I disagree. I think there is a big difference between the two of them, only it's really more a difference of apporach than substance. Obama knows exactly what Clinton's weakness is-- she decided long ago (with her husband) that the way to win elections is to be completely indifferent to human life and support the most bellicose foreign policy possible, because we all know that the personal political fortunes of the Clintons is far more important than the lives of our brave servicemembers or the civilian populations of foreign countries.

In 2008, that's a huge liability in the Democratic primary, so all Obama has to do is keep pointing it out-- voting for the Iraq War and continuing to support its indefinite continuation and permanent military bases in Iraq, refusing to talk to foreign leaders because a propaganda coup is obviously worse than a war, supporting the use of nuclear weapons that will kill thousands of civilians. The days when the Clintons could get away with executing Ricky Ray Rector are gone.

there's something to what you're saying. it's not like Barack is calling for the withdrawal of troops from south korea or the closing bases in uzbekistan. that would actually constitute a foundational reimagination of current foreign policy. that said, no one is calling for these things. so to say there's no difference between hillary and barack on the issues where they do disagree is to sort of admit that there's not much foreign policy difference between the major candidates in either party except around the margins. the margins may get a lot of attention, but that's where the differences lie. whether or not those are important is, i suppose, for the observer to decide.

While the differences are small, they are nevertheless clear: Obama is more willing than Clinton to make changes to the Washington consensus on foreign policy (as defined by Republicans and Democratic "liberal hawks"), although the changes he proposes are cautious ones. I think that Obama has had the better of the exchanges, stupid as the attempts to make a big deal about small differences are, because Clinton has found herself positioned as the defender of the status quo at a time that people badly want change.

Joe: I think that's basically right, though it's hard to get a handle on because Obama is basically a cautious guy and hasn't been willing to make those differences very clear. Maybe that will change over time.

Judging from the snippets I see on TV, the Obama-Clinton debate has been primarily useful in getting both candidates comfortable with articulating foreign-policy concepts in public without fear. Although the arguments about details can be tiresome, Obama sounds more confident each time I see him. Voters will respond to that. Clinton has already shown gravitas in the debates. So I think the debate has been win-win.

I agree with Joe Buck. Obama has allowed Clinton to paint him as the candidate calling for real change. Clinton has positioned herself as being a candidate who wants to stick with tried and failed ideas of the Beltway foreign policy professionals. This is going to be a change election. For that reason Obama has helped himself.

I have to agree with Kevin. Looking at their actual positions, it is really hard to find a serious difference between them. In politics, perceptions matter and Obama is winning the perceptions game.

Well, I suppose I'm a liberal Hawk, but I didn't hear anything in the Obama speech with which I disagreed very much. So that characterization doesn't seem to capture what, if anything, is at issue between them.

Everyone's opinion starts from a base of assumptions which is then adjusted by circumstances to produce their actual policy goals. Those adjustments can shift you considerably away from your assumption base. It is quite possible that two people can begin at two very different starting points, but they then adjust themselves in such a way that their eventual policy proposals aren't all that different from each other.

Thus, I think it is difficult to say whether Obama and Clinton are really that close just because their proposals are not all that different.

Better this discussion that one about the price of haircuts, which the Republicans seem to think is important.

Colin

I don't get the claim that there are no substantive differences between Obama and Hillary.

Obama apparently has signed on to the idea that he will conduct talks with foreign leaders of rogue states without any preconditions. Hillary has said she won't. My strong impression is that Hillary simply is reflecting the standard policy from before Bush under both Democratic and Republican Presidents.

Obama has explicitly said that he is willing to send in troops to Pakistan to go after Osama. Hillary has indicated she would not make such an explicit commitment.

Obama ruled out the use of nuclear weapons in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Hillary has said that she will not in general make a commitment on the use of nuclear weapons.

Now in each case Obama is deviating from standard policy and approach from before Bush's time. In each case Hillary would appear to be adhering to them.

How does this not represent a serious disagreement?

mhr, You think Hillary is lovable and Obama is gullible? I don't know anybody, except Chelsey, who thinks Hillary is lovable and I have never seen any sign that Obama is gullible.

Kevin is right. The differences cited by posters and candidate partisans are inferential and imaginary.

There is simply no way of knowing how any Presidential candidate will respond to an international situation, for each is unique, and campaigns cannot contain complex debates.

So this exercise is a game, and everyone is falling for it. (Not to mention any citations by candidate partisans that they know what's going on inside the candidate's minds or what their inner motivations are.)

One thing is sure: the toughness of our great tough men, Fred Thompson and Rudolph Giuliani, will keep us safe. Only by showing how tough and strong we are can we stay safe. It is plainly clear from all the evidence that being strong makes the weak weaker.

But you weak liberals don't understand that. That's why we look weak. We must look strong. And be strong, and only strong men who love America are strong. And you don't know that. I pity you weak liberals.

I don't think there's much difference between them, and that's part of the problem with the "imperialism-lite" Democratic Party.

frankly0, say Obama sticks to this position throughout the campaign. Then he becomes President. Then, an extreme (admittedly highly unlikely) situation arises where the use of nuclear weapons is appropriate emerges, one that is strategically and morally (in terms of loss of life, say) defensible.

Do you really think that he wouldn't use such weapons in this instance because of a campaign pledge?

This is why it's a pointless debate.

Somehow I can't imagine ANY Republican candidate being interested in real issues such as this.

Dems beat the tar out of Repubs on substance -- hands down.

Look, the one thing that Hillary's approach, which is the historical Presidential approach from before Bush's era, seems to have going for it is a recognition that nuance and discretion is important when it comes to doing foreign policy.

Obama is like a guy who just can't keep his mouth shut, and blabs out every idea that comes into his head, in a foolish notion that such "openness" is always a good thing.

But, you know, foreign policy is not group therapy. There are some awfully bad guys out there. Keeping them guessing about what we might choose to do to them is a good thing.

Do we need to replace the lunacy of the Bush WH with an equal and opposite idiocy?

