MARK WARNER Dropping out of '08 race Helps WES CLARK!

WHY?
Cause I said it does, THAT'S WHY! And since I consider myself just as insightful as the "let's got to war", "Democrats have no plan", and "Bush is a decisive Leader" Paid Pundits that are out there telling us what we should think--all based on their "Expert" "thoughtful" analysis or lackthereof, or their last conversation at the watercooler with other Paid Pundits (whichever you decide)...I say, Why don't I just weight in! I'm certainly not going to let election 2006 destract me from speculatin'! :shrug:

Actually, kidding aside....and truth be told, it does most likely help John "I get fantabulous press because I'm such a nice guy, so There!" Edwards the most.

Why? What is it that both Warner and Edwards have in common that would help one if the other stepped out of the 2006 political Democratic primary frey?

They are both regarded as Southerners, although Warner doesn't have the drawl....

They are/were both considered "electable" and kinda of interesting to look at; although one was a bit goofy looking, the other is considered "Hot" by those who know about such things.

They are both regarded as novice on Foreign Policy Issues....

They both "made" good and are now millionairs, and both claim humble beginnings...

They both were to the right of center politicians originally and that's how they were elected to their respective offices, although Edwards has shifted...

They both share what has been touted by the the paid pundits as JFK/RFK Attributes: They both have losta hair; Warner the Jaw (as it was reported) and Edwards the oratory skill(although I don't personally think so, but then maybe I'm no better than a pundit).

They both attended Bildenberg and spoke in front of APAIC.

They both were touted as Anti-Hillarys by the Paid Pundits.


OK....So I've said my piece. :hide:

PS. The only way Warner bowing out would help Wes Clark is if Mark Warner one day admits that the reason he decided not to run was that he realized that going to foreign countries for a visit or three does not Foreign policy/national security experience make....and that the 2008 election will be about those issues first and foremost. Since I don't think that is something that will ever be said until after election 2008 (and certainly NOT by any "thoughtful" Pundit analysis, I've decided not to hold my breath on that one.

Warner realized he needed more time/knowledge/experience to deal with the foreign policy side. I mean its a mess out there folks. Who's got the gravitas to clean this shit up?

do about Iraq has got to wear most people down after awhile. Few can handle that question in any comprehensive or consistent way. I think this is what eventually began to get to Warner.

And so far, I see only two of them doing it at this point - Clark and Kerry - for obvious reasons - they are the only two who have the depth of knowledge to independently craft a doable plan on their own.

Even where they differ you can still see the doability factor in their plans.

I really don't think that helped him at all. In particular with the Kos Crowd who don't like the tax cuts that we've seen. Maybe he saw his donations dwindling. Also, I seem to remember his big party at the Yearly Kos; which seem to backfire somehow and for which he was criticized for.

And since the meida likes to speculate about who is ahead in the race for 2008 more than they want to talk about the 2006 races, that makes you a pundit talking about a hot topic. Now if you can just get ten more pundits as credentialed and knowledgable as yourelf to echo your opinion, you can stake a claim on the new conventional wisdom. Then others can report on it.

which has got to mean that my opinion, unlike theirs, isn't worth Deedly-squat! :(

(edited to correct doodley-squat to deedly-squat(sp?) --this can happen when you are not U.S. Born ya know! )

:)

it helps Clark more than it hurts him also. The media rarely has the attention span to talk about more than 4 possible candiates, and Edwards was going to get his time anyway. Warner seemed to have gotten a free pass into one of those top slots also, so it was hard for any "second tier" (read to mean "never was on a National Democratic ticket or married to someone who was") candidate to get any oxygen. Warner also sucked up potential campaign funds and talented staff, that is all up for grabs now too.

Warner never was a DC politician, Warner was "from the South", Warner appealed to moderates as well as Liberals, Warner had some netroots support. Well guess what? All of the above is true for Wes Clark also, and not for many others.

Sen. Obama are not in that 2nd tier!

Well, you know it's wartime and all of that! So why wouldn't the pundits want Hillary/Edwards/Obama/(Bayh will replace Warner) as top tier. I mean, it's all sooooo logical, right?

Plus Edwards was just on Ophra, Obama is on the October Men's Vogue cover, and Hillary is, well Hillary! I mean, what else could one ask for? Sounds like Democratic Candidate heaven to me! :shrug:

I will say that Obama is looking pretty damn good on that cover! That's for sho'!
Got some good press from "serious" journalists for it too.....more than Warner got for his New Yorker pose (I remember that Warner one didn't go over too well!) Obama was even called a "UBersexual" (new sooper dooper pundit words, I reckon!)http://www.jossip.com/gossip/advertising/top-10-ubersexuals-aka-mens-vogue-cover-models-20051011.php (Edwards better watch out or team up with him)


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081001857.html?nav=rss_politics
http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2006/08/obama_strikes_a.html
http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/local_story_223173106.html (TV reporting video included, compares Obama to doing better than supermodels by anchors)



Hey....whatever happen to Wil-Sack and Bidet?

