OBAMA NEEDS TO STOP CLINTON'S THREATS TOWARDS IRAN

Instead of warning North Korea and Iran of sanctions and other penalties, reminding one of the spirit of George W. Bush, how about Hillary Clinton trying negotiation and diplomacy? With this lady as Secretary of State, we risk heading to the precipice of war with both countries.

Mark Landler writes in today's The New York Times web page:

"Stiffening the American line against two nuclear-minded countries, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned Wednesday that the United States would not offer North Korea any sweeteners to return to talks and would consider extending a “defense umbrella” over the Middle East if Iran does not heed calls to halt its nuclear weapons program."

Remember this is the same Hillary Clinton who threatened to "obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. With this one word, Clinton showed herself willing to kill men, women and children, all in the cause of trying to protect Israel from a future attack for which there is no evidence or reasonable basis to think would indeed happen.

So what is an ordinary Iranian to think of Hillary Clinton's threats? Israel has nuclear weapons, Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons; so does North Korea. Why not nuclear weapons for Iran as a means to protect its people from another George W. Bush coming on the scene and invading Iran? Clinton's threats seem to embody American animus towards Iran and all Iranians.

Let the U.S. and Barack Obama sit down with the Iranian government and hear their concerns in an atmosphere of mutual respect. We don't need any other American official talking down to Iranians or threatening their country with obliteration or a nuclear umbrella.

MANY MCCAIN SUPPORTERS WANT "CONSTITUTIONAL DICTATOR"

Sandy Levinson has an intersting analysis on the legal blog Balkinization on why McCain is still considered by many to be more presidential than Barack Obama. Many people want a "constitutional dictator" in the footsteps of Bush who even now assumes dictatorial powers in the "fight against terror."

Writes Levinson:

"[T]he undercurrent of the McCain candidacy, as has been true of the Bush Administration, is that we need a strong-man President, the equivalent at times of a "constitutional dictator," in order to "stand up," which means, among other things, playing fast and loose with legal constraints on the President. (Indeed, the Bush Administration position is basically that there aren't any legal constraints on the President when acting as Commander-in-Chief.)"

Levinson points out that Hillary Clinton's 3 AM ad really was touting herself as more dictatorial and power-arrogating than Obama possibly could be. Levinson writes:

"As I've argued earlier, the tacit message of Clinton's notorious "3AM" ad was the existence of a dictatorial president who would make unilateral (and instantaneous) decisions to respond to America's enemies. A truly serious debate would explore the extent to which McCain (and Obama) agree with such a picture, as against their concession that presidential authority is considerably more limited (though, of course, we might all support the idea of "unlimited" authority in some extreme situations). Followup questions could include whether any of the law-breakers in the Bush Administration will be held accountable, including the possibility of prosecution and punishment upon conviction for participating in war crimes. I would be shocked beyond belief if any of the media stars who will be running the debates will be interested (or capable) of asking such questions. Jim Lehrer wasn't even willing to ask about Abu Ghraib four years ago in the first Bush-Kerry debate, and I see no reason to expect better of him this time around."

Levinson bemoans the mindless way many voters go about choosing their preference, not based on issues but on raw impressions. This is the same point made by George Lakoff about whom I posted several days ago. The race will not be won on issues but on personality impressions and code words and phrases.

So I second Levinson's wish that TV moderators ask the candidates what they think about presidential power and the constitutional limits imposed. The vast body of American voters should not be allowed to form impressions about the candidates without seeing and hearing what Obama and McCain think about Bush's "unitary executive" and whether they judge it in conformity with the U.S. Constitution.

WHY I DON'T SUPPORT HILLARY CLINTON

There is no reason why I would want to vote for Hillary Clinton for president. But there are plenty of reasons not to vote for her. Look at all the things that she has said or done over the past few years. Thanks to Pat Bagley's cartoon in The Salt Lake Tribune today for pointing them out.

• Hillary voted for the war in Iraq, then refused to admit that she had made a mistake.
• Hillary said she would obliterate Iran.
• Hillary thought Barack Obama was not Muslim, at least as far as she knew.
• Hillary says she is the best candidate for blue collar white America.
• Hillary wants Florida and Michigan to count after she herself agreed that they would not count.
• Hillary said she came under sniper fire in Bosnia even though there was no evidence this ever happened.
• Hillary voted to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist organization" even though there was and is no credible evidence for doing so.

HILLARY'S MEAN TALK ABOUT ASSASSINATIONS IN JUNE

I don't feel as sympathetic as Juan Cole in his Informed Comment to Hillary Clinton's talk about why she is staying in the race. After all, she said, Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in the the month of June, implying that the same thing could happen to Barack Obama.

Talk about low class and inappropriate! Clinton is staying in the race because she thinks something bad could happen to Obama in June, something like an assassination?

Who is this lady? Obama calls her a formidable opponent, but this lady is more than formidable. What won't she do to get her way?

This is one mean lady.

WHY ARE THE CLINTONS PLAYING RACIAL POLITICS?

Bob Herbert writes about the strategy of the Clinton's in his op-ed piece in today's The New York Times. I can sum up his argument, "What the hell are the Clintons doing," and "Why are they out to destroy Barack Obama by playing racial politics?"

Writes Herbert:

"The Clintons have never understood how to exit the stage gracefully.

"Their repertoire has always been deficient in grace and class. So there was Hillary Clinton cold-bloodedly asserting to USA Today that she was the candidate favored by “hard-working Americans, white Americans,” and that her opponent, Barack Obama, the black candidate, just can’t cut it with that crowd."

As Herbert comments, this argument that Barack can't cut it with blue-collar white Americans and that he only appeals to African American voters is a slur on the black people that Hillary and Bill always claimed that they respected and represented.

Herbert comments:

"The Clintons have been trying to embed that gruesomely destructive message in the brains of white voters and superdelegates for the longest time. It’s a grotesque insult to African-Americans, who have given so much support to both Bill and Hillary over the years."

But it is also a put-down of those blue-collar white voters who Hillary says would never support a black man.

Writes Bob Herbert:

"But it’s an insult to white voters as well, including white working-class voters. It’s true that there are some whites who will not vote for a black candidate under any circumstance. But the United States is in a much better place now than it was when people like Richard Nixon, George Wallace and many others could make political hay by appealing to the very worst in people, using the kind of poisonous rhetoric that Senator Clinton is using now.

"I don’t know if Senator Obama can win the White House. No one knows. But to deliberately convey the idea that most white people — or most working-class white people — are unwilling to give an African-American candidate a fair hearing in a presidential election is a slur against whites."

HILLARY CLINTON NEEDS TO APOLOGIZE FOR QUASI-RACIST COMMENTS ABOUT BARACK OBAMA

David Kurzt writes on TalkingPointsMemo (TPM) about a reader's comments on Hillary Clinton saying that Barack Obama cannot appeal to blue-collar white voters.

Kurtz quotes a TPM reader as follows:

"It seems to me that every progressive voice in this country should be outraged - jumping up and down - shouting in print and word - to repudiate Hillary Clinton's remarks that Obama "is having trouble winning over blue collar "white" voters. . . "white Americans" . . .

"It is a disgraceful, shameful tactic to justify her own non-candidacy. This is a remark I would expect from a politician from Mississippi or Louisiana - not from our New York State senator . . . I am outraged, I am deeply embarrassed that my children have heard this reported on the news . . . and I regret that have I ever gave her one hard earned nickel.

"All the while she touts the glass ceiling as a woman but when her chips are down, the racism springs forth fully formed."

I too am put off by Hillary's comments. Where is her basis for making this quasi-racist claim? Don't tell me that the voters who voted for Barack in Indiana were all black. Or that they were all college-degreed.

Hillary Clinton needs to apologize for these remarks. If they stand, Hillary Clinton will be remembered as a candidate that will do or say anything to get elected.

HILLARY CLINTON DIVIDES DEMOCRATIC PARTY ON RACIAL LINES

There are several disturbing articles in today's The Washington Post on the presence of Barack Obama's race in the recent election in Pennsylvania.

Colbert King writes:

"It's not that the outcome was disturbing. Hillary Clinton's double-digit victory was forecast weeks ago. She also achieved a key objective: raising doubts about Barack Obama's electability in November.

"No, for me, the unpleasant tone that lingers is the exit poll in which 1 in 10 white Pennsylvania voters said a candidate's race mattered. Those voters went with Clinton by a proportion of 3 to 1."

Jonathan Weisman and Matthew Mosk report:

"The protracted and increasingly acrimonious fight for the Democratic presidential nomination is unnerving core constituencies -- African Americans and wealthy liberals -- who are becoming convinced that the party could suffer irreversible harm if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton maintains her sharp line of attack against Sen. Barack Obama. . . .

""If this party is perceived by people as having gone into a back room somewhere and brokered a nominee, that would not be good for our party," House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (S.C.), the highest ranking African American in Congress, warned yesterday. "I'm telling you, if this continues on its current course, [the damage] is going to be irreparable."

"That fear, plus a more general sense that Clinton's only route to victory would be through tearing down her opponent, has led even some black Democrats who are officially neutral in the race, such as Clyburn, to speak out."

We need Sen. Clinton to bow out of the race. Her presence is toxic to the Democratic Party. Bill Clinton had his chance. He needs also to recede. There is no way Clinton can win with the most number of delegates. All she is doing at this point is to wear down the good will of loyal Democrats who believe in fairness and racial respect and harmony.

SOME MORE THOUGHTS ON HILLARY CLINTON AND HER PROMISE TO "OBLITERATE" IRAN

Why don't we have more condemnation from the talking heads and opinionists about Hillary Clinton's most recent reckless claim that she would as president order the "obliteration" of Iran if it attacked Israel?

The only serious discussion of the dangerous fatuousness of Clinton's comment that I have seen has been in the legal blog Balkinization in a commentary by Sandy Levinson.

Is this what we want in a president, the offhand comment of Clinton that she would direct the United States to "obliterate" Iran? How about the millions of innocent civilians and others who would be killed in a nuclear U.S. attack on Teheran and on other Iranian cities?

I see where Levinson or one of his respondents suggested that the questioner should have asked Clinton what she would do as president if Israel attacked Iran with nuclear weapons? Would she have answered the same way that the U.S. would bomb Tel Aviv? Of course not! This just shows the awful depths Hillary Clinton finds herself in as to foreign relations. Iran and Iranians are the demons, not Israel. Kill the Iranians!

HILLARY CLINTON WILLING TO "OBLITERATE" IRAN - THIS LADY HAS NO MORALS

The more I consider Hillary Clinton's reckless and obscene words toward what she would do if president in the case of an Iranian attack against Israel, the less I think of her as a person and as a stateman. That she would say that the U.S. would obliterate Iran shows that this lady has no ethics or morals when it comes to using America's military force.

To obliterate Iran would be to kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent Iranian civilians. And Clinton facilely says she is prepared to do this.

• Is Hillary Clinton thus any better than George Bush who has caused the death of over 600,000 Iraqi civilians by his reckless invasion and war?
• Is she any better than Joe Lieberman who is itching to start a war with Iran on behalf of Israel?
• Is she morally superior in any way to Harry Truman who opted to drop a nuclear bomb on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thus causing over 200,000 human beings to be incinerated?

The answer is, Hillary Clinton is no better than those war criminals when it comes to willingness to bomb and kill civilians in the interests of American foreign policy. This lady should not be president. Or else we doomed to continue the cycle of endless war against anyone or any country that someone like George Bush or Hillary Clinton considers the "enemy."

HILLARY CLINTON'S INTEMPERATE LANGUAGE ON "OBLITERATING IRAN"

Is it necessary for Hillary Clinton to state today that the United States would "obliterate" Iran in the event of a nuclear attack by Iran against Israel? These bellicose words are not necessary. They are provocative and intemperate.

Clinton is merely adopting the foreign policy of Bush, Cheney and Rice when she uses U.S. military power to threaten and bully other countries.

It is clear Iran has no intention of using atomic weapons against Israel. In fact, there has been no serious threat made by Iran against Israel. Yes, president Ahmadinejad's talk has allowed Israel to talk as if Iran were a serious threat, but in fact it is not. Juan Cole says that Ahmadinejad's comments were actually mistranslated when he was quoting Ayatollah Homeini in saying that the Israeli regime should disappear off the face of the earth. Just like I hope the Bush administration disappears.

