Reference this story from ABC News and you'll see why I have egg on my face. (Take note because Sen. Hillary Clinton wants to be President and will be in charge of a large nuclear arsenal.)
"I think presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use, or non-use, of nuclear weapons," she said. "Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."
It sounded like she understood some things that I'd hadn't thought she did, earlier on. I thought she'd had a sensible moment, in the midst of some not so sensible ones, like this one.
Sen. Hillary Clinton outlined a broad economic vision on Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity..
The Democratic presidential hopeful said what the Bush administration touts as an "ownership society" really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor
This, in turn, led me to write this in opposition to her political ideological stance.
But let's get back to today's discovery and the present issue at hand, shall we?
From the first-linked ABC article also comes this bit of information that quickly helps shed some light, on her recent chastising of Sen. Obama (for his irresponsible remarks concerning his take on the use of nuclear weaponry):
But in an April 2006 interview with Bloomberg News' Al Hunt, Clinton took the use of nuclear weapons off the table when discussing possible U.S. military options against Iran, if its leaders continue to pursue nuclear weapons.
They are talking about this little statement:
"I have said publicly no option should be off the table," Clinton said, "but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table. And this administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I think that's a terrible mistake."
Now, I am sure the word will follow that she (then) was talking about a specific situation in this case, and was speaking more generally after Obama's screw up. And as a result of this little known fact, this somehow makes it all different. But really, what are we to believe, after this overt moment of confusion?
Maybe (just maybe) some of you are thinking to yourselves that you'd like to ask me the age-old, cliched Kung Fu question: So, what have we learned, Grasshopper?
My answer would be:
Master, I have learned that before you give the benefit of a doubt to a triangulator, you must know the heart and soul of that triangulator. You must learn that said triangulator will disappoint the people. Some people one day, others on another day. Which people they disappoint (and in the process alienate) will depend on what day it is and what poll was most recently released.
But seriously and all sarcasm aside, this is why a person that wants to be President must stand on principle. This is a stellar example of why they must watch what they say.
By that I mean, this campaign is going to get dirty. And by digging this up, it only goes to show that the Netroots groups are going to have plenty of negative baggage to dig up on the person they perceive to be an establishment candidate, long before the general election becomes imminent. It's hard to make a chicken out of a bird that once quacked.
If someone stood on principle, there'd be no need to worry today, about something one said 1, 2, 5, 10, or more, years ago. If one realized that what a person said today could/would come back to haunt him/her (when they least need it to do so), you could safely bet that they'd be much more mindful of their statements. But when you see a person putting their finger in the wind at every opportune moment and fashioning their speech for that same moment, you will see someone that will need to answer for something they say in that opportunistic moment, down the road; especially after they have criticized someone that wants to beat them in a campaign.
Use all of the qualitative political analysis, you want. This is a result of bad advice, based on a total disregard for the intelligence and integrity of the American electorate. And for one dull and lackluster moment, I bought into it.