Did Hillary Just Receive A Mortal Wound re: Previous Nukes Off The Table Contradiction? Obama Wins?

[Dems Will Win]

Holy Merde! This is a BIG problem for Hillary and provides a huge opening for Obama! I mean whether or not to use nukes first is an extremely important issue, and she can't make up her mind?!?!?

NEW YORK - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who chastised rival Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terror, did just that when asked about Iran a year ago.

"I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," she said in April 2006.

Her views expressed while she was gearing up for a presidential run stand in conflict with her comments this month regarding Obama, who faced heavy criticism from leaders of both parties, including Clinton, after saying it would be "a profound mistake" to deploy nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table," he said.

Clinton, who has tried to cast her rival as too inexperienced for the job of commander in chief, said of Obama's stance on Pakistan: "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

But that's exactly what she did in an interview with Bloomberg Television in April 2006. The New York senator, a member of the Armed Services committee, was asked about reports that the Bush administration was considering military intervention - possibly even a nuclear strike - to prevent Iran from escalating its nuclear program.

"I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," Clinton said. "This administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I think that's a terrible mistake."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/09/AR2007080900855.html

Well what is it a "terrible mistake" to not take it off the table, or showing inexperience in not taking it off the table??

Like I said, HOLY MERDE!

I believe this is a mortal wound for Hillary, It exposes her worst perception: She'll Say Anything!
Obama is going to have a field day with this!

This will especially hurt her in New Hampshire, where more Indies will now crossover and vote Obama.

This makes Obama look very, very good and totally neutralizes all the criticism of him from the last 2 weeks.

In fact, it just might inoculate Obama against the inexperienced charge!!

Any reporter will now be loathe to say he is inexperieinced, given this, while they will be searching all of Hillary's past now on every comment to search for contradictions like this.

I think Hillary is now mortally wounded.

It's going to be hard for the conservatives to spin this gaffe in her favor and keep her in the race.

Dems love to knock over the front-runner, and she just shot herself in the foot big-time!

Doesn't she have staff check this kind of stuff out??

She looks like a complete idiot and Obama looks wise and commanding. Really think this will be blown up over the next couple of days and over the weekend.

Please recommend this up as this is the kind of stuff that knocks the front-runner over, and she just set herself up. We need to make a huge deal out of this.

I can't wait to see what Obama does with this!

[LostInAnomie]

1. It just reaffirms what most people already think about Hillary...

... and other politicians. They will say whatever it takes to get them elected.

[tabasco]

3. That's right.

Her pandering was bound to bite her in the ass.

[Dems Will Win]

6. That's exactly why this could be a mortal wound

That's her weakness among the public and the press. The media could leap on this and hound her with questions that have no good answer.

She's going to look like an idiot doing that, while Obama will look like a genius ready to be Commander-in-Chief.

In politics, the most important thing you can do in a campaign is play up the perceived weakness of your opponent.

Hillary just did it, likely unknowingly, to herself. Which also shows that she is suprisingly incompetent at running a campaign where she has real competition.

That bodes badly for the General Election against the Republican.

She's obviously too incompetent at crafting her message to check out her past statements. Doesn;t she have a database of her own comments? Doesn't her staff know how to Google??

[katmondoo]

12. Obama made the mistake a huge one

[aquart]

2. Uh, no. Obama looks like a two-year old. Sorry.

NO competent leader takes a negotiating point off the table BEFORE negotiations start. That's what Obama has done. He has eliminated the need for ANY nation to negotiate any arms pact with us. They will negotiate with the players. Obama has now said the United States is not a player.

Or did you forget that OTHER nations have a nuclear arsenal as well? Or that the policy of mutually assured destruction has worked successfully for DECADES? Guess so.

[postulater]

5. So I guess they are both looking like two-year olds and are

both out of the race now.

[Dhalgren]

The MAD policy is founded on no first strikes. In all of the Cold War we

made it plan in no uncertain terms that we would not strike first, but would destroy any first-striker. A MAD policy requires a no first strike stand or it won't work. What does MAD mean if we might strike first anyway?

[Dems Will Win]

14. Exactly, that's why Obama wins this round BIG TIME

Obama was right and Hillary wants nukes on or off the table, depending which side of bed she rolls out of in the morning...

[global1]

22. What Are You Talking About - Pelosi Took Impeachment Off The Table......nt (sarcasm)

[Terri S]

32. He was talking about going after al Queda in northern Pakistan NOT as a blanket policy

and anyone who WOULD consider nuclear attack in such a situation is lying, certifiably insane, or a part of the administration's mentality. Btw, Hillary was right the first time.

[rinsd]

4. Context is important. She was talking about nuclear saber rattling.

"But that's exactly what she did in an interview with Bloomberg Television in April 2006. The New York senator, a member of the Armed Services committee, was asked about reports that the Bush administration was considering military intervention _ possibly even a nuclear strike _ to prevent Iran from escalating its nuclear program.

"I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," Clinton said. "This administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I think that's a terrible mistake."

[nini]

8. exactly

.

[Dems Will Win]

9. But but

First she is against nukes being an option before she is for them being an option?

THe press is going to question her about the contradiction, and the sound-bite from that will be played a 100 times, because she will no doubt have some unbelievable answer.

She might even be nervous in this future sound bite as she knows this could be a mortal wound, AND SHE HAS NO POSSIBLE GOOD RESPONSE.

[rinsd]

10. Differing statements in different contexts is a mortal wound in Aug?

:rofl:

Your black and white grasp on this is especially hilarious since your apparent candidate believes in nuance.

[Dems Will Win]

13. Then resolved: Hillary believes Nukes Are Off the Table For Iran But On the Table For Pakistan?

That's what you are saying she is saying.

It sounds ridiculous.

[rinsd]

18. "That's what you are saying she is saying."

No it isn't.

In the first statement Clinton is talking about saber rattling and the open discussion of use of nuclear weapons by the Bush admin. as a threat and how that is wrong and not part of her agenda.

When Obama was speaking he was not talking about an attack on Pakistan but the use of nuclear weapons in general.

[Dems Will Win]

23. Do your homework and actually read about it before you comment like that

Obama was asked if he would use nukes "in any circumstances" going after terror camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan and he said no. There was never anything about taking nukes off the table in general.

In case you don't know, there' s a site called Google...

When asked whether he would use nuclear weapons to take out terrorist targets in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Barack Obama gave the sensible answer that nuclear force was not necessary, and would kill too many civilians.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/09/politics/animal/main3152032.shtml

WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday that he would not use nuclear weapons to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, drawing criticism from rivals.

"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama said, with a pause, "involving civilians."

Then he quickly added, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

Obama was responding to a question about whether there was any circumstance in which he would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat terrorism and Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070803/NEWS07/708030418/1009

If you had Googled, you would have found out that the nukes off the table comment was in regards only to fighting Terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, because too many civilians would die, not in general.

[rinsd]

25. Do my homework?

Well I did make a mistake.

But I've already demosntarted that you are twisting Clinton's words so I wouldn't pat myself on the back too hard.

[Dems Will Win]

30. I'm sure Hillary will speak for herslf on this soon

The news has really picked this up in the meantime...

[Terri S]

33. Thank you !

The spin around this is maddening.

[tabasco]

17. Sure. Whatever you say.

"Off the table" in any context means not an option.

[nini]

7. oh mother of God

I really don't see what you do in this. It actually sounds like her stance in the first place to not consider nuclear weapons like the dumbass current Admin is doing and that is a GOOD thing.

[Dems Will Win]

11. The more important question is WHAT IS HER STANCE NOW?

Are they on or off the table??

That's where she painted herself in the corner.

They are off the table for Iran but on the table for Pakistan??

Holy crap! What is she going to say?

I think this mortally wounds her for the General in fact, as ther eis no good answer to the contradiction and she could even be accused of being a woman who can't make up her mind.

The GOP could say that, and hurt the first real run for a woman President.

This is now very worrisome if she gets the nom. She appears a lot more unelectable because of this to me. I thought she could get elected but now this changes things.

