Yes, Hillary, We Do Need Moral Leadership

[cool user name]

Yes, Hillary, We Do Need Moral Leadership
by Anne Miller

(snipped)

Afterwards I joined the throng surrounding her – most were people who wanted books signed and pictures taken, for she really is like a rock star – to ask her about a statement she made last week about Iran in which she said “no options are off the table.” I asked her how she could threaten nuclear genocide on another nation’s children. She told me that we cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran, for it would be an “existential” threat to the U.S., and repeated that all options are on the table. When I tried to ask her about the very real role the U.S. is playing in spurring proliferation with our repeated threats and actual nuclear arsenals, she said she didn’t want to discuss it and turned away stiffly.

Now I’m really glad that I majored in philosophy at Wellesley, so I have at least a cursory grasp of concepts like “existential.” It’s interesting that Hillary used the word, because it’s not a term used much in American political vernacular. It’s much more common in Israel, where the term is used to describe possible, rather than actual, threats. For instance, from Israel’s perspective, the whole Middle East is an existential threat.

Yes, Hillary, we do need moral leadership. We need candidates from both sides of the political aisle who are staunchly and courageously committed to solutions for international challenges grounded in diplomacy, international law, and human rights, instead of military power and the threat and use of nuclear weapons. It’s not Hillary’s being a woman that is a problem - it’s her humanity. Never again can the U.S. use nuclear weapons on another nation’s children. And we, the good citizens of New Hampshire and of this nation, must not support any candidate who believes that the use of nuclear weapons can ever be an option.

(emphasis added)

More at CommonDreams

Comment: It seems that Clinton, once again, is trying to have it both ways. Instead of standing on principle, it seems she's comfortable in bellicose rhetoric and empty platitudes. Is this somone we want as a leader, especially after the nightmare we've endured for the past 7 years? Do we want a true progressive opposition candidate or just more of the same. Shame on Mrs. Clinton for not being able to look past her political aspirations and not seeing the bigger picture.