Friday, 05.23.08
Master of the Senate
Alex Wong/Getty Images
PR Machine -- Check
14 May 2008
Marc Ambinder muses on Jim Webb's well-timed book.
Improbable but true
21 November 2006
As Barack Obama considers his vice presidential options, he would be very wise to take Jim Webb seriously. By now the idea that Webb could help Obama connect with the Scots-Irish voters of Greater Appalachia is familiar to most of those who follow the presidential horse race. And Webb's military experience, together with his years in Ronald Reagan's Pentagon, give him national security expertise that few leading Democrats can match. Yet there is another reason the Virginia Senator would make an excellent vice presidential nominee. As he's demonstrated this week, Webb can be a masterful legislative tactician.
Though no one will ever mistake Webb for a gladhanding backslapper, he has mobilized an extraordinary coalition of Democrats and Republicans behind a dramatic expansion of veterans' educational benefits. After passing by an overwhelming margin in the House, Webb's Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act won 75 votes in the Senate. Because the measure was attached to the Democrats' Iraq War spending bill, which included a number of other spending proposals favored by Democrats and opposed by the Bush White House, there is good reason to believe that the entire package will be vetoed. But there is also good reason to believe that something like Webb's proposal will eventually be made law, thanks in no small part to the measure's overwhelming popularity among veterans and military families.
Moreoever, the popularity of Webb's "new GI Bill" has put John McCain in an extraordinarily awkward spot. McCain, along with Lindsey Graham, Richard Burr, and other senators known for their hawkish credentials, opposed Webb's proposal on the grounds that it would undermine the military's efforts to retain personnel; in its place, they proposed an educational benefit that became more generous the longer an individual service member served. (When Obama criticized McCain for opposing the Webb proposal, McCain responded angrily, accusing Obama of demagoguing a complex issue.) But whether or not McCain and his allies were right on the merits -- it is by no means obvious that they were not -- there is no denying that the Virginia Senator has successfully maneuvered the presumptive Republican nominee into the profoundly unpopular position of being against a measure designed to honor the service and the sacrifice of veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. Can Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius say the same thing? Or Ohio Governor Ted Strickland? Former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn has been praised for his national security expertise. But did he resign from the Reagan-era Pentagon, as Webb did, after resisting orders to downsize the Navy?
The question is no longer whether Barack Obama should select Jim Webb as his nominee. It is whether he can justify not doing so. Even if Webb murdered someone in an alleyway in a fit of pique or been paid vast sums by the Chinese Politburo for detailed intelligence about American naval vessels, he would still be a far stronger and more appealing vice presidential nominee than Hillary Clinton.
In his own wordsNPR conducted one of the most recent major interviews with Webb. |
Angry middle-aged manGQ profiled Virginia's junior senator after his victory. |
The R wordThe Washington Post reports that Webb hates the word redneck, but loves the culture it disparages. |
Populist politicsJames Antle explains why Webb is a different kind of Democrat. |
The recordGov. Track gives an overview of Webb's time in the Senate. |
(43)
Well argued but the last sentence is over the top, gratuitous.
I like Webb too. He does have a downside though. As secretary of the Navy he authored an article titled "Why Women Can't Fight" which a group of female service members later contended led to hostile working conditions for them. Maybe not the best choice if you're trying to placate hordes of angry Clinton supporters.
rschmidt, I'm not worried about women. They will most likely go Democrat. I'm worried about white men. They are the most important block in this election. Pulling as many of them from Sen. McCain as possible is crucial to Sen. Obama's success. Sen. Webb can do that for Sen. Obama like few else.
What worries me most are the people on either side of the "I won't vote for him(her) because he (she) is the wrong race (gender)" divide. How much respect do those voters deserve--now or in the future--who so clearly place identity politics above issues?
I have thought about Webb being perfect for Obama for a long while. Webb is strong in many areas and complimentary in others. The two would be able to get real work done for the people and make sure congress is not busy playing childish games. they would be the most effective team.
I hadn't thought about Sen. Webb as a VP yet, but it certainly makes sense. As Evan V notes, I also think that women will come over to the Obama side as Dems, though not necessarily as Obama supporters. Losing a few will not matter much - the Ds will have picked up enough young, first-time, and African-American voters to fill at least a part of the gap. And it would be incredible for millions of Hillary's feminista supporters to suddenly find their political leanings more suited to the GOP.
It really becomes a numbers game. Let's face it, the Reps will lose very conservative Christian votes in this election because they won't come out to vote for McCain; Obama may lose those real hardcore, historical Dems in places like Kentucky and WV. All those old union voters will probably stay home - they don't really fit the "new Democrat" mold and still don't feel completely comfortable voting for an unconditionally pro-business Republican.
I digress...back to Webb. Obama would be well-served to reject Clinton, that is for sure (if you can't imagine her as President, why would you support her as 2nd in Command?). Assuming the above is true - that he will not have to work that hard at attracting her supporters back into the Dem fold, OR that he should not bother with that block either way - he will have to choose someone who "makes him complete", who compliments him on national security, understands the obstinate "defense" bureaucracy, has a proven pro-veteran record, and is the pragmatic voice to Obama's idealist one.
As a veteran (a young one, albeit, and not yet of Iraq or Afghanistan), I think my next Commander-in-Chief and his entire Cabinet will face some incredibly difficult choices about national security. I have been advocating to friends for the past 5 months Obama would be much better served to cut this particular debate off at the knees now - rather than waste time in the general election debate - by playing his national security cards now, showing the depth of experience his Cabinet, National Security Council, and other national security appointees would bring to the White House. He should choose a guy like Webb as VP now and run with it - Obama shouldn't be debating McCain on national security; he should leave it to Webb, Biden, Dodd, Anthony Lake, and others who might serve Obama as advisors. He shouldn't stop at the VP - choose Bill Richardson or Joe Biden as SecState, invite Gates to remain as SecDef, put either Richardson or Biden in the complementary UN Ambassador position, and keep current Obama advisor Samantha Power onboard as NS Advisor.
For that matter, it wouldn't hurt Obama to run with a fully-formed Cabinet after June 3rd. John Edwards would make a great SecLabor - paired with another reform-minded SecHealthHS, they could begin to flesh out Health Care Reform right now, hit the ground running in January 2009. Tom Daschle would be an excellent SecAg. Obama would be wise to find a moderate Republican to sit in the SecTreas job - someone pro-business yet wary of complete deregulation. I hate to admit, but Al Gore could be an inspirational SecEnergy (but he'd also have to get control over EPA in a bureaucratic realignment). Other agencies/departments with tie-in to today's national security issues should be vetted and brought in early, too. The next Attorney General will have to close down Guantanamo, replace the PATRIOT Act, and outlaw torture without appearing "soft" on terrorism - probably a job for a crime-tough but civil-rights friendly Dem or Rep moderate. The next Veteran's Affairs chief should be a veteran of the latest wars - it begs for a retired general officer like Odierno, Fallon, or even Petraeus when his term comes to an end.
All of this is to say that strength lies not only in numbers but the known. Bringing in strong Obama allies like Edwards and Daschle, moderate but qualified Republicans, and experienced practicioners like Richardson early leaves little question about Obama's hopes and strategies for really changing the landscape in Washington. A guy like Webb would be a perfect compliment to Obama.
I agree with EVERYTHING you said, ECL, except for these minor differences:
I'd make John Edwards Attorney-General. It's a more powerful job, and he wants it, in order to advocate for the poor. I believe he could also handle such things as the closing of Guantanamo and the ending of the damned "Patriot Act" nicely.
I, like you, favour Webb, UNLESS Senator Chuck Hagel (a Republican) cannot be persuaded to join Obama's ticket. (He probably can't, but it's definitely worth a shot--particularly as I expect McCain to tap Lieberman.)
Great piece but I think it would be tough to have to senators on the tickets given that even one rarely gets elected President. Also, Webb has publicly said that he is not interested in the job and would be better for Obama or Clinton in the senate. Finally, what about Wesley Clarke? I heard a lot about him in the early going as away to bridge the Obama-Clinton divide and also strong military experience.
Too damn right. Webb is Kryptonite to McCain. Who else can tell McCain that he's "full of it" and hear nary a peep back from him?
He is well read, thoughtful, experienced, and can stare down any Gorgon that Karl Rove might conjure.
