Most of the presidential candidates are at best neocon lite. That includes Hillary Clinton. The possible exceptions are Bernie Sanders and occasionally Rand Paul. As usual Daniel Lairison has a good analysis.
It is hard to believe that Clinton would think that endorsing the insanity of a “no-fly zone” in Syria improves her chances of winning the nomination. To the extent that Democratic voters are paying attention to this, it will almost certainly make things more difficult for her during the nomination contest.
The US has pretty much screwed up every thing they have done in the middle east. The over throw of tyrants like Saddam Hussein and the attempt to over throw Assad in Syria have done little but upset stability in the middle east. Attempting to democratize the tribal communities in the middle east was always tipping your hat at wind mills endeavor . We totally misinterpreted the desert spring as some sort of desire for democracy but it was as a reaction to the global climate change induced drought in the region. People will put up with a tyrant as long as they have a roof over their heads and food on the table. Assad may be a tyrant but he is probably better than the likely alternative. Iraq is now for all intents a purposes a client state of Iran – this was predicted by many. We no longer need their oil so it’s time to get out of the middle east. I don’t often agree with Pat Buchanan but he was correct when he said the people in the middle east don’t hate us because of who we are but because of where we are. If the Russians want to prop up Assad let them. The Chinese want to exploit the natural resources of Afghanistan (copper and rare earths) so let them spend their blood and treasure to make that possible.