Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Does she mean it?

He murdered her and
cut her into scattered
pieces, boiled her flesh
but didn't eat it, and
left a manuscript.

I confess I'm having a lot of trouble trying to find any meaning in Hillary's positions on the "war," Iran, and whatever. Is she really such a hawk as she appears or is she just saying things so she will appear to be every bit as "tough" as the guys? For example, what does it mean when she says she will not commit to removing troops until 2013 (or 2017, according to some)? Does this mean she literally will not do that, or does it mean she will not commit to a hypothetical. I mean, it's a stupid question to ask a candidate in the first place, but how can anyone say categorically they will or will not remove our troops by such-and-such a date? So I have no idea from her answer whether, when she becomes President, she will remove our troops before then or not. If she really means she will not remove them until at least that time I would take that as a position I could not support. If she merely meant, hypothetically, she wouldn't, I would consider that a more open-minded position and I would not look upon her so unfavorably.

What I find even more scary is when I read today she says she would attack Iran. Does that mean she would really attack Iran if they don't do exactly what we say they should do, or does it mean that in an extreme case, where there could be no doubt about their intentions to attack us, she would consider attacking them? That is, what does it mean to say "all options are on the table?" Of course all options are on the table, that has to be true of just about anything and everything, given that no one has infallible knowledge of what might conceivably happen in the future. These are stupid questions for people to ask, to be sure, and all they accomplish is total uncertainty about the future, which is simply the normal situation when it comes to the future.

I would personally not prefer Hillary as the Democratic candidate. But she seems to be doing exceptionally well, at least at the moment, and might very well end up as the candidate. I don't like her because she is Republican lite, and if she is as hawkish as she pretends to be I like her even less. But if she were the Democratic candidate, and runs against either Giuliani or Romney (or any other of the current Republican candidates), I would have no choice but to vote for her or not vote at all. As the other leading candidates, Obama and Edwards, don't seem to me to match up with her, my only real hope is that Al Gore can be drafted (made an offer he can't refuse). That seems more unlikely as the days go by. So come on, Hillary, tell us what you really mean and what you would really do if you were President. Ignore the hypotheticals and just give us some straight answers. I admit that my first choice for President would be Dennis Kucinich, the only candidate who seems to be perfectly honest and has programs that I admire - like peace, for example. But it has been made abundantly clear that the Media prefer to ignore him and even ridicule him so backing him would seem to be truly a lost cause. This is a terrible shame but I guess just a normal example of an electorate with seemingly no power or mind of its own.

"Everywhere I go I'm asked if I think the university stifles writers. My opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them. There's many a best-seller that could have been prevented by a good teacher."
Flannery O'Conner

No comments: