Clinton vs. Warner

[Thom Little]

If Hillary Clinton had asked my advice, I would have told her that cosponsoring a bill to make flag burning a crime is one step too far on her journey to the middle. Obviously, she feels strong enough in her appeal to Democrats that she can afford her Sister Souljah moment without endangering her core support.

Clinton learned a valuable lesson during the ’92 presidential race when her husband took on the black rapper for her lyrics, an act of defiance against his party’s entrenched liberal base. Given her history, it makes political sense for Hillary to send cultural signals that she’s much more conservative than her caricature. Still, her tap dance toward the right carries a cost.

It may not be determinative, but she’s got to figure into her calculations an almost certain challenge from the left. Hillary’s pandering on the flag is an open invitation for Al Gore to call MoveOn.org, a ready base of progressive support for the former veep should he decide to enter the race. Gore could be formidable as the vessel for antiwar sentiment in the primaries.

It’s not just the left-right thing that could slow Hillary’s march to the nomination. It’s the transparency of what she’s doing that has even her biggest fans worried. It doesn’t look authentic. If primary voters conclude they need a Red State friendly candidate, Virginia Gov. Mark Warner is the real thing. Why settle for Red State-lite Hillary? Warner is already where he needs to be on the right, and he’s inching to the left, an easier task all around. Warner’s commutation of the death sentence of a convicted killer earlier this month won plaudits from everybody. It was the right move substantively and politically—substantively because a court clerk had destroyed DNA evidence that in theory could have established innocence, politically because it allows Warner to present himself in a more nuanced way to liberal primary voters.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10401164/site/newsweek/

[thatsrightimirish]

1. Warner

Absolutely. He got Republicans to raise taxes and remained popular. He will keep the NRA neutral. He will also appeal to NAscar voters not because he is conservative, but he can just connect with them. I can't see Hillary doing that in a million years. And her journey to the right is so obvious everyone knows its fake. Warner/Feingold or Warner/Clark will be a great ticket.

[FreedomAngel82]

37. Wow, he got republicans to raise taxes???

Wow. Call me shocked.

[Kahuna]

2. I love Eleanor Cliff. She's the Judge Judy of politics...

Smart as a whip, and hard to put one over on.

Edited to add: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: for Eleanor.

[Clark2008]

3. Both DLC

Warner is NOT the opposite of Hillary.

Clark's a Southern candidate who also would appeal to the militarism that pervades in the red states.

And, Clark's not DLC.

[wyldwolf]

33. and good thing, too.

[FreedomAngel82]

38. And where did Clark get to in the primaries?

Didn't get very far did he? He is a baby in politics and before he jumps in with the big boys he should get his feet wet and try for something else. At least mayor or governor first.

[Jai4WKC08]

60. Been there, done that

Clark has the same governmental experience as either a mayor or governor. The exact same. Name a single function a governor performs and Clark has done it.

Oh, but you're more interested in the electioneering than the governing, right?

Well, considering his late start, Clark did pretty damn well in '04. Beat Dean in most states where they both competed. Was raising more money than Dean by January. Even won a state not his own.

Let's see how he does in '08 before we decide if he's still "a baby," shall we?

[Clark2008]

67. Heck - Clark beat Edwards in five of the nine races in which

they both competed (before Clark dropped out).

But, shhhhh.... you won't hear that in the media. :eyes:

[woodleydem]

4. I have become a big Warner fan. He has done some things that may

make hardcore liberals uneasy, like signing a parental notification law and having ties to the DLC. But he is a smart, pragmatic governor who has major appeal to rural voters. And he did veto a partial birth bill. His one-term in office may be seem by some as inexperience, but not being a career politican will be viewed as a positive in today's supercharged political environment. He hasn't articulated his Iraq views or foreign policy views, but the beauty of being a governor is that he can define his philosophy, and not have it defined for him by numerous Senate votes. He will emerge as the anti-Hillary candidate in 2008.

[Clark2008]

5. How can he be the anti-Hillary when they're both DLC?

See - I don't get that.

It's media pumping-up and I'm sick of it. They're BOTH DLC. Unlike a Clark or a Feingold, who aren't. THEY are the anti-Hillaries, not Warner. Warner's cut from the same mold.

