But I thought he was a uniter? How will he be able to reach across the aisle to the GRUESOME Republicans when he can't even unite people within his own party? Is he capable of taking on the Republicans when he's incapable of uniting his own party? Nope.
george, it's yet to be seen whether or not this country is "unitable". he has the best chance to do it, clearly- some people just don't want it for whatever reason.
He only has to reach a few of the real Republicans who are ticked off at the GRUESOME Republicans who co-opted their party. And again, your concern for the well being of the Democratic Party is noted and appreciated.
I managed to find an article that agreed with my opinion ... OBAMA'S VICE-PRESIDENT? Jim Webb as running mate Virginia Senator James Webb should be the Democratic candidate for vice-president. Gerald M. Pomper Special Guest Columnist Senator Barack Obama is close to winning the Democratic nomination for president. His overwhelming victory in North Carolina and virtual tie in Indiana, with a forthcoming tide of superdelegates, will bring him within a hundred votes of the nomination. Obama has victory in sight, unless the iron laws of arithmetic are repealed by superdelegates meeting in "smoke-filled rooms" in an age of "no smoking" edicts in air-conditioned retreats. Obama must soon turn to the choice of a running mate. The best choice, in my opinion, would be Senator Webb. To make the case, let's first dispose of two contrary arguments. The first is that party tickets need to be balanced geographically, with each of the running mates bringing in their home states from different regions. The reality is that almost no voters are swayed when a native son is in second place on the ticket. Jack Kemp could not carry New York for the Republicans in 1996, just as John Edwards could not bring North Carolina into the Democratic fold in 2004. In 2008, the outworn argument for electoral balance comes in a new form: advocacy of Hillary Clinton as Obama's running mate. Some politicians see this as the Democratic "dream ticket," combining the distinct appeals the two candidates showed in the party primaries. If elected, that ticket would bring a President Obama sniping from his vice-president and the anguish of the likely intrusive pretensions of Bill Clinton as a self-designated "co-president." But In cold-hearted political terms the combination doesn't make sense. Senator Clinton would not, in fact, bring that much to the ticket. Her strongest appeal obviously is to women. But women are likely to vote predominantly Democratic in any case, as they have for the past quarter of a century. Would women facing a recession and mounting health costs really support John McCain's tax cuts for the wealthy and his ineffective health program? Would the most outspoken feminists really endorse a candidate pledged to appoint the Supreme Court Justices who would reverse Roe v. Wade? The real "gender gap" is not caused by women, but by men. The Democrats have been losing presidential elections because men have left their ranks in greater numbers than women have come to support the party. By my calculations, the effect of these movements in 2000 was a net gain of four million votes for Bush over Gore, far more important in his "victory" than the Florida vote manipulations. In 2004, Bush won majorities among both white men and white women, with white men again decisive, 62 percent voting for the President. An Obama-Clinton ticket would be historic in overturning barriers of race and gender. But confronting the electorate with both a black and a woman candidate at the same time might well try its patience beyond the limits of well-meaning tolerance. It is simply realistic, even if not ennobling, to remember that white males constitute forty percent of the electorate, and that they too may want to identify with some candidate. Of course there is such a candidate in the race -- Republican John McCain. Democrats need to counter his appeal. The true contribution of a running mate is what the selection signals about the presidential candidate. In these terms, the most successful recent vice-presidential choice -- in electoral terms -- was George W. Bush's selection of Dick Cheney. Bush faced doubts about his foreign policy competence. Cheney, with vast experience and service in two stints as Secretary of Defense, seemingly certified Bush's competence. Webb fits Obama's true needs. The Illinois Senator's greatest deficiency is his lack of experience in foreign policy and military security. Clinton has made that her chief point of attack -- as in the now-classic "3 A.M. telephone" ad -- and this area is obviously McCain's greatest strength. There is no way for Obama to match McCain, even if he could manufacture some "sniper fire," but the right running mate could give him a measure of credibility, in much the same way as Cheney helped Bush. Webb is a Naval Academy grad and Vietnam veteran (exactly matching McCain), and a former Secretary of the Navy bringing directly relevant executive experience. He won four military medals in Vietnam, and was wounded twice, a record that, along with awards from the American Legion and VFW, would repel attacks by SwiftBoaters. His term at the Pentagon came under Ronald Reagan, when Webb was a Republican, an advantage in Obama's effort to achieve a new electoral coalition. With this military background, he reinforces the Democrats' case against the Iraqi intervention, a position he has articulated from the beginning of the war and with particular force, including a direct confrontation with President Bush at a White House reception. As a novelist, non-fiction author and Emmy-winning television reporter, he also shows intellectual distinction. Webb also would bring specific political advantages to the Democratic ticket. His rural roots, vigorous language and championing of working class values would compensate for Obama's evident weaknesses among these voters. Webb provides a populist platform on corporate regulation, trade, taxation and health care that would further extend the party's appeal to its lower-income base. Born in Missouri, educated in Nebraska, California and the Naval Academy in Maryland, he encapsulates a national electoral appeal. Finally, to the limited extent that state residence matters, he would help to switch Virginia into the Democratic column for the first election since 1964. Webb may have some deficiencies as a candidate, related to sexist writings done thirty years ago and his occasional indelicate language. He, and Obama, would need to make special efforts to clear those hurdles to bring women voters back into the Democratic fold. They can succeed by emphasizing the evident differences between them and McCain on both economic and social policies, as well as the Iraq war. On his own, we can expect Webb to outshine any of the pallid Republicans being considered for the McCain ticket, to close the party's "security gap," and to provide the necessary appeal to white male voters. For Senator Obama, Webb's selection would show both audacity and hope. -- Gerald Pomper is the Board of Governors Professor of Political Science (Emeritus) at Rutgers University. He has written extensively on U.S. politics, including seven quadrennial books on presidential elections since 1976.
Great Webb article, No Worries. Here's another weighing in on the unity ticket. http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/05/09/michael-tomasky-on-the-unity-ticket.aspx 09.05.2008 Michael Tomasky on the Unity Ticket The idea of a Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton "unity ticket" has been floated quite a bit the last few days. But, seriously, is the idea any good? We asked a few friends of the magazine to weigh in. Here's Michael Tomasky, editor of Guardian America. A part of me has lately warmed somewhat to the idea of Barack Obama asking Hillary Clinton to join him as his running mate. But on balance I still think he can do better in both substantive and symbolic terms. The case for the unity ticket is pretty obvious and is implied in the adjective. Ed Kilgore made the case well here yesterday, and it's an argument worth taking seriously, which is why I've come around to it a little. And yet. ... Actually there are several and yets. Number one: Substantively, something tells me that Vice President Clinton couldn't work very well with President Obama. She'd always be thinking, "Well, I'd have done it this way." She would demand, because of her stature, some kind of major portfolio. Her track record with major portfolios is other than encouraging. And if Mr. Clinton as First Husband seemed problematic, what of him padding around the Naval Observatory? A former president married to a current president would at least mean that the two were working more or less as a team. A former president married to a current vice president who really thinks she should be president creates the potential for way too much mischief that could undermine the president. Back around 1999 and 2000, when Rudy Giuliani's aides were floating the idea that he'd be a superb vice presidential choice for a GOP nominee, Al Sharpton was asked to comment on the prospect and said something like: Whoever hires Giuliani as his vice-president better also hire a food-taster. This wouldn't be that bad. But let me put it this way: If I were Obama, I'd try to avoid general anesthesia for the duration of my presidency. Okay, back to politics. One problem is that I think a Clinton choice would be aimed solely at Democrats. It would be popular among them, but what about non-Democrats? Let's note something that's been little remarked upon so far this season. People keep talking about the stunning turnout in these primaries, and, for primaries, this has surely been the case. About 33 million people have voted. But how many people voted in the last general election? Around 122 million. With interest seeming higher this year, and if Obama can indeed register many new voters, there is every reason to think that 100 million more people will vote on November 4 than have voted cumulatively over the last 18 weeks. Hillary on the ticket would clearly go down well among a large majority of the 33 million who've voted. But what about the other 100 million? How would putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket strike them? It would depend of course on who they are. She has performed reasonably well among independents, especially more recently, so maybe this is a false