Clearing Up

Ryan Lizza notes on Mark Warner, it's probably worth passing on the not-so-shocking news that he's clearly looking at running for the Senate in 2008 or governor in 2009.Steve Soto, who must not have read the statement by Gov Warner, or thinks it untrue, declares: The reason why Mark Warner dropped out of the presidential derby for 2008 yesterday was that he is thinking about running for the John Warner's Senate seat as John Warner is retiring. Wrong.

Running or being a Senator or Governor is not even close to the level of time and life demanded by running for and being President; and when I talked with Warner about this decision on Wednesday, he mentioned that-- and the two opportunities upcoming. It's a different and possible "next step" and stated that he hadn't ruled another run for office. It's funny how everyone I talk to about this that has kids clearly understands the rationale, and sees the point about the age of his kids and parents, and understands his wanting live a bit more of the family life before that slips away. If this had happened 6 months from now, non-believers would have a point, but this is still the time to get out for personal reasons.

It was very clear to me that Warner had not decided for sure to run for President when I began working for his PAC. I was on board part-time as a strategic advisor, and it was agreed that I'd come on full-time when/if he decided to run for President. Did I think he would?  Yes. But astute and more objective reporters picked up on the Governor's non-commitedness to this point. That he was able to walk away because of his stated reasons, despite the fact that his organization and buzz was head and shoulders above any of the other '08 wanabees, is to his credit.

And let me just say about my personal experience, that we were building an internet & technology influenced campaign that would have, like Dean's did, changed the way campaigns are run. I'm really fired up about the Dems winning in '06, but it's not what I've been living and building toward for the past year. So, if you don't want to read about that experience, pass off on a bunch of upcoming posts I'll be making.

Tags: mark warner (all tags)



Re: Clearing Up

So, you can just refer to MyDD as the Lamont-obsessed blog... or for me, the Warner-download blog. Hopefully someone will make note about the national mid-term elections.

by Jerome Armstrong 2006-10-13 04:18PM | 0 recs
Welcome back

As my daughter just entered Kindergarten this year, I completely understand. They're only that age for a short time.

by michael in chicago 2006-10-13 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

At least beating Lieberbum has significance with regard to reforming the Democratic Party. Mark Warner is significant of nothing but him being one of billions who will not run for president in 2008.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 07:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

If calling other bloggers names floats your boat......

At this point sunshine is wasted on Mark Warner. He's irrelevant by his own design, not mine.

Move on, people! There's nothing to see here!

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 08:59PM | 0 recs
What'll y'all do...

with that path-defining online organizing thingee???

I have to believe that you are already getting calls from Edwards, Kerry, maybe even Clinton (which would help give her some online cred).

by Robert P 2006-10-14 06:39AM | 0 recs

Do you think what the Warner campaign was building could be lifted by another contender, is it getting a little late?  

by danielj 2006-10-13 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome

 No, I don't think it's too late, but it's close. The main obstacle to changing would be having to shake up things that are already in place and teaching old dogs new tricks. It's a two-tiered process, one of staffing and one of technology. During the conclusion of Dean, we all sat around and processed it, and one of the conclusions I held was that an extra year was needed to do it right, and that's what we'd have been doing through March of next year for Warner. Of course, I was there for 9 months even before that year began this March, just in launch and preparation.

by Jerome Armstrong 2006-10-13 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

I think whatever reason he decided to get out of the race is his business. Why are people trying to cast asperations (can I use that word now that Allen has tainted it) against Warner for this? What's the point? Fair game to me are those who are running- not judging those who aren't.

by bruh21 2006-10-13 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

If warner was thinking about the country and the D's ( such as he is?) he would have run this year against Allen rather then leave it to a reaganite ( webb) to pretend to be a D and run because he is to much of a moral coward to run as the rethuglican he is and has been his whole life.

by Rational 2006-10-13 04:32PM | 0 recs
Give him a chance

let him help elect Webb and then run for John Warner's seat in 2008 :)

by Fran for Dean 2006-10-13 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Give him a chance

Has MW helped Webb any up to this point?

