If Obama would just speak clearly himself, he wouldn't need so many press agents and spokespersons to clarify things over, and over again.

gotta say, my take on this is that both sides have been distorting things...

"I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

that's a disagreement with obama.

however, I agree in one sense: Hillary was not proposing to drop bombs on pakistan, as craig seemed to imply. she was making a more general point about nuclear deterrence theory...

I'm sorry. I have to agree with that.

There was no chastisement at all in hillary's answer.

here's what's happening though. hillary is giving a more polished answer.

it's like two sprinters are running a race and the sprinter with the slower time has decided to take the faster time as a personal insult.

a chastisement.

even if it's a disagreement. and note that craig says above that ambiguity is important on this issue. so we can't assume there's a disagreement here.

but even if it is disagreement.

it's still not a chastisement.

the naive and irresponsible comments. yeah. that was a chastisement.

this is not.

The problem with removing nukes off the table is that it is against U.S. policy and the broad premise is that (1) Don't talk about it (2) If you have to, it is on the table; the Commander-In-Chief's hand cannot be tied, regardless of party affiliation.

Nuclear weapons are not to be used carelessly and should be avoided at ALL costs, but never say never and if we don't need them, just abandon them! Right?

Seems to me like Obama's staff is working overtime, correcting his errors, covering up for him and taking blame for his miscues. Wonderful! Agent of change, b.s.!

Would you be aghast if Obama said he would not consider nuking a terrorist cell in, say, Toronto?

Would you be happy if Hillary said nuking a terrorist cell in Toronto had to be a consideration as she thinks it is in Pakistan?

Best, Terry

you are right, it isn't easy for us to navigate between Dem candidates...

Your analogy makes no sense. As to your point about chastisement, I think this is a petty manufactured issue. They are answering two different questions.

To me this underscores just how vapid and bored the media are. Out of his entire speech, they choose to misrepresent one line and have essentially ignored the real meat and potatoes of the speech. Only in America.

Do people mind taking the ratings system a little more seriously. There are valid arguments that are not favorable, but valid nonetheless which receive low ratings for no apparent reason. Or am I missing the point of the ratings system and it's just in place to try to hide people's opinions whom you disagree with?

"To me this underscores just how vapid and bored the media are. Out of his entire speech, they choose to misrepresent one line and have essentially ignored the real meat and potatoes of the speech. Only in America."

Yup.

Unfortunately since then Obama has had 2 people come out and attack dems. Power saying congress couldn't wait to go to war. Simply didn't happen. The resolution was rewritten over and over. bush and several members of his admin were forced to say war is a last resort publicly several times each. And now Craig misstating what Hillary said.

What in the world is Obama thinking? How is this good for anybody?

you are right

No I'm left. LOL!

My best wishes to all at TPM. Grateful we fruitcakes have a soapbox. Awful lonely talking to a blank screen. :-)

Best, Terry

Would you be aghast if the moon was made of cheese. Blue Cheese?

Don't worry your pretty little head. The moon is not made of cheese.

We do, however, have allies besides Canada and Pakistan with terrorists inside the borders and some states as well.

Would you be so kind as to make a list of countries and states where you think Hillary would consider nuking terrorists?

Texas would be the first state I would choose since I have inlaws living there. But at least one is a Democrat. Fancy that. Maybe I will have to reconsider.

Might be some folks in Pakistan who don't deserve nuking either though I don't know anybody there.

While the moon isn't made of blue cheese, Hillary's cheesy foreign policy does have a certain resemblance to limburger.

Do try to elevate your reading somewhat above nursery rhymes if you are able. It could be most rewarding.

Best, Terry

Weren't all the 9/11 terrorists living in Germany before they came here?

Its 6 years since 9/11 and whatever the al Qaeda operation in Pakistan is, its not just one person like Eric Rudolph. There are videos from Zawahiri coming out every once in a while and bin Laden himself is supposedly alive and they're supposed to have "training camps." I wonder why Musharraff can't get some intelligence in there, say, sending in agricultural aid that proposes to help the locals but collects intelligence on al Qaeda at the same time?

Either this al Qaeda thing really is a big threat to us or it isn't. At this point, I don't understand what we're fighting and why we can't or won't take on the command and control center of it, i.e., these people who keep sending out videos and were responsible for 9/11.

Just to expand, before Obama put out any policy platforms, it was all, "he's all sizzle, no steak, not ready for prime time." "where's the beef? he's not ready for prime time" etc etc.

And the plan B, for if Obama should actually put out those platforms? Decry them, whatever they are, as inexperienced and naive. Its so transparently dishonest and political I'm amazed anyone is falling for it.

You need to provide some information or rational argument in your posts. Simply spreading rumors to defame Dem candidates is a favorite swift-boating tactics, and that's all I see you doing in the above comment.

How equivocal of you.

And what is she supposed to say? "I'm sorry, I'd love to proceed with the interview, but if I answer that question Obama's people will throw a hissy"?

exactly. Clinton's position here is just completely incoherent. Obama's statements, I don't see where they are distortions at all. DO go after Al-Qaeda, DON'T do it with nukes. those ARE self-evident points!

hehehe. right she's not advocating that, she's just reserving the right to do it. strong moral stand there, Hillary!

Hey thanks for the link... Oh right...

And just to give an idea of how insane it would be to go after AQ with nukes in Afghanistan, or in Pakistan:

Consider for a moment that Pakistan has a nuclear program. We can presently sleep at night knowing that Pakistan's nuclear program is under the control of moderates.

If we used nuclear weapons in Pakistan it would immediatly radicalize Pakistan's 160 Million people, towards fundamentalist militancy.

So, while we'd kill a few hundred members of AQ and perhaps ObL, we'd create new AQ members of many of Pakistan's 160 Million people, and hand them nuclear weapons, and give them the type of grievances that encourage suicidal acts of vengeance, and make enemies of many of our allies.

How crazy is that?

You already posted the link yourself where HRC claims she should retain the right to use nuclear weapons in the context, which is the pursuit of AQ in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

"I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons." -- HRC

It would be crazy to use nukes going after AQ in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Reserving the right to do something crazy, is crazy.

So again, I'm zeroing you for trolling.

pointing out that edwards and hillary gave pretty much the same answer is trolling?

you've gotta be kidding me, the guy i responded to rifles off about 6 different unsubstantiated assumptions about a candidate, and i guess that's what election central is all about.

i post a snarky comment back saying edwards and hillary had the same response to the same issue which is true!, and i get the donut.

yeah. right.

Downrating commenters on the basis of agreement or disagreement with their arguments leads to a monolithic forum, free of new ideas and input.
So, please don't downrate comments just because you disagree with them!

I'll echo gq's statement from above, about the ratings, and restate it, a little more bluntly:

You people are out of fucking control.

And anyone who gives a shit about EVERYONE at the Cafe getting to state their opinions here has to go through all these threads, like a fucking babysitter, and uprate all the troll ratings that shouldn't be thrown around.

It's getting tiresome, and soon, I think, you folks with the itchy troll rating fingers will have the EC club all to yourselves. Maybe that's the grand plan? I dunno. Maybe it makes you feel all powerful or something, censoring other people's comments? Maybe it gets you off? I dunno.

But it's really, really, getting tiring playing ratings babysitter here.

You may not like what someone says, but they get to say it. The lines around what's a "troll" comment may be a bit fuzzy, but it's not being crossed in any of these posts.

You may not like what someone says, but they have a right to say it. It can be any more simple than that. A zero rating is an act of censorship.

Learn to use the ratings properly, and grow the fuck up.

You're off topic, and making unsubstantiated claims to smear Dems.

Again, zeroed.

i shouldn't have to spend more time uprating comments in a thread to correct ratings abuse than i spend actually reading the comments in the thread. this is ridiculous. stop ruining this forum with your infantile behavior.

dude, ratings abuse is de rigeur here. get used to it.

Downrating commenters on the basis of agreement or disagreement with their arguments leads to a monolithic forum, free of new ideas and input.
So, please don't downrate comments just because you disagree with them!

"It would be crazy to use nukes going after AQ in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Reserving the right to do something crazy, is crazy.

So again, I'm zeroing you for trolling."

