I find all this talk about Mark Warner's acceptability as an alternative to Hillary rather puzzling. After all, as Ryan Sager says, Hillary's weakness lies in the massive gap open on her left. Yet Mark Warner, whom he touts as her primary challenger is, if anything, on her right. He's been basically pro-war, is moderate and incremental on domestic policy, loves to talk about bipartisanship, and blurbs books by pharmaceutical CEOs. He's quite possibly the only guy in the field who lacks the credentials or ability to consolidate on her left. Yet he's routinely talked up as her likeliest challenger, largely on the strength of a party he threw for some bloggers. It's bizarre. And there's just about no evidence to support it.
A glance at the DailyKos Straw Poll shows blog readers prefer Russ Feingold, Wesley Clark, and John Edwards (not to mention Al Gore). And this is before Warner's been defined as anything less pleasant than an electable southerner who throws cool bashes for the netroots. Looks to me like the guy's got nowhere to go but down -- it's hard to believe he'll attract more support as he comes under more scrutiny.
Hillary is, as the emerging CW holds, weak. But she's weak because this isn't a moment that favors moderates who talk a lot about bipartisanship and the "center." If Mark Warner is a good fit for the Democratic base, then Hillary will win the primary. If she's going to lose, then so will Warner. Warner isn't the anti-Hillary, he's the other Hillary.
