Bayh, Warner And The Dlc Conference

[JMHX]

The mood was reserved in the air conditioned meeting room in Columbus, Ohio, where U.S. Senator Evan Bayh and Virginia Governor Mark Warner briefly exchanged platitudes before the Democratic Leadership Council - a moderate group which Bayh is the outgoing president of - gavels in the 2005 'National Conversation,' the first after the Democrats' stinging defeat in November of 2004. Both Bayh and Warner will speak, as well as headliners like Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, both unconfirmed candidates for the wounded Democratic Party's nomination in 2008.

Of course, I didn't use the tickets that my DLC membership provided for me, but I kept my ear to the phone and tracked the pulse of the convention from sleepy Indianapolis, home of Sen. Bayh. After watching the whole of the National Conversation and listening to the rumblings within the Indiana Democratic Party and other organizations, I come away convinced of two things: both Sen. Evan Bayh and Gov. Mark Warner are intending to pursue the Democratic nomination, and it's going to be dirty.

Sen. Clinton was a sure bet from the beginning - she has been stoking the presidential coals since 2002. Former Sen. John Edwards, who was not invited to speak, is also expected to jump into the primaries. However, no one has had an exact finger on where Sen. Bayh stood. Allow me to be the first to say that I have received information pointing definitively to a Bayh entry into the presidential arena, with his speech at the New Hampshire Jefferson Jackson Day festivities and keynote delivery at the National Conversation being the unofficial launching points. Gov. Warner is a shadier prospect to pin down, but I assume he will pursue the presidency in 2008 as he has taken no steps toward running for the U.S. Senate from Virginia in 2006.

Bayh and Warner hit similar notes - those Centrist positions that ring so well in their midwestern and southern homes - on everything from the responsibilities of Americans in maintaining Social Security to the necessity of regrouping towards the center for success in 2006 and 2008 across the board. Bayh chided Bush on the poor planning for postwar Iraq, while Warner slammed the president on his handling of domestic issues and the budget. While most of it has already been said, the sharp delivery of Warner and calculated dance of Bayh seems to position them in the center of the spotlight, along with their moderate cause.

Doubtless, Evan Bayh and Mark Warner will face sharp competition in Senators Clinton, Kerry and Edwards, as well as southwestern moderates Bill Richardson and Janet Napolitano. Bayh and Warner each poll anywhere from 1 - 5% in straw polls of Democratic contenders, but this doesn't take into account the early stage of campaigning and both candidates' relatively small name recognition. Not surprisingly, Clinton and Kerry lead the possible 2008 contender pack, but will they be able to stand up to an emboldened Republican machine so effective in using the label of 'liberal?'

Bayh, nicknamed 'Plasticman' by Indianapolis Star columnist Matthew Tully, has the charisma gap to make up over Warner, who, though no ball of fire himself, seems more comfortable with jokes and anecdotes than the primed and primped, legacy senator from Indiana. With Clinton's attendance at the DLC Conversation, it is now undeniable that the moderate position - or the illusion of clinging to centrist values - will be the hot topic of 2006 and 2008. Who can do it the best, then, it seems, will be the presumed winner of the primaries.

But who will it be?

[Demosthenez]

In all honesty, I think Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson have to much name reconition for anyone to overcome. Unless Bayh and Warner and whoever else decides to run, run an awesome campaign, like the best campaign ran ever, and get a lot more money than I think they will, Im not sure how much chance they have. Cause we all know Hillary will just rake in the cash if she decides to run.

I may be cynical but I think the American populace could care less about actual positions and leadersip ability than who they know the most. And Hillary will have the cash and Bill to bank on for that.

And btw, sounded like a newspaper article. Good writing.

[loony2000]

Tell me why I care.

Because I really don't.

[JMHX]

At 7/31/05 04:06 AM, loony2000 wrote: Tell me why I care.

Because I really don't.

The funniest part is the "Angry Centrist" link in your sig. The joke writes itself.

[loony2000]

Then I must be really tired because I don't see what you're getting at.

[Samuel-HALL]

At 7/31/05 04:11 AM, loony2000 wrote: Then I must be really tired because I don't see what you're getting at.

HAHAHA.
You didn't even read the starting post, did you?

[loony2000]

I did.

I just have ZERO interest at this point (especially at 4:12 in the morning a full 2 and a half years before primary campaigns really start) who the Democrats choose for their next presidential candidate.

[Samuel-HALL]

At 7/31/05 04:14 AM, loony2000 wrote: I did.
I just have ZERO interest at this point (especially at 4:12 in the morning a full 2 and a half years before primary campaigns really start) who the Democrats choose for their next presidential candidate.

Then why the fuck did you bother posting, to tell us you don't care?

This is the last I have to say, to an imbecile like you. Your idiocy, and my response both, taints the thought out, well-written topic, by JMHX.

[loony2000]

Now, if you don't mind, I am going to bed. It is 4:15 am here, and my intention was to be in bed an HOUR AGO!

Not that all of that is NG's fault, but, the last 15 minutes certainly have been.

Good NIGHT.

[Nylo]

Nicely written, JMHX. A tad lengthy, but I enjoyed the different style of writing; I think it gave it an interesting edge.

I secretly cringe when I think of the '08 primaries starties, not to mention the entire election process. I'm very curious to see how far Hillary will go to portray a more moderate image; her speech for a cease-fire among the dems had both sides moving around in all sorts of different directions right off the bat.

It'll make for an interesting election season, to be sure.

[IllustriousPotentate]

If the democrats are looking towards the center on issues, I don't see how they're looking at Hillary.

The sad part about it, is that she'll get the nomination and the presendency solely on the fact that she's a woman. Sure, she'll receive the liberal vote, but she's destined to get a lot of votes from women who wouldn't normally vote for a Democratic candidate, but will this time just solely because she is a woman.

Also, is Kerry actually a potential candidate in '08 as well? If so, why? If he can't beat a a low-rated incumbent who started a long, unnecessary war, during the middle of a recession, how do they think he'll win now that the economy is starting to pick back up again?

Max, great topic. If all of our nation's youth were as politically aware as you are, this nation would be in much better shape than it is currently.

[totalwar]

At 7/31/05 04:16 AM, _FLAGG wrote: This is the last I have to say, to an imbecile like you. Your idiocy, and my response both, taints the thought out, well-written topic, by JMHX.

Yes they do and that would just be an absolute heresy wouldn't it? :P

Seriously JMHX may derserve a lot of respect ( no disrepect, but I'm holding judgement till I get to know you), but he's still just a human like the rest of us. If you're willing to taint someone elses thread you should be just as willing to taint his.

Now to the original point of this thread. I know for a fact that Kerry is running again and I think he's the guy to beat. He got half the vote in his first try and I think he gained a lot of experience as to how to run a campaign for the office.

Clinton is seems to be too much of a nut job for anyone who isn't violently leaning left. I know I'd rather live in China than let her hold high office. I mean the woman goes after violent video games because she thinks they affect the behavior of kids, a theory that holds no water to this day.

Edwards is a lovable guy, but (and I say this having done no research a la the average American joe) he just doesn't have anything outstandig about him. Kerry has his war record, Clinton her extremism, Edwards has got squat to draw attention from anyone outside of his home state.

Richardson has a chance, but I only know a little about him too so I think that's all I'll say.

As for the two primary focuses of your post, I'd say they could have a chance just like Kerry did in his first run, but it depends on how hard they work to get recogized and get their views and ideas disseminated.

[JMHX]

I don't imagine the Democratic powers-that-be will allow Hillary Clinton to seize the nominaton; she has far too much baggage to be a viable candidate on anything more than name recognition. The idea that she would be running with Bill as an anchor is dangerous enough, but the fact that she can so easily be portrayed as an off-the-rails liberal (think of the "vast right wing conspiracy" clip being played over and over) dooms her chances in the midwest.

Also, despite the fact that Chairman Dean and Sen. Clinton are both more to the left than the other candidates, that does not mean there is chemistry off the bat. If you recall, the Clintons passed on Dean to support Kerry, and Gore made a very public break from the (at the time) mostly Clinton-appointed DNC authority in endorsing Howard Dean. Now no matter what kind of hugs and laughs are shared in public, wounds like that die hard, and if Dean feels snubbed by the Clintons, he is in the ideal position to return the favor by lending his support to some other candidate.

[BAWLS]

At 7/31/05 09:27 AM, -Illustrious- wrote: Also, is Kerry actually a potential candidate in '08 as well? If so, why?

His campaign won't be up against Karl Rove.

[JMHX]

At 7/31/05 04:19 PM, -BAWLS- wrote:

At 7/31/05 09:27 AM, -Illustrious- wrote: Also, is Kerry actually a potential candidate in '08 as well? If so, why?

His campaign won't be up against Karl Rove.

Mm, I think that may be the blessing for whoever the Democratic nominee is.

[Demosthenez]

At 7/31/05 04:19 PM, -BAWLS- wrote: His campaign won't be up against Karl Rove.

You really think the Repubs wont try to press him to do more work for other people? I mean, his abilities have been throughly showcased. Would they let that asset just slip away?

And I really hope someone more moderate gets the ticket on both sides. Would make me very happy.

[JMHX]

At 7/31/05 08:03 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 7/31/05 04:19 PM, -BAWLS- wrote: His campaign won't be up against Karl Rove.

You really think the Repubs wont try to press him to do more work for other people? I mean, his abilities have been throughly showcased. Would they let that asset just slip away?

Rove has said he has no intention of working on another national campaign, but I don't know how much stock to put into this. Rove has a way of slipping out of commitments and promises on verbal technicalities.

[RedSkunk]

At 7/31/05 03:47 AM, JMHX wrote: But who will it be?

Nobody good. Again. We need to radically overhaul the party system. le sigh

[totalwar]

At 7/31/05 08:03 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 7/31/05 04:19 PM, -BAWLS- wrote: His campaign won't be up against Karl Rove.

You really think the Repubs wont try to press him to do more work for other people? I mean, his abilities have been throughly showcased. Would they let that asset just slip away?

Hell no! All the Dems need to do if they try is to bring up his outting of a CIA operative (actually even the suspicion would work) and boom the candidate he's advising loses his candidacy to the flame of public resent.

Karl Rove is offcially a political nuclear hazard. And I couldn't be happier about that. :)

At 8/1/05 11:57 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 7/31/05 03:47 AM, JMHX wrote: But who will it be?

Nobody good. Again. We need to radically overhaul the party system. le sigh

Proposals? Cus I personally don't think it'll every get much better. Those who are best qualified for the office don't want it (as is true with all positions of power) and those that do are the politically outspoken; ie rich, strongly opinionated people (mostly white). So unless we just give an apptitude test to every American who meets the Constitutional requirements and give it to the best scorer the job is always gonna go to somebody at least slightly more on the fringe.

That's why we vote though. To pick the candidate fartherest from being an extremist nut job. It doesn't work anywhere near as well we would like, but take away our control and a tyrant is the only inevitable outcome.

So yeah the system sucks. But at least it keeps us free.

[RedSkunk]

At 8/2/05 04:51 PM, totalwar wrote: Proposals?

Any other voting system would be an improvement, basically.