Skip to main content

I'll admit that the Yearly Kos convention-goers make an easy target for ridicule.  We're old, we dress kind of funny, we're a little geeky about computers, and political junkies of any persuasion are always a bit odd.  Back in September 2005 a lot of the more traditional and cantankerous bloggsters went down to Washington DC to protest the war in Iraq.  Some of the kewl kids thought we were wasting our time.  But, those of us that went knew that what we were doing was important and empowering.  A large part of the sense of empowerment that we shared in DC was not related to how many feet we put on the Mall, but about meeting our online friends in real life, and seeing a digital reality because manifest in the real world.  Electron broadband blasts became real action in real time.

Yearly Kos has that same feel.  Thousands of people are meeting all over this city and greeting each with their user names, discussing each other's diaries, and the diaries of their favorite writers.  And, it is all in a context where our votes are being courted by the Democratic leadership and presidential aspirants.

It's heady stuff, and it's hard to get my mind around how fast the Daily Kos community went from a place where we pissed and moaned to a place that has this kind of pull.  On one level, it's great.  Even for the people that have been alienated from the Daily Kos community during its rise to prominence and power, this should be seen as positive development.  But, all is not well in Kossackistan.  I may be the first to bring this up, but it certainly would have been brought up without me being the one to say it.  Especially after Mark Warner's keynote speech.

Markos introduced Mark Warner.  And when he did so, he has very clear that he has not endorsed Warner for President in 2008.  He also was clear that his friend Jerome Armstrong very much wants him to endorse Warner.  And he was clear that he is impressed and pleased with Warner because he was the first major politician to agree to come to Yearly Kos, that by doing so he had lent credibility to the conference and led many other politicians to attend, and that Warner has shown a willingness to engage the netroots movement.  Those are the facts.  And I share those sentiments with Markos.  Warner is coming after our votes and he is being very aggressive about it.  That is not a bad thing.  

But there can be no avoiding a controversy about the close relationship that is developing between Warner and Daily Kos.  Warner was not only granted the keynote speech; prior to the speech he was allowed to pass out free Yearly Kos t-shirts with his face (not Markos's or Wesley Clark's, or FDR's, or Russ Feingold's, or Hillary Clinton's, or Armando's) superimposed on the front.  And on the back, it says 'Forward Together' and 'Authorized and Paid for by Forward Together PAC.'   That is Mark Warner's presidential political action committee.  Then we were all subjected to a Kennedyesque five-minute canned campaign infomercial.  Then Warner gave a well presented and well received speech, emphasizing a Dukakis-like technocratic competency that was striking (if one hadn't been expecting it) for its lack of ideology.

All of this came on the heels of Warner's huge blowout part last night at the Stratosphere (an event that was in no way affiliated with Yearly Kos).  The party was lavish, providing cocktails, a sushi bar, and carved meats and cheese trays.  

Even before the Keynote address I was hearing a lot of grumbling about Warner's decision to spend so much money buttering up the Kossack crowd.  After the t-shirt and informercial stunts, I heard a lot more grumbling.

For some, the problem is a simple matter of how Warner is choosing to spend his money.  But for others, the problem is that Mark Warner is a centrist candidate that has strong connections to the Democratic Leadership Council.  And it is jarring to see Markos go from declaring war on the DLC to coming within inches of endorsing a DLC candidate for President over two years out from the election.  

Let's be clear about one thing.  Markos did not endorse Warner.  He was explicit about that.  But he has given Warner a major platform to try to win over the Kossack community and to raise his profile from a little known Governor, to someone that might give (another DLC candidate) Hillary Clinton a run for her money.

And the question then becomes, "is this what Daily Kos wants?  Has Daily Kos come to a point where they are going to cozy up to the Democratic Leadership Council?'  Why are we so opposed to Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman, if not because they supported the war and do not advocate leaving Iraq?  How is Mark Warner any different in this regard?"

I've sat down with Governor Warner and discussed Iraq with him.  I like Governor Warner and I know that he is torn over what to do in Iraq.  I appreciate, really appreciate, his attitude towards the netroots, toward the progressive community, and toward me personally.  I think he is a good man, and I think he should be taken seriously as a candidate.  Not all DLC members are the same.  There is a big difference between Lieberman, Bayh, and Hillary on the one hand and Warner, Richardson, and Vilsack on the other.  Gore is a DLC candidate cut from another mold.  

The way the Presidential race is shaping up, it looks like John Edwards and Russ Feingold are going to be the only non-DLC candidates with a prayer of winning.  So, looking at Mark Warner makes some sense.  At least he is listening, being respectful, and has shown us good-will.  Hillary is busy in New York City this weekend.

So, I'm not bashing Mark Warner.  I'm not questioning Markos's gratefulness to Warner, or his decision to give Warner the keynote spot.  But, I don't think the Kossack community is ready to give up the fight for a more progressive candidate and more progressive politics a full two years before the election.  And we are going to see a battle royale between those that think Russ Feingold or John Edwards are the proper candidates to carry the orange banner and those that are won over by coconut shrimp, and free kosmopolitans and t-shirts.      

Originally posted to www.boomantribune.com on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:55 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  I hope (46+ / 0-)

      everyone is going to decide for themselves who they feel most resonates for them on the basis of their values and on information.

      I'm 100% for Feingold so far as well and if Markos supports Warner, well, that's up to him...I don't find Warner to be the best choice.

      Daily Kos needs to be a site for progressives to have a discussion, and from what I can tell so far, Markos has tried to avoid taking on a guru role. I hope Kossacks can choose not to give him such a role also.

    •  Feingold, also, but Wes Clark sure isn't afraid (44+ / 0-)
      to stand up on a bar stool and start rabble rousing.  Plus, he was quite dandy in coodinating his tie with Fabooj's top.  That shows some forward thinking.
      •  Clark, Edwards, Feingold, Obama. (10+ / 0-)

        Warner's okay.  I don't think we can lose by supporting any of these candidates.

        -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

        by sunbro on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:17:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Obama isn't running (7+ / 0-)
          but I think your point still stands.  We're going to have plenty of great candidates to choose from.  If Gore joins in, it'll be even better.

          I'm not really a fan of Warner's, but I love that he's actually engaging the community.  You could be cynical and just say he's trying to buy us off, but even if that's true, it's better than nothing, which is what we're getting from Hillary and Lieberman.

          •  Richardson, Warner, Gore. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LarryInNYC, DigDug, DKHOLLA

            No senators. Please. They don't win.

          •  You apparently don't (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Del C, nprigo, blueoasis

            communicate with Obama that much.  Every time I have, he acts just like all the other sniveling democrats in  the House and the Senate.

            Don't attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

            by jasfm on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:28:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Obama has done NOTHING (0+ / 0-)

              to deserve being considered as a presidential candidate.  

              As far as I can tell, he's another Hillary Clinton-style triangulator -- the last thing on earth this country needs.

              "Anyone who fears a 29% President can never, ever contribute anything of value in political office." -- Glenn Greenwald

              by asskicking annie on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:19:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Looking through your history (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Joe B, ChiGirl88, Sam I Am, sunbro
                It seems like all you do is criticize Democrats and talk about how we're going to lose.  
                Have you even bothered to look at Obama's voting record?  What exactly bothers you about him?  Which Democrats do you like?
                •  Hey Matt; Obama's voting--Strengths,Weaknesses? (0+ / 0-)

                  What do you figure the pros and cons are here?

                  I remember a time when there was a huge buzz regarding Obama's future.  

                  What do his supporters say?  I guess we've heard some of the naysayers' points above.

                  -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

                  by sunbro on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:37:41 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Here's what I usually say (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ademption, ChiGirl88, Sam I Am, sunbro
                    As far as his voting record, it's been nearly flawless.  He's been on the right side of almost every issue.  Take a look here at his speech on October 26, 2002 regarding the Iraq War.  I don't think a better speech has been given on that subject, even to this day.  The ADA  has given him a perfect rating and Progressive Punch has him down as our 6th most progressive Senator.  The only real criticism I've heard has to do with his confirmation votes, but he's following the same standards that Senator Feingold follows.  They both think the President is generally entitled to pick who he wants to work for him as long as they are technically qualified. For some reason, only Senator Obama gets criticized for this.  

                    As far as him being cautious, that's because he's still just a first-term Senator who's trying to find his way without making enemies.  He's gotten criticism for defending Lieberman and Leahy, but that's what Senate colleagues are expected to do for each other.  Some people here mistook that for his approval of their positions when that certainly wasn't the case.

                    What he's focused on is serving his constituents in Illinois and he's done an excellent job of it.  He's followed Feingold's model of holding frequent town halls to discuss his constituent's concerns.    He's consistently had a 70% approval rating, the highest of any Democratic Senator in the country.  Despite his progressive views and voting record, he's able to get the support of Republicans because of his ability to communicate and persuade.  He graduated magna cum laude at Harvard Law and was the President of the Review there.

                    Anyway, I could go on and on, but I've already written a novel so I'll stop there.  I try to aggressively respond to criticism of him because I know he's a favorite target of Republican trolls. They know what he's capable of and it scares them.

                    •  Wow! That was excellent, Matt. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      lost my password

                      You've convinced me.  Now I like Barack Obama even more than I did when I wrote my first post this evening mentioning him as a possible Presidential contender.

                      Obama's political consultants ought to hire you.  You write well and you could function as a valuable advocate if he should decide to change his mind about getting into the race for the White House now.

                      -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

                      by sunbro on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 01:22:24 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        sunbro
                        I don't think he'll change his mind though.  Entering too early would allow his opponents to attack his lack of experience, whereas if he waited and got some experience, he would be almost impossible to attack.  He might accept the VP slot if the matchup is right, but otherwise I think he'll hold out until the next opportunity.  He's still very young, so he shouldn't rush into it.
                    •  haw about Alito? Hayden? (0+ / 0-)

                      flawless?

                      Obama was on the wrong side of the most important confirmations weve had.

                      Only thing Obama did was give a good speech at the convention.

                    •  What I need is (0+ / 0-)

                      a Democrat who will stand up and grab a ball if he has one and fight for me a lowly American citizen.  Someone who is not scared of annoying the re-thugs running this country into the ground.  
                       I wrote to Obama about net neutrality and all I got was a well, maybe.  Well, I don't need a maybe and I don't need to be spied on.  And this is MY Senator, I voted for him, I applauded his speech at the convention, and I was proud that we elected the right person, but he needs to stand up and be counted before being considered as a presidential candidate.
                       He didn't just defend Lieberman, he endorsed him, what's up with that?

                      Don't attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

                      by jasfm on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:26:14 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Reply (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  supersoling

                  Better late than never -- just got back from a daylong trip.

                  In answer to your question, I was tremendously offended by Obama's milquetoast and grudging support of the Alito filibuster, and his implication that he thought it was somehow wrong to oppose the Republicans on basically anything.

                  As for which Democrats I like, there really aren't any, and the last three paragraphs of this Glenn Greenwald post -- http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/... -- explain why.  In short, we need the Democrats to act as an opposition party, and none of them are doing anything that meaningfully opposes the criminal administration currently in power.  They are no better than the "good Germans" of the WW2 era.

                  "Anyone who fears a 29% President can never, ever contribute anything of value in political office." -- Glenn Greenwald

                  by asskicking annie on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 07:42:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Reply (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  supersoling

                  Better late than never -- just got back from a daylong trip.

                  In answer to your question, I was tremendously offended by Obama's milquetoast and grudging support of the Alito filibuster, and his implication that he thought it was somehow wrong to oppose the Republicans on basically anything.

                  As for which Democrats I like, there really aren't any, and the last three paragraphs of this Glenn Greenwald post -- http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/... -- explain why.  In short, we need the Democrats to act as an opposition party, and none of them are doing anything that meaningfully opposes the criminal administration currently in power.  They are no better than the "good Germans" of the WW2 era.

                  "Anyone who fears a 29% President can never, ever contribute anything of value in political office." -- Glenn Greenwald

                  by asskicking annie on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 07:43:06 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Reply (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  supersoling

                  Better late than never -- just got back from a daylong trip.

                  In answer to your question, I was tremendously offended by Obama's milquetoast and grudging support of the Alito filibuster, and his implication that he thought it was somehow wrong to oppose the Republicans on basically anything.

                  As for which Democrats I like, there really aren't any, and the last three paragraphs of this Glenn Greenwald post -- http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/... -- explain why.  In short, we need the Democrats to act as an opposition party, and none of them are doing anything that meaningfully opposes the criminal administration currently in power.  They are no better than the "good Germans" of the WW2 era.

                  "Anyone who fears a 29% President can never, ever contribute anything of value in political office." -- Glenn Greenwald

                  by asskicking annie on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 07:43:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Reply (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  supersoling

                  Better late than never -- just got back from a daylong trip.

                  In answer to your question, I was tremendously offended by Obama's milquetoast and grudging support of the Alito filibuster, and his implication that he thought it was somehow wrong to oppose the Republicans on basically anything.

                  As for which Democrats I like, there really aren't any, and the last three paragraphs of this Glenn Greenwald post -- http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/... -- explain why.  In short, we need the Democrats to act as an opposition party, and none of them are doing anything that meaningfully opposes the criminal administration currently in power.  They are no better than the "good Germans" of the WW2 era.

                  "Anyone who fears a 29% President can never, ever contribute anything of value in political office." -- Glenn Greenwald

                  by asskicking annie on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 07:43:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Reply (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  supersoling

                  Better late than never -- just got back from a daylong trip.

                  In answer to your question, I was tremendously offended by Obama's milquetoast and grudging support of the Alito filibuster, and his implication that he thought it was somehow wrong to oppose the Republicans on basically anything.

                  As for which Democrats I like, there really aren't any, and the last three paragraphs of this Glenn Greenwald post -- http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/... -- explain why.  In short, we need the Democrats to act as an opposition party, and none of them are doing anything that meaningfully opposes the criminal administration currently in power.  They are no better than the "good Germans" of the WW2 era.

                  "Anyone who fears a 29% President can never, ever contribute anything of value in political office." -- Glenn Greenwald

                  by asskicking annie on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 07:43:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Reply (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  supersoling

                  Better late than never -- just got back from a daylong trip.

                  In answer to your question, I was tremendously offended by Obama's milquetoast and grudging support of the Alito filibuster, and his implication that he thought it was somehow wrong to oppose the Republicans on basically anything.

                  As for which Democrats I like, there really aren't any, and the last three paragraphs of this Glenn Greenwald post -- http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/... -- explain why.  In short, we need the Democrats to act as an opposition party, and none of them are doing anything that meaningfully opposes the criminal administration currently in power.  They are no better than the "good Germans" of the WW2 era.

                  "Anyone who fears a 29% President can never, ever contribute anything of value in political office." -- Glenn Greenwald

                  by asskicking annie on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 07:43:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Reply (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  supersoling

                  Better late than never -- just got back from a daylong trip.

                  In answer to your question, I was tremendously offended by Obama's milquetoast and grudging support of the Alito filibuster, and his implication that he thought it was somehow wrong to oppose the Republicans on basically anything.

                  As for which Democrats I like, there really aren't any, and the last three paragraphs of this Glenn Greenwald post -- http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/... -- explain why.  In short, we need the Democrats to act as an opposition party, and none of them are doing anything that meaningfully opposes the criminal administration currently in power.  They are no better than the "good Germans" of the WW2 era.

                  "Anyone who fears a 29% President can never, ever contribute anything of value in political office." -- Glenn Greenwald

                  by asskicking annie on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 07:43:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Reply (0+ / 0-)

                  Better late than never -- just got back from a daylong trip.

                  In answer to your question, I was tremendously offended by Obama's milquetoast and grudging support of the Alito filibuster, and his implication that he thought it was somehow wrong to oppose the Republicans on basically anything.

                  As for which Democrats I like, there really aren't any, and the last three paragraphs of this Glenn Greenwald post -- http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/... -- explain why.  In short, we need the Democrats to act as an opposition party, and none of them are doing anything that meaningfully opposes the criminal administration currently in power.  They are no better than the "good Germans" of the WW2 era.

                  "Anyone who fears a 29% President can never, ever contribute anything of value in political office." -- Glenn Greenwald

                  by asskicking annie on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 07:43:27 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Reply (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  supersoling

                  Better late than never -- just got back from a daylong trip.

                  In answer to your question, I was tremendously offended by Obama's milquetoast and grudging support of the Alito filibuster, and his implication that he thought it was somehow wrong to oppose the Republicans on basically anything.

                  As for which Democrats I like, there really aren't any, and the last three paragraphs of this Glenn Greenwald post -- http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/... -- explain why.  In short, we need the Democrats to act as an opposition party, and none of them are doing anything that meaningfully opposes the criminal administration currently in power.  They are no better than the "good Germans" of the WW2 era.

                  "Anyone who fears a 29% President can never, ever contribute anything of value in political office." -- Glenn Greenwald

                  by asskicking annie on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 07:43:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Reply (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  supersoling

                  Better late than never -- just got back from a daylong trip.

                  In answer to your question, I was tremendously offended by Obama's milquetoast and grudging support of the Alito filibuster, and his implication that he thought it was somehow wrong to oppose the Republicans on basically anything.

                  As for which Democrats I like, there really aren't any, and the last three paragraphs of this Glenn Greenwald post -- http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/... -- explain why.  In short, we need the Democrats to act as an opposition party, and none of them are doing anything that meaningfully opposes the criminal administration currently in power.  They are no better than the "good Germans" of the WW2 era.

                  "Anyone who fears a 29% President can never, ever contribute anything of value in political office." -- Glenn Greenwald

                  by asskicking annie on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 07:43:29 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  wow, a decuple post (0+ / 0-)
                    haven't seen that before.  Anyway, thanks for the reply.
                    As far as the Alito thing, I think he was misunderstood on that.  He was prepared to do whatever it took to prevent Alito from being confirmed.  The problem was that it was clear they just didn't have the numbers, so he was frustrated and said some things about how we have to do better in the future in order to prevent it from even getting to that point.  If you look back at his exact words, you'll see he definitely wasn't saying it was wrong to oppose the Republicans. He was just saying that we needed to be better at it. Unfortunately, his words were twisted by the media in the headlines, so that's probably what you and others saw.
                    As far as the Democrats in general, they just don't have the power to do anything meaningful. That was illustrated in the Alito confirmation and that's part of what Obama was talking about.  We need to do 2 things: 1)Elect more good Democrats like Obama, and 2)Replace bad Democrats like Lieberman.  If we had 51 Barack Obamas in the Senate, Alito would not have been confirmed.  
                    •  Democrats (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      supersoling

                      I have no idea why my post appeared multiple times, although I've seen a few other examples of this happening elsewhere in the Diaries.

                      There are a number of procedural moves, including the filibuster, the Democrats could use to block the more insidious Bush agenda items and nominees.  They do not use them, even when a horrid nominee like Alito comes up for confirmation.  Their weak and craven cave-ins even on such egregious nominees encourages the Republicans to nominate ever more radical judges and cabinet and department leaders (Alito, Hayden).

                      The Hayden vote is extremely troubling to me because it demonstrates that the Democrats, even if they had a sizeable majority, would continue to meekly confirm radical Bush nominees without a struggle.

                      Since the prime mover for the Democrats seems to be their fear and their cowardice, the only way to get them to stand up to Bush is to make them equally as afraid of their own base.  That means standing up to them and letting them have it when they fuck up.  The Lamont candidacy, if successful, will be the first positive step in striking fear of the base in the yellow hearts of these Democrats.  This is why I think the Connecticut primary is the most important race of 2006.  If Lamont wins, a list needs to be drawn up of every fuck-up Democrat who stands for re-election in 2008, and a search for the best possible primary opponents should begin immediately.

                      "Anyone who fears a 29% President can never, ever contribute anything of value in political office." -- Glenn Greenwald

                      by asskicking annie on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:57:51 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I agree (0+ / 0-)
                        I just think it's important not to blame the good Democrats like Obama. They're doing what they can but they have just one vote.  You still need 40 votes to sustain a filibuster and we won't have that because guys like Lieberman would never sign on to a filibuster even if it was against the Devil.  We need to be picking on just the guys who haven't been doing their jobs.  Guys like Lieberman and Carper.  And we just need to get more Democrats elected.  
                        •  Getting Democrats elected (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          supersoling

                          Not just any Democrats.  I could give a lesser shit whether or not Casey wins in PA -- he's another DINO.  Likewise Claire McCaskill in MO -- the "but s/he's better than a Republican argument cuts no ice with me, and it's how we got where we are with all these unreliable, worthless, Bush-sucking Democrats.

                          We will have to fight the party leadership to unseat these worthless incumbents.  Even Barbara Boxer is on record as supporting Lieberman's re-election.  The blank-check support of incumbents on the part of the party leadership is a good reason to vote directly to candidates you support, rather than to the party itself.  Otherwise, your donations will be used to prop up Lieberman and other underperforming Democrats.  

                          Do I support only hardcore progressives?  No.  However, it IS true that I support only Democrats who oppose Bush.  Paul Hackett and Brian Schweitzer are not very progressive, yet both fearlessly call bullshit on this administration.

                          And frankly, if I lived in Nebraska, I would very possibly vote for Ben Nelson's Republican opponent just to strike a blow against one of the very worst Bush-enablers in the party.  It's true we could not elect a progressive in red Nebraska.  But we can do a damn sight better than the piece of shit who currently holds that seat.  I think a Schweitzer type candidate could do VERY well there -- it's just a shame we'll have to wait until 2012 to find out.  Likewise, we could do so much better in NY -- what the hell is wrong that we have two warhawk Bush lovers wasting those two seats?

                          "Anyone who fears a 29% President can never, ever contribute anything of value in political office." -- Glenn Greenwald

                          by asskicking annie on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:26:28 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I dunno, Annie... (0+ / 0-)

                            There are places in the country where I'd settle for a DINO.  e.g. Utah, where the GOP advantage in registration is what, 70-30?

                            The thing is, even a DINO contributes to handing leadership control to the Dem side, and, as we saw in the '90s, when the GOP used procedural blocks against Clinton's nominees, that matters.  If we'd held even a SLIM majority in the Senate, even with a few DINOs unwilling to directly block Bush's nominees, we could've still blocked them using the "blue slip" rule (where a Senator from a judge's home state can block them) and the anonymous hold rule.  With the GOP in the majority, they were able to simply "reinterpret" the procedures they used against Clinton for six years.

                            I do agree, overall, though, that in states where we clearly are winning (like CT), we should not settle for DINOs.  I hope Lieberman goes down in flames.

          •  Lieberman who?? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sunbro

            Oh, the guy who will be running as an indy, that guy?

            Impeach and Imprison! -6.63/-6.10

            by FireCrow on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:39:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Wes Clark's Tie (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        David Boyle, goodasgold

        I noticed that too. I've never seen a lime green tie before!  

        "The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country..." - Thomas Paine

        by elveta on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:27:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  A year ago... (22+ / 0-)

      ...I was among those who mocked and ridiculed a 2nd run by Al Gore. I was a Clark guy. A major Clark guy. But after a hugely disappointing personal experience with Clark and his people, I am today one of Gore's strongest supporters.

      Why?

      Not because his progressive bona fides are better than Feingold's, or because of his name recognition or because everyone has now seen what could have been or because this study predicted that he would win the 2008 in a landslide while Hillary, et al, would lose.

      I want Al Gore to run because I feel he learned the most important lesson in politics more deeply and more profoundly than any of the other proposed candidates, and the lesson is this: At the end of the day, what you stand for is all you have.

      He allowed himself to be rounded off in 2000 by Donna Brazille and Bob Shrum. He stopped talking about the environment because they told him it was a loser issue. He took Holy Joe along for the ride. He played the middle of the road because that's what his people told him to do and it cost him. Huge.

      And out of that pain, something clicked inside Gore. He went back to who he was. He endorsed Howard Dean in 2004 when doing so was still risky. He spoke out on each new Bush travesty. He began pushing the most important issue in his life - the inconvenient truth of global warming - and people are listening.

      I want Gore because I don't believe he's capable of suppressing who he is any longer. And if you see his film, you'll be pretty impressed with who he is.

      Someone else will tell us if the same can be said for Markos' pick.

      Democrats: For the health, prosperity and security of every single American.

      by alysheba on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:12:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Vote for Warner or Gore (0+ / 0-)
        or your favorites for president and vice president here.

        Gore and Edwards are leading for president now, with the vice presidential poll under coordinated attack from some Clarkies, which is cool I guess.

        Alex
        Choose Our President 2008

      •  He was on Leno and was warm and funny (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joynow, Brother Love

        and I'd hate to wish the Presidency on him but I agree, I think we need 'mature' Al Gore.

        Watergate was a conspiracy theory but that didn't cause Woodward and Bernstein to give up their investigation.

        by altscott on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:13:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hi Alysheba (5+ / 0-)

        welcome to the club.  We aren't exclusive, we don't even know if he will run.  But we sure hope that something convinces him to do so.

        As for booman's calling Gore a DLC candidate.  I think booman should realize that Gore left the DLC behind long ago.  If endorsing Dean wasn't the final nail in that coffin I don't know what is.  Besides it was key people in the DLC who made it clear to Gore that he would not be welcome as the nominee in 2004.  They still had that kind of power then.  

        I don't think they do anymore and I hope Gore runs and they DLC crowd goes to the garden to eat worms.

        mcjoan is the new Armando

        by TeresaInPa on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:05:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nprigo

        Gore for me.  He can win this one... well, he won the other one but.

        •  Al Gore is not going to run. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ChiGirl88
          He essentially said so on Leno the other night. He did seem to leave the door open a wee little (dont they all), but I think thats just to keep people interested in his movie - he wants to make sure the message gets out. Once his movie ends its run he'll state categorically he's not running for Pres.
      •  Absolutely agree with you about Al Gore, but (0+ / 0-)

        Everything you say about him is true IMHO.  He found his real self, endorsed Dean, and started speaking out dinging BushCo whenever he could like his speeches that Moveon sponsored (best speeches he ever gave!).  And then he decided to turn his undivided attention to global warming, indeed it has become his true passion and IMHO his true calling.

        While I'll lead the cheerleading squad for a Gore/Feingold ticket, I think I've come to believe that we need Gore doing what he's doing - waking up the world and making it realize we have to do something now about global warming.  His movie showed he understands very well that our country, at least, doesn't have what is required to take action until we find our political will again.  Indeed, he says just that at the end.  To me, it the most moving part of the movie.  He was so clearly discouraged that there seemed to be no political will left in our country - that our government had done pretty much everything within its power (which they claim is unlimited!) to zap us of any political will to do much of anything.  It was clear, at least to me, that he perceives this as a dire threat and laments that we ever got to where we are and how easy it would be to rectify and/or prevent at least some of the damage caused by global warming.  

        And that is why, after seeing that movie, I think Gore should keep on doing what he's doing.  Now, if he should by some miracle agree to run, I'll be the first on a jet plane to Anywhere USA doing whatever I can to get him elected, along with Feingold, of course!  

        We Need REGIME CHANGE  

    •  Yeah, what smintheus said n/t (0+ / 0-)

      We Need REGIME CHANGE

    •  I don't see what the issue is. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Danny Boy, Newsie8200, Donna in Rome

      Kossacks organized a convention, and invited Warner to speak.  Markos didn't organize the convention, so logic tells me he didn't extend the invitation either; the convention organizers did.  Warner showed up - all the way out in Vegas, so this surely involved some planning and effort - and gave a speech, and gave out some T-shirts, which normally one would take as a goodwill gesture and try to appreciate, but maybe the blogosphere is just Bizarro World.  

      What exactly is the problem?  This is politics!  One would assume a politician meeting a potentially important group of supporters might, you know, act like a politician!

      The word "DLC" is used around here like the right uses "liberal."   That's not a way to have an intelligent conversation.

      No matter what there are going to be lots of arguments around here over the primary candidates.

      You should really give people more credit than thinking they'd be won over by free t-shirts and cocktails.  Especially when you pointed out just a few paragraphs earlier that you heard a lot of grumbling about them.

      "I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound perch in my lake."

      by daria g on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:21:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course (0+ / 0-)

        Sounds like it was a hell of a nice party.  Now I sort of wish I'd gone.  Maybe it made people more skeptical and they wouldn't have grumbled as much if it were just pizza and cheap beer?  But really, I'd be flattered if a candidate was inviting me to a swanky event with top shelf booze and everything.  I think something in the DC water supply is getting to me.  (beware.)

        "I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound perch in my lake."

        by daria g on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 09:42:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Let's call things by their real name (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blogswarm

      The danger posed at Yearly Kos is cooptation.

      From Desperately Seeking Selznick: Cooptation and the Dark Side of Public Management in Networks, an interesting paper by Laurance O'Toole at University of Georgia. I deliberately chose a scholarly paper from the world of academic public policy so that I wouldn't appear partisan or overly political.

      In this article, we argue that this inadvertently depoliticized analysis of networks and the network theme has resulted in a neglect of issues that should be considered as a part of the research agenda. We outline ways that networks and  network management point toward significant political issues. We then focus in particular on one political dimension of networks and their performance: the likelihood that, rather than being neutral producers of collective goods while enmeshed in a broader environment, network managers respond to the stronger and more politically powerful elements of their surroundings, thus magnifying tendencies toward inequalities present already in the social setting. This dynamic, what we call the “dark side” of managing networks, has been largely unexplored by network researchers. Such patterns, however, should not be unexpected.

      "Existence is a flame which constantly melts and recasts our theories." -- R.D. Laing

      by Valtin on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:23:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sushi and Thrill Rides... (0+ / 0-)
        it's the updated version of panem et circenses (bread and circuses)...wouldn't it have been ironic if Warner had held his soiree at Caesars...they have some nice terraces reserved for this sort of activity.

        Maybe next year...

        People in Eurasia on the brink of oppression: I hope it's gonna be alright... Pet Shop Boys: Introspective

        by rgilly on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 12:34:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  So long as Markos is not (8+ / 0-)

    seen wearing a semen stained shirt he's okay with me.

  •  Hillary's much more liberal than Warner, (18+ / 0-)

    so I don't see why you're putting her in the same category as Lieberman and Bayh.

    Don't take my bluntness and attitude personally-the best weapon for the Democrats is the unvarnished truth, and the truth usually hurts.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:49:30 PM PDT

  •  so tell us about his stance (7+ / 0-)

    you dropped this teaser and walked away from it.

    I've sat down with Governor Warner and discussed Iraq with him.

    Just what is his view on Iraq and Iran ?  I liked the rest of you diary, I was wondering about some of those things. Thanks for sharing it.

    -8.63 -7.28 He was carrying a skateboard on his back, a red rose in his fist, and the war.

    by OneCrankyDom on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:49:50 PM PDT

    •  He thinks (33+ / 0-)

      we need to stay in Iraq for months (not years) and that we should not create any timeline or transparent yardmarkers because it will undermine our ability to get our allies in the region to help us address Iran's nuclear ambitions or to help us deal with the Hamas led goverment in Palestine.  

      His position is thought out, he met with the King of Jordan a week before I talked to him.  But it is not different in any substantive way from Lieberman's or Hillary's view.

      And I am going to drink something with an umbrellas in it now, so I won't be around to respond to posts for a few hours.  At least, not soberly.

      •  sounds like Al Gore's position (5+ / 0-)

        I'm less concerned about his position on Iraq than his position on healthcare.

        •  Not really (7+ / 0-)

          Al Gore on Iraq Exit Stratgey:

          "I would pursue the twin objectives of trying to withdraw our forces as quickly as we possibly can, while at the same time minimizing the risk that we'll make the mess over there even worse and raise even higher the danger of civil war," Gore said.

          Dismissing calls for any deadline, Gore added, "It's possible that setting a deadline could set in motion forces that would make it even worse. I think that we should analyze that very carefully. My guess is that a deadline is probably not the right approach; ....

          •  Gore's speech against (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bronte17, Ryvr

            Iraq war (invasion), preemptive warfare,  and his prescient warnings of the likely outcomes can be read here.

          •  I hope he stays opened (0+ / 0-)

            minded in a deadline.

            Words are the ammunition of People Power, Callous Leaders need guns.

            by mattes on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:33:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Gore is opposed to long term occupation of Iraq (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bronte17, 4jkb4ia, mattes, KnotIookin

              Yes, I support a deadline of some sort too, as I wrote in my diary  which, I will repost here:

              Gore opposes longterm occupation of Iraq along with a deadline for withdrawal

              Gore opposed the invasion, and opposes longterm occupation


              In his 6/4/06 interview on This Week, Al Gore said the following regarding Iraq:



              "I would pursue the twin objectives of trying to withdraw our forces as quickly as we possibly can, while at the same time minimizing the risk that we'll make the mess over there even worse and raise even higher the danger of civil war," Gore said.


              Dismissing calls for any deadline, Gore added, "It's possible that setting a deadline could set in motion forces that would make it even worse. I think that we should analyze that very carefully. My guess is that a deadline is probably not the right approach; ....



              My thoughts on this below the fold.

              "Iraq war" has three parts:

              1. Invasion
              1. Reconstruction and stabilization
              1. Withdrawal (vs longterm occupation, the neocon design)

              Gore opposed the Invasion emphatically in his 9/23/2002 speech, two weeks ahead of the senate vote on the war resolution, despite strong, although misguided, public support for an invasion at the time. Please see this 12/11/02 hardball interview of Al Gore as well, where Gore said the following:

              MATTHEWS: But you would have voted against it.

              GORE: I would have voted against that resolution (ed. the Iraq War Resolution, that is). I would have voted against it.

              ...

              MATTHEWS: Is there anything that the inspectors could find or the president could produce as evidence to justify an attack on Iraq?

              GORE: Well, an attack-sure, if we found weapons of mass destruction, then we are justified by the United Nations resolution and acting as an agent -

              MATTHEWS: But as an American, would that justify a war as an American to you?

              GORE: It would justify a military strike to destroy those weapons. There's a difference between striking to destroy the weapons and unilaterally invading to change the regime.

              From his words "withdraw our forces as quickly as we possibly can" from his This Week interview, Gore clearly opposes any longterm occupation, and, why we would have opposed an invasion in the first place otherwise?

              On (2), progressives have differences of opinion. Gore appears keen on not leaving a gigantic mess behind, and hence opines that an immediate withdrawal is not such a good idea.

              I used to feel that way some eight months ago, with a 1.5-2 year time window for accomplishing some well-defined objectives. However, I now prefer a quick hand-over of the command and control to the Iraqis, and a quick redeployment of a portion of our forces, while bringing home the rest, especially the abusively over used reserve and national guards troops. However, the biggest problem with implementing this approach could come from not having a meaningful "quick hand-over", because there aren't many well-trained Iraqi troops out there, thanks to the mendacious and incompetent excuse for an administration, namely the Bush whitehouse. Therefore, if one quickly redeploys (and brings a portion of the troops home), then the redeployed forces will have to be ready to instantly respond to any attacks on Iraq from neighbors, as well as serious internal strifes.

              I am guessing, partly based on his Iraq war speech in opposition, that if Al Gore were the commander-in-chief at the current point of time, he would probably go to the UN, make it explicitly clear that we have no intentions of longterm occupation or economic domination of Iraq, call for help from the UN in terms of both military and peacekeeping forces, and workout a multilateral approach to solving the problem. Given his sagacity and wisdom that has been proven right time and again, I would be willing to give deference to his approach on this, but I still would prefer putting a timeline (of 1-1.5 year, for example) around such a plan because, if the job of building up Iraq to the point that it can defend itself is done systematically and competently, then Iraq will have to fend for itself and chart its own destiny thereafter.

              Any thoughts, mattes?

        •  I don't recall Warner openly opposing the IWR... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HarveyMilk, David Boyle, Ryvr

          when it was pending in 2002.  Hell, even now, he wants to avoid an examination of how this catastrophe took place.  How the hell are you going to prevent future similar fiascoes from occurring if there's no public examination of how this one happened?

          While I didn't like Gore's answers on Iraq in his This Week interview, he earned plenty of street cred on this issue in 2002.  Add that to his leadership on global warming and on civil liberties, and there's a vast gap between him and Warner.

          Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

          by RFK Lives on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:56:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  He was Governor of Virginia (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Harkov311

            and that was his concern, as it should have been

            ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING

            by v2aggie2 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:08:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Gore wasn't in Congress in 2002... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              HarveyMilk, Sharon Jumper

              and he took a position.  My point is not as much that Warner should or shouldn't have taken a position in 2002 as that, if you look at the issue across the board, Gore has been visibly better on it.

              I've studied Warner's position on this issue, and it appears to me that, at present, he doesn't really have one.  He's not running for Gov of VA this time.

              Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

              by RFK Lives on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:15:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Gore had already served at the Federal Level (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ademption, Mike Erwin, phinky

                Warner was just beginning his term as Governor of Virginia.

                I don't remember too many governors weighing in on Iraq at that time

                ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING

                by v2aggie2 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:20:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  But the question remains (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DaleA

                  how Warner was disposed about the invasion in 2002. It is now clear to me that DLC (and NDC, DLC's "congressional arm") were behind the Democratic suport for the war.

                  Mark Warner having called himself a "proud DLC Democrat", raises the question of whether he was in favor of the invasion back then or not.

                  Clearly, that question is pertinent in the context of handing him the reins to the country.

                  •  What's even more pertinent is that he appears... (0+ / 0-)

                    to have a coherent position/strategy now for the gravest crisis that he is likely to inherit if he is elected.  He may have the greatest education policy in the world, but Iraq is going to be a vastly larger problem for a President Warner than education ever will be.

                    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

                    by RFK Lives on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:22:45 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Aren't we concerned about the future (0+ / 0-)

                    or are we still reliving 2002?

                    In addition, Gore and Warner didn't have to cast votes.  Congress did.

                    ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING

                    by v2aggie2 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:11:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  How can you brush aside the war, (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      DaleA, Ryvr

                      the single most significant political decision of the recent times? Especially with other potential and related unwarranted wars looming ahead if we look the other way?

                      Gore announced his opposition on 9/23/2002, 2 weeks before the IWR vote in the senate on 10/11/2002, the first prominent Democrat to openly come out in opposition. He also laid out solid arguments for his position against the war.

                      That actually counts more than a single vote against the war.

                      •  I'm not brushing aside the war (0+ / 0-)

                        But 2002 was 4 years ago

                        Warner is right -- the party is at its best when it is about the future.

                        2002 is history, and I'm not interested being Mr. Hindsight.  Who cares?

                        ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING

                        by v2aggie2 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:04:26 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Don't we still have 130K troops in Iraq (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Ryvr

                          as a result of that war? And aren't we in an intricate bind that could potentially have far-reaching consequences for decades to come (do you know that as we speak, the Republicans and rejecting a bicameral vote saying NO to permanent bases in Iraq: Iraq war bill deletes US military base prohibition.

                          I like most of your comments, but this argument is very weak, v2a2.

                          •  Well then (0+ / 0-)

                            what do we do now? Or have we become so helpless that complaining is our only recourse.  I hope this is not the case

                            Saying we were right 4 years ago, quite frankly, is hollow.

                            ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING

                            by v2aggie2 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:15:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think you are missing the point (0+ / 0-)

                            To solve the problem at hand, let us have a discussion towards that end. I may want a plan as below, centered around an aggressive Iraqi troop training program, pulling whatever international resources one can find to do that:

                            go to the UN, make it explicitly clear that we have no intentions of longterm occupation or economic domination of Iraq, call for help from the UN in terms of both military and peacekeeping forces, and workout a multilateral approach to solving the problem. Given his sagacity and wisdom that has been proven right time and again, I would be willing to give deference to his approach on this, but I still would prefer putting a timeline (of 1-1.5 year, for example) around such a plan because, if the job of building up Iraq to the point that it can defend itself is done systematically and competently, then Iraq will have to fend for itself and chart its own destiny thereafter.

                            On the other hand, before handing out keys to the whitehouse, we DO have to consider who did what and who said what with regards to an issue as critical as the Iraq War, yes back in 2002. Because it stands to give us a feel for how they are likely to handle war and peace matters, once they enter the whitehouse.

                            It must play into the calculus. What you attempted to do was to underplay the importance of that issue of Iraq invasion.

                          •  Sorry (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't live in the past.

                            Should we ask about Warner's opinion regarding Gulf War I now?  How about Vietnam?

                            ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING

                            by v2aggie2 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:34:15 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Iraq war is present (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ryvr

                            and invasion is a very recent past, and a remarkable one at that: a preemptive, unprovoked, unwarranted, unilateral misadventure.

                            No, you can't wish it away.

                          •  Yes, you can't wish it away (0+ / 0-)

                            But rehashing 2002 won't make it go away either

                            ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING

                            by v2aggie2 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:46:26 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  good night, neuvo (0+ / 0-)

                            ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING

                            by v2aggie2 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:49:53 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  and (0+ / 0-)

              I would like to express my best wishes that he stay governor of virginia for many, many years. People are making good points that he may be effective there. And he may respresent Virginia well. But he is nowhere near representing me.

              •  And your point is? (0+ / 0-)

                ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING

                by v2aggie2 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:17:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  point is (0+ / 0-)

                  Downthread and everything I have read about MW, I cannot find many (any?) issues on which his stance is not far closer to what I identify as conservative/republican than liberal/democrat.
                  Heck, come on, someone help me figure out one issue I agree with him on.

                  •  How about... (0+ / 0-)

                    Progressive taxation: Warner lowered taxes on the bottom quintile (including eliminating the sales tax for food), and raised taxes on the top two quintiles.

                    Education: Warner invested in primary education, provided after-school tech programs for high school students in rural areas, and guaranteed access (regardless of financial situation) to community colleges, and for top students, to the UVA system.

                    Healthcare: Warner successfully expanded healthcare to all children in VA, and fought hard for universal care.

                    Abortion: "My hope is that we can move beyond [the debate over various direct restrictions like late-term bans, parental notification, etc] to the real, more important issues of how do we actually look at a woman's health-care issues, how can we increase the use of contraceptive -- new, scientifically based -- contraceptive devices, so that the need for abortions actually decrease in this country? How we truly can make abortions safe, legal and rare?"  (In other words, he wants to diffuse the pro-choice vs pro-life debate by saying: abortion should be legal, period; but we should focus on how we can reduce the number of abortions by providing women good healthcare options and good information.)

                    Science issues (evolution, stem cell research, etc): "We need an administration that believes in science. ... Who would've thought that in 2006, we'd be redebating evolution?!"

                    Net neutrality: He's openly, strongly in favor, and has upbraided the telecom corps that want to end it.  As a former tech CEO, he probably understands this issue better than any other Dem in the field.

                    Any others you want to talk about?

          •  Well, his position is subtle... (0+ / 0-)

            If you read what he says...

            "I don't think any U.S. senator, regardless of party, if they had known there weren't W.M.D., that we were going to get selected leaks, I don't think anybody would have voted for it ... [but] second-guessing people who made a valiant attempt at judgment is not where I am at."

            ...there's an implicit criticism here of the stupid line we've been given by Hillary and the DLC crew, who say that even with 20/20 hindsight there's nothing to regret about the decisions of 2002-2003.

            He's not willing, thus far, to point out that his Democratic colleagues were stupid to not recognize that they were being deceived, at the time.  But, he HAS been willing to criticize the administration for ignoring reality and science, and for "having an on/off switch when it comes to following  the law."

            Maybe I'm projecting my own beliefs onto the candidate whose style appeals to me, but my sense is that he's trying very hard to let us know that he thinks the Dems who voted for the war were stupid.  He just doesn't want to say that because he doesn't want to overly embarrass people whom he may have to work with, if he ever becomes President.

            The Dems are disorganized enough already; we don't need more circular firing squads.

      •  Months (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cotterperson, David Boyle

        So long as "months" is understood not to roll over into more than a year, I can grit my teeth.

        I would very strongly prefer months not to go into double digits, and strongly prefer that it be countable on one hand.

        "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

        by ogre on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:28:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well, that's assinine. (3+ / 0-)

        Can't put a timeline because our regional helpers wouldn't help out?

        The REASON we have lost every single 'coalition of the willing' member thus far is BECAUSE there is no timeline.

        LetsFight. re handle: Fight the radical right is the sentiment!

        by letsfight on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:35:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Reasons (7+ / 0-)

        He also has said that we shouldn't focus on how we got into Iraq now that we're there:

        But I think the Democratic Party ought to get over refighting how we got into the war and, again, continue to press the president on what he hopes to do in terms of how we will finish the job.

        My problem with Warner and anyone else who advocates that position is how the heck are they going to avoid getting themselves into the same kind of a situation with, say, Iran if they ignore what happened before? How are they going to ensure that the people who got us into Iraq in the first place are held accountable for squandering the nation's future on some misguided foreign adventure -- whatever the reason for doing so was?

        Most importantly, the people who planned Iraq didn't come out of nowhere. They've been plugging away at building themselves into the top positions since the Nixon (Cheney, Rumsfeld) and Reagan/Bush (Rice) presidencies. They were already involved in discredited foreign policy tactics twenty or more years ago. Warner and most of the Democratic leadership who advocate moving on without accountability fail to see this as a problem for the future. As Digby put it the other day, the people who did this need to be stopped and thoroughly discredited, not swept under the rug, because they'll crawl right back out. Nixon came back as an elder statesman. Colson's still on TV. Liddy's on the radio. Ollie North has a TV show. Whatever Poindexter's doing it's almost certainly extra-legal.

        Finally, let me point out that that quote is from last November, more than six months ago. I hear the Iraqis have had some elections since then, and that the guy who ran al-Qaeda in Iraq has been killed since then. Is it safer on the streets of Baghdad?

        Those who do not learn from history are stupid. --darrelplant

        by darrelplant on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:43:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Gore was NOT a 'DLC-Candidate' in 2000 (8+ / 0-)

        Gore was NOT a 'DLC-Candidate' in 2000
        and he will NOT be one if he runs in 2008.

        Why do I say that?

        The "Hyde Park Declaration" appears DLC's guiding light for the 21st century.

        DLC | Key Document | August 1, 2000
        The Hyde Park Declaration: A Statement of Principles and a Policy Agenda for the 21st Century

        Guess what? It makes NO mention whatsoever of Al Gore, not was he a signitory to the document. And that was in middle of his own presidential campaign. A vey telling sign that Gore parted ways with the DLC Core establishment by then.

        Furthermore, Gore endorsed Dean in 2004, the un-DLC candidate that year (and Feingold didn't), hence it would be inane to think that he would be a "DLC candidate" in 2008.

        IMO, you should retract you claim that Gore was/is a "DLC candidate".

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~

        I call for a Gore-led "big Tent", where everyone, including Dems, Inds, Greens, Libertrains and other 3rd parties, DLC, principled Republicans are all welcome to come join in consensus, and help resuscitate our Democracy.

  •  I don't agree with everything you say (79+ / 0-)

    but recommended it nonetheless because I think we'll have an interesting thread here.

    As for this:

    But there can be no avoiding a controversy about the close relationship that is developing between Warner and Daily Kos.  Warner was not only granted the keynote speech; prior to the speech he was allowed to pass out free Yearly Kos t-shirts with his face (not Markos's or Wesley Clark's, or FDR's, or Russ Feingold's, or Hillary Clinton's, or Armando's) superimposed on the front.  And on the back, it says 'Forward Together' and 'Authorized and Paid for by Forward Together PAC.'   That is Mark Warner's presidential political action committee.  Then we were all subjected to a Kennedyesque five-minute canned campaign infomercial.  Then Warner gave a well presented and well received speech, emphasizing a Dukakis-like technocratic competency that was striking (if one hadn't been expecting it) for its lack of ideology.

    It's important to point out that Markos did not organize this convention. He didn't choose who was able to give what address, who was able to pass out what.  Those decisions probably came from the ykos team, and importing them onto Markos as some sort of evidence of Warner favoritism or quasi-endorsement is I think a bit unfair.

  •  Thank you, Booman (20+ / 0-)

    This is exactly what I'm extremely wary of as well. Despite what people may think individually of Warner - and I've heard good things about him from VA people - he is literally a DLC member. And he does seem to lack ideology, as Booman says here and in an earlier post when he met him in the Philadelphia area.

    Quite simply, it is extremely puzzling indeed. And I won't be supporting Warner unless he articulates some clear, progressive positions on the major issues. The fact that he is another equivocator on Iraq is awful.

    Of the probable candidates, Russ Feingold is still my man. He's been right on everything.

    Deny My Freedom
    "Inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen." -Al Gore

    by PsiFighter37 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:52:45 PM PDT

  •  The early bird gets the worm (11+ / 0-)

    Something that future YearlyKos invitees might remember. Warner's not my guy but I think Kos did absolutely the right thing by being extra gracious to Warner for accepting his invitation so quickly.

    •  I also think that Warner may be (7+ / 0-)

      Doing a John Edwards. Sure, he'll fight for the top spot, just as Edwards did, but in both cases (Edwards and Warner) neither has a long enough political track record to be considered for the top spot--not with the nightmare mess Bush has created. My take is that Warner is running for VP. If he is, I'll give him the opportunity to convince me that he deserves the nod.

      •  Do people really want a 'politician'? (0+ / 0-)

        neither has a long enough political track record to be considered for the top spot--not with the nightmare mess Bush has created.

        I would think that by now, the American people ought to be sick of the rhetoric of "professional politicians".

        The President is not supposed to formulate the strategies, that's what the experts in each field are supposedly there for. The President is supposed to be an intelligent person who can speak to the people, tell said experts to give him or her the TRUTH, no BS, make decisions based on that expert advice and the will of the people he works for, ask for second opinions, and tell it like it is, be honest with the people.

        Wouldn't you rather have someone like that in the oval office?

        "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross" - Sinclair Lewis

        by Loboguara on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:14:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Not sure... (7+ / 0-)

        True, I was gonna ask Warner, had he taken questions, something like, "Governor, thanks for the party last night, but people on Daily Kos might be a little left of center: and some of the hardcore might even pull a Lloyd Bentsen (RIP) on you and ask,

        'Governor, we read Russ Feingold, and we admire Russ Feingold, and Governor Warner, you're no Russ Feingold'.

        ...So, Governor, how would you try to convince those left-of-center people to support you instead of Feingold?"

        What I did get to ask him, after he had left the hall, was, "Obama or Sebelius for your V.P.?", and he laughed a lot and said it was a difficult question, they were both great.

        --Anyway, I don't think Kos has sold out to Warner; I heard it bruited that the two guys both have a techno background, and also that Warner needs more of an intro to DKos than, say, people like Feingold too, which is why he put in so much effort to appear here.

        Keep monitoring though "Kos re Warner" though; we don't want Boo's nightmare to come true. . .

  •  Several months ago, I posted a... (23+ / 0-)

    ... comment - as a Virginian, mind you - in which I wondered why there was so much enthusiasm here for Mark Warner. I'm not 'bashing' the guy - as Virginia governors go, he was a helluva lot better than either Allen or Gilmore. But BooMan is right on re: his DLC 'credentials.' This PLUS the recent 'commentary' re: Democratic Libertarianism, or Libertarian Democrats - I'm uneasy.

    Would have liked to sample those Kostinis though... but I'd have liked them more if Al Gore was doing the shaking...

    Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. - A.J. Liebling

    by va dare on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:53:23 PM PDT

    •  Al Gore (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elveta, David Boyle

      va dare,

      I'm glad you brought up Al Gore - I've asked this question of other Gore supporters & received no reply - given the amount of prodigeous reading that you're prone to perhaps you have an answer...

      When Gore's 1st book on the environment was published several years ago, I was shocked and disappointed that he seemed to be rationalizing and even promoting the continued use & developement of nuclear power.  Do you know whether or not Gore still holds that position or whether he's come to understand that being pro-muke & pro-environment are incompatible?

      I've not yet seen "An Inconvenient Truth" and obviously haven't done the requisite research to answer this question.

      ````
      peace

      •  This may actually sound heretical (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Margot, David Boyle

        but when I was in high school I was deathly scared of nuclear-but really now seeing what a pressing crisis Global warming is, I dont think we should turn away from nuclear power altogether. I dont think we should build more plants necessarily but I dont think we should be so quick to decomission the existing ones. I think it will be hard to dramtically reduce CO2 levels without it.

      •  Grist interviewed him re: nuclear (12+ / 0-)

        I couldn't find the original link but found this cite at MSNBC from the same interview:

        Grist: Let's turn briefly to some proposed solutions. Nuclear power is making a big resurgence now, rebranded as a solution to climate change. What do you think?

        Gore: I doubt nuclear power will play a much larger role than it does now.

        Grist: Won't, or shouldn't?

        Gore: Won't. There are serious problems that have to be solved, and they are not limited to the long-term waste-storage issue and the vulnerability-to-terrorist-attack issue. Let's assume for the sake of argument that both of those problems can be solved.

        We still have other issues. For eight years in the White House, every weapons-proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor program. And if we ever got to the point where we wanted to use nuclear reactors to back out a lot of  coal -- which is the real issue: coal -- then we'd have to put them in so many places we'd run that proliferation risk right off the reasonability scale. And we'd run short of uranium, unless they went to a breeder cycle or something like it, which would increase the risk of weapons-grade material being available.

        When energy prices go up, the difficulty of projecting demand also goes up -- uncertainty goes up. So utility executives naturally want to place their bets for future generating capacity on smaller increments that are available more quickly, to give themselves flexibility. Nuclear reactors are the biggest increments, that cost the most money, and take the most time to build.

        In any case, if they can design a new generation [of reactors] that's manifestly safer, more flexible, etc., it may play some role, but I don't think it will play a big role.I

        I see 'Earth in the Balance' as a tome written by an energy-immature Gore who was still learning (I even sent him a postcard in 1993 to wit: Read Your Book, Al!).. he's more reflective now and, I think, wiser.

        Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. - A.J. Liebling

        by va dare on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:27:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is one reason why I so love Gore (5+ / 0-)

          The response you quoted is the response of a president, not a politician who simply sees nuclear as an alternative energy source. He understands nuclear power in all its global ramifications. It also seems that he is very technically up to speed on the various aspects of nuclear power.

        •  wow! (4+ / 0-)

          va dare,

          thank you, thank you, thank you -

          I could have done the googlin' - but you found precisely the info I was hoping for - it really makes me feel much better about Gore.

          I do have a quibble with his last statement about the possibility of designing a new generation of 'safer' nuclear reactors - frankly, I think it's irresponsible to use the word 'safe' to describe anything nuclear - all things nuclear are fraught with danger from uranium mining to waste disposal & everything in between.

          ```
          peace

        •  very nice (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          peace voter

          This is exactly what bothers me about the advocates for nuclear power. They tend to completely ignore the waste-storage issue. The estimates I've seen (I used to have the citation, but I can't find it now) say that even if we built no more reactors, Yucca Mountain would reach its limit after only a couple decades. And it would inevitably "leak" to some extent.

          Reactor technology has reached a point where another disaster like Chernobyl or Three-Mile Island is quite literally impossible. But trading one pollution problem (CO2) for another (high-level radioactive waste) seems...useless.

          Oh God, I haven't read your book; I'm sure it was divine
          Especially the part where you turned water into wine

          by nasarius on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:35:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  yeah, as a former libertarian (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DaleA, Mike Erwin

      the Democratic Libertarianism commentary made my head explode.

      Let your conscience be your guide.

      by Jiminy Cricket on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:04:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  were you here during the '04 primaries? (28+ / 0-)

    Though Markos clearly supported Gov. Dean's candidacy and posted a prominent disclaimer about his own involvement in DFA, I don't recall it having a chilling effect on the debate about nor the support of other candidates by users here:

    Exhibit 1: em dash (Dean) vs Armando (Clark) primary wars
    Exhibit 2: Trapper John's stallwart and respectful support of Gephardt
    Exhibit 3: Dr. Frank Lives pro-Edwards stance

    We even had the odd pro-Lieberman and early Kerry supporters in spring and summer of 2003.

    I'm disappointed in you, BooMan, for trying to create a controversy where none exists.

    Unbossed--a dangerous blog for dangerous times.

    by em dash on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:55:14 PM PDT

  •  At this point (9+ / 0-)

    I'm still for Clark. But I remind everyone that it's still early and only one person has officially declared for the presidency in '08. That's Mike Gravel.   We've got Congress to win before we can worry about starting political wars and factionalizing in favor of primary candidates.  Let's not start bloodletting too early!

    "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness." Mark Twain

    by dougymi on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 04:57:58 PM PDT

  •  Months not years in Iraq (5+ / 0-)

    and in three years they will be saying "months not years."

    And five years after that it will be "months not years."

  •  Other than his potential chances at winning (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dlcampbe, David Boyle

    more States than Sen. Clinton in a general presidential election, I've found little to be impressed by him thus far.  He still has a lot of time to change my mind, though.

    Clap louder! That'll help everything.

    by Viktor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:00:21 PM PDT

    •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vivacia, David Boyle

      Yes, I think he would be more electable than Hillary, but I'm still hoping against hope for Gore or even a come-from-nowhere candidate as B Clinton was in 92.  But it is time now to concentrate on 06, before W declares himself Resident for Life.

      However, that being said, if 18 months from now Warner is the candidate (despite my own, personal monetary support of Someone Else), I will support him wholeheartedly.

      "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." Bertrand Russell

      by Emerson on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:29:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He's wooing the Kosmos (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cotterperson, David Boyle

      So maybe he's willing to hear the messages coming from here?

      Although I hadn't been exactly impressed, I think he's certainly competent which the Oval Office needs.
      If Gore isn't going to run, I still need to look over the whole field once there is one and again to feel proud of how many good people our party produces.

      I want my real president - Al Gore!

      by teresab on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:30:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  MFP - people who don't like political fights! (5+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    rgilly, cotterperson, David Boyle, Ryvr, snacksandpop
    Hidden by:
    Brother Love

    politics is fighting !! it is disagreement !

    sorry gang - but the little piddly pissing mathces that are gonna happen in hte next 2 yrs among Dems

    • Russ or Warner or Hill-a-gag-choke-puke-ary or

    DEAN DEAN DEAN

    ain't gonna be shit compared to beating these Rove/Ailes/Atewater sons of bitches back to the middle ages.

    Don't want to fight, run a nursery school.

    WHY are getting our asses kicked on health care security, retirement security, job retraining ... everything ??

    cuz too many of our "leaders" are f$$$ing in-charge-milquetoasts,

    NOT Fighters,

    NOT Leaders

    rmm.

    http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

    by seabos84 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:01:35 PM PDT

  •  Coming out in favor of (10+ / 0-)

    "months not years" is like coming out in favor of "not raping your sister."

    Seriously, who is going to speak out in favor of years versus months?  You'd have to be on crack!

    "I favor spending years in iraq instead of months"

    Give me a freaking break.

  •  We're old? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lisa, cookiebear, David Boyle, SheriffBart

    I thought we had been denigrated for being immature? Now we're old. Let me be the first to say "Fuck That" and you can quote me.

    "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!" President Merkin Muffley

    by irate on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:02:58 PM PDT

  •  I like Mark Warner (7+ / 0-)

    He was a great governor and he has character. He is pragmatic too. And electable.  He seem to be a unity candidate who will unite the country.  And hopefully he will also help Democrats win and grow.

    The problem with Sen Feingold is he has a lot of baggages to win(twice divorced and too liberal to win a general election).  Warner, Clark team would be great.

    Sen Warner just wanted to pay respect to the netroots with a bash but he did not have to.  I remember Gov Dean eating a sandwich online in a fundraising drive.  The netroots did not have to be courted that way--just be genuine not engage in political spins.

    If we are still in Iraq in 2 years,  I trust Gov Warner to do the right thing.  I think he would ask experts in all aspects and around the world especially in Middle East for input and come out with a good plan.

    Stop Corporate Influence; buy DEMOCRACY BONDS!!! http://www.democrats.org/democracybonds.html

    by timber on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:03:09 PM PDT

    •  Russ is not afraid to be a liberal (7+ / 0-)

      I have worked for Russ and he doesn't run away from the liberal label and he wins in a pretty moderate state. Russ's only problem is the two divorces, the liberal stuff will not hurt him in the general election.

      absolute freedom for one individual undoubtedly limits the freedom of another.

      by jbou on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:07:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Feingold isn't that liberal (5+ / 0-)

      But regardless, when was the last time an election was decided on ideology? People disagreed with Bush on just about every single issue but he managed to get reelected- because people knew where he stood.

      And didn't we try that whole "electability" thing last time around? How did that work out?

      It took them 30 years- don't give up hope after 3

      by js noble on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:11:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  why does Warner bash the Democratic brand? (16+ / 0-)

      I am open to listening to Warner, unlike some presidential hopefuls I would never support in 100 years.

      But I am getting tired of seeing Warner quoted saying things along the lines of (paraphrasing here) Democrats won't be able to win if we are perceived as weak on defense, Democrats can't win if people think we can't relate to them, etc.

      It's the same old crap--puffing up his own credentials and electability by repeating Republican scripts about Democrats.

      Bayh does the same thing, by the way.

      I am really sick of this. You don't ever see a GOP hopeful on national television saying something like, "We won't win in 2008 if we are perceived a corrupt and in the pocket of oil companies" or "I'm concerned that we can't win if ordinary folks think all we care about is tax cuts for rich people."

      Republicans never promote themselves by repeating unflattering scripts about the GOP as a whole.

      When Warner stops doing this, I'll listen more closely.

      •  link? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        David Boyle

        Stop Corporate Influence; buy DEMOCRACY BONDS!!! http://www.democrats.org/democracybonds.html

        by timber on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:27:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  WaPo, November 14, 2004 (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Poika, joynow, David Boyle, Ryvr

          Here's a link, and here's a relevant passage:

          But Warner, who graced the cover of Governing magazine this month as a public official of the year, has not been shy about describing how he thinks the Democratic Party must change. And those assessments fuel speculation about his role in the party's future.

          "The Democratic Party can't write off two-thirds of the country," he said. "There were a number of voters in parts of rural Virginia and across the country who never got to a real review of John Kerry's plans on health care or education or job growth because [he's] . . . a Massachusetts senator. They never got past the label."

          Note that he equates rural voters not giving Kerry a chance because he's from Massachusetts with Democrats allegedly writing off two-thirds of the country.

          He didn't have to led credibility to GOP spin that Democrats don't care about ordinary people across much of the country.

        •  Wall Street Journal, July 28, 2005 (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Psyche, Poika, David Boyle

          Here's another link, this time to an editorial that's unsympathetic to Warner (because it says he's just a tax and spend liberal pretending to be otherwise). It contains this passage:

          Gov. Warner's pitch is thoroughly Clintonian--Bill, not Hillary. He attacks Washington Democrats for "defending the same government programs, thinking they are going to get us new results." Then he adds, "We need leaders who can see a little bit farther down the road." This sounds like a man who wants to build a bridge to the 21st century. He lobs rhetorical grenades at the party leaders for running presidential campaigns that immediately surrender 33 mostly Southern and Western states and then "try for a triple bank shot" to win all the other 17.

          Here Warner endorses the idea that the Democratic establishment backs failed government programs. So the GOP must be right that Dems don't get results, and the GOP must be right that "big government" is bad?

          Oh yes, and Democrats can't see far down the road. I guess the GOP fiscal policy is really farsighted, then.

        •  Salon.com, June 13, 2005 (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joynow, David Boyle, Ryvr

          Too many "Democrats need to do this, Democrats need to do that" quotes in here to summarize. But here's a link for those who want to read more.

          •  Warner--Why I am a Democrat? (7+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DigDug, Poika, joynow, DaleA, plymouth, Thea VA, DKHOLLA

            The Salon articles makes me be impressed with Mark Warner even more.

            http://www.forwardtogetherpac.com/...

            March 16, 2003  
            "...In Washington the last couple of years, we've seen lots of talk, but few results. And we're heading in the wrong direction.

            The last time we had a Democratic President, America saw the first budget surpluses in a generation.

            Just three years later, the Republicans' own numbers show a future filled with deficits as far as the eye can see.

            The last time we had a Democratic President, unemployment fell to record lows. But today it climbs a little higher every month.

            The last time we had a Democratic President, the stock market soared. Today, it just sputters.

            In 2000, America was promised something called "compassionate conservatism." And you know - that sounded familiar to a lot of us in the South. We had been saying for a long time - balance the budget, but not on the backs of working people.

            But they meant something else - and all we got was more of the same....

            Virginia hasn't voted for a Democratic President since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. When I ran for Governor, the Republicans controlled both houses in the legislature and every statewide office - and the White House picked our Governor to run the Republican National Committee.

            And despite those odds, we won because we built a new coalition of Virginians.

            We did that by laying out a message that focused on meeting the needs of an information age economy - a message that stressed economic opportunity, educational opportunities, and fiscal responsibility.

            We started with the most loyal Democrats. We said to African Americans and to working people - We know that you have been taken for granted in the past. Those days are over. You will help lead this team.

            We said, we're going to bring people together - just like Governor Winter showed us how to do here in Mississippi.

            And then we reached out to Virginians in rural communities - to people who hadn't voted for a Democrat in a long, long time. And we asked them to give us a chance.

            In a 21st century economy, you can be successful anywhere - if you have a good education and job skills.

            We talked about giving young people the chance to get a good job in the place they grew up. Because you shouldn't have to leave your family or your hometown to get ahead.

            We said, Virginia will never prosper if all the good jobs are in one area, and other places get left behind.

            And then we said something that a lot of people had never thought of - you can like NASCAR - you can like hunting - you can like bluegrass music - and you can still vote for a Democrat.

            We did all this because we recognized that if you're going to offer people economic hope, you can't spend all your time talking about the same old social issues that have divided us for too long.

            You can't move forward if every discussion is about abortion and guns.

            Those are all important issues, and we can't ignore them. But they create passion that often distracts us from more fundamental issues.

            And let me say it again - if we can do it in Virginia, we can do it for America.

            We have to do it for America. Because America deserves better than failed fiscal policy. America deserves better than an economy that leaves millions of people and whole communities behind.

            And Democrats offer better. We offer optimism, and we offer hope for the future.

            Now as you might guess, a lot of Republicans and Independents supported us. And since then, a lot of them have asked me, Mark - Why exactly are you a Democrat?

            And I just smile. Because if you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.

            I am a Democrat because since Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence - and since Jackson spoke for the common man - our party has never been the party of the status quo.

            Instead, we have been the ones to see a challenge - and do something about it. Let's be honest - it hasn't always worked perfectly. Sometimes it has gotten us in trouble. Sometimes it has split us apart. But sometimes, those are the wages of progress.

            And yet, I am a Democrat because the greatest and most noble political experiments of our time had their birth in our party.

            I am a Democrat because the New Deal literally saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

            I am a Democrat because a generation after a Democratic president started the Peace Corps, you can still find faded photographs of John F. Kennedy on the walls of homes from South Africa to South America.

            I am a Democrat because fighting for working men and women is always the right fight.

            I am a Democrat because our party led the struggle for civil rights and because we recognize that discrimination and bigotry are not dead - and that we must continue to seek equal opportunity for all.

            I am a Democrat because despite our failures, our missteps, and our excesses - we know that waging a war on poverty does not mean fighting the individuals who are poor.

            I am a Democrat because we know that today's battle is about the future versus the past - and it's time to put aside yesterday's battles of us versus them.

            I am a Democrat because we know that criticizing success won't create a single job.

            And most of all, I am a Democrat because when my three daughters go out into the world to make their lives, I want them to find a world where there's less hopelessness - less selfishness - and less violence.

            I want them to find a world where there is more opportunity - more understanding - and more hope.

            That is the mission of this party.

            That is what we work for.

            That is why we get up every morning.

            That is why we're here tonight.

            And our work is not done."

            Stop Corporate Influence; buy DEMOCRACY BONDS!!! http://www.democrats.org/democracybonds.html

            by timber on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:19:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, but it would be nice (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DKHOLLA

        if our candidate took Bush and the GOP to the woodshredder on defense.  Because that is the biggest failure of this administration.  I mean really go after the GOP on disastrous foreign policy decisions, the JOKE that is homeland security, and nonexistent emergency management and response.

           

    •  ha, ha, ha, did I hear electable - again??? n/t (6+ / 0-)

      ....although the future is unknown, it will not be unblogged. David D. Perlmutter

      by dkmich on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:25:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh god... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      David Boyle, Sharon Jumper

      not "electable."

      Kiss of Death.

      I don't want someone electable... I want someone we'll elect because his (I say his--hers, too... I just don't see who, right now, because Hillary is for me an ohgodyesIwillvoteforherifIhaveto candidate, and I don't see other women on the horizon.  Yet) positions are good and because he's got the right sort of fire in the belly that charges a campaign up.

      "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

      by ogre on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:34:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A great governor?? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      David Boyle, MarketTrustee

      Uh, he got a tax increase passed with a Repub. General Assembly. Define 'great', please.

      Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. - A.J. Liebling

      by va dare on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:37:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How about 'popular' governor instead? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        David Boyle, plymouth

        He had high approval ratings in a red state at the end of his term and his coatails where enough to get his Vice Governor elected into his position.

        "It appears our long national journey towards complete idiocy is over. We've arrived." - billmon

        by Siberian on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:45:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  he saved virginia's bond rating... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ademption

        without which we would've had a SERIOUS trade problem on our hands.  i don't know how many virginians realize exactly what gilmore did to the state economy, but it was about on the verge of collapse.

        i sometimes feel like the reason dems don't get elected is because liberals end up angry at the candidate we select through the primaries because "he/she doesn't agree with me on X and Y, so he/she fails my litmus test."  i think people are already starting in on warner in this way.  i think we'd better watch our step and take advantage of how horrifically the R's are screwing up by getting someone in there who can get our policies rolling.  great liberals do us no good if they don't get elected.

        just something to think about.

        "our politics are our deepest form of expression: they mirror our past experiences and reflect our dreams and aspirations for the future." - paul wellstone

        by liberalsouth on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:21:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  He also decreased taxes. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        timber, ademption

        People who say that he raised some taxes without pointing out that he lowered others (including state income tax by the way) are not fairly representing Watner's term as Governor. When he came into offic I believe Virginia had around a $7.5 billion debt. He erased the debt and then turned Virginia's economy into one of the best in the nation, dramatically improved the state's education system, lowered the unemployment rate, and his crowning achievement was to get Tim Kaine, who is more liberal than Warner, elected in his wake. He did all of this with a hostile republican legislature.

        I would describe a record like that as "Great".

        -6.00, -4.41 "The foolish and the dead alone never change their opinions" - poet James Russell Lowell

        by Deano963 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:10:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Mark Warner seems to be a uniter (6+ / 0-)

      rather than a divider.  He was elected governor of a red state and had high approvals at the end of his term.  

      I had never heard him speak before and, I must say, after listening to him today I was impressed.  Especially when said that we must embrace science which I think is so important.  I also liked it when he asked “Why are we still debating evolution?”  He gets it.

      When he said we are the party of the future not the past, I totally agreed with him.  Also, he has Jerome Armstrong in his campaign which I see as a positive thing.

      I am not completely sold on him, but my first impression was very favorable.

      The government should not be in the business of saving souls.

      by LynChi on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:38:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  THANK YOU! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ademption, Deano963

      i think far too many people here are dismissing gov. warner out of hand.  he saved virginia from years of republican governorships in tangible ways after they'd tanked the whole freaking commonwealth.  he's spending this time learning about issues he may not have encountered as governor, and by god, by the time all of this matters early in '08, he will be a formidable, pragmatic, and quality candidate that we can all stand behind proudly.  don't write him off so easily just yet!

      "our politics are our deepest form of expression: they mirror our past experiences and reflect our dreams and aspirations for the future." - paul wellstone

      by liberalsouth on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:17:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here's my take on the coziness (video) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle

    Delivered by a guest commentator:
    http://blip.tv/...

    •  Woo hooooooooo. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      raines, David Boyle

      (nice orange backdrop to the news report).

      Wondering...... can I bet one of the people who get to actually throw some candidates overboard?!!!  PLEASE!!

      (is that you in that video?  If so, GREAT JOB!  You're fun!)

      LetsFight. re handle: Fight the radical right is the sentiment!

      by letsfight on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:43:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  that's NOT me in the video (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        letsfight

        just some "guest talent" arranged by friends here on the exhibit floor. I wrote the script (inspired by seeing something else done by the same team) and they ran with it, in a matter of minutes.

        Which, by the way, is open all day tomorrow, so be sure to stop off before you take off, yKos people!

        Raines

        P.S. Yes, you can throw candidates overboard. At least in WYFP threads.

      •  How high up... (0+ / 0-)
        is the Stratosphere's observation deck exactly?

        People in Eurasia on the brink of oppression: I hope it's gonna be alright... Pet Shop Boys: Introspective

        by rgilly on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 12:13:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Whatever (10+ / 0-)

    If Mark Warner wants to court the netroots so be it. From what I have read the man is smart when it comes to retail politics, and this fits his M.O.

    I think everyone is aware that Warner is courting the folks in the net community, and if he isn't trying to hide this fact we shouldn't worry about it.

    absolute freedom for one individual undoubtedly limits the freedom of another.

    by jbou on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:09:33 PM PDT

  •  it wasn't not the keynote (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lisa, joynow, cookiebear, David Boyle, Chamonix

    Senator Reid is giving the keynote tonight.

  •  Once again (10+ / 0-)

    We aren't all progressives.. I'm a Democrat.. not a Progressive, not a liberal, just a Democrat.

    One Southern Blue Dog Democrat from the Sunshine State.

    by 1floridademocrat on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:12:38 PM PDT

    •  I am curious (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vivacia, David Boyle, Ryvr, va dare, pseudopod

      what that means exactly.

      We need a diary, perhaps ten, so that progressives, liberals and other Democrats can point out their differences not on candidates but on issues like abortion, the war in Iraq, the potential war in Iran, Darfur, foreign policy in general, free v. fair trade, health care coverage, outsourcing, immigration (oy!), campaign reform, the war on terror, the war on drugs, the death penalty and other issues.

      I might vote for a "moderate" - I voted for Clinton - but I would like to know where these moderates stand.

    •  I am an independent, and I am eclectic. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Moli, David Boyle, Ryvr, edamame

      I still don't want Warner.

      ....although the future is unknown, it will not be unblogged. David D. Perlmutter

      by dkmich on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:29:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well thank you for your report (9+ / 0-)

    and your take of what went down at yearlykos. I appreciate your perspective here as well as the post on your earlier meeting with Warner.

    I wasn't at yearlykos, but I get the sense from reading people's posts here (and elsewhere) that Warner's bash last night was definitely mixed. Some people liked it, but others like yourself didn't like the amount of money that he spent on it.

    I guess I'm in the minority here (in more ways than one) at the Kossack community, but I'm leaning towards supporting MW in the primaries. I'm open to other possibilities but at this point my choice is Mark Warner. I like his personality, including his willingness to reach out to untraditional constituencies. I really appreciate the fact that he's flexible and open to hearing different points of view.  I like the narrative of his background, ie the first person in his family to attend college.

    I just like him. I feel comfortable listening to him. I choose my primary candidates based on whether I like their demeanor etc, not whether they hold the same beliefs dogmatically that I have. I felt very comfortable voting for Edwards in the 2004 primaries, even though by that time Kerry had the nomination locked up.  I know that my decision-making is probably not as "sophisticated" as I'm sure the majority of Kossacks' decision-making process will be in choosing a candidate. But that's just how I feel.

    Again, I know that this post will most likely be in the minority, but I just wanted to get it on the record that not all Kossacks are against Warner's primary run....

    •  and Kossacks are not all the Dem voters (5+ / 0-)

      If Warner picks up the nomination, I won't cry in my beer, and I'd plaster my car with Warner stickers.
      I'd like to see Edwards, Clark, Gore et al in the cabinet or at the UN (the rest of the world would too)

      We need all of our Dems working very hard to clean up this stinking mess the thugs caused.

      I want my real president - Al Gore!

      by teresab on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:41:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Very true re: Dem voters (0+ / 0-)

        I've broached it with my friends who would vote in the Democratic primary and they're receptive to the idea of Warner as a presidential candidate. They follow politics but aren't political junkies like Kossacks!! They're loyal Democrats and for the most part will vote party line.

        I would say that they're pretty open to most candidates. But I know for a fact that they're not voting for HRC in the primaries. She rubs them the wrong way...

  •  My biggest problem with Mark Warner is that he is (26+ / 0-)

    is the only potential 2008 Democratic Candidates that has opposed both Civil Unions and Marriage Equality.  

    His supporters  claim he modified this last we but I only so some vaque mention of certain kinds of domestic partnerships.

    He has been trying to run to the right of Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, Bloomberg and even Dick Cheney.

    Even John McCain has done more to oppose the 2004 and last week Federal Marriage Protection Act than Mark Warner has done to oppose the similar anti-GLBT act in his home state of VA.

    Plus as folks point out he is deeply tied to the DLC and well to the right of all other Democratic candidates.

    I do not believe he is a "progressive" candidate.  And those that do, have a much different diffention of what progressive means.

    While almost all progressives I know are Democrats, not all Democrats are progressive.

    I believe progressives have a solid committment to individual rights, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and espicially the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments. As an integrated wholistic political philopophy that includes support for seperation of church, the rights of privacy, equal protection under the law and full civil and idividual rights for all.  Which, therefore inlcludes support or a womans rights to choose and full equality for all American including the GLBT.

    Politians who treat our progressives foundation principles and historic Democratic coaltion of equal rights for all votrers are not progressives in my opinion.  They can be good democrats, but I object to the idea that they try to represent themselves as progressives just because the word seems to be in ascendency now.  

