Hillary Clinton has in recent weeks tried to play up her role as former first lady and as a statesman on the world stage to show the difference between her experience and Barack Obama's naivety and lack of experience as a statesman.
Yet today, seemingly in an outburst aimed to coincide with a Democratic Primary election in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton came out with a rather shocking outburst of the most infantile kind.
In response to a question about what she would do if Iran attacked Israel, she said
"If I'm the President, we will attack Iran... we would be able to totally obliterate them. ".
Compare this to Barack Obama's much more measured and statesman like approach to the same question when he said only that Iran should know he would respond "forcefully" to an attack on any US ally.
Whilst today's outburst from Clinton might win over a few gung ho people who were undecided, it actually proves contrary to Clinton's strategy of recent weeks and perhaps says more about what her private polls are telling her about how close it is in Pennsylvania.
9 comments:
Check out Obama on the Daily Show last night (if you haven't already).
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. Clinton=hysterical whereas Obama=measured, not just on the subject of Iran but in how they carry themselves.
I don't especially like Obama (I was for Edwards) but I really loathe Hillary. Everything she does is so insincere and repulsive. For years, she has been deified by some people and I've got no idea why. Do they really not understand that she's about as progressive and liberal as David Blunkett?
It may help the republicans get in again instead of the leftie democrats.
I really don't understand why the British blogger even bother. You can't affect the result much, and it doesn't affect you much. Why not consentrate in British politics?
She was asked how she would respond if Iran used Nuclear weapons against Israel. In the event of a nuclear attack there would of course have to be decisive action. Of course the threat of ‘inhalation’ has to be there – that’s the whole point of nuclear weapons, the threat is supposed to be the deterrent.
And Obama has just as much if not more of a ‘war mongering’ record. In fact it is argued that he proposes a geopolitical posture that is more aggressive than Bush!
"Sen. Barack Obama called not only for a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan, with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf..... Obama is proposing a geopolitical posture that is more aggressive than that of President Bush". - Obama Is More Aggressive Than Bush ABC News, February 12, 2008
"Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran," Chicago Tribune, Sept. 25, 2007.
"Anti-War Obama Pushes Pakistan Invasion," ABC News, August 1, 2007
Anonymous. If people only blogged about what they can effect or control then people would only blog about their wallpaper or the way they take their tea.
What a boring world you propose we should all live in.
Well I see you are wrong again Clinton will win the nomination, Mind you I cant stand either of them.State control lefties like you.
Well go on, but I hope you realise, that you aren't doing any good to Obama.
johnny norfolk: Hillary will not win the nomination. She is stil behind and will remain so. I am not saying this lightly; as a conservative I would dearly like to see her get the nomination. It would make it much easier for John McCain to secure the White House.
Post a Comment