....will Madame President of the United States of America adopt the muslim custom of covering her hair... meathead republican at 1:22 PM

Well, I would point one major difference out. Obama is giving his foreign policy ideas, while Clinton is obfuscating hers. Obama says "yes" to meeting foreign heads of state, Clinton says, "I won't promise to, I won't rule it out, hedge here, some other stuff not really germane to the question" etc.
Obama says "yeah, if we know where Osama or Zawahiri is, and Musharraf won't cooperate, we're gonna get them." Hillary says, "well, I'm not gonna comment on hypotheticals, but yeah, I'm committed to combined efforts between our gov'ts but also would ensure we get them." Great. Tells us a lot.
Obama says, "well, nukes aren't really a good or useful weapon for hunting down small terrorist cells and have profound implications beyond their strategic advantages, so no, I wouldn't use them to hunt terrorists". Hillary says, "I won't comment on that except to say that I won't make blanket statements, and nukes are always on the table"

Etc etc

Obama gives answers. Hillary gives dodges that let you infer that she agrees or disagrees, depending on the set of assumptions you start out with.

But really, what positive statement of her foreign policy has she offered throughout this all? Just vague, platitudinous nothings that don't rule anything out and don't commit to anything.

Do you really think that he wouldn't use such weapons in this instance because of a campaign pledge?

What bothers me a whole lot more about Obama is that he doesn't seem to understand the concept of discretion when it comes to foreign policy.

That is the one thing that is consistent througout all his rather inane utterances.

well if that's the case, no real difference between them, then Obama's taking dubious credit for having opposed the war is meaningless, no? and his presence in the campaign, what, vanity? Sounds about right.

Obama gives answers.

And that is precisely the problem.

Blabbing is the antithesis of discretion and nuance, and good foreign policy requires these in large quantities.

Obama and Bush really are just two sides of the same coin of verbal incontinence. (Yes, a mixed metaphor. Deal.)

"What bothers me a whole lot more about Obama is that he doesn't seem to understand the concept of discretion when it comes to foreign policy."

Wrong. There is often strategic value in making a credibly limiting your options. That's what a treaty is, for gawdssake.

Shrub/Cheney have adhered to the policy of unrestrained unilateral action, and that's hardly served us well, has it?

What bothers me a whole lot more about Obama is that he doesn't seem to understand the concept of discretion when it comes to foreign policy.

You've fallen for the spin coming out of HRC's camp. Obama hasn't said anything that can be even closely considered indiscreet. What he is doing is staking out a position to the left of HRC, which is damaging to a candidate who wants to appeal to the left while maintaining the backing of her rightwing supporters.

Wrong. There is often strategic value in making a credibly limiting your options. That's what a treaty is, for gawdssake.

A treaty is what one gets after a period of negotiation in which, typically and deliberately, everything is left on the table. The treaty is the explicit commitment that summarizes what you are taking off the table.

You're saying, why just take all sorts of things off the table beforehand.

And I'm sure no one would take advantage of us, would they? It's only rogue regimes we're talking about here -- they'd be sporting, I'm sure.

frankly0:
Read this...

Nuclear "deterrence" as it existed during the cold war is over. Obama's statement that he would not nuke the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan is not a mistake, or a blunder, or a sign of weakness or inexperience.

I don't want a President who would even try to bluff that they would do such a thing, it would in fact be totally historically unprecedented. We have never gone around as a country and said that we won't "rule out" nuking this or that piece of territory which wasn't involved in threatening us with nukes in the first place. NEVER.

We are not confronting the army of a nuclear power, we are confronting a tiny contingent of terrorists who are mutual enemies of ours and the central Pakistani gov't. There's no need for this ludicrous talk of first strikes, 'telegraphing' our strategy, what have you. Refusing to rule out nuking the Afg/PK border does not indicate wise military strategy, its just stupid chest-out-puffing. Hillary is in straight up right-wing nutcase territory on this issue. Insane. Can't differentiate between the USSR's thousands of ICBMs loaded with nuclear payloads which were once pointed at us and a ragtag bunch of crazies living in the mountains??? She thinks this HELPS her arguments? I'm sorry, but that's fucking idiotic.

I find it quite interesting that a lot of people liek you are willing to accept this 'nukes on the table' stuff as deterrence but you fail to see the possibility of etiing people on our side by clearly telling them that we won't nuke them. Maybe some moderates are going to be impressed by that stance coming from America. That in itself can be a plus not a minus.

Um, isn't saying that you oppose nuking a city in Pakistan just to kill one guy (and then having Hillary attack you for it!) indicative of a big difference? Jesus, if the MSM really are falling for the "serious" Clinton versus the "shaky" Obama meme, color me shaky - I'd rather be represented by a president who rules out the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents to get at one man.

I must confess that I, too, am baffled by the accusation that Obama doesn't understand discretion. I don't find his comments to be inane or indiscreet, nor do I think that any foreign leader is going to be chortling with glee at the thought of dealing with an indiscreet Obama.

In any case, I think you're misstating what Obama said about the use of nuclear weapons.

"It's only rogue regimes we're talking about here -- they'd be sporting, I'm sure."

If I understand the scenario, Obama has not ruled out nuking any rogue regime. He's ruled out nuking a specific territory to take out a terrorist leader, a completely non-controversial statement. The two scenarios are entirely different.

I find it quite interesting that a lot of people liek you are willing to accept this 'nukes on the table' stuff as deterrence but you fail to see the possibility of etiing people on our side by clearly telling them that we won't nuke them.

Not only that, but when you leave the option of nuking on the table, you are merely encouraging the potential nukee to get their own nukes.

Obama's expression of foreign policy sanity is refreshing after 7 yrs of GWB, and understandably threatening to HRC.

franklyO: "Obama has explicitly said that he is willing to send in troops to Pakistan to go after Osama."

Your antipathy for all things Obama is noted (and extraordinarily tiresome), but your suggestion that he's interested in launching another land war is patently absurd. Let's be clear about what what he said about Pakistan:

"As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

"And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America’s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally."

Let's leave the mischaracterizations & false arguments to the trolls, shall we?

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. As he demonstrated during the debates, Obama just can't seem to help stepping into a big pile of his own making.

His latest flailing about with I-won't-use-nukes-with-citizens-that-is-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 lethal weapon in his military arsenal as he is about how to respond to a double 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 last debate, show Clinton trending up and way ahead by double-double digits over her nearest rival. 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.

Standing in front of a teleprompter and reading a speech written by Richard Clarke isn't a terribly difficult thing to do. Unfortunately for Obama, the American electorate knows that we live in serious times and require more from their President than a dramatic reading from a prepared text.

I concur with frankly0.
Obama is showing how green he is when it comes to foreign policy and using the nuke threat as a deterrent. If he gets to the White House I suspect we will see a very sharp turnaround once he gets briefed on all the intel that is out there.

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

Whereas, I think that all candidates should be required to speak, on occasion, without a teleprompter or a prepared text.

"Today he proved just how Not-Ready-For-Prime-Time the Junior Senator from Illinois is."

Only if you're rabidly partisan. To the rest of us, there was nothing even remotely controversial about his remarks.

"As he demonstrated during the debates, Obama just can't seem to help stepping into a big pile of his own making."

And yet, nobody has been able to identify just what that "big pile" was in this case. Still waiting....

"His latest flailing about with I-won't-use-nukes-with-citizens-that-is-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 lethal weapon in his military arsenal as he is about how to respond to a double terrorist attack or about Presidential diplomacy."

ROFL... And if Obama really had said something like this, you might have a point. Since he didn't, I fear you don't.

"Standing in front of a teleprompter and reading a speech written by Richard Clarke isn't a terribly difficult thing to do."

No shit, Sherlock. Candidates do this all the time.

"Unfortunately for Obama, the American electorate knows that we live in serious times and require more from their President than a dramatic reading from a prepared text."

ROFL.... I'm just going to let this comment stand. Speaking of inanity....

Uh, guys? Obama said that he wouldn't use nukes to try to wipe out al-Qaida bases in Pakistan or Afghanistan -- unless, presumably, they were in a position to be able to use nukes on us. Hillary jumped him for THAT.

What's really horrific about her response is that:

(1) She didn't say she would consider using nukes on Pakistan only if she had reason to think that al-Qaida was about to get its hands on nukes (or, perhaps, really dangerous bioweapons, although even the latter -- in their state of technological development for the next couple of decades -- aren't remotely as dangerous as nukes). She left completely open the impression that she might be willing to use them under other circumstances.

(In any case, it's very hard to see how trying to nuke al-Qaida camps could prevent the organization from getting its hands on Pakistani nukes, or on bioweapons, if matters really have reached that point -- the situation then will almost certainly be beyond any human salvaging.)

(2) She doesn't seem to have given the slightest consideration to the effect this statement may have on politics in Pakistan, which is arguably the single most dangerous country on Earth precisely because it (A) possesses 50 Bombs, and (B) is unstable and vulnerable to a takeover by a-Q sympathizers. Most of the people of Pakistan are still very reluctant to support Islamic Fundamentalist parties -- they got only 7% in the last election (which Musharraf actually rigged to try to increase their vote), and before then they've never gotten more than 4%. But what the hell are the people of Pakistan going to start thinking tomorrow, when their newspaper headlines tell them that the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States is saying that she may sprinkle nukes all over their country just to swat the comparative flies of a non-nuclear-armed al-Qaida? What would WE think? A lot of them will be livid with rage; a lot of others will start thinking that an immediate alliance with al-Qaida may be necessary for the country's goddamned physical survival. And there are far more extremists in Pakistan's military than in its general population -- which is why the country came within a few days of a nuclear war with India, and was apparently only prevented because one low-level government clerk who overheard the plans spilled the beans to London before fleeing for exile there.

What the hell was this fool woman thinking? And, after that statement (which far surpasses in lunacy anything that the Bushites have ever said), why should any sane person allow her within 10 miles of the White House?

Can we stop a sec and give props to "Free Lover of Freedom and Free Liberty"? That shit was hilarious! Kudos, sir-or-madam.

Second, I think the real story is not policy at all. It's communications. Let's backtrack: During the debate, Obama differentiates himself - ostensibly, from Bush, if he's lucky, from the other Dems - by saying "Not talking to people we don't like is stupid."
Hillary sees an opening and takes it. Of course she does. Bully for her. This is student government-level, instinctual politics.
Day later, she overreaches. Obama counterpunches, rather effectively. Again, student government-level, instinctual politics. As basic as it gets. Any real, substantive differences in policy between the two? Not really. Just a little posturing. Obama - "I'm different." HRC - "I'm experienced."

BUT.

The frickin' media goes buck-nutty. Why? Because that's what they do. That's all they know how to do - race to the bottom. "It's a cage match!" "It's a donnybrook!"
No, it's not a "cage match," it's the MSM, desperately gasping for attention.

Next, Obama has his "Missile Gap Moment." The MSM runs to the blogsphere to find some outrage - not a tough job, and hypes it to high heaven.
HRC slides in with a "me, too, but calmer." The MSM starts back in with the "donnybrook" meme.

Again, we see subtle - and narrow - policy differences between the candidates. But the MSM blows it up into Friday Night Fights. Because they suck at what they do. (Other than graphics. They're good at that.)

Point being, both candidates are good at working the always-two-steps-behind-but-really-loud media. Ever-so-slight edge to Obama (for now,) but geez, he's just using the JFK playbook.

It's really not news.

Watching the media act like cocaine-addicted monkeys at a cocaine machine, is depressing. Frankly, they and the GOP are made for each other.

Joe Buck and Dilan Espen are right: Having Obama as the Dem nominee would do a lot to shake up the elite consensus on foreign policy that got us into so much trouble in the lead-up to the Iraq War.

It's worth remembering that ALL of the Clinton era foreign policy luminaries (Albright, Holbrooke, Sandy Berger, Jamie Rubin) supported the Iraq invasion. All these people and their proteges will be put right back into positions of influence if Clinton is the nominee. HRC's nomination will be a full-fledged Clinton restoration. She has not distanced herself in any way from any aspect of the Clinton years, including a foreign policy team that gravely misjudged the national interest with respect to Iraq.

Choosing Obama would shake things up. It would not be a restoration of all the Clinton-era usual suspects. We know less about exactly what different policies would be adopted, but we do know that--unlike with Clinton--we won't be dealing with all the same misguided policy advisors.

