Hillary 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
@tlimey
Well, it will be a cold day in heck before I withdraw support from the troops! Whoever got them “there”, once they are “there” it is time to fight like hell, and kill large numbers of the enemy until they just don’t want to fight anymore.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Dredd: “War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes;”
That applied more when the US had a smaller GDP.
While the War Terror has had a large dollar cost, in fact, it’s not relatively large as a percent of GDP. Which is to say, the War on Terror, while a significant factor in the national debt, has not been a major driver of the national debt. There also hasn’t been a specific war tax, though every tax “revenue” is generally disbursed.
Again, you have to withdraw all alegence and support from three things: the Troops, the Democrats, the Republicans.
We do not have a federal government. We have a Mafia Superpower; no, make that a Superpower Mafia. This Mafia never does the right thing for the people of the world. Like any mafia it serves itself & its favored corporations that are really part of it.
Squeeky, I wonder if there will be any fat references when Christie runs?? Corzine made ads ridiculing Christie for being fat and they backfired. It cuts both ways. I’m fat and bald. You seem to understand politics. Some here are clueless.
Ack. Fix: See
youmy comment at August 12, 2014 at 1:15 pm.Annie: “I have wondered what happened with Obama, why he followed too closely in Bush’s footsteps as far as being involved in foreign wars is concerned.”
The answer is you were conned by the Democrats. See you my comment at August 12, 2014 at 1:15 pm.
Annie,
fiver is on target.
We’re being set up, AGAIN!
Choices are between war, and more war sooner.
Nowhere is there room for PEACE!
ISIS is but another nail our elected hammers have aim to hit…
Nick,
Terrorism is ancient. It is not something “new” and “improved”.
That it has you hunkered down proves to us it’s effects. Why can’t you see that? I say, come crawling out from under that bed and stand brave and witness the sunrise, NOT the sunset!
OK, Squeeky, I’ll hold you to that. I’d like to hear the exact reasons Hillary haters hate her, besides possibly being a “fat lesbian”. That might be enlightening.
Max, yup, I have wondered what happened with Obama, why he followed too closely in Bush’s footsteps as far as being involved in foreign wars is concerned. Now Hillary wants to appear to be even more of a hawk than Obama. Voters are going to be all over the place in 2016, things are so convoluted.
Annie,
People who resort to slander to make their point reveal more about their moral character than they care to know… be it Hillary or posters here.
As if “size’ is a factor to deciding between pearls or diamonds…
Annie,
I know, none I can think of in my lifetime, either.
We have presidents elected with war on their mind…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkmlWZXKVOY
Change, yet?
@annie
I defended Hillary from being a Lesbian. If nicks thinks she is fat, how can I defend that??? That is a matter of personal taste and opinion. I think Obama has big ears, but it has nothing to do with my opinion of him.
If Hillary runs and people attack her for being overweight, and don’t wish to vote for her for that reason, then I shall taunt them for being shallow.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Under an earlier post, slohrss29 and I shared an exchange, later picked up by John Oliver, on this topic. Quoted here is my explanation to slohrss29 for the cognitive dissonance on foreign policy that has led to catastrophic harms under the Obama administration.
Excerpt from http://jonathanturley.org/2014/08/01/we-tortured-some-folks-obama-admits-united-states-committed-acts-violating-federal-and-international-law/#comment-1252153 :
While I hold a different view than slohrss29 and John Oliver, I prefer their views over the Democrat leadership because, unlike the Democrats, they at least offer a logical alternative.
The problem is the Democrats won the partisan political contest, particularly Obama’s presidency, by vilifying Bush’s essentially liberal foreign policy.
Why is that the problem? Because the Democrats share Bush’s essentially liberal American outlook. In fact, Bush’s counter-terror and Iraq policies were carried forward from Clinton. For Hillary Clinton to actually oppose Bush would be to oppose her husband.
In short, the Democrats won the White House with a fundamental lie about both Bush and themselves.
The carrying harm of a cover-up is it compounds down the line, right? The Democrats have tried to cover up their electoral con-job by disclaiming Bush’s progressing foreign policy while claiming a “smarter” foreign policy by Obama would achieve the same liberal goals as Bush.
The problem with that – for us and the international community that has long depended on American leadership to underwrite foundational security and stability – is Bush merely matched logical means to ends.
Deviating from Bush’s paradigmatically liberal post 9/11 foreign policy in order to cover up for their electoral con-job has forced the Democrats to make this choice:
A. Responsibly stay the course from Bush’s working logical methods and implicitly admit they conned America to win the White House.
or
B. Irresponsibly keep the con-job going by ardently disclaiming Bush’s logical methods in favor of illogical “smarter” methods that from the outset obviously would not work in the real world.
One guess which option has been chosen by the Democrat leadership. After all, there’s always the next election to win, and why fix what ain’t broke.
Well, it’s breaking.
And before some dope says it, no there is nothing wrong with being a lesbian, or suggesting someone is a lesbian, but when it’s used to appeal to the bigoted to be used against her, then it’s low and hateful to spread such rumors.
Squeeky,
So you don’t see the need to defend her from such attacks from the Hillary haters, until she runs? You don’t think it’s a nasty low blow to call her a fat lesbian now? Squeekers, it’s a ‘weighty’ matter anytime a person attacks another mostly because she is a woman, strong, intelligent and independent. There are men that hate strong women, absolutely hate them.
@annie
It is a free country and nicks is entitled to his opinion, just as you are entitled to yours. If Hillary decides to run, and he persists in calling her fat, then I will “weigh in.”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Raff, You seem to have a bug up your ass of late. I base it upon what people who know much more than I are saying. Anyone who doesn’t recognize the threat this well armed and committed terrorist force presents is an idiot. Like Bin Laden, they have vowed to hit us soon. They are much more powerful than bin Laden EVER was. But, “Ignorance is bliss.” Oh, do I need proof that Hillary is fat?
So Squeekers, which side of your buddy do you like better the statesman impersonator, or the bigoted hater of fat women who are possibly lesbians?
@annie.
I saw what he said. I am sure Hillary will hit Jenny Craig up if she decides to run, just for the health aspects of it. But nicks also said:
“Churchill said, “There can be no peace without victory.” From the first Gulf War to now, we did not defeat the enemy. War is brutal. You have to crush the enemy, not just contain them. FDR, Churchill, and Truman understood this. Stalin sure as hell did. No matter all our weapons, the Middle East, China and Putin see us as weak. For all the derision I have for Hillary, she understand this better than her husband, both Bush’s, or out current president playing gold on MV.”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter