Sources: Warner Won't Run for Presidency in '08

By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 12, 2006; 10:08 AM

RICHMOND, Oct. 12 -- Former Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner (D) is expected to announce later this morning that he will not seek the presidency in 2008, according to two Virginia Democratic sources with direct knowledge of the governor's intentions.

Warner, who has been actively exploring a presidential bid for months, has reportedly been telling associates for several weeks that he had not yet decided to run, according to Democratic sources who said Warner was concerned about the impact on his wife and three teenage daughters.

Politicians often are coy about their intentions before an official announcement, but friends of the former governor's said today that his expressions of doubt seemed more sincere than most.

"He would have brought the successes we have achieved in Virginia to the nation," said Alexandria Del. Brian J. Moran (D), a Warner friend. "This is a very personal decision. I'm sure he's making it in the best interests of his family."

A decision to abandon a presidential run could position Warner to be a vice presidential pick for the eventual Democratic nominee. Or it could allow him to seek Virginia Republican John Warner's U.S. Senate seat if Warner retires in 2008.

The ex-governor could also run for his old job again. Virginia law does not allow sitting governors to run for reelection, but does allow them to seek the office again after a four-year hiatus. Warner, who left office with record approval ratings, has expressed repeatedly that he might want the job back someday.

Warner's year-long dalliance with a run for the presidency has had its ups and downs.

A former high-tech entrepreneur, Warner has been highly successful at fundraising, topping most of the other Democratic hopefuls except New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. That fundraising ability helped propel him to the top of many lists of White House contenders in 2008.

His repeated trips to Iowa and New Hampshire and other early primary states were largely a success, as voters there greeted him with interest. He had been scheduled to travel to Des Moines again today.

But there have been difficulties as well. A New York Times magazine profile put a bizarre picture of him on the cover, prompting snickers. And national polls have consistently listed him as the choice of only one or two percent of the population, indicating how far he would have to go to become a household name.

But the biggest challenge, his advisers have said, would be selling his moderate, bipartisan message to a Democratic primary audience, especially at a time when the party is hungry for partisan success.

The biggest obstacle, according to people advising him, has always been Clinton, who is cruising to reelection and may decide in the next couple of months whether to seek the job her husband held for eight years.

People who know Warner say his wife and daughters have never been eager to see him run for the presidency. His wife, Lisa Collis, was not a prominent Virginia First Lady and often remarked to people close to her that she did not like the political limelight.

Warner went to Italy for a family vacation this summer, reportedly to have the final decision-making conversation with them. Several people close to him have said that conversation did not take place.

Warner is scheduled to make the announcement in Richmond, at the Jefferson Hotel Thursday morning.


Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6101200510.html

A Warner vs Warner race in the senate that should be something.

As an undergrad, I wrote what I believed to be a tongue and cheek opinion piece in the Marquette University Tribune entitled, "The Honorable Mr. Rogers for President". The piece was in response to the whole Monkey Business fiasco that ended the candidacy of one Senator Gary Hart before it even began. My assertion was that if the nation was seeking spotless persons, no one could have been better than Mr. Rogers as our President.

The statement by Governor Warner today brings this whole issue into perspective. Oh, how different things may have been had we not just a Presidency but even a mere Cuomo candidacy in 1988 or 92, or a Gore candidacy in 1992 or 2004. What was the common denominator, I believe, in those decisions not to run? The invasiveness of the high office contest in general and the presidential process in particular in this country that would make a proctologist blush. If one does not have the "blessing" of a vast network of fixers such as those who brought us W, then everything, every proclivity, every blimish whether relevant to the performance of official duties or not is brought to the white hot light of those ubiquitous cameras for posers such as Tucker Carlson to spin to garner still sparse ratings.

I would not want a President who has no foibles or faults. I think appreciating human frailties and weakness would likely make a President more apt to seek remedies that took humanity into account.

Why is it that Governor Warner seems more sane to me today? It is a curious question because the sanity of any candidate for President of the United States should be presumed, but more and more is it his or her insanity demonstrated by the willingness to submit their lives to the equivalent of a CSI POTUS that is accepted?

It's the stuff you allude to, Nicholus, that has made Gore say he's done with politics.

Yes, there's a presumption of sanity among those who would run for POTUS. But doesn't someone have to be just a bit insane to actually do it?

Undoubtedly.

Well, things are going to start getting interesting now. Potential candidates are going to start having to make up their minds about what they intend to do.

The suspense is killing me.

I fear greatly that Warner's statement today coupled with Gore's statement of yesterday possibly may indicate that the coronation train has started up anew.

If my party attempts to coronate any candidate and provide no real choice for the rank and file voters across the country, hope will be lost on me.

I pray to God this is not what we are starting to see.

Gore's statement yesterday wasn't anything different from what he's been saying all along (although we hate to hear it), so I don't think that's what's happening, Nicholus. Now is the time when possible candidates will begin to make their intentions known. The less popular ones normally fall first, so Warner's decision isn't a big surprise. I mean, let's face it: If you were up against possible Gore, Hillary, Kerry, and Edwards, would you consider that you had a good chance? Talk about a bunch of heavy-hitters.

I keep asking myself why Gore would continue to not give the Sherman statement if he really knows that he won't run. The only thing that makes any sense is that he's keeping the possibility of a run out there to get mileage off it for his global-warming campaign. But I'm not really sure there's anything to that. Would he be any less effective doing what he's been doing if he really turned 100% into Gore the Climate-Change Crusader? I don't think so. In fact, it might make him even more effective in that role. Remove any doubt whatsoever of ever being a candidate again, and you gain even more credibility. So the only reason I can see why he'd be holding that door open is because he wants the option of someday walking through it.

I hope I'm seeing that right.

As for a coronation of Hillary, I don't see that happening. Those others who would be president in the Dem. Party won't just roll over and get out of the way because Hillary's coming. They know she has weaknesses, and they know how to capitalize on those weaknesses.

Personally, I would prefer not to see nine or ten Dem. candidates again. Four or five good, strong contenders would do.

Warner was getting less than a few points in the polls. Others (like Bayh are getting even LESS ...)

These people have no base, nothing.

All they had were big egos.

They should all drop out and save the money.

Hillary/Gore/Obama one of the three

Maybe Edwards although as I said before I am not sure he is even going to go for it...

Hillary is being corronated and if I were Al, I would seriously as I said think about running for VP if he doesn't go for it

If Al reads the writing on the wall, no one else but Obama is big enough to go against all Hillary has for her

And now, after what happened the last three weeks, I thinkn Hillary is even stronger than ever.
Just look how every democrat raced to Bill's side to defend him a few weeks ago...shows they are loved.

What a shame...what could have been (if it isn't going to happen)...

I think we need a positive sign very soon...this thing may just be over in a month or two unless Gore or Obama gets in it

I disagree with much of what you said.

First of all, Obama shouldn't be included in the "big three." He's nowhere near being on the same level with Gore and Hillary. As a juinor senator, he brings little experience to the job, and while I hate to say it, I don't think America is any more ready to elect as president a black man than a white woman. Obama might be good in the veep spot, but not as president. He needs more experience on his resume before he's ready for that.

Also, I don't think that everyone rushing to defend Bill a few weeks ago has much bearing on how people feel about Hillary as a potential pres. candidate. Let's face it: People still love Bill. But many people despise Hillary. The latest polls show her positives falling and her negatives rising. She is no longer so far out in front as to make it a one-horse race.

And things won't be over in a month or two if Gore doesn't get in. It's still too early. I agree that we could use some more positive signals than he's been sending, and I think that if he's even considering running, he would do well to begin to change his message just a little, to at least on occasion, say something a little less definitive about never running again (you know, the "there's always the danger of a relapse" kind of remark).

But I think we have a long way to go in this race. I wouldn't expect anything from anyone until after New Years, and then some.

And in the meantime, there's every reason to remain hopeful.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. : :P

I have thought all along that it would be Gore/Warner. I truly believe that he has gotten out of the race so that the water will not be so dirty when he is chosen VP by Gore. If he stays in the race, the democrats are really great in beating up on each other in the primaries.

It's certainly a possibility, Patsy. But I guess we're all just going to have to wait and see.

Interestingly, tonight on Keith Olbermann, he had a quick little blurb about how Gore has changed his tune since he was on his show last summer promoting "Truth." He said that Gore's statement in France yesterday was qualitatively different from what he'd said when he was on Keith's show. In France, according to Keith, Gore indicated that the door was still open, whereas Keith felt that on his show this summer, Gore had pretty much closed it. My heart skipped a beat, until I heard the exact quote, which, as we all know, is the same old same old--I don't intend to be a candidate again. I'm running a campaign, but it's a different kind of campaign, not a personal campaign, etc. etc. There's nothing new here, and I'm not sure what Olbermann was referring to.

In any case, it's possible that Warner is waiting out the veep spot, and you're right, Patsy, that the Dems. do beat up pretty heavily on each other during the primary process, which is another good reason for Gore to stay out as long as he can. In fact, they ALL should want to stay out as long as possible, except, of course, there's that little matter of having to raise money. :rolleyes:

Personally, the only alternative I can see to Gore is Clark.

You just have to watch this:

The Truth about Osama bin Laden and Iraq

Newsweek.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After Warner, 'On to Someone Else'
Newsweek

Oct. 23, 2006 issue - For more than a year, Mark Warner had some of the best buzz of the 2008 presidential sweepstakes thanks to the impressive list of "formers" on his résumé: former tech entrepreneur, former venture capitalist, former governor of Virginia. Now he can add another: former future of the Democratic Party. Warner shocked everyone—including some of his closest aides—when he announced he wouldn't seek the presidency in 2008. "He called me up on Monday afternoon and said, 'Could you come over to talk about something?' " said his spokeswoman, Ellen Qualls. "I was expecting 'OK, we're really going to start gearing up.' Instead it was 'I'm not going to run.' "

After Hillary Clinton, Warner had assembled the largest campaign apparatus of any Dem and secured some of the party's top talent, including media consultant Jim Margolis and strategist Jim Jordan. Aides had been talking up his fund-raising prowess and grass-roots network.

But intimates knew that Warner had grown increasingly unsure about the prospect of running since returning from a family vacation to Italy this past summer. In recent weeks he'd told several friends he had "real doubts" about the race, and his inner circle knew to expect a make-or-break decision on Columbus Day. "Every time I'd say, 'If I run,' people assumed I was checking a box," Warner tells NEWSWEEK. "But in the past month I think particularly the fund-raisers noticed there was a real change in tone."

Top Dem contenders—including Clinton—called to reach out (read: suck up) to Warner after his announcement. Evan Bayh and John Kerry were on the phone with Warner donors within hours; they and others, including John Edwards (and perhaps even Barack Obama and Al Gore), will now move to seize Warner's mantle as the electable anti-Hillary. But Clinton herself may have gained the most from Warner's withdrawal. "Evan Bayh gets the Red State thing, Edwards is the Southerner, but Hillary becomes the undisputed centrist candidate," says one former Bill Clinton aide, anonymously since Hillary has yet to say she's running. "You tell me which of those makes you more electable."


Warner won't rule out any future campaigns, and friends say skipping the primary mudslinging leaves him better positioned as a VP choice in '08. When his family was told he was quitting the contest, his youngest daughter, Eliza, urged him to go out and "get a real job." After all, she noted, "we don't want you around too much." But late last week, Warner sounded wistful for the life he was leaving behind. A self-described "clip junkie," he rose early the morning after his announcement and checked to see how his bombshell had played. The news coverage was what he'd expected but still brought a tiny sting. "It was, 'OK, three graphs on Warner. Now on to someone else'."

—Jonathan Darman

URL:

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/...estate_politics

Posted on Sun, Oct. 15, 2006

Edwards could fill Warner void
Former N.C. senator may be in best position to gain from ex-Virginia governor’s decision
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — Former Virginia governor Mark Warner’s decision to bow out of the 2008 Democratic presidential race has left the remaining contenders scrambling to fill the ideological and electoral void left by the candidate long considered a leading alternative to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

Warner’s anticipated campaign was to be built around the notion that in an age of polarized politics, many voters were eager for a leader focused on reaching across partisan barriers for solutions to big problems.

The most obvious Democrat to benefit from Warner’s surprise announcement, in the view of many party strategists, is Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind. On paper, he most closely resembles Warner in ideological profile and governing style.

Outgoing Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, both positioning themselves as moderates in the 2008 field, also could gain some residual benefit, according to party strategists.

But some analysts suggested the greatest opportunity for a Democrat seeking to be the anti-Clinton alternative will emerge on the ideological left.

“I just don’t think there is any oxygen in this race for the space that Warner was looking to occupy — that being the moderate, establishment, electable successful business entrepreneur turned one-term governor,” said Chris Lehane, an experienced Democratic operative.

If Warner’s decision does shift the 2008 center of gravity leftward, the candidate best positioned to capitalize might be former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004.

Others touted as potential liberal alternatives include Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and former Vice President Al Gore.

Warner dropping out or just not going to run, can do nothing but help Al Gore should he decide to run himself. As far as Barack goes, I don't like him and don't trust him at all.

I frankley would not even vote for that guy.

Just curious, what do you have against Barack Obama? :?:

I think he would make a damn good president with alittle more experience. He's a bit young but by 2016, he should be ready, and yes we must find a way to get rid of racism in this country.

Why don't you like Obama?

why ? a number of things. one is his illegals position. read this.
also his pro Iraq war.
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/B...Immigration.htm

He's not pro-Iraq war. He says he would have voted against it (of course, that's easy to say with hindsight), but now that we're there, we can't just pull out, which is the same thing Gore says.

However, one thing I wasn't aware of that I read in the link you provided: He favors giving illegal aliens Social Security. Excuse me? :!: I think that position is dead wrong. Social Security is collected by citizens who've worked here legally and paid into the system all their lives. Why should illegal aliens, who are here, um, illegally :rolleyes: , be given a right of citizenship such as this? I am absolutely opposed to that idea.

Clearly I need to do more homework regarding Obama. Thanks for providing that link, Earthman. ;)

Back to the earlier question of what our guy might be waiting for: What if his next book ("The Assault on Reason") would help grease the wheels of a national conversation on how leadership could work (well), and how we could make decisions about the country's future in a reasoned way? It might be a very good opener for a presidential campaign. Besides, he might want to highlight his other areas of expertise besides being seen as "just" interested in saving the planet (!). A person who can use reason, whose tone is non-partisan, who can gather the whole country together to use facts and reason, to think calmly about creating stabilized change is the antidote to the smoke, fire, screaming, and toxic waste that is politics under Bush. Bringing back the "us" in U.S. He'll be like a glass of cool water. Aaaaahhhh!

Anyway, that's my interpretation, and I'm stickin' with it!

I love your interpretation! I'm sticking with it, too! :lol:

But seriously . . . I said at the outset when we heard he was releasing this book in the spring that it was encouraging that it was coming out when it was and that it was about something political rather than about climate change. It will serve to focus the debate on that, and who knows--maybe that'll be the theme of his campaign? If nothing else, it puts some distance between the non-political global warming campaign and the political campaign. I'd hate for people to say he used "Truth" as a political vehicle when he has said all along that it's not (and it's not). But writing a book about a purely political topic such as this puts him squarely back in the political arena and distances him from his climate crusade in a way that will help protect him from such charges.

well he may say he is not for the war but his record shows otherwise. he may be shifting his position only because more people want us out of there. if you check into it.
I don't trust the guy. you know how you feel you can't trust someone. right ?

Sure, I know that feeling, Earthman. I'm just wondering where you've seen evidence that he was ever for the war. I haven't seen anything that would indicate that.

That's exactly the way I feel about George W. Bush.