Daily Kos

Warner will not run for president

Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 07:55:11 AM PDT

So the shocker of the day is that Mark Warner will not run for president in 2008. His statement is after the jump, but bottom line is that he realized that he wouldn't see his children for the next 10 years, and decided that it wasn't worth it for him.

You all know how I've felt about being on the road and away from my wife and kid, so if there's a "best reason not to run", this is it.

As his statement says, he's not done running for office. His love for the office of governor is well-known, so he would be considered a shoo-in for the governorship in 2009 if he chooses that route. (Virginia governors cannot serve consecutive terms.) Better yet, he would be a strong candidate for the Senate seat in 2008, regardless whether John Warner (R) runs again or not. But, if the rumors are true and John Warner retires, that would be as close to a guaranteed pickup as you can get in politics. (His Republican challenger would likely be Rep. Tom Davis.)

For now, Warner has a hefty campaign schedule and has committed to spending the last week of the election stumping with Jim Webb.

The biggest winner of the 2008 field? There are several. John Edwards, already the frontrunner in my opinion, loses the only serious southern opponent. Already strong in Iowa and Nevada, this will make him the prohibitive favorite in the fourth contest in South Carolina. If he wins the first three out of four, he's looking pretty good.

Bill Richardson becomes the only serious candidate in the race who is a governor, making it easier for him to distinguish himself from the crowd.

As for HIllary, this is a double-edged sword. She loses the one candidate who probably could've gone toe to toe with her on the money front, and the one who had easily built up the most innovative, competent campaign team. But, Hillary will do best if the field remains cluttered with a ton of men. That way, she can win primaries with 30 percent of the vote. If the field narrows quickly, she'd be in trouble. (Of course, I'm still not convinced Hillary is running...)

Finally, this opens up a hole in the field for another compelling "outsider" not tainted with being part of the DC establishment. Right now, the only serious outsider in the race is Wesley Clark. Another governor? The pickings are slim this year. Obama? Perhaps still too raw, but he's ambitious and the rumors are flying fast and furious. His recent dis of Daily Kos might even be a sign he's burnishing his "centrist" credentials (though his spokesmen pleaded selective quotation on the part of the writer to make the quote seem more inflammatory than it really was).

Anyway, back to Warner, it looks like all of the illicit suitcases of cash he sent over to buy my support were for naught. Drats. Regardless, I'm left a bit underwhelmed by the current crop of contenders. But the nice thing about being 100 percent undecided about the field is I'll be able to cover the primary race without any biases.

The 2008 straw poll will be back after the November elections. I'll be curious to see where the 12 percent or so of his support ends up.

  • ::

Nine months ago, I left the office of Governor in Virginia. I was immensely proud of what we had accomplished.  We faced historic challenges and got real results.

Upon leaving office, I committed all my time and energy to Forward Together because we need a new direction in America.

Everywhere I've traveled, I found hope that we could turn this country around. That Americans are looking for leaders who at this moment of enormous challenge for our country can actually bring us together and get things done.  

I've heard that regardless of the depth of dismay at the direction President Bush has taken our country, rank and file Democrats are energized, and want ours to be a party of hope, not of anger.

I am especially proud of the work we've done in supporting those kinds of candidates throughout America.

We got a lot done.

Forward Together has contributed more money this year to Democratic candidates and party organizations than any other federal leadership PAC.  

I headlined 86 events in 25 states to help raise or directly donate $7.3 million to Democrats this cycle.  

And our work is not done--especially at home in Virginia, where I continue to work to help Jim Webb win.

But this has also been another kind of journey--one that would lead to a decision as to whether I would seek the Democratic nomination for President.

Late last year, I said to Lisa and my girls, "Let's go down this path and make a decision around Election Day."  

But there were hiring decisions and people who've put their lives on hold waiting to join this effort.

So about a month ago, I told my family and people who know me best that I would make a final decision after Columbus Day weekend, which I was spending with my family. After 67 trips to 28 states and five foreign countries, I have made that decision.

I have decided not to run for President.

This past weekend, my family and I went to Connecticut to celebrate my Dad's 81st birthday, and then we took my oldest daughter Madison to start looking at colleges.

