Thursday, June 05, 2008

Veepstakes

Now that Obama has wrapped up the nomination, the question on the minds of most political junkies is who Obama should choose to be his Vice President. I know this because my email inbox is currently filled of emails from readers asking me who I think Obama should pick.

Among the names that have been thrown about so far, there are a few I find intriguing, including Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana, who I think would fit well with Obama's Western state strategy, his message of change, and his desire to change the image of the Democratic party generally.

The truth, however, is that there is one person who stands out in my mind as being far and away the best choice, and that person is Jim Webb. I've thought this for a long time--as evidenced by this post from January of last year--and I've thought he made the most sense regardless of who ended up winning the nomination.

As the general election nears, its central dynamic is becoming increasingly clear. John McCain is not going to win over swing voters with either his policy positions or his personal charisma. Obama has him handily beat on both counts, particularly in a year like this one where the economy is faltering and a deeply unpopular war rages on. Therefore, the McCain campaign is going to have to rely almost exclusively on an experience-based argument and hope that people's prejudices and fears of the unknown make them hesitant to put the country (and particularly the military) in Obama's hands.

You can already see this dynamic at work. McCain is determined to treat Obama as someone utterly lacking the necessary qualifications to even talk about issues of war. That's why he's challenging him to go to Iraq and bringing up the war constantly, despite the fact that poll after poll show that the majority of America's share Obama's views about the war. It's not about policy; it's about experience. McCain wants to make voters wary of putting the U.S. military under the command of this young guy with a funny name who most of them had never heard of until recently.

This is where Webb comes in. He's the one person out there who has the desire, the personal credibility, and the track record of good judgment to aggressively take McCain to task on this front. Like Obama, Webb was an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq from the very beginning. But unlike Obama, he can easily push back against McCain's experience argument and his claim to exclusive first hand insight into what's happening in Iraq. Webb, after all, is a combat veteran whose own son is currently serving in Iraq. He's also a former Republican and Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan Administration.

But it's not just about his resume. Over the last few years, there has been no more effective advocate of the Obama foreign policy than Webb. His response to Bush's state of the union last year was perfectly delivered; strong, forceful, and convincing. And whenever he appears on Sunday talk shows, he puts on a clinic on how Democrats should talk about foreign policy. In this appearance on Meet the Press last July, he utterly dominated a clearly over-matched Lindsay Graham.

That's exactly the weapon (and shield) that Obama needs against McCain. He needs someone who can say the things he can't, someone who can defend his foreign policy views in a more blunt and aggressive way, and someone with the credentials and experience in military affairs that he lacks.

Moreover, Webb compliments Obama well in other areas. Though he's got plenty of relevant experience, he's relatively new to Washington and can easily run on a platform of change. Like Obama, he was an early and outspoken opponent of the Iraq war (one of the very few). And his status as an ex-Republican also compliments Obama's theme of bipartisanship and moving beyond the old kind of politics.

Choosing Webb might also help Obama overcome, to some degree, his so-called "Appalachian problem." Webb, after all, is from Appalachia and his presence on the tickets seems likely to help bridge that gap.

All of this is secondary, though, to my first point, that Webb is the person Obama needs to help push back against the one potentially effective argument McCain has in his arsenal, the argument that Obama is somehow not ready to be Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Webb will be a huge asset in this regard, someone who is very passionate and well-informed about issues like Iraq and Iran and who has the credibility and the willingness to aggressively respond to any attack that the McCain camp throws Obama's way.

For all I know, Webb doesn't want to be Vice President or Obama's vetting committee will discover something about him that gives them pause. Barring either of those contingencies, however, Webb strikes me as being far and away the best choice for Vice President.
Digg!

14 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now that Obama has wrapped up the nomination

Obama has 1766.5 pledged delegates
Hillary has 1639.5 pledged delegates

The super-delegates are separate and distinct from pledged delegates.

The super-delegates do not cast their votes until the convention.

Since it requires 2118 or 2210 delegates to ensure the nomination, Obama has not "wrapped up" the nomination with his 1766.5.

There is much dirt out there on Obama and a lot can happen between now and the convention to cause the super-delegates to vote for a different candidate.

To assume Obama has "wrapped up" the nomination is presumptuous and can backfire.

Aside from that, Webb is a good selection. But the democrats should see if they can get the filibuster-proof 60 senators before they go moving a senator to another position.

12:05 AM  
Blogger along said...

you make a good case. however, you do neglect the downside part of the equation. you also may not have yet read two well-reasoned cases against Webb that doused some of the Webbmania last week.

One is by Kathy G, on Matt Yglesias's blog;

The other is by Ezra.

There is also the much simpler idea that Obama himself is wary of: that choosing Webb or someone like him, while he could be an effective shield in the way you describe, would also open up a renewed and even more vigorous line of attack on Obama's bona fides. Shoring up one's weaknesses does tend to admit and highlight them.

In any case, I would welcome Webb, on balance. I would welcome Edwards too, for obviously different reasons. But I'll post my argument for my true fave in a subsequent comment.

12:43 AM  
Blogger along said...

Here's my VP case.

I believe it's imperative that first and foremost, Obama choose a President. Not a VP candidate--a President. A known, vetted figure who will instantly be recognized as being ready to ascend to the highest office in an instant.

To me, that means the short list is limited to:
Edwards
Webb
Dodd
Clark
Biden
Richardson
Clinton
and of course Gore

My order of preference (assuming Gore is unavailable):
1. Edwards
2. Webb

If Edwards or Webb are ruled out or rule themselves out, then my number 3 choice-which is actually my fave--is:

3. Christopher Dodd.

Upsides: Uber-competent, Irish Catholic, trustworthy, laser-sharp fast-talker, virtually gaffe-free. Great chemistry. Top-shelf attack dog. Fluent in Spanish. Champion of the Constitution. Brings necessary metabolism and urgency; his generally sharp, sometimes fiery mien complements Obama's cool reserve perfectly, but with none of Webb's awkwardness. But sense of humor leavens all that easily, and he and Obama really seem to get along well. Like Clinton, recites policy in his sleep. Like Biden or Clinton, eminently ready on Day One. Will likely solidify MA and NH support. Has two young daughters similar in age to Malia and Sasha.

Downsides: Senator; loss of CT Senate seat; no true electoral cache; no potential for continued leadership post-Obama.

I see Dodd as an anti-Cheney: he can go in with the explicit portfolio of restoring the Constitution, and destroying the structural framework of the unitary executive. Given his institutional knowledge and respect, he can completely realign the lines of power and communication among each branch of government, and with a great AG help rebuild the necessary walls between politics, policy, and prosecution. In essence, he and Obama will reassemble what John Dean rightfully calls our "Broken Government."

Another wrinkle is that he also could be a one-term VP: help the Party win a historic election, fix the government, head into retirement (and continued joyful fatherhood) on the highest note possible. Give the President a chance to choose a new potential leader for the next generation.

re his Senate seat: he is fairly firm that he is resigning in 2010 anyway. So if he's the choice, I say he resigns his seat upon accepting his place on the ticket. This would allow Gov. Rell to appoint a temporary replacement, but just for a few months--the special election would be on the next CT General Election day: Nov. 4. I think Ned Lamont would have no trouble ramping up a new Senate run within 30 days of Dodd's resignation, and his numbers against any CT Republican other than Rell would be very strong. The risk is that Rell resigns and has Fedele, her Lt. Gov., appoint her to the seat. A Lamont-Rell race would be tough, but perhaps with Obama/Dodd coattails, it would be easier this year than in 2010.

1:18 AM  
Anonymous Nora Carrington said...

I want to second Kathy G's reservations about Webb. Another blogger who considered him yeseterday came away from her arguments and concluded that Patty Murray would make a good choice. I'm uncertain; it would help with Clinton supporters to be sure (and I've been surfing the Obama lists the last two days and the boys still do not get why a bunch of women are still very angry -- not at Obama but at the MSM and some of his fans) but I'm not sure she has the gravitas.

4:41 AM  
Anonymous Casual Observer said...

I haven't read any of the pro/cons regarding Webb yet. Webb's stump speech during his Senate run was a good one. In spite of the media's attempt to frame him as a "strong defense" democrat, his speech, and subsequent votes, share much with Edwards' "two america's" theme.

