Is there any question about that? This *is *the Dope, after all. It’s assumed.
I think Clinton is a better candidate than Kerry was, and not sure how much worse Trump is that Dubya.
I said this too , I will have to hold my nose when it come time to vote in Nov.
I am not happy with the idea of having to pick Trump or Hillary . I will have hold my nose really hard to vote for Hillary , I agree there is a lot wrong with her !
Clinton vs. Trump would certainly be the most unpopular choices ever, which should be fascinating from a political science perspective. Theory goes that when candidates are unpopular, turnout should be quite low. But maybe these candidates are so unpopular that they are actually driving turnout.
But worst candidates ever? Nah. Hillary Clinton, at worst, will be a solid President and she could even be a very good President.
I think the worst choice we ever had was actually fairly recent: Bush/Kerry. Proven failed President vs. one of the most useless high profile politicians of our time. Just the contrast between Obama’s foreign policy under Clinton vs. his foreign policy under Kerry demonstrates Clinton’s vast superiority in judgment, intelligence, and backbone. Kerry would have been perhaps just as disastrous as Bush if he’d won.
What’s been so bad about Kerry as SoS? The two biggest foreign policy events of the last few years – Iran deal and Cuba – look like big successes so far (even if many think they’ll turn bad eventually).
Clinton could have done either of those things anytime she wanted to if she was willing to offer as many concessions as Kerry did. There’s no secret to making agreements with adversarial states: just offer them enough to get them to say yes. What makes a good SecState is making deals that are actually in our interest where we are the recipients of the major concessions. As well as making progress in supporting freedom abroad, which Clinton did in Libya. Kerry seems to share Obama’s more realist view that we should support stable dictatorships.
That sounds like the way to make an agreement with anyone on any issue at any time in history. Agreements are made when an offer is made that is acceptable.
This sounds like the Iran deal and the Cuba policy change.
if it was that easy to get there, there’d be no conflict in the world. We gave up a LOT to get Iran to sign, more than Clinton was willing to give, apparently. And if Iran’s intentions are bad, war became more likely, not less. If Iran welshes, things get worse than the status quo, because then our options are going to be harsh repercusionss, or go back to the negotiating table to give the more concessions. I wonder what Kerry will choose? Hmmmm…
Clinton supports the deal – and “a LOT” is subjective. Compared to what we got, which is a nuke-free Iran for 15 years and more, we didn’t give up that much at all, in my view. And if Iran violates the agreement, we’d then have international backing for a unified response. The alternative was a US-only war, which is unacceptable. This is a far, far better outcome, even if Iran breaks the deal.
Clinton supports the deal, but that does not mean it’s the deal she would have negotiated had she remained as SecState, just as she supported the Iraq war but probably would not have chosen to go to war if she had been President. As a Senator or candidate for President, she has to answer these questions yes/no, whereas as SecState she had the power to make a lot of decisions: whether to go to war in Libya, whether to kill bin Laden, TPP negotiations, Iran nuke deal negotiations, whether to open up diplomatic relations with adversaries we currently do not have relations with… She has a record, and it’s one of being much tougher on our adversaries than Kerry, who makes Jimmy Carter look like a hardass.
Jimmy Stewart wouldn’t have needed 44 ballots to get the nomination.
Clinton is terrifically qualified and would make a decent President. Not the best, probably in the upper middle range, but certainly she won’t be the destructive, insane pondscum that either Drumpf or Cruz would be
Why not? He had to filibuster until he dropped of exhaustion to stop the trumped-up expulsion vote in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
Phone call for you from Libya…
What you must have meant to say is that Clinton won’t do destructive stuff to US. Third World countries aren’t going to see much difference. Only difference between bombs and ground troops to those under attack is that you can’t retaliate against a bomb, or take your complaints to a bomb.
There is a colossal difference. The biggest reason Iraq was such a disaster was because of all the harm it did to the US.
But again, why would that be a high priority for a foreign observer? Especially since Europe is the primary victim of the refugee crisis. A US occupation might have kept a lid on that. And it’s not clear that spreading failed states in that part of the world are more in the US’s interests than difficult occupations. Lots of stuff seems cheaper in the short run.
It’s pretty clear from the last 13 years that not invading and occupying middle-eastern countries, even if it leads to failed states, is far superior to doing so. We lost thousands of Americans in that abortion, and we lost them for nothing.
As to why other countries might see this too – they might prefer not to see a greatly weakened US that’s lost a ton of credibility and popularity through the world.
No problem whatsoever voting for Clinton. Trump will be what behavioral scientists call a “negative reinforcer” for Clinton votes.
It’s like having to choose between Richard Nixon and George Wallace.
It’s not at all clear in the last 13 years. Europe certainly isn’t safer because the US doesn’t do occupations anymore.
The US is more popular today because of the personality of the man in charge, not actual policy changes. If anything, the US is more aggressive and unilateral under Obama than under Bush. It’s just easy to overlook that due to his less grating personality and the lack of troops on the ground. So it’s easy to see why audiences reading about the US in the newspaper might think things are better. For those on the ground in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, opinions might be different.