Hillary Clinton is the candidate for foreign policy? You really want her to be commander in chief?

[AZ Progressive]

both before her appointment and during her service, she consistently came down on the hawkish side of debates inside the administration, from Afghanistan to Libya and Syria. She’s also taken a more hawkish line than Obama on Ukraine and the confrontation with Russia.

- http://www.thenation.com/article/left-ought-worry-about-hillary-clinton-hawk-and-militarist-2016/

But the Times adds that, after countless interviews, it is clear that Clinton was the administration’s hawk:

But in recent interviews, two dozen current and former administration officials, foreign diplomats, friends and outside analysts described Mrs. Clinton as almost always the advocate of the most aggressive actions considered by Mr. Obama’s national security team—and not just in well-documented cases, like the debate over how many additional American troops to send to Afghanistan or the NATO airstrikes in Libya.

[daleanime]

1. Actually. ...

No.

[reformist2]

2. She would be mediocre to poor on domestic issues, but absolutely horrific on foreign policy.

[onecaliberal]

3. Not only no, but hell no.

[AtomicKitten]

4. I don't want her anywhere near the levers of government.

On foreign policy, her judgment has been absolute shit.

[AZ Progressive]

5. Hillary is a wannabe president, but is truly unfit to be president

[AtomicKitten]

8. She can't even handle classified information properly. Yes, she is truly unfit.

[DefenseLawyer]

6. No worries.

She's got Kissinger on speed dial.

[Broward]

7. Hillary put her own political ambitions front and center with her Iraq War vote.

[Bill USA]

9. NYT: Hillary Clinton, 1 of most broadly & deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-endorsement.html?_r=0

As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton worked tirelessly, and with important successes, for the nation’s benefit. She was the secretary President Obama needed and wanted: someone who knew leaders around the world, who brought star power as well as expertise to the table. The combination of a new president who talked about inclusiveness and a chief diplomat who had been his rival but shared his vision allowed the United States to repair relations around the world that had been completely trashed by the previous administration.


Mrs. Clinton helped make it possible to impose tougher sanctions on Iran, which in turn led to the important nuclear deal now going into effect. She also fostered closer cooperation with Asian countries. She worked to expand and deepen the dialogue with China and to increase Washington’s institutional ties to the region. Mrs. Clinton had rebuked China when she was first lady for its treatment of women, and she criticized the Beijing government’s record on human rights even as she worked to improve relations.

In January 2011, before the Arab Spring, Mrs. Clinton delivered a speech that criticized Arab leaders, saying their countries risked “sinking into the sand” unless they liberalized their political systems and cleaned up their economies. Certainly, the Israeli-Palestinian crisis deepened during her tenure, but she did not cause that.

~~
~~

In the end, though, Mr. Sanders does not have the breadth of experience or policy ideas that Mrs. Clinton offers. His boldest proposals — to break up the banks and to start all over on health care reform with a Medicare-for-all system — have earned him support among alienated middle-class voters and young people. But his plans for achieving them aren’t realistic, while Mrs. Clinton has very good, and achievable, proposals in both areas.
(more)

[Hekate]

10. Yes, I do. She has a helluva resume. What about Bernie's qualifications?

Or are we just to imagine he has some in that arena?

[AZ Progressive]

13. There are plenty of people with great resumes that are very corrupt

Qualifications aren't everything. You can't sum up someone into a document.

[amborin]

11. Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia U Earth Institute: I'm worried about Hillary's NEO CON foreign policy views

Jeffry Sachs: On Hillary Clinton:

Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University: "There’s been considerable concern, for good reason, about Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street ties, but . . . I am even more worried about her neoconservative foreign policy views, and being a lackey for the military-industrial complex."

"In rare cases, great presidents learn to stand up to the CIA and the rest of the military-industrial-intelligence complex. JFK . . . saved the world from nuclear annihilation and halted the unchecked proliferation of nuclear arms."

"O’Malley and Sanders wisely and correctly support an America that works with other countries and with the UN Security Council to build peace in the Middle East rather than an America that continues to indulge in endless and failed CIA adventures of regime change and war."

"O’Malley and Sanders did criticize Clinton’s foreign policy views in the second Democratic debate, but it is clear that Bernie’s heart is in attaching her Wall Street ties. I wish he would pay as much attention to her ties to the military-industrial complex and her overly hawkish foreign policy views."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hilary-clinton-and-the-is_b_8627042.html

[tk2kewl]

12. The laughter of someone drunk with power

[JRLeft]

14. She will create more terrorists.

[Z_California]

15. Let's not forget the worst foreign policy blunder of our time

[link:

|

[Avalux]

16. Absolutely not. Here's why (to add to your post):

I can't support someone who got it so WRONG.

[closeupready]

17. Yes, in the first clip, asked about Baker's "taking out" Iran suggestion,

she busts out into a belly laugh. Why?

As if Charlie Rose is trying to trick her and this is all just a game.