You have to make choices even when there's nothing to choose from
Quote of the day
 Navigation |
 |
Clinton takes the (too) hard line on IranElsewhere on openDemocracy
The Democratic presidential candidate race has not only torn the party in two but is increasingly highlighting weaknesses on both sides. A strident aspect to Hilary Clinton’s foreign policy appeared today, painting Barack Obama in the more mature light. When asked how she would respond to an Iranian attack on Israel, Clinton shockingly promised to "obliterate" Iran were she president. As Obama rightfully pointed out, using words such as "obliterate" "doesn’t produce good results". Not to be outdone, however, he did manage to add that he would deal with Iran ‘forcefully’ – let there be no fear of that. Clinton’s harsh statement is evidence once more of a continuing desperation to win every possible Pennsylvanian vote (with the primary set to take place this evening), despite the fact that polls show she is well in the lead. Her biggest advantage over Obama is experience and she means to highlight this particularly in foreign policy where critics feel that Obama is vulnerable to accusations of idealism and callowness. She seems to be taking every possible opportunity to drum this into potential voters. But coming hot on the heels of her recent "politics of fear" campaign (as termed by Obama’s people), one has to wonder to what lengths she is willing to go. There’s no doubt that she’s the more mature and experienced candidate, but using images of Osama bin Laden and Katrina victims to boost votes leaves one a little cold. Nor does Clinton's pandering to the worst instincts of the US electorate inspire confidence in her judgment. Obama may be 14 years her junior but he doesn’t seem to be losing his poise and self-control. While she clutches at straws by exploiting the American public’s fear of the possible, Clinton has also started using polemical and inappropriate vocabulary where foreign policy issues are concerned. If she hopes to convince voters she is competent and experienced, she needs to address the issues in a more composed and pragmatic way. The rest of the world knows that we don’t need any more "shock and awe" tactics - or language - coming from the US. Trackback URL for this post:http://www.opendemocracy.net/trackback/36314
|
|
|
abuelita42pj said:
Wed, 2008-04-23 19:40
Hillary Clinton is still the war hawk she was in 2002 when she voted in favor of hitting Iraq. Anyone that disagrees with her is either unpatriotic or in favor of Iran blowing up the world. The latter Iran is not going to do even if it could. They are more fearful of Pakistan hitting them to gain power over the region than hitting anyone in the West. The statements of Ahmedinejad are all propaganda to keep his soldiers on their toes and in his favor. The supreme council would not let him do it if he really thought he could--which he doesn't. He's just one smaller bully calling at the bigger bully--Israel-- and who plans to run if the bigger one starts to cross the street--figuratively.
Hillary can't seem to realize that or if she does she won't tell the "blue collar" non-reading public about it. Her action about obliteration is as foolish as Rice's statement about a mushroom cloud from Iraq's non-existent nuclear bombs. She will resort to ANYTHING to try to grab the nomination from Obama. This one is more than a "kitchen sink". One could almost say she's going "ballistic" and it doesn't serve the party or the country any good. As the NYTimes editorial page mentioned today--It's time for Hillary to step down and start to heal the rifts in the Democratic party and let Obama work his knowledge and skills against McCain. McCain may not be as evil as Bush and his cronies but he's mentally weak. His military education was at D- and fourth from the bottom of 1000 graduated cadets. He was a second lieutenant--lowest possible rank-- and flew planes. He never gave orders of his own to troops and spent 90% of his military time in prison. Yes, he suffered mightily but that still doesn't make him a good candidate for president. All the committees he's been on or headed were meek domestic ones like the FAA--airplane upkeep and good commercial plane sales. If you read Sunday's front page piece in the NY Times illustrating the propaganda dished out to cable and broadcast news stations and the conflicts of interest involved with 90% of them, you too would know why we can't obliterate Iran or don't need people like McCain and H Clinton as president. The other 10% were never contracted with any one station and they were the ones that refused to use Cheney's talking points and had little or no contact with military contractors. Eisenhower's fear of the Industrial-military complex has come true in Orwellian proportions.
One of the biggest problems for Obama in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania is that too many white , over-45 males and some females will not vote for a black for president. They were ones like my small-town neighbors who dislikes the civil rights actions of the 60's, voted against the Congress and presidential candidates that agreed with the civil rights laws. They still won't change their minds. Only if McCain is extra clumsy regarding the war and the economy downturn will SOME change their minds. Those that are mothers of sons/daughters in the war and have been told by their children of 20-30 years old what a disaster the war is/was will change more than the men. The mothers' emotions make them turn.