Atlantic's Steve Clemons: Hillary Clinton Gave A "Very Neoconservative" Speech.

[elleng]

(includes video)

Steve Clemons, Washington editor of The Atlantic, analyzes Hillary Clinton's speech at The Brookings Institute encouraging support for the Iran nuclear deal. Clemons said we heard a "dark, muscular" side of the Democratic presidential hopeful. Clemons described her speech as neoconservative.

"This is Hillary Clinton reminding a lot of people in the Democratic base what they used to be worried about her, that this is a candidate who's clutch is very much in the position of being prepared for war, being prepared for conflict, a very dark, muscular side of Hillary Clinton," Clemons said.

Clemons also said Clinton's speech was a "repudiation of the Obama pivot to Asia."

"Though she supports the Iran deal, what we heard is a sort of repudiation of the Obama pivot to Asia, saying that we were going to double down in the Middle East, which President Obama said is not where the future of the United States is," Clemons said Wednesday morning on MSNBC.

"The real thing going on in the Middle East is the Sunni/Shia civil war and she seemed to give no indication that she understands the true dynamics of the tectonic conflict in the region which is in a different place," he added.

"She gave a very neoconservative sounding speech," Clemons declared.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/09/atlantics_steve_clemons_hillary_clinton_gave_a_very_neoconservative_speech.html

[HassleCat]

1. It is disturbing

I want to vote for her because she plans to be the Democratic nominee, but this is giving me a headache.

[elleng]

2. Her 'plans' to be the nominee should have nothing to do with whom we vote for,

or want to vote for; I want the best candidate, most likely to be able to handle a very difficult executive position, with PLANS to do so, and that's Martin O'Malley. Read about him here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1281

[cali]

4. sorry, but this really is a Potemkin Village Primary

It's a sham.

[elleng]

10. IF we DECIDE it is,

and with so many apparently deciding they won't give Martin O'Malley the time of day, that makes it more so. DOING so makes us all seem like fools. Let's not ACT like fools.

[KoKo]

3. This is a big deal coming from Steve Clemons...

Last edited Wed Sep 9, 2015, 05:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Chilling, in fact...

[Fawke Em]

6. Yes it is.

[elleng]

11. Yes it is.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

35. yes...it's a HUGE deal. How anyone, after listening to that speech, can vote for Hillary, that warmonger, is beyond me. Go Bernie!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[Fawke Em]

5. And her fans are accusing Sanders of dissing Obama?

She's basically saying Obama was "feckless."

Oh - wait. She did say that.

[frylock]

8. Yeah, gonna be fun to watch the spin on that..

if they even bother to address it at all.

[roguevalley]

13. they have already started. "PRESIDENT WALKER!"

[hifiguy]

20. Yep.

The parrots were taught a new phrase. Now they're squawking their heads off.

[Fawke Em]

54. Isn't he at like 5 percent?

[Doctor_J]

37. according to today's meme from DINO mountain, criticizing the president runs the risk of

angering black voters. Or is that just when Sanders criticizes the president?

[jfern]

42. Of course it's only for Sanders

The attacks on Sanders are ridiculous. He was too mean to BLM until Hillary basically told them to go screw off. Now he was too weak in standing up to BLM.

[SonderWoman]

7. What hyperbole.

It was centrist to a tee. Does the author even know what ACTUAL "very neocons" are proposing? Hint: No Iran deal. Further sanctions. Plus immediate ground troops.

All 3 of which Hillary opposes.

[cali]

14. no. not even close

And you are wrong about the neocons- many prominent ones are at Brookings, like Kagan who is one of the founders of neoconservatism and is a senior fellow at Brookings.

Hint: You are wrong. Again.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kagan

[SonderWoman]

18. "Very neoconservative"

Sorry, but this author let that hyperbole fly. Looking forward to the "neocon" excuses for when Bernie Sanders backs Israel. But I'm sure it will be more spin from the usual suspects.

[cali]

26. you don't even have a tenuous grasp on this subject

Kagan is one of the founders of PNAC, has served as an advisor to hilly and supports her. And bernie is in no way a neocon, nor is he aligned with them. You sure don't let facts get in your way.

[SonderWoman]

29. LOL. What will Bernie do differently in regards to Iran?

Sit back and let them kill our allies? I'm sure our allies will be thrilled.

[Scootaloo]

36. Which of our allies is Iran killing, Sonderwoman?

[SonderWoman]

50. Does Iran fund terrorism?

[Alittleliberal]

78. Certainly not more then SA

[Scootaloo]

32. As Cali is advising, please educate yourself

"Neoconservativism" is a foreign policy philosophy. When democrats embrace it they call it "centrism" becuase that plays better than "anything-conservative" to democratic voters. Either way it's the same interventionalist, force-first, overtly islamophobic policy.

[SonderWoman]

45. I'm very educated. You lightweights aren't informing me of anything.

Notice my post said NOTHING about "Republicans".

[cali]

61. sorry, but you've revealed your lack of knowledge conclusively.

And lightweights have more heft than featherweights.

[SonderWoman]

64. LOL. From the person who said...

"I'll never vote for Hillary!" to "I guess you're right, the Supreme Court is pretty important".

[cali]

69. c'mon, you can do better than that. oh, wait, I forgot who i was addressing

You really can't. Sad.

[totodeinhere]

88. Lightweights? Nice personal attack. n/t

[MADem]

46. Look, some people just get a pass. Others do not. Here at DU, anyway.

During the 1990s, the not-so “independent” Congressman Sanders voted for and/or otherwise supported:

* Economic sanctions that killed more than a million Iraqi civilians

* Every U.S. bombing of Iraq from 1992 on

* The sending of U.S. military units to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to threaten Iraq because “we cannot tolerate aggression”

* The objectively racist and mass-incarcerationist Federal Crime bill.

* Every US intervention since elected to Congress–Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Liberia, Zaire (Congo), Albania, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia.

Many of Sanders’ liberal fans might be surprised to learn that he voted for a National Rifle Association (NRA)-supported bill to restrict lawsuits against gun manufacturers and against the Brady Bill.

The “leftist” Congressman Sanders liked to send out mailings sends out mailings to veterans that supported the US having “the strongest military in the world” and praised soldiers as sacrificing “for the freedom of Americans.” Sanders repeatedly failed to invite antiwar veterans’ groups to his many veterans events in the state.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/21/bernie-out-of-the-closet-sanders-longstanding-deal-with-the-democrats/

[SonderWoman]

48. "SHUT UP, YOU DON'T HAVE THE MICROPHONE!"

[MADem]

96. Wasn't that something? And the irony is, he wasn't being "consistent" like some might claim.

He's said the EXACT OPPOSITE in his earlier political years--some would be very surprised to see how much he has changed on this issue:

Sanders was in the heat of his 1988 campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives. At a Sept. 28 meeting of UVM’s Student Responsibility and Political Awareness Coalition, Democratic candidate Paul Poirier called for unequivocal support of the Palestinian people, to make sure the Palestinians could go “face to face with the Israeli government,” according to a Sept. 1988 Cynic article.

Sanders agreed, railing against Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians.

“The policy that Israelis shoot people is unacceptable. It is wrong that the United States provides arms to Israel,” Sanders was quoted as saying in the article. “We are not going to be the arms merchant for Middle Eastern nations. We must guarantee the right of the State of Israel to exist, as well as the rights of the Palestinians to have their own homeland.”

The Sanders campaign denies that he has ever held these beliefs.

Those are QUOTES, too. From here: http://www.vtcynic.com/11546-2/

[JDPriestly]

109. From the Vermont Cynic article you posted.

Bernie's policy on Israel/Palestine is pro-two-state-solution. That is what I favor.

“You have the ability, when you have the United States of America, which is supporting the armies of the Middle East, to demand these people work out a reasonable settlement, protecting the rights of the Palestinians, protecting the rights of Israel,” he said in the video. “That has not yet been done.”

Multiple people in attendance asked: “Or else?”

“Or else what? Or else you begin to cut off arms,” Sanders said. “If I am supplying someone with a significant amount of money, I can then begin to call the tune.”

“What Bernie believes is that there has to be an even-handed policy in the Middle East, that Israel must have the right to exist and the Palestinian people must have their own independent state,” Briggs said.

http://www.vtcynic.com/11546-2/

Bernie Sanders speaks on Thom Hartmann's show just about every Friday morning. The show is called, "Breakfast with Bernie." People call in with about every question imaginable. And he answers them. Sometimes he says he has to think about something, but he answers nearly all the questions.

He has been that accessible to us "little people" for years now.

It occurred to me this morning that many Democrats in the beltway and in the DNC don't understand how it is possible that so many Democrats know Bernie so well, all his ideas, and like him so much when they have just kind of ignored him all these years.

Well, Thom Hartmann's show has a bigger listener base than the world realized.

We have been listening to Bernie for years. He is so refreshing.

And these hit pieces about what he thinks are not going to work well because Bernie has been talking to us ordinary people for all these years. We know his views on the issues. We like them. We have been nodding our heads as we have followed his shows now since the early days of Air America, 2003-4.

Thought I would explain this to you. You can forget about posting these ridiculous hit pieces. We back Bernie because we have been listening to him express his views for many years now. We know what he thinks.

Any time we need to, we can go back into the archives of his radio appearances and pull out responses to the attempts to lie about what Bernie thinks and says.

Forget this stuff. It is not going to work. We have archives and archives on Bernie. Cherry-picking by Hillary-paid scribes will not rescue her.

Bernie is the best and we know it. Thanks.

Feel the Bern.

[MADem]

110. Unnnh....that isn't a "hit piece." That's coverage of a decades - old campaign DEBATE.

DIRECT QUOTES, too. The full story, all the context.

For people who are crying that they want more debates, you'd think you'd be interested to see how he handled himself at one.

Now he's not accountable for his words?

He's not been entirely consistent--but no one is allowed to say so? Because (waaah) Berrrrrrnie? Come off it.

I am not trying to make anything "work," but pointing out abject hypocrisy -- not just on his part, but on the part of those who purport to support him, who can sure as heck dish it out but can't manage even the slightest soupçon of criticism--is RELEVANT.

It's less of a "bern," it's more like an irritating rash. And trying to denigrate people who bring forward an awkward inconsistency as "Hillary-paid scribes" (so, then--where's my goddamn check?) -- like you're the only one with a brain and anyone with an opposing view is on the payroll -- well, that's a flailing, desperate, lame-ass put-down, and it came straight from you. I won't lower myself to return fire with an equally nasty or cheap shot, I'll just leave yours sitting there, to show what you're made of.

[JDPriestly]

77. The critique of Bernie in that Counterpunch article is basically that he is too close to and too

much of a Democrat, too loyal to the Democratic Party for the author of the article.

I think the article is nonsense. Not backed up by any links.

It's basically rubbish.

Some of the points it makes are correct, but basically that article criticizes Bernie for not being socialist enough.

I'm rather surprised to see it quoted by someone I respect as a loyal Democrat on DU.

Here is Wikipedia on this topic:

Sanders voted against the resolutions authorizing the use of force against Iraq in 1991 and 2002, and opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He voted for the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists[61] that has been cited as the legal justification for controversial military actions since the September 11 attacks.[62] Sanders voted for a non-binding resolution expressing support for troops at the outset of the invasion of Iraq, but gave a floor speech criticizing the partisan nature of the vote and the George W. Bush administration's actions in the run-up to the war. About the investigation of what turned out to be a leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity by a State Department official, Sanders said, "The revelation that the President authorized the release of classified information in order to discredit an Iraq war critic should tell every member of Congress that the time is now for a serious investigation of how we got into the war in Iraq and why Congress can no longer act as a rubber stamp for the President."[63]

Sanders has been a consistent critic of the Patriot Act. As a member of Congress, he voted against the original Patriot Act legislation.[64] After its 357-to-66 passage in the House, Sanders sponsored and voted for several subsequent amendments and acts attempting to curtail its effects,[65] and voted against each reauthorization.[66]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1251&pid=581208

Bernie voted to support the bombings of Serbia.

Bernie has stated clearly what his policy is on war. He supports military intervention for self-defense (Afghanistan) and to stop genocide (Serbia and Kosovo). Many of the interventions you say he voted for involved genocide. Bernie supports military intervention to stop genocide.

Please link to a reliable source that shows just exactly how Bernie voted on resolutions to bomb Iraq.

Bernie votes for budget items supporting our troops but, as we all know because we have seen his speeches in videos, voted against the Iraq War Resolution and also against the first Gulf War.

The article you cite does not even attempt to cite to sources.

When did he vote for a war in Haiti?

Are you thinking of when he supported the earthquake relief in Haiti or are you thinking of some other military intervention in Haiti?

My computer does not have the capacity to download the websites that list actual votes in Congress. If yours does, and you find records that support the claims in that article, please post the links.

I for one am not as far to the left as some on Counterpunch. I agree very strongly with Bernie's policies.

I know that he is no longer an absolute pacifist. He says that clearly in his speeches.

Bernie is actually pretty mainstream. Not the war monger that Hillary is, but not the pacifist that the extreme left might like. He is a pragmatic, responsible politician. I would not support him if he was an extremist or held unrealistic views.

Attacks on Bernie don't relate to the reality of who he is. Then they criticize him for not being the person that the attackers think he is. It's a big failure on the part of the attackers.

[MADem]

79. Do take your objections up with the author of the piece, if it concerns you.

So, you're in agreement with wars so long as 'Bernie' gives them his OK, then?

Mmm hmmm. OK. Those Palestinians will be delighted, I'm sure.

Like I said--some people get a pass. Some don't.

You can look up votes right here: https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VfDTgvlViko

No one's "attacking Bernie." Get off that dead horse, it won't carry you.

Talk about Bernie's record? List something he actually said, or did?

It's an attack!! Waaah!

Lather, rinse, repeat.

What this article does, is point out policy stances--apparently, it's only OK to critique the female candidate running for POTUS.

And "left" is OK, but not "too" left. I guess "As left as Bernie, but no further" is your sweet spot? Careful, don't sit down--you might poke yourself on one of those stray guns. Or find yourself in the midst of a Palestinian shelling.

And you may find yourself sitting just right of a Paulbot.

Whatever.


Getting pretty tiresome up in here.

[JDPriestly]

91. I just happen to agree with Bernie. That's why he is just right on the issues for me.

I agree that we should defend ourselves and our allies. I agree that we should act as we can to stop genocides.

I do not agree that the War in Iraq was justified on any of those bases. The reasons Bush gave for that war were lies.

Hillary had just left the White House after eight years there and after serving as confidante to her husband who was president. She should have known to either recognize the lies or ask the questions that would have exposed the lies.

She was in a very special position when she entered the Senate, having come from the White House. I can't think of any other figure in our history who moved from the White House into the Senate. I could be forgetting someone, but no name comes to mind.

She had a special responsibility to ask questions. She did not.

That piece is a hit piece on Bernie's being too close to the Democratic Party. Rather an odd one for DU.

[MADem]

92. But the "hit piece" on Clinton that fired up this thread? That's just dandy. Mmm hmmm. nt

[JDPriestly]

94. His voting record is excellent in my view.

In fact, after looking at the website listing his individual votes, it looks much better than even I expected.

He is my candidate.

I don't see that he voted for the First War in Kuwait. It isn't listed.

[kenfrequed]

100. And this is the most ridiculous critique

So...

Since we can't have the absolute purest of all possible pro-peace candidates we should do what?

Give up, go home, sob in our pillows and let the second most militaristic Democratic candidate (gotta give Webb his due on that one) running just walk away with the nomination? Yeah, that makes all kinds of sense.

I have told you this before, this is the silliest argument that you have rolled out and it comes across more as some kind of advertising attack than it does as a legitimate and thoughtful question.

You have failed to muddy the waters on this one so stop it.

[beam me up scottie]

101. Bravo!

Someone had to say it.

Well done.

[MADem]

102. Oh please--what's absurd is the surfeit of scrutiny of one candidate,

and the absolute paucity for the other.

And using phrases like "sob in our pillows" and "silliest" to denigrate and demean valid points is weak. It's also obvious.

Maybe you should just "stop it," and stick to points rather than characterizations.

[kenfrequed]

104. There is no valid point.

You are demanding other-worldly purism from supporters of a candidate you don't even support. It is ridiculous on it's face.

I have dismissed it as such.

[MADem]

105. No, I'm not. Good effort at deflection, but fail. nt

[kenfrequed]

106. Do you even read what you write or post?

Seriously, I don't understand how you can come to your conclusions.

You paint Sanders as being pro-war by citing his willingness to use force in Bosnia. Yeah, being against genocide is so bad. And then you act as though we should all be shocked by this. If that isn't a call for purisim than I don't know what is.

