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.

I agree with Silifi that B.O. cannot let that hinder him. To do so would be to surrender to that line of thinking. The race and/or gender of the President should not matter, and that's the point! Let the dysfunctional and atavistic suffer their perspectives. The rest of us can move on.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

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.

We have always had nutjobs, and we will probably always have nutjobs. Again, I think to succumb to this fear is inappropriate. There are certainly those who would gladly gun down (blow up, poison, etc) any person who is President. I think Obama is in more danger than usual, regardless of who the Veep is, insomuch as he is black and (apparently) an RFK-esque agent of change. He will need to be protected like no other regardless.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

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.

Seriously, Mr. Saari?

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I agree with Silifi that B.O. cannot let that hinder him. To do so would be to surrender to that line of thinking. The race and/or gender of the President should not matter, and that's the point! Let the dysfunctional and atavistic suffer their perspectives. The rest of us can move on.



We have always had nutjobs, and we will probably always have nutjobs. Again, I think to succumb to this fear is inappropriate. There are certainly those who would gladly gun down (blow up, poison, etc) any person who is President. I think Obama is in more danger than usual, regardless of who the Veep is, insomuch as he is black and (apparently) an RFK-esque agent of change. He will need to be protected like no other regardless.

Amen to Silifi's and Sean's posts.

Thanks, guys. You've put it in perspective for me.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Seriously, Mr. Saari?

Which, that I would again instruct the Minnesota Electors to vote for Mr. Nader or that I would instruct them to vote for Obama-Webb and would not care if they became faithless (as one such did in the last election-voting for Mr. Edwards rather than Mr. Kerry) when the Presidential role was called and only held true for Mr. Webb?

The Electors have followed my instruction only once as of yet. Perhaps, they would again. I hope that my fellow T4Ters would then begin the task of driving the POTUS out of office so that the Vice-President, Mr. Webb, could take charge.

If not Mr. Webb, then I will stay with Mr. Nader on Reform of Eurasia grounds or Mr. Baldwin on domestic matters. Mr. Barr is a bit too enthusiastic about Reforming the Lower Americas to prevent soporific imports.

______
(-) Mr. Webb is a Crown of Creation with all the attendant drama. Empowering Boomers is like pouring fire on gasoline.

(+) Mr. Webb would bring the candidate/spouse ratio from Obama's sad 1/1 to a respectable 2/4 that would draw in from the GOP ranks.

From Slate.com

A McCain-Lieberman ticket?

Joe-mentum slants too far right for Democrats, but it would (believe it or not) move the Republicans toward the center.

By Walter Shapiro

Jun. 18, 2008 | More than almost anyone in public life, Joe Lieberman knows from experience how to finesse a vice-presidential question. At the end of an impromptu press conference after a visit to discuss global warming with sixth graders here on Monday, Al Gore's 2000 veep pick was asked if he would be John McCain's running mate this time around. "No," Lieberman says flatly, as if the question were as ludicrous as his joining the antiwar movement. All Lieberman would add when prodded by a follow-up question is, "I think in this, as in so much else, [McCain] has his head screwed on right. I think he's looking for somebody who shares his priorities and would be capable of being president."

But in a presidential year filled with firsts (African-American nominee, serious woman candidate, former POW to be his party's standard-bearer), Lieberman retains the intriguing potential to become the first Jewish, party-crossing, second-time-around vice-presidential nominee in American history. While McCain is keeping his vice-presidential deliberations intensely private, it is not hard to pick up Republican whispers that the wild-card Lieberman speculation is grounded in reality rather than water-cooler fantasy. No McCain campaign sidekick -- not South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham nor former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina -- does more than Lieberman to burnish the GOP candidate's reputation as a different-drummer Republican. As top McCain strategist Charlie Black says about Lieberman (talking in general, not as a potential running mate), "Joe, who is nationally known for having run for vice president and being elected [in 2006] as an independent, is the best possible character witness you can have for McCain's independence and bipartisan approach."

During an interview in his parked car in front of the Hillcrest Middle School, I asked Lieberman if his one-word press conference answer ("no") was a Shermanesque denial of willingness to be vice-president or merely a negative assessment of the odds of being asked. "It's all of that. I have done that," Lieberman says, not exactly taking himself out of the running. The 66-year-old Connecticut senator, who still identifies himself as an independent Democrat, adds, "I just think that John's got to go -- ought to go -- with a Republican because obviously it comes to the convention. I'm not a candidate. I don't think it's going to happen. And at this stage in my life, I am very happy where I am."

The key word in Lieberman's answer may well have been "convention."

Because the big question is how the Republican delegates (especially the social conservatives who originally backed candidates like Mike Huckabee) would react to such an against-the-grain V.P. choice. Unyieldingly hawkish on Iraq and eager to work with Republicans in the Senate, Lieberman is reviled by Democratic activists as akin to another famous son of Connecticut -- Benedict Arnold. But in the context of the Republican Party, Lieberman suddenly becomes an ultra-liberal. Would the Republican base tolerate a pro-choice candidate like Lieberman for the heartbeat-away job, a senator who still caucuses with the Democrats and voted with them 81 percent of the time in 2007, according to Congressional Quarterly?

McCain has certainly grappled with this type of problem before. I remember him at his own book party at the Four Seasons restaurant in New York in the spring of 2004, when there was a flurry of talk that John Kerry might ask him to join the Democratic ticket, waving off questions about his intentions by saying in a puzzled tone, "I don't see how that would work." There is no tradition of bipartisanship in choosing a vice-president since the days when the Constitution gave the runner-up job to the second-place finisher in the Electoral College. That is why it is easy to envision angry antiabortion Republicans storming out of the convention in protest over a putative McCain-Lieberman ticket. But it is theoretically possible to imagine political benefits for McCain (who boasts a consistently antiabortion congressional voting record) in demonstrating his independence in his rejection of single-issue litmus-test politics.

Conservative Republican pollster John McLaughlin, who worked for Fred Thompson in the primaries, can see general-election political arguments for choosing Lieberman: "On one hand, it would be a sign than McCain was reaching out and broadening the party. And it would probably attract working-class conservative Democrats, the kind who voted for Hillary in the primaries." But McLaughlin can also picture the political downside: "On the other hand, if you look at Lieberman's record, it is pretty base Democratic, except on the war. And unless McCain has the Republican base in place, which he doesn't yet, he'd have a real problem with his own party." (McLaughlin, for his part, is far more intrigued with the veep potential of Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, the only Jewish Republican in the House, who is a polling client.)

Lieberman is probably the most passionate advocate for the belief that McCain (despite reversing his position on the Bush tax cuts and speaking at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University) has not changed since the glory days of the 2000 primaries when the Arizona senator was lionized as a maverick Republican that even Democrats could love. As Lieberman put it during our interview, "I am convinced that a McCain administration would be very different from a Bush administration. The first difference is obvious -- the two people. John is such a unique person, so restless. He wants to get things done, he wants reform. As he says, he gets passionate about things. And I was thinking, we probably haven't had a president like McCain since Teddy Roosevelt."

The friendship between Lieberman and McCain pre-dates the Iraq war and harks back to Bill Clinton's second term when both senators on the Armed Services Committee were strong supporters of American intervention in Kosovo. Annual trips to a global security conference in Munich cemented the bonds. As Charlie Black puts it, "Joe's very close personally to McCain. They do compare notes about Iraq and other national-security issues on practically a daily basis. Joe's a close advisor as well as a campaigner."

A vice-presidential choice is often as much about personal chemistry as it is about ideology, geography or, well, political party. That is why, for all the political difficulties, Lieberman's name is apt to keep coming up as McCain mulls whom he wants to be standing next to him bathed in confetti at the GOP convention. It is a strange reality that the selection of Lieberman, who has become too conservative for most Democrats, would signal that McCain, after eight hard-right years of Bush, was truly trying to move the Republican Party toward the center.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

If not Mr. Webb, then I will stay with Mr. Nader on Reform of Eurasia grounds or Mr. Baldwin on domestic matters. Mr. Barr is a bit too enthusiastic about Reforming the Lower Americas to prevent soporific imports.

If not Mr. Webb, then I will return to my cave and ignore the whole thing as I have done for every presidential election since 1992 (or rather 1996 forward). In this electronic age, I am less and less interested in voting third party (as I did in 1992). If not Webb, then the heir to the Stuart throne, please.

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.

I think the issue is related, but a bit different. If Obama picks Webb and the reason is perceived to be "because he's weak in Appalachia", then every time people see Webb they'll be thinking "Obama can't win whites". It's similar to the problem of Kerry picking the young, charismatic, eloquent Edwards as a running mate; every time people saw Edwards they were reminded of Kerry's lack of youth, charisma and eloquence.

A VP pick to "balance the ticket" is a horrible idea. Much better to pick a running mate that emphasizes the candidate's strengths. Obama should pick a young, enthusiastic, tireless campaigner that really "gets" the Internet. Hmmm... let's expand that June 5 Virginia rally pic a bit:



How 'bout that feller on the left?

Originally Posted by Finch

I think the issue is related, but a bit different. If Obama picks Webb and the reason is perceived to be "because he's weak in Appalachia", then every time people see Webb they'll be thinking "Obama can't win whites". It's similar to the problem of Kerry picking the young, charismatic, eloquent Edwards as a running mate; every time people saw Edwards they were reminded of Kerry's lack of youth, charisma and eloquence.

