So it appears Hillary is going to run to the right of Obama in 2016

[Cali_Democrat]

It's obvious that Hillary thinks she has the Democratic nomination all wrapped up. Her recent comments about wanting to get involved in the Syrian civil war make that clear:

Hillary Clinton: 'Failure' to Help Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS

<...>

Well, his former secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, isn’t buying it. In an interview with me earlier this week, she used her sharpest language yet to describe the "failure" that resulted from the decision to keep the U.S. on the sidelines during the first phase of the Syrian uprising.

“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/

She's basically saying Obama is weak when it comes to foreign policy and if we elect her, she will be quicker to use military force and bomb the shit out of people.

Hillary ran to the right of Obama in 2008 and she even made comments about obliterating Iran:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/22/us-usa-politics-iran-idUSN2224332720080422

(Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.

On the day of a crucial vote in her nomination battle against fellow Democrat Barack Obama, the New York senator said she wanted to make clear to Tehran what she was prepared to do as president in hopes that this warning would deter any Iranian nuclear attack against the Jewish state.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.

Hillary is essentially channeling John McCain when it comes to foreign policy.

[kelliekat44]

1. That is a losing strategy IMHO. Obama made mostly correct decisions. He got no help from the

public or the Congress. Had he been a GOP he would be being hailed as a hero and best President ever. Had he been a white Dem he would have only been complained about but supported by the Congress. She is starting out making the base very angry and satisfying only Likud supporters and AIPAC lobbyist without offering any signal of sympathy or understanding of the other side. I don't want our children fighting anywhere in the ME and I don't like the absence of war that allows the genocide of any peoples.

[Skidmore]

6. This.

[rufus dog]

28. Agree

The only way for her to lose is to piss off the left. Many are looking for a reason not to vote for her so she needs to be careful.

IMO, of course that opinion is from a person who was no way supporting any candidate who supported the IWR.

[billhicks76]

58. Lost My Vote

She should run in the Republican primary.

[PassingFair]

115. Except the Republicans hate her more than the Progressives do.

She is the only candidate that we could run who would bridge the
gap between the Corporate Repukes and the Teabaggers.

Not only would she divide us Dems...she would unite the Pukes!

Worst candidate I can think of!

[billhicks76]

122. Exactly

She would run Republican but her job is to dilute progressive anger in behalf of the .01%. Republicans hate her because they are taught to to preserve the fallacy that she is liberal. They did this with Obama to. He gave up so much to republicans but it was never enough because they have taught their followers to hate him and he gives in by offering more which keeps pushing the center further to the Right even though the demographics are becoming more liberal.

[H2O Man]

35. Well said.

[mckara]

37. Maybe She Doesn't Really Want the Nomination?

The Clintons have been fickle friends of liberal democracy.

[JackRiddler]

77. If so, there's an easy way for her to get what she wants.

[Robbins]

45. I am with you

I am opposed to any Us Involvement In middle east.Israel targeting children In Gaza makes me want to wash my hands of entire middle east.

She Is Mccain lite now and will she support repealing Obamacare If she got elected with republican congress.Would she support cutting
things like Social security,Medicare,medicaid,and food stamps to pay for wars.

[blm]

63. better said than most high paid 'analysts' Ms kk.

.

[roguevalley]

90. truman said if people want a pug they will vote for a real one. she makes me almost vomit

[Faux pas]

2. Way to

turn off Progressives hrc.

[PAProgressive28]

42. Not just progressives

My parents are both sick of hawks controlling our government. They're lifelong D's but not as liberal as I am. Somewhere between a progressive and the DNC. This stuff ticks them off too.

[avaistheone1]

100. k&r

Good to know.

[ZombieHorde]

3. Fuck. nt

[Scootaloo]

4. So is it still "her turn"?

[stillwaiting]

19. No.

[Orsino]

22. Unfortunately, yes.

Clinton is inevitable. I wish there were ample reason for her to become a better candidate, but there is none that will resonate with her.

I'm afraid that only a large-scale environmental disaster or an American Spring could persuade her to put on some progressive boots. There is simply far too much money invested in her being exactly what she is for her to change.

[Scootaloo]

23. She was the anointed one in 2006, as well

And she hasn't improved over the last eight years. we saw how that turned out. So there's still plenty of time for a real candidate to emerge.

The only question is... are there any actual leftists or even liberals in the party anymore?