"Watching the media act like cocaine-addicted monkeys at a cocaine machine, is depressing."

Definitely, particularly in the way they cheerfully avoid such things as context and nuance that would, if used properly, eliminate the controversy.

Refusing to rule out nuking the Afg/PK border does not indicate wise military strategy, its just stupid chest-out-puffing.

To begin with, Hillary didn't say she refused to rule out the use of nukes in Pakistan -- she simply refused to make ANY general statement about the use of nuclear weapons because she thought it counterproductive. She refused in general to deal with such hypotheticals.

Now I think her response on this point was exactly right, and showed experience and some wisdom.

I certainly agree that it would be a truly extraordinary circumstance that would make us entertain the use of nukes in Pakistan in particular.

But what if we knew for absolute certain that he possessed a nuke himself, and we only knew its approximate whereabouts?

And in general, even acknowledging that only a quite extraordinary circumstance would justify serious thought of using nukes, what upside can there possibly be to telegraphing our intentions here? Because that, you see, is what Obama is doing here.

What I see in this controversy is a bunch of Obama supporters trying, after the fact of Obama's indiscreet remarks, to find some way of justifying them. But on any rational analysis it's better NOT to reveal such intentions than to reveal them.

Remember the concept of diplomacy, which we are supposed to admire? Obama can't seem to exercise standard diplomatic discretion.

Why this would be a positive in him is beyond me.

JoeCHI: "The American electorate doesn't seem to like what Obama is stepping in, either."

Apparently the Republic of Iowa feels differently, as the race there is neck-and-neck-and-neck among the top three, with Obama's 27% to Clinton & Edwards 26% each.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_080307.html

"... the American electorate knows that we live in serious times and require more from their President than a dramatic reading from a prepared text."

This, from one of the most unserious commenters here. You're killing me.

"Now I think her response on this point was exactly right, and showed experience and some wisdom."

Oh, nonsense. The scenario in this case would involve such a wildly inappropriate and horribly counter-productive use of nuclear weapons that ruling it out is not even remotely questionable. And refusing to rule it out cannot be called "wisdom," by any meaningful definition of that word.

"I certainly agree that it would be a truly extraordinary circumstance that would make us entertain the use of nukes in Pakistan in particular."

Not just in Pakistan, but specifically in Pakistan against a terrorist leader. I can think of no circumstances that would merit such an attack.

"But what if we knew for absolute certain that he possessed a nuke himself, and we only knew its approximate whereabouts?"

That's the "ticking time bomb" scenario that torture lovers are so fond of. I don't think it rises to the level of a serious discussion.

"And in general, even acknowledging that only a quite extraordinary circumstance would justify serious thought of using nukes, what upside can there possibly be to telegraphing our intentions here?"

Um... that people everywhere recognize that we have an American leader who is sane? I think that's a pretty potent upside.

"Because that, you see, is what Obama is doing here."

Yup, he's ruling out insane attacks. Why this is controversial still escapes me.

"What I see in this controversy is a bunch of Obama supporters trying, after the fact of Obama's indiscreet remarks, to find some way of justifying them."

What I see in this matter is a bunch of people who don't like Obama trying, and failing, to manufacture a "controversy" where none exists.

"But on any rational analysis it's better NOT to reveal such intentions than to reveal them."

Oh, nonsense. Nor have you displayed any "rational analysis" to support this assertion.

"Remember the concept of diplomacy, which we are supposed to admire?"

Yup. Obama's remarks fit right into that concept.

"Obama can't seem to exercise standard diplomatic discretion."

ROFL.... Obama's remarks are directed at al Qaeda, remember? We don't have any diplomatic ties with them.

"Why this would be a positive in him is beyond me."

A sane leader again? That's a pretty damn big positive.

junebug,

Here's the portion of Obama's speech relevant to the point I was making:

If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

He's explicitly saying that he is willing to send troops into Pakistan -- presumably against Musharraf's will -- to go after Osama (under the obvious precondition that there be actionable intelligence).

Now I simply ask, why did Obama have to say this? Why say something like this when it will only antagonize Musharraf?

You see, it would require a clear understanding of the concept of diplomatic discretion for Obama and his supporters to see why this was such a wrong thing to say.

But he and they lack that understanding.

The more they argue back and forth about what they will do as President, the more people get comfortable with the idea of one of them being President. The policy doesn't matter. What matters is that a Democrat in the office starts to sound like an inevitability.

"But what if we knew for absolute certain that he [Osama] possessed a nuke himself, and we only knew its approximate whereabouts?"

You seem to believe that Osama is a rational actor who can be deterred.

Now, for us, the problem is that the U.S. is not perceived as a rational actor. Obama, by ruling out certain actions, is establishing this. You view it as dumb. I view it as eminently necessary.

"Now I simply ask, why did Obama have to say this? Why say something like this when it will only antagonize Musharraf?"

On this one, you're on more solid ground, but your point here pretty much contradicts your point about Obama's comments on the use of nuclear weapons.

"You seem to believe that Osama is a rational actor who can be deterred."

I suspect he's referring to a scenario where we have it nailed down to a specific region but not to a specific cave or house, or some such thing. I take this about as seriously as I do the "ticking time bomb" scenario that torture supporters use.

JoeCHI should be ignored. He just posts inane anti-Obama crap on literally ever blog or website I check out. You can find him in the comments section of talking points memo, the blogs over at the atlantic, tapped on the american prospect, ezra klein's blog, here. The only place I think he hasnt hit yet is the Plank over at TNR.

I think maybe he's a bot, actually. That would be funny but not beyond the pale for a rival campaign over the Repubs.

Literally, copy-paste stuff.

PaulB,

I will simply note that you have provided absolutely NO reason to say that it is better to say explictly what we would do with nukes in Pakistan or anywhere else than to keep our mouths shut on the possibility.

Why is the general value of discretion on this point so hard for you and others to understand?

And, you know, fisking is a pretty ancient "debating" technique by now. Everybody else has pretty much abandoned it. Maybe you should think about it too?

So let's see, the Obama haters are:

1) Bashing Obama as a warmonger for saying that if he has actionable intel against AQ, and Pakistan refuses to act, that as POTUS, he will act.

2) Bashing Obama as a peacenik for saying that he wouldn't use nukes against AQ.

Let's cut to the chase, shall we? How about you guys just come out an admit that you are knuckle dragging racists and will bash Obama for anything he says no matter what and spare the rest of us the drama?

Kevin: This sort of superficial exchanges fascinate you? Come on, get a life...

"I will simply note that you have provided absolutely NO reason to say that it is better to say explictly what we would do with nukes in Pakistan or anywhere else than to keep our mouths shut on the possibility."

You're the one making the noise and protesting that the comments are beyond the pale. It's up to you to support your assertions, not up to me to disprove them. I will simply note that you have provided absolutely NO reason as to why these remarks are exceptional or damaging. All I've been doing is pointing out that you're failing to provide the context of Obama's remarks and failing to support your assertions. This post of yours continued that failure.

"Why is the general value of discretion on this point so hard for you and others to understand?"

Because you're so vehemently protesting a mild remark that doesn't even remotely rise to the level where it should be seen as controversial, much less generate such a fuss. Who, exactly, is going to be affected by Obama's "lack of discretion" in this case? Osama bin Laden? Musharraf?

"And, you know, fisking is a pretty ancient 'debating' technique by now. Everybody else has pretty much abandoned it. Maybe you should think about it too?"

And now an ad hominem attack? If you can't deal with my remarks, just say so. This was beneath you.

Kevin says that Obama and Hillary desperately want to differentiate themselves, but they simply can't find something of any real substance to disagree about. So rhetorical trivia gets the place of honor instead.

I dunno. Obama's willingness to engage a question seems more than desperation to differentiate. It strikes me more as a temperamental willingness to engage. Maybe Obama needs to dial it back a bit, as some suggest upthread. But I for one like it. It's good practice for the candidates, and good for voters to see and hear.

I do sense some desperation in HRC's ripostes and winced yesterday hearing her talk tough on the nuclear issue. It seemed so labored and cavalier at the same time. Nuclear strikes? Keeping everything on the table? It's what you were supposed to say, back in the 1980s. It's something Cheney would say. Or Bush.

Finally, recall too that two of the three foreign policy dustups over the past ten days began with questions. These were questions over which Obama had no control and which Obama had to answer first. You'd think that the guy stuck with having to answer first would stake out a safe answer

Nope. The guy with the safe answer was a gal.

My impression is that Obama is trying to change the conversation, to get us talking about what our priorities should be, as well as the best means for pursuing them. Use diplomacy first, force when necessary, to deal with the most likely threats facing us. It's simple stuff, and mostly a matter of tone, yet the tone is unfamiliar enough that it's stirring things up.

As for the idea that its so presidential to maintain strategic ambiguity on whether or not we'll use nuclear weapons any way we possibly could -- seems daffy to me. There are many ways to be successfully presidential, and this is at best only one of them.

Obama's saying, "Conventional wisdom got us into this mess. Here's the way out." Clinton's then charing him with being unconventional and hence naive. I'm with Obama.

franklyO: "He's explicitly saying that he is willing to send troops into Pakistan -- presumably against Musharraf's will -- to go after Osama (under the obvious precondition that there be actionable intelligence)."

You need a little vocabulary refresher, franklyO. The sentence in question says nothing explicitly. He says, quite generally, that his administration would act on actionable intelligence about high-value terrorists. Maybe this means a select number of special forces. Maybe it means a limited missile strike. I don't know which it is, but I would welcome either if it meant decapitating the original Al Qaeda.

You want to pile on Obama for leaving the option of a strike against terrorists within Pakistan on the table, and you want to pile on him for leaving the nuclear option off the table in another instance. Look, the fact that you support Clinton is fine. I don't begrudge you your preferences. But you can't have it both ways. That's disingenuous.

"Disputo" is perfectly correct. Given that John Podhoretz was just dragging Obama over the coals in "The Corner" for supposedly stupid jingoism in saying that he might launch non-nuclear military actions against al-Qaida camps within Pakistan's borders (how refreshing it must be for a Bushite to be able to accuse a Democrat of idiotically excessive hawkery!), one wonders what he's had to say about Hillary's deranged double-down on the subject.

By the way, the real inanity here was not Obama's answer, it was that he was asked the question at all.

How about you guys just come out an admit that you are knuckle dragging racists and will bash Obama for anything he says no matter what and spare the rest of us the drama?

That's a pretty disgusting remark, Disputo.

I guess we can't be against Obama without being racist? Is that what it comes down to? I was wondering how long it would take the Obama side to play that slimy card, even with other Democrats.

MRL:

Thank you for noticing my posts and for your encouraging words. I will continue to post where and what I like : )

MRL:

Thank you for noticing my posts and for your encouraging words. I will continue to post where and what I like : )

" will continue to post where and what I like"

We certainly don't have any objection. If you want to set yourself up for mockery and ridicule in more than one forum, that's fine with us.

The more Clinton and Obama go after each other, the better it is for John Edwards. All right by me.

MRL:

BTW, I'd like to post at The Plank, but I don't subscribe to the TNR. Perhaps you have a password I can use? ;)

Oh, and frankly0? I did, in fact, provide a reason why it is better that Obama said what he did about the use of nuclear weapons, or the lack thereof. It's interesting that you chose to pretend otherwise. Still waiting for you to provide a reason why Obama's remarks were damaging in any way.

"The more Clinton and Obama go after each other, the better it is for John Edwards."

I'm not sure it is, actually. I like Edwards a lot but what I'm seeing is that Obama and Clinton are sucking all of the oxygen out of the room and Edwards is pretty clearly fading.

Personally, I think the national polls are less important than the polls in the earliest primary/caucus states, but even there Edwards has been fading.

PaulB,

I have already and repeatedly made the argument for NOT in general revealing one's intentions with regard to using nukes -- that it unnecessarily signals your intentions to the enemy, even if its actual use is truly remote.

I pointed out that you have provided no upside to revealing one's intentions, as did Obama.

That is why it's a simple failure of discretion on Obama's part for him to have done so.

And the problem is, it's consistent with his failure to exercise discretion on any number of points.

And I apologize for the remark about the fisking, which came out as ad hominem. I just find the technique distracting and inefficient.

I don't know where Disputo gets that, franklyO, but your reaction to everything Obama says & does is reflexive & visceral. While I've never found any of your comments about him even suggestive of racism, it's pretty clear to everyone that you've got a serious grudge against the man, and that fact makes many of us dismiss your comments about him out of hand.

Well, more important than the horse-race issues, is the real question: Was that actually a good judgment call by Obama? I mean, not per running for President, I mean the right attitude about Pakistan to actually have? And how much hypocrisy will be heard on the Right from those who say they would do anything anywhere to stop terrorists, but don't want Democrats talking that way or getting "credit" for it?

PaulB: Edwards is ahead of these two unelectables in Iowa.

I don't know which is more revolting. Hillary preening and posturing as Ms. Tough on foreign policy or Barack "me-too" Obama trying to be macho. yech.

Um... that people everywhere recognize that we have an American leader who is sane? I think that's a pretty potent upside.

I guess I had some difficulty taking this seriously.

Look, don't you think that there are a million ways that Obama might indicate he was sane without making such a remark? Why make that remark in particular, when there may be a real downside to it?

Really, this is what the Obama side can't seem to argue: why Obama should have made the particular remarks he did make.

It's all ex post facto justification: he made the remarks, and they scramble to justify them, somehow. No one would start out by saying that those were remarks they wished Obama would make, before he made them.

They do, however, remind us that Bloomberg is, as far as I know, the only US political leader with the guts to point out that, no, in fact, terrorists aren't not hiding under the bed waiting to eat you, that the world is full of plenty of non-terrorist-related problems, and that letting every US policy be dictated by this issue is insane.

I would like to believe that Edwards has a similar worldview, but have seen nothing to indicate so. On the other hand, he hasn't so far, at least to my knowledge, given any sort of "we will fight them with our bare hands, we will fight them with our bare teeth, we will give up every ounce of treasure, every civil liberty we possess, every fragment of decency in our souls, in our endless battle against these ghosts" sort of speech, so their remains hope.

I would like to believe that, in the case of Obama, this is just a case of consultant fever, not his true thinking, but who knows? I think it's pretty clear that in the case of Clinton this is the way she sees the world.

This thread has really depressed me about HRH. I was favoring Edwards or Obama; and now I'm afraid of her. Unfortunately her bellicosity may get her the nomination and final victory.

"I have already and repeatedly made the argument for NOT in general revealing one's intentions with regard to using nukes -- that it unnecessarily signals your intentions to the enemy, even if its actual use is truly remote."

That's not an argument; that's an assertion. You have not supported that assertion. My questions still stand: What enemy? Who is affected, negatively or positively, by this statement? How are U.S. interestes affected in any way by electing a president who has made this remark?

"I pointed out that you have provided no upside to revealing one's intentions, as did Obama."

I did, actually, even though I don't have to. It's up there in my earlier posts. In any case, you have failed, and continue to fail, to support your assertions, and the burden of proof is on you, not on me.

"That is why it's a simple failure of discretion on Obama's part for him to have done so."

Again, this is simply unsupported assertion. That's not an argument.

"And the problem is, it's consistent with his failure to exercise discretion on any number of points."

None of which you've identified. If you wish to broaden your argument, then by all means, do so, but be prepared to be asked to support each of those other supposed failures of discretion.

junebug,

Yes, I do have something of a visceral reaction to Obama.

He strikes me as rather phony, self-righteous, and narcissistic. He might make a good writer, but his seems exactly wrong as a political leader. His followers too often strike me as condescending, moralizing, and with Purity sticks up their ass. They pretty much represent the worst aspect of the Democratic Party -- and the Democratic Party does have its less flattering side.

I'd very much rather NOT see him and them in positions representing the national Democratic Party.

"I guess I had some difficulty taking this seriously."

I assure you that it was every bit as serious as your assertions. And I have precisely the same attitude about your arguments thus far.

"Look, don't you think that there are a million ways that Obama might indicate he was sane without making such a remark?"

Given the insanity of the current administration and the subsequent reaction to U.S. policies all over the world, I don't have a problem with this remark of Obama's.

"Why make that remark in particular, when there may be a real downside to it?"

So far, you have not actually shown any real downside -- you have simply asserted that such a downside exists.

"Really, this is what the Obama side can't seem to argue: why Obama should have made the particular remarks he did make."

Sigh.... The burden of proof isn't on us, it's on you. And so far, you haven't been able to provide any support at all to your assertions that Obama shouldn't have made the remark.

"It's all ex post facto justification: he made the remarks, and they scramble to justify them, somehow."

Except that we're not really "justifying them," per se, we're more looking on in bemusement to the dramatic overreaction on the part of some, an overreaction that still has no real support, as far as I can tell.

"No one would start out by saying that those were remarks they wished Obama would make, before he made them."

Um, actually, that's not quite true. Such things came up with the prior Obama/Clinton kerfluffle, where he accused Clinton of being Bush-Cheney lite. Establishing himself as definitely non-Bush-Cheney is a plus.

That's not an argument; that's an assertion. You have not supported that assertion.

Suffice it to say, it's been a assertion pretty much accepted by all administrations, and in diplomatic circles, from before the Bush administration.

I should think that the burden really falls on the claim that all that accumulated experience is wrong.

"Yes, I do have something of a visceral reaction to Obama."

Trust me, that much was obvious.

"He strikes me as rather phony, self-righteous, and narcissistic."

LOL... At the moment, I cannot think of a single politician, certainly none of the current crop of Presidential candidates, for whom this description would not apply.

"He might make a good writer, but his seems exactly wrong as a political leader."

So far, you haven't been able to state just why, though, other than the fact that you have a visceral dislike of him.

"His followers too often strike me as condescending, moralizing, and with Purity sticks up their ass."

LOL... Because they have the temerity to disagree with you? For the record, by the way, I'm not a "follower" of Obama. I like all of the Democratic presidential candidates, but if I had to vote today, it would be for Edwards. I'm responding on this thread solely because I'm bemused by the fairly vicious attack, wholly out of proportion to the supposed offense.

"They pretty much represent the worst aspect of the Democratic Party -- and the Democratic Party does have its less flattering side."

In other words, they're partisan, as are you.

I like Edwards a lot but what I'm seeing is that Obama and Clinton are sucking all of the oxygen out of the room and Edwards is pretty clearly fading.

I don't know. HRC and her MSM cheerleaders are successfully bringing up Obama negs to rival (or is that revile?) her own, whereas Edwards' negs are still in the low 30s. He may very well end up being the strategic choice come the primaries.

I don't get the claim that there are no substantive differences between Obama and Hillary. ... Obama has explicitly said that he is willing to send in troops to Pakistan to go after Osama. Hillary has indicated she would not make such an explicit commitment. Obama ruled out the use of nuclear weapons in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Hillary has said that she will not in general make a commitment on the use of nuclear weapons. Now in each case Obama is deviating from standard policy and approach from before Bush's time. In each case Hillary would appear to be adhering to them. How does this not represent a serious disagreement?

Posted by: frankly0

Exactly. Drum's policy IQ falls into double digits on Iraq and foreign policy.

franklyO: "He strikes me as rather phony, self-righteous, and narcissistic. He might make a good writer, but his seems exactly wrong as a political leader. His followers too often strike me as condescending, moralizing, and with Purity sticks up their ass."

Okay, as long as we've established that it's a personal thing for you. Thing is, you're not complaining about his phoniness, self-righteousness, or narcissism here. You're twisting his positions into something that they are not, and you wind up doing it in a way that is, ironically, condescending. ("But he [Obama] and they [his supporters] lack that understanding." 2:35 p.m.; "Why is the general value of discretion on this point so hard for you and others to understand?" -- 2:40 5 p.m.; "I guess I had some difficulty taking this seriously." -- 3:18 p.m.)

Just be aware that much of what you complain about applies equally -- if not more -- to yourself.

"Suffice it to say, it's been a assertion pretty much accepted by all administrations, and in diplomatic circles, from before the Bush administration."

Sorry, but that isn't going to fly. You're making some very specific claims about Obama. It's up to you to support them, not do a bunch of handwaving about "discretion is good," assuming that that's what all of those "diplomatic circles" are saying.

"I should think that the burden really falls on the claim that all that accumulated experience is wrong."

You have yet to show that that "accumulated experience" has anything to do with Obama's remarks, much less what that "accumulated experience" actually is.

You're still arguing in circles. The fact that you cannot come up with a coherent argument should be tipping you off that you're letting your visceral dislike of Obama get in the way of your good judgment.

frankly0 sez:

That's a pretty disgusting remark, Disputo.

Disgusting? Well, sure, in the sense that the truth is often disgusting. In fact, in the following quote you explicitly* say that you are a racist:

Yes, I do have something of a visceral reaction to Obama. He strikes me as rather phony, self-righteous, and narcissistic.

franklyo goes on to say:

I guess we can't be against Obama without being racist?

I of course said nothing of the kind. What I said it that those who "bash" Obama for being both "A" and "Not A", are racists. I'll expand upon that a bit and say that such irrational Obama bashers from the Left may also be anti-Xian bigots. In any case, they certainly are not rational in their criticism.

---
* Using your own definition of "explicit" found in the following quote:

He's explicitly saying that he is willing to send troops into Pakistan

(emphasis added)

Which was your distillation of this quote from Obama:

If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

Disputo, absent any evidence one way or another, I'll continue to assume that frankly0's problem is excessive partisanship rather than racism. What I find most interesting is that while he can bring himself to acknowledge his partisanship in this instance, he cannot bring himself to recognize the affect it has on his arguments, which on this thread amount to little more than, "It just is, okay?"

Or should that have been "effect"? Damn ... I'm always getting tripped up by those two words, for some reason.

Obama's statements this week are good politics, not good foreign policy. Remember, JFK making false claims about how we were losing the missile race to the russians in 1959. He knew it was wrong but it was good politics. Hiliary's failure to respond this week, after calling him naive last week, is an indication that it would be bad politically to contradict him. Indeed, can you imagine her, or any republican candidate, saying that we should not go after the bad guys whatever they hide. As Clarke explained, it was Bill's unwillingness to attack Osama in Afghanistan that allowed him to push for 9/11. Obama is talented, of all the candidates, he recognized this opening and took advantage of it.

To be pedantic, if franklyo was being excessively *partisan*, he wouldn't be going out of his/her way to bash someone who very well may be running in the general for the Dems, but I take your pt.

The interesting thing is, I wasn't even thinking of franklyo when I wrote that earlier comment, but since he/she took the bait, well....

The thing about "phony, self-righteous, and narcissistic" is rather telling. As someone who had Obama as my *state* Senator, I can tell you that he is none of those things, but that is exactly the kind of description you'll find from polite racists who see every black pol as a baptist preacher.

More generally, my position as someone who wants to see a Dem elected at POTUS in 2008 is not to mortally wound any of the potential candidates.

Based on resume alone, I'd prefer to see Richardson, but so far he has not "interviewed" well enough to make it into the top tier. I only have two general problems with HRC. One is strategic. Her negs are so consistently high, I do not believe that she will be able to survive in November. The second is that, in general, I believe that she will give us 8 yrs of what her husband gave us. While great, especially given the insanity of the last 7 yrs, I am really looking for more. In any case, I'd happily vote for HRC, Obama, Edwards, Richardson or anyone else the Dems send up (except for Lieberman -- and if HRC picks him as her running mate, well then all bets are off).

jeez, joeCHI, aren't your copy 'n' paste fingers tired?

except for Lieberman

That raises an interesting question. Will a Lieberman pro-war-type hawk be chosen to be the Democratic Party's VP candidate? And who might that be?

The difference is sharp and clear.

Obama=change.
Clinton=more of the same.

How you can not see this, frankly, boggles the mind.

I am unable to discern that sharp and clear difference between the two front running Democratic Pary presidential candidates, let alone a dull and opaque one.

"To be pedantic, if franklyo was being excessively *partisan*, he wouldn't be going out of his/her way to bash someone who very well may be running in the general for the Dems, but I take your pt."

I was using "partisan" not in the sense of a fervent opinion for or against a particular party, but in the sense of a fervent opinion for or against a particular individual.

"The thing about 'phony, self-righteous, and narcissistic' is rather telling."

In more ways than one, as I noted above. How many times have we been told, for example, about how the oh-so-manly Republican candidates like McCain, Giuliani, et. al., are truly "authentic"? I'll defer to your experience on the other matters, since I have no personal experience with Obama or with the behavior you describe.

"More generally, my position as someone who wants to see a Dem elected at POTUS in 2008 is not to mortally wound any of the potential candidates."

While Obama's remarks are indeed capable of being twisted (see, for example, the difference between what Obama actually said and frankly0's paraphrases), I don't think any of them rise to the level where they will do him significant damage. We'll have to wait and see, though.

"In any case, I'd happily vote for HRC, Obama, Edwards, Richardson or anyone else the Dems send up (except for Lieberman -- and if HRC picks him as her running mate, well then all bets are off)."

No argument here. I'm happy with pretty much the entire field.

Disputo: "The thing about "phony, self-righteous, and narcissistic" is rather telling. As someone who had Obama as my *state* Senator, I can tell you that he is none of those things, but that is exactly the kind of description you'll find from polite racists who see every black pol as a baptist preacher."

In the case of franklyO, the only things I find "telling" about his comments are that a) they get to the point that his differences have less to do with the issues & more to do with his personal feelings, and b) these are simply pejorative terms that can be lobbed at virtually any public figure. Having said that, I'll repeat that nothing I've ever seen franklyO post suggests even a hint of racism, and he's in the unfair position of having to defend himself against that suggestion. I'd like to see that aspect of this conversation dropped.

By the way, I agree that Obama is anything but phony, self-righteous, or narcissistic. When I taught on Chicago's West side, we did a Saturday program for the boys. At the time, Obama was a little-known candidate running for the State Senate on the south side of the city. One of my colleagues had read about him in The Reader & shot off a letter asking him if he'd like to participate in a mentoring program we were doing. He came out on a crappy Saturday just to hang out with a small handful of kids who weren't old enough to vote, and didn't live in his district, even if they wanted to vote for him, anyway. He was great with the kids, and I was struck by how laid-back he was.

Actually, I think Obama has much more legislative experience than Clinton and would probably be a better president because of it. It is in their foreign and military policies that I cannot discern much difference.

It's kind of funny to read so many people arguing vehemently over the teeny-tiny differences in policy evidenced by the candidates, many of which come down to one candidate declarting firmly that he/she will consider a particular course and the other refusing to confirm or deny that he/she would consider such a course.

This whole thing on their part is not about policy. It is about crafting the intangibles of how they will be perceived by Demiocrats and by the general electorate. Barack is open and honest. Hillary is measured and cautious. Barack is intellectually prepared. Hillary is tough. Barack is compassionate. And so on and so on. The policy prescriptions differ in the most quibbling of details. The stakes, though, are immeasurable.

I doubt if this will help Obama with this audience, but you should be aware that a good number of neocons are supporting his candidacy. Besides Robert Kagan and myself who are publicly on record, I've heard a surprising amount of good opinions from folks you guys wouldn't expect, especially since McCain's meltdown.

Will a Lieberman pro-war-type hawk be chosen to be the Democratic Party's VP candidate? And who might that be?
Posted by: Brojo on August 3, 2007 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

Were we sitting in the same room, I'd shake on a $100 bet that Hillary will pick Lieberman.

The Kiss.

The thing about "phony, self-righteous, and narcissistic" is rather telling. As someone who had Obama as my *state* Senator, I can tell you that he is none of those things, but that is exactly the kind of description you'll find from polite racists who see every black pol as a baptist preacher.

That's just another chickenshit smear out of you, finding some desperate way to tar me with the accusation of racism because I don't like Obama.

Is this what we can expect from the Obama side? This kind of crap? Is this what we're going to have to put up with for four years if Obama is elected? Accusations of racism every time we express a dislike of Obama? We aren't allowed to dislike a candidate anymore? This is progress? Do you really think the American people are going to tolerate this shit?

When I talk about Obama supporters who are patronizing and moralizing, could there be a more perfect example than you?

Disputo really is degrading the tone of one of the best blogs with this level of fanaticism and intolerance and mud-slinging.

In the case of franklyO, the only things I find "telling" about his comments are that a) they get to the point that his differences have less to do with the issues & more to do with his personal feelings, and b) these are simply pejorative terms that can be lobbed at virtually any public figure.

No, excuse me, these "personal feelings" are nothing more than the very common feelings people often have when judging politicians. We may not trust them, we may feel that they aren't tempermentally suited to be a politician. We may feel that their heart is not in the right place when it comes to judging issues.

As far as the particular impression I have of Obama, that he's rather phony, moralizing, and narcissistic, I clearly meant that he exhibits those traits to a degree uncommon for politicians. Acting as though those are just somehow generic pejoratives is groundless. You may agree or not; but those are my reactions; I'm entitled to them.

I certainly don't see Hillary as self-righteous or narcissistic, compared to Obama. She's more standard issue politician, which is both good and bad, good because she's predictable, bad because she's not going to do much remarkable. She is something of a phony though.

Edwards I see as bolder, but likewise as neither self righteous nor narcissistic. Nor do I see him as especially phony, though he does have a pandering side.

But I don't see either Hillary or Edwards as representing something I actively dislike the way I see Obama. I see him as a classic, completely annoying scold.

I don't like smug representatives of an elite who think they know what other people should be doing. I pretty much detest self righteousness and narcissism, particularly in political leaders. It represents the very worst aspect of the Democratic Party. Obama has attracted such a crowd to him, and I don't see anything positive in it.

If you want examples, take a gander at Disputo.

I'd like to see that aspect of this conversation dropped.

If you don't think that racism is driving alot of the anti-Obama hatred, you haven't been paying attention.

But as I already said, I wasn't even thinking of franklyo when I made that comment. He/she's the one who made that an issue about him/herself.