Log In | Register
When looking down the political landscape for the 2008 Presidential Elections, the pickings look slim for the Democratic Party. The only two viable candidates are Senator Hillary Clinton and Former Virginia Governor. When examining whom will receive the nomination: Democrats must ask the question, "What do we need to win the election?" The answer is attracting the swing votes of the Moderate Republicans and Independents. The candidate who stated the following, "Suprisingly, I tend to not follow Democratic orthodoxy." is the candidate whom I believe offers the Democratic Party's the best hopes for any sort of victory. This candidate is Mark Warner.
Mark Warner, who has geographical allure since he sheds the Liberal Democrat persona of the Northeast, left the office of the Virginia governorship with a 75% approval rating, which proves that Democrats can be successful in Republican states. He is also less divisive to swing voters than Hillary Clinton, since he has supported the NRA and has voted on legislation forcing teenagers to obtain parental permission before receiving an abortion. He also helped to create Nextel (which banked him a 200 million dollar fortune), and could empathize with the struggles of business owners. This may also signify his pro-economic, capitalistic views. Therefore, due to his past history and relative political success, Mark Warner could be the Democratic Party's next Bill Clinton (Sorry, Hillary!)
Mark Warner: Democrats' Best Chance in 2008
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (3)
I have been following Mark Warner's presidential moves and also feel he could be a strong candidate - but perhaps only for a Vice Presidential slot - he is still relatively unknown throughout the country (I know it's early for 2008) and he also lacks a certain on-air charisma that voters tend to demand, however sad that fact may be. I hope he is currently in the process of working on his speech and interview giving abilities, but not going so far as to hire a Naomi Wolfe (like Al Gore) to doom his campaign.
I like Mark Warner for the reasons mentioned in the article, not so much because I agree with them all, but rather the fact that as a southern centrist and a proven leader in a red state he could bring some much needed moderation and unity to a very polarized electorate. As Oluseye Bassir asks, will he be accepted in liberal bastions like New York and California? I hope so - having lived in both those blue states most of my life I count myself as one who is looking for something different from the Democrats, and it just doesn't look possible to win the big posts by going further to the left, unless the election becomes a referendum of total change based on disgust with everything the GOP led administration and Congress has wrought. But generally the numbers just don't currently exist to support an overly liberal candidate for President. Mark Warner proved his capability leading a state that was mired in financial debt back to black, and is widely admired as a smart leader for his achievements in business and dealmaking across the aisle - so he can run as the alternate candidate to the heavily polarizing figures (like Hillary) or end up, as I suspect, as a v.p. candidate to balance the ticket.
- 2 votes
#2 - Sat Apr 1, 2006 12:51 PM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
