Veepstakes: Take Two

I've gotten a lot of feedback on my last post, both in the comment section and (especially) by email, and I want to address as much of it as I can.

A number of people raised arguments against picking Webb that have merit and deserve a response. First, as several people noted, Webb currently holds a Senate seat in a red state. If he were to become Vice President, it's not at all clear that the Democrats would be able to hold on to that seat. Given how slim the current Democratic majority is in the Senate and how difficult and important some of the legislative battles will be if Obama wins the White House, the possibility of losing Webb's seat is a not insignificant concern.

I think that on balance, however, that alone is not enough of a reason not to pick Webb, particularly if you're convinced (as I am) that he's a better fit on the ticket than anyone else. While Virginia is a red state, over the last few years it's become increasingly friendly territory for Democrats, who currently occupy the Governor's mansion and soon to be both Senate seats. Moreover, at least initially, I believe Webb's seat would be filled by someone selected by Democratic Governor Tim Kaine. And given Virginia's one term limit for Governors, Kaine would himself be in a strong position to contend for that seat when his term expires. In other words, while there's no guarantee that the Democrats would hold on to Webb's seat, I think they'll be in a good position to retain it.

Several other commenters pointed to this post by Kathy G over at Matthew Yglesias' blog. Her argument against selecting Webb focuses on his less than stellar history on women's issues and how that might alienate many Hillary Clinton voters, particularly if John McCain were to select someone like Sarah Palin as his running mate. Specifically, Kathy points to Webb's much-discussed 1979 Washingtonian article "Women Can't Fight" and his defense of the Navy during the Tailhook scandal. She writes:

[I]n practical terms, selecting Webb would be a slap in the face to the Hillary Clinton supporters. I'm not saying that Obama has to pick Hillary as veep (and indeed, I think that would be a bad idea). I'm not even saying that he needs to pick a woman.

But Hillary was the first woman to ever have a serious shot at the presidency, and she came so close. So the Hillary supporters (of whom, to be clear, I am not one) will feel frustrated enough that their candidate didn't win. But for Obama to choose -- out of all the well-qualified candidates out there -- the one person who has a really awful record on gender issues would be like rubbing salt in the wound. It would be seen as a big "screw you" to Hillary's supporters and to feminists in general.

First, on a substantive level, the degree to which Webb has a bad record on "women's issues" is overstated. The problematic parts of his record don't relate to women's issues generally, but rather women's role in the military. And while this is no excuse, clearly Webb was writing from the perspective of a war veteran who had been raised by a military family and spent his life steeped in the then-prevailing military culture. All of these issues were raised during Webb's run for Senate and, as he made clear at the time, his views have evolved significantly since the 70s and 80s. I don't mean to minimize the importance of this issue, but I think Webb would, if chosen to be Vice President, go out of his way to reassure women and declare his support for women's issues.

From a practical standpoint, however, I do think Webb's history on these issues needs to be carefully considered. Kathy's right that, if handled poorly, choosing Webb could end up alienating some Clinton voters. I don't think it has be this way, though. First, I think Clinton (no matter how she feels about the choice) would come strongly to Webb's defense. She will not want to be seen as doing anything that contributes to the failure of the Democratic ticket. And if McCain picks a female running mate in the hope of poaching some of Hillary's disgruntled voters, I think it will backfire. I think it will be perceived by Hillary's supporters (and rightly so) as a cynical attempt by McCain to woo them, and I think Hillary herself will fight like hell to keep her supporters from defecting and allowing a Republican woman to come out of nowhere and break the glass ceiling that she came so close to breaking herself.

Furthermore, I think the coalition of voters that Hillary put together is somewhat misunderstood. To oversimplify greatly, there were essentially two kinds of voters who voted for Hillary in the primaries: 1) those who voter for her because they were enthusiastically pro-Hillary (mostly women and mostly strong rank-in-file Democrats) and 2) those who voted for her because they were wary of Obama and she was the only real alternative (a group that includes much of Appalachia and many who do not consistently vote Democratic in the general election). The people who are the most crushed by Hillary's loss fall largely into category #1, and these folks, I suspect, will eventually get over her loss and vote Democratic, as they always do. At the end of the day, they're not going to vote for the party that wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade and bomb Iran back to the stone age, even if there's a woman on the ticket. These are rank-and-file Democrats who understand the policy differences between the parties.

And as for the folks in category #2, I think Webb would actually do a far better job of getting them on board for the general election. Though this is admittedly conjecture, I have a feeling that many of the people who voted for Clinton in places like Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky would not have voted for her in the general election. Many of these people vote Democratic in the primaries and Republican in the general and they chose her not because they love her, but because they were wary of Obama. To the extent any of these voters can be persuaded to vote for Obama in the fall, I think Webb, being from Appalachia himself, would be a more reassuring presence on the ticket than Clinton.

Several commenters pointed out that Webb doesn't appear to like campaigning and schmoozing and fundraising and doing all the things that Vice Presidential candidates are typically expected to do, and therefore he might not be the best choice. This too is a valid concern, but again I think it is overstated. Based on what I've seen from him lately, I think Webb is very much interested in being on the ticket. He knows what he's getting into. Second, I think Webb's primary role on the ticket would be to give interviews and do speeches about his favorite topics (foreign policy and the economy) both of which he seems to relish. Under the Obama campaign model, there really isn't as much need to do the typical big-donor fundraising stuff and Webb would probably not be asked or expected to do ridiculous amounts of that kind of fundraising. His main role would be to aggressively defend Obama's foreign policy and take on the McCain campaign when they attack Obama. I think he'd enjoy that role.

Overall, while I think Obama needs to carefully weigh both the pros and cons of choosing Webb, I think the pros ultimately far outweigh the cons.