Obama, don't be obstinate. Bush-Cheney is the worst political team in our history(whole world knew), your comment is compliment to them(VP said), because there's no comparison between Hillary and Bush-Cheney. You said you will meet Chavez, Castro and Mahmoud in first year, because you never had the chance to close to high rank people from other Countries, I don't blame your anxiety, you made a bad choice. But Hillary has been there so many times during many years, so her answer was very professional and accurate as President. You should be careful about your speech, you never put spilled water into the bottle again.

You'd think that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were the only people running for the Democratic nomination. The irony is that they are not even the best candidates. If the subject is foreign policy experience, why isn't the article about Bill Richardson? Bill Richardson is clearly the most qualified candidate.

It is exactly this kind of political reporting that pervades the media, horserace journalism, and it is doing a grave disservice to the country. The major news outlets have reduced the discussion of the presidential race to something tantamount to fantasy baseball. News organizations need to cover issues, not just candidates.

I agree with Barack Obama .

Why do so many people think Clinton is the most electable democrat? A great number of people absolutely loathe her and if she is the nominee, the Republican base will turn out in droves to defeat her. Also, be ready to revisit every scandal there ever was related to the Clintons. Whitewater, the travel office firings, Hillary's billing records from the Rose Law Firm. Just think "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" to the tenth power. She is not inevitable and she is, frankly, not as electable as a lot of people seem to think.

Obama is the most dangerous threat to her being the nominee, as well as the most electable Democrat in the general election. He appeals to a broad spectrum of people, has many Republican colleagues who speak highly of him and there is no doubt he would have a landslide vote from the black community. Thus, Hillary is going to attack him whenever she thinks she has an opening.

The main worry for Obama is the fact that there are so many other candidates splitting the anti-Hillary vote. He needs to point out her flaws without seeming like just another politician, which is certainly a tricky task, but I think he is up to the task. Also, I wouldn't put too much stock in who is leading the national polls at this point. Howard Dean was looking pretty good at a similar point in the cycle.

The bottome line is that Obama should have more money to spend in the primary than anyone else, so once we start getting to the stage where TV ads really start making a difference, he should be able to come out on top. In addition to having more money, he also has the superior message and superior leadership skills, at least voters should reach that conclusion if they take the time to study the issues rather than rely on sound byte politics and believing everything Hillary says.

Obama was not a Senator when the vote took place, the question is: Why is he attacking other senators for supporting an itervention with IRAQ based on what they were told! It is better to be safe than sorry? I believe the Media and the people are missing the BIG picture…WHY DID OBAMA NOT SUPPORT A MILITARY INTERVENTION WITH A COUNTRY THAT HAD POSSIBLE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION? Today based on what we have LEARNED, we now know that there were no WMD, but then we did not know that and he is clearing stating that he has been against this war from the beginning? Why? If there had of been WMD he would have gotten us attacked and possibly killed for not supporting a military intervention! I cannot vote for any candidate that DID NOT support this war…yes now we need to conclude the war as it was started on falsehoods…however at the time NO ONE KNEW THIS! Instead of attacking the SENATORS that supported keeping us safe…we need to be attacking the SENATORS that actually want us to believe that thru (I guess their ESP) that they knew there were NO WMD…NO ONE knew that and I praise the Senators that voted for intervention as they were Prepared and I am sorry..but…experienced enough to make the best choice for our national safety!

On immigration they are both Bush-Cheney.

Obama "voted against it?" In what Senate?

Certainly not the national Senate, where IT MATTERED.

Obama's voting record is IDENTICAL to Hillary Clinton; anyone assuming he'd have voted differently while under a National spotlight, after 9/11 is naive.

Hello all, I am not an american but a serious lover of the america nation. I have been opportuned to travel relatively across the world and have met with people of various nationalities. One thing that stands clearly out is the deep hatred people have for america. The next america president must work on improving the national image of america. America is a great nation but her giant status in today's world is not an excuse to determine how and what other nations should do. that is why we have an institution called the UN. The UN then was against this war so the question is why would america insist other nations must do what the UN says but not herself.

Since I am not a stakeholder in your country's election. i have wathced the debate and have found Joe Biden wonderful. Edwards is equally fantastic. I have loved Obama's outing and have got nothing against Hillary Clinton.I think Obama's candour and sincere answers to questions is a great quality. I have always admired Clinton's position on stage whenever she talked about other candidates but she fell far from this in the last interview she granted. My question was such comments and action a stage show? I recommend strongly Joe Biden…but I think this great country should give Barack Obama a chance.

Hillary and Obama are both basing their campaign on withdrawing from Iraq. They both like the fact that Iraq can keep the invasion into our nation and rewards for the invaders on the back burner because like, Bush and all the Media identified "front runners", want amnesty for illegals. Hopefully all Americans will reject them both as well as the republicans the media are pushing. We do not need clones of Bush on immigration. Everyone should change to Independent and demand our next president cares about the American people and reject the Greed factor and their lobbyist.

Obama at least showed his true colors by saying he was happy with the Hazelton Pa ruling while just hides her opinion behind that devious smile.

FOX news must be licking their chops. They think Hillary will win the nomination so that they can make more money off of the Clintons like they did in the 90's. No wonder Rupert Murdoch is holding fundraisers for Clinton. He knows his investment is going to pay back 20 fold if all goes according to plan. Problem is…For all the positive coverage the media has afforded Clinton so far, The people are hungry for change this time. No more Bush- Clinton

The sad fact is that Hillary Clinton is no better than George Bush. She is clealy living in a Cold War Mentality! JFK said many years ago "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate" We are in desperate need of a president who understands that principle. Even Richard Nixon understood the value of communication with nations we have differences with (his visit to China in 1972) It befuddles me to think that we are considersing Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination. She never takes a position on anything, everything she says has qualifiers in it. Now, I ask you, is that leadership? Don't even get me started on her disingenous explanation for her Iraq war vote. Go Obama, Go!

I see why so many people like Obama — they are as naive and immature as he is. Mrs. Clinton should practice the Powell doctrine? Yes, let's get in front of the UN and give a big long lying speech about about how Iraq has WMDs. This is what passes for integrity in the minds of Obama voters.

It is easy for Obama to criticize when he wasn't even in the Senate when the war votes were cast. Here's a guy who has never had to made a tough national decision in his life, and he wants to be President? Please.

I was no fan of Bill, but Hillary looks more and more qualified every day. The more people attack her baselessly, the more sympathetic she looks.

A note Jonathan, Obama did not vote against the war, he was not even in Congress at the time of the vote. Obama says that "he was against the war from the start", but there is not any public record to varify the statement. It is possible that he has been against the war from the start, but he was not on the spot to vote against it.

Obama does not have the experience to be President; most of the canidates have more experience than he will ever have. Obama does not have the expirience in fighting the big insurance and drug companies, and winning I may add, than John Edwards. Obama also is misleading when he speaks, in the Bush in 2000 tradition. He is spilting hairs when he says he hasn't taken money from PAC's and special interest groups.

Obama will lose, be a do nothing Senator for a few years, and then quietly fade away.

Akilok,

Your comment: "To me, it shows that Obama supporters are the lazy, remote-control flicking, chip snacking no-gooders of WELFARE receipients who spend their time on tvs. and browsing the web with no intellectual ability to analyze, then tired, they retire in the evening."

I don't know but it sounds like you are trying to make a stereotype of people who support Obama. This isn't very liberal or progressive. Then I recall how Hillary and Edwards discuss how to cut down the debates but leave Obama out of the conversation.

Hummm…..I could be jumping to conclusions but it sounds like some may not be ready for a black President…

Is Hillary willing to meet these guys in the 1st year. NO. Whats lacking here is the "will".
Anyway, if Hillary is going to call these guys names like "naive" and "silly", then she definately needs more than 1 and 1/2 years to do ground work and heal wounds.
Name calling and bad blood between two presidents rather than fundamental issues is the biggest stumbling block currently facing Amerca's effort to resolve world crises with these rogue nations.

I just read some of the rediculous comments on both sides. That is what turns people off politics. The media takes comments out of context and starts sensationalizing them to create news for better ratings. The idiots, swallow the bait, get excited and start acting like real dopes. We all know the candidates records. Why not just listen to the debates and make your own decision, instead of the rediculous remarks. Any of these fine candidates would be a better choice than any Republican. I happen to like Hilary. I also like Richardson, Edwards would be fine and Obama would be all right. But Hilary is my first choice. Make your choice and quit trying to smear any of these fine people.

It is pretty simple. Obama has not been around long enough to have the corporate support to get into office. VOTERS cannot get you into office. Its the ELECTORAL COLLEGE. For example, Al gore won the popular vote but the electoral college put him on the skids. Let Hillary in…she at least is a woman.

Reading the plethora of comments in this Blog, it is once again affirmed, that with all the faults this great Nation may have, I believe it is the best system in the World! Having been born in a Communist country; controlled by a Tyrant(s), I say May God Always Bless America and may we always value and protect our Country!

This so called "spat" started when Ms. Clinton called Mr. Obama's comment on the diplomacy question, naive and irresponsible. Why didn't CNN cover that "spat"? This so called experience that Ms. Clinton claims to have is because of being a wife of a president for 8 yrs? Does a wife of a president make executive decisions?
Nobody would have voted for Bill Clinton against George Herbert Walker Bush if experience and caution were the only values that mattered. To end an era of stagnation and decline, our newly elected policymakers will need a touch of audacity, too.

These post are soooo crazy. I cant believe that people are just attacking Hillary without any facts. The same thing with Obama. Look he said he would commit 1 and ½ years before the election to meeting with the 5 leaders of different countries and Clinton said you can not make that kind of commitment this far in advance.

Go back and watch both of their responses. While I like Obama too me this shows inexperience he doesn't understand the job of President yet. I bet if he does get elected he will realize how impossible it is to predict 1 and ½ years in the future let alone what is going to happen next month. This kind of reminds me of Cindy Sheena's pledge to run again Nancy Pelosi if she does not impeach the President. While I support Cindy and she has ever right to run for office if she is elected she will find out that Washington will not bend to her will.

People have this idea that new candidates are going to change the way Washington works when all that is going to happen if Obama is elected is he will learn that it is unwise to commit to meeting with 5 leaders 1 and ½ before he even got the job during his first year in office. He will learn what Hillary Clinton already knows.

Also I liked the posting for Mitt Romney. Someone said that Hillary is a flip flopper and we should vote for Romney. thats rich. Romney is the biggest flip flopper on either side of the ticket. At least Rudy is holding true to his beliefs.

What I find absolutley amazing is the people supporting Hillary Clinton seem to be mired in "the way things SHOULD be done"…..ARE YOU KIDDING ME???? Why shouldn't we meet with enemy leaders without preconditions??? Exactly HOW would that be used for propoganda???? We are going to hold out a meeting with the U.S. president as a carrot for enemy leaders to do what we want??????? HOW WELL HAS THAT WORKED IN THE PAST?????? You HRC supporters are the very reason the U.S. is screwed up today….you people have no vision, can't think OUTSIDE THE BOX and are comfortable with the status quo….Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton….OBAMA '08

Hey Akilok,

before you start deriding other people for being 'unintelligent', you might want to hop off your high horse and check your spelling. It's capiche or capisce.

It makes no difference whether engagement of an "enemy" is at the level of an undersecretary or president if the objective is to genuinely make a significant change. It only makes a difference if the objective is to not "lose face" or to "take the credit". A President's ambition should not be to avert the creation of new foreign press caricatures which is an occupational hazard.

What good would it do to engage in a campaign to make peace late in your term of office. Admittedly it may be a long drawn out process and the substantive steps that must be effected are best overseen by the sitting President as opposed to the next President who may not exert ownership of the initiative. No-one can set a program of action on how long it takes to resolve a crisis with other adults. That would be immature, naive, irresponsible and presumptive.

Akilok, if your theory that only Obama supporters posted in daylight hours made any sense then why are you suporting Hilary between 10:23 and 11:24 A.M. ?

Whilst not completely agreeing with Charlie's 11:52 post that America is the biggest perpetrator of terrorism in the world his post brings home the point that America has varied its unflinching square-jawed defiance of engaging with supposed rogue/terrorist states when the "price is right".

Don't disparage Obama for suggesting to do the simple and obvious things, which children and adults and some Presidents understand. Meeting an enemy is in no means an endorsement. Mark Seward's post is very correct about avoiding an old-school-cold-war scenario. To support John from Worthington every positive international experience and trait and origin that you can draw from will eventually improve one's ability to have a worldy outlook. But as one person mentioned the domestic policy should probably be the foremost consideration in the minds of your voters.

Should Mrs. Clinton be elected President, other than that of First Husband, what will her former President husband's role be in shaping our nation and the world? Will he step aside and just be "First Husband" and let her make choices/decisions based on her own judgment and experience? Like a wife doesn't tesfify against a husband in court, I think NOT. Hence,will this be the second three-term Presidency in our Nation's history? Is Mrs. Clinton's experience including that of her husband's? Food for thought!

The only precondition to speaking with any leader of any country whether they disagree with us or not should be — knowing the phone number.

All this talk about low level meetings and pre-conditions is what is silly and so 'cold-war-old-school'. Other countries will use any contact for their own political theater no matter how much pre-planning is done. This first also sends a message that we "fear" meeting or speaking with certain leaders, or worse, the the US has a superiority complex.

"John, I pity Obama if he has to resort to voters who understand and define him like you. Incredible that living abroad for many years tantamounts to experience in international affairs – and Obama was just a kid then."

Posted By La’Goro, Albany, NY : July 27, 2007 2:13 pm

No. it does not constitute experience per se… but it does give Obama a lot more insight into how the rest of the world percieves our country…which quite frankly, is not very well. His childhood experiences are something he can always draw upon.

