Clinton's new book: This should be top story, but isn't...

On Friday I wrote about some early released information from Hillary Clinton's new book Hard Choices, and singled out what I thought was the most interesting revelation being reported.  Today her book is officially released and the political bashing has begun.  When early reports from her book came out there was something that stood out to me, but didn't seem to gather as much traction elsewhere; Clinton's desire to arm "moderate" Syrian rebels in their uprising against Bashar al-Assad.  This is so interesting because it shows a little friction between her and President Obama, who overruled her desire and refused to send armaments to Syria (at least publicly, cause who really knows right?).  The Neo-Con bashing began immediately, John McCain and Lindsey Graham led the charge. Of course they weren't alone, Mitt Romney supported it, Sen. Bob Corker did too, same with Marco Rubio and Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez.  This, however, only begs the question, if Obama didn't listen to his own Secretary of State or the advice of these Republican (and Democratic) Senators, why isn't this bigger news?

It's all politics of course.  The Democrats have no desire to see Hillary damaged by supporting a foreign policy that is opposed by 3/4 of Americans; nor do they want to show any fractures in what has tended to be a solid and unified foreign policy front.  Republicans have no interests in talking about Syria because it means they have to agree with Hillary Clinton (potentially their big rival in 2016) or they have to take back everything they said and come out in support of Obama's policy (a big no for the neo-cons).  It is almost likely that this story would disappear into oblivion (somehow the media doesn't think this is a story) except there is one man who stands a lot of ground to gain by bringing this story up.  As I mentioned in my first piece (before the book was even released), Rand Paul is the one man who stands to gain from this controversy and I would be surprised to see him let it be forgotten.

Rand Paul himself is often touted as a potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate, and it seems almost certain he will run.  What makes him stand out from a crowded field of Republican candidates is his Libertarian stance inherited from his father, longtime Texas Congressman Ron Paul (and former Presidential hopeful himself).  The Libertarian wing of the GOP stands in stark contrast to the Religious Right and especially the Neo-Cons who have dominated for decades now.  His non-interventionist foreign policy stance stands out in the GOP.  Whats more is that this is actually the preferred position for 75% of Americans, that's why I wasn't surprised to see Rand Paul being the one to actually talk about this issue no one else really wants to discuss.  You can read some comments of his as reported by Burgess Everett of Politico here.  It's buried down at the bottom but he says that "Her eagerness to be involved in war in Syria goes against what 75 percent of the Americans are for" and "That's something she's going to have to explain."  The beauty here is that when he does make her explain this position, he is also going to make Rubio, McCain, Graham, Corker, Romney and  whole host of Republicans explain the same position as Hillary.  This is likely going to be one of the major foreign policy debates leading up to 2016, assuming Rand Paul can deal with agreeing with President Obama on even a single issue.

Follow me on Twitter: @SenBJohnson