Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

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

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:37 PM
Original message
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_di...

By Greg Mitchell

Published: March 10, 2006 11:30 AM ET

NEW YORK If he wasnt already the hot outsider in the race for president in 2008 (yes, its already underway), the cover story of this Sundays 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 Bais article: Its 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 stateand is really, sickening wealthy, with access to a person fortune said to approach $200 million.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
electropop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. Ptting one DLC/RNC-er against another.
Yawn.

Who cares what the RW anointees are doing? They're so irrelevant. We're nominating a Democrat next time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adigal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Good - let them take all of the heat
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
electropop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. our guy - or gal.
I'm hoping Boxer or Conyers will run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
2. Why don't we ever hear about the Bush fortune?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
5. here is Warner's profile
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
6. Fuck 'em both - but not with my dick.
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hollowdweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I could really get behind a Feingold/Warner ticket

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!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
8. Clark and Warner for me. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
9. I watched Washington Journal this A.M.
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.").
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Awsi Dooger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. We wouldn't want crossover votes
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. lol n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Telly Savalas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. We could get even more crossover voters if we ran a candidate
who was clearly against Roe v. Wade. Should we do that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Barrett Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #12
24. R v W Shouldn't Define Party
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #12
29. Think how many crossovers we could get....
...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:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #9
18. Interesting. My wife's boss told me the same thing a month or so back
He's a die-hard Republican and I was surprised he'd even heard of Warner.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Barrett Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #9
23. Agreed
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddy Waters Guitar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 03:46 AM
Response to Original message
13. Having nothing to say on Iraq is far preferable
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 04:01 AM
Response to Original message
14. With this pic on the cover.....
Mr. Anti-Hillary (but not really) is gonna scare some folks!



Just kidding! (or maybe not!) :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigdarryl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 04:25 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Warner
I'm still not convinced yet that Hillary is even running in 08. everybody is speculating
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 05:11 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Kinda looks like Dick Nixon and Jimmy Carter morphed into one!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnionPatch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #14
20. OMG that's awful!
Yikes!

Well, anyway, screw both of them. I hope Al Gore runs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #14
27. LOL! Is that the money shot or what! Ick!
That pic brings out everything one dislikes and distrusts in politicians. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meldread Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 05:42 AM
Response to Original message
17. Warner - I speak as a Virginian.
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hollowdweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. The Dems have an awesome stable of cabinet people here's my choice
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #17
28. As a Virginian also...
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 08:18 AM
Response to Original message
19. The mouthpiece of the Ruling Elite has spoken!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkansas Donating Member (701 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
22. Clark and Warner would be great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aaaargh Donating Member (203 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
25. 1972: CAN SCOOP JACKSON STOP MUSKIE???????
Ho hum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
26. As I always say...
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 24th 2014, 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC