In Washington, James Webb increasingly feels like the consensus choice for vice-president. I hear his name about 5 times as often as anyone else's. And that's a shame. It's an unfortunate habit of politicos to identify talented politicians and then try and rip them from office they're currently excelling in and jam them in a spot they may not be ready for, or may not be able to shine from. In the Senate, Webb ensures Democrats have a (probably) safe seat in Virginia, an aggressive and credentialed voice on national security, and a lawmaker with the knowledge and interest to set the legislative agenda on military affairs (as he has with prominent legislation seeking to guarantee soldiers as much time home as they spent deployed). From the vice-presidency, by contrast, he'd have to constantly watch his mouth, couldn't aggressively push the conversation beyond the president's agenda, couldn't actually pass laws, and would, in any case, have to leave the Senate, depriving Democrats of his voice in future legislative throwdowns and, quite possibly, his seat.The qualities that make a good Senator -- and particularly a good gadfly Senator -- are not the same as those that make a good VP. A good VP should augment the nominee's strengths, rather than bringing on a whole separate source of light, particularly one whose strengths expose weaknesses in the top candidate (putting Webb beneath Obama, for instance, would suggest that Obama worries about his credibility on national security, just as putting the warm, populist Edwards below Kerry created an unflattering contrast with Kerry's aristocratic bearing). A VP candidate shouldn't take a critical vote out of the Senate, particularly not when there's a razor-thin majority. A VP candidate should, if possible, help pull in a critical state, but Webb's slim victory in Virginia certainly doesn't suggest he'd be better placed to do that than, say, the wildly popular Mark Warner. WEBB FOR NOT-VP.
In Washington, James Webb increasingly feels like the consensus choice for vice-president. I hear his name about 5 times as often as anyone else's. And that's a shame. It's an unfortunate habit of politicos to identify talented politicians and then try and rip them from office they're currently excelling in and jam them in a spot they may not be ready for, or may not be able to shine from. In the Senate, Webb ensures Democrats have a (probably) safe seat in Virginia, an aggressive and credentialed voice on national security, and a lawmaker with the knowledge and interest to set the legislative agenda on military affairs (as he has with prominent legislation seeking to guarantee soldiers as much time home as they spent deployed). From the vice-presidency, by contrast, he'd have to constantly watch his mouth, couldn't aggressively push the conversation beyond the president's agenda, couldn't actually pass laws, and would, in any case, have to leave the Senate, depriving Democrats of his voice in future legislative throwdowns and, quite possibly, his seat.The qualities that make a good Senator -- and particularly a good gadfly Senator -- are not the same as those that make a good VP. A good VP should augment the nominee's strengths, rather than bringing on a whole separate source of light, particularly one whose strengths expose weaknesses in the top candidate (putting Webb beneath Obama, for instance, would suggest that Obama worries about his credibility on national security, just as putting the warm, populist Edwards below Kerry created an unflattering contrast with Kerry's aristocratic bearing). A VP candidate shouldn't take a critical vote out of the Senate, particularly not when there's a razor-thin majority. A VP candidate should, if possible, help pull in a critical state, but Webb's slim victory in Virginia certainly doesn't suggest he'd be better placed to do that than, say, the wildly popular Mark Warner. 
