In his first television interview since being elected President, Barack Obama talked about a range of personal, economic and foreign policy issues on "60 Minutes" Sunday night. In one of the most important exchanges, Obama reaffirmed his commitment to human rights and restoring America's "moral stature" by banning torture and closing Gitmo.

Some commentators have been speculating (or advocating) that Obama will back off his campaign pledges on this score. In a premature article last week, The Wall Street Journal speculated that "pragmatists" in the new administration might "keep the road open in certain cases" for the "CIA to use harsh techniques not approved by the military," or potentially torture. Thankfully, Obama ruled that out in the interview:

Update: The entire "60 Minutes" interview is now available, it's also interesting to hear Obama discuss his current reading list:

Watch CBS Videos Online

Comments (44)

1. It's very good to hear that President-elect Obama realizes that the torture and illegal imprisonment of people is an abomination against humanity and the principles of our nation. I think that by addressing these mistakes sooner rather than later we will win back some of our moral standing as well as show the world that Obama intends to not try to construct a dual reality where there is one set of rules that apply to America, and another set of rules that apply to everyone else.

   Posted by Rene at 11/16/2008 @ 10:13pm

2. Here here! Moral leadership? Bring it on ! !

   Posted by winyahn at 11/16/2008 @ 10:32pm

3. I think the interview was very good and Obama came off as very clear in his vision when he takes office. He is right, we do need to know what is going on and make sure that things are getting done with clarity. I think he comes across as very approachable and highly informed...he and his wife Michelle are a very sweet couple and will make an excellent President and First Lady. America made the right choice in President elect Obama...roll on Jan 20th.

   Posted by Caj at 11/16/2008 @ 10:47pm

4. Let's all just pause in deep appreciation.

   Appreciation for...? Well, not having to hear the leader of the free world say, "Preshashen".

   OR- "My friends""My friends""My friends""My friends"

   Or- "I Will Make Them Famous And You Will Know Their Names"--"I Will Make Them Famous And You Will Know Their Names"--"I Will Make Them Famous And You Will Know Their Names"

   Or- "We never hide from history. We make history""My friends""We never hide from history. We make history"

   Earworm wax anyone?

   Posted by winyahn at 11/16/2008 @ 10:52pm

5. Did 60 MINUTES ask P.E. Obama about today's Washington Post editorial on Nicaragua?

   PRESIDENT DANIEL ORTEGA MOVES TO CONSTRUCT ANOTHER DICTATORSHIP

   Through much of the 1980s, the United States waged a proxy war to prevent Daniel Ortega and his Sandinista party from consolidating a dictatorship in Nicaragua. In 1990, Mr. Ortega finally agreed to hold a presidential election, which he lost; since then Central America's poorest country has struggled to build a functioning democracy. Now Mr. Ortega is back and once again is seeking autocratic power. This time, however, neither the United States nor other outside powers are doing much to stop him.

   Mr. Ortega regained the president's office in 2006, thanks to a corrupt alliance with a right-wing leader and a constitutional amendment that allowed him to claim power with 38 percent of the vote. Since then eight of 10 Nicaraguans have turned against the president, according to independent polls -- yet Mr. Ortega's campaign to dismantle the political system has accelerated. He has banned two opposition parties, brought criminal charges against independent journalists and nongovernmental organizations, and built bullying "citizens power councils" with funding from Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez.

   The opposition hoped to block what several former Sandinista leaders have called an emerging dictatorship by winning local elections last Sunday. Mr. Ortega responded by barring international election observers for the first time since 1990 and organizing what the opposition and Nicaraguan election observers say was a massive fraud. Opposition leader Eduardo Montealegre, who was favored to win the race for mayor of Managua, was declared the loser by a government-controlled electoral council.

   << MORE >>

   Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/16/2008 @ 11:07pm

6. << CONTINUATION >>

   Mr. Montealegre's own count, compiled by collecting results from individual polling stations, showed him winning decisively. In the country's second-largest city, León, thousands of ballots were found in the municipal dump, most of them marked with votes for Mr. Montealegre's Liberal party. Now violence is mounting in Managua's streets between opposition supporters and groups of Sandinista thugs, who wield machetes and guns.

   Outraged by Mr. Ortega's behavior, European governments are moving to cut off funding equal to a third of the government's budget. But the Bush administration's reaction has been laconic. The State Department issued a statement last week deploring the "irregularities"; on Thursday the U.S. ambassador said he was concerned. The United States has considerable economic leverage it can employ -- there is no need for another contra army. Among other things, Nicaragua is currently the beneficiary of a $175 million aid program from the Millennium Challenge Corp., which is supposed to condition grants on the government's respect for political rights and the rule of law. It seems pretty obvious that Mr. Ortega has flunked those tests.

   Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/16/2008 @ 11:07pm

7. *Did 60 MINUTES ask P.E. Obama about today's Washington Post editorial on Nicaragua?

   Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/16/2008 @ 11:07pm*

   And what should Obama do about that exactly?

   Posted by yutsano at 11/16/2008 @ 11:14pm

8. On-topic, I thank Allah every night that this is the voice we get to listen to for at least the next four years.

   Posted by yutsano at 11/16/2008 @ 11:19pm

9. "But the Bush administration's reaction has been laconic."

   Ever hear of "Iran-Contra"? Any moves by the Repubs against a socialist/ marxist like Ortega will bring the Democratic Congress down on them like rabid dogs. Friends of the Sandanistas like Kennedy, Chris Dodd, and David Bonior will stick up for them. Don't expect anyone to stick their necks out.

   Posted by twillie at 11/17/2008 @ 12:02am

10. I Will Make Them Famous And You Will Know Their Names

    Huh?

    Posted by winyahn at 11/17/2008 @ 12:39am

11. I found the Kroft interview with Obama disturbing. Obama quickly side-stepped the question Kroft asked about where the bailout money is coming from. Obama knows very well it will be in the form of increased national debt. Also, Obama is already playing the American people for fools, insincerely suggesting that the US military is in Afghanistan to fight AQ and to eliminate OBL. Are Americans really this ignorant?

    Posted by NukularProficy at 11/17/2008 @ 01:57am

12. Well, I thought Obama struck the perfect chord (on the policy interview) of both substance (which was thoughtful and measured) and demeanor (which was calm and reassuring, if serious).

    He also didn't anything about "OB-GYNs practicing their love of women" or "I'm the Decider"...which is a nice change too.

    Posted by Mask at 11/17/2008 @ 07:14am

13. Or, "My fellow prisoners"

    Posted by winyahn at 11/17/2008 @ 08:49am

14. or "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

    Posted by Mask at 11/17/2008 @ 09:10am

15. Well im glad to hear of what OBama said from his interview and I do believe that OBama will rule the 50 states of USA and what I forsee his country will be more progressive thus more jobs......... _________ mida

    Blackjack Bad Beat - Win a Free Seat to €1 Million Final

    Just wager €100 or more on Black Jack between 17th and 30th of Nov 2008 and if you lose you then don't despair because you will receive an automatic entry to the "BlackJack €1Milion"

    Freeroll which takes place on Thursday Dec 4th at 19:00 GMT. CelebPoker.com

    <a href="http://www.celebpoker.com/poker-promotions "rel=" DoFollow And NoFollow"> Play Blackjack - Win a Chance for €1 Million </a>

    Posted by salacious_0929 at 11/17/2008 @ 11:20am

16. Well im glad to hear of what OBama said from his interview and I do believe that OBama will rule the 50 states of USA and what I forsee his country will be more progressive thus more jobs......... _________ mida

    Blackjack Bad Beat - Win a Free Seat to €1 Million Final

    Just wager €100 or more on Black Jack between 17th and 30th of Nov 2008 and if you lose you then don't despair because you will receive an automatic entry to the "BlackJack €1Milion"

    Freeroll which takes place on Thursday Dec 4th at 19:00 GMT. CelebPoker.com

    <a href="http://www.celebpoker.com/poker-promotions "rel=" DoFollow And NoFollow"> Play Blackjack - Win a Chance for €1 Million </a>

    Posted by salacious_0929 at 11/17/2008 @ 11:21am

17. Or after TWENTY SIX years in congress,

    SEVEN of the most powerful lobbyists in charge of his campaign

    Lover of Cheney/Bush

    John McCain promised to take on

    "the old boys network in Washington"

    Posted by winyahn at 11/17/2008 @ 11:22am

18. Well im glad to hear of what OBama said from his interview and I do believe that OBama will rule the 50 states of USA and what I forsee his country will be more progressive thus more jobs......... _________ mida

    Blackjack Bad Beat - Win a Free Seat to €1 Million Final

    Just wager €100 or more on Black Jack between 17th and 30th of Nov 2008 and if you lose you then don't despair because you will receive an automatic entry to the "BlackJack €1Milion"

    Freeroll which takes place on Thursday Dec 4th at 19:00 GMT. CelebPoker.com

    [url="http://www.celebpoker.com/poker-promotions " ] Play Blackjack - Win a Chance for €1 Million [/url]

    Posted by salacious_0929 at 11/17/2008 @ 11:23am

19. "But I believe, Katie, that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators." --John McCain, NBC's "Today Show," March 20, 2003

    Posted by winyahn at 11/17/2008 @ 11:28am

20. "But I believe, Katie, that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators." --John McCain, NBC's "Today Show," March 20, 2003

    Posted by winyahn at 11/17/2008 @ 11:28am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Last time I checked, about two weeks ago, Barack Obama won the election for President. Let it go.......

    Posted by chinesebandit at 11/17/2008 @ 1:11pm

21. Last time I checked, about two weeks ago, Barack Obama won the election for President. Let it go.......

    Posted by chinesebandit at 11/17/2008 @ 1:11pm

    Last time I checked, last two days or so, Barack Obama was choosing his cabinet from the bush and clinton adminstrations, almost exclusively.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/17/2008 @ 3:09pm

22. Posted by NukularProficy at 11/17/2008 @ 01:57am

    I love the way people hear and see what they want. Obama never sidestepped the issue. He indicated that stimulating the economy would require printing more money at the Fed. He didn't quibble with Kroft about that.

    The whole point is if National Debt needs to be increased to stimulate the economy and keep people in their homes, that is at least a good way to spend money we don't have (if there is such a thing). Spending billions of dollars on illegal wars and subsidising oil companies the rich and defense contractors with tax cuts and subsidies is a "bad" way to spend money we don't have.

    Building infrastructure creating jobs and establishing sane trade policies will pay off in the long run. At least you get a revenue return on those investments.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/17/2008 @ 4:37pm

23. It was comforting and reassuring to hear and see two real people interacting in that interview. Michelle and Barack are a pleasure to watch. Obama is concise, intelligent and clear when he speaks and so is Michelle.

    What a pleasant change from hearing the insipid, odious and insidious doublespeak of the likes of Bush and company. Aswell as the patronizing and irritating repetitions of McCaina and Palin.

    Thank God this country did the right thing for once.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/17/2008 @ 4:48pm

24. Posted by Malcontent at 11/17/2008 @ 3:09pm

    Haven't you heard the new right-wing talkig points, Eric?

    Apparently since the financial meltdown....Hank Paulson and Barack Obama are now Co-Presidents. Dubya retired months ago!

    Posted by Mask at 11/17/2008 @ 4:48pm

25. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/16/2008 @ 11:07pm

    Not that this is really relevant on this thread, but I feel compelled to respond to this bizarre example of historical revisionism. Whatever one may think of what Daniel Ortega is doing now (or in the 1980s, for that matter), the fact remains that he didn't "finally" hold presidential elections in 1990. The first post-1979 presidential elections in Nicaragua were held in 1984. Ortega won the presidency at that time with a solid 67% of the vote, in what impartial observers agreed were free and fair elections.

    Posted by richcarl at 11/17/2008 @ 4:59pm

26. Posted by richcarl at 11/17/2008 @ 4:59pm

    Other countries need to be left alone to decide their own political and cultural futures. Their are organizations that monitor free and fair elections. We can be aware of these situations and use diplomatic channels and world opinion to influence political discourse.

    But the days of directly interfering with the internal politics of other countries by this country must end. The fact that we have actively pursued the spread of American Imperialism has been the cause of much death and destruction throughout the world and here at home.

    We really must learn to keep our noses out of other peoples business. Or we will continue to suffer the consequences.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/17/2008 @ 5:21pm

27. richcarl at 4:59pm felt "compelled to respond to this bizarre example of historical revisionism":

    <<< [Daniel Ortega] didn't "finally" hold presidential elections in 1990. The first post-1979 presidential elections in Nicaragua were held in 1984. Ortega won the presidency at that time with a solid 67% of the vote, in what impartial observers agreed were free and fair elections. >>>

    The Washington Post has it right. Ortega finally agreed to elections in 1990 after a protracted civil war during which time he ruled as a one party dictator.

    He had seized power in 1979, upon Samoza's resignation, and governed as the unelected head of a junta, allied with the USSR and Cuba. Five years later he held elections which he won against the non-candidacy of Arturo Cruz, much in the way Samoza won his rigged elections. The NY Times of 11/7/84 wrote, "Only the naive believe the election was democratic or legitimizing proof of the Sandinistas' popularity."

    If you don't believe Ortega is a first class scoundrel capable of filthy tricks and shameless betrayals consider his recent unscrupulous alliances and criminal election tactics.

    He did not just become a skunk lately. He was a full fledged son of a bitch when you adored him.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/17/2008 @ 6:34pm

28. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/17/2008 @ 6:34pm

    Sorry, Hugo, but you've clearly got an axe to grind here. I'll stick with the evidence from impartial, outside observers (and sadly, The NY Times and Washington Post don't count here, though they should) until I hear convincing evidence to the contrary.

    Posted by richcarl at 11/17/2008 @ 6:53pm

29. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/17/2008 @ 6:34pm

    So the Right is now re-fighting the 1980s????

    Boy, they are in big trouble idea-wise. What's up for 2012? Mike Huckabee is going to come up with "Just Say No" to drugs....or Bobby Jindal going to joke about "we begin bombing in 5 minutes"?

    Posted by Mask at 11/17/2008 @ 9:04pm

30. Barack had so much potential : (

    Posted by TexasFlood at 11/17/2008 @ 9:19pm

31. Vetting Bill Clinton Could Bring Controversy POSTED: 02:53 PM ET, 11/17/2008 by Chris Matthews

    With Hillary Clinton emerging as one of the top candidates to become Secretary of State, Barack Obama's transition team has begun to vet not only Clinton, but her husband as well.

    A team of lawyers will be poring over former president Bill Clinton's activities and finances. Some worry that his personal finances and business relationships at home and abroad could bring unwanted controversy to the Obama White House.

    During the Democratic primaries, the former president promised to reveal the identities of contributors and the amounts given to his foundation if Hillary were elected president. If he is asked to disclose similar information as the husband of the Secretary of State, some interesting information could be revealed.

    Since leaving office, Clinton has been busy making contacts throughout the world through the Clinton Global Initative and the William J. Clinton Foundation. He has earned millions in speaking fees and business dealings and solicited donations to his foundation from foreign businesses. To date, his foundation has raised over $500 million.

    Among several of Clinton's business relationships that have proven controversial:

    Last year, The New York Times reported that while some Clinton foundation donors were longtime friends, others sought policy changes while he was still in office. Two donors pledged $1 million while under investigation by the Justice Department.

    Clinton's decision to serve on the board of Yucaipa Cos., run by his billionaire friend Ronald Burkle, has also drawn criticism. Clinton earned more than $5 million through his partnership with Burkle, helping Burkle land investors and identify business opportunities.

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/17/2008 @ 9:21pm

32. n 2005, Clinton expressed support for Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, Kazakhstan's authoritarian president, undercutting international criticism of Kazakhstan's poor human rights record, an issue championed by Clinton's wife. Days after Clinton's public declaration, his ally (and future donor) Frank Giustra won the rights to three state-run uranium projects. Months later, Clinton received a $31.3 million donation from Guistra.

    Clinton has also accepted fees for speaking in China and Saudi Arabia, countries that have blemished human rights records.

    By Chris Matthews | November 17, 2008; 2:53 PM ET

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/17/2008 @ 9:23pm

33. Unfortunately for the CHANGE-lings still in love with this guy, "No Torture, No Gitmo", is not change.

    That's what it's SUPPOSED to be. Remember way back when?

    Posted by TexasFlood at 11/17/2008 @ 9:26pm

34. Metteyya, What exactly is the accusation here? What is Bill up to, in your opinion? For example, are you saying Bill Clinton's charitable foundation is a ruse?

    And/or that he's exploiting his influence and relationships - in this case involving the gutting the natural resources of a sovereign country?

    Anyway, please clarify you accusation. Otherwise this has the same ring as McCain/Palin's "Who is Obama really?" / Palling around with terrorists --

    Maybe Bill is the ultimate REDISTRIBUTIONIST?

    Posted by winyahn at 11/17/2008 @ 9:38pm

35. General George Washington made a point of treating his British POWs significantly better than he knew his own lost soldiers were being treated by his opponents, in order to set an example of what revolutionary ideals were supposed to be about.

    Roll the clock back 230 years or so and Bush, et. al., would be the Tories.

    And BTW, weirdly, Bush II actually is our George-III.

    Posted by Kilgore52 at 11/17/2008 @ 9:49pm

36. Sarah P's emerging book deal:

    www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world

    /us_and_americas/us_elections

    /article5162538.ece

    It's being said that no publisher wants W's memoirs. I would respectfully demur from such negativism. It's all a Q of the book's cover ... if he titles it MY CONFESSION, he's in line for an advance even bigger than Sarah's ...

    ... and then go on to sell about as few as her bullshit opus. No way they'll remotely recoup an advance in the stratosphere the jerks are now discussing.

    Yet another indicator of the smarts level in current US book ublishing.

    Posted by sloper at 11/17/2008 @ 10:10pm

37. ^^^^^

    How it is that this woman has not simply drifted off into the land of memory, is beyond me.

    I don't want anything bad to happen to her. I just want her to go the FUCK away.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 11/17/2008 @ 10:48pm

38. How it is that this woman has not simply drifted off into the land of memory?

    = the cancer of the 4th estate

    Posted by winyahn at 11/17/2008 @ 11:04pm

39. He also didn't anything about "OB-GYNs practicing their love of women" or "I'm the Decider"...which is a nice change too.

    Posted by Mask at 11/17/2008 @ 07:14am

    It's just like his press conference - complete sentences, fully formed thoughts! Makes you realize how long and generally horrible it's been. Hey, where are Larry and Happy, et al. on this one? Must bum them out, the idea of closing Gitmo and stopping torture. They seem such fans of that sort of bestiality.

    Posted by jmusolino at 11/18/2008 @ 12:58am

40. Posted by jmusolino at 11/18/2008 @ 12:58am

    Actually you might say "bestial behavior"...not "bestiality", which is usually a significantly DIFFERENT generally accepted definition!!!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 11/18/2008 @ 07:24am

41. BESTIAL- without reason or intelligence; brutal; inhuman: bestial treatment of prisoners, or...

    ? bestial campaigning: "pro-America areas of this great nation" "palling around with terrorists" "Godless Americans"

    Posted by winyahn at 11/18/2008 @ 09:37am

42. Posted by Mask at 11/18/2008 @ 07:24am

    Hmmm...of course, there's always Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum.

    Posted by jmusolino at 11/18/2008 @ 09:51am

43. The biggest question is unanswered: Yes, close down the prison at Guantanamo (not the base), okay what are you going to do with all those prisoners?

    Remember that at least fifty prisoners who were released found their way back to fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Send them back to their own countries? Maybe, but a lot of them would be killed by those countries (like China).

    Bring them to the United States? And what, have so ridiculous court order their release into the general population? Anyone who says yes, why don't we set them up in a house next door to you.

    Fact is, we have them, and there aren't good answers to those questions. Personally? I'd send them back to some prison over in Afghanistan and let them deal with them.

    Barack has no answer to that -- much like he lacks answers to myriad basic questions; but it is evidently impolite to ask him questions that aren't the softest of softballs.

    Posted by J. Saxon at 11/18/2008 @ 5:20pm

44. Mask at 9:04pm says:

    <<< Boy, they [the Right] are in big trouble idea-wise. What's up for 2012? >>>

    You and your fellow heavy thinkers are unburdened by a grasp of what politics is all about.

    Conservatives disdain govt and distrust those enamored of public office. Their central idea, and if you like, their only idea, is to let citizens run their own lives and to keep govt as small as possible.

    Liberals on the other hand are full of ideas, but not because they are smarter and have livelier imaginations?

    It is because, while conservatives see their path to wealth and power via enterprise, liberals see it via govt. Govt is their gravy train. They don't have to build a business, make a discovery, blaze a path of their own. They just have to get their man elected. He will make laws that will require the successful to share their wealth. And that is why the liberals are the party of the good heart, of generosity and morality. They need to justify their theft.

    And so, your ideas are the ever new promises held out at every election to capture votes, while conservatives, because they oppose this swindle, are accused of having no ideas.

    But of course, the right has also now entered into the business of enticing voters with wild promises. When the population is immature, and just listen to the children on these boards, there is no other way to play the game.

    What we are left with are two unscrupulous parties playing to a mindless electorate happy to sell more and more of its freedom to the highest bidder, with one of the parties, handicapped by vestigial scruples that are taken for a lack of ideas.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/19/2008 @ 2:30pm