The majority of voters don't listen to the candidates nearly as much as they listen to what media analysts say about what the candidates said. So, on the heels of Clinton's comments that indicate she'd more or less throw a protective nuclear-strike umbrella over Israel and other countries in the region, average folks (like me) were buried in analysis of how ABC TV moderators mishandled the last debate.

Sadly, the campaign has gone on so long that folks seem to have decided what they're looking for and won't respond to any unexpected comments like those Clinton made about protecting countries from Iran. Folks in Pennsylvania were probably too caught up in wondering if Obama can "take the heat" or whether we need a real "fighter" like Clinton in the White House to pay attention to details like frightening foreign policy.

Ted Sillanpaa

Fairfield, CA

If memory serves correctly, Clinton went on to say that if Iraq were the only nation in the region to possess nuclear weapons, it would precipitate a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Nowhere is it mentioned that Israel possesses a substantive nuclear arsenal and is widely thought to possess thermonuclear weapons. It would seem that the current stated US policy of pre-emptive war is the greatest motivation for potential enemies to obtain nuclear weapons. This is just more of the get tough saber-rattling that is the usual province of the GOP.

Mark W. Palasits

San Francisco, CA

These events are beyond ironic. A week ago, a few words about bitter people morphed into "BitterGate." Now, another candidate threatens a nuclear attack and receives only support and congratulations from the same free press.

Pull the plug, America. The one that runs from your flat-screen TV to the wall. Seamlessly intertwined with entertainment, you are being fed something you really don't want.

George Pond

Orlando, FL

As an outside observer on this debate, I have to say that an article like this is extremely distressing. One of the key foundations of a working democracy has to be a respect for truth and reason and a rejection of simple minded dogmatism.

Mrs. Clinton was asked what her response would be to an attack by an enemy nation against a very close ally. Her response was actually the correct one, a strongly worded threat. She just parroted what has been US foreign policy on this issue since 1979.

In fact, she clearly said "could obliterate" not "would," and that actually just makes it a statement of fact. The United States could obliterate any county it felt like, you guys have several times the nuclear arsenal of the entire rest of the world combined.

What was she supposed to say, that after Tel-Aviv is in ruins she would open negotiations with Tehran? That they would douse the country in candy corn and stuffed pandas? How ridiculous--the Iranians would attack Israel the minute her hand hit the Bible.

There was no mention of genocide at all, or the use of nuclear weapons in her comment. This is all the conjecture of the author.

Deja Frenette

Victoria, BC, Canada

Clinton is threatening Iran in order to appear pro-Israel. As has been mentioned, Israel has her own nuclear deterrent and doesn't need our nuclear umbrella. While she has not yet mentioned it, I see the neocons are bringing up that phony Israeli attack on a supposed Syrian nuclear plant supplied by the North Korean. Only a complete fool would buy into that bit of disinformation. Neither Syria or Israel could use nuclear weapons against each other without suffering collateral damage themselves. Nuclear weapons are weapons of uncontrolled mass destruction. They would also take out the Palestinians, along with parts if not all of Israel's near neighbors. Neither Iran or Syria would not likely use nuclear weapons against Israel for those reasons. Jerusalem would also be destroyed, which is a holy city for Islam as well as Christians and Jews. I am just waiting to see what kind of report comes from the intelligence community on this one. I don't want to see a repeat of the lies that got us into Iraq.

Pervis J. Casey

Riverside, CA

Hey People, What is wrong with a candidate letting the world know that if you destroy Isreal, you in turn will be turned into a piece of glass... ?

If the offending country knows that the result of their actions will be the killing of every man, woman and child in the area, i bet they will not proceed with the destruction of Israel. Huh?

Or are there liberal pundits here who can justify not killing every Iranian if they kill the Jews...?

I would love to hear your reasons...?

Bill Nigh

Riverside, CA

John McCain beat her to "Bomb, bomb, bomb ...bomb, bomb Iran." Maybe Hillary can sing "Double Guantánamo" to the tune of the Beach Boy's "Kokamo."

Russell Beckley

Ely, NV

I think that Bob Scheer, whose column I miss from the pages of the LA Times, is mischaracterizing Hillary's comments. She didn't threaten to obliterate Iran, just to do that if they used the weapon they might think of developing if they use it against Israel. In other words, she is outlining a new Middle Eastern strategy. Obviously, the kind of pre-emptive war that the neocons endorsed will not stand. It leaves us with unfriendly regimes developing weapons, with nothing we can do but threaten invasion and sanctions if they do.

Imagine if we had gone along with the people advocating a pre-emptive nuclear strike at the USSR so that Stalin could never develop nuclear weapons. That's the intellectual equivalent of the Bush policy. What Hillary seems to have in mind is a recasting of US policy post-Iraq. She suggests a security organization for the Mideast. She suggests that the US security umbrella would be available for others.

We got through the cold war without a general nuclear exchange, or an apocalyptic land war in Asia, because of deterrence. We got that because the communists were rational. They were not going to launch a nuclear attack if it meant their destruction. Truman and Eisenhower developed that strategy, not warmongers or McCarthyites. They would have elected MacArthur and started the Third World War. Thank God the hotheads didn't take over.

Jim Hassinger

Glendale, CA

Scheer writes: "It is bizarre that a politician who bought into the phony threat about Iraq's nonexistent WMD arsenal now plays political games with the alleged threat posed by Iran."

It's only bizarre if you're assuming that Senator Clinton was "duped" into believing that Iraq had WMDs. On the contrary, there was plenty of evidence at the time to suggest that Iraq didn't pose a direct threat. That's why a small minority in Congress--among them Obama--voted against the authorization. Some in Washington may well have believed the Bush Administration's lies about WMDs, but I'm convinced that Sen. Clinton, who's nothing if not smart, voted for the resolution purely out of political calculation.