alarm. But I suspect that by and large, her popularity is limited to Democrats. Which means I'm not sure she'd help in the traditional way vice presidential candidates are supposed to help. And it's possible she could even hurt. If she'd been the nominee, or if she still somehow manages to become it, we can be certain that many millions of conservatives would come out to vote against her. They would not do so in anything like similar numbers if she were merely the bottom half of the ticket. But some number would. She could serve as a sort of "tipping-point" of negative motivation for conservatives. That is, Obama combined with X--Sam Nunn, say; and he's not my candidate, but I mean that kind of person--would be bad from the conservative point of view. But an Obama-Clinton ticket would be an out-and-out crisis. Obama has enough of his own problems. Finally, I don't think she makes up for Obama's weaknesses as well as some other possible choices would. His biggest substantive problem against John McCain is going to involve proving gravitas on national security and the fight against terrorism. Clinton has of course taken steps to shore up her national-security credentials over the years, but she doesn't "signify" national-security toughness in the minds of swing voters. Additionally, I think I'd very much prefer that his vice presidential nominee not have supported the war in Iraq. A pro-Iraq war vice-president could weaken the president's hand domestically in trying to resolve the situation. Obama does have solemn work to do in courting and persuading not the Clintons themselves but her voters. He will need to be creative and aggressive in reaching out to them and being genuine to them, and his campaign needs to take this very seriously. But I think it can be done via avenues other than offering her the vice-presidency. I have a preferred choice, which I'll reveal with home-field advantage over at the Guardian when the time is right. I wouldn't be hostile to his selecting Clinton, but I think it brings more minuses than pluses. --Michael Tomasky
I can't disagree with much in the Tomasky article. Thanks Batman. I think the last paragraph is particularly important.
Me too. And before yesterday's electability comments from Clinton I'd resolved to stop saying nasty stuff about her. I think and hope I got it out of my system and am back to trying to do my part to making our party a place where every voter and (nearly-) former contender feels valued, important and welcome. I'm sorry I have a hair pin trigger for this stuff. It's been a long, rough season. We have important work to do to heal the rift.
Total loose cannon, but not a moron. You're right, though -- the fact that he's hard to "control" works against him big time. I'm basing it mostly on the fact that he's hugely popular in one of the most important swing states in the country. One that Obama lost, too. Rendell won re-election with over 60% of the vote -- unheard of for a Dem statewide in PA. Rendell is also one of the best fundraisers in the Dem party, but that might not be as big of a factor given Obama's ability to raise millions from small donors over the Internet. At the very least, I'd expect a high-profile "consideration" of Rendell as a subtle nod to Pennsylvania.
Rendell's not my guy, but he should get serious consideration. And he did a good job of being respectful and positive about both candidates, even while he did a hell of a good job by Clinton. One of the things I love about Webb though is that he comes with total gravitas, age, experience, unimpeachable credentials but without a long political history - at least without a long public one. I see Obama and Webb as such a fresh ticket, such a turning of the page, which is really in line with the image they'll be looking to present. And then there's the bipartisan thing that Webb adds to the ticket without the policy disagreements that might come with picking a Hagel or Bloomberg, for example. Rendell's powerful machine history is less of a plus to me, in contrast with all that. And, as you said, Obama really doesn't need help with raising money. It would be nice to feel like PA was in the bag, but I feel really good about PA no matter who the VP is.
Sebelius gives the bipartisan thing too. She won 58% of the vote in Kansas and chose a Republican as her running mate. I'm switching my vote from Richardson to Sebelius.
I'm very split on Webb and Sebelius. There is a slight distinction on the bipartisan thing though. Sebelius has very successfully appealed to and worked with Republicans; Webb has done all that too but also he was one. He also worked for Reagan, which will appeal more to moderate R's and Reagan D's than anything Sebelius has going. And then there's the military thing, the fact that his son served in Iraq, etc. He's tough as nails and puts "Obambi" stuff totally to rest. Sebelius can't do that either. Imagine McCain trying to say Obama's weak on Iraq and then imagine Webb pulling out his son's combat boots (as he did so often on the trail in VA) and pointing to his purple hearts. And VA's got more electoral votes than KS. I've been going back and forth but I'm convincing myself as I type that my first pick for VP (going back two years now) will be my last one.
