My take on Hillary Clinton's motives in breaking with Obama on foreign policy

[karynnj]

Since she left office, I had assumed that Hillary would stay quiet or supportive on foreign policy. The reason was that I thought she had the best of all worlds doing that - in 2016, any good could have been defined as starting under her (even if only in very conceptual stage) and suggesting that any negative result was due to later decisions not of her making. I thought that for her, the best thing was to have Obama's foreign policy seen as good --- which transfers to her getting credit.

Given her comments - all unhelpful - on Syria, Iraq, Israel, and Iran -- in all cases, taking positions that are closer to McCain than Obama, I can only think two things:

1) She sees the country ultimately disagreeing with Obama's foreign policy - thus she sees the need to change perception of Obama and her having similar positions.

2) She genuinely could be far more hawkish than Obama.

What I wonder is whether in now appearing to argue that she is far from where Obama is, she is destroying the value of having been Secretary of State - given that the interview suggests she had little influence over his foreign policy. Not to mention, to some democrats, it may look very ungrateful.

I also wonder, if like in 2008, she thinks that she has only a general election to win. It may be true that these positions might leave a non-Rand Paul nominee very little to define as different from his/her position - other than she has more contacts. However, it is hard to see someone arguing for a tougher position on Iran, more intervention in Syria, staying in Iraq, and in general a more hawkish vision being good in the primary --- assuming SOME candidate (s) develop on the left. (I intentionally left out Israel as that could actually be politically smart.)

[JI7]

1. i think she really is more hawkish

even more than bill clinton .

the military higher ups really like her also.

on edit i also think the primary is hers . i don't see anyone challenging her and certainly not on the level of Obama.

i also think the reason she lost in 2008 were not because of her foreign policy views but more about campaign mismanagement.

and Obama just being a very very good candidate .

[jaysunb]

2. +1

and she voted for the invasion of Iraq.

[rufus dog]

63. I think that was huge

There was no way in hell I was going to vote for anyone who voted for IRW. No excuse, not one fucking plausible excuse. The person was either for it or a fucking coward. Now Obama might have caught a huge break by not being around, luck of the draw if you will.

[karynnj]

5. I think so too - and that seemed to be the case in Afghanistan

where insider reports were that she wanted an even larger surge.

In terms of what this means about her as a person, this is the alternative that makes her look more principled. In this case, she is simply defining the kind of foreign policy President she would be. If she runs, this is something that she - very honestly - should do.

This might, however, put her far from where the majority of Democrats are. Not to mention, I think the country is very war weary - as Obama said recently. (I also think it would have been an incredibly bad idea to give potent weapons to the Syrian rebels. I would actually have less problem with the US bombing, than with giving anti aircraft weapons to the rebels as McCain wanted. Think of Obama in Putin's place had they shot down an airplane.)

The scary thing is that I think most people are more likely to vote on domestic issues - not foreign policy. Yet a President has more latitude to take military action than to make peace. An attack can initially be done either covertly (and illegally) or unilaterally -- any treaty needs 67 votes.

[davidpdx]

12. +1

I agree, she's hawkish which worries me. Better get ready for those 3 am commercials again.

[joshcryer]

18. I think she truly believes in American Exceptionalism.

And I'm not comforted by that.

[LiberalArkie]

33. She is more big business and big bank, at least she and Bill were in Arkansas

[Thinkingabout]

34. Except her voting record is not on corporations first, more for the consumer.

[blkmusclmachine]

3. Hillary is a war hawk. And that's something that won't ever change.

[Ikonoklast]

26. Same as every other politician with no skin in the game.

Easy to have strangers die for your political goals.

[on point]

4. Either 1 or 2 she's wrong for the country. My guess more sell out less principle

[TwilightGardener]

6. It's one and two. And here's three: she's totally shallow on foreign policy, she spent

her four years basically glomming on to whatever ideas others in the administration and foreign policy establishment had at the time that seemed politically safe and sufficiently hawkish to fend off the almost-certain neocon foreign policy her GOP opponent would promote. She will be an absolute slave to the conventional foreign policy wisdom of the day, with a dash of troop deployments so she looks strong. Edit to add: I don't think the public will ultimately disapprove of Obama's foreign policy. I don't think there's too many folks (in contrast to the pundits and "experts&quot lamenting how little we did in Syria, for example.

[Euphoria]

30. Bingo! nt

[msongs]

7. she will out-republican obama lol nt

[pleinair]

28. she was a "Goldwater Girl" back in the day

If I remember correctly

[Thinkingabout]

36. She was too young to vote for Goldwater. She campaigned for McCarthy in 1968,

The year when first was eligible to vote.

[ieoeja]

51. She campaigned for Rockefeller in 1968. She worked at the Republican National Convention that year.

She left the party because of the way Nixon supporters treated Rockefeller supporters during that convention.

In the year of the Tet Offensive, the year that MLK and RFK get killed, she quits the Republican Party because ... people were rude to her.

Think about that.

[Thinkingabout]

52. She did in fact change in 1968 from GOP to liberal democrat.

http://www.salon.com/2008/04/08/


http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/hillary-worked-for-goldwater/

[Jim Lane]

53. She volunteered for Goldwater although she was too young to vote.

She also described herself as a "Goldwater girl" according to this piece by FactCheck, which cites to page 21 of her book Living History. I have not bought and will not buy her book so I leave it to other DUers to fact-check FactCheck.

[Thinkingabout]

55. She was raised in a GOP home but has campaigned for Democrats since voting age.

WTH, I read post here she would s corporate but her voting record does not reflect her siding with corporations. Read where she stands on the issues.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

[JayhawkSD]

8. She approached 2008 as if she "deserved" the nomination

And she is doing it again. She assumes no one will dare to seriously oppose her in the primary.

[davidpdx]

13. Both her and her supporters

I've seen people state that Clinton already has the nomination. Also notice when anyone talks about other candidates the Hillary crowd stomps in and beats them down.

[JayhawkSD]

41. Good point. n/t

[LordGlenconner]

57. Where is this Hillary crowd you speak of?

There are at least a dozen threads on the first page of GD right now about Hillary or related to her and not a one of them is anything that could be construed as "positive" toward her running for president.

I don't care if she runs or not (I hope we have a good field to pick from beyond HRC), but I keep hearing there is this huge pro Hillary sentiment on DU and I don't see it. Anywhere.

[davidpdx]

59. I guess you should take a look at more than the few threads you have admitted to checking

[LordGlenconner]

60. I have

I read DU daily. It's an excellent time killer at work.

My point is that the narrative that there is some huge groundswell of support for HRC on DU is not exactly accurate. She's been criticized quite a bit here and in most cases justifiably so.

[davidpdx]

61. I never said that she hasn't been criticized

There is a fairly big contingent of Clinton supporters on DU. If you want to argue over numbers, feel free to do it with yourself.

[LordGlenconner]

65. If you say so

I just don't see it. The fact is, it's pretty hard to find an OP in support of Hillary on GD lately.

But thanks for responding to my post.

[CJCRANE]

9. She was SOS so she will run on foreign policy.

Foreign policy is now a big issue, and the neocons are back with a vengeance.

However, her handling of things in State in Obama's first term had a big influence on what's happening now.

But instead of playing up her own successes, she is playing up Obama's failures.

I'm not sure that's a winning strategy as she also had a hand in them.

[CBGLuthier]

10. She has to prove she has bigger balls than any man and by god, given the chance, she will do it.

Too bad it will cost a few million lives but go team america.

[Skidmore]

11. Frankly, I think there is the idea out there that

she's walking into the nomination without any questions. I don't like that. It is sucking the air out of the primaries before the nomination process even begins. And with that goes any chance of having a substantive presentation of the platform and policies supported by the base. It is affecting this year's midterm too because, here in Iowa, we are seeing a constant parade of Repbublican figure through the state and no presence of representation from the national Democratic Party. What is resulting is the Republican/Teabagger factions are loud and visible and there is an appearance that the Dems aren't really serious.

I have said it before many times--I will not caucus for her.

[CJCRANE]

14. We have also seen some big foreign policy blunders or reversals

in Obama's second term which ironically have prepared the ground for Hillary's more hawkish and interventionist stance*.

