I agree with you for the most part, but I am 100% sure that quote is fully out of context. She would be an utter idiot to univocally make a statement like that, even trying to play both sides, ergo it must have been made for her. I've seen it on a few more pundity outlets, but I can't believe the NY TImes is circulating it. I haven't seen the original broadcast, but from the article, it seems that it is a response to a specific question about whether she would attack iran if they used nuclear weapons against Israel. That is a retarded question because the whole goddamn world is going to "obliterate" Iran if they use nuclear weapons.

Everyone on the left must officially hate her now.

You may be right about the contextuality of the statement, but not only would it be egregious for the Times to falsely attribute the quote, but it also fits in line with the chest-beating she's done on previous occasions. Maybe she feels the need to do this given gender stereotypes, but even that excuse would place her rhetoric in the 'reactionary' category. In any case, what strikes me about the quote, even more than the issue of invading Iran, is the positioning of foreign policy on Iran in direct relation to Israel.

But that's my point. Not misattribution, but if the statement is in response to a question about the eventuality of Iran's use of nuclear weapons against Israel as the Times says, then the statement is totally meaningless viz. "foreign policy". What's Obama's foreign policy position on Iran attacking Israel? "tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions" (his site copy)?

The only thing even remotely objectionable about that quote, and the thing that I think replicating it achieves in an otherwise meaningless way out of its context as a response to a ridiculous hypothetical, is her use of the word "obliterate". I guess also the fact that she answered at all (against her own explicitly stated policy about hypotheticals).

Let me clarify my statement then. What concerns me is the possibility of a U.S. foreign policy that would authorize nuclear retaliation given a nuclear strike on Israel. That equates an attack on Israel with an attack on the U.S. And this is not just obliteration, but obliteration by means of nuclear retaliation, which places us back into an unsettling Cold War logic (hello Iron Lady). And you're right to remind me of her policy on hypotheticals. But that begs the question of why she would make an exception? It signifies to me that this is one hypothetical that she can answer and, in so doing, reveal an important stance of her foreign policy.

As for Obama's stance on Iran, that quote comes from an address given in September: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyHJZxNm-Cg

Yeah I agree that it might be significant that she finally answered. And I think it might have something to do with, as you say, tilting her rhetoric toward the right in order to get the crucial stupid-vote, for which she should rightly catch flak. I'm just playing naive about the fact that even the best of our so-called journalists have to play this game.

obama and clinton do not differ in any significant way in regards to their military interventionist policies or their commitments to israel. obama was chest thumping about how tough he would be with pakistan just a few months ago.
but what really pisses me off is not hillary's rash speculation, but, rather, all the fucking presuppositions of this question which are gradually becoming ingrained enough to make it a meaningful and valid one. and not just valid but politically decisive-- a question that actually demands speculation, as if silence on it were a mark of ignorance.
the proper answer to the question 'what if iran nuked israel' is still just the obvious one: 'iran is not going to fucking nuke israel. they can not. they would not. they will not. next question.'
still not voting for either one of these toilet clogs.

legitimating the question by answering it is annoying, but seriously, obama's response is waaaayyyyy more diplomatic than hillary's which goes from zero to 13000 degrees fucking immediately. definitely a difference on that front. but that whole pakistan bull shit back in august definitely pissed me off. though shit was blown out of proportion, the fact that he's so comfortable using the new homeland security vocabulary is distressing...