Hillary Clinton appeared on Countdown last night and posited the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction (a la Eisenhower), though not in as many words. While I see what she's getting at, I don't think such a strategy would work this time around. The Soviets and the the Extremolamicerrorists (or whatever we're calling this nebulous enemy) are two radically different threats. While the Soviets could be counted on to do what was in their best interests -- i.e., not destroy themselves -- the current enemy cannot. We are currently dealing with a group who has no regard for their own lives and in fact, in many cases, pursue death with frightening zealotry. I shudder to think of what might happen if the US adopts a neo-MAD policy. What quicker way, in the minds of our enemies, to meet those 72 virgins and send the infidels to hell (or rather, the Islamic equivalent), than to start a nuclear war?
Search
About
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on April 22, 2008 2:46 PM.
The previous post in this blog was Why I Oughta....
The next post in this blog is Barack Not to Enslave the White Race?.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Comments (7)
Probably not the appropriate place to post this comment, but I have to ask: Why are people voting for her? She is caustic, unlikeable, has been caught in two major lies and evidently wants to spur on another arms race. I very honestly don't understand why Democrats vote for her.
With Obama, I get a feeling that he at least believes in his message of hope and reform, and I am a Republican! Does anyone get that sense from Clinton? Can you honestly listen to her talk and come away thinking "Fuck Yeah!". I just don't get it...
Posted by Crom![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.spitballpolitics.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 23, 2008 5:37 PM
Posted on April 23, 2008 17:37
I think you'll find all of us asking the same question...
Posted by Toby![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.spitballpolitics.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 23, 2008 8:35 PM
Posted on April 23, 2008 20:35
And there are some Dems who would vote for Clinton and not Obabma. I have a bruise from head banging trying to figure that one out.
Posted by Scott![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.spitballpolitics.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 27, 2008 7:34 PM
Posted on April 27, 2008 19:34
Hello Crom,
"Why are people voting for her? She is caustic, unlikeable, has been caught in two major lies and evidently wants to spur on another arms race."
Perhaps it's because we think that being likable is irrelevant, or at least less important to other characteristics, when choosing a leader. I'd address the more serious issue of 'two major lies' if I was certain as to what you are referring to.
"With Obama, I get a feeling that he at least believes in his message of hope and reform, and I am a Republican! Does anyone get that sense from Clinton?"
Some may. I don't. But my feelings are the last thing I consult when deciding who to vote for. I check my reasoning and evidence first. Voting for the person who feels likable will get you G. W. Bush. No thanks.
Posted by sidfaiwu![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.spitballpolitics.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 28, 2008 2:38 PM
Posted on April 28, 2008 14:38
"Voting for the person who feels likable will get you G. W. Bush. No thanks."
Coming from a logical person this seems illogical. Obama is likable. He's not GW. In fact his likability is certainly a factor in my voting for him. It's not Reason 1. It's in the top ten though.
Posted by Scott![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.spitballpolitics.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 1, 2008 10:19 AM
Posted on May 1, 2008 10:19
Sorry, I wasn't referring to Obama. I should have made that clear.
No, voting based on who _feels_ likable is the 'reasoning' that helped G.W. win both times. Remember the 'which candidate would you most like to have a beer with' criteria? G.W. won that one every time. He's also proven that it's not adequate criteria with which one should choose a leader. Using that criteria again runs the risk of electing another like Bush.
I didn't mean to imply that this 'other one like Bush' is Obama. I can see why you would infer that, based on the way I wrote my comment. Obama lacks a certain ineptitude that G.W. mastered years ago.
Posted by sidfaiwu![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.spitballpolitics.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 1, 2008 11:43 AM
Posted on May 1, 2008 11:43
That as your sole or primary criteria is indeed not good. I think it has to be in there somewhere for me at least.
Posted by Scott![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.spitballpolitics.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 1, 2008 12:52 PM
Posted on May 1, 2008 12:52