Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Mark we hardly knew ye

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
 
mrgorth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 02:34 PM
Original message
Mark we hardly knew ye
It just got a LOT easier for the pugs to hold on to the presidency in 08. Warner would've had a good shot. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. I dunno about a LOT easier...
there's plenty of other suitable candidates. I liked Warner, but his stepping out of the race isn't the end of the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrgorth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. It's just that
I don't think Bayh can do it. I love Feingold but don't think he has a shot. Love Kerry and Gore but also doubt their ability to win the general, and mostly, I'm worried that Hillary will win the nom and lose 48 states in the general. I don't know that McCain is coming out of the thug primary but I don't know who we have that could beat him. I keep hoping for Scweitzer but don't think he'll run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Wes Clark or Barack Obama could beat him. So could the new Al Gore.
McCain isn't that scary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. I so disagree with your assessment for 2008.....and
What your comment does is strongly underestimate our other Dem potentials ....several who were and still are a better option to a Mark Warner nominee even had he thrown his hat into the race.

but then, unlike you, I never thought that Warner was "the" Dem candidate that would provide us with that many advantages to win in 2008 to begin with. :shrug:

Considering that the headlines for today is that we will be fully extended into Iraq for another 4 years minimum according to BushCO....and in effect providing certainty that Iraq will be one of the many pressing "National Security" issues for 2008; Warner with his "let's not worry about how we got to Iraq", and no real strategy for how to get out.....plus his "Kerry was all wrong with his tax proposal" recent comment added to his Bildenberg, DLC and AIPAC attendance; I don't think he was really as strong just for the fact that he was a one term governor from a southern state.

You are right about something though.....We certainly hardly knew Mark Warner....but the real problem was that as many were getting to know him, they were liking him less and less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrgorth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Don't put words in my mouth
I'll be happy to vote for Wes. Let's hope he runs a better campaign this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. I didn't mention Wes in my post...so certainly I wasn't putting words in
YOUR mouth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrgorth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Here's what you wrote:
"but then, unlike you, I never thought that Warner was "the" Dem candidate that would provide us with that many advantages to win in 2008 to begin with."

I never implied, much less stated, that he was "the" dem candidate. I'll take your apology whenever you're ready.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Sorry!
You didn't say this....I implied it.


I was wrong.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
5. I don't know that it got a lot easier, either.
Warner comes across as a good guy, but he's not the most electrifying guy in the world and, sadly, personality is a big factor in presidential politics (Just ask Bob Dole.)
And Warner definitely wouldn't have been my choice, but I suspect that my preferences aren't in line with so-called "mainstream America." In my dream world, it would be Gore-Feingold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. Not electrifying?
Face it, he could be sleep inducing.

As they say, we can do better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keta11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
6. I am happy he is not in. Too centrist and triangulatory
for my blood!!!

Sen. Macacawitz says: Good. That is one less Virginian in the race.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
10. It frees him up to run for Warner's senate seat in 2008.....
He be a cinch and could use some foreign policy experience to round out his resume.

As to the presidency, with Edwards, Clark, Bayh and Richardson in the mix, I think there'll be a credible opponent to Clinton and Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
12. Gore, Edwards, and Clark
Any of the 3 would win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
13. If you're edging your bets on us winning with a Senator
you're fooling yourself. Warner not running is not a good thing at all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Sure it is.
I'd hate for the Democratic Party to be duped by another Bilerberg, DLCer, Democrat-wanna-be.

He needs to stay in Virginia and challenge the OTHER Warner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrgorth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. I hate to say this but
the only candidate you don't describe there is Feingold. All of the others will take their orders from big money the same as the rest. All our elections do is tell them which way the wind is blowing.
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 Mon Oct 20th 2014, 01:40 PM
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