Democrats face North and South divide

New York Senator Hillary Clinton (left), a focus group aficionado, faces competition from "results-based" populist former Virginia Governor Mark Warner for the presidency run. Pictures / Reuters

WASHINGTON - Like the gentle shift of the seasons, the campaign for the US presidency never really stops or starts. Even in the moments when a victor is being hailed every frantic fourth November, the plotting and planning has already begun for the next race. Sometimes the plotting can start two full cycles away.

It is still two-and-half years from the next election and already some things are falling into place.

One such fixture is the acceptance that Senator Hillary Clinton will almost certainly run. A second is that it will be terribly tough for any other Democrat to challenge her.

And yet there is a growing sense among some Democrats that to win in 2008 the party must campaign in a very different fashion to how it behaved in 2004. Rather than focus on the small number of "swing states", it must appeal to voters across the nation.

Many believe that to do that the Democrats need a candidate from the South. Among the names increasingly mentioned is that of Mark Warner.

Warner, who recently completed his term as Governor of Virginia, certainly supports such a 50-state approach. "There is a growing consensus from [Chairman] Howard Dean on down, that we need to have a Democratic Party that is going to be competitive in every state," he says.

"Simply having a national campaign that looks at 16 states and then hopes everything breaks for either winning in Ohio or Florida ... that makes no sense to me.

"And if you were elected under that scenario [you] could not govern. Moderate Republicans and independents are looking for a fresh alternative but not [one] that does not present a new face of the Democratic Party."

Warner won the Virginia Governor's race in 2001, left that office with an approval rating of 75 per cent and helped his deputy succeed him in the face of a fierce Republican challenge. These are no mean feats.

And with an eye to the success of fellow southern governors Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton - and the failure of East Coast John Kerry - some believe Warner could be a much less divisive presidential candidate than Clinton, and win states that Democrats have traditionally barely contested.

Again, Warner sees potential for turning around many of those states.

"There is a host of states where the [2004] national campaign ... did not mount a viable challenge.

"That does - not just the Democratic Party - but the country a disservice, because the sensible centre of the United States is wide open for someone to grab at this point.

"There is an incredible opportunity for the Democratic Party to grab [it]. But we are not going to unless we put out competitive ideas in these states."

Warner, 51, married with three daughters, admits he is not a "tick every box" orthodox Democrat . He started his political career in the 1980s working for a Democrat senator, before building his own mobile phone company.

He was a founder of Nextel, which has helped him amass a US$200 million ($334 million) fortune.

Politically, Warner is on the right of his party. He supports abortion rights but signed legislation requiring a minor's parents are notified before such an operation could be carried out.

He has courted the National Rifle Association though he supports gun controls. He also supports the death penalty. He is a typical swing voter.

But what would he offer to the typical swing voter to make them vote for him? What message does Warner offer, what broader vision does he have to ignite and inspire?

Like many businessmen-turned-politicians and like many soldiers-turned-politicians, Warner has, so far, essentially positioned himself as an effective operator, a man of measurable results rather than as someone with an overwhelming policy message.

He has not focused on the economy, as has last election's vice-presidential candidate John Edwards - another likely runner for 2008. Nor has he focused on the social justice issues like Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, who could be a candidate on the left.

Warner can come across as the chief executive of a large company, sincere and friendly but sometimes a little wooden. "Our focus in Virginia [was] on results," he says.

"How do you get a result, how do you make sure you measure results? I spent less time in my tenure on the social hot button issues and more on the core functions of government.

I also believe that what I'm trying to do - and this is a little audacious - is turn the whole political debate away from liberal versus conservative or left versus right to future versus the past.

"The Democrat Party has always been best when it is future focused."

It is impossible to talk about Warner without putting him in the context of Clinton's likely run - a campaign for which she has assiduously prepared politically.

Everything she does, it appears, is done with an eye to the focus groups, an eye to how each and every move will be perceived.

And yet for all her manoeuvering - and perhaps because of it - the Senator from New York remains a divisive figure within the party, as well as across the country.

Some have speculated that Warner could run as the "anti-Hillary candidate". But would this be enough?

Warner chooses his words very carefully when talking about Clinton, though much of what he says - his talk of the need for a break with the past, the talk of a need to be able to speak to all Americans rather than just traditional Democrat supporters - can be decoded as an assessment of her weaknesses as candidate.

Does he think it is vital the party selects a Southerner such as himself rather than a Northeasterner such as the former first lady?

"Umm. I'll let you draw your own conclusion," he says. "But you know, you're not the only person who has mentioned the fact that we had a pretty good run with southern candidates."

- INDEPENDENT