Anti-war Democrats Resist Hillary Clinton's Pro-war Agenda

[imagine2015]

The Coming Democratic Crackup
May 16, 2016
Exclusive: Though the mainstream media is focused on Republican divisions, a more important story could be the coming Democratic crackup, as anti-war Democrats resist Hillary Clinton’s pro-war agenda, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry


If the Democratic Party presses ahead and nominates hawkish Hillary Clinton for President, it could recreate the conditions that caused the party to splinter in the late 1960s and early 1970s when anti-war and pro-war Democrats turned on one another and opened a path for decades of Republican dominance of the White House.

This new Democratic crackup could come as early as this fall if anti-war progressives refuse to rally behind Clinton because of her neoconservative foreign policy – thus infuriating Clinton’s backers – or it could happen in four years if Clinton wins the White House and implements her militaristic agenda, including expanding the U.S. war in Syria while continuing other wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya – and challenging Russia on its borders.

Clinton’s neocon policies in a prospective first term could generate a “peace” challenge similar to the youth-driven uprising against President Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War in 1968.

Indeed, in 2020, anti-war elements of the Democratic Party might see little choice but to seek a candidate willing to challenge an incumbent President Clinton much as Sen. Eugene McCarthy took on President Johnson, leading eventually to the chaotic and bloody Chicago convention, which in turn contributed to Richard Nixon’s narrow victory that fall.

Clinton also has vowed to take the U.S.-Israeli relationship to “the next level” by embracing right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who expects to convince President Hillary Clinton to end any détente with Iran and put the prospect of bombing Iran back on the table. Clinton would seem to be an easy sell.

So, the establishment Democrats – with their grim determination to resuscitate Hillary Clinton’s nearly lifeless campaign – may be engaging in the political equivalent of whistling past the graveyard, as the ghosts of the party’s Vietnam War crackup hover over Election 2016.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/05/16/the-coming-democratic-crackup/

[RobertEarl]

1. My main reason for rejecting her

As we saw with bush, one president can make a real mess of things worldwide. I fear she will make a real mess.

[reddread]

2. you are either for war or against it

even if it feels like they removed the choice from your hands,
the blood is not.

[NewImproved Deal]

3. Thank you. A vote for Hillary is a vote for the Neo-Cons--and perpetual War...

[link:|

[PufPuf23]

4. Yes we do. rec

A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for the continued foreign policies of Kissinger, Reagan,, both Bushes, Bill Clinton, and to a lesser extent POTUS Obama.

All supported a neo-liberal and neo-conservative global empire.

Iraq, Ukraine, Honduras, Libya, Syria most recent.

Right wing. Willing to split the Democratic party for continued war.

[Ferd Berfel]

7. Bet she at least continues, Obamas Drone strikes on civilians

[polly7]

5. Kick and highly recommend. nt.

[trudyco]

6. I'm kind of embarrassed I didn't track Hillary as SOS

I was too busy worrying about the economy and our privacy rights and other things Obama promised and didn't deliver. I still don't know what the Benghazi thing was about, something the Republicans trumped up, but they stumbled on something big. And unlike Bush, who got away with emails on the RNC server deleted (deleting emails that are supposed to be archived should be an automatic prison sentence), I think Clinton may get nailed for the way she handled security. And tried to hide it. Maybe. And probably combining Clinton Foundation/profiteering with her SOS job.

I just never thought a national Democrat would be as bad as a Republican.