Jim Webb: Vice President

So it appears that Senator Jim Webb from Virginia will be releasing another book next week:  A Time to Fight: Reclaiming a Fair and Just America.  Interesting timing, no? Interesting title? So what's the first quote in the preface:

"I’m the only person in the history of Virginia elected to statewide office with a Union card, two Purple Hearts, and three tattoos."

This is just too easy so let's not over think who should be standing next to Barack Obama for the next six months.

Obama is a wonderful progressive candidate and a natural leader and his choice in running mate will be exciting. Obama is not without his perceived vulnerabilities though, especially lined up against Maverick McSame.  

Here's a little more from the book's cover:

Jim Webb—the bestselling author and now the celebrated, outspoken U.S. Senator from Virginia—presents a clear-eyed, hard-hitting plan of attack for putting government to work for the people, rather than special interests, and for restoring the country's standing around the world.

Infused with the intelligence, force, and firebrand style that has earned Senator Jim Webb enormous national attention from his earlest days in office, A Time to Fight offers a thorough and provocative assessment of the thorniest issues Americans face today, along with cogent solutions drawn from Webb's lifetime of experience as a much-decorated Marine, a widely traveled, award-winning journalist and novelist, a highly placed member of the Reagan administration, a Senator with a son who fought as a Marine in Iraq and, perhaps most important, a proud scion of America's vast but frequently ignored working class.

Sorry John Edwards, but Jim Webb just swiped your entire platform and enhanced it with three powerful phrases: "much-decorated Marine", "highly placed member of the Reagan administration" and "son in Iraq".  Again, this is not a difficult choice.

Watching Jim Webb smack down John McCain and his chicken little hawk comrades like Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham regarding the war in Iraq (and Iran probably) will be a beautiful thing.  And when McCain says Reagan this and Reagan that, Jim Webb can look right through Mac and say,

"I knew Ronald Reagan. I worked with President Reagan. John, you're no Reagan."

Webb complements Barack Obama better than anyone else. Especially in the context of a campaign against Senator John McCain.  If this were a campaign against Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, Webb may be less ideal but that's not the case in the here and now.

More from the cover:

But more than two million Americans are now in prison, by far the highest incarceration rate in the so-called advanced world. Our foreign policy is confused, without clear direction; increasingly vulnerable to such largely unexamined long-term threats as China's emerging power while it has become bogged down in the never-ending struggles of the Middle East. As this drift toward societal regression has taken place, America's leadership has largely been paralyzed, unable or unwilling to stop the slide. "Where are the leaders?" Webb asks. "Has our political process become so compromised by powerful interest groups and the threat of character assassination that even the best among us will not dare to speak honestly about the solutions that might bring us back to common sense and fundamental fairness?"

Change. The. World.

•  Find a VP who likes the whole constitution,

  please.  We all ready have one who likes the second amendment, but not the rest of it.

  by sheddhead on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:04:42 AM PDT

•  Webb is an Asskicker

  First Rate.

  Recc'd

  by jds1978 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:06:21 AM PDT

  •  Webb+Edwards r great VP-Richardson SecofState

    Obama/Webb would be terrific Prez/VP..Edwards def great in Obama WH cabinet if he doesn't want VP.
    Richardson would be awesome Sec of State.

    by concerned on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:14:29 AM PDT

    •  Good call. Webb has to shave a little

      prickly attitude off his personality, but given Barack's personality, the combo really would be powerful.

      Webb had a competitive "thing" for Ollie North at Annapolis: they boxed each other and always were not friendly.

      Some do claim Webb is sexist. Something to consider.  But I believe the same could be said of McCain.

      Webb is an interesting mix of intellect, proven warrior, and experienced political leader.

      by RoddieH on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:32:18 AM PDT

      •  Some say Webb is sexist, but the same ...

        ...could be said of McCain? I'm sorry, but this does not compute.

        by Meteor Blades on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:35:58 AM PDT

        •  You Need to Understand his Objection to

          Introducing female midshipmen to the Naval Academy.  Old school mentality.  Perhaps he has grown since then.

          by RoddieH on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:42:11 AM PDT

          •  I DO understand that objection ...

            ...what I am wondering is how the fact that McCain is a sexist makes it OK that Webb is.

            by Meteor Blades on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:01:15 AM PDT

•  I don't get the Webb for VP mania.

  He has definite advantages.  He's also been divorced twice and has a much younger wife.  Combine that with things he's written about women in the military in the past and a presidential nominee who really, really needs to lock down women voters, especially older women voters, and you have a problem.

  Never mind his vote on immigration, which would cause problems with another key constituency.

  Then there's the electoral calculation, which seems to be "he'll bring Virginia!" Guess what. Not only did he barely win the state over a severely damaged opponent, according to SUSA his approval numbers are not great.

  Now tell me again why he's the best possible VP choice?

  by MissLaura on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:07:26 AM PDT

  •  The truth is, Webb is

    Not the best VP candidate.

    Not in my view.

    I personally prefer Russ Feingold.

    Webb is way too blue dog to suit me.