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Give him a chance

Are you really that out of touch with current events?

by Jerome Armstrong 2006-10-14 04:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Give him a chance

I know you're really upset that Warner dropped out, but try not to let it ruin your life.

by Sitkah 2006-10-14 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Give him a chance

Yes. Exampla Gracia

I think the startled response may be due to the fact that Warner was helping Webb raise money back in early May. Helping someone raise $100,000 in May during a primary campaign is quite substantial support indeed.

by BruceMcF 2006-10-14 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Give him a chance

Thanks for answering my question. Why Armstong wouldn't only he knows.

by Sitkah 2006-10-14 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

My point precisely.

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-10-15 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up
I wonder if it is the country - the state of it after Bush and the state of our foreign policy and all those problems that have him concerned.  He may think he is not ready for that.  
Whoever becomes the next president is going to have major problems to deal with.  
by vwcat 2006-10-13 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

I had no idea MWarner has such a cultish following. Why is anybody's guess.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 09:04PM | 0 recs
Leaving the best horse in the barn

That's the frustration for me, same as Edwards not getting the nomination in '04. Every cycle is different and you need to isolate the candidate who fits the new scenario best. I saw a GOP pundit on Hardball today saying he was relieved Warner was out. Similar to '04 when Ben Stein and others said they feared the "Breck girl" Edwards. Oh, I know. It's a big head fake.

I'd like to ask Jerome if the Warner camp had evaluated the new primary road map, with Nevada and South Carolina bumped, and if so what the conclusion was, in regard to which states to prioritize and why.

by Gary Kilbride 2006-10-13 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Leaving the best horse in the barn

Evaluating it? Heck, we were already hiring with a staff of probably around 50. I came to believe that we had an upside-down strategy of momentum, where our strongest state was SC, and the second strongest was NH, and our weaker states were NV and IA. And that was a matter of the vote process more than the state characteristic (for the most part). I'll spell out how all this played out later.

by Jerome Armstrong 2006-10-13 06:21PM | 0 recs

I'll look forward to the summary. That's interesting South Carolina was the strongest state, since conventional wisdom is that's Edwards territory. My impression was New Hampshire was Warner's top state in the early block.

by Gary Kilbride 2006-10-13 07:13PM | 0 recs
No way!

I can't speak for Jerome but in tight primary years New Hampshire is usually won by a "maverick" candidate and that wasn't exactly going to be Warner. Some of his qualities would make the him the un-Democrat. The truth is that Hillary would have won Iowa, Feingold New Hampshire and Warner (sitting on his millions) would have been the only candidate to pour in enough money to hang on into South Carolina. Bill Richardson, Biden, Bayh, Gravel, etc....would all be jumping off the train at that point.

The emergence of Nevada's caucus is enigmatic that Harry Reid might have been on a "different page" than Marky Mark. I suppose it is possible that the fix is in...and that Hillary has been promised Nevada exchange for her not challenging Reid for Senate Majority Leader next year.

by risenmessiah 2006-10-14 01:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Leaving the best horse in the barn

I couldn't agree more with Jerome on this. SC was STRONG behind Warner. He had most of the State Party leadership on his side as well as many activists. When we (DraftMarkWarner) had a table at the SC state convention this year the support was amazing. There are quite a few active members of the party who have moved from Virginia or have family there who had told them about Warner.

South Carolina, Tennesee, New Jersey and Louisiana were the states where we had strongest support, besides Virginia of course.

by sndeak 2006-10-15 12:59PM | 0 recs
I'll be interested to read them

I also feel that 2006 is just the first step.  Hopefully all will be well, but, well, we'll see.  I can't see not carrying the House (unless there's some real October wierdness), maybe the senate.

