...a nominee from the center of the party? Well, I guess you could almost always say that. As you probably know, I'm no particular fan of Warner, although I haven't, like you and the crew at Yearly Kos, met the guy.

As for you take, I agree that his position on education and investing in jobs is where he shines. A good, solid, FDRish stance. Kudos to him for that.

His view on Iraq and Iran, however, not so great (which is what you'd expect to hear from somebody on the leftmost edge of the party).

First, I hope he didn't really say Borrowing money from the Chinese to pay for gasoline from Iran is not a winning strategy. Or, if he did, he shouldn't repeat it. Might sound cool, but the Iranians IMPORT gasoline.

Second, I think the U.S. will NOT convince the Russians and/or the Chinese to enforce anything more than the mildest sanctions. If I'm right, where does Warner think the Dems should go next? You know what I'm driving at: does he back military action at some point?

Third, that Iraq position IS slippery. It's the same position that lots of Dem activists are taking - including some people I highly respect on most issues, but strongly disagree with on this one. I understand the argument: don't get bogged down in a discussion about what the Democrats would do until the Democrats are in a position to do something. The trouble is, as I walk precincts in two Congressional Districts (Xavier Becerra's and David Dreier's), I've enocuntered exactly what I predicted months ago: people are concerned about Iraq, but they want to hear how the Democrats would handle things differently. Telling them (in Dreier's district particularly) that they should vote Democrats into office and THEN they'll find out what Democrats will do is a conversation-killer.

Here's the situation as I see it:

Three years ago in August, Rumsfeld was telling the press not to call the insurgents the "insurgency." Coalition soldiers dead: 341. (Thousands of Iraqis dead.)

Two years ago in August, Rumsfeld said the U.S. was not an occupying force in Iraq. Coalition soldiers dead: 1104. (Thousands more Iraqis dead, perhaps a hundred thousand.)

Last year in August, Rumsfeld said Iraq is not fated for civil war. Coalition fatalities: 2068. Iraqi fatalities: Thousands more.

This year in August. Hmmmm. Where is Rumsfeld? Coalition fatalities: 2841. Iraqi fatalities: Tens of thousands, at least. Those killed in violence are running at 3000+ per month, and the toll gets worse each month.

The trouble, imo, with everybody who suggests that the U.S. can't just leave now because things will get worse keeps ignoring the fact that the U.S. has now been fighting/occupying Iraq for 41 months and things keep getting worse. With no end in sight despite turned corners and last throes.

I'm open-minded. If somebody can show me a plan that keeps U.S. troops in Iraq in a way that will make the situation better, I'll listen. Anyone, Wes Clark, Mark Warner, Joe Lieberman, I don't care. Show me in what way a continued U.S. troop presence in Iraq will make things better, I'm all ears.

But I haven't heard it yet.

My middle position? Pull back to Kuwait, Qatar and Iraqi Kurdistan, and make it clear that any overt attempts by the neighbors to move in will be met with the kind of force the U.S. can still muster quite effectively.

"We're trying to give the illusion of due diligence." --Bennett Holiday to Jimmy Pope in Syriana

That was filet mignon, Booman - not your run-of-the-mill roast beef sandwich! (With Bernaise sauce.)

I wasn't as impressed with Warner as I was with the food. (And by the way, they do already have a program where high school seniors work for college credits - AP classes. Why not subsidize the expense so more districts can afford to offer the full AP program?)

He also talked about mandating standardized electronic medical records, when that law was already passed - in 1996, as part of Teddy Kennedy's HIPAA legislation. Problem is, once the Bushies took over, they simply ignored the compliance deadline.

Take a look here:

http://www.legalarchiver.org/hipaa.htm

He didn't seem bad - just not all that engaging, certainly not all that progressive. For instance, he said he doesn't support a single-payer health care plan "because it doesn't work." That's just plain bullshit, but something the insurance, medical and pharmaceutical lobbies do like to hear.

It was nice of him to invite us, and I'm sure he's a fine governor, but president? I'm not feeling it.

I have a friend in the Democratic party in Virginia who for years has fed me all sorts of negative things re Mark Warner. I wish I had saved them, because I'm very distressed, from what I've read, that any Democrat would find him appealing, based on his record. He's not quite a Lieberman, but he's pretty far to the right of our party, and I know I will not be supporting him. If someone like that ends up being our nominee I'll take a hard look at his opponent, or vote Green for the first time in my life. It's very distressing to see these DLC'ers pass themselves off as attractive to any but the really wealthy.

"If you look for the social economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth." - George Seldes

also in green.

thanks for the update, it's always good to get further evidence of what a crappy candidate he is.

I'm sure that everybody who decides to go along w/ the Dempublican strategy in '08 will be richly rewarded with crushing disappointment. Good luck with that. Perhaps after they sell you all down the river again maybe it'll sink in what a pathetic excuse for a party the Donkeyphants are.

I wonder who the Green Party candidate will be that year. I want to make sure I fill in the right line on my optically-scanned ballot. That'll be the line I'm marking unless a real liberal like Russ is the candidate.

"Whenever a Voice of Moderation addresses liberals, its sole purpose is to stomp out any real sign of life." - James Wolcott

Thanks, BooMan, for the first hand report and the analysis.  I was esp taken by the line that we shouldn't borrow money from the Chinese to pay for Iranian oil.

And BTW, just what did your outfit look like?

OK.

Warner serves a mean meal, and he dishes it out to the blogosphere.

That, I like.

However, the policy lags behind.

He's not my favorite Democrat. In fact, I prefer Kerry, Edwards, Dean, and, of course, Feingold.

Now if Feingold had Warner's money....oh, but maybe I'm dreaming.

Very interesting post. Atrios approved. I wonder why!
BUT- Until the folks out there in the sphere address even the thought of "WAR", all the bull in the world won't do any of us a bit of good.The only "Good" that I am taking away from the post is the suggestion regarding alternative fuels! The alternative to that thinking is the continued indentured servitude we find ourselves in to the Oil Conglomerates.It is becoming that simple. There is zero chance that a US attack on Iran will succeed. What will result will be an ecological disaster, economic disaster, and complete destruction of the "western" concept of living!
 That is where the discussions have to be directed. Stop the bull and get down to the hard work of SURVIVING!
            billjpa

That Warner has such a sharp bent towards populism, it's kind of a refreshing change for a more moderate politician of his like.

We could do a lot worse, most definitely.

Him and John Edwards trade for 3rd place spot for me pretty regularly right now.

-C.