Why Susan Sarandon’s Hillary Slam is Dead Wrong
The Oscar winner appeared at an Iowa rally Wednesday to talk up Sen. Bernie Sanders’ insurgent presidential campaign.
Why not back Hillary Clinton, the Democratic party’s likely nominee?
For the progressive actress, it all goes back to the Iraq War. Then-Sen. Clinton voted in favor of the war back in 2002. Sanders never supported the conflict.
“That’s where Hillary Clinton lost me,” Sarandon told DailyMail.com. The star later expounded on that theme at the rally.
ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos
“But what is experience without judgment?” she asked the assembled Iowans. “She’s had a job but what has she done that we’re bragging about. How has she led? … The biggest foreign decision that had to be made in terms of foreign policy was whether or not to go into Iraq and go into war, and she failed that test.”
Yet neither Clinton nor Sanders’ vote could have changed the outcome. The momentum to go to war, and the evidence used at the time to buttress that argument, wouldn’t be denied by a single vote.
What’s far more damning is Clinton’s record as Secretary of State. Just look at Libya. The failed state is a direct result of the Obama administration’s policy during Clinton’s tenure. Or consider the farcical “reset” with Russia, a series of decisions which led to an emboldened, dangerous nation.
Since the introduction of the “reset” button, Russia has gone on to annex Crimea, helped foment unrest in eastern Ukraine, and challenged NATO member states with provocative military actions.
The less said about the fires engulfing the Middle East over the past seven years, the better.
FAST FACT: Susan Sarandon once said, ‘You stand more chance of losing work [in Hollywood] if you’re old or fat than you do if you’re political.’
Those areas can be more directly tied to Clinton, far more than a single vote during the Bush administration. Yet Sarandon couldn’t name check any of them.
Kudos to Sarandon for saying how gender shouldn’t be important in the race. It’s the issues that count, she rightly argued. It’s a shame she doesn’t touch on the real reasons Clinton’s foreign policy achievements are a stain, not an embellishment, of her record.
Not a real shocker if you think about it. The leftists seem to put the old blinders on when real major screw-ups (Bengazhi, the fall of Kadaffi, the failed Iran deal, possible high treason with the email scandel, etc) are made by people with a “D” after their name.