Is Hillary Clinton a Neocon-Lite?
As a U.S. senator and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton often followed a neocon-style foreign policy, backing the Iraq War, teaming up with Defense Secretary Robert Gates on an Afghan War “surge,” and staking out an even more hawkish stance than Gates on Libya, Robert Parry reports.Tuesday, 11 February 2014 09:33 By Robert Parry, Consortium News
Most Democratic power-brokers appear settled on Hillary Clinton as their choice for President in 2016 – and she holds lopsided leads over potential party rivals in early opinion polls – but there are some warning flags flying, paradoxically, hoisted by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates in his praise for the former First Lady, U.S. senator and Secretary of State.
On the surface, one might think that Gates’s glowing commendations of Clinton would further burnish her standing as the odds-on next President of the United States, but strip away the fawning endorsements and Gates’s portrait of Clinton in his new memoir, Duty, is of a pedestrian foreign policy thinker who is easily duped and leans toward military solutions.
Indeed, for thoughtful and/or progressive Democrats, the prospect of a President Hillary Clinton could represent a step back from some of President Barack Obama’s more innovative foreign policy strategies, particularly his readiness to cooperate with the Russians and Iranians to defuse Middle East crises and his willingness to face down the Israel Lobby when it is pushing for heightened confrontations and war.
Based on her public record and Gates’s insider account, Clinton could be expected to favor a more neoconservative approach to the Mideast, one more in line with the traditional thinking of Official Washington and the belligerent dictates of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
As a U.S. senator and as Secretary of State, Clinton rarely challenged the conventional wisdom or resisted the use of military force to solve problems. She famously voted for the Iraq War in 2002 – falling for President George W. Bush’s bogus WMD case – and remained a war supporter until her position became politically untenable during Campaign 2008.
MORE...
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/21794-is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon-lite
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I just provided proof that it is FALSE!
to call her a Neocon is the ultimate foolishness..
and here is how her husband measures up...
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)That makes it too easy.
Is she going to prosecute bank fraud?
Strengthen EPA regulations to oppose pipelines, chemical dumps and fracking?
Support socialized medicine?
Expand education spending?
Increase food assistance?
Reign in overseas military action?
Leash the NSA?
I'm going with probably definitely no. She is to the right of Obama. We can do better.
link
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)She is NOT to the right of Obama...and I can prove it....can YOU prove otherwise...where is YOUR graph with hundreds of datapoints for reference?
As it stands right now....she beats all comers by the way....
Here is Obama's graph....she is NOT Right of Obama...period...and I have proof:
In fact there is an easy way to test it .....they also let you take the test yourself....go take it...see if you agree where it puts you....
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Obama spoke against it earlier that month. That is one pretty significant example.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)we are talking for ALL categories combined. Overall score....
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)I am asking you.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)there are 25 categories full for both of them...I put up Obama's return and HERS...her's is to the left of him...she is a Populist Liberal and he is a MODERATE Liberal
President Obama:
Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-3 points on Economic scale)
Hillary Clinton:
Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Or
Obama:
Favors topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(+2 points on Economic scale)
Hillary Clinton:
Opposes topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale)
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)I did "look at the site". Name one position on which she has come out on the left of Obama.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that is my SOURCE!
You asked for one...I got one..
President Obama:
Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-3 points on Economic scale)
Hillary Clinton:
Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Or
Obama:
Favors topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(+2 points on Economic scale)
Hillary Clinton:
Opposes topic13:
Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale)
Hillary Clinton FTMFW!!!!
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Where have Hilary and Obama differed on gun policy?
As for free trade
"We should note that Clinton biographer Sally Bedell Smith has said that as first lady, Clinton opposed NAFTA privately but supported it publicly because it was important to her husband politically. However, this is not a point Clinton made in her own autobiography, where she wrote in favor of NAFTA."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/25/barack-obama/clinton-has-changed-on-nafta/
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)go see for yourself...look at the table at the bottom for evidence..
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)go see the bulk of them for yourself.
It doesn't say "strongly" opposes does it?
