Hillary Plays the Crazy Card
MORE
Joe Conason
In this protracted and often dispiriting prelude to the general election, few remarks have been as poorly chosen as Senator Hillary Clinton’s threat to “totally obliterate” Iran. What she obliterated with just those two words were her own boasts of superior diplomatic experience—and she managed at the same time to tar America’s international image with all the subtlety of the man she hopes to replace.
Context cannot excuse her, even though she uttered that gaffe in response to an intentionally provocative question: What would she do, as president, if the Iranian regime ever strikes Israel with nuclear weapons? First she could have noted that the question’s premise is wrong, at least according to the most recent National Intelligence Estimate, which found that Iran neither possesses nuclear arms nor is likely to acquire them anytime soon. Then she might have answered as all presidents (or aspiring presidents) should when asked about such hypothetical military scenarios: “Our adversaries know very well that we have the power and the resolve to respond if one of our closest allies is attacked.”
Alluding to the potential use of justified force is far smarter than blustering about an act of genocidal brutality. So why wasn’t that distinction obvious to Mrs. Clinton? There are only two likely reasons, neither of which reflects well on her.
It is possible that she believes martial bluster will make her sound more like John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate whose macabre refrain of “bomb, bomb Iran” still echoes around the world. It is also possible that she truly believes threats of genocide are the best deterrent to Iranian misbehavior, as she told George Stephanopoulos last Sunday on ABC’s This Week.
Instead of clarifying or muting her aggressive blunder, she reiterated it, leaving transcripts that can be stripped of all qualification to make her sound still more bloodthirsty. “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that. … I think we have to be very clear about what we would do.”
Of course, opportunism is the political offense Mrs. Clinton is most often charged with. Should she ever return to the White House, we will probably be more secure and prosperous, if her belligerence toward Iran is mere campaign posturing. On other occasions she has advocated greater engagement with Iran, and that is certainly the view of her wisest advisers, so perhaps this is all wind without substance.
But that again raises the question of how far she will go to win, regardless of the damage she inflicts upon herself, her party and even her nation’s interests. Her remarks gave Tehran an easy chance to seize the moral initiative, which they instantly exploited by denouncing Mrs. Clinton’s comments in a public letter to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon as “provocative, unwarranted and irresponsible” and a violation of the U.N. Charter.
Evidently, the Iranian complaint won at least a modicum of sympathy, because the secretary general’s spokesman later said that if Mrs. Clinton “becomes president and she keeps saying that, then we’ll have to react.”
Were we not so inured to the most savage rhetoric by now, it might be considered ironic for a presidential candidate to endorse such a monumental crime against humanity in defense of the Jewish state. Does Mrs. Clinton not understand the difference between the mullahs’ regime and the people of Iran? Does her notion of military strategy contemplate the incineration of millions of innocents?
And most pertinently, does she think her threats will convince the Iranians to empower the liberal reformers in Tehran rather than the reactionary extremists?
The Iran experts chosen by Mrs. Clinton to counsel her campaign think not. Their well-informed and not terribly surprising assessment is that when we talk about wiping out Iran, the mullahs feel a more urgent need for nuclear weapons (and a stronger impulse to drive us out of the region). She has brushed off their analysis, just as she disdains the consensus of economists against the gas-tax holiday advocated by her and Mr. McCain.
Voters who might consider supporting her have confronted this Clinton conundrum more than once this year. Does she believe what she is saying, or is she saying what she believes we want to hear? Which is worse?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Mr. Conason,
The media, the press, or the pundits still have not said what people know but just want someone to say clearly: you see, Mr. Obama is the concrete manifestation of what DeToqville could not name or DeToqville's tyranny of the majority. Now, imagine that for your president. The statements of hers, I, myself, have disregarded completely, but, then, Mr. Conason, I'm not of the uneducated!
ME
Say what? That made no sense at all. Please rephrase so as to make some comprehensible sense.
We
ME,
I am of the educated and your comment makes no sense.
Get a life, you are obviously in love with your own sense of superiority.
Twit.
The statements of hers, I, myself, have disregarded completely, but, then, Mr. Conason, I'm not of the uneducated!
.... he is saying that he is educated
.... that because he is educated, he has disregarded her statement
----- seems pretty simple to me...
educated people should disregard some of the statements of the people who are running to be their leader
baboom!!! glad i could help
bush is the concrete manifestation of what DeToqville could not name or DeToqville's tyranny of the majority.
