Warner's High Hopes Meet Low Rating in N.H.

Washington Post ^ | February 12, 2006 | Michael D. Shear

[ncountylee]

Warner would be a tough opponent.

[proxy_user]

True. But it looks like the Dems are unlikely to nominate him. He won't draw big early money from the MoveOn crowd.

[ClaireSolt]

Oh, guess what, another multimillionaire who wants us to believe that he's just one of us and is for the little guy. They may get rich by raising taxes but let's drop the little guy routine.

[adorno]

At just 3 percent in a recent poll asking Democrats nationwide to rate their presidential preference, Warner has become an unknown overnight.

Too early to tell. Bill Clinton was even less known when he went for the democratic nomination in 1992.

[OldFriend]

when it comes to Warner, there is no 'there' there.

[Jim Noble]

I think Warner has a chance to do well here.

[mozarky2]

I really doubt that-he's a bigger phony than John Edwards. It won't take long for the voters to realize, it's so obvious.....

[Eagles Talon IV]

Dems are real fools. They see themselves hyped by the lamestream media, promoted as being the next coming and all but a lock for the nomination for this or that and they actually believe what they see and hear.

I don't know who's dumber, the libs who buy into the hype or the media who still thinks they call all the shots.

[raccoonradio]

Ah, Manchester..."Manch-Vegas", as the locals call it. Where Ed Muskie cried, or was that snow melting on his cheeks? (Are you crying? There's no crying. There's no crying in politics!)

In nearby Nashua, Ronaldus Maximus: "I am PAYING for this microphone, Mr. Breen!"

Manchester, where they tried to name the new minor leage baseball team the New Hampshire Primaries (see logo) but there was such an outcry it was scrapped and they became the Fisher Cats (a type of weasel I think)

[RedMonqey]

Warner would be a tough opponent.


I'll say this much for him. I'll come closer to voting for him than I would for any of the rest of the Dhimmis.

[drhogan]

at the end of the article, someone asks Warner about foreign policy--he doesn't seem to have one.
even a democrat in the article says about his speech "it was a little light on foreign policy".

[drhogan]

john edwards came to my mind as i read this article.
maybe we should call Warner "Edwards lite".

[Corin Stormhands]

[drhogan]

i just went on 2 warner websites (forward together, which is his pac; and draft mark warner). he has nothing to say about foreign policy. he may be somewhat out of his league in running for president.

the real issue is--who will be the repub candidate?
i don't think any of the potential dem candidates are too formidable; the election will depend on whether the repubs nominate a winner or not.

[mozarky2]

Great idea! I think it would catch on!
"If you liked John Edwards, you'll love Mark Warner"!
That even fits on a bumper sticker!
LOL!

[OldPossum]

Is it just me or is that man uglier than home-made sin?

A person running for president doesn't have to be Hollywood handsome but he has to be at least "presentable" and Warner doesn't meet that minimal standard.

[Coop]

Warner would be a tough opponent.

Why? Because the Democrats say so?

[ncountylee]

Warner would be a tough opponent.

Why? Because the Democrats say so?

No, because he could complicate the current Southern strategy.

[Coop]

Maybe. But Evan Bayh or Russ Feingold [gag!] could complicate the Midwest strategy.