Another argument was made that Mark Warner may be the Vice Presidential nominee. I don't think that the odds are high that this will be the case. I think that one of the democratic presidential candidates who isn't nominated will be the most likely vice presidential nominee. This is because people who have been through an entire presidential campaign have been vetted (in a way that Mark Warner has not been). If the presidential nominee picks Mark Warner, they are taking a bigger risk, because they wont know what surprises to expect.
Some have said that he can accomplish more as governor. With the mess in Iraq, Afghanistan, and here at home, I think that the greater threats are federal issues, not issues of the state of Virginia. And where you have the greater problems, you have the greater opportunities to make a significant impact.
Yes, we need to try to win back the Virginia legislature (although we may well win back the state senate this November anyway). Yes, we need to hold the governorship for 2010 redistricting. Yes there are many other important reasons why we need to hold the Virginia governorship. But ultimately, it will be easier for a democrat to hold the governorship than it will for a democrat to win that senate seat.
There are several reasons why it will be harder to hold the senate seat. If you look at governors around the country, the most popular democratic governors are from some of the reddest states (such as Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming). Some of the least popular democratic governors are from some of the bluest states (such as Illinois). And yet in these red states, democrats have enormous difficulty in winning statewide federal races (either senate or president). The opposite is true for these blue states. Candidates for federal office are seen as different from candidates for state office. Federal candidates are more closely tied to the national parties, and the national parties have to put on one face for the entire country.
Republicans will also try far harder to win that senate race than they will the governors race. The presidential race will suck up most of the money in 2008, which is why it would be good to have a candidate who can self-finance his campaign (Mark Warner has a net worth of around $100 million). The DNC spent several million dollars on the governors race in 2005, which is the kind of money that it will never spend on a single race in a presidential year. Republicans will value that senate seat far more than they will the governors seat (for the reasons I am laying out), and thus will fight harder for it. This is especially true if 2008 continues heading towards what looks like a blow-out against republicans. In that situation, the senate will be their only tool to use against the democratic majorities and president.
Congress cannot run wars, only the president can. Only the president has the ability to set major points of foreign policy. Therefore, if we want to stop this 'war' in Iraq, then we have to win the presidency. So I am not using Iraq (or any other foreign policy issue) to argue for Mark Warner running for senate. My reason is domestic policy. There is a lot of damage that has to be corrected. And very little of it can we do without the ability to break a republican filibuster in the senate. We need to enact national healthcare. We need to fix Social Security and Medicare (which probably means raising or at least change the payroll tax structure). We need to clean up the budget mess. We need to pass unionization legislation (in particular the Employee Free Choice Act). The list goes on and on.
Mark Warner has to run for senate. We need him helping to fix the mess that this country is in. And we need that senate seat.