Clinton would have been better advised to downplay any talk of Iran attacking Israel, perhaps adding that it would be foolish for any elements in the Iranian government to do so. Furthermore, Clinton could have stressed diplomacy if she were to be president.

Clinton decided to show how tough she was, perhaps appealing to some of the more neo-con elements in American society who have it in for Iran. One thing for sure, I will never vote for another anti-Iranian war monger for president, and that certainly includes Hillary Clinton.

KRISTOL IN NYT MAKES ISRAEL BLAMELESS IN PALESTINE

The arch-conservative and Bush supporter Bill Kristol has a column in today's The New York Times on statements by Obama, Clinton and McCain commemorating this year's Passover. Apparently only McCain passes Kristol's muster because neither Obama nor Clinton apply the Passover of old to today's Israel fighting against Palestinian insurgents.

Writes Kristol:

"McCain’s statement is also the only one to mention current assaults on Jews. He asks us to reflect on three young Israelis — Gilad Shalit, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser — who were kidnapped in the summer of 2006 by Hamas and Hezbollah, and “who will celebrate this occasion, once again, in captivity.” McCain recalls his meetings with the families of two of these men in December 2006, reiterates his commitment to seek their swift release, and urges others to do the same.


"So if Clinton’s Passover message is liberal, and Obama’s is multicultural, one might call McCain’s Zionist. There’s a clear choice of worldviews here — and not just for Jews, but for all Americans."


The reader is left to pick the right choice, meaning the one favored by Kristol. But wait! We know that the families of the three Israeli soldiers kidnapped are going through agony, and everyone wants them to be released.

But how about the Palestinians? Specifically, how about the families of those two dead boys harmlessly riding their bicycle last week when they were cruelly killed by steel darts from an exploding tank shell fired by Israeli soldiers? How about that Palestinian photographer killed in the same attack. Why does Kristol omit the atrocities suffered on the other side?



Palestinians have done horrible things to Israelis, such as firing missiles indiscriminately into neighboring Israeli towns. But the Israelis have responded in kind. Shelling Palestinian homes, killing Palestinian children, shooting innocent civilians.

If Kristol is going to apply the lessons of Exodus, he should take into account that in today's world, Israel is not without Palestinian blood on its hands. It is not fair to quote Exodus and apply it to today's Israeli government in a way that makes today's conflict a story about Israel's righteousness versus Palestinians' darkness.

But this is what Kristol seems to do:

"Sacrifices for the sake of freedom, the triumph of good over evil — if John McCain was at a Seder this past weekend, he surely would have liked this passage: “In all ages they rise up against us to destroy us; and the Holy One, blessed be He, rescues us from their hands.”"

The Palestinians could, if they wished, take the same passage and use it to justify their own insurgency.

ABC'S DEBATE STINKS, ASKS INSIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS, WASTES OPPORTUNITY TO ASK PRESSING ISSUES

How about that awful boring waste of a debate last night by ABC? Talk about dull! And what were George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson thinking by asking all those trivial unimportant questions?

Instead of asking the candidates about the pressing questions of the hour, such as Bush's use of torture, or Guantanamo trials, or Bush's disastrous foreign policy, or the worsening Israeli-Palestinian quagmire, it seemed that all Gibson and Stephanopoulos could muster were "gotcha" questions, such as the meaning of Barach's "bitter" phrase or his association with Jeremiah Wright or participation on a board with a guy from the Weathermen of years past.

The ABC debate directed by Gibson and Stephanopoulos was not only a waste of time. It demeaned the candidates. It dredged up the worst practices of main street media, emphasizing the shallow and superficial, and neglecting the really important questions, just like what happened in the 2000 presidential elections where media personnel loved George W. Bush but hated Al Gore solely on the basis of who would make the best drinking companion.

ANOTHER INEXPLICABLE VOTE OF HILLARY CLINTON - SUPPORT OF HARSH BANKRUPTCY REFORM ACT OF 2005

I wrote yesterday why I cannot support Sen. Hillary Clinton. Did I mention her vote on reforming the bankruptcy bill, which had the harshest effect on individuals and couples. The purpose of the bankruptcy laws is to give debtors a fresh start, with the realization that people from time to time get into financial difficulties from which they cannot emerge on their own.

