Clinton vs. Obama
August 3, 2007
So let me get this straight. In the last few weeks, here’s what we have between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Obama says he would be willing to meet with rogue leaders without pre-conditions. Clinton says that’s naïve and irresponsible. Obama also says nuclear weapons are ‘not on the table” when it comes to getting terrorists and Osama Bin Laden holed up in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Hillary Clinton won’t rule it out.
Read the latest from The Washington Post this morning here and read a portion below:
Clinton's comments came in response to Obama's remarks earlier in the day that nuclear weapons are "not on the table" in dealing with ungoverned territories in the two countries, and they continued a steady tug of war among the Democratic presidential candidates over foreign policy.
"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance" in Afghanistan or Pakistan, Obama said. He then added that he would not use such weapons in situations "involving civilians."
"Let me scratch that," he said. "There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."
Obama (Ill.) was responding to a question by the Associated Press 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 bin Laden.
"There's been no discussion of using nuclear weapons, and that's not a hypothetical that I'm going to discuss," Obama said. When asked whether his answer also applied to the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons, he said it did.
By the afternoon, Clinton (N.Y.) had responded with an implicit rebuke. "Presidents should be careful at all times in discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons," she said, adding that she would not answer hypothetical questions about the use of nuclear force.
"Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don't believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse," Clinton said.
The lines have been drawn. Hillary Clinton’s campaign has made it clear that they believe she is the candidate with experience and is ready to lead from day one. Obama’s camp is going with the “time for a fresh change and direction” theme.
I talked to a close observer of the race who does not want to be named so he could speak more freely. He offered a very frank assessment of Obama’s past mistakes this week and about the Obama campaign in general. Read below:
“He’s made a number of key errors in regard to decades of nuclear deterrent strategy. You don't talk about it and make blanket statements like that. He's trying to make up for his lack of experience. The question is whether he is exercising the proper judgment? Is it smart to telegraph your intentions or is better to protect the prerogative of the President and the options that the President has available? They have come to the recognition that they need to muscle up a little in terms of how they deal with the Clinton campaign. Obama has been much more aggressive to Hillary Clinton in his rhetoric. It's been unmistakable that he's gone negative. It's surprising to see him do it. I think he's sloppy in describing what his policies are. The ideas and substance of what he's advocating are not original. Obama is not advocating very many new ideas. He's a fresh face and young but that often gets confused as some sort of person with new ideas.”
Do the comments by Obama’s sit well with you? Does his “fresh face” approach excite you or scare you? Who do you have more confidence in? Hillary or Obama? I’ll post your comments.
Comments?
THE BRODY FILE Main Page >>
A caring friend will be there to pray with you in your time of need.