    It comes with a requirement to support a basic fairly well defined set of principles and philosphy that I have not seen Mark Warner ascribe to yet.

    On the other hand, Russ Feingold, and Al Gore have.  And with the exception of her support for the war and some other dissappointing apparentley triangulation based politicing, even Hilary Clinton deserves credit for you unreserved support for the GLBT community and many other progressive positions.

    Please fellow Daily Kossaks.  Be cautious about rushing into to support for Mark Warner.  I have no idea what Jerome Armstrong is thinking but I hope his endorsement will not overly sway others here until we all have a fair chance to debate it.

    If Warner substantially changes his positions I will remain open minded.  But the burden of proof is in his court IMO.

    •  By the way, I think it was Arianna Huffington who (5+ / 0-)

      reported that the Warner shindig at the Stratosphere cost $100,000.

      •  OUCH! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vivacia, David Boyle, MarketTrustee

        That's an entire Congressional race for some people. I hope that's backed up by something.

        •  Pish. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          insaneliberal, David Boyle

          Those of us in the neighborhood of CA-50 don't agree.

          ;-)

          "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

          by ogre on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:36:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  that's backed up (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          insaneliberal

          by $250 million, he has a huge stake in Nextel. What other Democratic candidate can back up a presidential campaign with that kind of dough?

        •  I'll be glad to track down the link Buffolo Girl (0+ / 0-)

          Your an important opinion leaders here.  I know I read it somewhere this morning, but I read so many 100a of articles this morning I just can't remember where off the top of my head.

          But I know for certain I read it so it shouldnt' take me too long to track it down.

          Quite honestly, I don't inherently object to someone with a quarter of a billion dollars of assets spending $100,000 on a party to acheive the objective of winning over Daily Kos support.

          I might do the same, if in that position.  That could be a good sign of political smartz.  But I would object if a group of progressives that have worked for so long, on a lonely and uphill battle, to allow themeselves to be seduced for such a low price.

          I think people of our calibre should only sell out our hard won integrity and priciples for a much higher price.   LOL

          "-)  (PS I hope folks here know me well enough  by now, to recognize I am being humorously snarky here.  But in my own special way, that I hope causes you to pause and think about it a bit.  Hidden meanings ya know.  Read Sigmand Freud's paper on the "Tendendious Joke" for details.  :-) )

      •  Fuck (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vivacia, David Boyle, letsfight, va dare

        Right there - he could easily have sent 100 college students out there for yKos...like myself.

        Whatever, it's his money.

        Deny My Freedom
        "Inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen." -Al Gore

        by PsiFighter37 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:24:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't understand why it matters what he (5+ / 0-)

        spent on the shindig? Who cares. He has the money and it that is what he wanted to do..Good for him. Lots of Kossacks schlepped all the way out to the Desert on a wing and prayer that this convention would be something special. They worked on it for FREE forever. Warner probably knows a lot of people around here don't have lots of money and probably wanted to do something special for all the good work we do for the Democrats. Wooing the kossacks votes or not, if someone wants to do something special for us (I am not there mind you) let them. Having been around here for a while and knowing a lot of the folks, the last thing they are going to be swayed by is a cocktail and fancy dinner spread. Nothing can buy votes around here except strong Progressive/liberal values and a good man/woman who we can trust, who will stand up for Us and will clean up the fucking mess that is currently known as the USOA. Warner needs to change his stance on Gay rights/Civil Unions yesterday if he wants my support and vote. Warners party is being blown into Much ado about nothing. For Christsakes let people do something nice for us every once in a while, while we try and save the world.

        •  I agree Chamonix. If I had been there I would (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          insaneliberal, Deano963

          eating as many lobster tails as anyone and probably drunk more double star Dom Perignon chamaign than at least 10 of you all put together.  

          Dom Perignon is my favorite. And I love lobster tail and those enormous Chilean shrimp that are almost as big.  And I can hold a whole bunch more than most progressives.  I can even hold my own against as lot of GOP old timers!  LOL

          But when it comes to sober endorsement the next day, real positions matter.  That's my only point.

          I appreciate it when rich folks throw great parties.  And this count for plus points. I agree.  I'm not a prude.

          But, parties and champaign are not a subsitute for real progressive positions.

          I would like to see Mark Warner get out in front of a microphone and support Russ Feingolds Censure Motion, Arlen Spectors demand for NSA Wiretap hearings, support equal right or at least a transition support for civil unions while leaving it it to the states and unequivalcal support for out constitutional rights of privacy including a womans right to choose with regard to abortion.

          Then we could really party all out with greater authenticity.

        •  I just told my husband (0+ / 0-)

          that with that party, we would not have had to worry about any Shabbos meal. We could have brought our own challah and grape juice. Of course all the protein sources would be likely to be iffy, and for lunch we would be very stuck unless we brought the crock pot.

        •  That was my same reaction (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          insaneliberal, Newsie8200, Chamonix

          If he could afford it and wanted to, great, pamper some bloggers. They deserve it.

          I'm not a Warner fan, have only heard him speak a couple times and to me it sounded like spinning, not speaking. But I don't draw conclusions yet from that.

          It gave people a chance to know him a little more. Good.
          Of course there are "better" ways to spend the money. There always are. The money spent om Yearly Kos altogether could likely have paid for some life saving treatment or surgery for some uninsured people and so on. If you buy a new car you could have gotten a used car and donated the money to a homeless shelter. If you bought a used car perhaps you could stuck to public transportation and donate that money to a good candidate...and so on...

          But it's OK to have a car, it's great to have and go to Yearly Kos and being there it is great to have gatherings. It is good to be pampered a little.

          I wasn't there and don't like sushi, but don't think it's our business what he spent on it and I think it was nice to do. There was a big effort made for this conference, a treat was well deserved.

    •  My support for Warner isn't based on Jerome's (4+ / 0-)

      endorsement. Just want to make that clear. I could care less whether Markos or Jerome or anyone else here or any other blog endorsed Mark Warner.

      I'm from Southern Maryland and have observed MW from over the Potomac. I've liked him for a long time....

    •  WRONG (7+ / 0-)

      Here we go with the misinformation Kossack spin that usually plagues Bob Casey but now befalls Warner .

      Here are the facts:

      Via MSNBC's FIRST READ: Warner (Warner clarification at 4:40 p.m. ET) Opposes gay marriage and a constitutional amendment banning it but believes in the "legal recognition of domestic partnership rights" for same-sex couples, according to Ellen Qualls, spokeswoman for Warner's Forward Together PAC.

      That basically the same position of every national prospective Democratic presidential candidate except Feingold.

      Catch NY politics raw and uncensored at The CITY.

      by GregNYC on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:33:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Uh, I'm confused. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peeder, David Boyle, Ryvr

        What exactly about Lolligolli's post is wrong?  From what I can tell, nothing in that blockquote contradicts anything that Lolligolli said.

        •  A lot wrong (0+ / 0-)

          There's a lot wrong with that diary.

          First his statement wasn't "vague." If you support domestic partnership rights then you support them. That's his national plank.

          Warner also signed an executive order ro ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in Virginia. No mention of that.

          He went along with no civil unions in VERY RED STATE Virginia. Yeah and Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage act. Nothings perfect and as a gay man I know that all too well.

          The post  is a lot of innuendo inferring he is anti-gay. And I hate when people try to spin it.

          Second, lolli is equating that Warner is to the right of three VERY SOCIALLY LIBERAL Republicans (Pataki not as much). I'd like to see a national Democrat who is to the left of Bloomberg or Giuliani on social issues besides maybe Feingold.

          I think it's very unfair and it's tryingto make him look anti-gay and that's not right when you dismiss and cherry-pick things the way you want to see it.

          Catch NY politics raw and uncensored at The CITY.

          by GregNYC on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:35:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lolligolli

            I'd like to hear more about his domestic partnership rights plank, because honestly I don't know what these rights would entail.  He may be very specific, but I can't find any information at his PAC's website.  A link would be appreciated.

            I don't think that Warner is anti-GLBT, and I didn't get the impression from Lolli's post that Lolli thinks he's anti-GLBT.  I do get the sense that he's not particularly affirming of GLBT rights.  Tolerant is one thing.  Affirming is another.  It's not unreasonable for someone in the GLBT community to offer more support to a candidate that seems to affirm GLBT rights, like Feingold, as opposed to being simply tolerant, as Warner appears to be.  Again, I might be misreading Warner's stance.

            Again, I see nothing factually different between what Lolli wrote and your blockquote.  I do see you interpreting Lolli's post as presenting Warner as being anti-gay, but that's not how I interpreted it when I read it.

            •  Thanks A Yankee In Texas. I' ve been very (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              peace voter, Ryvr, 4jkb4ia

              careful with this and sent copies to all my previous 2008 Candidates overview to the Warner Campaign for comment and verification.

              I have heard that they a spokeperson may have modified his position last week, but have not found the press release.

              But for something this important I believe Mark Warner should say it himself.

              And vaque handwaiving in the direction of "certain domestic partnership protections" is not the same as supporting at least civil unions and leavinag it to the states.  Which folks may not realize, but was a significant compromise that did not sit well with many in the GLBT for us to accept.

              I opposed Bush so much, I accepted this position from John Kerry in 2004. But heads up.  We are not backtracking in 2008.  So any prospective 2008 candidate better at least go this far.  

              At least 3 of the prospective GOP candidates have.  If Mark Warner is changing his positions to  be this strong or stronger fantastic.

              But let's cut the BS in trying to pretent that he has been unreserveded pro-GLBT all along.  

              This has been a simmering dispute at Daily Kos for more than half a year. And anyone who likes can check the written record.

              Warner supporter may a comment to HoundDog late last year in written on this website, that they did not want to "give this issue" to the right.

              If gaining support from progressives seems more important now and Warner is changing his position excellent.  But he needs to do it in person with the words Civil Unions.   Not with a spokesperson.

              •  thank you (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                peace voter, Lolligolli

                Thank you so much for keeping on this Lolligolli. I have seen so many people work so hard for so many years on these equality issues that you are ABSOLUTELY right to draw a line in the sand against regressing below what was a bitter and difficult compromise in 2004.

                •  Thanks for the moral support Ryvr. I means so (0+ / 0-)

                  much more to than you can imagine.  I am not a professional advocate or even a person that likes conflict.  

                  So I'm uncomfortable being the point person here.  I wish someone else with more courage and professional experience advocating for equal rights and stand up and take this flag that somehow accidentally ended up in my hand.

                  It's only that I have so many dear loved ones for whom this is such a big issue.  I believe all of us that have benefited from the help of our minority equal rights coaltion, including, women, people of color, Jews and other religious minorities, ethnic minorities, the disabled, and the aged all have received almost 50 years of help from our loved ones in the GLBT  communities.

                  For one, it would be totally wrong to betray that support when the GLBT now needs our help.

                  Second, my support for all the above mentioned minortities was not just based on the idea that as a member of some of these minorities I want to express our power and get as much as we could.  Then sit back and say, "I got mine, now you get your,"  but instead, I was inspired by Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech for freedom for "all Americans."  Based on the 14th amendement.

                  This is one of many core foundation priciples all progressives should hold in the highest esteem along with the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, amendments and whole Constitution.

                  I am proud that our political position are based on a wholistic indivisable collection of Constitutional Priciples, and bound together by an integrated political philosophy that includes scientific humanism, respect for the rule of law not men (even in international law.)  

                  So my opposition to the Neocon foreign policy is not that they are Republicans and that once Democrats are in power we might do the same.

                  NOT!  Neocon believe in Might Makes Right.  The Progressive philosophy (and apparently the libertarian philosphies to) elavate and support the maximum rights to the individual to offset the tendency for the powers specifically enumerated to the states to being corruptive.

                  Read the Federalist Papers.  Our founding fathers and mothers believe power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

                  So, Rvyr, my point is that to have stood up here, even when I know Armstrong, at least a good solid 15% of very powerful, vocal, and agressive dkos old timers, and maybe even Markos himself took more courage than I really have.

                  And defies common sense.  I've done almost everything I can to avoid controversy here.  It's too upsetting for me.

                  But I would feel like a slimy coward if I had not stood up for the simple request from my dearest loved ones in the GLBT communities that fellow Democrats insist that any 2008 Democratic Political Candidates support AT LEAST the John Kerry support for civil unions for the GLBT, with the necessary acknowledgement that we must leave it to the states (BTW the states have this rights unless superceded by this stupid anti-GLBT  Constitutional amendment.)

                  At least six to seven GOP Senators voted against this, includeing John McCain, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snow, Collins, Sunnunu, and two others I forget at the moment.  

                  And Giulian, Pataki, Bloomberg, and Dick Cheney have all supported at least civil unions, supported hate crime legislations, and opposed these repressive state amendendments.

                  McCain has stood up against his own right wing twice to oppose and defeat the Federal Family Protection Act.

                  Shouldn't we expect Mark Warner to do at least this much.

                  I spent two weeks puting together the 2008 Presidential Questionairre and learning how to make an HTML table as a volunteer.

                  I can't replicate it here because I do not know how to override the new auto-format in commments.  But I will give the code to any professional GLBT advocate who wishes to pick up this torch.

                  Dearest Fellow Kossack, whom I come to love so much, like family.  I beg of you do  not betray our GLBT brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, chilren friends, co-workers, and fellow citizens.

                  And let's not forget that what happens in America, is the only distant, almost unimaginable hope for many GLBT and even others like the intersexed, androgynes, etc. in foriegn countries who can still face death sentences for charectoristics science increasingly suggests they were born with.

                  The global oppression, include death, torture, ostracism, discrimination, and unimaginable hatred the GLBT still face, for no fault of their own is so tragic and sad, it brings me to tears and leaves me speechless.

                  Which, in a brief moment of gallows humor, for those that know me here, "speechless" is not usually the first adjective dkos readers would probably think of when describing Lolligolli.  LOL :-)

                  So I have to admit.  That my whole involvemnt in this comment stream is drivin by pure emotion.  Which I apologize for.

                  But hope some of my and our friends, in the GLBT, might step up and give me a hand, and say the things to our highly valued and loved Daily Kos friends that will get them to see we are trying our best to to the right and good thing here.

                  I am sorry if my limited talents as just a regular person isn't up to the task.  I ask the professional and more talented of you, whom, I've come to admire and appreciate to please help me out here and take the lead.

                  This is deeper water, I am used to treading in.  But I know in my heart, that supporting full equality and civil rights for all American, consistent with the 14th Amendment is the direction of goodness.

                  And I would be soooo happy is, Mark Warner himself, would read these comments and conclude the same thing and say so to all of us.

                  I've written here many times, that I deeply appreciated his last executive act as VA governer when he sign into law the addition of "sexual orientation" to VA's nondiscrimination laws.  I wish he had also added "sexual identification" for our transgendered brothers and sisters, but honestly don't expect his to know how much such a distiction means to a population even smaller and often  more oppress than our gays and lesbians.

                  But I acknowledge that this probably means his heart is in the write place.

                  And I hope, two years from now, if his candadacy is doing much better, he will thanks those of us trying to hold his feet to the fire now, on really arriving at the correct philosophy for the right reasons.

                  And let the chips fall where they may.  Just as with the Democratic parties, opposition to racism, sexism, and religious and ethnic intolerance and discrimination against the disabled and aged, we will reap the harvest of dedades of loyalty and returns for doing the right thing for our GLBT communities.

          •  Virginia isn't VERY red, is it? (0+ / 0-)

            They elected 2 Democrats in a row as governor, and Tim Kaine is probably the most liberal governor they've ever elected.

            I really hope that we aren't going to have to deal with another Clinton-like President. I know most people here love him, but honestly, I want something new. Hopefully Warner will not just be a Clinton clone.

            •  no, not really (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              insaneliberal, 4jkb4ia

              it's pretty purple, actually.  two of its largest municipalities, alexandria and arlington, are VERY blue.  there are blue streaks in SE VA (newport news/hampton) and in the center.  the reddest parts are its underpopulated rural pockets (south central and SW).

              "our politics are our deepest form of expression: they mirror our past experiences and reflect our dreams and aspirations for the future." - paul wellstone

              by liberalsouth on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:28:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Greg NYC I mentions Mark Warner MODIFICATION (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blogswarm, joynow, Ryvr

            of his clear opposition to civil unions and marraige equality until last week.  However, a spokesperson making "vaque" endorsements of "domestic partnership" is not the same as Mark Warner standing in front of a microphone and repudiating his clear last year of position to the right of Giuliani, Pataki, and Bloomberg who have used the code words Civil Unions for years and received the endorsements of the GLBT organzitions.

            Let's stick to facts GregNYC.  If Mark Warner is going to reverve his last year of opposition to both Civil Union and Marriage Equality he needs to do it in person and use the words "Civil Union" before I take him off the list of 2008 Candidates who have not.  

            I have written at least 9 diary here at daily kos on this since January, and several were discussed with Mark Warner supporters who've had a chance to respond which they declined.

            Last weeks "clarification" by a staff person is not enough for you to make the assertions you are making IMO.

            But I am totaly dedicated to fact based reporting.

            I brought up the reports last week which I have not seen first hand.

            If Mark Warner as reversed his position excellent finally.  But this is too important to have a spokesperson.

            And before you accuse me of misrepresentaation of his position please actual read my previous diaries virtually all of which have reported his last executive act adding sexual orientation to VA anti-discrimination act.  I gave hime points for this in my last overview (otherwise he would have been in negative terroritory.) It would have been better if it had been his first executive act instead of his last.

            But he still has a ways to go before he catches up with Pataki, Bloomberg or Giuliani.  His record is clear and verifiable by anyone who checks.

            I will not support any 2008 Candidates who does not support either civil union or marriage equality.  I supported John Kerry but I am not willing to go backwards from there.

            •  Single issue litmus test (0+ / 0-)

              Well if you have a single-issue litmus test lolligolli on that then that's your perogative. If he's decent on the issue I, as a gay man, will support him.

              And your post is dismissive. Go to "First Read" and look it up if you need to see it with your own eyes which you appear to be looking for.

              And get one thing straight, Pataki is not any where near Bloomberg on liberal social issues.

              I follow these guys religiously and Pataki had to have his hand squeezed to pass basic protective statewide rights for gays and lesbians.

              And Giuliani -- please -- he is infamous and hated in the gay community for directing the NYPD to crack down on gay bars and find anything they could to close them down.

              So you do need to get your facts straight lolligolli and approach issues more thoughtfully before you attack Warner so early on.

              Catch NY politics raw and uncensored at The CITY.

              by GregNYC on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:44:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Uh (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                peace voter

                What issue is he good on? My cat that was brain-damaged in a road accident could manage the economy better than GWB... this is too low a standard.

              •  My points about Bloomberg, Pataki, and Giuliani (0+ / 0-)

                is not to support them as progressives, I 'm a progressive Democrat GregNYC, but to point out that with respect to GLBT issus Mark Warners position for the last year of opposing BOTH civil unions AND marriage equality is to the right of these three.

                And various GLBT organzation have all endorse Giulian, Pataki, and Bloomberg at one time or another.

                Something I can not imagine happing with Mark Warner unless he reverses his oppostion to civil unions.  If he did so last week, terrific.  But my statements are on based on the last year and have been published and placed in many of the pro-Warner diaries here at Dkos since January to allow them the opportunity to refute which they have declined.

              •  I reject your acquisation of being a single issue (0+ / 0-)

                voter GregNYC.  This issue derives from at least six Constitutional Amendments (1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, and 14th) and include the princples of seperation of church and state, the rights to privacy, equal protection under the law, and the principle of supporting maximum individual civil rights for all Americans.

                To me this are not even six isolated Constitutional amendments (enough to blow away your bogus single issue charge)
                but they work together in  an integrated progressive political philosophical that places individual rights in the highest esteem against the tendency of state power to intruce.

                Therefore, I would expect this issue to be a "leading indicator" of a person philosophy about illegal NSA wiretaps (See Russ Feingold), and opinions about George Bush's attempts to expand the unitary executive theory, those issues of seperation of church and state, the right of privacy (including support for a woman's right to choose), and the issues of the rule of law not men, in both domestic and foreign policy.  

                Failure to support equal rights for all Americans, is a litmus test in my opinion.  It doesn't make a difference to me if you buy the above reasoning that it is not a single issue vote.

                But if you believe it is,find, but please know that the GLBT vote has been estimated at between 4% and 10% and if you included family, friends, other equal rights voters, etc. my guess is that we are talking about 20% to 30% of voters who feel really strongly about this.

                If you imagine a 2008 Democratic election where the GOP ended up with Giuliani or Pataki, Warner which his position of the last year is probably the only candidate I can imagine that could loose NY state to the red column.

                We can belittle these voters if we like, but my question is why would the Democratic party want to aggravate, betray and infuriate these voters uneccesarily when we have 11 out of 12 other candidates that have no problem supporting at least the John Kerry position as the minimum litmus test position for the 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidate.

                By the way, I hope it doesn't come as a shock to anywone but opposition to racism, religious intolerance and support for a woman's right to choose are de facto litmus test issues too.  Whether we like it our not.

                And I'm pleased about this.  As a scientists, I like objective tests that draw  certain lines in the sand about what is acceptable or not.  Like polluntants in drinking water.  Or the basic value of our Presidential candidates.  Lets not waste time, and create non-productive intra-party warfare for those below certain bars.

                Here, I am just making my bar explicty.  As I said, if Warner now supports Civil Unions, fantastic.  Give me a link to him saying this, and I'll remove my oppostion to his as an acceptable 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidate.  

                The past will be forgivin.  But lets be fact based.

    •  It seems to me there is also the issue (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      David Boyle

      Of opinion differences between the presidential and vice presidential candidates, much as you have in the WH right now with Bush opposed to gay marriage/civil unions and Cheney, for obvious reasons, not opposed. Who really represents the party view? Presumably, the presidential candidate does, but would anyone feel more (or less) comfortable if the VP candidate came from a different perspective?

    •  thank you lolligolli (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ryvr, Lolligolli

      for your informed and insightful analysis.

      If you would care to elaborate on where you see Warner running to the right of Bloomberg, Pataki, Guiliani I would appreciate your take.

      •  Thanks roonie. I wish to be fair. But have (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        roonie, Ryvr

        published at last 9 diary on this and spent an entire week on a questionaire for all 2008 prospective candidates which you can find in my archives going back about six months./

        I't late tonight.

        If Mark Warner is changing his position I think it will be wonderful.  To me success is more important than having inquisitions about whom is right.

        But the history is readily avaible.  If Mark Warner is going to adobt the minimally acceptable 2004 John Kerry position I think it will be a fantastic NEW development.  

        But one he needs to articulate himself.  I do not believe he will have any change what-so-ever it he does not.  The GLBT communities are well organized, passionate, well funded and very interested in this position.

        And they have a lot of support from mothers, fathers, brothers, and systers, children, co-workers, those in the health professions, and equal rights communties who believe it is time for equal rights for all Americans.  No exceptions.

        Why doesn't Mark Warner stand up to a microphone and tell us where he NOW stands on this issue.  He can settle it easily and quickly.

    •  No, Warner does not OPPOSE civil unions. (0+ / 0-)

      He simply did not fight to legalize them.

      On the other hand, he DID fight to prevent the VA legislature from banning even private contracts designed to imitate marriage or civil unions.  He vetoed their bill, and his veto was overridden.

      Also, Warner added sexual orientation to the VA workplace discrimination policy.

      http://www.equalityvirginia.org/...

      In other words: He did EVERYTHING HE COULD to help advance LGBT rights in VA.

  •  In addition (6+ / 0-)

    to a point up thread reminding us that Markos didn't organize Yearly Kos we should also remember that the YKos committee wasn't going to turn down Mark Warner. I don't know if they aggressively pursued him but other candidates certainly could have attended if they wanted to. I'm pretty sure Feingold couldn't go because of the Wisconsin Democratic Convention which is this weekend(right?).

    I agree with your concerns about Warner though- Maybe we just don't have a coherant narrative yet. He also might be our best chance to keep Hillary from taking the nomination. I would bleed and sweat for Russ though.

    It took them 30 years- don't give up hope after 3

    by js noble on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:17:16 PM PDT

    •  MN (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      insaneliberal, blogswarm, David Boyle

      It's the MN convention this weekend.  Russ gave a rousing speech.  

      If Russ is running - and I hope to God he is - it sure makes more sense for him to be courting our neighbor to the west right now.  

      "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine Pay attention Georgie - 2480+ dead Americans. Jesus Christ, make it stop already.

      by Miss Blue on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:20:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In La Crosse, too (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joynow, David Boyle

        The DPW convention was yesterday and today.  

        As I was buying a "Don't Spy on Me" T-shirt from Russ' Progressiv Patriots Fund people, they said they made sure a representative went to Yearly Kos, but of course  his priorities are here at home.  He is hoping that his glitter will rub off on some other Dem pols.

  •  shrug (15+ / 0-)

    But, I don't think the Kossack community is ready to give up the fight for a more progressive candidate and more progressive politics a full two years before the election.

    Since when does Markos speak for all of Daily Kos. If he wants to go with Warner, then by all means he should. If other Kossacks don't, they don't have to follow his lead.

    Chuck Schumer is not the enemy

    by AnnArborBlue on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:18:09 PM PDT

    •  Markos who (0+ / 0-)

      Here ..Here

      Economic Left/Right: -4.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.90

      by Polticalrecluse on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:15:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  this diary is so full of holes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joynow

      it is embarrassing. Key Note Speaker hasn't even spoken yet. Harry coming up tonight. Plus Kos didn't select Warner to speak. I hope Booman apologizes and corrects. This incorrect mess is also the Headline over at his Booman Tribune. Embarrassing. And I agree with you. If Kos were to get behind Donald Duck that doesn't mean we would. Silly thinking, just silly. Booman should know better.

  •  I'd like to declare, officially (13+ / 0-)

    that I am completely fucking undecided about 2008 Presidential candidates.

    •  you and me both! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      David Boyle

      Right now Edwards and Gore (if he runs) have my serious consideration.

      I would not rule out Warner or Richardson either. I have already ruled out Clinton, Bayh, Biden and most of the others planning to run.

      •  I had to rule out Richardson (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ryvr

        after the 2004 election when he put up the barriers to prevent a recount there.

        NM wouldn't change presidential outcome but that wasn't the point. The point is fair elections, finding problems and trying to eliminate future ones. New Mexico had a very high undervote rate (almost 3%) as well as the phantom votes and almost all were related to particular electronic voting machines. It really matters.

        I don't know what he was thinking but he stood in the way.

        Whoever we get needs a deep understanding of foreign policies as well as domestic issues. What a mess they will be taking over! We need someone with deep, broad and thoughtful understanding and I hope it doesn't boil down to who the masses would want to have a beer with.

        •  I agree with you on that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ryvr

          I was really pissed off about it and wondered whom he was protecting by preventing a recount.

          I would also worry about the GOP saying he was in charge of nuclear security in the 1990s and didn't do enough.

    •  Anybody who might (reasonably) run that you (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      insaneliberal, David Boyle

      would not support?

      •  mmmm (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        insaneliberal, David Boyle

        John Kerry
        Hillary Clinton

      •  You mean in the primary? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        David Boyle, nicejoest

        Because come Nov, 2008...

        If I have to wear a big gold-plated clothespin on my nose, I will.

        At this point, the only Republican I would consider voting for (if they could pull it off!) would be Abraham Lincoln.

        And not voting isn't worth considering.  THAT is what the GOP is hoping people do.

        "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

        by ogre on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:41:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  'but why vote for a Democrat and get the same DLC (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          delphine, ademption, Brother Love

          republican policies even if you win."

          Because many people who are dead would be alive now if Kerry were president instead of Bush.

          Katrina victims.
          American soldiers (he would run the war smarter and probably have us out by now).
          Iraqui citizens (see above).

        •  Sympathies... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pb, nicejoest

          But I learned a bitter lesson--on steroids.

          Gore, we were told, was really no different from Bush.  Just the same old, another version.

          Boy, was that ever bullshit.

          Even if the choice is bad or worse, there's a distinction, and we need to make it, because... we no longer can afford the worse blunder.

          "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

          by ogre on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:18:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  amen, and never again... [nt] (0+ / 0-)
            •  Never again! (0+ / 0-)

              Except I feel that the thing we can no longer afford is a Dem candidate unwilling to tackle some key issues. I worked for a month straight for Kerry in Missouri and Iowa...turning down a sweet job in Japan an coming home for the first time in years. I acepted the Kerry candidacy of Bush lite. This time, i I get another Dem clone not taking real distinct position, I will not even vote in the deliberate hope that such a devistaing loss (assuming lots of people like me chose not to vote) might make sure never to nominate a person wihout easily distinct positions from his Repub. opponent. Never again indeed!

              Don't blame me....I voted for Kodos! Neo-Cons don't die....they just go to the private sector to regroup

              by coheninjapan on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 03:58:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  I am decided! I am for Che!!!!!!!!!! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      David Boyle

      And no one who is less ideological (or fierce) will suffice!

      Guess I am on the fringe.....

      LetsFight. re handle: Fight the radical right is the sentiment!

      by letsfight on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:45:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  if there's one thing I've (11+ / 0-)

    learned on dKos, it's that we think for ourselves.  If Markos chooses to endorse or vote for Mark Warner, mazel tov.  That affects my vote exactly as much as gay marriage threatens my relationship.

    P.S.  Warner hardly got THE keynote spot.  He spoke at lunchtime, just like Boxer did yesterday.  Howard Dean spoke at 8 a.m. this morning and drew a big crowd; Harry Reid will draw a big crowd tonight, just as Markos did on Thursday p.m.  There are enough eyeballs and enthusiasm to go around to lots of luminaries.  Warner's not getting a preferential time.

  •  If Warner Wants His Face on a YearlyKos T-Shirt (6+ / 0-)

    That hardly constitutes an endorsement -- it constitutes a marketing arrangement.  More power to Warner for knowing where to spend his bucks. I still lean Feingold myself, but I am in play.

    George W. Bush is just like Forrest Gump. Except that Forrest Gump is honest and cares about other people.

    by easong on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:20:48 PM PDT

  •  We need a pragmatic president like Warner (9+ / 0-)

    We dont need ideology.  "Progressive ideology" is nebulous--I dont know what it means.

    I want a president who get things done,  who decides base on facts not ideology,  who thinks of what is good for all Americans not just his crony friends who donate to him,  and a smart one and one who will unite the country as well as help grow the Democratic Party as a people party not a party for big business and corporations.

    Mark Warner has a record of results as a governor in Virginia.  And he seems genuine and not like other politicians who will say things that get tested in the poll.  He seem to be one who will say what he really feels even if it is not too liberal for you.

    We should not decide a president base on his stance for civil unions or abortion just like the Republicans.

    Stop Corporate Influence; buy DEMOCRACY BONDS!!! http://www.democrats.org/democracybonds.html

    by timber on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:21:43 PM PDT

  •  Warner is for real (7+ / 0-)

    If a Democrat in Virginia leaves office with a 75% approval rating, I don't care what his ties to the DLC or anybody else are. I want him running for office.

    You wanta the fist? TASTE-A THE FIST! -4.50 -4.72

    by spelunking defenestrator on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:23:49 PM PDT

    •  What was Zell Miller's approval rating... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      David Boyle

      ...when he left office?

      Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead. Looks like 2006 is going to be a "rebuilding year" for Al-Qaida.

      by Brother Love on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:28:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  that's absurd (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        David Boyle, Deano963

        That's a ridiculous comparison.  Even if you don't like Mark Warner, he certainly is not Zell Miller.

      •  What was Joe McCarthy's? (3+ / 0-)

        bad analogy

        You wanta the fist? TASTE-A THE FIST! -4.50 -4.72

        by spelunking defenestrator on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:35:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Don't even go there man (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Harkov311

        that comparison does not wash

        ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING

        by v2aggie2 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:15:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You said ......Zell Miller....I hate that guy! (0+ / 0-)

        Zell Miller can #@%@^%^ off. I hate that guy and Bob Shrum too. Thanks, for letting me get that off my chest.

        Hmm....Warner/Gore, Gore/Warner, Gore/Clark, Clark/Warner....sound good too me!!!!!

        "These guys are biggest bunch of lying crooks I have ever seen" John Kerry

        by alnc on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:24:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  oh, come on now. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Harkov311

        that's just inflammatory.  you're equating a strong, dedicated democrat with potential to a cartoonish benedict arnold who was probably a republican all along anyway?  please.  let's be constructive here, people.

        "our politics are our deepest form of expression: they mirror our past experiences and reflect our dreams and aspirations for the future." - paul wellstone

        by liberalsouth on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:33:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  'strong, dedicated democrat' (0+ / 0-)

          you're equating a strong, dedicated democrat with potential to a cartoonish benedict arnold who was probably a republican all along anyway?

          According to Wikipedia, Zell Miller:

          • endorsed Bill Clinton for president
          • keynoted the 1992 Democratic National Convention, saying "George [H.W.] Bush just doesn't get it"
          • was a staunch promoter of public education, and
          • helped found a state scholarship program that pays full tuition at state colleges / universities

          Did Zell "move on" (so to speak) from all that to be a "cartoonish benedict arnold"?  Absolutely, and it's too bad he did.  

          But how do you know Mark Warner won't do the same?

          Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead. Looks like 2006 is going to be a "rebuilding year" for Al-Qaida.

          by Brother Love on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:54:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  What I really meant to say was (0+ / 0-)

        AH CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUEL, SAH!

        You wanta the fist? TASTE-A THE FIST! -4.50 -4.72

        by spelunking defenestrator on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:46:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's a pretty dumb comparison (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Harkov311

        Seriously...you're going to throw Mark Warner in the same lot as Zell Miller b/c you don't agree with him on a few issues??? Do you really think you would see Warner out there campaigning for Bush and bashing other democrats?? It's actually just the opposite - Warner is tryign his hardest to get dems elected to the House and Senate all across the country. Seriously, think for just TWO SECONDS before you say something like that!

        -6.00, -4.41 "The foolish and the dead alone never change their opinions" - poet James Russell Lowell

        by Deano963 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:21:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  in 1992... (0+ / 0-)

          no one thought Zell Miller would ever be campaigning FOR a George Bush (as noted above, he dumped on Bush pere in his Democratic Convention keynote speech) EITHER.

          When it comes to predicting what one's choice of politician is actually going to do if he or she gets elected, always remember the words of Professor Thomas "Fats" Waller:

          One never knows, do one?

          Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead. Looks like 2006 is going to be a "rebuilding year" for Al-Qaida.

          by Brother Love on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 12:00:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I'm a bright, lemony-gold (5+ / 0-)

    Yellow Dog Democrat at this point.

    That said--primaries are good things, so long as the participants Do Not do what Angelides and Westly did (both of them should be lashed for that).

    I'm so far from committing to any candidate for 2008 that the discussion gives me a case of ennui.  That said, I'm not about to drop in line behind Warner at this point--I don't give  a rat's ass if Kos likes him or not.  

    That is not a basis for deciding who our candidate ought to be.  It's not about Kos, and Kos has been pretty clear about that himself.

    At this point, my preference lies with someone aggressively upright and honest, someone willing to kick ass and speak the truth--which means that Feingold is right up there.

    "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

    by ogre on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:26:12 PM PDT

  •  Let's suppose (8+ / 0-)

    as you would have us do, that Markos is personally backing Warner, but just doesn't want to say so.  OK, so what?  The weakness in your statement is that because Markos is supporting someone, that he therefore is trying to throw the weight of the Daily Kos community behind that same candidate, and/or that because he supports Warner, therefore the rest of the community automatically will follow suit, thus alienating anyone who doesn't support Warner.

    That is insulting to both Markos and this community.  What he does is his business.  What I do is mine.  What you do is yours.  What is not OK is to insinuate improper motivations or actions where there is no evidence to support them.  That is what you are doing, and what you do on a regular basis.  I for one am kind of tired of it.

    You can support who you want, so can I, and so can Markos.  The only thing that is truly destructive is when fellow liberal/progressive/left wing activists tear each other down rather than focusing on the real enemy.  Primaries are fights, my friend, and as long as they are fair fights, that's fine.  Just because someone supports a different candidate from you doesn't make them less worthy or less of a stalwart activist.  The real enemy is the Republican Party.  Try to remember that.

    Jamie Raskin for State Senate -- Progressive leadership for a progressive Maryland

    by jsmdlawyer on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:27:05 PM PDT

  •  Obligatory diary to bring Warner down a notch (14+ / 0-)

    Here we go with the obligatory "bring Warner down a notch because I want some other candidate for president" diary.

    The guy threw what appears to be a very nice party and he reached out to everyone. Are we now dictating and judging how people spend their money on parties.

    Give him a break for crying out loud.

    Maybe we should scrutinize his air far and hotel accomodations as too lavish. Peopel love to micromanage.

    Worry about more important things for crissakes.

    And while I like Russ Feingold generally (except for votes like the one he placed for Chief Justice Roberts), I'll bet my whole life savings, inheritances, cars and whatever else I have that he will not get the Democratic nomination.

    Catch NY politics raw and uncensored at The CITY.

    by GregNYC on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:28:59 PM PDT

  •  An important diary to write. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    misha, David Boyle, overturned turtle

    (and not an easy one, I would imagine).

    Let's be clear about one thing.  Markos did not endorse Warner.  He was explicit about that.  But he has given Warner a major platform to try to win over the Kossack community and to raise his profile from a little known Governor, to someone that might give (another DLC candidate) Hillary Clinton a run for her money.

    If the likely 2008 candidates -- ALL OF THEM -- had shown up, I would only have expected Markos to give them ALL the same platform.  Just a guess and pure speculation, mind you, but that's what I would expect of Markos.

    But no one else came. So...Warner got the spotlight.

    Not all DLC members are the same.  There is a big difference between Lieberman, Bayh, and Hillary on the one hand and Warner, Richardson, and Vilsack on the other.  Gore is a DLC candidate cut from another mold.

    Um, I think when push comes to shove, any politician associated with the DLC IS the same. They are vyying for the same money.. the SAME corporate money to 'maintain power.'  Richardson?  Talks a good talk. He's often in the right place to make sure our hearts are warmed. But when push comes to shove, he votes and advocates for the DLC's interests (corporate over the people). Hell, he's as much of a yankee carpetbagger as the bush clan! And god, he loves him some Tom Ridge lovin anytime he can get it.  Not to mention that's he's one stair too close to a major fatal heart attack due to the abuse to his body.  I digress...

    ALL DLC candidates are sworn to their master: the corporate dollar.

    As for Gore?  He got STUCK with the DLC because Clinton created it. I have faith that when push comes to shove (when he's in the white house, for example), the DLC will be given a big wave 'good-bye.'

    I don't know.  Good for Warner for taking the time and the energy and the money to woo the yk group. Good for him.  It doesn't change who his true master is. But for him to offer the respect he has? Major kudos. And, as such, it was incumbent upon Markos to lay out the red carpet.  We will see how Markos handles things from here on out.

    Can I add that my pet peeve about the YK thing is that it is being described as 'far left wing'... esp Markos being called that by, ahem, Dowd the Downer.  FAR LEFT people show up to proteset wars on the national mall!  Markos seems stridently against that. The ONE thing we could do to change this country (hit the streets and town squares and not leave!), and Markos is against it!  Boy, if the FAR LEFT ever had a convention, the nation would be shaking in their corporate-sponsored boots! arrgh.  I won't buy CTG. Won't read it if given to me. FOR THIS REASON. When confronted by an oppressive, dictatorial regime, popular protest is the ONLY OPTION. And Kos is against it.  So?  I ain't taking on ANY candidates Kos endorses; not with a helluva lot of scrutiny.

    LetsFight. re handle: Fight the radical right is the sentiment!

    by letsfight on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:29:18 PM PDT

    •  Wasn't Dean in the DLC when he was a governor? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rhubarb, Newsie8200, David Boyle, Sam I Am

      I don't think you can blanket bitch about anyone who's ever been associated with that group.

      •  He sure was.... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        David Boyle, overturned turtle

        And early in the primaries when he woo'd sooooooo many (who stayed with him to the end.....) he wasn't talking the DLC platform. I was FOR Dean. Till, of course, he got traction... and started talking DLC talking points on a lot of things: primarily War in Iraq and courting AIPAC. Then he lost me. Forever.

        You bet I can blanket Bitch ALL DLC'ers. It isn't a stretch.

        Do we want CHANGE? REAL CHANGE? We need to fervently fight for a rollback of everything since Reagan, for god's sakes.  Pass the ERA, and get back on track.  Then we need to support progressive candidates all the way down the line.

        LetsFight. re handle: Fight the radical right is the sentiment!

        by letsfight on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:57:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  hmm? (3+ / 0-)

          I was FOR Dean. Till, of course, he got traction... and started talking DLC talking points on a lot of things: primarily War in Iraq and courting AIPAC.

          I must have been watching a different campaign--I remember Dean getting slammed at the time for his opposition of the war in Iraq, and his (radical?) assertion that the US should be an honest broker in its negotiations with Israel and Palestine.

      •  The first time I ever heard of Dean (0+ / 0-)

        was in a favorable article in the New Republic of all places.

        Dean was protrayed in the article as a New England version of Clinton.  

        That just goes to show that the past is not always an accurate predictor of a politicans future positions.

    •  This diary is a piece of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MJB

      Crap. The facts he states are wrong and the other stuff is pathetic. "Important diary" Please..it is Crap. He has these lies front paged over at his, Booman Trib too. So not cool.

    •  The silliest part of the column (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      overturned turtle

      was Wonkette calling Kos "Kurt Cobain and Che Guevara rolled into one". Trying to equate Kos and Che Guevara makes my head hurt. But the theme of the column was simply that bloggers call themselves anti-establishment but are becoming establishment--no different from what Matt Bai wrote. I observed that the Times is taking a line and running with it. I wish someone would write a diary comparing the different press coverage.

      •  I know! (0+ / 0-)

        Markos and Che? One in the same? Puhleezzzeee!!!  What a laf!

        The GREAT thing about kos is:  Daily Kos is what it is only BECAUSE there is so much talent on the part of individuals. Thanks god for that.  So, there is no 'party line' in terms of 'kossacks think.'  That is what makes this diary so absurd.  I think it's important, because we need to remind ourselves, Daily Kos is NOT Markos or vice versus.

        LetsFight. re handle: Fight the radical right is the sentiment!

        by letsfight on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:24:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  was there enjoyed the party (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle, plymouth, Alabama Bill

    maybe a bit too much, not surprised it cost 100 g's, I like Warner because although he is not as liberal as many of us, he does not give off the aura of looking down at us, If he wins the nomination I will be thrilled to support, also folks we need to win this time really really bad and he puts a few states in play so maybe we won't have to win either Fla or Ohio this time, I'm pretty much ok with anyone but Hillary who will simply be a disaster.

    this is your mission: TERMINATE the Bush presidency

    by nevadadem on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:29:27 PM PDT

  •  I don't see the big deal here at all (8+ / 0-)

    If Markos likes Warner, good for him. He is a human being afterall and 2008 is not far off. He is bound to like one candidate or the other.

    I like Warner. I like Clark. I like Gore. I like Feingold.

    Hey, I'd be happy with any of them as our nominee in 2008.

  •  One persons baggage (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle

    is another persons life experience.  Does any president have more "baggage" than GWB?  Feingold is my man on issues, ideology and guts.

  •  The bash in the Stratosphere... (8+ / 0-)

    was lavish indeed (Elvis, Blues Brothers Band, chocolate fountain, ice sculptures, "Kosmopolitans" and "Kostinis").  His other proactive efforts, including T-shirts sitting on all chairs in the hall before his speech (with the byline "YearlyKos Convention..." with his picture in front of an American Flag) left zero doubt of his avid, aggressive  courting of the netroots vote.  

    In some ways, his was a somewhat awkward approach to courting a group like us--who will hold his feet to the fire on all issues no matter how exotic the party he throws.   But, despite this awkwardness, we are being courted.  And when you're being courted,  you have leverage. It's clear he wants us, now we need to make it clear to him how that happens.

    "Give me liberty or give me death" (-5.13; -7.54)

    by Alabama Bill on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:35:24 PM PDT

  •  I really really like Mark Warner. (10+ / 0-)

     HE is a DEMOCRAT that understands that business and economics is a good road to opportunity. And that science and math are great things to learn.

     He is a DEMOCRAT that got elected in a RED STATE right after 9/11.

     He stands a huge chance of winning.

     He believes in science.
     He believes in people.
     He believes in education.

    He was totally broke and living in his care, while taking the huge risk of investing in a new technology where people could talk on phones in their cares.

    Mark Warner Rocks! He is not that Centrist if he is at the YearlyKOS!

    inspire change...don't back down

    by missliberties on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:36:10 PM PDT

  •  He's looking good (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ParaHammer, David Boyle
    to me at the moment.  We'll see.  

    "When I fed the poor, they called me a saint. When I asked why are the poor hungry, they called me a communist." Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Sao Paolo

    by PrometheusSpeaks on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:37:44 PM PDT

  •  Perspective from an undecided for '08 (6+ / 0-)

    Ok, I strongly supported Clark in the last campaign, and I went to Clark's party at the Hard Rock.

    I didn't go to Mark Warner's party, instead spending my time wandering along the strip last night looking for trouble.(and finding it to the detriment of my wallet)

    But I did hear Mark Warner speak.

    I thought it was a wonderful speech, and I really liked the way he presented himself.  Call it technocratic if you will, but I thought it was ideologically free problem solver, much akin to Barack Obama.  Worried and concerned more with solutions rather than how we solve problems.  And he was passionate about this, quite unlike Dukakis.

    I got the impression that the reason he was given the keynote, and the reason he had so much leniency was because he had signed up early on.  Whereas Clark and others had come somewhat later on to the party.

    I don't know what Progressive means, or Centrist, or Moderate.  These labels are so meaningless these days.  On most of the issues that seem to be hot potatoes these days in politics, such as abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, whatever.  It appears to me that the Progressive position has nothing to do with a position on the issue, but rather a position on leaving it up to the individuals and out of Government's realm.  I didn't hear anything in Warner's speech specifically addressing this, but he did seem to dismiss these wedges issues as jackalopes.

    So that's quite unlike Lieberman's attitude that we need to support forcing Teri Schiavo on life support, or we'll look like killers.

    What I have seen from Kos, is that he supports people who understand that wedge issues are a jackalope.  What he doesn't support is Democrats who denounce the rest of the party and tells them all that if they don't take up the Republican position, they'll not be taken seriously and be regarded as wild eyed leftists.

    Kos's attitude concerns personality, not ideology.  That's important to remember here, and it's key.  Changing the system requires much more than picking and choosing candidates based upon how they answer a questionairre.

    Does that make sense?

  •  If Gore runs (4+ / 0-)

    Many people I've spoken to here would support Gore, and I personally would support, contribute to, and volunteer for his campaign in a heartbeat (IA/NH in January 2008, anyone?)

    But so far, Gore isn't running.  DLC or not, Warner might be a good option, and I'd be willing to consider anyone who realistically might win.

    I'm also a little wary of Warner (and of Kos's relationship with him), but for now I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.  His speech was good (if not spectacular), he's undoubtedly competent, he's given the blogosphere a lot more love than some Dem leaders, and he is unquestionably a lot more "electable" than most of them (including, imho, Kerry).  So this far out, I'll give them all a chance to win me/us over.  Let the best man/woman win!

    Trendar.

    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke

    by Trendar on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:38:50 PM PDT

    •  Reaching out (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jim in Chicago, joynow

      I think the fact that Warner is here, reaching out to us benefits us. He has given this event credibility and who knows, maybe in the future, YearlyKos will be as important as Iowa.

      If Warner gets the nomination, I would not have a problem supporting him. But that is a long ways off.

      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

      by Tuba Les on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:01:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Warner (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jim in Chicago, David Boyle, 4jkb4ia

    Warner and his advisors know that to win the nomination you can't go the Joementum or Bayh route, you don't need to be the most liberal in the race, but you must atleast be acceptable enough for people to deal with and if they are personally liked by the base some issues can be overlooked. For example see GW Bush and his base in 2000.

    this is your mission: TERMINATE the Bush presidency

    by nevadadem on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:39:41 PM PDT

    •  well (0+ / 0-)

      I have seen no evidence that there is anything that I agree with Warner on perhaps except that he would be better at managing the economy than the chimpanzee we have doing it now. This is enough?

  •  I guess the question comes down to this: (5+ / 0-)

    Now that DailyKos has grown in size to degree that it has, what is Markos' responsibility to the blog in reference to his own preferences? Is he like Dean, chairman of the Democratic Party, who is expected to remain neutral so as not to undercut other candidates? Or is he someone who just happened to have started a blog that invites other independent voices and we can blog here at the pleasure of the owner?

    I'm not sure that's for us to decide. Obviously we can make our preferences known, but just as Markos got behind Dean in 2004, I would expect he would eventually get behind a candidate for 2008.

    I guess the next question becomes: when does it feel apropriate for him to back someone? What if Markos started tauting Gore or Feingold or Clark -- would people have as many concerns because their records are less centrist? Is it really Warner's position in the political spectrum that is the problem or the fact that Markos has as much influence as he does in the Netroot community?

    Anyway, those are a few of the questions perhaps we need to consider.

    Proud resident of Southbury, CT, where we're still waiting for Lieberman to R.S.V.P.

    by John Campanelli on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:39:51 PM PDT

  •  Hey, sooner or later (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle, overturned turtle

    everybody becomes either Pat Garrett or Billy the Kid. This is because everyone must sooner or later come to terms with 'the man', that is, the power structure that is all around us. And you either end up giving it the old hug, like the famous picture of Sammy Davis Jr hugging Nixon which put a bit of a crimp in Sammy's career in the 70s, or you shoot it out. We all do it sooner or later;  on the big stage of the world if we're famous, or the little stage of our lives if we're not. Markos' embrace of Warner is part of his rise to power and prominence and claims that he is not responsible for Warner's keynote speech, tee shirt etc, wear a little thin. One can only credibly hide behind 'the people' for so long. Such a non-endorsement-endorsement is politics as usual. And why shouldn't Markos push Warner? It mutually beneficial. Most important reason is rule number one of Power. you can only keep power if you use it.

    What would you attempt to do if you knew you could not fail? unknown

    by moon in the house of moe on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:40:01 PM PDT

    •  Power... (0+ / 0-)
      is an aphrodisiac...and Warner/DLC has slipped a megadose Cialis/Viagra Mickey Finn Roofie to the kool blogger kids at Blogosphere at the Stratosphere...

      Pleasant dreams to those at the Riv and points beyond Sin City...but be careful who you wake up with in the morning, politically speaking...

      Who's zoomin' who exactly? We'll need a full after-action debriefing next week from some of the attendees after the star power exposure wanes and the scales fall from the eyes of the participants of the first YearlyKos.

      People in Eurasia on the brink of oppression: I hope it's gonna be alright... Pet Shop Boys: Introspective

      by rgilly on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 12:22:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  i really like your take on this (0+ / 0-)

      Pragmatic and poetic all at once. So who would you rather have in office-- Garrett or the Kid?

  •  I'm surprised.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle, flo58

    I'm surprised by our age. We're not a bunch of 20 somethings-that's for sure. average age is between 30-50. Maybe even 40-50.

    "...I was worried about what he'd do to the economy... muck up the drinking water...the failure of my pessimistic imagination...boggles my mind" Sarah Vowell

    by CrazyDem on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:40:38 PM PDT

  •  Speaking of Kerry... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle

    I thought he was supposed to show up....

    •  No, but he'll be at the Take Back America 2006 (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      4jkb4ia, dynamicdems, MarketTrustee

      Conference next week.  I know of several bloggers who will be attending who will hopefully liveblog (other big names coming are Hillary and Barak Obama), and there's a good chance C-SPAN will cover it.

      Here's the link to the lineup:

      http://home.ourfuture.org/...

      You know, from everything I've seen on C-SPAN and read here, I think there were enough politicians at YearlyKos to make it a successful convention.  Any more would have been too much.  The real stars are the dKos community itself anyway.

      And just to note to the poster; um, check the voting record -- Feingold is the most liberal, but Kerry comes in a close #2 and is far more progressive than every single name you mentioned except Feingold.  I love Gore, but I have to judge him on his RECORD which is more in line with Warner (who, btw, was my governor and was an absolutely AWESOME governor, but I digress).  Kerry is the one who has put his name on a bill to get our troops out of Iraq at the end of '06, a bill no senator has co-sponsored (although Feingold put out a statement supporting it) nor has it been endorsed by any of these presidential candidates given.  I just don't understand why he gets ignored around here, when he actually gives a damn about so many of the issues held up as the most important to this community.  

      •  Thanks for posting, Beachmom. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ryvr, ademption, beachmom

        I've seen Republicans get more respect from some liberal bloggers for backing Dems on a single vote than Senator Kerry gets for a lifetime of fighting for us. His votes have been consistent over the years.

        I see the same people who condemn John Kerry over the IWR shouting. "Murtha 2008!" Not only did Congressman Murtha support the war but he's voted against a woman's right to choose. He's also got a very non-liberal voting record on the envronment and votes with the Christian Coalition more than half of the time. Sure, he's heroic in CHANGING HIS MIND ABOUT THE WAR IN IRAQ and for speaking out, but he's not the only one who has done that. This is only one example. The same point can be made as it applies to many of the other "flavors of the month" who are heaped with praise for a single action while John Kerry's lifetime of service to the liberal cause goes ignored. There seems to be a double standard that applies only to John Kerry.

        This makes me sad as a Democrat because I thought WE were better than that. I though Democrats were loyal and altruistic and I thought we took care of our own. It hurts to see the way Senator Kerry is treated, not as much for Senator Kerry. He's tough and has been taking hits for 35 years. He's used to it. I'm sad because seeing the hits coming from my side hurts like hell. Sometimes I just have to hang my head and wonder if we are becomming just like them.

        "Values are not just words, values are what we live by. They're about the causes we champion and the people we fight for." - Senator John Kerry

        by dynamicdems on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:11:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Warner and Markos (10+ / 0-)

    I don't think Markos could have been any clearer that

    1. He's not backing anyone yet
    1. Each candidate has to make their case to the community.
    1. Even if Kos were to turn around tomorrow and endorse, say, Hillary, the community would just give him the finger.
    1. Ergo, he's not the community.

    Markos did give props to  Warner for being early in agreeing to attend YearlyKos, which lent credibility to the event. I think that's appropriate. And he, like most of us here, I think, appreciate the fact that Warner's taking us seriously and courting us.  Even as pure political calculation on his part, it's pretty smart, and says a lot about us.

    As for the T-Shirts, they don't imply an official endorsement of Warner by Yearly Kos any more than, say, a company's Consumer Electronics Show T-shirt which lists that event and date should be interpreted as and endorsement by the organizers of CES.  It's promotional, of course, but it's also a memento of an event, for chissakes.

    BTW, I'm not a shill of any kind for Warner. I'd be for Gore in a second if he entered the race. But I'm happy to date Warner (to employ Kos' own metaphor for this process) to see what he's made of.

    It doesn't mean I'm going to put out for him.

    •  Colorado Luis and I were hoping for (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      insaneliberal, David Boyle, 4jkb4ia

      a coffee service from Warner this afternoon. And foot massages.

      Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

      by bumblebums on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:45:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Early in his support of YearlyKos (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      4jkb4ia, Luetta

      I was glad to see this point made.  After Reid, Mark Warner was the first "big name" to commit to being at this event.  Kos called it a "first date".  I think that's an appropriate way to think of it.  If we get some of his attention, so be it.  Now others who are interested might also decide to pay a bit more attention as well.

      We discussed this at lunch, and people at our table agreed that we think for ourselves, and we're going to support candidates based on their support for the issues and their support of the netroots.  If Warner wants to get our attention at this point in the race, I think it was a good move.  I think it will help YearlyKos 2007 by at least putting other candidates on notice to show up and take this group more seriously than they otherwise might have.

  •  Trust the force: (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stevej, David Boyle, Ryvr, grayslady, eve, flo58

    But for me, I have three areas I check first:

    Policy: Can I live with what the candidate is saying? I'm not a single issue voter about most things, but there are some lines I'd rather not cross. Look at what the candidate is proposing about foreign policy, education, women reproductive rights, human rights, energy,.....

    For me, and I'm being straight up here, a vote for the IWR is a deal breaker. I said that in 04 and went back on my promise to myself for the good of the country. No more. At the Democratic convention, 95% of the delegates were against this war. And guess what? They were right and the party was wrong. The person in the Oval Office needs to someone I can trust to make the tough decisions and put their own petty political fortunes aside for once.

    Electability: Can they be elected? Look at the candidate, their background, their location, and their credentials. I want to win.

    Getting the job done: Can they govern? This is not an easy question. If they enter office as a nabby-pamby, then the answer is "no." They will continue to bend and twist in the political wind. Are they a polorizing figure that tends to bring on the wrath? And we now must understand that the country is broke, the Pentagon has lots of swag stashed under the rug, but finding money to govern will not be easy.

    As for the DLC, this is where they fail the test. Any promise they make will be compromised by the "three for the corporations and one for the people" rule of debate. Sickening.

    Warner at the YK. Good for him. His running for president and has plenty of bucks. He was smart to hire Jerome. While he may have been "first" to accept, he was also probably the first to understand and know what was coming down. Just as Warner has hired foreign policy tutors and wangled trips to the Middle East, he is determined to fill that gap.

    Personally, the Warners of the world just don't do it for me. This target marketing when I'm the target turns me off.
     

  •  I'm also for Gore if he runs (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle, flo58

    if not the 2 I would most likely support are Edwards or Warner because if think they give us the best to win the differeces among us are not nearly as great as with the other side and to me are almost irrelevant.

    this is your mission: TERMINATE the Bush presidency

    by nevadadem on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:42:27 PM PDT

  •  Feingold in 2008 (6+ / 0-)

    Unless the politician has all but renounced his/her association with the DLC, they can kiss my ass...seriously. What kind of privaliged, disconnected dipshit do you have to be to have or have been in support of the Iraq war? What sort of asshole do you have to be to put your re-election priorities above voting against the worst mistake in american history?!
    What kind of smug, incredibly insolated arrogant fucker do you have to be to think the Dem party needs to corperatize while shitting on the base and the working class in general?! Seriously?! Unless Warner washes his hands clean from the DLC, he can kiss my ass like the rest of 'em.

    Now, a sobering excerpt of what a real Dem is supposed to look like:


    An interview from 2002

    Q: Why is the DLC dominating?

    Feingold: I think it's because the Democratic Party decided that corporatizing was a way to help with fundraising, especially in an era of soft money. It allowed the Democratic Party, in their view, to blunt some of the issues, like trade, that were causing problems with, frankly, the larger moneyed interests. And the ultimate example of that was the coronation of Gore in Los Angeles. That convention was a corporate trade show. It was nothing like the Democratic conventions of the past. So I see the DLC as, to some extent, taking the soul away from the Democratic Party. And I see the DLC as having sold American workers down the river. I oppose GATT, and NAFTA, and all the things Clinton and Gore were for.

    http://www.progressive.org/...

    "I don't wanna listen to the fundamentalist preachers anymore!" -Howard Dean

    by astronautagogo on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:51:32 PM PDT

  •  Oh there will be battle... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle, ademption, flo58

    Particularly if this becomes the anti-Warner line.

    And we are going to see a battle royale between those that think Russ Feingold or John Edwards are the proper candidates to carry the orange banner and those that are won over by coconut shrimp, and free kosmopolitans and t-shirts.

    I wasn't at YearlyKos so I didn't get my helping of shrimp and free t-shirts.  And right now im a primary between Warner and Feingold, Warner would get my vote.

    Warner as mentioned elsewhere on in this thread has plenty of good reasons for people to vote for him, it's not simply a matter of him somehow buying votes.

    "It appears our long national journey towards complete idiocy is over. We've arrived." - billmon

    by Siberian on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:52:13 PM PDT

  •  Query (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle, ms badger

    How were the coctail weenies at Warner's party?  Did anyone see whether Jane Hamsher was partaking of Warner's coctail weenies?

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:53:07 PM PDT

  •  agreed, booman (6+ / 0-)

    but then markos has never been all that opposed to the DLC's basic policy stances, and his CTG emphasis on "pragmatism" and attacks on "special interest groups" sounds an awful lot like their old tune to my ears. if the DLC stopped denouncing bloggers and came out for net neutrality, my guess is markos would be as happy with them as he is with reid.

    nobody should accept anyone's leadership just because someone owns a URL, though. markos is just another kossack in my eyes, and speaks only for himself (as he has mentioned multiple times, to his credit). as long as any endorsement is his and his alone, as with jerome's endorsement's relationship to the myDD community, then i've got no problem with it, other than disagreement. blurring the line with yKos feels less right to me, although to be fair it won't really make much of a difference in the long run for most of us even if warner was given a full endorsement at yKos, because he's so clearly anethema to many of our political positions and values.

    meh, whatever. only i speak for me.

    crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

    by wu ming on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:53:21 PM PDT

  •  As a resident of Virginia... (7+ / 0-)

    I will have to come out and admit that I was pretty comfortable with Warner before I even got here.  

      Warner's main difficulty is name recognition with people from out of state.  Prior to YKos, I have even talked with people who were lamenting that they couldn't think of any candidates that could be viable candidates for the Democratic nomination (in my mind, this simply show a bit of a lack of imagination, but that's another story).  My take on this is that I think that Warner saw an opportunity to make a big splash and get people talking about him.

    Yeah, he spent a lot on the party (someone here said they asked how much it costs, and the answer they got was that they got a deal and only spent something like $50K).  I guess the question is whether Warner could have achieved his goals with a more modest reception, and don't know the answer to that question.  Earlier that same evening there was another reception for Jack Carter with beer, fried chicken, and potato salad.  Clearly on a smaller budget, but

    I guess my feeling is that if other potential candidates wanted to come here and meet with us and speak, they had the option.  Richardson, Vilsack and Clark also came - all of these have also been mentioned as possible candidates.  Clark threw a more modest party on Thursday night - also with an open bar.

    If we had been in a position where potential candidates were all trying to out-compete and suck all of the oxygen out of the whole convention, then I would definitely be more concerned.

  •  Oh gheez (8+ / 0-)

    Let's see the total airfare and hotel accomodations, plus all the money donated and expenses paid out for the whole convention could have provided antivirals for thousands of Africans living with AIDS and saved countless lives.

    Reality check everyone.

    Unless you are living in a tent, with no money to your name, and have never paid for a wedding or event for yourselves or others or attended one that costscost LOTS of money, methinks this nitpicking over Warner's party is hypoctisy at its finest.

    Catch NY politics raw and uncensored at The CITY.

    by GregNYC on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:54:48 PM PDT

  •  I Guess I Missed This Development n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:57:16 PM PDT

  •  I don't care who Markos supports (4+ / 0-)

    I don't come here to hear his views on the candidates.  I come here to discuss issues.  Markos is politically quite middle of the road on the issues as far as I can tell. He is just radical when it comes to tactics.  His power comes from the medium not the content he provides.  

    I have not seen anything about Warner that excites me or anything about Hillary that appalls me.  I am planning to wait and see what they bring to the table in 2007-08.  

    When you are going through hell, keep going! - Winston Churchill

    by flo58 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:57:23 PM PDT

  •  I don't think I see the point (8+ / 0-)

    This diary is critical of Markos because he is being too favorable toward Warner, even though you make it very clear that he has NOT endorsed Warner and has not stated his intention to do so. How about waiting until he makes an endorsement, and then criticizing it?  I can see absolutely no harm in giving a politician a platform to speak, nor do I see any evidence that the community (Or Markos) has somehow rallied behind one candidate to the exclusion of others. It's easy to avoid a controversy about "how close Warner is growing to Daily Kos" - don't write diaries like this one.

    And I think it's a bit insulting to suggest that people will be deciding based on "coconut shrimp, and free kosmopolitans and t-shirts". Give people some credit. There are a lot of different kinds  of "liberals" on this site. Some are more moderate.  Can we please have recognition that we might have different ideas about who should run the country without suggesting that those who differ with you do so because of shallow, petty reasons?

    P.S.  I don't know a darn thing about Warner, but I'm open to suggestions.  Personally, if I had to vote today, I'd pick Clark, based on the fact that he's one of the few policians I've seen speak who truly moved me.  I don't even know if I agree with all of his positions. I do believe, however, that if he were president, he wouldn't take us into optional wars or violate our civil liberties. And I decided I liked him long before I knew what dKos was.  Most of us are fully capable of making up our minds about who to vote for without checking what Markos thinks first.

    •  ditto (0+ / 0-)

      "Personally, if I had to vote today, I'd pick Clark, based on the fact that he's one of the few policians I've seen speak who truly moved me.  I don't even know if I agree with all of his positions. I do believe, however, that if he were president, he wouldn't take us into optional wars or violate our civil liberties. And I decided I liked him long before I knew what dKos was.  Most of us are fully capable of making up our minds about who to vote for without checking what Markos thinks first."
      You've really articulated what I like about Clark.
      Plus I think he understands and cares how policy choices impact average people. And I think he is extremely well qualified and wants to solve problems in an enlightened way.

  •  next year that might be the case (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ericy, David Boyle, flo58

    can you imagine 12 dem nominee wanabees each trying to outdo one another, hope your hungry lol!

    this is your mission: TERMINATE the Bush presidency

    by nevadadem on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:03:01 PM PDT

  •  So what (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ademption, flo58, Esjaydee

    Whomever Kos supports is his problem, not mine.

    I have a candidate myself right now (Warner).
    And it isn't because of DailyKos (good or bad)

    ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING

    by v2aggie2 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:05:22 PM PDT

  •  John Edwards 2008 (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    flo58, CarolynC967, digitalfur, gpdx

    I thought that John Edwards had the best message and best represented progressive values in 2004. Although he hasn't announced for 2008 (as far as I know) he is my first choice and I think our best choice to crush the evildoers. Obviously, Markos is free to endorse or not endorse anyone as he sees fit. This is a pretty independent community and I think everyone here is capable of thinking for themseves. Markos built a communication machine not a thought control machine and I think he would agree with that. Edwards\Obama 2008

    •  I'd like to see Edwards come out swinging (0+ / 0-)

      like can.  He really has the ability to make complicated issues easy to understand without dumming them down.  He also has that Clintonian ability to wear his heart on his sleeve.  I thought he was almost but not quite there in '04.  Maybe next time.  

      When you are going through hell, keep going! - Winston Churchill

      by flo58 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:11:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ageed (0+ / 0-)

        Yes. I agree totally. He has a very southern charming and disarming manner about him and an ease with people like Clinton and he had a great message (2 Americas) and delivered it with a plain spoken easy to understand style. I think the reps are going to hang liberal trial lawyer over over him but I think he will stay on message and won't be effected by the smear.

  •  What is there about this guy that makes... (0+ / 0-)

    people excited about him at this stage in the process?  I don't want some technocratic trimmer who's going to run on a "competence not ideology" banner.  If I'm stuck w/ such a nominee come fall 2008, I'll vote for him, but why should I consider supporting him now?

    He has no visible position on the defining issue of our time.  Whoever wins in 2008 will inherent W's utter fiasco in Iraq--he's made it clear he ain't w/drawing.  What does Warner plan to do about the dire crisis that awaits him if he's elected?  If he has no clue, then why's he bothering to run?

    I honestly hope that a bunch of Kossacks took Jesse Unruh's advice and ate Warner's food and drank his booze and decided they'd take a pass on his campaign.  I hope even more that every member of this site takes a long, hard look at what is likely to face the next president and ask themselves honestly whether Warner appears to acknowledge the difficulty of that task.  The time for DLC nostrums has long since passed.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

    by RFK Lives on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:12:11 PM PDT

    •  I have taken a hard, long look at MW (0+ / 0-)

      I've read several articles about him. I read the "Foxes in the Henhouse" by Steve Jarding and Mudcat. I've taken the time to read his speeches including the one where explains why he's a Democrat. At his core, IMHO, he does believe in core Democratic values!! I know about most of his stances.

      And I support him anyway!!! I know what's he up against: the war in Iraq, a HUGE budget deficit etc. Given his successful record as Governor of VA, I think he can govern effectively and solve these problems!! Not talk about them, solve them!!!

      I find it downright insulting that you would insinuate that I haven't "taken a long, hard look" at him. I'm going to tell you this right now. I don't appreciate your condesenscion(sp)!!

      I HONESTLY believe that Warner would make an excellent president. I believe that he has the temperment for it. I believe that he has the flexibility to reach across the aisle and get
      things done and that's what's going to be needed in order to solve all the problems that we're going to have after Bush leaves office. It's going to be a tough job. But Warner has the experience to solve HUGE problems b/c that's what he did in Virginia. The problems that he faced in Virginia aren't the same scale as the problems that he's going to confront in Washington should he become president.

      But I believe that he will take the experience that he had in Virginia and use it to inform him how to solve the bigger problems in Washington.

      So, I would have to say that I respectfully and strongly disagree with your assessment of Warner....

      •  What does he plan to do about Iraq... (0+ / 0-)

        if he's elected?  I've yet to see him articulate a coherent strategy for handling the most difficult issue that will face him.  What have you learned about his strategy on Iraq during your long hard look at him?  

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:51:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He hasn't stated explicitly what he'd do in Iraq (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          4jkb4ia

          quite frankly. He probably won't announce any opinion about Iraq until after the 2006 midterms. That's not a problem for me. Actually, I think it's a politically wise thing to do. Basically, he's taking advantage of the fact that he does not hold a federal elected position.

          Iraq is probably going to look a whole lot different 6 months let alone 2 years from now. I want him to base his decision about what to do about Iraq from the facts on the ground by the time he reaches office. I believe that he has looked at Iraq and seen how difficult it would be. That's why he's talked so cautiously about it. Based on my reading of him, when's he unsure of something, he acts very cautiously and very deliberately. That's what I'm looking for in my presidential candidate. I'm not voting for Warner based on his positions. I'm voting for Warner based on his character.

          As long as Warner takes a multi-lateral approach to foreign policy, which based on his statements he does, that's good enough for me. I trust him to do the right thing. I don't need a micro-strategy about the Iraq war from him right now.

  •  Is his Rotary membership fair game as well? (0+ / 0-)

    ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING

    by v2aggie2 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:12:47 PM PDT

  •  This is going to be a big issue (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stevej, 4jkb4ia

    But I think this community is strong enough not to be affected by chocolate fountains and T-shirts.  We're going to have our own reaasons for the candidates we select to choose in 2008.

    I don't think you tell Mark Warner that he's not welcome or he can't spend his money a certain way.  So this is inevitable.  But I do think the expenditures are something of a waste in the sense that ultimately, it'll come down to message.  You can buy access, but that's not going to totally change minds.

    And hey, let's focus on 2006, anyway.  It's more important right now.

    D-Day, the newest blog on the internet (at the moment of its launch)

    by dday on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:13:33 PM PDT

  •  Centrist Dem = 2008 Loss n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CJB
  •  Sorry Booman... (37+ / 0-)

    but this diary was absolute bullshit. Your feelings for Russ Feingold are driving you into "making shit up" territory, and it's not pretty.

    1. Warner's speech wasn't a keynote.
    1. I had nothing to do with the scheduling of the event. I had no involvement with the event other than legally lending it my name and helping to promote it.
    1. I endorsed no one.
    1. Yeah -- I like Warner. I also like Feingold. And I like Richardson. And like Wes Clark.
    1. I introduced Wes Clark at his party. I introduced Warner at his events. I introduced Bill Richardson at his breakfast. If asked, I would've introduced Vilsack. If they had attended and had I been asked, I would've introduced HIllary, Kerry, Edwards or any other candidate.
    1. At some point, I will decide who I want to vote for. That'll be my decision. You all can make up your own minds. You are all grownups.
    1. But there's no hurry for anyone to make up their minds. Let the candidates work for your support. They'll have all of next year to make their case.
    1. The party didn't cost anything near $100K. It was expensive, no doubt. But I thought it was a nice gesture.
    1. I don't see Mark Warner on any DLC bill. Clearly, if he's hanging out in Vegas this weekend, Warner has chosen the netroots over the DLC.

    This has all been clear and obvious. I've said nothing that would suggest otherwise. But oh no -- Mark Warner spends some money letting us know that he appreciates and values what we're doing, and you get angry?

    So I call bullshit. Your guy didn't come out, some others did, and you're pissed. That's between you and your guy.

    But don't try to bring someone else down because they managed to show up and his operation worked hard to show their appreciation for what we're doing. And don't make up shit in your efforts to demonize and tear down.

    Don't turn this into the California gubernatorial primary. It's low class. It's dishonest. And utterly unecessary.

    •  Thanks (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cotterperson, eve, Luetta

      I wanted to do a couple of things while you are online. First thanks for the site and all that it does. Also, For all the crap we have been hearing about troll rating I think you just showed everyone here how to handle someone you do not agree with in a truly democratic forum. Thanks for all you do and Congrats on the successful convention.

    •  Kos..please write a front page diary (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bobbobgirl

      saying what you just wrote. I have left several comments above that this diary is a piece of shit with it's facts up it's ass. I hate that people are reading this pile of CRAP with misinformation and bullshit abound. He is also spreading the lies in Green over at his place. Just disgusting. I am now glad I haven't been over at that Nasty Kos Hating Booman Tribune since last November. I got troll rated for just being a member here. Some even followed me here and troll rated me here. Total bullshit. Then SusanHu left or was run off by the crazies. Now this shit. Ughhhhhhh. This fucking stinks. Any Cred Booman may have had is finished.

      •  In at least the early days of Booman (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cotterperson

        Susanhu was the best thing they had by a mile. Some of Booman's diaries over here needed to be said. This one at least started a primary discussion.

      •  I used up my troll ratings on you (0+ / 0-)

        You have got to be the most whiney, ass kissing, suck up that I've ever seen. Oh Kos.....mwah, mwah. I remember clearly, you doing the same thing to Booman over at his place when it suited your agenda. Sucking up to him like there was no tomorrow. Now you want to grovel at Kos' feet, so you call Booman a liar. Puuuufuckingthetic.

        •  Stop continuing to spread lies (0+ / 0-)

          I have never dissed or bad mouthed Dkos over at Booman. Never. I haven't even commented over there since Nov. You are a perfect example of the types of bloggers that are left over at BT. Clearly you just want the place to die off. Go back to your small bubble. The place became toxic because of people like you. All one needs to do is go over and look at Boomans linked diary and read the comments to debunk the crap you are saying here. Anyone who reads this please go over to Booman Tribune and read the comments from the Tribbers in Boomans diary that is on the front page in regards to "Markos and Warner are getting a little Cozy". The proof is in the vile and toxic comments. Soon the place will become so small that Booman will not be able to keep it going. You all should be trying to get more members there, not make them leave. btw/ I am finished with you.

          I am typing my fingers to the bone for Harry and America.

          by Chamonix on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 10:09:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I ain't finished with you :o) (0+ / 0-)

            I never said you dissed Kos over there. I said you did some serious ass kissing over there when it suited your agenda. Which at the time had nothing to do with Kos. The comments over there may not be very friendly to Kos, but that doesn't make them toxic dude. Only to those who can't stand having their tiny world view criticized. Like I said below, no one is censored over there, which means that you'll find comments that rub you the wrong way. Kinda like the real world. You'll also find those who disagree with those comments making an argument against them. More real life. If real life is toxic to you, then I feel sorry for you.

            Now I'll allow you to be done with me.
            Superfool over and out.

            •  your troll rating of me speaks louder (0+ / 0-)

              than your words. Exactly what happened when I was a memeber at BM. I would have members of BT come over here and troll rate me for my comments or the fact that I was a member of both places. As I wrote elsewhere, it would benefit you and the rest at BT to try and help BM get more members not have them leave. If this continues and membership continues to drop you will have no site to post on. Clearly I am not the only one to have left. Look inside yourself and the members over there. Right around the time I left even Diane101 was being ganged up on. It makes me really sad to see the BT come to this. It was so promising when it first started out. That was why I signed up the first or second day, when I was asked. Booman should have had his facts straight before posting his diary. IF he would have we could have had an interesting subject to debate, instead it just did more damage to his site.

              I am typing my fingers to the bone for Harry and America.

              by Chamonix on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 10:53:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Diane101 (0+ / 0-)

                still posts there btw. So does Shirl. So do a lot of other people. BT isn't losing an inordinate amount of members. People come and go. Some few were banned. Others are joining now. And as has always been true, there are many activist there, including me, who get up from behind their computers and support people like Cindy Sheehan in the street. Like I said, Booman is not happy with any Kos bashing there. It makes him uncomfortable. But he's tolerant, and that's to his great credit.

                As for this diary, he got something wrong and owned up to it. And it looks to me like it did generate a decent discussion here. At least he had the guts to take the critiscism that he knew was coming. He's got integrity. He's no liar, and I think you know that. Since you seem to be changing your opinion from Booman lying, to not getting his facts straight, I'll remove the troll ratings.

            •  btw/ Supersoling you might want to look (0+ / 0-)

              HERE and see that it just isn't me. You might want to look into these numbers. Look back around Oct/Nov and see the numbers compared to what they are today and how they have declined. Looks like it's not just me. I guess there are a lot more memeber that feel the same way I do and your behaviour and troll ratings are indictitive of how unpopular BT has become. I could be wrong but it looks like a drop in hundreds of thousands of page views and visits. This is something important that the community should be looking into to help out Martin, not coming over here and troll rating members that he should be trying to get to come back. I know this is his living and he is a good man. I would hope you all would be trying to help him gain readership as opposed to losing it. No one would want to see the site close down. We need all the liberal/progressive sites we can get to help stop the Chaos and madness that Bush has brought to our government.

              I am typing my fingers to the bone for Harry and America.

              by Chamonix on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 11:02:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Alright (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Chamonix
                Point taken.

                However, I don't think June's low number should count since we're only a third of the way through. Time will tell. Seems like trafic has been pretty steady since January. And SusanHu was still there in January because she blogged the Superbowl. I think the big spike in late Sept. and Nov. might have had something to do with the great amount of protest activism that was happening at the end of Sept. with the big march in DC on Sept. 24th.
                I never said that i was content, or even happy with all of the discourse at BT. But that's the price you pay sometimes when you have a place as open as BT is. I'm not concerned, and I haven't noticed any concern from Booman either. At least if he is concerned about traffic, he hasn't said anything about it. It could just be a natural ebb and flow of a growing place. I have already said that I felt the site suffered from the loss of SusanHu. But it was her decision not to return, and I think that was a mistake because she had, and still does have, many supporters there, including me, even though we disagreed.

              •  it's ironic (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                supersoling, Militarytracy

                because the hit in traffic I took was for losing my temper with a member that refused to stop defaming Chris Bowers after I explained repeatedly that her accusations were false.  I banned her and many people quit the site in protest.  

                That doesn't quite fit with your theory.

                •  I really think it was more than that and (0+ / 0-)

                  you probably know it. It was and is an accumulation of a lot of things. I also can't imagine that the current stuff that has been going on at BT is something that you wanted your site to become when you first started it. Before the Pie wars, it was the best, most fun, positive place on the blogs. Most of the time I would check in there before going to Dkos. I always looked forward to checking in over there. Once it became a place for Refugees from Dkos, the bashing of Kos/Dkos has never stopped. I also know you have tried as hard as you can to stop the nonsense. As I wrote elsewhere on one of these threads, for a short time it was common for BT memebers to come over here and troll rate me for supporting Dkos/Kos over there or just for them knowing I was still a member here. I lied through the pie wars, I know what went on. I guess many assumed because I did not leave Dkos over them that I supported everything that Kos and other memebers wrote. So I was guilty, I guess for just continuing to stay a member here.  Talk about trying to shut up dissent. There were many times I felt I was being run out of the place by small gangs. Troll rating me, while uprating their partners. For a while I even tried just hanging in Diane101's cafe just because if was off limits to the bashing. Anyway, you know there are problems and that members have left. I am not telling you something you don't know and I am sure trying to do something about. Good luck over there and I can only hope it all calms down and BT becomes the place that you dreamed that it would. It is funny because many of my political views are much more in tune with the members of BT, than DK. But the other stuff is what totally turned me off. I am not sure how any of this can be cleaned up and solved but I do know that we know the Enemy and the enemy is NOT US. Good luck and I hope only the best for you and the Booman Tribune.

                  I am typing my fingers to the bone for Harry, his little hippie River and America.

                  by Chamonix on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:38:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  I don't usually Recommend kos's posts... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cotterperson, Chamonix, Sam I Am

      ...I wouldn't want to be seen as sucking up or anything like that.  But I can't resist Recommending for this:

      1.  Yeah -- I like Warner. I also like Feingold. And I like Richardson. And like Wes Clark.
      1. I introduced Wes Clark at his party. I introduced Warner at his events. I introduced Bill Richardson at his breakfast. If asked, I would've introduced Vilsack. If they had attended and had I been asked, I would've introduced HIllary, Kerry, Edwards or any other candidate.

      That's class.  That's why I keep coming back here.

      I LOVE YOU, MAN!!!

      Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead. Looks like 2006 is going to be a "rebuilding year" for Al-Qaida.

      by Brother Love on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:45:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Come on, Kos (5+ / 0-)

      You're being just as bad here in simply writing off Booman's piece as angry simply because Feingold didn't show up. Booman was writing his observations, and it's fine for you to refute them, but is there any need for your equally baseless attack?

      And don't try and dispute Warner's DLC ties. He is a DLC member, and there is no way getting around it. I would be very wary of his so-called 'wooing' of the netroots.

      Deny My Freedom
      "Inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen." -Al Gore

      by PsiFighter37 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:20:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  LOL (0+ / 0-)
        that's true.

        kos just played westley to booman's angelides.

        or is it the other way around??

        "No, I understand that. But I - I would really like to have a chance to discuss what you keep telling me what I'm not discussing." -- Rep. Barney Frank.

        by BiminiCat on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:19:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh please. He is defending (0+ / 0-)

        himself and the lies that Booman posted in his diary. Get a clue.

        I am typing my fingers to the bone for Harry and America.

        by Chamonix on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 12:25:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Are you calling Booman a liar? n/t (0+ / 0-)
          •  Yes Lies..and stop with the rating abuse (0+ / 0-)

            although I would expect nothing less than booman members coming over here after reporting back and then troll rating people that speak the truth unlike the games that Was spread in this pathetic diary. I won't stoop to your pathetic BMT level of troll rating. I save my troll rating for the real deal, I don't just toss them out like you. This diary has been debunked so many times if you cannot see and read that then you are crazy. Lies, mistruths, whatever you want to call it. So cool it superfool. Go back to your small green playground.

            I am typing my fingers to the bone for Harry and America.

            by Chamonix on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 08:56:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's funny Chamonix (0+ / 0-)

              You know as well as any other member of BT that Booman doesn't care for Kos bashing at his site. And when it does happen, he's the first one to make his distaste for it known. He has a simple rule, which he followed here. If you have a beef with anything Kos, and want to post a diary about it, you are required to cross post it here. Which he did. You might disagree with what he's said here, but calling him a liar is a different animal. Show me where he lied. The only thing he got wrong was his claim that Warner was a keynote speaker. He acknowledged his mistake in his reply to Kos here. Everything else is his opinion of what he saw. You may not like it, but it doesn't constitute a lie.

              The original diary is at BT. This is a cross post. There's also a link to this diary in the one at BT. So anyone who wants to read this can come here on their own. No reporting back. In fact, go look at his diary at BT and tell me where there is one comment that constitutes a report of what is being said in this diary. There aren't any. Which makes you that which you accuse Booman of being. A liar. I troll rated you on the substance, or lack of substance in your comment. Though I made my feelings towards you clear as well. And you should also know, being a member there, as you are, that troll ratings, or any ratings other than fours, are rarer than a solar eclipse over there. Another lie.

              Superfool...nice. I like it.

              •  You are wrong and can't admit it (0+ / 0-)

                I am sorry for you. I left back in Nov and haven't been back. It is toxic over there. Readership has drastically dropped and that is something that you all should look at. The constant put down of Kos and kossacks is really bad. I am glad to hear, if it is true, that the gangs are gone. As far as Boomans lies/untruths Markos points them out, along with calling Bullshit on Boomans diary. Instead of you standing up for the lies, you should look at why Booman Trib has and is loosing so many members instead of coming over here and troll rating a memeber that is clearly not a troll. A comment back from you would have been just fine, but to troll rating me just shows how the members of BT need to look inward and see what the root of the problem is over at BT. Booman printed lies about Kos, I called him out. Simple really.

                I am typing my fingers to the bone for Harry and America.

                by Chamonix on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 09:41:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Correction (0+ / 0-)

                  I was wrong about no one reporting back to BT. Psifighter did cross post Kos' comment from here to there. See, I do admit when I am wrong.

                  As far as BT losing readers goes, the root cause of that, if it is true, has nothing to do with Kos bashing. It has to do more with internal disagreements regarding American exceptionalism, those who support it, and those who don't. SusanHu's departure had nothing to do with anything Kos. It was because of people disagreeing with her position, or at least the appearance of her position of supporting the anti-muslim cartoons in European newspapers. I was extremely sad to see her go, even though I was one who ultimately disagreed with her. And it is true that the overall quality of BT has suffered in her absence. But it has nothing to do with this place. Any other internal problems arise because there is a larger freedom there to post diaries and comments on a wider range of subjects and beliefs than is found here. So there is more conflict, but in the end, I think it's better to have disagreements with more openess, than to have an echo chamber. Everyone is free to come and go as they please.

                  You calling Booman a liar was an insult that I couldn't let slide. You can call his opinion bullshit...fine. But a liar? Come on. Then to attack his whole site as indicative of his worth as a commenter here? More bullshit. Seems to me, you have an identity crisis.

    •  Kos (6+ / 0-)

      i checked the schedule and you're right.  While Howard Dean, Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer were described as Keynote speakers, Mark Warner was only described as a "Progressive Superstar".  My mistake and apologies.

      I said you did not endorse Warner twice.

      I was at the Richardson breakfast.  Remember?  You didn't describe it as a great first date as you did with Warner at the Stratosphere.

      I never guessed how much the party cost, I explicitly said it had no affiliation with you, and I only noted that many conventioneers were vocally upset about what they saw as a misuse of funds.

      On your last point, you sat with me and questioned Warner about Iraq.  It was a good conversation.  But what did he say that made you think his position on Iraq is different substantively from Lieberman?

      Why are you so gung-ho on Ned Lamont?  Why did you tell Adam Nagourney that Kossacks are not fond of Hillary?  Is it a stupid kiss?  Or is it a stupid occupation of an Arab land?  Seriously...which is it, Markos?

      What's your bottom line?  Joe kisses Bush, you kiss Warner?  What's the big difference if you really think the DLC needs to be fought tooth and nail on the war?  Or forget the DLC if that is a bone of contention.  It is the position on the war, isn't it, that makes you hate the DLC so much.  Right?

      I'm not trying to take Warner down at all.  I thought I made that clear in the diary.  

      Telling me I'm low class is not an argument.  It's just provocation.    

      And as I said, this was going to rip this community apart whether I said anything or not.  And for what it is worth, I basically agree with Delaware Dems diary,

      •  hating the DLC goes far beyond the war (0+ / 0-)

        It is pragmatic. The DLC spoils the Democratic brand. And when Mark Warner shows up at their events it gives credibility to Marshall Wittman's quotes bashing Democrats and the netroots. The DLC bad for our Party, how can Warner be good for the Party if he doesn't realize that?

      •  YOU want to rip this community apart (0+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Hidden by:
        Sirocco

        for your own self-serving reasons.  No one else does.  Only you.

    •  Now, if we can get you to add Gore (0+ / 0-)

      to your list of favorites, we'll be all set, Kos :)

      BTW, you did an excellent job on the meta-Kos panel.

    •  Vilsack is DLC chair and was in Vegas (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thecarriest

      I don't see Mark Warner on any DLC bill. Clearly, if he's hanging out in Vegas this weekend, Warner has chosen the netroots over the DLC

      When it came to policy, Warner headlined the DLC event on Iraq (that gave the DLC the credibility to bash the netroots all over the press last month).

      I hope Warner does choose the netroots over the DLC, but throwing money at the blogs isn't a choice, not when he is still giving the DLC a lifeline by going to their events.

    •  Incredible omniscience, Kos! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sirocco

      Your feelings for Russ Feingold are driving you into "making shit up" territory

      Your omniscience is truly impressive! What else can you tell us about Booman's feelings and how they express themselves in his opinions? Really - as mere mortals many of us believed only Booman knew his thoughts and feelings.

      How much more power and adulation will it take for you to get over being, you know, small?

      The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. - MLK Jr.

      by thecarriest on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 02:47:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If someone's trying to buy your vote... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, ms badger

    ...and you can SEE that... then it's not working anyway. So why are people getting so worked up about it?

    Personally I was a Warner fan LONG before the coconut shrimp. And getting him to shake my hand and look me fully in the eye and speak to me as if he ACTUALLY heard me was worth more than any number of kostinis. The man has personality. I dig that.

    conscientious objector in the battle of the sexes.

    by plymouth on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:22:40 PM PDT

  •  Mark Warner promotes the Democratic brand (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jim in Chicago, Luetta

    March 16, 2003  
    "...In Washington the last couple of years, we've seen lots of talk, but few results. And we're heading in the wrong direction.

    The last time we had a Democratic President, America saw the first budget surpluses in a generation.

    Just three years later, the Republicans' own numbers show a future filled with deficits as far as the eye can see.

    The last time we had a Democratic President, unemployment fell to record lows. But today it climbs a little higher every month.

    The last time we had a Democratic President, the stock market soared. Today, it just sputters.

    In 2000, America was promised something called "compassionate conservatism." And you know - that sounded familiar to a lot of us in the South. We had been saying for a long time - balance the budget, but not on the backs of working people.

    But they meant something else - and all we got was more of the same....

    Virginia hasn't voted for a Democratic President since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. When I ran for Governor, the Republicans controlled both houses in the legislature and every statewide office - and the White House picked our Governor to run the Republican National Committee.

    And despite those odds, we won because we built a new coalition of Virginians.

    We did that by laying out a message that focused on meeting the needs of an information age economy - a message that stressed economic opportunity, educational opportunities, and fiscal responsibility.

    We started with the most loyal Democrats. We said to African Americans and to working people - We know that you have been taken for granted in the past. Those days are over. You will help lead this team.

    We said, we're going to bring people together - just like Governor Winter showed us how to do here in Mississippi.

    And then we reached out to Virginians in rural communities - to people who hadn't voted for a Democrat in a long, long time. And we asked them to give us a chance.

    In a 21st century economy, you can be successful anywhere - if you have a good education and job skills.

    We talked about giving young people the chance to get a good job in the place they grew up. Because you shouldn't have to leave your family or your hometown to get ahead.

    We said, Virginia will never prosper if all the good jobs are in one area, and other places get left behind.

    And then we said something that a lot of people had never thought of - you can like NASCAR - you can like hunting - you can like bluegrass music - and you can still vote for a Democrat.

    We did all this because we recognized that if you're going to offer people economic hope, you can't spend all your time talking about the same old social issues that have divided us for too long.

    You can't move forward if every discussion is about abortion and guns.

    Those are all important issues, and we can't ignore them. But they create passion that often distracts us from more fundamental issues.

    And let me say it again - if we can do it in Virginia, we can do it for America.

    We have to do it for America. Because America deserves better than failed fiscal policy. America deserves better than an economy that leaves millions of people and whole communities behind.

    And Democrats offer better. We offer optimism, and we offer hope for the future.

    Now as you might guess, a lot of Republicans and Independents supported us. And since then, a lot of them have asked me, Mark - Why exactly are you a Democrat?

    And I just smile. Because if you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.

    I am a Democrat because since Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence - and since Jackson spoke for the common man - our party has never been the party of the status quo.

    Instead, we have been the ones to see a challenge - and do something about it. Let's be honest - it hasn't always worked perfectly. Sometimes it has gotten us in trouble. Sometimes it has split us apart. But sometimes, those are the wages of progress.

    And yet, I am a Democrat because the greatest and most noble political experiments of our time had their birth in our party.

    I am a Democrat because the New Deal literally saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

    I am a Democrat because a generation after a Democratic president started the Peace Corps, you can still find faded photographs of John F. Kennedy on the walls of homes from South Africa to South America.

    I am a Democrat because fighting for working men and women is always the right fight.

    I am a Democrat because our party led the struggle for civil rights and because we recognize that discrimination and bigotry are not dead - and that we must continue to seek equal opportunity for all.

    I am a Democrat because despite our failures, our missteps, and our excesses - we know that waging a war on poverty does not mean fighting the individuals who are poor.

    I am a Democrat because we know that today's battle is about the future versus the past - and it's time to put aside yesterday's battles of us versus them.

    I am a Democrat because we know that criticizing success won't create a single job.

    And most of all, I am a Democrat because when my three daughters go out into the world to make their lives, I want them to find a world where there's less hopelessness - less selfishness - and less violence.

    I want them to find a world where there is more opportunity - more understanding - and more hope.

    That is the mission of this party.

    That is what we work for.

    That is why we get up every morning.

    That is why we're here tonight.

    And our work is not done."

    http://www.forwardtogetherpac.com/...

    Stop Corporate Influence; buy DEMOCRACY BONDS!!! http://www.democrats.org/democracybonds.html

    by timber on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:26:01 PM PDT

  •  If you're looking for a progressive.... (6+ / 0-)

    ....who is also electable, look no further than Wes Clark. IMHO

    I like Mark Warner too, but when I saw him up there today, all I could think of was "McCain will eat this man alive"

    I also feel that it's a tad unseemly to be hawking for 2008 votes while congressional candidates are scrambling for money and recognition. It's one of the reasons I respect Clark. He refuses to discuss 2008 until after November. He feels it detracts from all the Dems running this year.....and I happen to agree with him.

    my 2c

    "This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass."....Molly Ivins

    by pelican on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:27:14 PM PDT

    •  Wes is still my choice (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eve, Brother Love

      I just haven't found anyone who can knock Wes off the pedastal.  He's got brains, class, electability, common sense, character, toughness, etc, etc, etc.  

      I also can't stand when people suggest that the 2008 is  already narrowed down to 2 primary candidates (Edwards and Feingold?  Hillary and Warner?).  Whatever.  

    •  Funny, I had the opposite reaction. (0+ / 0-)

      I wasn't a Clark fan in '04, but he HUGELY impressed me at YKos, to the point that I'm now thinking any Warner/Clark combo on the ticket would be fabulous.  But I prefer Warner on top of the ticket because I think his political instincts, and his ability to sell progressive policies to decline-to-state and disaffected GOP voters, is better.

  •  you didnt get it (11+ / 0-)

    That was a joke made by Markos, I've never asked that he endorse Warner.

    The party was fun, of course it costed money, anytime you do something right it does. We've the fortune of having a PAC that's well supported, and we are using the funds to support candidates nationwide, and those that are doing to hard work.

    Of course, for a Senator, they'd rather raise the money for the next "Senate campaign" and a bunch of television ads.

    On a more substantive note, why not discuss the Governor's record in Virginia for your criticism? I think you belittle Warner's supporters, and all of those at YearlyKos, by implying that they would be won over by a party.

    •  As I noted elsewhere, I suspect that... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cotterperson, CarolynC967

      most Kossacks follow the Jesse Unruh approach and that they can't be bought by free food and free liquor (Unruh mentioned free women, too, but I assume that Warner wasn't providing that inducement).  If they can be bought that cheaply, I better find a new site to visit.

      My question on Warner is about his position on Iraq.  Assuming that W will maintain a large American troop presence there until 1/20/09, what will a President Warner do at that point?  From what I've seen thus far, Warner appears to be largely avoiding the subject.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

      Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

      by RFK Lives on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:58:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  there aren't too many credible (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cotterperson

        presidential candidates who also have the depth to answer your question about Iraq except Wes Clark.
        Who else really has the experience to intelligently answer that question?
        I was interested in Warner's position on Iraq and watched a segment from Davos carried by CSPAN that featured Mark Warner and two Republicans. There was not much depth offered by any of them. And to be fair, what's going on in Iraq is catastrophic and it's hard to expect a layman to know what course of action should be followed. Wes Clark is the only person who I've heard say that it's critical for the constitution to be rewritten in Iraq so that not only Kurds and Shia get the benefit of the oil revenue - the Sunnis must be included for there to be stability. How hard is that for our government to understand? It shouldn't be.

        •  There's this guy who used to be VP... (0+ / 0-)

          who has the depth to discuss it.  I guess that you're not including him as a candidate at present.  The whole thing that set me off on this issue was someone stating above that there really was no difference between Gore and Warner on Iraq.  I see considerable differences dating back to Gore's opposition to the IWR when it was considered to be political suicide to take such a position.

          You're forgetting that Feingold, who obviously is a candidate, was the first senator to call for a timetable.  That position, which was considered extreme when it was first enunciated, has been adopted by Kerry and by others since.

          This site distrusts HRC and despises Lieberman largely b/c of their views on Iraq.  It admires Murtha largely b/c of his contrasting view.  I've asked several times in this thread what Warner's position is on Iraq.  I felt before and I know now that he has no position on the issue that will probably be the most vexing one that he will face if he's elected.

          Unless and until Warner has a coherent position on Iraq, I don't understand the enthusiasm that some on this site have for him.

          Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

          by RFK Lives on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 07:47:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  whoaaaa (0+ / 0-)

            I love Feingold. When he voted against the Patriot Act I called his office to thank him He is one of our most thoughtful courageous senators.
            I have gained a lot of respect for Al Gore and appreciated his very thoughtful heartfelt speeches against the tyranny of Bush/Cheney.
            I still doubt his judgement at picking Lieberman as a running mate. What was he thinking?
            But I am grateful to him for all his work on global warming.
            But with all due respect, neither of these two men have the experience to deal with Iraq.
            It is a country of 26 million in absolute shambles and crisis with a civil war. And we have American soldiers in harm's way there. People are dying every day. It's a crisis.

      •  Warner has said that... (0+ / 0-)

        ...we should not still be in Iraq on 1/20/09, and if we are, he'd THEN set a plan for getting us out within months.

        How can he NOW set a timetable when he doesn't know what the circumstances will be on the ground in '09, and hasn't been handed the intel briefs, or the opportunity to work with the generals whose advice he'd need to work out the details?

    •  Sorry Jerome (4+ / 0-)

      if I missed the joke I was not alone.  I'll take you at your word on this.  It's not a distinction that I think a lot of people are going to accept on its face, but I believe you.

  •  the DailyKos primary: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, NeuvoLiberal

    If Gore runs, or even if there is a credible Draft movement, he wins (the DK primary).  If not then Feingold.  If Feingold doesn't run then... I guess Warner might get considerable support.

    Whom Markos endorses isn't going to matter much, and I think he knows that.  It's the nature of the netroots.  I don't see their relationship as being a big deal, honest to God.

  •  I like Warner (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dangangry, b1oody8romance7

    There is a lot to like about Warner. Right now, we need a leader more than we need a martyr.  Yes, each of us may hold certain positions that Warner does not, but we can't get everything we want.

    I'm not saying we should keep our options open (obviously we should).  I'm saying that Warner is a leader, and he is worth our interest and our support.

    Will you spend an hour on the ground for every 100 hours you spend fuming online?

    by dspivak on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:41:51 PM PDT

  •  You know what I want in a nominee? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jim in Chicago, Sirocco, 4jkb4ia

    I want someone who is able to listen.  I want someone who is able to learn.  I want someone who is willing to change his or her mind publicly and is able to clearly articulate to the country why he or she changed her mind.  And I want someone who, if they disagree with me, at least gives me the sense that he or she respects my opinion.

    If anything attracted me to Howard Dean, it was these qualities.

    I disagreed with Dr. Dean on a few issues, but I never got the sense that if I had fifteen minutes with him to discuss the issues I disagreed with him on, that he would pander to me or simply tune out.  I got the impression that he would listen intently to what I had to say and compare it to what he thought, and that, if what I said was profound enough to him, that he might actually change his mind.  At the very least, he would respectfully and thoughtfully disagree with me.

    I like candidates like Dr. Dean because I figure that if a president is open-minded and willing to listen, if a crisis comes along, he will be able to quickly assess the options in front of him and make a reasonable decision.  You see, to me, open-mindedness and a willingness to listen are the mark of a quick and thoughtful mind and a certain humility of spirit.  I want a president with those qualities.

    I can think of two possible candidates in the current crop that have demonstrated those qualities: Al Gore and Russ Feingold.  I would wholeheartedly support either candidate.  If Mark Warner demonstrates open-mindedness and a willingness to listen as well, then I'll strongly consider supporting him, even though I strongly disagree with his stance on gay marriage.  The key thing here is that, if I sense Mr. Warner is capable to listening to those who disagree with him and reconsidering his positions, then I can hold out hope that he'll change his mind eventually on gay marriage, and that's good enough for me, at least for now.

    That's the point: if you disagree with me, at least give me hope that you'll reconsider your opinion.  Any candidate that can do that goes on my list of possible support for the primary.

  •  This should be fun... (8+ / 0-)

    2007 is going to be a long, long year.

  •  Let them woe us (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, peace voter

    They can throw parties, pass out t-shirt etc. Let them make speaches. Give them the podium. Rad their positions.

    And ultimately may the best man/woman win.

    fact does not require fiction for balance

    by mollyd on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:58:32 PM PDT

  •  Warner (0+ / 0-)

    I think the guy has incredible fiscal sense, that said he is far too conservative on social issues for my taste. I prefer Feingold, who has made it clear he will not abide discrimination and feels very strongly about individual rights and the right to privacy.

  •  Amen. (6+ / 0-)

    I'm glad you wrote this.

    I don't understand the fascination with Warner.  The guy holds positions that eseem yo be the antithesis of what Marko professes he wants, nevermind the fact that Warner is the DLC poster boy for 2008.

    What happened to "taking down the DLC?"

    Gone by the boards apparently.

    Yeah, yeah, I know what the Warner fans will write...

    "He won in a red state."

    "He's a Governor."

    "He helped elect the next Governor."

    "Blah, blah, blah."

    To me, Warner is Hillary Clinton in an Armani suit.  All straddle, all the time.  Or far less politically talented Bill Clinton. And kos has no love for Hillary, so why the fascination with Warner?

    Yeah, I know Jerome is on the payroll.

    But what the hell, kos?  How does Warner differ from Clinton on any issue of substance?

    And he is THE MAIN MAN OF THE DLC.

    There is a disconnect.

    Somewhere.

    Visit Satiric Mutt -- my contribution to the written cholesterol now clogging the arteries of the Internet.

    by Bob Johnson on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:21:22 PM PDT

    •  Ahgagagag (0+ / 0-)
      thar be a dotted line from the libertarian democrat to the mainsail ...

      Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

      by MarketTrustee on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:37:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  i respectfully disagree (0+ / 0-)

      The fact that Warner, although so tied to and worked by the DLC, has put so much weight on the netroots (let alone recognize them at all) is fascinating. And even though Feingold may seem electable as a person, when self-described conservatives outnumber self-described liberals by a more than 2-1 ratio, his record is N.O.T. not. I'm not saying that we have to have another free-trade Clinton in the White House, but be real. Neither Howard Dean nor Russel Feingold would win a presidential election. There are other perfectly good choices, but Warner seems to have the most potential to take on Hillary at the moment. I would prefer anyone over her.

      -5.38 -4.95 - "If my doctor told me I had only six minutes to live, I wouldn't brood. I'd type a little faster." - Isaac Asimov

      by b1oody8romance7 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:49:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Give me a break. (0+ / 0-)

        And quit fucking talking to me about Feingold.  Quit making dumbass assumptions.

        Warner is doing what all pols do... Playing the angles.

        "Fascinating?"

        Hilarious.

        Visit Satiric Mutt -- my contribution to the written cholesterol now clogging the arteries of the Internet.

        by Bob Johnson on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:51:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  alright. (0+ / 0-)

          "I don't understand the fascination with Warner."

          Calm down. I was only telling you why you should be "fascinated."

          -5.38 -4.95 - "If my doctor told me I had only six minutes to live, I wouldn't brood. I'd type a little faster." - Isaac Asimov

          by b1oody8romance7 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:54:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  prove it. (0+ / 0-)

      if you're going to make accusations about him being "the main man" of the DLC, i'd like to see concrete statements.  it's starting to wear on my nerves ever so slightly how people are screaming from the rooftops already.  i've lived in VA since 2000, and by god, the man is worth a look.  don't be so quick to judge already.

      "our politics are our deepest form of expression: they mirror our past experiences and reflect our dreams and aspirations for the future." - paul wellstone

      by liberalsouth on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:44:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

      My sentiments exactly.  There's nothing there.

  •  Still up to your old tricks, I see... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda, MJB, Luetta

    For the umpteenth time, if you want to post crap like this, why don't you do it over at your own blog?  When the editorial board of the WSJ takes exception to something the LA Times has published, they bloody well don't try to get their response published in the Times.  They use their own soapbox for that, and you should consider emulating this aspect of "Old Media" practice.

    As to why this is crap: see post by Kos above; see also Brutus in Julius Caesar.

    -AG

    (-3.00, -5.28) -- I'm a libertarian capitalist Democrat

    by AlphaGeek on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:22:22 PM PDT

  •  this is not pragmatic. (0+ / 0-)

    warner at the moment, aside from gore, seems the only pragmatic choice for pres. i would love to see mr. feingold in the oval office. but i doubt it'll happen any time soon.

    warner may be the property of the DLC. but he recognizes the power of the netroots. that makes him a completely different beast. nuff said.

    -5.38 -4.95 - "If my doctor told me I had only six minutes to live, I wouldn't brood. I'd type a little faster." - Isaac Asimov

    by b1oody8romance7 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:36:04 PM PDT

    •  I'm not sure it makes him a completely different (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peace voter, nonconreformer

      beast.  The fact that he may acknowledge the power of the netroots doesn't necessarily mean he won't exploit or take advantage of us (the netroots).  I'm not saying he would, I'm saying it's possible.  And I'm not sure I'd agree about Warner seeming to be the most pramatic choice for president.  I think it all depends on what you mean by pramatic and whether or not you feel a presidential candidate should be chosen because they are pragmatic.  

      We Need REGIME CHANGE  

  •  Dukakis-like!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rgilly, cotterperson

    "Warner gave a well presented and well received speech, emphasizing a Dukakis-like technocratic competency that was striking (if one hadn't been expecting it) for its lack of ideology."

    I can't decide: Should I laugh or cry?

  •  ouch (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson

    i think warner's the bomb and i never even got coconut shrimp, a kosmo or a t-shirt.

    bummer for me i guess.

    "No, I understand that. But I - I would really like to have a chance to discuss what you keep telling me what I'm not discussing." -- Rep. Barney Frank.

    by BiminiCat on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:42:37 PM PDT

  •  it's awfully early to be injecting (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CJB, cotterperson

    this type of speculation into the mix, in my opinion.

    It's not that it's necessarily harmful, it's just that it accomplishes very litte.

    I like Markos, and respect his opinion. However, I don't always agree with it. I don't think there is a single person here who is a mindless drone that would follow an 'edict', even if Markos said 'vote this way'.

    If one agrees with Warner or not, it appears at least he has enough vision to see the potential of our community as political players.

    That I think, that part  is a good thing. Eveything else is pretty much speculation; perhaps valid points, but all speculative.

    Just because Warner was 'Frist' to come to a yearlykos convention, out of what appears to be the current crop of potential candidates in 2008 means little in terms of his bona fides. Free t-shirts with his picture on it do not a voter make.

    "Rovus vulgaris americanus"
    Nasty, freshly-demoted
    Soon-to-be-indicted
    Co-conspirator
    -7.63, -9.

    by shpilk on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:43:22 PM PDT

  •  Edwards, DLC, IWR and the netroots (0+ / 0-)

    since you seem to be unaware of it when you declare "John Edwards and Russ Feingold are going to be the only non-DLC candidates with a prayer of winning", I should point out that Edwards may have had strong DLC ties while in the senate.

    Edwards was declared as one of the co-founders of the Senate "New" Democrat Coalition (which is considered the "congressional arm" of the DLC, and is affiliated with the DLC under the "New" Democrat Movement) in this DLC document:

       DLC Update | March 13, 2000
       New Dems Organize in Senate

       Though U.S. Senators have always played a key role in the DLC and the New Democrat movement, we're pleased to see that nine senators have taken the formal step of organizing a New Democrat Coalition to work with the existing 64-member NDC in the House. The founding members of the Senate NDC include: Joe Lieberman (CT), Evan Bayh (IN), Mary Laundrieu (LA), John Edwards (NC), John Breaux (LA), Chuck Robb (VA), Blanche Lambert Lincoln (AR), Bob Kerrey (NE) and Bob Graham (FL).

       It's also significant that key members of both House and Senate NDCs held a press conference last week to announce the formal introduction of the New Democrat education reauthorization bill sponsored by Senators Lieberman, Bayh and Landrieu, which originated at the DLC's affiliated think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute. We hope it will become the basis for a key reform of federal education policy this year. Joining the three Senate sponsors at the press conference were Senators Breaux, Lincoln, and Herb Kohl (WI), and Representatives Cal Dooley (CA), Adam Smith (WA), Joe Hoeffel (PA) and Jim Maloney (CT).

       Both developments were big, and good news, for New Democrats.

    However, in  a later document on the same, his name is missing:

    DLC | Overview | December 1, 2001
    About the Senate New Democrat Coalition

    Senators Evan Bayh (IN), Bob Graham (FL), Mary Landrieu (LA), Joe Lieberman (CT) and Blanche Lincoln (AR) founded the Senate New Democrat Coalition (SNDC) in the spring of 2000 to provide a unified voice in the U.S. Senate for progressive ideas, mainstream values, and innovative, market-based policy solutions.

    In just over a year, the SNDC has quickly become the strongest and most unified Democratic group in the Senate. With long-time leaders like John Breaux (LA), and a strong class of freshman from the class of 2000 -- including Jean Carnahan (MO), Tom Carper (DE), Ben Nelson (NE), Bill Nelson (FL) and Debbie Stabenow (MI) -- the SNDC's ranks have expanded to 20 members.

    DKos denizen zt155 claimed that Edwards was a member of the DLC during his senate career (and I have seen others make the same claim).

    Another piece of circumstantial implication that Edwards may have been closely associated with the DLC comes from the fact that the other Democrats that co-sponsored Lieberman's IWR S.J. 46 (as did Edwards) were all, reportedly, members of the DLC: Lieberman, Bayh, Baucus, Breaux, Landrieu. Note that Daschle and Gephardt also were pimping some versions of the DLC, and they were members of the DLC as well.

    It has been said the idea that the Dems should side with Bush on Iraq so that that issue would be neutralized and the Dems can then win based on "kitchen table issues" came from the DLC. Several writing by people associated with the DLC support the Iraq invasion. It is these things that me look at them with suspicion, and not simple membership in the DLC.

    For example, Rep. Rush Holt (who opposed the war), and was  Princeton physics prof. before running for office would be a strong progressive by most measures, and he is a DLC member, apparently (see zt155's diary).

    Bottom line: we in the netroots should be weary of (and reject) DLC's foreign policy prescriptions going forward, but the rest of what they should be considered one point of view among several other within the party.

    •  Edwards isn't talking like a DLC-er anymore (0+ / 0-)

      He has seen the error of his ways. He is talking like a real liberal now, as I diaried after seeing him in person in March and April of this year.

      If anyone doubts that Edwards has abandoned the DLC, here's an excerpt from one of my diaries, where I paraphrased the part of his new stump speech that explicitly embraces labor unions:

      He talked about spending time helping to organize hotel workers (can't remember in what city). Said hotel workers without unions earn about six bucks an hour with no benefits, while hotel workers who are unionized may earn $15 an hour or more, with benefits.

      Then he said that you hear a lot of politicians talking about the great manufacturing jobs that we're losing, that are leaving the country, and how these great manufacturing jobs built our middle class and are so important to our economy. What they don't say is that those manufacturing jobs weren't so good before unions.

      The DLC accolytes would never be caught dead praising unions and saying we need to make it easier to organize workers in this country. Edwards says this is an important aspect of an effective anti-poverty policy.

  •  well, and Markos didn't endorse him either (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, peace voter

    and my experience was that most people felt that Mark Warner came out too strong.

    The dating metaphor Markos used applies well: it was a first date--and this was the equivalent of Warner getting courtside seats and doing a 4-star restaurant on the first date.  It was a bit much for most people.

    I'm not too worried about it.  Warner was courting us; people are free to make up their minds.

    If anyone embarassed himself, I don't think it was Markos so much as it may have been Warner.

    GOP Corruption: takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'

    by theKK on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:45:36 PM PDT

  •  my two cents (0+ / 0-)

    Edwards in 08.  He's pragmatic but with a liberal bent, out of the beltway, from the South, and I get the feeling he knows when to play his cards.  I like Feingold and Gore, but I'm nervous about their electability.  

    No Clinton, Bayh, or Biden, please.

    Warner is intriguing, but I fear he's too much of a centrist.

    Clark?  He struck me as out of it in 04; I can't imagine him holding up over the course of an election.

    Of course I'll vote for whoever comes out on top.

  •  The 'HBIC' is also acting in their vested interes (0+ / 0-)

    HBIC = "Head Bloggers In Charge"

    Warner is viewed as the anti-Hillary because he has the same views with none of the HRC baggage.  

    Warner's candidacy would give the netroots legitimacy, but he's by no means what I would consider a progressive.  He's ideologically DLC (if there truly is such a thing) in a "netroots/tech savvy" wrapper.

    Just wait and see.  Power corrupts.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  And the power to lead often results in the failure to think.

    I don't buy Markos' "I'm not a leader. I'm just building the infrastructure that will allow leaders to emerge" spiel.  You know what that sounds like to me?

    Kingmaker...
  •  speak or yourself KK (0+ / 0-)

    I think many people appreciate what Warner did and ending up liking him more personally becasue of the importance he put on our event,we are human beings and most humans like being made to feel important which is what Warner did, we didn't have to donate $100 bucks to get in the door either, this was Warner's way of saying Hello hear me out, and it didn't come on too strong in the least,and you know what Feingold should have shown up, even for a brief appearence how do you like that.

    this is your mission: TERMINATE the Bush presidency

    by nevadadem on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:14:24 PM PDT

  •  Does the Warner team think Kossacks are whores? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CJB, cotterperson, thecarriest

    That was my reaction going into the Warner reception ...  Are they trying to buy my goodwill and support with a few drinks, bad sushi, a lousy Elvis imposter (oops, imitator), and free rides on the top of a tower?  If they expect to buy me, they better offer a hell of a lot more than that ...

    And, the Governor -- unlike Wes Clark, for example -- remained constantly surrounded and ushered by a team of staffers.

    If the Warner campaign expects to raise money from small donors, they don't inspired me with wasting money on an event like that ...

    And, then the t-shirts ... the t-shirts ...

    Throwing money at us ... it felt like the money was being used as a set-up for a stage rather than providing honest engagement.

    I don't like that he -- despite having Jerome Armstrong on his heels -- seemed to show no understanding of the Daily Kos environment and community.  Evidently, this is "Kos' blog" (reference to this at least twice) rather than a vibrant, living community ...

    Now -- do I appreciate that he signed up early?  Sure, thank you Jerome ... but, I would have preferred a much more open and a far less flashy engagement ...

    In fact, this event has moved me from leaning Warner to far more neutral ... hmmm ... this wasn't the objective.  

    Yearly Kos might be in Las Vegas on the strip, it doesn't make this a whorehouse ... Mark Warner ... I'm no whore ... don't treat me (and my friends) like one ...

    9/11/05, Day 1469, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

    by besieged by bush on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:20:40 PM PDT

  •  i live in VA. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Harkov311, Deano963

    i think you're judging a little harshly here.  this is another instance of "any x is inherently unacceptable," which veers towards an undercurrent i've noticed around here of the "why are THEY like THAT?" attitude.  i've had it thrown at me for being raised in alabama at least once here, and i think it's stuff like this that fractures the party and seriously weakens our chances.  give the man a chance to tell you what he thinks.  that's all i'm asking here...

    "our politics are our deepest form of expression: they mirror our past experiences and reflect our dreams and aspirations for the future." - paul wellstone

    by liberalsouth on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:25:47 PM PDT

  •  Naive? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rgilly, 4jkb4ia, nonconreformer

    I don't know a lot about Mark Warner so I can't say yea or nay quite yet.  There's still a lot of time yet.

    However, I find this statement incredibly naive:

    "I don't see Mark Warner on any DLC bill. Clearly, if he's hanging out in Vegas this weekend, Warner has chosen the netroots over the DLC."

    So in other words, if someone on Hillary's campaign staff finally got a clue that we were not to be marginalized, and she showed up at YearlyKos, she's suddenly no longer a DLC centrist?

    C'mon, Markos, give us a break.  Politicians do stuff that makes them look good.  I can't say that's what Warner is doing - I don't know.

    Maybe he's legit.  But it's also entirely possible that he (or someone on his staff, ahem) is savvy enough to understand that showing up at YearlyKos earns him big points with the netroots - even if he stays a DLC centrist on the issues.  

    But showing up at YearlyKos doesn't change who a candidate is.  If he's DLC yesterday he's not a leftist liberal today, just because he's in Vegas right now and threw a big party.  

    Maybe he's a great choice, I'll have to learn more, and watch the next few months to decide who I'll support.

    Right now I'm 100% for Gore, who doesn't seem to be running, then Feingold, who does.  

  •  please stop bringing up zell miller. (0+ / 0-)

    this is twice now, and it's totally off base.  if you take exception with warner, be specific.  tell us what you don't like about warner.  don't call names without proof.  

    "our politics are our deepest form of expression: they mirror our past experiences and reflect our dreams and aspirations for the future." - paul wellstone

    by liberalsouth on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:42:16 PM PDT

  •  I didn't detect any anger in this diary... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, supersoling

    as people who didn't like it have intimated.

    I thought it was restrained and reasonable.

    "History will judge the GOP's abdication to the NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

    by BentLiberal on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:49:33 PM PDT

  •  Shrimps for Votes = NO, in my opinion (8+ / 0-)

    When I hear that a candidate has tried to buy votes with chocolate fondue fountains and coconut shrimp at the top of a lavish hotel in Vegas (yes, I've been there) --

    I'm not impressed. I'm not depressed or repressed. Instead, I'm pretty much done with them.

    Throwing expensive parties for votes merely tells me that a candidate does NOT think like I do, their consultants don't think like I do, and most importantly, they don't have a clue about global warming and its threat to humanity or they wouldn't be doing silly wasteful stuff like that... and frankly, it reveals much more about them.

    Howard Dean asked ME to give money for his campaign. He didn't try to buy or flatter me.

       * AllisonInSeattle's diary :: ::
    *

    Howard Dean went home and recycled. Big bins in the kitchen that hadn't been remodeled since they moved in decades ago. He mowed the lawn on the way to the airport for a campaign stop, so his wife wouldn't have to do it. Howard Dean went home and cleaned out the garage.

    That told me that Howard was a man of PRINCIPLE, not promotion. That Howard was a man of SUBSTANCE not show. That Howard was a man of INTEGRITY, not imitation. His principles and his life were one and the same.

    Howard was HONEST enough to be who he was, and let ME decide if I liked him or not -- Instead of chasing me down the street offering me goodies or toys, and expecting me to like him for that. Howard treated me like an adult with a right to know who he was, and to make up my own darned mind.

    !!! NO !!! I do not want politicians to come fawning after me with meaningless, gawdy, wasteful gimmicks to "win my favor".

    If you do -- well good on ya, but I want a different world. I want to Take_My_Country_Back™ from the glib, the superficial, the window-dressing, the fawning, the pretending, the "I'm in the middle, don't you like me, don't you like Meeeee, Don't YOU like Meeeee????" DLC, corporate, apologist, lost-soul politicians.

    I don't want politicians who pretend to be in the middle on every issue, OR politicians who (shudder) might BE in the middle on every issue. "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for any-thing" is an old country song standby, and boy is it true.

    If you think this is strident, tune in next week, and I'll tell you what I really think about politicians who pander to voters -- and about where they might get the money to do just that --  and about politicians who sell out to win.

    I mean, come ON, people, if this guy is willing to throw parties like this for YOU, what does that tell you about what he thinks "business as usual" is in politics?

    It's "pay for play", it's "parties get votes".

    If he's doing it for you, to get your vote, who's throwing parties (giving huge sums) for him, and what are they getting for it?

    C'mon folks, is this what you want?

    Cross posted to DelawareDem's diary, and diaried here, since I ended up blowing a rant cork after I got started.

    Be good to each other. It matters.

    by AllisonInSeattle on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:09:20 PM PDT

    •  ding! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AllisonInSeattle

      you got it...see other post re warner and hosting bloggers.

      reminds me of the hospitality suites at rock concerts where the record companies would provide heineken and fried chicken in the green room.

      been there-done that, and believe me, it doesn't make the music any better.  you don't end up remembering the lyrics, you just remember the wings.

      not the way to run a campaign, f

  •  See my post above about this (0+ / 0-)

    ...someone else compared Warner to Miller and I have to say that is one of the most ignorant things I have read on Daily Kos in a long, long time. How the hell do know he has no heart? Do you think Warner would openly campaign side-by-side with Bush and against other democrats?!? No, of course not. In fact, he is doing just the opposite - working his butt off to get other dems elected to the House and Senate in '06. People need to stop it with the assinine comparisons.

    -6.00, -4.41 "The foolish and the dead alone never change their opinions" - poet James Russell Lowell

    by Deano963 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:37:06 PM PDT

  •  No More CEO Presidents (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rgilly, cotterperson, Ryvr

    It's time for our democracy to be a democracy. Mark Warner's speech was very impressive today, but companies are benevolent dictatorships at best.  Although he's smart and charismatic, with the problems we are having with separation of powers in our government, he's not the guy to restore democracy to this country.  

  •  Kos can do what he wants... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson

    I highly doubt there will be an 'official' dkos choice for prez until a nominee is selected... i just don't see kos that way... he may make his personal opinion known, and that may sway some people, but there is no reason others can't fight for who they want to win as well...

    Don't be sheep people, if kos endorses someone you don't believe in, work for the person you do believe in (until the nom is selected, then work for whoever is fucking selected and shut the hell up about coulda, shoulda, woulda crap...)

    -9.13, -7.79 Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November.

    by L0kI on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:44:13 PM PDT

  •  Can some of us please grow up (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ademption

    This diary is 'unhelpful' as Rumsfeld might put it.

    At issue is not whether Markos is endorsing Warner. He is not.

    The issue is what makes a good winning democratic presidential candidate and why you support one over the other.

    This diary did not take on that question.

    I think the most important thing that happened with Warner was that he made an attempt to win over some people here with respect and honesty.

    Nothing wrong with that.

    I think it is far too early to choose up sides right now.  But it is not too early to know which politicians might comfortably interact with the netroots.   And those that came clearly indicated that they would.

    "Ah, what an age it is when to speak of trees is almost a crime for it is a kind of silence about injustice" (Brecht)

    by tsackton on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:05:40 PM PDT

  •  I'm amazed... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, democat, thecarriest, Ryvr

    ...that no one has ever hit upon this observation, yet:

    When you see a politician spend campaign money on jumbo shrimp and fountains and chocolate fondue, then you have to wonder how they'll want to spend the nation's money when they become President?

    I agree 110% with AllisoninSeattle: You want my vote, tell me how you'd get us out of Iraq with minimal damage. Tell me how you'll balance this budget and start reducing the national debt. Tell me how you'll shore up Homeland Security. Give me your ideas about a national health care bill.

    But don't try to buy my votes two years in advance by stuffing shrimp down my throat.

    And don't hightail it out of town as suddenly as you show up. That doesn't exactly bespeak support for the netroots in my book.

    Warner doesn't have my endorsement, either and likely never will. I'm still holding out for Clark and Feingold, especially Feingold.

    JP
    http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

    Defending bad taste and liberalism since 2005.

    by jurassicpork on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:18:01 PM PDT

  •  I don't know about you (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, thecarriest, Ryvr

    but I tend to vote on issues, not t-shirts and carved meats.

  •   some of you sure ate lotsa weenies (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thecarriest, ademption

    First night he serves you free weenies...

    then ...  you sit on your hands/asses and watch his  advertisment ...

    Free T-shirts too .. hot damn .. must be cool living the good life ....

    Except ... while I was home watching you all on Air America .. waitin' for you to make some 'hoot hooty owl' calls afterwards ... but ... there was just polite clapping and then silence.  gave me the shivers watching the birth YearlyZombies.

    Didn't take too fuckin' long now did it ... ?

  •  Excise the vomitous Bush-pandering... (0+ / 0-)

    and I think - maybe - Warner is employing the McCain 'cover all bases' campaign maneuver. Warner is trying to be sincere to every degree of the left spectrum.

    Bad thing or good thing, who knows. Just sayin.

    Traditional criticism = who is he being genuinely sincere to, and not faking it, because there are different methods reaching different goals dotting the left spectrum?

    Fortunately, on our side I believe we have skepticism. My guess is that in a Young Republican setting, a crowd exposed to this Warner treatment would settle in like tumblers obediently behind him because of the smooze, but reality-based Kossacks, like BooMan23 here, respond with responsible skepticism aimed at the $$ flinging politician.

    Personally, I like Feingold. Proven progressive track record of standing up for proper principle. I don't condemn Warner either, but I think a healthy skepticism should be maintained by the lesser and greater Kos community until much closer to crunch time.

    Course, I'm not in Vegas facing an open bar...

    "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." -- Frederick Douglass

    by big dave on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 01:14:32 AM PDT

  •  Warner is automatically OUT with me... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, lost my password

    ...if he's with Lieberman on Iraq.

    "Power-lust is a weed that grows only in the vacant lot of an empty mind." -- Ayn Rand

    by dov12348 on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 02:38:29 AM PDT

  •  Warner is out in my book (0+ / 0-)

    In Newsweek or Time, I forget right now they did a piece on him and he said something along the lines of "Where I come from we don't race cars, we race trucks"

    I was like great, he's bragging about wasting precious fuel as if it makes him manly, another centrist who just doesn't get it about global warming/the energery crisis

  •  I don't get it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ademption

    I don't get it, what's the problem with candidates courting the netroots? Doesn't that give us their ear for articulating our issues, concerns, and opinions? Doesn't that help us influence the race? And if guys like Warner are courting primarily left-leaning Democratic thinkers like us, rather than just primarily centrist or right-leaning ones, then doesn't that mean they're not ashamed to be seen with us and are making themselves available to hear our POV? In what way can that be bad? It doesn't mean Warner wouldn't be a moderate president, or that he wouldn't do some things we disapprove of, but it certainly means he'd be interested in listening to us, and that he seeks our approval and support. I can't see any downside to that whatsoever. It doesn't bump him to the top of my wishlist, but it does make me like him better. Why shouldn't it?

Roastbeef, Bob Johnson, katiebird, Alumbrados, paradox, HiD, Yoss, pb, CrazyDem, patsburgh, ogre, SarahLee, teacherken, Better Days, Hornito, moon in the house of moe, timber, arwen, Renee in Ohio, kaleidescope, TGeraghty, dday, wu ming, Andrew C White, cotterperson, meg, Ralfast, rhubarb, Mnemosyne, reggiesmom, brn2bwild, The Maven, Myrkury, HarveyMilk, frisco, blogswarm, lesliet, Abou Ben Adhem, nprigo, thecarriest, Jerome a Paris, mraker, sardonyx, NoisyGong, Cho, tyler93023, Miss Devore, PaintyKat, super simian, alysheba, elveta, bhlogger, ask, PsiFighter37, peace voter, KMc, poemless, Primordial Ooze, JuliaAnn, Moli, k2winters, matt2525, David Boyle, DoctorScience, Alna Dem, Georgia Logothetis, malcolm, boot1780, mayan, kharma, hopewell, by foot, missliberties, Nancy in LA, besieged by bush, ademption, Kidspeak, astronautagogo, Mrcia, grrr, CabinGirl, Noisy Democrat, AllisonInSeattle, mattes, retired, Steven D, Dr Seuss, HK, alix, Jambon, JHen, rickroks, a517dogg, MichDeb, Bluesee, whodat527, coloradobl, Marching Orders, MasonLee, dragonballyee, Erik the Red, betterdonkeys, kuvasz, rjo, Valtin, chicoTowner, libertarian soldier, stagemom, Ranting Roland, Heresiarch514, Jontown, sunbro, Cannabis, neroden, wiscmass, Spathiphyllum, LeftOverAmerica, Kingsmeg, tsallen, BlueInARedState, allmost liberal european, dougymi, Wary, dangangry, greenearth, Students for Bhopal, arkdemocrat, nonnie9999, looty, MO Blue, CTLiberal, middleagedhousewife, huskerly, DemocraticLuntz, itstime, va dare, righteousbabe, goinsouth, blueness, lmd71, Democritus, Friend of the court, BentLiberal, European Nomad, seabos84, McSnatherson, Susan Something, Balam, Invisible Paradigm

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site