This isn't the first time Webb's name has come up, nor will it be the last. It's even been discussed on the pages of the Prospect recently. But I think the costs for Obama of picking Webb outweigh the benefits. Obviously Webb brings with him a certain authoritativeness on military affairs that is supposed to sit well with voters nervous about the Democrats' foreign policy philosophy. But doesn't that just underscore the notion that Obama is somehow weak on foreign policy? Webb would also, supposedly, make Obama more appealing to white working class voters. This makes a certain amount of intuitive sense but look what Dems could lose:
- A safe Senate seat, which in another Democrat's hands might not be the case
- An outstanding senator who has been a champion for veteran's affairs and revitalizing the military
- A strong voice of economic populism and a fighter for working Americans
The Democratic agenda for 2009, if it is to break clean of the Bush-Cheney years, isn't going to fail or succeed based solely on who wins the White House -- not that it isn't important. But the real action will be in Congress, and specifically the Senate, where countermajoritarian rules and procedures mean that Democrats will need sixty votes to get just about anything done. Jim Webb is one of those votes and an important voice in that body and losing him to a largely ceremonial office means it's just that much harder to get anything passed in a Senate where the Republicans who remain after 2008 will do their best to filibuster everything in sight (one assumes). Democrats already have the advantage on winning the White House, so I say let Webb do his job in the Senate, which he has done admirably. There's other people Obama can pick if he truly believes he needs a running mate that will appeal to white working class voters in order to win the presidency.
--Mori Dinauer
