Skip to main content

View Diary: Secretary Clinton maintains diplomatic composure in face of posturing by McCain, Johnson and Paul (209 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A Hilary Clinton v. Rand Paul race (46+ / 0-)

    in 2016 would be unfair.  Paul would be running home crying to daddy.

    I'm keeping an open mind on Hillary Clinton in 2016.  When you look at the Afghanistan debates in 09 in the WH, she was more hawkish than Biden.  On the other hand, she may be a winner, and that matters for the supreme court and many other things.  We have plenty of time to decide.

    Today, she showed that the Republican boys were out of their league.

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by TomP on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 10:54:19 AM PST

    •  i wish we finally had a truly progressive option (31+ / 0-)

      but she's very popular right now, and the gop doesn't have anyone. and she knows how to play hardball. with a smile.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 11:04:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  She'd win with 60% of the vote. (9+ / 0-)

      Her popularity is off the charts.

      The only way she could get more popular is if the Teabag McBonkers Party had impeached her like they impeached her husband.

      •  if the... (0+ / 0-)

        GOP manipulates the electoral vote methodology, even getting 60% might not be enough to win her the election.

        But boy would that expose the GOP's underbelly...

        "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

        by JackND on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 11:24:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Unlikely (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Meteor Blades, alice kleeman

        Her popularity would nosedive the minute she started to run. She'd be unlikely to get much over 50%, just like mot candidates. But she won't be running, so it's moot. And she's earned the right not to run.

        Jon Husted is a dick.

        by anastasia p on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 11:43:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not if she's running against Christie (0+ / 0-)

        she won't get 60% of the vote.  That would be one helluva campaign drama (circus), too.

        "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

        by SueDe on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 07:36:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  meh (0+ / 0-)

      If she runs I doubt she will get the nomination.  She is to the right of Obama.

      •  She'll probably get the nomination (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mikejay611

        But she is to the right of Obama.  She's a hawk.  Can't afford hawks in an era when a dollar going to defense is a dollar subtracted from the safety net.

        •  She's MORE of a hawk than Obama? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zinger99

          Seriously? What makes you think that?

          •  Her vote for Iraq for one (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP, mikejay611

            I've never seen her as a dove at all.  I'd guess she'd be more eager to go into Iran than he would.  

            •  I've never seen Obama as a dove, either (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              zinger99

              They seem about the same to me, honestly. Obama was not a member of the US legislature when the Iraq war started, so we have nothing to compare there. Your speculations about who would be more willing to go into Iran are simply laughable, it's guesswork. What we do know is that Obama RAN on a platform of putting more troops into Afghanistan, and since being elected, he has done just that, quadrupling the number of troops in the country. Let us not forget that he has presided over the expansion of drone warfare, and engaging in military adventures in quite a few countries we are not even at war with.

              Obama is a hawk. Deal with it.

              •  Oh, I'm not saying he's a dove either (0+ / 0-)

                and I also know he didn't have to make the tough vote on Iraq.  I don't think he wants war with Iran though.  

                I do think that we're going to have make a choice between guns and butter because this deficit stuff isn't going away and if the Democratic Party doesn't find a spine it will inevitably be guns.  I'm not sure there's anyone out there with the guts to face down the MIC.   Maybe Hillary would have the stature to do that.  But would she?

                •  How ELSE is she "to the right of Obama?" (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm quite curious as to what sort of evidence you used to arrive at this, your stated position. Now that we have ruled out foreign policy, you must feel that Obama is left of Hillary on domestic issues.  So, what makes you think that?

                  •  no problem: (0+ / 0-)

                    * union busting Walmart Board member

                    * supported NAFTA

                    * Israel & Palestine

                    * domestic drug policy

                    I am sure I could come up with more and details.  But this is the gist of it.
                     

                    •  Not much of a list (0+ / 0-)

                      That list proves, well, nothing. It isn't a proper comparison. It's just a disconnected series of words.

                      Obama is in no way pro union. Ask Laura Clawson or any other pro union Kossack whether he has been good for unions. He hasn't, but we'll call this a tossup.

                      Has Obama repealed NAFTA? No? Are more free trade agreements moving forward under Obama? Yes? Another tossup.

                      You need to do more than mention two countries' names here. And I thought we were talking domestic issues?

                      Again, simply saying "Domestic drug policy" without context means nothing. What policies? And, seriously, has Obama started allowing importation of lower cost drugs? Has he forced the government to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices? No?

                      You really don't know how to argue very well. I mean, it feels as though you aren't really trying. I don't know why you even bothered to write this, days later.

            •  Yes, that is my biggest concern about her. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              greenbell

              It also was in 08.  On domestic issues, she and Obama are relatively close.  Obama has been hawkish at times (Afghanistan buildup, drones), but I feel she is more hawkish.  

              Like I said, I'm keeping an open mind for now.  She's no George Bush and her hawkish tendencies may be lkess important in 2016, or may be overdrawn.  We'll see.  

              Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

              by TomP on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 11:53:08 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  WRONG! (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SethRightmer, CrissieP, Meteor Blades

              On S.759, a bill authored by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) which prohibited any attacks on Iran without explicit Congressional approval, there were three - count them, three - cosponsors.

              Guess who one was?

              Sen. Hillary Rodhan Clinton (D-NY).

              And guess who one wasn't?

              Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).

              The bill was unquestionably designed to make it harder to charge into Iran without an extended debate, Clinton backed it and Obama did not - both were serving Senators at the time. Therefore, Clinton, ipso facto, is not going to be "more likely" to go into Iran than Obama would. It died in committee, but that's beside the point.

          •  No, she's about the same as Obama (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SethRightmer, Meteor Blades, TomP

            on foreign policy.

            OTOH, on domestic policy, social issues, etc.  she's much more liberal.  I think she would be fine, as would quite a few other Dem women.

            Democratic Leaders must be very clear they stand with the working class of our country. Democrats must hold the line in demanding that deficit reduction is done fairly -- not on the backs of the elderly, the sick, children and the poor.

            by Betty Pinson on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 12:22:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  How is she to the right of Obama? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zinger99

        On what issues, exactly, is she to the right of Obama?

      •  "She is to the right of Obama." (0+ / 0-)
    •  don't want to fight over this (8+ / 0-)

      but I have a different opinion on her so-called hawkishness.  I followed the run up to war in Iraq very closely and my opinion then and now was that she voted authorization not because she wanted to invade Iraq, but because she wanted time for the inspectors to do their jobs and W was getting impatient.  At that time it was expected that he would invade without authorization, Rice had already said that, months earlier. She never spoke in favor of invasion, only in favor of the inspectors, and since I knew that WMD were implausible, it's not hard for me to believe that she also knew the inspectors wouldn't find anything, and that it was taking so much time because proving a negative is much harder than proving the positive. Indeed the positive was never proved and the invasion proved the negative.

      Bill said, in asking for more time before the invasion, that if we invaded and it turned out there were no WMD, it wouldn't be possible to bring the dead back.

      Hillary has never defended herself other than to say that her mistake was in not realizing the power of W's obsession, she still thought it was possible to reason with him. But they still report she was in favor of that war. She has never said she favored it, unlike Edwards, who wrote that op ed in favor of invasion.

      Hillary talks tough, at least partly because she's a woman and she has to show that she can back up her words, more than a man would need to. The worst would have been that she was elected and then some scary world leader disbelieved her and did something she'd have to respond to with force, because she would but by that time it would have started.

      It's important for a president to be believed.  

      "oh no, not four more years of hope and change?" Karl Christian Rove

      by anna shane on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 11:39:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well that's the best argument I've read (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        anna shane, TomP

        but I too believe she was too smart to believe there were WMD in Iraq.  I mean if I could figure it out reading a few newspapers, she had to be able to figure it out with her connections to those who know stuff and all.   So that is why I fault her on the vote as much as I do.  She had a particular responsibility.  She was no babe in the woods bamboozled by Cheney.  

        And I remember Wellstone's courage in voting against the war even though he was up for reelection in a tough race.

        I guess I figured Hillary's ambition came before her judgment.  

        I admire her but she'd have to convince me that she would put wisdom over expediency.  She's older and perhaps wiser.  We'll see.

        •  i know (5+ / 0-)

          I think that's why she does not defend herself, I think she thinks she should have known better, that she should have known W would invade anyway (although he did promise to let the inspectors complete the job if congress voted him authorization, he did end up breaking that promise he'd made), should have positioned herself to not get smeared by that war.  

          But she didn't, she let herself take that risk (and I do believe she knew the risk) because she wanted to retain some influence (turned out she had none, her vote didn't give her what she hoped), over the timing, she worked behind the scenes to get the inspectors enough time and she failed.

          And then, when it was fait accompli, she backed up the president.  Not by saying she agreed, she never said that, but by not standing against his decision.  I think she should have, that's where she and I would differ.  She should have thrown herself on the sword at that point, such was the reach of W's crime.  

          If I knew it wasn't going to be a cake-walk, that we'd get stuck there, then she did too.  It's the crime of our century.  With any luck the last really bad one.  

          "oh no, not four more years of hope and change?" Karl Christian Rove

          by anna shane on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 12:04:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Why does Hillary not defend herself? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anna shane

          Possibly because peoples' minds are already made up about Iraq, one way or the other.

          •  I think so (0+ / 0-)

            it wouldn't change anyone's mind.  Now, if it had worked and she'd been able to help stop the invasion - but the way it turned out, Bush sullied all of us.  

            "oh no, not four more years of hope and change?" Karl Christian Rove

            by anna shane on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 05:04:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I hear what you are saying, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        anna shane, greenbell

        and I know Kerry, Edwards, and many others voted the same way, but it was a terrible mistake and we clearly know it now.

        Our deficit "problems" and much bloodshed resulted from that mistake.  It was a biggie.  

        I'm keeping an open mind on her.      

        Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

        by TomP on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 11:55:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  not the same way (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zinger99, oysterface, TomP

          I can't recall Kerry's public statements, but I believe both claimed to be for invasion and Hillary never once said that. She said she was in favor of allowing the inspectors to complete their jobs.  And had they, there would have been no invasion.

          "oh no, not four more years of hope and change?" Karl Christian Rove

          by anna shane on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 12:06:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The problem was that neither Clinton nor... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            willyr, TomP, Eric Nelson, anna shane

            ...Kerry spoke up in opposition AFTER the vote when Bush went ahead with invasion. There is plenty to critique in that speech, and it has been critiqued many times, but this is an important caveat:

            I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq, and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take.

            I am pleased that our pressure, and the questions we have asked, and the criticisms that have been raised publicly, the debate in our democracy has pushed this administration to adopt important changes, both in language as well as in the promises that they make.

            The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq. It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the "national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all "relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq. None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change. [...]

            When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

            Kerry gave too much away with his vote by trusting Bush. But Bush took more than Kerry gave.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 05:12:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  And John Kerry made similar arguments... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        anna shane, TomP

        ...at the time of the vote. I think they were wrong to trust Bush—as many of us said at the time—but their votes were certainly not full-throated support for what Bush did once he had it in hand.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 04:59:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Neither Hillary nor Paul will be running (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP, Pam from Calif

      although I sure wish Paul would because it would nail the coffin shut on the GOP for once and for all. They don't come much more wackadoodle extremist than him.

      You guys really need to let go of Hillary though. She makes it clearer all the time she's got other fish to fry. She sure did a good job of frying these guys though. Their combined IQ is probably not equal to theirs.

      Jon Husted is a dick.

      by anastasia p on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 11:41:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site