The Webb as VP Talk

by: Matt Stoller

Wed May 28, 2008 at 20:48

Picking up on my last post on the need for a strong female archetype, I'm going to weigh in on chatter relating to this about Jim Webb as VP.  In a lot of ways, Webb is considered the candidate typifying the new Democratic Party, the one strong enough to wrest control from the Republicans in 2006.  And I suspect that is why Webb is being touted as a possible VP choice.  The narrative goes like this; he can persuade white working class voters to pick Obama, shoring up Obama where he is weak.  And he is a powerful progressive on issues that are little noticed, like prison reform, income inequality, and national security.  I actually sat in on a meeting where a very well respected pollster gave this exact argument about Webb.  Webb shares other traits that excite liberals; he is a truly magnificant writer and speaker.  His response to the State of the Union, in 2006, was one of the most exciting speeches I had ever seen.  In it, he directly called out Bush for lying, took on the issue directly of income inequality, and demanded that Bush change direction on Iraq, and said that if he did not, Democrats would show him the way.  It was amazing, and I remember chattering with my brother as we both felt inspired by a person who seemed to finally fill the void of Democratic leadership.

Matt Stoller :: The Webb as VP Talk
Since then, my attitude has changed, as I have come to understand and respect the strong counter-narrative about who Webb as a politician is.  Kathy G's post is a good jumping off point on the subject.  Is his rampant misogyny in the past?  Perhaps, but it's not clear to me that anyone who can say what he said as an adult in a position of authority can truly be progressive.  For instance, along with other sordid pieces of his personal history, he used the Tailhook scandal where female navy personnel were sexually assaulted to attack feminists and liberals.  Ezra Klein has said a lot more about this problem, which a lot of liberals ignore for a variety of reasons.  I'm not going to add anything more to this argument, as Ezra and Kathy make it extremely persuasively.  I will take on the two other false arguments about Webb.

One, Webb has not been a progressive Senator.  On Iraq, he has voted to fund the war, on retroactive immunity for telecom companies, he sided with the telecom companies, and on the issue of inequality, he has been an obstacle to progress, voting against a Bernie Sanders-sponsored piece of legislation to raise income taxes on people earning more than $1 million a year to fund special education, a vote Senate expert Bob Geiger called 'disgusting'  And let's be honest, he has completely failed to follow through with his State of the Union response.  Even that speech, considered now, shows some of the cracks in the facade.  Webb rails against a 'precipitous withdrawal', and argues we should not take 'one step back from the War on Terror'.  On both core progressive value sets - national security and economic inequality - Webb does not vote the way he talks.  To be sure, his GI Bill is important, and he is a far better public servant than George Allen.  I like Webb, I respect Webb, but I do not believe that Webb shares our values.  A VP is a heartbeat away from the Presidency, and Webb will in all likelihood not be a progressive President.

What's left is Webb's political ability to bring white working class voters to the Democratic side.  And this is where the Webb-as-VP talk really falls apart.  While Webb is seen as a candidate who appeals to the Appalachian white working class vote (Ross Douthat makes the case, but it is a widespread elite opinion), there's actually no evidence he does.  Today, he's far less popular in Virginia than John Warner, with a net disapproval rating among males of six points and eight points among gun owners.  He has a narrow four point net approval rating among whites, and he's about as popular in all regions of the state, with a slight edge in the Shenandoah region (though still far less popular than Warner).  Webb just isn't that well liked in Virginia.

Still, if he got elected in Virginia in 2006, who cares?  Surely he can bring the same bevy of white working class voters he brought in 2006 to the Obama ticket in 2008, right?  Well, no.  His 2006 victory was based on a coalition of white liberals and African-Americans.  Both his primary and general victories saw his marginal vote runups in Northern Virginia counties.  In Fairfax, Arlington, and Loudon Counties, which are hubs of DC, Webb was part of a changing demographic scene which saw more Democrats vote for Democrats.

More important than the growing population of Northern Virginia, the increase in Democratic performance in suburban and exurban areas has helped Democrats gain electoral victories. Exurban areas constitute the outermost boundaries of any metropolitan area, such as Loudon County. Loudoun represents the fastest-growing county in the country. Between 2000 and 2006, Loudoun's voting-age population increased by 73,000 people. This increase has changed the demographics of the county, bringing more middle class, and well-educated voters who support democratic candidates into the area. In 2000, Al Gore received just 41 percent of the vote in Loudon, but by 2005, Tim Kaine won Loudoun with 53 percent. Democratic gains continued in 2006 when Jim Webb won Loudoun County with 50% of the vote.

In other words, there's nothing special about Webb.  Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, and Jim Webb all did very well in Virginia, and Webb in particular got his votes from liberals in the North because that's where the Democrats are.

There are lots of reasons to like and respect Jim Webb.  Prison reform is an essential element of a socially just country, and the way he talks about income inequality is really important.  The GI Bill is a remarkable and substantial achievement, and it will damage John McCain's campaign.  He'll do us proud as a conservative Democrat.  But I just don't see how he would be a good VP pick.

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

The Webb as VP Talk | 56 comments
And the way you know this is true (4.00 / 4)
is that he is a favorite of conservative and moderate pundits who have weighed in who should be Obama's VP.

Liberals Tend To Be Tolerant (4.00 / 3)
It comes with the territory.  In general, it's a good thing.  But when tolerance for all sorts of wayward acts blinds you to their very existence... well, that's when you get liberals saying they like Colin Powell, or even John McCain.

But one endearing trait, or bright shining moment of sanity and courage does not a great liberal make.

And the same sort of dynamic is at least part of what's happening with Webb, in addition to all the normal assinine pundit talk.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Well reasoned and well articulated (4.00 / 4)
As in a lot of things, the truth is somewhere in the middle - as it is with Webb.  He is not the kick ass Senator some believe him to be, and he is not the conservative scoundrel who abandoned us, and others seem to believe.  He has strengths, and he has weaknesses.  Matt makes a compelling argument for him to not be Vice President (one I happen to agree with, as an Obama supporter), but recognized him for who he is, good and bad.  Both the unadulterated praise and undue criticism are unwarranted, and Matt cuts through the BS on both sides.  Thank you for upholding the reality-based community - it is very much appreciated.  

He really is a wonderful speaker. (0.00 / 0)
Just on Tuesday, he was on NPR, and he spoke so eloquently on veteran's issues. Matt's absolutely given him credit where credit is due. I don't like Webb on paper, but every time he speaks, I wish I did.  

[ Parent ]
he's a great senator from Virginia (4.00 / 4)
and a lousy VP candidate.

[ Parent ]
He's not a conservative SCOUNDREL, no. (4.00 / 2)
But he is a conservative.  There is a discussion of this on Huffington Post.  I said there and I want to reiterate that Webb's position on Vietnam, namely that the anti-war movement was responsible for "losing" Vietnam, is disqualifying, for me.  It shows that all of his alleged sophistication about peace and war and the complexity of his intellect are ultimately useless to him.  He is still living in a dream.  

Yes, Webb has positive accomplishments he can point to, but the last thing we need is a conservative VP pick for Obama.

In addition, it's gratifying to see my estimate of Webb's value to the ticket in Virginia so thoroughly validated by Matt.  For me, the clue was that Obama won the Virginia primary by more votes than Webb won the general election.  Not only does Webb bring no net votes to the ticket in Virginia, Obama doesn't even NEED help there.  He is going to win Virginia handily.

In the end, Webb's appeal comes down to this, as Matt says:  "(H)e is a truly magnificant writer and speaker."  Webb is great when it comes to the talk.  Too bad it's all just talk.

[ Parent ]
I think Wes Clark bring the same things (4.00 / 1)
Webb offers, plus he is a Clinton that helps with part unity.  I also think Wes Clark is much more progressive than Webb.

Yes (4.00 / 4)
Wesley Clark is an actual progressive:

He''s strongly pro-Choice, pro-labor, pro-affirmative action, Anti-Patriot Act.

He spoke out against the Iraqi invasion and has been a tireless critic of the war.

He has spoken out in favor of negotiations and has actively set out to undermine the Bush administrations attempts to beat war drums on Iran.

As I alluded, he's a defender of civil liberties who absolutely opposed the Bush FISA bill and is a major critic of domestic spying.

He opposed drilling in the Arctic and spoke out against the Bush administration's failure to adopt the Kyoto accords. Etc; etc.

Just research this a bit and I think you'll see that Wes Clark's track record as a progressive is quite strong.

Finally, watch him here speak out to voters in Alabama in very passionate terms on the Don Siegelman case:

[ Parent ]
You mean the same Wes Clark (0.00 / 0)
who argued tonight on MSNBC Hillary should take this to the convention ?
I can forgive endorsing Hillary because I want to unite the party and all but there is only so much offensive stupidity I can take.

[ Parent ]
That certainly was not a move (0.00 / 0)
calculated to endear him to Obama.  However, I am not willing to rule anybody out because I disagree with their position on intra-party affairs.  The point that Wes Clark is a real progressive remains, and is valid.  I don't think he's a particularly effective leader, though.

[ Parent ]
I've watched that clip twice... (4.00 / 3)
and Clark never argues that Hillary should take the conflict to the convention.

In fact he carefully avoids saying just that, even though Abrams asked him point blank, instead repeating a general principal that voters should have their votes count. Twice he suggests that perhaps a new vote could be taken before the convention.

Now, maybe that's not particularly realistic, and perhaps Clark sounds dogmatic, but I think you need to watch it again because he absolutely did not argue for what you say he did.  

[ Parent ]
After spending a lot of time arguing agaist your last point (4.00 / 5)
I couldn't agree with this one more.

Webb would be a awful VP pick. He does some good stuff in Virgina but he is less popular then Obama in Virgina and far more conservative. He doesn't add a whole lot to the ticket.

If we are adding a military guy. Why not Wes Clark. He brings all the same strengths but he is a better campaigner. More progressive and also I would bet that he would help more in Virgina then Webb.

That being said Clark wouldn't make my top five.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

agreed (4.00 / 2)
I've never liked Webb.  He's clearly the best we could do in Virginia at the time, which is great, but he shouldn't be anywhere near executive power.  

[ Parent ]
No No No! (4.00 / 7)
Pick Webb and get ready for the press to vomit ad nauseam that, "Obama picked Webb because Obama knows he's weak on national security." For the love of God, no! All Obama would be doing is playing directly into McCain's hands, and Webb wouldn't even be the lock to deliver Virginia the same way a better fit like Mark Warner would.

And this is why I've been hawking Feingold (4.00 / 4)
As I wrote in a diary today (yup, shameless plug for attention), picking someone like Feingold shows strength insofar as it proves that Obama is NOT worried about so-called deficiencies.  In contrast - as you observe - picking a military guy like Webb does the opposite.

[ Parent ]
Thank, Matt (4.00 / 4)
for spelling out what's been needed to be said for many weeks now!

I know Webb became something of a blogosphere darling last year after he slayed the Macaca dragon and came down on the right side of the Net Neutrality issue.

But for all the reasons you mention he is absolutely NOT somebody we want or can even afford in the Executive Branch, and the claims that he would help Obama in November are, as you point out, dubious at best.

I really like the debates here in general about the Veep issue, and one thing I'm happy to see emerge is the meme that it's both unnecessary and risky for progressives to start tacking toward the right in the wake of all the breakthroughs and opportunities that have presented themselves this election cycle.

Avoid that urge, folks!

There are other, better ways to capture the hearts and minds of working class Americans, and candidates with better agendas who can do so.

If someone from VA is picked, it's Tim Kaine (4.00 / 1)
I see no reason to blow a virtually certain Senate pickup by picking Warner, and Matt basically hits the nail on the head when it comes to selecting Webb.

Kaine is all for .. (0.00 / 0)
the death penalty .. so that kinda sucks

[ Parent ]
Not true (4.00 / 3)
Kaine stated in one of his ads that he was "Privately opposed to the Death Penalty" due to being a Catholic, but that he would "Enforce the law". That's effectively what every executive does around the country, whether they are pro-death penalty in an anti-death penalty state (like Wisconsin) or if they are anti-death penalty in a pro-death penalty state (like Virginia).

[ Parent ]
Native Virginian here (4.00 / 4)
And I agree wholeheartedly. Webb was a great candidate to run against Allen, is a good Senator for Virginia, and would be a lousy VP choice, for the reasons described above.

I would like to add that he would be an awful pick vis-a-vis Hillary voters. It's not just the Tailhook/women in the service crap. It's the total package.

And nobody is going to get Appalachians to vote for Webb. Given Obama's strong, proven appeal in the African American community, Appalachia has replaced the deep south as our one no-go area (given that, of course, the two regions have significant overlap.)

Should read (0.00 / 0)
'nobody's going to get Appalachians to vote for Obama'

[ Parent ]
Webb's National Security "Expertise" (4.00 / 4)
Comes from his having been Reagan's Secretary of the Navy.

Can we please have a ticket with two lifelong Democrats on it?

All the other reasons Matt mentions are valid, as well.

keep Webb off the ticket (4.00 / 3)
for all the reasons you mentioned. He hates campaigning anyway.

Keep using him as a Democratic voice on tv shows. He is good at that.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

No to Virginian Politicians. (4.00 / 2)
   No to Warner, Webb, and Kaine.  They are good Democrats, but they are not Progressives.  Kaine just endorsed Leslie Byrne's lousy Democratic primary opponent.  

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

Ick! That's strike one. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Too much color (2.67 / 3)
As a brown man, I don't say this flippantly, but I think Webb's (Vietnamese-American) wife would further add to his general unviability.  That would be way too much color for American peeps to stomach.  Image isn't everything, but it is a lot..

Consider Hillary's recently much vaunted white women voters.  Now look at that picture from the podium in Denver as confetti and balloons pour down on Barack and Michelle, Jim and Hong - what's missing?  A white woman, of course!  That would go over like a fart in church...    

Can't say I disagree with your assesment, (4.00 / 1)
but wouldn't it be great, too see a white guy be the minority on that stage.  It might actually be more than a racist could bear.  Could you conjer up enough hate to hate 3 or 4 races/nationalities at the same time.  Irish, Viatnamese, Afican, does Michelle bring any other to the table?  Better yet, have the cabinet filled with as many racially diverse people as possible.  It might actually make some people realize that America is made great by lots of different people.

[ Parent ]
Gloria (4.00 / 1)
Well, why not? Two men with disregard for women. The Dems don't need women anymore. Women just need to sit down, be quiet and let the men treat us as they would. We've been put down and shut down this election cycle to the point where it makes no difference anymore. I'm not even angry now. I'm just so discouraged. Daschle, Dodd, Kerry,Springsteen,Hayden,Kennedy, Edwards,Moore. Group hug mens.

So (4.00 / 2)
A woman loses, and it means that Dems don't need women anymore?

So, I guess in 2004, when Maxine Waters lost, we didn't need women anymore then either?

I don't know. I'm just waiting for someone to explain to me how Hillary losing equals men or specifically Barack Obama telling women to sit down and shut up.  

[ Parent ]
Women are one of the most important constituencies in the Democratic party (4.00 / 3)
and nobody wants them to sit down and shut up except the Repigs.  Just because the party has narrowly selected Obama as its presidential candidate instead of Hillary doesn't mean that a woman can't be president.  She could have been.  She needed to not have cynically and disingenuously voted for the war, to not base her campaign on Wall Street and Madison Avenue, and most importantly, to have out-organized Obama.
Any one of those things, and she would have been president.  Probably not a very good president, in my opinion, but certainly far better than any Repig.

A woman will be president, and she will be a Democrat.  Just not this woman, and not this time.  

[ Parent ]
You mean Carol Mosely-Braun? (0.00 / 0)

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

[ Parent ]
Sorry (4.00 / 1)
I really didn't mean any offense by my comment, I'm just sort of confused.

I mean, I can see why women wouldn't like Jim Webb, given his "horny woman's fantasy" comments. I don't like it.  

[ Parent ]
Maybe I'm out of touch (4.00 / 2)
But Webb sort of lost me with the whole "horny woman's fantasy" stuff. I mean, I know it was a long time ago, and he said he was sorry, but that's the sort of stuff you don't say. I covered my ears when he was running vs. Allen, but am I going to give him a pass for that in this case? Not so sure.

Secondly, we sort of have a problem as a party of nominating half-hearted Democrats to be VP. See Lieberman, Joseph. Webb has been a Republican most of his adult life.

Why not Dodd?

Why Not Dodd? (4.00 / 1)
Because, unfortunately, Rell would be picking his replacement and then deep blue Connecticut would have two Republican senators (in essence).

Plus, he's not a spring chicken or an outsider, which plays against Obama's narrative. And, because he's not a young man (64 now), he's not necessarily going to be viable for president in 2016 (when he's 72), assuming Obama can get re-elected.

Now, mind you, this guy:

He happens to be 55 and from a state with a Democratic governor and at least two strong potential replacements that I can think of. And he happens to be a lifelong principled progressive, not someone who requires a sudden conversion the second he steps onto the national stage.

[ Parent ]
Excellent suggestion! (0.00 / 0)
I could get really enthusiastic about Brown with very little provocation.

[ Parent ]
Speaking of Lieberman (4.00 / 3)
While I agree with many of the criticisms of Webb as VP in this thread, I'd happily dispense with them all if Webb just randomly sucker-punched Judas Lieberman in the face on the Senate floor.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Webb Is Simply Too Independent... (0.00 / 0) be a VP pick.  That said, it's possible but not very probable.  Plus, he acknowledged the existance of sex in some of his novels, and we can't have that!

