Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

All this reminds me of Jim Webb's book (forget the title) that I started reading at Jenny's last month.

"Born Fighting". I started a thread on it when it was published, and bought copies for friends. Of course, I suck.

The Jim Webb Story by Ms. Elizabeth Drew in the New York Review of Books 26 June 2008 number.

Originally Posted by Ms. Drew

Webb's roots lie in exactly the area in which Obama has shown his greatest weakness so far—in the Appalachian region. Though both are freshman senators, Webb combines substantial government service with close knowledge of the military and the world. One drawback is Webb's inexperienced staff, which may not be up to the challenges he faces. (Politicians are in part judged by the press and others on the quality of their staffs; word gets around, and the effects usually show.)

Like Obama, Webb offers a fresh approach to politics and stirs an excitement that would provide the ticket with more pizzazz than would some of the more conventional figures whose names are in play. (The thinking of some of Obama's advisers and members of the press reflects the old politics of selecting a running mate by geography, or to appease a particular group—which is not the politics Obama has represented in his campaign.) Anyway, picking a male "surrogate" of Clinton, as some suggest, won't appease the women who are insisting that she be on the ticket. For all the recent talk about selecting Clinton herself, this wouldn't be consistent with Obama's concept of change, and could present all sorts of complications, especially when it comes to governing. Obama hasn't tipped his hand, but it's quite possible that even if Jim Webb isn't chosen for the Democratic ticket this time around, the country will be hearing more of him in the future.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

The Jim Webb Story by Ms. Elizabeth Drew in the New York Review of Books 26 June 2008 number.

I have Mr. Webb's book in front of me as I write. So far I like what he has to say, and he says it very well. I am still not sure that temperamentally he wants to play second fiddle to anyone.

Mr. S., I caught that signature line!

Is there any tradition, protocol, etc. that governs which party has to pick its VP first?

Well if there is, and it compels the Democrats to go first, and Obama does not pick Hillary, McCain should pick Condoleezza Rice - for three reasons:

1. Remember that commercial for Dawn (dishwashing liquid) whose tagline was: "Dawn Takes Grease Out Of Your Way"? Well a McCain-Rice ticket takes race out of the general election's way.

2. Gender: Rice would further siphon off Hillary supporters, if Hillary is indeed snubbed.

3. Due to the nature of Rice's credentials, having her as VP sends a loud-and-clear message that national security is the be-all-and-end-all issue the Republicans want to zero in on (and gives them real chances in NY, NJ and CT) - any other issue loses for them (certainly the economy and health care, and even gay-baiting won't work because Obama has come out for marriage being between a man and a woman, and there doesn't appear to be any past record of support for same-sex marriage on his part, so the Republicans can't say, "Obama was for gay marriage - before he was against it," or anything like that).

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

Is there any tradition, protocol, etc. that governs which party has to pick its VP first?

Well if there is, and it compels the Democrats to go first, and Obama does not pick Hillary, McCain should pick Condoleezza Rice - for three reasons:

1. Remember that commercial for Dawn (dishwashing liquid) whose tagline was: "Dawn Takes Grease Out Of Your Way"? Well a McCain-Rice ticket takes race out of the general election's way.

2. Gender: Rice would further siphon off Hillary supporters, if Hillary is indeed snubbed.

3. Due to the nature of Rice's credentials, having her as VP sends a loud-and-clear message that national security is the be-all-and-end-all issue the Republicans want to zero in on (and gives them real chances in NY, NJ and CT) - any other issue loses for them (certainly the economy and health care, and even gay-baiting won't work because Obama has come out for marriage being between a man and a woman, and there doesn't appear to be any past record of support for same-sex marriage on his part, so the Republicans can't say, "Obama was for gay marriage - before he was against it," or anything like that).

Now here are the huge negatives:

1. Condaleezza Rice has never held elective office. Never. She hasn't even won so much as a Recorder of Deeds. For her, electoral politics would be completely new, and it offers all sorts of new tests that she has never faced. She does not know how to play the political game. It's not as easy as it looks; it's full of snares for the unwary (think of Michelle Obama's "For the first time in my adult life I am proud to be an American"). Complete candor brings political gaffes, and there's no indication that she knows how to make a convenient but defensible falsehood or even shut up when such is wise .

2. She has never administered anything except at a very ceremonial position. She has never been a military officer, the only valid preparation for political life other than a succession of political offices from perhaps City Council or DA to Governor or Senator, and then only because being a high-ranking military officer exposes one to lobbying before Congress for appropriations. Aside from George Washington, the only effective President whose career before the Presidency was largely military was Dwight Eisenhower.

3. She is an academic by trade. Intellectual skills are desirable, but anyone who thinks that academic life in any way resembles law, public administration, or military life fools oneself. Academics as a rule interact with a small range of people -- people selected by talents and comparatively predictable. College students, let alone graduate students and college professors, lack the diversity of people that one meet as, for example, an elected public official. She is not an attorney; note well that the typical PhD is an extreme specialist in learning, but an attorney as a rule is a generalist. The one ex-college professor that we did have as President, Woodrow Wilson, was a mixed bag... and experiences outside of the United States tend to show that however intelligent they are, academics are poor leaders. The ivory tower is not a good place in which to learn leadership.

4.She is closely tied to President George W. Bush -- too closely. George W. Bush has so many negatives attached to him that any Republican politician except in the safest of districts risks losing if being identified as "more of the same". She is tied to an unpopular war in Iraq. She will have to establish some independence from GWB on economic matters without offending the core of GOP voters and campaign contributors -- and she lacks the experience in electoral politics to make such selective distancing possible.

She's not the worst possible choice... but she's far from the best. She has strong negatives as well as positives, and I can't see how she, a neophyte as a political campaigner, can accentuate the positives and downplay the negatives.

Rice is pro choice. Unless McCain thinks that he can win without the social conservatives, she will never be chosen.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Rice is pro choice. Unless McCain thinks that he can win without the social conservatives, she will never be chosen.

I agree McCain will choose a social conservative, surprisingly a person from outside the old CSA. Given the opinion polls showing McCain comfortably ahead of Obama in every Southern state apart from Virginia.

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

Is there any tradition, protocol, etc. that governs which party has to pick its VP first?

Well if there is, and it compels the Democrats to go first, and Obama does not pick Hillary, McCain should pick Condoleezza Rice - for three reasons:

1. Remember that commercial for Dawn (dishwashing liquid) whose tagline was: "Dawn Takes Grease Out Of Your Way"? Well a McCain-Rice ticket takes race out of the general election's way.

2. Gender: Rice would further siphon off Hillary supporters, if Hillary is indeed snubbed.

3. Due to the nature of Rice's credentials, having her as VP sends a loud-and-clear message that national security is the be-all-and-end-all issue the Republicans want to zero in on (and gives them real chances in NY, NJ and CT) - any other issue loses for them (certainly the economy and health care, and even gay-baiting won't work because Obama has come out for marriage being between a man and a woman, and there doesn't appear to be any past record of support for same-sex marriage on his part, so the Republicans can't say, "Obama was for gay marriage - before he was against it," or anything like that).

I hope he does pick Condi. It would reinforce the idea of Bush the Third all over again.

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

Is there any tradition, protocol, etc. that governs which party has to pick its VP first?

Well, the Dem convention is a week before the GOP one. So if they play chicken the Dems will have to announce first. Actually, I expect an announcement from the Dems around the 4th of July. All this Hill-talk is too much of a distraction.

There's been lots of earlier discussion on various choices. Here's another list to spark additional inspiration and writing on who, why, or why not.

Here's my bookie's line - English, no dog in fight - odds are # to one:

(http://odds.bestbetting.com/specials/politics/usa/)

Dem's

1. Hillary 3
2. Webb 6
3. Sebelius 7
4. Edwards 7
5. Richardson 10
6. Rendell 12
7. Strickland 14
8. Kaine 16
9. Warner 16

Rep's

1. Romney 5
2. Jindal 6
3. Palin 6
4. Pawlenty 6
5. Crist 8
6. Huckabee 10
7. Portman 12
8. Sanford 12
9. Graham 14
10. Rice 14
11. Ridge 14

I suggest the individuals with better odds possess greater political strengths & skills, $$ and ability to raise it, and fewer all-around weaknesses, particularly respecting the ballot box choices that will be made by the 80+% of the voters who feel we're now on the wrong track, and will turn out in greater numbers than the contented and/or self-identifying 20% who say they are Rep's.

As for the Presidential campaign...

Issues and the words and deeds of the candidates may finally return to primacy in this campaign. I'm not confident the corporate media will relent in its overwhelming need for revenue to forgo repeating any and every rumor that grabs rubber-necking viewers and rating $$ with voyeuristic insinuation of entertaining melodrama of the least common denominator, but both candidates claim they seek an honest discussion. We'll see.

We may reasonably expect guilt by association, mis-quotation, out-of-context twisting, and outright fabrication by ax-grinding pundits and sloppy journalists; and if not by the candidates, by surrogates, allies, or independent actors whom Obama and McCain are unwilling or incapable of correcting and instructing in restraint.

This will be a substantial test of their character and their ability to lead and gain ascent from their subordinates and supporters; in essence, to be capable of being commander in chief. That is, if the corporate media reports it.

If Condoleezza Rice is the answer for McCain, then guess who's the answer for Obama?

Nancy Pelosi!

She'll silence the women's revolt within the Democratic Party, and the fact that she faces a challenge from Cindy Sheehan in her own district this fall, and adamantly opposed impeachment and cutting off war funding in Iraq, actually stamps her as a moderate of sorts. Also, as an Italian-American (her maiden name is D'Alessandro), she can blunt the very real damage inflicted on Obama by Jeremiah Wright among Italian-American voters.

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

If Condoleezza Rice is the answer for McCain, then guess who's the answer for Obama?

Nancy Pelosi!

She'll silence the women's revolt within the Democratic Party, and the fact that she faces a challenge from Cindy Sheehan in her own district this fall, and adamantly opposed impeachment and cutting off war funding in Iraq, actually stamps her as a moderate of sorts. Also, as an Italian-American (her maiden name is D'Alessandro), she can blunt the very real damage inflicted on Obama by Jeremiah Wright among Italian-American voters.

Not a chance. Why give away the gavel of the House for the gavel of the Senate? The Speaker is powerful in her own right. As Veep, she would be, ast least partly, a reflection of Obama's power. It's a step down.

Try again.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Not a chance. Why give away the gavel of the House for the gavel of the Senate? The Speaker is powerful in her own right. As Veep, she would be, ast least partly, a reflection of Obama's power. It's a step down.

Try again.

Why not Janet Napolitano governor of Arizonia, she is female, Italian-American and she is from same state as John McCain.

Originally Posted by Tristan

Why not Janet Napolitano governor of Arizonia, she is female, Italian-American and she is from same state as John McCain.

At best a VP choice will net the presidential candidate their own home state. Because she is from Arizona and McCain remains popular there, choosing her would be effectively be throwing away a chance to pick up an additional state.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Not a chance. Why give away the gavel of the House for the gavel of the Senate? The Speaker is powerful in her own right. As Veep, she would be, ast least partly, a reflection of Obama's power. It's a step down.

Try again.

But if a candidate having Nancy Pelosi as his running mate would actually make him appear more moderate, wouldn't you be forced to conclude that said candidate is going to have an extremely serious problem attracting enough centrist and independent voters to have any realistic chance of getting elected?

Personally, my main sore point with Barack Obama is that he is positioning himself toward the center on issues where he should be remaining steadfastly on the left (e.g., health care), while catering to the far left where he should be moving toward the center (e.g., national security). That is to say, he's got it all ass backwards (and Obama's how shall we say, questionable associations don't outrage me the way they do Sean Hannity, etc.; rather, these associations dismay and anguish me by rendering him unelectable, in my view at least).

FROM THE "ELECTION 2008" THREAD:

Originally Posted by Mustang

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Here's one for Mustang:

And the picture was taken YESTERDAY! I love it! Come on, Obama, do it!

If he picks Jim Webb, I think I couldn't help but get out there and campaign for the ticket, even given the strong possibility that this electronic election will be as rigged as every other one in the past decade, and presumably skewed toward McCain and the War Party. With Webb, this would be the first time I have been excited about a ticket since 1992.

Come on, Obama, do it!

I am with Stonewall/Seadog/Mustang. If B.O. picks Webb, I'm volunteering for the campaign. I think ol' Wally the Pink Slice might too. That ticket could be the best thing that has happened to American politics in long, long time.

BTW, Seadog, check out the first post in this thread.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

... I am with Stonewall/Seadog/Mustang. If B.O. picks Webb, I'm volunteering for the campaign. I think ol' Wally the Pink Slice might too. That ticket could be the best thing that has happened to American politics in long, long time...

I doubt Webb will accept. He's not a good follower, an d he knows it better than anyone. A retired senior miltary officer is a possiblity. Wesley Clark would say yes in a heart beat.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I doubt Webb will accept. He's not a good follower, and he knows it better than anyone.

And Lyndon Johnson was...?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I doubt Webb will accept. He's not a good follower, an d he knows it better than anyone. A retired senior miltary officer is a possiblity. Wesley Clark would say yes in a heart beat.

From what I have read and watched he would have problems following someone who did something or stood for something that was in serious contradiction to his core principles. Within those parameters I think he could be a fierce follower.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

From what I have read and watched he would have problems following someone who did something or stood for something that was in serious contradiction to his core principles. Within those parameters I think he could be a fierce follower.

Bingo! Webb makes no bones about the fact that he is not a Democrat for special interest "Culture War" reasons, but is a traditional Democrat in the Jacksonian tradition such that economic fairness and opportunity are his primary concern. In fact, he cites the cruel distraction of "Culture War" politics as the enabler of the current Bush/Clinton path to plutocratic and imperial hell...which is what led Reagan's Navy Secretary to become a Democrat in the first place. If Obama's priorities are the usual laundry list of 3T social concerns designed to appease whatever special interest group ponies up to the trough, then Webb would not make a good follower. However, if Obama is for real and honestly seeks to leave the Bush/Clinton era behind us, then Webb would indeed be the fiercest of followers.

Kill the "Bank" (plutocracy and empire), Obama, and, in Webb, you will have one seriously motivated gyrene backing you to the hilt! Not to mention the fact that you will have a whole lot of other Reaganites such as Zarathustra and myself filling the ranks. 4T realignment is at hand...if you want it. No more 3T, special interest, "Culture War" politics. Webb or bust!

Originally Posted by Mustang

Bingo! Webb makes no bones about the fact that he is not a Democrat for special interest "Culture War" reasons, but is a traditional Democrat in the Jacksonian tradition such that economic fairness and opportunity are his primary concern. In fact, he cites the cruel distraction of "Culture War" politics as the enabler of the current Bush/Clinton path to plutocratic and imperial hell...which is what led Reagan's Navy Secretary to become a Democrat in the first place. If Obama's priorities are the usual laundry list of 3T social concerns designed to appease whatever special interest group ponies up to the trough, then Webb would not make a good follower. However, if Obama is for real and honestly seeks to leave the Bush/Clinton era behind us, then Webb would indeed be the fiercest of followers.

Kill the "Bank" (plutocracy and empire), Obama, and, in Webb, you will have one seriously motivated gyrene backing you to the hilt! Not to mention the fact that you will have a whole lot of other Reaganites such as Zarathustra and myself filling the ranks. 4T realignment is at hand...if you want it. No more 3T, special interest, "Culture War" politics. Webb or bust!

Interestingly I wrote pretty much the same thing to Kiff by e-mail earlier today. I hope she does not mind me reprinting it here:

In every way, Webb is just about perfect. He can help the ticket with the Scots-Irish/Appalachian thing and white males in general. He helps on the military front. He helps on the foreign policy front. He opposed Iraq. And he make a great President if the unthinkable happened.

Even his alleged flaws could help. His relatively conservative views on various issues such as women in the military, immigration, gun control, and the other things will probably pull in more of those aforementioned white boys than it would push away women/liberals. Who else are the latter going to vote for, anyway? McCain? Give me a break. All blather. Nader? Even left-handed socialist Puerto Rican lesbians must have seen what a catastrophe that was before.

The Reagan Revolution pulled in much of the "hard working" masses (e.g., Reagan Democrats) via social conservatism in an inner-driven 3T. No matter their economic interests, these folks voted their "moral pocketbook", if you will.


Now the outer world is taking net precedence [3T-to-4T transition], and a New Electoral Regime (yet to be named) is likely. Now much of that same mass sees that an Overclass is subverting the middle and working classes with cheap labor (both overseas and imported) and is gutting America and selling the pieces to the highest bidder for their own enrichment. Now, no matter their perceived socio-cultural interests, these plain folks may very likely vote for their actual economic interests for the first time in decades. We'll see.

IOW, what's most important, besides being salable in-and-of-himself, is that Webb be one with B.O. on challenging the stranglehold the Overclass has on our country, and indeed, start helping us act like a COUNTRY again, not some hollowed-out center of an empire.

I also hope that Obama is not just blowing smoke up our collective hindquarters, because if he is for real . . . and he picks Webb . . . my God, we might have a chance.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Interestingly I wrote pretty much the same thing to Kiff by e-mail earlier today. I hope she does not mind me reprinting it here:

In every way, Webb is just about perfect. He can help the ticket with the Scots-Irish/Appalachian thing and white males in general. He helps on the military front. He helps on the foreign policy front. He opposed Iraq. And he make a great President if the unthinkable happened.

Even his alleged flaws could help. His relatively conservative views on various issues such as women in the military, immigration, gun control, and the other things will probably pull in more of those aforementioned white boys than it would push away women/liberals. Who else are the latter going to vote for, anyway? McCain? Give me a break. All blather. Nader? Even left-handed socialist Puerto Rican lesbians must have seen what a catastrophe that was before.

The Reagan Revolution pulled in much of the "hard working" masses (e.g., Reagan Democrats) via social conservatism in an inner-driven 3T. No matter their economic interests, these folks voted their "moral pocketbook", if you will.


Now the outer world is taking net precedence [3T-to-4T transition], and a New Electoral Regime (yet to be named) is likely. Now much of that same mass sees that an Overclass is subverting the middle and working classes with cheap labor (both overseas and imported) and is gutting America and selling the pieces to the highest bidder for their own enrichment. Now, no matter their perceived socio-cultural interests, these plain folks may very likely vote for their actual economic interests for the first time in decades. We'll see.

IOW, what's most important, besides being salable in-and-of-himself, is that Webb be one with B.O. on challenging the stranglehold the Overclass has on our country, and indeed, start helping us act like a COUNTRY again, not some hollowed-out center of an empire.

I also hope that Obama is not just blowing smoke up our collective hindquartersDo you detect any hint of mentholated tobacco as of yet?, because if he is for real . . . and he picks Webb . . . my God, we might have a chance.

Well this dexterous paleo-conservative North Star State hetero-republican is going to vote for Mr. Nader (or perhaps Mr. Baldwin) unless Mr. Webb is on the ticket. We have had difficulty but I lay that on those who voted for the present POTUS and the cowardly Congresses of his administration and not Mr. Nader.

I would do so gladly, knowing the character of Mr. Obama {-- in the scandal that ensues from the discovery that Brazilian orange juice was served at the White House, the Illini POTUS would eventually resign--} he is greatly known as a man who knows how to take leave; and the possibility that Mr. Webb would soon replace him. Obama is a bolter.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

... He's not a good follower, an d he knows it better than anyone...

And Lyndon Johnson was...?

Q.E.D.

There are two huge problems with Webb as VP. The first one is that people will start coming to him as if he were really the President, precisely as many people would have come to Bill if Hillary had been the nominee. Every woman knows this and so do some minorities: the default for the Boss is the Dead White Male; therefore, he's the one everyone approaches, while the real boss is dismissed as someone's assistant.

The second is the possibility that there are people out there who'd love the idea of Webb for President but loathe the idea of a foreign-named black man, and might be crazy enough to try to do something about it. It's not so long ago that someone like Obama for Veep would have been considered the President's assassination insurance. Even in the current century. Nuts abound, people, and keeping the President in a bubble can reach insane proportions and it could still happen.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

There are two huge problems with Webb as VP. The first one is that people will start coming to him as if he were really the President, precisely as many people would have come to Bill if Hillary had been the nominee. Every woman knows this and so do some minorities: the default for the Boss is the Dead White Male; therefore, he's the one everyone approaches, while the real boss is dismissed as someone's assistant.

If that's a problem, it's inherent with Obama unless he picks a woman or another minority.

If we're limiting ourselves to women and minorities I think we'll find the list is awfully short.

The second is the possibility that there are people out there who'd love the idea of Webb for President but loathe the idea of a foreign-named black man, and might be crazy enough to try to do something about it. It's not so long ago that someone like Obama for Veep would have been considered the President's assassination insurance. Even in the current century. Nuts abound, people, and keeping the President in a bubble can reach insane proportions and it could still happen.

Given the fact that the current President hasn't been assassinated yet, and the only known attempt on his life was from a foreigner, I don't think we have to worry too much about that.