Today's Washington Post has an article speculating on Jim Webb as a potential running mate in 2008. It's intriguing, but as the article points out, Webb "has made no effort to advance that cause with the leading Democratic contender in recent weeks." That would be Hillary Clinton, and I hadn't realized that Webb "was one of five Democrats to help Republicans block a $1 million earmark for a Woodstock museum in Upstate New York, putting him at odds with" her. I'm sure that didn't make Hillary very happy. In addition, as the article notes, Webb and Clinton are not on the same page with regard to Iran policy. Finally, with regard to his interest in being the Democratic running mate in 2008, Webb says he is not "in any way actively interested in doing that."So what prompted the Washington Post to speculate? Several factors. First, I agree with the Post that Webb's selection as keynote speaker at the New Hampshire Democratic Party's JJ Dinner last week was intriguing. I'm not sure I'd read as much into it as the Post does, however. I mean, maybe the NH Dem. Party was simply looking to sell tickets to its event and didn't want to invite any particular Presidential candidate? Or maybe the feisty Webb is simply a good fit for the "Live Free or Die" state? Ha.
Second, I totally agree with the Post that "Webb's role in the debate over Iraq and Iran has helped raise his profile far beyond that of the typical Senate newcomer." If Hillary Clinton -- or whoever the Democratic nominee ends up being -- is looking for a running mate with a strong, credible voice on foreign policy, Webb certainly has to be in the mix. Personally, I think that's a strong argument to have Webb on the Democratic ticket next year, especially if the nominee is relatively inexperienced in foreign policy (sort of what Bush theoretically did by picking Cheney in 2000).
Third, there's Webb's "upset of Sen. George Allen (R) last year" and, I'd add, the possibility that Virginia's 13 electoral votes could be seriously contested in 2008. That's another strong argument for the Democrats to have Webb on their ticket next year. We'll just have to wait and see.
By the way, if Jim Webb IS the Democratic nominee and if the Democrats win the White House in 2008, that will give Tim Kaine the opportunity to select Webb's replacement in the U.S. Senate. Presumably, Kaine would pick a Democrat, but which one? Could he even pick himself, especially given the fact that his (non-renewable) term as governor runs out in 2009? And who would be Virginia's senior senator, Mark Warner or Vice President Webb's replacement?
It's fun to speculate, but for now, back to the General Assembly elections in just 9 days. The outcome of those races could well determine whether Democrats move to seriously contest Virginia next year or not, and also whether Jim Webb ultimately is asked to be on the ticket. Just something else to consider when you go vote on November 6.
Webb's military background and that tough-guy jaw of his are tremendous assets.
Finally, a note on the Woodstock museum. I hate most of these local pork projects, but actually thought federal support for this one was merited. Look, Republicans have been supporting local tourist attractions for years. Anyone remember Steamtown? It is a steam engine museum located in Scranton, PA, thanks to the work of former GOP powerhouse congressman Joe McDade. http://roadtrips.hom... McDade eventually got $70 million for the museum. http://findarticles....
Earmarks are absolutely wrong and wasteful and a way for politicians to pay off powerful constituents.
If he won he wouldn't take office until Jan. '09. The Republicans would inherit the Governor's Mansion for a few months, but we'd still have a great chance of winning it back in Nov. '09.
Jim Webb is not a politician - he's raw and unpolished. Those qualities made me support him for Senator but I think would be a liability on the presidential campaign trail, especially as a running mate for someone who has gone out of her way not to take a position or go out on a limb for anything (voting to condemn Iran doesn't help much, refusal to admit her vote for the authorization of military force in Iraq was a mistake, etc.)
Disclaimer: I will vote for Hillary Clinton, but I view her as pretty blah. If Bill could run again I'd be giddy. Al Gore is my first choice but of the declared candidates, I like Edwards best, mostly because I see him as speaking out more on liberal issues. However I don't actively dislike Hillary either.
I think a Jim Webb would be a better fit for someone like John Edwards (who would never choose him due to redundant geography) or Barack Obama, who could use someone stirring up fire.
-Fred
Evan Bayh is the quintessential Midwesterner. Bayh will help in Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, possibly Missouri, Kentucky, and West Virginia.
Recently Roger Simon from the Politico made a very good argument that they looked and talked like runningmates during Bayh's endorsement press conference.
Bill Clinton has been in love with him since back in the 90's when Bayh was still Governor.
I have to admit I like the way Bayh has been voting in the last few years. Notice you don't see him lumped with names like Landrieu, Nelson, or Lieberman the way you used to. Plus he's voted against every controversial nominee that Bush has ever offered up. Ashcroft, Rice, Norton, Alito, Roberts.
After Bayh though, I think Clark makes sense. He's obviously interested since he endorsed her. And I just think a General teamed up with a woman at the top of the ticket makes sense. Bayh's got no more experience in the foreign policy arena than Hillary does (although maybe that's her strategy? Maybe she doesn't want to look like a lightweight next to a 4-star General? hmmmm).
You mean, like Arkansas and Tennessee?
Conventional wisdom used to argue for balance on a ticket - age, region, governor/senator, etc. But there's a strong value in actually doubling up to emphasize the brand.
In 1992, that's exactly what they did with Clinton/Gore. Two southerners, two baby boomers, two perceived moderates. That went a long way toward shaping the message with voters.
The Dukakis/Bentsen approach just seems to create brand confusion in the mind of the voters.
If Gore would have picked Edwards (who was his #2 choice), we'd be in the 7th year of the Gore presidency - and Vice President Edwards would be running for a fifth consecutive Democratic term in the White House. (Though it's hard to imagine that parallel universe - since we wouldn't be in Iraq today.)
Webb is committed to economic fairness. Clinton was on the cover of Fortune magazine as Wall Streets pick.
