HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » NYTimes notices Hillary's...

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 07:45 AM

 

NYTimes notices Hillary's natural affinity toward the neocons.

This kind of followers two other posts I have made on this topic. Here and Here

Mr. Kagan has also been careful to avoid landing at standard-issue neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute; instead, he’s a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, that citadel of liberalism headed by Strobe Talbott, who was deputy secretary of state under President Bill Clinton and is considered a strong candidate to become secretary of state in a new Democratic administration. (Mr. Talbott called the Kagan article “magisterial,” in what amounts to a public baptism into the liberal establishment.)

Perhaps most significantly, Mr. Kagan and others have insisted on maintaining the link between modern neoconservatism and its roots in muscular Cold War liberalism. Among other things, he has frequently praised Harry S. Truman’s secretary of state, Dean Acheson, drawing a line from him straight to the neocons’ favorite president: “It was not Eisenhower or Kennedy or Nixon but Reagan whose policies most resembled those of Acheson and Truman.”

Other neocons have followed Mr. Kagan’s careful centrism and respect for Mrs. Clinton. Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted in The New Republic this year that “it is clear that in administration councils she was a principled voice for a strong stand on controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or the intervention in Libya.”

And the thing is, these neocons have a point. Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq war; supported sending arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf Hitler; wholeheartedly backs Israel; and stresses the importance of promoting democracy.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1

Is that what she means about "wooing republicans" and "taking a more assertive stance toward the global crisis?"

49 replies, 3073 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 49 replies Author Time Post
Reply NYTimes notices Hillary's natural affinity toward the neocons. (Original post)
betterdemsonly Jul 2014 OP
DonViejo Jul 2014 #1
betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #2
DonViejo Jul 2014 #3
Beacool Jul 2014 #8
cali Jul 2014 #45
bigtree Jul 2014 #48
betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #4
conservaphobe Jul 2014 #5
betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #7
bigtree Jul 2014 #11
betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #13
Tierra_y_Libertad Jul 2014 #6
bigtree Jul 2014 #9
betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #14
HooptieWagon Jul 2014 #30
Maedhros Jul 2014 #34
The Magistrate Jul 2014 #10
betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #17
The Magistrate Jul 2014 #20
betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #21
The Magistrate Jul 2014 #23
betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #24
The Magistrate Jul 2014 #29
betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #35
The Magistrate Jul 2014 #38
betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #39
The Magistrate Jul 2014 #40
betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #41
The Magistrate Jul 2014 #42
betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #43
The Magistrate Jul 2014 #44
betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #46
The Magistrate Jul 2014 #47
betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #49
Atman Jul 2014 #12
reddread Jul 2014 #15
Atman Jul 2014 #27
reddread Jul 2014 #28
reddread Jul 2014 #32
Atman Jul 2014 #33
reddread Jul 2014 #36
mylye2222 Jul 2014 #16
bigtree Jul 2014 #18
betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #22
bigtree Jul 2014 #25
betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #26
bigtree Jul 2014 #31
L0oniX Jul 2014 #19
Maedhros Jul 2014 #37

Response to betterdemsonly (Original post)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 07:53 AM

1. This isn't the NY Times noticing anything....

it's the opinion of one man/writer, Jacob Heilbrunn, editor of the National Interest and the author of “They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 07:55 AM

2. It is my opinion too

 

with evidence from other posts. She is responsible for hiring Kagan's wife Victoria Nuland as Assistant Sec of State. Nuland is responsible for most of shit happening the Ukraine right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 08:00 AM

3. That's fine, and I don't have a problem with that...

I'm questioning you attributing it to the NYT when it's Heilbrunn doing the noticing. If the NYT were doing the noticing, the article would be an Editorial, not an opinion piece by someone not even on the Time's staff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 12:25 PM

8. Thank you.

Apparently any negative hit piece from anyone is acceptable. I even saw a post that was later self-deleted, from an excerpt of Ed Klein's latest work of fiction about the Obamas and Clintons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #8)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 06:42 PM

45. Comparing this piece with Klein is the height of silliness.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #45)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 07:05 PM

48. the op did just that

 

. . . conflated this article with Klein's at the bottom of the post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Original post)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 12:03 PM

4. Afternoon kick

 

People, who think Hillary's progressive enough, need to know this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Original post)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 12:07 PM

5. More opinion piece trash being pushed as fact. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to conservaphobe (Reply #5)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 12:11 PM

7. Did she or did she not actively support the appointment of Kagans

 

wife Victoria Nuland as Assistant Sec of State? Don't claim Victoria shouldn't be blamed for her husband beliefs, when she has pushed intervention in Syria and Iraq. Already there are people claiming she is strong on foreign policy, when in fact she is quite weak, and her foreign policy beliefs will hurt her like they did last time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Reply #7)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 12:41 PM

11. that was Obama's choice, he nominated her.

 

. . .are you not aware of the intense republican campaign trying to tie Nuland to whatever they're accusing Clinton of in Benghazi?

. . . it's some political pretzeling to claim Nuland is a tool of the republicans at the same exact time they're screaming from the rooftops that she's a tool of some dangerously liberal foreign policy..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #11)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 02:50 PM

13. Well if you think Nuland is so wonderful

 

why do you consider it right wing propaganda to link Nuland and Clinton to her husband, Robert Kagan? Why do you consider and article about neocon Kagan praising Clinton, which he quite plainly did, in the liberal interventionist flagship "The New Republic" propaganda and a hit piece? Unless you can take issue with the facts in the article, why complain. She is a neocon sympathetic dem. Wear it with pride!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Original post)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 12:11 PM

6. Neolibs and neocons are first cousins sharing their love in American Exceptionalism.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Original post)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 12:34 PM

9. this is a contrived article designed to inflame

 

. . .with little actual fact to go with all of their broad assumptions and claims. In the olden days, we regarded this as flamebait. Those with dim memories of past political skirmishes latch onto opposition-generated bait like this and appropriate it into their own campaigns.

It's an easy hook which has very little resemblance, to folks who know the score, to Hillary's actual strategy or record. Clinton has one of the most liberal records among her Democratic peers; has an overall record that is mostly in line with the most progressive of her legislative colleagues. This article is only believable if you buy into the memes around here that have her voting and acting like an Eisenhower republican.

consider her voting record provided by the Left Coaster:

1.1 Consistent with observations (and caveats) in Part 1 of this series, outside of national security and war, Sen. Clinton gets high-to-very-high progressive scores almost across the board. In short, her voting history reflects a very high consistency of voting with a majority of the most progressive Senators in Congress across a multitude of issues - especially those concerning corporate interests. This does not, in any way, mean that she never voted badly - of course she has done so, but on the whole she voted far more in sync with the most progressive members of Congress than otherwise . . .

1.2 When we look at the overall Progressive Punch score for Sen. Clinton, it is apparent that on the whole, she voted more progressively and more in sync with the most progressive Democrats in the Senate (92%) than did Sen. Obama (90%). Now, granted there is likely to be some noise in the data - so, let's be somewhat conservative in our assessment and say that she was at least as progressive overall in her voting pattern as Sen. Obama.

1.3 Although the Far Right would love to try and make Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Clinton seem like twins separated at birth, Sen. Lieberman's voting record is nothing like Sen. Clinton's in the majority of categories. Sen. Lieberman broke with the most progressive Senators far more frequently than Sen. Clinton did and voted with the GOP far more frequently than Sen. Clinton did. Clearly, we can't look at his voting record and conclude that he has a "solid" progressive record overall. For example, on labor rights he is at 58% to Sen. Clinton's 91% progressive score according to Progressive Punch.

On corporate subsidies he is at 67% to Sen. Clinton's 100% progressive score. On war and peace his progressive score is at an abysmal 48% (more than 1 in 2 votes with the GOP and against the most progressive Democrats!) compared to Sen. Clinton's 80% - which in turn is just slightly lower than Sen. Obama's (86%) scores on war and peace. Indeed, on human rights and civil liberties, Sen. Clinton has the highest score at 82%, slightly ahead of Sen. Obama (77%).


view the tables here: http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011142.php

(comparison to Lieberman was just the politics at the time of the survey.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #9)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 02:53 PM

14. Progressive punch scores were used to make Lieberman look

 

good at one point, so I don't take them seriously. You can do alot of bullshitting with stats if you leave certain criteria out. More importantly. What fact in the article do you take issue with? I am really interested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #9)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 03:53 PM

30. The only fact needed to know is she took Koch money to start the DLC.

 

That is a pretty good definition of her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #9)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 03:57 PM

34. There is precious little actual data in those tables.

 

Just numbers next to buzz phrases like "Overall Progressive Score" or "Government Checks on Corporate Power" without any description of what those phrases mean and no analysis of how the scores were determined.

Meaningless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Original post)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 12:39 PM

10. Not Really The tines, Sir, Just Heilbrunn

A right-wing type who hosts on his blog a number of Romney operatives and hard right columnists.

The technical term for what he is doing here is 'stirring shit', and he figures if he can get some leftists or progressives to step in it, he will have helped Romney or some other Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #10)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 03:07 PM

17. Yea he is a right winger and he is quite clearly praising Clinton!

 

Maybe it is because he likes her foreign policy. Yah think? You act as if liberal interventionists don't revolve the door for their buddies the neocons, when it is clear that they do. Look at Kagan's wife Victoria Nuland.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Reply #17)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 03:18 PM

20. Does Not Sound Like Praise, Sir

It is, as I said, an attempt to stir trouble on the left, in hopes some 'divide and conquer' juju will help one of his own in 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #20)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 03:38 PM

21. We don't coronate people in this country

 

We have primaries. She is too conservative for me. People are not obligated to not criticize Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Reply #21)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 03:42 PM

23. No, Sir, We Elect Them

And odds are pretty good at this point the country will elect Mrs. Clinton its President in 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #23)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 03:43 PM

24. Not until after she wins the primary

 

so who cares! That is what you said in 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Reply #24)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 03:51 PM

29. I Suspect, Sir, You Have No Idea What My Views In 2008 Were

It seemed to me there was so little difference between the actual positions and orientations of Sens. Clinton and Obama that most of the vitriol between their supporters was artificial, whipped up to let people feel there was a great difference.

I also observed that there was an element which ranged itself with Sen. Obama here, and quite vociferously, not because they actually agreed with him or supported him, but because he was a vehicle they could employ to vent their long-standing hatred of Sen. Clinton. Once Sen. Obama looked likely to win election, many of these people turned on him, and now spend a good deal of time attacking him in exactly the terms and tones they formerly did in attacking Sen. Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #29)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 03:59 PM

35. Many people genuinely disliked the war. It isn't just hatred.

 

This isn't not a horse race. There is no reason to support them if their policies suck. They are not worthy of supporting just because they're democrats, apart from their policies. Obama did disappoint me, but no one else came forward to challenge him, and he is still less hawkish than Hillary would have been. Warren has more of a progressive track record than Obama or Hillary at this point, in 2008. I won't apologize in the least for rejecting her twice.

In other words. That is your opinion and so what!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Reply #35)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 04:11 PM

38. In Other Words, Sir: You Own To Membership In The Group Described In The Final Paragraph

Whether here under another name, or elsewhere.

I like Sen. Warren a great deal. I see no reason to expect she will run for President. I think Sen. Sanders may make a run, within the Democratic Party primary, and would welcome it, as I think the country would benefit from greater exposure to him, and that the eventual general campaign in 2016 would benefit from the response his views would receive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #38)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 04:17 PM

39. No I don't because you are trying to make it out like

 

our problem with both candidates has no basis in reason. I hate her policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Reply #39)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 04:26 PM

40. A Difference Without a Distinction, Sir

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #40)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 04:30 PM

41. In your mind hating someone and hating their policies is the

 

Last edited Thu Jul 10, 2014, 01:32 AM - Edit history (1)

exact same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Reply #41)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 04:44 PM

42. Your Tone in Denunciation, Sir, Makes Clear You See No Distinction

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #42)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 06:38 PM

43. Another subjective

 

observation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Reply #43)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 06:40 PM

44. Surely, Sir, You Do Not Imagine Yourself An Objective Observer?

Of your own behavior, of how you appear to others, of anything at all....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #44)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 06:44 PM

46. strawman now n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Reply #46)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 06:52 PM

47. So You Are a Believer In Ritual Chants, Sir?

Chanting 'strawman' 'ad hominem' 'false dichotomy' and the like does nothing but amuse onlookers; it does not even frighten the horses....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #47)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 07:12 PM

49. Why do you default to calling people "Sir?"

 

Are "Sirs" men the only ones worth addressing? If I were talking to an anonymous person I would not default to a male form of address. Why can' t you be more gender neutral?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Original post)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 12:44 PM

12. Gosh, does anyone wonder why "the Media" is pushing Ms. Clinton again as the inevitable?

They WANT her. Corporate media and the defense/banking industries WANT HER. She is perfect! She'll piss off the GOP base ('I ain't gonna take no orders from no wimmen folk!') while kow towing to corporate/military industrial interests. Can we please stop letting the corporate news rooms choose our president for us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #12)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 02:54 PM

15. friendly with Murdoch, right?

 

I think we know how this ends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reddread (Reply #15)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 03:48 PM

27. I don't even know where you're beginning...

...so I can't possibly know how this ends. I'm assuming you're a super Pro-Hillary person who doesn't like the fact that I'd even consider casting doubt. Am I right?

I envision myself more like one of those people who actually wait for all things political to play themselves out. Maybe Ms. Clinton is involved. Maybe she's not.

Oh, never mind...we all know how this ends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Atman (Reply #27)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 03:55 PM

32. now that the "assume" cliche has played out

 

just dont take the media's machinations as clearcut. thats all we are both saying,
I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reddread (Reply #32)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 03:57 PM

33. At least you confused me even more.

Pass the bong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #33)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 04:01 PM

36. Back to cliches

 

whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Original post)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 03:00 PM

16. Finally its put on the table! !!!

 

I had already high doubts about her corporate inclinations. Thats just a confirmation. ..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Original post)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 03:17 PM

18. you've adopted two clear right-wingers' attempts to put a wedge between Hillary and the Dem party

 

. . . as the platform for your own political attacks on Hillary.

Impressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #18)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 03:41 PM

22. Whatever

 

God Save Queen Hillary!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Reply #22)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 03:44 PM

25. The Media’s Made-Up Catfight Between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren

 

Greg Sargent ‏@ThePlumLineGS 13m

Yup RT @nationaljournal: The media's made-up catfight between @HillaryClinton and @SenWarren http://bit.ly/1m9FJo6


On Sunday, Edward Klein wrote what was supposed to be an explosive story in The New York Post setting up the "blood feud" between the Obamas and the Clintons in 2016 . . . In his Post story, Klein reports that Obama "quietly promised" to fully support Warren if she decided to run for president, and instructed Valerie Jarrett to "conduct a full-court press to convince Warren to throw her hat into the ring."

On Monday, the Wall Street Journal alley-ooped Klein's thesis with its own story positing that Clinton is trying to distance herself from the Obamas "in tone and substance." The evidence? A less cheery tone about the economy, and this money quote:

This type of sourcing is completely irrelevant and guaranteed not to produce any real news, just pot shots (it's not Whalen's fault; if you give a mouse a cookie, etc.) But the narrative that Klein et al are crafting is basically Dems In Disarray, 2.0—a narrative that relies on reports from both conservative and liberal voices that are short on facts and long on speculation.

Media Matters has called Klein a "smear peddler" and a "conspiracy theorist," and points out that even conservative pundits like Brian Kilmeade, Rush Limbaugh and James Taranto have called Klein's sourcing into question.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-media-s-made-up-catfight-between-hillary-clinton-and-elizabeth-warren-20140707

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #25)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 03:47 PM

26. I didn't post that story

 

so why is this my problem? I posted several well documented stories on Hillary's support for neocons and their policies, particularly to Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Reply #26)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 03:54 PM

31. you posted the ancillary article and referenced the first one with your link

 

. . . at the bottom of your post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Original post)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 03:18 PM

19. You better vote for Hillary or you are a "surrender" monkey.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Original post)

Mon Jul 7, 2014, 04:01 PM

37. If Democrats want my vote in the 2016 Presidential Election,

 

they better put up a better candidate than Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread