I liked that one too! It was a toss-up between the Hillary part and the McCain part.

Sir, I think you are dead wrong on how Hillary Clinton would act when faced with a crisis which had the option of military response as a reaction. The idea that she could unilaterally, militarily, devastatingly respond to an enemy attack on the US or an ally violates just about every dogma by which she lives. First, she would have to have the full bipartisan support of the rest of government (to spread blame in case of failure). Second, she would be unable to act without full support, with detailed knowledge of her planned actions released beforehand, from any and all international organizations, countries, grievance groups, racial/ethnic/gender/sexual-orientation/etc demographics in the US and abroad, and perhaps even from Bill. Third, she would never be able to actually support the military enough to acknowledge that they might be able to do something useful, yet alone use them to solve a problem that in her world actually takes a world village to fix. Fourth, she would not devastate an enemy abroad when she could behave like a victim to enhance her own political power at home, likely at the benefit of her socialist supporters and the loss to her political opponents. After all, what is the price of one nuked city in Israel, or a few tens of thousands of deaths of the "little people" in the US, compared to increasing her prestige, power, control and ego?

You forget that there are more ways to increase her own dominion than by actually doing something that would be useful or good for the US. After all, in her world, the US is the problem, and anything that takes the US down a notch is by definition a good thing.

I urge you to rethink your argument. Hillary delenda est.