kos, in your piece from The Hill declaring Clinton a "true liberal," and in your own front page post essentially making the same case, The optimist's case for Hillary Clinton, you spoke not one word about Clinton's hawkish foreign policy tendencies.
UPDATE - As Jennifer Poole points out below, kos does actually mention Clinton's foreign policy in his blog post. I missed it... And it's in the first sentence!
The reasons to be skeptical of Hillary Clinton are legion, from her husband's record in the '90s, to her corporate ties (including being on the board of Walmart), to certainly worrisome foreign policy hawkish statements.
In fact, you studiously avoided any mention of that subject. That's my biggest concern with her, and I suspect it's a concern for many other liberals and progressives, as well.
She is, was and always will be, a warhawk. Her warhawk tendencies were reigned in during her tenure as Secretary of State. It is well-documented (even in her own words) that she urged a more active U.S. military intervention in Syria and with Iran. She was overruled.
I believe, given her proclivities, that there is a high likelihood that a Clinton presidency would lead to another military misadventure in the Middle East. We don't hear much from you on this front, just as we don't hear much from a lot of Clinton supporters, even those who normally oppose U.S. military adventurism.
In The Hill piece, you toss off the statement, "No need to move Hillary left," claiming she is "already there." She most definitely is not "already there" on foreign policy and the Middle East, as she has clearly articulated.
So are we to ignore the proverbial elephant in the room, given that she supported the Iraq fiasco ("Oh, but she apologized!") that cost thousands of U.S. lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and more than a trillion dollars? If she gets us engaged in yet another Middle East conflict with boots on the ground (a very good possibility in my estimation), how would the possibility of flushing hundreds of billions or even another trillion dollars down a Middle East rathole impact her "true liberal" domestic policies?
In yesterday's daily frothy post by the frothiest of front page writers, Clinton aces the Iraq question, GOP still stumbling, I note several of Clinton's most ardent backers suggesting in the comments that the U.S. (under Hillary's leadership, no doubt) will have to put troops into Syria at some point.
Of course, these same ardent Hillary backers are already blaming Obama's "weakness" as a reason she'll have to do this if she wins the presidency. (They remind me of Tea Partiers, in that they seem to share the same mantra: "Thanks, Obama!")
By the way, the diary claiming that Hillary "aced the Iraq question" compared her answer to Jeb's which is a completely inane comparison. As I pointed out in that diary, Clinton is not a Republican (and not W's brother), so it's absolutely no risk to her to answer the way she did. She's not going to piss off the Republican base by undercutting a former Republican president. To compare her answer to Jeb's is meaningless, and, frankly, stupid.
(To add to my criticism of that diary and that front page author: The front page rah-rah posts from that author continue to embarrass the site. "Clinton sets the gold standard..." "Clinton aces..." I mean support is one thing. Over-the-top cheerleading with full pom-pons is another matter entirely.)
In your Hill piece and your front-pager on Hillary's liberal bona fides, you point to the people she has selected to help with her campaign. Those hires have been trumpeted on the front page here by the author I cite above and others as a reason that this time, she'll be different!
I note this small item from Politico yesterday that highlights who's really running the show:
Guy Cecil, the new head of the pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC, Priorities USA, is moving quickly to consolidate his hold over the organization, moving to replace a key Obama-era holdover with one of his own allies.
...
Cecil, who will working closely with longtime Clinton adviser Harold Ickes, is expected to name several key new staffers in the coming days – and has yet to take a formal title himself apart from “chief strategist.”
Harold Fucking Ickes, kos. Follow the money. You should know better.
Back in June of 2008, you naively wrote this:
The massive Obama/Dean 50-state effort
Obama's 50-state strategy, from the latest campaign email:
People like you have been the heart of Chairman Howard Dean's 50-state strategy to rebuild our party and empower Democrats to compete everywhere. We've all seen the energy and enthusiasm at the grassroots level impact races up and down the ballot over the last three years.
I am proud to announce that our presidential campaign will be the first in a generation to deploy and maintain staff in every single state.
That's incredible. It's revolutionary.
Much was said last week about "Obama keeping Dean at the DNC". That much was never in doubt. No nominee has ever booted a sitting chairman. It would reek of civil war. Even Clinton would've kept Dean. There really was no story there.
What is a story, however, is that Dean's 50 State Strategy and Obama's 50 State Campaign are now coming together in this fashion. Campaign offices in every single state? Obama's is the only campaign that promised this type of effort, and they're delivering.
And we know how
that turned out. Shortly after the election, Dean was gone.
The same breathless front-pager cited above wrote a similar piece about the Clinton camp's claim that they were resurrecting Dean's 50-State Strategy and "helping to rebuild state parties" by having a paid staffer in every state -- through the end of May.
I noted in comments in that piece, that, no, the Clinton campaign was not reimplementing Dean's plan and was not "helping to rebuild state parties." I also suggested that in red states, there would be no paid operatives on the ground when the deals ran out at the end of May. I was, of course, castigated by some of the Hillary faithful, a few of whom once again took the opportunity to say "Thanks, Obama!" for neglecting state parties, and declaring that Hillary was coming in to save the day.
Sure enough, that bubble was burst by Camp Clinton last week. No more commitment to 50 states. They'd be focusing on the purple states (just like every candidate before and probably after her), and the "paid operatives" in a lot of states would be gone come the end of May. So much for re-instituting Dean's strategy or helping to rebuild state parties.
Look, kos, Hillary will be the nominee, barring some unforeseen disaster. But ignoring her foreign policy tendencies and who's minding the store for her (the same old DLC crowd) is ignoring reality.
Perhaps you should be repeating W's garbled version of the old, "Fool me once..." adage.
My suggestion is that you listen to some classic rock, this song, in particular: