Heh, now reading that I kinda feel bad that I didn't add that I think Webb's done a great job in the Senate and would no doubt have been a strong choice for VP if this race hadn't been so overshadowed by claims of sexism (which I think are true, just not coming from the Obama campaign like many are claiming) from many of Hillary's supporters which make up about half of all the Democrats who have voted thus far.

Sexism and racism have both definitely shown their ugly heads this campaign. This country still has a lot of growing up to do, but just the fact that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both made it this far proves we have come such a long way on both fronts. I'm really glad to have been a witness to this, as at least in my lifetime it seems that most all of the other events that will have made into the history books will have been negative ones.

Posted by BillW | May 25, 2008 10:44 AM

I'll be blogging about Webb myself soon, but suffice it to say there are many reasons why I think he'd be a poor choice for VP. The biggest one, though, is that I don't want a man being one heartbeat away from the presidency who has held such sexist views and has done so much to damage the cause of gender equality in the military. I understand and accept that red state Dems are going to be more conservative on some issues than I'd like, but for me, any Dem presidential and vice presidential candidate has to be solid on race, gender, and labor issues -- no ifs, ands, or buts.

Besides, in practical terms, selecting Webb would be a slap in the face to the Hillary supporters. I'm not saying that Obama has to pick Hillary as veep (and indeed, I think that would be a bad idea). I'm not even saying that he needs to pick a woman.

But Hillary was the first woman to ever have a serious shot at the presidency, and she came so close. So the Hillary supporters (of whom, to be clear, I am not one) will feel frustrated enough that their candidate didn't win. But for Obama to choose -- out of all the well-qualified candidates out there -- the one person who has a really horrible record on gender issues would be like rubbing salt in the wound. It would be seen as a big "screw you" to Hillary's supporters and to feminists in general.

How would Obama supporters feel if their man lost a closely contested fight, and then Hillary turned around and picked as veep someone who, into the 1980s, was an outspoken and powerful opponent of civil rights? It would seem tone-deaf and incredibly insensitive, to say the least.

Webb has other problems which I'll write about as well. But his record on women alone should render him beyond the pale for consideration as veep.

Posted by Kathy G. | May 25, 2008 11:32 AM

I'm going to say his VP's going to be Kathleen Sebelius. I don't think it can be anyone else...and she can say the things to defend him against those white feminists that Michelle Obama can't.
I was watching some show on CNN where they were talking with that Marie Coco and a couple of other women (an older white Republican woman and a Hispanic CNN anchor who I've seen a lot but I can't remember her name right now), and I was shocked by their take on the election and the defense of Clinton. They just felt sexism was why Hillary lost, and that racism has not played a prominent role in this campaign AT ALL. But the thing that just made my jaw drop was when they claimed that no journalists had come to the defense of Hillary for all the rampant sexism, but that when Don Imus made those comments about the Rutgers basketball team, all the journalists defended those players...because they were AFRICAN AMERICAN. The distorted logic just blows my mind. It doesn't even make any sense.
And my take on it is that the majority of Hillary's female supporters are not behind her because she is a woman...but because she is a WHITE woman, and racism plays a siginificant role in why they won't vote for Obama. I don't think it's just because he's a man. Those same women would not be behind an African-American female candidate. It's obvious Clinton is not going to help him get elected in any way, shape or form, she's going to be the sore loser. If he's going to do it without Clinton, I think he needs Kathleen Sebelius. Unless she also has some Webb-crazy statements from her past.

Posted by Jaye | May 25, 2008 12:51 PM

Look, Webb ain't my No. 1 candidate for Obama Veep, BUT-
What is Webb's horrible record on gender issues-that he was against women serving in combat TWENTY NINE years ago? Come on folks, our focus should be on winning the election, not on presenting the most ideologically pure ticket that we can find.
Plus, look at our opposition. I frankly doubt that McClain is going to attack us on the issue of gender equality in the military-he probably holds beliefs that are to the right of what Webb held way back then. Remember too, that for the electorate of the issue of whether and how women should serve in combat is a minor one.

Frankly, I'm OK with picking Bob Strickland as VP, though he is a pro-life Catholic, if it could guarantee Ohio and Pennsylvania. If Webb could guarantee Virginia for us and help out in Pennsylvania and Ohio, then hell yes, we should pick him.
THOSE are the considerations that should go into picking a VP-Not whether he has hold some conservative belief sometime in this past.

Posted by stonetools | May 25, 2008 1:03 PM

I worked as a precinct captain to elect Jim Webb in 2006, but generally, I think he's more valuable as a Senator from Virginia than as a veep. Virginia hasn't quite turned blue yet, but with Mark Warner, we're about to have our Senate delegation flip from what used to be 2-0 Republican (George Allen and John Warner) to 2-0 Democratic (Jim Webb and Mark Warner). In addition, Webb specializes in economic issues & veterans' issues that would be difficult for him to do much about, if he's put on duty going to funerals of foreign dignitaries as a veep.

Posted by jonp72 | May 26, 2008 10:37 PM