that keeps going through my head when I think of Obama-Webb.

It's damn near prophetic.  

http://www.wargs.com/political...

There seem to be a plenty of Scots-Irish in John Edwards tree.  He didn't write a book on them, but that wouldn't have helped him win North Carolina for Kerry either. I'm just not yet ready to buy into the selling power of a vice presidential candidate.    

"Anyone who thinks Jim Webb would say "no" to the Democratic nominee if he or she came to him and said, "Jim, I need you, your country needs you," simply doesn't know Jim Webb."

It all depends on how they came to him.  If they said "Hey, Jim, with you on the ticket we can win!", he'd say no thanks.  But if he was asked to serve his country I think he would do it.

"Your country needs you once again."  No way Jim Webb turns that down.

This is the most important election of our lifetime.

The very survival of the principle of three equal branches of government with checks and balances hangs in the balance. The enormous powers the Bush/Cheney administration has usurped for the Executive must be decisively repudiated by defeating the Bush clone, McCain.

Jim Webb was talking about this unconstitutional accumulation of power in his campaign here in Virginia, so he understands and can articulate the issue of abuse of executive power.

Also, the Senator may not be available as a politician very long. Webb resigned on principle, as Secretary of the Navy, I think, when he did not agree with a Reagan decision. This indicates he is not the typical career politician. He wants to get things done, and his personality may not be suited for an extended stay in the slow moving Senate. Therefore, now is the perfect time to tap his abilities for this crucial role in the history of American politics.

he would want an activist role

and I actually think it would not be international or military affairs that would most appeal to him, but rather issues of economic equity, including addressing the needs of rural areas

someone as a presidential nominee would have to meet two tests

1) secure enough to give Webb his head

2) willingness to led Webb take lead on some issue

the interesting thing is that MSM would see such a choice as shoring up Obama's national security weaknesses, whereas the real appeal for both men might be that of overcoming divisions of class and race

I still think that Wes Clark might be a more likely choice

and I wonder how many of those of us who had been active in the Webb campaign might feel called upon to turn lives upside down were Jim to access us help him?

If Clark had kept quiet and (while still supporting Hillary) stayed out of the fray, I might agree.  But he didn't.  And I've seen him on Fox News recently going after Obama.  I just don't see how he gets the VP nod now.

I wouldn't want Obama to even consider Clark... for any position in his administration. Endorsing another Democrat isn't that big a deal. But at this point Clark & Hillary are only helping McCain become the next President.

And Clark was my guy in '04. Sad....

Agreed, although Webb is perceived as a military expert he is actually even more invested at this time in issues of economic inequality.  This comes through clearly through Born Fighting and resonates throughout his works of fiction.  

I also agree that he, if approached, would likely tell the campaign that there are conditions to his participation on the ticket.  He can't be a quiet running mate, but a proactive and powerful ally whose support would be counted on to bring in the Reagan Dems, union and military vote, and conservative leaning white men.  It would be a very powerful combination.

I'm not sure about the Wes Clark suggestion.  He has been very supportive of Hillary and it just seems unlikely to me.  

I think Webb's chances of getting asked to run as VP are greater if Obama wins the nomination than if Hillary gets it.

n/t

It's over. Hillary Clinton lost. She just hasn't admitted it yet.

Obama/Webb '08!

Webb would not be a good fit for Obama.

Webb barely won his race in 2006 - and lets get serious, if it weren't for "Mecaca" there would probably be no Senator Webb.  

Webb won by 9,000 votes or .39%.  The Independent Green candidate polled 1.10% or 26,000 votes.  I have no polling to substantiate this but my gut tells me that most of these voters were women who could not vote for Allen over the "Mecaca" incident or who could not vote for Webb over his past comments about women in Annapolis, considered by some to be offensive.  

Female voters are key to winning back the White House.  Any gains made among working class white males in the south could be offset by losses among educated white women who may take offense to Webb's past remarks about women in Annapolis.  And how do you make the case to women who identify as feminists in the Democratic Party, assuming that Clinton is not the nominee, for Webb?  

And look at the polling data from the exit polls in 2006 regarding states that were pick ups for the Dems - and I am throwing out MO, which had a female Democratic nominee -leaving Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Virginia.  In 4 out of these 5 states, the winning Democratic nominee won white female voters, except for Webb:

Rhode Island - Whitehouse won white females 54%-46%
Peennsylvania - Casey won white women 58% to 42%
Ohio - Brown won white women 53% to 47%
Montana - Tester won white women 54% to 45%
Virginia - Webb lost white women 53% to 47%

In addition, Survey USA's polls since last October, 2007 show Webb's support among Hispanics dropping to an eye popping 75% negative job approval rating, based, I assume, on some of Webb's immigration votes.  How do you sell Webb in Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Arizona?  Can he offset losses of potential Hispanic support with working class white men in key states like Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Florida?

Can Webb stay on message in a general election?  Can he be number two?  And where is Webb?  Webb is no where to be seen - no attendnce at JJ.    

And last but not least, we have the FISA vote, which has spun up a hornets nest on this blog.  What will the reaction be to Webb's vote on this issue with civil liberty types across the northeast and pacific coast?  

Webb is too risky for Obama. He puts too many core Democratic constituncies in potential peril for Obama.  

