That’s a hilarious statement. Never has so little been known about someone in public life so long.
Well that’s certainly not true. There is a vast amount of information out there, including at least some general outlines of her political thought. What’s missing are her specific policy proposals for this cycle. In other words, the answer to the question, “Why are you running for president, Hillary?”
Most people can’t even tell you if she’s a Blue Dog or a liberal.
Oh. I think the answer to that is pretty clear. (Unfortunately, from my perspective.)
We do know SOME things about her. She’s very pro-Wall Street and very hawkish on foreign policy. That clearly places her in the Blue Dog camp. Yet there are many who see her as either a mainstream Democrat or even a progressive. Problem is, she’s never really done more than paid lip service to that part of the party.
I’m not a fan of her but I do know that my side can do business with her if she’s elected. DC will shockingly start to work again. I’d much rather have a good Republican, but I’m 99% certain that whatever the result of the 2016 election, we will have the best President we’ve had since Clinton, although that’s a pretty low bar to clear given the two losers we’ve had since.
I wouldn’t call her very hawkish. She supports Obama’s Iran deal, for example, whereas most of the Republicans seem to have itchy bomb fingers.
She voted to give Bush authorization to invade Iraq, but I think her take on that was she was hoping Bush wouldn’t invade, but would use the authorization for bargaining leverage with Saddam.
So I don’t think there’s much that would mark her as a big hawk, certainly not Republican-level hawkishness.
But yeah, the Wall Street thing is, I fear, a fair cop.
If you look at her statement more closely it’s not exactly an endorsement of any deal so much as an endorsement of having talks.
She was the main voice behind the Libya war.
The Clintons are rather inept at the use of force & violence to achieve goals.
Not at all like the Bushes.
:dubious:
I specified both charismatic and intent on winning. Which one of those do you mean?
There are those who choose to know little, true. Hardly *her *fault, though.
Sanders.
I like a guy who looks as if he has his hair done by a weed-whacker.
I really think he’s running as a means to promote populism, push Clinton that way, and make her appear more moderate, not with the intention of actually winning. But we’ll see.
Yeah, problem is, the less people know what she stands for, the more they like her:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw8WIia47WEBoris Johnson is running for president?
If he really wants to be President, where’s he been all these years?
[quote=“adaher, post:116, topic:720925”]
Yeah, problem is, the less people know what she stands for, the more they like her:
[/QUOTE]Sorta like when Obamacare opponents hear about a healthcare bill the reads exactly like the ACA except it’s called Reagancare, they support it. So a couple Youtube guys pulled a gotcha. Ho hum.
I wouldn’t call her hawkish. I get the impression she subscribes to Bill’s views on military policy: everything can be solved with a cruise missile.
I think her hawkishness is a bit overplayed. She freely acknowledges that her Iraq vote was a mistake and she has been supportive of Obama’s foreign policy initiatives. I’m also much more receptive to lobbing cruise missiles than sending our youth into meat grinders.