Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner is in Vegas this weekend for two conventions, one of which I’m at. YearlyKOS is the first bloggers convention for those of the liberal persuasion, and the Young Dems convention for, well, young Democrats. I’m here for the latter. He’ll be speaking at KOS today and at YDA tomorrow morning.
I was excited at the opportunity to hear Warner speak again and to have the opportunity to speak with him again (first time was at the NH Dem’s 100 Club dinner in February- been a HUGE fan since). Become a fan too!
But the party he threw…
Warner booked the “Top of the World” at the Stratosphere hotel, which is famous for it being a taller version of the Seattle Space Needle which has amusement park rides on top. The party was held last night and had partygoers from both conventions. The view (and the food and drinks) were incredible.
Governor Warner spoke briefly before the Blue Brothers took the stage again. He spoke of turning red states blue (something he knows being a former Democratic governor in a state with a 2/3 GOP majority in the legislature- which makes his record more incredible!), as well as winning back governor’s office, legislatures, and the Congress this year.
Of course, the elephant in the room was his political future, which Markos Moulitsas of Daily KOS fame declared that even though Warner hasn’t declared his intent to run for president in 2008, everybody in the room already knew that he was, which drew laughs.
Great night with great people and a great potential presidential candidate. I encourage readers to learn more about him and urge him to run in 2008.
I really hope 2007 shapes up into a contest between Mark Warner and Russ Feingold, because then we’ll have a real debate about the direction of the party with two great candidates representing the two major streams. I’m going to be with Feingold, no doubt about that, but Warner is the adversary I want for a healthy primary.
<
p>
Unfortunately, at least at the beginning, it’s going to be everyone vs. Clinton, and we’ll have the DLC “stream” of the party playing a dominant role. I plan to work to change that.
I really do. And I hate, absolutely hate, the argument that you should support somebody because their “electable” whatever the hell that means.
<
p>
With that said, though, I just cannot see Feingold winning either the primary or the general election. Personally, I think he’s running hard to the left (see his censure, endorsement of gay-marriage, etc.) so that whoever actually wins the nominee looks moderate by comparison, even if they’re actually quite progressive. I do have a hunch that Feingold will make serious inroads and he’ll be talked of as one of the frontrunners for a few months. Ultimately, though, I don’t think he’ll win.
<
p>
And, quite frankly, I’m going to be spending a huge chunk of my time in 2007 and 2008 working on somebody’s campaign for President. I just don’t want to invest that much of my time, effort, and opportunity to do something else when I can’t see the person I’m working for winning. I know, I know, that’s a really crummy reason not to work for Feingold who I agree with more than some of the other candidates, but that’s just where I am at this point.
Whether he will is a different matter altogether, and I make no predictions. But I think people who are very politically active are too obsessed with ideology and left-right positioning as a predictor of who is “electable”. The majority of voters, even primary voters, just don’t think that way. I’ve seen Feingold speak and campaign in Wisconsin, and he is amazing. He’s positive, smart, easy-mannered, straight-talking and straightforward, and people trust him. They don’t think of him as a “politician” saying what he thinks will get him elected. He inspires, and he inspired confidence. He gets an awful lot of “conservative” voters – including a significant chunk of people who voted for Bush in 2004 (Kerry won Wisconsin narrowly, Feingold won by a very wide margin).
<
p>
Feingold is running not exactly to the left in the Democratic primary, but rather as the progressive, which is a little different. He’s not the Kucinich of this race, he’s the Howard Dean.
<
p>
And he has a lot in common with Dean that will make it easy for him not to appear lefty in the general election, coupled with much better acquaintance with big-city big media, and a national political reputation he’s been building for a long time. Most people have heard of “McCain-Feingold”, and though they may not know that Russ Feingold was the Senator behind that, it’ll be easy to make that connection. The very name says “bipartisan”. Feingold in fact has a history of building bipartisan coalitions, and having Republican friends in the Senate. And he also has a history of actions that make it clear that he’s honest and straightforward and trustworthy and bold, even when it doesn’t seem like the politically right choice. Practically every newspaper article about him leads with the fact that he was the lone vote against the Patriot Act, which was quite risky at the time.
<
p>
I think he’s definitely our strongest candidate for the general election, without equal. The primary will be the real challenge for him. (I thought the same thing about Dean, starting in early 2002 when I first heard he was running)
I’m not enamored of Warner’s waffling on the war issue specifically or Warner’s persona/politics generally.
<
p>
I’m backing Feingold and will be there to work for him when the time comes.
