Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Bumped -- Jonathan

If true, this is a shocker:

Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, considered a prime contender for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, will announce on Thursday he will not seek the White House, sources close to his campaign said.

Warner plans an announcement in Richmond, Virginia, later in the morning, the sources said.

"He has just decided this is not the right time of life," one source said. "He has been running 1,000 miles an hour for 10 years." If I had to guess, the person most helped by this decision will be John Edwards. But, like I said, that is only a guess.

Update [2006-10-12 11:3:7 by Jerome Armstrong]:Mark Warner's statement is up on the website (and in the extended entry here). I'll make a post here later today, and answer in the comments.

October 12, 2006

Statement of Governor Mark Warner
Forward Together PAC
October 12, 2006

Nine months ago, I left the office of Governor in Virginia. I was immensely proud of what we had accomplished. We faced historic challenges and got real results.

Upon leaving office, I committed all my time and energy to Forward Together because we need a new direction in America.

Everywhere I’ve traveled, I found hope that we could turn this country around. That Americans are looking for leaders who at this moment of enormous challenge for our country can actually bring us together and get things done.

I’ve heard that regardless of the depth of dismay at the direction President Bush has taken our country, rank and file Democrats are energized, and want ours to be a party of hope, not of anger.

I am especially proud of the work we’ve done in supporting those kinds of candidates throughout America.

We got a lot done.

Forward Together has contributed more money this year to Democratic candidates and party organizations than any other federal leadership PAC. Our effort raised over $9 million.

I headlined 86 events in 25 states to help raise or directly donate $7.3 million to Democrats this cycle.

And our work is not done—especially at home in Virginia, where I continue to work to help Jim Webb win.

But this has also been another kind of journey—one that would lead to a decision as to whether I would seek the Democratic nomination for President.

Late last year, I said to Lisa and my girls, “Let’s go down this path and make a decision around Election Day.”

But there were hiring decisions and people who’ve put their lives on hold waiting to join this effort.

So about a month ago, I told my family and people who know me best that I would make a final decision after Columbus Day weekend, which I was spending with my family. After 67 trips to 28 states and five foreign countries, I have made that decision.

I have decided not to run for President.

This past weekend, my family and I went to Connecticut to celebrate my Dad’s 81st birthday, and then we took my oldest daughter Madison to start looking at colleges.

I know these moments are never going to come again. This weekend made clear what I’d been thinking about for many weeks—that while politically this appears to be the right time for me to take the plunge—at this point, I want to have a real life.

And while the chance may never come again, I shouldn’t move forward unless I’m willing to put everything else in my life on the back burner.

This has been a difficult decision, but for me, it’s the right decision.

It’s not a decision I have easily reached. I made it after a lot of discussion with my family and a few close friends, and ultimately a lot of reflection, prayer, and soul-searching.

Let me also tell you what were not the reasons for my decision.

This is not a choice that was made based on whether I would win or lose. I can say with complete conviction that—15 months out from the first nomination contests—I feel we would have had as good a shot to be successful as any potential candidate in the field.

As for my family, Lisa and our three girls have always had a healthy amount of skepticism, but would have been willing to buckle down and support the effort. I love them all and appreciate their faith in me.

So what’s next?

First, I know that many friends, staff and supporters who have been so generous with time, ideas, energy, and financial support will be disappointed.

My decision does not in any way diminish my desire to be active in getting our country fixed. It doesn’t mean that I won’t run for public office again.

I want to serve, whether in elective office or in some other way. I’m still excited about the possibilities for the future.

In the short-term, I am going to do everything I can do make sure Democrats win in 2006. It’s an exciting year to be a Democrat. I leave shortly to go to Iowa to support folks running for state and congressional office. Hope they are still excited to see me.

I want to thank the thousands of Americans who have donated to Forward Together, hosted me in their homes, shared their ideas, and given me encouragement.

I also want to thank all of the staff and key advisors at Forward Together who have created a great organization. If we had chosen to go forward, I know they had the skills, talent, and dedication to take us all the way.

And finally, as I have traveled the country, I have been amazed at what pent-up positive energy for change exists.

In my speeches, I always acknowledge that what disappoints me most about this administration in Washington is that with all the challenges we face . . . and the tragedies we have experienced, from 9-11 to Katrina . . . that the President has never rallied the American people to come together, to step up, to ask Americans to be part of the solution.

I think a number of our party’s potential candidates understand that. I think, in fact, we have a strong field. A field of good people. I think they’re all hearing what I heard: that Americans are ready to do their part to get our country fixed. I wish them all well.

And I want to say thanks to all who’ve been part of this effort.

Mark Warner

You can use this page to write to Governor Warner.

Tags: Democrats, General 208 (all tags)

Comments

158 Comments

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

I guess we may have to wait a few days before Jerome can help us understand the logic behind the decision--but I am looking forwarrd to that valuable perspective.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-10-12 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Could be as simple as 'I'm tired.'

Or, it could be he doesn't want to run against St. McCain. But I dunno, you'd think that the fairly damining pictures of McCain with Bush (McCain hugging him robustly in 2004, and the infamous cake pictures during Katrina) ought to be enough to knock McCain out.

by lightyearsfromhome 2006-10-12 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

My reading of Warner is that he is someone who really wants to accomplish as much as he can.  If he knows the landscape has changed so he cannot win the nomination--I think he's the kind of person who would refocus to accomplish something else.

For some reason, I see Warner as indefatigable.   I'm guessing there's some other earth shaking news out there (e.g., Obama running, etc.) that makes all of Warner's strengths as a Presidential candidate no longer unique--so he's retooling to take on his next big achievement.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-10-12 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Oh, McCain is very deliberately positioning himself as the heir and logical successor to Bush.  But he'd be as old in 2009 as Reagan was in 1981.  He'd be 80 at the end of the second term.  Surely we don't want to go down that road again...

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-10-12 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Everyone is forgetting the 800 lb. gorilla in the room -- Hillary. She's going to steamroll the nomination because she's got the money and the machine. Everyone else is running for VP.

by Sitkah 2006-10-12 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

does that means he can be convinced to run for Sen of VA should the other R from the state retire in 2008?

by bruh21 2006-10-12 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

I sure as hell hope so.

And you're damn right this helps Edwards. He's the other successful, energetic southerner. And if a lot of primary voters got to the point of choosing between the two, Warner might look more viable because of his novelty and Gubernatorial experience.

I like Mark Warner a lot, and if he does run I may end up supporting him, but I tentatively love John Edwards -- think what that message would do to the national debate! -- so I wouldn't be too upset if Warner decided not to run.

Plus he'd be a great Senate candidate for '08.

by msnook 2006-10-12 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)
And if he doesn't retire? "Warner vs Warner! You know the name."
by antiHyde 2006-10-12 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

We already had that race in 1996, before Mark Warner ran for governor. People had bumper stickers reading "Mark, not John", which some people interpreted as being a biblical reference. Mark lost 47 to 53 percent. Of course, Mark Warner is a lot more popular and well known now.

by KCinDC 2006-10-12 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

My understanding is that Sen. John Warner (R) has already announced his retirement and that Virgil Goode (R) is alredy planning to run for that seat in '08.  It looks like a tailor-made opportunity for Mark, especially if Jim Webb beats George Allen (the reason being that it takes Webb out and puts Allen in the '08 Senate race equation).  

by CLLGADEM 2006-10-13 12:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

John Warner announced his retirement?  Where?  When?  Do you have a link?

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-10-15 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Sorry, no link, but I distinctly remeber reading an article (the Webb/Allen race was the main subject) referring to Virgil Goode as a U.S. Rep. and likely 2008 Senate candidate.  Would he challenge John Warner in a primary?

by CLLGADEM 2006-10-20 01:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

I have to admire people who even put there foot in the water to test and see if running for President is a viable option. I wouldn't want to put myself through the riggers of running.

I am only speculating here, but if it is true that Obama is jumping into the 08 fray then my guess is Warner doesn't see much oxygen left for himself in an already crowded field.

by jbou 2006-10-12 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Is this Obama thing rumored at all, or is it just an idea someone threw out there?

I haven't heard anything; I'm just wondering if this is just speculation or if there's some reasont to think this ...

by BriVT 2006-10-12 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Obama went to the Harkin steak fry in Iowa,, and has another visit planned. Obama is in the early exploritory phase, if you ask me.

by jbou 2006-10-12 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Thanks ... interesting ...

by BriVT 2006-10-12 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Obama getting into the 2008 race might be the only thing to melt my anger over Warner potentially throwing Allen a 2nd term for his vacillation over a presidential run himself.

Obama would be awesome for many reasons in his own right, and I'll support him the second he gets in.  Til then, I'm with Feingold.

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-10-12 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Which of Obama's achievements do you admire most?

by BingoL 2006-10-12 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Obama has achievements?

by Sitkah 2006-10-12 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

If you needed achievements to be president, George Bush would never have gotten in.

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-10-15 05:21PM | 0 recs
However...

...Iowa is only one state over from Illinois.  Has he done anything in New Hampshire?

by Geotpf 2006-10-12 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Who's gonna get all that loot? He'd be my freaking hero if, while making his statement, he said, "I'll be contributing all of the funds I've received from generous donors to Democrats fighting for change across this great country."

One can wish.

by Sidd Finch 2006-10-12 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

I'm pretty sure he never had a Presidential committee. All of th emoney he has raised so far is in his Forward Together Pac, which has been giving all along. The only difference you might see is less focus on Iowa and NH candidates.

by dantheman 2006-10-12 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

thanks.

by Sidd Finch 2006-10-12 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

I would throw into the speculation that besides Edwards, this helps Bill Richardson, who may find himself as the only candidate in the race who was never a Senator.

by Colorado Luis 2006-10-12 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Hasn't Richardson said he wouldn't run if Hillary is running?

by jbou 2006-10-12 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

I've not ever heard that. I will tell you, though, that Richardson is running.

by Alex Flores 2006-10-12 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Have you seen him all over the tv this week on North Korea.  He goes from CNN to MSNBC and then to Fox all in 30 minutes--same suit--same smile.

He is only potential dem with deep international relations experience!

And he sets himself up nicely as an experienced international negotiator in opposition to bush's tactics of aggression and name calling.

by aiko 2006-10-12 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Richardson can run all he wants.  He has a zipper problem.  Ain't gonna make it.

by InigoMontoya 2006-10-12 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

And Evan Bayh, since he was the other potential candidate touting his "bi-partisan" credentials and middle of the road ideology.

by adamterando 2006-10-12 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Plus Wesley Clark!

who was never a senator, is also a southerner and more importantly for '08...has the national security gravitas that all other candidates are so sadly lacking.

by sybil disobedience 2006-10-12 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

I'm shocked by this. Warner has been signing up talent left and right and following the script perfectly to this point. Perhaps as Bruh21 suggested, Warner knows something about the other Warner (John) that we don't.  

Oh well, I guess my money and volunteer hours will go to Edwards, who should probably be the new "Anti-Hillary".

by bjschmid 2006-10-12 06:44AM | 0 recs
Edwards as anti-Hillary

In my opinion, Edwards should always have been the anti-Hillary. He's talking about two Americas and economic populism, and she's in the middle of a three-ring-circus of corporations and big money.

by msnook 2006-10-12 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards as anti-Hillary

Edwards can't be the anti-hillary when his voting record is the same as hers. If I can point that out so easily, you can bet Hillary's media minions will drive a bus over it.

by Sitkah 2006-10-12 09:44AM | 0 recs
I'm glad it helps Edwards

although the main things they have in common are not ideological, but the fact theat they are both from the South and that they both can raise money.

If it helps Edwards, good.  I like it when centrist candidates drop out and their momentum goes to progressive candidates.

by lorax 2006-10-12 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad it helps Edwards

Edwards progressive????  Are you kidding??????  Ignore his 2004 rhetoric; check his 6 year record in the Senate.  I worked there for 3+ years.  He is not remotely the progressive he plays himself off to be.

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-10-12 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad it helps Edwards

So everything he has done since '05 is all a lie and a sham and everything he did in the senate is the only real way to judge him. Got it. And staking poverty as a signature issue just shows how much of a political grandstander he is because that's always such a winner of an issue in presidential campaigns. That's why liberal progressive Democrats have always won the presidency since 1968. Got that too. Thanks for letting us know what is inside people's hearts and minds so we don't have to judge them on their actions.

by adamterando 2006-10-12 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad it helps Edwards

and staking poverty as a signature issue just shows how much of a political grandstander he is because that's always such a winner of an issue in presidential campaigns.

It's the kind of thing one does to impress Democratic primary voters and then casts aside after winning the nomination.

by Sitkah 2006-10-12 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad it helps Edwards

Right, cause that's what Kerry, and Bill Clinton did. And that's why Dennis Kucinich won the Dem primary in '04.

by adamterando 2006-10-12 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad it helps Edwards

I agree with you that Edwards will not be the Democratic nominee.

by Sitkah 2006-10-12 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad it helps Edwards

So we should allow someone to take a seat in the Senate for a full term and vote however they want, but then ignore it a year later when they start talking a good game?  Please.  No one who voted for the war is getting my primary/caucus vote.  They weren't fooled; they knew full well at the time what was going on.  That's why 23 senators DID vote no.

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-10-15 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad it helps Edwards

Edwards progressive????  Are you kidding??????  Ignore his 2004 rhetoric; check his 6 year record in the Senate.  I worked there for 3+ years.  He is not remotely the progressive he plays himself off to be.

I'm not sure what "progressive" means since it's often applied to pols like Edwards who have voted for the Bush/NeoCon/Corporatist agenda.

by Sitkah 2006-10-12 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad it helps Edwards

John Edwards posted on KOS yesterday, there were over 900 comments, I would say many there disagree with your position on John Edwards.

He answered many questions, if anyone wants to check for themselves go and read it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/11 /182251/67

HE is the correct choice for 2008.

by dk2 2006-10-12 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad it helps Edwards

I simply can't wait to see McCain debate Edwards on foreign policy issues.

