Old news for anyone who has followed Jim Webb's career. Sure, today his statements back then sound idiotic. But Webb's statements back in the late 70's were pretty much the consensus for those serving in the military at that time. You have to realize how the role of women in the military has taken so long to progress. I was down in Charleston SC back when Shannon Faulkner finally got her shot at the Citadel. She ended up quitting, and the cadets were so thrilled when she packed her bags and left. I thought the scene was ridiculous back then, considering it was 1995, but the military, while lagging the rest of our institutions here in the US, has come a very long way since. I can see how women, particularly those who are so obsessed with Hillary's candidacy, would see Webb as a flawed pick for VP. However, if you look at put his baggage - (his temper is one, and his stupid comments about women almost 30 years ago is another) up against his credentials and, most importantly, the fact that this is one of the more principled members of the Senate, I would say he's still Obama's best choice for VP.Here is the excerpt from the Russert interview:Russert: Now you issued a statement, said, "to the extent my writing caused hardship," you were sorry. And Ms. Murray has sent me a letter saying, "That's not enough." It's not to the extent that "my writing caused hardship." The content of the article was just plain wrong, and Mr. Webb should say that. Do you agree?Webb: Um, this article was written from the perspective of a marine rifle platoon company commander, and, to that extent, I think it was, uh, way too narrowly based.Russert: But was it wrong?Webb: I don't think it was wrong to participate in the debate at that time. It's been 27 years, it's a magazine article, and, uh, it's something, if I may say, I'm fully comfortable with the roles of women in the military today; I've been all around the world and, uh, at the request of many women commanders, this issue was vetted twice, in, uh, Senate confirmation hearings, 1984, 1987, uh, and both times I expressed my views on, uh, women in military billets, and when I was Secretary of the Navy, on my own initiative, I put together a task force that, where we ended up opening up more, uh, more billets, operational billets to women than any sector—Russert: When you say [crosstalk] the Naval Academy is a horny woman's dream, you regret that?Webb: Well, I do regret that.
Hmmm, I lived through 1979. I was an adult in 1979 and loads of people in 1979 would still have a problem with the "horny" bit then. And as the post I linked to explained, a lot of people have problems with his still laughing it off in 2006.
Loads of people in 1979, sure, but loads of military people 1979. No way. I think he was laughing at the horny comment because, when read back to him, it's actually such a ridiculous comment that its funny. Funny to you maybe? No, because you take this stuff too seriously some times. Forget the laughing, I care more about a person admitting they were wrong, which I think Webb realizes he was wrong ("times have changed). Anyways, here is a better argument AGAINST having Webb as a VP candidate. I think this guy's argument makes a lot of sense. Webb is very independent minded, and as I said, he is very principled, to the point that he resigned from Secretary of the Navy because the Reagan administration was screwing over the Navy, less than a year into his appointment.
I say pick Webb. I say piss of the bitter, ignorant radical feminists like Ferraro and Maria Pappas, as they won't be supporting our nominee anyway. I say Webb has major appeal among disillusioned evangelicals (and yes, they're up for grabs this year), and military families (another group which is up for grabs). The stupidest part of that post was an author complaining about a book upon which Webb gave a cover statement. Authors know full well that acquaintances and friends who write books call them up and they provide a nice jacket statement as a friendly gesture. Jacket statements have meant nothing since they were invented--and I say this as an avid reader...Let's not forget that Webb is the person who single handily put the Republicans on the defensive about supporting the troops with brilliant political maneuvering. Let's not forget Webb's son is in Iraq (as is McCain's son). Let's not forget that Webb is pro-choice. Let's not forget that Webb renounced that paper 25 years ago. But it's still all not good enough for the radical, petulant feminists, which are a scourge upon our party. Good riddance to Ferraro and Pappas is all I have to say. PS--Your bullshit "protest" isn't going to help the cause of keeping Webb of the ticket. It only makes Webb's selection more likely. If Hillary Clinton is successful in her effort to gin up outrage and frustration at Obama which manifests itself as feminist support for McCain, Obama will be left with no choice but to try and replace them with white men. Webb is the tailor made candidate for that situation. Jim Webb thanks you for furthering his Vice Presidential aspirations this weekend!!!!
Or better than Jim Webb: Bob Casey, who is apparently at least being considered. As a pro-life Democrat I am joyous about that!!! Of course, this wouldn't have happened without the radical, petulant feminists like Ferraro and Pappas!
i've bookmarked the blog that you sent us to, maria... but i have a feeling that i'm not enough of a feminist to fit in with that crowd. i'll keep reading though.as for webb... i like the idea of him on the ticket simply because he's good at playing the repug's game, and has been successful in beating them at their own.unfortunately, the dems need that ability right now.
Cathcatz,If you think military experience and national security credentials are needed, Wes Clark might make more sense.
i like webb and clark.
The problem with Clark or someone like Casey is that they're not tough enough to stand up to the Republican attack machine.Webb would be able to hit them back, right in the mouth, something that unfortunately, Obama's call for "new politics" prevents him from doing.
John K. says: Yah need someone with military experience. Neither of these two Democrats have squat. Except for Hillary, she got sniped at in Bosnia and of course Obama had a great uncle who liberated Auschwitz. For liberals that usually counts enough.
Casey is not ready to be President at a moment's notice, Wes Clark is.
last i looked, neither the pres nor the vice-pres saw one moment of combat, unless you count trying to avoid the mp's as they were looking for you to actually honor your commitment to the ANG. or maybe you count shooting your friend in the face during a canned bird hunt, combat???
Schultz, you said:The problem with Clark or someone like Casey is that they're not tough enough to stand up to the Republican attack machine.Webb would be able to hit them back, right in the mouth, something that unfortunately, Obama's call for "new politics" prevents him from doing. Are you saying that Obama will not be strong enough for this job and has to have some real tough guys do the dirty work? Sounds like it. If not, what are you saying?
Obama's rhetoric of a "new politics" means that he is going to have a tough time throwing punches of his own since he painted himself into a corner, meaning, he has said he won't stoop to their level. A lot of political bloggers out there have said that this will be a problem for Obama in the general. So how does he respond to the GOP attacks without stooping to their level? Simple - he has a Jim Webb or a Joe Biden type VP who can hit back with some force. I think Obama has done a good job responding to attacks so far but I think part of his appeal is that he doesn't go too negative. Having the VP candidate to aggressively go after the GOP, like Webb has been doing since he entered the Senate, would allow Obama himself to stay above the fray without looking like a total pushover.
Thanks Schults, for your answer. That' s really sounding like a duel personality though, and in light of his new spiritual advisor's rant, can I ask....Is he having them speak for his "other personalty" too? Don't get mad, or hyper defensive. I think it is a question on a lot of people's minds. Not just raised by haters, but by people still doubting his sincerity. He seems too good to be true. I am Independant and listening yet.
Post a Comment