[thatsrightimirish]

8. well

I don't think Warner goes out of his way to bash the Democrats like other DLCers. Just because he reaches across party lines doesn't mean he's GOp lite. Don't get me wrong I think Clark and Feingold are great candidates and if they are nominated I'll support them. However, I think Warner is the best qualified to get elected and Lead the nation.

[AmericanDream]

12. Best qualified? Warner has zero foreign policy experience....

[FreedomAngel82]

41. Oh get off that nonsense!

Who gives a damn?! There are other things to a president than "foreign policy experience." Bill Clinton didn't have it. Carter did because he was in the military himself and same with Kerry. Does Bush do any foreign policy? No. People want a canidate who will appeal to them and their ideals and beliefs and what they have to offer them. That's how I am. This is my country and will be my leader (Bush isn't since he was never elected either time). It all depends on who you put in your cabinet and your VP choice.

[AmericanDream]

43. Well then apply that same formula for every democrat....

Why do ppl keep criticizing Edwards for his lack of experience? He was referred to as the "King of retail politics"... that is "connecting" with the voters. I agree with you, but only if you are willing to apply the same criteria for all the candidates.

[FreedomAngel82]

54. I didn't support anyone in 2004 because

I wasn't involved in politics than. This last time was my first time voting. If I was involved in the primaries I would've supported Kerry and/or Dean. I think Kerry could've had someone with more experience but Edwards was chosen. I think he's doing a lot of good things with his One America Committee and other things. I really like him but there could've been a stronger Vp choice. I have read that Kerry wanted someone else but Edwards went to a Bilderberg meeting and the next day was announced as Kerry's running mate. Take that as you will. I will always be proud of my vote for Kerry/Edwards and I think that they would've done pretty well in the White House together since Kerry has the most experience and in general Vp's don't do quite so much as the actual president and Edwards could've learned a lot for when he would've ran for the position. I take my vote seriously. And most people vote just for the presidential nominee and not necessarily for the VP nominee even though this person should have tons of experience too which is why I'm for Warner/Feingold or Feingold/Warner. I would love a president Kerry but I don't know if that will happen now. :(

[Pithy Cherub]

51. It is your right to settle for underqualified. Absolutely! n/t

[woodleydem]

17. I could care less who is DLC and who isn't DLC. I'm not a prisoner

to stupid labels. I vote for someone based on their record and their electability. Foreign policy experience is necessary, but having been a governor is more important. He has created a budget, pushed it through a legislature, created his own policies--in short, everything a President has to do and stuff that governors do all the time, which makes them better prepared for the Presidency. Foreign policy is important, but most candidates get elected based on what they say they want their foreign policy to look like, not necessarily their experience. And he's the anti-Hillary because he has a proven track record when it comes to connecting with rural Southern voters, unlike Hillary. I am amazed at how hardcore liberals confine themselves to their hardline rhetoric and never care to see other points of view. In fact, the the terms used by the hardcore liberal base (i.e. DINO, Republican lite, rage against the media, etc...) is so incredibly similar to the hardcore conservative right it's scary. I suggest anyone to visit a conservative blogsite or message board--the similarities in rhetoric are almost comical.

[nickshepDEM]

29. Bingo! Pay no attention to them, woodleydem. They hate the fact

that Warner is emerging as top contender for the democratic nomination. I mean he's DLC after all. But forget his record as Governor. That doest matter.

:eyes:

[FreedomAngel82]

42. Exactly!

Hear hear! When it comes to the DLC as a whole I am a bit iffy of them but as individuals I look at their personal record. Warner so far has a very clean and positive record that can appeal to everyone. I think he and Feingold will be our best picks in 2008. Too many people on both sides of the isle don't trust Hillary enough to be president. Maybe someday but I don't think so personally. I think she's okay where she is as long as the people she represents like her and they're pleased with how she's doing.

[nickshepDEM]

30. He's emerging as the anti-Hillary candidate because of his strong record

as governor and his PROVEN ability to win in state that most democrats could not even compete in. Oh, and the fact that he's probably the only dem who can go dollar for dollar w/ Hillary.

You show your ignorance when you throw around your little DLC attack line without even acknowledging his outstanding record as governor.

[FreedomAngel82]

44. And he works well with other people

from what I've heard. We need that again in DC I think. I'm so tired of the mudslinging and not trusting anybody.

[FreedomAngel82]

40. No he isn't

Hillary is republican-lite while Warner is a true moderate democrat. I think he's going to be the top runner this year.

[Kahuna]

6. Suggestion for Warner supporters. Email Cliff and let her know

what you think about this peice or generally about Hillary vs. Warner.

The email link with the story is: [email protected] <[email protected]>

[FreedomAngel82]

39. The thing with Warner and his one time term

is he was very successful in his one time term. From what I've read on him he did some really great things all the way from what you mentioned to working with republicans and raising taxes to help Virginia's economy. I remember the day after Tim Kaine won the governorship of Virginia (which can also be used for Warner's advantage) I listened to Rhandi Rhodes and she said that Virginia had the best economy in the country. Does anybody know if this is true? Kerry was/is DLC too and with me and the DLC I think they're a broad range of people. Kerry is pretty progressive and Warner I think is on the edge. I think he could bring something fresh and new to the presidency. Most people want that now according to a poll I saw not long ago. I think like 60% of the people in that poll. Warner/Feingold right now is my choice for 2008!

[ruggerson]

7. Ignore the inevitable "DLC" shrieks that will accompany this OP

I think Clift is correct on this one.

And I think the nomination will come down to Warner vs. Hillary vs. Edwards

And as of now I'm hoping Warner gets the nod.

[Clark2008]

10. OK - how 'bout this, then.

Warner has no position on Iraq and no foreign policy experience.
Hillary has the Republican position on Iraq and won't flip a red state.

Both are too tied with corporists to represent me.

All valid points.

On edit: My point is that Warner is NOT the anti-Hillary since both are from the same wing of the Democratic Party. It wasn't necessarily a cut-down of the DLC. It was pointing out that they're more similar than different.

[Sandpiper]

11. Warner is the anti-Hillary only in the sense that

He's the opposite gender.

[FreedomAngel82]

46. You think all people care about is foreign policy??

Governors don't have a need for it. This is why they have Secretary of Defenses and National security adviors and all that in their cabinets. And I'm sure Warner would be the type to actually listen to the generals and such. I've heard Warner say that now isn't the time to worry about how we got into Iraq but how to get out. That is true but the Congress should investigate and that's more so their's and the Senate's job.

[Clark2008]

68. After 9/11, yes, I do.

Sorry - but you're a bit out of touch.

Yes, people care about domestic policies, but Democrats already beat Republicans on most of those issues. Where we get slammed is in the foreign policy and national security departments. And, people will vote "security" (even if it's pitiful like Shrub's) over pocketbook after 9/11. We've seen that for two elections now. Sadly.

[Kahuna]

14. I have good practice at ignoring the shrieks, after the 2004 primaries,.

as a CLARK supporter. Clark was called every name in the book.

[FreedomAngel82]

47. Clark doesn't have too much to run on

He's a baby in politics and trying to play with the big boys. He should run for mayor or governor first. I don't like supporting someone for something that big (president) who has no experience whatsoever in governing. That's why governors are more successful as presidential canidates than Senators or Congresspeople.

[Clarkansas]

57. Experience isn't as important as beliefs IMO

Every republican president has experience and I think they do a lot of damage to this country. While I agree that Clark would benefit from some elected office, I do think many people would find it refreshing to have a non politician in the White House.

And as for Clark's weak showing in 04, it due to the fact that he didn't do Iowa.

FWIW, I like Warner too.

[Clark2008]

69. No experience in governing?

God, you obviously read nothing anyone posts about Wes Clark.

The man HAS governed. Go back and read the threads. Geesch. :eyes:

[Kahuna]

73. Thanks for the lesson..

:eyes:

[nickshepDEM]

31. Im with ya' on that one. However I think it will come down to...

Warner vs Hillary vs Feingold.

[FreedomAngel82]

45. I think if it's that

he will. Same thing with Biden in the ring. I haven't seen much on if Kerry is going to run again. :shrug: So out of those people I think Warner could do very well.

[AmericanDream]

9. Neither...nt

[thatsrightimirish]

13. I'm sorry

But doesn't Clark work for Fox News now? I know he stands up for liberals but even being on the payroll of Fox is just wrong.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Wrong....it's right! CNN is as "wrong" as Fox, only it takes more to

understand that, making them that much more potent.

Fox is on in many places especially in the South, i.e., McDonalds, Car Washes, Restaurants, Doctors and Dentists, hotel Lobbies, etc....

