Why is Clinton Pandering to the Right?

Clinton recently unveiled her new policy platform of "massive retaliation" against Iran in the event of a war between Iran and Israel. This Middle East policy, seemingly irrelevant to the current primary debate, has led Clinton's critics to question her commitment to withdrawing troops from Iraq. In fact, coupled with her vote to classify the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist organization," Clinton critics now have ample reason to tie her in with the hawks who drove us into Iraq. Politicians like Lieberman and the rest of the Committee on the Present Danger.

But why would Clinton threaten a unilateral confrontation with Iran, possibly including a nuclear strike, while in the midst of the Democratic Primary? Wouldn't this be better bait for wooing hawkish Independents in the general election?

The Real News asked Tom Hayden about the motivation behind Clinton's statement and its political implications for the Democratic primary.

The Real News Network (TRNN) is the world's first truly independent, non-profit, viewer-supported daily video-news and documentary service. It does not accept advertising, government or corporate funding. The mission of The Real News Network is to engage millions of viewers in solving the critical problems of our times. We provide independent daily video-news imbued with verifiable facts, history and context.

Comments

[jrockbg]

The whole notion of this blog is naive. Obama will do the same in the general election. The best part about this long primary is that every day he's duking with Hillary, the more he will be seen for the liberal that he is.

[patrice37]

If I hear one more "political analyst" say that there's no difference between Clinton and Obama on policy matters I'm going to scream. Obama has made their differences clear. But the media refuse to listen, because talking about flag pins (wait --- Hillary and Obama BOTH don't wear them) is so much more fun than nuclear war and stuff.

[harriscrl3]

That umbrella of deterrence comment was dumb. America needs to GET OUT of the middle east not emobroiled itself in further. If we got involve in every war in the middle east we will NEVER have any time of peach we'll be fighting wars forever. The middle east is NOT like Nato and it just shows how incompetent Hilary is in Foreign policy. There is a lot of things about Hilary that is starting to make me question whether her candidacy was just a hype. I just cannot believe someone who is running for a head of a state would use the word obliterate in referring to war it is so cartoonish and I expected better from her. Thats an inflammatory word to use. And when you have to use tough overdramatic words it makes me wonder if you are really tough or if its not just an illusion. Someone who is tough does NOT have to resort to overdramatization.

Carol

[FortuneTeller]

Hillary is a POLITICIAN and nothing else. An empty suit. She will say and do whatever it takes to get elected. Someone who is quickly becoming persona non grata...does she still think she has a chance? She is such a master liar ( I think that was the big attraction between her-n-bill) that she believes them herself and thinks we all don't have the brains to see through her bs.
By the way the PA Sec of State said final margin count was hill won by 9.2%

[seepee]

Before we dismiss Hillary comments as being hawkish we need to give it a second thought. I may not be such a bad ideas to have a Middle East NATO like alliance, this could be deterrent for middle eastern rouge states. As the economies in the Middle East boom it"s about time they pay for their security by their own treasury and soldiers. I think it is definitely worth looking into as a way to get lasting peace in the Middle East.

[Syco]

Considering we are one the reasons for the situation we should leave it alone.
Let Israel fend for it damn self

[dollars2donuts]

Yeah, they have the second more powerful military in the world, please tell me why they would need anyone's help?! We're broke, they should be helping us!

[CapitalistRebel]

Don't forget she extended that to Saudi Arabia, Dubai, and any other country where Bill's wealthy donors reside.

Face it, she is a hawk and she always has been. She'd be worse than McCain because at least McCain knows something about military strategy, she would just bomb, bomb, bomb away to show America how "strong" she is on National Security.

[dapaul]

Clinton is beholden to the neo-cons who have supported her in New York. Expect more of the same in the Middle-East under a Clinton presidency. America is doomed as we keep destroying the country to fight Israel's wars.

[nancytheragingliberal]

The road for the entire world always leads to Israel. The billions of tax dollars we have shelled out for decades to our "friends" is a hoax on the American people. Israel does whatever it wants to do and we feebly say, "This was not helpful." Such a show of force, huh? The Middle-East will be a caldron and soon. Now that Gen Patraeus has his new, expanded position, we will be bombing Iran, before this thug administration leaves office. Weep for the deaths of our 4, 040 dead teen-age soldiers, the millions of maimed, the Iraqi dead and maimed and those fleeing their homes. We have created a human catrastrophe, based on filthy lies for oil. The fake war is an outrage.

[Countess]

There can be doubt in the minds of voters that when you choose Hillary Clinton you are voting for Bush's foreign policy. Her neocon views will make McCain look like a moderate in comparison. When she says:"We must win the war in Iraq" she is repeating the fantasy of the right wing and when she rants about obliberating Iran she has joined the wing nuts. She is pushing the democratic party so far to the right that there will be no alternative to the republicans.