So that is not remotely a possibility.
By the way, HRC and Webb sit next to each other in the Senate.
On WaPo, just because the folks at WaPo have crowned Clinton as the nominee and incessantly discuss it, does not mean that you need to repeat it (unless you intend on propagating their argument). You can still discuss the merits of Webb on the ticket without explicitly or implicitly assuming that Clinton is the nominee. Unless you advocate for Clinton, and then I just think you should make your position clear so that we can all understand the proper context within which to view your arguments on the subject.
As to my 2008 preferences, I want the candidate who's the most progressive with the best chance of winning. If I have to compromise on one of those two criteria, let's just say that I see it as absolutely crucial that we win the White House in 2008. Among other things, if we don't, we can kiss the Supreme Court goodbye for a generation.
If money is it, Obama has a lot of money too. McCain had a lot of money and big organization, where is he now? What makes her organization tremendous in comparison to Edwards or Obama?
And time is running out, really? The first primaries are a little over two months away. The major state primaries are 3 months away. Most voters don't make up their minds or even focus on the election until very close to the actual date.
The kid gloves have not come off yet. But when they do, Clinton has a lot more to be skewered on than any of her competitors. And you point out an excellent example, her support for an earmark for a Woodstock Museum. To me, this seems like her Ted Steven's bridge-to-nowhere moment. Not to mention she competes with Republicans in order to prove how much more Hawkish she is than they are. But I digress.
1. I agree, polls aren't everything. Having said that, it's unlikely that Hillary will have a "macaca moment." You never know, but she's very disciplined and has been around politics a long time.
2. True, Obama has a lot of money as well. I think he has the best shot at beating Clinton, but he has to win Iowa or finish second to Edwards, I think. If Hillary wins Iowa, she'll be almost impossible to stop. Also, Edwards HAS to win Iowa.
3. Well, New Hampshire may move its primary to December 11...not decided yet. If that happens, Iowa will probably move to December 4, just six weeks from now. That's the earlies things could get going this cycle, and that's not much time.
4. I agree on the "kid gloves" comment, I've been waiting to see if Obama ever did that effectively. That's his big test, whether he can go after Hillary in aggressive fashion without stepping on his overall message that he's not the same old, traditional politician. I'll be watching, that's for sure!
Polling Hillary vs. Huckabee, outside of Arkansas, is obviously going to favor Hillary. Hillary vs. Giuliani, on the other hand, should be taken somewhat seriously.
1. A VP candidate should be all about rallying the supporters, going out and acting as an advocate for the presidential candidate, criss-crossing the country and getting people fired up. The VP candidate is often less of a "policy" person as a cheerleader - part of the reason John Edwards was a great VP candidate who was completely tied down by the Kerry campaign. Webb is fire and brimstone, but he is still not great on the stump, he's not the type who feels at ease with a crowd. That's a big part of the VP candidate role.
2. HRC and Webb are pretty far apart on some key issues, including Iraq, economic fairness, etc. He provides a real contrast, which would be great in balancing her among liberals, but at the same time, I don't see Webb as a guy who is going to advocate for things he doesn't believe in. And I don't see HRC as a woman who is going to pick someone who isn't going to be her advocate and chorus. She's run too smooth a campaign thus far to end up with a VP nominee who is going to provide too much objection to her well-set ideas.
3. There is a lot of Jim Webb baggage. The books, the supposed racial stuff that came up during the Senate campaign, the "I quit" White House days, etc. He was nowhere near as bad as Allen, and he's a heckuva better legislator, but there is some stuff in his past that doesn't make him an automatic sell.
4. I think HRC is going to want someone she is really comfortable with and can control. Someone like Bayh, who has similar positions, who can be "controlled" a bit more than a Webb, who is not going to be under anyone's thumb. She has run a mistake-free campaign, as we've heard over and over, and I think that's going to be a part of the decision-making for her VP choice - who is likely to continue a very strong effort without making a screw-up. I think they'll see Webb as risky.
I think her choice will be Bayh, as many are speculating. It's a natural fit, although he's boring as dirt on the stump. Other than that, maybe Richardson, likely not Strickland, maybe Vilsack, or maybe Easley or Bredesen (who is completely under the radar, but has a lot to offer).
Considering Webb's early opposition to the attack on Iraq and Hillary's early support for the attack on Iraq, Webb joining Hillary's administration would be hypocritical.
For a lot of us on the left, Hillary is fooling a lot of Democrats. These Democrats desperately want to believe that Hillary is truly anti-Iraq war. She's isn't.
I think, if she is elected president, she will find excuses and rationales to keep combat operations going in Iraq. In other words, Hillary will pursue Bush's war, seeking a phantom victory. I suspect that Jim Webb would consider such a course of action by a HRC administration as intolerable.
For all the deluded Hillary supporters, desiring an anti-war candidate in Hillary Clinton, you should revisit her association and long history with the Democratic Leadership Council, which provided policy support to many Democrats, like Hillary, who supported the attack on Iraq and supported the war in Iraq.
Just your daily reminder that Webb isn't as liberal as some people seem to think he is....
On the topic at hand, Webb didn't win a majority in Virginia in 2006, his poll numbers haven't improved within the state (although maybe he actually polls better outside Virginia? That would be a real kick in the pants...) and he's not a strong fundraiser in his own right. And Warner will do more to put Virginia in play as a Senate candidate anyway. Finally, it's worth pointing out that while the political connections of a Vice Pres nominee can be helpful, practically no one cares about the credentials of the Vice President. It's not like Bush beat Kerry in 2004 because of the Vice Presidential nominees ("well, he may be an idiot on foreign policy and wrong on the war in Iraq, but thank God he has Chenney...").