Clark going on in there means that they are hearing a progressive voice who makes sense.....how could that be bad? It's not like Fox will go away if the General isn't on there.

It takes courage to go into the lion's den......he's doing right, and his paycheck ain't big enough to make a difference to either him or fox.

Clark knows that the Left hates Faux. He knows that this will not win him any popularity contest with those who vote in Democratic primaries. But he also knows that based on his skills, this is something that he can do to affect some change. It may not be a lot, to some....But it's really the only way that we are going to save this country....bit by bit.

Clark is not the DNC Chair. Clark is not a Senator. Clark is not a millionaire with a poverty center. Clark is a retired NATO Commander and General who has spoken, written and done commentating on the various aspects of this War, National Security and Foreign relations....and the ramifications of those issues. Clark is doing what Clark can do help and bring some sanity back to this country.

It's very sad and disheartening to see those critics that would be so petty as to only become indignant in principle but forget what our real goal ought to be. Clark is going to informed Fox viewers as to what a real Kickass Democrat looks, sounds and thinks like.

Like Howard Dean said....we have to talk to those folks in their pick up trucks. I think those folks watch Fox, don’t you?

The real issue of discussion should be how to save this country ...and not the issue of picking on the few who are doing what they can to do just that.

Results.....that's what we are supposed to be after.
Clark understands that.
Do You?

A few of the reviews.....

June 17, 2005
Wesley Clark Surprises Hannity
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/06/17/wesley_clark_surprises_hannity.php

July 08, 2005
Hannity Tries To Spin London Attacks As Proof Of Bush's Wisdom
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/07/08/hannity_tries_to_spin_london_attacks_as_proof_of_bushs_wisdom.php


September 24, 2005
Wesley Clark Stands His Ground - Defends Cindy Sheehan
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/09/24/wesley_clark_stands_his_ground_defends_cindy_sheehan.php

September 24, 2005
Campaign to Blame Louisiana Continues as O'Reilly Plays Race Card Once Again
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/09/24/campaign_to_blame_louisiana_continues_as_oreilly_plays_race_card_once_again.php

October 04, 2005
Who Says the Democrats Don't Have Solutions?
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/10/04/who_says_the_democrats_dont_have_solutions.php

November 12, 2005
Wes Clark: Intelligence Was Hyped
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/11/12/wes_clark_intelligence_was_hyped.php

November 18, 2005
Sean Hannity Tries To Blame Democrats For Iraq War Problems
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/11/18/sean_hannity_tries_to_blame_democrats_for_iraq_war_problems.php


November 22, 2005
"Chicken Little" and Big Bad Oliver North
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/11/22/chicken_little_and_big_bad_oliver_north.php

[thatsrightimirish]

16. O please

When Clark leaves for the campaign trail they are just going to trash him and you know it.

[FrenchieCat]

19. What-E-ver.....I made my case with reasoned rationale.....

while you, on the other hand...... :eyes:

Maybe the Fox audience's bar ain't that high, but I would have thought that on DU...maybe....just maybe....an actual debate could be had....

Oh well.....Never mind. :hi:

[thatsrightimirish]

24. excuse me

but all you had to offer was that Warner was DLC so he shouldn't be the nominee. Not exactly fair. And besides this was a Hillary vs. Warner board and I don't remember Clark being the topic.

[FrenchieCat]

28. I'm sorry, but.....but do you have me confused with someone else?

If you could find My quote on Warner only offers being DLC, I'd appreciate it. I don't remember writing that here or anywhere else for that matter.

Thanks!

PS--Still don't see your rationale as to why having forceful Democratic voices on all media, including Fox, is "wrong" as you put it. :shrug:

If you are saying that because I said something (that I didn't say) that you disagreed with, that you don't feel required to respond to my response to your assertion that Clark on Fox = Wrong......then I stand by my assessment that you failed to make the case and that your statement on Clark on Fox was nothing more than a "cheap shot"....which goes back to your accusation as to what I said, that I didn't say......which would have been somewhat of a cheap shot....had I said it.

So it appears that what you are guilty of what you want to accuse me of.....landing a "cheap Shot" not even worthy of a response.

very ironic, to say the most.

[thatsrightimirish]

62. well then

you keep wtching fox and keep them on the air :crazy:

[thatsrightimirish]

64. and besides

i simply stated fox was wrong not all media

[FreedomAngel82]

49. Exactly

I get tired of how it always gets turned to Clark when it isn't about him. It's about Hillary and Warner. And between the two of them I go for Warner. He's more progressive than Hillary and fresh to people. He has a lot to offer as president. I could be proud of him. :) He has the chrasima thing going on too. Not quite like Clinton (nobody could beat Big Dog) but still better than Bush and he can show it really well on tv to people than Kerry and Gore (even though they're both great guys!).

[FrenchieCat]

66. Well I think that this started in this here thread when Kahuna just

made mentioned that she was a Clark supporter as well as a Warner supporter, and after that, I believe yours was the comment that responded by doing an unrequested analysis on Clark....which, some obviously believed merited a response....

so if I were you, next time someone dares mention their support for Clark in a thread otherwise labeled, I would ignore them if I were you.

Go back and look FreedomAngel82, and you will see what I am talking about.

[ruggerson]

18. "Informed Fox Viewers"?

And here I thought "informed" and "Fox viewer" were two mutually exclusive terms.

[FrenchieCat]

21. CNN and MSNBC viewers are really not any more informed.....

bottomline, for the most part is....if you watch TV and nothing else....you ain't informed. I would even add that it takes a lot these days to be informed, cause even the pundits will stir us wrong.

[FreedomAngel82]

48. I don't have a problem with Clark on fox

I think it's good to have someone like that on there. He knows the military and they can't smear him like they do other democrats for being against the troops and such. It gives the military side of view of things. Isn't he on there just as himself as the general and not necessarily a progressive?

[skipos]

20. Clark and Warner would be a GREAT GREAT GREAT ticket.

Warner's elected/domestic experience with Clark's military/foreign experience. I together those guys would be unstoppable. They are both extremely down to earth and know where they stand. They both seem comfortable taking positions they know might be unpopular to some.

I also think Clark's decision to be on Fox is extremely wise. Dems should be able to go on those shows and hold their own. Clark has done really well.

[FreedomAngel82]

50. I'm for Warner/Feingold or Feingold/Warner

We need someone who can really clean up Bush's mess all the way from the economy to other political issues such as the so-called "Patriot Act."

[fujiyama]

22. Ultimately while Warner may be a centrist

(and is certainly not as liberal as myself), I don't want to see the party making the mistake of nominating Hillary. It will be ABSOLUTELY DISASTEROUS! Not only will she not win, she'll likely drag down many senate and house races as well.

She's a phony, pandering politician to the extreme. She has shown that she has absolutely no core values whatsoever. Her recent crusades over video game violence and flag burning have shown she has no clue what issues affect real people. Hell, at this point I'd likely take Bayh or Biden over her (and they both make me gag). Atleast Bayh has gubornatorial experience and he's a senator from Indiana, a very conservative state...(as for Biden, well I'm really not too worried about him getting the nomination so that's a mute point ).

While I like both Clark and Warner (I'm a big fan of Feingold as well but I think he would have a tougher time as the nominee - but I'd love to see him on the ticket), in the end I'd be much more confident with either of them as the nominee than Clinton. I just don't see the appeal. I certainly don't have a problem having a woman on the ticket. I think someone like Debbie Stabenaw or Maria Cantwell are worth a look for the VP slot.

I just don't see what there is to like about Hillary. She's proven herself more conservative than her husband.

[ruggerson]

23. Too bad Granholm is foreign born

she'd be a wonderful Veep candidate

[skipos]

25. I am from MI, and

unlike Warner in VA, Granholm isn't exactly kicking ass in the polls here. I think the economic problems shouldn't be blamed on her, but I am not sure what voters here will think. I am working for her regardless.

[election_2004]

27. I think you're half-right....

Not only will she not win, she'll likely drag down many senate and house races as well.

I think that Hillary COULD pull out a narrow electoral college victory, but she would definitely drag down many Democrats in House and Senate races in '08.

Which would result in a President Hillary faced with a newly-emboldened Republican majority in both houses of Congress. Only the most conservative of her judicial nominees would be allowed out of Committee for an up-or-down floor vote.

This would be the worst of both worlds. Theocratic Republicans would control the congressional agenda, and Hillary would be the de facto face of the Democratic Party, widening the divide amongst Americans while the Republicans use her as a postergirl for all that is wrong with "LIBRULISM."

