Jim Webb

[clydefrand]

I got an e-mail from him today, saying he was considering running for pres. in 2016. It was a terrific read. Of course I've heard of him a lot since I'm in Virginia. I've been more or less for HRC all along, but I'm beginning to think Jim would make an excellent president.
I'm not sure just how wide spread his name is known, which might or might not be problem for him.
Any comment out there regarding Jim's run for pres.?

As a side thought, perhaps it is time to change 2014 election to 2016 election??

[Zambero]

1. Webb would be fine by me

Militarily, I believe that he would be much less inclined than Hillary to engage in another ground war in the Middle East or elsewhere, before considering all other options. The recently emergent Hillary/Panetta mindset on Syria et al has not inspired confidence. I'm willing to give Webb (or Elizabeth Warren for that matter) a further listen before committing to a an "inevitable" Hillary candidacy.

[wyldwolf]

2. Way down yonder in the land of cotton...

[cwydro]

147. Um, what?

[wyldwolf]

148. Webb is a big fan of the Confederacy

[MADem]

3. Jim "I wed three wives" Webb?

Jim "I got mad and quit" Webb?

Please--he's a horrible choice. Great for debates, though--he'll raise a lot of interesting issues. He's got a sharp mind, but a lousy temperament.

If you want a defense - oriented hothead as your POTUS, he's the one!!!!

[RichGirl]

10. Who cares how many wives he had...

...geez...we are liberals after all...not bible thumping rednecks!

I heard him give a speech back when he was running for senate. First person I ever heard talk about income inequality.

I think he would be an excellent choice for president. He knows whats what and wouldn't put up with shit or do the "reach across the aisle" dance.

[MADem]

12. It's not a question of morality at all, it's more down to temperance and judgment and impulsivity.

After a while, ya gotta wonder who was the one with the problem? Those bible thumpers divorce like crazy, and I don't think much of them, either. They pray over it a helluva lot, but they -- like many -- marry in haste and repent at leisure.

He quit his federal appointment because he didn't like that he wasn't given unlimited money to prosecute a dream that was no longer necessary or viable. He didn't stick in the Senate--he did a hit and run there.

He's got some good ideas but perhaps he'd serve best as a policy wonk, not a leader.

After all Miss Moose Dropping of Wasilla was a quitter, too and we didn't think much of her either.

I've seen him up close and personal and pissed off and it's not confidence inspiring, to put it kindly. Like I said, he might have some viable foreign policy ideas (well to the right of HRC, though, so stand by for that kind of thing) but I don't think he has the temperament for the job.

[Luminous Animal]

14. It doesn't always come down to temperance. I've been married 3 times and I am still

Last edited Fri Nov 21, 2014, 01:29 AM - Edit history (1)

friends with the first and still married to the third. The first and I just had conflicting goals that we could not reconcile. The break up, though difficult, was necessary if each of us wanted to work to attain our separate goals. I'm also friends with another ex (never married) with whom I was in a 4 year relationship - two of them live in. Again, different paths.

My current partner of 25 years, 9 of them married, was in three long term relationships prior to me. We are friends with two of his ex-partners.

[MADem]

15. Do you quit every important job you've ever held?

He quits two federal slots, and two out of three marriages.

He doesn't stick. He gets bored and moves on. That's not a good trait in a so-called leader.

I think he's got a role to play, I just don't think President is it.

[Luminous Animal]

19. Did he quit his marriages? Only Kreskin knows.

[MADem]

20. He's talked about it--he's a walker. His wives don't get too mad because he is generous.

But still, it's poor planning at a minimum.

He did quit his cabinet job, in a huff, too, and he got bored with being a Senator.

Like I said, he has got something to say, and he should say it. I think he's not the best choice for the Democratic nomination--he's further to the right than a lot of people here would countenance.

Like I said, Bernie to the left, Webb to the right--who's smack dab in the middle?

[Luminous Animal]

22. His wives don't get too mad, eh? So his ex-wives are gold diggers, eh?

"He walked out on me but, la-de-da! Look at all this money I have!!!!! ~blink~ ~blink~."

I think you need to go back to the drawing board and redesign this line of thinking.

[MADem]

25. No, they're not gold diggers. He just didn't stiff them. Many do, you know.

They did get younger and younger.

You go on and support the guy--get one of those NRA stickers with the campaign literature. He'll rake in that vote with no trouble. A rating from the NRA, and all...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072203282.html

And he also thinks that the states should decide the gay marriage issue, a stance that got Jimmy Carter raked over the coals (for saying it about TX and only TX, too) and thrown out on the trash heap on this very forum. I got banned from a group for defending the guy, too.

http://www.nbcnews.com/watch/meet-the-press/jim-webb-says-states-deciding-gay-marriage-is-best-338023491905


A Webb presidency would result in a much larger military. You really think most members here are down with that?

OTOH, it's entirely possible--even LIKELY--that he's auditioning for the VP slot. The downside to his taking that slot is that he'd be unlikely to fleet up after eight years, which might leave the WH vulnerable to a GOP leader (that's assuming we get a D win in 16) in 24.


I don't think I'm the one who needs to go back to the drawing board. I think you might want to research the guy a bit more closely if you intend to support him, so that you understand exactly what you're getting, here.

[Luminous Animal]

27. I'm not a fan of Webb. Never have, never will be. I just find this "o-o-o-o-o-o-oh" 3 marriage thing

juvenile gossip. Stick to policy not the personal.

[MADem]

29. Quick, no googling--name every President that has been married three times.

.........

............




...............





...........................



The answer--there hasn't been one. Ever.


And it's not "juvenile gossip." It's a prevailing attitude by people who might be in the minority overall, but they're in the majority when it comes to getting their asses to the polls. Gerald Ford took shit because his WIFE had been married more than once (to an abusive asshole who slapped the crap out of her). Betty was a (gasp) DIVORCEE. Even Saint Ronnie of Reagan had to run the gauntlet on that matter (two marriages and the first one was a famous actress). He was helped by his first wife, whose only comment to ANY question about their relationship was "No comment." She never deviated, not once, and she could have put him in the hurt locker, but she had too much class for that kind of thing.

If you don't think the "Vietnamese First Lady" angle re: a putative Webb presidency wouldn't get any play in the news line-up, you're naive. Wives--current and former--get the treatment. Or are you forgetting that the GOP tried to get Michelle Obama's master's thesis and make something of it?

And I can promise you the GOP (the Think of the Children constituency, certainly) will have a field day with his books--particularly the sex scenes. His opponent would probably send out minions to read the offending passages to church groups far and wide, so that they might be suitably outraged.

While you're "sticking to policy" the GOP would go right for the throat on the personal. It's what they do.

[LawDeeDah]

30. I can name one that had many 'bimbo eruptions'

to me that is a lot skeevier than having been married 3 times.

[MADem]

32. Well, you've never been a fan of the Clintons, so that is no surprise. nt

[LawDeeDah]

45. Ah, I see. If I were a fan of the Clintons, bimbo eruptions

Last edited Fri Nov 21, 2014, 07:46 AM - Edit history (1)

really aren't all that bad, compared to being married three times cheating on your wife with many more women than three is ok!


Yes, I see that clearly.
Neither is the Iraq War vote, if it's a Clinton, fine, no prob, get over it. But Webb and the NRA! - now that's serious stuff! harumph.

[MADem]

60. I never said that two wrongs make a right--I've just seen your

"conversations" on that topic and can't help but note your visceral approach to them. And the Clinton you go after most often isn't the one with the bimbo problem, anyway.

My POV on Webb--if you're not female, not a person of color, not gay, don't really care too much about clean air for future generations, like a very strong and large peacetime military (with an emphasis on the Sea Services) and don't have a problem with gun violence, he's the populist everyman for you! Go volunteer for his campaign! Send him money! Climb aboard the USS Webb and make all preparations for getting underway! Just don't cry, much later down the road, that you didn't know what he was all about.

[PassingFair]

136. I'd say she had "bimbo problems"

Looking the other way so furiously can cause whiplash.

[MADem]

137. Wow, real classy. nt

[Luminous Animal]

34. Proud are you? Getting a head start of smearing a Democratic candidate before the GOP

on a Democratic board? Because, you know, the GOP will do it, so you might as well do it first.

[MADem]

35. Why are you making such nasty accusations? Let's break your business down.

"Proud are you?"

No, I'm having a conversation about political assets and liabilities. You, apparently, look at this sort of discussion as a "My teen idol is better than your teen idol" exercise. You want cheerleading--funny, when it is someone you don't like who is being "cheered" here, I seem to recall you denigrating people for doing that very thing. Hmmm.

"Getting a head start of (?) smearing a Democratic candidate before the GOP on a Democratic board?"

Hey, this is the board where Hillary Clinton and the POTUS are called the most vile names imaginable--and you know what? They've been Democrats longer than Jim Webb has been. And the truth is NEVER a "smear." If you get tetchy when someone tells you the TRUTH about a person, and your response is "Kill the messenger" (as you are doing in your most recent post) you, dare I say, can't handle the truth.

About the only thing you got right is "Because the GOP will do it." And for those here who don't have the full flavor of Webb's varied history, they deserve to have it, and make their decision to support him, or not, based on ALL the information available about the guy--not just a cute little e-mail saying "Look at fresh-faced me--I'm running and saying things you want to hear!" People deserve to know about his very anti-woman past, his "A" rating from the NRA, his waffly some-good/some-bad attitude towards climate change, the less than full throated support for equality, and the fact that he quit a cabinet post in a fit of pique, and walked away from a Senate incumbency VERY recently.

And even though it's not "serious political issues," they also deserve to know about his books with the "hot" passages that will be made an issue in a national race, the three wives, etc. It's all a package. Too bad if you can't handle it. It's out there.

Obama didn't get elected without talking about HIS family, either, neither did Bill Clinton. George Bush tried to avoid talking about everything except that he was afraid of his mother, but even he ended up having to deal with that DWI up in Maine. People who run for office DO get vetted, and if you don't like it, you should probably take up another hobby, because these kinds of conversations ARE going to happen.

And if you call everyone who engages in these discussions in a fact-based and substantiated fashion "smearers" and other schoolyard names, you're only diminishing your own reputation here.

[rogerashton]

107. Sounds like Webb-Gingrich would be a fun general election. nt

[MADem]

111. Women Can't Fight vs. Infections in the Foxhole!

I can hear the heads exploding (as they should) already!

[MADem]

165. It would make the National Enquirer very, very happy indeed.

And since they pay for news and pictures, it would motivate old flames to come out of the woodwork and play the kiss-and-tell game.

[davidpdx]

47. Sorry, that's just plain ugly talk

By the way he DID finish his term as a senator, but opted not to run again.

I'm not personally for Webb, I think he's ok. He certainly wouldn't be my first choice, nor would he be my last choice.

Those of you backing Hillary are getting pretty desperate in your attacks on other Democrats.

[LawDeeDah]

48. Oh, he did finish his term? well well,

I'm sure I read right here in this thread he's a quitta from wasilla type and left the senate in a huff after only one year so how can he commit to the time for being President?

Yep, desperate. Webb's ink on the exploratory hasn't even dried here and the jabs are jabbing hard already.

[MADem]

54. Check how long he stayed as SECNAV--that was barely a whisp of a full term.

And when you walk away from an easy incumbent win, that's a QUIT. Had Kaine not won after he walked off the job, it would have been a disaster.

Speaking of desperate, whoever smelt it, dealt it.

If you expect the GOP to ignore all this low-hanging fruit, I've got a bridge to sell you.

[LawDeeDah]

61. Whether there is fruit or not, the GOP will invent it.

I would just ignore the fuckers. On anything.

[MADem]

69. They don't HAVE to invent it. It's there.

And it's a bit problematic to anyone who wants to wear the "liberal" and "progressive" labels.

I have to laugh at the people who can't see triangulation when Webb takes it out and beats them over the head with it.

He will position himself between Clinton (if she runs) and whoever the GOP candidate is. He will affect a "I'm for the blue collar white guy who is getting hosed and his wages aren't keeping pace, and I'm for raising taxes on the rich, too" demeanor and he'll capture a lot of interest from that large segment as a consequence. That segment tends not to care about minority issues, equality issues (not just LGBT, but issues of sexism as well), gun issues, etc. If he can pull away enough of those folks, he could triangulate his way into the WH. Two years is a long time, though--he might lose interest/run out of steam before the "show." He does get bored easily.

[LawDeeDah]

66. I think you leading off with the 3 marriage thing put me off.

Sounded gossipy and petty and unnecessary. Especially when considering what Bill Clinton thinks of his One marriage.

You might have valid misgivings about the guy - if some of what I hear here is true, I would too. I don't know him well, but I notice the pile on right away so I will have to do my own research on that.

[MADem]

70. I have not said a single thing about him that wasn't stone-cold truth.

And I've seen him in Full Berate Mode (not directed at me, so I was able to give the process my complete attention). Let me put it diplomatically--I was not impressed.

I think we could do better.

I also thought, as a nation, we could have done better than G. W. Bush...not just once, but twice, so that and a dollar and tax will get you a cup of coffee at a fast food joint.

As for the "gossipy" stuff that some here are raising the Waaah flag over, anyone who wants to be honest with themselves knows full well that people read that shit. They read it, they retain it, and they REPEAT it.

You could stop any person on the street, and I'll bet the number of people who know that Kim Kardashian's big old ass is all over the internet (bonus points for the name of the website) compared with the number of people who can name the PM of the UK would run at about a ten to one ratio. THAT's the voting public. They aren't very sophisticated, and they can be moved, point-by-point, with screwy shit--everything from "Do you want to have a beer with him?" to "I like/don't like his (never yet HER) blue jeans."

A lot of voters just aren't very deep. It's an inconvenient truth, as it were.

[MADem]

52. Of course he finished his senatorial term, he walked away from an

INCUMBENCY. That wasn't a very cool thing to do, it is suggestive of an unserious approach. And he did say he was TIRED of politics--and not in the "plain talk, straight shooting" way--in the "I wanna do something else" way.

You know what? Here's the difference between you and me. I don't call you names (oooooooooh......desperate) or suggest motives (waaaaaaah....attacks) like you're doing (fwiw that is the sign of a "desperate" failed argument). I haven't said a single thing about this guy that isn't the Stone Cold Truth.

And here's the other difference--assuming lightning strikes and he gets through the vetting--and There Will Be Vetting--I will Hold My Nose And Vote For Him. I don't see all the "Hillary Haters" making that pledge--and she has no history of sexism and is to the LEFT of him on many issues, including that pesky GUN thing and that somewhat important ENVIRONMENTAL thing.

But hey--you go on with your bad self, and your own "ugly talk," and I'll just give your opinions the merit I feel they deserve.

[MADem]

123. What "actions?"

I provided you with a few simple, not-secret, obvious to anyone who knows the issues, facts, easily searchable by google or any other search engine, if you're so inclined. and you're calling me names?

I'm not making anything up--but speaking of digging deeper holes, keep mischaracterizing me--you're the one flinging shit and name-calling here, not me. So what's up with that? Why can't you have a discussion without trying to besmirch the character of the person with whom you are conversing? You're reduced to that? And what does "rest your neck" even mean?

Go on--do your own research. Read his essay. Review his resume. And then come back with something--if you've got it.

[Cosmic Kitten]

65. Quits 2 federal slots = quit every important job????

Yet more straw man stuffs?

Here's a better measure of character....
ready?
INFIDELITY!!!

The Clinton legacy is stained with infidelity.
But hey, still married after all that betrayal

[MADem]

71. If you can't bother to read the full conversation (and the links)

before "weighing in" with that remark, I can't be terribly serious with you, because I don't think your motive is serious discussion.

Who knew that the Constitution was magically changed overnight, and Bill Clinton would be allowed to run again for a THIRD term? Why Cosmic Kitten, apparently! Unless you're saying "It's the WIFE's fault" if a husband strays? That's not what you're saying, I trust--because, ya know, that kind of remark is a bit, errrm...sexist. Hillary just shoulda "kept sweet" to keep that horndog home, is that your point? I sure hope not!!!

And the issue--if you read the thread, and you plainly did not--is not "infidelity"--it's more to do with stick-to-it-ive-ness. This guy QUITS. He quits marriages, he quits a cabinet post, and he quits an easy reelection opportunity in the Senate. But you didn't take that point, even though it was sticking up like a big old nail that needs hammering down...! Those aren't "straw man stuffs (SIC)" -- those are what is called "facts" and those DO matter when considering candidates for election.

[Cosmic Kitten]

94. Straw men, and insinuating disparaging motives

Your insinuation of SEXISM
is unwarranted, unfounded and inappropriate.

Stick to what is posted, and refrain from
personal character attacks.
Stay classy MADem.

[MADem]

116. That phrase "straw men" does not mean what you think it means.

I've provided nothing but facts, and if you think "Women do not belong in combat" is an "insinuation," I think you need help with the meaning of THAT word, as well.

I always "stay classy." And unlike some here I have refrained from personal character attacks.

Perhaps you're of the mistaken misapprehension that Jim Webb is a DUer? Near as I know, he's not--and he is a PUBLIC FIGURE, subject to critique. And he deserves a little critique, given his views about women.


Here's a link for you--click on it and read the essay. It should open your eyes:

http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/jim-webb-women-cant-fight/

[RichGirl]

112. You lost your credibility...

...comparing Webb to Palin is beyond ridiculous. They couldn't possibly be more different. Even there reasons for quitting is completely different.

One thing we all know for sure...there is NO ONE in government now or ever who was perfect. We have to stop looking for that. You have to look at the whole person. I like Webb's ideas and it would be a refreshing change to not have someone who was so concerned about getting along with the other side. And I like someone who gets mad and shows it like a real human being. Don't care for the fake politeness in politics while stabbing each other in the back.

[MADem]

114. They both quit, didn't they?

Winners never quit, and quitters never win? I don't think much of people who make a commitment and then don't see it through. He had to go through an entire Senate "advise and consent" process to be elevated to SECNAV, and he quit in a fit of pique. It was a very IMMATURE thing to do, frankly.


But I didn't "compare" the two, I merely indicated a similarity in that one particular aspect. That's like accusing me of "comparing" Al Gore with George Bush because they both attended a school at the Harvard University. So let us not bandy about "You lost your credibility" comments, because I'll reply with "You haven't done your homework."

You like Webb's ideas? And you call yourself "RichGirl?" Well, rich girl, he's no friend to women, he gets an "A" from the NRA, and if you're actually rich, girl, he wants to tax you like Depardieu in France (remember him? He ran to Russia to avoid paying those taxes). Of course, the GOP in Congress will stop that dead--you can't make that kind of thing happen with an executive order (remember the first lesson of allocations--ALL appropriations must begin in the HOUSE, and so long as the GOP have the House, controlling Ways and Means, you can kiss that bit goodbye). But oh, it sounds real good to Joe Lunchbucket, doesn't it? A promise and a declaration that he'll never have to make good on--what could be easier?

If you looked at "the whole person" and you actually don't see a few problems with this guy, you either don't know him very well, or you clearly don't fall within the liberal spectrum of the Democratic Party...that's not an insult or an accusation, that's just plain fact. This guy is two notches off "moderate Republican." He's a conservative Democrat who likes a large standing military. He's in no hurry to see gay marriage be the law of the land across the nation, and he doesn't like women in combat. This is the guy you like, as a woman in the 21st Century? Really?

If you want to get an insight into how he regards interactions between men and women, read some of his novels. You just may not come away with quite such a sanguine POV.

[KingCharlemagne]

17. Petraeus, Ricardo Sanchez and Stanley MacChrystal would each last about 5 minutes

in a Webb administration, I'm guessing. He would kick some serious Pentagon ass.

[MADem]

21. They're all toast, anyway. Retired x 3. There's a new crew in town.

[KingCharlemagne]

49. You should put 'retired' in quotation marks! :) - nt

[MADem]

50. Heheh!!! nt

[merrily]

59. Voters might.

[redstatebluegirl]

55. I've had two husbands, I'm tired of judging people based on their marriage habits.

I'm not fond of his focus on defense, but I like him. I need to hear more and see more to decide for sure, not even close to being ready to pick my candidate.

[MADem]

58. Now, your challenge is to convince the rest of America to think the way you do.

I'm sure there are people who were tired of judging people based on their drinking and cocaine habits, too, but that did come into play when Porgie was running against Gore. No amount of tut-tutting and "look over there, ignore that thing" convinced people to stop talking about it. Had that ME DWI been revealed earlier, President Gore might have brought us down a different path and we wouldn't be here at DU.

I urge you to have a look at the article Webb wrote about women in combat cited elsewhere in this thread. It's an eye-opener.

I've met the guy. He's not very temperate. That's about the best way I can describe him. I don't think he has the "keel" for the job, but--as I have said and I will repeat--if he makes it through to the nomination, I will hold my nose and vote for him, because even the worst Dem is better than the best Republican.

[JustAnotherGen]

77. That's a good point

There are people out there that aren't going to think like me . . . I could care less how many times someone is married.

But there are an awful lot of folks for whom:

a. Marriage is the be all and end all - their greatest accomplishment in life


and

b. Do not believe in divorce unless someone is beating, cheating, or a fraud.


It's not the way it should be - if you are miserable get divorced I say. Better to be single than sorry that you were miserable your whole life.

But the same people that want to pray away gayness, and are anti abortion - are going to beat Webb up over this.


But since I'm in NJ and our primary is so late that our votes don't make a difference - I won't have much of a say anyways.

[MADem]

135. How many times has that guy been married?

I think the answer is once, and while the American people can manage "two" they've yet to embrace three--and his marriages aren't these pedestrian things.

Again, if you read what I have written in this thread, I'm not talking about morality. I guess I have to repeat it to everyone who doesn't bother to read the thread before commenting...?

[Warren DeMontague]

138. ...cmon. You know what I'm sayin'.

I just don't think, in 2016, how many times the guy has been married is going to matter to voters. At all.

[MADem]

139. I think you're wrong. Voters not only care about how often people have been married, but to WHOM

they are married. They won't leave Michelle Obama be--they rip her all the time for her commie viewpoints about good eating and exercise. Everyone snickered when Newt ran, because every time Helmet Head Calista stood up beside him, they had a very clear image of her doing naughty things with the former Speeee-kah. Even the GOP supporters had a laugh about it, as Newt has a very specific reputation on the Hill. And for those who are clueless, sitting in the pews, all it takes is a horndog or worse, a "foreign spouse" (and Webb has a young one of those) to get people flapping their jaws. Look what "Rielle" did to Jon "Two Americas" Edwards? Yeah, there are two Americas, some said--those who cheat on their spouses and have secret families, and those who do not.

So, while I do know what you are sayin', about how YOU feel about this matter, your POV is not at all controlling. The Enquirer wouldn't be in business if everyone took your approach--the bottom line is, people do care about this sort of thing--it's why salacious headlines about public figures who cat around sell those papers like hotcakes. The people who buy them are voters--low-information voters, but voters nonetheless, and any candidate disregards them at their peril.

[Warren DeMontague]

140. I disagree. I don't think it will materially matter at all.

The people who say nasty shit about Michelle Obama would do that under any circumstances. Newt didn't lose because of his weird wife with the 440 volt stare.

And anyway, I mean... if any of this stuff really matters to voters, it's not like Hillary is immune. It'll be Clenis redux.

[MADem]

143. But Jon Edwards IMPLODED for messin' around.

Arnold Schwartzenegger is toast, too. He still has money and he can do what he wants, but he's no longer "A" list. When the friends were divvied up, the one who went back to her job at NBC won.

It is an error to assume that everyone feels the way that you do. In the fantasy where I rule the world, "the Kardashians" are chambermaids at a Motel 6. They aren't Occupying the Media as they do IRL. However, I'm aware enough to realize that my preferences do not control.

I have no idea if Hillary is "immune" but her situation garnered her sympathy more than scorn. And that attitude seems to be growing now that she's married off her daughter and has a grandchild. She's regarded as a paragon of patience and forgiveness.

[MADem]

149. If you recall--and I think you're misremembering--Clinton's people did a very good job of pushing

back against those "allegations." There was enough doubt cast, and when HRC went on TV with the Tammy Wynette remark, that kind of ended it. All of the "Horndog Bill" stuff wasn't re-ignited until after he'd won his 2nd term with the Monica business. And the GOP were their own worst enemies, they went after him so often and so hard and so relentlessly about absolute utter bullshit that people said, even if the charge was true, "Well, that's just the wingnuts going after Bill--it's not true, they can't stop going after him" because so much of what they shopped was plainly outrageous lies.

But "Horndog Bill" isn't running for a third term, and "Horndog Bill" is still married to his first and only wife. "Horndog Bill" didn't quit.

One more time, since you are NOT (why, I've no idea) taking my point: this is not about MORALITY, even though that is the "hook" that draws some in.

It's about impulsivity, it's about making lousy decisions, it's about getting bored easily, dumping someone because it's easier than trying to work it out (that's rank DISLOYALTY in many peoples' minds), just like he dumped that SECNAV job after nine months and after he dumped that Senatorial re-election bid after six years in the Senate and getting "bored" with it all. The Presidency is eight long, tough, grinding, highs-and-lows years if you do it right--will he get "bored?"

And you don't have to frame this around HRC at all if you don't like. She has not yet declared, who knows, she may decide to not bother at all? There's still time for others to engage in exploratory campaigns, though the window is starting to come down. Look at this guy in his own framework--he's not a good candidate, unless easily distracted, NRA poster boys with Confederate sympathies and a sketchy record on the environment, equality and women are what you think America wants. I think REPUBLICAN America would be fine with him--Democratic America, not so much.

FWIW, Arnold didn't have a chance because he is not a natural born citizen. He is not eligible. He reached his terminal rank as Governator. He was revealed (though many knew it already) as a giant, cheating, lying bullshitter and everyone KNEW he was a bullshitter. He didn't even have the decency to pretend to be ashamed of his behavior or to establish a relationship with his child (or children, "some people say"--the gossip beat goes on). Bad husband, bad father. Instead, he wrote a kinky (failed) book where he boasted about other "conquests." The guy is just tone deaf.

[MADem]

152. I completely take your point about paradigm-breakers.

And maybe, just maybe, the "I Wed Three Wives" (that's a take-off on "I Led Three Lives" but I'm sure most people here don't get it) thing could be overcome--as I mentioned upthread, Newt tried it.

But on top of One-Two-Three wives, his "problem" is that wife number three is way younger, and a FOREIGNER, from Commie Viet Nam, Gol-Durn-it!!!! (more for the readily poutraged) and way too smart for her own good yet again -- and then, when you read some of the more salacious passages from his fiction where women are, well, disregarded (best word I can come up with) ...it's a bit too much for the church crowd. I could get into more detail about what I think the "mindset" might be, but I know that someone would misinterpret my comments and start flinging accusations, so I'll simply leave it at a "too many paradigms to be broken at once" conundrum. Aside from the "unserious" and "quitter" and "on to the next" attitudes.

Whatever happens, I think the GOP are going to regard him as a threat to their base in a big way. He can lock up white males, particularly the shootin', huntin', Support-the-Troops (either actually served or Chickenhawk-style) patriots, as well as the "I don't like minorities" bunch with his nostalgia towards the Confederacy. If Wife Number Three was subservient and walked six paces behind he'd take more votes than the GOP candidate! Picture him up against Jeb Bush....you'd see Democrats voting for Bush before they'd vote for this guy (Bush does have a Mexican wife).

It's a freakydeaky world when anyone named Bush might be regarded as the "more progressive" of the two candidates on offer. But it could and would happen if Webb makes it through. Now THAT's some seriously messed up stuff!

[Major Nikon]

155. Saint Ronnie was remarried AND conceived a child out of wedlock

He had no problem getting twice elected over 30 years ago.

[MADem]

156. And Webb didn't do likewise? (Hint: Oh yes he DID.)

RR swiftly married his barely pregnant bride. Number One, Jane Wyman divorced HIM. She found him dull, uninspiring, too much of a stick in the mud, and too interested in politics. Saint Ronnie was portrayed (true, or not, doesn't matter--perception is everything) as "the man scorned." Jane Wyman never corrected any (mis?) impressions--her only comment was NO COMMENT.


And anyone who knows anything about life knows this: The first one comes anytime, the 2nd one takes nine months.

By the time Raygun was crowned King, errrm, nominated for the presidency, their marriage was well established, she had been his doting wife for decades, had served as his First Lady in California, and they were --BOTH of them--senior citizens.

Nancy, no fool she, knew how to disguise a baby bump behind a cake or a floral bouquet, while giving all appearances, through her clothing choice, of being slim/trim and not at all thick in the middle. Everyone knows how those suits are supposed to fit, after all, and one's eye fills in the blanks:







She hid that kid better than Elaine of Seinfeld fame did (she used large handbags, sofas, kitchen counters, etc.).


You can try to pretend it is the same thing, but it isn't. And anyone with a soupçon of perceptive ability knows this full well.

Webb has a reputation as a discarder of spouses. Every time he remarries, it's to someone younger. His oldest child in in her mid forties--his latest wife is about the same age. There's something a bit Hefner-esque about that, and it doesn't go down well amongst a fair segment of the population--even if it's just fine-and-dandy with you.

Amy Webb Hogan, Webb's eldest daughter, who is now 44, on the left:

?v=0

Then-Senator and Mrs. Webb (she is now 46):



Both photos were taken within a year of one another.

It's important to take note of the optics. Even if something is "no biggie" to you, or to me, or to all your friends and acquaintances, that doesn't mean that these things won't resonate in a visceral and negative with others who also vote. The "It doesn't bother MEEEEE" test is not an indicator of validity. What do the gossip magazines/spapers, and TV shows cover? You know, the ones that have sales/ratings that beat every policy magazine, serious newspaper, and Sunday morning political talk show? They don't cover economic policy--they trade on fidelity or lack thereof, temperance or lack thereof, impulsivity, political correctness, etc. Human frailties, if you will. All that is manna from heaven for them.

Comparing Saint Ronnie of Raygun to Webb, at least in terms of their wives' reproductive lives, is a non-starter. Ronnie married his "Mommy" (Ewwww) in March of 1952, till death they did part. The bun in the oven was born in October of the same year--seven months later. Jim Webb married Number 3 in October 2006 and she gave birth to their child in December 2006--so if you're going to throw the "pregnant at the altar" charge at anyone, you might want to hit the most obvious target first (not that I'd recommend that approach, certainly, but you brought that aspect up). Webb might earn points from the ( emphasis on and /antiquated) "honest woman" contingent, but those points likely won't make up for the "She's too young for you" and "younger and younger each wedding" demerits.

And speaking of age, everyone carps that "Hillary is too old" and "Bernie is too old" but no one is saying anything about the henna-haired Webb, who was born in 1946--a year and eight months EARLIER than Clinton and only five years after Bernie. So, there's that "age card" to be played along with everything else...?

[Major Nikon]

157. Honestly I don't really care that much about politicians' private lives

I suspect most people don't either. I think it's notable if they engage in conduct they have criticized others for, but other than that I could really care less. Webb may be a bad candidate for all sorts of other reasons. I just don't see this as one of them.

[MADem]

158. People DO are about politicians' (and movie stars', and TV celebrities' and other assorted famous-

for-being-famous peoples') private lives. It's why Congress spent 44 million paying Ken Starr to badger Clinton.

That's certainly not the ONLY reason he's an iffy choice. It's just the one that will get the most media coverage.

[Major Nikon]

159. Clinton also had higher approval ratings than Saint Ronnie ever got DURING the impeachment

So yes, some people do want to know about it the same as people want to know who their friends, relatives, neighbors, co-workers, etc. are having sex with, however it doesn't really affect how people judge one another anymore.

[MADem]

160. Everyone seems to forget how great the economy was during the Clinton years.

Everyone was buying a house, and the balloon payment that some got stuck with wasn't anywhere near due. People were actually being given a thing called a BONUS to sign with companies .... being lured with perks like free covered parking at the job, European-length vacations, and a company car! Of course he had higher approval ratings. And we forgive incumbents--particularly ones who have paid down a deficit and enjoy presiding over a fully-employed nation...

But it wasn't easy, and he wasn't running for re-election when that shit hit the fan. He was already in his 2nd term. Had he been running, "character" would have become an issue.

Remember, Joe Lieberman excoriated Clinton on the floor of the Senate, and even Al Gore ran from him in his campaign--the effects of Clinton's dalliance with Ms. Lewinsky affected the 2000 race, even though Clinton wasn't running.

[Major Nikon]

163. Al Gore running from Clinton is one big reason why he wasn't president

The Democrats picked up seats in the Senate and the House election was basically a wash.

[MADem]

164. I think the Supreme Court has to take that blame.

Clinton, though, despite his horndogging, wasn't married three times, the third time in his sixties, to a bride who gave birth two months later. And Clinton may have scorched the earth for Al---Al was damned if he did, damned if he didn't--but he managed to finish his own term because he, himself, wasn't running.

[LanternWaste]

82. Precisely how many marriages may one have before they are ethically disqualified?

As it appears to the premise of your statement, it seems to beg the question, precisely how many marriages may one have before they are ethically disqualified?

[LawDeeDah]

84. We have to ask the GOP, afterall they pull the strings and make all the rules

so we got to watch what we say, or they might get mad!

Hell, they are eternally mad as hatters so why this fear of what the fuckers will say/do?

I don't get it. And if public America won't accept a person who has been married 3 times, what will they think about being reminded about Bill Clinton's little extra marital messes. Some youngers may not even know about all that rot but we'll have to see it all over again, and again. Maybe Hillary shouldn't run because of the same reason? ha. No. Different rules apply! I know.

[MADem]

124. As many as they want, so long as they are "good Christian women."

I suppose I'd better haul out the tag since you are so doggedly focusing on the "marriage" bit and --apparently--COMPLETELY ignoring the other issues I've raised about this guy in this thread.

But again, I am not going to the MORALITY aspect of his many marriages at all. As I've said, time and time again, yet no one seems to want to read that bit.

I am going for the judgment aspect, the "quitter" aspect (this is a guy who was vetted by the Senate in their advise and consent role for a high level cabinet job--SECNAV--who QUIT after nine months--in a huff, too) and the fact that the GOP will play up all those marriages, especially the last marriage to a much younger "foreigner."

And if you don't think they'll do that, if you seriously think the GOP will "stick to the issues" and take the high road, you need to check the archives of the Allen-Webb campaign. Were it not for Macaca, they would have raked his personal life over the coals. They were going down that track when they found themselves having to defend against justified charges of racism after Allen went off on that videographer. I guess full frontal racism, caught on tape, trumps vulgar and plausibly deniable insinuation any day of the week.

[KamaAina]

100. Was he headed to St. Ives?

[MADem]

125. He needs four more to get there! nt

[DFW]

127. I was thinking about that, too. I've met two of his wives.

Number two still lives about a ten minute walk from the house where I grew up while my dad was a journalist in D.C. She was very nice, and quite supportive of his Senate run back in 2006.

But his tendency to rush full throttle into something and then go on to something (or someone) else is something I can't quite forget. I like Webb personally, but I really don't know him much, and never have had to deal with his temper.

On the other hand, he DOES take his work seriously, and has administrative experience. We could do worse, we could do better. I kinda favor "better."

[MADem]

129. Yes, I saw that legendary temper once.

Suffice it to say I was very pleased that it wasn't directed at ME.

I thought he was gonna have a stroke, he was so pissed off.


I know some folks fire for effect, but I think that kind of thing is best used so rarely that when it does happen, it shakes the damn world. He got mad a lot, apparently--at least that's what some of his peeps shared with me. That kind of chaos makes for a poor work environment.

I've heard good things about Number Two, too, though I don't know a thing about her. Funny, Number Two always seems to have it going on--Newt's Number Two was really popular with his staff, to the point where she knew all their spouses' and kids' names, remembered birthdays, etc., and when Newt started messing around with Calista, they supposedly tipped her off! Wasn't Ivana "Don't get mad darling, get everything" Trump a Number Two as well?

I don't think he is the best candidate either. If by some miracle he makes it through the gauntlet, I'll hold my nose and vote for him. I won't be motivated, though.

[DFW]

131. I understand, and I'll even help with some motivation.

*A Republican president nominating the next 2 or 3 Supreme Court Justices*

How's THAT for some motivation? If Gore had been president, there never would have been a "Citizens United" decision, and the Democrats would have been in control of both houses of Congress and the White House would have been safe, too.

[MADem]

134. Really! Talk about Actions Have Consequences, writ large!!!

We probably wouldn't be enduring War Without End, Amen, either.

[tabasco]

141. Or "I voted for war a clearly trumped-up war" Hillary?

I'll take the dude that got divorced.

[MADem]

142. You might want to acquaint yourself with his full resume before you jump in with both feet.

Read the whole thread, check out the links. You might be surprised--or maybe you already know and don't care...?

[Rex]

145. Had to go back to 1989 to find something?

25 years, that is sad that you went that far back just to find anything to discredit the guy.

[MADem]

153. Seriously? That's your comment? That's your take away from all this conversation?

If you want to discuss the guy's candidacy in its full flavor, you might want to read the ENTIRE thread and click on ALL the links, and then weigh in.

You responded to me on Sat, Nov 22 at 6;38 PM eastern time...there was PLENTY of commentary in this thread, lots of discussion about a variety of issues, yet you focus on that one (not insignificant aspect, mind) to the exclusion of all the others raised, and try to create an impression that this is the only problem he has?

Ohhh kay.... we know what you bring to the table.

[Faryn Balyncd]

4. Here's what he told the WSJ 8 days after he tipped control of the Senate to Democrats in 2006:

(While the WSJ will no longer make his Op-Ed accessible, Truthout will) :

Class Struggle
By Jim Webb
The Wall Street Journal
Wednesday 15 November 2006


The most important-and unfortunately the least debated-issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.

In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future. Trickle-down economics didn't happen. Despite the vaunted all-time highs of the stock market, wages and salaries are at all-time lows as a percentage of the national wealth. At the same time, medical costs have risen 73% in the last six years alone. Half of that increase comes from wage-earners' pockets rather than from insurance, and 47 million Americans have no medical insurance at all......


http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/66991:jim-webb--class-struggle

(This from a combat veteran Senator who not only challenged a foreign policy of endless war, but introduced legislation to reform our shameful system of mass incarceration.

Whatever Jim Webb is, he s NOT a corporate tool.

Honesty and transparency resonates.)

[aikoaiko]

5. I'd like to see that email if you wouldn't mind posting it.

[MADem]

6. Here's the video, better still

Some techies are making fun of the old-school production values.

Webb to the right, Sanders to the left--who's in the middle?

[NCarolinawoman]

7. I sent him a bit of money back in 2006, and....

I like him on a lot of things. However, I don't think he's very good on environmental issues. Maybe someone from Virginia knows a bit more.

[brooklynite]

8. Guy who quit the Senate after 1 term because he didn't like politics?

Running for President for two years?

That'll work.

[RichGirl]

11. He doesn't like politics...

....because politics is a game of winning.

He won't let the fear of losing his job cause him to make compromises with the right.

[MADem]

16. Going after the Presidency is a game of winning too. And the game is to win not once, but twice.

Otherwise, you're regarded as a failure.

He doesn't live in a bubble and he surely knows this.

[MADem]

13. I was beginning to think I was the only person here who was aware of the guy's resume... nt

[NCTraveler]

67. How does one "quit" if their term is up?

I really don't see how that is possible. Did he walk out in the middle of his first term? Is quitting now what not running for reelection is called?

[brooklynite]

73. He chose not to run for re-election...

...making it clear it was because he was fed up with the political process. This wasn't Cincinnatus returning to jos farm.

[NCTraveler]

74. Just wanted to clear it up that he didn't quit as is being said. nt.

[MADem]

120. He quit his cabinet post.

SECNAV is a big frigging job. He got mad and just...LEFT.

After being vetted by the Senate, and appointed by the President, he left the job after nine scant months.

It was a very childish thing to do.

[Comrade Grumpy]

9. He looks better than Hillary on foreign policy, economic policy, criminal justice.

Here's a great article from the New Yorker about the 2016 Democratic contenders. The whole thing is worth reading, but I'll just dump in the Jim Webb part:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/17/inevitability-trap

Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb, who served one term, from 2007 to 2013, and then retired, has the potential to win the beer-track vote. In early October, I drove from Washington to a residential building that sits high on a hill in Arlington. On the eighth floor, in a condominium with a sweeping view of Washington’s monuments, Webb has been plotting his own path to defeating Clinton. “I do believe that I have the leadership and the experience and the sense of history and the kinds of ideas where I could lead this country,” he told me. “We’re just going to go out and put things on the table in the next four or five months and see if people support us. And if it looks viable, then we’ll do it.”

Webb is a moderate on foreign policy, but he is a Vietnam veteran from a long line of military men. His condo, which he uses as a study, is filled with antique weaponry and historical artifacts from his ancestors. He showed me a bookcase filled with collectibles. “I’ve been to a lot of battlefields,” he said. He pointed to some sand from Iwo Jima; glass from Tinian, the island from which the Enola Gay was launched before it dropped an atomic bomb on Japan; and some shrapnel from Vietnam. “I have that in my leg,” he said.

After the war, Webb became a writer. His most famous book, “Fields of Fire,” published in 1978, is a novel based on his own experiences and has been credibly compared to Stephen Crane’s “The Red Badge of Courage” for its realistic portrayal of war. Webb has always moved restlessly between the military and politics and the life of a writer. In the late seventies and early eighties, he worked as a counsel on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee and later as Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy. He has also travelled around the world as a journalist for Parade. In 2007, I interviewed him in his Senate office weeks after he was sworn in. He noted that he was having a hard time adjusting to life as a senator and missed his writing life. Now, in Arlington, he talked about the unfinished business of his Senate career.

In his senatorial race, Webb did well not only in northern Virginia, which is filled with Washington commuters and college-educated liberals, but also with rural, working-class white voters in Appalachia. In 2008, those voters were generally more loyal to Clinton than to Obama, but Webb believes that he could attract a national coalition of both groups of voters in the Presidential primaries. He laid out a view of Wall Street that differs sharply from Clinton’s.


“Because of the way that the financial sector dominates both parties, the distinctions that can be made on truly troubling issues are very minor,” he said. He told a story of an effort he led in the Senate in 2010 to try to pass a windfall-profits tax that would have targeted executives at banks and firms which were rescued by the government after the 2008 financial crisis. He said that when he was debating whether to vote for the original bailout package, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, he relied on the advice of an analyst on Wall Street, who told him, “No. 1, you have to do this, because otherwise the world economy will go into cataclysmic free fall. But, No. 2, you have to punish these guys. It is outrageous what they did.”

After the rescue, when Webb pushed for what he saw as a reasonable punishment, his own party blocked the legislation. “The Democrats wouldn’t let me vote on it,” he said. “Because either way you voted on that, you’re making somebody mad. And the financial sector was furious.” He added that one Northeastern senator—Webb wouldn’t say who—“was literally screaming at me on the Senate floor.”

When Clinton was a New York senator, from 2001 to 2009, she fiercely defended the financial industry, which was a crucial source of campaign contributions and of jobs in her state. “If you don’t have stock, and a lot of people in this country don’t have stock, you’re not doing very well,” Webb said. Webb is a populist, but a cautious one, especially on taxes, the issue that seems to have backfired against O’Malley’s administration. As a senator, Webb frustrated some Democrats because he refused to raise individual income-tax rates. But as President, he says, he would be aggressive about taxing income from investments: “Fairness says if you’re a hedge-fund manager or making deals where you’re making hundreds of millions of dollars and you’re paying capital-gains tax on that, rather than ordinary income tax, something’s wrong, and people know something’s wrong. ”

The Clintons and Obama have championed policies that help the poor by strengthening the safety net, but they have shown relatively little interest in structural changes that would reverse runaway income inequality. “There is a big tendency among a lot of Democratic leaders to feed some raw meat to the public on smaller issues that excite them, like the minimum wage, but don’t really address the larger problem,” Webb said. “A lot of the Democratic leaders who don’t want to scare away their financial supporters will say we’re going to raise the minimum wage, we’re going do these little things, when in reality we need to say we’re going to fundamentally change the tax code so that you will believe our system is fair.”

Webb could challenge Clinton on other domestic issues as well. In 1984, he spent some time as a reporter studying the prison system in Japan, which has a relatively low recidivism rate. In the Senate, he pushed for creating a national commission that would study the American prison system, and he convened hearings on the economic consequences of mass incarceration. He says he even hired three staffers who had criminal records. “If you have been in prison, God help you if you want to really rebuild your life,” Webb told me. “We’ve got seven million people somehow involved in the system right now, and they need a structured way to reënter society and be productive again.” He didn’t mention it, but he is aware that the prison population in the U.S. exploded after the Clinton Administration signed tough new sentencing laws.

The issue that Webb cares about the most, and which could cause serious trouble for Hillary Clinton, is the one that Obama used to defeat her: Clinton’s record on war. In the Obama Administration, Clinton took the more hawkish position in three major debates that divided the President’s national-security team. In 2009, she was an early advocate of the troop surge in Afghanistan. In 2011, along with Samantha Power, who was then a member of the White House National Security Council staff and is now the U.N. Ambassador, she pushed Obama to attack Libyan forces that were threatening the city of Benghazi. That year, Clinton also advocated arming Syrian rebels and intervening militarily in the Syrian civil war, a policy that Obama rejected. Now, as ISIS consolidates its control over parts of the Middle East and Iran’s influence grows, Clinton is still grappling with the consequences of her original vote for the war in Iraq.

Although Webb is by no means an isolationist, much of his appeal in his 2006 campaign was based on his unusual status as a veteran who opposed the Iraq war. “I’ve said for a very long time, since I was Secretary of the Navy, we do not belong as an occupying power in that part of the world,” he told me. “This incredible strategic blunder of invading caused the problems, because it allowed the breakup of Iraq along sectarian lines at the same time that Iran was empowering itself in the region.”

He thinks Obama, Clinton, and Power made things worse by intervening in Libya. “There’s three factions,” he said. “The John McCains of the world, who want to intervene everywhere. Then the people who cooked up this doctrine of humanitarian intervention, including Samantha Power, who don’t think they need to come to Congress if there’s a problem that they define as a humanitarian intervention, which could be anything. That doctrine is so vague.” Webb also disdains liberals who advocate military intervention without understanding the American military. Referring to Syria and Libya, Webb said, “I was saying in hearings at the time, What is going to replace it? What is going to replace the Assad regime? These are tribal countries. Where are all these weapons systems that Qaddafi had? Probably in Syria. Can you get to the airport at Tripoli today? Probably not. It was an enormous destabilizing impact with the Arab Spring.”

[LordGlenconner]

18. But he's had three wives!

[MADem]

23. And the NRA loves him.

And he's just a bit behind the curve on equality. No there either.

Three wives suggests that he can't make up his mind, that he's a quitter, that he'd rather walk away than deal. It's not conclusive but it's suggestive, and given the fact that he QUIT his cabinet gig and got bored with his Senate job (didn't like politics) maybe "politics" isn't the best thing for him, ya think?

[Comrade Grumpy]

24. I think I'll watch and see how his bid goes.

But you're pretty quick with those opposition research talking points, I've got to admit.

On edit: And maybe we could use someone who isn't too comfortable as a professional politician.

[MADem]

26. I met the guy when he was SECNAV oh so briefly. Nice smear of me, there, though.

Your smarmy implication that I do "oppo" research is, well, NOTED. And ooooh, I'm QUICK with them, too! I guess you've been living in a cave, then?

If I know this stuff, all it means is that I PAY ATTENTION. It's not a secret what this guy is all about. Not by a long shot. Or did you sleep through the Allen-Webb race?

This guy is well to the right of Clinton, but hey, he's a guy.

Some folks gotta stick with that "bro" code, is that it? How's that smeary shoe fitting on the other foot, there?

[Comrade Grumpy]

83. I responded to your Fox News-style list of talking points.

And, oh thin-skinned one, opposition research is done by all campaigns, no? Wasn't implying that you're a Republican operative or something.

Saying Webb is well to the right of Clinton is simplistic, don't you think? On Iraq? On Wall Street? I'm sure he's to the right of her on some issues, and vice versa.

Later, 'bro.

[MADem]

113. Way to double down on the insults! Now, my facts--and they are facts--

are Fauxsnooze talking points, per YOU, anyway-- but of course /snark you aren't "implying" I'm a GOP operative....AND I'm "thin skinned!"

I don't think I'm thin-skinned, unless that is a synonym for "observant." And I'm pretty sure it isn't.

Here's a hint that might help you have a productive discussion with someone--stop trying to "win" by insulting the person with whom you are conversing. You don't win, in fact, that kind of tactic is a) Obvious and b) Reflects poorly on your character.

There's nothing simplistic about Webb's environmental, NRA, military end strength, and Equality (LGBT and gender) attitudes--and that's just a slice of the pie. He's well to her right.

And that just might be his purpose, who knows? If she's flanked on either side, she looks like the viable centrist.

[Cha]

38. I'm quick with research on Jim Webb.. you going to accuse me like you accused MADem of being

as "comfortable as a professional politician."

What a disingenuous attempt at smearing a great standing member of DU.

[Comrade Grumpy]

80. You're off the mark.

I didn't accuse MADem of being as "comfortable as a professional politician," which would be sort of nonsensical.

I did note that he was quick with some sleazy talking points. Webb's had three wives!! Lordy,get me to the fainting couch.

I don't know if Webb is the best candidate. I guess we'll let the nomination process sort that out.

[Cha]

110. You're off the mark.

[MADem]

118. So, what you're saying is that the GOP isn't going to try to get

dirt on him or his wives, and they're not going to say anything about his latest, much younger, Vietnamese wife? They aren't even going to bring it up?

If he makes it through the gauntlet, I'll bet that's EXACTLY what they'll be talking about--that, and the salacious passages from his novels.

Remind me again what Michelle Obama's frigging graduate thesis has to do with her being First Lady? Hmmm? And no one EVER talked about "Obama's white girlfriends" when he was in the mix against McCain, did they?

Oh, wait...they sure as hell did!

[Cha]

37. "Jim Webb dead wrong on global warming pollution" from 2011.. but, what else do we have to go on?

Just a snip or two.. have to go to the link to get more..

Jim Webb dead wrong on global warming pollution

Yesterday, he actually said the following words:

"I am not convinced the Clean Air Act was ever intended to regulate or classify as a dangerous pollutant something as basic and ubiquitous in our atmosphere as carbon dioxide."

snip// Oh, look he's dissing Pres Obama for Overreach on the Environment..

That’s bad enough. But for now I just want to focus on a truly egregious distortion and piece of revisionist history from Webb’s press release. According to Sen. Webb, the “sweeping actions that the EPA proposes to undertake clearly overflow the appropriate regulatory banks established by Congress, with the potential to affect every aspect of the American economy.” Webb believes that “[s]uch action represents a significant overreach by the Executive branch.”

MOre
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/03/31/207799/jim-webb-dead-wrong-on-global-warming-pollution/

[MADem]

40. He appealed to the people of Virginia, because they liked those views.

All politics is local.

I wonder if his attitudes will do as well on a national stage. He's not "progressive" at all. He's rather a conservative Democrat who has sympathy for "the working class" and a bit of a "tax the rich" attitude, but beyond that he diverges from a lot of near-and-dear POVs here.

[Cha]

43. Ah yes, Virginia politics.. they had the creepy Bob greedy McDonnell and now Terry McAuliffe is

Gov. And, the Environment is Global so he better keep up or get out of the way.

Back in 2008 when he was talked about for Veep..

snip//

"In 2000, Webb opined that affirmative action was "state-sponsored racism"; that same year he endorsed the ultra-conservative Republican George Allen for the senate. In 2004, Webb wrote an op-ed for USA Today arguing that John Kerry "deserved condemnation" for his opposition to the Vietnam War (to be fair, in the op-ed Webb is also critical of George Bush; but then again, in the same piece Webb also takes a swipe at the "liberal media&quot . Troublingly, he gave this glowing endorsement to Mark Moyar's uber-wingnutty "revisionist" history of the Vietnam War, Triumph Forsaken, which was published in October 2006:"

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/05/ixnay-on-the-ebbway/45081/

[LawDeeDah]

46. Same story for Grimes then? All politics is local so

it's okay, or not okay, for her to stupidly dodge that question about voting for Obama. Or how about coal, supporting a dirty business like coal, is that progressive for you because both the Clintons backed Grimes up.

I wonder if such attitudes of Hillary's will do as well on a national stage...

[MADem]

64. Grimes' problem was not that she was an Obama

delegate--it's that she DENIED what was obvious to even the most clueless voter. Of COURSE she voted for him. Of COURSE she supported him--I mean, DUH. That's not "All Politics is Local" -- that was just dumb-ass advice from a boneheaded staffer.

Her polling revealed POTUS wasn't terribly popular and her opponent could try to rib-stick her with a few of his policies, so she "cut and ran" rather than standing up and saying

"Yeah, I did vote for him, I am a Democrat, and so fucking what? You wanted me to vote for that nutty old man who wanted to bomb the world and the moose lady? Really? Or that Billionaire Bozo from Boston by way of Salt Lake City with his Imperious Wife and his Eddie Munster Ayn Rand Screw-The-Little-People running mate? You think THAT was a better choice? Get real and step off, child."

There are ways to say STFU to a reporter without actually saying it. Instead, she stumbled. She hesitated. She DID IT TO HERSELF. "All politics is local" in KY means "Be AUTHENTIC" first and foremost--like it does anywhere.

As for Clinton, she hasn't declared yet. She's not even exploring. She's sitting back and weighing her options, still.

Webb is the topic here, not her, not Grimes-who-lost--he's getting ready to frisbee his hat into the ring; he's said as much.

[merrily]

62. I don't know if Webb would have won that race if it had not been

for "macaca" and the attempted cover up. That was on Allen, of course. But, until then, IIRC, Allen was comfortably ahead in the polls. And, 2006 was a Democratic sweep year, thanks to Bushco. So, Webb's ability to win elections absent things like that is unknown.

On the bright side, that campaign pretty much ended the talk of Allen for President.

[MADem]

72. He probably would not have. Allen had money and clout.

Macaca brought out a lot of minority voters who might have stayed home otherwise. The fact that Allen was directing his remarks so derisively at a caramel-colored south Asian young man with a video camera was DEVASTATING. It wasn't simply a newspaper report, they had his dripping, racist sarcasm on beautiful, color video.

George Allen's positive campaign with the "macaca moment" for those who do not remember:

[LordGlenconner]

51. Your marriage critique sounds like something from the Moral Majority circa 1982

The 80s called. They want their "family values" back.

[MADem]

56. Reading not your strong suit, is that it?

I specifically addressed that issue. You, apparently, missed it.

Go back and try again--or not. I don't really care.

[LordGlenconner]

104. I must have been bored

A thousand pardons, reverend.

[uponit7771]

161. NRA loves him I'm not with him...

[MADem]

162. He has an "A" rating with them. nt

[KamaAina]

102. How many did Reagan have?

[Hekate]

108. Or Newt Gingrich, or John McCain, for that matter. nt

[MADem]

126. Two. And his first wife, the redoubtable Jane Wyman, would answer

every question asked of her with "No Comment."

She didn't equivocate, she didn't back down. She just refused to engage. There are a lot of anecdotes about their relationship (she couldn't stand his interest in film politics, for example) but she kept it zipped. She most certainly was NOT the "adoring little woman" type, like Nancy was. In fact, she was the much bigger star when they hooked up.

[pamela]

28. I despise him

In high school, I was friends with Liz Belzer. She was one of the first women admitted to the Naval Academy and the first woman to graduate from there. Jim Webb wrote a scathing article about women in the military and women in the academies. He very specifically singled Liz out in his remarks in a very ugly way.

Many women in the military and the academies have said that Webb's article was responsible for much of the harassment they experienced. He'll never win a Dem primary at the national level with his anti-woman history.

eta: Here's a link to the article... http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/jim-webb-women-cant-fight/

[MADem]

31. Holy shit, I remember those days. Brings to mind a story!!!!!

There used to be a meeting every few months, a social event, really, where senior female leaders in and around the Pentagon would have a lunch and do a little networking, and they would have a speaker. After that article, Webb spoke to that group.

I had a nice after-the-fact convo with someone who was AT the speech Webb gave and I guess the only way to describe it is that they ripped him a new one. BIG TIME. There was damn near blood on the floor. I can picture it--back then there were no female flag officers, they were all 0-5s and 0-6s....and they were standing up in their dress uniforms shaking their fists at the guy and shouting him DOWN and booing him. Talk about brass! It's something I would have enjoyed seeing.

And you're right--he does have a sexist legacy to live down. I didn't hear much about it in the Allen-Webb contest, but Allen was such a sexist he made Webb look progressive on that score.

That IS something that will come to the fore on the national stage--especially since the GOP are trying to claim that they "understand" women better, and they have a few perky tokens who will shamelessly carry their water to prove it.

What a trip down memory lane...that's when Webb was aligned with Newt "infections in the foxholes" Gingrich on the issue of female servicemembers in combat slots!

[loyalsister]

33. That turns me off, too

Of course, I expect to hear all about how he has evolved. I think women who aren't thrilled with Hillary will flock to her if he is her opposition. I also have the same trouble with him that I have with Biden, Hillary, Sanders, and Warren. The are all going to be in their late 60s\early 70s. There is inevitable illness\disability in their very near future because it is a natural function of age. It's not like being a senator. The stress, travel, and general quality of the job has to be absolutely exhausting.
The oldest president elected was Reagan who left office with the early signs of Alzheimers.

I don't see why we would want to put ourselves, not to mention the entire nation through having a president who will most likely experience decline in their health.

Aside from that, younger candidates have usually beat the older candidates.

I know some perceive it as agist, and that's not necessarily unfair. I just have practical concerns in knowing that as we grow older, health problems and physical difficulties typically appear.

The only advantage I see other than the impressive resume and positions that he does have, we would do well to keep two of our best senators.

[MADem]

36. Warren's not running. The only one in the Senate now who

has expressed an interest is Sanders, and he's just not going to win. He's in it to direct the debate.

Webb had an incumbency in the Senate and could have cruised to re-election, but he walked away from it, quitting the Senate because he was bored with politics.

He aggressively QUIT as SECNAV when his (and every service secretary's) budget got cut. This is a guy who likes a large military and is beloved by the NRA.

I find it amusing how many people are raving about him, particularly when based on their previously articulated views, I can't see them actually liking him very much once they get to know him.

I loved the guy as "the Senator from VA" because he helped give us the Senate majority, and after all, All Politics is Local. He held the views that were popular in his state, but some of them don't travel well. Bottom line, he's no liberal, though he has some "populist" attitudes; he'd be ripped to shreds for his sexist comments, gun-totin' and mitigating remarks re: equality in my state--not sure why people are ignoring that piece of his resume, but ... whatever.

If he makes it through the fire, and it's a long way to go, I'll vote for him even though I think he's a regressive candidate overall.

As I repeat like a mantra, the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican..

[loyalsister]

41. the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican

Absolutely.
I just mentioned Warren because people are still talking like she might run.

I checked him out on wiki, and was pretty disgusted by the military oriented titles of his books.

And he didn't just throw out a sexist one-liner that he can try to disown. He wrote extensive opinions on women in the military, and they will be very unpopular and notable if he is running against a woman.

[MADem]

42. Yeah--I wish I'd been a fly on the wall at that Professional

Servicewoman's luncheon where they tore him to shreds (see post elsewhere in this thread on that topic!).

I love this thread because it brought that memory back--hadn't thought about the woman who told me that story in years, and boy oh boy, was she VIVID in her descriptions.

IIRC, he tried to tell them that they couldn't have the professional luncheons anymore after that debacle--thing is, they were an interservice gig, and he only had authority over the USN and USMC women in attendance. I think (memory foggy, here) that he tried to tell them they'd have to take leave to attend, or something like that, and then either he got overridden by SECDEF or some ASD or he quit before the next one came up.

They really were "professional" meetings, apparently--they always had a tight agenda and good speakers, it wasn't a huge drunkfest or mini-Tailhook, or anything of that nature. But I got the strong impression that if the audience members had gotten a hold of Webb after he delivered, essentially, the same speech as was written in that denigrating article about women in combat roles, that he would have been kicked to death by a thousand patent leather pumps.

[loyalsister]

44. I wonder who is telling him he can actually be successful

Women are going to know the speech he delivered by heart. I'm pretty sure his candidacy isn't going to go very far.

It would be like forgiving a politician for using the n-word because, "that's just how things were back then." Yeah, we know. We remember Anita Hill.

[MADem]

75. You know, he worked well with Clinton--I think she helped

him get his feet in the Senate. Take a walk down memory lane, why don't we?

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/meet-the-press-netcast/22066680#22066680

It's not like they haven't worked together before...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2851366

I wonder if he's not covering her flank on the right, while Sanders (another guy who really LIKES Clinton--which would likely infuriate his fans if they realized how much, I suspect) is covering her flank on the left.

Or he could be reading his own books and has a little bit of hubris-itis.

Who knows?

[loyalsister]

81. I understand how politics works

And, people find themselves associating with people who have ugly histories. But, I can't help but find it disgusting that she would actively get behind him.

You make some really good points that lead me to wonder if he's actually running for VP.

[MADem]

117. If he is covering her right flank, he's getting behind HER...

Looking, perhaps, for a cabinet slot (that he won't quit--SecDEF is something he has not done yet, though he did do some time as an ASD) or the Big XO slot--VP.

I think it's interesting that both people who have made noise about running (Sanders/Webb) have had very positive, indeed WARM relations with HRC that they have, in the past if not now, acknowledged--she was a favorite of Robert Byrd's (he was prepared to hate her and was SHOCKED at how hard she worked--she earned his approval in a big way) and I think he used her as his "leg man" doing the grunt work in acclimating new people to the Show. And if you really want to know who is a Friend of HRC, just check out HILLPAC's disbursements from years past--Sanders and Webb have BOTH gotten some love from that PAC...!

You don't give campaign contributions to people you hate, nor do you take them from people you hate, after all. There's convergence at some level, and it may just be simple pragmatism.

We'll see what shakes out!

[Cha]

39. Wow! Not good. mahalo, pamela

[merrily]

63. It's interesting to me how many DUers will not even look up a politician's wiki before deciding

they are for or against him or her.

Not that I have anything to gain from touting wiki. I just mean it's about the least research about a politician anyone can do.

[HereSince1628]

53. Maybe a JIM WEBB group should be added to the "Democrats" topic??????????

Just say'n.

DU General Discussion always gets in a gaggle of cat-fights over primary personalities.

While some of this is good and proper, too much of it descends into divisive bickering

[merrily]

57. I posted this on another thread about Webb:

I have reservations, clues to some of which can be found in his wiki.

Former Republican (think Panetta), a Reaganite, questions about sexism, both in his real life and his novels, that, for me, are very serious, etc.

Also, I saw him interviewed when he was publicizing his book about the Scotch Irish and was troubled by his references to "white culture" during that interview. Sounded a little too Pat Buchanan about it for my taste.

Seemed as though someone had already challenged him on it, too: The first time he mentioned the term, he added quickly and, I thought, defensively--"and there is such a thing."

I don't want to see him be the nominee, and doubt he will be, but, welcome to the fray, Senator.

[Hekate]

68. I've read one of his non-fic books, have heard him be interviewed...

My take-away is that he is very intelligent and understands history, especially those parts that closely connect with his personal experience. He has an impressive resume. He's a Southern white, whatever you choose to make of that.

I would be willing to give him a listen if he chooses to run. This DU rush to judgment pro-and-con-Hillary Clinton is getting wearisome. Others can and will come forward and join the debate, which is all to the good. Why not have Webb in the mix?

The book, by the way: "Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America." Hugely informative about an overlooked part of our national character, takes the Celts back 2,000 years for how their character was formed and how it persists to this day. I found it fascinating.

[RedstDem]

78. calling out the HRC dogs?

Your going to be flooded with pro hilliary, anti Webb comments.
Enjoy

By the way, he's got my vote, unless someone better comes along.

[wyldwolf]

79. After over 80 replies, I guess most of the 'HRC dogs' are sitting back and laughing

I'll just say Webb represents so many things most on DU profess to despise, there's really no need to comment much.

[RedstDem]

85. who let the dogs out...

woof...woof...woof...woof-woof....god i hate that song....

lol,
next time I'll read thru the replies...

[LawDeeDah]

86. Laugh all you like but Webb did not think Iraq was a good idea, and Hillary did.

Laugh it up. So funny, so many dead. Webb was right on this one, A Big One, and Hillary -- Dead wrong.

But laugh about Webb's marriage number, or that he has an NRA card. Hillary has blood on her hands.

[wyldwolf]

87. Webb wasn't in the senate when the vote was taken. And besides...

he has a special affection for the confederacy. Yeah, this one:

[LawDeeDah]

88. Wanna play? Okay. Doug Coe and The Fellowship:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025137899

This is the guy Hillary thinks so highly of (as she wrote in her book and is mentioned in the video above):

“Let’s say I hear you raped three little girls. What would I think of you?” The man guessed that Coe would probably think that he was a monster. “No,” answered Coe, “I wouldn’t.” Why? Because, as a member of the Family, he’s among what Family leaders refer to as the “new chosen.” If you’re chosen, the normal rules don’t apply.

If the Family men who stood over John Ensign as he wrote a baldly insincere breakup letter to his mistress were naive about hearts that want what they want, they don’t claim ignorance about the strongmen with whom they build bonds of prayer and foreign aid. They admire them. Counseling Rep. Tiahrt, Doug Coe offered Pol Pot and Osama bin Laden as men whose commitment to their causes is to be emulated. Preaching on the meaning of Christ’s words, he says, “You know Jesus said ‘You got to put Him before mother-father-brother sister? Hitler, Lenin, Mao, that’s what they taught the kids. Mao even had the kids killing their own mother and father. But it wasn’t murder. It was for building the new nation. The new kingdom.”

and some people wonder why some other people can't hack the Clintons.

[wyldwolf]

95. I'd love to play

I've actually read the book on this - the one 'progressives' love to quote. Here is what is printed in the book.

The author states Clinton is, indeed, religious. Big surprise, right?

The first time Sharlet uses The Reverend Rob Schenck, the founder of a ministry called Faith and Action in the Nation’s Capital—a knockoff of the Family, the theological equivalent of fake Gucci - as a source:

For instance, says Schenck, Senators Sam Brownback and Hillary Clinton, partners in prayer at Coe’s weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast. The Family is dedicated to spiritual war, not the intramural combat of party politics, Schenck explained. Coe doesn’t have a systematic theology, he has a vision of power. Not just to come, but as it exists. “They’re into living with what is,” said Schenck. “But you don’t want to alienate them, you don’t want to antagonize them. You need them as your friends. Even Hillary will need them. They keep a sort of cultural homeostasis in Washington. Washington right now is a town where if you’re going to be powerful, you need religion. That’s just the way it’s done.”

The author then explicitly states (and there really is no room for interpretation here):

Hillary may well be God’s beautiful child, (as Sam Brownback calls people like Paul Wellstone, Ted Kennedy and, yes, Hillary Clinton) but she’s not a member of Coe’s Family. Rather, I’d been told at Ivanwald, she’s a “friend,” less elect then a member, but more chosen than the rest of us. A fellow traveler but not a sister. Her goals are not their goals; but when on occasion they coincide, Hillary and the Family can work together.

And there you have it, folks. The most damning passage linking Hillary to 'The Family.' The rest of the book's commentary on Clinton is, in my opinion, a judgmental assault on Hillary for being religious, ambitious and being willing to mix the two. If you want to knock her for that, be my guest, but that is a technique many politicians (yes, even liberal ones) have used to great success.

But who else is mentioned in the book as a 'friend' of The Family? Al Gore (page 259), Ted Kennedy, and others.

And another leftwing myth laid to rest.

But Webb? He's confederate.

He has suggested many times that while the Confederacy is a symbol to many of the racist legacy of slavery and segregation, for others it simply reflects Southern pride.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10994.html

Really? That's the rednecks who wave the confederate flags say. But wait! There's more!

And so I am here with you today, to remember. And to honor an army that rose like a sudden wind out of the little towns and scattered farms of a yet unconquered wilderness. That drew 750,000 soldiers from a population base of only five million — less than the current population of Virginia alone. That fought with squirrel rifles and cold steel against a much larger and more modern force... I am not here to apologize for why they fought, although modern historians might contemplate that there truly were different perceptions in the North and South about those reasons, and that most Southern soldiers viewed the driving issue to be sovereignty rather than slavery.

http://www.jameswebb.com/speeches-by-jim/remarks-at-the-confederate-memorial

The "sovereignty" was the power to enslave human beings if the State so chose. If the CSA would have won that war several States would have retained the right to allow their citizens to hold slaves. You realize that, right?

[LawDeeDah]

97. I was mostly wondering how someone could speak so highly of a sick soul like Coe's.

Hillary had such complimentary things to say of him, in writing.
a man Hillary Clinton has called a “genuinely loving spiritual guide and mentor for ... blah blah blah barf

And what nerve of her to comment on Rev. Wright. I actually forgot about that pus she tried to squirt. I'll have to read your dirt on Webb later because revisiting this stuff is making me dizzy with wonder about how the hell she thinks all this is not going to come up, again.

I suppose she thinks she is one of those special chosens? Maybe Dougie thinks so too.

[wyldwolf]

98. the same way Ted Kennedy, Gore and others did?

Political expediency? Perhaps your mission should be to expose Democrats in general who've ever smiled and nodded their heads at him.

At the moment, you're sounding desperate to attach Clinton to him where no real association exists.

[LawDeeDah]

99. If no association exists, how could she speak so highly of him?

And, ahem, I am not the one that is desperate here. And last I heard, Gore isn't running for President this time (and if he were his association with Coe would not have the same bite as Hillary's because of her holier than thou Rev. Wright nonsense)

And I will check but pretty sure Ted isn't running either. So whatever sins and associations those two have and had, it has nothing to do with anything we are talking about because they aren't trying to be leader of the US. She is. Her judgements and associations has everything to do with whether she is fit to be in office.

[wyldwolf]

103. I speak highly of my plumber. So why don't you prove this phantom association?

According to the book all these phony charges sprang from, there is no associations of consequence.

But here you are trying to detract from Jim Webb's very real confederate sympathy with this long debunked Coe-Clinton alliance.

[LawDeeDah]

105. There is no association of consequence

as far as I know

[wyldwolf]

106. do you really think you just made a valid point?

The author of the book that all this trash came from, the one that 'progressives' love to reference (though they've apparently never read it) says no real association exists. But you persist, in the absence of any evidence, to take a FOX News approach to the subject.

And since you're, in fact, defending Jim Webb by detracting to Hillary, are you, too, a confederate sympathizer?

[RedstDem]

89. hyperbole much?

holy crap, the hillbots are rattled

run for the hills.....

[LawDeeDah]

90. I don't run toward Hills, I run the opposite direction.

[wyldwolf]

96. Jim Webb is a confederate sympathizer. No hyperbole here.

Webb? He's confederate.

He has suggested many times that while the Confederacy is a symbol to many of the racist legacy of slavery and segregation, for others it simply reflects Southern pride.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10994.html

Really? That's the rednecks who wave the confederate flags say. But wait! There's more!

And so I am here with you today, to remember. And to honor an army that rose like a sudden wind out of the little towns and scattered farms of a yet unconquered wilderness. That drew 750,000 soldiers from a population base of only five million — less than the current population of Virginia alone. That fought with squirrel rifles and cold steel against a much larger and more modern force... I am not here to apologize for why they fought, although modern historians might contemplate that there truly were different perceptions in the North and South about those reasons, and that most Southern soldiers viewed the driving issue to be sovereignty rather than slavery.

http://www.jameswebb.com/speeches-by-jim/remarks-at-the-confederate-memorial

The "sovereignty" was the power to enslave human beings if the State so chose. If the CSA would have won that war several States would have retained the right to allow their citizens to hold slaves. You realize that, right?

[RedstDem]

151. well that clearly makes him a rebel

YeeeeeHawwwww!

[librechik]

91. Except for the obvious gender, how is this war college vet an improvement over Hillary?

don't see it.

[Comrade Grumpy]

109. Foreign policy, economic policy, criminal justice reform?

[TBF]

92. If we're going with another

conservative I prefer Hillary over Jim Webb.

But I am really hoping Bernie shows up

[kentuck]

93. I will listen to what he has to say..

He used to be a little too pro-military for me, but maybe he has changed?

[KamaAina]

101. As far as I can tell, Webb's presence in the race serves two purposes

1) He makes Hillary look like a card-carrying liberal.

2) He gets to float his name for VP.

[Horse with no Name]

115. I was initially impressed with the guy

said all the right things on the teevee, etc. But slowly the other stuff that made me uncomfortable starting sifting in and I have to agree with MADam.
But I guess I really have to ask...is why would we consider HIM when we have Biden waiting in the wings?
And for those that remember...yeah, I can't believe I said that either, lol

[MADem]

121. I have to wonder if he's not playing a role.

Protecting Clinton's flank.

The GOP have to be afraid of him, after all. He WAS a Republican. He was a MARINE. He worked for (never mind that he quit on) Saint Ronnie of Raygun.

There's only so many hours in the day, and only so much smearing that can be done. He's a huge threat, because he's like a Republican, only less creepy. White males love him. Joe Lunchpail ADORES him. He could really cut into their voting bloc, so they're going to need to try and take him out.

[Douglas Carpenter]

119. okay, he would be more restained on foreign policy issues - perhaps than Hillary - that I like

But overall - he is a conservative Democrat from the Republican foreign policy realist school like Chuck Hagel - perhaps even more so. He is not however a liberal or a progressive by any stretch of the imagination.

[MADem]

128. You really think that? Don't forget, he's an old Cold Warrior who QUIT

because SECDEF told him that Reagan wasn't going to let him keep sailing towards a six hundred ship Navy. To simplify it all, he quit because they cut his budget.

He may not have liked getting mired in the Middle East, but I wouldn't be so confident that he wouldn't mind going back to those old tiresome USA v. USSR games. Gee, round up the old Cold War certificates, we're putting the game back on ice, maybe?

[Douglas Carpenter]

132. he did oppose the U.S. entry into both the Gulf War of 1992 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He

seems to have more than the average amount of sophistication regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict. Yeah, he was an old cold warrior - Most of the foreign policy realist who support restrained intervention are. As far as he current thinking on Russia - I don't know. Still he is by no means to the left of Hillary broadly speaking. He is certainly not a liberal, progressive or economic populist. There is certainly no reason I can imagine that he can be seen as a progressive alternative to Hillary.

[MADem]

133. He does seem to be averse to getting mired in the middle east.

That would be a plus. That said, if he didn't like the Department of the Navy he had to work with under Saint Ronnie of Raygun (and he didn't because he quit over it), he'd hate it now. Of course, Russia's blue water capability is nil but Putin is intent on restoring that capability (that port in Syria; the Crimea, e.g.); he wants to go back to those Hunt For Red October days. What that bodes for the future is unfortunate.

I'm sick of wasting money on War Without End, Amen. As a world we could do so much if people would just stop fighting...!

I don't think Webb'll be our savior in that regard, particularly if Putin keep sabre-rattling. He might not want to fight but he'll want to wave our sabre, too, and that costs money. I agree with you that he isn't a progressive alternative--to anyone, frankly. He holds many conservative views, and he could be someone that makes the GOP poop their drawers a bit if he starts spouting off that stuff that they like. He's not a chickenhawk, either -- be funny to see them even try to swiftboat the guy. He'd probably rip off their heads! That said, he's not my first or even my tenth choice for a candidate, so I'm hoping this is an angle for a cabinet job. Who knows, though?

[Rex]

146. Careful, scared little rabbits on DU don't like democracy very much.

Oh sure they talk a big game, but when it comes to anyone but their favorite pony they instantly inform the swarm to attack. Strange behavior for 'progressives'.

[MADem]

154. There you go again, with the nasty commentary. Most people here are having a CIVIL and spirited

discussion about Webb's candidacy. You're the one posting the "STFU" remarks.

If you're not "afraid" of any objections to this guy (and there are many--the first being that he is not even close to anyone's definition of "liberal"--he's a conservative, plain and simple) then you'd let the conversation proceed, and contribute salient responses, rather than weighing in with a "Watch what you say, watch what you do" series of blatant insults impugning the motives of anyone who doesn't think the way you do.

What's your approach to this discussion? Let's break it down.

Rex
146. Careful, scared little rabbits on DU don't like democracy very much.
View profile
Oh sure they talk a big game, but when it comes to anyone but their favorite pony they instantly inform the swarm to attack. Strange behavior for 'progressives'.

Anyone who does not agree with you:

a. Are scared little rabbits
b. Don't like democracy.
c. Are Swarmers who are defending their favorite pony (not feminists, not anti-NRA, not liberals, not even people with another "favorite" candidate--just "Swarmers"--oooh kay).
d. Are behaving strangely for "progressives."

The person afraid of conversation, to my eye, would be the person who flings four insults in a two sentence post that have absolutely nothing to do with the real issues at hand.

But hey, knock yourself out!

We see you.

[HR_Pufnstuf]

166. kick

kick.

Hi Hill !!