As an independent voter who has recently voted Republican I find myself likely to vote for the Democratic nominee this time around. That being said, Republicans should pull for Hillary Clinton to win the nomination as I will almost certainly vote Republican should that be the case.

Obama gave a direct and honest answer. While never conceding to foreign nations, it nonetheless makes no sense to rule out meeting with leaders from the outset.

Most voters I feel are sick of Bush and Clinton and we've had one or the other, in some form, in the office for 20 years!

I believe the past few days have demonstrated EXACTLY the kind of person Hillary Clinton is. FIRST, the day after the debate she goes on the offensive against Obama for one of his answers during the debate (an answer that was favored by a large percentage of the public). She calls him "naive" and "inexperienced." SECOND, after he defends his statement and comes back asserting that Hillary was the naive one for her complete support for the Iraq war and her hesitancy to stand up against the Bush administration until she knew for sure that she had the needed public support, she then has the gaul to act like she wasn't the one who started it. She starts bashing Obama for not being positive!

This is a PERFECT example of the kind of person Hillary CLinton is. A vindictive, political opportunist who will do ANYTHING to get elected. I sure hope the American public is wise enough to see it. Based on her unprecedented negative ratings I would say that the American people are seeing through it just fine.

What is silly is that UGLY BANANA COLORED 60's frock. I also believe that is the exact same hairdo that Kevin Bacon was sporting in the first Tremors movie from 1990. Symbolic of her outdated, oldschool, political mindframe? You bet. Someone get this old lady a new douchebag cause she is stinking up the joint with her pettiness and her pathetic attempts to discredit Obama are also what is making her look silly.

John from Worthington, OH writes:
"obama lived abroad about 1/4 his life… he would be great for international affairs".

John, I pity Obama if he has to resort to voters who understand and define him like you. Incredible that living abroad for many years tantamounts to experience in international affairs – and Obama was just a kid then.

You know Janet….your comment tells me that you have been waiting for ANY excuse to dismiss Obama and justify your decision to back Hillary. That tells me the ONLY reason you're backing her is because she's a woman. Her stance on not meeting with the enemy is MOST DEFINATELY Bush-Cheney Light….get a clue!! I love Bill Clinton more than anything…but Hillary Clinton AINT NO BILL!!!

People need to STOP taking about Hillary and Obama and START talking about the Dem's running for president that have a chance. Maybe Biden should give and interview bashing Dodd, and Dodd could make a remark about Richardson, and Gravel could announce he will run for vp on any ones ticket, and Kucinich could go Independent, that would make some news, oh, wait no it wouldn't Rupert Murdoch owns the news. Darn

Well we HOPE that Mrs.Clinton is taken to task for practicing the Bush Doctrine, Act then ask questions later. Is'nt she kind of late having given Bush the Authorization to go to war without inquiring an exit strategy then? She should practice the Powell doctrine. She dropped the ball in her Vote so now she has to own it even if she does not become the next President of the United States. We need politicians with integrity. She may be bit lacking

i dont understand why any body would want this flip flopping lady to run our country, her husband sucked so why would she do any better? i dont think any of these democrats have any morals, so why would you vote them in? i really think that Mitt Romney is the best choise for our country..

I am not yet sure who is better – Clinton or Obama. However, I can't say Obama's reply was the smartest. I have never heard of any country's Prime Minister or President meeting with the head of a country they are at loggerheads with, without prior meetings between the respective lower-ranked dignitaries. It just doesn't seem prudent enough for a President of the USA to meet tomorrow with, say, Ahmedinejad of Iran when the latter is an outright US hater and Jew hater. What does Obama aim to accomplish from such a sudden meeting? It would just send the wrong signals to the allies of the US. Wouldn't it be better to first send the secretary of state or the defense secretary to hold some primary-level talks and prepare the foundation for the talks between the two Presidents? Is it worthwhile for a US President to jeopardize relations with US' allies by holding a sudden meeting like what Obama is suggesting? He should be following the political protocols. Most comments on the board here seem too naive!

And to all the naysayers of Clinton who claim she is evil, sleeping with the devil, she is cold-hearted etc, it would be better for everybody if you provide some evidence to back those ridiculous claims.

You guys are all brainwashed. You also are going to vote. Sometimes I wish the end would already come.

“I don’t want to see the power and prestige of the United States president put at risk by rushing into meetings”

If Hillary sees the power and prestige of the United States "people" rather than her prestige then she will agree with Obama.

I agree with Ron, there is need to change tact. The next American president can decide to "save their face" or "save lives". Be with the Corporate world or with the people.
We all know where Clinton and Obama belong in this divide.

obama is certainly on point with those comments. it can be said with a fair amount of accuracy that the clintons are wolves in sheeps clothing and offer very little in terms of real democratic ideals. the irony however is that no matter how "bush/cheney light" the clintons actually are, the conservative base has a hatred so deep for these two that the polorizing effect they generate will inevitably be the death of them at the polls. i have lived in the south and I can honestly say that no figure in politics today, produces more contempt and ill will that HRClinton. if she wins the Democratic nod, it will be the death of the democratic resurgence.

“I don’t want to see the power and prestige of the United States president put at risk by rushing into meetings"

After eight years of Bush how do you think the world sees the power and prestige of the president? We need to try some tactics that will erease the knuckle dragging bully image created by the current administration.

I think they both made pretty big fools of themselves. All this childish bickering is enough to drive me crazy. I am switching my vote to the Republican side.

Please take a look at the YouTube Video. It highlights why Hillary Clinton has a problem. She went on the offensive and with no good reason…while doing it she showcased why she would not be a good president. This is a story worth covering. Historical precedent has shown that talking forcefully and frankly with opposing leaders can be positive. How did the cold war end? Why did Nixon go to China? Why was the UN created? It takes a forceful and unconditional approach to solve world problems.What the Hillary CLinton campaign is acting like is analogous to a child wanting to be spoon fed. Obama's answer was right. Hillary's was one of a perpetuation of a foreign policy that has been counterproductive. People need to realise that she is wrong for the job. The question asked if one would be willing to, Obama said Yes and Clinton said no. When you have a candidate that says no to willingness to resolve world problems, it indicates that she has little faith in interaction and dialogue at any level of governance.

Please see the link below

Does living abroad really give you insight to foreign affairs. I can see how you can get a different view of the U.S. by living aboard but unless he was involved politically I don't understand how this would give someone an expertise on foreign affairs. Lot's of rich kids get sent overseas to study or live overseas because of their parents employment. While I do agree this will give you a different perspective on U.S. politics I don't understand unless you where involved in diplomacy in someway how this gives you insight to being a better President.

My question to Mrs. Clinton (The WAR lady) is this.

What are the causes of WAR?

Arrogant characters just like the one
she posses.

She is not worthy a leader.

A true leader must be humble not arrogant.

Thanks
Suma John

Switzerland

Hillary is demonstrating that she is the voice of experience, something we really need at this complex time in our history. Obama is just not there yet.

Hillary is starting to show her true colors. For as intelligent as we presumed her to be, she is starting to prove otherwise. Using belittling language like 'naive' and 'silly' is unnecessary and lacking weight in political discourse. In fact, it is a very Republican response. So, Obama was correct in calling her Bush-Cheney light. I have always thought of Hillary as a moderate Republican. It is easy for these types to transition onto the Democrat side because they don't have to changed their stripes.

It seems like the mud slinging has come after some election outcome conversations. Meaning, if Hillary wins would Obama accept the VP position. He must have finally decided that he didn't want to. Now, the fight for first is on.

OBAMA '08!!!

The American people–you've got to appreciate our diversity. However, some of you are completely nuts. Do you not recall that the majority of the people supported the Iraq War in the beginning. You personally might not have, but the majority of this country did. As an elected representative of the people, Clinton cast her vote for the War (in 2003, Obama was not a part of the U.S. Senate. He was still a state senator. As a state senator, you don't carry the leveridge of a U.S. senator. His vote was not a vote.). Had she not voted for the war, she would have been chastised for it; much like she is being chastised now. You people are putting these politicians in impossible positions at times. They don't obtain superpowers–they can't see into the future, they can't take us back to the past, and they are HUMAN.

Do I think Obama made a sound comment? No. He didn't. Educate yourselves about the political system. Diplomacy is great. We need more of it–which Clinton advocates. However, the country can't be put in jeopary. So what do you do? Clinton isn't saying no to diplomacy–she's saying we have to be prepared. Obama is saying, "who needs preparation?" Unfortunately for Obama he had to answer that question first and without getting a chance to think about it. Fortunately for Clinton, Obama had to answer that question before she did.

I think that Ms. Clinton's is contradicting herself by saying that she does not want to rush to meetings but she is not afraid of diplomacy. I think that the attitude of our leaders that they are above or better than all the others is one of the main causes of hatred to the US around the world. It is the responsible and brave thing to do to meet other leaders whether they agree with us or not.

Anyone who thinks a Democratic ticket including either Clinton or Obama could carry the South has never resided in the South and needs do some research.

obama lived abroad about 1/4 his life… he would be great for international affairs.

Obama was right! This debate is a wake up call for America. Do we reject others with different stances and points of views because we deem them evil or do we open the door to diplomacy and change? Being of African American decent I am equally troubled by all of Mrs. Clinton's remarks. She debases a good male leader in our community as naive, irresponsible and silly. This is the respect she shows someone who is at the same level as her. I remember a time in this country when our government officials saw leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, Thurmond Marshall, Harriet Tubman as naive, irresponsible and silly for their points of views. If we as African Americans do not stand up for everyone in the world as equals then we are no better than the bigots and oppressors that exist in this country. Equality should be for everyone. If not for change and sitting with others who disagree with you would the movements for Gay rights, Immigrants rights and WOMEN'S rights been achieved. Remember, American officials thought those concerns and struggle to be naive, irresponsible and silly too. If the African American vote is crucial to this election we need to evaluate and think hard about who we want to represent us and the type of morals and values they hold. By no means is this playing the race card but all of the people this country deems "evil" don't look believe or look like those in power. I as an African American we need to remember there was a time when my people were looked upon the same! My vote is for Obama not because he is black but because he stands for hope, which makes me proud to say… I am An American!

"The “inexperience” of such Obama keeps popping up as if it’s a sin. How many other political giants had little experience before taking the Presidency? I never thought it was a prerequisite for the position."

See George W. Bush. I think we just found out over the past 6 year how much experience should be valued in a President. I know it sounds like I don't like Obama, which is not true, I live in Illinois and vote for him. I also noticed that someone in an earlier posting said that some people are looking for a reason not to vote for him because he is black but don't want to admit they would not vote for a black man. Right now I am voting for Hillary Clinton, that could change we still have a 1 and ½ years too go but I don't care if people think I am racist because I didn't vote for the Obama. I know that is not true.

Truth be told for me I think Obama can handle just about any domestic issue that he would face but I am worried that he is inexperience in foreign affairs. I feel that our next President should be the smartest and most qualified person for the job. I don't really care if I can have a beer with that person or not. Right now I feel that on the Democratic side Hillary Clinton should get the vote.

This is getting stupid, it's time to move on and get to the important issues. Hillary has been flexible and understands there needs to be change in the Iraq war which is exactly why last time she voted against giving President Bush another blank check without an exit date and as far as Senatory Obama goes he is making a complete fool out of himself and showing everyone one he is the wrong person for President. Obama has almost no experience and it's starting to show by the things he is saying. I want someone who can show strong leadership and to me that person is Hillary Clinton. Hillary gets my vote.

Well, this displays the political prowness of Clinton that Obama seems to be lacking. It would be great to be a "cowboy" in todays politics, but it just isn't going to work. There are too many customs that need to be addressed and diplomacy must work with patience and regard for the other parties. Being afraid is not what Clinton is known for…in fact she has beaten the odds because she hasn't been afraid to go out on a limb. Say what you may, but between the two candidates, by choice fall with the experience of Hillary Clinton. And this is coming from a Republican that knows the Democrates will take the White House.

Obama's right. She votes with the administration most the time and she won't even apologize for giving the war authorization – she was so sure that she didn't even read the 60 some page intelligence report. She has her hand in the same jar as the Bushes and someone needs to point it out.

Watch "The Fog of War" on DVD. This should clear up any misconceptions about the important role of diplomacy…no matter what the situation. If lives can be saved by talking, whatever the "current climate" as Clinton qualifies, it is always in the interest of the humanity and America. Diplomacy opens up the possibility of each side coming closer to understanding the other. So many times conflicts are the result of fear based on a misinterpretation of the motives and perspective of the other. It's time to stop "saving face" and start "saving lives".

i do not no why but it is true the majority favor Clinton.

To Akilok,

While I do not agree with analogy of the ill-educated, flickers, and welfare receipients rooting for Obama during the day and the well-informed and employed rooting for Clinton in the evening, I do agree that some of the best reasoned and constructive comments do appear timed in the evenings.

Come on people wake up! They were in a debate! Hillary wasn't trying to pick a fight with her different answer, thats what they are supposed to do! Tell us what they would do, show us how they are different. Then they do it, and everyone accuses them of starting a fight….

And I'd like to add something about the people who voted to AUTHORIZE THE WAR! Not absolutely go to war. The President needs the power to threaten war, I know you peacemongers hate this but this is real life and this is how it works. Congress gave Bush bargaining power and he abused it. Now we democrats are blaming each other?? Why?

Some of the commentors here are nothing short of amazing! I mean, it's only 2007, the election is a year and a half away, and they are allowing one "non-issue" phrase or point of view to stop their vote for Obama. Seems to me that some folks may be simply looking for a reason NOT to vote for this African-American without feeling guilty! Come on now, there are so many more important issues at hand that need to be flushed out by all of the candidates, and being "willing" to meet with the mentioned controversial world leaders is not a central one. I still haven't made up my mind on either Hillary or Obama. Yes, Hillary certainly knows her way around D.C. and world leaders. The "inexperience" of such Obama keeps popping up as if it's a sin. How many other political giants had little experience before taking the Presidency? I never thought it was a prerequisite for the position. I thought having a view, a plan, and the heart, and the votes from the American people was the way! I think anyone foolish to have made up their mind in July of 2007 for an election in November of 2008! There's bound to be many more gafflaws and sound bites within that time-frame – so, let's keep vigilant and keep the Democrats empowered to win!

Something needs to be cleared up. People seem to think and I am not sure why but from what I can tell people have this impression that Hillary said she would NEVER meet with these people during her 1st year in office. At least that's the spin I am getting. What I think she basically said is that 1 and ½ years before she even gets the job is not the time to commit to meeting with the 5 leaders from different countries. I don't think she ever said she would not meet with them. In fact her answer had even mentioned sending someone else 1st to talk with them.

Obama said that he would agree right now to meeting during his 1st year. I like the fact that he is willing to talk I agree that we do need to keep conversation going in order to make progess I just think its a little naive to make that kind of commitment this early. It just shows that he doesn't understand the difficulties evolved in the job he is running for. It is a statement of inexperience.

I do like this debate thought. I think Americans should be asking these types of questions. This doesnt just happen in the democratic party. The Republican party will face the same thing soon enough/

Wake up people. Someone posted early on to look at the other candidates as well. Good idea. Hillery will not win because she is a woman. How did women vote in the last election. Voted with their husbands – for Bush. They knew the Supreme Court was at risk – but they ignored it and voted against choice. Obama can't win – why – because he's Black. Sorry America is not that progressive – those are the simple facts. One of these two needs to be the VP candidate with a strong male Presidential candidate. Don't get me wrong, I strongly support Hillery at this time, but from apractical standpoint I see Edwards as the most vialble candidate. Mitt Romny is very charismatic and the only charismatic/youthful candidate the Democrats have is Edwards. Obama has charisma also, but the bubbas in the south and mid-west are not going to vote for him. It really is a shame that our country is the way it is. We have fallen from the ranks of the most progressive country to somewhere down the list. I feel if Hillary or Obama were the VP they'd stand a much better chance of becoming preident eight years down the road.

Akilok,

I am not some hill-jack Obama supporter? What the heck? I work a desk job. It's ppl like you, that vote for ppl like BushCheneyLite that ruin the free-world. Hillary won't even talk to foriegn leaders her first year as President!!!! As a Leader one should be willing to talk to everyone and anyone. We need to keep all our options open instead of slamming doors shut at every turn, like the current administration.

IMPEACH BUSH!

IMPEACH CHENEY!

IMPEACH GONZALAS!

This Administration is beyond help,, let's clean house!!

Oct 12, 1999, Pervez Musharraf leads a military coup and overthrows Nawaz Sharif (the elected Prime Minister of Pakistan). The United States openly works with a dictator as it is “within US regional interest”.

April 12, 2002, Democratically elected President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is removed from office by a military coup. The United States backs the coup as a “change of government” and states that Chavez was ousted “as a result of the message of the Venezuelan People”. The Venezuelan People then take to the streets disrupting everything. Chavez is back in power two days later.

President Bush met with Communist Country China’s President on a number of occasions. However, he will not meet Communist Country Cuba’s leader and continues to impose sanctions on that country. Why? Because American Capital Interest dictates that we do business with China to take advantage of cheap labor pushing American citizens out of their jobs but putting more money into the pockets of large corporations.

I say this to say that American is not a Democratic state. If it were, Al Gore would be the President at the majority of the people voted for him in 2000. America is a Capitalist state. All we do is spread our realm of influence where we can make more money exploiting countries for their resources.

To this end, the United States is the biggest perpetrator of terrorist activities in the world. No one else even comes close.

I detest Hillary Clinton, but she is right about this. Obama is a suit, little more.

I can't believe Rupert Murdoch held a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton! Although Obama never said Hillary is Bush Cheney light, that fact that Murdoch has a fundraiser for her it proof enough for me! I'm voting Biden, Ron Paul, Gravel or Obama, If Hillary or anyone else who will continue to make this country a dictatorship wins I'll stop voting altogether, what's the point? We fall like Rome anyway.

Hillarys Top 5 Reasons For President

- The New York times, Mitt Romney and the Clinton News Network(CNN) have endorsed me with their glowing coverage.

- FOX news finally loves me, proof, Rupert Murdoch held a fundraiser for me.I never knew me and FOX had so many things in common. Like hating Liberalism(uuuugh its a disease)How dare Anderson Cooper ask me if i consider myself a liberal.

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

-I like making people feel good about themselves 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 and the war not turning out like i wanted ,my experience tells me that what we need now is an exit strategy.

The Clinton years were not great.

1. NAFTA was passed and with that the beginning of the exporting of US jobs. Remember the false pretense of Bill Clinton? "Globalization will create more jobs in the US"?

2. Unsigned Kyoto treaty. Sat on his desk for 2 terms. And Al Gore was his VP.

3. The Laize-fare government style led to the dot com bubble bursting.

It was an administration of "just enjoy the party" and ignore the problems.

I personally don't think the Clinton Administration was that great. The "just ignore the problems approach" in part is why we are where we are today.

Shrinking middle class, jobs leaving, now focusing on environmental issues, dealing with a downsized military (remember who closed all those bases?).

Its time for some outside thought. Maybe the US is ready for a third party, as the current two have come so close together change is minimal when party control changes.

REPLY TO:Akilok : July 27, 2007 11:16 am

Did you ever stop and think maybe these BARACK supporters that post during the day work DESK JOBS?!

I have supported Barack Obama since before he had even considered running for President. I work a desk job and check CNN.COM daily, as I'm sure most do. I think you are just scared because you are starting to realize that Barack Obama is a serious contender. You can't cheapen our support by saying those ridiculous things. Seriously,.. wake up to the real issue here.

Barack Obama is ready to roll up his sleeves, get his hands dirty and make a difference.

Why do you think Hillary is attacking him? Why do you think the mainstream media is attacking him? Because both are 'owned' (literally/figuratively) by BushCo and they are scared because Barack Obama is about to become the new President of the USA.

I think this spat about foriegn policy between the two frontrunners hides the hollowness of both of their proposed foreign policies. I recommend reading The July/August issue of Foreign Affairs to learn, how empty Obama's policy is and look for Hillary's in the coming month. I assure you it will feature phrases like "building alliances", "restoring prestige" and alike.

There is not really a Democratic contender who impresses me with a nuianced knowledge of the world, particularly the Middle East. It seems no one in Washington really has a thought out agenda, planning where America should be int he next 5 or 10 years. If any of them knew anything about the region they should realize that great powers, even super powers have struggled and failed to maintain control of the region, and even the hegemon, the state with the proponderance of power, the United States cannot avoid this trend.

This rant isnt as focused as it should be, but here is my point: The Dems are reactionary, particularly with foreign policy. I would perfer someone to give some vision, then maybe news sources would have something better to report on than little verbal trists between the candidates, or how John McCain lost a consultant or something.

Let Hillary and him fight all they want during this Presidential campaign, its not going to matter anyway, John McCain is going to be our next President anyway, and remember I said these words on July 27, 2007.

Dear Akilok

While I am NOT an Obama supporter, it seems his supporters might be the type of folks who have internet at work, or students. Not some toothless hillbillies or project rats. And what kind of argument is 'believe me'. That comes right out of a Gonzales testimony.

Steve from Indianapolis, I believe your message reveals a lot more than you anticipated. It exemplifies the fact that too many Republicans have traded hate over their traditional principle of compassion. Thank you for continuing to expose the fraud our society was sold.

Regarding this issue, both Clinton and Obama answered the question in a similar manner. Both are willing to engage in strong diplomatic efforts even with our enemies, which is smarter and more intuitive than what we currently have in office. The decision for the Democratic primaries boils down to whether voters want a candidate that represents the experience of foreign diplomacy, or the candidate that represents a change in our foreign diplomatic efforts. Personally, I like the idea of changing our direction, considering that even Ronald Regean was able to demonstrate that it is better to engage our adversaries directly than to isolate them. Regardless, I would support either Clinton or Obama in the general election since they have better ideas and platforms than any Republican candidate.

It's clear that Obama would send envoys or emissaries to meet with opposing countries first. No one in their right mind would just hop on Air Force One to an enemy state. America's position has always been arrogant in dealing with smaller nations. That is why we are hated all over the world. Electing Obama would be the best thing for America because he is not from the status quo mindset that has gotten American in this predicament. Hilary is from that mindset. She is offering nothing new. She attacked what she thought was a mistake and it backfired. Then she started the name calling the following day by calling him naive. He fought back and now she calls him silly. Her true colors are showing. She voted for that war without reading a page and she won't admit she made a mistake like Edwards has done. That is really Bush/Cheney light.

All of that being said, even though I am not going to support Hilary, she could not possibly do worse than what America has currently. My 9 year old daughter would do better than Bush/Cheney. For those who think that Hilary would ruin the country I ask in what way? Lie to the American people to invade the wrong country. Torture prisoners. Fire US Attorneys for political reasons. Surrender power to a Darth Vader like Vice President. Hire her buddies to fill cabinet posts. Play the guitar while an American city drowns. Support and enliven a corrupt justice department. Spy on innocent Americans. Steal an election. I could go on for hours. Register Independent and vote for the best person regardless of party. In all honesty that only leaves democrats this go around because the repugs look awful.

Jonathan,
you are truely one of those naive and silly Obama supporters who say Obama voted against the war and you dont have a slight clue of where Obama was at that time. For your information, Obama did not vote anywhere. He was not in the US Senate that time. He was an Illinois state senator who merely expressed his disapproval at state level, not at the national level. Intellectually incapacitated like you, Jonathan, let America down by not understanding or delving into correct information and as such are gullible to improperly placing your vote. Obama did not vote anywhere, anytime because he was even a US Senator, kappish..?

I just saw a trend in posted comments that all who favour Obama input their comments in the day and those who support Hillary enter their comments in the evening. To me, it shows that Obama supporters are the lazy, remote-control flicking, chip snacking no-gooders of welfare receipients who spend their time on tvs. and browsing the web with no intellectual ability to analyze, then tired, they retire in the evening. Well-composed and intellectual comments come in the evening from those who have been working during the day. The difference is that comments in the evening that support Clinton are better argued and crafted than the silly, myopic ones that hoot for Obama during the day. Believe me.

This is getting old. I hope people aren't naive enough to think that HRC or BO are nothing more than spinsters.

With a population of 300+ million people in this country, can't we find some genuine leadership?

The only thing worse than the choices being put forward by the Deomocratic party is what the Republican part can offer up.

I'm sick of this country catering to the minority out on the conservative right and liberal left who care about nothing except furthering their own agendas. We need strong leaders who can keep the interested parties AT HOME in check before worrying about the world stage.

The so called in experienced Obama voted against it. Does this not give him foresight? I surely think he is going to bring America back to her position in the world.

Posted By Jonathan : July 26, 2007 4:49 pm

HAHAHAHAHA – GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT JONATHAN: OBAMA NEVER VOTED FOR THE WAR, JUST BECAUSE HE WAS NOT IN THE SENATE AT THE TIME!!!! he has voted to fund-it ever since!!!!!

Let those two squabble offline or at one of their Washington soirees.
Here's an idea. Vote for a ticket of John Edwards and Wesley Clark. Then you get the advantage of a great force for Americans and the rest of their sphere of influence (which is just about the entire planet) AND you get to confound all the talking heads who have no clue what ordinary Americans care about. Wouldn't it be great to have an America that lived up to the potential the rest of the world has respected and/or envied for so long, instead of sullying that vision with corporate greed, military misuse, failing schools, and low expectations of the character and intelligence of our citizens.

Amazing…Hillary's campaign started this "silly" thing and is now trying to take the high road. She wants this so bad that I expect to see her sacrifice her daughter to get it…

Don’t get me wrong, I’ll definitely be voting for Hillary if she reigns as the Democratic nominee, but she is the queen of spin and I think the party has better suited candidates. Besides her perfection of spinnery, my only other qualm with Hillary is in her other talent of coat tail riding — her husband that is. I’m such a huge fan of self-made people (e.g., Edward, Obama, Bill Clinton…etc)

Hillary's use of the word "silly" when refering to a fellow democrat is least diplomatic. Reminds me of Bush-Cheney use of such words as "axis of evil" and belittling presidents of "enemy" countries. If she thinks Obama is silly and says it loud then she has justified Obamas comments on being Bush-Chenney like. I dont know what she will call chavez in public. That is diplomacy of the past. Hillary simply does not bring change in the diplomatic front.

Of course, you could always vote Republican!

What is silly is the inability to accept responsibility for votes that led to a war. That is quite Cheney-Bush like if you ask me.

What is silly is running on the coattails of your husband instead of your own merits.

What is silly is demeaning the other candidates as you try to remove them from the debates when they bring up valid points about your political views and resume.

What is silly is the way the people of NY voted you into the Senate without a shred of experience other than being married to a politician.

The politics of hope started to die and were killed off mostly during your husband's campaigns. Don't act like this is a shock and you are above it when the reality is you are knee deep in the problem.

The Hillary candidacy is silly. Its just more of the same ole same ole.

We don't need another political dynasty candidate Bush..Clinton…Bush…Clinton. We need fresh ideas. I believe Bush/Clinton brought us NAFTA and they supported invading IRAQ. I guess she really is Bush Lite.

Obama simply does not have enough experience to be President. I like him and would consider voting for him in the future but at this point he does not seem to have a clue in terms of foreign policy. He says he is not afraid to lose the PR war- but with these countries all we have is the PR war. If we lose it we have no choice but real war.

Hillary started this whole thing!?!? YOU ALL ARE SOOOOOOOO BIAST! Always reporting like Hillary Clinton is a shoe-in. Are you scared because you are starting to realize BARACK OBAMA has a great chance at the Presidency?

From a man in CA, Hilary just lost any hope of getting my vote. In '98 I sent her a note asking her to run for President, now she's shown it shouldn't be her. Mr. Obama now has my vote.

Great. How much longer until she pulls out the old and busted "Threatened by a strong woman" line? There are so many people in America who respect strong women – and would love to see one take the White House – but simply do not agree with Mrs. Clinton's point of view.

We don't need smoke and mirrors, we need an honest-to-God down and dirty politician to be President.

I'm a conservative but, you know what? I think Obama has a point: It seems to me that the "top tier" candidates from both parties would equally screw up America more than it already is. These politicians like President Bush, Bill Clinton, Hillary, McCain, Giuliani are SO out of touch with the American people, American history, the Constitution, and the basic ideals of our founding fathers that I think they ARE all alike. The only difference is how much the wealthy are taxed.

It's time to fire them all and elect REGULAR EVERYDAY people.

Hillary is a Bush Lite. Go Obama.

When Hillary said she would "engage with the world" did she actually mean, the world that her advisors tells her exists? What actual foreign leader selection experience does she have? She's completely out of touch like Bush/Cheney.
Additionally, as the scandals mount in this administration do we really need to bring back all of Hillary's?
I'm very much for a woman president, just not this one.

Okay, let's remember that this is politics. Trading shots like this is part of getting elected, unfortunately. Even the most talented, intelligent, experienced leaders have to play this game to get elected. That being said, Hillary made a completely valid point in the debate. While she is less charismatic than Obama, she is far more prepared to be president. It's near impossible to debate that the other way.

The more I hear Obama talk the less and less I like him. I started on the Obama train but have since come over to support Clinton. Something about him rubs me the wrong way.

Hmmm, these comments are coming from a female democrat who used to be president of the Young Republicans and wrote a paper extolling the virtues of Socialism. Hillary seems to change her stance according to what pops up highest in the polls. I'd rather have someone steadfast like Obama or Edwards than a slick, mealy-mouthed poser.

Obama's trash-talk is beginning to show because the polls are not changing in his favor. I agree that the Bush-Chenny Lite trash was the silliest deconstructive remark Obama could make knowing that America has always known Hillary's position regarding Bush's foreign policy.

This Obama is a snake oil salesman. If he is so opposed to War on Iraq he should have voted against $301 billion funding for Iraq war. Why did he vote for it now blaming Mrs. Clinton on it. I think he is forgetting what he said to David Remnick "senators who saw intelligence reports on Iraq may have been justified in voting for the invasion. 'I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence,' he said. 'And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices.'
He also said, "he was not sure whether he would have voted against the resolution had he been in the Senate" to NYTimes. People this guy is unreal. I don't believe a word this guys says. Atleast we know how Clinton regime.

Hillary and Staff,
This is not the way to get you votes. You are crashing. EVERYONE understood what Sen. Obama stated. I have not decided on who will receive my vote; but this is certainly not the way to the folks I have spoken to nor mine.

I'm starting to think Hillary would actually be WORSE than Bush! She is just as bad about manipulating the truth, as evident in this squabble, her recollection of her war vote, and basically everything she stands for! I really hope democrats wake up and realize that people HATE her, that she'd never win the general election. Only democrats are so bad at politics that they can have a grand slam set up for them then just hit into a double play by nominating Hillary…

We as the public need to decide what we TRULY want. Everyone says that they want a change in the way that government does its business. So here we have Obama, a candidate that is promising to do the governments business differently, and what does the public do? YOU COMPLETELY FREAK OUT!! Personally this is what I want from the debate. Who is going to do things in Washington differently. Even if it doesn't work at least something different was tried. I can't see that talking to others countries will make our current situation worst.

P.S. Shame on you CNN your are reporting like you are a tabloid paper. stop putting the "spin" on stories and just report the facts honestly. Your spin is just a bad as the spins coming out of the White House.

Whether or not is was "naive", at least Obama was willing to answer the question versus going around it. Hillary does not answer any question with a clear, concise response. Obama is young and less experienced. But at least he is willing to LISTEN TO WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS AND ANSWER QUESTIONS DIRECTLY. After reading the transcripts of the past debates, Obama seems to give straight answers. I would rather disagree with someone about their answer than try to figure out what they mean (example Hillary). She is not a straight shooter.

I think Obama is talkimg alot of BS… he lacks the experience to lead this country, and that is so evident by his accusations in his debate..He didn't vote for the wr…ok …neither did I, but at least senator Clinton, admitted her mistake.. like many Americans, they were all for war after 911… no everybody sees that this wasn't the answer…. typical!!! Obama is full of it, and he talks a good game now… well if he is elected as the president….. he should go ahead and change his name to George Bush III… because that is exactly what you will be getting!!!!

The old adage keep your friends close and your enemies closer applies here. Well said, President Obama. Clinton is the same old, same old. Where is this experience she has, being first lady and senator. I want a president with the right kind of experience,one with good judgement. Not one who said, I authorized Bush to go to war but I didn't think he would do it. That is being naive.

"Power and prestige" are exactly what Hillary Clinton is all about and why she wants to be president. Obama is right in calling her Bush-Cheney light. Our disastrous foreign policy would not change much under her regime.

We need an intelligent president in the white house. I am so tired of politicians saying the same things over and over. As citizens of this country, we must demand the truth. To this point nobody has stepped up and convinced me they will make a difference. The changes this country needs to make will depend on how well we call all swallow the real truth about what is happening to us as a nation. Until that happens, we will keep hearing the same lies, and sadly, we will keep electing those who lie to us.

I THINK ITS TIME FOR SOME FRESH EYES, EARS, MINDS TO COME TO OUR LEADERSHIP. WE AS A COUNTRY DO NOT NEED ANOTHER CLINTON ADMINISTRATION IN OFFICE FOR ANOTHER 4 YRS, BESIDES HILLARY HAS ALREADY RAN THE COUNTRY JUST NOT THE TITLE! ITS TIME WE AS AMERICANS COME TO LIGHT ON SUCH.

"If Obama and Clinton are so willing to talk, why are they afraid to debate on Fox Network?"
Posted By Evan Wynn, Whitewater WI : July 27, 2007 8:39 am

I'd be afraid of those folks too. They do more damage to this Country daily than Castro ever did.

It seems quite clear to me, through reading the varied responses in this blog that most folks could care less about real issues that affect us as a Nation.
People that tend to support Clinton through their messages have no real basis for doing so, concluding that they seems to believe that the Country will magically return to the way it was when Bill was President. ( Not good)
Or, simply because she is a woman.
People talk about Hillary's experience. Experience? Do you actually want to elect an individual that has experience? Experience to me in regards to politics means lies, deceit, propaganda and a good deal of mistrust. Cheney has experience.
Obama on the other hand at least offers a fresh vision. I see nothing wrong with diplomacy. We're in the quagmire we're in now because of the lack of diplomacy for the past 80 years.
I've been a Democratic voter all of my life, but this year will be different. I am voting for REAL change.
Dr. Ron Paul wants to give you your Constitution back. He wants to rid this Country of unnecessary bureaucracy that plagues us. What better offer is there than that? Check it out. Open your eyes and really check out the candidates. I'll be voting Republican this year, but only because Ron Paul is on the ticket.

Come on Sheeple Wake up!!! Do you really see HRC as anything other than a politician?!?! She speaks of experience and lessons learned from the past and I hear More of the Same! Experience and Leadership should have helped her when she voted on the Iraq war resolution, and convictions of morality should have caused her to deny money from the Health Insurance Lobby! Yet we see neither of those things happened. If America wants change and progress then it truly needs progressive ideas! Barrack Obama consistently seems to speak the words that I and others like me are thinking.

US presidents should meet with any leaders, no matter how "controversial". Presidents Chavez and Ahmadinijad are democratically elected leaders of their respective contries whether the US likes it or not. Fidel Castro, even though not elected, is the most popular leader that country has had in a century and has not stayed in power without the help of his people.
Give Obama a big plus.

I keep reading and hearing about Hillary Clinton's experience; however it does not come with a list of what she has actually done or accomplished?? Just being there doesn't cut it!!

Hillarys Top 5 Reasons For President

- The New York times, Mitt Romney, the Play Boy Mayor from LA 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.

Hillary rocks! She's so level headed and reasonable. She's really down-to-earth. I think she'd make a good president.

Someone posted,"Stop touting these two as if they were the only two candidates IN THE RACE"…On the contrary…they are the only two IN THE RACE..everyone else democrat or republican arent in the race by even a close margin… I really think that though they are sharing differences during the nomination process, that clearly Obama, would be a sensation on a Clinton ticket.

What an inane statement from Obama.

Is he that far behind in the polls.

Let's be clear: it's easy to say what you "would have done". obama had no vote on the war and in the not-so-recent-past has said that he does not know how he would have voted. that's not a record. furthermore, if he wanted to send a clear message then do not fund the troops. anyone who wants to truly end the war would not vote for any further funding of it. its not anti-american or anti-troops to say "i want to do whatever it takes to bring them home." why not do this? politics. he's playing the same ol' politics so he has the best chance to get elected. its very inconsistent to say you're against the war but yet you keep funding it.

let's face it, he's gotten a lot of mileage out of a campaign of "hope". its also a campaign without any real ideas, experience, and specific answers to pointed questions. even in the debate he couldn't answer whether he was for or against reparations for blacks: his answer was to focus on education. how about a yes or no? he just has nothing of substance to add to the debates. just a lot of fuzzy words that only resonate with those who believe the commander-in-chief should act like some goofy "saved by the bell high school principal" that everyone should find "nice" and "inoffensive".

we've seen what an inexperienced former substance abuser has done in the white house. do we need another inexperienced former substance abuser in the white house?

Big picture…

Obama can not win the National election.

Hillary is all we got!!

I'm absolutely fine with that.

My vote will go to Hillary AND Bill.

Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away Ignoring "rogue" states will not make them go away. Instead of pouting, we need to try to resolve some of these trivial issues. We have been mad at Cuba for 50+ years, for something that was our fault to begin with. If you learn the history of the conflicts, you may understand how silly some of them are.

We need a breath of fresh air. Politics is dirty laundry that needs bleach. How on earth does Congress get anything done with all the bickering going on? No wonder the country is in a mess. What about all the people losting their homes? Who's doing anything about that?

I agree with Obama, and I very much respect his decision to stand up for what he believes.

Barack, Hillary,
I'd be glad to talk to some of those troublesome foreign leaders for you in case you're both shy. I got a nice long rant for Hugo Chavez to start with, and my speech to Castro could never be adequately translated. Then there's Kim in NKorea; I'd probably just stand there and snicker at him instead of lecturing. But yeah, I'd talk to the hostiles, even try to get Limbaugh into treatment.

A new kind of campaign, huh Obama? Just more of the same politicking. There is certainly nothing fresh about him unless you can count being inexperienced.

I hope he can actually come up with a campaign platform with some details so we actually have a primary.

If Obama and Clinton are so willing to talk, why are they afraid to debate on Fox Network?

One would think that contenders for such an elevated position would not stoop to name-calling. These squabbles give a true insight into the state of American Politics, and it is a sad thing. I was thinking of Obama as true presidential material until he reverted to third grade behavior. It is obvious now why over half the nation's voters refuse to endorse anyone for the high office.

The "politics of hope", Hillary, is the secret hope that many of us have that both you and Obama will be run over by a bus later today so that someone who actually aspires to serve this country, rather than have it serve them, can move to the front of the pack. Please try to make sure John Edwards is standing next to you when it happens.

Keep it up, Barack! Hill thought she could take a cheap shot, knowing she was twisting the obvious concept of Obama to attempt to get some cheap attention. Now she is paying the price. Obama is exactly right — Hill is playing political Twister and now all limbs are about to collapse as she has straddled left and right. And conceptually, Obama is right…her calling Obama "naive" would have to make Karl Rove smile.

The ONLY way anything is going to happen (and I'm not sure we're not even too late for that) positively during this EXTREMELY CRITICAL time in this country, is for Obama to win this election. He is the only one making ANY effort to abandon the usual DC-talk on every issue and to change the pathetic political culture of our country.

I am a STRONG Democrat, and I liked Bill Clinton as President, but I'm telling you, Hillary will be a terrible President. You cannot be a word-mincer and a constant issue straddler and help us right now. Come on, Democrats, how tough is this to understand?

I guess Nancy Pelosi was naive when she went to Syria to talk to one of these leaders without pre-conditions and in the first 6 months of her term.

Senator Clinton began this confrontation by calling Senator OBama naive and he correctly responded by saying she was the one who was naive when she voted to let President Bush take us into this war. The Presidency has very little prestige left after George Bush, however how better to rebuild it than to meet with world leaders face to face and express our position. Senator OBama said he would meet with them not acquiesce to them. "We should never fear to negotiate nor should we negotiate out of fear!"

I think Hillary needs to remember what John F. Kennedy said: "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate."

Bush has agreed to meet with all these people as long as pre-conditions are met. Hillary has agreed to meet with all these people as long as pre-conditons are met. So what is difference between Bush and Hillary's policy? Only what the pre-conditions are?

With Obama you get honest answers. As President, I am sure he would take all the proper precautions and his advisors would assist him. Hillary's canned remarks were said to make a point that Obama has less experience than her. Her remarks were not about what she would actually do.

Now let us look at her experience compared to Obama's. Sure she has a couple more years as a Senator then Obama – no wait he was a state senator for Illinois. She was married to Bill Clinton so she got experience by being next to Bill and spending time in the Oval Office – but if that counts than maybe Monica should run for President? She was often a lot closer to Bill than Hillary and probably spent more time in the Oval Office. If she is worried about getting used by Dicktators, than she does have experience with Bill. Is he using her to get another round in the White House? Does he spend time with her when he isn't in political trouble? No. He spent time with all the other women in his life. It seems like he only used Hillary when he needed cover from the Right Wing Conspiracy. If anyone has a tendency to be naive, it would be Hillary afterall she never could figure out Bill was cheating on her.