On Webb... I still think it's a Dukakis/Bentsen problem. The more macho Webb is, the more weak he can make Obama look. Plus the fear that he could fly off and say somehting embarasing is just too much of a risk. Loose cannons make horrible VPs. Think Muskie in 72. I prefer my VPs to be nice and boring. They are the second banana. The worst thing that can happen, in my opinion, is that someone hopes the picks are reversed. The Reagan Democrats are going to look at Obama Webb and wish the tough talking military guy was at the top of the ticket, then they will realize that hey! there is a tough talking military guy at the top of the other ticket! and they will vote for McCain. Leave Webb in the Senate and use him A Lot on the campaign trail, but keep him off the ticket is what I say. Sebelius is good and boring. From a political family (her dad was governor of Ohio, I think) she could take over if Obama died. She brings pissed off Hillary supporting women back. And she's Catholic. And she solidifies the mid west. The argument that Obama needs to pick someone that will appeal to red necky white guys because he hasn't been getting their support in the primaries is a bs argument. Those guys are going to vote for McCain. They just are. A lot of Regan Democrats are just not coming back. If the idea is to win Virginia, I'd prefer good ole boring Kaine. ObamaKaine has a nice ring to it.
Not that ther's much new info in this, but here it is... Obama Vice President Picks: Who Are The Frontrunners? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/09/obama-vice-president-pick_n_100869.html With the Democratic nomination now in its endgame, it's time to speculate on that question that makes politicos weak at the knees: who will be tapped to be vice president? Unlike the top job, there is no election here, it's the first big choice that we get to see the candidate make about his cabinet. So, who will Obama pick? Will he favor someone with experience like Joe Biden? A Western governor like Janet Napolitano? Or will satisfy the the media's desire for a dream team and try for the Obama/Clinton ticket? We've identified 10 possible VP choices for Obama, as well as the general criteria that might guide his decision. Think we're missing someone? Let us know in the comments section. And be sure to register your favorite on HuffPost Vice President poll. WHAT TO LOOK FOR IN A VEEP Location, location, location: A VP who is popular at home can help land a win in a tossup state. It's one reason why someone like Sherrod Brown (OH) could be a good pick. Of course, location isn't everything; Cheney, after all, is from Wyoming. Strong anti-war record: It's not a requirement that someone be against the war to run on an Obama ticket, but they will have to have a good track record explaining why they changed their mind. Otherwise, expect all those comments about Hillary Clinton to come up, as well as one word: "opportunist." Post-partisan record: If you're running to overcome the divided state of politics, you probably won't inspire confidence by picking Sen. Russ Feingold as your running mate. Sen. Jim Webb (a former Republican) or Gov. Schweitzer (picked a Republican as his Lieutenant General) are good good examples. Complementing record: On the one hand, a VP can balance a candidate's weaknesses. On the other hand, they can magnify those shortcomings. Richardson and Biden, for example, have long resumes that let them go toe-to-toe with McCain, but it could remind voters of Obama's inexperience. THE TOP TIER Jim Webb Webb is the closest thing to a frontrunner for Obama's VP these days. A former Republican, he served as Secretary of the Navy for Ronald Regan. Webb defeated George "Macaca" Allen to become a junior senator in Virginia. Pros: Webb is a good foil for Obama's post-partisan message, and he's the military credentials to go match up with John McCain. He's good at playing the attack dog, which will let Obama keep the high road. And he's from trending-blue Virginia, which would be a great pickup in November for Democrats. He's also pro-guns. Cons: Webb can be a little out-of-control as attack dogs go. --- Hillary Clinton This ticket is either a dream or a nightmare. Some see it as the only way to reunite the Democrats in time for November. Other see it as the fastest way to destroy the Obama brand. Pro: Strong appeal with working class voters and women. Con: See Iraq War vote, 3AM phone call, Bill Clinton in South Carolina, and the month of March. --- Bill Richardson You know him, you love him, he's the New Mexico governor with a heart of gold, a kickin' mustache, and -- thanks to James Carville -- a new nickname. Pros: You've heard them all before. A foreign policy resume a mile long, executive experience, and a lock with Hispanic voters. And he picked Obama, despite his Clinton ties. Cons: Did you watch any of the debates? --- Joe Biden He is Mr. Foreign Policy. He also claims the best line of the primary season thus far. Too bad no one told Iowans he was running for President. Pro: He trumps any foreign policy claims that McCain brings to the table. He can hit McCain hard. Con: He tends to hit everyone hard. And he's a Washington figure, which could hurt a campaign running against Washington. --- Brian Schwietzer Never heard of him? You should. Schweitzer has been Montana's governor since 2005, and is currently on of the most popular governors in the country. Pros: In addition to his executive experience, Schweitzer has spent a good amount of time around the world (including the Middle East) in his former life as an irrigation developer. His popularity and his pro-gun stance could help Obama in the Mountain West area. He also refused PAC and special interest money during his 2004 campaign. He's also criticized the economic consequences of the Iraq War, an approach that Obama has recently adopted. Cons: Despite his travels, he has no official foreign policy experience. He also doesn't bring in any delegates from his own state (though that could be offset if he helps in places like North Dakota, Wyoming and Colorado). WORTH WATCHING Janet Napolitano Another popular Western governor, Napolitano has settled into a second term in McCain's very red home state. She also backed Obama early in the race. Pros: She has proven her executive capacity in Republican territory, as well as the Southwest, which will help sway Obamicans. A female candidate could also help reunite the Democrats. Con: Her stance on immigration could prove costly among Hispanic voters. Sherrod Brown Another governor, this one from Ohio. Brown is a favorite among progressives for his economic populism and outspoken criticism of the war. Pro: Could help deliver an important swing state. Con: Doesn't really satisfy the idea of a unity ticket. --- Chuck Hagel A Republican senator who has fought with Bush tooth and nail over the Iraq war, Hagel is one of three Republicans who voted with the Democrats over a withdrawal plan. He also has served on the Banking, Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees. Hagel has also said he's considering endorsing Sen. Obama. Pro: Broad Senate experience. A living embodiment of Obama's commitment to work with like-minded Republicans. Also is a veteran with experience in Reagan's administration Con: He is still a Republican (especially on abortion, healthcare), which would not sit well with a lot of Democrats. --- Wesley Clark Rhodes Scholar turned four-star general and once-presidential candidate. A star resource for Democrats on military affairs. Pro: John McCain would have to salute him. And he has Southern appeal. Con: Backed Clinton early and has been a very active surrogate. Not always the best politician on a national stage. --- Kathleen Sebelius Talk about reaching across the aisle. This Kansas governor convinced a Republican to leave his party, become a Democrat, and run as his Lieutenant Governor. Kansas is rife with stories of Republicans undergoing conversions, and Sebelius gets a good amount of credit for this. Pro: Another Red-state governor with an excellent post-partisan record. Having a female VP could be a strong ticket. Con: Sebelius didn't wow anyone with her response to the State of the Union, which raises questions about how she would do on the national stage. And her location in Kansas doesn't add much that Obama doesn't already get from Illinois. --- Tom Daschle The former South Dakota senator, Daschle has been a strong supporter of Obama's campaign; he's a nation co-chair and is rumored to play a big part in the campaign strategy. Pro: Can bring in votes from his home state. Con: Weak campaigner: he lost his Senate seat while he was the sitting Majority Leader. HONORABLE MENTION Mike Bloomberg Sure, most voters have never heard of him. And sure, he's never been a national player. But the current Mayor of New York has been a darling of the media, as they spent months seeing if he would get into the Presidential race. Coupled with some private conversations with Obama that caused a tizzy in the fall, a Bloomberg candidacy could cause some media attention that would rival that of even John McCain. Pros: Excellent economic record. Interested in policy minutiate. Post partisan (former Republican switched to Independent). Media darling. Cons: Unheard of outside his home state. It's tough not to seem like an elitist when the world 'billionaire' applies to you.
re: serious black's article Obama should pick Hagel and McCain should pick Lieberman. Then the whole election will be about the war in Iraq. Not general foreign policy, not the kind of wars that we fought for the UN in the '90s, not the economy, not social programs. All about the War in Iraq. It'll be simple enough that it would completely fit the style of the Cable News Networks.
McCain would be foolish to choose Lieberman, who would bring mostly scorn and skepticism. If I was a Dem, I'd cheer that choice. Obama and Hagel is interesting. I could see Hagel being in a cabinet position but I'm not sure about veep. What's interesting about the choices is I expect McCain to choose the next GOP standardbearer and I think it's likely Obama will choose someone who is not very ambitious.
