Skip to main content

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton having lunch at the White House
President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at White House.
Hillary Clinton gave an interview to Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic that was published Aug. 10 regarding foreign policy, and while more nuanced than the coverage of it reflected, she  is still 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, as discussed below the fold.

As President Obama said:

With “respect to Syria,” said the president, the notion that arming the rebels would have made a difference has “always been a fantasy. This idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in the cards.” Even now, the president said, the administration has difficulty finding, training and arming a sufficient cadre of secular Syrian rebels: “There’s not as much capacity as you would hope.”

The “broader point we need to stay focused on,” he added, “is what we have is a disaffected Sunni minority in the case of Iraq, a majority in the case of Syria, stretching from essentially Baghdad to Damascus. ... Unless we can give them a formula that speaks to the aspirations of that population, we are inevitably going to have problems. ... Unfortunately, there was a period of time where the Shia majority in Iraq didn’t fully understand that. They’re starting to understand it now. Unfortunately, we still have ISIL [the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant], which has, I think, very little appeal to ordinary Sunnis.” But “they’re filling a vacuum, and the question for us has to be not simply how we counteract them militarily but how are we going to speak to a Sunni majority in that area ... that, right now, is detached from the global economy.”

Speaking of Iraq, and in terms that apply more broadly, the president said:
“We cannot do for them what they are unwilling to do for themselves,” said the president of the factions in Iraq. “Our military is so capable, that if we put everything we have into it, we can keep a lid on a problem for a time. But for a society to function long term, the people themselves have to make decisions about how they are going to live together, how they are going to accommodate each other’s interests, how they are going to compromise. When it comes to things like corruption, the people and their leaders have to hold themselves accountable for changing those cultures.... ... We can help them and partner with them every step of the way. But we can’t do it for them.”
Again, President Obama is right.

The media likes to talk about foreign policy "achievements" the way they talk about legislatures "doing something." They believe the mere act of having "done something" is an accomplishment in itself and that governments have to "do something" to have effective foreign policies. This is the essential problem of foreign policy "experts." (current Secretary of State Kerry blunders constantly because of his drive for "achievements.")  They see NOT "doing something" as failure in and of itself. This is the type of thinking that leads to "doing stupid shit," as the president was reported as saying.

Clinton's response to a question on that was problematic:

JG: Is the lesson for you, like it is for President Obama, “Don’t do stupid shit”?

HRC: That’s a good lesson but it’s more complicated than that. Because your stupid may not be mine, and vice versa. I don’t think it was stupid for the United States to do everything we could to remove Qaddafi because that came from the bottom up. That was people asking us to help. It was stupid to do what we did in Iraq and to have no plan about what to do after we did it. That was really stupid. I don’t think you can quickly jump to conclusions about what falls into the stupid and non-stupid categories. That’s what I’m arguing. [Emphasis supplied.]

While Clinton is right that no one should jump to conclusions about what is stupid and non-stupid, she ignores that the impulse she appears to be defending, to "do something," seems to always lead to "stupid shit."

We confronted (and still confront) this attitude from liberal interventionists like George Packer. In 2005, I wrote about it:

It is NOT moral to adopt an unwise policy that does more harm than good even if the intention of the policy is moral. Indeed, it is IMMORAL in my view.

And this is the fundamental point. Packer wants to grasp the mantle of the "right thing to do" even if unwise. I categorically reject that. It was the wrong thing to do and not moral.

Not to accept that is to not learn from your mistakes. Packer, it seems to me, and no, I have not read his book, just his posts, has learned nothing.

When Clinton says, "It was stupid to do what we did in Iraq and to have no plan about what to do after we did it. That was really stupid," she misses the point. Yes, the Bush administration was incompetent in its conduct of the Iraq debacle. But there was no competent way to do something that stupid—"what we did in Iraq." Clinton seems to not have learned that lesson.

James Fallows, reacting to the Clinton interview, has a similar take.

The easiest and least useful stance when it comes to foreign policy is: Situation X is terrible, we have to do something. Or its cousin: Situation X is terrible, you should have done something. Pointing out terribleness around the world is not even half of the necessary thought-work in foreign policy. The harder and more important part—what constitutes actual statesmanship—is considering exactly which “something” you would do; and why that exact something would make conditions better rather than worse; and what Pandora’s box you might be opening; and how the results of your something will look a year from now, or a decade, when the terribleness of this moment has passed. [. . .]

Of course everyone including Clinton “knows” that you should only do something when it’s smart and not when it’s stupid. In her books and speeches, she is most impressive when showing commanding knowledge of the complexities and contradictions of negotiating with the Russians and Chinese, and why you can’t just “be tough” in dealings with them. In those specifics, she can sound like the description I just came across, in Christopher Clark’s The Sleepwalkers, about some pre-World War I Balkan leaders: “It is a characteristic of the most skillful politicians that they are capable of reasoning simultaneously at different levels of conditionality. [One Serbian figure] wanted peace, but he also believed—he never concealed it—that the final historical phase of Serbian expansion would in all probability not be achieved without war.”

But in this interview—assuming it's not "out of context"—she is often making the broad, lazy "do something" points and avoiding the harder ones. She appears to disdain the president for exactly the kind of slogan—"don't do stupid shit"—that her husband would have been proud of for its apparent simplicity but potential breadth and depth. (Remember "It's the economy, stupid"?) Meanwhile she offers her own radically simplified view of the Middle East—Netanyahu right, others wrong—that is at odds with what she did in the State Department and what she would likely have to do in the White House.

Fallows gets it exactly right. Now, to be clear, Clinton did say:
JG: Is there a chance that President Obama overlearned the lessons of the previous administration? In other words, if the story of the Bush administration is one of overreach, is the story of the Obama administration one of underreach?

HRC: You know, I don’t think you can draw that conclusion. It’s a very key question. How do you calibrate, that’s the key issue. I think we have learned a lot during this period, but then how to apply it going forward will still take a lot of calibration and balancing.

Perhaps we can be optimistic that Clinton, who surely is running for president, was making a political calculation regarding her own candidacy, and sees the need to find some distance, even if just rhetorically, from a president whose popularity has waned. Maybe there's nothing more to it than that.

But the issue is too damn important for such wishful thinking, Now more than ever, it is important that should Clinton run for president, she face a primary opponent who forces her to explain herself on this. Don't get me wrong, I fully expect Clinton will win if she runs, but the issues matter and while campaign promises are not worth the paper they are written on, how we discuss issues in elections does have strong effects on the discourse surrounding such issues, which in turn has actual impact on the policies that emerge.

So it is important to have folks out there saying Clinton is wrong on this, and President Obama is right. This is my two cents doing just that.  

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Your title is correct. (29+ / 0-)

    Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

    by Matt Z on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:48:55 AM PDT

    •  Hard to believe but... (8+ / 0-)

      There is an unlikely scenario in which I would not vote Democratic, at least for president, in 2016.  

      I frequently point out that priority one is keeping the insanity that the Republican party has become out of power.

      And almost certainly, if Clinton runs and runs as a war-monger, the Republican will run as a worse war-monger, and I'll vote for Clinton.

      Having said that, I will do so holding my nose if she pushes war.

      I cannot stand this latter day war-mongering.  

      The original reason why we went around invading countries that didn't threaten us was to counter Soviet influence.  Even if somebody thinks that was a great idea, there is no more Soviet Union.

      The Republicans are not going to run an anti-war candidate, but in a fantasy world where Clinton is running against Rand Paul and Clinton is running as the war candidate, I'll sit it out or vote Green.

      Yes, Hillary Clinton, I'll vote for you as the lesser evil, but you'll have to be less evil to get that vote.  If you run as a "We need to invade a Muslim country just because" candidate, you may lose my vote.

      I assume that it's a combination of Israeli panic that the US might not support them unless they see the US attacking Muslims day and night, and arms industry pressure, that fuels the bizarre obsession of the "serious" crowd with pointless, useless, illegal war.  Whatever it is, I am sick of it, and having not started some stupid war is a major positive for Obama.

      •  to correct myself (4+ / 0-)

        "The original reason why we went around invading countries that didn't threaten us was to counter Soviet influence."

        Of course we were very imperialistic and aggressive in Latin America and the Pacific to advance commercial interests long before that.  And of course oil plays a role in our current policies of aggression.  Etc. I didn't mean to oversimplify.

        I did mean to say that I am sick of it.

        •  Why not instead push for someone else (0+ / 0-)

          NOT Hillary. Everybody that had other candidates in mind just gave up. That is a big problem.  Hillary is not only more likely to bring us loser to a third world war, but also he is not too popular with independent voters. Sure, she might attract some women, eager to get a woman president. That is a sad reason to vote for someone, or they can nominate Michelle Bachman. Some people here think that running on the platform of "We are the lesser of two evils" is going to be enough. It is not: a lot of people will not vote or vote third party.
          There is still time to choose someone better, and we should.

      •  Oh yeah (4+ / 2-)

        Let's get ready for President Paul. I'm sure you won't regret voting green, just like the last time.

        "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." - Barack Obama

        by anshmishra on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:28:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •   promoting the Nader-hate, noob? (4+ / 0-)

          have a donut.

          Al Gore and the Democratic Party lost that election on their own by folding under pressure and not fighting for the win that should have been his.  Congressional Democrats needed no help from Nader to "certify" the election results, despite pleadings otherwise from Black Caucus Dems.

          don't always believe what you think

          by claude on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:57:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yep (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anshmishra

          I have grown really, really tired of the Nader/Paul/LaRouche BS.

          I have been known to vote third party, including Green. But never if it empowers the Republicans because contrary to the Naderite BS, there remain very sharp differences between the two main parties. Perhaps not as much as I would like, but ALL the best politicians I know are Dems and all the worst are Repubs. None of the best I have known are Greens.

          FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes! Progressive Blogging New York: Write Now NY Find me on Linkedin.

          by mole333 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 12:20:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I get where you are coming from (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anshmishra, Matt Z

          I myself have criticized Nader voters and would have a tremendously high threshold for doing anything other than voting Democratic.  Gore wasn't a great campaigner and Nader was a great guy in his day, but I certainly voted for Gore because I knew Bush was a disaster.  

          It is not going to be Paul running against Clinton, or if it is, he'll be running on invading Iran.  I'm mainly being hypothetical.  They will NOT run as "less warmongering" than Democrats.

          So this is basically a hypothetical.

          Still, I am unbelievably annoyed that she is running on a "we need more war" platform.  And I will need to hold my nose very tightly to vote for that.

      •  "To be or not to be..." (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snazzzybird, Thomas Twinnings

        Duped again, and again, and again. Yes...voting and holding our nose has become commonplace in this society while elected leaders make promises that will never be fulfilled. Never ending wars, climate change, slaughter of innocent humans and creatures...etc., etc.

        Clinton speaks all the right words when politically expedient to do so but let's not forget that she voted for going to war with Iraq when Obama was adamantly opposed to invading an unarmed state. Obama has made some serious mistakes but when asked during a Democratic debate the question if he would negotiate with Iran rather than strike (paraphrasing), Obama answered he would of course make every effort to conduct talks with Iran...which was ridiculed not only by the GOP but Clinton as well.

        Voting for politicians has become a risky business and choosing the lesser of evils a reality that has become all too  familiar. We need guts in a leader who isn't simply exploiting political opportunism. We want a leader who can lead instead of appease...to the peril of the American people. I fear for this country...alas, the world...for we have become a nation of people emotionally conditioned to settle for cake while our leaders feast on the spoils of war. While innocent men, women and children suffer at the hands of evil despots and greedy world leaders, we avert our eyes and hold hands over ears lest we give in to the pleas of the helpless. We have lost our way and we need true, good and moral leaders to lead.

        •  You are right but there is still time (0+ / 0-)

          We should be actively searching, finding the right person, either within the party or if necessary out of it. The world's survival demands we make a better effort at choosing the right person. I don't know why everybody already gave up and accepted someone with so many serious flaws.
          That is a very bad beginning, and those flaws will not attract independents either. I see it already as a win for Repub if she is nominated. Nothing personal, just saying, she will not carry the votes needed.

    •  Bill Maher is almost never right (7+ / 0-)

      An this is another one of those occasions.

      Would that he would go away.

      •  It is disturbing how this site has become so (17+ / 0-)

        full of writers that are seemingly so full of fear that they cannot tolerate common sense and basic facts. Maher is honest, brave and most always has a well-considered, well-presented case for the things he talks about.

        At 53 years old, my life-long support of the Democratic party has been giving way to more of a support of fact-based, common sense positions, regardless of what labels may be used to describe them.

        It does seem as though President Obama is, today, less wrong regarding foreign policy than Hillary Clinton (and folks like HI dem Tulsi Gabbard). But until we can finally get ourselves off of fossil fuel dependency, off of toxic chemical dependency and off of our dependency on threats of using violence to get what we want all around the globe, we are going to remain subject to all the grave insults to our desires for peaceful, sane living that the corruption endemic to unrestrained capitalism and to the military-industrial-congressional complex can offer us.

        "Have a good time... all the time." -Viv Savage

        by The House on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:08:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  except (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Amber6541, Pluto, The House, Janet 707

          If we got rid of those dependencies, we'd still be racist and dysfunctional.  Our pot never melted--it boils over.

          Actions speak louder than petitions.

          by melvynny on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:26:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's the foundational flaw (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            The House

            …that recent indigenous genocide nations suffer. The US is a non-indigenous colony. It's a jump to link that to foreign policy. Although, plunder of resources lies at the heart of both as far as the US is concerned.



            For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.
            - Albert Einstein:  Leftist, socialist, emo-prog, cosmic visionary.

            by Pluto on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:41:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  nation (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pluto

              The US defies the definition of a nation--similar people in a defined area.

              Actions speak louder than petitions.

              by melvynny on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:58:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes it does defy it. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sunspots

                That's why I expect the US to break up and coalesce into nine or so largely autonomous regions in my lifetime. (Not that climate catastrophes won't produce the same result in short order.)



                For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.
                - Albert Einstein:  Leftist, socialist, emo-prog, cosmic visionary.

                by Pluto on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:09:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  sorry (0+ / 0-)

                  Brooklyn can never be one nation by that definition.  Just that one boro would need to be split up into 9 autonomous regions.  Nope--a strong central government is needed--a benevolent autocracy.  Iraq was a nation when Saddam made it so--he wasn't benevolent however.  
                  Put another way--people never evolved to live outside the "cave."  The strong abuse the weak.  Difference is hated--or, at least, feared.  With atomic weapons, the cave might well be the future.

                  Actions speak louder than petitions.

                  by melvynny on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:27:27 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Okay, you're getting granular on me. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    melvynny

                    This is kind of discussion we should have over a beer.



                    For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.
                    - Albert Einstein:  Leftist, socialist, emo-prog, cosmic visionary.

                    by Pluto on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 12:24:54 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  The reason we have government (0+ / 0-)

                    at least ideally, is to prevent the strong from abusing the weak. People that rage against having a federal government do it because it impedes them from discriminating and abusing the weak. The call for less government is always directed to Federal. It is about time that people notice that almost all abuses of power are at a local level. When your city wants to remove your water, your only recourse is federal court. Try fighting your city over something...it goes well only if you are connected or rich...unless you can sue on federal court.   The same goes at world level, if we strengthened the United Nations as a real world arbiter, wars would be a thing of the past and countries would settle disputes at world court, and abide by those, ideally reasonable, decisions. Hope we get there, before we blow ourselves up.

        •  Its disturbing that (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          IM, mickT

          because I think Maher is full of shit you see that as "full of fear."

          Maher is an idiot and often sexist an racist.

          He's a piece of shit.

          Deal with those facts.

          •  Oh, Armando. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gjohnsit, eztempo



            For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.
            - Albert Einstein:  Leftist, socialist, emo-prog, cosmic visionary.

            by Pluto on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:43:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Maher is one of those "body count" liberals. (0+ / 0-)

            Those people and their bloodlust gross me out.  Hearing Maher say crap like "our badass black ninja President does it again!" makes my skin crawl.

            http://www.mediaite.com/...

          •  Heaven help the Democrats if people like (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            claude

            you are their leading thinkers. Heaven help us all too. Strangely, this most well-constructed of all blogs has achieved the opposite of its intent with me and has convinced me that I should not continue to support the two-party system at all... not Republicans and not Democrats.

            As the principle writers here seem to be becoming ever more outlandish, and discredited right-wingers like Newt Gingrich are apparently learning how to sound more and more populist and reasonable (don't be afraid to watch his AEI speech of 8/12/14), it diminishes the surprise factor associated with reports that the GOP is gaining popularity.

            The working class is finished if we can't make the wealthy class fund vast infrastructure projects, and politically we have wealthy liberals fighting wealthy conservatives for control of a system that is clearly beyond rehabilitation.

            We need a con con, and no one has the guts or the brains to make that happen. At least some sanity is in evidence in the states of Washington and Colorado, where they have established the right for adults to decide for themselves if they want to utilize the Cannabis plant and removed from the legal system the legitimization of state and municipal authorities ability to try and control this aspect of peoples' non-criminal behavior. It is a small but profound step.

            We need a lot less authoritarian control over individuals, and a lot more sensible control over the spending of the nation's (and the world's) wealth if we are ever going to establish a system that can serve to improve the lives of ordinary people. [We also need a lot less name-calling, please.]

            "Have a good time... all the time." -Viv Savage

            by The House on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:13:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Heaven help us? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              IM, wishingwell

              Because of me?

              New rule: Stop the hyperbolic nonsense.

              •  What hyperbolic nonsense? Where are the (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sunspots, claude

                voices of the progressives that are able to offer convincing positions that are attractive to unpersuaded voters? Why aren't Dems beating the asses of these right-wing assholes? Why are Dems struggling to maintain a hold on the Senate? Why did they lose the house? Why are they not taking the house back? Ans: Too few good ideas from the leaders, and too much infighting. If that's too hyperbolic then I don't think you are paying close enough attention.

                "Have a good time... all the time." -Viv Savage

                by The House on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:34:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The beginning of your comment (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  itsbenj, wishingwell

                  Heaven helps us and all that.

                  s for the rest of it, well there are plenty of explanations that describe the problems, and some that prescribe solutions.

                  You won't get that from Bill Maher though.

                •  I think (0+ / 0-)

                  we need to be careful here.

                  If you have a definite formula to retake the Hose, then we should pay attention.

                  But I think voting can be tribal.

                  What is your formula? Which House seats are we likely to gain if it is applied?

                  Seeking to be as wise as Fioral

                  by GideonAB on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:16:52 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  1) Reform drug policy and end the drug war. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ArthurPoet

                    2) Go long on federal infrastructure - light rail; bridge and highway modernization (to include power stations for electirc cars); wind and wave energy; fiber-optic cable for a publically owned cable delivery system; etc.

                    3) Net neutrality.

                    4) Tax policy reform - eliminate personal state and federal income taxes in favor of taxation through commerce and business exclusively. (This would greatly reduce the insane amount of energy and effort needed to accomplish the funding of government.)

                    5) Study the implications of labor-saving technologies, and establish means for spreading the savings created by industrial automation to better provide for displaced workers through an updated social security system.

                    I could go on. But these ought to play well to an informed electorate I think. Now if we could just inform the electorate!

                    "Have a good time... all the time." -Viv Savage

                    by The House on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:52:13 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, a little freaky to see Obama defending (0+ / 0-)

          as some sort of badge of "Progressive" politics, when Obama has been wrong on so many issues.  Especially his continuation of the Bushco "War on Terror," which includes his own outrageous murder without trial "foreign policy" of people he doesn't like (including American citizens).  

          Just because we haven't historically done it, the idea that the US shouldn't use it's power to try to help powerless people in the world fighting for freedom and democracy, is a little bizarre on it's face, and hard to defend factually or ethically.  

          It's an opinion.  Which should be legit in any open political discussion.

          But what Clinton would ACTUALLY DO differently than Obama, remains to be seen.  And it's hard to imagine any nationally elected Democrat being worse for Progressives on almost any issue, than Obama has been.  

          Perhaps he'll get a chance to cut Social Security before he leaves office with a new Republican Senate (fostered mostly by Obama's failure to inspire Democrats).  

          Clinton would then be able to lock up Florida in the backlash after that, and become the first woman elected President of the US.   (Which would undoubtedly be seen by some "folks" on dkos as a blow for the Democratic Party.)

          •  Badges? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oculus, IM

            It is disturbing that s many Maher fans seem unable to actually debate the facts and the policy.

            Not surprising though given the fandom.

            For instance, IN THIS POST I discuss foreign policy.

            Perhaps Maher fans could address the post.

            Make it a NEW RULE.

            •  Wasn't defending Maher (0+ / 0-)

              Was commenting on your defense of Obama's dismal record on foreign policy, which includes a robust expansion of undeclared war, and extrajudicial murders, of people in countries all over the globe.  

              "Stupid stuff" apparently doesn't apply to innocent kids being blown up by chickenshit remote control hellfires, because Obama is too "smart" to actually put American soldiers on the ground in places like Yemen, or Pakistan, where his "foreign policy" is winning the hearts and minds of people every day.

              •  I defended what I wrote about (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mickT

                If you have read me in the past, you will see me being critical of many aspects of Obama policy, including foreign policy.

                Now, if you want to discuss drones, I refer you to my posts on the subject.

                •  Did I mention Maher??? (0+ / 0-)

                  New Rule:  Read comments before posting reflexively defensive off topic responses.

                  Obama, as President, has had plenty of foreign policy, and as mentioned in the original comment, it is largely indefensible.  

                  Clinton is a private citizen, and has as much "foreign policy" as I do.  (I.e. none.)  

                  Attacking Clinton's "foreign policy," while defending Obama's and the US's ACTUAL foreign policy, as "right," is profoundly "wrong."

                  Clinton hasn't vastly expanded the American Security State, or actually been responsible for the murder of untold numbers of innocent people that I'm aware of, and lost the support and respect of much of the world because of it.  

                  Obama, not so much.

                  •  Did I mention Maher? (0+ / 0-)

                    Follow your new rule.

                    •  Dude, have you had a stroke or something? (0+ / 0-)

                      recontext made a a perfectly reasonable comment just upthread (his/her third one back) that made no mention of Maher, and your first sentence in reply was: "It is disturbing that s many Maher fans seem unable to actually debate the facts and the policy." THAT'S where you mentioned Maher. C'mon man.

                      "Have a good time... all the time." -Viv Savage

                      by The House on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 02:34:26 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Excuse me (0+ / 0-)

                        But the comment he replied to did NOT mention Maher. I took his question seriously and answered it.

                        If you mean his FIRST comment in reply to your comment, well yes, I mentioned Maher as YOUR COMMENT, the parent of this asinine discussion, did.

                        I'll skip the stroke humor (Maheresque) and just mention that you seem to have forgotten that.

      •  Armando...you know, I really love your writing... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Armando

        and I really like your unapologetic "in-your-face" attitude, probably because  it reminds me of me, and so it is with all that being said, I must tell you that I really like Maher and am rather surprised to read you disparaging him, not that I am offended or put off, not in the least, rather, I am curious, is all. 

        I am eager to read your detailed substantive criticism of him... is there a diary of yours or a comment thread of yours that you can link me to that contains this, because I didn't find any such on this thread or in your diary (unless I missed it, which is possible, as I am reading on my iPhone which really tedious at times)... a diary which I, btw, loved. 

        #CampaignFinanceReform is the lynchpin of our democracy. #AIKIDOPROVERBMoveSoonerNotFaster ~

        by ArthurPoet on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 12:48:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've never taken the time for it (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RubDMC, suka, mickT, ArthurPoet

          Here's what I don't like:

          (1) The entire Politicallly Incorrect schtick. Because, you know, not calling minorities and women disparaging names is so terrible according to Maher.

          (2) The fact that Maher DOES call minorities and women disparaging names.

          (3) The blowhardism. A la Olbermann.

          (4) The general ignorance about important issues that he then proceeds to trivialize.

          Now dos Maher get some things right? Of course.

          But generally he does not know what he is talking about ad is smug about it.

          •  Do you have a specific example of (4) ?? (0+ / 0-)

            Not that I found your list inaccurate, because it seems to be a relatively accurate description and so I shall be reconsidering and reevaluating his work next time I see a video of him, keeping your general points in mind.

            Personally, I like his irreverent shtick, though I haven't watched much of his work over the years, as I usually only really get to see select youtube video clips. But if he is disparaging minorities, now that I cannot support.

            #CampaignFinanceReform is the lynchpin of our democracy. #AIKIDOPROVERBMoveSoonerNotFaster ~

            by ArthurPoet on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:33:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I'd like her to leave the political arena forever. (7+ / 0-)

      Let her go work on women's issues with the Clinton Foundation. That seems to be the one area where she has passion and is competent.

      Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

      by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:33:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is a really good illustration of how (0+ / 0-)

      to change the subject from that of the diary.

  •  We've enterered uncharted territory in the ME... (19+ / 0-)

    ...and I approve of the President's "one day at a time" response to unfolding events. This policy may appear to be a "non-policy" to policy wonks. It may appear "reactive" to action-addicts. To all of them I say, "deal with it". The day of The Grand Strategy is past.

    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing
    he was never reasoned into” - Jonathan Swift

    by jjohnjj on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:53:04 AM PDT

  •  Or.... (32+ / 0-)
    Perhaps we can be optimistic that Clinton, who surely is running for president, was making a political calculation regarding her own candidacy, and sees the need to find some distance, even if just rhetorically, from a president whose popularity has waned. Maybe there's nothing more to it than that.
    ...or she's just as hawkish as she sounds.

    Which would be consistent with her history.

    We need an alternative, and we need it soon.

    •  That's a pretty lame argument you highlight (20+ / 0-)

      Of course Clinton wants to distinguish herself from her predecessor, but why in hell would she do it on grounds that are not only deeply unpopular, but so dangerous?  

      Because your stupid may not be mine, and vice versa.
      That's the problem right there, Sec. Clinton.  My stupid is your brilliant and tough, which is one of the very important reasons why you'll never see any support from me.  

      It looks like she's following the Al Gore 2000 playbook of distancing herself from an incumbent she views as damaged goods, but who is still more popular than the opposition, especially with large segments of the party base.  Which is more stupid shit, come to think of it.

