Warner comes up short

I passed on the Dem Founders Day event (spending the night with a room full of Democrats listening to speeches ceased to be fun for me years ago), but Jay Bullock did a pretty comprehensive review for those who want to know what was said and by whom.

Based on that, and on Craig Gilbert's Journal Sentinel story, Mark Warner has a long way to go to get my support for President. Gilbert reports:

Asked in the interview about Feingold's proposal to censure Bush, Warner said he did not support it.

"I understand the frustration Senator Feingold is expressing. I think he speaks for an awful lot of Democrats. But I think the best thing we can do to curtail the president is elect a Democratic Congress," Warner said.

Asked if he thought Bush did anything wrong when after Sept. 11, 2001, he authorized wiretaps of Americans without warrants, Warner, a non-practicing attorney, noted the legal disagreements over the issue.

But he said, "In my gut, it sure does seem wrong."

Questions on Iraq

On the war in Iraq, Warner was asked how he would have voted if presented with the sort of referendum that appeared on more than 30 Wisconsin municipal ballots last week calling for bringing U.S. troops home.

Warner does not support a withdrawal timetable and said he would have voted no if the proposal were to "bring the troops home tomorrow before the government is formed," and that there's "no plan on what happens next in Iraq." On the subject of the 2008 campaign, Warner was asked how he planned to compete with New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

"Now back to Iraq," he said, jokingly changing the subject.

Against censure. No Iraq withdrawal timetable. (And the proposal was not to "bring the troops home tomorrow," as he well knows.)

No wonder he ducked the comparison with Hillary. He is Hillary, only from a red state.

We've got to do better than that.

Russ Feingold looks better every day.