Friday, May 9, 2008


Until Hillary Clinton does the honorable thing and bows out of this race, we are going to post one negative aspect of her campaign and her ideals each day. If you agree that it is important that the world knows each reason, then please digg it up and pass it along.


This fact, alone, in my opinion, should be enough to dump her from the Democratic Party forever. But I don't get that say, except to say that this DOES NOT follow the ideals of (at least most) Democrats. This past month, Hillary confirmed that she would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against Iran if it were to launch a nuclear attack on Isreal.

With words and statements such as "obliterate," "massive retaliation," "tremendous cost," and "that is the only way to rein them in, [citation]" she started to sound a bit too much like the Bush Administration and not like the Democrats who want to get out of the war, bring our soldiers home, and stop the casualties. Nuclear warfare does an incredible amount of damage to human beings, the environment, and the morale of the US (and world), casting Americans further into that superethnocentric shadow and garnering no respect or support from other countries or governments.

Obama, in contrast, has some great insight about this [citation]:
Israel is "the most important ally" the United States has in the Middle East and [...] Washington would respond "[...] appropriately" to any attack, Obama said Sunday.

"But it is important that we use language that sends a signal to the world community that we're shifting from the sort of cowboy diplomacy, or lack of diplomacy, that we've seen out of George Bush," he said. "And this kind of language is not helpful."

"When Iran is able to go to the United Nations complaining about the statements made and get some sympathy, that's a sign that we are taking the wrong approach."

Moreover, her comments actually undermine Iranian reformers who are trying to build ties with the United States, experts say, including the United Nations, who have expressed disappointment in Clinton's statements. Last week, Iran's deputy UN ambassador sent a letter to Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon denouncing Clinton's comments, and saying they were, "provocative, unwarranted, and irresponsible." The Clinton camp shrugged off the letter.

The UN, however, seems to have taken more interest in Iran's plea than in the Clinton campaign. According to a recent interview with a member of Ki-Moon's staff, the UN would not treat lightly such statements if Clinton were elected, saying, "If she becomes president, and she keeps saying that, then we'll have to react. [citation]"

We just don't need any more Bush war tactics as a way of handling foreign diplomacy, and Hillary's "comin' out swingin'" negative campaign is turning other countries and governments against her (and us), as well. They just don't respect someone who would threaten to "obliterate" them, no matter who is at fault for the unrest. She doesn't even have the United Nations on her side... what kind of President would that give us?