It makes me wonder who set the dominoes in motion during his first term.

*I know DUers hate Ron/Rand Paul but there is no antiwar equivalent on the Democratic side, which I think is a weakness.

[Skidmore]

15. Rand Paul is not an option for me to even consider.

I think he is despicable, and for all of his posturing, I do not think he has anything to offer women or minorities. I don't consider him to be anything more than an opportunist. However, I do agree that Dems need to be stepping up with a different message than more war. We also need to be embracing full throated populism. Personally, I believe that Bush and Cheney seeded the government very deeply with neocons sympathizers. I do think they still pull strings. They are deeply entrenched.

[CJCRANE]

16. I agree on all points.

Even Dennis Kucinich isn't in the spotlight anymore.

At least he was a left-wing counterbalance to Ron Paul.

[joshcryer]

17. The MSM wants a horse race.

And the only thing you can criticize Obama on is foreign policy mishaps (which aren't really, but that's how the media will portray them). She can come out and say, "You know, we had a rough go of it, we tried the reset button, but it didn't work. I personally would've done things differently."

Basically because her career as SoS was ultimately lackluster, she'll blame Obama for holding her back, and Obama can't disagree, because she did try to do things, like arming the Syrian rebels, which Obama balked at (Obama made the correct decision, I think, but there was more that could be done, such as arming Assad's regime with riot control stuff and allying with Iran; like how the Saudi's shut down the Bahrain protests).

So Clinton is clearly predicting an MSM horse race on foreign policy. Domestic policy can be easily managed. Come out for marijuana, there, you just won the youth vote. The MSM isn't going to be able to create a horse race any other way.

[CJCRANE]

19. Is America ready for more interventionism?

I think Hillary and the neocons are trying to do a "reset" of their own.

Obama's first term was all about winding down wars and conflict.

It seems like they set things in motion so that his second term would be about restarting wars and conflicts.

They're gambling on Americans being dumb enough to buy the neocon propaganda all over again as it's been more than a decade since Bushco used the same techniques.

(And this is where the Democrats have a weak spot because they don't have a vocal anti-war or anti-establishment candidate).

[joshcryer]

24. Things are stable domestically.

That wasn't the case in 2008 or even arguably in 2012. They're not fantastic domestically, mind you, but they're stable. So what else big policy issues can the MSM make into some sort of agenda setting?

All Clinton has to do is pick a moderately liberal candidate like Julien Castro and then liberals will swallow the pill.

Obama hasn't wound anything down, really, he increased the drone wars exponentially, but they do sell well to the American public, admittedly. The military budget is only reduced due to the sequester and due to leaving Iraq and Afghanistan, otherwise it's larger than the next 13 countries' budgets combined.

The problem with anti-war democrats is that pretty much every damn district has a military base or something related to military in it. Or at least districts that matter. MIC is everywhere.

[CJCRANE]

31. But the impression was

that he was taking on core Al Qaeda (something Bush didn't do effectively) and was having some success.

He took out its chief propagandist and its leader.

But now we find out that all this time a whole new terrorist army was incubating in Syria, one bigger and worse than Al Qaeda!

We're back to square one with an enemy that is a neocon's wet dream.

[TheKentuckian]

35. Who cares if Clinton picks some "moderate liberal"? The person would be a powerless token

I don't care if reanimated Martin Luther King is her running mate, the car is where the action is not the hood ornament
I won't be swallowing shit.

[joshcryer]

37. People who set their sights to 2024?

People who want progress and don't expect everything on a platter at once? ie, most pragmatists and rational people?

If you don't think the SCOTUS matters, oh well, I can't tell you to vote.

[TheKentuckian]

38. The vice Presidency is no springboard to the big chair save via death, 2024 is not even

a consideration.

As for the Supreme Court, I don't trust Clinton to appoint judges anymore than I do to set foreign policy or regulating corporations and banks. You see who she surrounds herself with and the folks she hires, I wouldn't trust her to handle HR for a corner store.

She will appoint corporate hacks that are likely to support abortion for those who can afford one and beyond that I expect hackery and corporate taint licking.

Care about the court for real as opposed as a way to corral liberals without giving shit? Stop trying to foist this corporate conservative warmonger on our nation otherwise it is just joining the TeaPubliKlans in their warfare on the American people on behalf of fucking villains.

[joshcryer]

43. That view is not in line with reasonable reality.

Clinton is a strong advocate for womens rights.

[TheKentuckian]

47. Ok, fine what about the other 99.90% of issues the court reviews?

And what sets her apart from the average mainstream Democrat on women's rights?

What makes her a legendary level Moses type figure even on her strongest issue? How is her record better than Barbara Boxer's. That's probably not even fair. Shit, what makes her better than Obama or Kerry even in this area? Hell, what issues in this area has she taken the lead on? What bills did she get through the Senate when she was there?

Clinton is not some special patron saint of women's issues, in fact she sucks for women just like she sucks for everyone else for the same reason. Single mothers can't feed their children birth control or house them at the clinic. Women need living wages, opportunities, regulation of corporations, quality public education, clean water, decent air, just taxes, for a military budget that doesn't eat up resources for everything else, a secure retirement, and a government that responds to them instead of treating them as the enemy.

One trick pony that isn't particularly amazing at her trick.

[Romulox]

20. It's because she's so weak on domestic policy/economics. She *needs* the election to be about

foreign policy.

[HereSince1628]

21. IMO she is a politician and will do/say what is necessary, remember "Landing under fire?"

All that was untrue, and had the appearance of overcompensation for a perceived weak spot in her credentials...

IMO, she has a tendency toward somewhat clumsy obvious opportunism. Most politicians do, but most politicians haven't been pegged with it as a character trait and favorite point of criticism. In fairness to the media, they shoot at easy targets and her obvious calculating with her image draws fire.

With respect to where she might be on policy, I remember that international military intervention was OK for DLCers. Indeed, the central position of 'global trade' in DLC economic and foreign policy forces the US into a global military presence to protect its interests. Intervention follows more or less de rigeur.

[mmonk]

22. She wants a Republican Senate as well as House,

so she doesn't have to be held accountable for being further to the right on economic and foreign policy issues?

[DURHAM D]

23. I wonder how many people commenting on her "breaking from Obama

on foreign policy" actually read the transcript of the interview and not just the comments and spin.

Also, any Democrat running for President in 2016 will need to find a way to distance themselves from the current President because his numbers are bad and will most likely remain bad.

[karynnj]

44. True, but there are ways to do that that do not reduce to

Obama is at fault for the growth of ISIS - which was where she is.

However, that can and will be addressed on many levels:

- as policy - here, on Obama's side, you have many examples of the aid given having ended up, through either incompetence or betrayal, with ISIS. Imagine we would have gone in to the level McCain wanted (he has been clearer than HRC) I am horrified to think how I would feel if it were Obama (and likely Kerry) in a position like Putin's where the arms they gave were used to down a plane of innocent passengers. Not to mention, the brilliant 1980 strategy of arming the enemies of our enemies bore very bitter fruits.

To agree with HRC's position, You would have to argue that had we done more, faster, that it would have led to the fall of Assad and the formation of a reasonable government. It assumes, that Assad was weaken then than now OR that the rebels, with our help, would have have been significantly stronger than the combined forces against Assad now. In fact, that was BEFORE the horrendous levels of atrocities that occurred in the last 3 years. A ssad was more popular and stronger then than now.

- policy for domestic politics Ignoring my abhorrence at the idea that we would do things differently because of how it plays politically, it is reality. If so, I am surprised she did this now. The wheel is still in spin and this COULD be the darkest moment. If the Obama team is able to thread some of these very tricky needles and get things moving in a better direction, she may regret having attacked him on Iran, Israel, Iraq and Syria. It is hard to then turn around and try to claim any credit based on what happened while you were Secretary of State.

Polling does NOT show the US favors a position of staying in Iraq ( http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm - in fact, IF later polling increases - especially for Democrats- the blame assessed to Obama vs Bush, would it be fair to blame HRC for splintering the Democrats?), Syria (where even after chemical weapons were used, around 10% favored US involvement.), and Iran, where Obama's position has majority support in spite of intense lobbying otherwise ( http://pollingreport.com/iran.htm )


Here, at the brink of the 2014 elections, she gave these comments that could splinter the Democratic party on foreign policy going into the election. On each of these 4 issues, she has aided the McCain/Graham position over Obama's. Is this what we need with the Senate at stake? ( Note that on Israel, she is really playing politics - almost equating being against Netanyahu's position as antisemitism. ) If these were her deeply held beliefs, why not at least wait until after the election to state them? I assume that if the Democrats do worse than expected in 2014, she feels the blame will fall just on Obama.

- How this could play in defining Hillary Clinton as a person. For a person known as well as she has been since 1992, it is surprising that some actions by Hillary in 2006 - 2008 DID change how she was perceived. From the 1990s, I know I always saw her as more principled and a better person than Bill Clinton. I was surprised and disheartened by opportunist things she did - which I think hurt her more than helped her. I SAW some early Clinton supporters, pause when she stabbed Kerry, who really was not a threat to her, in the back the way she did.

For many people, for whom choosing the President, might be more personality than issues - especially complex ones with no obvious answers, I wonder whether this will seem an unsavory thing to do with a President who GAVE her the strategic Secretary of State position and has since she left, treated her with honor and respect. It may show that while selecting her might have kept the Clintons in some control while she was President, the down side is that she is willing to attack him when he is down - even if it is 3 months before a critical election! To me, it makes it clearer that, like Bill Clinton, all she thinks about is herself. The F.Scott Fitzgerald Great Gatsby descriptor of "careless people" may fit both.

[Ikonoklast]

25. $$$Campaign Donations From Certain Sources$$$

Triangulating all the third way.


Just Say No.

[Unvanguard]

27. I don't think it will matter all that much in a primary, for two reasons

First, Clinton has an overwhelming political advantage as it is, and no competitors who are especially strong. (Biden? O'Malley? Really?)

Second, the Iraq War was special in 2008 because it was a major, dominant political issue; both most of the public and an overwhelming majority of Democrats had decided it was a mistake, and it was one of the most salient policy debates of the Bush Administration. In general, voters do not pay that much attention to foreign policy, and it would be a mistake to think that even Democratic primary voters have strong dovish feelings on the list of foreign policy issues you mention.

I don't know what Clinton's actual views are. It's possible--perhaps likely--that she is genuinely more hawkish than Obama. But it could also be (instead or in addition to her being more hawkish) that she sees a general perception that Obama's foreign policy hasn't been especially successful, and so she wants to rhetorically distance herself from it to blunt attacks on it in the general election.

[karynnj]

45. If so, why no wait until after November 2014?

I hope that Democratic candidates are not damaged by being asked to comment on whether they agree with Clinton -- forcing them to chose between the two. (Not to mention, while Obama is NOT seen as doing well on foreign policy now because the world is a mess -- his positions on Iran, Iraq, Syria ALL poll better than her alternatives.)

[Unvanguard]

67. I don't think it will have much impact on the midterms.

Democrats at risk are likely to want to distance themselves from Obama anyway. Clinton is saying it now because her presidential campaign is (functionally) already well underway and foreign policy is in the news a lot at the moment.

[randr]

29. Once the dust settles in Iraq--as if--

the Republicans will be on a high horse to prove Obama caused the rise of ISIS by ignoring Syria. Hillary is well aware of this and she is positioning herself accordingly. She has no moral compass, no allegiance to Democratic values, and will do what ever it takes to become President.

[BeyondGeography]

32. Whatever the case, and I think you summed it up well

it's too early for this nonsense. We're over two years out from the election and she's playing candidate already. I could understand it tactically if there were an obvious challenger from the right who was staking out ground she'd like to claim for herself, but that isn't happening.

I know it's hard for a Clinton to shut up and chill, let things play out, but that would be my humble recommendation. Who knows, the world might just calm down in time for her hawkishness to seem like a bad idea. That would mean the other guy was right, though, so perhaps I am asking too much.

[Thinkingabout]

39. As SOS it was her responsibility to do Obama's agenda on foreign policy.

As president she would be running het own policy.

[sabrina 1]

40. It's both #1 AND #2 ...

Since she so miscalculated back in 2004 when she cast her vote for Bush and WE assumed it was ONLY because she thought the political climate of fear meant she needed some 'war' creds AND since we now know that was only part of it, she IS fully on board with the neocons, I vote for both #1 and #2.

She will never have my support or anyone I know who is an actual Democrat. IF we wanted those policies we could vote for McCain and get the same thing.

[Boom Sound 416]

42. How about the President has told her

He's not going to support her. Period.

[karynnj]

46. The President has, if anything, favored her over Joe Biden and everyone else

He did not have to do the photo op where he had the joint interview when she was leaving - where they acted as equals.

[JaydenD]

64. I would really like to hear Michelle's thoughts on Hillary

I think we can fill in some blanks on our own, and they would be deserving of blanks as Michelle has a different kind of perspective on things and she would know a lot more about situations than we would.

[PAProgressive28]

48. She's more hawkish and

she is just not good at this. Those of us looking for an alternative to Hillary do so in large part because she represents the old 90's-early 00's DNC wing of the party. She's still stuck there. I don't get the impression that she has any clue the base is becoming more progressive and is looking to vote for progressives. She is doing a lot of damage to herself and I fear what might happen if she gets the nomination and then says something that gives Ted Cruz the White House.

[magical thyme]

49. she wanted to "obliterate Iran"

she is a hawk to the bone.

[ieoeja]

50. "Since she left office"? Obama had to walk back her statements on more than one occasion.

She is the only Secretary of State I have ever heard of who had to be called on the carpet repeatedly by the presiding President. A fact those extoling her time at State will have to attempt explaining away during the primary.

[MBS]

56. +1 n/t

[JaydenD]

62. The Honduras coup - the world, including Obama, denounced it

but hillary and lanny davis made it happen, for $$$ and now the Hondurans are in even worse state than they were before.

And people want this thing to be president?

[MBS]

54. I agree, and would add one more thing

I agree with everything you wrote, but would add one more thing:
the timing of these public remarks is for me a character issue, since it indicates:
-lack of diplomacy (even as ex-SoS!), discretion and loyalty, to Obama personally, and as a fellow Democrat . The Clintons themselves reportedly put so much value in loyalty to them: unimpressive, at best, to see that their concept of loyalty doesn't seem to go both ways.
-lack of empathy: Given all that's going on , at home and abroad right now, and how much undeserved flack that O is getting right now from all the Monday-morning quarterbacks (especially the Republican contingent), and drawing on her own experience as SoS and as First Lady, I would have thought that she could have summoned enough empathy to give a more generous account. But she didn't
-overall lack of classiness.

As a contrast, I simply can't imagine Sec. Kerry pulling a stunt like this, even if he were to still entertain ambitions for higher office (which he doesn't).

If she is the nominee, I will vote for her, since any Republican alternative is sure to be much worse. (And, no, I will not waste my vote on a third-party candidate). But I am not feeling good about the situation, for all the reasons you articulated.

But much can happen between now and 2016. There is so much volatility everywhere. I truly believe that there are going to be a lot of upsets in both 2014 and 2016. Hopefully, the Dems can keep their message loud and clear in both elections - and hopefully, we will prevail.Because, to state the obvious, the current Republican party is destroying our democracy.

[Faux pas]

58. She's just showing her

true ass like colors. barf-o-rama

[Dems to Win]

66. Hillary believes she doesn't have a 'likability problem' any more?

Aside from the policy implications of her comments (which I don't support), this makes her come across as a not-very-nice person.

I cringed at the Obama-Clinton lovefest interview as she left the SOS position. Why was the President fawning over her like she's a movie star? It felt icky to me.

Nevertheless, Obama did it with good intentions toward her, and it was a hell of a gift from him. For Hillary to pay him back this way is a bit churlish.

I've got my eyes peeled toward left field, hoping a new leader steps forward to challenge Clinton in 2016, and she plays the same role she did in 2008: A fresh face gains immense credibility by slaying the 800 pound gorilla in Iowa.

[karynnj]

68. This interview does move her "likability" in the wrong direction

Maybe - in private - Obama may be thinking of his answer that Hillary was "likable enough".