The worst skeleton in his closet is his opinion of female soldiers, which may have unfortunate consequences, given which section of the Democratic electorate is feeling aggrieved. However, I'd guess that those women who would find this part of Webb's past most distasteful are probably Obama supporters anyway.
He is not a new kind of politician, by his own estimates. He is an incredibly old kind. The Jacksonian kind. That, coupled with the unearthly Obama, might be just the ticket.
Edwards for SCOTUS!
Sen Jim Webb has been my choice for Sen Obama's VP for sometime. Especially true considering all his remarkable qualifications. I first voted in 1952 for Pres Eisenhower. Then turned Democrate and "never looked back". Jim I. Myerly, MD
When the thing on female soldiers came out, Webb may have been SecNav but I guarantee he didn't personally author the thing. I think he's argued this point before: he may have authorized that study as a counterpoint to the push to fully include women across combat roles. We do that in the military - provide decision-makers multiple courses of action with all the pros/cons. Be careful making that assumption that it was "his" report. He will have "some 'splainin' to do..." but this would be an easy stink to wash off.
Exactly.
James, you bring up two very good points. First, Webb has said he doesn't want the position - but I have serious doubts he would say no if the position was offered. If not Webb, Obama's VP still has to be a "Security Democrat" - one with both a strong military record AND a proven track record in the government. I'm not quite sure who that is - besides Jim Webb. Anybody in the HoReps or Governorships with equivalent bona fides? (Aside: I like Wes Clark, but I'm not sure he's VP material quite yet - better as a Special Ass't to Pres for National Security Reform or some other major DoD-DoS-USG-wide reform "project".)
That brings up your second point - too many Senators in my list. Not going to disagree, but there's a side benefit to working it that way.
If something like 4 current Sens (Obama, Webb, Biden, and Dodd) move up into the Cabinet, that vacates 4 seats across the street - it would be a good opportunity for long-term infusion of new brain power into the Dem structure. There are a few worthy HoReps who could run for those seats out of Ill., Virg., Conn., and Del. - states where there are multiple options for bringing HoReps up through the ranks. It seems those seats are likely to go D anyway, given recent special election trends.
Besides, with their strong connections into the Senate, all those I listed above will be able to use them to influence legislation Obama will need to build centrist positions and coalitions on. That's not a bad thing.
Slight correction: meant to say ...4 current Senators move up into the White House and Cabinet...
to rschmidt65 - you are wrong on your chronology
The article to which you refer appeared in the November 1979 Washingtonian. Given that Reagan was not even elected until November of 1980, quite obviously Webb was NOT Secretary of the Navy when he wrote it. In fact, he did not assume that position until 1987, after he had already served in the Defense Department as an Assistant SecDef.
Oh, and by the way, while he was SecNav he opened up more billets to women than any other SecNav in history, effectively everything not specifically barred to women by the Congress
Get your facts correct, please.
Excellent idea both for running mate and the bill Sen. Webb introduced. Our country would be a better place today if we had had a GI bill for Nam. OTOH would hate to lose Webb's contributions in the Senate.
Great article and great comment by ECL. Do teacherken or others have more info on Webb's article on women and on his record regarding women while Sec. of Navy? In response to Miriam regarding his Senate seat: Virginia Democratic Governor Tim Kaine will name his temporary successor until a special election in Nov. 2010. On the blog "Raising Kaine," there is talk that Kaine could appoint former VA Governor Wilder to be the temporary Seantor, and then Kaine himself could run to replace Webb in Fall 2010, after he is term-limited out of the Governor's office in Jan. 2010. Presumably it would be a tight race, as moderate Republican Representative Tom Davis would run, but I'm confident Kaine would win in the end.
I think Webb would not be a great choice for VP. Here's why.
1) he flipped Virginia(!) in a very very close Senate. from that pig Allen no less.
2) his good legislative and strategic work on GI Bill is exactly why he very good to have in the Senate
3) let's be cautiously optimistic -- let's say this year's VP candidate has a good chance to become the nominee in 2016. Webb seems intelligent, competent, tough, electable, etc. etc. -- lots of good qualities. But could progressives be excited about him? Yes, he's a Democrat now, but has he even always been? Do people fall over themselves liking him simply because he "on our team now". Maybe he'd get us a dozen votes in Appalachia that we wouldn't get otherwise, but frankly I was not all that impressed by his remarks on the Scots-Irish the other day. etc.
I think Webb would be an INCREDIBLE choice.
If Obama just took McCain HEAD ON talking about veteran's affairs, about Walter Reed, the sorry state of Camp Pendleton, sending soldiers to war without body armour, PLEDGING to ELIMINATE homeless veterans during his term, etc. it would be awesome.
And James Webb could help him do EXACTLY that.
The Scotch-Irish in Virginia liked it that Hillary got ANGRY in behalf of the rural poor of Appalachia. Her campaign was resurrected after she reframed herself as a "fighter" for working people.
Obama could effectively capture this voting bloc by being angry JUST ON THIS ONE ISSUE in behalf of neglected veterans.
And James Webb knows EXACTLY HOW to do precisely this.
Picking Webb would sew it all up.
Matt mdubuque@yahoo.com
I like Webb a lot as well, although I do agree having two Senators (and 2 freshman Senators at that) on the ticket running against Mr. Experience may be a problem. But I think Webb's national security experience, eloquence, Scot-Irish background, VA connection and general toughness pretty well trumps any potential weakness.
That said, I think a strong case can be made for one other potential running mate.
Kathleen Sebelius is the Governnor of Kansas. She would silence those women who feel that Hillary is/was their only ticket to the WH. While I do think the issue of Choice and the Supreme Court will bring many women around to Obama, the fact is that there are many angry feminist voters out there and women are the largest single advantage that Democrats have.
Also Kansas is the home state of Obama's mother and grandparents. Educating voters about his actual life story - and defusing the viral hate emails about him being a foreigner or a Muslim - is crucial, and having Sibelius on the ticket would help a lot. Kansas is also a very white midwestern state, so she has regional and ethnic appeal.
Finally she has been very effective in moving Republicans into the Democratic Party in Kansas, including her Lt. Governor.
Here's a link to the article "Women Can't Fight": http://www.washingtonian.com/print/articles/6/173/2182.html
Long article, but lots in it to make a certain segment of Hillary's supporters feel that a Webb pick is a slap in the face.
Yes it's old. Yes, he's repudiated some of the words... but not the principle argued in the article.
To Evan, who said "I'm not worried about women," you really should be, at least a bit. I doubt many of them would vote McCain, regardless of what exit polls have said. But a lot of them may stay home, and/or vote for Obama, but sit on their hands when it comes to the campaign, if they're pissed. Women are not just the largest single "block" of Democratic voters, they're also a large block of the activists that help get out the vote. (I think they're the largest block of activists, but I don't have any numbers on that.)
Karen:
Thanks for the link to Webb's Washingtonian article. The tone of the article certainly give me pause regarding his viability as a VP candidate. You mention that he has repudiated some of this stuff; can you point out where we can find some of that?
I think Webb would help Obama in the general election but frankly, he can do it from the Senate and he will be unnecessary due to the piss poor economy we will have come November.
I specifically don't want Webb for two reasons:
1) I don't want to take a chance on losing his Senate seat. 2) He is not a Progressive, he is a center right Dem.
This argument Salam has written is exactly why Webb needs to stay in the Senate. He is too good in the Senate, there are no ready made Democratic replacements for his seat, and picking someone thick with national security may highlight Obama's supposed weakness.
Plus we'd have a VP who didn't get 6 deferments, served his country, and doesn't take war lightly.I read his article on the horror of the boy dying in Vietnam.Something Cheney never experienced or wanted to.
if you choose Webb, you loose his senate seat. that's no good.
it has to be someone else ...
I like Webb but I think you "guys" don't understand how offensive he may be to many women. I think Mark Warner is a much better choice. The economy will be the most important issue during this election cycle and Warner has created jobs as a CEO and he has balanced a state budget. He is clearly the most popular politician in VA. He was Doug Wilder's campaign mgr so he is very experienced with that side of politics as well. People really really like him and he will not step on Obama's toes.
I think there are any number of viable choices in this election but Jim Webb's name continues to head the list. I am a fifty year old woman and I think that as long as Obama and Company safeguard feminist issues there are bigger fish to fry that will have a direct impact on a host of feminist issues since these are related to women's concerns.
This campaign has never been about gender or race; its about taking back our Democracy from the brink of Corporate fascism, and Obama has the Constitutional chops to really take the oath of office and mean it, unlike some of his recent predecessors and certain other lobby-intoxicated, corporate-enmeshed candidates.
I think it's ridiculous to base an evaluation of Webb as a potential candidate on an article that is almost 30 years old, written at a time when women at the academies were new, the presence of large numbers of women in command positions in the military was unheard of, and much of the article was focused on Webb's extremely vile experience of combat and his belief that the very brutal way he'd been treated at the Academy was to be credited for his ability to withstand the rigors of commanding a platoon and then a company in Vietnam. This was not so much about Webb not giving women enough credit as it was Webb not giving himself enough credit. What he may not have realized at that time was his inner strength was such that he would have excelled as a commander whether or not he'd been through a hellish apprenticeship at the Academy.
Webb was asked repeatedly about this article during the Virginia Senate run. He has repudiated his misgivings about the leadership capabilities of women, and has spoken out about the tremendous capabilities he has seen in military women - for instance, such as the attack helicopter female pilots he has seen and flown with. The Navy's first African American female admiral is a strong supporter of Webb and made a commercial in his support, crediting him with opening the way to her rise in the ranks. Once he became SecNav he acted aggressively to expand billets for women, and instituted rules against sexual harassment and discrimination.
Webb may still has some misgivings about women in all combat positions - most women really CAN'T schlep 75 pound rucks up mountains - but weigh his background, knowledge, and support of women for most military positions against the Republicans and he still comes out far ahead. I would think that no one would like to have their attitudes and assumptions and predictions from 30 years ago brought up against them as if the holder of such thoughts would have been incapable of change, maturation, or evolution of thought for that entire thirty years. Seriously, ask yourselves, do you think, act, believe exactly the same way you did thirty years ago? If not, why would you assume that an individual as thoughtful, contemplative, and intelligent as Jim Webb would be unlikely to have changed in 30 years?
Karen: Women may sit on their hands for a time. However, I highly doubt many of them will once it becomes clearer how conservative Sen. McCain's appointments to the Supreme Court will be. I don't think they want Roe v. Wade overturned. The only way that will not happen is Sen. Obama is elected. So, again, I'm not that worried about women.
In spite of the very, very high esteem in which I hold Senator Webb, does the USA really need more militarization of politics? Because that's what he brings, isn't it: the military. (Of course I understand that politically speaking, he is McCain's worst nightmare. And also that he is a good man and an effective politician at the same time, which is rare.)
I fail to see how his skill as a legislative technician qualifies him to be VP. Lyndon Johnson was THE "Master of the Senate." He learned quickly that the Vice President is in no position to control or manipulate legislation.
I think Senator Webb is a very impressive person and probably more use to Obama in the senate than as VP. I would push for Governor Richardson of New Mexico, a proven administrator, a hispanic, and a masterful and experienced negotiator in foreign affairs which I believe is going to be the most crucial area of governance for this new administration given the disaster of the last eight years and the rising significance of China and India.
I have to agree with Jason. "Even if Webb murdered someone in an alleyway in a fit of pique ...he would still be a far stronger and more appealing vice presidential nominee than Hillary Clinton. ???
That sentence damages your argument.
My personal dark horse favorite would be Lincoln Chaffee and I think Chuck Hegel would be fantastic, too. But Jim Webb certainly sounds like the ticket.
Frankly, Hilary is poison to the ticket.
Jim Webb is a blood-and-soil conservative, not a big-business liberal like so many Republican senators. He is a real man and I, who grudgingly voted Republican in 2000 and 2004, would vote for Obama over McCain in 2008 if Jim Webb was his running mate.