I know these moments are never going to come again. This weekend made clear what I'd been thinking about for many weeks--that while politically this appears to be the right time for me to take the plunge--at this point, I want to have a real life.

And while the chance may never come again, I shouldn't move forward unless I'm willing to put everything else in my life on the back burner.

This has been a difficult decision, but for me, it's the right decision.

It's not a decision I have easily reached. I made it after a lot of discussion with my family and a few close friends, and ultimately a lot of reflection, prayer, and soul-searching.

Let me also tell you what were not the reasons for my decision.

This is not a choice that was made based on whether I would win or lose. I can say with complete conviction that--15 months out from the first nomination contests--I feel we would have had as good a shot to be successful as any potential candidate in the field.

As for my family, Lisa and our three girls have always had a healthy amount of skepticism, but would have been willing to buckle down and support the effort. I love them all and appreciate their faith in me.

So what's next?

First, I know that many friends, staff and supporters who have been so generous with time, ideas, energy, and financial support will be disappointed.  

My decision does not in any way diminish my desire to be active in getting our country fixed. It doesn't mean that I won't run for public office again.

I want to serve, whether in elective office or in some other way. I'm still excited about the possibilities for the future.

In the short-term, I am going to do everything I can do make sure Democrats win in 2006. It's an exciting year to be a Democrat. I leave shortly to go to Iowa to support folks running for state and congressional office. Hope they are still excited to see me.

I want to thank the thousands of Americans who have donated to Forward Together, hosted me in their homes, shared their ideas, and given me encouragement.

I also want to thank all of the staff and key advisors at Forward Together who have created a great organization. If we had chosen to go forward, I know they had the skills, talent, and dedication to take us all the way.

And finally, as I have traveled the country, I have been amazed at what pent-up positive energy for change exists.

In my speeches, I always acknowledge that what disappoints me most about this administration in Washington is that with all the challenges we face . . . and the tragedies we have experienced, from 9-11 to Katrina . . . that the President has never rallied the American people to come together, to step up, to ask Americans to be part of the solution.

I think a number of our party's potential candidates understand that. I think, in fact, we have a strong field. A field of good people. I think they're all hearing what I heard:  that Americans are ready to do their part to get our country fixed. I wish them all well.

And I want to say thanks to all who've been part of this effort.

~ Mark Warner

Tags: Mark Warner, 2008 elections (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 910 comments

      •  Right... (0+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        L0kI

        Another retread.  How about looking toward the future for a nominee, not the past.  Hillary, Gore, Kerry, Biden and any other democrat that's been in D.C. for half of his or her life doesn't stand a chance.  Besides, Gore is doing a great job advocating for the environment as a private citizen.  

        I'm looking at Sebelius from Kansas, Easley of N.C. and Richardson, to name a few.

        •  Easely? (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          GreenSooner
          Talk about your dinosaurs.

          I live here. He's corporate Democrat, through and through.

          God bless America. God bless our troops.
          God damn George Bush to the fires of eternal damnation.

          by Bill Rehm on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:46:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Easley (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            machka

            Seconded.  Maybe not so harshly - he has been a pretty fair governor, somewhat aloof perhaps, but a sound manager nonetheless.

            I tend to believe this will quickly get to an Edwards - Clinton contest.  And as much as I respect Sen. Clinton, I think Edwards could well be the right man at the right time.

          •  Who Are the Serious NON-Corporate Dems? (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            chgriffen

            Admittedly, I'm asking this as a recovering Democrat. But one reason I left the party in the 1990s was that I was not only disatisfied with the leadership of the party, but I also could see no sign of any progressive bench waiting in the wings to challenge this leadership and take over the party.  

            To answer my own question, I suppose Russ Feingold is marginally better in this regard than the rest of the Democratic field. But he's hardly on the left.

            Recall that Jesse Jackson ran a serious race for the Democratic Party nomination in 1988 (full disclosure: I was actually a Dukakis campaign staffer at the time...my politics and my former party's seem to be moving in opposite directions).

            As far as I can tell, there isn't even a Kucinich or Sharpton in the field (i.e. a candidate without a snowball's chance in hell of the nomination, who would at least raise progressive issues), let alone a serious progressive candidate. And though the party is full of people who might step forward and be 2008's Dennis Kucinich (Congressional Black Caucus, I'm looking at you...), I simply do not see anybody in the party with the national stature to seriously compete for the nomination from the left.

            This nicely summarizes what's wrong with American political life today. (Source)

            by GreenSooner on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:43:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota! (0+ / 0-)

              I'm serious  about this. (Although I still think Gore is our best shot.)

              Listen, Dorgan is smart as hell, funny, personable (though he needs to lose the comb-over but hell, it works for Rudy. )

              Dorgan is a ferocious Deficit Hawk, a great guy on policy, plus he has that whole "Midwest, Salt of the Earth, Regular Guy" thing going for him.  And as his recent book shows, he is furious at the corporate gutting of the Middle Class.

              Lou Dobbs loves him, Liberal Dems love him, Kossacks who know about the guy love him (he led the charge on Net Neutrality.)

              He is not, however, a fatally Nice Guy, like Daschle was.  Like Harry Reid, Dorgan can put the boots to an enemy. No way he takes the Repub slime lying down, as Kerry did.  

              Plus, there could be all KINDS of heartwarming North Dakota  film footage. Just the NOVELTY of the idea might get the MSM to play a little fair, for once.

              OK, I"m originally from North Dakota, I'm biased - but seriously, if Gore won't run, I want a Dorgan/Clark ticket.

              •  I'm certainly not a Dorgan guy... (0+ / 0-)

                ...but I have just one thing to say to folks who are:

                ND = three electoral votes

                I remember Bruce Babbitt, when he dropped out of the '88 campaign, being asked if he would have done anything differently. His answer: I'd have come from a larger state.

                This nicely summarizes what's wrong with American political life today. (Source)

                by GreenSooner on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 03:17:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  See, that's the POINT (0+ / 0-)

                  of a Dorgan run. You would have to carefully craft the narrative - "An honest guy from the midwest, with no powerful masters to serve, will come in and clean the Augean stables" - etc., etc.

                  Hey, if McCain can build a whole pseudo-candidacy  by pretending to be a "maverick" - then a genuine good guy can certainly tell a similar - and more honest story.

                  Given the "Throw all the bums out" mood in the country - and the general thread topic of "Who's your favorite outsider" - Dorgan is as plausible as anyone.

                  Remember - Arkansas - home of Wes Clark and Bill Clinton - has exactly 6 electroral votes.

                  It doesn't matter how small a state you come form, if you can convince the rest of the company that we need a Lake Woebegone guy in charge.

        •  Feingold...? (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          hipsterdufus

          -9.13, -7.79 When you pray, move your feet. -African Proverb

          by L0kI on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:15:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No offense but please... (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            JTA, zoso553

            ...try and be realistic.

            It would be nice if we lived in a world where the likes of Feingold, Kucinich or even Green Party candidates were electable for presidential office.

            However, we do not live in that world.

            Whenever there is a war to be fought, those who are the most likely to fight it are the least likely to gain from it.

            by Jank2112 on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:51:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Maybe you don't... (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              xerico, sphealey, mang glider

              I think the most electable person is someone who stands up for ANYTHING... these "electable" nerds we keep running keep ruining our chances with their excessive introspection and thought... Feingold fights hard for what he believes in... people dig that... that's how we have the nutters in charge that we do now... it's not b/c America is a right-wing freak-show... it's b/c these people talk their shit and OWN IT... there's no waffling.. it's black and frickin white...

              It's like Howard Dean... that's why they were so damn afraid of him... it's b/c he makes no bones about what he believes in... he knows it, and he'll tell you.

              -9.13, -7.79 When you pray, move your feet. -African Proverb

              by L0kI on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:09:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Dean Was Still A Democrat (0+ / 0-)

                There's a barrier in the minds of the greater majority of American voters -- that we live in a two-party system, and anything else is "fringe". It's just a cultural bias, I think, but it's very difficult to jump over voters' pecceptions of history.