    JMO.

    by XOVER on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:10:52 AM PDT

    •  It's not about you

      you already got Obama.  The ticket needs to be electable to a wide swath of voters.

      by glutz78 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:13:40 AM PDT

      •  That's why I like Webb

        Plunk him down in Appalachia the entire campaign.

        He probably won't win WV for Obama, but he may mitigate the GOP crossover in OH, PA, NC and VA enough so Obama has a serious shot at taking at least two, or maybe 3 out of four of them. He might, in a dream world, and a massive voter registration drive of African Americans, cause enough panic in Georgia that the GOP has to dump serious money to hold the state.

        by Dont Just Stand There on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:20:08 AM PDT

      •  No, it's not about me.

        And it's really not about a Vice-President either.

        VPs, frankly, don't sway voters to any meaningful degree, except, maybe, in very rare and unusual situations.

        If you're the Presidential nominee, you go with a guy that could carry on your agenda if something happens to you.

        Not some blue dog who does not share large parts of your agenda.

        The best team out there was Clinton/Gore.  Arkansas/Tennessee.

        Where was the "balance" there?  Where was the "wide swath of voters" there.

        Your balance argument, while conventional wisdom, is nonetheless spurious -> Clinton/Gore proves it.

        You take a blue dog, fine, but as for me I hope Obama has better sense and goes with Russ Feingold.

        by XOVER on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:02:20 AM PDT

    •  Obama/Feingold is a political

      fantasy come true.  But it ain't gonna happen.

      by pvlb on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:51:04 AM PDT

    •  Webb has gone populist

      ..and thus is not a total Blue Dog (see his rebuttal to the SOTU address). He's a bit more hawkish, but Obama will keep that under control.

      by rhetoricus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:21:37 AM PDT

  •  Re: barely won over Allen

    First of all, in a light Red state vs and incumbent it's never gonna be easy.  And Webb did it coming in as a semi-unknown politically all while dealing with his own "scandal" that he wrote a provocative line in a book.

    He'd bring in Virginia and sure up Pennsylvania.

    by glutz78 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:12:12 AM PDT

    •  Evidence?

      That's unknowable -- I can't know he won't and you can't know he will -- but his poor approval ratings in VA certainly don't bolster the claim he'd bring in VA.

      by MissLaura on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:13:48 AM PDT

      •  41% disapproval...

        That's not bad in a state like Virginia.  You make fair points though about his marriage history - I was not aware of all that so I'd have to look into that more.

        Who would you offer up instead to counter McCain's perceived strengths?  Or do you not worry about McCain's strong points - either imaginary or real.

        by glutz78 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:23:28 AM PDT

        •  McCain has a pretty scummy marital history

          himself which Billary Redux diaried in April.

          by Integrity is fundamental on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:45:40 AM PDT

        •  Against McCain???

          PPPffft.

          The guy (McCain) cheated on his wives at least twice we're aware of, and dumped his first wife for a beer heiress he calls "trollop" and "c**t" in public.

          There will be no problems with Webb's marital history.

          by rhetoricus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:24:01 AM PDT

          •  I'd like to introduce you to

            the media double standard, in which McCain gets a pass on all things. You may have heard of it. If not, brush up before attempting to comment on politics.

            As for the things McCain has allegedly called his wife in public, that's a poorly-sourced rumor. I could believe it, but I'm certainly not basing any claims on it.

            by MissLaura on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:56:31 AM PDT

            •  You're right about the media

              ...but it remains that McCainites are in no position to criticize Webb's marital history.

              by rhetoricus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:13:16 PM PDT

              •  And that's stopped Republicans when?

                But actually, I wasn't as much talking about Republicans. I was saying that given the nature of the Democratic primary battle, one of the constituencies Obama will need to be reaching out to is women. And for a few reasons, Webb is not at the top of the list for that task.

                by MissLaura on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:25:30 PM PDT

                •  This is true..

                  ..but Obama has national security, the military, the white working class, the South, the "Appalacian issue," and the moderates in the party to consider also.

                  I understand that Obama needs to reach out to women, but policy-wise, he is the only logical choice for them.

                  That said, yes, Webb has said unfortunate things but it was a LONG time ago--perhaps he can do a Senator Byrd and repent hugely.

                  Clark would have most of the advantages Webb would have without the drawbacks, and it would not mean losing a Dem Senator.

                  by rhetoricus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:37:13 PM PDT

  •  Uh.......

    Not only did he barely win the state over a severely damaged opponent

    Meanwhile, IndyGreen candidate Gail Parker sucked away 26,106 votes.

    by kestrel9000 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:12:56 AM PDT

    •  Important point,

      though of course something like that could happen again. (F'ing Ralph...)

      Look, I'm thrilled to have him in the senate.  While I don't agree with him on everything, I really, really like his economic populism, and even without that, I'm just glad to have a Dem in VA-Sen.  I just don't think he's the best VP choice.

      by MissLaura on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:15:49 AM PDT

      •  What did Ralph do?

        I thought it was the US Supreme Court, and namely the person in the middle, Sandra Day O'Connor that handed this election to Bush after gore won the popular vote and the electoral college vote. What did Nader have to do with it?

