CNN

Michael,
Hillary is not "flexible". She only voted against the funding because the majority of the country and all the Democrats had turned against the war by that point, so she had to. And she STILL refuses to admit she made a mistake in voting for the war in Iraq.
That argument on experience is absurd, I am so sick of hearing about that. Who cares how long Hillary has been married to Bill (let's face it, the so called "experience" she claims to have is as Bill's wife) – look over Obama's resume and he has just as much political and leadership experience in different roles. What does Hillary have, 4 more years in the Senate? Big deal.
So even if Hillary was married to Bill for years and you consider that "experience", obviously she didn't learn anything from all that "experience" – she voted for the war.
Obama knew from day one it was a mistake. He is a true leader that has consitently shown sound judgement.
Now go back to work for the Clinton camp.

This topic is definitely a non-issue.

I've read many comments from people wanting change and believing that Obama will be the one to bring it home. Others feel that experience will turn the tide.

Ladies and Gentlemen, big ships turn slowly. No matter who becomes the next president, rainbows and roses are not going to spring from the ground overnight. There is a long hard road ahead of our candidates let’s not get hung up on political posturing.

It’s time for change. The politics of yester years are no more,gone with the wind it has, Mrs clinton wake up its 2008 and its Obama time…we love this GUY..he is just so BILL CLINTON like, dont you get it!!!
OBAMA 08′

Hillarys Top 5 Reasons For President

- The New York times, Mitt Romney and CNN have endorsed me with their glowing coverage.

- Fox news finally loves me, proof, Rupert Murdoch held a fundraiser for me.

-The Clinton years were soo prosperous, when we left office, we gave up the house, the senate and the alot of governorships to republicans.

-I like making people feel good by telling them what they want to hear.I’m told its good for their health. Remember the twang i put on infront of black people.

-I’m the only one who can end the war in Iraq. I should know because i voted for it. And after finally taking 4 years to read the intelligence report,my experience tells me that what we need now is an exit strategy.

To me, Obama is a visionary leader. He has far more experience in the real world than Clinton or any of the other candidates. Everything I hear and read about him furthers this. He was a civil rights attorney, he worked to rise people above their stations. He is the kind of leader that comes along once a generation if we’re lucky. I’ve just read “the Audacity of Hope” and it was so stirring, so clear, so clearly written not by a ghost writer but in the voice of the man himself. Barry Obama is the real deal, he’s the sort of fighter that we need oh so desperately in these trying times. I would go door to door for this candidate, I would believe he would look at any issue either foriegn or domestic with clear eyes and make decisions that were both humane and smart for our country and the world. The other candidates all strike me as fodder for lobbists, career politicians. I remember how moved I was when I heard his speech during Kerry’s convention. He is indeed a uniter, someone who can bring this sadly divided dis union back into union again. People will put paintings and photos on their walls of this man in the same way they do JFK or MLK. Mark my words, America and the world will prosper under President Obama. To see that happen I’d gladly travel to Ohio, to South Carolina, to Iowa, or anywhere else I needed to go to ensure he gets a fair shot. That’s all the man needs, is one good fair shot. Given his due he’ll do us right. Do the research. Don’t be a lemming. Read about him, read his own words. They aren’t sound bites, they’re living, breathing, human thoughts full of compassion and common sense, stength and integrity. Really look at this candidate. Do your kids and their kids the biggest favor of our lives.

I agree with Obama, but my issue is with the article's title. Obama did not call Clinton "Bush-Cheney light". He compared her position to Bush's. The media should not create catchy titles at the expense of accuracy. This does nothing but perpetuate the Swiftboat style politics of '04.

Obama is silly and naive, and he shares the naivety of George Bush when he didn’t know the name of a foreign country when asked by a reportor during his first election.

Obama is now desperate and red-faced because his comment on meeting with foreign dictators has exposed his inexperience to international protocol and politics, in comparision to Hillary’s. After George Bush’s fiasco bankrupting the american reputation abroad, america needs someone strong in international politics, and Hillary is a strong one of the democratic candidates.