Great article. Jim Webb can out-straight talk the "straight talk express." Another added-plus: he would be GREAT in any debate against McCain's VP choice. Can you imagine scrappy Webb going against Romney? He'll make Romney look like a used-car salesman. And Webb also has a son that served (still serving?) in Iraq. Women will come around. Hillary should claim victory for setting the bar so high- and get out. She's toxic, and getting more so every day through her own (and Bill's) fault. But Webb will bring out the men. Chaffe and Hagel are also a great idea- but the party may not be happy with BO putting a Republican on the ticket. McCain's strategy is to tarnish BO's patriotism and make him seem less American. Let him try to do that with Jim Webb on the ticket! You don't mess with Webb. He can be the pit bull (which Barack will need) while Barack stays above it, where he should be. The down side is we lose him in the Senate, and we will also lose Teddy. Dems have to start grooming some new talent. Another Dem can get elected in Virginia....
WTF & David,
We would not lose Jim Webb's Senate seat were he to become Vice President. In Virginia, Senators are replaced mid-term by appointment by the Governor. Our Governor is Tim Kaine, a Democrat. Obviously he would be appointing a fellow Democrat and Virginia has a rather deep bench in terms of talent for that seat right now.
As to all those who bemoan the idea of losing Jim Webb in the Senate, please do remember that he would STILL BE THERE. The Vice President's duties include serving as the President of the Senate. He can still be there at the Capitol every day doing many of the things he does right now. He would be a very powerful and effective advocate for Obama's legislative agenda in that capacity. Most Vice Presidents have essentially ignored their right to preside over the Senate and have passed it off to a pro-tem most of the time. But if ever there was a potential VP who could use that power to it's maximum potential, it's Jim Webb.
Hans B. Obviously you have not read Webb's latest book. I commend it to you. He discusses the place of the military in society and does not spare the defense establishment, neither contractor nor uniformed, in a thoughtful consideration of the problems it faces today. jarlington
jarlington, great point there. You beat me to the punch on Hans B's "militarism" comment.
I have served under two Presidents without military service and felt their positions on the use of military force to pursue national security objectives was faulty because of the lack of military experience within their respective Cabinets on national security matters. My opinion: Clinton's White House largely rejected the military out of principle and a lot of spite, Bush's out of spite and a fair amount of prejudice.
When you have military experience, you are better able to judge for yourself both the merits AND limitations of using this blunt instrument. Having been in that place, been close to the men and women who bear its burdens, a "veteran" official can more cogently and credibly counter those who only know military force as a theoretical concept within international relations. "Veteran" officials setting policy can also counter the tendency of the generals and defense industry to play their "I know best", "but we have this really cool toy", and "what good is it if you don't use it" cards. I'm not saying military experience is a pre-requisite for any elected office, but it has a value that is needed right now if we want to curtail the power and profits of the industrial-military-congressional complex.
I think Hans B would find some comfort in knowing that one's predilection toward force is gradually abated by exposure to its effects and not vice versa. SecDef Gates' recent comments proposing beefing up State Dept's budget is a very visible advocacy that the military is not always the right instrument - surprising from someone within Defense to say, and a positive acknowledgement that militarism in the current adminstration (and hopefully the next) may have run its course.
During the 12 years of my career I have often cited General Douglas MacArthur as a mantra in hard times and when facing hard choices: "The soldier above all other people prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war." - Farewell Speech to Cadets at West Point, May 12, 1962
Despite my frequent frustration with being a misguided "tool" of foreign policy, I still think the only way to change it is from the inside. Or at least with intricate knowledge of the inside. Webb still gets my thumbs up for this reason and more.
All of the above is also why I would have voted for John McCain as Pres in 2000. Ideologically, I just find that a bridge too far right now - and I would get all the features that I liked in 2000 McCain with Obama/Webb now.
This article is missing important information that the author acknowledges with the cryptic statement, "But whether or not McCain and his allies were right on the merits -- it is by no means obvious that they were not . . .."
What are the specifics in benefits vs. service requirements between the Webb bill and the one McCain supports, and how do they compare to what is presently available and historical precedent such as the one I took advantage of back in the late 60's-early 70's, which as I recall was nine months of benefits for each year of active duty not to exceed 36 months (sufficient to complete a four year degree)?
Whatever one may think of DOD, it has over the decades proven to be the most effective social welfare agency we have both as to the military experience straightening out lives and in providing post-service opportunities.
Amen to that. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Posted by JY | May 23, 2008 3:43 PM