Rep senator John Warner was married to Elizabeth Taylor in his first run.  Affleck sounded much better than the professional politicians for the Dems during the 2004 convention.

but did anyone catch that mike brown is saying he did a good job.

propaganda is so thick now you can cut it with a knife.

Cut us some slack here in Virginia.  We dont have a bench and if Benny moves to Virginia, he would almost move to the head of the bench.  

Plus, he could self-fund (even though his latest movies have basically flopped).  

I tend to disagree on the media circus.  It would only be a circus if he actually gained any traction in the polls, which he wouldnt.

Getting famous people to indorse your product is one of the top rules in Advertising 101.

We are lacking a brand image and brand message.

Ben Affleck would make a  great spokesperson.  My first impression of him are a young,
intelligent,  multicultural, hard-working and charismatic guy.   (And I don't even like his
work)

We live in a time of Entertainment weekly, Entertainment nightly, Regis and Kathy Lee.
People identify with celebrities.  

It is time that we have some Hollywood celebrities that are Democrats and not just
liberals.

(Besides everybody I know loves his commercials with that quacking Duck!  oh....wait a minute...)

For similar reasons, I don't want to see Warren Beatty running for Governor in California.

talk of John Grisham running.

Already parroting Republican talking points? (Gigli). Come on, now.

Afflect is the star of Good Will Hunting, Dogma, and Chasing Amy.

People don't always vote on issues. As Ah-nold demonstrated, they vote for celebrity. And beauty.

Afflect would make a great candidate. And Garner would make a tremendous surrogate.

Republicans are smart enough to realize celebrity -- Ah-nold, Reagan, J.C. Watts -- is valuable in politics.

Democrats? We don't do enough to embrace -- as candidates -- our famous friends.

Affleck would have a lot less baggage to overcome than Schwarzi (can't spell "Schwarzenager") did when he ran for the CA governorship. Schwarzi had to battle charges of sexual harrassment and I think also latent Nazi-ism; Affleck, in contrast, got a lot less carried away by his fame. He slept with J-Lo and drank some? Wouldn't you, if you looked like that?) If he were to run, I'll bet he'd gain traction by making a joke out of his films flops and his celebrity in general, and contrasting that with seriousness of purpose now that he's hoping to do the people's work. It's not impossible; more ethically questionnable men (40, 43) have done more with less than Affleck's got in his head.

Just don't let Casey get anywhere near the podium!

I have a hard time believing mildly conservative Virginia would be too open to replacing a popular senator with a carpetbagger. Affleck is Massachusettes raised and has been living in California for the past few years. Not to mention a stint in rehab. He's a smart guy from all accounts but if he wants to run for office in Virginia he might want to live there first.

this bad.  There must be somebody who can step up and at least make this race somewhat competitive.  At the very least, give that candidate some name recognititon for a future office run.  

...but not so well for Dems.  And I don't think that it's an accident.

Celebrity status for Republicans has been helpful in projecting aspects of the Republican mesage that appeals to voters.  Football players (Watts, Largent, Osborne, etc.)?  Images of discipline, toughness, and strength are emphasized.  Further, sports tend to be ruthlessly meritocratic.  These perceptions reinforce Republican messages of self reliance and a strong national defense.  What would sports celebrity emphasize about key Democratic principles?  Nothing so resounding.

As for Arnold, it's not just that he was a superfamous movie star - it's the kind of image his movie roles famously projected.  Arnold is stamped - almost universally - in the public mind as the Terminator.  He ran for office at a time of seemingly intractable crises in California, as politicians dithered while the budget ran out of control and energy costs skyrocketed.  While we don't always feel the need to be macho, a strong plurality of Californians felt the time for patience and political wrangling was over - it was time for the Terminator to take control from those who couldn't harness power to solve big problems.  

In contrast, what does Warren Beatty or Ben Affleck offer besides fame?  Indeed, if anything, Democratic movie stars project things about the party that most people don't like.  Ben and Warren are notorious womanizers, and that tends to contrast poorly with perceptions that Republicans are the party of moral rectitude, while Dems are the party that tolerates moral decay. While Arnold's personal behavior may have been even more scandalous, his brand was too strong for that aspect of his life to be a deterrent.  

So, it's not just a matter of being famous. The image the star projects - and specifically how well that image reinforces favorable party images - is of paramount importance.  

Is that this was leaked with the hope of scaring Mark Warner into running for Senate.

Why, oh why, isn't he doing this?

There are only two states where actors are taken seriously enough at a statewide level, California and New York. That's due to large entertainment industries in those states. Everywhere else, an actor running for statewide office in his first campaign will come across as a sort of trust-fund baby with a sense of entitlement.

If Affleck wants to run for office, he should consider representing his district in the House. The biggest disadvantage of being a famous actor (media scrutiny) will be lessened by taking the race down the ballot and reducing the "sense of entitlement" gut feeling people will have. And the advantages, name recognition and money, will help more. Of course, he really should actually live in the district for a little while first, not just move there and run.

What baffles me about this Post article is describing Affleck as a candidate as a well-known topic to have been floated in the past two weeks.

Bullshit.  I've talked to a lot of Democrats on all levels about finding a candidate, particularly in the past two weeks, and nobody has said a word about Affleck.  Carpetbaggers don't do well in Virginia, and there's no reason why he'd be any exception.

