I'm sick and tired of these pro-Ron Paul diaries. Ron Paul is a RETHUG, and anyone with a cursory competence using Google can see that he's made some very vile racist statements through his newsletter. Go ahead, do it. Are you scared, Ron Paul supporters?
Hillary on the other hand is a much better candidate than Ron Paul. Unlike Ron Paul, Hillary has a more realistic stance on foreign policy. In order for the Democrats to be credible on national security issues we need to prove that we are both good internationalists and that we also support the troops.
A large segment of the American people agree with the Democratic domestic agenda but vote Republican because of foreign policy. With Hillary as our standard-bearer, we can change that perception.
It was under the leadership of Bill Clinton that the international community forced Serbia to liberate Kosovo from Slobodan Milosevic. If not for this pre-emptive war, hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanians would have died in death camps at the hands of Milosevic.
Nine of every 10 Kosovar Albanians now has been driven from their homes; thousands murdered; at least 100,000 missing; many young men led away in front of their families; over 500 cities, towns and villages torched.
If a Ron Paul (or someone like him) had been President, he would adopt an extreme right-wing foreign policy stance of isolationism and abandon America's obligations towards the international community. While his "anti-war" stance may appear good on the surface, it is for the WRONG reasons.
Hillary is far more reasonable and sensible and believes in a balanced approach when it comes to Iraq as far as I'm concerned. Plus, by taking a more internationalist-interventionist stance, the Democrats can prove that they are both tough on national security while respecting the international community at the same time. It's a very progressive position that is framed in a way that the Republicans talk their way out of.