Distance may lend enchantment; but all that glitters may not be gold. The fact is that Obama is new, inexperienced, untested, fluffy, and a monday-nite quarterback. God bless america if he gets nominated and elected.

Hillary rocks!

I was dismayed with the fact that the only three candidates that got attention where Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. CNN, like the rest of the Corporate-controlled media picked its favourite candidates and made the decision for American public regarding which candidates deserve our attention and which ones we should ignore.

Dennis Kucinich who is full of fresh, good, and clear ideas. He did not get anywhere near the attention or time despite the fact that he has a great record and very specific ideas on all major issues effecting the country today. But then again he is does not have the deep-corporate filled pockets that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have.

I guess if my choices came down to Clinton or Obama, Obama will get my vote. Obama has been a far more consistent record than Clinton on all major issues. Obama's position has been consitent on both foreign policy and domestic issues, and he voted against a war that cost over half a trillion dollars and claimed over 600,000 American and Iraqi lives... A war which experienced Senator Clinton fully supported until very recently. I would vote for Minnie Mouse before I'd vote for Clinton.

Doesn't CNN get the message that this attempt to create a squabble is getting so little response. The people who are making a choice will do so on the solutions each candidate can develop for the real issues.
Will CNN be viewed as the source to learn about the candidates serious thinking or as the source that just tries to stir up controversy so that their employees don't have to work so hard?
I want a candidate who will evaluate issues critically, listen to the citizens whose lives will be affected, and come up with multiple positive solutions that they can explain to the voters. If a candidate has a plan A, then they had better have a B (and maybe a C plan, too).
CNN please resort to serious reporting.
This stuff is wasting my time!

Most Democrats are not much better than the Repubs… HRH Hillary being the prime example.

There are a few exceptions to the above statement … like Obama, Edwards, and Kucinich (possibly Biden).

The Repubs are an accident waiting to happen, and HRH Hillary is on the side of the road with her hood open, waiting for help, from anyone.

Obama is a caring individual who is being forced to play the game of politics, just to get in a position to clean up the mess Bush and his cronies have made.

Obama means hope. Obama means change. Obama is the future of America. He may have to get his hands abit soiled just to get TO the West Wing, but his integrity will win out.

Obama will BE the next US President, and a damn good one at that !!

I am really disappointed with how CNN chose to title this piece. This is not what Sen. Obama said at all. How misleading. I'm sorry to say that I find CNN's sensational, conflict-evoking, attack style of presenting the "news" these days is not very "trustworthy."

Such an interesting discussion, I have a couple of points to discuss:

The first is in regards to the many commenters who relied on the bromide “stick to his guns” in referring to the superiority of Obama’s political stance.

I would like to pose the question, is this the sort of attitude that would actually benefit the world?
In a world that is continually changing and growing don’t we need a leader that is prone to adaptation? Someone who can call a mistake a mistake, take responsibility for it, and move on? Isn’t one of the largest issues with Bush that he obstinately and immaturely refuses to admit to his mistakes and FIX them?
In refusing to “flip flop” on his stance on the war, isn’t “sticking to his guns” exactly what our so widely hated leader is doing?
I am certainly not asking for a fickle or capricious leader, but is changing one’s mind always such a horrible thing? Also, let us remember that Obama himself has admitted that had he been in the senate, he cannot guarantee that he would have voted against the war.

As far as Clinton’s stance on being used as propaganda by foreign leaders, the idea is extraneous. Should our president choose to meet with them, there will be negative propaganda, should he/she choose to refrain from such meetings, there will be negative propaganda. The issue of meeting with such leaders should not be about propaganda, but about whether or not the meeting will fix the issues at hand, which is why preconditions are often necessary.

Also, I would like to echo the comments on many above in saying shame on CNN for their sensationalist journalistic tactics in this story/headline. Obama’s words were certainly misconstrued to add to the drama of this story.

My last issue is with posters, we all know who they are, using this discussion to throw out derogatory and hurtful words/phrases. I would like to echo Elizabeth Edwards in her call to stop this election from being tainted with hate dialogue. As a 21 year old student I find that all this mud slinging keeps youth from being interested in politics, which is simply a shame considering what an exciting political time we are entering.

