What ticket can beat Warner/Richardson?

[nini2287]

Many could.  Warner really isn't a very good 2008 candidate; at this stage, he's a little known one-term governor of a state that generates little media attention.  He'd be attacked for his inexperience and he's a good, not great, speaker.

Richardson likely is finished by now.  He's scandal-scarred, he would drag the ticket down before he helped it.

I agree that Warner may not be the best candidate but he's definitely one of the top three or four.  Warner is one of the best known governors in the Union and is well-known and respected throughout Virginia.  He's the head of the National Governors Association and Virginia is in the news a lot more than other states, say Indiana or New Mexico (even though Bayh and Richardson might be better candidates).

[nini2287]

Virtually nobody knows who Mark Warner is at this point, but that really isn't the issue.  The issue is, he has ONE TERM of experience, outside of the federal government.  The GOP attacked Edwards, the VICE PRESIDENTIAL candidate, for his one term as senator, inside of the federal government.  If you though the treatment Edwards got was rough, watch what they'd do to Warner.  He'd be shredded by election day.

I see and agree with your point, I misunderstood what you were getting at before.  I still think it's hypocritical of the GOP to criticize Edwards for having 6 years of federal government experience, while Bush had just 6 years of state government experience.

[nini2287]

Virtually nobody knows who Mark Warner is at this point, but that really isn't the issue.  The issue is, he has ONE TERM of experience, outside of the federal government.  The GOP attacked Edwards, the VICE PRESIDENTIAL candidate, for his one term as senator, inside of the federal government.  If you though the treatment Edwards got was rough, watch what they'd do to Warner.  He'd be shredded by election day.

I see and agree with your point, I misunderstood what you were getting at before.  I still think it's hypocritical of the GOP to criticize Edwards for having 6 years of federal government experience, while Bush had just 6 years of state government experience.

Of course it's hypocritical -- they came up with a lame excuse that this is 'post 9-11' and Bush was elected 'pre 9-11'.  But that's not the issue; the issue is, it matters to the American public.  It would matter to the voting public that Warner was inexperienced, and it would probably kill him in an election.

Warner's inexperience will undoubtly hurt him if he chooses to run in 2008, but if wins the nomination, he can choose a running mate who has lots of foreign policy experience like Bush did in 2000 (maybe Biden or even Gore).