Comments on: Clinton, Obama camps clash over diplomacy answer

By: David, Bala Cynwyd, PA

David, Bala Cynwyd, PA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 06:27:27 +0000

Clinton calling Obama naive and irresponsible is an indicator of her character and personhood. It's dumb politics to be reminding folks about why 52% don't like her. Obama is hitting her back with real examples of her irresponsibility on Iraq position. Voters dislike petty squabbles & name calling. It also does not look Presidential. Hillary lost this round.

By: Alex, Las Vegas, NV

Alex, Las Vegas, NV — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 04:11:32 +0000

After reading the transcript of the question and responses by both candidates, I have affirmed my support of Senator Obama and maintain my respect for Senator Clinton. Although I can empathize with Hillary's caution, Barack's response articulated a clear departure of the non-engagement foreign policy approach propagated in the post-cold war era. We need a wholesale paradigm shift in our foreign policy and Barack's point of view represents the change we so desperately need at home and abroad.

By: Veronica, Dallas TX

Veronica, Dallas TX — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 04:02:31 +0000

This is a perfect example of how much more experience Clinton has over Obama. He will make an excellent president someday... however; we need someone who has the experience to kick some butts. Clinton has been in the White House... for 8 years might I mention, and she knows how it works. What this country needs now is someone like her to pull all the loose ends together!

By: David Cherbonnier, Singapore

David Cherbonnier, Singapore — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 03:56:21 +0000

The question was, Would you be "willing" to meet. To insinuate this would be done without proper evaluation of the circumstances and agenda is another of Hillary's attempts to duck the issue and besmirch the opposition.

By: Ricardo, Los Angeles, CA

Ricardo, Los Angeles, CA — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 03:24:57 +0000

Obama said he would meet with the "bad" leaders. To insinuate that he would meet right after he assumes the presidency is a bogus statement. Experience? Why did Clinton vote for the war? Isn't she so experienced? If she really had the experience she claims to have, she would not have done that! I am sure that Clinton, if elected, would keep the same politics of arrogance that we can see in the current White House. Maybe a little masked... but the same!Clinton is feeling the heat, thats why she will try to attack Obama as much as she can.
Wake up America!

By: Lavelle

Lavelle — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 01:44:06 +0000

I think CNN should look at the responses in this blog! The people think differently then what there trying to spin against Obama. The media is also in on whatever agenda the Clintons have on Americans. I respect Obama even more, and am suprised at how CNN continues to disapoint! Stop covering the game onesided, Obama is showing that he will stand toe to toe with anyone. And the people are noticing that he is infact strong and can lead. Heck why dont CNN talk about Obama's response to all this...He said "being naive and irresponsible is by voting for a war without a plan to get out" that speaks louder then some answer to a debating question. She was underpressure with a vote and got it wrong. She refused to read anything about the plans to attack Iraq. She just said ok go ahead lets do it! Hmmm that doesnt sound like a leader to me.

By: Ron, Honolulu HI

Ron, Honolulu HI — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:34:31 +0000

As of the last entry on 7/25 at 5:22 pm:

Number supporting Obama/think Clinton is cheap politics as usual:
157

Number supporting Clinton/Think Obama is too inexperienced:
31

Seemingly undecided:
roughly 37

A few entries werent included since they were confusing but overall it seems like if the sample here reflects the voting poputation then Obama will do it. His supporters just need to go to the polls.

By: marcus dallas texas

marcus dallas texas — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:43:54 +0000

I can see how Mrs. Clinton percieved it as being overzealous on Mr. Obama's part but i wonder if she was saying that for the audience or from her own convictions?

By: Thomas - Westchester County, NY

Thomas - Westchester County, NY — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:30:15 +0000

Obama's response to the question was good. Why is Hillary and her ilks trying to make an issue out of nothing? She called Obama " Niave, but her vote on the war was niave and she refuses to explain her vote. She's is clearly taking a page from the Bush handbook, which is become an isolationist and alienate America from those whom we disagree. Sen.Clinton will NOT get my vote, I'd vote for Guilani before i vote her.

