Heads Up: Mark Warner and McCain on Face The Nation Tomorrow AM

For those interested.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/02/10/ftn/main159086.shtml

a repukelican, answered by a Middle of the road Dem.

or one who basically runs the country by what James Dobson and Pat Robertson tell him to do?

Your choice.

You're exactly right. It's that simple...either a moderate/left president or allowing James Dobson and Pat Robertson to wield enormous influence and power.

No, I'm not turning cartwheels over the prospect of Mark Warner as the nominee in 2008. But one of the most dangerous trends in this country is the rising influence of the religious right in this country. I think the rr has WAY too much power right now. They should be relegated to the furtherest fringes of American politics...right there with the John Birch Society.

And the James Dobsons and the Pat Robertsons will have less influence in a Warner Administration.

Yes, that's the choice.

That way, when he (and it will be a he for the foreseeable future) proposes legislation that once was thought of as "leftist," it will seem more moderate by the mushy middle.

For example, if Hillary (who is moderate, but perceived as far left) proposes National Healthcare Insurance, it's sure to be seen as "socialism." However, if a liberal perceived as a moderate did it, it would be tempered somewhat.

Therefore, I want a liberal perceived as a moderate.

Another good Democrat is attacked on DU.

I listened to Mark Warner being interviewed on cspan last week. I was very inpressed. He's NOT a radical, but a radical CAN'T win a National election!!!!

He's a Governor, and Gov's have a very good track record in elections as opposed to Senators.

I can understand that all on DU have personal opinions, and nobody is totally happy with any candidate, but I still don't understand why so many are instantly ready to slam every Dem candidate!

this is the attitude that brought us George Bush. Some of these people are folks who thought Gore was too "centrist" and didn't vote for him either or voted for Nader.

The blood of 2000 american kids is on their hands too, imho.

100 percent correct.

He's a rising star. Even the people who are lukewarm about him know this.

I understand why some of his potential opponents might feel threatened, but why people on DU?

nt

He is one of only three Democrats who attended the Bilderburger meeting last June. I wonder if he has the next Bohemian Grove in the day planner as well. I'd hold my nose and vote for him but if a centrist is going to be shoved down our throats again, but why is he any better than Bayh who has been both a Governor and a Senator?

But running is one thing
and going on TV to speak for my party is tough to take, and another thing altogether. I demand leadership and I have signed the pledge to only support those candidates who intend to end the occupation of Iraq. I want The truth, no equivocation. Mot to forget , I am gay , and I DO have a litmus test.

It is essentially a transplanted southern state. The partisan index (difference from state popular vote margin to national margin) in Indiana is actually much more Republican than many southern states. There is indication Virginia is trending our way while Indiana is lock steady as a GOP stronghold. Picking up Virginia's 13 electoral votes would be enormous, basically shifting the margin for error in our favor. You can see by the charts below these two states were almost identical in the '88 presidential race but have moved in opposite directions.

Indiana:
'88: Bush (59.84 - 39.69) = + 12.43% Republican
'92: Bush (42.91 - 36.79) = + 11.68% Republican
'96: Dole (47.13 - 41.55) = + 14.11% Republican
'00: Bush (56.65 - 41.01) = + 16.15% Republican
'04: Bush (59.94 - 39.26) = + 18.22% Republican

Virginia:
'88: Bush (59.74 - 39.23) = + 12.79% Republican
'92: Bush (44.97 - 40.59) = + 9.94% Republican
'96: Dole (47.10 - 45.15) = + 10.48% Republican
'00: Bush (52.47 - 44.44) = + 8.54% Republican
'04: Bush (53.68 - 45.48) = + 5.74% Republican

couldn't he turn Indiana Blue in running for President?

Me, I don't see a bit of difference between Bayh and Warner in terms of their philosophy thus far.

They both seem not so "leaderlike"....and both are into "triangulation" just like Hillary.

But we'll soon see what's what, and who's who.

about a meeting of influential people that only raises suspicion because it has the audacity to ask members not to speak to the media.

Ooooooooh. They must be plotting to kill all of us.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

I wouldnt exactly call Edwards a centrist...

In fact, I had to hold my nose to vote for Kerry because he was stupid enough to stick such fluffy inexperience on the ticket.

Bilderberg. I haven't heard of him and Boehmian Grove though.

He's the DU Flavor of the Week.

That'll pass, especially as the Bilderburg issue becomes more clear to DUers.

after McCain and his plan about Iraq. Would it have not made more sense to have somebody who is able to speak about these issues with some authority?

Bayh was one of the most conservative senators until he contemplated running for president. Now he votes more in line with the rest of the party. I like Bayh and would vote for him in a general election, but he's definitely more conservative overall than Warner.

If it came to Warner and Hillary I'd go with Warner. She could be a good VP though.

Sunday morning talk shows.

instead of a one term gov. with really no background at all on this stuff.

Clark is on Fox news tomorrow AM. He'll be fending off the talking points crowd. He's been doing an excellent job at meeting the lion in its den...

BUT CLARK HAS NEVER BEEN ELECTED TO ANYTHING, EVER.

perceptions of the United States in one fell swoop.

In this instance, Gloria is trying to explain that a governor who has limited experience in foreign policy issues shouldn't be the one answering McCain.

It's not a bash. It's a matter of putting the best person forward for the job at hand.

opposed to Edwards who was part of a losing ticket (apparently didn't bring enough to it to win) and who was a one term Senator. Domestic issues are important, but still, Democrats are perceived as being weaker the Repugs on terror and related matters.

At the very least, we need a credible person as part of the team OUT THERE during the next campaign, because the way Bushco is going, we're still going to have HUGE problems in the Middle East, not to mention they may schedule a terror attack at the most opportune time...

One of my gripes with the Kerry-Edwards campaign was that we didn't see Clark being used more to bolster Democratic credentials in the above areas. If Warner is somehow the candidate, we will need exactly the same thing...

Which then goes back to question: Why don't we nominate someone who has the damned experience?? Anybody can repeat a general answer, but maybe we need someone who you know wouldn't need a ton of advisors to tell them what to do. Someone who already pretty much KNOWS what has to be done and knows how our allies and our own army can work a plan....that could be a huge selling point if presented correctly....

What motivates this? Why the hostility?

Edwards, Warner, Richardson... They attack every candidate that isnt Wes. But basically its the same old thing.

Wes should be president. I mean, my god, he was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. He deserves to be president more than any Democrat. He's Wes Clark. He's on FOX news talking down the pukes.

And it took me a while before I figured out why NSD was interested in the guy making a possible run.

But a combination of.. 1) reading NSD's posts , 2) hearing Governor Warner on the Big Eddie show!, 3) reading on Tim Kaine's blog that he hopes (and thinks) that Warner will team up with Clark (if Warner is nominated), and finally... 4) reading tons of articles about how Virginia was rated the "Best Managed State in the Nation for 2005" made me stop and listen.

YES.. I admit.. I'm a Clarkie through and through! :patriot: ~~~~~~~~ And of course, I supported Senator Kerry completely when he won the nomination.

But when Warner entered the picture for me last summer (thanks to NSD) --- I started to think.. =huh= Does Lt. Governor Kaine really think these two will team up, or is he just trying to keep his blog interesting?

Over the summer.. General Clark came up here to Anchorage :hug: ..and he also spent a great deal of time in Virginia with Kaine and Warner. :)

So I thought to myself... "self I said".. maybe NickShep is onto someone here.

Then this past week, =whoa= the Governor of Virginia experienced his 15 minutes of fame! ....Only... after reading countless articles recetly... plus one a couple months back in Radar Magazine.. I really did start listening to NSD here... http://www.radaronline.com/fresh-intelligence/2005/07/11/index.php

I want him to make a run.. I'd like to see how he'll do against our other candidates! But if he does win nomination for our party and Kaine was right.. that will be too cool.

