CNN

Democrats = let's unite against the Bush administration... but only if you vote for me....

Its quite unfortunate that people doesn´t really like a honest person.

Eduardo is forgetting the fact that the United States is the only country to have ever employed atomic/nuclear weapons in a military capacity.

Posted By Jonathan, Virginia Beach, VA : August 3, 2007 2:22 pm

Jonathan...and what were the circumstances leading to such nuclear employment by the US?

No one in his right mind will ever openly propose a miliatry invasion into Pakistan. This is espeically ridiculous coming from Democrats. Pakistan is our ally and it is a nuclear power state. For all the past talks of Iraq and present talks of Iran about their possible nuclear threat, the real threat is not that they will launch a nuclear warhead to US. The real threat is that they can quietly pass a nuclear bomb to a terrorist group like Al Qaeda.

Obama is a stupid idiot to openly discuss an invasion into Pakistan. I will tell you what I will do if I am Pakistan after such invasion. I will pass one of my nuclear bomb to terrorists hostile to US. Al Qaeda's real threat is not what happened on September 11. Al Qaeda's real threat is what it can do when it acquires WMD, and Obama foreign policy manages to encourage Pakistan to give nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda. Very smart. Let's turn the only nuclear armed Islamic country against us. The smartest foreign policy I have heard.

Dear God, what is the world coming to? I mean, honestly, are you seriously going to endorse a candidate who has said categorically that he will not use nuclear weapons? A candidate who has little or no politcal experience? A candidate who thinks that talking to despots will solve the world's problems?

I cannot say it any other way, but we should not be talking about nominating a candidate because he is handsome, young, charasmatic, and black, but because he is well qualified. Barak Obama is the least qualified candidate in the primary and will surely not get my vote.

No Nukes, under A-N-Y circumstances !!!

Anyone who talks of using Nukes again (for A-N-Y reason) is themselves the worst kind of Terrorist on the planet !

Intelligent people learn from the mistakes of History. Obama has got it right.

Thank the Fates that SOMEONE does…

Keep it up, Obama. You RULE !!

To the ignorant people who keep repeating the ‘his not experienced’ rhetoric ,please go and read his well thought out plan on keeping terrorist at bay before coming here to display your ignorance. I live amongst you and I know majority of you do not even have passports just incase you might have to see the real world .Calling Obama naive, is like saying Bush is intelligent.Atleast he has studied about the world enough not to stick to one source of information. He schooled in Indonesia and like many of us who got the privilege of living in the developing world, he knows not all Muslims are radicals. Lets get back to Pakistan, a nation with 70% moderate Muslims, like most majority Muslim countries is hijacked by radical extremist minorities. Senator Obama said he is willing to work with Musharaff to take out Al- Qaeda and 9-11 mastermind Bin laden ,reining in control of the dispersed autonomous northern tribes who are harboring terrorist .This will also help Afghanistan take care of the insurgence by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda remnants hiding in the mountainous borders of the Pakistan Afghan border. The pragmatic thing after 9-11 which Bush ignored was to pressure Pakistan to allow special forces in those regions to hunt down Al-Qaeda remnants, this current administration failed to do this because it did not benefit corporate profiteering ; making Afghanistan and Pakistan’s volatile northern regions safe for the World in general. With the support of Hillary Clinton ,who with clearly laid out false intelligence, knowledge of the history of the middle east and experience in being first lady during her husbands two year term voted to give Mr. Bush the mandate to invade Iraq. Thus living Afghanistan and Pakistan which should have been our main focus to Bin laden and his cohorts to taunt the world with their periodical release of videos reminding us of their invincibility.

It is clear CNN and the Clinton spin media are doing all they can to smear Obama, the mostly ignorant and gullible Americans who can’t read for themselves but take everything the media puts out as the truth, get on the internet to spew their pitiful sagacity with a few sentences they write because they have nothing else to hit the most promising Leader America will be lucky to have as president in a while. I’m glad there some Americans who see the need for a new leader to bring America back to its glory days, where it was feared and respected by friends and enemies alike.

