Salam concludes that, "The question is no longer whether Barack Obama should select Jim Webb as his nominee. It is whether he can justify not doing so."
quote:
As Barack Obama considers his vice presidential options, he would be very wise to take Jim Webb seriously. By now the idea that Webb could help Obama connect with the Scots-Irish voters of Greater Appalachia is familiar to most of those who follow the presidential horse race. And Webb's military experience, together with his years in Ronald Reagan's Pentagon, give him national security expertise that few leading Democrats can match. Yet there is another reason the Virginia Senator would make an excellent vice presidential nominee. As he's demonstrated this week, Webb can be a masterful legislative tactician.
Though no one will ever mistake Webb for a gladhanding backslapper, he has mobilized an extraordinary coalition of Democrats and Republicans behind a dramatic expansion of veterans' educational benefits. After passing by an overwhelming margin in the House, Webb's Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act won 75 votes in the Senate. Because the measure was attached to the Democrats' Iraq War spending bill, which included a number of other spending proposals favored by Democrats and opposed by the Bush White House, there is good reason to believe that the entire package will be vetoed. But there is also good reason to believe that something like Webb's proposal will eventually be made law, thanks in no small part to the measure's overwhelming popularity among veterans and military families.
Moreoever, the popularity of Webb's "new GI Bill" has put John McCain in an extraordinarily awkward spot. McCain, along with Lindsey Graham, Richard Burr, and other senators known for their hawkish credentials, opposed Webb's proposal on the grounds that it would undermine the military's efforts to retain personnel; in its place, they proposed an educational benefit that became more generous the longer an individual service member served. (When Obama criticized McCain for opposing the Webb proposal, McCain responded angrily, accusing Obama of demagoguing a complex issue.) But whether or not McCain and his allies were right on the merits -- it is by no means obvious that they were not -- there is no denying that the Virginia Senator has successfully maneuvered the presumptive Republican nominee into the profoundly unpopular position of being against a measure designed to honor the service and the sacrifice of veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. Can Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius say the same thing? Or Ohio Governor Ted Strickland? Former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn has been praised for his national security expertise. But did he resign from the Reagan-era Pentagon, as Webb did, after resisting orders to downsize the Navy?
The question is no longer whether Barack Obama should select Jim Webb as his nominee. It is whether he can justify not doing so. Even if Webb murdered someone in an alleyway in a fit of pique or been paid vast sums by the Chinese Politburo for detailed intelligence about American naval vessels, he would still be a far stronger and more appealing vice presidential nominee than Hillary Clinton.
David Brooks' recent comments seem to support the suggestion of Webb as described by Salam.
quote:
“Most discussion focuses on what state or constituency this or that running mate could help carry in the fall. But, as a rule, recent vice presidential nominees haven’t had any effect on key states or constituencies. They haven’t had much effect on elections at all, except occasionally as hapless distractions. A vice president can, however, have a gigantic impact on an administration once in office (see: Cheney, Richard).”
Yeah, Webb looks like the perfect VP pick. Josh Patashnik also makes a good point:
quote:
One of the most important things a party does is cultivate talent for the future, and selecting a vice presidential nominee is absolutely critical in that regard. It's like deciding what to do with the top pick in the NFL Draft. Are you going to wind up with a Peyton Manning, or a Tim Couch? I can give you three reasons why the GOP presidential field was so weak this year: Dick Cheney, Jack Kemp, Dan Quayle.
The only concern about Webb is whether he'd be willing to serve as Obama's loyal deputy. He didn't work well with the Secretary of Defense when he was Secretary of the Navy, which makes some think he wouldn't do well under a new boss, President Obama.
One of the most important things a party does is cultivate talent for the future, and selecting a vice presidential nominee is absolutely critical in that regard. It's like deciding what to do with the top pick in the NFL Draft. Are you going to wind up with a Peyton Manning, or a Tim Couch? I can give you three reasons why the GOP presidential field was so weak this year: Dick Cheney, Jack Kemp, Dan Quayle.
IMO, that's a common sense argument that doesnt play out in the statistics. Nixon is the only person to ever sit for two terms as VP and then another 2 (almost) as Pres, and he had to wait 2 terms between leaving and re-entering the White House.
HW Bush was the only sitting VP to be elected President since Martin Van Buren, and he failed to win a second term. The history of VP's is one of creating candidates for President, but hardly for creating successful ones. From the POV of the candidate, it must be exciting to play king-maker for the party, but the party should seriously consider whether or not they want their king to be chosen 8 years ahead of time by the man of the moment.
Originally posted by shepwrite: I think he's a slam dunk. But I also think Hillary is turning the screws.
Well if she is I bet it's a Sundance kid gag. Remember the guy that accused the Kid of cheating before he knew who he was? Butch made the guys invite them to stay then they said "sorry. Gotta be going." She wants to turn him down. I would.
BTW Webb's alleged assault on black people in the hood when he was in ROTC is cool now?
WSS
Posts: 5270 | Location: Norton Ohio USA | Registered: Mon September 15 2003
On the other hand, the trend-line is Bush 41 winning in '88 and Gore coming pretty damn close in '00.
So the last two non-disastrous presidents have either succeeded or come extremely close to securing a "third term" for their running mate.
That's a pretty thin trend line, in my opinion, and not a particularly exciting one. A one-term president and an election loser?
Meanwhile, the last 2 presidents could be loosely described as "Washington outsiders" and the next one will have beaten long odds to beat the party favorites and win their nomination. The use of the primary process to select candidates speaking to the issues of the current election seems to be working out quite well.
Do you really think Obama wouldve had a chance if Hillary was coming off 8 years as VP? Al Gore didnt drop a single state in the 2000 primaries - talk about inevitable.
Things change so quickly in politics that it's hard to construct a trend-line for anything...
Back on Webb, Kathy G. has an interesting take on why Webb would be a bad VP choice.
She makes a bunch of points, two of which I find compelling.
First, she claims that picking Webb would be a slap in the face to Clinton supporters. Instead of having Hillary as VP, they'd have the man who wrote "Women Can't Fight". That could further weaken Obama's appeal among women voters, especially if McCain picks a female VP (Sarah Palin?).
Second, she points out that Webb's appeal among white males isn't based on good polling data. In his senate race, Webb actually lost white males by a significant margin (62%-38%) and lost white women by a small margin (53%-47%). So it's unclear whether Webb would really help Obama with white voters, especially if his flip-flops on things like affirmative action become a campaign issue.
All this doesn't mean Webb won't be Obama's running mate, but it makes me think that Sebelius, Nunn, and Hagel are just as likely to get that gig.
