The Hell with Hillary Rodham Clinton

which is part of why i was hoping she'd be picked for vp, so she could spend more time on domestic issues, since she's somewhat left of obama here at home. away, though, they're all hawks. we sorely need someone who will help rein in obama's warmongering bent, and a team player isn't likely to do that.

This was always going to be Clinton's position because she and Obama do not disagree on foreign policy. They never did and, yes, her support for Afghanistan escalation is wrong and it is a tragic mistake for Obama and his administration. However, unless I missed the speech where she went before the UN and lied about why we're going to invade another country, she's nowhere in Powell's league. Powell didn't just go along with a bad policy or support a bad policy, he was a key figure in the public lies used to sell the Iraq war. Let's not let Mr. Powell off the hook or reduce the seriousness of what he did just because there's disappointment in Clinton's support for Afghanistan. Powell deserves to be remembered for the true awfulness of what he did, not the media spin that he was just a good soldier.

I have heard that there were two teams once upon a time, though...

This is the main reason I kept the Hilobamarama at arms' length. Ultimately, the differences being argued over were too minute to matter; at the end of the day both were conservative, pro-empire Democrats, as well as also being the best our system can do. I don't vote for Democrats, I vote against Republicans, and for that purpose either one would have done.

Obama's foreign policies are not Clinton's fault. Suddenly she's going to be the focus of anger? Hello?

If there was no difference between them on war -- (which I doubt. Yes, she's a pragmatist. My point, precisely.) -- if there was no difference, then everybody should have voted for her because she was way ahead on everything else. Eg HOLC, as mentioned above.

I'm sorry, but I have no patience for dumping on Hillary for some airhead's decision. I'm sure he'd love her to resign. Then he could fill the slot with some total stooge.

That part of her foreign policy was typical of an American politican: heinous. Even if she had pushed through on gender, it wouldn't have made an impact on her calls for imperial actions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. It would have been more of a show than anything substantial.

I voted for her and donated the max amount of dollars to her campaign solely because of her domestic policies, in particular her economic proposals. Her gender was a big bonus, sure, but it wasn't the ultimate factor. The economy was. Her being hated so much that she felt she had no choice but to go to the left was great insurance that we would have a chance, some leverage with her.

@Aeryl: I agree with you: I, too, am tired of so many people being scared to admit that Clinton would have been better, if not much better, on a host of domestic issues (e.g., gender rights, gay rights), most particulary the economy. No doubt in my mind she would have been significantly better on domestic issues. Your mention of how she continued to push for HOLC in September 2008 is just one stark reminder, especially when you compare it to Obama's limp-dick approach (Also: she called her shot way back in early 2007 while Obama dismissed her). Now, he's upped the ante to nagging the mortgage industry for show. Ooh!

I read Joan Walsh's opinion on "progressive" self-delusion on Obama and Afghanistan and it bothered me that at the end she felt compelled to say, "Hey, I don't think Clinton would have been any better, across the board, as president!" It reminds me of last year during the primaries where you had to "confess" you hated Clinton if you were making any sort of criticism of Obama or correcting someone's "facts" on Clinton so as not be burned alive. It's a continuation of the hysteria from last year: It doesn't matter what Clinton says or does because she is never to be trusted.

Her economic proposals were to the left of Obama, but it was because of her record and that she actually knew what the hell she was talking about there was some firm ground to stand on with her. With Obama, even if you refused to look at his record or his ties, there was nothing to stand on because he had no record of fighting for anything left of center. His policies were based on right-wing framing and he was just fluff. He became a sputtering fool when discussing policy (Remember, the "progressive" freak-out over the ABC debate?). Her campaign was nuts and bolts, while his campaign was personality. I needed the former. Now, we're stuck with a somewhat charming president Lieberman. Look over there, a photo of his adorable family lighting the Christmas tree!

I think there are some good comments above [exception being Tlaxcala], however I think Calais has a poor understanding of American Government. The Secretary of State is a cabinet officer position and such she can try to influence the Chief Executive in private, but not in public. She is not shilling Obama's war as Powell did Bush's, she is supporting Obama's desire to have a victory with his name on it...as she must, it's her job. She is not supposed to offer her opinion publically, asking her to do so, is asking her to make a fool of herself.

This is Obama's war now, not Hillary's or Bush's there is absolutely no need to have a large-scale ground war in Afghanistan for counter terrorist reasons...this about a pipeline that the US can not afford. Again, the war at this point is all Obama, at the end of 2008 we had something like 40,000 troops we will have something like 110,000, along with some 30,000 combatant contractors the current administration has added.

OK, that is somewhat facetious. But we knew her position, more or less, since the primaries. Pretending that her reaction is somehow mind-opening and revealing is childish. That's not to say she is above criticism--I'm with Eric Massa on this--but, please, this place tends to be a little more mature than GOS so I don't expect puff pieces about sudden revelations.

As Lambert says, it would be nice to "change her views". Given her general consistency on the issues over the years, its a much more worthwhile endeavor to figure out how we can change her--and the other office holders'--views on the matter than pretend that she is doing anything different than she said she would. Or just paint her as always being wrong--which she was on some issues.

This is another example of propagating the "duplicitous bitch" meme. If she were actually being inconsistent, then this post would be warranted *in the manner in which it is presented*. As it is, she's been consistent--consistently wrong. I have to say, it is at least a little interesting to see how the inaccurate description of Hillary suddenly changing under pressure can be so easily extrapolated to ignore the real differences between the two in other areas.

I am not arrogant enough to think that bloggers can leverage presidents. However, the big difference between Clinton and Obama after the primaries is that Obama didn't have to receive the most "votes" after the primary to become the nominee, and the way in which he became the nominee was abominable. If you don't need honest elections to chose leaders, you can't hold the leaders accountable. I keep harping back to this because, in the end, we lost all chance of "leveraging" Obama when we pissed away the need for honest elections. The post-primary fawning made leveraging even more difficult, to be sure, but the current state was set in stone when progressives and Dems accepted fraudulent elections.

Hillary may not be perfect, but more than most politicians I've ever seen, she doesn't lie about her position much. You know where she is going to be wrong. Remember campaign finance way back when? It was the popular progressive thing to say they would receive public financing, she didn't go with popular sentiment at the time. She never backed down from her vote on AUMF (placing the blame almost exclusively on Bush, which would have been a political winner for progressives, btw). Etc.

Compartmentalized from economic issues. I don't think politicians take us to war because they're mean bullies, or even because they have electoral incentives. Rather, foreign policy is explicitly a product of corporate interests enjoining the government to secure contracts for them. Rather than cultural hegemony or being bullies for the sake of it, imperialism is simply an exercise in corporatism on a global scale. Having said that, I was a supporter of Edwards, then HRC--both we're sufficiently left to warrant my vote, but especially Edwards because he talked explicitly about class and corporate ownership of the country. HRC began to do that at the beginning of 2008, but it was simply too little, too late. Had she originally come out talking about class and corporate hegemony the way Edwards did, we'd be looking a Pres. HRC. Back to "war and peace"--I don't think that politicians opt for the former even because of the perceived hawkishness of the public; otherwise, why would we continue to occupy places when it becomes so unpopular. Rather, economic incentives give us a tidy and powerful explanation. Because the State and Defense Depts. are indefinitely extending contracts for mercenary outfits, we need to put them somewhere. And, perhaps, Democratic politicians see an opportunity to suck at the proverbial teet of the mercenary industry, with NewDiplomacy™ contracts (corporate plunder followed by an interpretive multi-cultural dance). Anyway, the economic explanation of things--even "foreign policy"--sufficiently *everything* going on right now, however oversimplified it may seem. So whether it's bashing the powerful woman (i.e., Hillary's war, which is probably the marketing strategy for BloggerBoiz™..."Progre$$ives say Hillary must go!" web-ads at OpenLeft will appear soon no doubt), bashing Jewish people, or compartmentalizing economic predation at home from our imperialistic actions abroad--all will lead to erroneous perceptions. Of course, this isn't Hillary's war; of course, it's not Zionists (in fact, such an appreciation of events reminds me of the Obama strategy of race-baiting); but, of course, our foreign policy has everything to do with our domestic economic agenda of upward wealth redistribution. It's time all of us appreciate it. "Progre$$ives" didn't with Obama, instead relying on a commitment-less speech; instead of thinking about an economic critique of the war, it was aesthetic pacifism.

When I said:

"however I think Calais has a poor understanding of American Government. The Secretary of State is a cabinet officer position and such she can try to influence the Chief Executive in private, but not in public. She is not shilling Obama's war as Powell did Bush's, she is supporting Obama's desire to have a victory with his name on it...as she must, it's her job. She is not supposed to offer her opinion publically, asking her to do so, is asking her to make a fool of herself."

It should have been Okanogen not Calais