Testosterone Politics

As Ezra says, I think it's clear that a lot of the Jim Webb fanboys in left-of-center ranks are significantly driven by a somewhat Chris Matthews-esque infatuation with his Acqua Velva scent. On the other hand, a lot of what's driving pro-Webb sentiment is a meta-level sense that these qualities will appeal to other voters in much the same way that various liberals thought John Kerry's war record would make him appealing to other people.

And, of course, as I've said before it's hard to even tease these things apart, because people have a tendency to project onto swing voters a desire for the exact same qualities that they themselves desire. One interesting twist on this, however, is that the most prominent pushers of a strongly masculinist conception of the presidency haven't been Obamaphile Webb fans, it's been a certain segment of Hillary Clinton supporters who in a weird way seem to have decided that backing a woman candidate give them carte blanche to be as sexist as they wanna be in arguing that Barack Obama's too effiminate to be president.

Last, it's worth noting that the best evidence available suggests that women who acquire a major party nomination don't face any unique disadvantages. Instead, we have few women in elected office because they don't run as often largely because of structural barriers. I think the apparently widespread assumption (one contradicted by the fact that women who do run seem to do fine and, of course, the fact that most voters are women) that the public is craving hyper-masculinity counts as one such barrier and it's one that's massively restricting the talent pool for progressive politics since a large majority of liberals are women.

Comments

ITYM "Accura Velva"

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 30, 2008 8:52 AM

Chait makes a good point about Clinton trying to hyper-masculinize the role of the presidency and talking of it in only military and culturally conservative terms. It would be like if a pro-war gay candidate was running and trying to femininize his opponent by mocking their background and better foreign policy in a way to insinuate they were a wimp. Carville's comment about Clinton having three balls is a way of actually accepting those conservative jokes about Clinton have a dick and balls, but saying it's a good thing that she's politically and culturally a hermaphrodite while Obama is a eunuch because Clinton likes to kill innocent animals while hunting and bomb brown people for no reason. What Clinton's run may have done if successful is make it harder for female candidates who share the outlook of most women on issues like foreign policy by legitimizing critiques of them as too weak.

Posted by Reality Man | May 30, 2008 9:02 AM

I wouldn't quite call myself a Webb "fanboy," but like many, I do like that his attachement to policies ameleriating inequality are deep and heartfelt. His pugnaciousness on behalf of them are certainly welcome.

Posted by David | May 30, 2008 9:18 AM

That's a fair point about Webb, but it's not the whole story. Webb is smart and literary; he seems unusually frank; he's held hearings about our country's absurd incarceration rate; he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning; he's opposed to the death penalty (with very few exceptions).

Yes, he holds some views and ideas I don't love, and I'm not sure he's temperamentally suited to be the VP (doesn't seem like a bite-your-tongue, defer to #1 kind of guy). And losing his Senate seat would not be a good thing. But I would still be excited about him as the VP, and it's not just because he's such a manly man.

Posted by PJ | May 30, 2008 9:19 AM

I agree with PJ-- although it's also true that Webb might as well have 'loose cannon' tattooed to his forehead.

Posted by MattF | May 30, 2008 9:26 AM

Matt should be excited about Webb as a uniquely good standard bearer for his foreign policy ideas. As a decorated marine infantryman in Vietnam and Reagan's Secretary of the Navy (who resigned because he refused to reduce the size of the fleet) he has impeccable Hawk credentials. Despite that, he has been saying many of the things Matt now says (e.g. don't occupy foreign countries) back before the war, and said so publicly. He backs regional diplomacy as a solution to our Iraq/Iran problems. Etc. Whether you think its the aqua velva or the Navy Cross, he's just far more credible on these things than 99% of Democrats will ever be. He is one of the few people who can move the conversation in the direction Matt wants. And he gets great press.

Posted by DCreader | May 30, 2008 9:36 AM

1) To suggest that those who speak well of James Webb are suffering from an attack of "manlove" is the type of cheap, unthinking insult that passes for courage in Washington DC. When such an insult can be typed on a keyboard --instead of uttered face to face --that is even better.

2) I do not know if Webb is the best choice for VP. I do suggest that he might have a form of courage that is extremely rare in Washington DC these days. Not the courage to engage in combat on a battlefield but the courage to accept personal career damage if that is the price of acting in the national interest. Webb is one of the few men to resign for a high level position over a matter of principle.

3) In an earlier thread, I noted that Pat Buchanan was strongly criticizing the Neocons, Bush and the proposed Iraq War back in 2002 --at a time when most of Washington DC was disseminating Bush's lies like a flock of sheep.
Pat paid a price professionally for that courage.

4) In reply Another reader --Nathan --commented :
"I admire Pat Buchanan for his consistent opposition to the war but there are no heros here. Fear is what drove so many people who should have known better to support this horrible mistake."
Ref: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/pressure_from_corporate_execut.php#comments

But what Nathan cites is NOT fear of Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein. But fear of a career setback. Fear that the Israel Lobby might fund a competitor --as they did in the attacks on Cynthia McKinney and Howard Dean. Fear that the News media might attack you for not following the Washington line.

5) This is why many of us support new men like James Webb and Barack Obama.

We have a seething hatred and contempt for those well-established cowards --like Hillary Clinton -- who have never had to face a bullet, have never had to serve in combat , and yet who have sent 4000 soldiers to their deaths just because they couldn't face people like Israeli Haim Saban and say no.

Congress --not the President -- declares war. Unfortunately, in 2002 we had a Congress of abject, timid crack whores.

Posted by Don Williams | May 30, 2008 9:37 AM

I think the apparently widespread assumption (one contradicted by the fact that women who do run seem to do fine and, of course, the fact that most voters are women) that the public is craving hyper-masculinity counts as one such barrier and it's one that's massively restricting the talent pool for progressive politics since a large majority of liberals are women.

I think there's been an even more insidious interaction between masculinity politics and liberalism displayed in this election. Not only does our political establishment's assumption that the average swing voter wants to vote for He-Man McSuperSoldier discourage women from running, it also forces the few women who do run to be significantly more aggressive on defense and national security issues than most liberals are.

When we finally do get a strong female politician she very often feels that she has to take positions that are not particularly popular within her party. Which in turn comes back to bit them when they're running in a primary against a Democrat with no such limitation.

Posted by NS | May 30, 2008 9:43 AM

Fallows had it right about Webb. He is far too much of an independent thinker to be a comfortable number two. And personally, I don't want another Cheney-like VP: someone given major policy responsibilities in such a way that his office turns into a separate seat of power and influence in the administration, engaging in bureaucratic infighting with other powerful figures. Yet I doubt Webb would be happy with any less.

The VP's job is to be an understudy: take notes and follow policy discussions in case he or she is ever required to take over, listen predominantly, but offer advice when asked for it, represent the administration publicly when the president is too busy, and be a loyal supporter and follower of the president's agenda. There should be no publicly perceived gap between the president and vice president on any issue.

Webb is a very good guy, but has far too large a paper trail, much of it somewhat controversial, and too bold a profile. He comes packaged with his own "message" which, interesting as it is, will conflict in some areas with Obama's message, possibly create controversy and prevent the Obama message from being the sole focus of the camapign. Frankly, we need somebody blander.

My sense is that much too much is being made of the VP choice. It's not as important as it is cracked up to be, electorally or administratively.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 30, 2008 9:50 AM

Doubtless this is a question tailor made for our own resident expert on matters of machoness in foreign policy, neo-Confederate Jew-fearing Chris Ford. Merely by publishing so tempting a comment, we may have unearthed the turd lamp for rubbing again.

Posted by El Cid | May 30, 2008 9:50 AM

Webb was the first Democratic politian to call Bush on his b.s. related to the war and national security in a visceral way. Not empty rhetoric, but literally in his face. All this talk of Aqua Velva and cajones are obsessions of the pundit class. His exchange with Bush in his first visit to the White House was a transitional moment in the inside-the-beltway cower of politicans opposed to Bush policies. Compare that to, for example, Murtha's hue and cry about the troops. Some actions require no translation or spin.

Posted by MikeO | May 30, 2008 9:59 AM

PJ's got it. Webb is a great writer, he is a deep thinker, and he is able to articulate a broader vision for the Democratic, which is desperately needed. He wants to bring disaffected white working class and the white poor back into the Democratic Party, and he has good ideas for how to do that. That doesn't have anything to do with being masculine, it has to do with recognizing a group of people who were traditionally Democratic, have left for the Republican Party, and need to be courted back into the fold.

Posted by Craig | May 30, 2008 10:08 AM

Is anyone realizing that beyond Webb's foreign policy credentials, he is a fierce economic populist.

It is very clumsy of Matt to try and equate the Kerry presidential ambitions (war hero etc) with Webb. Unlike Kerry, Webb is much more connected to rural, military, and working white voters than Kerry. People, wrongly, thought because John Kerry was a war hero other, non-liberal people would be enthralled. They were not. He does not talk nor resemble them, Jim Webb does.

Further, all of this "progressive" pushback on the politics of masculinity is nice, but inaccurate. It's not that we have to out warmonger the republican party, but present a tough alternative to Republicans, notably on economic issues. It is here that democrats can, as evidenced by the electorate's fierce concern about the economy, evince real strength.

I'm sorry, but to suggest that the Democratic party ought to get tough on some issues and show some back bone (as Webb clearly does) is not giving into the "Chris Matthews esque infatuation" with masculinity, it is assuming the Dem party's true mantle.

While many people may want Webb to "out-tough" McCain. I want him precisely because he is not afraid of presenting the Democratic agenda. Further, I think Matt's insistence that forcefulness and honesty are "masculine" is clumsy and belies any notion of what most of the American public wants. For the voters that Obama does not have, they want someone who they identify with or speaks to their issues (evidence: Latino and white-working people voting for hillary, and the latter for Edwards).

Kerry and Webb are not the same person, and speak to very different segments of the American populace.

Posted by jeff | May 30, 2008 10:13 AM

Well said, Jeff.

Posted by Craig | May 30, 2008 10:15 AM

Re NS's comment "Not only does our political establishment's assumption that the average swing voter wants to vote for He-Man McSuperSoldier discourage women from running"
--------------
Oh bullshit.
We DON'T want a "He-Man McSuperSoldier" -- we just want some fucking Members of Congress who have spines.

There have been many great women leaders who have never touched a military rifle but who were well-respected because people knew those women wouldn't budge an inch when it came to the national interest.

We don't need military courage and integrity --we need political courage and integrity in our leaders.

We don't expect our civilian leaders to have a big military resume.

Pretending to be military when you are not only arouses contempt -- witness how Democrat Michael Dukakis's Presidential campaign crashed and burned after his stupid shit appearance in an Army tank:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Michael_Dukakis_in_tank.jpg

and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dukakis#Public_relations_failure

Besides, there's a difference between "military" and "combat unit".

There are Air Force Major Generals who have never been on an active battlefield. Few Army officers face combat once they reach the rank of major -- they are valued for their expertise and decision-making skills, not for markmanship. How many Navy officers have "gone in harm's way" in the last 60 years?

But this nation's strength and safety depends on a lot more than some guys lugging rifles around in a desert. We respect those guys in combat units for risking their lives. We respect the rest of the military -- and our politicians -- for their service.

Posted by Don Williams | May 30, 2008 10:18 AM

I do not favor Jim Webb for the reasons you state. I favor him because he is right on the issues. He is as progressive as they come on economic and criminal justice issues. He is pragmatic on military issues and not a hawk. The issues he is wrong on like women in the military ne has modified his position on in the face of reality and he would have no effect on the course of the nation on these issues in any case. The other objections to him are purely stylistic.

Posted by Larry Geater | May 30, 2008 10:28 AM

I think Ezra and Matt are being regrettably dismissive on this issue. Specifically, I don't think the main appeal of Webb is that he has a tough image. Rather, I think his main appeal is that he was an early, well-informed, and outspoken critic of the Iraq War, and he is also an economic populist, and he was a good enough campaigner to pull off an upset win in Virginia. Of course he has downsides as well, and I can understand people who think there would be better choices, but I think Ezra and Matt should at least recognize the legitimate upsides.

Incidentally, I am also having trouble figuring out who are the sexists here. For example, is it misogynistic to prefer candidates who are well-informed and show good judgment on foreign policy and military matters? Or is it actually misogynistic to assume that somehow female candidates can't meet that standard?

Because personally, I always thought the proper point wasn't that the President's roles as an executive head of state and Commander in Chief were unimportant, but rather that it was wrong to assume that somehow women were incapable of playing those roles just as effectively as men.

Posted by DTM | May 30, 2008 10:35 AM

It sounds like it might be a good time for Matt Y. to present somewhat better empirical evidence for "a lot of the Jim Webb fanboys in left-of-center ranks are significantly driven by a somewhat Chris Matthews-esque infatuation with his Acqua Velva scent" beyond "I think it's clear".

From time to time I agree, I've gotten that vibe from some people, but you probably should try to indicate that it's a testable reality, not just a vibe that one person gets.

Posted by El Cid | May 30, 2008 10:38 AM

Once again Matt confuses taking a dump with thoughtful analysis.
It is not calling Obama effeminate to question his experience, competence, and stances on military and foreign policy affairs.
And has it escaped Matt's perceptions that most people so questioning his BBF Hussein are not HRC fans?
Just consider:
Obama has done nothing in the Senate to end the war. Nothing! And yet he poses as the antiwar candidate.
Obama has abandoned his pledged withdrawal plan. His current plans for Iraq differ in no substantive way from McCain's.
He has been forced by reality to withdraw many of his asinine campaign pledges. To take but one example his pledge to meet with our"enemy" leaders without precondition in his first year in office.
It says nothing about Obama's virility or obvious lack thereof to note his general incompetence and stupidity on so many policy points especially those touching on national security and Hussein's terminally painful hippy dippy proclivities.
Obama is an Ahole of the first magnitude who is being sold to the American people by the same forces who sold us the Iraq War.
Yes Matt, that includes you.

As to Webb I certainly hope he does not pin his flag to Obama's losing campaign. I will hate to see him tarred a la Edwards by Obama's coming and well deserved implosion.

Posted by JTHB | May 30, 2008 10:41 AM

"Obama has done nothing in the Senate to end the war. Nothing!"

Yeah, nothing! Well, except Obama introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007. But since he didn't use his powers of mind control to force a veto-proof majority of his colleagues to vote for his bill, he did nothing!

Charles Francis Xavier for President! Only he has the powers of mind control that our next President needs!

Posted by DTM | May 30, 2008 10:55 AM

Don Williams, NS's point wasn't that the establishment's assumption is true, but rather, that they push the meme irrespective of its truth, and that fact encourages prospective female candidates to butch it up. Which seems right to me.

Besides that, you should be careful with your "we". I'm not sure you speak for all "independent swing votors" (that's who it seems you're talking about, anyway). As Matt hints, it's really really hard to decouple one's attitudes about things like "showing a fucking spine" with our other internalized views about what counts as cool and tough and macho, and how much those attributes are desirable in our leaders.

For example, I don't know of anyone who has shown more "economic toughness" in the sense that jeff seems to pine for above than John Edwards - yet, his overall public appeal is proven by the outcome of his presidential bid. On this issue, at least, surely JE speaks Truth to Power - yet, I strongly suspect that his message simply isn't heard, even by those that he is most strongly advocating for; to them, what he is saying is muffled by his dulcet speaking voice and his hair product.

The sad fact is that no individual will be able to really challenge the mythos of the heroic hyper-masculine daddy-type strong leader without possessing appropriate masculine daddy-type credentials - too many people (including many, many women) don't really in their hearts reject the mythos itself, but rather simply object to their place in it. They don't really want (or think that it's possible) to change the script - they just want a better role.

Posted by Joe Bleau | May 30, 2008 11:03 AM

Craig wrote,

Webb is a great writer, he is a deep thinker, and he is able to articulate a broader vision for the Democratic, which is desperately needed. He wants to bring disaffected white working class and the white poor back into the Democratic Party, and he has good ideas for how to do that.

Which are all excellent reasons to keep him in the Senate, where he can be both a high-profile national advocate for those positions and a powerful legislator and committee-member. Senators are a big deal. Why would you want to take this kind of talent and dumb it into the vice presidency, which is decidedly not a big deal?

In reading a number of the comments above, the argument seems to be "Webb, is awesome; so he should be vice president." But my feeling is that a better argument is "Webb is awesome; so he should not be vice president."

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 30, 2008 11:20 AM

There is an aspect of Webb's resume that is not being recognized for the potential value it would have for an Obama Presidency. Webb's experience as Secretary of the Navy, with a reputation as a very effective advocate for that service. I think we can make the argument that Webb brings a unique understanding of the military bureaucratic culture at the Pentagon which is sorely lacking on the Obama team.

We can look back on the poor relationship in the Clinton term, particulary the first, with the military. It was deeply unfair and driven in part by the gays in the service issue, but it was culutral as well, no one in the Clinton circle other than Gore had served or more importantly, worked at the Pentagon and understood their culture. Webb does, and he could be critical in the relationships required between the White House and the Military in fixing the mess this White House has created.

Posted by Hebisner | May 30, 2008 11:45 AM

I wrote:

Why would you want to take this kind of talent and dumb it into the vice presidency, which is decidedly not a big deal?

That was supposed to be dump it in the vice presidency.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 30, 2008 11:50 AM

Matt misses the mark here - Obama is not considering Webb because of some image. It's because he admires Webb for articulating the reasons to be against the Iraq war, before the Iraq war was fought.

Then he punished George Allen by defeating him in an election.

Also - Webb's personal appeal is that he is a writer and an interesting character in progress.

You buy into a faux-concept created by Chris Matthews types.

Matthews and other wealty boomer pundits are still insecure about their own draft avoidence and their own self-doubts. They project this onto their fellow Dems,

No reason for Matt Yglesias to follow suit.

Posted by Comment | May 30, 2008 12:01 PM

Re Joe Bleau's comment "The sad fact is that no individual will be able to really challenge the mythos of the heroic hyper-masculine daddy-type strong leader without possessing appropriate masculine daddy-type credentials -"
-----------------
1) I disagree. The really tough people I've known have never felt a need to appear tough -- their actions, not their words or appearance , spoke for them. Most of them have appeared pretty mild-mannered.

2) This carries over into politics. I greatly respect Nancy Pelosi. She is a small person and doesn't show an ego. She wouldn't be House Speaker if she put on an act of being "the heroic hyper-masculine daddy-type strong leader ".

Yet Nancy was one of the few Members of Congress to challenge Bush's intelligence story in 2002.

And she stared down the Democratic Party's largest donor in order to block Jane Harman from becoming Chairman of the House Intel Committee. Because it was the right thing to do. Even though I'm sure Nancy will pay for that one day.

3) Your example of John Edward is unconvincing. Trial lawyers who've made a multi-millionaire fortune have never came across as tribunes of the common people.

IF we interview someone for a job, we don't just go on what they say in the interview -- we look at their resume and talk with references to see if their past history matches their present story.
John's history does not support his campaign story.

A tribune of the people would not have voted for an unnecessary war which has not only killed 4000 common citizens but which has been financed by stealing $3 Trillion for the common peoples' accounts in the Social Security Trust Fund. A theft which John allowed to pass without comment.

Posted by Don Williams | May 30, 2008 12:10 PM

Correction: "financed by stealing $3 Trillion FROM the common peoples' accounts in the Social Security Trust Fund"

Posted by Don Williams | May 30, 2008 12:24 PM

Joe Bleau,

So why do "cool" and "tough" necessarily have to be on the same list of attributes as "macho"? Why does "strong leader" have to be in the same string of terms as "masculine"? Again, to me the real sexism is not in wanting cool, tough, strong leaders, but rather in associating those attributes exclusively with men.

Incidentally, I think there are at least two reasons why John Edwards didn't succeed despite having what would seem to be the most popular positions on several issues. One is the point Don Williams is making, which as I would put it is that the John Edwards we saw in 2007-08 was not the same John Edwards we saw in 2003-04, let alone the same John Edwards we saw in the Senate. The second is that I think he made a basic mistake in conflating economic populism with an oppositional political approach, and as a result people ended up favoring Obama's approach (which is basically the community organizer's approach of first assembling a broad coalition, and then negotiating with the relevant stakeholders from a position of political strength to achieve the desired outcome).

Posted by DTM | May 30, 2008 12:51 PM

Dan Kervick

I would want that talent to be dumped into the vice presidency because that position is an excelent stepping stone to the presidency.

Posted by Larry Geater | May 30, 2008 1:13 PM

Don: I take your point about Edwards' bio - but I never claimed that what I was pointing to was the exclusive reason for his electoral downfall. That said, if you take media attention as some sort of bellweather of popular interest (dubious, I know, but there's some truth there), it's not crazy to suggest that the sissification effort did some real damage.

I also strongly disagree that a tribune of the people would not have voted for the war - at least not our people, in our times, with our press informing them. Of course, it really depends on how big your tribunal is, and where it's pulling its members from - but at the time, the war was crazy popular, among a huge swath of the U.S. population. Even many of us who knew all along what a bad idea it was, and argued passionately about it, still felt that patriotic twinge while we were glued to the Teevee watching the pretty explosions and admiring the brave strong people on our screens telling us what was happening.

Finally, I admire Nancy Pelosi too, for the same reasons that you do, and would never diminish her accomplishments - but I rather doubt that she'll be remembered as a historic figure who managed to change people's thinking about what "tough" means.

DTM: I personally don't think that "cool" and "tough" have to equate to "macho" and "masculine" - but I recognize that, for many people, there's far less of a distinction to be drawn. So yippee for us for figuring it out - but what I was talking about is a fundamental shift in the popular meme, despised but still held, by many men and women, many of whom are otherwise quite liberal.

If you don't believe me, spend some time looking through the comments on Taylor Marsh's blog, or TalkLeft. Look at all of the kudos and huzza's thrown at Sen. Clinton for being "tough", or "scrappy", or a "fighter". They sure as Hell aren't talking about her legislative backbone, or her 007 aura of calm and cool in the face of mayhem around her, or her embodiment of the Speak Softly/Carry Big stick ideal of what real strength and toughness is. What they celebrate instead is something far more visceral - much more John Rambo then Dirty Harry. What they see is someone who gives as good as she gets - who won't take no crap from no one, no how. And that's just the image that she's been pushing.

To me, that's not really tough - that's a caricature of tough. But sadly, it's what passes for tough for many, many people, in just the same way that some folks find Bush's fratboy swagger to be charming.

Posted by Joe Bleau | May 30, 2008 1:46 PM

Joe Bleau,

I agree that a lot of Clinton's supporters, at Clinton's urging, have confused various superficial, ineffective, and often unethical campaign tactics with "toughness" in the positive sense.

What I don't see is what that necessarily has to do with gender. Of course, maybe in Clinton's mind she thinks of all of this as acting in a masculine way, and maybe in her mind she thinks it is necessary for women in politics to act in a masculine way so defined. But if so, then I think she is wrong (on both counts).

Anyway, the bottomline is we seem to agree women are just as capable as men when it comes to being cool, tough, strong leaders in the positive sense of those terms. And whether or not everyone else currently agrees, I don't see how it helps women in politics to imply otherwise.

Posted by DTM | May 30, 2008 2:27 PM

To all those who claim that Webb has qualities--beyond hyper-masculinity--that recommend him to the vice-presidency:

I don't think anyone here discounts Webb's good qualities. But he also has the hyper-masculinity. And there are other people (so many I won't list them here) who share Webb's positive qualities and don't share his hyper-masculinity. Why not pick one of those?

Posted by slag | May 30, 2008 2:55 PM

slag,

Well, it might help if you did indeed list some of those people (at least your top few). Because maybe some of them would in fact be better picks than Webb, but it is hard to assess that purely in the abstract.

Posted by DTM | May 30, 2008 3:18 PM

You know, when I first read this post I was pretty insulted. I followed Webb's win in VA pretty closely, and remembered thinking he was pretty impressive. I didn't realize it was the aftershave.

I could dig for links about his military experience, assail the idiotic Kerry comparisons (have you ever talked to a swing voter before?), speak to his impressive statements on economic policy following the 2006 elections, note the articulation and dignity (*ahem*) with which he speaks, or discuss how he reinforces Obama's larger narratives while appealing to Appalachian Scots-Irish voters.

But I see others have done already that. So, instead, let me say this:

Fuck you, Yglesias. The only one who's acting "Chris Matthews-esque" right now is YOU. You need to get FARTHER out of DC.

(But what do I know? I probably have a gay crush on myself just for typing something so tough.)

Posted by scythia | May 30, 2008 3:26 PM

And on a less virulent note,

Reality Man @ 9:02, I agree with everything but your last sentence. I don't think it's going to have a lasting impact beyond this cycle, except to help legitimize female candidates in general.

But it was a good strategy for Clinton (the masculinization, not the endless war-bleating, insofar as they're separable): turn a perceived weakness into a strength, then turn that strength into an opponent's weakness. Good stuff.

FWIW, I think this is also a good GE strategy. The Republicans run their campaigns on implicit sexist narratives anyway, so if you can paint an R as "feminine" you've pretty much just fractured his base.

Especially since McCain's running on the "I'm a tough manly grownup" narrative, if this can be done successfully it will destroy him. Personally, I vote for calling him "Barbara Ann."

Posted by scythia | May 30, 2008 3:56 PM

@ scythia: hear, hear.

I think it's worth repeating this:

As Ezra says, I think it's clear that a lot of the Jim Webb fanboys in left-of-center ranks are significantly driven by a somewhat Chris Matthews-esque infatuation with his Acqua Velva scent.

As long as you're aware, Matt, that you just "think" that this is "clear" without having any legitimate basis for the conclusion, I guess that's fine. (Though your conclusion is awfully persuasive because you called us fanboys!)

Sometimes when reading a thing like this I wonder how long it will be before you and Ezra and the rest of Teh Kool Bloggrz deserve essentially the same criticism that you all currently heap on "The Villagers."

Currently:

1)you've all moved to DC;

2)you usually develop an insider's consensus on "the issues;" and

3)you nurture a distinct scorn for heterodox opinions such as "Jim Webb [is an admirable Democrat / ought perhaps to be the VP nominee] because his ideas are good for America, and despite his lack of uber-feminist merit badges."

All that's missing at this point is

4)you have regular clubby access to the powerful, who stroke your egos even when they're openly using you.

In good time, I suppose.

Posted by donald | May 30, 2008 4:16 PM

@ scythia: hear, hear.

I think it's worth repeating this:

As Ezra says, I think it's clear that a lot of the Jim Webb fanboys in left-of-center ranks are significantly driven by a somewhat Chris Matthews-esque infatuation with his Acqua Velva scent.

As long as you're aware, Matt, that you just "think" that this is "clear" without having any legitimate basis for the conclusion, I guess that's fine. (Though your conclusion is awfully persuasive because you called us fanboys!)

Sometimes when reading a thing like this I wonder how long it will be before you and Ezra and the rest of Teh Kool Bloggrz deserve essentially the same criticism that you all currently heap on "The Villagers."

Currently:

1)you've all moved to DC;

2)you usually develop an insider's consensus on "the issues;" and

3)you nurture a distinct scorn for heterodox opinions such as "Jim Webb [is an admirable Democrat / ought perhaps to be the VP nominee] because his ideas are good for America, and despite his lack of uber-feminist merit badges."

All that's missing at this point is

4)you have regular clubby access to the powerful, who stroke your egos even when they're openly using you.

In good time, I suppose.

Posted by donald | May 30, 2008 4:17 PM

There seems to be a pretty obvious distinction to be made between the "toughness" of John Kerry and that of Jim Webb. In 2004, liberals hoped Kerry's war hero resume would inocculate him against the pansy-liberal-wimpy smears used by the GOP. However, Kerry's personality badly undermined his resume: he may have been a war hero in 1972, but in 2004, the Senator was a passive, slow-thinking politician whose demeanor and rhetorical approach to politics was anything but "tough." A similar analysis can be applied to Wes Clark, who really is a tough guy in terms of physical courage, but whose rhetorical style is soft-spoken and analytical. In both cases, the "resume" was not enough to overcome the personal and political styles presented by the politician.

In contrast, Webb's demeanor and rhetorical approach to politics is straight-forward, aggressive and blunt. This is why Webb appeals to liberals, not because of his resume (which simply serves as a nice bonus). Webb attacks Republicans instead of being attacked. He pushes back. He explains in clear, unambiguous language why Democratic policies are superior. It is not, as Ezra says, Webb's "seeming" cultural conservatism that makes liberals believe Webb would be an effective VP.

In fact, Ezra's column badly misses the point in this regard. While it is true that Democrats will not win by fielding "hyper masculine, effortlessly tough, culturally conservative (seeming) candidate[s]", Democrats can win by fielding tough, blunt, straight-forward candidates who aggressively brand GOP policies as destructive, dishonest, and misguided.

Webb's sharp, aggressive critique of GOP policies can be emulated by male and female Democrats alike, regardless of how "liberal" or "moderate" they are. His simple, effective promotion of Democratic policies is likewise something all Dems can learn from.

Ezra has gotten himself all wrapped up the gender-driven term, "hypermasculine," but it misses the boat. Webb is a serious, credible take-no-bs debater who does not allow himself or Democrats to be smeared by the GOP. Not every Democrat will have share his resume or his complexion or his "manly" personal qualities - but ALL Democrats can emulate his rhetorical style and sharp debating skills and incorporate them into their own political style.

Posted by owenz | May 30, 2008 4:28 PM

Webb is apparently against an Iran war. If he can persuade Obama not to start one once Obama's lame "sanctions diplomacy" crap peters out (because it's based on the wrong premises), then we need Webb as VP.

Not that it's likely to matter, since I suspect the Iran war will be on before Obama gets elected - and it's likely McCain will beat Obama because of that.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 30, 2008 5:44 PM