Will give the Democrats a 16 year run and it will be a new Democratic party; one with Mudcat Characteristics and Oprah Characterisitcs - a winning venue. (will turn the tide on the DLC.)

As a non-TV watcher, can you please tell me what "Oprah Characteristics" are?  I think I understand the "Mudcat Characteristics," although I'd like to hear your take on those as well.  Thanks.

Lowell: Barak Obama was first presented to the public by Oprah on her TV show. I have opposed the "democratization" of political discourse on such a vast and generic level as the Oprah show and a friend of mine who is a distinguished chaired professor at U. Richmond once gave a talk to make the point that political discourse on such a low entertainment level will destroy the Republic. I have changed my position over the last years for this reason: "participation mystique" is perhaps the most important driving force in America. After his visit to America, Swiss psychiatrist C.G. Jung said that he found this to be the pervasive cultural force in America and it was a force that came from the African village. Historians John Hope Franklin and W.J. Cash also make the point that the African-American influence has an "environmental" or benign cultural influence on all the major institutions and cultural relationships in America and especially in the  South. But since WW II that influence is  in the North as well and is pervasive throughout the Republic. The Obama candidacy represents a shared racial cultural identity; that is, there is no distinction between white and black - perhaps this is the most important transition that non-white people like myself make when they come to America - they come to share consciousness with other races (as my family has), but they especially share in black culture: There are a million books and movies out nowadays about blacks as "psychic guides" to whites (like "The Legend of Bagger Vance" - a hundred years ago in Northern culture it was Irish gardeners - in the South this "intuitive voice" was always African-American) representing the "Unconscious" influence of African-Americans that Jung talks about. Oprah represents this vast, subtle and pervasive influence and this shared destiny: She is probably one of the five most important people in the world today. The Obama story is a story that we have been moving to for 400 years on this continent and it is perhaps the most important story to date in the American condition.

Did I say I am a non-white person?  " . .  . this is the most important transititon that a non-white person like myself makes" - alors, last time I looked in the mirror I was still a white person with all four lines from the Old Sod. This is the bad thing about blogs; no editors. But that is the good thing too.

Edwards populast message and Warner's fiscally proven leadership would be a winner!

Where is the foreign policy, national security or geo-political experience strength in any of these combos? Sure, our nation has its own set of issues to be dealt with, but with the inter-connectedness and influence of foreign nations in many aspects of our nation's issues,it would seem to me our top leader/s cannot be devoid of exposure or experience.  The GOP looks to have the same problem with the candidates they have running.  Except for McCain (yechht) who has other problems, they are light on these vital issues, too.  Just saying.....

Mark Warner does not fit the mold of a successful runningmate. You want the a VP with foreign policy cred and/or an impressive inside-the-beltway resume.

People I expect to see on anyone's shortlist for VP...Biden, Richardson, Webb, Clark. Names like that.

The good news is...Mark Warner absolutely fits the mold of a sucessful presidential candidate. :)

cred of the currently committed candidates: Bill Richardson is the most qualified of either party hands down.

Biden has the years of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, but Richardson has actually done the hard leg work, and has managed a bureaucracy.

The more I learn about Richardson, the more I think he would be a top tier guy.  Wes Clark too is someone who I would be willing to place a wager on as a potentially very good to great president.

Obama I do worry about in terms of experience.  But stacked up against the other front runners--Edwards and Clinton--he is still the most appealing candidate to me. 

While I respect McCain's service; his track record on national security issues historically has frankly stunk.  Not just talking about Iraq either.  His North Korea policy in the 90s would have been disastrous.

The rest of the GOP guys are just empty suits in this area (how the mighty have fallen!).  These days, a GOP candidate, in order to win the nomination, needs to pander to the apocalyptic visions of the End of the Worlders.  So it'll be a while before I seriously look in that direction again.

He has done unusually well with talkin to the furriners. Especially North Korea, who is a seriously dangerous actor on the nuclear playing field.

I hate to say this (well I guess that's not true 'cause I'm writing it anyway) but Mark Warner's political appeal - throw weight, beyond Virginia politics is much overrated, not unlike George Allen (yikes, puting (Dem-Warner and Repug-Allen in the same post).

Here's why .... and this is totally subjective, of course .... neither of the two former govenors are gifted public speakers. Both can deliver a speech well .... but not well enough to inspire those outside of this state. Within Virginia each is well known to their cultivated constituents and supporters, but beyond our borders they're like anyone else.

By way of comparison, the recent JJ Dinner in Richmond, showcased all of our favorite politicians - Warner, Webb, Kaine and Obama. For my money (and I did plunk down some money to be there) I was most impressed by both Obama and Warner. Barrack Obama is a gifted inspirational oratore. Warner is sincere but a bit woodened / stilted (I was surprised by the contrast).  Tim Kaine is very good, eloquent .... Jim Webb exudes GRAVITAS. All of these men seem to be good friends with common cause and distinct styles.

Projecting forward I believe that nationwide, the Democratic Party is going to solidly coallesce behind the Audacious Hope offered by Barrack Obama (barring some scandal or primary snafu). Should that come to pass (and I believe it will) then Mr. Obama's most fateful decision will be his Vice Presidential pick .... While it's hard to say who would accept that position (a second fiddle VP or executive partner VP?) ... the strongest complement to an Obama Presidential bid is Jim Webb of course .... experience & gravitas combined with uplifting hope.  What would get Jim Webb on board?? How about the HISTORIC opportunity to earnestly address the racial fault lines between "redneck" and "black" America!! .... ala "Born Fighting".

Far fetched? Hardly .... the headwaters of this confluence are gathering everyday with every speech Mr. Obama handsomely delivers. Anyone of the Virginians would be a great Strategic Choice .... but the Presidential Timber lies with Webb, then Kaine ... and finally Mark Warner. I would really like to see Mark Warner get into the U.S. Senate and given his age ...eventually the White House. But for now I'm on the "Obama watch" and full of Born Fighting Hope!

before Webb entered the picture and he had a real race on his hands. Remember, George Allen was dubbed THE frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination throughout 2005. Names like Gillespie and Matalin were hopping on board what they felt like was a winner.

I remember seeing George Allen give a speech in South Carolina on C-Span. Incredibly boring. What Allen had going for him was money hence the political hit-men he could hire .... more better.

But they couldn't even help him when he opened his macca-mouth. He was cast as a front runner because he was from the south and a good ol' frat boy former govenor just like Dubya. Other than that he was never tested on any level by other presidential aspirants.

Gillespie and Matalin are (and remain) professional gold diggers in the gypsie world of hard up careerist politicians.

Lets face it. No matter how much money Obama has, he is just not presidential material. Not yet anyway. I think it was a mistake for him to run. He is just not ready. He cannot beat any of the GOP fools that have stepped forward in a straight up fight. (McCain,Romney,Giuliani)

A Clinton win is unlikely either because everyones mind is already made up about her. Also there is a problem politically in her running.

This is the way I see it. Neither McCain, Romney, nor Giuliani have the cred with the Evangelicals to get them to turn out in a general in great numbers. It just isn't there. But there is one person in the world who can make them forget that they really don't like whoever of the 3 gets the nomination. That is Hillary Clinton. She will turn out more right wingnuts than Dems can make up for with all her money. She will be the Republicans best player.

With either Obama or Clinton we get relegated to the same 17 or 18 state strategy that Kerry did. And Kerry got beat by an idiot. NEVER AGAIN, will we write off 27 states and 120 million people. Also, If you guys want VA to have its past 6 years of Democratic progress erased in one fell swoop. Just go ahead and support Hillary. We Dems here in VA will be SCREWED and all our work will be diminished.

Now I have always liked Edwards and think he would be the best president among the field we currently have. But the reasons above are compelling enough to support him.

HE CAN WIN.

And beyond the fact that he can win the election lies even more reasons. He has the best policy proposals, he has the best, and most clear, vision for America, he is the best candidate period.

----

On another note. Great comment about Bollings statements on the Warner budget. That is exactly the problem with the GOP. They talk about tax cuts but their approach has resulted in the tax code becoming steadily more regressive under their administrations. How about this for an idea. Don't roll back the Bush tax cuts nationwide. Just remove them for the top 10 percent and give a huge tax cut to anyone making under 150K per year or so. Now that would be economic stimulus and a valid tax cut that really helps working people.

My bet is. WARNER FOR GOVERNOR 09. He always liked that job.

The electability argument for the Democrats is really a very stupid argument.  Any of the top three Dems could win.  In fact, any of the top three Dems, in the current climate, have the advantage.  But what matters is not some inner essence-of-candidate.  What matters is how candidates build the campaign.

I do think that "electability" is often a weak/lazy argument, used in lieu of actually taking the time and effort to make the case FOR your candidate and AGAINST the other ones.  On the other hand, I've used the "electability" argument myself when I felt strongly about it, such as in the Democratic primary last year between Jim Webb and Harris Miller.  I simply did not see Miller as having a chance against George Allen, while I STRONGLY believed that Jim Webb could beat Cowboy George.  So I dunno...as I said, I'm in the middle on this.

