Big Shoes

"This madness has to stop. Now. Unless we want to end up with a vice president who harbors a worldview that is fundamentally illiberal, not to mention downright creepy . . .

"Not only is Webb not a liberal; he is pretty much the opposite of one. I realize The Weekly Standard may not be the most credible judge of a candidate's liberal credentials; but the magazine ran a great piece about Webb in 2006 that called him 'the most sophisticated right-wing reactionary to run on a Democratic ticket since Grover Cleveland.' . . .

"There is also his well-documented misogyny (he once wrote an article called 'Women Can't Fight' and famously denounced the investigation of the Tailhook sex-abuse scandal as a 'witch hunt'). Then there is his glorification of violence. It is one thing to accept a certain level of state-sanctioned violence as necessary to the preservation of a just order--to endorse certain wars abroad or certain police strategies at home. But it is quite another thing to glorify violence, to celebrate it, to elevate its practice into a virtue--which is exactly what Webb seems to do in his books."

One Democrat seems to be lobbying for the job, the Boston Globe reports:

"For two decades, [Sam] Nunn has been floated as a potential vice presidential candidate by virtue of his national security credentials and conservative southern roots. And each time he has dismissed such talk out of hand, while the party's nominees opted for more liberal choices from states more likely to go Democratic in November . . .

"Those close to Nunn, speaking on condition of anonymity, say he seems more prepared to accept a vice presidential offer this year, helping to offset Obama's lack of experience on national security and giving the Democrats a fighting chance in Georgia."

I thought we were done with the Hillary Clinton-as-veep stories, but noooo. Salon, in fact, has two. Ed Kilgore argues in favor:

"It is an idea that is far more popular with rank-and-file Democrats than with the chattering classes. Polls show that a consistent majority of the self-identified Democrats -- and big majorities of those who voted for Clinton in the primaries -- favor putting her on the ticket. In the few days between Obama's victory speech and Clinton's concession, there were rumblings of an organized effort in Congress (and hence among superdelegates) to endorse the unity ticket, but Clinton's instructions to supporters to refrain from pressuring Obama drove such talk underground.

"I don't think there's much doubt that Clinton's supers and donors would be very pleased to see her at least asked to go on the ticket. There is also abundant, alarming evidence that a significant share of Clinton primary voters are currently peeved enough to stay home in November or vote for John McCain. Will many of these voters 'get over it' and get with the program absent a pro-Clinton gesture? Almost certainly. But does that justify dismissing the whole problem as something that will take care of itself? Not if you care about winning what may be a close election."

Thomas Schaller says no way:

"If Clinton really wants to help Obama, her people should leak out the notion that she expects to be picked, even if it's untrue. That way, when Obama picks somebody else it will reinforce his image as a candidate who doesn't bend to political pressure -- exactly how he must project himself to fair-weather Democrats, independents and moderate Republicans . . . Obama ought to promise her whatever she wants, including if not especially the first shot at a Supreme Court seat. She'd be a great justice.

"The Clintons -- plural -- are a potentially dangerous campaign distraction. The Clintons are great campaigners and clever strategists, but Obama has already put together a first-rate campaign team without relying on the Clintons' stable of advisors. The unavoidable truth is that having the Clintons on the campaign trail will draw too much of the spotlight away from Obama."

Does Obama's hiring yesterday of Patti Solis Doyle, the ousted Hillary campaign manager, help her chances? The problem, says Carpetbagger's Steve Benen, is that Doyle and Clinton seem to have severed diplomatic relations:

"If the goal of the Obama campaign was to have a Clinton ally in place to 'ease' the transition, the very last person they'd pick is Patti Solis Doyle. For that matter, I thought initially that maybe this could be spun as a 'unity' move -- the Obama campaign has placed Clinton's former campaign manager in a prominent position. See? We can all get along!

"Except, that doesn't quite work here, either. Obama won't get credit for hiring a top Clinton aide who Clinton no longer talks to."

This New Yorker profile of Keith Olbermann by Peter Boyer contains some eye-opening quotes, such as Keith describing Chris Matthews as being "like an out-of-control sprinkler system." And MSNBC boss Phil Griffin explaining why Hillary supporters are upset with Olbermann: "It was, like, you meet a guy and you fall in love with him, and he's funny and he's clever and he's witty, and he's all these great things. And then you commit yourself to him, and he turns out to be a jerk and difficult and brutal. And that is how the Hillary viewers see him. It's true. But I do think they're going to come back. There's nowhere else to go."

Joan Walsh offers Griffin some advice: "Don't tell your customers they have nowhere else to go. Also: Try to avoid comparing irritated female viewers with wives and girlfriends who have to stay with a 'jerk' who is 'difficult and brutal.' It's insulting to Olbermann and his female critics alike."

Finally, find out why Laura Ingraham has been knocked off the air.