There, I fixed it for you.
Alexis DeToqville argued . . . that the conflict between the impulse for private gain (bush,McCain, Clinton) and the impulse for community and the common good (Obama) would eventually tear America apart.
Just my take.
Talk about piling on! Have you moved on from drumming her out of the primaries to drumming her out of the party? I guess Obama does not believe he needs Clinton supporters votes in the general election. Well, THAT is crazy.
She has LOST already. Why must the invective continue against her? Lay off and move into triumphalism. Sore winners are extremely unattractive.
"If they move, kill 'em!" What Movie?
After the first Rev. Wright situation, Obama comes out with a speech on race, that even right wing tools had to conceed was pretty damn good.
Hillary is caught lying about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. Does she come out with a speech explaining why she felt compelled to inflate the facts(Lie)? As a woman she felt the need to enhance her commander in chief credibility in this misogynist society by stating multiple times that she was in harms way? No. Nothing. Just that she misspoke and we are all to move along as if it did not happen.
I'm afraid I just can't do that. You lied about being in harms way. John McCain has footage of actually in harms way. The television ad is a no brainer. You blew the commander in chief threshold test.
You can't make up for that by threatening
to obliterate everyone.
Joe Conason is right on.
It may very well be that Senator Clinton's threat of obliteration is merely hyperbole. Such exaggeration has its place, of course, usually in a conversation over a few beers in the local bar -- but not in a response given by a presidential candidate, no matter how provocative the question.
She scares me, both for her hyperbole and for her recalcitrant attitude towards questions about her 2002 vote to leave the decision regarding the invasion of Iraq in the hands of the maladjusted fool in the White House. McCain, of course, scares me even more, and I'm relieved that the machinations of Limbaugh et al to make Clinton his potentially-losing opponent in November are not yielding Rush's desired results.
Barack Obama isn't perfect, but he's the best option we've had in quite a few years.
Mad Dog, News flash: you won. It really IS over. If you wish to deny the people in West Virginia and Kentucky and Oregon and Montana and South Dakota and Puerto Rico the right to voice their preferences, well just admit it.
Tell them straight out: your voices and your votes DO NOT MATTER. Tell them straight out that you could care less about them. Tell them straight out that you consider them of no value whatsoever.
Tell them straight out that Obama has won the nomination and therefore they are not needed and they are not wanted. At least be honest with them.
Why do they need to have Obama in their states meeting people, listening to people, and letting the people get to "know" him in person? Just a waste of time, huh. And, furthermore, why on earth would you permit them to see Hillary and hear Hillary and feel her interest in them? Well, you wouldn't because, truth be told, they don't matter to you, do they.
You are suffering from the fierce urgency of self-gratification and it has turned you into a sore winner.
Joe, your critique of Hillary's response is good. What she COULD have said reasonably she chose to not say. But, as much as I detest Hillary (I do not hyperbolize), I must point out that Obama COULD have broken down the provocation and fallacy of the question, too. He really did not. He tried to answer the question rather than challenge it ... or its contextual underpinnings such as blaming Iran for failures in Iraq, a failure of logic and sane policy which hawks seem to want to exploit. Does Obama also not know any better? Or did he, too, perhaps calculate? Both candidates failed to talk us down from the precipice.
Hillary has went and done it; she has become a republican. I never thought I would say this about Hillary Clinton, but I now despise her. I can't stand to look at her almost as much as I can't stand to look at Bush. It's a pitiful turn of events.
I suppose U.S. troops almost daily obliterating Iraqi innocent women and children in the name of the "greater good" of instilling a puppet Democracy so U.S. corporations can rob the Iraq's oil can be excused, just as should Clinton's comments about obliterating an entire nation.
This is the very same catastrophic attitude of the Bush/Cheney ghouls that has destroyed our reputation abroad and has more than ever endangered U.S. security from global terrorism.
Will this nightmare ever end?
Clinton's comments are reprehensible, immature, anti-human, disgusting, horrible and just plain stupid.
Clinton has proved herself another of the Ultimate Ugly Americans along the the entire Bush Administration clan and McCain, all of whom should be universally despised and scorned.
Is this human garbage the best we can do for our leaders?
Thank God, it strongly appears Clinton will not get the Democratic nomination.
