'08 Prediction: The Democratic Presidential Candidate will be...

Mark Warner. Going away. Not even close. You heard it here first, DU.

Not enough experience on the national or international stage.

Easy enough to defuse that argument, IMO. Besides, Hillary's negatives are off the charts--she has no chance of carrying a single southern state, and everybody knows it. I can see her as Warner's running mate, though.

That said, I despise Warner and all of his DLC litter-mates. But he'll be the candidate, mark my words.

They'll try to make James Dobson the nominee.

Kaine barely won with a massive antiBush tailwind against a very unappealing Kilgore. The Clinton's will opposition reseach this turkey out of politics. Every great fortune starts with a great crime.

Hillary will carry NY, and probably CA in the primaries--and they may be almost enough. Unless Warner--or some other dark horse--gets off to an unexpectedly strong start in the early going. Which is what I'm predicting. You should know that I called Kerry as the Dem candidate back in '02, when nobody outside Massachusetts had ever heard of his ass.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Ah, that was good.

The Clintons have any friends in California. CA isn't the south, she could take it easily. They love stars in CA. Look who they elected Governor.

I try like hell not to think of that every day.

I feel truly sorry for progressives in your state. Fortunately, it looks like most of the shine has worn off that turd.

I worked with him on T2 when he was a total pile of shit.

Hillary will get huge amounts of women and minority voters. She'll run even with Warner and Feingold among white guys.

Warner started making noise back in March and I had a "gut" feeling it was him too. He secretly went to a Bilderberg meeting and his team denied it of course. That's when I knew it'd probably be him.

It's possible Warner will be in the 2spot but I much prefer Clark.

Not liking someone because they're DLC is silly. You should look at the individual person and their personal actions and records. I'm not for Hillary because she's too rightwing and everything. We need someone different and who will progress the country. Hillary might do some things but we really need to clean up house. Warner did really well in Virginia. He turned a six billion defecit into a surplus in one term. Plus, hopefully we'll win big in 2006 with the House and Senate and than he'll have a democratic majority and we can clean up.

No war. No 9/11. All domestic policy issues.

And it was a different Clinton running. The big dawg always wins.

No comparison. Bill misses the White House. He will do
anything to back in, meaning pulling all stops fir Hillary.

Experience sometimes doesn't relate to wisdom or practical common sense.

What did (then) Governor Geo. Bush have as far as advantages on the international and national stage as compared to Governor Warner?

And remember - Texas was one of the worst run states in the nation while Mr. Bush was at the helm.

As for Mark Warner, he has so many things going for him that I don't think he'll fade away anytime soon.

Can you imagine how Mr. Bush would've used Warner's record of taking his state from bottom of the barrel to the "Best Managed State in the Nation" (as Mark Warner did) if Bush had done that?

It took a Supreme Court to get his ass in.

What does Warner lack that Bush HAD when he was running? Did being the son of a one-term president who lost big time to President Clinton give him the "national stage" that you're referring to? :crazy:

Thanks for the info.. I seriously want to know why Bush had national and international advantage?

Personally, I don't think any of our potential candidates will have a national advantage until they've become our nominee.

~~ :patriot: ~~

The Clinton's already have a ground team, an infrastructure and allies in power. Only the DLC can save the world at this point.

Riding on an elephant with Chelsea as first lady? I'm no huge fan of Warner, but don't bore me with all of the "international experience" of a one-term, junior Senator.

Hillary is a heck of a lot more than a junior senator.

if Hillary wants it, it's her's.

actually. I think the more people learn, the more people will get into My Pants '08

Why not you?

No more corporists.

I'mm not saying I like him--I'm saying he'll be the guy. And there's not a damn thing you or I can do about it.

However, do you think he'll be Diebolded in?

I hardly call what he did there, and in one term, for corporations.

And he's better than any Republican, but he's still too blue-blood corporate for my tastes.

I would hope that with a country this vast - with more working-class than wealthy - the Dems could field a candidate that works more with the working class than to please the corporations. It has to be nipped in the bud at some point.

with a name that is not Clark.

Don't get me wrong; as a Virginian I think he's been quite competent. But there's a huge mess in Washington (and the nation) and I'm not sure he has the sensitivities to grasp all the social and economic injustice and attack it wholeheartedly. DLCers know how to please corporations, but much more is needed now: a real heart is priority one.

But you're right, the DLC thing is a BIG problem for progressives. But it's also the thing that'll win him the nom. The DLC run the party, not us.

There are way more of us than them.

I'm pretty progressive but where it concerns them I just look at the individual person and their record. Kerry is pretty progressive for a DLCer. Warner is more of a moderate I think and he's a big change from Bush.

The safe status quo choice. But NO matter who it ends up being -- Bayh, Edwards, Hilary, Warner et al -- the status quo (the extant money and power elite) will be protected. Indeed, anyone who however vaguely threatens this power elite -- Kucinich, Sharpton, etc. -- need not apply.

and is too right wing.

but does he have the right stuff to take on McCain? (my guesstimate for the Repug nominee).
My gut feeling: NOPE.

I'm pretty sure he would be a supporter of stem cell research. He has a diabetic daughter.

So we know what kind of judges he would get. I hardly call that rightwing.

Dean had a hell of a lot of momentum in the fall of 2003.

I'll fight hard to get someone else but if it's him - I'm there 110%

I don't want to wait my turn anymore.

:P

Had to say it.

the moderate Dems in states we won't carry will make sure of that

the nomination locked up.

I can see the red states making the same mistake they did with Kerry. I think many Dems in red states will try to pick someone they think might be able to flip their state in the general election this time around.

Well... I can hope they will, anyway. :)

(P.S. This isn't a Kerry bash. It's just that I knew the minute he won the Tennessee and Virginia primaries that he wouldn't flip those states in the general election. Which was a fact.)

I can't see the red states making the same mistake they did with Kerry. I think many Dems in red states will try to pick someone they think might be able to flip their state in the general election this time around.

Well... I can hope they will, anyway. :)

(P.S. This isn't a Kerry bash. It's just that I knew the minute he won the Tennessee and Virginia primaries that he wouldn't flip those states in the general election. Which was a fact.)

why did Clinton (Bill) meet secretly with Warner during Thanksgiving? I don't think it's going to be Hillary. I think there will be some great people running against her such as Warner and Feingold for starters.

great people will run against her, sure. But she will win the nomination.

The general election, I'm not nearly so sure of. But we will see.

Clinton meets with tons of Democrats.

Hell, he and Wes Clark hosted huge events in Little Rock. Whoop-dee-damn-doo. That's Bill's job as de facto party leader (in that he was the last Dem president).

Edited to add: I see your link downthread to the gossip regarding Bill and Warner's "secret" meeting. I still don't think it's much. Bill has meetings - secret and otherwise - with A LOT of Democrats.

I've heard he might make a surprise announcement that he's going to run (even though he currently denies that)

is elected as President and Vice President at the same time.:)

But there are others I like as well.

So many great people will be running in 2008 it'll be hard to choose! Last time there were just a few good choices.

Considering his great quote "This Democrat doesn't think we need to re-fight how we got into (the Iraq war)."
Can I ask why does anyone think this guys a leader?http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N28277588.htm

and well......his Bildenberg Meeting earlier this year cements him as our "chosen" one....
http://www.bilderberg.org/2005.htm#warner

His big business success with Nextel that made him a millionaire (always good to have deep pockets in these corrupt USA)and after all, he is DLC (that's always great....right?)
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/1996/10/14/newscolumn4.html

and the fact that he has no national security or Foreign policy experience (oh well, we just won't think about that--maybe that shit will just go away :eyes: )....

I'd say "Yep", considering the "common sense" and deep resevoir of our political "insight", seems like he is qualified as a "shoe in"!

BUT....Will the Non Southerner Southerner win the GE? Depends what state of affairs our world is in--

With Warner on top of the ticket.....If our international affairs continue to deteriorate, the GOP wins.

If we have peace on Earth by 2008, the GOP wins.

If the GOP nominates a really terrible candidate.....we could win though!

Great! And I thought this was the election where we would fight to save our democracy. Looks more like will be going "status quo" with democrats most likely losing to me cause they want to try and play it safe! Playing it safe or playing it "sorry"? Which one.....really? :(

Now....where's that Osama tape? I'm sure The GOP will be looking for it right around October 31, 2008! :shrug:

To conservative for those who normally vote in the primaries, I'm thinking.

As a Virginian- I am very torn.

Mark Warner is an exceptional fellow- truly he is... energetic, intelligent, thoughtful, outgoing, and full of realistic, forward thinking ideas. And he has become a MUCH better speaker over the last several years.

Wes Clark? Well.. he has all of the above characteristics along with mega military and foreign policy experience

Whether or not is it Wes or Mark at the top.. I would lay very heavy odds that Mark Warner will be on the ticket as VP.

COunt on that. ( probably why the Big Dog met with him over Thanksgiving)

I of course was numero uno.

;)

Or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

NGU.

I can certainly tell that you don't like Governor Warner, and you mentioned that you don't like his name coming up here so often..

But I'd like to know who you're hoping will be our candidate, and who you think will be our candidate (if it's different from who you hope it will be)

I think who gets nominated will depend largely on what are the issues that dominate the discussion in 07. If the war in Iraq is still going on (in the capacity that it is right now) and emotions are running high about that issue, then I believe that the candidate will have to be someone who takes a strong stance against the war, which Warner has not done (he doesn't even supports a gradual timetabled withdrawl).. and that candidate would be one of the following: Feingold, Edwards (not because he has foreign policy experience but because he is against the war now.. and that is what people are going to be looking at), Clark... AND if Hillary plays her 3rd way politics well, she will do an aboutturn too.. and in that case, it will be hard to beat her (even though she won't get my vote in the primaries). However, if Gore decides to jump in and Iraq is the issue of the day, then I think he will become a frontrunner too.

However, if suppose we withdraw a lot of our troops by 06 (which I think we probably will, due to growing pressure to do just that), then the economy will become front and center for the people. In that case, I do think that Warner has a chance to get the nomination. If domestic issues rule the day, then I would say that the strongest contestants would be: Warner and Edwards, assuming that Hillary will not be able to convince the primary voters that she is electable.

I know that Hillary is the elephant in the room, however, I don't think she is going to be the nominee. Personally, I think that anyone who can predict right now who the nominee is going to be is simply foolish. The nomination will go to the guy/gal who will have the strongest platform and the most winning personality in 08. I think that this time people are not only going to be looking at who will make the best candidate, but they will also be looking at who will make the best president... I do think we will have a debate about the heart of the democratic party in 08, as we should.

So, let me address your questions:

Who will be our candidate? Like I said before, anyone who thinks that they know the answer to that now is just not being reasonable. They might turn out to be right... but that would just be due to sheer chance.

Who will I support in the primaries? I like what Edwards has to say and offer to the national debate of ideas and real reform in this country. So, for now, he's the guy I want to win. However, you are wrong about the fact that I don't like Warner. I like warner, but like you said, I'm tired of people making topics about him even if there is nothing new to report (same goes for clark and hillary). In fact, Warner is my second choice for now. I also like Feingold, but I don't think he has that fire or that ambition that ppl who run successfully for president need.

So, that's where I'm at right now. However, I'm pragmatic about my choices... we will have to see what platforms these guys run on and what vision they have to change America for the better AND what the issues of the day are. The world is going to be a lot different in 07/08... and that is why it is almost impossible to guess right now who will win. All that said, Edwards' got my support for now :)

I think in 2008 they will be different. I'm hoping we do take back the House and Senate and we can change everything with Iraq and that won't be much of an issue. If it concerns health care, jobs, education, enviornment than I think Warner will have a great chance from what he did in Virgnia and he appeals to people. I think in 2008 it will be more about real issues such as those instead of those the rightwing tried to bring up such as gay marriage and abortion and foreign policey. They'll of course try again since it seems to work for them.

He definitely has the potential to appeal to voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, the west, and obviously all the southern primaries. Just in my opinion.

http://www.radaronline.com/fresh-intelligence/2005/11/28/index.php#report_004538

Snip: <Though the pundits have all but ordained her as the Democrats’ next presidential nominee, it hasn’t been all smooth sailing for Sen. Hillary Clinton. Publicly at least, the junior Senator from New York still insists she hasn’t made up her mind about a presidential run. But while her coy denials and growing war chest have kept many Democratic opponents on the sidelines, at least one party poobah has not been shy about checking out her competition. Sources close to the Democratic National Committee claim that Bill Clinton has recently held a series of secret meetings with Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, a much-hyped party moderate who is rapidly emerging as his wife’s most significant challenger for the Democratic nomination.>

Warner has also so far appeared twice (at least) in New Hampshire for "Road to the White House" and this past Sunday in South Carolina. Doesn't he also have a PAC? I believe Feingold has appeared at least once in New Hampshire on "Road to the White House."

The revolution will not be televised, I gather?

I would like Warner/Feingold or Feingold/Warner.

I would love to see it come to those 2.

I just wouldn't bet on it today. I think he's got the best shot to knock her out. He has the most to offer.

It's an equally credible claim.

would be warner/clark clark/warner

anyone gives him credit for.

For Hillary. :shrug:

I don't think so.. not judging by his interviews on the Big Eddie Schultz show.

He's going for it on his own.. You can tell by the amount of travel he's doing and the amount of money he's pulling in. :o :o :o

http://www.forwardtogetherpac.com/

I'm not saying he isn't going to make a strong run for the brass ring, I just think that he knows Hillary or whoever wins would do well with someone like him on the ticket (southern governor). He isn't coming in with the experience and priming of a Bill Clinton, he just hasn't served as long.

I felt the same way about Edwards, btw. He wasn't strong enough to win on his own but he had VP written all over him.

God knows, I've been wrong before, though.

is because Virginia has a one term rule for whatever reason. If he can win Virginia than I think he has a good chance. He might even carry some boardering states. Boy I would love for my home (Tn) to go blue! But he's your average person. First to go to college, failed at a few jobs and than he found what he was good at. Unlike George Bush he turned Virginia around and in one term. Plus, he works well with other people and I'm personally getting tired of all this left vs right screaming and fighting. It's draining. We need someone who can make us all work together. And no more criminals.

I wasn't attacking him for his one term. I was just pointing out that the other southern governor, Clinton, came in as a much stronger candidate. He had more experience and was getting attention from the party four years before his actual run. He was a more mature candidate.

However, because Warner was such a popular Governor, I think he can make a good case that he could get his state to swing to the Dems, either as the nominee or as VP, unlike Edwards, who didn't leave office a popular guy.

But at least Warner has experience though governing. I think that's also a plus. And he can do a lot of good in the White House. He's pro-choice, pro LGBT rights, for stem cell research and balances a budget. He would be a nice change.

Hillary/Warner or Feingold/Warner ticket.

MAYBE with a Clark/Warner ticket... MAYBE... but I wouldn't hold my breath.

I do think it might be true that he is running for Veep. I mean in almost every speech he gives, he makes a point of saying, "you know I don't know a lot about national politics" and in NH, in response to a question he said that he has a lot of learning to do. So, he isn't making much effort to present himself as the best candidate... he has been focusing his efforts on saying how he won in the red states, and electability is the quality that everyone looks for in the VP candidate. Now, I might be wrong because I can't get into his head... but I do think he is probably trying to get into the second spot. As for the amount of traveling he is doing and the money he is pulling in ... that is to help the democrats in 06... and I believe Edwards did the same for getting the VP slot ... though I don't know that for sure about him either. It's hard to get into anyone's head, but it seems very plausible with everything Warner has been saying... hmm... let's see.

But you know that.. :)

And Mark Warner isn't shooting for that either.

I still remember Big Dawg's comments on Larry King about how much Karl Rove would love a Hillary candidacy. That's all I needed to hear to know she's not running.

When the U.S. Senate race in New York gets hot, I think that's when we'll see Hillary finally acknowledge that she's not running for president.

Hillary and Bill Clinton are clever politicians. It must be beneficial for her in her senate career to (for now) have that "will she/won't she" mystery about her.

But both of them (Big Dawg and Hillary) know how far she'd get in the deep red states.. You know.. where they vote for people like:

You can usually feel it when a person is going to run for president. I think Hillary isn't going to run. She's keeping people guessing and I would love it if they spent all their time, money and energy on blasting her and than we have a real canidate. I think Warner would be great because he doesn't have anything shady in his work (that I've heard anyways) and he doesn't have votes in the Senate like Kerry/Edwards did. I think they're (the Clinton's) probably going to support Warner. I read here in GDPolitics that Warner recently had a big fundraiser too and raised a lot of money. Does anybody know if either Clinton was there? Warner isn't blood born in the south but neither was George. He has that charsima and that next door charm (Kerry and Gore had that too but of course the media didn't ever really show it) that gets across the tv.

Why did Edwards continue to run in the primaries when it was clear that Kerry was going to win? He was running for VP, that's why.

Hillary will run. I would bet my house if I had one, heh.

Does he want to be VP? And you don't give up until the fat lady sings that's why Edwards kept going. He's really a passionate person where it concerns politics.

No one runs with the hope that they will lose and have to settle for VP. But politicians calculate their chances, look at the competition and are aware of the likelyhood of outcomes. He will run for himself but he has to be aware of his attractiveness as a VP. It makes running all the more appealing; if you don't win, you are first in line for the ticket, regardless.

I think he's going for something more. Again, just call it a "gut" feeling. When I first saw him back in March when it was told he went to Bilderberg I knew we'd be seeing more of him and we are. I had the same feeling about Paul Hackett and now he's running for the Senate. But I've just read he's met with Bill once. So I'm not sure about twice. Why would he meet with Bill and not Hillary? I also have this "gut" feeling that Hillary isn't going to run in '08 and it's a diversion plan. Of course I'm still human and even though I've been right on some things in the past I haven't everything and things change. There's just something about Warner that makes me feel that he's running for more. But go to the pac he has and watch the video on there. I think he would do really well. Has anybody ever seen him debate? He does pretty good with public speaking.

he wouldn't have went to Bilderberg back in March or during Thanksgiving met secretly with Bill and have done quite a few appearances in New Hamsphire and one last Sunday in South Carolina.

Doesn't mean they will win, it just means they are up and comers.

If he met secretly with Bill, that just strengthens my argument that he's running for Hillary's VP, doesn't it? Bill isn't supporting Warner, lol.

Of course he is going to run for himself, because you never know, you could win it all. Plus he is out of office and has to keep himself in the public eye. I just think this is a very likely scenario that he is aware of himself.

Were you there? I don't think so.

???

IMO.

Or the other way around!

~ :patriot: ~~

That the best candidates and front runners for the Democrats are Warner,Feingold, and Clark. Much better than the republican alternative. Tancredo, Brownback, and Romney. Arrrrrrg. Can you imagine? My GOP dark horse, Laura Lingle of Hawaii. Or at least for the VP spot.

Pitaki and Guiliani. I don't think they'd get it though. Nor McCain. He might VP if anything. He's not fundie enough. I saw Romney Sunday night on "Road to the White House" before Warner and they both have similiar styles of public speaking but to me Warner seems to connect more to people. Romney it's like reading a script but he does it way better than Bush (well duh). I don't know about Clark being a front runner. Depends on who else jumps in the ring. I haven't heard much buzz of Biden. Maybe he decided not to or is waiting until after 2006.

With the republican qualifications these days. guliani, Pataki, Romney, and McCain all have records that support gay rights. And thats seriously it for them. Because of the nuts that are controlling the GOP these days. How sad

:shrug: Who else are they going to find who is anti-gay? I don't think Frist is running. I haven't heard enough noise. He isn't running in 2006 for his seat again but someone in GD pointed out that apparently Frist isn't running again because of how many times he's been in office and a promise and he's actually keeping it. :shrug: I think Pitaki and McCain are the cloest to fundie they're going to get. McCain back in October met with Falwell.

My bold prediction for the gop vp is linda lingle not laura

Thats who it is going to be. The reason I said Lingle for VP was because every time I hear Karl Rove speak on the Republican parties progress Hawaii always has to do with it. I can assure you that McCain won't get the nomination for the reason he did in 2000. And Pataki won't because his numbers in New York are awful and he has no chance of winning his home state. Lets say its Warner vs Pataki. Since Pataki is so unpopular in nEw York right now i will assume Warner will win new york and state like Virginia, North Carlina, West Virginia, New Mexico, Iowa, Colorado, and florida. Then becoming an electoral landslide. If Brownback is the nominee he'll be much more competitive in the south.

He is a strong DLCer, and he angered me with his comments supporting the Repub side in regards to the investigation into the intelligence issues and the Iraq war.
I also resent having a potential candidate thrust at me and being told he is the answer to all our problems and is electable because of his residential location.

If the Corporate media pushes them, I run the other way.

Warner sure is getting an awful lot of press. Why?

Seems curious that while the whole of America is in the middle of the heaviest/loudest debate on the Iraq War that we have yet to have, during a time when investigating Bush and the reasons for Iraq seem to be surfacing, Warner's name keeps popping up.

The interesting question might be why is the name of one who has absolutely no experience with national security, war or foreign policy being touted so often as the democratic answer for a future candidate?

Makes no sense.

I am missing something, or are we just about to be "had"?

I also resent having a potential candidate thrust at me and being told he is the answer to all our problems and is electable because of his residential location.

And I resent having a potential candidate thrust at me and being told she is the answer to all our problems and is electable because of who she's married to.

The DNC/DLC need to look beyond geography and celebrity status, and focus on the authentic traits rather than the superficial.

but nothing like John Edwards, or on the other side, John McCain.

We need someone who will go out on his front porch and say he wants to be President, then turns around, goes inside, puts his feet up and has a beer.

Innovative, creative, excited, self promoting hungry people yearning to lead should not be allowed anywhere near elective office.