Sunday, May 21, 2006

# Posted 3:22 PM by Patrick Porter  

APOLOGIES, READERS: I seem to have been struck by 'bloggers block'. I can barely think of a single worthwhile or even frivolous thing to say.

Oh yeah, one question:

I've been researching Hillary Clinton's opinions. My first impressions are that she is quite focused on certain issues in domestic policy (childhood health, women's emancipation), as First Lady she was involved in some worthwhile projects (heritage preservation). And to her credit, she spoke out against the maltreatment of Afghani women under the Taleban.

But on the whole, she doesn't really seem to stand for anything in foreign policy.

Is that fair, or am I missing something?
(6) opinions -- Add your opinion

I don't have sources...but these are things that I have read over the years

1) She is a strong supporter of the war on terror
2) She is a strong supporter of Israel
3) She supported the Iraq war and supplemental funding
4) She is more interventionist than Kerry or Gore.
No, you're not missing something. She's impotent (or frigid as the case may be) when it comes to any substantive ideas on F.P. She is not even a very effective parrot on proposals she may or may not truly agree with. Or, perhaps a more apt term my daughter would use applies to H.C.'s foreign policy stance: lame.
You may also add her interest in micro credit programs on her tour of India, particularly for setting up women in small businesses. In this respect she has a strong interest in development and more effective foriegn aid - surely the most important foriegn policy area in solving the real problems of our time.

Hillary Clinton is remarkably well travelled and seems to have a genuine interest in the world beyond thinking of it as a war game. We can only hope that this will be reflected in her presidency.

She strikes me as rather Blairite - but that was when Blair was still credible. It's difficult to see where it is all heading. One thing we can be sure of is that she will be no worse, and probably far better, than GWB, as she is definately a competent person at the very least.
"We can only hope that this will be reflected in her presidency"

The only way HC will win in 08 is if the republicans hold the house and sentate in 06. That isn't going to happen and HC would probably wouldn't be able to win anyway.

My money is on McCain in 08 if he is healthy.
Oh and John Edwards is going be the dark horse, not Al Gore.
Yo Aron,

is that the Aron of the Australian Democrats that I know?

if so, there's something I'm curious about. I recall that when it comes to foreign policy, your party in 1991 opposed the war to prevent Saddam Hussein annexing Kuwait, a member state of the UN.

Given the Oz Democrats' devotion to multilateralism and the UN, its also worth bearing in mind that this was a multilateral effort, mandated by the UN, which had the support of such diverse countries as Egypt, Japan and Morocco. and yet despite this overwhelming international agreement, still you opposed it.

Even Robert Fisk, not exactly a propagandist for wars of liberation, described Saddam's atrocities in invaded Kuwait as 'evil.' Yet while this barbarity was taking place, the Democrats joined the crowds making love not war:


Given your party's unfortunate stance on that conflict, you should be careful with words like 'credible.'

I'd also be careful of erecting straw men. Bush is not just a 'war game' President. He recently announced that the USA will increase its core development assistance by 50% over the next 3 years, with a $5 billion annual increase over current levels.

You may not like the details or effectiveness of his approach to foreign aid, but its something his administration seems to take seriously.
Post a Comment