

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Flanked by 19 American flags, Hillary Clinton gave a wide-ranging foreign policy speech on Thursday, in which she flayed Donald Trump for his "thin skin" and "dangerously incoherent" approach to international affairs.
The speech, delivered in San Diego five days ahead of California's June 7 primary, lambasted the presumptive Republican nominee as "temperamentally unfit" to be President of the United States. The full remarks are here.
"Americans aren't just electing a president in November," Clinton said, "we're choosing our next commander-in-chief, a person we count on to answer questions of war and peace, life and death. The person the Republicans have nominated for president cannot do the job."
Clinton noted that Trump has praised leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korea's Kim Jong Un, quipping: "I will leave it to the psychiatrists to explain his affection for tyrants."
But that was just one of several statements that raised observers' eyebrows, in a speech that some said was full of fundamental contradictions--and hinted at Clinton's own hawkish positions.
After all, as journalist Robert Parry wrote in April, "If Clinton becomes President, she will be surrounded by a neocon-dominated American foreign policy establishment that will press her to resume its 'regime change' strategies in the Middle East and escalate its new and dangerous Cold War against Russia."
Clinton did not mention her Democratic rival Bernie Sanders in Thursday's remarks.
Pew Research Center surveys have laid bare how Sanders and Clinton supporters differ on foreign policy issues. Polls conducted in March and April showed that two-thirds (66%) of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters who support Clinton for the party's presidential nomination say that world problems would be even worse without U.S. involvement--just 28 percent say U.S. efforts usually make things worse.
By contrast, Sanders supporters are divided, with 49 percent saying global problems would be even worse without U.S. involvement and 45 percent saying U.S. intervention usually makes matters worse.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Flanked by 19 American flags, Hillary Clinton gave a wide-ranging foreign policy speech on Thursday, in which she flayed Donald Trump for his "thin skin" and "dangerously incoherent" approach to international affairs.
The speech, delivered in San Diego five days ahead of California's June 7 primary, lambasted the presumptive Republican nominee as "temperamentally unfit" to be President of the United States. The full remarks are here.
"Americans aren't just electing a president in November," Clinton said, "we're choosing our next commander-in-chief, a person we count on to answer questions of war and peace, life and death. The person the Republicans have nominated for president cannot do the job."
Clinton noted that Trump has praised leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korea's Kim Jong Un, quipping: "I will leave it to the psychiatrists to explain his affection for tyrants."
But that was just one of several statements that raised observers' eyebrows, in a speech that some said was full of fundamental contradictions--and hinted at Clinton's own hawkish positions.
After all, as journalist Robert Parry wrote in April, "If Clinton becomes President, she will be surrounded by a neocon-dominated American foreign policy establishment that will press her to resume its 'regime change' strategies in the Middle East and escalate its new and dangerous Cold War against Russia."
Clinton did not mention her Democratic rival Bernie Sanders in Thursday's remarks.
Pew Research Center surveys have laid bare how Sanders and Clinton supporters differ on foreign policy issues. Polls conducted in March and April showed that two-thirds (66%) of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters who support Clinton for the party's presidential nomination say that world problems would be even worse without U.S. involvement--just 28 percent say U.S. efforts usually make things worse.
By contrast, Sanders supporters are divided, with 49 percent saying global problems would be even worse without U.S. involvement and 45 percent saying U.S. intervention usually makes matters worse.
Flanked by 19 American flags, Hillary Clinton gave a wide-ranging foreign policy speech on Thursday, in which she flayed Donald Trump for his "thin skin" and "dangerously incoherent" approach to international affairs.
The speech, delivered in San Diego five days ahead of California's June 7 primary, lambasted the presumptive Republican nominee as "temperamentally unfit" to be President of the United States. The full remarks are here.
"Americans aren't just electing a president in November," Clinton said, "we're choosing our next commander-in-chief, a person we count on to answer questions of war and peace, life and death. The person the Republicans have nominated for president cannot do the job."
Clinton noted that Trump has praised leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korea's Kim Jong Un, quipping: "I will leave it to the psychiatrists to explain his affection for tyrants."
But that was just one of several statements that raised observers' eyebrows, in a speech that some said was full of fundamental contradictions--and hinted at Clinton's own hawkish positions.
After all, as journalist Robert Parry wrote in April, "If Clinton becomes President, she will be surrounded by a neocon-dominated American foreign policy establishment that will press her to resume its 'regime change' strategies in the Middle East and escalate its new and dangerous Cold War against Russia."
Clinton did not mention her Democratic rival Bernie Sanders in Thursday's remarks.
Pew Research Center surveys have laid bare how Sanders and Clinton supporters differ on foreign policy issues. Polls conducted in March and April showed that two-thirds (66%) of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters who support Clinton for the party's presidential nomination say that world problems would be even worse without U.S. involvement--just 28 percent say U.S. efforts usually make things worse.
By contrast, Sanders supporters are divided, with 49 percent saying global problems would be even worse without U.S. involvement and 45 percent saying U.S. intervention usually makes matters worse.