[FreedomAngel82]

52. Yes

That's my thing with Hillary. We need to really progress and not stay where we are with Bush. Warner really helped Virginia's economy and that's what we need. Plus, Warner seems to be great with reaching out to all types of people and working with them as well. While Warner may be a DLCer he is a true democrat. Not everyone on the DLC is phonies. Their personal records speak for themselves. I only call someone a dino when they prove it (such as Lieberman). Not who they associate with. I think it's great that we have such a huge party and we can appeal to all types of people from conservative to liberal and we stand up for the people. I do have some iffy problems with the DLC but I think the more conservative/moderate democrats should have a place to go and same for us liberals/progressives.

[lastknowngood]

26. Look there is no real difference between Warner and Lieberman

and this country where 50% of the sheeple believe that there is a "war on Crhistmass" will not elect a
woman to either Pres or VP for at least 30 years. A lot of old sexest both male and female will have to
die of old age before there is any chance. Hill would ensure a 50 state loss for the dems and an even larger margin for the repugs in the house and senate. Reality sucks but it is what it is.

[nickshepDEM]

32. lol.

Click the picture in my sig and come back when you educated yourself on Governor Warner.

[FreedomAngel82]

53. There is a big difference

Warner is a true democrat while Lieberman is a true phoney republican neocon wannabe. And it's not what it is. Have you learned anything about Warner or just spewing?

[nickshepDEM]

34. All the Warner haters should really read up on him before passing

judgement. He's been an outstanding governor. Sure, he holds come centrist positions, like his support for the 2nd amendment and parental notification. But for the most part he's done an excellent job of advancing the democratic agenda in VA.

*Inherited a multi-billion dollar defecit, which he turned into a surplus.
*Cut the food tax and increased the earned income tax credit for the poor.
*Increased public education spending more than any governor in VA history.
*Created the VA Health Care foundation, which has provided over 450,000 Virginians with health care. Expanded FAMIS (health care) to cover 97% of eligible children.

And thats just a taste.

Click the pic in my sig for more info. You wont regret it. ;)

[Pithy Cherub]

35. Couldn't find Warner's national security or foreign policy credentials,

Anywhere... Warner made up with the leading African American in his state yet - uh, didn't think so. Clinton or Clark connect with minority voters. Warner - uh, no.

[FreedomAngel82]

56. How do you know that?

How many minorities does Virginia have and how much of their votes did he get? You think national security comes with being a Governor? So did you support Bill Clinton?

[Pithy Cherub]

58. Living abroad and being a Rhodes Scholar

were far more than Warner will ever be in hailing distance of being. Clinton also was studious and has a life long relationship with minorities.

Wilder is a highly decorated miltary vet that was Governor of Virginia. He is now the current Mayor Richmond Virginia. Wilder is also an African American. Warner and he are *estranged*. Nobody gets elected president without significant support of minorities as a Democrat. Warner did not endorse Wilder (whom he knows very well as he helped run his campaign for Governor) for the Mayor's role. Warner goes nowhere without a significant following of minority supporters who vote in primaries. Warner was not even classy enough to call and congratulate Wilder on his win.

Minorities are disproportionately represented in the military. Another candidate like Bush, with little experience, no ties to the minority community and no interest in how wars work has NO chance or a platform to make an appeal to these voters. Recently the ineptness and moral craveness of Warner was on full display in stating - that "This Democrat" was not persuaded that examining the reasons for getting into the Iraq War were important at this time. :eyes: That is what Warner, a presidential political neophyte without any foreign policy experience, national security says out loud with malice aforethought.

If that's what you want to support, go forth, be as proud of him as you can be and good luck. Just stay out of the 'hood!

[nickshepDEM]

59. Thats probably because he's a governor.

I couldnt find Clark's elective experience anywhere? Maybe you could help? :shrug:

And your comment/assumption that Warner does not connect with minoritities while Clark does is completely asinine and unfounded. Your simply trying to prop up your guy on baseless assumptions.

Unlike you I dont feel the need to make off the wall assumptions. Ill just point to Warners record, it speaks for itself.

Oh, almost forgot. Wilder... He isnt half the democrat Mark Warner is.

