Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting perspective from the political left, expressed by Glenn Greenwald - which the wing nuts on the political right may have difficulty digesting:
Sure Hillary has verbal balls. But there are consequences to that if it is done in an
antagonizing or superior manner. IMO she does them both, too often.
The Benghazi What difference Does It Make, is the obvious one, but I'm thinking along the lines
of when she spoke out at the International Religious Freedom conference, comments
to the new N. Korean Leader, and even her most recent comment about Snowden:
"If he were concerned and wanted to be part of the American debate, he could have been
… I don't understand why he couldn't have been part of the debate at home."
Of course her infamous "My husband is not the secretary of state...I'm not
standing by my man, home baking cookies... simply shows reckless speech.
I know Hillary, as Bill, idolized Kennedy. But Kennedy put the American
people in a very dangerous place with his "talk".
"he embarked on a summit meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, a move that
would be recorded as one of the more self-destructive American actions of the cold war,
and one that contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age."
Wow! First we have a President who goes from seeking to "fundamentally transform America" into "just wanting to get my paragraph in history right"....and now with Clinton as the Secretary of State we get that it's a "relay race" that may have "accomplishments" that are "finished at a later date!"
Talk about a worthless Administration! Good grief! We have truly gained nothing by having these idiots as our "leaders!"
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,560 posts, read 16,548,014 times
Reputation: 6042
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
What do you mean those on the right might have difficulty digesting this? It's actually the exact opposite. The LEFT apparently have trouble digesting the fact that Hillary is in fact a neo-con on defense issues even as they slobber and trip over themselves begging her to run for President.
Talk about confused!
We arent confused, you just seem to be so simply minded that you dont see there is more than one ideology on the left.
Interesting perspective from the political left, expressed by Glenn Greenwald - which the wing nuts on the political right may have difficulty digesting:
No one ever said Greenwald was a Big Brain.
Let's review history -- yet again -- for the benefit of the mental midgets.
There's a couple of guys in Paris. The Germans buy them train tickets to Moscow. They overthrow the Russian government. Two of the guys into in an ideological fight. One of them, Trotsky, flees to Mexico City, Mexico. Some Americans enamored with Trotsky spend a lot of time visiting Trotsky in person supping on matzo balls and corresponding with him by mail. Trotsky helps these Americans establish the Young People's Socialist League, or YPSL.
The YPSL gets lots of appointments in the FDR Administration. The YPSL merges with the (now-defunct) Social Democrat Party to become the YPSL/SDP. As the YPSL/SDP gains greater power in the Bureaucracy, they dump the YPSL part and become simply the Social Democrats.
The Social Democrats gave you Korea and nationalized the disability programs of the 50 States to give you the failing OADI Trust Fund, and Vietnam and the Grotesque Society complete with worthless HUD and Food Stamps and Medicare and Medicaid.
And then they realized what a terrible mistake they had made.
They abandoned the Pacific Rim Strategy, shifted to the Middle East Strategy, kicked Taiwan off of the UN Security Council to be replaced by China, kicked Taiwan out of the UN to be replaced by China, gave China the green-light to invade India during the 1971 Pakistani-Indian War, sent Nixon to China, abandoned the Gold Standard, and then gave you the Carter Doctrine -- preemptive military action in the Persian Gulf Region whenever it so suits the US.
And then two nice books, "Two Cheers for Capitalism" (um, instead of 3 cheers in case the mental midgets don't get it) by Irving Kristol and then the "Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism" by Daniel Bell, and then during an interview with the New York Times with William Kristol, the Social Democrats got re-branded as "neo-conservatives."
That was in 1976.
And then in an attempt to win an election, Liberals dishonestly and disingenuously renamed the Carter Doctrine as the Bush Doctrine, and then labeled Republicans as neo-conservatives, even though Republicans don't eat matzo balls.
Plus we have the mental midgets who are too dumb to understand Collective Security was the basis for Liberal philosophy, and so as Collective Security organizations like ANZUS, SEATO, OAS, et al bite the dust, and others like NATO become irrelevant, certain Liberals started looking for a replacement for Collective Security.
They found their replacement in Multi-National Corporations and Non-Governmental Organizations.
Those new Liberals are Neo-Liberal Institutionalists.
The only real difference between Neo-Conservatives and Neo-Liberals is that Neo-cons send in the troops, while Neo-Libs send in the Corporations.
The end result is the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pollyrobin
Sure Hillary has verbal balls. But there are consequences to that if it is done in an
antagonizing or superior manner. IMO she does them both, too often.
The Benghazi What difference Does It Make, is the obvious one, but I'm thinking along the lines
of when she spoke out at the International Religious Freedom conference, comments
to the new N. Korean Leader, and even her most recent comment about Snowden:
"If he were concerned and wanted to be part of the American debate, he could have been
… I don't understand why he couldn't have been part of the debate at home."
Of course her infamous "My husband is not the secretary of state...I'm not
standing by my man, home baking cookies... simply shows reckless speech.
I know Hillary, as Bill, idolized Kennedy. But Kennedy put the American
people in a very dangerous place with his "talk".
"he embarked on a summit meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, a move that
would be recorded as one of the more self-destructive American actions of the cold war,
and one that contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age."
Hillary is a lot more hawkish on foreign policy than I would like, but she is a far cry from Dick Cheney. I have no trouble telling the difference, I am sorry Greenwald does. And I don't see anyone else on the Democrat horizon that could be as successful a candidate, she is currently mopping the floor with the entire R lineup without even working at it.
Of course it will get a lot tougher, and I don't think it will be a cakewalk, but I do think that at this point, 2016 is hers to lose.
Greenwald is an actual Liberal, so sadly his ideas are considered antiquated & even disturbing by much of the NeoProg left that has hijacked the party. The NeoProgs essentially excommunicated him when he defended whistelblowers in general & Snowden specifically. They were furious about the transparency. It is ironic to watch the NeoProg hawks reject an intellectual elite, gay, Jew for being too Liberal though.
I see no difference at all between Hillary & Cheney in terms of hawkishness. They are the same. Hillary pounded the war drums for years to invade Iraq & has been a cheerleader every subsequent military incursion. Your statement that you don't see anyone better to match up against the GOP is a total cop out. Since there's no difference between Hillary & whoever the GOP puts out there, I'd rather run an actual Liberal like Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich and lose, then further compromise the party's core values.
Oh I wasn't trying to sell Budowski's perspective or mine. But aside from his state count, he's right. 2016 is hers to lose right now.
I don't think of Hillary as especially liberal. My favorite D candidate of all time is Dennis Kucinich, if that gives you an idea. But my favorite national candidates never get the party nomination (I do a bit better at the state and local levels). But once the nomination process is complete, I take a deep breath and do what I can. I am not of the school that there is nothing to choose between the two dominant parties. There most certainly is.
I've been voting for quite a while now, and I am well able to navigate my way between what I personally would prefer and what I can get, given that I am participating in a process that includes millions of other people. Politics is how humans get things done, and I do my best to be an objective observer.
I wonder why you think that only people on the right can be objective observers. I am sure that Romney was not the first choice of many of the folks who turned out for him. Why do you think that Ds don't also support candidates who were not their first choice?
Sell outs like yourself are why this country is in the state it is.
I'd rather run an actual Liberal like Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich and
lose, then further compromise the party's core values.
I've never considered Nader a "liberal." He's a show-boat type of guy, with a huge ego (no less an ego than any other politican). Kuchinich would never garner more than a relatively few percentage points of support in a national election. I choose to support various competing interests in primary but when the party candidates are selected I select one which I believe will do the least amount of harm and accomplish the most. It's often a toss-up. I preferred and supported Hillary instead of Obama, who I believe lacked experience and testing the first time he ran. But compared to McCain, Obama was the superior choice. Romeny wasn't much different than McCain, in my book. I don't see anyone on the Democratic side giving Hillary a challenge, if she chooses to run. If she runs, she wins. Hands down.
I understand some people don't like Hillary Clinton. But, after reading your comments ... particularly the ones about 'folding under pressure' and alluding to her only strength being derived from her husband ... I suspect you don't know who we're talking about.
We're talking about the woman with zero political experience until she became First Lady and then used that exposure to get elected as a Senator where she did nothing noteworthy and then ran for President and lost to Obama and was made Sec of State where she bungled the Russian reset of relations and oversaw the collapse of stability in the Middle East with the Arab Spring. When asked to list her accomplishments in that famous video that's going around, she couldn't list a single solitary thing.
So yes, we know who we're talking about. It's just that not being liberals, we don't feel the need to ignore her failures and trump up false nebulous successes that are nothing but empty words like "enhancing leadership". She is the Kim Kardashian of politics - famous for being famous. Hillary is brilliant, accomplished, and wonderful for being Hillary. That's it, just like Kim Kardashian who got into television because she was a name, she didn't become a name because of doing good work in television.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
