Luckily, I’m not alone in my reservations against Sen. Webb. Blogger Kathy G., guest writing in Matthew Yglesias’ blog, makes a compelling case against Sen. Webb as the VP in an Obama administration.

First, the practical argument against Sen. Webb:

Back in February, Ezra Klein made the case against Webb, and the reasons Ezra gave then still hold. For one thing, if President Obama wants to get anything done, he’ll need a filibuster-proof majority in the senate. It would not be wise for him to choose a red state senator, because who knows if another Democrat could be elected to that seat? Also, as Ezra argued, the things that make Webb valuable as a “gadfly senator,” such as his “brashness” and his “willingness to push the conversation forward,” would be a bad match for the vice presidency, which would require him to “constantly watch his mouth” and not say anything that conflicts with the president’s agenda.

Now for the more substantive case against Jim Webb:

To quote a Rolling Stone profile of the man, just a few years ago he was saying that “Liberals were ‘cultural Marxists,’ and ‘the upper crust of academia and the pampered salons of Hollywood’ were a fifth column waging war on American traditions.”

In 2000, Webb opined that affirmative action was “state-sponsored racism”; that same year he endorsed the ultra-conservative Republican George Allen for the senate. In 2004, Webb wrote an op-ed for USA Today arguing that John Kerry “deserved condemnation” for his opposition to the Vietnam War (to be fair, in the op-ed Webb is also critical of George Bush; but then again, in the same piece Webb also takes a swipe at the “liberal media”).

Kathy G. goes on to present a series of sexist statements made by Sen. Webb against women in the military; which, as she points out, in a year where many women have been inspired by a candidate with a real chance of becoming the first female president, selecting Sen. Webb as the VP nominee may be seen as an insult.

Above all, though, I am very troubled by the idea that a man who has held such sexists views, and has done so much to damage the cause of gender equality in the military, would be one heartbeat away from the presidency. I do not think Webb is at all trustworthy on women’s issues, and women’s issues are very important to me and to millions of others besides. I think it’s essential that any Democratic president or vice president have a good record on women’s, civil rights, and labor issues. It’s not just that women, African-Americans, and unions are the core constituencies of the Democratic party. It’s that advancing the causes of racial, gender, and economic equality are the among the most important moral and political issues of our time. These are core values to me and millions of other Democrats, and elevating a man who has been so awful on one of them to the second most powerful position in the party is completely unacceptable.

Stepping away from all that high-minded rhetoric, I’ll add that, in practical terms, selecting Webb would be a slap in the face to the Hillary Clinton supporters. I’m not saying that Obama has to pick Hillary as veep (and indeed, I think that would be a bad idea). I’m not even saying that he needs to pick a woman.

But Hillary was the first woman to ever have a serious shot at the presidency, and she came so close. So the Hillary supporters (of whom, to be clear, I am not one) will feel frustrated enough that their candidate didn’t win. But for Obama to choose — out of all the well-qualified candidates out there — the one person who has a really awful record on gender issues would be like rubbing salt in the wound. It would be seen as a big “screw you” to Hillary’s supporters and to feminists in general.

Read the full post, Kathy G. makes many points worth thinking about.

Here’s the tricky part, I don’t disagree with his description of the situation, but I completely disagree with his prescription. First, his description of the symptoms:

Mr. Obama will be the Democratic nominee. But he has a problem: many grass-roots Clinton supporters feel that she has received unfair, even grotesque treatment. And the lingering bitterness from the primary campaign could cost Mr. Obama the White House.

To the extent that the general election is about the issues, Mr. Obama should have no trouble winning over former Clinton supporters, especially the white working-class voters he lost in the primaries. His health care plan is seriously deficient, but he will nonetheless be running on a far more worker-friendly platform than his opponent.

From this, what does Krugman conclude? First, he reasonably suggests that both the Obama and Clinton camps need to come together, but then he goes too far. Here’s Krugman’s recommendation:

What about offering Mrs. Clinton the vice presidency? If I were Mr. Obama, I’d do it. Adding Mrs. Clinton to the ticket — or at least making the offer — might help heal the wounds of an ugly primary fight.

I just don’t see this happening because having Sen. Clinton on the ticket would undermine Sen. Obama’s major themes: Change and consistent opposition to the Iraq war. Now, are there practical reasons to offer Sen. Clinton the VP position? Yes, clearly. The question is, do the practical reason out weight the thematic and substantive reason that don’t make Sen. Clinton a good fit during a change election? And in my mind that question is already settled, and the answer is, No, Sen. Clinton would subtract more than what she would add to the Democratic ticket during this election cycle.

The NY Times offers some potential candidates, and also a composite profile of what a successful female presidential candidate may look like. The composite profile mentions Chelsea Clinton’s demonstrated ability to be at ease before voters (like her father), and the discipline she showed (like her mother) while stumping for her mother.

Here’s the half joking composite that NY Times offers:

That woman will come from the South, or west of the Mississippi. She will be a Democrat who has won in a red state, or a Republican who has emerged from the private sector to run for governor. She will have executive experience, and have served in a job like attorney general, where she will have proven herself to be “a fighter” (a caring one, of course).

She will be young enough to qualify as postfeminist (in the way Senator Barack Obama has come off as postracial), unencumbered by the battles of the past. She will be married with children, but not young children. She will be emphasizing her experience, and wearing, yes, pantsuits.

Oh, and she may not exist.

Unfortunately the article does not explore in any serious way the gender related obstacles that Sen. Clinton was faced with, and which future female candidates will need to successfully navigate before a woman can occupy the Oval Office.

While I’m not going to list the obstacles that Sen. Clinton was faced with as a woman, I think that this quote from Dee Dee Myers sums up our political landscape fairly well (now, remember, though I started as an Edwards supporter, and have been an Obama supporter for a long while now, I still think that there’s a lot of truth in this statement):

“No woman with Obama’s résumé could run,” said Dee Dee Myers, the first woman to be White House press secretary, under Bill Clinton, and the author of “Why Women Should Rule the World.” “No woman could have gotten out of the gate.”

Indeed, if not Hillary, who? When will we catch up with other nations that have already elected a woman to their highest office? Countries such as Chile, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Philippines, India, Bangladesh, Turkey, Brundi, Rwanda, Haiti, Peru, Jamaica and others (including Germany and England).

If this comes to pass, I’d hate to be amongst those that disrespected the family when it was vulnerable:

I’m beginning to think Hillary Clinton might pull this off and wrestle the nomination away from Barack Obama. If she does, a lot of folks — including a huge chunk of the media — will join Bill Richardson (a.k.a. Judas) in the Deep Freeze. If the Clintons get back into the White House, it will be retribution time, like the Corleone family consolidating power in “The Godfather,” where the watchword is, “It’s business, not personal.”

So, who is Fredo in this tragic family epic?

The bulk of their wealth has come from speaking and book-writing, which together account for almost $92 million, including a $15 million advance — larger than previously thought — from Mr. Clinton’s 2004 autobiography, “My Life.” The former president’s vigorous lecture schedule, where his speeches command upwards of $250,000, brought in almost $52 million.

During that time, the Clintons paid $33.8 million in federal taxes and claimed deductions for $10.2 million in charitable contributions.

To me, this is outrageous and a clear indication of the revolving door that exists between Washington, D.C. and the gleaming corporate boardrooms of America; proof, too, of how access is paid for and bought by monied interests, and who — ultimately — has the ear of OUR public representatives.

Of course, the Clintons are not the only ones that have benefited from this revolving door policy, they just happen to be the most recent example of this corrosive practice eating away at American democracy. The $109 million dollars that the Clintons have received since 2000 does not just place them in the top hundredth of one percent of American taxpayers, it places their descendents in an all together different strata — that’s right, $109 million dollars is generationally changing money. Thus, public service in the White House, or even in Congress, coupled with the revolving door policy leading is antithetical to the very anti-aristocratic principles that America was founded on; thus, a threat to our democracy.

Time to take a second look at John Edwards…

An NBC/WSJ poll finds that at this very early stage McCain leads Hillary and Obama, but McCain trails Edwards:

In some head-to-head match ups, McCain leads Clinton by four points (47 to 43 percent) and Obama by five points (43 percent to 38 percent). But — in an interesting twist — the Arizona senator trails Edwards by two points (43 percent to 41 percent).

Edwards, at this very early stage, also leads in Iowa:

Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina and the winner of the 2004 caucuses, was picked as the early preference of 36 percent of likely caucusgoers in the survey.

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York came in second with 16 percent.

Third was Sen. Barack Obama with 13 percent, and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack trailed in fourth place at 9 percent.

Again, it’s very early, which is why the article notes the following:

Some elements of the race have changed since the poll was completed. Vilsack has formally announced his entry, Clinton has begun reaching out to Iowans, and Obama last weekend traveled to New Hampshire.

I think that Senator Edwards has it right, via PoliticalWire.com:

"Running before makes you focus on something different. Instead of focusing on how crowds respond to you and what everybody seems to love of you. That’s not the test for being president. The test for being president is are you the best person to occupy the Oval Office and be the leader of the free world? Because literally the future of the world is at stake here. This is not about popularity and excitement."

— John Edwards, on Hardball