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.


Display:


Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:31:47 AM EST

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:34:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:41:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:14:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:56:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (3.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:33:22 AM EST

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (3.00 / 1)

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.


Progress is Personal | Connie Brennan | My opinions are mine alone
by msnook on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:42:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

And if he doesn't retire? "Warner vs Warner! You know the name."
by antiHyde on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:49:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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.


DC Drinking LiberallyDC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:01:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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).  


Take out the trash. Down with Saxby Chambliss!
by CLLGADEM on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 04:53:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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


by Sandwich Repairman on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 09:20:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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?


Take out the trash. Down with Saxby Chambliss!
by CLLGADEM on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 05:39:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (3.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:37:12 AM EST

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:49:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:55:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

Thanks ... interesting ...


by BriVT on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:56:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:17:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (3.00 / 1)

Which of Obama's achievements do you admire most?


by BingoL on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:07:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (2.00 / 2)

Obama has achievements?


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 02:55:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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


by Sandwich Repairman on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 09:21:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

However... (none / 0)

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


by Geotpf on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:01:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:37:22 AM EST

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:18:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

thanks.


by Sidd Finch on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:37:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:40:33 AM EST

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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


by jbou on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:56:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (3.00 / 0)

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


See my homepage at AlexFlores.org
by Alex Flores on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:03:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:18:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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


by InigoMontoya on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:55:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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


by adamterando on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:56:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (3.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 02:57:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (3.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:44:23 AM EST

Edwards as anti-Hillary (3.00 / 3)

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.


Progress is Personal | Connie Brennan | My opinions are mine alone
by msnook on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:31:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards as anti-Hillary (2.00 / 2)

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.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:44:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm glad it helps Edwards (3.00 / 2)

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.


"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."--John McCain
by lorax on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:51:53 AM EST

Re: I'm glad it helps Edwards (3.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:19:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad it helps Edwards (3.00 / 4)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:44:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad it helps Edwards (none / 0)

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.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:47:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad it helps Edwards (none / 0)

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


by adamterando on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:46:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad it helps Edwards (none / 0)

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


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 01:34:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad it helps Edwards (none / 0)

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 on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 09:24:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad it helps Edwards (none / 0)

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.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:40:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad it helps Edwards (3.00 / 3)

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.


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 02:53:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad it helps Edwards (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:36:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad it helps Edwards (none / 0)

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?


"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."--John McCain
by lorax on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:47:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad it helps Edwards (none / 0)

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 on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 11:40:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How so? (none / 0)

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


"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."--John McCain
by lorax on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:50:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:58:43 AM EST

5 possibilities: (none / 0)

  • 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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:05:27 AM EST

Re: 5 possibilities: (none / 0)

There must be 6.


by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:17:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 5 possibilities: (none / 0)

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


"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."--John McCain
by lorax on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:20:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 5 possibilities: (none / 0)

As the ever hopeful idealist, I am looking forward to gist of the message being, "I believe that I can do more to help my country at this point by doing something other than running for President".  I hope the message will have hints about what some of these other things might be.

Yes, it might sound like spin, but it is the sort of spin we need to be hearing more of.  We need political leaders whose calculus is based what they can do for the country and not on the chances of winning, electability, or holding onto a majority in the house at the expense of children.


by aldon on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:52:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 5 possibilities: (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:17:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 5 possibilities: (none / 0)

I was referring to Governor Warner's statement.


by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:20:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 5 possibilities: (none / 0)

"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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:33:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Or even 7 or 8 possibilities (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:31:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Or even 7 or 8 possibilities (3.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:36:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're right about his money. (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:14:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're right about his money. (none / 0)

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


Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama for President! Beat McCain!
by Alex on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 05:33:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 5 possibilities: (3.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:25:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 5 possibilities: (2.00 / 1)

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

Maybe he gets picked up as a VP?


end the occupation of Iraq
by aip on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:32:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 5 possibilities: (3.00 / 1)

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.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:34:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:06:08 AM EST

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:09:48 AM EST

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:10:03 AM EST

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:12:57 AM EST

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (3.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:48:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (2.00 / 2)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:57:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (3.00 / 2)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:04:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:27:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What I like about Bayh (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:34:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What I like about Bayh (none / 0)

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


by adamterando on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:37:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I like it (none / 0)

A candidate with the hat AND the cattle.


by stevehigh on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:07:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I like it (none / 0)

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


by adamterando on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:51:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey, Goldwater and McGovern (3.00 / 1)

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

Uh, never mind.


by stevehigh on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 03:22:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not Need to Attack Bayh (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:15:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not Need to Attack Bayh (none / 0)

McGovern lost South Dakota.


by adamterando on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:53:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

McGovern a BIT more liberal than Bayh (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 03:38:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not Need to Attack Bayh (none / 0)

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.


See my homepage at AlexFlores.org
by Alex Flores on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 05:56:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (3.00 / 2)

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.


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 03:05:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 09:28:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:13:38 AM EST

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:11:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:19:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (3.00 / 2)

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.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:55:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:34:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Off topic: House polls? (none / 0)

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


Rudy Giuliani hates firefighters. And puppies.
by Fran for Dean on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:15:28 AM EST

I think he means "new" (none / 0)


"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."--John McCain
by lorax on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:18:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think he means "new" (none / 0)

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


Rudy Giuliani hates firefighters. And puppies.
by Fran for Dean on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:24:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

OH MY GOD!! (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:17:52 AM EST

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:21:22 AM EST

Could be (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:24:18 AM EST

Re: Could be (none / 0)

Not at all, they guys energy amazes me.


by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 02:55:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Could be (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 07:48:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:25:52 AM EST

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (3.00 / 2)

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.


Rudy Giuliani hates firefighters. And puppies.
by Fran for Dean on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:30:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:22:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (3.00 / 1)

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.


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 03:18:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:32:10 AM EST

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

Do you want to do it?


Rudy Giuliani hates firefighters. And puppies.
by Fran for Dean on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:33:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (3.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:32:50 AM EST

does mydd get Jerome back? (none / 0)

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


end the occupation of Iraq
by aip on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:34:37 AM EST

Re: does mydd get Jerome back? (none / 0)

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


by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:21:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: does mydd get Jerome back? (none / 0)

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


.. and when I win the lottery, gonna donate half my money to the city so they have to name a school or a park after me - camper van beethoven
by heyAnita on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:51:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: does mydd get Jerome back? (none / 0)

Looking forward to it!


end the occupation of Iraq
by aip on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 04:29:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Vilsack? (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:37:58 AM EST

Re: Vilsack? (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:45:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Vilsack? (none / 0)

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


by adamterando on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:50:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Vilsack? (none / 0)

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 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 01:40:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

Read his statement at forwardtogetherpac.com.


by Houston Dem on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:41:11 AM EST

Re: Warner Will Not Run For President (?) (none / 0)

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,