Think about that metaphor. Does Hayes really think that Clinton going to Pyongyang or not is the difference between the DPRK collapsing or not? Why would that be? I suppose this is consistent with the general neocon belief that symbolic, expressive activity on the part of Americans is the key factor in determining events abroad but it seems like a mighty extreme version of it.
My observations have led me to believe that the neocons only have an operative vocabulary of about 200 words, and a successful diplomatic mission by a less-hawkish president makes them sputter all of them. One of Matt's commenters nails it:
Obviously a much better idea would have been to let two American citizens
rot in North Korean labor camps just to teach the government a lesson.
