Webb is a Democrat in its basic principles: supports civil unions and opposes both the Virginia and federal gay marriage amendments; supports abortion rights; supports affirmative action (although he feels it needs to either include poor families or revert back to blacks only); and has been very anti-outsourcing. The only thing he differs is supporting 2nd Amendment rights but no one can win public office in the South being fervently pro-gun control. New York Democrats are different from South Carolina Democrats, they have different priorities on the state and local level, as well as a different political and social culture.
I left off FDR because I think although he was a good politician and naturally very popular in his day, the New Deal was essentially a mixed bag of economic and social ideas that he wanted to experiment with without much of a clear road to success. After all, it was WWII that finally ended the Depression. Also, the Japanese internment was unforgiveable, both then or today if it were implemented. I give more credit to America's labor leaders and New Dealers in his Cabinet and in Congress for more of the labor achievements.
I have Truman because his stances on civil rights in the late '40s, early '50s were the first bold presidential steps toward desegregation pre-Brown v. Board. There's also the Marshall Plan, Berlin air lift and NATO. Sure Truman may have aided the French in Vietnam but his successors chose to get involved, also. In my opinion, Dem candidates this year need to find their inner-Truman ;)
Eleanor Roosevelt was surely ahead of her time but not impactful enough in my mind.
I think removing Jefferson was out of political necessity with the Dems' "culture of corruption" election-year push. I'm not sure if removing him before he was even indicted was necessary but I'm sure being investigated would damage his credibility.
It's no fluke Warner left office with towering approval ratings. I've lived in Southwest Virginia for eight months and he's greatly appreciated down here because he actually came down to introduce new jobs coming to the region; he didn't forget us! When those 300 software jobs opened in Lebanon, with jobs offering twice the county's average income, there were lines around the corner of job applicants. And there were college kids saying "now I don't have to leave my hometown," as reported by the local newspaper, so when Warner said that in his NH speech, that wasn't bull. Can you imagine the support he'll get in the Rust Belt if he pushes insourcing and the promise of better paying jobs to those areas? He loved being governor and openly admitted he would miss it dearly.
His attitude is very Bill Clinton: help people help themselves; if you work hard and want to enter the workforce or college but are unable to because perhaps of money or other obsticles, we'll help out.
As for the lack of foreign policy experience, I want to remind everyone that simply being a senator doesn't mean you have any. When I think "foreign policy experience," I think veterans, Pentagon or State Department officials, diplomats, ambassadors or those who have served on foreign-related committees for many years. LBJ was a great senator and ate, slept and breathed politics but was very inexperienced in foreign issues. Warner will develop in time enough foreign policy know-how to talk about it more knowledgeably. I'd rather have Warner honestly say right now "I don't know for sure" about a certain policy question than make something up with political jargin. He's been able to cast himself, and all governors at that rate, as better decision-makers when it comes to policymaking because as the executive, you have to sign it or veto it and you own whatever decision you make and are partly responsable for its success or failure.
Also, only two presidents in the 20th Century have been elected directly from Congress (Harding in 1920 and JFK in 1960) and most governors-turned-president in the past 70 years are remembered for important diplomatic breakthroughs (FDR during WWII, Carter with the Camp David Accords, Reagan with the Soviets, Clinton with the Dayton Accords). If Warner surrounds himself with the right people in terms of foreign policy, he will be able to better delegate authority to them -- he is a master consensus-builder after all -- but I'm confident he will always make the final decision in all matters. He doesn't fear responsibility and making important decisions, he embraces it!