Alternate headline: Hillary Clinton even worse on Syria than Obama.
On Syria, Clinton writes that the civil war there has been a “wicked problem” and that U.S. officials saw no simple solution. She writes that she wanted to arm and train Syrian rebels, but that Obama’s “inclination was to stay the present course and not take the significant further step of arming rebels. No one likes to lose a debate, including me. But this was the President’s call and I respected his deliberations and decisions.”
I have no idea whom this position is supposed to appeal to. A lot of wonks like the idea and Obama has been turning that way, but ordinary people hate it.
Even most politicians hate it.
Considering Hillary’s disastrous record as Secretary of State, the smart thing for her to do is stay vague instead of pushing to involve the US in a war that no one wants to be involved in.
To put this into perspective, Hillary is boasting of championing a position that even Obama, the Muslim Brotherhood’s best friend in the White House, didn’t want to commit to.
I’m sure Huma Abedin is really persuasive, but has Hillary spent so much time in the bubble that she has no idea how badly it polls. Or is she assuming that she can glide through everything with a third-rate West Wing imitation and media sycophancy the way that Obama does?