RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Weissman writes: "Hillary Clinton can do what neo-conservatives and paleo-conservatives and theological conservatives never could. She can sell imperialism as a liberal, humanitarian imperative."

Hillary Clinton at the Democratic Debate. (photo: Travis Dove/NYT)
Hillary Clinton at the Democratic Debate. (photo: Travis Dove/NYT)


Hillary’s No Neo-Con. She’s Far More Dangerous

By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News

18 January 16

 

ack in September 2013, well before Bernie Sanders decided to run for president, the liberal journalist Peter Beinart called attention to the leftward swing among Democratic Party voters, marked by Elizabeth Warren’s popularity and Bill de Blasio’s victory in the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City. More to the point, Beinart explicitly challenged Hillary Clinton to move left and ride the new wave to power – or risk getting overwhelmed by what he called “The Rise of the New, New Left.” The following month, I responded with “Don’t Let Hillary Housebreak the New New Left.”

Beinart’s choice of labels was wildly misleading. For those who missed his reference, the original New Left of the 1960s – best embodied by Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) – initially looked toward the kind of Democratic Socialism that Bernie Sanders now proclaims. We gave radical, mostly white support to the civil rights movement, usually leaning toward the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). We opposed both sides in the Cold War, seeing both as promoting nuclear disaster. We broke with the mainstream refusal to cooperate with Communists, an ideological prohibition that encouraged witch hunts, red-baiting, and the stifling of thoroughgoing social and economic reform.

And perhaps best known, we played a leading role in organizing the campus-based opposition to the War in Vietnam, which Beinart’s liberal heroes – former vice president Hubert Humphrey, labor leaders Walter Reuther and David Dubinsky, civil rights activist Bayard Rustin, and theologian Reinhold Niebuhr – condemned us for doing.

Though Hillary and Bill opposed the war at the time, Beinart correctly places her in the same political tradition as his liberal heroes, who forged “the dominant ideology in American public life” long before the neo-cons emerged. These liberals believed with FDR “that government should intervene in society to solve problems that individuals cannot solve alone.” And they zealously insisted that the US should have, as I put it, “a muscular, hyper-activist foreign policy, one with all the multilateral trappings of UN resolutions and NATO-led coalitions, but still decidedly neo-colonial and inescapably in the service of Big Oil and the merchants of death.”

Hillary embodies this liberal imperialism and will do her best to groom the new political generation that sees itself as liberal to follow her into endless war, especially in the Middle East. That is why she is so dangerous. She can do what neo-conservatives and paleo-conservatives and theological conservatives never could. She can sell imperialism as a liberal, humanitarian imperative.

Domestically, before Obamacare, Hillary fought for something approaching universal health care, no matter how corporate and inadequate it was. By contrast, America’s number one neo-con, William Kristol, made his bones as a hard-ass Republican right-winger by leading the fight to destroy what she was trying to create. Which of them do you think will do better selling self-identified liberals on war?

No doubt, many neo-cons will support Hillary. Some will serve as her advisers, and one of their top leaders, Robert Kagan, has already started calling himself a liberal interventionist. He sees the future if Hillary becomes president, and he realizes she will build that future by drawing on what the Democrats did in the past, not on what the neo-cons said and did under George W. Bush.

Support for Israel? Woodrow Wilson, who preached “the self-determination of nations,” went along with Britain’s Balfour Declaration, offering Palestine as a homeland for the Jewish people. Harry Truman quickly recognized the new Jewish State, and whenever it counted, the Democratic Party has sided with Israel against the Palestinians.

Support for the Saudis? FDR forged Washington’s initial alliance with the Saudi monarchy to secure a supply of oil for the coming world war. Jimmy Carter funded the mujahideen, the holy warriors, months before Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan, and pledged to defend the Saudis in case the Soviets extended their activism. His “Carter Doctrine” also committed the US to use military force if needed to ensure the flow of oil and natural gas from the entire region.

The Cold War? Harry Truman certainly pumped it up in Greece in 1947, though historians have traced the conflict’s origins back through decisions made during FDR’s alliance with the Soviets in World War II and Woodrow Wilson’s decision to join allied troops to fight against the Bolshevik Revolution in 1918.

And Vietnam? The American Friends of Vietnam, the loudest cheerleader for interfering in the former French colony, was headed by a New Deal Democrat, Leo Cherne, who also ran the International Rescue Committee and served as Chairman of the Executive Committee of Freedom House. Two of his strongest backers were Democratic senators John F. Kennedy and Mike Mansfield, who joined with New York’s right-wing Cardinal Spellman to help impose the Catholic Ngo Dinh Diem to rule over the largely Buddhist South Vietnam.

These are just snapshots of the Democratic Party’s past, which we all need to understand in much greater breadth and depth. But trying to make the neo-cons our number-one bogeyman is to make them far more important than they were. It absolves the mainstream Democratic Party from the blame it so richly deserves. And it makes it so much easier for Hillary Clinton to shape a new generation of Democratic voters in her own imperialist image.



A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, "Big Money and the Corporate State: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently Break Their Hold."

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+98 # treerapper 2016-01-18 10:05
Hillary, unfortunately, is a Corporate shill. She's very good at parroting Bernie but, her actions over the course of her career speak volumes about her leanings. She definitely is in complete sync with Billy-boy, goose-stepping along to the Wall Street serenade.
 