Nuclear arms is here to stay but the will to use it has been curtailed by humanity. Until these inhumane terrorist started killing innocent people, it was a deterrent to keep the world safe from power hungry dictators and regimes from take over the free world. America has advance technology to counter and neutralize any Nuclear attack on its ally how much more on it’s self. For those who don’t know there has been so much money spent not on building nuclear pile but defense against nuclear attacks as well. Its the reason the cold war ended because no sane human being was to go end the world by starting a nuclear war which can never be won by any nation. This can’t be said of the terrorist who wants to expedite their journey to heaven to be with their beautiful virgins. The US is still strong and a force to reckon with in the world. The world is changing and the US is in the dire need of a president who will be embraced by world . Once again the US have the chance to lead the world, the pacesetters it has always been and Barrack Obama is the one to take it there. Taking the fight on terrorism back to the real terrorist Al-Qaeda which is residing in northern Pakistan presently is not a bad idea. With the support of the UN , allies and corporation with the Pakistan people who wouldn’t want to be associated with Bin-Laden and his cohorts, the true fight on terrorism will begin with the safety of the Pakistani and Afghan people at heart.
Feel free to argue constructively after thoroughly reading my post.Thank you .

PS: CNN is deleting comments because we are “keeping them honest” by calling them Clinton spin doctors.We all know who is been paid by the candidates now.I’m starting a campaign against CNN for taking away our right to debate and call on the unfairness of the media towards Barack Obama.Join me.

Excuse my grammatical errors I speak and write 5 languages and english is not my first language so bare with me.

Senator Obama is an eloquent, inspirational speaker. But, why in the world would a prospective Commander in Chief take any options, military or otherwise, off the table at this point. That is foolish. If the radical Muslims have their way (and they're not doing too badly against us)they will eventually ignite a much wider conflict in an effort to destroy us. Naturally, a nuclear weapon would be the LAST, almost out of the question, resort to protect ourselves.

On the one hand Senator Obama would invade Pakistan (a nuclear power)to find Bin Laden while at the same time taking our own nuclear option off the table. He is naive and reckless.

I am a republican without a chosen candidate. The more I read (this entire blog and Obama's speech) the more I admire him. I never dreamed I could vote for a democrate but I think I see it coming. For those of you who say wait 8 more years for Obama to mature, please realise you might not have the luxury of that timre. Look what has happened in the last eight! I am ready for someone and something different. You could possibly look at his "lack of experience" as not already being in the poscket of big business. He has not had enough time to have sold out.

Once again, Obama is being criticized for bringing forth original ideas and ideas that ring true with the American public. We should be able to kill terrorists in Pakistan if they don't have the will to do it. With our precise weaponry nowindays the collateral damage caused by nuclear weapons make it socially irresponsible to consider to use them. America can show strenght and brute force without nuclear weapons. Hillary just wants to support nukes because she fears people will say she is premptively striking the idea that she is "weak" because she is a woman.

Keep fighting Barack. Don't let them silence someone fighting for change.

So we will not hold Obama to the same standards as we have tried to hold Bush/Cheney? We will not require Obama to have an exit strategy; we will not require Obama to declare America is not a first strike nation; we will not require ObombO to consult with other nations before taking unilateral military action anyplace he chooses; we will not demand congressional oversight of the conduct of foreign wars, raids, incursions, forays, recon patrols or whatever. When Obama told us (didn't ask) what he would do, he didn't tell us (didn't ask) he would do any of these things! What Obama did tell us was that he has a strongly held position that a country is justified in conducting raids inside the borders of another country to secure whatever end that country thinks is justified. The opinion of the other country is immaterial and irrelevant; so are the opinions of any other country or groups of countries. It sounds like the proverbial slippery slope for us to travel. As a matter of opinion, it sounds like the slope we've been on with Bush/Cheney and we all know where that got us. I'm not trying to tell anyone who to vote for or support with their funds, just asking that the fairness doctrine be applied: same standards for everyone. Every candidate's feet should be held to the fire on these requirements! Forget their hairdos, their cleavage and their "girls." More than that, even, if you have to swagger and strut, talk trash and "manup" to feel good, watch, not the presidential race, but the Division I football games or professional wrestling. In the meantime, keep asking until they finally give credible answers, answers we can validate, and measure and test against facts we already possess. Our grandkids deserve that much, anyway.

Obama again proves how he is stronger then all the other typical candidates by not being afraid to say what he believes.

I am proud of Obama and he definitely has my vote.

I always find the suggestion that Obama has made blunders and that that shows his lack of experience or naiveté about security and international affairs curious.

Many people including some on this blog put themselves in a position to judge whether or not these are blunders. It is not clear why they are more qualified than Obama to make these judgments. Do they have the types of experiences (which presumably Obama lacks) that prepare them to know which approaches and policies to pursue, and how to articulate one’s views and engage with the world?

I think the answer is yes for the simple reason that we are not talking about rocket science here. These are really common sense issues that most people who are engaged in public discourse would have well-informed public opinions about.

It really comes down to opinions. People who are saying Obama lacks experience are merely saying they do not like his candidacy and his positions. The argument about experience or lack thereof is really a politically calculated statement.

saw Senator Obama’s message in it’s entirety and it’s how I would want my Commander-and Chief to position himself. He was fearless yet compassionate, honest about protecting the values of Americans but clear that terrorism would be dealt with “by any means necessary…in Pakistan, Afganistan WHERE EVER.” That’s refreshing. Bush has acted like a rich-spoiled-coward thinking that the position “I wont talk to you unless you do what I want” or “I’ll take my ball home if you don’t let me play.” and the “No One can have nuclear weapons but us” theme is so so stupid. IT’S TOO LATE to put the Genie back in the bottle. Now you must negotiate with everyone. Everyone must win something!! Food, prosperity, Health Care, peace….something. The old Imperialistic, White Supremisist, two party foolishness is OVER. Now these gutless, clueless candidates want to use Obama’s public STAND to springboard into the news PLEASE….Grow a pair and sit down. REAL MEN are TALKING.

Posted By Kenneth McGregor, Atlanta GA : August 2, 2007 6:33 pm
A-MAN

“The US will never be the first to use Nuclear Weapons against anyone….”

Posted By Eduardo, Los Angeles, CA : August 3, 2007 1:43 pm

– Eduardo is forgetting the fact that the United States is the only country to have ever employed atomic/nuclear weapons in a military capacity.

If Obama gets Iowa that would be a fantastic start to the dream that is The White House.

Obama is making a lot of sense to the public in general and I guess Clinton and the rest know its a matter of time when approval ratings will swing away from them.
I'd seriously consider moving to Canada if Hillary went to the white house. It would be insane.

The US will never be the first to use Nuclear Weapons against anyone....only in self defense and when all efforts have been exhausted to resolve the issue(s). If so, it will mean the beginning of the end! Therefore, we need to remain "Numero Uno" in defense and everything else for that matter.

This man has more sense than Clinton, Dodd, Richardson and Biden do combined. They're going to regret going against him on this one.

Obama, '08!

The use of a nuclear weapon is an act of terrorism, under any circumstance.

We do not need nuclear weapons to defeat these radical clowns. Our soldiers would crush them if they were allow to fight these COWARDS.

My wife and I are voting for Obama.

Obama is logical, rational and in my opinion he is new strain of politician. We could use more individuals like him in government.

The more Hillary Clinton speaks, the more I understand why some people simply hate her.

This is what I think...
First of all, I feel that to threaten nukes to a nuclear power would simply encourage them to to use nukes against us first...1 point for Obama.

Next, One of the biggest problems in working out solutions in the mid-east is that no one will talk to anyone who is not on their side. Obama will. Resolution cant happen without communication. 1 Point for Obama

Finally, Pakistan has NOT been been "fighting very hard alongside U.S to defeat AL QUAEDA". Infact all they have really seemed to offer has been diplomatic lip service. It has been a widely held beief that Al Qaeda has been operating unhampered in regions of Pakistan and yet they have done nothing to fix this, going so far as to cede control of the affected regions to the local war lords.
Obama is right to say that if we know where they are, we should go get them!

Point and Match to OBAMA!

First of all, I feel that to threaten nukes to a nuclear power would simply encourage them to to use nukes against us first...1 point for Obama
Next, One of the biggest problems in working out solutions in the mid-east is that no one will talk to anyone who is not on their side. Obama will. Resolution cant happen without communication. 1 Point for Obama

Finally, Pakistan has NOT been been "fighting very hard alongside U.S to defeat AL QUAEDA". Infact all they have really seemed to offer has been diplomatic lip service. It has been a widely held beief that Al Qaeda has been operating unhampered in regions of Pakistan and yet they have done nothing to fix this, going so far as to cede control of the affected regions to the local war lords. Obama is right to say that if we know where they are, we should go get them!

Point and Match to OBAMA!