He has even LESS experience dealing with complex international issues than either Edwards or Warner, the logic is air tight and perfectly consistent. It really took some serious looking to find a candidate to plausibly promote for President of whom that could be said. But hey, not much is happening in the world outside our borders nowadays that anyuone much cares about anyway.

Nothing against Obama really, or Edwards or Warner either for that matter. Just talking about criteria.

... are still potential candidates, according to the MSM...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061013/ap_on_el_ge/presidential_politics

while the country goes to hell in a hand basket..... (to use one of my mother's favorite phrases).

I think that MC (Ryan Seacress or something???) on American Idol should take over Tweety's show. There wouldn't be a dime's worth of difference.

I bet not enough of 'em do to matter. Especially not in primaries.

I will concede that, of those who do, they're more likely to vote for whomever the corporate media tells 'em, and know nothing at all about anyone else who's running.

He's a Southern Military Man. He's about as clean as they get (at home and personal at least) and he doesn't have years of BAD votes against him for the Repukes to use against him.

Hell he won RED Oklahoma in the Primaries!! And almost took South Dakota.

LOVE the General! Doubt he'll get the backing though. He's a General. Too many people (non military MEN mostly) don't like or are afraid of X Generals.

That's just what I'm noticing.

he shows up on Fox "News".

Then we may see him on other outlets. I do not think his decision to go with them has been fruitful unless they have shown him enough to bring name recognition and credibility with "that base". I do not watch Pox, but suspect they have been giving him the absolute minimum in not primetime segments, thereby diluting his appeal.

I am a Clarkie and hoping for the best. I prefer Gore/Clark or Clark/Richardson if Gore doesn't run.

but seriously...I don't know myself!

Clark is in Alabama for the next three days helping out Democratic candidates. And you know what? the fact that he appears on Fox news is one of the reasons he can go deep into red territory and get the kind of coverage that he does without the ridicule. Plus, Fox audience are understanding what Wes Clark has told them. That's evidenced by the polls that show that 62% of Americans don't like the Iraq War. You can never forget that the seats we need to win back congress are currently held by Republicans; meaning we've got to get those who may have voted them into office the last time to either stay home or vote Democrat. That ain't no easy task! And even if some say Foley is what is doing it.....they should keep in mind that we were not guaranteed a "Foley" scandal eruption in October by anyone.

that we hopefully will pick up next month in districts that were a Republican lock for years. You may not see a connection between the efforts Clark is making to reach voters who had been voting Republican (and who therefor often watch FOX) and improving Democratic fortunes in those districts, but I sure do.

Strengthens Clark's hand.

Total comments on Edwards' live blog at dKos :loveya:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/11/182251/67

If so I'll go read the blog again. I was there yesterday.

it might have been covered in another question? There were like a brazillian questions, not that yours wasn't important, but I do think he responded to a dozen or so :shrug:

My money and the smart money is now on Edwards.

It's admirable you are ready to cheer on another contender so quickly. Even Warner with no national security creds didn't have to overcome voting for the worst American foreign policy disaster ever and admits years later he was wrong, wrong, wrong - like Edwards.

Here's to just focusing on 2006 and Dems winning!:toast:

are the nominees, I'm giving up on the party. It has no vision.

:hi:

:sarcasm:

You'd go with the "wind" if it were running. :eyes:

You must feel "Safe" and "Right" just bout now, No?

No one wants to play with Clark anymore?

Does any funking pundit give a shit about the country? Answer: fuck no.

Three of the four they are touting have offered to bomb Iran. Hillary has also said that "Syria needs to be punished." Juan Cole wrote about Hillary's AIPAC speech that she: out Sharoned Sharon.

No wonder the country's hole keeps getting deeper.

I tried to fix the statement for clarity, but I'm kinda sick of the pundit setting up the "horse race." Just once, I like the pundits to consider the abyss we're looking into.

and McCain 'cos it would be good for his ratings.

To answer you, no they don't care about whether the country gets out of the hole it's in....

Need evidence? Look at the last 6 years of 'punditry' coverage. They've let Bush get away with murder.

The ones that get paid to do it whore for a corporation You are trusted because you speak for the Truth. Carry On!

Signed,

Frenchie Fan Club :patriot:

I have no basis for that statement. I just said it.
There it is.
Oh, and I like pie.

But I'll let you know that you make more sense than those pundit talking paps....yep, even with the pie thrown in there!

That's on Tradesports right now.

Edwards and Gore are the winners, along with Hillary. All of them moved up several percent in terms of likelihood. No one else bumped at all.

I've got to wonder if Gore isn't itching to get into the race. Warner out makes it a much cleaner path to become the anti-Hillary. Edwards' support is high but not overwhelming. With Warner out, if Gore got in he would immediately be virtually pick-em with Hillary to win the nomination, if not a slight favorite.

