Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
A STRANGE CASE FOR KAINE.
For most of the reasons cited by Dylan, liberals should be unahppy if Obama choses Tim Kaine as his running mate. Still, I can least imagine an argument on his behalf: He could win Virginia for the Dems, a major blow to McCain, and his more conservative positions are unlikely to affect the way Obama governs. I reject the argument because I don't think there's good evidence that Vice Presidential nominees have a significant positive influence on voting behavior, so running mates should be primarily be chosen on the merits (on which Sebelius is clearly preferable to Kaine.) But I could at least find this argument intelligible.
Micheal Sean Winters, on the other hand, seems to argue that Kaine's reactionary positions on reproductive freedom are a feature, not a bug. His argument is rife with the kind of illogic endemic to claims that the path to Democratic victory is selling out women. Most importantly, it's far from clear how many potential Democratic voters will be affected by critiques of Sebelius from a priest "who has been published in the conservative Catholic journal First Things, a magazine that often mimics White House talking points more faithfully than it follows the teachings of the Catholic Church." But since these attacks on Sebelius for being pro-choice didn't stop her from being elected in one of the most conservative states in the country, it's hard to imagine they could significantly impact a national race, and Winters provides no evidence otherwise.
Even more importantly, while implying that Democrats should choose Kaine over Sebelius to chase voters unlikely to vote for the Dems in any case, he completely ignores the costs of such a strategy. Democrats also need votes, donations, and activism from their pro-choice base, who would be (properly) dismayed by a selection of Kaine. And given Obama's path to the Democtratic nomination, this seems like an especially bad year to stick a thumb in the eye of women and effectively declare reproductive freedom a second-class issue. Once you consider the potential costs alongside the (highly dubious) benefits, the argument for Kaine cannot be sustained.
There are other reasonable choices, but if it comes down to the two red-state governors, Sebelius is far and away the better choice for Obama.
COMMENTS (8)
Clark.
http://www.obamaclark.com/
Posted by: ed | August 1, 2008 1:16 PM
I don't know anything about this Winters fellow, but my impression was that his schtick is pretty much about triangulating Catholic doctrine on sexuality with Dem politics, which of course would make Kaine more appealing to him. It's probably a relevance thing.
Agree with you on Sebelius, though; part of it's that I'm a pro-choice feminist, of course, but she also seems more impressive paired with Obama & has a record of both useful bipartisanship and principled smackdowns in a state known for its generally batshit crazy GOP.
Posted by: latts | August 1, 2008 2:13 PM
This morning, Michael Gerson proposed that Obama should choose CO Gov. Bill Ritter instead of Kaine, because Kaine waffled somewhat on his pro-life stance, and Ritter hasn't. Gerson said it would be a "revolutionary decision by Obama -- helping remove the largest obstacle to broad, Democratic realignment."
But it's the same deal: the Dems aren't going to get very far by weaseling on the party's core beliefs.
The biggest doubt that potential, but not yet reliable, Dem voters seem to have about the party is about its backbone. If Obama's willing to sell out on something as important to Dems as a woman's right to choose, then people will just wonder what else he'll retreat from when it's convenient.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | August 1, 2008 3:20 PM
From what I've heard, the issue that most differentiates Kaine and Sebelius is coal (Kaine kinda bad, Seblius very good).
Obama seems to be a little bit on the fence about domestic fossil fuels like coal, so a Kaine nomination might be very bad (and a Sebelius nomination very good) for our planet's future temperature, as well as the quality of life in coal-rich areas of the US that have suffered severe environmental harm due to coal mining.
Posted by: Robin Ozretich | August 1, 2008 3:24 PM
Reproductive freedom has long been a settled issue in this nation, at least since the Shakers died out. No one now seriously opposes the freedom to reproduce.
On the other hand, abortion rights and, to a lesser extent, contraception, are contentious political issues.
Let's use the Queen's English honestly and leave the weasel words to the sex control freaks. When we mean abortion rights, then damn it, let's say abortion rights.
Posted by: John in Nashville | August 2, 2008 2:00 AM
While I'd prefer to see Sebelius over Kaine, I'm sticking by my original assertion that concern over Kaine's position on choice are much ado about nothing:
http://www.theleftanchor.com/2008/07/purity-and-the.html
I think the argument that he might engender some anger among those of us who hold choice as a core issue, but as VP, he would not be in a position for that matter, and the very reasons people are noting for opposing him are the same reasons that he'll never get the nomination for president.
So unless Obama dies while in office, it doesn't make a lot of sense to expend this energy opposing Kaine.
Posted by: Big Blue | August 2, 2008 2:30 AM
"His argument is rife with the kind of illogic endemic to claims that the path to Democratic victory is selling out women."
The single biggest reason the Democratic Party chooses this sort of weasel route that pleases few of its supporters is the utter unwillingness of Party leadership to take on the economic issues of relevance to the majority of the country, and which might help them attract voters for more productive reasons.
The better choice seems clear to me, but how likely is that? It looks to me like you're all universally screwed.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2008 8:58 PM
Sebelius is by far the better choice. Women need to be enegergized by a proChoice woman otherwise Obama's going to sink imo. Just some boring white guy from the South won't cut it..with the exception of Jim Webb (Yay!) who also gets the economic angle better than most. I also would propose Independent Bernie Sanders who'd explain the economics better than most and plus be a true Jewish American unlike the wacko Lieberman who is a closet Republican.
Sebelius is much better than Hillary and w/o the baggage.
Posted by: datadave | August 3, 2008 9:02 PM