                Even at their height, LaFollett, Debs, Anderson, Perot, and Nader couldn't attract the numbers to a third party that would make them more than electoral spoilers (I still haven't forgiven Nader for 2000).

                Dean was successful because he opted to be a dynamic, proactive Democrat -- but within the framework of an already-established party.  He could be viewed as "taking the Democratic party in a new direction".

                BTW, I'm tired of hearing the Thugs use the phrases, "Democrat Party" "Democrat values", 'Democrat' this and that. It's The Democratic Party; DEmocratic candidates; Democratic spokesperson.

                The Republicans, not believing in democracy in any form, have trouble with this proper noun for obvious reasons. For them, the word 'democratic' is like garlic and crucifixes for vampires -- and that's a pretty apt metaphor, if you think about it.

                It ain't got a thing if it ain't got that certain Je Ne Sais Quoi.

                by Jemand von Niemand on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:21:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't understand what your point is... (0+ / 0-)

                  Feingold is ALSO A DEMOCRAT... he is ALSO A STRONG, DYNAMIC, PROACTIVE DEMOCRAT... how can your argument be made to address Feingold as an option for prez nom...
                  ???

                  -9.13, -7.79 When you pray, move your feet. -African Proverb

                  by L0kI on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 02:33:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  My reply didn't refer to Feingold. (0+ / 0-)

                    It was a reference to Jank2112's comment ("It would be nice if we lived in a world where the likes of Feingold, Kucinich or even Green Party candidates were electable for presidential office.")

                    I didn't sharpen it enough: The point is, "even Green Party candidates" are not the way for the party to move forward. Third party runs are political impossibilities at this point in our history. That was the point

                    Dean showed that success in organizing and fundraising from the (yes) Roots up is possible -- in fact better than the moribund methods the DLC continues to believe in. Dean gave people a clear sign that the Democratic party was worth fighting for, and could be a place to put their hopes. He still continues to provide energy and focus; and and I'm sorry if you felt that I was implying anything else.

                    Feingold has the same potential (I have another favorite, but Feingold's still cool by me). Let's face it: We need someone with presence, with insight, and integrity to lead. Dean seemed to be that man, and it almost forced me to stop being a political person when he was effectively forced out as "too radical". Baloney.

                    It ain't got a thing if it ain't got that certain Je Ne Sais Quoi.

                    by Jemand von Niemand on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 05:09:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Richardson? You have got to be kidding. (8+ / 0-)

          Take my word for it.  I'm from NM.  He talks out of both sides of his mouth.  A NM Lieberman.  You want someone that's spent all his time in the Governor's office fundraising for a future run for '08?  He's never here!  If he weren't a Dem he'd never get my vote, and he might not get it this time in November, that's how tired I am of this guy. So many writing in to newspapers have had it with this guy. So many NM voters wish another Dem were running against him so we all could write his political Obit.  He has no experience to be President.  He'd make a great lobbyist, maybe?  Sorry... don't mean to rant.

          Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton.  Have you had enough?  
          Gore, lovely man, but been there done that, retread. Kerry?   He couldn't fight his way out of election fraud.  You want him fighting for our national security?   Biden? Definitely a retread.  No more Senators, please!

          Give me someone who has dealt with every issue imaginable, most importantly national security matters, foreign policy, economics, health care, pro-unions... shall I go on?  That would be Wesley K. Clark!

          Having said all this, I wish Warner well and a happy future.

          •  I Supported Clark (0+ / 0-)

            during the last primary season but sense that his time has passed.  I think he'd be a great sec. of state now.  I am starting to lean toward Sebelius.  She'd be the ultimate anit Hillary.

            Re Richardson, to some extent all executives have to talk out of both sides of their mouth.  He has foreign policy experience too but then again, the GOP may try to blame him for the N. Korea situation.

            •  Richardson for Secretary of State (0+ / 0-)

              Clark for Defense Secretary. Isn't that more logical for his resume? Or Chairman of Joint Chiefs?

              For President - Feingold! Fiengold! Feingold! Fiengold! Feingold! Fiengold! Feingold! Fiengold! Feingold! Fiengold! Feingold! Fiengold! Feingold! Fiengold! Feingold! Fiengold! Feingold! Fiengold!

            •  Wes is getting huge attention everywhere. (7+ / 0-)

              MSM is not covering his events like all the other candidates, but for Biden and Richardson.  Ask yourself why.  

              You MUST go to his website http://www.securingamerica.com to listen to the Clarkcasts and watch all the videos, more importantly his speech before the Texas Democratic Convention!  He raises people to their feet out of excitement.  

              Please, reconsider and think about why you supported him before. He's a winner.  Look at what he did in only five months late in a long campaign in '04!  

              I can't tell you how many people have come to me to say "I should have voted for Wes in '04" ... and how many now meet to talk about Wes as the strong candidate here in my state.  He can win!

              And BTW... do you really want any candidate running for any office or working in the new administration that talks out of both sides of his/her mouth?  Do we want that anymore?   Think about the candidates and wonder who they may be that are not honest.  Wes is honest.  

            •  In the world as it is today, I (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              KayCeSF

              don't think that any woman, whether it be Hilary, Sibelius or whomever, could win the presidency.  People just can't see a woman defending the country militarily and much as we all loathe war, we have to have someone who can defend us and the rest of the free world.

    •  he just may... (8+ / 0-)

      I had a truly independent friend of mine recently ask if Gore would run saying he'd vote for him. But, right now he's not in so I've got to stay with my man Clark.

    •  Yes, I've have enough of amateurs (4+ / 0-)

      Hopefully we've learned by now that experience does matter. Let's get some experience back into place.

      Obama? Maybe a nice guy but where's any experience?

      •  Umm.... (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        MattBellamy, L0kI, Sam I Am

        how can you get more experience than the last two guys we ran?

        "They're trying to fool you. They're trying to scare you. And they're not telling you the truth." Obama '08

        by bawbie on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:03:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'll take talent and ideas (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        lorzie

        anyday over someone who has already lost. We can't keep making mistakes by using all of the same people. We need new blood who will actually excite people, and Obama is the man. I'd also be thrilled to see Brian Schweitzer, but that's just a dream.

          •  so who is President now? (0+ / 0-)

            I was under impression that its been 'W' in the Oval Office the past 5 1/2 years.

            •  Doesn't mean he won (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Lee, bruised toes

              He was installed by the SCOTUS.

              •  if that helps you cope (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Sam I Am

                Me, I'm not interested in candidates who had to depend on uncounted ballots in Florida. We have better choices this time.

                •  sillyness (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  VickiStein

                  Gore still had more votes, including in Florida and Obama is not going to be the canidate in 2008 for the same reason Edwards was not the candidate in 2004, too little experience.

                  •  Does refighting 2000 really help? (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    Heart of the Rockies

                    I wanted Gore to win, but his campaign sucked quite frankly. Why would we think it would be different this time?

                    And Obama 2008 is <= Edwards 2004?</p>

                    There are no differences between the two that would make one a better candidate than the other, because experience in the Senate is the qualifier?

                    •  Gush-Bore (0+ / 0-)

                      Bush's campaign also sucked in 2000.  It was a lousy campaign season.  Everyone thought they were equal, they nearly cast themselves that way.  We were in a time of peace and prosperity, the ruling issue of the day was still Clinton's extramarital affairs, and it was seen as a 'down' election of relatively minor importance.

                      That has changed, hasn't it?

                      •  I'm worried about retreads (5+ / 0-)

                        It seems to me that running Gore in 2008 does something that I fear tremendously...keeping us stuck in the past. While I love Gore for who he is and what he's accomplished, I don't want the Democratic Party to be stuck in our McGovern-Mondale-Dukakis-Clinton/Gore era, but to enter into the Schweitzer, Dean, Tester, Obama, Spitzer, Warner, Clark, Feingold, Deval Patrick and Kathleen Sebelius era. Its not an ideological concept so much as a new era for our party. That's who I want leading us, not so much someone from our mostly unglorious past. Moving forward. Progression, a key part of being a progressive. That's what I want.

