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.