Hillary says "I'd obliterate Iran" in last-ditch poll

sabre rattling would be a euphemism. I can see it all now, budweiser guzzling pennsylvanians like "yeeaaah, obliterate 'em! Go Hillary!"

Obama is a gentleman compared to this beast.

I agree.

IF,F,IF IF they did this and if they did that....

Someone in her position should be more responsible. The US relationship with Iran needs to be calmed down, but i suppose the Jewish vote is more important than being responsible on the international stage!

FROM THE ARTICLE:

>>Mr Obama rejected her remarks as sabre-rattling. "One of the things that we've seen over the past several years is a bunch of talk using words like 'obliterate'," the Illinois senator said. "It doesn't actually produce good results."

Obama has already won, morally.

obliterate!?
thats a pretty intense word to use...i defidently wouldn't call hillary a "beast", but that is pretty spitefull
i know we dont live in a world of peace...but i would try to make an attempt...hillary seems like she would take things a step back...obliterate doesnt really sound like a person who would settle things out peacefully

Isn't the big failure of our foreign policy NOW that it's been hijacked by Republicans who are so terrified of being thought of as "weak" or "gay" that they feel obligated to nuke anything that moves?

I thought we were trying to move away from that kind of hysterical homophobic overreaction?

"I'm not gay! I'm tough! I'm a man's man, baby!" scream Bush as he invades Iraq.

"I'm tough too!" screams Hillary has she's launching nukes at Iran.

I agree with Obama when he asks the question, "Guys? Do any of these threats actually work or is it just causing the Iranians to dig in even deeper?"

I doubt Bush or Hillary could win a game of freaking "Stratego" against a 10 year old -- let alone handle international relations with the Middle East!

Maybe instead of debating one another Obama and Hillary should play "Risk" instead? I can just see it now: as Obama slowly but surely takes over the board with strategic moves Hillary is shouting "UNO!"

She's just not even playing the same game.

Obama may be a gentleman, but in politics, nice guys don't win. We can have an all feel good primary but what good does it do if the Republicans obliterate the Democrats in the Fall? Politics is brutal, it's bloody and Pres. Truman said it best, those who can't stand the heat should get out of the kitchen!

I have been hearing women voice out opinions like "if a woman were president there would be no wars" since the invasion of Iraq. Well I think that Hillary might just prove them wrong if she were elected.

This is not about the "Jewish vote." This is about sending an appropriate message of warning to those who might threaten our allies. The hypothetical situation being described here is Iran has used a nuclear weapon on Israel. That is not going to happen, so this is all speculative. In that sense, sure it's saber rattling, but sometimes that's what's called for.

Do you seriously think that if Obama were President and Iran nuked Israel that he would sit down and fucking TALK with Iran's leaders? Well, he wouldn't.

Americans reject the failed republican policies, not their campaign tactics, otherwise how did a decorated war veteran, Harvard-educated with a 30+ senate career manage to lose to Bush in 2004?

Liberals and young democrats in past primaries have always been enamored with progressives, ie. Bradly in 2000 and Dean in 2004. The gravitation towards Obama this presidential cycle is nothing new or phenomenon. If democrats fail to fight the republicans with similar tooth and nail tactics, they will not win in November.

Iran is no more likely to attack israel now than it was 20 years ago. Even if they get "the bomb" they know damn well that every nation on the planet would rain death down on them if they used it. This is yet more fear-mongering and another reason why i loathe hillary. say what you will about obama, he's the only one who embraces commonsense in international politics.

@TooPolitical

You're a breath of fresh air and common sense here - I think you're right on the money.

Too Political wrote "The gravitation towards Obama this presidential cycle is nothing new or phenomenon. If democrats fail to fight the republicans with similar tooth and nail tactics, they will not win in November."

I don't think that gives the voters enough credit.

That's saying in spite of everything that has happened over the last 8 years -- in spite of the economic collapse occuring, in spite of the Iraq War dragging on with no end in sight, in spite of a collapsing healthcare system that people will STILL believe Republican rhetoric on those issues in the exact same manner as they did in 2000.

Even if it's against their will -- the voters have matured and evolved since 2000. Bush has few supporters these days for that very reason.

Where the Iraq War and the entire "war on terror" was in 2004 is a lot different than where it is now. I really don't think people find the Republicans as credible now on issues like national security as they did in 2000 or even 2004. So when McCain runs an ad proclaiming Dems are "weak" on terrorists -- I don't think it will be as effective as it was in 2004. We know better now.

Same with the economy! I give the voters credit that they no longer view Republicans as shrewd businessman anymore. Saying "tax cuts" in 2000 certainly had an effect -- but do any of us really STILL buy that bullshit now in 2008?

I think we have to do two things:

1) Acknowledge that a lot (!) has happened in the last 8 years under Bush and that the voters have evolved in their personal positions during that time.

2) Craft new campaigns around today's voters. Trying to run a 2000 campaign and running ads that appealed to voters in 2000 won't be as effective as they were (for either party) today because the voters are not the same people they were 8 years ago.

Personally, I believe Obama understands that and is using it brilliantly to his advantage. I also believe that Hillary doesn't and that is why her campaign seems to be constantly misfiring and often appears somewhat tone deaf to the voters.

A lot of people hear Hillary's "tough guy" rhetoric and get turned off by it. It worked great for Bush in 2004, but this isn't 2004. It's a different world with a different mood amongst the voters. Hillary is trying to ape Bush's style thinking it will win over independents and Republicans -- but her timing is all wrong.

What a sad world we live in when the politically "smart" thing to do is threaten destruction upon an entire nation. Is it fair or right to kill millions because of the failings of their leadership? If so, we're lucky that we have the ability to "decimate" our enemies; otherwise someone would have offed us for the failings of those madmen we put in office...TWICE.

I also can't blame Iran for the path they are on. Israel is a pretty ruthless nation when it comes to neighborly "disputes" in the region. Honestly, the only reason that an Iran with nuclear weapons would be more dangerous than Israel, which most likely has nuclear capabilities, is that Iran has no powerful allies in the world to rely on or to stay there hand.

Cfitz, I sympathize with your comments and agree that it's utterly disappointing to threaten total destruction of another country to ensure peace.

The point is not only Iran and/or any other rogue nations possess nuclear weapons, but also they don't have strict control capability and their technology may fall into terrorist groups. I suppose we have to practice deterrence in order to ensure those nations don't pursue nuclear ambitions. However, Iran is equally guilty, supporting Shiites insurgencies in Iraq and terrorist groups around that region. We have to find a common sense solution to this madness otherwise history will keep repeating itself.

96dayofrage, I happen to think Kerry was a fine candidate but grossly misunderstood and incapable of pushing back Republican attacks (which I fear Obama will be Kerry all over again).

Bradley and Dean weren't the nominees not because of "backroom shananigans" as you purported, but because they didn't win enough primaries to secure the nomination. Sorry to hear your exhaustion, but desperation to me is not good enough of a benchmark for presidential selection.

since we are all playing make-believe..

would hilary "obliterate" israel if it launched a nuclear attack against iran?

if you think so.. i think youre severely mistaken..

if you think not.. i dare you to wonder why..

ps.. if the governor of puerto rico paid off guatemalan banana farmers to use chinese heparin and poison american monkeys, would the national guard take any action?

hilary is ridiculous and will say anything to get elected..

We do not need another bloodthirsty president.
We've already "obliterated" Iraq.
How do you think my Iranian-American friends feel now?

Clinton doesn't deserve to win the election. Though, neither does Obama, who follows a man that hates America, is married to a lady that is not proud to be American, who won't give America it's deserved respect, and who plays the race card every time he speaks.

the democratic party should start picking better candidates.

Get over it, your accusations aren't even correct. Why does America deserve respect? Respect is something that is not given it is earned. We have allowed Bush to destroy everything that people respected us for. Maybe when Hillary obliterates iran we will have Respect again? Not likely hate and fear are more what we get now.

Firstly, I don't think we should have anything to do with international issues unless it DIRECTLY effects us, i.e.- a bomb to US. Secondly, Hilary is a robot.

I don't think that we should have parties, just eligibility requirements like now, and the best man/woman wins based on character.

Also, I'm pretty sure voter's have "evolved" since '04, although, there's no way to tell for sure, I just hope so for all our sakes!!

iknew, I hope so too, but I'm afraid.

WHAT accusations aren't correct? Obama's mentor has sermons that say "God DAMN America." Obama's wife has come out to say that not until this year has she been proud to be an American. Obama won't put his hand over his heart for the national anthem. so the world doesn't respect or like America... but shouldn't the AMERICAN PRESIDENT? Obama is not eligible to run a country he has no respect for.

