Warner Out, Edwards Up, Hillary Ahead

The Political Wire reports that Mark Warner, former Virginia governor, is NOT running for President in 2008:

When Mark Warner's political strategist, Mudcat Saunders, told Political Wire earlier this year that he thought John Edwards was the stronger candidate in 2008 it must have made Warner pause. With Warner now officially out of the running, the main beneficiary is John Edwards.

Edwards just lost his most serious Southern opponent and is now the clear favorite in South Carolina's primary. He has the best organization in Iowa and leads in the polls. He's actively against the Iraq war and admitted his Senate vote in favor of it was a mistake. He's also aggressively courted key Democratic constituencies with his efforts to end poverty. But most important, Edwards' "under the radar" strategy is building an impressive base of supporters around the country.

I haven't really looked at the 2008 races yet (best get past 2006 first) so I don't really know enough about Warner to say whether I'm happy or sad about him dropping out of the running. Edwards seems likable enough, though I'm not sure I'm ready to endorse him either.

All this said, whenever talking about the race for the 2008 Democratic Nomination for President, it all comes back to Hillary Clinton. I have issues with Hillary Clinton. She's pandered to the right a bit too much. We don't need a 'middle of the road' Democrat, we need a strong progressive. Her high negatives among many Americans are just another strike against her.

She does, however, have the money and the staff for a strong run. If there is a herd of Democratic hopefuls and she can win primaries with small pluralities, it's to her benefit.

We'll see how this shakes out later. I'm more concerned about this November than I am about November two years removed.

Mark Warner John Edwards Hillary Clinton Democrats 2008 Election

The Lamont Effect

WNYC, New York Public Radio, has a story on Hillary that shows the effect Ned Lamont's victory will have on our party:

Senator Hillary Clinton has denounced Vice President Dick Cheney for saying terrorists would be emboldened by the results of Connecticut's Democratic Primary.

[...]

CLINTON: I don't take anything he [Cheney] says seriously anymore. I think that he has been a very counterproductive even destructive force in our country and I am very disheartened by the failure of leadership from the president and vice president.

Being seen as a Hawkish Democrat is now a bad thing. Watch for more Democrats to start racking up 'I'm against the war' points. Many will couch their comments in 'I'm against this war' or 'I'm against the way Republicans have conducted this war' frames, but the effect, both politically and in the real world will be the same: More pressure on Republicans to take responsibility for a 'stay the course over the cliff' policy that nearly 6 in 10 Americans disagree with.

Even if Ned Lamont loses in November, his victory over Joe Lieberman made it politically safe to be critical of the war.

Hillary Clinton Dick Cheney Ned Lamont War in Iraq

This Sounds Good

The Washington Note reports on an idea I really like:

First of all, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, whom most give high marks for the manner in which he has stewarded the Dems in the Senate despite the absence of a clear Democratic Party chief, has sent private signals to Senator Hillary Clinton and other stalwarts of the party that he "would like to" step down from his post in early 2009. Reid has not stated definitively that he will -- but he apparently prefers "whipping" the Party from behind and the side rather than serving as commander-in-chief on the Senate floor.

What Reid is offering Senator Hillary Clinton is his total, robust support to succeed him as Senate Majority Leader if she elects not to pursue the Democratic nomination for President.

Many are realizing that the electoral map is not something one can wave a magic wand over and reverse the views of 42% of Americans who believe that they know Hillary Clinton well and have strongly formed views of her and will not vote for her under any conditions -- according to recent polls. Reports are that Senator Clinton herself knows this and that her own enthusiasm for running actually trails that of her husband, her advisors, and her staff -- whose enthusiasm for the race is ranked in that order with Hillary the least enthusiastic.

I like Harry Reid. Well, I guess I just think that Harry Reid has done a decent job lately. Either way, I feel no malice towards him and if he wants to do his work outside of the spotlight, I can respect that.

I also like Hillary Clinton. I just don't want her to run for President. Not because she wouldn't be a good President (on top of the fact that this country desperately needs a woman to be elected President) but because she won't win. We're not in a position where we have the luxury to run a candidate with no real chance of winning.

Now, granted, most of that 42% was never going to vote for a Democratic candidate anyway, but if Hillary is that Democratic candidate, I can guarantee you that every one of them will be at the voting both in November making a vote against her. Even if the Republicans were running a Neanderthal who was unfrozen in mid-October.

But Senate Majority Leader would be an excellent use of Mrs. Clinton's considerable skills. Even if I disagree with some of her positions (cough, cough, flag-burning, cough) I would gladly accept her as Majority Leader if it meant that the Democrats could run a candidate for President with a chance of winning.

Additionally, if this announcement was made, say, sometime after the 2006 elections, it would open wide the race for the Democratic nomination for President. The party could really use some internal debate about its own nature and its course towards the future. Hillary Clinton's presumed nomination stifles that.

If this actually happened, only good could come from it.

Hillary Clinton Harry Reid Democrats 2008 Election