I'm not sure quite what to make of this analysis by Robert Novak.
Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, a strong favorite to be elected to the Senate this year, has told associates that he is being considered as Barack Obama's vice presidential running mate. He did not indicate whether he would be receptive to such an offer.Removing Warner from the campaign for the seat now held by retiring Republican Sen. John Warner (no relation) would turn a sure Democratic takeover to a question mark. Mark Warner is heavily favored against the Republican nominee, former Gov. Jim Gilmore, but no substitute Democratic candidate is at hand.
Although no Democratic presidential nominee has carried Virginia since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, Democrats see the state as being in play for the 2008 election and would like to see a Virginian on the national ticket. Both current Gov. Tim Kaine and freshman Sen. Jim Webb have been mentioned, but neither possesses Warner's prestige.
Overall, I think Warner would be a fine pick. However, as Novak points out, putting Warner on the ticket with Obama would throw the U.S. Senate race into turmoil. Could Warner run for Senate and Vice President simultaneously? I've got to check into that. Also, I'm not sure what to make about the "prestige" argument; Mark Warner is certainly revered (and rightly so!) in Virginia, but I think it's a bit of an overstatement to say that Jim Webb -- who I support for VP -- doesn't possess "Warner's prestige." I mean, winning the Navy Cross, becoming a respected author and journalist, and defeating George Allen for U.S. Senate is not exactly slacker material.
Why are we reading/listening to "that douchebag Robert Novak" anyway? I mean, really... he proved himself a traitor with the whole Plame/Wilson exposure story and has been less than honest many, many times since then.
So why listen to one of Rove's attack dogs?
"Only a person fulfilling all the requirements of a candidate shall have his name printed on the ballot for the election. No person shall have his name printed on the ballot for more than one office at any one election. However, a candidate for federal or statewide office, or a candidate for an office being filled in a special election, may have his name printed on the ballot for two offices at an election."
It looks like Warner can run for both, not that that's a real good idea.
Also, while I have no doubt that Mark Warner could put Virginia into play and probably carry it for Obama, I'm not sure it will be as effective a ticket outside of Virginia. I believe Obama could also carry Virginia with Webb and Webb brings the military and foreign affairs credentials that would add more to the ticket.
In fact, I always felt that Warner would do well to serve as a senator before seeking the presidency precisely because it would burnish his own reputation to have foreign affairs, military affairs, and national security experience to beef up his very fine administrative skills as a governor.
I am sure, though, that Warner is on a short list being considered as he is very capable. He is not the only one under consideration. I would rather see him in the Senate for now.
I assume that a replacement candidate could be chosen by either convention or caucus, each of which has its pluses and minuses. A convention might be preferable from the standpoint of candidate "credibility" (more open and fair vetting in the eyes the participants) and most likely would engage a larger number of participants. I don't know for sure, but a downside for a convention might be that it would take longer to set up.
If a caucus is easier and faster to set up that would be a plus for that option. I think a caucus might also be easier to control, but that might create a perception in the minds of some that the party leaders would have too much control over selecting the nominee.
BUT ... the most important issue is who would be the strongest candidate against Gilmore. I began with Jim Moran but I have doubts about his ability to compete well enough in the Tidewater area and I think he would have considerable difficulty with SW Va.
This led me to Rick Boucher who as most of you know represents the "Fighting Ninth" Congressional District. I believe Rick would carry SW Va. by a large majority since he is well-liked in a generally R-leaning and relatively conservative area. And he also has good name recognition statewide, partly because of his endorsement of Obama and partly because of his Congressional record that occassionally gets some mention by the media. I think Rick would also compete well in the Tidewater area (partly because he is pretty moderate) and should also do well in the Richmond area.
Going back to my uncertainties about the available options for selecting a replacement Senatorial candidate: Can someone tell us how this would work and if it could be done very soon after the Denver convention ? I think we'd have to have a candidate by Labor Day, in part because fundrasing will be difficult at that stage, although the big plus is the fact that Gilmore has only a tiny fraction of what it would take to run an actual competitive race so Boucher and Gilmore would be starting at almost the same point financially. The other unknown for me is whether Boucher can move money from his current House campaign account to a Senate race; if yes he might well be ahead of Gilmore financially already.
I'd really love to see Mark Warner as VP for 8 years, and I believe he could help Obama nationwide. Warner is certainly well known and highly respected nationally.
Bottom line for me is that the risk vs. benefit analysis seems to me to strongly favor Mark Warner as VP. And of course the same risk of losing a Senate seat opportunity would apply if Jim Webb gave up his Senate seat - the main difference being that we'd have a little more time to "vet" a replacement candidate for Webb's seat.
I'm eagerly awaiting your comments on the process for chosing a Senate candidate replacement and what you think of Rick Boucher as that replacement.
T.C.
I think Kaine, Warner, or Webb would make a wonderful pick for the VP spot. VA is already in play, but I think a VP from Virginia might push it over the edge.
If you support Democrats and the current ideology behind the vision for the future then a good team for that could be Obama, Webb, Biden (State), Clark (Defense)but not sure if any fences need to be mended for that lineup.
I do not think Warner will fit with Obama. Warner does not endorse the kind of economic agenda as Obama and is more moderate on most things, especially business than I think Obama wants. In an Obama administration Warner I fear would be in the real shadows, whereas based on the current world stage Webb would not.
While the Dems of Virginia can take solace in major gains, the Party has to look beyond one man. The agruement concerning losing Webb or Warner augments the real issue that more have to come through the ranks for the State to truly be blue. If we are simply one election defeat away or one VP slot away because we lost a major candidate then we are not on as firm footing as we think.
As much focus we give Webb, a rightfully so, and will give Warner we need also to build up our very base of leadership, not voters, leadership. The Webbs and Warners are solid. By solid I mean they have enough support from all segments of the Virginia demographic along political lines. Dems, Independents, and some Reps will vote for these men. I know there are some liberals that do not like this fact that they appeal to that range and would not rather have the latters influence but until the State truly becomes Blue they will be required as proven in both of these mens prior elections.
Its those below that need to be concentrated upon. Of course its hard to do that until the Party identifies those folks, but I say why wait for the Party to chose and not get in there and back and develop folks like Chap, Deeds, and others. If we do lose a Webb or a Warner what then? We need to develop some answers.