It's really amazing to me that the Democrats are backing James Webb at all. Their party leaders backed Webb over a long-time activist in the Democratic primary last Spring. Liberals can be pragmatic if it would help them take the Senate.
Webb can be described as a culturally conservative Democrat who was upset with the leftward drift of the Democratic Party in the 1970's. Jimmy Carter's pardon of the draft dodgers was the last straw, he has said.
This year, Webb has backed off on his previous criticisms of women in the military and endorsed "gay rights." He still has a more conservative stance than the typical Democrat. His main theme, is that he opposes the Iraq War. For a long time, he has harshly criticized the neocons for sending Americans into combat, while avoiding it themselves in their youth.
Unsurprisingly, the neocons, Limbaugh, Hannity, and company have blasted him. Webb has a son who is a Marine in Iraq, and his third wife is an Asian woman. Webb would be more responsible on foreign policy than most of the Senate. I have a feeling that he would be good on immigration once elected.
Allen is the typical GOP politician. He says the right things for the dittoheads about low taxes, and often talks in football metaphors. Before this year, I felt his main drawback as a Presidential contender was that he was too similar to George W. Bush. He has shown a tendency to make serious gaffes, likely eliminating him from the 2008 Presidential race even if he wins.
Usually Republicans like Allen sell their voters out in the end. Webb may be a welcome addition to the Senate, or may not function well there at all.
What are their chief political differences? It would be on foreign policy. James Webb would give Bush and his neocon handlers a hard time.