Where is the comment from Obama? Hillary can throw all the "barbs" she wants but when somebody stands up to her, she throws out "politics of hope". Did anybody tell her you have to run for President? Did she think she was going to do this unchallenged? She has self anointed herself the next President. Has anybody told this Ice B*%$# you have to run, win your party nomination then win the national election? She counts time as First Lady as experience to run this country? Can anybody not challenge Hillary? I'm glad somebody is standing up to her and putting her in her place. This is not an un-contested Senate seat; here you will have to prove your worthiness to win your party nomination. I am going to laugh when Obama kicks your massive butt back to your Husband and Dog in New York!

My Uncle Sal always told me, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Obama knows this too. Smart man.

Hillary has shown by her incredible hypocracy, her total failure to own up to her past decisions, and her riciculous remarks about other Democrats that she is not a leader never mind qualified to be President.

She is a follower of old time sleazy politics and old ideas which have not worked. She has not presented any new solutions to problems that do not include having the government step in (hey you supporters of Hillary, don't even you laugh when someone says "I'm from the governement, I'm here to help").

It's time for Hillary and all those like her who refuse to analyze the past, to sit down, shut up, and get out of the way for someone completely different.

"If you do what you've always done you'll get what you've always gotten".

I respect Obama but his lack of experience is showing
He will kill any chance of getting ahead in the political arena
Has he forgotten that he had a drug problem and there is a lot of shadowy deals in IL because of his influence.
What has he done for the minority?
Talk is cheap

Obama started the attack FIRST! HE HAS BEEN NON STOP ATTACKING CLINTON for Iraq vote. Who cares about what happened five years ago? What matters is what you are going to do NOW! WHILE OBAMA CONTINUES TO BRAT AND DOING NOTHING ELSE USEFUL, SENATOR CLINTON HAS INTRODUCED A SERIES BILLS ABOUT ENDING THE WAR, ABOUT ECONOMY, ABOUT EDUCATION, ABOUT EQUALITY AMONG MEN AND WOMEN, ETC. ETC.

Obama wants to project hope. So why does he always look back at someone else vote some years ago? His repeatedly mentioning his opposition to the war just show again and again that he has NOTHING ELSE TO TALK ABOUT, no record of accomplishments to show!

I believe America would be in grave danger to elect Mrs. Clinton at the point in time of our history. We need a strong leader with world appeal, not more of the same (Bush-Cheney propaganda). Barack Obama will bring our country back in focus as not only a world leader, also realign us with other countries who currently see us as bullies, who are unwilling too lend an ear, or be reasonable in our policy.

I used to like Obama now I'm not so sure. He even qualified what he said in the debate by saying that he wouldn't meet with them the next day that there are certain protocols a president would have to follow. In effect both of them are saying the same thing. They are both willing to meet and talk, but everything has to be tackful. So I don't understand what he keeps complaining about.
I also don't understand the preoccupation with Hillary's prewar vote. Most of the senate voted that way. Was it a mistake yeah, but everyone makes their best judgment at the time. It doesn't change our present reality. I think the candidates need to focus on what to do now and in the future. The past is the past.

I think we have had enough politician that have made a mes of things. "Experieineced" means to me fully corrupted by the system. Give me a neophyte anyday. Career politicians are so divorced from reality that we have to be insane to continue voting for these idiots.

I encourage everyone to read the Audacity of Hope. I encourage everyone to look at the church that Senator Obama attends, since yesterday he was called a soldier of justice. You should research before you vote for the sound byte. When Bill Clinto was in office, my family was in good shape. My husband lost two jobs due to down sizing through the Bush years. I say, Madame President in 08!

Part of me thinks Obama should back down a bit because she seems to be controlling this argument, but the other part of me thinks that as a candidate for President one can never be too careful – see Kerry and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth – he just didn't take that seriously enough and it cost him a lot of voters.

Well, Hillary seems to be a safe bet because of her experience, and her husband being Bill Clinton, a president that I admired, but after hearing Obama's answer versus Hillary's answer to their approach to talking with foreign leaders who have previously been our enemies, Obama stands out as the real leader who has the real courage, and Hillary just seems weak and cautious – yep, Bush-Cheney lite. It seems she has the same problem.

I hope Obama wins the primary because I certainly don't want politics as usual.

It seems the problem with Hillary is she looking foreign policy only in american prespective and not also in from the shoes of other nations. To other nations of the world have a feeling that America feels to be all that and that they are the ones to rule and bully others. Well Hillary aproach highlights this idea. Why are you not showing upfront willingnes to meet with these president despite of there problems? Why is she negative thinking that they will take advantage of their meeting? The Question was not about commiting but rather willingness to meet! Therefore Barack Obamas answer show to americans and mostly to internationals that America is willing to work with them and maybe solve the issues and differences that presently exist. what a great potrait of the American vartues! Telling the world America is a freand and not your enemy. I also believe this is the right heart and boldness of a true leader.

You know when you are at a loss you pull out the big guns. This country is in such a mess, we need an experienced person (Ms. Hillary Clinton) to perform "damage control"! Obama has great ideas, no doubt. But, we need someone with more tenure to undue all of the damage that has been done by the last leader to the American people….PERIOD!

I call this one a low blow out of desperation.

Well, I'm giving my two cents for whatever its worth. Politics always seem so frustrating to me; and as a man who saw real war for nine years; and two of them working strategic war manever in the Medong Delta and the rest other seven years obeying a C.O. now dead who insisted on the most idiot compliance with politicians who did not know what they were talking about; I saw everything and did everything. I know what it's like to be pulled by politicians with their strings simply to appease a disgruntled public. Well, I can't complain. Nonetheless, I was always one to set up the chess board and play every move to take the King. Yet when you take the King; and politicians give the conquered territory back everyone dies for nothing.
Everyone died for nothing in Viet Nam. Good men who were pulled here and there; and placed there and here had no control over the politicians who were appeasing everyone in the States.
No doubt, gentlemen, we have the same situation with several important items that must be perceived in their proper light. With Viet Nam we pulled out; and everyone went home knowing that it was over. With Iraq; if we pull out the Taliban or other terrorist rebels will regroup and come here again with another September 11th.
Therefore I could not vote a Presidential candidate that doesn't see this obvious fact.
I wouldn't vote for Hillary or Barack. I would want a President who continue the hunt for the terrorist. Look at the videos of September 11th again; and know the pain and anger that I still feel. If I wasn't so damn old I'd re enlist and do what I was trained to do with satisfaction and pleasure showing our troops a few tricks of the trade.

LaValle, when will people like yourself get over and get off of the old news about how Hillary voted on the war?? Her answer was not brushed under the rug either. It is folks like yourself who do not have anything else to stab her with so you keep going back to that vote. Even If you only have an ants worth of brains in your head then you will be able to comprehend the simple fact that Sen. Clinton voted for the War on the conditions Bush promised ALL OF US that he would not go into battle until all other options were exhausted-inspections etc. 90 percent on all Americans dems-Reps equally, agreed with her way of voting, for that matter the republicans were running the show anyway ..and back then, they thought she was such a true,non-partisan, for the people democrat..now the Republicans are putting her down her for it??? This is what really gets me frazzled..How the once kind, positive,uniting, anti-bashing.. Obama, is the one not telling the truth..he keeps shouting from the mountain tops how he had from the beginning voted against the war! But how did he do it?? Obama had no vote at that time.. he wasn't there in the Senate yet! Amazing how no one knows that SIMPLE fact either!!Inexperience=Obama–
Open your narrow mind and look past the lies of this Evil Bush empire and if you want a democrat in office forget- Barack-HUssein-OBama- He will not happen!
So start looking forward to a fresh and brighter future! The Clinton years are here again! Thank God!!!!!!!

We need more female candidates.

Obama is showing his very obviously severe frustrations way too early, as expected. I have had no doubt she is walking away with the Democratic nomination and the Presidency but how much easier can Obama make it for her? His $$$ isn't helping him, it never will. He is Democratic "light". He has no experience on the world stage and it's showing, in the worst light. How does anything he say like this uphold his politics of hope?
Is he MAD?
Good going, Obama, go ahead and "try" to tear the Democratic party apart so early in the process. Naive is as naive does.

Hillary! You just keep going girl!

Damn the naysayers and full steam ahead!!

All Obama does is add steam to her allready unbeatable camapign. How terrifyingly small the man has become. A real shame really. Side's, it's not like she can't take it, she's been taking low blows and come back stronger. Is that fact lost on you Obama?

I think America is on the correct direction if they elect Obama.This is contributed by the fact that Obama is ready to negotiate with world leaders who are not in good terms with America,so to reduce the mentality of many people that America is behind all sort of problems in the world.The mistake you can do is to elect Clinton to finish Bush home work.

It doesn't really matter if these two clowns get along or not, America is not dumb enough to elect a Socialist to the White House. True Americans see the star and stripes as their flag, where liberals see the white flag as theirs. Damn it sucks to be a democRAT!

It became "silly" as soon as Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy for President of the United States.

Voting for Clinton or Obama or any other oligarch is silly. I am an American living in Canada and am fed up with our political system. We need an 'independent' force. Clinton is old money and Obama doesn't stand a chance with "hope" in an environment that has been hampered for so long by dark forces.

Ron Paul 2008! — and I represent a bunch of American Canadians who will not return until a real Presidency puts America back on the map. The discussion of politics from a Canadian viewpoint looks rather "silly" – even as Americans, we watch at how pathetic the media coverage is and how soft news blinds the real issues.

There is far too much "noise" on personalities and "soft issues" and not about REAL issues. Americans have lost hope and the two-party system is completely flawed.

AMERICANS WAKE UP or watch our great nation fall…

John King is weak just like most on CNN and MSNBC. He allowed Hillary to define the interview and then concluded his segment stating that you can't go against the Clinton machine. What does that mean exactly? Who is she? Why is it that she is being portrayed as a leader of us all and is able to have her sorry flip-flop shown on TV. Is John King going to interview Barack or is he also dissing the senator? Hillary was beginning to look stupid and when she can't look directly in the camera, which reminds me how she looks when asked a question about Bill or her vote on Iraq, she looks down and if you noticed, tried to speak in this low voice. Even her hair was pulled back to not have her look like a you-know-what. CNN, the who in the world is this guy Jeff Toobin, Candy Crawley, and now John King, are worthless reporters. They are doing the same no reporting that was done leading up to the Iraq war. I am a black female and proud democrat who will never vote for Hill. She is condescending and overly programmed. I'm so sad to think we will have another republican in the white house. My party has made a deal with the devil.

Honestly, I am so proud of Barack Obama, and I am not supporting him or anyone for president yet.

I have believed for a long time that the Clintons and Bushs are have way too much in common.

I mean, look at Bill Clinton and the former President Bush. They are tight now, and it is because the Clintons are come from the thinking. Greedy thinking.

Water seeks its own level!
Birds of a feather stick together!

It would be super to have a woman President of the U.S. It WOULDN'T be great to have another greed driven leader.

Will the people of this country ever get their heads out of the sand? How much more fleecing can the people of this country take?

After Bush and his Cowboy Presidency what a relief to hear a candidate suggest a reasoned, principled approach to diplomacy. To think a candidate could actually have a rational thought before drivel comes out of their mouth. And my, my a woman at that! Now this WOULD be a welcome change. This would give me HOPE! WAy to go Madame President. Get that Bill over to the Middle East and work out the peace like he did in Ireland after all the years of trouble and terror. CANNOT WAIT TII January '09!

It is naive to think that the strategically formulated YouTube question was at not a CNN setup and Clinton had not rehearsed her answer.
"…, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration,…, with the leaders …, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"
Cooper asked Oboma to respond. Then Cooper ' checked' with Stephen who asked what Clinton had to say.
Obama is right to point out that Clinton uses her experience to bring down hope and embraces politics as usual rather than change with this "nice fabricated controversy".

It is interesting how Obama keeps putting his foot in his mouth and spewing words of a politician that just does not get it. He is showing more and more that he that he not only lacks experience but he also lacks vision. He seems ready to be more like Chamberlain a pacifist than a true leader with a strong vision.

Please, let the first woman to be elected president be one with conviction and depth. I'd rather not elect a elect a woman who is merely riding her husband's coattails. Political shrewdness is Hillary's main strength.

Obama is absolutely correct. To pick apart his statement is trival semantics. Of course he'll lay the ground work. I love, love, love the fact he's coming out guns blazing, arms swinging against Hilary on this issue. It speaks to his command of the issues and his strong will not to allow the media or Hilary to twist his words. Clinton was doing what she always does, speaking in halves, speaking in maybes, in the same way Bush does. Obama is taking a stand, is sticking to his guns, is telling things truthfully and simply from his gut. We need this so badly. We've had a belly full of politics as usual. Obama is the next president.

Clinton/Edwards 2008!

I think it is clear that a US president cannot meet with the likes of Ahmadinejad 'without preconditions'.

Ahmadinejad has essentially denied the Hollocaust for goodness sake. It is in no way appropriate for a US president to engage diplomatically with such a person 'without preconditions'.

Whatever you think of Hillary at this point you have to at least accept that Obama fumbled that.

I appreciate he may not mean it and he should come out and say so.

If Obama sees Hillary is "Bush-Cheney Lite,"

I think OBAMA is "OSAMA-Lite."

This is why my choice is John Edwards. He embodies all the positives in each of these respective candidates, in addition to being the most electable in the General(read all the polls). He is Hope+Strength+Brains+he's on fire… for us, the underdogs who justhappen to be the American working class, in addition to the less fortunate. Edwards has a proven track record at taking on the Corporations Drug & Insurance industries
and winning. Thats why the MSM and all the fat cats don't like him. He can't be bought off.

The news Media has really gotten to a lot of people. Based on most responses I've read about Obama, you people are ridiculously ignorant. Stop being afraid of the real possibility that an intelligent black leader will someday be President. Ya'll need to fall back.

I agree with Fed up American, but unfortunately a viable third party candidate is nowhere to be found. This is politics as usual and is exactly why turnout on election day is so poor. The Democrates need to be careful here. With the attacks so early and within their own camp, I wouldn't be surprised if even fewer Americans end up voting this next election. In the end providing another Republican victory with less than 50% of the popular vote. Wouldn't that be great!

I totally agree with Obama's answer, that's what a great leader do, to proactively making a affort to unite the world. A normal leader will need to test the water first. We need a great president not just another political leader!

Did all of you catch the interesting fact that the Clintons made 50 million frickin dollars last year?? It's a fact, jack. I have a hard time being convinced that ANYONE that made anywhere close to 50M$ can come anywhere close to identifying with my family's needs and issues. Hillary is the common politician, and though she seems to put on the "tough girl" act well, she is bought and paid for like most other politicians….how can everyone forget the whitewater scandal??? Did everyone think that was just Bill involved in that one? I support Mr. Obama because of the facts, because I've read ALL of his books, and I can't say I've come across a public representative that is more interested in representing the PEOPLE more than he is. I challenge anyone to point to a candidate that is less politically-motivated than he is.

Obama is definitely a loser. He can't seem to accept the fact that his answer on the you tube question, made him look like a dimwit/ nincompoop as opposed to Hillary Clinton's answer. It was truly a shame and what a pity to be embarrased that way in front of millions of Americans.It shows that he surely knows nothing about foreign policy. He is just an overly ambitious, trying-hard, wanne-be President. Doesn't he realize his running against a Clinton? How could you call him smart?

1980- BUSH VP
1984- BUSH VP
1988- BUSH
1992- CLINTON
1996- CLINTON
2000- BUSH
2004- BUSH
2008- CLINTON?
2012- CLINTON?
36 YEARS????

1. People say Obama never voted against the war, but although he was not in the senate, HE DID openly speak against it.
2. Obama IS Christian, not Muslim. This shouldn't matter anyway, but apparently for some ignorant fools, it does.
3. For those who say Obama is inexperienced…. George Bush was very experienced.
4. Hillary Clinton represents old politics…that which dates back to Vietnam when the country became so deeply divided. The money mongering politics that have torn apart the country and that have eventually driven people to hate politics and begin ignoring their civil duties.
5. She started this little fight by pubicly jumping on Obama and calling him naive and irresponsible. When she practically gave the same answer as him.
6. Obama answered the question correctly… saying he would be WILLING to meet with rogue leaders.. Hillary falsely interpreted this as a promise and tried to use it for political leverage.

Vote for something different.

I'll be voting Obama or Biden
if not I will vote Republican.

Barry Obama: such a NAIVE, silly little inexperienced boy you are. You probably won't be elected, but if you did, you would quickly see how your unconditional dinner parties with Chavez et al. would fail, fast.

OBama is naive and silly, because his comments on meeting with foreing dictators reminds me of George Bush when he could not name a foreign country when asked by a reported during his first election.

Obma is now red faced and desperate in attacking Hillary because that shows clearly to the democractic and american voters of his inexperience in international protocols and polictics.

Distance lends enchantment, but all that glitters may not be gold. The fact is that Obama is comparatively new in federal and international politics. He has lots to learn, and we should not have another George Bush who was (and still is) silly and naive in international and domestic politics.

I cannot believe that any of you would vote for either one of them. Why is that we Americans keep making the same mistakes over and over again. Why on earth would you even consider voting for Hillary Clinton, let alone Obama. Folks, these people are puppets, just like the goon that runs the country now. I truly hoped that America was indeed ready for change, but you all watch this fiasco like a bunch of bar flies watching Big Brother.
Check the issues, and then, after all the rhetoric has cleared, give your vote to a real Constitutionalist-Dr. Ron Paul.

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!

To all those people who thinks Hillary started this, it's not true. Go back to the CNN debate and checked out the part where Obama cut off Hillary when she mentioned the withdraw plans from the Pentagon. Yes, she did vote for the War and so what almost every senators voted for it.

Obama has it right here. We have to stop isolating ourselves from countries that we do not see eye to eye with. The abscence of dialouge between the United States and our "enemies" only breeds contempt, hatred and misunderstanding. This course of action has been shown to be flawed throughout history.

I have always been a Clinton supporter. Used to like Obama, although I don't think he's ready for "prime time" just yet. Would have considered a Clinton-Obama ticket, however, until now. There are nuances for leadership that are important. Clinton never said she wouldn't sit down with these leaders, just that she would not commit to doing so the first year without knowing very important details. She has always said she would have a strong diplomacy policy to open lines of communication, and never once subscribed to anything near the policy of Bush and Cheney. Sorry, but Obama's blanket statement is naive for a presidential candidate and his attack on Clinton is a real stretch of the truth.

Spin your wheels Barack…you aren't going anywhere.

I agree with Senator Clinton. We should not degrade the authority of the presidency by being open to propaganda purposes. If Obama is elected that is exactly what he will be used for. Also, if Obama is running on a nice, clean, fresh platform he should start looking for it again.

I agree with Neil…it is insulting that Hillary is considered the front runner, as she is nothing more than a bully always looking to stir-up controversy and get her sound-bytes on the news.

She has been that way all the way back to '92 when Bill was in the primaries against Jerry Brown. Back then she did the same thing.

Obama is right…we need to move forward and pick a new candidate of change. Especially someone not afraid to use diplomacy. P.R. Wars have worked very well in the past. It can work again in the future.

These twist and spin tactics don't wash with me at all. Obama gave a straight answer — something that someone who never told the truth when a lie would suffice cannot see as anything but an opportunity as a cheap attack.

Kucinich, in the South Carolina debate, said: "Furthermore, I don't think that it's sufficient to say that if we had the information at the beginning that we would have voted differently.

That information was available to everyone. And, if you made the wrong choice, we're auditioning here for president of the United States. People have to see who had the judgment and the wisdom not to go to war in the first place, and I made the choice not to go to war."

Kucinich can spot a phony when he sees one. I think Barack Obama can, too. That's why I'd trust him with foreign relations long before I'd be willing to give control of the FBI to Hillary Clinton.

Bush has been running a policy of fear and scare tactics to take away our civil liberties in every facet of life. He now issues National Security "lettres de cachet" as an imperial prince. Can Hillary be trusted to roll back these unconstitutional powers? Hardly. Just like Obama's straight answer, she'd only see this as another opportunistic chance to grab power and list her enemies.

Not only Bush lite, this woman is Nixon-lite, too.

We should be fair for both. There's no right or wrong, they answered question from their heart. Difference is Obama will meet them first year(he wants to have new experience quickly) , Hillary said make sure by the high level diplomats and then talk with them. Obama's answer is naive from the lack of experience, but Hillary has been 82 Countries, over 35 years experiences, she knew how is world working. Hillary punched Obama first time, but how many times Obama attacked Hillary? Obama wasn't elligible to vote in 2002, but he acts like he was there but didn't vote the war. I watched Obama as much as Hillary, he always bring out war vote, because that is only one thing he can blame her and use her vote for his campaign, except that she is strong, brilliant and serious Leader, she is untouchable. Obama always jab Hillary, this is Hillary's return punch. Obama is upset because he is paranoid with NAIVE because he knew he is inexperienced. Obama deserved it, Obama is naive and fearless, so didn't respect Hillary for many months and many many times, I think this time punch is good answer to Obama and teach him how to respect other candidates.

Why so many people hate Mrs. Clinton? Has she done any terribule thing before to let you think she is a witch?

I haven't seen that Mr.Obama has more experience than Mr. Edwards.

What Amercian has to face how the new President will bring us out of George Bush's mass.

The true is that any one of them who won the presidental will take our troop back from Iraq as soon as possible and also make sure Iraq will under control.

So, we have to know who has the experiece to take care our own problems in here. The health care, more teachers, lower tax, more jobs, and more problems that Bush never ever take care past 6 years.

lets say, Republican take over house few years later; who can still make sure their promies will still pass by congress?

Giving you hope and promise don't mean you will get it. Tell me how you will let the promise be true.

Be smart,don't be emotion.

Hillary is old news: been there done that. We are so over Clintons. If Bill and Hillary really believe Americans are willing to take them on as the first couple for a second time…lol…well, she is more naive than Obama. I want to win 08′ Hillary is not the answer. Democrats haven't we learned our lesson in the past.

Obama 08! Hillary is so pathetic and naive she is willing to comprose her own beliefs and disort the records of her oppnents. Classic politician…this lady; its great to see she has become exactly what she despised about conservatives during her husband's time in office. Hey, Hllary…can you say, " Vince Foster". Obama hit the nail on head….she is exactly Bush-Cheney lite. Anyone who believes this lady is going to be any different than the current administration, well I have a bridge to sell you…lol.

The whole characterization of this as a big dust up or that it has turned ugly is a pathetic attempt by CNN to make more of a civilized difference of approach into a bigger deal than it is.
Both candidates have a reasonable, thoughtful approach to foreign policy, and bothe have had decent and reasonable responses to one another's answer to foreign policy questions.
We should be happy that the Democrats have 2 candidates who are qualified and smart and well spoken.

Hilary's popularity is because of Bill and its not because of her record, if it was she would not be leading the polls or be a front runner at all. Hilary's vote for the war and her inability to realize and accept her mistakes makes her a terrible leader. A vote for Obama will also bring the wits of Bill back to the white house. Obama has taking the high road on this debate and will continue to do so. He has spent his life taking the high road on politics. After reading his book you realize that he is the ideal leader for this country. He has experience things that no other candidate can leverage. If we do not elect Obama we will watch this country slip even further in the world. If we want this country to be great again we will elect someone great to lead this nation.

Bottomline- Hillary is ahead in all the polls so he has no choice but to attack her….

and she is way too smart for him to say it to her face, he would easily lose the debate like he did the other night

Chris, Obama may not have been in the Senate but he WAS very vocal in being against the war. He was running for Senator while the war was still popular but he still had the courage and good judgment to come out against it. His foresight was dead on. Hindsight involves actually reading the facts buddy.

I agree with Obama. You're the President of the United States. You may not like Chavez or Castro or Ahmadinejad. But you're supposed to be a world leader.

This banter is good for both of them… lots of free press. However, I think Clinton is winning as her position is the more nuanced. Obama seems defensive.

Reading these posts, I am heartened to see the majority recognizes that Senator Obama is speaking about the issues far more honestly and thoughtfully than Senator Clinton. She may be extremely intelligent, but she lacks integrity. It is difficult to know where she really stands on any issue because she never directly answers questions. This reminds me too much of our current administration, and it makes me seriously doubt her leadership abilities.

YAWWWWN

Good grief… this is going to be a long political season.

I must say… the Clintons DO have a knack for parsing words.

Both Hillary and Obama are corporatists…they will support big business over the common man, woman and child every time. The real issues are healthcare, energy, jobs, immigration, and especially poverty. In my humble opinion, John Edwards is the ONLY candidate that is running a positive campaign that is truly focused on the issues. He's the epitomy of the American "rags to riches" Dream come true…and all around a great role model. Who cares what the corporatists – Clinton and Obama – spit at each other? However, if I had to decide between the two of them which is right in this instance, I'd say Obama. Hillary is advocating the exact same "conditional dialogue" policy of the Bush-Cheney administration. So, let's just call a spade a spade. Obama's comment was correct.

To refer to anyone, as “Bush Cheney Lite” is an attempt to smear whoever is referred to as a version of an administration that all who are democrats fervently hope and pray will be gone with the next election. To refer to any democrat, not just Hillary Clinton, as “Bush Cheney Lite” is nothing but an attempt to smear. And “Bush Cheney Lite” is a smear.
Obama can and should do better than this.

Go to hell Hillary, give her hell Obama!

What's wrong with facing issues head on?

Kucinich does it all the time..

It is abundantly clear that Barack Obama is not ready to be President of the United States. Not even close.

Obama is getting frustrated that the polls are not changing despite his monies, Fact is, Clinton is experienced and very smart – he can't change that. He is really going below the belt. This is pathetic.

Same old same old regressing to the past. It's amusing that the actions of Bill clinton could even be compared to the likes of GWB. Having said that, Obama's lack of experience and over zealous eager to please whatever just popped right out. Thus, a week later, attempts at clean up still prevail. Senator Clinton is right….silly, silly, silly. Shame!

You can really tell about the canidate by the people they have speaking for them. Hillary has the same type of misleading scum around as Bush.

Obama is a breath of fresh air, Hillary is a puppet just like Bush, Bill, and Reagan all were. Obama stands for change, honesty and integrity. We need more Obama's in our government. I am definitely voting for Obama.

Please America do not complain about how corrupt our politicians are and then bash someone like Obama who is calling out the collusion participants. Turn off the TV, and read books! Think for youself!

When your neighbor has been angry with you for decades because you own 70% of the neighborhood's resources, and the rest of the block has to live on the other 30%,…
getting elected and then calling him on the phone the next day and saying, "Hi!, thought we ought to get together and talk," is a diplomacy that isn't as productive as what Hillary?
Be specific. Your neighbors are hungry, angry,and dangerously resentful! That's why they are coming over here with their pockets full of grenades!

For all of those people who are basing their arguments on Hillary's vote for the war, you're all fools. Who didn't want the war right after 911 when we were lied to by our current president? Hindsight is 20/20.

Actually, Obama started the whole thing when he was two ignorant about politics and international diplomacy to KNOW how to answer the question. And to say that Hillary Clinton – one of the biggest critics of the Bush administration is Bush-Cheney light is RIDICULOUS and SILLY. Obama is a baby who can't say anything other than, "I didn't support this war from the beginning." To this, I say, "I don't care because you weren't there to vote for it." He needs to get off his high horse. The only HOPE he inspires in me is the hope that Hillary Clinton wins the primary. Anyone – Mr. Obama – who compares themselves to Reagan does not deserve to win the democratic primary. GO HILLARY!

