who knows what the low would think? they might like the hillary can stand up to bill. or they might not think that's the place of a woman. or they might thik that bill will set her straight? who knows? it's lame to have to think about people who think that way.

In the case of torture, with this scenario, the correct answer is not the correct answer.

I loved that moment in the debate, though, between Russert and Hillary. I think it was an important reminder to stop holding Bill Clinton up against Hillary's campaign. As everyone involved with the Hillpaign has been saying forever, this is a campaign about what Hillary is capable of, and what Hillary would do, not Bill.

She's been very careful at several turns (particularly with Don't Ask, Don't Tell) to clarify where she has disagreed with her husband, so this shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone paying attention. That said, I'm sure the men of the world who hate Hillary for being a powerful, intelligent feminist will have no greater love for her insisting she can set her husband straight. But, in terms of her campaign audience, they were never going to vote for her anyway.

People like George W. Bush are comfy making complicated scenarios unrealistically simple by responding to painfully reductive hypothetical questions. It reveals them either as naive simpletons, or hubristic egomaniacs who (falsely) believe they've got the world figured out. Hillary gets that complex situations are complex, and context is key to making sense of them and choosing the proper course of action.

Want torture? Then move to someplace like Burma, Tim.

Second, there is no way that if there was a bomb somewhere that we would have the "terrorist" responsible in the amount of time before it went off.

I want someone to be like "you know what Tim, I don't answer questions proposed by 6th graders with no working knowledge of national security or terrorism in general. Why don't you ask me how I would deal with Aliens or Michael Jackson attacking Vermont. Asshat."

I don't need to "admit" it; I believe it. And I actually like Hillary. :)

I think if you re-read what I wrote, you'll see I was pro-Hillary. I'm vocally anti-Obama, OTOH.

If she wins, I will know the country is in capable hands. It's like trusting the pilot of an airplane you're riding in. The problem for me, in this case, is the airplane is a bomber, and she's gonna drop the bombs wherever she feels like it. But, I'm sure we'll land safely.

Hillary's ability to command the stage and the questions is unparalleled. Her insistance not to answer the hypotheticals is exactly what a leader should do. That is what has gotten this current administration into such a mess on the world stage. Tim's attempt to get the candidates to sabre rattle over Iran is diplorable and would definitely come back as a thirty second attack ad in the general election.

Tim tried to set up many traps for the candidates to give the Republican's campaign fodder for the general election. Unlike many of the candidates on stage, Hillary did not fall for it. The attacks on Hillary while being done with some respect should also be looked at carefully for the hypocracy in many of them.

Keep up the great work Senator Clinton. You convince me more and more every day why I am working so hard to get you the nomination.

Foreign policy wise, he's always been to the right of the peacenik wing of the party, and for that reason was acceptable to your Reagan Democrats, who voted for him in droves. (As we've learned with Bush, draft dodging doesn't prevent people from thinking of you as tough on national defense).

It was Alan Dershowitz--hardly a conservative--who originally proposed this scenario, and I agree that it's a little ridiculous, but there's a kernel of truth there.

It sucks, but in war you have to do some nasty things. Case in point--during WWII, the OSS sent a spy into Nazi Germany, during the war (former baseball player and polymath Moe Berg (a Jew, no less)) to attend a lecture by a prominent German physicist. Berg's orders were to listen to the physicist's talk, and if the man betrayed any indication that the Germans were close to developing a nuclear weapon, to kill him. Right there in the lecture hall, consequences be damned.

Murdering a civilian scientist--now that's worse that torture, you could argue, but I don't think anyone would deny the importance of preventing the Nazis from getting the bomb.

As Berg's superior put it, "In war, a man's life isn't worth a damn." And if you see this struggle with Al Qaeda as a war...and it sure seemed like one on 9/11, then...

Clinton (Bill) has a good grasp of that. And it's a little disheartening that the candidates didn't at least show some understanding of the morally ambiguous choices they--or any President--will be sure to face.

As for my reptile brain, I either don't have one or it doesn't get off on beating the crap out of people, because Hillary's response makes me like her more. My gut response to her is actually much better than my conclusions once I think things through rationally. That's when I realize that she's being backed by the worst status quo elements of the Democratic Party and that anyone but her needs to win.

@Eli - I like your point, but if she would have been for the 'torture', you know everyone in your so-called "blogosphere" would be going ape shit with the OMG HILARY IS ALL UPS INTO TORTURE ZOMG!!!! Which could be far worse.

As for the question posed, I think it was a trick question and it totally got the ZING(!) he was going for when he announced that William Jefferson Clinton was responsible for the scenario.

Torture.
Doesn't.
Work.

First, there's the feminist indignation that she's compared to her husband, even if he is the most powerful democrat in many people's memory. And I tried to think about it terms of Bush Sr./Bush Jr. I'm not sure there were comparisons like that. Or even if there anyone gave either of them "gotcha" comparisons to Reagan.

Then there is the fact that her tone changed dramatically with her last statement - it became almost flirtatious. He's my man, I'll set him straight. Nevermind that she's had trouble with that in the past, it seemed sort of inappropriate.

But then I later realized that she was the one that pointed out that they were married. Russert didn't. If she'd answered the last question differently, it could have remained "comparison to a great Dem president" and not become personal like that.

Bonding, and scary evil shit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KUBARK

Warning, if you go read KUBARK, you will not sleep well for weeks.