Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
THE CASE AGAINST WEBB AS VEEP.
This isn't the first time Webb's name has come up, nor will it be the last. It's even been discussed on the pages of the Prospect recently. But I think the costs for Obama of picking Webb outweigh the benefits. Obviously Webb brings with him a certain authoritativeness on military affairs that is supposed to sit well with voters nervous about the Democrats' foreign policy philosophy. But doesn't that just underscore the notion that Obama is somehow weak on foreign policy? Webb would also, supposedly, make Obama more appealing to white working class voters. This makes a certain amount of intuitive sense but look what Dems could lose:
- A safe Senate seat, which in another Democrat's hands might not be the case
- An outstanding senator who has been a champion for veteran's affairs and revitalizing the military
- A strong voice of economic populism and a fighter for working Americans
The Democratic agenda for 2009, if it is to break clean of the Bush-Cheney years, isn't going to fail or succeed based solely on who wins the White House -- not that it isn't important. But the real action will be in Congress, and specifically the Senate, where countermajoritarian rules and procedures mean that Democrats will need sixty votes to get just about anything done. Jim Webb is one of those votes and an important voice in that body and losing him to a largely ceremonial office means it's just that much harder to get anything passed in a Senate where the Republicans who remain after 2008 will do their best to filibuster everything in sight (one assumes). Democrats already have the advantage on winning the White House, so I say let Webb do his job in the Senate, which he has done admirably. There's other people Obama can pick if he truly believes he needs a running mate that will appeal to white working class voters in order to win the presidency.
--Mori Dinauer
COMMENTS (6)
A safe Senate seat? Really? Chuck Robb was a pretty popular Democratic politician, but he was never safe, because Virginia is a pretty Republican state. The GOP may be in disarray at the moment, but there's no particular reason to expect that they will be in such a bad state in 2012. (And, if they are, won't they be in an even worse state for a special election against, probably, Kaine in 2010?)
We won't even lose the seat in the short term, because Tim Kaine will be able to appoint someone to it (himself?).
The real down sides to Webb are that he's kind of a loose cannon, and kind of crazy. In comparing him to running mates over the past 50 years, the comparison that springs most strongly to mind is Curtis LeMay.
Posted by: John | May 15, 2008 12:01 PM
If the Democrats win the kinds of majorities we are expecting, they would be well-advised to do what the Republicans threatened to do over the S.C. confirmation fights--eliminate the filibuster. Small states, representing about 16% of the population, already have a majority in the Senate. That's plenty enough countermajoritarian (read: anti-democratic and anti-Democratic) for me.
Posted by: Kyle McCullough | May 15, 2008 12:07 PM
I think that one very overlooked weakness for Webb as VP is his stance on immigration. He's a hardliner border fence kinda guy, who I think is opposed to McCain-Kennedy. If he's the veep McCain will do his best to use him as a wedge with latino/a voters in the west and southwest states that Obama is, to a degree, counting on.
Posted by: badger | May 15, 2008 12:10 PM
Not to disagree about Webb, necessarily, but:
Obviously Webb brings with him a certain authoritativeness on military affairs that is supposed to sit well with voters nervous about the Democrats' foreign policy philosophy. But doesn't that just underscore the notion that Obama is somehow weak on foreign policy
Um, wasn't this the exact reason, though, that Cheney was thought to be a boost to Bush's ticket? Sure, at the time it was branded as "gravitas", but it's essentially the same idea isn't it?
Posted by: chiggins | May 15, 2008 1:35 PM
Webb would also, supposedly, make Obama more appealing to white working class voters.
I don't think the VP ever brings more voters to the candidate. At worst, the choice will alienate people (for example if Obama picked Al Sharpton), at best the VP will seem like a good fit.
More important is to consider who you'd want to take over as President after Obama leaves office.
Posted by: Jinchi | May 15, 2008 1:40 PM
Regarding Webb's seat, John is right, it'll never really be safe.
But here's why it's not a huge risk for Webb to run on that front:
Kaine gets to appoint whomever he wants until the next general election. He doesn't have to call a special election.
So Webb runs as VP without retiring his Senate seat. Obama-Webb wins, (and Mark Warner wins, of course) and Kaine appoints either himself (I doubt he would do that) or makes a deal with a caretaker, so Kaine himself can run for the seat. The next Virginia GE will be Nov. 3, 2009, which will also be the day his successor as Governor is elected. It's certainly not a slam-dunk, but not a big risk.
Posted by: along | May 15, 2008 3:08 PM