        I'm quite tired of this line of thought.

        by beatengeneration on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:18:49 AM PDT

        •  Oh, give me a break. n/t

          by MissLaura on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:20:09 AM PDT

          •  Wonderful method.

            Slam a man without evidence. I provide evidence to the contrary. You then make a sarcastic comment lacking evidence.

            If you disagree with me, provide evidence.

            by beatengeneration on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:21:27 AM PDT

            •  i'm from mercer county too!

              I agree with your Nader points. He is not responsible for the Gore loss any more than Al Gore himself is.

              (why are you moving? )

              by glutz78 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:26:23 AM PDT

              •  I'm going to Grad School

                at Princeton. I'm pretty excited. Where do you live in Mercer County?

                by beatengeneration on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:33:45 AM PDT

                •  live in Lawrenceville

                  work in princeton...

                  by glutz78 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:39:13 AM PDT

                  •  Very cool. My fiancée will be looking

                    for a job in the area. I'm a little apprehensive, as it seems that the area is rather automobile-centric and we hate all the baggage that comes with cars.

                    I'm also going a little nuts, as I have lived in Phoenix, Berkeley and SF (as well as a bit in Europe). The East Coast is a completely new place for me.....

                    New York looming on the horizon seems extremely frightening and exciting....

                    by beatengeneration on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:42:57 AM PDT

                    •  Princeton for Obama

                      What are your grad studies in?  

                      If you're not signed up with Princeton for Obama, I'll recommend doing so on barackobama.com. Lots of interest in obama all around town and tons of great people are involved.  I think an office will be opening near Nassau Street soon too!  Should be a fun summer for Obama in Pton.

                      by glutz78 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:59:00 AM PDT

                      •  Sadly, I will just be dropping by in late June,

                        and then I'm off to Europe 'til September. I'll be sure to work when I return. I'm studying German literature.

                        by beatengeneration on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:15:11 AM PDT

              •  I don't think Nader is a bad person

                and he should be given credit for his outstanding consumer advocacy in the 60s and 70s.

                However, in 2000, he set about to wreck the Democratic party and in his own explicit words, wanted to have Bush win over Gore. He completely scuttled Gore's options for a game plan in the final months when Gore was already struggling from Clinton scandal fatigue and relentless media smears (before the netroots came to exist).

                Nader said he wanted Bush to win and he said he would've voted for Bush over Gore. Republicans ran ads of Nader's attacks on Gore in some states like OR. And he delivered Bush.

                Yes, had Nader not been on the ballot, Gore would've almost certainly put FL away beyond dispute (as Nader got 97K votes there, and Gore needed an edge of only 1% of those votes). Had Nader not contested in close/swing states, it would've allowed Gore to go on the offensive in several winnable states like MO, WV, TN, AR instead of going on the defensive to protect states like WA, OR, MN, WI, NH and FL.

                Please see here for some info on the Nader factor in 2000.

                Please see also this diary of mine about how Nader and Gore had a pleasant encounter in 2006: When Nader met Gore.

                by NeuvoLiberal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:08:21 AM PDT

            •  This argument is old and tired,

              and I've had it too many times with too many people. Aside from whatever misplaced feelings of the righteousness of Nader's mission such people have, they also have a lot of incentive to believe they and their candidate weren't one of the major causes of the Bush presidency, so there's no winning the fight.

              Based on your opening, I'm quite certain you have nothing to say I haven't heard. I probably have nothing to say you haven't heard. I think you're wrong, delusional, and refusing to learn from the past. I'm sure you have equally flattering views of me. What's the point of rehashing?

              by MissLaura on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:28:49 AM PDT

              •  The point of "re-hashing" is to

                make reasoned, evidence-driven arguments, rather than ad hominem attacks at Nader.

                If we disagree when we understand each other then it is legitimate.

                Also, to your point about the incentive for Nader supporters to avoid fault..... what about thinking the opposite? Perhaps Gore supporters like to push the blame on to Nader to avoid the fault in the Gore candidacy?

                I reject this idea too, because I don't fault Gore or Nader. But if you use your argument, this argument seems just as plausible.

                by beatengeneration on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:32:57 AM PDT

                •  I don't think I actually engaged in ad hom.

                  Though considering that Nader's arrogance and self-importance is an important part of the political effect he's had, relevant to bring it up. So I'll say now for the record that while he did good things decades ago, his role in recent American politics is that of an egomaniac with no regard for the values he claims to hold.

                  And as I noted, this conversation is way too old and tired to be worth taking the time to type out reasoned, evidence-driven arguments to someone whose initial comments have made clear they will be deaf to any such.

                  BTW, plenty of Princeton grad students get by without cars.

                  by MissLaura on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:01:17 PM PDT

              •  The point is this...

                Nader supporters could spend the rest of their lives being taken for granted by moderate Democrats (aka, Republicans) or they could demand better. You cant fault them for demanding better. And you cant fault Nader for running for President.

                How about blaming Bill Clinton for screwing the Democratic brand in the late 90s? That seems more important than a few thousand votes in one state.

                by glutz78 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:42:52 AM PDT

                •  Although, a lot of other things

                  were at fault in the 90s: our cultural squeamishness towards sexuality; the Republican Party; the media.......

                  You know, the same bullshit as always. BUT, you're right, Bill could've been the big man and just admitted it. We would've avoided the whole impeachment mess.

                  Of course, who knows what else would have happened.

                  by beatengeneration on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:56:29 AM PDT

                •  The point is this:

                  What you're saying requires us to ignore both the way the American electoral system works and the way social movements work, because Nader expected us to ignore both. The only role a third-party candidate can expect to play is that of a spoiler, and Nader made no attempt to build a social movement going beyond himself. It was all about Ralph's ego, not about actually changing anything.

                  by MissLaura on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:02:54 PM PDT

            •  Perhaps it is because the argument has ...

              ...been made so often, bg.

              But there is no getting around the fact that Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida.

              If he hadn't been on the ballot, it is hard to know for certain where all those votes would have gone. Some of those thousands probably wouldn't have voted at all. Some might have voted Republican. But probably the majority would have voted for Gore. Which means the decision might never have made it to the Supreme Court in the first place.

              There is another place to put some blame for the outcome, however. With the 12% (as determined by exit polls) of Florida Democrats who voted for Bush. (8% Florida Republicans voted for Gore).

              by Meteor Blades on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:33:35 AM PDT

              •  They stole the election.

                They were going to steal it whether it was 500 votes or 5000 votes. The point is that it was stolen.

                And by the way, the Democratic Party let it happen. And after all that, they still did not challenge the Electoral College system.  Unreal.

                Nader is a good man and should be a hero to everyone here.

                by glutz78 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:46:12 AM PDT

                •  Thank you for your comments.

                  I think the one thing I take issue with is the "goodness" of Nader.

                  I supported him, and I don't mind that he's running again. I love Gonzalez, his running mate. My friend works at his firm here in SF.

                  However, when I met Nader, he was an arrogant ass....

                  I still voted for him though. :)

                  by beatengeneration on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:53:15 AM PDT

                •  "...challenge the Electoral College system..."

                  And how exactly would they do that?

                  by Meteor Blades on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:09:21 AM PDT

                  •  by trying to eliminate it

                    it's obsolete as proven by the 2000 election and every other election in which 100000 people in Ohio and Florida are the only people that matter.

                    I dont know how you eliminate the electoral college but surely it can be done. If you can authorize pre-emptive wars you can change our dumb system of electing the president.

                    by glutz78 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:36:18 AM PDT

                    •  Well, it's simple. All you have to do ...

                      ...is persuade Congress to vote by two-thirds majority in both houses to send a constitutional amendment to the states and get three-fourths of them to agree to eliminate the Electoral College. Good luck with that.

                      by Meteor Blades on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:44:15 AM PDT

                      •  Cynicism is not wisdom :)

                        They could have at least made it an issue.  They could have at least tried.

                        by glutz78 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:05:24 AM PDT

                        •  This comes up every four or years ...

                          ...and every time it does, it quickly becomes apparent that it is a losing proposition. You will never get enough of the small-population states to agree. The best you could do is get some states to make the EC vote proportional to the popular vote. But if the big states do this and they little states don't, that weakens the clout of the big states. It's a no win situation.

                          by Meteor Blades on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:40:26 AM PDT

                •  I agree with you that it's not Nader's fault

                  People need to vote for whomever they feel comfortable with.  If the Democrat has not made the case that he/she is the best candidate, I don't think ANYONE should feel obligated to vote for that Democrat.  If we allow Democrats to take our votes for granted, they will move to the right.

                  However, I disagree with you that Nader is a good man.  He is a charlatan and megalomaniac who joined with Bush, Frist, deLay, Dobson, Falwell, etc to try to force Terri Schiavo to be kept alive against her own wishes.  He's not a progressive; he's merely an opportunist who will pretend to be one to get into the limelight.

                  by simca on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:18:26 AM PDT

        •  It was what he DIDN'T do

          which was drop out.
          530, was it, votes in FL?
          Woulda made all the difference.

          I'm quite tired of this line of thought.

          As I am quite tired of reality-denying (insert epithet) that continue to make apologia and excuses for that son of a bitch.

          by kestrel9000 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:21:11 AM PDT

          •  530 votes

            is an arbitrary number at which the Florida Supreme Court stopped the Florida elections committee from vote-counting.

            If you think Nader has any connection to 530, you simply don't understand.

            by beatengeneration on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:22:40 AM PDT

            •  You asked for evidence. It was provided.

              You reject it. Interesting.

              by Pager on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:25:30 AM PDT

              •  It is absolutely

                legitimate to reject evidence it is faulty. I told another person to provide evidence. This person made an initial comment that I feel completely misses the point.

                Neither Gore nor Bush won FL. The Supreme Court appointed a winner. Blaming Nader for making it easier for the Supreme Court to uphold the arbitrary halting of the recount by FL is fairly illogical.

                That is my argument.

                by beatengeneration on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:29:30 AM PDT

                •  Uh huh.

                  Moving on...

                  by Pager on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:33:32 AM PDT

      •  But

        I'm just glad to have a Dem in VA-Sen.

        ya still would.
        John Warner retires, Mark Warner runs and wins. And he WILL win. The rPV is in a shambles; they got no one.
        Kaine appoints Webb's replacement.
        Doug Wilder? Or Creigh Deeds or Brian Moran, whichever one doesn't go for the governor's spot? (They're both running.)
        Side note on that: while Brian Moran has better grassroots support, I think Creigh has broader appeal.
        Biased though I am, I know the guy. :)

        by kestrel9000 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:24:22 AM PDT

      •  Yep. Keep him in the Senate. The guy ...

        ...has been there less than 18 months.

        by Meteor Blades on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:24:48 AM PDT

  •  Teacherken

    lays it out rather well, here.

    by kestrel9000 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:14:22 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, there's stuff to recommend him.

      One thing teacherken did in that diary that this diarist didn't do is engage the negatives and explain why he thinks the positives outweigh them.  I happen to think the negatives outweigh the positives for this particular race, but that's a matter of opinion once the people having the discussion are all willing to acknowledge both sides.  

      by MissLaura on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:24:53 AM PDT

      •  and reasonable people can disagree

        without being disagreeable

        let me note that I am not necessarily saying that Webb SHOULD be the VP nominee - in that diary I was trying to present the case for why he COULD be an effective choice as nominee

        my sense is still that it is not his preference, but under the right circumstances he might be willing to entertain the idea

        by teacherken on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:26:35 AM PDT

    •  thanks for providing the link n/t

      by teacherken on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:25:12 AM PDT

      •  Thanks for the diary! n/t

        by kestrel9000 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:36:14 AM PDT

•  I do not agree with Webb's FISA vote either

  But he's still the best candidate for VP. He offers the most against John McCain. He just does.

  by glutz78 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:07:57 AM PDT

  •  "He just does" is not an answer.

    Engage the problems he'll have with key constituencies, and his low favorability ratings in his own state.

    by MissLaura on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:12:42 AM PDT

  •  the FISA thing is a deal-breaker for me...

    and i don't think he brings anything that Wesley Clark doesn't...  besides, Clark would possibly be a good "conciliatory" pick, as he has long been a Clinton supporter

    by RSA TX on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:25:35 AM PDT

    •  agreed

      Clark is a great choice as well.  This diary here has a lot to do with Webb's new book and it's curious timing and topic.

      by glutz78 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:28:19 AM PDT

•  There are no perfect candidates

  Just like Obama is not a perfect candidate.

  But I think Webb is the perfect complement on a ticket with Obama. I think there's a strong chance that will be the direction his campaign chooses to go.

  by QuestionableSanity on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:08:23 AM PDT

  •  The only candidate I might like more than Webb

    Is Mark Warner. Ted Strickland is a close number two as well.

    Webb, Warner or Strickland - either would be good for Obama.

    by Dont Just Stand There on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:22:14 AM PDT

•  I appreciate your enthusiasm

  but Webb just gets a big YAWN from me.

  by Terre on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:08:38 AM PDT

•  Then George Allen would run again

  and probably win. He is remains popular among the good old boys in rural Virgina, sorta like Hillary.

  by Pazuzu on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:09:43 AM PDT

  •  don't be so sure - he might not -

    and it would depend against whom he would be running.   Allen is considered somewhat damaged goods even among a fair number of Republicans in Virginia.

    by teacherken on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:27:42 AM PDT

•  No, no, no, no, no.

  Look, people, what part of "Webb isn't popular" don't you get?  I gather you think he's some kind of secret weapon for Appalachia in general, and Virginia in particular, but he's not.  His net positive rating is +2, as compared with +20 for Tim Kaine (to use a Virginia example).

  I like Webb as much as anyone, but the lunacy that is the idea of putting him on the ticket must stop.

  by Drew J Jones on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:10:15 AM PDT

•  I think Jim Webb would be a great VP choice.

  Obamas' campaign is all about change and creating national unity and I think Webb would add to that message.

  by KozmoD on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:11:21 AM PDT

•  Webb owns a hard-won Senate seat

  The party needs him right where he is. Warner is going to win the other VA seat this year, but if Webb gave up his I believe we'd have a fight to keep it.

  by 2501 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:11:57 AM PDT

  •  Good point 2501. n/t

    by KozmoD on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:15:25 AM PDT

•  I like Webb but.. Edwards is first on my list

  followed by Gore
  Then Webb

  Followed by Gen. W. Clark, C. McCaskill, Richardson, the whole adult population of the US not named elsewhere, H. Clinton

  In that order

  Funny thing is.. although I find it fun to speculate and debate, I'm confident, that barring a Hillary coercion of Obama, he'll make the best choice.

  by KS Rose on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:16:43 AM PDT

  •  Gore?

    Gore will NOT be VP again and has already stated unequivocally that he WILL NOT accept a cabinet position in ANY future administration.

    Al Gore is retired from elected office.  Let the man focus on his cause.

