We've heard a lot of fear-mongering since Paris and talk that this will change the 2016 election. It might though we will see how much in time.
But if so, this will also play to another Hillary advantage with her experience on the Senate Armed Services Committee while a Senator and even more importantly as Obama's Secretary of State.
Indeed, before she became a candidate for 2016, you can look at the way even GOP hawks like McCain and Lindsay Graham were kissing her ass.
She is clearly very knowledgeable and experienced and can speak in a most granular way on foreign policy. And it may not hurt once she gets out of the primary that she has something of a more hawkish reputation than Obama.
"Hillary Clinton is the most trusted 2016 candidate on terrorism"
"A crescendo of tough talk on Syrian refugees and terrorism seems to be elevating the toughest talkers in the GOP primary -- most notably Donald Trump. But among the broader American public, the most trusted person to handle the issue is Hillary Clinton."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/23/poll-as-republicans-ratchet-up-the-rhetoric-clinton-is-most-trusted-on-terrorism/
There we go-right from the Trump Democrat playbook again. This is optimum for Trump to be trusted most with the GOP primary voters but Hillary with the broader public who will vote in the general election.
Of course when the McCain and Graham used to kiss her ass that was to scorn Obama as being too 'weak and feckless.'
But even though polls show Americans aren't confident Obama's strategy is working-though I for one think it is-they trust Hillary a lot more.
"Rising fears and record disapproval of President Obama on the terrorism issue might figure to boost Republican candidates who have been outspoken since the Paris terrorist attacks. But a new Washington Post-ABC News pollfinds the Democratic front-runner and former secretary of state is better-trusted on dealing with the terrorism threat, with her biggest edge over Donald Trump."
"By 50 percent to 42 percent, more Americans say they trust Clinton to handle the threat of terrorism than Trump, who leads the Republican field and responded to the Paris terrorist attacks by calling for heightened surveillance of mosques and redoubling his opposition to allowing Syrian refugees to settle in the U.S."
Talk about a catch 22 for the GOP. The guy the base trusts most, the general public trusts least. Even a number of Americans who don't trust the President on terrorism and ISIS trust her.
"Clinton’s position of strength in the new Post-ABC poll is perhaps more striking given it also found a record high 54 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling terrorism, and 57 percent disapproved of his handling of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Clinton owes her edge then, to a significant share of Obama detractors who nonetheless prefer her over Republicans. Tellingly, the poll found between one-quarter and one-third of those who disapprove of Obama's efforts dealing with terrorism also say they trust Clinton over Republican on the issue."
What is undeniable is that Hillary vis a vis both the other two Democrats and the GOP field is the only one with foreign policy experience.
"Among the candidates, Hillary Clinton has the most extensive credentials as a former Secretary of State, a U.S. Senator from New York during the 9/11 attack and as an active First Lady. Senator Bernie Sanders’ foreign policy experience is focused exclusively on his vote not to go to war in Iraq. Former governor Martin O’Malley has no experience."
"In their opening statements about the attack in Paris, Clinton and O’Malley addressed ISIS and violent extremism. Sanders, after a brief message of condolence, quickly transitioned into his stump speech on economic inequality and the undue influence of money in politics. By contrast, Hillary took the opportunity to showcase her experience on foreign policy, devoting her opening statement entirely on the attack in Paris. CBS News quoted her saying:"
"Our prayers are with the people of France tonight, but that is not enough. We need to have a resolve that will bring the world together to root out the kind of radical jihadist ideology that motivates organizations like ISIS, a barbaric, ruthless, violent jihadist terrorist group. This election is not only about electing a president, it’s also about choosing our next commander in chief, and I will be laying out in detail what I think we need to do with our friends and allies in Europe and elsewhere to do a better job of coordinating efforts against the scourge of terrorism."
"Clinton spoke knowledgeably about the jihadists in the Middle East and the tensions that have spilled into violence on the European continent. Clinton stated that the United States should call upon all its resources to curtail the rise of extremist groups. She advocated diplomacy, development aid, law enforcement, and sharing of intelligence. Clinton said that the military has a critical role to play, but she does not favor a large-scale troop deployment."
http://www.willhillarywin.com/2015/11/21/hillary-clinton-is-the-only-candidate-with-foreign-policy-expertise/
She differntiated herself from Obama a little on the idea of 'containment'-but also is not talking about a large troop deployment.
"According to Los Angeles Times, just hours before the Paris attack, President Obama made an assertion that the Islamic state is not gaining strength and that it is contained. Hillary countered, “It cannot just be contained. It must be defeated”. While mildly distancing herself from Obama, she agreed with the President in supporting those who take the fight to ISIS, citing the U.S. forces training Arab and Kurdish militaries. She reiterated the limits of American involvement and said that although American leadership is essential, it cannot be only an American fight."
Certainly I think most Americans will agree that what we do need in a world of ISIS and violent Jihad is an adult running our foreign policy. That adult couldn't be more clearly Hillary Clinton.
But if so, this will also play to another Hillary advantage with her experience on the Senate Armed Services Committee while a Senator and even more importantly as Obama's Secretary of State.
Indeed, before she became a candidate for 2016, you can look at the way even GOP hawks like McCain and Lindsay Graham were kissing her ass.
She is clearly very knowledgeable and experienced and can speak in a most granular way on foreign policy. And it may not hurt once she gets out of the primary that she has something of a more hawkish reputation than Obama.
"Hillary Clinton is the most trusted 2016 candidate on terrorism"
"A crescendo of tough talk on Syrian refugees and terrorism seems to be elevating the toughest talkers in the GOP primary -- most notably Donald Trump. But among the broader American public, the most trusted person to handle the issue is Hillary Clinton."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/23/poll-as-republicans-ratchet-up-the-rhetoric-clinton-is-most-trusted-on-terrorism/
There we go-right from the Trump Democrat playbook again. This is optimum for Trump to be trusted most with the GOP primary voters but Hillary with the broader public who will vote in the general election.
Of course when the McCain and Graham used to kiss her ass that was to scorn Obama as being too 'weak and feckless.'
But even though polls show Americans aren't confident Obama's strategy is working-though I for one think it is-they trust Hillary a lot more.
"Rising fears and record disapproval of President Obama on the terrorism issue might figure to boost Republican candidates who have been outspoken since the Paris terrorist attacks. But a new Washington Post-ABC News pollfinds the Democratic front-runner and former secretary of state is better-trusted on dealing with the terrorism threat, with her biggest edge over Donald Trump."
"By 50 percent to 42 percent, more Americans say they trust Clinton to handle the threat of terrorism than Trump, who leads the Republican field and responded to the Paris terrorist attacks by calling for heightened surveillance of mosques and redoubling his opposition to allowing Syrian refugees to settle in the U.S."
Talk about a catch 22 for the GOP. The guy the base trusts most, the general public trusts least. Even a number of Americans who don't trust the President on terrorism and ISIS trust her.
"Clinton’s position of strength in the new Post-ABC poll is perhaps more striking given it also found a record high 54 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling terrorism, and 57 percent disapproved of his handling of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Clinton owes her edge then, to a significant share of Obama detractors who nonetheless prefer her over Republicans. Tellingly, the poll found between one-quarter and one-third of those who disapprove of Obama's efforts dealing with terrorism also say they trust Clinton over Republican on the issue."
What is undeniable is that Hillary vis a vis both the other two Democrats and the GOP field is the only one with foreign policy experience.
"Among the candidates, Hillary Clinton has the most extensive credentials as a former Secretary of State, a U.S. Senator from New York during the 9/11 attack and as an active First Lady. Senator Bernie Sanders’ foreign policy experience is focused exclusively on his vote not to go to war in Iraq. Former governor Martin O’Malley has no experience."
"In their opening statements about the attack in Paris, Clinton and O’Malley addressed ISIS and violent extremism. Sanders, after a brief message of condolence, quickly transitioned into his stump speech on economic inequality and the undue influence of money in politics. By contrast, Hillary took the opportunity to showcase her experience on foreign policy, devoting her opening statement entirely on the attack in Paris. CBS News quoted her saying:"
"Our prayers are with the people of France tonight, but that is not enough. We need to have a resolve that will bring the world together to root out the kind of radical jihadist ideology that motivates organizations like ISIS, a barbaric, ruthless, violent jihadist terrorist group. This election is not only about electing a president, it’s also about choosing our next commander in chief, and I will be laying out in detail what I think we need to do with our friends and allies in Europe and elsewhere to do a better job of coordinating efforts against the scourge of terrorism."
"Clinton spoke knowledgeably about the jihadists in the Middle East and the tensions that have spilled into violence on the European continent. Clinton stated that the United States should call upon all its resources to curtail the rise of extremist groups. She advocated diplomacy, development aid, law enforcement, and sharing of intelligence. Clinton said that the military has a critical role to play, but she does not favor a large-scale troop deployment."
http://www.willhillarywin.com/2015/11/21/hillary-clinton-is-the-only-candidate-with-foreign-policy-expertise/
She differntiated herself from Obama a little on the idea of 'containment'-but also is not talking about a large troop deployment.
"According to Los Angeles Times, just hours before the Paris attack, President Obama made an assertion that the Islamic state is not gaining strength and that it is contained. Hillary countered, “It cannot just be contained. It must be defeated”. While mildly distancing herself from Obama, she agreed with the President in supporting those who take the fight to ISIS, citing the U.S. forces training Arab and Kurdish militaries. She reiterated the limits of American involvement and said that although American leadership is essential, it cannot be only an American fight."
Certainly I think most Americans will agree that what we do need in a world of ISIS and violent Jihad is an adult running our foreign policy. That adult couldn't be more clearly Hillary Clinton.
Regarding trust in government, this is interesting:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/23/americans-dont-trust-government-but-they-still-want-government-to-do-a-lot/
I hope some fake news show has done a parody about this: a schizophrenic public that holds contradictory views. Maybe something like this:
"New poll indicates that public wants the government to spend less. Also, they they think the government should be providing more services."
etc, etc, etc,
Conclusion: public is suffering from cognitive dissonance... or they're just fucking stupid.
This has been the case for a long time. The public is against government in the abstract but not against any particular government program
ReplyDeleteAs Jason might say, that means the "emergent public agent" has a bad case of cognitive dissonance.
Delete