The Case Against Hillary Clinton

[John Poet]

The Case Against Hillary Clinton

http://theweek.com/articles/601909/case-against-hillary-clinton

Much of the argument in the Democratic Party primary has hinged on who is more electable. Hillary Clinton, as the more moderate candidate, has a somewhat more plausible case on this score — though at the moment she does a bit worse than her opponent Bernie Sanders in head-to-head polling matchups.

But consider a separate question: Would Clinton actually be a good president? No, argues Doug Henwood in his book My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency. As Daniel Davies observes, it provides a brief, reasonable survey of the case against returning Clinton to the presidency, free of the right-wing dreck clogging up the internet. The whole book is worth reading, but the main argument can be grouped under three headings.

1. Clinton is far too aggressive with the use of military force. Because the American president has a nearly free hand when it comes to foreign policy, this is the most important part of the anti-Clinton brief. Her history suggests she would be more aggressive than President Obama (who hasn't been much of a dove himself).

Most notoriously, she voted for the war in Iraq — even endorsing the Bush administration's false accusation that Saddam Hussein had given "aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members" — but it's been a consistent theme even after that gruesome catastrophe. As secretary of state, she supported escalation in Afghanistan, pushed hard for the Libyan intervention, and lobbied for a continued military presence in Iraq. She was on the hawkish edge of internal Obama administration debates on Syria, plotting with then-CIA Director David Petraeus to arm rebels there (though the plan was rejected by the president).

:::snip:::

Yet even though she lost the 2008 primary by a hair largely because of her vote for the Iraq war, Clinton has continued to attack Sanders from the right on foreign policy. A few days ago, she tore into him for suggesting that the U.S. ought to consider gradually normalizing relations with Iran, as it has with Cuba. It suggests real ideological commitment — and in a bad way.


Read more:
http://theweek.com/articles/601909/case-against-hillary-clinton

[brooklynite]

1. Provide the evidence that her 2008 loss was because of her Iraq vote...

...I could just as easily argue that the fact that she got as many votes as Obama (the difference was in which States they were obtained) indicates that the Iraq vote was inconsequential.

[John Poet]

13. All I know is, her Iraq war vote

was the only real serious gripe I had against her in 2008. If not for that, I would have given her more consideration, and a whole lot of people would not have had that as a big issue.

With it, it was only natural for Democrats who had opposed the war to align against her. With the results as close as they were, I happen to agree that it probably made the difference.

[Motown_Johnny]

15. So you are saying there are other reasons to not support her. I agree.

[senz]

24. This is an important article. It sums up Clinton's deficiencies.

[JTFrog]

2. Another Koch funded attack on Hillary.

This is exactly what she was talking about in the Town Hall last night. And people just willingly spread this propaganda around.

It doesn't take much digging to find the ties to the Cato Institute and Koch Brothers to that publication.

[nichomachus]

5. Well, that's only natural

All the so-called liberal media outlets are totally in the tank for Hillary. If you want to read more than puff pieces on her and unfounded attacks on Sanders, you have to look elsewhere. You're not going to find it in the pro-Hillary media.

People you like aren't always right -- and people you don't like aren't always wrong.

[JTFrog]

6. I will never align with the Koch brothers. Never.

And I have a lot of disdain for those who are willing to spread the Koch's propaganda for them.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

7. So, you go to right wing sources to smear Democrats?

Great logic.

[JTFrog]

8. And folks are rec'ing this tripe.

Says a lot about what they actually stand for.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

10. Not Democratic/Liberal/Progressive causes.

That's for damn sure.

[John Poet]

9. Discussing her hawkish tendencies in foreign policy isn't a "smear",

just a fact.

I don't know anything about the website in question, and frankly, I don't CARE.

I like this article as it aptly describes my feelings on her as a candidate, and it certainly is NOT written from any right-wing perspective-- they all loved the war.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

11. Your "feelings" are influenced by right wing smears.

99% of the anti-Hillary pieces posted on DU as of late come from right wing sources, and you chuckleheads lap it up.

[99th_Monkey]

16. That's nonsense.

i've probably posted 100s of OPs since Primary began, and not ONE was from RW
website, but from common dreams, Huffpo, NYTimes, TruthDig, MoJo, The Guardian,
et. al. These kinds ^ of sources are all that I've seen, save a tiny handful of one-offs
from lesser known possibly RW sources.

Just curious: Do you consider The Intercept RW?

You can whine all you like, but at least tell the truth when you do.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

18. Every day in my news feed on DU, I see links to

Redstate, Fox News, WSJ Op-Eds, National Review, Washington Times, New York Post, News Max, Judicial Watch, and even a couple Breitbarts... All smearing Clinton. Anytime I (or anyone else) calls it out, we are greeted with claims of "shooting the messenger", and doubling down on the defense of posting said sources. 99% may have been an exaggeration, but there certainly is a LOT.

No, I do not consider The Intercept RW. I don't like The Intercept, as I think Greenwald is a hack and an ass, but I don't see it as a RW source. Maybe an anti-Democratic source (at times), but it's just as anti-RW as it is anti-Dem (IMHO, YMMV).

[99th_Monkey]

20. I guess I've missed most of those OPs somehow.

That said, the RW echo chamber is what the Dem nominee is going to be facing in the GE,
so it's not like what they are saying is totally irrelevant, but must be taken with a huge
grain of salt and fact-checked vigorously.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

22. Oh, I know that the RW echo chamber will be out in full force

whether HRC or SBS get the nod. I just don't think it should be here on DU.

[emulatorloo]

17. To hell with the Koch Brothers and this fake 'attack from the left'

You wanna roll around in the mud with these crooks, that's fine.

Bernie doesn't need these right wing creeps to win.

[frylock]

19. List the smears in this piece.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

21. I was referring to the poster claiming that

the MSM is Pro-Hillary and that they have to go to "other" sources to find anti-Hillary pieces, not necessarily this piece.

I don't bother giving opinion pieces like this the time of day to read much more than a paragraph. Opinions are like assholes, ya know.

[frylock]

23. Opinions are like assholes, ya know.

All too well.

[John Poet]

37. So, your opinion on this piece is an uninformed one,

since you haven't actually read it, and opinions are like assholes. GOT it.

Criticizing an article and labeling it as a right-wing smear job when you've only read a paragraph of it, sounds like something any uninformed... "person"... could do.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

38. I wasn't criticizing this piece, as I noted before.

I was criticizing the poster who thought it OK to go to RW sources because the MSM is "pro-Hillary".

Pay attention, sir.

[SHRED]

33. A Koch funded article would include this?

"So while Clinton would surely be better than whatever crawls out of the Republican primary swamp, her presidency would be a step back for the nation as a whole."

[JaneyVee]

3. Umm...she won the popular vote in 2008.

[RiverLover]

14. Fact Check:

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/clinton-and-the-popular-vote/

Only by counting Michigan, where Clinton’s name was on the ballot but Obama’s was not, can Clinton claim to have won more votes.

[uponit7771]

4. More of the alignment of the right to the Sanders campaign to attack HRC... not good

[workinclasszero]

12. Its sickening

[senz]

26. FALSE. The article is not rightwing.

[senz]

25. The author is not rightwing. He writes for mainstream publications.

Ryan Cooper is a national correspondent at TheWeek.com. His work has appeared in the Washington Monthly, The New Republic, and the Washington Post.

Hillary supporters are smearing this article because it sums up Hillary very well. It should be read in its entirety.

[EdwardBernays]

27. Iran

That alone will never allow me vote for her...

She's either extremely stupid or extremely dishonest... and she's not stupid.

[Lorien]

28. That's just the tip of the iceberg:

Hillary wants to attack Iran: http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-if-im-president-we-will-attack-iran/5460484

Hillary pushed Fracking on the rest of the planet: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

Hillary and childhood poverty: http://www.salon.com/2015/10/15/the_worst_thing_hillary_clinton_has_ever_done/

What Hillary calls "feminism" : https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/03/hillary-clinton-womens-rights-feminism/

Hillary takes millions in campaign cash from her "enemies": http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/14/hillary-takes-millions-in-campaign-cash-from-enemies

Bernie has a MUCH better record of accomplishments as Senator than Hillary does: https://pplswar.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/fact-bernie-sanders-got-more-done-in-the-senate-than-hillary-clinton/

When you ask me to vote for Hillary: https://medium.com/@Lookingforrobyn/when-you-ask-me-to-vote-for-hillary-174becdb5ccc#.2ixs3cg5o

Hillary's legacy of pushing the party to the right: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33869-hillary-clinton-s-ghosts-a-legacy-of-pushing-the-democratic-party-to-the-right

Chomsky: Democrats are now moderate Republicans: http://trofire.com/2015/09/23/noam-chomsky-dems-are-now-moderate-repugs-republicans-are-now-off-the-spectrum-of-reality/

A blatant lie:

&feature=share&app=desktop

[KoKo]

29. That Video from the Dem Forum last night says it ALL!

Why did she take the Goldman-Sachs Money for Speeches? "Because it's what they Offered!" And, the rest where she tries to dig herself out of what she just blurted out.

And, she runs on saying she has the judgement and experience to be "The Commander--in-Chief," the ability to Reign in Wall Street and work for the Average American.

[AzDar]

34. Again... how can *anyone* support her?

[Lorien]

35. My friends who do are all very wealthy

one lives in a spacious new high rise in Manhattan, another couple are directors of major motion pictures, and one is a comfortable "former" Republican. None are members of the 99% or liberal Democrats.

[asuhornets]

30. Hillary will win the Democratic nomination and you're going to like it...n/t

[magical thyme]

32. she may win the nom, but many of us will never like nor even tolerate it. nt

[Lorien]

36. No one is going to like it, because she can't possibly win the general election

You Hillary hypocrites will be ENTIRELY responsible for putting a Republican in the White House. But then, you'd rather have Cruz there than a real Liberal Progressive like Bernie. There's no doubt about that!

http://trofire.com/2015/09/23/noam-chomsky-dems-are-now-moderate-repugs-republicans-are-now-off-the-spectrum-of-reality/

[magical thyme]

31. Categories 2 & 3 are nothing to ignore either: 2. Blatant Pay-For-Play, 3. Neoliberalism in general

She's well to the right of the old GOP.