[Pithy Cherub]

61. Don't address the minority issue if you can't.

If Warner gives the same careless answer when asked by Tavis, Tom or members of the Congressiopnal Black Caucus or La Raza, he can just forget about it. And he will be asked the question as sure as the Earth turns round the Sun. You may certainly choose to pretend it won't be asked, but welcome to presidential politics. If the highest elected African American politician in the state of Virginia endorses someone else, yes that would be a significant political problem for your guy.

Warner is qualified to be a secretary of Commerce yes, president no. As it relates to Clark, A Supreme Allied commander of NATO is responsible for liasing with at least 19 foreign heads of state, a significant multi-million dollar budget, miltary personnel and their families, the security of Europe and America's national interest. You are right that is more experience than a governor would accrue. But Clark is not the issue.

[nickshepDEM]

63. "If the highest elected Af-American politician... endorses someone else?"

You mean sorta like Wilder endorsed Earley (R) over Robb (D)?

Yeah, Wilders a real respectable guy. :eyes:


Supreme Allied Commander of NATO is not an elected position. I love how you little Clarkies try to spin it into an executive political position. No one elected Clark. He wasnt forced to work with a Republican legislature. There were no political ramifications for his actions. Get over it, Clark has never held elective office, period. Dont spin because Im not buying, sorry. Clark maybe qualified to be SOS or SOD, but president? No. And a presidential candidate? Hah, he had his chance in '04. We all know how that went.


:hi:

[Pithy Cherub]

65. Warner's lack of experience is for everyone to ascertain.

The other large presence you did not address was the thread was about Clinton versus Warner. Clinton has ongoing access to the minority vote in 50 states. Warner is known in just one. Warner needs to build a cadre of people to support his weakness in that area. Warner also has 0 name recognition in minority communities. If per chance those of his own state are not supportive, then alas that will be Warner's burden to bear.

Clark is thought of as a statesman/adviser to elected Democrats. They consistently seek his counsel on matters of grave national importance. LOL! Warner makes calls to talk about his latest press clippings. Warner has the right to throw his hat and skimpy credentials into the ring just like anyone else. But to win in primary season there is no getting around minority voters and all of the symbolism implied. Primaries are about the Party's base of which minorities play a significant role. If trying to get the minority primary vote is too off the *third way* path for Warner, well again, there is Secretary of Commerce.

Wilder was elected Mayor of Richmond because the black vote turned out for him. The African American community is a forgiving one and supports their champions when possible as evidenced by the fact that Wilder is now His Honor after being derided for being too entwined with corporate interests.

Clark's credentials were worked for and earned with his own literal bood, sweat and tears. Being elected is not a panacea for executive leadership in critical situations or war time. Eisenhower wasn't elected either, nor was Washinton or some guy named Grant. They all have something in common with Clark though.

Clinton will be formidable and Warner will not be able to challenege her access to minority voters. A Guy named Bill is thought of as the First African American President. He's proud of it too!

[Tom Rinaldo]

74. Do you really "know how it went" Nick?

Have you ever taken a good look at the New Hampshire Tracking polls? I'll leave a link for you below for the American Research Group polls.

On December 17th 2003 Clark was tracking at 8% of the NH vote with Dean at 45% and Kerry 20%. (Clark had dropped from 11% recorded December 3rd.) The January 2-4 numbers though put Clark at 12% in New Hampshire. For the 4th through 6th period Clark tracked at 16%. For that same period Kerry was down to 13%. For January 8-10th Clark was up to 20% in New Hampshire while Kerry went down to 10%, and Dean was at 35%.

During the January 12-14 period Clark hit 24% in New Hampshire, Kerry was rebounding to 15% and Dean was at 29%. Kerry wasn't rebounding because of his campaigning in New Hampshire, he was rebounding because of his campaigning in Iowa with all the National media attention that was receiving. You see the Iowa caucuses were about to be held on January 19th, less than a week away, and the National Media was finally paying attention to the Democratic Horse Race. I remember it well, every night the political news focused on the fight for Iowa and the Democrats who were campaigning there. Clark wasn't one of them of course.

