Link

1. Obama didn’t say, that he wouldn’t ask Musharraf first about striking in Pakistan. He also didn’t say he’d topple Mushie or such. He said, if Mushie wouldn’t agree, then we’d strike (like in Waziristan) if we had a major target like Osama or maybe nuclear prep. site (terrorist, not Pakistani.) Now, what right-winger wouldn’t get raves for saying that? So they can’t honestly criticize Obama for that. If they mean, he shouldn’t have said it, maybe - but what is a candidate supposed to do if asked about that, just give another mushy answer about Mushie? Maybe it was better to go ahead and say what most Presidents would actually do if enough danger existed, that’s part of Obama’s approach versus the same old doubletalk, isn’t it?

2. There’s no contradiction between Obama first saying that he’d meet with some unsavory world leaders, and he’s against the war in Iraq, versus the threat described in #1. Meeting with the leaders doesn’t mean you can’t do something ugly once in a while around them, and such meetings happen partly to tell them what they can and can’t get away with (it is rather strongly suspected that we told Pakistan after 9-11, they’d be toast if they didn’t cooperate. I don’t know how literal “toast” is here, but…)

Also, being against a given badly conceived and executed war is not being a peacenick, that would be contradictory about striking against more immediate enemies in an effective way. Indeed, lots of Democrats’ gripe against Bush’s Iraq misadventure was that we should have finished up better in Afghanistan and maybe even made some incursions into Pakistan instead.

3. About saying no nukes, well…I’ll pass on that, since there is a lot of deep gaming about what we should say. But even then, maybe lots of voters actually want to know what a candidate thinks. In any case, it’s premature to rule out Obama as serious on defense and rule Hillary in as the required front runner.

For comparison, here is some of what Hillary and others said about the same subject:

Clinton, 8/2: “… (Clinton) did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998.

“‘If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured,’ (Clinton) said.”

Link

Edwards, 8/2:

“My belief is that we have a responsibility to find bin Laden and al Qaeda wherever they operate,” Edwards said on camera. “I think we need to maximize pressure on Musharraf and the Pakistani government. If they can’t do the job, then we have to do it.”

via Kos, Link

Well, it now looks like Hillary will be it, but Obama had a good run at it, and still has a chance.
If it’s both: Hillary-Obama, the rednecks will never live it down if they win… Black man and white woman together in the White House! (Well, technically the Veep lives down the road, but the idea…)

*The* worst thing GWB has done is to make both brands of bullshit more powerful. Come back Mr Clinton, all is forgiven.

Here’s a stab: (1) The whole thing is ridiculously ill-defined, as the budget is an estimate of next year’s spending vs. revenue. (2) Zero public debt would actually be a bad thing, as it destroys the ability of the federal government to effectively manage the money supply. (The feds have different responsibilities than states, you know.) Some debt is a good idea. (3) The “exceptions” will either be too narrow to be give the desired flexibility, or so broad that the whole thing will be useless. Not to mention (4) in our actual world, a BBA is only supported by people who lack the willpower to actually balance the damn budget, and want a cheap symbolic action.

Getting the budget close to balance is a good idea, and can be done without mucking around with the Constitution. Clinton and Congress actually did it, remember? Constitutional amendments are almost always publicity stunts, not thoughtful policy proposals.

So, please tell me, what is wrong with living within our means as a country? You have to do it, I have to do it, businesses have to do it or they go bankrupt. Why not the country?

A Balanced Budget Amendment simply means you pay as you go. If you want a new program, then find the money for it first; either by reducing one program or raising revenue.

Hmmmm……that’s what I do when I want to make a purchase.

Just makes good sense….

Look forward to bringing real change in Washington and especially to our science policy.

Thanks again,

Bill