Steve,
It's interesting that you and I latch on to the same candidates early on. I like Warner too though I haven't given him any money but I am signed up at his pac. I'm focusing on trying to get the fundamentalist idiots we have here in GA out of office right now. Hopefully, they will be gone next year.
Why, that's real sweet. Mark is a good old boy. I've known the dude, we called him Gumby, since he was the big guy in the Virginia Democratic Party. His wife didn't feed supporters well, though. Many times at fundraisers at their home in Alexandria, we sneered at her cheese platters from Safeway. "God", we'd say, "with her moolah, can't she shop at classier places?" Gumby did wrestle with state Repubs and convinced them to bend with him on the budget which is why today, Virginia isn't bad off. It's THE place to be, all thanks to our jolly green giant guy.
Posted by Mal Feasance at April 21, 2006 03:37 PMBush can't fire Runsfeld because in the successor's confirmation hearings the two questions would be "What did your predecessor do wrong?" and "What would you do differently?"
Buswh (and the rest of the GOP) can't have those questions expressed on national TV.
Posted by Mimikatz at April 21, 2006 03:48 PMYes, Warner should be commended. Yadda, yadda. But I don't really think his embracing of the Blogosphere comes out of a sense of altruism, but rather he is simply gauging the political winds more astutely than is Hillary. She, too, will embrace the bloggers before too long. They all will. They have no choice.
Forgive me if I take Warner's "conversion" with a grain of salt.
Posted by urizon at April 21, 2006 04:00 PMNot enough charisma, thank you, next,please.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 21, 2006 04:12 PMot- I like Tom Beaumont's work. Which means his time with Ganett or in Des Moines will be short.
Posted by idiosynchronic at April 21, 2006 04:45 PMWarner is ok, but he could do with some more passion. Please who are his advisors? Appeal to my head as well as my gut.
Posted by Ronnie at April 21, 2006 04:46 PMI'm with TIKI here. As we've learned, facts and and common sense are a big yawn with the voters. You gotta have some Elvis if you're going to attract that large bloc of women voters. Edwards, and to a certain extent, Feingold, have the Elvis. It's essential if the candidate's gonna be attractive to a wide swath of the masses, IMO.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 21, 2006 04:56 PMThere is absolutely nothing I've yet learned of Warner that has impressed me. Were he to gain the nomination, I would refuse to cast a democratic ballot in a presidential election for the first time in decades of voting.
At this point, a criticism leveled at Rumsfeld is hardly a profile in courage.
This nation was Big Lied into waging war. By my lights, any person unwilling to state that rude truth is unfit to be president.
Posted by Sonoma at April 21, 2006 05:15 PMSince the Democrats can only get Southern Governors elected as President, Mark Warner is the best of a sorry lot. In other words, he'd be a hell of lot better President than George Allen.
Posted by Jim S at April 21, 2006 09:32 PMWe can get other candidates than southern governors elected. If Kerry hadn't been such a stiff, he'd have been elected, even though he was from Massachusetts. I think people are more concerned with how someone comes across as a candidate rather than where they are from. Carter being from the South didn't help him against Reagan. If Warner's the best candidate, he deserves the nomination. But he doesn't deserve it just because he's a southern governor. Kerry ruined the whole "electability" thing for me.
Posted by dole4pineapple at April 22, 2006 12:49 AMThe first time I saw Warner on TV, speaking on Iraq, I thought him a complete rookie. But on NPR yesterday, he really impressed me too with his improved grasp.
Posted by bob h at April 22, 2006 04:53 AMNice article on Warner, Steve. He is low in the polling now, but so was Kerry at first. I believe it is because of name recognition, but once the debates and the election gets closer, people will learn of him and like what they hear.
I became a Warner fan after reading up on him last year and learning of what he did as governor of Virginia. This guy is one who can unite the democrats, pick up some southern states, and appeal to the American middle class, and has proven he can take away votes from Republican contenders. His approval rating in Virginia, long a republican stronghold, is almost 80%.
He's definately my horse for 2008.
Posted by Hank at April 22, 2006 06:22 AMSteve Soto should save his money for Al Gore.
Posted by John B. at April 22, 2006 08:20 AMI believe that The General, Wesley Clark, may be about as electable as Warner, and is significantly more liberal. Warner has made statements of appeasement that I don't like.
If a Warner candidacy could have an excellent shot at winning Virginia, I might consider it (Virginia having more electoral votes than Arkansas).
Posted by Herman at April 22, 2006 08:36 AMWonder what the Bushites are planning for the October surprise this year?
Captured Osama?
Iran invasion?
Laura's laundry?
Mary Beth and Kate's memoirs?
Posted by A Reader at April 22, 2006 08:47 AM...gauging the political winds more astutely ...[:] Hillary. She, too, will embrace the bloggers before too long. They all will. They have no choice.
And they will hand the GOP the best counterpoints they could ask for!
In Hillary's case, she's already open to the carpetbagger charge (not that I agree with it. If the people of New York weren't willing to accept her, they would not have elected her in the first place.)
By turning to bloggers now, though, she will be opening up the flank attack option on the opportunist charge front. I still submit that Hillary's ambition is greater than her accomplishments, and that unless she can find a way to at least balance them, she shouldn't run.
As for Warner, the topic of this thread, I remain uncommitted to him due to his relative lack of exposure to date. When I last saw him, I wasn't impressed (like a commenter upstream) either. I am not going to hold this against him, as I see that only a Beltway outsider really has a chance of presenting him/her self to the American people as a representative of real change. IF he really is improving his knowledge of current events - as another commenter mentioned - fine. That is going to be a point in his favor. But he still has many topics on which to demonstrate ability before I can become his advocate.
Posted by pessimist at April 22, 2006 02:37 PMYes, I don't think Warner should get the nomination simply because he was a Southern governor of a red state. Then again, I don't think Hilary should get the nomination simply because she's a woman and her last name is Clinton.
Posted by Mike at April 24, 2006 05:05 PM