Smart, pro-American trade: NAFTA has hurt workers: Strongly Opposes topic 13
No fast-track authority for this president: Opposes topic 13
Defended outsourcing of US jobs to India: Favors topic 13
1980s: Loved Wal-Mart's "Buy America" program: Opposes topic 13
Globalization should not substitute for humanization: Opposes topic 13
Supports MFN for China, despite concerns over human rights: Strongly Favors topic 13
Build a rule-based global trading system: Favors topic 13
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on removing common goods from national security export rules: Favors topic 13
YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam: Favors topic 13
NO on extending free trade to Andean nations: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore: Favors topic 13
YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile: Favors topic 13
NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on free trade agreement with Oman: Strongly Favors topic 13
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Export more goods stamped "Made in the USA": Favors topic 13
Negotiate a Transatlantic and a Trans-Pacific Partnership: Strongly Favors topic 13
Double our exports by 2014; starting with South Korea: Strongly Favors topic 13
People don’t want cheaper T-shirts if it costs their job: Opposes topic 13
Fair trade should have tangible benefits for US: Strongly Opposes topic 13
Tax incentives to create jobs at home instead of offshore: Opposes topic 13
Trade agreements mean we sell "Made in America" to millions: Strongly Favors topic 13
Double US exports via deals with Panama, Colombia, & S.Korea: Strongly Favors topic 13
NAFTA protects corporate profits; should protect labor: Opposes topic 13
Stand firm against CAFTA for labor & environmental standards: Strongly Opposes topic 13
Amend NAFTA to add labor agreements: Opposes topic 13
NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on free trade agreement with Oman: Strongly Favors topic 13
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)On what specific issue, have they differed regarding free trade deals? They look about the same to me.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)they DON'T look the same to me..(or did you also fail to notice that there's a scoring system there...)
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Not any of them.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...because for one, you're depending on a single source for your information (journalism teaches to use multiple, verified sources), and because to be perfectly honest, you didn't answer his question (or the ones I posed earlier regarding Hillary's coziness with Big Money).
I've already said that if she's the nominee, I'll vote for her. But please pardon my lack of enthusiasm - she's too much in the pocket of Big Money.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)She is NOT in the pocket of Big Money...please prove it beyond someone said so!
I can prove Otherwise...
Take back $55B in Bush’s industry give-aways. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Pushed Wal-Mart for women managers & environment. (Jan 2008)
World Bank should impose rules on sovereign wealth funds. (Jan 2008)
Bush defanged the Consumer Product Safety Commission. (Dec 2007)
FactCheck: Yes, Bush shrunk CPSC; but it shrank before Bush. (Dec 2007)
Outraged at CEO compensation. (Oct 2007)
Stop bankruptcies to get rid of pension responsibilities. (Aug 2007)
Enough with corporate welfare; enough with golden parachutes. (Jun 2007)
Close lobbyists’ revolving door; end no-bid contracts. (Jun 2007)
1976 Rose Law: Fought for industry against electric rate cut. (Jun 2007)
Corporate lawyer at Rose Law while Bill was Attorney General. (Jun 2007)
Corporate elite treat working-class America as invisible. (Apr 2007)
Companies get rewarded with hard-working people left hanging. (Mar 2007)
1980s: Loved Wal-Mart's "Buy America" program. (Jun 2004)
1970s: Potential conflict of interest when GM sued Arkansas. (Nov 1997)
Businesses play social role in US; gov’t oversight required. (Sep 1996)
Family-friendly work policies are good for business. (Sep 1996)
Angry at unacceptable acquiescence to greed in the 1980s. (Jun 1994)
Serving on boards provides ties but requires defending too. (Aug 1993)
Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Rated 35% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)
its utter bullshit!
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...and I've already stated my points regarding her oh-so-reassuring speeches to the bankers.
You aren't disappointing me. I'm disappointed and disgusted with professional politicians in general, and Bill/Hillary are one of the personifications of the professional politician.
And again, do you have other sources besides your website?
I respect your right to believe whatever you want about her. If she's a hero to you, fine.
She's no hero to me. Sorry to disappoint you!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)the sources are quotes, and votes etc. and are dated. It's not just their opinion...
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...and as I stated, if she's a hero to you, fine.
You didn't convince me. But thanks for playing. 
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Nobody is going to take away your narrative don't worry...
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...I call it as I see it. Your "evidence" is based upon a single website containing links to other sites/news sources. These sites/sources are selected based upon other's opinions of what is important and what is not. Were you involved in the selection of these sites for this website? Do you know their criteria?
It appears that you're trying to make the case that those of us on the left should enthusiastically get behind Hillary. If that's your thing, fine. Volunteer for her campaign. Go knock on doors. Donate $$, if you wish.
But I would suggest that before you get head-over-heels for Hillary, find out where her financial backing is coming from. By the time 2016 comes around, I'll bet that your going to see the same thing happen that has happened in elections past - the big banks and corporations (Goldman Sachs, B of A, Wells Fargo, etc.) are going to fund both sides, and Hillary is going to get a not-insignificant share of that cash. Which gets to my main point - you can vote for or against a candidate, but how do you vote against Goldman Sachs or B of A?
I've made my last statement on this topic. Don't worry - I'll vote for Hillary in 2016 if she's the nominee. But I'm holding my nose to do it.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)except for the fact that people talk about she was with Walmart for the final 6 yrs of Sam Walton's life. But that is only 6 YEARS of this woman's long illustrious career. You without any other evidence are passing information that is NOT factual based on only THAT.
I however have shown a number of examples that prove to the contrary. I would say in this case....my evidence weighs much more than yours....
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)He was not under any "test" to vote or not vote for the Iraq War. Most Democrats did vote for the war. Back then if you didn't, you were criticized as being unpatriotic and all kinds of nasty stuff. Plus, she used the evidence that was provided to her. It is so easy to criticize a vote when you had zero responsibility in it one way or the other.
elzenmahn
(904 posts)What data are these charts culled from? Who supplied the data, and who is interpreting it? These charts look too subjective to me to have any faith in them...
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)they have been doing this since the 90's by the way...
(answered in previous post)
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...that one's actions are a much more accurate measuring stick than their words or "policy positions". Her coziness to the Banks and Big Money don't endear me to her (or for that matter, her husband.) And personally - I'll enthusiastically get behind somebody who will have enough of name-your-gonads to actually put the JAMIE DIMONS and the rest of the banking criminals in prison where they belong. If I felt that a vote for Hillary was a vote against Goldman Sachs and the rest of the fraudsters, then I'd gladly volunteer for her - and those who sympathize or were part of #Occupy would, as well.
But I don't get that from her. I see a Corporate Democrat, a triangulator not that dissimilar from her husband.
As I stated in an earlier post, IF she's the nominee, then yes, I'll vote for her. I'll have to bring a gas mask with me to the polling place, but i'll vote for her.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Smart, pro-American trade: NAFTA has hurt workers: Strongly Opposes topic 13
No fast-track authority for this president: Opposes topic 13
Defended outsourcing of US jobs to India: Favors topic 13
1980s: Loved Wal-Mart's "Buy America" program: Opposes topic 13
Globalization should not substitute for humanization: Opposes topic 13
Supports MFN for China, despite concerns over human rights: Strongly Favors topic 13
Build a rule-based global trading system: Favors topic 13
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on removing common goods from national security export rules: Favors topic 13
YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam: Favors topic 13
NO on extending free trade to Andean nations: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore: Favors topic 13
YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile: Favors topic 13
NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on free trade agreement with Oman: Strongly Favors topic 13
imthevicar
(811 posts)DURING A RA! RA! SESSION While one of the wally world MEGA RICH owners rant about those "BLOOD SUCKING UNIONS!" YEAH you could be!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Believe it or not...Walmart was an entirely different beast when Sam ran it.....Its what it is now because of his evil spawn....Just sayin"
imthevicar
(811 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 15, 2014, 04:15 AM - Edit history (1)
Sammy boy was just as ruthless as his offspring. After loosing a court ruling they he had to pay his workers the OT he cheated them out of, He Issued those checks to his current and former employees alike. He then told his current employees that if they cashed them they were fired! Nice Guy Eah?
