More on Jim Webb and the veepstakes

Kathy G.

There are a couple of other things I'd like to add to my thoughts concerning Jim Webb and the veepstakes.

First of all, in addition to the other qualities I listed as being important for a VP -- having no scandals or controversies that would detract from the message of the campaign, being competent and qualified to step in as president at a moment's notice, sharing Democratic values (especially where women's rights, civil rights, and labor are concerned) -- I wanted to add a few more. As Jason Zengerle has argued, "having a good working relationship with the nominee" is very important. Also, as Josh Patashnik has pointed out, since there's a decent chance that the vice president will become the presidential nominee at some point, ideally you'd want to pick someone who'd make a good presidential candidate and "will be popular enough to campaign with and raise money for candidates across the country for years to come."

Secondly, although I've made it clear that Webb is not my favorite Democrat and would be unacceptable to me as a vice presidential nominee, I do think he's been very good on some issues. He's a powerful, progressive voice on some things that matter a lot to me, like Iraq, prison reform, and economic inequality. His recent mobilization of support for the expanded G.I. bill was most impressive. All in all, I'm happy he's on our team -- as my mama done told me, it's never too late to come to Jesus. And as LBJ said so memorably, re: (I think) J. Edgar Hoover: "It's better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in." I just don't want Webb leading our team (or being second-in-command).

His long history of opposing women's rights is a deal-breaker for me; he is totally untrustworthy on this vital issue, and he's never really explained his alleged change of heart. Interestingly, as Ezra Klein notes, Webb now "says he doesn't hold his former views on 'why women can't fight,' but nowhere in [his new] book does he address gender issues, or talk about why and how he's grown (an interesting omission given the attacks he's suffered on that issue)."

Bottom line: as Melissa McEwan says, "If you're not a feminist, you're not a progressive." I would vote for Webb over practically any Republican, but there is no way I can support him for a position as important as vice president.

One final thought: I think the reason a lot of (male) liberal bloggers and journalists are so enamored with Webb is that, essentially, he is one of them: a political/literary intellectual. They also like him because they see him as a "real" person, brilliant, quirky, and passionate, unlike so many other politicians who come off as such phony automatons. And look, I have no doubt that Webb would be a fascinating dinner companion. I might even like him -- as it happens, most of my favorite people in the world tend to be writers, bloggers, and other intellectuals.

But I think it's a huge mistake to pick the political candidate you'd most like to have as your best buddy. The way politics is set up in the modern world, pols can't really afford to be "authentic" -- they'd wind up pissing off too many people. I am totally comfortable with the fact that I'd probably dislike most of the politicians I'd vote for. That's fine. If we're talking politicians, give me a slick, phony hack any day of week -- as long as he or she delivers on the issues I care about, I'll be  happy.

It's true that you can take the phony, being-all-things-to-all-people thing too far -- witness this guy. But on the whole, I think the romantic cult of authenticity is a luxury  we can ill-afford.  Especially here, especially now.

Comments

[Ezra]

I think you're wrong on that last. I think liberal bloggers and journalists love Webb because, fundamentally, they don't like the intellectual/effete parts of themselves, and they sense Webb doesn't either, and they believe that the electorate will thrill to that. In other words, it's the perfect compromise: A politician who doesn't like them, but believes in similar goals, and thus stands some chance at achieving them.

[minstrel hussain boy]

i too am one of webb's admirers, but i do not think he would be a good choice for vice president. for your listed reasons and for others, like, he worked for reagan for crying out loud. giving up a senate seat in a traditionally red (and redneck) state would also be something unacceptable. allow him to keep going with where he is. he's good at that so far.

[minstrel hussain boy]

i too am one of webb's admirers, but i do not think he would be a good choice for vice president. for your listed reasons and for others, like, he worked for reagan for crying out loud. giving up a senate seat in a traditionally red (and redneck) state would also be something unacceptable. allow him to keep going with where he is. he's good at that so far.

[arbitrista]

Okay, you've convinced me. I knew that Webb had opposed women in the military back in the 70's, but I hadn't been aware that it was part of a larger pattern and that he hadn't really explained his change in position.

However, I disagree with you and Ezra above on why liberals like Webb. I think it's simply that he's taken a public stand on economic populism, which very very few politicians do. I think liberals like Sherrod Brown for much the same reason.

[Kathy G.]

Ezra makes a good point. I would modify what I wrote to say that, yes, liberal male journalists and bloggers tend to adore Webb, both because he's like them (a writer and intellectual) and not like them (a war hero, man of action, etc.).

In other words, he's the idealized version of themselves -- the man they wish they could be. Or think they'd like to be, anyway.

[Michelle]

I am female and I really like Webb. I think that if Hillary and other female Senators vouched for Webb than the "sexism" charge against Webb could be over come. I remember specifically that Hillary actually campaigned for Webb even after these charges. Thus as long as she approves and says great things about him than female voters will come around. I have.

Webb has so many positives that they out weigh the negatives. I can't think of a better ATTACK DOG to McCain than Webb.

[Jed]

Good posts about Webb, and good arguments. The stuff about Tailhook was especially disturbing. I know exactly the kind of guy who takes that position -- it's the kind of guy who just doesn't really have any need for women in the world, other than for his own pleasure.

[Randy]

So let's see. It can't be that liberals admire Webb because of his opposition to the invasion of Iraq, or his opposition to attacking Iran. It can't be that we admire him for saying in his response to the State of the Union two years ago that if if the President does not lead us wisely, "we will be showing him the way." It can't be that we admire him because he has crafted a GI Bill that exposes the Republicans as heartless hypocrites when it comes to "supporting the troops". It can't be that we admire his economic populism, his argument that the working class and middle class have been shafted by conservatives, or his decrying the draconian punishment for drug offenses. It is apparently narcissistic of us to admire his intellectualism and eloquence. No, our admiration can only be because we are insecure in our own masculinity. Isn't that *always* the problem with liberal men! We're effete! Just ask Maureen Dowd.

Nice to know that the issues don't count, only psychology.

In other words, isn't it enough to criticize his record on gender and women's issues? Why indulge in this kind of foolish ad hominem bullshit? It makes you sound like a wingnut.

[John Lumea]

Ezra writes:

"[L]iberal bloggers and journalists love Webb because, fundamentally, they don't like the intellectual/effete parts of themselves, and they sense Webb doesn't either, and they believe that the electorate will thrill to that."

This might be a very TINY part of it. But the push to inject, into Obama's ticket -- and in the person of Jim Webb -- a heavy dose of white, Southern, thick-necked, barrel-chested, cigar-chewing, military-grade testerone is not simply, as Ezra suggests, a strategic effort to address / excuse the sexism and homophobia that exists in the electorate -- and let's be clear: sexism and homophobia is what we're talking about here.

No, the push for Webb is an expression of sexism and homophobia AGAINST OBAMA HIMSELF -- the only-rarely-spoken conventional wisdom being that Obama is not enough of a "manly man" to get elected against McCain, without a veep like Webb.

It's as if to say: "We really like Barack's message. If only he were more of a GUY."

But neither Barack nor his message need "manning up." And no self-respecting Democrat should want to see Barack elected, on the back of sexist and homophobic prejudice.

That would be an abdication of the politics of hope -- not the affrmation of it.