MoveOn.Org Likens Hillary To ‘Right-Wing Hawks’
Click here for reuse options!“Secretary Clinton, and any other person thinking about seeking the Democratic nomination in 2016, should think long and hard before embracing the same policies advocated by right-wing war hawks that got America into Iraq in the first place and helped set the stage for Iraq’s troubles today,” MoveOn’s executive director, Ilya Sheyman, said in a statement.
Clinton, an expected presidential candidate in 2016, started to draw clear foreign policy differences with President Barack Obama in an interview published over the weekend. Clinton, who once served Obama as secretary of state, said her former boss failed to heed her advice calling for the U.S. to arm moderate Syrian rebels who may have been able to block the expansion of the jihadist military force known as the Islamic State.
But Sheyman argued Clinton should be learning the lesson from her 2008 presidential campaign, when Obama outflanked Clinton to the left on the Iraq War during the Democratic primary.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
52 responses to MoveOn.Org Likens Hillary To ‘Right-Wing Hawks’
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
edmeyer_able August 12th, 2014 at 15:23
So….when will the John McCainiacs and Sarah Paloons endorse her candidacy?
tiredoftea August 12th, 2014 at 17:13
Not. They’re still be all swoony over Canadian Teddy to stop Rand Paul from stepping up.
edmeyer_able August 12th, 2014 at 15:23
So….when will the John McCainiacs and Sarah Paloons endorse her candidacy?
tiredoftea August 12th, 2014 at 17:13
Not. They’re still be all swoony over Canadian Teddy to stop Rand Paul from stepping up.
Suzanne McFly August 12th, 2014 at 15:31
This is definitely the biggest problem I have for voting for her.
tiredoftea August 12th, 2014 at 17:14
That, and her too close ties to the financial industry. And, of course her direct line to the oligarch class through Bubba’s Global Initiative.
Suzanne McFly August 12th, 2014 at 15:31
This is definitely the biggest problem I have for voting for her.
tiredoftea August 12th, 2014 at 17:14
That, and her too close ties to the financial industry. And, of course her direct line to the oligarch class through Bubba’s Global Initiative.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker August 12th, 2014 at 16:10
I was for here a couple years ago and thought she might be a good successor in the Whitehouse. Then she stepped down as Secretary of State and opened her bloody mouth.
She’s still bitter over her failed primary against Obama and looks less appealing to me every day.
mea_mark August 12th, 2014 at 17:08
She is better than any republican. The problem is her main asset is that she is the front runner. Policy and her stand on issues is seriously lacking and needs to be questioned. Hopefully if she is questioned enough she will adapt a more progressive position. As it stands, I am certainly looking for someone else. Personally I like Sherrod Brown but he seems to be getting little attention and he may not want to run.
clo August 12th, 2014 at 18:11
I think Sherrod Brown would be an excellent VP with Hillary!
tigerrules August 12th, 2014 at 19:41
Ditto
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker August 12th, 2014 at 16:10
I was for her a couple years ago and thought she might be a good successor in the Whitehouse. Then she stepped down as Secretary of State and opened her bloody mouth.
She’s still bitter over her failed primary against Obama and looks less appealing to me every day.
mea_mark August 12th, 2014 at 17:08
She is better than any republican. The problem is her main asset is that she is the front runner. Policy and her stand on issues is seriously lacking and needs to be questioned. Hopefully if she is questioned enough she will adapt a more progressive position. As it stands, I am certainly looking for someone else. Personally I like Sherrod Brown but he seems to be getting little attention and he may not want to run.
clo August 12th, 2014 at 18:11
I think Sherrod Brown would be an excellent VP with Hillary!
tigerrules August 12th, 2014 at 19:41
Ditto
clo August 12th, 2014 at 18:10
As a woman, she needs to show she’s tough.Her timing stinks, she should have kept quiet until things settled down in Iraq. I do think she is more hawkish than Obama, but that’s not saying a lot. She can lure republicans, especially Vs Rand Paul.
If Hillary doesn’t run, we are up a creek without a paddle…
Can you think of any other democrat, at this time, that could win?
Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders doesn’t have a chance, and I admire both.
pmichael August 12th, 2014 at 18:59
just a very fragile opinion …
– but don’t sell Elizabeth short.
EW is not the ‘status quo’ – and the public is quite tired of the ‘status quo’.
clo August 12th, 2014 at 18:10
As a woman, she needs to show she’s tough.Her timing stinks, she should have kept quiet until things settled down in Iraq. I do think she is more hawkish than Obama, but that’s not saying a lot. She can lure republicans, especially Vs Rand Paul.
If Hillary doesn’t run, we are up a creek without a paddle…
Can you think of any other democrat, at this time, that could win?
Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders doesn’t have a chance, and I admire both.
pmichael August 12th, 2014 at 18:59
just a very fragile opinion …
– but don’t sell Elizabeth short.
EW is not the ‘status quo’ – and the public is quite tired of the ‘status quo’.
pmichael August 12th, 2014 at 18:34
Seriously?
She wanted us to give them *more* weapons –
– which they would then either drop and abandon or *sell* to the very people they were intended to be used against ??
Wonderful.
And why is all this ‘created by Obama’? Again – seriously?
Every OUNCE of the problems which now exist in Iraq were created by Dick Cheney, his Halliburton profits, and his lap-puppet, GW. I do not know how the man sleeps at night – knowing he literally traded away or sold American lives – and the promised ‘profit’ (oil) which didn’t even come to pass.
Right-wingers need to just acknowledge this. We’re all vulnerable to trusting the people we support to tell us the truth. This particular war was and is an absolute monument to those who choose monetary profit over the truth.
pmichael August 12th, 2014 at 18:34
Seriously?
She wanted us to give them *more* weapons –
– which they would then either drop and abandon or *sell* to the very people they were intended to be used against ??
Wonderful.
And why is all this ‘created by Obama’? Again – seriously?
Every OUNCE of the problems which now exist in Iraq were created by Dick Cheney, his Halliburton profits, and his lap-puppet, GW. I do not know how the man sleeps at night – knowing he literally traded away or sold American lives – and the promised ‘profit’ (oil) which didn’t even come to pass.
Right-wingers need to just acknowledge this. We’re all vulnerable to trusting the people we support to tell us the truth. This particular war was and is an absolute monument to those who choose monetary profit over the truth.
bobby1122 August 12th, 2014 at 19:40
Hillary isn’t going to take blame for the worldwide foreign policy mess. Obama isn’t going to take blame, George Bush is out of office 6 years and he had “the surge” – a success- How is Tea Leoni going to play this on the suck CBS show ” Madam Suck”?
pignose4.0 August 12th, 2014 at 20:31
Tell us what Obama could have done that would have changed anything that has happened worldwide. You can’t but you parrot the right-wing talking points like you know what you’re taslking about but you don’t. bush broke it and it will stay broken for the foreseeable future so he will own it until it’s fixed, the surge didn’t fix it as we can see with the events taking place now.
SkeeterVT August 17th, 2014 at 00:09
CBS’s new drama “Madam Secretary” has yet to air and you have the gall to call it a “suck show” and “Madam Suck?” I suppose I should not be surprised. After all, a lot of Hillary Clinton’s worst right-wing critics are openly accusing CBS of “glorifying” Clinton with this series.
But, as is the case with all prime-time TV shows, it’s the Nielsen ratings that will have the final word on whether “Madam Secretary” succeeds or not. Stay tuned . . .
bobby1122 August 17th, 2014 at 04:06
CBS and Obama’s White House have a biased connection. The Rhodes brothers. This story about a younger Hillary is for her campaign.
SkeeterVT August 19th, 2014 at 10:47
PROVE IT!
bobby1122 August 12th, 2014 at 19:40
Hillary isn’t going to take blame for the worldwide foreign policy mess. Obama isn’t going to take blame, George Bush is out of office 6 years and he had “the surge” – a success- How is Tea Leoni going to play this on the suck CBS show ” Madam Suck”?
pignose4.0 August 12th, 2014 at 20:31
Tell us what Obama could have done that would have changed anything that has happened worldwide. You can’t but you parrot the right-wing talking points like you know what you’re talking about but you don’t. bush broke it and it will stay broken for the foreseeable future so he will own it until it’s fixed, the surge didn’t fix it as we can see with the events taking place now.
SkeeterVT August 17th, 2014 at 00:09
CBS’s new drama “Madam Secretary” has yet to air and you have the gall to call it a “suck show” and “Madam Suck?” I suppose I should not be surprised. After all, a lot of Hillary Clinton’s worst right-wing critics are openly accusing CBS of “glorifying” Clinton with this series.
But, as is the case with all prime-time TV shows, it’s the Nielsen ratings that will have the final word on whether “Madam Secretary” succeeds or not. Stay tuned . . .
bobby1122 August 17th, 2014 at 04:06
CBS and Obama’s White House have a biased connection. The Rhodes brothers. This story about a younger Hillary is for her campaign.
SkeeterVT August 19th, 2014 at 10:47
PROVE IT!
NativeSonKY August 12th, 2014 at 20:27
For the hard-left crowd, Hillary isn’t an option – I just wouldn’t vote or I’d write in Warren. Same for Alison Lundergran Grimes here in Kentucky – even though he has bowed out of the race, I’m still casting my ballot for Ed Marksberry. He showed how corrupt the Kentucky Democratic Party was this year. Tired of this good-ol’ rich boy and girl network.
arc99 August 12th, 2014 at 20:31
handing the Presidency and as many as 3 Supreme Court nominations to the Republicans in 2016 is not going to accomplish anything.
OldLefty August 12th, 2014 at 20:45
handing the Presidency and as many as 3 Supreme Court nominations to the Republicans in 2016 is not going to accomplish anything.
____________
Now, THAT is not an option.
NativeSonKY August 12th, 2014 at 21:22
Oh well.
SkeeterVT August 13th, 2014 at 03:21
This only shows that the hard-line Far Left is just as Looney Tunes and out of touch with political reality as the hard-line Far Right is. And neither side will admit to the fact that they’re in the minority.
OldLefty August 13th, 2014 at 06:54
And neither side will admit to the fact that they’re in the minority.
__________
There ARE facts that weigh in.
I think that the facts indicate that EVERYONE has moved to the right.
Obama is to the right of Dwight D Eisenhower, and the Birchers of his day are the Tea People of today.
The difference is, they were the fringe of the Republican party back then, now they have taken over the party.
There is no equivalent on the left.
There is also no equivalent to Joseph Welch in the Republican Party to stand up and say, “At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” to Cruze, McConnell or Issa.
SkeeterVT August 13th, 2014 at 18:25
“There is no equivalent on the left.”
Maybe not today, but have you forgotten about the McGovernites who took over the Democratic Party in 1972? Not only did their takeover result in Richard Nixon winning re-election in a 49-state blowout (losing only Massachusetts), but it also froze the Democrats out of the White House for the next 20 years, save for a relatively conservative southern Democrat by the name of Jimmy Carter who won only because of the post-Watergate backlash against Gerald Ford for pardoning “Tricky Dick” Nixon.
Four years later, Carter got tossed out by Ronald Reagan — and the Democrats lost control of the Senate. Only the gerrymandering of House districts kept the Democrats in control of that chamber (just as it’s keeping the Republicans in control of the House today).
OldLefty August 13th, 2014 at 18:53
Not
only did their takeover result in Richard Nixon winning re-election in a
49-state
___________
Really???
I thought it was the
death of RFK after JBJ announced that he wasn’t running.
(Then, before Nixon escalated, he said he could win the war)
Many of the problems we
see today are a result of Reagan, and Carter was prescient, while Reagan told
the public they were pretty. (By the way, the GOP now tells Americans that they
are moochers), and there was talk of TOW missiles to Iran.
And guess what?
Pretty much everything
you say has been true, over the last over the last 20 years just replace (D)
for (R).
Every poll shows that the
American people are with the Democrats, (or liberals at least) on the issues.
SkeeterVT August 17th, 2014 at 00:19
Nixon won by a squeaker in 1968. Third-party candidate George Wallace nearly cost Nixon the 1968 election by siphoning off a lot of conservative white Southern voters — the very voter base the Nixon campaign was openly going after. Wallace — the arch-segregationist governor of Alabama — carried Arkansas, Louisiana,Mississippi, Georgia and, of course, Alabama, Had Wallace not been in the race, Nixon would have beaten Democrat Hubert Humprhey by a landslide.
NativeSonKY August 12th, 2014 at 20:27
For the hard-left crowd, Hillary isn’t an option – I just wouldn’t vote or I’d write in Warren. Same for Alison Lundergran Grimes here in Kentucky – even though he has bowed out of the race, I’m still casting my ballot for Ed Marksberry. He showed how corrupt the Kentucky Democratic Party was this year. Tired of this good-ol’ rich boy and girl network.
arc99 August 12th, 2014 at 20:31
handing the Presidency and as many as 3 Supreme Court nominations to the Republicans in 2016 is not going to accomplish anything.
OldLefty August 12th, 2014 at 20:45
handing the Presidency and as many as 3 Supreme Court nominations to the Republicans in 2016 is not going to accomplish anything.
____________
Now, THAT is not an option.
NativeSonKY August 12th, 2014 at 21:22
Oh well.
SkeeterVT August 13th, 2014 at 03:21
This only shows that the hard-line Far Left is just as Looney Tunes and out of touch with political reality as the hard-line Far Right is. And neither side will admit to the fact that they’re in the minority.
OldLefty August 13th, 2014 at 06:54
And neither side will admit to the fact that they’re in the minority.
__________
There ARE facts that weigh in.
I think that the facts indicate that EVERYONE has moved to the right.
Obama is to the right of Dwight D Eisenhower, and the Birchers of his day are the Tea People of today.
The difference is, they were the fringe of the Republican party back then, now they have taken over the party.
There is no equivalent on the left.
There is also no equivalent to Joseph Welch in the Republican Party to stand up and say, “At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” to Cruze, McConnell or Issa.
SkeeterVT August 13th, 2014 at 18:25
“There is no equivalent on the left.”
Maybe not today, but have you forgotten about the McGovernites who took over the Democratic Party in 1972? Not only did their takeover result in Richard Nixon winning re-election in a 49-state blowout (losing only Massachusetts), but it also froze the Democrats out of the White House for the next 20 years, save for a relatively conservative southern Democrat by the name of Jimmy Carter who won only because of the post-Watergate backlash against Gerald Ford for pardoning “Tricky Dick” Nixon.
Four years later, Carter got tossed out by Ronald Reagan — and the Democrats lost control of the Senate. Only the gerrymandering of House districts kept the Democrats in control of that chamber (just as it’s keeping the Republicans in control of the House today).
OldLefty August 13th, 2014 at 18:53
Not
only did their takeover result in Richard Nixon winning re-election in a
49-state
___________
Really???
I thought it was the
death of RFK after JBJ announced that he wasn’t running.
(Then, before Nixon escalated, he said he could win the war)
Many of the problems we
see today are a result of Reagan, and Carter was prescient, while Reagan told
the public they were pretty. (By the way, the GOP now tells Americans that they
are moochers), and there was talk of TOW missiles to Iran.
And guess what?
Pretty much everything
you say has been true, over the last over the last 20 years just replace (D)
for (R).
Every poll shows that the
American people are with the Democrats, (or liberals at least) on the issues.
SkeeterVT August 17th, 2014 at 00:19
Nixon won by a squeaker in 1968. Third-party candidate George Wallace nearly cost Nixon the 1968 election by siphoning off a lot of conservative white Southern voters — the very voter base the Nixon campaign was openly going after in its now-infamous “Southern Strategy.”
Wallace — the arch-segregationist governor of Alabama — carried Arkansas, Louisiana,Mississippi, Georgia and, of course, Alabama (The first time since 1912 that a third-party candidate had carried any states in a presidential election and the last time since then). Had Wallace not been in the race, Nixon would have beaten Democrat Hubert Humprhey by a landslide. As it turned out, the final outcome of the election wasn’t determined until the following morning.
It was Wallace’s aim to deny both Humphrey and Nixon an Electoral College majority (270), throwing the election to the House of Representatives, which at that time was controlled by the Democrats. But the Democrats back then were badly divided along racial and geographical lines over the civil rights movement and along generational lines over the Vietnam War. They were far more fractured back then than the Republicans are now.
Wallace knew he couldn’t win, with his arch-segregationist position and his extremely hawkish vice-presidential running mate, retired Air Force General Curtis LeMay. But he had enough political leverage to act as a “kingmaker” had he succeeded in throwing the election to the House.
Elliot J. Stamler August 13th, 2014 at 19:44
MoveOn.com would do the Democratic Party an enormous favor and do themselves one too to get the hell out of the Democratic Party and sign up with the Communist Party or the Green Party or the Socialist Party which is where they belong and which reflects their views. They are so toxic to my Democratic Party – they are our version of the Tea Party. Fortunately we can see in the Republicans what happens when out of cowardice or indolence or pusillanimity a political party gives in to the extremists. We Democrats must never permit this bunch of leftists and fellow-travellers to influence us…they will guarantee a President Paul/Cruz/Santorum/Huckabee/Rubio etc. etc. etc. And that will presage the end of democracy in America.
Elliot J. Stamler August 13th, 2014 at 19:44
MoveOn.com would do the Democratic Party an enormous favor and do themselves one too to get the hell out of the Democratic Party and sign up with the Communist Party or the Green Party or the Socialist Party which is where they belong and which reflects their views. They are so toxic to my Democratic Party – they are our version of the Tea Party. Fortunately we can see in the Republicans what happens when out of cowardice or indolence or pusillanimity a political party gives in to the extremists. We Democrats must never permit this bunch of leftists and fellow-travellers to influence us…they will guarantee a President Paul/Cruz/Santorum/Huckabee/Rubio etc. etc. etc. And that will presage the end of democracy in America.