Be it not for me to speak ill of a fellow Democrat, but Hillary Clinton disappoints.
Please read the articles, I confess that Salon is a left leaning publication, but I have included the article placed by H. Clinton in the Times of Israel to provide a little heft to my position.
Bernie has courage as a Jew and the underdog to call out Israel for its policies and treatment of the Palestinians in their midsts. He does not give Israel and its policies the carte blanche automatically, even though he faces a primary in a state with an abudant Jewish population. He speaks the truth from the heart and does not pander. He does not talk about 'unconditional support' for anything that the Israeli government chooses to do.
Ms. Clinton is taking advantage with political pandering by offering the same solutions that perpetuate the problems in the region in the first place, giving Netanyahu and the rightwingers over there encouragement and a free hand.
Nobody is talking about anti-semitism, so why is HC bringing it up? We are talking about a foreign policy toward Israel and the Palestinians that requires fairness from and to all sides. Given the fact that Jews have voted overwhelmingly Democratic over the last election cycles, I think that they are wanting this as well.
In this situation, Bernie is standing tall, Hillary Clinton, not so much.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/18/hillary … ng_israel/
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/fighting … -passover/
Hey there Credence2,
I am sure you know how I feel about Hillary Clinton, so my only contribution would be to ask, "You were surprised by this?"
I did read your links, and I do agree that this is pandering at its most obvious. I thought she was at least savvy enough to cloak it in more ambiguous language.
Could this type of blunder be part of a returning nightmare of what happened to her in 2008? Could her heart be trembling at the possibility of a Senator Obama replay?
Well, GA, I was having trouble with the rhetoric she used to attract all the Black votes in the South, as if preserving the policies of the Obama administration was something she would commit to as having value. Sanders would not backtrack on this, but the point is that he can take "Obama" one step better. Clinton lost in 2008, because Obama ran a better campaign. You can get overconfident and dangerously take things for granted....
H. Clinton is still a mainstream progressive and while she disappoints, she would not devastate like either a Cruz or Trump. I guess that I held out hope that Ms.Clinton was going to show me that she was more than just expedient in her view and approach to her campaign.
Sanders has the momentum because authenticity has value.......
Any peace that can be achieved would have to be accomplished without the US because of it's blatant leanings towards Israel. Whether you agree with Israels right to exist or not the US has played a preferential role towards their cause. No matter what Bernie or Hillary have to offer our historical prejudice precludes us from making any progress.
You are probably right but only one candidate at least recognizes the prejudice, and has the courage to call it out for what it is. As to how effective he will be remains to be seen, but a least he is aware of the problem and sees the need to address it, instead of pandering around it. That is the first step.
Credence, politics is a glorified popularity game. Politicians are going to say what they believe their constituents want to hear. Their purpose is to get elected almost by any means necessary. They also want to get the most votes possible so the more popular they are, the higher likelihood that they will get into office. Politics is show business today. Politics is an extremely lucrative career. Politicians have it made; after their tenure in office, they can go on to even more celebrity. Politics, more than show business, is a surefire way to become wealthy today.
Yes, I have resigned myself to politics as you describe, but is there anything wrong with actually having a candidate who says what they mean and means what they say?
The biggest disappointment is that progressives are buying this and not questioning this and other glaring inconsistencies in Ms. Clintons campaign and record. So, it is not so much her fault as the fault of the electorate for not being more discerning in evaluation of the candidates, letting the party machine do for them what they should be doing.
But, but, but... I think many, (maybe even most), non-Democrats, non-Republicans, do see those inconsistencies. so it seems it is the Democrat electorate that is at fault relative to Hillary Clinton - just as you say.
Don't get me wrong here... the Repubs are just as guilty of not minding their own house. So except for the Hillary part, you are right - it is the electorate's fault - across the board.
Get off the party wagon, the Lefty-Righty wagon, and vote or don't vote, (depending on your choices). Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
I will not be voting for a presidential candidate this year. And I don't buy the criticism that I will be helping the other side win. My view is that I will not be helping a lesser evil win.
"I will not be voting for a presidential candidate this year."
Instead write in anybody you think is worthy of the office. While it most likely will mean nothing to the outcome you have voiced your choice. This is what I may probably do as well. Don't just cave in, they are counting on it.
Acknowledged, GA and RH. A long time ago, I told you that there is no moderation on the right these days. We got Clinton holding on to center-left and Sanders to her left flank.
In the old days, we always had a choice between the blue and red M&M, now it is the M&M and the dog turd.
I am for Sanders as the appropriate step forward, but I will 'settle' for Clinton who has us standing still, but I have to make a statement about Cruz, Trump or Kasich, two of them dangerous rightwing ideologues and one a narcissistic buffoon.
I have to keep these people away from the levers of power at any cost. I have to participate or risk being a partner to a potential clock turn-back matched only by Doc Brown's Delorean.
The thing is that the system needs to fail to be fixed. By placing band aids on it and kicking it down the road it only gets worse. If I could find the article about Hillary I was reading this morning I would post it. It said behind the scenes Hillary is all about Citizens United but publicly complains about the amount of campaign money going into these elections. It is easy to believe she has this politics as usual establishment stance as it has benefited both her and Bill for many many years. I cannot even bear being within ear shot of her voice as it disgusts and enrages me that we are once again being duped by this type of politician and so easily! That is why I say let it fail and maybe the people will wake up to their pathetic inattentiveness to our duping.
Oh boy, could I go on and on about this one. I agree with you, but let me tell you why I am so anti-Hillary.
It is because to me she is the poster-girl for everything that is wrong with career politicians. I have read several books about the Clintons. A couple about Bill, and a couple-three more about Hillary.
All left me with one impression... both were pursuing a career in politics from their earliest days. But the difference is that all I read about Bill leaves me with the impression that even though a political life was his goal, that goal also involved doing good for his fellow Americans. Whereas everything I know and read about Hillary was that the ultimate goal was always about her. What she could do for her fellow Americans always seemed secondary to what her personal goals were.
I think her New York Senate efforts are an excellent example. She was the typical carpetbagger. It wasn't about how she could serve New York as a Senator - it was how being a New York Senator could serve her!
I could not agree more with you. Hillary has had controversy follow her for so long because people like to pick on her? Of course not, she embodies self promotion at any cost even to the tune of excusing her actions for the "greater good". Who can forget her saying "what does it matter" during her questioning about Benghazi? Does she think her answers were the end of the conversation when in actuality they weren't answers at all? She is a result of politics gone wild with no accountability.
I certainly understand your point, and if my national goals were the same as yours I could agree with your logic. At least the upside is to see that you are not blind to what you are supporting with a Hillary vote.
I would strongly consider trusting both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders any day in comparison to the nut jobs of Donald Trump or that other prick that is the top contender for the republican nomination. If they become president, it will just be worse than Bush when it comes to Israel.
As they will continue 100 percent support Israel's government.
Obama has been the only President we have had since Bill Clinton who has tried to bring peace to both sides in Israel. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton will do anything different than her husband did in trying to get the two sides to get along.
It's actually too bad that the average American's hands are tied when it comes to foreign policy. I think if the people could vote on our countries involvement in the entire middle east, you would see that
most of the things they are doing, including invasions and occupations would not happen. We would also see major changes in our nations view on countries that supply us with oil.
I for one would have voted against our moron president Bush Junior, So he would have never invaded Iraq. If he had not done that, there would be more control in the middle east. All he did was turn the entire middle east into a free for all for terrorists. As fr the countries who are having problems now, I would vote to let those countries solve their own problems.
I say if they want to kill each other like idiots, let them. Maybe when there is very few of them left, they will see how stupid they have been, and learn a lesson. But, i would vote for brokering peace with words rather than the republican tradition of dropping bombs.
True, election of any of the GOP candidates will make the conflict exponentially worse. You remember how much trouble Obama got into when he challenged Netanyahu last summer? The GOP was treasonous in their support of a foreign head of state over the President.
Hillary Clinton says that she wants to continue the Obama legacy, well pandering to Israel was not part of that legacy. As I said earlier, I expected more from her than cheap political stunts, so I am disappointed.
I must have missed those arrests...can you cite some of the convictions?
NIce of you to drop by, RJ, how tricks?
The GOP behavior over this was more than loathsome, but you already know that I don't fancy conservatives and rightwing policy, regardless.
That dirty little corner of the rightwing HR should have had to pay more for its errant behavior.
Are you referring to when the Israeli PM spoke in front of Congress? Or a different time/event? Not trying to rattle your chain, honestly just not sure exactly what part of our evil doctrine of world domination that specifically was the target of your comment.
On the flip, I'm good - if you've time, I invite you to look at a piece I just posted on the minimum wage - I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.
It is good to see such active participation in these forums. New voices can bring new perspectives. Welcome back.
I notice that you feel very strongly about many issues, hopefully as your exchanges continue the emotional strength of your views can be bolstered by the addition of more facts.
For instance, your "moron" President George W Bush followed Pres. Bill Clinton's efforts with his own Roadmap to Peace 2003. And in 2002 he became the first US president to call for a Palestinian state.
Pres. Bush tried again with a peace conference in Annapolis - which at least produced a 'Joint Understanding' between Israel and the Palestinians to continue productive negotiations.
As you can see, Pres. Bush did offer peace efforts, and it can be argued that his efforts were more serious, and seriously considered, than those of Pres. Obama's 2009 efforts that only accomplished an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians to 'relaunch negotiations'. An effort that deadlocked in a matter of weeks. In 2014 Pres. Obama even said, "neither side had political will to make tough decisions" and that "...there may need to be a pause in the process."
As for Americans voting on foreign policy issues... they already do when they vote for a presidential candidate that they trust to get the job done. Of course it appears you favor having voters micro-manage foreign policy decisions. Considering the "average American's" political knowledge and involvement, ie. voting for a candidate based purely on skin color or gender, or voting a particular way because they 'liked' the candidate, or because that's the way their buddy voted - do you really want that type of information deficit messing with your nation's foreign policy maneuvers?
And if it is your idea that if "...they want to kill each other like idiots, let them.", is a safe path, do you also consider that the 'champion' killers among them would probably also gain access to billions of dollars for arms and support, or even possibly access to nuclear weapons?
ps. Do you know Hillary's foreign policy service history, and do you know what her campaign stance is towards Israel now? If not you should take a look. I don't think she would be anything like her husband in the foreign policy arena. Trusting Hillary... now there is a coin toss with a two-headed coin.
My comment of people voting on foreign policy decisions had nothing to do with electing a president. I am talking about the people being able to vote on a political decision that involves the safety of our country and others while a president is serving a term no matter which party is in charge.
A few examples:
The invasion twice of Iraq. Maybe the first one was justified, but the second one was based on lies. I'm saying before A president can send troops to war. Nobody wanted Bush junior to invade Iraq, even his father. But he did it anyways, and claimed mission accomplished just months after he invaded. He also said it would be a short war, which ended up going on for years, only so that the US military could guard the oil fields.
Grenada. They invaded saying that the Russians were building a military airport there. Then when the Russians left, what did the US do? They went in and built an airport twice as big, and put a military base there.
Afganistan. For decades the US called out the Russians on there invasion of Afganistan, and what did they do immediately after the Russians left. They sent troops into Afganistan.
There are a lot of things that the US does that nobody knows about, until after a whistleblower brings it up. Like the Iran Contra thing.
American's general have no idea what a candidate is going to do until they do it. What we do know, is that if congress doesn't like a sitting president nothing gets done.
Hello again Brimancandy,
I disagree with most of your contentions, but since they involve opinions, and not debatable facts, let's look at one example that I think unarguably illustrates the fallacy of American voters micro-managing our nation's foreign policy as you propose; WWII
Leading up to our involvement the American voter was such an isolationist that FDR had to resort to the creative illusion of the Lend/Lease program to circumvent the political prohibitions to provide the assistance that Britain needed to stay alive as a nation.
History provides pretty solid proof that Britain/Europe were not capable of defeating Hitler without our help. Can you imagine the world today if Hitler had prevailed then? If the United States had followed its voter's whims and stuck its head in the sand would we be speaking German now?
Nope, it is all about the presidential elections. That is when the American voter gets his say on foreign policy. When you vote for a president you are voting for his foreign policy ideals as well.
I'm not going to argue policy with you, but your president Obama has launched over 500 drone strikes, killing thousands, including civilians. If you classify Obama supporting UN doctrines as trying to bring peace to the Middle East, then your wishing on a prayer. Ultimately the entire Middle East has gotten worse unde Obama and his meddling into the Arab Spring. It was stable with troops until he pulled them out.
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/06/hes_mad … aped_them/
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/201 … -to-worse/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/20/opinions/ … ast-sager/
Just some light reading to validate the point.
by Faith Reaper 23 months ago
Just curious. Who would you trust to defend our country against our enemies- Hillary or Trump?I am conducting my own little poll here of sorts, as I am just curious who would you trust to defend our country against our enemies and why - Hillary or Trump?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 years ago
There are people who strongly contend that the witch hunt against Hillary Clinton regarding past scandals & e-mail escapades are because she is a woman. They maintain that Hillary Clinton is more than qualified to be President of the United States. They maintain that Hillary Clinton...
by Greensleeves Hubs 23 months ago
So it's the final day. Let's be clear about the choice;Hillary Clinton is deeply unpopular. She may not be a nice person. There are so many negative reports about her, it is difficult to believe there is 'no smoke without fire.' However, some allegations are disproven, and most others are unproven...
by Susie Lehto 16 months ago
After THUMPING Clinton in Monday night’s debate, Trump headed to the sunshine state for a YUGE RALLY in Melbourne, Florida. (National poll has Trump 46.7% and Clinton 42.6%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/ ) After Trump's plane landed something magical happened.A gigantic bolt of lightning...
by Ralph Schwartz 3 months ago
Hillary has hinted and has been fundraising in the last month, which some say indicates she is preparing for another run at President Trump. Others say she's just trying to make it look like she's a candidate to keep the law off of her tail.Thoughts?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 years ago
her? Why? Why not? Ms. Clinton seem to have the best qualifications for president. She also has political experience and is a quite savvy person?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|