2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPresident Hillary Clinton Would Be Far More Conservative Than You Think
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/president-hillary-clinton_b_5525235.htmlIn terms of foreign policy, Clinton might be a great deal more of an interventionist than President Obama and more willing to send U.S. troops to faraway lands than Rand Paul or Jeb Bush. For example, Jeb Bush would have the specter of his brother's failed decisions looming over every opportunity to engage in military action. Rand Paul is well known for his isolationist beliefs and most other Republicans, even if more hawkish in rhetoric than Democrats, have worked hard to distance themselves from people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
Hillary Clinton, however, not only voted for the Iraq War, but her foreign policy has been described as "neocon" by other neoconservatives. In a recent New York Times article titled "Events in Iraq Open Door for Interventionist Revival," even famed neoconservative and champion of preemptive war in Iraq describes Hillary Clinton in a favorable manner:...
As for reigning in Wall Street to prevent a future collapse, that's not likely to happen under another Clinton presidency. Unlike Elizabeth Warren, the former first lady has strong ties to investment banks, making the likelihood of any CEOs serving jail time for potential illegal activity in 2008 a virtual impossibility. In a Politico article titled "Wall Street Republicans' dark secret: Hillary Clinton 2016," Clinton has a mutually beneficial relationship with America's largest corporations:
SamKnause
(13,103 posts)she would not be conservative ???
fredamae
(4,458 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)OKNancy
(41,832 posts)He is an out and out Sanders guy.
I read his twitter.
Man of Distinction
(109 posts)I do find Clinton right of center, which means she should be in the Republican Party. Explain to ME why I, as a progressive Democrat, should choose Clinton over Sanders.
onecaliberal
(32,855 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I think she's going to be pretty damned conservative...
Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)Bernie isn't
frylock
(34,825 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)Hillary was the MOST conservative candidate in 2008,....more so than Obama.
If Hillary is elected, our country will slide a couple of more notches to the Fascist Right.
Man of Distinction
(109 posts)I found one, so I'm sticking with my choice...To hell with the rest.. if it comes to that,I'll just hold my nose and vote for the nominee if it isn't Bernie.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)so I will be free to write in whatever I want for President..
All Down Ticket Democrats will get my vote.
Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)who hate democrats.
Rag magazine.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Columnist and author published in The Hill, The Baltimore Sun, The Jerusalem Post, Salon, and other publications
Okay, the JPost also hates Dems or the Israeli equivalent.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)elleng
(130,895 posts)The best, most experienced progressive alternative:
Martin O'Malley:
1. Ended death penalty in Maryland
2. Prevented fracking in Maryland and put regulations in the way to prevent next GOP Gov Hogan fom easily allowing fracking.
3. Provided health insurance for 380,000
4. Reduced infant mortality to an all time low.
5. Provided meals to thousands of hungry children and moved toward a goal for eradicating childhood hunger.
6. Enacted a $10.10 living wage and a $11. minimum wage for State workers.
7. Supporter the Dream Act
8. Cut income taxes for 86% of Marylanders (raised taxes on the rich).
9. Reformed Marylands tax code to make it more progressive.
10. Enacted some of the nations most comprehensive reforms to protect homeowners from foreclosure.
Mother Jones magazine called him the best candidate on environmental issues.
Article here:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/martin-omalley-longshot-presidential-candidate-and-real-climate-hawk
Presidential candidate Martin OMalley is polling a distant third among declared Democrats, ten points behind Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and more than 60 points behind Hillary Clinton. Closing that gap in any significant way will require taking stronger positions than his rivals on the issues most important to the party's base. He's done just that with his aggressive new plan on climate change, which the former Maryland governor will pitch to Iowans over the next three days. . .
But environmental campaigners are starting to notice OMalley now.
We look to presidential policy platforms for vision, and we're rapidly approaching, if not already at, a point where it's no longer enough for a Democratic candidate to diagnose the problem, Climate Hawks Vote founder R.L. Miller said. e need policy prescriptions. Sanders' platform is basically what he's been pushing, without success, in the Senatea carbon tax and a million solar rooftops.
In other words: Namechecking Keystone and making fun of climate-change deniers doesn't cut it anymore.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122227/omalley-exploits-clinton-and-sanders-shared-weakness
Meet Martin OMalley, Hillary Clintons Latest Unlikely National Security Critic.
The former Maryland governor offers a more wary foreign policy, contrasting himself with a more hawkish Clinton and Republican field.
If Hillary Clinton is betting that 2016 won't be a national-security election, at least for the Democratic base, Martin O'Malley is betting she's wrongand that voters want a candidate who will be more wary about wielding U.S. military might.
"The invasion of Iraq, along with the subsequent disarming of the Iraqi army, the military, will be remembered as one of the most tragic, deceitful, and costly blunders in U.S. history," O'Malley told the Truman National Security Project's annual conference. "And we are still paying the price of a war pursued under false pretenses and acquiesced to, in the words of Dr. King, 'by the appalling silence of the good.' "
Though he never mentioned Clinton by name, it was an obvious reference to the former New York senator and others' vote for the Iraq war, and part of an attempt to distance himself from Clinton's more hawkish brand of Democratic foreign policy. "Today's challenges defy easy solutions. We may have the most sophisticated military in the world, but we don't have a silver bullet." . .
