Webb pulls his name from consideration

Jim Webb removed himself from consideration to be Barack Obama's Vice-Presidential running mate today. I've made no secret about my preference for Webb as Vice President so this is disappointing news but not exactly upsetting. From an electoral perspective VP nominees have very little effect on campaigns, barring a calamitous scandal (see Eagleton, Tom and McGovern, George).

Still the objections to Webb on the left have bothered me for some time and I see that Ezra Klein has written this in response to today's news,

This is good news. The best of all possible worlds is for James Webb to actually want to be a force in the Senate and a leading national voice on foreign affairs. That's what his experience and temperament best prepare him for. Democrats have to stop trying to solve their inadequacies on national security through the superficial fix of presidential resume searches and begin building a strong party infrastructure around the issue. Serving in the Senate, Webb could become the locus around which that infrastructure is built.

This is a pretty common sentiment from opponents to Webb. They argue that those who advocate for Webb have internalized the Republican narrative that Democrats are weak on defense and that we are desperately trying to paper over that weakness. In doing so, they argue, we are simply reinforcing the GOP's narrative.

Why is it assumed that proponents of Webb (like myself) are searching for "a superficial fix?"

Has the possibility that some of us actually think Webb would be substantively good on national security never crossed their minds? Given the command and control structure, as well as the bureaucratic structure, of the U.S. military it's clear that Webb could have significantly more influence over issues of national security as Vice President than as 1 of 100 Senators.

I've never understood objection from Webb's detractors that he would be superficial or that proponents are caving to right-wing narratives about Democrats and defense. There seems to be more than a little projection in that sentiment. I, for one think, Democrats are substantively better on defense issues than Republicans and I also think that Jim Webb could be a tremendous advocate for those positions. Rest assured that I am not caving to right-wing narratives in my support for Webb as VP.

And to flip part of the argument around, do opponents of Webb really believe that if we just avoid the topic of national security altogether those who find the Democrats to be weak on defense will just forget about those objections? Who's actually advocating a position that caves to right-wing talking points? I'd argue that it's Webb's opponents who appear to be the cowering and caving to right-wing narratives.