Sixteen years ago, Paul Tsongas referred to Bill Clinton as the 'pander bear'-- someone who would say just about anything to get elected. It is clear now that pandering is a family trait.
Hillary tried to throw some red meat to the AIPAC crowd. These folks are inclined to vote for McCain in any case, so why bother? Does anyone on her staff vet these statements? If not, what is the difference between HRC and any number of right wing loonies?
Check Senator Kennedy in 1980
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzA3ZmM4MzBhYTM4ZjRmZDQ1N...
Hillary is brilliant. The media cannot surrender. There are no prisoners in Hillary's war on terror, only victims. The real axis of evil is Fox, MSNBC and CNN. The pundits are running scared like yellow dogs. All the way to August McHillary.
banjobailey , pretty dramatic but complete nonsense , if Obama has in fact already won he has won regardless of what happens in the upcoming West Virginia and Kentucky and Oregon and Montana and South Dakota and Puerto Rico primaries , thier votes will not affect the out come as the race is already decided realistically speaking . Why is that so hard to understand or is it a matter of not wanting to accept the fact ? Due to the time difference , many times we on the west coast have watched as the victor is declared even before our votes have been counted , with the current system "thems the breaks" . The Clinton boat is about to go under , I suggest you get on the Obama boat so that we , the Democratic party , can start the campaign against MCcain and the Republicans , as it is now MCcain is getting a free ride and gaining in the polls while Clinton and Obama needlessly at this point , beat each other down . Enough of Clintons ego and personal ambition , it's time she and her supporters accept reality and quit acting like Republicans . PS "ME", education is not necessarily an indicator of an individuals intelligence , I give you George Bush and what you yourself wrote as examples .
Clinton has more than once made statements about attacking Iran, two of which are quoted in this piece. Voted for Lieberman-Kyle as most of you know. Now I ask: what can it profit her candidacy to use such provocative language about Iran? "Obliterate" is a very strong word, and certainly implies plenty of civilian casualties, whether by nuke or no. And this gives power to those Iranian mullahs who descended from Khomeni following the Shah's ouster (our kinda guy, a cruel and despotic dictator.) The reaction worldwide to this comment, specifically the reaction of the Iranians, demonstrates clearly that such comments do not help in the view of potential allies and adversaries outside this country. Therefore, it is a STUPID comment to make across the board. Since Clinton is clearly quite smart, I must take it that she means what she says, and, indeed, this is NOT simple political posturing, but her predisposition toward yet ANOTHER war against yet ANOTHER Muslim country in the middle east. Moreover, it certainly must be giving those mullahs pause to consider: you know, those Americans really are crazy, and we need a deterrent against a sudden and unprovoked attack coming our way from them. Therefore, we will deal with the Russians or the Pakistanis to buy up a bomb for this deterrent value. (Actually, I have never understood such calculus, but all of the nuke-bearing, and nuke-wannabear countries make this argument that they are needed for defense when, of course, were they used the perp would really and truly be obliterated.)
I an entirely confident that if Iran attacks Israel, they are quite capable of responding in an obliteratory way, what with their own stable of 200+ nukes: therefore, we should butt out.
Obama's statement was at least somewhat nuanced. I think he said simply that we would respond appropriately to an attack of an ally as situations dictate or some such thing. It is discouraging that neither of them rejected the premise of this hypothetical question as extremely unlikely given what is presently known, and then declined to respond to such a stupid question.
"If you wish to deny the people in West Virginia and Kentucky and Oregon and Montana and South Dakota and Puerto Rico the right to voice their preferences, well just admit it."
This is pretty funny. For years and years, people have been bitching about Iowa and New Hampshire being first and picking the candidates before EVERYONE gets to vote. For the first time ever most of the states have had a voice. Now the race is pretty much decided, with what five six contests left? And this clown is acting like NOW we are excluding Puerto Rico!
Ironically, two states chose this year to protest the early primary state's by defying party rules and moving their primaries up. Now that their ploy has cost them a say in choosing our candidate, they, and bangoboy, whining because their votes don't count.
People really are funny.
Hillary still has one final option left that might squeeze her into the White House.
She could always run as VP. She'd make a great Vice-President.
And with her war-mongering rhetoric, pandering gas-tax gimmick, barely disguised racism and voting record in the Senate - especially on Iraq - she's an obvious match for the presumptive nominee.
She should call John McCain immediately. There's virtually no difference between them!
(Remember this, Clintonistas, when you start talking down to us about being 'sore winners'.)
The use of "obliterate" was almost unbelievable. Is she going for Cheney's job? There's nothing useful or brave about use of this word. On July 3, 1998, the US "obliterated" an Iranian civilian airbus on a scheduled routine run, and we watched Iranians fish the bodies of 290 men, women and children out of the water with poles and nets. Called a "mistake," the Vincennes commander that gave the order was eventually given an award. The commander of the USS Sides, also in the region at the time, said he had been cowboying it in the region for weeks, had moved into territory where it was illegal for him to be, had sent out a helicopter to raz some boats, and had even fired on one. The USS Sides commander also considered it impossible to mistake the plane for a tomcat. Why should Iranians believe this was anything but deliberate?
They shouldn't. The US deliberately obliterated that plane and all lives on board: men, women and children.
Hey Joe,
It's good to see that you've finally come out of the closet for Barry. As a radical I wouldn't vote for Hilary at gun point. Of course the same could be said for the rich white boy from Hawaii. His voting record is almost identical (95%) to Hillary's. For someone who is anti-war he has voted every time in favor of the war, funny thing that, eh? Every time, Joe! Be careful what you wish for Joe as Barry has said he might attack Pakistan. You may recall that Pakistan has a growing nuclear stock pile, ergo a vote for Barry is a leap out of Hillary's frying pan and into a nuclear fire. Yippee! So who is really crazy Joe?
Ernest
Hey Ernest!
You sure are smugly astute in your narcissistic ramblings about ol' Hilly and Joey and Barry, Ernie! Gee Ernie, you sure did nail Joey on his support for Barry, Erns! Man, I wish I was as smart as you Ernie! Wow, I never thought about how what Barry said mirrors what Hillars said and ol Joey-Boy don't get it! Radical Ernesto! Go get em tiger!
There is enopugh real stuff to criticize Hillary Clinton for -- "sniper fire" comes to mind -- that there's no need for the dishonesty and distortion in this column to lambaste her.
Senator Clinton did not utter a threat to “totally obliterate” Iran. She did not utter a threat at all. She answered a hypothetical question with an eminently correct answer: A nation that uses nukes against our allies better have enough to take us out of the game in the first ten minutes, or we will -- as we should -- remove them from the map.
Any other response to the hypothetical is mealy-mouthed and foolish.
Far more foolish is the claim that context is irrelevant. You yourself said in this very column, "Threats will convince the Iranians to empower the liberal reformers in Tehran" -- look it up, it's right up there in your own words! What's that? That's not what you meant at all? It's the opposite of what you meant? Only in context, Joe, and you're the one claiming context is for sissies.
"In this protracted and often dispiriting prelude to the general election, few remarks have been as poorly chosen as Senator Hillary Clinton’s threat to “totally obliterate” Iran."
A question: Why does anyone believe anything that comes out of Hillary's mouth? After 8 years as co-president, and on the political scene for the past 16 years, isn't it clear to everyone that Hillary will say anything to further her own narcissistic goals?
Jon Andy Sheen:
You're going to be so embarrassed when you check your own comments and realize you totally misread Conason:
"You yourself said in this very column, "Threats will convince the Iranians to empower the liberal reformers in Tehran" -- look it up, it's right up there in your own words! What's that? That's not what you meant at all? It's the opposite of what you meant? Only in context, Joe, and you're the one claiming context is for sissies."
Actually, he wrote: "And most pertinently, does she think her threats will convince the Iranians to empower the liberal reformers in Tehran rather than the reactionary extremists?", which makes perfect sense, in or out of context.
As for the rest of you, how many of you were howling for Nader's head when he stated, quite accurately it seems, that there's little fundamental difference between the ACTIONS of the Dems and Repubs.
Pro-Nafta, pro-death penalty, pro-war, pro-Patriot Act, pro-landmines, pro-cluster bombs, pro-defense contractors, pro-prison, pro-war-on-drugs, lying and on the campaign trail (at least Obama scores well with me there, he's the most honest of the three candidates, BY FAR), sucking up to the MSM, blowing Rupert Murdoch under the table, denouncing webroots and anti-war groups, pushing the race divide, dirty election tricks, crawling in bed with one sleazy operator after another, making personal financial deals with dictators and thugs, forcibly removing anti-Hillary signs from public appearances.... on and on it goes.