Thanks for reading, keep on discussing!

WAIT Guys... Stop and look at the Article. CNN is to blame.

Look again. Obama never called her "Bush-Cheney light". Look again.

Please stop this nonsense CNN, we don't need another FOX News. Please.

"It is naive to think that the strategically formulated YouTube question directed to Obama was not a setup and that Clinton had not rehearsed her answer. Clinton uses her experience to bring down hope. Obama is right: Clinton demonstrates politics as usual rather than change with this “nice fabricated controversy”.

Yes Charly, it was a set-up question. But let's not forget that this question was directed to all candidates. And it was obvious that expected answer was: Yes, I will talk to them. Let's be honest, and at least give Hillary credit for going against expected and be honest about her position. It's definitely easier to go against current Bush's position (which is a complete disaster and shame for America in any respect). But she did not refused to talk, she refused to promise this talk in the first year outright and without any preparation. I think it's more mature and responsible. And by the way, I like Barak Obama very much, but his constant referral to Reigan dialog with Gorbachov resulting in the end of cold war is not very accurate. It seems to me that Americans keep forgetting that Gorbachov was a new leader of U.S.S.R. who tried to turn this huge mammoth country in the direction of openness and democracy. In the end he failed, but what he started could not be stopped. And THAT ended cold war, not President Reigan with all due respect.

Hillary Rocks! She is a shoe-in to win!

I think that most people aren't worried about talking with authoritarian regimes or dictators so much as they are about concessions or collaboration with oppressive governments. I admit that I was taken aback by Sen. Obama's comment, but U.S. presidents such as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and others have spoken with the leaders of such governments directly. The worry is that the senator's approach would be reconciling the United States with foreign governments without keeping U.S. interests paramount. Sen. Clinton is most likely right that certain parameters are necessary for dialogue, but Sen. Obama is not making as bold of a statement as it sounds.

I'm not a Clinton supporter but on this issue I agree. There's is nothing wrong with meeting the opposition. Therefore,we need to know what their demands are and such a meeting deserves intensive and extensive preparation which definitely should not take place during the first year of a Presidency. Of course, the end results will be the usual, an "impasse" once the non-Democratic countries are unwilling to follow Democratic views or policies. Thank You.

Barack Obama is correct in this matter. America can no longer afford to take the unrealistic and egomaniacal stance that talking to dictators "rewards" them and not-talking to dictators "punishes" them. It doesn't work anymore. Clinton says she is worried about being used for propaganda purposes; and yet, President Bush has been consistently used for propaganda even without talking to a single undesirable world leader. We saw that clearly when Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at the United Nations.

Yay for Obama and his diplomacy stance!

I'll never understand why more Americans aren't outraged over the fact that America was led into war based on a lie. Nearly 4,000 American soldiers have come home in body bags and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead...all because George Bush and Dick Cheney fabricated intelligence to justify an invasion of Iraq. Unless the majority of Americans actually push this matter and demand Bush and Cheney be held accountable, they will both have gotten away with one of the greatest crimes in modern history.

To Sue P.

So... "even the name says it all", right? OK, Sue P. I getcha. Sue Pee, y'know ... you may just be on to sumtink. (Wink Wink)

Let's all, er ... vote on .... names and what they say, reveal, look-like (sighhhhhh.... and we truly thought this was the age of intelligence ha ha ).

In case many of you forget. Hillary started this debate by going on the radio the next day after the debate to refer to Obama as naive. This from a woman who trusted George Bush, that if she gave him the authority he would not go to war. "Who is Naive"?

It is naive to think that the strategically formulated YouTube question directed to Obama was not a setup and that Clinton had not rehearsed her answer. Clinton uses her experience to bring down hope. Obama is right: Clinton demonstrates politics as usual rather than change with this “nice fabricated controversy”.

Obama has a point, The rest of the world would view his actions as a welcome turnaround and departure from the current global atmosphere of US imperialism. But I agree that he ought to be cautious, you never quite know what you might end up creating, just ask G.W.

