Hillary is
>hawkish, but also will take the opposite position.

I can't seem to find an instance where we've been debating intervening in a war where Clinton has stood on the side of not intervening. Certainly wasn't Iraq - wasn't Libya (which Obama now admits was the greatest mistake of his presidency) - definitely isn't in Syria. So where has she taken the opposite position?

The problem
>though is that i feel speaks to the bigger issue with Hillary.
>Not that she's not 'progressive' enough, but that she tends to
>adopt whatever positions that are politically popular.

On social and economic issues (from gay marriage and civil liberties to trade deals and regulation) - absolutely - she's been very fairweather. On war and foreign policy? rock-solid consistent.


-->