And yeah.. I know some here insist that "Clark will never be anyone's Cheney" ... and that could be true... then again.. Kaine has spent an awful lot of time with Warner and Clark. :shrug:

What does Tim Kaine know that I don't know? ...Next time anyone runs in to Clark, please ask him if he's teaming up with the Gov. or or going out on his own again.

If Clark goes out on his own... sorry Mr. Governor.. gotta take a backseat till the nominee phase! If Clark runs, he comes first.

So... we'll wait and see --- but I'd love to see them team up~ Speaking of the Governor - he's a picture of him recent "boogieing with Middle School kids" Said he's promise to dance with them if they raised their grades on the state testing---- and boy did they! :rofl:

And Im glad you were listening while I was 'preaching'. Warners a great Democrat and he will make a fine president.

Yes NickshepDem.... everything I know about the Good Governor, I credit it to you.

I still would have heard him on Big Eddie... but I never would have listened to every word he said!

Yeah.. the guys ROCKS!

I'm extremely excited about his potential run!!!

Boogie on Down Governor == the teachers, the staff, and most of all-- the KIDS love it!!!

What topics does he generally hit on? Why does Ed bring him on?

Yeah, its late... Im off to bed.

I've just started reading about Warner. He's intrigueing and may have a good chance. The Dems do better with southern Governors. I saw a few clips of him on TV and I was not that impressed. The This Week time will be critical. Let's see if he's capable of discussing foreign policy.

It's a long ways until the primaries and I'm open to most candidates at this point. I'm focused on 2006.

I think many are attracted to Clark because he isn't another "pandering, poll taking, self-serving, put my own needs before doing what is right for the country" politician.

I remember Warner at the Democratic dinner during the 04 primary (aired on CSPAN). Did he ever have a pissed off look on his face. I got the impression that Warner didn't want anyone screwing up his plans for an 08 run.

of Warner that you did. I thought he was thoughtful and charming. I thought he spoke passionately about what the Democratic party stands for. Now if you want to call that defending his turf.... I don't get it. But it's probably just me. ;)

All I can say if looks could kill. I'm not talking about his speech. Clark jumped into the race in 04 because he cared about this country. Unfortunately, too many Democrats only cared about their own political aspirations - the country be damned.

before doing what is right for the country" politician. Because he doesnt and never has held elective office. When your sitting on the sidelines its awful easy to monday morning quarterback.

conducted his life (for example, he put his career on the line to do the right thing in Bosnia). How many politicians do you know who would put the good of many ahead of his own self interest?

since the first time I saw him a couple of years ago. I've been advancing him since the day after the 2004 election. IMO, we need as many viable and appealing candidates running as possible. I personally want the voices of both Clark AND Warner out there emerging as the new faces of the the Democratic party. I also think that Clark and Warner will make a dynamic duo were they to team up.

will win in a general election.

We don't bash Richardson, as a general rule. And not all Clarkies hate Warner or Edwards.

I don't hate Warner. I just don't think he has the FP experience in a post-9/11 world and while we're at war.

Not a bash - a legitimate concern.

to the folks at moveon.org. You folks should be able to see the media is again pushing McCain and will be pro McCain as it leads up to the 08 race. If I were you I would cut his ass off at the pass, and begin airing lil 30 seconds spots showing McCain saying positive words about Bush. Show pictures of McCain hugging Bush. Show McCain eating cake with Bush the Monday afternoon after Katrina hit the coastal states. Anything to stop his phoney ass from capturing the white house.

Because I'm not sure anyone from there ever reads our boards... but if I were you, I'd share that over at their site!

http://www.moveon.org/

He's the only one who could expose McCain for the self-serving, phony politician that he is.

Clark also has the credentials too!

:dem: