Mark Warner has annouced he's in the Senate race with this disgusting Lieberman-esque video. Running for Governor is a different game than running for Senate; as Governor, social issues are much less important, foreign policy ideas are irrelevant, and the national infrastructure of the parties don't matter. It's really just about local competence, which is why Mitt Romney and George Pataki were easily reelected Republicans but could never move to the Senate in their states.
Warner's a centrist, not a partisan, and my guess is that this will turn a lot of people off who had previously 'loved' Mark Warner. If the Republicans can find a candidate, I think he's going to have a bumpier ride than expected. He'll still win, in all likelihood, but he's going to be a bad Senator.
But those were delicious chocolate fountains.
UPDATE: I'm getting the question of why I think he'll be a bad Senator. One, he made his initial forture by entering a spectrum auction almost no one knew about it except big telecom companies and Congressional staffers. At the time he was a Congressional staffer [UPDATE: Warner had been a staffer, but wasn't at the time he started his telecom business]. This is a classic case of 'honest graft'. I don't like politicians who make their money by legally stealing public assets, because they tend to think that public policy that reduces incentives for stealing public assets is not particularly wise. And two, his foreign policy ideas on Iran and Venezuela are crazy.
UPDATE AGAIN: Lowell Feld is extremely angry, and it was not my intent to provoke bitterness. The chocolate foundation dig was a bad joke, and I apologized to Jerome for it. My primary concern on Warner is that 'centrism' might be a cover to perpetuate an economic system that privileges the corporate interests that are already too strong in the Democratic Party. That said, Warner is extremely good on net neutrality, and he has fought big telecom companies so he does know the score in business. I could be wrong, I'm going to be interested to see how he handles populism.
I stand by my skepticism, as I'll note that he did not mention the word Iraq, alluding once to a 'mismanaged war', but did talk about disliking partisanship several times. Nevertheless, the tone of my post was probably off, and I'm keeping an open mind. He is relatively new to dealing with foreign affairs. My apologies, Lowell, I didn't mean to offend, only to offer the other side of the coin. Both of us agree that he's probably going to win, and Virginia candidates I know are excited because of the coattails he brings.