Otherwise, I agree with you.

I agree, it might be a problem.  My argument is that Webb is the best possible VP candidate.

We may need someone who can reach out to angry Clinton supporters.  Clark might be a savvy choice.

We'll have to wait and see.

Personally, I'm looking forward to Hillary's concession speech.  I wonder who she will steal it from.

Can we draft Webb?

I'm inclined to ask the same question as AIAW!

You've convinced me with this Dan, I think Webb would be a fantastic choice!  And I believe that a Deeds appointment as US Senator to replace Webb could help resolve some things here in Virginia for the Democratic Party in 2009...

Tom Daschle. A Senate Majority Leader (Kennedy/Johnson anyone?) but he's been out of Washington for a while. Maybe the first really big name to endorse Obama outside of Illinois.

Yes he voted for the war. But he can admit that he was wrong and Obama was right. It'll make Obama look that much smarter by comparison. And make McCain look that much more stubborn and wrong.

I also agree that Webb probably wouldn't want it anyway.

Good idea, but I just don't see that one really being the right call.  

Interesting to note that while most people here agree that Webb is right for the job, that many think he just won't take it.

Chris Cillizza wrote this in Dec. of 2006:

When former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) announced last week that he would not run for president, he was largely ignored by the national news media.

But, Daschle's decision actually has major repercussions when it comes to the candidacy of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)
............

I don't see Daschle inspiring anybody new to join the large coalition Obama is building.  

Obama has already said that Washington experience isn't what he's running on.  He's running on change.  Daschle is hardly another change agent.

I don't see what Daschle adds to the ticket. I mean, he's a good guy and all but putting on someone with a very long career in the Senate gives the opposition oodles of awkward votes to attack. It's hard to see what states he would help bring into play or what constituencies would then be especially attracted to the ticket.

Not that I want to trash Daschle here. I just want to know what the reasons are for wanting him for VP.

It's the one line of attack that all of Obama's opponents agree on more than anything, and even some of his supporters.

What did Dick Cheney add to GOP ticket? Charisma? No. Putting more states in play? No. Experience and gravitas. Exactly what Daschle has.

Obama has addressed his lack of Washington cred in a different way than Bush did in 2000.  Bush said "I know I don't have much Washington experience, so let me get Cheney."  

Obama isn't doing that.  He's saying "Washington Experience is not the kind of experience we need."  Obama wants a candidate with plenty of life experience, and less Washington experience.  The two people there that come to mind are Webb and Clark.  

They probably shouldn't be on opposing sides of controversial pieces of legislation.

And Clark going after Obama as a Clinton campaign surrogate on misc. talk shows doesn't bode well for him.

I'd be willing to bet you $20 right now, Chris, that it won't be Daschle.

what I'm saying is that there's too much there for people to ignore it as at least a possiblity.

Clark, Webb, Richardson all make more sense.

First, what do most folks remember him as?  Oh yeah, that Majority Leader guy who couldn't keep his own seat.  Second, I suspect that the VP slot will need to be filled with someone with sharp elbows, so Obama can preserve his above the fray rhetoric while being able to respond hard and fast to the storm that is sure to come.  Daschle is not the man for that job, either. I don't doubt that Daschle is in deep with Obama, but that may end up being its own reward.

(fwiw, I really like Daschle.  But this isn't the job for him.)

He should have the insights and Hill connections to help push through legislation.

Chief of Staff?  If he'd take the job, he's be perfect.

I think that should automatically disqualify someone from Obama's ticket -- since it is a major positive that he did not.

Jim Webb is the right person for the job.

Now that said, I predict that we will not hear a running mate announced by either McCain or Obama until a couple weeks at the most before each convention.  

Waiting to announce allows you to chose a moment to dominate a news cycle with positive press coverage right when you need it. Also, announcing the running mate early only gives the opposition more time to attack him or her. One might as well wait as long as possible before doubling the size of the target.

Right now, anything he announces or says is drowned out but the Dem Primary.

n/t

/nt

But after that dreadful SOTU response, I'm not so sure.

set a high bar with his State of the Union reply in 2007.  I have never heard anything to compare to it.  

I like her and think she'd actually make a good VP choice -- just because she doesn't give a good speech doesn't preclude her from being a good pick.

Case in point: what was one of the most dreadful speeches of the past 20 years in Democratic politics?  Bill Clinton's speech at the 1988 Democratic National Convention.

that Richardson would be his best pick for VP. He has foreign policy experience, he has executive experience, and he has been out of washington since the Clinton years. He may not be a good attack dog, he was never at his best in the debates.

I think that we both hit the Post button at the same time.
:-}

Richardson would be another very strong pick, and solidify a lot of the southwestern latino vote, and almost assure a lock on New Mexico--an important state for Dems in 2008.

A sitting senator has not been elected POTUS since 1960.  Why test that jinx by putting two senators on the ticket?  How about someone who:

*previously served as a Cabinet secretary in a successful administration
*has diplomatic experience, including the UN and nuclear non-proliferation
*has served as a large state governor
*has instant credibility on immigration
*can poll the ticket well in the Western US

Who could that be?  Who?

Fast forward to 2016 and the Democratic nominee is:

Vice President Bill Richardson.

that Senator had another Senator as his runningmate.

But I agree. Richardson would be an outstanding choice.

He'd be a good pick. I like Webb or Clark better for the job on account of their defense experience, but Bill Richardson would be on my short list.

My only concern is that I really don't want to see a continuation of Clinton's foreign policy. Recently I've come to see Bush's foreign and economic policies as essentially inept versions of the same thing under Clinton. Clinton, in turn, did not really change much from what was happening under Bush Sr. You can trace this whole current foreign policy and economic alignment back to Ronald Reagan. The only thing that Bush Jr. actually changed was getting cozy with Pakistan.

Richardson was Clinton's guy and I worry that he would see things much the way that Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. do. What I want is fundamental change in our trade policy, a major shift in our approach to China, a strengthening of our Navy and major changes to our dealings with the Middle East. This is part of why I like the idea of Jim Webb as VP. He'd be another senior voice at the table that owes nothing to that long legacy of policy via inertia.

Maybe Richardson can also be that agent of change? I don't know. Like I said, I think he'd be a good choice. But Jim Webb would be a surer bet for real change.

With McCain heading the GOP ticket, military service (or lack thereof) will be a refrain that will stick with many voters, especially as the discussion turns to what to do about Iraq.

Richardson has an impeccable resume, but he can't blunt the force of McCain's years as a POW and experience as a soldier.  Someone like Clark (or Webb) makes McCain's claim to the "citizen soldier" tag less meaningful.

has a "Clinton problem" by all accounts... my friends in New Mexico say it's common knowledge, and had his White House bid gained any traction, it would have come out...

Supposedly it's not as bad as Bill Clinton's, more in the realm of inappropriate jokes and language.

My attorney brother-in-law worked in his administration and this has been common knowledge in and around Santa Fe for several years.

Perhaps a bigger issue is that he's had a charisma bypass.  He's a fine governor, tons of national and foreign policy experience on his cv, but he's not much of a campaigner.

Delaware doesn't bring a lot of electoral votes, not to mention its a solid "D" state. Not to mention, we should hastily avoid having 2 sitting U.S. Senators on the same ticket.

I'm with you on Webb, though.

If two senators are the best ticket, then so be it.  But Biden doesn't give a lot to us in terms of aiding Obama's electability.

on the ticket would get me (an Edwards supporter) a lot more excited this year.

Don't forget that Edwards was consistantly winning in match-up polls agains the GOP field up until Iowa, and he consistantly did better than Obama or Clinton in the same polls.  In all of them he won over a lot of cross-over voters.  That sort of attractiveness could only help Obama's ticket (or Hillary's).

(P.S. While Webb is very popular with me, I would much prefer him to stay in the Senate.  As VP, his voice would be muted.  As VP candidate, he could (unfairly but) effectively be painted as someone lacking in experience-having even less time in elected federal office than Obama.  In addition, he would be 70 years old at the end of two terms and would be a less likely option to be the next president.  I say keep him where he is, working hard and speaking out from the Senate.)

Call it a hunch, but I'm pretty sure he's headed to the Justice Department to work as AG.

for someone to accept the vp slot on two different tickets in consecutive elections. It will make it look like he just wants power any way he can get it. Plus we don't want Obama being compared to Kerry.

I'm hoping he's our next Attorney General.

Before being a Senator, Jim Webb was Deputy Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the United States Navy. The idea of attacking him for being short on experience needed to be President or VP is ridiculous. His credentials are on par with Dick Cheney's as of 2000. Actually better than Cheney's, since Webb has Senate experience wheras Cheney was only in the House and because Webb is a decorated combat veteran.

If time in the Senate is all that matters, let's remember that John Edwards is also a one-term wonder. I don't see how the matter of federal experience makes Webb a lesser choice than Edwards.

