Hypothetical questions are a bad idea

A recent John Dickerson piece in Slate argues the merits of Barack Obama's willingness to answer hypothetical questions:

"Fortunately, one candidate is answering hypotheticals. For the last two weeks, the Democratic political conversation has been consumed with hypothetical questions. Last week, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton engaged in a multiday set-to over whether they would meet with nasty dictators. This week, Barack Obama doubled down on hypotheticals by raising his own hypothetical situation in his sweeping speech on foreign policy. If he found actionable intelligence about al-Qaida leaders hiding out in the mountains of Pakistan, he said he would send in troops whether the Pakistani government liked it or not. When asked the next day about using nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan, he said he never would use them."

Contrary to Dickerson, this guy is under the impression that answering hypotheticals is pointless at best and poor political strategy at worst. The entire notion of hypothetical questions is that they are based in speculation surrounding highly incomplete information. Providing absolute answers to hypothetical questions is inherently flawed as anyone could think of countless nuanced scenarios in which lines of absolutism are blurred. Answering these questions leave candidates tied to a position that can be assailed on all sides--I can't believe they would/wouldn't do that!--as the situations posed in the questions aren't real. And guess what? This is exactly what's happening to Obama.