There is a US nuke policy. Hillary mentioned Presidents since the cold war have used it to keep the peace. Presidents don't get to make it up as they go along. Presidents don't have to make blanket statements. They [unless they are loose cannons] follow US nuke policy. You might not like that. But there it is.

So again I'm giving you a 5 because I feel sorry for you.

FYI:

TH is a stealth Republican, a troll, and also bashes Obama and all Dem candidates as well as Dem issues, regularly. Another favorite tactic is to claim to like a particular Dem relative to another, while totally trashing one and actually damning the other with faint praise.

He also shifts his positions regularly, situationally based on the thread.

For example, in Mahar's threads he regularly argues in favor of drug companies, HMOs, and against universal healthcare. Then in others criticizes Dem candidates for not having radical enough HC policies. Totally contradictory.

For another example, he regularly craps on environmental issues, including Gore's environmental work. He also claims he's an environmentalist because he's for Geothermal. Googling him showed he regularly posts to geothermal investment forum, and has made many anti-environmental posts regarding regulation and environmental protections. Chevron is the #1 geothermal company globally and hopes to push it because it still depends on centralized power plants and drilling. It also has serious ecological dangers.

I could go on. Suffice to say he's a weasel.

And for people defending him on principle of free speech, you should actually follow his posts and see what a two faced troll he is.

No, I think the trolling is completely out of control.

People need to at least substantiate their arguments somewhat, and make some reasonable points. Also, things should be kept in reasonable proportion and not totally distorted to tar all the Democratic field.

If someone makes an effort to offer substantial and reasoned comment in support of their favorite, and others disagree on some points, that's one thing.

If someone has a habit of lobbing fire bombs and swift-boating part or all of the Dem field, or generally trying to just stir the shit and create animosity on the left and middle, or stealthing winger talking points, that's another thing entirely. That's trolling.

Allowing trolls to incite flame wars, or start swift-boating rumor, is a sure way to get the site trolled to hell on the way to '08.

Everybody has a favorite candidate. But swift-boating the Dem field is not OK, and it's just helping the wingers.

The policy does go back 50 years or so, but, if you ask me, it really needs to be updated to fit the new conflict.

This isn't the cold war anymore. Deterrence and containment may still prove effective against hostile nations like North Korea and Iran, but the fight against stateless terrorism is going to need a whole new gameplan.

That's an essential and important shift I wish I could see articulated by all the presidential candidates. Cold war-era policy just isn't going to cut it anymore.

Kozmik, this is the first time I have ever rated anyone with a 0. I want you to know that I did so because of the ugly attack you posted in the above comment about TH. I don't think that kind of personal smear is constructive on this site. I try to read the thoughts of others with an open mind, and I have often been informed by TH's comments and yours, as well, even when I may or may not be in agreement with every point that either of you have to say. Your attack seemed to be intended to steer other readers to pre-judge.

I meant nuclear. Though conventional bombing could do it too if particularly egregious.

It has never been the policy to reserve the right to use nuclear weapons for any and all situations. That's absurd FOX News, Jack Ryan, alternate reality nonsense.

In fact, it has always been US policy to use nukes in only a few types of categorical scenarios. Using nuclear weapons against a terrorist camp doesn't even come close to qualifying.

Even in the Cuban missile crisis, when the USSR was installing nukes right off our shore, never was a nuclear 1st strike considered. Only a conventional one.

And if there ever was a bizarre and unimaginable situation, where only a nuclear weapon would do, that would be the exception to the rule, and the American people would understand after the fact.
But the rule would still be against nuclear strikes.

HRC's statement was just over coached, under considered, hollow talk.

kozmik -- I should have added and acknowledged that you are at least being transparent about how and why you're rating people. And I want to thank you for that. 

That at least encourages a dialog, and through that eventually my hope is we all can come to some kind of agreement and understanding as to the standards here for using the ratings system. 

When I wrote what I wrote lower down in this thread, it wasn't directed at you, or anyone in particular. I had not look at the ratings to see who was rating what. Now that I read your comments, and have looked through some of the ratings, it's clear that you are not the only person handing out zeros.

But you are, as I said, at least being transparent about what you're doing.

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

Obama gives a position. Say, "yes, I am willing to meet with enemy heads of state"

Hillary gives a non-position. "I won't rule out meeting with enemy heads of state, I also won't promise to meet with enemy heads of state" Basically, maybe I will, maybe I won't.

What's her position? That she'll meet with them, but only if she's not used for propaganda purposes? That's not a position, and that's not wonkish nuance--that's a huge hedge. There hasn't been a single summit in my memory that wasn't used by both parties for propaganda purposes. That's like saying you'll go swimming, but only if you don't get wet. Its a non-statement.

But that's not all. Then she criticizes Obama's position. That's staking out non-specific territory. So, OK, we have no idea what she really means by "not being used for propaganda purposes". After all, Nancy Pelosi got accused of being used for propaganda purposes when going to Syria, and Hillary supported her. So that really gives us little/no information. How can we judge when something would/would not be used for propaganda purposes? Does that really tell us anything at all about Clinton?

Well, yes, it does: by saying she's "not Obama" and then criticizing his position as naive/inexperienced, she's staking position to his right. Indeed, she's staking out position that's inherently distrustful of, if not hostile towards, summitry. Has she offered anything concrete? Anything tangible that could give us any guidance at all about what to expect in terms of summitry in her administration? Not really. But that doesn't mean she hasn't given us information about her overall approach to the issue, the set of assumptions from which she operates.

It may turn out that Obama and Clinton would meet up with the same foreign heads of state at the same times, who knows? But he approached the issue from the standpoint that its an inherent good to have open dialogue. She approached the issue as being suspicious of summitry. That's a difference. A difference easily enough noticed even though I still don't know under what circumstances Clinton would be willing to be involved in summitry (though I suspect what that answer actually means is that she'd only meet with a foreign head of state after their respective diplomats have reached an agreement in total, and the summit is nothing but ceremonial propaganda, for both countries).

You know, maybe it's just my impression, but in every single case I've seen of troll ratings imposed by a group, it seems to be the product exclusively of the Obama supporters (though certainly not every last one of them engages in this).

What does that tell us about the kind of people Obama tends to attract? How good would it be for the Democratic Party for these authoritarian types who can brook no criticism to be a major constituency for a Democratic President?

Madeline Albright, Bill Clinton, Marc Penn, Barbara Boxer, Shelia Jackson Lee, Phil Singer say that Hillary agrees with you. Shame on Obama.

The debate is not whether anyone would use nukes or not. The debate is about whether a president should say out loud whether he or she would use nukes. The dispute is how a leader should talk about it. And my take is that you should never give your enemies a present. Why give away the farm. Let the terrorist believe the threat even if the threat never will be fulfilled. The terrorist don't know this. It goes for any country that harbors terrorist or attacks us. Obama was wrong and any realist knows this.

I wouldn't consider it something "any realists knows" as many realists have argued against nuclear deterrence as a strategy against stateless terrorism.

The threat of nuclear retaliation does not lessen the risk of a terrorist attack, not in the same way it has been used to deter large rogue nations for the past 50 years, or Iran and North Korea today.

If you ask me, the terrorist threat is a new threat, and thus needs a new approach, one that departs from Cold War truisms like nuclear deterrence. Clinton and Dodd obviously disagree, which is fine, but I much prefer Obama's plan to current policy.

I'd really like to see how other candidates propose we update strategy, something Obama laid out earlier this week, and something I imagine will be coming down the pipeline in the coming months from the others.

Actually she said that presidents should be careful. So Hillary did not actually say that politicians should be careful. Do you still support a position that politicians, particularly candidates for the presidency, should have a well-sealed mouth on the use of nuclear weapons?

"Hillary said president, not candidate. I oppose the idea that presidential candidates are muzzled and cannot speak forthrightly about the use of nuclear weapons--or any other topic I can think of."

I see your point. Don't agree but I see your point. A candidate can say anything. So if a candidate says something it doesn't mean a whole lot. They are just talking. Certianly candidates can say what they might do and state it as what they will do. But we all know a president doesn't always get to do what they want to do. But to say a candidate can just make it and up who cares. Again I don't agree.

Take the latest nuke dust up. Obama doesn't get to just make it up. There are policies in place. A candidate can't just say stuff. At least not a serious candidate.

that why edwards basically gave the same answer, karnak?

edwards will always agree with Hillary as both of them voted for the AUMF.

