I suspect most politicians have used the “it’s a hypothetical question” reason to avoid answering a question. Over at Slate there’s an interesting piece praising Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama for his enthusiasm in answering hypotheticals, which very much sets him out from the crowd.
Hat tip: Comment Central.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Why community politics matters (Mark Corner)
A Federal Britain: 1. Renewing democracy through fair representation (Iain Donaldson)
A roadmap to Queer Equality (Tara Foster)
A strange but welcome feeling (Jennie Rigg)
Fifteen years ago today…… (Caron Lindsay)
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Hodge and his Masters and The Choirmaster's Burial
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
A perpetual pirouette of prevarication?
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Ruth Bright 
BigTallTim 
Daniel Walker 
Richard Good 
Matt (Bristol) 
2 Comments
Some might say he’s slightly oer enthusiatic – he’s made several gaffs as a result of this not least coming out and saying that he wont use nuclear weapons ‘under any circumstances’ – which is certainly a welcome statement but not necessarily a sensible one for a future President of the United States.
I think that in answer to Mark’s point there are some that make sense to answer (for example, “If you were to have a vacancy for the Supreme Court who would you look to as a model Justice?”) and some, such as the nuclear question, that are probably best avoided for the reason Letterman hints at.
Giving too much detail in answer to hypotheticals though only risks offending your supporters. Obama is in a situation where it is in his interests to do so to show how different he is. No such benefit would be had for Hilary Clinton for instance (whose main appeal will be the “experienced and pragmatic” card).