Edwards would have been great at the top of the ticket and he was my first choice as well. But as a running mate he doesn't add what we need. Obama has zero defense or national security experience and that is what he's going to get hammered on by McCain above all else. We need a running mate with the kind of background that addresses that vulnerability. That's not Edwards, unfortunately. Or Clinton. Webb, Clark or Biden all have some claim to adding this to the ticket. I think those are probably the top 3 people to look at, with Richardson a guy to consider as well.

Cheney was in the House for a decade and served as Minority whip. Plus he was Sec. of Defense during a war.

It's Webb's years served in the Marines Corps that set him apart from a bureaucrat like Cheney.

should a Marine say run for the US Senate seat against Mark Warner in Virginia? Just asking.

He needs a Governor, like Richardson, who could also help with the Southwest electorate.

Leave Jim Webb alone!   We need him here in Virginia and in the Senate.

Obama's got a lot of holes to fill in his resume, should he be the nominee, he will be much stronger against McCain with a solid VP choice.

 

His holes are mostly in the realm of Foreign Policy.  Webb counteracts a lot of McCain's strengths.

Obama is going to need help there and Richardson is extremely popular among both Westerners and Hispanics.  In that regard, he helps to neutralize McCain's base.

Tim Kaine is a hell of a stump speaker, he can play the attack dog, and he is fluent in Spanish, having served as a missionary in South America.

If Kaine won't take a VP slot, then I predict "Ambassdor Kaine" will be heading South shortly after his term as Virginia's governer ends in 2010.

And he recommended Webb

And HisRoc: Looking at what I can see from polls of Hispanic vote in GE match-ups, they tend to go Obama over McCain anyways.

See this article in today's WP.  The entire Democratic "Mountain West" Strategy is jeopardized by McCain's nomination.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

For Democrats, 2008 was supposed to be the year of the Mountain West, when three years of relentless Republican attacks on undocumented immigrants would fuel a backlash among Hispanics that would change the playing field in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, and perhaps alter the landscape of presidential politics for a generation.

But the emergence of Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) as the likely standard-bearer for the GOP may have scrambled the equation, cooling a potential political revolt among Hispanics and sending Democrats in search of a new playbook.

"It completely screws it up," said Charles Black, a senior McCain adviser. "We nominated the one person who will not suffer that backlash."

Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), whose Tucson district is heavily Hispanic, said Democrats should change their tack toward Latinos and emphasize the economy, education and health care before even raising the immigration issue. Perhaps Democrats seeking the Latino vote would be best served challenging McCain on the Iraq war, suggested Guillermo Nicacio, Arizona state coordinator for Mi Familia Vota, an effort to encourage Latinos to apply for citizenship, register and vote.

Bill Richardson restores the Mountain West Strategy and put these red states back in play.

Just sayin'...

But neither Democrats nor Republicans hold the sway on who gets elected.  The Independent swing voters do that and, without Richardson on the ticket, the swing votes in the Mountain West go to McCain.  He polls higher with the Independents than anyone since Reagan.  Remember, one of the reasons that Clinton got elected in 92 was because Ross Perot took so much of the swing vote.

Dan, I realize that you're a hard core Webb fan and I respect than.  But Webb doesn't pull the numbers that Richardson pulls in places where it will make a difference.

Polling has shown that Obama would beat McCain in both Nevada and Colorado -- by margins of around 10 points. New Mexico is going to be a swing state either way.

I don't think the Vice Presidential pick has much sway either way. I do agree with you, though, that Richardson would be a strong pick for VP. I am still a fan of Sebelius for VP, myself.

Obama does well with Hispanics in Nevada and Colorado against McCain.  I assume he'd do well with them in New Mexico as well.

There are few people that I'm sure will not get the VP nomination.  Daschle won't, and neith will Richardson.  My bets are on Webb or Sebelius.

I actually think Senator Webb would be a very deft pick for VP or SecDef, if he were so inclined. Maybe moreso SecDef -- he would be able to really influence policy directly, and his thoughtfulness and studious nature would be most properly applied. Wonder if he'd be interested in running the Pentagon, or if he'd just prefer to stay in the Senate.

From a political perspective, I wonder though if he'll even make the short list considering he didn't endorse Obama before the Va primary. At the end of the day, though, I suspect Obama will decide to nominate whomever he feels would help him govern best, regardless of the rest of the considerations. Webb, Clark, Sebelius, Richardson, Napolitano all seem like strong considerations to me.

Precisely for the reason you raise--he currently supports Hillary Clinton.  If/when Obama secures the nomination, there will need to be some olive branches.  Clark is a solid choice in his own right and if it mends some fences, all the better.  

The problem I see with Webb is that while he has the bona fides to mute the military hero status of McCain, he has the same "experience" gap Obama has.  Webb is only two years into his first term in any elected office.

While Clark hasn't ever held elected office, he doesn't seem to carry the same "newcomer" label that Obama and Webb carry.  I think people are willing to have one "newcomer" on the ticket, but leery of two (which is, in part, why you saw Dick Cheney seize the reins in 2000).

Clark helps unite the Democrats.  However, what are some of the things that Clark has said regarding Obama?  Can they be turned around by the Republicans if Obama picks Clark?

Webb was Deputy Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Navy.  There is no 'experience gap.'

Wesley Clark has never won a single election in his life. He's been invisible to most voters since 2004, while Webb has been in the news regularly all year. At this point, Jim Webb probably has at least as good name recognition as Clark does.  

'Experience' for the White House does not have to consist of holding elected office for years and years. George H. W. Bush had been Chair of the RNC and ran CIA when he was selected as Reagan's running mate.  His experience in holding elected office consisted of just 2 terms in the House during the late 1960's. But nobody called him unqualified or inexperienced.

 

Outside of Virginia, Clark has much better name and face recognition than Webb.  Fox News junkies have seen Clark on the "fair and balanced" network offering analysis.  Clark ran a national campaign.  Webb, for better or worse, is seen as an outsider with little experience in Washington--something we all LOVE about him, but that may not play as well outside our little world.  Webb turns some people off.

I like Jim Webb.  I think he'd be a terrific choice, but I think if your going that route, you go with Clark over Webb.  In essence, you are correct that there is not "experience gap" when you really look at the two on paper...but a vast majority don't do that.

between the two. I supported Webb do not get me wrong but there is a big difference when it comes to the international side of things with regard to the respective experiences between the two. I like Webb better than Clark on balance but Clark has the greater experience I think.

Biden has the experience but having two Senators on the ticket could be a problem.  Also, I do not want to have to defend another Senate seat in 2010.

Aside from Gen. Clark, my two picks are former Sens. Bob Graham (FL) or Sam Nunn (GA).  They both have a great amounts of foreign policy or military policy experience.

With Graham, Florida could come into play in November.  Right now, McCain leads there by 13 points (some of that may be anger over not having the delegates counting). Also, he opposed the war from the start.

Nunn was not in the Senate in 2002 but he did oppose the first Gulf War and has become one of the nation's top proliferation experts.

because Kerry and Gore didn't pick him when they had the chance. Sam Nunn is one of these "Democrats" going around denouncing the major parties and hyping up Bloomberg for the past year.

Otherwise, nothing "wrong" with him at all. IMHO.

Sam Nunn would be a smart choice too.  Webb, Nunn, and Clark are three very solid picks.

And say what you will about him, but Daschle would be a good choice as well.

Nunn is 70 years old and has been pushing for this ridiculous 'unity ticket' thing. If there is an effort to paint McCain as being too old for this job, having Nunn on the ticket would make that look a little silly.

Sam Nunn could have been a good choice for Al Gore in 2000, but his moment has long since passed.

It kind of sucks how small the window really is in practical terms. Usually it's only when a politician gets to be in his or her late 50's that he finds himself at the kind of level where a run for the White House could be credible. But if everything isn't just right in terms of money and who your competition is, then you sit on the sidelines and if your party wins then the nominations are locked up for the next 8 years. Probably 12 years, since VPs usually get the nomination after that if they want it. And at that point the candidate is pushing 70 and looks a little too old for somebody you want to get 8 energetic years out of.

Nunn missed his chance for either end of the ticket. It underscores why it was a good idea for Obama to go ahead and run this year instead of waiting 4 or 8 or 12 years when he's had more time in the Senate. If you've got a shot at the nomination, take it. Because odds are that circumstances will doom you by after that.

flirting with the Bloomberg/Unity 08 silliness or the one that played a central role in Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

and said that he would only consider running for President as an Independent (wikipedia).

and Sam Nunn will turn 70 before Election Day. Not that age should be a disqualification per se, but the vice president's main job is to outlive the president.

conservative Democrats who may not feel completely comfortable with the most liberal senator in 2008 as President.

That's BS. Straight up BS.

