C'mon....one of the things we trashed Allen for the entire race was that he would not serve a full term in the Senate.  Now, you want Webb to do the same?

No. 

There is more than one way to "serve".  Unless Webb vowed not to run I don't see a problem with it. 

Did you really care if Allen served his entire term?  I mean really - isn't that just typical politics?  How many people really lost sleep over the question of if Allen was going to serve his full term?

That is the same argument we hear every time a politician runs for office who is considered in the running.  It is nothing more than political rhetoric.  Virginians would be lucky to have a fellow Virginian in the Whitehouse. 

The winner in 2008 will be the candidate closest to center.  You can take that to the bank.  If Democrats serve up someone too far left of center, they will not win.

My worst nightmare is that we get candidates from both parties in 2008 who are far from center.  Either scenario, we lose.

Of all of them, I think he has the best chance.

Maybe I should rephrase the question to be who thinks he should run in the primary. 

I mean, shouldn't Senator Webb at least be an option? 

My top three would be (in no particular order) Edwards, Webb, and Gen Clark.

Who don't appear include Senators Clinton and Kerry.  I think they should run because they obviously have support - I just wouldn't personally choose them as my top picks.

I'm sticking with it...  :~)

There is no doubt he'd make a great Pres. candidate but honestly, I think at least 1 full term in the Senate is probably wise.

I also think Edwards made a mistake not serving longer.

We get these great new guys and we're all very unhappy with the old ones but ....hmmmm...

BTW:  The are now working on passing the Skil Bill in the lame duck!  Just read about it and guess who is probably going to help, the very "old" "friends" I am above referring to.

There are some ones who seem like fixtures - and yes I'd like to see the retire.

Now that the election is over - I think it is time to clean up house.  Start with our own backyard - and get rid of the guy who stuffed his freezer with $90k.  After that go after every dirty politician we can find.

I don't mind politicians I don't agree with.  I can't tolerate corruption and the control of K-Street.  If cleaning up politics isn't on the very top of the agenda for Democrats, they will lose much of what they have gained in 2008.

Here is Democrat's chance to make things right.  I'll be holding my Senator's feet to the fire.

Here's one:
Democrats gave Indian venture capitalist Kamil Hasan a seat in the powerful Democratic National Committee because of his fund-raising abilities.

Democrats need to stand up to this guy and say "sorry" but American interests and American workers before India interests and most importantly, these guys are making billions with their cheap labor agenda, which is also exploitive of their past countrymen. 

This has just plain got to stop, putting foreign interests over American interests by people who took US citizenship, made an oath and are busy getting very rich by exploiting both sides of the Pacific.

Are you certain of this?

There are a lot of newly minted US citizens using their citizenship to gain access to our congress, not for their newly adopted country, national interests, their fellow countrymen who are also new citizens and so forth...
they are manipulating their citizenship status to get very rich, influence our congress for foreign interests, over US interests and basically represent the country of origin.

It's not pretty and what I'd like to note most is just how many of this guy's own countrymen who are also US citizens, plus citizens in the country of origin are getting royally shafted by labor arbitrage while this guy is getting very, very rich by exploiting both sides of the Pacific.

Is that he represents the special interest - and that Democrats allow his presence because of big money donations.  Hopefully there is political will to change that now.

He is an American and we should do our best not to muddy the waters with his former nationality.  I wouldn't want the root argument (corporations hijacking our government) to get lost.

We have generally a major problem with Corporate corruption, especially on H-1B, within the Democratic party.

For example, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, sitting on the board, is protecting one of the biggest labor exploiters, who are exploiting both US citizen/perms and H-1B/L-1s and nothing
happens here in terms of investigation of ADPWilco.

We have very very real problems in both parties really but on this issue, I'd claim we have more problems in the Democratic party...

I hate to say this and that's why someone like Webb and this new wave of Dems, who are not going to be bought and paid for is so important...
we really need to return the Democratic party to the people!

I call the H-1b "slavery-light".  If Democrats are opposed to oppressing people, they should oppose the H-1b visa.  Anyone in our labor market should not be in an indentured servitude relationship with their employer.

When Democrats see what the H-1b really is, they will oppose it.  I will be releasing some actual indentured-servant contracts between employers and H-1b workers so everyone can see exactly what it means to be an H-1b worker.

We're Pro immigrate correct, very much equal opportunity for all!,  but not as a method to labor arbitrage, exploit people, age discriminate and all of the crap that is currently going on!

and we need to keep working and lord knows $$$ is a huge factor against us.

I think Jim Webb has the prospect of being a long-term U.S. Senator for the state of Virginia.  This is something that puts a smile on my face.

As far as national ambitions go, I don't think Webb is ready.  Webb needs some time to hone-up his understanding of domestic policy--especially as it relates to economic policy.  In another 6 years?  Maybe.  In 2 years, definitely not. 

Btw, in 2008 we'll be able to refer to Jim Webb as Virginia's SENIOR Senator.  That's something that puts an even bigger smile on my face.

"Webb needs some time to hone-up his understanding of domestic policy--especially as it relates to economic policy."

His positions on trade seem very strong to me.  Where do you think he needs to hone-up on economic policy, specifically?

The number one problem on the economic front, right now, is the trade deficits.  That is a major factor leading to job loss and pressures on American wages.  I get the feeling that Webb takes trade very seriously and will seek fair trade as opposed to what we call "free trade".  There are other dimensions of course to economic policy - but in my view that is the 1000 lb gorrilla in the room right now.

He picked up on what's going on very rapidly.

I think anybody with a brain, who can read, can formulate fairly sane economic policy...it's a lot of work, but so far so good.

The key is to not get a Corpocrat in there baffling with bullshit trying to tell a representative they "just don't understand".

I like that about Webb, he seems to have really good insight and seemingly has a very strong bullshit detector.

Lord knows they are going to load up on him with it!

In the early days of the campaign Webb was taking a much harder line on free-trade issues.  The Virginia-Pilot and the Washington Post have also given Webb a scolding on this issue as well.

I share the goals and values that Jim Webb has (e.g. empowering the middle class, raising real wages, pulling people out of poverty), but, at least in the early going I disagreed with the means that he was advancing.  Protectionist policies aren't the right means for the ends he's trying to achieve.

The bottom line is that international trade has the potential to be good for the middle class and our national security (economies that are interdependent are less likely to go to war with each other).  Protectionist policies, which Jim seemed to be advocating in the early days, often have very negative unintended consequences for ordinary workers (higher wages come at the expense of higher priced and often lower quality goods; it makes industries less competitive; and can put the skids on economic growth, which has the effect of increasing unemployment).

There is something to be said for ensuring that free trade agreements aren't simply a means to allow employers to circumvent labor safety and environmental regs in the U.S.  But ultimately, the best way to attack these economic fairness issues is not through tariffs or eliminating trade agreements. You can do a lot more to help the middle class by focusing on tax policy and domestic spending priorities.

Late in the campaign, Webb moderated his rhetoric and kept his focus on things such as the Fortune 500 companies who don't pay taxes and CEO wages and benefits.  He's said that he's in favor of Virginia's right to work laws.  He's moved in the right direction (I suspect he may have had some talks with Schumer and Bill Clinton about these issues).  Jim Webb's heart is in the right place, and he has the intellect to turn this into a strength as well.  The reality though is that his experience and expertise are in foreign policy.  I suspect he has been looking at economic issues with a degree of seriousness in recent years, but the breadth and depth of his understanding is still at the "a little knowledge can be dangerous thing" stage. 

I think he realizes this and hope that he'll have the humility to seek out wise counselors in his early years in the Senate.  As the NeoCons have demonstrated, there's nothing more dangerous than an idealist who means well, but refuses to heed advice from wise counselors with broader experience and deeper knowledge.  What's true for foreign policy is also true for economic policy.  I think Jim Webb will get to where he needs to be, but I don't think he's there yet.

One of the reasons that I was willing to roll the dice on Jim Webb's candidacy is that I think he's one of the more thoughtful and well-informed foreign policy thinkers that our nation has.  He'll be a top 5 voice in the Senate right off the bat.  As far as economic policy goes, I was glad to know that he'll have 99 other Senators to use as a sounding board in the early going.  As a president, the learning curve is much less forgiving in both these areas. 

You said:
"Protectionist policies aren't the right means for the ends he's trying to achieve. ... But ultimately, the best way to attack these economic fairness issues is not through tariffs or eliminating trade agreements. You can do a lot more to help the middle class by focusing on tax policy and domestic spending priorities. "

Response:
When you look at domestic spending, we have enormous fixed costs.  The military, transportation, entitlements, etc.  On tax policy, we can make it more fair and on the domestic spending front we can cut allot of pork.  This may help our BUDGET DEFICIT.

That said, these things have little to do with our TRADE DEFICIT.  The only way to prevent countries from manipulating their currencies and from other unfair trade practices is through tarriffs.

Liberalized trade, and yes free trade, should be the goal.  Tarriffs are a tool to reach that goal.  If you don't have a stick and only a carrot, what mystical force is going to make countries play by the rules?  The answer is nothing.  China's reaction to our current policy is evidence of that.  Our record trade deficits resulting in factories and jobs moving offshore are evidence of that.

We've tried your way the past 15 years.  It isn't working.  Free trade is not an end to a means - signing more free trade agreements makes the problem worse.  If you don't put in the work - and help countries grow towards a fair trading environment - we will never reach the goal of free trade.

Instead of signing free trade agreements, sign free trade "goals" which are agreements between countries that they will equalize the playing field with the ultimate reward being free trade.  Gradually reduce tarriffs as the goals are met. 

Tell countries like China and Mexico that they will prosper if they become more democratic, protect the environment, engage in fair trade, and so forth.  Our wealth should be the stick to move countries towards democracy - not our military. 

I'm sure you've heard the expression "why by the cow when you get the milk for free".  The same concept applies here.  Why on Earth would countries start playing fair in trade when we allow them to cheat on us?  We are being abused in this relationship and it's time to call Dr. Phil (or Jerry Springer)  ;-)

In reference to spending priorities, what I'm talking about here is: do we spent billions of dollars on a missile defense system, or do we spend some of that money on education, or strengthening infrastructure? 

Do you give a tax cut to the wealthiest 1%, and then cut $12.7 billion from the student loan programs that we have in order to reduce the size of the deficit?

Two huge government programs--the G.I. Bill after WWII and the interstate highway act in 1954 ended up producing a tremendous benefit for ordinary Americans.

Ideally, money is best kept in the hands of individuals through low-taxes and an efficient bureacracy.  But there are cases where the government doesn't just spend money, but invests it in such a way that ordinary Americans see long-term returns (similar to the two examples above).

I agree with your statement that "Our wealth should be the stick that moves countries towards democracy -- not our military".  I also agree with you up to a point about using levers such as tarriffs as a means to goose reforms in other countries.

I think there's a moral imperative to have certain labor and environmental regulations in place as part of our trade agreements--we shouldn't cut businesses slack in this area. 

I guess the deal is this really isn't an "either or situation".  We definitely need to address some of the disparities in our trade agreements, but we also need to focus on spending priorities and tax policy. 

The overriding objective is: What is the best way to strengthen the middle class, expand economic opportunies, and pull people out of poverty?  This is an open question.

"I guess the deal is this really isn't an "either or situation""

EXACTLY!  Whenever someone argues for a sensible approach to trade, we are labeled as protectionists.  We are actually arguing for a system that will lead to smarter trade agreements - and create a race to the top as opposed to our current race to the bottom.  We are arguing for mutually beneficial trade - and ultimately free trade. 

The current lot of "free traders" aren't willing to do the work - they want intant results.  They think if you just sign free trade agreements all the pieces will fall together.  They won't.

And to your point sensible management of our budget and tax dollars is also crucial to our advancement.

"The overriding objective is: What is the best way to strengthen the middle class, expand economic opportunies, and pull people out of poverty?  This is an open question. "

Great question.  I'll post another diary on this tonight because I think that question doesn't deserve to be burried in this thread.  Unless you beat me to it ;-)

Virginians want Webb to themselves.  You guys are being stingy ;-)

I may need to start a draft Webb movement for 2008 and steal him from you ;-)