Why won't Obama answer the question?

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

MR. RUSSERT: You’ve said this about Afghanistan and Pakistan: “I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance involving civilians. Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.” If Iran insisted on building their nuclear capability, you had your discussions, you had your negotiations, and they said, “Sorry, President Obama, we’re going forward,” would you then have a use of tactical nuclear weapons on the table?

SEN. OBAMA: Tim, I think it would be a mistake for me to talk about clear red lines.

When Hillary doesn't answer a question, lots of DUers go crazy

This man might become our president. Russert's question is designed to embarrass BECAUSE he knows that a serious candidate won't answer. A serious candidate will not tie his own hands in vital negotiations.

A candidate who would do so is NOT seriously in the running, nor should he be.

but I remember many DUers criticizing HRC for not answering questions, and I beleive that one of those times was when she was asked a similar question and gave a similar answer. I'm not clear on the details, but I think it involved the use of tactical nuke to get OBL in Pakistan.

Any frontrunner who answers that is no longer frontrunner.

I can't imagine him ever saying that he would authorise a first strike with nuclear weapons.

IMO, NO SANE PERSON WOULD.

Nukes are the weapons of BEYOND last resort. And yes, they should be off the table, and everybody should know it. Otherwise, who is ever going to trust us, particularly now that we have claimed and exercised the right to preemptive war?

Genocide is NOT a negotiating point.

He can make whatever promises he wants because he knows he will never have to carry them out.

to fucking blow up anyone in the world at any time with no warning. And if they don't they cannot be a frontrunner.

THAT IS FUCKING INSANE.

ON THIS POINT, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

To be successful, the candidate must embrace nuclear holocaust.

Frontrunner?

The day after Bush drops a nuke on Iran, Dennis IS the frontrunner.

:shrug:

In 04 Dean was considered the front runner and that didn't work out too well. Kerry was the long shot and no one had him picked as being anywhere near top of the field. Clinton in 92 was in the same position.

I highly doubt Hillary and Obama come out of these primaries with a win.

Dean, Kerry top New Hampshire poll

Ex-Vermont governor garners 32%, senator gets 23%

pdated 12:33 a.m. ET, Fri., Nov. 21, 2003

POUGHKEEPSIE, N.Y., Sept. 25 - Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean holds a double-digit lead over rival John Kerry in a poll of New Hampshire’s Democratic voters released Thursday.

Marist College Institute for Public Opinion
The poll by Marist College’s Institute for Public Opinion had Dean, the former Vermont governor, at 36 percent, Massachusetts Sen. Kerry at 24 percent and former Gen. Wesley Clark, who entered the race last week, at 8 percent.

more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3087320/

Kucinich is not polling above single digits in any scientifically polls.

How many nuclear weapons have been used on other countries since Hiroshima and Nagasaki? NONE. Why is that? MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION.

Nukes are our "big stick." They are every major power's "big stick." "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Why? Because then our soft words will be heeded and we won't have to use the stick. And nobody has. Because it's a really big stick.

If you don't get that, you don't get one single thing about international relations. Not one.

You seem to believe that if we behave with great honor and righteousness, everyone else will. That's nice. VOTE FOR KUCINICH. His hands are clean.

I will vote for someone who isn't afraid to get them dirty.

I really do.

This is anecdotal but from what I'm hearing from a lot of folks; They are sick and tired of those two.

Obama was tongue tied when confronted with his own words and asked to defend and explain them.
That's just sad.

Here's a snippet below, from the ABC debate where Hillary said basically the same thing Obama said.

***

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, one of the areas that -- one of the things that Senator Obama just talked about is that he thinks that some of your differences aren't as great as people have said.

Your campaign criticized Senator Obama after he made a comment ruling out the use of nuclear weapons against Al Qaida, yet, here's what you said last year when asked about Bush administration reports that they might use tactical nuclear weapons in Iran. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: No option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table. And this administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of the nuclear age. I think that's a terrible mistake

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3498294

***

So...was Hillary criticized for failing to answer "the nuclear option" question? If she was, you would be correct that the same standard should be applied to Obama. If she wasn't, your claim of a double standard is BS. You do know that not answering a question about military options is not the same thing as not answering a question about ... say ... supporting or opposing drivers licenses for undocumented workers, right?

but when Obama says it, it's OK.

As I noted above, I don't think ANY candidate should be drawing red lines, particularly when it comes to nukes

:toast:

I am happy to hold Obama and HRC equally accountable for their words, and to criticize them equally harshly for being unable take a clear stance on anything without prevarication.

I'll be happy to do so myself. I'll take a clear stance: neither of them get my vote.

Ever.

and he will wait to see which way the wind is blowing before taking a position?:shrug:

K&R

no serious candidate would.