Having said that, Congresman Joe Sestak might be a good choice.  Sestak represents the Philly suburbs northwest and southwest of Philly, spent 31 years in the navy, rising to the rank of three-star admiral.  He brings tons of foreign policy and military experience to the ticket, he's photogenic, comes across well on television, he is a Clinton supporter and he can assist pulling in suburban voters in a key swing state (PA) and could do likewise in other states as well like Ohio, Missouri, and yes, Virginia.  

http://www.sestak.house.gov/bi...

What gives me pause about Sestak (as with Webb) is that the VP nod puts that person at the front of the line for the Dem nomination for the Presidency in 8 years.    It's a bit of a skip from first term Congressman to that.  But then, I also think Clark is a good idea, so maybe that's not such an issue.  Perhaps I shoudl look more at Sestak.

(And speaking of looking at folks - Brian Schweitzer is worth a gander, too.)

When was the last time a sitting Congress member who was not the Speaker of the House (i.e., John Nance Garner doesn't count) was elected V. P.?

Few Congress members can deliver their state's electoral votes as a governor or senator can.

First, Webb wouldn't be on the ticket to get the female vote.  My guess is that Obama will do just fine with that.  Webb would be on the ticket to get the white male vote.  He would provide security cred that Obama needs.

You are right that Webb barely won and that he was a "macaca away" from not winning.  But, Webb did win in a state that rarely votes for Democrats at that level.  He beat the odds.  I don't think you give him enough credit.

Finally, Webb would do better nationwide than he did in Virginia.  Why do you think people like me - from Florida and across the United States - supported him?

I believe that Sen. Webb would not want to be on the ticket merely to attract the white male vote. I don't believe that he would do it just for political reasons. He is a powerful voice in the Senate where he can make a difference. I can't see Sen. Webb playing second fiddle. He will stay in the Senate; that's my guess. What difference can a V.P. make?

just look at Cheney to see what difference a VP can make.

Webb could bring a lot to the table and get a lot done.

I wouldn't expect him to do it for those reasons.  They are quite shallow reasons.  We need more than a warm body who happens to be a white male.  That said, I do think he will appeal to that demographic.

My support of Webb should be seen more as a vote of confidence in him than anything else.  I think he would be a good VP - and the only reason he should ever think of accepting that position is if he thinks he can make a difference.

To your question on what difference a VP can make - well in theory he would have quite a bit of influence on the President's decision making.  I would hope that the President would defer to the VP on issues the VP is more qualified to make - or at the very least seriously consider his or her oppinion.

This is sort of an academic excursion but I think there is a role for the VP that could be beneficial for our system.

And, it's kind of funny -- because nefarious, dead-eye, Dick "4th Branch" Cheney sort of hinted at it.

I really think a good Vice President would act as the true President of the Senate. He/she would interact with the Senate and actively try and get legislation passed, negotiating with legislators and working to get initiatives passed. Now, in the Republican party, this is not necessary -- George Bush and Karl Rove tell them what to do, and the automatons in Congress kindly do as told.

But, in a real political party wherein there is some free will, having a back and forth between the executive and the legislature while laws are debated and passed strikes me as a useful function. Sort of a prime minister role.

BTW, Ingrid, I agree with you. I can't see Senator Webb wanting to be VP. I do wonder, though, whether or not he'd want to run the Pentagon if offered THAT position. At the end of the day, though, I think maybe he wants to be a Senator, and this is all a fancy parlor game!

The only thing that would actually give me pause would be that he has not yet been vetted at the level of scrutiny he would get. I'm not suggesting anything untoward about him, or that there is any reason to believe anything is there -- I actually contributed to the guy's campaign in 2006 to help rid the Republic of Weldon -- but a national campaign is not the place to find out.

The other risk would be going into the election without a southerner on the ticket, although perhaps his military background would compensate for that.

I think his lack of experience in elective office would be an asset, not a liability, given the fact that he was a three-star Admiral prior to that, and so obviously has considerable executive and leadership experience. It also plays into the "change" theme nicely, and helps Obama with the military experience gap (Webb would also).

And while he wouldn't deliver a state Obama wouldn't otherwise win, and while I doubt Webb could "deliver" Virginia to Obama, it is irrelevant. Virginia would be nice for Obama to have, but it doesn't really figure in any electoral math. If Obama is going to carry Virginia, then he already has the election won -- we're just icing on the cake.

And I haven't even gotten to the head games the choice would play with McCain, both Oedipally and, in the sense that despite his valiant service, the way in which McCain failed to meet his family's expectations as a naval officer.

Any party that loses the 2nd largest demographic group 2 to 1 deserves to be the minority party.

It is ignorant to think that we would only gain a few white males in the South. We are talking about white males EVERYWHERE.

I am pretty tired of people thinking they know about demographics when the past 25 years have been characterized by the use of "white male" as a epithet. The Democrats must stop playing the politics of victim and play the politic of the victor.

I wonder how bad each of those folks you quote as winning women, lost the white males. I bet you it was more than 2 to 1 in many cases.

I have not seen ANY proof that going after white males will result in loss of core democratic constituencies to any significant level.

Read this book.Larry Sabato has some good things to say about it so does Gen. Clark. He says all Dems should read it.

http://www.whitemalegap.com/

Democrats need to stop being mommy and start being DADDY. Webb is a great start to that.

These people are the reason why we need Webb on the ticket.

It would be very counter to popular wisdom for Obama to choose Webb. That is part of the appeal. It would follow along with the Obama phenomenon being exceptional in that it doesn't exactly follow political trends.

http://www.whitemalegap.com/ne...

Such a tough spot to be in, in this country.  If we're recommending books, I'll toss in Tom Schaller's Whistling Past Dixie.  As obnoxious as he is in person, he's got an excellent case (maybe that's why local hero Mudcat got so upset he embarrassed himself in Vegas a couple of years ago).

Very funny.If you were actually there, you would know that the entire crowd laughed their ass off at Schaller when Mudcat resoundingly proved he was full of so much excrement with the numbers.

I will just say as Mudcat did then. Tom Schaller can kiss my Rebel ASS.

If you think he embarrassed himself then you truly don't know the facts of the situation and surely know nothing about Mudcat. He is, as Ron White says, "Third generation don't give a F@(#.

We need a hundred Mudcat's. And we need Webb as VP.

you can say that again.

i just looked through your previous posts and comments. wow.

I see you are proving my point by making generalizations about Southern white males. You, as Schaller does, use it as an epithet. You are just as wrong to do this as someone would be to say things like say, emotional female, or flaming gay person. I really wish you would stop playing victim politics.

The direction Schaller would have us take is exactly the direction that has cost us a surefire majority in this country.

to work on his reading comprehension.  I don't hate Jim Webb.  I rather like him (FISA ridiculousness aside), volunteered for him, worked the polls for him.  So you can step off, on that point.

Victim politics?  Ha.  That's pretty much what you (and Mudcat) are advocating here, no?  The poor marginalized Southern White Male.  Cry me a river.

As to using Southern white male as an epithet . . . well, once again you're speaking beyond your knowledge.  My problem with this fetishization of the Southern White Male is that it ignores the majority of the country in pursuit of a minority demographic, and often in ways that pushes America backwards, instead of forward.

We are not insinuating anything of the sort. You will not find anywhere where we have insinuated that White Males are victims. And it is YOU, in your pathetic attempts to equate White Male with Racist, who has injected the word Southern at every turn.

If you read the Neglected Voter you will see that it is that White Males don't feel like victims so much as they are offended that someone assumes that they have some kind of mythic power because of their white skin. They are getting SCREWED just as bad as anyone in their eyes. They are sick and tired of being accused of being racist, by folks like YOU, just because they are white.

I would suggest you gain a better understanding of social science and political psychology before making the arguments you are.

The fact that you use the word "fetshization" in reference to the Southern White Male proves the point that you are not interested in a factual and objective analysis of the merit of pursuing white male votes. Your mind is closed to the arguments because you, quite frankly, are bigoted against white males or it seems, more specifically, Southern White Males. It is a shame that this post, an attempt, I believe to discuss the merits or not of having Jim Webb as VP has degenerated due to your bigoted statements.

Everyone is, in some way, part of a minority demographic. Because America is made up of all sorts of people.

Southern white males are worth looking at as a demographic because we (Democrats) used to have their votes and then we started losing them during the Reagan years. These are people who are actually in agreement with Democrats on most of the issues. And it's a demographic which, if we made an effort to bring them back into the fold, would lead to many more and larger victories for the party.

I don't know what you are talking about with this statement that 'fetishization' of southern white males 'ignores the majority of the country.' That is utter nonsense. It's like saying that having an interest in building engines would preclude a car company from building the rest of the car.

If you want to get more votes for Democratic candidates, then you are going to have to identify groups of voters that aren't currently voting our way but could be coaxed to, and then you go out and do the work to get them on our side. That is a basic fact of politics. Those groups will have identities and names and 'southern white males' are one of them.

I love this bit: "often in ways that pushes America backwards, instead of forward."

What does that mean? What is the difference, in politics, between things that push America 'backwards' instead of 'forwards?' I'll tell you: 'Backwards' refers to any policy position that the speaker does not like while 'forwards' means any policy position that the speaker is personally in favor of.  So all you are really saying there is that you don't like things that southern white males like, but you say it in such a way that implies that your personal desire represents a grand destiny for America (cue moving shot of amber waves of grain followed by a soaring aerial shot of Mount Rushmore). Oh! But those southern white males and their mysterious ways of thwarting our historical destiny! Drat! (cue video of raw sewage floating down river; dead bald eagle crumpled by the side of the road).  

I've got to tell you, you have really crossed the line with your stereotypical comment against southern white males.

Replace southern white male with "black male" or "hispanic" and maybe then you will see why your comments are so offensive.

I would also point out that southern white males voted for Obama in record numbers.

Grow up and stop mischaracterizing a large segment of our nation's population.  That type of talk may get you laughs in some circles, but I doubt you are scoring points here.

And it doesn't need repeating.

Joe's a friend of mine, so I'd love to see him as VP, but he's a Clinton supporter.  He worked for Clinton in the WH as a military advisor and they have remained good friends.  Bill Clinton even showed up at Sestak's reception in DC during the House inauguration last year (I was there).

