"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton told ABC News, asked what she would do as president were Iran to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

http://www.spacewar.com/2006/080422075813.52ygwlg7.html

So what's the betting? Hilary who obliterates Iran or Obama who conveniently get's terminated? They are juggling which reveals the level pegging. Who is the most useful?

Here is one opinion, although my money is still on Clinton.

"This is a problem that Obama faces. Wall Street wants him, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, J.P.Morgan are his contributors, and these wealthy people are beyond countries. Some of them don't even live here anymore. I think that the Firestones live in Turkey. These multinationals, some of them, they've been around, they are more sophisticated than the average American, they've seen diversity in the world. So, they're saying, "We need this guy to represent our interests." Because, this whole 1950's Country Club, Bush type image is not going to work anymore. I mean, those types of guys can't go anywhere, I mean they can't even travel places anymore. Bush, I mean, he can't go to Spain or he might get arrested. (Laughs.) So, what they need is this really pretty, dark face. When Bush traveled through Africa he was confronted with questions about Barack. It must have got to him because he started attacking Barack when he returned. An Obama election would be an enormous boost to the capitalist system, which seems on the verge of collapse. I could see enormous crowds turning out to greet him as he fronts for the system. If he went to Baghdad he'd receive a ticker tape parade and even the Taliban would turn out to get a glimpse of him. He'd be mobbed in Africa and Asia."

--Ishmael Reed

Hillary Clinton's Iran remarks reveals the appeal of xenophobic politics


Hillary Clinton's provocative comments about totally obliterating Iran in retaliation for a strike against Israel foreshadows the foreign policy position of a Democratic presidency. Only a few weeks earlier Barack Obama, the other Democratic candidate for the presidency, had said that he would be in favour of unilateral military action by the US in Pakistan to eliminate al Qaeda members.

While some commentators have dismissed these confrontational remarks as mere sabre rattling, its alarming that such comments are actually seem to play positively on the Democratic candidacy trail. This should be sobering to those who hold the misguided opinion that a Democratic President in the White House will be more beneficial for Muslims than another Republican, given the track record of George W Bush. Ironically a similar argument was made in 2000 against the than Democratic President, Bill Clinton, and in favour of the than Republican presidential candidate, George W Bush due to Clinton's sexual misconduct with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.

How wrong and short sighted that was. After wining the Presidency George Bush has stoked the fires of destruction in the Middle East and invaded two countries. With occupation continuing, Iraq is a disaster. In comparison to the 4000 odd US military staff killed, Iraqi deaths are reported to have totaled 1 million. That's about 4% of Iraq's population, which, as a proportion of the US population, is equivalent to losing a 12 million Americans. Given the disasters and abject failure of the Iraq war it is staggering that both Democratic candidates are touting their foreign policy credential using such hostile language.

But perhaps it is not surprising because machiavellian thinking underpins democratic politics. This tends to bring the worst in the politicians and the electorate. Domestic policy is seen from the prism of what will benefit me as a voter or what will win me the most votes as a candidate. The aspirations of society as a whole or the needs of the weakest and most vulnerable are ignored by mainstream politicians and at best left to the fringe parties or candidates to discuss without any prospect whatsoever of influencing any real change. In foreign policy, the harsher the policies and rhetoric against foreigners and foreign states in politics or economics the greater the support a candidate is expected to sway. Thus, despite the stated pluralism of western society, this reveals that western democratic opinion is still very racist and xenophobic.