Hillary Clinton: The NY Times is absolutely right — she’s a bigger hawk than the Republicans

[Vattel]

Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is even more of a war hawk than her Republican counterparts, the U.S. newspaper of record says in a new report. “How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk,” a long-form article published this week in the New York Times Magazine, details how Clinton’s hyper-hawkish “foreign-policy instincts are bred in the bone,” based on what one of her aides calls “a textbook view of American exceptionalism.”

Clinton’s extreme belligerence “will likely set her apart from the Republican candidate she meets in the general election,” the Times explains, noting “neither Donald J. Trump nor Senator Ted Cruz of Texas have demonstrated anywhere near the appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has.”

In the 2016 presidential campaign, the report concludes, “Hillary Clinton is the last true hawk left in the race.”

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/democrats_this_is_why_you_need_to_fear_hillary_clinton_the_ny_times_is_absolutely_right_shes_a_bigger_hawk_than_the_republicanse/

[chillfactor]

1. two more days....

and garbage like this will not be allowed......YEAH!

[w4rma]

2. Actually it will be allowed. Honest criticism of Democrats has always been allowed.

No. You don't get to censor progressive criticism.

[Live and Learn]

10. +10,000 nt

[chwaliszewski]

16. +10000 +1

[tk2kewl]

25. unreal

this place is off the rails

[Smarmie Doofus]

40. Betcha they do. And get away w. it. nt

[Miles Archer]

19. YEAH!

YEAH! YEAH!YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH!YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH!YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH!YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH!YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH!YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH!YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH!

I suggest you go to ATA and Announcements and read what Skinner actually wrote about this, especially the "Some people are going to be disappointed" part.

Two more days and no more "Two more days...YEAH!" posts. YEAH!

[Orrex]

33. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Sat Jun 18, 2016, 10:22 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

YEAH!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2201082

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Post is unnecessarily and near spam.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jun 18, 2016, 10:24 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post is absolutely 100% harmless and certainly not deserving of a Hide.

Ridiculous alert.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: ridiculous alert
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't even understand the alert on this.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Major Nikon]

36. Results...

On Sat Jun 18, 2016, 10:22 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

YEAH!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2201082

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Post is unnecessarily and near spam.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jun 18, 2016, 10:24 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post is absolutely 100% harmless and certainly not deserving of a Hide.

Ridiculous alert.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: ridiculous alert
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't even understand the alert on this.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[pinebox]

23. Oh? Afraid of the truth?

Why is it bad that factual things are shown against your candidate? Are you afraid that the world will find out what she is about? You can come out of the DU bubble now.

[RazBerryBeret]

39. you know

you can always go to Hillary's website if you only want to read the positive/edited and approved messages.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Will we be issued pom-poms and gags in two days?

[Jim Lane]

47. You mean that, in two more days, everyone will have to say "hawk" is a good thing?

Of course, instead of going into Tick Tock mode, you could have followed the radical course of presenting a reasoned argument in opposition to the conclusion reached by the Times.

You still have time to do so.

[ucrdem]

5. This was alerted on because of the cartoon.

Incidentally the Ben Norton piece in the OP is from April and seems to be intended to prop up Sanders' sagging campaign. The difficulty remains that Bernie didn't run on foreign policy and never bothered to spell one out. Which is a problem when you're running for US president. Another problem is that the US isn't the only player in NATO and during the Obama admin the US not been the driver in ME regime change operations, whatever Hillary might have advised.

[w4rma]

6. That cartoon is pretty despicable. The article, accompanying it, is despicable, too. (nt)

[ucrdem]

7. No one posted the cartoon, or the article.

Anyway the OP raises the same question we talked about earlier, namely, is it fair to say that Bernie is better on FP than Hillary, "better" meaning less belligerent? And the answer remains, that wasn't his focus and he never thought seriously about it which is problematic and made Hillary the better candidate.

[w4rma]

8. still_one posted a link to the article AND cartoon to criticise the OP's article from the right.

From the FAR right, at that.

The right wing article is still_one's "evidence" for calling the OP's position one of a terrorist apologist.

Note that still_one apologized for posting it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7928787

[senz]

4. K&R

Thanks for the OP, Vattel.

[AtomicKitten]

9. Mentored by Kissinger, endorsed by Robert Kagan.

#1 reason why I don't want her anywhere near the White House. k/r

[Live and Learn]

11. K&R nt

[MaeScott]

12. Yes she is and has supporters who make lots of money from war.

[splat]

13. Stop tearing down our presumptive nominee -- you're doing the devil's work

Hit piece from April is way off base. She worked for McGovern, fer chrissake.

She's done what she thought she needed to do to get into a position to do what she wants to do.


Give her a chance to do so without crying in your beer.

[ucrdem]

14. Very nicely put.

[Ino]

18. Did you forget the sarcasm smilie?

If not, how do you know "working for McGovern" wasn't just one of the things she thought she needed to do to get into a position to do what she has amply demonstrated that she wants to do -- namely, go warring?? That's not something I want to "give her a chance" to do.

I don't know why her backing McGovern 44 years ago is more significant than a 2-month-old article detailing her hawkishness "throughout her career," fer chrissake!

It's this kind of blindness that makes me weep. If you have reasons to call this a "hit piece," other than you just want the truth hidden, let's hear them. I guess you can't cry "RW source!" on Salon or the NY Times? The NY Times endorsed her, so I don't think THEY consider it a "hit piece," but a factual article. Hell, they may think it's a positive piece on her

[Miles Archer]

20. That's a little extreme, don't you think?

"Stop tearing down our presumptive nominee -- you're doing the devil's work"



And let me point something out to you in case you missed it:

"She's done what she thought she needed to do to get into a position to do what she wants to do."

That one sentence very nicely sums up why some people are not "rallying behind" her. You see it as a selling point, other people see it as toxicity.

Give her a chance to do what she wants to do?

Maybe that works for you. Take a good look at what you're saying here, step outside of yourself for a moment, and consider what those words are actually communicating to people who don't think the way that you do.

[pinebox]

24. So because article is 2 months old it's not relevant?

Sorry, facts do matter and so does history. Stop trying to rewrite it.

[socialist_n_TN]

27. Facts about policy are not "...tearing down..."......

Facts are facts. Just like policies are policies. I make my support/non-support decisions based on policies, not the team colors. And with a Clinton/Trump election coming up I expect to spend the next four to eight years advocating either anti-war policies or anti-racism policies depending on the winner of the election.

Not an appetizing prospect and I'll be happy to be proven wrong, but Clinton's history and Trump's speeches doesn't make me think I will be.

[SMC22307]

32. There's a rather unsavory word to describe people like this...

She's done what she thought she needed to do to get into a position to do what she wants to do.

I'll let you figure it out.

[BootinUp]

37. +1

[winstars]

15. 4/27/16... I know this forum is not LBN but really... 2 more days.

[w4rma]

17. Until articles like this are posted into General Discussion, instead? (nt)

[Miles Archer]

21. In two more days it will still be Skinner's Website

Read what he wrote in ATA and Announcements. But really...two more days...and Skinner will still be running this show, and it's not what a lot of people are expecting. The gate will not come slamming down, there won't be mass purgings, and the site will not be 100% Clinton, 24/7. Helping her succeed...as Skinner puts it...does not mean censoring anyone who discusses actual issues that may prevent her from doing so if not addressed.

But really...2 more days.

[yallerdawg]

28. "Hillary Clinton - More Hawkish than Republicans"

Seriously?

That sounds like Skinner's "allowable constructive criticism"?

That kind of headline will attract more support from Democrats, independents, even disenchanted Republicans?

There may not be "a purge" but we will have some standards, won't we?

[Ghost Dog]

30. Perhaps if Ms. Clinton could find it in herself to adopt less hawkish policies

and positions she would attract more votes from Democrats, independents, even disenchanted Republicans?

[yallerdawg]

31. No, no, no.

Aren't we ending the ceaseless argument about this?

We are going to hear this crap from Trump and the Republicans. Is it your position to say Trump is right?

Not here!

[EndElectoral]

22. Wish at one debate a moderator had asked her how her foreign policy differs from neo-conservatives?

[JoePhilly]

26. Another old recycled outrage article.

[betsuni]

29. OMG THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!!!111!!

[SMC22307]

35. No, unfortunately, it doesn't.

And the lower- and middle-classes will continue to be cannon fodder. Be proud, Democrats.

[ButterflyBlood]

34. Vox ripped this shit to shreds

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/27/11504272/hillary-clinton-hawk
http://www.vox.com/world/2016/5/27/11608580/donald-trump-foreign-policy-war-iraq-hillary-clinton

[BootinUp]

38. +1

[Martin Eden]

41. Yes, Hillary Clinton is a hawk. That the first reason she lost me vote in the Dem primary.

But on the issues of militarism and foreign policy I'll take Hillary in a heartbeat over Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and every one of the ass clowns who vied for this year's Republican nomination (with the exception of Rand Paul, who is totally unacceptable on many other issues).

Republican ideology, if it ever had a modicum of prudence in matters of military restraint, has morphed to the point where any hesitation to use military force or to berate the Democrats for lack thereof has become blasphemy to core dogma.

Although Donald Trump most likely has no ideology other than the worship of Donald Trump, he is a loose cannon who should not get within 10 locked doors of the nuclear codes.

I'm all for Bernie Sanders, but the notion that voters should fear Hillary Clinton more than Donald Trump or the Republican Party is the kind of BS which alerts the nostrils to watch where you step.

[SCantiGOP]

42. Complete idiocy

Two more days

[BlueStateLib]

43. election is over stop the fear mongering

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. Erect bogeyman (several of them), vote Hillary (or Trump), wave flag, send in the troops.

Later, declare Peace with Honor, add cemetery plots, build another monument and look for the next bogeyman.

Works every time.

[felix_numinous]

46. Coming out aside Kissinger

outed HRC as a war candidate who endorses overturning democratically elected leaders in the name of neo liberal privatization, or stealing resources from the public domain. It is the goal of these people and they are fighting tooth and nail to obtain it internationally. They don't care if they slay democracy, and the TTIP will bring it on.


I came, I saw, and 'I conquered.' -Julius Caesar

[jfern]

48. When even a newspaper that endorsed Hillary says that, you know she's really a hawk