Senator Clinton: Shot-Drinker, Gun-Shooter, Ass-Kicker! Yeehaw!

It is most likely the case that I will support whichever candidate is nominated by the Democratic party to be the next president of the United States. It used to be a certainty that I would support either Senator Obama (my preferred candidate) or Senator Clinton against Senator McCain. But, of late, Senator Clinton's electoral tactics have been increasingly outrageous, and it astounds me that our national media hasn't been as quick as many international media outlets have been to jump all over a few of her more eye-popping recent statements. (It should be pointed out that these statements have been uttered on national television for all to see.)

Take, for instance, Senator Clinton's response to a question asked during the Pennsylvania debate that centered on whether she would use nuclear weapons against Iran if that country were to attack Israel. Her response, clearly aimed at the knee-jerk, culturally myopic "ass-kicking" audience, focused on the assertion that she would create a "nuclear umbrella" that surrounds most of the Middle East, and that American nuclear arms could very well be used if and when any nation in that region with even tangential connections to the United States is attacked...in just about any manner...from just about any country. (Does she really mean to suggest that we would risk a catastrophic nuclear war in the Middle East--which could expand beyond the Middle East quite quickly and easily--in order to protect the United Arab Emirates from just about any aggressive attack?) This would tear up all of the existing (and in my opinion, largely deliberate and correct) rules of American nuclear engagement, and would represent a sort of "Cowboy-Response" that even the current Bush Administration would publicly suggest is "going too far."

Several days later (and just a day or so prior to the Pennsylvania primary), Senator Clinton followed her "nuclear umbrella" statement--which was left largely and unaccountably unchallenged by our oh-so-erudite national media outlets--with another statement ostensibly aimed at the Iranian leadership (but really aimed at playing on the ignorance of Middle Eastern nuances on the part of many American voters). This new statement, which was uttered again on national television, was so bellicose I initially laughed...until I realized that she wasn't being facetious. The statement, once again in response to the question of what a potential Clinton Administration might do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, was as follows:

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm president, we will attack Iran. In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

I suppose that Senator Clinton is responding to our odd national John Wayne Complex, which stems from our often apparent psychological "need" to have a mighty military man-ish person as our nation's chief executive (whether it be a real military individual, such as John McCain or Dwight Eisenhower; or an actor who channels military-themed scenes from movies so realistically that people actually think he's describing a real-life scenario, such as Ronald Reagan; or someone who loves to strutt about a stage like a starry-eyed juvenile, yelling "Semper Fi!" in front of actual military personnel, such as George W. Bush). This is a worrying sort of psychological quirk (particularly given the fact that the position of Commander-in-Chief is not at all like that of a field general anyway...), but it's still relatively pervasive in this country, so I can understand why Senator Clinton is trying to appeal to those who adhere to it--particularly given that she is a woman, and therefore automatically (and wrongly) viewed as somehow "weak" by a certain segment of the population because of that fact.

But in working this angle, Senator Clinton has developed an unhealthy fixation on demonizing Iran, particularly when added to the fact that she voted to designate the Iranian Guard a "terrorist organization," something which Senators Biden and Dodd rightfully voted against. If she is elected president, her actions in these regards will most likely (and quite predictably) serve only to stoke anti-American sentiment inside Iran, which in turn can only hurt what small semblance of progress we have made in Iraq (given Iran's now obviously-growing influence in that country). It would also serve to delay (if not totally "obliterate") any progress we might be able to contribute to making insofar as lessening tensions in the Middle East is concerned. Furthermore, it would surely continue to strain the already-strained relations between both the U.S. and China and the U.S. and Russia, as both China and Russia are eyeing expanding alliances with oil-rich, ostensibly anti-American countries like Iran as a step toward getting a major foothold in the Middle East...and perhaps eventually muscling-in on previously pro-American footholds in the region.

And need I suggest what sort of message Senator Clinton's statements would send to radicalizing elements both inside Iran and throughout the region? I didn't think so. Let's just note that what such statements do for radical Islamist-recruitment could represent the worst type of fallout from Senator Clinton's position on Iran.

By contrast, Senator Obama has been deliberate and open-minded regarding how we deal with Iran, while still taking a tough line on Iranian nuclear weapon development. For his part, Senator McCain has taken a harder-line on the issue than has Senator Obama, but not as hard a line as that espoused by Senator Clinton. (Like Senator Obama, he continues to suggest that he will keep all options open, and he thus far continues to refrain from both immediately taking confrontational stances and using terms like "obliterate" when describing the potential use of nuclear weapons.) That's right, Senator Clinton is running to the right of the Republican candidate on this very important issue....

It seems to me that Governor Bill Richardson's idea that we slowly and cautiously work with Iran over a period of years to develop Iranian civilian nuclear power, utilizing largely American technology and largely American scientists and labor, which would thereby tie that country closer to us in a somewhat dependent manner, is the way to go. American, European, and U.N. overseers would have to be stationed in Iran in order to see the transition through and make sure that clandestine nuclear operations, if attempted, are halted. This would create a permanent, somewhat-moderating influence on the Iranian government. (This is not to say that this happens overnight or in a naive manner; it needs to be seriously considered and carefully done, and we have to make it clear to Iran that it must drop its anti-Israeli rhetoric prior to us cooperating with them. And, of course, there will be set-backs along the way.) I suggest this because if we don't enter into some semblance of long-term agreement with the Iranians, China and/or Russia will, and both of those countries may very well become part of a Sino-Russian Superpower team, against which the North America-European Superpower team will be pitted in the coming decades. And one of the "New Cold War" battlefronts might very well be the energy-rich Middle East. But that is a post for another time....

In the meantime, Senator Clinton, who is far smarter than she has let on of late, has got to stop appealing emotionally to our worser, culturally-insular natures, lest we continue to look as ignorant as some of those we presently oppose. Her statements might be electorally expedient in places like rural Pennsylvania, but they also may very well box her into a tricky national- and geo-political corner in the long run. If she were to somehow pull off the Democratic nomination, what got her there might be the same thing that makes Senator McCain look like a realistic, moderating influence in comparison to her.