But we don’t need a memoir to know that, comparatively speaking, two things can be said about her tenure at the State Department: first, that in fact she accomplished very little; and second, that both before her appointment and during her service, she consistently came down on the hawkish side of debates inside the administration, from Afghanistan to Libya and Syria. She’s also taken a more hawkish line than Obama on Ukraine and the confrontation with Russia.
In the brief excerpt that’s been released by her publisher, Clinton notes that as secretary of state she “ended up visiting 112 countries and traveling nearly one million miles.” But what, if anything, did she accomplish with all that to-ing and fro-ing? Not a lot. She largely avoided the Israel-Palestine tangle, perhaps because she didn’t want to risk crossing the Israel lobby at home, and it’s hard to see what she actually did, other than to promote the education and empowerment of girls and women in places where they are severely beaten down. And, while it’s wrong (and really silly) to call Clinton a neoconservative, she’s more of—how to put it?—a “right-wing realist” on foreign policy, who often backed military intervention as a first or second resort, while others in the White House—especially Obama’s national security staff and Vice President Biden’s own aides, were far more reluctant to employ the troops.
In that vein, it’s useful to explore the memoirs of Robert Gates, who was secretary of defense under George W. Bush and then, inexplicably, under President Obama, too. In Duty: Memoir of a Secretary at War (which could also be the subtitle of Clinton’s own memoir), Gates says several times that he and Clinton saw eye to eye. (This has also been extensively documented by Bob Woodward, if more narrowly focused, in his 2010 book, Obama’s Wars.) In Duty, Gates says that he formed an alliance with Clinton because both he and her had independent power bases and were, in his words, “un-fireable”
For the record, I’ve lost friends over my willingness to criticize Barack Obama, going back to the 2008 primary. Only yesterday, the true-blue Obama precincts of Twitter were raging against me as an enemy of the president.
I don’t so much defend the administration as defend the country from Republicans who cynically turned on their own ideas – the individual mandate, cap and trade legislation, immigration reform – once a Democratic president embraced them. I’m almost equally appalled by lazy Beltway wags who can’t see the radicalism of today’s GOP and reduce everything to their own “both sides do it” false equivalence.
You’ve got to see the tweet attacking Walsh:
It is nothing but amazing to see this from partisan Democrats. This rise of the Democrat with an intolerance of dissent in their own ranks shows the incapacity to win legislatures in the USA. If the dissent in the ranks of those who are left-of-center (think ideology, not partisanship) isn’t effectively directed to electoral goals, Democrats will continue to be losers.
So this is what Schumer is suggesting: let’s pass the bill now and don’t really follow it until 2017, so in the meantime, the “broken” immigration system that the Democrats continue to push will stay “broken” for another three years and we can still have record deportations and separation of families going on at a record clip. And yes, Obama earns kudos for record deportations.
Wow, how’s that historic 2012 Latino vote for President Obama and the Democrats really working out on the immigration issue? But hey, this is Schumer talking, the same Schumer who likes to call the undocumented the “illegals” on national television and no one says anything, because why upset those so-called immigration “allies.” And the same Schumer who is a border security hawk.
This is very simple: the Democrats think that the U.S. Latino vote is a lock because they aren’t feeling the pressure, and the Republicans don’t care about immigration reform. Meanwhile, deportations continue to occur every day at a record pace, and the community gets fooled.
In the end, Democrats have no backbone, national Latino organizations that side with Democrats have no backbone and it is the true immigrant rights voices out there that are trying to change the dialogue and focus. A note to the Democrats: stop leading with fear of Republicans and stop playing the U.S. Latino community. Don’t assume that we will side with you because the other team doesn’t get it. Democrats need to lead and be bold right now. Call the GOP’s bluff, because that is what it is, a bluff.
For decades, even as far back as Reagan’s dirty wars in Central America, Schumer has proven himself to be indifferent to injustices endured by Latin Americans.
The DCCC that I saw in 2006 and 2008 had a smart strategy of finding the right Democratic candidates that matched their district, and doing everything necessary to get these candidates to run and then give them the resources they needed to win.
Now, several cycles removed from Emanuel and Van Hollen, it seems that the DCCC and its leadership have completely lost their way. They no longer know how to recruit or back the right candidates. It feels like they are using a bastardized version of the ‘06 and ‘08 strategies, but like a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy, it’s almost impossible to tell what the original actually was.
Now, the strategy seems to find the Democrat who’s the closest to being a Republican, and fully back them without doing do diligence or the hard work on the ground to find out who is the best candidate to win.
it’s people like Steve Israel who keep me from ever registering as a Democrat again.