Warren compared with Sanders and Clinton

[Mr. Morden]

Warren is barely to the right of Sanders. She's a good deal more hawkish.

I wouldn't say that.  I'd say that both Sanders and Warren barely spend any time talking about foreign policy.  To the extent they do talk about it though, sure, Sanders is to the left of Warren, but they're both to the left of both Obama and the median Democratic Senator.  E.g., Warren voted against arming Syrian rebels a few years ago, and voted against selling arms to the Saudis last year, both votes which got the support of about half the Dems in the Senate.  And both Sanders and Warren support the US attacking IS in Iraq and Syria (as does the entire DC establishment, of course), so it's not like either is any kind of uber-peacenik.

[Mr. Morden]

She is more hawkish. She voted for the recent sanctions bill. She voted for this increase in military spending.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00301

I agree that she's more hawkish than Sanders, but don't think it makes sense to characterize the difference as being that enormous, unless the idea that every single Democratic Senator is "a good deal more hawkish" than Sanders.  Or, to put it another way, what Democratic Senators besides Sanders are meaningfully to the left of Warren on foreign policy?  All of them favor the US attacking IS in Iraq and Syria.  All of them favor drone strikes against terrorist targets.  None of them really criticized Trump's attack on a Syrian air base as something that was inherently problematic.  That is, they complained about the process, and some said that doing it without consulting Congress made it illegal, but none of them actually said that the underlying action was morally problematic in the way that Tulsi Gabbard did.

[Mr. Morden]

Warren definitely isn't "to the left" of Obama on foreign policy (assuming "left" vs. "right" on foreign policy is isolationist vs. interventionist). For example, she often criticized the Obama administration for not being pro-Israel enough and was probably the biggest Israel booster in the Democratic Senate caucus after Schumer. She definitely doesn't prioritize foreign affairs the way some Democrats do (it's not her area of expertise), but she is undoubtedly a hawk within the bounds of the Democratic field and quite far from Sanders on the topic.

Huh?  What are you talking about here?  Warren was one of only 8 Senators to boycott Netanyahu's speech before Congress in 2015.  Unlike quite a few Democratic Senators (including other 2020 hopefuls like Booker and Gillibrand) she did not attack the UN for its anti-Israeli settlement resolution last year.  And for that matter, Rubio's resolution attacking the UN for said resolution has 78 co-sponsors, including Booker, Gillibrand, Harris, and Klobuchar, but *not* including Sanders and Warren:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-resolution/6/cosponsors

There was also this letter from a few years ago threatening the Palestinian Authority over its participation in the ICC, signed by 75 Senators (including Booker, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar), but not signed by Warren:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/1/30/1361281/-75-Senators-Sign-Letter-to-Kerry-Defending-Israeli-War-Crimes-Demanding-More-Palestinian-Suffering

So I am unclear on what makes Warren more hawkish on Israel than Obama, or what makes her "probably the biggest Israel booster in the Democratic Senate caucus after Schumer".  How in the world does one reach that conclusion?  She seems to be about the same on Israel as Obama is, and, as I mentioned in my earlier comment, she's to his left on some other foreign policy issues, like arming the Saudis and Syrian rebels.  I see no plausible rationale for saying that she's one of the more hawkish entrants in the 2020 Democratic field.