Long after Clinton made these remarks, appalling the liberal base, War Room/Salon finally covers it, how? By citing complaints from Iran.

While Iran, who has threatened no one, has a right to complain (threat of violence for political coercion is against international law), what about all the domestic outrage here? What about the Clinton statement on its own? What do YOU think about threatening to kill men, women and children with imprecise nuclear weapons Alex? More or less significant than Rev. Wright?

I mentioned this the same day Clinton's comments were aired - but not a peep from any of the columnists here.

Regardless, I don't think this is the foot you want to start off on if you're trying to be the next president. Assuming Clinton is nominated and elected it's going to take an already tense situation and if not make it worse, keep it just as tense.

Obama believes (correctly!) that diplomacy can solve our tension with Iran. Clinton wants to blow them to shreds. Yeah, good plan.

that if you so much as suggest you will go to war against another country, you deserve to be annihilated. Yow!

Bottom line is, the media cares more about what the pastor of a candidate says than they care about what an ACTUAL candidate says. Is anyone surprised?

... to make Iran appear to be the voice of reason.

It was in incredibly stupid remark from Senator Clinton. It was an inane hypothetical question..and she should have declined to answer such a question. She was, of course, trying to appeal to people who profit from wars..which would be the people in the mass media,Bushes, Cheneys. She has become buddies Swill O'Reilly and Richard Mellon Scaife..she has just lost it. Gee it sure looks like Sentor Clinton would not want to have an outbreak of peace. Think of all the money the war profiteers would lose! And I guess she thought it might appeal to white guys with confederate flags on the pickups. Michael Moore had some choice remarks about this outrageous comment last night on Larry King's show.

I would only like to say as a citizen of this country who has many Irainian-American friends in both Houston and Los Angelas, that I find it outragious that Hillary Clinton would speak so cavalierly about unleashing a nuclear assault on another country, when avenues of diplomacy are more sound and sane avenues of engagement rather than a full out, premptive atomic attack, that would lead concievably, to thousands, if not potentially, millions of deaths in the middle east.

To all of my Iranian-American and other American friends who will be voting in the Democrtic primary and in November, I hope you will make your concerns to Hillary Clinton heard. This is the same sort of rhetoric that is the signature of the Bush administration, it is not emblematic or instuctive of anything else but an unconstructive and antagonistic appoach to the diplomatic impasses posed by nations.

In defense of Salon and Alex Koppelman, in some sense this isn't new. Yes, it is quite newsworthy that Clinton has suggested obliterating a nation and it should be more covered. But on the other hand, it's not like Clinton's warmongering is anything new. She's made lots of statements like this over the past eight years.

Clinton really does remind me of Meryl Streep's character in the 2004 Manchurian Candidate remake. Like John McCain, Clinton is a hyperbolic hawk.

The news media knows this, so they don't see it as new and meriting coverage. It is an open question whether the electorate knows how Clinton (or McCain) sees the role of our military in solving all kinds of international problems though.

I heard BBC radio the next day and it was one of the headlines, right there with major events in the world. "Next up, American candidate Hillary Clinton says that the US would "obliterate" Iran if..."

Great.

Hillary Clinton has actually caused more damage to the reputation of the US instead of the much-needed repair we'd hoped a Democratic President would undertake.

And she's done it already while only running for the nomination, out of her sheer frantic and shameless pandering to the right.

I lived overseas for the most of the Bush years and I know that our image is far worse than most people at home in the US even know. Believe me, this is not who we want in the Oval Office for the next four years.

biggest reason not to vote for Mrs. (I have experience) Clinton. Talk about a HAWK!

Caring about citizens of nations who have leaders we don't like is crazy.

Ergo, anyone outside the US who still cares about the victims of 9/11 are crazy because our leaders at the time are universally viewed as sadistic by the rest of the planet. Either that or Americans should be intrinsically viewed as of greater value than other human beings -- a tough sell outside of our country for some odd reason.

I think there should have been more reporting in Salon about its candidate's...ahem...I mean, Senator Clinton's obnoxious, irresponsible, not to mention pathetically pandering comments. Saying that Iran complains about the comment makes them sound like they're being whiny and making a moutain out of a molehill.

I think a better headline would be: "Iran Jusitfiably Registered Official Protest with UN Over American Presidential Candidate's Belligerent Threat."

Otherwise, love the War Room. Keep up the good work!

Anyway if Liberals want to protect Iran so badly,

Then I recommend the human shield approach for you.

-- Electro Robot

So now no one can post using anonymous as the nickname, but anyone is still free to write things like this as long as some entirely fictitious nickname is used, and despite everyone being appalled the troll-like behavior will go on without consequence.

Without some sort of peer-rating or control function, the decision to not allow anonymous posts hasn't changed a thing.

Please vote for Hilary W. Clinton!

How do you make the logical leap required to get to Not Wanting to threaten nuking Israel = wanting to vaporize Iran?

Do you honestly think that Iran is ever going to attack Israel? I mean, do you have even the slightest understanding of how the world works?

I guess it makes sense. You're the kind of person that thinks everyone is by nature a little like you. hateful, violent, and uncontrollable. SO of course you would believe that anyone would bomb anyone for any reason. No need for commons sense or logic in your world. But then you're prbably a state fan too.