That's his style.  He refused to say he would support Mark Warner for President during the primary while RUNNING IN VIRGINIA.  Jim Webb never closes any doors until he is absolutely sure, which I think is the right thing to do.  I'm sure a few Democrats have expressed some interest in Jim Webb, but I'll put down money that he's merely an important speaker at the DNC one night, and there will be another Virginian on the VP end of the ticket.

I still believe that Mark Warner dropped out of the Presidental race because he made a deal for the VP spot. I hear that he is conversing with Hillary and Obama...

As far as Sen. Webb...

I think that he is, and will continue to be for at least 12 years, a fine Virginia Senator..but he could not deliver the  Virginia votes to the Democratic ticket that Mark Warner can.

Wes Clark/Mark Warner is my dream ticket and until they indicate otherwise, I am sticking with that dream.

Why would Warner - the main who loved being called His Excellency - take a job with as littler perks as the VP? Assuming the Dem wins, is the remote chance at being President in 2016 really worth passing up the opportunity to be Governor in 09 and be the guy in charge?

I do think he'd be good for the ticket, but I just don't think he wants to play #2.

"littler" perks you say? Tell that to Cheney and Gore for that matter. Just because the play second fiddle I would not underestimate the "perks" going along these days in the VP spot. The issue to lead to is ego...why would Warner not see the Governorship as a step backward...I mean he so business savvy would he take the CEO of a company he was once CEO before...I doubt it. He has his eye on the ball and the ball is in Washington.

Keen job picking up on my accidental r.

Gore and Cheney were consumate DC insiders who had gotten used to not being the guy. I don't see why Warner would find that appealing.

would have a hard time winning Virginia. I do think Hillary Clinton can be elected President, but Virginia doesn't factor into the equation. IMHO.

Its got my vote.

Obama can not pick Webb for VP. The vast experience that Webb has compared to the painfully obvious inexperience of Obama would not work. One example is the recent photo taken of Obama and Axlerod in his SENATE office. If that was an innocent visit by Obama's campaign manager then everything is hunky dory. But it was just stupid to allow something like that to happen. Democrats are trying to be the ethical alternative to the GOP right now. It hurt us.

Clinton would not work with Webb either. Although she is a strong lady, she would not be able to get away with such a powerful individual personality as her 2nd. For an example, just look at how she has had to deal with the Bill problem.

The only person that makes sense for Webb, and everything is speculation at this point, is John Edwards. Both are populists and Webb has said many times that one of his main priorities is the economic disparities in America. Check out his State of the Union speech. It is the only thing that rated a mention other than the war of course.

Running on experience is like saying "I'm corrupt and uninspiring, but hey, at least I'm good at it."

Webb and Clinton are pretty far apart philosophically speaking.  They would find agreement on health care, but would end up at odds on economic issues, I think.  She also straddles the fence on the war while he is dead set on getting us out of Iraq. 

Obama/Webb would be a painful contrast of charisma and gravitas.  Obama is a powerful speaker, a charming individual, and very intelligent; however, he still has very few accomplishments to his name.  On some levels he's quite compelling, but then you start trying to find out what his policy positions are and he becomes rather amorphous.  Webb, on the other hand, has had to learn how to be a political public speaker (which differs from being a speaker at a dedication or an awards ceremony), but no one doubts his sheer competence at what he sets out to do.  He's a forceful personality with a lot of accomplishments on many different levels who is not afraid to say things which are shocking for their directness.  No dancing around the maypole for him.  I just don't know how such a pairing could work out.  We saw what happened with the Kerry/Edwards pairing, where Edwards ended up having to bottle himself up so as not to outshine the candidate, and it was to the detriment of the campaign. 

Of course, as I've said before, Edwards/Webb will never float because they're from bordering southeastern states.

How about Clinton (AR)-Gore (TN)?  Bush (TX)-Cheney(TX/WY)?  Those seemed to work quite nicely.

The old "Geographical Balance" is dying.  The mass media makes it unnecessary.  Clinton realized that in 1992.  What you need to focus on is making your VP candidate a message.  If Obama chose a Southern Governor, like Warner, it counters a lot of the "racial tension" people might expect in the South by Obama going right into the hotzone and picking a candidate.

If Edwards chooses Webb, economic fairness automatically becomes the key issue in their campaign. 

Choosing a VP has little to do with location anymore.  It's how you want to compliment your message.

n/t

but I have this sensation that people find Virginia and North Carolina practically indistinguishable from each other and that it wouldn't be well received.  Perhaps I am wrong.  Hope so.  I do believe that of the three proposed combinations the Edwards/Webb one would be the most compatible.  They have the same progressive economic attitudes, I think Edwards would not have trouble deferring to and drawing upon Webb's expertise in foreign and military affairs, and both are strongly in favor of health care and criminal justice reform. 

Still and all, I'd love to have Webb remain in the Senate so he can address the incarceration crisis.  I just got off the phone today with the relative of a client caught up in our so-called justice system.  He's been sentenced in the federal system to serve ten years for being part of a "drug conspiracy" based on grainy footage of a drug sale on which someone who looks like him (large young black man dressed in hip hop clothing and wearing a backwards ball cap and sunglasses) accompanied someone else on a drug sale to an undercover cop, to which was added the testimony of one of the other conspirators.  The guy who fingered him got a sentence reduction for "identifying other members of the conspiracy".  "Refusal to cooperate" (read squeal on anyone ... anyone ... who might be a member of the "conspiracy") always results in higher sentences, as does "failure to take responsibility", which is why so many federal cases plead out.  No one can face the prospect of enhanced sentences for standing on their right to trial. Now he's going to have to find someone to point the finger at if he has any hope of a sentence reduction.  That's how the federal system works - it's all based on betrayal and coercion.  Welcome to America. 

it was the smallest combination as a percentage of the electoral college by any ticket since the 12th Amendment was ratified.

I believe it also was a ticket where the states of the two candidates bordered the greatest number of states.  Take a look at a US Map sometime - the combination is amazing.  Of course, they did NOT carry all the bordering states, failing for example with OK, TX, NC and VA.  But they did carry GA the first time, they did carry KY and LA both times.  Then again, we also have to consider the quality of the opposition.  In 1992 you had Perot taking a good number of votes away from Bush, and in 1996 Dole was a very weak candidate.

that Perot took votes away from Bush, on balance.  My guess is that he helped to drive overall turnout up, but I doubt there are more than 1 or 2 states - if that - where Perot's presence on the ballot tipped it to Clinton.

The point is. Dems CANT win without at least a couple of Southern states. FL Doesn't count.

We are not going to win without someone from outside the Northeast elitist hyper liberal pansy ass democratic establishment. We need a Jim Webb type of Democrat. One who is not afraid to knife fight. I am so sick and tired of seeing John Kerry type candidates step up who are afraid to throw a punch.

Southerners don't like weak equivocating, vacillating candidates. They want something clear to them. In black and white. It is not that GWB appealed to them on a policy level. They knew he was going to fuck them. It is the fact the he connected with them on a gut level. This is the elect ability that I speak of. Right now there are only two candidates in the race that have a chance of connecting with people in this manner. Edwards and Obama. Obama hasn't the experience, great guy but not ready.

I would like to defend the Edwards Webb choice because I am sick and tired of getting my ass whipped in national elections. TWICE we let that bastard beat us. WE LET IT HAPPEN. We picked candidates that were too weak. Good lord, GWB is a dumbass and he still beat us. Aren't you guys sick of it.

...I'm not sure why you say "FL doesn't count."  With Florida and the rest of the "blue" states, Democrats win.  Of course, I want to win many more Southern states, but I'm just sayin' that the math adds up if we win the Kerry states and Florida.  Adding Ohio puts us WAY over the needed electoral votes.  Then, adding more Southern states starts to really rack it up.

Florida counts of course. But not as a Southern state.

The electoral strategy you are speaking of is the same old 17 or 18 state strategy. It has been getting us our asses handed to us. We can't do that again. That kind of math writes off all but a few states. What happens is the GOP candidate only has to fight for about 15 or 16 percent of the remaining electoral votes. This puts us at an extreme disadvantage. It is the same mistake Kerry and Gore made.

We need to TARGET states like VA,AR,LA. These states can be swung our way. But no way in hell if we have a Northeastern establishment candidate anything like Kerry. Hillary will fuck the Democratic party for sure. We lose both houses of congress and the presidency if she is the nominee. Mark my words.

Have you ever heard of Joe Bageant? He is a dude from Winchester who is a writer. Don't totally agree with him all the time but he is sure funny. And he hits this next bit dead on.

  --Pardon my cynicism, but the view is pretty damned sorry from here in the cheap seats. From down here it looks like every Yankee liberal north of Virginia seems convinced they are now shitting in such tall cotton, that all they need do from here on out is foist Hillary Clinton on the many poor miserable bastards unfortunate enough to be called heartland Democrats because we don't have the balls to become heavily armed libertarians. Nominating Hillary might just drive us to it.--Joe Bageant

Read a damn history book. Clinton/Gore...AR/TN.

You are just wrong on this one. Not an opinion, it is a fact.

You can disagree or tell me I have the facts wrong without a slap like "read a damn history book".

Got a little carried away. Apologies

Two rising stars with distinct backgrounds but common cause. If they could negotiate how to govern .... what the role of Veep would be ... then I think Webb would get on board ... Precisely because he wants to redirect many elements of the body politic.

But this only comes about if the two could mesh their messages. Born Fighting & Audacious Hope.

from the last election, Webb's presence might tip a state or two (like Virginia), and it is unlikely the Republican Party would be able to make up that deficit.

Webb would also pair well with other highly considered candidates.

While there is no doubt in my mind that Jim Webb would make an excellent Vice-President or President, I do not agree that he is "angling" to be considered for same.

That is simply not Webb's style, but because he has been such an affective leader in the U. S. Senate in a very short period of time, the speculation makes sense.

However, as I wrote months ago, Jim Webb is here to serve, and I believe that if he thinks he could be of greater service to his country in a higher office, then he might be inclined to answer that call.

For Jim Webb, it's all about service, not ego.

Steve

With Webb it is all about service. I believe he really wants what is best for VA. If he is able to make more of an impact as VP then he would probably not reject the position if offered.

Could you imagine Jim Webb saying no to service to his country.

I do not think Webb is "angling" either per say. I think he opens up the door though that the Allen folks could not exploit and that is the portrayal of Webb as an "opportunist" with his new found home in the Democrat camp. There were countless blogs about how locally speaking Webb did not participate in Democrat primaries etc. and simply chnaged parties when no other candidate (viable anyway) would take Allen on.Not sure if all that is really even true, but it defintely can't help perception people outside VA may have. Remember the bashing Clinton took about the Senate seat in NY initially on the national level.

Whichever of the current Democrat candidates is elected president, and expanding that field to include a late Gore candidacy, and perhaps even in the currently farfetched possibility that a moderate Republican were somehow elected, Jim Webb is destined to be the next Secretary of Defense. 

Ackkcckck!  Throwing tantrum.  Want Senator Webb in Senate for wide-ranging reforms on economic, criminal justice, foreign policy AND military issues.  Don't want him only for military issues.  There.  I feel much, much better now.

Much if not all of your concerns flow directly or indirectly from the disproportionate allocation of finite national resources to the military and the out-of-control defense industry.

As it took a president from the Old South to spearhead civil rights, as it took a lifelong anti-Communist to reach out to China, it will take someone with unimpeachable military credentials to undertake a massive pruning of the no-toy-too-expensive, muscle bound force structure that is increasingly irrelevant to the world we live in.