I think we need 23-24 seats for effective control.  30 is reasonable.  45 seats would be ideal in creating the base for progressive poicies.  Carrying the Senate isn't essential, but again would be nice.

But from tht point, 2008 is the battle, at every level from small local elections to the Presidency. Carryint the governorships and legislatures ensuring fair redistricting and honest elections and election techniques.

It's tough because some of those elections are going to be fixed now.

all of this is the base, only the base, of the progressive agenda, which would only have counted as a very middle of the road if nt right of middle of the road agenda prior to 1980 or maybe even 1994.

All of this should be interesting.

by Reptile 2006-10-13 06:04PM | 0 recs
Sorry for the typos; hit Post not Preview

by Reptile 2006-10-13 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

After the announcement, I received several interesting phone calls from misguided Republican friends of mine. Most of the conversations fell into 1 of 4 categories:
1.    "Thanks for handing us 08, Warner was the only elect-able candidate..."
2.    "Sorry to hear about Warner... I would have voted for him..."
3.    "Someone must have some George Allen type dirt..."
4.    "Corrupt barging whereas Warner gets handed VP, secretary of X, etc..."

Personally I am not quite sure what to think. While its indeed honorable to put ones family first; at the same time considering the hell that has been the last 12 years under the NeoCons, the field of candidates for 08, and the off chance midterm elections wont go as well as we all hope- with MRW out of the picture, the future isn't looking good. Although I consider MRW as a role model both personally and politically, I just cant accept that his statement reflects the whole story. As a college student, although I was blessed with a loving family- in my teens and college career I wanted little or nothing to do with either of my parents. In fact the more my parents reached out to me, the farther I ran away. Thus although I cannot personally relate to the spotlight which is public life that MRW and his family have dealt with gracefully, unfortunately I feel that because of his remarkable success, MRW has a deeper responsibility to save our nation from itself. Is this fair? Absolutely not. However while I do not agree with most of Edmund Burke's writings, on this matter its worth citing him: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

by Bomb Throwing Liberal 2006-10-13 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

"Thanks for handing us 08, Warner was the only elect-able candidate..."

It's bad enough when Democrats tell us who's electable.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 09:07PM | 0 recs
we need to win

I'm dissapointed.  My hope is that Warner dropped out because Gore is running, but I probably wrong.  Well, I'm not really fired up any of the other candidates.  I respect Feingold, but he can't win the general.  Edwards is a lightweight.  Clinton, well, she voted for the war and is a waffler.  My only hope is Schweitzer from Montana runs.  I bought six months after he was elected.  I've been lazy about the project, but maybe it's time to start the petition drive....  

by rajk 2006-10-13 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: I believe you...

He can't really get back into this particular race, can he?

He can definitely run for VA Senate in 08 or VA Governor in 09 ... and, yes, see a lot more of his children. Shoot, as a Senator for Virginia, he's one of the few that can commute in from a house set up in his home state.

by BruceMcF 2006-10-13 09:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

I respect Feingold, but he can't win the general.

Based on what? The Theory of Electability?

I've said it before and I'll say it again....if GWB can be president for two terms, anybody can.

But winning the general election isn't the insurmountable barrier for everybody you listed (but one -- Hillary.) For them, it's overcoming her money, political and media machine, and her last name. I can't see any of them doing it.

by Sitkah 2006-10-13 09:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

You ought to really give up on being Feingold's blog spokesperson. Have you seen what the guys said about his own chances versus McCain?

by Jerome Armstrong 2006-10-14 04:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

Feingold's spokesman? According to Sitkah, Hillary Clinton is already our next president and the next two years are just for show. Apparently she has a "machine" that would make Hubert Humphrey blush.

by the wanderer 2006-10-14 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

Please cite one post where I've said Hillary will be the next president. The fact is, I haven't. You and Armstrong should put words into your own mouths, not mine.

by Sitkah 2006-10-14 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

I'm not Feingold's spokesman. Please cite one post to support your assertion.

As for "his chances against McCain", that's just the old Theory of Electability canard that's given Democrats standard bearers like Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry. If every Democrat supported candidates based solely on who they thought would be the best in office, they'd get the best candidate every time.

by Sitkah 2006-10-14 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

Sitkah is the official spokesman for Democrats are unworthy, we can't win, let's wallow in our hopelessness.

by Alice Marshall 2006-10-14 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

Like I already asked, please put words into your own mouth. I've never said Democrats can't win. In fact, I've said many times that they will win this year.

And I've also said many times in response to the bogus Theory of Electability (which many use to claim candidates who they don't like can't get elected) that any Democrat currently being talked about as a contender could become president -- except that they won't be able to get past Hillary's money and machine.

I keep asking you people to back up your claims with quotes of what I've said, but you don't (because you can't). You just keep misparaphrasing me for whatever your petty reasons are.

by Sitkah 2006-10-14 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

Who are "the guys" and what did they say?

by js noble 2006-10-14 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

Don't hold your breath waitning for an answer. This Warner thing has really knocked Armstrong off his rocker.

by Sitkah 2006-10-14 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

That was Fiengold himself.

by Jerome Armstrong 2006-10-14 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

Do you remember what people said about Howard Dean's bid in 2002??  An unknown governor of the 3rd least populous state in the union?


Russ Feingold is clearly the best candidate looking at a WH08 bid.  Against McCain?  Hm, he's not in his 70s, and he's not crazy.  He's a maverick with a sense of humor and principles.  He's been elected statewide 3 times in a Midwestern swing state with proximity and similarities to MN, IA, MI, and OH.  He voted against the war and the Patriot Act, which over time the public realizes more clearly and strongly were the right votes.

Feingold could definitely emerge as the anti-war, and even the anti-Hillary candidate.  Unless and until Obama gets in, I'm with Feingold.

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-10-15 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

Eh it's probably for the best, not a particular fan of some of his positions.

I wish him lots of family time.

by MNPundit 2006-10-13 10:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

I'm sure that the CT explanation of why Warner dropped out was that Hillary either forced or enticed him to. And, although that was the first thing that came to mind when I heard about it (you can't be a Democrat in the Bush era without being at least a bit paranoid), I would tend to discount it. Warner seems like very much his own man and I doubt that Hillary could do this to him, or would even try, as she needs friends right now, not enemies. And the prospect of serving in a Clinton administration is so far off and speculative right now as to not be worth considering seriously.

Rather, I assume that Warner dropped out because he figured that he had a much better chance at the senate or governorship in '08 or '09 than the presidency, especially with the party on the verge of shifting to the left, and that better the safer and less gruelling gambit than the riskier and tougher one. The prospect of being the next president after Bush also might have turned him off. The pressure will be enormous.

I'm kind of glad that he dropped out. From the little that I knew of and saw him, he seemed like he could be a good candidate and president. But the party does indeed appear to be shifting to the left, and his DLC leanings just seem a bit too centrist and conventional for that (and me). He's a successful businessman, but I think that the great problems facing the next president will go far beyond the economic. We're going to need someone not just competent but also inspiring, and while Warner clearly has the first, I'm not convinced that he had the second.

I'd love to see him in the senate, though. Trade in one tired old Warner for a younger and more dynamic one. Not a bad bargain.

by kovie 2006-10-13 10:44PM | 0 recs
If you're taking requests

I'm really, really curious about how Warner was kept informed about what was going on in the blogs.  This is more of a technical question about staffing, but I am really interested to learn how the habit of blogging meshed in real-time with the everyday needs of a candidate.  

Was he told "a viva voce" what was happening?  Where there blog summaries in his briefing folders?  If somebody saw an important story on the blogs, did they send it to Warners Blackberry?  Does he use a Blackberry?  

Long term goals aside for a minute, I'd like to know how what we did here made it into--or didn't make it into--the everyday workings of the Warner PAC.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-10-14 03:27AM | 0 recs
Re: If you're taking requests

OK, with the focus still on '08, it hadn't gotten to that breaking level. The GOV reads a swath of newsclips everyday (which included blog posts if we sent them into the press team), and a staffer was always nearby with the blackberry instead of himself buzzing. I met with him on a weekly basis to go over blog and internet things, and he was an avid reader of the weekly report we did that contained 5-10 of the weekly posts that related to coverage, and other notable themes on the blogs. From the beginning, I arranged for him to get a lot of his blog information from other bloggers, either via call time or their presence at fundraisers or events across the nation, which broadened the perspective beyond my own.

by Jerome Armstrong 2006-10-14 04:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

Fascinating.   It makes sense that all info rising it to the top in a campaign would be processed by staffers, but it's interesting to learn that for Warner there were purpose-built opportunities for him to get it live and direct from the sources.  Great idea.

This stuff is just too interesting for words alone.  How the work of bloggers enters into the day-to-day of a political campaign needs to be a made into a documentary or something...

(my wife is reading over my shoulder right now and is convinced that I have just passed beyond the nerd point of no return)

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-10-14 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

I share your enthusiasm, Jeffrey. :)  What I think will be interesting to watch in the buildup to the 2008 election is the role of state-based blogs and which candidates target them.  

We've already witnessed the power of nationwide netroots movements from BlogforAmerica on, and we've seen the fundraising capability of the nationally-read blogs.  

While campaigns in the next Presidential cycle will no doubt build upon the technologies and approaches that proved effective last time, it's already looking like text-messaging, local blogs, and social networking sites like Facebook will be areas rife with potential this go 'round.  Warner's PAC was already well on the way to corning these "markets."

I'm one of a handful of Dem bloggers in South Carolina, and over the past year it's been interesting to see which of the 2008 hopefuls have actively sought to connect with local bloggers on their visits.  The first was Gov. Tom Vilsack, then Gov. Bill Richardson, and then Gov. Mark Warner.

Conversely, Senators Kerry, Edwards, and Biden have all headlined events in the past 6 months and showed zero interest in reaching out to the local netroots.  Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post's blog "The Fix" wrote several months ago that "South Carolina politicos are blog-crazy," and he's right.  Some presidential hopefuls realize this, and others obviously don't.  I mentioned to one of Biden's aides at the event he headlined that I was a local Dem blogger, and the aide introduced me to the Senator.  Biden couldn't elbow me out of the way fast enough to get his picture taken with a state legislator.  Not to suggest I expect any special attention - because I certainly don't - but, still, it's noteworthy which potential candidates take seriously the role of the "new media" - for both its potential good and its potential harm - and which ones don't.

It's too early whether state-based blogs or text messages or social networking sites or some other outlet will be as significant to 2008 as the nationwide grassroots were to 2004, but I'm sure it'll make for some good Monday morning quarterbacking on November 5, 2008!

by Laurin from SC 2006-10-14 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up in South Carolina

I'd always assumed you were a Republican blogger, Laurin, and was surprised to see you call yourself a "Dem blogger," so I actually read your blog for the first time.

Well, you aren't either one or the other, apparently, from your:
"I have voted for plenty of Republicans, including Sanford and Graham in 2002. . . . I've never voted a straight ticket, and while some year I may, this year I won't. . . . I care more about the State of South Carolina than I do about any political party."

I've voted for the occasional Republican and even been a registered Republican, but I'm a lot older than you are, and I haven't seen a worthy Republican on the ballot in at least a decade.

I owe you a percentage of an apology.

by joyful alternative 2006-10-15 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up in South Carolina


Thanks for your comment.  I'm 25 years old, and I've been a political animal my whole life.  I was born into a conservative Christian family in rural SC, and I naturally adopted the political leanings of my parents as soon as I was old enough to read campaign posters.

When I left for college, my email address was  I actually had a poster of Barry Goldwater in my dorm room.

I was 21 years old in 2002 when I cast my votes for Graham and Sanford.  I'm not ashamed of this.  If I were, I wouldn't readily admit it as I do.  It's part of who I am and where I come from.  Life's a learning curve, and all of this is relevant to my personal development and life journey.

In 2003 I took a class under Dr. Don Fowler, former DNC chair, and I fought with him tooth-and-nail on everything he said, but by the end of the semester, I realized he'd given me permission to espouse the things that I knew in my heart I believed anyway.  He helped me get my first job working for Sen. Fritz Hollings in his DC office.

I'm not ashamed in the least of my evolution in political thinking, and I'm probably not done yet.  I think the important thing is that I'm always grappling with this stuff.  I offer blind support on very little.  Thanks to spending 3 years in law school studying the "gray area" of the law, my views on hot-button issues like abortion are pretty nuanced, but I can support them.

At this point in my life, I still unabashedly care more about improving my native state than I do about pushing the national agenda of a political party.  I've never wanted my blog to be an overly partisan blog because in a state like SC, folks immediately plug their ears if it's not the partisan agenda they share.  So I try and be more discreet, and, that way, there's a better chance that I might make a difference than there is if I immediately scream, "I'm a Democrat!" and listeners plug their ears. :)

by Laurin from SC 2006-10-15 10:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up in South Carolina

Ha! I naturally started arguing politics with my parents as soon as I understood the concept! After my decades of effort, they pretty much agree with me. My mother still refuses to change her Republican Party voter registration--I suspect she thinks that would dishonor our GAR ancestors--but she writes in Democratic names in primary elections.

(Here in Pennsylvania, voters have to register with a party to vote in a primary. We also get to politick real close to the voter corridor on Election Day, which comes as a culture shock to South Carolinians who've moved here.)

I'm still the person I started off as: fiscally ultraconservative (mortgage company told me last year I have the best credit score they've ever seen, and I expect government to do likewise) and socially ultraliberal, sorta libertarian.  I'm a member and weekly churchgoer in the denomination I was baptized in. And so forth.

I've been in a lot of unexpected places and situations that have pulled me in peculiar directions--e.g., I'm from a family of bureaucrats and somehow have been self-employed for a couple of decades; grew up in a small town featured in the Saturday Evening Post and spent many years in a Philadelphia "neighborhood"--but the core of me is the same.

by joyful alternative 2006-10-17 05:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up in South Carolina

And, regarding the slate of candidates for the constitutional officers this November, I don't play to vote straight ticket.  Have you watched the candidate debates on ETV?

While most of the Dem candidates are strong, there are others for whom I can't -- in good conscience -- say that I want running a chunk of the executive branch in the State of South Carolina.

We actually had a candidate attempt to sing a song at the end of one televised debate.  Come on.  Who vetted candidates like that????!!!!  I'm embarrassed one behalf of the party.

This is what we get for having such a fractured executive branch, compliments of the aftermath of Reconstrucution.

by Laurin from SC 2006-10-15 10:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up in South Carolina

Wow.  I spelled both "on" and "Reconstruction" incorrectly. "Reconstruction" is perhaps understandeable... but "on"????  OMG.

by Laurin from SC 2006-10-15 10:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up in South Carolina

I don't live in South Carolina, but I do visit the Lowcountry a couple of times a year. The state has great natural resources and some amazing people but seems destined to stall out.

As an outsider, I see two specific problem areas. One is infrastructure in rural areas, and the other is the apartheid. I have no advice to offer, but without change in these areas I can't see how you'd improve the ongoing problem of unemployment and underemployment, or reverse the decades of population loss.

I hear that the Bob Jones part of the state has a different set of assets and problems, but the northern half of South Carolina is just highway exit names to me.

