Amen.

Every so often (for some of us more than others), we come across someone else who says something we were trying to say in a much better fashion. The point I was making in my last post (that Warner's recent comments re: the national party were disappointing, especially in a tactical sense) was made more thoughtfully in this contribution to the Draft Mark Warner mailing list by a poster named Debo, which I will reprint in full:

I'm not surprised at the reaction to MW on the MyDD posting. I myself was offended when I read his comments to the LA Times, it was poorly worded and he really shot himself in the foot with that kind of talk . He was right when he implied that you don't win over the center by being a lock step party loyalist, but I'll also add that you don't win your party's nomination by thumbing your nose at its core voters either. Remember John McCain in 2000?

Could it have been his lack of national experience or just a "tell it like it is" moment? In either case, I'd say it hurt more than it helped. Clinton supported the death penalty, welfare reform and a middle class tax cut while being pro-choice, sufficiently pro-gay rights and pro-affirmative action, a mix the party base could tolerate. He didn't even do the Sista Souljah thing until he'd wrapped up the party's nomination. The good thing for Warner is nobody is paying much attention now and maybe it will be forgotten by the fall of 2007, the bad thing his opponents in the 2008 primary will use it against him. Contrast Warner with another strong centrist like Evan Bayh, who in my view is our real opponent. Both are getting favorable press and have cross over appeal. However, Bayh who doesn't wear his "Look..I'm a Democrat too" label, hardly disses Dean or Move On either. He naturally criticizes Bush but at the same time offers friendly advice as to where his party needs to be in 2008. Will this absolutely pay off in the end? I don't know, but I'm not hearing any complaints.

Unlike the GOP, we don't hand over the nomination of our party to some establishment guy cos it happens to be his/her turn. You've got to earn it by fighting for it, something I hope is not lost on any aspiring nominee.

Debo

By the way, if you're interested in Warner's potential candidacy, and you haven't already, you should join this group on Yahoo. They're doing more to promote Warner's candidacy than this semi-regular (to put it very charitably) blog.

Oh yeah, he's running.

The recent days have seen sort of a Warner boomlet in the media. First, we had his appearance in California before the LA Times editorial board, in which he attempted to stake out a position as the "conservative Democratic" candidate:

Warner — who is thought to have presidential potential because of his bipartisan accomplishments as a governor in the South — said that his party's positioning on social issues had left rural and small-town voters with a "sense of some Democrats' belittling their lives, their culture and their values."

He said he experienced that sentiment during a trip to California, where he felt that some people were condescending because he came from Virginia.

" 'You little Virginia Democrat, how can you understand the great opportunities we have?' " Warner said in characterizing the attitude he encountered. "I came out saying, 'That's why America hates Democrats.' "

Warner also criticized congressional Democrats for not proposing alternatives to Bush's Social Security and Medicare proposals. On Medicare, he said

"We ought to be more about offering some solutions," he said. "We can't just say 'no.' I don't want cuts, but I do know we've got to change the way we deliver healthcare."

On Social Security, the Times noted:

Still, he said that Democrats sometimes were too wedded to defending the New Deal-era retirement program without considering how it might be improved for current conditions. "The program itself becomes sacrosanct, rather than what the goal ought to be — how do we protect folks in their senior years," he said.

Meanwhile, a story in today's Washington Post reports the following:

Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner (D) is forming a federal political action committee and has hired a former top aide to Vice President Al Gore to advise him on national politics, the governor's top political aide in Virginia said.

The new PAC, which has not been named, will allow Warner to begin raising money for a possible run at the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 while he finishes out his term in Virginia. The PAC will be announced formally in July or August, said Mary A. "Mame" Reiley, the director of Warner's One Virginia PAC.

It's pretty obvious he's going to run.

As for the LA Times comments re: Social Security & Medicare, I'm not sure I completely agree with them. In fact, they sound dangerously close to parroting Republican talking points on the issue with respect to the "where's their plan?" criticism. What needs to be kept in mind here is that Bush has yet to propose a specific plan of his own; he's only talked in vague generalities about what he wants to do. So why should the Democrats negotiate against themselves here, especially as the issue has become a big loser for Bush.

There's a fine line between being a "New Democrat", one willing to seek progressive solutions in innovative ways and not being beholden to traditional Democratic sub-groups on the one hand, and being a Joe Lieberman crypto-Republican on the other. Warner's been dancing on that line a bit too much lately, especially with those they-made-fun-of-me-because-I'm-from-Virginia comments. And if he becomes perceived among Democrats as a Southern Lieberman, his candidacy is going to be over before it starts, because he's not going to win any primaries. I wonder if all of this is an attempt to "out-moderate" Hillary, given her recent nods to the center and the poll last week which showed her running well nationally in mock general election matchups. It's one thing to bash Kerry for not "deviating from the party orthodoxy", but it's another to badmouth Democrats in general.

Handicapping from the Fuhrer Leader, er Union Leader

New Hampshire's Union Leader has been one of the more famous (or infamous) right wing newspapers in the country, given its status as the leading newspaper in the most important primary state. Of course, its endorsements and pronouncements mean more on the Republican side, but it's always useful to see what they have to say about the Democrats as well, at least with respect to each other. The UL did some handicapping today, looking at who they think the top five are on each side. Our man made the cut, and here's what they had to say about him:

Limited to one four-year term as governor of Virginia, Warner has maintained his popularity despite running a solidly Republican state.

Strengths: Probably as close as Democrats come to having a NASCAR-dad candidate, a moderate-conservative who worked well with opposition Republicans.

Weaknesses: Limited experience and no background dealing with international affairs.

For those who don't want to read the whole article (or might feel slimy about visiting their site), Hilary, Edwards, Kerry and Evan Bayh were the other 4 Dems profiled. Allen, Frist, Giuliani, Romney and McCain were the Republican five.

ed.: Two posts in two days? Don't give these people false hope....Don't worry, after six months of inactivity, expectations have to be at a low ebb around here...ed.: This "editor" thing is just as cheesy as when Kaus does it.

Howie F speaks (and so does the author of this blog)

That august keeper of the CW, and Hardball regular, Howard Fineman of Newsweek, has decided to anoint Warner as the guy to watch on the 2008 Democratic side.

Fineman sums up Warner's crossover appeal as such:

He has positioned himself as a centrist on social issues, which may be right where "country-club Republicans" are: wary of too much emphasis on gay rights or women's rights, but essentially tolerant people.

NOTE: Yes, this is the first post in 5 months or so on this blog. I reserve the right to post again in 5 months or so. Thanks to Bobby P for pointing out this article and actually giving me something to do here. There really hasn't been much to write about w/r/t Warner lately. The gubernatorial race in Virginia featuring Warner's Lt. Gov Tim Kaine this November will be an important touchstone for Warner in that a Kaine loss might be construed as a repudiation of Warner's policies and/or a lack of deep support for Warner personally. Whether this is fair or not is, of course, beside the point, but this is the closest thing to an electoral test that Warner will likely face between now and 2008, assuming he doesn't abandon a presidential bid and goes for Allen's Senate seat.