All so that we can support the second most militarist democrat running for office. Is there even a logical fallacy that describes this sort of thing?

Start making reasoned arguments and let a few of these pitches pass you by. There are threads that you can make effective pro-Hillary arguments but this isn't going to be one of them, and that argument you are using is DEFINITELY not going to be one of them.

Let the pitch go by and stop swinging at the dirt.

[MADem]

107. See, you're showing your bias right there.

I am not "painting" Sanders as anything, but you've made it very clear that any discussion of any comments, votes, associations he's made with regard to any issues of war or conflict (and it is fricking amazing how he's morphed over the years on the topic of Israel) is met by poutrage and demands of "Hands OFF!" Waaah--PAINTING!!!!

The "How DARE you" method of discussion doesn't cut it with me--never has.

And yes, I do read what I post. I read what other people post too--to include the links. What the heck was that comment even in aid of?

[kenfrequed]

108. Again.

You have no valid point.


He is the best candidate for peace the Democrats are currently running. Your "open discussion" is as transparent as it has ever been.

Answer this question directly:

Why should a Sanders supporter consider not not supporting him when it means allowing a less peace-oriented candidate to win the nomination?

[MADem]

116. You are the one with the insult bombs, not me.

And you're crying about valid points?

Betweeen you and your giggling buddy below, your "point" is entirely clear.

As for your question (and yes, there ARE such things as less-than-cogent questons), no one is telling any Sanders supporters to NOT support their candidate. Ergo, you question is invalid, as it is framed to make it falsely appear that you're somehow being "put upon" by what is now a tiny minority here (thanks to a departure of scores, and an influx of newcomers the likes of which I've never seen down the years). So just put away the violin and stop playing the victim.

Vote for whosoever you would like--and MORE POWER TO YOU.

Sheesh. It's tiresome.

What people who support other candidates here would have liked is a measure of decency and a discussion of the issues. Instead, we get personal insults, characterizations, and shitty little snarky comments directed at us (as you did to me, above) and our candidate. If anyone here called Sanders the sorts of names that Clinton gets regularly you all would be pooping your pants and screaming bloody murder. Yet HRC is routinely insulted with words like arrogant, shrill, cankles, snark about her clothing, and flat out falsehoods are shopped about her views routinely.

GB Shaw had an amusing turn of phrase about wrestling a pig. He had a point. There's no "political discussion" here--it's just bullying and insults. Heckuvajob! Pat yourself on the back! Enjoy what's rapidly becoming an echo chamber; and don't expect your personal invective to be easily forgotten.

[kenfrequed]

121. Cite it.

Cite the "insult bombs."

And I would point out that the only reason to try to put up ridiculous posts about Sanders' fictional, warmongering ways is to try to turn off peace activists. Sorry, but we are bit too wise to those tricks. And yes, they are tricks.

The level of projection you engage in is absolutely stunning.

[MADem]

122. People reading here do enjoy the gift of literacy. They can read what you write.

LOL at fictional, warmongering ways is to try to turn off peace activists.

Alert the crew at Lockheed Martin!

[kenfrequed]

123. So...

When I ask you to cite the insult I directed at you...

You look for a sentence structure error in my post?

If you are going to cite me, at least quote an entire sentence or used ellipses the way we do in the civilized world.

I am more convinced now that you are under the impression if you just have the last word that you automatically "win" the discussion.

Again, where have I insulted you?

[artislife]

112. *giggle

[MADem]

115. In one word and one emoticon, you've managed to

sum up the reason for the massive exodus here.

Well done. Enjoy your echo chamber!

[artislife]

117. Like the exodus isn't going to it's own echo chamber....ha!

[MADem]

118. This isn't the only pub in town, lad.

People do tend to go where they're celebrated, not where they're denigrated.

You might want to exercise a small amount of maturity, stop with the insults, and take that lesson to heart.

[artislife]

119. Good luck and good bye!

[jeff47]

17. "Neocon" is not the same as "Republican".

While Neoconservatives do dominate Republican foreign policy, "Neoconservative" is not a synonym for "Republican".

There are also Democrats who are also Neocons. Such as Lieberman.

And in this speech, Clinton is outlining a Neoconservative foreign policy.

[dsc]

23. and Lieberman supports the Iran deal

no wait, just like very single solitary other neo con he opposes it.

[cali]

33. bzzzt. fail.

No, every neocon does not oppose it. Kagan who is seminal figure in the neocon movement supports it, albeit as the best of bad choices. So do others. Reading FP and listening to their podcasts is highly educational.

[SonderWoman]

27. Author says "very neoconservative".

Obviously not understanding what the actual "very neoconservatives" want to do. They are spending millions on #StopIranDeal as we speak.

[jeff47]

30. It is very neoconservative. She's threatening military force.

What part of threatening Iran with military force is "moderate"? And what part of threatening Iran with military force helps the Iran deal?

[SonderWoman]

40. Can you please list...

Any past president's or current candidates who take military action against Iran completely off the table?

[jeff47]

63. So you don't understand the vast gulf between threatening force

and not ruling out force?

Seriously?

Do you have even the vaguest understanding of this, or is it entirely wrapped up by "Clinton good"?

[SonderWoman]

65. So you got nothing, huh?

[jeff47]

66. No, that would be you who has nothing.

There's a vast difference between not ruling out the force and going to the right of Reagan with "distrust but verify".

[LondonReign2]

80. Denial seems to be your favored tactic when you ave your nose rubbed in the fact that

you are dead wrong. "So you go nothing?" No, nothing other than just proving you are completely wrong.

[SonderWoman]

59. Still waiting.....

[nashville_brook]

19. this Steve Clemons (if that's his real name) doesn't know what he's talking about. what a rube!

[elleng]

53. about Steve Clemons, fyi:

He was appointed Washington editor-at-large of The Atlantic and editor-in-chief of AtlanticLIVE, the magazine's live events series, in May 2011.[1] Clemons also serves as editor-at-large[2] of Quartz,[3] a digital financial publication owned by Atlantic Media.

Clemons also publishes the political blog, The Washington Note.[4] He is a former staff member of Senator Jeff Bingaman. Clemons is also Director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation where he previously served as Executive Vice President, and the former director of the Japan Policy Research Institute [5] which he co-founded[6] with Chalmers Johnson. The New America Foundation has been described as radical centrist in orientation,[7] and Clemons characterizes himself as a "progressive realist".[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Clemons

[KoKo]

21. Do a search for Steve Clemons so you know who he is....and,

Hillary has to support Obama on the Iran Deal....but, if she were President what would she have done?

I don't trust her to have worked for or sanctioned a deal with Iran. She has too much funding baggage to be independent and she already has proved her hawkish foreign policy.

When she said: "We Came We Saw.....He Died" with a cackling chuckle (re Gadaffi's brutal removal with anal raping) was all we had to know about what her foreign policy will be.

Those Refugees fleeing the ME are the other example of her view of Foreign Policy.

[MADem]

52. Has to? No she doesn't. She's not SECSTATE now. Kerry is.

If she needed to break with him now, she would. She did lay much of the groundwork that produced the deal--Kerry said as much.

She's supporting the deal because she's not stupid.

Talking with them, working with them, is better than fighting with them.


And really..."cackling?" You had to go there? Your use of that not even subtly sexist term reduces the effectiveness of your argument by half, if not more.

[karynnj]

70. In spite of the implication of her speech, it was Kerry working with the P5+1 who got the interim

agreement. (Yeah - the wording was intentionally ambiguous, but the intent was to credit Sullivan for the interim agreement. )

I really do NOT get why she does these things. She has a great story of getting the international sanctions - though a graceful person would have credited her peers in the P5 +1 - many of whom started the effort before the US. In addition - as Kerry said -she had a role in starting the communication that Obama wanted to happen. Again, crediting others who had a role, but didn't report to you, never hurts. The work of Sullivan and Burns was important was important in convincing Obama that we could becoem involved in the international effort. However, the interim agreement WAS an international effort and if there is any American who played an important role - it was Kerry, not Sullivan.

[MADem]

81. Is there something in the term "groundwork" that stymies people on DU? Does WHAT things?

The 'derangement' is just getting absurd. The pretzel - twisting that goes on to deny this woman her propers is beyond belief. It's shameful, in fact.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-backed-key-u-s-shift-toward-iran-nuclear-deal-1441753099

WASHINGTON—Hillary Clinton, in her last months as secretary of state, helped open the door to a dramatic shift in U.S. policy toward Iran: an acceptance that Tehran would maintain at least some capacity to produce nuclear fuel, according to current and former U.S. officials.

In July 2012, Mrs. Clinton’s closest foreign-policy aide, Jake Sullivan, met in secret with Iranian diplomats in Oman, but made no progress in ending the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program. In a string of high-level meetings here over the next six months, the secretary of state and White House concluded that they might have to let Iran continue to enrich uranium at small levels, if the diplomacy had any hope of succeeding.

“She recognized the difficulty of reaching a solution with zero enrichment,” said Mr. Sullivan, who now serves as Mrs. Clinton’s top campaign adviser on both domestic issues and foreign policy....Mrs. Clinton’s role in this critical early debate hasn’t been previously reported and shows that the Democratic presidential front-runner and her top aide, Mr. Sullivan, were key players in the Iran deal. Given united Republican opposition to the deal, the issue is likely to be central in the 2016 election.

....Mrs. Clinton and her campaign team—including Mr. Sullivan and campaign chairman John Podesta—have regularly reached out to opponents of the Iran deal in recent weeks, including American Jewish leaders.

Mrs. Clinton has said she would stress the need to challenge Iran, in part by strengthening military support for Israel and the U.S.’s Persian Gulf allies. She is also focused on keeping financial pressure on Tehran.....

Unfuckingbelievable that people will continue to deny her role in the process. Disgraceful, in fact.

[karynnj]

86. the point was if you parse her sentence with no detailed information

The implication is that the interim deal came out of the US bilateral talks and then the multinational work began - including Kerry, Moniz and Sherman.

In fact, the interim agreement was the result of multinational negotiations in Geneva over several weeks. This is not up for debate. There are many photos and the announcement by Obama. ( HRC did speak favorably of the the agreement. )

NOTE I do give HRC credit for working with others to get the international Sanctions and for being involved in the early stage. However, the real, serious negotiations did not start until Rohani became President, when HRC was out of office.

Through two years, when success was never thought to be more than 50/50 , there was no doubt that it was Obama and especially Kerry who would be said to have failed. It was Kerry who spent incredible time and effort there. As described, she implicitly gives him no credit for the important interim agreement.

I understand your goal is to get credit for HRC. However, Obama twice thanked a long list of people when he spoke of achieving the deal. HRC was not among them.

[MADem]

87. Good GAWD, does NO ONE on DU understand how IRAN works?

Hassan al-Rouhani is a figure head. He doesn't control a fucking thing. He is a public face of an ATTITUDE, nothing more. He dances to the tune of an unseen, unelected crew, headed up by a Supreme Leader, who make all the decisions that affect that nation.

Iran can transition seamlessly between Presidents, because the POWER DOES NOT RESIDE WITH THEM.

