there is nothing that webb brings that hillary does not bring in spades.

Plus webb has the unique position of being the republican version of joe leiberman

Agree with zcflint05.  It's not a dealbreaker for me but it put him at the bottom of the list.

Which is such a shame - I had my heart set on him before I found out more about him.  He really is perfect on paper.

This analysis would appear to be unsupported by the evidence as Senator Webb won his Senate seat in Virginia with a larger percentage of the womanly vote than of the manly variety.

The women in Virginia haven't done so.

Fear not! Obama could kick McSame's wrinkly old ass with one webb tied behind his richardson. No need to be concerned!

I think Clark is a better pick, also for his NATO experience, which is sort of like being CEO of a small country.

I like Webb, but he stays in the senate.

You know, I agree with your statement EXCEPT for our now legendary "Hard working white people" I.E. The White Scottish Appalachian vote?

Well, guess who Jim Webb is?  

So, I agree, Webb is wrong, but IF you want to nail the rural PA, WV vote, believe me, Jim Webb speaks to those people.

So, you are concerned that with Webb on the ticket, Obama would lose to the man who calls his wife a c*nt?

Very interesting analysis.

They're really different, and it's a different type of ticket.  Webb really nails down the cultural issues that Clark can't because of his Fred Rogers demeanor.

Again, I agree with zcflint on this, but I'm just saying I think Clark belongs in a different conversation.

I think it goes back to the 1970's/80's when he stated something to the effect that women shouldn't serve in the military.

I heard about this back in 2006.

This article (posted above in another comment) in the The Atlantic by Matthew Yglesias has some relevant information:

In 1979, in an infamous article in The Washingtonian magazine called "Women Can't Fight," Webb argued that women were biologically unsuited to combat and didn't belong in the military academies. He said that the mere presence of women was "poisoning" the environment for male cadets. He also

declared that no senior female in a leadership position at the academy won her rank by merit, thereby impugning the accomplishments of every female midshipman and throwing fuel on the smoldering resentments of a vocal minority of disgruntled midshipmen.

Webb's writings on women did a hell of a lot of damage. It gave invaluable ammunition to the enemies of women's presence in the military and helped stall and perhaps even roll back women's progress there. Kathleen Murray, a 1984 academy graduate who went on to become a commander in the Navy, said of Webb's screed: "This article was brandished repeatedly. [Men] quoted and used it as an excuse to mistreat us." Her observation is confirmed by this post, which contains devastating testimony by women in the military about the effect Webb's writings had. For instance, here is what Commander Jennifer Brooks, USN(retired) had to say:

I was 19 years old and in my second year at the Academy when the Webb article came out. I was devastated to be told by a war hero that the Academy should be shut down rather than accept me, and that my very presence was responsible for the degradation of the military. As a best selling author, James Webb knew the power of words, and to describe the Naval Academy as `a horny woman's dream' was inexcusable. My mother read that.

I joined the Navy to serve my country. It was unbelievably demoralizing to be painted as a pampered slut who was taking up classroom space and pre-destined to endanger the lives of the brave young men around her.

If you're thinking that's ancient history, you're probably right. There's more:

You may say, well, that was way back in the 80s and late 70s. He's changed since then, right? But that is not exactly clear. At a 1991 convention of naval aviators called Tailhook, 83 women were reported to have been sexually harassed or assaulted by military personnel. From the beginning, Webb's concern for the victims was merely perfunctory. But he gave many speeches and wrote many articles vociferously defending the accused. In a 1992 article in the New York Times, he called the investigation of Tailhook a "witch hunt." In a 1997 article he wrote for the conservative Weekly Standard, he was highly critical of what he termed "ever-expanding sexual mixing" in the military and he referred to feminist efforts to improve the status of women in the military as merely "salving the egos of a group of never-satisfied social engineers."

And yes, once again he brought up Tailhook, and once again he showed himself more concerned with attacking feminists than with securing justice for the victims: "Events such as the 1991 Tailhook debacle have been seized upon and used by feminists to attack the military culture and bring about major concessions." Indeed, as late as the time this book was published (2004), Webb, according to the author, "persists in refusing to blame the Navy and Marine Corps officers who participated in the abuses of Tailhook, who failed to raise a hand to stop them and stonewalled the investigation that followed."

To be fair, Webb, who is pro-choice, has kinda sorta apologized for his past writings and statements on women in the military. He termed the infamous Washingtonian  article an "overreach." Um, that's putting it mildly.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/a rchives/2008/05/ixnay_on_the_ebbway.php

I am left-wing and I can tell you, Webb is not on my top 10 list at all.

the man creeps me out in some visceral way.

It is your choice to mark our concern in anyway you want but we have a right to voice our concerns about a Jim Webb VP candidacy. And this is no FauxNews concern...

a rock star?  really?

everytime he is on the air, he kinda drones on.  He doesn't exactly light up a room with energy.  That is what a "rock star" does.

going by some of the people on this site and others, anyone he picks will piss of the female vote.  Pick a male, females are angry, pick a female, females are angry.