![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From the NY Post:
June 7, 2006 -- Mark Warner, the former Virginia governor whom some Democrats are looking to boost as the Hillary Rodham Clinton alternative for president in 2008, last night suggested New York's senator would have trouble winning nationally.
"I have tremendous respect for Sen. Clinton," Warner told NY1's "Inside City Hall" during a string of appearances he made around New York yesterday.
"I think she's a great senator and should she choose to run for national office, she'll be a formidable candidate," he added.
"But I find all across the country there is a real sense that what we as Democrats have to do is not simply be competitive in 16 or 17 states, but actually have candidates that can win all across the country."
He added later that "simply having anger at Bush or his administration isn't going to get us there."
I wasn't terribly crazy about his tenure as governor of the Commonwealth -- he didn't seem to accomplish any large strides, and really didn't generate a great deal of lasting controversy. In some ways, this is good. In others -- in a time when a shake-up is needed -- not so good.
On the other hand, he's the only person I've heard thus far that has said, flat out, that "simply having anger at Bush or his administration isn't" going to win the Democrats an election. Or a majority for that matter.
It would definitely be nice to have some genuine choices at the polls. Just isn't going to happen this year.
June 7, 2006 -- Mark Warner, the former Virginia governor whom some Democrats are looking to boost as the Hillary Rodham Clinton alternative for president in 2008, last night suggested New York's senator would have trouble winning nationally.
"I have tremendous respect for Sen. Clinton," Warner told NY1's "Inside City Hall" during a string of appearances he made around New York yesterday.
"I think she's a great senator and should she choose to run for national office, she'll be a formidable candidate," he added.
"But I find all across the country there is a real sense that what we as Democrats have to do is not simply be competitive in 16 or 17 states, but actually have candidates that can win all across the country."
He added later that "simply having anger at Bush or his administration isn't going to get us there."
I wasn't terribly crazy about his tenure as governor of the Commonwealth -- he didn't seem to accomplish any large strides, and really didn't generate a great deal of lasting controversy. In some ways, this is good. In others -- in a time when a shake-up is needed -- not so good.
On the other hand, he's the only person I've heard thus far that has said, flat out, that "simply having anger at Bush or his administration isn't" going to win the Democrats an election. Or a majority for that matter.
It would definitely be nice to have some genuine choices at the polls. Just isn't going to happen this year.