The Mistake in this statement had nothing to do with With Fact that Sam Walton was a Cheep Lying Bastard, (He Was.), Just with Some Details I glossed over, Sam Walton Cheated his employees out of the difference he Paid them $.50/hour and the Minimum wage at the time $1.10/hour, after the Minimum wage was extended to retail workers in 1963. He tried some financial trickery but eventually the courts saw through this and ruled in the favor of his employees. So, How did he cheat them? by telling the He'd fire them if they cashed the settlement Checks. What a wonderful man he was. NOT! The apples that came from his tree, as rotten as they are, did not fall far.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)the spawn started the downward spiral of outsourcing...
As for your story....link please so I can read it for myself.
imthevicar
(811 posts)Around the time that the young Sam Walton opened his first stores, John Kennedy redeemed a presidential campaign promise by persuading Congress to extend the minimum wage to retail workers, who had until then not been covered by the law. Congress granted an exclusion, however, to small businesses with annual sales beneath $1 million -- a figure that in 1965 it lowered to $250,000.
Walton was furious. The mechanization of agriculture had finally reached the backwaters of the Ozark Plateau, where he was opening one store after another. The men and women who had formerly worked on small farms suddenly found themselves redundant, and he could scoop them up for a song, as little as 50 cents an hour. Now the goddamn federal government was telling him he had to pay his workers the $1.15 hourly minimum. Walton's response was to divide up his stores into individual companies whose revenues did not exceed the $250,000 threshold. Eventually, though, a federal court ruled that this was simply a scheme to avoid paying the minimum wage, and he was ordered to pay his workers the accumulated sums he owed them, plus a double-time penalty thrown in for good measure.
Wal-Mart cut the checks, but Walton also summoned the employees at a major cluster of his stores to a meeting. "I'll fire anyone who cashes the check," he told them.
http://boingboing.net/2009/09/11/story-about-wal-mart.html
And some more Bad news about your Hero.
http://www.southernstudies.org/2013/01/mr-sams-chintzy-treatment-of-workers-comes-home-to-roost.html
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)imthevicar
(811 posts)I think Not.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that was the point....
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)Chris Matthews just showed how far ahead Hillary was of all the possible Rethug candidates. Sorry but loyal Dems should help boost up our candidate. You weren't singing the praises of another possible Dem Candidate which is perfectly alright. You were just bad mouthing our most possible candidate and giving ReThugs fodder to use against us/her.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)told not to trash a candidate, but before one becomes a candidate- why not talk frankly about pros and cons and discuss what we think about them?
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)It was just right wing talking points...all cons. I just think it was a little much for a Democratic site. At this rate everyone will hate Hillary and if the Dems hate her...how are we ever to win the election? The thoughts of not winning is too much to bear.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)By selecting a better candidate than Hillary in the primary.
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)She's more prepared for the presidency than anyone else and should have no problem winning the presidency...if the Democrats would all get behind her.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I want a Presidential candidate with solid Liberal principles, because those principles translate into action once elected.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)they've thrown everything at her and NOTHING sticks! She is a warrior! She knows HOW to win this fight...AND she has one of the best politicians (whether you liked his policies or not....he knows how to campaign) in the world as an ally!
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Let's actually have multiple viable candidates, please?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I'd say she is plenty "viable".
peacebird
(14,195 posts)candidates please?
I did not say she was not viable. i also siad she is extremely divisive across the entire electorate. many repubs will turn out simply to vote against her. As will a number of progressives, and independents.
Enough of 'inevitable', enough of 'dynasty'.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)How can it be a "dynasty" when she is a liberal and her husband is a moderate?
peacebird
(14,195 posts)This 'inevitability' BS is annoying.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)this far out in recorded history...
imthevicar
(811 posts)Then she shouldn't run. Politics works that way Don't you Know!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)on this woman....she is practically impervious to those kinds of attacks now...
imthevicar
(811 posts)A Fact is a Statement of undisputed Truth. She Has to Live with herself Not I.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)FACTS mean nothing to them...
imthevicar
(811 posts)As a Matter of fact, I don't give a rat's ass what the Demo party thinks either!
I just want what's best for the working folks, and a watered down Corporatist just doesn't cut it in My book!
Most of the party approved (Hacks) Pols are in for the money and power. The only time they pretend they care is election time. Cause as much as the deck is stacked they still have to lie, cheat, and throw enough Money around once every so often to fool us into re-electing their lame asses! And H.R-C. is one of the more Infamous.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)A corporatist? PUHLEASE!
Take back $55B in Bush’s industry give-aways. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Pushed Wal-Mart for women managers & environment. (Jan 2008)
World Bank should impose rules on sovereign wealth funds. (Jan 2008)
Bush defanged the Consumer Product Safety Commission. (Dec 2007)
FactCheck: Yes, Bush shrunk CPSC; but it shrank before Bush. (Dec 2007)
Outraged at CEO compensation. (Oct 2007)
Stop bankruptcies to get rid of pension responsibilities. (Aug 2007)
Enough with corporate welfare; enough with golden parachutes. (Jun 2007)
Close lobbyists’ revolving door; end no-bid contracts. (Jun 2007)
1976 Rose Law: Fought for industry against electric rate cut. (Jun 2007)
Corporate lawyer at Rose Law while Bill was Attorney General. (Jun 2007)
Corporate elite treat working-class America as invisible. (Apr 2007)
Companies get rewarded with hard-working people left hanging. (Mar 2007)
1980s: Loved Wal-Mart's "Buy America" program. (Jun 2004)
1970s: Potential conflict of interest when GM sued Arkansas. (Nov 1997)
Businesses play social role in US; gov’t oversight required. (Sep 1996)
Family-friendly work policies are good for business. (Sep 1996)
Angry at unacceptable acquiescence to greed in the 1980s. (Jun 1994)
Serving on boards provides ties but requires defending too. (Aug 1993)
Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Rated 35% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)
http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...back in 2008, before her complacency (as demonstrated on Super Tuesday), ultimately cost her the nomination.
Hillary is not entitled to the nomination. She needs to earn it. Allowing her or any candidate an easy skate will only entice them to lean rightward. We need to push her to the left - and if she won't budge, them I'm sorry - we need somebody else.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)there is no other female MORE qualified than Hillary Rodham Clinton....and now the people want a WOMAN! And she has just the brass ovaries to do it!
You've seen what they have done to Barack Obama....what do you think the first female President will be facing? You better get a woman who has proven she can take it....SHE has!
I might add...whatever you think....President Barack Obama has faced his worst critics with class and dignity....even though they've offered him no respect at all.
imthevicar
(811 posts)Just because She Doesn't have a Penis doesn't make her More Qualified. Than Say, Allen Grayson, Al Frankin, Or Bernie Sanders, Who have all done more for the working person that your favorite Clinton. Oh, and By the Way if that's you single qualification for POTUS then Elizabeth Warren, come to mind.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and I didn't mention penis's......I said Americans WANT to put a woman in the Presidency now...and the one female candidate that has ALREADY taken everything they've got to dish out against her...and is STILL standing...she has brass ovaries! I have them too...,
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...you're putting the cart before the horse on this. I go back to my original point - that there was a similar "air of inevitability" around Hillary in 2008, when she was the presumptive nominee, prior to the rise of a certain Senator from Illinois. If this "air of inevitability" was based on reality - that is, the sentiment of the vast majority of Democrats - then Hillary would have cleaned up that Super Tuesday, and Obama would likely still be a Senator from Illinois. She and her people got complacent, and it cost her.
My beefs with Hillary have nothing to do with her husband. They are with her receiving $400,000 in speaking fees from the banking industry, where she tells them to not worry, and that any demonizing of them was counterproductive. I also find her to be too "blue dog", as far as fiscal policy is concerned. Vote for her, and on the banking and fiscal fronts it will likely be "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." She's simply too cozy with Big Money for me to have any real enthusiasm for her candidacy - check out what Krystal Ball on MSNBC said about her not too long ago.
Look, IF (underline, IF) Clinton earns the nomination (sorry, but she hasn't yet, and she's not entitled to it), then better her than anything the Repubs prop up. But I'll have to bring a gas mask to the voting booth in order to do it.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)We're questioning a right wing democrat, the criticism is from the left.
Given her support for Iraq, her judgement is too poor to be President.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The OP serves as useful information in deciding whether Clinton should be that candidate.
aquart
(69,014 posts)This is a non-incumbent election. Everyone is entitled to take his chances.
Hillary Clinton is the first woman we have with a presidential qualifications resume. We will have others but right now she is it.
Moses led his people for forty years in the desert but wasn't allowed to see the promised land. Maybe Hillary won't see it either.
The Iraq vote is a load of hooey, little as I liked it at the time. Bad vote. Patsy vote. Supported the Iraq war? BULLSHIT.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)then dismiss her in the next breath. That's very telling....
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Talking about just their qualifications?
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)As the resume presented by the then Jr Senator From Illinois back in '08.
And at least she wouldn't be coming out with a statement just three months after her inauguration, that she doesn't understand our economy, as she is too wrapped up in understanding the wars.
aquart
(69,014 posts)A woman always has to be twice as good or she doesn't get the job.
marble falls
(57,102 posts)I wish Bill could run again.
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
sellitman
(11,607 posts)Oh boy!
DiverDave
(4,886 posts)same old same old...until we demand accountability we will have hill,obama...the rich OWN every politician.
Now call me a liar.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)She'll go with the prevailing winds, and, frankly, I'm fine with that so long as the wind is blowing to the left, but expecting her to lead us to the left would be foolish.
-Laelth
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...it's just like Bill back in the day.
The problem is that our politcal winds have been increasingly generated by the huge-ass money and infrastructure fans operated by the Banks and Corporate America. We, on the left, don't have their infrastructure, so while we may be able to generate a good breeze (or with a second-wind effort, a gale force wind), the right can call up a Category 5 hurricane almost at a whim.
Most politicians (and I include Billary in this) don't follow winds, as much as they take Deep Throat's advice:
Follow The Money.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)I'm a big fan of Yes/No questions.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)politicians.
See NAFTA, DOMA, Glass-Steagall repeal, welfare "reform", support for Iraq/Afghanistan invasions, silence on war crimes under Bush.
Do I go on?
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)That tells me everything I need to know about Hillary supporters. She is a neocon, there is no question.
Never forget and never forgive the PUMA traitors.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062604162_pf.html
alarimer
(16,245 posts)I hate having this be a foregone conclusion 2 YEARS before the election.
I won't "get in line" and I won't vote for the lesser of evils.
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)not to do everything in your power to help us win? It's also not her fault that the media kept saying she was inevitable or a foregone conclusion 2 years before the election.
I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton if she was the only candidate. No. Just no. And that pretty much goes for anyone else who voted to authorize the war of aggression against Iraq. None of them are fit to remain in office, IMO.
n/t
Tippy
(4,610 posts)Remember who started the DLC.....
unrepentant progress
(611 posts)And yes, she as well as Obama, are neoliberals, and every Democratic president going back to Jimmy Carter. In the U.K., Margaret Thatcher was a neoliberal. Neoconservatives are a different breed who started out left, then tacked hard right, particularly on militarist policies. The former originated during the Vietnam War years, while the latter came about in the U.S. in reaction to the economic decline and growing distrust of politics in the wake of Watergate (and other crises).
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Free trader.
Don't know where she is on the security state but the other positions indicate favor because some associations are indicative.
Whatever all that comes together to be but a rose is a rose by whatever name. As is a thistle.
