I think we have a VP winner

and it' Jim Webb. Why you ask?

Well I'll tell you. He has a book coming out tomorrow. Marc Ambinder over at the Atlantic.com has a small write up on the book. He seems to believe "the timing, again, is impeccable: right when Obama is starting to look around, ah, here's a guy who can go toe-to-toe with John McCain on national security, is beloved by white working class voters, puts Virginia into play instantly, and has a charming way with the media." I have been thinking of Webb since Obama first announced. He has or had a son in Iraq. He's a former Navy SEC and republican. He'll bring the outer strength to complement Obama's inner strength to the ticket. What do you guys think?

•  I've argued it for months

  by IhateBush on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:57:42 AM PDT

•  it'd be unconventional

  is webb a good campaigner? Is he a good #2? Is he gaffe-prone? I much prefer Webb than Hagel, if we are going for the across-the-aisle concept.

  by SeanF on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:57:49 AM PDT

  •  **I think it would be a brilliant pick.

    He's only been in Washington a short time.  He's a good talker.  He's got southern appeal.

    by greylox on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:14:30 PM PDT

•  Webb's already

  said he's not interested.  Sorry.

  by nolalily on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:57:49 AM PDT

  •  until he declines an offer

    you can't believe these sorts of things

    by SeanF on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:58:32 AM PDT

  •  And I'm not interested

    in having an ex-republican as VP.  Can't we just pick a real live liberal?

    by cometman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:59:29 AM PDT

    •  I understand your feelings...

      but it seems to me that we are going to have to put those sorts of feelings behind.  He switched parties.  Tell me...what is the purity test that is going to be imposed?  I'd much prefer to have the real test be the type of campaigner he would be, the type of issues he is good and/or bad on and what he brings to the ticket.

      by mayan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:02:01 PM PDT

      •  Not to mention...

        what type of President he would be.

        by mayan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:02:46 PM PDT

      •  Besides being a former republican

        his positions on FISA and other issues leave something to be desired.

        The only purity test I have is a willingness to uphold the Constitution and to hold those who go against it accountable.

        by cometman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:07:41 PM PDT

    •  he was a Democrat

      before he was a Republican

      before he was a Democrat

      but more to the point, he's looking forward to being the Senior Senator from Virginia and working with Mark Warner, our NEXT Democratic Junior Senator from Virginia.

      by lcork on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:03:26 PM PDT

    •  creating a "working majority"

      involves working with people whom you might not entirely see eye-to-eye, and it's one of Obama's central campaigning points. I'm not that familiar with Webb, but I like the idea of a diverse administration.

      by Lord Sphere on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:11:51 PM PDT

      •  Put him in a cabinet position

        I don't have a problem with a couple decent ex or present republicans being involved with a democratic administration, I just don't want them to be VP.

        Traditionally the VP is the party's frontrunner once the president's term is up, and I'd like to see a liberal in the #2 slot.

        by cometman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:16:36 PM PDT

    •  Markos

      is an ex-Republican.

      by itskevin on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:31:22 PM PDT

      •  And I'm not interested

        in having him as VP either.

        I also consider myself to be more liberal than this site's founder and disagree with him on quite a few issues, as do many others here. He speaks only for himself, not for me.

        I do like the website he has made and enjoy chatting with the people who post here though in order to see a whole range of political opinion.

        by cometman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:49:18 PM PDT

  •  Until he's asked by the nominee.

    Obama has a number of great choices; but I like the chemisty with Webb.  I don't agree with him on everything, but he'd be a great choice, no doubt.  

    by 57andFemale on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:01:55 PM PDT

  •  he's not intrerested until he's offerred....

    by rapcetera on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:02:11 PM PDT

  •  He said that with a smile...wink

    by realwischeese on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:02:19 PM PDT

  •  not what he's looking for

    but depending upon definition of role he might not rule it out.

    by teacherken on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:02:37 PM PDT

  •  And

    we want him in the Senate Thank you!

    by Virginia mom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:17:52 PM PDT

•  Richardson.

  We need the southwest.

  by istari5th on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:59:49 AM PDT

  •  way too much baggage

    by realwischeese on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:02:44 PM PDT

    •  If you've got experience you've got baggage.

      by istari5th on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:06:33 PM PDT

  •  good on paper

    but he sucks as a campaigner.

    by Snickers77 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:12:37 PM PDT

    •  Obama makes up for that deficiency,

      Richardson fills the void of foreign policy inexperience.

      Richardson is influential amongst Hispanics, carries less baggage being a popular governor, and would help round out the ticket better than another first term Senator would.

      I like Webb.  I like him in the Senate even more.  I think we have the chance to carry Virginia anyway, what with Warner likely to fill the other Warner's seat.  

      by istari5th on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:25:56 PM PDT

  •  I don't get this.

    Richardson. We need the southwest.

    Okay, I seriously don't get arguments like this. Richardson would be an okay choice for a lot of reasons but I live in the Southwest and I can tell you that people aren't going to vote for an Obama/Richardson ticket simply because Richardson is a governor in the Southwest. It's about convincing individuals.

    Can't the era of identity politics just be over already? This race has proven that women won't automatically vote for a woman simply because she's a woman, males won't automatically vote for the male candidate, and that whites won't automatically vote for the white candidate, etc. Let's choose someone who's a good candidate and not just someone who fits the correct demographics, okay?

    by stefanielaine on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:17:29 PM PDT

    •  yah but it's also

      name recognition. the reason clinton was ahead in the beginning everywhere was simply name recognition. Having someone in the #2 spot whose name you recognize offers benefits just for that fact alone.

      However, i agree with your post!

      by SeanF on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:32:41 PM PDT

    •  If we didn't rely upon electoral votes to win.

      It's about convincing individuals.

      Unfortunately, we have to.  Ask Al Gore.

      We need to win as many states as possible, Bill Richardson would help deliver at least three states we did not have in 2000 or 2004.

      by istari5th on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:40:52 PM PDT

•  I thought he said he wasn't interested?

  by sillycilla on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:59:55 AM PDT

  •  That's what they all say

    by Paleo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:01:26 PM PDT

•  What is the topic

  of his book?  Hope it has none of the racy stuff his fiction writing has featured. Remember the stupid scandal about his novels during the Senate race?

  I presume it is a more weighty tome this time around.
  I have been ok with webb on my short list from the beginning. He has warts, but everyone does. I like Tim Kaine,Warner,Richardson,Schweitzer or Webb.

  by Hawkjt on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:59:58 AM PDT

  •  Sorry, I can only recall Scooter

    and the bear sex.  Gotta be really bad for me to remember it.  

    by texasmom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:18:21 PM PDT

•  Top tier

  Has to be considered a top tier possibility.

  by Paleo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:00:26 PM PDT

•  Absolutely

  Only concern is his reputation as a "loose cannon."  However, I think this is MSM code for anybody who deviates from CW and who fails to kiss the butts of the Beltway insiders.  Obama/Webb is a ticket that screams: REALIGNMENT!

  by Prince Nekhlyudov on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:01:50 PM PDT

  •  That's why he's a good choice n/t

    There's something authentic about him.  

    by 57andFemale on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:02:40 PM PDT

    •  Right

      Remember when Webb talked back to Bush when the AHole in Chief said "How's your boy?"  The Beltway crowd was apoplectic over Webb's "bad manners."  I thought it was an incredible breath of fresh air, and so will most Americans.

      by Prince Nekhlyudov on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:07:19 PM PDT

•  Webb said he's not interested. So did my personal

  favorite Sherrod Brown from Ohio.

  by lockewasright on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:02:32 PM PDT

•  (Nearly) Perfect

  He's my top pick.  Sure, he's not perfect, but what a way to balance out McCain's strong points, put Virginia into play, and put two bold faces up as the new democratic party.

  by WoodyGuthrie 08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:03:01 PM PDT

•  I would be excited about Webb n/t

  by realwischeese on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:04:29 PM PDT

•  Biden!

  I know, not sexy, but he's got the only workable plan to get us out of Iraq: divide it in 3!

  by pacified on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:07:07 PM PDT

  •  I like Biden for VP

    Provides good experience balance to assuage timid voters who think Obama is too young.  I was very impressed by Biden's comments in debates and other free media.

    by Caelian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:11:36 PM PDT

  •  Another top tier choice

    He's got a lot going for him.  Older, Catholic, foreign policy experience, ability to handle the media and sound bite.  Would make a good guard/attack dog for Obama.

    by Paleo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:12:09 PM PDT

  •  division = religious segregation =

    long-term unease and conflict.

    Not saying it's a terrible idea, just one that has potential pitfalls.

    I like Biden, though.

    by Lord Sphere on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:20:35 PM PDT

    •  Long-term unease and conflict

      The Tigris-Euphrates valley has been in continuous conflict throughout history.  Britain's merging of the various areas into a so-called "Iraq" is pretty recent, and only works as long as you have a ruthless regime who will kill horribly anyone who steps out of line.

      Trisection limits the conflicts to the borders between the regions.

      by Caelian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:46:06 PM PDT

      •  Yes, that's true. But consider this:

        1. When a country is united in it's sentiment, there is nothing internally to stop it from attempting to pursue its objective. Coupled with a democratic government & freedom of information, diversity can serve as an internal check-and-balance system. Conversely, even if the government is democratic, small countries with monolithic demographics that have irreconcilable differences with their neighbors and have something to gain from warring with them (oil) is a recipe for trouble.

        2. Trisection may limit the conflicts to the borders (although who knows what political alliances will be formed in the battle for regional power & influence), but it doesn't curb the lengths that these nations will go to protect themselves. You are creating a scenario for an arms race.

        3. Oil will fuel conflicts (no pun intended). The newly divided Iraq will fight for physical possession of the oil and neighboring countries will support the conflicts in an attempt to gain control of the oil flow.

        4. The separation itself is no easy task. It is likely to be a bloody mess, probably with us in the middle of it.

        The ideal situation, if at all possible, is a diverse nation with a democratic government & freedom of information. At this point all we have to do to achieve that is provide non-military, political support to Iraqis with whom share that goal.

        The division of India is a case in point. The separation was unbelievably brutal, tension still remains after a half century, and the arms race between the nations has led to both of them going nuclear. Do we want to reproduce that result with small countries in a notoriously unstable region of the world, on oil-rich land?

        by Lord Sphere on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:59:42 PM PDT

•  Pass on Webb

  While Webb has a lot of strengths, I don't think he would make the top list. First, he won Virginia by less than a hair, so the notion that he'll put Virginia in play is a stretch.  He's also a bit of a wild card and prone to mouth off (remember the gun incident?) and it's not clear that there's any chemistry with Obama.

  by jjct on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:08:20 PM PDT

  •  chemistry with Obama

    I think that's important. While I obviously despise Bush/Cheney, they work as a team and have redefined the VP position as something more than a bucket of spit. We should get that from our ticket too.

    The other thing to consider: who do we want to succeed Obama as president in 2016? Some potential ticket-balancers, who could help us win this year, would not pass this test IMHO.

    by DBunn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:16:16 PM PDT

  •  Actually, the gun incident

    Is probably an electoral plus, overall.

    This would go some way to dispel the suspicion (which I share, BTW, and voted for him anyway) that Obama is anti-gun. That perception will hurt Democrats in areas we need to win.

    It's not enough to simply say that you support hunters. That's coded language, and gun-rights people see right through it.

    Webb's pretty vocal on this, and his carry permit brings a lot of street cred to the party. As does Richardson's.. although he's said he does not typically carry, at the request of his security detail. Gunnies will understand that logic.

    As much as I wish that this would all be resolved by the Supreme Court in June, I doubt they'll go far enough to table the issue permanently. So it will be in play, and it's a huge issue. Gun control advocates are, by and large, not single-issue voters, and none of the vote Republican anyway. The reverse is not true.

    --Shannon

    by Leftie Gunner on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:31:02 PM PDT

•  i think it's been a well-known "secret"

  from the beginning that if Webb wants it it's his.

  by Slatersan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:09:26 PM PDT

  •  oh really

    little birds and all?

    by SeanF on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:35:03 PM PDT

•  I worry that Webb's previous statements

  regarding women in the military could be taken as an FU to Hillary backers.

  Aside from that, I'm cool with Webb. Or Sebelius. Or Kaine. Or Biden. Or even Hillary.

  Basically, as long as he doesn't pick Jeb Bush, I'm in.

  by amnesiaproletariat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:10:25 PM PDT

  •  Women in the military

    A valid concern.  Although they are nearly 30 years old, and he's changed his tune.

    by Paleo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:13:51 PM PDT

•  We need all of the Democrats we can get

  in the Senate, so I'm not a big fan of the idea.

  by Robin in PA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:13:38 PM PDT

  •  I Think...

    ...as November draws closer, protecting a single Senate seat will be less of an issue for the Dems... they'll have 'em in bunches to throw around.

    by Anton Sirius on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:26:36 PM PDT

  •  Dem governor; if Webb goes to VP, Kaine will

    appoint a Dem to finish the term.

    by PittsburghPete on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:29:56 PM PDT

    •  Would He "Finish The Term" Or Would

      He appoint a Dem until the next regular election in 2010?  In any event I'd rather keep his Senate Seat for 20 years than risk it to put him on the ticket.

      by TooFolkGR on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:43:17 PM PDT

      •  Get what you can out of Webb.

        I don't think he will serve more than a term or two.  20 years is out of the question.  At least, that's the impression I got from him in the '06 campaign.

        by Thaddaeus Toad on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:27:05 PM PDT

        •  Well I Don't Mean for him to serve all 20 years

          But for him to prove to Virginia that they want a Democrat in the US Senate.... I just don't think two years is enough time.

          by TooFolkGR on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:43:43 PM PDT

•  Yes Yes Yes

  Webb is my first choice!

  by Politico 4 Real on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:14:13 PM PDT

•  Tim Kaine would be better

  Webb seems like too much of a hot head, but maybe that could end up being a good thing. But Kaine is a Catholic, former missionary, Governor of Virginia, and fluent in spanish. What more could you ask for.

  by Johnnythebandit on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:34:33 PM PDT

•  No

  We can't sacrifice multiple Senate seats.  Richardson, Schweizer or (haven't heard this mentioned) Lee Hamilton?  9/11 commission cover for Iraq withdrawal?  That's a nice fit.

  by awkawk on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:38:30 PM PDT

•  I Would Rather Hold his VA Senate Seat

  For enough time for us to lock it up than have him bail on his constituents in VA after two years.  There are plenty of decent VP picks out there that don't set us back on potential Senate pickups.

  by TooFolkGR on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:41:51 PM PDT

  •  Exactly.

    It stinks of opportunism

    by awkawk on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:46:35 PM PDT

    •  Nobody who would vote to re-elect Webb in 2012

      would hold it against him if he were asked to serve as VP and he bailed.  Anybody who opposes him would call it "opportunism" but so what, they weren't gonna vote for him anyway?  6 in one hand... you know.  

      by Thaddaeus Toad on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:30:23 PM PDT