"The Case for Jim Webb" as VP
By: Lowell
Published On: 4/1/2008 6:21:57 AM
This is fascinating, a strong case for Jim Webb as Barack Obama's running mate.
...Webb's appeal as a running-mate is greater than that and greater too than the prospect of his being able to compensate, to some extent anyway, for John McCain's appeal to working-class white men. It's not hard to imagine Webb helping the ticket in Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky, to say nothing of the benefits his populism could potentially have in states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio. He may, in fact, be just the sort of culturally conservative and genuine Democrat Obama needs to balance his ticket.
An Obama-Webb ticket closes a circle. Much has been said, some of it overblown but enough of it with a kernel of truth to justify the hype and optimism, about how electing Barack Obama would be an act of historic significance, in some way atoning for the original sin of slavery and reconciling the darker elements of American history. As I say, a good deal of this is trite: a President Obama is not going to magically close the divide between white and black America, but there's enough to this to make the hope it inspires understandable.
Putting Jim Webb on the ticket completes this process. like John McCain, Webb can plausibly claim that his ancestors have fought in almost every American war. Unlike McCain, Webb is a creature of the white working class. He believes his people - the Scots-Irish of Appalachia - remain misunderstood, under-appreciated and disparaged by America's elites. If Obama is a "wine track" candidate, Jim Webb is definitely "beer track". He's quite happy - proud in fact - of his "redneck" stock.
For those of us who know Jim Webb, we can definitely corroborate all of that. Read the entire "Case for Jim Webb" as Barack Obama's running mate here. And, if you agree with the reasoning, vote for Webb here.
Oh, by the way, last night at Leslie Byrne's fundraiser, Jim Webb walked in to the strains of "Scotland the Brave" on the bagpipes. Later, I believe I saw him holding a beer (as Webb fans know, one of his favorite lines from the 2006 campaign was "there will be beer!"). Certainly no "wine track" here. Ha.
Comments
No one else close! (Shenandoah Democrat - 4/1/2008 7:06:53 AM)
Yesterday, when I saw Kos was doing a V-P sweepstakes I wondered, gee, how long will it take Lowell to see this! It's rather frustrating that there are so few competent military/national security leaders among the Democrats. I hate to see us lose the hard-won seat Senator Webb occupies, but if he and Barack and get it together then I'm sure they'd be a winning ticket. Any word on whether Jim and Barack actually like each other, or have ever had a beer together?
Barack/Webb '08--No one else close!
Kos isn't doing the V-P sweepstakes (Lowell - 4/1/2008 7:26:26 AM)
It's a diarist named "Sven at My Silver State," and it's just for fun as far as I can tell.
Jim Webb for VP/Jim Webb for President (Bernie Quigley - 4/1/2008 7:20:18 AM)
I am troubled most about our next-to-immediate future by the attitude of young-to-middle aged people, particularly those who have never served in war, about the innocence of their ideas, particularly those ideas in foreign policy. The stringing of Star Wars defenses across the edge of Russia in particular has created a system of pseudo-American states across the world and these states will have to be defended at one point with American blood; that is, the blood of my children. Both parties have enthusiastically supported these ideas which were first identified in Newt Gingrich's Contract with America and in Reagan's Cold War initiatives but they were vehemently advanced by the Clinton administration and Al Gore. Jim Webb understands fully that if one supports Western territorialization abroad in the Americanization of Poland, Czech Republic, Afganisthan, Taiwan or wherever you will have to ask yourself if you are willing to send your kids to their death for these bold but abstract foreign policy initiatives. Are you willing to do that? Are you willing to die yourself? Or do you think that someone else will die for your sins? The only fully mature recognition of the fateful complexity of these issues in the Senate today and their cost in human sadness comes from Jim Webb.
Good point (Catzmaw - 4/1/2008 12:41:06 PM)
and added to that is something I heard Webb saying a couple of weeks ago about the secret deal-making going on between the Administration and the Maliki government. Webb's saying we should be paying attention to the promises this government is making which may come back to bite the new President on the posterior. He wants Congress to insist that no arrangements re our military commitment be made without the involvement of and agreement of Congress. No one else appears to be taking this into consideration.
I'm far more cautious (Mistergizmo - 4/1/2008 7:28:22 AM)
Jim Webb has been doing yeoman work on behalf of returning service members. However, his record on upholding the Constitution has been less than stellar. His votes against habeas corpus, against freedom of speech (the MoveOn ad), and for the initial Protect America Act show a disregard for our rights that I find extremely worrisome.
One correction. (Lowell - 4/1/2008 7:32:59 AM)
The vote to condemn the MoveOn "General Betray Us" ad (har har, very clever!!) was not binding in any way, just a sense of outrage by the majority of Congress at that ad. I fail to see how that constitutes a vote "against freedom of speech." In fact, MoveOn can say whatever it wants...no change from prior to that resolution.
If he's not available... (MarkVA71 - 4/1/2008 9:04:30 AM)
How about General Wesley Clark?
Natural and powerful fit (Alicia - 4/1/2008 10:02:31 AM)
and the article you linked to summed it up from an interesting perspective...
Webb (South County - 4/1/2008 10:34:28 PM)
I voted for and supported Webb last year, but I'm really angry about how the Commission on Wartime Contracting (CWC) is being implemented. Everyone knows that there were contracting problems in Iraq from day one, and while people have tried to clean things up, there are still issues. With this new CWC everyone in DoD is running around reactively working on providing oversight over old contracts, distracting resources and attention from proactive efforts to clean up Afghanistan or engage to prevent conflict in Africa or South America. We need to move on. Digging up messy contract files for headlines in the 2008 election is not worth the efforts of thousands of DoD employees who should be looking forward not backward. The CWC sounded like a good idea but its being implemented in a way that will not be productive.
Could you be more specific (Catzmaw - 4/2/2008 12:45:43 PM)
about what the CWC is supposed to do? Is it CWC's job to "engage to prevent conflict in Africa or South America", and if so, how? What is a "proactive effort to clean up Afghanistan?" Are you saying that there are new contracts which are not being scrutinized or are you saying that it's not worth the Commission's time and trouble to look into current or earlier contracts? Do you not see any possibility that the assumptions and practices in effect under now defunct contracts may still be in effect and still relied upon by people making decisions on the ground now? What is your understanding of the Commission's mandate and can you point to the language which sets forth the mandate?