I can't say that I've been a big Hillary Clinton fan. I find her to be too scripted, and I don't really think she'd make a great neighbor. With that said, after watching last night's debates, she seems to be the best choice for President.
I watched the Republicans, and there were some good answers from that side. All well and good, but they're as conservative as ever and beholden to the religious right. So, barring some really extraordinary turn of events in the next ten months, I will be voting for the Democratic nominee.
Turning to the Democrats, I don't dislike any of them, but I'm concerned by the emotional tide pushing Barack Obama forward. He seems smart and likable, but he's too green. Yes, change is nice, but change for the sake of change isn't anything I can support.
For the most part, each of them has decent stands on social issues, although I don't find 100% agreement with any of them. What really clinched it for me was last night's dual questions about a terrorist nuclear attack on an American city. Yes, we need to do more to detect weapons of mass destruction before they can be used, but, when it came to taking a position to prevent such an attack and responding to such an attack, should it come to pass, only one person gave the right answer, and that was Senator Clinton.
This may seem harsh, even frightening to some, but history has shown us that there is only one proper answer to a nuclear attack. Horrifying as it may sound, that response must be complete destruction. It's the position that prevented World War III, and it must be the price paid if such an attack should occur here.
But if these are terrorists, not a country, attacking us, how can that be the answer? Senator Clinton hit it on the head. There are countries that harbor terrorists. We know it. The world knows it. Those countries will only work to stop these schemes if the potential price is so high that it outweighs the secret glee they get from seeing their homegrown terrorists carry out plots around the world and/or the internal difficulty they will face in rooting out the terrorists.
The message to those who harbor terrorists must be, if those terrorists explode a nuclear device in an American city, the United States will bring annihilation to your door.
I'm sorry if any of you find that position frightening, but that's what Hillary Clinton said (although she put it in the slightly more acceptable diplomatic wording commonly used on the world stage), and she was absolutely correct. Harbor a terrorist who brings massive destruction to our shores, and you will pay the ultimate price.
The world is a very dangerous place, and we must be prepared to defend ourselves effectively in that world. Anyone unprepared to give that response is unprepared to serve as the Commander-in-Chief.