He cited the threat foremost in voters' and candidates' minds: the Islamic State. "No threat probably better illustrates the unintended consequences of a mindless rush to war and a lack of understanding than the emergence of ISIS," he said. . .
'Malley responded to Republican candidates' calls to send more U.S. troops to Iraq by noting that the use of U.S. military power could actually boost ISIS. "We must be mindful that American boots on the ground can be counterproductive to our desired outcome. We will not be successful in degrading ISIS if the number of militants taken off the battlefield is exceeded by number of new recruits replacing them," he said.
And in contrast to a Republican field whose speeches are laced with the red meat of "radical Islamic extremism"an attempted ding at a president who they claim "won't name the enemy"O'Malley said, "We must do more to amplify credible local voices in the region to reveal ISIS for what it is: a gang of murderous thugs who have perverted the name of one of the world's great religions."
But his clearest attempt to tie Clinton's tenure as secretary of State to what he framed as a short-sighted overeagerness to jump to military force in response to turmoil and instability abroad was in invoking Libya. "We must realize there are real lessons to be learned from the tragedies in Benghazi," he said. "Namely, we need to know, in advance, who is likely to take power or vie for it once a dictator is toppled. Not after." . .
Doug Wilson, formerly an assistant Defense secretary for public affairs and now O'Malley's senior foreign policy adviserand also chair of Truman's board of advisersinsisted that the candidate's speech was not intended to indict Clinton or any other candidate, but rather to lend some insight into his national security strategy amid questions of how a former governor with little experience on the issue can serve as commander in chief at a time of global turmoil.
"There is no mention of Hillary or the Republicans," Wilson told Defense One. "People knee-jerk frame Benghazi with Hillary. And what he is saying is you've got to stop doing that. Benghazi is not Hillary 2016, Benghazi is an example of what happens when you topple dictators and do not know or understand who comes after them.
"Martin is not poll-driven," he said. "If he was, he wouldn't be in the race. He's doing this because he thinks there needs to be some different discussions going on in terms of America's role in the world.
He's not a Brookings Institute foreign policy wonk, but he's travelled, he's met foreign leaders
he's essentially putting his interest where his mouth is."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/defense/meet-martin-o-malley-hillary-clinton-s-latest-unlikely-national-security-critic-20150629
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)NOT playing that 'game' anymore, KamaAina!
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)most ardent supporter of MO'M on DU. I applaud your efforts. The more I read about him, the more I like him.
I also read through the sandwich's thread (which, btw, I've noticed we have a cheese and a ham variety, and they hang out at the same deli). The lengths that some here stoop to bash every candidate they can is astounding.
Be rest assured, they'll all be gone after the primaries... Until then, there's wine.
elleng
(130,895 posts)There are many other ardent MO'M supporters here like FSogol, Raine1967, JustAnotherGen, Koinos, and others like bigtree and Andy823 and askew among others. We do our BEST! and I'm trying to avoid that deli these days!
Wine, YES!
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)Unfortunately I think he's right in between Hillary and Bernie, so its that whole republican lite argument people make all the time. People will go one way or the other and he'll be in the middle with no strong support.
artislife
(9,497 posts)I am in the Bernie camp via Warren but I would be happy with O'Malley from what I have just seen. Climate and food supply is very important along with social justice and economic justice.
elleng
(130,895 posts)MORE than recognizes the criticality of climate and justice.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)I have not really heard that one before. I have heard they are the same on many issues and I think that is fair. They do differ on foreign policy which has been proven.
Man of Distinction
(109 posts)1) She is not anywhere near to the left of Obama. If anything at all, she is to the right of Obama.
2) Obama is the best president of our lifetime? Hmm. That still remains to be seen. If Bernie is elected, I think he has potential to become the best president EVER, beating FDR.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)and if you are under 50, you would be right.
But some of us are old enough to remember what REAL Democrats sounds like.
Sad and Scary to realize that LBJ was the most Liberal President of the last 1/2 century.
msongs
(67,405 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)She's much further to the right of Obama except in the current campaign mode.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)It's so confusing to hear certain people ascribe to her liberal stances that have no correlation to reality. I guess ignorance is filling in the gaps of silence, but it is strange.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Despite the fact I will vote for her if she ends up being the nominee I have no illusions she will be any better than Obama on anything.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)She's already told us much:
They will continue to destabilize governments in the region and beyond. They will continue to use their proxies like Hezbollah. And they will continue to be an existential threat to Israel, Clinton said at a campaign event.
Read more: http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/311442/hillary-clinton-says-iran-will-always-be-existential-threat-to-israel/#ixzz3f904KSPj
tymorial
(3,433 posts)You may not like it, but it has been shown to be true over and over again.
Peregrine Took
(7,413 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)to have a military boots on the ground interventionist policy when it took him roughly speaking forever to be able to come up with he wouldn't repeat his brother's mistakes and the overwhelming majority of his foreign policy advisers are straight from George W.'s staff.
But also I don't want a foreign policy that would assume using the military is never the correct option. Because as awful as war is, sometimes it's better than the alternatives, and if you take even the threat away, it's harder to get other countries to do things like give up their chemical weapons like Syria did.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)I know who she is.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Her campaign rhetoric has never fooled this actual liberal.