Warner and Bayh had fought for donors and activists; Bayh and Edwards gain

[DeepModem Mom]

WP political blog, "The Fix," by Chris Cillizza
Warner's Out: Winners and a Loser

....The most obvious winner from the Warner news is Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh. Bayh and Warner shared much of the same ideological territory -- moderate, consensus builders elected in red states. After helping Gov. Tim Kaine (D) win the governorship in 2005, Warner became the "it" boy of national politics -- the candidate seen as most likely to emerge as the alternative to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D). Warner's ascent came at the expense of Bayh who found much of the air sucked out of his candidacy.

No longer. Party insiders say that there was a major behind-the-scenes fight for donors and activists between Bayh and Warner. You can expect the Indiana Senator to be on the phone today to some of the money men who had sided with Warner in hopes of locking them up for his own bid....

***

The other obvious winner from Warner's decision not to run is former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. Edwards and Warner were seen as occupying the tier just below that of Clinton -- the two candidates given the best chance of dethroning her for the nomination.

Edwards is now alone in that second tier and -- at the moment -- has had the best 2006 of any of the aspiring candidates. Edwards has relentlessly courted the labor community since leaving office in 2004 and made loud declarations about the problems with the war in Iraq and his belief that withdrawal is the only solution -- moves sure to endear him to liberal voters dissatisfied with Clinton's centrism. He also benefits from the changes in the Democratic nominating calendar. The addition of Nevada with its strong organized labor presence and South Carolina, a primary he won during the 2004 race, helps Edwards more than any other potential candidate.

Clinton, too, gets some residual benefit from Warner's decision simply because a serious contender for the anti-Hillary mantle has been removed....One quick loser in all of this: the state of Virginia. At the start of the year it looked like the Old Dominion might have two viable candidates for president: Warner and Sen. George Allen (R). Warner is now out of the race and Allen's struggles in his re-election race against former Navy Secretary Jim Webb (D) have seriously damaged his own chances of running for national office in 2008.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix /

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. Here is what I posted at "The Fix"

Too narrow a read on this. The real winner is "the rest of the field"

Warner was locking up a lot of Democratic campaign talent and campaign money. He also took up a lot of newsprint and media minutes devoted to the 2008 race that made it that much harder for non favored by the media candidates to get any coverage. The attention span of cable news rarely extends beyond three names.

It does helps Edwards in the clear sense that it knocks out another Southerner, and one who can appeal to moderatres. To a slightly lesser extent it helps Wes Clark in that regard also. But John Edwards and John Kerry were always guarenteed a lot of press coverage if they decide to run in 2008, because of their high profile coming out of 2004.

In my opinion this development is more helpful to the current second and third tier of potential candidates, men like Clark, Biden, Feingold, Bayh and Richardson. With the possible exception of Bayh, these are the candidates who need to recruit staff talent and build their doner bases. And these are the men who were not already guarenteed a fair share of media attention with Clinton, Warner, Kerry, and Edwards all already crowded into the mix.

The sleeper winner I believe is Wes Clark, because like Warner (and Edwards and Bayh) he appeals to many moderates, and like Warner (and Edwards), he also appeals to the netroots and Democratic activists. Clark can benefit most from picking up some of the talent and money that Warner had locked away.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. Excellent post, TR! nt

[Pithy Cherub]

3. Good on you!

With the first analysis being the cheap seat analysis from the punditocracy it is worth noting that the entire field has a new dynamic involved and the CW has yet to factor that in. The cycle for getting financial committments from donors has always factored into a lazy media's calculus as to who is winning that primary. The endorsement portfolio will be much slower to commit in the 2008 race. The buzz factor and where it goes first has been laughably wrong during elections. Those are the traditional MSM's circles o intrigue.

Today's candidate with strong internet support can garner activists and dollars with a click of the mouse. The DNC chairman is charismatic and involved in building the grassroots. People with thin national security portfolios will be hampered on some of the most critical issues facing the nation - especially if they agitated and voted for the Iraq war travesty. The debate after a successful 2006 Democratic midterm will change the political environment again as a demand from holding the administration accountable will increase tenfold spoiling those who advocate third ways and centrist positions that may mean "let bygones be bygones." The blogosphere will grow exponentially drowning some media and will provide instant feedback especially for those who rarely have engaged in the medium of blogging.

Wes Clark is my favorite! The advent of a Gore brings in immediate name recognition and he would consume traditional media oxygen. The states of California, Texas and Florida will weigh in heavily on the money front. Edwards was the beneficiary of CW thinking in 2004 with rhetoric - very difficult to pull off in 2008. Edwards and the aye on IWR voters would have to face off against those who advocated a different Iraq foreign policy perscription and opposition. The necessary creds are so against him and the others in that most major category because of the overwhelming evidence that others were more thoughtful and smarter about how to handle these issues.

Hmmm, first 2006 Dem success and then it shall get very interesting.

[FrenchieCat]

4. I'm sick and tired of the Pundits......We need to eliminate them!

They shouldn't have shit to say until AFTER the people have voted. Their opinions are not better than mine; in fact, they have proven worse for the wear!

Main Entry: pun·dit
: a person who gives opinions in an authoritative manner usually through the mass media : CRITIC
- pun·dit·ry /-d&-trE/ noun

on edit; you can't make this shit up. Here's the link for that meaning of pundit given above! http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pundit