I somehow have difficulty picturing Hillary as the 2nd incarnation of Dick Cheney. The interviewer is certainly a foreign policy conservative, and I’m not surprised that Hillary butters up her interlocutors as she makes the rounds. That’s what pols do: it’s an aspect of building support.
Except that all but #5 is basically foreign policy crap, which most Democrats really could care that much about. She’s not, for example, for using “cut taxes on the wealthy” (and make it up in volume, apparently) as the answer for every economic problem; eliminating basically all social, economic, and health protections for the poor; and preventing any legislation from taking place just because the other side has a black leader, which is far more important to most of us Democrats. Sure, we’d prefer an actual progressive, but not at the cost of having the far right elected to an office where they can do real damage.
I’m a progressive Democrat and I agree with 2-4. Putin’s revanchism in Ukraine needs to be halted as does the expansion of the bloodthirsty fanatics of ISIS and the brutal Assad regime. The Obama administration, while certainly a more competent executor of foreign policy than the Bush administration, has been somewhat too cautious in intervention IMO. Hopefully Mrs. Clinton will revive the liberal internationalist spirit of the New Deal Democrats fully (while shifting to the left on economic issues through the pressure of progressives within the party) as President. That is, BTW, what Hillary Clinton is, not a neocon in the mode of the Kristols or Paul Wolfowitz.
For the umpteenth time, do not use the utter incompetence and hypocrisy of Cheney-Rove’s 2003 Mistake to paint intelligent neo-conservatives (even those duped into supporting the Mistake) with a wrong brush.
That’s a tough sell septimus, given that some of the smartest neo-cons jumped ship.
You will find that mission creep is a nasty problem. So far every time the US has engaged its military, voices have arisen insisting that the US has put its prestige on the line. And from there, we get stuck in morasses, fighting insurgencies without a proven doctrine. What I want to see is an end to pissing contests and an understanding that while the US can and should assist in some occasions and head off humanitarian catastrophe in others, we aren’t the world’s cop and our economic preeminence is propped by less fighting, not more.
Hilary said “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.” Actually I think, “Don’t fight dumb wars,” is a fine organizing principle.
That said, this is a debate of calibration; the politics are hard, but so is the policy.
It’s a given that in order to get a segment of the electorate you have to postulate that it is impossible for Israel to do wrong. I think this applies more to the Christian right than to the Jewish voters themselves. And there are the anti-terror voters who think that no war in the Middle East is unworthy of US involvement. She’s going to go up against a Republican who will be to her right, so she can afford to go well to Obama’s right and still have the center and left to herself.
I wouldn’t call her a neocon, I’d call her an opportunist who doesn’t want to appear as anything less than tough on foreign policy.
Clinton senses an opportunity to be the war profiteers’ candidate in 2016. That means big money. This is why she is playing up her warmonger bonafides. She should just point out how she was willing to regurgitate mass rape claims as war propaganda for her intervention in Libya.
It’s easy to point to Syria and say the US should have done more. What actually happened was the US facilitated arms shipments into that country, and has aided the rebels both covertly and overtly. I can provide the link to Clinton testimony, avoiding the question of arms shipments as if it were weaponized Ebola. Syria would be a much more peaceful place if Assad was free to get his Abraham Lincoln on with little to no opposition. In fact, spot-on Lincoln-Assad metaphors wouldn’t even have entered my brain, because the war probably wouldn’t have taken place without US and their allies’ involvement.
In Ukraine, the US was caught red-handed initiating regime change on the Nuland phone call. This was after Nuland bragged of spreading 5 billion dollars of that good NGO money around in that country for “democracy promotion.” I’d say the situation would have never reached this point without US involvement.
Is she a conservative, corporatist Democrat? From where I stand, most certainly.
Is she a Neo-Con? Neither the OP nor anyone saying “yes” understands the meaning of the term. I wouldn’t even call her a DINO*, not with her social policies, thank God.
I also have no idea what Democrats Evil Captor thinks believe Clinton would represent “change.” She’s not the “change” candidate according to anyone I know. If she’s on the ballot in November '16, she’ll be the ALSNAFR** candidate, which is generally all that matters to any sentient Democrat when they vote.
Democrat in Name Only
** At Least She’s Not a Fucking Republican
I hope I don’t sound naive, but I think the experience of both Vietnam and Iraq have made Presidents wary of actual deployments of troops as opposed to the use of air power. I don’t believe Hillary has advocated deploying boots on the ground to Syria or elsewhere.