What I find interesting is the arguments some are offering against choosing Jim Webb,
This makes a certain amount of intuitive sense but look what Dems could lose:
- A safe Senate seat, which in another Democrat's hands might not be the case
- An outstanding senator who has been a champion for veteran's affairs and revitalizing the military
- A strong voice of economic populism and a fighter for working Americans
Sigh. How sad that at a moment like this some on the left are still focused on what Democrats may or may not lose as opposed to seizing the opportunity at hand.
Beyond that look at what Mori Dinauer is actually arguing. Jim Webb is apparently too successful and his convictions for key principles of the Democratic Party are too strong for Webb to even be considered as our next Vice President.
Apparently a better choice for Obama would be some middling politician with a wishy-washy commitment to core Party principles. That's the kind of person we can afford to "lose" to the Vice Presidency.
Is that not the most counter-intuitive argument you have heard in quite some time? I'm really at a loss, what Dinauer is saying makes absolutely no sense. Jim Webb is exactly the type of Democratic politician the party should be seeking to elevate. Might we lose that Senate seat? Yes, we might but we also might keep it. I'll take my chances, thanks. Not to mention the Party is poised to expand its Senate majority this fall. I'll risk losing 1 Senate seat in the name of putting together a potentially historic Democratic administration. The cost-benefit analysis is, in my mind, not even close.
The aversion to any semblance of risk expressed by Dinauer and the desire to pick someone of less stature and less principled than Webb is mind-boggling. The Party and the nation could be on the cusp of historic realignment, we should seize this opportunity - it may be the only one we get.