Election ’05 — Why Mark Warner is smiling

If yesterday produced one big winner — outside those whose names were actually on ballots — it’s outgoing Virginia Gov. Mark Warner (D). In fact, let the Warner ’08 hype begin in earnest … now.

Tim Kaine tied himself to Warner, telling Virginia that if they’ve liked the last four years, he’ll carry the progress forward for four more. And because Virginia voters responded to the Dem message, just a year after backing Bush by a wide margin, Warner’s stock is soaring today.

“The real asset that Kaine had was this rather astonishing popularity of Warner,” said Merle Black, a professor who studies Southern politics at Emory University.

George Mason University professor Mark J. Rozell agreed. “I think to a large extent [the story] is the Warner influence,” said Rozell, who has closely followed the race. “He created the circumstances for a Democrat to win in a Republican-leaning state in the South.”

In one recent poll, Warner’s approval rating came in at 80%. For a Dem in a red state, who raised taxes, that ain’t bad. Yesterday was a test of that popularity — and Warner passed.

“Not only did Warner elect Kaine, he won the first primary of the 2008 presidential race,” said [Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia]. “He’s proven that he can win — and transfer winning — in an area Democrats need to win the presidency back.”

On a related note, Virginia has two likely presidential contenders. Gov. Warner clearly fared well, but Sen. George Allen (R), considered by some to a ’08 frontrunner, did not. Kilgore recognized Bush’s faltering support and generally kept his distance from the White House during the campaign, but embraced Allen’s support with both arms and appeared with him repeatedly across the state. In this sense, it was Warner vs. Allen in a reliably Republican state — and Warner came out on top.

A moderate Southern governor who knows how to win in a “red” state, knows how to garner support from Republicans, has proven his coattail strengths, and who manages to be pro-choice without alienating social conservatives. Sounds like a rationale for a presidential campaign, doesn’t it?

One good outcome of Warner’s ascent is that it provides a credible alternative to Hillary in 2008. Hillary may or may not make a good candidate in 2008, but right now she is the only prominent possibilty. It will be good for the Dems to have other prominent voices, especially from places other than the northeast, in the mix.

  • Hmmm, a former Dem Gov. from a red state running for President. I don’t know, I just don’t think it will play as well as a Dem Senator from the Northeast. I’d like to see some sort of historical evidence to the contrary.

    I’m not that familiar with Warner. Is he really smart or maybe a war veteran or anything else the GOP will hold against him if he runs?

  • Martin,

    I beg to differ. I believe that Wes Clark is a prominent possibility. In fact, I think a Clark/Warner ticket is incredibly strong (whether Warner would accept a number 2 spot is unknown). Warner clearly lacks any bonafides in foreign policy/national security. And I believe that is the issue that enabled Bush to win in 2008, not social conservatism.

    With Kerry’s vulnerability to the flip-flop charge on supporting and funding the Iraq War (not that the accusation was fair, just that it worked), security Mom’s, Nascar Dad’s and other parts of the all-important center just weren’t comfortable enough with trusting Kerry with national security. As good as Rove and the GOP machine is at sliming opponents, I don’t think the charge that General Wesley Clark is soft on defense will stick.

    Go Wes Clark!

  • Allen’s prospects peaked months ago, when Republicans were looking around for the next George Bush: ie, an amiable empty vessel they pour their latest conservative ideas into. Now that bit of strategery isn’t looking so hot. At the rate Bush’s popularity is plummeting, they will be looking for an anti-Bush shortly.

  • Edo,

    I can’t help but feel that you are and ardent Wes Clark supporter. Wasn’t it you who last week suggested a Clark/Obama ticket in ’08?

    While I like Clark, I don’t think he is as prominent as you might like to believe. Other than entering the fray briefly in the last election, he hasn’t done much to raise his public profile. I don’t think Joe American is all that aware of him or his accomplishments. He’s kind of a question mark in most people’s minds, I believe, other than being against the exeution of this war. He has no public record.

    On the other hand, Warner has a record that you can point to and a sizeable portion of population (Virginia and surrounding states) will be aware of who he is, what he has done and what kind of politics he represents.

    Me, I’m still hoping Obama runs at the front of the ticket.

  • Mark Warner should do the right thing for his country and his party and run for the Senate. He could capture the seat and eliminate one very annoying Republican Senator in the process. I will never support a Warner presidential campaign. I would gladly give money to a Senate campaign.

  • Gridlock,

    I confess to being an ardent Clark supporter. I may have supported a Clark/Obama ticket in the past and would support it now. I’d support virtually any reasonable ticket with Clark at the top (not Hillary, not Lieberman).

    Given the other putative candidates, I think Clark is just as recognizable on the national scene. How many people outside of Indiana (and perhaps the immediate surrounding states) know about Bayh but not about Clark? Same question for Vilsack of Iowa. Yes, Hillary may be more well known, but that sure comes with a whole lot of negative baggage.

    Can Warner reassure people in the crucial center that he has the foreign relations/national security chops? I’m not sure. However, given the work Clark has done with the congressional Democrats and his commentor spot on Fox news has given him a fair amount of visibility on the subject. And if we think that topic has lost reasonance with the critical center, then we are doomed to a GOP president in 2008. IMHO of course. ;->

  • I think Clark is better known in the country than Warner due to his 2004 campaign. Clark has opened his complete military record for public viewing. He’s been on numerous talk shows like Meet the Press, and is very popular on Fox News. You should watch him stay on message when dealing with the FN buffoons. We need a candidate who is not tainted by a congressional voting record, and who has never raised taxes. Clark is very intelligent, but always able to connect with his audience. I believe Clark-Warner is a winning ticket.

  • And I’m another Clark supporter who thinks a Clark/Warner ticket might do well. I agree about the foreign policy experience Clark can bring, but there’s a lot more to him than that. And while it may seem as if Clark has kept a low-profile since the last election, he’s actually been going around the country working to get Dems elected (he campaigned for Kaine, for instance), and advising Dems in Congress on foreign policy and how to frame discussion of it. He tends to plan long-range. In addition to this helping him in an election campaign, being on such good terms with so many leading Democrats would be a real asset to a president who wants to accomplish things during his administration. I’ve also heard that Clark is already working on a southern strategy. Again, not for the primary, but for the general election. That he has a plan that will make it unnecessary for Dems to take Florida in order to win.

    Now picking a v-p who could bring Virginia into the blue column — that sounds promising….

  • Like Edo, I’ve been a strong Clark supporter for some time, as well. He’s been quietly doing a lot of groundwork and making a steady string of public appearances to gradually get his name and face into the public consciousness. He’s even a semi-regular contributor on FOX News ( ! ) and blown away the wingnut commentariat every time. Has any other progressive candidate ever been able to do that, or even attempted to do so? I think not.

    Clark is strong, courageous, experienced, straight-forward, intelligent and lucid. He also has two other huge advantages: he’s not George Bush, and he’s entitled by right to be addressed as ‘General’.

    So what’s not to like? There are other strong players out there, especially Obama and Warner, but Clark need not take a back seat to any of them. Let’s just see how things work out. At least we have some seriously good potential candidates for a change, and I’d be happy if any one of them made it to the big dance.

  • Ithink Clark is great. I want to see him as Secretary of State, National Security, SecDef, or even VP.

    He does not have the “charisma” to pull of a presidential win though. Sorry. It takes a natural salesperson, and Clark isn’t (neither is Sen. Clinton, BTW). However, he’s an outstanding diplomat and strategic geopolitical thinker.

    Gen. Clark however will I’m sure be happy to serve his country in whatever capacity he is able. I know he’s love to be CINC but I think he’d be absolutely stellar, brilliant in fact, as Secretary of State or even VP. Put this guy on a plane, send him off to the Europe, the Middle East, China, Russia, etc. I think the world will breathe easier and the human race will take a huge step back from the precipice.

  • OK, OK…

    So we all agree we can get around Mark Warner in one capacity or another: Kennedy-esque -haven’t used that in a while – born in the midwest, raised in New England, self made gazillionaire (co-founder of Nextel) governor from a red state…

    His wife, Lisa Collis Warner, has an impressive bio: she’s a Navy brat with a master’s in public health, did some policy work for the World Bank, and is familiar with Third World health and nutrition issues…

    Gawd…the anti-Bushes…and, no doubt, he’s as smart as Bill Clinton but without all the baggage.

    Is the guy scandal-free???…what’s his Achilles heel??…

  • Well, Warner better find some way to raise his national pofile during the next two years while he is out of office. BTW – I live on the West coast and barely know who he is. Clark is well known (and liked) out here.

  • Goatchowder,

    I don’t agree with you that Clark doesn’t have enough charisma to compete. I think he has enough and we’ll see more of it over the next 12 months. But if I’m wrong, then I do agree that he’d serve his country in whatever capacity is necessary and that he’d be an outstanding Secretary of State or VP. Again, though, I think he’s our best hope for a Dem president in 2008.

  • Love Warner. Looking forward to watching his retail talent more closely.

    George Allen has not ‘peaked’. He has the most stump talent of the GOP field. I predict he will be the nominee.

    He feels like an emerging consensus choice to me; were he to fail, that could open the field up to McCain, the person we probably least want to face.

    Best shot to beat a mcCain candidacy: Clark or Warner. Nobody else, unless

    Love that comment about “northeastern senators” above.

