For the record I'm a long time Hillary man and I was a Hillary man long before I was an Obama apologist-I say this for the benefit of the firebaggers. I was for her in 2008 and felt that at times the Obama campaign-but especially the Obama supporters-would go too far in some of their criticisms of her. I especially felt that they seemed to think that any questioning of a candidates abilities and worthiness for the job on racial grounds is beyond the pale-which I certainly agree wholeheartedly with-but that it's ok to do the same thing on gender-ed grounds-allusions to the idea that maybe she can't be trusted to make decisions on her own without her husband really calling the shots-interestingly in the 90s the roles were reversed when he was the one in politics and she was the civilian so to speak who would be making all his decisions.
However, I was rather disappointed in her recent criticism of his foreign policy with the apparent suggestion that it was his alleged lack of hawkishness that has left to the problems in Syria and Iraq. I mean I remember when she was castigated in the 90s of speaking of a 'vast Right wing conspriacy' many people found her claim to be crazy-even if it were true. Yet with her recent criticisms, at least as they've been spun in the Right wing media, you have to wonder that with Democrats like her who needs Republicans. My problem is not necessarily her specific opinions on Syria or Iraq but that she phrased things in a way that would predictably be repeated by Republicans ad nauseum to attack not just Obama but in reality all Democrats.
I hate the weak way she positions Democrats-we have to prove we're not all weak on defense by attacking the President. Ok-this is how I received her initial statements-and let's be honest, this is how Right wing Republicans are receiving it everywhere right now.
On foreign policy at its most basic, let's face it, there is Right wing criticism and Left Wing criticism. Most anything Obama does on foreign policy is vociferously criticized in both ways. Right wing criticism always feels that the President's actions aren't hawkish enough, and Left wing criticism always feels it's not dovish enough. The Right wants a military solution everywhere, the Left wants it nowhere. Again this is at its most basic-in principle the Right always wants more military confrontation and the Left less.
Her criticism of Obama is from the Right as it was in 2008. He criticised her from the Left and this was felt to be the most tangible ideological difference between them and what enabled him to go ahead. Her apparent mockery of the alleged Obama Doctrine of 'First of all do nothing stupid' makes you wonder what she thinks is better-go back the the Bush Doctrine of military escalation at all costs?
However, I hate to criticise Hillary as I hate to criticize Obama-because it only strengthens their opponents who are mostly reprehensible. However, as she's the one who seemed to be bashing the President for her own narrow political gain-who cares what it does the Administration of which she was no small part or the Democratic party as a whole/-I was in the rare position of being unhappy with her. Thankfully she now says that she was not bashing the President as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity-or for that matter Ross Douthat and Joe Scarborough-breathlessly tell us.
"Hillary Rodham Clinton called President Obama on Tuesday to assure him that comments she made in a recent interview with The Atlantic were not intended “to attack him, his policies or his leadership,” according to a statement released by Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman."
“Secretary Clinton has at every step of the way touted the significant achievements of his presidency, which she is honored to have been part of as his secretary of state,” said the statement released by the spokesman, Nick Merrill. “Like any two friends who have to deal with the public eye, she looks forward to hugging it out when they see each other tomorrow night.”
"That is when Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are set to attend a party on Martha’s Vineyard held by Vernon E. Jordan Jr., a longtime friend to former President Bill Clinton."
"If you actually read the interview, you’ll see that Clinton actually didn’t “slam” Obama (even Jeffrey Goldberg, who conducted the interview, overstates the disagreement in his report on it). She was careful not to explicitly criticize the administration, even when she was articulating positions that differed from what Barack Obama might believe. But there were clear indications that Clinton will be staking out a more hawkish foreign policy than the president she served as Secretary of State, on issues like Iran and Syria."
However, I was rather disappointed in her recent criticism of his foreign policy with the apparent suggestion that it was his alleged lack of hawkishness that has left to the problems in Syria and Iraq. I mean I remember when she was castigated in the 90s of speaking of a 'vast Right wing conspriacy' many people found her claim to be crazy-even if it were true. Yet with her recent criticisms, at least as they've been spun in the Right wing media, you have to wonder that with Democrats like her who needs Republicans. My problem is not necessarily her specific opinions on Syria or Iraq but that she phrased things in a way that would predictably be repeated by Republicans ad nauseum to attack not just Obama but in reality all Democrats.
I hate the weak way she positions Democrats-we have to prove we're not all weak on defense by attacking the President. Ok-this is how I received her initial statements-and let's be honest, this is how Right wing Republicans are receiving it everywhere right now.
On foreign policy at its most basic, let's face it, there is Right wing criticism and Left Wing criticism. Most anything Obama does on foreign policy is vociferously criticized in both ways. Right wing criticism always feels that the President's actions aren't hawkish enough, and Left wing criticism always feels it's not dovish enough. The Right wants a military solution everywhere, the Left wants it nowhere. Again this is at its most basic-in principle the Right always wants more military confrontation and the Left less.
Her criticism of Obama is from the Right as it was in 2008. He criticised her from the Left and this was felt to be the most tangible ideological difference between them and what enabled him to go ahead. Her apparent mockery of the alleged Obama Doctrine of 'First of all do nothing stupid' makes you wonder what she thinks is better-go back the the Bush Doctrine of military escalation at all costs?
However, I hate to criticise Hillary as I hate to criticize Obama-because it only strengthens their opponents who are mostly reprehensible. However, as she's the one who seemed to be bashing the President for her own narrow political gain-who cares what it does the Administration of which she was no small part or the Democratic party as a whole/-I was in the rare position of being unhappy with her. Thankfully she now says that she was not bashing the President as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity-or for that matter Ross Douthat and Joe Scarborough-breathlessly tell us.
"Hillary Rodham Clinton called President Obama on Tuesday to assure him that comments she made in a recent interview with The Atlantic were not intended “to attack him, his policies or his leadership,” according to a statement released by Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman."
“Secretary Clinton has at every step of the way touted the significant achievements of his presidency, which she is honored to have been part of as his secretary of state,” said the statement released by the spokesman, Nick Merrill. “Like any two friends who have to deal with the public eye, she looks forward to hugging it out when they see each other tomorrow night.”
"That is when Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are set to attend a party on Martha’s Vineyard held by Vernon E. Jordan Jr., a longtime friend to former President Bill Clinton."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-tells-obama-that-interview-remarks-were-not-an-attack-.html?_r=1
For his part, Paul Waldman argues that people just have short memories-she has always been considerably more hawkish-ie, on the Right as I define it above-than the President.
"There are few things the political press loves more than an intra-party squabble, so it wasn’t surprising that when Hillary Clinton gave an interview to The Atlantic about foreign policy that offered something less than fulsome support for everything Barack Obama has done, it got characterized as a stinging rebuke. The Post’s Chris Cillizza described her “slamming” Obama. The New York Times said the “veneer of unity…shattered.” “Hillary slams Obama for ‘stupid’ foreign policy,” said an absurdly misleading New York Post headline (she never called anything Obama did “stupid”)."
"If you actually read the interview, you’ll see that Clinton actually didn’t “slam” Obama (even Jeffrey Goldberg, who conducted the interview, overstates the disagreement in his report on it). She was careful not to explicitly criticize the administration, even when she was articulating positions that differed from what Barack Obama might believe. But there were clear indications that Clinton will be staking out a more hawkish foreign policy than the president she served as Secretary of State, on issues like Iran and Syria."
"That isn’t because of some cynical calculation, or because she wants to “distance” herself from a president whose popularity is currently mediocre at best. It’s because that’s what she sincerely believes. If people didn’t have such short memories, they wouldn’t be surprised by it. Hillary Clinton has always been a liberal on social and economic issues, but much more of a moderate (or even a conservative) when it comes to foreign policy."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/08/12/everyone-suddenly-remembers-that-hillary-clinton-is-a-foreign-policy-hawk/
Well just so long as her more 'moderate or even conservative' doesn't mean George W. Bushlike.
On foreign policy the President is going to be blamed no matter what. Even on clear foreign policy victories like taking out Bin Laden ungrateful Republicans claim that the Navy Seals deserve credit for that but he deserves none.
On Iraq, even Dubyah came around to a timetable for getting out of Iraq. The same Obama haters who knock him for not arming the rebels in Syria criticized him from the same mouth for helping the rebels in Libya. I'm not saying that on none of the differences between Obama and Hillary is she correct, I'm just saying I don't like her explicitly criticizing the President in order to 'distance' herself from him.
She says she isn't and for now I'm going to take her at her word as this is what I want to believe anyway and she sounds convincing enough. However, I will be watching how she talks foreign policy in the future. As long as she is telling the truth here and is not a George W. Bush Democrat on foreign policy, I look forward to voting for her in November 2016-and with any luck, for her daughter for the same job in say November 2036.
P.S. Here, Axelrod gets the last word:
"David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s former chief strategist, was quick to defend the president this week, in a flashback to the 2008 campaign. “ ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ means stuff like occupying Iraq in the first place, which was a tragically bad decision,” he said in a Twitter post."
She says she isn't and for now I'm going to take her at her word as this is what I want to believe anyway and she sounds convincing enough. However, I will be watching how she talks foreign policy in the future. As long as she is telling the truth here and is not a George W. Bush Democrat on foreign policy, I look forward to voting for her in November 2016-and with any luck, for her daughter for the same job in say November 2036.
P.S. Here, Axelrod gets the last word:
"David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s former chief strategist, was quick to defend the president this week, in a flashback to the 2008 campaign. “ ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ means stuff like occupying Iraq in the first place, which was a tragically bad decision,” he said in a Twitter post."
No comments:
Post a Comment