I’m for Warner because we need a candidate with a strong and impressive record as an executive, someone who will be able move an agenda forward with whatever Congress’s party composition may be in 2009. Warner’s the only credible candidate in that regard.
<
p>
He turned around a GOP-created $6 billion deficit into a $1.4 billion surplus in Virginia’s budget through a measured package of tax increases (yes, in a red state) on the upper class, tax relief for lower and middle income Virginians, and spending cuts. While doing that, he pushed through one of the biggest investments in K-12 education and higher ed, restructured high school education, and reinvigorated Virginia’s public colleges. He pushed to wire up rural areas of his state to broadband internet access and lowered unemployment in those same areas out of the double digits the GOP reign let them fester in. Finally, he signed every piece of legislation supported by the AFL-CIO that passed the Legislature, and advocated for many of their issues. This is but a small list of his accomplishments.
<
p>
Warner was a strong blue governor in a solid red state. He would put the South and rural areas nationwide back into play for our party, something we desparately need to do.
<
p>
I respect Feingold’s positions in that he doesn’t waiver or equivocate. His positions would go far with parts of the party’s liberal base, but I doubt that he has much viability beyond.
What I worry about, though certainly have no evidence of, is that the talk of a “strong blue executive” in a “red” state is similar to the claims Romney makes of being a “strong red executive” in a “blue” state. I’d want to dig a little deeper into the accomplishments of Warner and see what actually transpired.
<
p>
As I read over this and my earlier comment, I realize that I sound very skeptical and perhaps a bit cynical — ironic for a strong Deval Patrick suppoter, I’m sure. It’s just interesting to me to see how the race is already shaping up with people drawing sides so early. I just don’t understand how anybody can choose a candidate this early on in the race for the White House. Don’t get me wrong, I starting working for Deval over a year and a half ago, but between Tom and Deval, I found the choice pretty simple. Choosing a POTUS is another thing entirely, especially when the field is so crowded and there is so much time until even the first “debate” nevermind caucus.
<
p>
Speaking of which, correct me if I’m wrong, but I just wanted to get a sense of who might be running on the Democratic side. Please tell me if I’m forgetting anybody:
<
p>
Bayh
Biden
Clinton
Dodd
Edwards
Feingold
Kerry
Vilsack
Warner
I don’t think it is realistic, but despite his denials, some still say Gore.
<
p>
What about Richardson?
I don’t see it happening, and I know he has denied it, but Gore is out there.
<
p>
What about Richardson or Clark? Do they both stay out because the Clinton people are committed and play for VP?
Some possibilities who are perhaps less likely (because they’re not doing the things that people preparing to run are doing), but still on the list for consideration: Wesley Clark, Bill Richardson, Al Gore.
<
p>
I’d been thinking about this long and hard since the 2004 election. I wonder what would make a good candidate, and looked into the possibilities. I read a whole book about Ed Rendell, for example (successful Democratic governor of a huge swing state!). I read about the mishandled vote count in New Mexico and decided Bill Richardson wasn’t the one I wanted. For about a year I discounted all legislators, while searching for a governor who seemed like a good candidate and who I could support. I came up short. There was nobody. (It was obvious all along that Brian Schweitzer was no way no how going to run in 2008, so he wasn’t on my list)
<
p>
I also looked at the list of people planning to run or rumored to run, and one by one ruled mose of them out. Either I think they’re lousy candidates, or I just can’t support them because I disagree with them too much (Warner falls in that category), or both. Only a few were left, while I kept searching for more.
<
p>
Through it all, I thought about the lessons I learned from 2004, both the primaries and the general. I was in the thick of it, in many different ways, and in many different states. I campaigned for Dean in ten states, and for Kerry in the general in five. I worked out of campaign offices and independently. I canvassed, registered voters, watched polls, started and organized grassroots groups and meetups, canvassed and canvassed, blogged, coordinated online with yet more states, read loads of news coverage, analyzed the votes and the exit polls from just about every primary, saw many candidates speak in person, watched videos of others, watched the ads, partcipated in ACT and MoveOn and various other groups. So throughout 2005 I thought about what I had learned, and what I wanted from a candidate.
<
p>
Feingold began to shine. He was one of the very few who had survived most of my filters. Initially I put him lower on the list because he wasn’t a governor, but the more I thought about the reasons why I prefer governors, the more I realized he was a fine exception to make. And when it turned out there were no governors I could support, he became part of my short list. Then he put together a bipartisan coalition that nearly stopped the Bush administration from renewing the Patriot Act, and very nearly gave us some serious reform, and jumped to the top of my list.
<
p>
I thought some more. Feingold introduced his censure resolution, and played it really well in the press. If we were the nominee running for president, I realized, he’d be able to frame the entire debate (something Dean could’ve done too). I thought more about his record, and his history, and his abilities, and decided he was the near-perfect progressive candidate. And then he came out in favor of gay marriage, but by that point, I no longer needed convincing.
<
p>
This comment is not intended as an essay to convince you (or anyone else) that Feingold is the candidate to support. I do intend to write such an essay, and post it, eventually. This comment is merely an answer to your question: “I just don’t understand how anybody can choose a candidate this early on in the race for the White House.” This is how I can.
<
p>
We need to. We must start early. Big money acts fast, the party leadership can act fast, but grassroots goes slow. Howard Dean began his run for president in the spring of 2002, but the grassroots organizing on his behalf didn’t really begin until February of 2003. That was early enough to turn a candidate with no chance, into a frontrunner, but the whole process was still too media-heavy and the grassroots campaign failed to overcome that. Well, we’re mostly all still here, better organized, more experienced now, and the Internet is bigger and our techniques more powerful. But we need to start earlier, as early as we can. Now. Months ago, actually.
Def the person I plan on supporting for 2008. And he definitely already has his hat in the ring. Just check out his PAC Forward Together and he has been taking trips to NH & NM.
<
p>
Personally, I think he is the most viable candidate we’ve got. Hillary, though I love her is a divisive “love or hate” candidate and none of the other names with the exception of possibly Richardson I think have a chance in a general.
In response to your concerns about the inevitable comparison/contrast between Warner and Romney, I’d ask that you check out the links within my original post. Granted those sites are promoting Warner, but it gives you a feel for what he’s about. Google his name. Check out the Virginia AFL-CIO’s webpage. The labor record is one glaring difference between Romney and Warner. As a union president, I pay attention to and care about such things.
<
p>
Another big difference between the two is that Warner has a tremendous record of accomplishment as a result of working with (or dragging along) the GOP out of necessity (while picking up more Dem seats in midterm state elections). Romney’s record, as I’m preaching to the choir, is basically non-existent aside from the yet-to-be-seen success of the new MA health care law.
<
p>
As for backing a horse so early, my belief is that if support begins to coalesce around a smaller pool of candidates that we can avoid an acrimonious primary, which I hope the GOP will have in ’08. I also firmly believe that Warner has the record and ability to not just lead our party, but also build it, into 2008.
I haven’t been following much about Hillary. Can anyone rattle off some of the votes/statements that make people claim she’s conservative? Moderate? Liberal?
<
p>
Danny Moraff
Infact she was part of the young Republicans in College, but she is pegged as a liberal by the Conservative propoganda machine.
Thats who I am supporting, though I would prefer to see Feingold and if he does run I will be a big supporter and campaign volunteer for the man. He represents the ideal Mr. Smith goes to Washington politician, he is not corrupt, he is very principled and idealistic, he has a very direct speaking style (no I voted for the war before I voted against it Senate speak). He is very interesting to listen to, isnt boring, and he has a lot of guts which make him a strong leader and will resonate with voters. That said Feingolds greatest enemy is the legacy of the Dean campaign, if he surges too early and becomes old news by voting day, if the media bury him if he makes one mistake, or if they annoint a candidate too early again then he could be doomed. If we lived in a country with a fair media and fair election laws he’d win hands down, sadly it seems that the system is rigged against truly progressive candidates to maintain the corporate status quo.
<
p>
Other than Feingold I would be definitely willing to vote for Clark, Biden, Dodd (he wont win though), Edwards, Richardson, or any moderate except for Bayh, Clinton, or Kerry
<
p>
Also as for Warner I dont believe a one term southern governor with no previous foreign policy experience is healthy, considering the mess the last one term southern governor we elected got us into in Iraq and elsewhere.
if it wasn’t for VA term limits. And many credit him for getting a Democrat elected in his place. Besides, Clinton had no major foreign policy experience & neither did Bush. Thats what the VP is for.
My ideal ticket would be Warner/Clark, for that reason. I want candidates who are going to get things done and have a record of doing so. That’s why senators don’t appeal to me. Too many votes, too much log-rolling, and very difficult to say that whatever legislative record they may have will translate well into executive success.
<
p>
No candidate for president can claim to have the record of success in the private and public sector as can Warner.
<
p>
Check out the link SS&L provided above or the links I provided in my original post.