Dave in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (July 26, 2007 5:04 pm) makes very valid points… it's unfortunate that news organizations don't inform the American public on such matters. When voting day comes around, most American's are truly ignorant of what qualities, skills, and ethics matter most for the next President of the United States, and subsequently vote for the wrong candidate.

Hillary is a neurotic, divisive, manipulating politician. I am sorry so many are caught in her spell. I, for one, will vote for Obama. He is a true advocate for the change this country so desperately needs right now.

If I recall correctly, did we not go to war against Iraq based on the available information this country had on said nation in 2001 (primarily from the Clinton Administration)and by various national and international world agencies at the time?

When we have asked our soldiers to put their lives on the line to defend Ameica, I don't see any reason for the commander-in-chief NOT to talk to a bad guy face to face and lay down our terms. I think Obama's answer in this case shows courageous leadership away from the status quo and I welcome that.

Obama has been striking at Hillary for 3 weeks now way before any of this started…She has been restrained and easy on the poor guy…now she strikes back and he freaks out into a hissy fit- He’s acting like a silly girl-Hillary seems more mature on the whole matter-And to refer to a fellow democrat as Bush-Cheney like-is a HUGE mistake to do with democratic voters. This guy won't last long on the national stage…he doesn't know how….

If you care about your reputation around the world (which is pretty bad at the moment), the last thing the US needs is another president who thinks he/she is too good to meet with other world leaders.

OK, let me get this straight Mrs. Clinton. You criti starts criticize Obama for his answer in the debate, then find out most Democrats, if not most Americans, feel his response was the right direction, and now you are calling the whole thing "silly"?

It's called leadership Madam Senator. Obama has it – you don't.

Obama raised a valid question and it is Hillary's turn to explain how she is different from the Bush Administration. Instead, she used name-calling like "silly." It was "silly" to call a fellow presidential colleague "irresponsible and naive" when there are perceived differences, in fact, a "fabricated controversy."

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 !!

Hillary is such a politician, want to start a fight, then make it seem like someone elses fault, Obama all the way, tired of the same OLD tired politics Hillary!

Maybe Sen Clinton said "no" about a meeting because she recognizes her own limitations.

This is precisely why the US needs a third major party. Clearly, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats can do the job.

Liberals are the scourge of the Earth.

What happen to the politics of hope.? Why is Obama always going back to 2002 vote?. He was against the war, because most of Iraqees are muslims. If 2002 happened to be North Korea, He wouldn't have any issued.

Go get 'em President Hillary Clinton. You are and charge and take it nice and steady. You now have MY vote.

Of course Obama didn't vote for the war–he was too busy making money off of his memoirs about how he did cocaine, and running back to pay parking tickets that he never paid when he decided to run. Great character and leadership!

I've thought long and hard about Hillary Clinton as President and, although I admire her for her early attempts to overhaul our miserably failing health care system, I also realize that she represents "more of the same" point of view regarding much that has gone terribly wrong with our nation. She is too unwilling to bring ALL the troops home from this immoral and corrupt war and too willing to support using them to maintain long-term American "settlements" in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. Equally importantly, I cannot imagine she would even attempt to solve the problems of our lost jobs and industry and the disastrous IMBALANCE of trade, since they began with her husband's espousal of NAFTA! Me MUST solve these problems, dump the Free Trade Agreements, end trade with China and other cut rate, low quality producers of cheap, unsafe goods, and make a heroic attempt to return to self-sufficiency. If we fail in this, frankly the soul of America will be lost for good. You can't have a democracy without a thriving middle class and you can't have a thriving middle class without industry and jobs. If this does not change SOON, we will have a massive depression and a new set of foreign masters to control our lives.
On both of these important counts, yes . . . I do indeed see her as "Bush-Cheney Light". We need MASSIVE CHANGE right now . . . the old corrupt guard (both Republican AND Democrat) must GO! This country needs new leaders who have the credibility to inspire Americans to retake control of this country, to assume responsibility for its problems, and to stand up and correct them no matter what sacrifices are necessary to do so. I simply do not feel Hillary has the credibility to inspire Americans to make and support the hard choices that face us as a nation. We need a new leader/President with the moral authority to spearhead this effort. Someone who is capable of reestablishing the trust and good faith Americans must have in their government to be willing to follow its lead. I'm a baby boomer female . . . one of Hillary's peers . . . and I'd love to see a woman become President of this country . . . but it can't be Hillary Clinton. At this point in time, I'd jump at the chance to vote for a ticket of Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards with, dreamer that I am, Al Gore named to head a re-energized, revamped, fully funded Environmental Protection Agency. That just might give us a chance to turn things around and reclaim that great potential and leadership this nation displayed roughly 30 years ago.

For the last time, for all those who say "Obama did not vote against the war, he wasn't in the Senate". However, HE SPOKE OUT AGAINST THE WAR WHILE IN ILLINOIS AND SAID HE WOULD HAVE VOTED AS DICK DURBIN VOTED.

Hillary broke out the slime first, and then when Obama merely raises a counter-point, Hillary lies and says he has abandoned "hope". Hillary is Bush-lite, engaging in dishonest debate and assaulting straw-men.

Look, clearly he was baited. The trap was set even before the debate began. The politics of hope comment here just confirms it. Obama gets better or equal marks coming out of the debate and what happens?….Team Hillary makes a decision to throw some cold water by calling him naive. Who can blame them? So Obama hits back, and, presto!, incredulously, Clinton wonders what happened to her opponent's signature theme, hope. Good question. What will happen to the politics of hope if she gets elected? The elegant machinations of the Clinton communications team confirm at least one thing: she is a pro. But Hillary's campaign is so concerned with winning the election that I fear they have lost touch with what the average citizen is going through. With jobs and work and school and bills and marriages and children and retirement and making ends meet all along the way, who among us has time for this kind of theatrics? This is precisely why people hate politicians so much. After this kind of campaign is the country is going to wake up on Jan. 21 elated and united behind Hillary Clinton? Anyone following the debate in Congress over the past 6 months and the continued gridlock that it has produced has to admit, even if grudgingly, that 4 more years of discord won't be a good thing for this country. If this election cycle tells us anything, it's that people are fed up with the bitter tit-for-tat that passes for politics in this country. People voted for Bush because they trusted his promise to be a compassionate conservative. Insiders may call them naive in hindsight, but I believe the majority of American people were right to expect leadership from their leaders. My advice to the Obama camp would be to let it go, to rise above the fray, to find issues that will force the other candidates to follow his lead, messages that resonate with Americans that are real attainable solutions to problems, that tackle immigration, and national security, insurance, agriculture, and the economy abortion, race relations honestly and fairly without the endless triangulations that only work until the next election. People in this country are losing their jobs, their farms, their dignity, the chance to make a better life for their children, their sons and daughters. They deserve something more than the stage directions from the Clinton war room.

chris,
I should have said he objected to the Irak war from the beginning while Hilary voted for it. Please go to this link to see what Hill had to say about the IRAK war.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8

So Obama is just supposed to sit back and not respond to attack from Hillary? It is ridiculous to insult someone and then act so surprised when that person reacts. Shame on you Hillary for trying to act so innocent here. This type of behavior is why I will not be voting for her.

Mr. Obama your are naive! Look at the enemy in the eyes and what? Bow to their unreasonable or undemocratic views, policies and/or demands? The Result will the same, an "Impasse," if you stand for Democracy and may I add not only for the benefit and welfare of your country but that of the free World!

Hillary needs to take some midol – she's the one who started pushing this after the debate.

Why is CNN misrepresenting the comment and trying to further this dispute? Wasn't Obama's statement “I’m happy to look them in the eyes and say what needs to be said… I don’t want Bush-Cheney Light.”?

I don't know where CNN and others are inferring that he said that Hillary is Bush-Cheney Light. The most that can be inferred is that he was saying that her METHOD of diplomacy is a light version of Bush-Cheney's, not that she, HERSELF, is a junior version of them.

CNN did a poor job at the telephone game this time around.

Obama's answer was scary. Diplomacy 101 dictates exactly when to meet with rogue leaders, and Hillary got the question correct. Obama did not, and his attempts to keep justifying his answer are getting more and more twisted. He messed up, he knows it, Hillary called him on it, and quite frankly, his inability to admit a mistake shows a huge character issue for me. I hope she picks Mark Warner (D-Va)as her running mate, which I suspect she'll do since she called Obama "naive and inexperienced." That tells me that she and Bill have already decided not to pick Obama if she gets the nomination–because those carefully calculated comments would come back to bite her if she did pick him. So, he's out. Thankfully. He's all style and no substance, much like his followers.

Clinton is obvously nervous about Obama. She is leading him in the polls so why even acknowledge him now? clearly Obama has her number. President Kennedy once said, "Don't be afraid too look your enemies in the eye" Obama is right. He demonstrates leadership and bravery, not cowardiness from Sen.Clinton. I am now switching my support to Obama.

God help us if this hillary becomes the nomine. I rather vote for an alien before I vote another Clinton into power. She is such a cold-calculated person who will sleep with the devil just to get her way

Obama hit it right on the head! The biggest puzzle to me during the Clinton years was why the Republicans hated him so much, when it seemed to me he was a Republican in sheep's clothing! He was for NAFTA and Welfare reform and the "World Market", he balanced the budget, a lot of GOP priorities!

Obama 08′
-Stop corrupt politics. Hilary Clinton voted for the war because shes irresponsible. Obama has always denied it and said that it would only strengthen Al Queada. He hit the nail on that prediction! vote for Obama, Clinton doesnt know whats morally right.

Hillary Clinton and the Dangers of Hubris
Are the Democrats set to give us another imperial president?

Steve Chapman | July 26, 2007

During the Democratic debate in South Carolina, I heard something I never expected to hear: Hillary Clinton coming out against U.S. military intervention.

At least I think she was coming out against U.S. military intervention. Asked if U.S. troops should be sent to Darfur, the New York senator made a valiant effort to dodge the question by declaiming about sanctions, divestment and UN peacekeepers. But when pressed, "How about American troops on the ground?" she finally said, a bit awkwardly, "American ground troops I don't think belong in Darfur at this time."

But don't bet that she'll stick to that position if she's elected. It goes against type. Clinton favored intervention in Haiti in 1994. She favored intervention in Bosnia in 1995. She favored intervention in Kosovo in 1999. As first lady, Clinton said, "I am very pleased that this president and administration have made democracy one of the centerpieces of our foreign policy." Before the Kosovo war, she phoned Bill from Africa and, she recalled later, "I urged him to bomb."

Among her critics, Clinton is known for a mother-knows-best domestic policy that relies on overbearing interference from Washington to remake the landscape to her specifications.

Democrats hope that when it comes to international affairs, Clinton would represent a big change from George W. Bush. Republicans harbor that fear. In truth, this is one realm where the two are more alike than different. It's no accident that she voted for the resolution authorizing the president to invade Iraq. And it's no mystery that she was slow to admit the war was failing.

She didn't support the war because she was hoodwinked by Bush. She didn't do it for strictly political reasons. She supported it because of her conception of America's proper role in the world—which combines a thirst for altruistic missions with a faith in the value of military force to get what you want. Those same impulses, of course, motivated the neoconservatives who urged Bush to go into Iraq.

On the morning after the South Carolina debate, the Clinton campaign trotted out former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to gush about the senator's declaration that she would not meet with various dictators "until we know better what the way forward would be." Said Albright, "She gave a very sophisticated answer that showed her understanding of the diplomatic process."

Being praised for your diplomatic sophistication by Madeleine Albright is like being complimented on your sense of humor by John Kerry. Albright is the renowned diplomat who helped the Clinton administration blunder its way into an 11-week aerial war in Kosovo. Albright was confident that Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic would cave at the first whiff of gunpowder, and was shocked when he didn't.

That misjudgment had disastrous consequences. The Serbs responded not by capitulating but by greatly escalating their war on Kosovo's ethnic Albanians. Some 10,000 of them died, and more than a million were forced from their homes. If the war was a success, it was a very mixed one. The same could be said about Bosnia and Haiti, where the results fell far short of our intentions.
Like Iraq, the Kosovo war demonstrated the folly of taking military action without preparing for the worst. Both also showed the dangers of unchecked hubris.

But those are not lessons Clinton has necessarily absorbed. When she ran for the Senate in 2000, she mocked Republicans (such as Caspar Weinberger and Colin Powell) who think "we should intervene with force only when we face splendid little wars that we surely can win, preferably by overwhelming force in a relatively short period of time." On the contrary, she said, we "should not ever shy away from the hard task if it is the right one."

As Michael Crowley of The New Republic has noted, she had another reason for supporting Bush on Iraq. "I'm a strong believer in executive authority," she said in 2003. "I wish that, when my husband was president, people in Congress had been more willing to recognize presidential authority."

There you have it. A Hillary Clinton presidency promises to unite Madeleine Albright's zeal for using bombs in pursuit of liberal ideals with Dick Cheney's vision of the president as emperor. Won't that be fun?

COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Don't get sidetracked by the spinmiesters abounding here. The question was would you be willing to meet with Syria, Iran and Venezuela leaders in your first year in office. Everyone who can read concedes that Obama said "yes." From there it goes into spin territory. Did Hillary say, what Hillary meant, what Hillary tried to explain…….If we have to explain her answer for her, that sure sounds like "Bushlight" to me. Been there, done that; eight years now. No more, please. And today? Hillary says the president shouldn't meet with Castro, Chavez, or Ahmadinejad. One question: which one of those was Syria? Remember the original question? Doesn't that sound familiar? Another Bushism? HRC, maybe you better get used to being called Bushlight; sounds like you are earning it.

