Hillary the war hawk

Ben Norton's Salon article hits a note Democrats might not like: "Democrats, this is why you need to fear Hillary Clinton: The NY Times is absolutely right — she’s a bigger hawk than the Republicans". It is a long title, but painfully accurate.

He references a New York Times Magazine piece, which he describes below and throughout the editorial:

Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is even more of a war hawk than her Republican counterparts, the U.S. newspaper of record says in a new report. 

“How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk,” a long-form article published this week in the New York Times Magazine, details how Clinton’s hyper-hawkish “foreign-policy instincts are bred in the bone,” based on what one of her aides calls “a textbook view of American exceptionalism.” 

Clinton’s extreme belligerence “will likely set her apart from the Republican candidate she meets in the general election,” the Times explains, noting “neither Donald J. Trump nor Senator Ted Cruz of Texas have demonstrated anywhere near the appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has.” 

In the 2016 presidential campaign, the report concludes, “Hillary Clinton is the last true hawk left in the race.” 

The almost 7,000-word piece in the New York Times, which endorsed Clinton, details how, as secretary of state, Clinton pressured President Obama to take more aggressive military action in a variety of conflicts, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Syria and more.

The article goes on to show how Hillary is, as they describe it, "a little bit to the right" of even the military on some issues.

If you believe the U.S. should be more involved in the world militarily, then Hillary might just be your "man", so to speak.