Veepstakes redux

By Kathy G.

A couple more things re: veep candidates:

1. I highly recommend this excellent New Republic article by Josh Patashnik which summarizes some compelling empirical evidence that, in the words of one political scientist, "vice presidential candidates have no [emphasis mine] influence on the voters' choice for president." So the fanboys who contend that Webb is the best choice because he'll attract votes that Obama wouldn't get otherwise have got to come up with some better arguments. Patashnik's article, btw, also argues that the electoral college will not doom Obama, which I tend to agree with as well.

2. Other shitty candidates besides Webb have put forward for the vice presidency. One of them, Sam Nunn, is one of my least favorite Democrats from the 80s and 90s, and like Webb, he also is unacceptable -- as Pam Spaulding has pointed out, he's a big fat homophobe. He's also conservative about a bunch of other stuff -- he was a budget hawk and, if I recall correctly, anti-choice as well. The American Conservative Union gave him a lifetime rating of 45, which was among the highest of any Democrat at that time. It's also far higher than Webb's (which is 16) or of any other prospective Democratic candidates for president in 2008 (those scores ranged from 5 to 21; Hillary's was 9 and Obama's was 8; Evan Bayh, who didn't run, was 21).

Plus, Nunn is 69 years old and has negative charisma. Not that we need charisma necessarily, but I'd prefer someone with a pulse. In general, Nunn would be a poor choice because, first of all, he's a conservative Dem, and a conservative Dem will dampen the enthusiasm of the base (when Gore chose Lieberman, any enthusiasm I and many other liberals I know had for Gore went south). And secondly, he's 69 years old. I think Obama would be wise to choose someone who could run for president in the future. Certainly many veeps eventually become their party's presidential nominee, and some of them even become president.

3. In terms of vice presidential candidates, though, my choice for the Worst. Idea. Evah. is that Obama pick Chuck Hagel or some other Republican. This is High Broderism at its stupidest. With the electorate nationwide becoming more pro-Democratic than it's been in decades, why on earth should Obama pick a Republican? It will dampen the enthusiasm of the base and make him look like a pandering phony to everyone else. And I doubt it would attract a single Republican vote he couldn't get otherwise.

Above all, why should Obama choose someone who would be a heartbeat away from the presidency, who does not share the values of the Democratic party? Hagel is rated 0% by NARAL, the pro-choice group; 100% by the Christian Coalition; 11% by the NAACP; 8% by the AFL-CIO; and 12% by the American Public Health Association (i.e., he has an abysmal record on health care). He has a better record on Iraq than most, but even that is not saying much. Next!

4. I've seen several interesting new posts up about Jim Webb, all of which make me more convinced than ever that he would be a terrible choice as the vice presidential nominee.

First off, Matt Stoller points out that Webb isn't exactly much of a progressive:

On Iraq, he has voted to fund the war, on retroactive immunity for telecom companies, he sided with the telecom companies, and on the issue of inequality, he has been an obstacle to progress, voting against a Bernie Sanders-sponsored piece of legislation to raise income taxes on people earning more than $1 million a year to fund special education, a vote Senate expert Bob Geiger called 'disgusting' And let's be honest, he has completely failed to follow through with his State of the Union response.  Even that speech, considered now, shows some of the cracks in the facade.  Webb rails against a 'precipitous withdrawal', and argues we should not take 'one step back from the War on Terror'.  On both core progressive value sets - national security and economic inequality - Webb does not vote the way he talks.  To be sure, his GI Bill is important, and he is a far better public servant than George Allen.  I like Webb, I respect Webb, but I do not believe that Webb shares our values.  A VP is a heartbeat away from the Presidency, and Webb will in all likelihood not be a progressive President. 

