Thursday, October 12, 2006
October 12, 2006-We are less than a month away from the mid-term elections, and years away from the 2008 battle for the White House, but the Democratic party has already suffered a huge loss. Today, former governor of Virginia, Mark Warner, allerted the media and his supporters that he had decided not to run for president in 2008. While many of the extreme liberals in the Democratic party have proclaimed the exit of Candidate Warner as a stage setter for a possible Gore or Feingold run (Russ Feingold, the liberal senator from Wisconsin is without a doubt the hero of the liberal left in the Senate). However, in time, Democrats will find that already they have lost their best hope at taking back the White House (for those who care, go to http://forwardtogetherpac.com to read Governor Warner's "farewell" statement).
A little history lesson: Let's take a look at the last few succesful candidates for the presidency: George W Bush, former governor, Bill Clinton, former governor, George H W Bush...ok he was VP BUT Ronald Reagan, former governor, Jimmy Carter, former governor, Gerald Ford...former representative (he was actually never elected to the vice presidency or the presidency, although he served in both positions), Richard Nixon, former governor...you get the idea. So, all but ONE president over the past thirty years previously served a governorship. In fact, 100% of the Democratic presidents since 1970 (that's right...all two of them) were governors before they moved into the White House. So what's with this governor thing?
Governors are percieved to have great executive experience, a plus when looking for a job in the White House. Also, unlike senators or even cabinet members, governors have the ability to play the role of the Washington outsider. Because of this outsider's perspective, governor candidates are able to play upon the ideas of change and a new direction better than members of the DC beltway.
Mark Warner certainly was an outsider. Much like Ned Lamont, Governor Warner was a success in the private sector (ever heard of a company called Nextel?). As governor, he led a Republican controlled state legislature to a balanced state budget, leaving office with the highest approval rating of any governor of the state in modern times.
Outsider's appeal is good, but Warner is a centrist too. Polling shows that the average American voter has grown tired of the strangle hold that those on the extreme right and left have on today's political parties. Warner represented a chance for the Truman Democrats to take control of a party that has been hijacked by the Pelosi/Lamont wingnuts. Some even called him the second coming of Clinton, minus the failure with Rwanda and the scandal with Monica.
How does Warner's early exit effect other Democrats with visions of '08 in their heads? John Edwards, the '04 candidate for VP seems to have gained the most in all of this. Aside from Governor Warner, Edwards is the only other southern front-runner for the party nomination. Due to his geographical positioning, Edwards could win enough primaries to push back the financial bombshell that is Senator Hillary Clinton.
As for the good senator from New York-because of his successes in the private sector, Warner was seen as the only candidate who could truly hope to match Senator Clinton's campaign war chest. Also, Senator Clinton is constantly trying to define herself, and at times seems to be imitating her husband. Because of her flip-flopping between plotting the middle course and appeasing the extreme left, Warner could have come across as more sincere and principaled in a primary between the two. Warner's exit also helps the moderate Senator Joe Biden appear more unique, instead of a Warner look-a-like.
So where's the outsider? Many look to Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, but thefederalist is looking in the direction of Wes Clark. A former general, Mr. Clark has the experience necesary to lead a nation through troubled times, not to mention he has yet to be tainted by the DC beltway.
Although we need to get through the elections of 2006 before we even think about 2008, it's never to early to start. But Democrats shouldn't fool themselves, they lost a damn good candidate today. However, many are saying that 4 weeks (the time left between now and November 7th's elections) is a life time. Imagine what two years could be.
A little history lesson: Let's take a look at the last few succesful candidates for the presidency: George W Bush, former governor, Bill Clinton, former governor, George H W Bush...ok he was VP BUT Ronald Reagan, former governor, Jimmy Carter, former governor, Gerald Ford...former representative (he was actually never elected to the vice presidency or the presidency, although he served in both positions), Richard Nixon, former governor...you get the idea. So, all but ONE president over the past thirty years previously served a governorship. In fact, 100% of the Democratic presidents since 1970 (that's right...all two of them) were governors before they moved into the White House. So what's with this governor thing?
Governors are percieved to have great executive experience, a plus when looking for a job in the White House. Also, unlike senators or even cabinet members, governors have the ability to play the role of the Washington outsider. Because of this outsider's perspective, governor candidates are able to play upon the ideas of change and a new direction better than members of the DC beltway.
Mark Warner certainly was an outsider. Much like Ned Lamont, Governor Warner was a success in the private sector (ever heard of a company called Nextel?). As governor, he led a Republican controlled state legislature to a balanced state budget, leaving office with the highest approval rating of any governor of the state in modern times.
Outsider's appeal is good, but Warner is a centrist too. Polling shows that the average American voter has grown tired of the strangle hold that those on the extreme right and left have on today's political parties. Warner represented a chance for the Truman Democrats to take control of a party that has been hijacked by the Pelosi/Lamont wingnuts. Some even called him the second coming of Clinton, minus the failure with Rwanda and the scandal with Monica.
How does Warner's early exit effect other Democrats with visions of '08 in their heads? John Edwards, the '04 candidate for VP seems to have gained the most in all of this. Aside from Governor Warner, Edwards is the only other southern front-runner for the party nomination. Due to his geographical positioning, Edwards could win enough primaries to push back the financial bombshell that is Senator Hillary Clinton.
As for the good senator from New York-because of his successes in the private sector, Warner was seen as the only candidate who could truly hope to match Senator Clinton's campaign war chest. Also, Senator Clinton is constantly trying to define herself, and at times seems to be imitating her husband. Because of her flip-flopping between plotting the middle course and appeasing the extreme left, Warner could have come across as more sincere and principaled in a primary between the two. Warner's exit also helps the moderate Senator Joe Biden appear more unique, instead of a Warner look-a-like.
So where's the outsider? Many look to Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, but thefederalist is looking in the direction of Wes Clark. A former general, Mr. Clark has the experience necesary to lead a nation through troubled times, not to mention he has yet to be tainted by the DC beltway.
Although we need to get through the elections of 2006 before we even think about 2008, it's never to early to start. But Democrats shouldn't fool themselves, they lost a damn good candidate today. However, many are saying that 4 weeks (the time left between now and November 7th's elections) is a life time. Imagine what two years could be.
# posted by thefederalist @ 12:55 PM 