They don't even have control of the Armed Forces.

The Guardian Council is the seat of power, and that changes rarely. There wasn't any "stutter stop" when Rouhani took over--that's nothing more than swapping out your public relations guy. That was a public SIGNAL, not a change that affected the actual leadership.

No one gets appointed to do shit in Rouhani's government without the express approval of the Guardians. And the Supreme Leader--whenever he feels up to it, anyway (he's sick--still crabbing about Israel, though).

I think you don't understand the process and that is why your bias, and insistence on trying to marginalize Clinton's and Sullivan's roles in all this, is blinding you to reality.

When Hassan Rouhani was elected Iran’s president in June 2013 on a campaign platform of engaging with the West to reach a nuclear deal and improve Iran’s economy, he apparently didn't know that Iran and the United States had already opened a secret diplomatic channel and held bilateral talks in Oman on the nuclear issue in March 2013.



Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/08/iran-us-nuclear-khamenei-salehi-jcpoa-diplomacy.html#ixzz3lIfFQ9gb

[karynnj]

89. one question - Who negotiated the interim deal?

I don' t question that the early bilateral talks were important.

[MADem]

90. If you "don't question," then give credit where due. Fachrissake, she's the one taking the "heat"

from the GOP--not Obama--for "opening the door" and "appeasing" Iran, and "giving in to them."

She's either damned if she does, by people who affect loyalty to her own party, or damned if she doesn't, by Republicans who call her a weak appeaser.

It's asinine. No matter what she does, some people are gonna crab about it.

[karynnj]

95. I have given her credit often for endosing the deal early

Even though it is not popular now. Every Democrat, except Webb is as well. I assume this is a calculated risk because opposing it would likely have been deadly in the primaries especially if it led to it failing. Still, there is no doubt that her support was helpful and had she opposed it, it would have been near possible to win enough Senators.

It is ridiculous to claim that she, not Obama, is facing the GOP on this. Obama has been attacked on this more than anyone - as has Kerry because they are the two most associated with it.

[MADem]

97. Well, she's damned no matter what--you insist she doesn't deserve much credit, the GOP says she

left the barn door open.

Obama has nothing to lose--he's out the door.

You don't have to believe me when I tell you this--Google will prove my point.


The bulk of the shit is being flung--by the GOP--at CLINTON.

[karynnj]

98. I never said she does not deserve "much" credit, that is your interpretation

She deserves credit for working hard on the international sanctions --- but it would be nice to mention that it was with peers.

She deserves credit for backing Obama in going forward, in the very early days when it was not likely at all

She deserves credit for helping Obama develop the Oman back channel - here she could mention that Obama and she used Kerry to make the first steps. ( Note - this was a smart move because if it didn't work, they could more easily deny that the administration was involved. )

Sullivan and Burns - deserve credit for those initial talks --and Obama and Clinton deserve credit for starting them.

Clinton deserves credit for never jumping on the side of the critics over the two years when the deal was very iffy.

Clinton deserves credit for putting her enormous political power (as the very likely next nominee and President) behind the deal. Had she issued the statements that Schumer did, I would guess that the Democrats would have fractured and the deal would have been defeated.

These are all very real - my question is why does it seem that Clinton so often tries to expand her role on things she deems accomplishments. Could it be that she herself is not sure that what she did is impressive enough? It is strange that she does this because it is so unnecessary. Since 1992, she has had party and media supporters who have broadcast her many accomplishments. I do get the old saying that if you do not blow your own trumpet, no one else will. However, while true in many cases, in Clinton's case there is an orchestra willing to do so.

Not to mention, I doubt very very few people even cared about those historical paragraphs. The important parts of the speech were her support of the Iran deal and her the "going forward" part where she spoke of being a more aggressive President than Obama. Her support was in face of the fact that millions of dollars were spent distorting it and the fact that a deal with Iran was an easy target - even as the deal really is the best alternative. Of the main people working to get this vote, Obama, Kerry, Moniz, Lew are highly unlikely to ever run for national or even state office. Durbin, who led the Senate fight, ran in 2014 so he is not up until 2020. Even if he opts to run again, at I think 86, he will be running 5 years in the future in what really is a Senator for life seat. There are Senators and Congresspeople, whose votes could influence how tough their race in 2016 will be. Hillary had more at stake here politically.

For HRC, there was no easy answer. Had she overtly opposed it, it would have fractured the Democratic party in a way that would have made 1968 look unified. Whether it cost her the nomination would not matter. It would have been hard as the former SoS to stay silent, but she has mastered exactly that on TPP and Keystone. Instead, what she did was to put her weight behind the deal. She deserves credit for doing that.

[MADem]

99. There it is--you're doing it....

my question is why does it seem that Clinton so often tries to expand her role on things she deems accomplishments. Could it be that she herself is not sure that what she did is impressive enough?

She's not 'expanding' her role--she's owning her piece of it.


And as usual, damned if she does....



If she were a guy no one would be saying a word. smh at these characterizatons. Decisive men, boastful women. And of course, she was no help in rallying those votes-even though she was one of the first up on the Hill speaking to the caucus about it after the decision was announced.

As a society we haven't come a long way baby, to quote that stupid old cigarette ad, I guess.

[karynnj]

103. If this were a male secretary of state - in the same position, I would say exactly the same

think.

Note that what I objected to was very narrow and very specific. That was that a normal interpretation of her sentences implies that the multinational effort (and Kerry's and Sherman's) began AFTER the important interim agreement. That is not true and it ignores something more than a year's worth of effort by Kerry, Sherman and their counterparts. That is not some minor correction.

I went out of my way to credit all the things that she or people reporting to her did. I also pointed out that few people will even question what she said on this as the attention is more on other things. (Yet, I would not be surprised if there is a creep by others extending her credit to that interim agreement - even though negotiations on that were started nearly 6 months after she left office.)

[karynnj]

120. Her team is not claiming just "setting the groundwork" --- here's her internet ad from twitter

You noted that Secretary Kerry, when asked about what HRC did credited her for being involved in the early stages. Yet, here, neither Obama (for anything other than taking office and making her SoS) or Kerry seem to have done enough to merit a mention -- it was all HRC's STRONG LEADERSHIP!

https://amp.twimg.com/v/9c9076e6-3541-4b69-9ccd-fb9cfcad0f3e

She is begging someone to say that "you did not make that deal".

[Warren DeMontague]

9. She also wants to throw 10 Billion dollars at the failed drug war

and her idea of compassion is to further encourage the DEA to go after doctors and make it even more difficult than it is now, for pain patients to obtain legitimate pain management.


Not real inspiring stuff.

[KoKo]

15. Delete

[dsc]

24. yes god forbid we treat addition in this country

better to let people like me (15 years sober if you don't know what that means it means I used to be addicted to alcohol) rot. Glad to know what you think of people like me.

[Warren DeMontague]

44. Yeah, I haven't had a drink in over 15 years, myself.

But I also know that prohibition never would have helped any of the many alcoholics I've known, and I can't think of too many of them who would find slapping a 10 year mandatory minimum sentence on anyone caught with a bottle of jim beam, to be a reasonable solution to their personal problem.

Yes, offer- and fund- treatment; including alternatives to the ubiquitous 12 step programs where addicts are told they need to accept some version of God to get sober- the billions we waste on prosecuting pot smokers alone, could fund a lot of treatment for serious addicitons. But treatment on demand, for people who have made it to the place where they are ready; not shoehorning treatment into the demonstratively failed system we have now, where we crap all over the 4th amendment and then shuffle drug users off to prison.

Treatment is good, but using it as a panacea or very expensive sound bite to avoid dealing with the failed drug war (and questions of marijuana legalization, etc) is NOT good.

And illegal opioid addiction; one of the issues ostensibly driving HRC's proposal- is made demonstrably worse when the authorities "crack down" on doctors who prescribe pain management. Yet there it is, in her plan, let's make it harder for people to get their pain managed. Will that make it more difficult (but not impossible) for some addicts to get their fix? Probably. Will it also mean people with legitimate pain needs will suffer? Undoubtedly.

The drug war has failed, it has failed to stop the millions of people who do stuff like smoke pot recreationally and are not addicts, AND it has failed to help people who genuinely are addicted to drugs (including alcohol)

We need a wholesale new approach- but her plan isn't it.

[dsc]

55. I agree with the need for alternatives

but she is increasing funding for treatment, is against mandatory sentences, and I agree with her on the pain drugs. I am not sure what the solution to the abuse of pain drugs is totally but the abuse is a problem and there are doctors who hand out those drugs willy nilly.

[Warren DeMontague]

85. There are also doctors who are too afraid of the DEA to manage peoples' pain effectively.

Last edited Thu Sep 10, 2015, 03:45 AM - Edit history (1)

I don't pretend to have all the answers, either, but remember that we live in a country that locked a man in a wheelchair up for 25 years for managing his own spinal pain. It is undeniable that the drug war has been an exercise in draconian, authoritarian overreach. I don't look at the havoc wreaked by the thing and go "what we need is stronger enforcement and tighter controls over the drugs"

I suppose the question is, do we risk that someone might misuse prescription drugs, or do we risk that someone in pain might suffer because they can't get adequate pain mgt? I am less concerned about people getting an unauthorized buzz off prescription meds than I am about people who can't get compassionate pain relief, and by that I don't mean telling someone with chronic fire in their nerves from an injury to "try meditation, instead".

And yeah, we have a problem with overdoses and pain meds- but we also know that when those addicts can't get prescription opiates they often simply move to the black market, and heroin. (And how many vicodin-related emergency room visits are due to the toxicity of acetominophen, as opposed to the opiod component? I think that's worth examining, too)

I see a need for real leadership, and I guess that's what bugs me about Hillary's attempt to change the conversation. Yes, treatment is important but also there needs to be recognition that the drug war has failed. Not that it needs tweaking, it has failed. Sanders has used those words, at least.

I also think that "we can't lock up all the people who use drugs" is a fairly obvious point. HRC doesn't get a whole ton of credit for stating the obvious, and her position (as stated so far- I fully accept that she may clarify her position on a whole host of things, like medical marijuana, etc) as put out there so far puts her to the right of almost everyone except Chris Christie.

She's saying a lot of the same things Nixon said, ferchrissakes.

And the fact that she's taking private prison lobby money at the same time, gives me concern. It does.

[questionseverything]

111. when are people gonna wake up?

from the link you posted...

Incredibly, a spokesperson for the Harris County Sheriff’s Department told a local TV station that “the deputies did everything as they should.” And so there you have it. Holding a woman down and forcibly penetrating her vagina to search for pot is official policy in Harris County.//////////////////////////

where are the blm folks on this story?

this is a 100 times worse than what happened to the tennis player

[DemocraticWing]

51. Treating addiction is the right way.

Throwing people in jail is not the right way. The DEA wants to do more of the latter, and that's wrong. It's past time to end the War on Drugs.

[PowerToThePeople]

12. Is anyone surprised by this?

"She gave a very neoconservative sounding speech," Clemons declared

.

[hifiguy]

22. Chicken clucks, owl hoots,

cat meows, dog barks. HRH gives neoliberal/neocon speech.

Not news.

[arcane1]

28. On foreign policy I'd expect nothing else n/t

[elleng]

16. "The real thing going on in the Middle East is the Sunni/Shia civil war

and she seemed to give no indication that she understands the true dynamics of the tectonic conflict in the region which is in a different place," he added.

[KoKo]

25. She seems to leave the "Details" of issues to other people....

Which shows a lack of involvement and a cavalier attitude to the situations she finds herself in throughout her life. And, that is worrisome no matter how charming she is in a "one on one" situation her track record seems to show that she is always either digging herself out of a situation (supposedly caused by others) and then playing the victim when whatever it is surfaces later.

[elleng]

34. Something like that,

and the contrast with others, like Martin O'Malley couldn't be greater! For examples: Lady Liberty should open arms to Syrian refugees. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/09/09/syrian-refugee-crisis-american-role-increase-resettlement-column/71929100/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=news-opinion

Time to grow labor movement.http://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/2015/09/07/omalley-time-grow-labor-movement/71699310/

[Scootaloo]

38. Sanders is my first choice, but o'Malley's sounding great too

I just want a candidate that I don't have to physically force myself to vote for.

[Hortensis]

31. Absolute rubbish. I wouldn't allow a neocon to babysit my cats on vacation.

[tularetom]

39. Lets not forget that there are five other parties to this Iran agreement

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States)—plus Germany all have something to say about this.

She might be itching to get her hands on the red phone so she can bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran, but we have some very influential and powerful partners who won't be happy if she threatens to go all Dick Cheney on them and start WWIII.

I don't know who the hell she's trying to impress with all this cowboy rhetoric but what she's going to do is isolate us from our allies, and make us sort of an international pariah along with Israel.

But then, I guess nobody should really be surprised. After all, we've been warned.

[hifiguy]

49. That picture speaks a million words

and can never be posted to often.

[Enthusiast]

60. +100%!

[SoapBox]

41. Is this her new campaign "reset"?

going even further to the Right?

No Clinton for this house.

[ibegurpard]

43. Well she knows the "left" isn't buying her BS

May as well let the conservative freak flag fly.

[Juicy_Bellows]

68. Some of the so called left here are all aboard the Clinton train!

Some of the attempts at spin on this very thread are........ well, there is no apparent line she can cross.

[hifiguy]

71. She could do a prime-time all-network sitdown with Cheney

where they barbequed live kittens and the Hillionaires would find a way to excuse/explain/deflect the whole thing. Truly, it boggles the mind.

[Juicy_Bellows]

72. So true.

But but Sanders ate at the shady Chinese restaurant by the animal clinic so he's eaten cat too!

Cheers!

[hifiguy]

75. OK, THAT one made me LOL!

Cheers back atcha!

[LondonReign2]

83. Oh, they wouldn't even break a sweat spinning that one

Hillary would have to barbecue with Big Dick, otherwise she'd risk looking weak. Besides, one needs to hold one's friends close (aka Henry Kiss), and one's enemies closer! That's also why she and Bill are buds with Bush by the way, and--

HEY! LOOK OVER THERE! SOCIALIST! GUNS! PEDOPHILE!

[jalan48]

47. Hillary says, "It's time America got back to war!" Chelsea first.

[Divernan]

67. Or Marc, the hedge fund owner.

[tymorial]

56. Preposterous

This was a centrist speech from a candidate who has traditionally been center left. I would add (and I realize many will likely disagree with me) but a center left candidate is more likely to receive support from independent voters than someone further down spectrum. I know there are a lot of Sanders supporters here. There is a lot about him that I really support. There was a questionnaire that was passed around a while back that matched candidates to your personal stance on issues. Sanders was my top with Clinton coming a close second. That being said, I recognize that many people do not look beyond the surface and only read headlines. Sanders called himself a democratic socialist. In a general election, the right will reduce that to a socialist. Some people will dig deeper and read what he means by that. Others will not. I do not know if Sanders can win in a general election, I'd like to think that he can. Realistically, I just see this as something that will harm him and it has everything to do with the lack of social and political understanding of voters.

[elleng]

58. Please look into Martin O'Malley, tymorial:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1281

[hifiguy]

62. +1

I am a Bernie supporter but mightily impressed with O'Malley. He's a good 'un.

[Ed Suspicious]

57. She is a chickenhawk neo-con.

She is a bad person. I don't trust her to use discretion with the keys to the US military. She is just a smidge less scary than a republican in that regard. You know, maybe even more scary. We expect so much ftom the pukes. Most people would hope for less International Realism from the "liberal" side.

[delrem]

76. I was taught that the wolf in sheep's clothing was more to be feared

than a simple wolf.

I was taught that people who think a wolf in sheep's clothing is a smidgen less scary than a simple wolf are next in line to be gobbled up. So I was taught to smell them out and avoid them like the plague that they are. They like to try to cozy up - and they have a distinctive smell.

If the Dems put Hillary Rodham Clinton forward as their leader and their voice to carry their standard into the future, then I predict that the Democratic party will be all but finished. Although too late for '16, there will be a third party arriving on the scene. There will be a mass exodus, because it's already well past the breaking point.

[AzDar]

73. Nope.

[CharlotteVale]

74. Meet the new Hillary, same as the old Hillary.

[HooptieWagon]

82. Like shrub 2.0

I have no doubt she'd be plotting wars even before being sworn in.

[99Forever]

84. Hillary.

The more she changes, the more she stays the same.

Permanently tone deaf.

[restorefreedom]

93. wow. beating the war drums as she sinks in the polls

clueless. again.

[John Poet]

114. If I wanted another neocon in the White House, I'd vote for-- wait for it---

Jeb Bush.

Or Hillary, I guess.