Nearly five hundred Democrats gathered at Staunton, Virginia’s Frontier Culture Museum, Saturday evening for barbecue and speeches by candidates for office and leaders in the Democratic Party; one of the largest such rallies in Virginia ever, and a first for the Shenandoah Valley.
The enthusiastic crowd had gathered for the fundraiser primarily to hear former Democratic governor Mark Warner speak; Warner is a candidate for the Senate from Virginia, and last week was named keynote speaker for the Democratic National Convention. But the crowd was also there to to support local candidate Sam Rasoul (Sixth District), who is challenging Bob Goodlatte, a Republican congressman who has remained unchallenged for the past ten years. According to the Rockbridge Weekly, Rasoul is the first Democratic challenger to receive district side support since 1992.
Warner, however, had to speak to the crowd by cell phone, after he ended up in a room on the third floor of the University of Virginia Hospital earlier in the day. Warner had been slated to open the Waynesboro, Virginia Democratic headquarters and then head to the rally, until he re-injured an old sports injury. Speaking to Saturday night’s crowd, Warner laughed and said that, at fifty three, he should have learned by now “not to play basketball with nineteen year olds.”
With a bi-partisan agenda and a business background, Mark Warner turned Virginia around economically, gaining one of only two A- ratings by the Pew Charitable trust, which helped Warner declare Virginia "the best managed state in the nation.”
Warner first ran for Senate in 1996, but was defeated. He is widely predicted to win easily over this year's opponent, another former governor, Republican Jim Gilmore.
According to Mitch Stewart, Virginia campaign director for Barack Obama for President, Democrats have signed up two hundred thousand new voters from January 1 to July 31 of this year, sixty-five percent of them thirty five years or younger.
Virginia is clearly a battleground state, and for that reason, forty four offices have been opened around the state, with thousands of volunteers hitting the ground running. The consensus is that if Virginia goes for Obama there is “no way Obama won’t be the next president of the United States.” If Virginia does go Democratic, it will be the first time in forty four years.
Obama plans a visit to the several cities and towns around the state this coming week.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Arch Conservative
"The consensus is that if Virginia goes for Obama there is “no way Obama won’t be the next president of the United States.”
Consensus among whom?
Obama cult members?
What if Obama wins VA but loses MI?
2 - Clavos
According to RCP's latest numbers, McCain is slightly (0.5%) ahead in VA...
3 - Lisa Solod Warren
We shall see. I think it is too soon to tell. Point of the article was that Dems are stronger in Virginia than they ever have been. Interesting that, with several Democratic governors and now the possibility of a governor and two senators who are Dems, it still may not go blue.
4 - Andy Marsh
He won't stop here though...to many military folks in Hampton Roads...and we all know how he feels about military folks...ask the guys and girls in Germany!
Matter of fact...so far...he's only sent his wife to show us how strong he is!
I think you folks need to understand the difference between democrat and dixie democrat...they are two distinctly different animals. I'm a yankee and I'm here to tell you that these democrats ain't like those northern democrats...
5 - Clavos
Andy's right; I know some Cracker Democrats who are a couple of steps to the right of Attila.
6 - Lisa Solod Warren
Who won't stop where? That post makes no sense.
7 - Clavos
Uh, Lisa. He said where: Hampton Roads; and the thread was (and is) about Obama in VA.
8 - Lisa Solod Warren
Sorry, Clavos. But inflection hard to read. I see now that he meant Obama won't stop in Hampton Roads....
How do you know? And the crack about the military?
Do you know that Obama has received six times as much money from overseas troops as McCain? Check it out. It is so very easy to just blanket judge things, isn't it?????
9 - Clavos
Do you know that Obama has received six times as much money from overseas troops as McCain?
Did you know that Ron Paul received more than any other candidate?
For the record, I'm not a Paulbot, nor would I even consider voting for him; just pointing out the relative meaninglessness of comparing who received the most money from the troops.
10 - Lisa Solod Warren
Actually Ron Paul received more than McCain and less than Obama. Just shows that even the troops feel this is an unjust and unwinnable war, no matter what McCain says about us "winning." We have occupied a country, destroyed a country and killed hundreds of thousands and civilians. THAT is winning? Winning what?
11 - Andy Marsh
Lisa - from your source listed in comment #8...A former West Point professor, Jason Dempsey, noted that the small set of contributions from deployed troops at this point in 2008 -- just 323 donations -- should not be extrapolated to form conclusions about military personnel overall. "If, on a bad day, a guy gets that letter that says [his tour has been extended] from 12 to 15 months, that could spur a quick donation and expression of anger," he said. "Donating helps members of the military express their political views privately."
A whopping 323 donations and you make it sound like he's just raking in the dollars from the military...you are right about that blanket judge thing though...maybe you should read the shit you put out before you put it out there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But then again, based on your comment in #6, you don't read anyway!!!!!!!!!!!! Or is comprehension the issue??????
12 - Clavos
Just shows that even the troops feel this is an unjust and unwinnable war, no matter what McCain says about us "winning."
That's a good, loyal partisan viewpoint.
I think my point still stands; comparisons of who got more money from a small special interest group are meaningless; there aren't two candidates further apart in philosophy than Paul and Obama.
Opensecrets.org, in a report dated four days ago, confirms that Obama has received the most contributions from overseas troops, but also notes that the total received by him is $61,000 (rounded up) from a total of 134 contributors; compared to Paul, at $46,000 (rounded up) from 99 individuals, and McCain, at $(11,000 (also sounded up) from 26 troops. In other words, these numbers apply to a grand total of 259 voters, out of the tens of thousands deployed overseas. Hardly conclusive.
The report also notes that, when all active service personnel are counted, 59% of their total contributions have gone to the Republicans.
13 - Jordan Richardson
maybe you should read the shit you put out before you put it out there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe you're right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
14 - Lisa Solod Warren
Andy, your anger is unjustified. And so are your insults. The fact that it was difficult for me to understand your comment (as in he won't stop here meaning stop doing something as opposed to stop for a visit) does not mean I don't read or can't. You're being nasty and ugly and it is hard to even take you seriously. Please read my post on the art of blogging and how name calling and ugliness don't add anything to the discussion.
15 - Lisa Solod Warren
And Clavos: Point taken but there are many many vets, past and present, who are supporting Obama, with or without money. I was responding to Andy's comment (athough I don't know why now) that Obama had something against the military, which he clearly does not. I think Obama wants a strong military, too; he just doesn't want them to go to war on the whim of a president who manufacturers "evidence." We all know that we will need a very strong military to counter just the threats we know of today, particulary in Georgia and Pakistan. I certainly don't wish us to weaken our military. I just want them to be deployed when the Congress votes as a whole and when the need is clearly understood (and the evidence is clear) and when we can get our allies to support us in our efforts. We simply cannot police all the bad guys we don't like alone.
16 - Andy Marsh
Okay Lisa, first you tell me I make no sense...fine..I'll let that fly...
Then you accuse me of "blanket judging" what the military thinks about Obama and put a link up that says that 323 out of how many hundreds of thousands of our troops that are stationed overseas are supporting your candidate and I'm the one blanket judging???
How much time did you do in the military? You base your opinions on who the military supports and what they feel based on what?
I live in a military town, the largest military town in the country, one in Virginia, I have hundreds of friends on active duty, I did twenty years of active duty myself. I work with the military. I think I have a better handle on the pulse of the military than you do...but that's just me.
Besides the fact that you don't even live in VA and you're making "blanket judgements" on a state you don't live in based on an experience in a relatively small town in rural VA.
I never called you a name, I questioned your reading and comprehension abilities. But that's cool too...whine about that, don't answer the issues pointed out to you.
I'm an ugly american...no getting around it...sorry!
Have a nice day!
17 - Clavos
there are many many vets, past and present, who are supporting Obama, with or without money.
I don't dispute that (and I doubt Andy does), especially among those who, being actively engaged in the conflict, are far more likely, out of simple self interest, to vote for and support the candidate most likely to get them the hell out of there; and yet, only a minuscule number have openly shown themselves to be Obama supporters.
Historically, there have always been more Republicans than Democrats among active duty service personnel. So far, I have seen little indication that this election is any different.
18 - Lisa Solod Warren
Andy, I don't know where you got the idea I don't live in Virginia? I have lived here since 1985. And your comments to me were insulting, not whining, just pointing it out. Those huge numbers of explanation points were lovely, too.
If you call yourself an ugly American that is up to you. Why anyone would do that, I can't imagine.
19 - Lisa Solod Warren
I think anyone currently serving overseas in Iraq or Afganistan would take exception to your comment, Clavos, that voting for a candidate who would get them out of this war is mainly in their own self interest. Those men and women signed up and served in a war that has now been shown to have been falsely fought and probably fruitless. My husband is a Vietnam era vet who protested the war before he went in the Navy and after he got out. He thought it was his duty to fight even though he did not support the war, as he thinks it is everyone's duty to support the consitution. But he knew then, and knows full well now that Vietnam was a huge mistake. Iraq is, too. And yet men and women are dying for the "cause." A cause that our government got us into with false intel and persists in trying to convince the public we are winning. I don't buy it.
20 - Clavos
I think anyone currently serving overseas in Iraq or Afganistan would take exception to your comment, Clavos, that voting for a candidate who would get them out of this war is mainly in their own self interest.
That's not what I said, but never mind.
Lisa, I am a combat vet of the Vietnam war.
Until you've actually been in combat, you (and even people with non-combat service time) have no idea what goes on. Voting for the candidate you think might get you the hell out of there is neither dishonorable nor unusual under those circumstances.
21 - Dave Nalle
Just shows that even the troops feel this is an unjust and unwinnable war
I hate to be difficult and go against the dominant group think, but while I'm not as in touch with the troops as Andy seems to be, I know several who are or have recently been deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan or both. For the most part they don't really care about the concept of a 'just' war and they all agree that it is certainly winnable, depending on how you define winning.
From what I can tell the main problem here is that different people have different ideas of what a just war or a winnable war is.
IMO wars are rarely just and justice is a subjective concept anyway. In Iraq and Afghanistan we have wars which were undertaken for reasons which at least make some sense against enemies who were clearly dangerous and harmful, if primarily to their own people and their immediate neighbors. That's about all one can realistically ask for when it comes to a war being justifiable, especially before the war has been fought and all the costs have been counted.
As for winnable, all it means is accomplishing your objectives. Did we unseat Sadam Hussein? Did we remove the Taliban from power? Did we (seemingly) cripple al Qaeda? Have there been no new major terror attacks in the US? Have we managed to divert terrorists to Iraq and kill them there in huge numbers? Those were among our main objectives and they've been achieved. Doesn't that mean the war was winnable and has been won?
As for the pretexts for starting the war, from a historical perspective they're not all that significant. The pretexts used to publicly justify a war are rarely the actual reasons for going to war. Look up the War of Jenkins Ear sometime.
Dave
22 - Andy Marsh
Looking at comment #20, I'd say that I'm not the only one that thinks you may have a reading comprehension problem.
I'll admit to a bit of attention deficit...I only read the first few lines of your blog Lisa...I never got to the end where it says you live in VA, I didn't get much past the part that says you were born in TN...my bad.
Lisa - I didn't start it, some Canadian called me one first...and I liked it. He called me an ugly American because I didn't give a damn who he thought should be my next president...I still don't care who the rest of the world wants for the next pres. and I never will.
It is rather strange though, don't you think Clav, that even though they could vote for the guy that might get them out of their sooner...they're not?
23 - Clavos
It is rather strange though, don't you think Clav, that even though they could vote for the guy that might get them out of their sooner...they're not?
Thank you, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, Andy.
Exactly my point...
24 - Lisa Solod Warren
Oh Andy, be quiet, will you? Clavos has never agreed with anything I have ever said.
My husband, btw, was a combat vet, and saw things he can't even talk about. I may not be a vet; not everyone can be (especially as women were not allowed to fight in Nam) but I don't think you have to be one to be anti-war or pro-war or whatever.
You and I and Clavos completely differ on who will get us out sooner. Remember, McCain voted to get us IN. Remember that. Getting us out would be nice, but I am not convinced he is going to do it any sooner than Obama, not convinced at all.
25 - Lisa Solod Warren
Also, I find it interesting that a news story I generated about an event has now become a he said/she said fight once again. Oh well. Gotta go do other stuff....