The more I hear about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the harder I find it to understand her reputation as a figurehead of liberalism in the United States. Even once I get past the fact that most of those considered ‘liberal’ in US politics would barely be considered centrists in most of the rest of the democratic world, there’s the fact of her vigorous support of the administration’s hawkish tendencies in the Middle East.
Take for example this report on statements she made in New York yesterday. Anyone deserving of her liberal tag should be urging people to look beyond crass simplifications of the current Middle Eastern crisis, but she seems happy to parrot the Israeli and neo-conservative lines and perpetuate ignorance.
People should not be worried that Clinton will run for president because she’s “so liberal”, but because she is (along with many of her fellow Senators, whose overwhelming support for Israel’s military action is deeply disturbing) a warmonger, either failing to understand a situation her husband worked so hard to try to resolve, or exploiting it for political capital. And perhaps we should also be wondering how anyone was so able to twist reality that she ended up with the labels she has.