My thoughts are that to court the Reagan Democrats, you should probably put one on your ticket...

Let me preface this next statement by saying that I do not believe all Reagan Democrats are racist.  I realize that there are many Reagan Democrats who switched parties over legitimate reasons like social values and government spending.  With that said, however, I think it would be unwise of us to completely ignore why many Democrats changed parties.  I believe there is a reason Reagan announced his candidacy in Philadelphia, MS.  I do believe there is a reason Reagan railed against "welfare queens in Cadillacs."  Reagan essentially completed the Nixon strategy and convinced many white blue collar workers to vote against their economic interests for social reasons.  If we want to have an honest discussion, then we must acknowledge that one of those social reasons was race.

I think we must keep all of that in mind as we campaign for their vote.  Obama must campaign for all votes, but I feel if we dwell on Reagan Democrats, we may get let down.  I think Obama will make up some ground among this group, but I think his strength will be with Democrats, Independents and all those who want change, regardless of the political box the media places them in.

I'd like to see Webb continue to do good things in the senate and work with President Obama to make progress....

Besides, who would we run to replace the opened Senate seat?
In a special election the Republicans are likely to have better turnout, and we'd get some putz like Gilmore or some theocrat like Marshall (as neither of them stands a chance against Warner this November).   It is even possible that Allen would resurrect himself or we could get worse...

I am thinking that a prominent Clinton camp notable person would help bring Clinton supporters into the fold...  As much as I like Bayh, I'd rather he stayed in the Senate for the same reasons I want Webb to stay in the Senate for now...

Richardson or Clark would help the ticket a lot with different demographics, and either are viable candidates in their own right.  Heck even crossing party lines for say... Senator Chuck Hagel would be interesting and bring more Reagan Democrats and possibly even some Republicans from the Midwest/Heartland over...

Just, please do NOT let it be Clinton.  Unacceptable.

The other big question is if Webb would be up for Presidential level campaigning.  While he has certainly gotten better at those sorts of activities, I think most people would agree that he did not fully embrace campaigning during his own Senate run.  I can't picture a VP effort involving less campaigning.  Is he up for that task?

Also - does anyone remember Cheney as a good campaigner?  Or more that he would balance Bush out.  (not that he balanced him out in a good way AT ALL)

Would adding Hillary to the ticket help prevent some of that?  Probably. On the other hand, though, adding Hillary to the ticket with Obama would probably turn off a certain percentage of Obama supporters, like African Americans, young people, the liberal activist base, etc.  In addition, I'm not sure how adding Hillary to the ticket gives Obama any particular national security or military experience/cred, as would be the case in spades with Jim Webb or Wes Clark.  Finally, I'm not sure which state Hillary would help carry -- Arkansas, maybe?  In contrast, Jim Webb could help carry Virginia (and would help with working class whites in general), Bill Richardson could help carry New Mexico (and would help with Latinos in general), Janet Napolitano could help carry Arizona, etc.

In sum, I know you strongly believe in a unity ticket, but I'm just not feelin' it! :)

There are many, many people in this country who will never vote for Clinton.  She inspires a negative sentiment that I only recently have begun to understand a little...  but it is a real sentiment wether you agree with it or not.  Having her on the ticket will drag Obama's performance down.

A ticket with her on it totally flies in the face of everything Obama supporters are excited about him for.  She represents more of the established status quo.  He is asking us to dramatically change how this whole process works....  with her on the ticket, that is demonstrably false, and Obama loses his luster/charm/inspiration.  Frankly if he adds her to his ticket, his judgement is in question.

She voted for the war, just like McCain and Bush.

She is pro-big business profits, just like McCain and Bush.

Understand this: an Obama vs McCain race will NOT be a replay of the last 4 elections!  It will be a completely new game with new strategies for both sides.  There will be entirely different swing states.  Places that have been safe Republican strongholds become interesting, places that were safely Democratic become interesting.  Swing states become one sided.  Everything is turned on it's head and the process gets interesting again.  If Clinton is on the ticket - it will end up closer to a replay of the last four races...  but Obama will lose the support of large numbers of new voters who want change.

In case you're wondering what McCain did to politicize the GI Bill, here's an earlier comment:
Gee, don't tell me that's old Johnnie playing politics with Senator Webb's crucial initiative. Jim Webb spoke out for a new GI Bill as far back as his primary campaign, right? Then he gets strong, majority co-sponsorship and support from his Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Then along comes Johnnie comes lately, realizing he's been surprised from behind; so he presents a diluted version of the legislation, after dissing Webb and his staff over months by refusing to cooperate. So this is how this petty, small-minded man operates in the political arena? I'm not sure McCain is fit to be a Senator, much less a President.
In all likelihood the new GI Bill will not get through this Congress, as well intentioned as it is. This will be an important intiative in the first 100 days of the next President (Obama).
Thus it will be a campaign issue, and to be honest, I'd just love to see vice-presidential candidate Jim Webb string this issue, and McCain's playing politics with it, ever so adroitly right around Johnnie boy's neck!  

"The extensive and widespread devastation left this weekend by the cyclone in Burma has claimed over 60,000 lives and millions more have seen their homes and communities destroyed. I extend my deepest condolences to the people of Burma struggling to recover from this catastrophic disaster.

"Through tragedy, there may be some hope for the future for the citizens of Burma.  After years of being isolated from the rest of the world, the United States along with the international community can use this opportunity to assist Burma and demonstrate good will towards the Burmese people.

"The time is ripe to move beyond the strategy of isolation and sanctions and toward the goal of opening up Burma.  I am hopeful that the administration will move forward in that spirit and that the Government of Burma will accept the outpouring of international aid and allow international relief organizations access throughout the country."  

I don't think that Hillary Clinton would or should be the VP candidate.  But I don't wish her ill will.  And I think this Hillary bashing is unproductive.  If you are going to have a kiniption fit if she is Barak's choice, you really need to build a bridge before that happens.  Obama is an adult and who he chooses as his running mate is up to him.  If he chooses Hillary Clinton and she accepts and you have a problem with that, then you obviously have a problem with Barak Obama and his decisions, not Hillary Clinton.  

And I feel that the ONLY reason Obama would choose Hillary is if he felt there was no other alternative.  Which I think there are plenty of.  Therefore, I'm pretty positive she won't be the VP nom.

How different would the concluding month of this primary be if Hillary and Barack each campaigned positively as Democrats, and spent their criticisms exclusively on John McCain for the duration? That kind of double- or triple-barreled (w/ Bill included) attack would do wonders.

This is on them to figure out. Hillary can redeem herself in the eyes of many by continuing to vigorously campaign while focusing exclusively on McCain. She needs to send the message to her people that the low road route is now off limits. And Barack needs to continue to lend an olive branch her way. Maybe she wants to be Senate Majority Leader. I'd be cool with that, if she had Dodd or Feingold as the #2. Whatever the endgame is that allows her to bow out gracefully and that respects her and her supporters ought to be vigorously attempted.  

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

This is, frankly, bullshit. This is why she won't end up on the ticket. Very disappointing.  

Of course everyone that feels personally invested in the campaign also has to decide how they will act and operate. But the main factors in this equation are Barack and Hillary and how they decide to try and heal the rift.

I continue to believe > 90% of all Hillary supporters will eventually get on board with Barack. They might not volunteer for him, or donate $ or time, or go out of their way to help ... but when it comes down to pulling the lever for President, they'll vote for the Democrat. Some won't, and that's life.  

Yes, he's got an ego.  (If I had five minutes with him, I'd advise him to cease using the first person singular so very much and start using the first person plural.  We is not imperial, it's democratic with a small d and a smart way to lead via semiotics.)  From what I know of Jim Webb, I can't imagine he's ever lain awake at night envisioning himself in the White House.

But last time I checked, we're in perilous times.  And perilous times is when patriots like Jim Webb step forward.

Hillary Clinton?

As for the vice presidency, that one should be a non-starter from the start. This isn't a call based on bitterness or hate, but practical politics. The VP candidate needs to be a subservient figure, someone who won't outshine or overshadow the presidential candidate. Let's face it, Hillary is too strong a personality to play that role (not anymore), and the drama the Clinton family carries with them would be a distraction from Obama's core message. Seeing how Bill Clinton has comported himself this primary season, no one wants to see him around the rest of the year. He's been a disgrace.

Furthermore, at a time that the GOP is fractured, demoralized and broke, few figures can bring in the dough than the Clintons. There's no reason to give Republicans a boost by putting Clinton on the ticket.

Here's what Kos has to say about Webb:

I know some people like Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, but he's sort of a maverick, and wouldn't do the "subservient to the presidential nominee" thing too well. He's a true alpha male, and will be a fantastic senator and maybe someday a top-of-the-ticket guy.

I agree, Jim Webb's not "subservient," but I don't agree that this is a bad thing.  Barack Obama says he's a different kind of politician, well this can be a different kind of Democratic ticket for a change.  I mean, it's not exactly like we've had SO much success the past few decades doing thing the conventional way. :)

Tim Kaine?

Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine? A compelling possibility who I would slot third in line. His resume is much thiner than Richardson or Sebelius.

The single most important and defining decision the Presidential nominee makes is his (or hers) Vice President. That person should be very strong to assume command in a crisis (like the passing of the President). It's a SIGNAL to the nation about your judgement and to some degree the kind of direction you will lead in.

Webb is by far the best pick for Obama .... they know it, we grassrooters know it .... and based on his recent book .... the world will know it!!!

Given an activist VP role for Webb ... Obama could truly change the body politic!! It will be a new day in Washington and Obama will need a Hammer. Send in the Marine!!

He's about the only person who could unf@ck the Dick Chenney years!

GO OBAMA ... GO FOR WEBB!!!

Second, wouldn't Richardson be more help in trying to carry NM as Governor there, rather than a VP nominee spending his time in small towns in Ohio?

Third, where does Webb's reputation as some kind of wold-child come from?

"Sort of a maverick" can mean a lot of things. I guess in some ways Webb is sort of  a maverick, in that he is not the typical politician serving up banal homilies designed to offend no one, but rather speaks his mind.

But that doesn't equate to him not being a team player. He has been a strong team player in the Senate, cognizant of his junior status, respectful to a fault to his Senior Senator, even when IMHO he deserved less. He has been a Secretary of the Navy -- again, strong team-playing skills required.

No, he is not subservient, but that is different than being an effective VP candidate. That is not the modern vice-presidential model, however. Now, people look for a strong VP, one they would be comfortable with assuming the office if necessary (G-d forbid).

I have no idea who Obama will pick. I think Webb would be a great choice for reasons that have been discussed numerous times here at RK.

Kos may be proven right with Richardson or Sebelius. Still, this analysis seems a bit conventional and unenlightening.