Great comments, I was just throwing that out there to spark some discussion -- I think Colin Powell is a nonstarter because he was such a lap dog for the Bush's he brings down the ticket -- I think Obama will have to offer Hillary the VP slot given her showing in the primaries -- kind of like JFK offering LBJ the VP slot in 1960. She'd be smart to take it -- the first woman VP is not bad and the ticket would be strong -- although McCain would have an opening talking about the Clinton "dynasty" and the negatives of having Bill running around the West Wing -- I think Edwards might be helpful, but again he brings no national security heft -- but perhaps the ticket in 2008 really doesn't need national security because the Bush Republicans have made such a terrible mess of the world and the war is so unpopular -- unless you're Michael Gordon with the Times, who loves this Iraq occupation. Very out of touch the warmongers are and they accuse Obama of being out of touch. A southern white man and an African American looks appealing.
Obama-Webb 2008
Now that just about everyone has finally figured out that Senator Barack Obama is the right leader for America at the this crucial moment in our history and that he is going to be the Democratic Party's nominee for president in 2008, we can now turn to the issue of who might make the best running mate.
It is guaranteed that John McCain's campaign will take a page from the George W. Bush-Karl Rove playbook and "Swift Boat" Obama as "unfit" to be Commander-in-Chief just as they did to John Kerry in 2004.
The Mayberry Machiavellians who run McCain's slime machine will attempt to paint a picture in the minds of voters of Obama as being an effete, "out of touch," arugula-chomping civilian who doesn't have the mettle to inspire the troops and keep American safe and secure.
McCain has nothing else to run on.
McCain is playing the role a vice president would normally play: Running for Bush's third term. But since Dick Cheney is far too odious to run in his own right McCain has leapt for the chance. He is running for more war, more tax breaks for the rich, more $4-a-gallon gas, and more lobbyists drawing up our public policy in Washington.
Obama can blunt the McCain-Rove plan of attack by shoring up his Commander-in-Chief credentials with a running mate whose military bona fides are beyond reproach.
Who would be a better choice to stymie McCain's "weak on national security" narrative than a running mate who served as President Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy?
The junior Senator from Virginia, James Webb, was swept into the Senate with other Democratic critics of the Iraq occupation in 2006 -- defeating Republican George "Macaca-Boy" Allen. Webb is a 1968 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy who served as a First Lieutenant in the Marine Corps until 1972 and is a decorated Vietnam veteran (just like McCain). He has a Navy Cross, a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts. And unlike John Kerry in 2004, "Swift Boating" Webb won't be an easy task for three reasons: 1). We've seen that movie before; 2). Obama is not John Kerry; and 3). To smear Webb would call into question the judgment of the Gipper himself. I would like to see John McCain go to the Reagan Library in Simi Valley and tell the Republican faithful that their iconic leader chose a latte-drinking pansy to serve as the civilian head of the U.S. Navy.
Senator Webb called Bush's invasion of Iraq "the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory." He has a son in the Marines who served honorably in Iraq, and he holds spots on several defense-related Senate committees including the Armed Services Committee. He also serves with Obama on the Foreign Relations Committee. In the Senate he has been a tireless advocate for veterans and has called for an orderly withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
Not only could Webb nullify McCain's attacks on Obama as "soft" on defense, he is from Virginia, which is a swing state that could help Obama win in November.
There might be other choices for running mate who could help Obama in a key state or two or shore up his response to McCain's inevitable smears, but for now James Webb appears to be the wisest choice. If Webb forfeited his Senate seat to become Obama's running mate Virginia's Democratic Governor Tim Kaine could appoint an interim replacement and protect the Democrats' majority in the Senate.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Good ticket.
Should be interesting to see Webb vs. McCain, what with both having sons in harm's way.
Senatore Webb: Time to lace up those combat boots again.
The idea that, as the vice presidential nominee, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia can immunize Barack Obama against attacks that he is weak on national security is fast becoming another piece of conventional 2008 campaign wisdom -- and is therefore almost surely wrong.
Webb is a fine and intelligent man and a very capable Senator, but he has little obvious substantive range beyond defense, has a restrained if not wooden speaking style, and is not the most relaxed or telegenic presence when facing a Tim Russert. He would bring no zing to a Denver acceptance speech, and little to the fall campaign. He should stay in the Senate where he is greatly needed.
Here's the reality: If Barack Obama has mastery of national security issues in the debates against John McCain, he will singlehandedly quell any doubts about his command of that subject -- it will cease to have influence on the election. And if he does not quell such doubts, no amount of policy-wonkishness on defense by his running-mate will save him.
The qualities Obama needs in a running mate are these: an appealing manner and vigorous campaign style, strong personal chemistry with the nominee (such as Gore did with Clinton in '92), no personal baggage from the past, a personal authenticity that has regional appeal, and a specific appeal to the decisive demographic in the current cycle. This year, that's women. There's only one prominent Democrat who fills this bill: Kathleen Sebelius, governor of Kansas.
Sebelius too has a "restrained if not wooden speaking style." (e.g. her response to Bush's final SOTU.) Just sayin.
i've been thinking this for a while, really ever since he told the president face to face to not talk about his son (after the president repeatedly attempted to force him to discuss him at a dinner, as if Webb were required to oblige his highness), an act of standing up to a bully that we democrats often fail to do. I don't care all that much about his politics, as much as I care about his willingness to be loyal to Obama's vision, and to return america's government to the people. I like that he would be the bull dog a VP needs to cover the back of the nominee, that as a former republican, he gives those republicans sick of theologists and corporatists a reason to change their allegiance, and as a candidate with a child fighting in Iraq, and a military history, will receive a share of the patriotic, my country right or wrong vote. In my imagination, I see the GOP slime machine coming for Obama, and Jim Webb, and the military he has supported and I suspect supports him, slapping them across the face and calling them cowards.
Swift boaters will have their work cut out for them facing a former Republican Secretary of the Navy.
Actually, I hadn't noticed that having military bona fides was any deterrent to the Reep attack machine. These are the guys who passed out purple band-aids at their convention to make fun of Sen. Kerry's war wounds.
I like Sen. Webb, but he seems to be a bit of a loose cannon. And he's a former Republican -- I haven't followed his Senate work that closely, being on the other coast, so I'm wondering where he is on domestic issues like healthcare, farm subsidies, education and the rest.
One name that has hardly been mentioned is Sen. Barbara Mikulski. She's got a ton of experience in the Senate, is closely identified with the blue-collar vote, and seems pretty pugnacious (i.e. could take on the VP candidate's traditional role as attack dog). Maryland is solid Dem, true, but I think she'd help a lot in Pennsylvania and maybe in Virginia. I'd be interested to hear what some folks from her region think.
I love Mikulski's politics, but she's a bit old for the VP spot, I think. Besides, she's never been married, and there are tons of rumors that she's a lesbian. I don't think that should disqualify her (I'm a gay man), but the fact of the matter is it would become an issue in the election. Her Republican opponent, Linda Chavez, raised the issue in Mikulski's first run for Senate in 1986.
One other thing. Mikulski may be the only senator with a worse temper than McCain. A friend of mine who used to work on Capitol Hill told me that when Mikulski's staffers have to deliver bad news, they make sure they're out of "phone range" -- i.e., the distance that Mikulski can throw her office phone.
Awww, but aren't loose cannons what make elections fun? ; )
I have been sharing this all over the web for a few months now..!!
OBAMA/ WEBB 08!!!!
the winning combo
Obama / Webb '08 -- That's my choice, too, for all the reasons Palermo cites in his post. Second choice -- Wes Clark.
I agree, I think Jim Webb would also fight against the unfair "wimp factor" that Democrats have been tag with. Just let someone try to call Jim Webb wimpy, lol
Webb would not be good. He's way too inexperienced and is not familiar to the American public.
Luck played a big role in his securing the win in Virginia. He had the advantage of having his opponent caught on video disparaging one of Webb's campaign workers, of Indian extraction, at a rally.
You write that as if everyone doesn't know about the infamous Macaca moment..
Anyway. George Allen was a shoe-in to retain his seat, but Jim Webb ran a good campaign and Allen's "Macaca" only pushed it over the edge.
I can't agree with this at all. Webb has consistently voted with the Blue Dog Democrats to fund the war, oppose Net Neutrality, and grant immunity to the telecoms that cooperated with the Bush Administration's requests for illegal wiretapping.
If we're so convinced that a white, macho, ex-military man is what Obama needs on his ticket, I would much rather see it be General Wesley Clark, whose policy positions align more closely with those of Senator Obama.
Yes, Webb has voted to fund the war. So has Obama. So has Clinton. They all want to end the war, but they're not going to leave the troops that are over there fighting it twisting in the wind.
I do not believe that Webb has been anything other than as opposed to this war as any elected democrat. As for the others, if he supports Obama, then its all good. he is certainly not "old washington."
Nice for the wish list but Jim Webb would not likely associate his name with an Obama/08 run.
Sen. Webb is mercurial but remains sober. Running with Sen. Obama would put him in the position of being linked to a pacifist dove as the nation approaches the post Iraq presidency of George Bush's successor. For Webb, this would abrogate his entire life's mission that celebrates the cult of the warrior.
Indeed, Jim Webb transcends mere enlistment; his is a cult of the fighter that roots in DNA. He'd join Hillary but he'd never join Sen. Obama. He'd rather carry a fractured sword and whistle the theme to "Branded."
In case you haven't been paying attention, Webb is deeply opposed to the Iraq War.
Obama is not a pacifist. If you recall he doesn't think all wars are a bad idea...just stupid wars.
Obama needs a military guy as veep more than he needs Hillary.
I don't know if Webb's the guy though. I don't trust him.
What about Wesley Clark?
Obama-Webb could be a winning ticket. Wesley Clark would be good too. You're right that Obama needs some testosterone on his ticket to offset the wimp factor that the Not See Right will try and paint him with. Something they were successful with against Kerry, Dukakis, McGovern and Carter's second term.
You left out what to me would likely turn out to be Webb's biggest strength in this election year -- his economic populism and his connection with working class voters.
Plus, he's a tough guy who doesn't take shit from anyone.
Plus, he might bring Virginia into the Democratic column.
Plus, his former life as a Republican reinforces Obama's unity message.
Add all this to the national security credentials you wrote about and I think all the unique positives about him outweigh the potential downside -- his reputation as a loose cannon.
***
Obama can blunt the McCain-Rove plan of attack by shoring up his Commander-in-Chief credentials with a running mate whose military bona fides are beyond reproach.
***
But wait, wasn't John Kerry's record beyond reproach? and Max Cleland's?
I also support Obama/Webb, but not because I think it will make them immune to all sorts of attacks on their/his ability to lead our military.
I heard some pundit dismiss Webb out of hand because he was too much of an "alpha male", could never accept the number two job as it were. I don't know if it is true but there might be an ego mis-match there of some kind. His temper also reportedly runs a little hot, something frankly that I think could be good for the Obama ticket as Barack is calm to a fault at times.
Mr. Palermo,
I thoroughly enjoy your posts. Could you analyze the strengths and weaknesses of an Obama-Powell ticket in November? I believe it could be even more successful than Obama-Webb for the following reasons.
1. Powell - maintains high credibility amongpeople in the United States and abroad (despite his UN blunder, which I believe he would acknowledge was a mistake)
2. The retired General's experience and credentials squash most Republican arguments against Senator Obama, including race to a large extent.
3. Powell is 70, I believe, so he would likely not attempt to run for President at 78, leaving the strong possibility for another Democratic Party member in the Presidency.
4. Powell as VP means we do not have to sacrifice a single seat in the Senate.
5. Moderate Republicans, Independents, and I believe many blue-collar Democrats would support the ticket.
6. Powell admires the enthusiasm supporters show for Senator Obama, and I believe that he would bolster the message and increase the excitement.
What do you think?
colin powell helped this group of traitors coup d'etat agaisnt our constitution. He stood next to them even though he knew they were wrong. he should stand in the hague along with the rest of them. (and do we really think that TWO black men are going to win this election?)
I'd be willing to give Powell a chance to redeem himself, but you're right. I hate to say it, but two black men on the ticket is not going to fly.
I'm not Palermo, but I'll throw my two cents in anyway. All the reasons you list are good. But they're all outweighed by one gargantuan, monstrous negative: Iraq. No matter his private views, he has blood on his hands for everything he did to enable that catastrophe and everything he didn't do to prevent it.
The bet would be to sacrifice the white working class race-voters and pick Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez which will give him a man with military experience and a anti Iraq war veteran + he is from Texas the Black+ Latino population of Texas is 52% so if he gets 80% of the Hispanic vote and 20% of the white vote and 93% of the black vote Obama would win Texas giving him 35 EV Texas is bigger then Penn and it would also help in New Mexico 5 EV and Nevada and maybe even Florida .
Obama/ Sanchez the new "western-strategy " against the old "southern-strategy"
Nice idea Mr. Palermo but I'm afraid that combination would open up a whole can of worms for the republicans to throw at the Democrats. Take a closer look at Webb's history and you'll see he wrote some pretty crazy stuff in books that the Republicans could really rally around. Also worthy of attention would be his article on women in the Navy. "Five women graduates of the United States Naval Academy held a press conference, decrying a 1979 article by Webb, titled "Women Can't Fight". The women said Webb's article contributed to an atmosphere of hostility and harassment towards women at the academy." Don't get me wrong, I think he is a pretty good guy and I appreciate his service, but the GOP would have a field day with this guy. Just take a closer look at his past with his books and articles and you'll see what I mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Webb
Sorry, but we need someone who will put Obama over the top 100%! I'm not taking any chances this year!
That's the great thing about Webb - he gives as good as he gets:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdEtGaY831w&feature=related
If the election is to hinge on economics, which would certainly make more sense if you
figure in the Repos' weird dependency on inflating the national debt to keep the US afloat,
there will still be a big military component to it. Someone like Webb would seemingly add
to the Demo's credibility in that area. So Webb deserves very close consideration.
Problem is that it's the President who's the C-in-C, not the VP. That's the same difficulty
that Hillary Clinton has. You can't turn over that responsibility to your VP. So, having a
VP with 'military clout' is something of a negative under the circumstances. Personally,
I think Obama should take a VP with experience as a Governor, or someone who can
be seen as an Elder Statesman, rather than one who undercuts the military experience
(or lack thereof).
Last night my wife and I settled on Jim Webb as Barack Obama's best choice for VP, for many of the same reasons mentioned in this piece.; An impressive military record, administrative experience as Secretary of the Navy, his seat will remain in Democrat hands, the Ronald Regan connection, etc.
Some positives on the image front not mentioned are his tough-guy soldier demeanor (he has a haircut you can set your watch by) sure to be popular with guys, pulling some over from the Republicans, and intimidating to his opponents (he could kill any of us with his bare hands and seems like he wouldn't hesitate to do it). His testosterone would benefit the ticket..
I am afraid I have to disagree. This election, like all elections in recent history is going to be determined by economics. Sadly the American electorate is simply too selfish to care about anything but their own financial well being. In fact I would argue that the main reason why previous supporters of the war are now concerned about the war is because of the financial drain on the U.S. economy.
Given the financial catastrophe that the Bush Administration will leave behind, the best running mate would be someone who has impeccable economic credentials. That is why I support Warren Buffet for Vice President. If anyone can help get us out of this mess it is Buffet and the added benefit is that the Republicans would have know idea how to attack a man of his standing.
Obama/Buffet 08
Sounds like a very risky strategy. Another terrorist attack, and voters would go running to McCain. The economy is also obviously a top issue, but Obama HAS to counter that illusion of safety Republicans offer.
Warren Buffet... I have to admit, I think that's a fascinating idea... But one thing is... he's 77 years old. Maybe for a term, but even that's pushing it. And would he accept? I can definitely see a cabinet position, again, if he'd take the job.
It's a winning ticket and this is a typically smart post, but . . . Webb voted for the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 and he then for telecom immunity. If you believe as I do that the basically unopposed slide of the country into fascism is by far the most important issue, trumping even the war and the economy, then it's hard not to be anxious putting even such an attractive and upright moderate a heartbeat away. I want to believe Webb gets it, but I wish he hadn't cast those votes.
Posted May 14, 2008 | 01:30 AM (EST)