  • I’m with the crowd on admiring Clark and would be very happy to support him. Don’t know much about Warner. But, with all due respect to those who bring up Obama as #2 or even #1! on the ticket–I just can’t understand that. The man hasn’t accomplished anything yet–he is all potential. Let’s see what he does, what ideas he has, what courageous stands he makes–if any– in the Senate. All he’s done was give an inspiring keynote speech and that does not a president make. Ask Mario Cuomo.

  • Frak,

    Why would Obama’s relative lack of national experience disqualify him from the #2 spot on the ticket? Also, keep in mind that by the time the 2008 election rolls around, he will have been a Senator for over 3 years.

  • I want to return to a point I made (apparently unnecessarily) above, namely, that we haven’t elected a sitting Senator since JFK, 45 years ago. I did a little more research on presidents over the century preceding the Shrub. There were only two sitting Senators, JFK and Warren Harding (shudder). This list (derived from source) shows the governmental position held prior to the Presidency.

    William McKinley, 1897-1901 ** Governor
    Theodore Roosevelt, 1901-1909 ** VPOTUS
    William Howard Taft, 1909-1913 ** War Secty
    Woodrow Wilson, 1913-1921 ** Governor
    Warren Gamaliel Harding, 1921-1923 ** Senator
    Calvin Coolidge, 1923-1929 ** VPOTUS
    Herbert Clark Hoover, 1929-1933 ** Commerce Secty
    Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933-1945 ** Governor
    Harry S. Truman, 1945-1953 ** VPOTUS
    Dwight David Eisenhower 1953-1961 ** General
    John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1961-1963 ** Senator
    Lyndon Baines Johnson, 1963-1969 ** VPOTUS
    Richard Milhous Nixon, 1969-1974 ** VPOTUS
    Gerald Rudolph Ford, 1974-1977 ** Congressman
    James Earl Carter, Jr., 1977-1981 ** Governor
    Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1981-1989 ** Governor
    George Herbert Walker Bush, 1989-1993 ** VPOTUS
    William Jefferson Clinton, 1993-2001 ** Governor
    George Walker Bush, 2001- ** Governor

    I think we should look at today’s Senators, however successful they may be in that capacity, with great care when it comes to their presidential ambititions.

    By contrast, I think the record suggests we look to governors and former Vice Presidents. I have a feeling that it all comes down to something as simple “executive experience” (personal responsibility?) as opposed to “clubbing” in the Senate, but maybe there’s something more profound than that.

    This would suggest Warner, Richardson, Gore, maybe Clark (Ike was really unique) rather than the likes of Senators Clinton, Kerry, Lieberman, Biden, Obama, etc. – their path, based on this list anyway, should probably be through a stop at the Vice Presidency. Hillary is truly a problem: her First Lady position was certainly comparable to serving Vice President, maybe more like Asst- or Co-President.

  • Ed,

    I agree with your basic premise (sitting Senators are typically poor presidential candidates). However, as I’m sure will come as no surprise, I don’ t agree with your casual dismissal of Clark with the comment that Ike was really unique. I think the national fear is very similar in how it affects the crucial center/swing voter. Then it was communism, now its terrorism.

  • Edo, sometimes you have to look at your own guys fault, dude. Seriously. Ike WAS unique in the fact he was a MAJOR war hero. I know about Clark and his combat experience, but it was on a VERY different level. Ike also had no political party at first, both tried to draft him. He chose Republicans, but had no real loyalty to them. It made people trust him even more. Plus, he was a born politician. He spoke well; very charismatic.

    Don’t get me wrong, I liked Clark before. Supported him in the primaries for 2004. Do I think he can win an election? On his resume, maybe. Remember, he has 0% experience creating Domestic Policy. But more important, what of his personality? Is he truly electable? No. He comes off to me like good VP material, or at least Sec. of State or Defense (which I believe he’d be now had Kerry won).

    So, if I can’t put Clark at Pres, who compliments him well? Well, it should be a Governor, because we’ve pointed out how good they’ve been at getting elected, especially as of recent (four out of the last five). That leaves us with Richardson, Warner, and Vilsack. Which one of them has:

    A) The only state to recieve all A’s on it’s Report Card by the Government Grading Project
    B) Ranked one of the top 5 Governor’s in the nation
    C) A personal fortune worth 300 million which can easily add mucho dinero to a campaign, giving us (for once) a monetary edge over Republicans.
    D) A record of turning $6 Billion dollar defecits into $1 Billion surplusses

    The choice is clear. Mark Warner for President, Wes Clark by his side as a VP. The ticket is a perfect balance of Domestic and Foreign (let’s be frank, Clark has no experience in creating Domestic Policy, just as Warner has no experience in Foreign). Warner goes up front because he’s more electable and he’s got the management thing down pat.

    Oh, and Terry? About the whole Warner running for Senate thing? Please….that just sounds stupid. You’d vote for a guy for Senate, but not President? Are you boycotting him or something?

  • Comments are closed.