Since he's been making the interview rounds over the last two days talking about his speech, nobody should be surprised that Mark Warner's speech focused on bipartisanship. There's been some talk about how that's a little out of place at the Democratic National Convention, but I tend to think it was a really good move. Obviously we want to make it clear why John McCain shouldn't be our next president, but let me briefly explain why I think the talk of bipartisanship was a good idea.
First of all, Mark Warner is running for Senate in Virginia. While Democrats have made a lot of progress here, Virginia is still a purple state and Warner has gained his popularity by being a "radical centrist." Despite being a partisan Democrat, for instance, I have often written about how one of the things I admire the most about Warner is that he has a history of working with members of both parties in order to pass meaningful legislation. It would therefore be out of character for Warner to all of a sudden turn into an attack dog. Sticking to what he's known for can help to prove that Democrats are really in the business of bringing about positive change.
Secondly, for the past eight years Democrats have been complaining about the fact that George W. Bush has been using scare tactics to create such a bitter partisan atmosphere that only his cronies can have a say in the path the Federal Government takes. We've wanted Bush to turn away from this practice and listen to qualified leaders, even if their opinion contradicts his agenda. If we want this from Republicans like Bush, then we should expect this from our own leaders as well. By speaking of reaching across party lines tonight, Warner showed how there are Democrats interested in doing just that.
Finally, Democrats have to reach out to Independents and moderate Republicans if they want to win the White House and increase our majorities in Congress. If we do nothing but attack McCain and Republicans, these voters might just decide to stay home in November out of disgust for both parties or potentially even vote for McCain. If we show that we're interested in actually governing with the best interests of the American public in mind, however, we could easily increase our majority. This is because people are willing to put aside their differences with certain candidates if they believe the candidate will work in the best interest of the voters and not just the extreme of their political party.
Mark Warner spoke about how putting aside partisanship will allow us to restore Americans' faith in the government and our reputation abroad. He used his experience in Virginia as an example of how setting aside improve the economy and standard of living for our communities. If our next president and elected officials follow this standard, we can turn the page on the past 8 years and we'll gain the trust of the American voters. It's for that reason that I truly believe Warner's speech highlighting bipartisanship was exactly what was needed during the keynote address.
Remember Obama put himself on the national map with his keynote speech 4 years ago. Compared to that effort, Mark was unbelievably weak.
Afraid of offending anyone, Warner took care of himself, not the National Party.
Folks will probably forget their disappointment because Hillary was so good.
My impression of the speech matches Ezra Klein's take pretty well.
So while the delegates sitting on the convention floor might not have been absolutely thrilled with the speech, the viewers at home and people who will hear clips of it during newscasts today are going to love what they hear. They're also going to associate that brand of governing for the future with the Democratic Party which will do us a lot of good come November. After all, there are a lot of parents and grandparents who actually vote based upon what's in the best interests of their children and grandchildren. If we're looking out for the future, then we're the party that's looking out for their children and grandchildren.
I liked it. Obama and Warner actually have very similar messages when you think about it--broadening the map, bringing more independents and moderate Republicans into the party, working together, etc--and Warner has a lot of credibility when it comes to actually offering examples of how that message translates into progress on the ground, especially here in battleground Virginia. I love an inspirational speaker, and I love a barnstormer, but sometimes you need someone who's simply going to say, "here's what we're going to do, and here's how we're going to do it, and this is why it's important."
I believe that's why he gave the speech he did. His audience was Virginia voters, not the people in the hall or the Democratic base. He didn't give that speech without having it approved first, and he was keynote for a reason.
He did Barack a huge favor with that speech. That Warner will beat Gilmore is pretty much a done deal. But if Warner can pull in some of the more moderate Republicans/Independents and come out with 65% of the vote (maybe more), well, I think Obama wins VA.
In other words, the speech basically said that if you want a bipartisan and productive administration you're not going to get that from the Republicans. They're still stuck in the past era of bitter partisanship.
Would McCain be as good for VA? Absolutely not! Warner and Obama will work together to develop new technologies in energy and science. Which means new jobs for Virginians.
Mark Warner doesn't talk about solutions-oriented government because he's afraid of being labelled with an ideology; he talks about it because that's what he sincerely believes, and as we've seen here in Virginia, it works. Our state's Democratic Party is built on Mark Warner's good name and Tim Kaine's organization. If you think that makes Mark Warner a political coward, you don't know Mark Warner.
Second off: It's not Mark Warner who thinks that parties don't matter. It's apparently a large bloc of Virginian swing voters. Considering Webb beat Allen pretty soundly in some Congressional districts where the Republican house candidates also won by wide wide margins, I think we have to acknowledge that ticket-splitting is a tradition for Virginian swing voters, and ticket-splitters by definition don't buy the argument that just because one guy has a D next to his name doesn't mean you should vote for everyone with a D next to their name.
Finally: That was a great speech for Obama. Every newspaper this morning in the Commonwealth is carry quotes that tie Obama into Mark Warner's brand of government and tie McCain in to the George Bush brand of government. Every local tv station ran clips of Mark Warner enthusiastically supporting Obama and drawing comparisons between the two men. The message Obama wanted when he asked Mark Warner to speak was "don't vote for Obama because he's a D--vote for him because he gets it and will be a good leader." That argument is a whole lot more persuasive to swing voters than the sort of hyper-partisan argument that's going to thrill a crowd of the most liberal political activists this nation could assemble.
Sometimes I get the (hopefully erroneous) impression that some activists have gotten a little too used to winning here, and that we've forgotten what got us here in the first place: putting solutions ahead of partisanship, being the party of ideas instead of the party of "no." Virginia Democrats like Mark Warner know what it takes to win in a purple state, and I'm glad someone remembered last night that you have to work at least as hard to reach out to the swing voters as you do the hyper-partisan liberals who are going to vote for you anyway.
Just for a minute stop and think before arguing that the linemen MUST be team players and go along with whatever the quaterbacks and running backs say.
As an aside, has anyone counted how many of the networks "political analysts" were paid consultants for failed campaigns? Why do we have to listen to losers?
You want to win Virginia this year? You need people who normally vote Republican. I swear, you wish that everyone was so radically left and combative, you might as well be Republicans.
You want progress? you want a change in this nation, then we have to WORK TOGETHER. That is the whole freaking point people!!!!! since 1992, and the Republicans all out HATING Clinton, we have been living in a world where Bipartisanship is a dirty word, what has happened is that the liberal part of the Democratic party becoming as caustic and as vile as the radical Right. Guess what! You are becoming what you hate.
Remember the days of being shut out of any decision? Remember how it filled you with anger and hardened yourself to anything they did. Remember how it has made you hate any position they take, not because of its worth, but because they endorsed it. Remember the days where you would rub your hands and go, "One day, we will be in control and it will be different."
Well, here is your chance... make it different. And by different I mean, actually WORKING with the other side for the betterment of all people, not just the people you like.
There will be moments, there will be times when partisanship is needed, there will be lines in the sand that cannot be crossed, and I accept and acknowledge that... but to become the liberal version of Neo-Cons is not the answer. Wake up, before you become a Liberal answer to Bushbots.
Mark Warner gave that speech to keep the Democrats grounded, because frankly, they need it.
I don't want Warner to be concerned with converting Gilmore-McCain voters into Warner-McCain voters. He shouldn't have to worry about that at this point. He should be working on converting Warner-McCain voters into Warner-Obama voters, and helping Perriello and Connolly and Nye and Feder. And that requires selling the Democratic brand, not talking about how party labels don't matter.
Hell, if all we wanted to do was nominate someone who wasn't going to be John McCain, I should have run for the nomination. I am not now, nor have I ever been, John McCain. I think you'll find my record on not being John McCain pretty consistent with nary a flip-flop on the issue of being a 72-year-old white male Senator from Arizona.
I absolutely agree that there are reasons to vote for Democrats other than their not being Republicans. It would have been great if Warner could have talked about some of those reasons, and associated them with the name "Democrat".