For the January 16-18 NH tracking poll, taking it to the very eve of the Iowa Caucus, Clark had slipped to 20% while Kerry had risen to 18%. Edwards who had been stuck at 3% a week before had risen to 8% with Dean down to 28%. Then came the Iowa caucus with Kerry and Edwards finishing One and Two. The NH tracking period for January 20-22 showed Clark still hanging on to 20% but, surprise surprise, Kerry was starting to really surge, up to 31% while Edwards climbed to 11%. By the January 24-26 poll Clark had bottomed at 13%, Kerry was at 35% and Edwards was at 15%. Dean had rebounded to 25% after bottoming out in the mid teens right after the Iowa caucus. When New Hampshire actually voted on January 28th Edwards, even with all his new media attention, had slipped back to a shade over 12% of the vote and Clark edged him out for third place. Kerry won of course with over 38% and Dean got over 26%

It was all Iowa Nick. Iowa and the non stop media coverage of Iowa, and the media focus on Kerry and Edwards and all the "momentum" they "developed" in Iowa. Without Iowa, Clark was poised to come in First or a very close Second in New Hampshire, in the first real vote of the year, against two neighboring New Englanders who had been stomping in New Hampshire for a year each. Clark got very little national media coverage starting the week before the Iowa caucus, until the day he withdrew after winning one Primary and coming in second in three. After Iowa it was all "John John" and "Dean Scream". Though he finished fourth in New Hampshire, the media decided that John Edwards should be considered with John Kerry for the Democrats who left New Hampshire with "momentum" coverage slot. And that's how it went down Nick.

Here is the link to the polling date from New Hampshire:
http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/demtrack/

[FreedomAngel82]

55. He has more positives than negatives

I think he has a really great record. I'm growing on him and becoming a fan. I think he'll probably have a greater chance than Feingold probably since Feingold will have the whole "liberal" slander on him (sadly) and people in this country still think being a liberal is a bad thing. I would love to see him as a VP. I'm for the second amendment even though I am not a gun fan. It's all about personal responsibility and that's all I ask of people with that. Who am I to take away that amendment? Same with the others. I agree with Paul Hackett that we should talk more about that and assure people that democrats aren't going to take away their guns.

[hollowdweller]

70. Warner is personable. A lot of people (sadly) vote based mainly on that.

[SaveElmer]

72. Sorry...but for many here the DLC after his name...

Automatically disqualifies him...many won't even bother to look at his record.

I live in Virginia and am supporting Hillary Clinton, but I don know that Warner has been an outstanding Governor. He showed remarkable political instincts in dealing with the Republican House of Delegates, and is generally reliable on most progressive issues, though moderate on some.

As to his relationship with Wilder I would say this. Wilder has a very mercurial personality and has never had good relationships with other elected Democrats in the state. Having said that, I do believe Wilder endorsed Warner in 2001, and he definitely endorsed Kaine, Wilders protege. If you saw Kaines victory speech, you saw Wilder standing next to Warner and Kaine holding up their arms in victory.

Warner does have his faults...while he is a good speaker in a set format, he is not always clear or articulate in interview settings, or in debate. Not that his points aren't good, but he often has trouble getting them out clearly. He comes off a bit goofy at times. These are things he can work on though...and if Hillary is not the nomimee and Warner gets it instead...I will gladly and wholeheartedly support him!!!

[FreedomAngel82]

36. I'm growing on him

I would love a Warner/Feingold ticket. I think Warner does pretty well with the economy in Virginia and he works well with other people. He put in republicans in his administration because they knew how to get the job done. I believe Lincoln did the same too. We need someone who can bring bipartisian ship back to DC. I like it when we work together as a country for the greater good of the people instead of fighting with each other left vs. right and corruption and everything. I think Warner could bring that to the table. He has a nice personality, pretty young still and has a young family (I believe his oldest is fifteen). I've also heard he is pro-choice and for LGBT rights which would be a great victory for the country. I think he would sign a bill for gay marriage. He is a DLCer but he isn't like Hillary I don't think. I haven't heard anything bad of him (yet anyways of course). And to hear he's moving more left is great too. :D And hopefully with our next democratic president will have a democratic government and we can really clean up all of Bush's mess. I read a few weeks or so ago that Bill Clinton met up with Warner secretly during Thanksgiving. I don't think Hillary is running personally. I think the DLC canidate will probably be Warner this year like last year it was Kerry.

[hollowdweller]

71. My brother lives in VA and has nothing but praise for Warner.

Last time I talked to him he rattled off a list of really good things he had done.

My brother also is sure the party will end up nominating somebody that has no personal warmth, a Kerry, or Hillary. He says Warner is more like Clinton in his ability to communicate with people. He says it would be hard for the GOP to mount an attack in him without looking bad.