I too must critisize CNN for mischarcterizing Obama's comments. From the text of story, Obama never calls Hillary "Bush-Cheney lite"–he only says that he does not want to be this and that he can't see a distinction between Hillary's and Bush's policies regarding this issue. The headline caught my eye because it seemed out of character for Obama to engage in such sound-bite name calling. I was right. Shame on you CNN for casting the rare political figure who does not play polictics in the way we have all come to hate as just like the rest of them.

The last thing we need is the son of a Radical Muslim in office. Obama has no chance. His nice clean cut style might win him some votes. He voted for the war and the funding, and the reason he would talk with Iran is because he has the same beliefs.

Go Obama!!! I could never actually vote for a "chameleon candidate". That is one who changes colors, sides, tactics and views (on war, etc) according to political climate. You make a decision, you stick with it and face the music. Otherwise it's parading and there have been enough parades and grand-stands.... makes me feel repeat Bushisms are comin on.

No,sireee. I'm holding out for Obama.

Barack Obama is right. She waffles back and forth. She can be called mini-Bush/Chaney. Stick to your guns, Barack – go get 'er.

Agreeing with Michael from Washington, DC, CNN, you really messed up on this one.

In no shape or form did, 'Obama call[s] Clinton 'Bush-Cheney Light.'

Barack's stance shows that he has some guts aside from just good talk. His quick response during the debate scared me a little bit as if he was reacting out of having to push his forward thinking philosophy (anyone else notice that?), but if he is saying what he truly believes, then I will support him 100%.

We can sometimes act careless with our responsibility as a “super power” and yes we faultier, with every slip our “enemies” and “friends” look for ways to further pull us down so we must make sure not to fall in there traps as the Bush administration has done.
Mrs. Clinton is right in her decision to hold talks with emerging nations whose intensions are not fully clear and whose stance has been to hate our way of life in our free and democratic society.

Obama is absolutely correct that we need to engage in diplomatic relations with these countries that are "rogue" states. Why would the leader of the free world whose country is TRYING TO SPREAD DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM across the world not meet with a dictator? Anyone that rejects this idea, including Bush, Cheney, Romney, and Hillary, is an idiot, ignorant of the facts and the world they live in.

Obama is the hope candidate. Pure and simple.

Excuse me, I am not American, but as a person likely to be affected in one way or another by decisions made by the American public . . .

America can be a great nation once again if it chooses to embrace great and progressive leadership. People who are not afraid to get shot down like the Rev Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy (although JFK didn't think it was coming) are few and far between. If one is not prepared to take a political bullet well . . . maybe you should ease your shaky hand off the button. Many of the political icons (not all Presidents) of the 20th century have come out of America. The same can't be said of the 21st century thus far (specific reference to Presidents). . . unless America chooses what is best for itself and the world.

To all the moralistic critics and cynics who suggest Obama wants to sit down with tyrants and dictators I'd remind you that the American collective continually weighs up the considerations of morals/rights and economics. You only have to consider the "most favoured nation status" awarded to China despite a littany of human rights abuses? Interesting to see GWB and Saddam laughing it up in Fahrenheit 9/11.

If Jesus could sit down with sinners then hell (excuse the reference) so can you ALL. America's recent forays into Iraq are a clear demonstration of fallibility and tyranny. Most Americans want a climb down from the war in Iraq. Why if going there was the right thing to do?

Ask yourself this when America engages in discussions with an enemy exactly who is viewing whom as the enemy or dictator?

Regarding leadership, sometimes America's problem is that you inherit and follow the previous coaches' playbook without realising that the opposition has an entireley different mindset, training tactics and offensive and defensive strategy. Sometimes you have to get into the game and work things as you go along. I think that is what Obama was prepared to do. Whoever comes into power please toss GWb's playbook aside.

