Mkay, I agree that everybody's better off with Webb in the Senate, but I don't think a person is necessarily reading anything into his statement to find it, um, strident. What's that all about?

Why is it assumed that proponents of Webb (like myself) are searching for "a superficial fix?"

Has the possibility that some of us actually think Webb would be substantively good on national security never crossed your mind? Given the command and control and bureaucratic structure of the U.S. military it's clear that Webb could have significantly more influence over issues of national security as Vice President than as 1 of 100 Senators.

I've never understood objection from Webb's detractors that he would be superficial or that proponents are caving to right-wing narratives about Democrats and defense. There seems to be more than a little projection in that sentiment. I for one think Democrats are substantively better on defense issues than Republicans and think that Jim Webb could be a tremendous advocate for those positions. can assure you that I am not caving to right-wing narratives in my support for Webb as VP.

And to flip part of the argument around, do you really believe that if we just avoid national security altogether those who find the Democrats to be weak on defense will just forget about those objections? Who's actually advocating a position that caves to right-wing talking points? I'd argue that it's Webb's opponents who appear to be the cowering and caving to right-wing narratives.

...do you really believe that if we just avoid national security altogether those who find the Democrats to be weak on defense will just forget about those objections?

Those 'who find the Democrats weak on defense' aren't going to vote Democratic anyways.

The GOP has a track record here we can't match, with hecatombs of dead, and trillions spent.

Getting into a poker game played with the bodies of dead infidels is stupid, especially when the banker is also one of the players.

Are we electing a president, or a warlord?

To take Steve Balboni one step further:

While I am happy that Jim Webb's talents may be best saved in the Senate, the insistence that supporting a Webb VP candidacy is "superficial" or a matter of projection is just plain silly to me.

I like Webb the best because he is strident on economic issues and unwilling to cower or compromise his core beliefs for political points. Too few Democrats, especially those in the so called "veepstakes" are willing to speak truth to power on economic issues. Webb is willing to do that. Otherwise, outside of Edwards (who appears to not want the job), all of the potential VP picks are centrist Democrats unwilling to challenge or alter the fundamental economic imbalance imperiling this country. Webb's editorial in the WSJ and his opposition to the prison industrial complex is worth more than all of the empty talking points we have seen on the housing crises, out-of-control finance capitalism, poverty, and putative relief for the "middle class" from most of these other democrats.

In fact, the whole narrative on the Webb matter: that out-of-touch beltway people are looking at Webb as some panacea seems quite wrong. Most of the push back on a Webb VP candidacy was from the likes of Ezra, Yglesias, TNR, Timothy Noah, and others. Many seemed to categorically reject the Webb candidacy on grounds that he was not PC enough, might offend Hillary supporters, is too unrefined, or that it was an attempt to out tough republicans.

All of this talk came from party insiders and Washington DC based scribes, not really an outside of the beltway group.

That said, I will say that Ezra--for the most part--resisted some of the more egregious anti-webb sentiments along the lines of Timothy Noah.

For my money, while arguments about Webb's interest in the position and utility were more than valid (they came true, didn't they), I liked him because he seems more willing to stand up for his own principles rather than please the right people or wait for the right poll to tell him how to think. A streak of independent thought might do many a Democrat some good.

Isn't such a denial by a politician usually mean that he is about to be nominated? But Webb is probably too upright to play games and may be serious about staying in Senate. It is a shame because he will make an excellent Veep.

I guess odds on on Joe Biden go up.

Jim Webb is known for being straightforward, blunt if you will, he has, in the past, subsumed his position to his own perception of honor.

Barak Obama, not so much...

It would've been a match made in hell.

Jim is smart to keep his distance from this Faustian offer.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

To those asking about the stridency of the refusal, I would consider the treatment shown to a fellow Viet Nam war Gen. (ret.) Wesley Clark last week by Barak Obama. I don't think Jim and Wes are friends, but the disrespect shown to a fellow soldier by team Obama was way over the top.

Jim is smart to keep his distance.

I think Ezra's being misinterpreted here. He isn't saying that Webb, the person, is superficial, but that choosing any one person with strong foreign policy/military affairs credentials is a superficial fix to whatever gap in 'strength' on these issues the Dems may have in the eyes of the electorate.

And Ezra's correct. The way for the Dems to be 'strong' is to proposed, defend and vote for sensible ideas and not back down. And not vote for poor or bad measures just because they are afraid of being 'weak'.

There is little doubt that often the Dems have tried to change the subject from international affairs to domestic affairs in the recent past - all too often, and usually for bad reasons. The Iraq authorization to use military force was pushed through by Bush on a stupid timeline in the middle of an election cycle. The Dems should have refused to consider it until after the elections and defended it strongly. Clearly all the relevant facts were NOT in hand, and many non-facts were used to support it. Just saying no is strength in this instance and giving in to political pressure is being weak.

Selecting someone to be VP based solely on their international experience is being superficial and hurts the credibility of both the candidate and the Dem. party.

Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic says Webb took himself out of veepstakes because he found the vetting process overly intrusive.

That would certainly square with what we already know about Webb's personality. And his don't-get-in-my-face attitude would not have helped in a national campaign.

Webb is where he needs to be right now. He's in a position to rebut and rebuke Obama's neocon-pundit and GOP congressional critics, and to lead on oversight of defense and intelligence agencies that have gotten away with far too much for far too long.

Not incidentally, Webb holds a Senate seat that the Democrats would have great difficulty keeping were he to leave it. (No, Tim Kaine would not be a lock to succeed him.)

Jeff - thank you, well stated.

Jim - I'm not misunderstanding Ezra at all. My position is that Jim Webb is exactly the Democrat to "propose, defend and vote for sensible ideas and not back down. And not vote for poor or bad measures just because they are afraid of being 'weak'." As Jeff aptly noted, outside of Edwards Jim Webb is the only rumored VP candidate who has demonstrated the courage of his convictions.

Many of us see Webb as more than just the national security fig leaf that Ezra and others assume we are using Webb for. He's got an attitude and a fight in him that is sorely lacking from most of our leaders.

We're not advocating the selection of Webb "solely on international experience." We're advocating for Webb because for a myriad of reasons (again Jeff did a good job of enumerating them) we think Jim Webb is the best man for the job.

It's those who are opposed to Webb who seem to be only interested in discussing his national security credentials.

This is a sad day for Democrats. Obama/Webb was a winning ticket. I have no idea who we're going to turn to next. Is Joe Biden "Change You Can Believe In"?

Not incidentally, Webb holds a Senate seat that the Democrats would have great difficulty keeping were he to leave it.

This may be the least convincing argument against Webb.

Consider that we're set to gain about 5 Senate seats if not more and a single seat becomes less important.

Then factor in that Kaine will appoint someone to fill out the term and that person would enter the 2012 race with the tremendous advantage of incumbency.

Don't forget the demographic trends in Virginia that also portend well for future Democratic candidates.

That seat is safer than many believe.

In addition I find this entire line of thinking to be hopelessly fatalistic. What are we afraid of? Democrats would really pass over a good VP candidate because they are afraid that 4 years from now they might go from 57 Senate seats to 56? It's time to stop running scared and start aggressively pushing our agenda. The window of opportunity is only going to be open for so long and playing it safe is a losing strategy in the long term.

To those who are still wishing that Webb would reconsider (This coming from someone who still wishes that Strickland would reconsider): He is our point-man in the Senate on military and veterans' issues! Who else in the Democratic caucus could have led the effort and rallied members behind the GI Bill the way Jim Webb did? Who else has more credibility on military issues? Who else is a true outspoken voice of conscience on the issues where Webb specializes?

Taking him out of the Senate and putting him into the VP office would effectively silence him. Think of the party as a farm system. You need some people at all levels, so the party infrastructure will be strong. Senator Webb is in the best to place be for the time being.

Think of the party as a Farm System? Do you know anything about baseball, Steve WV? When top farm talents are ready, their promoted to the major leagues. Jim Webb is ready. He was born ready. You'll never get a larger bully pulpit outside of the presidency than you would as VP. That's the bottom line. I hope he reconsiders.

Taking him out of the Senate and putting him into the VP office would effectively silence him. Think of the party as a farm system. You need some people at all levels, so the party infrastructure will be strong. Senator Webb is in the best to place be for the time being.

Posted by: SteveWV | July 7, 2008 10:54 PM

That's pre-9/11 thinking, SteveWV.

Fourth Branch, baby!

~

well, the one thing this makes me feel better about is that Obama's team is willing to consider a progressive on economic issues. That's something that everyone seems to be missing since Webb would have been a strong economic populist.

You'll never get a larger bully pulpit outside of the presidency than you would as VP.

That depends. For one thing running mate is not a very large bully pulpit.

But Webb probably also realizes that Obama is in the process of screwing up the campaign and maybe he doesn't want to be associated with a losing ticket. Whereas if McCain wins, Webb would be extremely well positioned to run for president in 2012.

As Ezra said a while back, the idiosyncracies of the Senate -- six-year term, subpoena power, legislative heft -- suit Webb to the ground. There's no reason not to think that he'd retain the support of voters in Virginia for as long as he wanted to stay there.

I'd like to see him as part of a trend to re-establish some of the clout of that institution, at the same time as a Dem in the White House ratchets down the powers of the Veep.

Where has the post-2006 Democratic agenda hit the buffers? The Senate. And you can't blame Joe Lieberman for all of that. A strong Senate is going to be vital next year, regardless of what happens in November, and strength isn't just measured in numbers.

This never mattered. Hillary will be the VP choice because Barack is too weak to pick anyone else. He needs her to drag him across the finish line.

On the good news front, at least Webb doesn't have to violate DC gun laws now and doesn't have to refuse to answer questions about his gun ownership for fear of admitting to committing a felony.

Kaine will appoint someone to fill out the term and that person would enter the 2012 race with the tremendous advantage of incumbency.

An appointed replacement would have to run in a special election in 2010. The winner of that election would then have to run again when the seat's term expires in 2012.

Appointed replacements are generally weaker than bona fide incumbents, and while I am aware of Virginia's recent trend I'm not familiar enough with the Democratic Party there to know if there's someone in the wings who can win statewide election. Given that before Jim Webb came along they were trying to recruit Ben Affleck for that race, I doubt it.

to stop trying to solve their inadequacies on national security

On what basis, other than republican propaganda, do you claim that the Dems are inadequate on national security? One of the reasons the persception persists is that media pundits repeat the accusation without critically examining the issue.