It shouldn’t be surprising, but the best hitters in baseball have extraordinary vision. Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi have both been implicated in performance enhancing drug-use. I don’t doubt that they cheated. But, they share something else in common, and it is something I have in common with them, as well. We all have really incredible eyesight. My eyesight is off the charts, and that is why I never hit below .500 in any level of baseball I played.

I loved playing baseball. I loved it better than anything I have ever done in my life. I loved pitching even more than I loved hitting. I often wonder what is was about pitching that I loved so much. After all, I was a great hitter…one of the best, but my pitching was merely above average. I think I loved the responsibility. Taking the rock out to the hill, you have the duty to do your job and do it well. The position players are at your mercy. If you get roped, they will be chasing down the ball. In any case, I miss it, and I probably need rotator cuff surgery if I ever want to hurl a baseball again.

It’s actually hitting that has me thinking baseball tonight. I wasn’t a big child. I took a while to grow to my full height. I wanted to be like Don Mattingly, but I wasn’t strong enough to consistently hit home runs. So, I emulated his nemesis, Wade Boggs, instead. I hit over .500 because I knew better than to try to hit the ball over the outfielder’s heads. Instead, I would just direct the ball over the heads of the infielders. I got a lot of doubles and triples and I always led the world in stolen bases. That’s why I always batted lead-off. And I still carry that philosophy today, but I carry it into the sphere of electoral politics. I might want to hit a game-winning grand-slam, but I know it works better to take what your opponent is giving you.

If they serve you up a meatball, by all means, hit it out of the park. But, most times, you’re lucky to be able to hit a line drive into the gap.

I desperately want the Democrats to win the midterm elections and take control of Congress. I also want a Democrat to win the Presidency in 2008. If I had to choose a candidate today, I’d select Senator Russ Feingold. I’d select him because he has been alone, in the Senate, in sticking up for our inalienable rights. I also consider him to be the most progressive Senator in Congress. But, Feingold would be a grand slam. I may want him to win, but I would certainly settle for something less. Not without a fight, mind you, but I am not unrealistic.

And this brings me to the phenomenon of Mark Warner. I’ve met Mark Warner. I’ve sat down with him and discussed politics and world affairs. I think he is a good guy and an attractive candidate. I think he would make a decent President. In baseball terminology, he might be a double.

I think we can do better than Mark Warner. But we can also do worse.

Recalling a recent fundraiser for his political action committee, Warner said, “Somebody looked around and said 25 percent of the people in the room are Republicans.”

“That goes to the appeal we are trying to make,” he said. “This country can’t afford further polarization.”

Planting his flag near the middle of the political spectrum puts the former red-state governor in league with other prospective presidential candidates making inroads with activists in Iowa this summer.

Among other moderate Democrats weighing a 2008 bid are Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, who was in Iowa last week, and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who has stepped up his political outreach in his home state.

But it sets him apart from former Democratic Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who last week in Iowa accused moderates of forsaking the party base.

Warner said some Democrats may have to accept a candidate with views that differ from theirs on some issues.

“My feeling is if you are a hard-core ideologue at either end of the spectrum, basically you’ve got all of your answers because you’ve got a predetermined position on every issue,” he said.

I don’t consider myself a hard-core ideologue, but I am fairly certain that I will be defined that way by Warner’s supporters. That would be a shame because I do not oppose Warner because we differ over any particular issue. I oppose him because I do not believe we should settle for his brand of bland centrism without a fight. I think Warner’s brand of politics is a reaction to “political reality” as defined by recent history. He has a solution to Democratic losses in recent elections. It is a solution that sees the Democratic Party as out of touch with too much of the country, and as vulnerable to losing the majority of the Electoral College over the “culture wars”. I know that we have an electoral college ‘problem’ but I believe we can solve it without abandoning or short-selling progressive values.

So, I do not hate or even dislike Mark Warner. I understand where he coming from. But I will not be supporting his efforts to be our nominee. I think we should shoot for a home run and settle for a double if we must. The only candidate I consider completely unacceptable is Hillary Clinton. I’d love to have a woman as our nominee. But that is not enough of a reason to support her. She represents the opposite of the netroots. If we have to rely on her to advance our issues then we have been totally ineffective. We might as well not exist if we wind up with Hillary as our nominee.