What are you talking about? She gave just the right answer. Through out my life time nukes have been used as a deterrant. They are not effective as a deterrant if you announce you would never use them, though she obviously implies they are out. Her's is the smart answer. Your title and thesis is mere hyperbole. By the way, Obama ruled them out, and then "scratched" the comment. He looks irresponsible and naive because his answers to loaded questions are increasingly irresponsible and naive.

tell me how exactly a nuclear weapon is a detterent against al qaeda, people who are suicide bombers and not a state.

just because hillary says it doesn't mean it's true. It's a standard answer to a completely different question

Sam has it right.

These ankle-biting attacks from the so-called front runner are telling. The Clinton camp is terrified of Obama and has retreated to their "war room" style of politics from the 1990s.

Unfortunately for them, times have changed. "War room" politics--taken to the bleeding edge by the Bush administration--have delivered nothing more than a degenerate, "gotcha" politics for going on a decade now.

There's very little substantive difference between the leading Democrats on foreign policy.

Hillary, however, is much better versed in the language of Washington and the "accepted" norms of what you can and can't say. This tends to come across better politically, both because the media nods its heads approvingly and because people instinctively feel more comfortable hearing the same slogans they've heard all their life.

I can't believe that Obama said we probabaly shouldn't use nukes in Waziristan and Hillary said we should - and the punditry thinks Hillary is right!

Can she spout any war-mongering, batshit crazy idea that won't win her plaudits for foreign policy seriousness from the media?

Come on guys. At least don't make stuff up: I can't believe that Obama said we probabaly shouldn't use nukes in Waziristan and Hillary said we should

She didn't say that. She said you don't do hypotheticals with nukes. She in no way says "nukes in Waziristan." This is utter hyperbole.

Come on guys. At least don't make stuff up: I can't believe that Obama said we probabaly shouldn't use nukes in Waziristan and Hillary said we should

She didn't say that. She said you don't do hypotheticals with nukes. She in no way says "nukes in Waziristan." This is utter hyperbole.

Come on guys. At least don't make stuff up: I can't believe that Obama said we probabaly shouldn't use nukes in Waziristan and Hillary said we should

She didn't say that. She said you don't do hypotheticals with nukes. She in no way says "nukes in Waziristan." This is utter hyperbole.

she didn't say she would use nukes in waziristan; she didn't say she wouldn't.

obama said he wouldn't.

that's all.

Obama really shouldn't speak without a teleprompter or prepared text.

Today he proved just how not ready for prime time the Junior Senator from Illinois is. Just as he did during the debates, Obama just can't seem to help stepping into a big pile of his own making.

His latest flailing, which include the comments "I wont use nukes with citizens, wait, scratch-that, I'm not discussing nukes" debacle, illustrates that he is as clueless about how a Commander In Chief should address the most potent weapon in his military arsenal as he is about how to respond to a terrorist attack or about Presidential diplomacy.

The American electorate doesn’t seem to like what Obama is stepping in, either.

The three most recent national polls taken after the debate show Clinton trending up and ahead by double-double digits over her nearest rival. As of today, Clinton trounces Obama; 43(38) to 25(21) Rasmussen, 43(39) to 25(22) NBC/WSJ, and 40(34) to 21(24) Pew.

If Richard Clark wrote a speech for me, I could stand in front of a teleprompter and read it, too. Unfortunately for Obama, the American electorate knows that we live in serious times and require more from their President than a dramatic reading of a prepared text.

If Richard Clark wrote a speech for me, I could stand in front of a teleprompter and read it, too.

so could hillary, so could anyone. you got a point?

Hillary seriously thinks the "right answer" is to stand up there and say that an offensive nuclear strike against an allied, nuclear-armed nation is not off the table for the time being?

She does not come out of this exchange looking well. I'm almost (but not yet quite) to the point where I won't vote for her, regardless of the opposition. Nauseating.

hillary at that sad youboob debate also claimed she was "agnostic" on nuclear energy, but now she's sure as shit ready to drop nukes on people. pathetic she is.

*Correction to Above Poll Numbers*

As of today, Clinton trounces Obama 43(38) to 21(25) Rasmussen; 43(39) to 22(25) NBC/WSJ, and 40(34) to 21(24) Pew.

Your headline is dishonest and your post silly.

Sam Boyd is developing quite a record here.

I don't know who Clinton is trying to appeal to, but it ain't me.

She's singing from the Republican hymn book and I wish she'd stop.

"She's singing from the Republican hymn book and I wish she'd stop."

I don't think she's singing from the Republican hymn book. This was one of those, "don't you even know how X works, in theory?" quips with which she'll no doubt be able to trip up Obama, Edwards, Guiliani, Romney (for sure) and anyone else she comes across. It doesn't have to war or international relations, it could be "how to pass a bill," or "how to run a committee," or "how to set up a mike in the Rose Garden."

On the other hand, if the Holy Spirit doesn't stop visiting her, run.

The fundamental issue here goes much deeper than what policy we should have towards OBL and/or Pakistan.

The foreign policy establishment believes in an antidemocratic method of determining foreign policy. Bluntly, they do not believe common people should have a say in how it is conducted. Hillary falls squarely into this camp, which is why so much of the establishment supports her. Note how this dovetails with the opposition to withdrawal from Iraq, in the face of numerous polls showing that the American (and Iraqi) people want us to leave.

Obama, on the other hand, doesn't seem to buy into this paradigm. That, more than his specific positions on any issue, is what makes him dangerous. He might not listen to the Great and the Good. He might even decide that the people know better then the self-appointed elite that has been wrong about just about everything.

So if I asked Clinton if she'd rule out using nukes on terrorist cells in England, would she give the same "can't rule anything out" answer? After all, deterrence doesn't work if you don't take anything off the table! And a five-man cell of would-be suicide bombers is totally going to be deterred by the threat of our turning London into nuclear ash!

Jesus Christ, people, this is absolutely insane. Obama's answer wasn't just the right answer, it was the staggeringly obvious answer. The Democratic frontrunner, on the other hand, appears to be either a bloodthirsty moral mutant or a dribbling lobotomy patient. It's been six years since 9/11; can we stop putting lunatics in charge of the planet?

Armando - No one has cared about what you think since you were exposed as a Walmart shill.
Why don't you go cross swords with Trevino some place.

The Wal-Mart smear is and always has been utterly devoid of substance.

I'm beggining to wonder if Hillary is even half as good as people say.

She does realize she's still in a primary, right? That Democratic voters have to give her the okay before she reaches the general? Normally, I'd avoid talking about a willingness to nuke other nations while in a Democratic campaign.

anyone STILL arguing that she's not a neoconservative?

If Hillary is right, and the 'don't rule out nukes' line is the IR 'schoolbook answer to that question, then we damn well need another schoolbook, which is what Obama appears to be groping for now and then - and all credit to him. Meanwhile evidence is growing that Hillary may have heard of the concept 'moral leadership' but wants nothing to do with it.

Also, as noted by commenters over at Matt Yglesias's site, there is also the question of what the famously volatile Pakistanis are going to do when they here that even the 'nice' Americans won't take nuking Pakistan off the table? What if they release statements reminding everyone that their nuking the US is not off the table? That'll make everyone here feel just swell, won't it?

The real issue here is simple foreign policy expertise.

Deterrence works because a localized state has material interests within its borders, and is dependent on these materials for its functioning. A nuclear strike would massively damage, say, the nation of Paraguay, and so they know they ought not attack the US.

Al Qaeda is a totally different thing. They do not have borders, their material interests are difficult to localize. But more importantly than that, their functioning depends on the sympathy of local people to protect them, and on a subset of those people to join them. A nuclear weapon used anywhere in the Arab world would be the greatest thing that ever happened to Al Qaeda. Given the unspeakable horrors it would bring on innocent civilians as "collateral damage", it would radicalize a substantial portion of the Arab world.

You can't use nukes on Al Qaeda like entities. Bin Laden is probably praying with all his might that America drops a bomb on Waziristan. That Clinton doesn't acknowledge this suggests that she simply continues to believe that we can treat non-state actors like states, and that we needn't be concerned with the reactions of the actual people on the ground in the Middle East.

While it's true that Clinton only attacked Obama for saying he wouldn't use nukes to fight terrorism, the key here is that the thing she attacked him for is something with which only crazy people and moral idiots should disagree.

The day we use a nuke as a counter-terrorism measure is, in all seriousness, the day our country deserves to be invaded and disassembled. I hope Europe will do it. I hope we'll have the decency to let them. They should prosecute our leaders and put somebody rational in charge. It'll be sad, but justified -- like putting down a rabid dog.

the fact that Hillary is willing to keep use of nukes on the table and put down Obama for being sensible confirms my inclination to consider her the least attractive Dem candidate. She's MUCH too conservative. We need people willing to speak new truths. (Kucinich?)

the fact that Hillary is willing to keep use of nukes on the table and put down Obama for being sensible confirms my inclination to consider her the least attractive Dem candidate. She's MUCH too conservative. We need people willing to speak new truths. (Kucinich?)

Let me see if I can understand this correctly...

The Democratic front-runner is saying things that clearly alienate what should be the party base. Supporters of said candidate come off as half-hearted, while the opposition is passionate and comes off as more sensible to boot. Despite said front-runner being very easy for the Republicans to demonize, as they've been demonizing the front-runner for years before this, the supporters are trying to argue that this front-runner is the most electable candidate, with the best leadership qualities to boot. Which is really odd, given how many people would vote for any Democrat *except* said front-runner.

Remind me - are we watching the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, or the 2004 election?

Also, as noted by commenters over at Matt Yglesias's site, there is also the question of what the famously volatile Pakistanis are going to do when they here that even the 'nice' Americans won't take nuking Pakistan off the table?

If you're genuinely curious what they're saying in Pakistan about Clinton and Obama, here's one voice.

I think that if it becomes necessary to resort to "nuclear deterrance" to "keep the peace"--there may be sweeping errors with one's policy.

The fact that, for Hillary, this "nuclear deterrance" is a presupposition is dated.

Isn't that the very sort of half-threat that motivates/scares leaders into an arms race?

Steve, I was genuinely interested. Thanks for the link. Though it doesn't refer to the nuclear attack issue it does indicate a certain resignation as to
American ignorance which is kind of reasssuring