Mark Warner
I like this guy a lot. He's been catching some flak from this weekend:
You've seen it already, people criticizing the Mark Warner operation for their tony party at the Stratosphere during YearlyKos. Apparently, people think 1) Warner is trying to buy their support (everyone knows we're not that cheap), and 2) Warner could've spent the money ($50-100K) better.
It's clearly too early to start handicapping the race in '08. Regardless, let me say that of all the Democratic contenders Warner seems to me to have the best shot. Why?
You've got, as a front runner, Hillary Clinton. I don't think she'll get the nomination. The hard left doesn't like her, because she seems like your typical politican, and besides, she's not left enough. In addition, she's not electable. So, whoever can run as the anti-Clinton is going to be huge.
Right now every other Democratic candidate seems to be jockeying for that position. Clark, Feingold, Kerry (god forbid), Edwards, Vilsack, Richardson, etc. etc. etc. None of these candidates seem to me to be that great. Clark ain't a good politican; Feingold, for all his appeal in the blogosphere, is not moderate enough to be elected. Granted I don't know too much about Richardson or Vilsack, but that's an equally damning judgement.
Warner seems to have that same quality of charisma that Big Willie had. He's likable; he's a Democratic governer from a red state, and he left office with an astronomical approval rating. He can credibly run to the center, branding himself as quite electable, but also as a very competent leader. Before politics, he was a very successful businessman. I think that competence cannot be underestimated when it comes to the next election.
2 years is a long time, and a lot can change. However, this guy looks real good right now. He's doing all the right things, but more importantly, he seems credible. I could see him competing in the South, and lord knows if the Democratic party wants a fighting chance they can't base their entire strategy on a handful of swing states. Even the potential of carrying Virginia, which seems like it could be fairly likely, is a pretty important thing.
Of course, all this could pale in relationship to the Republican nominee. I think a debate between McCain and Warner would be so bloody wonderful, after the past 6 years. Imagine a choice between two potentially great leaders? That would be a sight.
posted by Kevin @ 9:58 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
I like a lot of the stuff you're saying KScott. I just don't understand why the Dems cannot seem to realize that their Northeastern candidates are truly unelectable. With this country split almost completely down the middle I feel like presidential elections are decided by the marginal charisma of a candidate. The Dems need another Clinton. One problem is that a lot of the Dems didn't really like Clinton because the Third Way wasn't far enough to the left. I find it rather odd that any Dems would be placing their hopes in Hillary. I'd like to know exactly what her fanbase is amongst the DNC movers and shakers. I think I accept the criticism that she is peddling credibility on the right by moving center, finding her own third way. The Daily Show had a great moment of Zen where she was giving a speech at some Chamber of Commerce-y type organization and she was talking about how "kids these days" don't know the meaning of work. (cliché cliché cliché) and then it cut immediately to her giving a speech at a university commencement ceremony where she basically said exactly the opposite. Man, she sucks. At least when she was yelling about socialized medicine she actually believed in something.
I honestly get the feeling that Warner will be better than Clinton. Clinton's "triangulation" strategy tended to mean trying to change our positions through compromise -- and it didn't always work, as when HillaryCare, attempting to preserve a role for the insurance companies instead of going to straight single payer (which might've been possible if they'd rammed it through in the first hundred days, instead of tweaking and negotiating and making things more and more complicated), crashed and burned.
Warner says what he thinks, and doesn't back down from an argument. He's willing to compromise, and he shows respect for the other side -- he doesn't say they're evil, just wrong. He's stuck his neck out for unpopular causes, like fighting against the worst aspects of an anti-gay-marriage bill that intruded even into private contract rights. And, most importantly, he's shown that, in many cases, he can make the sale -- with the legislature stacked 2:1 against him, he got progressive taxation, expanded healthcare, investment in infrastructure, improved education, environmental protection... The laundry list goes on.
PS: I was at the Stratosphere party. It wasn't any more lavish than any high-end political function. (And, in fact, with warner making circles around the observation deck and spending five or ten minutes chatting with clusters of random attendees, it was a lot friendlier than most such functions.) Kos was right on when he pointed out that had only bigwigs and donors been invited, nobody would've considered anything unusual. Warner was showing that he takes the blogosphere seriously.
Post a Comment
<< Home