Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy?

I've said, repeatedly, that to me the defining issue in the Democratic primary is that I think Hillary Clinton's foreign policy would be worse than would the alternatives. Under the circumstances, I think I owe the world a clearer explanation of what I think the problem is. One correspondent boiled the issue down the other day to the idea that I think Hillary would be "too hawkish." I don't really like that way of framing the issue, which I think makes things far too crude. Maybe Clinton will be too hawkish, and maybe she won't; maybe it's hard to know what that means; maybe a situation will arise where a hawkish response is warranted. The problem is something else.

The problem is that I think she's unlikely to try any of the bold strokes necessary to turn our situation around. I don't see her trying for a grand bargain with Iran, don't see her making the tough choices necessary to revitalize the NPT, don't see her taking political risks on the Arab-Israeli confict, don't see her acting boldly and decisively on Iraq, and don't see her accomplishing anything particularly innovative and interesting in terms of UN Reform.

By contrast, I think an Obama administration (and probably an Edwards administration as well) will include some people at high-levels who are pressing for those things, and will be led by a man who has some inclinations in those directions. I think Clinton and her people are too narrowly political, too complacent about the depth of America's problems in the world, and, yes, maybe too inclined to believe that if the shit really hits the fan all that'll happen is that public support for the use of force will revive and that under new, more competent leadership, the armed forces will resolve the situation by waging a new war.

And, at the end of the day, I'm against Clinton mostly because I have a choice: I can live with President Clinton and Secretary of State Holbrooke but given that there's a different, better set of people available, I hope they win. If they don't, I'll hope Clinton has the good sense to listen to the smarter members of her team

But mostly it's just that we have a choice: I can live with President Clinton and Secretary of State Holbrooke but given that there's another, better set of people available, I hope they win. If they don't, I'll hope HRC has the good sense to listen to the smarter members of her team: they're not all bad.

Comments

All of the issues you mention boil down to the fact that HRC is - like Bill - rather too affiliated with AIPAC-and-friends to have a good foreign policy, whereas there are indication that Obama is rather less that way inclined.

Posted by otto | December 21, 2007 12:43 PM

Hillary is the establishment candidate. So expect a foreign policy based on the status quo. No bold moves, no outside-the-box thinking. Basically, a more competent, probably more rational continuation of policy as usual.

Just what we DONT need in a post George W Bush administration.

Obama and Edwards are "outsiders". They can shake things up(in a good way) better than Hillary will ever be able to. This is probably because Hillary doesn't see the need to shake things up, foreign policy wise.

Posted by freaktown | December 21, 2007 12:51 PM

Hillary is the establishment candidate. So expect a foreign policy based on the status quo. No bold moves, no outside-the-box thinking. Basically, a more competent, probably more rational continuation of policy as usual.

Just what we DONT need in a post George W Bush administration.

Obama and Edwards are "outsiders". They can shake things up(in a good way) better than Hillary will ever be able to. This is probably because Hillary doesn't see the need to shake things up, foreign policy wise. And thats the problem. She doesn't have the vision of Edwards and Obama, precisely because she is the Establishment.

And the establishment, i think its safe to say, has failed us.

Posted by freaktown | December 21, 2007 12:53 PM

Cool -- I think all writers should include at least two different versions of each paragraph in everything they write.

Posted by Christopher M | December 21, 2007 12:55 PM

I'm so glad that someone with no foreign policy experience is allowed to have a forum for their perceived notions of presidential candidates possible foreign policy positions. (Because that's what your post boils down to).

This whole post you say what you "think" you "feel". Well thats great. You can think and feel all you want, but unlike Steve Clemons piece about Hillary's ability to put the legislative machinery to work, you have stated no actual evidence for your thoughts and feelings.

This has become almost worse than DailyKos. Why don't you just put a big Obama button on the top of the site so I can officially give up trying to find something substantive on this blog and move on to someone who at least tries to be objective.

Posted by nancy b | December 21, 2007 1:11 PM

As a follow-up. Here is an thoughtful analysis from someone with a foreign policy background. Obviously a Clinton supporter, but unlike this post, full of actual real life examples, votes and decisions. Basically something a lot more valuable than this
'analysis' based on your gut feeling.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/the-real-hillary-i-know-_b_77878.html

Posted by nancy b | December 21, 2007 1:28 PM

Matt, aren't you are merely substituting your unfounded speculations on what a Hillary Clinton foreign policy might be like for actual evidence of what she wants it to be like?

And isn't your speculation that Obama would be somehow bolder on foreign policy issues belied by his propensity to embrace the conservative talking point slant on all points of difference between himself and Clinton?

Posted by ken | December 21, 2007 1:32 PM

"This has become almost worse than DailyKos. Why don't you just put a big Obama button on the top of the site so I can officially give up trying to find something substantive on this blog"

It must be hard being a Clinton supporter when basically no informed Democrats who aren't on her payroll support the Senator.

You have my sympathies.

Posted by Petey | December 21, 2007 1:33 PM

Well, I always think Matt puts too much emphasis on foreign policy. And I think the reason is that he doesn't have a real foundation for his foreign policy ideas - how America's foreign policy affects Americans. That said, I still agree. Clinton's foreign policy would surely be too imperialist and too militarist, that is, too Republican. But her domestic policies would also be too Republican.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 21, 2007 1:40 PM

I am a life-long Democrat. Not on the payroll. Just someone with actual foreign policy experience.

Sorry you've bought into the hype, you're just like Obama, all excitement, no substance. Try to get some facts into your defense.

You should tell your 'pay for supporters' story to the 44% of Democrats who support her nationally.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

Posted by nancy b | December 21, 2007 1:42 PM

nancy b and ken,

I liked Petey's response a lot (and I've had my differences with Petey in the past), but, if you want a (slightly) less snarky response, it's this: Matthew doesn't pretend in THIS post to set forth the massive supporting evidence for his conclusion. Hell, that would take a few thousand words, at least. But if you guys are regular readers not totally blinded by the inexplicable phenomenon of Clinton worship, you know that Matthew has spent a lot of ink giving us the supporting facts that you are demanding.

Now me, I don't like ANY of the candidates. I want us to dismantle the empire, and now. But if you favor a kinder, gentler, smarter hegemony, then Edwards or Obama are the clear choices. OTOH, if you favor Bush lite, or if you don't mind killing brown people as long as you get your shiney new domestic programs, then by all means support Clinton.

Posted by LarryM | December 21, 2007 1:44 PM

I am [...] someone with actual foreign policy experience.

Yeah, right.

Posted by BP | December 21, 2007 1:49 PM

"I am a life-long Democrat. Not on the payroll."

That's why you have my sympathies.

It must not be easy when basically the only informed Dems standing in your corner are shills.

We'll find out in less than two weeks if helicopters and Mark Penn's slime can pull in enough uninformed Dems to save your cause or not.

I don't think it will, but the corn people will decide, not us.

Posted by Petey | December 21, 2007 1:50 PM

We'll see. I actually tepidly support Obama ad I wonder if part of that is to prove to folks like Matt that his touchy feely specualtion on what Obama is going to do on FP is based on well, nothing.

In essence, that is what this post is saying.

He FEELS Obama will be different.

He may very well be. But there is little evidence to see that.

Some will say who opposed Iraq? I actually have the counterintuitive take that Obama will feel free to be more HAWKISH than Clinton because of that.

Sort of a Nixon Going TO China thing.

But it is just a feeling.

Posted by Armando | December 21, 2007 1:53 PM

You dont want to comment on the 44% eh? It's hard to be on the losing end isnt it? Feeling desperate yet? Looks like Obama peaked too early.

Don't worry...the Clinton supporters will welcome you all back with open arms when she wins the nomination.

Posted by nancy b | December 21, 2007 1:54 PM

"Looks like Obama peaked too early."

I agree with you on that one, nancy b.

I think both Penn and Axelrod have run lousy strategic campaigns.

Posted by Petey | December 21, 2007 1:57 PM

LarryM,

I've read Matt for years, and generally he is good at teasing out the differences in various policy positions and identifying real weaknesses. In this primary, however, he has done a very poor job of representing the positions of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and he is usually reduced to feelings and guesses.

Posted by tib | December 21, 2007 2:00 PM

I can live with President Clinton and Secretary of State Holbrooke but given that there's another, better set of people available, I hope they win. If they don't, I'll hope HRC has the good sense to listen to the smarter members of her team: they're not all bad.

I also think that in reality up to a pretty high level, the national security apparatus in a Clinton administration and the national security apparatus in an Obama administration will be filled by the same people. Differences at the very tippy top might well be decisive, in some cases, while in others, the fact that you'll have the same people staffing the place regardless might also be determining.

I have to add that this is hilarious:

Why don't you just put a big Obama button on the top of the site so I can officially give up trying to find something substantive on this blog and move on to someone who at least tries to be objective.

But until that button shows up, you're not officially giving up! No matter what? You just will keep on trying to find something substantive until then?

Posted by Jeff | December 21, 2007 2:08 PM

Nancyb - go back to MY's posts on the "incompetence dodge". Plenty of evidence cited their for the conclusions he's expressing here.

Posted by Brautigan | December 21, 2007 2:10 PM

Well. I'm a long time reader, and up until recently I've always enjoyed the Matt's perspective. But at this points its just too much Anti-Hillary and Pro-Obama all the time. I'm starting to lose hope. (oh the irony.) Maybe I'll just start skipping over all primary related posts.

But if that button shows up I'm outta here. :)

Posted by nancy b | December 21, 2007 2:12 PM

As a still undecided voter who leans Edwards but hasn't quite ruled out Clinton (doubt I'll vote Obama--if I'm going anti-Clinton, I'm voting for the guy who is most electable, shoot me), I find MY actually quite fair to her, given that he clearly isn't voting for her.

And the most enjoyable part of all of these MY posts today is that they come a day after he said he wasn't going to write much about the Dem primary anymore.

Posted by Andruw | December 21, 2007 2:20 PM

tib,

Believe me, I don't havea horse int his race. And I'm willing to believe that a certain amount of Matthew's positive feelings toward Obama may be wishful thinking (there is evidence to support those hopes, but evidence going the other way as well). But you are just wrong with regard to Clinto - and it constantly amazes me the extentto which many of Clinton's supporters are in deep denial.

Of course, other Clinton supporters really do want a Buch lite foriegn plociy, though they most likely wouldn't put it in quite those terms. I mean, if that's what you want, Clinton is your candidate.

Posted by LarryM | December 21, 2007 2:20 PM

Matt could easily have pointed out reasons to believe Obama will have a bold and better foreign policy. Matt's argument here is really important, and should be a bigger deal to most Americans.

Some reasons to believe Obama will have a bold and better foreign policy:

-Went against the political mainstream on Iraq.
-Willing to talk to 'enemies' including dictators.
-Much bigger focus on nuclear arms reduction than other candidates.
-Advisers like Samantha Power and Tony Lake.
-More international experience growing up.

Posted by Neil | December 21, 2007 3:00 PM

Matt, have you set out what kinds of political risks you think would be sensible to take in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and why you believe that they would have some reasonable chance of success? Is there a post you have made where you have argued this out?

I tend to read bloggers from all over the political spectrum, and I'm pretty sure I understand the core of politically conservative opinions on this matter, but I'm not sure that I understand the liberal perspective(s). Is there anyone interested in having an email conversation on matter to explain it to me (and allow me to ask questions)? I've tried doing this in comment threads, but the conversations generally move on long past my questions.

If anyone is interested, email me at my screen name above, at take a lemon dot com

Posted by Fuzzy Face | December 21, 2007 3:15 PM

It's all about not letting Israel get away with murder anymore. Christ, these assholes are STILL building settlements on land they've stolen. HRC will ennable them to keep on keeping on, billions a year pissed away to keep an Apartheid State in business. Denying hope, dignity, justice, life and limb to 3,000,000 people. Richard Holbrooke, Dennis Ross, Joe Lieberman and his wife Hadassah, and the Zionist Organization of America will be ferklempt, and American schools, bridges and highways will further deteriorate. Hey, why not the worst?

Posted by Trevor | December 21, 2007 3:59 PM

It's all about not letting Israel get away with murder anymore.

This is absurd single-issueism. This is the most important issue to you - fine. But the notion that we should only care about the denial of hope, dignity, justice, life and limb to a given 3 million people is absurd. You also have a completely delusional notion of the lines of force at work in American politics. And the notion that Clinton is the worst shows you understand nothing about anything.

Posted by Jeff | December 21, 2007 4:13 PM

I think Clinton and her people are too narrowly political, too complacent about the depth of America's problems in the world

This applies to Clinton for both foreign and domestic policies, and it's as good a one-sentence summation of why I favor the other 2 Dem candidates over her on policy grounds. The reason I dislike her is that she is running primarily on her time as first lady, which is not a credential at all.

LarryM: Now me, I don't like ANY of the candidates. I want us to dismantle the empire, and now.
Word.

Posted by Mitch Schindler | December 21, 2007 4:18 PM

nancy b,
I believe Matt said he favors Edwards over Clinton and Obama. This is the second time I've seen someone write that Matt is all lovey-dovey for Obama when in fact he wrote a post delineating why he favors another candidate, Edwards, over Obama. Weird.

HRC: "Vote for me because I was married to Bill. You all thought he did a wonderful job and golly, weren't things great back then?" Thanks, but I'll pass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGH-1L-0zo4
Steve Jobs: "I also think we underestimate how much all of our industry [technology] depends on stability...One of the more interesting areas that we all suffer from, of course, is in the area of energy independence."

I agree strongly. I myself think people underestimate how much low energy prices help economic growth, and this was a huge boost for the economy under Clinton; I remember buying gas for $.90 a gallon in the mid-90s. Even more overlooked is stability, something that can't be quantified the way energy prices can. But these last few years people have seen the effects of increased energy prices and instability, and it's only going to get worse. We couldn't go back to the 1990s if Bill himself were back in the Oval Office no matter how hard we might want to.

Posted by Mitch Schindler | December 21, 2007 4:43 PM

Thank you Matt- I am just ameager american girl but I think it is difficult to stand up against the odds... but thank you- I agree 100 percent.

Posted by 100 percent | December 21, 2007 5:16 PM

Yglesias may have nedorsed Edwards, but it is obvious he has a crush on Obama.

Posted by David | December 21, 2007 5:27 PM

Bill Clintons' biggest failure was losing Congress to the Republicans. To this day, I don't think HRC or Obama quite appreciate the importance of taking back the Senate. If they do, I see little evidence of it in their Senate careers.

Posted by Jalmari | December 21, 2007 7:05 PM

Bill Clintons' biggest failure was losing Congress to the Republicans. To this day, I don't think HRC or Obama quite appreciate the importance of taking back the Senate. If they do, I see little evidence of it in their Senate careers.

Posted by Jalmari | December 21, 2007 7:05 PM

What it comes down to for me is that we have, for the past 7 years, endured a regime that conducted diplomacy and even foreign wars purely as domestic political exercises. For practical purposes, the Iraqis (North Koreans, most of Europe) did not exist. In my view HRCs entire history and particularly the people she has so far anointed as advisers are most likely to continue this 'run our foreign policy as a domestic political talking point and follow the polls' attitude.

No thank you.

Posted by central texas | December 21, 2007 11:57 PM

"Other Clinton supporters really do want a Buch lite foriegn plociy."

Do you mean Busch Lite? That I could go for. Don't be silly, nobody wants anything to do with stupid___ George Bush.

Are RFK Jr. and George McGovern on Hillary's payroll?

Grand bargain with Iran? They hang gay teenagers. No thanks, I'm with Israel. But I don't think Iran is going to force the issue, and nobody wants a war.

I don't trust Obama because everything about him reminds me of the emergence of Bush. He's not Bush Lite, he's Bush Left.

If we wanted a "kinder, gentler, smarter hegemony" we'd re-elect Bush's father. Kidding aside, you hit the nail on the head. A 'kinder, gentler, smarter hegemony" is just what I want -- Clinton is the one to bring it. Won't write a long post on hegemony -- basically, far worse powers would emerge in the absence of American power. We could have put 500,000 troops into Iraq and just colonized, but we didn't. And we don't hang gay teenagers. The 'establishment' has many failings, but it has not 'failed us'. Islam has failed its people far more than our 'establishment' has failed us. No one can just come in here and bomb us or invade us - it's amazing what some people take for granted.

By the way, Clinton has targeted several of those establishment failings - health care, cowboy diplomacy, green jobs.

Would Obama have gone out on a limb on universal healthcare fifteen years ago? Sure, they're all campaigning on it now that it's safe - but Clinton pioneered the concept. If nothing else, Hillarycare was certainly bold.

Posted by whoframedrudy | December 23, 2007 1:25 AM