By: Bill O'Neill, Palatine, IL

Bill O'Neill, Palatine, IL — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:22:19 +0000

Clinton isn't "nuanced" to prefer careful prenups before meeting with baddies lest she be "deceived". In her case its really required. She's reminding us of her 2003 war vote that was not a mistake because she was "misled". Really? By anybody smart? All of the baddies and some of the goodies are more than capable of deceit. Presidents are admired for audacity, (more so when their gamble just appears to be daring or risky.) Obama understands that.

By: Wallace Young Montgomery, Alabama

Wallace Young Montgomery, Alabama — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:55:41 +0000

I am so glad that Senator Obama's lack of substance is beginning to shine through. His answer on Monday night proves he is not ready to lead this country.

He should consider 2016. I really think he is the future of the Democratic party, but he should not have let the Oprah hype push him into running for President. Serve another term or two in the Senate or take a postion in the Clinton cabinet, then run as a qualified candidate.

By: Jon, Irvine CA

Jon, Irvine CA — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:47:33 +0000

Clinton answered the question like a Real President. Which is the PROBLEM, I like Obama's fresh approach. I don't want a seasoned politician who will give us more of the same. Clinton represents all that is wrong with politics.

By: Jimmy from up North

Jimmy from up North — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:43:01 +0000

And then Clinton was all, "Obama's naivete and inexperience = unpresidentialness, a word I just made up", and then Obama was like, "Washington needs to change! Only I can change Washington with my magical change-wand, and my band of change wizards! Join me!" And then Clinton was like, "Somebody ask me a question about my husband so I can make a witty joke and look inevitable!", and then Anderson Cooper was all, "Bill Richardson, you have 2.5 seconds to respond. Time's up."

By: Hong,Trumbull ct

Hong,Trumbull ct — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:22:01 +0000

Obama answered the question right. We need to set a good example to show to the world, American are more than just ordinary people, we are making efforts to unite the world. So the world could look up to us and follow us.

By: Eugene Elliott, Orlando, FL

Eugene Elliott, Orlando, FL — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:11:53 +0000

I notice that an objective of both campaigns has been successful in this piddling little story. It sucked up the oxygen that other candidates are dying for. While I prefer Gravel of the pack, I cannot vote for any of them due to their immigrations positions. A note to remember, it is not a game to pick the eventual winner to support, but to pick the one that is best in line with your views. Any of them would be 100% better than poor worthless W, but then that applies to my cat too. And at this stage 100% is not enough. As for Castro, I see no difference trading with the Communist dictators in China from doing the same for Castro. Both are wrong.

By: Dan, Texas

Dan, Texas — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:55:05 +0000

Clinton and Obama gave the same answer. Clinton is trying to somehow make a political point, but it doesn't hold up. Maybe Clinton supporters will be comforted by it. As an independent voter, I didn't see a difference. Obama because he seems more open and straightforward and I can actually find out what his views are. I compared the Clinton and Obama issues pages on their campaign web sites. Obama's has more information about his views. Overall I think Clinton and Obama have the same policy goals on almost all issues. They would make an extraordinary ticket together. At the moment, I would prefer Obama to Clinton as the presidential candidate.

By: bob

bob — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:35:14 +0000

Don't talk to dictators? Half our allies are dictators. You talk to everyone, especially those who disagree with you. Hillary, I was warming to you, but this response just reminded me why you arent the best choice.

By: Kaseam, Philly, PA

Kaseam, Philly, PA — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:26:21 +0000

For those people that say Hillary is ready to be the next President are people that have been brainwashed by old politics. It's simple: If you want the same old "Presidential" type elected, then vote Hillary. Just look as Bush back in 2000. Most people thought he was "Presidential" and you see where that got us. America needs a new leader that will change old politics. People need to stop being scared of new ideas for leading this country. Obama is the man. Hillary is just mad that Obama would gain more acceptance and RESPECT from world leaders than she could ever dream of.

By: Ryan, CT

Ryan, CT — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:15:27 +0000

Hillary is the Queen-B of backhanded smear tactics. She's trying to brainwash the country into forgetting Obama. She's getting dangerously close to using Bush's tactics to void McCain from the race. Stories like this should not be voiced publicly...but privately between camps.

Obama wants to try and smooth over relations and sooth global tensions. Sure, maybe Clinton worded her answer better, but Obama has some guts to say that he'd try to work with them.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:59:04 +0000

All these people are ready for "change" that they are willing to run towards anything that SEEMS new. Obama is that, but do we really want a freshman senator running the White House?

We need someone with more experience that won't commit silly gaffes that can cost us dearly. Obama answered the question carelessly because he knows that is what the American people wanted to hear. He didn't answer the question thoughtfully as we should be expect him to do.

By: Mike, DFW, TX

Mike, DFW, TX — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:27:48 +0000

Amazing to read how many here were responding with the "business as usual" mindset. Clinton's response was more much more in the light of politically proper but not within the idea of changing attitudes not just in America but world wide. Envoys or other irrelevant meetings mean nothing and only give the excuse to withdraw. Why do you think it took so long for N. Korea and they are still able to use effective dodges to accuse America of planning war.If you want change, it's time that Americans stop thinking in terms of politics but rather the what will make impressions for real change. It's no longer the time to be scurrrred of change...

By: Derrick, Lompoc, CA

Derrick, Lompoc, CA — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:00:05 +0000

Hillary needed to listen to the questing better. It didn't ask if they would commit to unconditionally meeting with those leaders, but if they would be WILLING to meet with them. IT goes without saying that the intentions for the meeting (as well as many other factors) would play into the decision. Also, the question doesn't say that those meetings have to be photo ops. They could be privately handled. Presidents have many discussions with other world leaders over phone and video conferences.

As for loosing hispanic votes in Florida. Those people are wrong. You don't have to agree with the politics of Castro (or any of the others) to talk with them. In fact, it is essential that we talk to our enemies. Not talking leads to misunderstandings and war. Talking to the enemy does not mean you condone or lend credence to what they do or say.

By: Odenton, MD

Odenton, MD — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:41:28 +0000

I'm an immigrant living in the USA. OBAMA was right on the point. America is the pride of the world but this good reputation has been damaged by the BUSH administration. It is time for America to start engaging the world and show her beautiful face that she was once known for. The world is once more eagerly waiting for America to lead not intimidate. A new kind of diplomacy is the way to future.

By: Scott, Dubuque IA

Scott, Dubuque IA — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:52:14 +0000

There is a significance to this response... It shows the difference in the experience between the senators. It shows that Sen. Clinton is aware of the operations of Foreign Policy & dipolomacy, where Sen. Obama is still learning how these things truly work. I think the intentions are good, but the process is much more important.

By: Emily, Los Angeles, CA

Emily, Los Angeles, CA — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:30:02 +0000

I completely agree with Marsha from Portland. Hillary did not say she would not talk to "bad people" back in April. She intelligently is saying that she would come up with a plan of action prior to meeting with other leaders. Obama clearly needs more political experience. This is proven by his response to immediately start meeting with leaders without a strategic plan.

By: Wolfram Weinberg Redding CA

Wolfram Weinberg Redding CA — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:24:40 +0000

It is naive to think that the strategically detailed question directed to Obama was not a setup and that Clinton had not rehearsed her answer. Obama is right that Clinton demonstrates politics as usual rather than change with this "nice fabricated controversy".

By: Joe Shields, Pittsburgh PA

Joe Shields, Pittsburgh PA — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:23:52 +0000

JFK said, "let us never negotiate out of fear, BUT let us never fear to negotiate". I liked Obama's answer best. We've had enough "aloof diplopmacy" with Bush. During the Cuban Missle Crisis, JFK and RKF were talking to every Russian they could through every means possible, and war was averted. When you treat world leaders (good or bad) like crap, you get crap. When you approach them as an equal ala JFK's UN speech "... we all breathe the same air ... cherish our children's future... etc." you bring them away from their childish banter and get adult-like behavior.

By: Matt, Manchester, CT

Matt, Manchester, CT — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:06:17 +0000

"Chavez was democratically elected and poses no threat."

I cannot believe someone seriously posted that.

By: Michael, Bethlehem, PA

Michael, Bethlehem, PA — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:13:18 +0000

The debate highlights my main concern about the democratic candidates. Barack Obama is highly inexperienced and it shows. He thinks that he will be able to build a JFK-like cult of personality and sweep his way into office. Sadly, he has no real legislative accomplishments to show. Hilary is a coldly calculating sociopath who has unfavorables that are through the roof. Edwards is a trail lawyer with $400 haircuts living in a mega-mansion paid for by the monetary damages he won in lawsuits. I am not impressed.

By: Gian Paolo Gracia, Plainsboro, NJ

Gian Paolo Gracia, Plainsboro, NJ — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:10:17 +0000

Obama is far too arrogant. People like Iran's Ahmadinejad will only see that as a weakness - young pup only too eager to prove himself. A sly eagle hides its claws, surveys the situation and its prey before making the first move. Furthermore, Obama has no track record, no experience in situations even remotely similar to this one to predict how those Ahmadinejad will react. Clinton, on the other hand, knows what she's doing. She knows that the playing ground isn't leveled, and she'll only make her move once she's assessed the situation and all possible moves. Obama is much like the University of Chicago, where he taught. I know because I'm an alumnus. Much too eager to prove himself. Sir, much like all the other alumni, including myself, you may be intelligent, but you're far too green, and woe to any of us who puts your pride before our welfare.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:01:12 +0000

I don't think there is any contradiction whatsoever between the stance Hillary took in the debate and the stance she allegedly took when she said that it's a mistake for the president to say he will not speak to bad people. Hillary in no way asserted any promise in either statement to demonstrate the type of overoptimistic diplomacy that Obama wishes to practice.

By: David, Moscow, ID

David, Moscow, ID — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:46:20 +0000

Hillary's Camp stupidly decided to take a Bush-Rove style of politics. There was a high positive response by regular voters for Obama's statement during the debate, and Hillary looked the way she always does: calculating and non-committal. Her answer lost her points. So in true REPUBLICAN style... she argued her bad answer into a supposed strength and brought out her husband's lackeys to back her up, even though she had attacked the President on the course of action that she is now proposing. Why can't she just admit she made a mistake in that comment of the debate! Because she never admits to her political mistakes... who does that sound like?

By: John, Austin Texas

John, Austin Texas — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:45:08 +0000

I Greatly agree with Obama, I think that we can solve most of the world's problems through a process of dialogue and respect.

Hillary however is not standing for anything, she is too busy trying to please the minority view to be elected than to follow principles.

Before she wanted the war, now she is against it. Before she criticized bush for not having an open dialogue with others now she is criticizing Obama for saying we should have a dialogue with others.

In response to Cuban comment concerning Castro:

To all the cuban hypocrites to whom America gives a green card to, what has America's policy towards Cuba has change for the suffering poor Cubans...absolutely nothing, other than poor cubans suffering from lack of economic opportunities.

Really people we are better off with stability in the world than with Chaos...and Obama is proposing that, a chance for stability, prosperity, and peace at home and around the world.

By: Adam, Denver, CO

Adam, Denver, CO — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:37:56 +0000

Obama is right on with his answer. If we just talked to people around the globe and listened to their concerns, we might be able to save face and regain our greatness in the world. Diplomacy is the only way to stop the growing hatred of the US of A.

By: Brenda Dicks Jacksonville Fl.

Brenda Dicks Jacksonville Fl. — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:31:05 +0000

Obama is completely correct. It is time for a real change in thinking. Hillary will be just more of the same policy. She has made that clear.
Did anyone else notice that she had made a real attempt -maybe with Botox–to keep her brow completely without a wrinkle. Allas-Not a worry at all with any question!!!

By: Victor, Trumbull CT

Victor, Trumbull CT — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:28:59 +0000

This is the part I hate the most about Political race, It is dirty for the most part.. the "He said, She said"!!.. This is where I separate the good from the bad. If you're bad enough to bad mouth and even lie about yourself and your counter parts, You are bad enough to be my president. I would much rather see a president who can portray and stand by us Americans with a clear, concious, humble yet firm stance for the sake of our peace and that of the world than someone who is already unwilling to commit from the get go. The world needs peace!! So far, Obama has my vote.

By: LeRoy Brown, Charlotte, NC

LeRoy Brown, Charlotte, NC — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:15:51 +0000

I really believe that Senator Barack Obama answered the question very well. It is always a great idea to meet with the other side to see if both sides can come to an agreement. Whose to say that if the we would have tried to compromise with the other side that we probably would not be deep into the situation that we are in. "Oh how good and pleasent it is for us to dwell together in unity and harmony and love."

By: Mark, Chantilly, VA

Mark, Chantilly, VA — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:05:44 +0000

There is a difference between agreeing in concept and committing to an actual meeting under any circumstances. Obama answered the question straightforwardly, indicating he was willing to talk. There was no actual difference in the answers of Obama, Clinton, and Edwards as any of the three would obviously do the background work before any meeting would occur.

It's time for the US to work towards a sensible policy towards Cuba, rather than one driven by a small radical faction within the Cuban-American community.

By: Christopher - Rockford, IL

Christopher - Rockford, IL — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:05:10 +0000

He was asked if he was WILLING to meet. Obama said nothing about promising to meet as Clinton's people spun it to be. I think that was the right answer. Saying he is not willing to consider it would be worse than simply saying no. Read the question and then his answer. Don't read what Clinton's people say what was implied. This is plain and simple: something being made out of nothing to try and help Clinton and harm Obama.

By: Anita Melrose-12200 Vonn rd.8A-Largo,Fl. 33774

Anita Melrose-12200 Vonn rd.8A-Largo,Fl. 33774 — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:56:47 +0000

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR THE EXTREMELY INTERESTING YOU/TUBE.
YOUR SELECTION OF PERSONS WITH QUESTIONS WAS FAR ABOVE OTHER POLITICAL SHOWS. I FEEL SENATOR OBAMA WAS THE MOST BRILLANT AND BRIGHTEST STAR. ANITA-LARGO

By: Brian, Philadelphia PA

Brian, Philadelphia PA — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:53:47 +0000

If you re-read the question as it's quoted, both answers are really the SAME.. "yes". Hillary tried to make a distinction by tacking a more specific time frame onto her answer. It's not as if the question asked for an exact time frame and Obama responded he would get on a plane to Havana the minute after he was sworn in, he just gave a straight, simple answer and his logic behind it. Maybe if Hillary had answered first and included those details, he would have as well... but that wasn't part of the question they were asked. I think Hillary's answer really demonstrates that her "experience" translates into the same tired ideas on more than we know.

By: Mercedes, Orlando, FL

Mercedes, Orlando, FL — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:51:11 +0000

Would someone please tell me what "presidential" means? This term was tossed around so loosely and smugly by Bush and his cohorts in the last campaign that I have to wonder whether presidential means clueless.

By: Sean, Charlotte, NC

Sean, Charlotte, NC — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:49:42 +0000

I totally agree with Obama. This whole business of not speaking to other political leaders is childish and, frankly, dangerous. We should keep an open dialogue with all nations, simply because that’s what a world leader should do. The contents of that dialogue may vary, depending on the nation, but open lines of communication is very important, as Obama pointed out. Clinton, on the other hand, will say whatever her advisors tell her is popular at that particular point in time.

By: Rick, Mechanicsburg, PA

Rick, Mechanicsburg, PA — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:46:18 +0000

When did one person's opinion become right and another's become wrong. If that is what Obama would do should he be elected President, is up to him to do and for the rest of us to debate.

By: Kyu Reisch, Radcliff, Kentucky

Kyu Reisch, Radcliff, Kentucky — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:45:01 +0000

Sen. Clinton's answer is just like the President of USA, her answer is perfect as President in this situation. Obama's answer showed inexperienced Young Senator's foriegn policy. There's nothing to argue with Hillary's answer because she knows what is the best for our country, but Obama is anxious to be the president so answered quick without policital knowledge, it doesn't mean he is stupid, it came from inexperience. Obama realized his answer wasn't smarter than Hillary, he turn around attack Hillary, cause the trouble and tried to make Hillary look bad, but it will never work out because water always flows downward. So he couldn't answer like Hillary, after the Debate his Senior Advisors coached him to attack Hillary. My point is Hillary can controll the hard situation by her own brain but Obama couldn't do by himself yet, he always needs other Campaign Staff's advises, that's why it is dangerous to hand the power to Obama yet. Obama has the future if he is really smart like he said, why worry about this election so much, he is not 70 years old now, he can prove himself eventually. Obama is making huge mistake with attacking Hillary as long as he is staying with Democrats. I am afraid of Obama may hire staffs like VP because he performed several dirty and nasty mistakes by his staffs so far, it isn't his idea I guess, then he didn't keep his word like new and fresh, that kind of performances are old political style, doesn't match with his slogan. Obama should be RESPONSIBL for his words first before attack other candidates. American people need to watch out and wake up, your one vote is very important for our Country's future. Obama, do FAIR PLAY, otherwise hurts yourself deeply.

By: John, Dallas, TX

John, Dallas, TX — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:41:40 +0000

I think the diplomacy and responses here allude more to what the problems are with our Nation than a solution to those problems. The question asked if they would be "willing" to meet with those leaders. The question does not ask if the meeting would be done on a conditional basis. It was poised to present a contrast or similarity to the current party's stance. That was its intent, pure and simple, and I think both candidates let us know where they stand on the issue. To think that there would be any meeting that would take place without conditions or objectives is simply absurd.

By: James, Atlanta GA

James, Atlanta GA — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:38:49 +0000

The truth of the matter is that Hillary answered just like a politician. Obama answered in the way that the American people would like to see. We are tired of this administrations policies. We don't need an envoy of diplomats talking we need the heads of states talking. Like Reagan did with the Soviet Union. We need results not retoric.

By: Danielle Clarke

Danielle Clarke — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:32:58 +0000

Hillary flip-flopped; she said exactly what Obama said, back in April. http://wcbstv.com/us/local_story_112220939.html
We have a real choice: choose someone like Barack Obama who won't say anything just to get votes then change a few months later.

By: Mike - Washington, D.C,

Mike - Washington, D.C, — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:24:23 +0000

So um... the questions was "would be willing to meet 'with leaders of Syria, Iran, Venezuela during their first term.”

being willing to meet with the leaders of these countries is not committing to meeting with these leaders. Hillary is clearly spinning things to get people to think Obama's answer is any different from hers... only it was the same thing, save that Obama sounds committed to doing something about it for certain, and Hillary is only willing to do it if it doesn't make her look bad.

I don't know about you guys, but I want a president thats worried about what the US and the world thinks about America, not what folks think about them as a President.

By: John, Ft. Worth, TX

John, Ft. Worth, TX — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:14:45 +0000

I hate to say it, but Clinton really isn't splitting hairs. There has to be protocol to meetings at the Presidential level or you lose credibility. I agree that our openness to diplomatic relations with specific countries should be re-assessed, but the level at which it is done makes a huge difference for relations with not only the country in question, but with all other countries involved. I agree with Rada – Clinton's answer was much more presidential and experienced (sorry Obama!)