LF: Jim Webb Attacks Clinton With Eye on Independent Run

When Jim Webb quit the Democratic presidential race on Oct. 20 amid low poll numbers and a minimal debate presence, the former Virginia senator left open the possibility he'd return for a White House run in a different political guise. Now he appears to be edging closer to making good on it.

On Saturday morning, Webb used Twitter and his Facebook page to attack Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton for her handling of Libya during her time as secretary of state.

The lengthy condemnation on Facebook, which said, among other things that “Clinton should be called to account for her inept leadership that brought about the chaos in Libya,” came just days before the end of the year, which his team had previously told CNN would be reasonable time for them to make a decision about an independent bid.

Since dropping out of the race for the Democratic nomination, Webb has continued to maintain his Webb2016 website, which he has updated with posts about the possibilities of an independent run. On Twitter, he and his fans have been promoting a #WebbNation hashtag.

A run by Webb, who often manages his own social media accounts and has also used them recently to promote a petition in favor of his run and to deliver kudos to Bernie Sanders in his battles with the Democratic National Committee (“nothing more than an arm for the Clinton campaign,” Webb tweeted), could further complicate the already unpredictable 2016 election.

While observers typically have analyzed the prospect of a third-party or independent run by Republican front-runner Donald Trump—or even one from Sanders—Webb could still alter the dynamics of the race even with his smaller profile.

A recent CNN poll, for instance, forecast tight races between Clinton and several Republican contenders in hypothetical match-ups for the general election. Webb's campaign has told Bloomberg Politics it would concentrate on mobilizing voters in the ideological middle, along with people who have become dissatisfied with politics.

In a tight race, even a small base of support could make him a factor. Ralph Nader, for instance, famously won only small percentages of the vote in many states in the 2000 presidential election, yet that arguably helped tip the Electoral College vote to then-Texas Governor George W. Bush, denying Democratic Vice President Al Gore, the winner of the popular vote, the presidency.

There's no ensuring that Webb would be a spoiler for Clinton even as he attacks her. Although he ran as a Democrat to serve in the Senate, he is a highly decorated Vietnam veteran who also served for a time as President Reagan's secretary of the navy and has won conservative plaudits. Even Saturday's attack echoed the talking points of Republican candidates and groups.

His public statements, meanwhile, have focused economic populism and breaking the monopoly of the two-party system.

Despite the apparent escalation of his interest in an independent bid and his aides previously stated interest in making Webb's intentions known by the beginning of 2016, history suggests he could toy with voters for quite some time. Webb missed his own self-imposed deadline for getting into the Democratic race and blatantly disregarded conventional wisdom on political timing when finally declared hours before the beginning of the July 4 holiday.

In addition, the earliest state deadline for submitting signatures for an independent presidential run is May 9 in Texas, according to Ballot Access News. Given that most filing deadlines occur in August, Webb's post-Christmas social activity could be another trial balloon.

Craig Crawford, a top aide on the small campaign, did not immediately return request for comment on Saturday on the prospect that Webb is planning an imminent return to the race, nor did a Clinton spokesman respond to the attack.

Crawford, though, told Bloomberg Politics in October that he has been studying the Nader playbook and that an outsider bid is easier than it was 15 years ago but still “requires a lot more multitasking.”

Yet the main question was the feasibility of that multitasking, including primarily gathering signatures to get on the ballot, rather than Webb's belief in his message, Crawford added.

“Are we comfortable that there’s actually a chance to get on enough ballots to actually have a mathematical chance?” Crawford said the campaign was asking. “Jim’s not going to do this as a protest thing.”

https://www.facebook.com/IHeardMyCountryCalling/photos/a.240139606175966.1073741828.232634213593172/421407398049185/?type=3

Our next commander in chief must define a strategic vision for the country and accept accountability for past actions. Hillary Clinton should be called to account for her inept leadership that brought about the chaos in Libya, and the power vacuums that resulted in the rest of the region. She’ll need better answers than the recent nonsensical comment that she advocated taking out Muammar Qadaffi in Libya in order to avert a situation like Syria. The predictable chaos in Libya was bad enough, but it also helped bring about the disaster in Syria. Who is taking her to task for this? http://read.bi/1SbMG7h

She said, “If we had not joined with our European partners and our Arab partners to assist the people in Libya, you would be looking at Syria.” In reality that is what we are looking at. As the Harvard (Kennedy School) Lessons from Libya study of 2013 found, “The biggest misconception about NATO's intervention is that it saved lives and benefited Libya and its neighbors.” Radical Islamist groups, suppressed under Qaddafi, emerged as the fiercest rebels during the war, highlighted by the September 2012 attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three of his colleagues.

Clinton talked at this last DNC debate about her failure as Secretary of State as if she was successful. While she held that office, the U.S. spent about $2 billion backing the Libyan uprising against Qadaffi. The uprising, which was part of the Arab Spring, led directly to Qaddafi being removed from power and killed by rebel forces in 2011. Now some 2,000 ISIS terrorists have established a foothold in Libya. Sophisticated weapons from Qaddafi's arsenal—including up to 15,000 man-portable, surface-to-air missiles have apparently fallen into the hands of radical Islamists throughout the region. For a Secretary of State (and a Presidential administration) this is foreign policy leadership at its worst.

The first rule of wing-walking (and regime change) is never let go of what you have until you have a firm grasp on where you are going.(1 image)

Jim Webb, after writing about men sucking boy's dicks then proceeded to suck the dick of the entire Democratic party. He has zero credibility. He sold his soul to the devil, and it's too late to try and buy it back.

He might be in it just to siphon off Blue Dog and Yellow Dog Dems to keep them from voting for a GOP nominee in a few states like West Virginia or even Kentucky.

In return, he might score a job as SecDef under Hitlery. Or some cushy sinecure on Wall Street.

I don't think Webb is finally going to go after Her Thighness. He had plenty of chances to do so when he was an official candidate and he dropped out ASAP after one debate.

So I tend to think he's been bought and may be used to draw off some votes in a few states as a fake candidate.

It wouldn't be that farfetched for some Yellow Dog Dems in WV to vote for a Webb and that the Dems would fund that, knowing that it keeps WV out of the GOP column and gives Hitlery the win.

This is slightly off topic, and the question may be heretical on this site, but here goes:

Can you name one - ONE - policy that might have a different outcome in the years 2017-2021 if a Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio were elected vs. a Hilliary Xlinton?

Replacing one member of the Court by the next president could have drastic results over the years.

We always talk about the Court but the next prez will have a good shot at 3 appointees.

While a GOP prez may have dicey appointees, a Dem prez will appoint Lefty radicals and there will no longer be any reason to vote at all. The Nine Dictators will decide everything of consequence. We see far too much of this already.

And then gop appointees (Roberts, Kennedy) upheld Zero-Care. Twice. Zero- Care - something that will literally bankrupt this nation.

Anyway, I knew the downsides of my argument but still, there it is. A Dem will never appoint any judge you like and will their Court picks will always attack established constitutional rights while inventing new ones out of thin air.

Republicans won in 2001, 2004, 2010, 2014. The last two were mid-terms - dems lost in historic proportions.

For all intents and purposes, Pelosi is running the House, and Reid the Senate. And Zero is still dictator.

If that's what you call winning, then my "choice" is to see it for what it is, and not kid myself that my vote means a hill of beans.

Chances are, you'll still vote GOP when the time comes (assuming you live in a state where it's close enough to matter). The GOP doesn't have to get all its cynical sometimes-voters to turn out, just enough of them to win. After that, they could care less until its time for another vote-seeking operation a few years later.

If he declared an outsider presidential bid, the former Democratic candidate could have an outsize effect on the race.