Secondly, it looks to me like Melissa McEwan really has Webb's number concerning his gender issues. As I mentioned in a previous post, Webb has never explained why he allegedly changed his mind on the women-in-the-military issue, or to what extent he changed (as of this article in 1997, it doesn't sound like he changed very much, though the language is slightly toned down -- albeit still full of wingnutisms). Melissa notes:

[D]espite the widely-disseminated talking point issued by the Dems that Webb doesn't believe that shit anymore, he wasn't exactly running away from it with fervent regret when asked about it on Meet the Press in 2006:

Russert: Now you issued a statement, said, "to the extent my writing caused hardship," you were sorry. And Ms. Murray has sent me a letter saying, "That's not enough." It's not to the extent that "my writing caused hardship." The content of the article was just plain wrong, and Mr. Webb should say that. Do you agree?   

Webb: Um, this article was written from the perspective of a marine rifle platoon company commander, and, to that extent, I think it was, uh, way too narrowly based.   

Russert: But was it wrong?   

Webb: I don't think it was wrong to participate in the debate at that time. It's been 27 years, it's a magazine article, and, uh, it's something, if I may say, I'm fully comfortable with the roles of women in the military today; I've been all around the world and, uh, at the request of many women commanders, this issue was vetted twice, in, uh, Senate confirmation hearings, 1984, 1987, uh, and both times I expressed my views on, uh, women in military billets, and when I was Secretary of the Navy, on my own initiative, I put together a task force that, where we ended up opening up more, uh, more billets, operational billets to women than any sector—   

Russert: When you say [crosstalk] the Naval Academy is a horny woman's dream, you regret that?   

Webb: Well, I do regret that.

This is the look on Webb's face as he says how he "regrets" saying a placement at the Naval Academy is a horny woman's dream:

Yeah, he regrets that like I regret voting for Al Gore.

Finally, in the past few days Ezra Klein has written two excellent pieces about the Webb phenomenon, an article and a post. The article suggests that Webb might not be a good fit for the vice presidency; the vice presidency requires discretion and subservience to the president, but Webb strongly values his independence and individuality. It goes beyond even that -- judging by the article, Webb appears to have an ego at least the size of the late Norman Mailer's, and that would surely bode trouble for him in the vice presidential role.

Ezra's post is even more interesting than the article. Says Ezra:

Webb represents something of almost transcendent importance to some post-Bush liberals: The opportunity to out-tough the GOP. A candidate who's not only a liberal, but in no way a sissy. He is the daywalker, combining a progressive's positions with a southern militarist's affectations.  

But this is not a sustainable approach to politics. Democrats can't out-tough the GOP. It's possible that James Webb can do it. But he's sui generis; a Democrat who can win at politics when played under Republican rules. Democrats love those candidates, because they think of presidential elections as an away game, and they're endlessly hunting for the candidate who plays best under those conditions.

But Democrats can't win at politics when played under Republican rules. Progressivism can't prosper when politics is played under Republican rules. It needs to make its own rules.

Agreed. The infatuation with Webb so many men on the left have is disturbing. I think they identify with him so deeply, because on the one hand, he's like them -- a Democrat, a literary/political intellectual -- and on the other hand, he is what they fervently wish they could be, but are not -- a macho dude and a war hero.

There's also this weird thing going on that I see with so many people on the left, which is this: so many times, in considering some kind of political issue or controversy, liberals don't ask themselves how they themselves feel, but how some mythical white middle American  male voter will feel.   For instance, during the Reverend Wright controversy, many liberals seemed concerned not because they themselves found what he said objectionable (and apart from Wright's offensive AIDS conspiracy mongering, there was not much of what he said that I personally had major problems with), but because they fretted endlessly about "what the white working class would think."

A certain degree of this kind of concern is normal, but much of the liberal commentary about this seemed absurdly other-directed. Among other things, it short-circuited any attempt to defend Wright on the merits -- and I believe much of what Wright said could and should have been defended on the merits. To cede that ground and automatically become a worrywart obsessed with OMG-what-will-Joe-Sixpack-think is dangerous.

The same thing with Webb. It's dangerous and wrong to think that the only way we can beat the Republicans is by their rules -- i.e., choosing macho, white guy, culturally conservative candidates. That doesn't honor progressive values, and it won't work over the long-term. Or even over the short-term.

Also, liberals are mostly pretty terrible about deducing correctly what Joe Sixpack would think. We believed John Kerry would be a great presidential candidate because Joe Sixpack would admire his war record, but that didn't work out so well now, did it? I think lefties are similarly overestimating Webb's appeal to the white working class. Voting is a pretty tribal thing, and I think a lot of white working class folks -- certainly the male Southerners, anyway -- would not vote for Obama under any circumstances. Even a presidential candidate like Jim Webb would be a tough sale, as was the case with the Virginia senate race. The Joe Sixpack vote went for George Allen by a considerable margin, in spite of how damaged Allen was as a candidate, and in spite of Webb's alleged appeal.

One final thing about Webb: I am astonished that so many men on the left still defend him so vigorously and still believe he would be Obama's best choice. The willingness of people I thought were my allies to throw women's rights and feminism under the bus at the first opportunity is seriously depressing, though I guess it shouldn't be surprising. So many men, even the ones who are great on every other issue, just really, really don't get it. Oh, a lot of them will pretend they care, but then they'll turn around and write that Webb is by far Obama's best bet and that Obama must choose him, without grasping the contradiction. It's deeply troubling. I've argued my heart out on this, but I'm not sure what else I, or anyone, can do to get them to see the light.

 

Comments

[chris c]

Yeah, I'm not swept up in the Webb thing either, though I told my wife that he would be on the shortlist a year ago because that felt like the coming CW.

And Nunn? That'd be like loading a shiny new Mac Airbook with bug-ridden Windows Vista. Which is sort of what high Boderism seems to call for on a regular basis.

The thing Obama has going for him, and that he should double down on, is energy and excitement. Who could bring even more of that to the ticket?

Oddly enough, Webb might, but I suspect only to a limited degree. Who else?

Perhaps even Hillary. We hear so much about how she'd get the rightwing going, but I bet despite what many say she'd get the left going too. After all, we all lined up behind Kerry didn't we? Nuff said.

Edwards? Not feeling it, but maybe he could step up. Richardson? I can almost guarantee he won't pass a thorough vetting process.

And so on.

But that would be my primary filter -- energy and excitement. All the other stuff -- smarts, progressive enough, can pass the necessary vetting, etc. -- I take as a given.

[John Ellingson]

Right on. Let's pick a progressive and ensure that Democrats only get about 30% of the popular vote. I think a redux of the McGovern campaign would be great -- just for old time's sake.

[William Burns]

McGovern didn't pick a progressive, he picked a "moderate centrist with an appeal to middle America." And look how well that turned out.

[Tim]

All the analysis against Webb as V.P. seems sound to me. I hope the Obama camp is reading it. I still like the idea of Sibelius as V.P., though I guess I don't know all that much about her. She does seem to have the energy of someone new in national politics combined with experience governing in a red state. She's bipartisan in that Republicans have worked with her but not in that way that means she basically compromises progressive ideals. She's not charismatic but she's not dull, and she is female which may not be a good reason to vote for someone as the only basis for choosing, but in the context of this election, that seems like a plus. As a ticket Obama and Sibelius would communicate change, competence, and forward motion.

[DivGuy]

Great post.

One thing I'll say is that the netroots, god love 'em, ain't actually progressive. Sure, they're to the left on a certain set of issues - the war, torture / surveillance - that have increased salience at the moment, but the netroots is the voice of men of the white professional class. (Obviously on the individual level, the netroots is much more than that, and many of my favorite bloggers are not white and not male and probably not professional class, but if you look at the most popular sites and their demographics, the numbers seem pretty clear.)

These are people who tend to be actively dismissive of feminism and socialism, who trend toward libertarianism and a belief in their own incredibly powerful agency in getting themselves to where they are.

The push on DailyKos for Mark Warner, who, while he has less of an explicit anti-feminist record than Webb, is well to Webb's right on economic issues and is hardly anyone's idea of a social liberal, was the paradigmatic moment for me.

Webb is sort of the perfect storm of this problem, though his economic record is, at least, pretty good. He's anti-war and anti-torture, so they don't actually care that much what he says about anything else - becuase the netroots, on average, aren't that invested in progressivism on other issues, and especially not in feminist issues.