The credit card companies and the banks pressured the Republicans to adopt a harsh bankruptcy "reform" bill that passed in 2005 and was signed into law by George Bush. Many Democrats in both the Senate and House rejected the bill because it tightened the screws on the moms and pops but allowed corporate debtors to proceed unaffected. However, Hillary Clinton was one of the Democrats who voted yes on the bill. Shame on you, Hillary Clinton!

REASONS I AM AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON BUT FOR BARACK OBAMA

My number one reason for being for Barack Obama and not Hillary Clinton is the War in Iraq. Clinton voted for the War Powers Resolution of 2002 which allowed Bush to start an unjustified war against Iraq. Then she refused to admit she was wrong. Just like Bush refuses to say that he has made any mistakes, so Hillary's refusal to declare publicly that she had been mistaken is hard to understand.

Second, I don't like to have a vote for Hillary Clinton wind up really being a vote for Bill Clinton. Bill was a fine president and did a lot of good things, apart from his sordid affair with Monica Lewinsky and his sworn testimony on this subject. But overall he was a great president. But he had his turn, and he should let Hillary Clinton be her own person. Whoever in the Hillary camp suggested that she have Bill campaign for her made a strategic mistake. A former Democratic president should not involve himself in Democratic primaries, no matter that one of the candidates is his wife.

Thirdly, Hillary Clinton comes off as too devious and too power-driven. Compare her with Obama who seems more relaxed, less tyrannical and less ambitious. Of course, these are simply impressions which might turn out exactly the opposite. However, there are my impressions from seeing and listening to both candidates on the debates and otherwise.

16 SENATE DEMOCRATS SHAMEFULLY VOTE TO GIVE TELECOMS IMMUNITY

How could the U.S. Senate vote to give telecom companies immunity from possible violations of the FISA Act which prohibits spying on Americans without a court order or warrant?

William Branigin and Paul Kane report on-line for The Washington Post that:

"Senators voted 67 to 31 to shelve the amendment offered by Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.). A filibuster-proof 60 votes had been needed for the amendment to move forward.

"The vote represented a victory for the Bush administration and a number of telecommunications companies -- including AT&T and Sprint Nextel -- that face dozens of lawsuits from customers seeking billions of dollars in damages.

"Approval of the amendment would have exposed the companies to privacy lawsuits for helping the administration monitor the calls of suspected terrorists without warrants from a special court following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

Here is the link to the roll call vote showing who voted for the final bill and who voted against. Sen. Clinton did not vote. Sen. Obama voted nay. All the Republicans and some 16 Democrats voted yea. Among the Democrats voting yea were Sen. Feinstein, Sen. Casey, Sen. Inouye, the two Senator Nelsons, Sen. McCaskill, Sen. Landrieu, Sen. Salazar, Sen. Lincoln, Sen. Conrad, Sen. Johnson, Sen. Kohl, Sen. Webb, Sen. Rockefeller, Sen. Pryor and Sen. Mikulski.

Shame on all these Democrats voting with Bush and the Republicans.

MITT ROMNEY WINS NEVADA, LOSES IN SOUTH CAROLINA

It looks like it is John McCain in South Carolina, Mitt Romney in Nevada, for the Republicans. And Hillary Clinton in Nevada for the Democrats.

What shall we say about Mitt's victory in Nevada? There are a lot of gullible people who must have come out and voted for Mitt in Utah's neighboring state. Because, who else is going to vote for Mitt? The more we see of him, the more his phoniness is apparent. Mitt will say anything, Mitt will do anything, Mitt will promise anything - just to capture someone's vote.

Mitt is the big supporter of George W. Yet now he is running on a platform of change. He says Washington politics and practices must be changed. Yet how does he square this with his sucking up to W? Not just a little sucking up, but a full 100%. As I said, Mitt will say anything.

It looks like he is coming in a distant fourth in South Carolina. I think in Nevada Mitt has won his last primary election because I doubt he will win another state primary.

DAN FROOMKIN ASKS HOW COME CLINTON, OBAMA & EDWARDS SAY LITTLE CRITICAL OF GEORGE W. BUSH'S POLICIES?

