“If you wanna see a transformational election"

[4now]

"let the Democrats put forward a war hawk like Hillary Clinton, and you’ll see a transformation like you’ve never seen,” Rand Paul said, foreshadowing how he plans to run against the former secretary of state.

In another clip released by NBC Friday, Paul made his first on camera comments about the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri.“One of the best things they’ve done so far in Ferguson, was send an African American police officer down there to talk to people in the community,” Paul told NBC’s Chris Jansing. “Now, it hadn’t worked completely, I’ll admit that. But it’s a better way than shooting tear gas at people in their front yard.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rand-paul-warns-dems-what-will-happen-if-they-nominate-war-hawk-hillary-clinton/

A Republican gets to call a Democrat a War Hawk.
Its been a long time since the Dems had a war hawk President.

[Gman]

1. Why are people campaigning for Rand Paul here

And why do they think DU has anything to do with reality or can affect an election ?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

2. Rand Paul is a liar and a racist

I hope you realize that as you post this.

[Avalux]

3. Why do you say "the Dems", instead of WE. Just wonderin'. n/t

[4now]

4. What are you trying to say?

I have never supported a "war hawk" Presidential candidate.

[JoePhilly]

11. Bush said he wasn't going to do any nation building too.

He did not present himself as a "war hawk" as a candidate, yet he ended up being so as President.

[FSogol]

5. Fuck Rand Paul and his idiotic supporters.

[JaydenD]

6. Mr. Clinton killed Iraqi's for his whole 8 years. That's pretty hawkish.

Runs in the fam

[FSogol]

7. Ignoring the rampant sexism in your post; a 4 day bombing operation = killing Iraqs for 8 years?

[JaydenD]

8. Sexism, please point that out, what sexism? I was talking about killism:

Do you really think only bombs can kill people? Why is it that so many want to completely blot out this part of history and pretend it never happened or someone else is responsible?

When asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: “This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.”

Getting It Backward on Iraq

The United States, meanwhile, continues to support crippling economic sanctions on Iraq that have neither weakened Saddam's hold on power nor prevented him from pursuing his WMD programs. They have, however, reduced the Iraqi people to penury. Iraqi society, once relatively prosperous and solidly middle class, is now mired in a daily struggle for survival. Most people live hand to mouth, relying on inadequate rations provided by the U.N. "oil for food" program. Iraq's medical and educational systems, once the envy of the Arab world, are in disarray. The social disintegration brought on by sanctions is not only a tragedy in its own right, but also diminishes the already slim chance that internal Iraqi discontent could be converted into sustained popular rebellion: people consumed with finding their next meal do not have time to overthrow dictators.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/55010/f-gregory-gause-iii/getting-it-backward-on-iraq

[FSogol]

9. Pretending that Hillary will do/can only do what her husband did is sexist.

Hillary is not Bill and, believe it or not, is capable of treading down her own path without her husband's permission.

As for your goofy article:
Iraq's problems lay at the feet of Saddam, not Bill Clinton, at least until W f'ed everything up.

[JaydenD]

10. Then when I hear anything positive that came from Bill's admin, and Hillary takes partial

credit, then I can call That sexism? But I wouldn't because that dilutes the meaning of the word when it is used so frivolously.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's died under the Clinton admin., most of us know and accept that, some can't come to grips because it just doesn't fit their private scenario of Evertything Clintons do is Marvellous.

[Matrosov]

12. Ironically

A great deal of conservatives don't like Rand Paul because they feel like he's too much of an isolationist.

I'd be surprised if he received the nomination. He's too much of a polarizing figure. The libertarians worship him, but most of the social conservatives hate him.

[beerandjesus]

13. It's incredible to me how so many here are unable to take a point.

I don't know if it's true that HRC versus Rand Paul would lead to a "transformation like you've never seen", but it would have the potential to. I think that's an important observation that we, as Democrats, ought to take to heart.

War-weariness is what got Obama his mandate. Well, I'll criticize Obama about a lot of things, but I do think he's done his best to get us out of Chucklenuts's conflicts, and give him a lot of credit for that. Yet the wars rage on, and people are at least as weary as they were in 2008.

If we go into 2016 with Hillary sounding like a hawk, and Rand sounding like a dove, we might be looking at the one scenario where Republicans could actually take the presidency, and do so handily.

You can say, "Rand Paul is an idiot! Rand Paul is a racist!" if it makes you feel morally superior, but HRC's hawkishness is her biggest liability. America has had enough of that shit.


You know, it's possible to be a racist AND have a point.