Hillary CAN NOT WIN. And elect ability is ALL that matters. Unless you think losing is an option. And as far as campaigns go, Campaigns are an extension of the candidate to a large extent. They matter, but if you have a mediocre or damaged or inexperienced candidate the people will feel and smell it and nothing can overcome that. Very bad argument. Why the hell do we want to fight Hillary personal battle.

This kind of gut-level instincts should be instilled in every Democrat. Obviously you don't have it.

And the current climate doesn't mean jack. What matters is who can stand up to the $h!#storm that will come when the GOP machine cranks up. (by the way, who do you think is their easiest target) So you can stuff your talk about stupid arguments.

Obama is a great VP candidate though. Happy to go out and make speeches. And as far as other arguments here for a VP having foreign policy experience, what about Jim Webb. He would make a great VP.

I don't think Hillary is electable.  The other two front-runners could.

What about John Edwards one term in the Senate makes him more Presidential than Obama? Do those extra two years really push him over the top?

And don't talk electability at this point. It's way too early to speculate based on polls that are pure name ID.

You have a good point about early national polls.

However I don't see how that plays into Democrats doing some early examination of the candidates to see who is serious and who will get us in a world of $#!#.

And Edwards experience goes far beyond the Senate. You must think about the years as an attorney fighting what I believe are some important fights. Also the past 4 years spent traveling the country and working to bring fair working conditions to working people.

How does Obama's experience beat that. Answer that please.

Spent 8 years in the state legislature, which I think overshadows Edwards work pre-Senate. I think Obama is a more intellectual and thoughtful candidate. Not to take the obvious cheapshot, UNC-CH has a great law school, but it doesn't compare to being Editor of the Harvard Law Review. I think at this point someone with some substance in between his ears is very appealing.

Does this mean Obama is more 'presidential' than Edwards? That's hard to judge. I just have a hard time understanding the Edwards camp claiming their candidate is more qualified than Obama.

and Jim Webb .... both wrote a book and they're both left handed ...

check it out:

  http://www.nytimes.c...

Gerald Ford, and Truman. 

I remember in '92 all three of the candidates--Perot, Clinton, and Dole were left-handed.

"Damn a bunch of Harvards" - Lyndon Johnson

I am so sick of elitist BS it is ridiculous. The very thought that a very undistinguished 8 year term in the Illinois state house compares to 20 years of work as a very distinguished attorney is silly. But nice try.

To equate being law review editor at what has become a very overrated institution with having "substance between the ears" is just plain elitist and wrong.

This next bit is more personal and maybe not so much dispassionate political analysis. I want a president who is not part of the whole Northeastern Ivy League elitist club. And DON'T try to trot out the idea that Obama is somehow different. Read his books, I have.

Dude, Willie, you need to comment here more often.  That was awesome.

I don't see though how an undistinguished 8 year term in a state house is an apples to apples comparison with 20 years as a successful personal injury lawyer. 

There may be some value to being a trial lawyer, but I don't see how this experience necessarily qualifies a man for being president.  (Yes, I know the same could be said of legislative experience in a state legislature).

In reference to Senate experience, I see this as largely a wash.  Edwards has the 2002 co-sponsorship of the AUMF, which I see as a negative in an otherwise short career on the federal level.  Obama doesn't have this baggage, but like most first term Senators it's hard to point to a case where he has left his mark on the institution.  Both have some federal experience, which I see as a net plus.

In reference to the elite Ivy League schools I don't see this as being a disqualifying factor.  All this tells me is that Obama got into one of the most competitive law schools, and while at that school he gained an even more highly competitive position as an editor of the law review journal.  Clearly both Obama and Edwards don't fear competition, and both these guys have incredibly sharp minds. 

I will say, after this MBA president, I would view it as a plus that a potential presidential candidate has more than a passing familiarity with Constitutional law. 

Personally, I would be a lot more comfortable if both these guys had some executive experience, because managing the federal bureaucracy is a challenge unto itself.  But on balance, I think they would both be capable executives.

You make a decent point about the Senate careers being somewhat of a wash. They have both had votes I have disagreed with. However, and this is my personal desires in President being expressed here, I think Edwards actually gets it in respect to the problems working people face here.

I know all the Democrats we have in the field right now would be better than those fricking Republicans. But John Edwards is the one who, in my belief, will think of people like me and mine FIRST. It will be FIRST on his mind. Not relegated behind special interest groupthink.

I think Obama is on to something with is idea of connecting everyone. That is something I had been wanting to hear from a leader for a while. A call to recognize our commonalities. I am just not sure that Obama has the gut level understanding or passion for working people that John Edwards has.

Everyone has their reasons for supporting someone, that is mine.

would accept a Southeastern state based nominee paired up with another Southeastern state based running mate.  The fact that Virginia borders North Carolina is the kiss of death for any Edwards/Warner or Edwards/Webb pairing.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore. AR/TN respectively. You don't know what you are talking about.

If Clinton wins the nom, Warner will be veep.

If Obama wins the nom, Clark will be veep.

If Edwards wins the nom, Richardson will be veep.

I agree with Clinton and Edwards, but I don't think Clark is really at the top of anybody's VP list.  Clark is everybody's SecState or SecDef choice. Obama's major complaint in a GE would be that he doesn't have executive experience.  Somebody like Bayh or Warner will be Obama's choice, I think.  A moderate executive to help Obama in Purpole States. 

Wes Clark remains at the top of many people's list for the top slot.  I know he's discounted here, on this blog, but he's still likely to get in the race and has said so as recently as this week at 3 different speaking engagements.  As for SecDef, for the umpty-umpth time, he cannot be named SecDef because he will not have been retired from military service for 10 years until 2010. He's said on more than one occasion that he doesn't want to be anyone's Dick Cheney.  That includes Hillary or any of the others currently in the race. He's the most moderate-appearing progressive who can pull in those Reagan Dems.  Sound familiar?

because I really like all those Clarke girls who came to support Jim Webb. They were quite a good professional bunch. Before the Webb campaign I discounted Wes Clarke as a Clinton plant from the last election cycle. Added to that my first suspicion of Army Generals is that they ARE Politicians (Careerist Ladder climbers) .... that's an opinion cultivated over the years, observing Army Brass scheming along in the defense industry.... from a former Marine.

During the Webb campaign and since the election ... Wes Clarke has shown a very good balanced approach to his political forays.  But right now he's pretty far behind the power (money) curve and it's hard to imagine how / when he's going to Break Out!

Still love those Clarkies!!

The one with the E is Richard Clarke, the terrorism expert.
Wes spells his name Clark.  That's all.

Those Clarkies got behind Webb in a big way--got in early and didn't give up!  Not just in Virginia, though.  There were Clarkies all over the country who gave time and money to Webb and to about 100 other Democrats running in many states. Not just girls, either. Probably an equal number of guys. As we saw in the Webb campaign, boots on the ground do a lot to make up for the gap in $$.

If I could emphasize one point to respond to your initial thought about Clark....Wes Clark is no Clinton plant. Never has been, never will be. He's quite able to stand on his own. 

That's what happens when you spent part of your life at John Clarke school and had to get use to Clark like Lark but with an E. Just an old age brain fart ... kind like picking up the wrong brief case ... yikes.

... I just really liked the Clark girls ... didn't meet any Clark guys ... oh well.

I'm hoping for a Clark/Warner or Clark/Richardson ticket. If Clark and Warner both opt out of the race entirely, then I'm pulling for Richardson/Obama. I don't like Hillary, and Edwards would be my choice behind Richardson but I doubt he'd want to run for veep a second time. Whoever's left in the field besides Hillary, Richardson, Obama and Edwards I don't care about right now.

If either Clinton or Obama is the nominee, they're going to look for the whitest white guy they can find to be their running mate.  No offense to Mark Warner, but he fits the bill!  ;-)

I think the most likely running mate for Hillary would be Evan Bayh -- Midwesterner, young and promising, DLC connections, experience as both Governor and Senator.  Vilsack and Warner would also be strong prospects.

Obama, if nominated, may feel more need to add a Southerner like Warner.  If Edwards were to be the nominee (which I don't antipicate at this point), he'd have a lot more leeway re: whom to choose. 

but I'd go with Bayh or Vilsack over Warner in the whiteness category. Remember, Mark ran Doug Wilder's successful gubernatorial campaign.

I agree that Hillary will choose Bayh or possibly Vilsack. She won't win Indiana, but the midwest in general is seriously going blue. Politically Hillary and Bayh are cut from the same cloth. Republicans hate HRC but swoon over Bayh, so linking them together may get it through people's thick skulls that she's not the radical baby-eating feminist they insist she is.