                        •  The Gore-Dean era: one of truth telling (3+ / 0-)

                          Recommended by:
                          xerico, VickiStein, joanneleon

                          and not gamesmanship, is the calling of the times.

                        •  I would say Gore has 'progressed' quite a bit (3+ / 0-)

                          Recommended by:
                          xerico, joanneleon, betterdonkeys

                          since 2000.  He now speaks passionately and eloquently in a way he just DIDN'T back then.  I think he listened too much to his consultants and didn't trust his instinct, and he realizes that.

                          While I appreciate your sentiment, I definitely am NOT on board the Obama train.  Yes, his experience is an issue, but for me the bigger problem is that he hasn't shown himself to be a leader in the Senate.  Ezra Klein makes that case clearly in this essay.  We need a candidate with the courage of his convictions.  I don't see that in Obama.  And I say that after having swooned at his keynote address at the convention.

                          Anyway, I don't think we should be choosing our candidates on a vague feeling of "freshness."  There are more substantive things to base our opinion on.

                          ps. You consider Clinton/Gore the same type of Democrat as McGovern?  I'm not sure I follow that.

                          Extricandae copiae.

                          by Lee on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:17:29 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  the past (0+ / 0-)

                            That's the point. Not that Gore=McGovern, but that they are figures in our past, and that they didn't deliver when called upon. That worries me. I know Gore today is better than he used to be, but I am loathe to think of our party reusing the same people. The same for the consultants. I want new blood. That's really what it comes down to.

                            I'm not totally ready to anoit Obama, either, to be honest, but I do know that it is worse for him to stay in the Senate and make his name there. His performance there is, well, tepid in the minds of myself and others, but I think it hard to be much more than that as a freshman Senator in the minority party. He'll be okay in time, but staying in the Senate might not be the best thing for his Presidential future.

                        •  A new set of Dem leaders would (0+ / 0-)

                          work especially well if the GOP goes with McCain or Newt.

                          In John McCain we have the opportunity to experience Bush's Third Term.

                          by Sam I Am on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:33:03 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  Gore and Kerry did not fight for (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    witchamakallit, souldrift

                    us and our votes at the end, and  that's the bottom line.  How can you possibly give them the oportunity to do the same thing again?

                    Personally, I have talked to many people about Wes Clark and most have known of whom I speak, but need to know more.  Many have expressed negative feelings abouts Edwards - without my even mentioning his name.

                    We need someone who has the guts to go to the mat for "We The People".
                    We need someone we can trust in any given situation.
                    We need someone who'll stand up and tell us honestly why he thinks we have to do something even though we may prefer not to.
                    We need someone the rest of the world will respect.
                    We need a diplomat

                    and for hundres of other reasons, we need Wesley Clark.

                    •  that's a LIE in Gore's case:he fought for 35 days (2+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      xerico, NYFM

                      Please the 35 day FL recount timeline.

                      As a result of Gore's recount fight and the Democrats (neither the Clinton-controlled "establishment" nor the grassroots, the latter for lack of organization by the former) not sufficiently fending for him as Tom Delay and other crooks did for Bush, Gore's favorability dropped to the floor during those weeks, and by early December, some 55% of Americans wanted Gore to concede.

                      After the SCOTUS verdict came in, DNC chair Rendell called on Gore to concede, meaning little party support for taking things any further.

                      So what choice was left?

                      Gore fought quite hard. Neither the party, nor us, the supporters and grassroots, pitched in what we should have. And that's the truth.

                •  Not a matter of coping (0+ / 0-)

                  I simply like accurate statements.

                  And I agree with your comment down thread that he had an abysmal campaign.

                  Also, might I point out, that Nixon made a comeback to win the presidency.

        •  Gore/Obama = dream ticket (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          betterdonkeys, donanon

          Obama can be inspiring, but that's no where near sufficient to govern (or even win, when push comes to shove, against, say, McCain's experience). Let's not even get started on Gore Vs Obama as far as qualification and experience to be president.

          Instead, I'll stick with Gore/Obama as one of my favorite tickets.

      •  Obama (0+ / 0-)

        Well, I kind of hate to make this comparison, but wasn't JFK a freshman Senator when he ran?

        Things seemed to work out pretty well with that.

        The leaders we are waiting for are us.

        by evh on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:54:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Obama would have to come to my house (6+ / 0-)

          and talk me personally into voting for him, as far as I'm concerned. He gives not a shit for progressive Dems, he cares only for his own career, IMO. We don't need another centrist, we can all work together candidate. Also, he is too thin skinned to be pres. He got his feelings hurt when he chose to chastize us over the Roberts vote and we didn't cede to his superiour knowlege of the issue and now insults us. No Obama for me.

          There still are two Americas. I live in the other one. John McSame wants me to stay there.

          by high uintas on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:08:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes. As he said of DailyKos I say of him: (5+ / 0-)

            “One good test as to whether folks are doing interesting work is, Can they surprise me?”

            Agreed, buddy. You neither surprise me nor interest me.

            •  Why do we need to surprise him? (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Ja of Anoroc

              That attitude is all wrong.  He needs to be doing things to surprise us - pleasantly surprise us.  I hear some of that Schumer type "I know better than the people do" attitude in Obama's tone here.

              He might end up being a great candidate someday, but this isn't the day.  He's got a lot of growing to do, and he's got to put in the time to get an in depth understanding of both himself and of the system.

              He is exactly what we don't need right now.  We need someone very solid, and I don't get that solidness from Obama yet.

              "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." --Samuel Johnson

              by joanneleon on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:15:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  talk talk talk (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                high uintas, Ja of Anoroc

                I hear some of that Schumer type "I know better than the people do" attitude in Obama's tone here.

                I agree.  Everywhere he goes all he seems to do is praise his opponents and tell his friends what they need to do.  He did it with the 'be more tolerant of Christians' and this Kos quote.   Even when he went to Africa to visit he could resist the urge to give them a good talking to about what they need to be doing.

                He's all talk and no walk.  Some time in a governor's mansion would be good for him.  Until then he'll be another (admittedly hyper-eloquent) gasbag Senator.

          •  Check out Obama's voting record, (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            notapipe

            he ain't no centrist.

            He does sound like a centrist which is why he is the most liberal person in the coutry who can actually get elected President.

            In John McCain we have the opportunity to experience Bush's Third Term.

            by Sam I Am on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:37:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  There's nothing wrong with working together... (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            zoso553

            So long as we're working for improving this country. Bi-partisanship isn't bad so long as it's not catipulation, and I don't mind working with Republicans and moderates for universal health care so long as we're the ones writing the legislation.

            The key graf on that page wasn't the swipe at dKos (which, let's be fair, is sometimes rather predictable.  I think he's clearly not looking enough if he thinks its never surprising (Energize America, for instance, knocked my socks off, and to the unwired world, the strain of Internet Libertarianism found here and elsewhere on the net should be soemthing people sit up and look at)), it was this one:

            Which is not to say that Obama doesn’t have very strong partisan convictions. “There are times I think we’re not ambitious enough,” Obama says. “I remember back in 2004, one of the candidates had made a proposal about universal health care, and some DLC-type commentator said, ‘We can’t propose this kind of big-government costly program, because it’ll send a signal we’re tax-and-spend liberals.’ But that’s not a good reason to not do something. You don’t give up on the goal of universal health care because you don’t want to be tagged as a liberal. People need universal health care.”

            I don't mind if he swipes at netroots liberals, hell, sometimes we probably deserve it, so long as he doesn't think something needs to be avoided BECAUSE it's liberal.  This is the kind of "centrist" I can get behind.

            Hope will heal us all.

            "For the serious empire-builder there was no such thing as a final frontier." - Terry Pratchett Jingo

            by notapipe on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:07:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Kennedy not a freshman senator (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          joanneleon

          Kennedy had 14 years of experience in Congress when he was elected president. He was elected to the House in 1946 and to the Senate in 1952 and 1958.

          "Well, for once, the rich white man is in control!' -- Mr. Burns, "The Simpsons Movie"

          by Vico on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 10:31:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  It's interesting you say this (19+ / 0-)

      Because I know a couple of people, who used to work for Gore and were contemplating working for Warner, that last week were telling me they believe Gore is going to run. Since they would choose to work for Gore over Warner, they were hesitating committing to Warner. Now I wonder if this had anything to do with Warner's decision.

      Regardless, I hope Mark Warner does run for Senate in 2008 - he would make Virginia proud.  

      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

      by thebes on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:05:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  According to this site... (0+ / 0-)

      http://www.inklingmarkets.com/...

      There's as good a chance of him winning the nomination as Hillary, even though he hasn't professed in interest since 2000.  Interesting data point.

    •  Just saw Gore in an ad for Prop 87 in California (0+ / 0-)

      geez... even with a rehearsed ad he sounds stiff and robotic.  He'd lose outright if he ran again.

      •  I disagree. I think a bit of 'gravitas' ... (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        VickiStein

        and a large dose of 'integrity' will make many people sigh with relief - we've had so little in the last six years.

        The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams. ~ Eleanor Roosevelt

        by va dare on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:34:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  he has never sounded stiff and robotic (5+ / 0-)

        you are a victim of the media.  You've been so brainwashed you see and hear what they want you to see and hear.  

        •  agreed (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          VickiStein, betterdonkeys

          Gore did better in his 2000 presidential run than he gets credit for. He made a few minor goofs that are normal for any candidate (no more than Kerry did in '04), and got tarred and feathered for it in the media.

          •  ...I dont mean to credit Kerry's campaign... (0+ / 0-)

            ...but Gore had 3 different staffs/strategies in his 00 run, none were very good and he SHOULD have won by a huge margin.  He made dozens of significant errors from start to finish that made the race much closer than it should have been, he didn't lose, he wasn't defeated, he gave it away.

            As to the stiff and robotic...I've seen him speak a few times, as VP and later as a 00 candidate, plus many times on tv or radio...as VP he was extremely stiff and drone-like, the same early in his 00 campaign, only in last couple months of the 00 campaign did he really come out of his shell and display passion and emotion, conviction and vision.

            Kerry is a good Senator but a terrible Presidential candidate, I really hope we get new blood in the 08 race, not more of the same crap we saw in 00 and 04.  I wanted Warner, and will now have to re-evaluate the field to make my "early choice", I just hope Hillary takes the victory she deserves...Senate Majority Leader, and stays out of the Presidential race.

            This space for rent

            by mp on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:24:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  agreed--sort of (0+ / 0-)

              Here's to hoping that Hillary becomes Senate leader and puts her presidential ambitions to rest.

              And while I'd like to see future leadership in '08 (ideally), I'm more open to the possibility of a second Gore run than I would be to the possibility of a second Kerry run. Gore's stiffness in 2000 was due more to his reliance on bad media strategists than it was to his own personality. He's actually quite personable in real life. In any case, I tend to believe him when he says that he won't run.

        •  Unfortunately he has (0+ / 0-)

          during the 2000 debates both my husband and I who were not at all involved in politics at that time, looked at each other and exclaimed, "that man is a stick!"

          Don't get me wrong, we liked his positions and voted for him, but he did not make a good impression on camera back then. And we weren't alone in our assesment. Heard the same type of remarks from others in our circle of friends.

          So no, it's not brainwashing. As I said, at that time about the only attention we paid to politics was to watch the debates. Al has improved his style in the intervening years. Thank God.

          "Mankind must remember that peace is not God's gift to his creatures. It is our gift to each other." Elie Wiesel

          by witchamakallit on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:07:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And if a man is a stick he can' be president? (0+ / 0-)

            Grow up.

            We don't need style in the White House but good governance.

            •  Don't be a smart aleck (0+ / 0-)

              Fine if you don't like what I say, but don't tell me to grow up ok?

              And try paying attention past the sentence or so you didn't like. We voted for him so we obviously thought even a stick could be president.

              Jesus!

              "Mankind must remember that peace is not God's gift to his creatures. It is our gift to each other." Elie Wiesel

              by witchamakallit on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 04:12:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You said "but he did not make a good (0+ / 0-)

                impression on camera". Why on earth did you care about that at all if you are indeed a matured person? You want to see good impresson on camera? Watch an interview with some