Comments on: Clinton's Hawkish Stance Unwelcome

The Nation: Democrats Should Be Wary Of Their Front-Runner's Militarism

[wogerwabbit]

I don''t particularly like Hillary or the fact that she is the leading Democratic candidate... I feel our country deserves better than the same clans running it again and again. Nevertheless, if it comes down to it, I''d vote for Hillary against whoever the Neo-Conservatives run against her. The Repubs are tainted goods and the stench of Bush will follow them for decades... hell, even John McCain has sold out. I think the best case scenario at this sad point in our history is Hillary for prez and Obama as v.p.

[rafterman1]

The Clinton(s) and current Democrat philosophy on governing/government is:
%u201CBig Government will provide for you%u201D, &
%u201CFrom cradle to grave, Big Government will take care of you%u201D, &
%u201CIt takes a Village%u201D(Big Government)

Whereas J.F. Kennedy said :
%u201CAsk not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country%u201D

It''s hard to "do for a country" when the government of that country has given billions in tax breaks to rich and corporations and c r a p for the middle class. Republicans have created a gigantic government (twice what is was under Bubba), but little of it towards helping regular Americans.

What good is a government if it doesn''t help the people? That''s the purpose of government, to give it''s citizens the best life possible - not to exist solely to sustain itself. I don''t need a government to exist just to tax (the middle class) and wage wars of agression in my name. But Republicans have turned the government into just that - a gigantic, self-feeding monster - it feeds itself and grows larger, but gives little back to it''s people.

[processor2]

Since comparing Republicans vs. Democrats is an argument that never goes anywhere,
let%u2019s instead compare Democrat vs. Democrat,, let%u2019s say Clinton(s) vs. J.F. Kennedy.

The Clinton(s) and current Democrat philosophy on governing/government is:
%u201CBig Government will provide for you%u201D, &
%u201CFrom cradle to grave, Big Government will take care of you%u201D, &
%u201CIt takes a Village%u201D(Big Government)

Whereas J.F. Kennedy said :
%u201CAsk not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country%u201D

These two philosophies (both Democrat) are complete polar opposite of each other.

I would much rather be a J.F. Kennedy democrat than a Clinton democrat.

Sounds to me like the NeoCommies and MoveOn.org have hijacked a Democrat party that I once knew and respected.

...

[frb01]

I live in Western NY and unless I missed something, none of the pork has gotten to this side of the state. She has not even put down on down payment on all the jobs she promised the first time she ran for Senate. Hillary is a seven year Senate veteran, hasn''t run anything in her entire life. The difference between her and Obama is what, five years. What does that prove, and Obama has state senate experience which even further narrows the gap. It is the Clinton political stance all over again, don''t go anti-war until the last minute and try to play both sides. The country has had either a Bush or a Clinton in office since 1988. Frankly we need a change, and at some point, I would like the candidates to engage in the hypothetical. Give us your nominees or potential nominees for VP and some of the cabinet posts, because based on the past seven years that is critical.

[rafterman1]

===Exactly Hillary does come off a credible and has represented herself well in the debates she is no hawk, she has displayed a thoughtful thinking position but yes she could push a button if needed absolutely I do not perceive that as a act at all.===

Hillary is the kind of politician that Americans have usually gravitated towards in the past - a moderate who leans left on national/social issues and right on foreign policy/defense. Teddy Roosevelt, FDR and JFK have all been like this and had been successful presidents.

The bottom line difference for those who compare her to Bush is this: Though she may be aggressive in foreign policy, because she is thoughtful (unlike Bush), she would never have been dumb enough to get us involved in Iraq. That thoughtfulness and the understanding of consequences to actions are the reasons why she won''t be another Bush disaster.

[on_alert247]

Typical viewpoint from someone who supported the black panthers and communists. Only war-mongering Scheer supports is when it is to kill Americans.

[tylenol6]

When Hillary is elected, she will continue the disatorous job Bush is doing and STAYING THE COURSE. If anyone thinks Hillary will turn this country around, they are sadly mistaken. The plan to destroy the middle class is going according to plan. We are in a recession. THEY JUST HAVEN''T SAID THE WORD, "Recession". Bush and Cheney want the economy to tank so that they can impliment the "AMERO". It all seems to co-inside with the NAU and the NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY. That is why they won''t secure the borders. If we have a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, all I have to say is god help Pres.
Bush for not securing the borders. Nobody believes
anything the Bush administration says.......

[ampsanne]

To me the woman that should have ran for president is retired. She served as a senator for over 20 some years. Pat Schroeder, now there was a woman that handled herself well, and knew what was going on with this country. As a woman I just don''t care for Hillary Clinton. And to be compared to Margaret Thatcher I think not!

[usayesterday]

The "Military Industrial Complex" corrupts across party lines, Republican AND Democrat. Sadly, too many Americans are too ignorant to realize that.

A staunch political ideology is a mental blinder just as strong as any religion on this planet.

The rest of the independently thinking Americans are continually held hostage to this ignorance.

[p-syrus]

What in the world was Sen. Hillary Clinton thinking when she attacked Sen. Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in going after Osama bin Laden? --
(CBS) This column was written by Robert Scheer.


She was doing what Barry Goldwater did in ''64. Admit nothing which can be used by a nation''s adversaries and keep your own counsel with regard to delicate diplomatic negotiations & foreign endeavors.

It is a far more intelligent strategy to never dismiss the possiblity of using a weapon and never deploy it than to deny any intention of using it in advance and to be forced by an adversary into a position of extremis.

Perhaps Mr. Scheer would prefer a chorus of "Kumbaya"?