Ixnay on the Ebbway

By Kathy G.

First off, many thanks to Matt for asking me to guest blog. Matt has long been one of my role models as a blogger and I'm honored that he invited me here. If you want to read more of my stuff, you can visit my own blog, The G Spot.

Now on to my first post here, which I warn you will be looonnnggg.

A number of people I greatly respect have been touting Virginia senator James Webb as Barack Obama's vice presidential pick. Indeed, more than a few of my liberal male friends seem positively smitten with the man.

But I say, enough with the mancrushes already! It's true that Webb, a Vietnam vet who's been decorated with with two Purple Hearts, two Bronze Stars, the Silver Star and the Navy Cross, is undeniably butch. But there are a number of reasons why he would be a terrible vice presidential pick.

Back in February, Ezra Klein made the case against Webb, and the reasons Ezra gave then still hold. For one thing, if President Obama wants to get anything done, he'll need a filibuster-proof majority in the senate. It would not be wise for him to choose a red state senator, because who knows if another Democrat could be elected to that seat? Also, as Ezra argued, the things that make Webb valuable as a "gadfly senator," such as his "brashness" and his "willingness to push the conversation forward," would be a bad match for the vice presidency, which would require him to "constantly watch his mouth" and not say anything that conflicts with the president's agenda.

All that is true,  but the reasons why Webb would be a poor choice go way beyond that. Even Alex Massie, who strongly supports Webb for veep, has admitted that the man is "hopeless on the campaign trail":

You could see that it pained him to even ask people to vote for him and he plainly had little patience for the self-abasement and daily humiliations of life on the campaign trail. He is not a natural baby-kisser. My sense - from his own writing and what I've read about him - is that he is also difficult, stubborn, awkward, cussed and not to be trifled with. these too may not be attributes best-suited to a national campaign in the modern political era.

Doesn't sound too promising, does it? But that is actually the least of my worries about Webb. No, what I worry about is the fact that Webb basically became a Democrat the day before yesterday, and he has a long history of holding some pretty wingnutty opinions and making some fairly outrageous and offensive statements. To quote a Rolling Stone profile of the man, just a few years ago he was saying that "Liberals were 'cultural Marxists,' and 'the upper crust of academia and the pampered salons of Hollywood' were a fifth column waging war on American traditions."

In 2000, Webb opined that affirmative action was "state-sponsored racism"; that same year he endorsed the ultra-conservative Republican George Allen for the senate. In 2004, Webb wrote an op-ed for USA Today arguing that John Kerry "deserved condemnation" for his opposition to the Vietnam War (to be fair, in the op-ed Webb is also critical of George Bush; but then again, in the same piece Webb also takes a swipe at the "liberal media"). Troublingly, he gave this glowing endorsement to Mark Moyar's uber-wingnutty "revisionist" history of the Vietnam War, Triumph Forsaken, which was published in October 2006:

I know of no scholar more dedicated to bringing a thorough and accurate portrayal of America’s involvement in Vietnam than Mark Moyar. Everyone who is interested in a full picture of that oft misunderstood war should be grateful for his effort.

But as Rick Perlstein has demonstrated in a devastating review, the Moyar book is dreadful piece of far-right propaganda posing as history. What it basically is, is a book-length elaboration of the "stab-in-the-back" myth: i.e., Moyar argues that the Vietnam War was winnable, and that only the treachery of liberal elites in the media and the government prevented America from achieving "victory."

Am I the only person who finds it deeply disturbing that any elected Democratic official would give an unqualified endorsement to a book like this? Let alone someone who has received such adoring coverage from so many liberal (male) journalists, and is being touted for vice president. And remember, the Moyar book is not a distant relic, either -- it was published less than two years ago, at around the same time when Webb was running for senate.

I think I've given more than enough very good reasons why Jim Webb should not be Barack Obama's running mate. But there is yet one more reason to oppose his elevation to vice president, and it's the one that I consider to be the most important one of all: his truly horrible record on women's issues.

In 1979, in an infamous article in The Washingtonian magazine called "Women Can't Fight," Webb argued that women were biologically unsuited to combat and didn't belong in the military academies. He said that the mere presence of women was "poisoning" the environment for male cadets. He also

declared that no senior female in a leadership position at the academy won her rank by merit, thereby impugning the accomplishments of every female midshipman and throwing fuel on the smoldering resentments of a vocal minority of disgruntled midshipmen.

Webb's writings on women did a hell of a lot of damage. It gave invaluable ammunition to the enemies of women's presence in the military and helped stall and perhaps even roll back women's progress there. Kathleen Murray, a 1984 academy graduate who went on to become a commander in the Navy, said of Webb's screed: "This article was brandished repeatedly. [Men] quoted and used it as an excuse to mistreat us." Her observation is confirmed by this post, which contains devastating testimony by women in the military about the effect Webb's writings had. For instance, here is what Commander Jennifer Brooks, USN(retired) had to say:

I was 19 years old and in my second year at the Academy when the Webb article came out. I was devastated to be told by a war hero that the Academy should be shut down rather than accept me, and that my very presence was responsible for the degradation of the military. As a best selling author, James Webb knew the power of words, and to describe the Naval Academy as ‘a horny woman’s dream’ was inexcusable. My mother read that.

I joined the Navy to serve my country. It was unbelievably demoralizing to be painted as a pampered slut who was taking up classroom space and pre-destined to endanger the lives of the brave young men around her.

You may say, well, that was way back in the 80s and late 70s. He's changed since then, right? But that is not exactly clear. At a 1991 convention of naval aviators called Tailhook, 83 women were reported to have been sexually harassed or assaulted by military personnel. From the beginning, Webb's concern for the victims was merely perfunctory. But he gave many speeches and wrote many articles vociferously defending the accused. In a 1992 article in the New York Times, he called the investigation of Tailhook a "witch hunt." In a 1997 article he wrote for the conservative Weekly Standard, he was highly critical of what he termed "ever-expanding sexual mixing" in the military and he referred to feminist efforts to improve the status of women in the military as merely "salving the egos of a group of never-satisfied social engineers."

And yes, once again he brought up Tailhook, and once again he showed himself more concerned with attacking feminists than with securing justice for the victims: "Events such as the 1991 Tailhook debacle have been seized upon and used by feminists to attack the military culture and bring about major concessions." Indeed, as late as the time this book was published (2004), Webb, according to the author, "persists in refusing to blame the Navy and Marine Corps officers who participated in the abuses of Tailhook, who failed to raise a hand to stop them and stonewalled the investigation that followed."

To be fair, Webb, who is pro-choice, has kinda sorta apologized for his past writings and statements on women in the military. He termed the infamous Washingtonian  article an "overreach." Um, that's putting it mildly.

Look, I accept that on some issues red state Democrats are going to be more conservative than I would like. And there are some things I like about Webb -- he's made valuable contributions on issues like Iraq, veterans' benefits, prisons, and  economic inequality. If I lived in Virginia, I'd vote for him. But Webb also has a history of colossally bad judgment on many issues, especially gender issues. (And -- hello! -- he has huge paper trail documenting all of his bad judgments and ideological flip-flops. Can you imagine the fun the Republicans would have with that? Every other minute Webb would be "clarifying" or "explaining" or "apologizing for" some thing  he'd written or said long ago. Just his presence on the ticket would throw the Obama campaign seriously off-message).

Above all, though, I am very troubled by the idea that a man who has held such sexists views, and has done so much to damage the cause of gender equality in the military, would be one heartbeat away from the presidency. I do not think Webb is at all trustworthy on women's issues, and women's issues are very important to me and to millions of others besides. I think it's essential that any Democratic president or vice president have a good record on women's, civil rights, and labor issues. It's not just that women, African-Americans, and unions are the core constituencies of the Democratic party. It's that advancing the causes of racial, gender, and economic equality are the among the most important moral and political issues of our time. These are core values to me and millions of other Democrats, and elevating a man who has been so awful on one of them to the second most powerful position in the party is completely unacceptable.

Stepping away from all that high-minded rhetoric, I'll add that, in practical terms, selecting Webb would be a slap in the face to the Hillary Clinton supporters. I'm not saying that Obama has to pick Hillary as veep (and indeed, I think that would be a bad idea). I'm not even saying that he needs to pick a woman.

But Hillary was the first woman to ever have a serious shot at the presidency, and she came so close. So the Hillary supporters (of whom, to be clear, I am not one) will feel frustrated enough that their candidate didn't win. But for Obama to choose -- out of all the well-qualified candidates out there -- the one person who has a really awful record on gender issues would be like rubbing salt in the wound. It would be seen as a big "screw you" to Hillary's supporters and to feminists in general.

How would Obama supporters feel if their man lost a closely contested fight, and then Hillary turned around and picked as veep someone who, into the 1990s, was an outspoken critic of civil rights? It would seem tone-deaf and incredibly insensitive, to say the least.

In addition, I just don't buy many of the pro-Webb arguments. One argument I hear is that Webb would be great because Obama needs "credibility" on foreign policy. But as Mori Dinauer has pointed out, this may "just underscore the notion that Obama is somehow weak on foreign policy."

Then there's the notion that selecting Webb will buy Obama some white working class cred. I have multiple problems with this one. First of all, the notion, which some lefty males of my acquaintance really seem to buy into, that Webb is some pure tribune of salt-of-the-earth working class authenticity is highly questionable. Webb's father was a career Air Force officer; his family was not wealthy but certainly was comfortably middle class.

Secondly, the idea that putting a white Southern military dude on the ticket will somehow win Obama white working class votes he wouldn't get otherwise is highly problematic. It reminds me of the way I and my fellow liberals thought that nominating John Kerry might win over the working class, 'cause they love military heroes, right?  Besides, the idea that Webb would attract white working class support is not well-supported. In 2006, Webb barely eeked out a victory against George Allen, a deeply damaged candidate. And it was Allen, not Webb, who overwhelmingly won both the white vote (especially the white male vote) and the votes of the non-college educated. There is no evidence that Webb is especially popular with white working class voters.

Finally, as Josh Patashnik has noted, there is little evidence that vice presidential candidates affect election outcomes. People tend to vote based on the top of the ticket, period. As someone else (I can't remember who) said, Barack Obama's running mate could be a sixpack of beer and it still wouldn't bring him any white working class votes that he wouldn't get otherwise. If he wants to win more white working class support, Obama's best bet is to give more emphasis to bread-and-butter economic issues. The good news is that Obama doesn't have to do especially well with the white working class vote. Pollster Ruy Texeira believes that Obama can lose the white working class vote by 10 to 12 points and still win the election.

Given Webb's shaky  campaigning skills, his well-documented history of extremely poor political judgments, his johnny-come-lately status as a Democrat, his questionable ability to attract votes, and above all, his horrible record on gender, I do not think James Webb would be a wise choice for vice president. It's interesting to me that, though I don't know of a single woman who thinks Webb should be Obama's running mate, I know many men who positively swoon over the man.

To the legions of Webb fanboys on the left, I'll say this: dudez, this race is not about your illusions about how an Obama-Webb ticket could somehow miraculously heal centuries' worth of racial wounds, or your fantasies about how Webb could somehow bring that all-important white working class male back to the fold. Most especially, it's not about the choice of the ultra-manly Webb as a vicarious endorsement of your masculinity.

Selecting a vice president is about choosing someone who would not detract from the president's message and agenda, who is well-qualified to be president, and who upholds the basic values of the Democratic party. James Webb is not this person, but there are plenty other people out there who fit the bill.

Comments

Thank you. I've been waiting for someone to say this. It baffles me that so many people tout Webb as the perfect pick without even addressing his record on gender issues.

Posted by Gauss Bonnet | May 27, 2008 7:32 AM

You anticipated the argument I was worrying about when you addressed the potential "but he's changed!" comeback--right on.

I think that there were enough people who had at least moderately sane positions on gender back in, oh, 1979, that we can decline to give 33-year-old sexists of the time a pass.

Sadly, the view that Webb espouses in the article seems to still be conventional wisdom, though usually less graphically and bluntly expressed. (I mean, seriously, this is war porn. Stabbing already-dead enemy soldiers in the middle of the night! How romantically rugged.)

Posted by m. leblanc | May 27, 2008 7:40 AM

OK, you've convinced me. Good research and analysis. I'd love to hear your opinion of who would "fit the bill."

Posted by Dunyazad | May 27, 2008 7:41 AM

Wow - I'm a fan of the "reenforcing VP" theory over the "balancing VP" theory anyway, so Webb always seemed a bad choice...but I didn't realize just how much baggage he comes with. Thanks for the reality check.

Posted by Zoe | May 27, 2008 7:44 AM

Thanks. Great post. I've been thinking much the same and whole-heartedly agree.

Posted by Rancor | May 27, 2008 7:47 AM

Thank you Kathy! Even if gender hadn't entered this primary race, Webb's history with women in the military would still make me a bit worried and uncomfortable with him as VP. If I was from Virginia, I still would have voted for him in the Senate race (especially against that racist fuck George Allen) and he pulls off military gruff in a way that has huge appeal across the political spectrum that I've rarely seen. If it wasn't for this one issue, he would be a great VP pick who could complement Obama's message and appeal in a lot of ways (and I can deal with departing from the orthodoxy on an issue or two that aren't Iraq or abortion). However, saying in this day and age that women aren't fit in the military is unacceptable. Combined that with the fact that picking Webb as the VP nom would be sending the wrong message to female Clinton supporters. There is nothing wrong with Webb very publicly campaigning for Obama and possibly holding a cabinet position in his administration, working with an Obama administration closely in the Senate on military and other issues, etc., but it would be a snub to too many women to choose him.

Sebelius brings in a lot of the positives Webb brings (ability to work with others and reach across party lines, from a part of the US where Obama has a chance to win and the Dems need to increase their appeal, etc.) while also bringing her own strengths: has deep roots in a respected Ohio family, even harder to attack than Webb because attacking her makes it look like you're attacking grandma, etc. Also being from the Midwest, she can reinforce Obama's appeal as a Midwestern guy (his cultural Midwesterness, not only from living in Illinois but also being raised by a Plains State family, has played a big role in his appeal there) just as Gore complemented Clinton as a fellow Southern wonk. In addition, the fact that Obama's mother has since passed on and that Sebelius is from Kansas, next to his mother's home state of Nebraska, can add a backdrop narrative of family and nostalgia that can pull at people's heartstrings. She's also one of the main organizers at the Convention this year, so she's going to be very much in the news during the run-up, so it's not like her name will be coming out of complete nowhere for some people.

Posted by Reality Man | May 27, 2008 7:57 AM

I'm a woman who's been in favor of Webb for VP all along, warts and all, but YIKES. You persuaded me.

Well done.

Posted by Lucy | May 27, 2008 8:05 AM

Jim Webb is a conservative, ex-Republican military men/Reagan appointee who's foursquare against McCain/Lieberman's ziocon "pre-emptive Wars. He's an intelligent, forthright man of conviction from a Southern swing State with a high regard for tradition, and old-fashioned values. He is the ideal VP pick for Obama precisely because he forcefully counter-balances all those areas where Obama is perceived as suspect (National Security, Traditional American Values, appeal to working-class whites). The "wingnuttery" is wingnuttery only to sappy liberals, and his more provocative comments only serve to strengthen the conservative pedigree Obama badly needs. The most important issue facing all our futures is the direction U.S. foreign policy will take after 8 years of ziocon/corporate/anti-Christ, neo-fascist Shock & Awe. And, Jim Webb has the background, stature, credibility to convince Americans that we can't continue down that awful, evil, counter-productive, anti-American road to hell. Unless, he were to pick Chuck Hagel (and Hagel were to accept) - the smartest move Barack Hussein Obama could possibly make is to offer the VP slot to Senator Webb. If he picks him - McCain/Lieberman is toast.

Posted by Trevor | May 27, 2008 8:06 AM

Wow, Kathy, you really don't like this guy huh? I wouldn't worry so much, Obama isn't interested in him. His campaign sent out a memo stating what they were looking for, and they're looking for Obama. They want someone to run for Obama's 3rd and 4th term, not someone who might help deliver the 1st. They've already got someone who can deliver the 1st term (Obama).

Obama's campaign realises the quality that they have on their hands. They understand that their victory this November is a 16 year victory at least. They're rewriting US politics in Obama's image. THE most likely person to win the 2016 Presidential election is Obama's VP. So they're chosing with that in mind. Don't worry about this other guy.

Posted by Domino | May 27, 2008 8:06 AM

Thanks, Kathy. I've been waiting for someone to do the Webb-as-Veep takedown. Webb also voted for warrantless wiretapping and telecom immunity in the Senate. He might be the best the Democratic Party can do in Virginia, but that's a shitty reason to put him a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Posted by strasmangelo jones | May 27, 2008 8:20 AM

THANK YOU

This post needs to be circulated with the major liberal blogs, especially Daily Kos.

Posted by matthewcc | May 27, 2008 8:41 AM

The big problem with this critique vis a vis Webb is that McCain also has a similar history and continues to oppose women in combat.

From the LA times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-militarywomen27-2008may27,0,3318437.story

I think his 'wingnuttery' gives him some authenticity that someone like Wes Clark is lacking. If anything getting flamed by a part of the left will help not hurt.

At the Republican convention Joe Lieberman is going to give an O' so obnoxious "my party changed not me" speech- Webb could do the same before hand.

In the end someone Obama can work well with is most important and that is up to him.

Posted by Pete | May 27, 2008 8:50 AM

Are there no limits to the greatness of Kathy G?

This piece reflected all my concerns about Jim Webb.

I like Senator Webb and appreciate his defeating George Allen and many of the stances he has taken since arriving in Congress. He has spoken forthrightly about the Iraq War, income inequality and workers' rights.

He has also changed many of his earlier antipathy towards liberals and his views on race have progressed.

However, it remains the fact that he is very right-wing indeed. His strong retrospective support for the US wars in Indochina (despite regarding invading Iraq as a strategic mistake) are a powerful indication of that. It isn't the kind of foreign policy judgement anyone needs.

Webb is doing good things as a senator but is not a good choice for the Democratic Party in the White House.

Posted by Alex Higgins | May 27, 2008 9:11 AM

Re Kathy G's comment "And yes, once again he brought up Tailhook, and once again he showed himself more concerned with attacking feminists than with securing justice for the victims"
--------------
1) Actually, it seems to me that James Webb's conduct in the Tailhook affair was far less reprehensible that that of the feminists.

2) The Feminists were took a two-faced stance devoid of anything resembling decent principles.

On the one hand, they tried to exploit Tailhook to force the military to open up combat slots for women.

But at the same time they were arguing that women should be warriors, they were also arguing that women were delicate flowers whose honor had been sullied by some groping at an off-duty, civilian function know for its heavy drinking and riotous partying.

3) Notice Kathy G's weasel wording "At a 1991 convention of naval aviators called Tailhook, 83 women were reported to have been sexually harassed or assaulted by military personnel"
--------
"Were reported to have been". To whom? How many complaints were filed with the police and how many police charges were made? None?

How many of the women at Tailhook were military personnel and how many were civilian women who were free to bring sexual assault charges with the police? Kathy doesn't say.

4) Frontline noted "Ultimately the careers of fourteen admirals and almost 300 naval aviators were scuttled or damaged by Tailhook.". Simply for BEING at Tailhook 91 -- NOT for any proven misconduct.

5) Some of these men were COMBAT veterans. Whose careers were destroyed when female Senators put a hold on the promotions because of feminist lobbying.

Stupid bitches who were happy to play at political war in DC but who had never been within 1000 miles of a battlefield.

6) There's a REASON why George Bush has gotten the votes of so many male voters. The LAST thing the Democratic Party needs is to be dragged over the cliff again by a pack of amoral,unprincipled harpies.

Posted by Don Williams | May 27, 2008 9:20 AM

"To be fair, Webb, who is pro-choice, has kinda sorta apologized ...."

As long as one is pro-choice, all is forgiven. Just like Senator Packwood! Packwood was pro-choice so all the elite fifth columnists cut him some slack until his harrassment and molesting became too heavy to IGNORE.

This is why men like GW Bush get elected.

Posted by del | May 27, 2008 9:32 AM

Webb was "hopeless" on the campaign trail? Really? You may not have noticed that he won the election, beating a popular former governor and prospective presidential candidate after he'd begun the campaign 16 points down in the polls and flat broke after a contested primary. Webb cut out George Allen's guts with a bayonet, wrapped them around his neck, and strangled him to death with them. Webb is the toughest in-fighting campaigner the Democrats have. There are lots of reasons to choose someone other than Webb but the idea that he wouldn't be an effective campaigner isn't one of them.

Posted by Bloix | May 27, 2008 9:34 AM

You forgot perhaps, Webb's biggest disqualifier: the man is wearing a rug. Seriously. Look closely at it. It's a damn good one, but a rug nonetheless.

Posted by drjimcooper | May 27, 2008 9:35 AM

"But at the same time they were arguing that women should be warriors, they were also arguing that women were delicate flowers whose honor had been sullied by some groping at an off-duty, civilian function know for its heavy drinking and riotous partying."

Wow. Your whole comment is amazingly offensive and poorly reasoned. But the quoted section marks you as a particularly low-classed form of sub-mutant.

Posted by Rancor | May 27, 2008 9:37 AM

Great points, Kathy G.!

Please add one more: How the hell would the Democrats keep this Senate seat in Virginia that Macaca Allen helped Webb win?

Posted by K | May 27, 2008 9:38 AM

"But at the same time they were arguing that women should be warriors, they were also arguing that women were delicate flowers whose honor had been sullied by some groping at an off-duty, civilian function know for its heavy drinking and riotous partying."

Wow. Your whole comment is amazingly offensive and poorly reasoned. But the quoted section marks you as a particularly low-classed form of sub-mutant.

Posted by Rancor | May 27, 2008 9:40 AM

I've had some concerns of my own regarding Webb. In fact, I've been trying to systematically profile each of the possibilities who might be on Obama's short list.

The analysis is a bit too lengthy to post in a comments section, but can be viewed here:

http://www.theleftanchor.com/vice_president_profile/index.html

I'd be interested to hear everyone's input. I've found alot of our so-called favorites coming up short once I started digging into the numbers.

Posted by Big Blue | May 27, 2008 9:47 AM

K,

Mark Warner(D) will probably beat Jim Gilmore(R) by 30 points for the Senate seat that's scheduled to be open. Virginia's governor is Dem, and the Republican party is so busy fighting each othe rthat Gilmore--Gilmore, who 30% of the party would not vote for under any conceivable circumstances.

Posted by SamChevre | May 27, 2008 9:50 AM

Very nice article! I've been subscribed to G-Spot since Spencer Ackerman mentioned it on his, and I'm not disappointed I did.

I had read somewhere that if (and really, when) Clinton drops out, McCain should immediately swoop down and try to bring angry women voters over to his side. If Webb is as bad on women's issues as you've said (and I believe you), then that only gives more clout and more plausibility to the idea.

On a side note, the commander of the Arkansas Air National Guard is a woman (at least, she was - it's been a few years). When I was able to see her and listen to her speak, she talked about the discrimination she faced in the military. I can only imagine that within such fragile relationships between men and women in the military that the slightest rocking of the boat, like Webb's commentary, would tip women right out.

Women in the military have come too far to have buffoons permanently damage all of their reputations in one ignorant blow.

Now it makes me sad that Obama would even consider him for his vp spot, considering his campaign message.

Posted by W.E.B. Adamant | May 27, 2008 9:54 AM

1) James Webb's value as Vice President candidate is that he undercuts the ONLY argument that Republicans and McCain have in this Presidential Election -- that they are the party of national security.

2) Most Democratic leaders cower in fear from McCain -- intimidated by his military service. Webb's is one of the few who can look on McCain's service with distain. Who can paint McCain as a spoiled, pampered rear echelon motherfucker who's screwing the troops because he's never been in their shoes.

McCain was Navy -- a service that has not suffered significant casualities in over 60 years.
Neither Ho Chi Minh nor Saddam Hussein sunk a Navy capital ship.

By contrast, Webb was a highly decorated Combat Marine. A service which suffered heavy casualties in Vietnam and which has also suffered a lot of deaths in Iraq.

Admiral Boorda -- the Navy CNO who came up the ranks working as a Human Relations buttkisser in the Navy's Personnel Department -- blew his brains out after James Webb publicly criticized Boorda's self-serving conduct in the Tailhook Affair.

I suspect James Webb is itching to point out that few Vietnam veterans came back in a White Uniform and married the heiress of a multimillion beer fortune.

Posted by Don Williams | May 27, 2008 9:56 AM

If he's prepared to head up to ScotsIrishland and do something that doesn't feel like campaigning, then that's fine.

Just not the Veep spot. If there are any high-profile VA Dems beneath Kaine, Webb and Mark Warner who can fill one of those three positions, then I haven't heard about them. The six-year Senate term is a luxury in American politics: taking a Senate seat gives a party the chance to build foundations, especially in VA when the governor isn't allowed to run for re-election.

What's needed is an anti-Cheney, and someone who'll look good up against whoever McCain chooses. It'll be great if the GOP has its ticket in place early, as it allows the Dem nominee to consider matchups, but if someone like Sebelius or Brian Schweitzer can be persuaded, that satisfies the match of urban and rural, legislative and executive experience, and without a hint of Chenitude.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 27, 2008 10:08 AM

The big problem with this critique vis a vis Webb is that McCain also has a similar history and continues to oppose women in combat.

I don't see a problem here. In fact, if we're trying to draw a contrast with McCain-- and I do believe we are-- then picking a veep with McCain's similar sketchy status toward women is problematic.

On top of that, I bet a lot of red staters know women who've served in the military at this point. Twenty years out, you're not just insulting daughters, you're insulting wives, mothers, friends.

Posted by Persia | May 27, 2008 10:22 AM

The entire analysis here completely buys into the frame that the VP pick should be based primarily on political considerations. I don't believe that to be the case. The criteria should be, what are the VP candidates areas of substantive knowledge and current policy principles and priorities? Basically, is the person smart and do they have the correct positions on the issues we care about? Unless Kathy G is arguing that Webb's current position on issues affecting Women is untenable, then I think her argument is completely missing the point. Does Webb currently support kicking Women out of these military academies? I don't think so. Does he support barring women from serving in Iraq, where everywhere is considered combat, and many women have been killed by IED's? No, he doesn't. What is really needed is a follow up piece, where Kathy G thoroughly examines Webb's current views on issues affecting women. Then it must be assessed how far from the ideal position he is. Once that is worked out, she should consider whether it is worth submarining a talented person with the ability to bring valuable expertise on important issues such as economic justice, criminal justice reform, and national security simply because he has a marginally sub-optimal position on issues impact women in the military today. By doing this, you are explicitly asserting that this one issue completely trumps any substantive contributions he could make in other areas. I don't think that is a tenable position.

Posted by Seth | May 27, 2008 10:26 AM

The entire analysis here completely buys into the frame that the VP pick should be based primarily on political considerations. I don't believe that to be the case. The criteria should be, what are the VP candidates areas of substantive knowledge and current policy principles and priorities? Basically, is the person smart and do they have the correct positions on the issues we care about? Unless Kathy G is arguing that Webb's current position on issues affecting Women is untenable, then I think her argument is completely missing the point. Does Webb currently support kicking Women out of these military academies? I don't think so. Does he support barring women from serving in Iraq, where everywhere is considered combat, and many women have been killed by IED's? No, he doesn't. What is really needed is a follow up piece, where Kathy G thoroughly examines Webb's current views on issues affecting women. Then it must be assessed how far from the ideal position he is. Once that is worked out, she should consider whether it is worth submarining a talented person with the ability to bring valuable expertise on important issues such as economic justice, criminal justice reform, and national security simply because he has a marginally sub-optimal position on issues impact women in the military today. By doing this, you are explicitly asserting that this one issue completely trumps any substantive contributions he could make in other areas. I don't think that is a tenable position.

Posted by Seth | May 27, 2008 10:28 AM

I am an older white woman and I was pro-Web especially after hearing him on Meet the Press last week.
Is he still that bad on women's issues? Thse comments were uttered many years ago, and people do change.I'd like him to re-address the "woman" issue.
What I heard on Meet the Press, was an extremely intelligent man, who understood completely the tragedy of Iraq, someone who was a military man, yet no hawk.
He spoke eloquently about the importance of the GI bill. He showed some charisma when he laughed about his tattoos and his union card.
Now I am on the fence.
I also think Richardson would be an excellent choice (and Hillary a disaster).
I still like Web.
I suppose you gave me pause, but did not totally convince me...

Posted by Catherine S | May 27, 2008 10:30 AM

Have to disagree, I think Webb would be a very good choice.

It would be a fatal campaign mistake for the Obama campaign to operate under the assumption that America is ready to embrace a liberal. What they are ready to embrace is "not Bush."

Independents and moderates, heck even many Democrats, still have doubts about Obama. Webb provides a great counterbalance for Obama and his military background would neutralize many of McCain's claims about why he is the stronger candidate.

The fact that he used to be a Republican only serves to bolster Obama's message of a new kind of politics.

As for the alleged disrespect of women, that is something that would need to be addressed, but I have to say your arguments in that area are not particularly convincing.

Posted by JimR | May 27, 2008 10:32 AM

I'm honestly surprised at the lack of trollery going on here. Usually Matt's comment section is pretty much hopeless on anything even obliquely involving women.

Thanks, Kathy, for a well reasoned post -- Webb never really particularly impressed me (the entirety of the argument seemed to be "he's a MAN!") but you raise some very legit concerns about him.

And yes, I'd much rather the vp reinforce Obama's message and possibly continue his style of governance for another eight, rather than trying to be a counterbalance that ends up dragging down the campaign altogether.

Posted by amandaw | May 27, 2008 10:34 AM

I like Webb. And still think he would make an ok VP candidate. But I have to say this was a good article and you've convinced me. However I will say this: If women fail to vote Democrat because of idiots like HRC and Geraldine Ferraro than I will have one less American gender to have faith (making for a total of 0 because American men have already proven themselves to be dumbfucks when it comes to elections).

Posted by MCG | May 27, 2008 10:37 AM

I certainly have no mancrush on Webb, but I can see why he appeals to some (not just men) as a VP pick. In a manner of speaking, Webb is a nacent version of what Obama would like to be, ideologically. Or maybe a better way to put it is that the two of them are more similar than might be obvious. By becoming a Democrat, Webb has had to begin to synthesize the two halves of our spectrum, and I suspect (but don't know) that he is thoughtful enough to change his mind and continue that process - perhaps even vis a vis women (not holding my breath though).

I read his book 'Born Fighting'. The first half is not bad at all: a fun, non-academic, 'popular' history of the Scots-Irish, both in the UK and especially in the US. It's no 'The Mind of the South', but a product of the same sort of sentiments; an attempt to reconcile a deep love for the South with some unflinching diagnosis of its horrors and failures (Webb concentrates more on the 'love' part). Trying to synthesize opposites is a Southern Tradition (or schizophrenia is), and the South is where all our major opposites began and still endure.

The second half of the book is basically a Reaganite screed. It's superficial, boilerplate. If you read it as analysis, it's just crap, barely worth skimming. But if you read the whole book as autobiography, it becomes a little more interesting. That the Reaganite rhetoric part is so inferior to the first half of the book, and inferior to Webb's rhetorical performance so far as Senator, may be telling. Perhaps now that he is a politician, and it's 2008, he will necessarily start to be a little more thoughtful about politics than he was as a career military guy (and Reagan WH official). I don't know where he will end up, but he will at least be, I think, forced to re-think some things, as are many thoughtful conservatives these days (yes, they exist, and no, I'm not one of them).

I agree with Kathy G, though, that he is probably not the right VP pick. Obama could do much worse, but also better. I want Webb in the Senate anyway. The problem with choosing McCaskell or Webb is that we need them to be (incumbents) in Senate. Sebelius is more interesting, but she's valuable in KS, too. I hope Obama is rather detached - as I think Edwards is - about conventional political wisdom in general and, specifically, sees Democratic identity politics (another term for literalism, another version of 'who would I like to have a beer with?') as one factor among others as he runs his campaign, including choosing a VP.

disclaimer: I don't defend Webb's sexism vis a vis the military at all. He's simply wrong. I certainly don't defend the superficial politics he espoused in that book. But some people do change their minds. Obama's promise is to change minds, not just (I hope) find compromises on legislation. Indeed, the main practical problem with Reagan conservatism is a fundamental confusion between cultural symptoms and the function of government: movement-Reagan conservatives actually seem to believe in the efficacy of government more than do liberals. Once GOPs get into office on a 'cultural issues' platform, they find - if they aren't just idiots - that the government can't really do very much about the issues they ran on, and either continue the demogogery and don't even try to govern (the Bush model) or, as may be the case with someone like Webb, actually grapple with reality. I think Webb might be a serious enough person to do that. Just sayin'.

Posted by jonnybutter | May 27, 2008 10:38 AM

"Have to disagree, I think Webb would be a very good choice.

It would be a fatal campaign mistake for the Obama campaign to operate under the assumption that America is ready to embrace a liberal. What they are ready to embrace is "not Bush."

Independents and moderates, heck even many Democrats, still have doubts about Obama. Webb provides a great counterbalance for Obama and his military background would neutralize many of McCain's claims about why he is the stronger candidate."

Except what counterbalancing does is underscore a candidate's weaknesses rather than add to the candidate's strengths. There are tons of white people we could choose if we decide to go that route. Webb doesn't have a monopoly on that. In addition, Webb's pounding on the whole Scots-Irish thing could also easily offend a lot of Irish Catholics in places like Pennsylvania.

Posted by Reality Man | May 27, 2008 10:42 AM

I agree with you Kathy, and you know I like your writing, but can you do me a favor?

Please, please please please, *stop using the term "mancrush" to dismiss the views of men on male politicians.* It's stupid and it's beneath you.

Imagine if I dismissed your support for Obama by calling it a "girlish crush."

Posted by Mike Meginnis | May 27, 2008 10:44 AM

Jim Webb along with Gen. Wesley Clark are Rhodes Scholars and they have been groomed and educated by the Kabbalists to promote the NWO agenda.
http://joeland7.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/beware-of-the-beast-the-beasts-of-revelation-13-identified/

Posted by joel | May 27, 2008 10:45 AM

I was in favor of Webb for the simple reason that Obama needs a southern white guy as VP. And he should preferably come from a state that can go blue like virginia. If Webb is no good for the reasons mentioned here, we need another similar choice. Edwards is tainted by his association with the Kerry contest.

It may sound harsh, but this is the truth. The most important thing is for Obama to win in the fall because I think this country is doomed if we elect mccain after the last 8 years of destruction.

Obama needs to be smart and not make the mistake Gore did by selecting someone with a jewish last name from connecticut as a running mate.

I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's reality. These things affect the way people vote in middle america, unfortunately.

Obama absolutely must choose a southern moderate male as VP from a state that can go blue

Posted by steve | May 27, 2008 10:47 AM

completely agree---one could say Webb's hotheadness can match McCain's. The best choice for VP is clearly Sam Nunn (southern, conservative, experienced)

Posted by pb | May 27, 2008 10:51 AM

As for the alleged disrespect of women, that is something that would need to be addressed, but I have to say your arguments in that area are not particularly convincing.

I don't think there is any 'alleged' about it, Jim R. It doesn't make him a rotten wothless person, etc., but there's no doubt about it. Calling Tailhook 'a witchhunt', giving ammo (as it were) to male harrassers; calling the Naval Academy 'a horny woman's dream', etc. makes it clear that he just has a blind spot there.

I find even more troubling, and more disqualifying, his feelings about the Moyer book. Vietnam Denial is not a good fit for the Obama campaign, to put it mildly!

Posted by jonnybutter | May 27, 2008 10:51 AM

This guest blogger is just rehashing Republican talking points from the 2006 election.

Webb has been vetted. He won - and he is currently kicking ass.

And where is the conclusion of who would be good enough for the guest blogger?

Please. Obama/Webb -- the only way to save this country.

Posted by Stacey | May 27, 2008 10:53 AM

Re Kathy G's comment "But for Obama to choose -- out of all the well-qualified candidates out there -- the one person who has a really awful record on gender issues would be like rubbing salt in the wound."
-------------
Actually, maybe Obama should do that.

Maybe he should make clear that henceforth Democratic policies will be set based on what's in the national interest -- and NOT based on kissing the butts of self-serving interest groups.

I especially think Obama should stomp on any feminists who try to restart the deceitful gender wars that hurt Democrats so badly during the Clinton Administration.

Well, at least until the Lewinsky matter came up. At which point, a lot of feminists harping on the sexual harassment of women suddenly developed uncharacteristic larngitis.

Posted by Don Williams | May 27, 2008 10:55 AM

Thank you for making the case against Webb so clearly; I have been very suspicious about nominating Webb as VP. I am glad someone finally nailed the coffin.

The guy is impressive when it comes to Military but i am not convinced he is the right man for the number two job. I am tired of fighting the baby boomers cultural fight; it is time to turn the page on all these cultural fight. Webb, Clinton and McCain would only bring back an old memory. I was born in the late ‘70s and I am ready to move beyond this cultural debate.

The nation is in need of a visionary and an executioner. I don't think Webb fit the bill. I'd prefer someone that knows how to execute President's vision. I don't want to re-litigate the battle of the '60s. It is time to turn the page. Vietnam has come and gone; the next face should be what to do with Iraq and the veterans coming home from there.

I salute Webb for his GI bill, I think he can serve the nation and veterans better by staying in the senate. Obama doesn’t need a foreign policy guru on the ticket but someone that can push his agenda through the senate and congress. He need someone that can step in has LBJ should he need help with the congress. Keep in mind that LBJ delivered Texas for Kennedy. The same principle should apply to his selection process. I’d suggest a strong law maker from Texas, Ohio, Georgia and Indiana. I am pretty sure Obama can win PA., thus, Rendell is out of the equation.

Posted by Bee | May 27, 2008 10:55 AM

I knew fairly little about Webb's record and figured him a good shot for VP along with Mark Warner or Chuck Hagel (still like them though). After reading this article Webb would definitely be a disastrous pick in my opinion. Obama & Co. did not get to their current spot making decisions like picking Webb. He has no chance.

Posted by stew118 | May 27, 2008 10:55 AM

Absolutely agree 100% with this article and want to add one more negative against Webb - as much as he would like everyone to think he grew up in the hills of Appalachia - he was born in St. Joseph, MO on the northern border with Kansas and graduated from high schoool in Nebraska. As the author points out, his father was an officer in the military and moved frequently and probably not often to rural mountain areas. Oh and there is that third much younger wife to mention...

Posted by Mary | May 27, 2008 10:57 AM

Thank you for making the case against Webb so clearly; I have been very suspicious about nominating Webb as VP. I am glad someone finally nailed the coffin.

The guy is impressive when it comes to Military but i am not convinced he is the right man for the number two job. I am tired of fighting the baby boomers cultural fight; it is time to turn the page on all these cultural fight. Webb, Clinton and McCain would only bring back an old memory. I was born in the late ‘70s and I am ready to move beyond this cultural debate.

The nation is in need of a visionary and an executioner. I don't think Webb fit the bill. I'd prefer someone that knows how to execute President's vision. I don't want to re-litigate the battle of the '60s. It is time to turn the page. Vietnam has come and gone; the next face should be what to do with Iraq and the veterans coming home from there.

I salute Webb for his GI bill, I think he can serve the nation and veterans better by staying in the senate. Obama doesn’t need a foreign policy guru on the ticket but someone that can push his agenda through the senate and congress. He need someone that can step in has LBJ should he need help with the congress. Keep in mind that LBJ delivered Texas for Kennedy. The same principle should apply to his selection process. I’d suggest a strong law maker from Texas, Ohio, Georgia and Indiana. I am pretty sure Obama can win PA., thus, Rendell is out of the equation.

Posted by Bee | May 27, 2008 10:57 AM

Awesome post. Thanks. I've been arguing these points until I'm blue in the face, but that Webb Kool Aid is some mighty powerful stuff. Andy Sullivan has taken a deep gulp of it and, although he keeps trying to look like he's being deliberative and thoughtful on the matter, he just keeps on posting on Webb and keeping the discussion going. Enough already! Hopefully your post will help turn the tide on the Webbmania. (I don't hate Webb, and certainly like him in the Senate, but I agree that he'd be a disasterous choice as Obama's running mate -- he'd have to be bound and gagged, and would kill off any credible chance of bringing the Clintonites over to Obama's side).

Posted by MS | May 27, 2008 10:57 AM

How can you compare Kerry to Webb? The reason most working class people didn't like Kerry was because he was an elitest, opportunist who turned on his fellow soldiers. Webb didn't.

Stop with your whining - Webb's a good man - he's not a total sugar coated opportunist - sure he has some Conservative views - but is that so bad? Obama is running for President for ALL the people - not just liberals.

I'm center right and voting Obama - Webb does not scare me at all - I think it would be refreshing to have a guy who's not afraid to tell some idiot off when they ask him a stupid question instead of giving us some pre-canned PC response.

You also need to put your feminine fears away with his statements with women in the military. Put them in their proper historical context. Is not Robert Byrd an ex-KKK man? Do all blacks fear him? You're fears and concerns, to me, may just validate his prior statements.

Posted by GoWebb | May 27, 2008 10:58 AM

"I was in favor of Webb for the simple reason that Obama needs a southern white guy as VP. And he should preferably come from a state that can go blue like virginia. If Webb is no good for the reasons mentioned here, we need another similar choice. Edwards is tainted by his association with the Kerry contest."

Why does he need a Southern white guy? Why not a Midwestern or Rocky Mountain white guy like Schweitzer? Why does it necessarily even have to be a guy (especially if McCain picks Palin)? The South isn't the only place in the country where we can pick up votes. In addition, part of the reason Virginia has been turning blue is that it is becoming less and less Southern.

Posted by Reality Man | May 27, 2008 11:00 AM

Awesome post. Thanks. I've been arguing these points until I'm blue in the face, but that Webb Kool Aid is some mighty powerful stuff. Andy Sullivan has taken a deep gulp of it and, although he keeps trying to look like he's being deliberative and thoughtful on the matter, he just keeps on posting on Webb and keeping the discussion going. Enough already! Hopefully your post will help turn the tide on the Webbmania. (I don't hate Webb, and certainly like him in the Senate, but I agree that he'd be a disasterous choice as Obama's running mate -- he'd have to be bound and gagged, and would kill off any credible chance of bringing the Clintonites over to Obama's side).

Posted by MS | May 27, 2008 11:01 AM

JimR: "Independents and moderates, heck even many Democrats, still have doubts about Obama. Webb provides a great counterbalance for Obama and his military background would neutralize many of McCain's claims about why he is the stronger candidate."

Except that all recent national polls show Obama beating McCain among Independents by as much as 9 points. And plenty of Republicans "have doubts" about McCain, too, I'd venture to say more than Obama has doubters in the Democratic party (there's a reason he went from inevitable to dead-in-the-water in 2007). Please, this is such armchair quarterbacking. VPs don't "counterbalance" anything. They're not running for "co-President", and Americans know that. They want a VP candidate that underlines their candidate's defining qualities. Do you think Cheney "counterbalanced" George Bush in any way whatsoever? What about Al Gore to Bill Clinton?

Obama picks Webb and then what do you get? You get a week of every talking head in the country blabbing about how "Webb seems to fill in for Obama's national security weaknesses". So what is the implied statement there? "Obama is weak on national security." How does that help Obama? Do you think people are actually going to be comforted by having a mental image of Barack Obama struggling to make decisions and having to call up the Vice President for advice on something like a terrorist attack?

Show me someone who doesn't have doubters among their own party and "Independents and moderates" and I'll show you someone who just hasn't been flogged by the national press yet.

Posted by TheSimulacra | May 27, 2008 11:08 AM

Obama shuldf niot consider Jim Webb as VP candidate.

Not only is he a Republican in mufti, courtesy of Sen. Chuck Schumer; his recent comparison of the Scotch-Irish of Appalachia with African-Americans is wrong-headed, and borders on being viscious.

Namely, the assertion that his "cultural group," the Scotche-Irish of Appalachia, has suffered the same disdain from the government as people of color.

One wishes to ask him face to face:

Name one Scotch-Irish American who has been kidnapped from his homeland, brought to these shores in chains, sold as a slave, counted by the Constitution as only three-fifths of a citizen, denied service in commercial enterprises, shunted to the back of public vehicles, relegated to reside in deplorable ghettoized areas, denied the benefits of public education, lynched, shot, garrotted, and shunned, et al, because of his ethnicity?

Name one Scotch-Irish American who has had the egregious, hateful epithet "nigger" flung at him or her?

These, alone, should disqualify Webb, not only from becoming Senator Obama's running mate, they should also disqualify him from continuing to serve in the Senate, except the Dems need his vote to pass legislation as somone above astutely remarked.

Obama can do far better.

Posted by Stuart Hample | May 27, 2008 11:11 AM

JimR: "Independents and moderates, heck even many Democrats, still have doubts about Obama. Webb provides a great counterbalance for Obama and his military background would neutralize many of McCain's claims about why he is the stronger candidate."

Except that all recent national polls show Obama beating McCain among Independents by as much as 9 points. And plenty of Republicans "have doubts" about McCain, too, I'd venture to say more than Obama has doubters in the Democratic party (there's a reason he went from inevitable to dead-in-the-water in 2007). Please, this is such armchair quarterbacking. VPs don't "counterbalance" anything. They're not running for "co-President", and Americans know that. They want a VP candidate that underlines their candidate's defining qualities. Do you think Cheney "counterbalanced" George Bush in any way whatsoever? What about Al Gore to Bill Clinton?

Obama picks Webb and then what do you get? You get a week of every talking head in the country blabbing about how "Webb seems to fill in for Obama's national security weaknesses". So what is the implied statement there? "Obama is weak on national security." How does that help Obama? Do you think people are actually going to be comforted by having a mental image of Barack Obama struggling to make decisions and having to call up the Vice President for advice on something like a terrorist attack?

Show me someone who doesn't have doubters among their own party and "Independents and moderates" and I'll show you someone who just hasn't been flogged by the national press yet.

Posted by TheSimulacra | May 27, 2008 11:15 AM

Re Mary's comment "Absolutely agree 100% with this article and want to add one more negative against Webb - as much as he would like everyone to think he grew up in the hills of Appalachia - he was born in St. Joseph, MO on the northern border with Kansas and graduated from high schoool in Nebraska"
-----------
Webb didn't say he grew up in Appalachia -- he said he had relatives there. That his great grandfather lived there. The heritage he traced is Scotch -Irish -- which settled in Appalachia but has emigrated to Detroit when the coal business busted and westward to California. As Hunter S Thompson noted, southern California is a monument to the breed.

Posted by Don Williams | May 27, 2008 11:19 AM

I live in Virginia and voted for Webb ONLY because he was running against macaca and we had to get rid of George. I agree with your post completely.
Obama has a ton of other people that would be a boost for his campaign and bring home the voters he can't seem to reach. Richardson, Edwards, Dodd all come to mind. Mark Warner, former gov. here-would even be better than Webb but personally I like him in the senate race against Gilmore where he will blow him out of the water.

Posted by Jan | May 27, 2008 11:20 AM

Nice piece, very well researched and thorough.
I can personally corroborate (albeit anonymously) your point on Webb as a less-than-perfectly national candidate. I worked for him briefly during his Senate run and I can attest to the fact that his victory had nothing to do with his skill as a campaigner or a politician. Thus, I agree wholeheartedly that he belongs right where he is. If not for George Allen uttering the word "Macaca" we wouldn't even be talking about Jim Webb. Democrats can't risk giving up a Senate seat in Virginia for any reason!

Posted by Cairene | May 27, 2008 11:22 AM

All the reasons you mentioned against Webb are reasons he should be VP to balance out Obama.

Posted by Patrick | May 27, 2008 11:24 AM

The nut of this post is outrageously, egregiously wrong. Webb just got off the Diane Rehm Show 20 minutes ago saying that changing military culture is a push pull operation, not diktat from on high. He recognizes that things have changed in just the last 5 years and he just said that if the Army lifted all of its restrictions on women in combat, he wouldn't be against it.

Plus, are you really arguing for a womans right to die in combat? How about arguing AGAINST combat?

Sheesh.

I think you display a complete lack of understanding of military culture in your post.

Posted by calipygian | May 27, 2008 11:26 AM

I was getting into the Webb reveal until Hillary's name popped up. It is pretty obvious to me the real reason this writer is down on Webb, he's not Hillary. So Webb is flawed, he has said things that he now repudiates. That could be any Senator or Congressperson. What does he believe now and will he help Obama win. That's all that matters to me.

Posted by Tim | May 27, 2008 11:28 AM

I was getting into the Webb reveal until Hillary's name popped up. It is pretty obvious to me the real reason this writer is down on Webb, he's not Hillary. So Webb is flawed, he has said things that he now repudiates. That could be any Senator or Congressperson. What does he believe now and will he help Obama win. That's all that matters to me.

Posted by Tim | May 27, 2008 11:30 AM

I eagerly anticipate more wrong-headed, naive posts from people with zip, zilch, nada experience from outside the rarified air of academia and liberal intellectual circles.

I support Obama already, but I can already tell you that I am the demographic that Webb appeals to - white, working class, approaching middle age men who lean liberal, but Ronald Reagan snatched up in the '80s.

If you think Obama can win without us, you are insane.

Posted by calipygian | May 27, 2008 11:30 AM

I eagerly anticipate more wrong-headed, naive posts from people with zip, zilch, nada experience from outside the rarified air of academia and liberal intellectual circles.

I support Obama already, but I can already tell you that I am the demographic that Webb appeals to - white, working class, approaching middle age men who lean liberal, but Ronald Reagan snatched up in the '80s.

If you think Obama can win without us, you are insane.

Posted by calipygian | May 27, 2008 11:31 AM

Great, thought-provoking piece.

While it makes me give pause, I'd like to hear what Sen. Webb has to say about all this before passing final judgment.

I'm also inclined to write off all the "inside baseball" tactical reasons for choosing or not choosing a VP running mate.

I think the primary criterion for a VP running mate be that he/she could step in and be a terrific President should that be necessary.

Right after that would be issues of trust and ability to advise on key issues.

If Barack Obama needs to win blue collar Pennsylvania voters or silver-haired Florida ones, it should be up to him to do convince those voters - not just because the VP candidate happens to come from there.

There is a balancing act here - There is probably no individual alive today whose qualities or track record won't annoy one faction or another. Move too far to the right with your selection and you will anger the left. Go too far leftward and folks on the center will get nervous.

That said - there are some things a candidate can say or do that may clearly cross the line. To this extent, the least you can say is that Jim Webb will have a lot of "splainin' to do."

Posted by JJeff | May 27, 2008 11:32 AM

Great, thought-provoking piece.

While it makes me give pause, I'd like to hear what Sen. Webb has to say about all this before passing final judgment.

I'm also inclined to write off all the "inside baseball" tactical reasons for choosing or not choosing a VP running mate.

I think the primary criterion for a VP running mate be that he/she could step in and be a terrific President should that be necessary.

Right after that would be issues of trust and ability to advise on key issues.

If Barack Obama needs to win blue collar Pennsylvania voters or silver-haired Florida ones, it should be up to him to do convince those voters - not just because the VP candidate happens to come from there.

There is a balancing act here - There is probably no individual alive today whose qualities or track record won't annoy one faction or another. Move too far to the right with your selection and you will anger the left. Go too far leftward and folks on the center will get nervous.

That said - there are some things a candidate can say or do that may clearly cross the line. To this extent, the least you can say is that Jim Webb will have a lot of "splainin' to do."

Posted by JJeff | May 27, 2008 11:32 AM

The weakest point in the case against Webb, to my mind, is the need to glue him to his Senate seat.

We do, certainly, need that seat. But Tim Kaine gets to pick Webb's replacement if Webb actually wins the vice presidency. That appointed replacement (likely Tim Kaine himself, I'd bet) will have three years--working with a new, friendly administration--to shore up his support and accrue the benefits of incumbency. In any case, Virginia's demographics are trending bluer, so I doubt the 2012 Senate race would be much of a difficult hold.

Posted by southpaw | May 27, 2008 11:36 AM

This is a chilling but very informative post on Webb. Can you be sure to pass this on to the Obama campaign? David Brooks in the NY Times today suggested that Obama needs someone who really knows Washington but is not "of" it, and he proposed Daschle. The more I think about it, the better it sounds. Almost everyone likes him. However, is he tough enough? Isn't the VP supposed to be able to say tough stuff so the candidate doesn't have to? What do the rest of you think?

Posted by Obamamama | May 27, 2008 11:36 AM

Re Kathy G's comment "Stepping away from all that high-minded rhetoric, I'll add that, in practical terms, selecting Webb would be a slap in the face to the Hillary Clinton supporters."
--------------
What a crock of bullshit. As usual, feminists try to claim political influence where they have little.

LOOK at the states Hillary carried in the primary:

It's APPALACHIA. JAMES WEBB country -- NOT known as a bastion of the feminist movement.

Hillary LOST eastern Pennsylvania by huge margins but made it up in the mountains of western Pennsylvania. Continue west outside Appalachia:
Arkansas. Oklahoma . Southern California.

Hillbilly country.

Posted by Don Williams | May 27, 2008 11:38 AM

Ironically - Kathy's use of the grammatical term "gender" as a synonym for female is the kind of thing critics of so-called 'cultural marxism' complain about. But they pretty much lost that battles since the use of the word "gender" has become mainstream in the last 10 years or so.

Webb is strong because he criticized the "mentality" that led to the Iraq war - not just the Iraq war. He scourged the ideologues and their concepts.

Also, Webb can help teach Obama about parts of the country he needs to know more about.

The Bush Iraq policy is like a stinking garbage can that McCain has drapped over his own head. Webb can help Obama whack it this big target more effectively.

Posted by Comment | May 27, 2008 11:41 AM

Absolutely pathetic... I see all you 'oh i agree with Kathy' never bothered to do your OWN research on Webb.

Jim Webb opened up more billets for women while he was sec of navy than any other Secretary before him.

I urge all of you not to give in to this ridiculous write-up and do your OWN research. Some of the things in this article are only 1/2 truths and republican talking points.

Btw, barack likes Webb very much. That's where I met Barack, at a Webb event in 2006. And having met him and talked with him and read everything there is about him, the stuff in this blog makes me sick.

Posted by Jennifer | May 27, 2008 11:41 AM

I've been a moderate fan of the Webb as VP idea, and I think he does have strengths, but I think I would prefer Mark Warner, Chuck Hagel, Sam Nunn or Tom Daschle. These all seem to come with some of the same positives but not the baggage. Thanks, as an enthusiastic (white male) Obama supporter I found some needed perspective in this article.

Posted by Chris | May 27, 2008 11:42 AM

Jim Webb thinks, can articulate a position, adapt to conditions and is willing to follow his oath to the Constitution. That is more than I can say for the author of this article and many of those supporting her views.

It sounds like the author has not really studied Jim Webb's books or really listen to his statements. Her remarks sound more like the bombasts leveled at Obama for his choice of pastor.

Virgina is more purple than blue, the democratic party is all but sure to pick up seats in the Senate this year. (and then maybe they can stop pandering to Connecticut Joe).

Webb is more like Obama than Hillary. He does speak to those concerned about the dems and security. I've been watching him for a long time. His progression is very much like TR, who moved from republican to progressive.

I'll admit to a bias. I served as a Marine (I was also on the Mall with John Kerry. I'm Scot-Irish, live in the South, and walked my share of civil-rights marches.

Jim Webb would make a much better choice than Hillary. I wish he could do triple duty as VP, and both Sec of Def. and the VA. NY is already likely to vote blue. Yes, the VP pick is about broader voter appeal.

And in case you have not been following the news. The voters are primed for change and want honest talk. Webb has been giving more of that than any of the other contenders.

Posted by Think about it | May 27, 2008 11:43 AM

Jennifer -

We probably both met Barrack at the same Webb event in Alexandria in 2006 I would guess.

The lesson I took away - never let Barrack open for you. Short of making a squad of trained monkey's fly out of your butt singing Gilbert and Sullivan light opera, there is nothing you can do to top Obama.

Posted by calipygian | May 27, 2008 11:45 AM

Thank you, Kathy G.

Having heard the buzz about Webb, I started reading online and trying to get some idea about him. Though I didn't get much further than the basic biographical details and poring over this official Senate website, and though it's obvious he's a man of courage, resolve and conviction, and despite his ability to steer bi-partisan legislation, there was still something nebulous that wasn't quite right.

I was willing myself to get over it, until I just read this piece. You're right, he'd be more of a liability than an asset as VP. Obama could use him as an attack dog once in office, but like any attack dog, you don't really want him in your front room.

So, pray tell, who would you call? Kathleen Sibelius looks great and would probably appease disgruntled HRC fangrrls, but isn't she another liability given her trouble with the pro-Life crowd in Kansas? Wouldn't she be just as prone to attacks that would throw Obama off-message?

Posted by ThatSharkeyGeezer | May 27, 2008 11:47 AM

Reality Man,

"Why does he need a Southern white guy? Why not a Midwestern or Rocky Mountain white guy like Schweitzer? Why does it necessarily even have to be a guy (especially if McCain picks Palin)? The South isn't the only place in the country where we can pick up votes. In addition, part of the reason Virginia has been turning blue is that it is becoming less and less Southern."

Part of the reason I say he needs to be southern is that no democratic president that was not from the south has been elected in almost 50 years.

I think Obama will push boundaries to overcome this fact, but having a southern moderate as VP would help greatly... not a midwestern or even "Rocky mountain" guy would help in the same way

You also asked why it has to be a guy, but this means you have entirely missed my point.

Posted by steve | May 27, 2008 11:47 AM

Jennifer is correct -

Much of the Webb-skepticism on this post is a based on an unhealthy mixture of ignorance, naivte and leftist nit picking.

Webb knows what it means to take the fight to the enemy in battle and he'll bring a similar kind of determination to the campaign trail.

Plus, his selection will also serve as object lesson for some finicky liberals to put away childish things and focus on the big picture - Victory in November.

Oh - btw, Barack does like Webb.

Posted by Comment | May 27, 2008 11:52 AM

Informative essay and I fully agree with your conclusions. Further, even though Webb may counterbalance the old, over-hyped, so-called, heroic jet jocky, I've reached a tipping point. I reject any hint of what seems to be a national devolvement into a Prussian-like military nation. That said, I hope Obama opts for a civilian.

Posted by Charles Munn | May 27, 2008 11:54 AM

Folks: This is about winning this election. Period. What the Obama campaign will have to weigh is what any potential nominee has to weigh: Will Webb be more of an Asset than a Liability?

Will he offend more women, than he will attract more of the Appalachia vote? Can he and Obama, both intellectuals, both authors, both interested in the same issues, campaign together as a team on the same page? Can he provide the counterbalance to any perceived weakness in the potential nominee? Will he help carry Virginia?

Those are just some of the issues that the Obama campaign, will have to look at. What they will not look at, is what he may have said, or written, over 20 years ago. This is a campaign, and will be an administration, about the future, not the past.

Can Jim Webb help Barack Obama win the White House? That is the only question that matters.

Posted by ERW | May 27, 2008 11:58 AM

Webb is not a Johnny Come Lately as a Democrat.

He started out as a D, changed to R, and changed BACK to D.

Webb's Senate seat is not a problem. The D governor of Virginia will appoint someone to the seat (maybe even himself). Sebelius and McCaskill would be much harder to replace with Ds than Webb.

Also, while he has a reputation for being a poor campaigner, so did Dick Cheney. I for one was not fooled into thinking Kerry would have much appeal as a war hero--he was better known for protesting the VietNam war than fighting in it (that endeared him to progressives but he might as well have been Jane Fonda to those who base their votes on military issues). Fortunately, when the top of the ticket has major league charisma, the VP can revert to providing pure political balance. LBJ delivered Texas for JFK, and if Webb can deliver VA for Obama there will be Democrats in the White House in January. Webb has a whole lot better chance to help deliver some southern states to Obama than Edwards had of delivering any southern states to Kerry.

Also, Webb is the best potential "attack dog" out there, and we are going to need one so that O can continue to take the high ground. Webb, who had no qualms about talking back to GWB right to his face, will make mincemeat out of John McCain and Mitt Romney (or whoever JSM chooses to run with), and eliminate the R argument that the D party is weak on national security.

There's no shame in noting that the ticket could use military cred, southern cred, and someone with a "if you try to frak with me you'll wish you hadn't" attitude. Dems have tried the first two in recent elections, but haven't tried the third in quite a while, and it is an important quality in a time when lots of people make their political decisions based on who they believe will protect them in a time of danger, rather than on policies, positions and facts. The last thing Obama needs is a VP who is constrained by a reputation for playing nice. The only female politician of note with any claim to being an attack dog is Hillary, but she brings more negatives to the ticket than positives.

LBNL, picking a woman just to pacify HRC supporters seems condescending to me. The women I know who support Obama/Webb are realists who want the Dems to have a winning ticket

The perfect running mate does not exist. It is not enough to say that someone else is unfit, you have to offer a superior alternative from the candidates available. If you can come up with a VP pick with stronger credentials who provides better balance, please share it with rest of the class.

nitpick--eked out a victory, not eeked.

Posted by TrueBlueMajority | May 27, 2008 12:06 PM

what ERW said.

Posted by TrueBlueMajority | May 27, 2008 12:08 PM

Webb is a civilian. He has not been in Navy for quite some time.

Webb's novels are pretty good. A while back Hitchens called them pulp. But they are not pulp. They are a step above Clancy. Hitchens is probably jealous.

Also - Webb is popular with women voters. Perhaps he not popular with feminist academics or some bloggers, but they comprise a small percentage of the vote.

It matters little that Webb did not win the rural white vote in Virginia. What matters is that he understands the problem and he can help Obama begin to heal this breach.

Btw - Instead of just listing Webb's medals - read the actual citations. Then ask yourself, "Is this an admirable man?" You'll probably say "yes." That's why Obama will pick him.

Posted by Comment | May 27, 2008 12:09 PM

What truebluemajority says.

Posted by calipygian | May 27, 2008 12:13 PM

What truebluemajority says.

Posted by calipygian | May 27, 2008 12:16 PM

Nice article - well argued. I would actually prefer another guy from Virginia as Obama's running mate: Mark Warner

Posted by rog | May 27, 2008 12:17 PM

Great post. You convinced me. Now, who do we pick since it shouldn't be him and sure as hell shouldn't be that ruthless egotistical panderer who isn't a republican as far as I know.

Posted by jjc | May 27, 2008 12:25 PM

Hmm Just the fact that we are even debating the selection of Jim Webb spells trouble imho. He is perfect, in concept, but in reality his past on women's issues will be a problem in this election. With sooooooooo many more possiblilities out there, I think it would be a mistake to knowingly take these issues on.

Posted by Pat,Florida | May 27, 2008 12:25 PM

Sebleius is problematic as a pro choice Catholic hampered by trouble with her Bishop. That would become a distraction. Plus - she speaks like a Kansan. Bob Dole already tried that.

Posted by Comment | May 27, 2008 12:28 PM

rog,

Mark Warner chose not to run for president so he could spend more time with his family

what makes you think he would want to be VP which takes all of the time, but none of the power of the presidency

I wanted Mark Warner to run too, and believe that HE would be the nominee now and would be unbeatable in the fall, but he chose not to.

Posted by steve | May 27, 2008 12:30 PM

sorry but webb will not be obama's choice,so now you may want jump out of your skin,gen. anthony zini will be his pick,he's a bonafide hero who will cancel out hero status of mccain.he speaks hebrew and arabic and his nickname while in the marines was THE GODFATHER there is no one more qualified for obama then this person.he is an expert on the MIDDLEAST.KRJ CPOUSNRET.

Posted by kent | May 27, 2008 12:32 PM

Webb is a near perfect pick.

It's been said in the comments already, but your concerns regarding Webb (apart from the sexism charge, addressed ad nauseum in his 06 senate race) are my reasons for his choice.

Obama's liberalism is why I like him, Webb's truth to power and economic populism are why I like him. It's a fantastic combination that will hand the Dems a landslide.

Posted by TDE | May 27, 2008 12:33 PM

Hmm Just the fact that we are even debating the selection of Jim Webb candidacy of Hillary Clinton spells trouble imho. HeShe is perfect, in concept, but in reality his past on women's issues her past as a contraversial First Lady who will dredge up the conflicts of the 90s will be a problem in this election. With sooooooooo many more possiblilities out there, I think it would be a mistake to knowingly take these issues on.

Just sayin'.....

And Webb has publically backtracked on many of his past views. What more does anyone want?

Posted by calipygian | May 27, 2008 12:33 PM

Webb is a near perfect pick.

It's been said in the comments already, but your concerns regarding Webb (apart from the sexism charge, addressed ad nauseum in his 06 senate race) are my reasons for his choice.

Obama's liberalism is why I like him, Webb's truth to power and economic populism are why I like him. It's a fantastic combination that will hand the Dems a landslide.

Posted by TDE | May 27, 2008 12:36 PM

Hillary's base says they're voting for McCain so what do I care what they think?

Besides, it's time for G.E. mode.

Posted by Hitlary | May 27, 2008 12:43 PM

Webb deserves serious consideration. Obama does fine with blue collar workers in states culturally aligned with him (Oregon, California). His trouble is in Appalachia (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Southeast) which is exactly where Webb helps. Webb would probably deliver a purple state (VA), and he's a bulldog, who completely negates McCain's military cred. He re-inforces the "outside Washington, and crossing the aisle" Obama threads. In short, he has aspects of both a "reinforcing" AND a "balancing" VP. It would be foolish not to look at him as one of the top three choices. His downsides are real as noted (and you missed a big one: He's on his third wife, and she's Vietnamese, which will not play well on Faux News).

Biden is phenomenal, and would be my personal first choice, but realistically speaking I'm not sure Delaware is a big help or whether he helps with middle America. HOWEVER, my fervent hope is that Biden agrees to be Sec of State EARLY, like early June, and grabs a couple news cycles before the VP pick is made, thus clarifying where we're headed from a FP standpoint. No Dem gets FP like Biden, he's a rockstar.
Look at this WSJ Op-Ed Biden wrote in response to the drivel Lieberman wrote last week. THIS is the response to Lieberman's "I didn't change, my party did" BS:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121150000249615875.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

With Biden as Sec State, the FP thing should not be as much of a consideration in the VP pick, which opens things up for the other candidates on my short list: Mark Warner, Kathleen Sebelius, and Brian Schweitzer (Montana gov).

Mark Warner would also deliver VA (and claims that we'd lose that Senate seat are probably unfounded: Don Beyer would likely run in his place, and with Warner on the Presidential ticket he'd probably pull in enough votes for Beyer to win. Warner is also considered an "across the aisle" kinda guy, and strong on the economy.
Kathleen Sebelius and Brian Schweitzer are both red-state Governors that have done tremendous work building coalitions. Schweitzer is a little inexperienced still... but if Obama is looking to redraw the party for years to come, that could be his guy. Amazing on the stump, utterly appealing to westerners, is pro guns so that makes him somewhat centrist and for some weird reason lived in Saudi Arabia for a while and speaks Arabic (huh?!?). Sebelius is very popular in a state dems have no shot at, but somehow people like to say she'll pull in Ohio because of some family ties. (I don't buy that.) Strong governor, coalition-builder. Stood up three times to veto a new polluting coal plant in the face of real pressure. Rather weak SOTU response (unlike Webb two years ago, who kicked ass). And she may be too old to be considered in 8 years for Pres (not sure of her age, can't find it online)

Russ Feingold: Love this guy, and he delivers Wisconsin (which will be close) and almost certainly Florida since he'll bring in more of the Jewish vote. Has 15 years experience on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, so FP is a strength. And he's one of the few (along with Joe Biden) that I could see as stepping in as President. Problem is he's very liberal, not centrist. And the Black/Jewish ticket is a tough one.

Sam Nunn: STRONGLY anti-choice Republican which makes him a non-starter for the Dem ticket.
Richardson: wayyy too gaffe-prone, and I don't think the Black/Hispanic ticket is a good idea.
Edwards: Not interested, and didn't even help Kerry in North Carolina
Tim Kaine: Too inexperienced, hasn't really done anything.
Ted Strickland: probably not smart enough.
Ed Rendell: loose cannon loudmouth. An accident waiting to happen.
Hillary: Helps win Florida and Pennsylvania and Ohio, which is the whole ballgame... and can see her stepping in as Pres, but what a nightmare to try to govern with her and Bill around. Really unfortunate.

Posted by doc3osh | May 27, 2008 12:44 PM

Re Jennifer's comment "I urge all of you not to give in to this ridiculous write-up and do your OWN research "
----------
1) I concur. For example, Kathy G states above:
"At a 1991 convention of naval aviators called Tailhook, 83 women were reported to have been sexually harassed or assaulted by military personnel "

2) But if you look at the PBS layout of the reported assaults -- see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/navy/tailhook/victims.html --
you will notice that;

a) 7 of the "victims" were MEN
b) 61 of the "victims" were civilian women -- who were free to file complaints with the police

c) Only 21 were women in the Navy -- who had dozens of senior Navy brass present to complain to --up to and including the Secretary of Navy.
Another female was in the Air Force.

3) Note also that the above report of "victims" came as a result of a Navy investigation months later. Because --aside from feminist showpiece Paula Coughlin -- relatively few of the victims seemed to have filed any complaints. Some of them even seemed to have recovered from their horrifying ordeal:

"Our investigation revealed that many women freely and knowingly participated in gauntlet activities," the report stated. "A significant number of witnesses reported that women went through the gauntlet and seemed to enjoy the attention and interaction with the aviators. Those witnesses, both men and women, generally stated they could tell the women were enjoying themselves because, despite being grabbed and pushed along through the crowd, they were smiling and giggling. Some of the women were observed going repeatedly through the gauntlet. Many women who went through the gauntlet told us they did so willingly and were not offended by the men touching them. A civilian woman employed by the Navy told us of a conversation she had with another young woman whom she met while on a commercial flight into Las Vegas to attend Tailhook 91. The young woman described the gauntlet and said that, at about 3:00 a.m., things get `real rough' and wild on the third floor. According to the Navy employee, the young woman implied that she enjoyed this type of activity and that was the reason she was going to Tailhook 91."

By the I.G.'s own admission, at least five of the 83 female "victims" insisted they were nothing of the sort: "The victim told us that she did not consider herself a victim of any criminal activity.... The victim told us that, in her opinion, she was not a `victim' of an assault....The victim felt that she handled the incident and objected to being labeled as a `victim'....The victim felt she resolved the situation and does not consider herself to be the victim of an assault....The victim stated that she did not get upset at the incident and did not feel that she was assaulted."

One of these "victims" of "sexual abuse" wrote in a widely distributed letter to the editor (which no editor published), "This Tailhook investigation has been blown severely out of proportion....I thought nothing of the incident and never considered it an assault of any kind."

--quote from DOD Inspector General's report, as
cited at http://www.reason.com/news/show/29409.html

4) Of course, as everyone remembers, "Admiral's Aide" Lt Paula Coughlin did complain. Loudly.

Lt Coughlin evidently thought that the correct response of a Navy Officer to groping by a bunch of drunks should be to scream loudly, break into tears, and demand that the US Government act as a surrogate daddy to restore the sullied honor of this little flower with the very short miniskirt.

Obviously, Ms Coughlin was prime material for a combat unit.

Posted by Don Williams | May 27, 2008 12:46 PM

Webb deserves serious consideration. Obama does fine with blue collar workers in states culturally aligned with him (Oregon, California). His trouble is in Appalachia (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Southeast) which is exactly where Webb helps. Webb would probably deliver a purple state (VA), and he's a bulldog, who completely negates McCain's military cred. He re-inforces the "outside Washington, and crossing the aisle" Obama threads. In short, he has aspects of both a "reinforcing" AND a "balancing" VP. It would be foolish not to look at him as one of the top three choices. His downsides are real as noted (and you missed a big one: He's on his third wife, and she's Vietnamese, which will not play well on Faux News).

Biden is phenomenal, and would be my personal first choice, but realistically speaking I'm not sure Delaware is a big help or whether he helps with middle America. HOWEVER, my fervent hope is that Biden agrees to be Sec of State EARLY, like early June, and grabs a couple news cycles before the VP pick is made, thus clarifying where we're headed from a FP standpoint. No Dem gets FP like Biden, he's a rockstar.
Look at this WSJ Op-Ed Biden wrote in response to the drivel Lieberman wrote last week. THIS is the response to Lieberman's "I didn't change, my party did" BS:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121150000249615875.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

With Biden as Sec State, the FP thing should not be as much of a consideration in the VP pick, which opens things up for the other candidates on my short list: Mark Warner, Kathleen Sebelius, and Brian Schweitzer (Montana gov).

Mark Warner would also deliver VA (and claims that we'd lose that Senate seat are probably unfounded: Don Beyer would likely run in his place, and with Warner on the Presidential ticket he'd probably pull in enough votes for Beyer to win. Warner is also considered an "across the aisle" kinda guy, and strong on the economy.
Kathleen Sebelius and Brian Schweitzer are both red-state Governors that have done tremendous work building coalitions. Schweitzer is a little inexperienced still... but if Obama is looking to redraw the party for years to come, that could be his guy. Amazing on the stump, utterly appealing to westerners, is pro guns so that makes him somewhat centrist and for some weird reason lived in Saudi Arabia for a while and speaks Arabic (huh?!?). Sebelius is very popular in a state dems have no shot at, but somehow people like to say she'll pull in Ohio because of some family ties. (I don't buy that.) Strong governor, coalition-builder. Stood up three times to veto a new polluting coal plant in the face of real pressure. Rather weak SOTU response (unlike Webb two years ago, who kicked ass). And she may be too old to be considered in 8 years for Pres (not sure of her age, can't find it online)

Russ Feingold: Love this guy, and he delivers Wisconsin (which will be close) and almost certainly Florida since he'll bring in more of the Jewish vote. Has 15 years experience on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, so FP is a strength. And he's one of the few (along with Joe Biden) that I could see as stepping in as President. Problem is he's very liberal, not centrist. And the Black/Jewish ticket is a tough one.

Sam Nunn: STRONGLY anti-choice Republican which makes him a non-starter for the Dem ticket.
Richardson: wayyy too gaffe-prone, and I don't think the Black/Hispanic ticket is a good idea.
Edwards: Not interested, and didn't even help Kerry in North Carolina
Tim Kaine: Too inexperienced, hasn't really done anything.
Ted Strickland: probably not smart enough.
Ed Rendell: loose cannon loudmouth. An accident waiting to happen.
Hillary: Helps win Florida and Pennsylvania and Ohio, which is the whole ballgame... and can see her stepping in as Pres, but what a nightmare to try to govern with her and Bill around. Really unfortunate.

Posted by doc3osh | May 27, 2008 12:46 PM

Webb deserves serious consideration. Obama does fine with blue collar workers in states culturally aligned with him (Oregon, California). His trouble is in Appalachia (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Southeast) which is exactly where Webb helps. Webb would probably deliver a purple state (VA), and he's a bulldog, who completely negates McCain's military cred. He re-inforces the "outside Washington, and crossing the aisle" Obama threads. In short, he has aspects of both a "reinforcing" AND a "balancing" VP. It would be foolish not to look at him as one of the top three choices. His downsides are real as noted (and you missed a big one: He's on his third wife, and she's Vietnamese, which will not play well on Faux News).

