n a t b s

I just read an article in the the Washington Post, Clinton’s Blueprint for Victory, and it brings a few things to mind. Let’s address the very first point in the article: “1. It’s National Security Stupid!”

This right here is my biggest problem with Hillary Clinton: she’s a fear-monger. When it comes to national security she’s been following the Republican play book. Some examples: she won’t talk to “bad” foreign leaders until they heed some of our demands. What kind of policy is that? It’s Bush’s policy. I imagine it would be easier to get someone to make some changes if you actually talk to them. Barack Obama has consistently said he’ll talk to any foreign leader without preconditions. And contrary to fear-monger-Clinton I don’t think that’s a sign of weakness. I think it’s a sign of strength. You’ve got to talk to people because whether we like it or not these unfriendly regimes do exist and we have to deal with them. It’s much better to try and bring people along with you then to alienate them.

She also voted for the Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. How stupid did you have to be to vote for that? Do you need any more proof that she is willing to completely sacrifice her principles for politics, and that she’ll do anything to not appear weak? Not to mention that now she claims that she wasn’t voting to authorize a war. Really Hillary? Did you read the title of that bill before you voted for it?

She just recently voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. This amendment labels Iran’s military as a “a foreign terrorist organization” and says that US foreign policy should “combat, contain and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” That’s great, sounds like more war is on the horizon. Good thing I know where Hillary Clinton stands, so I can vote against her. Oh wait, already did.

Not only has this capitulation to Republican fear/war-mongering been her strategy for the past 8 years, now her campaign is based on fear-mongering. She recently released an ad in Ohio essentially implying that if we vote for Barack Obama we will die. That’s not what it directly says but it is the implication. Either way, it is explicitly saying vote for Hillary to keep your children safe. Safe from what I’m not sure, but they’ll be safe. This woman is playing on our fears to get elected. Sound familiar? Do we really need four more years of that?

Barack Obama is appealing to our hopes. He’s telling that we can get things done and we need not be afraid. That’s what I’m talking about. Hope is a very powerful thing. Sure you need action too, but without hope who will take action? If I didn’t have any hope of graduation I wouldn’t have gone to college. If I didn’t have any hope of getting my job I wouldn’t have applied. If we don’t have hope that we can save this country…we wont. It’s a sad state of affairs. We’re on the brink. I’m not sure if we can save ourselves, but I know what our only hope is.

In closing (I guess I never touched on the rest of Clinton’s strategy for victory, it’s not that good anyway…at least I know she’s hopes she can win), I’d like to quote the prescient, I’m sorry I mean president, Bill Clinton:

“If one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other one is trying to make you think, if one candidate’s appealing to your fears, and the other one’s appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” Bill Clinton ’04

Wise words Bill