Progressive Power (0.00 / 0)
Hopefully there will be no more George Bushs.  Two was too many. We are not likely to ever face another election with Republicans so universally disliked.  This is no time to capitulate to a habituated sense that we must always seek compromised balance.   Kucinich for VP!!!  Well okay, maybe someone between Kucinich and Webb.  The environment is likely to be the biggest issue in 2012. We need some strong  eco record.

Hey Appalachia, go take a long walk off a short.... (1.33 / 3)
I for one am not concerned, in the least, with winning the Appalachian region. The future of the Democratic Party is ill served by focusing our energy on wooing tone of the least educated regions of the country. Just look at how Clinton campaigned in this region and the problem is clear. When we resort to pandering to the lowest common denominator (sorry white, uneducated, poor Appalachian residents, but that is you and it is hard to argue otherwise) we will bring the entire level of discourse down several notches, a folly we can not afford.

Besides, it has become painfully clear that Obama is not the candidate of the underachieving, rural time capsule that resides in that destitute region. It doesn't matter who his running mate is, be it Clinton, Webb or some other icon of rural appeal, that demographic is lost - and I say good riddance! Let us instead appeal to a blueing coastal South and the rugged, independent West where a new paradigm like Obama can sway hearts and minds.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

LandStander, bringing new meaning to the word "elitist". (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
David Duke thanks you (4.00 / 1)
Since when is calling out racism elitist?  LandStander might have focused more on their racism rather than their conditions since that is the crux of the issue.  Obama does well with poor, uneducated whites just about everywhere outside of the South and Appalachia.  I agree with LandStander that we need to stop trying to cater to demographics that make us do and say shameful things in trying to get their votes.  If Appalachia becomes an extension of the GOP South, so be it.  I would rather cast my lot with those calling out the racists than shame the party by trying to woo them.  

[ Parent ]
There was not one word (4.00 / 1)
in that little rant about racism.

LandStander went off on Appalachians for being poor and uneducated.

Last I checked, the Democratic Party was the party for the little people. If Landstander feels the need  to strut and preen about how superior he is to the poor and uneducated, maybe he should take it elsewhere.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Ugh... (0.00 / 0)
The point is not to pander to Appalachia because there is no way we will win there this cycle.  There are too many racists in the region for us to win those states and we shouldn't waste too many presidential electoral resources there. We definitely don't need to choose our VP with that region in mind.  Focus on lower ticket races in parts of those states where we can make progress and hope our platform pays dividends in the future. We should hope that by actually being the party for the little people, rather than trying to reinforce or apologize for the biases of Appalachian racists, we might actually get the next generation to realize the problems of racism in their backyard.  

[ Parent ]
And my point is (0.00 / 0)
that it is exactly this kind of knee jerk ELITISM

"the underachieving, rural time capsule that resides in that destitute region ... that demographic is lost - and I say good riddance!"

That is doing the Republicans' work for them, keeping those of us who should be on the same side divided and mistrustful of each other. Apparently it comes as news to some people that Appalachian white trash read liberal blogs, but guess what, we do.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Besides which (4.00 / 1)
the question of whether or not to pander to Appalachia has already been addressed, in the original post, which pointed out that Webb does not do well in Appalachia! Go back and read it again if you missed it the first time.

So that issue isn't in play, or it shouldn't be. No, this was just a gratuitious and unneccesary attack on a group of marginalized Americans.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
When did I mention Webb? (0.00 / 0)
You might read my posts again.  I didn't mention Webb.  The point of the post was that some think Webb should be our VP choice because he would appeal to racists in Appalachia. Sam Nunn is another named tossed around for the same reason.  We shouldn't be catering to people's racism.  If Appalachia wants to vote against Obama because he is black, then good riddance.  We aren't going to heal racial rifts in 6 months, so what's the point of beating around the bush?

Anyway, if voters are making their decisions based mostly on comments on blogs, much less the posts of the actual bloggers themselves, then our education problems are even deeper than I thought!  If some elitist sounding comment is enough to push you or others into not voting for Democrats then I invite you to read the comments over at Free Republic and Little Green Footballs before you cast your lot with the right. The racists and eliminationists over there make LandStander's comment seem a paean to rural America!

[ Parent ]
The name of the post is (4.00 / 1)
"The Webb as Veep Talk." That's kinda sorta about Webb.

And I have never voted Republican in my life, nor will I ever. I was Liberal when Liberal wasn't cool.

The problem is not with people like me, it is with some of these new "Democrats" (in many cases only recent converts from Republicanism) who have not yet learned what the Democratic Party is all about, and try to bring their Republican class-based elitism with them into the party.

It's not needed and it's not welcome.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Can't speak for LandStander... (0.00 / 0)
I have been a lifelong Dem myself.  I grew up in the South and I unabashedly say a lot of white people I know down South are out and out racists and there are enough of them that certain states are never going to go for Obama.  Should we continue to fight for the rights of the poor in these states? Yes.  Should we try to improve education so that they don't think blacks are inferior?  Yes.  Should we dump the n****r and nominate a white person to please the racists in those states? Hell no!

None of this is directed at you unless you are unwilling to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin.  Since you are a lifelong Dem I am guessing you will vote for him whether your neighbors do or not.  Good for you, but I am tired of defending your racists neighbors because it makes you feel bad or makes the party somehow seem intolerant.  The dog whistles are out and whether they're peeping "dump the black man for the white woman" or "get a 'Cracker' as VP" in some vain hope of enticing the racists in some of these 'swing' states, I don't want any part of it.  The whites of Appalachia have spoken, some of them all too clearly, they will vote on race(maybe you haven't seen some of the more damning interviews with people on the street?).  Let's work to change that in the future, but why do we have to wear kid gloves when they are the ones who should be ashamed?  

[ Parent ]
Who said dump the (0.00 / 0)

And where did I ask you to defend racists? You are putting words in my mouth, projecting.

The Democratic Party is the multi-cultural one, and I am just trying to impress upon you the number one rule of multi-cultural etiquette, namely, you don't get to talk bad about "those people," ever, because you never know when one of "those people" is within earshot.  

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
In electoral terms, I agree (0.00 / 0)
We won't win Appalachia with Obama on the ticket. We shouldn't put resources in there.

But let's not write them off totally. The problems of education and transport need to be a priority and in 2010 President Obama should make a point of going round the region promoting progressive Democratic candidates (and ignoring Heath Shuler). And in 2012 we should try and win. Not by appealing to the lowest common denominator, but by appealing to their better natures. It'll probably fail, but it's worth doing, especially because of the changes it'll produce lower down the scale.

Especially since the likes of WV are much more winnable than much of the West, provided we have a populist candidate on the ticket and the racial animus drops somewhat.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Forget everything (4.00 / 1)
Why don't I ever hear the most important point:  we need that senate seat in VA.  We were unbelievably lucky to get it, and there's no reason to assume we could retain it with a non-incumbent even if VA law allows Democratic gov Tim Kaine to appoint a replacement to serve out the remainder of Webb's term (and I doubt it's that simple, but I don't know VA law at all).  Of course there's no telling that Webb will win re-election when the time comes, but an incumbent in that seat is the strongest position we can ask for.  

The Wages of Sin is about $5.15 an Hour.

If Obama chooses Webb for VP (0.00 / 0)
I will vote for Nader. Or Cynthia McKinney. There's no way I'm casting my vote for the misogynist Webb, even for VP.

Women comprise the majority of the American electorate. The majority of the women vote for Democrats. So we should reward them by letting them choose between anti-choice McCain and misogynist Webb?

Here are some quotes from the Webb's offensive article titled "Why women can't fight"

"The whole place has been pulled down to the level of the women"
"men fight better without women around"
and in a manner that trivializes the contribution women in the military make, "The Hall, which houses 4,000 males and 300 females, is a horny woman's dream." To women who are "suffering taunts from men who feel they are invading a totally masculine world", his answer is to get rid of them, rather than eliminating sexual harassment in the military.

Obama should pick Sebelius (the best pick), Napolitano, Richardson, Brown, Schweitzer, or whoever else. Tim Kaine would be fine. But NOT Jim Webb. I won't support Obama if Webb is his VP. Period. I believe that many progressive Democrats, many of them Hillary supporters but not all of them, feel the same way as I do. You ignore feminists at your own peril.

I sorta share these feelings, (0.00 / 0)
except I think you're getting all worked up over nothing.  Obama has nothing to gain by choosing Webb, and even if he did, I would hope that the very anti-feminist garbage that you are pointing to would prevent that.  Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Webb's anti-woman blabber is nothing to get worked up about--- just that there's no reason to think he's under consideration for the VP slot. Just because the MSM and some very uninformed bloggers think Webb is ideal doesn't mean Obama isn't astute enough to see that it isn't so.

[ Parent ]
The Webb as VP Talk | 56 comments

Open Left Campaigns



Advanced Search

Powered by: SoapBlox