I see where Dan Froomkin in Nieman Watchdog suggests that the Democratic candidates do something more than fill their speeches with "hope" and "change." Specifically, Froomkin wonders why Obama, Edwards and Clinton are not confronting the disastrous polices of George W. Bush.

Where do we see their arguments against the War in Iraq? Where is Obama on the violations of the Fourth Amendment in Bush's illegal wiretapping? How come we don't hear from Hillary on the disgrace of Guantanamo and the removal of the the protection of the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus? And how come we have heard little to nothing from Edwards on Bush's policy of torturing suspects to obtain " valuable information"?

Instead of just mouthing platitudes, the Democratic candidates must confront the pressing problems created by Bush. They must go on record as against them. They must also explain why the polices constitute an American disaster, and how Democratic policies would remedy these problems.

HILLARY WINS IN SPITE OF POLLS SHOWING LARGE LEAD FOR OBAMA

I don't understand how the polls showing Barack Obama ahead by up to ten points were all so wrong. Once Hillary took the leading in early results last night in the NH primaries, she maintained the same lead until the end. It was depressing, at least for me, a fan of Obama.

What made Hillary so appealing to voters? Her argument against Obama's idealism and in favor of her "experience" could not, in my opinion, have caused her win.

I think it had to do more with sympathy elicited from older women voters who were put off and offended by those two crazy hecklers bearing signs, "IRON MY SHIRT." Who would possibly plan and stage such a ludicrous sexist event? Are there really people out there who would heckle Hillary on the basis of their own downright gender discrimination? There are probably some males who dislike Hillary because of her gender, but those guys normally harbor those base feelings within their secret thoughts. But these hecklers had no such inhibitions. One could predict ahead of time the effect: to come out publicly and disrupt a Hillary event with those ridiculous signs certainly would create sympathy and backlash on the part of undecided voters.

I would like to know who those two guys were. And what their intentions were. And who put them up to it. At this point, forgive my paranoia. Their stunt seems staged for Hillary's benefit.

SAUDI ARABIA DEFENDS 200 LASHES ON YOUNG WOMAN WHO WAS GANG-RAPED

Saudi officials have defended the decision of a Saudi court to impose 200 lashes on a 19-year-old woman who was gang-raped.

Reports Al Jazeera:

"Saudi Arabia has defended a court decision to sentence a woman who was gang-raped to 200 lashes, saying she was having an extramarital affair in violation of Islamic laws."The woman in the case is married and has confessed to establishing a relationship in violation of [Islamic] sharia law," the Saudi justice ministry said in a statement."

This punishment is barbaric and medieval. The young woman is the victim of a brutal sex crime, and the Saudis sentence her to 200 lashes for being in a car with a male not a relative.

Yet we have heard nothing from Bush or Rice condemning this injustice. And where is the voice of Laura Bush who is supposed to be the defender of women's rights around the world? All we get from Bush & Co. is silence.

We need to hear more protests from the Democratic presidential contenders. Clinton, Obama, Edwards and the rest have already protested this judicial barbarism emanating from the Saudi Kingdom. But they need to redouble their cries of outrage.

If Saudi Arabia allows this sentence or any punishment to be inflicted upon this 19-year-old, the world community should make Saudi Arabia an outcast and pariah.

NOW HILLARY CLINTON SAYS SHE WOULD ATTACK IRAN

What is Hillary Clinton thinking? She now threatens Iran with military force on account of its nuclear program. Here's the report by Suzanne Goldenberg in today's The Guardian:

"Hillary Clinton today moved to secure her position as the most hawkish Democrat in the 2008 presidential race, saying she would consider the use of force to compel Iran to abandon its nuclear programme.

"In an article for Foreign Affairs magazine intended as a blueprint for the foreign policy of a future Clinton White House, the Democratic frontrunner argues that Iran poses a long term strategic challenge to American and its allies, and that it must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons.

""If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table," Ms Clinton said."

There's no way I am going to support Hillary Clinton for president if she makes threats like these. I don't want anyone for president who is like or even remotely like George W. Bush. The way to maintain a peaceful world is not through threatening military action but through diplomacy and friendship. Voters must repudiate Hillary's war-mongering. For her military threats, Hillary Clinton deserves defeat in the election.