Did Hillary just say she doesn’t want to see the “power and prestige of the United States Presidency put at risk?” So how exactly does she characterize Bill Clinton’s use of the Presidency to get women?

Obama is right.

And whichever staffer thought of “Bush-Cheney light” deserves a raise.

The majority of you people are carrying on as if, because CNN has entitled the previous ticker "Obama calls Clinton 'Bush-Cheney Lite'" that it is true.

If you read that article you will see that Obama's statements do not directly reflect the article's title. He didn't actually say that she was anything – or at least the article doesn't reveal this.

This is an example of poor reporting or or editing by the CNN staff. If you allow some nonsense squabble like this determine your view of either candidates – it is my opinion that you have judged too soon.

Monday was a glorious day for democratic supporters – we saw at least 3 really strong candidates (my third is not Edwards). Obama's statement was simply meant to suggest that he will not run from the issues abroad.

I'm not sure that a statement like that should be considered "touch of death" for anyone's candidacy.

Just my opinion

I think in the current debate that Senator Clinton is right.

Diplomacy is important, and it has been neglected far too long.

However, this constant battering of her vote on the war is ridiculous. Does anyone remember the atmosphere in this country at the time the vote was taken? I did not support the war but I remember that a majority of Americans, and a mjority of the Congress did.

And please, for the last time, Senator Obama DID NOT VOTE AGAINST THE WAR. He wasn't a Senator then, and did not have a vote to cast.

Clinton is too polictically savey for Obama. Obama doesn't have a clue about dealing with international relations. I wouldn't let him run mu business not alone the country. Clinton on the other hand cannot be trusted. So these are the Democrate's best? Good luck!

After reading Mr. Obama's quote, he did not reference Hillary Clinton at all! Instead, I understood his comment entirely differently than CNN. This is the second time recently that CNN has misled readers with a characterization. The first time was the CNN characterization of Elizabeth Edwards' comment regarding her husband as being more of a "advocate for women" than Hillary Clinton. Again, after reading the quote, Mrs. Edwards did not appear to say anything against Hillary Clinton but was referencing her husband's contributions.
Your headlines are becoming more sensational and less journalistic.

Obama is desperate to try and take Hillary down that is why he attacked her and called her Bush-lite. That is just crazy Hillary has been on the fore front of liberal politics her whole life. It's sad Obama gave up his no negative pledge so early in the campaign.

How soon we see the politics of HOPE turn into the politics of POKE! It is always nice to seen a totally outclassed candidate abandon his HIGH GROUND the first time he puts both feet in his mouth and is call on it.
Mr. Obama belongs in a Evangelical Church, preaching God to the poor, less educated, and less enlightened who just might listen to his insanely sophmoric rants…
We have REAL problems that require REAL people to provide REAL solutions. Misguided, uninformed, naive Bible-thumpers need not apply…

Obama is a bummer man and sounding like a loser. Hillary is looking better by the day.

Thank you, Dave of Milwaukee, would that all Americans were as reasoned and intelligent as you. We would have had a President John Kerry and this mess we're in today would not have occurred, I have no doubt. And Osama would have been killed or captured by now.
Hillary or Obama, 2 great choices. And this time, let's not waste our votes on 3rd-party spoilers and give it to the conservatives.

Last thing I'll say about this is that I am also peeved by Clinton's condescending language describing Obama's approach: "irresponsible," "naive" and "silly." Obama raised serious issues addressing her foreign policy approach, and she has yet to explain her position. I seriously doubt primary voters will let this go unnoticed.

Voting for Clinton or Obama is SILLY. Ron Paul in '08

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.

Dear Anotnio,

If you want to see disgace and shame in the white House just take a gander at it's current residents. I'd take Clinton over the our trained monkey Bush and Dick(tator) Cheney any day of the week.

Personally, I think it's very sad to have two great leaders such as Hillary and Barrack putting each other down. As voters, I believe people want to know that whomever wins the democratic primary would make a great president. I'm not naive, I know that they both want to win, but all of this negativity is just childish and immature. They don't have to agree on everything, but they should each respect the others stand regardless of their personal opinions.

In the midst of this bickering about who's being "silly" and whether Democrats should be fighting each other, has anyone considered the tiny little fact that Obama is RIGHT?

He is right on whether to talk to our enemies, just as Reagan did. He is right about the war (and by the way he is on record as opposing the war pre-2003 even though he was not a US senator at the time; look it up on Youtube). And he is right to call out Hillary Clinton for kowtowing to the Bush-Cheney war, failing to oppose it when she should have, refusing to admit she made a mistake by doing so, and refusing to apologize.

It's an outrage that Democrats are seriously considering nominating her at all.

I totally agree with Hillary Clinton. It would weaken the United States president and government status when it comes to meetings with Chaves, Castro and Ahmedinejad.

South-American world-politics is very divided. There are South- & Central-American and Caribean governments on the opposing the Cuban take-over, for example: Greneda.

And then is the issue of drug trafficking…which I am sure the Pentagon has investigating for the past few years.

Ahmedinejad is taking off where the former Libyan dictator has left off back inthe 80's. The only difference is that there were no continued alliances between Cuban and Libya's Gaddafi. Ahmedinejad will be taking a step further. I predict that.

well this is interesting: St. Hilary chastizing Mr. Obama. This after the woman did her research and first flung mud on his muslim background. Seems she can dish it, but can't take it. Par for the course, I would say. . .

Although I think Clinton and Obama are both respectable democratic candidates, I can't help but be frustrated that CNN and many other big news sources have published numerous articles on the two of them and have published close to nothing about the other candidates. Especially Kucinich, who in my opinion won the CNN/YouTube debate. They may be the most controversial democratic candidates, but that doesn't mean they are the best. I wish that CNN and other influential news sources would do a better job of keeping the public (the potential voters), informed and include more coverage of the other candidates.

Obama is a neophyte – four years in the senate elected in a district where all they watch on TV is Oprah and now his first time on the national stage making a complete fool of himself. So he’s the expert of foreign policy ??-Obama is like George Bush –no experience and now we see his arrogance. Wasn’t he being tutored in a private class in foreign policy just before the campaign? This guty is history.

Obama clearly demostrated his inexperience by his answer.Hate or loathe Hillary:she is intelligent,smart and experienced.Comparing any democrat to Bush or Cheney is repugnant to all common sense.Wait for your time:Barrack!

We are in a nasty war, illegal immigrants are sneaking across the border at the rate or 4500 per day (16 percent of whom are escaped felons) and no one is stopping them, we have record national debt, schools are a mess, our healthy food supply chain collapsing, many wounded returning veterans have trouble getting proper medical attention etc etc etc etc. And this silly name calling is what politics is reduced to today? Is there an adult anywhere in the political system that can address the real issues effectively?

Why is she trying to spin this as if it was Obama's fault? She's the one who (as much as I hate this slogan)…Flip Flopped! She picked the fight calling him naive and irresponsible now the debate is "Silly". It’s silly to debate where the candidates stand on the future of America?

Obama was right! He wasn’t saying he would open the door to anyone at any time. The reality for all of the arrogant Americans out there is we exist on this planet with other countries that have different beliefs and point of views than ours. Isn’t this the reason why we live in such a great country in the first place? To respect others and come to some common ground for the greater good? America is a melting pot of cultures and families in different countries. Do we close the door of discussion with our neighbors, families and friends? Giving peace and understanding a chance is not a sign of weakness or in experience Mrs. Clinton and the Republican baby boomers. It’s a sign of wisdom and true character. May God bless America and Obama in 2008

This is the battle we knew would happen.

It was just a matter of time, they are the 2 heavyweights in the polls trying to position themselves.

This still is far more civil than the Republicans slandering Ron Paul and especially Newt Gingrich calling ALL the candidates "pygmies".

Obama and the Youtube questionner and those that think the same are simply wrong. To think that our president would engage unconditonally with radical tyrrants is very weak. Obama comes across to me as a light weight that just wants to be liked, even by terrorists.

No thank you.

Mrs. Clinton says, if elected president, that she will not meet with the likes of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro among other U.S. enemies so as to not put the power and prestige of the president at risk. What a joke. If elected, she will have her husband to do that for her. Lets not forget the disgrace and shame her husband Bill Clinton, brought to the U.S. presidency.

Interestingly enough, she avoided addressing how her "experience" and "leadership" resulted in her vote for the Iraqi war authorization. Good to see someone finally challenge her position, politics, and policies on this. It is a question she will have to address in the coming months.

Clinton is not advocating an isolationist approach. She is advocating wise foreign policy. She said she would visit with rogue leaders only if the advance work done by envoys and the diplomatic corps pointed to a "way forward." Otherwise her presence could "make the situation worse." How is this an unreasonable answer? I think many Americans fail to grasp just what it means to deal with a weak or failed state like Zimbabwe, North Korea, or Iran. When the president of the US meets face to face with the illegimate dictators of these states, he or she runs the risk of giving internal factions within these states the idea that the US is endorsing, or recognizing, the legitimacy of the ruler. There may be pro-democratic forces in, say, Zimbabwe, that would be discouraged from pressing for change if they got the idea that that the mighty United States of America was actually on Mugabe's side.

When Richard Nixon went to China he scored a major diplomatic breakthrough a took the country in a more open direction with communist states. We still see the positive effects of his decision today. But Nixon did not visit China and meet with their leadership without first laying the groundwork through years of diplomacy done by presidential envoys. He didn't visit without preconditions. He came with a "way forward," with a set agenda. In short, he practiced wise foreign policy, which both Clinton and Obama are espousing.

Obama made a minor mistake in the debate and Clinton pounced on it. In response to the question of whether he would pledge to meet, without precondition, with leaders unfriendly to the United States, he said, "yes, I would." Having actually watched the debate (based on many of the comments on CNN.com I wonder if I'm the only one who did) I thought Clinton made a very valid point, but she should have left it at that. Calling Obama's response "naive" was a shot over the bow that need not have been made. Unfortunately a modern presidental campaign is just about the worst venue for a reasoned debate on the nuances of international relations, and now the spin machines are engaged in silly "he said, she said."

first i would like to say i like both of them a lot. i belive both of them is right and wrong.obama of course there is no need for that name, and of course we need to be in contact with every country because we never know when we are going to need whom.

Never called Bush/Cheney Light before? Nonsense. I been saying that since she threw her hat in, because it is the obvious truth. She even has the same corporate backers as Bush/Cheney.

Obama said nothing even mildly insulting or inapropriate, whereas she called him a few unwarranted names.

Obama is the Politics of Hope personified. Hope that we can get rid of these corporate tools that have been running things far too long.

I'd like to ask her how his comments reflected anything BUT hope, and how hers and her stances represent said same hope.

Well Hillary is starting to get a little testy. I think this whole thing is starting to get under her skin and her true personality is beginning to show. Way to call a foul the moment your opponent starts swinging back.

Jonathan: Obama did NOT vote against the war. He wasn't a US Senator at the time. Hindsight is 20/20, huh.

You took it negative, Hill. It was only a matter of time until you started to turn the party machine on the only person capable of beating the Republicans, and you.

Get out of the way so this country can get on with the future. You and your kind are the past.

There is an old saying "don't start no s— won't be no s—". She started it by going out of her way to call him naive on the radio the next day. She was going for a "cheap shot" and it backfired.

This shows Obama's inability to be a major player in a national campaign…
He is a loser going down…
Now I would never vote him!!!

actually Hillary is silly. Bush's no-talk, no-results foreign policy was retarded and ineffectual. a slew of foreign ambassadors have said so over the last few years. even condi rice after years of stubborn rejections for talks, has started to talk with iran. why would we want to go back to bush's failed foreign policies? hillary has always been weak in foreign policy. she got us into this war, for starters. and has kept us in it for the last 2 terms. thanks for nothing!

I was giving both candidates equal consideration, until Obama made that ridiculous remark…Bush Light indeed! Hilary has my vote now- I am not willing to endure another 4 years of fear mongering and trash talk.

It's refreshing to see a candidate that isn't afraid to "say what needs to be said". It's time for "politics as usual" to end in Washington.

What we currently have isn't working. It is time to elect someone like Obama who brings a perspective on foreign policy, the economy, the war in Iraq and a way to mend this country.

"You know you have to ask whatever has happened to the politics of hope?"

hillary, so the politics of hope means obama isn't allowed to defend himself against an attack from you?

dont forget, hill…you started this thing.

WHO CARES! Stop touting these two as the only two candidates in the race. Stop reporting squabbles between the two 'front runners' as real news. Talk more about the real issues that are important to the majority of Americans and make less noise about how these two candidates collecting the most money, or how they can't get along or whatever… The American people are in desperate need of serious change, not more garbage news.

The politics of hope refers to Americans' hope for improvements and changes to the way things are run in Washington – the exact changes Obama will deliver. An example of this change would be Obama's willingness to engage with leaders of adversarial nations.

She started the whole fight, and now she's saying she's getting tired of it? Typical of her!

The answer Mrs. Clinton gave was an obvious one that every body knew. Off course every president meets with foreign leaders after the ground work has been laid. Obama actually hit the nail on the head when he called Hilary Bush-Cheney light. How can she run for presidency when the war she knowingly voted for has tarnished America's image around the globe?
The so called in experienced Obama voted against it. Does this not give him foresight? I surely think he is going to bring America back to her position in the world.

Well why didnt anyone ask her about her war vote and why she was irresponsible for not reading war documents that were presented to her. She rushed to judgement and agreed to go to war. But she wanted to bush it under the rug and try and say the disagreements are going to start because of the primaires. She see's obama right up on her and she's starting to feel the pressure. She wont answer that war vote question and that right there will be her down fall.She's not ready to lead Obama is

Let the traditional Democratic cannibalization begin!

Well said President Hillary Clinton.

You know, my assumption has been all along that if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, she would choose Barack Obama as her running mate.

Now I'm starting to think that that ain't gonna happen – or that Obama will decline if asked.