Al Qaeda’s choice for President

by Mark Rathbun

If Hillary Clinton successfully robs the Democratic nomination as she has vowed to do anti-war Democrats would be well advised to cross the party line and vote for John McCain.

Militarist, temper-tantrum-prone McCain, you ask? Without question.

Hillary Clinton has become so possessed in her crusade to be king she has taken to Rovian scare tactics. Her 3 a.m. phone call ad in fact is far more crass and devious than any Bush ad of his 2004 reelection campaign. Bush was no saint, but do you recall him ever showing close ups of infant’s sleeping faces to strike fear into the hearts of women of child-bearing, child-rearing, and grandchild-savoring years?

Clinton first played the fear card in spades the day after losing her blouse in the Iowa caucuses. There she predicted terrorist attacks in the wake of the general election, implying America would become a Jihadist battleground should Americans be so naive as to elect her opponent.

More recently she had the temerity to state to the American public that she and John McCain are qualified to serve as Commander in Chief, while her Democratic opponent Barack Obama is decidedly not.

And that is where we begin our character analysis. A week after gushingly telling Mr. Obama on national television that it "is an honor" to sit beside him, Mrs. Clinton tells the country she’d prefer to sit with the Republican candidate and that when it comes to the Oval Office Mr. Obama should not be allowed through the door, let alone permitted to sit at the table. On a personal level most regular folks would consider such a facile two-faced spine stabbing about as cowardly and distasteful as one can get. But when one considers she had just completed a Texas campaign where she overtly fanned what she perceived to be a Latino racist view toward African Americans, well, one might read more into it.

For those in doubt about Clinton’s eagerness to play on Mr. Obama’s race and culture should look up her recent 60 Minutes interview where she not-so-subtlely attempted to stoke the unconsionable "Islamic" smear campaign. If she’s willing to do such to a red, white and blue United States Senator, what do you think she’ll do with the millions of people of color who live atop the majority of the world’s known oil reserves? And isn’t she already starting it by implication?

Now assume Al Qaeda is contemplating a terrorist strike in order to influence the election as Mrs. Clinton has predicted. What outcome would they be attempting to achieve? Elect Barack Obama, who of all candidates has more potential for bringing world sentiment back onto the side of the United States of America? That result would further isolate violent extremists and cut off the rich pool of fresh recruits that the Bush administration’s reactionary, Anglo-Christian supremecy policy has replenished over and over again.

Elect John McCain, who while clearly no dove and not the calmest of the three remaining candidates, was outspoken against the excesses of the Iraq campaign that flamed Anti-American passions throughout the Islamic world?

Or elect Hillary Clinton, who by every indication cannot wait to bomb Palestine, invade Iran, and prove her masculine mettle? The petulant candidate, who strikes back with vengence whenever her perceived enemy seems to make an advance, even when that opponent does not demonstrate the slightest ill will toward her. The candidate whose opponent is consistently hit by her campaign with encoded racist attacks and yet never complains of it, while she squeals like a stuck razorback pig about the "prejudice" against her to explain every dip in the polls. The candidate who will rundown her fellow Democrat as "dangerous" for offering the idea we might advance our national interests by communicating with other nations or the notion we ought to hunt down the actual culprits of the 911 attacks rather than begin new extremist-enabling middle east conflagerations.

By now you might be thinking "but, geez, why on earth would extremists want a hawk like that in power?" Simple. The more chaos and destruction the U.S. sows, the more anarchy, the more ill-will toward the West spreads through the Islamic world. The more likely in the minds of extremists that Jihad - all out sectarian war - is achievable.

Then why John McCain over Hillary Clinton? John McCain, for all his chest beating, understands these dynamics. For all his personal temperment faults, none have seemed to influence his official actions or public utterances. John McCain does not need to prove his machismo.

For all Clinton’s questionable claims of 35 years of stoic public service, she cannot mask her vindictive temper. Just watch her face while Mr. Obama speaks during debates. Listen carefully to the encoded racist undertones of her attacks on her opponent. Hear her consistently "tough" foreign policy talk. Her apparent need to prove her masculinity promises us another eight years of George Bush in a gaudy pant suit.

Continued bellicose saber rattling and might-makes-right foreign policy would be a boon to Al Qaeda and their ilk.

The last thing extemists want is a rational, peaceful and tolerant leader of the United States of America. It would fairly put them out of business.