My dream ticket for 2008: Mark Warner/Wes Clark

Here are the advantages:

They're both from the South.

They've never served in Congress. No lengthy voting records for Republican opposition research people to sift through.

They'll both have plenty of time on their hands. Mark Warner's term as governor will end in January of 2006, he can begin gearing up for a presidential run then. I'm not sure what Wes Clark plans on doing, but I certainly hope he'll become a leading voice on foreign affairs and the war against terrorism.

Their names are short. The ticket with the fewest syllables usually wins.

Mark Warner is loaded. His net worth is estimated at $200 million.

But in any case, we're still talking about a shitload of money

and the stock market tanked. I did a google search on "Mark Warner" and "net worth" and found the $200 million reference. It could be higher.

Oh, and Mark Warner made his fortune. He didn't inherit it.

I wonder if General Clark would be willing to serve as VP here? Since he's already ran in 2004? Anyone know if he was open to being Kerry's VP??

And so far I like what I have read about Warner. What are his stances on other issues?

The only problem might be name recognition. But, he will be out of office come '06, so that should give him plenty of time to get himself out there.

Warner '06!

It is a moderate ticket that has something for everybody.

I wonder whether the Catholic bishops will be just as outraged by the inclusion of a pro-choice Catholic at the bottom of the ticket.

Clark is being suggested due to his Foreign Policy/National Security Experience. Vilsack does not add to a Warner ticket here. Clark does.

NT

Kerry an excellent security resume, but not only didn't connect with populist-style voters, lacked the initiative to stamp out lies about his war record.

Clark looked very inexperienced in the primaries. I don't want hear about how he almost started WWIII for weeks on end. I know it is bullshit, but the Republicans *will* do the fear and smear, regardless of the resume.

We need seasoned, likeable, and experienced politicians working for us who are ready to rumble. Vilsack can relate to ordinary Americans, especially in the midwest, while Clark's appeal is similar to the Howard Dean professional demographic.

and had a much better National Security resume than Kerry will ever have. He was a general until 2000 who planned, fought and won a entire war...a Nato war at that!

......John Kerry fighting in Vietnam 35 years ago was his claim to National Security....(Clark also fought and was wounded in Vietnam....but there was no controversy linked to his Silver Star or his Purple heart....nor did he protest when he came back...he stayed to rebuilt the army instead)

We understand that Clark would have been attacked by the repug during the general election....although they threw it all at him during the primaries....because most things that hurt Clark during the primaries (only hurt his image with Dems who fear anything military) would have actually helped us win in a general election.

Clark himself was the the source of stating that General Jackson (an unpopular British General) had made that statement about him starting WWIII. However, that quote was in reference to Clark not wanting the Russians to land planes and botch a military set up by NATO. Therefore, stating that Clark would not have been afraid to back down and that he had the balls to challenge the Russians would have been seen as resolute and a strong stance from a forceful leader. It only hurt him during the Dem primaries when scary "weak on defense" Dems would be voting.

Maybe that is why we rarely see any Democratic Generals and none ever ran for the office of Prez (xcept Clark). Because their resume and actions can be to easily translated as too military and hawkish to make it throught a Democratic primary. Unfortunately, during general Election....that is exactly what a Democrat needs if running during wartime (War on Terra will not be done by 2008).

I hope Democrats have learned something from this election......the Daddy Party wins over the Mommy Party during wartime......all of the time.

Doesn't always win elections. 20 years for John Kerry did not yield a win.

I like this idea.

when they were vetting VP.. I think he would be a good choice.

Bush wasn't the governor of Texas for more than six years. Experience should not matter, as long as we have the right candidate.

Somehow.

What the hell is wrong with you? Did you miss the fact that we won this one and they stole it? like 2000 and 2002?

How about Warner-Bredesen?

Two southern governors that would give us a shot at knocking out 2 southern states. We don't need to win the whole south. We need the Clinton-Gore strategy of 1992...just picking off a state here and there will give us enough EV's to claim victory. We need to win! I'm sick of losing!

what experience is Bredesen in the National Security post 9/11 era? Will the supposed "war on Terra" be won by 2008. I doubt it!

If the Repugs bring forth a ticket like Jeb Bush/McCain....we lose again. Tired of being perceived as the Mommy party.

Warner/Bredesen has too many syllables. Just sounds like a loser without knowing anything else!

And he's going to have to do it with Bush campaigning in his backyard.

Mike Easley won re-election though...so he's our backup.

Their governors only serve 1 term.

I'm not sure if Warner is considered likeable. From now on, no one should be considered atop our ticket unless we know damn well middle America will warm up to him. That's automatic teflon. Both Gore and Kerry were stuck with 3/1 ratios of "He'll say anything to be elected," according to exit polls. Easley in North Carolina is considered likeable, not inspiring rage even among Republicans, but his approval ratings are not as high as Warner's. Still, Easley won re-election by huge margin in a state that went double digits for Bush. Warner won narrowly in Virginia, if I remember correctly from 2001.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031778866757

BY JEFF E. SCHAPIROTIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER Nov 1, 2004

Most Virginians like the job Gov. Mark R. Warner is doing and approve of his hard-fought, $1.4 billion tax increase, according to The Times-Dispatch/NBC12 Poll.

The survey also shows Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore the early favorite for governor next year over Lt. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, but nearly four in 10 voters are undecided.

As Warner approaches his final year as governor, 61 percent grade his performance as good or excellent; 39 percent describe it as fair or poor.

Warner, campaigning in Southwest Virginia during the weekend for the Democratic ticket, declined comment.

Anyone who can pass a billion dollar plus tax hike and still enjoy favoribility ratings like that has to be.

:headbang:

:thumbsup:

We don't need old thinking. We need new thinking. We need to reach out to a new set of nonvoters. We need a group that counterbalances the fundies. A moderate Democratic ticket has failed in the last two elections; it won't work. We need campaign leaders with ideals. I hate Bush, but he does have ideals, right-wing ones, that have more to do with building a Christian materialist world, but they are ideals. We need new thinking in the Democratic Party. Neither Warner nor Clark represent serious new thinking. They will lose.