I think it depends completely on what Hilary says between now and the selection of a Vice President. If she comes out at a press conference today and says, “I would like to be on the ticket with Mr Obama.” Then Obama has an issue. If he does not chose Hilary it would appear to Hilary supporters that he snubbed her. That is a voting block of, what, 17 million people? That’s a lot of votes to put at risk.
However, if Hilary does not come out and say anything at all Obama can claim that he “passed over” Mrs. Clinton. This would allow him to woo some Hilary supporters.
A Hilary/Obama ticket could, and probably WOULD win the general election. I do not see this happening though with Mrs. Obama supposedly saying she does not want Barak running with her.
But is there polling data to support this? The strongest Obama/X pairing I’ve seen in polls (which haven’t been doing Obama/Hilary to my knowledge) is Obama/Edwards. By a lot. Edwards hits most of the places that are most important without the baggage of Hilary. Since I haven’t seen any polls with Hilary (and I’m not sure I’ve seen any with Webb), I have to go by polls for Hilary as the presidential candidate, but again, those are all very favorable in places they should be.
It sounds fun to say “working class rural white males and folks concerned about the military and national security” don’t care about Hilary, but the fact is that she appeals to them more than Obama and McCain in many places. Or she appeals to their neighbors and wives sufficiently to overcome a deficit amongst them. She has really strong name recognition. Obama/Webb, for many people not in Virginia is likely to be the same as Obama/X, but that’s not true of Obama/Clinton.
EDIT: That said, you also have to take into account the lack of Hilary bashing from the republicans recently. Her poll numbers may look really strong right now, but it is certainly possible that a lot of that support would be destroy by republican attacks aimed at her, allowing them to bypass attacking Obama, which never seems to work quite right. Thus, a more innocuous VP may be a better thing for him.
You hit on the key point there at the end – name recognition. It’s the key point because it’s the reason you shouldn’t be trusting the “polling data” much. Just because a lot of people don’t know who Webb is now doesn’t mean he wouldn’t do a great job drawing them in once they get to know them. “Hey, this guy worked for Reagan”. “Hey, this guy is a Scot-Irish and even wrote a book about them”.
People would have a better argument if they were talking about women, where Webb might have some real issues. But “white working class” there really is nobody better (well, maybe Jon Tester, but he’s not generally a great candidate).
I think Webb’s name recognition, what he is and where he’s been, isn’t out there yet. But in a campaign, you’d better believe is going to be steered by the Republicans onto national defense issues and generic “patriotism”, having this guy on the ticket will more than exceed expectations. He’s a populist like Edwards but he’s also a military guy with a son in Iraq. And like Obama he was vocally against the war from the start. As an ex-Republican he can draw independants and disgruntled moderate Republicans over.
And he knows the issues. Anyone that’s seen Webb talking about Iraq and our strategic global position in the world knows this guy is on top of things. He’s not a showboater like Biden but a no-nonsense tough character.
Is he charismatic like Edwards? No. Does he have a built in political machine like Clinton? No. But that military and former Republican (Sec Navy under Reagan no less) biography will telegraph to alot of folks that “Obama’s okay” who might have otherwise found alot of reasons just to mistrust him based on the noise machine blather out there. Edwards comes off as a lightweight to many folks and a slick lawyer type. Hillary’s absolutely hated by too many people out there to be a net positive plus I can’t see how she’d actually work out in a functional way as VP. Could she and Bill, and their cadres, really play second fiddle with any decorum in someone else’s administration?
Maybe, but take Obama as the example … He beat the big name based on what he had to offer in a positive campaign.
Bring in the negative campaigner, the crazy shit she talks and the bad baggage she carries, and doesn’t that at least somewhat dampen his positive attributes?
Ravenight: Why do Republican talking heads, all of the sudden, seem so in love with Clinton? And ain’t a one of them really likes or trusts her. That’s all you need to know about what they think her involvement in the campaign will do to energise their base.
Also, one of the big reasons I personally was attracted to Obama’s campaign was his explicit repudiation of the Karl Rove style “appeal to your base by throwing red meat and screw the moderates” campaign style. Whereas that is still Hillary’s campaign rationale.
Call me crazy, but Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy has worked pretty well so far!
You still haven’t answered the question of why polls don’t reflect it. I don’t doubt there will be plenty of talking heads foaming at the mouth if Hilary is on the ticket, but if there are really so many people who hate her, why do they say they’d vote for her over McCain?
Unless your argument is that the talking heads would be so loud they sway those people over to McCain…which might be true.
Obviously current polls don’t reflect the Nov reality, but as much as I’d like to see Obama take Webb as VP, win Virginia and campaign the crap out of Ohio and Penn and thus get the job, the current landscape makes that seem like a much riskier proposition than taking Edwards or Hilary. Which means you have to make a bunch of assumptions about how the electorate is going to break, and since my assumption in 2004 and 2000 was that the electorate would refuse to put the country in the hands of C student frat boy, I have to accept the fact that what seems logical to me has little to no bearing on the public’s actual will.
For all that Hilary’s “we won enough states to get 270 electoral votes” is retarded, her 17 million votes are not. Dismissing her as “too many people hate her and won’t vote for her” seems disingenuous.
And ooh, I might have to head on over there, since it is practically right down the street from me. I would love to see him in person.
One of the reasons that Webb is a good choice is because he is the kind of Democrat that is great for moderates. He is an ex-Republican, former Secretary of the Navy under Reagan, current sponsor of the GI bill, amongst other things.
Just so you know, he’s coming tomorrow, not next week. I would love to go but I have to work and I really don’t know how early I would have to show up to get a seat inside.
Honestly, what the hell? HRC is a complete no-go. Does Obama really want Bill back in the White House? Much less Hillary? Between Bill scandal potential and Hillary’s ability to energize the Republican base, they would be an anchor around Obama’s neck in the general.
Edwards…one term senator who got his ass handed to him in a debate with Dick Cheney and was half of a ticket that lost to Bush. Other than that he’s…um, good looking.
Webb is the perfect counterbalance to both Obama’s (perceived) weaknesses and McCain’s strengths. Pro-Gun white guy, military and foreign policy experience, son in Iraq, wears combat boots…ect ect.
And, he’s from VA, a possibly important swing state.
Does he have some sort of skeleton in his closet (other than having served in the Reagan White House) that didn’t come out during his senate race?
If Obama really needs to shore himself up with Womenfolk (I don’t think he actually does) I’d take a look at Kathleen Seib…A…Lee…Us (however its spelled).