Your's aren't. By the way what was that minister doing counseling Hill and Bill after Monica? Check and find what Obama's wife actually said before it was edited to change the meaning. Do you put your hand over your heart for the National Anthem? Don't blow a gasket in your hate.

Just a thought, when people use all capitals, it implies they are yelling, and when people yell at me, I stop listening. I don't know about anyone else, but that is how I feel. Oh, and thecapn, have you watched any media outlet besides fox recently? Just curious.

8 years of severe incompetence and deception have managed to sway most citizens of the world to lose respect for george bush.. and in the process, america in general..

if eligibility for leadership was based on respect for the status quo, then only illogical, misguided candidates would be eligible.. it is the recognition of serious problems and deficits that inspire those to run for office to bring about change..

of course, this point of view would require you to think outside the paradigm of fox news and republican propaganda.. so unless you are capable of recognizing the colossal mess that america has created in iraq.. the incalculable loss of life resulting from both direct and indirect american policy.. as well as the most obvious crime of not pursuing those truly responsible for inflicting harm on others (foreign and local).. then youve probably already labeled me as an al qaeda sympathizer and may be wondering how many trees i planted on earth day..

and you can keep wondering..

chapter12, Very well said. I didn't plant any, but I didn't chop any down either.

To be honest, before reading this, I was still on the fence about whom to give my vote to but this made my decision very easy. I hate war...I hate that we've been at war for so long. I hate that the war we are in is pointless and has no end in sight. I hate that death and destruction permeates everything about our country from the past few years. I hate how other nations view the US because of our foreign policy. Obama may be far from perfect, but who the hell is anymore? The fact that he is unwilling to make threats that could potentially start a backlash with a country we are already skating on thin ice with is a huge leap in my book. I just want to get back to peace and a nation that isn't on the brink of recession. I want to get back to a country where our personal freedoms aren't being destroyed on a daily basis.

Dreams are both fun and sad at the same time.

yeah i actually listen to quite a few different news corporations so i don't get sucked into one view. I don't yell but i use all caps to express an significant section of what i have to say when i can't use anything else. I do indeed put my hand over my heart for the national anthem. And there is no hate. I just don't think either Clinton or Obama are legitimate choices for president.

manatarms, I'm happy to hear you chose Obama. I'm with you, I hate war, death, and destruction. We have to take back our country from the Military, Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned us of. He knew this war economy would develop and destroy us.

Just wondering, to spark conversation, what will you Obama followers do if Clinton is on the ballot? And vice versa for the Clinton followers.

I'll hold my nose and vote for Clinton, and spend four years finding and supporting someone to run against her in 2012.

Yep. I vote Clinton (or Marilynn's dog) but I don't vote McCain. Being slightly better than W isn't reason enough to vote for him. He's the same thing in a different, crustier wrapper. The republicans caused the mess we're in now. Why anyone would consider trusting them with their vote after the last seven years boggles my mind.

you're all argueing for no reason. Iran isn't going to attack Israel with nuclear weapons, they don't even have a stable nuclear program yet, they would not be capable of building nuclear weapons anytime soon. and on a personal note; anyone that says that they would obliterate anyone is pretty kooky.

as much as it hurts to write this.. many of the problems referred to cannot be solved simply by electing obama or clinton..

even if mccain or clinton were to win the presidency, that does not mean that america would be unable to improve.. all the same, an obama victory would not guarantee progress or change for the better..

the issues that seem to be high on americans minds have their roots much deeper than whoever is occupying the oval office.. it is a mentality of entitlement.. a culture of use and abuse.. a system designed to reward those who exceed natural limits, even if it comes at the expense of exploiting others less fortunate..

there cannot be peace without justice.. until the american people can sincerely address injustices of the past as well as commit to resolving those of the present, the problems america is facing today will continue to multiply in such a way that there will be no escape from eventual implosion..

history does indeed repeat itself.. and america is not immune to this natural cycle..

obama.. clinton.. mccain.. whoever is serious about the future generations of america.. and for that matter, the world.. will consider an approach based on justice.. and never forget that america has its place in the world.. but not at the expense of others..

Either Democrat would do, but I am pulling for Obama.

Capn,

Will you please explain to me what his "mentor" has to do with Obama's overall decision? Just because his old pastor has a certain view does not mean that Obama will share the same. By calling this old pastor Obama's mentor, you are begging the question.