No, not THAT kind of BS.....I mean, BS, not BO.
If you're looking for the most liberal Senator in the Senate, I'll give you a hint: he used to be the mayor of Burlington, VT.

Former very moderate Republican senator and successful Secretary of Defense under Clinton.  

n/t. And how cool would it be to have a ticket Obama/Zinni?  

sounds like a pasta. :)

Obama needs a VP who will carry his/her home state.

Preferably a state that Shrub carried in 2004.

S/He also needs to shore up the foreign/defense side of the job. That eliminates most governors except Richardson who's skirt chasing reputation eliminates him.

Thus, only senators on foreign affaris, intelligence and defense committees need apply.

There would also have to be a decent chance of holding the senate seat in the subsequent special election.

Finally the candidate can't be so old that McCain's age is lost as an issue.

Bill Nelson and Ben Nelson both work with all of these criteria.

But Webb is the best fit.

Kaine could appoint himself to Webb's seat.  Deeds would be a good appointment also.

I don't know how easy it would be to hold either Nelson's seat.

Biden brings you Delaware. Its a blue state already.  Dodd only brings Connecticut and is too old.

Nunn is too old and is flirting with Bloomburg.

Bill Nelson gets FLA without the idiosychratic diaries that Bob Graham acknowledged.

Bill Nelson endorsed Hillcat. Is that a disqualifier?

why are we jumping on the age bandwagon all of a sudden? This guy and that guy is too old. Please. On the one hand you want significant experience and then on the other we discount people of a certain age. Please. If you have to discriminate do it on the basis of "experience" and not age. I bet these are the same people who had they been alive would not have voted for FDR had they seen him in a wheelchair. What a loss that would have been for America.Democrats are better than this and if its a ploy on deck to be used (age) in the General against McCain which is why you will not support an older statesman as VP thats shameful.

Whoever the VP nominee is immediately becomes the frontrunner for 2016, if they are young enough.

It might be better to start thinking about that in 2013.

I hadn't considered Graham before, but he might cover all of the necessary bases.  It would certainly put Florida in play.

He's going to pick retired Senator Chuck Hagel as VP.  They both vehemently oppose the war and the Bush administration tactics.  Hagel's foreign policy experience would do more than bolster Obama's legitimacy in that area.  Having Hagel on the ticket would also draw more independents and Republicans away from McCain.  Further, such a choice would be in keeping with Obama's rhetoric about bringing both parties together to solve urgent national problems.  Hagel and Obama had formerly worked together on a bill to require the president to tackle world poverty -- I think that and their shared conviction that Iraq is the wrong war and should be stopped in a bi-partisan fashion would be more than enough reason for Hagel to accept a VP invite.  Not to mention that Hagel has praised Barack on several occasions.  It would undoubtedly be an unstoppable and revolutionary ticket that could very well transform our country for the better.  Think about it.

He has been a voice of reason on the War, but he is extremely conservative.

See this artice here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

I'd have a real problem voting for a ticket with someone that is anti-choice, and has voted as Hagel has on civil liberties.

...having a Republican on the ticket.  No surprise there.  But would you seriously not vote for Obama just because of his running mate?  I think the overarching desire this election year in the hearts of the majority of Americans, evidenced by the cross-over appeal of Obama, is the desire for a healthy bi-partisanship in order to achieve a bi-partisan national agenda.  The sad history of the Bush administration is a politicizing of issues which should never be politicized; case in point, the vote to authorize the Iraq war, etc., etc.  Obama is a team player, and his administration is going to be about healing divides and bringing political enemies together in order to solve urgent problems that effect all Americans, red or blue.  Obama is not a dogmatist, but an idealist; his presidency will be less about the wedge issues of the Bush years, and more about cooperation and national unity.  Further, the McCain/Obama contest is going to be primarily about the Iraq war, with the economy a close second.  If McCain can successfully paint Obama as a dangerous liberal, then Obama's credentials would undermine the greater goal of ending a nation-bleeding conflict in Iraq.  Having a conservative Republican on the ticket would insulate Obama from the same tactic which undermined Kerry's campaign, plus it would give Obama legitimate foreign policy leverage having Hagel take McCain and McCain's running mate to task concerning the war.  Obama and Hagel together projecting mutual respect in their cooperative effort to end the Iraq war would be disarming, and effective.  And at the end of the day Hagel would be beholden to the Democratic party line established by an Obama administration.  Win win...

We'll see, though.  Otherwise, I would agree that Webb would be the best choice, with Clark pulling a distant third.