Home | About | Donate

Who Cares if Hillary is Warm? I Care About Her Wars


Who Cares if Hillary is Warm? I Care About Her Wars

Laura Flanders

Primary season is in its prime and feels familiar in almost every respect. Eight years on, it’s the same candidate, the same point of contention. Is Hillary Clinton warm enough? I’m not debating that this is sexist stuff: all this focus on her warmth, her style, her smile.

Come on. Why do women always have to be warm anyway? Was Lincoln warm? Was Eisenhower? It’s just another double standard. The partisan press corps is packed with macho creeps. I agree.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Laura Flanders is correct. Advocates of peace and justice should not be satisfied with Bernie Sanders foreign policy positions. She is also correct that Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy is much more hawkish and posses serious threats to innocent civilians in the expanding areas targeted in the never-ending US terror wars.

However, Hillary Clinton’s quote goes far beyond hawkishness. Mocking and laughing about the public torture and murder of any human being, even one’s ‘enemy’, is sociopathic. It is chilling that Hillary Clinton has refused to express regret for her behavior. (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fJwS_SWD8 )


Hillary is no leader; she is a facilitator.


HRC has never met a war she didn’t like, as long as she is well out of the line of fire. And one can count on lies if one ever brings up her adventure in the Balkans. She is to a great degree responsible for the death of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people. When I hear someone say they will support Clinton or think of voting for her as the US president, I ask them if they really want to take the chance of her starting a full blown, nuclear WWIII, and this was well before Sanders was even in the game.

She is extremely dangerous.




This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


During the recent forum Clinton had to address the issue raised here. As would be expected she said war is always the last resort and went in some detail describing her involvement in setting up negotiations with Iran to avoid war and convincing other countries in the region not to attack Iran. Clearly none of the three Democratic candidates can be described as pacifists. They never mention the military-industrial complex.They never question the hundreds of military bases the US has around the world. They all support drone strikes in Pakistan and the Middle East. Sanders actually puts more emphasis on militarily destroying ISIS than Clinton who puts equal emphasis on negotiations to deal with the problem of Assad. I think the main difference between Clinton and Sanders is on domestic issues. It is really difficult to make a case there there is any reason to vote for one or the other based on their military policies.


Irrespective of Hillary’s “warmth” factor her ability to connect with voters is as big an issue as her hawk factor.

Although I have always loathed Bill Clinton and Obama I would rank them in the upper 10% of politicians’ natural ability to connect with voters. Both are slick enough to sell yesterday’s newspaper for twice the price of today’s newspaper.

Hillary has little natural ability to connect with voters and ongoing coaching has not improved this, making her “electability” myth spurious at best. Its not a gender thing, many female politicians rank in the upper 10%.


The real trouble with our sociopathic political class is mediocrity. Hill is just representative of the whole show, nothing but a low class, garden variety blood splattered monster. Look close, you will see the banality of evil…The American Heritage Dictionary defines banal as “drearily commonplace and often predictable”. Let’s face it, Mussolini had some gravitas with his arrogance, people cheered wildly and teenage girls cried when Hitler passed. By most accounts even Hill’s supporters don’t like her very much. Eichmann was banal. So is Hill. I think it speaks volumes about American political culture.
Hill needs another war; she needs a fresh warm bath in blood.


Being in thrall to the MICC war machine’s endless for-profit wars and to our “special ally” in the ME should be part of every voters choice debate. The Iraq war and deposing/killing rulers/dictators that, while brutal and repressive, did keep the lid on sectarian violence in western made-up nations like Iraq - they may have been SOB’s but at one time or other many were our SOB’s) - those killings and the Iraq War in particular was the genesis of much, if not most, of the violence and destabilization all over the ME and North Africa and the beginning of the pathological killers Daesh/ISIS. Hillary was up to her neck in decisions, or made decisions, that proved disastrous to the US and the ME/NA.

“Former senator and secretary of state Hillary Clinton is the only candidate for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination who supported the invasion of Iraq.” She has much blood on her hands and the likelihood is there will be much more in a second Clinton administration!


And by the way is two families providing 4 presidents to our nation within 25 years the best we can do?? Something is seriously amiss, to put it lightly, with our politics in general and for this to seem normal or rational to voters…


wasn’t it “he died”?


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Her long hair can not cover up her bloody war fangs.


My sentiments…Exactly.


I like how Laura mentioned Sanders here too. More should be made of the fact that Sanders is promising to continue Obama’s drone-killing program and the unwinnable war against ISIS. This amounts to keeping the war on terror at at least 90% present speed, which leaves virtually no resources for all the cool socialism stuff Bernie promises.

Why aren’t we talking about how ZERO Democrats even mention ending the War Terror?

Why aren’t we talking about the fact that our political system now officially excludes the possibility of peace?

Are we just a bunch of chumps who will accept another phony ‘reformer’ destined to serve up disappointment and betrayal cloaked in lovey-dovey platitudes?


I agree. I will note, however, that Hillary Clinton has expressed a more sociopathic militarism. To wit, regarding the torture and killing of Ghaddafi: “We came. We saw. He died. Ha Ha Ha.” Also, unlike Sanders, who condemned the US plans to spend $1 trillion to ‘upgrade’ nuclear weapons, Hillary Clinton has only said that she “may oppose” this.

Yet, while Hillary Clinton has embraced a hawkish approach to foreign policy as one of her core strengths, Bernie Sanders has embraced socialism.

I would like to hear, from Sanders or his advisers, how socialism is consistent with the increased military spending and the social toll resulting from:

  • Proposed military action in Lybia.
  • The US military support for the Saudia war on the Yemeni people.
  • Plans to increase military bases in Africa.
  • The continuation of the US drone and crowd killing campaigns.
  • The commitment to continue a worldwide ‘war’ on the Islamic State.

How is the continuation of a federal budget allocation, in which over half the discretionary spending (over half a trillion dollars) goes to the military, consistent with socialism?


We came, we saw, and Gaddafi died because of the gold Dinar.


" Bernie Sanders voted for the bombing too, so he should score no points with the peaceniks."

Laura is correct and Bernie’s foreign policy has always been suspect to me; however, for all Bernie’s foreign policy faults, I do not think Bernie would start a nuclear war with Russia and you cannot say that about HRC and Trump… the two war mongering and insane psychopaths! Both are loose cannons who I would hate to see having their hands on the nuclear trigger!


You purposely took an article about Ms. Clinton and used it to also bludgeon Mr. Sanders as if both are equal in their show of war-hawk mania. That’s a fallacy and you know it.