Why does support for Warner make me sad

[LittleClarkie]

I'm staying out of the discussion for now, I think.

I think it's because Kerry's DLC affiliation is often made a big issue. But Warner is too, and is far more Conservative to boot. And yet folks are collapsing at his feet.

I'm sure if I say anything, the "Kerry was supposed to be electable" thing will get thrown in my face.

But if seems like with Hackett and now Warner, it doesn't matter what their positions are. Brown is more progressive, but is seen as a political insider, and Hackett has more attitude but no experience. And so folks collapse at his feet as well.

It seems like folks see a Southern Governor like Clinton who seems to be popular, and so they see someone who can win.

That's not why I like John Kerry. It's not because he's "electable". And I'm not going to jump on the Warner bandwagon because he supposedly IS electable.

But some part of me feels like I'm being unfair. I should go check Warner out, actually. I might find I like him.

But I still don't like the feelings I'm coming up with right now.

Blah.

[JI7]

1. it goes back to the Primary days

as i have said many times, many of these people don't really care about the issues.

to be fair to some of the biggest Warner supporters on DU, they admit to being moderate dlc types. so of course that's why they like him.many of them like Evan Bayh also.

and you shouldn't take things on DU too seriously anyways. maybe that's why it makes you feel sad, because you take it too seriously.

as for MArk Warner, i like him personally. he is too moderate for me when it comes to the issues but he seems like a nice guy.

[sandnsea]

2. Makes me sad too

For all the talk of Kerry lacking vision, he's the only candidate since Carter who has a vision that gives me hope. That's why I support him. I believe in the world he and Teresa believe in.

Warner?? Whatever. He'll be like Clinton. A brake in the train, but still headed over the corporate globalization cliff. I don't think you'd ever find Warner calling for a summit of the world's major religious leaders, including the Dalai Lama. Has he been to every global environmental summit?? Don't think so.

Yeah, Warner makes me very sad.

[JI7]

3. one thing i like about Warner

is that he admits he is moderate. so we will get a truthful take on where he stands and his views on the issues. this will help with an honest debate.

[sandnsea]

5. They tried to paint Kaine as a liberal

They'll do the same thing to Warner. I don't know what legislation he has and hasn't signed, that will make a difference. Hey, I'll work hard for the guy, but I just think the country can do alot better than a tepid response to all the issues we're facing.

[JI7]

8. i'm talking about a primary election

Warner isn't trying to hide who he is, even considering the fact that most primary voters tend to be more liberal.

even Clinton won by appealing to people on liberal issues(of course he moved to the center once he won the primary). i don't know anyone who has won the primay by campaigning as a moderate.

yeah, people do look for "electable", but only after they feel the candidate is liberal enough. that's why Joe Lieberman did horribly even if people knew the ticket he was on got more votes.

in 2008 with Republicans also holding a primary and their candidates going on about who hates liberals the most, i doubt Warner's strategy will work for long. people will want someone who stands up for their issues against right wing attacks.

[sandnsea]

12. Oh I see

Good point. I never thought of that. I suppose it will depend on the temperature of the country, people also might choose "a uniter" as a contrast to their wackiness. Somebody calming and reassuring, in the Carter mode.

[GRLMGC]

4. I like Warner

The moderate thing doesn't turn me off. I'd gladly vote for him in the general election. However, the primary system exists for a reason and whoever gets the nom gets the nom. If its Kerry, then that's great but if its Warner than that's okay too. In any case, I think its too early to be worrying about it. I mean look at the soul searching that took place after 2000. Politics is a fickle business. We'll see who has actual staying power

On edit: Another thought occurred to me; Kerry doesn't seem to get much support amongst DUers and activist types but the people who really matter are typical voters. If you talk to random people who aren't obsessed with politics, you'll see that they are not opposed to Kerry and probably like him quite a bit.

[wisteria]

6. My feelings are similar to yours.

I'm trying to not get to involved with the Warner posts. I just love it that it's not necessarily about the best candidate to run this country, it's all only about the game of winning for some. Of course, I want to win too. I just want to make sure we win with the best candidate.
Warner suits VA, that doesn't mean he is a sure fit elsewhere. Some seem to think they have found a winning formula and it is based on the Clinton election. Where is it documented that going for a Red state Governor will ensure we win the election? What this says to me is don't be who we are,but be what will get us elected-we should all go for the Cookie cutter candidates. I think this is just phony.

I caught a bit of an interview he did on c-span this past weekend and on it he smiled a lot and spoke about the need for us to be more centrist focused. He and his family are just this perfect homogenized family unit. Beautiful wife, cute little children.

I just didn't get any depth from him, frankly I don't get his appeal in VA. I still stand by Kerry. He comes across as more passionate and concerned about us average people. He also has more foreign expertise-hands down, than Warner. A brief trip over seas and a crash course in foreign relations does not make up for years of experience.

