The discussion of Obama-Webb continues. Reihan Salam, noting the bad press John
McCain has received in the GI Bill debate, goes so far as to
say, "The question is no longer
whether Barack Obama should select Jim Webb as his nominee. It
is whether he can justify not doing so." Some commenters
at this site have weighed in taking the opposite point of view:
Webb's writings, prickliness, and past political incorrectness will
doom him.
I'll take up the commenters' points first: These things might
doom him with the Obama inner circle, especially since they are
going to be sensitive about a running mate who will upstage the top
of the ticket, bring his own baggage or anger the women who voted
for Hillary Clinton. But they didn't hurt seem to hurt him in the
Virginia Senate race, in part because they are difficult issues for
Republicans to credibly raise. Saying that Webb's books are dirty
makes Republicans look censorious; saying that Webb is too
conservative makes them look silly.
Daniel Larison argues that picking Webb "will simply draw
attention to the 'weaknesses' that have been attributed to Obama"
and foolishly fight the campaign on the Republicans' terms. Maybe.
But this seems divorced from the actual history behind presidential
running mate choices. Every candidate has flaws and political
liabilities that have to be dealt with in some way. People made fun
of George W. Bush for relying on Dick Cheney, but they won two
presidential elections.
The advantage that Obama had when campaigning against Hillary
was that she wasn't meaningfully more experienced than him
-- her argument was bogus. John McCain, for all his faults, does
have a longer resume and more experience. Perhaps Obama could use
the Perot-like line of "It's true I don't have any experience
leading the country into a $1
trillion war." Or perhaps rounding out the ticket with someone
who has military and foreign-policy experience, who would be
credible defending the ticket's Iraq stance in the veep attack-dog
role, might be a better idea.
Which is why a choice of Webb wouldn't be engaging in "a bidding
war over who is more militaristic and irresponsible in foreign
policy." Webb took the same position on Iraq as Obama (so did Sam
Nunn). But he brings more relevant experience to the table than
being a Chicago community organizer or college instructor. As
Andrew Ferguson put it, "the use of warrior rhetoric to
discredit the Bush administration's war" might reframe the debate.
Or, given the track record of the "fighting Dems," it might
not.
To my mind, the strongest arguments against Webb are these: He
has not, in fact, voted like a conservative Democrat in the Senate. And he did
not actually win the type of voters he is supposed to appeal to
when he ran against George Allen, calling into question whether
these voters actually would be moved by his addition to the
ticket.
topics:
John McCain, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Books, Law, Military, Iraq
