What are the best criticisms of Hillary

[madmonk28]

@Tamerlane

It really isn’t, you’re just not traveling in those circles. I live in the deepest indigo-blue land of the SF Bay Area and believe me it is not hard to find criticism of Obama’s more aggressive foreign policy ventures here. Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein is considered conservative by many in these parts :).

So it is incorrect to say it is silent, but it is probably fair to say it is muted. There are several reasons for that and I agree Obama’s popularity with the demographics that typically support anti-war movements is a big one. But also the smaller scale and low media profile of drone strikes vs. something like the Iraq war with its huge mobilization.

Yeah, in my circles Obama comes in for plenty of criticism for the drone war and for things like leaving Guantanamo open, but when we look at the alternative we tend to see the glass as half full.

Right now, as Hillary’s election is starting to look like a sure thing you are starting to see progressives feeling a little more comfortable criticizing Hillary. Sanders has already said he’s going to be sticking up for progressive values in the senate and it’s pretty clear that Elizabeth Warren has not handed her a blank check. Her presidency is going to face challenges from the left and the right, I hope she’s ready for it.

[adaher]

Here’s Obama summing it up in 2008:

Obama reminds us of Hillary Clinton's Track Record - 2008

[septimus]

@DrDeth

So, “if she was running against anyone else, I wouldn’t vote for her”- you’d vote for a Republican who supported the War in Iraq?:dubious:

:rolleyes: The only Republican Senator who voted against the 2002 War Authorization was Lincoln Chafee … who is now a Democrat. The vote was slightly less lop-sided in the House: Only 97.3% of GOP Representatives voted for the War Authorization.

Perhaps the detractors could [gasp!] read Senator Clinton’s actual words and see if their prattle about war mongering fits the facts:

@Senator H.R. Clinton (D-NY) on the Senate floor

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
…
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack … on the present facts is not a good option.
…
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later…

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
…
Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make – any vote that may lead to war should be hard – but I cast it with conviction.

[WillFarnaby]

“…any vote that may lead to war should be hard – but I cast it with conviction.”

I can see why you’d rather us just read the words in bold. Point is, that is simply mealy-mouthed political positioning. Her donors would have been heated if she voted against the war, so she voted for it. That’s as deep into Clinton’s reasoning you need to get on any issue.

[madmonk28]

Yup, pander with a bunch of talk about peace, then bomb the brown people anyway.