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.
10 comments:
i agree with you on obama and clinton. clinton seems a bit thatcherish to me.
I'm scared of politics... and people with strong opinions.
here i am-- i am from brooklyn but live here now-- this is my other blog
I don't know...But yes it was a nuke that stopped WWII, as terrible as it was. It did the job and actually saved many lives in the long run possibly.
I absolutely agree with that particular strong message about nuclear destruction. The only problem with it at the moment is that, because of the current administration's foreign policies and self-interest, the US has lost the moral authority to sustain such a point of view in a large part of the world without appearing themselves to be at minimum a bully, and at the maximum, worse than the terrorists themselves.
As you say, the next administration HAS to make it clear that a nuclear attack on the US would result in swift and massive retribution to those directly and indirectly responsible. But they must ALSO do some serious bridge building around the world to re-establish their credibility - otherwise they run the risk of being globally perceived as out-of-control, greedy, imperialist, and a threat to international stability.
I am for Obama all the way. If he does not get the nomination I will vote for whoever does. I do not care for Hillary, too fake for me, and I do not trust Edwards one iota.
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. There are no easy choices. I wish I could feel 100% behind someone, but that just isn't where I'm at.
dcb/squirrel: thanks for the contact and the input!
willy: Sorry, not trying to be scary. Just participating in the world in which we live!
cd: With any luck, that will be the last time one is ever used against people, but we have to know what to do if it happens here.
dan: as usual, I can't disagree with a thing you're saying.
cincy: I wish I could get more excited about Obama. I don't dislike him. I just don't know that he's ready for the big job. With that said, if he's the Democratic nominee, I will vote for him. And I can't disagree about Hillary or Edwards. I just think she's the best choice available at this time.
"Participating"? Is that some kind of verb? I mean, in the same way that "lounging", "drinking" and "doing nothing" are verbs?
Here's an idea forget about the Left or Right Party crap and vote for a candidate that you can trust. Whats not to trust about Rudy G. He did a damn fine job in NY and he's pro gay and strong on foreign policy. Wake up people and vote for a man who can actually voice a strong belief, rather than just a strong opinion.
willy: Yes, participating. As in, voicing an opinion. Supporting those you trust and getting out to vote.
rodney: Rudy wasn't so beloved in New York on September 10th. I still remember that sudden change. Yes, he has done good things, but he has a rough side. Even if that's not a concern, he's been trying too hard to lean to the right, in order to get GOP support. Plus, his suggestion that he will appoint Scalia-like judges is troubling. With all of that said, on the GOP side, he's probably the best choice. I just don't think he'll get anywhere. So, after him, it would be McCain... but I'm not voting Republican anyhow.
Post a Comment