Why are all these conservative publications promoting Hillary on ISIS?

[Todays_Illusion]

Brooks' column is a few days old, but the trend in today's push is clearly pro Hillary from an MSM that generally is 100% anti-Democratic anything and everything.

First NY Times' David Brooks, the top of the heap in conservative punditry, praises Hillary for an entire column.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/opinion/hillary-clinton-takes-on-isis.html?_r=1


Politico: so conservative they ran an ugly hit piece on Rubio is promoting Hillary as best choice in polling for combating ISIS,

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/poll-fight-terrorism-2016-candidates-216145

Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/23/poll-as-republicans-ratchet-up-the-rhetoric-clinton-is-most-trusted-on-terrorism/?tid=sm_tw


CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/23/politics/hillary-clinton-tops-donald-trump-terror-poll/index.html


Today's hot topic from our conservative Democratic hating media seems to elevate Hillary as the choice for promoting the "war on terrorism"

If we are to be known by our supporters.....

[earthside]

1. Rebuilding the neocon consensus.

Brooks wrote it ... putting Clinton inside the neocon circle:

And it also means supporting institutional reform, as Clinton said, throughout the Arab world, to revitalize nations as functioning units. Not an unsustainable stab at nation-building, but better governance from top to bottom.

(I disagree with Brooks, by the way, I think you can deal with Daesh first and Assad later.)

[Autumn]

2. She's taking a talking point away from the republicans?

But I really think it's because when it comes to war and terrorism her rhetoric and goals match theirs.

[tularetom]

3. A lot of people are going to be in for a rude awakening

Actually I doubt she will be elected so that probably won't happen, but if she did become POTUS, the disillusionment would be astonishing. She will not stand up to the the Pentagon and the military industrial complex.