Udall and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.,) are in the same boat when it comes to their hysterical claims about NSA spying and their cavalier attitude toward anti-terrorism measures. Udall, Paul and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) previously teamed up for an op-ed decrying the “secret dragnet surveillance” and dismissing the “inflated claims about the program’s value” (which came from, among others, the president). Does Clinton agree with all that? What about their demand that we end”bulk collection”? Their hysteria bled into outright misinformation at times (implying that the NSA is reading the contents of e-mails without requisite cause). This presumably is was what earned Clinton’s praise.

That would put her even to the left of the president’s position. You recall he grudgingly defended the program, acknowledging that it was perfectly legal and was effective. Is Clinton with Udall or with Obama on this?

AD

AD

But wait. Clinton really did not say anything about Udall’s position — or her own. She praised him for taking up the issue (!), which presumably would apply to Paul as well. Oddly, at the time she was not one to be all that specific — that is, to address those hard questions. (The only hint was her declaration that “some changes” were needed.) This is quintessential Clinton — saying just enough to imply support for whomever she is speaking about but never being specific enough to take on the burden of defending her position. Does she even have a position?

Clinton’s defenders have argued that we all know she is tougher than President Obama and of course would keep a program like the NSA. Really? If she can’t bring herself to articulate a view now, how would she stand up to the Democratic base shouting for it to be ripped up by the roots? We have already seen one president lamely and halfheartedly defend his own program in order not to rattle his allies on the left, but we had hoped to hear a more “aggressive” and “decisive” statement from Clinton.