MARCH 29, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
I concede that the idea of Bob Casey as a running mate has more than its share of flaws. But, if the choice is between him and Webb, Casey has some key advantages, too. Neither Casey nor Webb are especially gifted on the stump, but Webb strikes me as more prone to going off message. (On the other hand, he's obviously brighter and more knowledgeable than Casey, particularly on foreign policy.)
More importantly, Pennsylvania is just a more critical state than Virginia. Not only does it have more electoral votes (21 v. 13), but it's hard to see how a Democrat--even Obama, who can obviously change the electoral map--wins without Pennsylvania. (And, unfortunately, McCain is going to have a real shot at picking off Pennsylvania if Obama is the nominee.) On the other hand, it's easy to imagine them winning without Virginia. If you assume both men would be equally helpful in winning their respective states, which I think is a reasonable assumption, then Casey has the advantage here.
Again, I'm not saying Casey is a great pick--he has serious liabilities, and his virtues are limited. But his one clear virtue is a really, really important one.
Update: I should add that, all his trouble with working-class whites notwithstanding, Obama would probably have a better shot at winning Pennsylvania than Virginia. So if both Casey and Webb are equally helpful in winning their respective states (e.g., they make you 25 percent likelier to win), Casey would be more likely to deliver you Pennsylvania than Webb would Virginia.
Also, a couple people have asked why not Rendell if Pennsylvania's so important. The problem with Rendell is that he basically appeals to the same demographic Obama appeals to. See my previous item on the 2002 Rendell-Casey primary--Rendell's base, like Obama's, is the wine track. Now, he obviously did better among white, working-class voters than Obama is doing now, but he's not exactly beloved by that group. I don't see how having him on the ticket would offset Obama's weakness there. And that's the demographic you worry about losing to McCain.
Finally, commenter lonestarpedro makes a great point:
Regarding Casey, if Obama needs to re-energize Dem women after an ugly battle with Hillary, putting a pro-life VP candidate on the ticket is the wrong way to go.
Like I say, there are several very good reasons not to put Casey on the ticket. (Though this is also a big knock against Webb.)
Update 2: A reader writes:
Here's why Rendell would probably work at least as well as Casey in PA for Obama, and probably better: I don't think PA voters--including white, working class voters--will vote for the Obama/Rendell ticket on the basis of some class affinity for Rendell. They will vote for it out of a combination of state pride--and more crucially--the vague, but real sense that their outspoken governor will, especially during a recession, give the state real juice in Washington as the Vice President. It's a vote for "Eddie" Rendell, the fast talking guy who makes shit happen for Pennsylvanians--nice guy rookie Senator Bob Casey can't match that in a million years. Rendell and Obama will run up such a big vote in Southeastern PA alone that the they won't even have to bother counting ballots in the rest of the state.
That makes sense. On the other hand, if you're picking your running mate with an eye toward locking up PA, you'd better make sure he can deliver it. I still think Casey does slightly better by that measure, though worse on almost every other. (And I think an Obama/Rendell ticket would likely carry the state.)
--Noam Scheiber
18 comments
I like Jim Webb. But, he's got as much Senate experience as Obama. Of course, he was Secretary of the Navy.
Meanwhile, from what I hear about Webb's campaign, which was apparently pretty lame, he might not be the great communicator-- verbally anyway.
Maybe he can just email all his speeches or post them online. Blog them.
- ChanRobt
March 30, 2008 at 12:18am
"Meanwhile, from what I hear about Webb's campaign, which was apparently pretty lame, he might not be the great communicator-- verbally anyway."
I first learned of Webb's campaigning struggles, in fact, in a piece by Michelle Cottle about a year and a half ago -- right around the time I started reading TNR. I've dug it up using an academic search engine, and here are some interesting bits:
"Unfortunately for Team Webb, so many of the traits that make its candidate so appealing in theory--his seriousness, his lack of artifice, his self-reliance, his distaste for schmoozing, and his much acclaimed integrity--in practice make him a problematic campaigner and a downright lousy fund-raiser."
"The DSCC, say observers, has not been impressed with the ex-Marine's stubbornly lackluster campaign style and, most specifically, its impact on his cash flow. This is presumed to be one of the reasons the party was so slow to focus its attention--and its check-writing--on the campaign."
