has been suggested for Obama since her response to the President's State of the Union.

That was probably the most boring response I have ever heard to a state of the union. The contrast is far too great between her and Obama. Obama needs someone like Webb.  

Comparing her response to Webb's isn't even possible -- he's in a different (and better) league.

I've noticed that he has not attacked Obama at all, unlike the other surrogates for Clinton.  Maybe he is hedging his bets.

I have no evidence to support this, just my guy feeling, but I don't think Obama is the type to hold a grudge; i.e. demand loyalty and obedience from the get-go. I also don't believe that Obama is the type to worry about being over-shadowed by someone who is older and more knowledgeable than he is.

Of course, that may just be my hope talking. I would love to see Clark in a position in the new adminstration, no matter who wins.  

Never has.  He talks positively of the candidate he supports and doesn't engage in speaking ill of the opponent.  That's just his style.

Webb wouldn't be a good pick at all; he carries a net disapproval (and has for most of his term) with Virginians, carries a disapproval among rural voters, among Independents, and among gun owners, and doesn't have much experience to bring to the table.

Tim Kaine can't be VP because he'd leave Bolling as Governor, which would allow Bolling to run for Governor in 2009 as an incumbent. Moran or Deeds already have an uphill battle; Kaine leaving would make it even steeper.

What does Webb have to do to get these particular gun owners' approval, I wonder? Take an assault weapon to the top of the capitol and wave it around and alternately pick off gun-control liberals who happen to walk into the line of fire?

Puh-leeze. These particular rural voters and gun owners to which you refer are never going to vote for a Democrat in any case. Why should we pander to them? As for the so-called Independents who disapprove, I have a feeling they are anything but.

It seems to me that a lot of Republican-leaning "Independents" still insist that Webb is a conservative.  

Seriously. Gun owners would LOVE Webb, it is not the gun owners who don't like him but the hard core Allen fans who were also members of the NRA.

The NRA screwed up when they didn't back Webb or stay out of that race. Webb is a natural ally of gun owners,(just go shooting with the guy, he practices at Quantico from what I hear)

Except Webb did not seek the NRA endorsement; nor did he accept it or particularly want it. I guess he felt he was authentic enough without it.  

But at the end of the day, Webb is a so-called "centrist" Democrat who doesn't appeal to the center. His signature cross-over issue--gun rights--doesn't seem to have any traction either.

What would he possibly add to a Presidential ticket?

Webb is the opposite of Obama in just about every way imaginable. They are a study of contrasts. Now, you might not consider that kind of balance a good thing, but if you do:
    #1. His age. Webb is 60+. He is of the Vietnam era, just like McCain, only not as old.  
    #2. His race. Hard to get whiter than Jim Webb.
    #3. Background: Webb identifies strongly (understatement!) with the Scotts-Irish and Southern "redneck" areas. Obama has that Northern, raised-in-Hawaii-and-foreign lands, Ivy-league thing going for him. It's like Jefferson v Jackson.
    #4. Military and foreign policy experience. Yeah, Webb has that. Obama--not so much. OTOH, Obama is a much more experienced politician.
    #5. Campaigning and fundraising prowess. Webb has none. Okay, he's gotten better, but it's obviously not where he shines. Obama doesn't need a lot of help in this area. Correction: Obama doesn't need ANY help in this area.
   #6. Gravitas. Webb's pugnacious and serious. Obama is sunny and optimistic and inspiring. The Odd couple or a match made in heaven?
   #7. Perception: Deserved or not, Webb has the rep for being "independent" and even "conservative." There will be many potential voters out there who will be a bit uncertain or nervous of an Obama presidency--it's too radical, too liberal, it's TOO much change. Webb could do a lot to calm their fears, for all the aforementioned reasons.

I'm not saying that Webb is absolutely, definitely, positively the best VP candidate for Obama: I'm just saying he absolutely, definitely, positively brings something to the table that merits discussion.        

But that doesn't mean he's a good pick.

Webb has had a net approval most of his term.  True, it hasn't been high, and he hasn't broken 50% in a while, but most of the time he's +7 or so.  I don't get where you're getting this net disapproval thing.  Is it a Colbert thing, you just feel it in your gut?

I misspoke; I meant to say an approval under 50%, and a net disapproval among Indies, gun owners, and rural voters.

benefited by his positions.  Last week he issued a press release condemning the Bush budget cuts of rural health care access of some 86%.  The budget essentially throws the rural poor to the wolves.  He is a strong gun rights supporter.  And independents who run centrist or a bit conservative should find him far more palatable than the left wing of the Democratic party.  It's a mystery to me why more and better word has not gone out to these particular groups that Webb's probably the best friend they have.  

And a strong unwillingness to admit that you (the voter) have been wrong.  If Webb keeps at it, they'll come around.  But he'll have to keep at it for a while.

Your rabid gun-voting gun owners are not going to vote Democrat. No matter what. The best we can do is go for your regular gun owner--God knows there are plenty of those--who do NOT vote on the issue alone AND have some semblance of reason.

I agree that with rural voters, it's going to take some time. The Democrats are the 'libural, Godless, America-hating commies" and I guess they will be for some time.

But things can change.  

I guess if Webb is chosen he will have to come out of hibernation and explain:

1. Why he missed the JJ dinner.
2. Why he voted to provide immunity to the telecom companies.

Among other things.

We're still waiting to hear...

(wind blowing... crickets chirping... the sound of traffic in the distance)

issues of our times ...   I really wish people would get over it.  That dinner was the same week he was launching his offensive on the 21st Century GI Bill.  I don't know why he missed the dinner, but I can't understand why it's so very important to people that he didn't attend.

As for the FISA vote, the explanation is and will continue to be that he made a difficult decision after months of considering the issues and the competing interests and consulting with and listening to constitutional scholars, intelligence analysts, civil libertarians, and government types.  He had a call to make and he made it.  This is the explanation I got from his office.  I've e-mailed a reply that I disagree and stated my reasons for supporting telecom liability, but I'm not going to accuse him of making this decision willy-nilly and without care for the Constitution or Bill of Rights as I've seen some do on this site.  We don't have to like it or agree with it, but it was not a decision made without thought or rational foundation.  

I'm trying to understand all the people who claim he hasn't explained his vote.  Exactly how much of an explanation do you want?  You want him to take out his map of some Taliban hideout and say "here there be monsters"?  Do you want him to tell you exactly what he heard that made him and a number of other perfectly respectable Democratic Senators vote to keep the legislation alive?  How much detail do you require for the explanation to be valid?  What you're really asking him to do is persuade you he made the right decision and I don't that's going to work no matter how much information he gives you.    

Bayh (D-IN)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Webb (D-VA)

I guess if everyone's doing it it must be ok.

only presented the factual information re: which Democrats voted the same way.  

Draw conclusions as you will...

Its not that he didn't show. Its that he never even apologized or gave an explanation that I know of. Maybe its because I'm Southern, but if you are expected at a big bash its ALWAYS good form to offer an explanation and/or apology if you can't make it. Otherwise people usually just consider it a snub. I expect this of my friends and always get it, and they expect it of me and I hope I respond in kind. Its just good manners 101.

Can we move beyond it now?  Besides, I seem to remember from an earlier comment on the FISA issue that he had a legitimate reason for missing the dinner, but I can't recall what it was.

Unlike Webb, who has hinted that he might take the seat but only if the right offer was made, Kaine has made it clear, as has Strickland, that under no circumstances will he accept the offer.

I've never read a comment from Webb that "hinted" he might take the seat if the right offer was made. What is your link or source for that comment?

Some article about him talking about how "slow" the Senate was, comparing it to an aquarium and such.  

He also said that he would not run just to help in Virginia, which hints that he might consider if it were given at another angle.  But again, this is all speculation.  But to me, it seems Webb refuses to flat out say "no" to the prospect, like Kaine and Strickland have.

He's never hinted that he might take this position if the right offer were made.  You're right in saying this is purely speculation, just as any prognostication on any of the potential candidates.  It's a media parlor game and will be until one is chosen by the nominee.

and my first look (favorably impressed) is Sen. Jack Reed of RI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...

I am a strong supporter of Jim Webb.  Probably his most significant attribute is his independence.  That's probably not so good in a VP.

from on the issues

Looks pretty good to me!

Voted NO on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)

Voted with Democratic Party 96.6% of 322 votes. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006)
Voted NO on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Sep 2005)

Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)
Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)
Voted YES on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Nov 2007)

Rated 95% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)

but he doesn't bring much "balance" to the ticket.  

and I've always been very impressed by him.  He's another vet who can walk the walk and talk the talk, and he brings a lot of credibility on the military to the Dems in the House.  

maybe I'm behind the times, but that seems like a no-brainer to me.

Webb would be the most interesting choice, IMHO, for a few reasons:

1. From a southern state Obama could carry
2. An effective debater
3. Instant credibility on the war in Iraq -- he instantly neutralizes McCain on the issue, since both have kids either serving or who have served over there.
4. Against McCain, Obama's lack of military credentials will come up. Webb neutralizes McCain there as well.
5. Democrats maintain the Senate seat.

As for the negatives, his approval ratings in Virginia don't matter much, I don't think. If the worry is that Webb won't be able to carry the state, as evidenced by his inability to crack the 50% approval, well, then, what democrat VP candidate, other than Warner or Kaine (both out) would do better?

In fact, this is actually a reason for him to fill the VP slot, since this polling does suggest that Webb might have a hard time getting re-elected. In any event, Webb clearly plays better with the national audience than he does with the hometown fans.

Another negative I've heard is that he is not a great campaigner. I never really saw him on the trail, so I can't say. He did win, though.

A final negative is that I have read somewhere that Webb doesn't like being handled. My guess is that the candidate for VP gets handled all day long. So there is an issue of whether Webb would find it appealing.

finds it as attractive as a root canal.  He is not a natural campaigner.  Glad-handing strangers doesn't come easily to him.  He has improved in his ability to simply talk to a crowd, and as a debater has shown enormous improvement.  His appearance with Lindsey Graham on Meet the Press was excellent.  Graham debates by talking over his opponents.  I've witnessed him do it - cheap debate trick - but Webb shut him down the last time.  Not bad.  He has become far more comfortable dealing with things like C-Span appearances, and I suspect when his book comes out in a couple of months we may hear him being interviewed on Dianne Rehm's program on NPR.

Webb has problems telling people what they want to hear.  He would much prefer to tell them what he thinks.  For anyone campaigning for political office this can be a pretty serious handicap; however, it can result in enthusiastic support from people who have been starved for substance.  Our modern system of handling people running for political office means we rarely see unscripted moments. Everything's vetted through the campaign managers, right down to the clothes the candidate wears and the gestures the candidate makes.  It's murder on anyone who just wants to say "here's what I think and let me tell you why."  

Thanks for filling out the word.

Face it, the one thing Obama doesn't need help with is the campaigning/fundraising. Obama is charming, affable, inspiring and hopeful. Webb is not. But he's tough and serious and experienced in ways that Obama isn't.  

So this relationship could work.  

1. If Obama carries Virginia, it would have nothing to do with Webb being on the ticket.
3. I disagree that a VP pick "neutralizes" the Presidential candidate. Also, an assertion that he does indicates that Obama has a weakness on that front, which is much more significant than the VP's position.
4. I whole-heartedly disagree that Webb "neutralizes" McCain's vast experience and leadership on military and national security matters.

and neither do women. Nobody's perfect. There are areas where Obama is going to need help; I believe he is the kind of leader who recognizes that and will not surround himself with "yes men" but will seek the people who can help him be the most effective leader possible.

Now McCain has lots of experience, that is true. But what has the experience taught him? What did he learn?

Why did he vote for the war? Why has he supported it in every way he can, defended the decision, and outright lied about its success? If he had been president in 2001 (and I'm sure he feels he should have and would have been) would he have stopped at Afghanistan or followed the neo-cons advice and gone into Iraq?  

like Tim Kaine and Bill Richardson.  I saw Wes Clark speak at Yearly Kos and thought he'd make an amazing Sec. of State, it was the best speech on diplomacy I've ever heard.

I will be at Netroots Nation, and my panel proposal has been accepted, but I cannot publicly talk about it yet.  LEt is suffice to say that it will be somewhat different  :-)

--And this is what I would consider a major drawback--

Webb is chosen as VP and elected.  Who would replace him in the Senate?  We already have Warner running for the other Senate seat.

The date of the JJ Dinner was also Webb's birthday. My guess is with a son on the list to return to Iraq, he decided to enjoy his birthday with his family. Truth be told, Webb is an introvert. He does not appear to like crowds.