Where Webb is dangerous, imo, is his stance on FISA and civil liberties issues. He has been part of the problem on this front, which is an important one. He is also quite conservative on certain issues that may prove divisive to Democrats in the future, given how the VP slot would elevate Webb's position greatly within the party.

7:49 AM  
Anonymous Jason Williams said...

I both agree and disagree with you AL. You do set forth a compelling case, and yet I largely agree with what "along" said above. Kathy G's post was really really well reasoned and I think pretty much spot on.

I'm still unsure whether picking someone with as much military cred./experience as Webb helps Obama or harms him with the contrast. Should he pick someone newer like himself? It's a tough question.

8:47 AM  
Blogger Terrell said...

Why not harvest the enthusiasm of millions of people across the country for Hillary Clinton.

Despite the vitriol against Clinton that the right wing and some unreasonable Obama supporters spew, she is much loved and respected by many. Those who feel cheated of the first woman President will be assuaged. It will keep McCain from being able to capture part of that vote (He might even choose a woman himself.)

Clinton has been vetted. She has convinced folks of her ability to be President on day one. She is NOT the sort to connive against Obama behind the scenes as some of the Obama extremists will contend. I think there is genuine affection between the two of them despite the extremists in both their camps.

If Gore would consider it, that would be an intriguing idea.

I am an original Edwards supporter, but I'm inclined to think others would be more helpful.

I love Christopher Dodd and Joseph Biden. I don't think either adds any electoral votes. Richardson is a great guy, great experience, poor campaigner.

I do not like the idea of taking another Senator from any state where a Democratic replacement is not a sure thing.

Vice Presidential candidates historically make little difference. When Kennedy selected his arch rival Johnson in 1960, he solidified the party and won a squeaker. Choosing Hillary would reunite a divided party. It would re-ignite the fire in a large group of voters who have been doused by water balloons tossed by some of the winners supporters. I think Hillary or Gore are the candidates that might actually add a few electoral votes to the Democratic column.

All that said, unless Barack Obama decides to leave it up to the convention, we should leave it up to him.

8:55 AM  
Blogger C2H50H said...

Choosing someone not in the Clinton camp would solidify a new coalition, composed of about 80 percent of the Democrats and most of the independent voters -- and result in a new Democratic party.

Choosing Hillary Clinton would foreclose on this chance and signal a return to dependence on the old Democratic coalition. It would signal a reversion to Clinton-era "Republican Lite" governance, likely initiating a repetition of the nineties, politically, but without the firm economic foundation.

Probable result: economic stagnation and political disappointment.

I'm not saying we're not going to be disappointed anyway (expectations are too high to make any other result probable) but why choose an option that practically guarantees disappointment?

11:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


The super-delegates are separate and distinct from pledged delegates.


So what?


The super-delegates do not cast their votes until the convention.


Neither do the pledged delegates.


Since it requires 2118 or 2210 delegates to ensure the nomination, Obama has not "wrapped up" the nomination with his 1766.5.


He has already passed the 2,118 mark. There's no reason not to include superdelegates in this number; they have the same voting power at the convention as pledged delegates -- the only difference is that they became delegates by virtue of their ranking in the Democratic party.

Yes, Obama does have it wrapped up.

1:01 PM  
Blogger Mad Typist said...

I have long thought that Jim Webb would make an outstanding VP for Obama for many of the reasons you've listed. On the other hand, I just can't justify giving up the Senate seat. As others have said, that seat could easily fall back to the Republicans. More importantly, Webb is doing a great job as senator, so in the end, I prefer to keep him where he is, where he can have as many years as he'd like impacting the national debate (versus 8 years at VP at most).

1:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you would have asked me a month ago, my response to Webb as VP would have been, "Hell yeah! Now there’s a dream team!" but I have since had a change of heart.

I totally agree that Webb will be the perfect attack dog to stifle McCain's hackneyed mantra that Dems are soft on defense. But, does he have to be on the ticket to be heard? Let him play the role he does best... brash and unfettered on national TV every Sunday morning for the next five months.

What changed my mind? My worst case scenario… If McCain picks a woman as his running mate, Webb will be a HUGE liability. “Tailhooked” will be the new “Swiftboated”.

