Ok, after watching Warner on Face the Nation, here is what I think

I have serious concerns about Warner's ability to fight the kind of negative campaign that John Kerry faced. Because you know he will face that kind of flak. Any of our candidates would. Warner did not take the chance to hammer Bush as a deadweight on Jerry Kilgore's campaign. I also don't like his "let's not find out about how we got into the war" rhetoric. I want to know everything there is to know about that. It's about accountability, and we can do that at the same time as planning for the future.

I also think that someone should go back and make sure that Warner's record in Virginia is genuine. When he talks of working with the Republican legislature, and his accomplishments in Virginia, I hear echoes of Bush talking about how he worked with Democrats in Texas, and how his record in Texas was so wonderful.

OK, before everybody jumps on me, I happen to think Kerry "won" But not outside the Diebold margin. If we don't get a Dem Congress in '06, we'll still have Diebold to contend with in '08. Maybe even then, given how clueless so many Dems are.

Or vice versa. Would that be out of the question?

considering Democrats who a members of the DLC are, in fact, part of the DNC as well.

Or something like that. There's so much talk about the differences in strategies between DLC/DNC.

So the obvious hypothetical question: Would the Dems consider running a Warner/Dean or Dean/Edwards et al ticket?

...there is little difference between Dean/Warner/Edwards.

The Dems will run the most attractive running mate to the eventual winner of the primaries. It's all a calculated and strategic exercise.

would have signed the gay rights legislation Dean signed (not just Civil Unions but the civil rights law as well) Also Warner is much more pro gun than Edwards is and probably Dean as well. Warner ran on a platform of not altering gun laws in Virginia where they are about as anemic as possible.

"Marriage Affirmation Act".

http://www.vapartisans.org/pr041804a.htm

with a very powerful line item veto, but I stand behind my post in that Warner wouldn't support any positive items.

The DLC is a rogue element bent on domination of the DNC by eliminating the base in favor of corporate interests and a Republican-like agenda.

Will there be a re-run?

Sunday Talk shows twice. Once at 9:00am Pacific and again at 8:00pm Pacific.

Realplayer link:
http://play.rbn.com/?url=cspan/g2cspan/live/cspan4db.rm&proto=rtsp&rbnkey=1

One good thing is They cut out the commercials.

Especially if balance is needed on the ticket.

YMMV....

A lot can happen in three years.

NGU.

But a Democratic governer from a state as important as Virginia has to be taken seriously. We can easily think, do and talk about both 2006 and 2008 at the same time.

We should do that with all candidates.

I suspect that Mark is avoiding the "how we got into the war" story because many Dems have said we cannot win an election by only bashing the Pubs, we have to have positive, firm plans on what we are going to do and how. He knows many others in the Dem party are not going to let the lies, war, indicments mess just go away, and I think he's right in concentrating on a positive message.

As to his record, everything I have read, on DU and elsewhere, confirms Warner really was that good as Gov. of Va. Also, there must be a reason Warner was considered the best Governor in the Country, two years in a row.

which was the basis for no child left behind, IIRC. Then we found out that the reason was that Texas schools were "disappearing" the kids who would have brought the test scores down.

All I am saying is, we should continue to look at Virginia to see that what Warner started and Kaine is continuing is still a good thing in a few years.

He most definitely worked in a bi-partisan manner -- he had to. The republicans dominate the state legislature.

-"Governing Magazine was so impressed with Mark Warner’s abilities and bipartisn style of governing, they named him and Republican Senate Finance Chairman John Chichester “Public Officials of the Year” in 2004.

He worked with very closely Chichester to pass a tax reform plan. Actually the tax reform plan that moderate Republicans were supporting would have raised taxes much higher than Warners plan.

That's where campaign experience can be critical. Looks as though we'll have a fantastic crop to put to the test.

My impression of Hillary is one of competence. I see her campaign being competently managed and run. Much better than Kerry's.

