If Both Gaddafi And Hamas Target Civilians--Why Does Clinton Only Wants The Ouster Of One Of Them?

Hillary Clinton is far more understanding of Hamas than of Gaddafi:

Clinton declared that ousting Gadhafi was the best way to protect Libya’s people.

“We have made it abundantly clear that the best way to protect civilians is for Gadhafi to cease his ruthless, brutal attack on civilians from the west to the east, to withdraw from the cities that he is sieging and attacking and to leave power,” Clinton said. “This is the outcome we are seeking.”

On the other hand, ousting Hamas is not seen as the best way of protecting Israel.
Especially now, but even before the "unity" agreement, just how often did you hear Clinton--or anyone in the Obama administration--call for Hamas "to cease their ruthless, brutal attack on civilians from the west to the east"

Why is that not the 'outcome' the Obama administration was seeking?

On the contrary, we read that State Department won’t rule out aid to a Fatah-Hamas government.

Is it because Hamas is merely a terrorist group targeting children in a neighboring democratic country?

Or maybe Clinton want to nurture those Hamas-Fatah reformers--you know, the ones that shoot mortars at school buses and build stadiums to honor terrorists?

Just askin'.

Technorati Tag: Hillary+Clinton and Hamas and Operation Cast Lead.