      I stand with triv33. Shame on her attackers.

      by Dallasdoc on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:27:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So far, she's following the Al Gore failed (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Chi, Dallasdoc, Choco8

        …strategy, that's true. But the campaign is young.

        As for staking out the MIC turf and bumping the promise of their profits -- that's a winner strategy.

        One morsel of flawed thinking among Democrats is that Bush's strategy in Iran had anything to do with his daddy. That smoke was pumped out there to blind the Democrats to what what that oil grab was all about. It's the same reason we are acting as a golem for the Kurds right this very minute. (Although even that has intricacies, because we are hedging with the false flag of ISIS.)

        Anyway, the point being that Democrats are missing the point, again.



        For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.
        - Albert Einstein:  Leftist, socialist, emo-prog, cosmic visionary.

        by Pluto on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:04:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Supporting the Kurds is about the oil market too (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pluto, Choco8

          If ISIL gets hold of those supergiant oil fields the Kurds control, the oil market is going to get way skittish, and prices will jump.  Not so good with an election coming up.  Even oil companies, which would normally welcome a spike in prices, must be nervous about the prospect of losing control of such rich resources.

          I stand with triv33. Shame on her attackers.

          by Dallasdoc on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 12:05:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  What you mean "we" kemo sabe? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      atana

      There are only two political parties.
      People either vote against one or the other.

      Those who do not vote or who vote for a third party do not count.

      The Republican candidate will present himself as the "common sense" candidate who "knows" that the world is a dangerous place and that we can't just sit around while all those evildoers run amok.
      If the Democratic candidate even hints that we should sometimes let bad guys think they can win, that candidate will lose the election.

      Our leaders must be Manichean mannequins.  The real question is whether HRC's hair is good enough.

      "...we live in the best most expensive third world country." "If only the NEA could figure out all they have to do is define the ignorance of the next generation as a WMD..." ---Stolen from posts on Daily Kos

      by jestbill on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:57:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Very crabbed understanding of voting. (0+ / 0-)

        Recent history makes it a lot harder to tell, but it is also possible to vote for a party.

        It is possible to vote for or against a candidate.

        It is possible to vote for one party in the Presidential and another in Congressional elections.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:12:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry, (0+ / 0-)

          I thought the subject was the Presidential election.

          Yes, I'm sure there are people who vote for parties and candidates.  That's why HRC's hair is important.

          "...we live in the best most expensive third world country." "If only the NEA could figure out all they have to do is define the ignorance of the next generation as a WMD..." ---Stolen from posts on Daily Kos

          by jestbill on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 01:47:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Didn't realize you were making such a restrictive (0+ / 0-)

            statement, but even there -- somebody could reasonably cast a Presidential ballot based on the state of Congress.

            HRC's hair is important to her, I'm sure.  Keeps her head warm and all that.

            Otherwise, I don't know why anybody should care.  Look what that sort of thinking did for Al Gore back in 2000.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:32:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Yep, there is nothing in her history to suggest (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Amber6541, Chi, KayCeSF, Choco8, IM

      that this hawkishness is just for show.

      Other candidates - O'Malley, Warren, Biden.

      If we are going to go for a really old candidate who has worked in Obama administration, I'd pick Biden over Hillary in a heartbeat. Biden has been right most of the time on foreign policy and he is capable of admitting when he's wrong (see Iraq War). That's two things he has over Hillary.

      Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

      by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:37:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He can't win (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        IM

        which is a big problem for a politician.

        •  I don't think he can make it out of the primary (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KayCeSF

          but if he did, I think he could win against the GOP nominee. I just think there are better and more inspiring choices than Hillary or Biden. Both of them remind me of Kerry. Viable general election candidate who inspired almost no one in the Dem base. Both candidates are too old, too charisma free and quite frankly past their prime. But, if my only two choices are Biden and Hillary, I'd take Biden. I think he's less likely to fall apart in the general election than Hillary (see her complete unraveling in the last month of the primaries) and less likely to make a fatal mistake in the general election.

          Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

          by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:05:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Eric Nelson

            Biden would be a terrible choice in terms of chances of winning.

            I think you underestimate Hillary's political appeal, maybe mostly a reflection of Bill Clinton's, but it is real.

            Leaving POLICY aside, to m there is no doubt that the most formidable Dem candidate would be Clinton. And it's not even close.

            Frankly, imo, she's close to a shoo in.l

            •  The problem is that Hillary is a horrible (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              greenbell, Choco8

              politician. She's tone deaf and she has a quality that tends to alienate voters. Her favorables at the end of the primary in 2008 were horrible. I just think her tendency to over-react, her tone deafness and her bad policy positions make for a very weak general election candidate. She'd be weaker than John Kerry. Bill can't debate for her or do interviews for her. And quite frankly, Bill has lost more than a step or 2 since his prime.

              That, plus the image of a frail, old Hillary Clinton vs. a younger Rand Paul makes me very nervous. It hurt McCain immeasurably sitting on stage with Obama. McCain looked befuddled and ancient. Hillary is going to offer up the same contrast. That issue exists with Biden as well, but Biden's a better politician and an incredible debater.

              Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

              by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:16:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  She was competent, even good (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                IM, Egalitare

                after losing Iowa.

                I'll say this though, she is sucking so far in this cycle.

                •  She broke down crying in NH because the (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dclawyer06, itsbenj

                  race was hard for her. She had a complete meltdown on stage at the Ohio rally with Governor Strickland nodding in the background. She gave a complete and total unhinged speech in that bunker after she lost the nomination and had to be talked into conceding by multiple AA leaders. Along the way she insulted multiple states and made up crazy lies that were easily disproven.  And that is just her. Her husband went full-on crazy in South Carolina.

                  She doesn't have the temperament or character for a strong general election run and if we are running against a Governor her record is mighty thin. She accomplished nothing as Senator and can't take sole credit for anything as SoS. Her thin record as Senator is why she kept trying to take credit for other people's successes in 2008 - Dodd's FMLA Act, Mitchell's work in Irish Peace Treaty, etc.  The GOP isn't going to let her get  away with that.

                  Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

                  by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:33:14 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yeah (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    sportsman885, suka

                    That's pretty ridiculous. But whtever

                    •  So you have no response to any of it. (0+ / 0-)

                      Her bunker speech alone should be enough to say that she isn't general election material. The entire media from left to right and most of the viewers were appalled by her behavior that night.

                      Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

                      by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:38:08 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I have no id what you ae referring to (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        IM

                        regarding the "bunker speech."

                        As for the Media being appalled, well, I'm surprised you think that is meaningful.

                        The Media HATES the Clintons and will continue to do so.

                        She almost gets a pass for that now even if it is deserved.

                        A sot of Teflon.

                        Lemme guess, you liked MoDo's last column right?

                        •  No I think MoDo should be in a psych ward. (0+ / 0-)

                          I haven't read her in years. She is clearly not mentally balanced.

                          Some of the media may hate the Clintons but they covered for Hillary's lie on Bosnia snipers until Sinbad finally outed her. And many of those media people were on the plane with her.  Andrea Mitchell, who was on that plane, for one has spent the entire Obama presidency talking about how Hillary would have done this or that better.

                          The bunker speech is the crazy speech she gave the night that Obama sealed the nomination and gave his speech in St. Paul. Hillary gave a speech in a bunker of some kind and talked like the nomination fight wasn't over. Everyone was appalled. Fellow Democrats went on tv and said they were appalled. It was disqualifying behavior.

                          If I was the GOP nominee, I'd just run an ad that showed Hillary talking about dodging sniper fire cut with her accepting flowers on the tarmac and ask if we want someone who lies that easily president.

                          Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

                          by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:49:22 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Disqualifying? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            IM

                            Com on man.

                            I enjoy your skepticism, but try keeping it real.

                            CLEARLY Hillary has not been disqualified

                            Hell, Obama supports her.

                          •  For me, it's disqualifying. Character and (0+ / 0-)

                            temperament matter to me. Her easy lies and her bizarre behavior during the 2008 primaries made me realize she should never be president. Anyone who takes setbacks that poorly should not be running this country.

                            As for Obama, he will support whoever wins the nomination and he'll stay neutral in the primaries.

                            Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

                            by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:24:47 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh (0+ / 0-)

                            Ok. Well if you use it that way sure.

                  •  Oh, puhlease. Tears in the eyes is not (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    IM

                    "broke down crying."

            •  I don't think she has much appeal w/ 'youth' (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              askew, greenbell

              To people under the age of 40 (perhaps we should stop calling millennials the 'youth vote' - I just turned 31), she's very much a candidate of a bygone era.  This is a very big problem for her, and for the democratic party.  The possibility that terrifies me is that Rand Paul, who sounds good on civil liberties and foreign policy (I strongly suspect that he'd be horrible on both) could peel off a lot of the younger vote - especially given Hillary's history of directly attacking us (can anyone name another bill she introduced during her senate tenure?).  This makes her a very dangerous candidate for the long-term future of the party.

              I'd also add that he ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is once again being demonstrated, and that alone should give her supporters a lot of pause.  She'd have to really fuck up to lose?  She's working on it.

              •  On the people under 40 (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                IM

                Polling simply does not support your assertion.

                •  Maybe not now (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  askew

                  But very certainly in the past, and quite possibly again.  She still makes no effort to in any way divorce herself from the decisions that earned generational ire in the first place.

                  Lets also not forget that polls two years out from a presidential election are far from indicative.  That Barack Obama guy?  Somewhere down within the 3% 'other' category.  Of course polling doesn't support my assertion - it doesn't support any assertions two years before the campaign begins!  Remember when Lieberman was running away with the primary in 2002?  It is funny to me how strong the inevitability narrative remains after its defeat in 2008D (and near-defeat in 2012R).

                  I just spent 15 minutes poring over polling data.  Younger voters remain her strongest voting bloc in the general (and the only one she reliably wins with over 50%), but I can't find any demographic breakdowns of the primary.

        •  No, Biden can win, actually (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snazzzybird

          According to The Keys to the White House, which hasn't been wrong for the past 150 years about the outcome of a Presidential election. It even predicted Obama's 2012 victory as early as 2010.

          For 2016, the Keys author predicts, already, that it would be virtually impossible for Republicans to win -- as things stand right now. But if an "incumbent" like like Clinton or Biden run -- the Republicans might as well forfeit the election and save their war chest for another day. Particularly if an Hispanic runs as VP.



          For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.
          - Albert Einstein:  Leftist, socialist, emo-prog, cosmic visionary.

          by Pluto on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:15:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  In (semi) defense of Clinton (6+ / 0-)

    While I think Clinton is just blathering to draw distinctions from Obama for political reasons, there is an underlying point here that's worth considering.

    One of the worst massacres/genocides of the past two decades occurred in Syria.

    It is not unreasonable to ask if we could have done more to stop it.  

    I tend to agree with Obama, there was nothing we could have done.

    But Clinton's argument is not totally ridiculous.  It is worth considering if there is some form of intervention that might have stopped this tragedy from happening.

  •  I just wonder... (31+ / 0-)

     ...if our foreign policy would become dramatically more rational if we just started treating Israel as the country between Ireland and Italy in the alphabet -- and nothing more than that.

       Sometimes I wonder which country is the server and which is the client.

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

    by Buzzer on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:01:15 AM PDT

    •  Or if anyone in State or Defense could locate (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      divineorder

      Iowa, Idaho, Illinois or Indiana on a map.

    •  This is the start of ME policy reform (5+ / 0-)

      I, personally, do not belive God deals in real estate.  Once you add the widsom of late Pres. Washington's Farewell Address, then Israel becomes just another small nation state which follows its own national intrests to the detriment of everyone else, including the US.

      That it is a detriment is without question.  When you are bombed by US bombs from US jets.  Your father manhandled at check points by soldiers with an occasional US accent.  Your olive groves burned by "settlers" with US accents...then naturally your enemy includes the US.  And the enemy of your cousin in Jordan, Beruit, Damascus...all through the ME.

      The first step would be to decide that the Occupation of various lands by Israel may consittute a  clear and present danger to the US and stop funding it.  Because the ONLY outcome that the current Israeli political leadership will accept is ethnic cleansing.

      Once you reach that point and stop being such an  intimate party of the issues, then you can view the whole region with a more objective eye.  Perhaps new thinking besides "arm the rebles" and protect Israel could arise.

      I have often felt that the unquestioned support of Israel has hindered a region wide settlement of many issues and an economic flowering .  But that's me.

      Ridge

      •  Yes, because allowing another genocide of (0+ / 0-)

        Millions of Jews in Israel is a better option? Israel is a strong democratic ally in the Middle East, and quite frankly, the only one we have. Do you really think that without Israel, that the Islamists would say "hey, it's all good, nothing against America, let's have peace". Are you that naive and ignorant of history? I assure you, ISIS and the Muslim world still remember when we "stole" Spain and Eastern Europe from them, and how we dominated them militarily, culturally and scientifically for hundreds of years. Do you really think there would be peace without Israel? History, and human nature tells us otherwise.

        •  That's a false choice (5+ / 0-)

          and it's a strong-arm one, intended to offer extreme right-wing militaristic "solutions" as the only viable ones. You are saying basically that one or the other side MUST be subjected to genocide. And I believe that is not the case.

          Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

          by anastasia p on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:34:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's the common arguement (0+ / 0-)

            "Don't you know the Arabs are animals and will kill millions of Jews if given the chance, so the US must support Israel without question for all eternity to prevent it.  What kind of Jew hater are you?"

            If you start from a couple of simple propositions-

            -God doesn't have a broker's license to deal in real estate.

            -Arabs are people too, with hopes, fears, a wish for the well being of their families and a better future of their children.

            -The US interests in the ME extend PAST Israel, to a peaceful, prosperous region.

            Then you see all sorts of possiblities.  

            As extremism continues to rise in Israel, it really does become a question of national intrest if continued support is the Best for the US.  After all, Israel acts in its own best interests, why shouldn't we?

            I'll close with this small quote.  I would urge any who are concerned with this subject to read the whole thing. It applies directly to Hillary, AIPAC, etc...

            Ridge

            "...So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation...."

            http://avalon.law.yale.edu/...

            •  No,the Arabs would never massacre Jews, right? (0+ / 0-)

              Yeah..we're just being paranoid. We have nothing to worry about!

              After all, in 1919 and 1929, they didn't murder hundreds in Baghdad and Hebron and Jerusalem.
              In WWWII, the Mufti of Jerusalem didn't conspire with the SS to plan extermination camps..
              In 1948, 1967, 1973, they didn't invade Israel with the express goal of "pushing the Jews into the sea"
              There was no wave of terrorist attacks over the next few decades.
              And naturally Hamas and HeZbollah didn't launch a massive wave of homicide bombings on Israeli schools, clubs, restaurants, killing and maiming thousands.
              And of course,even now, Hamas doesn't want to actually exterminate us all.

              You're falling into the trap of projecting modern western values on a tribal society that revels in death, destruction and martyrdom. One look at ISIS should tell you how much "freedom and democracy" are valued there.  Do you really think Israel is the only "occupied Muslim land" these people are after? Do you think they'd stop just after eliminating Israel, sit down and sing Kumbayah with us?

    •  Or mobilize our resources for solar... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, SouthernLiberalinMD, Eric Nelson

      ...the number one problems are the deals of the Goldman Saches, private equity, and oil. Wikileaks showed some of these underlying deals.

    •  Historical fact: (0+ / 0-)

      Bibi has received more standing ovations from the US Congress in one day than President Obama has over a six-year period.

      You don't to be a trained geopolitical analyst to figure out what that means.



      For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.
      - Albert Einstein:  Leftist, socialist, emo-prog, cosmic visionary.

      by Pluto on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:50:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good post. The fact Clinton still (35+ / 0-)

    sees intervention first shows me that she has not learned from her Iraq vote.  

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

    by TomP on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:02:24 AM PDT

  •  I think it is adorable that people still ... (8+ / 0-)

    ... care what a politician says about anything even slightly controversial. Especially when they are running an enormous, high stakes campaign that needs to draw people in from opposing viewpoints. We can only judge anybody by their actions.

    Hell, the majority of what the GOP says is just to raise money from the frightened idiots that make up the conservative base! And then the DCCC feels it needs to compete so it spams my inbox with a ton of fundraising pleas that are so hyperbolic that I suspect they are standing on a ledge somewhere. Politics has always been an unseemly streetwalk for the wealthy but now it seems that legislating is just a show for the fundraising.

    I do not mean to call out the author here - this is just a little rant about how useless this all feels sometimes.

    Please do not be alarmed. We are about to engage... the nozzle.

    by Terrapin on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:02:44 AM PDT

  •  Obama didn't know we were already sending (7+ / 0-)

    arms to Syrian rebels?

    What the heck did he think Chris Stevens was doing in Libya?

    REPORT: The US Is Openly Sending Heavy Weapons From Libya To Syrian Rebels

    On Sept. 6 a Libyan ship carrying 400 tons of weapons for Syrian rebels docked in southern Turkey. The ship's captain was "a Libyan from Benghazi" who worked for the new Libyan government. The man who organized that shipment, Tripoli Military Council head Abdelhakim Belhadj, worked directly with Stevens during the Libyan revolution.

    Stevens' last meeting on Sept. 11 was with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi "to negotiate a weapons transfer in an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists."

    And since Clinton sent him on whatever mission he was on, it seems a bit duplicitous of her now to claim if only she had been allowed to help the rebels things would have turned out better.

    Oh what a tangled web we weave....

    •  "Heavy" weapons obscures the nature (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JJ In Illinois, dinotrac, askew

      of SA-7s, i.e., surface to air missiles. They have no particular offensive capability. All they are good for is toning down the nation state's ability to commit genocide through absolute air superiority.  

      Depending on how they were distributed they do nothing to favor any particular group of insurgents.

      We can't think our way into a better way of living. We have to live our way into a better way of thinking. Claude AnShin Thomas

      by DaNang65 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:16:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not only SA-7's (2+ / 0-)

        The article referenced in the piece I linked to says:

        THE United States is launching a covert operation to send weapons to Syrian rebels for the first time as it ramps up military efforts to oust President Bashar al-Assad.

        Mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank missiles will be sent through friendly Middle Eastern countries already supplying the rebels, according to well-placed diplomatic sources.

        The Americans have bought some of the weapons from the stockpiles of Muammar Gadaffi, the Libyan dictator killed last year. They include SA-7 missiles, which can be used to shoot down aircraft.  

        Plenty of offensive capabilities there.
        •  Ground to air missiles can be viewed as an (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JJ In Illinois

          offensive weapon in one sense:

          Control of the air gives you the ability to decimate a ground offensive.  Removing that absolute control of the air space gives you a chance to go on the offensive.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:21:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I haven't figured out why (4+ / 0-)

      people on this site think BO is so different from HRC, when they both arm proxy wars and both want to steal assets from any country that has anything.  

      And both support overthrowing elected officials if the elected official does not agree with whatever the US [US corporations] wants economically.

      The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

      by dfarrah on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:16:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  BO ran left in the 2008 primary in order (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JanL, JJ In Illinois, tb mare

        to undercut Hillary with Democratic activists. It was purely an electoral politics strategy which said nothing about how him or he would govern.

        Hillary has to run center for the general. She is merely skipping the phase of running left to court left activists before pivoting right for the general. Skipping that phase makes perfect sense -- left activists don't like her anyway, there isn't an effective challenger who can pretend to be left of her, and hence there is no reason to create inconsistencies between her statements for the primary and for the general - inconsistencies the Republican candidate would harp on.

         

        American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

        by atana on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:24:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree that is likely her strategy (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior

          But..

          left activists don't like her anyway, there isn't an effective challenger who can pretend to be left of her
          she is taking a very big risk assuming she already has the nomination locked up, isn't she?

          If someone more charismatic steps up to challenge her, she's toast.. happened before..

          I think her timing has been terrible.  She should have waited til after the elections.  Her stumbles and mis-steps this early on give someone thinking about challenging her much more time to get an organization together.

          •  Money (0+ / 0-)

            She has it, they don't.

            American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

            by atana on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:43:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  She had the money 8 years ago too, while others (7+ / 0-)

              did not.
                 But Obama came in and got the money, a good chunk coming from popular appeal. He got so much in fact that he ran a flush campaign while Hillary Clinton ended up (way) in the red.
                 It's still very early.

              "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

              by elwior on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:54:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Most of Obama's money came from traditional (0+ / 0-)

                sources and was obtained in traditional ways.

                Clinton is light years ahead of any hypothetical challenger in that game this time around, and the money men aren't as "uncomfortable" with her this time as they were in 2008.

                American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

                by atana on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:58:21 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  There are still people looking to fund Hillary (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  elwior, JJ In Illinois

                  alternatives. O'Malley is one of them. I am sure Biden would be able to raise money if he ran as well. The money isn't going to be an issue in Iowa or NH. It's going to be about passion. I don't think Hillary can generate enough passion to win the Iowa caucus.

                  Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

                  by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:07:16 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not to mention if Elizabeth Warren gets in after (0+ / 0-)

                    all.

                    "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

                    by elwior on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:42:00 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I haven't read anything on Warren's fundraising (0+ / 0-)

                      ability yet. I think she'll get small donations but I am not sure what her connections are to big money which you need in the beginning unfortunately. Biden and O'Malley have those connections.

                      Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

                      by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:52:02 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  If you win Iowa, the money would roll in (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        elwior

                        It's a game changer - and it shouldn't be.  But if Hillary lost Iowa people would start wondering "again?".

                        That said.. Warren is so anti-Wall St., I highly doubt she would get anything from those big money sources.  But unions, Hollywood, tons of other progressive organizations - definitely.

                      •  She did raise more money than any other (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Thomas Twinnings

                        candidate in 2012, other than the presidential candidates.

                        "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

                        by elwior on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 01:49:08 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Wasn't she in the red at the end of her campaign? (0+ / 0-)

                          New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

                          by AlexDrew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 02:18:15 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

      •  Liberals on this site like to pretend... (0+ / 0-)

        ....they led BO to victory, even though they all supported Edwards.

        In reality, Hillary and BO were both fighting for the middle ground.

        Edwards was the choice of the Liberals, but his is a name that dare not be mentioned here.

      •  I would like you to state which elected official (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gator Keyfitz, Eric Nelson

        your (BO) overthrew...The closest possible reference I'm guessing to (BO) overthrowing a governmental official would be in the unusual case of Muammar Gaddafi of Lybia, who rose to power through a 1969 coup d'etat, and while embroiled in a civil war in his nation in 2011 threatened to massacre his own people in 2011 as he had done in the past. This was reported by World Socialist:

        Gaddafi threatens mass killings as popular rebellion spreads
        By Patrick Martin
        23 February 2011

        Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi threatened widespread massacres against his own people in an appearance on state television Tuesday as the revolt against his regime consolidated its grip on the eastern half of the country and spread to the suburbs of Tripoli, the capital.

        Hundreds have been killed in the weeklong revolt, which has faced the bloodiest repression of any of the popular movements that have erupted throughout North Africa and the Middle East since the overthrow of Tunisian President Ben Ali on January 14.

        Snip

        In the 70-minute diatribe, which appeared to have been taped before a small audience of security agents, Gaddafi called on the people of Libya to rise up and defend his regime, while at the same time threatening to replicate the worst historic crimes in repressing those who opposed him.

        He cited approvingly the US destruction of the Iraqi city of Fallujah, China’s crushing of the 1989 Tiananmen Square uprising and the bombardment of the Russian parliament by Boris Yeltsin as examples of what he would do to rebel-held cities like Derna and Bayda.

        He threatened to “execute” dissidents, referring favorably to the Waco massacre in the United States as a precedent.

        Gaddafi was so ruthless that the Arab League called for help in stopping him and appealed to the United Nation for a no fly zone over Libya:
        Arab League calls for United Nations no-fly zone

        The Arab League called on the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone on Libya, increasing pressure on Europe and the US to embark on limited military action against the regime of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

        It should be noted that the UN security council voted in favor of a no fly zone fearing crimes against humanity:
        SECURITY COUNCIL APPROVES ‘NO-FLY ZONE’ OVER LIBYA, AUTHORIZING ‘ALL NECESSARY MEASURES’ TO PROTECT CIVILIANS, BY VOTE OF 10 IN FAVOUR WITH 5 ABSTENTIONS

        Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity”, the Security Council this evening imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Qadhafi regime and its supporters

        After all of this, the President entered Libya along with NATO.

        Which other "elected officials" has Obama overthrowed because he disagreed with them again?

      •  Because they are very different. (6+ / 0-)

        Their character, temperament and views on FP are dramatically different.  Hillary supported the Iraq War and still can't admit her vote was a mistake nor that the war was a mistake. Obama was against the war and has continued to say to this day that the war was a huge mistake. Obama, smartly, was against arming randoms in Syria. Hillary's solution was to ship arms to people in Syria. Obama resisted boots on the ground in Libya which Hillary pushed for, etc.

        Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

        by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:43:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Quoting Business Insider, et al., seems obtuse (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Nelson

      Business Insider references Fox News and Wall Street Journal for those conclusions.

      The GOP House Select Committee is reported to have an exact opposite conclusion as per "Crooks and Liars":

      And according to the Chronicle’s report, the committee’s findings are consistent with everything reality has told us all along: “There was no ‘stand-down order’ given to American personnel attempting to offer assistance that evening, no illegal activity or illegal arms transfers occurring by U.S. personnel in Benghazi, and no American was left behind.”
      Al Arabiya reported that the US was, or may have been "assisting" arms transfers.
      President Barack Obama’s administration insisted it was not directly supplying the weapons or providing funding, with Gulf states paying for the new arms, the Post said, citing U.S. and foreign officials.

      But Washington has stepped up links with the rebels and regional militaries allied with them, playing a role in the rebel’s foreign support network, according to the report.

      “We are increasing our nonlethal assistance to the Syrian opposition, and we continue to coordinate our efforts with friends and allies in the region and beyond in order to have the biggest impact on what we are collectively doing,” a senior State Department official told the Post.

      Ahhh, yes, who to believe . . . ?

      We're all just working for Pharaoh.

      by whl on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 12:49:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've never witnessed a politician has tone (17+ / 0-)

    Deaf as Hillary is, you'd think after 2008 she would have known what buttons not to push to rile up the left wing of the party that's still suspect of her. I'm one who always believed she had this nomination sowed up, but these last few weeks as showed me a real contest could develop, and she could get knocked out again by someone on the left with a clear cut message, one not playing for traiangulation again.

    •  To have a contest... (4+ / 0-)

         ...you need an opponent.

         Depressing as it is, nobody's out there challenging Hillary.

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

      by Buzzer on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:29:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  She seems to not get that she doesn't get it (8+ / 0-)

      Which is troubling. It's like she's already made up her mind about everything and it's just a matter of putting it all in action if we'd just LET her.

      I don't respect didactic thinking.

      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

      by kovie on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:40:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is why I disagree with the dreamers here (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, greenbell, vernonbc

        who think we can "push" Hillary to the left. The nature of the office and the political process means any Democratic president will move to the right. So you need to look at where she starts and be realistic. If you think where she is now is too far to the right, you won't be happy with her once she's elected. Hillary has always shown she's far less responsive to public pressure than Obama anyway. She doesn't seem to be a listener or, as you said, a learner. She's already got her answers.

        Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

        by anastasia p on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:38:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  She clearly hasn't learned anything from her loss (0+ / 0-)

          in 2008.

          Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

          by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:43:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  She hasn't been wrong about anything (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SouthernLiberalinMD

          since Wellesley, when she awakened from her Goldwater infatuation and saw the light. That light being her own inner rightness about all things.

          Sorry, and I know that it's considered to be rude to repeat this here, but you don't bring up a daughter who decides to slum her way to an $11 million NYC penthouse and easy high-paying gigs at McKinsey and MSNBC without there being something wrong with you. She is a poster child for why people hate boomers, even though only a small segment of them are like her.

          It's all about me me Me ME MEEEEEEEE!

          "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

          by kovie on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 01:11:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Really? Never heard of Nancy Pelosi? (0+ / 0-)

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:22:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The most effective Speaker in a generation? (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Portlaw, elwior, KayCeSF, anastasia p, vernonbc

        Yeah, we've heard of her. Hillary doesn't have 1/100th the accomplishments of Nancy.

        Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

        by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:46:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In a generation? (0+ / 0-)

          What do we consider to be a generation?

          She certainly couldn't hold a candel to Carl Albert or Tip O'Neill.

          She wasn't ineffective, but certainly was tone-deaf as hell.
          I suspect she played a major role in the debacle of 2010.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:43:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No one knows or cares who Nancy Pelosi is (0+ / 0-)

            outside of hardcore GOP and Dem activists. What hurt the Dems in 2010 was the economy and healthcare reform scared people.

            Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

            by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:53:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Short memory. From 2006-2008, Pelosi was the (0+ / 0-)

              visible face of the Democratic Party. She was in the news. She was on TV.

              And -- when gas prices surged over $4.00 a gallon in 2008, when lots of people, especially lower income people, were hurt by the cost of getting to work, Pelosi's best response was to say "I am a friend of the Earth" -- still my choice for single line that should justify immediate capital punishment -- and to mock Republicans with "Drill, drill, drill."

              It wasn't so much that Pelosi was wrong -- she wasn't -- but that she seemed so completely clueless as to the pain so many people suffered. Smart politicians do better than that.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:58:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And what happened in 2008? We gained seats in (0+ / 0-)

                the House and won the presidency. So, her face clearly didn't hurt us. And PPP has done polls of Pelosi and Boehner and no one outside the fringes has views on either. She just isn't moving votes from anyone in the middle and she isn't a deciding factor in elections any more than Boehner is.

                You have strong views on Pelosi, but those views just don't translate to the general public enough to change votes.

                Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

                by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:08:33 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And what happened in 2010? (0+ / 0-)

                  The GOP were spent and disliked by 2008.  The Democrats had a shiny new face.  Pelosi wasn't enough to undo that.

                  Events over the next two years piled on.

                  Besides, even if Pelosi was just a small part of the debacle, she's still seriously tone-deaf, or, in the alternative, simply dosesn't give a shit about ordinary Americans.

                  LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                  by dinotrac on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 01:21:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Obama didn't "knock her out with a clear left (0+ / 0-)

      message" in 2008. He knocked her out with money and an artificial left message meant to excite Democratic activists.

      Obama had money -- and lots of it -- in 2008 because the money men were too "uncomfortable" with Hillary and Obama looked less scarey to them after private discussions.

      This time, they are not as uncomfortable with Hillary, and there is no one around who is as masterful at duplicity as Obama was, and who can simultaneously convince the left he is one of them while cutting deals in board rooms.

      American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

      by atana on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:37:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bull. Hillary had mountains of money too (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, dclawyer06, itsbenj, vernonbc

        And there was no "artificial" message. He and Hillary had barely any space between them on message. Hillary lost because she was tone-deaf on how her attempts to position herself to the right were striking  people and because her inept team not only insulted hardcore Democrats but completely misread the primary process. Mark Penn anyone?

        Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

        by anastasia p on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:39:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree that they didn't have differences (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dclawyer06, vernonbc

          on message. Hillary pushed a doom-n-gloom message that depressed our voters. Obama pushed a hope message that inspired people. His foreign policy was always very different than Hillary's. They had large disagreements on FP. Domestic policy not so much.

          And Mark Penn isn't the reason Hillary lost. Hillary lost because Obama was the better politician and he managed to inspire the base. The same thing can easily happen again.

          Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

          by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:42:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks Armando (7+ / 0-)

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:10:03 AM PDT

  •  building a bridge (16+ / 0-)

    to the twentieth century...

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

    by Laurence Lewis on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:10:36 AM PDT

  •  posturing.. (3+ / 0-)

    I think she's setting herself up to get that"blue-collar, hard-working-middle-class" vote, as well as assuring AIPAC, and other hawks of her willingness to do their bidding. What better way?

  •  Such power is not *limitless* You get one chance. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, Dallasdoc

    Suppose the US took the time to develop an "asset" in Syria. As events turned out, there was time to do so, although it most other cases there has not been. Ok, so the US extends personnel and burns up its remaining ground assets to do this miracle. That will take all of the US's resources.

    We wouldn't then be able to do the same thing in Yemen, or in Iraq.

    The problem with Syria is that the crisis has lasted, so everyone has an opportunity to say, "Well, see, there was plenty of time to do my plan." There are endless opportunities for hindsight, but it's not as if covert assets can be manufactured by Raytheon like missiles.

    Hence, "Don't do stupid shit" applies to any using up of assets, where you get only one chance per generation, without extremely high stakes or extremely good outcomes.

    "for all the murders, rapes, and thefts,/ Committed in the horrid lust of war,/ He that unjustly caus'd it first proceed,/ Shall find it in his grave and in his seed." -- Webster, "The White Devil," IV i 8-12.

    by The Geogre on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:12:03 AM PDT

  •  with hillary (17+ / 0-)

    as the presumptive dem nominee in 2016 and whomever is on the gop ticket the future of our republic looks dimmer & dimmer in my view, the elites will rejoice and rake in the wealth while the 99% will be relegated to the scrap heap of desperation and dreams of what could have been.

  •  Obama's problem is not policy, it is tone. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JanL

    Most of the criticism of Obama really deals with his tone.  Except for his Syria policy, where the best response is not obvious even with Monday morning quarterbacking, most of his critics would not have done much different.

    Still, as the contrast between Pope Benedict and Pope Francis shows, tone can be important.

    •  Obama's problem is his skin color. A lot of the (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, pamelabrown, vernonbc

      media has real problems with Obama not taking orders from them on what to do. You can see it in their tone.

      Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

      by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:48:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What frustrates me about HRC, now that she (13+ / 0-)

    is no longer the Secretary of State working within the Obama administration, but is rather the putative Democratic candidate, is that she's back to calibrating every single comment through a political lens., as she did in her last campaign.  Everything she says sounds as though it's been "tested" by her advisors to be the safest thing she can say (and if history is a guide, her advisors leave much to be desired).  Much of what she says, therefore, feels inauthentic, and that's worrisome, because we need to know where she really stands--not in comparison to Obama with his weak poll numbers--but on her own.  What would she, will she do, if put to the test?

    Wouldn't you like, for once, to have a political candidate who unabashedly speaks with conviction about issues?  This is why people gravitate towards Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.  They do this, with clarity, and it's very reassuring.  But perhaps because they are not candidates, it's safe for them to speak without that political filter.  Maybe it's naive of me to believe that an outspoken, honest candidate could prevail in our world.  But it sure would be a nice change.

    "It ain't right, Atticus," said Jem. "No, son, it ain't right." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

    by SottoVoce on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:14:23 AM PDT

    •  But... (0+ / 0-)
      This is why people gravitate towards Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.
      People will cheer Warren and Sanders but they will vote fore someone else.

      Perot was just what you want.  He really did well to get more than 15%.

      "...we live in the best most expensive third world country." "If only the NEA could figure out all they have to do is define the ignorance of the next generation as a WMD..." ---Stolen from posts on Daily Kos

      by jestbill on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:17:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Major misinterpretation of my comment (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GreatLakeSailor

        I'm not pining for a third party candidate or for a fool.  Just asking for more forthright speech from our candidates.  Thanks for playing, though.

        "It ain't right, Atticus," said Jem. "No, son, it ain't right." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

        by SottoVoce on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:50:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think so. (0+ / 0-)

          Elections are won and lost based on "feelings," not logic or truth.
          In some wondrous land where people are sane and involved your wish would be law.  In this nuthouse she has to play by nuthouse rules.

          "...we live in the best most expensive third world country." "If only the NEA could figure out all they have to do is define the ignorance of the next generation as a WMD..." ---Stolen from posts on Daily Kos

          by jestbill on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 01:35:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Were Senator Warren to run and to unabashedly to (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SottoVoce, GreatLakeSailor

      speak with conviction, as she is wont to do, I believe she would win.
        I don't think you're the only one who is frustrated by the measured crappola put out by Hillary Clinton and so many other candidates.
        There's a lot lot of people out there who will be favorably impressed by hearing the real thing.

      "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

      by elwior on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:11:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I agree completely (22+ / 0-)

    I am flabbergasted that she is pretty much going out of her way to remind me why I voted for Obama in the first place.

    Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole. - Ta-Nehisi Coates

    by moviemeister76 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:14:42 AM PDT

  •  Unfortunate name, Robert Ford ... (0+ / 0-)

    And I feel like a bullet in the gun of Robert Ford
    I'm lower than a paid assassin is
    I'm colder than a hired sword
    I'm so ashamed can't we patch it up
    You know I can't think straight no more
    You make me feel like a bullet honey
    In the gun of Robert Ford

    Wikipedia sez:" The song's lyrics compare the shooting of Jesse James by James' outlaw-partner Robert Ford to Taupin's failed marriage to his first wife Maxine Feibelman, of Tiny Dancer fame. The song reached #14 on the Billboard Hot 100 in February 1976, but failed to chart in the singer's native United Kingdom."

    I'm so Ready for Hillary ... and expect to be sucking it up just about as much as I have with PBO.

    Those who want to reap the benefits of this great nation must bear the fatigue of supporting it - Thomas Paine

    by ManOutOfTime on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:14:46 AM PDT

  •  If Charles Krauthammer agrees with Hillary's (22+ / 0-)

    criticism of Obama's foreign policy, that's generally a good indication that President Obama is the one who is correct.

    ;-)

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:16:31 AM PDT

  •  Purely a political calculation. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Heart of the Rockies

    Hillary knows she'll never draw as many African Americans to the polls as Obama did, so she needs to pull over a sizable portion of the married white woman vote.

    What the Right Wing calls "being politically correct" is what my mama used to teach me was "being polite".

    by Walt starr on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:20:47 AM PDT

    •  Then someone might tell her we don't want war (12+ / 0-)

      Spending the safety net on war is not what this woman wants.

      •  She's looking strictly at the statistics (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Portlaw

        from the exit polls.

        Obama lost the white woman demographic by 12% in 2012. He lost the married white woman vote by even more. The primary reason cited by the exit polling data is they trusted Romney to keep us safe from outside dangers than Obama.

        National electoral politics go this way. Straying too far from the center results in a loss.

        What the Right Wing calls "being politically correct" is what my mama used to teach me was "being polite".

        by Walt starr on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:39:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree she needs to be concerned with the white (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cany

          vote and too many Democrats are blind to that. But I don't think "safety" has much to do with center.  That goes to figuring out what people fear which isn't always even obvious to them.  Is it economic uncertainly?  crime? war? terrorism? race? social change?  If white married women thought Romney was more likely to keep them safe --- safe from what?  

          •  Nah, it's not 1998 any longer. (0+ / 0-)

            Dems can win with the Obama coalition - minorities, single white women and young voters. The % of voters who are white is falling every four years and will be even lower in 2016. We don't need to chase the white vote any longer.

            Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

            by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:52:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well keep working on the math then (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              schumann

              Because as long as the electorate is over 70% white, there's a considerable amount of hubris in believing you can win elections without it.  

              This may be a problem for Hillary.  She's going to have to keep a minority coalition that believes it is stronger than it is happy while she tries to attract white voters and by going to the right she loses white voters like me on the anti-war left.  

              •  You can't lump all of the white voters together. (0+ / 0-)

                Dems won the white youth vote in 2008 and 2012 and we'll likely win it again in 2016. We'll also likely win single white women.  Where we struggle is with white men and married white women. Our coalition is strong enough and big enough that we don't need to increase our share of either of those demographics to easily win.

                Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

                by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:35:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You assume you can lump all minority voters (0+ / 0-)

                  together which probably works for the most part for now but just by doing that you run the risk that more of the white vote will group by race.  I think the minority coalition is feeling its power and wants representation with a Castro or whoever on the ticket and with more attention paid to its interests and with Obama out of the White House it may become more vocal in asserting itself.  But the risk there is that you lose more of the white vote.  I think it's trickier than some assume.  Obama got it just right but coalitions tend to keep shifting.  

                  •  There's no evidece of what you are predicting. (0+ / 0-)

                    AA and Hispanic voting populations are shifting to voting for Dems almost in a block. Young white people and single white women have been voting for Dems in large %s over time.

                    And minority interests align with the views of young people for the most part. The white people who may be turned off are white men who are easily threatened by minority "issues".

                    Adding Castro to the ticket isn't going to turn anyone off unless you are a racist. His views align with the Dem base almost 100%. He's no radical. Hillary at the top of the ticket is more likely to turn people off.

                    Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

                    by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:04:30 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Is she assuming that married white women want (4+ / 0-)

      more conflict?  Really?

      The only hawk I like is the kind that has feathers. My birding blogs: http://thisskysings.wordpress.com/ and canyonbirds.net

      by cany on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:56:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If you are suggesting (5+ / 0-)

      She can trade African American, Asian American, Hispanic American and Liberal White voters for swing voter White Women and win, you need to revisit the calculus.

      If you are saying she has just thrown core Democratic voters (i.e., minority groups, Liberals) into the trash so, consequently, her only hope is to attract more conservative women to crossover and vote for her, you might have a point.

      But then, what does that say about Clinton as a Democratic candidate?

      Female version of old white guys?  

      That seems to be what you are suggesting; Clinton = Romney.

      {shakes head}

      •  It's not so much taking those demographics. (0+ / 0-)

        I think the calculation is she won't get anywhere near as MANY of those demographics to the polls as Obama was able to do.

        I'm just reading the calculation. I'm not saying I agree with it.

        What the Right Wing calls "being politically correct" is what my mama used to teach me was "being polite".

        by Walt starr on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 03:10:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So then, the argument would be (0+ / 0-)

          It's hopeless for her to attract Obama's base so by tacking Right she will attract enough female crossover voters to win?

          Ha, ha. So then Rand Paul is no worry, Hillary will crush him with her appeals to strengthen the surveillance state and promote a neocon foreign policy agenda to make the crossover gals feel warm & fuzzy & safe?

          Bizarre. So then, Hillary is the stealth 3rd Party Candidate?

    •  Many of those married white women don't (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KayCeSF, dclawyer06, schumann

      vote in the Dem primary. She is making the same mistake she did in 2008 by looking to the general election. She is going to get a strong challenge in the primary and she is going to struggle in Iowa because of her views. Iowa saw her up close and personal in 2008 and rejected her.  They are a very anti-war state and are not going to like the hawkish FP she is pushing.

      And the white married women vote doesn't outweigh the minority vote and the youth vote she would need to win a general election. Those voters need to be pushed to turn out and they aren't turning out for a hawkish nominee.

      Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

      by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:51:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  At this point, I don't see anything approaching (0+ / 0-)

        a strong challenge in the primaries.

        There just isn't a Barack Obama on the horizon. At this point in 2006, I was already fired up for Obama and was preparing for his announcement in a few months. I was convinced from the moment I first heard him speak in October of 2002 that this man would become our first African American president.

        At the convention in 2004 when Barack Obama spoke, I made absolutely certain my mother tuned in. After the speech, I called her and told her, "you just heard a speech from the first African American president."

        The 2008 Democratic primaries were a once in lifetime experience. It's not going to repeat in 2016 and a good percentage of the Obama early adopters are already on board for Hillary in 2016. I know I am.

        What the Right Wing calls "being politically correct" is what my mama used to teach me was "being polite".

        by Walt starr on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 03:14:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's still too early to say that. (0+ / 0-)

          Dean didn't catch on until March of 2003 and Obama was running for 2nd/3rd in Iowa until the J-J Dinner in mid-summer of 2003. Once candidates announce and start spending real time on the campaign trail we'll see.

          Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

          by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 03:31:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Married white women (5+ / 0-)

      are likely to have sons of military age or soon to be. I doubt they will favor saber-rattling.

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

      by anastasia p on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:42:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The number of families with people in the military (0+ / 0-)

        is really much smaller than you make out.

        Wars today simply do not affect the vast swath of America that wars affected all the way up to and including Vietnam.

        What the Right Wing calls "being politically correct" is what my mama used to teach me was "being polite".

        by Walt starr on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 03:15:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Damn good post. Senator Sanders (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, Portlaw, koNko, GreatLakeSailor

    debating her on this would be good but he would not be on primary ballot, no? How about Congressman with Guts Grayson primary pushing the talk left?  :)

    Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

    by divineorder on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:25:46 AM PDT

    •  Grayson? Lord help us. We don't need a crank (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KayCeSF, vernonbc

      out there pushing liberal views. We need a viable candidate. O'Malley, Warren or Patrick all hold liberal views and are viable. The netroots should be backing 1 of these.

      Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

      by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:54:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wishful thinking (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GreatLakeSailor

        Armando has it right that we need a progressive counter in the primaries and Grayson has backing from important left orgs as well as being one of the most effective Dems in Congress
        http://www.slate.com/....  

        Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

        by divineorder on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:29:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm getting increasing irritated (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        divineorder, GreatLakeSailor

        with people here who swallow whole the false media frame that Grayson is a "crank" and somehow our equivalent to the Tea Party. If you separated his views and statements from the image the media has created for him, because they need "balance" most here would agree with almost everything  he says. He is mostly definitely NOT a "crank."

        I don't see him as a viable presidential candidate though, but he is if Cruz and Paul are. THEY are cranks.

        Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

        by anastasia p on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:44:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sorry I've seen him interviewed multiple (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aimeehs

          times and he comes off as really angry and he has had anger issues in the past. He seems like a crank. Maybe that is the Minnesota Nice in me, but he just would not play here at all. There are better representatives of the liberal viewpoint that we should be pushing.

          I think his views are great. He just sucks.

          Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

          by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:10:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm in Florida (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            askew

            not too very far from the District he represents.  I would have voted for him for Congress, but I have serious issues  with him myself.

            I believe he comes across as callous, unpredictable (in a negative, not positive way) and as a blowhard.  He's used  dubious sources in press interviews and even went so far as saying this on Ed Schultz's radio show when it was still on MSNBC:

            "I think this is one of those extraordinarily rare occasions when I think I’m in agreement with Sarah Palin. She said, “Let Allah sort it out.”
            Some of his issues during that point in time can be read about here in

            Charlie Crist for Florida Primary date: August 26, 2014, Election Date: November 4, 2014

            by aimeehs on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 07:59:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Callous is a good word to describe how he comes (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aimeehs

              across. He kind of reminds me of McCain now that I think about it.

              Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

              by askew on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:41:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  ROTFL! Heavens to Betsy, we wouldn't want someo... (0+ / 0-)

        ROTFL! Heavens to Betsy, we wouldn't want someone with fire in his eyes and a willingness to challenge entrenched power, he might offend somebody!

  •  My major problem... (8+ / 0-)

    with Hillary Clinton's (almost certain) bid for the presidency, is the prevailing notion of her inevitable victory [should] she run.
    Such a political atmosphere can create rigidity, tone-deafness in a candidate.
    Diaries like this point out the fact that Mrs. Clinton is still a work in progress....
    And more importantly, that we need to vet her, hold her accountable just like any other candidate...
    Her apparent shoo-in status notwithstanding.

    "These 'Yet To Be' United States" --James Baldwin--

    by kevinbr38 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:29:53 AM PDT

  •  Really hawkish or just blathering for distance (3+ / 0-)

    from Obama ... both would be equally bad. Hawkishness has proven in the past to be not working. Political calculations for her own candidacy on the basis of such important foreign policy issues, certainly will be detested by so many around the world that you can safely forget about thinking "there's nothing more to it than that". There is a whole lot more of it in consequences, bad consequences.

    Perhaps we can be optimistic that Clinton, who surely is running for president, was making a political calculation regarding her own candidacy, and sees the need to find some distance, even if just rhetorically, from a president whose popularity has waned. Maybe there's nothing more to it than that.

    We know a hell of a lot, but we understand very little. Manfred Max-Neef

    by mimi on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:30:25 AM PDT

  •  Hillary the new "Crusader" President, a fool (9+ / 0-)

    playing with international political bumper stickers about the new "Soviet Union," and the world threat of "Islamic Jihad," that a former Secretary of State is pushing these  simplistic and generally harmful warmongering memes is irresponsible and  absurd. Unless we are playing the mad man card often championed by the war criminals of the Nixon, and Bush administrations, which is in itself a discredited tactic, the whole line of reasoning is Right wing toadying. Hillary is a servant of the status quo who hasn't had an original strategic thought in her life. Like her husband she is a glad handing, meme spouting, tactical political machine, not a deep strategic thinker. It may take a village, but the Democratic Party doesn't have to provide the idiot...  

    "Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are..." George Santayana

    by KJG52 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:33:07 AM PDT

  •  She just doesn't appear to be her own person (9+ / 0-)

    On this issue, and others, she appears to be wired to say and do what she believes she's supposed to say and do, and that bothers me, whether or not I agree with her on a given issue. I want a leader, not a reactor. What is HER plan to improve the situation in Syria, I/P, Iraq, etc.? How would SHE handle Iran, Turkey, Egypt, etc.? Don't just criticize--tell us what YOU would do better.

    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

    by kovie on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:38:13 AM PDT

    •  I think she has a passion for power not a passion (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Portlaw, KayCeSF, vernonbc

      to lead and has a willingness to say anything to gain power. Say what you will about Obama, his views have been remarkably consistent over the years. You know where he stands on issues and what he is likely to do.

      Biden, Warren, Patrick and O'Malley all talk about their views and I believe them. When Hillary talks,  I feel like she's reading results of the latest focus group on any given issue.

      Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

      by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:56:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Please add Sherrod Brown to your list. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew

        He's a gem.  ,)

        I agree with you, however, that VP Biden, Warren, Patrick and O'Malley all have an authenticity about them. Sherrod Brown has the same appeal for me, if not more so. As has recently been said, Hillary's remarks sound "canned" and wrong-headed.

        People don't change, they just become more of themselves.

        I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

        by KayCeSF on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:54:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I like Brown but I can't see him running for (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KayCeSF

          president in a million years. He reminds me more of my late Senator Wellstone. Both seem to hate the limelight and like to just keep their head down and work for progressive issues.

          I don't think Brown has the ego necessary to run for president, though I think he'd be a great one. Plus, his wife is a huge Hillary supporter so I am not sure he'd run against her.

          Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

          by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:58:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  huh. I saw her in an interview with Andrea (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            askew

            Mitchell and she never said she was supporting Hillary, in fact, she seemed to keep it neutral.  I guess I've missed some of her other remarks.  

            At any rate, Mitchell even teased her that maybe Sherrod would be on the list and she just smiled, didn't say yay or nay.  

            I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

            by KayCeSF on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 02:01:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This was back in 2008. She may be neutral now. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KayCeSF

              Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

              by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 02:27:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent reason Dems should be able to do better (8+ / 0-)

    than Clinton.

    "The Democrats and the Republicans are equally corrupt where money is concerned. It's only in the amount where the Republicans excel." ~ Will Rogers

    by Lefty Coaster on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:39:31 AM PDT

  •  Damn right, Armando. (9+ / 0-)

    Thanks for this. I'd love to see your take on my post this afternoon. I take this "debate" between Hillary and Obama and look at some history and a bit of international relations "theory."

  •  Did I miss the pie fight? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bush Bites, dinotrac

    Kos I love pie...

    I ride the wild horse .

    by BelgianBastard on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:41:38 AM PDT

  •  Just saw ABCthisweek interview with HI (5+ / 0-)

    rep Tulsi Gabbard and IL rep Adam Kinzigner. Somehow ABC was unable to find a representative who does not want to increase American military presence in the middle east. And with air-tight statistics, Martha Raddatz intends to stir up fear by stating that the Isis threat is "really, really growing".

    Really, really!

    "Have a good time... all the time." -Viv Savage

    by The House on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:44:19 AM PDT

  •  Yes indeed..do it our way or we'll blow your (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder, tb mare

    shit up.  The American way.  Always works so well round the world.

  •  what about Benghazi? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder
    HRC: That’s a good lesson but it’s more complicated than that. Because your stupid may not be mine, and vice versa. I don’t think it was stupid for the United States to do everything we could to remove Qaddafi because that came from the bottom up. That was people asking us to help.
    Really, were the people in Benghazi the bottum up
    types asking us for help?
  •  It could have been worse (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koNko, JanL, tb mare, pamelabrown

    If we had tried to arm a "vetted"opposition we probably couldn't have eliminated Syria's chemical weapons.  Then we would have Assad using them, or ISIS in possession. Eliminating 1300 tons of chemical weapons from Syria was a major accomplishment and makes the present terrible situation not quite as bad as it could have been.

  •  Obama is a lot righter (8+ / 0-)

    Clinton is dead wrong. Along the lines of Rumsfeldian wrongness, or nearly so.

    A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame/Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name/Mother of Exiles.

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:50:56 AM PDT

  •  We have been a nation of overreach... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cany, tb mare, KayCeSF, vernonbc
    if the story of the Bush administration is one of overreach, is the story of the Obama administration one of underreach?
    ...for far too long. And have clusterfucked most of it along the way as well. It's about time for some serious underreach.

    Scratch the surface of someone claiming that religion is needed to legitimize government, and odds are underneath you'll find a petty dictator who wants to order people around "Because God says so!"

    by rreabold on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:53:00 AM PDT

  •  In Hilllary's defense, there was a conjunction. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tb mare

    "It was stupid to do what we did in Iraq and to have no plan about what to do after we did it. That was really stupid,"

    So, she could have been condemning both things.

    (Though, personally, I think the lesson she took from Iraq was "keep a light footprint")

    •  And, of course, she can't exactly say, gee we (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      koNko, tb mare, schumann

      shouldn't have done anything to begin with. She's trapped by her own stupid vote though honestly, it appears she learned nothing on that count.

      Iraq was (is) the very definition of "doing stupid stuff".

      The only hawk I like is the kind that has feathers. My birding blogs: http://thisskysings.wordpress.com/ and canyonbirds.net

      by cany on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:04:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If it makes you feel any better..... (0+ / 0-)

        ....Repubs won't let her do much anyway.

        Remember the sh*t Bill got for his limited actions: "wag the dog" "we're not the world's 911" "we're blowing up aspirin factories"

        Same thing would happen if Hillary tried to do something and many Dems would join the Repubs.

        •  Well gee, I hope that argument isn't meant to make (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          divineorder

          me feel better or differently:)

          The only hawk I like is the kind that has feathers. My birding blogs: http://thisskysings.wordpress.com/ and canyonbirds.net

          by cany on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:08:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

            •  I prefer to wait and see. I'm not much of one to (0+ / 0-)

              necessarily support foregone conclusions.

              The only hawk I like is the kind that has feathers. My birding blogs: http://thisskysings.wordpress.com/ and canyonbirds.net

              by cany on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:35:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You better get a candidate in the race then. (0+ / 0-)

                And not that silly guy with the string tie.

                •  It's too early for that. But, it seems pretty (0+ / 0-)

                  clear that Biden, Schweitzer, Hillary and O'Malley are all going to run.

                  Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

                  by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:10:02 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And maybe Brown. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    KayCeSF, askew
                    •  Sherrod Brown? No way in hell he runs. (0+ / 0-)

                      He has no national ambitions and seems to hate doing interviews or getting any attention at all. Jerry Brown is too old and has no interest in running either.

                      Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

                      by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:36:36 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Um, I see Sherrod Brown in many (0+ / 0-)

                        interviews, and loves to voice his opinions on camera so I wouldn't say he minds having the attention.  He's a champ on the floor of the Senate.  I think his wife, Connie Schultz and syndicated columnist is staying neutral about 2016 because there's a possibility he could change his mind and run.

                        I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

                        by KayCeSF on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:00:55 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I only see him on safe MSNBC shows and he always (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          KayCeSF

                          looks uncomfortable. I could be completely off, but he doesn't strike me as the type of politician that has the ego necessary to run for president. I love the guy's views and would definitely consider supporting him if he runs but I just don't see it.

                          Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

                          by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:06:15 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, he might not run, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            askew

                            but he's a righteous fighter to debunk the lies and report what is actually going on with the Republicans in Congress. I have actually seen him on CNN.  He's soft spoken, has that crusty voice that he never raises, but his words of truth bear witness to the BS that's been going on since Obama became President.  I am not the only one who raises his name.  Many in my neck of the woods respect and like him.  I know one thing -- he would give Hillary cause to rethink her inevitability, as would others if they will just toss their hats into the ring.  I don't expect anyone to do that until after Nov.

                            I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

                            by KayCeSF on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 01:59:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't follow him all that closely. But, if (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KayCeSF

                            he runs I'll give him serious consideration.

                            Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

                            by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 02:28:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

  •  Correct. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Portlaw, tb mare

    In fact, the stamp Clinton put on first term Obama Administration FB defined some of the problems he has struggled to solve with policy corrections in his second term, particularly in Asia.

    To understand how deep Clinton's neoliberal roots go, you can read her opus in Foreign Policy, America's Pacific Century, the basis for her grand "Pivot to Asia" policy and its crown jewel, the Trans Pacific Partnership.

    When it takes a conservative Republican hawk like Robert Gates to act as the adult in the room to reign-in the "hard power" excess, it says something.

    I'm glad people are coming to their senses about Clinton.

    Most likely she will be the next US President; hopefully, one term and followed by someone less invested in failed policies from the last century.

  •  Hillary's words sound like they came out of (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Portlaw, koNko, divineorder, JanL, askew, KayCeSF

    McCain's mouth.

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness

    by CTMET on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:02:03 AM PDT

  •  Filling a vacuum -- certainly (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder, Portlaw

    With bodies.
    Then dirt.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:06:30 AM PDT

    •  Reminds me of "I'm Gonna Git You, Sucka" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dinotrac
      Kalinga: Yes, we marched on the Federal building. Five hundred of us young brothers, full of outrage.

      [sighs]

      Kalinga: They were hiring that day. The brothers came with guns; they left with jobs. Oh, yes, whitey is very tricky.

      People that have food, clothes, housing, medical and justice tend not to take up arms and fight wars.

      The only reason the 1% are rich is because the 99% agree they are.

      by GreatLakeSailor on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:37:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Stephen W. Rochon (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, Portlaw, tb mare

    The picnic table is dedicated to retired Coast Guard Rear Admiral Guard Stephen W. Rochon, and White House Chief Usher from 2007-20011, the first African American to hold the position.

    “We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.” - Winston Chuchill

    by se portland on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:16:36 AM PDT

  •  I agree wholeheartedly with this diary. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, Portlaw

    We have only just begun and none too soon.

    by global citizen on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:17:40 AM PDT

  •  Had to be Said (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, JanL, Portlaw, cherish0708, tb mare

    Thanks for posting this. I was cocnerned DK was going to let this go by out of solidarity and so forth.   It concerning both for what it portends for a Clinton policy, but also that it would appear that like in '08, base voters are being taken for granted.   Pushback is needed.

  •  history (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando

    We do make a difference!  Weren't we early financial  backers of the Taliban and of al Quada?

    Actions speak louder than petitions.

    by melvynny on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:22:00 AM PDT

  •  Hillary has no policy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Portlaw

    Hillary isn't even wrong in her policies.  She has no policy on anything that is discernible now. She is primarily just criticizing Obama for what has gone wrong, which is most just things that always happen in the Middle East and other places when they do not stem directly from the policies of Bush/Cheney.  So far she has given nothing but platitudes on anything.

    •  And her bitching about Obama with no solution (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      anastasia p, wishingwell, vernonbc

      hurts Dems enthusiasm and hurts Obama's approval ratings. There are ways to constructively criticize Obama's policies and offering a solution. For example, O'Malley on the child refugee crisis. Of course, it helps that he is working his ass off for the midterms and has been supporting Obama publicly for years.

      Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

      by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:59:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Distancing herself from Obama (6+ / 0-)

        is a 2000-style disaster in the making. If Gore had not distanced himself from CLinton, his victory would have likely been decisive enough to put him in the White House. If Hillary distances herself from Obama, black voters will not show up in 2016. They're going to take it very very wrong, and not be engaged in that election. Go to a black festival in any urban area and count the Obama T-shirts and the vendors selling merch with his picture poised next to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

        Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

        by anastasia p on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:49:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It isn't just AAs who will be offended. She'll (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KayCeSF, wishingwell

          be offending other minorities and young people who still love Obama. That creates a big opening for someone else to win their votes.

          I still think Gore's biggest mistake was picking Lieberman though. I think that turned off more voters than him distancing himself from Clinton.

          Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

          by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:01:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I doubt she has the deftness and flexibility (0+ / 0-)

          to manage the coalition Obama is handing off.  Minorities feel they've earned more representation and are restless change is not happening fast enough.  Whites figure minorities have had enough representation and may be willing to send a bit of backlash vote on social change in general.  The anti-war left is restless.  The austerity hawks are still circling.  The neocons are circling.  

          •  Obama did not create this coalition (0+ / 0-)

            He benefitted from it and expanded it with regard to A-A participation.

            •  He created it. It's not just an expansion (0+ / 0-)

              of AAs, but increasing Hispanic voter %, more single white women and more educated white men voted for Dems. Like Reagan, he created his own coalition and changed the dynamics of the presidential race going forward.  Unfortunately, Hillary still thinks it is 1998 and hasn't learned anything from 2008 and is already working on alienating Hispanics and AAs plus young voters who are sick of war.

              Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

              by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:19:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  He did not increase Latino participation (0+ / 0-)

                or women participation.

                He DID increase younger voter participation d A-A participation and percentage of the vote.

                But he lost women and Latinos by a lot to Clinton.

                Obama in 2012 had th same percentages of the respective voting groups (save A-as) as did Dukais in 1988.

                It was the emerging Dem Majority that made the difference.

        •  Clinton much more popular in 2000 (0+ / 0-)

          than Obama is now or will be in 2016.

  •  Obama is Right (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Portlaw

    If any lessons can be logically learned from most of U.S. interventions that range from  small, to medium and to large scale invasions, or be it that we "just gave them weapons" like to Iran, or the Contras in Nicaragua, or maybe like the dudes from back in the 80'sthat called themselves "Mujahideen", to fight a "common" enemy that when defeated by the "Mujahideen" and its massive U.S. supply of weapons and training: The Taliban was born. And why do they despise America? Because we failed to go through with our promises of support past the defeat of the Russian army. Examples as to what happened whenever we decided to intervene it has gone horribly wrong, from the Bay of Pigs's poorly planned and executed "do something" shenanigans of the Kennedy administration that nearly ended in WWIII a Nuclear catastrophe of imminent destruction. Or shall we revisit Afghanistan? or better yet the case study unfolding before a generation: Iraq. Or the Nicaraguans? our help to the Contras led to the rise to power and tyranny of Daniel Ortega, also, America's number one Cocaine trafficking ally. Or Augusto Pinochet and another regime of terror.   I can go on and on, even in if in the face of the "do something" pledge its always messy at the end, then the right thing to do is what the Obama administration is rightfully doing with our foreign policy,  so  we all collectively can avoid to continuously look stupid to the rest of the world.

  •  Clinton is digging her grave early (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Portlaw, askew, dclawyer06
  •  False choice. They BOTH suck on foreign policy. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreatLakeSailor

    Hillary is a horror show on foreign policy, but Obama has been awful too.   He gave us the surge in Afghanistan, the expanded drone war, and, perhaps worst of all, the Libyan regime change adventure, which rendered the War Powers Resolution a dead letter.   You can be sure the next Republican president will thank Obama for that one.

  •  Politically, Clinton is making the right move (0+ / 0-)

    I wouldn't be surprised if there's a boston bombing level terrorist attack within the next 2 years. Her policy will see even broader appeal than it has now.

    •  The country didn't shift right after the last (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KayCeSF

      Boston bombing. Not sure why you think a new terrorist attack would shift the country right. And how sad is it that in order for Hillary to be right we'd have to go through another terrorist attack.

      Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

      by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:11:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Disagree (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, KayCeSF, AlexcSinger, wishingwell

        I think people saw the level of destruction that a hawkish response had last time and won't go there a second time. And as askew said, nothing of the sort happened after the Boston bombing. I think this speculation is way off. And I don't think Hillary is in the position to exploit and manipulate it the way Cheney and Rumsfeld did anyway.

        Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

        by anastasia p on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:51:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If Hillary was a Republican, it might work. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KayCeSF

          But, the people who would be moved by such an appeal are Republicans and they hate her.

          Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

          by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:59:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Obama's position imho (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BerkshireDem, Portlaw

    is also more ethical in the long run. In comparison, note I say.

    I wonder how much, if any, of this talk is to innoculate herself against the perception and predictable Rep smears that, as a woman as well as a Dem, she'd be a weak (as they define it) leader afraid of confrontation when needed. Ha...she makes so clear she's running. Otherwise what purpose would these conversations hold...well, beyind ego gratification and book sales.

    I think about what the last 6 yrs. would have been like if HRC had been President. He was the better choice. After Bush, the world could not have born anything closer to Bush in foreign policy than Obama already is.

  •  Well, I'm obviously totally naive (0+ / 0-)
    " . . . but how are we going to speak to a Sunni majority in that area ... that, right now, is detached from the global economy.”
    Detached from the global economy?
    Really?

    Some detachment might not a bad thing from traditional societies.

    We forget that we had the Enlightenment and 300 years to become "modern, global" societies.  We're expecting folks in the developing/traditional world to do it in one or two generations.

    Now with Extra Guns!!!!

    A drowning man can not learn to swim. -- Chris Lonsdale

    by Rikon Snow on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 09:48:46 AM PDT

  •  Nothing to add, Armando, great commentary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Portlaw

    "...pero mi corazón me aconseja, que los nacionalismos - ¡qué miedo me dan!" - Enrique Bunbury (El Extranjero)

    by JustGiaco on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:23:07 AM PDT

  •  The problem with many commentators on here... (0+ / 0-)

    Is that they subscribe to a rather naive world view, that believes all cultures and people want to live in peace. Nothing could be further from the truth. It doesn't matter if we withdraw entirely from world events, history tells us there will always be cultures that covet what we have, despise our way of life, and want to kill us all. Shocking, eh?

    I've heard many people wondering why we still had a strong military presence in Europe for the past 60 years. Do you really think Russia wouldn't grab Europe if it had the chance?

    Hillary is simply being pragmatic. There is a lot of nuance in dealing with the world, and you could argue we shouldn't be quite so interventionist, but hoping peace is just going to break out is foolish and naive. I'd rather have a slightly paranoid leader than a naive one who believes we can make everyone love us.

    •  "Pragmatic" and "nuance." (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GreatLakeSailor

      Those two words provoke a gag reflex in me every time I see them used to defend a politician.

      •  Yes, because that's the difference between us.. (0+ / 0-)

        We liberals think. We examine all sides of the issue and we know the world isn't black and white. Conservatives (and as I'm learning, many progressives) are absolutists. What I see many progressives echo on here is that war is always bad, that there is no such thing as self defense...that one should always "turn the other cheek". This kind of thinking comes from the old 60s anti-war movement, but it's not realistic in modern society.

  •  Cluck cluck cluck. (0+ / 0-)

    I'm pretty happy now. With the return of the fifties I can just use animal sounds for a point of view. Oink is Ferguson racists. Cluck is neolib chicken hawks.

    And I am Kilrain of the 20th Maine. And I damn all gentlemen. Whose only worth is their father's name And the sweat of a workin' man Steve Earle - Dixieland

    by shigeru on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:29:31 AM PDT

  •  It's more than just your two cents (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KayCeSF, dclawyer06

    Most analysts feel the same way.

    "The oppressors most powerful weapon is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko

    by gjohnsit on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:37:16 AM PDT

  •  So you're saying (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    schumann

    that pressing her to lay out her views in full on foreign policy during the primaries will help somehow?

    But the issue is too damn important for such wishful thinking, Now more than ever, it is important that should Clinton run for president, she face a primary opponent who forces her to explain herself on this. Don't get me wrong, I fully expect Clinton will win if she runs, but the issues matter and while campaign promises are not worth the paper they are written on, how we discuss issues in elections does have strong effects on the discourse surrounding such issues, which in turn has actual impact on the policies that emerge.
    And what if the views she lays out are as wrong-headed and stupid as they appear to be from what she's said and done over the years and in that interview? What then? Are you saying that the more we express our views that US foreign policy should be less heavy-handed, less interventionist, less obviously self-seeking and bullying behind the "liberal interventionist" rhetoric, that it's possible to change her course? That public rejection of that kind of foreign policy will make it toxic for Hillary and for the Democratic Party generally?

    As that recent study showed, public opinion has nil impact on the legislation and policies of the government, only lobbyists and major campaign donors do. So isn't that approach doomed to failure? At least in the short to medium term.

    The only real leverage the electorate has is refusal to vote for the politician or party who espouses things they don't want - refusal or the threat of refusal via preelection opinion polling.

    So isn't the only real way to change a policy direction like this (other than waiting for generational change) to threaten to withhold one's vote over it, non-negotiably? Voting only for those who offer a different policy and refusing a vote for those who want to keep going down this old road.

  •  fucking HRC wants it both ways (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreatLakeSailor, dclawyer06, schumann

    she voted for a fabricated war that, so far, has killed 100k+ Iraquis whose ONLY FUCKING CRIME was to be born into a country under a dictator WE installed and then, 20+ years later, decided to uninstall.

    then HRC has the fucking gall to say:

    “We cannot do for them what they are unwilling to do for themselves,” said the president of the factions in Iraq.
    Yeah.  Because the US has such a great history of letting Iraquis do what they want.

    On top of that, HRC has surrounded herself with advisors who think NAFTA, WTO, SOPA, PIPA, TPP, Keystone XL and NSA spying are positive things.

    And this is the overwhelming heir apparent for the 2016 Dem prez candidacy.

    What.
    The.
    Bloody.
    Fuck?!?!

    "Stories about bacon should be uplifting" - Oberon

    by bnasley on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:53:25 AM PDT

    •  We didn't install Saddam Hussein. (0+ / 0-)

      This know-nothing meme only makes everything else you might have to say a whole lot less credible.

      It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

      by Rich in PA on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:13:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  we very much supported his rise in the '70's (0+ / 0-)

        and his rule throughout the '80's.

        But lets say we didn't and i'm mistaken.  That somehow makes NAFTA, WTO, SOPA, PIPA, TPP, Keystone XL and NSA spying all OK?  Or less not OK?  Or that HRC has not surrounded herself with advisors that think those things are OK?  Or that she didn't vote to help kill 100k+ Iraquis?  Or that 100k+ Iraquis have not been killed?

        if you want to play that game, then know-nothing broad generalizations only makes everything else you might have to say a whole lot less credible.  

        "Stories about bacon should be uplifting" - Oberon

        by bnasley on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:55:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  And this is why... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    schumann

    ...regardless of who's on the other side, I won't vote for her.

    •  The Democrat has my vote (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      IM, wishingwell

      There is no moral excuse for helping a Republican take the White House and if you don't vote for the Democrat that's what you're doing.

      I don't feel this way for all offices and races, but holding our presidential candidate to a strict litmus test will only result in failure. They will always be pro-establishment or they won't be nominated. That's just how our system works. So fight to fix the system, but don't help a Republican take office so they can start more wars, take health care away from millions, accelerate global warming and ensconce more fascists on the Supreme Court for life. All that is in the power of the President and we can't give Republicans that power.

      There's a difference between a responsible gun owner and one that's been lucky so far.

      by BeerNotWar on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:44:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What's the right approach for the next candidate? (0+ / 0-)

    The next Democratic candidate for President needs a strategy vis Barack Obama's Presidency. Should they distance? Should they ride coattails? Try to walk a tightrope somewhere in-between?

    If Hillary has a serious opponent in the primary she'll probably have to try and ride Obama's coattails on as many of his accomplishments as she can. "Obamacare used to be Hillarycare, remember?" "Remember when Barack and I freed Libya?"

    If not she can adopt a general-election strategy from the start and be more critical without going so far as to damage the Democratic brand. It sounds like she's already in that mode which is what rubs me the wrong way. Hasn't she learned that acting as the anointed candidate is a big loser in the primaries?

    There's a difference between a responsible gun owner and one that's been lucky so far.

    by BeerNotWar on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:37:17 AM PDT

    •  They need distance (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, suka, IM

      It's not popular here, but Obama clearly is going to leave office as not particularly popular.

      He's more like Truman than say, Clinton.

      It's a tricky task though, you can't just diss Obama.

      And certainly not on FP, where he has actually been really good.

      •  He'll be extremely popular with Democrats. (0+ / 0-)

        That matters.

        Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

        by askew on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 01:36:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Top notch analysis. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando
  •  This my friends is one of the myriad of reasons... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dclawyer06

    This my friends is one of the myriad of reasons she should not be our candidate in the 2016 elections. I really hope for a good field in the primaries.

  •  Fucking hell, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IM, Armando, Eric Nelson

    Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I have been thinking this all week...

    Thanks for stating the clear parallel between the foreign policy adage of "don't do stupid shit" and the medical saying:

    "First Do No Harm" should be the first principle.
    From Syria to Palestine to Ferguson.

    Yeah. Don't do that.

  •  How can a neocon be right? (0+ / 0-)

    Shew is in their pocket.

    An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

    by don mikulecky on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 01:26:38 PM PDT

  •  Have to agree with you about this (0+ / 0-)

    Ok, so I read the polls.

    by andgarden on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 02:26:07 PM PDT

  •  The hubris of "American exceptionalisn" or.. (0+ / 0-)

    .if that would rub too many people the wrong way (politically speaking) America is not geocentric, the center of the world, in charge of policing it.

    That is what HRC misses (or is afraid like many politicians, to touch)

    The President does not and has not missed that point when he states, and has been driving home as tactfully as is possible, considering the fully loaded rwnj media and even the mainstream media waiting to pounce with long ago carefully crafted MIC neo-con narratives of "anti-American"  (in the milder version of it) all the way to "commie.." and such nonsense. Iow's politically dangerous ground well beefed $ up political minefields:

    "..We can help them and partner with them every step of the way. But we can’t do it for them.”

     - President Obama


    The President has been trying to voice this for years now without breaking the "conventional wisdom" (that the first lady Michele Obama got slammed for early on - "exceptionalism" - which is actually a form of bigotry the first lady recognized - imo) that we are not in charge of the world.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    And another thing; if HRC needs to 'distance herself' from the President, an opinion I am still not convinced has even been very well reasoned out, or explained, or proven but that is another topic.
    Why not go full on attack mode for war crimes committed by the prior administration?  

    I'd bet that would raise some eyebrows and fire up the Dem base as well as many others who want out of war making. And that would not just be us Dems either. It would undercut one of Rand Paul's main strengths  talking points - that is

     Whether or not to go for war crime indictments does not necessarily have to be the goal. Accountability is. That is a vacuum that needs filling - just look at any favorability polling of politicians and congress
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Thx Armando

  •  The quoted paragraph is completely inoffensive (0+ / 0-)

    I mean, she gives her reasons, and she even says that she's not claiming things would necessarily have gone better had her advice been taken.  The diarist's objection that Clinton's preferred policy wouldn't have worked begs the question: has Obama's policy worked?  Of course it hasn't.  The worst actors have been vastly empowered, while the (relatively) best actors have been left to swing in the wind.  The Syrian people couldn't be in a worse situation.  The only good to come of Obama's decision is that the US isn't militarily involved in Syria, but (a) Clinton wasn't going to do that either, and (b) now we're militarily involved in Iraq against the very people that Clinton evidently was more concerned about than Obama.

    It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

    by Rich in PA on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 04:13:54 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, and if only we had been smarter in Vietnam. (0+ / 0-)

    I quite agree with your take on this and would just add that this whole notion of trying to support some "third force" that would be more palatable to the U.S. than the existing alternatives has a very, very long history.

    There are plenty of people who to this day would say that the problem wasn't our intervention in Vietnam but the incompetent way we did it.

    And they can all go to hell.

    Obama: Pro-Pentagon, pro-Wall Street, pro-drilling, pro-fracking, pro-KXL, pro-surveillance. And the only person he prosecuted for the U.S. torture program is the man who revealed it. Clinton: More of the same.

    by expatjourno on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 05:51:37 PM PDT

  •  Political families (0+ / 0-)

    Never been crazy about them.

    Adams
    Kennedy
    Bush
    Clinton

    I'd prefer to see somebody new in the race.

    -What have you got that a man could drink with just a minimum risk of blindness and death.

    by Toadvine on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:41:08 PM PDT

  •  Foreign Policy (0+ / 0-)

    Actually, Hillary is right on this one. The President did not support arming the so-called "moderate forces in Syria and now the situation is much worse. Would it have been different had we done so? We'll never know.

claude, Sylv, glitterscale, Liberal Thinking, Detlef, Powered Grace, mimi, sphealey, sumitsu, Shockwave, Fabienne, Vico, Walt starr, expatjourno, Heart of the Rockies, rasbobbo, twcollier, shanikka, mkfarkus, psnyder, TexDem, johanus, randallt, KayCeSF, mosesfreeman, Emmy, eztempo, Sybil Liberty, marina, andgarden, basquebob, Laurence Lewis, jimstaro, where4art, sunbro, noemie maxwell, oculus, Pluto, bunsk, JanL, Ekaterin, Knucklehead, snazzzybird, Medium Head Boy, BlueInARedState, Gorette, koNko, dougymi, Lefty Coaster, SherriG, global citizen, gpoutney, iburl, justiceputnam, blueoregon, kurt, Ian Reifowitz, shaharazade, markthshark, BeerNotWar, cpresley, Stwriley, dclawyer06, joedemocrat, on the cusp, TomP, misterwade, Thomas Twinnings, Involuntary Exile, KJG52, VL Baker, RandomNonviolence, vernonbc, shigeru, palantir, rhutcheson, Miz Trom, BvueDem, Sun dog, BerkshireDem, divineorder, LinSea, don mikulecky, petral, jazzence, Denise Oliver Velez, kevinpdx, Ibis Exilis, moviemeister76, ArthurPoet, DaNang65, Larsstephens, gramofsam1, michelewln, VickiL, tb mare, bradams, Patate, cocinero, slice, annieli, kerflooey, implicate order, FarWestGirl, Haf2Read, BarackStarObama, organicus, cailloux, jack23, weinerschnauzer, SouthernLiberalinMD, Auriandra, Azazello, Mathazar, heysailor, Eric Nelson, a2nite, Farkletoo, Columba, Th0rn, peachcreek, reginahny, Buckeye54, etherealfire, marty marty, Portlaw, Arilca Mockingbird, TheLawnRanger, Upie, countwebb, Linda1961, SanFernandoValleyMom, aresea, Alhambra, ggfkate, Icicle68, greenbell, Fordmandalay, suka, JustGiaco, duhban, danjb, patbahn, Tony Situ, CJB2012, RepresentUsPlease, Doctor Jazz, kevinbr38, snau, YeaYouRite, MVallet, Marthe, Mrcynical

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site