I have no qualms about what Obama said.  He's still the better choice.  After living through a horrendous number of years with the Bush administration, I welcome the change Barack will bring.  Preach on!

No use of tactical nukes if civilians are threatened.

Sounds right to me.

Keeping nuclear threats on the table as leverage on other countries has set a bad example that is cascading across the world quicker than we can stop it; Obama is right to turn the page on that disasterously failed approach to nuclear nonproliferation.  

There are two issues here: politics and policy.  We can all debate the policy issue dealing with Pakistan, but it seems incontrovertible that the story is becoming his misspeaks.  He is losing control of his image as a change agent and defending or clarifying his statements too much. This is tough politics and will kill him in the run-up to the primaries if he and his campaign do not get a handle on it.  Democrats want to win in 2008, the last thing we need is someone who is going to make statements now that will be used to kill him in the general.  Remember, "I voted for the funding before I voted against it"?  I am afraid if Clinton retains her poise, Obama does not have ANY room for error in the way he presents his views.

Ah, good.  The Spin Control Team (SCT) has arrived. And, their papers seem in order, they have a considerable amount experience from the Clinton years. Things were getting a bit out of hand around here.

Start parsing boys!!

Clinton and the other Democratic candidates are looking naive and inexperienced by refusing to rule out and openly discussing not using nuclear weapons.

Why is everyone attacking Obama?

They are because he represents the future: a more, transparent government without PAC money and special interests.

It is ludicris to think that using nuclear weapons is a "winning" strategy for Democratic primary voters. The Democratic candidates are hand-delivering voters to Obama.

Sen. Barack Obama has been leading the Democratic debate this week.

Barack, the American people have taken notice. Change is not an option. And, we are all proud.

The AP got the story very wrong, and it's appalling. This kind of sloppiness (or deliberate inaccuracy) is exactly the reason these candidates have to be so careful and scripted. Which, of course, leads to hit pieces about the candidates being so careful and scripted. This is the kind of stuff that is discouraging.

I don't have a problem with anything he's said there. Hey Obama how does it feel to be in Bush's shoes?
Does anyone know who the AP reporter was? Wouldn't be the same one who labeled those pictures from New Orleans as "looters" and "finding what they need" would it? Oh I know that one eventually got blamed on Bush, but I'm just wondering.

Mr. Obama, stop talking extemporaneously. You put your foot into it everytime.

Yeah, but is Obama substantively right?  Everyone is arguing about the politics of it (good or bad for primaries and/or general election), but is he right on the substance?  Michael O'Hanlon (no dove and not affiliated with the Obama camp) says he's right in today's WaPo, but other than that, I've seen little discussion of the substance of Obama's comments.  Just whether it'll help him or hurt him or whether he'll get permanently tagged as inexperienced... if he's right substantively, then, he doesn't deserve the tag. If Obama's right substantively, then, HRC (and those auditioning to be her VP and cabinet secretaries, Dodd, Biden, Richardson) are playing politics and they know it.

I've also seen no reporting in the MSM of Obama's nuclear non-proliferation work (in conjunction with Sen. Lugar) in light of Obama's recent comments. That's a pretty big missing piece in the narrative if you ask me.

And BTW, I could use this template to reply to about 3/4 of the campaign stories churned out by the MSM:
Yeah, but is [Candidate's name] substantively right?  Everyone is arguing about the politics of it (good or bad for primaries and/or general election), but is [Candidate's name] right on the substance?  [Expert] says [Candidate's name] is right in [some media form], but other than that, I've seen little discussion of the substance of [Candidate's name]'s comments.

Every democrat in the field agrees with what Obama said!! This piling on is just politics--but it's fair as he is running for POTUS.  

Shadow: "No use of tactical nukes if civilians are threatened. Sounds right to me. "


So if Aasyd decides to hide himself and his merry band of terroritst behind the burqas of the womanfolk, then the tact nukes stay in the holster?

Why not we just sell off the nukes on the black market?  They're of no use to us.

Dave, tn, are you suggesting that Bush was concerned over what happend in New Orleans?  We all know that story,  I for one have had family members actually go and work in the New Orleans area to help with the efforts down there and they were ashamed to watch the dunce in chief claim things are getting better there.  Back to the issue of the "use of nukes"  it takes a great person to realize the ramifications of such weapons.  Should we go back to the old "Cold War" theory of nuke em?  Obama is thinking outside of the box instead of this "cowboy machoism" crap.  Clearly we have to defend ourselves but in this world as it is right now and the mess created in Iraq, that could prove to be a very dangerous step in the wrong direction.  We need a leader who can repair the damage that has been done by this administration both in the world community and here at home.  This nation is becoming exactly the opposite of what the dunce in chief claimed he was "a uniter not a divider".  

I am conservative but Obama seems to be trying to openly discuss some issues of concern without a lot of "care" that most politicians. He makes a lot of sense in many areas and I think it's refreshing to hear direct answers to tough questions. However, that. of course, means he has absolutely no chance of surviving into the election and will be eatten alive by HRC and all the other, by the polls, politicians out there.

DeeMan

How is not being eager to use necular weapons a bad thing? Those weapons are ment to be used as only a form of last resort. Anyone who thinks otherwise has clearly not matured past the elementary school level.

yeh, so barack,  humility is a virtue.  all they want is for you to feel threatend. It was said once or twice "FEAR NOTHING BUT FEAR ITSELF"  keep on keepin on man.

It is interesting how lightly we talk about nukes, etc. We need to be reminded what they are all about.
This poem is from Hiroshima-Nagasaki: A Pictorial Record of the Atomic Destruction (1978).

How could I ever forget that flash of light!
In a moment, thirty thousand people ceased to be,
The cries of fifty thousand killed
At the bottom of crushing darkness;

Through yellow smoke whirling into light,
Buildings split, bridges collapsed,
Crowded trams burnt as they rolled about
Hiroshima, all full of boundless heaps of embers.
Soon after, skin dangling like rags;
With hands on breasts;
Treading upon the broken brains;
Wearing shreds of burn cloth round their loins;
There came numberless lines of the naked,
               all crying.
Bodies on the parade ground, scattered like
               jumbled stone images of Jizo;
Crowds in piles by the river banks,
               loaded upon rafts fastened to the shore,
Turned by and by into corpses
               under the scorching sun;
in the midst of flame
               tossing against the evening sky,
Round about the street where mother and
               brother were trapped alive under the fallen house
The fire-flood shifted on.
On beds of filth along the Armory floor,
Heaps, and God knew who they were?
Heaps of schoolgirls lying in refuse
Pot-bellied, one-eyed, with half their skin peeled
               off bald.
The sun shone, and nothing moved
But the buzzing flies in the metal basins
Reeking with stagnant ordure.
How can I forget that stillness
Prevailing over the city of three hundred thousands?
Amidst that calm,
How can I forget the entreaties
Of departed wife and child
Through their orbs of eyes,
Cutting through our minds and souls?

Nuclear weapons are the answer to nothing!!! How stupid and careless,we, who don't remember, have become.

When Hillary admits her vote was a mistake or that she should have read the National Intelligence Estimate before giving GWB carte blanche, then I will start thinking about lesser examples of rash thought/talk.

Being a Republican (of the old-school variety, at least) I think Barack Obama is a breath of fresh air in a tired game of political power, money, and manipulation. People don't like him because he refuses to play by the rules. Other candidates don't want the true gist of his message actually reaching the American public b/c they know Barack will be the hands-down choice of the "common folk" so they twist around his words and resort to childish name-calling so as to not threaten their chances of winning. The political bs ends with Obama and opponents in both parties don't want it to end yet, so he is their biggest threat. They realize that partisanship which divides the country for the sake of votes is coming to an abrupt halt and they will do anything in their power to keep things the way they are, a divided mess. Corruption can't always win, though. Hillary will shoot herself in the foot one of these days, John Edwards is already behind the race with Obama, and the current breed of republicans (ie: neocons) don't stand a chance of winning anyway. I am behind Barack Obama %100. It's time to take back America and unite our broken country! Vote "UNITY" this election!

One must admit that he is beginning to show his inexperience. Maybe a second on the ticket, not quite ready for the big chair. How about Edwards & Obama?

Terry:And invading Pakistan[never mind using nukes,which the Democrats seem to think will only kill bin Laden[if he is even around],will not create an even larger mess? You people are amazing. All of this criticism over how bad the Iraqi civilians have it in a conventional-arms war and you guys have no problem irradiating most of Pakistan and its neighboring countries. Obama mistepped. Had he not,he would not have found it neccesary to ''clarify''his remarks.[''except civilians'']. Pray tell Obama,how does a nuclear missle differentuate between bin Laden and Abu Laden? [Make no mistake. The Euros,who are in striking distance of Pakistan are livid. So is Musharrefs government which has labeled Obama,''deranged''].Hows that for ''uniting''? Even the Dems think he's crazy.