A tyrant/dictator is not so unless so defined by the oppressed populace. America has been as oppressive in some of its foreign policies. If you are dealing with a dictator then you clearly have the wrong mindset, because your judgemental stance is not conducive to negotiation. Get someone else to do it. If you see a "dictator" as someone fallible who can be persuaded to reform then you have a greater chance. If you see a standoff as a situation which at worst can be delayed/ameliorated or at best is amenable to total correction then America might have a chance. If it's peace or guns blazing all the times you are not being realistic.

People who can't recognise the opportunities to do the small necessary things are as bad as spouses who think that an wedding anniversaries are the be-all and end-all of relationship building. Take every opportunity to improve the situation because the welfare of many depend on it.

For the folk who think of these debates as nothing more than an upmarket pay-per-view or free WWE event (less Mr McMahon) there might be something in the counterpoint that "leaders get the subjects they deserve".

Specifically for Sue P. Smith, Obama is confident in the strength of your military, and surely you can come up with a better fruit of "a wonderful country" than respecting the military. "Darling, look at that wonderful tank" Almost sounds as if you are under tyranny. Joke. Really just a joke.

If only Oscar the cat had insights into political longevity as well . . . . could save a whole lot of money.

Finally, someone with the guts to meet with our enemy!!!! Thanks to Ronald Regan being willing to meet with the Soviet Union's leaders while they were part of the evil empire, we no longer have the Cold War-unfortunately, we have supplanted it with the 'War on Terroism" and continue to ignore many leaders that could be of help to us. I hope Obama sticks to 'his guns' and shows a different way to reslove conflict!!!!So far the present administration has done an abysmal job at diplomacy and thus we are isolated from the world and fighting two wars, esentially alone!

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".

So let met get this straight, Obama and Clinton have the same idea to negotiate with perceived enemies. They said the same thing. Yes, Clinton gave the more nuanced response – but so what, no one is going to have a meeting with the leader of another country without an agenda and prep work. This argument is a non-issue. However, it does bring both Clinton and Obama down a peg in my view. It actually makes the Republicans look like the more mature thoughtful party.

Okay, don't get me wrong, I like Barak Obama, but I will be voting for Hillary Clinton. COME ON DEMOCRATS!!!! WAKE UP!!!! We need someone who has the experience and political savy of a Clinton if we want to win back the Presidency. Mr Obama is not going to win the presidency by being a "nice guy." You have to get the Republicans by the juggler, and it is ONLY Mrs. Clinton who can do that! Mr. Obama clearly lacks the political experience that Mrs. Clinton has spent the last 15 years perfecting. He simply can't make a fool-hearted statement that he will be meeting with the worlds anti-American dictators and think that moderate voters are going to support him. And it IS going to be the moderate voters who will decide this election, not the far left!!! I have been dissapointed by Mrs. Clinton in regards to her war stance, but love her or hate her Democrats, you better start warming up to this woman and take the good with the bad or you are going to have President Romney. Though it is early, Polls have shown that Mrs. Clinton IS the strongest candidate in a head to head match-up with a Repulican contender. It doesn't matter if she is running on her husbands coat-tails or her own record, which is substantial. The point is that she possess the money, the political clout, and the spouse that will win the White House. She will bring moderation and respect back to America!

OK-the CNN main page labels this story with the title: "Ticker: Obama labels Clinton 'Bush-Cheney light"

In the article, we see it written as Obama referring to Clinton's stance as 'Bush-Cheney Light'....no, wait, it's the "Clinton-like diplomacy" and an editorialization at that–not really the way the quote was stated.

This seems like quite a stretch, CNN. I thought with the cancellation of shows like 'Crossfire' you were moving away from combative sensationalism?

Speaking of lite, Obama epitomizes lite. It is hard to believe that a person with so very little experience can actually be running for president of the United States. So far his campaign is nothing more than "change and hope, change and hope." When it comes to substance, he hasn't put any on the table yet. And now he wants to go meet with leaders of countries out to bury us. Good luck with that, Barrack. I am no fan of Hillary's, but at least she exhibits some sense in public discourse.

Brian,

While you are partly correct in that Bush's administration has, since the spring of this year, has been successful in his approach towards North Korea. However, this appreach involved negotiating with North Korea and going back to an approach that Bill Clinton had successfully used to approach North Korea. This same approach was scratched by Bush's administration during his first term in office, which is why we had a crisis with North Korea to begin with. So much for a success.

