It is one thing for politicians to issue the requisite denials when asked whether they are interested in the vice-presidential pick, it is quite another for a potential pick to issue a statement with no prompting whatsoever ruling himself out of the veepstakes. But that is exactly what Virginia Senator Jim Webb unexpectedly did today:
Last week I communicated to Senator Obama and his presidential campaign my firm intention to remain in the United States Senate, where I believe I am best equipped to serve the people of Virginia and this country. Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for Vice President. (…)
At this time I am also renewing my commitment to work hard to make sure that Senator Obama wins both Virginia and the presidency this November. He is a man who speaks eloquently about our national goals and calls for the practical solutions that must be put into place to obtain them. I will proudly campaign for him.
The full statement is available here. Marc Ambinder explains what led Webb to issue such a statement: the Obama campaign has now entered the second stage of the VP search and it has asked a select number of potential picks to submit their vetting documents. Webb was asked to do so and refused, citing his unwillingness to go through a second grueling campaign so soon after his first election.
This report contains the by itself interesting news that Obama has already requested vetting documents. But Webb’s refusal is so stunning that it is difficult to not focus on it. Virginia’s junior Senator had a number of obvious flaws (his dismal record on women’s rights, his gaffes on the campaign trail) but it was hard not to consider him as one of the favorites to become Obama’s VP, given his experience on national security, his appeal to blue-collar voters and Virginia’s new-found status as a key battleground state.
But none of that will now matter, as Webb is the second Democrat at the very top of the list of potential VPs to voluntarily take himself out of the veeptakes. The first was Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, though nothing guarantees that Strickland did not change his mind if Obama asked for vetting documents - something we now know Webb did not do.
The next question, of course, is who else was asked for vetting documents. Most presumably do not hesitate and accept to go through the process which happens only after the campaign has narrowed down the list of potential picks. While it is almost certain that some names are included in this list (Gov. Sebelius), it would be very interesting to know which long-shot names did Obama choose to vet. Did he include Sam Nunn and Joe Biden? And what about Hillary Clinton?
On the Republican side, McCain is also through to the vetting process having narrowed the list down to 8 to 10 names. Marc Ambinder cannot say whether Charlie Crist made the cut, but the Florida Governor removed one of the most important obstacles to his selection this week-end in what amounted to an more stunning development than Webb’s statement: he got engaged! (Correction: an earlier version indicated that Crist got married, but a commenter correctly pointed out that he only got engaged — which makes me more rather than less cynical of the timing.)
That’s right, a 51-year old who is famously a bachelor and one of the politicians around whom have circulated some of the most persistent and consistent gay rumors gets about a month before McCain is to select his running-mate! Even beyond sexual orientation issues, the mere fact that Crist was a (straight) bachelor was sure to provoke a lot of hostility among social conservatives and it is difficult not to conclude at the very least that Crist chose to hasten his engagement to remove that obstacle.
Meanwhile, the GOP favorites remain Gov. Pawlenty and former Gov. Romney. The former has long been considered to be at the top of McCain’s list and the latter joined him at the top last week when Politico placed him at the head of the top-tier. They are now the only two names that Ambinder identifies as part of the 8-10 person short list that is being vetted by the McCain campaign, and Romney is making the most of the situation by putting his fundraising networks to use and raising money for his former rival.
Most recent VP headlines:
- July 1st: Romney’s fundraising potential and the emergence of Thune and Portman
- June 28: Ridge hit by lobbying ties, NRO expands veto, Jones returns
- June 24: Biden, Sebelius and Crist campaigning more or less overtly
- June 20: James Jones chooses McCain, Frank warns against Nunn
- All coverage for Democrats and Republicans
I think Crist got engaged, rather than married.
I don’t understand Barack Obama’s hesitancy to fully embrace Hillary Clinton, and go all the way to make history. It is, at this point, impossible to question Hillary’s fitness for the office, and for the presidency if need it be. I have not been able to follow the US news for the last few weeks, since I am now deployed in Japan. But I had a chance to see Barack and Hillary campaigning together, and it was electric and inspiring. I disagree with those that thing that the election of Barack is pre-ordained. This is going to be a close election, perhaps another election decided at 2AM when the votes in a forgone place like New Mexico or Oregon are tallied. Barack is disappointing some of his most ardent followers from the left, that resent his move to the center, and thus electability. Lefties from hell, you cannot win this election all by your lonesome’s! You still need folks like me, firmly planted on the middle, straddling the line. Why not make history together? Why not go for all the marbles? Just a thought.
I don’t understand Barack Obama’s hesitancy to fully embrace Hillary Clinton
I don’t think it’s that hard to figure out. Yes, she’d help with some constituencies. But she’d hurt with others. She might bring in whatever numbers of her supporters who might otherwise sit out (though I think those numbers won’t be large), but she might alienate moderates who might be crucial in some swing states.
Nor does she offer foreign policy, national defense, or executive experience, all of which are perceived weaknesses for Obama. And, tied as she is to Bill’s administration, she doesn’t fit the “change” meme very well.
So she has pluses and minuses, like all the others under consideration.
Nor does she offer foreign policy, national defense
I would have to disagree. Hillary Clinton is not as much of a foreign policy specialist as Joe Biden or Jim Webb, but she does have a background, moreso than several of the other VP candidates reportedly under consideration. Clinton has served on the Senate Armed Services Committee for 6 years and has been praised for her work there by several of her fellow committee members, including John Warner and Lindsey Graham. As both First Lady and Senator she met and developed relationships with many international leaders. Joe Klein said that he spoke to a ranking general off the record about which Presidential Candidate best understood the military and the general replied, “You mean besides Hillary Clinton?” Her campaign was supported by many military brass.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=6799
Obama’s biggest weakness is concern about his foreign policy and security credentials. Talk about Obama’s ‘youth’ and ‘inexperience’ may be driven by concern that he is too green (and too Left) to deal with a highly volatile international situation and the lingering threat of domestic terrorism. This issue is a presidential barrier to entry: once you’ve cleared it, domestic concerns may become primary, but you have to clear it first before you can move on. If that’s true, then the VP designation may be much more important than is usually the case.
While I don’t doubt Clinton’s standing with the military, that’s not how she is perceived by average voters, who identify her much more as a health care and economic spokesperson. Obama down-played her foreign policy experience during the run-up, and it’s not an easy maneuver to recharacterize it as a strength in the general election. When you add in her high negatives and lingering issues from the primaries, she seems at best a long shot.
I don’t see Nunn as a factor for reasons previously discussed. Sebelius doesn’t bring any of that to the table, and even if she puts Kansas in play (doubtful), it’s not worth what he’d be forgoing. The same would be even more the case with Napolitano, since AZ is a very tough nut for Obama. Besides, picking a woman other than Clinton may infuriate the hard-core Clinton supporters.
Biden is a possibility, but he’s a bit shop-worn and rather closely tied to the Washington establishment. He’s also a bit of a risk when he’s speaking off the cuff.
One reasonably connected legislator believes that Wesley Clark is still very much in the picture: Southern, white and military, and a Clinton supporter. In this view, last week’s bit about McCain was a dry run to see if he was up to the task of roughing John up, and that Obama’s disclaimer was very pro forma.
On Webb, someone pointed out that his wife is Vietnamese, which I didn’t know. There is already concern in the Obama camp about a possible Bradley effect, witness his present apple-pie campaign to redefine himself. It’s possible that Chicago didn’t want to add another imponderable. (This would also be a factor in any discussion about Bloomberg.) When you add in Webb’s vigorous defense of the Confederacy as a states right movement and not about slavery per se, it may have been more than they wanted to deal with, so they gave Webb the word and allowed him to take his name off the table first.
Webb’s exit does not shock me. There are better VP candidates.
Bayh, Bayh
great combo of foreign policy and exec exp. not too old. a moderate beloved in a swing state (IN is one of only two tossups currently - VA is the other).
biden, sebelius, clinton are my other choices, but they don’t have all the plusses that bayh has.
Evan Bayh reminds me a lot of Al Gore for some reason. I think it’s the fact that Evan comes off, at least to me, as a bit of a policy wonk.
I think Bayh would be a good choice. However, he did endorse Clinton in the primaries.
“However, he did endorse Clinton in the primaries.”
Which would only increase his value to Obama as it helps with the unity theme the Democrats are trying to push.
dannity,
That’s a double-edged sword. Obama is projecting an image of change, so the other side of the coin is that selecting a Clinton supporter can detract from that message, especially a guy that’s had a relationship with the Clinton’s for 15+ years.
I do agree with you that it would help the unity theme among Democrats, I just don’t know if I agree that selecting Bayh “would only increase his value to Obama”. I will say that Bayh is one of the less polarizing Senators in the current congress, and he is a consensus builder.
Again, I just don’t know what effect, if any, Bayh would be on an Obama ticket.
the change image projected is not so rigid
that obama has to pick someone whose never run for office before to be true to it. in as much as he’s defined it, he’s said he wants to get past old divisions and old tit-for-tat politics.
bayh’s moderate record, youth, and squeaky clean image fit that definition perfectly.
picking clinton herself might seem like a return to the past, but picking a supporter (of which almost half the democratic voters were) does not.
st paul,
That’s a very good point–and I still stand by my statement that Bayh would make a good choice for Obama. Obama should pick someone that will not be a threat to his presidency, and Bayh’s positive atributes outweigh his stance with the Clinton’s or a perceived “wooden” nature in the public eye. If Bayh is picked, the Dems need to shoot for the Indiana’s governors mansion. The new governor would be sworn in before Bayh would have to resign from the Senate.
My only question–is John Edwards out of the running? I heard he first said he wanted no part of it again, but I also heard he was wavering.