I think the Post's sources are having a little fun at the paper's expense.  I don't doubt that somebody, somewhere suggested Affleck, but there's no buzz at all.

I will give money to his opponent, even his repug opponent.  Just to teach these Hollywood-types to shut the fuck up and quit thinking they are entitled to run for office.

It would be better for our party in the long run to have even a repug in office than having that fool Affleck be front-and-center for us.

He is articulate and intelligent. He can at least partly self-finance, and has instant name recognition.

He is also young, and who knows what the future holds for him?

I would hesitate to support a Streisand, or Beatty candidacy. But Affleck, he has potential.

Hannity: Why should we consider you a success when so many of your latest movies have flopped?
Afflec: Movies like Gigli have had more success than George Bush's failed policy in Iraq.

I would rather see him then any of the returning murderers from the Iraq slaughter.
Being a survivor of an illegal war after following illegal orders to invade a foriegn country and proceed to murder the citizens there is no recommendation to me.
Those individuals have already shown a lack of any morality or principles.

I think it would be the final nail in the Democratic party to adopt murders as our standard bearers.

I agree with the people here who says that Affleck is intelligent and articulate. The man was half of the Oscar-winning writing team of Good Will Hunting, a very intelligent and thoughtful film.

I watched his interviews during the '04 Dem convention, and found him very insightful. Yes, he might have some skeletons of being a "bad boy" in his 20's, but look at him now. He is married with a kid on the way. Sure, his wife got pregnant before they married, but he did what even the most conservatives would agree was the "right thing" and put a ring on her finger.

I wouldn't go so far as calling Affleck the next Dean or even Obama, but I think he would surprise most of us. Additionally, I do not think there would be too much concern in terms of fundraising, as he could probably use a lot of his own money and his celeb status would likely draw in money for the party as a whole.

Why have the "Hollywood liberals" stay quiet?  Are they not people too?  Do they not have the same rights as us?  Do they not care about the political situations?

I'll go ahead and endorse Ben if he runs.

He's a human and a Democrat, and that's where it counts.

Is all we have to go on is an article in the Washington Post?
Next thing you know someone will say we need to go to war because the WPost says so.

that when a conservative movie star or popular figure talks about running for office, the righties almost universally cheer them on, yet every time it is brought up on our side, it's nothing but hemming and hawing.

Look, this isn't the CA gubernatorial race, we don't already have a good Dem candidate lined up.

I would definitely support an Affleck candidacy.

He has the beliefs, he has the message, and if it gets more airtime for the Democratic version of the contract on America, hey... even better!

-C.

He lost but everywhere else Reps. made gains. And that was a Beer producer that sounds worse to me.

Then Ben is in the same league as Arnold and Reagan... the only difference is that he is intelligent.

...and bullshit gossip to boot.

There Virginia did elect George Allen, whose only claim to fame was his father's name.

And we do have Fred Thompson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Fred "Gopher-Love-Boat Grandy" and Sony Bozo to consider.

I don't think that Ben has a snowball's chance of winning VA, which is a rather reddish sort of purple at best.  But that could actually help Ben--a young Hollywood carpetbagger who would start the campaign as a punchline--if he responded to his foregone loser status by cutting loose and doing his best to tear Allen a new one.  

Sure he won't win, but by defying low expectations and being the surprisingly articulate young man we know him to be, he could do alot to endear himself to the Party, gain valuable campaign experience, and maybe punch a few holes in Allen before his likely 2008 run.

Allen would no doubt like this race to be a landslide/coronation so he looks like a winner when the presidential race heats up.  Ben won't have any trouble getting attention, unlike other Dem possibilities--and I remember thinking in 2004 that he was a better politician than he is an actor.  It would be so sweet if he could rain on George Allen's victory parade.  All he would have to do is do better than he's supposed to.  And the Ben Affleck I saw is better than you expect him to be.
   

Excuse me- but I find your snobbery not a good thing. If he ran, and ran a credible canmpaign that got people to vote for him- considering where the Democrats are right now, then that's a good thing.- I would argue we don't have people to spare. If Fred Thompson and a lot of other Republicans can run credibly and retain careers in film and tv- why not a democrat? The only reason I can see being so quick to dismiss him is a certain about a snobbiness. I've argued else where one of the party with the left is that we feel the need to prove how much more smarter than anyone else in the room is. You know what- there is nothing wrong with sometimes having things easier.

before he starts running for anything.  I'm just sayin.

I wrote about why I actually think it would be a great idea.

Star power in a state whose current two senators gained their seats through buzz courtisy of kin (i.e. movie icon Liz Taylor for Warner and Hall of Fame coach George Allen for Allen).

And as a local Democratic operative in the Tim Kaine campaign said to me, "He'd certainly help get people  to watch the debates!"

I see that they are house shopping in Charlottesville, but I don't really understand why (if they are moving there for political reasons) they would not move to WV.  She is from WV, and her parents still live here in Charleston (I assume).  
WV is very much a Democratic state, regardless of Bush winning here the last 2 times.  Just don't talk down God and guns, and the Democrat will win here more often than not.
As a state, we have a serious inferiority complex. If he were to run here, West Virginian's would eat it up.  I think he would win hands down!
I realize winning in WV would not be nearly as impressive as winning in VA, but I don't think it would be as difficult either.  If he is planning to use it as a stepping stone, I think a victory in WV would be better than a loss in VA.  
Any thoughts?