CNN

Chima, PA

I guess your new to this blog or you would by now have seen my three posts outlining why Hillary is the most experienced, knowledgeable, intelligent, diplomatic, internationally known and respected, hard working, most accomplished humanitarian ie: children's health programs, women's rights issues and Military/Veteran Assistance than any other candidate in the race. She is also a power house debater and political orator. I dont' see her as a Flip Flopper but as someone who has the courage to stand on her beliefs and someone who gets things done.

But hey, if you say "ALL the focus groups that the networks put together, (note my underline here)Made up of registered voters in SOUTH CAROLINA
(even the FOX NEWS foducs group), ALL said Obama was the winner." it must be true! But if I may make a point.
All Registered voters in South Carolina and the Fox News Focus Group do not speak for all Americans or the world.

And I didnt hear Hillary vehemently advocating a timetable for troop withdrawl. I heard her agree with Biden that to pull all troops out now would cause greater loss of life for military and Iraquis' and that a Diplomatic not a Military Strategy was needed. The progress of war is ever changing therefore if she had a different view a year ago that would not be difficult to understand. Bush has had a different view every day and month. All Wars have to be assessed and strategized on an ongoing basis.

Hillary was the first and only as far as I know, who has given Americans the chance to discuss her views with her one on one through her internet site and via telephone call ins. What other candidate has made themselves available on a one to one basis to discuss their views.

The Clintons should take the next bus to Arkansas.

As a proud Arkansan who grew up with the Clintons, I just wanted to say how very thankful I am to know that so many of you realize that these people are people of unusually bad character. Given that three out of the last four presidents have been absolute jokes I sometimes worry that we will all be duped again into falling for someone like Hillary. However, after seeing all the astute observations on this site, and MANY others, I now realize that there is simply no way Hillary will garner enough support to contend for the presedential race in 2008.

Thank you!

The Democrats are very hopeful that Giuliani doesn't get the nomination because they understand that his credibility on terrorism and crime would be very difficult to match. Add to this the fact that Clinton is viewed as a political opportunist and has unusally high negative ratings, and you are looking at a very difficult road for the Dems in 2008.

Dems want Romney first and foremost because he has NO chance. Second, they would be fine with Thompson because they know he is a joke.

Tricia,
Obama was by far the winner in this last debate, and ALL the focus groups that the networks put together, made up of registered voters in South Carolina (even the FOX NEWS foducs group), ALL said Obama was the winner.
Sorry, but your opinion is that of the minority.

Since you claim Hillary is the one we should vote for, then explain to us why she is vehemently advocating a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq, when last year, she was vehemently opposed to a timetable for withdrawal, claiming it would "embolden the enemy."

The difference of ideas and tolerance is the factor that makes democracy florishing. So if Obama differs with Clinton that what America stands for.It was and is like that in America during Debates.Think of The African leaders in which Democracy is a dream, no freedom of press.

After watching the Debate I have to agree that Hillary was by far the winner. Biden came across as a Credible and Knowledgable Leader. Edwards although always displaying a less than genuine persona I felt came in third. But he still gives me the impression he is saying just what he feels Americans want to hear which is a turn off for me. Too bad he couldn't somehow change the face he shows the world. As I have half an impression the real Edwards hiding behind this other persona would secure more votes if he could just put his real self out there.

I was very disappointed with Obama in the debate. In the first debate I watched I felt he did a great job. But in this debate, his answers seemed to be all over the map and he couldn't seem to center in on his point or get his point across in a Presidential like fashion.

I'm sure if Hillary had been asked the question first about meeting with International Leaders Obama's response would have been very different. And I don't feel Edwards or Biden would have answered that question the same had Hillary not answered it first. It was very clear that no one on the debate team had the wisdom on international diplomacy that was so clearly inherent with Hillary.

I also found Hillary and Biden displayed the greatest wisdom on the questions regarding the Iraq War. I also feel Obama's repetitious spiel about Hillary voting for the war is Old Hat. He should bury that line as it is only making him look petty and immature. There were many that voted for the war besides Hillary who now regret doing so. You can't change the past but you can learn from it. It's time for Obama to move on. He's losing points on that rhetoric.

In my view, Richardson came across as Lame and Dodd came across as a Man who's primary interest was proving to the public he had the credentials to get the job done. But for me his manner in displaying that fact didn't prove his point. Serving one's country and having Uncles and Grandfathers as Generals a Leader does not make.

Kuinchi Sp? for me was nothing short of an aggrevation. If he had spieled out the number for Peace one more time I would have had to turn off my set.
Make your point once and get on with other issues. But even on the issues he came across as less than crediblie as a Leader.

Hillary was the Leader of that debate hands down. Her presence alone permeates a Presidential aura and her comments cement her presence. I truly believe if Americans don't endorse Hillary they will be missing out on a great leader. Given the other Democratic Candidates she is clearly the most knowedgeable and capable Leader.

The Republicans in my view don't even have a Candidate with any possible Leadership qualities. Guilani, Romney and Thompson are a far cry from Presidential Material. They are nothing more than Bush Clones. God Forbid the world should have to suffer another Bush! Newt Gingrich is definitely doing the right thing by pulling out as he wouldn't stand a chance. I'm smiling as I type that line. As I think it is too phunny he would even think himself a possible Leader.

I wonder if I signed this as Mrs. Canada if it would be posted? Nah I better not I think Mrs. America is the only one with those privledges.

I CHALLENGE anyone on this political ticker to debate me on this issue. Before typing a rebuttal, please do me a favor and read the facts before typing up some comment that has no solid argument, but just attacks Clinton’s character. It also makes me yawn.

BEFORE the debate, Senator Obama was interview by the Miami Herald and discussed that he would meet with Hugo Chavez only “under certain conditions.” During the debate, his response changed to “without precondition."

If Clinton was really going to use negative politics, she would have called Obama on this one case of flip flopping.

Obama could have offended himself by not adding “Bush-Cheney light,” but the fact that he compared Clinton to the current administration is using negative politics. And like Vilsack said, Obama did promise not to campaign on such negative politics. Furthermore, his “Bush-Cheney light” remark also shows his lack of knowledge of his opponent’s base. Clinton has been advocating for foreign diplomatic talks since her first term in the senate.

Democracy was founded in Greece on the idea that its citizens were knowledgeable about the issue at hand. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but such thoughts can be tangled up by mere feelings of shallow distaste. Do you think attacking candidates will really progress such serious issues?

“Whenever the people are well-informed, they
can be trusted with their own government.”
- Thomas Jefferson

Wow!!! E.N. I am seeing your point in a different light. That makes Obama a flip flopper. He opposed the war yet funded it. So what you are saying is if he opposed it he should have also opposed funding it. Hillary on the other hand supported the war based on lies and funded it as well. At least she stood her ground on it did not flip flop, just as Kucinich didn't. That is he (Kucinich)opposed it and didn't fund it. So of the three the only flip flopper is Obama who opposed it yet funded it. Now that's major flip flopping...wow!!! another interesting way of looking at these primaries.

Vilsack is a crony and yes, CNN should have reported that Hillary retired his outstanding campaign debts. I don't know if I would have trotted out a former candidate who was polling fourth in his own state before he quit. That's pretty embarrassing. Obama never said he'd turn the other cheek if we was attacked in this campaign. In fact, he said he'd respond in kind because he didn't want to seem like John Kerry in 2004 – who ran perhaps the worst presidential election in modern times. You won't be able to swift-boat Obama and get away with it. And can we all please stop with the "Obama isn't experienced enough" crap? He has more elected legislative experience than Hillary. Hillary supporters will calim her years as first lady in Arkansas and the U.S. Well, that's like me saying that since my wife has been a doctor for 20 years, and since I traveled with her to many a symposium and conference around the world, I'm qualified to practice medicine. Would you go to me for medical advice or allow me to operate on you using that "experience"? Didn't think so. So why would you vote for Hillary based solely on the experience factor. Vote for the candidate that every poll, time and time again, who shows he can beat ALL of the Repugnantcan candidates head-to-head.

Isn't it about time for Barack's Blogging Boogies to go back to school? Hey guys fun times over. It's getting old.

She can't just assume that because he's trying to run an inspirational campaign that he's gonna be her doormat/bunching bag. I'm glad to see him standing his ground.

I completely disagree with the media and Republican take on Obama's statement about meeting with foreign leaders unconditionally. I think it displays courage and thinking outside the box. If there were ever a time the U.S. needs to shake up Washington, and show the world were not a bunch of arrogant bullies, it is now! Besides, it is too obvious that the Republicans want Hilliary to win the nominee, they have had a political plan to deal with her for over a decade now.

I'm a democrat but not happy with the field of candidates, particularly HC.
She is her husbands clone and part of the "political elite" that's run this country for decades..I don't care if it's Democrat or Republican..they all speak or double speak the same language.
She's flip-flopped more than a fish out of water. She's now anti-war and pro-veteran..I seem to remember when she was first lady she didn't like seeing the military presence around the white house.
Obama says he'll speak to our "enemies"..HC said she would too(previous speech)...now she says with preconditions. With all of her "experience" with the political elite
I would have thought she'd learned something from recent history.
Seems funny to me that we go to war and after the war when dead are mourned and buried we go into business
together with past enemies.Germany, Japan and Italy..WWII.. now business partners. China..Korean War..now BIG business partners..Vietnam..how many Big Macs and bottles of Coke sold there now and new trade agreements recently reached?
I like Mr. Obama's idea...MEET with our enemies, find out face to face what they want.Offer a business deal. Sure beats the "diplomacy" that's been used lately.
Is that too simple?..well I'm now a simple man and present politics give me a headache.
B.H, Combat wounded, disabled 'Nam Vet

I agree wholeheartedly with Vilsack's comments. I am a fan of both Hillary and Barack. But I am disappointed in Barack with respect to this recent issue.

First, his comments clearly distort what Hillary said. Mispresenting one's adversary is the sort of thing we see with the Republicans. Engaging in this sort of political dialogue is a disservice to the American people and it should be avoided at all costs.

Second, I wish the two campaigns would stop feeding the media with this sort of crap. The last thing we need as a party is to divide ourselves between Barack and Hillary. If their infighting continues to grow, the supporters of each will wind up resenting the other candidate. The reality is that one of these two will be the Democratic candidate. The last thing we need is for the disgruntled supporters of one of these candidates to sit out the election. I know this sounds ridiculous, but let's face it, there are scores of ignorant people who think this way.

Don't pick a fight you can't finish Hillary. And then don't send your lackey to whine about it to the press when you start taking a punishment

Here comes the Clinton News Network again.
Why don't you also add a sentence to point out that the Clinton campaign recently retired Vilsack's debt from his failed campaign. Then, there will be a CONTEXT to the story.

I was under the impression that the purpose of the democratic party was to rid this country and the world of this Bush/Cheney machine once and for all. This bickering and name calling between candidates that want, basically, the same thing is playing right into the hands of the evil they are trying to get rid of. How about trying to be civil to each other for a change? Work toward the same goal.

I am not surprised at Vilsack's comment. It was bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign. Clinton openned a "can of worms" by saying that Obama's response at the debate was irresponsible and naive. The repsonse she gave at the debate is inconsistent with what she said in a speech before the Council of Foreign Relations in 2006 and her responsense she gave to Keith Olbermann in January of 2007

Trina: I read your comment and went back to watch the ENTIRE 3 minute clip of Senator Obama's comments, and you are so correct. Anyone who actually watches the clip will have a hard time saying that he called Hillary "Bush/Cheney Lite." Once again, our media has succeeded in manufacturing so called "attack on Hillary." Of course the same media was not so indignant when Hillary attacked Obama on Tuesday.

Hillary is right on this, she is right on the issue and she is right in calling Obama out for not sticking to his politics of hope message. Clinton called Obama'c comments naive, not him. But he is calling her bush-cheney lite. That is a harsher attack, since it is againt the person, not a position. Hillary Clinton is ready to lead, she will restore competence and lead a W.H with goals, i like Obama, he would do the same. But i like Clinton better and i really don't think Obama would stand chance ina general election.

WC,

That is funny, but don't you think the ENTIRE Democratic ticket is Neville Chamberlain? Not one reference to Islamic terrorism during the ENTIRE debate???

EE,

Couldn't agree more, Hillary has no business starting a fight with Obama because the last thing she needs to do is remind people why they hate and distrust her so much. She is trying to drag him down to her level so the media might stop gloating on Obama all the time, however this is a VERY perilous strategy for her.

So first Hillary attacks Obama, then when she gets punched in the mouth, she and her minions whine that she is the victim?
Obama did not engage in "negative politics", but is challenging Hillary's position on foreign policy. What Hillary should do is explain how her position IS different from Bush/
Cheney...but she can't, so she is reduced to sarcastic remarks like "what happened to the politics of hope?". So Hillary expects to attack Obama but and her people do not want her to be responded to....ok...I see how it works.

Obama– so green you can't tell he's black! Whether you love or hate Hillary (or any other Dem), it's quite obvious that Obama's lack of experience– and apparently, lack of forethought (hoof & mouth disease)– is a problem. What on earth is the point of trashing another contender, especially the front-runner, other than to weaken the Democrats' chance of knocking off whatever cretin the Repulsicans nominate? Mr. Obama, get a clue!

He did not mention that woman's name! This is crap the media is trying to stir up. And her camp is falling for it. Give me a break. She's as evil as evil can get.

How can Sen. Clinton be so immature? Obama defended himself the best way he knew how. I can only imagine what Clinton would have done if the allegations were started by the Obama campaign. I have believed that Sen. Clinton is a politician at heart. For once, I want a President who is not a politician and of all the candidates in the Democratic Primary, I only feel that Obama comes close to being someone who is not a full fledged "politician." I can't explain it, but he portrays a sense of honesty–a sense that I rarely if ever see in Sen. Clinton.

Thanks Brett, thats exactly what i have been trying to say. It seems like the media treats Clinton differently.She is allowed to attack other candidates and not get any controversy but when Barack says something, it is deemed negative. Also, i am sure that Barack did not get the chance to clear his position on diplomacy conditions.

Poor Tom Vilsack was hurried in to do a press conference against his better judgment and conscience.
Remember the Clinton campaign bought-out Vilsack’s campaign for $400,000; he sure is indebted. The Clinton campaign helped pay off Vilsack’s $400,000 campaign debt for his endorsement.
This is a typical buyout arrangement with management-in-place to take care of business for the Clinton machine. Who know how the South Carolina $200,000 buyout is working so far? Whether the in-place management is still performing or not?
Vilsack is working really hard and deserve some more payout because of the increased performance requirement like this “hastily called press conference”.

Fantastic...Neville Chamberlain is set to win the Presidency yet again.

BCRICH33 and Mr. Wilmot (sp?) above thread are absolutely right about CNN's coverage. It is so obvious the msm are trying to create the "Hillary as inevitable" scenario because they fear change as much as the DLC and of course, the Corporations/elites do. I can't WAIT til the primaries when actual people get to shock the msm and then watch them squirm and pontificate about how they weren't wrong or anything...blah blah blah.
Also – and I just want to throw this out there. Maybe Iran (though not at the level of going to war), but WHO decides who our "enemies" are? Why does everybody just keep repeating these conventions without thought. Chavez is NOT our enemy. He is not a dictator and he is only opposed to US neo-liberalism/imperialism in Latin America (i.e. POLICY), not to the U.S. itself. If America thinks a country like VENEZUELA is a THREAT, then we've already lost the "PR" war. Venezuela?!?! Oooh! I'm scared!
And Cuba. WHY ON EARTH are we still calling Cuba our enemy?!?! The Cold War is OVER!! How in God's name does Cuba represent ANY "threat" to the United States (if it ever did)??? Yes. How DARE they choose to have a different economic system and foreign policy than ours!
I'm sick of "ENEMIES"!! Yes, we have to look out for our security and economic interests, but can we get past this whole good guy, bad guy scenarios?

hilary's comments demonstrate terrible insecurity though a front runner otherwise she wouldnt pick a fight with a guy 15 points bellow her in polls.

secondly not only did she give this guy a big buzz making him the veritable candidate for change she also gave him an opportunity throw her own words at her..what is naive is having voted for the war without knowig how to get out.. .that was succint.

hilary might be in for real trouble in the coming weeks. obama is definitely inexperienced and it didnt need her stupid statements for americans to know that . she shot herself in the leg. danger looms!

My criticism is neither directed at Clinton nor Obama, but the manner in which this article was written. By writing in the first sentence that "Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack said he is disappointed with Barack" and saving until the third paragraph to state that "Vilsack is the national co-chair of Clinton's presidential campaign," the article will cause half of its readers (the speed readers) to take away the impression that Obama has made a political faux pas which has upset neutral politicians, and not just Hillary's campaign. If the journalist is aiming for neutrality, he/she should state the exact affiliations of those he/she quotes up front.

what, no response from the other side? A bit one-sided don't you think?

CNN is becoming joke. It looks like it's time to move on to PBS and MSNBC for TV news.

of course vilsack would agree with and endorse hillary she paid his debt off. how disgusting

sorry caren but he is smarter than biden and dodd. they voted for the war. how could you be congress that long and make that kind of mistake. who wants a president who can be bullied into war when its wrong.

Obama he does not 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.
I think the time has come for America to have a black president...but not Obama.

I,m not an American Citzen but I do care about the US. I've seen many things this Country did to help mine for many years.My wife is american and some other members of our family too.
I think the whole discussion is about going and talking to the "crazy guys" on the other side of the fence. I wouldn't unless they would show big differences in their blindness in the way they see the new world order that is comming.

Whats even more sad – read the CNN article again – ya think they are supporting Hillary in this or what? Just once I want someone to report the news...not spin it to make sure Hillary's supporters won't decide to actually look at her record. Obama was right to say this – and Hillary is a socialist spinner like Bill. It is time for a change but definitely not Hillary.

...okay, enough!

I think both sides protest too much. Democrats have a knack for eating their young, witness the last 6+ years of President Bush (that is what we get when Democrats fight amongst themselves).

President Bush has got to be loving this! He has done an awful job as President, his poll numbers are in the basement (third level down)...and to hear the press tell it, neither of the two cadidates has mentioned his name in days.

They are supposed to be running against Bush and the Republicans...lets keep our eyes on the prize....

This feud is getting out of hand. Whatever happened to "for the good of the party"? I'm not a Dem, so it doesn't matter to me, but you'd think Hillary and Obama are smart enough to cool it before embarrassing comments like "naive and irresponsible" or "Bush-Cheney lite" are made.

http://political-buzz.com/?p=272

Vilsack is on HILLARY'S PAYROLL and she paid off his presidential run debt!

Are we to trust him ??

Okay, who cares? Enough already!! Anything better to debate?

Mrs. Clinton is exactly what America needs at this time. She is deceitful, always a victem, always enraged and if the truth slapped her on the face she would'nt know it.

We can all be proud of the quality of candidates out there – they match the level of society we've become: Vicious and nasty.

This is just a well orchestrated circus act neither will bring any change to America just more social programs that makes our government deeper in debt. I find it hard to believe either of these people don't have hidden agendas against Iran. I am voting for the honest man let the Revolution begin. Mr SPeaker please let Ron Paul take the floor he has something he needs to say to the American people!

the surge is now working! do not support obama or clinton. be patriotic and support your commander in chief!

people are merely confusing a verbal discussion over an important issue with campaign and political slandering. can't obama comment on negative things being said about his response to a question?

Oh poor Vilsack, After having his campaign debts paid off by the Clinton Machine has now been relegated to doing Clinton's attack jobs. What a loser. I bet he is holding tight hoping that he'll get a cabinet position. A test of leadership is how a candidate stands up to would be Bullies. The Australian Prime Minister, McCain, Romney and now Clinton have all attacked Obama and each time he hit back with on point ferocity.

I'm so sick of hearing about Barak Obama. All he does is talk about the war on Iraq. He doesn't give us any hope about anything else. He inspires the same fear as Bush. All Bush ever talks about is Iraq. All Obama ever talks about is Iraq. At least Hillary cares about other issues. Obama can't even stick to his own word, i.e. NOT to use negative politics, and his original statement about foriegn dipolmacy. I'd rather not vote at all if he gets the primary bid.

Obama white or black has what it takes to be the next president of this country. He is not afraid to say what is on his mind and he does it with class.

Hillary's true accomplishments:

1) getting front runner status on the Democratic ticket BECAUSE of her husband

2) getting elected Senator of NY BECAUSE of her husband

3) spearheading an ill-fated healthcare initiative DURING her husband's presidency

4) WHITEWATER

5) sounds like a GREAT choice for president!

The ONLY reason this person is in the running for president is because of her husband. NOONE would dare try to dispute that fact and once people realize that it is NOT Slick Willy they are gonna get come next year, they will promptly move off of her. Obama should just keep it clean and wait for her to self destruct because she most definitely will.

If Clinton gets the Dem nomination, she'll choose Vilsack as VP. Too bad for the Democrats if that occurs.

Apparently Hillary is flip-flopping on this. Last Winter she critciized Bush for not talking to enemy nations such as Syria and Iran and then criticized Obama for wanting to talk to them. I think she should apologize for starting this. Obama is not naive and he has more experience than her in elected office making decisions on legislation (11 years versus her 7). I don't think she will win on this.

Hang on guys, Mr. Obama knows that he wouldn't be elected as U.S president, then please do me us (democrats). Shut up and let Ms. Clinton to lead the road to the white house.

Posted by Jamal : san diego

Clinton is ENTIRELY in the wrong. It's ok for her to disagree with Obama about how to handle foreign leaders, but quite another to characterize it as irresponsible and naive.

She started it, and it would be bad if Obama backed down one inch. It's up to Clinton to apologize for her rude comments.

P.S. I was leaning toward Clinton, but this has moved me closer to Edwards.

Clinton struck first blood with the "amatuer" comment. Obama was forced to respond in kind or be perceived as a softee.

I'm a supporter of H. Clinton who does have more experience than Obama. Having been 1st lady doesn't give her direct experience but gives her great insight into the job. Not to mention if she ever needs advice she has her husband who happens to be former president Bill Clinton to lean on. I like Obama but now is not the time to have someone in office learning as he goes along.

my comment on this is simple. by imposing preconditions on partys before meeting is like going to play a ball game with a bunch of people and imposing your rules before every one can play. the only way you can do that is if you have the ball and threaton to go home if you don't get your way. everyone thinks those people are jerks but if you want to play you either give them what they want or go out and get your own ball. Obama recognizes this , he dosen't want to be the jerk dictating how the game is played but will bow to the rules of inpartial referees. he recognizes that we don't need to cheat because we still have the best players on our team anyway. the politics he talks about are spoiled brat politics. thank you for your consideration

Obama manages to make himself look worse and worse. I hope there are enough intelligent Democrat voters to discern that this opportunist is anything BUT fresh and different. His manner is thoroughly politics as usual. Couple that with his obvious inexperience and propensity for thoughtless comments and you've got an unqualified candidate. That is the LAST thing we need! Its almost embarrassing to listen to this flimflammer. It is highly unlikely he will be the Dem candidate, but if he is the GOP will be enjoying another 4 years of the White House – with the help of my vote!

Enough of this inexperienced nonsense: Barack has more experience as an elected official than Hillary, Edwards Guiliani, or Romney. Check your facts before declaring him inexperienced.

I cannot believe that someone (i.e., Michael) would actually be so stupid and probably bigoted to even suggest that the only reason anyone is paying attention to Obama is because he is black. Talk about playing the race card! The man is brilliant, full of wonderful and promising ideas for the country, and was one of the few who actually didn't support the war, and the ONLY reason people are paying attention to him is because he is black. Get real. Thanks for adding ignorance to the mix.

We live in the same land, how come people understand so much differently. Obama supporters ask what Hillary did for our Country? She has done too much to write here, but what Obama did for our Country? None of you said one example of his dedication or accomplishment for our Country because there's ZERO. Obama said he is the most experienced and smart candidate(overestimation) to be the President than all of 18 candidates. I watched him a lot, but I found that he fell into expansive delusion.

Cry me a river Vilsack! The country does not need four more years of Clintonian nuance, spin and dirty maneuvering; this attack lauched by Hillary is a perfect example of why. Obama IS rising above the fray. He has HRC scared out of her mind.

Seriously!! Just stop Hilary...Obama stood up and said what was in his heart and mind when asked. You would do well to learn from the Jr. Senator..this is the second time you and your ilk have tried to blow a mole hill up into a mountain...youre reaching and I honestly believe that you would so suck as a president so in the words of Aurthor Fonzorelli"put a cork in it"

I'd just like to know why -

Elizabeth Edwards is in the Media touting her husbands' fine Presidential qualities, and giving advice and slurs on her own, McCain's wife is in the Media vouching for her husbands presidential qualities. SO why is it that Bill Clinton gets such flack for doing the same? And how come Senators in the race don't get called for their aggegious affairs paid and non, drug purchases, DUI charges, etc. etc. but everything Bill Clinton did ten years ago is now Hillary's conquest and fair game!

I'd just like to know why the double standards with Hillary and Bill?

I'd also like to know why the parties at CNN responsible for this Blog site
puts this stipulation for posting in bold:

"Comments that do not include your name, city and state will not be posted." YET allows posts from ANONYMOUS no city or state, and other ficticious handles the liberty to post
under cover?

Hillary is a coward to attack Obama first by calling him naive and then seek refuge behind Vilsack, Albright and Holbrooke.

Now, she's playing the victim. Sounds like a little girl in kindergarten. What a coward!!!!

People think about this. This shows who has the real experience. Obama has been an elected official way longer than Hillary. 1. in the State Senate 2. in the Us Senate. The only experience Hillary has is 2 years as New York Senator. Being a wife to a Governer and President doesn't count as experience.

Its a campaign people!What do you expect? Someone has knock the other somehow .What is really surprising is it took a bit to start the war of words.

I suspect Obama asked twice when they told him that Hillary called him «irresponsible and Naive». He was probably like wait a second are you sure Hillary said that? You sure it was not Gravel? I mean all kidding aside between calling a US senator who happens to be a member of your party «irresponsible and naive» and saying that someone might be trying to copy the Bush-Cheney doctrine which one is negative? I mean all partisanship aside lets get real here. Hillary clearly insulted a member of her party. That was rude and nasty. Had Obama not responded, he was gonna seem like a week irresponsible man in my eyes. Out of all those candidates, I am surprised Clinton is the one who started the negative trash talk. I guess this is part of this acting tough act.

I am so annoyed by this already.

First of all, Clinton was wrong because she misunderstood the question. The question was are you WILLING to meet with the likes of Chavez, Castro, etc. She anwswered then by saying that she wouldn't commit to a meeting because that would be "naive".

Then, when the debate is over, she attacks his campaign with the one thing that people feel with hurt his chances: his experience.

I will vote for Obama in the primary because Clinton is really annoying and I can't stand her.

I stand behind Sen. Obama's comments. He's not participating in politics as usual he's defending himself and calling Hillary on her BS. There's nothing wrong with having backbone, Hillary said he was "nieve" and he's proving her wrong.

Hillary has flip flopped on her diplomacy. In an interview with Keith Olbermann, Olbermann asked if she would meet immediately with the leaders of the foreign nations and she said absolutely.

This proves that Hillary can't be trusted. I just hope the rest of the country sees through her lies as well.

This is just another example of a Clinton crony who Billary has done favors for going to bat for them on an issue he knows nothing about. Didn't Hillary pay off Vilsack's Campaign debt.

Just another Clinton surrogate trying to defend Clinton in an area where they are either a lightweight or a total failure. Take Madeline Albright ofr example. 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 Milosevic would cave at the first whiff of gunpowder, and was shocked when he didn't.

The Clinton campaign is full of corruption with cronies like McAuliffe and Wolfson who wreak of disgust and sliminess.

To: Gabriel, Tallahassee, FL

1: She is representing how strong and intelligent for women of the United States of America to World...
BTW, too many to list....

I can't even think of one thing Obama did for the State of Illinois, not even mentioned the US.... you list one.

Obama is just telling it like it is. He's completely right. Hillary's stance is Bush/Cheney-lite.

Why do people like Vilsack expect obama to kowtow to St. Clinton when it was her who escalated the situation with her "irresponsible and naive" comments? What's negative about Obama's comments? He's right, Clinton's position aligns with Bush's and that hasn't done the country any good – just breeds more hatred and tension in the world. Talk to your "enemies" – there's moral strength in that.

I think Hillary Clinton is bush-cheney lite but I really want to know what she thinks of the job her husband did in Waco against the Branch Davidians. Was killing all those women and children the right thing to do?

To: Touley, Lowell MA

I want to play, I want to play! Touley, can you list “one” thing Hillary Clinton did for America? Obama 08

vilsack is wrong. by saying hillary is "bush/cheney light" does not automatically convey "negative politics" and politics as usual." Obama is trying to distinguish his platform from Clinton's. Vilsack must equate the mere mention bush/cheney as dirty politics in order to justify this claim about obama. It would seem that vilsack sees mentioning bush/cheney at all as inappropriate for political discourse, which suggests that he has simply immersed himself in "negative politics" What duplicity.

Vilsack should STAY OUT OF THIS.

If Hillary wants to name-call and pick a fight, I think Barack should give her one. She starts it and then runs for cover.

AND Barack NEVER called her Bush-Cheney light. But if the shoe fits...

I thought more of Hillary before she did this. Now she can forget about my vote. And what's more, before this whole thing is done, Obama will have the nomination.

If her post-debate actions weren't desperate, I don't know what is. All the pundits said she won, and then she goes and picks a fight, BECAUSE SHE CAME OFF WEAKER THAN HE DID TO THE PUBLIC.

The only naive thing I see is the belief that bullying and isolationism will somehow improve our relations with the world.

By the way, I can't predict the future, but I somehow predict all of the Democratic candidates will side with Hillary and admonish Obama for his comment. Why? Because Hillary's poll numbers are unattainable, so why not play king-of-the-hill and take out the next closest front-runner?

Aw, poor Hillary...after being a Rove-like opportunist and twisting what Obama was obviously attempting to say, now it's coming back to roost. Hilarious how she started the whole thing and now wants to brand it "silly".

Karl would be proud, Hillary, but Democrats aren't as stupid as Republicans, and aren't going to fall for it. Keep on the attack, Barack. Hillary has begged for it and absolutely deserves it.

Tom Vilsack knows better who initiated all this, namely the Clinton lady; so, he better watch what he says especially since he is the cochair of her campaign.

Obama is inexperienced in his willingness to meet the foreign dictators, and he has problem in interpretation Hillary's records when he called her "Bush Cheney Light".

I note that many Obama supporters (so do the republican readers) here try to trash Hillary when she did nothing wrong. The repuboican readers here realise that their republican candidates can beat Obama during the general election, but not cannot beat Hillary.

I used to have an open mind about Obama, but am extremely disappointed about Obama after the recent debate. Obama is young, inexperienced, hot-head, and a monday-night quarterback. What that glitters may not be gold.

Obama's conduct during the debate and recent hehavior do not show that he has presidential material. Many of his statements start with "I" (which shows his insecurity), while Hillary talked about all democratic candidates are better than the republican candidates and George Bush, and during the debte, she also praised Biden and Richardson.

Hillary rocks! A woman's (Hillary's) place is in the (White) House! Hillary has my vote, my wife's vote, and my four daughters' votes!

Oh get over it already! I don't believe this is the first time Obama has used this description of opponents.
Hillary's camp should learn to buck up and grow a thicker skin! It's only just begun.

Vince, I couldn't agree more. Ignorance and hopping on the bandwagon has caused our country much harm. I always wondered how Bush got elected twice. Some people don't really research what the candidates do stand for, they just hop on the bandwagon and whatever the press says they go with...if they pay attention at all. Some just vote on names and Clinton has the advantage there. I pray we do not have another leadership example as we have had the past six plus years. It is time for change and Obama has made great strides in Illinois. He does stand for the people. Those that are not aware need to do some research.

Obama did not say Clinton is Bush-Cheney lite. He said he did not want to go down the path of Bush-Cheney lite, which shows a reluctance to talk to foreign leaders when they have different point of views. Hillary took it personally, and now, look like Tom Vilsack too.

Clinton, however, did refer to Obama has irresponsible and naive. That is a direct attack. Of course, I am sure she think she is more matured with her years of experience and with Bill Clinton by her side.

Hillary attacked Obama. Obama stands his ground, defending his stand. He did not attack Hillary.

The opposite facing, over-the-shoulder, photograph of Clinton and Obama looks like the movie poster for "Brokeback Mountain."

Obama has no choice but to abandon treating Clinton with kid gloves. It may be to too early, he has to attack sooner or later if he is to cut into Clinton's lead. After all, who said that politics of hope means saying nothing negative of your opponents!

I really didn't have a preference for either Obama or Clinton until this started. But Clinton's stupid political attack definitely backfired with a large percentage of the Dems and Independents. Now, if I have to choose, it will definitely be Obama.

Go to ABC News website. Obama told a group of news media biggies that he's smarter, more experienced and has better judgement that ANYBODY running either Democrat or Republican. He's smarter, more experienced with better judgement that Richardson, Biden or Dodd? Get a clue folks this guy is going to implode his mask is off. Stop drinking his kool-aid, detox and see him as he is. There is no there...there.

Good for Barack. He is calling it like he sees it. I am sorry, but the whole policy of "You don't do what we want so we aren't going to talk to you" is juvenile and will never work. That is part of the reason why the world thinks so little of America.

Obama never referred to anyone as Bush-Cheney lite. what he said was that he was not going to be Bush-cheney lite so I think you should listen to his comments before you start taking it out of context. On the other hand, Sen. Clinton called Sen. Obama's comment's on diplomacy «irresponsible and frankly naive» and even said that she was sure he was «regretting it».

I'm not an American citizen, but I can recognize who speaks of hope and stands by it. Not being afraid to meet with rogue states is an act of hope; it says to the world that America is willing to listen to other cultures and people. not necessarily agree with them, but atleast be willing to discuss the differences and find solutions. Preconditions pretty much are in-the-face bullying tactics which are detrimental and hurtful to a sense of pride to which all countries are entitled. I'm glad Senator Obama is turning this on Senator Clinton. He did not start it, but he is shrewd enough to see an opportunity when he sees one. I guess what he is saying is let's show where we are different; I'm not afraid of losing a few people that are still ruled by fear, not recognizing the kind of fear these so called "rogue-governments" have for the might of the US...I see that Americans are now hoping for better foreign relations and Sen. Obama is pinning his hopes on them. Imagine that!

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.

TO: PEGGY, TALLAHASSEE FLORIDA

Can you list "one" thing Obama did for America?

Imagine a political force Clinton-Obama joined together as one unified voice? That is what this country needs, not another war of words.

Ron Paul? Are you nuts. It doesn't matter how great the guy is, we need to take over the democratic process from within it, not by going with someone without hope of ever being elected. If you don't look realistically at the candidates and the issues, or worse if you do nothing, you're basically throwing your vote to the worst of the neo cons.

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

I am so tired of hearing about Obama. I'm sure I'll be tagged a racist, but think about it, if the man wasn't black would anyone be paying any attention to him? A few people yes, but the media would certainly not be hanging on his every word.

How sad. This early in the race, and they already are bickering like children. As I've stated before, I'm a Democrat through and through, but Ron Paul looks better and better every day.

Obama was absolutely right. Look at what he said in context. Of course you have to do groundwork before you meet with any leader good or bad. He wasn’t speaking of blindly “having them over for tea.” He was saying the time for blustering and non-communication is past, which is exactly what Hilary has said. She is just pandering and trying to pick a fight. To his credit, Obama hasn’t lay down on this issue, he’s been swinging full force back at Clinton, proving that he’s got the mettle that Kerry lacked. Kerry would have let himself get tagged a whimp, but Obama, no way is that dude a wimp. Look at him, he’s fierce, he’s determined, and the more the country knows about him, the more he’s going to be unstoppable. Clinton is scared, plain and simple.

Did i miss something? Didn't Hillary's camp start this "war of words"? Obama did nothing wrong but defend himself. I would expect any presidential hopeful to do the same if they were called "naive."

For all the talk about experience Hillary proved how inexperienced she really is.Why on earth would a frontrunner( well for now). sling mud at her opponents. Inexperience. And isn't Vilsack the guy who just had his campaign debts paid off by the Clinton machine? Well, he sold his soul, from now on he has to do what the Clinton Machine tells him to do.

What a manipulative wench! Don't go flinging pooh and then throw up your arms in disbelief when you get pooh flung back at you. How can this woman still be the "frontrunner"??? After all, didn't Oprah endorse Obama? I thought it would be curtains for any other candidate after that anyways...but I digress. Seriously, though we can't discount the good things that Mr. Clinton did while in office, there was some bad stuff too, and we'd all be fools to forget about all of it or to think that Hillary didn't have anything to do with it too...Whitewater comes to mind. A vote for Hilary is a vote of "more of the same", just a different side of the isle.

What is lost in this tit for tat is the threat to our country by the audacity of this inexperienced jr to think he is qualified to lead this nation and the stupidity of those who support him.

You would think someone with the unprecedented negative ratings that Hillary has would be more careful. A VERY large % of people do not like her and when she tries to pull stunts like this it only reminds people of her true character.

Back where I grew up, when you start a fight, you are the first to apologize. Clinton should just put an end to this....for the sake of our party. She wanted to bully Obama out of this race for president and all she accomplished is to make him more relevant. Stop the attacks Hillary. Your husband gave George Bush a campaign slogan: «restore honesty and moral to the white house». Please do not let the republicans win this election again. Al Gore is not in the white house thanks to your husband. I would hate to see another republican get to the oval office thanks to another Clinton.

I am sure there will be other nations wanting our attention. Might even be a few million Americans wanting to meet with Obama.Maybe Barack can call Chavez and Putin Bush-Cheney light. The good news is Obamas' splendid oratory can explain to American workers why they are doing the work the Chinese don't want to do.

I think Sen. Clinton's criticism of Sen. Obama's position was legitimate and accurate. Funny how Obama responds when criticized – skip the debate and get straight to the name-calling. Boy, that's different.

I won't vote for Obama because he has no experience to back up his rhetoric. If he is the Democratic nominee, the GOP will eat him for breakfast. They will turn him into Willie Horton Light before Memorial Day 2008.

Why do people people continue to defend Hilary Clinton? She hasn't done anything for the American public she will never be Obama, "the real winner."

[...] I do wish the Democrats would show restraint. This tit-for-tat sniping, retaliation, and revenge does nothing for peace among our people, and only serves those elements in our society that want to see the Republican occupation of the White House continue. [...]

SHE started this whole fight with her comments the day after the debate. Such a typical Clinton tactic to start something and then act like they didn't do anything wrong. These are DEPLORABLE people.

Obama's comments are defending his stance not attacking Clinton. I think Hilary's camp is trying to paint Obama as just another mud-slinger and news agencies spin and sensationalize comments.

i have been involved with two elections (that we won). And I know an election is about defining your opponent or defining yourself.
I am not sure what clinton was trying to do but they failed to define Obama because in the end he just used their attacks as a way to define himself as a force for change in foreign policy and as the person that would turn the (Bush clinton Bush) page. He just needs to remind people that unlike Clinton he aint taking lobby money and he is clearly presenting Clinton as the old system candidate. Obama needed to differenciate himself from Clinton and she gave him his chance. So Hillary check your mailbox for a thank you card from the Obama campaign.

I don't think Hillary is whining nor do I think she's asked for anybody to stop the discussion over this issue. When she referred to the issue as "silly", she was referring to Obama's comment that she is "Bush-Cheney Light", not to the debate itself. It's funny how people don't actually read any articles, just headlines and then making sweeping and derogatory comments.

And I am disappointed in Senator Clinton for calling Obama's FP "naive." So I guess Tom and I are even.

I think senator Clinton needs to ask her team to just let the issue go. Obama was good at turning your own words agaisnt you. He passed this test now just let it go. All you are doing is turning him into the only alternative to the clinton-Bush dynasty. Clinton started the fight she is the only who can stop it. As long as she keeps attacking Obama, he will have to respond. Now we know Obama is «in it to win» as well and his responses to republicans and clintonistas have been good. At least Obama proved that he can fight the clinton machine and the clintons should just focus on their front runner status and refrain from attacking the underdogs because in the end, underdogs wants you to attack them. With all the «political experience», i am surprised the clintons do not know that front runners should not start the attack game and name calling. By the way I am sorry nobody is attacking Kucinich right now. Now calling Obama out for responding to your attacks is like a 3 years old who starts a fight and runs to the teacher the minute the other kids punches back. Hillary you were pretty irresponsible and naive to think that Obama was gonna let you get away with your attacks.

Move on....If Hillary didn't want her record to come up she should have kept her big fat mouth shout. Now she wants to whine "don't pick on me" Well lady when playing with the guys if you throw jabs you will get them back. Can't take it GO Home and check on Bill..oh he's probably not there anyway.

It's funny that when Barack say's something that can be interpreted as negative towards Hillary her camp is dissapointed. However, the Clinton camp never feels any shame when they use negative politics against Barack.