The Most Ridiculous Argument for Hillary Clinton That You'll See Today

Take a bow, Jonathan Alter!


There's a thin line between political passion and a traumatic brain injury, and Jonathan Alter may have just crossed it:

The problem here isn't the Daily Beast pundit's worry that the Donald might start a war. For all his sporadic anti-war rhetoric, I can certainly see why you wouldn't want a man with Trump's thin skin and hot temper to have access to nuclear weapons. But rallying around Clinton because you want to avoid a war is like rallying around Sanders because you want to avoid a corporate tax hike. Of all the major candidates still in the running, only Marco Rubio rivals her in his eagerness to use armed force.

nom nom nom
Valeriy Osipov/Creative Commons

Hillary Clinton has backed every major American military conflict of the last quarter century. She was among the architects of one of those wars—the bombing campaign in Libya—and she still defends it despite its disastrous consequences. Her most notable difference with the current administration is her belief that it should have intervened earlier in Syria. If Sanders fans "will have blood on their hands" if they fail to fall in line behind Clinton, just what red substance will be dripping from their fingers if they do put that woman in office?