It doesn’t take a great person to realize the ramifications of nuclear weapons, it takes a great person to know when that issue should be brought up or discussed. We as a country have been carrying a big stick around for a long time but unfortunately the walking softly has not been part of our policy. These people in Iraq and Afghanistan are of a different culture than us. What makes us believe they want to be like us? Pushing our way of Government and culture on others is not what made this country great. I believe the next President, whether it is a Democrat or Republican, has a great deal to do in the domestic category. President Bush is a polarizing leader but I am not naïve enough to think Senator Clinton or Senator Obama would not be polarizing also. This time let’s vote a steadfast, open-minded, and proud to be an American President that can gather up all the factions in this country and get on with being a world superpower. We have a lot to offer in this world; technology, humanitarian help, and a diverse people that have good ideas. We need a person who, in my humble opinion, has not formally thrown his/ her hat into the race yet. So far all I see with ALL the candidates is the same old regurgitated political filth.

Looks like Andrea Mitchell, the obedient Clintonite, offers another spin-story devoid of any journalistic talent.  Give credit to Sen. Obama for challenging Washington DC's conventional wisdom.  Thus far, conventional wisdom has not worked...and the status quo must be changed.  While MSNBC's and Andrea Mitchell's "front-runner" Hillary is picking fights with an undersecretary of defense, Sen. Obama is offering bold initiatives and new direction to ensure a safer and secure America.
Why doesn't Andrea Mitchell or the media ask Sen. Clinton her plans for America?  Unfortunately, she won't get a straight answer because HRC is going to take a poll before answering.

Kevin, Sheboygan, Wisc., last resort, that's what we thought until the dunce in cheif decided to invade a country that had nothing to do with the attacks of Sept 11, 2001.  Nukes are bad news no matter what anyone thinks.  They destroy everything and for what?

Let's get to the real point. This conversation is not just about getting ourselves away from the globally perilous habit of threatening nuclear holocost (for all), it is more deeply about weaning ourselves from the belief that the US can only be "super" by means of its military might.
We can not afford to continue this destruction-based diplomacy and economy any longer. Look at aging Manhattan and Minneapolis infrastructure. Look at our health plans and education systems compared to the civilized world. Why was the US rated next to last as the "best place to raise a child? It is not because we "cannot afford it", it is because we prioritize military build-up - and therefore threatened use instead of fixing these deficiencies.
If Obama stumbled, it was likely because he is the only one able to see where we need to go, but also understands that the media and probably general population still resist even the best of change.
Barak I am with you. It's time to think like global citizens and leaders. That is the cure for global terrorism.

Obama is just like the rest of the anti-war crowd. He's willing to take on any foe, anywhere, as long as we aren't there. They always want to fight where we're not. With few exceptions, Hollywood hates war. But listen to them wail about Darfur. Al Quaeda is admittedly in Iraq, but Obama wants to pull OUT!. Hey, I know, to hell with Iraq. Lets go into Pakistan! This is the same bunch that frets over the rights of terrorist murderers and wrings their hands over Iraqi civilian casualties, but if you mention the genocide that may accompany our retreat, they say, "Thats not OUR problem!!" This nitwit even wants to negotiate with the terrorists! These guys don't understand negotiating. They're hardened, street-fighting thugs who see feeble negotiating efforts as weakness. How bad is this guy? He even makes Hillary look good. As for the Bush haters, newsflash - This isn't 1968 anymore. Woodstock's over. He may be lame on immigration, but the President is trying to protect your butts. Why don't you quit trying to undermine him and our country? The latest lunatic belief is that Bush had the bridge in Minnesota collapsed. You people must be smoking some pretty good stuff.  signed, Vietnam Veteran

This discussion really gets off the table the thought that people in this thread discuss using nuclear weapons so callously to take out 2 individuals is pathetic!  The number of times they have bombed and killed civillians thinking they are high value targets makes this nuclear option totally unacceptable can you imagine waking up to the headlines and having every muslim on this earth ready to throw anything they have at us.  Say what you want there is a limit to what the muslims of the world will accept as killing terrorists but one major nuclear blunder and we could really be into a religious war and let me tell you have the Americans would not know what religion they belong too??  Barack Obama is right this option is not for discussion however as commander in chief I am sure he will listen to his senior military advisors and then make decisions! Obama has it right! Just look at Hillary Clinton same old, same old $5,000 per plate Hamptons Dinners and Lobbyists when will you learn..... No change no gain and the war will continue till the last one is off the embassy roof in Baghdad! My vote is for change Obama is the man! Give him your confidence!

Terry-----your thinking is so right on.  In the world
we live in today and with the unstable people running
SOME parts of the world today---we would all be gone
in the matter of days.  Edna

i like how Mr. Obama is open to disscuss our problems and our problem solving with Al Qaeda, and look forward to hear more on what other views are.

Keeping nuclear weapons as a threat being a bad example?  Yea, I guess the whole cold war, Berlin wall coming down did not work to keep the Soviet Union at bay.  Let's just bring everyone home from overseas, stop producing weapons and revert to isolationism again as we did in the 1930's.  Yea, that worked up until Dec 7, 1941.  Diplomacy and talk mean aboslutely nothing without the ability to aggressively enforce your stance.  We would still be trying to talk Saddam out of Kuwait if we had listened to the group that Obama is the figure head for at this point.  Study the history of western civilization or be doomed to repeat the past era's which lead to the two largest world wars in history.

Obama needs to stand firm behind his statements, it seems that all to often he makes such a claim as this one about nuclear weapons, then when it upsets or causes controversy among a few people he immediately changes his tone to sound more like the other candidates.  Sometimes he manages to change his answer even before he finishes answering the question. This makes me question whether he is a strong enough candidate for the job.  I think more people would back Obama if he stood firmly behind his ideas, which do differ slightly from the other candidates.

Hiroshima poems....LMAO better to kill thousands of Japanese, who blatantly attacked this country than to lose thousands of American lives invading Japan. What are you a bubble boy?

If Obama is our (Democrats) candidate for '08, we are finished, repeat, finished. It will be the easiest election victory for the Republicans ever. God help us.

Terry you need to read what I posted again. I agree with what Obama said here, and I was digging at the AP reporting it out context. They do it all the time. Their number one goal is to have their names attached to the biggest chit stirring headline of the day, truth be damned we'll "correct it later" I too have had family members go down and work at the gulf, and I've sent money down through organization I trust. Not the "red cross we have some left over, let's build some office buildings 9-11" Democrats destroyed the people in New Orleans long before the storm hit. Bush could have said the hell with it, and send the regular military in. I wish he had, but then  the goof balls would have had a real reason to impeach him.
I like Obama for his work with Tom Coburn on cleaning up that den of thieves. I just hope he doesn't let them turn him into another Uncle Tom for the democrat party.

Obama makes sense, which is precisely the reason the American public will not elect him. The land of the fat, selfish, naive and afraid.

When I see a candidate attacked repeatedly, I have to wonder why.  Barack Obama has been the focus of so many negative news stories--certainly more than his behavior merits.  So why is he attacked so often?  The media, other candidates, people in general... are afraid.  Afraid of change, which Obama represents and encourages.  Keep attacking him though, because all it will do is draw more attention to his message.  This nation needs a change.  

Speaking as a conservative, I am highly impressed with Barack as should anyone else who has watched the past political mess for the last several years.  If anyone votes for HRC, this country will think GWB is a saint! It is time to believe in a man who professes change even though it will be hard to do.  With Barack trying to work with the crazies around the world, you must give this man a chance.  Right now he has my vote.

Barack Obama gives me hope of a new America. We cannot afford the politics of division as in the past. We need a united America. Obama personifies Unity. Obama can take us to a new horizon and bring us to our right place in the world. Obama's experience in the community brings a lot of experience to the table. Real experience that makes difference in ordinary American lifes.
Obama will represent the common people. Gove by the people, that's what we need.
Barack, you have my vote. You bring light of hope to those of us, who believed in the American dream.

Being from Illinois I thought Obama would be a good senator.  I still have not seen this.  Without having success at a lower level how can he be considered for president?  His comments are starting to remind me of Kerry.  Does Obama have a purple heart also? Why would he say no then maybee if no civilians are involved.  Does he not realize that every person in the world would be effected by using a nuclear bomb?

I have not seen a democratic presidential nominee to be proud of in my lifetime and I am 38.  I do not think they have a respectable candidate this time around either.  

Our country is in need of change, but I am afraid I will not see good change in my lifetime.  The first thing we need is a quality human being.  Not a greedy, power hungry, manipulative jerk.  Show me a person that has had a job (other than political) and is a good person and they have my vote.

I think, no Presidential candidate should answer whether he will use nuclear weapons, but instead responds: the issue is of highest national interest that should not be taken low to where the media would like to spur political gimmick.

So are we saying each time we got bitten by a bug we draw a bazooka and start shooting around? It appears to me that we americans are now too well-fed so much so that we are losing our ability to think straight and gradually turning to the devils we intend to eradicate. If the dumb Hillary had said exaclty what Obama said she would have made a "sophisticated" response yet again. Courtesy of  "Mad" Albright.

In response to Stan's comment up there I know the likes of you. Your type are those who get conscientious when the war begins and then each time you see a service man you say; " hey thank you for your service to the nation" then turn around and laugh behind his back. Hipochrites like you are what we should nuke out of our systems before you spread your irrational reasoning down to our kids. But you deserve my pity at your profound ignorance though so you need education rather than been ignored lest your ignorant lead you astray. So you would root out terrorists now with nuclear weapons? Right? You amuse me.

If you know the plans the likes of Russia have for america then you would tread softly on the issue of Nukes. I bet you believe those things are just long pipes filled with gun powders and you could pick up one anyday to shoot ducks with...ugh!

The very people you are going to threaten with nukes are constantly looking for such opportunity. They are looking for that slip then the invincibility of america would be exposed. What kind of mentality would you expect from people who could strap explosives on themselves or their kids just to make a point. And then you would risk nuking the same people out should the need come up.

From the looks of things everyone wants "Bedlam" Clinton to win..or sorry Rodham I meant to say...The woman that has no clear-cut plans and stupid enough to vote for a war our precious citizens are now embroiled in. her usual rundown soundbites remain the same " ..if we know what we knew now we would not have voted.." So much for a visionary leader with experience. Even if Obama did not win, certainly not Clinton. Not because she's a woman...of course there are millions of intelligent women in america whose 5 year old kids would rival hilary's fish brain. But the point is after Bush and Cheney let us come together and get it right.

Reading the actual transcript, it appears Obama is stating the obvious: "No first-use" is the corollary to deterrence.  And if you want to make sure you got bin Laden, you wouldn't want to incinerate him anyhow.

Of course everything changes as soon as someone else even tries to use nukes, against us or others.  At that point whoever is left in charge will likely tick ofr the target list all sorts of military, economic and even spiritual targets of value to our enemies.  Unfortunately, both the mullahs in Iran and the guys financing al Qaida have not bothered to understand the implications of using nuclear weapons.  Obama certainly does.

Anyone in this big old world who would use nuclear weapons for any reason is just plain crazy. Do we want to make this world so radioactive that all life dies? Has this already happened and that is why the space race is on.  If you know please tell me. Anyway, what does this have to do with who is the best person to get us out of this mess we're in. The world thinks that all Americans feel like the rich and dangerous. Well, thats not true and this one just might leave the country with the rest of the people who have had enough of money hungery rich people tearing the world apart.

HRC and the rest of them are trying to attack Obama, even if it means they flip flop (like HRC does) because they know he is gaining momentum in NH, Iowa, and South Carolina. Clinton is pissed that a someone who served 2 years in the US Senate has the big M and not her.

wow i'm surprised to hear actual real and possibly sane people who would think that using a nuclear weapon was a GOOD idea, in ANY setting. sell them on the black market? no. dismantle them? HELL YES! while "smart bombs" (cuz killing people is always the intelligent answer) may or may not hit their target, atomic bombs don't even NEED a target. drop it on a city, and there you go. end of city. for generations to come. and this would END terrorism? IT IS TERRORISM.

Amazingly enough Obama doesn't seem to realize that a nuclear weapon that doesn't affect civilians hasn't been invented.

Thats a pretty big "oops" if you are running for president.

Ya great give the U.S. to a muslim. Say what you want he is a muslim.

Moving poem Stewart...It clearly depicts the senseless collateral damage nuclear weapons inflict through civilian eyes.  The use of nukes is too easy, and too easy often means lazy. If a country isn't willing to sacrifice countless loved ones of their own in a conventional warfare, then war is most likely not the solution.  

Obama, seems to be the most reasonable candidate to a middle of the road independent like me. After seeing a lot of all of the candidates (living in Iowa). It will be Obama vs. Romney.

The same o same o has got to go. We need someone with creative intelligence to lead our nation. When the votes are counted, I hope that that someone is you Obama!!

All who agreed with Obama, well said.....  Using those weapons will only make the world a more unsafe place.  And possibly lead to its end.  We should all be glad that he said he would not use them, and hope that we do not get someone that will.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):