OTOH, they did vote the same way on the IWR didn't they? oh, but then Edwards did say "oops" once the election was over...so it's all good?

by sybil disobedience 2006-10-12 07:36PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad it helps Edwards

I don't think you can judge the entirety of an elected official's career based on one vote, even one as important as the war resolution.  Please enlighten me.  What are some other examples of Edwards not being progressive?

by lorax 2006-10-12 07:47PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad it helps Edwards

sure - not only did he vote for the IWR, he co-sponsored it - not only did he support the patriot act, he drafted a small section of it

snip> During his Senate term, Edwards co-sponsored 203 bills. Notably, he co-sponsored Lieberman's S.J.RES.46, the Iraq War Resolution, and also later voted for it in the full Senate to authorize the use of military force against Iraq. Edwards also supported and voted for the Patriot Act. <snip</p>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edward s#Senate_term

Media Matters - Conservatives continue to misrepresent Edwards's voting record - 2004

snip> In 2002, only 11 of the 50 Senate Democrats voted more conservatively." <snip</p>

http://mediamatters.org/items/2004071200 04

Edwards was good on the environment tho.

by sybil disobedience 2006-10-13 07:40PM | 0 recs
How so?

Don't throw around words like "NeoCon" and "Corporatist" lightly.  What votes do you have to back up your linking of Edwards to Bush?

by lorax 2006-10-12 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

This makes me wonder if Warner has some bones rattling in his closet and if the Foley Follies have put him in a precarious position.

by Sitkah 2006-10-12 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

No.

by Jerome Armstrong 2006-10-12 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Sitkah that is downright trollish.

The only thing Gov. MARK Warner has in his closet is a desire to be Governor again.

by Alice Marshall 2006-10-12 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

I guess I'm getting too old and cynical about politicians. I find it unbelievable that some guy spends years of his life and tons of money getting ready to run for president and then suddenly says "It's not the right time in my life."

Politics is a dirty business and the higher one climbs the dirtier it gets. And at the level of presidential politics, backstabbing, cutthroating, and blackmailing when necessary are the rule.

by Sitkah 2006-10-12 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

That thought passed my mind too because of the timing. However,  I think he made the decision when he did, because this election is so important. He is now going to focus on doing whatever he can to get Democrats elected.

Classy move.

by misscee 2006-10-12 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

With rare exceptions, the terms "classy move" and "career politician" are incongruous to me.

by Sitkah 2006-10-12 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

He'll either run for Senate in '08 or Governor in '09. If he wants to be President, he should choose the latter.

by amiches 2006-10-12 06:58AM | 0 recs
5 possibilities:
  • Threat of scandal
  • Made a deal for Vice President
  • Big offer from the private sector
  • Ceding to a greater power (Obama perhaps, but could also be Hillary or Gore)
  • Burnout
by JoeFelice 2006-10-12 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: 5 possibilities:

There must be 6.

by Jerome Armstrong 2006-10-12 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: 5 possibilities:

I hope you'll enlighten us eventually as to what that statement means...

by lorax 2006-10-12 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: 5 possibilities:

I was referring to Governor Warner's statement.

by Jerome Armstrong 2006-10-12 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: 5 possibilities:

"Burnout" was my indelicate version of that. I don't mean to slight the Governor on honesty. Pardon my word choice, let's say, a lifestyle choice.

by JoeFelice 2006-10-12 09:33AM | 0 recs
Or even 7 or 8 possibilities

You know, it's easy to talk shit about Hillary Clinton on somebody else's website.

But to actually RUN against her?

Hillary:

Most admired woman in the world
Most famous last name
More money than the Vatican
Crushing everyone in every poll

Running against a Clinton is a lot to ask of anyone. Unlike Lamont, Warner doesn't have a truckload of cash to throw in if the Netroots get bored with him halfway through the campaign.

by stevehigh 2006-10-12 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Or even 7 or 8 possibilities

Well, actually he does have a truckload of money but that's beside the point.

You have a good Hillary list up there but your last point should read,

"Crushing everyone in every poll, unless the poll is her versus a republican."

by adamterando 2006-10-12 08:36AM | 0 recs
You're right about his money.

And that's reason #11:

Doesn't need the aggravation OR the salary.

And you're right about the general election. I think both Clinton and Edwards should finish a second term in the Senate, get a little more practice. It is, all kidding aside, not such a bad job, esp. if you in the majority.

by stevehigh 2006-10-12 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: You're right about his money.

Edwards isn't IN the Senate anymore, he retired in '04.  A Repug by the name of Burr picked up his seat.

by Alex 2006-10-13 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: 5 possibilities:

It's definitely not the private sector.  Warner does not need any more money, and he loves public service.  

He's been on the road for months testing his viability as a Presidential candidate and raising money for Dems everywhere.  He knows that if he runs, he'll be running nonstop for the next two years.  Maybe he really did just want to spend more time with his family and then make another run when his children are grown up.  He's still relatively young and can pretty much get any other elected office he wants.  We love him down here in the Commonwealth.  He can be a Senator in 2008 or Governor again in 2009 in a landslide.  One of his few flaws for the Presidency was that he had only four years of elected office.  Not running for President yet still seeking public office can remedy this.

I worry about Hillary now being considered the clear frontrunner.  Warner had a record of bridging the gap between Democrats and moderate Republicans here in the Commonwealth.  He is exactly the type of person we need in this country following the disastrous and divisive policies of the Bush Administration.  I think Hillary only exacerbates the problem.  The public at large will not want a true progressive or conservative in '08, they'll want a uniter.

by Southern Blue Dog 2006-10-12 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: 5 possibilities:

Agreed, he is pretty young, and can wait another 4 years and prepare.

Maybe he gets picked up as a VP?

by aip 2006-10-12 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: 5 possibilities:

There's a certain appeal to the Senate ... you can win just three races and be a Bona Fide Important Man for 18 years. And its even more appealing if you are running to either create or solidify a Democratic Majority.

But overall I'll pick door number four ... he's positioned to run to the right of Hillary and there is no room available to run to the right of Hillary.

However, I do expect that the appeal of a Senate run makes that easier to accept.

by BruceMcF 2006-10-12 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

I was shocked and a bit skeptical by this story. I am not sure that I all together believe it. Warner could jump back into the race and this whole event was used as a means of determining his current support. I hope this is the case. I was so ready to support his candidacy and told many of my close friends that he would get the nomination. Maybe he does know something that we dont. I believe there is Earth shattering news that he is aware of which could be that Al Gore wants to run again. With Gore in the race it automatically becomes a 2 person race, Gore vs. Hillary. Warner probably wants to throw all of his sway and connections behind Gore. Nevertheless, I am very disappointed. As for Edwards, he had his chance and could not even beat Kerry! He is a has been in my book. There are other centrists such as Evan Bayh and Bill Richardson who I will support.

by Houston Dem 2006-10-12 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

I'm not so sure.

I think Warner witnesed the bloodbath between Allen and Webb and asked himself whether he was willing to be put under that kind of scrutiny.

Obviously, the answer is no.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2006-10-12 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

The benificierys of the Warner decision is John Edwards and Evan Bayh.

Like Mark Warner- John Edwards is a Southern Democrat and is a political outsider and has strong personal wealth.

Like Mark Warner- Evan Bayh is a popular former fiscal moderate Governor from a Red State.

Evan Bayh benifits from experience and electability. Bayh has won 5 statewide elections in a ruby red state- one for Secretary of State,two for Governor and two for US Senator and the last three elections Bayh won with more than 60% of the popular vote.  In 2006 Indiana is a battleground state for the US House of Represenatatives- Bayh Democratic House Candidates are favored to unseat Republican Incumbents in Indiana's 2nd,8th and 9th Congressional District. and Democrats have an decent chance of regaining Control of the Indiana State House.

by CMBurns 2006-10-12 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

This enrages me.  If Warner isn't running for president, why the HELL isn't he running against George Allen???  He'd have won in a walk, and been appreciably better than Webb.  The Washington Post says he might run for Senate in 08 if John Warner retires--what if he doesn't?  

Yeah, I think Edwards and maybe Bayh are the beneficiaries of this.  I guess, and hope, it would be Edwards more than Bayh, who is a spineless, shameless opportunist who disgraces the legacy of his progressive father Birch Bayh.  Along with the DNC's addition of two new states to the front of the primary process, it seems to me Edwards has picked up 2 significant breaks recently.  His anti-poverty, populist stuff is a phony facade, but I'd take him over Bayh in a heartbeat, and I sure as hell don't want Hillary, who'd only send us down to flaming defeat.

It really pisses me off when politicians screw the party by vacillating like this.  Like Lieberman stubbornly running for reelection to the Senate in 2000 while also running for VP.

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-10-12 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Seriosuly man, do you have any evidence that his "anti-poverty populist stuff" is a phony facade? And don't say "his senate record" because that proves nothing about how he feels now. If he had talked about populism and poverty while he was in the senate and THEN voted against those measures or done nothing about it, then I would agree, it is a facade. But he didn't really start talking about this stuff until after the '04 election. So, unless you are intimately familiar with the man NOW, then you have no evidence to make such a claim. Maybe you could admit, that maybe, just maybe, there's a chance that he believes the stuff and actually wants to make it happen.

by adamterando 2006-10-12 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

It is most definitely a phony facade from an opportunist who saw that it would help him in the 2004 primaries and caucuses.  I have to run shortly but will be happy to post evidence/criticism more specifically later.

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-10-12 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Great. Look forward to seeing it. And as I am willing to look at the evidence, I'm sure you'll be willing to also admit that you could be wrong and there's a chance that he actually believes in what he's doing and it isn't just a phony facade from an opportunist.

by adamterando 2006-10-12 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Your bashing of Bayh is not only baseless, but lame and tired.

I like Edwards but I like Bayh more. Mostly, because Bayh is actually qualified to be president, and you know, run the government, unlike Edwards who, for all his inspiring qualities, just isn't.

by blueflorida 2006-10-12 08:27AM | 0 recs
What I like about Bayh

It's a pretty short list:

1. Unlike Edwards for sure and Warner maybe, Bayh can actually carry a red state.

2. I can't think of much else. Maybe we should run Ben Nelson.

by stevehigh 2006-10-12 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: What I like about Bayh

Hey, Dave Freudenthal could carry the reddest of red states! I'm sure he would win in a landslide.

by adamterando 2006-10-12 08:37AM | 0 recs
I like it

A candidate with the hat AND the cattle.

by stevehigh 2006-10-12 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: I like it

Yep, and a population base of support smaller than most state capitols. Unless you count the cattle vote of course.

by adamterando 2006-10-12 09:51AM | 0 recs
Hey, Goldwater and McGovern

..both won the nomination from states with only three electoral votes.

Uh, never mind.

by stevehigh 2006-10-12 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Need to Attack Bayh

I agree Blueflorida.

Some here may not agree with Bayh's more moderate stance, but without a doubt- Evan Bayh has the most impressive & most extensive experience among ALL the current Democrats mentioned for 2008.

Two Term Governor, Two Term Senator - in a strong RED STATE ! ( The only candidate from either political party who will have BOTH Executive & Legislative experience)

Average Indiana Voter Approval of 65%-70% in all his years of service. Even higher approval for 75%-80% among Indiana registered Democrats.

Whether you agree with him or not, those are very impressive numbers. Especially for a Democrat in a very Red State.  ( who is also extremely popular among Indiana Democrats)

If he did not share the views & values of Democrats in indiana, do you think he would be getting these huge numbers year after year. Especially in a Republican state.

by labanman 2006-10-12 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Need to Attack Bayh

McGovern lost South Dakota.

by adamterando 2006-10-12 09:53AM | 0 recs
McGovern a BIT more liberal than Bayh

I think Bayh could carry Indiana, possibly even as VP.

He is in a very select club, in my view, with Byrd of WV and Breaux, lately of LA. Breaux basically placed his popularity against that of Bush in the first Landrieu race--and won. And Byrd has airports named after him.

Bayh also has airports with his name on them in IN. His voting record is close to the preferences of the state. Edwards is a movie star--I don't deny it--but he's not an institution in NC, not by a long ways.

And as far McG is concerned, by the time we had lost the first 48, nobody was still counting. According to Ed Rollins, Mondale would have lost all 50 except Reagan ordered Senor Bare Knuckles not to pile on in Minnesota.

We could win with Bayh or even a reconstructed Zell Miller--given the damn near impossible, a bloodless primary. But I kinda like Gore or Kerry or Feingold or Clinton or Obama or Edwars, looking at their voting records and all.

Like most other victims of 1972 child abuse, including the Texas McGovern coordinator, Bill Clinton, I no longer insist that the candidate be perfect. And of course if Bayh can get through the primaries, I'd vote for him twice or three times if I were sure I wouldn't get caught.

I do think he could carry his state.

by stevehigh 2006-10-12 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Need to Attack Bayh

He's not the most qualified in either party...

Bill Richardson:

-Congressional Relations for State Dep.
-Staff on Senate Foreign Relations Committee
-15 Years as Congressman from NM
-U.S. Ambassador to the UN
-Secretary of Energy for 2 years for Clinton
-Two Term Governor of New Mexico (as of Nov. 7)

Check the facts.

by Alex Flores 2006-10-12 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

I do not like Bayh at all, he is what I call a Wind Checker - He has to see which way it is blowing before opening his mouth, instead of having a position and backing it, he has to jump on a band wagon. Does the man have any orginal IDEAS or does he just jump in Bush's direction? It makes me think he is one who should have run on a Republican ticket not Democratic ticket.

I would never trust him in the White House.

by dk2 2006-10-12 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Please name one principle Evan Bayh has.  Working with Rick Santorum on "fatherhood", aka punitive welfare measures?  Supporting not only the Iraq war, the 2003 Bush tax cut on the first vote (but not the second!), and the flag amendment to the Constitution?

The only thing Evan Bayh believes in is Evan Bayh's political career.

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-10-15 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Threat of scandal: Perhaps, not much is known about Warner after all.

Made a deal for Vice President: Hopefully, but Governors are better at the front of tickets. The top of the ticket must be a senator or someone with a lots of foreign policy experience. Warner has roots in the democratic party behind-the-scenes and could have brokered such a deal.

Big offer from the private sector: He is very rich anyway and money is no as alluring as power and being the most powerful man in the world.

Ceding to a greater power (Obama perhaps, but could also be Hillary or Gore): My guess as well.

Burnout: He's only ran 2 races in his career, senate in 96' and Gov. in 01', if he is burntout by touring Iowa and New Hampshire already then he has no business running anyway.

by Houston Dem 2006-10-12 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

VP for Clinton?

That's all I can think, as far as cunning backroom strategy goes. But maybe, to his credit, he really -does- just want to actually be able to be a father to his children and a husband to his wife. Who knows? Could happen.

by BingoL 2006-10-12 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Sorry but I don't think even a Mark Warner can carry VA for Hillary Clinton. If he was heading the ticket, yes. But for VP? That would be NC all over again when John Edwards couldn't carry NC for John Kerry.

Without a doubt, VA is moving Purple. But VA is not yet ready to be carried in a Presidential election by an HRC. Not in 2008.

Even a strong moderate like Warner & Webb have to fight hard to pullout a win.

by labanman 2006-10-12 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Of course, note that Kerry sent him campaigning in small towns and outer suburban areas in states designated as swing states ... Ohio certainly saw more of John Edwards in the campaign than NC.

Between September and November he was flew the flag on his own in Allen, Athens, Lake, Meigs, Sciota, Tuscarawas and Washington Counties on his own, as well as campaigning algonside or in addition to Kerry in Clark, Cuyahoga (Cleveland), Franklin (Columbus), Hamilton (Cincinatti), Jefferson, Lucas (Toledo), Montgomery (Dayton), Muskingum, Pike, Ross, Stark (Canton), Trumbull and Wood Counties.

Without Edwards, Blackwell would not have needed to work near as hard to steal the election for his man Bush.

by BruceMcF 2006-10-12 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

But why would he be figuring that out just now? Isn't it obvious to everyone in the whole world that running for president and then serving in the position for two terms is to essentially give away ten years of your life? I don't understand how he decided to run in the first place, if this is the reason he's giving for stepping out now.

I'm willing to take him at his word, I guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up at the bottom of Hillary's ticket.

by Gpack3 2006-10-12 09:34AM | 0 recs
Off topic: House polls?

Chris, what's a "Nw" house poll?

by Fran for Dean 2006-10-12 07:15AM | 0 recs
I think he means &quot;new&quot;

by lorax 2006-10-12 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: I think he means &quot;new&quot;

oh ok.  I thought NW might an abbreviation, like NewsWeek or something.  good call

by Fran for Dean 2006-10-12 07:24AM | 0 recs
OH MY GOD!!

Friend of mine who supports someone else told me this..did not believe this until I read it with my own eyes. WTF??? I mean this WAS THE OPPORTUNITY of a lifetime and it'll never repeat itself.. I was ready to go to bat for him all the way to the end..he embodied everthing I saw in a Democrat..change, progress and leveling the playing field..but I guess he had his reasons. I'm so sad and disappointed? Independents now have no attractive alternative alternative from the opportunistic deceptions of McCain or the wishy washiness of HRC...I'm not even sure Bayh or Edwards can beat HRC and in my view Mark Warner was the only one who could beat either of them...this is awful...I'm sitting '08 out.

by dantata 2006-10-12 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

I'm disappointed, but I certainly understand the reasons given in the statement.  Lately, I've been thinking that a person has to be a bit of a freak to want to run for president in our current political environment.  First, it takes excessive self-confidence to think that one should be president.  Second, it requires constant fixation for the two years before the election.  Third, actually being president in these times would not exactly be fun.  President Bush's mistakes have made the office much less appealling in 2009.  It seems like the first term of any president would just be spent cleaning up his mistakes.  It is not at all clear how that could be done amidst the toxic political environment.

by jonm 2006-10-12 07:21AM | 0 recs
Could be

a health issue beyond exhaustion, but that he just wants to keep private for now.  I hope that is not the case,

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-10-12 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Could be

Not at all, they guys energy amazes me.

by Jerome Armstrong 2006-10-12 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Could be

It amazes me, too.  And he throws a great party.

BTW, Jerome.  Whatever happens....THANKS FOR ALL YOU DID ON THE CAMPAIGN!

And I'm more than a little disappointed that this probably means there won't be a party at the top of the Sears Tower for YK07.

(Seriously...your work with Warner was inspiring)

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-10-12 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Warner was the only democrat who could beat Hillary in the primaries and the only candidate who could defeat McCain. A Warner/Bayh ticket would have put their home states into play and would play great in midwestern states like MO and Iowa. Warner is a punk for not running.

by Houston Dem 2006-10-12 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Oh come on.  Sure, we can be disappointed that he's not running, but don't call someone a punk because they don't want to give up the next 10 years of their life.  Do you want to go through the intense scrutiny, stress, and perpetual state of moving of a Presidential campaign?  I think Warner saw that the past 9 months have been hard enough, and he wasn't even actually running yet.  You can't blame someone for not wanting to suffer like that.

by Fran for Dean 2006-10-12 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

There's still a Bayh/Warner ticket.

Big IF, Bayh can survive the rough Democratic primary terrain.

I honestly believe that a BAYH/WARNER ticket would be hard to beat. Two men of younger generation, Moderate, both successful Red state democrats.

Its like CLinton/Gore effect in 1992.

by labanman 2006-10-12 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

I disagree with your idea, I think John Edwards can do better than any of them.

McCain is not looking to good, I don't know what his health position is, but I am not sure at all that he will get the Republican nom.

by dk2 2006-10-12 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

That is a small price to pay to be able to shape the coutry, help people, and make this country great again.

by Houston Dem 2006-10-12 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Do you want to do it?

by Fran for Dean 2006-10-12 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

It could just be that he's a normal person.  The fact is there has to be something wrong with you to want to spend two years of your life as a full time candidate.  That's why so many of politicians of both parties are such egomaniacal weirdos.  No normal person would want to do it.

by alhill 2006-10-12 07:32AM | 0 recs
does mydd get Jerome back?

Jerome, does this mean that you will start blogging here regularly again, and actually stating opinions?

by aip 2006-10-12 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: does mydd get Jerome back?

Yes, it should be interesting to be in that position again.

by Jerome Armstrong 2006-10-12 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: does mydd get Jerome back?

jerome, you could have done alot worse. warner was cool. is al gore going to run?

by heyAnita 2006-10-12 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: does mydd get Jerome back?

Looking forward to it!

by aip 2006-10-12 12:29PM | 0 recs
Vilsack?

I'm not clear as to why no one is mentioning Vilsack as a potential beneficiary.  He has national connections, a great life story, is surprisingly good on the stump, and can appeal to a broad variety of Americans with his record as a two-term Governor of Iowa.  

I think he's the only Governor left in this race now who can win the general election. Being a Governor at this point is KEY.  The country is sick and tired of the solutions coming from Washington D.C. and will be in the mood for an outsider.  That's Vilsack.  Give him a look.  

by jds 2006-10-12 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Vilsack?

That's a good point.  Iowa isn't as red a state or Southern like IN or NC though.  It probably is more of a reflection that Vilsack doesn't seem to be doing as much or attracting support as a major contender like Edwards or Bayh.  I would prefer Vilsack to Bayh hands down.  Between Vilsack and Edwards I'm not sure.  A lot of Vilsack's stock depends on what happens in the IA GOV race this year, as Warner benefitted from Tim Kaine's convincing win last fall.

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-10-12 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Vilsack?

If he's so great, then why can't he ever get more than 10-12% in Iowa polls for Dem candidates.

by adamterando 2006-10-12 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Vilsack?

That's funny, because I've been thinking this hurts Vilsack. I figure his only real shot at the presidency is as the incumbent Vice President, which he'd be most likely to get with Hillary . Now that Warner's out of the running for President, he's a much likelier choice for Hillary's VP.

by Gpack3 2006-10-12 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Read his statement at forwardtogetherpac.com.

by Houston Dem 2006-10-12 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

I think this definetly helps Bayh the most. When looking at the primaries, Bayh and Warner were posititioning for the the exact same spot on the electoral map- Edwards is running to the left of Clinton (war on poverty, immediate troop withdrawal, support for Lamont etc...) and Warner and Bayh were running to her right (talk of electability, red state credentials, social moderation etc...). Warner's dropout leaves Bayh as the most credible candidate to the right of Clinton.   And if the democrats dont take a majority in the midterms, primary voters may be looking for electability.

This also helps Richardson some, because he is the most credible governor left in the field. And he has national security credentials to boot. I dont know where he positions himself moving foward, but he shouldnt be discounted.

by mhoffa1382 2006-10-12 07:48AM | 0 recs
Edwards Questions

I'd like to throw out the following questions for consideration. I'm from NC. I like Edwards, but I'm not sure he can win, and I'll admit to still being a bit peeved that he blew off one of our few progressive Senate seats (think Roberts, Alito, torture vs. critical mass to have filibustered those disasters). Other than that, I'm not trying to be rhetorical. I don't know the answers - that's why I'm asking:

Does Edwards really have enough experience to be president?

Does Edwards have any military experience, and how important is that in 2008, when we'll presumably still be involved in wars?

How well would Edwards' youth and energy contrast with McCain's public persona? Big gender gap, maybe? What about Giuliani?

I agree with the CW that the more white men in the Dem race, the more Hillary benefits. Does Edwards have the capability of locking up enough early support and $$$ to shrink the field before Iowa?

Are Elizabeth and the kids up for another campaign?

How awkward will it be if Kerry runs too?

If Gore runs, should everyone else clear the way?

How credible are the suggestions that Hillary might not run, either? If she doesn't then who is the beltway annointed front runner? Edwards?

Does Edwards have any interest in running for NC governor in 2008, or serving in a cabinet position in January, 2009?

by farrellsports 2006-10-12 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Questions

If Gore runs, it will hurt Hillary Clinton the most.

Yes, I also have deep reservations about John Edwards. Without a doubt, he's an awesome speaker & very telegenic.

But with all the problems going on around the world, combined with all the shit people go through under Bush- having a STRONG RESUME will be critical for the next President.

His thin resume in Public office is his main weakness.  It would be a bigger issue in the general election than the primary.

( Only George W. ever got away with a very thin resume- And look what we got)

by labanman 2006-10-12 08:11AM | 0 recs
Gore runs

Praise the baby jesus yes.

by stevehigh 2006-10-12 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Gore runs

gore runs, gore wins. that simple

by heyAnita 2006-10-12 08:50AM | 0 recs
Reason #10

Maybe he called Warner.

BTW, you are almost certainly right about the primary at least.

Life could be sweet again.

by stevehigh 2006-10-12 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Questions

1.  It depends on if the GOP are able to make it seem like he doesn't. Bush didn't, but that didn't matter. Clinton had no foreign policy experience, especially when compared to HW Bush, but he won anyway. So who knows.

2. No. The draft ended a year before he was eligible, otherwise he probably would have been drafted. I would have thought military experience would be important, given our hyper-militarized state right now. Thus, the selection of Kerry as the  '04 nominee. But as we saw in '04, that didn't matter one bit. You had a war hero vs. an AWOL A-hole and it didn't matter. All that mattered was if you let the opposition define you, which Kerry did. So I don't think it will matter one way or another. The GOP will try to paint the dem nominee as a weak-kneed effete librul. So if Edwards bats that away, then he'll be fine.

3. You make a good point I hadn't thought of. There could definately be a very large gender gap in '08 because of Edwards charisma and focus on poverty. Guiliani is a tough nut to crack. He has broad appeal right now, but I don't know how that would hold up once republican candidates start bringing up his liberal past as mayor (and his personal problems). He could end up causing evangelicals to stay home in '08 if he were the nominee, which would mean the GOP would have to work extra hard to get independts and especially men to vote GOP.

4. Yes because he is going after the two biggest constituencies in Democratic primaries: labor and ultra-progressives. If he locks up those two groups, Hillary will have a hard time winning. Remember too that Kerry won because of his perceived "electability". Well, Hillary is going for that now too, with her centrist positions on the war and what-not. But the old electability meme can work against her as well because how many voters will not vote for Hillary out of fear that they know how polarizing she is and how many people really despise her? I don't know of a single republican that has ever said a nice thing about her. Until she starts getting some bi-partisan support like McCain still gets, she's just a centrist with support from centrist Democrats, not centrist Dems, Inds, and GOoPers.

5. Yes, Elizabeth has been very active with Edwards's activites this past 1.5 years. And if the family was on board for a presidential run last time (even with Elizabeth's current health situation) then they'd be on board this time too.

6. Very.

7. No! Someone still has to run for vice-president!

8a. Who knows? It's all speculation.
8b. Edwards
8c. Yes and he is already starting to gain that title now given Hillary's refusal to take a more progressive stand on many issues. I think if Hillary did something big and progressive, like coming out AGAIN for universal health care (or medicare for all as her primary opponent Jonathon Tasini put it) that would go a long way towards giving her some support with the base. But she hasn't done anything, so she's staking everything on being the most electable. It worked for Kerry, but I'm not so sure it will work for her this time around.

9. Another interesting question. That has never come up because everyone assumes he will run for president. I don't see any possibility of him running for Gov though because there are already 3 or more very strong Dem candidates that will be running. Plus, federal Dems haven't played well in NC for a while (although that is SLOWLY changing),while state Dems still dominate. So it would be a tough thing for him to win. If a Dem won the presidency, and Edwards was not VP (who wants to be nominated for VP twice unless you won the first time!) then I could definately see him as head of the labor department, or justice department, or even HUD, but I don't know if he'd be interested.  
 

by adamterando 2006-10-12 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Questions

Quick question for you? Who are the 3+ strong Dem candidates running for governor in 2008? i believe one might be the Attorney general, whose name escapes me, but who are the others?

by elessar 2006-10-12 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Questions

Roy Cooper, Beverly Perdue, Richard Moore, and Elaine Marshall.

Any of them could win the nomination and the governorship.

by adamterando 2006-10-12 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Questions

sorry to be so late to reply.

The NC atty. gen. is Roy Cooper. Expect to see him in lots of taxpayer funded, official business public service announcements over the next year or so (this is how current gov. Easley built his name and face recognition before he ran for gov. in 2000.

The other likely Dem candidate is Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue, a charismatic, bubbly sort from the eastern part of the state who has been patiently waiting in the wings.

The Republican name most often mentioned is Charlotte congresswoman Sue Myrick. She's a full-on winger.

On another note, I have no idea who is looking at challenging Mrs. Dole in 2008.

by farrellsports 2006-10-18 03:24PM | 0 recs
Warner Could Easily Have Beaten Allen in 06!

A Mason-Dixon poll; conducted 7/19-21/05 for the Richmond Times-Dispatch and various other media outlets; surveyed 625 likely voters; margin of error +/- 4% (release, 7/26). Tested: Sen. George Allen (R) and Gov. Mark Warner (D).

General election matchup:

All Dem GOP Ind
Warner 47% 90% 8% 53%
Allen 42 3 81 34
Undecided/Other 11 7 11 13

Favorability ratings:

Fav/Unfav NameID
Warner 56%/14% 99%
Allen 51 /23 97

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-10-12 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: EDWARDS &amp; BAYH

I agree 100% with CMBurns.

The two main beneficiary of this would be

JOHN EDWARDS & EVAN BAYH ( & possibly WESLEY CLARK)

Many Democrats who were planning to support Warner( especially " Red State" Democrats in the South, Midwest & part of the Southwest) would take a serious look at John Edwards and and Evan Bayh.

These Democratic wing ( many of them in the Red States) are those who are Not Attracted to a Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold or John Kerry.

It also OPENS UP a possible entry by a new candidate from the South such as Gov. BRAD HENRY of Oklahoma ( especially if he wins big next month)  

As for why Warner back-out, I have no doubt that is has nothing to do with being scared of not winning.

A person who has had phenomenal success as a Self-Made Millionaire in business & Extraordinary success in Politics as a Governor in a Red State ( when the odds of winning back then was not believable) would not be intimidated by anyone.

The fact that he became a very successful Entrepreneur & a very successful Governor in a Red State shows that he is also comfortable with HIGH RISKS in making decision.

We have to take his word for it that its family.

by labanman 2006-10-12 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: EDWARDS &amp;amp; BAYH

no, everyone always says its about family. every time.

by heyAnita 2006-10-12 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: EDWARDS &amp;amp;amp; BAYH

Doesn't mean it's not true in some cases, including this one; I'm inclined to take the man at his word.

by Alex 2006-10-13 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: 5 possibilities:

The key, IMHO, is to see what happens with Forward Together. That's my guess as to Jerome's number 6. The Gov may have made a tremendous personal transformation over this decision, now seeing FT as the way to help this country the most.

He's one of us now. That, again IMHO, is what I think this announcement actually means. If I'm right, this is a great day for progressives and the netroots.

by Sun Tzu 2006-10-12 08:17AM | 0 recs
Reaping what you sow

Alright, so Chris posted about how the South isn't important yesterday, and today he posts about how awful it is , that Mark Warner, a sotherner - is not running for the head of the Democratic party, and the presidency.... ooo kaaaay...

by heyAnita 2006-10-12 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Reaping what you sow

It's one thing to control the House without a majority of Southern seats, and another thing entirely to win the White House without a single Southern elector.  The House isn't winner-take all, and we'll always have a few seats there -- the ones that were gerrymandered to put as many democrats as possible into a single, 80-90% Democratic district so as to leave three or four other adjoining districts as 55-70% repug.

by Alex 2006-10-13 02:00PM | 0 recs
Who wants to be President next anyway.

Look at the mess the next President will have to deal with.  I have no doubt that the Democrats will be in control of both houses of Congress by the start of the next Presidential term of office.  Unfortunately, Congressional Democrats may not have the votes needed to overcome obstructionist Republicans in the Senate.  The next Democratic President is going to need those kind of majorities in order to push through an agenda that gets us out of Iraq, betters our position in Afghanistan, rebuilds our own infrastruction, repairs our relations and stature in the world community, brings down the deficit, fixes Medicare, fixes Social Security (even though it is a-ok for many a decade but D's need to do something now so R's don't screw it up in the future), etc.

Warner would be better off as the VP nominee anyway.  Is that something he wants?  If he wants to run for Prez sometime in the future my bet is yes.

by msstaley 2006-10-12 08:49AM | 0 recs
Good Call.

Yeah, tell me about.  Sometimes I get so annoyed by liberal elitism towards the South.  

On another note, it just seems to me that Warner made a backroom deal for VP.  Yet, Warner has to know that he was a big contender so I'm willing to put my chips in that he's secured a VP deal with possibly up to three candidates.

1. John Edwards

  1. Evan Bayh
  2. Hillary Clinton

Mark's life is an extraordinary one.  He's proved his mettle for making highly beneficial deals in the private sector.  Is it really hard to imagine that he secured that many deals in politics as well?

by ira13ping 2006-10-12 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

If anything, Bayh is the one who benefits the most from this decision.

by kydem 2006-10-12 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Kydem, without a doubt, this is a good day for your guy. He just gained many new moderate supporters from the Warner camp.

by labanman 2006-10-12 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Not just for Evan but for me too.

It's my 22nd birthday.  Take out the cold weather and that phone call that woke me up at 8 AM this morning and it's a better day.  Plus, I get to meet Al Franken and Tucker Carlson today.

by kydem 2006-10-12 09:29AM | 0 recs
In fairness to Bayh

Bayh has a proven record as governor of balancing the budget.

I've said all along that the next president's #1 job is going to be stablizing the US dollar and his #2 job will be reigning in the national debt.

That said, if another solid fiscal hawk comes along, I'd have a hard time considering Bayh considering his other shortcomings.

by jcjcjc 2006-10-12 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Sorry.  Bayh is an asterisk in the polls and will remain there.  

Edwards benefits and so does, I think, Clark.

If I had to bet at this moment, right now I'd say the three tickets out of Iowa are Clinton, Edwards, and Clark.  I'm not sure that Nevada will signify or not but only two of those three come out of New Hampshire, imo.  As the geometry stands now.

by InigoMontoya 2006-10-12 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

So is Feingold an asterisk too? I'm an Edwards supporter, but I think Feingold may be enough of a contender to come out of Iowa with something.

by robin oz 2006-10-12 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

I rate Feingold's chances ahead of Bayh's and I think Feingold's campaign dies in the snows of Iowa.  At the moment, I'd put money on it.  Feingold's following is passionate but small.  That and a couple of bucks gets you a latte at Starbucks.  I think Edwards is better organized and better funded and partially competes for many of the same voters...and God fights on the side of the heavy battalions.

by InigoMontoya 2006-10-13 12:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

I agree with that. Edwards benefits, but he was already in a strong position. Bayh, on the other hand, would be in very serious danger of not making it to Iowa if Warner was in the race, and now he is a lot more likely to of making it all the way to the beginning.

by BruceMcF 2006-10-12 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Didn't Edwards vote for the war back in his single term in the Senate? I hear the GOP battle cries of "flip-flop" already.

by pennquaker08 2006-10-12 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Edwards was the first to come out with an sincere apology for making that mistake. He is on record saying that he did, and it was a mistake, given the information that they knew.

by dk2 2006-10-12 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

I hope for the sake of the democratic party that they have brokered some sort of a deal where Bayh is the top of the ticket and Warner is VP. That would come second to Al Gore jumping back into the race. 2008 will, in many ways, be a repeat of 1968. Unpopular war going on, 8 years of one party's rule coming to an end, popular vice president who lost 8 years previously wants back in. Gore will be Nixon all over again. He wont win in a landslide in the general election, but he'll handily knock out any primary opponents.

Gore is our final hope. He's all we got.

by Houston Dem 2006-10-12 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Ever consider that it might help Feingold?

by Sitkah 2006-10-12 09:52AM | 0 recs
President Huckabee? Or maybe President Richardson?

Actually, President Huckabee sounds like it comes from a severely dumb alternate universe.

But, since Huckabee looks to be the only Southern governnor left for 2008, it is time to just print the damned invitations.  Send a note to Diebold: no need to rig this one.

Let's face it: if there is a Southern governor in the mix, he wins.  Every friggin time.  The only way to offset it is to run another Southern governor.

In truth, the big winner may be Bill Richardson, who has gone to Warner-esque length to foster new relations with the Netroots.

Plus, Richardson has added credibility with the establishment.

by jcjcjc 2006-10-12 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

I am very sad about Mark Warner's decision not to run for President.  I was planning to support him.  I always liked Warner going back to 1996 when I voted for him in his Senate race.  Family is important and I respect politicians who understand the need for balance.  They are few and far between.

I hope we have not heard the last from Mark Warner and that he either runs for the Senate from VA in 2008 or for Gov in 2009.  He is the type of public servant this country needs more of.

by John Mills 2006-10-12 09:56AM | 0 recs
All the talk of brokered deals for Veep are silly.

A deal could not have been brokered at this time simply because there's no possible guaranteee that such a chit could be cashed.  Too many possible nominees and even for any given nominee there are too many potential developments that would force their hand in one direction or another, e.g., who else is running strong in the party at the time and has supporters that need to be bought or who the likely opponent is and who best neutralizes them.

by InigoMontoya 2006-10-12 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Let me dream

by Houston Dem 2006-10-12 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

Well now, hold on there a minute, dreamers. Let's not forget the lesson of 2004, and what led Democrats astray when the race should have been an absolute blow-out of the Worst President Ever: IT'S NATIONAL SECURITY, STUPID! Forget message. The Kerry campaign only very belatedly became aware of WHAT PLAYING FIELD they were on, and the Rovians were able to cast the ole "Democrats are weak and will not keep you safe" spell.

Everybody already knows roughly where Democrats are on domestic issues (and we're talking "roughly" BECAUSE the average voter who spends about five MINUTES thinking about politics over the course of an election cycle doesn't care about details); the real question that keeps them up at night is, CAN DEMOCRATS BE TRUSTED TO KEEP US SAFE?

Not if Democrats run a candidate with a gaping national security hole in his resume. This isn't about whether or not a candidate is a good and likeable person. It's about having the right skill set for what the job now requires. I'm afraid our conventional beltway wisdom hasn't been serving us very well post-9/11.

I'm not saying Warner was the ideal candidate in that respect, but I'm sorry to see that he won't be running. He would have brought administrative experience and a non-DC perspective to the table and helped raise the standards for the Dems. We're not going to get that from the beltway crowd.

by SusanCLE 2006-10-12 10:50AM | 0 recs
Agreed...

Which supports my contention that Clark is The Man.

What you guys fail to realize is that in the early primaries, a bunch of rabid Clarkies are going to appear ON THE GROUND in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada to win one for the General.  We are nuts about this.  NOBODY is nuts for Bayh, or Warner, or even Edwards, like we are for Clark.

And, he is going to draw independents like NOBODY but McCain can (or DID, at least.)

By the time these primaries come around, you will see what I mean.  Only Gore or Hillary will stop us.  Obama?  Too green, but a perfect VP for Clark.      

by paul minot 2006-10-12 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Agreed...

That is not true about Edwards group.

We are just as much with him as any of Clark's rabid people.

Time will tell.

by dk2 2006-10-12 02:15PM | 0 recs
guilt-free sushi

I ate his sushi & drank his booze, and now I don't have to feel liberal guilt anymore about whether I might perhaps be favoring him over other candidates.

Whoops, scratch that, I didn't feel any guilt.  Nevermind. :)

by aip 2006-10-12 12:37PM | 0 recs
Evan Bayh

Warner's announcement paves the way for Senator Evan Bayh.  They were very ideologically similar: both are moderates who were elected governor in predominantly Republican states.  I believe that Senator Bayh is the better choice between the two because not only does he have experience as a governor, he also serves as a US Senator and has gained tremendous experience on the Armed Services Committee.  Bayh is tough and smart, as he likes to say, I hope he decides to run.

by smp24 2006-10-12 01:19PM | 0 recs
Warner was my guy

I'm surprised at this but not stunned. Several months ago I would have been stunned. The statewide polling by Strategic Vision lists Warner at 1% in many of the states in a Democratic preference poll. I think he expected a bit more traction by now.

Warner was my candidate because Virginia's 13 electoral votes completely tilt the playing field in our favor. I even took 10/1 on him winning the nomination. But Warner's problem in '08, and something I worried about all along, is he required the "most electable" handicapping by our primary voters. IMO they are far less likely to embrace that route in '08 after misapplying the tag to a bland New England senator in '04. Edwards was the most electable in '04, via charisma necessity in knocking out a presidential incumbent. In '08 I truly believe it was Warner.

This probably helps Edwards the most. He was my #2 guy but it wasn't a close second. I don't know how he wins Ohio, Florida or Virginia minus a significant edge nationally. Or with Warner at VP, in terms of Virginia. No doubt Warner soars to the top of the logical VP lists. But Warner will also have to make a decision about the Virginia '08 senate seat before the VP choice is made.

The elephant in the other room is Gore. On DU it's amazing how Clark wins all the preference polls by landslide when Gore is excluded, but once you plug Gore in there you have a new king.

by Gary Kilbride 2006-10-12 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Warner was my guy

But the thing is, all these online polls don't mean a thing. Nor, for that matter, do the more scientific ones, this far out. They're polling on name recognition, vis a vis people who may or may not even be running in 2008. When you think about it, our politics have gotten very silly and superficial.

by SusanCLE 2006-10-12 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?)

A pity, because I saw in Warner a man rapidly maturing.  But I guess the prospect of facing Swift Boating, Karl Rove, et. al., and the whole Republican slime machine would be pretty daunting.

by Bob H 2006-10-12 04:34PM | 0 recs
Why such an early decision?

He could have waited one more year to be definitive.  Why decide now?

by jasmine 2006-10-12 04:49PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads