The case against Jim Webb for VP

There’s been a lot chatter about Sen. Obama tapping Jim Webb for the VP slot in an Obama administration; however, I’ve been less than enthused about seeing Jim Webb on the number two slot. My reservation against the junior Senator from Virginia, Jim Webb, boils down to a simple fact: the man is not progressive, in spite of his recent reliance on populist rhetoric.

Luckily, I’m not alone in my reservations against Sen. Webb. Blogger Kathy G., guest writing in Matthew Yglesias’ blog, makes a compelling case against Sen. Webb as the VP in an Obama administration.

First, the practical argument against Sen. Webb:

Back in February, Ezra Klein made the case against Webb, and the reasons Ezra gave then still hold. For one thing, if President Obama wants to get anything done, he’ll need a filibuster-proof majority in the senate. It would not be wise for him to choose a red state senator, because who knows if another Democrat could be elected to that seat? Also, as Ezra argued, the things that make Webb valuable as a “gadfly senator,” such as his “brashness” and his “willingness to push the conversation forward,” would be a bad match for the vice presidency, which would require him to “constantly watch his mouth” and not say anything that conflicts with the president’s agenda.

Now for the more substantive case against Jim Webb:

To quote a Rolling Stone profile of the man, just a few years ago he was saying that “Liberals were ‘cultural Marxists,’ and ‘the upper crust of academia and the pampered salons of Hollywood’ were a fifth column waging war on American traditions.”

In 2000, Webb opined that affirmative action was “state-sponsored racism”; that same year he endorsed the ultra-conservative Republican George Allen for the senate. In 2004, Webb wrote an op-ed for USA Today arguing that John Kerry “deserved condemnation” for his opposition to the Vietnam War (to be fair, in the op-ed Webb is also critical of George Bush; but then again, in the same piece Webb also takes a swipe at the “liberal media”).

Kathy G. goes on to present a series of sexist statements made by Sen. Webb against women in the military; which, as she points out, in a year where many women have been inspired by a candidate with a real chance of becoming the first female president, selecting Sen. Webb as the VP nominee may be seen as an insult.

Above all, though, I am very troubled by the idea that a man who has held such sexists views, and has done so much to damage the cause of gender equality in the military, would be one heartbeat away from the presidency. I do not think Webb is at all trustworthy on women’s issues, and women’s issues are very important to me and to millions of others besides. I think it’s essential that any Democratic president or vice president have a good record on women’s, civil rights, and labor issues. It’s not just that women, African-Americans, and unions are the core constituencies of the Democratic party. It’s that advancing the causes of racial, gender, and economic equality are the among the most important moral and political issues of our time. These are core values to me and millions of other Democrats, and elevating a man who has been so awful on one of them to the second most powerful position in the party is completely unacceptable.

Stepping away from all that high-minded rhetoric, I’ll add that, in practical terms, selecting Webb would be a slap in the face to the Hillary Clinton supporters. I’m not saying that Obama has to pick Hillary as veep (and indeed, I think that would be a bad idea). I’m not even saying that he needs to pick a woman.

But Hillary was the first woman to ever have a serious shot at the presidency, and she came so close. So the Hillary supporters (of whom, to be clear, I am not one) will feel frustrated enough that their candidate didn’t win. But for Obama to choose — out of all the well-qualified candidates out there — the one person who has a really awful record on gender issues would be like rubbing salt in the wound. It would be seen as a big “screw you” to Hillary’s supporters and to feminists in general.

Read the full post, Kathy G. makes many points worth thinking about.

Just say no to an Obama/Clinton ticket

Well, it’s happened, after reading hundreds of thousands of Paul Krugman’s words, he’s finally put together a string of words that I disagree with.

Here’s the tricky part, I don’t disagree with his description of the situation, but I completely disagree with his prescription. First, his description of the symptoms:

Mr. Obama will be the Democratic nominee. But he has a problem: many grass-roots Clinton supporters feel that she has received unfair, even grotesque treatment. And the lingering bitterness from the primary campaign could cost Mr. Obama the White House.

To the extent that the general election is about the issues, Mr. Obama should have no trouble winning over former Clinton supporters, especially the white working-class voters he lost in the primaries. His health care plan is seriously deficient, but he will nonetheless be running on a far more worker-friendly platform than his opponent.

From this, what does Krugman conclude? First, he reasonably suggests that both the Obama and Clinton camps need to come together, but then he goes too far. Here’s Krugman’s recommendation:

What about offering Mrs. Clinton the vice presidency? If I were Mr. Obama, I’d do it. Adding Mrs. Clinton to the ticket — or at least making the offer — might help heal the wounds of an ugly primary fight.

I just don’t see this happening because having Sen. Clinton on the ticket would undermine Sen. Obama’s major themes: Change and consistent opposition to the Iraq war. Now, are there practical reasons to offer Sen. Clinton the VP position? Yes, clearly. The question is, do the practical reason out weight the thematic and substantive reason that don’t make Sen. Clinton a good fit during a change election? And in my mind that question is already settled, and the answer is, No, Sen. Clinton would subtract more than what she would add to the Democratic ticket during this election cycle.

If not Hillary, who?

The NY Times asks a good question, If not Hillary, who? The question can be made more explicit, If not a woman with Hillary’s experience, name recognition, command of policies, executive bearing, establishment backing and plain old tenacity, than just what sort of résumé must a woman have to be elected president?

The NY Times offers some potential candidates, and also a composite profile of what a successful female presidential candidate may look like. The composite profile mentions Chelsea Clinton’s demonstrated ability to be at ease before voters (like her father), and the discipline she showed (like her mother) while stumping for her mother.

Here’s the half joking composite that NY Times offers:

That woman will come from the South, or west of the Mississippi. She will be a Democrat who has won in a red state, or a Republican who has emerged from the private sector to run for governor. She will have executive experience, and have served in a job like attorney general, where she will have proven herself to be “a fighter” (a caring one, of course).

She will be young enough to qualify as postfeminist (in the way Senator Barack Obama has come off as postracial), unencumbered by the battles of the past. She will be married with children, but not young children. She will be emphasizing her experience, and wearing, yes, pantsuits.

Oh, and she may not exist.

Unfortunately the article does not explore in any serious way the gender related obstacles that Sen. Clinton was faced with, and which future female candidates will need to successfully navigate before a woman can occupy the Oval Office.

While I’m not going to list the obstacles that Sen. Clinton was faced with as a woman, I think that this quote from Dee Dee Myers sums up our political landscape fairly well (now, remember, though I started as an Edwards supporter, and have been an Obama supporter for a long while now, I still think that there’s a lot of truth in this statement):

“No woman with Obama’s résumé could run,” said Dee Dee Myers, the first woman to be White House press secretary, under Bill Clinton, and the author of “Why Women Should Rule the World.” “No woman could have gotten out of the gate.”

Indeed, if not Hillary, who? When will we catch up with other nations that have already elected a woman to their highest office? Countries such as Chile, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Philippines, India, Bangladesh, Turkey, Brundi, Rwanda, Haiti, Peru, Jamaica and others (including Germany and England).