Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

karynnj

(60,956 posts)
44. True, but there are ways to do that that do not reduce to
Mon Aug 11, 2014, 11:37 AM
Aug 2014

Obama is at fault for the growth of ISIS - which was where she is.

However, that can and will be addressed on many levels:

- as policy - here, on Obama's side, you have many examples of the aid given having ended up, through either incompetence or betrayal, with ISIS. Imagine we would have gone in to the level McCain wanted (he has been clearer than HRC) I am horrified to think how I would feel if it were Obama (and likely Kerry) in a position like Putin's where the arms they gave were used to down a plane of innocent passengers. Not to mention, the brilliant 1980 strategy of arming the enemies of our enemies bore very bitter fruits.

To agree with HRC's position, You would have to argue that had we done more, faster, that it would have led to the fall of Assad and the formation of a reasonable government. It assumes, that Assad was weaken then than now OR that the rebels, with our help, would have have been significantly stronger than the combined forces against Assad now. In fact, that was BEFORE the horrendous levels of atrocities that occurred in the last 3 years. A ssad was more popular and stronger then than now.

- policy for domestic politics Ignoring my abhorrence at the idea that we would do things differently because of how it plays politically, it is reality. If so, I am surprised she did this now. The wheel is still in spin and this COULD be the darkest moment. If the Obama team is able to thread some of these very tricky needles and get things moving in a better direction, she may regret having attacked him on Iran, Israel, Iraq and Syria. It is hard to then turn around and try to claim any credit based on what happened while you were Secretary of State.

Polling does NOT show the US favors a position of staying in Iraq ( http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm - in fact, IF later polling increases - especially for Democrats- the blame assessed to Obama vs Bush, would it be fair to blame HRC for splintering the Democrats?), Syria (where even after chemical weapons were used, around 10% favored US involvement.), and Iran, where Obama's position has majority support in spite of intense lobbying otherwise ( http://pollingreport.com/iran.htm )


Here, at the brink of the 2014 elections, she gave these comments that could splinter the Democratic party on foreign policy going into the election. On each of these 4 issues, she has aided the McCain/Graham position over Obama's. Is this what we need with the Senate at stake? ( Note that on Israel, she is really playing politics - almost equating being against Netanyahu's position as antisemitism. ) If these were her deeply held beliefs, why not at least wait until after the election to state them? I assume that if the Democrats do worse than expected in 2014, she feels the blame will fall just on Obama.

- How this could play in defining Hillary Clinton as a person. For a person known as well as she has been since 1992, it is surprising that some actions by Hillary in 2006 - 2008 DID change how she was perceived. From the 1990s, I know I always saw her as more principled and a better person than Bill Clinton. I was surprised and disheartened by opportunist things she did - which I think hurt her more than helped her. I SAW some early Clinton supporters, pause when she stabbed Kerry, who really was not a threat to her, in the back the way she did.

For many people, for whom choosing the President, might be more personality than issues - especially complex ones with no obvious answers, I wonder whether this will seem an unsavory thing to do with a President who GAVE her the strategic Secretary of State position and has since she left, treated her with honor and respect. It may show that while selecting her might have kept the Clintons in some control while she was President, the down side is that she is willing to attack him when he is down - even if it is 3 months before a critical election! To me, it makes it clearer that, like Bill Clinton, all she thinks about is herself. The F.Scott Fitzgerald Great Gatsby descriptor of "careless people" may fit both.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

i think she really is more hawkish JI7 Aug 2014 #1
+1 jaysunb Aug 2014 #2
I think that was huge rufus dog Aug 2014 #63
I think so too - and that seemed to be the case in Afghanistan karynnj Aug 2014 #5
+1 davidpdx Aug 2014 #12
I think she truly believes in American Exceptionalism. joshcryer Aug 2014 #18
She is more big business and big bank, at least she and Bill were in Arkansas LiberalArkie Aug 2014 #33
Except her voting record is not on corporations first, more for the consumer. Thinkingabout Aug 2014 #34
Hillary is a war hawk. And that's something that won't ever change. blkmusclmachine Aug 2014 #3
Same as every other politician with no skin in the game. Ikonoklast Aug 2014 #26
Either 1 or 2 she's wrong for the country. My guess more sell out less principle on point Aug 2014 #4
It's one and two. And here's three: she's totally shallow on foreign policy, she spent TwilightGardener Aug 2014 #6
Bingo! nt Euphoria Aug 2014 #30
she will out-republican obama lol nt msongs Aug 2014 #7
she was a "Goldwater Girl" back in the day pleinair Aug 2014 #28
She was too young to vote for Goldwater. She campaigned for McCarthy in 1968, Thinkingabout Aug 2014 #36
She campaigned for Rockefeller in 1968. She worked at the Republican National Convention that year. ieoeja Aug 2014 #51
She did in fact change in 1968 from GOP to liberal democrat. Thinkingabout Aug 2014 #52
She volunteered for Goldwater although she was too young to vote. Jim Lane Aug 2014 #53
She was raised in a GOP home but has campaigned for Democrats since voting age. Thinkingabout Aug 2014 #55
She approached 2008 as if she "deserved" the nomination JayhawkSD Aug 2014 #8
Both her and her supporters davidpdx Aug 2014 #13
Good point. n/t JayhawkSD Aug 2014 #41
Where is this Hillary crowd you speak of? LordGlenconner Aug 2014 #57
I guess you should take a look at more than the few threads you have admitted to checking davidpdx Aug 2014 #59
I have LordGlenconner Aug 2014 #60
I never said that she hasn't been criticized davidpdx Aug 2014 #61
If you say so LordGlenconner Aug 2014 #65
She was SOS so she will run on foreign policy. CJCRANE Aug 2014 #9
She has to prove she has bigger balls than any man and by god, given the chance, she will do it. CBGLuthier Aug 2014 #10
Frankly, I think there is the idea out there that Skidmore Aug 2014 #11
We have also seen some big foreign policy blunders or reversals CJCRANE Aug 2014 #14
Rand Paul is not an option for me to even consider. Skidmore Aug 2014 #15
I agree on all points. CJCRANE Aug 2014 #16
The MSM wants a horse race. joshcryer Aug 2014 #17
Is America ready for more interventionism? CJCRANE Aug 2014 #19
Things are stable domestically. joshcryer Aug 2014 #24
But the impression was CJCRANE Aug 2014 #31
Who cares if Clinton picks some "moderate liberal"? The person would be a powerless token TheKentuckian Aug 2014 #35
People who set their sights to 2024? joshcryer Aug 2014 #37
The vice Presidency is no springboard to the big chair save via death, 2024 is not even TheKentuckian Aug 2014 #38
That view is not in line with reasonable reality. joshcryer Aug 2014 #43
Ok, fine what about the other 99.90% of issues the court reviews? TheKentuckian Aug 2014 #47
It's because she's so weak on domestic policy/economics. She *needs* the election to be about Romulox Aug 2014 #20
IMO she is a politician and will do/say what is necessary, remember "Landing under fire?" HereSince1628 Aug 2014 #21
She wants a Republican Senate as well as House, mmonk Aug 2014 #22
I wonder how many people commenting on her "breaking from Obama DURHAM D Aug 2014 #23
True, but there are ways to do that that do not reduce to karynnj Aug 2014 #44
$$$Campaign Donations From Certain Sources$$$ Ikonoklast Aug 2014 #25
I don't think it will matter all that much in a primary, for two reasons Unvanguard Aug 2014 #27
If so, why no wait until after November 2014? karynnj Aug 2014 #45
I don't think it will have much impact on the midterms. Unvanguard Aug 2014 #67
Once the dust settles in Iraq--as if-- randr Aug 2014 #29
Whatever the case, and I think you summed it up well BeyondGeography Aug 2014 #32
As SOS it was her responsibility to do Obama's agenda on foreign policy. Thinkingabout Aug 2014 #39
It's both #1 AND #2 ... sabrina 1 Aug 2014 #40
How about the President has told her Boom Sound 416 Aug 2014 #42
The President has, if anything, favored her over Joe Biden and everyone else karynnj Aug 2014 #46
I would really like to hear Michelle's thoughts on Hillary JaydenD Aug 2014 #64
She's more hawkish and PAProgressive28 Aug 2014 #48
she wanted to "obliterate Iran" magical thyme Aug 2014 #49
"Since she left office"? Obama had to walk back her statements on more than one occasion. ieoeja Aug 2014 #50
+1 n/t MBS Aug 2014 #56
The Honduras coup - the world, including Obama, denounced it JaydenD Aug 2014 #62
I agree, and would add one more thing MBS Aug 2014 #54
She's just showing her Faux pas Aug 2014 #58
Hillary believes she doesn't have a 'likability problem' any more? Dems to Win Aug 2014 #66
This interview does move her "likability" in the wrong direction karynnj Aug 2014 #68
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»My take on Hillary Clinto...»Reply #44