Print This Post
Jun
1
Deborah Solomon’s interview with Virginia Senator and Democrat, Jim Webb is kind of confrontational, but she does edit it. I’d like to see what she cut. Still, notice how few questions that she chose to have published have actual responsive responses to them from Webb.
On veep choices:
Because of your military background, you’ve been mentioned frequently as a possible running mate for Barack Obama. I’ve never had a conversation with Barack about any of this, so it’s really out of line to speculate.
What do you think of Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio, who has also been mentioned as a possible vice-presidential candidate? I don’t know him personally, but he’s well regarded. He has time in the House, and he’s in an important state.
What about Gen. Colin Powell, who, like yourself, has a distinguished military record? Personally, I don’t think anyone who’s running for president would realistically choose someone who’s never held elected office.
And Gen. Wesley Clark, a former Democratic presidential candidate? This isn’t personally anything negative, but again it’s a real risk to bring somebody in who hasn’t held office. Other than Eisenhower, the great military leader in that incredible World War II experience, you’re going to want someone on your ticket who’s demonstrated he can get votes.
Earlier this week, I linked items about Webb that are less than flattering from The Left Anchor and a guest post on Matthew Yglesias. The author in the latter item first points to several other people and reasons, including Ezra Klein making the case against Webb and a Rolling Stone profile of Webb, before launching into the crux:
I think I’ve given more than enough very good reasons why Jim Webb should not be Barack Obama’s running mate. But there is yet one more reason to oppose his elevation to vice president, and it’s the one that I consider to be the most important one of all: his truly horrible record on women’s issues.
In 1979, in an infamous article in The Washingtonian magazine called “Women Can’t Fight,” Webb argued that women were biologically unsuited to combat and didn’t belong in the military academies. He said that the mere presence of women was “poisoning” the environment for male cadets.
…
You may say, well, that was way back in the 80s and late 70s. He’s changed since then, right? But that is not exactly clear. At a 1991 convention of naval aviators called Tailhook, 83 women were reported to have been sexually harassed or assaulted by military personnel. From the beginning, Webb’s concern for the victims was merely perfunctory. But he gave many speeches and wrote many articles vociferously defending the accused. In a 1992 article in the New York Times, he called the investigation of Tailhook a “witch hunt.” In a 1997 article he wrote for the conservative Weekly Standard, he was highly critical of what he termed “ever-expanding sexual mixing” in the military and he referred to feminist efforts to improve the status of women in the military as merely “salving the egos of a group of never-satisfied social engineers.”
And yes, once again he brought up Tailhook, and once again he showed himself more concerned with attacking feminists than with securing justice for the victims: “Events such as the 1991 Tailhook debacle have been seized upon and used by feminists to attack the military culture and bring about major concessions.” Indeed, as late as the time this book was published (2004), Webb, according to the author, “persists in refusing to blame the Navy and Marine Corps officers who participated in the abuses of Tailhook, who failed to raise a hand to stop them and stonewalled the investigation that followed.”
To be fair, Webb, who is pro-choice, has kinda sorta apologized for his past writings and statements on women in the military. He termed the infamous Washingtonian article an “overreach.” Um, that’s putting it mildly.
Look, I accept that on some issues red state Democrats are going to be more conservative than I would like. And there are some things I like about Webb — he’s made valuable contributions on issues like Iraq, veterans’ benefits, prisons, and economic inequality. If I lived in Virginia, I’d vote for him. But Webb also has a history of colossally bad judgment on many issues, especially gender issues. (And — hello! — he has huge paper trail documenting all of his bad judgments and ideological flip-flops. Can you imagine the fun the Republicans would have with that? Every other minute Webb would be “clarifying” or “explaining” or “apologizing for” some thing he’d written or said long ago. Just his presence on the ticket would throw the Obama campaign seriously off-message).
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.
Here’s the conclusion:
To the legions of Webb fanboys on the left, I’ll say this: dudez, this race is not about your illusions about how an Obama-Webb ticket could somehow miraculously heal centuries’ worth of racial wounds, or your fantasies about how Webb could somehow bring that all-important white working class male back to the fold. Most especially, it’s not about the choice of the ultra-manly Webb as a vicarious endorsement of your masculinity.
Selecting a vice president is about choosing someone who would not detract from the president’s message and agenda, who is well-qualified to be president, and who upholds the basic values of the Democratic party. James Webb is not this person, but there are plenty other people out there who fit the bill.
Yup.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 2:08 pm June 1st, 2008 in Barack Obama, Campaigning, Democrats, Elections, Gender, Government, Media, Military, Politics, Social Issues, Voting, WH2008, Women, Writing
Comments
3 Responses to “VA US Senator Jim Webb on Ted Strickland, other vp options & poor record on women’s issues”
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
[...] What she said Published June 3, 2008 2008 , Democrats , civil rights , human rights , netroots , women’s rights VA US Senator Jim Webb on Ted Strickland, other vp options & poor record on women’s issues [...]
[...] wrote about Webb here. function toggleview(element1) { var element1 = document.getElementById(element1); if [...]
thing is – webb’s right.