Her new threat to obliterate Iran, coming as it does after the widely publicized intelligence estimate refuting the Bush Administration's claims of an Iranian weapons program, also reeks of political calculation rather than sincere belief. The problem is that her political ambition and her deep-rooted, even obsessive, desire to appear "tough" could well get us into yet another war if she is elected President. We can't afford another leader like that.

James Steffen

Decatur, GA

The media did not widely report her statement and more importantly, they did not tell the people to care about it. Oddly, the idea of Hillary threatening to nuke whatever country for whatever reason sounds tailor-made. God help us if she’s serious, or hope McCain has more restraint. Meanwhile, Obama will be keeping the media busy gaffing about regional cuisine or striking out in whiffleball.

Mark A. Hurst

Philadelphia, pa

I did not note in Mr. Scheer's column about Hillary's nuclear threat the response from Obama. Presumably he had some response that Scheer found more appropriate. I would assume that this superior response would be more likely to deter a nuclear strike than Clinton's simple assurance of devastating retaliation.

Perhaps this is all nonsense. After all, Saddam was only faking his weapons program to deter Iran. Therefore Iran could not be working on nuclear weapons. A more diffident US would forestall the act of genocide that Ahmadinejad has promised, publicly, to carry out. (I think I expressed these lines of thinking fairly, but I may have missed the nuance.)

Scheer refuses to acknowledge the one reason why we are the only power ever to have sullied ourselves to use nuclear weapons: our consistent and credible promise of retaliation has made it too frightening for others to contemplate.

Scheer seems to have some priority other than preventing a nuclear strike. In this context, I cannot think of anything else of significance.

Dennis McLain

Beaverton, OR

When Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq War she didn’t understand that President Bush would use such authorization to launch a real war. Hmm. How come that self-proclaimed experienced, seasoned candidate who knows how Washington works didn’t know that the war plans were ready and that even the foreign leaders were informed the war was unavoidable?

Similarly, now when Senator Clinton is trying to entrench and reinforce the ancient racial divisions and inflame deeply seated animosity to win her party nomination, she doesn’t understand that such actions could divide our country. Is there any reason for her to believe something different, Pennsylvania?

The Pennsylvanians should be less concerned with who is going to be the next President and far more concerned how could they vote for a candidate who brandished images of Osama bin Laden in her signature campaign commercial as a crucial reason to be elected. An inconvenienced truth is that Bill and Hillary (see the chapter “Co-Presidency” in her promotional materials) had Osama in a plain digital view of US missile cameras and decided not to pull a trigger.

Voting for somebody who lacks both intelligence and integrity is something nobody should be proud of. Hillary Clinton keeps repeating the same mistakes she previously made. Unfortunately, she even added some of Bush’s signature delusions. How come that Hillary, like George W. Bush in general elections in 2000, believes that her minority of national Democratic primary voters is more important than the majority supportive of her opponent?

W. believed that he was entitled to be the President because his father had been President. Hillary believes her entitlement comes from her marriage to an ex-President. Without such a marriage, she would be nothing more than a junior senator from New York, just as W. was only an inexperienced governor of Texas.

The same way W. believed that the Iraqis would welcome us with flowers after we occupied their country, Hillary believes that her more-then-subliminal racist-like war-games will be forgiven and she will receive accolades and flowers for her take-no-prisoners campaign approach.

But who knows, maybe her selfishness will eventually be helpful to our country. If her divisiveness split the Democratic Party and if Barack’s wing were capable of forming an independent centrist party capable of attracting the moderate Republican voters away from the increasingly conservative GOP, then we would have three mainstream parties. Two of those parties should be able to work together and forge a two-thirds majority in the Congress capable of implementing urgently needed measures crucial in bringing our country back on a right course.

Thinking about long-term interests, providing the American voters with the better choices is far more important than grabbing control of the White House during the next four years. It might be that everything happens for a good reason.

Kenan Porobic

Charlotte, NC

Hillary, in hindsight, can be against the war in Iraq but can say she would obliterate Iran if it were to wage a nuclear attack against Israel. Is this the same judgment she used for her earlier support of the Iraq war? Will her response to the 3 am phone call be "Obliterate 'em"? And how was this not talked about by mainstream American media? How is her statement acceptable and Obama's "bitter" statement not? I will not vote for Hillary if she is the last candidate on earth.

Miguel Sanchez

Los Angeles, cA

The Clinton doctrine of campaigning: It is better to be perceived as "Strong and Wrong" rather than "Right but Weak."

It seems to still hold true, and probably will until we can no longer purchase 50 percent of worldwide military expenditures. By then, it won't matter because we will no longer be in control of our own destiny as a nation.

Michael Whitehead

Ann Arbor, MI

Hillary threatens Iran with nuclear devastation in order to capture the Likudnik vote. McCain is already in the pocket of Likud. What's a real American to do?

Norman Ravitch

Savannah, GA

The promise to obliterate Iran was a considered remark, based not on US foreign policy interests--to which it is inimical--but on the Clintons' need to raise large sums of money in the coming days. By her words, not only they, who sold pardons, are for sale, but they are prepared to sell out the country as well, in the most destructive manner possible. The Clintons do not deserve another term in the White House, not after this appalling promise.

R.H. Weber

Geneva, Switzerland

And yet she won. After making that comment, she actually won a solid victory in Pennsylvania. What can the voters be thinking? Are they in complete denial? And has she given up even the pretense of choosing words carefully when the lives of millions of people may be at stake? Does the concept of "grave responsibility" have any resonance with her or her supporters? Or is it just about winning at all costs?

Susan Vaughan

Grand Prairie, TX