A VP pick to "balance the ticket" is a horrible idea. Much better to pick a running mate that emphasizes the candidate's strengths . . .

What's nice about Webb is that he both balances and enhances strengths. Balancing has already been discussed. The strength side is that both are straight-talking, relative newcomers to the A-List national scene, who share the same positions on Iraq & Afghanistan and both want to shake up the entrenched corporate interests.

Good article on Webb excerpted below:

http://blogs.wsj.com/politicalpercep...googlenews_wsj

The excitement among Democrats about James Webb, the senator from Virginia, is understandable. Having a Vietnam-war-hero-turned-Reagan-administration-official-turned-Iraq-War foe on the ticket would lend Barack Obama a stiff dose of military experience, not to mention manly toughness.

But most speculation about Sen. Webb misses just how radical, risky and historic a choice he would be. He’s not some liberal Republican or moderate Democrat a few degrees to the right of the Democratic mainstream. He’s a Vietnam veteran whose driving passion for several decades was contempt for “the Left,” those draft-evading “elites” who came to run the modern Democratic Party.

[snip]

Choosing Sen. Webb would either violently reopen old wounds or finally call home the Reagan Democrats.

[snip]

Calling Sen. Webb a Reagan Democrat doesn’t fully capture just how much he was a part of the cultural right. He’s got far more Rush Limbaugh than Howard Dean in him.

[snip]

Some may read this and feel that Sen. Webb therefore ought to be disqualified. I read them and think they probably make the case for Sen. Webb even stronger – if Sen. Obama fully appreciates the package he’s buying.

Yes, having someone who was secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan but opposed the Iraq war, gives Sen. Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war an incalculable sense of wisdom and toughness. But the power of a Webb nomination goes much further than that. Sen. Obama is being cast as an elitist, and there’s more than enough in his biography – bad bowling scores, Ivy League education – to make that label stick. Sen. Webb, on the other hand, sounds almost evocative of George Wallace in his rage against left-wing “elites.” If a gun-toting guy like Sen. Webb can admire Sen. Obama’s commitment to The People then maybe voters would overlook how the Illinoisan holds a beer can.

As for Sen. Webb’s views on affirmative action, my first reaction was: while only President Nixon could go to China and only President Clinton could end welfare, only Sen. Obama could possibly consider someone who has called affirmative action “state sponsored racism that is as odious as the Jim Crow laws.” Imagine the message Sen. Obama could send about race if he chose Sen. Webb: Not only am I not some Jeremiah Wright protégé, but I’ve chosen as my partner a man who feels that the main consequence of the last 20 years of racial policy is the disparagement of whites. When I say I want to unify the country, I mean it.

[snip]

Sen. Webb is not a safe pick. His views on women in the military could cost Sen. Obama among Clinton voters-–a potentially fatal flaw in the idea of choosing Webb–and some Hispanics might worry about his views on affirmative action. But an Obama-Webb ticket has the potential to bring home those who left the party for Ronald Reagan and George Wallace, bridging the gap between African Americans and working class whites.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

What's nice about Webb is that he both balances and enhances strengths. Balancing has already been discussed. The strength side is that both are straight-talking, relative newcomers to the A-List national scene, who share the same positions on Iraq & Afghanistan and both want to shake up the entrenched corporate interests.

And they can both write well.

Originally Posted by Mustang

Good article on Webb excerpted below:

Just a note on hispanics:

I don't think hispanics will really be put off by Webb not supporting Affirmative Action. Most of us aren't really in support of it, even if it does benefit us.

Originally Posted by Mustang

Good article on Webb excerpted below:

Bring the Reagan Democrats home, Barack.

If Webb can get you, me, and Wally really excited about the Democratic ticket, then I'd say the article is dead on.

You and I see Webb as the Second Coming of Old Hickory (if this time in Grey Champion form). Wally seems him as the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (he was the first I saw to push the "Webb is God" meme).

Originally Posted by Silifi

Just a note on hispanics:

I don't think hispanics will really be put off by Webb not supporting Affirmative Action. Most of us aren't really in support of it, even if it does benefit us.

Are you Hispanic then?

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Bring the Reagan Democrats home, Barack.

If Webb can get you, me, and Wally really excited about the Democratic ticket, then I'd say the article is dead on.

You and I see Webb as the Second Coming of Old Hickory (if this time in Grey Champion form). Wally seems him as the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (he was the first I saw to push the "Webb is God" meme).

The Second Coming Of Elvis, if you please.

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

The Second Coming Of Elvis, if you please.

Same thing, right?

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.

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.

Both good points, Madame. The central question, however, is: Does Barack Obama feel that can Jim Webb be trusted? In other words, were someone to come to Vice-President Webb for a major decision because he is within (or at least closer to) their comfort zone, would he respond "That is not my call. You'll have to speak with the President."? If Mr. Obama's answer is unequivocably yes, then it is a no-brainer for the reasons Sean and others have outlined.

As to the risk involved, regarding nutcases and assasination threats, that goes with the territory for any President. Even President Reagan-- truly revered by conservatives everywhere-- was nonetheless damn nearly taken out by an idiot with a crush on Jodie Foster. We can take some comfort from the fact that Mr. Obama has received Secret Service protection from the moment he became a serious contender for the Presidency. But the fact is that the risk is part of the job.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

We can take some comfort from the fact that Mr. Obama has received Secret Service protection from the moment he became a serious contender for the Presidency.

And I hope they're protecting him to their maximum ability, because if he get's killed, we are in a world of hurt in so many ways. It truly frightens me.

Originally Posted by Silifi

Just a note on hispanics:

I don't think hispanics will really be put off by Webb not supporting Affirmative Action. Most of us aren't really in support of it, even if it does benefit us.

I guess it depends on how one defines 'benefit'.

In October 1977 during my first month of college, I happened to strike up a conversation with a fellow freshman who happened to be Black (capital 'B' as it turned out). Somewhere in the discussion he asked me, "So did you get your EOP check yet?". I stood there with a quizzical look on my face, that conveyed "Huh? What the heck are you talking about?". I asked him "What check is that? What's an EOP?", as I truly didn't know. He looked back at me like I was from an extrasolar planet, then proceeded to tell me what he felt I should already know, and added, "Well, you should sign up for EOP because you're disadvantaged..."

I cannot describe how offended I was... and I'm not one to use the word 'offense' lightly, or often. I'd never considered myself to be disadvantaged ever in my entire life, and deeply resented being told that I should by a complete stranger, solely because of my skin color. It wouldn't be the last time, as during the 1980s and early 90s I met a significant number of people of all stripes who assumed that I got my job because of some "special program" for minorities.

Nowadays, that isn't the case. What I observe as a Federal Employee is that rules of basic respect have been ramped up: insult someone with an ethnic slur, or harass someone because of their gender... even once... and you're likely to be seriously reprimanded. Do it twice, and you may find yourself an ex-Government employee. However, at the same time, there is no Affirmative Action that I can see-- no quotas, nor even quasi-quota "hiring goals". The result is that I've never been made to feel that I haven't earned the right to have my job... or that I deserve special consideration or treatment for promotions and the like, due to some preconceived "disadvantage".

I postulate that that is a good thing.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Are you Hispanic then?

Yep.

I agree with everything Roadbldr '59 said: I think it's insulting to me when the government tells me that I need to have an extra advantage just because of my race. I've gotten where I am today on my own merits, because I'm just as good as any white person. To imply that I'm somehow inferior, that I couldn't get into college or get the job on my own merits, and to deny a white person the same job based on race, is racist to both me and whites.

Unfortunately, I think the black community as a whole is still holding onto Affirmative Action, which is a mistake. Blacks can do everything white people can, and they don't need a hand-out to do so.

It's always hard to take the training wheels off, though> I remember when all sorts of horrid evils were predicted, and for a while reported, after Welfare Reform (no parallel except that this, too, was taking the training wheels off). I also remember that when I finally left my husband and then sole means of support, I was sure I was headed for immediate poverty and a life in the slums. It took 3 years to get a permanent full-time job and I accepted alimony - plus - health insurance in the interim, but dropped it the minute I went permanent.

Training wheels. Sometimes as hard for the one who put them on the bike as for the rider.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

...

Training wheels. Sometimes as hard for the one who put them on the bike as for the rider.

Don't discount:

The Training Wheel Lobby
The Training Wheels Studies and
The Training Wheel Majors in Higher Education
The Training Wheel Political Action Committee
The Training Wheel International
The Faith-Based Training Wheel Community
The Public/Private Training Wheel Condominium
The Privatized Training Wheel Organization
The Training Wheel Unions
The Training Wheel Foundations & Thinktanks
Training Wheels for Eurasians-DOD
etc.

Drudge is running a speculative story that John Kerry may emerge as Obama's VP choice. http://wbztv.com/video/?id=65679@wbz.dayport.com is the source. Its not bad... he does bring the name; foreign policy experience; the war vet hero image; vetted beyond any other choice; apparently is doing well hitting back with his PAC - and he may play well in coalescing the Democrats. Lets not forget Obama's Kennedy connections are fairly strong, so I dont discount the choice.

Not sure about the generations impact - cusp Boom/13er (1961) with a cusp Silent/Boomer (or early boomer - 1943) ?

- Yep, I saw that this thread died two months ago.. and now we are in the thick of VP speculation.