 
-74 # lights 2016-01-18 14:40
And Bernie parrots Elizabeth Warren all the time so casually..in words and ideas.
 
 
+84 # CL38 2016-01-18 16:29
Complete nonsense. Bernie has held the SAME POSITIONS for 43 years. Long before our esteemed Elizabeth Warren entered into politics.
 
 
+50 # lfeuille 2016-01-18 18:02
Bernie has been saying these things long before Warren decided to become political. He is not parroting anyone but himself, and I have never heard Warren claim to be any type of socialist, democratic or otherwise.
 
 
+23 # MarthaA 2016-01-18 10:31
This post is Neo-Con/Neo-Lib New Class Chameleon Right-Wing EXTREMIST Propaganda. Neo-Libs and Neo-Cons are both of the Duopoly New Class that's unified in Congress in support of war and the destruction of the USA to a 3rd world country.. A Neo-Lib is a Conservative EXTREMIST and a Neo-Con is also a Conservative EXTREMIST and both Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs are the chameleon New Class, it doesn't matter which political party, they are the same. Truly Hillary is dangerous, and so are the Neo-cons and the Neo-Libs. All must be routed out of Congress or at least to only the Republican Party.
 
 
+50 # Helen Marshall 2016-01-18 11:08
"This post is Neo-Con/Neo-Lib New Class Chameleon Right-Wing EXTREMIST Propaganda."

What on earth are you talking about?
 
 
+22 # CL38 2016-01-18 17:47
Not related to your post but this just occurred to me.

If Hillary genuinely believes her platform is so much stronger and better, why consistently adopt and parrot Bernie's positions to seem as progressive as he is?
 
 
+82 # REDPILLED 2016-01-18 10:33
The Deep State, which has secretly ruled the U.S. since the 1930s (they tried to overthrow FDR), desperately wants Hillary as their Dem. candidate, along with JEB! as their Repub. candidate.

If Bernie somehow is "allowed" to get the Dem. nomination, I wonder if some "accident" will befall him before the General Election. Don't forget what was done to Robert F. Kennedy and Paul Wellstone. Of course, the Deep State took care of JFK in 1963 because he was about to withdraw U.S. troops from Vietnam and was working with Kruschev to end the Cold War.
 
 
+73 # jdd 2016-01-18 11:06
President Kennedy, RFK, and MLK, who was seeking to unite the anti-war movement with that of labor and civil-rights, at the time of his murder, all paid the the ultimate price for threatening Wall Street's rule. We have never really recovered from their loss. However, it's not too late to restore the FDR legacy in the Democratic Party and for the nation.
 
 
+18 # MidwestTom 2016-01-18 11:57
In JFK's case he had floated TREASURY NOTES rather than FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES shortly before his death. Immediately after his death, they were pulled from circulation. Draw your own conclusions.
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-18 13:46
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+12 # Radscal 2016-01-18 17:33
Here's the facts relevant to MT's post:

On June 4, 1963, JFK signed Executive Order 11110, establishing that he would issue Silver Certificates (US Notes) outside of the Federal Reserve System.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=59049

$ 4.3 billion dollars in Silver Certificates in $2 and $5 denominations were printed and circulated before his murder. The continued printing and issuance was ended immediately by LBJ.

http://john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm

Now, whether or how much the supra-national banksters behind the Federal Reserve were involved in JFK's murder is still a matter of speculation. But incontrovertibl e is that his Silver Certificates were Legal Tender created without the interest charged by the Fed for every dollar they create.

And yes, after years of pulling all US Notes from circulation, they were finally rendered to no longer be Legal Tender 3 decades latter.
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-18 18:17
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-01-18 19:45
"....Kennedy wanted to transition out of silver backed paper money..."

lol

And clearly, the best way to do that was to issue $4.2 billion dollars in NEW Silver Certificates, with billions more in higher denominations already printed, but not put into circulation yet (and following his murder, NEVER put into circulation).

I was taking your post as ill-informed, but now I realize it's more of the same disinformation in defense of Official State Narratives.

Bye, bye.
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-18 21:21
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-01-18 21:55
I posted links, including the EO itself which described the basis for the authority for what you imagine the President had no power to do... even though he actually did it without challenge.

For those who wish to learn the truth, the evidence is available. For those like you, well, enjoy yourself.
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-18 23:24
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-18 13:53
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+4 # jdd 2016-01-18 15:44
John De: The question is really about credit creation. Under the national banking system begun by Hamilton, the Treasury issues credit directly to the economy under the direction of the Federal government, using vehicles such as the Bank of the US or Roosevelt's RFC. This is quite different from the "franchise" granted to the Fed, a central bank which is privately owned and controlled by Wall Street. Although a threat was implied, we will not know how far JFK intended to take it.
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-18 20:02
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+1 # dbrize 2016-01-19 11:03
Quoting John De:
The first link is true - it recites the EO. And I did say the President had the authority to do what he did (up to 3B): "However, the issuance of certificates could be controlled under the President's authority. Hence, for administrative convenience, President Kennedy issued Executive Order 11110."

The second link recites a statement(s) that IS NOT IN THE EO!!! Sorry for shouting, but the second link has stuff that is totally made up - if you don't realize that then I can do no more to help you.
To wit. - "Executive Order 11,110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System."