[nini]

15. if you think this mortally wounds her you are very naive politically

seriously.. this coming from someone who has donated money to Obama.

You are making way too much of this and it is NOT going to kill her campaign.

[Dems Will Win]

20. Let's remember that this is the day Nagasaki was bombed 62 years ago!

[BlooInBloo]

16. As much as you might like it to be, no.

[Enrique]

19. obama can use this

after the outrageously unfair treatment he got over his Pakistan comments, now might be the time for Obama to go big-time negative. He's got some people who can make Hillary pay, if he decides to. This story would be perfect.

[jobycom]

21. Not there's any contradiction in the statements, but if there were, you'd still have butkus.

First, unless Gore gets in the race or Richardson suddenly surges, I guess I'll wind up voting for Clinton, since Obama seems addicted to these lightweight personal attacks. At this moment, I can't see voting for him, but I guess that could change. If it does, it will be because of something positive he has done, not because one of his attacks on other candidates convinced me.

Second, Hillary's earlier comments were a response to a direct statement by Bush, and she was criticizing that statement and Bush. That's hardly a blanket statement about nukes, and it's hardly a statement by a president, since she was speaking as a senator. It's quite obvious even in the slanted text of the WP, which I guess has continued its long, storied history of slandering Democrats--especially Clintons and Gores.

Third, her criticism of Obama was because he made an unqualified, blanket statement in answer to a hypothetical question. Most people will see the difference, even if Obama supporters try not to.

Fourth, doesn't this comment help her? It shows that she did stand up to Bush, that she was against his insane attack plans, and that she is against using nuclear weapons. All the stuff some DUers have been tricked into believing otherwise about her.

[Dems Will Win]

24. So DUers were TRICKED into thinking that she voted for the war in 2002?

We were TRICKED into thinking she wants nukes off the table in 2006 and on the table in 2007?

We were TRICKED into thinking she will take lobbyist money and Obama and Edwards won't?

We are so TRICKABLE...

[jobycom]

26. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what I mean.

Even your lobbyist point is iffy. Obama and Edwards will take it, they'll just find round-about ways to do it. We see that every election.

[rinsd]

29. "lobbyist money and Obama and Edwards won't?" Do your homework

"Despite their own infatuations with special interest money, former Sen. John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama put Clinton on the spot during a debate that featured seven of the eight major Democratic presidential candidates. . . . While they don’t accept money directly from federal lobbyists, Edwards and Obama are not above benefiting from the broader lobbying community. Both accept money from firms that have lobbying operations, and Obama in particular has tapped the networks of lobbyists’ friends and co-workers. Obama, a former state senator from Illinois, has long accepted money from state lobbyists."

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/8/5/155352/1155

Lobbyists

Hillary Clinton (D)$413,140

John McCain (R) $261,975

Christopher J. Dodd (D)$174,050

Mitt Romney (R)$160,830

Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) $151,700

Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D)$90,050

Bill Richardson (D) $67,400

Barack Obama (D)$60,567

Duncan Hunter (R) $16,350

Tommy Thompson (R) $11,000

John Edwards (D) $10,450

Sam Brownback (R) $6,800

Thomas J. Vilsack (D) $1,000

Mike Huckabee (R) $750

Tom Tancredo (R) $250

Jim Gilmore (R) $250

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=K02

"Nevertheless, Obama accepts money from lobbyists' spouses and other family members, their partners at the law firms where they work if the partners aren't registered to lobby, senior executives at companies that hire lobbyists, and state-level lobbyists. Among his top fundraisers are at least a few who were registered lobbyists as recently as last year. The campaign says it is making a "best effort" to stay away from tainted money. "It isn't a perfect solution to the problem and it isn't even a perfect symbol," a spokesman said."

"We are so TRICKABLE"

Well apparently you are.

[Enrique]

27. Dick Butkus?

are we still in Soldier Field mode? :-)

[jobycom]

28. Eh.

I was trying to sound macho. :rofl:

[Dhalgren]

31. I think that you meant "bupkis". I think that is how it is spelled. I think it's Yiddish?