Clinton's Hawkish Stance Unwelcome

[Colobo]

What in the world was Sen. Hillary Clinton thinking when she attacked Sen. Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in going after Osama bin Laden? And why aren't her supporters more concerned about yet another egregious example of Clinton's consistent backing for the mindless militarism that is dragging this nation to ruin? So what that she is pro-choice and a woman if the price of proving her capacity to be commander in chief is that we end up with an American version of Margaret Thatcher?

In response to the 9/11 hijackers, armed with weapons no more sophisticated than $3 box cutters, American military spending, with Senate Armed Services Committee member Clinton's enthusiastic support, has catapulted beyond cold war levels. Senator Clinton has treated the military budget as primarily a pork-barrel target of opportunity for jobs and profit in New York state, supports increased money for missile defense and every other racket the military-industrial complex comes up with, and still feels no obligation to repudiate her vote for the disastrous Iraq war.

Given her sorry record of cheerleading the irrational post-cold war military buildup, do we not have a right, indeed an obligation, to question whether Clinton is committed to creating a more peaceful world? Don't say that we weren't warned if a President Hillary Clinton further imperils our world, as she has clearly positioned herself as the leading hawk in the Democratic field. What other reason was there for first blasting Obama for daring to state that he would meet with foreign leaders whom Bush has branded as sworn enemies, and then for the attack on Obama's very sensible statement that it would be "a profound mistake" to use nuclear weapons in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the attempt to eliminate bin Laden?

Isn't that a no-brainer — or can Clinton conceive of an occasion where even the threat, let alone the actuality, of a nuclear attack in the immediate neighborhood of nuclear-armed Pakistan and India would send the right message? And what about the dangerous message of Clinton's assault on Obama: "I don't believe that any President should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons." Huh? Just exactly how does one make a compelling case to other nations against the proliferation of nuclear weapons when members of the nuke club, particularly the President of the one nation that has killed hundreds of thousands of people with two of these ungodly weapons, will not, at the very least, promise to abstain from first use of a weapon that could quite easily eliminate most life on this planet?

More here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/17/opinion/main3179424.shtml

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. Her advisers have told her to appeal to the right wing Xians?

I think she's ill advised myself. Most of the country is in economic turmoil because of this war, and they're sick and tired of it. However, that's not why I don't support Sen. Clinton. I don't support her because this country remains sexist as hell and will not vote in a woman for president. I work in a very modern, huge corporation, and see how women are still discriminated against financially there. Stats tell us that in the same job, same qualifications, same quality of work, women get paid almost 1/2 less than a man. Women are STILL second class citizens in this country to a huge degree. The role models the media surrounds us with are those of breast-inflated, high-heeled, underdressed creatures with 3 lbs of makeup. Half the moview we watch are about serial murderers or husbands that hunt down and kill a woman or wife. This country has had a major, major backlash of woman-hating, and Sen. Clinton is ambitious enough to think she can overcome that AND overcome the decades of Republicans assigning epithets to her.

As I keep saying, if we Dems run someone for the White House that gets defeated again, and we end up with another Republican, I'm leaving the country. We Dems just don't seem to learn the lesson, which is PICK SOMEONE PEOPLE WILL VOTE FOR!

[msongs]

3. doh! obama says we ought to reach out to right wing christians - bye bye nt

[Tellurian]

8. I agree.. The RWXtians helped elect Bush and they still support him...

[knight_of_the_star]

28. Doesn't mean it will work

That plan has about as much probability of success as the communists reaching out to Brownshirts. Same situation here, you run the risk of trying and failing to get a group that won't vote for you anyway and in the process losing those who you already have.

[Tellurian]

5. Can you provide a link to that assumption...thanks..

[Sarah Ibarruri]

32. What in particular are you calling an assumption? nt

[Tellurian]

41. Your claim:"Her advisers have told her to appeal to the right wing Xians?"

Link please.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

43. Oh! Well, did you see my question mark at the end?

The purpose of that question mark is because I don't know, but I'm GUESSING she's been told to appeal to the right wing Xian extremists, since they are big-time voters. If not that, then what other reason could there be? Certainly not to appeal to the LEFT!

[Tellurian]

46. Google is your friend...

Do your own research rather than muddying the water with unfounded accusations.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

47. Google has information on private meetings between Sen. Clinton and her election advisers? nt

[Tellurian]

48. No, but they have info on Obama reaching out to RWXtians for their support...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

50. That's messed up. nt

[Tellurian]

51. Obama reaching out to RWXtians for support..

Obama: Democrats Must Court Evangelicals

By DAVID ESPO

Wednesday, June 28, 2006; 6:09 PM

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Barack Obama chastised fellow Democrats on Wednesday for failing to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people," and said the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and other churchgoing Americans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/28/AR2006062800281.html

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. Of course she's ill advised.

Her advisors are the same DLC corporatist advisors that lost us the last two elections. Bill did not win because of his advisors, but by the force of his personality - he won DESPITE these advisors. With Hill's negatives as they are, I don't think she can overcome the advisors. She runs, she'll lose.

[Fredda Weinberg]

31. I'm betting you're wrong

She's laughing at the forces targeting her and making me proud. We can look forward to another burst of prosperity.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

34. All I'm saying is, if we Dems fuck up again, I'm leaving the country nt

[tularetom]

2. I'm afraid she's still buying into the old 90's DLC bullshit

"America is a conservative country so if Dems want to win they have to be more like repubs".

[Tellurian]

7. Actually, no..see post #4... Hillary is attacking the Republicans..

namely Bush and Cheney. She has been the last few weeks, during and since the prior debates.

I think it's great!

Go Hillary!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. She's attacking Republicans...

("...the last few weeks...") :eyes:

...while backing their anti-constitutional policies...

(...for the last six years...) :think:

[knight_of_the_star]

29. That's nothing big

Whoever is the GOP nominee is going to be doing the same damn thing.

[Colobo]

9. Probably, and the country wants to get away FROM that "conservatism"

[Sarah Ibarruri]

35. Absolutely. That's a mode of thinking that will get us another Repuke president. nt

[Cha]

36. "If it worked for Bill

last century then it's gotta work for me too". What is it? They depend on the great mass of voters who don't pay attention until the last week and she wants to be viewed in the middle with the rest of the roadkill? She thinks she'll get disgusted repuke votes but none from the loony left(which she doesn't care about, obviously)"?

[Tellurian]

4. Sen Clinton is attacking Bush and Cheney..

Here's the article verifying the fact it's NOT about Obama or Edwards. The OP is behind the latest news curve.
The posted OP article is in reference to events happening weeks ago..

Clinton’s tactic of targeting Bush has pros, cons

Senator slams the president in ads, debates to bolster credentials

WASHINGTON - Hillary Clinton doesn't appear to be running against Barack Obama or John Edwards for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Nor does she seem to have her sights set on Republicans Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney in a potential general election match-up.

Based on the zingers she delivers at the debates, the jabs she throws in her TV advertisements and the critical statements she makes on the campaign trail, the person Clinton has been targeting is someone who won't even be on the ballot in 2008: George W. Bush.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20303968/

[Mythsaje]

6. What's worse is that all the military spending in the world

isn't going to help them chase down terrorists. It'll (presumably) help them topple governments, but, as we've seen, it can't help them "win the peace." The only thing that has ever proven successful with regards to terrorists is old-fashioned police work and human intelligence.

[Tellurian]

10. and don't forget diplomacy..

Diplomacy can accomplish much by putting people to work, having them share in the wealth of their rich resource, oil. Why would they prefer to fight, when they can earn a decent wage, affordable housing, a family life and a vested interest in their community? Republicans never chose to use diplomacy or cared enough to treat people fairly, keeping them happy. They believe in brute force and the strength of a heavy boot standing on the neck of their inferiors, no matter their color.

[SaveElmer]

11. Not what she said...

Though in the black and white world on political commentary a substantive nuanced and accurate discussion of what she did say would not sell paper, or produce web hits...

[Colobo]

12. I feel the same way about Earl Ofari's article, you know...

[SaveElmer]

13. There is a difference...

Ofari was commenting on campaign strategy, and why the perception of Obama is taken into account when he says things in a certain way...in fact Ofari had several nice things to say about Obama...

This is an actual attack on a policy position that Hillary did not make or imply...

[Colobo]

14. Ofari assumes Obama can't beat Hillary. That's an attack in my view.

[SaveElmer]

16. That's a political judgment...

I don't really think that is an attack, he didn't attack Obama personally, and didn't even attack his positions...

[Colobo]

17. He just implied that Obama doesn't have what it takes to beat Clinton

that's an attack if you are an Obama supporter, and sound political judgement if you are on Hillary's side.

[SaveElmer]

19. I can understand it gets your blood boiling...

I feel the same way when I hear the electability argument...

I just don't think the average person would view that as an attack on Obama...

[Colobo]

21. We disagree, but it's fine.

[SheilaT]

18. The reason I believe

Hillary will NOT be the nominee is precisely because of her adamantly hawkish stance. The vast majority of Americans want us out of Iraq, and mostly sooner rather than later. I think as this campaign season plays out, and as violence in Iraq escalates, that out-of Iraq-now sentiment will grown, rather than diminish. And will largely determine who the nominee will be, in the end.

