A recent Hillary Clinton ad drew on images of Pearl Harbor, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and Osama Bin Laden (among others) to (effectively) illicit fear among Pennsylvania voters:

Is it fear mongering? Yes. But also, it is official word that Hillary’s place is in the kitchen. Where she belongs.

More seriously, even Bill is staunchly against any fear tactics, saying on October 25, 2004:

One of Clinton’s laws of politics is, if one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other one is trying to make you think, if one candidate’s appealing to your fears, and the other one’s appealing to your hopes. You better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.

Of course, the hopeful candidate could just be “Happy Man Lemming leading you to the cliff, but you will be smiling along the way.”

She voted (I was unaware until my good friend Edwards pointed it out to me today) to classify the Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. She simultaneously claims to be alarmed by the Bush Administration’s level of inflammatory rhetoric against Iran and favors only diplomacy or talks leading to cooperation between our two countries (a wise idea, to say the least) in an effort to reach a non-violent resolution of any political conflict (stemming from Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities and their supposed support of terrorist cells and gorilla insurgents in Iraq).

If Clinton is going to attack Bush’s foreign policy that seems set on starting wars with those whom it does not agree, then perhaps she should also own up to her popular (though ignorant) vote that puts Iran in a lump with terrorists. Votes like the one that Clinton made are directly in line with the neoconservative call-to-arms against Iran. Starting a dialogue with Iran will be impossible with current popular foreign policy rhetoric in Washington that participates in name-calling, false accusations and cage rattling.

Clinton is a part of this violently anti-diplomatic rhetoric and yet also a part its criticism? It is exactly this sort of hypocritical dichotomy that faulted her in last weeks debates, and is what, in my mind, disqualifies her as a real contender for the presidency. We don’t need a confusing enigma. We don’t need a secretive elitist.

Hillary’s campaign, after her Tuesday night “gang bang” (Wonkette), is claiming that she has come out on top. After a night of stonewalling, contradicting, and avoiding any (let alone direct) answers to tough questions, Clinton now seems, well, taken aback at her opponents negative disposition. She and her staff are disappointed, if you will, that her fellow candidates have “abandoned the Politics of Hope,” that they had all unknowingly signed on to before the debate. Or, rather, it would be more honestly told that Hillary spiked her losing the debate with this clever slogan so that people had no room to bad-mouth her after she again failed to tell voters what it is exactly that she means. Anyway, Clinton has come out on top. While everyone else is “piling on” to her for lying and hiding and dodging, at least she remains hopeful.

Of course, she should really probably just remain in the kitchen.

I really can’t stand Hillary. She was shady as a First Lady and I think that she’s even shadier as a candidate for the presidency. I couldn’t tell you what the woman wants for the country. I think that her response to her opponents’ demands for a more solidly attackable (and a much less flighty, slippery, or tricky) Hillary (who works a little harder to make full document disclosure from her days as Bill’s number two readily available), is pathetic. They’re only attacking you because you’re in the lead? Get a grip. They’re attacking you because if anybody knows anything about anything, they know there is one thing Democrats don’t need in 2008 and it’s another flip-flop, another scandal, or another secretive politician.

I wish Hillary would own up to her beliefs and have a little more faith in the intellect of the common-American. I for one am unconvinced of her sincerity, to say the least.

I mean, all I really wanna do is have sex with John Edwards. Wait, was that too much?