If you are reading through these blogs and wish to make a statement, before you do answer me this.

Is your statement about Obama's experience? If so, and you think he hasn't had enough, thats fine.

But if you voted for President Bush either time stick you opinion in your pocket and keep it there.

I have been a democrat for many years and Mr. Obama is already getting in my nerves! I would like to know what he has done so important that gives him the authority to bash his fellow running mates. I believe that he is a typical politician, he says what he thinks people wants to hear. Take a stand and stop trying to make yourself look good, tell us what is your plan in terms of Irak, healthcare, education, etc. address the real issues instead of being running around them and putting others down. If you think you could bring change to the US political system start by having a plan. Otherwise, don't waste Ophra's and the citizens of this country's money and time. You are just like the all the others,liars!

Sorry Obama You have not gained any confadence in me with that kind of remark. Wheater I,m for Clinton or not The world knows she is not a light of Bush and Chenny. Again this makes you look naieve

Before meeting with other countries, it is necessary that the United States builds up it's reputation and a great way to do that is to help other countries with the fight against Global Poverty. We can economical, social, and political advantages with this.

Fact of the matter is: Obama is lying to Americans about his position on the war. Considering the pressures, backstabbing and undercuts by Bush and his cronies, had Obama been in the Senate then, it is a fact that he was going to vote for authorising the war. I am sure he knows this as well. Taking a position on was at a State level is not the same as taking one at the national level. The political ramifications and requisites are different. I pity those who believe he would have voted against authorizing the war. He is simply taking advantage of the fact he wasn’t in the Senate then.

According to the article, Obama did not say she was Bush-Cheney lite–he said "You’ll have to ask Senator Clinton what differentiates her position from theirs.” I feel the authors of this artcle did a poor job in reporting the news. They called her "Bush-Cheney lite"

Dear Brian: North Korea is shutting down their reactors and proceeding with de-nuclearization, because we TALKED to them. And, believe me, Democrats are just as sick of people like you.

"“I’m not afraid to lose the P.R. war to dictators,” Obama said..."

Has Obama lost his mind? What the ....

He is clearly handling this badly.

His Clinton = Bush / Cheney thing is downright dumb. How many Americans, not just Democrats will buy that? I think most Americans think Bushs and Clintons are polor opposites.

Obama is right. You can't resolve anything if you are disengaged from your adversary.

For the guy who claimed the Bush approach to N. Korea worked, you could NOT be more wrong. For 5 years, Bush refused to engage with N. Korea and the situation got progressively worse. When the U.S. finally engaged with N. Korea, without any agreements or conditions going in, progress was made. In fact, Bush has now managed to get the N. Korea situation back to about the same place it was in before he took office 6 1/2 years ago!! Is that progress???

I doubt that Obama will win, but he probably would make an excellent president. He is definitely one of the smartest persons in politics today.

Barack Obama seriously lacks experience. I can't believe he has promised to meet with brutal dictators without precondition. Obama stance is clear, he doesn't care a damn about what the dictators are doing, he just wants to have lunch with them. If Obama wins the democratic nomination, I definitely will be voting Republican!

Sue P. Smith,
Thanks for showing all of us how racist many people in this country still are.

In case you've forgotten, the President must be a naturally born US citizen. As such, I'm sure he understands what a wonderful country we have. That said, I'm sure he finds it unfortunate that it's infested with simpletons who feel that ethnic surnames, racial backgrounds, and relgious affiliation actually affect the quality of one's patriotism. People with that attitude are no better than the Sunnis and Shiites who kill each other for the exact same justification.

