Centerfield

He's definitely a strong candidate. If I were a dem, I'd pick him any day over Hillary in the primary.

I like his business and financial background coupled with moderation and pragmatism on social issues.

His successful record in VA working with a GOP legislature shows he can get things done.

I still have not read the cover story on Warner in the NYT Magazine, but I would asume it was a lot like this. I hope when he talks about speaking with Republicans and Democrats that don't want their names out, he is not making it all up. Asking for and recieving input from both sides of the fence would be something new and different. I think Reagan was the last person to work effectively with the opposition, I'd like to see it happen again.

He was able to make progress in VA, but that is because in VA, there were not a bunch of 527s trying to derail him. That is something anyone on a national level needs to deal with. Think Social Security or Supreme Court nominees. Unless one is going to be on TV every week talking up his or her plans, the next President (just like Bush and Clinton) and their programs will be defined by Cable News, Talk Radio and 527 ads.

Everyone knows how I feel about this. Warner is Presidential. This may be our best chance to put a centrist in the White House. I haven't heard Warner's thoughts on a lot of things, but I am bordering on prefering him over Giuliani or McCain. What a contrast between Warner and the current incompetence we see in the White House. And let me say it again... Does anyone else see the power of Warner/Napolitano or Warner/Sebelius ticket? Two moderate Democrats from Red States. Not the most popular Republican could beat that. Not McCain, not Colin Powell, not Giuliani.

I'm a big believer in Warner, I think a Warner/Clark ticket might work myself.

I'm waiting for the official campaign process to start, and the candidates to start issuing their policy documents before I make a decision. I'm first and foremost interested in national security issues, and I don't know where Governor Warner stands on those issues (yet). Once things get going, I'll be able to integrate the Governors into my personal equation. Right now I have Biden leading McCain as my preferred likely candidate from each Party.

The teeth scare me though.

Warner has been, form the start, by favorite candidate. The only problem is that he needs to pick someone with a lot more experience to be his running mate, and I'm not sure I know of many good moderate democrats with a long federal record. I thought Biden might be good, but that's not very much geographical ballance. Maybe Bayh, Lieberman, or one of the Nelsons.

and I'm not sure I know of many good moderate democrats with a long federal record.

To be more specific, I'd like someone with foreign policy experience. Biden fits the bill on that as one of the most articulate on the nature of the threat from totalitarian Islam and what should be done in response though Lieberman would be acceptable. Don't know where Bayh and the Nelsons stand on security issues.

I'm not particularly concerned about geographic diversity, think Clinton-Gore and Bush-Cheney (yeah, yeah Cheney was nominally from Wyoming, but that was only so that Texas' electors would be able to vote for both Bush and Cheney).

Another perspective on the choice between Hillary and Warner is that in January 2009, we will hit 16 years of permanent campaigning out of the White House. I think most of us can agree that bringing that to an end would be a good thing.