I'm also crazed by the way Democrats think that the way to win elections is to appeal to the Republican base. We see that in Hillary's campaign. We saw it with Kerry in 2004. We've seen it in too many otherwise good candidates. Hopefully that will change.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. That's the DLC's stated strategy - to assume the democratic base

will stay with the democratic candidate because they have nowhere else to go, and pander to the right to undercut the republicans. It's a businessman's strategy, looking to gain in the next quarter and to hell with the future. It can win an election or two, but destroys the substance of what they are selling.

[ruggerson]

25. If we don't win

what we're selling doesn't matter. You can put labels on it all you want, Gore was "DLC" too. It's just inside baseball garbage. You think the average voter in West Virginia knows or cares who or what the DLC is?

Fact is that Hillary would appoint the same kind of Supreme Court Justices that Kucinich would. You can only vote one of two ways on legal cases, and her appointees would vote the same way his would. All the screaming and gnashing of teeth about the "DLC" doesn't change the fact that her voting record on social issues is very progressive and her record on foreign policy is just hawkish enough (i.e; centrist) to win a national election.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. Nonsense. Did you read what I wrote?

That strategy might win an election or two, but then destroys the base.

Those wins were under Bill (though actually I think he won despite the DLC rather than because of them) and the base has been destroyed. Free trade has gutted the unions, the left is going Green, 70% of the country opposes the war and Hillary's hawkishness reaches out to that remaining 30%, most of whom are Republicans who would not vote for her if she was the only person in the race.

If, as you say, Kucinich and Hillary would make the same appointments to the SC, why not support Kucinich, who can actually bring the base back to the Democrats?

[SheilaT]

39. And I think that the Democratic base

is so far out ahead of the DLC and all of the supposed Democratic leadership that it's not at all amusing. We want the war to end NOW. We want universal health care NOW. We want the poor and the downtrodden to have hones genuine opportunities NOW. The problem is that the DLC and all their ilk think that the Republican ase needs to be acknowledged and deferred to, and they're wrong. They think that ending the war is a minority position and they're wrong. They think that we need to take baby steps towards universal health care and they're wrong. And more of us who are the real Democratic base need to stand up to them and say, "Hell, no. we won't stand for it any more."

[ruggerson]

23. If she's having articles about her decrying her "hawkishness"

all that means is that she's strategically set herself up perfectly for the general.

In the last fifty years, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry were all portrayed as "dovish" by both the GOP and the media. Did any of them win?

If Clinton has already cemented an image as a "hawk" it gives her tremendous leverage to actually be a champion peace negotiator in the White House.

Sorry if that upsets some of you, but that's reality in American politics.

[Colobo]

24. GWB was very succesful with that stance...

[ruggerson]

26. Oh yeah

she would run the country just like George Bush. :think:

And the name of the hallucinogenic you're on is...

[David Dunham]

27. The author of the article is a fool.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[MethuenProgressive]

37. "Hawk"? "If George Bush won't end this war, I will." - HRC

The haters are allowed their own opinions, but not their own facts...

[illinoisprogressive]

38. Hillary is all spin, no substance. Sen. Obama is thoughtful and brilliant

[On the Road]

40. Clinton Must Think That She Has the Nomination Locked Up

because this is an extraordinarily risky course. I understand that as a woman she feels the need not to appear weak. But if she falls in the polls, this is going to be the reason. Middle East hawkishness is NOT a popular stance with Democratic primary voters right now. Most voters don't realize it yet.

[killbotfactory]

42. Why would we want our own version of Margaret Thatcher?

Do we hate ourselves THAT MUCH?

[Douglas Carpenter]

44. Such words are not welcome and they are dangerous and irresponsible

My greatest political nightmare is that in a few years we could find ourselves in an even more devastating, intractable and unwinnable war -- but this time with a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. And just like with Viet Nam in the 60's the Democratic Party could be ripped apart and decimated by a hopelessly unwinnable war driven by vanity and pushed along by imprudent words.
______________________________________________________________________________________________

"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vanity Fair, 2006.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________


Having said this. Previously I had somewhat favored Sen. Obama among the current top-tier candidates. But his comments regarding Pakistan were totally irresponsible. And I am quite certain that Sen. Obama is an intelligent and knowledgeable enough of a person to have known better. But I suspect he was led astray by myopic political advisers who do not care about the consequences of imprudent comments. But felt the need to assure the more naive and gullible sections of the American electorate that the good Senator is hawkish enough.

And I say this as an American who has spent more than 20 years in the Islamic world. National leaders whether in Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority or elsewhere in the Islamic world walk a very, very tight rope. Irresponsible comments for domestic American electorate consumption get widely reported in the region. And these kind of comments do NOT help! Quite the contrary, just like Presidents Bush's "Axis of Evil" reference to Iran strengthened the reactionary elements in Iran while weakening the more liberal elements -- and almost certainly helped elect Iran's current president - irresponsible comments from presidential candidates or any leading American politician is a strike against liberal and progressive forces in the regions and a boost for hostile elements.

Just think if it was in reverse. What if, for example, a leading Egyptian politician who was possibly a future president said that he would consider military strikes inside the United States? Would that help progressive American elements or would it strengthen right-wing reactionary forces? How much more so if some ambitious politician in a country allied with the United States who was quite likely to be the future head of government indicated that they would not rule out a nuclear strike in North America.

_______________

Sloganeering troubles diplomatic pros By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer -- link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070803/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_politics_diplomacy

snip:"In Pakistan, the country's Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan said Friday he would open debate next week on recent criticism of Pakistan from several quarters in the U.S., including remarks by Sens. Obama and Clinton and Tancredo.

It is a matter of "grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election," he said."

snip:"At the State Department, diplomats fear that Tancredo's remarks, coupled with those of Obama and Clinton, will be seen as a broader trend of animosity by U.S. politicians to Muslims, especially in Pakistan, officials said."


?
AFP - Fri Aug 3, 3:32 PM ET Pakistani Muslim men shout slogans in front of a burning US flag during a demonstration in Lahore against the controversial statement of US presidential hopeful, Tom Tancredo. The US State Department denounced Friday Tancredo's suggestion to threaten an attack on Islamic holy sites in order to deter a nuclear attack on American soil, saying the idea is "absolutely crazy."(AFP/Arif Ali)


Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks, in Karachi, Pakistan, Friday. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists.

By Shakil Adil, AP


.

[Skip Intro]

45. dishonest, ridiculous spin.

The first two sentences are at odds with the facts, and this piece just goes downhill from there.

Hillary didn't attack, but did point out the danger of engaging in such hypotheticals. And Obama didn't exactly say he was ruling out the use of nukes. Here's what he said:

-------------
I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,» Obama said, with a pause, «involving civilians.» Then he quickly added, «Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table.
-------------

I'm not exactly sure what he's saying there, but I remember someone else using the phrase, "there are no plans on my desk" in referring to attacking Iraq. If its not on the table, then its ruled out, or could be put on the table? The author makes it sound like Obama promised to do away with nukes. He didn't. If the threat of deterrence is a mere illusion, making it ok to rule out their use under any circumstance, then why not promise to eliminate our nuclear weapons? But he didn't. He said it would be a profound mistake to use them, but seconds later said, "let me scratch that." So what exactly is he saying? Not what the author implies.


In the very next sentence, in contrast to the disingenuous picture of Obama the author painted in the first sentence, the author accuses Hillary of backing "mindless militarism" by not agreeing with whatever it was Obama said. What is amazing is that it was Obama who called for taking troops out of Iraq and placing them in the "right battlefields" of Pakistan. Who's the hawk?


The proof tho, is the reaction in Pakistan to Obama's comments about attacking their nation with or without the permission of the government. His comments inflamed tensions half a world away. That's not spin, that's fact. And something the author conveniently overlooks.


The author also blames Hillary for "first blasting Obama for daring to state that he would meet with foreign leaders whom Bush has branded as sworn enemies, and then for the attack on Obama's very sensible statement that it would be "a profound mistake" to use nuclear weapons in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the attempt to eliminate bin Laden?"


Actually, Obama answered, "I would" when asked if he would be willing to meet, in his first year, with a long list of adversaries, without precondition. That is a fact the author again chooses to twist. And again, the author lauds Obama for declaring use of nukes would be a profound mistake, which he quickly followed with "let me scratch that." Again, dishonest spin.


The author goes on to insinuate that Clinton is FOR attacking Pakistan with nukes because she won't engage in such hypotheticals. The author seems content to hide Hillary's actual rationale which does include the deterrence effect of nukes. No where did Hillary call for nukes to be used, but you wouldn't believe it from reading this piece.


And that's the thing. Why not clearly present what each candidate actually said, and compare and contrast those to make your point? Why rely on half-truths and twisting of facts to reach a conclusion? Is it really a valid conclusion if you can only reach it dishonestly?

[rinsd]

49. Fuck Robert Scheer. He hates the Clintons.