Warner's advantage is that he has the potential to take Virginia, which Hillary does not, IMHO.

I know, Hillary has more passionate haters than passionate fans. Most polls I have seen show 40% definitely voting against her. That is a lot to over come. Amongst my friends and family, no one wants her to run. Even in the DU it seems like most don't want her to run.

Hillary doesn't have the homestate advantage that works to our benefit. We already win NY. Warner would win VA, which means that all he needs to do is win the same states as Kerry, and then take another state with 5 or more electoral votes. New Mexico, Iowa (both won by Gore) are options. Maybe if Clark was VP they could take Arkansas.

able to acquire such immense political statue with limited personal qualifications. My problem with her and her husband is my belief that they put their own ambitions far ahead of the best interests of the United States. In other words, I believe that she would sell out in order to achieve her personal goals.

How could we vote for anyone who supported the Iraq war and who supports leaving the troops there?

Bayh, Vilsak are dead end streets. Maybe Warner or some other new face would fill the bill. I'd like to know more about Warner. Nobody is perfect. If he meets more of the winning criteria than the others then we choose him. I guess that boils down to what is are the winning criteria and who are "we"?

Somewhat contradicting myself, I would be willing to give the "new" Al Gore another shot. He has matured as a politician and philosopher since the 2000 election was stolen from him. "fool me once", etc.

However, I consider both Bayh and Vilsack to be new faces. Neither is known well by the average voter beyond his home state.

I wouldn't give Al Gore another shot even though I liked him in 2000 and like him even better now. He would remind people of that 2000 election that upset many, many in the middle. In that way, he's the past. We need the future.

execution. His disturbing embrace of a centrist view point made it hard to understand what would make him a good president. He clearly and eloquently articulated why he was a successful governor for Virginia. He focused on appealing to the center and rural voters.

The dismissing of Iraq and the issues that led to the nation's failure to find WMD's etal, was very disappointing. The men and women of the Armed Forces need to ensure that people take their lives and the expeditures of them very seriously.

Currently, I am indifferent to Warner. He should throw his center hat into the center ring, just to have the debate and ascertain if his ideas will resonate for a sustained length of time amongst the admittedly liberal primary voters.

You've got to be kidding, using a first impression with the American public to hammer Bush regarding how he impacted Jerry Kilgore's campaign? Talk about a negative and masochistic approach. That's just what I've said all along about our lousy handicapping.

Warner had many great points. I loved how he twice emphasized needing to compete nationwide, not just cherry pick 16 states and then try for a "triple bank shot" in the 17th. That's the term I've used regarding Warner in virtually every post, margin for error. He provides it and seems to grasp the necessity more than anyone since Clinton.

Warner laid out four areas of concern regarding Iraq in particular and military takeover in general. There is no way he should have declaratively come out for or against that senate vote three years ago. It would be too simple for Republicans, or even primary foes, to trace what he was doing at that exact point and isolate a minor event he attended or some local issue he emphasized at the time and claim something like, "Now he claims he would have voted against the war, but on (fill in a date) Mark Warner never mentioned Iraq and was focused on..." He needs to stay consistent with his stance at the time. That's obviously what got Kerry in trouble, talking too much, not too little. Just think how 2004 might have evolved differently without the "for it before against it" clip.

Newsflash: Bush got elected in 2000 largely because of a phony reputation as a "uniter not a divider." The public eats that crap up whether it's legit or not. Very difficult for Virginia Republicans or Republicans in general to dispute that claim of Warner's regarding bipartisan support when he's got a 74% approval rating in a state where Democrats normally receive 45% or less of the vote.

Damn, I still cannot believe I missed it!

I can't understand how you missed it either. You much organize yourself my friend! :shrug:

I needed some rest. Its all good though. C-SPAN radio will be replaying the interview tonight at 8pm.

there is nothing but your candidate? Nothing else matters. All things are your candidate. Try to get it straight, eh? ;-)

Julie