It's kind of irrelevant to my point though, regardless of any particularities, she is still taking a more interventionist position than Trump is.

No shes not. Did you watch the GOP debate? This is again total BS. Her foriegn policy is remarkably similar to Obamas.

None of the gop contenders are advocating war against Russia either, but the public narrative is less kind to their interventionism than Clintons because they already look wacky in general (mumble something liberal media munble).

A handful of the GOP have full on called for boots on the ground. When phrases like "kill the familes of terrorists" and "carpet bomb ISIS" grt thrown around its really not comparable. Not everything outside of total pacifism is "right of center".

Most of the country is dead tired of the idealistic nation building of neocons like Hillary. If anything she is worse than them in this regard. Few lessons of history have been forgotten so quickly as when she supported aggressive bombing in Libya, while Iraq burned just a couple thousand miles away because of similar strategies.

The middle east is a sectarian hellhole. You really think that autocrats can keep that bottled up forever? What exactly would you support? I agree nation building isnt a great idea. Neither is letting suicidal death squads roam an area that has nuclear capabilites in Pakistan (and likely will in the next decade or so in Iran). These problems dont go away if we just ignore them.

Finally, I am more interested in domestic policy. I like some of Sanders ideas. Publically funded higher ed is a good idea as is a medicaid for all type system. His method for generating funding (massive toben tax) are not. A $15 min wage is a bad idea. Clintons financial regulation plan is smarter than Bernies "break up the banks" rhetoric. Plus shes actually electable where as I feel Bernie will get killed in the general.