    It saddens me to say this but I think he can actually do more good for the planet by staying OUT of U.S. Politics.

    by Wisper on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:28:29 AM PDT

  •  I like Gore, Clark, Richardson

    McCaskill and Webb are DINOs.  This election is about change, and DINO's represent the Bush status quo.  Bad idea.

    Hillary and Bayh fail the test for the same reason.

    This election could shut down the DLC once and for all.  I will vote Green if the ticket includes a DINO or DLC member.

    by simca on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:22:01 AM PDT

•  FISA

  Telecom Immunity, Failure to Uphold the Constitution.

  No sale. There is no issue more important than the Constitution, and Webb has no credibility on that issue.

  by greenskeeper on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:18:32 AM PDT

•  There are two models for a VP in office

  One, the traditional "ghost" and do nothing like a Quayle or other forgotten individual. Then there is the activist string puller like Dick cheney.

  I don't see Webb fitting in either model. He will get bored and frustrated.

  Obama needs an strong figure that has vital responsibility for leading on the critical parts of the domestic agenda, IMHO.  An Edwards on health care, or holding two jobs like a AG at the same time so we don't get a "shadow government" concocting false and criminal propaganda to drive the agenda as we do with Cheney.

  This worship of Webb is really demeaning. He is a Senator,a citizen, not a man on horseback. he wouldn't really like it either, I believe he would be embarrassed by the idolatry here.

  by Pete Rock on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:21:47 AM PDT

•  Webb is not ready for a national campaign

  Let him keep fighting in Virginia.  He's about to get the best "Junior Senator" he could possibly hope for when Mark Warner gets elected.

  Webb is not what Obama needs.

  by Wisper on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:24:52 AM PDT

•  I don't understand why people keep dismissing

  Edwards.

  He seems to be a very solid match to the Obama ticket. He's young charismatic is popular with the working class.

  So what if the conventional wisdom says he's not enough of an attack dog or that he can't bring his state along (might just be enough with Obama's popularity to bring NC back into the dem fold imo)

  He's not a sitting senator so we don't loose a seat by chosing him.

  But the big one is this idea that he's not enough of an attack dog. For one he seemed to do just fine tearing Clinton a new one in the debates and it would be a site to behold to see what ever loser the GOP puts on the ticket with McCain answering questions about ties to lobbyists.

  The fact that he isn't an attack dog fits perfectly with the Obama strategy imo.

  Furthermore I'm convinced he'd be good fighter. He unlike Kerry wasn't ready to toss in the towel in 04 you could see it in his expression at the concession speach he was ready to fight it out.

  Just look at how relaxed and comfortable they looked on stage those two were ready to take the GOP to the woodshed and kick some ass.

  It's a good fit and winning ticket IMO.

  by Skex on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:26:22 AM PDT

  •  Edwards has made very clear not interested

    he wants to address the issue of poverty, and while he might consider a cabinet level post that would let him do that, my sense is that he does not want to go through another national campaign as #2

    then again -  if Obama was to tell him that he needed him to win, Edwards might consider -   same standard would probably apply to Tim Kaine, who might be the person among the possibles with whom Obama is most sympatico.

    by teacherken on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:29:43 AM PDT

    •  That was January

      This is May. Edwards in interested. Very Interested.

      by Village expects idiot home soon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:33:56 AM PDT

  •  I had not really considered Edwards for VP

    and for several reasons, including the fact that he said he wouldn't be interested in the position.

    But I have to say, you make some excellent points that have me rethinking him. He became an amazing debater during this primary season and I think he would perform well against the Republican VP candidate.

    He is more of a uniter than a divisive personality, which really does work well with Obama's style and platform.

    And last but not least, I'm a big fan of Webb, sent him $$$ and sent his name around to my Colorado circles for fundraising purposes but I absolutely do not want to see him run for VP. He does not have the experience for the job, at this point. He is a fine man but I think some of his negatives, which I do not see the diarist addressing here, will become a drag on the ticket. We need the strongest VP candidate we can find.

    We have a fight on our hands this November to take back the White House and we can't be going to a gun fight, armed with a baking spatula.

    by Pager on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:32:02 AM PDT

  •  Edwards is a dilemma for me...

    He voted for the war and I'm sick of hearing him apologize for this.  Don't apologize - just get it right the first time, damnit.  This is why i never supported him fully.

    But he is clearly a fighter and is clearly dead serious about his platform.  Watching him in the debates and last night i realized how serious of a man he is. And I appreciate that.  He's a wondeful debater though - better than Clinton even.

    by glutz78 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:34:59 AM PDT

  •  Edwards is a good fit - the best fit imo

    Regarding Edwards not wanting the slot ... my guess is if it allowed him to focus on some key issues and work with the Senate then he would accept. Message wise, the ability to campaign, and so forth is a very good fit for Obama. I think Edwards also helps in Mi, Ohio, and Pa.

    Where Webb hurts imo is that just about anyone would list him third amoung the top Virginia democratic possibilities. He also is not a great campaigner and barely managed to see Allen defeat himself. The marital history and a few bad votes are there. BUT the big question is do you really want to bring Reagan back into this race? McCain wants to distance himself from W and embrace Reagan. Obama screwed up earlier with his Reagan commnets and adding a former Reagan guy in the VP slot may zero sense. Z-E-R-O.

    Obama and Edwards ran from day one a message of change. Democrats and the country by and large want to move forward. The democrats that want to go back are talking maybe Bill Clinton - certianly not Reagan. Why on the world would a forward looking, change candidate want to go back to the past? To me Hillary makes no sense because she represents the Clinton adminstration. Webb makes even less sense because, like it or not, he represents the Reagan adnministration.

    by Savid on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:58:24 AM PDT

•  Webb for SECDEF

  Take my advice Jim.

  Talk it over with Barack. Let Gates stay in until you feel comfy that your seat will be secured within the party. Come in after Gates and stay until 2016.

  If you can help get us out of this clusterfuck in Iraq, crush AQ in Afghanistan and Pakistan, appease the Isreal First lobby (aka neocons) by securing a peace agreement with security guarantees, rebuild our miltary with an eye towards our future threats and make sure our troops have great pay, good equipment and the best leadership; then you will be a fuckin GOD!

  You'll have to tussle with some of Obama's other topnotch hands, who also have an eye on the prize; but they won't have the crossover appeal that you will.

  Either that or be the Gov. of VA. The Dems are gonna really be jonesin' for a woman president by 2016, You may just get your dick knocked in the dirt because of gender.

  Ne Desit Virtus, Bro.

  by SGS on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:29:17 AM PDT

  •  No to SECDEF for Webb

    The best candidate is Sam Nunn. Highly respected politician and recognized as an expert. CEO for the Nuclear Threat Initiative (charity group working to reduce nuke, chem, and bio threats globally) after leaving the Senate. On the political side Obama should line this guy up early for the slot and make it known.

    Nunn helps put Georgia in play and might help in Florida. Adds credibility on the terrorism issue big time. I believe Nunn is not a good VP pick (some rumors/reports that he is on the list) because of his age. Nunn I believe is 70 years old. Age is likely one area that is going to hurt McCain and having a Dem VP candidate that more or less let's McCain off the hook rgarding age is politically stupid.

    by Savid on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:10:31 AM PDT

•  No No No Webb is needed in the Senate

  We don't have enough Democratic Senators at it is.

  Edwards for VP. The cons are scared to death of him. That's enough for me.

  by Village expects idiot home soon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:32:26 AM PDT

•  People here cannot see the forest for the trees!

  Jim Webb is the solution to the purple state problem. Russ Feingold is Jewish, and that religious affiliation will drive the "blue dogs" in Appalachia and the states that border Appalachia into the GOP camp.   Like it or not, there are conservative Democrats whose support we need to win this election.

  by ConcernedCitizenYouBet on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:35:22 AM PDT

•  If it's someone from VA, it will probably be the

  governor, Tim Kaine.

  by jj32 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:42:16 AM PDT

•  Two "freshman" senators on the same ticket.

  Bad idea.  Barack needs someone with executive background such as an experienced governor.

  by Templar on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:42:56 AM PDT

  •  against mccain?

    not so sure.  I think a military guy would be more effective.  But your point is well taken.

    by glutz78 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:52:06 AM PDT

  •  If Obama needs an "Experienced hand" ...

    Does that not imply that he is not the right candidate? Obama has said he is "experienced enough" and that "being right" trumps experience. If that is correct he may well win the presidency. If he sends a message that experience really does matter then he is giving a nod to McCain. There is no way around that.

    by Savid on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:14:24 AM PDT

    •  No, not at all. It would merely make for a more

      balanced ticket since he and McSame both lack executive experience.  Note that the recent Democratic presidents, Carter and Clinton, were both governors immediately previous to being chosen as president.

      I never said that Barack did not have experience as you have implied - I pointed out a lack of "executive" experience - a quite different matter.

      by Templar on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:28:54 AM PDT

    •  That's like saying.

      if mccain chooses someone young it's because he's admitting he's too old for the job.

      by glutz78 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:33:49 PM PDT

•  WEBB SAID NO

  He was asked point blank by a survey of all Senators if he'd serve as Veep if asked, and he was among a group (also McCaskill) who said NO.

  by jgkojak on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:43:51 AM PDT

  •  Good.

    They're both awful.

    by simca on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:23:21 AM PDT

    •  Theyre both awesome

      What more could you want who could get elected in MO and VA?????

      by jgkojak on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:42:38 AM PDT

      •  They both suck.

        Fuck these goddamned DINOs.

        by simca on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:02:04 PM PDT

•  Webb for VP?

  I'm from VA and I have to agree with the folks that don't think Webb is the best choice for VP.  I have to admit that he looks GREAT on paper, for the most part.  He would absolutely bring in more independents and republican-leaning democrats.  However, my feeling is that this choice would send many women running for the hills.  Given the way this primary season has gone, obviously, Obama's choice must be one that does not create more resentment with the women who have chosen to support Hillary.  We need everyone's support and, in my opinion, Webb would feel like salt on the wounds of supporters who already have to come to terms with their candidate not winning the race.

  by mamalovesobama on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:44:05 AM PDT

  •  This is easily defeated

    by Hillary Clinton and other women striking it down forcefully.  Will they do that? who knows.

    by glutz78 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:52:54 AM PDT

    •  Consider Elizabeth Edwards ....

