Comments on: Does Tim Kaine Signal A Warnerlution?

By: Meredith

Meredith — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 17:39:42 +0000

Dos - Kaine’s speech was awful. Justin - reading it may have sounded good, but I watched it and believe me, it stunk.

I noticed Obama was mentioned. I love him, and I wish he were ready to run in 2008.

It occurs to me that Dems need to advertise a little better when it comes to elections. Therefore, picking Kaine to give that speech was a weird idea. Why not put Warner up there? I think it would benefit the party if their potential election candidates were in the public eye a little more so that by the time they run, people may already have some connection with them.

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 06:46:52 +0000

The party favorite theory holds no water. In 2004 the core of the democratic party was solidy behind Howard Dean, yet those who control the party backed John Kerry as early as the spring of 2003.
Which person got the nomination? The one who they thought could win.

The combination of earlier primaries, Alabama and possibly Michigan, and again backing the most electable candidate makes Warner the favorite.

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 14:07:05 +0000

Well, Kaine is getting good reviews a couple days after so maybe he was picked for the pundits. Who knows. I didn’t watch the speech, I only read it so I have a different view of it. And honestly, I think a lot of people in the coming days will simply read it and judge it by the content, not the delivery.

But yes Obama probably would have been a much better choice. However, Kaine was interesting specifically for the Warner reason I listed above.

The DNC has set themselves up with a wicked Catch-22: it is all but impossible for a Democrat to win the nomination without pandering heavily to a radical left wing, but by pandering enough to this left wing to win the nomination, the primary winner destroys their credibility with the moderates and indepedents that will decide the general election.

Wrong. It was true ONLY because the internet played such a surprising role in 2004’s election. Dean simply captured that mojo first, and everybody was taken off guard. But the cat is out of the bag now, so the Kossacks aren’t going to be as influential as they once were. Sure, they’ll still have an impact, but not the type they had before.

By: DosPeros

DosPeros — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 04:20:12 +0000

Tom - I couldn’t agree more. I have no idea how that decision is made with the Dem Party. Apparently Kaine said that he would not deliver the speech unless he wrote every word of it. That could be bogus I don’t know. For his sake, I hope that isn’t true. Regardless, the guy came off as kind of a freak to me.

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 01:47:46 +0000

Tim Kain did a horrible job . . . which is a shame, because I like the guy. People like him and Warner are the democrat’s best chance to win back the south. It’s too bad that his first national exposure had to be like that. He sounded like he was reading the speech for the first time - the emphesis was on all the wrong words. The speech was far from inspiring. It made Bush sound good by comparison.

Obama came on the channel I was watching shortly afterwords - he came off as much more articulate, genuine, and affable. And that was all off the cuff. Despite having never run in a real contested election, the guy is growing on me.

By: Confederate Yankee

Confederate Yankee — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:48:18 +0000

In short, if the Dems can pick up Virginia and keep the states they won in 2004 (which they should easily be able to do)…

…and if bullfrog had wings, they wouldn’t bump their butts when they hop. But that isn’t reality, either.

Which Democratic candidate is going to so easily hold on to all the states they captured in ‘04, much less gain another?

George Bush was a weak president that should have easily been defeated in ‘04, and yet an inept Democratic Party couldn’t make it happen. What makes you think a stronger Republican candidate in ‘08 (which almost anyone would be) would be less of a threat, instead of more?

A relatively untainted Democrat like Warner (someone who can actually sway moderates) will have to run a gauntlet of powerful, established, left-wing-pandering wannabes (Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Dean) that have almost no chance of carrying the general election to win the nomination, and I just don’t see that being likely in Kos-world.

The DNC has set themselves up with a wicked Catch-22: it is all but impossible for a Democrat to win the nomination without pandering heavily to a radical left wing, but by pandering enough to this left wing to win the nomination, the primary winner destroys their credibility with the moderates and indepedents that will decide the general election.

My advice? Don’t count your chickens. Kos, Atrios, and company are all but certain to slaughter them needlessly.

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:29:42 +0000

GK, did you comment on the wrong post?

By: GK

GK — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:07:58 +0000

Here is a great article about how Alito actually does move the SCOTUS to a rightward bias.

http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/01/alito_would_til.html

By: michael reynolds

michael reynolds — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 20:29:27 +0000

As you may recall, I have already endorsed Warner. (That and 2.50 will buy him a latte.) I thought the same thing. Kaine is Warner’s boy, and I have to think the competence message will be Warner’s theme.