I don't really care where the country is, or who appears electable, I want a guy as close to progressive as possible, without entering Kucinich territory.

I want a person who's going to advocate a radical change to fix these crises that exist or are developing.

Warner's not it, but neither are the other people being mentioned.  Once that person announces, I'll go work for them.

"This candidate was contacted repeatedly over several weeks by Project Vote Smart staff members and by prominent political leaders, and asked to do the right and honorable thing by providing citizens with the critical information that the National Political Awareness test supplies. On each occasion this candidate failed to provide voters with this information."

X Broaden use of the death penalty for federal crimes.

X  Provide parents with vouchers to send their children to any publicly funded school.

------------------------------------------
Dean he is not...  However, he's acceptable.  I'm sold on everything else.

But I'm still voting for a woman in the primary.

The bloggers on MyDD do NOT need to emblazon on the front page the name of every god damned politician they take a penny from or do some consulting for.  This is a blog.  Jerome's a Democrat.  MyDD is not Kos... and Kos STILL got shit for having a stupid banner up... AND WARNER'S NOT RUNNING FOR ANYTHING YET.

Secondly, this is more about disclosing for the sake of the public eye. Most regulars here would figure that our moderators would get involved with various candidates and causes from time to time...as we all do.

I mean, Allen is a vulnerable Senator if Warner challenges him.  And Allen is probably one of the most formidable 2008 Republican candidates for President, both in the primary and general election.  If no Democrat opposes him in 2006, Allen is going to raise a boatload of money he can use in the 2008 primaries.  If, however, Warner chooses to run against him, it would force him to spend money and probably cause Allen to lose his seat, and thus his Presidential future.

If Warner wins, it gives him almost two years experience dealing with the Senate.  If he loses, he's badly wounded a top-tier 2008 Republican candidate and still gets himself on the shortlist of 2008 Dem VP hopefuls.  Nobody has a chance of toppling Hillary, so come on, admit that the primaries are more for who wants to be VP...

NealB: I personally found Jerome's disclosure and the statement including his clearcut support for Gov. Warner to be quite forthcoming, honest, and straighforward. IMO, there is no need for any blatant banners, as Jerome's disposition is out in the open.

I think Gov. Warner is quite "cool" and I like him, but let's wait and see if he is able elevate his stature and make a case that he can win the big enchilada (as of now, (Vice) President Al Gore is my guy for 2008 :)). One can reasonably suspect that he will be taking several pages from Bill Clinton's playbook.

Good luck in your new role, Jerome!

thanks
Neo

He needs to have a foreign policy and security agenda that makes sense.

Why is he still affiliated with the DLC? Does he think the DLC has a valuable approach? Does it work as a matter of policy? Politics?

As a matter of a strictly Machiavellian political calculation, why stay affiliated with the DLC? He's got to content with HRC, Biden, Bayh and Vilsack. Even in the most optimistic scenario Warner is going to be behind HRC and Bayh.

Jerome: May I ask you a question? While is it good of you to disclose your new relationship, do you think it is good for the process of blogging that you continue to be involved in the blog?

I'm not going to suggest that you or others who work for campaigns should be censored or not be involved; quite the contrary, we want to know what is going on. But I wonder if you have thought about this in the deeper context and how it affects the rest of us? I worry about this format being regulated by the FEC. I wonder whether people who are involved with PACs or campaigns should have personal blogs with the disclosure instead, and not be so involved in the public forum blogs while working on campaigns or PACs. Or, maybe it isn't such a big deal. I don't know. I am honestly wondering and not trying to be judgmental.

I say this because I come at my blog as more of an extension of my previous column writing, which would be an extension of the media. I have offered space to other column writers as well and there is a comment section if people really want to respond. I also took the smart step of having my right to blog and write outside of work written into my work contract even though I don't write about why job much at all. My point though is that "blogs" like this one and Daily Kos are becoming more like a community media outlets, posting boards, or glorified Internet debate societes, and less like "blogs" in the tradtional sense - if there is a traditional sense about these things. If MyDD or Daily Kos were my outlets and I went to work for a campaign or PAC, I would be really worried about the FEC coming in and regulating my content just because of my direct [or indirect] involvement in a campaign. Since I personally work in the media and can't work on political campaigns and in the media at the same time, I don't have a problem with this and my "political" commentary blog will probably never be regulated by the FEC. But what if it is? What if your involvement helps to build this regulation movement and then it comes down to people like me? Why should I have to be regulated because of your employment choices and lack of forknowledge to keep things separate so they don't come in and regulate.

Does anyone get what I am saying here? Maybe I haven't had enough coffee this morning.

It's fair to ask, though: when you were paid by Dean, you elected to stay off this site.  Why not now?

Warner doesn't need the "experience" of Washington insidery.

It's going to be a good Saturday.

