Let's face it, if Trump is a nominee, a lot of conservatives and Republicans are going to come out for HRC and it will all say very little about what she believes.

Is Hillary Clinton one of your female friends or is she one of the most powerful and wealthiest people on the planet?  Was the language really that "disgusting" and "sexist" or was it offensive but not an attack on Mrs. Clinton's gender?

LULU and I have both posted this but why not once more:

But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his “mainstream” view of American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes. Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.

“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/us/politics/historians-critique-of-oba...

In the same article the Times notes:

To Mr. Kagan, American action to stop the militants is imperative, but a continued military presence in Iraq and action in Syria would have averted the crisis. “It’s striking how two policies driven by the same desire to avoid the use of a military power are now converging to create this burgeoning disaster,” Mr. Kagan said in an interview.

So Kagan's position is we never should have left Iraq and should have had troops on the ground in Syria.  This is precisely Hillary Clinton's position with respect to Syria.  http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton....  Regarding the Iraq troop withdrawal, Clinton has taken the position it was necessitated by W's approval of total withdrawal before he left office and the refusal of Al-Maliki to guarantee American troops from criminal and civil immunity.  In other words, she and Kagan share the view that ISIL's rise is due to the US decision to leave Iraq in by the end of 2011 not the decision, for which she voted, to invade Iraq and change regimes.

In Kagan's own New Republic article published May 26, 2014, he praises Clinton (Bill) to the skies:

The United States, in short, was the “indispensable nation,” as Bill Clinton would proclaim—indispensable, that is, to the preservation of a liberal world order. Such was the thinking behind most of Clinton’s foreign policy initiatives: the enlargement of NATO, which included the extension of unprecedented military guarantees to such nations as Poland, the Czech Republic, and the Baltic states; the billions sent to try to save Boris Yeltsin’s faltering democratic experiment in Russia; and the intense focus on containing North Korea, Iraq, and Iran, designated as “rogue states” because they defied the principles of a liberal world order. Conflicts in remote and troubled parts of the world were not considered irrelevant to American interests but were viewed within this broader context. After the massacre at Srebrenica in 1995, Clinton officials argued, according to David Halberstam, that “Serb aggression” was intolerable— not because it threatened American interests directly, which obviously it did not, but because it tore at “the very fabric of the West.”

------

When President Clinton ordered four days of bombing and missile attacks against suspected Iraqi weapons production facilities at the end of 1998, he warned that, if Saddam were not stopped, “The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. ... If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.”