McCain picking Sarah Palin as his VP would be pure genius, and probably the only way the GOP could possibly pull out a win. Senator Clinton’s supporters will be holding their collective noses to vote for Obama the way it is. A female VP, Republican or not, could tip the scales. McCain has already made a quick pass at challenging the legitimacy of Obama’s nomination. If he has a woman on his ticket, he will have enough traction to split the Democratic faithful. Webb would be the worst possible running mate under this scenario.

So what is Obama to do? First, he has to wait. He can’t make a move until McCain does. If McCain does not pick a female VP, the strategy changes completely. It will be excruciating to watch, but the first one to blink loses.

If McCain/Palin does happen, Obama cannot pick a woman. Senator Clinton’s supporters (and then some) would be justifiably livid if Obama put any woman on the ticket besides Hillary. It’s a sad reality, but Hillary is not a possibility either. Contrasting her with Palin, the GOP could frame her in the worst possible light.

The best way to counter a McCain/Palin ticket is to put one of Hillary’s more vocal male supporters on the ticket. Unify the party. Get Hillary to legitimize the nomination. Get the discussion back on Iraq and the economy.

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Gov. Mike Easley of NC would be an excellent fit. (Most will remember him for his “pansy” remark during the NC primary.)

Easley is going to be out of job in January because of term limits. He’s strong on education and tough on crime. NASCAR dads have no problem voting for him. He’s almost comically southern – he’ll be perfect for playing the role of polite southern gentleman respectfully disagreeing with Palin during VP debates. Easley’s Lt Gov and heir apparent is a woman (most likely NC’s first female governor.) And best of all, as food for pundits, NC has Appalachians in it too.

1:28 PM  
Anonymous Waspers said...

I too have some reservations about Webb, most nicely summed up in those posts along linked so I won't restate them here. Except to say that he really is much too vital where he's at right now. That said he is still a pretty good choice.

You mentioned Brian Schweitzer. I'm slowly falling in love with the guy as veep. He's not only brilliant on his merits but makes a ton of sense politically. The man oozes appeal to the so-called white working class, fits into Obama's western strategy, and as a young, unknown Washington outsider would strengthen Obama's central argument of change.

1stAnonymous: For God's sake she's dropping out and endorsing Obama less than twelve hours from now. Give it up.

10:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Jim Webb's best attributes are his national security credentials and experience, then he is completely dwarfed by Wesley Clark. He has the war hero record to match McCain plus military leadership experience that makes McCain look like an amateur. He also has some nice contrasts with McCain: Clark was first in his class at West Point, a Rhodes Scholar with advanced degrees from Oxford and the General Staff College while McCain finished at the very bottom of his class at Annapolis; the obvious contrast over Iraq, Clark is a multilateralist, McCain is almost as unilateral is Bush, etc.

I think Clark and Obama are on the same page with foreign policy but Clark brings more intellectual weight, experience, and legitimacy to everything Obama says. He is the perfect firewall against McCain's criticism. The general public will likely take McCain's word on foreign policy issues over Obamas, Clark is the only VP candidate who can counter that. He brings 40 years of experience and first hand knowledge to demonstrate that Obama is right on foreign policy.

He is weaker than Webb on the political side but not as much as one might think. His speeches are long winded and wonkish but Obama brings the excitement to the ticket, Clark brings the gravitas. This is a good balance. He isn't good with soundbites but again, he is bringing foreign policy depth to the ticket, not style. Like Webb, he is a white male Southerner only incredibly likable (Webb is abrasive and women distrust him), he has presidential campaign experience. He has presidential campaign experience, more name recognition than Webb and he has improved as a candidate since 2004, where --let's not forget-- he actually won a primary and had some other respectable finishes. Furthermore, he is a staunch Clintonite going back to the 1990s.

Also, we shouldn't overestimate Webb's ability to deliver Appalachia or even Virginia. His constituency is wealthy northern Virginians, the same people who will already vote for Obama.

Webb is a fine choice and I do think he will end up being the nominee. I personally think that Clark is the better choice and don't think he is getting the consideration he merits. And it's also worth considering that Webb holds a swing seat and ticket splitting Virginians could very well hand his seat over to a republican if they are willing to take what they consider a leap with Obama.

2:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would add that it boggles my mind that Joe Biden gets more mention as the candidate to bring foreign policy creds to the ticket over Clark.

2:29 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home