1) you could get the foreign policy / national security with Wes Clark, plus it would represent a healing with the CLinton wing

2)  No one seems to want to talk about the other reasons Webb would make sense - his commitment to economic equity.   That would make former Edwards supporters far more enthusiastic.   And an Obama-Webb ticket would be the realization of Jim's dream of uniting the African-Americans and Scots-Irish into what could be an unbeatable coalition.

And I think were Jim approached with #2 rather than #1, it would make it far harder for him to say no.

than #1.  Totally agree with you, that would be amazing.

And do not think that Rice is not at the top of the list for people like Romeny as a VP selection. What an impact that could have if she is on the ticket on the Republican side with the whole gender/race issue being bounced about on the Dem side.  

1) True, Clark would be a good second choice. The disadvantage is that he has never actually won an election and he has been pretty much invisible for the past 2 years. But Clark would be a solid pick and I'd be very happy with him.

2) Exactly. It's Webb's Edwards-style populism, appeal to rural voters and 2md Amendment Democrats that would make him especially valuable to the ticket.

I think that the key to convincing Webb to do it would be taking his own obsession with Andrew Jackson and throwing it right back at him. General Jackson didn't really want to get into politics at first. He only decided to run for President when he was convinced that it was his duty to his country and that it was the only way for him to advance the interests of the people whom he was the most concerned about.

After this past year in the Senate, certainly Webb has noticed how ponderously slow his work is in that setting. As Vice President, he'd be in a position to have an executive portfolio of his own (like Gore and Cheney did) through which to advance his social goals by using both the executive branch and his connections in the Senate (which he would become President of).

it's worked before.

Obama-Clinton ticket or Clinton-Obama ticket is the "dream" ticket. We would crush the rethugs. Just a landslide.
Otherwise Clark or Richardson or Dodd even.

I think Hillary will almost have to take Barack as her running mate to ease the tensions and bad blood and reconsolidate the base after this primary season.

However, I don't think the reverse is true. In fact, I don't see how Barack can put Hillary on his ticket without really hurting his message of change from the status quo ante.

Webb and Richardson seem like good fits for Barack's ticket (depending upon if they endorse him when it matters), as do Sebelius or Napolitano.

It'll be an interesting next 12 days.  

If you analyze the HRC personality this just will not happen. You know those behavior/personality screening some of us take with our employers? maybe we should have our candidates take that where we would most liklely see here that the two personalities would not/could not co-exist. Its like Type A and B in our workplaces.
As to Webb. Would he not make a better cabinet member with his background than a VP. I would rather see him take a cabinet position, like Sec of Defense than the VP slot. If it comes down between losing him as a Senator to be the VP I am not in support of that. Think for a second. How long has it been since we had two Democratic Senators? Do not get of course here and hijack what really matters in the long term and thats our Virginia. Webb resigns and the door gets swung wide open again with two contested Senate seats up for grabs. Think Warner, John Warner, and the longevity issues that would benefit Virginia if Webb stayed in the Senate.

I don't see either of these candidates being good for the ticket of the other.

Both Clinton and Obama lack foreign policy and defense experience. McCain will bludgeon them with that. Either nominee will need to address the vulnerability by choosing a running mate who adds that kind of experience.

What you are suggesting here is not really a dream ticket. It's a convenient thing to suggest in close, bitter fight that has exposed a gulf between factions of the party. But it's not very practical.
 

but if you listened closely to the arguments Barrack was making about the decision to go to war with IRAQ, they could have been lifted from Webb's campaign.

Where Obama comes off as Intelligent, Articulate and Thoughtful, a gentlemanly scholar,  Webb compliments those virtues (officer & gentleman) and he adds the aura of being a hard ass fighter. Webb is the perfect foil personified to a John McCain.

OBAMA WEBB 08  

Indeed, Webb is the perfect foil! Good point!

The prospect of an Obama/Webb ticket gets me fired up, and I presume gets others fired up, to work doubly hard to make sure that Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination.  It all fits together, at least the way I look at it, and certainly doesn't have to be in rigid chronological order.  Hope is a powerful thing!

;)

While he may benefit the road to the White House, the wake in Virginia politics it leaves behing could be substantial Lowell and alot of your efforts and hardwork could get tossed for a VP slot? Keep him in the Senate my friend. Virginia will need strong leadership in the coming years.

TIM KAINE

I don't see how someone with 23 months of public service helps out.

but his public service includes

about 4 years on active duty in the Marine Corps

4 years on House staff for Committee on Veterans Affair

3 years as Assistant Sec Def for Reserve Affairs

about a year as Sec Nav

that means he will have about 13-14 years of public service by the election  -  That is more than sufficient

Where do people come up with stuff like "23 months of public service?"   Webb has more experience than just about anyone I can think of, unless you're only counted years running for elective office.

because it's just the kind of idiocy that causes real trouble.

Webb was a genius candidate for the Senate specifically because of his LIFETIME of exemplary, heroic, triumphant, and unparalleled public service.

I'm going to refrain from namecalling, but only because it's against the rules here.  

Webb has had a long career in public service before running for Senate. Like, say, running the entire United States Navy.

1. He is a Southerner. The last successful Democratic ticket without a Southerner was ... well, I guess if we consider Missouri a southern state, it was 1940, when the ticket was Roosevelt and that other guy.

2. Strong military record that neutralizes McCain's to some degree. Also, his military background will be needed when the GOP attacks start that withdrawing from Iraq is tantamount to surrender.

3. Webb knows how to rip apart an opponent without seeming nasty. He just comes across as no-nonsense.  Again, go watch him take Lindsay Graham apart in their MTP encounter several months ago.

When Truman was the running mate.  

In 1940, the running mate was Henry Wallace (from Iowa), who later formed the Progressive Party.  My dad worked on that campaign, and has the pictures to prove it :-).

but I meant 1940, since if we assume Missouri is a Southern state, then 1944 included a Southerner (Truman)

Just sayin'...

...are the statements he made in the 1970s and 1980s about women in the military, even though he says he has changed his views and has certainly not acted in accordance with them.  There's no question that if Webb is named for VP, those statements will be among the first things the media pick up on.

The first duty of either Clinton or Obama, if they do not want to put the 'loser' on the ticket or if that person turns it down, is to avoid making a choice that would rub salt into the wounds.  If Clinton wins, that means a nondescript white male like Evan Bayh or Tom Vilsack, for Obama, it means someone like Jim Webb.

pretty extensively during the Allen-Webb race.

...IIRC, that stuff did not become a big national story (unlike 'macaca').  To those outside Virginia, it would be relatively new--and would further upset Hillary Clinton supporters.

the downside.  Every potential running mate will have downsides, I'd point out.

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Deleware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, most of Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesoata, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin or Wyoming.

**

Voters don't really care who the Vice Presidential nominee is.  Voters will probably not vote against a candidate because of something his Vice President did.  Voters will probably also probably not deliver a state for a candidate based on the VP nominee that the Presidential candidate wouldn't have won otherwise--Kerry didn't pick up a single Southern state with Edwards on the ticket.

The two best reasons for picking a nominee, from an electoral standpoint, are party unity (in other words, engaging voters who wouldn't be participating in the election otherwise--some of the more-serious Edwards koolaide drinkers, or Latino swing voters/irregular voters) or helping to build an organization and raise money (something the Clintons have a ton of experience with).  Webb doesn't bring anything to the table in either respect.  I can understand why Kaine would be interested in seeing a Senate seat open up, but Mark Warner's right, Webb's got his hands full right where he needs to be.

Look at the last few decades and you see a history of successful candidates for President with no foreign policy or defense experience who picked a running mate that corrected that deficiency.

Bush/Cheney
Clinton/Gore*
Reagan/Bush

A candidate with national security experience has more leeway. Former VPs, in particular, are assumed to have developed some competence in that area. The only winning Presidential ticket  since the Hoover administration which lacked defense/security experience on either the top or bottom was Carter/Mondale. And, great guy though Jimmy Carter is, his administration is fairly notorious for having screwed up military and foreign policy issues and he lost reelection on that basis.

You've got to have someone on the ticket who really understands the military and foreign policy.

*Gore had served in the army and was on the Armed Services Committee in the Senate. He certainly had more credibility there than Clinton did.

It's short sighted to think that Reagan would not have been elected without Bush.  For that matter, it's short sighted to think that voters who were looking for warfighting experience were going to vote for a Clinton/Gore ticket over the incumbent who successfully concluded the Persian Gulf War.

Dick Cheney's idea of his role aside, Vice Presidents aren't supposed to actually do anything, and most voters know this.  Scientific surveys have shown that the quality of the Vice Presidential nominee ranks further back than what a candidate's spouse looks like when voters decide who to cast their ballots for.  Seriously--the question of a veep's credentials carries less weight for more voters than the question of "blond versus brunette."  The only reason to pick someone are political considerations, and that doesn't play to Webb's strengths.

I know it doesn't make sense to people and your gut reaction says otherwise, but your gut is wrong this time around.  This is one of those things where the tens of millions of non-blogger voters who will elect our next President don't think like you do.

It is a clear and constant signal as to what kind of judgement the potential President shows .... because after all he or she is next in line to become President. It's a critical choice that is closely scrutinized.

Jim Webb is an outstanding choice for Obama for many reasons. But mostly is that it's the best choice he could make for a potential Commander in Chief.

is that he is his own man, and has a tendency to act on principle. The vice presidency isn't the most influential job in the world, unless you can perform mind control over your boss, a la Dick Cheney. Webb could easily get bored and restless in the post, work himself up over some policy point where he disagrees the president, and resign, creating a real political crisis for the administration.  

He has already resigned once on principle, as SecNav, because the Reagan administration abandoned its goal of increasing the number of ships in the Navy (a cause he still advocates).

Don't get me wrong, I think he's a great senator, and precisely because of his devotion to what he believes. But the vice presidency isn't the best place for that sort of thing.

I would love to have a VP with his own mind and strong principles who is willing to buck his own President if he thinks that it is the right thing to do.

If our nominee and President eventually strays from the right path, I want Jim Webb there to raise an eyebrow. I don't want another Bush-style echo chamber.

I can't imagine a better way to keep a President honest than for he or she to know that the un-bridleable Jim Webb is watching and will create the most God-awful media shit storm at the slightest hint of corruption or moral failure.  

I apologize for taking your "act on principle" comment totally out of context. But I'd love to make that personal characteristic a mandatory litmus test for all candidates. Too damn bad it hadn't been mandatory in 2000 and 2004. Of course, that might have reduced the number of candidates to the Dems. who ran and no Republicans, with the Dem. nominee only running against Nader (if you think, as I do, that he did act on his principles).

I heartily agree with the proposition that one of the best ways to keep a Pres. honest is for the Pres. to know that "Jim Webb is watching" and is willing to buck his own Pres. if he thinks it is the right thing to do.

And I have no fear about Jim resigning like he resigned from his SECNAV job. He resigned precisely because of his strongly held principles. That job gave him NO ability to influence the Pres. or keep him honest. Resignation was the only way available to him to make his point of principle. As do all cabinet members, he served at the pleasure of the Pres. and felt honor-bound to resign.

By contrast, the VP is elected by the people and is honor-bound to "serve at the peoples' pleasure". Perhaps the most important difference between the two jobs for Jim is that as VP he would have powerful influence over not only the President but also over Congress - and the Pres. could never fire him. I do like the term "honest broker" and whether Jim remains in the Senate or becomes VP he will always be the "peoples' honest broker".

This is so much fun dredging up all the great reasons so many of us worked so long and hard to help put Jim in his Senate seat. It reminds me once again how very proud I am of our soon-to-be senior Senator.

Bayh or Vilsack bring to the table? ... Webb brings a lot more than either of them

Bayh and Vilsack bring a big, Dan Quayle yawn to the table.

We've got to have a Southerner on the ticket. Both of these guys would be bad choices for either Obama or Clinton.

They may be fine men, but zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz to Bayh or Vilsack.

Certainly, adding Webb to the ticket would give Obama a much-needed testosterone infusion.

But Webb, with his appeal to centrists, would to some degree turn off all the starry-eyed, usually oblivious to politics, young naifs currently rallying around Obama.

you think young voters don't get Webb, or worse, don't get that you sometimes need some brawn to back you up?

Debatable at best, mostly unlikely.

Also, Webb's short amount of time in DC argues well for his independence.  In fact, Webb campaigned as "unbought", because in his entire life in Washington, he never took money to lobby on behalf of Veterans.

Not a barfight.

Because we believe there's a difference.

Rather than doing something about politics.  We suck at organizing.  We've gotten better recently at that here in Virginia, thanks to the incredible campaign organization that Gov. Kaine put together and the hard work some campaigns have put into building on that work.

Tim Kaine ran as a nice guy who didn't need to flex his muscles to respond to the Hitler Ad and won handily.  Jim Webb's muscle didn't get him 50% of the vote.  And Obama has handled everything Hillary's surogates have thrown at him just fine on his own.

He is for economic justice ... he was right about the war(when being right was extremely uncool) ... and while I am not 18 .. I am one person who would give a substantial sum to Obama .. where he to make Webb his VP

Jim Webb has been our number 1 voice on Iraq. Every serious attempt to get us out of Iraq in the last year has been spear-headed very publicly by Jim Webb. Young voters, who overwhelmingly want out of Iraq, know that Jim Webb has been their man in DC all year.

Webb's whole story should appeal to those same voters. The guy who was rising to the top in the Reagan administration and one day just gave him the finger and walked out. The guy who punched Oliver North in the face over a hundred times. The guy who went from running the Navy to being a reporter and winning an Emmy, writing best-selling novels, a screenplay, and then beating the most racist politician in the Senate (who was called unbeatable) just because he wants to personally get us the hell out of Iraq.

Nah. Jim Webb won't turn off Obama's base. He compliments it perfectly. Jim Webb stares down the bad guys and will watch Obama's back. They'd make a perfect good cop/bad cop team.

After 2009 he is unemployed after all.

One of the overlooked roles Webb would inherit as VP, of course, would be President of the Senate.

Remember, the powerful story line emerging from Webb's tenure is that he's been remarkably effective as a Senate player.  I think he would be sorely tempted by the prospect of entering the Executive while still retaining and expanding his power base in the Senate.

is that you get to serve as a tiebreaker. From a pure power perspective in the Chamber, you are better off being a Senator.

The Senate is run by the majority leader, and stopped dead in its tracks by the minority leader.

See here for the new poll from Rasmussen.

And for those who would say, "oh, well, that's Obama's home state so who cares," I'd point out:

*HRC was born in Illinois and grew up there.
*Clinton's lead in New York is 21 points, according to Rasmussen, compared to Obama's 36 point lead in Illinois.

Here are some other polls, BTW:

NJ - (1/31, Rasmussen): Clinton 49-Obama 37
MA - (1/31 Survey USA) Clinton 57-Obama 33
GA - (1/31 Survey USA) Obama 51-Clinton 41
GA - (1/31 Insider Advantage) Obama 52-Clinton 36
AL- (1/31 - Ala. Educ. Assoc.) Obama 40-Clinton 35
MN - (1/31 - Univ. of MN) Clinton 40, Obama 33, Edwards 12 (BTW, the UofM poll also shows both Clinton and Obama beating McCain in the general)

That all said, in polls trends are more significant that any one poll, and since S.C. the trends have clearly favored Obama. It will be interesting to see whether last night's civil debate slowed that down.

That odd comment from Warner might be related to his perception of himself as a potential VP running mate.  I've always thought that one reason he bowed out so early from the campaign was his perception that Hillary was a lock and he didn't want to compete with her, preferring instead to look at being VP.  Am I off-base here?

Anyway, although I am a big Webb supporter I think it unlikely he'll be short-listed.

Instead, either Obama or Hillary are likely to be looking for someone whose experience they can use to prop up their candidacy.  Neither Obama nor Hillary has much executive experience, but Warner is a highly successful businessman and was a very successful governor of a Southern state.  Shouldn't that attract either Obama or Hillary to his potential as a running mate?

it would leave VA in a lurch to now go after the VP slot .. he's plenty young enough to run for Prez later

could be a great match with Obama.  Great foreign policy/national security credentials, etc.  No big electoral pluses, as the Dems will carry DE with or without Biden, but I think he would be a great compliment to Obama overall.  

Webb's approval ratings, according to the last poll that Lowell posted is still under 50% in VA.  And among hispanic voters, a crucial block in AZ, NM, NV, etc., Webb's disaproval ratings were around 75%. I'm not sure Webb would be the best choice.        

This is good news:

Tim Kaine will travel to Georgia on Saturday making three public campaign appearances across Georgia. In advance of the Georgia Democratic Primary and "Super Tuesday", Governor Kaine will make stops in Savannah, and Columbus, GA.

That would be outstanding.  I have always been a die-hard Webb loyalist.  I have have nothing but respect and admiration for Senator Webb , along with my deepest confidence.  Obama/Webb 08' would be a total powerhouse.

Those of us with significant military experience (you included) know that the toughest job for officers is NOT commanding a company, a battalion, a ship, or an air squadron.

The toughest job is EXECUTIVE OFFICER because you have to rein in your leadership style and adopt the style of the commander, like it or not, and the VP is kind of an executive officer without as much authority as the military XO has.

I don't see Webb agreeing to do watered down XO duty to someone many years his junior and without any military background.  He is becoming increasingly powerful in the Senate and that is where he can act with the authority of a commander and still keep his job if the political leaders disagree with him.

Maybe Wes Clark for VP (he has islamist problem experience)and Jim Webb climbing toward majority leader is the ideal solution.

I guess it is possible for Clark to be the VP under Obama.  Anything is possible, but it's not likely Clark will accept the VP job either.  I'm not suggesting Webb will be the VP under Obama or even be asked to take the job.  I was just offering my opinion that the combination would be a powerhouse.  I really have no clue as to whom Barack will select for the job.  Right now I am just focusing on doing my part to help Barack get the nomination.
Best,
John