      She is a voice that guarantees and audience and she could help the Obama ticket big time - with older women especially. She also scores huge on the healthcare and education issues across the spectrum.

      The secondary benefit to the Obama campaign is that she and Hillary are not exactly enemies. Obama will have to reach out to unify the party and Elizabeth is a very nice step in that direction.

      by Savid on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:20:15 AM PDT

•  Webb, SurveyUSA, and Veep

  First, using the SurveyUSA numbers can be misleading. The April approval/disapproval numbers for Webb are 47/41; the 2-point spread is from March. However, for February, the spread was 14 points positive, 51/37. If you look at all of Webb's approval numbers in S/USA, they've bounced around quite a bit. Why, I don't know.

  But are approval/disapproval numbers the only thing we need to know? According to S/USA, NY GOP Congressman Vito Fossella has a 60+ approval rating from his constituents.

  I agree that Webb's vote on telcom immunity was disappointing, but he has at the same time been a vigorous and forthright critic of the GOP on foreign policy, and that is literally the only thing the GOP — and McCain — can campaign on. It will be a relentless emphasis on terror, Islamofacists, and as Bush presaged today from the Knesset, Democrats as Appeasers. In that context, the GOP will do everything it can to smear Obama in terms of character (Wright, flag lapel pins, Farrakhan, he's a secret Muslim, etc. etc.) and on an experience basis (been in the Senate a short time, no military experience). Having Edwards or Clinton or Rendell or  Sibelius as Veep will do little to counter this line of attack from a defensive standpoint, and none of these choices will be able to attack McCain and the GOP on foreign policy from the standpoint of the experience that Webb has.

  I also think that criticizing Webb for the narrowness of his victory over Allen is silly. Going into that election, Allen was regarded by many observers in Virginia and nationally as the most likely GOP presidential nominee. He's the son of a famous NFL Super Bowl-winning coach, and he had a huge advantage in money and the entire apparatus of the national GOP behind him. By contrast, Webb was a recently-converted Democrat with not nearly the same name recognition, with none of the back-slapping, good-ole-boy retail political skills of Allen, and saying he won because of the lucky intervention of a video clip shouldn't diminish what he pulled off.

  Are there negatives on his resume? Sure; to some, his three marriages will be a black mark, as will his previous and now-disavowed statement on the unsuitability of women in the military. He's squarely in favor of gun rights, and that will no doubt enrage many liberal Democrats. However, he's staked out some fairly progressive opinions on economic matters, and I don't think he'd be philosophically at odds with Obama on those issues.

  Are there other candidates who have his military credentials and foreign policy experience? Wesley Clark comes to mind, and one potential advantage is that Clark might present a bridge to the Clinton camp.

  by bluestatedon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:45:05 AM PDT

  •  Great points all around.

    Again, in the context of a campaign against McCain, Webb could be a great running mate.

    As for his "young wife"...Cindy McCain anyone?

    by glutz78 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:50:41 AM PDT

•  Not Webb

  Picking Jim Webb - or Wes Clark - basically announces to the voters:  "I'm an ignorant rube on military and foreign policy so I want a certified ass-kicker beside me."  Two problems:

  (1) Barack Obama isn't an ignorant rube on military or foreign policy.  He doesn't need "someone with national security chops," is so many pundits have been insisting.

  (2) Jim Webb brings nothing to the table that Obama doesn't already have for himself, apart from white skin.  You pick VP candidates to complete a ticket, not to reinforce one.

  by NCrissieB on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:53:29 AM PDT

•  John McCain as Republican nominee??

  Does any body really believe McCain will actually be the nominee??
  I wonder who the republicans are going to put in that slot at the last min. so we won't have a chance to properly vet him.
  I think McCain is just filling a space to keep the real guy safe from serious questioning.
  Maybe that is why we haven't seen a medical report.
  So Webb might be O.K. if McCain is nominee, but what if it is someone else?
  I personally think Richardson can do the most to attract votes.

  by Pax peace on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:53:50 AM PDT

  •  unfortunately...

    They have no one better than McCain. as amazing as that sounds.

    by glutz78 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:00:44 AM PDT

•  Feingold?

  Great record. Working with McCain, plus or minus?

  by dalamia on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:58:48 AM PDT

•  Good reasons, but no -

  we need him in the Senate.

  by bfitzinAR on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:59:35 AM PDT

•  Disqualified

  The FISA vote disqualifies Mr. Webb.  Obviously he values Bush's approval more than he does the Constitution.

  Sorry -- no Bush sluts like Webb on the ticket.  I think we're better off with a non-Senator, but if we DO nominate a Senator to the ticket, let's at least pick one who respects the Constitution.

  by simca on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:10:50 AM PDT