You know, all those bets on the Democratic favorite that you made in 2002, two years before the 2004 election. Or were you betting for President Gephardt then instead? How about on Al Gore when people thought he might win in 1988? Lose any money then? Somehow I doubt you chose Mike Dukakis in 1986. Of course you might have bet on Mario Cuomo. I believe he was doing at least as well as Warner. I mean at least as well as Warner is doing now for 2008. Oooops. I mean as least as well as Warner was doing last week for 2008.

Well you probably are in the black overall, after all those bets I am sure you placed on Gary Hart in 1990.

Please don't answer "He's still on there and it's good because blah, blah, blah..."

He has dumped that ludicrous contract by now hasn't he????

And I don't know if Clark still being on FOX helps or hurts his own political career, but I believe it has helped Democrats become resurgent in many districts that Republicans had been taking for granted. Clark has done real damage to the underpinnings of Bush's "I'll keep America Safe" rhetoric with many FOX viewers through his devastatingly effective National Security commentary there. That helped open a door that many Democrats are walking through during these mid term elections IN THE VERY SWING DISTRICTS that we had to pick up to have any chance of regaining the majority.

Personally I believe Clark went on FOX to advance the Democratic Party's positions with a segment of the population that we have to reach, not to help his own chances to run for President. It is consistent with how he always asked his supporters to call in to Right Wing talk shows and challenge the poison that they put out, well before he went on FOX. Clark never asks anyone who supports or follows him to do anything that he wouldn't do himself.

Hardly anyone I spoke to in MA (and this was on the North Shore) this past week has even thought of Wes Clark. They forgot about him. When I mentioned his name, they said, "That guy? Thought he dropped out."

Does it help John Edwards? Yes, but it also helps Evan Bayh and Bill Richardson.

Clarkies are going to have to do some ground work, not just yapping on the Net.

...what can you really expect when, for example, all of the stories that broke in the media in the wake of Warner's withdrawal totally omitted Wes Clark from any mention of 2008 possible candidates? This was not just a random occurrence. I've seen CNN and others leave Clark out of National polls for 2008 that include the likes of Vilsak in them instead. Repeatedly. The first AP stories about Warner withdrawing ticked off numerous other possible Democratic contenders. They included Christopher Dodd on their list for example, but not Wesley Clark. Later they updated that story. They expanded the list of Democratic candidates this time and included Obama, but still no mention of Wes Clark.

If Wes Clark was generating little national interest then I could understand them not mentioning him in their coverage about 2008, as long as they didn't then go and mention other Democrats who are receiving even less current interest than Wes Clark, men like Vilsak and Richardson. But that isn't the case. The pundits only talk about the possible candidates that pundits talk about among themselves, and as a result those are the only possible candidates who get mentioned in the media, so why would people on the North Shore be expected to think about Wes Clark? Why wouldn't they "forget him", or think that he "dropped out"? Whenever possible 08 candidates are listed by the press, or talked about on cable and weekend TV broadcasts, Clark is usually left out totally.

What is most telling to me about all of this is that Wes Clark continually over the last 8 months, even with the big push for Warner, OUTPERFORMED MARK WARNER in all of the national polls that included Wes Clark's name. Not to mention far out performing Vilsak and Richardson and Dodd and others. So why the media black out of Clark? I can't give you a definitive answer to that question, but I think it goes a long way toward explaining the reactions you report now from MA.

Clark is a favorite amongst netrooters. I'm surprised by the lack of MSM--he used to be a commentator on Faux News, and yet they don't mention him either?

I like Mark Warner. He was my governor. But the field of Democratic candidates is great and I don't mind seeing some of the lesser ones drop out, especially when those would cost votes from one or more of the ones I'd like to see win:

If Gore, Edwards or Clark win the Democratic primary, I am happy.

I heard that his dropping out helps Clinton and it might help Obama..if both decide to run. I didn't hear the 2 logical choices, Clark or Edwards. I found this interesting but I'm not surprised.

another centrist with charisma and the only one now available is Obama.
They are frightened of Clark and Edwards since they are not DLCers or Washington insiders. I look for more pumping up of Obama and not giving any attention to Clark, Edwards or Feingold. They will also start touting very "moderate" Governors like Schweitzer, Richardson, Sebelius.

... it helps Clark and Edwards some. But HRC has left very little room to run to her right, and so there wasn't really room for both Bayh and Warner. And, IMPO, Warner had a very strong edge over Bayh. So while with Warner in the race, there was a very strong chance that Bayh would last "all the way to the beginning" and drop out after Iowa, he now has a much better chance of surviving all the way to New Jersey on Feb 5.

Obama is the "new" flavor of the month, so we are going to go through a spell where whatever happens "helps out" Obama's chances, at least among the punditry.