Warner, the Anti-Hillary
Mark Warner, Virginia Democratic governor, has a promising political career. He is currently leading the Republican incumbent, Senator George Allen, in the polls for a 2006 senate race. However, according to the Political Wire, Warner might also be able to provide the Democrats with the only thing more valuable than a southern senate seat: an anti-Hillary candidate.
Many say that Mark Warner is the only candidate who's popular enough, and different enough, to beat Hillary Clinton and give the Democrats a different image than the one currently provided by Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, which fuels conservative rhetoric and creates claims of "radicalization of the party". More importantly, because he is a governor, and does not have a voting record, it would be hard for Republicans to portray him as a radical liberal, the way they succesfully did with John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign.
A sitting senator has not won a presidential election since 1960. Is it a coincidence?
posted by Jack @ 1:01 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
I like Hillary, I do. I listen when she speaks, I read her book, I admire her ability to lead and, when necessary, to get out of the way.
But I think she's a lousy choice for a presidential candidate. Since she became first lady, she polarized people into a love her or hate her stance. Not usually her fault, but does that matter at all?
The Dems need a candidate who doesn't come in with a whole lot of baggage, and she does. Mark Warner is one to watch; maybe he'll be the one to step up.
The link you labeled "Conservative rhetoric" points to a post that merely frames arguments made by (Democrat) Camille Paglia and (Democratic site) Daily Kos regarding the radicalization of the left. Paglia says "The left looks down on everyone", while Kos has declared war on the Democratic center. Also, Cindy Sheehan tells readers she has no intention of heeding requests to moderate her rhetoric to change minds (said minds should instead change to move toward her point of view). Which of these constitutes "Conservative rhetoric"?
As the post said: "It's simply politically more expedient to blame outside forces for Democrats' problems than to demand change." Thank you for illustrating my point.
I don't mind being linked, I really don't even mind being misrepresented. But if you're going to do that and then ask me why I don't stop in and comment, well, I can't see making a habit of showing up here to defend my positions, it's not worth it. I'd rather work on new posts. (I'm not really a guy who shows up on sites to argue and call people moonbats and wingnuts.)
I don't think you're mean-spirited or vindictive. You're just in a hurry to get to the point. A lot of people are, maybe most. But that doesn't mean it's a good policy. I might indulge in "conservative rhetoric", but (accurately) quoting people like Camille Paglia hardly constitutes that.
Want to have an actual dialogue? Cut down on the red-meat allegations, and do like so. Ian also disagreed with me, in the same discussion - but instead of dismissing my case by calling it "rhetoric", he put in the work to back up his beliefs.
Calm down. You had a bunch of posts about the "radicalization of the Democratic party", so I figured that would serve as a good example of the case against Hillary etc. It doesn't matter if it was written by a liberal or a conservative.
The "and" between "rhetoric" and "claims" means that they are two separate things. Therefore, I was not calling your post conservative rhetoric. I can't help you if you interpret that as a "red meat allegation".
- Jersey Perspective
Post a Comment
<< Home