Warner is a wimp who will not fight. Don't waste your time with his kind.
Posted by jj at December 15, 2005 03:12 PMWarner is a one-term governor in a red state. He should be running for the Senate against Allen, not for president. We have major foreign policy problems, and he has no experience at all. I can't imagine why you would want to support him for president.
Posted by JudyL at December 15, 2005 05:55 PMWarner will only be a reasonable pick if someone with national security experence like Wesley Clark is nominated. He won't embarrass the party on national TV and he might just paint relatively competitive VA blue. But, he is a one term gov. with no national security experence and national security is going to be an issue in 2008 like it or not. Even if the GOP has no other issue by then, and they may not, they will try to use 911, which will still matter somewhat. Someone on the 2008 ticket is going to have to have credable national security credentials and scince Warner doesn't have them, his would be running mate will need them.
Posted by rlp at December 15, 2005 06:22 PMSnark, by the time she runs, Senator Clinton will be well into her SECOND term. In fact, she'll have two MORE years as an elected leader than your hero, Smirky McWarHardon (aka Incurious George) did when he decided (or Rove interrupted his GameBoy playing to tell him) he was presidential material.
Excuse me bartcopfan but your ass is showing.
Hillary Clinton will get re-elected Senator and will proceed to spend the next two years campaigning for the presidency. She will in effect have one term of Senate experience. But if you think a term and a half makes that much difference than a single term who am I to quibble.
As to your shit about my hero Smirky if you spent anytime reading comments here it would be abundantly clear that I am far from a Bush fan. My reference to Clinton was a shot at Marie's exclusive reference to "men" thinking that one term in elective office qualifies them to be POTUS. So excuse me but go fuck yourself.
Posted by snark at December 16, 2005 06:02 AM"I really want to support outgoing Virginia governor Mark Warner for president in 2008."
Ummm ... why?
Melba,
It requires no energy at all to leave Kerry off the list -he should have been left off last time. He would only further embarrass himself with another run.
Posted by CJ at December 16, 2005 12:05 PMDon't be fooled by a blog post where someone would criticize Warner based on an incomplete quotation from his speech. At least go read the context of his stump speech before you make a decision.
http://warnerwatch.blogspot.com/2005/12/left-coaster-attacks-warner-washington.html
Posted by Daniel D at December 16, 2005 03:00 PM