This “more hawkish” cliché that is repeated ad nauseam by the more intellectually limited among us simply means that Hillary is at least somewhat interested in what happens in the world unlike Obama who just wants the entirety of foreign affairs to go away and stop forcing him to have an opinion.
It is truly shameful how acceptable it is in this country to be egregiously ignorant about the world. People are even proud and ostentatious of their dumb refusal to find out anything about the rest of the planet. When a presidential candidate says the equivalent of “North Korea has made great advances in the art of gourmet cooking” and nobody has any comment to make about this insane statement on the next day, we’ve got nobody but ourselves to blame for a deranged foreign policy.
Clarissa's Blog 
Obama definitely has an opinion on America’s role in international affairs. Unfortunately, his opinion has had disastrous consequences for the world, from Ukraine to the Middle East to Asia:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/
LikeLike
“This “more hawkish” cliché that is repeated ad nauseam by the more intellectually limited among us simply means that Hillary is at least somewhat interested in what happens in the world”
George W. Bush must’ve been very interested in what happens in the world, then. It’s finally starting to make sense why one of his nicknames was Curious George.
LikeLike
This is an entirely non-partisan issue in American politics. The US foreign policy has sucked for decades, and the reason is that citizens are aggressively parochial, ignorant and indifferent.
LikeLike
Foreign policy in America is largely determined by the President — always has been.
LikeLike
The president gives the voters what they want. And when voters are dumb, they get a dumb foreign policy.
LikeLike
Who said that “North Korea has made great advances in the art of gourmet cooking?” (I’m just curious.)
LikeLike
Bernie Sanders said in a debate yesterday that Cuba made great advances in medicine and education.
LikeLike
So did anyone say anything about N. Korea and cooking? I’m sorry. I’m confused.
LikeLike
I’m making an analogy to transmit the stupidity of the comment about Cuba.
LikeLike
TBH if, as in the article linked, Iran has basically taken the international community’s good faith and as good as stamped on it, then applying sanctions again, far from being “more hawkish”, seems completely reasonable. At the same time this does not necessarily imply that there can be no reason for Iran to have some issues with Israel or that America has any business interfering in sabre-rattling between third parties (or indeed throwing its weight behind Israel), but I don’t suppose it should easily stand by lightly and brush aside such threats of violence.
LikeLike
I agree completely with you. This is precisely why I’m annoyed with the knee-jerk response of “Hillary is hawkish ” without looking at what the situation actually is.
LikeLike
Hillary is hawkish — and that’s a COMPLIMENT!
LikeLike
(What I meant to say above is that America shouldn’t necessarily condone threats of violence.)
LikeLike