don't you wish that moderators like Tim Russert would stop bullying candidates into bumper sticker promises? I'm quite sure that almost all of their precarious positions--and Clinton was forced into a "review" of NAFTA, too, that she clearly didn't want--came at the hands of moderators in debates.

Like most people, I feel strongly in the abstract that journalists should demand truth but I get uncomfortable when "my" team gets the scrutiny. Overall, though, I do want scrutiny. But the particular method of Tim Russert strikes me as bad for America in the same way that Jon Stewart thinks that Crossfire was bad for America. It reduces complex subjects to sound bites, forcing candidates into small boxes. What you say makes perfect sense--they shouldn't allow themselves into those small boxes. That is the definitive answer. (But I do remember very precisely the fallout from that very debate where one or the other of the pack of Dem candidates didn't promise whatever tiny window Russert was demanding and they got reamed the next day by Rush and others. "Can you believe after all their whining and moaning about the Bush war in Iraq, most of the Dems last night couldn't promise to get out of Iraq?" or some nonsense. I suppose a studious person (AKA or X, can you get right on that?) would check to see which exact candidates from that June debate last year refused to play the game. I wonder if in some part, that is why they are out. Americans can be really hoodwinked by that simplistic talk.)

As a final point, related to my parenthetical, wouldn't it also be nice if Americans just didn't fall for such nonsense to begin with? In other words, if it was always understood that facts on the ground might change a candidate's policy? That way, candidates could perhaps get more real in the first place, knowing that it was understood that a future hard reality would be taken into account by the public.

From salon, a couple days ago, in the context of the story KcM tells (where someone who's advised Clinton predicted she will not follow her campaign script on Iraq):

That said, though, the Clinton campaign vociferously denied Keane's contention; Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson told the Sun, "Senator Clinton speaks for herself on her plans to end the Iraq war. She has said she will end the war the right way, swiftly and responsibly, and beginning within 60 days of taking office."

The Clinton campaign's version differs slightly with your view of Hillary's plan. You say:

But Clinton, in the same debate, said EXACTLY what this Obama advisor said, that it may take longer depending upon the situation

I sympathize with both candidates on this. I think we should set aside our "partisan" differences on it and consider that both campaigns have felt pretty hogtied. I agree with all who said that the advisers were stating the obvious. I'm disappointed that both candidates used the revelations against the other.

At this point the only potential difference is in how they respond (other than exploiting it for political purposes, as it seems they both did). Hillary went on record denying the claim that her stated plan will differ from the real thing. I hope Obama does something different. Rather than insisting that he speaks only for himself and saying that in fact he WILL GODDAMN IT start removing the troops in the promised time come hell or high water, I hope he in some way validates what Samantha Power said and what, let's face it, we all think.

But what do you say to the hypocrisy of the Clinton supporters who weighed in almost immediately to the Jack Keane story with comments like "Well, I'm relieved that in fact she's not going to wreak havoc by pulling them out willy nilly. This shows how mature she is compared to Obama," and so forth.

I didn't notice you jumping in to thrash them. (But of course you may have--I didn't check :) Apologize in advance if you did or weren't there.)

And those are the promises that, apparently, are not meant to be taken seriously at all.

Don't you think you're overstating the case?

Don't you think Hillary was cornered into promising a "review" of NAFTA that she didn't want and that no economist in the country thinks is good policy? There are many other examples as well--like when Russert pushed her to promise, PROMISE, not to let Iran go nuclear. Her discomfort was palpable and I felt for her; how the hell can someone promise that under her watch another country will not end up with nuclear weapons? Again, she tried to equivocate, and I honestly can't remember if she ended up caving or not.

To be clear on the Jack Keane thing: Are you saying that this is not an analogous situation b/c he wasn't an adviser to Clinton in the same capacity that Power is an adviser to Obama?

As a separate issue, did you read salon's interview with Power? I found her to be so reasonable and smart, and I'm wondering what you think, if you can separate her for a moment from her advocacy for Obama. I honestly mean it when I say that it would be a serious coup if--for the sheer craziness of it all--the Clintons picked her up. I think she's great and should be helping America in some official capacity. And, again, independent of the implications in the political world, don't you find her impoliticness refreshing?

To all: I'm looking on youtube for the debate where Russert bullied them into making promises about specific withdrawal dates--any help will be appreciated.