I think that the focus on Webb as VP is severely misplaced.  Nowadays, you want to choose a VP to accentuate your strengths, like Clinton did with Gore.  Obama is weak among southern Whites, and will likely go in a different direction for his VP choice.  To me, the best way to accentuate a "change" ticket is by putting a (highly-qualified) woman on the ticket like Gov. Sebelius of KS or Gov. Napolitano of AZ.  In addition, both are term-limited in 2010, so they are good choices.  Also, choosing either of these women would give an extra surrogate to campaign where Obama is relatively strong (midwest or SW), and not where he is weak and won't win anyway barring a massive landslide (South).

I think that is a big plus - shows Obama reaching out to Clinton's supporters.  So Sestak has great military credentials, he is a good friend of yours - why does supporting Hillary in your eyes discount him - speaking from a friends perspctive of course?

But it'll make it tough for Obama to embrace him.  Plus, the problem with Congressmen is that they don't really help when it comes to bringing their state with them, only their own district.  This is because they don't add thier own name recognition.  I don't think Sestak is a serious contender.  Actually, I can't think of any Representative that would be on the short list.

Nowadays, I think you want a VP choice to serve as your number 1 campaign surrogate, and Sestak is too big of a Clinton supporter to really do that effectively.  It's a bit of a shame actually - he would make a great VP - or president.

And you think a non-traditional male with no military experience or knowledge should be paired with a woman to make a winning ticket?

where to start?  A "non-traditional" male?  What, is RuPaul swooping in for the nomination, and no one told me?  And a woman?  On the ticket?!  Oh noes!

a male presidential candidate in the tradition of what exactly?  WASPS?  Veterans?    

the more i think of it, I can't find a good category to put Obama in.

a self-described redneck, albeit one helluva deep thinker of a redneck.

Senator Obama needs a shield and who better than Senator Webb, he of the "bulletproof CV"?

Up to this point, I've been thinking that Webb doesn't have the right kind of glad handing persona to be a plausible VP running mate.   And I've even prophesied that he would likely end up as Obama's Secretary-of-Defense.

But now having become more aware of Senator's Obama's pollyannish take on issues of war and the military, there's no one better to pair him with than Jim Webb.

You want the ticket to personify change?  How about a charismatic, Ivy League educated, mixed-race, grassroots organizer wunderkind, an inspirational orator extraordinaire, paired with a hard working and deadly serious Marine combat hero, who was Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, and is an ex-Republican southerner now married to a Vietnamese refugee?

Let the forces of darkness try hurling themselves at that combo.

i seem to remember that he is not exactly entirely part of the "black" experience. At least that is what he said in his book.

you are insinuating, ignorantly, that my advocacy of a pursuit of Reagan Democrats makes me a racist.

I would say that I am as much Hispanic as he is black. My mother is Hispanic and my father is white.

You have this irrational fixation on white people.  There is such a thing as racism against whites.  Sure, we aren't a minority but intolerance goes both ways.

Here is a shocker for you.  My father - white - married a Korean woman and has a child with her (my half brother).  I married a Japanese woman and have two children with her.

Why is this of significance?  Well, we are both southern white males.  If we are so racist why are we both married to minorities and having children with them?  Southern families have for the last generation embraced mixed white and black families.  We have come to terms with racial identity and Obama is not foreign to us - he is us.  Sure there are a few holdouts, but for the most part the south is not racist.

So you can make pecker jokes and redneck jokes all you like about us.  But we are people too and we aren't some two dimensional creatures that should be marginalized by divisive comments such as yours.  Please stop it.

"You ask for the victim card, I say I'm against dealing it, and then you accuse me of being divisive."

Don't put words into my mouth.  I neither want or desire the victim card.  I both renounce and reject it ;-)

I didn't want to repeat this, but as a reminder here is what you said:

Because really, no one enjoys a dick-measuring contest as much as over-compensating Southern white males.

I don't know what kind of history you have with Willie Stark, but when you say things like that it catches the eye of everyone reading it.

Most of your comments seem to be abrasive and disrespectful to just about anyone they are directed to.  I'm not saying I've never been abrasive here, but you apply it quite liberally.  My advice is to tone it down or those 1's will start turning into 0's.  Your comments haven't been very respectful of others.

More flaming equals more entertainment.

What with the departure of the Clintonistas, this blog could use a little more adversarial 'edge'.

I'd be lying if I said my blood pressure isn't up tonight ;-)

I  

The only postings I associate with you are your victimhood-snatching posts about how the Democratic Party better award Florida its delegates or else.  But you do you get points for renouncing and rejecting.

I don't have any history with Willie Stark, but when someone starts off with ridiculous braggadocio like telling others to "kiss my rebel ASS", I'm not so sure I need to worry about catching the eyes of others.

Look, I realize that this forum is (presently) dominated by a rather conservative strain of Democrat.  Having come of age in Georgia, and having lived in this place for so many years, I'm used to that.  I don't need tips from anyone about the Southern White Male.

One of the things I appreciate about the Democratic Party is its ability to accommodate such a wide range of political positions.  But that doesn't require me to stay quiet in the face of advocacy for bad politics and taking cues from the GOP playbook.

Finally, I don't care about the stupid 0s and 1s here.  It's pretty clear that they're used as a tool for agreeing/disagreeing with the content of what someone posts.  You don't like what I say?  Have at it.

I'm just glad you have us all figured out Sui Juris.  

The only postings I associate with you are your victimhood-snatching posts about how the Democratic Party better award Florida its delegates or else.

And I suppose you are also a big fan of the way our primary system works also.  Fantastic.  A system where most people in the country have little to no say in who the nominee is.  Glad that works for someone.

It's just that I don't care.

And keeping with the theme of RELawson's Erroneous Assumptions, I happen to think that the primary system (esp. the Dem one) is piss poor, and needs to be fixed.  Your solution, however, isn't one that's going anywhere.

My solution is to get rid of super delegates and have the primary on one day across the nation.  But that would be too fair for some people - letting the people decide and all.

And for the record, I don't think the Florida delegates should be counted at this point.  One candidate had her people here campaigning while the other played by the rules.  That hardly seems fair.  If they are to count our votes we need a debate here and we need another vote.

He loves to argue and really doesn't give a $hT what he's arguing about. I like him as he has multiple passports and life experiences and patriotic urges that would make the rest of us look like "OBAMA WITHOUT A LAPEL PIN".  BUT I really think he adds to the Olla pot by stirring the stew and getting people to search their personal beliefs and motives.

I hope that is his intention, but he could just be a "dick-head" if I'm wrong. So the safe bet is not to troll him.

the arbiter of loyal Americans, I see.  Still working on that answer about whether non-citizen soldiers are sufficiently loyal for your tastes?

First off, we're not at war, at least not in Iraq anyway.  We're occupying Iraq and we need to leave.  Barack Obama is best suited to help us negotiate with the other Middle Eastern countries and get out and that's what we need.

I just think that picking a white male for the VP slot is not consistent with a message of change, especially when there are very good female candidates and our base is disproportionately female (55-57% of Democratic primary voters have been female in recent primaries).

We'll be at 4,000 U.S. combat deaths in the next week or so.  And then there's the hundreds of thousands of killed and maimed Iraqis and Afghanis.  So what is all this -- traffic accidents?

You wouldn't happen to be female, would you?

What you are suggesting can be rationally defended but I think it represents the opposite of the thinking that both Obama and the DNC have subscribed to and scored victories through. Obama and Dean share the premise that we can and should open up 50 fronts in this war. The selection of Jim Webb as a running mate would tend to continue and support that strategy. He is a candidate who can help bring in groups of voters in states that we haven't been competitive in for decades. It's what's for dinner.

There are times when I think that what you are outlining would be the way to go. But I think that 2008 is as perfect a storm as we could ever hope for and this is the ideal moment to make a move for the South and expand the breadth and depth of the party base in those states. We have a truly exceptional candidate at the top of the ticket who is already likely to deliver Kansas (polls looked good against McCain last month anyway) and some of these other mid-west states that you are talking about. I think we've got enough room here to go after some southern states in a serious way.

So no Southerner on the ticket? And what, you think that Sestak just might pull Pennsylvania into the blue column this fall?

Suburban voters will already vote for Barack Obama. He's got that covered. Now we need to consolidate rural voters. And speaking as your resident ornery, rural, white, male gun-owning, deer-hunting Democrat, Joe Sestak would go over with voters like me like a sack of rocks. Whereas Jim Webb inspires us to stand up and salute.

As for Sestak being a Hillary Clinton supporter, that's no longer a particularly desirable trait in American politics. The vast majority of Clinton's supporters have made it clear in polling that they will be very happy with Obama as the nominee. There is no great party rift with Obama at our helm that needs to be healed through the choice of a running mate.

You are making way too much of the question of a few points worth of white women in the 2006 VA election. You're talking breathlessly about being competetive in states like New Jersey and Pennsylvania when we ALREADY ARE. We have strong party bases in those states and they are in the bag so long as Obama doesn't pull a Hillary and call them 'irrelevant.'

As for talk of Florida, you'll find that most of us among the netroots are sick unto nausea of campaign plans that throw everything into depending on Florida. Howard Dean and Barack Obama have shown us the new way forward and that new way is to take the fight into states that hadn't even been on our map 4 years ago. We're going to fight and win in Virginia and North Carolina and Tennessee and Texas and Montana. This campaign in the general election will be a war fought on 50 fronts.  We're going to win back the rural Reagan Democrats and we can't do that with some dude from the Philly suburbs. We do that with Jim Webb.

and history suggests that post-FDR, Democrats don't win without a Southerner on the ticket.

That said, I think it is less important this time around because of the changing electoral math. Not only can the Democrats can take the WH without a single southern state, the south doesn't really figure into their calculation anymore, or at least it shouldn't, I'm sorry to say. For 2008, I would guess the Democrats would be willing to concede the ornery, rural, white, mal, gun-owning and deer-hunting vote.

With Obama, the target is the Independent voter, IMHO.

One could argue, however, that if the Democrats do not at least compete in the South, it frees McCain up to sound more moderate than he otherwise might in the campaign, because he would not have to appeal to the GOP base at all.

It's all academic, of course, if Sestak's friend, econlibVA, if correct. Obviously, he/she has personal insight into it.

No condeding votes.  This is not a winning strategy this year, and it certainly won't help us build the Party.  Every single person in this country has a reason to vote Democratic this year.  Our job is to talk to people directly to figure out what that reason is.

The most important thing we can do with "ornery" people is to treat them with respect and find common ground based on universal principles.  

That's how we open minds and win votes.  

But I was speaking from a practical and strategic perspective, not a philosophical one.

Consider, for example, that Bush still has a 31% approval rating according to Gallup. 47% actually approve of the way he is handling terrorism.

Some folks are beyond reach -- not because I disrespect them, but exactly the opposite -- because they have a fundamentally different world view that in some cases I do respect, and frankly, in some cases I don't.

Given that, and given recent voting patterns, there are some states I just don't think Obama will win, or that he needs to win. As a rough starting point, I would begin with the 17 states that Bush won by 15+ in 2004, but maybe knock Texas and Georgia off that list based on wishful thinking.

I would then look at the 5 states Bush won by fewer than 5 points -- OH, CO, IA, NV and NM, and focus on those as must haves. Win those, and you're president.

Then there are four key states that are most definitely winnable that are worth time and effort: VA, FL, AK and MO -- these are the states that Bush won between 5 and 10 points in 2004.

The key to all nine of these states are the swing voters -- the very voters that Obama's supporters are been maintaining make him so electable.

The last cluster of states, which Bush won by 10-15 points, are also winnable by Obama (with the exception of AZ, of course) by a similar appeal to independents, but possibly tougher nuts to crack.

As a final note, I would add that I strongly support Dean's 50-state strategy. As a bottom up, long-term approach, I think it is critical for Democrats to organize and compete everywhere. But the calculus for a presidential campaign is different, again, IMHO.

"For 2008, I would guess the Democrats would be willing to concede the ornery, rural, white, mal, gun-owning and deer-hunting vote. "

That type of pervasive attitude regarding the rural white male vote why many of (us?) don't feel comfortable or welcome in this party.  I'm a southerner but write software for a living - so I don't live up to the stereotype exactly.  No deer kills this season ;-)  But I know the people who do live up to the stereotype - and even though they may indeed vote for Obama it is despite the stereotypical comments they are subjected to by people in this party who have no respect for other people or cultures.  It is no wonder rural white America votes overwhelmingly Republican when they get no respect from liberal Democrats.

What I find most repulsive is the stereotyping of the southern white male by some of the extreme factions in this party.  Southern white men don't have a monopoly on racism, stupidity, being ornery, anti-woman, or anything else.  

I don't think you meant your comments in a negative way, and I don't take offense to what you said.  But in light of other messages on this thread I think it needed to be said.  People supporting gay rights, immigrant rights, minority rights, etc., and who also bash the white male are hypocrites.

But as I said in another post, I am really talking about people who have a very different world view and express that in their votes for GOP or other conservative candidates. I have many friends who vote like that, and I like and respect them a great deal. I've spoken with people who vote like that for reasons I don't respect.

I respect that view by saying to them, you see things differently, but I believe you are operating in good faith. Lets discuss the issue honestly and try to convince the most people we are right.

But look, if you are an absolutist on the Second Amendment and think any restriction or regulation on gun ownership is unconstitutional, and it's an important issue for you, that's fine, but you'll probably not support a Democratic candidate for president.

If you are ardently anti-choice as a matter of religious conviction, then no, you may not find the Democratic Party welcoming in a policy sense.

Politics is about choices. A political party can not and ought not to be all things to all people.

That said, to the extent that anyone didn't appreciate that I was simply employing Jack's lively self-description, and took what I wrote as a stereotype, I apologize.

"Politics is about choices. A political party can not and ought not to be all things to all people. "

If that is the case, we are stuck with two very narrow ways of thinking.  The way the Democratic party elders think and the way the Republican party elders think.

I think the party system itself results in narrow mindedness.  Frankly most people choose a party out of necessity - because there usually isn't a non partisan option.

People say we are a democracy but the way we elect people is terribly undemocratic.

For example, a small minority of people in this country choose who the Republican or Democratic candidates are.  By the time we can cast our vote in the general election, our results have been narrowed to two people.

Independents must jump through hoops just to get on the ballot and are ignored from the debates.  This isn't a pro-
Nader rant because I'm not supporting him.  This is an anti-party system rant because the system is not Democratic.

If you really love your party, make it more Democratic.  I for one will rejoice if the day comes that party systems are broken.  It will be a victory for true democracy - where one person equals one vote.  Where the elite in this country don't monopolize the debate.  The fact that we call the Democratic party the Democratic party is an oxymoron.  I don't see how you can go through another primary thinking the party is democratic and the system works.

"history suggests that post-FDR, Democrats don't win without a Southerner on the ticket."  Before that also - 3 out of 4 elections, FDR's running mate was from the South (Texas, Missouri).  

suggests Denocrats win when a southerner is at the top of the ticket.  The only Dem who was not a southerner and atop the ticket who won with a southerner as V.P., was Kennedy.  All other winning Dems for President were southerners Johnson, 1964, Carter, 1976, Clinton in 1992 and 1996 with Gore as V.P.  

In 2000 Gore was at the top of the ticket and from the south and he lost.  Kennedy had Edwards in 2004 and Edwards was from North Carolina and they lost.  And of course, Carter lost in 1980 as well.    