I agree with Obama on this issue. Talk is good. Bombs are bad.

i do believe that obama is right. i studied political science as a major in undergrad, and am now at ucla law school, so i think i know what i am talking about ( i hope). calculating with the enemy is a game. any game has risks. calculating with the enemy is a greater risk than talking to him. whats the point of waiting after one year. maybe, if we talk sooner than later, people might start to take us seriously again. america has always tried to find an opponent. maybe it is time that we try to find friends. maybe iran, and venezuela just want attention. or maybe they are doing what is in the best interest of their country, which happens to be contrary to what we want. but then again, we did beg the palestinians to have democracy, and they did. but when they voted for hamas, we tanked their govt and further divided them. hmmm, maybe if we talk to hamas, and whoever else wants to talk, people wont hate us as much. think about it. extremism comes from the sense that you can not control your future. you are helpless. you have no jobs, not military might, and no one is listening. how do u get people to listen? by blowing yourself up. that is where terrorism comes from. if we simply talk to people, as opposed to not talking to people, not only may we find ourselves some friends, but terrorism might decline. furthermore, if we talk to different regimes, their legitimacy might fly out of the window. a lot of those regimes run on an anti-western approach. how would their people view them if they dined with the president of the evil united states. they might probably, and more than likely, lose their credibility and pave the way for us to have a world allies of friends, and not an axis of enemies

Of course Barack Hussein Obama doesn’t care how the United States looks to the rest of the world. He doesn’t understand what a wonderful country we have as we enjoy our strength and our freedom and respect our military. His name sorta tells it all!! Yuck! Waste of newsprint.

^^^Come on now where are your facts, your playing a card right now and we want to know what that card is?State facts when you come at Barack Obama....So we should think every man in the world who's name is even close to a George Bush then you shouldnt trust them right?

We as Americans....like simplicity and stick to routine.....just look at our presidential history: Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush..........you figure it out. The problem really is that no one wants to run for president when they can make a bigger impact in the private sector (and more money). I'm glad Obama is running, but I wish the presidential race had more qualified participants.

Bush-Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton-Clinton...waw, America just doesn't learn.

[...] Democratic in-fighting. In a later conference call with the press, Obama continued on the topic: “Part of the Bush [...]

No, thanks. I'll take a Diet Dr. Paul.

This from a man who (before he decided to run for president) said that while he thought going into Iraq was wrong he could not say that he would have voted not to go into Iraq if he had been in the Senate at the time. Who is really flipping here. Also, you are willing to meet with anyone with no preconditions??
Obama is Carter-lite and that's saying something considering lite Carter was. Also shows that he is REALLY no different from any other politician when it comes to slinging it. Calling a fellow Democrat "Bush-Cheney"??? Will he be questioing her patrotism next??? It's not just the gloves that are off, it's also Obama's MASK.

And what brilliant campaign staffer came up with that little gem?

Hillary is stronger on national defense across the board, so Obama's tactic is to portray her has the antithesis of Democrats' internationalist approach. Might work. Frankly, he's yet to outgrow the "inexperienced" stigma, and catchy turns of phrase are not the ultimate remedy.

Obama is truly the best candidate for this presidential election. Hillary is just running scared like Bush and his puppydogs, I'm sorry, his administration. It's time that we get someone in office who is willing to tak eon the challenges of America head on.

Of course Barack Hussein Obama doesn't care how the United States looks to the rest of the world. He doesn't understand what a wonderful country we have as we enjoy our strength and our freedom and respect our military. His name sorta tells it all!! Yuck! Waste of newsprint.

While Clinton & Obama struggle to differentiate themselves both from one another & the field, Joe Biden stands out from all candidates in both parties as the only truly candid candidate.
I believe this war of semantics will give the Senator from Delaware a much-needed & well-deserved opening.

Obama, if you'd just adopt some sensible economics you'd be an OK guy. I love it though, keep attacking Clinton! She's as bad as Giuliani!

Yeah Baby,

That's right. It's time for someone to finally call this Clin"toon" out on her scams. She is not experienced. Her husband is and she cannot keep trying to run on her husbands name anymore . The American people are just not falling for the game. The days of walking on eggshgells as not to offend the almighting ClinTOONs, are over. Obama is right to point out the fact she is the one who was nieve and immature when she voted to authorize this war. For someone so intellegent and experienced, she sure has had her "Blond Moments".

Obama certainly lost last Monday's debate. He will be a bad head over the United States but thankfully, he would loose the Dems ticket

obama is completely unqualified to be senator, much less president...he was just got lucky with the timing of his IL opponent's personal problems...

um, guys, I think he meant "Bush-Cheney *Lite*"

Barack Obama is a smart man~! We need change in America today. We need someone like Obama who is willing to roll up his sleeves, take charge and clean this mess up. Bush/Cheney have made a mess of our current situation. We need to call for IMPEACHMENT now!! Impeach Bush!(the puppet)
Impeach Cheney!!!!! (the puppetmaster)

Obama sounds more dangerous than Bush...the one that was going to re-shape the middle east and give them democracy...

Bush-Cheney Light? I love it. Hilly attacking Barack while ignoring the other democratic candidates shows she is afraid of him. I am not married to either party so will vote for the best and against the worst. If Barack is the nominee for the Democratic party, he will have my vote. If he doesn't pick it up, my vote will be for whoever is against the senator from New York.
And for anyone thinking a "lack of experience" is a hinderance in gaining the White House, the last 7 years prove you need neither experience or intelligence.

They're both right. I see where Hillary's assertions come from, and they may be the hard politik reality necessary in this cruel world. On the other hand, Obama's position offers a beacon of hope towards a better future built on forging relationships and promoting peace. I'll take a chance on Obama.

OBAMA is definately the best candidate and we are so lucky to have such an amazing man running for President. He was right on with his response to that question. Hillary is just as evil as BushCo.

IMPEACH BUSH! IMPEACH CHENEY!

I am a 100% Obama supporter, I donate monthly to the campaign. However, if Senator Clinton should win the nomination, I would not want to place my vote with the person who says no to speaking with countries that are politically difficult. Whether it is their first year or not or any time after that. How calculating!
This is not what America wants.
Senator Clinton is sounding like President Bush. America does not just want a change in the person in Washington, America wants a change in the politics in Washington.
Senator Barack Obama represents that change.

Thank you, finally a potential president who will not "shoo shoo" around...

i don't see anything wrong with what Obama said, Hillary said the same thing basically but in other words...who cares??? why u makin this thing such a big deal, u guys want them to fight

He's saying what many Americans are thinking. Many of us are sick of being scared of these so called evil men. My analogy of these leaders/dictators is like this: They are like wild bears. Ferocious at times, but when confronted, they are more afraid of us and our polcies, then we are of them and the way they run their country.

I trust Obama far more then I do Hillary. This coming from someone who thinks that Bill Clinton was the greatest President in modern history. Hillary blew it when she voted with Bush on the invasion of Iraq. Obama has fresh ideas, and isn't afraid of the double-speak of Hillary.

Spin, spin, spin...

Maybe someone should tell Obama that the Bush/Cheney approach to N. Korea has worked. They are shutting down their reactors and proceeding w/ de-nuclearization.

The stance with Iran is not only the US's policy but France and Germany are both pulling for a 3rd round of sanctions on them. Also it seems to me we are meeting with Iran when it comes to Iraq's security. We're talking with them while they continue to supply weapons that kill our troops.

I'm so sick of these pathetic Democrats.

That's right. Look what happened to the Soviet Union when the U.S. had strong diplomatic ties and relations with Mikhail Gorbachev...it helped bring about the collapse of a so called enemy.

It is about a P.R. war and it is a million times cheaper and more productive than pre-emptive wars.

Clinton again tries to have it both ways...Obama is not afraid to take a position and stick with it.

There is not much difference between Bush and Hillary in terms of attitude. "It's my way or the highway" resonates from them both. Obama will have success.

At least Hillary Clinton is flexible enough to realize that a change needs to be made in Iraq which is why she voted against giving President Bush another blank check to continue his failed Iraq policy of stay the course with no exit date. As far as Senator Obama goes and his comments to meet with people like Chavez and Castro in his first year shows what little experience he has in office and why he isn't fit to be President. My vote will be going to Hillary Clinton as once again she shows strong leadership. If Hillary wins like I think she will I hope she will ask Senator Chris Dodd to be her vice president.