"many Clinton supporters wouldn’t find Webb acceptable, and they’d have a point"

Oh, come on, Scott. Clinton only became the victim of the most horribly sexist treatment in world history after all her other bullshit rationales for her defeat were worn out. Please don't validate their opportunisitic playing of the victim.

It's a hard call. The thing I love about Webb (as a candidate)is that he's a genuine intellectual who oozes machismo, not a very common combination in our culture.

Webb did say some truly lame things about women in the military several years ago, but he has fully repented, and I can't imagine that Hillary supporters will refuse to support Obama because of something stupid his vice-presidential candidate said thirty or so years ago.

Oops, I made that last comment but forgot to type in my name.

Give us a break: I'm a Hillary supporter, and deplore the sexist mudslinging in this campaign, but I'm fine with Obama and would like to see Webb in the VP spot for a variety of reasons.

A few months ago, Clinton might have been viable as VP on an Obama ticket, but as the campaign has shaped up, instead of adding a complementary strength to the ticket Obama and Clinton would undermine one another's appeal for many voters.

What matters is winning and winning as big as possible with the longest possible coattails.

Webb's a diva, not a veep. He's brilliant, iconoclastic and unique, but he's not vp material.

my recollection is the virulent sexism started in New Hampshire, which actually spurred her stunning 13 point comeback the night before the primary.

If Obama picks Webb, I'm done with him. There's no room in a dem white house for a man who was a leader against women's rights, a supporter of harrassers, and an all around jerk.

He may have changed, but he hasn't even been a dem for very long. I give Robert Byrd the benefit of the doubt that he's changed, and maybe when Webb gets to Byrd's age I'll give it to him too.

I think the writer's analysis has some strong arguments about Webb's apparent sexism, which might disqualify him due to the anger Camp Clinton has stirred up in women due to her alleged gender bias, which is total malarky, but some people are unwilling or can't think for themselves and believe everything someone tells them. I say that with no disrespect but fact that is why and how "advertising" works.

Looks like the liberal blogosphere has closed the book on Webb.

Maybe this is why red states stay red?

Actually, Virginia is trending blue and Webb would likely seal the deal, along with Warner. In all honesty, when I read the one sided, dishonest diatribe (commenters did a good job of breaking it down), my thought was that, we don't deserve candidates like Webb. Seriously, if we are going to hold decades old statements against people who have clearly changed, the only thing we are ever going to get are people who have been grooming themselves to be president for decades and who, as a result, have never taken any risks in standing up for something they believe in. Hmmm . . . sounds a lot like Hillary Clinton to me. Oh well.

I wouldn't want to be the one to tell Webb he can't be Veep because I've got a glass jaw.

Thanks for this post. I'm proud to call Jim Webb my senator, and I worked hard to have him elected. So I say with some awareness that while he is an very good Senator, and a good man, he is not an easy candidate, and by no means has been "vetted" to be VP.

His past comments about women, although in the past, would sound particularly deafening this year, especially to HRC supporters (Of whom I'm not one, but I respect their point of view.)

And no one kid themselves -- VA is shading blue, but while retiring Congressman Tom Davis sat out the Senate election against Mark Warner, I doubt he would do so again, should Webb's seat be in the running. Tom Davis is not Jim Gilmore, and that election would be harder to carry. And we'll have enough to do to keep the Governor's Mansion blue!