Executive Order 11110 NEVER stated the above.

Have a nice night.


There is plenty evidence/discre pancies/oddly timed deaths/etc, etc, to have convinced the House Committee on Assassinations that JFK's death was a conspiracy.

Later, Committee Chief Counsel, Robert Blakey went on record that he did not believe the CIA testimony was "cooperative and forthcoming". He supports a "small conspiracy" theory rather than a "grand conspiracy" theory.

Your acceptance of the lone assassin theory questionable, yet you are correct as regards EO11110.

G. Edward Griffin (Creature From Jekyll Island), the most anti-Fed proponent short of Ron Paul, has concluded the order did nothing to the FED but make it stronger.

Point taken. Game, set, match still in play.
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-19 15:49
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+12 # Radscal 2016-01-18 14:18
He also strongly opposed Israel's nuclear weapons development, and insisted on regular inspections by an international team to monitor them.

LBJ dropped that requirement and no full inspection has ever been done, allowing Israel to thumb its nose at the world, simultaneously threatening a nuclear holocaust, "Samson Option" while never admitting it even has the nuclear arsenal we all know it has.
 
 
+6 # CL38 2016-01-18 16:38
I fully agree that we've never recovered from their loss. The truth required to finally come to terms with what was done has always been hidden.

If you haven't already, read JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters [James W. Douglass].
 
 
+3 # Saberoff 2016-01-18 11:53
REDPILLED: Don't let them bury you til you're dead.
 
 
+8 # CL38 2016-01-18 16:42
Actually, I think it's a valid concern. The public somehow needs to let the powers-that-be know, if Bernie is ever assassinated, there will be blood in the streets. And it won't just be OUR blood.
 
 
-43 # dquandle 2016-01-18 12:15
Kennedy started the Vietnam war.
 
 
+32 # Cassandra2012 2016-01-18 12:50
Quoting dquandle:
Kennedy started the Vietnam war.

The French started the Vietnam war, and the greedy, power-hungry corporatist war industry jumped on the bandwagon.
 
 
+4 # jdd 2016-01-18 18:44
Actually, it was the Truman administration that betrayed the Viet Minh, who had collaborated wityh the OSS against the
 
 
+1 # jdd 2016-01-18 18:51
with the OSS against the Japanese. While FDR was vehemently committed to ending colonialism, Truman, with British support, released Japanese POWs to "hold" Indochina until the French could return. It was only later, that the decisive French defeat at Dien Bien Phu forced their withdrawal.
 
 
+11 # Tazio 2016-01-18 13:37
The Republicans under Ike and Nixon, started the war in Viet Nam, and overthrew the government in Iran to install the Shah, and planned the Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba to take place a few weeks after JFK took office.
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2016-01-18 14:19
A good friend of mine fought in Vietnam and Cambodia as a US Army paratrooper in 1959. The first US citizen to die in that war had already been killed several years before.
 
 
0 # GreenBee 2016-01-19 08:47
This is scary and it is among the reasons Bernie needs a very strong running mate and he needs to announce that choice early. Someone who can carry on if necessary with the same passion and truth telling. I vote for Jesse Ventura.
 
 
0 # Anarchist 23 2016-01-19 14:24
the Deep State: the REAL Terrorists
 
 
+37 # Mainiac 2016-01-18 10:38
Hillary is quite adept at slipping in “little white lies” as she talks about this issue or that. For instance, she talked about her hard work over the years to get universal coverage for Americans. In 1991-92, she worked with the six biggest health insurers like Aetna and Cigna to come up with her plan. Hubby tried to sell it as though it was a single-payer plan.

HIAA, the Health Insurance Association of America, was made up of smaller firms. They were the ones who came up with the “Harry and Louise” ads that were so effective because they were not getting a piece if the pie in Hillary’s plan.
 
 
+2 # Caliban 2016-01-18 10:57
Mainiac {great handle), I'm not sure what your point here is. Are you saying that Clinton did not work to improve the US healthcare system or that she did work to improve it?
 
 
+13 # Jim Young 2016-01-18 11:52
Quoting Caliban:
Mainiac {great handle), I.m not sure what your point here is. Are you saying that Clinton did not work to improve the US healthcare system or that she did work to improve it?


Seems HillaryCare and ObamaCare were "improvements" especially for the financial interests that Medical professionals somehow thought would be better than the dreaded government control.

Any improvements in actual health care most needed by actual people (not the fictional corporate citizen types) were incidental and minor, not as universal as all the rest of the developed world, and far more expensive than the rest of the developed world.

The comment by former NY Lt.Gov, Dr. Betsy McGaughy, kind of explains why. She argued that healthcare shouldn't be seen as a cost, but should be an "Opportunity." The public side of the PPP (Public Private Partnership) type arrangement seems to have gotten the very short end of the stick with so much privatized insurance continuing to be a great "opportunity" for what I would call privateers more than pirates. Privateers were given "Letters of Marque" to plunder selected sectors, only becoming "Pirates" when revoking the Letters of Marque removed the blessings of the government (and they continued doing what they knew best, with even less restrictions on target selection).
 
 
0 # Caliban 2016-09-20 00:45
For me the biggest plus about the ACA was that it made affordable healthcare available to millions of needy families and individuals who had NEVER been able to get it before.

Having health insurance allowed such folks to actually go to a doctor whereas, before the ACA, they bit the bullet and suffered.

Did some insurers do well on the program? Probably. But so what -- when much better help went to the suffering poor.
 
 
+3 # bardphile 2016-01-18 10:53
Ah, the gauzy purple haze of time. SDS had its uses, but it was not the noble guardian of truth that Weissman fondly remembers. It supplied a lot of the energy for the campus-based protest that it takes credit for (so far, so good), but it also made heroes out of the likes of the Cong and Chairman Mao, and vilified its own country in terms so uncompromising that it helped elect Nixon and added (by my calculation) at least a year or two to the Vietnam war.
Let's not forget that the conservative-li beral regime of the Truman-Reagan years, whatever its other faults, forged a bi-partisan containment policy that (with other factors) brought down the truly evil empire, for which the entire world should be grateful.

And there IS a difference between Hillary and the republicans in favor of Hill on many issues. I'll cast my primary vote for Sanders, and I'm trying to get my mostly conservative friends to at least consider doing likewise, but I urge all RSN readers in swing states to follow Bernie's lead in the melancholy event that he doesn't get nominated.
 
 
+7 # Anne Frank 2016-01-18 12:18
U.S. murdered 5 1/2 million Vietnamese in the Holocaust. And Bardphile is proud of it?
 
 
+4 # bardphile 2016-01-18 16:12
No, no, no. That wasn't my point at all. The Vietnam War was an atrocity, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
 
 
+12 # Radscal 2016-01-18 14:29
Vietnam was promised independence once the Allies routed the Japanese in WW II. But de Gaulle moved to reinstall French Colonial Rule.

The Vietnamese War for Independence began then, and lasted for two decades due to bi-partisan US insistence on insuring that Vietnam would serve as a threatening example to other peoples with dreams of independence. Sure, we could never stamp out the Vietnamese drive for independence, but we could turn it into such a hellhole that other people would more likely accept the yoke of neo-colonialism .

The Vietcong were the Minutemen of their time and place. Regular people who simultaneously tried to eke out a subsistence living while picking up arms to defend their homeland from foreign occupiers.
 
 
+2 # bardphile 2016-01-18 16:17
The Vietcong were on the right side of history. They were also ruthless terrorists against their countrymen with whom they disagreed. My dispute with the SDS types is partly that they engaged in a lot, and I mean a lot, of denial about the dark side of these "Minutemen."
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-01-18 18:05
You may not know that the most brutal battles of the US Revolution were fought between "Patriots" and "Loyalists." That is, "their countrymen with whom they disagreed."

"Patriots" both during and after the Revolution beat, tarred and feathered and burned to the ground homes of "Loyalists," causing many to flee to Canada.

War is hell. I won't rationalize the immoral acts of those who fight them, but neither will I second guess those who were defending themselves from outside aggressors, and the "turn-coats" in their own land.
 
 
+34 # danireland46 2016-01-18 10:54
" Hillary embodies this liberal imperialism and will do her best to groom the new political generation that sees itself as liberal to follow her into endless war, especially in the Middle East. That is why she is so dangerous. She can do what neo-conservativ es and paleo-conservat ives and theological conservatives never could. She can sell imperialism as a liberal, humanitarian imperative."
This is one of the main reasons I oppose Shillary - she's following a script that has brought America into the disastrous world role it plays today at the cost of the US middle class. We must believe that Bernie not Shillary has the answers.
 
 
-6 # Anne Frank 2016-01-18 12:21
Until Sanders addresses the question straightforward ly--Should the U.S. continue to enslave the rest of the planet?--we will be fools to believe that he has the answers.
 
 
+20 # Ralph 2016-01-18 14:13
Why demand just Sanders? How about Clinton, Cruz and Trump? The policies and changes that Sanders is advocating is far superior to any politician in this country. Bar none. To use this as an excuse for not supporting him and not supporting the policies he outlines is pure insanity.
 
 
-12 # lights 2016-01-18 14:54
Because no one else claims to be a savior,Ralph.
 
 
+8 # Saberoff 2016-01-18 18:02
Ya, that's right, lights. I don't know how many times I've heard Bernie say, he is the son of God.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-01-18 18:09
Please provide a citation for Sanders claiming to be a savior.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Sanders is not and does not claim to be the Messiah. From what I've read, Jesus wasn't much of a Messiah, either.

But, FDR made this country much better, and Sanders is cut from the same cloth. Good and bad.
 
 
+7 # lfeuille 2016-01-18 18:12
Nope, he never claimed to be a savoir, just a lot better than the current alternatives.
 
 
+11 # Farafalla 2016-01-18 21:18
On my scale he scores 95 out of 100 on answers to my questions. Nobody comes close. Bernie is the most honest person running. We might never have this chance again.
 
 
+60 # jdd 2016-01-18 11:01
Aside from Hillary's outrageous denunciation of Glass-Steagall, and her laughable support for Doddd-Frank, which is currently being exposed as less than useless, she is an incurable warmonger. Always out to show that she's the toughest in the room, her insane call for a no-fly zone in Syria make her a world war threat, and her immoral policy of regime-change makes her guilty of war crimes in Libya.Those are simply facts.
 
 
+7 # Ralph 2016-01-18 14:15
Indeed. Cut that warmongering rant and splice it into the Republican debate and no one would notice.
 
 
+37 # mgabriel 2016-01-18 11:08
I disagree with the essential premise. Hillary is definitely a Neocon. Recall that Hillary's State Department Rep in the Ukraine was Victoria Nuland, who used fascist muscle to engineer the Ukranian coup in Feb 2104. (Recall the purloined phone conversation between Nuland and US ambassador to the Ukraine Joseph Pyatt, in which they agreed that "Yats", not "Klitsch" would be the best choice as the new Prime Minister. This conversation was aired but NEVER commented upon by Rachel Maddow. I watched the show that Feb. evening in 2014. Of course, a few days later the coup was a fait accompli, and now we have a proxy war with Russia. This was just one more notch along the Neocon agenda, the first being the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as promoted by Neocons Perle, Wolfowitz, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Libby, Bremer, Shrub and so forth. Nuland, btw, is the wife of arch neocon and author of the infamous Project for a New American Century (PNAC)document (you can find it on the Internet)which calls for a massive US arms build-up and a long series of destabilizing wars in the middle east, wars that are now well underway, and well-supported by Hillary, who said in the Dec debate, "Assad must go", in reference to yet another intended notch along the Neocon agenda. Thus, whatever else she may be, she is certainly a Neocon, and, in contrast to the title of the article, I can't imagine what could be worse.
 
 
+25 # dquandle 2016-01-18 12:23
Yup. War with Russia is high on her list of wars with everybody. She favors Nazis in Ukraine and is bosom buddies with the ISIS-supporting execrable and revolting regime in Saudi Arabia, as well as their vicious twins in the coup regime in Egypt. She is a very dangerous monster.
 
 
+16 # Radscal 2016-01-18 14:37
Unfortunately, Bernie Sanders voted for the "aid" to the fascist putsch regime in Ukraine, and calls for Saudi Arabia to "get its hands dirty" in fighting in Syria (and we all know Saudi Arabia's goal is to regime change Assad).

I still see him as the best step towards progress, but it's important that we recognize when he has supported Empire, so we can influence him to stand for peace and justice as President.
 
 
0 # Salus Populi 2016-01-18 18:06
The U.S. Empire is, unfortunately, a bipartisan production, and has been for a long time. Remember "[partisan] politics stops at the water's edge"?

No president can afford to take on the National Security complex [or, as Peter Dale Scott named it, the "Deep State"], and no one who denies American Exceptionalism can be elected president. The only thing that will finish off the sundering empire is that its fiat currency is rapidly losing its lustre as the "reserve currency" for the rest of the world.

(Both Saddam Hussein, with his decision to price his currency in Euros [and to keep the Iraqi central bank out of the global financier cartel], and Muammar Qaddafi, who planned to offer a petro-based currency to the African continent as an alternative to the Western exploiter system, were seen as sufficiently threatening to warrant their overthrow and the reduction of their prosperous and egalitarian societies to penury in failed states.)

Once the Chinese decide to cut their losses and stop propping up the dollar, it is likely that the U.S. economy will collapse, and with any luck, take the war machine and profiteers with it.

In the meantime, there is little doubt that Bernie, should he be elected, will continue the tradition whereby every U.S. president since the Nuremberg trials ensures his own safety by carrying out crimes against humanity.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-01-18 19:54
Gaddafi was establishing a pan-African currency (his Dinar), backed by gold, not oil. Assad was also negotiating to trade his oil in non-petrodollar s. Cutting ties with the Federal Reserve petrol-dollar has not been good for one's health, nor those of the citizens of one's country.

Sanders has called for the break up of big banks, and for the Federal Reserve Board to be elected by the US Senate.

If he lives, and can shame Congress into doing those two things, we will be well on our way to cutting off the supranational elites who use the US as their enforcement arm.
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-19 19:41
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-19 18:37
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+26 # goodsensecynic 2016-01-18 12:45
I understand that people should not have to keep apologizing for youthful indiscretions until well into their dotage.

Although I am only a few years older that HRC, I nonetheless empathize with her as a teenager. Most of us did foolish things and we need not be held permanently in contempt for minor outrages in our youth ... unless, of course, we haven't learned from our mistakes.

Hillary Rodham, at the age of 16 (going on 17) was a bright-eyed "Goldwater Girl." Her fundamental right-wing politics may have been modified in part by her strategic alliance for power with William Jefferson Clinton; on the whole, however, she (and he) still have a lot of explaining to do.

Mr. Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steagall and his enthusiasm for "Workfare" had toxic consequences for the US economy. Her gleeful response to the news that Muammar Ghadaffi had been sodomized with bayonets and murdered ("We came. We Saw. He died") still makes my blood curdle and does not auger well for the future.
 
 
+15 # Radscal 2016-01-18 14:40
It's not HRC's "youthful indiscretions" of being a "Goldwater Girl" in High School, but rather her entire adult life as a "Goldman Sachs Girl" and supporter of any military, police or covert violence necessary to enforce supra-national finance and corporate will on those who would resist.
 
 
+6 # Salus Populi 2016-01-18 18:12
I also read that when she was in college at Wellesley, she was a member of Young Americans for Freedom, a wannabee youth group for the Birchers. By the time a person entered college -- at least an elite, Seven Sisters institution like Wellesley -- in those days, s/he was expected to know at least a smidgen about what was going on.
 
 
+1 # Salus Populi 2016-02-07 15:15
"she was a member of Young Americans for Freedom, a wannabee youth group for the Birchers" -- I would like to issue a correction and apology for this statement; I further researched the question, and could find no second source for it. I believe my original source cofused YAF with the Young [or possibly College] Republicans. This latter is still reprehensible, as it was the launching pad for such sterling politicians as John Cornyn, but it is not -- or at least didn't used to be -- a bircher front. Mea culpa.
 
 
+1 # lfeuille 2016-01-18 18:21
"I disagree with the essential premise. Hillary is definitely a Neocon."

Yes, it seems like the author was trying to make a distinction between her and other neo-cons since he thinks should will be better at spreading the faith. But that just means she is a more effective neo-con, not some other type of regressive political being.
 
 
+31 # xflowers 2016-01-18 11:19
I'm waiting for Paul Krugman to chime in since Hillary invoked his name in last night's debate in defense of her Wall Street plan. Globalization was also originally sold as a humanitarian cause but look at the consequences. It ties in mightily with the Middle East wars.
 
 
+3 # lfeuille 2016-01-18 18:25
Bernie could have claimed Robert Reich and Matt Tiabbi as preferring his approach. I'm sure there are other prominent economists and financial system experts as well since Hillary's defense of her plan does not really make sense.
 
 
+28 # Anonymot 2016-01-18 11:39
I will vote for Sanders. I won't vote for Hillbilly. But I'm not certain that it makes any difference. It's apparent that America isn't run by the elected, but by a nameless, faceless group of high-level bureaucrats who perform the bidding of a clique of moneyheads & CEOs.

Everyone from figurehead Presidents to Supreme Court justices to cabinet members are allowed to throw words around, occasionally even dissenting ones. On domestic issues there is sometimes a bit of leeway allowed, but I've been politically active since WW II and looking at it all, America has been on the downside of the classic bell-shaped curve since the mid-Sixties.

I've spent my life shuttling between America, Europe, and Africa plus. A nomad can live in a movable bubble or sponge up the world. I like to think I'm profoundly the latter, part loner, part joiner, always enquirer, adding 5 languages along the way, because how else do you know what others think?

What strikes me most about Hillary is that she is every potential bad about a person, cold, conniving, dishonest, egomanic, and with a viscious sense of competition.

Bill has been the same since he was AG in Arkansas, but at least he covered it a bit with glib & sax.

And Bernie, who stands for all the right things, elected, at the wheel of this behemoth of a machine, with the people for him and the machine against him and everything he stands for...!!?

If Obama meant what he said and did so little what are our chances with Bernie?
 
 
+28 # Saberoff 2016-01-18 12:04
Love your post.
However, Obama didn't mean what he said; Sanders does.
Regarding healthcare: In Chicago, Obama was well-known for his support of Single Payer, yet once elected president he had not a single representative seated at the discussion table. If, back then, he would have worked as hard for Single Payer as he has for ACA, we surely, might have Single Payer today, instead.
 
 
0 # Caliban 2016-02-17 13:09
My recollection is that "single payer" was discussed early in the Obama health care talks. As usual, though, it was branded "socialized medicine" and became a forbidden topic.

My instinct was then--and is now--that [1] we were lucky to have gotten "Obama Care" and [2] that the task now is to slowly but surely turn it into something bigger, better, and more generously distributed.
 
 
+7 # jwl 2016-01-18 14:06
I believe that President Obama meant what he said, but he was blocked from his inauguration on by congressional foes determined to bring down this uppity black man, so that their base of racists would be sure to reelect them. I don't think Senator Sanders would be bludgeoned by "birther" promoters, either. Such thoughts give me a bit of hope.
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2016-01-18 18:30
I don't think he mean what he said. He could have gone to the people instead of making back room deals with the insurance industry and big pharma. He could have run a two year campaign against the congress critters who were blocking him and threating them with the loss of their jobs in the next election if they didn't go along. He could have done what Bernie says he will do.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-01-18 14:53
It is abundantly clear that you are correct that the Powers That Be control our government. They have "neutralized" any individual or group that has risen to challenge them.

My hope for Sanders would be that his use of the "bully pulpit" could embarrass Congress to make some substantial, though incremental changes, that over time will add up to real progress.

Three examples he is campaigning on:

1. Campaign Finance Reform could begin the ending of our legalized bribery political system, allowing actual representative officials to take the reins.

2. Financial reforms such as breaking up the big banks and transforming the Federal Reserve System by having its Directors elected by the Senate, rather than assigned by supra-national bank owners.

3. Quality public education from Kindergarten through college or trade school to make the American Dream of equal opportunity possible.

Those 3 steps alone would be enormously progressive change, and having gotten a taste of progress again, I expect the great mass of the 99% to rise up to demand MORE.
 
 
+29 # ChrisCurrie 2016-01-18 11:39
US Government sponsored "regime changes" (coup de tats) to better serve the financial interests of US-based corporations has been a "cornerstone" of US foreign policy for over a century now. As Secretary of state, Hillary continued that US tradition in Honduras, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, and the Ukraine creating anarchy and massive bloodshed that continues to this day. This is why I will not support Hillary Clinton for President.
 
 
+10 # Anonymot 2016-01-18 11:54
Perhaps we should let this Titanic sink and figure out how to build a better one. After all, 712 Titanic passengers survived out of 2224 and the safety rules of the sea were changed and improved forever.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-01-18 14:59
For a century, some on the Left have not only preached that increased turmoil and suffering would lead to the Glorious Revolution, but have actually worked to bring about those intolerable conditions for the masses so as to engender it.

If I could step outside of humanity and imagine a future utopian world rising from the ashes, I might agree. But then I look into the eyes of a child already on the edge of survival, and I cannot imagine condemning her to brutal suffering and a sure death.
 
 
+11 # lnason@umassd.edu 2016-01-18 11:55
Good essay. Ms. Clinton and many of those surrounding President Obama have consistently advocated foreign interventions that have almost uniformly caused havoc for our military, for our budgets, and for the foreign victims who have had to deal with our aggressions. Libya is the prime example of a state we caused to descend into chaos but, as Weisbrot points out, others exist.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
0 # lnason@umassd.edu 2016-01-18 12:00
Correction: thinko: Weissman not Weisbrot. Sorry.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
+12 # Vardoz 2016-01-18 12:17
Endless war for profit & oil has been popular for a very long time & Hillary has clearly spoken out clearly about our need to be engaged at all times.

We prefer Senator Sanders position that war should be a last resort. Also do we really need over 800 bases world-wide that cost a fortune? Do we need to fight radical Muslims with upgraded expensive, sophisticated weaponry that is a great financial burden on our society. Any
time war can be avoided it should be & it seems we can accomplish a lot through economic sanctions just as the 99% has
been brought to it's economic knees by governments corporate polices of huge tax cuts for the 1%, huge military budgets, huge subsidies for corporations that pay little or no taxes & stash
their trillions off shore as they outsource & insource our jobs.

There is a very effective weapon called
economic sanctions or economic terrorism as Biden once called it. This can be just as powerful as dropping bombs. Look at what Wall St did to our nation, forcing us to bail them out for approx. 15 trillion & also AIG & all the other fraud that took place destroying economies & people's lives. Wars are waged so that the military industrial complex can make trillions & Hillary is in bed with them all the way.

Bernie Sanders is not interested in preemptive war & never has been. Sanders is an honest & humane individual with a very long & consistent track record for being a true Democrat with a capital L.
 
 
+6 # Shades of gray matter 2016-01-18 12:20
Among other reasons, Prez HillBilly would let GOPers and neoCONs dictate foreign policy in exchange for easing up on her, and giving her some domestic crumbs, besides the Domestic Crumb she already has. Besides, there's that U.S. based GlobalCorp CEO job Chelsea is now auditioning for.
 
 
+12 # cmp 2016-01-18 12:22
In July of 2015, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization decided to admit India and Pakistan as full members, and they are expected to join this year.

The observer States to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, are Afghanistan, Belarus, Iran and Mongolia. .. And as dialogue partners there is Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Turkey. Meetings also have representation from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the Commonwealth of Independent States and Turkmenistan.

This is quickly approaching half the population of the planet - to be aligned politically, economically and militarily.

And:
In this Country, we are Never Supposed To Hear the words "Shanghai Cooperation Organization" ... We need Bernie in 2016.
 
 
-9 # Robbee 2016-01-18 12:34
says - # Helen Marshall 2016-01-18 11:08
"This post is Neo-Con/Neo-Lib New Class Chameleon Right-Wing EXTREMIST Propaganda."
What on earth are you talking about?

- the post sets out to prove its impossible hypothesis!

? Hillary's No Neocon. She's Far More Dangerous? - LIE! Hillary's No Neocon. She's Far LESS Dangerous!

had the author watched last night's debate before posting this tripe, he would have seen hill praise obama's policy of disengaging our troops from two monstrous occupations, support obama's policy of continuing carefully limited engagement, and on into the future - WHAT NEO-CONS HATE ABOVE ALL ELSE! - if you want to see how neo-cons really think, just watch zomblicans debate! - go bernie!
 
 
+5 # dbrize 2016-01-18 22:18
Quoting Robbee:
says - # Helen Marshall 2016-01-18 11:08
"This post is Neo-Con/Neo-Lib New Class Chameleon Right-Wing EXTREMIST Propaganda."
What on earth are you talking about?

- the post sets out to prove its impossible hypothesis!

? Hillary's No Neocon. She's Far More Dangerous? - LIE! Hillary's No Neocon. She's Far LESS Dangerous!

had the author watched last night's debate before posting this tripe, he would have seen hill praise obama's policy of disengaging our troops from two monstrous occupations, support obama's policy of continuing carefully limited engagement, and on into the future - WHAT NEO-CONS HATE ABOVE ALL ELSE! - if you want to see how neo-cons really think, just watch zomblicans debate! - go bernie!


Maybe the author is aware that Obama has ongoing shadow war special ops in more than 130 countries around the globe. I bet Hillary thinks that's great too. Your not so subtle defenses for Clinton are getting monotonous.

At least with Bush we knew where the stupid stuff was happening, Obama's success is in hiding it from the public and convincing fools that he's "winding things down". He's not and Hillary won't either, so rave on.
 
 
+13 # Polisage 2016-01-18 12:39
Totally agree she's dangerous. She has to prove she's a macho, macho woman POTUS. Bernie is the voice of reason.
 
 
+4 # Kindinosaur 2016-01-18 17:27
Hillary is dangerous like Obama, a wolf in sheeps clothing.
 
 
+6 # jdd 2016-01-18 20:02
Rather than repeating the State Department/Obam a party line on Assad, Bernie needs to call out Clinton on her support for the so-called "Arab Spring" and her role in the creation and spread of ISIS. And drop the nonsense about the Gulf monarchists helping to fight ISIS, they are its supporters. If he really wants a "muslim army to fight ISIS," then cut the nonsense and back the Syrian army, Iranian volunteers, and Hezbollah - as well as the Houthis in Yemen, not the Saudi butchers.
 
 
+1 # lfeuille 2016-01-19 00:48
This is one are where Bernie's message needs work. I'm not sure if he is aware of the work of Parry and others who challenged the official line. He sounded like he really believed it.
 
 
# Guest 2016-01-19 00:48
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+2 # indian weaver 2016-01-19 14:29
Read this to understand exactly how Hillary Clinton and Obama created ISIS originally. And they now fund and arm them using Turkey as their proxy. Erdogan's family is profiting from sales of the oil that ISIS is trucking into Turkey. Obama called Erdogan last night to help assure mutual "destruction" of ISIS! Russia has published many photos of these ISIS trucks lined up at the Turkish border from Syria taking this stolen oil to sell to Erdogan. ISIS weapons are largely leftovers from dubya's invasion, left and abandoned by the Iraqi soldiers as they fled ISIS everywhere. Tens of 1000s of Humvees, tanks, armament including ammunition by the train load all went to ISIS - all American weapons. We armed ISIS, continue to do so, and continue to fund them by letting Turkey buy their oil stolen from Syria: Read how Obama and Clinton support ISIS here after creating them: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/34700-focus-you-wont-like-it-but-heres-the-answer-to-isis. Not to mention Obama's funding, arming and alliance with his Nazis who he placed into power in the Ukraine, deposing the democratically elected president of the Ukraine who fled to Russia for asylum. Obama has allied with Nazis in the Ukraine, and ISIS in the entire Middle East. How much more evidence do you need that Obama is a War Criminal and deserves execution every bit as much as dubya and dick? Now, shall I remind everyone that Obama is arming the Sauds to wipe out Yemeni citizens, daily?
 
 
+4 # rxfxworld 2016-01-19 04:11
In reply to NRESQ: For all your shouting, pray tell what great incremental achievement the Great Compromiser has produced. ACA? A giveaway to Big Pharma and the Insurance companies. The covert wars with the "special ops" or as we used to call them Sondercommando? The drone program or as we used to say, "terror weapon for extra-judicial killing? You do sound like Obama who early on dismissed a large swath of liberal Democrats as " my friends on the left". We're not friends. I give credit where it's due. His two achievements in 8 years are Cuba and the Iran nuclear deal. Other than that it's been George Bush's third and fourth term.
 
 
0 # mwlaird 2016-01-19 07:03
I would like to know more about Leo Cherne and the International Rescue Committee. I have been a supporter of the IRC precisely because I was under the impression that they are, so to speak, untainted. Is there reason to be concerned about them in their current form? After reading this article, I searched Leo Cherne on the Reader Supported News site and came across Robert Parry's article "CIA's Hidden Hand in 'Democracy' Groups." Clearly, there are reasons to be suspicious of the late Leo Cherne's activities, but what if anything is there to be said about the IRC today?.
 
 
-2 # mblockhart 2016-01-19 10:44
This is utter nonsense. Quit living in the past. Befitting the times, Hillary Clinton has moved left and become more outspoken on progressive values and practical solutions. She is not Bill Clinton of the 70s-90s and, ya know what, neither is Bill Clinton. She also has become expert in world affairs moving toward negotiations and coalitions to solve problems.
Aside from that, notice that this article contains no suggestions of how to do better. It just revs up the engines of the politically impractical to withhold their vote from her if she is the Democratic nominee. In effect that is giving a vote to the Republicans who truly are dangerous for the US and the world.
 
 
+1 # indian weaver 2016-01-19 14:32
Read this to understand how Hillary and Obama created ISIS: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/34700-focus-you-wont-like-it-but-heres-the-answer-to-isis. Yep, Hillary and Obama are really innocent and blameless stooges of the War Machine, right?
 
 
-2 # sayenitnow 2016-01-19 14:42
#Mr.Weissman,
Having been active politically since the the sixties and still consider myself Liberal /Progressive ( Not Neo-Liberal as you want to call me now) and voted Democratic. I wanted my vote to count and still do. I learned after the mistakes of the Far Left Radical's (#Mr.Weismann) in the Sixties, that in our Democracy compromise and bi-partisan approach is very often the only way to make progress and create change. Compromise and pragmatic political strategy does not mean one gives up or sells out. Below is another writer's point of view that I hope a few of your reader will take a look at too.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/case-against-bernie-sanders.html?mid=fb-share-di
 
 
+1 # kyzipster 2016-01-20 19:15
Compromise worked to some degree up until the 1990s. It's a very different time, there is no compromise when the other side uses obstruction as a political tool and voters reward them for it. Whether Sanders or Clinton gets in the White House, Congress will remain stagnant and dysfunctional. They will treat Clinton just as badly as Sanders. I like the idea of a president who's willing to speak truth to this BS. It could very well change the debate, I think his campaign already has along with Warren and OWS.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN