This post got me to think about the second spot on the ticket. Clinton, Bush 41, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, and Eisenhower were all elected with a senator as their runningmate. In addition, Reagan and Bush 43 have had VP with experience in the house.

I am not sure exactly what, if anything, this means. But I do have two guesses. First, a little bit of beltway ballast might be good on the ticket, and second knowledge of how the legislative branch operates will help an administration steer policy.

If the dems are to follow this governor/senator formula, I think a great vp pick would be Blanche Lincoln.

If you and your readers want to know more about Warner tell them to visit www.draftmarkwarner.com

By 2008, he will be the only Democratic Governor mentioned for the President to have served 2 full terms as governor who is eligible.

I know Gary Locke from Washington has served 2 terms, but he's not going to be a candidate.

I'm from Iowa, and I just don't see Vilsack making it.  He'd probably end up like Harkin - marginalizing the Iowa caucus and shifting focus to NH.  All this would do is pretty much guarantee that Evan Bayh doesn't get elected either.  Vilsack did handle the Dean controversy a LOT better (see http://blog.drewmiller.net/archives/2005/06/oh_yeah.html).  I'd certainly support him over Warner (a guy with 4 years total elected experience) at this point.

By doing that Nixon neutralized Vietnam as an issue and took the wind out of the sails of Democrats.  

Bush won't be running, but he'd still like to see the Dems lose.  

Expect him to announce a pull out for 2009 or so.  If I'm right, Iraq won't be an issue for 2008.

As an aside, I lived in Virginia for 3 years.  Warner was a good governor, but had no charisma.  He could best serve us by running for Senate in Virginia.

what are they?

2008 is going to be an election where Iraq will be omnipresent. Why, you ask? Because the Republicans cannot compete on economic issues anymore. They deliberately campaign on nonsensical "moral values" and foreign policy because they have only a figleaf argument on domestic policy. (They have a good idea what they want to do, but saying you want to eviscerate the government and preempt state authority so that we're back to Oliver Twist is just not as catchy as "changing the tone" you know?)

But how do you win when Iraq turns to hell...blame the Democrats. If Iraq turns out great, all the antiwar members of the party will be ridiculed as "pussies"...just like it's high school or something. And if Iraq turns into Vietnam (complete with Ahmed Chalabi jumping onto the heliocopter flotilla escaping the Green Zone) the Republicans will blame the Democrats for being "obstructionists", wasting valuable time on "politics" and not working "with the President". They will stick the finger in our eye just as they have since Vietnam.

Now, your instincts on Warner are good. He and Feingold are great alternatives to Hillary. (There are other politicans I can think of, but they are not usually mentioned as timber.) And Warner's feud with Dean is also good...because it serves a valuable purpose. Dean gets to say the splashy, red meat comments to fire up the base. Warner gets to be conciliatory, soft-spoken and reach out to America. (Why do you think Cheney and Bush work so well together.) By definition, partisans (who are not likely to switch sides) are going to pay the most attention to what Dean as Party Chair says...whereas swing voters tend to value what candidates themselves say overwhelmingly. Richardson would be a nice figure in the primaries but I think he is NRFPT.

In any case, the crucial figure in 2008 is actually Chuck Hagel. He's far more internationalist in stance than most other Republicans. He along with other characters (like Colin Powell) can extricate themselves from Iraq while running on a conservative platform both economically and socially. Should Iraq turn out great while the economy struggles... it will be a tremendously close election. Only if both the economy and Iraq turn for the worse will the Dems have '08 locked up. Otherwise it's going to be a bruising, bruising campaign.

It's going to take someone with national credentials, either a Senator, preferably with experience on either the Foreign Relations or Armed Services committee, or somebody like Wes Clark to keep that base covered.

On the governor side, one name that a fellow junkie has made me think about is Schweitzer of Montana.  

I think Vilsac of Iowa is dead meat, has all the charisma of a poached egg and, like it or not, charisma counts.  You don't need to be a movie star but it helps to have some spark.   John Edwards is the most impressive speaker I've met in person since Bill Clinton but I don't see from what platform, as in position, that he can successfully launch himself, though I can game several scenarios where he's the last man standing in a "Anybody but Hillary" role...which he would lose.

I'm an agnostic about Bill Richardson.  As far as Bill Nelson goes, I have it on good authority from the inside that he's not the sharpest tool in the shed and I think a national campaign would expose that.

hank

... IMO, Bayh seems like he could wrestle fiscal responsibility away from the Repubs... I know in effect through their actions, the Repubs have already given up that mantle, but voters need convincing that Dems represent a choice...

hank

As a Virginia resident, I think Warner's been an ok governor.  Better, certainly, than Jim Gilmore.  But Warner needs to do some serious work if he's going to fire people up to vote for him: he's not the most dynamic speaker out there.

HOWEVER, Warner's willingness to come out and attack Howard Dean--"Yes, that's why America hates Democrats"--gives me pause.  I've always thought that Warner would be better off challenging George Allen for Allen's senate seat and this crack makes me think that's the place for him to be.

Have Richardson and Warner said explicitly invading Iraq was wrong?

This kind of shit makes me want to vomit. The with-us-or-against-us, worship-Dean-or-bust attitude around here is going to lead the Democratic Party straight to 8 more years of GOP rule...assuming the "netroots" matter at all, which, based on Dean's failure to win the nomination in 04, they don't.

President:  Rep(1.96mi) V. Dem(1.52mi)
Senator:    Rep(1.70mi) V. Dem(1.62mi)
Governor:   Rep(1.49mi) V. Dem(1.93mi)

He obviously had 300-400K voters split their tickets between Republican Pres and Senator and Democratic Governor.  

Now, NC is still bottom of the pile on many issues, but part of that blame should probably go to the House and Senate.  The NC Democratic Senate just recently passed a budget that slashed Medicaid and gave tax breaks to folks making $800K a year.  Easley has vowed he will veto any final budget that has the Medicaid cuts included.  If this is the fight he has with a Democratic Senate, then you can only imagine what he has faced with Republicans in charge.

VA has one of the fastest growing economies in the country, so he'll have that to boast about

=)