And I think that is an old argument that does not apply anymore.  With the south realigning to the Republicans and the northeast realigning to the Dems, along with the Pacific coast, I think that argument is dead.  

Dems can win without carrying a single southern state by sweeping the northeast and Pacific coast and winning the battleground states in the Mid-west.

Bentson didn't help the Duke, and didn't even carry his home state (although Bush also claimed Texas as his home state).

And just for fun, for a look at what has happened when the Democrats put two non-southerners on the ticket, see 1972 and 1984. I think the combined tally would be: Republicans - 98 states, Democrats - 2.

That all said, the match is very different now. But it ought to give pause.

Just remember if Al Gore had carried TN in 2000, he wouldn't have needed Florida.  Tennessee's 11 Electoral Votes would have given Gore 271. We would have never heard of hanging chads.

Gore ended with 266 to Bush's 271.  Gore would've had 277, and Bush would've had 255.

and our country need on this ticket to make it work.  

This may be the one election where a non-politician politician like Jim Webb might be the right guy.

Seeing the line of attack Senator McCain is trying out these last couple of days, it's increasingly clear that Senator Obama's achilles' heel is his total lack of military expertise.

The pebble Senator Obama tossed in the general direction of a militarized American empire during the Texas debate reveals him to be somewhat of a naif.  There are a million things he could have said about our out-of-control defense industry way more on target than an irrelevant anecdote about a 10th Mountain platoon lifting automatic weapons from the Taliban.  

Despite soft-sided Humvees and going to war with the Army you have, the real truth is that we have the most expensively armed and over-equipped military in history.  Yet it was asleep at the wheel on 9/11, was unable to nail Osama bin Laden and cannot pacify one of the very poorest countries in the world, Afghanistan, or a rusting hulk of a country of some 25 million people, Iraq.  So what have we gotten for all our trillions?

and I take the analysis seriously, then how about either Bill Nelson from FL or Ben Nelson from Neb.

I would pass on Nelson.  I would take Webb any day over Senator Nelson.

Do you have a thing for Nelsons?  ;-)

I'd like a Democrat on the ticket.

...but dammit, I want Webb to stay my senator.  It's been so long since I had two good Senators.  I wanna be able to enjoy it for a while.

...would be his newness to politics.  Granted he is a very quick learner and very adaptable, but I remember how ill-at-ease he was at first in his Senate campaign with such basics as fundraising and even shaking hands.  He's not a born baby-kisser for sure...

People say they don't want an old-line politician on the ticket -- and they mean it -- but the media (and now the Internet) certainly kick into feeding frenzy mode the moment any less than polished candidate makes a gaffe.

The flip side, of course, is that Webb would fit perfectly with the Obama theme of going for change, beyond traditional politics, of being independent and intellectual, and crossing racial and cultural lines.  So, Webb would be a risk in some ways, but it will be interesting and telling to see what risks Obama (if he's the nominee) will be willing to take.

(If it's Hillary, I don't see Webb being VP -- no chemistry there that I can detect.)

amazing the dust that can be kicked up on this blog by just mentioning the name of Jim Webb as a potential vice presidential nominee in the Senators home state.  Now, add some gasoline to the fire, enlarge the discussion to all 50 states and you have spontaneous combustion.  

If Democrats in Webb's home state cannot agree on him being a good fit for Obama, how does one convince Democrats in the other 49 states that he should be the nominee?  And don't get me wrong, everyone made a great case for their point of view, but I think the discussion here really shows he's not a great fit for the ticket.

Checkmate.    

But in the spirit of a calm, friendly, rational discussion, I'll give you the last word ;-)

Sui Juris is a very poor representation of the folks on this blog. They are mostly quite rational folks, even if I disagree with a lot of them. And do you really think that RK is an accurate representation of all Dems here in VA, or better yet, that the comments you have seen here are a clear representation of the readership and posters on this blog. Not so much.

Most here are great fans of Webb and would probably love to see him as VP and would work that much harder if he were VP.

So you don't even come close to having checkmate bub. But then again, I don't think I have checkmate either.

I'm a liberal who's more interested in policy than personality.

(And, unlike a lot of the folks here, I'm willing to put my name to what I write.)

Get on with the policy and screw the victory...Roberts as Chief Justice and Alito as his assistant priest of the right. What policy "pisses you off so much" that you would risk a McCain Victory over Obama (ain't a sure thing, McCain was Repug underdog with no money big time and that's who just may do us DEMOCRATIC Party types like he did the moneyed republican 9-11 guy and the Mormon- snark)

WE CANNOT STAND another Supreme Court Justice just because our front runner (I personally am a really pissed-off Edwards voter and doner) doesn't agree with your policies arguments or Nader's for the most part, but the Republican IMPEACH EARL WARREN cry in the early stages of my military career were, good luck for our freedom and democracy, "pissing into the wind" efforts, and I sincerely hope we democrats who need a "middle win" with Obama do not "piss into the wind" and let McCain deliver a super-con deciding vote to the Supreme Court that will screw my children and grandchildren long after I am gone..

SHIT! and I apologize but I have to say it. I don't have but about 10 or 20 more years before I go to my heavenly reward if there is one, BUT I get REALLY PISSED when Nader screws things up for my grandchildren and possibly even their children, and Sui Juris wants to talk personality and policy as something differentiated from reality and experience.  We don't need names on the web if our arguments hold water when it is poured into them.  

are you talking to, OldSoldier?  Certainly not me.  I'd vote for any Democrat over McCain, and think that Nader voters are fucking morons.  

