Answering the Hypothetical
I know I criticized Obama’s threat to launch an attack into Pakistan, but Hillary’s criticism of his refusal to consider nuclear weapons is a good illustration of why he’s still my favourite candidate.
Asked about Obama's speech and his comments about nuclear weapons, Clinton chided her fellow senator about addressing hypotheticals.
"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. ... I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons," Clinton said.
Asked about the notion of unilateral U.S. military action in Pakistan to get al-Qaida leadership: "How we do it should not be telegraphed or discussed for obvious reasons."
As John Dickerson said in Slate, Obama isn’t afraid to answer the hypothetical; to give answers to questions that the President will likely have to face and to allow voters to get a clear picture of the candidate they will be asked to trust with making those decisions.
Look at Hillary’s response to the same questions. A non-answer about whether or not she may launch nuclear missiles against a current ally, no discussion of what she may or may not do in the case of actionable intelligence on al Qaeda leadership. It reminds me of the confirmation hearing for Alito and Roberts; avoid every question that might pin down your position by claiming them to be hypothetical and therefore something you can’t address.
In short, they are not really terrible answers; they are not even answers at all. They are just words to avoid having to respond to the questions. All you get from Hillary and the other candidates is guesswork about how they will respond to crises that have every chance of coming to pass. Under such circumstances, it is little wonder that few people are willing to vote or that the choices tend to be less than inspiring.
But all of the important questions are hypothetical, and the decisions that voters are asked to make at the booth are based on what they think the candidates responses will be to those hypothetical scenarios. Giving straight answers to tough questions was one of the reason John McCain was able to do as well as he did back in 2000. Now it’s Obama who isn’t afraid to give people answers to the important questions. And wouldn’t it be nice if you could vote for someone whose views you were actually aware of and not guessing at?
It’s little wonder the other candidates are moving against Obama on this. If he keeps answering the tough questions, the press could get used to it and may stop allowing the others to get away with their avoidance techniques. Of course, that’s probably too much to hope for.
