I didn't know that.  That's very sad.

Or flames, or what-have-you...

You're most welcome -- thanks for taking an interest!

I'm not affiliated with this group in any way -- Taylor is a friend of a friend, but I haven't met either co-director or anyone else working with them in person.  In fact, I've never even been to the state of Ohio.  I'm plugging their cause because I think it's a good one.

Or, better yet, go vote!  And then vote again tomorrow, and again the day after that!

Thanks for reading.

And thanks in advance for whatever you can do to help.

for ENERGIZE Clinton County!

that I'm not currently supporting any candidate in the race, though I strongly oppose Hillary Clinton.

Very well put -- thanks for that.

Thanks for your comment.  I agree that there are a lot of dissimilarities between the two situations; I'm just pointing out that there are some similarities too, and that those similarities may be instructive.

Note that I am not currently supporting any candidate for President in 2008.

of ProgressiveHistorians, a community site dedicated to the intersection of history and politics, I would be honored if you would cross-post this excellent diary there.

What Hillary said is in Bowers' piece:

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons," Clinton said. "Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."

Democratic Party platforms dating from 1972 to 2004, however, make it clear that the Democrats have indeed made such blanket statements in nearly all circumstances:

1972:

The Democratic Party stands for keeping America strong; we reject the concept of unilateral reductions below levels needed for adequate military defense. But effective international arms control and disarmament do not threaten American security; they enhance it.

The last Democratic Administration took the lead in pressing for U.S.-Soviet agreement on strategic arms limitation. The recent SALT agreement is an important and useful first step.

The SALT agreement should be quickly ratified and taken as a starting point for new agreements. It must not be used as an excuse for new "bargaining chip" military programs or the new round of the arms race.

The next Democratic Administration should: Carry on negotiations to expand the initial SALT agreement to other areas, especially to seek limits to the qualitative arms race and to begin reducing force levels on each side;

Seek a comprehensive ban on all nuclear testing, verified, as SALT will be, by national means;

Press for wide adherence to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, signed in 1968, and for extension of the concept of nuclear free regions. ...

1976:

The size and structure of our military forces must be carefully related to the demands of our foreign policies in this new era. These should be based on a careful assessment of what will be needed in the long-run to deter our potential adversaries; to fight successfully, if necessary, conventional wars in areas in which our national security is threatened; and to reassure our allies and friends--notably in Western Europe, Japan and the Near East. To this end, our strategic nuclear forces must provide a strong and credible deterrent to nuclear attack and nuclear blackmail. Our conventional forces must be strong enough to deter aggression in areas whose security is vital to our own. In a manner consistent with these objectives, we should seek those disarmament and arms control agreements which will contribute to mutual reductions in both nuclear and conventional arms.

1980:

We will work toward new structures which will enhance the UN in the fields of economic development, including international trade organizations, higher education, volunteer service, mediation and conciliation, international disarmament, implementation of the Law of the Sea Agreement, and controlling international terrorism.

1984:

A new Democratic Administration will implement a strategy for peace which makes arms control an integral part of our national security policy. We must move the world back from the brink of nuclear holocaust and set a new direction toward an enduring peace, in which lower levels of military spending will be possible. Our ultimate aim must be to abolish all nuclear weapons in a world safe for peace and freedom.

This strategy calls for immediate steps to stop the nuclear arms race, medium-term measures to reduce the dangers of war, and long-term goals to put the world on a new and peaceful course.

The first practical step is to take the initiative, on January 20, 1985, to challenge the Soviets to halt the arms race, quickly. As President Kennedy successfully did in stopping nuclear explosions above ground in 1963, a Democratic President will initiate temporary, verifiable, and mutual moratoria, to be maintained for a fixed period during negotiations so long as the Soviets do the same, on the testing of underground nuclear weapons and anti-satellite weapons; on the testing and deployment of all weapons in space; on the testing and deployment of new strategic ballistic missiles now under development; and on the deployment of nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missiles.

These steps should lead promptly to the negotiation of a comprehensive, mutual and verifiable freeze on the testing, production, and deployment of all nuclear weapons.

1988:

WE BELIEVE in an America that will promote peace and prevent war--not by trading weapons for hostages, not by sending brave Americans to undefined missions in Lebanon and Honduras, not by relaxing our vigilance on the assumption that long-range Soviet interests have permanently changed, not by toasting a tyrant like Marcos as a disciple of democracy, but by maintaining a stable nuclear deterrent sufficient to counter any Soviet threat. ...

1992:

America is the world's strongest military power and we must remain so. A post-Cold War restructuring of American forces will produce substantial savings beyond those promised by the Bush Administration, but that restructuring must be achieved without undermining our ability to meet future threats to our security. A military structure for the 1990's and beyond must be built on four pillars: First, a survivable nuclear force to deter any conceivable threat, as we reduce our nuclear arsenals through arms control negotiations and other reciprocal action.

1996:

Four years ago, thousands of Russian nuclear weapons were aimed at American cities. Today, not a single Russian missile points at our children, and through the START treaties, we will cut American and Russian nuclear arsenals by two-thirds from their Cold War height.

2000:

The Democratic Party places a high value on ensuring that any such system is compatible with the Antiballistic Missile Treaty. We also support continued work in significantly reducing strategic and other nuclear weapons, recognizing that the goal is strategic nuclear stability at progressively lower levels.

2004:

Even as we have scoured Iraq for signs of weapons of mass destruction, Iran has reportedly been working to develop them next door. A nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to us and our allies.

The same is true for other countries that may be seeking nuclear weapons. This is why strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is so critical. We must close the loophole that lets countries develop nuclear weapons capabilities under the guise of a peaceful, civilian nuclear power program. We also need to strengthen enforcement and verification and make rigorous inspection protocols mandatory.

With the exception of Dukakis' surprisingly-belligerent 1988 platform, the pattern here is clear: maintain our nuclear arsenal in deployable fashion, while working tirelessly to create continuing mutual disarmament.  Only Mondale (1984) says we should do away with nuclear arms altogether, but only Dukakis (1988) fails to emphasize disarmament as the chief goal of our nuclear policy.  Hillary's belligerant reliance on nuclear arms as a perpetual "deterrent" falls clearly outside the mainstream of Democratic Party thought since 1972.  In her response to Obama, she's revealed herself to hold a truly hawkish and far-right opinion on nuclear weapons, more conducive to Barry Goldwater than to a Democratic nominee.

I agree with Bowers.  Hillary's piece is a reversal of Democratic Party policy dating back at least to Carter (to McGovern, if you can describe him as arbiter of party policy) of encouraging nuclear disarmament, not deterrence.  It's really a shocking statement and places her squarely in the Joe Biden-Sam Nunn camp on foreign policy.