Brian Beutler's upset that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards wouldn't answer hypothetical questions about the use of nuclear weapons in Pakistan:
Seriously, though! How much value do Clinton and Edwards really place on keeping alive the (psychotic) possibility that either of them will resort to using nuclear weapons as an anti-terror tactic? If it's important to maintain stability in Pakistan by not instilling its people with the fear of an atomic strike, then the thing to do is say there won't be an atomic strike; it is not to imply that the nuclear option is a remote possibility by refusing to make pronouncements about hypothetical questions with obvious answers.
In Clinton's case, though, her refusal to answer the question isn't about the question. It's about a line of attack she's opened on Obama to the effect of his commensensical statement that he won't drop nukes on al-Qaeda training camps demonstrates a lack of experience. It's too much common sense, you might say, and not enough training in high-level executive branch doublespeak. I think that's a pretty silly line of attack, but they're sticking with it.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to email@example.com.