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.

- 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.

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!

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.

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 !!

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!

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

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

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.

Yay for Obama and his diplomacy stance!

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 ).

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

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%.

Obama is the hope candidate. Pure and simple.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.