Not terribly Shermanesque...
My opinion on this is the same as I'd voiced a few weeks ago. I'm not inclined to think of Jim Webb as VP material, because presidential candidates in normal times generally want running mates who can stay firmly in the background, and Webb's tendency to 'tell it like it is' doesn't fit the bill for that. BUT, if the 2008 race weren't taking place in 'normal times' -- say, for example there had been a strike on Iran in 2008 before the Democratic convention which had gone badly and backfired on us... think $5.00 gasoline and escalating US casualties from a Shia uprising in Iraq... and the Democratic nominee felt a bit exposed on the issue (as Hillary Clinton could feel, given her vote on Kyl-Lieberman)... then it starts to make more sense. But only if the nominee wants someone to take on more of a role than a traditional VP, someone with a lot of experience and gravitas on defense and foreign policy... and Jim Webb obviously could fit the bill if that sort of 'anti-Cheney' was what the Democratic nominee wanted in a vice president. Given the potential for a new democratic administration to inherit a really FUBAR situation in the Middle East in January 2009, it begins to make a bit of sense.
And Webb really did sound good. His explanation of his opposition to the declaration of the Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist organization" was really good. Don't know why he didn't win that argument with all the yahoos rushing in to join that vote. Very disappointed in Hillary, I must say.