Webb follow-up

A commentator at Ezra's place follows-up on what I had posted below,

To take Steve Balboni one step further:

While I am happy that Jim Webb's talents may be best saved in the Senate, the insistence that supporting a Webb VP candidacy is "superficial" or a matter of projection is just plain silly to me.

I like Webb the best because he is strident on economic issues and unwilling to cower or compromise his core beliefs for political points. Too few Democrats, especially those in the so called "veepstakes" are willing to speak truth to power on economic issues. Webb is willing to do that. Otherwise, outside of Edwards (who appears to not want the job), all of the potential VP picks are centrist Democrats unwilling to challenge or alter the fundamental economic imbalance imperiling this country. Webb's editorial in the WSJ and his opposition to the prison industrial complex is worth more than all of the empty talking points we have seen on the housing crises, out-of-control finance capitalism, poverty, and putative relief for the "middle class" from most of these other democrats...

For my money, while arguments about Webb's interest in the position and utility were more than valid (they came true, didn't they), I liked him because he seems more willing to stand up for his own principles rather than please the right people or wait for the right poll to tell him how to think. A streak of independent thought might do many a Democrat some good.

I couldn't agree more. My preference for Webb was not his military record, it was his attitude and his demonstrated ability to fight for what he believes. See his response to the 2007 State of the Union as evidence. Contrast that to often-cited VP candidate Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius' weak response this past year.