quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If you believe her, then you probably think she's fairly liberal. Because she's running in a fairly liberal platform. Sanders liberal? No. But pretty liberal.
I would add that it is precisely because I believe her that I don't think she's particularly liberal. Sure, she's less liberal than Sanders and more liberal than Republicans. That's trivial. But that's not the only benchmark.
In a number of ways, she's more conservative and more war-like than President Obama as another benchmark. You hardly need to go back to her tenure as first lady to get that.
A few examples:
On Israel
quote:In her primary race, Hillary Clinton took a more robustly pro-Israel position than either Obama or Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Clinton spoke out against the BDS movement and voiced a harder line against Iran, although she still defends the JCPOA.
quote:(Privately, Atlantic interviewer Jeffrey Goldberg reported, Obama called the Libya situation a “shit show” that proved the U.S. had no business attempting to govern the Middle East and North Africa.)
Obama’s comments highlight a growing divide with Clinton as she seeks to win the Democratic presidential nomination. As secretary of state, Clinton was one of the strongest proponents of the U.S. intervention in the Libyan civil war against Gadhafi; according to the New York Times, the decision to commit military assets to ending the dictator’s 42-year-old regime was “arguably her moment of greatest influence as secretary of state.” While Obama has now pointed to that decision multiple times as one of his biggest regrets, he has also used the same logic to defend his reticence to intervene in Syria, where Clinton has urged a more militaristic approach, including a no-fly zone.
Not strictly a comparison, but I would also note with some alarm, her not-so-veiled calls for increased censorship and surveillance on top of the status quo
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
No argument here. She's absolutely a hawk on defense. I don't much care for her foreign policy. I've grown to appreciate Obama's foreign policy approach more and more as the campaign goes on.
Rakeesh/Tom -
Yeah, she's no Roosevelt on domestic policy. But in terms of a liberal domestic policy mixed with a hawkish foreign policy, yes, I think that's a fair comparison. Roosevelt was an ardent imperialist. By comparison Hillary's foreign policy is fairly tame. And yes, Roosevelt was a super liberal on domestic policy by modern standards. Hillary is very tame in that regard by comparison as well.
I don't know if it equals out or not, but yeah.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: In a number of ways, she's more conservative and more war-like than President Obama as another benchmark. You hardly need to go back to her tenure as first lady to get that.
quote: In a number of ways, she's more conservative and more war-like than President Obama as another benchmark. You hardly need to go back to her tenure as first lady to get that.
Drones...
The drone strikes are bad, for what they are, but still nothing like what Clinton supports. She was the main reason the US got involved in Libya. She pushed for more involvement with Syria. She wanted to scuttle the deal with Iran.
I've grown much more appreciative of Obama's foreign policy in the last year as I see what all the alternatives are. The hardest thing a president has to do is nothing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
