Jim Webb, a veteran of Ronald Reagan's administration who served one term as a Democratic U.S. senator from Virginia, has launched a presidential exploratory committee. Late Wednesday night, Webb uploaded a 14-minute statement to YouTube, and a campaign site—Webb2016.com—went live. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...nches-2016-presidential-exploratory-committee
I don't know enough about Jim Webb, but hopefully as the campaign season comes into its stride we will get to learn more. From what I gather from the article, it seems like he has declared much of anything yet so I guess he is a true dark horse candidate. Thanks for sharing.
he's an interesting guy, vet, served in Reagan admin, switched parties. conservative, but highly critical of the iraq war; there was a much remarked upon confrontation w/ W while Webb's son was serving in Iraq.
<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/_T_oT8Vp9hU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Couldn't resist...
Not bad. I admire his dislike of DC, acting on it, pro Net Neutrality, opposing Iraq, decorated with Navy Cross from Vietnam, etc. His stance on climate change takes away my vote. Democrats need a true progressive / Green party candidate. American democrat today = European center-right today, American conservative pre-1980. There are few if any socialists in our state and national government. That's why this last election had such little enthusiasm from leftist voters.
Yes the problem with a Webb candidacy is that it will push the dialog, even in the Democratic Party, further right. If he would run as a Republican I think he would have some merit as an iconoclast outsider set to reclaim real conservatism from the oligarchs. I think, Bernie Sanders would be the better counterpart for Ms. Clinton. He would challenge her to be more progressive.
While I admire the idealism in wanting a VP candidate that pushes the ticket more to a desired place, I reckon I am more that you choose a VP that may not necessarily balances but provides needed states, regions, or EVs that helps the ticket win. Right or wrong, the majority of the US perceives Hillary as "liberal" so getting a more liberal candidate doesn't make sense IMO. Clinton will get all the votes that a more liberal VP nominee would get anyway. And also IMO, getting Sanders as a candidate doesn't make climate change a position more likely to get addressed (btw, as more liberal candidates go, I'd look at Martin O'Malley of MD). I think it would be better to get a VP nominee that is strong where Clinton is weak. To get back places that Bill Clinton won. I think Webb might accomplish that. We need someone that attracts the more conservative end of the Democrat party and a majority of independent voters. So someone from the South. So someone with a strong Defense background. Maybe someone from large and traditional blue collar states like PA or OH. Maybe down the road... someone that attracts the Hispanic vote (like one of the Castro brothers) but unfortunately they are both too young and unknown.
Can't hurt. Dems need a fallback candidate if Hillary somehow crashes. This also could be an early claim on the VP slot.
Dems had a veteran and a Southerner in '04, people will still claim they didn't really serve, b**** about their haircut, claim they had a chemical peel or call them ambulance chasers for suing on behalf of little girls who get their intestines sucked down a pool drain. Presidential politics has been a mess since Gary Hart.
That sounds good and all.........but Bernie Sanders is mentally ill :grin: Jim Webb reminds me of the guy that couldnt get a job at a McDonalds so he got a job at BurgerKing for revenge!!!
New Testament, post-Jesus Christianity Yes there is, that difference is the degree to which the self-labeled Christian rationalizes his own greed http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/...-socialism-to-capitalistic-christianity/10731
