Okay. Point taken. But I still think there's a difference between what you're calling conversion and what I might call "reframing one's outlook for political advantage." Take the example of Scott McClelland's upcoming book. He's critical of the administration that he worked for, but because he served as that administration's mouthpiece, it's hard for me to see his recent writing as signs of conversion. I'm more apt to see him as repositioning himself so he doesn't look like he's so clearly on the side of losers. Huffington and Reagan's conversions (along with, say, David Brock and David Horowitz) seem more convincing because they are attached to full bodies of work, to life-long commitment to engaging with philosophies and practices they used to be opposed to. As for Webb, I say it's fairest to say that the jury is still out. Has he recently addressed his sexist comments from the past?

We can embrace him within the fold and offer him redemption. I would say we have done that, as Webb is certainly a popular and highly regarded figure in his current role. But does this mean we should offer him elevation to the number two position and link our party's presidential fortunes directly to him (after less than two year's service as a Democratic senator)? It seems to me that this takes embracing a convert a bit far.

Obama will already have a "women" problem, albeit that Hillary largely created it. Still, I think it would be a huge mistake to choose Webb and put all those issues on the table. If he want a tough military type, go for Clark.

I'm generally very receptive of converts. The ones you have to look out for are the extremists. Norman Podheretz or whoever is mr. Islamofascism used to be an extreme liberal and now he's a neocon. Those kinds of people don't do you any good, no matter which way they're swinging. Rigid dogma hurts your intellect no matter what dogma you espouse.

I think that Virginia makes a key tactical point. As someone who volunteered for Webb, I find it distressing that people would be so quick to jump on statements made decades ago as if they were forever and for all time the full story. On the other hand, relatively short-term status as a Democratic legislator is more of a real issue. I find it especially annoying that people are using epithets (like southern redneck -- or as the poster herself said, white southern military dude) to describe someone who isn't even southern (you can look it up) and who is, whatever else you can say about him, highly accomplished. It's like we can't stop trading in stereotypes for others even as we howl that others might be stereotyping us.

I've got to agree with virginia. There's a huge difference between accepting all comers--which, in fact, the democrats have always done--and offering the number two spot in a hugely important election to a guy who just a few years ago was essentially calling all dems traitors and fags. I like jim webb a lot and he received a lot of crossover support from dems when he came over to our side. But I think the vice presidency should go to someone with a little more depth to their resume as a progressive. Plus I think he's too important in his senate seat. Also, when did getting to be a US senator stop being kind of an end in itself? Does every renegade republican have to be offered the vice presidency or can we just kind of extend the hand of friendship and work with them in these derisory, low level jobs? Because oddly enough there aren't enough vice presidential spots open for all the republicans who want to reregister as democrats thsi time around and if that is waht it takes to get them to reconsider their first political princilples we are pretty much out of luck. Being a serious democrat is kind of its own reward, to me. but maybe we are to think that webb needs another reward to stay a dem?

aimai

Arianna Huffington admitted she (and the rightwing nutjobs) were/are wrong and renounced that part of her life.
Webb has said that his views shifted enough leftward, and his former party's views shifted rightward enough, that he is now a Democrat.
I welcome both but there is a fundamental difference. Huffington was (re)baptized while Webb switched churches.

I don't think it's fair to label Webb's statements about women in the military as "sexist," with the moral judgment that entails. And there's no reason to think the term "sexist pig" is anything but gratuitous and offensive here.

Yes, there was an argument about what role women would have in the military, and Webb was on the losing side of that argument. But his position was not silly or specious, and there is no reason to assert he wasn't arguing in good faith.

If you haven't read it, read his 1979 article, and you might as well read his Navy Cross citation while you're at it. Then you might think twice about whether it's reasonable and appropriate to label Webb a "pig."

Alkali,
Its not necessary to be more royalist than the king, here. I think webb himself has apologized for his remarks so if he thinks they were a big deal perhaps we are right to think they are too? Plus its not just his remarks about women in combat etc...but his remarks at the time of tailhook which was a really, really, really, big deal for those of us who remember and an even bigger deal in light of the huge numbers of women who have served, and are serving, in this war and overseas with KBR etc... Someone who doesn't take harrassment of women seriously when he had a chance isn't really deserving of that much slack in being offered the second from the top cleanup slot after a massive botch up like the Iraq war where many female soldiers have been affected.

aimai

I wonder exactly how anyone could say affirmative action is anything other than "state-sponsored racism." I guess there are classes you can take that help you believe two conflicting facts at the same time.

If writing an article called "Women Can't Fight" isn't sexist, we might as well throw the word out entirely. The issue with Webb, as compared to Reagan, is that Reagan a) repudiated his old views and explicitly argued from their conservative opposites, and b) spent a long time working in and rising up in the GOP. Webb, OTOH, endorsed Allen in 2000 and became a Democrat not long before he began running for Senate. He has stepped back from his previous social views a bit, but he's hardly the the social liberal to match Reagan's reborn economic conservative.

The fact is that Webb got where he got with the netroots because he's against the war and he stands up for himself; that he's from the apparently Eden of new white male progressives, Virginia, doesn't hurt. Everything else doesn't matter

I think webb himself has apologized for his remarks so if he thinks they were a big deal perhaps we are right to think they are too?

I don't think he has apologized for writing the article. He has said that he regrets a few statements he made in the article.

The bigger point here is that this is not Jonah Goldberg sharing with us his fresh thoughts from having seen Red Dawn on cable yet again. Webb is a highly decorated combat veteran. If anyone is "deserving of that much slack" with regard to his comments on military matters, he is.

That doesn't mean we all have to ignore what he's said on those subjects, or that it's not fair to think about how those things will play with women voters, but there ought to be a limit to the self-congraulation.

alkali,
I suggest you actually read the Kathy G. piece before you blather on much longer on what we owe to a "highly decorated combat veteran." Oddly enough, we gave the guy some fucking medals, we didn't elect him king of the military and how we have to think about it. In fact that is what we are arguing--whether just having been in the military (regardless of the views expressed) means that we have to offer a johnny come lately to progressive causes and the democtratic side of the aisle the second from the top slot. You seem to think that either his sexist/retrograde views down't matter or they are, essentially, correct. I don't. And lots of people don't. This has nothing to do with "self congratulation" and everythign to do with considering the man on the *&^% merits. Lots of people are decorated combat vets. I don't, and the rest of don't, have to accept everything they say (or, indeed, anything they say) as the last word on any policy question just because of that.

I don't see how "self congratulation" gets into it. The veep slot is *for the voters* not a reward for webb who, in any event, has yet to sacrfice anything for being a democrat so needs no "reward." As I said above being a senator used to be seen as pretty big cheese. If its not good enough for webb why should women democratic voters make it up to him?

aimai

If writing an article called "Women Can't Fight" isn't sexist, we might as well throw the word out entirely.

It doesn't do much for the utility of the word to use it as a general purpose smear, either. "Sexism" suggests unthinking bias or hatred. That implication is just not warranted here.

I suggest you actually read the Kathy G. piece before you blather on much longer on what we owe to a "highly decorated combat veteran."

I did read her piece, and she makes fair points. I personally don't think Webb would make a good VP choice. What I do think we owe Webb is enough respect to avoid gratuitously using terms like "sexist pig" (a term used in the post above, not in Kathy G.'s post). Indeed, I don't think using the term "sexist" is appropriate or necessary. Isn't it enough to say he was wrong?

Oddly enough, we gave the guy some fucking medals .... You seem to think that either his sexist/retrograde views down't matter or they are, essentially, correct. I don't.

I disagree with the views he expresed in that article, and people are entitled to take it into consideration. I think someone who had grenade shrapnel picked out of their body in the service of this country is entitled to respectfully-expressed disagreement.

Kathy G.'s piece was not only slanted, it was inaccurate in some respects. A lot of the examples she used were drawn from the Republican attacks during the Senate campaign, which were inaccurate and biased and largely refuted. She also used phrases such as "southern white military dude," which isn't even a dogwhistle, more like a trumpet, of her disdain for southerners, white men, and the military. Yes, that's gratuitous. And yet, many have accepted Kathy G.'s piece as "definitive."

And to the snide comment re Virginia being the new Eden of white male candidates: Geez, what do you want us to do down here? Keep voting for the white male Republicans so you can keep slapping us around as being too retrograde to deserve any respect? Will that make you feel better? We have lots of women candidates too, but they've had a hard time getting in line for the governor's seat.

alkali,
Oh, I'm sorry, I think we talking about two utterly different things. One, I don't think that sexism suggests "unthinking bias or hatred" its just a word describing an attitude towards the opposite sex, or a policy position, which is disciminatory or results in unequal treatment. The examples put forward by Kathy G fall under that heading. No one is saying Webb isn't a nice guy or that he arrived at his rather standard opinions on women randomly, or angrily, or meanly. Sexism used to be the standard policy of the family and the government so lots of people arrived at their sexism quite naturally.

Second, this is "respectfully expressed disagreement." Using words like "sexist pig" which, as you noted, Kathy G. did not, are not actually disrespectful regardless of the content of shrapnel picked out of Webb's body at some point. I'd say its a whole lot more disrespectful to accuse a class of women ensigns of being useless, sexually predatory, and dangerous to their fellow officers. I'd say its damned disrespectful of african americans to single out affirmative action as a main political issue and to ignore the history and effects of jim crow and segregation on everyone's life chances. But in any event I think Webb is a big boy and doesn't need to be protected from the ugly speech of a few angry internet bloggers using words like "sexism" and even "pig" as though they were grenades. They aren't.

aimai

aimai, I don't have the exact chronology, but Jim Webb has said that affirmative action is an appropriate remedy in the case of race because of the prolonged adverse historical treatment of African Americans. He does object to using affirmative action in the case of other groups.

"Sexism" suggests unthinking bias or hatred.

That's ridiculous. "Sexism" suggests bias or discrimination based on sex, whether or not it's been thought about. "Women Can't Fight" is indisputably an expression of sex-based bias and a call for sex-based discrimination.