This appears to be nuanced historical analysis by Webb. Until he engages in innuendo about being supported by "hard-working, white Americans," then he has not said much that should upset fellow Democrats.

Um, yes?

I think his writings about women would be a much bigger problem. I mean, how on earth are you going to win over Hillary's former supporters by picking a dude who wrote that the military was a "horny woman's dream" or that tailhook was overinvestigated and fought against having female salors, etc?

Webb might have been good with Hillary (assuming Barack didn't want it) but with Obama? Bad choice.

I like Bill Richardson. He would really help lock up western Hispanic heavy states that are key to Obama's new map. Plus he seems like a fun guy. Webb is so friggin' dour

I also like Clark... Richard Clark. He has great anti-terror cred, gravitas without being a downer (like Webb) and he's not a typical politician.

Webb has serious baggage. The marriages, the intemperate comments about sex in the military, and his historic conservatism will turn off a lot of people, especially women.

The last thing they need is an ex-soldier apologizing for boorish sexism in the military. Hillary's feminists will have a terrible time accepting him on the ticket.

Webb has too much baggage, with this and the women thing, not to mention the blaming liberals for "losing" Vietnam by protesting, he just wouldn't make a good choice in my opinion. Not to mention we NEED his Senate seat, so I don't think using any senators is that great of an idea, not to mention Obama is a senator, so two is just superfluous. I say a governor is the best bet, and the best governor out there is Richardson. He has the right character, a great resume, and he could deliver demographics that no one else could, and perhaps give us a shot at winning Texas (then it doesn't matter what other states the Republicans win, its over for them).

I like Webb but I think this stuff, along with the sexism charges, might suck up too much oxygen.

I'm trying to understand what of these writings could possibly be in doubt. In fact, everything Webb is saying about the Confederacy and the motives for participation in the Civil War are pretty much straight out of the Ken Burns documentary that they show in every high school history class.

As for the stuff about how some Southerners feel about the memory of the confederacy today, that is also something that is a matter of unquestionable fact. Webb is saying that the memory of the Confederacy means different things to different people. Is every single person who honors the memory of their ancestors who died in Confederate uniforms a racist? Of course not. That would be an absolutely outrageous thing to say.

My grandmother is 90 years old and recently told me about meeting elderly civil war cavalry officers when she was young. These soldiers are thus still only one degree of separation away from me. They were real human beings who lived not all that long ago and their motivations for fighting were just as complex as those of our soldiers who are fighting in Iraq right now.

Some fight because they believed Bush about WMD, some fight because they like fighting, others just believe in doing their duty to America whether or not they support the mission. Then you have some who think the whole thing was a bad idea in the first place but want to help some kind of good come out of it all. You could not possibly state one reason or one political position that has led all or even a large majority of people to enlist in the modern American military that is at war in Iraq.

This notion that the people involved in the Civil War had motivations or beliefs any less complex that those of people in our society today is patently absurd. Jim Webb is right and any mainstream historian will agree with him.

I'm off the Webb bandwagon for the simple reason that we need his Senate seat in 2009.

If his writings on the Civil War are propaganda, they're bad. If they're history, they're neutral.

Unfortunately, the only writings on the Civil War that almost all Americans are interested in are propaganda. The unblinkered historical look at what happened is of no interest to almost all Americans.

For example, we are taught in school that "Lincoln freed the slaves" and say that in public without contradiction all the time, whereas it is a simple historical fact (almost impossible to mention without causing trouble) that Lincoln not only never freed a single slave but was a complete white supremacist. The Emancipation Proclamation never claimed to free any slave in territory under Union control, but only those in the "rebel states." And to make the insult to slaves unmistakable, Lincoln's "great Proclamation" promised any state that, if it returned to Union obedience, it could keep its slaves. Great Emancipator indeed.

And this is only one example of why no honest historian of that war is likely ever to please a nationwide electorate. People like Obama, who surely know better, invoke the sacred Lincoln all the time. It's an example of a political lie that has become necessary. Those who suspect that Webb is incapable of such mendacity are probably correct.

I think this actually makes him a better VP.

Think about it: an African-American and a former civil rights "opposer". The world is really changing!!!!!

Coming from Webb, who has taken numerous authentically anti-racist stances in the past and written thoughtfully of Appalachian regional identity and politics, I'll give it a pass. It's pretty much bullshit -- pride in the Confederacy is, 99% of the time, about "white pride." But I can see how someone thoughtful trying to reconcile his culture with its historical racism would posit that.

I love Webb's intelligence and authenticity, and I think he'd do a lot to break the GOP in coal country, where it damn well doesn't belong. But yeah, the Tailhook stuff is very worrying and just won't do unless he addresses it satisfactorily. He could say, "When I was young and chauvanistic, I was young and chauvanistic, but a lot has changed since the '80s and women have proved themselves the equals of any man in the military. I was deeply wrong not to take sexual assault seriously." But of course, being who he is, he could only say that convincingly if he meant it.

When Senator Obama says "Different stories, but common hopes," I assume he included the story Senator Webb is telling.

I tenaciously call myself a "one-flag Southerner," because I find the Confederate elements too tainted with racial evil. My ancestors were dead wrong. Some of my cousins still are.

But there are pieces from the Confederate wreckage that I want. The devotion to military skill and personal honor are way high on the list. Reading "Team of Rivals," I quietly tucked away how hard it was for Lincoln to find military officers that stood a chance against the Southerners. I play "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue" loud on my car stereo. I keep mental track of how many men I know who have been called to active duty in this wretched war.

Most of all, I say that that Southern--and especially Southern Appalachian-- people are my people. I don't go elsewhere and show off our disagreements. Among people who don't share this heritage, I speak with loyalty or I stay quiet.

Senator Webb is doing a rather fine job of giving voice to that. If he is the nominee for vice-president, that will be one of the plusses he brings to the ticket. Given who's at the top of the ticket, no one will think he wants to revive some cobwebbed and dimwitted fantasy that the South was right in general. On the contrary, he'll clearly be speaking for some Scotch-Irish threads worth including in the shared tapestry of an indivisible nation.

And friends, a party that plans on winning and governing would be well advised to includes those threads in its fabric.

(BTW, I don't think Webb as VP is the best way to do that inclusion. I think Webb as a visible and active campaigner and a long-term Senator makes more sense.)

Clark is a drip, forget that. Richard Clarke isn't a politician and that's just queer. Richardson is not really that well connected with Hispanics and is not a real firecracker campaigning. Billary is unthinkable, unless in two months Obama is really in a hole and doesn't know what to do next. Strickland has rejected the job in Shermanesque panache. Webb we are writing off herein. Hagel is too conservative and is a Republican, and many of you can't abide that. McCain has the same problems and is also the opposing candidate. Colin Powell ended his political career by foolishly carrying Bush's poisoned water at the UN. Feingold is a myopic liberal's wet dream and that won't go anywhere at all. Edwards is also too liberal and too inexperienced to effectively balance this ticket (plus he says he doesn't want it). Nancy Pelosi wouldn't mess with it. Dodd doesn't do much for this regionally -- if Obama doesn't carry the NorthEast, it's over anyway. The governor or legislator of your state who is unknown but who you still think is pretty keen isn't going to get it either, no way.

Would Obama really go for a man in uniform, General Zinni, General Jones?

If not, and if credence is given to the above, then I am left with Biden, Rendell, and Sebelius. Biden isn't from the South, but can cast himself as Mr. Reasonable but Tough, Experienced Cookie, and not from the North either. Rendell and Sebelius have obvious appeals, though being a woman is a double-edged sword in this thing, so while that may be a potential high-payoff option, it is also high risk.

Webb is wrong on the Civil War. For more, see my post "Webb vs US Grant".

I've been an advocate for Jim Webb for a long time, but after watching him on CNN this morning, I am totally over him. He didn't go so far as to sabotage Obama, but he certainly was in no mood to be an advocate either. Terrible performance. I'm sure the Obama folks were watching, and I doubt it took them long to cross Webb's name off the list. He would be an awful running mate.

I second the motion on "Albion's Seed." It has the wonderous effect of making you see WASP/Anglo/whitebread America as actually four ethnicities, as complex a melting pot in 1800 as anything that ever landed at Ellis Island. See it once, and you see it forever.