[Orsino]

25. There will be no such challenger as Obama this cycle.

I think that's unfortunate.

[Scootaloo]

26. We don't know yet

She's not going to coast by without a primary. That just never happens. And frankly... Americans don't like Clinton. Even her supporters seem to revolve around the idea of "well, I guess there's no one else, so, uh, go Clinton!"

Unfortunately, I don't think there's likely to be a solid left-wing challenger. But you know, i might be able to live with a president Biden, I guess.

[merrily]

56. Hillary was the challenger in 2008. She just didn't know it.

[merrily]

55. No, she wasn't. She was ahead in the polls, but she was not the

anointed one. That should be obvious from the outcome of the election, among other things. Obama was pronounced Presidential from 2004 on. Just think of the speech Reid made to party leaders, the speech that got so much negative publicity for its "racially tinged" remarks.

[H2O Man]

38. the sky is falling!!!!!

cluck-cluck-cluck

[littlemissmartypants]

97. LOL. You shouldn't waste you talent at the circus. eom

[TheKentuckian]

5. POP goes the willful ignorance bubble folks have been building.

Nothing she said is inconsistent with what we already knew.

Now that your ox has been gored are folks going to wake up and deal with reality or stubbornly go back to trying to fake a dream world until you make it?

[polichick]

7. What a big surprise!

[watrwefitinfor]

8. Would someone help me understand just what she expects to gain

by splitting the Democratic Party so soon before these critical 2014 congressional elections?

Wat

[TwilightGardener]

12. You think Hillary gives a shit about the Democratic Party?

[watrwefitinfor]

14. Well, no. I don't.

Sort of a rhetorical question.

Wat

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

30. Hillary only gives a shit about Hillary. Amazingly, after all the trust Obama placed in her, she shows zero loyalty.

[merrily]

57. I don't know that Obama totally trusted her. He was not born yesterday.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

74. Fair point.

[merrily]

39. If she did, one would think she'd, at a minimum, wait until mid-November.

[TwilightGardener]

70. I think she's looking for the loss of the Senate so that she can

"lead the party back out of the wilderness" or some such bullshit, and reconsolidate the power that the Clintons had back in the 90's. Power that they lost to Obama. Nothing she does is for anyone else--nothing.

[merrily]

75. A President with neither the House nor the Senate has

the perfect excuse for anything and everything he or she does by way of "compromise" or does not get done at all.

[Robbins]

47. I agree

The view of clintons are the party can go to hell as long as she could take the white House.

[tridim]

16. PUMA...

Same shit happened 6 years ago.

[karynnj]

20. That to me is the biggest question

If she thought the best way to run was to publicly disagree with Obama on 4 critical foreign policy issues, WAIT TILL NOVEMBER!! In fact, it would be safer as more would be known.

In addition to the election, could this hurt Obama internationally - especially on Iran? Would she sacrifice a gain in stability to thwart a potential major Obama success that would anger Netanyahu?

[MBS]

112. Her remarks don't help Obama, Dems or the country

And, ultimately, because of what they indicate in terms of lack of loyalty and integrity, I don't think that they'll ultimately help her.
I actually don't think it was a good political move on her part.

[morningfog]

36. She never stopped running for Prez. She is presuming a Dem primary victory and already

reaching out to the right.

[JaydenD]

43. She is making herself more palatable to the ring wingers

She said McCain would be a better president than Obama, and they do seem to be best buds. Plus the Clintons are in the family way with Poppy Bush - they might help her get some of the rwingers vote as well. This thing I hear about the right hating Hillary more than they hate Obama is nonsense, it's a ruse. Hillary gets along just fine with them but theater of this sort is expected.

[Robbins]

50. She is showing no loyalty

Obama selected her as secretary of state.And how does she repay him by trashing him.

Your right to point out the clintons close relationship with poppy bush and what she said about Mccain.

[MBS]

110. that's the most disturbing thing about her remarks to me

By all accounts, both Clintons put great value in loyalty. . to them. Apparently, their concept of loyalty only goes one way.
Not classy, IMHO.
I happen to disagree with the substance of her remarks, too: but the style of her remarks -- the lack of loyalty, diplomacy, and discretion -- to a sitting president under whom she served -- is even worse.

[Cha]

72. I've been wondering "What is she thinking!?"

[randome]

9. She doesn't need to do this, though.

She's making the same mistakes as Al Gore -trying to distance herself from the current President. That being said, she'll easily beat the GOP's handful of clowns. That's why I don't understand why she wants to 'distinguish' herself from Obama.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[Drunken Irishman]

11. The scarier answer here is that she's not distancing herself...

She's merely articulating what she really believes.

[randome]

82. Double-ugh.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[whatchamacallit]

10. GOTV! lol

Relying on this: (D)
no longer cuts it.

[leftstreet]

13. How is this shit different from a GOPer candidate's stance?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

40. The question answers itself. Hillary needs to do us all a favor and leave the stage - I for one have had enough of that phony.

[tridim]

15. Obama is the most popular national politician in the country, Hillary.

It's not good that I SMH every time Hillary says something.

[merrily]

29. Given how unpopular Congress is, that is not saying much.

But, you know the saying. Everyone hates Congress, but loves his rep.

That may be a reason why Presidents tend to run ahead of Congress in polls. Only those in Rep's district vote for any given Rep; and only those in a Senator's state vote for any given Senator. However, everyone votes for President.

I think Obama currently has approval ratings of about 40%. That is not as low as Dummya in his final months, but it ain't great.

Then again, I don't fully trust polls.

[tridim]

34. 40% is still the highest approval of any national politician.

Hillary is making a fatal mistake and she doesn't even understand why.

[merrily]

41. My prior reply replied to that very point. Don't need to go in circles.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

46. Hillary is tone deaf to the needs of common folks who are sposed to make up her core constituency. Amazing!

[deafskeptic]

17. I take it she missed the memo about people becoming more liberal and demographic trends. n/t

[merrily]

32. "The left has nowhere else to go."

She can count on most leftist voters voting for her, even if only on the "lesser of two evils" rationale.

It's indies and rightists that she must try to win. Besides, I think she may actually believe this stuff.

[merrily]

48. Deleted. Wrong spot.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

66. WRONG!! She needs black Americans to win. No Democrat can win without the black vote.

Period. Contrary to the flat-out lie you posted upthread, Hillary Clinton was far ahead of Barack Obama initially in 2007. Most people--including blacks--did not know who Obama was. And when we did know, most of us didn't think he could win. It was only AFTER he won Iowa that we began to believe that he had a chance. When Hillary and her husband became threatened by "the black guy" who had the nerve to compete against them, they started with this racially-tinged rhetoric and coded language. That turned a lot of black people off and divided the party. Only then did blacks start to abandon the Clintons in droves.

And she's starting to do it again. She is alienating black voters with this divisive talk again--the most loyal Democratic Party voters. She needs black and Hispanic voters to win. She shouldn't take the black vote for granted. We WILL stay home.

The Clintons and John McCain have been close friends for many years.

Don't think they share the same views on foreign policy? Think again!

[merrily]

76. I posted no lie on this thread. To the contrary, I posted she was ahead in the polls.

That is all I have to say to someone who calls me a liar.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

78. In post #55, you write...

She was ahead in the polls, but she was not the anointed one.

What do you mean by this? She was ahead in the polls and was adored by most Democrats, including black voters. The term "anointed one" is a derisive term straight out of the right wing nut playbook used against Obama during that time. And yes, she was well ahead of Obama initially, and especially among blacks, many who, again, didn't know Obama!

That should be obvious from the outcome of the election, among other things.

You make no sense. The outcome of the election is that Barack Obama *earned* more votes than Hillary Clinton. He *received* more votes than she did. That's just a fact. Her trying to manipulate the rules after they had been long established in MI and FL doesn't change the facts. I don't know what "among other things" means. From the tone of your posts, I may be able to take some wild guesses.

Obama was pronounced Presidential from 2004 on.

What are you talking about? He made an outstanding speech at the 2004 DNC convention. It was great but he was no match for Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Machine. She was the presumed frontrunner since 2004 and before that. The media and many Democrats had been whispering about Hillary running for president for many years. Hillary Clinton was always the frontrunner, especially when she ran for the senate and won! She was initially way ahead of her Democratic rivals in 2007, including then- *unknown* Barack Obama. She lost in 2008 due to her own campaign mistakes and because she simply did not receive enough votes. Period. You have no clue what you're talking about.

Just think of the speech Reid made to party leaders, the speech that got so much negative publicity for its "racially tinged" remarks.

You've lost it here, my friend. You're just really talking out your ass.

[merrily]

79. Please see the third sentence of Reply 76 and please don't call me "friend."

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

92. You're still wrong. O.K., you're not a friend. You're definitely not a friend if you're antagonizing

the most loyal base of the Democratic Party.

[merrily]

103. Whatever you need to tell yourself, dude.

I don't appreciate being called a friend, even sarcastically, by someone who calls me a liar and is otherwise rude to me.

And you claim I am the antagonistic one? Yeah, right. I keep trying to avoid a fight with you and you keep piling on anyway.

[MattP]

18. There isn't much to gain for her going right

She's fishing on the wrong side for votes Obama is down in support because he has lost a lot of liberals with trade policy,NSA,and drone strikes she is stupid by going hard right.

[marions ghost]

21. Where is the candidate

who can knock Hillary off her pedestal?

By that I mean the candidate to the LEFT of Obama?

[LeftofObama]

27. Here I Am!

[Vincardog]

80. Rep. Alan Grayson, Sen. Sanders/Warren Off the top of my head

[Mr Dixon]

108. Agreed

[marions ghost]

119. I hope they will run....

but everyone might just bow down to Hill & Bill.

[bigwillq]

24. Please go away, Hillary.

You will never get my vote.

[PoliticAverse]

31. Hillary ran to the right of Obama in 2008, that's a big reason why Obama won. n/t

[JaydenD]

85. Hillary is far to the right of the President

When I hear they both have the same ideas and policies I want to laugh between the crying. Obama may have his faults as we all do but he is an honest and good and truly intelligent person doing his best. Hillary, she is always working for the Clinton Foundation and grubbing in the cash wherever she can find it - I don't think she has any core values that would be beneficial to regular people in general both home and abroad.

[H2O Man]

33. Recommended.

You are correct. And people need to give this a lot of thought.

Thanks.

[Glitterati]

44. And she will lose

End of conversation.

[ellennelle]

49. she is dead to me

that was it, this hawkish rhetoric. i've been warning folks about this side to her, and there it is now, for all the world to see.

we need to attack from the left now, and hard. warren? sanders? step it up; we need you now more than ever! at least that plank is now out there in the open so at least an alternative can be mustered.

i've written a letter to HRC, her pac, and the dnc saying unequivocally that i will not only not vote for her, i won't campaign in any way, and will openly discourage support.

dead to me.

[roguevalley]

91. agreed

[bullwinkle428]

51. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind around here that

Mark Penn is still "the man behind the curtains" running the show?

[polihood]

52. I see she..

made the front age of the NY Post today.

[Motown_Johnny]

53. She may end up running to the right of Rand Paul.

This is one of the reasons I can't support her for the nomination (although I will vote for her in the general if she is the nominee).


She has seriously boxed herself in on foreign policy. Even being Sec. of State is adding to the problem. We don't vote for our top diplomats when it comes time to choose a new Commander In Chief of our armed forces.

The double standard concerning her gender is another part of this problem. Snipergate too. I know I will get flamed for this but I honestly can't think of one decision that she has ever made which concerns our military and was correct. Her batting average is clearly 0.000.

She has to run as "Strong On Defense". There is no other option for her. Anything else would expose her vulnerability concerning our military.


If we assume that crazy ass Rand Paul wins for the (R)s, then we will end up with a (D) who is running to the right of the (R) on foreign policy.

I'm not looking forward to any of this. I honestly hope she decides to not run. It doesn't look that way right now, but who knows? It could happen.

[merrily]

59. Romney might run again.

Imagine if 2012 had been Hillary v. Romney.

[Motown_Johnny]

86. Romney can't run again

If only for the ads he ran about Jeep production being moved to China.

Attack ads reminding people of his blatant lies on that subject makes Ohio impossible for him to win. No (R) has ever reached the White House without winning Ohio and Romney sure as hell won't be the first.


I can't really imagine that 2012 race, but imagine 2008 with Hillary "The Hawk" Clinton running against John "I never met a war I didn't want to enter and escalate" McCain.

Scary.

[merrily]

87. Remember her saying, as she ran to head the Democratic Party, that she and Senator McCain were

ready for that 3 am phone call, but Obama was not?

Why not just spell it out, Hillary?

"If I lose this primary to Obama, you'd better vote for Senator McCain, if you know what's good for you."

[Motown_Johnny]

88. Back to what I said in my earlier post,

IMO, she has never made a decision regarding our military that was correct. The fact that she sides with McCain over Obama is just one facet to this fundamental truth.

[Ash_F]

54. Since when has Iran attacked anyone?

Compared to the US which has invaded everyone and their mother.

[SoapBox]

60. We'll...whatever the hell she is going to do...

I don't like what's coming out of her mouth. I agree that it seems that she is more "Right" and big money, than I want in my next President.

[riseabove]

61. Screw her she's no democrat... war, wall st. and GMO's. Are people really going to vote for this?

Isn't this what we stand against??!?


Can't believe I ever supported this twit.... RUN BERNIE RUN!!!!

That is Warren doesn't!

[littlemissmartypants]

62. If she only

Had a magic wand. She could just wave it over our trillion billion military a$$et$ and turn them all into...

She is not our fairy gawdmother, y'all!

She wants to be The President.

Try and stop her.

Love, Peace and the Righteous Fight. Lmsp

[DonCoquixote]

96. love peace and the righteous fight

Three things Hillary's recent actions show she has no interest in.

[L0oniX]

64. Hillary/McCain 2016

[belltower]

65. Hillary+Billy = Global Economies

Here's an excellent summation of material from http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/, that clearly states the timeline for our extinction. It's happening now and will surely be abundantly clear in time for 2016. Put this together with Naomi Klein's forthcoming book, and the conclusion is inescapable that a Local Economy must be built now. Hillary's BIG problem is that she is hog-tied to industrialists & financiers -- her & Bill's "Global Economy" is so meaningless in the current context.

[dembotoz]

67. i would have a hard time voting for her let alone work for her

[Autumn]

68. So it appears she will not be elected then.

[ChiciB1]

69. Was Never A Supporter Of Her, But I Must Say

this really takes the cake! Kind of sticking her knife in Obama's back and turning it. Wonder how much more we'll be seeing from her. Even though I wasn't an Obama supporter when he first ran, must say I NEVER saw so much HATE being spewed at him from Repukes from DAY ONE!

I can hardly deal with what this country has become and I'm scared to death. So many, many times I've felt I wanted to become an ostrich and stick my head in some mud. My stomach is in knots as I'm writing this and I'm an emotional mess. I'm sure there's much more I could say but not sure I'd make much sense right now. Just feel sick and defeated!

[marions ghost]

71. you are not alone

these times are very stressful.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

94. But wait. If you're honest, you'd admit that you saw hate coming from the Clintons and their

surrogates and supporters as well. You witnessed the race baiting. You saw the Clintons appearing on Faux News. You saw Bill Clinton running to the arms of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly's show. You know that the Clintons are great friends with John McCain and the Bushes. And yet, look at all the hatred and double standards liberals subject Barack Obama to. Look at how unfairly this man has been treated--not just coming from the political right, but from the political left as well. Yet, they are willing to forgive and forget Hillary and Bill Clinton's behavior; they are ready and prepared to suggest that Hillary is ready to be president even though she has been reckless with her words, actions, and rhetoric. Amazing to me!!

[Nay]

105. Agreed! I have several bones to pick with Obama (esp. his appointing so

many Republicans and corporatists to positions), but I cannot imagine why Hillary thinks that distancing herself from Obama will help her at all. She's starting out running a second Presidential run making even more mistakes than she made last time. He's now a historical figure for all time, and she could be, too, if she were really a Democrat and not a corporate supporter. One thing you can say for Hillary -- she really never has prevaricated about what she believes; she supports TPP, likes McCain and the Bushes, talks tougher about war than anybody, and just generally acts like a Republican, even though Republicans have trashed her over the years with their lies about Foster and all that RW shit. Including the race-baiting, as you said. And Obama made her Secretary of State and she shows no loyalty at all! Good heavens! What black person would vote for her, knowing this? She should be standing next to Obama and asking him to campaign with her!

She is still in the antiquated campaign mode, thinking that all she has to do is 1) distance herself from the present President, 2) talk tough, and 3) claim to be a Democrat. But. . . .

IT'S A WHOLE NEW WORLD OUT THERE, FOLKS.

The world is waiting, waiting out here, for someone brave enough to break every campaigning rule and say what needs to be said. We are approaching several breaking points as a society, an environment, and as a world. Politicians who think they can just proceed in a 'business as usual' mode will be swept away by the first politician who tells the truth. Let's hope this is the election cycle where we, as a nation, get our shit together and start to solve the real problems that plague us.

[ChiciB1]

117. I Too Wish "WE" As A Nation Could

find some way to start to solve so many, many problems, but not thinking I'll be seeing it.

[ChiciB1]

116. Amazing To Me As Well!!!

In all my life I've NEVER seen this type of "hate" which too many deny, but moreover real racism that "they" deny!! I completely agree with all you say and I call myself a Liberal. That part of me is who I am, if not a socialist of some type. What always bothered me was WHY he thought "they" would be open to any type of compromise he offered. From day one he must have been aware of the meeting they had about what they were up to. Perhaps he was trying to be the bigger person by showing them he was willing to work with them. Regardless, at this point in time we can clearly see that NOTHING he was going to do would ever satisfy them, therefore we liberals felt he needed to set them straight from day one.

I could go on and on and now you see EVEN Hillary showing me that even though he appointed her to a high profile job, obviously she is showing me what I always felt a long time ago. A certain ungrateful attitude that I find more distasteful than my words can explain. I fear we as Democrats are going down a rabbit hole because TOO MANY people have simply "decided" she will be the nominee! It distresses me and this is also something I've never seen this far away from 2016. All I can say is I wish we could have another person to run against her. Too many Bushes & Clintons! Seems our forefathers came to America to rid themselves from religious persecution and the Monarchy!

I'm very frustrated and filled with fear these days. This country seems pretty foreign to me now and not the America I once was so proud of. And now I even know I'm going to be attacked for what I've said, but so be it. Anyone can say what they want, I don't feel like arguing my points, it's just how I feel. So flame away!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

124. Agreed! I got your back. We need to keep speaking truth to power. No one here or elsewhere

will keep me from speaking up and out!

Thank you for hanging in there and being audacious!

True patriot!

[Vinca]

73. Very disappointing.

It may well be the next election for POTUS will be voting for whoever the Democrat is rather than one of the GOP loony tunes. Any Democrat - even half a Republican - is better than anyone they've got.

[Babel_17]

81. Preemptive Triangulation

The GOP is free to attack her cynicism but she made it a harder fight to brand her as Obama 2.0.

I'm not applauding this tactic but that is how the Clintons sometimes roll.

[The Traveler]

83. Hillary has a right to state her views

and I certainly want her to do so honestly during the primary season. Otherwise, it won't be a very useful primary season.

But we are not there yet. The mid terms are staring us in the face, and we are presented with (amazingly, to me) a real danger of losing the Senate. My initial reaction was therefore one of bewilderment and anger ...

In terms of political strategy, this is horrible timing. It undermines the President politically at a time of significant tension in the world and coming from a prominent Democrat (and his former Sec State) almost falls into the category of betrayal.

I also disagree with her viewpoint ... very strongly. Arming rebels has, historically, not worked out well for us so I am always befuddled when politicians pull that over worn trope out of their grab bag of sound bites. John McCain wanted to arm elements of what has become ISIS ... how wonderful THAT would have been.

And so I find myself scratching my head ... Did her position on these matters shift after leaving her cabinet position? Did she argue for this approach during her tenure? What purpose is served by issuing that commentary now? Does she seek thereby to influence policy, and thereby contribute to a solution? Or is she serving a political interest distinct from that of her Party? Or was this done with the knowledge/approval of elements of Party leadership and therefore represents an emerging new national security platform?

Prior to these pronouncements, I was confident that I would vote for Ms. Clinton, albeit with reservations ... but now this has me wondering not only about her, but the direction of the Party itself. I am adopting a "wait and see" position at this point.

Trav

[watrwefitinfor]

98. .

[Louisiana1976]

84. I liked Hillary Clinton until I learned that she supported the coup in 2009 that overthrew the

democratically-elected president of Honduras. After this coup, things went to hell in Honduras, which is the reason so many kids from there have fled to the US. If Clinton is the nominee I'll have to vote for her, but I'll be holding my nose.

[AgingAmerican]

89. Hillary was to the left of Obama on that issue

Even though she was speaking for him as his Secretary of State. Neither, however, could bring themselves to call it a coup.

[JaydenD]

95. You are mistaken.

The Obama administration condemned the coup in Honduras - along with most of the rest of the world - and called for the re-instatement of Zelaya. But Hillary had other ideas - Lanny Davis was in Honduras making $$ deals and businessing with the new players.

[Savannahmann]

93. Nah.

I think she's slightly right of John McCain. Yay Democrats. We offer a real difference. To what I'm not sure, but we are different man, we're Blue and not Red. See?

[NCTraveler]

99. How is Obama not considered a hawk.

Have you been paying attention to what his administration has been up to. How many countries has he bombed? Does he have any current military intentions with respect to Iraq?

[Stellar]

101. So, tell me again...

why are democrats supposed to be supporting Hillary Clinton?

[Unvanguard]

102. Arming Syrian rebels falls far short of what John McCain wanted to do. n/t

[Romulox]

104. I see a hair's worth of daylight between the two. They are both Hawks, both right of center. nt

[Evergreen Emerald]

106. What a bunch of BullSh*t

You actually said that because Ms. Clinton disagreed with Obama on ONE POINT of foreign policy:

"She's basically saying Obama is weak when it comes to foreign policy and if we elect her, she will be quicker to use military force and bomb the shit out of people."

What a load of crap. She did not say he was weak on foreign policy. And providing assistance to rebels is not using military force, or bombing the shit out of people (like we are doing now in Iraq).

I notice that you do not give the same wild extrapolations to Ms. Warren as you do Ms. Clinton when Ms. Warren disagrees with the president.

[JaydenD]

120. Ms Warren doesn't stick her feet in her mouth with regularity.

She has core principles, unlike what the Clintons show us in that respect.

[Chan790]

107. I've never been a fan of Clinton's tho I largely agree w/ her Foreign and Def. Policy positions...

but if she runs to the right of Obama, she will lose the nomination. It's probably the only way she can lose the nomination.

The base is moving left even as the leadership continues to move centrist in order to appeal moderately and broadly...that works for a while to increase electability but eventually, like an elastic, support tends to snap back if the leadership moves far enough outside of the positional bubble of the base. (or if the base moves to the extreme while the leadership moves centrist) We're seeing it happen in front of our eyes on the other side of the aisle now. Let us learn from their mistake. Any viable primary challenge to Clinton is going to come at her from the economic left-flank...she should take that as a sign towards which she needs to shift her positions. Even if a primary challenge is unsuccessful in displacing her from the ballot, it can be successful in moving her economic positions back towards the base of her party and the core of her electorate-support.

I disagree with the notion however that she's channeling John McCain on FP...she's exactly in line with the traditional interventionist-left humanitarian position best exemplified by Bill Clinton and Zbigniew Brzezinski. (I can understand why however, to the anti-war left, there would be a desire to equate Brzezinskian interventionism to McCain's xenophobic militarism.) Interventionist-leftists are far more aggressively-hostile to anti-war movements than conservative militarists; precisely because unlike the militarist right which views the divide as a policy disagreement, the interventionist-left generally views the anti-war left's isolationist tendency as not-merely-incorrect but morally-wrong--the sufferance of oppression or genocide.

I don't think she's actually advocating bombing Iran...I think she's playing geopolitical hold'em. (Is dealer Hillary sitting on 4 aces? Does Iran really want to bid to find out?) McCain wants to bomb Iran today, Clinton is trying to motivate them to stand up from the table at the game of nuclear-weapons-pursuit and cash in their chips for foreign aid, concessions and diplomatic measures. There's a lot they can cash-in for that they really want...but only if they walk away from pursuing the bomb.

[Mr Dixon]

109. SMH

I would like to point out that the public is not as educated in politics as members of the DU, Clinton can win the women’s vote and the minority vote easy and her people know that. They are not taking people lightly they just understand that the public are a bunch of morons that can be sold a dream and believe it.

[PowerToThePeople]

111. Shocking I tell you, just shocking...

[Iggo]

113. So it appears.

[CJCRANE]

114. I think she's jumped the gun.

Like Romney on the night of the Benghazi attack, she seems just a little too eager to jump into the fray while events are ongoing.

[flamingdem]

118. I hope Hillary listens to us hoi polloi

democrats and comes back to the fold.

We know it will be tough on her running as a woman, she needs us to have her back, and in exchange for that she needs to act like a democrat.

[rhett o rick]

121. I think the rule of thumb is that people will vote for a Republican before they vote for a

Democrat running as a Republican.

[Demsrule86]

123. The nomination is Hillary's to lose

And lose it she will if she is a war hawk...why should we choose a Bush like war hawk? No thanks.