I shudder to think that I defended the Clintons, and Hillary in particular, to the death, as recently as 9 months ago. Because I only listed to the media soundbites, and didn't bother to check 'facts on the ground' for myself.
I'm sick to death of Dems whining about how their leaders are turning into Repubs. Someone was telling us that 8 years ago, and many you acted just like Republicans in drumming him out of the party, and then blaming him for your own failures afterward.
That's why I left the Dems and became an Independent. We need to find real leaders who will push both parties back toward the left, where the real compassion, smart leaders, and possible solutions lie.
PunkyAmerica
"She has LOST already. Why must the invective continue against her?"
That's just it. She won't admit she's lost. If she would use her influence to start uniting the party again, I would think she were a fit leader. But she continually acts as she is owed the White House, and I continue to perceive her rhetoric and political actions as beligerent and ill considered.
"People really are funny."
Henk,
You fail to see the difference of this election compared to past elections. This is a tight race, tighter than the election that Senator Kennedy, Obama's supporter, took all the way to the democratic convention in 1980, when there was over 700 delegate difference, with Carter in the lead. At this time there is about 150 delegate difference between Obama & Clinton.
It is amazing that the MSM has so much influence over the mass mind think of America, to convince you that the final primary elections are meaningless.
The primaries that will be happening in the next 2 weeks can affect the outcome of the undecided super delegates. They can provide the sway to elect Clinton. Nobody knows for sure if they will, but it is a possibility. And the outcome rests on their votes. So this is one time when their votes will carry more weight than usual.
People are funny. Particularly when they mindlessly follow the lead of the MSM.
Why do we feel the need to respond in any way to a threat to attack Israel? I mean, a few words in a back room between ambassadors, but why such a public reaction? And since when does an attack on Israel, if it ever did happen, necessitate american boots on the ground or american military response? Is Israel incapable of defending themselves? Hell we sold them every weapon system we own! They're our best customer! Besides showing Hillary is ignorant of the history of the region, she looks like an idiot threatening military force when she's the loosing candidate in a primary. She isnt even a nominee let alone the President.
Ahh, so you would rather mindlessly follow the lead of a group of people in some back room deciding to override the will and vote of the people? She CANNOT pass him in the elected delegate count. She will not pass him in the popular vote, although mathematically possible, so unlikely as to be nil chance. So she has 2 real paths to the nomination. Hope Obama drops dead, or convince the super delegates to ignore the people and steal the election for her. And which option are you hoping for?
Yes, people are indeed funny.
Dear Anonymous not verified:
Interesting tone of message.
you said: "She CANNOT pass him in the elected delegate count", but you are mathematically wrong. There are more than enough delgates left in the final primaries for Clinton to overtake Obama in pledged delegates. Just because you use the caps lock on a word does not make it so.
At this time, without the votes counted in 9 states, Obama is hovering around a .01 - .02 lead. If you add in Florida & estimate Michigan, which makes a total of 11 states of popular votes uncounted so far, his lead is reduced to about .0056. Do you really believe the MSM when they tell you the popular vote belongs to Obama?
And what do I wish for?
I wish that the voting people would read. I wish that voting population would turn off the television.
I wish that politicians did not have to spend millions to win an election.
This year, the presidential campaigns will spend around 500 million apiece to compete.
This is where the MSM comes into play. The candidates will run their misleading adds on your TVs and the MSM will pick a favorite and sway the "popular" vote. And we are led to our next president, by money and influence. Not by who has the best policies for America.
Obama is tainted by his lies.
Clinton is tainted by her pandering.
McCain is only Bush 3, and we are living the hell that Bush has created for us. A perfect example of MSM's leading the sheep to their master. If only you would have read, dear followers of the MSM. You would have read about Bush's prior work, his failure in Texas, his private business failures. It was all out there in print for you to see. But you watched TV and followed the MSM.
Right now the MSM is feeding into this false fear that the "super delegates" are going to overturn the will of the popular vote.
There is not a clear popular vote, except for the illusion of one that the MSM has willfully created. But when you watch TV, that is all you know.
This year the unpledged delegates will have a serious job. They will need to break a tie. They still have to vote, it is legal and their vote will matter.
Do not allow the MSM to determine the next POTUS.
It is not the intelligent informer that you thought it was.
More than anything, I wish you would turn off your television