1 to quote the article you linked to: ""He said today that he fundamentally disagrees with Jimmy Carter," Axelrod said. But I reemphasized that Obama never said that Carter shouldn't do the meeting, and then Axelrod launched into a straw man argument about personal freedom. "He said that it was ill advised, that he shouldn't do it, but that ...[w]e don't have any ability to go seize someone and neither does the President of the United States, who also asked Mr. Carter not to do it." But nobody is urging Obama to seize Carter. The debate is over why he can't take a moral stand against an ex-president who is meeting with a terrorist group." How are "fundamentally disagrees with" and "ill-advised" and "shouldn't do it" not taking a stand? Moral, practical, political, you can quibble over the adjective, but surely a stand? Senator Obama doesn't have the authority to tell former President Carter not to do anything. Really, neither does President Bush. So, why is Obama being asked to censure Carter more strongly than he has?