I'm always amazed at how a group of like-minded people around one issue can read the exact same article and each sieze on a different quote in it or facet of it. For those who are given to parsing the text, looking for some form of hidden or inferred confirmation of their own opinions, it isn't hard to do whether it's a news article about a politician or the label of a Pet Milk can. But I can see that we're slowly closing in on the important nugget in that article: Webb, like all politicians, has his own view of the issues, and it's becoming more clear now that the "camo" from the campaign has cleared away. The pleasant surprise is that this guy is now a Democratic senator, and his position on our favorite issue is surprisingly in alignment with ours. Actually, to some of us, several of his positions are, and that's the kind of Democrat that, if you have to have them around, I can actually work with.
As for Schumer's "recruitment" of Webb, keep in mind that his sole mission at that time was to build a Democratic majority, which he and others were able to do by a hair's breadth. That he sacrificed his own principles to do so was serving only of what he viewed as a greater good -- get a freshman Democrat into a Senate seat the only way he could, and via a huge upset. He wasn't worried about Webb's position on things because Schumer and Pelosi are convinced they can ram through the progressive agenda by controlling and/or going around Webb, the Blue Dog Democrats, and any other Dem with positions contrary to theirs. The way they typically do this is to pit the freshman's ambition against his principles -- make sure he knows that if he wants to be a member of a committee, or have a voice on the issues he's passionate about, then he's going to have to toe the line on the ones that the party leadership are passionate about. Get out of line with that dance, and the freshman's congressional career will be dead before it ever really gets started. It's been played that way on both sides of the aisle for decades. But the game can't even start unless they achieve a majority, and install themselves as leadership in the first place.
About the parsing of words and the misdirection that is carefully couched in politicians' speech these days -- you can attribute such activities to Clinton or other prominent Democrats all you want, but every politician and candidate today does the very same thing. In fact, every news outlet has published or broadcast news stories that have done the same thing, and the result in their case is the subtle bias that has both ends of the political spectrum accusing the press of being biased toward their opposing end. Bush and Cheney have done it every bit as often as Clinton, and some of their minions have elevated it to an art form, albeit a sloppy one. The net result is that we cannot take any spoken statement or position at face value any more. That's what I was referring to earlier about the lines between parties being blurred -- nobody's "uniform" lines up with their intent or actions anymore. We have to make our decisions for ourselves based on deeds, not words, because the words are next to meaningless now.
Cops always remind each other to "watch the hands". It doesn't matter what's being said, or what someone "appears" to be. If the hands are doing something potentially dangerous, the hands' owner has to be regarded as a potential threat. In a sense, we're in the same position today with all political figures of every stripe, be they politicians, political operatives, members of the press, or political supporters. They can talk all day, but what they do and how they vote has to be our measure of them.
Opinions?
:banghead: 
