This is retarded! Webb is a loose cannon it would never happen.

There is no way Jim Webb will play 2nd fiddle with Hillary Bottom Hands Clinton. Maybe the other way around though. Webb is not in this to be Vice president. He can do more in his Senate seat. I know all you Hillary fans think she can win a general election, but I am here to tell she can not win--thus we must concentrate on other candidates.

Nothing more.  As far as I can tell, Hillary Clinton has an excellent chance to win, and in fact, the Republicans are freaking out over the prospect of that very scenario unfolding.

I say put Jim on the top of any Webb/Clinton 2008 ticket.

(Lowell, when was the last time we ran an establishment Northern liberal senator and won ? Hillary is toxic. )

Then it will be picked up by rival Democrats, and vice-versa.

The stuff being slung around already among Dems is what you'd expect from the right.

I love how 'that's a right-wing talking point' has become the default manner of dismissing any sort of dissenting view within the Democratic party blogsphere. As if, even if it was true, that would somehow automatically disprove an idea.

Democratic candidate is inherently "unelectable" in today's atmosphere, given the Iraq debacle and more generally how unpopular Bush and the Republicans are.  Normally, I tend to agree that the Dems best bet electorally is to nominate a Southern centrist - Carter, Clinton - but 2008 could very well be quite different.  Anyway, Hillary Clinton was born in Illinois and lived in Arkansas for years. Now, she is Senator from New York State, where I would point out she did very well in rural parts of the state, NOT just in liberal urban areas, in the last election.

Many will never get over that in a primary.  I won't.

Anyone who really believes the Republicans would be running around feverishly promoting the "Hillary is unelectable" garbage because she's really "unelectable" is foolish.  They're scared to death of the Clinton "machine" and the prospect of the Clintons in the White House again.

I will agree with bladerunner on this though,  I couldn't imagine Jim Webb running with Hillary Clinton (didn't he make some condescending remarks about the Clintons a few years back?) for a myriad of reasons.

Don't forget that BOTH Clintons campaigned for Webb multiple times in some of the most high profile events of the campaign.  There may have been some rough words in the past, but there have been enough olive branches between Webb and the Clintons to eliminate the "They can't work together" theme.  It just ain't so.

This statement of yours is pretty over the top; "it's impossible, logically, not to see Hillary as the nation's strongest candidate for the White House in either party."

No declared candidate for President in the 2008 race is more widely despised than Hillary Clinton. I, committed Democrat that I am, would not vote for her in the primary and would sooner write in 'Mickey Mouse' than cast a ballot for her in the general election. There are legions of people like me. While Hillary may have a plurality of support in a crowded primary field, as soon as it gets down to a 2-way race the majority of people in the party who simply cannot stand her will ensure that she has a long career - in the Senate.

The typical Jim Webb Democrat is the precise opposite of the typical Hillary Clinton Democrat. Webb's real strength is that he represents the ascendance of a new kind of Democrat. Populist, anti-war, pro-defense, often second amendment voters who are sick of the old namby-pamby party leadership and want a compassionate government yet not a nanny state. Howard Dean started the ball rolling when he made it ok for gun owners to vote for Democrats and also when he knocked down Terry McAuliffe as Chairman. Jim Webb is our unwilling standard bearer now. Hillary is the party's past. Wishy-washy, gun-control-loving DLC Democrats who will say or do anything to get elected and stand for little more than the advancement of their own careers. Let us be rid of their ilk.

We rode to victory in 2008 on the strength of muscular Democrats. Jim Webb, John Tester, Brad Ellsworth. That's our strength. That's out future. Hillary Clinton is the dead past.  If this new, populist, Democratic party movement that has begun to gel has any strength and any meaning, then it will mean the sure defeat of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary.

A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for another 4 years of war in Iraq. She has no real opposition to this conflict. She *voted* for it and has expressed no regrets. Nominating Hillary Clinton would be like a repeat of Nixon vs. Humphrey. With no clear way to vote against the war, why should the party base turn out? Why not just vote for the Republican since the Democrats have the House and Senate anyway? I cannot imagine that Jim Webb would stray from his principles to the extent of agreeing to be Hillary Clinton's running mate. Nor can I imagine that Hillary would want to risk having a man with real convictions and principles as her Vice President, when he would be likely to become a loose cannon criticizing her just as surely as he did Reagan.

As Jack Landers says "new populist Democrats" are incompatible with DLC Hillarycrats; the age has changed and we Jim Webb Pupulists finally have the initiative. To yield it now would be folly. Jonathan Chait of "The New Republic" - a Bill Clinton Democrat - writes this week in the LA Times that Hillary is simply a proxy for BIll ("Billary") and the 22nd Amendment should be repealed so he can vote for Bill again direct. This husband/wife thing presents bad faith on part of DLC types - Hillary has already had a direct hand in Presidential governance as "two for one" as they said then - she clearly took a public part in Bill's Administration, so Billary is seeking to transcend 22nd Amendment prohibitions of 3rd term (perhaps there ecould even be legal challenges to her candidacy). But alors, if this is accepted as cultural norm and it seems to be going there, it opens the gate for the Governator, who is also prevented from running by pesky Constitutional issues. If the DLC persists with Billary, the Arnolds could well go ahead with their very successful and popular "New West" "post-partisan" politics in a proxy race between Mrs. Bill Clinton and Mrs. Arnold Schwarzenegger in '08. "Two for one" with the Arnolds could present a very appealing White House.

My read of history here is close to your own.  I agree that with you and Thomas Frank.  DLC trangulation basically gave the nation to the right wing by abandoning the Democrats' traditional role as protectors of the Middle Class.  Populism is the cure for this disease.  Agreed.