Pennsylvania has its own list of intractable problems for me to struggle with. One is too much vetting of candidates, so be careful what you wish for. We have hardly any statewide elected officials, and the governor and lieutenant governor nominated individually must run as a team.

Well, our Rick Santorum did one TV debate with his toupee on backwards and has seemed increasingly hysterical as he falls further and further behind in the polls. If we do manage to vote him out of the Senate, no thanks to Chuck Schumer, there's a big opportunity for Jim DeMint to star as the goofiest senator.

by joyful alternative 2006-10-17 06:28AM | 0 recs
Support for local candidates!

My husband is running for state rep here in NH and he just got a check from Forward Together for $100 for his campaign!  I am impressed.

by bloomingpol 2006-10-14 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

Thanks for the update.  As I have said before, I am sad that Warner dropped out but I understand.  Nothing is more important than your family.  I don't have kids yet but my dad is sick with Parkinson's and that is the kind of experience that really puts everything into perspective.

It should be noted Warner is not the first person to legitimately drop a Prez bid for family considerations.  Al Gore did the same thing in 1991 about 2 years after his son almost died from being hit by a car.  Running for and being President is all consuming.  It is possible to have more balance on the Gov and Senate level.  Plus these are also positions where you can have a major impact.  

by John Mills 2006-10-14 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

Jerome, count me among those disappointed that we wont get a chance to see what you were cooking up.  Warner probably wouldnt have been my first choice, but from an organizing perspective I was interested in your plans.

by juls 2006-10-14 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up


"Senators Kerry, Edwards, and Biden have all headlined events in the past 6 months and showed zero interest in reaching out to the local netroots."

it is my understanding that Sen. Edwards has done a fundraiser for Democracy for New Hampshire. DFA as a national organization is nothing if not a netroots group.

That said, it's not like he, well, hired Jerome or anything.

I have to say I'm just...adrift. I'd signed on as the IL State Director for the draft movement (, had been to a couple of events and met him a few times. My hope for 2008 is gone at this point - noting that at this point neither Gore nor Obama are viewed as in - and I'm left to hope that this Warner unseats that Warner in 2008 and then, after Hillary loses and his kids are old enough and his situation with his parents is in a more manageable place that he can try again.

For now, I think we're looking at an extension of nuclear winter. Either McCain or Romney beats whoever we have in the drawer - again except maybe Gore or Obama (Gore Obama dot com is already taken btw, by a Connecticut Ave. activist).

Warner was - is - the real thing and I'm completely adrift. It's the word that keeps coming to mind.

If we're going to take back the White House it has to be about the future. Gore's made himself about the future now but he's still also about the past of course. Barack ain't runnin'. This time. Kerry (no means no). Edwards (results still matter). Biden ( Richardson (too many skeletons). Clark (he's done what exactly for the last four years?). Bayh (great res but still makes Gore look like a professional comedian).

Which leaves Hillary and electoral catastrophe. Warner was our last best hope. A living version of the American dream - like Franklin he did well AND did good, with no silver spoon.


by ericd1112 2006-10-15 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up


Warner was my guy too.  I've been in mourning since Thursday.  (I'm only half kidding...)  

Re: Edwards and the netroots, I'm basing my assertion on nothing more than personal experience.  A friend of mine once told me that anecdote doesn't = data, which is true, but the event at which I saw Edwards was an-SC-wide event.  He gave an awesome speech (I've said before that he's the best public speaker ever) but then sort of floated througout the crowd, shaking hands but not really connecting in the way that Warner did.  Edwards kinda felt like Elvis or something... maybe wear a leisure suit or float through a wall.

by Laurin from SC 2006-10-15 11:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Clearing Up

The person who truly would have changed the way presidential campaigns are run, and was going to run in 2004, was Paul Wellstone.  We won't recover from his loss for a generation, if ever.

by Sandwich Repairman 2006-10-15 04:48PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads