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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Please see the link below

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

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!!!

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.