This time, its not about something she said ... its about something she hasn't said fast enough.

This nonsense is hilarious.

If she speaks, because she speaks. If she doesn't speak, because she doesn't speak. There's no pleasing people.

The whole thing is crazy.

surely you don't think things should change Now, do you?

I think that's so darn cute. Now that it's Hillary being questioned the rules have to change, man!

Go after those people.

The largest employer in the US that regularly exploits it's workers? How many live on food stamps again, since Walmart refuses to pay a living wage?

to go back over 20 years to find something to complain about? Seriously?

and for the advancement of women. She was the first and only woman in the board of directors, there was only so much she could get accomplished.

She left the board in 1992, over 20 years ago.

And what about the fact that President Carter appointed her to the Legal Services Corporation in 1978. Scandal... scandal I tell you.

This was followed by her co-founding of the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families and she even served on the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital Legal Services and the Children's Defense Fund.

THAT IS ALL JUST SO AWFUL.

than what she did those so many years ago.

But it is a good point, nonetheless. She has not changed much in her cozy ways with the likes of the Carlyle Group and the ones dripping with money, and all those predators who pay her really well for her speeches, for some mysterious reason. I wonder what that reason could be?

It's amazing how anything she says and now doesn't say get conflated with neocon idiocy.

and for her to come out now and speak well of peace, meh, wouldn't sound right coming from her hawkish beak.

If the deal falls apart, she won't be on the record supporting it.

If it's successful, she can tout the virtue of diplomacy.

Politics 101.

With her background, she likely thinks it is a good chance to lessen the likelihood of war or she is troubled by it - there really is no middle ground.

She may be silent because Democrats are divided on this -and she wants all of them to support her. However, BECAUSE Democrats are divided, she should speak up to try to influence people like Menendez and Schumer to give this 6 months.

While not the same, I was disappointed that in 2003 - the only Democrats with megaphones - the Clintons - were completely silent as inspectors found nothing and it was clearer than in 2002 that we should not attack Iraq. Here, this is an instance where all anyone is asking is to give diplomacy a 6 month chance.

Speaking up now, when it is not clear if Congress will give Obama and Kerry that 6 months, could be important to whether Congress will allow the President to lead on foreign policy.

We have too many of already,

That's all.

we don't have to explain ourselves! just call others a name we think others will take pejoratively.

Strangely first by forces of moderation looking for something between central planning and free-reign capitalism, then as anti-FDR forces opposed to banking/business regulation, then as socially conscious pro-corporate types, and as some sort of anti-progressivism... as liberals who believe in social evolution rather than revolution.

Neolib can't be unambiguously understood as a stand alone label

at least the neo conservatives had a binding ideology about U.S. intervention in the world. Neoliberal is a non word, and I'm just pointing out to people who use it they are undercutting their attempts to be understood.

and disambiguation isn't very tidy for hasty labeling.

difference there is." It all comes down to "would you like some blue lube with what's coming?"

mean she is tacitly against them?

No. These all mean she chose not to weigh in on every possible subject.

this is an important issue.

You could make the case that she is against it, but feels it wrong to speak against the President she so recently worked for. You can't create a similar high minded reason not to support Obama at a point where support would be welcome IF she supports the diplomacy.

Perhaps she's DEFERRING to the ACTUAL Secretary of State in an ongoing and fluid situation re: Iran deal.

Besides, if she's not in power and she is looking to maximize her appeal to fundraisers--the less said the better on most any issue unless it's something non-controversial such as being 100% FOR cute kitten photos.

It is rather silly to think that she is deferring to Kerry. Kerry, of course, supports the deal.

As to bias - it is clear that yours is to Hillary Clinton. I do not have a candidate for 2016 -- and there may be no real contest. In that case, I will - with little enthusiasm - support the nominee.

is far more important than her meaningless comments of added support of the Iran deal right now.

I would say it is more important than whether HRC becomes President. Why do you say her comments would be "meaningless"?

BTW. Obama didn't meet with Iran in his first year either, and yet diplomacy is working. The same diplomacy Senator Clinton said she would engage in.

Work a little harder on your Hillary bashing. I promise, by the end of the week, you will have found something about her that will just pin your outrage meter.

I would want to know if I were supporting her for President. It really is a pretty significant issue.

1) I would NOT support her if she were against this 6 month period where Iran will not move ahead. (It's a no brainer - as without that agreement, they would be slowly moving ahead as they were doing.)

2) I would be disappointed if she DID believe in this and was silent because she wanted political support from both sides. As Obama's first Secretary of State - a position he gave her and which helped her - I think she owes it to Obama - unless she disagrees with it.

It is not urgent for her to comment on the proposed deal, and it is almost unseemly if she does comment at this point.

Do you know something I don't?

She owes Obama nothing. I find it to be funny you think she owes him.

And last but not least. Why the fuck would she do anything right now to undermine Obama or Kerry on their hard work? You would be running around acting like a chicken with your head cut off if she came out and said anything different than Kerry.

As to Obama, it is mind boggling that you think Clinton would have been better positioned for that had she returned to the Senate as a junior Senator - not chairing any committee - because she had little seniority.

I did NOT say that she should undermine the President. What I said is that IF she supports this - she should add her voice to helping them win support.

It is the LACK of hearing that that suggests that, one of the following is true:

- She supports it, but thinks it not worth her political capital

OR

- She is staying quiet because she disagrees.

To some, the world appears to be black or white. Others just make it up after they have determined what they want to feel in the first place.

Again, others make excuses even when they don't have to --- suggesting that they might actually wish she had done something else.

Right now she's a private citizen and she doesn't owe anybody any explanation on anything.

Were these types of questions posed to every former SOS? Do we need to know what Albright, Condi, Kissinger, etc. think of every deal that this administration engages in or is that only expected from Hillary?

Forgot to add, she owes Obama squat. He offered her a job that she initially didn't want. She eventually accepted and they seem to have forged a nice working relationship along the way. End of story.

Now it's your guy who is in charge. If the deal succeeds or fails, it will be on him. He'll either win all the accolades or the criticism, only time will tell.

therefore she is more tuned in than the others who were not there as recently.

If she really is 100% retired and not interested in any future run, then she would both have less influence and less reason to speak out.

She really can't have it both ways - she either is the likely next President or an elder statesman.

It is not a sin of omission. However, if she does run and it - with other things - will make her look opportunistic - a charge often used against both Clintons.

Or taking the focus away from John Kerry.

has given credit to many other people involved - including Wendy Sherman and Lady Catherine Ashton. Not to mention, it is Obama who - above anyone - should get credit and does.

The point is that she is respected by people like Schumer. Do you think her word has no weight with people like him?

She's dammed if she does and dammed if she doesn't.

- and having lived years as a NJ Jew - I KNOW that the majority of NYC area Jews, are more closely aligned with the views of J Street.

It is NOT constituents in NT -- it is Likud in Israel.

on an issue that is not of utmost importance to anyone on Dec. 2, 2013. For all you know, she's utilizing more confidential means to encourage former colleagues in the senate NOT to go forward with any kind of sanctions actions.

I do think this is the most important foreign policy issue this year. Avoiding war is not as exciting as screaming against an imminent war - but is likely more helpful.

in 6 months either she will say she supported it wholeheartedly or if it's not perfect (like all things Obama are supposed to be) she will shuffle and hum hah just enough so you still don't know where she stands.

it's all about 2016 and what is advantageous and what is not for the Clintons.

I think going with the Vince Foster thingy has better legs.

And , in case anyone needs it....

I'm sure they would be there with a Hillary opinion if Obama screwed up.

Maybe it's the latest poll that shows that she is preferred by 63% of Democrats as the 2016 nominee. So, some so-called Liberals attack with whatever they can the fuck think of - for what logical reason?

I think it would be embarassing for her to support the good works of all those involved with this peaceful effort.

The talk tough shit has got to stop. Hillary is more like the good old boys club than some of the boys themselves.

Her making a statement could be seen as undercutting Kerry. I don't get your drift, it seems t be driven by unrealistic Hillary hatred, not by facts or reasoning.

whether it was with the Clinton's blessing or not, hard to say. Probably more yes than no. She could outright say No to her run, but she hasn't and with all this Hillary is Inevitable Queen talk, it isn't strange to expect her to speak on important topics such as Iran. But I can see her embarassment stopping her as her solution would have been to obliterate Iran. It would make even a Clinton blush to send out blessings and thanks for peace now.

And it being so early in the game, she is not sure whether Obama will leave with the glory and thanks he deserves or whether more false scandals will tear at his legacy so she doesn't know what to say yet, because she doesn't know how it could hurt or help her.

Repetitive and nonsensical as usual, I see. She's "embarrassed"? Her "minions" have nominated her? That must be the vast majority of the party, as she has the support of most Democrats. Gee, I wasn't aware so many millions of people were her minions?

You know squat about Hillary and what she thinks or doesn't think, you presume too much. It just proves how little you know about her that you keep writing what pops into your fertile imagination in thread after thread without much basis on fact.

What a bore.........

Yes she did use the word 'obliterate' toward Iran.

Yes the Clintons have many insiders, like a mafia thing going. Lanny Davis being one of the more useful thugs, re: Honduras coup.

Yes, Hillary will calculate what is best for her before she commits to words. Although even if she does commit, she can always deny anything with 'oh, I misspoke' - like Bosnia. How the hell can you mispeak a full fantasy?

What I know about Hillary/Clintons - they are Much more like repuglicans than democrats. And defend republicans against democrats whenever it suits them.

She does get paid a whole lot, her and her hubs, for just talking. I wonder what they had to do/promise to get those millions because it sure is payback for something.

None of this, and there is a lot more, is presuming anything. It's on record.

The word is far too strong with regards to any country. I can't imagine the context she could have said it in. It goes beyond strong retaliation to killing everyone in Iran.

maybe you can tell us all again how many miles Hillary travelled as SoS, that's always exciting! And how tired she was in how many ports of call.

I've got no idea what's in Clinton's head, and neither does anyone else until she decides to tell us.

I'm sure that we'll know once she starts campaigning, no need to rush.

At this point, I don't see what good for anybody can come of rendering an opinion.

I'll include that I'm not a fan. But if a candidate she would get my vote.

--imm

but is about peace with Iran.

That should ring bells loudly.

She and Bill are not shy about spouting their opinions. So let's scratch that off the list of why and why nots.

it's something else. And that something else is she will speak up loudly in support about intervention and war but shys away from speaking up about peace.

Remains to be seen what benefit she got from Syria. I think people are relieved we didn't go in. I think it's not a good time to be reminded of her hawkishness.

It's not like I trust her (or Bill.)

--imm