I don't know how conservative Warner is (but then in this age there are supporters of open borders, amnesty, America last, big government calling themselves conservative) but Karol is pretty much spot on in thinking he had as good a shot as anyone in the field for winning the Dem nomination. Virginia is trending purple and a lot of that has to do with Warner.

For some reason the idiots at kos seem to think this helps Clark. If it helps anyone, it will be Evan Bayh who is now the only real moderate in the Democratic field and John Edwards (who really is having an excellent year) who is increasingly looking like the only real challenge to Hillary.

I don't see how any of these Democrats could be under the delusion that they can seriously challenge Shrillary for the nomination.

I suppose if Robotron decamps from his tree hut and goes after her for not being enough of a deranged moonbat he can wage a competitive campaign through the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary-maybe-but I doubt even he's crazy enough to think he'll pry open the Clinton's vice grip on the Dem. Party.

yes, cheer, my pretties, cheer...oh I just cannot wait for the Republican '08 primaries!! So excited.

How bout a Clinton/Clinton ticket in 08'. We can call them the Hill-Billy's

Not so fast. Why aren't any of you smart bloggers considering that Hillary promised him the VP slot. Suddenly you've got her star-power and a Southern Governor.

Not so fast. Why aren't any of you smart bloggers considering that Hillary promised him the VP slot. Suddenly you've got her star-power and a Southern Governor.

Mostly because no one cares who the vp candidate is.

I think Edwards has a chance to knock Hillary off if he can unite antiwar types, organized labor, moderates turned off by Hillary and be able to get some black votes. Tough? Yes and it will also be tough to balance out those blocks. But if Edwards can win in Iowa and Nevada (two states not out of the question by any means), chase off the rest of the field (not too hard; I mean how far do you think the likes of Biden and Dodd can go?) and beat her in South Carolina....he could get the nomination.

In response to Ken, would Warner be a good fit for VP for Hillary ? Sure. Would any presidentiable cut a deal to name a VP over two years before the general election ? I don't think so. The only times I can really think of such a deal being cut so early are the 1828 ticket of Jackson-Calhoun and the 1840 Harrison-Tyler though both of those combinations had been tried in the previous election cycle (and neither worked well since Jackson and Calhoun were at each other's throats over a number of issues and it turns out that Tyler was not much of a Henry Clay Whig).

There are a lot of other VP wannabes that Hillary or whoever will have to deal with in the next year and a half. Some of the defeated presidential candidates (I'm thinking Bayh in particular) will be looking at the VP spot and will have the benefit of having been already been vetted so to speak in a presidential campaign (so there is no replay of Dan Quayle). It's tough to keep such a secret like who your VP is for a year and a half. Warner may be on the shortlist but I can't imagine anyone has cut a deal with him this far out.

Totally disagree Karol. The VP has been gaining in prestige over the last 40 some odd years. With the exceptions of Agnew and Quayle, there have been no political lightweights in the spot. Look, nobody votes for the VP but a bad pick (Quayle, Ferraro, Miller) can really hurt you. On the other hand a lot of recent VP choices (LBJ, HHH, Sarge, Dole, Mondale, Bush patria, Bentsen, Kemp, Joementum, Cheney, Edwards) have been fairly well known politicos with national reputations. I suspect both the GOP and the Dems will do the same thing in 2008.

I didn't mean she actually cut a deal. I mean that maybe after her polling machine got a look at the tea-leaves, they made a PROMISE to Warner (backed up with some nekkid pictures of him) to pick him.

Ken, that's a very interesting thought. I agree with Von Beck that the VP choice is in fact important. I'm pretty sure that Cheney helped Bush squeek it out in 2000, and I definitely remember thinking during the VP debate that year that I would have been happier if both tickets had flipped.

It fits with Hillary's! style too, I think. Warner was the only likely Dem out there without major baggage, making him a dangerous player in the primaries; because he doesn't have major baggage, he's a safe person to have on the ticket; his "moderate" image let's her tack left to appease the base while signaling to centrists that her core values are with them (classic triangulation); and for Warner it saves him from the wear-and-tear of the primary battles while positioning him for a future run, either as a sitting VP or as the first-choice for 2012 (which would be Edward's position in '08, except for the "ex-Co-president" angle Hillary!'s been playing for 14 years.)

The scenario makes so much sense it's almost certainly wrong. But it's fun theorizing.

John Kerry actually does look like a statesman. he came across as one during the first Presidential debate, particularly when laying out his intention of holding a summit on Iraq and engaging the European powers to gain support and intervention if he was elected.

When talking about foreign affairs and military affairs he sounds like he knows what he is talking about (which he does), he has been in political life for a long time and he comes across as experienced, sensible, he is articulate and can speak a foreign (and diplomatic) language.

Bush by comparison is none of those things. Know nothing about this Warner guy I have never heard of him. But to say Kerry does not look statesman like is ludicrous.

I agree with Ken that Mark Warner may be running for VP. He is quite an effective campaigner, and can "connect" with constituencies that are not normally Democratic Party voters. He also has made money in the private sector.

That being said, he ran on a platform of denying plans to raise taxes, and the first thing he did was to raise taxes. I think he and Hillary would make quite a pair.

You may find some more commentary at www.vaconservative.com, and some of their links.

I also wonder if Gore is going to make another run for the White House. I figure if anyone running has dirt on Hillary, it's Al Gore.

Nick,

All you've managed to prove is that Kerry is a smooth liar. He can talk a great game about ineffective foreign and domestic policy. Maybe that's your kind of guy, but the majority of us beg to differ.

The Breck Girl?

You've got to be kidding me!?

Simply because you have the ATLA at your back-and a fortune you've accumulated from a long career of chasing ambulances-doesn't mean that you're going dislodge the Clinton death-grip on the Dem. Party.

High five to Gerard.

I also don't see that John "The Breck Girl" Edwards is a serious presidential candidate to rival Hilarity, Kerry, and Gore.

He served one 6 year term in the Senate, and as VP Cheney famously pointed out in their '04 televised debate, he was known as "Senator Gone" for his absenteeism.
If Edwards' silky hair had any magnetic pull on the electorate, it didn't help him in North Carolina in '04, as Bush ran slightly
better in that state in '04, than in '00.

Also, I don't know how his suing hospitals and other health care providers for zillions of dollars is a strategic foundation for residence at 1600 Pennsylvania.
As one becomes more familiar with the specifics of some of the cases in his litigation, he comes across as an ambulance chaser of the most satirized kind.

Civil litigators like him are a good part of the reason health care costs are so expensive.

Some may point out that GW Bush similarly only had 6 years (though, as a Governor) under his belt prior to his '00 run, however, the stakes are a might bit higher now with the global war on terror, N. Korea, etc.

I think most people were comfortable with Bush inexperience because they knew Cheaney was on the ticket.

Unfortunately the war on terror is WAY to low on the list of priorities of this administration.