Skip to main content

View Diary: The terrible thing Hillary Clinton did was to trust the President (418 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I disagree (47+ / 0-)

    The terrible thing she did was to be more concerned with her political career than with the consequences of invading Iraq.   This "she trusted too much" defense is weak, IMO.

    She had access to the same, hell, even more, information than others who opposed the invasion, but was too afraid of being labeled "weak on national defense" or "appeaser" to do anything about it.    Yes, I blame the Republicans and the neocons for whipping this country into such a froth of blind, unquestioning rage that opposing the decision  could've been politically damaging, but she won't get a free pass for cowering in the face of political pressure.

    No doubt she's progressive on social issues, but on issues of war and peace, she's got a hawkish streak that she'll have to address and answer for.

    •  I have no doubt she'll continue the drone war (15+ / 0-)

      and other destabilizing actions. Yes, I disagree with her on war and peace. Yes, I want her to answer questions about it during the primary. I don't think she'll be able to avoid such questions.

      On a serious note though, I care less about who the president is, and more about what it does for the political vision of the Democratic Party long term.

      The Progressive branch of the party is growing. A Clinton candidacy creates some pretty wide coattails for progressives to jump on, on nearly every level of government.

      As the Democrats and the Country are both moving further to the left, a Clinton Presidency as a moderate candidate that gets people in places like Texas comfortable voting for Democrats is a huge victory for the Progressive movement in the long run.

      It's not just who she is.

      It's what she is. A candidate who can sweep states we don't usually win, and give us a long term strategic advantage just before the census.

      I don't see any other candidate who, on a strategic level, gives us the same kind of win as Hillary Clinton.

      Though if Hillary chooses not to run, which she may, Warren will likely run. Without that strategic bonus we get from Clinton, the strategic argument becomes "Who can best articulate and fight for the progressive vision, nationally?"

      And I honestly think that's Warren, though I think she's shrewd enough not to run for President if Hillary is on the ballot.

      There are a lot of interesting options and interesting candidates. Amy Klobuchar needs to answer for her net neutrality stuff on SOPA/PIPA but I like her. There's Deval Patrick. There's Warner from Virginia whom I've met and who I like. There's Martin O'Malley.

      There are other options if Hillary isn't running.

      But again, I'm going to be going for the strategic, wide coattails, long term win that Clinton would give us just before a census. Gerrymandering is real. Either we take advantage of it, or the republicans do, so I think we should take advantage of it while it lasts.

      Tipped for civility.

      An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail.

      by OllieGarkey on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 09:11:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't get me wrong (9+ / 0-)

        I agree with most of what you said - just not the "her only sin was trusting too much" angle.  

        But as you said, she wasn't the only one.   There's a decent-sized list of Democrats who went along for no other reason than fear of "looking weak".   In my eyes they're just as responsible for the loss of blood, treasure, and credibility as those who cooked up the lies.   She'll have to address that, I think.

      •  A Clinton presidency would be the... (8+ / 1-)

        ...worst possible thing for liberals.

        Honestly, it might be better in the long term for Clinton to lose against a Republican. At least in that case, the country will have soundly defeated the bullshit that she stands for and the last vestiges of weak Democratic Party capitulation will be wiped out.

        Want hawkishness? Want spying on Americans? Want coziness with Wall Street? Vote for Clinton!

        At least if a Republican wins, the Dems will get the idea in their heads that they have to do something different. Obama, as awful as he is in many ways, was a genuinely different political animal born out of the ashes of the John Kerry (compromised, milquetoast candidate) defeat.

        A Clinton defeat may do the same. Let's hope it's in the primaries. I don't want to have to be making these calculations in the general. I have never not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate before. But I am fed up.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 09:39:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Jesus. A Clinton presidency would most certainly (21+ / 0-)

          NOT be worse for women than another Republican one!

          This is simply NUTS.

          Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

          by Catskill Julie on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 10:05:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No, no, no, no. (15+ / 0-)
          Want hawkishness? Want spying on Americans? Want coziness with Wall Street? Vote for Clinton!

          At least if a Republican wins...

          NO.  What a load of crap.  Have you had a look at the GOP platform in Texas?  Do you want those policies?

          the dog you have, is the dog you need. - Cesar Millan

          by OregonWetDog on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 10:07:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Problem is... (12+ / 0-)

             ...every time a Democrat loses an election -- ANY election -- the party's reaction is that "we were too liberal" and a move to the right is required to win next time. That kind of attitude is what's gotten us a weak, milquetoast Democratic Party that's to the right of the Eisenhower-era Republican party, and which loses elections it used to win handily.

             So if Hillary gets defeated by a gooper, the Dems will just unleash a battalion of Liebermans in the next election cycle. It's a feedback loop that's been extremely damaging to the country, and there's no easy way out of it as long as the third-way crowd continues to exert undue influence on the party.

             What needs to happen is for a Dem to campaign like a progressive, and then GOVERN like a progressive. But any candidate who tries that gets squashed by the machine posthaste.

             It's an ugly cycle. Hillary losing won't break it.  

          "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

          by Buzzer on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 10:46:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry, it doesn't work (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Buzzer, Pluto, bkamr, CenPhx, Dvalkure, emelyn

          We have seen the same theorising in the UK. Unfortunately, the lesson both our Labour and Liberal Democrat parties have taken is that they obviously need to be even more right wing to win. There are now millions of us on the left and centre left who are completely disenfranchised with no hope of ever having someone to vote for who remotely reflects our views.

        •  And which possible Republican candidate (7+ / 0-)

          could you imagine yourself voting for? Jeb? Rubio? Rand Paul?

          Please get real. I have plenty of problems with HRC, but if you think a Republican presidency would be a salutary corrective, you don't remember the last one. And next time around, the damage might be too deep to correct.

          Fortunately the likelihood of a Republican presidency is pretty remote, whether or not you choose to support one.

          "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

          by sidnora on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 11:32:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  HR for advocating for Republicans (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buffie, Lysis, emelyn

          Your "liberals will be better with a Republican win!" pretzel logic isn't fulling anyone. And the only person who could be stupid enough to believe it would be a straight white well off male (i.e., someone with nothing at stake if the Republicans do win).

        •  ? (3+ / 0-)
          At least in that case, the country will have soundly defeated the bullshit that she stands for and the last vestiges of weak Democratic Party capitulation will be wiped out.
          You seriously think that there is a finite amount of weak Democratic Party capitulation? That you defeat Clinton, and that the party will magically reset to its New Deal progressive glory?

          No. That's just utterly wrongheaded. The Dem party establishment will take one look at that result and move further in the direction of compromise and capitulation. They will never, ever read a Democratic defeat in the general as evidence of the need for a more progressive agenda.

          The trajectory of ideological movement in the modern Democratic party is to the right, to the right, always to the right. And it is so not just because of faulty political thinking, but because contemporary campaign finance law allows wealthy donors to purchase a Democratic party more amenable to their weak neoliberal bullshit.

          Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

          by Dale on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 12:30:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sparhawk wouldn't support New Deal (0+ / 0-)

            progressive glory anyway.

            To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

            by UntimelyRippd on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 01:55:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I oppose unending... (0+ / 0-)

              ...war and empire and expansion of the police state. (And you misrepresent me anyway somewhat).

              It doesn't matter if you're a new-dealer or a libertarian opponent of the police state or just someone who wants "change in Washington". No matter which one, Clinton is a loser.

              (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
              Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

              by Sparhawk on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 03:45:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I know exactly what you support and oppose. (0+ / 0-)

                And one thing you are not, is a New Deal Democrat.

                I know it and you know it, but the commenter to whom I responded evidently wasn't aware.

                To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

                by UntimelyRippd on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 03:59:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ok (0+ / 0-)

                  I don't feel like arguing.

                  Putting that irrelevancy aside, I think I'm right on the money as far as HRC's interest groups, or lack thereof.

                  (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                  Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                  by Sparhawk on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 04:25:15 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  How droll. (0+ / 0-)

          You mean, like they got the idea after 2000?

          You know how the Republican solution to EVERY economic problem is "cut taxes"? Well, the Democratic elite's solution to EVERY electoral problem is "shift to the right". They'll happily sacrifice 2 votes on the left to gain 1 on the right.

          To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

          by UntimelyRippd on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 01:53:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  If Iraq and Afghanistan go totally to hell by 2016 (5+ / 0-)

        She may be the last Democrat you want on the ballot.

    •  I agree (13+ / 0-)

      It was the same immoral miscalculation that John Kerry made and that possibly cost Kerry the Presidency in 2004. My speculation is that both Clinton and Kerry figured the Iraq War would be quick, easy, and popular. Standing in the way of that war, with the 2002 and 2004 elections coming up, they figured, would expose the Democrats to typical Republican "soft on defense/terror" bullshit. Supporting the war, they figured, would depoliticize it as an issue and it would soon be over and then voters would focus on the economy and other issues that favored Democrats. Except that things didn't turn out that way. The war lingered on and Bush used this as a way to rally the neocons and the fundamentalists behind his re-election. Meanwhile, the war might have been going badly, but the Democrats were in the awkward position of criticizing a war they'd supported. Howard Dean would have offered a real contrast, but nervous Democratic power brokers thought he'd be another McGovern and Kerry got the nod. Of course, Kerry couldn't go back and say the Iraq War was immoral or a mistake, because he'd voted for it in the first place! This also hurt Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries, and rightfully so.

      That being said, we're a long time out from those days and while HRC is far too hawkish for my tastes, I don't think her Iraq War support will make her look too bad if she runs in 2016. My only fear is that if she's elected, she decides to project American force more frequently.

      •  Well... (6+ / 0-)
        My only fear is that if she's elected, she decides to project American force more frequently.
        To that point, I don't know how you can get much more frequent than with our drone strikes.

        We're bombing everywhere, all the time now.

        Obama is doing this, and I don't see Clinton stopping it. I also don't see her going beyond that except, perhaps, in support of the African Union.

        And that frankly needs to happen. Uganda and Ethiopia have been begging us for years to give them choppers so they can respond to emergency situations rapidly, instead of driving trucks through the countryside so that there soldiers get on site in time to count the bodies, but not to prevent any of the killing.

        Uganda and Ethiopia have been trying to stamp out fires that have been getting more frequent since the embassy bombing in 1998.

        Training and equipping AU troops so that Africa can solve its own problems is something we really need to do, and do as quickly as possible.

        An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail.

        by OllieGarkey on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 09:22:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  This is just bullshit (7+ / 0-)

      Her vote on the AUMF was so much more nuanced than her critics are willing to remember.

      And she went on to serve her nation as one of the best SOS we have ever had.

      My husband went to Iraq, people we knew/know came home in boxes or now have horrible PTSD.  And I am not calling for her head because SHE DID IT!  Based on President Obama's voting in the Senate I'm pretty sure he would have made a very similar nuanced vote.

    •  This (7+ / 0-)
      she won't get a free pass for cowering in the face of political pressure.
      is the heart of the matter IMO. If I thought she were genuinely being "hawkish" when she cast that vote, and she admitted that she'd been mistaken, I might even be able to get past it, but it was done out of pure, cynical political expediency. And many thousands of people are dead, because HRC thought it would help her to become president.

      "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

      by sidnora on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 11:26:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Is she progressive on social issues? Maybe yes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CenPhx, Dvalkure

      and maybe know. I am sure she is progressive on womens' health, equal pay, gay rights, but where is she on the war on drugs? Bill filled up The Federal prison system with drug offenders. I have heard that (can't prove it) more black men are in prison then were in chattel slavery.
      Where is she on the vast disparity of wealth in the US? That to me is a bigger social issue than gay marriage, which is nearly fait accompli anyway due to the younger generations not caring about sexual orientation. What's the point of equal pay if everyone is broke and there is no social system left, there is long term unemployment and wages are going down? It is a secondary issue - a symptom of a disease but not the disease itself. And I would like to see someone address that. If Obama is gonna take shit for being a "socialist," then no one should worry about that charge.

      "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

      by shmuelman on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 05:16:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site