I have to say that it's not fully clear to me what Dodd is saying with respect to Obama's remarks today.

I would add that it's not clear to me what Dodd was saying with respect to Obama's remarks, yesterday, either.

In any event, during the primary season it's important to examine differences between candidates, but this week, and last, seems to be a lot of sniping and destructive comments, and, as I commented before, "gotcha" stuff. I find it uncompelling.

Democrats do a fabulous job of attacking each other. I wish they'd start spending some of that energy on the Republican candidates. The Republican candidates aren't wasting any time attacking the Dems.

It is completely consistent with what Dodd said about the other flap. Especially, quit making definite statements about hypotheticals when talking about things like nukes and terrorists.

Especially, quit making definite statements about hypotheticals when talking about things like nukes and terrorists

I think your statement is considerably clearer than Dodd's statement yesterday, which seemed to me to be an attack against a statement that was never made.

Who's Chris Dodd?

what it means is obama is being clumsy on the one issue a politician can never be clumsy about.

you can never say something about nuclear weapons and then say "scratch that."

QUESTION: is there a tpmcafe policy on ratings abuse?

The fact that Sen. Clinton wouldn't rule out using nukes against a bunch of people in caves saddens me, but doesn't surprise me. She belongs to the sober, serious mainstream of foreign policy thinking--you know, the visionaries who led us into Iraq, logic and evidence be damned.

That Dodd echoes this, however, surprises and saddens me. I was becoming a fan, based on his defense of the Constitution.

As a nation, we need to look in the mirror. That we ALL don't categorically rule out using NUCLEAR WEAPONS in any situation except to deter an existential threat (as in, other nuclear weapons), really shows how far we've sunk in terms of morals and truly valuing human life and our physical world.

You're not getting your lattes? I am!

Seriously, a big function of the ratings is to keep penis enlargement drug ads off of the boards. People are handing out 0s on these threads and thus making the spam control programs here confuse substantive comments with spam.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

In 3 hours, the Obama/Hillary thread is well over a hundred comments. In 2.5 hours, the Obama/Dodd thread is at, what, 14, 15 comments?

Does Chris Dodd even matter to the most hardcore political junkies? Apparently not.

He needs a catchphrase.

Doddtastic?

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Probably yawn

I'm dying laughing over here.

That's fantastic.

I'm surprised he didn't go on to say, "As for myself, I have no position on these important, substantive foreign policy issues. Laying out positions simply leaves you vulnerable to attacks from snipers on the sidelines."

Can someone like the esteemed Christopher Dodd please explain to me what use it is to say that nuclear weapons should be "on the table" with respect to terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Is he seriously saying that he's not prepared to attack the terrorists in Pakistan's Waziristan region without an okay from Pakistan, but he is willing to NUKE them? Maybe he should figure out what his coherent foreign policy plan is before attacking others.

Take nuclear weapons off the table; the table is crowded enough as it is. The only situation where nuclear weapons should even be considered as POTENTIALLY usable are in the case of a nuclear strike, in which case I don't expect any President to be agonizing over whether or not he has to reverse a previous promise. I just don't get how anyone could possibly think that "keeping nuclear weapons on the table" is constructive, unless they are muddleheaded like Condoleeza Rice and Dick Cheney and conflate "the terrorists" into the Soviet Union.

I doubt that Senator Dodd is quite that stupid; I think he just thinks that inane sniping at Obama will get him attention. It has gotten him attention, but I'm not sure how it's supposed to help his campaign. I was open to what he had to say before, but now I'm inclined to just right him off as an idiot without a cause. He certainly hasn't said anything insightful yet.

Don't make threats you should not make

Don't unwise categorical statements about military options

The problem is he hasn't articulated what he himself considers to be "threats you should not make" or "unwise categorical statements." Or, conversely, he hasn't articulated what he considers to be "threats you should make" or "wise categorical statements."

Plenty of people on these boards have condemned Obama's foreign policy in a much clearer fashion than Dodd comes even close to here. Just saying "don't do things you shouldn't do" doesn't cut it.

Wiser people than me keep pointing out the tendency of these guys to go meta against each other on foreign policy, suggesting that the Democrats are eternal naifs on the subject and will be lost without politician X. The really weird part is where Dodd implies that he must possess a level of judgment "unprecedented in American history."

I agree. But Obama was asked a stupid question about being willing to nuke Afghanistan or Pakistan and he answered truthfully that he wouldn't. I don't think that Clinton or Dodd are stupid enough to actually do such a thing, but they seem to be willing to pretend that they would consider it in order to seem tough. Obama seems to be more willing to walk away from the false toughness posturing that so gets our foreign policy elites off and be more frank about what he thinks real toughness is. I personally find it refreshing coming from someone who has a real shot at being the nominee.

The question itself demonstrates that Obama answered correctly. Only a moron would even consider nuking anywhere without overwhelmingly disastrous cause. The fact that someone thought that that needed to be asked shows what foreign policy thinking has descended to in this country. It's time to start backing away from the precipice, and that's what Obama did.

"Can someone like the esteemed Christopher Dodd please explain to me what use it is to say that nuclear weapons should be "on the table" "

I'm certainly not like "the esteemed Christopher Dodd." I can only wish. But I can tell you presidents don't get to make it up when it comes to talking nukes:

U.S. Nuclear Policy: "Negative Security Assurances"

Negative Security Assurances and Nonproliferation

The United States first formally made nuclear non-use pledges, also termed "negative security assurances," in 1978. On April 5, 1995, Secretary of State Warren Christopher announced a slightly revised policy, which was most recently repeated on February 22, 2002 by State Department spokesman Richard Boucher:

The United States reaffirms that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon state-parties to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an invasion or any other attack on the United States, its territories, its armed forces or other troops, its allies, or on a state toward which it has a security commitment carried out, or sustained by such a non-nuclear-weapon state in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon state.

Under the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the five recognized nuclear-weapon states are the United States, Russia, Britain, France, and China. Three other states—India, Pakistan, and Israel—also possess nuclear weapons but are not members of the NPT.
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/negsec.asp

There are policies to follow. A president can try to change those. But they can't make it up. According to the US nuke policy in certain instances nukes are on the table.

You win the golden snark award in this thread.