Would Another Terrorist Attack Help the GOP?

Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton told a New Hampshire crowd on Thursday that, "If certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world. So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that." Check out this CNN article for more information.

Other Democrats have come out condemning Hillary's statement, being as it lacked tact, style and minimal intelligence. Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd Friday said, "Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States." This ploy of hers does not surprise me in the least, being as she regularly throws low-blows and makes insensitive statements either before fully thinking them through, or just not caring what people will think when she says them. What I cannot understand is why she would keep putting her foot in her mouth like this, I thought that she was leaving that up to Obama.

The truth is, the GOP would only benefit from another terrorist attack because Americans feel safer and more confident in their leadership and resolve, especially when it comes to defense. Does that mean that any of the Republican candidates would like another attack to boost their position for the upcoming election? Absolutely not. This angle of Sen. Clinton's is despicable. Of course, the far left will continue to fall at her feet, but at least the moderates are taking a step back from the Hillary bandwagon for now. I am sure that they will return to her, but if she keeps on making stupid remarks like this, her support will thin out.

Let us all remember that terrorism is not a political tool to be employed for maximum impact on voters. It is a reality, and a dangerous threat throughout the world.

To Nuke or Not to Nuke...

As the Hillary/Obama spat spirals into a seemingly adolescent rivalry, the subject of using nuclear weapons has entered the arena. Barrack Obama says that he absolutely would not use them against Al Qaida, and Hillary Clinton says that a president could never take the nuclear option off the table. In the attempt to make herself seem more man-like and able, she of course says that she would be willing to nuke terrorists. I can't think of why anyone wouldn't be willing to use such force against our world's greatest threat, so Hillary's statement doesn't seem that bold to me. But she says it trying to embolden herself and wussify Obama.

In the attempt to make herself seem stronger and wiser, and more "manlike" she takes on an irritating, redundant air. Nobody ever thought of her as feminine from the beginning. Not that she has "manlike" strength, just lacking any softer female characteristics. Will this asexual candidate actually be able to push the big red button? Probably not. Neither would Obama, but in either case the War on Terror will spiral completely out of control. A female president, a weak president. Nukes, no nukes. Whatever you choose there won't be a simple way out. This war will get worse before it gets better.

Tonight's CNN/YouTube Debate: How Would the Muslim World Handle a Female President

It is not a matter of whether or not she will be taken seriously, by Arab and Muslim countries. Many of them have begun to adapt to the 21st century. It is our current Middle-East issues (Iraq, Iran, etc.) where she won't be respected or effective. Her reading off a global list of female leaders cannot make her anymore qualified to deal with backward, vicious dictators. Being an Islamic extremist is far different that being your typical male chauvinist. Here she may be told to "fetch me a beer, and bake me some cookies, woman." There it is more likely that she would be be-headed or our country attacked, being viewed as weak for electing a female.

Her self-righteous, better-than-thou attitude will not go far in the Middle East.