paul jay's a smart guy, and i get what he's saying. he's roughly twice her age. and, it kind of does show here at points. if we rewind back eight years, paul jay was loudly making the argument that obama would be better on iran than mccain. bomb bomb iran, right. that was a clear and present danger. and, was he right? well, i think he kind of lost the plot on iran, actually. he got lost in the western propaganda narrative of the issue being about hegemony, rather than about competition. and, i've yet to see him really address the whole "russia-is-stacking-iran-with-anti-aircraft-systems" thing - which was kind of key in inking something now, or losing the leverage of the sanctions forever. so, kinda.
i'm not convinced that mccain would have actually bombed iran.
likewise, is hillary less belligerent than trump? hillary's a true believer. we're not really sure what is driving trump, besides ego. i reject the narrative that trump is in control: i think he's being handled, and making very few of the decisions in the campaign. as such, i think the reagan comparison is historically useful: he's a figurehead. the party is operating behind his back and over his head. so, this argument - which is coming directly from the clinton campaign - that trump has a bad temperament is largely moot. he can throw things at the wall and stomp his feet all day, that doesn't mean he's going to get his way.
i think the same thing is basically true of hillary. look at the email scandal, for example. she avoided indictment because she had no oversight over her staff. so, you look at the issue in libya - for example - and you have to wonder how much influence she really had. there's been enough information released to conclude that she at most had an executive role. that is, she basically signed off on things that were brought to her. that's the only reason she's not going to jail.
so, if trump wins, the party will be operating behind his back. if clinton wins, the party will be operating behind her back, too. in the end, she may take a little bit greater interest in being briefed than he will. but, i think there would be very little difference.
fwiw, on the gore invading iraq issue? check out some of gore's statements while it was happening. he left very little up to imagination: he all but stated that he would have invaded iraq. further, he called for more troops repeatedly. that's right out of his own mouth. i've looked this up a dozen times already, i don't really feel like doing it again. the idea that he would have behaved differently is not grounded in the facts.
i don't think hillary likes golf. so, it's not clear what she'll be doing when she's on vacation for ten months a year.