Shortly after Jim Webb announced his intention to form a 2016 exploratory committee, it appears the Clinton machine wasted little time in beginning an opposition research dump on the former Virginia Senator.

Report from USNews:

While they aren’t acknowledging Webb publicly, Clinton loyalists are keeping an eye on him privately. [Emphasis added] The week before Thanksgiving, staffers of Philippe Reines, Clinton’s longtime communications guru, pitched talk radio producers on the racy, sexually charged writings in Webb’s novels, according to a source. Webb was forced to fend off a similar attack in 2006, when Allen accused him of “demeaning women.”

Webb also has previously apologized for writing that a Naval Academy dorm was a “horny woman’s dream” in a 1979 Washingtonian magazine piece titled “Jim Webb: Women Can’t Fight.”

The piece’s central argument was against allowing women to take combat positions in the military. If Webb were to ever attain traction, Clinton’s allies would certainly lob the rhetoric back at him.

The entire article is worth a read if you’re looking for some background on Webb. These two paragraphs were buried but they’re worth noting since it could indicate that Hillary supporters see Webb’s potential candidacy as a threat and would like to toss cold water on the notion sooner rather than later.

8 COMMENTS

  1. Maybe Hillary did learn something from 2008. She was caught flat-footed a lot then. Sounds like she’s being proactive now.

  2. What Jim Webb wrote in his “NOVELS” should be the last thing he has to worry about if he decides to run in 2016. In an article in “Business Insider” it has come out that the Sen. has been paying members of his family close to $100,000. from his PAC “Born Fighting”. The PAC was set up to donate money to “backing candidates and entities who support economic fairness, reorienting our national security posture, and developing greater accountability in government.

    The article is entitled: “Potential Hillary Challenger Paid Nearly $100,000. In Campaign Donations To His Family”

    http://www.businessinsider.com/jim-webb-gave-nearly-100000-in-campaign-donations-to-his-family-2014-12

    • Yeah, that looks pretty bad if you spend your time telling people you care about them, then use the political system for your family’s own personal monetary gain. Oh wait, how is that different from nearly EVERY politician! hehe

    • The same business magazine states Hillary’s problem succinctly, and why she’s likely to stumble:

      “she’s skilled at staying on message, but tone-deaf”

      http://www.businessinsider.com/there-might-be-a-very-simple-reason-hillary-clinton-is-having-a-rough-rollout-2014-8#ixzz3Nu1SOPgH

      Americans like candidates who seem more like “real folks.” Bush43 (vs. Gore & Kerry)
      Clinton (vs. Bush & Dole)
      Bush41 (vs. Dukakis)
      Carter (vs. Ford)
      LBJ (vs. Goldwater)
      JFK (vs. Nixon)
      IKE (vs. Stevenson)
      Truman (vs. Dewey)
      FDR (vs. Hoover, Landon, Willkie, Dewey)
      (those are all I really know).

      For better or worse, whichever candidate is more likely to say “aw, shucks,” is going to win. I can see Jim Webb saying, “aw, shucks.”

      [Reagan is an anomaly, because although Carter and Mondale were more “of the people,” Reagan was “the Great Communicator,” who was in the right place at the right time, with the right message. That’s also why the most wooden campaigner, Nixon, won twice, against “aw shucks” candidates, Humphrey and McGovern.]

      ALL the above beat their opponents because the other candidate was “wooden, strident, and well, unlikeable.” Hillary is wooden and strident, and as Obama said in 2008, “You’re likeable enough.” But not really.

      http://www.businessinsider.com/there-might-be-a-very-simple-reason-hillary-clinton-is-having-a-rough-rollout-2014-8#ixzz3Nu1SOPgH

      • I keep forgetting Obama in these comments. He’s also an anomaly, since he’s professor-ish, but following Bush, he was in the right place at the right time with the right message (and in 2004, he ran against an “empty suit.”)

      • We went through this once before with the election of 1968. And once again you attempt to put all your eggs in one basket isolating on some cockamamie reason why someone won an election.

Comments are closed.