The more often I can vote for Webb, the better I feel.  Any candidate with Webb on the ticket would be more appealing to me.  I currently don't like one of the leading candidates, but with Webb on the ticket, it would help me swallow any bitter pill.

is a more likely possibility in any conceivable Democratic administration, from heaven help us, Hillary Clinton, to, oh, say, Al Gore.

Paraphrasing what someone said about Senator-elect Webb, he's no natural politician, but he's going to make a very fine senator.  And that assessment would apply as well to this great patriot being wasted in the sausage-making that passes for a national political campaign.  The position of Secretary of Defense in the next administration is going to be an inflection point where the descent of our nation into debacle and diminishment is going to turn up or not. 

Remember a few months ago Dave Montoya said he heard a rumor that Chuck Robb was quietly lobbying for the position as well. Imagine Webb as VP and Robb as SoD?

we need him to fix the senate. he is one of the few true voices of reason.

n/t

Webb-Obama or Webb-Edwards is better.

In today's world and in the upcoming '08 election, I don't see this as at all unrealistic. The Democrats have to ditch the Magic Mountain image ("Vermontism") and at least pretend to have some testosterone as Kornacki implies. It is stupid to put Jim in as a testosterone candidate just to create image, but I can see them doing it. I'd take him any way that I could get him. In fact, if I were running the show I would put him in as VP but not for testosterone bullshit. As VP Webb and all he represents would become the become the soul of a new Democratic party.

There you go again, Bernie.  Can't help yourself slamming part of the party.  Either we have a big tent or we do not.  And the way you talk, I think you want to push everyone who doesn't agree with you out.

I'll take that any day.

President Webb will be the gold standard for 21st Century American greatness.

bank it.

but I told you so. ;)

Talk of this first started after Webb's State of the Union rebuttal last January, but I saw it coming before then as well.

I am proud to have Webb where he is.  On the other hand, he would be a breath of fresh air as VP and absolutely someone you could trust to be "a heartbeat away".

I think that an Obama/Webb ticket would be open to attacks that it was two first term senators, too little experience (yes, I know that Jim has a lot of Washington experience, but since when do facts matter in a presidential campaign?)  After watching Jim take on Graham on MTP Sunday, I think he is ready for the National Campaign.

A deadlocked convention turns to Webb to head the ticket.

Webb is too valuable in the Senate.  Hillary can have Mark Warner as a VP.

He needs to be on the ticket for President.  I think he could win.

for the jump to the executive branch, I suspect. It was hard enough to get him to run just for the Senate. We are so hungry for a populist with backbone who has handle on the use (and abuse) of the military we are fantasizing about using Webb in this upcoming election, before he's really ready. I sympathize with the sentiments, but regard them as one more evidence that our political system has failed to provide us with good choices... but don't throw the man into the battle before HE says he's ready and willing.

I don't know that you are supporting Obama or not, but if he is ready Webb is ready.  Webb has already worked under the Reagan administration.  Obama was popping pimples back then.

In any event, I don't think he should seek the VP slot.  He becomes a puppet.  I don't think VP is all that useful of a position.

Not only am I holding my breath until I turn blue, but I am stomping my little feet until everyone sees everything my way and leaves Webb where he can do the most good, which is in the Senate.

We've had enough of the unitary executive.  It's not that I think Webb wouldn't make a terrific VP or SecDef (or even President), but the whole idea here is to restore the balance of power in our government.  We can't do that if Webb jumps from the legislative to the executive.  Moreover, he's got plans for initiatives he hasn't even had the chance to discuss yet.  For him to pursue his goal of economic fairness and his lesser known goal of doing something about the incarceration crisis in this country then he will need to be in the Senate.  He's hoping to hold hearings some day on the incarceration crisis.  It is also my fervent hope that he will soon announce his position on the habeas issue and throw in with those who would roll back the legislation enacted over the last thirteen years to eviscerate the great writ and deny the accused its benefits.  The way the law stands now, it can be evident to virtually everybody that a convicted person is innocent but he still has no right to bring a petition under habeas corpus for release based on actual innocence except under extremely stringent and unrealistic circumstances.  This needs to be changed. 

Besides, there is no current candidate that I'd like to see Jim Webb paired with.  He'd diminish them all if given the chance.

If Webb's gonna be second on the ticket, pick a presidential candidate with a bad heart.  Seriously, anything that would get Jim Webb in line for a shot at the White House, I'd be thrilled to see.  I think he's the most qualified candidate in the country.  And I think he makes any ticket a winner. He's very popular around the nation.  I'm consulting with a Senate hopeful.  The first thing he did was go to Washington, meet Schumer, Reid and Webb.  Webb was the guy he kept talking about.  Another Senate hopeful called me recently and asked how to get in touch with Webb.  He's the magic touchstone in Washington right now and it's not just because he beat Allen.  It's about everything he is, his straight forward, no nonsense manner--the fact he fights back hard. 

Plus, it's pretty obvious to anyone who's read his books--the guy's brilliant. 

He's have to be hooked up with a President who continued this current working vice-president approach and he'd need something he could take control of.  He's not the type to sit around arranging his office while the Prez does all the real work.  I'd hate to see him marginalized in the Vice-Presidency.

Of course I think he could beat up any of the other candidates.  Well, I'm not so sure about Hillary.  She looks like she's got a pretty good right hand.

Funny how an old Webb for Senate mantra is remembered by one's computer (as in remembering re-typed words). I had to change it to President for this little comment.

Jim Webb has proven to be an All-Star rookie of a Senator. How many "home runs" has he already hit and he' only been on the hill for 6 months. Clearly the guy is talented and by any measure, already a very effective "politician" (you can almost see him bristling at a comment like that).

As my brother has pointed out to me "Why would Webb want to be a second fiddle (Vice President)?"  He's too much of his own man and loves whatever independence he can garner. That's not a VP thing. You won't find him accepting a VP offer from Hillary .... too much of a culture clash there still rooted in Vietnam era politics. That's an issue that's been burried and a run as VP on her ticket would exume it, I'm afraid. So let's not do that ... it gets in the way.

The Obama scenario is a fit however if the offer of the VP role met certain conditions ... that conditon primarily being that Webb would be an empowered VP (hate to say this ... ala Cheney) and the collective mission of Obama Webb being  "the greatest realignment of shared interest in modern political history". You all know this one .... Rednecks joining with Blacks... as mentioned in "Born Fighting".  Symbolically represented by an Obama Webb ticket.

Personally I think this is something the country really needs. You see it work in the military foremost ...more than in any other part of our society ...  Why can't it be the calling card of a "new politics" as Mr. Obama likes to preach.

Across the board what the country desperately needs and IS LOOKING FOR ... is Affirmative Leadership. Webb has been offering up his version of it and the country as a whole has been VERY RECEPTIVE ... to include those on the other side of the aisle. Without thinking much ... just blurting it out (yet his instincts are correct) ... Chris Matthews recently asked Webb if he would run for President!! Simply put Webb is an asset to anyone's ticket because he's authentic, consistent and "fair". The guy has INTEGRITY hence credibility. He is providing us very affirmative leadership.

Let's all hope the national Democratic Party .. the folks in Iowa and New Hampshire picks the right guy or gal (a unifying winner) to lead the country as a democrat... because the consequences of failing to do so are just too tough bear.

This following is just some of my own reflection, and so isn't worth much, but here goes.  The  GOP forever took the requirement for "experience" off the table.  Bush had less than one term serving in a weak governor system.  He took credit (abetted by the media) for things he never accomplished.

But if we want to talk experience, and I think it is actually important, aside from Gore (who, yes, I know, isn't running), among the "front runners there isn't much experience.

Hillary has just one term (and that's negative because of all her boneheaded wrong votes). She was an undistinguished Senator the first term.  Her marriage to Bill means little in terms of her own experience.  She's a really smart woman.  But let's face it, Hillary has no significant innovation in her current proposals, it's all mush, designed to offend no one (except Erick Edelman et al and the anti-Clintonistas, who will oppose her no matter what).  She still talks Bush lite.  She's taken more money in 2007 from the health care industry than any other candidate of either party (and thus won't likely propose any meaningful change).  In 2006, she was second to a Republican, who is now a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry.  And she won't take any political chances.  That means we cannot expert any meaningful proposals or change from her.  I'm a woman, but don't think we should vote based on gender.  There are no circumstances in which I could support her for the primaries because she hasn't learned anything, and doesn't intend to.  In the general, I'd be so discouraged I'd have to work on down-ticket races.  Still, I'll defend her from outrageous attacks on occasion, as I did this week.

Obama has less than one term just over two years, but he voted the right way on several crucial votes and opposed the war (thus risking never getting elected in the first place).  He showed real leadership. My verdict is still out on him though.  I like they guy.  He inspires.  He has been a leader when need arose.  But am just not there yet.

Edwards has more substantive proposals than the other two "front runners."  He too has just one term (with several of the same terrible votes as Hillary).  At least Edwards no strongly admits the errors he made, something Hillary can't seem to do.  Not that I've totally forgiven Edwards.  But he's a class act. My verdict is still out on him too.  But I really think his populist message is the correct one.

Giving the dearth of experience among the front runners, it seems that Sen. Webb doesn't really have a deficit of it.  And so, though I don't think the public would see him as ready (and it didn't take Edwards seriously when he ran too soon the first time), I really don't see experience as an issue for Webb.

To be sure, the "frontrunners" should learn something from Jim.  He is speaking for much/most of America and it's about time someone did.  I doubt Hillary will follow suit.  Obama, not sure.  Edwards, perhaps? Or maybe we need the real deal.

Having said that, it is just so great to finally have a senator who represents me, that I would hate to see him put that seat on the line.