I think the netroots has done an invaluable service in helping to push the DLC from power, which has in turn opened up possibilities for unions to exert greater power, as well as other groups previously marginalized (or relatively marginalized) in the party, but it would be a mistake to see them as a truly leftist movement. The embrace of anti-feminist and even more broadly anti-leftist VP candidates (and previously, presidential candidates) helps to drive this home.

[DivGuy]

For the VP race, I can add my picks, for whatever they're worth.

-Sherrod Brown. Excellent progressive, best in the caucus on economic issues, popular in Ohio.

-John Edwards. Obvious reasons.

-Hillary Clinton. Solid progressive on non-defense issues, shown broad popularity across the country. Also, this is a weird year. We've never had a candidate in the modern primary system get 49% of the votes, and I think she's earned the right to be on the ticket if she wants it.

One more name to add to the dumpster, as he seems to keep coming up whenever these discussions are held.

-Ted Strickland. He's pro-life.

[snarkout]

I don't think the blogospheric love for Webb is that surprising (I'm a fan of his as the senior senator from VA, although you people have argued me around to thinking he's an iffy veep choice). In addition to the machismo swoon he induces, he's good and credible on the war. It's that simple, all of Kathy's (true!) other factors notwithstanding. If the war is an overriding issue for you, Webb is pretty much the most credible person the Dems can put forward to argue against it on national security grounds not in spite of but because of his biography and relative social conservatism, and it's a crying shame that neither Webb nor the Dems have used him to make a broader case against it.

Jim Henley, the Internet's Greatest Libertarian Except Radley Balko, had a post a while back asking what the point was of asking him to swallow his core beliefs about economics and the role of the state in order to vote for the Democrats if the Democrats weren't going to forthrightly stand against the war and torture; Webb is a very plausible guy to put on the ticket if Obama is going to shape his message to voters like Henley. I don't think that's the only strategy or that Webb's strengths necessarily outweight his bad record on gender issues or imho mediocre skills as a campaigner (and I say that as someone who donated money to his Senate campaign), but a disproprortionate number of people on in the liberal blogosphere think like Henley compared to the Democratic base as a whole, and there you have it.

[Kent]

Your point #1 contradicts your point #2.

You say that VP picks have NO (underline NO) influence on voters' choice for president. Then you say that once you heard about Lieberman, you became less enthused about Gore. Sounds like an influence to me. Sounds like the sort of thing that could have made a difference in whether you bothered getting out to vote or not -- if the weather was crappy, and you had a headache, etc., you might have made the trek to go vote for Gore if he had chosen somebody else, but not made the effort because Lieberman was his choice.

That can be very important at the margins, right?

[DrSteveB]

1. Obama could/should pick a woman, but not Hillary Clinton. Several good choices from swing state senate and governors.

2. He must NOT pick a misogynist anti-female male such as Jim Webb, or others who are anti-choice. That will give women excuse to stay home or even vote for McCain, especially if McCain selects a woman (even if that woman is anti-choice). Among young white men I like Sherrod Brown or John Edwards. Among old white men, I like Bob Graham, who correct on Iraq from before the beginning, strong on secuirty and seen as moderate to conservative (was pro-death penalty; he is from Florida after all) elder statesman (but more progressive then Nunn)... and loved in swing state of Florida... though wonder about age/health and why he retired.

3. Very scary for us Democrats if McCain picks a woman (or an Hispanic). It could actually swing some of the supposedly outraged Clintonista white women to McCain, despite his and his party's immensely anti-female personality and policies (anti-choice, anti-equal pay, misogynist horndog (called wife c*&t, cheated multiple time on fist wife, etc.) militarism, supreme court choices, etc). I don't think McCain picking a male person of color (e.g., Jindal or an actual Black guy) would change anything, with Obama at head of ticket. McCain picking an Hispanic might be similar to his picking a woman, with possible resultant defection of some who would mormally vote Democratic going to to his camp.

4. Some argue that Clinton believes that Obama cannot win and is positioning herself for 2012. Let us be clear: If Obama loses (with Clinton having already undercut him), there is no way she get the nomination in 2012. There will be new people running, including new women, and Clinton (both of them) will be remembered as having destroyed the Democratic party and the country.