So Warner's out, now what?

Mark Warner has decided not to run for President in 2008. The common analysis is that Evan Bayh or John Edwards will benefit the most. Here's is what the Nation has to say about Bayh and Edwards benefitting from Warner's absence from the race...

Don't buy either line.

Aside from the fact that Warner was the rare Democrat who in a post-9/11 election had taken a major position away from the Republicans in a southern state, and then governing successfully enough to leave office with high approval ratings, most potential primary voters knew nothing about him. His stands on the issues -- to the extent that he had articulated them -- were never what made Democrats around the country interested in Warner's serious-minded and well-financed bid for the nomination. Rather, it was the popular notion that Democrats are best positioned to win in the presidency if they nominate candidates with track records of winning in states that are below the Mason-Dixon line -- following in the footsteps of former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton in 1992.

The theory's a bad one. Democrats should be looking for presidential prospects the Midwest and West -- regions where the party's support is expanding and has the potential to tip previously Republican states -- rather than the conservative climes of Dixie. But if there is one certainty about the Democratic Party, it is that the partisans are slow to let go even of the most worn-out strategies.

I think Bill Richardson might benefit if he is serious about running and agree with the Nation's article that we need to be looking at someone from the Midwest or West because there is more chance of gaining electoral votes.

As for Warner, he is now on top of all VP lists, though I'd rather see him challenge Republican John Warner for the Senate.