Mark Warner: The Anti-Hillary?

The party's insiders, expecting Clinton to be a virtually unstoppable force, seem to be falling in line behind her, which means there will be only so much additional money and organization left over for those who would challenge her. But more than anything, Democrats will tell you that they are desperate to win next time around, and a lot of pragmatic activists and voters worry that Clinton is simply too divisive a candidate to take back the White House...These Democrats are actively shopping for a candidate who can derail Clinton before the party, as they see it, dooms itself to yet another near miss. And so the conventional thinking holds that there may only be room for two serious candidates by the time the primaries roll around: Hillary and the anti-Hillary. What Mark Warner needs to do now, just as his rivals do, is to begin making the case, as subtly as possible and before most of the country has even started to think about 2008, that the senator from New York is the wrong candidate for the party ? and that he's the only guy who can stop her.

Mark Warner as the anti-Hillary Clinton?  Could 2008 unfold this way?  It's possible.  However, there are obstacles. First and foremost:

At the end of last year, according to the Hotline, the venerable Washington online digest, Clinton had more than $17 million in the bank for her re-election campaign in New York ? and no serious opponent to spend it against. By contrast, Warner, capping what was widely considered a surprisingly sound fund-raising season, had amassed a little under $2.5 million for his political action committee, Forward Together. But that's not the whole story. Thanks to the inscrutable wonder of campaign finance laws, Clinton can roll every penny that she doesn't spend on her Senate campaign into a presidential account, which is why she could well start a bid for the White House with as much as $75 million, on course to obliterate the party's previous fund-raising records. No matter how much a governor like Warner raises in his political action committee, on the other hand, the rules say that he can't spend any of it on a presidential run; it can go only for general political activity, mostly backing other candidates. This means that should Warner decide to run, he'll have to start again from zero, while Clinton is backing up 18-wheelers to the bank.

What's more, Clinton will arrive in early primary states with a built-in base of voters. She has been campaigning in these states, off and on, for 15 years and knows every stop along the way; she can count on the endorsements of most of the local elected officials and interest groups, all of whom come with their own e-mail lists and organizers...

So formidable are the obstacles to challenging Clinton that even a lot of party operatives who don't think she's the best candidate are likely to work for her, just to be on the winning side.

Yeah, that's formidable alright.  So how can Mark Warner possibly overcome this?  According to Bai, first there's money:

Because of his previous life as a businessman, Warner is also expected to tap a network of donors in the high-tech and venture-capital fields who are outside the orbit of traditional Democratic fund-raising, just as Bill Bradley did when he ran against Al Gore in 2000. To party insiders in search of a Clinton alternative, all of this is crucial; it means that even if she manages to suck up all the money flowing from the party's usual contributors, Warner might still have a lifeline that other candidates don't.

And, of course, Warner is personally wealthy, with a net worth estimated at more than $100 million.

In addition to money, Warner has a record in Virginia as a successful, "sensible centrist" governor.  And, need we be reminded, the last Democrat to win the White House who was NOT a governor was Sen. John F. Kennedy, back in 1960.  Oh, and the last non-Southernor to win the White House running as a Democrat was....John F. Kennedy in 1960.  Sensing some patterns here?

Then, there's Warner's drive to succeed.  As Bai writes:

Warner isn't what you'd call a natural candidate. He speaks haltingly and sometimes in circles. He likes personal contact, but he can be physically awkward with voters, stiffly patting their arms or crookedly grasping their shoulders in what looks like an impersonation of the Vulcan Death Grip. He compensates, however, with eagerness and perseverance; like all of the best politicians, Warner loves to be liked.

Of course, Hillary Clinton has her own legendary drive to succeed, so I'm not sure Warner can beat her there. 

That leaves the so-called "netroots" - grassroots activists who tend to gather on the internet in places like DailyKos.  According to Bai:

To be a successful insurgent in 2008, a candidate probably needs a serious following online. The activists in the so-called Netroots, people who connect to politics primarily through MoveOn.org and the liberal blogs, will be even more populous and more motivated than in 2004, and while it's impossible to generalize, it seems that most of the Netroots are eager to find a candidate who isn't Hillary Clinton. Among the anti-Hillary contenders, Russ Feingold and Wesley Clark have the strongest constituencies online. But perhaps the most viable candidate who is making a strong bid to inherit Dean's activist base is John Edwards...

And here's the big challenge - or possibly problem -  for Mark Warner: 

The political argument most often and most forcefully proffered online has very little to do with ideology, per se, and everything to do with partisanship. Rather than arguing for any particular agenda, what MoveOn.org and the bloggers demand from Democratic politicians is unwavering opposition to what they see as a corrupt Republican majority and to the supposed capitulation of Washington Democrats.

The problem, as Bai correctly points out, is that Warner is "at heart, a cooperative, compromising kind of guy" and definitely not "an especially convincing partisan."   Warner is also "an unapologetic pro-business Democrat, rejects the reflexive anti-corporatism that permeates much of the populist fervor online."  "And yet," Bai points out, "Warner... intends to make a play for Dean-style Democrats." Can Warner run as the insurgent, outside candidate But can Warner do that?  Is running a "netroots" campaign something Warner is comfortable doing?  In general, as Bai asks, "The question for a potential candidate like Mark Warner is just what kind of outsider he intends to be?"

Great question, and one that Mark Warner will have to answer for himself, obviously.  This year in Virginia, for example, Warner has the potential to align himself with a true outsider, netroots candidate - James Webb for Senate.  Or, he can stick with a standard, establishment, party-issue, conservative Democratic candidate like Harris Miller.  This will be extremely telling, one way or the other, and so far it appears that Warner has been leaning towards the latter option.

In conclusion, Bai writes:

It's fine for Warner to say now that he doesn't need purists or populists, that he wants to run a campaign that is about what he's for rather than what he's against. But such aspirations are a luxury generally afforded to front-runners and fools, and Warner is neither. The party's more successful insurgents have all had one thing in common, whether they came from the left or center: each ran hard against the party machine itself. However much Warner may want to avoid this kind of populist appeal, recent history suggests that if you want to emerge as the alternative candidate in 2008, you probably have to be willing to harness and exploit the anger of Democrats who feel disconnected from the Washington establishment and who resent the idea that powerful insiders seem to be choosing a nominee for them. You have to be ready, as an earlier generation of Democrats would have put it, to take on the Man ? even if the Man this time happens to be a woman.

So there you have it, the big question for Mark Warner:  will he continue as a moderate, DLC, "politics as usual," "sensible centrist?"  Or will he attempt the classic, insurgent, "Washington outsider," "take on the Man" candidacy, updated to the early 21st century with a strong push for the online activist base?  Will it be Mark Warner as Howard Dean 2.0, or Mark Warner as a "centrist, electable Southern governor" like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton?  Will he run as a "movement" or as a traditional politician?  These are fundamental decisions, it would seem to me, and ones that Mark Warner will need to make.  We, the activists of the Democratic and Progressive "netroots," will be watching!

Comments