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.

Well said President Hillary Clinton.

Let the traditional Democratic cannibalization begin!

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

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.

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

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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!

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!!!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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".

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

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?

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!

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.

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.

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. . .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

Liberals are the scourge of the Earth.

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

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

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!

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 !!

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."

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.

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.

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….

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

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!

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.

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!

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.

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

Go to hell Hillary, give her hell Obama!

What's wrong with facing issues head on?

Kucinich does it all the time..

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.

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.

YAWWWWN

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

Hillary rocks!

I 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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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

I think OBAMA is "OSAMA-Lite."

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.

Clinton/Edwards 2008!

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.

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.

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.

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".

Hillarys on Letterman Top 5 Reasons For President

- The New York times 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.

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!

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?

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.

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…

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

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!

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.

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?

We need more female candidates.

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 vot