A story that confuses itw own subjects isn't good journalism. Bill Clinton is not running for president, and his name is neither Hillary nor Obama. The title and subtitle are equally transparent.

What does Edwards say? The article seems largely slanted to attack Bill Clinton. The nuclear weapons question requires ballanced and full coverage of the issues and effects of nuclear weapons. Deactivating nuclear weapons should be a component of the question, more than trying to support cold war chest thumping. MLK said we have guided missiles and misguided men. The words still ring out.

Taking its cue from a political dustup between Obama and Hillary, this piece reminds us of a 'vitally important but little understood' fact: that the stated American willingness to use nuclear weapons in defense of our allies is the linchpin of our nuclear non-proliferation policy.' So why did Obama say he wouldn't use them? And why did Bill Clinton and his Pentagon chief say the same thing?

"Although one cannot hang Hillary for the sins of Bill" a statement at the end of the piece is preceded by multiple paragraphs before that statement doing exactly that. No apologist for Hillary, I expect we will see this strategy - pulling stories from Bill Clinton's Presidency to define Hillary Clinton. The woman defined by her husband while Bush 43 was never so blatantly defined by Bush 41. It will be interesting to see if the media picks up on this unique hurdle Hillary faces in ... More »