"In early August, at a stop on Webb's "kitchen table" listening tour, a half-dozen voters milled around Dawn and Keith Bradshaw's modest Charlottesville home, snacking on oversized cookies and patiently awaiting the candidate. When Webb at last appeared, half an hour late, he hovered briefly at the edge of the gathering, as if loath to break up the party. Then, offering a brief apology, he did a round of hellos (grip, nod, retreat) and quickly moved to get the official discussion underway. No idle chit-chat. No casual one-on-one with the hostess or the guests. Just wham, bam, let's get down to business. Which, when you think about it, is how a serious, committed, no-nonsense, "authentic" leader probably should behave in such situations. Unless, of course, he is hoping to win an election."
- rozenson
March 30, 2008 at 1:24am
At least Webb has major military experience and knowledge. Casey would bring literally nothing to the table except his home state (and he's not exactly a superstar in PA). Even if he could help in PA, he would be a liability in the other 49 states. Casey won by not being Rick Santorum. I followed the election very closely, and had several friends working on the campaign (which, incidentally, was run pretty poorly, not that it matters since he wouldn't be bringing his campaign staff with him), and I think he would have had a hard time beating a candidate who wasn't already despised by so much of the state.
For one thing, Casey is a horrifically bad speaker. For another, having him a step away from the Presidency would be extremely unsettling. I think Casey could be a decent senator, which is why I voted for him, but I don't want him anywhere near the White House. For what it's worth, I don't think Webb is a great pick either, but he would be better than Casey by a large margin.
- AlanSP
March 30, 2008 at 2:23am
Also, if the concern is just winning PA, Rendell would be a much better choice. He completely outclasses Casey as a campaigner, has far more experience, and is more popular in the state. Yeah, he's endorsed Hillary, but so what? If thinking somebody else was a better candidate disqualified you from VP consideration, we'd have to stop talking about guys Richardson, Biden, and Dodd as well (since they obviously thought they were better choices than Obama).
- AlanSP
March 30, 2008 at 2:39am
Noam
I know I told you to stick with the numbers, but you need to take a step back on this one, and stop making the assumption, when you crunch those numbers, that Obama is going to need to pull out some 10 or 20 electoral delegate victory over John McCain, the way Hillary Clinton would certainly be reduced to scratching for.
Try thinking big picture for the VP choice, because I have no doubt that's what Obama and his people are doing. They're looking for the best person to take over the presidency should Obama be unable to fulfill his duties, and that person will have a very similar vision for America. I haven't got any idea who will be, but I'll be satisfied as long as it isn't the Rodhamator.
I predict that Obama will win by more than 300 delegates, and take states that the GOP hasn't lost in some half-century. It's a whole new ballgame this time around and Democratic turnout is going to be massive, while the Republicans will be lucky if they can get their own presidential candidate to vote for himself.
I saw that corporate Republican Bush administration shill Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC today proposing that Obama pick Michael Bloomberg, and making the suggestion that Obama now has a problem with Jewish voters as a result of Reverend Wright, and that Bloomberg would help him eke out a victory in November. What a bunch of crap. Mitchell is apparently of a similar mind, and she's looking for any way to get a Republican in the White House again, as per her instructions. Mitchell is the biggest disgrace to the Jewish community in America since Paul Wolfowitz .
Whenever I look at that conniving woman, I can see the wheels turning in her head. She does nothing more than approximate some distorted caricature of a journalist, when in reality she's nothing more than an effective propagandist and manipulator who's taken it upon herself to try and create the news as opposed to reporting or commenting honestly upon it. Both her and her husband have sold themselves and this country down the river. I find her contemptible and utterly devoid of credibility or ethical morality.
Supposedly she is a foreign correspondent, it's too bad MSNBC doesn't send her to Baghdad and keep her there for the duration of the occupation. If it were up to me I would make sure she toured the morgues and mass grave sites of Iraq on a daily basis, and have someone say to her, look and see what you and your labors have wrought. And when she gets back I would send her on a tour of America to visit the grave site of every American who died in Iraq, and then stop at the home of each of their family members to apologize for her part in taking this country to war.
I hope I run into Andrea on Yom Kippur someday, just so I could look her in the eye and ask if she's atoned for her sins, and inquire whether she has any remorse in her heart for the harm she's helped inflict upon humankind.
- AaronBBrown
March 30, 2008 at 2:53am
Neither Webb nor Casey. Neither's Senate seat is securely Democratic. Obama should not name a sitting Senator as his running mate. There's already his own seat that'll be up for grabs should he win the general. Does he really want chance being another vote down? This when having a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate will be key to the success of his presidency? Not on your life.
Why not Ed Rendell, if PA is so critical? Or is his support for Clinton disqualifying?
Really, though, the most inspired veep choice for Obama is staring us all in the face. It's one that has already been discussed on these TNR boards, albeit for Hillary, not Barack. It's Bill, of course. You get the Clinton good-ole-boy charisma--the real McCoy and not the Wellesley knock-off version--you add the weight of GENUINE experience to the ticket, you signal that the intra-party wounds have been healed, and Hillary gets to keep her Senate seat. And since Obama's a Constitutional law "professor," who's better to make the case that his selection does not violate the 22nd Ammendment?
- aeromonas
March 30, 2008 at 5:26am
Yeah. Bill Clinton definitely wants a shot at VP.
- roidubouloi
March 30, 2008 at 8:08am
The only problem with that is Bill Clinton is legally unavailable to be VP. He can only server 2 more years as president, and since that is the only job requirement for VP, he's not qualified.
- anonevent
March 30, 2008 at 10:21am
Wes Clark was against the war, brings experience and 'patriotism', and was a Hillary backer so it looks as though he's reaching out.
- swr22
March 30, 2008 at 11:09am
Webb is basically a conservative, right? And we can't afford to give up his Senate seat.
Regarding Casey, if Obama needs to re-energize Dem women after an ugly battle with Hillary, putting a pro-life VP candidate on the ticket is the wrong way to go.
- lonestarpedro
March 30, 2008 at 11:14am
Aaron,
I don't think it's necessary to confront Andrea Mitchell at Yom Kippur and make her atone for the sins of the Iraq War -- just asking her to atone for the mortgage crisis that her husband helped visit upon America would be sufficient.
- wildboy
March 30, 2008 at 11:47am
Rendell makes much more sense than Casey - in addition to all the reasons mentioned above, he's a high-profile HRC backer and the move would be an olive branch after all this primary ugliness. The only problem with Rendell is that he's more of a gaffe machine than Joe Biden.
Clark would be a good choice, but he doesn't bring much to the electoral table. Would he deliver Arkansas? On the other hand, he would make an outstanding secretary of defense.
- WoodyBombay
March 30, 2008 at 1:58pm
Anonevent, my suggestion of BC for VP was, of course, facetious, however it is open for debate whether or not Bill is legally available for the VP job. Article II states that the VP candidate must be eligible to serve as president, but one interpretation of this is that this refers only to the requirements that he be at least 35 and a natural born citizen. At the time those words were written, there was no presidential term limit. The term limit only came in with the 22nd Amendment which stipulates that no one may be ELECTED to greater than 2 presidential terms. It remains ambiguous as to whether the 22nd would preclude a third term obtained by means other than election.
- aeromonas
March 30, 2008 at 4:36pm
rozenson, good research.
I remember reading that piece.
What search engine do you have access to? I'd like one as good. It is very hard to research tnr backpieces using tnr.
- ChanRobt
March 30, 2008 at 9:54pm
I want to agree with what AAron said before he went off on his rant about Andrea Mitchell:
"I predict that Obama will win by more than 300 delegates [electoral votes], and take states that the GOP hasn't lost in some half-century. It's a whole new ballgame this time around and Democratic turnout is going to be massive, while the Republicans will be lucky if they can get their own presidential candidate to vote for himself."
I know the press loves a good race, but how can they (you) suggest that McCain will even come close to winning? Once we have a democrat nominated and the race focuses on the differences between McCain and the Dems, we will see a massive shift in the polls toward the Dem. The free pass McCain has now will be over. How can you predict a Republican will have any chance of winning in the face of a lousy economy and an unpopular war occuring after 2 terms of a Republican president? When has such a victory occured in the history of democratic elections in the western world? The current polls are meaningless as are any comparisons to 2004 when the war was popular and the economy OK. The Dem candidates have barely started to attack McCain and haven't yet put up national TV ads reminding voters of his desire to continue Bushes failed economic and foreign policies. I predict that either Dem candidate will win a minimum of 40 states in a landslide. The Dem VP choice is not a big deal as long as it's not a Dan Quaylesque disaster.
- benbo451
March 30, 2008 at 10:04pm
benbo451, the Democrats thought they had a great candidate in McGovern in '72 and Mondale in '84 and Dukakis in '88. Luckily they had Perot helping them in '92.
But, we shall all see soon enough.
- ChanRobt
March 31, 2008 at 12:51am
ChanRobt, I used my college's (George Washington University) library search engine.
- rozenson
March 31, 2008 at 2:23am
rozenson, is that exclusive to GWU, or is it a generic engine licensed to universities?
- ChanRobt
March 31, 2008 at 11:07am