New Republic Resurrects Question of Why Mark Warner Didn’t Run for President

Josh Patashnik at The New Republic unwittingly resurrects the ultimately haunting question of why Mark Warner really didn’t run for president:

Indeed, what’s become clear at the end of this primary season is that neither Democratic candidate’s appeal is as wide as Democrats would prefer.

. . .

One wonders, in retrospect, if there were some candidate who could have bridged this divide and appealed strongly to both groups. Somebody like Mark Warner, perhaps, whom the Obama coalition might have embraced as an entrepreneurial, somewhat postpartisan, reformist fresh face, and whom the Clinton coalition might have embraced as a culturally moderate, economically savvy governor of a border state.

Yes, why did Marky Mark go to all the trouble of traveling around the country, raising his profile, garnering chits, opening a presidential exploratory committee with offices in Iowa and New Hampshire, then suddenly pull the plug so as to be able to “spend more time with the family” and after a few months jump into a time-consuming race for the U.S. Senate?

Barry Obama (has apparently) won the nomination in part because he wasn’t Hillary Clinton. Had Mark Warner stayed in the race, he could very well be where Obama is right now — the last one standing.  Warner had four years of elected executive experience as governor, the possibility of turning a presidential red state blue, appeal as a “moderate,” yet favorable opinions from the liberal nutroots of DailyKos ilk.  Obama does not even have four years of elected experience in the U.S. Senate yet.  Makes you wonder what the real reason why Mark Warner didn’t run for president is…  he’d rather be senator than president?  Yeah, right.

Just wait until the real reason IS revealed (and it will be.) All will become clear then.