Don't Do It, Hillary! Joining Forces With Neocons Could Doom Democrats

[eridani]

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/25618-focus-dont-do-it-hillary-joining-forces-with-neocons-could-doom-democrats

But the problem isn’t just that Clinton was acting deliberately stupid in foreign policy terms, for whatever reason. She was also acting deeply foolish in terms of domestic politics as well. Even if she can’t actually lose the Democratic nomination this time, such belligerent hawkishness could utterly wreck the Democratic Party, just as Lyndon Johnson wrecked it with his pursuit of the Vietnam War.

Of course it’s not popular to blame LBJ in that regard, but it’s impossible to ignore. Johnson won one of the most lopsided landslides in history in 1964, running as an anti-war candidate, and then, thanks to pursuing a war he didn’t even want, was driven out of office four years later, to be followed by 46 years now, in which Democrats have controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for a total of just eight years. Yes, it’s always been fashionable to blame anti-war forces for the wreckage Johnson wrought, but Johnson, as president, was the one who set it all in motion — by embracing a moral crusade that he didn’t even believe in. The question is — why? And what does this tell us about Hillary?

<snip>

Those who may think that today’s neocons are unprecedentedly unhinged should take note. If Republicans could make such whack-job “policy” work for them even then, the argument might go, then perhaps Clinton isn’t so crazy after all? But that sort of thinking ignores the Democrats’ real advantages — most notably the deep popularity of their domestic political agenda. Even in 1952, Democrats still won slightly more House votes than Republicans did, and they quickly retook Congress. Eisenhower embraced the New Deal programs that earlier GOP candidates had opposed, and even Richard Nixon, two decades later, signed so many Democratic domestic bills that he’s often held up as a secret liberal — not because he was, but because he had to go along, in order to survive and focus on what mattered to him most. In the long run, Nixon was able to start bending politics in a whole new direction — but only because Johnson, acting out of fear, had opened the door for him by fracturing his own party.

And that’s what Clinton could be doing once again — only she would be undermining an emerging majority that hasn’t even gelled yet, rather than one that’s been around for a generation.

[sabrina 1]

1. It's way too late for that. Hillary embraced neocon Foreign Policy a long time ago.

Which is why I never supported her since. She began using their language re Iraq at least ten years ago, I was shocked and disappointed back then. But some things just need to be accepted. Hillary embraces their 'war is the answer' philosophy and as far as I know, she isn't shy about saying so.

[BillZBubb]

2. Hillary joined forces with the neocons a long time ago.

She's from the hawkish wing of the Democratic coalition. She probably adopted that position knowing how difficult it would be (particularly for a woman candidate) to be "soft" on foreign policy.

The hope is that once elected president, she would have the flexibility to adopt a more mainstream Democratic policy. But is that a bet we should be willing to take?

[TheKentuckian]

3. Oh ye of too much faith and perpetual excuse making

There is no indication whatsoever Clinton's policy positions are anything other than her own stands.

[Vincardog]

11. Is that a bet we should be willing to take? NO, when people tell you who they are believe them.

This country needs to take a HARD LEFT turn ASAP.
We needed to when we elected Obama, he just refused to make the change.

[wyldwolf]

4. Another factually inaccurate piece. The first two lines alone are lies.

This 'Hillary is a Neocon' garbage says alot about those who are supporting her - Elizabeth Warren, Howard Dean, etc., - or it says a lot about those who keep passing this rubbish on.

[Thinkingabout]

5. What has occurred for you to decide Hillary has joined the "noecons"?

[eridani]

6. Siding with McCain and attacking Obama on dealing with Syria n/t

[Thinkingabout]

7. Actually the Syrian issue has not proven any side to be correct or incorrect.

It just may turn out ISIS would not have established a stronghold in Syria if Clintons plan was followed. All are entitled to their opinions, doesn't make them right or wrong.

[wyldwolf]

10. except both charges are false

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. Both teams have agreed among themselves to only play between the 40-yard lines.

They are entrenched power and risk-averse. They have feathered their nests while they pluck us clean.

I'll wager dollars to donuts the RWers are grousing about McCain joining Clinton as much as we grouse about Clinton joining McCain. A pox upon both their heads.

[Vincardog]

13. I beg to differ. Both parties have agreed to only play between the RW goal

line and their 30 yard line.

[hifiguy]

9. She has been a neocon for some time now.

And a corporatist friend of Wall $treet and the banksters far longer than that.

She is barely even a Democrat anymore.

[wyldwolf]

12. evidence?

[hifiguy]

14. Kissing Wall Street's ass

and outspoken hawkishness. More than enough to prove the case.

[wyldwolf]

15. In your mind.

There's nothing written in some Democratic bible that says Democrats should be pacifists and not pro-business. Of course, I can understand your point of view based on your avatar.