home

A Challenge To Clinton on Foreign Policy

For all the noise about challenging Hillary Clinton as a "corporatist Wall Street lover" (no, I don't agree with that assessment, but we can have that discussion another time), in the context of the 2016 Dem nomination process, I am hoping for more "noise" challenging Clinton on her foreign policy views. I wrote about this last August in a piece I titled Obama is right, Clinton wrong, on foreign policy. The crux of my thesis:

[Clinton] is [...] wrong that the hard power of the United States is as, um, powerful, in getting results as she believes. By contrast, President Barack Obama has always been skeptical of the claims of hard powerists, and basically repeated that view in an interview with Thomas Friedman. President Obama has it right and the former secretary of state has it wrong.

Here is some of what Clinton said, in this case, about Syria:

JG: You go out of your way in Hard Choices to praise Robert Ford, who recently quit as U.S. ambassador to Syria, as an excellent diplomat. Ford quit in protest and has recently written strongly about what he sees as the inadequacies of Obama administration policy. Do you agree with Ford that we are at fault for not doing enough to build up a credible Syrian opposition when we could have?

HRC: I’m the one who convinced the administration to send an ambassador to Syria. You know, this is why I called the chapter on Syria “A Wicked Problem.” I can’t sit here today and say that if we had done what I recommended, and what Robert Ford recommended, that we’d be in a demonstrably different place.

JG: That’s the president’s argument, that we wouldn’t be in a different place.

HRC: Well, I did believe, which is why I advocated this, that if we were to carefully vet, train, and equip early on a core group of the developing Free Syrian Army, we would, number one, have some better insight into what was going on on the ground. Two, we would have been helped in standing up a credible political opposition, which would prove to be very difficult, because there was this constant struggle between what was largely an exile group outside of Syria trying to claim to be the political opposition, and the people on the ground, primarily those doing the fighting and dying, who rejected that, and we were never able to bridge that, despite a lot of efforts that Robert and others made.

The problem with this is there simply was no reasonable way to do what Clinton describes. Indeed, America's history in trying to do things like this has been abysmal failures [...]

Whoever comes to challenge Clinton for the Dem presidential nomination, I hope they challenge Clinton on this wrongheaded idea that American hard power is effective at solving the world's problems. Because it isn't.

< ISIS Gets Close to Al Asad Airbase and U.S. Marines | Valentine's Day Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Not sure what you actually expect (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 12:14:07 PM EST
    Out of a female politician running at the highest level. Whether or not she a actually believes what she says in public, HRC will always have to appear as a hawk.  Just look at other female leaders around the world.

    Namby-pamby, Kumbaya-singing female doves will never get elected to be president in this country.

    never is a really long time (none / 0) (#2)
    by CST on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 12:40:31 PM EST
    And I disagree.  I think she could get elected either way at this point.

    Parent
    Nah (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 12:53:33 PM EST
    If she said something like, "We are going to leave ISIS alone and let the people in Afghanistan and Syria take care of it," or "Israel can defend itself," or "North Korea is no threat," she would absolutely be crushed.

    Parent
    there is a whole lot of space (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CST on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 01:16:34 PM EST
    between what you are saying and being a hawk

    Also I'm actually not so sure she would get crushed if she did say that.  It would make it harder for her to get elected, but I think at the end of the day, it's the economy that's going to be the major player in the next election.

    Shoot - how many people want to draft Elizabeth Warren to run?  No one has a clue what she even thinks about foreign policy.

    Plus, I'm not really buying the "it's because she's a woman" argument.  If you think those are losing arguments, then fine, but they aren't specifically losing arguments because she's female.  At this point Hillary has more of a reputation that is not overly feminine/dove-ish, so while you are right that gender will play a role, that's not the role it's gonna play.  Her reputation is already on the other side of the spectrum.

    My main point is she has the political space to be as honest as she wants to be about this stuff.  I'm not buying the idea that it's all a political calculation to overcome being female.  Or that she couldn't be a woman with the exact same foreign policy views as Obama and still get elected.

    Parent

    Which is why (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 03:35:21 PM EST
    Shoot - how many people want to draft Elizabeth Warren to run?  No one has a clue what she even thinks about foreign policy.

    She would have no chance of winning in 2016, so the "Draft Elizabeth Warren" movement is part of a pipe dream.

    Parent

    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 01:04:23 PM EST
    she would be crushed but I'm not sure it would help much.

    I saw an interview with her that was done in Canada and she can explain what is going on over there like nobody's business.

    Parent

    Wrong headed argument (none / 0) (#19)
    by Politalkix on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 03:52:11 PM EST
    and quite ignorant also.

    Female politicians at the highest level need not appear to be hawks to win elections, they should just learn how to frame issues in the correct way.

    Angela Merkel is not a war hawk, neither is/was Helen Clark, Michelle Bachelet, Mary Robinson, Tarja Halonen, Dilma Rousseff and many others.  Even Tzipi Livni is less hawkish than Netanyahu.

    It will not be very wrong-headed of HRC to think of Margaret Thatcher as a role model (if she is doing so). Even Golda Meir would be considered a dove in today's Israel.

    If she cannot resist pressures of being a hawk to get elected, she will never be able to resist pressures of going to war, once in office. It is as simple as that. There will always be tremendous pressure to go to war from the GOP, the MIC, media and the billionaries who stand to make a windfall from such adventures.

    She should play to her strengths and make the 2016 election an election about economics and income inequality and make Republican politicians that are jumping up and down to go to war look foolish and out of touch for not paying attention to issues at home.

    Parent

    I find (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 06:09:33 PM EST
    that statement coming from you entirely ironic because Obama has caved so many times when the GOP wanted him to do something.

    Parent
    Methinks (none / 0) (#24)
    by Politalkix on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 06:30:58 PM EST
    you take out all your frustrations of living in Georgia on the President.

    I can sympathize with you but cannot relate to much you write about politics.

    Parent

    It has nothing to do with (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 07:13:32 PM EST
    living in GA and the fact that he has constantly caved to the GOP. Honestly, have you paid attention? Don't you remember the tea party crowing that they got 98% of what they wanted in negotiations with him? They're a bunch of bullies and he's like begging them not to do it again.

    I have frustrations with Georgia yes, but it has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with people like Nathan Deal.

    Parent

    Will have to disagree (none / 0) (#26)
    by Politalkix on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 09:29:23 PM EST
    There are Tea Partiers who think that he treats McConnell and Boehner as his "b*tch*s* and clamor to replace these two GOP leaders for not being able to stand up to the President.

    Irrespective of what tea partiers think about him (and there is a very wide range of opinion among them), I would never make up my mind based on opinions of delusional people. You keep arguing that tea partiers are nuts but then want to present some tea partier opinion as a hard fact when you like it. That is nuts in my book!

    I prefer to make my own judgements based on my knowledge of history and am open to opinion that are conducted on the basis of good research unlike you who post mostly based on emotions. You would not even read the John Judis article that Anne posted a few days ago saying that you did not have time but kept on commenting on it (without reading it). I find such behavior shocking even when it comes from the left side of politics.

    The President has gone ahead and opened a dialog with Cuba irrespective of how much the GOP has screamed. He did the same thing with Iran while the GOP screamed bloody murder. He went after Osama Bin Laden in a way that a risk averse CIC would never do. The President is very strong that way; he does whatever he wants to do to stamp his vision on issues he feels strongly about (irrespective of how much opposition he faces) to make a difference for the better.

    Parent

    I'm not (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 06:46:56 AM EST
    talking about what they are saying about him. I am talking about what they are actually getting from him which are two completely different things.

    Oh, good grief. You are the one that is basing stuff on emotion instead of facts. If you missed Obama bending over time and again then that is because you do not want to see it because you apparently are in love with him.

    Yes, it took him six years to finally figure out that no matter what he does the GOP is never going to like him hence the Cuba decision. That's a lot of wasted time.

    Parent

    He does whatever he wants? (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by jbindc on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 05:13:12 PM EST
    Only if it polls well and the media get on him about it.  He is very much a leader who follows before making a decision.

    He hasn't done all that great in foreign policy.  (There are many more articles detailing his administration's weaknesses in this area.)

    I'm not sure what you want.  Please name a successful economic populist who was also a foreign policy hawk that actually won office at the highest levels.  If you can actually find any, please educate us on how effective and successful they were.

    If she runs, and you don't like HRC, then don't vote for her.  Simple.

    You're living in la-la land.

    Parent

    Duh! Duh! Duh! (none / 0) (#63)
    by Politalkix on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 08:30:50 PM EST
    "Please name a successful economic populist who was also a foreign policy hawk that actually won office at the highest levels.  If you can actually find any, please educate us on how effective and successful they were."

    Duh! I don't want a foreign policy hawk, so why should I go about trring to look for a head of state that got elected by being a hawk. You told us that it was not possible for a woman candidate to get elected unless she was a foreign policy hawk. I gave you many examples that showed your premise was wrong. The burden is on you now to find examples that support your original statement.

    "If she runs, and you don't like HRC, then don't vote for her.  Simple."

    Duh! Duh! Duh! If she runs and I don't like her campaign, I will not vote for her. That goes without saying and you do not have to remind me about that. And even if I do not vote for her (if I do not like her campaign), it does not mean that I will stop my criticism when I consider it fit. You should know that! Many of you did not vote for BHO but that never stopped you from being critical of him. Why have such a thin skin when it comes to HRC?

    Parent

    Ok, I need to be more clear (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 08:09:01 AM EST
    Give me examples of female leaders who can get elected as a dove and an economic populist in a country that is diverse and has the same influence in the rest of the world.  New Zealand?  Chile?  Are you freaking kidding me??

    Let's make it simpler for you, since you are being deliberately obtuse.  Name an economic populist, of either gender, that is also a dove, that could get elected as president in this country.

    Waiting. Waiting. You can't.

    I don't have a thin skin about her.  I live in the REAL WORLD about politicians.  I know that politicians I support aren't going to be 100% in line with my world view, I know they will do things I disagree with, and I know I will be angry at some of the things they do. But at the end of the day, if a politician is fighting and trying for things I believe in, as opposed to being more impressed that they get to hang with Beyonce, then I'm ok with that.

    Criticize away.  But know that some of your criticism is based on comparisons of your fantasy Obama, and not based on reality Obama.  Obama is done.   My hope is that he can hold it together  so that whomever takes over isn't in the middle of some crisis.

    Just. Wow.

    Parent

    Wait a minute (none / 0) (#71)
    by Politalkix on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 11:55:13 AM EST
    Your argument went from

    "Out of a female politician running at the highest level. Whether or not she a actually believes what she says in public, HRC will always have to appear as a hawk.  Just look at other female leaders around the world."

    to

    "Name an economic populist, of either gender, that is also a dove, that could get elected as president in this country."

    after I posted names of politicians around the world who were not war hawks. This tells me that you have already started to backtrack without admitting it.

    HRC is not an economic populist, despite you imagining her to be (another example of you living in la-la land). She is totally controlled by Wall Street money. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown are economic populists.

    If you think HRC is an economic populist, then BHO is also an economic populist (I do not think that either one of them is but for the sake of argument I will use your definition of an economic populist and not mine). By your definition of an economic populist, Jimmy Carter was a super economic populist. Both Jimmy Carter and BHO are to the left of HRC in foreign policy and both got elected.

    I can also say with a great deal of confidence that both Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren stand a 50-50 chance of getting elected against a Republican opponent, which is the same with HRC.


    Parent

    Wow - really?!? (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Yman on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 12:52:26 PM EST
    I can also say with a great deal of confidence that both Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren stand a 50-50 chance of getting elected against a Republican opponent, which is the same with HRC.

    It's easy to say anything with a "great deal of confidence" when your only requirement for facts or evidence are the thoughts in your own mind.

    BTW - Your comparisons between HRC and other world leaders in terms of economic and "hawkisihness" is delusionsal - but CDS will have that effect.  Do tell - which of those many leaders was elected in a country with a military that would even allow them to intervene as the US has done (i.e. where it's even possible to be a "hawk")?  Which of those countries has a population that wanted them to intervene as the US has done (i.e. politically possible)?

    Not to mention your other ridiculous example - the German university system, which is completely different than ours.  The Germans have guaranteed a free (paid by the government) education for gymnasium graduates since the 70s.  Some of them started charging small fees in 2006 after a court decision, but Lower Saxony was the last German state (as opposed to Merkel) to decide to stop charging these fees.

    But if you want to go that route, let's compare the German healthcare system with Obamacare.  That would be a fun comparison.

    Toooo funny.

    Parent

    Conclusions (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by christinep on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 01:35:35 PM EST
    politalkix: The last paragraph in this comment <in which you ascribe percentage chances of victory in a general for S. Brown & E. Warren> is a conclusion.  I was not going to comment more on this thread--in view of the ongoing involved commentary you are having with others about populism, etc.--but, imo, you are waving your verbal arms at this point.  Waving, brandishing conclusions without any factual support ... all the while claiming others have leapt around the discussion when you appear to be doing exactly that.  That final paragraph actually undermines the rest of your purported contentions about who stands for what because the claims in the final paragraph must be termed bravado out-of-the blue.  

    We all get carried away when we feel strongly about something ... it seems that is where your argument now is.  Wouldn't it be far better to state that you are looking for someone who demonstrably fits the domestic policy equivalent of economic populism & demonstrates the foreign policy equivalent of what-may-be-called a more "dovish" (or less "hawkish") position than Obama and Clinton?  Although your writings indicate that is where you are now, the apparent approach of claiming different characteristics for notables that you do not support at this point and putting forth your preference(s) without more than bald assertions is weak.  You might want to address, for example, what precise actions taken by your preferred candidates show an actual dedication to populism and foreign peace responses?

    At some point, it would be useful for you or anyone who talks about "economic populism" to describe--very precisely--what steps should be taken.  I think we all agree (somewhat) on that.  And, in so doing, it might be wise to consider whether it is easier to promise on the outside-looking-in than it is for the so-called insider. We know that the challenger to the status quo has one advantage, typically...i.e., there are fewer expectations, less of an overall record, less to lose if you "go big," and people will give attention.  If only from watching the shenanigans of this Congress, we know also that the electoral make-up of the home-state can afford a certain freedom to those from lop-sided Democratic or Republican-leaning states.  

    Lots more, of course ... for a later time when we might want to start with the saying: The perfect is the enemy of the good.

    Parent

    Excerpt from Anita North's (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 02:50:42 PM EST
    opinion piece on commenting online:

    Online readers may put a lot of stock in comments because they view commenters "as kind of similar to themselves," said Mr. Weber -- "they're reading the same thing, commenting on the same thing." And, he added, many readers, especially those who are less Internet-savvy, assume commenters "know something about the subject, because otherwise they wouldn't be commenting on it." The mere act of commenting, then, can confer an unearned aura of credibility


    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#80)
    by Politalkix on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 04:05:30 PM EST
    The notion that HRC is the only Democrat that can win in a GE against a Republican is "also waving verbal arms at this point-Waving, brandishing conclusions without any factual support ...".

    The HRC camp did the same thing in 2008. They said that other than her, nobody else could win in a GE. Many of us did not believe such verbal hand waving then and history has shown that we were correct and those who attempted to sell such a notion were wrong.

    HRC and BHO are not in the same place on foreign policy. It is an insult to our intelligence when you try to sell this idea. I did not think they were at the same place in 2008. I had hopes that HRC had evolved in her views during her stint as SoS. Unfortunately, the words that she chose to use while appearing in the Jonathan Goldberg interview simply gave me pause and led me to believe that I was too optimistic while hoping for evolution of her foreign policy positions.

    BTD has expressed very eloquently why he thinks that BHO and HRC are not at the same place at this time when it comes to their views on foreign policy; it will be useful for some of you who are still trying to engage with skeptics like me to address BTD's points in this regard. I think that we are all in agreement that people like Warren, Brown and Sanders are to the left of HRC in economic policy, so I will not belabor this point.

    I can provide precise points regarding what steps need to be taken only if I sense a sincere interest in listening to my views. I will give you marks for atleast trying at this time. Some of HRC's supporters in this blog have already told me that they do not want my support nor my vote (the hubris and sense of entitlement among a section of HRC's supporters do not surprise me anymore)and I am OK with that too. I will leave it up to you to decide whether you want to engage or be argumentative in attempts to portray me as someone making irrational demands.

    Parent

    Just out of curiosity, Politalkix, (none / 0) (#81)
    by Zorba on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 04:18:30 PM EST
    Who do you think the next Democratic presidential nominee should be, and why?
    I am not being snarky.  I would be interested in your thoughts on this matter.

    Parent
    Zorba (none / 0) (#86)
    by Politalkix on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 07:47:23 PM EST
    I believe that 45% of the country will vote for a person with a "D" after his/her name and 45% will do the same for a "R", irrespective of whoever that candidate will be. The fight will be for only 10% of the electorate in a handful of states. To move the country progressively to the left, we have to start in 2016 where BHO left off-in both domestic as well as foreign policy.

    I would prefer people like Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Mark Dayton, Deval Patrick, Martin O'Malley, Amy Klobucher and Peter Shumlin any day over HRC for the Democratic party nominee, if there is a choice in the primary. I would even choose Bernie Sanders, Jerry Brown, Joe Biden and Ted Strickland if they ran even though they are somewhat advanced in age and may not bring the same energy to the campaign as the first group of candidate that I mentioned.

    If any one of these candidates ran, they would court people on the left spectrum of politics and value their support more than HRC's campaign. It seems that HRCs campaign has already decided that they will start with "12% higher support" than what BHO was capable of getting and can afford to let go the support of a portion of the left.

    Parent

    So, do these other candidates (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by nycstray on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 08:07:51 PM EST
    plan to win, if they should be compelled to run? What does your crystal ball tell you . . . ?

    If any one of these candidates ran, they would court people on the left spectrum of politics and value their support more than HRC's campaign.


    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#90)
    by Politalkix on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 08:21:12 PM EST
    Each of them have a 50-50 chance of a win in a GE against a Republican-same as HRC, IMO.

    Unlike some HRC supporters, I expect the 2016 election to be very close (whoever the Democratic Party nominee is). The candidates I mentioned will energize activists on the left.  

    Parent

    Save your crocodile tears ... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Yman on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 05:38:42 PM EST
    ... and faux concern for someone stupid enough to believe it.

    Do tell, though ... Who is saying that HRC is the only Democrat who can win the GE?  Be specific, because, if you can't (and I know you can't), everyone will recognize the obvious.  You're making it up and, frankly, FOS.

    (cue Jeopardy music)

    Parent

    Yes (2.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Politalkix on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 08:08:32 PM EST
    Keep up the charm offensive in a way that only Mark Penn, Dick Morris and David Brock could....

    Parent
    Shorter (none / 0) (#89)
    by Yman on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 08:15:26 PM EST
    You're just making it up (i.e. FOS).

    Ex-ACT-ly.

    Parent

    Where did I say (none / 0) (#79)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 03:38:48 PM EST
    HRC is an economic populist?  (Although I believe she is much more of a populist than your hero, Obama)?

    What I said was that a female politician in this country could not get elected being soft and squishy of foreign policy and the potential use of military force.

    But I know that's a difficult concept for you to understand, being lost in the Obama fog and all.  But give it up - he's had his chance and foreign policy has definitely not been his strong suit.  Time for him to move over and let someone else take the reins.

    Parent

    That is a surprise (none / 0) (#82)
    by Politalkix on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 04:21:55 PM EST
    since you and Ga6rh were saying that HRC's starting base level of support was 12% higher (oh those white women voters from working and middle classes) than that of BHO and she was going to win states like North Carolina, Indiana, Arizona, Missouri, Arkansas, etc.

    I did not know that all these women voters were clamoring to go to war. Silly me, I was thinking that they were more interested in economic security which would get hurt with endless war and talk of it. (Snark).

    Oh, the fibs, I hear from you jbindc! Sigh!

    Parent

    Sorry you don't like facts (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 05:13:28 PM EST
    HRC does appeal to more people in more states - more than just city folk. She would appeal many on economic issues, just as she would appeal to many for tough stances on foreign policy.  Those who don't like what she has to say are free to vote for someone else.

    But since this is about foreign policy, you keep wanting to build strawmen and relive 2008. If you think there's another candidate who is in line with your world view, and who actually has a chance of winning (when it is almost impossible for a party to win a third term in the WH), then let's hear it, and why.

    Parent

    That WOULD be a surprise (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Yman on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 05:25:46 PM EST
    ... considering they never said it.

    The only "fibs" are the statements you active to others.  But if it's all you've got ...

    Parent

    Statements you "ascribe" (none / 0) (#95)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 07:50:51 AM EST
    ... to others.

    Parent
    Your (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 10:26:37 AM EST
    post shows a HUGE problem and this obsession with war to the exclusion of everything else has got us stuck with someone who wants to community organize crazy people and has no idea how to fix the economy or anything. He's not remotely interested in policy and the war has gotten more expansive under Obama and yet you will excuse him for that time and again.

    Have you ever thought that maybe all those additional voters have other concerns other than just war?

    And yes, BTD has shown numerous times how Hillary's base of support is wider than Obama's. You are really afraid that she is going to prove you wrong aren't you?

    Parent

    LBJ (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 11:41:15 PM EST
    You ask:

    Please name a successful economic populist who was also a foreign policy hawk that actually won office at the highest levels

    That would describe LBJ pretty well.  And Hillary does tend to compare herself to him.

    I am not sure if this what you meant.  But your argument about being a hawk to get elected would also apply to governing and getting re-elected.

    I think we need to take a big step back from involvement in the Mid East.  I hope Hillary is not going the other direction.

    Parent

    LBJ campaigned in 1964 (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 11:32:17 AM EST
    as a peace candidate, not a hawk. I am old enough to remember that election. Goldwater was the hawk. And Johnson used Goldwater's hawkishness to great advantage. Anybody else remember the campaign ad with the little blond girl, the daisy and the mushroom cloud?

    This is what LBJ said during the campaign:

    President Johnson campaigned in the 1964 election with the promise not to escalate the war. "We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10,000 miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves," he said.

    As we all know Johnson's peaceful persona was swept aside rather quickly, and the U.S, found itself up to its ears in the muck and mire that was the Viet Nam War.

    Parent

    Sure, "the Daisy" was the name (none / 0) (#110)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 17, 2015 at 12:20:54 AM EST
    of that commercial....

    Youtube link

    Only broadcast once by LBJ's campaign....

    Good point about how to deal with Neocons on foreign policy.

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#96)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 07:51:17 AM EST
    And you had to go back almost 50 years to find one.  And then there's the discussion of whether LBJ would have been electable if he hasn't been the VP of a popular president who was assassinated.  

    I also mistyped, so while you were correct to call me on it (good catch), let me re-ask the question:  please name an economic populist who was a DOVE that got elected at the highest levels.  And if they were, did they remain either a dove or economic populist?

    I think a female candidate is going to have to be (or appear) tougher than a male candidate to win.  I mean, we still hear jokes about what happens if a woman who has PMS also has her hand on "the button'.  Female candidates cannot be seen as soft on foreign policy and their willingness to consider using military force if necessary.

    Nancy Pelosi, for example, can be more anti-war, anti-use of military force because she only has to answer to a small district in San Francisco - she isn't running for, nor would she win a national election.  


    Parent

    I hope your analysis is dated (none / 0) (#99)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 10:53:46 AM EST
    Perhaps years ago the perception about women in power was what you state.

    But I seriously doubt many think Hillary is a wimp.....or not tough enough....even Republicans don't say that--they tend to fear her (which is a good place to be--to be feared as Democratic woman.)

    My concerns are that she may be too tough, too much a hawk....

    She will at times say the darndest things, like that she agreed that we should look into the loyalty of the State Department employees, if memory serves....

    Parent

    I hope your memory is better (none / 0) (#100)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 11:27:11 AM EST
    She will at times say the darndest things, like that she agreed that we should look into the loyalty of the State Department employees, if memory serves....

    Whenever someone makes a claim and follows it with qualifiers like "if memeory serves", you can be sure their memory isn't "serving".  This kind of claim should be very easy to document, if it actually happened, or if it's not being completely mischaracterized, yet Google results show nothing.  What is it you think she said, or is this just another silly, specious allegation?

    Parent

    Merkel is the austerity queen (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Dadler on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 08:27:05 PM EST
    Her entire political career is built around the notion that an inanimate object of no intrinsic value -- fiat currency -- created out of thin air by human beings in power whenever necessary, is nonetheless more important that the 99% percent of actual human beings NOT in power.

    Angela Merkel is the living definition of an imagination vacuum.

    Parent

    Merkel (none / 0) (#72)
    by Politalkix on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 12:13:50 PM EST
    Dadler, I agree with you that Merkel is economically conservative. However, my argument with jbindc was about foreign policy hawkishness and not economic conservatism. Merkel is undoubtedly less of a war hawk than HRC.

    Economic conservatives in European countries are still to the left of mainstream Democrats on issues relating to money. Merkel is to the left of HRC even on economics. Can HRC propose to make college education free for all students as it happened in Merkel's Germany?  

    Parent

    Can Obama? (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Yman on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 12:40:06 PM EST
    He's the one (pun intended) that is actually POTUS.  Can we trade healthcare systems with Germany?  I'd happily give them Obamacare in exchange for real reform.

    Funny how you're already demanding these things from Clinton and while giving Obama a pass - he//, even lauding him.

    Heh.

    Parent

    Yet another huge (and flawed) leap (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by sj on Wed Feb 18, 2015 at 06:08:30 PM EST
    Merkel is to the left of HRC even on economics. Can HRC propose to make college education free for all students as it happened in Merkel's Germany?
    That policy had nothing to do with Merkel.
    Germany has had a long tradition of free education, introducing fees only in 2006 when the constitutional court ruled that moderate tuition fees were not at odds with the country's pledge for education for all. However, even at around $1,300 per year, significantly lower than $14,500 and $30,000 paid by UK and U.S. students respectively, the fees caused widespread backlash, with federal states dropping them one by one.

    Let's see... when did fees get introduced? 2006. When did Merkel first become Chancellor? That would be 2005.

    Are those two things related? Maybe. Maybe not. (I'll follow your modus operandi and not worry that correlation is not causation. And least my two statements are logically consistent).

    To be clear:

    In fact, German law only allowed for the collection of tuition and fees as recently as 2006. 30 years prior to that, there was an actual law on the books (in West Germany at the time) that more or less prohibited tuition and fees. In the 1990s, fees were introduced for students who had taken much longer to complete degrees, as a way to both speed up the process. In 2006, German states were given a considerable amount of freedom in determining how they would finance postsecondary education - but even then, several states (including Berlin) still refused to introduce tuition as a way of doing so.

    So your "Merkel's Germany" claim is completely bogus as Germany was not "Merkel's" 30 years ago.

    Parent
    Correction (none / 0) (#20)
    by Politalkix on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 03:56:15 PM EST
    It should read "It will be very wrong-headed of HRC to think of Margaret Thatcher as a role model (if she is doing so)".

    Parent
    If any Englishwoman is to be a role model ... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 06:07:23 PM EST
    ... for Hillary Clinton, let it be Boudica, Warrior Queen of the Iceni.
    ;-D

    Parent
    First of all, could any of you state with (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 02:03:35 PM EST
    any degree of confidence what, exactly, our current foreign policy is?  I don't think I can.  I hear a lot of theory, and varying opinions on what this means or that means or what could happen if we do X instead of Y, so I've concluded that we know what we want our policy to result in, but there may be no relationship between what we want, and what is actually happening.

    I sometimes also feel like we may be too quick to blame the policy when something goes wrong, or credit it when it goes right, because it's all so dependent on so many factors that are all in a constant state of flux and it's impossible to know what is coincidence and/or dumb luck and what isn't.  Will we ever get consistent results?  Who knows?

    With respect to the GOP, it won't matter what Clinton - or any other Democrat - says is or should be our policy; it will be ridiculed even if the exact same words came out of some Republican's mouth moments before.

    Ultimately, I think you may have to conclude that Hillary isn't advocating a more robust use of American power because she thinks it's how to win an election - I think she says it because she believes it, and I don't see her backing off her essential instinct.

    Although she could, I suppose; she could okey-doke her way through an election and if elected go about doing what she wants; it's not like she'd be the first to do that, right?

    Tweedledee... (none / 0) (#17)
    by lentinel on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 03:42:28 PM EST
    With respect to the GOP, it won't matter what Clinton - or any other Democrat - says is or should be our policy; it will be ridiculed even if the exact same words came out of some Republican's mouth moments before.

    And the sad fact is that what I have come to expect is that whatever Clinton or any other Democrat says is likely to be exactly what some Republican opined moments before.

    Parent

    I really don't feel like taking one situation (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 02:22:22 PM EST
    Out of the largely in harmony Obama/Clinton foreign policy relationship.  There isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two.  Clinton will be up front owning more of her choices if she is our next President.  This may lead to being perceived as more successful or perhaps more of a failure if Fox News has its way.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 03:30:13 PM EST
    but I think that foreign policy is really not going to be much of an issue in 2016 since all this has been going on forever and a day it seems like. Obama did not completely get us out of the middle east like he promised and I don't think Hillary will make the mistake of promising something like that when she knows it might be impossible to keep.

    And she's lucky that she's going to have the insane clown posse of the GOP spouting all kinds of promises to take over the middle east even though they really have no way to accomplish this.

    Parent

    Going nowhere. (none / 0) (#27)
    by lentinel on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 10:03:17 PM EST
    Obama did not completely get us out of the middle east like he promised and I don't think Hillary will make the mistake of promising something like that when she knows it might be impossible to keep.

    He promised, and didn't.

    She won't promise.

    That's progress?

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 06:40:27 AM EST
    yes because at least you know where she stands whether you agree with her or not and aren't expecting a bunch of stuff like with Obama who never had any intentions to do what he said.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#37)
    by lentinel on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 07:02:32 AM EST
    you really think, with full confidence, that you know where she stands?

    I think I know where she stands - with the corporate elite and the military/industrial/snoopy complex.

    If she gets elected, and turns out to be a real populist - that would make me very happy.

    But I wouldn't count on it.
    I couldn't count on it.

    Parent

    Well, you know, (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 09:35:17 AM EST
    every candidate out there should work to earn your vote Hillary included.

    You can never know with 100% certainty about any candidate. Obama is a perfect example of someone who hasn't done a lot of what he promised but he has been allowed to do that too.

    Parent

    Not everyone knows that Obama (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 08:20:31 AM EST
    Is deploying the military into this conflict right now.  He's doing to everyone what he did with Afghanistan.  If you go by his recent words you think he is about using America's soft power vs hard power.  Remember all the people who thought we weren't going into Afghanistan while thousands of soldiers were in train up to deploy?  He's doing it again.

    And I have mixed feelings about it all.  I don't think it is appropriate to announce to the enemy we are coming.  But Obama doesn't prepare his base at all for his military decisions.  I think Clinton will be much better at that.

    BTD is pulled into the snare though listening to what Obama has said verses what Obama has done militarily.  Obama is not afraid of using America's hard power and has done so repeatedly.  He hasn't been Dubya Bush stupid about it, but he hasn't been Jimmy Carter soft power either.

    Parent

    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 09:39:17 AM EST
    I think BTD is still on what Obama says and not what he has done.

    Parent
    BHO specifically said (none / 0) (#44)
    by Politalkix on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 10:02:53 AM EST
    over and over gain during the 2008 Presidential election campaign that he would deploy the military to Afghanistan. Even Howard Dean said he would do the same during his 2004 campaign. There were no surprises in Afghanistan as you are making it out to be.

    If you want to argue about the merits of HRC's foreign policy, do so openly. Please do not be sneaky about it. You first tried to blur the line between BHO's and HRC's differences on Syria and are now pretending that it was the only difference. Why don't you address differences on the issue of Iran which has even bigger ramifications. BTD explained very clearly the differences in BHO and HRC's worldviews when it came to foreign policy. Please go over it carefully. Now you have taken to saying that deployment of troops in Afghanistan by BHO was a surprise after BHO repeatedly said during the 2008 campaign that he would do so and blamed GWB for removing our focus from Afghanistan to Iraq.

    If you want to argue on behalf of HRC's foreign policy, please do so openly. I personally think that there is too much of a "Goldwater girl" left in her when it comes to foreign policy and there are stark differences between her and BHO in ways they see possibilities in fixing current problems and use of power in FP. And please address the issue of Iran if you decide to reply to this post. IMO, you are being sneaky here and not the President.

    Parent

    Goldwater Girl?! (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by nycstray on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 11:26:00 AM EST
    lol!~ Oh man, you need to do better than that . . .

    Parent
    Tthe "Goldwater Girl" comment?! (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by christinep on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 12:04:16 PM EST
    Like you, I was not surprised by the approach to supplementing military strength in Afghanistan nor where needed elsewhere ... if one listened and read closely, Obama's approach never was covert.

    It seems to me, sometimes, that people ask for full disclosure--as do I in many instances--but, the catch is the perceptual screen everyone has.  As I remember, we humans tend to focus on parts of speeches, statements that interest us most or what we want to hear or that day's particular emphasis.  All speakers--including political candidates--emphasize by tone and/or phrasing what is important to the various audiences.  That, in itself, can cause different interpretations.  And, when we want a person--friend, lover, historical figure, and political figure--to be what we think they are or should be, we can have several different reactions to the eventual discovery that the individual is fuller or more nuanced or more multi-faceted that we first thought or wanted.  The famous "perceptual screen."  Certainly, on this site, there are individuals who imbued the President as candidate with idealized qualities ... and, when the President turned out to be the multi-faceted leader that he has become, well ....  

    As for me, I have come to respect President Obama immensely over these years.  Recognize, as well, that as one who worked solidly for Hillary Clinton in her '08 campaign (and as one who initially didn't want much to do with that year's convention a few miles from my home ... until I was fortunate enough to attend a part of the convention the night of Clinton's speech and, later, the acceptance speech at Mile-Hi) ... as one who worked for one and then came to see the talents and leadership of Obama, I find that both individuals are exemplary.  (And, I have seen a lot.)  

    My critique, lately, with occasional statements by you, politalkix, is that you can't resist the old jabs of the old campaign.  BTW, if I didn't mind getting into a circular back & forth, I believe the conclusions-as-criticisms often levied by Ga6th still reflect the old campaign.  Politalkix: We need both the President and Hillary Clinton.  They supplement each other quite well; President Obama has been good for this country (full list of accomplishments, as you know, to follow at a later date) AND Hillary Clinton will be outstanding in the Oval Office as well.  Please stop the outdated barbs, ok?

    Parent

    Good luck convincing him (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 03:46:41 PM EST
    CDS ... Silly, yes ... but enduring.

    Parent
    Christinep (none / 0) (#61)
    by Politalkix on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 08:01:17 PM EST
    I totally respect your strong support for HRC over the years and also appreciate your open mindedness relating to support for BHO. I ofcourse would not even mind fair and honest criticism of BHO. In this regard you may want to note differences in my replies to posts by many commenters that are often quite critical of BHO (eg: ruffian, kdog, CST, Donald, etc) with my response to posts from Ga6th, jbindc, lentinel, etc. I hope that those who are stout supporters of HRC can also take some criticism of her.

    BTD is as stout a supporter of HRC as any in this forum. Doesn't it concern you that his essays on HRC's foreign policy converge so closely with thoughts that I have been expressing about HRC's stances over the years (even if for the sake or argument you assume that I have CDS and have been taking unfair jabs at HRC)?

    Parent

    Goldwater girl. (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 01:02:38 PM EST
    Lol. Did you know that Elizabeth Warren was a Republican until 1996? But I'm guessing that is okay with you but being a Goldwater girl 40 years ago is not.

    This is where the left wing of the party continually loses credibility. When Obama was singing the praises of Reagan the left wing of the party thought that was just fine and dandy. If Hillary had said the same thing they would have had a complete and total meltdown. All in all you guys threw your lot in with Obama and blew your wad so nobody is going to listen to you since you failed to hold Obama's feet to the fire.

    Parent

    the left wing of the party.. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 01:13:12 PM EST
    sorry, but that's just complete and utter bullshit.

    Obama has very little to do with the traditional left-progressive wing of the party, and well-informed people have always known that.

    What you're doing without realizing it, is exemplifying the Fox News vision of what constitutes the left wing of the Democratic Party.

    Parent

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 09:33:56 AM EST
    but it is not. Obama was embraced by everybody who self identified as the left wing of the party, Move On etc. So you're essentially saying that the  people who identify as the left wing of the party are basically uninformed?

    Not Fox News. What I am saying is the FACT that the left wing of the party is the one that adored him and ignored a lot of the stuff he did or gave him a pass.

    Parent

    I've read and re-read your comment (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by sj on Thu Feb 19, 2015 at 07:15:41 PM EST
    and am more incredulous every time.  
    Obama was embraced by everybody who self identified as the left wing of the party, Move On etc.
    Unless your "everyone" is referring to websites-that-are-used-to-fund-raise, I find your statement to be ... I don't even know what.

    To wit:

    • At the time I self-identified as part of the "left wing of the party" and that certainly doesn't describe me. Now the "of the party" part doesn't describe me either. While "left wing" still most assuredly does.

    • If you mean websites, well then recall that whole new websites sprang up because of the CDS coming from those who DID support Obama.

    Your so-called FACT has no basis in reality. If it did, there would have been no reason for the rise of PUMAs. Not, mind you, that HRC is particularly left either.

    jondee's statement is factually accurate.

    Obama has very little to do with the traditional left-progressive wing of the party, and well-informed people have always known that.
    As someone who lived and breathed the "traditional left-progressive wing" I can tell you that for sure.

    I actually concurred with your original comment because I mentally translated your description of the "left wing of the party" to mean neo-liberals. Which is NOT the same thing as a liberal.

    jondee may have been a little rude, but s/he was not wrong.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 07:05:31 AM EST
    I'm going by the people who self identified themselves as the left wing to the party whether you actually consider them left wing is certainly debatable.

    Parent
    I think you're still mistaken (none / 0) (#117)
    by sj on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 12:26:43 PM EST
    Those supporters that I knew (and I knew a lot of them as an officer of the Party in the most "left wing" part of the state) tended to be

    • all "centrist" and "pragmatic" or even worse "progressive", and
    • were thrilled to have a candidate of color as if that made him intrinsically more ...something.

    You may know how conservatives think, but I don't think your GA POV gives you any insight into a liberal perspective (in terms of trends).

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 03:10:46 PM EST
    all I remember is them yammering about how more liberal Obama was that Hillary. I think this mostly came from the fact that he said he was against the War in Iraq and the so called "progressives" or "self identified left wing" none of which called themselves centrists and actually hate centrists from my experience. They tended to ignore or excuse any centrist thing that Obama did a lot. My opinion was that they excused him because he was black as much as the right wing hates him because he is black. All this solidifying my opinion from back in 2008 that this country is just not mature enough to handle an African American president.

    I understand where you're coming from though because Obama himself attacked Hillary from the right however again, they seemed to excuse this type of thing or either did not realize what was happening and then there was the misogyny too. Ugh. I'm not hoping to relive any of that anytime soon for sure.

    Parent

    People who self identify as (none / 0) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 08:49:52 AM EST
    Liberals are telling you that you don't know what you are talking about.

    Obama and Hillary have at one time or other both self identified as progressives and both are center right politicians.

    Parent

    Guess you didn't read the posts or the (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 08:20:19 AM EST
    comments that highlighted the fact that Move On lost membership when they endorsed Obama.

    Liberals cancelled their membership immediately after Move On's announcement.

    Parent

    What's the deal with the constant (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 01:11:04 PM EST
    references to the party's left wing?  Every time I see it, I mutter to myself, "what left wing?  There's a left wing?"  

    If you're talking party officials, I'd love to know who you think the leftists among them are, because the names I see on the DNC website seem pretty middle-of-the-road to me.

    If you're talking about, you know, the grassroots, well, I'm part of that group, as are more than a few people here, and I don't know any actual leftists who were or are part of the herd you describe.  Time and again, we flaming liberals try to tell you that what the party defines as leftist is only left because it's on the other side of the center, but since the center keeps moving to the right, it's about where the right used to be when the right wasn't insane.

    Obama drew a lot of support from people who not long ago either were Republicans or whose ideology placed them closer to the center than to anything truly on the left.  Those are the people who didn't want to vomit when Obama spoke so glowingly of Reagan - again, not leftists by any stretch of even an overactive imagination.

    What makes me a little nuts is how often I have to explain to people, thanks to those who are apparently fine defining "left-wing" solely on the basis that it's "not Republican," what a liberal, left-wing person actually believes.

    Tell me who in the party hierarchy represents the left wing as a liberal would define it, and then see if any of those people are part of this herd that was out there singing Obama's praises for genuflecting to St. Ronnie.

    Parent

    Okay. (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 20, 2015 at 03:11:59 PM EST
    Well, you're looking at it from the perspective of what could be and I'm looking it at the perspective of what it actually is right now. As the center shifts so does everything else.

    Parent
    No. I'm not looking at what could be, (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Anne on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 07:14:05 AM EST
    I'm telling you that I do not accept your definition of "left wing."  and that in order to be "left wing," I require more than just a constantly rightward-shifting center to orient where the left is.  I - and many others - have NOT quietly joined the shift; we actually continue to hold truly liberal positions. There is a left wing among the people, but we do not have much - if any - of a voice among party leaders.  

    I'm aware of and spoke to the reality of where and what the actual left wing's situation is; you are just making centrist/center-right the left wing because that's how far those in leadership positions have allowed "the party" to move.

    I know what my ideology is and it isn't defined by where "the party" says "the left" is.  That's the reality - my reality.

    Parent

    I'm just saying it is where (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 05:47:51 PM EST
    it is right now not that you have to like it or agree with it. Under Obama what is liberal has largely lost meaning. Obama holds no policy stances himself. He doesn't have a core belief system so unfortunately that is what everybody is kind of going to have to deal with right now. It can be fixed but not until Obama is gone from office.

    Parent
    This is just utter nonsense. (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Anne on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 07:25:55 PM EST
    And you're either not getting it, or you're just refusing to get it.

    I'm a liberal.  I define that for myself.  Obama doesn't define that for me.  I don't adapt my views based on how politicians or political parties are massaging the labels or shifting where they fit on the spectrum and using that to try to define it for everyone.  

    I don't give a rat's a$$ how Obama defines what liberal is; I don't have to be his version of liberal.  I'm comfortable being a square peg. I am not a sheep. I don't pitch my beliefs in the trash in order to be in alignment with politicians.

    And there are plenty of people just like me.

    Please, I beg of you, stop telling liberals what liberal means: we already know.

    Parent

    Let's look at the reality in 2008 and 2012 (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 21, 2015 at 08:00:12 AM EST
    and not how you and other centrists and conservative Dems view the world.

    DailyKos a strong supporter of Obama. The owner did a very long rant explaining that his site was not a liberal site but a Democratic site. Kos, himself, was a one time a Republican and is not in any way a liberal. The liberals that once posted there were run off since they did not support Obama. Many of them migrated to TL and post here today.

    Josh Marshall at TPM a centrist and a strong supporter of Obama. Even our very own BTD is a self identified centrist and supported Obama.

    FDL, Hullabaloo  and MyDD, and many other liberal sites did not support Obama.

    Many of the self identified liberals  here did not support Obama. In fact, many of them refused to cast their vote for him in 2008 or 2012.

    IMO it is your perception that is distorted. You, like too many in the Democratic Party, prefer to blame everything you dislike on liberals. The Dems who have  joined with the Republicans in slamming liberals are one of the main reasons this country has moved so far to the right.

    Parent

    You know (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 05:44:35 PM EST
    what? Kos really is all over the place. He seems to have done a 180 from 2008 and really I think he's more about and the site is more about personalities than issues. As far as being a Republican, he's an ex-Republican longer than Elizabeth Warren who only left the GOP in 1996 not that I hold that against either of them. Obama could literally stomp on them in the face and they would sit there and take it. I have never seen anything like it. They would never take that from either Bill or Hillary who so many of them over there loathe.

    Parent
    He may be all over the place (none / 0) (#127)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 05:49:11 PM EST
    but as he has stated on more than one occasion he is not a liberal and his blog is not a liberal blog.

    Parent
    What (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 05:53:38 PM EST
    you are missing is that Obama has allowed himself and liberals to be defined as such. Like I said he has no core principles and he's allowed himself to be defined as the left and the left of the party is the one that attached themselves to him DESPITE the fact that people like Jerome at MYDD and others saw through his act but too many did not. People just saw what they wanted to see I guess and since he's an African American they figured he would be liberal.

    I don't know but all the left leaning organizations were the ones and the most left representatives in congress were the ones that were attaching themselves to him back in 2008. Also his voters in the primary tended to be on the left side of the spectrum.  

    Parent

    You keep on stating that people (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 06:22:43 PM EST
    Are missing your point. People are not missing the point. They are disagreeing with you. The Republicans define Democratic candidates as liberal, leftist, and a socialist and you merrily go right along with them in promoting this leftist BS.

    You, as jondee has stated,  have bought into Fox New's framing and are bound and determined to continue to perpetuate it until hell freezes over.

    Not sure exactly how you expect this tactic is going to help you promote Hillary for president (not working for me) but please continue on without me.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 06:46:48 AM EST
    actually what you are talking about does not exist anymore so therefore it cannot be defined as the "left" in this country despite Fox News's protestations to the contrary. What I am dealing with is the reality of what is the left right now and those are the people who attached themselves to Obama hence going back to my original statement that they pretty much discredited themselves.

    Parent
    You discredit yourself (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 07:50:44 AM EST
    You wouldn't know the reality of what the left is if it came up and bit you in the ass.

    Keep on helping Fox define the left. Keep on with your BS about the left having no creditibility and the politicians that represent you and your state will be the very  best you ever get because you have this perverse need to give the far right creditibility by demonizing liberals.

    Unfortunately, the rest of us to live with the results of the right wing policies that you bring about with your choices.

    Parent

    What (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:55:58 AM EST
    Fox defines as the left is some sort of strawman argument. What I define as the left is what is currently the left wing of the party. Would you consider Barbara Lee a member of the left wing of the party? I would and she endorsed Obama along with others who would be probably considered in the same wing of the party as she is.

    Parent
    That is the proof you want to (none / 0) (#136)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 11:50:01 AM EST
    present.

    The co-chair of the Congressional Black Caucus,  who wanted to run for leadership of that caucus, endorsed Obama. That is your proof. Get real.


    Parent

    There are tons (none / 0) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 03:03:50 PM EST
    of more examples from congress if you want them. And I'm not talking about people like John Lewis who were more or less forced to endorse Obama but other people in congress. And I really wouldn't consider Lewis part of the left wing of the party any way.

    Parent
    "The left" has not discredited itself; (none / 0) (#133)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:34:59 AM EST
    it has been slowly, deliberately and purposely discredited and marginalized by the media and party leaders who chose to discard and ignore the true liberals - who very much still exist - so that they can pretend that Obama represents the true left side of the spectrum.  He does not.  And no amount of your saying he does will make that so, not for me.

    How Fox News or any other media outlet or the conventional "wisdom" of the Democratic National Committee choose to define or depict what represents the left in this country does not serve as a mind-eraser for the liberals, and we have not had what we believe wiped out and replaced by the warmed-over center-right pablum dished up by any and all of these entities.

    You are not dealing with the reality of people like me, and I have no idea why you seem so accepting of allowing people who are not leftists or liberals or even true progressives to decide how "the left" is defined.  If nothing else, you are enabling that to continue and you are legitimizing it every time you say the kinds of things you've been saying here.

    Just stop.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:59:44 AM EST
    Anne yes there are people like you who believe the party has left them behind and it probably has. My point being is that apparently most people in the party have moved with the party and have done what you have done. You and I are basically saying the same thing but I'm saying that what you define as the left is currently powerless in this country. What is define as the left is where the left currently is in the country. I'm talking about people who self identify as the left wing of the party.

    Parent
    You know, Politalkix, (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Zorba on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 03:07:40 PM EST
    You have characterized various commenters who disagreed with you, and their comments, as "wrong-headed," "ignorant," and now, "sneaky."
    If you are trying to win people over to your point of view, it might be best if you don't hurl insults at the same time.
    If you believe that you have a strong argument, then that should be sufficient, without any kind of invective or dismissiveness.  Let your discourse carry the day, and not the negativity.
    Namaste.

    Parent
    Actually, what he said was ... (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 04:04:19 PM EST
    ... not that he would "deploy the military to Afghanistan" (they were already there).  He said he would send 2-3 more brigades (@ 6,000-15,000 soldiers).  What he ended up doing was sending was 47,000 troops - @ 9-19 brigades.  Not to mention a massive increase in the number of private mercenaries.

    Guess that makes him a hawk ...

    Parent

    Blur the line? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 11:41:45 AM EST
    HRC claims that she initially wanted a different approach on Syria, but since claiming that has said what else?  And she didn't generate a sneaky media driven war against Obama when Obama made his choice.  She worked for him, lines are blurred right there, she went with his choice....team player, able to work well with others, able to allow other advisors be heard....great leadership skills!

    You act like the President and his advisors and his military never disagree, never duke it out in coming to solutions and conclusions.  The dumbest leaders lock certain people and points of view out of the debate and the decision making.

    Obama did campaign on going into Afghanistan and then after he was elected, based on things he said, the entire left blogosphere was convinced he wasn't going into Afghanistan.  A leftwing blogger even said that his White House source had phoned him before the President was to address the nation on Afghanistan and told him we weren't going in.

    AND....Obama cut new deployment orders for the military to begin deploying into the ISIS fight in unison with asking Congress for a new AUMF.  How does that match up with this writing about Obama using soft power when addressing ISIS and Clinton being all hard power goofy.

    Nothing is crystal clear about these two individuals and power and Syria at this point.  I have no idea how it is all that clear to you.

    Parent

    MT (none / 0) (#60)
    by Politalkix on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 07:32:29 PM EST
    BTD based his essays solely on what he heard from the horse's mouth (HRC and BHO)in interviews and words they chose to express themselves on FP.

    You, Ga6th and some others are trying to make points on second, third and fourth level interpretations of what each candidate said ("tea partier believes they got 98% of what they wanted from Obama", "entire left blogosphere was convinced he was not going to go to Afghanistan", etc).

    BTD's essays are therefore on more sound footing in my book when compared to opinions that you, Ga6th and some other folks have provided.


    Parent

    BTD did not take into consideration (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 09:14:21 PM EST
    That at this very moment President Obama is expanding the mission that includes Syria.  I don't think BTD even investigated what is going on there.

    And any troops on the ground in Iraq at this time are exempt from the restrictions in the AUMF that Obama is asking for.  Did you know or did BTD know that the President is at least doubling the number of troops he has on the ground in Iraq this minute, and those troops will be exempt from the NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND rules?

    Are these the actions of a soft power President?  Doubling the fighter jets and doubling the boots on the ground?

    As I said before, when it comes to actions I don't really see a dime's worth of difference between how Obama functions and how Clinton will most likely function when it comes to the use of military might and foreign policy.

    Was Clinton right in her views of what we should have done in Syria?  We have no way of knowing.  A lot of people argue that those who would have stabilized Syria were murdered and we just stood here and allowed it.

    It wasn't the course of action chosen though.  We have no way of knowing how it would have gone.

    Other than that one decision though, I see Clinton and Obama as completely in step with each other, too similar to pretend they are pragmatically very different.

    And really, you are going to throw in all of BTDs other works? If I question the validity of this essay I'm questioning all of his other writings?  Where is the evidence for THIS theory?  I am practically a pathetic BTD toady.  It is odd for me to find something he has written off base, but I find this particular essay off base.  I'm certain I will be sucking up again shortly though :)

    Parent

    Essays (none / 0) (#65)
    by Politalkix on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 09:33:58 PM EST
    When I wrote the word "essays", I just meant essays on HRC's foreign policy (the one that he wrote and the one that he referenced). I did not mean all of BTDs other works. Sorry for not being clear.

    I am however still quite interested in hearing from you about HRC and BHO's policies relating to Iran. I think there is a significant difference between the two of them when it comes to policies towards that country that is critical to our Middle East policy. Do you think that HRC will meet Netanyahu when he comes to the United States on Boehner's invitation?

    Parent

    What? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Yman on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 07:01:26 AM EST
    I think there is a significant difference between the two of them when it comes to policies towards that country that is critical to our Middle East policy. Do you think that HRC will meet Netanyahu when he comes to the United States on Boehner's invitation?

    Why?  You think this demonstrates some kind of "significant difference"?  Because, if you do ...

    Parent

    I don't see any difference (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 09:50:36 PM EST
    Between Clinton and Obama on Iran. Because Obama's Iran policy is viewed by too many as a failure, she has to figure out how to deal with being the largest purveyor of that perceived failed policy and get elected.

    I don't believe for a minute she will meet with Netanyahu without Obama's blessing to do so.  They could easily actively decide to play good cop/bad cop in this situation. Obama does not have to be re-elected, he can play things very differently now if it benefits his immediate goals.

    Parent

    Not so sure (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 03:47:45 PM EST
    i think Hillary might have been more aggressive in some areas recently.  Like Syria.

    Parent
    I think she had a different idea for Syria (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 05:09:58 PM EST
    But was willing to allow other advisors to be heard and win the argument as well.  That's a good leader.  When Syria really went to hell she piped up letting us all know she wanted something different.  Then she grew quiet again, probably when confronted with deeper questions that she had no answer or promise for.


    Parent
    This is an interesting thread (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 01:31:08 PM EST
    I don;t know if this comment really responds to what people are saying but I do want to clarify that I don;t think Clinton is a neocon or a warmonger, but I DO think she has an unmerited belief in the efficacy of American hard power to solve the world's problems.

    In many instances, Obama acted as if he had that belief. But since Syria, he clearly has changed course on that.

    I hope Clinton does as well.  

    Yep (none / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 11:45:45 PM EST
    We militarily defeated (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 11:48:01 PM EST
    Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and what did it get us?

    The problem with terrorists is that they can be militarily defeated and still kill many through terrorist acts.....Something aside from military power is needed....if we need to "defeat" ISIS at all.

    Parent

    How would we defeat something that (none / 0) (#97)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 08:19:23 AM EST
    doesn't seem to recognize the possibility that it can be defeated?  I mean, what good does it do for us to announce that we've militarily - or otherwise - defeated a group like ISIS if that group isn't going to then do what the defeated are supposed to do: stop/surrender/submit?

    Problem is that "containment" translates to "endless war," and gets portrayed as a form of accommodation or weakness, with the perception being that whoever's in charge doesn't have the balls to deliver the death blow to these organizations.

    I'm pretty sure there are things other than military might at work, but so much of that is back-channel, chess game stuff that people don't understand.

    Seems like an impossible job to me; I have no idea why anyone would want it.

    Parent

    "Containment" (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 10:44:54 AM EST
     need not mean war.  The doctrine was created by Dean Acheson as Truman's Secretary of State....

    Usually "containment" meant no actual shooting; hence, the "Cold War."

    We did not get in a shooting war Europe with the Soviets.....Proxy wars, sorta, did envelope us in Vietnam and Korea.  Central America was a mess....but more so under Republicans......

    Parent

    People will make words mean (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 11:51:37 AM EST
    whatever works best for their purposes at any given moment; my point was that Republicans are going to define Democratic strategy and actions, and the proposals of any Democratic candidates for the WH, in the most negative way possible, regardless of how clearly Democrats define and explain whatever it is we're doing or not doing.  Republicans can thus make "containment" sound like a bad thing, even a weak thing; it doesn't matter for GOP purposes whether it isn't anything like that at all.

    Call it the Alice in Wonderland Method.

    I used the word "containment" to encompass whatever strategy best works with respect to an organization that will not recognize defeat by our definition of the concept.  It could include actual fighting, if fighting helped bring things under control to the point where there are no shots being fired.

    So far, no one has told me how we best deal with groups that don't accept the notion that they can be defeated, and who will not surrender and will not let setbacks stop them from trying to attain their goals.  That mindset is not going to be deterred by military might; it probably isn't going to be deterred by diplomatic means.  Can we cut off the flow of money that's funding them?  

    I don't know what the answers are; in terms of getting elected, I think Clinton will say what she needs to, and whether that forms an actual strategy should she be elected remains to be seen.  But I'm not sure there are any good answers, so the best I think we can hope for is someone who is not so locked into any strategy or policy that it becomes impossible to make adjustments as they are needed.

    Parent

    The meaning of words (none / 0) (#103)
    by christinep on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 12:42:10 PM EST
    Anne: Humpty-Dumpty said so much in "Through the Looking Glass" when he announced "A word means exactly what I say it means....Nothing more and nothing less." (my paraphrase)  A good message in many parts of the legal world; and, definitely, a good interpretive device in the sphere of international relations.

    I completely agree with your comment here. Mostly--given all the twists & turns in the Mideast, a serious candidate for President would be wise to keep the options open.  It may be difficult for aspiring candidates to enter this foray with caution--even as it is hard for a noticeable group visiting TL to rein in sky-is-falling claims when there is no immediate, certain answer to the complications posed in that international theatre. Yet, keeping necessary flexibility in the use of might as well as in the use of diplomacy actually increases our perceived strength and our chance of getting it right. And, of course, I'll speculate that Hillary Clinton is best positioned of the potential candidates to maintain that key flexibility ... because she is perceived as starting from a position of strength, a position that maximizes her ability in diplomacy and any negotiation to follow.

    Parent

    I am not confident (none / 0) (#104)
    by Politalkix on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 03:50:27 PM EST
    that HRC will not start a war with Iran. There are many powerful forces that want to plunge the United States into war with Iran. Saudi Arabia and some other Sunni kingdoms in the gulf, Netanyahu, Adelson, MIC, our warmongering media etc are just a few of these forces. She has long standing relationships with many powerful people who want such a war and I do not think that she has the strength to resist them.

    WSJ has an article about her foreign policy agenda. She intends to follow a military backed "activist" foreign policy. Honestly, her candidacy now has already begun to depress me.

    Parent

    Do you really believe... (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 04:21:16 PM EST
    ... that specious, baseless claims should be taken seriously simply because they're phrased in the form of an opinion?

    Parent
    Bahaaaaa (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 04:43:48 PM EST
    Yes, because the WSJ is never wrong headed about war and Democratic policies.

    A few words in the article that seem accurate to me

    Mr. Obama has seemed flat-footed at times in response to the Islamic State's advances in Syria and Russian President Vladimir Putin`s aggressive moves to gain territory in Ukraine.

    "There's a degree of concern that what we're doing oftentimes looks to be reactive in response to what the problem of the moment is -- as opposed to what is the strategic approach and what might we be doing differently," said one person familiar with her thinking who requested anonymity.

    It's largely about perception.  Because Obama has had JSOC in Bahgdad collecting intelligence since the beginning of ISIS's takeover of Northwest Iraq.  He has never been flat-footed and "experts" have been involved since day one.   But if Fox News screams the same thing over and over again enough times even Democrats and Liberals start to believe it?  Republicans really begin to believe that Obama is some sort of incompetent dove and Democrats believe he is some kind of competent dove?  He is NO dove :), Notta, Zilch, Zero....he's just quiet :)

    Parent

    Isn't that what you said (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by nycstray on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 06:40:53 PM EST
    a few months ago? We get it.

    Honestly, her candidacy now has already begun to depress me.

    Interesting you think she would start a war with Iran just because "powerful people" want one . . . she's just so weak . . .

    Parent

    Bombing Iran (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 17, 2015 at 12:29:50 AM EST
    Why anyone would want to bomb Iran is beyond me.

    Almost everyone says it would not be militarily effective--at least for very long.

    And if the idea on how to defeat ISIS and its ilk is to have moderate Muslims repudiate them, our bombing of Iran would destroy any such hope....

    And so, bombing won't work....that means ground troops....These Republicans are a scary group.....Another "daisy" commercial is warranted.

    Armando opined in 2008 as I recall, and ask him if you think I misremember, that Hillary was articulating a policy of bringing Iran into the umbrella of our nuclear deterrent, rather than bombing them....

    Parent

    Deep-end trajectory, politalkix (none / 0) (#108)
    by christinep on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 10:19:17 PM EST
    The comment is speculative only ... for example, you have a belief or fixation that Clinton may well become engaged in war with Iran ... based on what?...based upon the reality of her knowing many people, some of whom are somewhat aggressive.  By the same token, I believe that Hillary Clinton will not be trapped in such a situation (because she is too smart for that.)

    Here is what I think: I'm predisposed to trust Clinton; and, you are predisposed to distrust her.  That much is clear.  Although I do not want to invent your position, I do get the definite impression that your apparent position is hardening as you experience pushback here in the past few days. So far as I know, no new info has been released as to Clinton's positions in areas of concern, so ....  A deep breath, perhaps, on both sides?  A little breather from heightening and hardening positions so early can be helpful later on, I think.

    Parent

    It's not hardening (4.00 / 4) (#109)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 10:39:51 PM EST
    He made up his mind long ago.  He's just searching for rationalizations and excuses, now, ridiculous as many of them are.

    Parent
    You know (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    the thing is unfortunately Obama is seen as weak by many people and I think it has more to do with his demeanor than anything else and sometimes I think with her it's about her demeanor too.

    Obama's problem has been that he can't really articulate what the strategy is. He's kind of the anti-Bush in that regard who gave us nothing but dumbed down talking points. The real problem is that terrorism cannot be solved by the military.

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 01:04:17 PM EST
    Terrorism also cannot be solved with negotiation.

    Parent
    Who is (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    advocating negotiation? No one that I know and that sounds just like the stuff the crackpot clowns in the GOP spew. Just because it cannot be solved by the military doesn't mean that you want negotiation.

    Parent
    And how do you think it can be solved? (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 01:07:31 PM EST
    The crackpot idea of, "If we leave the Middle East, they'll just stop?"

    Parent
    Containment (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 01:09:14 PM EST
    which might finally force the surrounding countries to get involved more.

    Parent
    that is sense- that it (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jim in St Louis on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 06:52:36 AM EST
    The containment sounds like a very good first step. I'd also add some stronger methods of how to cut off funding- ISIS is still selling oil on the open market- how is that possible?

    The surrounding nations do need to engage more- but so many sub motives and bad history involved. It would take some serious shuttle diplomacy- and Kerry can only offer James Taylor concerts.

    Parent

    Easy (none / 0) (#40)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 09:17:02 AM EST
    I'd also add some stronger methods of how to cut off funding- ISIS is still selling oil on the open market- how is that possible?

    Because they sell on the black market, which has existed forever and has grown massively since the Iraq War.

    How is it not possible?

    Parent

    We did not invade the old Soviet Union (none / 0) (#30)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 12:18:29 AM EST
    No we didn't invade the USSR (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 09:12:08 AM EST
    But we did use the Iron Curtain as a "go no farther" line and Mutually Assured Destruction - MAD - and fought proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Grenada and Central America with them.

    The problem with that strategy is the the Soviets had a rational fear of dying. The radical islamist do not. e.g. It was just reported that Iraqi forces killed ISIS fighters attacking Anbar...some of the attackers were wearing suicide vests.

    So I don't know how containment can work. You can't bluff an opponent who is ready to die. And obviously  the world's intelligence agencies aren't too sharp if they can't figure out how to stop ISIS from selling oil on the open market.

    Parent

    ISIS is a lesser threat than the Soviets were (none / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 11:51:15 PM EST
    And, as to rationality, I am not so sure I agree with you.  ISIS may in fact be rational, especially the leadership, which is reportedly made up of former Saddam Hussein military commanders...

    Parent
    Just because there are limits to US (none / 0) (#8)
    by Green26 on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 01:05:48 PM EST
    raw power, does not mean that raw power, or something close to it, shouldn't be used at times, and certainly doesn't mean that doing little or nothing is a good or better answer.

    In my view, Obama is overly cautious and too slow in some situations. Given the problems in the world and with prior US actions/policies he inherited, and acknowledging that it's a tough world with many difficult choices, I believe some of Obama's caution has made various situations worse, or allowed them to get worse.

    Also, even in some situations where US power has not won the day, or where the situation evolves into something between winning (i.e. accomplishing most of the goals) and losing (not accomplishing any or many goals), it may still be the case that the US power was a better alternative than doing little or nothing or the other alternatives.

    Just scroll on by.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jim in St Louis on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 02:00:09 PM EST
    The frustration with the Obama administration is that is obviously being driven by events rather than setting its own agenda, that was bragging they won the war in Iraq two years ago, but weakly blames any problems today on Bush (hell that excuse doesn't work even at Talk Left anymore!) that was flummoxed by the Arab Spring, that had no plan in Iran during the green revolution, that led from behind in Libya, that could not enforce its red line against Syria, that was played by the Russians over Kerry's silly chemical weapons proposal, that had (has?) no strategy  to fight ISIL , that has been fruitlessly sucking up to Iran with no compromises so far from the atomic Ayatollahs, that has gone out of its way to alienated Israel, with no improvement on the Palestinian question.

    What the electorate is looking for is competence.  And Hillary can fake that calm competence and she will not see any advantage to being cozy with the Code Pink faction.   So since she is the only candidate that has the slightest chance of winning the most you can hope for is a Sanders or a Nader so you can make a symbolic vote during the primary. But it will not push her to change her hawk reputation. Its the only thing that she has going for her to attract the security moms and the rest of the middle.

    I agree with others here that military power should not be the only tool- but the current commander in chief is equally bumbble thumbs with all types of power.

    Oh no? (none / 0) (#28)
    by lentinel on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 10:17:28 PM EST
    .
    ..but weakly blames any problems today on Bush (hell that excuse doesn't work even at Talk Left anymore!)

    If you think that blaming Bush as the originator of this mess doesn't work at Talk Left anymore, let me help revive it.

    He was an evil s.o.b. with an agenda.
    He cost us trillions and slaughtered hundreds of thousands.
    The deaths and injuries to our servicemen and servicewomen are staggering in number.
    Our economy has never recovered.
    Our standing in the world has never recovered.

    I will be first in line to state that the Democrats, to their lasting discredit, were enablers of this monstrous person, Bush.
    And to their further discredit, they presented us with two Senatorial enablers in 2006, and look as if they are about to do so again in 2016.

    But none of this excuses Bush or mitigates the unspeakable evil he has wrought upon us, and the spiraling consequences of that evil that we are witnessing today.

    Parent

    and I thank you (2.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Jim in St Louis on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 06:36:01 AM EST
    for providing an example of why one should not value the opinions of irrational people.  The over used metaphor 'blind hatred' seems to fit. Even the attempt to appear even handed is only a complaint that others will not hate Bush with that jaw clenching rage as much as you do.
     "Unspeakable Evil"? "monstrous"? These terms don't seem to you to lack proportion? Or depth?

    The proposal was could the Democratic frontrunner be nudged into a less hawkish position? I do not think that Hillary will be influenced by voices such as yours- she did vote for the first resolution.  It will be interesting to see if she would postition herself more into the 'lets use diplomacy and soft power' role if her opponet comes out as a 'pro-was bomb them all' type of attitude.

    Parent

    "she did vote for the first resolution." (3.50 / 2) (#54)
    by NYShooter on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 02:17:38 PM EST
    So, speaking in political reality, how could a NEW YORK Senator, having witnessed the NEW YORK Towers come crashing down, NOT vote for that resolution?

    Parent
    She Didn't Have to Vote For It (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by RickyJim on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 07:28:41 PM EST
    Jerrold Nadler, the Congressman who represented and still represents the district that includes the Twin Towers, voted against it.

    Parent
    Yes. Unspeakable evil. (none / 0) (#36)
    by lentinel on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 06:56:32 AM EST
     
    "Unspeakable Evil"? "monstrous"? These terms don't seem to you to lack proportion? Or depth?

    I save these expletives for the very few who merit them.

    If you can't acknowledge that in the case of Bush and Cheney they are well deserved, I guess we perceive things quite differently.

    As for Hillary, she says she made a mistake - or some such verbiage.

    Yes. She did. And she will have to live with it.

    I do not trust her to not make the same mistake again and again.
    Maybe she will be the peacemaker that we all hope for, but I wouldn't count on it. And I certainly would not be influenced by what she might say in a campaign.

    Recent history has certainly shown that these people, all of them, will say anything.

    Parent

    Oh no! (none / 0) (#29)
    by Politalkix on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 10:48:31 PM EST
    "Its the only thing that she has going for her to attract the security moms and the rest of the middle."

    Wanna talk about "security moms" and the "middle"? Let me tell you about the middle finger that "security moms" gave Romney and McCain after they figured out that these clowns would bankrupt social security through endless war.

    I just laughed at the first paragraph that you wrote. There is however a cure for it. The Democratic President just has to take away your Viagra.

     

    Parent

    stay on subject (2.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Jim in St Louis on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 06:47:32 AM EST
    I agree 'security moms' is not a perfect way to describe a somewhat hard to categorize demographic, but I think you know what I mean. Those voters who see the security situation worsening, how many embassies have been closed down now? How many nations does the state department now tell americans not to travel to?  

    Voters will go with a candidate that can express a simple strategy of clear objectives, and that will have to include a robust boots on the ground component.

     

    Parent

    Great campaign strategy (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 12:35:13 PM EST
    Hope the Republicans pursue a strategy as depicted below based on your robust boots on the ground recommendation. I can hear the campaign now.

    If elected, we plan to put large contingents of U.S. Combat troups on the ground in however many countries as needed until ISIL is eliminated. No amount of U.S. casualties is too high to deter us in our objective and if it takes several trillion more dollars, so be it. We are willing to sacrifice all domestic programs, close schools and universities, eliminate S.S. and Medicare in order to fight them over there. Meanwhile we will continue to spend trillions more to arm and train the locals so that they can sit on the sidelines and watch while our soldiers fight and die.

    A strategy like that is bound to capture the presidency for the right wing in 2016.

    Parent

    That strategy may (none / 0) (#52)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 01:40:55 PM EST
    be too nuanced for most of the wingers.  It needs to be simplified:  If elected, I promise to bomb.

    Parent
    Bombing is not enough to satisfy Jim (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 02:08:42 PM EST
    Jim wants more than just Bombs. He wants robust U.S. boots on the ground. He is willing for U.S. Soldiers to die as well as the civilians in the area so that he can sit at home pounding his chest and congratulating himself on how tough he is.

    Let him and his winger cohorts sell that strategy and tell everyone they don't care how many lives are lost or how many trillions are spent because they are tough.


    Parent

    Jim's comments are not enough to satisfy MOBlue (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jim in St Louis on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 05:46:24 AM EST
    You make up stuff and rail against that.(see above) You take it to a personal level why?  What is it with leftists and lying?  If you disagree with my POV then show me where my logic is wrong, or provide more facts to add to the discussion.  Why pretend that I said something that you know that I did not?

    Putz.

    Parent

    I think we have already seen the results (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 08:29:57 AM EST
    of robust boots on the ground. 4,500 Americans and over a hundred thousand civilians died in Iraq due to the right wing's lies and lust for war. All these deaths occurred when we had robust boots on the ground and you have stated that you want the U.S. to put robust boots on the ground once again.

    Let's talk about lying. Mushroom clouds, WMD, the war will pay for itself, we will be greeted with flowers and candy and we will bring peace and stability to the ME.

    All right wing lies which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousand and the deaths continue to this day.

    Those are the facts of what the ring wing accomplished with their lies that brought about the invasion of Iraq. Those are the results of what robust boots on the ground accomplished. Continued death and destruction and wasting trillions of dollars to further destabilize the ME and aid Iran in the bargain.

    Parent

    Will "voters"? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 09:20:44 AM EST
    Voters will go with a candidate that can express a simple strategy of clear objectives, and that will have to include a robust boots on the ground component.

    After 8+ years of war in Iraq alone and trillions of dollars spent, good luck with that.

    BTW - Most Americans support the proposed AUMF.

    Parent

    Do "security moms" (none / 0) (#46)
    by nycstray on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 11:28:22 AM EST
    or any majority of voters know anything about closed embassies? I really think you are giving too much credit there . . .

    Parent
    Having served, overall, (none / 0) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 02:04:20 PM EST
    as an excellent Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton should be in a position to demonstrate that American hard power cannot solve the world's problems.  Indeed, she is in a position to show that American soft power, too, is not in a position to cure all world problems. However, Mrs. Clinton should be in a position to apply her knowledge and experience in a manner that has reasonable prospects to succeed.

    To achieve a non-ideological and pragmatic approach to foreign policy will require her recognition of a changed world order in which wars are an old-fashioned solution to problems even in the face of old-fashioned warriors at home and abroad.  

    Mrs. Clinton's experience inventory needs to be sorted out, discarding political calculations such as a need to look like the "Iron Lady,"  and assembling realities and limitations for both soft and hard power.  Both as senator and Secretary of State, it seemed that she was inclined toward erring on the side of a muscular foreign policy.  Her senate vote in support of the 2002 AUMF, in great measure, placed her at a disadvantage in the 2008 primaries where her "experience" yielded to his "change."  

    As Secretary of State she favored the surge in troops in Afghanistan in keeping with McChrystal's plan and was among key aides arguing for military intervention in Libya.  While Mrs. Clinton was mistakenly taken on by Republicans for Benghazi, that criticized Benghazi was a consequence of the critical Benghazi that was the mistaken reason for intervention cheer-led by Republicans.  

    Mrs. Clinton tried to "re-set" our relationship with Russia and had a good run with Medvedev.  Putin was a horse-back rider of a different color, and her soft power was tested.

    Recently, in a speech in Canada, Mrs Clinton seemed more measured--advocating for more financial aid to Ukraine with strings attached.  The threats of military aid seemed to be there, but, as with the president, it appears the threats of such aid are part of pressures for a peace agreement.

    Threats are better than actual provision of lethal arms, but some severe sanctions, such as a cut off from all international banking would be more creative and less dangerous.  

    A Democratic primary could be a good place to air foreign policy strategies should there be thoughtful contenders.  The general election will only bring the McCain and Lindsey school of bomb early and often.  Even Rand Paul is falling in, if not down.