Now the Senator is stealing Al Franken's ideas . . .

Still not good enough to get him off for saying voting does not matter when human rights are on the line.

Unfortunately, he also stated to Russert that in his social security "crisis" that all ideas are on the table. On this issue of the social security non crisis and the horrible idea of bringing this up see Krugman, Atrios, etc.

It should have been raised a long, long time ago. Unfortunately, repubs will twist this into a tax hike and those nasty tax and spend dems. On the flip side, at least he is taking a stand on something, which the front-runner refuses to do, other than on war.

DonnaG:

Thank you for bringing that up -- it's actually more important than his slip-up on Social Security -- please point to where you think Obama DIRECTLY answered the question "How many troops do you envision would have to remain in Iraq for some time to come?":

SEN. OBAMA: Here’s what I’d do as president: We can get one to two brigades out per month safely. At that pace, we would have all our combat troops out in about 16 months from the time we initiate it. I would like to see it start now. It is not clear that that’s possible, given George Bush’s posture. But 16 months from the time we initiate it, we could have our combat troops out.

The only troops I would have in Iraq would have a very limited mission. Number one, to protect our embassy and our civilian, diplomatic corps. I don’t want Blackwater to be providing that security; I want our U.S. military to providing—to provide that security. I’m very skeptical about the use of private contractors when it comes to our national security. The only other mission, and this is a very narrow one, would be to engage in counterterrorism activity. If al-Qaeda in Iraq is reforming bases there, we should have the capacity to strike them. That would be it. Those would be the only troops that we would deploy.

MR. RUSSERT: How many would that be?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, I’m going to leave that up to the, the commanders on the ground, because my job is to set a clear mission for them. Their job is to then tell me, “This is what we need to achieve that mission.”

MR. RUSSERT: But, but — yeah, but we have 165,000 there now. Are we talking 150,000?

SEN. OBAMA: There, there — here’s what I’ll say, Tim. We will have the vast majority of the troops who are there gone. This war will be over; there will be no permanent bases. So when I hear, for example, others say, “I will have all troops out,” well, the fact of the matter is who’s going to protect our embassy? Who’s going to protect our civilian forces? Are these folks suggesting that we’re just going to leave them to wander around the streets and rely on the Iraqi military to do that? Obviously not.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432/page/3/

Donna G excellent point:
Obama's strength which is derived from a core of honesty is uniquely powerful among politicians.

I think that honesty and obviously an impressive memory is what allowed him to deflect Russerts totally deceptive statement about what Obama said about his position on the war prior to making the DNC speech in 2004. I was most impressed at how he put that statement in context of not wanting to put the Presidential candidates in a bad light given they had all voted for the AUMF. Another reason why I find him to have exceptional principles.

I marvel each day at how so many 2006 candidates up for re-election had Obama out stomping for him and how much money he raised for the Democratic party...yet now none of these 'peers/colleagues' are stepping up to the plate to endorse Obama even though they all owe him big time. They are just too afraid of the Clintons and their possible political venegenance. The good thing is that Obama will not owe any favors when he is inaugurated in 2008..not even to his own party members and especially not to the CBC, Sharpton or Jackson, Waters, Jackson-Lee,Rangel,Fitzpatrick or the shortsighted John Lewis himself.

JakeD
Please indicate what it is precisely that you wanted to know that Obama failed to answer. Did you want a specific numer? If so, Obama clearly said the number will be determined by the military. Can you honestly expect him to give a 'gotcha' answer? Where if his number is different from the military he can be grilled about it whether is readjustment based on new information is good judgment versus simply 'staying the course' to appear resolute despite gross failure?

P.S. How, exactly, is "not wanting to put the Presidential candidates in a bad light given they had all voted for the AUMF" back then consistent with now "putting Hillary in a bad light for voting for the same, exact thing"? Follow-up question: what's your definition of "principles"?

Jake D: Following your logic that Obama's answer to Russert on numbers of residual troops Obama would leave in Iraq is a non specific answer......I agree that the answer does not give specific numbers, and instead gives only the specifics of his stated position with respect to a need for residual troops.

It is just as though I asked you to tell me how much snowfall will occur on January 20th, 2009, so that I could know fourteen months ahead what winter clothing I should buy for Obama's inauguration. You could tell me that it will likely be very cold, and may snow, and that I should be prepared with winter gear on hand, but you could not tell me specifics ahead of time.

jake d, I haven't watched the interview yet. I dvr'd it. However, the quotes look pretty clear to me. Do you read english? Or is english your second language? Maybe that explains the misunderstanding.

I read English, and it is not my second language -- the quotes were, indeed, very clear to me that Obama refused to even rule out 150,000 troops staying in Iraq -- as for me being "UNpresidential" #1 I am not running for President, so maybe my "principles" are still intact, and #2 it's at least a RESPONSIVE answer ; )