TNR BLOGS

September 07, 2008 | 2:54 PM
September 06, 2008 | 4:31 PM
September 06, 2008 | 3:43 PM

September 05, 2008 | 2:53 PM
September 05, 2008 | 3:45 AM
September 05, 2008 | 12:25 AM

September 06, 2008 | 5:57 PM
September 06, 2008 | 5:54 PM
September 06, 2008 | 3:14 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

September 05, 2008 | 1:35 PM
September 03, 2008 | 1:01 PM
September 02, 2008 | 6:20 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
29.05.2008
More Webb Obsessing

Ross Douthat makes some smart points about the merits of Webb as veep:

[T]he beauty of the Webb pick is that it has the potential to offer the best of both worlds. Yes, it addresses some of Obama's weaknesses (national security, the white working class) and maybe helps him in the potential swing state of Virginia. But it also doubles down on one of his biggest strengths - specifically, the notion that he's the standard-bearer for a post-partisan Democratic Party. After all, what separates Webb from, say, a John Kerry or a John Edwards - both of whom appealed to Democrats because they seemed to (but didn't really) shore up the party's weaknesses on national security and with the white and Southern working class - is that he really is a different kind of Democrat. He isn't a conventional left-liberal who happens to have a military record and/or a Southern accent; he's a more sui generis figure, a cultural (though not social) conservative with heterodox views on a variety of issues.

This is why, were I Obama, I would look at the left-liberal case against Webb - on the grounds that he's too anti-feminist, too pro-military, too skeptical about affirmative action and immigration, too hostile to Hollywood and academia - as an advertisement for the pick. An Obama-Webb ticket wouldn't send just a message that people who share the same ethno-cultural identity as Jim Webb can have a home in the Democratic Party, the way Kerry and Edwards were supposed to show that veterans and Southerners could too be Democrats; it would send a message that people with Webb's views can have a home in the party. 

The only caveat I'd add to all of this is that I think some parts of the left-liberal case against Webb are more consequential than others--namely his views on women. It's a pretty safe bet that the women who are hurt and angry about Hillary's defeat will, facing a choice between McCain and Obama, go with Obama. But I think Obama's picking Webb as his runningmate could complicate that--since some women would view it as a slap in Hillary's face. Unless, of course, Obama made it known that he offered the job to Hillary first and she turned it down--and, maybe even for the sake of drama, recommended Webb as the better choice. (Hey, it doesn't have to be true! The various players just need to say it is!)  In other words, if Obama does choose Webb, the choreography of the choice may be as important as the choice itself.

--Jason Zengerle 

Posted: Thursday, May 29, 2008 4:13 AM with 11 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

WaltB said:

You all really need to get over this.  Webb would bring too much baggage, is a pathetic campaigner, and wouldn't be comfortable as VP.  He's much better suited in the Senate as he is, and is doing some good things there. Why do you think he'd be able to accomplish anything at all as VP?  What one in the last fifty years has?

May 29, 2008 7:15 AM

kgrant1054 said:

Right.  The person all of this attention should be lavished upon is (wait for it):

Senator Russ Feingold.

May 29, 2008 8:30 AM

TammyA said:

I agree with Walt.  Why the fussing over Webb?  Move on.  Guess the TNR peeps like him.  

May 29, 2008 8:54 AM

prnoonan said:

Walt raises good points, but I have to say I am pretty disheartened to see the reincarnation of this interest-group orthodoxy (particularly of the identity-politics variety) with this issue.  There's a similar thing going on when Sam Nunn has been discussed for VP.

May 29, 2008 9:32 AM

BHLnyc said:

WaltB,

You say that Webb is a pathetic campaigner and I accept your assessment, since I didn't watch his Senate race very carefully. But I do know that when he gave the Democratic response to the President's State of the Union last year he was widely praised and people who had never paid any attention to the response before stood up and listened. So he's clearly got *some* above-average communication skills that he can work.

I, too, am concerned about selecting a candidate who's had some trouble with women, because I think it gives Hillary and at least some of her minions an excuse not to support the ticket. But I also think this is probably offset by the abortion issue, which is huge for most Democratic women. How many of these same voters are going to pull a lever for McCain knowing that he's probably one justice away from scrapping Roe V. Wade?

May 29, 2008 9:47 AM

singlespeed said:

WaltB...maybe if Webb had the Obama campaign machine behind him to guide his VP candidate roll he could shed the "pathetic campaigner" image. I do agree that he blunts the perceived negatives of Obama for working class whites and other minorities not comfortable voting for Obama.

That being said...I think Obama will need to look at the newer generation of politicians in the Party instead of reaching back into the dinosaur diorama for an elder statesman/woman.

That's why I think Obama should go for the Democratic Governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer. He's got actual foreign experience that's on-the-ground real, and he speaks Arabic . He's a native Westerner and can really plug into the West and completely negates McCain the transplant. Schweitzer also has the gubernatorial experience and his domestic policies are very much centered on the working class and small business.

Oh...and his approval rating is 70% and that's in a historically Red state.

May 29, 2008 10:46 AM

arsonplus said:

Here's the thing; Webb's a bad "in-person" campaigner but a great media personality.  It kind of balances out.

May 29, 2008 10:48 AM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

My 2 cents: Webb is just not a good choice. Been in the Senator for a little more than a year and he just isn't that good on the hustings. He is a stand up feller with lots of guts and moxie but Obama should look elsewhere. I really don't know who would be perfect - who really does - but in the end, folks vote for the Top, not the Bottom of the ticket. There are quite a few solid Democrats, men and women, who could help the ticket. A real spoiler would be Chuck Hagel. That would be a unity type ticket.

May 29, 2008 12:49 PM

mjhniner said:

Schweitzer looks great on paper.  Didn't know about his agricultural development work.  And Arabic?! Hell yeah.  Does he have war views?  His wiki didn't get into it.

May 29, 2008 1:12 PM

liberal reformer said:

Aeromonas: Nicely argued, as usual.  But Montana has 944,632 people, as of the 2006 US Census Bureau estimate. That is about half the population of the county - King - that I live in in the state of Washington. It has one congressional seat. The veep selection is going to come from a more populous state.

May 29, 2008 1:28 PM

dylanposer said:

What happened to the Kathleen Sibelius?  Is too harsh a blow to the Clintons to pick another woman besides Hillary?

May 29, 2008 1:32 PM