[LittleClarkie]

9. He came out right after the election and complained

about Kerry being too liberal. Something like that. I don't quite remember. But I think it was a rant about the national party needing to come back to the center.

Now if that could include being more populist, I think I could handle that.

We'll see.

[JI7]

11. but i don't see that as a big problem

he is more centrist and he feels Kerry is too liberal. it's just the way he views things.

it's a lot better than lying and making things up. this allows for them to have a real debate without getting too much into personal attacks.

[fedupinBushcountry]

10. Same here

I'm in Virginia, and of course I voted for him, he was touting doing a lot for teachers and my son was just becoming one, and he was a Dem.

I met him twice, nice guy but nothing stood out to me that made me think of him other than just another politician. But that is me I guess. Only two politicians well 3 can't leave out JFK at the ripe age of 10, and then Bobby Kennedy at 17 and now JK at 52, wow where did all those years go.

[whometense]

14. I feel exactly the same way.

In fact, he was on Hardball last night and infuriated me by puffing himself up at the expense of the more liberal (and more Northern) members of the party. The transcript isn't up yet, but I'll get it later.

I think your comments are right on the money. If the ultra-leftie DUres and Kossacks are jumping on the Warner bandwagon, it's because they see him as electable. He sure as hell is way more moderate than they are. So why else would they be all wobbly-kneed over him, xcept that they see him as the NEXT BIG HOPE to kill the big bad repugs.

I say, feh.

I say they are the ones playing the "electability" game, and I say the hell with them.

[fedupinBushcountry]

7. It is to early

You are on a political forum, and as you may think many are all doing what we are, there are even more millions playing games, talking to their friends or just browsing the internet, that never come close to a political forum or blog, and will not even think about this till the time comes, or even wait till the last minute to decide.

2006 should be our main goal right now, that is worth talking about.I myself stay clear of those type of post, its just not worth it.

[Mass]

13. Political fad - last week it was Feingold and Bayh - This week it is

Warner.

Dont lose too much time on that.

But you are right. Some of these people do not care about issues. They care about attitude.

[beachmom]

15. I like Warner (he saved our state's finances)

But like many of you have said, it's too early. People talk about this being a big success for Warner, but I would argue it could have also been the death of Warner had Kilgore won. It was make or break for him, and he passed this first round but there will be many more to go.

If he becomes our nominee then I will vote for him, and since he's from Vernon, Conn. where I grew up when I was little, I feel a slight connection to him. But obviously, Kerry is my first choice.

Gosh, Little Clarkie, now two of us are sad. I'm beginning to come out of my gloom, but I have to say, sometimes putting your heart and soul in politics is just too much to take. I may have to take a break, and watch some mindless TV tonight, like the Sex and the City episodes I have on my DVR . . .

[whometense]

17. My personal favorite antidote

to politics as well. ;-) What would I do without HBO On Demand for limitless Sex and the City episodes???

[beachmom]

16. One more thing, though. The pundits love him.

So far George Will and The Economist's Lexington have come out to write nice things about Warner. Both conservative (although The Economist wrote a nice piece about Kerry prior to the primaries, and then they endorsed him for president), but mainstream conservative. Pundits are very powerful, and they will be hard to overcome. At the end of that Newsweek election 2004 book, Kerry told the reporters "why did the pundits never like me?"

I tell you I have HAD it with the pundits. They overwhelmingly advocated invading Iraq, to open up trade, to cede way to much of the moral argument on abortion to the pro-life side, and they put way too much emphasis on cultural stuff that is irrevelant (can anyone say windsurfing). Why do we listen to their opinions like they're God or something? I say we stick it to The Man, aka the Pundit, and think for ourselves.

[blm]

18. What bothers me is Warner wanting Dem party to move right and

blaming Kerry's more liberal positions for the loss.

Not one of these guys ever notes how the media regularly misrepresented Gore and then Kerry. Instead, they act gleeful about it and pile on with more media-propelled lies.

[BlueIris]

19. Just more disappointing evidence that many on the left want a quick fix.

Too many--not a majority necessarily, just more than I would like, want an electable candidate more than they want not just an acceptable candidate but a candidate who has a prayer of functioning if elected. It isn't just that I think we'd be crazy to run someone who doesn't understand the far right and its influence in America, (and to me, not even Clark "gets" those zealots) to me, running a candidate with no evidence of anything remotely resembling an understanding of the global landscape...that's just not going to work. It isn't. I've said before, I'll vote for a talking box of hair if I have to, but I better not have to vote for anyone who won't be able to effect functional changes in foreign policy to bring our position in the world back to a sane place. Anyone who wants a candidate who is "just" electable is--being a big, fat idiot.