October 13, 2006

Blogometer Extra

WH '08 Distant Early Warnering

  So the once-digitally-rendered Democratic ex-governor of Virginia, Mark Warner, has bowed out of the 2008 presidential race to "spend more time with his family," as he told the press.  No, he really means it.

  Bloggers clamored to give their take on this early turn of events in the '08 race.  Why the quick exit?  Who benefits?  Who loses?

  Steve Clemons at The Washington Note is disappointed, as "Warner would have given any Senate-based challenger for the ... nomination a real fight."  Commenter km4 disagreed; "[I]t's not a disappointment.  ...Warner was a great governor but he's not presidential material."

  Markos Moulitsas at Daily Kos feels Warner was honest about his decision.  "[B]ottom line is that he realized that he wouldn't see his children for the next 10 years, and decided that it wasn't worth it for him."  Kos does think that Warner isn't done with politics; "[H]e would be considered a shoo-in for the governorship in 2009 if he chooses that route."  Who wins with the loss of Warner?  Kos:

  John Edwards, already the frontrunner in my opinion, loses the only serious southern opponent.  Already strong in Iowa and Nevada, this will make him the prohibitive favorite in the fourth contest in South Carolina.  If he wins the first three out of four, he's looking pretty good.

  Bill Richardson becomes the only serious candidate in the race who is a governor, making it easier for him to distinguish himself from the crowd.

  As for Hillary, this is a double-edged sword.  She loses the one candidate who probably could've gone toe to toe with her on the money front, and the one who had easily built up the most innovative, competent campaign team.  But, Hillary will do best if the field remains cluttered with a ton of men...

  Finally, this opens up a hole in the field for another compelling "outsider" not tainted with being part of the DC establishment.  Right now, the only serious outsider in the race is Wesley Clark.

  AMERICAblog's John Aravosis, unlike Kos, isn't buying the touching departure from Warner.  "I'm still unconvinced as to why he's pulling out.  He didn't think before that a presidential run, and being president, would take time away from his family?  Hmmm...."

  Over at Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds kinda saw it coming:

  We were supposed to do a podcast interview with him and the date kept slipping -- I don't know if that means that he's been uncertain about running for a while or not.  When I talked to him on the phone in June he said he wasn't sure if he was running, but I took that with a grain of salt -- they all say that -- but I guess he really wasn't sure.  A politician who tells the truth?  No wonder he's bowing out....

  Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish wasn't surprised, either: "His inexperience in foreign affairs made his candidacy a non-starter, to my mind.  So now we have the big guns: Gore, Clinton, Edwards, Kerry."

  Some see Warner's exit in a larger context, like Stirling Newberry writing at TPMCafe.  He blames, in an ironic way, Bill Clinton:

  [A]s important as the crumbling of Rove, is the crumbling of the conservative Democratic thesis of governmental minimalism and merely maintaining New Deal and a few Great Society programs.  One of the first casualties is Mark Warner's bid for the Presidency.  I ribbed Warner sometime ago about his chances, and he is a sincere and smart guy.  However, without a maximalist agenda - a demand on society, there is no reason why any governmental minimalist should vote for anyone but Hillary Clinton.  Clintonism is collapsing back from whence it came, in no small part because Hillary and Bill Clinton - as a team - were the only people who were smart enough, and saavy enough, to make it really work.  There aren't many Rhodes Scholars who are as smooth as Elvis, married to Fortune 500 quality executive talent.

  John Podhoretz too has an interesting take on the Warner departure, tying the shaky Warner hype to geography of all things.  He writes at National Review's The Corner:

  I've always wondered ... whether the excitement over the Virginians derives entirely from their proximity to Washington.  Were Allen a senator from, say, Nebraska, would he ever have generated such inside-the-Beltway blather?  And yes, Warner did well winning in Virginia — but you never hear similar talk about Phil Bredesen, the Democratic governor of Tennessee, who has prevailed and succeeded under more difficult partisan circumstances than Warner.  Bredesen isn't a charismatic guy, so maybe that's understandable, but Warner isn't exactly JFK either and mostly seemed to be a thrilling possibility for Democrats because he has so much of his own money.

  Wonkette, in its typical sardonic style, wants dirt:

  He’s succeeded in impressing plenty of movers and shakers, but they were mostly internet-based movers and shakers, who count for only 3/5ths of the real thing.  Still, to announce in late ‘06 that you won’t be running in ‘08, when you’ve already begun amassing your warchest and winning over opinion leaders, suggests something quite deliciously awry.  What is it?  Remember: he’s a Virginia politician, so he’s probably got a history of racism, sexism, and making fun of kids with Down Syndrome.

  Sisyphus rues that Warner didn't run for the Senate instead: "Given Warner's popularity and the buffoonery of George Allen, the seat would have been his for the taking."  He also believes Sen. Evan Bayh is "likely the beneficiary of Warner's exit," as does Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post's The Fix:

  Bayh and Warner shared much of the same ideological territory -- moderate, consensus builders elected in red states.  After helping Gov. Tim Kaine (D) win the governorship in 2005, Warner became the "it" boy of national politics -- the candidate seen as most likely to emerge as the alternative to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D).

  Warner's ascent came at the expense of Bayh, who found much of the air sucked out of his candidacy. 
No longer.  Party insiders say that there was a major behind-the-scenes fight for donors and activists between Bayh and Warner.

  The other obvious winner from Warner's decision not to run is former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.  Edwards and Warner were seen as occupying the tier just below that of Clinton -- the two candidates given the best chance of dethroning her for the nomination.

  Clinton, too, gets some residual benefit from Warner's decision simply because a serious contender for the anti-Hillary mantle has been removed.  The more it looks as though Clinton is a lock for the nomination, the closer to a look she will actually be.  Perception creates reality in politics.

[Mike Sheehan]

Posted by Conn Carroll at October 13, 2006 04:45 PM