As a Virginian at the DLC event in Columbus, I was so glad that Governor Warner came to speak. I met Mame Reiley and I emailed her after the event to offer my praise and support. It will be interesting to see what the Governor decides to do in the coming months.

I wish you success with this opportunity.

Interesting too though that we were just discussing (in a Bowers thread?) the unlikelihood of someone out-centering Sen. Clinton. How does he get past her name recognition and backing? He's male and he's southern and he's not Hillary. That'll get him some support but I don't think it's enough.

I'm not putting him down here as everything I've heard about him has been very good. I'm just trying to think about how things work politically and I think the deck is stacked against him if Sen. Hillary Clinton runs... and I think it is pretty clear she will. In fact... he seems like the perfect VP candidate for her.

I dunno. Just musing along here without diving in deeply. It'll be interesting to see how things shake out.

Warner stood with an elite few that really impressed me for their policymaking skill and political prowess.  In fact, he is honestly my favorite Democratic governor (Easley and Sebelius trail closely behind).  In a lot of ways, he has been a miracleworker in that state.  Through fiscally conservative means, he has brought about great progressive change in VA.

I think it is unfortunate that a lot of people in the netroots are taking shots at the candidate.

I honestly believe that the more folks learn about Warner, the more their opinions will change.  His policy accomplishments are incredible.  He is also very gifted at issue framing.  He makes an enormous number of rural republicans "get it" on the wisdom of progressive policies like investing in education, assisting outsourced workers, and a whole heck of a lot more.

I'm glad you'll be helping to get the word out.  Best of luck, I think you made a great choice.

While he may be affiliated with the DLC, I am of the mind that he is one of the few moderate Democrats in this country that truly supports building our party, like he has done in Virginia. I myself share many of his centrist positions, but at the same time, am strongly partisan and believe in the overall message of progressive politics. I think that he would make an excellent candidate for president, and I am pleased to see that Jerome will be spreading his message here on MyDD.

I think both have more than earned the right to actively support whomever they wish on this board. The fact that Jerome's open disclosure has even created a minimal amount of controversy mystifies me. Is there anybody on this board who hasn't been allowed to openly express a particular preference for any candidate in any way or manner?

It's absolutely preposterous to me that anybody would question Jerome's right to actively support any candidate he so chooses on his own board. Let's put this into proper perspective for just a second. Jerome purposefully kept this forum small in order to generate more meaningful discussion rather than allow it to become an echo chamber such as that which exists at KOS. It's not as if this site couldn't have already evolved into other things than what it's become - an extremely open community which produces meaningful discourse from viewpoints throughout the entire political spectrum. Given all of the facts, I don't expect this to change.

"(Jerome),you're suffering from "celebrity awe." You've personally met someone you see on the news regularly, and you've been star struck. It happens. I think I gurgled when I met Gary Hart. I actually managed to say something when I met Doug Wilder.... about sports. ACK! Then when I went to work in radio back east, I got a "You're awesome" out to Melissa Ethridge, and a "You're funny" out to Richard Belzer. Not much better.

This trend continued when I moved to SoCal. I just stared and looked stupid at Brent Spiner in a Virgin Records, and Jimmy Smits in a Brentwood grocery store. Same thing again Meg Ryan and Dennis Quaid walked into the same grocery story a couple of weeks later.

Regular people meeting famous people often causes regular people to act stupid. That's fine. It's forgivable. Now get over it. Politicians are paid to make you like them. If the experience of meeting powerful politicians wasn't a powerful tool to sway people, politicians wouldn't go out meeting people as much as they do. Politicians fill their schedules with public appearances because public appearances work.

Now that you have had this phenomenon explained to you, you need to wipe the awe-struck expression off your face and get back to work.... and next time, if you want to meet nice people, go to a pub."

Jerome, you've been sweet-talked by a powerful person that needs you more than you need him, had some cash thrown at you, and it made you tossed everything you believe in aside.

Mark Warner embodies everything that is wrong in the Democratic Party. However, I don't need to tell you that, Jerome. You already know that.

I couldn't be more disappointed in you, Jerome.

Don't bother banning me. This is my last post here.

Have a good life, Jerome.

His 2001 strategy was to "suck up to the red counties" in Virginia, and count on the Democrats to vote for him since they had no other choice.  Even then, the argument could be made he won because the GOP then-Governor was so unpopular that pretty much any Democrat to the right of Ralph Nader could have won.

Why DID "Stevo" get a front-page post, given is previous lack of posting?  Did Chris know the guy?  How did he know the interview was legit, if he didn't know him?  Is he a Feingold "operative"?    

you can e-mail me this (I'll send you my e-mail) if you don't want to answer on the blog... but the complete ignoring of this is really speaking volumes to me.  I don't understand it.  Was this "Stevo" just some shmuck that lucked into an interview? Or, is this interview just a farce, and in fact "Stevo" is a Feingold staffer?