In the debate before the Pennsylvania primary, Senator Hillary Clinton stood in front of an audience in a state she desperately needed to win to stay alive in the election and told the crowd that if Iran were to attack Israel, that would incur a massive retaliation from the United States. On Monday, April 21, she appeared on Keith Olbermann’s Countdown and was asked to clarify. When she did, she didn’t hedge any words or soften what she said. She flatly told Olbermann, on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, that “their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States.”

Can you imagine Barack Obama saying the same thing? I for one couldn’t.

Throughout her tenure as Senator, Hillary Clinton has never shied away from tough national security decisions. She voted for both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which were good votes based on the information we had at the time the decisions were made. As far as Iraq goes, she has never once denied her voting, but she has admitted that her vote, based on current information, was probably a mistake but that she doesn’t regret making it. She’s also said that she’s not against the war, but against the half-assed way it’s being run.

I completely and totally agree, and think that Iraq was something we could’ve been out of years ago if we were as worried about the lives of our soldiers as we were about not looking like we’re beating up on a much weaker country, but that’s another story for another day.

In August of 2007, Hillary Clinton along with Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Congressman Peter King, and Senator Charles Schumer vocally and continually complained that the money given to New York for anti-terrorism initiatives was ridiculous. In numerous press releases and speeches, Clinton continually pounded home the fact that cities like Houston and Long Beach were getting more money, while DC and New York City were being cut by 40%. While her arguments didn’t bear fruit, her passion for getting the job done and correcting the stupidity of those in charge should be an indicator of the kind of President she would be.

The last point is a more subtle one. Recently, Hillary Clinton ran an ad that dared to use the face of Osama bin Laden. Judging by the reactions, you would think that the ad equated Obama with bin Laden. Here’s the ad that stirred up the most recent dose of righteous outrage.

Did you see that flash of Osama bin Laden? That sent Obama’s supporters over the edge. Here’s Obama’s spokesperson:

When Senator Clinton voted with President Bush to authorize the war in Iraq, she made a tragically bad decision that diverted our military from the terrorists who attacked us, and allowed Osama bin Laden to escape and regenerate his terrorist network. It’s ironic that she would borrow the President’s tactics in her own campaign and invoke bin Laden to score political points. We already have a President who plays the politics of fear, and we don’t need another.

That’s the response. The ad was demonstrating the situations past and the present President have had to face. Gas prices, economic issues, global unrest, and a threat of terrorism that, despite your interpretation of its level of severity, exists no matter what. Instead, we have the Obama campaign going absolutely crazy because someone dared to bring up Osama bin Laden in a half-second clip in an ad.

Their reaction demonstrates one thing to me: That Osama bin Laden, while most likely still at large, is nothing more than a political punchline for them. Despite the very real threat of his mere existence, the Obama campaign has chosen to yet again call any questioning of Obama and how he would handle tough situations “divisive” and “politics of fear.”

That’s all well and good, Barack, but in the end, terrorism is still an issue that needs to be dealt with. Osama bin Laden and a radicalizing Middle East are not merely political poitns for an ad, but the reality of the world in 2008. Judging by the reaction and the sidestepping of the point, I’d say the Obama camp doesn’t even acknowledge that terrorism is something for us to even be concerned about. You’ll understand if I don’t put much confidence in a president who thinks that way.

Hillary Clinton is the right person to lead this country. She understands what it means to protect both this country and its allies and has had to actually make the tough decisions that Barack Obama was able to comfortably sit in Illinois being able to ignore. Remember that for all his talk about opposition to the war, he never actually had to vote on it in his entire career. He never knew what it was like to have 80% of his electorate telling him that they wanted something, and despite that 80%, he says he wouldn’t have voted for the Iraq war anyway.

He’d dismiss you and your concerns, because he knows what’s best for you.

I know what’s best for me, and I know what’s best for this country, and a strong experienced leader who’s had to make decisions and didn’t just vote “present” is exactly that: what’s best for the country.