Mark Warner no longer running for president

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ramo
John Warner isn't running for re-election, so Mark has a guaranteed Senate seat in '08. Since he's out of a job right now, there's practically no incentive to go after the big one in a crowded field. 'Specially if all these Obama '08 rumors bear out... He's also setting himself up to be everyone's first Veep pick.

You live in a fantasy world if you think a black man or even a half black man is going to get nominated for President by a party which is desperate to pick up southern states.

[Ramo]

It doesn't matter. You're underestimating the Democrats' thirst for a man who is actually able to articulate progressivism in an eloquent manner. I don't think that he's going to run, and I'm not sure that he'd win if he ran (since the only time he has really been tested was in his Senate Primary), but it's crazy to think that he won't gain traction because he's black.

[Dinner]

There is also the issue that he is inexperienced, doesn't have the financing & fund raising machine which a big campaign would require, and that he is a Senator who therefor voted and revoted on virually every issue and thus can easily be painted as a flip flopper. It's best to get someone like a governor who has never been in Congress.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Okay...time for a serious movement to draft Ed Rendell.

Are you kidding me?
(I voted for him as Governor but that's as far as I'd go.)

Vote Vince278 for President!

[Odin]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It seems Hillary will be the nominee then. That's a pity since she sucks as a candidate and carries to much baggage.

She won't get the nomination, the base hates her too much.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Vince278
Are you kidding me?
(I voted for him as Governor but that's as far as I'd go.)

Well, I'm a Feingold man myself. But of Dem candidates who could plausibly capture their party's nomination, let alone go on to win the election, I really can't think of anybody obviously superior to Rendell. Certainly not Hillary, Gore, or Bayh, let alone Kerry or Edwards.

[Ramo]

There is also the issue that he is inexperienced, doesn't have the financing & fund raising machine which a big campaign would require, and that he is a Senator who therefor voted and revoted on virually every issue and thus can easily be painted as a flip flopper. It's best to get someone like a governor who has never been in Congress.

The biggest problem is that he's inexperienced. But it's precisely this lack of experience in Congress - that he has only been in the Senate for two years so doesn't have problems wrt his voting record. And OTOH, he can speak articulately about any number of issues. And he's the biggest fund-raising draw in the party (perhaps second only to Bill), so will not have a cash problem.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Winston
Well, Democrats seem to have a record of not exactly fighting "to make the world a safer place" so much as just talk about it.

FDR ... gets us into WW II.
Truman ... gets us into Korea; begins Cold War.
Kennedy .. invades Cuba using exiles, almost starts WW III over Cuban missiles; gets us into Vietnam.
Johnson ... escalates Vietnam.
Carter ... launches a failed rescue mission into Iran.
Clinton ... attacks Serbia; Haitian junta resigns when U.S. prepares to invade.

Are there any Demo-Pres'es I missed over the past have century that didn't start something somewhere?

[Winston]

You know, Zkribbler, of those you mentioned, only Carter is eligible to run again next time around, and in some spooky way I think that serves to underline my point quite nicely.

[Kuciwalker]

Not really, no.

[DanS]

You're underestimating the Democrats' thirst for a man who is actually able to articulate progressivism in an eloquent manner.

Rather, I think it's just the progressives that thirst for such a candidate. As far as I understand, progressives are even a small minority of the Dem party, let alone the fact that they have little public appeal outside the party.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Not really, no.

Yes. Since this is the upcoming next presidential election I'm talking about, and how the Democrats potentially in the running seem less intent on "fighting to make the world a safer place" than they do on talking about it.

Any number of dead Presidents that are brought up, with great achievements to their name or, as the case may be for the only man who could run - not so great achievements - seems only to drive home that point a little bit extra.

And need I remind anybody that all of my posts to this thread so far has had a distinct sense of tongue in cheek to them. Or so they were intended..

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Winston
You know, Zkribbler, of those you mentioned, only Carter is eligible to run again next time around, and in some spooky way I think that serves to underline my point quite nicely.

Kennedy was technically eligible to run again other then the little fact that somebody shot him in the head. Come to think of it Truman and Johnson were both one term Presidents.

[Winston]

Yes, but as you were so close to fully realising at one point there, you need to actually be alive today in order to run for President.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Winston
Yes. Since this is the upcoming next presidential election I'm talking about, and how the Democrats potentially in the running seem less intent on "fighting to make the world a safer place" than they do on talking about it.

BS. How do you know that of most of these people? Especially the ones from outside DC?