Biden is phenomenal, and would be my personal first choice, but realistically speaking I'm not sure Delaware is a big help or whether he helps with middle America. HOWEVER, my fervent hope is that Biden agrees to be Sec of State EARLY, like early June, and grabs a couple news cycles before the VP pick is made, thus clarifying where we're headed from a FP standpoint. No Dem gets FP like Biden, he's a rockstar.
Look at this WSJ Op-Ed Biden wrote in response to the drivel Lieberman wrote last week. THIS is the response to Lieberman's "I didn't change, my party did" BS:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121150000249615875.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

With Biden as Sec State, the FP thing should not be as much of a consideration in the VP pick, which opens things up for the other candidates on my short list: Mark Warner, Kathleen Sebelius, and Brian Schweitzer (Montana gov).

Mark Warner would also deliver VA (and claims that we'd lose that Senate seat are probably unfounded: Don Beyer would likely run in his place, and with Warner on the Presidential ticket he'd probably pull in enough votes for Beyer to win. Warner is also considered an "across the aisle" kinda guy, and strong on the economy.
Kathleen Sebelius and Brian Schweitzer are both red-state Governors that have done tremendous work building coalitions. Schweitzer is a little inexperienced still... but if Obama is looking to redraw the party for years to come, that could be his guy. Amazing on the stump, utterly appealing to westerners, is pro guns so that makes him somewhat centrist and for some weird reason lived in Saudi Arabia for a while and speaks Arabic (huh?!?). Sebelius is very popular in a state dems have no shot at, but somehow people like to say she'll pull in Ohio because of some family ties. (I don't buy that.) Strong governor, coalition-builder. Stood up three times to veto a new polluting coal plant in the face of real pressure. Rather weak SOTU response (unlike Webb two years ago, who kicked ass). And she may be too old to be considered in 8 years for Pres (not sure of her age, can't find it online)

Russ Feingold: Love this guy, and he delivers Wisconsin (which will be close) and almost certainly Florida since he'll bring in more of the Jewish vote. Has 15 years experience on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, so FP is a strength. And he's one of the few (along with Joe Biden) that I could see as stepping in as President. Problem is he's very liberal, not centrist. And the Black/Jewish ticket is a tough one.

Sam Nunn: STRONGLY anti-choice Republican which makes him a non-starter for the Dem ticket.
Richardson: wayyy too gaffe-prone, and I don't think the Black/Hispanic ticket is a good idea.
Edwards: Not interested, and didn't even help Kerry in North Carolina
Tim Kaine: Too inexperienced, hasn't really done anything.
Ted Strickland: probably not smart enough.
Ed Rendell: loose cannon loudmouth. An accident waiting to happen.
Hillary: Helps win Florida and Pennsylvania and Ohio, which is the whole ballgame... and can see her stepping in as Pres, but what a nightmare to try to govern with her and Bill around. Really unfortunate.

Posted by doc3osh | May 27, 2008 12:51 PM

changing military culture is a push pull operation, not diktat from on high.

Sometimes it is, and ought to be, 'diktat' from on high (for instance, racial integration). Kinda the idea of civilian control, isn't it? You have pinpointed a problem a lot of liberals have with the military: duty, honor, country. What's wrong with that? Nothing, except 'country' should come first, not third. I have not been in the service, but have known lots of people who have, both family and otherwise (I've lived in areas with lots of military). There is a lot of honor among military people, but there is also a hell of a lot of self-serving, CYA, and bloated self-regard, too. This country spends - and wastes - an staggeringly enormous amount of money on the military, and has engaged in quite a few morally and ethically questionable wars/actions. The US military culture is not exempt from criticism. Tempted to vote for McCain because liberals don't 'understand' you? Go ahead, doofus. While you're busy being a misunderstood flower, what about the country? I know we need them both, but frankly, I'm not crazy about career military service for the same reason I'm not crazy about career politicians. Military service and public service are supposed to be service. You are part of the country. You deserve generous vet. benefits, but you don't have special rights beyond that.

Posted by jonnybutter | May 27, 2008 12:51 PM

Webb deserves serious consideration. Obama does fine with blue collar workers in states culturally aligned with him (Oregon, California). His trouble is in Appalachia (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Southeast) which is exactly where Webb helps. Webb would probably deliver a purple state (VA), and he's a bulldog, who completely negates McCain's military cred. He re-inforces the "outside Washington, and crossing the aisle" Obama threads. In short, he has aspects of both a "reinforcing" AND a "balancing" VP. It would be foolish not to look at him as one of the top three choices. His downsides are real as noted (and you missed a big one: He's on his third wife, and she's Vietnamese, which will not play well on Faux News).

Biden is phenomenal, and would be my personal first choice, but realistically speaking I'm not sure Delaware is a big help or whether he helps with middle America. HOWEVER, my fervent hope is that Biden agrees to be Sec of State EARLY, like early June, and grabs a couple news cycles before the VP pick is made, thus clarifying where we're headed from a FP standpoint. No Dem gets FP like Biden, he's a rockstar.
Look at this WSJ Op-Ed Biden wrote in response to the drivel Lieberman wrote last week. THIS is the response to Lieberman's "I didn't change, my party did" BS:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121150000249615875.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

With Biden as Sec State, the FP thing should not be as much of a consideration in the VP pick, which opens things up for the other candidates on my short list: Mark Warner, Kathleen Sebelius, and Brian Schweitzer (Montana gov).

Mark Warner would also deliver VA (and claims that we'd lose that Senate seat are probably unfounded: Don Beyer would likely run in his place, and with Warner on the Presidential ticket he'd probably pull in enough votes for Beyer to win. Warner is also considered an "across the aisle" kinda guy, and strong on the economy.
Kathleen Sebelius and Brian Schweitzer are both red-state Governors that have done tremendous work building coalitions. Schweitzer is a little inexperienced still... but if Obama is looking to redraw the party for years to come, that could be his guy. Amazing on the stump, utterly appealing to westerners, is pro guns so that makes him somewhat centrist and for some weird reason lived in Saudi Arabia for a while and speaks Arabic (huh?!?). Sebelius is very popular in a state dems have no shot at, but somehow people like to say she'll pull in Ohio because of some family ties. (I don't buy that.) Strong governor, coalition-builder. Stood up three times to veto a new polluting coal plant in the face of real pressure. Rather weak SOTU response (unlike Webb two years ago, who kicked ass). And she may be too old to be considered in 8 years for Pres (not sure of her age, can't find it online)

Russ Feingold: Love this guy, and he delivers Wisconsin (which will be close) and almost certainly Florida since he'll bring in more of the Jewish vote. Has 15 years experience on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, so FP is a strength. And he's one of the few (along with Joe Biden) that I could see as stepping in as President. Problem is he's very liberal, not centrist. And the Black/Jewish ticket is a tough one.

Sam Nunn: STRONGLY anti-choice Republican which makes him a non-starter for the Dem ticket.
Richardson: wayyy too gaffe-prone, and I don't think the Black/Hispanic ticket is a good idea.
Edwards: Not interested, and didn't even help Kerry in North Carolina
Tim Kaine: Too inexperienced, hasn't really done anything.
Ted Strickland: probably not smart enough.
Ed Rendell: loose cannon loudmouth. An accident waiting to happen.
Hillary: Helps win Florida and Pennsylvania and Ohio, which is the whole ballgame... and can see her stepping in as Pres, but what a nightmare to try to govern with her and Bill around. Really unfortunate.

Posted by doc3osh | May 27, 2008 12:51 PM

Nice work. As a vet, I understand, relate to, and have respected Webb for a couple of decades but had not realized how much callousing of my political beliefs I had undergone. Identifying all these points is very valuable to myself, amongst others, who know the Webb brand but have not tested it in the pressure cooker that it would endure as a VP. Good stuff, keep it coming.

Posted by Fomo | May 27, 2008 12:55 PM

I live in Virginia. If Obama wants to carry the state as well as the so called white working class voters, then former governor Mark Warner and the current governor Tim Kane fit the bill. They are popular than Web. Remember they campaigned for him against George Allen. But Warner might be seen as an elitist since he went to Harvard. The best bet would be Tim Kane period.

Posted by genius123 | May 27, 2008 12:55 PM

"dudez, this race is not about your illusions about how an Obama-Webb ticket could somehow miraculously heal centuries' worth of racial wounds, or your fantasies about how Webb could somehow bring that all-important white working class male back to the fold. Most especially, it's not about the choice of the ultra-manly Webb as a vicarious endorsement of your masculinity."

Really? I don't read your blog, but this kind of talking down to people in a clearly sexist manner I find laughable when the backdrop is how sexism has pushed Hillary out of the race. What a hypocrite.

Posted by The Bunk | May 27, 2008 12:59 PM

VP choices

Webb deserves serious consideration. Obama does fine with blue collar workers in states culturally aligned with him (Oregon, California). His trouble is in Appalachia (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Southeast) which is exactly where Webb helps. Webb would probably deliver a purple state (VA), and he's a bulldog, who completely negates McCain's military cred. He re-inforces the "outside Washington, and crossing the aisle" Obama threads. In short, he has aspects of both a "reinforcing" AND a "balancing" VP. It would be foolish not to look at him as one of the top three choices. His downsides are real as noted (and you missed a big one: He's on his third wife, and she's Vietnamese, which will not play well on Faux News).

Biden is phenomenal, and would be my personal first choice, but realistically speaking I'm not sure Delaware is a big help or whether he helps with middle America. HOWEVER, my fervent hope is that Biden agrees to be Sec of State EARLY, like early June, and grabs a couple news cycles before the VP pick is made, thus clarifying where we're headed from a FP standpoint. No Dem gets FP like Biden, he's a rockstar.
Look at this WSJ Op-Ed Biden wrote in response to the drivel Lieberman wrote last week. THIS is the response to Lieberman's "I didn't change, my party did" BS:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121150000249615875.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

With Biden as Sec State, the FP thing should not be as much of a consideration in the VP pick, which opens things up for the other candidates on my short list: Mark Warner, Kathleen Sebelius, and Brian Schweitzer (Montana gov).

Mark Warner would also deliver VA (and claims that we'd lose that Senate seat are probably unfounded: Don Beyer would likely run in his place, and with Warner on the Presidential ticket he'd probably pull in enough votes for Beyer to win. Warner is also considered an "across the aisle" kinda guy, and strong on the economy.
Kathleen Sebelius and Brian Schweitzer are both red-state Governors that have done tremendous work building coalitions. Schweitzer is a little inexperienced still... but if Obama is looking to redraw the party for years to come, that could be his guy. Amazing on the stump, utterly appealing to westerners, is pro guns so that makes him somewhat centrist and for some weird reason lived in Saudi Arabia for a while and speaks Arabic (huh?!?). Sebelius is very popular in a state dems have no shot at, but somehow people like to say she'll pull in Ohio because of some family ties. (I don't buy that.) Strong governor, coalition-builder. Stood up three times to veto a new polluting coal plant in the face of real pressure. Rather weak SOTU response (unlike Webb two years ago, who kicked ass). And she may be too old to be considered in 8 years for Pres (not sure of her age, can't find it online)

Russ Feingold: Love this guy, and he delivers Wisconsin (which will be close) and almost certainly Florida since he'll bring in more of the Jewish vote. Has 15 years experience on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, so FP is a strength. And he's one of the few (along with Joe Biden) that I could see as stepping in as President. Problem is he's very liberal, not centrist. And the Black/Jewish ticket is a tough one.

Sam Nunn: STRONGLY anti-choice Republican which makes him a non-starter for the Dem ticket.
Richardson: wayyy too gaffe-prone, and I don't think the Black/Hispanic ticket is a good idea.
Edwards: Not interested, and didn't even help Kerry in North Carolina
Tim Kaine: Too inexperienced, hasn't really done anything.
Ted Strickland: probably not smart enough.
Ed Rendell: loose cannon loudmouth. An accident waiting to happen.
Hillary: Helps win Florida and Pennsylvania and Ohio, which is the whole ballgame... and can see her stepping in as Pres, but what a nightmare to try to govern with her and Bill around. Really unfortunate.
Evan Bayh? Boring… didn’t seem to do much for Hillary in Indiana.
Tom Daschle? Some say Obama loves the idea... not sure why. Maybe someone else can comment on that.

Posted by doc3osh | May 27, 2008 1:00 PM

Don Williams hasn't had a date in years. For good reason.

Posted by judson | May 27, 2008 1:00 PM

The only thing you got wrong in this excellent article is the concept that Webb has made "valuable contributions" on Iraq. He has not voted with the peace movement even once. He has done nothing to end the war or prevent its manifold excesses, other than to shoot off his mouth, something he is very good at. But action? Zero.

Posted by Querent | May 27, 2008 1:04 PM

With all due respect to Kathy G - she is, by her own admission on her blog, on the left edge of the Dem party. Webb is a natural ally to the cultural left - But that's the point.

C'est ne pas?

Posted by Comment | May 27, 2008 1:06 PM

Mean to say Webb is not a natural ally of the cultural left in the Dem party. But are they gonna vote for McCain?

It's hard to imagine Webb turning off a significant percentage of the voting public. Will he piss off some professors? Maybe. But that will hardly hurt Barack at the polling booth.

Obama/Webb - both writers, both interesting guys with lots to say and serious thoughts.

Posted by Comment | May 27, 2008 1:12 PM

sounds like he'd make a good veep for hillary. i wonder if we'll ever know her proposed list.

Posted by the_shoparazzi | May 27, 2008 1:13 PM

sounds like he'd make a good veep for hillary. i wonder if we'll ever know her proposed list.

Posted by the_shoparazzi | May 27, 2008 1:13 PM

sexism has pushed Hillary out of the race.

Wow. Not only do you follow HRC's disgusting lead by actually trivializing sexism, but as of today, sexism most certainly didn't push her out of the race. Not even LOSING pushed her out of the race. Where do you Hillary trolls get your weed? Nice handle: 'Bunk'. Yep.

Posted by jonnybutter | May 27, 2008 1:15 PM

Re Stuart Hample's comment "Not only is he [James Webb] a Republican in mufti, courtesy of Sen. Chuck Schumer; his recent comparison of the Scotch-Irish of Appalachia with African-Americans is wrong-headed, and borders on being viscious.

Namely, the assertion that his "cultural group," the Scotche-Irish of Appalachia, has suffered the same disdain from the government as people of color."
---------------
Well, that's a comparison that Jesse Jackson was drawing -- and appealing to -- decades before Jame Webb. Remember the Rainbow Coalition?

Here is Jesse Jackson speaking at the 2000 Democratic Convention:

"In the midst of great wealth, one in five children still grow up in poverty. It's a moral disgrace we cannot accept. A coal miner dies every six hours from black lung disease.

In Mud Creek (ph), Kentucky; in Hazzard (ph), in Nelsonville, Ohio, in Big Stone Gap, children live in trailers and go to school in trailers.

Think of Appalachia and remember most poor people are not on welfare, they work every day. They do their heavy lifting. They take the early bus. They work the late shift. Most poor people are neither brown nor black. They're white. They're female. They're young. They're invisible. But they're all God's children.

JACKSON: Let's have a one big tent America. "
Ref: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/democratic/transcripts/u060815.html

Of course, the chickenshit limousine liberals who sabotaged Jesse Jackson's Presidential campaigns --and went down in defeat twice to Ronald Reagan -- don't give a shit about poor people whether they're in the urban ghetto or in Appalachia.

Although such liberals like to proclam that they're champions of the working class. That's how they avoid joining that class.

Posted by Don Williams | May 27, 2008 1:16 PM

The Bunk -

I agree. That was a pretty shitty, condescending paragraph.

Posted by calipygian | May 27, 2008 1:18 PM

I would think writing pulp novels would be a mark for, not against! What's wrong with a good pulp novel?

You also need to put your feminine fears away with his statements with women in the military.

With the statements and speculation on what happens to our female soldiers in the news, I'd rather not, thanks. Jennifer's information on his work as Navy Sec. is helpful, but I'd still like a public statement from him that's neither reactionary nor a decade old.

Posted by Persia | May 27, 2008 1:19 PM

"Part of the reason I say he needs to be southern is that no democratic president that was not from the south has been elected in almost 50 years.

I think Obama will push boundaries to overcome this fact, but having a southern moderate as VP would help greatly... not a midwestern or even "Rocky mountain" guy would help in the same way

You also asked why it has to be a guy, but this means you have entirely missed my point.

Posted by steve | May 27, 2008 11:47 AM"

Then again, the last time we ran a Southern guy (Gore), he lost his home state and blew a gimme election. Carter barely won because of Watergate, the Nixon pardon and Ford's gaffe about Poles not being oppressed. Clinton won because he was a good campaigner and is charismatic. Just because something worked one way in the past doesn't mean it will work that way in the future. After all, relying on outdated models in why Clinton lost this primary.

Posted by Reality Man | May 27, 2008 1:22 PM

Boy, you have to get up early to post your comment here before somebody else has; I was going to point out that Sen. Webb's seat would likely revert to a Republican if he were to leave the Senate. So I'll just add this factoid: Sen. Webb has three tattoos, only two of which can be shown in polite company :-)

Posted by joely | May 27, 2008 1:22 PM

Reasons I will not be invited to run a presidential campaign, part of a continuing series:

What I'd really like to see is for Obama or someone in his campaign make a speech aimed at all those who say they need mollycoddling with regard to their fears about his "weakness" on national security. The Republicans, he should point out, are offering a man who doesn't know who he proposes fighting, but proposes fighting them in perpetuity nonetheless, and who doesn't regard those he wants to sacrifice to these unknown enemies as deserving the same benefits or support he got, and who's committed to paying for it all with money apparently delivered by belligerent faeries. They call that strength. How "weak", exactly, does Obama have to be before you'd favor that as an alternative? If that is your idea of strength, it's hopeless, Obama can never be "strong" in that way. If, on the other hand, that's not what you want...then you can vote for Ralph Nader, or Bob Barr, or even less significant candidates, or Obama. Suck it up. What you see is what you get.

The country's done more than enough pandering to people (mostly white guys) who need to get stroked regularly so as to feel "strong". It's time to take some steps toward an America that actually is secure and prosperous rather than testosterone-addled.

Posted by Bruce Baugh | May 27, 2008 1:23 PM

Sorry, that link wasn't what I thought it was. Point stands, anyway.

Posted by Persia | May 27, 2008 1:23 PM

Reasons I will not be invited to run a presidential campaign, part of a continuing series:

What I'd really like to see is for Obama or someone in his campaign make a speech aimed at all those who say they need mollycoddling with regard to their fears about his "weakness" on national security. The Republicans, he should point out, are offering a man who doesn't know who he proposes fighting, but proposes fighting them in perpetuity nonetheless, and who doesn't regard those he wants to sacrifice to these unknown enemies as deserving the same benefits or support he got, and who's committed to paying for it all with money apparently delivered by belligerent faeries. They call that strength. How "weak", exactly, does Obama have to be before you'd favor that as an alternative? If that is your idea of strength, it's hopeless, Obama can never be "strong" in that way. If, on the other hand, that's not what you want...then you can vote for Ralph Nader, or Bob Barr, or even less significant candidates, or Obama. Suck it up. What you see is what you get.

The country's done more than enough pandering to people (mostly white guys) who need to get stroked regularly so as to feel "strong". It's time to take some steps toward an America that actually is secure and prosperous rather than testosterone-addled.

Posted by Bruce Baugh | May 27, 2008 1:26 PM

Reasons I will not be invited to run a presidential campaign, part of a continuing series:

What I'd really like to see is for Obama or someone in his campaign make a speech aimed at all those who say they need mollycoddling with regard to their fears about his "weakness" on national security. The Republicans, he should point out, are offering a man who doesn't know who he proposes fighting, but proposes fighting them in perpetuity nonetheless, and who doesn't regard those he wants to sacrifice to these unknown enemies as deserving the same benefits or support he got, and who's committed to paying for it all with money apparently delivered by belligerent faeries. They call that strength. How "weak", exactly, does Obama have to be before you'd favor that as an alternative? If that is your idea of strength, it's hopeless, Obama can never be "strong" in that way. If, on the other hand, that's not what you want...then you can vote for Ralph Nader, or Bob Barr, or even less significant candidates, or Obama. Suck it up. What you see is what you get.

The country's done more than enough pandering to people (mostly white guys) who need to get stroked regularly so as to feel "strong". It's time to take some steps toward an America that actually is secure and prosperous rather than testosterone-addled.

Posted by Bruce Baugh | May 27, 2008 1:29 PM

Egad. Apology for the multi-posting. My net's cutting in and out, and apparently some pages were auto-refreshing.

Posted by bruce Baugh | May 27, 2008 1:31 PM

Sorry, that link wasn't what I thought it was. Point stands, anyway.

Posted by Persia | May 27, 2008 1:34 PM

Webb's Senate seat will NOT revert to Republican

Rather - The Democratic Gov Kaine will appoint a Democrat to fill the seat.

The elements of the Dem part that will oppose Webb are the least popular elements of the party nationwide. Their scorn should be seen as welcome.

But the real reason he will/should name Webb is because Webb articulate *reasons* why the Iraq war was wrong.

That's the number one issue.

Just because Webb may have upset some feminist theoreticians and some intellectuals is no reason to ignore the larger reality.

Posted by Comment | May 27, 2008 1:56 PM

I guess I am not a Liberal because I became MORE inclined to support Webb with each of your criticisms.

Posted by acommonsensevoterwhome | May 27, 2008 2:05 PM

This is less a hit piece on Jim Webb than it is the latest reincarnation of "Barrack Obama, you stole the nomination from Hillary, and you're in trouble now!" My advice to Barrack: Pick who you want. These folks have more litmus tests than a team of Israeli-Palistinian negotiators. They'll never end. If they don't like Webb, let them consider the alternative (did anyone say "Roe v. Wade"?). By the way, I, too, am a Marine combat vet of Vietnam, but I'd vote for you with Siebelius or Nepolitano on the ticket if that's what suits you. No pity parties for me.

Posted by thewolf1 | May 27, 2008 2:07 PM

Pretty scary resume for Webb, but isn't that really the history of this country and for that matter Western Civilization? War, racism, patriarchy are the stuff of my Great Books collection. Isn't Barack about bridging differences and making one America?

That said, how's this for hubris: the greatest difference for Obama is not political, it's racial. He needs a reformed wingnut like Webb to show Red America that he is serious about listening to their concerns as he expressed in his Philadelphia speech on race. Race is the first bridge, politics is the second.

The third bridge is gender and there is no way he can cross three in 2008. Ferraro and her bitter brigade will have to suck it up to save their uteri (Is that a word?) from McGrampy's Supreme Court. Getting middle American to swallow both a black man and a woman is like getting my 5 year old to take a full dose of Amoxicillin- he knows it's good for him, as do we, but we all know it will wind all over my shirt for the trouble.

Remember: over 10% of Americans still think he's a freakin Muslim. Good Democrats with fine degrees from expensive schools have convinced themselves that he's a fraud, an empty suit, a telepreacher on a teleprompter. This is the essence of Hillary's "unelectable" argument and it is not trivial. He needs to put a big, ugly red headed stake in the ground and his name is Webb.

Posted by Reginald Avery Wilkins, Ph.D. | May 27, 2008 2:10 PM

Great argument Kathy, your blog is getting added to my daily diet

Posted by Chas | May 27, 2008 2:16 PM

Why can't Clinton supporters advocate for their candidate without tearing down her opponents? It smells of profound insecurity on her part, and on the part of her supporters, whenever she and they do this.

I can recall a good many, even possibly a majority, of Clinton supporters pushing for a Webb vice-presidency when Hillary was the frontrunner. Now suddenly, with the nomination out of reach, and with her supporters clamouring for her to be Obama's running mate, the same Webb they had so long supported and advocated for, is disqualified because of issues that are literally 30 years old.

I'm so tired of Hillary Clinton, and her supporters, constantly tearing down other Democrats for nothing more than selfish reasons.

Enough already. Senator Webb is a good man, and, if chosen, would make an excellent vice-president.

Posted by Jeff | May 27, 2008 2:19 PM

Ferraro was on FOX recentlt complaining about Barack using that Jay-Z hand gesture. This is a woman who is still bitter about Jesse. She was picked for Veep - she never ran and she lost in NY statewide twice. She is jealous.

Webb does give Barack streed cred in mountain towns - It means people will listen to him. Will they vote for him? No - rustics will vote McCain. But Barack can cut into this margin and be unbeatable by expanding his coalition a bit.

It will also teach some of the liberal snobs that do exist (albeit in smaller numbers than the GOP says) in the Dem party to learn from Webb.

Posted by Comment | May 27, 2008 2:19 PM

Why can't Clinton supporters advocate for their candidate without tearing down her opponents? It smells of profound insecurity on her part, and on the part of her supporters, whenever she and they do this.

I can recall a good many, even possibly a majority, of Clinton supporters pushing for a Webb vice-presidency when Hillary was the frontrunner. Now suddenly, with the nomination out of reach, and with her supporters clamouring for her to be Obama's running mate, the same Webb they had so long supported and advocated for, is disqualified because of issues that are literally 30 years old.

I'm so tired of Hillary Clinton, and her supporters, constantly tearing down other Democrats for nothing more than selfish reasons.

Enough already. Senator Webb is a good man, and, if chosen, would make an excellent vice-president.

Posted by Jeff | May 27, 2008 2:19 PM

Why can't Clinton supporters advocate for their candidate without tearing down her opponents? It smells of profound insecurity on her part, and on the part of her supporters, whenever she and they do this.

I can recall a good many, even possibly a majority, of Clinton supporters pushing for a Webb vice-presidency when Hillary was the frontrunner. Now suddenly, with the nomination out of reach, and with her supporters clamouring for her to be Obama's running mate, the same Webb they had so long supported and advocated for, is disqualified because of issues that are literally 30 years old.

I'm so tired of Hillary Clinton, and her supporters, constantly tearing down other Democrats for nothing more than selfish reasons.

Enough already. Senator Webb is a good man, and, if chosen, would make an excellent vice-president.

Posted by Jeff | May 27, 2008 2:19 PM

Ferraro was on FOX recentlt complaining about Barack using that Jay-Z hand gesture. This is a woman who is still bitter about Jesse. She was picked for Veep - she never ran and she lost in NY statewide twice. She is jealous.

Webb does give Barack streed cred in mountain towns - It means people will listen to him. Will they vote for him? No - rustics will vote McCain. But Barack can cut into this margin and be unbeatable by expanding his coalition a bit.

It will also teach some of the liberal snobs that do exist (albeit in smaller numbers than the GOP says) in the Dem party to learn from Webb.

Posted by Comment | May 27, 2008 2:23 PM

Why can't Clinton supporters advocate for their candidate without tearing down her opponents? It smells of profound insecurity on her part, and on the part of her supporters, whenever she and they do this.

I can recall a good many, even possibly a majority, of Clinton supporters pushing for a Webb vice-presidency when Hillary was the frontrunner. Now suddenly, with the nomination out of reach, and with her supporters clamouring for her to be Obama's running mate, the same Webb they had so long supported and advocated for, is disqualified because of issues that are literally 30 years old.

I'm so tired of Hillary Clinton, and her supporters, constantly tearing down other Democrats for nothing more than selfish reasons.

Enough already. Senator Webb is a good man, and, if chosen, would make an excellent vice-president.

Posted by Jeff | May 27, 2008 2:23 PM

I agree that Webb is a horrible choice, and I hope Obama has the integrity to choose someone who better reflects his own values and strengths -- not someone who "balances" him. The last thing I want is Obama's inspiring qualities to be "balanced" by an awful running mate.

Posted by Jennifer | May 27, 2008 2:36 PM

Yikes is right.

I sincerely hope the Obama camp is aware of this.

They're smart folks.

I am banking on them knowing these issues exist.

Posted by Phil Church | May 27, 2008 2:37 PM

Yikes is right.

I sincerely hope the Obama camp is aware of this.

They're smart folks.

I am banking on them knowing these issues exist.

Posted by Phil Church | May 27, 2008 2:40 PM

Most of this has been out there in the web in various iterations for a while now, and a lot of it was used--ineffectively--in Webb's senate campaign.
I think it is interesting to have all the various snippets pulled together in one place like this, but you really did not include most of the information that refutes a lotof these claims and assertions.
Furthermore, taking bits and pieces of quotes over a 30 plus timeline and using them to charactetize a person who is much greater than the sum of those parts is not only unfair, it is that classic Rovian tactic which already failed against this guy in particular. In Virginia.
I've seen the Meet the Press clips where Webb admits his statements about tailhook were immature and wrong. I've also seen the clips from Meet the Press (and other programs) where Webb talked about the stand he took 30 years ago on women in combat and how his thinking has evolved since then.
I just finished his latest book--which takes on a lot of this same material head on and very convincingly. In addition to setting some of these rumors aright, it also lays out a perspective on leadership and governing that is clearly intune with what Obama advocates. In fact, some of the passages are eerily similar to Obama's speeches and position papers.
Finally, Webb doesn't argue that blacks and the Scotch Irish whites who formed the spine of the appalachians are somehow equivalent. He argues that cynical leaders combined with the uninteded consequences of social policies have conspired to create unecessary and false divisions between the groups. Webb argues that if the two groups ever came together they would change the political climate in the country for the longterm good.
No one comes through the vetting process without baggage. No one worth considering, at any rate. From what I can see Obama has a deep bench of smart and discreet people working for him. They will put all possible running mates through much more vigorous paces. In the end, if not Webb, it needs to be someone so much like him that you'll have a new column full of things they said 30 years ago that pissed off a lot of people.

Posted by Irene | May 27, 2008 2:55 PM

The supposedly preferable Un-Webbs?

1. Richardson: A bore and an Hispanic. An African-American AND a Hispanic. That's a joke, right?

2. Daschle: an effete loser completely obeisant to the ziocons. By all means, put him on the ticket.

3. Sibelious: An African-American AND a woman. A loser, plain and simple.

4. McCaskill: see #3 above.

5. The Montana Governor: Nowhere near as good as Webb.

6. Ed Rendell, Mike Bloomberg: An African-American AND a Jew. Hitler/Crist could beat those tickets.

7. Wes Clark: Not nearly as bad as the others. It could work. But, Webb is better.

Antipathy to Webb seems to emanate from certain obtuse feminist bloggers who imagined that Hillary was a champion of the oppressed, Chris Matthews was Satan incarnate and Obama was/is a "sexist pig". Because of their poor judgement- feminism itself has been harmed and they've been boxed into a very small corner. They have very little understanding of America or how to win a national election.

Obama/Webb is the winning combination.

Posted by Trevor | May 27, 2008 3:06 PM

Sebelius has problems as a pro choice Catholic. Barack doesn't need any headaches in this realm - Plus, this would just highlight the abortion issue and Republicans always benefit from that.

Posted by Comment | May 27, 2008 3:14 PM

I'm of the opinion that Obama does indeed need to select someone who reassures in terms of national security and the military, given how traction we've seen the right get with the fear-mongering, and the fact that we are still in a war.

It's all about the image projected from the podium. So, I think the veep does need to be a white man with military service. It will allay fears that Obama is going to go "angry black man" once in office, imply that there would be a check on anything "radical." It would imply that serious national security advice, combat service, etc., would all be immediately within Obama's inner circle. It would imply a "fatherly" presence in the background. And I think this will be vital reassurance.

So, I'm thinking more like Wes Clark. General, southern, Hillary supporter, intellectual and well spoken. I really do think that sort of persona supporting Obama, standing with him, constitutes an endorsement from a particular slice of America that will let people feel okay about choosing a young black man with no military experience over a much longer tenured white man who has seen combat. And it also says that if anything happens to Obama, the veep can handle nat'l security if nothing else, and I think that will still be in peoples' minds, because McCain will be hammering experience, national security, etc.

I don't think that he brings in any particular state or whatnot, but I think he'll shore up the support Obama would need to prevail, and stop folks from having second thoughts in the voting booth. And reassurance, really, is what the veep provides.

Posted by John | May 27, 2008 3:21 PM

Obama could learn alot from Webb and vica versa - Both men are protean characters - Both are constantly evolving and growing.

DC insiders and leftist ideolgue regularly suggest Obaba nominate someome who supported the Iraq war authorization = Yet, they never suggest McCain should put an anti-war veep.

See the inherent defensive nature? They fail to take seriously the number one issue - The Iraq war.

Feckless liberals who feel more threatned by Webb's un-pc comments than they do by Hillary's vote for war should examine their own conscious.

Posted by Comment | May 27, 2008 3:21 PM

This is very insightful, it makes me rethink my faith in an Obama/Webb ticket. I'm pro-Webb because of his stance on Nuclear power, I want to see more of it and Webb is pro-nuclear.

I still think Webb is the best choice but this brings up some important issues.

Oh, one more thing, I am a women who supports Webb as VP.

Posted by Susie | May 27, 2008 3:39 PM

Reading Kathy G's rundown on Webb's weaknesses--citing his notorious and now renounced views on women in the military--reminds me a bit of another Marine hero turned Democratic U.S. Senator, in this case from Ohio: Mercury astronaut John Glenn.

Like Webb, Glenn was a highly decorated combat veteran. Like Webb, it took Glenn a while to adjust to a civilian political culture. Like Webb, Glenn had a pretty infamous gaffe on women in the service (his dating to 1962 when he was asked to testify before Congress on the wisdom of accepting women into the NASA astronaut corps).

By then, although Glenn didn't know it, freelance efforts were afoot to promote, train, and select female astronaut candidates, more than a decade before the military services even trained women to fly jet aircraft, a skill considered a prerequisite for astronauts.

Glenn, a creature of his time and place, testified accordingly.

But time passed and Glenn grew and changed with the times, compiling an admirable record on women's rights. Webb has done the same. They should get credit for this.

No, Webb is not the dyed-in-the-wool liberal so many of us want in a VP candidate. But maybe we're being selfish, or finicky. Perhaps we should be thinking of other Americans--Americans who want to vote for change but are afraid of change and are afraid of Obama's exoticism. I'm not going to call them racists.

My point is that Webb could make Obama palatable to these timid and insular voters. Webb can translate.

The question is, will this onetime Reagan Democrat and proud Scots-Irish American help Obama in the 13-state swath of Appalachia? I believe the answer is yes.

Posted by paxr55 | May 27, 2008 3:39 PM

Webb would be a nice contrast with Obama.
Two honest and outspoken candidates would be a breath of fresh air.
Some of Webb's comments are in the very distant past.
Someone from the South and with a military background would look very good on the ticket and could generate the blue-collar and white-collar vote.
The two look good together--and provide a younger and capable impression that would be hard to beat.
Webb's military experience would give McCain a run for his money.
Obama's intelligence, diplomacy coupled with Webbs' street-wise rough and tumble style would be a real dividend for the democratic ticket.

Posted by Sandra | May 27, 2008 3:46 PM

This article is extremely well-researched and knowledgeable. It certainly convinced me, and I hope that the Obama campaign will read it and lay off Webb. One good reason outlined is to keep him in the Senate. I do think, however, that Webb wants to be VP; I heard him on the radio (demurring). If Obama has something he owes him this could be a problem. -- 'Where to put him?' But not Vice-President. I think the distractions, as so well-described, would nix Obama as President.

(And what if he becomes president? This would be terrible.)

Posted by Sheryll Stuart T. | May 27, 2008 3:54 PM

This article is extremely well-researched and knowledgeable. It certainly convinced me, and I hope that the Obama campaign will read it and lay off Webb. One good reason outlined is to keep him in the Senate. I do think, however, that Webb wants to be VP; I heard him on the radio (demurring). If Obama has something he owes him this could be a problem. -- 'Where to put him?' But not Vice-President. I think the distractions, as so well-described, would nix Obama as President.

(And what if he becomes president? This would be terrible.)

Posted by Sheryll Stuart T. | May 27, 2008 3:55 PM

1) You do NOT want Wes Clark for Vice President.

2) Wes fucked up big time in Yugoslavia in 1999. He used a F117 stealth fighter in a low priority theater when it wasn't necessary, had the plane shot down by the Serbs, and failed to bomb the wreckage before the Serbs carried parts away.
See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1999/03/29/wste29.html

3) So our enemy got chunks of our stealth material -- and any high school chemistry teacher could do spectroscopic analysis to figure out its components. And Make their own.

4) So, for example, Ask the admirals running our carrier task forces in the Persian Gulf how they would detect and shoot down stealth-clad Silkworms.

5) Ole Wes ..er.."screwed the pooch". Some of the Republicans (cough Porter Goss cough) know that. And if Obama picks Wes for a running mate, the rest of the country will learn that in short order.

Posted by Don Williams | May 27, 2008 3:55 PM

This article is extremely well-researched and knowledgeable. It certainly convinced me, and I hope that the Obama campaign will read it and lay off Webb. One good reason outlined is to keep him in the Senate. I do think, however, that Webb wants to be VP; I heard him on the radio (demurring). If Obama has something he owes him this could be a problem. -- 'Where to put him?' But not Vice-President. I think the distractions, as so well-described, would nix Obama as President.

(And what if he becomes president? This would be terrible.)

Posted by Sheryll Stuart T. | May 27, 2008 3:55 PM

The article is not well-researched. It's a standard run-down against Webb that's been made many times in the recent past.

You are all forgetting the key issue - The Iraq war and the nature of Webb's early opposition to it. That trumps all of Webb's minor problems.

Pseuds will obsess with Webb's un-pc comments and his earlier rightist views.

But serious pols should look past that and focus on the main task. That's why Webb is the choice.

Posted by Comment | May 27, 2008 4:05 PM

This piece is so riddled with misinformation that it's probably not even worth the time to pick all the errors apart.

Your very first point against Webb about Virginia being a red state that would give the seat to a Republican shows a total lack of understanding of Virginia politics. In the first place, this has not been a red state for years now. Democrats hold one Senate seat, the Governor's mansion, and the nominee for the other Senate seat polls consistently double digits over the Republican candidates. Democrats control the state Senate and have picked up seats in the state House of Delegates in every cycle for the last 6 years or so. You can no longer call Virginia a 'red state' Secondly, in Virginia the Governor appoints a replacement for a vacated Senate term. Our Democratic Governor will appoint a Democrat and we have a very deep bench from which to draw a nominee. Obama would be taking his legislative agenda in 2009 to a Senate that includes a Democratic replacement for Webb.

You are inaccurate in your depiction of Webb's stance on affirmative action. Webb is in favor of affirmative action so long as it is also applied to poor, rural whites. He makes the point that affirmative action has been extended to every single minority group in America - including many that were not particularly disenfranchised in the first place, except poor rural whites. 'Rednecks' are the only ethnic group in America whom it is considered acceptable to insult these days.

Someone showing up at a college interview missing half his teeth because he couldn't afford dental care, wearing patched-together old clothes and speaking in a thick Mississippi twang will face as much, if not more, discrimination than a black male. When the poor Southerner walks out of the room, you know that the interviewers will be openly cracking 'redneck' and 'white trash' jokes with one another in a way that would not happen with any other minority. Because poor people sure are funny, huh?

That is why Jim Webb has opposed many affirmative action programs. Because they add up to discriminating against a group of people who are openly mocked and discriminated against on television, in college classrooms and in workplaces all over America. Include poor rural whites in affirmative action programs and Jim Webb supports them fully.

The more of your utterly misinformed article that I read, the more committed I am to seeing an Obama/Webb ticket.

Posted by Jackson Landers | May 27, 2008 4:06 PM

This piece is so riddled with misinformation that it's probably not even worth the time to pick all the errors apart.

Your very first point against Webb about Virginia being a red state that would give the seat to a Republican shows a total lack of understanding of Virginia politics. In the first place, this has not been a red state for years now. Democrats hold one Senate seat, the Governor's mansion, and the nominee for the other Senate seat polls consistently double digits over the Republican candidates. Democrats control the state Senate and have picked up seats in the state House of Delegates in every cycle for the last 6 years or so. You can no longer call Virginia a 'red state' Secondly, in Virginia the Governor appoints a replacement for a vacated Senate term. Our Democratic Governor will appoint a Democrat and we have a very deep bench from which to draw a nominee. Obama would be taking his legislative agenda in 2009 to a Senate that includes a Democratic replacement for Webb.

You are inaccurate in your depiction of Webb's stance on affirmative action. Webb is in favor of affirmative action so long as it is also applied to poor, rural whites. He makes the point that affirmative action has been extended to every single minority group in America - including many that were not particularly disenfranchised in the first place, except poor rural whites. 'Rednecks' are the only ethnic group in America whom it is considered acceptable to insult these days.

Someone showing up at a college interview missing half his teeth because he couldn't afford dental care, wearing patched-together old clothes and speaking in a thick Mississippi twang will face as much, if not more, discrimination than a black male. When the poor Southerner walks out of the room, you know that the interviewers will be openly cracking 'redneck' and 'white trash' jokes with one another in a way that would not happen with any other minority. Because poor people sure are funny, huh?

That is why Jim Webb has opposed many affirmative action programs. Because they add up to discriminating against a group of people who are openly mocked and discriminated against on television, in college classrooms and in workplaces all over America. Include poor rural whites in affirmative action programs and Jim Webb supports them fully.

The more of your utterly misinformed article that I read, the more committed I am to seeing an Obama/Webb ticket.

Posted by Jackson Landers | May 27, 2008 4:08 PM

“Most especially, it's not about the choice of the ultra-manly Webb as a vicarious endorsement of your masculinity.”

Very classy, I see your mother raised you right.

I’m not here to defend Webb’s nearly 30 year old comments, because they are largely indefensible. I will point out two things. #1.) Webb has apologized for the tone of his comments, saying he was too young and too stupid to phrase his words properly. #2.) He didn’t apologize for the substance of his comment, he did even better! He said women in the military since 1979 proved him wrong. He has spoken on several occasions of many current and former female military officers who have distinguished themselves as soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen.

He has in large part repented of his offensive view regarding women. If you wish not to forgive him, that is your choice. Just be honest about his current views.

I also can’t speak for other Democrats of the male gender, I can only speak for me.

My earliest political memory is from Election night, 1988, I was nine years old. George H.W. Bush slaughtered Michael Dukakis, in part due to nonsense like The Pledge of Allegiance and the Death Penalty for Kitty Dukakis’ fictional rapist/murderer. Connecticut blue-blood Bush got labeled as the candidate of the average Joe, while son of poor Greek immigrants Dukakis became the candidate for effete liberals.

It’s 20 years later and while the same meme doesn’t always work, it still has a lot of life left in it. 2004 anyone?!? Words can not describe how much I hate this pile of bullsh*t. As my biggest political influence early on was my father; a man who grew up poor in the Jersey ghettos and became a decorated war hero but still voted like a liberal, I knew such a characterization wasn’t true.

So excuse me for wanting a VP like Webb who could blow the “Democrats are too busy burning American flags to defend America” line out of the water once and for all. John McCain only has one avenue for attack. He can’t go after Obama head-on with phony issues such as Rev. Wright or he’ll risk his “maverick” cred. And he can’t go after him on economics; McCain has never even pretended to care about the finical plights of the average working man…or woman.

McCain will go after Obama on national security. He has to, he has no other option. Yes, Bush has been a disaster in this regard, just like he has been a disaster in everything else. But don’t put it past McCain to try and finesse the issue, using his POW status as a shield by bringing it up every five seconds. He’s already doing it, saying Iraq was right as a decision but wrong in implementation. Sure it’s still a quagmire and at best it can only be Iran-Lite but never underestimate the clueless of the average voter. And with things quieter there, enough Americans might be ignorant enough to think that we’re on the verge of victory.

Come November 2008, the economy will probably be the biggest issue; Obama has that sewed up, from McCain’s incompetence there, if nothing else. National Security will be #2, that is where the fight will be.

I can see Obama’s cabinet now; Biden as Secretary of State, Hagel of Secretary of Defense, Samantha Power as National Security Advisor…and the VP must have national security bonafides. I hear lots of talk about Sam Nunn but from what I’ve read, he’s more conservative than Webb. So if not Webb, who?

Again, he has explained his one-time GOP status as stemming solely from his perception of the Dems as soft on Communism during the late Cold War. (He always embraced the Democratic Party’s view of economics.) After the GOP proved itself to be incompetent by it’s cheerleading of Bush’s Iraq War, he came back home to the Democratic Party. Again, forgive me but I can’t help but wonder who else he might be able to bring home with him. If you don’t like him because you’re a far-left liberal and he’s not, just admit it. There’s nothing morally wrong with holding that sort of view. Just don’t portray him as some sort of misogynist caveman or a Manchurian Candidate for the GOP.

Posted by Raindog | May 27, 2008 4:10 PM

Thank you Jackson Landers for summerizing the many points I had been trying to make.

No doubt Kathy G is a very nice women with wonderful liberal views about this and that, but she just put out this ridiculous essay full of misinformation, hearsay, and leftist flatulance.

One of the virtues (among many) that Webb brings is that he will force liberals out of their shell where they regurgitate all this non sense.

Webb almost singlehandedly rescued white ethnic studies from the clutches of hate groups. His excellent book about the Scotts-Irish should be required reading for wannabee Dem activists.

Posted by Comment | May 27, 2008 4:15 PM

@Don Williams

I hardly consider that a reason for not making someone a veep. You have to use aircraft, or they're useless. And you have to use them in combat to work out the tactics and mission profiles and give the pilots the combat time necessary.

No advantage lasts forever. While it's a shame it happened, if I have any understanding of military culture at all, I'm sure the Stealth jocks were all wanting in on the action.

While the materials are significant, it's the geometry that yields the majority of the stealth effect. Read Ben Rich's Skunk Works. He ran the program when the F-117 was developed. Ever since the plane was publicly revealed, the geometry would be open to copying. But what's also required is the sophisticated software that keeps these otherwise unflyable shapes in the air.

I think the larger picture illustrates an extraordinarily successful air campaign that ousted a genocidal thug without US combat casualties, and against serious air defenses. I'm sure that the low casualties were in no small part due to the fact the stealth fighter was used against air defenses. You'll recall that the Air Force was very cautious in its approach.

I would also argue that stopping genocide is never a "low priority". All theater commanders have to make these sorts of risk-reward choices. And I can't see that amounting to any sort of campaign issue. If it were raised, I'd simply reply: We spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing these aircraft, and not to have them sit on the ground when they could be deployed to save our pilots' lives.

Posted by John | May 27, 2008 4:16 PM

Boy, have you got this wrong. Who better to lead us out of this war than a guy with military experience. Webb is the perfect person to lend credibility to Obama's primary mission...ending this war!

Posted by Tgordon | May 27, 2008 4:20 PM

OK, if not Webb, then maybe someone who supported Webb in his senate race & like Webb, was against the Iraq war from the getgo, USMC Gen. Anthony Zinni.

Obama needs someone older, w/a military background & world class experience & I would argue, not an elected politician in today's political environment where congress' approval rating is in the teens.

Zinni has been floated as a possible Vice Presidential running mate for Barack Obama, should Obama win the Democratic nomination. ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Zinni

Zinni is intelligent, no nonsense, oozing gravitas unlike (5) deferment Darth Cheney & will destroy any dweeb McCain picks as vp in the vp debate(s). http://fora.tv/2006/04/06/General_Anthony_Zinni ~ (42) minute speech on Iraq/solutions/strategic u.s. challenges.

http://www.international.ucla.edu/burkle/news/article.asp?parentid=36746

carry on

Posted by shiloh | May 27, 2008 4:23 PM

Regarding Tailhook '91, my mom and dad attended, making a pass on the rowdier elements. The old man was of the opinion that 1) yep, the boys screwed the pooch, and 2) Pat Schroeder used the opportunity to gut the naval aviation community until it met her standard of decorum.

My POV is significantly colored by my dad's opinions. Given the number of careers she (evidently) ruined and her actions (temporary) effect on military readiness, it's interesting how reasonable she comes off in the '97 PBS interview I've linked.

For those that wiki Tailhook: I wasn't there, and I've got the patch to prove it.

Posted by cmholm | May 27, 2008 4:25 PM

sabatoge.
Your next piece is why Chuck Hagel and Sam Nunn would be bad Veep choices for Obama?

Posted by Anonymous1 | May 27, 2008 4:30 PM

I agree that he's nowhere near the best choice for VP, though I still like the guy. What can I say? I just think he puts a good face on Senate Democrats.

Back in January, I began to strongly suspect that Obama would choose Kathleen Sebelius as his VP. Looking at the situation now, I'm even more certain.

Posted by Stuart | May 27, 2008 4:39 PM

“OK, if not Webb, then maybe someone who supported Webb in his senate race & like Webb, was against the Iraq war from the getgo, USMC Gen. Anthony Zinni.”

On a personal level, I like Zinni very much. I’ve seen him speak on C-Span and he can articulate complex views very well. But there are two problems.

#1.) Unlike Webb, who has been very coy about accepting a VP slot, Zinni has repeatedly said that he will never enter politics.

#2.) Unlike Webb, who was a Democrat for years, became a Republican, then switched back to the Dems, Zinni is a life-long Republican.

Posted by Raindog | May 27, 2008 4:46 PM

Excellent article, though I disagree with its conclusion that Webb should not be considered as VP. Also appreciate all the posts I have been able to scroll through, even those with which I disagree. Makes one think, perhaps reconsider. However, I think Webb, or perhaps Gov. Sebelius, would be an excellent choice, precisely for many if not all the reasons Kathy cites against him. And I have a hard time believing that the ONLY reason he won that Senate seat in Virginia was George Allen's stupidity. Of course the Macaca incident was important, but Allen was an incumbent in a red state, he was touted, rightly or wrongly, as a potential presidential possibility, & Jim Webb had a great deal to overcome, which he did! Mostly on his own! One crucial element missing from the posts I have read, also Kathy's article, is: How does Obama feel about Webb? Do they get along? Does Obama have a comfort level with Webb? I think this is more important than political considerations, when you get down to it. Kathy should write a follow-up piece, as was suggested, putting Webb's past views & statements in context, vis-a-vis the present, & suggest who else would be a "perfect" fit for Obama. Still, while I continue to think Jim Webb would be a great asset as VP, I do appreciate Kathy's article. Makes me think, which is always good!

Posted by PETER C. GERDINE | May 27, 2008 4:46 PM

Re john's comment "You have to use aircraft, or they're useless. ...We spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing these aircraft, and not to have them sit on the ground when they could be deployed to save our pilots' lives."
-----------
Wrong. If questionable whether you should even develop stealth FIGHTERS -- since such will eventually be lost behind enemy lines, to malfunctions if nothing else.

If you do develop stealth bombers, you should keep them for conflicts in which there is a serious threat to the US homeland. Yugoslavia by no means was such a threat.

Again, Wesley not only use the F117, he FAILED to bomb the debris when the plane was shot down. The plane was shot down at night yet Serb TV had pictures of Serbs dragging away large chunks in daytime.

Ask yourself why Wesley Clark was moved into retirement several years early: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark#Retirement

Posted by Don Williams | May 27, 2008 4:52 PM

it is almost lunacy to think web would be a good vp pick, yet i see it time and time again come up on the left wing sites. there are other names that are equally ridicules so many seem to think sen clair mccatskill would be a great choice. yes, a one year in the senate women that never ran for office before 2006. i put it down to the youth and lack of judgment of so many obama supporters they feel just because the war went really bad and they were against it they have some inherent wisdom or something. its all just nuts

Posted by spaceman | May 27, 2008 4:55 PM

Kathy G. wears monofocals, one issue glasses. Apparently she's wearing them on the back of her head.

This is a blast from a Pat Schroederite still itching to rumble over a cultural skirmish that was settled a long time ago. Women in the military - over and done.

Isn't progress all about change? Isn't the very basis of liberal philosophy that human beings are capable of change?

Jim Webb is man enough (sexist turn-of-phrase intentional) to have acknowledged he was wrong, enthusiastically embraced opening up billets to women as Secretary of the Navy and, most recently, has been given top ratings by NARAL and other women's issues organizations.

That Kathy G. won't let go says more about her than Jim Webb.

The most critical war we're fighting is not in Iraq or Afghanistan, but the struggle to wrest our country away from the ignorant losers and hypocritical plunderers of the right who've ripped a hole in the ship of state. We're sinking. Fast.

Defeating them requires a certain degree of ruthlessness.

So let's be ruthless. Would an Obama/Webb ticket send women into the voting booth to cast a ballot for John McCain? The next president will shape a Supreme Court that will last for decades.

This election is going to be won by electoral votes in a handful of key swing states that are not way left or way right. And the election changing demographic bump in those swing states is centrist white men. That's where an Obama/Webb ticket trumps every other conceivable combination.

Posted by j_wyatt | May 27, 2008 4:59 PM

1) And if you are going to put up Wesley Clark as your Uber-Warrior, you better be prepared for Republican ads showing what General Hugh Shelton -- Wes Clark's commander -- said in 2003

From https://latc.com/2003/10/01/news/news03.html
------------
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during 9/11, lecturing at Flint Center in Cupertino Sept. 12, was asked by moderator Dick Henning, "What do you think of Gen. Wesley Clark and would you support him as a presidential candidate?"

After a moment's hesitation, Shelton responded: "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

------------

2) General Shelton is not some Republican hatchet man. Shelton was an advisor to John Edwards in his 2004 Presidential campaign and was the second Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to come out in favor of Hillary Clinton for President.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Shelton

Posted by Don Williams | May 27, 2008 5:06 PM

Actually all but the misogyny questions (a bit overblown here yet a real concern with Hillary's angry base) make this Independent voter more likely to go with Obama/Webb than McCain/somebody.

A balanced ticket, and one that can deliver on the bi-partisanship Obama aspires to, must have some centrist or center-right thinking. None of Webb's comments about elites, liberals or Vietnam strike me as anything but how half of this country views the world.

Any way you slice it, if Obama passes on Webb only the far left will be cheering. And it might be a very big mistake come November.

Posted by waltontynerross | May 27, 2008 5:25 PM

Has anyone mentioned this?:

"Webb wrote the story and was the executive producer for the 2000 movie Rules of Engagement, which starred Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson." (wikipedia)

This is a viciously anti-Arab movie. One scene depicts the Marine gunning down a little Arab girl who may be a suicide bomber. It is featured on the little documentary "Reel Bad Arabs," which shows how Hollywood has stereotyped Arabs for a century.

Maybe we need a warrior in the VP slot, but he should have a tad less xenophobia in his veins, I would suggest.

I am a Hillary-gen Anglo woman, Obama supporter, who is simply wishing for a peacemaker or two in D.C.

Posted by fibait | May 27, 2008 5:28 PM

Right on. I forgot about the sexist part because I am an older male it didn't impact me so directly. But I agree. Particularly I don't like the fact that he switched parties like a snake sheds it's skin. I also don't like his demeanor and attitude which I characterize as a "bantam rooster" type syndrome.

BTW. He has a permit and packs heat so maybe we can save some money on the security detail if he gets the vp slot?

Posted by Keone Michaels | May 27, 2008 5:29 PM

The verdict is in: Radical bloggers think Jim Webb is too far to the right to be Senator Obama's vice president.

The Democratic party has already erred in nominating its least experienced candidate. Now they want to continue the blunder by electing a candidate who is just as radical as Obama is. If they don't move to the center McCain is going to pick up all the centrists and independents.

I like that.

Posted by CharlieS | May 27, 2008 5:43 PM

Good Analysis! Despite all of the research, I do think the VP choice is significant and can help or hurt Obama. I think he should go with a woman to bring the Hillary people in. The voter turnout was extraordinary this year for the Democratic primaries, and if they can match that, they'll win the election.

Posted by Rob | May 27, 2008 5:43 PM

Good Analysis! Despite all of the research, I do think the VP choice is significant and can help or hurt Obama. I think he should go with a woman to bring the Hillary people in. The voter turnout was extraordinary this year for the Democratic primaries, and if they can match that, they'll win the election.

Posted by Rob | May 27, 2008 5:43 PM

"dudez, this race is not about your illusions about how an Obama-Webb ticket could somehow miraculously heal centuries' worth of racial wounds,"

No, this race is all about your illusions that an Obama candidacy could somehow miraculously heal centuries worth of racial wounds!

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 27, 2008 5:55 PM

You had me way before you brought up Tailhook. Yikes.

Agree, this should be shared at DailyKos where Webb keeps winning (or finishing near the top) in VP polls.

Posted by ally | May 27, 2008 6:04 PM

Well!

Kathy G demonstrates to Matt how to do a REAL "substantive post"!

And how to back up your arguments with information.

I have no opinion on Webb, other than it's possible that Webb would counter-balance Obama on Iran, since Webb is against any military action on Iran without Congressional approval and was willing to submit a bill with that proviso. Whether he believes Iran has a nuclear weapons program, though, I don't know.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 27, 2008 6:06 PM

OK, I'm convinced -- didn't know much about Webb except his military background, novelist, winner of the senate seat in Virginia, all of which made him seem a plausible candidate for VP. Your post shows this guy is one very LOOSE cannon. He would kill us. Thankx!

Posted by Joe | May 27, 2008 6:13 PM

I think Eric Shinseki would be a great VP.

Posted by christy hannity | May 27, 2008 6:21 PM

Ok, you convinced me. Webb would not make a good Veep.

Posted by Oomingmak | May 27, 2008 6:38 PM

I think the best part of the argument is that you want Webb to keep his senate seat.

So, how about Wesley Clark?

Posted by Marie | May 27, 2008 6:43 PM

I think the best part of this argument is that you want Webb to stay in the senate. You also need Joe Biden to stay put.

So, how about Wesley Clark? Is he from Arkansas?

Posted by Marie | May 27, 2008 6:46 PM

I think the best part of this argument is that you want Webb to stay in the senate. You also need Joe Biden to stay put.

So, how about Wesley Clark? Is he from Arkansas?

Posted by Marie | May 27, 2008 6:50 PM

This post is basically a re-post of the 06 election Republican talking points.
Webb has been vetted - and has proven himself to be a fantastic Senator.
This article is crap - and doesn't even offer the reader a solution for who IS the best choice.

Obama/Webb -- let's save our country.

Posted by Frank F. | May 27, 2008 7:00 PM

Matt, what makes you think any of those things makes Webb less desireable as a Veep running mate?

Running mates are all about swing state electoral votes. Did having Dan Quayle hurt Bush Sr. on the election trail? Then I suggest that Webb cannot hurt Obama either. There isn't anyone out there he could pick for the VP slot that wouldn't sound like an amateur in speaking compared to Obama anyway, so you might as well not worry about it.

Webb is enormously popular with Virginians, however. May I remind you that VA has 13 electoral votes? Kerry lost by a mere 15 electoral votes. That's the margin Obama needs to make up. VA is 13, meaning with a VA win, Obama only needs one red Western state, like Colorado to win the presidency.

Posted by krikkit | May 27, 2008 7:06 PM

Just finished Webb's book "time to fight".

I recommend everyone give it a read. Maybe, like me, you'll find that actually Webb is more qualified to be President than Obama.

Horrible article, the information presented has more holes that swiss.

Posted by WB | May 27, 2008 7:31 PM

OK, if not Webb, then maybe someone who supported Webb in his senate race & like Webb, was against the Iraq war from the getgo, USMC Gen. Anthony Zinni.

"On a personal level, I like Zinni very much. I’ve seen him speak on C-Span and he can articulate complex views very well. But there are two problems.

1.) Unlike Webb, who has been very coy about accepting a VP slot, Zinni has repeatedly said that he will never enter politics.

#2.) Unlike Webb, who was a Democrat for years, became a Republican, then switched back to the Dems, Zinni is a life-long Republican.

Posted by Raindog

Points taken & I didn't mention Zinni may not be cut out for campaigning where every word is dissected, but bottom line, Obama needs someone like Zinni w/a military background.

& Zinni being a lifelong republican is part of his appeal imo. Reagan, a former dem & president of SAG, was part of his appeal to the to the Reagan democrats who probably thought, how bad could this guy be, after all he used to be a democrat.

Still I realize Zinni is a long shot, but hey Bush41 picked Quayle, Nixon picked Agnew so stranger things have happened.

Also I hear Obama may pick someone he thinks will continue his legacy after (8) years, but he shouldn't try to be too cute, he needs someone who can immediately step in & be president on day one if God forbid, something happens to Obama.

Posted by shiloh | May 27, 2008 7:33 PM

This is a sophisticated yet utterly slanted trashing of Webb full of cherry-picked quotes and sensational accusations coupled with suggestions of flip-flopping which do not apply at all to him.

Webb was historically a Democrat - having been raised as one by his parents - and did not go Republican until he encountered the famous Democratic liberal disdain for our Vietnam veterans. It's pretty clear to me that Kathy G. did not do her research here, and I'm a little miffed at the people who've declared themselves persuaded by this hatchet job.

What she really did was read an interview or two, the Washingtonian article, and commentaries by interested opponents of Webb about the Tailhook scandal. By the way, Webb was a private citizen at the time of Tailhook, and the full context of what he said was that those who had actually committed offenses should be severely punished, but that to refer to vague "reports of inappropriate conduct" and to call into question the honor and integrity of those who had not committed any offense was wrong, and to drag it out over two years and turn it into a referendum on the purported evil of the Navy culture was also wrong. I agree. No one should be pilloried for political reasons, which is what happened during the extremely long, drawn-out, and ultimately very destructive Tailhook affair.

If one wants to understand Jim Webb one should read "The Nightingale's Song" by Robert Timberg. Read his autobiographical comments in "Born Fighting" and in his Parade Magazine articles over the past 20 years. Heck, read "Fields of Fire" to get an idea of the pain he felt over Vietnam, or "A Sense of Honor" to understand what it was he valued about the pre-coeducational Naval Academy, or "A Country Such as This" and "Something to Die For" to understand his deep suspicion of those who exploit the loyalty and dedication to service of the Scotch-Irish and the working class in order to achieve selfish political ends. He expresses enormous outrage about the willingness of this country's leadership to ask the ultimate sacrifice of our military without clear objectives or workable strategy. His dislike of Affirmative Action has nothing to do with an antipathy toward blacks or an alleged conservatism. Instead, it is based on his true observation that AA, which was originally created in order to rectify the inequities caused by slavery and Jim Crow, has been expanded to include every minority group, but does not include the desperately poor whites of Appalachia and elsewhere who have little access to education or opportunity. Under Affirmative Action it's possible for the African American child of teachers to be considered more disadvantaged and entitled to a leg up over the white son of an illiterate teenage mother from Appalachia. Is that really fair? He's pointed out many times that the only people it's permissible in this country to say derogatory things about are poor whites. He's pointed out many times that the same Liberals who pride themselves on multi-cultural understanding and ethnic sensitivity will say hateful, derogatory things about "rednecks" and "hillbillies". I encountered this myself in law school, with a woman who dressed in Birkenstocks and peasant dresses to express her solidarity with Hispanics and Indians. She used to mock what she regarded as my "ignorant redneck" accent. Come to think of it, she was a condescending creep.

It's a fact that the wealthy and well-connected in this country disdain the military. It's a fact that many northeastern and west coast liberals disdain not only the military, but Southerners and mountain people. It's a fact that many Vietnam veterans were treated like crap when they came home, including Webb. When he went to law school at Georgetown he discovered that he was the only combat veteran in his class. He had a criminal law professor who devised an essay question on the final exam in which an Army sergeant named Webb conceals heroin in the coffins of his dead squad members and ships it home from Vietnam. Lt. Webb had lost at least 51 men in a 6 month period and was deeply angered and traumatized by this callous trivialization of his and his men's service. It was after slights like this that he went Republican; however, he was never comfortable with the Republican tendency to rule from the top down. He is very much a populist in the Andy Jackson tradition. He is for a strong military, but is also strongly pro-union (has been for many years), is strongly fair trade, is strongly pro-universal health insurance, pro-minimum wage, and believes the worst crisis facing the country today isn't Iraq, but the incarceration crisis - you know, the one in which one out of three young black men can expect to go to prison some day. He's already held hearings on the issue even though he's not on the judiciary committee.

As for Webb and women, if I remember correctly the woman quoted in the article was a Republican party activist in Virginia trying to help the boorish and sexist Allen win. If Kathy G. was striving to be fair, why didn't she quote the first female African American admiral who made commercials thanking Jim Webb for opening up opportunities for women in the Navy when he was the SecNav? What about Kate Wilder, the only female Green Beret ever, who endorsed Webb during the election? Why didn't she point out that Webb opened many billets for women when he was the Navy Sec? Like I said, it's a hatchet job.

Posted by Irritated Woman | May 27, 2008 7:33 PM

Just finished Webb's book "time to fight".

I recommend everyone give it a read. Maybe, like me, you'll find that actually Webb is more qualified to be President than Obama.

Horrible article, a very superficial and inaccurate characterization of Webb.

Posted by WB | May 27, 2008 7:34 PM

The point about the Senate isn't valid--Virginia is a purple state, which is trending blue. Mark Warner will be elected to the Senate this year (if he's not the running mate), and even if Warner is, anybody the Democrats put up against Jim Gilmore will win. Further, if Webb left to become VP, Gov. Tim Kaine (D) would appoint his replacement, who would not be up for re-election until 2010. Governor Kaine could appoint himself, and he'd be the immediate favorite to win that election. And there are a few others--fmr. Lt. Gov. Don Beyer, Rep. Jim Moran, etc. who could easily win that seat. So that is not, and should not, be a consideration.

Besides, even if it were, let's assume picking Webb can deliver the presidency. Hmm...the presidency or keeping Harry Reid in charge of a fillibuster proof Senate--I'll go with the presidency. The reality is that Democrats are not going to get to 60 seats this year. They'll be lucky with 56, which is enough to get things done.

I'll go with Webb and the presidency instead of President McCain and a massive Democratic majority.

Posted by The Bag of Health and Politics | May 27, 2008 7:38 PM

I think that the idea of choosing a VP strong in ways that appeal to many Clinton voters is a very good idea, and I think that the opposition to the very idea is largely a demonstration of just how real the sexism problem still is. (I voted for and donated to Obama myself, and regard Clinton herself as an awful candidate for reasons of policy and organization. This is not groping for anything to make me feel better about the outcome, because I personally don't need to.)

Consider the abstraction: Candidates A and B engage in a long primary season. A wins, but B has substantial support, and like A is appealing in part to people who don't always or even usually participate in electoral politics. A and B disagree on some crucial issues, but agree on many others. B is, like A, a member of a group historically discriminated against - and very much still discriminated against, today - and that's important to the actually existing Democratic coalition, right now and for the last several elections. As a matter of generalization, choosing a VP candidate who can work well with the nominee and also appeal to as many of B's supporters as possible would seem to me a good idea.

And the resistance to it seems to me largely to boil down but "but she's a Clinton an we liek to make em suffer ha ha", or words to that effect.

Posted by Bruce Baugh | May 27, 2008 7:42 PM

I agree. While Jim Webb has many qualities to
balance the ticket, after reading a bio, what went through my mind was -too many WIVES, and the women
will kill them on this choice (the old "Women Can't Fight" view).
Especially after this brawl with Hillary Clinton,
you need a guy or gal with good women's issues
creds.

However, he has uses elsewhere.

Posted by deborah | May 27, 2008 7:43 PM

Webb was a Democrat and then became a Republican and then switched back. His family are long-time Democrats. He has always been pro-choice. I understand the author's concerns, though I don't expect her to understand the context of the "women can't fight" article, which was, that there was a perception by many in the military that Carter's administration was trying to use the military as an equalizing institution for women as it had become for African Americans in some respects. There was a lot of fear that this would compromise the combat readiness and cohesiveness of units. I am not defending the article per se, just trying to explain the context for it.

I worked for Webb's campaign, and met him. He is reserved, sometimes combative, and not the best campaigner. But he is brilliant, and near and dear to my heart, he sincerely sees income inequality and the welfare of workers as one of the most compelling national issues. I think he has said numerous times that his fears about women in the military did not justify the tenor of his article. I am indifferent to whether he is the VP, though I think he gives Obama credibility in ways that no other potential candidate does.

The only credible female candidate IMHO (excluding Clinton) is Janet Napolitano. The D's ability to hold Claire McCaskill's Senate seat is even more precarious than it is for Webb's. Kathleen Sebelius has a major Catholic problem (if you want the details go read the blog at Commonweal Magazine).

Posted by Barbara | May 27, 2008 7:45 PM

I disagree with Kathy G for many reasons -- mostly because I think Webb is another kind of "change candidate." One who has evolved over the years and wants to bring a new kind of thinking into American politics.

[Disclaimer, he is my Senator -- but I am a life-long feminist and, yes, I am not always thrilled about all of his opinions -- but I want to carry Virginia this year!]

But for the posters here to say, "Thanks, Kathy G! You have changed my mind about Jim Webb!" is ridiculous.

What? You need to see how things evolve, read more, see who McCain picks and listen to more from Webb and Obama before you "make a decision."

And so does Kathy G.

Posted by rjm | May 27, 2008 7:54 PM

Wow.

Very persuasive, KG.

Considering all of this it seems unlikely Obama will pick him. And he is a GREAT senator for Virginia.

Maybe after a few more years and a bit more backpedaling...

That Webb switched parties shows just how far the Republicans have slipped. If they are losing men like Webb they are losing a lot of folks.

Posted by tomtom | May 27, 2008 8:11 PM

Great work. I didn't know a lot of this. You convinced me.

Posted by Catherine | May 27, 2008 8:24 PM

I disagree with your bottom line conclusion, though it's basis is rational considering your point of view, which I believe is flawed in the first place. Webb is the best choice for VP on an Obama ticket, will offer experience and expertise where Obama is lacking, and should Obama select him as running mate, will have broader appeal and offer a winning alternative to McCain, no matter who the elder Senator chooses. There is NO such thing as a perfect ticket, and considering the alternative, it is as close to winning and workable as one can get.

Posted by Mac Ambo | May 27, 2008 8:34 PM

Far be it from me to find much merit in the generally objectionable ravings of Don Williams, but the angle on Webb's value as a military person needs to be re-worked. Being the party best positioned to symbolize the primacy of national security, someone with those creds will seriously undercut the only perceptual advantage which the Republican ticket may yet, among some voters, retain. If the lesson you took from 2004 was that someone with a token military background such as Kerry wouldn't win over white working class votes, well, I'm both unsurprised that he didn't and surprised that you assumed that he would. Sometimes women can be notoriously bad at reading issues of character in men (apart from what I think you correctly pick up on vis a vis Webb's gender issues). And Kerry, although he seems better now, positively reeked of elitism. Just listen to how winding his voice was on the campaign trail. He was neither a respected voice in the military nor a career official. And how you read anything that translated into "populism" into him is beyond me.

Listen to the guys on Webb. He may in fact be an inappropriate choice for a variety of reasons (although I think the most serious ones are indeed related to his problematic attitudes on issues of gender, let's be honest - as well as how badly they play into the dynamic of a party that badly needs to move on after having divided itself over issues of gender - you're absolutely right on that). But don't make the mistake of underestimating the value of a serious military voice on the Democratic ticket or the mistake of recognizing what such a voice would look like. The guys can recognize a man's man. Even if he is a sexist man's man.

Posted by Not Sure | May 27, 2008 9:21 PM

It needs to be pointed out that people who argue, in this context, for a Wes Clark candidacy over Webb, are looking at military experience superfically.

Clarke does not address the same legitimate concerns that Webb does. Kathy G's facile and factually challanged hatchet job obscures more than Webb's past - It ignores Webb's political vision and all that Obama could gain from it.

Again - very often people who attack Webb are pseuds and insincere unserious liberals who seem not to care very much that HRC voted for the Iraq war.

The Iraq war and the mentality behind is the main thing propelling Obama (and Webb).

Posted by Comment | May 27, 2008 9:27 PM

Oh, and your website describes you as "shrill". Don't say that; you're nothing of the sort! I enjoyed reading what you had to say here and look forward to reading more of what you have to say on your blog.

All the Best!

Posted by Not Sure | May 27, 2008 9:29 PM

This has been a hard-fought 16+ months campaign and people have poured their hearts and energy into this thing. Webb has done ABSOLUTEY NOTHING for this campaign or even for the Clinton campaign. Just out of the blow he's honored with a heartbeat away from the Presidency? THAT IS LUNACY!

This is a 'CHANGE' election - that's why Obama is winning regardless of his little Washington experience. EXCITEMENT, familiarity and trust should be dominating qualities of the ticket and the VERY few that fit the bill are: Obama-Gore and Obama-Edwards.

I'm actually surprised no one is mentioning Al Gore. Is it because we asume he won't accept or that he would not be offered? Al Gore solves EVERY SINGLE problem Obama has and reinforces MOST of his positives.

Posted by Diamond | May 27, 2008 9:31 PM

As a Gay man, I'll stay home election day rather than vote for Obama or Hillary for that matter if either one has picked Webb as the VP choice. The last thing dems need is a right-wing southern redneck (regardless of his stand on Iraq) so close to the presidency. If the dem nominee needs a mililaary man as VP, there's one with a good record of supporting liberal issues and that man is Wesley Clark. Webb is poison.

Posted by Steamboater | May 27, 2008 10:01 PM

Can Webb be redeemed?...I mean, in terms of women's advocacy? Can he be reprogrammed? The thing is that he did beat George Allen against great odds and more importantly, unlike most liberal politicians, he's had the confidence in his military persona to basically tell George Bush to go to hell (in so many words). Although, I don't have a problem with his objection to affirmative action that would lower standards to let women in the military (there are enough women who are tough enough to meet the standards as they are), his cavalier attitude towards the victims of the Tailhook scandal was truly disturbing.

Still, people can change and perhaps Webb, who I believe will help Obama to change the electoral map, can grow with the times. Some people take a bit longer to come around (heck, look at ex-Klansman, Senator Byrd) Don't give up on him; he has talents that could compete with McCain and the Republicans on claims to be the champions of national security, in a way that few Democrats can. Believe me, as a feminist I would insist on certain prerequisites before offering him the VP slot, but again, the nature of what we're trying to do demands some flexibility.

Posted by MitchellFeldman | May 27, 2008 10:05 PM

Yes, someone who characterizes Webb as "a white Southern military dude" isn't exactly tracking in honest engagement of the issues.

This is what bugs me so much about our discourse: the absolute certainty that Clinton is a progressive and the dismissal of Webb when, in all honesty, both have changed a great deal between 1980 or 1990 and now. Clinton is the gung ho warrior, while Webb understood the perils of Iraq. Clinton has paid no more than lip service to the barbarity unleashed by this administration. I am not saying that Obama should choose Webb, but listening to Webb talk about the problems of the working class is like a bolt of lightning, while Clinton mouths platitudes and never, ever, examines the failures of the Clinton administration. Very few politicians exhibit Webb's honesty, in fact. Whatever, the VP is a largely symbolic office, and in all honesty, Richardson would be the most well-balanced choice (executive experience, foreign policy cred, experience in a presidential administration, worked with the senate).

Having lived through the Virginia election, I still can't believe we were lucky enough to get Webb. Indeed, Kathy G. should write a thank you letter to Webb for running against steep odds -- otherwise there's a real possibility George Allen would be the R candidate, and he's a heck of a lot more electable than McCain.

Posted by Barbara | May 27, 2008 10:06 PM

Do you think John McCain got cornholed at the Hanoi Hilton?

OBAMA CAN PICK ANYONE BY HILLARY THE DIKE FOR VP..AND I'LL BE SATISFIED.

Posted by RON | May 27, 2008 10:11 PM

you'd think that in the length of this post it would get mentioned that Webb supported the most significant "women's issues"-slash-civil rights legislation of the year, the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. From the tone of this post, I'd have expected him to have just sneered at those lil' gals and their uppity demands.

Of course, this post's tone is built by taking (quite out of context) Webb's decades-old opinions about women in combat, layering in some heavy doses of vague and repetitive accusation (he's bad on both "women's" issues and "gender" issues? twice the shame!), darkly hinting at grave sins of omission on Tailhook, and pooh-poohing away any signs that Webb might not in fact be a nineteenth-century anti-suffrage neanderthal wife beater.

I suppose if we want to lock up the votes of elite academia and Hollywood, we will spurn Jim Webb and anyone like him when they turn to the Democratic Party. Maybe Obama could pick Naomi Wolf as his veep. I'm sure McCain's not THAT bad on women's issues...

Posted by donald | May 27, 2008 10:13 PM

This is a very one sided and not very fair piece. Fortunately, the commentary has enough back and forth to shed light on reality.

I do have a question. Do Democrats really want to assume leadership of the country, or are they satisfied with their petty squabbles on litmus tests while what’s left of the Republican Party again sneaks off with the Presidency?

The Democrats have not won the Presidency on the merits since LBJ. That is half a century. Jimmy Carter rode in on the post Watergate wave and the Nixon Pardon for a four year stay. Bill Clinton did two terms; however, had Ross Perot not had a personal grudge against Bush Sr., and stayed out of the race, it is doubtful that Clinton would have won the first time around. Clinton never did get a majority.

Old ways can be hard to change. We get comfortable with what we know, even if it doesn’t quite work. Running a Black and a woman or a Black and a Hispanic is something that most Democrats would be comfortable with…even though they would likely lose.

There is a need for looking at the alternatives. Stop beating up on people because they have a different perspective and try to figure out how you can get them to help you build a winning team.

Posted by jarlington | May 27, 2008 10:23 PM

Donald.

re "I suppose if we want to lock up the votes of elite academia and Hollywood, we will spurn Jim Webb and anyone like him when they turn to the Democratic Party."

A quick correction to your post. Speaking anecdotally, and leaving aside the shrinking ranks of Clintonista dead-enders, Jim Webb is the first choice for Obama's running mate among Hollywood liberals.

Posted by j_wyatt | May 27, 2008 10:24 PM

2 more things:

1) rereading this post and its comments, I am really struck by the persistence of interest group politics in this party. has it occurred to any of you who tend toward approaching or discussing every issue "as a(n) [X]" [let X = historically marginalized group] that a real instantiation of what Obama describes as a new post-partisan politics would leave a lot less room for that kind of unuseful balkanization? for instance, the Ledbetter bill is a good and right and worthy effort, not because it's a compelling "women's issue," but because it's a plainly just cause; it's fundamental fairness. In other words, men can and should care about it just as much, and shouldn't have to preface their support with some apologetic disclaimer that they recognize that they're not women, and can't feel the need for the bill as acutely as women, but they still support it, yadda. This kind of incipient division is, to quote someone, "poison."

2) the idea in this post that Webb is some kind of working-class poseur is idiotic. Kathy clearly hasn't read Born Fighting or learned elsewhere anything about Webb's family history, or his views of it.

Obama should pick the VP whom he trusts, who will best help him win. Period. All this dreaming about the Democrat in the White House 12 years from now is futile and extremely reckless. If we end up shrinking the tent in order to police ideological purity in the way that this post suggests, we are going to be screwed in November yet again.

Posted by donald | May 27, 2008 10:29 PM

Does it occur to anyone that Mccain will expel Russia from the G8 and then sign a non proliferation treaty with Russia. MAGICAL.OR FORGETS EH.. lol

Posted by ed | May 27, 2008 10:53 PM

Does it occur to anyone that Mccain will expel Russia from the G8 and then sign a non proliferation treaty with Russia. MAGICAL.OR FORGETS EH.. lol

Posted by ed | May 27, 2008 10:53 PM

Re Kathy G's comment "All that is true, but the reasons why Webb would be a poor choice go way beyond that. Even Alex Massie, who strongly supports Webb for veep, has admitted that the man is "hopeless on the campaign trail": "
------------
In 1996 --when Bill Clinton was ducking his duties as Commander-in-Chief in the Congress-Pentagon gender wars -- James Webb gave a scathing speech at Annapolis.
About values.
Tradition. Loyalty. Discipline. Moral courage.

He criticized the Navy leadership in the Tailhook matter for lack of leadership. For failing to punish the guilty -- and for failing to defend the innocent. Because they put their careers above the needs of the Navy.

The speech is here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/navy/readings/jwebbspeech.html

The speech received a standing ovation at Annapolis. Shortly thereafter, Bill Clinton's handpicked Chief of Naval Operations blew his brains out.

But Kathy G tells us that James Webb would be hopeless on the campaign trail.

There may be a better candidate for Vice President than James Webb. I am not qualified to say.

But do NOT choose James Webb because he is DIFFERENT from Barack Obama. Because he is not.
At their core, the two men believe in the same thing:

Duty. Honor. Country.

Posted by Don Williams | May 27, 2008 11:06 PM

Obama said that the three characteristics he wanted in a vice president is competence, independence and integrity. I think he has those three characteristics describe Webb well. I therefore think that he should be on the list of candidates for VP. As to which of the people on that list Barack choses I have no opinion, Obama needs to go with his gut. I seriously doubt that most of the usual political consideration discussed here will be considered possibly with the exception of the gender issue.

What I have learned from this election is that there are feminist bullies in our party and I do not like catering to them. They have congregated in the leadership of the Clinton campaign. However if there is evidence that Webb is anti-women's issues, it should be brought forth. Otherwise, since I think Mr Webb is a man of high integrity, I will take him at his word.

Posted by Ron M | May 27, 2008 11:13 PM

When I posted I had not read Donald's most recent post, but obviously we agree. My words are not copied from his his ideas.

Posted by Ron M | May 27, 2008 11:21 PM

Thank you Kathy for dolling out all the Republican talking points, most of which have already been debunked if you paid any attention to Webb's Senate campaign.

Posted by GG | May 27, 2008 11:41 PM

If not Shinseki then 2nd choice : Howard Dean

Posted by christy hannity | May 28, 2008 12:13 AM

“Obama needs someone like Zinni w/a military background & Zinni being a lifelong republican is part of his appeal imo. Reagan, a former dem & president of SAG, was part of his appeal to the to the Reagan democrats who probably thought, how bad could this guy be, after all he used to be a democrat. Also I hear Obama may pick someone he thinks will continue his legacy after (8) years, but he shouldn't try to be too cute, he needs someone who can immediately step in & be president on day one if God forbid, something happens to Obama.”

Well, you can’t really have both though. That is to say, you can’t have a life-long Republican who could fill in for Obama if something horrible happened after a November victory. I don’t know Zinni’s specific views on the issues but he strikes me as another possible Hagel. A good man, an honorable man opposed to Bush’s reckless foreign policy. But a Republican and a conservative one at that. Obama’s VP should at least think like a Democrat.

It’s another reason to like Webb; you actually do get the best of both worlds. He’s a former Republican with blue-collar cred and unimpeachable national security credentials. And he falls in-line with most of the Democratic Party’s platform, especially economic justice.

Posted by Raindog | May 28, 2008 12:17 AM

Has it occurred to anyone that women in the GE are not all liberal and feminists? In fact, I will say the major of women voters in GE (like the soccer mom crowd) may in fact prefer a someone on the ticket with a bit of macho mentality.

I speak for myself (left leaning independent), feel much safer to vote for a ticket with someone that's been through the horror of war and survived. Someone that's hawkish when it comes to maintaining a strong military but insists to only use force as the last resort in the "absolute threat to the national security". In fact, this is the SINGLE BIGGEST ISSUE I have against Hillary and the fact that she willingly failed as a senator to uphold the constitutional obligation in voting for Iraq Resolution.

More over, not everyone woman deems it necessary to have the right to combat in the horrible war. Especially women in GE! There are still about 50% married women who stay at home but turn out to vote. Of cause, if Senator Webb still holds that unenlighten views/words against women in the military from 30 years ago, it will be a big issue for women votes. For that, I have no problem accepting this apology by face value and move on.

Posted by jenn | May 28, 2008 12:47 AM

Has it occurred to anyone that women in the GE are not all liberal and feminists? In fact, I will say the major of women voters in GE (like the soccer mom crowd) may in fact prefer a someone on the ticket with a bit of macho mentality.

I speak for myself (left leaning independent), feel much safer to vote for a ticket with someone that's been through the horror of war and survived. Someone that's hawkish when it comes to maintaining a strong military but insists to only use force as the last resort in the "absolute threat to the national security". In fact, this is the SINGLE BIGGEST ISSUE I have against Hillary and the fact that she willingly failed as a senator to uphold the constitutional obligation in voting for Iraq Resolution.

More over, not everyone woman deems it necessary to have the right to combat in the horrible war. Especially women in GE! There are still about 50% married women who stay at home but turn out to vote. Of cause, if Senator Webb still holds that unenlighten views/words against women in the military from 30 years ago, it will be a big issue for women votes. For that, I have no problem accepting this apology by face value and move on.

Posted by jenn | May 28, 2008 12:48 AM

I'm all for cutting writers as much slack as possible, sfter all, they are trying to get inside a reader's mind in order to let them identify with the characters in a novel.

Still, I was a little uncomfortable with the passage that received a lot of coverage about the soldier returning from battle, walking down the road and picking a little boy up who was naked from the waist down, lifting him up so that he could insert the little boy's penis into his mouth.

That went beyond what I felt was necessary and was purely for shock value. Fine for an author (maybe), questionable for a man who is being considered for Vice President.

Posted by ElliotNC | May 28, 2008 12:53 AM

correction ElliotNC

The passage you're referring to involves a Southeast Asian man and his son.

Questionable? Were you in the service? Have you been to Bangkok or Olangapo?

Posted by j_wyatt | May 28, 2008 1:12 AM

"Still, I was a little uncomfortable with the passage that received a lot of coverage about the soldier returning from battle, walking down the road and picking a little boy up who was naked from the waist down, lifting him up so that he could insert the little boy's penis into his mouth.

That went beyond what I felt was necessary and was purely for shock value. Fine for an author (maybe), questionable for a man who is being considered for Vice President."

Well, first of all, if I remember it correctly, the man put his genitalia in the boy’s mouth, not the other way around. Secondly, the story was of a native tribal society of some sort. There are still societies like that in real life that do adult men-young boy sex stuff. It has nothing to do with homosexuality; it’s about passing on the warrior spirit or something. Tribes in Pappa New Guinea have young boys drinking intoxicating beverages mixed with semen and young boys going out on retreats with older men to have anal sex and learn secrets of the hunt. Basically, tribes like these think of semen as having almost magical properties.

Thirdly, when he wrote the story, he wasn’t thinking about becoming the VP of the United States. And I have a hard time agreeing to the notion that writing a fictional story can somehow preclude you from serving in government at a high level. The people of Virginia, not the most liberal state in the Union, didn’t find it a disqualifying factor in Webb’s Senate race.

Posted by Raindog | May 28, 2008 1:14 AM

I urge the author of this blog to take a closer look at Webb's position on affirmative action. According to OnTheIssues.org, Webb believes that affirmative action should apply only to African-Americans...

This should help indicate how ambivalent Webb is on any given issue -- the man is a natural-born flip-flopper.

Posted by N/A | May 28, 2008 1:16 AM

Thank you for your perspective. I have changed my mind regards Webb as a vice presidential candidate. Hopefully, John Edwards can be persuaded and get on board. A well known southerner would help with the so called Appalachia problem and he has been out and center in regards to poverty.

Posted by John Crandell | May 28, 2008 1:24 AM

Well, you can’t really have both though. That is to say, you can’t have a life-long Republican who could fill in for Obama if something horrible happened after a November victory. I don’t know Zinni’s specific views on the issues but he strikes me as another possible Hagel. A good man, an honorable man opposed to Bush’s reckless foreign policy. But a Republican and a conservative one at that. Obama’s VP should at least think like a Democrat.

It’s another reason to like Webb; you actually do get the best of both worlds. He’s a former Republican with blue-collar cred and unimpeachable national security credentials. And he falls in-line with most of the Democratic Party’s platform, especially economic justice.

Posted by Raindog

I have no problem w/Webb, who is very much like Zinni. I don't know Zinni's position on abortion, affirmative action or the gay marriage issue etc. Surely if Zinni is on Obama's short list all of these subjects will be discussed. My main concern is whether, after (8) years of Bush/Cheney, the v-p will"preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The reason dems usually lose elections is because they are perceived as elitists & wimps, soft on national defense & crime ie McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore & Kerry.

Webb & Zinni obviously don't fall in any of these categories, they are both solid as a rock & don't mince words. As another poster mentioned, Webb defeating "Macaca" Allen did the country a favor by eliminating a flat out racist from ever becoming president. This alone puts him high on my favorite list. The only possible downside is a rep replacing his VA senate seat.

Posted by shiloh | May 28, 2008 1:31 AM

"Hopefully, John Edwards can be persuaded and get on board. A well known southerner would help with the so called Appalachia problem and he has been out and center in regards to poverty."

With respect, Edwards couldn't even win Kerry his own home state in '04. I don't know exactly what his problem is with voters but he has one.

Maybe he doesn't talk about his roots enough. Like, did you know Edwards is the son of a mill-worker?

Posted by Raindog | May 28, 2008 1:37 AM

I wasn't leaning towards Webb anyway but this has outright convinced me. The thing is, even if Webb has undergone a remarkable transformation into a credible progressive as we'd all like to believe, putting him on the ticket would require Obama to justify and explain all of Webb's shall we say uh, inconsistencies. This would obviosuly take up the precious time that could be used to push Obama's message. Furthermore, Obama's message itself would be somehwat impaired by Webb as the idea of Obama as naive and inexperienced on foreign policy would be given full credance. In many ways, it's a risk, and given Obama's desire to run a tight and near-flawless campaign, and his demonstrated ability to do so, Webb is hopefully one risk he won't take.

Posted by Selador | May 28, 2008 3:56 AM

As a former Republican and an independent Obama supporter, I say that Webb is a fantastic choice, and for nearly all the reasons mentioned as to why he would not be a good choice. Get Webb in there, and McCain's entire candidacy becomes a non-issue.

Edwards would NOT be a good choice -- as a candidate, not a Vice President. I'm talking public perception here. Despite the fact that Edwards is a trial lawyer, his genteel politeness and boyish southern charm make him way too effeminate, even to the point of watering down Obama's ability to show forth strength from those exact same attributes. There can only be one.

Obama needs to show that he can lead all the "burly, hard working, honorable crust of the earth Americans" (psssst...which includes middle class whites, but don't say anything). If Webb is number two on the ticket, the symbolism is all there. If Obama is at the top of the ticket with Edwards on it, the symbolism changes. They'll both be EASILY perceived (and painted) as a couple of latte-sipping elitist liberal lightweights who have never known anything besides nancing around on the carpets of luxuriated law firms in their shiny patent leathers. They'll both be painted as liberal out of touch pansies by a huge swash of middle America, and it will STICK.

Edwards? No way. He'd make a great Vice President - even president - if you could just get past that whole "voter perception" thing. Webb, on the other hand, completes Obama, the yin to his yang, and far more "representative of America's former divide" looking.

Posted by Steven Douglas | May 28, 2008 4:50 AM

I am not here to defend Webb as a VP choice; his bald statements on women 15 yrs ago would likely be a sore point for some many women, especially after the defeat of Clinton by Obama. I would point out a couple of points worth considering:

The author's agreement that Webb's holds some "pretty wingnutty opinions and making some fairly outrageous and offensive statements. "Liberals were 'cultural Marxists,' and 'the upper crust of academia and the pampered salons of Hollywood' were a fifth column waging war on American traditions."

Well, those 'wingnutty statements'reflect sentiments held by a very large segment (if not majority) of Americans, including conservative Democrats that Clinton proudly claims to represent, Independents that any Democrat will need to win the presidential election--even in the West where Obama hopes to offset his weakeness in Appalachia and the South.

Those American traditions are tinged with sexist and racial biases, but they also helped make the US the greatest economic, political and military power in history.

Webb's statement on affirmative action is without nuance and an appreciation of the spirit and purpose of the law, but it is also not incorrect.

Finally, with respect to Vietnam, I have not read the Moyar book, and will accept Pearlstein's criticism at face value, but many intellegent analysts without an ideological ax to grind think that the US policy of Vietnamization was working, that is, an American-trained and supervised Vietnamese army support by US airpower was keeping the North Vietnamese in check, allowing the South Vietnamese army to steadily improve. It was only after Congress terminated military aid to Vietnam, and funding for US air support, that the North Vietnamese were able to defeat South Vietnam and overrun Saigon.

Given that Webb served in Vietnam and was Secretary of the Navy, the author might want to afford Webb some degree of respect for his views on the Vietnam War, rather than being "deeply disturbed" by them, as Webb would seem to have a more comprehensive understanding than the author.

If fact, tone of the article, and disrespect the author, and apparently her audience, has for Mr. Webb or anyone that doesn't support her social/poltical views are reasons why much of America distrust liberal Democrats and may elect John McCain instead.

Posted by Mike Lucelo | May 28, 2008 7:00 AM

I am not here to defend Webb as a VP choice; his bald statements on women 15 yrs ago would likely be a sore point for some many women, especially after the defeat of Clinton by Obama. I would point out a couple of points worth considering:

The author's agreement that Webb's holds some "pretty wingnutty opinions and making some fairly outrageous and offensive statements. "Liberals were 'cultural Marxists,' and 'the upper crust of academia and the pampered salons of Hollywood' were a fifth column waging war on American traditions."

Well, those 'wingnutty statements'reflect sentiments held by a very large segment (if not majority) of Americans, including conservative Democrats that Clinton proudly claims to represent, Independents that any Democrat will need to win the presidential election--even in the West where Obama hopes to offset his weakeness in Appalachia and the South.

Those American traditions are tinged with sexist and racial biases, but they also helped make the US the greatest economic, political and military power in history.

Webb's statement on affirmative action is without nuance and an appreciation of the spirit and purpose of the law, but it is also not incorrect.

Finally, with respect to Vietnam, I have not read the Moyar book, and will accept Pearlstein's criticism at face value, but many intellegent analysts without an ideological ax to grind think that the US policy of Vietnamization was working, that is, an American-trained and supervised Vietnamese army support by US airpower was keeping the North Vietnamese in check, allowing the South Vietnamese army to steadily improve. It was only after Congress terminated military aid to Vietnam, and funding for US air support, that the North Vietnamese were able to defeat South Vietnam and overrun Saigon.

Given that Webb served in Vietnam and was Secretary of the Navy, the author might want to afford Webb some degree of respect for his views on the Vietnam War, rather than being "deeply disturbed" by them, as Webb would seem to have a more comprehensive understanding than the author.

If fact, tone of the article, and disrespect the author, and apparently her audience, has for Mr. Webb or anyone that doesn't support her social/poltical views are reasons why much of America distrust liberal Democrats and may elect John McCain instead.

Posted by Mike Lucelo | May 28, 2008 7:01 AM

You've convinced me too.

Posted by Wayne | May 28, 2008 7:35 AM

There is one more reason not to pick Webb:

Because the next VP really ought to be named Kathy.

Posted by KathyF | May 28, 2008 7:37 AM

Gee, thanks, Steamboater, for illustrating my points for me. You've declared you can't support Webb as VP because he's a white, Southern redneck without even bothering to find out how he stands on gay rights. Webb doesn't have a problem with gay rights. Sheesh. Sounds like between the two of you it's not Webb who's the bigot. Get a clue.

Posted by Irritated Woman | May 28, 2008 8:28 AM

I wish I could have made the argument so eloquently! I lived in Northern Virginia during his campaign and senate election. I couldn't vote for him or Allen. My husband did vote for Webb. I am still trying to convince my husband now that Webb would not be a good VP and I sent him a link to this blog. I think that men love that Webb has a military background; but I think most don't know about all the history that will resurface.
On another note, I didn't only choose not to vote, I couldn't because I was 9 months pregnant and about to have a baby anytime. I tried to qualify for an absentee ballot ahead of time but they said pregnancy was not a legitimate reason and the only way they would do it is if I got a Dr. note that I would be admitted at that time. As I was not crazy about either candidate, I didn't bother. Nor did I know if I would be admitted and thought it would be strange to ask my Dr. for such a note like I was in preschool.

Posted by Jennybabe | May 28, 2008 9:41 AM

Not only is Jim Webb a Republican in mufti, courtesy of Sen. Chuck Schumer; his recent comparison of the Scotch-Irish of Appalachia with African-Americans is wrong-headed, and borders on being vicious.

Namely, the assertion that his "cultural group," the Scotche-Irish of Appalachia, has suffered the same disdain from the government as people of color.

One wishes to ask him face to face:

Name one Scotch-Irish American who has been kidnapped from his homeland, brought to these shores in chains, sold as a slave, counted by the Constitution as only three-fifths of a citizen, denied service in commercial enterprises, shunted to the back of public vehicles, relegated to reside in deplorable ghettoized areas, denied the benefits of public education, lynched, shot, garrotted, and shunned, and had to suffer having the egregiuous epithet nigger hurled at him or her, because of his ethnicity?

This, alone, should disqualify Webb, not only from becoming Senator Obama's running mate, it should also disqualify him from continuing to serve in the Senate.

No to Jim Webb as Obama's running mate.

Posted by Stuart Hample | May 28, 2008 9:46 AM

Not only is Jim Webb a Republican in mufti, courtesy of Sen. Chuck Schumer; his recent comparison of the Scotch-Irish of Appalachia with African-Americans is wrong-headed, and borders on being vicious.

Namely, the assertion that his "cultural group," the Scotche-Irish of Appalachia, has suffered the same disdain from the government as people of color.

One wishes to ask him face to face:

Name one Scotch-Irish American who has been kidnapped from his homeland, brought to these shores in chains, sold as a slave, counted by the Constitution as only three-fifths of a citizen, denied service in commercial enterprises, shunted to the back of public vehicles, relegated to reside in deplorable ghettoized areas, denied the benefits of public education, lynched, shot, garrotted, and shunned, and had to suffer having the egregiuous epithet nigger hurled at him or her, because of his ethnicity?

This, alone, should disqualify Webb, not only from becoming Senator Obama's running mate, it should also disqualify him from continuing to serve in the Senate.

No to Jim Webb as Obama's running mate.

Posted by Stuart Hample | May 28, 2008 9:46 AM

@Stuart Hample:

...namely, the assertion that his "cutural group," the Scotche-Irish of Appalachia, has suffered the same disdain from the government as people of color.

How about a quote Stu? I'm not aware of Webb having asserted such a crude equivalence. Indeed his stated position on affirmative action (a just idea w/regard to the descendants of slaves; nonsense for everyone else) is pretty inconsistent with the view you assign to him.

Allowing for differences in kind and degree in various groups' histories of oppression (indeed, how many "people of color" who weren't sub-Saharan Africans were enslaved, etc.?) - if you don't believe that the Scots-Irish of Appalachia have been and are still being treated as second-class citizens by much of the rest of the country, well, you don't know sh*t (and you might want to look in the mirror). Appalachia is essentially a domestic colony, viewed by the nation as a resource extraction zone where it's fine to devastate the land and pillage the local economy because the inhabitants are backward, ignorant, prejudiced, poor, stupid, drunk, drug-addicted, inbred, etc. I mean, one would like to help them, but it's just pointless. All those welfare checks for decades and they still can't pull themselves up by their bootstraps? Sad, really. Tsk. Meanwhile, we're sure happy about our energy and railroad stocks booming along with coal extraction, which is remarkably cheaper when you fire 3/4 of your miners and just blow up the entire mountain. Clean Coal!

Posted by donald | May 28, 2008 10:25 AM

Jennybabe, you might want to check out Virginia's rules on early (rather than absentee) voting. I've voted early numerous times and it's not hard. You go to your local courthouse and vote for one to two weeks in advance of the election. You sign an affidavit explaining the reason for your early voting.

For those who keep referring to Jim Webb as a southern redneck, John Edwards and Bill Clinton are way more southern than Webb. Apparently, the only sure way not to be a redneck is not to serve in the military.

Webb grew up all over and went to college in California. The only reason you think he is southern, apparently, is because his ancestors are from Southwest Virginia, and eventually, he returned to DC Metro to work and live. How can you express the slightest opinion about someone you know next to nothing about?

From Wikipedia:

Webb was born in Saint Joseph, Missouri to James Henry Webb and his wife Vera Lorraine Hodges.[1] He grew up in a military family, descended from Scots Irish immigrants from Ulster (northern Ireland) who emigrated in the 18th century to the British North American colonies. Webb's 2004 book Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America details his family history, noting that his ancestors fought in every major American war.

* * *

Because of his father's military career, Webb grew up on the move, attending more than a dozen schools across the U.S. and in England. After graduating from high school in Bellevue, Nebraska, he attended the University of Southern California on a Navy Reserve Officer Training Corps scholarship from 1963–1964 (and was a member of Delta Chi). In 1964, Webb earned appointment to the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. At Annapolis, Webb was a member of the Brigade Honor Committee. He also won a varsity letter for boxing, at one point fighting a controversial match against Oliver North which Webb lost. He graduated in 1968 . . .

Posted by Barbara | May 28, 2008 10:45 AM

Thanks Barbara! I no longer live in Virginia. I do wish that the election official that I had email correspondance with had offered the same insight as yourself.

Posted by Jennybabe | May 28, 2008 12:13 PM

I really like Jim Webb as a senator, and he was on my short list for VP. However, reviewing his past characterization of women as something akin to "arm candy" and his marital status (SECOND trophy wife), it seems he still secretly sees women as sexual objects - nothing more. Now down to W. Clark or Hagel as my choice.

Posted by Kathleen | May 28, 2008 2:00 PM

I'm a pretty mixed bag. Both sides of my family are Appalachian, I'm a woman, and I'm gay. And I support Jim Webb for the VP slot.

I found the characterization in this article two-dimensional (and sometimes one), and not a little fear mongering. That so many posters have thrown in against Webb based on this one article is amazing. I would suggest actually reading any of his books, going to YouTube and watching his interviews etc. rather than rely solely on the opinons of one blogger. I'd say anyone who could make him into some Neaderthal, wing-nutty cartoon simply hasn't look beyond the negative sound-bites, and done any real homework. I could sit down right now and scare the bejessus out of you about Obama himself, by cherry-picking statements and quoting out of context or disgruntled people (but Limbaugh etc beat me to it). I didn't think we wanted to play that way..I thought we libs were comfortable and smart enuf for "nuance".

Webb is a complicated man, no doubt, and he's not a left-liberal wet-dream, I agree. But he's extremely capable, experienced, and done nothing to convince me he's not essentially a good man - and I don't fear anything he would do to me as a woman, lesbian, or borderline peace-nik. Obama was comfortable enough with him to campaign for him in Virginia during Webb's Senate run (Again, look on YouTube for the vid). He seemed to admire the man and support him. He certainly had a lot of good things to say. I trust his judgement.

An Obama/Webb ticket would be the very EMBODIMENT of Obama's convention speech ("..There is no Blue or Red America, but the UNITED States of America"). It would show quite clearly that Obama intends to walk the talk about working for ALL Americans, and not just those we liberals think deserve the secret hand-shake and password.

If we are SERIOUS about uniting this freakin' country, we have to get out of OUR comfort zones a little. Just as we are asking swing state voters, Independents, and even potential "Obamicans" to do, by voting for Obama. A Biden or Daschle will not add much of anything to that mix. Webb could potentially put into play areas written off by many pundits and pundit-wannabees.

My Appalachian mother is a life-long Republican, who twice voted for Bush (I know, my brothers and I TRIED), her husband was in the Air Force, her son was as well -and in Desert Storm, and her grandson just joined the Marines. She said even before the primaries started that Obama was one of only two politicians she admired (She despises McCain, and by that time Bush wasn't one on them). But she's also well aware of the contempt many libs show to rural Americans, and so has not trusted or believed in the Dems. (Yes, she bought Bush's man-of-the-people BS) She's inching out of her comfort zone, and someone like Webb could put her over. And she is not an isolated case. We are poised to break this wide open, folks, if we don't blow it.

Big picture. We CAN unite this country. But we have to open our minds and hearts and stop being our own worst enemies. And rather than keep throwing things at each other across the divide, stop and ask who and what put this divide there in the first place, and dismantle the damn thing. We have to do that on BOTH sides. That has been Webb's message. Listen to the man.

And as a final aside, some libs (correctly) bemoan (some) poor whites pissing on black just to find somebody to feel superior to. But if I had a dollar for every time I've heard hillbilly, cracker, redneck, inbred (my personal favorite), etc, on the liberal/progressive forums - well, you know the saying. Perhaps some libs feel the need to feel superior to others too. Maybe you're not that different after all.

Posted by Lennox | May 28, 2008 3:14 PM

“I really like Jim Webb as a senator, and he was on my short list for VP. However, reviewing his past characterization of women as something akin to "arm candy" and his marital status (SECOND trophy wife), it seems he still secretly sees women as sexual objects - nothing more. Now down to W. Clark or Hagel as my choice.”

This is bizarre.

First of all, just because Webb’s wife is young, she’s automatically a trophy wife? Why is that? She’s also Vietnamese, which speaks to something entirely different, perhaps a way to chase away ghosts? That and maybe he actually loves her?

Second, have you not actually read where Sen. Webb says that women belong in the military and in high command positions? He said that women in the last 20-30 or so years have proven him wrong.

Third, you think Webb is no good but Hagel is ok? Hagel?!? Chuck Hagel is an honorable man but he’s also conservative as hell. Aside from Iraq, he’s probably more conservative than McCain. May I bring up one number? 88. That’s the age of Justice John Paul Stevens when the next President is inaugurated.

Man, unbelievable.

Posted by Raindog | May 28, 2008 4:08 PM

"She's inching out of her comfort zone, and someone like Webb could put her over. And she is not an isolated case. We are poised to break this wide open, folks, if we don't blow it.

Big picture. We CAN unite this country. But we have to open our minds and hearts and stop being our own worst enemies. And rather than keep throwing things at each other across the divide, stop and ask who and what put this divide there in the first place, and dismantle the damn thing. We have to do that on BOTH sides. That has been Webb's message. Listen to the man."

Wow. That is very well-put. My hat's off to you.

Posted by Raindog | May 28, 2008 4:14 PM

Very well said. Thanks much to Kathy G. for writing it; and thanks much to Matt for giving her the forum to put this so squarely on the table.

Responding to Lennox' point, I don't think this post paints Webb as a Neanderthal. But after the general silence of the Democratic party in the face of overwhelmingly sexist coverage of the Clinton campaign -- and a string of sexist attacks on Clinton and her supporters from other Democrats -- I do see it as painting a picture of somebody whose selection is likely to be perceived as another slap in the face to women. Agreed, that's not the only consideration; I think it's worth taking into account.

However, I do very much agree with Lennox' other point that there's a huge amount of elitism in the way many pundits and those in the "progressive" blogosphere talk about white Southerners and Appalaichans -- and poorer rural whites in general. Healing needs to happen in a bunch of different dimensions.

Posted by jon | May 28, 2008 4:34 PM

If Webb wants to bail out of Virginia, I say let him go -- good riddance.

Posted by N/A | May 28, 2008 6:41 PM

I thank you as a military woman who has several friends who are women Naval Academy grads and middies for reminding us of what many may have forgotten or not wanted to realize--that Webb has a horrid record on women in the military, and has not truly changed his mind about them or changed his masculinist, Hackworth school rhetoric about military service.

Talk to any Marine who served in the 80s and they can tell you what Webb did to women and their roles while he was Secretary of the Navy.

Posted by Abbey | May 28, 2008 8:17 PM

You know you like it, sweetie. Webb. Clinton. Obama. You liberal girls like the bad boy type don't you?

Posted by WJC | May 29, 2008 10:13 AM

You know you like it, sweetie. Webb. Clinton. Obama. You liberal girls like the bad boy type don't you?

Posted by WJC | May 29, 2008 10:15 AM

Oh, but Webb could help Obama with his Muslim goals! Let's get all those women in black bags.

Posted by Jane doe | May 29, 2008 10:55 AM

Oh, but Webb could help Obama with his Muslim goals! Let's get all those women in black bags.

Posted by Jane doe | May 29, 2008 10:56 AM

Oh, but Webb could help Obama with his Muslim goals! Let's get all those women in black bags.

Posted by Jane doe | May 29, 2008 10:56 AM

Oh, but Webb could help Obama with his Muslim goals! Let's get all those women in black bags.

Posted by Jane doe | May 29, 2008 10:58 AM

Oh, but Webb could help Obama with his Muslim goals! Let's get all those women in black bags.

Posted by Jane doe | May 29, 2008 10:59 AM

I'm a woman and I loved Webb for Obama. Now I'm not so sure. I don't think his right wing-nutty leanings would hurt anything, especially in red states, but I suspect his women-belong-in-the-kitchen attitude would turn off a lot of female Clintonites who are trying to convince themselves somebody "stole" the Democratic nomination from Hillary because she's got a vajajay. The truth is that Clinton's inept, short-sighted campaign strategy coupled with her penchant for lies and manipulation are to blame.

Posted by Nona | May 29, 2008 11:08 AM

At first glance Webb may seem like a strange choice. But take an objective look and you see he may be the balance the Dems will need in the general election.

Far from being the "wing nut" you describe, Webb has a long and proud history in defense, both as a public servant of it (Marine career and Secretary of the Navy) and in defense of it (academies female policy and Tailhook). While he may be outrageous to the alarmists in the feminist camps, his defense of the military culture is actually quite nuanced, articulate and, in my humblest of opinions, correct.

If Obama, one of the most liberal and junior members of the Senate, is to be competetive in the general election, he must bring someone on who is far right of him.

Posted by Bill | May 29, 2008 12:22 PM

"If Obama, one of the most liberal and junior members of the Senate, is to be competetive in the general election, he must bring someone on who is far right of him."

Obama is actually a very moderate-right member of the Senate. He needs someone who is well to the *left* of him -- on economic issues, anyway!

He is certainly junior. He does need someone who has more experience -- preferably executive experience, like a governor. (Sebelius keeps being mentioned, as does Bill Richardson, and Janet Napolitano...)

Posted by Anon. | May 29, 2008 9:34 PM

look, i dont mean to criticize as i feel you made a very persuasive argument

that said, some of the nuances were not fully supported in facts

e.g.
webb is from virginia, where the dem governor would appoint another dem. to say that virginia is hopelessly a red state belittles the tremendous progress that has been made to render it a swing state in 2008

webb won the 2006 against Allen against all odds and did MUCH better among the groups that you say he was weak with than democrats have historically done in Virginia.

the list goes on ...

I realize that you northern, wacky liberals think that only elitists can win national elections and you feel that another northern liberal (who would bring nothing to the ticket) would just be the greatest thing, but such a philosophy is simply dumb. here's a thought: diversify!

please don't exploit the facts to spread misinformation.

Posted by j sess | May 30, 2008 1:50 AM

For all the people who were "convinced" by this article that Webb is a bad choice for VP (and I'm not saying he is a good choice either) you need to come up with your opinions, not just accept them like sheep from someone who can present their ideas well. This article was a Jim Webb bash-fest. It only concentrated on the negatives and didn't really say much about why he might be a good VP. I know that was the point of this article, but it just goes to show how many people will follow someone blindly before seeing both sides of an argument. Stop being so naive and formulate your own ideas through your own research instead of just taking someone's word for it. [As far as the Webb's (most likely outdated) stance on women in the military - most men in the army thought that at the time, you're just penalizing Webb for actually saying it.]

Posted by Fremin | May 30, 2008 10:49 AM

For all the people who were "convinced" by this article that Webb is a bad choice for VP (and I'm not saying he is a good choice either) you need to come up with your opinions, not just accept them like sheep from someone who can present their ideas well. This article was a Jim Webb bash-fest. It only concentrated on the negatives and didn't really say much about why he might be a good VP. I know that was the point of this article, but it just goes to show how many people will follow someone blindly before seeing both sides of an argument. Stop being so naive and formulate your own ideas through your own research instead of just taking someone's word for it. [As far as the Webb's (most likely outdated) stance on women in the military - most men in the army thought that at the time, you're just penalizing Webb for actually saying it.]

Posted by Fremin | May 30, 2008 10:51 AM

I appreciate your background on this question and Webb is not a perfect candidate. But I have to respond to five things:

1) Not all supporters of Webb are liberal men with "man-crushes," and it kind of weakens your point to set up these "straw-men." The weird, insulting homophobia of that line of attack is silly.

2) If Webb was selected, the Democratic Governor would select a solid democrat to hold the seat and run for re-election in 2010 (Cong Boucher, Creigh Deeds and Moran come to mind). This doesn't seem much like a fear here.

3) The idea that by choosing someone with military/foreign experience we are admitting this weakness, and that we should just take someone else with no background in that area so no one will notice foreign policy is just laughable. We're in the middle of a war and foreign policy is the #1 or #2 responsibility of the President so I think it's crucial that Obama choose someone who reinforces his war positions with unimpeachable expertise. Webb fulfills that role.

4) He also helps win Virginia and is ideally suited to make a play for Appalachia throughout the US, which is Obama's biggest correctable electoral weakness.

5) A lot of folks say moderates play an important role in our big tent party and welcome them, but then when they actually hold views different from our own, we all look disgusted. Obama has talked about reaching across party lines and listening to good ideas from everyone. We have to allow him to choose someone who is not a dyed-in-the-wool liberal.

Posted by st paul sage | May 30, 2008 5:34 PM

So much has been said already about the flaws in this article that it's hard to add very much. However, let me be the second person to refer to the author's denigration of Dr. Moyar's book, which in fact I have read. (Among many others concerning that war history garnered in my long study of the war.) Dr. Moyar quotes many facts gleaned from detailed research in the US and in Viet Nam, including the archives in Hanoi, to support a more accurate picture of that complex history. (More/better data used to develop a better historical account is in fact quite proper revisionism for an historian to engage in.) His book may be considered partisan in parts by some, but it is overall a very competent and well presented work. The casual dismissal of it by Kathy G. as ultra wing-nutty says much more about her and her biases than it does about Jim Webb.

Posted by MarDivPhoto | May 31, 2008 2:39 PM

I think Webb would be a perfect VP match for Obama: an inexperienced Senator teamed up with an inexperienced Senator. Between them they have what, maybe two year's experience (remember, Obama has 0 years of experience since he started running for President as soon as he got elected Senator)? But on the plus side, Webb would add some testosterone to the effeminate Obama.

But seriously, I would never want Webb in any public office if I could help it. He proved what an a**hole he is at a function at the White House, where Bush was being polite and gracious and asked him how his son was, and Webb tore his head off and made it political. To think that this man was elected simply because Senator Allen called a guy who was constantly harassing him "macaca" once. Maybe this shows we should start electing people based on issues and character, instead of one word uttered to try to get a constant pest to stop trying to disrupt political events. Because of that, we ended up with a loser like Webb.

Posted by MrReasonable | June 2, 2008 6:35 PM

I think Webb would be a perfect VP match for Obama: an inexperienced Senator teamed up with an inexperienced Senator. Between them they have what, maybe two year's experience (remember, Obama has 0 years of experience since he started running for President as soon as he got elected Senator)? But on the plus side, Webb would add some testosterone to the effeminate Obama.

But seriously, I would never want Webb in any public office if I could help it. He proved what an a**hole he is at a function at the White House, where Bush was being polite and gracious and asked him how his son was, and Webb tore his head off and made it political. To think that this man was elected simply because Senator Allen called a guy who was constantly harassing him "macaca" once. Maybe this shows we should start electing people based on issues and character, instead of one word uttered to try to get a constant pest to stop trying to disrupt political events. Because of that, we ended up with a loser like Webb.

Posted by MrReasonable | June 2, 2008 6:36 PM

I think Webb would be a perfect VP match for Obama: an inexperienced Senator teamed up with an inexperienced Senator. Between them they have what, maybe two year's experience (remember, Obama has 0 years of experience since he started running for President as soon as he got elected Senator)? But on the plus side, Webb would add some testosterone to the effeminate Obama.

But seriously, I would never want Webb in any public office if I could help it. He proved what an a**hole he is at a function at the White House, where Bush was being polite and gracious and asked him how his son was, and Webb tore his head off and made it political. To think that this man was elected simply because Senator Allen called a guy who was constantly harassing him "macaca" once. Maybe this shows we should start electing people based on issues and character, instead of one word uttered to try to get a constant pest to stop trying to disrupt political events. Because of that, we ended up with a loser like Webb.

Posted by MrReasonable | June 2, 2008 6:38 PM

Amazing to see how many people instantly change their minds after reading one opinion column. One. Not a whole bunch. Just one. What does that say about you? I like Webb and I respect him as well. However, I'm not too sure he's the best VP choice at all. But my opinion is based on reading more than one hit piece.

I'll also say this: as a Democrat since I was first old enough to vote, I'm fed up with the interest groups that plague the party. Now it's the women. Well, sisters, get over it. Hillary ain't getting the nomination. Get over the burning man hatred and start thinking about how your country will be with a continuation of the ruinous Bush era. You know, we're asking the nation to make a quantum lead in leaving our despicable racist heritage behind; the least Democratic women can do is get over their pique at their candidate's well-deserved loss and start thinking about what's best for the nation.

You want McCain? Then abandon Obama because he's not Hillary or because of his VP choice. Or because of whatever. Talk about reinforcing stereotypes. Let's not forget that it was women who put Bush over the top in the first place.

Posted by Nixon Did It | June 2, 2008 9:35 PM

@Nixon Did It: Nope, it's not just the women who are delusional about Hillary losing the ticket. There are lots of dudes who heart pants suits. And then there's a ton of women, like myself, who like them both but dig Obama more (and some who detest Sen. Clinton). So please don't paint us all with xx chromosomes as pro-Hillary (and the same goes for us brown folks).

Posted by Michelle | June 3, 2008 12:49 AM

Well, I'm a woman, and a feminist, and I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary - and I would LOVE to see Webb on the Obama ticket. I find him passionate, honest, full of conviction, extremely intelligent and well spoken. And I think he would be a superb complement to Obama demographically.

Posted by Anonymous | June 4, 2008 4:11 PM

I find it amusing that the vast majority of women who claim to be horrified by Webb's "Women Can't Fight" article have (1) never read it, (2) have no intention of joining the military (3) do not know anyone in the military (4) have never so much as visited a friend in a VA hospital. Still, they are convinced that women - not women like them - are being held back.

Posted by Mary Schindler | June 4, 2008 4:15 PM

Webb's problems in VA were mostly over his being labeled 'liberal' over some of his fictional imagery. George Allen was not a damaged candidate in VA simply because he had used a racial slur.

Nor is Webb's daddy having been a career Air Force officer who provided for his family a middle class lifestyle very likely to turn him into an elitist in Appalachia.

It is his rough edge, his history of moving away from the cultural effeteness perceived by Scots/Irish as what the Democratic agenda consists of which is his strength.

It all comes down to the map Obama wants to draw. If he needs Scots/Irish Appalachia, there's nobody better to bring that group, and challenge McCain on that front than Jim Webb.

Posted by Allen Goyne | June 4, 2008 4:40 PM

Webb is definitely 100% correct on women in the military, but indeed this would be a liability. Those pathetic cows who stampeded for Hillary would certainly stay home and get even fatter instead of voting for Obama if Webb were the VP pick. Too bad.

Posted by David Nystrom | June 4, 2008 4:55 PM

THANK YOU. All of your points are well stated, but I'm especially grateful that you made the case against him so clearly regarding his very aggregious record on military women. As an '81 grad of USNA, I remember all too well the damage he did to us and the repercussions we felt for many years (and still do).

Posted by Marycarol Hennessy | June 5, 2008 1:56 PM

Although being put off by all the inflammatory words like "smitten" and "mancrushes", and the cute little "looonnnggg" allusion, not to mention the brilliant, incisive and deeply intelligent title of your blog, The G Spot, I read on.

I found a very clear and excellent elucidation of the negatives on Sen. Webb. I am very disturbed by his endorsement of the Moyar book.

Then I got to the women in the military part, and you jumped the shark (or nuked the fridge). You proved yourself to be just another dogmatic feministe who can't see the forest for the trees.

You blindly take no account at all of the many ways in which women do not fit in the military. Women are given privileged status from the get-go in the service academies by not having to suffer what I have to call, for lack of a better word, the "deindividualization" of having their heads shaved because this would be an act of "shaming" them. The men go through this to remind them that they are now raw material to be trained. Women, however, do not go through this. No, they are still adorned with their fair locks and do not go through this initiation. How many other ways are there that this system is tilted so as not to offend the sensibilities of the women? I don't know.

I was going to consciousness-raising rap groups in the 60's so that we, as men, could learn what the women's movement was all about and so that we could hear first hand the ways that women had been stereotyped and disempowered. It was truly enlightening and became a part of my makeup. I understood.

I have never voted for a conservative or a republican in my life, but have found that there are some places in my body that respond to traditional ways, even though I did all the dope smoking, and marching for civil rights and equal rights for women.

But somewhere way back there, equal got translated as same, and equal does not = same. If we take a little time to see where we have made this shift without knowing it, we might come to a more agreeable outcome than just this same old mistranslation.

I am also a single father of a grown woman, we have a great and open relationship, can talk about almost anything and love each other very much with no holds barred and nothing left unsaid.

The law of unintended consequences is something we all ignored back during the renaissance of the 60's, and now we are living with a lot of the results of that blindness.

You are asking men, at the bottom of the military pile, to cease looking at every woman as a sexual creature, particularly in the close and intense quarters of the fighting forces. You are also asking them to override not only their instincts for self-preservation (cowardice), but the instinct to reproduce themselves when they might die this very next minute. Fine. But have you not imagined that this same favor (remember, no shaved heads) accorded to the female gender could possibly not then shift to comrade in arms but sister? Or even little sister? What, then, is it like for a boy from a small town to make this shift in his mind and then to see that sister blown in half?

We are going to have an avalanche of veterans needing help with the issues and traumas when they come back from this war. Since they mostly came from small towns and rural areas, the VA offices are swamped with veterans, some who travel many miles to get help and services, even if they are within driving distance.

I really do offer this with much respect for your political acumen and the ability to see right through the issue of Sen. Webb's suitability for the VP slot.

The DACOWITS agenda and the issues thereof, are not graven in stone and are not easily simplified.

I am also a veteran of the Vietnam era US Army and just wanted to say this.

I imagine this will offend some, possibly deeply, but that is NOT my intent. I hope some can hear what I am saying.

Posted by Lou Perryman | June 5, 2008 4:04 PM

While I agree that Senator Webb is something of a loose cannon and has a problem temperament, much of this polemic against him was concocted of simple-minded partisan bias.

For example, your dismissal of Moyar's book as uber-wingnutty revisionist history, far-right propaganda posing as history, illustrates your partisan slant. Your prejudice leads you to dismiss as absurd that the "Vietnam War was winnable, and that only the treachery of liberal elites in the media and the government prevented America from achieving "victory.""

Yes, of course, the Vietnam War was winnable. Colonel Bui Tin of the North Vietnamese General Staff said that for America to win the war, "Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war." The North Vietnamese were surprised that the US never took this obvious step to win.

The Tet Offensive of 1968 was a catastrophic defeat for the North Vietnamese in which 85% or more of their assaulting forces had been annihilated. Not wounded or captured, but killed. That is about as bad as you can be beaten, but the US press portrayed the Tet Offensive as a decisive defeat for America and a North Vietnamese victory, turning the truth on its head.

It's fair to call such dishonest media coverage treacherous. It's as if the US media in WWII called the Battle of the Bulge a German victory and consequently declared the war unwinnable by the US.

Posted by Steve Gregg | June 5, 2008 7:47 PM

While I agree that Senator Webb is something of a loose cannon and has a problem temperament, much of this polemic against him was concocted of simple-minded partisan bias.

For example, your dismissal of Moyar's book as uber-wingnutty revisionist history, far-right propaganda posing as history, illustrates your partisan slant. Your prejudice leads you to dismiss as absurd that the "Vietnam War was winnable, and that only the treachery of liberal elites in the media and the government prevented America from achieving "victory.""

Yes, of course, the Vietnam War was winnable. Colonel Bui Tin of the North Vietnamese General Staff said that for America to win the war, "Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war." The North Vietnamese were surprised that the US never took this obvious step to win.

The Tet Offensive of 1968 was a catastrophic defeat for the North Vietnamese in which 85% or more of their assaulting forces had been annihilated. Not wounded or captured, but killed. That is about as bad as you can be beaten, but the US press portrayed the Tet Offensive as a decisive defeat for America and a North Vietnamese victory, turning the truth on its head.

It's fair to call such dishonest media coverage treacherous. It's as if the US media in WWII called the Battle of the Bulge a German victory and consequently declared the war unwinnable by the US.

Posted by Steve Gregg | June 5, 2008 7:48 PM

While I agree that Senator Webb is something of a loose cannon and has a problem temperament, much of this polemic against him was concocted of simple-minded partisan bias.

For example, your dismissal of Moyar's book as uber-wingnutty revisionist history, far-right propaganda posing as history, illustrates your partisan slant. Your prejudice leads you to dismiss as absurd that the "Vietnam War was winnable, and that only the treachery of liberal elites in the media and the government prevented America from achieving "victory.""

Yes, of course, the Vietnam War was winnable. Colonel Bui Tin of the North Vietnamese General Staff said that for America to win the war, "Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war." The North Vietnamese were surprised that the US never took this obvious step to win.

The Tet Offensive of 1968 was a catastrophic defeat for the North Vietnamese in which 85% or more of their assaulting forces had been annihilated. Not wounded or captured, but killed. That is about as bad as you can be beaten, but the US press portrayed the Tet Offensive as a decisive defeat for America and a North Vietnamese victory, turning the truth on its head.

It's fair to call such dishonest media coverage treacherous. It's as if the US media in WWII called the Battle of the Bulge a German victory and consequently declared the war unwinnable by the US.

Posted by Steve Gregg | June 5, 2008 7:49 PM