For all the talk of Elizabeth Warren possibly running to Hillary Clinton’s left and taking the nomination in 2016, the overlooked path may be that to Hillary’s right. Enter former Virginia Senator Jim Webb.

Report from the Washington Post:

This is why it isn’t really the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren who should worry the Clinton camp. It’s the former Virginia senator Jim Webb, a Vietnam War hero, former secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, novelist and opponent of endless wars in the Middle East. Late last month, Mr. Webb formed an exploratory committee. “He’s a very long shot,” Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, told me. “He has to become a serious candidate. At that point she would find him much more complex than dealing with liberals. He’s not a liberal, but a lot of what he says might appeal to liberals. He does not get carried away by humanitarian intervention.”

Mr. Webb’s attacks on free trade and economic elites, coupled with a call for America to come home again, might well prove a potent combination in the early primaries, attracting antiwar progressives as well as conservative-minded Southern white men whom he believes the party can win back. His credo is as simple as it is persuasive: Rather than squander its power and resources abroad, America should rebuild.

Mr. Webb, whose national poll ratings are negligible, may look like an unlikely candidate, but that is also what most observers thought when he wore his son’s Iraq combat boots on the campaign trail and ousted George Allen from his Senate seat in 2006. Today he represents for the Democrats what the Republicans tried to stamp out in their ranks during the midterm elections: a Tea-Party-like insurgency against its establishment candidate.

Webb has many characteristics which benefit him as a politician and contrast him with Hillary Clinton. He’s generally relatable, especially considering his military service, and he holds some positions which will entice moderate voters to give him a look such as his general support for gun rights. Then again, Webb is barely a blip in most polls coming in around 1.5% on average behind Clinton (61.5%), Warren (12.3%), Biden (10%), and Sanders (4%). He’d have a mountain to climb but stranger things have happened (See: 2008, the inevitable Hillary Clinton).


  1. I think Webb’s relative obscurity is a major plus. I think he is the non-black, non-woman, non-blue-state candidate that will be seen as a breath of fresh air. And, as noted above, his personality is his strongest weapon. Hillary will be seen as pandering and equivocating, and Webb will come down like a sword with a solid position.

    “conservative-minded Southern white men whom he believes the party can win back.”
    –Most importantly, I said before that I think Webb could bring back a sizable portion of Reagan Democrats. I mean “bring back” for his campaign. OR–even if he can’t “bring them back,” he will force the GOP to fight defense, behind their own lines.

    On the Republican side, I have changed my mind. Jeb is so different from his dad and brother that I think voters will see him as “new,” too. In fact, my guess is that ALL his campaign ads and literature will push “JEB,” with no last name. Sort of the way Eisenhower became just, “IKE.”

      • You have trouble seeing a lot of things. Nobody said that Ike was doing anything–except identifying by “IKE” rather than his full name. It’s like Elvis was all you had to say to know who he was.

        And before you point it out, yes, I know that Elvis was not president, was not a politician, and was not bald. You see, it is possible to compare one, very specific attribute without inviting a cheap shot that the two being compared are not exactly alike in every way.

        Here’s a blast from the past (for those of us who can remember ads from those days):

          • God: Bob, you just don’t listen. It’s useless to want to be understood if what you’re saying is irrelevant to the point–that is, trying to find a metaphor for the political families trying to monopolize the process.

    • Goethe, you are wrong about Jeb.

      He is a poisonous hostile globalist who has staked himself as against the TEA Party, and total establishment guy, more Bush than Bush.

      I think a Webb and Bush war would be hysterical, because Webb would appeal to the anti war, pro civil rights crowd, and Jeb would attack his own base, and go solid for the progressive left that Warren is staking out.

      A Jeb and Hillary match would be a snore, with Hillary and Jeb competing to snuggle the corporate money, and open border crowd, while trying to fight the reality that they are opposite sex versions of each other.

      • Why am I wrong about Jeb? All I said was that he’s different from his father and brother, so the name probably won’t be as much a negative as we think.

        • Goethe, I thought so too, until his recent speeches. Any pretense of conservative thought or caring about the base was gone. He is more HW than HW.

          • Jonathan: Precisely.

            HW’s big problem was in being seen as wishy-washy. He began as a moderate, but felt that he needed to support RR while he was veep. In the 1992 election, he tried to re-establish his moderate image (thousand points of light), but Clinton already had that crowd, and Perot took the fiscal conservatives.

            JEB’s different because he is portraying himself as an adamant centrist. If he can keep from looking like a flip-flopper (like HW) or a puppet (like W), JEB could go all the way. Above all else, Americans like a strong character, even if they don’t believe in the same policies.

            • An adamant Centrist, in an age of Islamic invasion, and no-go areas popping up in Dearborn, and ISIS bringing terror heat to the US, will not be seen as anything but apeasement.

              HW was seen as soft on Islam, and Hillary has already shown up in public, with her daughter, and both wore head coverings, so Clintons are going fiull appeasement. If Jeb goes that route. he is toast..

        • Goethe…The holidays have kept me occupied so I just read
          this post. You are absolutely right thatJohn Ellis Bush is totally opposite in the core beliefs held by his brother and
          father. Jeb is soft on immigration (rightly so), and strong on common core
          education (rightly so). Both stances are contrary to his party’s grass roots
          beliefs. To offset this, as governor of Florida, Jeb Bush defined his job “as
          holding spending growth below the growth of personal income in the state. I just don’t think government, as a matter of
          course, should grow faster than people’s ability to pay for it.” Bush pursued
          this goal relentlessly, by pressuring agency heads to limit annual budgetary
          requests, arbitrarily capping the monies that could be raised from service fees
          that were to be used for dedicated purposes such as affordable housing; and
          simply refusing to fund requests from agency heads for particular services, for
          example, beds for county jail inmates who had severe mental illnesses.

          Jeb Bush blasted the Obama administration for the decision
          to restore diplomatic ties with Cuba, saying “It
          undermines America’s credibility and undermines the quest for a free and
          democratic Cuba.” What Jeb didn’t say was: that HE was a paid advisor (one
          million a year since 2008) for Barclay, an English bank, who agreed to pay $298
          million to the United States for violations related to transactions the Barclays
          Bank illegally conducted on behalf of customers from Cuba, Iran, Sudan and
          other countries in 2010. A little late but Jeb Bush has resigned from Barclays
          as of today.

          • Spouting your liberal tripe again…? LOL, how predictable….

            Tess says: “Jeb is soft on immigration (rightly so), and strong on common core education (rightly so).”

            Wrong again, as usual: Illegal immigrants are destroying American jobs and our welfare, and Common Core is brainwashing our children!

            Here is the gist of Common Core (not that a shill like you would ever admit its bane):


            “A Monstrous Story for a Monstrous Curriculum: The Ugly Heart of Common Core” —

            some excepts:

            Tess — for you:

            “For those of you who may be unfamiliar with Common Core, it is a curriculum created in the private sector but pushed onto states by the federal government and endorsed by Bill Gates. The cost of implementing the
            program runs from millions to billions depending on the state. It is untested and unresearched. It has been criticized for being not as rigorous as proponents claim, clearly biased to a liberal perspective, so much so that many see it as INDOCTRINATION , and it is being forced
            on the states in spite of the fact that a federal curriculum is
            unconstitutional violating the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which established the principle that“…the “power” to oversee education belongs to the states. This longstanding principle of local control of education is reiterated throughout our laws and government codes.”

            “Schools should teach HOW to think, but NEVER WHAT to think.” !!!!!!!!!!!!!

            • The responsibility for K-12 education rests with each state, the 10th amendment and the Constitution make no mention of education or the learning process. The federal government does not operate public schools. Each states has its own Department of Education that sets guidelines for the schools of that state. Public schools receive funding from the individual state, and local property taxes. School district are governed by a school board elected from the local community. Common Core was
              authored by National Governors Association Center for Best Practices,
              Council of Chief State School Officers. While the standards set grade-specific goals, they do not define how the standards should be taught or which materials should be used to support students. Federal education program “requirements” are not unfunded mandates because the conditions in federal law apply only when a state voluntarily chooses to accept federal funds. Any state that does not want to abide by a federal program’s requirements can simply choose not to accept the federal funds associated with that program.

      • Jonathan Brooks: “Jeb is a poisonous hostile globalist who has staked himself as against
        the TEA Party, and total establishment guy, more Bush than Bush.”

        Spot on!

  2. Among the Republicans who may run, only Rand Paul is acceptable to me. Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson – running as a Libertarian – would be better. I don’t like all of Webb’s positions (particularly on trade – protectionism is always a disaster and leads to wars) but I like him far better than any of the other candidates save the two I mentioned.

  3. Jokes to share:

    Hillary, Netanyahu, Obama and Bush are on a plane that crashes. Who survives?




    The American people.




    Netanyahu: USA is our largest colony….


    MERRY CHRISTMAS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    May our Goodness save our nation from these creatures!

Comments are closed.