My analysis, however is based on political reality.  Webb, as a first-term Senator has just begun building his populist caucus and Shared Prosperity Agenda.  The real question, in my mind isn't whether Clinton will accept Webb, but vice versa, and that will depend, I believe, largely on whether Webb believes he can best realign foreign policy and stand up for economic fairness in the Legislative or Exeutive.

These two would NEVER get along. Their views on foreign policy clash like cymbals. Hillary is all-things-to-all-people, especially if you have money. Webb is just himself.

And Webb should stay in the Senate.  He can do much more good there--already is, in fact.

Please go in depth on how Hillary locks these things in?  As a historian, and someone who likes to ride history, like this past election, I remember when in 2003, though the Democratic feild looked fluid, Howard Dean seemed to be emerging as front-runner. This was in the fall of 2003. There were the Deaniacs, the meet-ups, the introduction of Have you heard about the Governor."  People were making comparisons that Dean was the John F. Kennedy of the internet as John F. Kennedy was to television.  Then came Iowa and the Dean Scream.  Now as I look at it, the GOP got too cocky on that one moment and never saw 2006 coming,so it worked real good in the end, put until the DNC came calling, Dean's career was over.  Now its 2007, the beginning, and I'm being told Hillary's got a lock on the nomination and general election, I know your name is Josh, but are sure your name isn't Richard J. Daley?  Because that's big boss politics and I thought the blog world represented citizen democracy?

I'd say there are several serious Democratic candidates, plus one or two "dark horses" lurking out there.  I'd also like to hear Josh elaborate more on why he's so confident that Hillary Clinton - or anyone else, for that matter - is a "lock."

Apparently, Governor Vilsack has been impressing a lot of important people.  He may be one of those dark horses Lowell is talking about.

And though Hillary is the favorite, Edwards or Obama could easily take a lead on her before the Primary even begins. 

haha

On the R side we almost always nominate the frontrunner and thats McCain this time

You guys on the D side always make it more interesting.  In the beginning of 2003 was Kerry anywhere

Gore 2000 doesn't count same with Clinton in 96 but in 1991 was Clinton anywhere

P.S. we already have ammo on all 3 frontrunners and the other candidates don't worry about spilling oppo during the primary

Before you jump on me the reverse is true as well :)

 

GOP nominates the frontrunner.

We almost never do.

So, I don't think it'll be Hillary.  I think somebody else is going to get the nomination, maybe Edwards.  Maybe Obama. 

of the 2004 race, Kerry was considered the best bet in a very wide open race. As 2003 dragged on he slowly fell out of favor before making a comeback in 04.

But Hillary is in her own category. If a VP isn't running, it's considered wide open. But this is neither. This is unique. Bill Clinton is still the standard-bearer and she's the closest thing there is to a successor.

In fact I would argue that this is the most wide-open presidential race in history. You always have a good idea of at least one of the nominees for the two parties. But not this year.

I think predictions based on year's past, while inevitable, will prove meaningless.

I can't see a Clinton/Webb ticket. My bet? Clinton/Clark....That's assuming that Clinton can get the nomination. Don't count on that at this point.

I don't know who, but the fascination with Hillary is going to slow down as soon as other candidates are heard from.

I've underestimated her strength. The polls show that her support is more solid than other candidates. Everyone said that her support was soft and based on name recognition. That's just not true.

Everyone said when Obama jumped in that her support among black voters would drop. They haven't.

Everyone said that they hate her in NH, but her favorability numbers are identical to Edwards and Obama, and much better than Gore or any one else. http://www.mydd.com/...

Clinton/Webb.  I think that Clark is able to work from the second seat better than Webb, who is the maverick that McCain was supposed to be, but isn't.  Clark is an incredible intellect and natural diplomat who can work effectively from the second seat.  He's a team player but a natural leader in his own right who has the polish and the political instincts to be able to work from the inside. 

Webb is much better as the burgeoning conscience of the Senate.  His hero is Moynihan, and he has many Moynihan qualities - intellect, outspokenness, scholarly understanding -- let's let him remain in that position, because the only other thing he is suited for is the Presidency, which isn't happening for 2008.  Webb is Moynihan with a gun permit; the scholar with a kick-ass demeanor and a nasty right hook.  He can make a lot more change happen in the Senate with his natural leadership capabilities than he could as the number 2 on a presidential ticket.  This is why I am opposed to him in the Number 2 spot on the ticket.  My advice, as always, is let Webb be Webb.  The rest of the Senate and a lot of the country will follow.

I agree with Catzmaw.  I just love that nobody, myself included, says that Webb just isn't "Presidential Material."  He'd be an amazing President.  But we're all too selfish to give him up! :)

" Webb is Moynihan with a gun permit; the scholar with a kick-ass demeanor and a nasty right hook."

brilliant

....but a lot of us democrats have just had enough of the Clintons--It's time to move on--they are partially to blame for Virginia being so Republican at the state level.

She won't be able to win any southern states, just won't happen. The GOP and Murdoch would like nothing more than having her on the Dem ticket. Why else would Murdoch be holding fund raisers for her. Like always, Hillary is doing a fine job in NY though.

...the VP offer is a is a siren song.  I'd rather have him as an unrestrained voice speeking truth to power from the Senate.

Why must we promote him out of the job we just hired him to do...before he has really had a chance to do it???

We finally have come upon a Senator who is not afraid to do his job and now we want to get rid of him???!!

I would just point out that the Vice Presidency is not the "bucket of warm spit" it used to be. :)

Gore was a very active VP, and Cheney has pretty much had as much influence as the President himself.  A VP can choose whether he wants to "sit pretty" and wait for election, of whether he/she wants to work on pet projects (as Gore and Cheney did).