Dick Morris makes an interesting point about those Clinton vs. McCain numbers, that I haven’t seen here. Essentially, his argument is that the people who say they would pick Clinton over McCain, but McCain over Obama specifically dislike Obama and aren’t going to be swayed to him by Clinton being on the ticket. If that’s true, then it would certainly be better to go with Webb and get Virginia’s 13 EV than Clinton for AR’s 6 (especially because of all the “more-than-VP” issues).
Another nice point here:
I dunno’, seems like a bit of dramatic smack talk. Seems like everyone’s supporters said they would vote for the complete opposite choice if theirs didn’t make it - even the anti-McCain Republicans said they’d rather vote for Hillary.
How many people would actually vote for someone whose stances were actually opposite, just to spite someone with whom they politically agreed when the time came? At worst they’d probably just stay home.
Good lord, I hate it when that little prick agrees with me. Makes me throw up in my mouth just a little. But…that’s what I was getting at with “Don’t confuse primary voters with general election voters.” Now some of these guys who suspect Obama is a secret Muslim or something might think again if he’s got a guy “like them” riding shotgun. “Webb’s a Marine and he’s a good ol’ boy. No way he’d throw in with some liberal bomb thrower…right?”
Maybe a long shot but I can’t see them working out that train of thought with a Hillary Clinton or a John Edwards.
Not sure I buy that. I think those who feel that way are a smaller portion than suggested. I think there are a good portion of people who love the Clintons from the 90s, and she has shored up a segment of feminist support.
The relative few Clinton supporters I know don’t love Clinton because they hate Obama, they hate Obama because they love Clinton.
Why hasn’t anyone mentioned Kathleen Sebelius. She’s a female governer of a conservative state (Kansas.) That could play very well.
I did, just couldn’t spell her last name. Without knowing anything about her (other than Harper’s this month printed the rules to a game her son created called “Don’t Drop the Soap” which sounds like “Life” only in prison - really.) she sounds like a good pick.
I’ve seen her mentioned many, many times as well.
Janet Napolitano, too, apparently.
The “Dream Ticket” nonsense is all media hype. No way the Dems put Hillary on the ticket with Obama simply in an attempt to woo members of their own party. Let’s face it, most true Democrats are going to vote along party lines in November be they Hillary supporters or not. Trying to nail down all of Hillary’s “working, hard working Americans, white Americans” by adding her to the ticket means instantly losing most likely an equal number of independants and moderate Democrats who despise her. It’s a huge risk with little reward.
It’s highly unlikely that Appalachia is going to suddenly love Obama because he adds Hillary to the ticket. She’s not popular with that population segment because she’s one of them, she’s popular with them because she’s not black and she’s got a husband they would love to see in the Oval Office again. Voting for her as VP means they still have a black man in the white house, and Bill is nowhere to be found. FAIL. Her other large segments include older women Democrats and Hispanics. Older women Democrats are likely to vote along party lines, so after a few Obama come-to-Jesus speeches they’ll realize how similar his policies were to hers, and they vote Obama anyway. Adding Richardson could have allure to the Hispanic segment, but that comes with it’s own risks. Though if he could deliver California and Texas through the Hispanic segment it could be the lynchpin for a successful run.
In any event, the negatives Clinton brings to the ticket far outweigh the positives. In addition to sending a conflicting message by choosing a clear Washington insider and political animal as his VP, he also gets to deal with Bill and his shenanigans, Hillary’s abilty to seemingly pull self-destructive comments out of thin air, and all the scandal and rumor that surrounds the Clintons, all for the sole purpose of unifying the Democratic vote. No thanks.
Well, they also did think immigration was going to be this big winning issue for them in 2006 and the 2008 primaries.
As far as the working class white male (probably southern) vote goes, I’d stack rank the effective options there as Edwards and then Webb. Webb has a lot of baggage, a short temper, little interest in campaigning; Edwards has all of the upsides but the military service and none of the downsides.
Technically, the evidence that VPs actually contribute to vote share (other than subtracting if they’re a total embarassing disaster) is ambiguous, at best. Best to make the decision on the ascend to presidenancy/inside track in 8 years thing.
Heh, to underscore Slainte’s point: Jimmy Carter calls Hillary as Veep “the worst mistake that could be made.”
When Jason and I agree on something, take notice. We agree here. :-)
In that case, I choo-choo-choose Edwards. Webb is far too centrist.
It must be awesome being Jimmy Carter and being able to get away with saying things like this:
If you take that 50% who just don’t want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don’t think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he’s got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds.
I don’t think i made the argument in this thread, but it boils down to racist Bostonians. A lot of people here seem “shocked” that someone wouldn’t vote for someone who agrees with them politically. When they’re black with a muslim name and a seemingly anti-american wife and preacher you bet your ass that people will talk about voting McCain. What they do behind the curtain is another thing.
I do not understand the love for Edwards he’s a three time loser with no experience. He didn’t help Kerry at all and if anything he is perceived to be to the left of Obama, not what he needs.
Better Obama picks a (mostly) unknown like Siebelius (sp?) than Edwards, Richardson (yuk) or god help us, Hillary. That is, if he isn’t going to go with Webb.
Webb’s advantage over Edwards is more than just some vague “military stuff”. He comes from a military family that’s served for generations. He fought in Vietnam. He’s written books that are taught in military colleges. He was Secretary of the Navy. His son is serving in Iraq.
We know where McCain’s going to bring this fight. He’s going to try and fight it on security/patriotism. It’s no secret. The only silver bullet is to bring on a guy who’s every inch as unquestionably patriotic, and I mean to the everyman low-information voter who thinks in these terms, AND has a demonstrably better grasp of the international strategic situation as well as opposing the Iraq War before it happened just like Obama did (and unlike Edwards or Clinton).
The fact he is a centrist, relatively - you need to look at each issue rather than paint with too broad a brush here, means Webb can appeal to independants and even disaffected moderate Republicans.
Because Obama is such an exotic candidate you really need as close to salt-of-the-earth you can get as a running mate. Not some little known governor with another odd name just because she’s female. Not Hillary with all her baggage and, as Carter points out, the “worst of all worlds” potential in a general election when combined with Obama. Not an Edwards. I was just talking to my boss about this thing and he’s convinced Edwards would be a terrible choice. He comes off far too slick and salesmanish. I tend to get the same vibe.
No, a guy who can go toe-to-toe with McCain on Iraq and has a far greater mastery of the facts would be the ideal running mate. Sure, Obama can say the same things as Webb would and probably far more eloquently but having it come out of the mouth of an ex-Republican and Vietnam war hero whose son is still serving…
Webb’s the silver bullet. I’ll just leave it at that. I know I’ll just end up repeating myself.
Using that line of analysis, Kerry should have won in 2004 for his military advantage over Bush, right?
You know as well as I do that Kerry dropped the ball.