Jim Webb agrees. He said “it [does] not belong in public places,” and the SC one has “long been due to come down.”
As I understand it, he just feels that there is not one simple message represented by the flag, and he prefers that we look back on the history of the Confederacy and the War in a more nuanced way.
Also, even if one disagrees with him, it is grossly unfair to call it “pandering,” as upthread. As far as I can tell, his views have remained consistent, being established before the flag ‘issue’ was a political thing, and being maintained through times when the easier political course would have been to reverse himself.
Sure. If there wasn’t a whole other party that was taking terrible positions on issues that would actually make life worse for almost everyone in the country, then we could make decisions based on purely symbolic issues.
He also said he was being hyperbolic there, and then you got on his case for saying it wasn’t that important in the grander scheme of things. That’s what I’m responding to.
Strongly disagree. Incarceration reform will have actual, material impact on the lives of many real-life black people. Removing all the confederate flags from every public grounds in the US, which is not an issue on which a VP would have any say, would be a great symbolic victory, and would probably indicate favorable improvements to the underlying culture, but would not have material impact on anyone.
This is all fine, and Webb is better than the Republicans. But in my opinion, he’s way worse than all the other Democratic options, and I hope he’s not picked as veep.
I could list some more: infrastructure, minimum wage, “right to work” laws, police body cameras, marijuana legalization, Social Security-literally any issue you can think of is probably more important.
As Do Not Taunt pointed out that’s absurd considering incarceration actually directly affects people while the Confederate flag does not. You are confusing the symbol of structural racism with the causes of structural racism itself.
She can do a reinforcement of her age, like her husband did in 1992. An 44-year old Clinton and a 45-year old Gore showed the 1990’s that youth can make it to the White House. Hillary may pick an older vice presidential running mate to show that experience may matter heading into the 2020’s.
There’s no need to pick Jim Webb. Wes Clark is close to the Clintons and gives all the same advantages that Webb does, except he’s more of a team player. Webb would please some conservative Democrats while irritating a lot of liberals. Whereas if Gen. Clark was named the VP nominee, I think most Democrats of all ideological stripes would say, “OKay, I can get behind that.”
…none of whom served a day in uniform, which is where I thought you were going with that bit about how Clark “gives all the same advantages that Webb does.”
You may be right. Webb is an independent maverick, and he may be unpredictable on the campaign trail. But she may need that. She may need some maverick appeal. True. A Clinton/Clark ticket would be a formidable ticket. I could vote for that ticket, since I am an Independent. I can see her picking former Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, a Southern Democrat, if she wants to expand the South for the Electoral College.
Yea, Gov. Bredesen is a bit of a geezer. He can help with Independent voters. I can see Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear being vetted for vice president. He may not add Kentucky to the Democratic Party ticket, but he could help in the South. Beshear is a moderate Southern Democrat. Another Democrat could be New Mexico Sen. Martin Heinrich. Young. He can appeal to the youth and the millennial vote.
