Congress, Politics, Society

Hillary Clinton Criticizes Obama’s Foreign Policies

225px-Hillary_Clinton_official_Secretary_of_State_portrait_cropPresident_Barack_ObamaHillary Clinton seems to have found a way to get people from moving beyond her disastrous “dead broke” claims, but not in a way that is likely to please those voters tired of wars and military interventions. Clinton used an interview this week to criticize the “failure” of President Obama’s policies in Syria and to insist that she wanted a more interventionist military approach. President Obama was quoted responding to such criticism by calling it “horseshit.” It seemed a return to the 2008 election where Clinton campaigned on her hawk credentials in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — a mistake for many Democratic and independent voters. Recently, she changed her mind and said that the Iraq War was a mistake despite her refusal to listen to a chorus of critics of the war at the time when it was a popular political move. Despite that change, Clinton is suggesting that she would have armed the Syrian rebels and acted more aggressively to stop the Islamic State.

In the interview with prominent foreign affairs writer Jeffrey Goldberg, Clinton attacked Obama’s decision not to quickly and strongly support the Syrian rebels and said that the West Wing’s foreign policy mantra — “Don’t do stupid stuff”— is “not an organizing principle.” She seemed to brush over the fact that that the same course that led us into repeated costly military campaigns or that many of the rebels at the time were found to be committing atrocities like the regime. Then there is the fact that many of our weapons have already ended up in the hands of the Islamic State in places like Iraq — as we saw in Afghanistan with Al Qaeda.

The statements were a replay of Clinton’s much maligned campaign against Obama in 2008 that she was the one who could handle the “3 a.m. phone call.” As someone who supported both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, many insisted that they did not want any more such calls.

The change in strategy and message may not be coincidental. A major poll this month by NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showing Obama’s approval rating at an “all-time low.” The interview was widely viewed as designed to separate Clinton from the declining fortunes of both Obama and the Democratic Congress.

Putting aside the timing, Clinton has repeatedly shown herself to be closer to George W. Bush than Obama on military interventions. She used the interview to reaffirm her absolute support for Israel and her credentials in committing U.S. military resources in foreign conflicts.

Nevertheless, while criticizing Clinton on the attack against Obama and interventionist drumbeat, liberal writers like Joan Walsh at Salon.com are still cited in the article below as still expecting to support Clinton for the next president. It is part of a continuing rift on the left of our political spectrum. It is not clear what are the dominant values of the Democratic Party going into this election. Civil liberties and war issues used to be a rallying point for liberals. However, those issues have been seriously undermined by the Obama Administration and the Clinton campaigns in 2008 and 2014. Clearly, some agree with Clinton’s hawkish views and others are drawn to the chance of electing a female, even one with opposing views. However, there remains a remarkably fluidity in the defining values for the party going into the election beyond the dominant blue state/red state rhetoric that the Republicans are simply worse. That narrative is clearly not working but seems to be the only theme upon which the party is advancing consistently. There is the immigration issue but that has proven extremely risky and does not appear to have paid off politically. Indeed, some black leaders and voters have publicly opposed the effort by Democratic members to push for legalizing the status of millions of undocumented individuals. We are, as the Chinese curse says, living in interesting times.

Source: Politico

230 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton Criticizes Obama’s Foreign Policies”

  1. Seriously Squeekers, they hate Hillary with a passion, enough to spread rumors about her, as evidenced on another thread yesterday.

  4. Annie, Squeeky says she lives in Texas and Texas does not vote for democrats because of guns and the socials issues along with healthcare. Who knows the the repubs might nominate a native son like Perry or Cruz. Hillary is probably counting on them them running a very hard right campaign both on foreign policy and social issues.

  8. SWM,
    Bernie Sanders would most definitely get my vote. I wonder why Warren won’t run, some agreement to not go up against Hillary?

  9. Annie, Elizabeth Warren is not running. Bernie Sanders is thinking about it. Clinton is too hawkish for me but probably not for the general electorate. Obama’s approval ratings are down on foreign policy and she knows it.

  11. And what are the alternatives to a Clinton Presidency from the Demo party? Smoken Joe Biden? How about Ron Wyden? Elizabeth Warren? The Banksters will insist Elizabeth be no closer to the Presidency than she currently is.

  12. It’s time for Elizabeth Warren to step up. Hillary will talk herself out of the nomination, which is a good thing if she doesn’t reflect the platform and voters of the Democratic Party in which she would be the candidate for. We don’t need anymore hawks.

  14. “I hope she does not get the democratic nomination and self destructs early.” -Don midwest

    Ditto.

  15. Hawkish Hillary?

    What threshold would it take, If she had the codes to launch the nukes? Just asking a fair question.

  16. Hillary Clinton “served” as an active FLOTUS, “served” as a US Senator and “served” as Secretary of State – but can anyone point out any positive results for America from all of this “service”? Inquiring minds want to know.

  17. Hillary Clinton is certainly one of the most qualified to be president. She served as an active First Lady, she served in the Senate, and she served as Sec. of State. But she’s a determined hawk. I really want a woman to break the barrier of leading the country but one who will end wars, not one who will continue the ones we’re in or start new ones.

  18. Don midwest,
    …
    I hope she does not get the democratic nomination and self destructs early.
    ===================================
    If not, her misunderstanding of Europe will come at a bad time.

    “The politics of escalation show that Europe sorely misses a realistic goal. It’s a different thing in the US. Threats and posturing are simply part of the election preparations. When Hillary Clinton compares Putin with Hitler, she does so only to appeal to the Republican vote, i.e. people who do not own a passport. For many of them, Hitler is the only foreigner they know, which is why Adolf Putin is a very welcome fictitious campaign effigy. In this respect, Clinton and Obama have a realistic goal: to appeal to the people, to win elections, to win another Democratic presidency.

    Angela Merkel can hardly claim these mitigating circumstances for herself. Geography forces every German Chancellor to be a bit more serious. As neighbors of Russia, as part of the European community bound in destiny, as recipient of energy and supplier of this and that, we Germans have a clearly more vital interest in stability and communication. We cannot afford to look at Russia through the eyes of the American Tea Party.”

    (Gabor Steingart, publisher of Germany’s leading financial newspaper Handelsblatt)

  19. I can’t believe that Hillary is taking such strong positions this early. She clearly does not want support from progressives. Telling Snowden to come home and face the justice systems is stupid because she knows that the charges against him means that he will be unable to speak at all. Hillary’s support of Israel as the world opinion has changed and, in my view Israel can never recover from the genocide in Gaza, her support at a time of rapid change in support for Israel. Then there is her support of banksters.

    To her credit, she is taking firm stands. She shows that she will continue to work for the oligarchs and doesn’t give a damn about our country. But is it good politics to not have wiggle room this early?

    I hope she does not get the democratic nomination and self destructs early.

Comments are closed.