My interest in policy over personality doesn't ignore practicality.  Which is why, for example, I expect to be voting for Webb over any GOP challenger.

As I said some time back, I suspect we have far more politics in common than not, nevermind your creepy obsessions with a rather narrowly defined loyalty.

Am I missing something - I don't see where your name is published.

-Roy E. Lawson

click on the name.

Username: Sui Juris
PersonId: 1267
Created: Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 11:34:28 PM EDT
Sui Juris's RSS Feed  

Web Page: blacknell.net/dynamic/
Email: raisingkaine@blacknell.net

So perhaps it is more complicated.
 

Good luck with the internet thing.

I think I know a thing or two about the Internet.  Your profile isn't visible to everyone.  Guess maybe your the one who needs some help with the "internet thing".

But it worked the second time around.

http://blacknell.net/dynamic/a...

"I help media companies and communications infrastructure providers navigate the legal and business challenges posed by agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission. In other words, I'm a communications attorney."

No wonder you like to argue - you're a corporate attorney.

to you, for figuring out how the Internet works.  

So if you intended on making that public, it isn't.  Perhaps you can put your real name in your signature if that is your intent.

You're going to find discussions like this with any potential running mate.

Dick Cheney in 2000 - Low name recognition. No charisma.

Al Gore in 1992 - Too inexperienced. Poor national security credentials. Lack of geographical balance.

Dan Quayle in 1988 - Lightweight.

George Bush Sr. in 1980 - Practically no experience in elected politics. Total political opposite of Reagan.

Walter Mondale - Too 'DC establishment' for a post-Watergate campaign.

And we could go on back through the entire 20th century, I suppose. Recounting the problems that people in either party had with every single running mate on every single winning ticket. If the very fact of a minority of disagreement over a proposed running mate was really enough to 'checkmate' that person's selection, then there would be no running mates.

"If Democrats in Webb's home state cannot agree on him being a good fit for Obama, how does one convince Democrats in the other 49 states that he should be the nominee?"

In New York, Hillary Clinton only got 57%.  Obama only got 67% in Illinois.  They clearly didn't get universal support in their home states.  So should we disqualify them from running?  According to your logic, we should.

So I bitch-slap you checkmate AND your flawed logic, sir.

Two insults in the same sentence: "bitch-slap" and "sir."  This thread is now destined to double in size.  

Makes for interesting reading, though.  I don't think I would have stopped to read the comments on this thread had Lowell not promised profanity when he updated the post.

so let me try to clarify.

There appears to be a vocal group of members on this blog who are active on other blogs who believe it is a mistake for Webb to be V.P., based on the responses posted to this diary, myslef included.    

The upposition seems of late to be centered around Webb's FISA votes, having struck a nerve with cilil libertarians.  Coupled with Webb's disparaging remarks about women at Annapolis, his inability, along with other members of the Senate to end the war, etc., a Webb candidacy could hinder Obama's ability, if in fact he will be the nominee, to turn out the very voters we need this fall, in the very places we need them.  Add to it Webb's unique style of shooting from the hip, his aloofness, his poor camapigning skills, and it all adds up as a recipe for disaster.  

There is a real argument going on here in Virginia as to whther or not he is a good fit for the candidate.  And as these discussions spill over to other blogs, voters across the country will see the split occuring in VA.  

The first rule for a vice presidential nominee is "do no harm."  Webb does harm in too many areas and raises the possibility of Nader gaining votes in too many states where we need them.  

And for Webb to have won in 2006 by such a smal number of votes is alarming.  In addition to Macaca, Bush's job rating was in the toilet, the Iraq War was THE issue, etc., and Webb only won by 9,000 votes.  A HUGE DEMOCRATIC year and he only won by 9,0000 votes.  

And the most alarming sign was losing female voters 53-47 to George Allen.

         

by a huge and well funded smear campaign courtesy of George Allen - and it's clear some of it stuck on you.  But Webb won.  As a Democrat.  In Virginia.  Considering how far his campaign came going against a potential 08 Presidential candidate - I think he had an AWESOME win in a conservative state.

So I don't agree with you - but all of this is pure conjecture anyway.  Wonder who is really at the top of Obama's list?  It will be a crucial choice for him - and he better pick someone who can "do some harm" to McCain's military experience as well as experience in the areas where Obama is not as strong.

It is correct that Jim Webb won by around 9,000 votes.  The weather on election day was cold with heavy rain all day over most of Virginia.  I submit that many potential Webb voters didn't stay to vote in long lines in the cold rain.  So, we'll never know what the margin would have been on a pleasant day.......bad weather has always favored Republicans.

summer soldiers and sunshine patriots?  

Just kidding.

But what a good excuse to bring up an American touchstone.

These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.
~~~
Thomas Paine, 1776

The weather was a huge factor.  I saw dozens of drenched, shivering people coming from their jobs at the cigarette factory to vote, and the vast majority were going for Webb.  You could hear the chatter in the lines.  Nevertheless, I personally witnessed at least four voters get turned away because they were delayed by traffic and the rain.