The Iran deal is huge. True it's early to tell how well it will work, but still it's there.

Then there's Cuba. Not a big deal in global terms, but a watershed in America's history. Although the payoffs for these mainly accrue to Kerry, it was Hilary who made them happen.

I agree they were good, but the Cuba and the Iran deal both happened after Clinton's Secretary of State tenure, no? How did she make them happen?

This Benghazi thing; it's a perfect example of the double standards as applied to Clinton. Prior to Benghazi, were there 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths under President George W. Bush. Where was the outrage then? Where were the hearings then?

He said Gaddafi, not Benghazi.

Benghazi was a political dog and pony show, that she is completely blameless of.

Libya and Gaddafi were a humanitarian disaster that rests squarely on her shoulders.

Like Iraq rests on Bush's shoulders and cost him the election?

It should have. And it would have if he belonged to the party that contains a majority portion of anti-war/pacifist types. Can't sell out the major beliefs of your base and expect them to show up at the polls.

No, but it is a reason for why a number of liberals feel little but contempt for Clinton.

You missed the point. She was the most vocal about striking Libya in the first place.

Like George Bush was vocal about striking Iraq in the first place but got elected twice.

Bush wasn't elected by progressives. Being pro-war isn't going to earn you progressive votes. The progressives sat out this election because Hillary wasn't progressive enough. There were 4M fewer votes cast this year than in 2008.

I up-voted you because this is the first time I heard that.

Crazy to think they could both be wrong.

> I'm not pro trump, by the way.

You don't have to qualify your statements anymore. The veil of illusion has come down and the sock puppet masters have ended their contracts, so you won't be attacked unfairly for pointing out the truth.