I’m not sure if these current polls mean something in the fall, but they certainly suggest that Edwards helps heal the rift in the Dem party. I’m reminded of the fact that even before Edwards dropped out, he outpolled both Obama and Hillary against McCain and other Republicans. So it may just be that Edwards is exceptionally popular among the swing voters who make a difference, whereas Obama and Hillary have the support of the base.

His experience with Kerry was negative for both. Kerry’s people tried to control him and minimize his strength, which is charismatic campaigning, because it made Kerry look uncharismatic and unappealing in comparison. Edwards felt understandably frustrated and unused. Obama wouldn’t have those kinds of concerns, because Obama is even more charismatic and as strong a campainger as Edwards. They are much more alike than different in most respects, which reminds me more of the Clinton/Gore pairing in 1992 that worked so well. But it’s true that Obama may not pick him because of the losing 2004 experience, even if it wasn’t Edwards’ fault. I’m not boosting Edwards by any personal preference for him, btw. I’m happy on a personal level with Webb and most of the others being mentioned. But in terms of who helps him win the most, and who seems most politically compatible, it looks like Edwards ought to be the guy. I’m not sure why no one seems to be mentioning him much.

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/the_case_against_webb.php

Interesting. I suppose I’m just skeptical that any VP pick moves that many votes, polls 5 plus months before the election aside, and given that Kerry came to very much regret picking Edwards over Gephardt in 04, I’d be surprised that he got the call again.

“If you are a blue collar worker in, say, WV, KY, OH, or PA, and there is something about Obama that you just don’t like, does having John Edwards as second banana really move that many voters?”

I would have thought the same, and then I saw some polls which compared various VP picks for Obama and McCain in various swing states, and surprisingly it was Edwards who far and away helps the ticket the most (whereas Romney helps McCain the least). WV and KY are probably hopeless, but in PA and OH Edwards definitely made a huge difference. He was even better in PA than the governer and Hillary supporter Ed Rendell. All the female VP picks are virtually useless, and even Webb doesn’t help nearly as much as Edwards. It only goes to show that Edwards really does have cred with that demographic, and that probably makes him the best pick overall.

Exactly!

Dude, Clinton won. Twice.

On a separate but equally fun topic:

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4007#more

Yeah, that they keep losing…

Interesting, except that Obama is further left than Kerry, who was further left than Gore, who was further left than Clinton…notice a pattern? Obama is certainly the most forthrightly liberal candidate since McGovern, yet he pretty consistently leads McCain by any measure you could pick. He does not lead by the decisive margin that you would expect from such a strongly Democratic year, but it has pretty consistent for several months now.

conradg,

If Obama is past the need to “balance” the ticket on foreign policy or national security cred (and I think he almost certainly is) I’m not really sure what Edwards brings to the ticket in terms of those white working class voters. If you are a blue collar worker in, say, WV, KY, OH, or PA, and there is something about Obama that you just don’t like, does having John Edwards as second banana really move that many voters? I think it was pretty clear that those demographis were voting against Obama more than for Clinton, Besides, Edwards moved exactly no votes as VP pick in 2004, not even in his own home state.

The other point about an Edwards pick is that he’s a man. I know the CW is that Obama needs a woman on the ticket to pick up the bitter Hillary women, but the fact is that traditionally women are the Dems strong point, and there’s every reason to think that women will come around by fall. Men, on the other hand, traditionally vote Republican, and Edwards seems to give them more reason to go with the Dem ticket, in that they trust men more than women. Sexist, yes, but it seems to be the facts. So you get more independents and crossovers with a man like Edwards.

Elvis, you have to admit that the Democrats have moved rightward in the past few decades and that co-incident with that they’ve done better nationally re: identification etc… That might jsut be correlation and not causation, but I doubt it…

And Webb, as reliable as his vote is, presents as the rightest of the Democrats. That’s why he has such appeal…

I’d just add that the Democrats have seized the economic issues only to the extent they’ve moved rightward to the center…

Great last sentence, The fact that they have to play anthropologist is why they lose national elections… I can’t imagine the Democrats playing amateur anthropologist about metrosexual, Ivy League knowledge workers…

I think that Obama’s rationale was not that experience is meaningless, but rather that it is only any good if it’s combined with judgment. Webb, like Obama, and unlike McCain, was right about the invasion of Iraq.

I am not convinced about Webb, in part for the reasons KathyG laid out in her post the other day. But having a VP candidate who, like Obama, is willing to respond forcefully to GOP attacks could be useful during the campaign. That, to me, is a better reason to pick him than to balance out any perceived weakness on Obama’s part.

Benny One Six, that sounds to me like yesterday’s talking points. It might have been true in the past. But now, many more Americans identify as Democrats, and America hates the Republican Party. It’s Webb’s willingness to fight, I think, that gives him appeal to Democrats and even to tribalist Republicans. In this clip, he is one of us Dems, responding forcefully to the usual smears and distractions from the GOP.

It’s an admission that the country is to the right of the Democratic party culturally, which is an important difference. Pick just about any economic issue: healthcare, Social Security privitization, minimum wage increase, expanded GI bill for Iraq/Afghanistan vets, S-CHIP, etc, and the majority of the population will be with the Democrats. Webb is a fairly partisan Democrat, and a reliable vote for Sen. Reid, much to my dismay.

Certainly we can agree that Democrats, especially presidential candidates need to resist the urge to play ameteur anthropologist about we gun-owning, church-going tribes of the Midwest.

Democrats see Webb as “not one of us” but “one of them” and the “them” being most Americans…

It’s an admission that the country is to the right of the Democratic party politically and that to win, the Democrats have to abandon what they are: tribalist/multiculturalist/leftist…

They want to pick Webb because they don’t feel lilke the average American at heart… I’m not saying that’s true, but it is what they feel…