As I watch Meet the Press today and This Week, it is hard not to believe that both NBC and ABC WANT Obama to win so bad.   Tim Russert has Obama for the only reason so he can get more positive exposure since he had a bad week and so his man can explain himself once again for  his bad week so he can do well on Tuesday.

And once again, he supports HRC's policies after a insighting hatred over her suggestions for the past few weeks.

Has this guy ever had an original thought?

He is truly a Political Lurker...always in the picture, but never out front, never leading the charge.  Even his "famous" speech resulted in not a single attempt by BO to end the war once he got into the Senate.  But then, he was so busy on day one running for his next promotion he forgot that little issue, didn't he?

I remember reading about him running into committee members on their way to a press conference about something they had just accomplished.  He said, "What's up" and they told him and he said, "Can I come along"?  They said sure - they wanted people on the podium for pictures and then he had the audacity (whoops!) to take the mic and speak as if he had been personally involved in the accomplishment.  Staffers were pissed as hell at what he did.

He lurked in CT in 2006 (never really coming out and supporting Ned Lamont).  He lurks on pro-choice (using weasel words and voting present).  He lurks on race (demanding a dialog and now saying we should all move on - pun intended!).  Condemning the Gas Tax Holiday proposal when he supported other such proposals three times.  

I found that quite troubling.  If not in a debate, then when?

I kid you not. Obama said the Presidential campaign is the wrong place to discuss a serious foreign policy issue.

I just want to note that with international diplomacy words, spoken and unspoken, really matter. Hyping up a situation with aggressive language, backing some country into a corner with ultimatums, humiliating a nation with insults, all of that will have real world consequences. I don't understand the amount of pride some country's have about words used, but it's real, in many cases more real than actual policy. And so even though a basic policy can be understood 100% by the targeted side, and everyone else, to voice it in the open is often a stupidly aggressive thing to do.

but if Obama is opposed to  telling the American people what he'd do in the Iran sitution, that there tells you he's a bonafide UN-change politician. Glad he got rid of those signs, lest we forget.

I wouldn't mind the interruptions if they were follow-ups on the main question, but he tends to interrupt with a question essentially unrelated to question being answered.  He doesn't segue very well.

But he does get paid the big bucks.

Right now, he did ask a f/up about what would she do if Iran invaded Iraq, and he did pin her down on that.  She said she doesn't believe Iran will invade Iraq.  (They don't need to, of course, as we've been seeing for several years now--my comment.)

Israel is a ally of ours.  It is the most important ally we have in the region, and there's no doubt that we would act forcefully and appropriately on any attack against Iran, nuclear or otherwise.

This is a far cry from saying you're willing to "obliterate" a nation of 70 million people, many of whom detest their government and have no quarrel with us. This response is proportional and appropriate.

Obama goes on to say this about Clinton's expressed desire to include Saudi Arabia and Jordan underneath a "nuclear umbrella":

I, I'm troubled by the idea that, as a throwaway line in the debate, you start expanding the U.S. nuclear umbrella potentially to a whole host of other countries without any clear idea of what these criteria are, who might be involved and so forth.  I think there's no doubt that we need to think about what our strategic posture is with respect to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other ally--other friends in the region.  But, you know, right now we don't have a formal alliance with many of these other countries.  And if we are to develop that, we should do it prudently, cautiously, in consultation with Congress.....
Well, that's, I think, part of the debate that should be taking place.  Obviously, we've got national security interests in oil supplies in the region.  And as president, that's something that I would factor in.  But I am not willing, at this point, to suggest that somehow we are going to extend our nuclear umbrella or that we have the same sorts of alliance with Saudi Arabia that we do with NATO countries or that we do with Israel.