Jonathan Epstein is simply the best. He always kicks ass. If I were a candidate, he'd be my first call.

JKAllTheWay04!

Matthew, Warner and Gen. Clark. Now that's a ticket I could support!

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Jonathan Epstein and fill in the blank -- all these young staffers who spend a cycle or two in Iowa are suddenly God-like. What a joke. If they hadn't been in Iowa they wouldn't be on the radar screen. Some of the best consultant-advisor-types are sitting across the river in Illinois.
Why do you think Illinois remains a shade of blue? Let's quit hyping staffers and consultants. When it comes down to it, it's the quality of the candidate that makes or breaks a candidacy.

I know we democrats are all about recycling, but give me a break! Hiring guys like Jonathan Epstein and Jim Jordan (who have both been canned more than Charlie the Tuna) shows how candidates are just desperate to have anyone with a recognizable name-no matter what their track record-on their staff. I'm waiting for the press release announcing Bob Shrum has been brought on as media advisor.

That's right Robert in Seattle (foreign policy experience will be needed on ticket) and I think it's one reason Warner is so close to General Clark these days.

They will team up, mark my word.

Everything changed with 9/11. Now, foreign policy experience is a litmus test for President. Hence, HRC's Senate committee choice.

Foreign policy? Did Bill Clinton have any? What about Carter? How about Bush (wait... that's obvious enough........) The last president we had who had any real experience in foreign policy was George HW Bush. Before him, Nixon (through somewhat his years in the Senate, although he tended to focus on domestic issues, like ridding the nation of alleged communists, but more through his years as VP). Foreign policy does not dictate who gets the nod - never has.

Awesome addition to your PAC Governor Warner! Now if all those rumors of you running with General Wes Clark as your VP are true, what a perfect ticket!!

JD: I do not think a Edwards-Warner ticket would work. No geographical balance for one thing and both candidates are somewhat weak in foreign policy. I think if either one of them is nominated, they should go with Wesley Clark as VP.

Warner is coming off as a 1 trick pony, and that's after several events in different formats. Incredibly self absorbed and in-experienced in Foreign Policy, mentioning 'broadband' more than Iraq. He's also publicly bashing other Dems. But but he forever turned me off with his "KACHING" comment at his audiences' cell phone silence. NO MORE CEO'S!
Feingold Rules in Foreign Policy!

Well done!
http://amvoyfwb.com/yiuv/hzjh.html | http://zybpcgsn.com/zlvk/uqnb.html

Thank you!
My homepage | Please visit

I actually hadnt thought about the VP slot going to Warner, and I just had a thought-- considering Edwards' strong position in the Iowa straw poll (30% Edwards, 26% Hillary) how would an Edwards/Warner ticket look? Input welcome.

Warner is too close to the political center to win the Democratic nomination. He plays well in the red states b/c he's not in sync with the more liberal voters who tend to turn out in primary elections. He's the Joe Lieberman of this election cycle.

I'll be the first to admit, that I am a conservative democrat (if that makes any sense), and that candidates like feigold and clinton look to me like a bunch of embarassments to the party (with their censure and impeachment calls and the flip-flopper part II).
If democrats want to win they have to wake up and smell the power of the south (ironically Im from CA) and the last democratic wins for the presidency including Al Gore were all from the south Clinton:Arkansas Carter:Georgia and Johnson Texas. Without winning a state in the south it is VERY hard to win the presidency. Just ask Gore and Kerry.

GW: "Epstein was recently canned by Martin O'Malley. He can't be that great of a pick up."

That's exactly why O'Malley is going to lose - he drops top talent and relies on his little brother and other yes men. Epstein was the only thing keeping him afloat. He's already started slipping in the polls and Ehrlich is on the air with some top notch ads while O'Malley has to rely on his 8 year old reading haltingly to his classmates - Epstein would never have let such a waste of money out the door.

I'm at the College Democrats National Convention in St. Louis, and I was talking to some people manning a Warner booth, and there was a nice little crowd there. He's got a great following here, as well as across the nation. I'm hoping he can do well. They say you should always pick a horse and stick to him and, although I was leaning towards Feingold, Warner is pulling in strong...

Epstein is a gifted political analyst, a brilliant campaigner, and, most importantly, a true class act. When you pair him with a smart, centrist candidate like Warner with proven cross-over appeal, there's no stopping them. Go for it in '08!

Warner needs to find his voice on foreign policy. His message on Iraq is rather incoherent. I know he wants to be responsible, he won't go anywhere if he promises the same indefinite commitment of U.S. troops to the region. That said, he is a strong candidate and I wish him well. He'll probably be at the top of everyone's short-list for Vice President if he doesn't win the presidential nomination. Picking Bayh as VP guarentees his seat goes Republican, so they probably would not want to do that. And if Warner doesn't end up as President or Vice President, he can go back to Virginia and run for Governor in 2009 (he'd win easily) and run in 2012 or 2016. Nobody else is in quite such a luxurious position. I have no doubt he'll be in national office someday.

Epstein was recently canned by Martin O'Malley. He can't be that great of a pick up.

Mark Warner was a terrific governor for Virginia. He was a good deal maker, a great leader, and a true class act while in office. My state, MD, would be lucky to have him right now. Warner is among my favorites in terms of whom I think would do the best job as President.

That being said, Warner is not going to be able to pull off this primary win. He's put some very savvy people in place, and has run a good campaign thus far. However, he will face several problems going forward, namely, the cash cow behemoth that is Hillary Clinton, the similarly credentialed but more experienced Evan Bayh's candidacy, the popularity and inroads John Edwards has already made in states Warner would need to win, and the problem of having put his name in early while not holding office in the two years before the primaries.

Much as I would love to see Warner pull this off, I don't see him hitting even double digits in the early primaries before pulling out of the race.

I love Mark Warner. He was a great governor for Virginia, a true leader and a class act. Coming from MD, with our current clown, I was jealous watching a seemingly fire engine red state with such a great Dem governor.

That being said, Mark Warner is not going to win the Democratic nomination. No matter who he brings onto the staff, or what bloggers he hires, or what amount of cash he spends. Aside from political wonks, he is not terribly well known outside of this region, and his experience is barren compared to other candidates in the field. Granted, running as an outsider can work. But by the time the election rolls round, he will be a stale name in what will probably be an even more crowded field than 04. Plus, he has to contend with other purple candidates like Evan Bayh and possibly Obama for moderate voters.

That being said, should he win, I think he would make a very good president.

Is Warner doing anything credible to boost his foreign policy credentials, if any?

No matter how many hired guns Mark Warner buys, no matter how much of his own money he puts into the campaign, he still has one big problem - he's Mark Warner.

The larger problem for the Democratic Party is these so-called "true believers" who hop from campaign to campaign, with little enduring loyalty to their former candidates. Those who might spin that this has something to do with the candidate should acknowledge their own limitations as well.

Interesting to see that Warner has not distanced himself from Jerome Armstrong, after the insider trading scandal...do you think this will be an issue in the primary?

It seems like a good pick-up. Yet, I will say this. Looking inside this campaign one sees a strong line-up but no true leader. Because of this, they continue to look like the early Daniel Snyder Redskins and the recent Oriole club. Great statistics but not coming together as a team. Until this PAC and campaign is being run by someone other then the "yes" people around Warner they will look great in the paddock but falter on the back stretch.

Dems must be realistic. In order to win they must have someone who can win some of the red and purple states. Warner has already proved he can do that.Forget ideological litmus tests. The American people are sick of incompetance and must be ready for someone who has demonstrated acumen in both buisness as well as governance. I believe Warner could beat almost any opponent if he can just generate a little gravitas or something of the common touch (which lets face it is the only thing Bush had going for him-- it sure wasn't buisness success or political accomplishment).

Warner would be a very strong candidate in '08. Democrats could do worse than nominating him.

I wish Epstein well in his new position. Jonathan is a class act and complete professional. Warner is fortunate and obviously serious. However, never forget January 19, 2004, baby. Whouley, Epstein, Norris and the gang, we shocked the world!!

I hope one of these advisors realizes that the all of the "In Virginia, we...." lines in his speeches are going to wear thin before too long in New Hampshire and Iowa.

As far as I'm concerned he desrves a lot of credit for his four years as Governor; but, New Hamshire and Iowa people will start to ask' "What you did in Virginia may be nice, but what can you do for us here?"

Could Sosnick be a plant by the Hillary tacticians? We know where Clinton worshippers loyalties lay.

Time to broaden the vision within the speeches.

Seems like the big news is that Epstein is joining Warner and not Kerry. Good choice. Dems don't want yesterday's leftovers, they want a fresh, moderate and intelligent voice. Warner seems to fit the bill. This Iowan will follow his campaign with interest.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com