Can Mark Warner Stop Hillary in 2008? (Sunday's NYT Magazine Cover Story)

So, now the NY Times is trying to destroy Warner, before he even gets started. Veeeeery interesting. Let the tinfoil explanations begin.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002156856

By Greg Mitchell

Published: March 10, 2006 11:30 AM ET

NEW YORK If he wasn’t already the “hot” outsider in the race for president in 2008 (yes, it’s already underway), the cover story of this Sunday’s New York Times Magazine certainly cements it. The giant photo of former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, beaming a little creepily, stares out adjacent to a Democratic campaign button promising, “The Anti-Hillary.”

The Times pegs him as the “centrist Democrat” though “national unknown” who could be “the BILL Clinton of 2008.”

The massive article by Matt Bai actually kicks off with what may be a flawed conceit: that Hillary Clinton “already seems to have a lock on the Democrat nomination.” Many observers would argue that she will be strongly challenged in the primaries (which usually tilt left) by more liberal candidates. But Joe Trippi, the former Howard Dean guru, writes off any serious challenge to Clinton in Bai’s article: “It’s not possible,” he says.

Still, huff and puff as he might, Bai ends up picturing Warner, who is comfortable with domestic issues, as an empty suit when it comes to international and military affairs, uncomfortable or ill-informed in answering many policy questions, despite much remedial work. He seems to have, literally, nothing to say about Iraq. With his only experience as a one-term governor, his chief appeal seems to be that he is wildly popular in a Red state—and is “really, sickening wealthy,” with access to a person fortune “said to approach $200 million.”

Yawn.

Who cares what the RW anointees are doing? They're so irrelevant. We're nominating a Democrat next time.

then when Gore or Clark/Feingold (my favorite!!!) or Edwards sneaks in, the DLC and the MSM and the RNC will all be in shock long enough to allow our guy to get some traction.

I'm hoping Boxer or Conyers will run.

:puke:

Both have won in states that have large rural populations. Warner is popular with sportmen and hunters cause he is not a gun control advocate neutralizing that issue and Feingold has been really strong on civil liberties issues and that's a big issue with everyday people. By the time Feingold's presidency was over Warner would have plenty of foreign policy experience to run and win himself. Meanwhile Hillary stays out front and the GOP gears up against her as THE nominee and she doesn't run and the spin machine can't turn around that fast and Feingold and Warner are IN!

Some Republican callers expressed dismay over Junior's regime and mentioned if Mark Warner ran they would crossover and vote for him.

Don't know what that means, really.

Maybe he's a candidate that could appeal across-the-board (well, of course, except to the "progressives" here at DU since they constitute only about 2.5% of the vote and would rather eat dirt than vote for a filthy "DLC'er.").

Nor massive advantage in a vital state.

Might be too confusing, disrupt the game plan. A victory wouldn't allow for all the Diebold threads.

who was clearly against Roe v. Wade. Should we do that?

The Party shouldn't be defined by R v W. Let individual candidates take the position but keep the Party out of it. The Democrat Party needs to redefine it's image as pro-America and neutralize the GOP on the social issues. We know where the GOP stands, as it is pro-business, not pro America. They use abortion as an issue to bring in the religious right for donations and votes while they run an agenda that is 100 per cent focused on improving the financial well being of the corporate elite at the expense of middle America.

...if we pledged to enshrine Fundamentalist Christianity as the National religion and outlaw all others!!!!

You are definately on to something!!!

Lets forget about our Democratic Party values and chase after republican voters!!!!

Oh wait a minute......
:eyes:

He's a die-hard Republican and I was surprised he'd even heard of Warner.

The Democrats must first decide as a party if they wish to win or lose.

The country is craving for a candidate that is somewhat moderate and truly a uniter and not a divider. Many independents and Republicans would gladly join the ranks to boot the regime in power. I'm not sure of Hillary's position as she has vacillated. At one time she said she was pro-war yet most Republicans still view her as very liberal and divisive. She has lots of heavy baggage.

My own belief is a successful Democrat governor in a red state proves that they are able to unite. A Senator is not a good stepping stone to candidacy of POTUS as there is too much baggage brought along. If Hillary is picked I'll vote for her, but I believe the Democrats can do much better and improve odds of winning in 2008.

to the things that Hillary's had to say, i.e. supporting the bloody attack when we should have been raising questions about intelligence, advocating for permanent bases, agitating for war against Syria and pushing for war against Iran. Sometimes silence really is golden, but perhaps Matt Bai has his head too far up his rear end to recognize that. On Warner's Iraq views, I'm still wait-and-see. Clark, Boxer and Feingold have all defied the warmongerers and deserve our respect. Warner impresses me on just about every front so far, but I still want to hear what he has to say about Iraq.

Mr. Anti-Hillary (but not really) is gonna scare some folks!



Just kidding! (or maybe not!) :hi:

I'm still not convinced yet that Hillary is even running in 08. everybody is speculating

Yikes!

Well, anyway, screw both of them. I hope Al Gore runs.

That pic brings out everything one dislikes and distrusts in politicians. :rofl:

Is not a guy who belongs at the top of the ticket. He is not a moderate, he's a conservative, and he does nothing to mobilize the party. He's a policy guy who can work the political scenes. Dick Cheney without the evil. However, he has the personal charisma of... well I can't really think of something bad enough to describe it. Let's just put it this way he's stiffer than Al Gore was in 2000 and more bland than John Kerry in 2004.

I'd like to see Warner be second on the ticket, though, because I think he can play a vital role in a Democratic Administration. I just don't think he should be at the top of the ticket. If he does and performs well, I might think of him as a future Presidential Candidate. Not until then, though. He's young and has plenty of time.

Gore/Warner would be my recommendation, with Clark being promised Secretary of Defense.

Feingold Pres
Warner Veep
Bill Clinton Secy. of State
Al Gore Head of EPA
Babbit back at Interior
John Edwards director of HHS
Howard Dean Surgeon General
Rober Reich back at Labor
Wes Clark Defense
Bill Moyers -Press Secy

And how about a new Cabinet position Dept of Ethics.

And as a Hillary supporter...I have to disagree with some of your characterizations of Warner. I do believe moderate is the correct term to describe him. He is extremely intelligent, and in my opinion has been an outstanding Governor.

He has shown deft political skill dealing with a legislature controlled by the opposition, and is all about getting things done. While I agree he is no Bill Clinton personality wise, I do think he has some charisma about him.

It may very well be that after 8 years of adolescents n charge at the White House, voters may well be looking for a more mature, results oriented guy in there. I would not discount Mark Warner at all.

Ho hum.

Hillary = DLC

Warner = DLC

Neither will get my vote for that reason, alone. NEVER AGAIN.

No more DLC candidates, issues, opinions, campaigns......... nada! As Tony Soprano would say, FUGGETABOUTIT!

TC