Why any of us should given serious consideration to what either says on these type of issues based on their colossal misjudgment on the war is beyond me.

These are not individuals who give serious consideration to monumental issues...for pete's sake...neither of them read the NIE report.

Why do we listen to their pronouncements and 'nuance'.  Their 'nuance' is whatever is politically expedient.  Right now that means disagreeing with the only person who was RIGHT about the war being of undetermined length, undetermined cost, and underdetermined consequences.

Why would they EVER agree with Barak...they lack the judgment to agree ...they are blinded by ambition and exceptionally poor reasoning based on their EXPERIENCE.

If it is one thing 'their experience' has taught us it is they WERE WRONG just like the pundits and FP experts who are criticizing what Obama says.

No one who advocated for this disasterous war will EVER agree with Obama.

So stop asking them.  It does nothing but makes us all crazy.

The very definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.

Edwards and Hillary were wrong THEN and they are wrong NOW.

Start listening to the voice of change and not the status quo.

I agree it is much more assuring to have  transparency in candidates views. Particularly, after the closed and secretive administration of CheneyBush where they re-wrote torture as well as wiretapping laws of civilians in addition to closed door meetings with energy leaders prior to the preemptive strike on Iraq for their oil.

What also does not bode well is that Hillary has not provided a universal health care plan, disclosed her earmarks nor given us any foreign policy strategy other than to say what she will not promise, and what Presidents should not speak on. Well she is NOT President and we are entitled to know her positions prior to casting our votes for her.

After all, it was Hillary who initiated the entire closed door meeting tactic that Cheney used. She imposed this same secrecy on the universal health care plan. This woman is now unwillingly to tell the American public where she stands on vital issues of national security. Surely only the most naive and foolish amongst us would believe this means she plans to be forthcoming, honest and forthright if she were the President.

I'd like to see how the other candidates would update cold war-era policy to protect against the new threats.

This would be a good Ask the Candidate question...seeing how there have not been any debates. It's ludicrous to call them debates with a field of 8.

Must have been a real shock to you when the Pakistanis fell for it.

Your guy is not above criticism.

It is the right and duty of each candidate to point out problems with the other guy's ideas. It is highly desirable that that these criticisms are accurate and honest and stated in such a way that they cause the least trouble in the general election if the person criticized gets nominated.

puissant 0 glissade 0 DavidBAnimal 0 Plowboy 0

With all due respect, I might even buy that argument, if the comment to which you were responding wasn't fucking troll-rated by four people so far. Including you!

Do you see what I mean? Do you see the irony?

It's all really very simple, and no one around here seems to get it.

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

Maybe it's for the exact same reason. i.e. you distort and misconstrue how the ratings are being used. Folks have repeatedly stated it is not about disagreement yet you insist on saying that it is abuse. Which means you are engaging in distortion of the issue just as trolls do..thus the zero ratings.

Not ironic...more like consistency.

We are telling you that these troll like remarks are turning the site into Fox news acting like Hannity and O'Rielly with gross distortions and ignorant inane babbling instead of reasonable dialogue on substantiate issues and you add insult to injury by countering with it being just a disagreement.

It isn't and what's more we do not want it to deteriorate into such. Your comments suggest you do not mind all these trolls as long as they have an opinion that's fine with you.

Craig agreed with Clinton that presidents must be careful about statements on the use of nuclear weapons because it is imperative to maintain ambiguity about U.S. policy.

Craig, you shouldn't backtrack on this one. It is CRAZY and IRRESPONSIBLE to use nukes on a small terror cell and kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the process, with untold environmental damage for decades.

So-called "tactical nuclear weapons" are a fraud, and do not prevent serious nuclear fallout. Everyone who has studied the fallout issue has concluded that tactical nuclear weapons can not burrow deep enough in the earth to contain nuclear fallout. (See, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NEL20060212&articleId=1963)

Besides, do you really think a terrorist is going to sleep any better at night or have 'any' advantage if nukes are taken off the table?

Hillary should be taken to task on her apparent lack of understanding of the destructive potential of tactical nukes, and how it would be poor judgment of her in 'any' circumstance to use them to target small terror cells.

