Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who chastised rival Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terror, did just that when asked about Iran a year ago.
"I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," she said in April 2006.
Her views expressed while she was gearing up for a presidential run stand in conflict with her comments this month regarding Obama, who faced heavy criticism from leaders of both parties, including Clinton, after saying it would be "a profound mistake" to deploy nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Like I said last week, Hillary's criticism of Obama's utterly sensible statements is totally disingenuous (though beforehand I didn't actually have a quote of Hillary saying the same thing). My problem with her isn't overcriticism, however; it's that she's intentionally obscuring things. It looks to me like Hillary's basing her campaign around misleading people: misleading people about Obama, misleading people about her Iraq stance, and misleading people about lobbyists and the role of moneyed interests in her decision-making, even about health care (about which Michael Moore had some very interesting things to say).
Her own campaign is acting as if people are more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton the less they know about her positions, and the less they know about her opponents'. Why support someone like that when you have people like Edwards and Obama in the race?