Being pre-occupied with what the 'enemy' thinks of our communication is just more of the same failed Bush foreign policy. Obama was correct for communicating in clear and certain terms that show the country and the world that he will act decisively but responsibly in conducting the war on terror.

"whether a president..." is incorrect. Hillary's comment was about a president and the last time I checked Hillary and Obama are candidates and not presidents. They are perfectly free to discuss use of nuclear weapons; none are shy about discussing whether or not countries like Iran can have them.

Since al Queda seems a bit up-to-date on news, I'm sure they understand that ordering the deployment of nuclear weapons is something the President does and not a candidate.

I think every candidate should discuss the use of nuclear weapons--even with hypothethicals. I also don't think we need our candidates to be held hostage to what a few hundred extremists in Pakistan think or even what a dictatorship thinks about whether a candidate thinks America is getting value in return for aid money.

While you're right that it doesn't matter which side does the troll rating, it most definitely does matter if it's consistently on one particular side.

It's hard not to believe in such a case that the effort is not a concerted one. It is simply not going to stop unless that side finally chooses not to engage in it.

Personally, I think the only way to embarrass them into stopping -- if they are capable of embarrassment -- is to make it as clear as day to all readers who exactly is engaging in it, and in service of what candidate.

At bare minimum it reflects very badly on the very cause they are advocating, and there would be a certain level of justice if their thugishness is exposed to the larger set of readers.

Must have been a real shock to you when the Pakistanis fell for it.

No, not really at all.

Your guy is not above criticism.

Not suggesting he is. I don't even agree with him on every position. However, when the criticism is vacuous garbage, I'm going to point it out.

It is the right and duty of each candidate to point out problems with the other guy's ideas.

But that's not what's going on here. Has anyone given any substantial explanation as to what's beneficial about diplomatic pre-conditions? Biden, Dodd, Hillary, Richardson (who, of course, recently called for ending pre-conditions in regards to our diplomatic efforts with Iran)? I haven't seen it or heard it.

Has anyone sat down and discussed the political situation in Pakistan with any level of depth or substance? Like, say, discussing the possibility of Bhutto's return? Or the fact that the radicals cannot garner more than 5-10% of the vote?

Has anyone actually tried to explain situations where they think nukes used to go after terrorists would be beneficial? Or why it should be policy to keep nukes on the table even when they're strategically disadvantageous and tactical over-kill? What's so wrong about discussing nukes in the first place?

Has anyone bothered to discuss the way Cold War thinking permeates almost all of our discussion on terrorism (and as such guides what is and is not considered hte "right" answer to these questions), even though the stateless actors we face today are nothing at all like the threat we faced in the Cold War?

No? Didn't think so.

It is highly desirable that that these criticisms are accurate and honest and stated in such a way that they cause the least trouble in the general election if the person criticized gets nominated

Yeah, and what's honest and accurate about petty name-calling? Barack's foreign policy has been molded by a host of advisers who, between them, have well over a century of experience in the military, intelligence community, study in genocide, upper-levels of government. What's honest about calling any of that policy a sign of "inexperience"? What's honest about calling any of that policy "naive". How does name-calling and then demurring to offer your own position engender any sort of substantive debate?

This Clinton and Obama debate is a return to earlier Democratic criticism of Bush, that he wasn't militarily "tough enough" on Iran, No. Korea, etc. Stripped to essentials, the U.S. is an imperialist power that thinks it can bully anyone and act unilaterally anywhere. In that, the Democrats take no backseat to anyone. The comments of Barack's advisor are just blowing smoke.

"Let the terrorist believe the threat even if the threat never will be fulfilled. The terrorist don't know this. It goes for any country that harbors terrorist or attacks us. Obama was wrong and any realist knows this." But wouldn't a realist also know that the sharpest tool in the terrorist box of horrors is his ability to provoke a reaction from states. The nightmare scenario is of course that terrorists light off a nuke. But they don't need a bomb, they only need someone with a bomb to get mad enough to use it. While a nuclear attack would have a devastating effect on the U.S., using one by mistake (playing nuclear knock a mole) would be equally devastating to our reputation abroad. So taking that scenario not just sends a signal to terrorists, it also speaks to a sense of the awful responsibility that having a nuclear weapon requires. The U.S. is most effective when it has the luxury of speaking softly--this, I think, is true from the idealist and realist perspective.

Just as a note, today (08-05-07) on NBC Meet the Press, Carl Bernstein predicted that because of the nation's experience with Bush-Cheney secrecy and mendacity, the most important issue for voters on election day in 2008 will be "candor, openness, truthfulness." As a Hillary biographer, he also noted that the issue is a BIG problem area for Clinton.

In the same discussion, Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin noted that character traits and behaviors evident in the earlier lives of the candidates are the best predictors of their qualities, strengths and weaknesses as president. "They will not change." Again, many see evidcen of dishonesty and hypocracy in Hillary's past, raising concerns about her capacity for integrity as a president.

 Again, many see evidcen of dishonesty and hypocracy in Hillary's past, raising concerns about her capacity for integrity as a president.

Yes, this is a very valid issue. Particularly, based on prior statements on Hillary's part.

Recall the VRWC rebuttal for Bills oval office dalliance. When she knew that Gennifer Flowers and several others were littered in Bill's past and a character flaw of his she had endured since Yale. She sounded just like Tammy Wynette even though she denounced previously any such characterization. That was what she did.

Recall after Gore loss the Supreme Court decision..Hillary campaigned for Senator of NY by saying that the electoral college should be abolished. She said 'when I am Senator I will introduce a Constitutional Amendment' to change that.  To date no such amendment has been introduced by Clinton.

Recall Hillary saying she was casting her vote with conviction for the AUMF and that no vote could be of greater importance. Yet she did not even read the NIE report. When she toured Iraq with Biden in '03 she came back asking for more troops to be sent in and advocated staying the course. Now she blames Bush. No accountably on her part and no regrets either for giving the President the power to wage war .

She claims to be for universal health care and has no plan. She only keeps saying it requires the 'political will' of the public.

I agree with Goodwin that character traits and behaviors are most predictive of future actions. Hillary has shown repeatedly that she will always do what is politically expedient and in her best interest not the best interest of America.

Hillary  lacks moral courage and integrity.

Mopper: I generally like your posts because they are usually detailed and well argued. I simply thought that that one was wrong and not well thought out. Instead of down rating it, I argued with it.

To complain that if Obama stays silent he gets criticized and if he talks he gets criticized is nonsense. It depends on what he says.

You were claiming that the criticisms of him were transparently political. I countered by reminding you that there was more to it that this since there was a real world consequence he and his advisors do not seem to have anticipated and that had nothing to do with political games here at home. Unnecessary offense to a major Muslim nation does not advance our foreign policy and I am troubled by either his naivite or lack of caution or sense that his election is more important than the real world consequences that lead him to make that statement in that form. Unless there is a reasonable explanation of why this offense was necessary, Obama would show more judgment in my estimation if he simply said he had made a mistake in expressing his policy that way.

If Obama don't know what will be inflamatory abroad he has no business being president.

Any nation is going to take offense over the open expression of the idea that we would take military action in their country over their objections. This is not changed by the fact that covert operations are probably being carried out in the tribal areas now nor by the fact that Musharaff would probably be pleased if we did get the Al Qaeda ledership as long as he had deniability.

What is it about the criticism of Obama on this point that you feel is either political(as you used it that is simply name-calliing) or vacuous?

In the current post you are dealing with this by changing the subject: stating isn't it neat that Obama is setting forth policy positions (true) and shouldn't the other politicians do that (maybe -- any politician with any tactical sense --desirable in a president -- is not going to intervene when Obama is tripping over his own words but the other politicians do need to reveal their positions in enough detail that we can make an informed choice.) Obama seems to be so intent on informing us that he reveals his policy positions in ways that make them more difficult to carry out if he gets elected.

You also argue that the policy can't be naive because he has good advisors. Mostly, people are not arguing that the policy is naive but rather the choice to express it in that fashion was naive. Unless you can convince me that Obama both expected the reaction from the Pakistanis and had a good reason for provoking them that way I will continue to think that naive is a reasonable description and not simply free-floating name calling.