So I guess it is safe to say if Obama is president we better hope nobody with nukes decides to use them on us because everyone will keep their soliders in their civilian areas knowing he won't use nukes in response.

Civilian casualties in a war are unavoidable, too bad some people are too dumb to realize that.

I had high hopes for Obama as a real contender but his ideas for Iraq and foreign policy have made the Democratic nomination Hilary's to lose.

To all people saying we cannot take nukes off the table, let me ask you one question.

How are we supposed to tell a country to stop building nuclear weapons or we will use our nukes against them? How can we say "help us find this guy, or if we do, we may nuke the area to make sure we get it done"...

Its nonsensical. It would be awefully hypocritcal for us to support non-proliferation of nuclear weapons while telling others we may have to use them.

Politicians make no since, The man gots a plan whether its on diplomacy, fighting a war, or terrorism. He gots a plan, and these other contenders act as if his plan will just absolutely will not, Bush had a plan it didnt work but at the same time he has some plans that do work. But that is the part of politics that bothers me. But Obama is a formidable person, and gots my vote. Because the way he looks at the world has got my attention.

He must be nuts!! He wants to catch terrorists wherever they are hiding AND not use nuclear weapons?? How could we even consider voting for him for a minute??

Believe it Barack Obama will be our next President. Hurray for America!!!

Obama is being picked on by bullies like the one smart kid in grade school. He's the only candidate that has made a significant stance, and once again US politics and childish behavior have joined hands. And as for his readiness to lead the country, if Bush could be elected TWICE then Obama was ready in junior high.

" At least 2/3 of the people writing comments here (not that I’ve read many, but statistically it’s pretty certain) are better qualified to speak to foreign policy than Barak Obama. He has no friggin idea what he’s doing. Can we get the children out of the campaign process so the adults can make a plan for how to deal with an increasingly dangerous world.

Posted By Brian, Durham NC : August 3, 2007 10:21 am "

You are very very wrong i read the entire post on this blog and most people(about 80 percent) that have posted so far are on obama's side, thank God americans have brians to reason and eyes to see, clinton and her deputies are attacking him because he is the only guy that seems to have a clear sense of purpose,direction and good judment about all the issues at hand. At least he is telling the american public what his visions are and what he stands for without fear. instead of the others laying their own plans which obviously they dont have they are just critisizing him, such FOOLS, Barack obama my vote is definately for you.

I'm absolutely horrified that ANYONE could think using nukes is EVER justifiable! They are horrible, disgusting weapons that have NO purpose in this soceity!
I wasn't going to vote for Obama, but this makes me realize he IS the lesser of 2 evils.

do politicians criticize for the sake of criticism? this is so frustrating? What did Obama say that warranted "criticism"? Do Clinton and the others really want to use nukes in civilian areas in Pakistan? Americans should be afraid, very very afraid of these people!

The JR senator from Illinois needs to get some experience and good foreign advisors and when he grows up maybe in 8 years or so he will be ready for the big game. I love Obama but we can not risk his inexperience in such a difficult time in our history. The damage done by the present administration will require a person seasoned and there is no time for on the job training.

First, I am a Republican, but having watched the debates over the last several weeks I have noticed nothing except a government divided against itself. I am glad that Sen Obama is willing to carefully analyze real-time intelligence in order to attack the heart of the problem versus a political agenda. He is the only one who has taken a solid stand against the war on terror. Is there a lot about the war that we don't have access to? Absolutely, but it seems everyone wants the troops gone, returned home rather. I am a former United States Marine, and I would rather spend my time fighting a known enemy for the sake of my nation rather than staying in the rear pretending our country is out of harms way. We all love our troops and their families, they are not pawns. Sen. Obama seems to have a sound plan that will ensure we are after the right enemy with the proper intelligence and the proper support from its government by providing the funding and tools needed to win. I call for no more division in the government, rather I challenge every senator and politician everywhere to be united in every matter that is brought forward, put your agendas aside, quit bickering and finding fault and get the job done!

Obama is a rookie who is unqualified to be President. All of his mistakes just prove he is not the right candidate for the job.

At least the proper use of nuclear weapons is an actual issue people should be focussing on when choosing our next President.
I'm far more concerned about the stance of "James" from Ohio whose opening comment was, "Sounds like they are picking on him because he is black. Obama should play the race card."
James, this is not a racial issue. If you feel he is the most qualified person for the job, by all means vote for the man. But if you believe that Mr. Obama should be President soley because his is a black man, please don't vote. Your priorities are in the wrong place.

You know, it really doesn't look good for Hillary that she's just part of the crowd heckling Obama. Kind of brings her down to their level. Gives the impression that he is winning and she and the others are just trying to catch up.

Agree this is nothing but good for Obama.

I have a feeling that all the dems are just running for a position in Hillarys cabinet,they are not really serious in challenging her.

The Obama camp must handle this situation with care. Don't snap back like with the Hillary fight, but don;t ignore it, either.

http://political-buzz.com/

GO OBAMA, GO!! You're making more sense than any of 'em. Keep it up!!!It's too bad your rivals and others have to change your words or decipher your text in order to score for their own agenda. Wow, the attacks are coming hotter and heavier. Obama must be doing something right!

Obama did not get this right. Needlessly provoking a nuclear power is NOT what any President, Black, White or Female should be doing. He needs to start surrounding himself with more experienced advisors because obviously he is either displaying complete ignorance in foreign policy or is receiving some extremely uninformed advice.

This guy could be President...someday, and someday if he proves himself, he gets my vote. Right now he needs to listen and learn.

Obama seems to attract a lot of criticism just for having new ideas about how to run the country. But isn't that what we should be looking for? I find it refreshing.

Obama is an African American man running for president in a white mans world, he would be dead in 24 hours if was elected president. As for Clinton she is a puppet who does she really work for. The shadow goverment run the world now and forever Skull and Bones.

By Dmorphine, Hampton, Virginia

To David in P.A.

Oh, yes you say Obama is Green? Well if you mean green like new growth on a healthy tree I agree. Barak Obama is not old and all browned up like the withering old guard of the Washington corrupt elite. Of which the Clintons and Bushes represent. Want more of the same then keep electing the same old
warmonger thinking. Hillary voted for this debacle in Iraq because she wanted to position to the center for a presidential run. Get real out there
Bill and Bush One are pals they both believe in the " new world order " which has created a virtual world slave economy that is concentrating wealth at
the top like never before. Is it not enough of a beating to have pensions
and wages and working conditions reduced to such a state before the middle class and lower class wake up.
Look at the future of our children facing a virtual police state as our
fought for freedoms are taken away -
NOW THATS REAL TERROR!!!

Wake up America and Barak the vote!!!

Experience doesn't mean everything...
Just take a moment to think about all your really dumb bosses who are in those posts only because they have more experience.

Obama is doing exactly the right thing. There is nothing of substance to really disagree with. People who want to vote for someone else will criticize here. The important political point is that Obama is getting a lot of attention and people who have never heard of him before will now remember his name. Months from now, today's debate won't matter, but it will matter that we have been talking about him. This is brilliant politics by Obama. Get your name out. Unfortunately, Hillary's negatives are so high, she could lose to a Republican candidate. Not so for Obama.

Politics...wow. The man says the only sane thing possible...and people in my party go after him. People...nukes are not weapons. Weapons promise those who use them survival. We have so many wonderful ways to kill each other. Pogo was right. The enemy is us.

Good to see these topics generate much discussion. Thanks to Sen. Obama, people are actually debating means to acccomplish their ends. Prior to this voters decided the ends and say 'yes we want to defeat terrorism, we want to be safe,' and leave the decisions on what means to employ to their candidates. Frankly, once you elect an official to power, you have no say in what means they employ. And Bush has shown what the concept of 'anything goes' to meet ends can do. It's high time to start the debate on how we accomplish things as well. Not just what we want to accomplish. Because, even if our ends are moral, there's no guarantee that our means will be. Time for the arragontly inhumane 'anything goes' politics is over. The world is too small for that!

If not for him taking a non-conventional stand, everybody will just vote blind like they did before, simply trusting that their canddidate will at justly and with common sense. Other candidates (should really say the other candidate!) obviously did not want this debate, surely not this early in the race. So, we'll just have to sit back and hang in there for the ride. Even if Obama fails to get elected, he would have done much to advance America out of petty conventional thinking by the time he runs again in 4 years...but hey..we still got 6 more months! Don't count the wise man (yes, you heard me right, WISE MAN) out just yet!

Unfortunately, Obama is criticized for trying to grapple with complicated questions/issues in a real and moral way. It's funny: he's actually trying to answer the questions! Doesn't he have PR people to advise against that foolish strategy! Instead, Americans- stupid as we are- prefer a candidate who simplifies policy into pre-approved, party-line soundbites. He doesn't chose to rely on ridiculous cath-phrases in debates, so his thoughtfulness comes across in the media and on TV as indecisive or naive. If you want a "decisive and strong" leader, I can't think of anyone better Bush. We Americans get what we deserve.

The old guard is scared and they have nothing to tear Obama down with so they are going to start attacking every statement that he makes. The old guard – and that includes Hillary – doesn't like and doesn't want change. The nice thing is that the more these people attack Obama the quicker the "stupid" ball is going to roll into their court because it is going to become obvious very quickly to the masses that Obama is being attacked just to be attacked.

These are rather muddy waters to tread in an attempt to proffer an opinion of support for any candidate, but I do feel it is necessary to throw a lifeline to the American public by reminding them that hype is incredibly dangerous and that fresh faces with ideas for sweeping reforms rarely succeed in implementing the plans and promises espoused during the campaign. People are reading the gumption of Mr. Obama today as political realities tomorrow, and they face the real danger of disillusionment and disenchantment felt by so many throughout history when the balloon containing their hopes for change and a better world bursts.

“You can hype a questionable product for a little while, but you’ll never build an enduring business.” – Victor Kiam

“Life is so constructed that an event does not, cannot, and will not, match the expectation.” – Charlotte Bronte

Note: I am by no means lending support to either side of the argument, it is simply distressing to see so many people swallowing the rhetoric and voiced ideals of any candidate this early and this wholeheartedly.

Sorry folks, but a vote for Obama doesn't solve the real problem at the root of this country... the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul is the only answer I have found that puts an end to big government and brings liberty back to Americans that are seeing it stripped away day by day. Let's just hope we can even get to a vote. If the "powers that be" have their way, they'll do away with the election and call for martial law.

Wow. The image of Democrats, anyone, attacking the man for the only sane position possible...What has happened to us? Are we so mired in Bushworld's faux war on terror that we would really say, sure, we'd nuke civilians to get the bad guys. People...Pogo was right. We have met the enemy and they is us.

Have you ever heard a candidate say "That was a great speech, I agree with their ideas." No, it is either criticizism, "my idea is better", or "I came up with it first." I think the are afraid of Obama because he will challenge Hillary. She is the best shot for the second tier to get cabinet positions.

p.s. Only a moron would see Obama as the most inexperience candidate. Its John Edwards, plus Obama can't have 20 years of experience being that he is on average 10-15 years younger than his rivals

What's interesting is that instead of front-runner Sen. Clinton expressing her plan for getting out of Iraq and dealing with rogue nations and nuclear weapons, we keep hearing of what Sen. Obama would do. If Sen. Clinton is the leader she says she is, and the most experienced for the job, why don't we hear what she has to say. If someone from Sen. Clinton's team is reading this, please give us something more than her reaction to Obama's statements. Being reactive is what got us into the mess we are in, in Iraq. What we need is pro-active leadership, not commentary. I believe both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama are capable of doing the job, certainly more capable than Pres. Bush, but am disappointed that I have not been hearing anything on what Sen. Clinton would do? What would Sen. Edwards do? If we are to make educated decisions about who our next Pres. will be, we need to know.

I am a Christian, and a Republican (not by choice, but because of the moral views held by the Dems in general)
However, I find Obama’s strong stance on leadership and foreign policy (will act even in Pakistan, if necessary), honesty towards his own human compassion (will not think nuclear if civilians are involved), his overall intellect and answers that do not beat around the “bush” compels me to believe that he will make a great President of the U.S. and a prime example of who we really are...
I hope it will happen someday, if not in ’08.

Obama is really showing his inexperience. And I must admit I am shocked to say this, but Obama is making Hillary look like a respectable candidate.

I'm not really understanding what is so controversial/detrimental about Senator Obama's comments regarding nuclear weapons. Does anyone out there ever think using a nuclear weapon is a GOOD idea, especially in the climate of our world today? He's saying it would be a mistake dig our hole even deeper than it already is. I'm happy he's actually thinking about how to make us safer in the world, unlike the actions of both the Administration and certain Democratic presidential nominees so quick to criticize..(ahem, Hillary) that we've seen in the past few years.

Obama is refreshing and extremely intelligent. They'd pick on him for WHATEVER statement he would give on that topic and others. And if he is "inexperience," when researching the other "experienced" options, I'll take my chances with "inexperience."

Surely American voters aren't going to be naive enough to again vote based on fear mongering, empty attacks that provide absolutely no substance for what the candidate would do on the issue and saying only political spin based on gaining votes.

Hilary says nothing of subtance, classifies "experience" as being someone's wife, Biden's idiotic plan of partitioning Iraq into three parts is insane. Richardson is an amazing diplomat but lacks the presence of a world leader and Dodd is just another Washington politician.

Obama gets criticized for saying nothing, saying something, demonstrating leadership and intelligence. And America will end up voting on political sound bites and in three years will be stating that it is time for a change but by then whatever credibility you have will be even further eroded.

If you want to be the "leader" of the free world, you need to be lead someone who is forthright, honest, inspiring and confident....Obama is all of these.

I think it takes lots of courage to take a stand on issues. All the other canidates are still hesitant to answer tough questions. Obama has my vote!

At least 2/3 of the people writing comments here (not that I've read many, but statistically it's pretty certain) are better qualified to speak to foreign policy than Barak Obama. He has no friggin idea what the hell he's doing. Can we get the children out of the campaign process so the adults can make a plan for how to deal with an increasingly dangerous world.

The Battle in the democratic field looks like this:"Obama against the clinton's Capm(Dodd,Biden,Richardson.)"

If one candidate(Obama) always ACT in terms of new Ideas and the others just sit down and wait to REACT, Then tell who is the leading candidate?
The Answer is surely : OBAMA
Even though the media doesn't want to accept that reality!

Didn't Gravel already ask Obama who he was planning to nuke, during the debate in april? This was reply "I'm not planning to nuke anybody right now, Mike, I promise"

You people seem to be overly impressed when this guy spits out a rehearsed speech, I think the forum venues keeps him more honest. He doesn't have time to practise his spiel.

Vote for him though....what's going on in Iraq will seem like child's play compared to what will happen when he sets foot into Pakistan after becoming pres. Pakistan has nukes, Iraq didn't.

I am also glad to see the article says nothing about Edwards criticizing Obama. Good on him, Edwards earns my respect more and more all the time. I think an Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards ticket for 08 would slaughter the competition.

James, that is totally absurd. There is nothing racial about this. It is these types of comments that aid racism because you try to bring to subjects together that have absolutely no correlation. I think Obama has some great ideas, however when it comes to foreign policy and defense he has limited experience and knowledge. Obama will have my consideration in 8 years.

A) A country shouldn't be referred to as "Rogue", I think that's terrible, writer. You write words like that and the general public in those countries form wrong opinions on how the gerneral populations in this country think about them.

B) If Obama were to be elected President, I'm assuming he may have a better idea on what he would do-because he then might know what's REALLY going on. Duh and Duh. In sense it is fair to say the questions on such a serious situation that dates back thousands of years- is irrelevant-in a sense... Get Real.

C) I remember Pearl Harbor. Didn't it go something like-the Japanese head Coolio pretended to play Mr. I want peace...and we believed him...and then our shores, soldiers and innocent civilians were attacked-brutally-and then we reacted-DROPPED THE BOMBS. I am not completely opposed to nuclear weapons. Sometimes a quick, smart and loud attempt at peace is better then leaving anything indefinitely. Now if everyone, including america wanted to get rid of them-I'm in-but hwere would they go-so we are stuck.

D) Civilians die in any war, from any weapon- whether it be nuclear or not.

He spoke from the heart ...expressing that he's human...expressing deep caution over murdering scores of innocent civilians (unlike Bush and Cheney)..I can forgive him for that. Then he came to the realization that if it comes down to us or them...that option may have to be exercised...sounds likes he's growing...he still gets my vote...at least he's real...and trustworthy

Well, I am sick and tired of all the hypocrisy! At least Obama is the only candidate who says it at it is! Whereas everyone else is trying so hard to be politically correct! I agree with most of the comments: Obama is being attacked by others for his views, and no other candidate gave his or her views on the question! In regards to the Nukes, I totally agree that it would be a HUGE mistake to use it on civilians! That would make our position worse in the international arena! I think most people would agree today that dropping the bomb on the Japs has been a mistake. Who would want to do that again?
I think Obama is fit for the position and shows much leadership and COMMON SENSE, which is something Bush is lacking!
GO BARACK! it's time for change!

As a former Missile Technician in the US Navy, who served on ballistic missile submarines, I am glad that Obama is taking this stance. This war on an abstract ideology, this unwinnable war, will not be won with nuclear weapons, nor should nuclear weapons even be under consideration. The fact that Obama can say that he would not use them, especially when civilians are involved, goes to show where his convictions really stand. Having read his book, The Audacity of Hope, before he even announced running for president, I could have predicted this response. This whole "inexperienced" campaign against him is just absurd. He was a 2 time Illinois State Senator before he came to the Senate. How much more experience does Edwards have? How much more did Edwards have before he ran for VP? If Clinton is the epitome of experience, I'll take a fresh face, thank you.

The more I read these post the most anyone can say about Obama is that he is not "experienced" enough. Our current president had years of experience and look where we are. Mrs. Clinton's husband also had experience, and although Bill did some notable work during his presidency it was bogged with loads of controversy. Then you hear those critizing his use of words, I hope these same US citizens doing so is not a supporter of Bush. This man has mucked the ENGLISH language more times than a 5th grade student. I think its time for a change, and if it means a president that honestly says I may not know everything but I am willing to learn and make a difference in our lives then I am all for it. OBAMA for president. Lastly, Marsha from Portland, since we are all ignorant did you vote for President Bush in the last 2 elections? If so how do you characterize yourself?

So far Hillary has said that she as President would not talk to the leaders of the "axis of evil", and now implies that the "nuclear option is not off the table"....
How appropriate of Obama to call her "Bush-Cheney Lite", is this status-quo or worse from Hillary what America really wants???

He says what he believes and gets chastised for it. FINALLY someone says what they believe, not saying what they think people will want to hear. Clinton is just following the safe route that everyone else has. Bland political crap that we've complained about for years. We have no idea what these other candidates stand for. VOTE BARACK.

Senator Obama has displayed courage in his convictions. This is something that has been lacking in the democratic party for as long as I can remember. Fighting the war on terrorism rather than the war to keep Bush's and Cheney's wallets fat seems a logical policy! Senator Obama has a plan that includes dipolmacy and relationsip building, and, if needed, military action to reduce the threat of terrorism. I hope people of this country will soon have the be lifted from the fog of brainwashing that has occured for the last eight years and begin to understand the GLOBAL situation that exists.

I agree with Obama. After all, the people responsible for 911 are in Pakistan. That is where the fight is, regardless of whether they are harboured there or not.

I was seriously thinking about voting for Obama but after his ignorance comments about Pakistan and nuclear weapons use. I have come to the conclusion that this man needs a foreign affairs lesson for the next 8 years than may be he will be ready for Presidency

ummmm... what does being black have to do with nuclear weapons and foreign policy?

Obama sounds so green.

"It would be a geopolitical disaster if the United States ever used a nuclear bomb again. What better motivator for Iran to develop nuclear technology then to spew rhetoric that you may be compelled to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance? (Not to mention giving nuclear technology to India, a country that isn’t operating under UN treaties or guidelines)

In regards to Clinton, her perspective is old-hat politics. In fact, before the end of last week, she was moving more towards Obama’s position on international diplomacy. And her trying to label Obama as naïve is a laugh given she’s the one that empowered Bush to go to war while Obama had the foresight to understand it was a bad idea. (You know, he did major in international studies)

Let me break down Obama’s positions so Dodd can comprehend: Obama is in favor of meeting with countries we don’t consider friends without preconditions (like Iran having to stopping all nuclear work) that would prevent the meetings from occurring. Obama also supports acting against terrorist elements in Pakistan if Pakistan won’t. (Pakistan’s power structure is currently in flux, causing President / General Musharraf to be unable to act against the northern tribes with Taliban links) Lastly, Obama does not support using nuclear weapons (tactical or otherwise), which a position that most people in the world would agree with.

Richardson’s statement is ridiculous. Obama doesn’t want to leave troops in Iraq indefinitely. The only thing he’s ever said about leaving troops was in regards to leaving a residual force (meaning small and supportable) that would train Iraq’s and hunt al-Qaeda. Is Richardson saying he’s against going after al-Qaeda?

Lastly, Biden needs to realize that the difference between him and Obama is that while Biden may have taken some controversial positions in the past (and no longer talks about them), Obama is taking those positions now."

Quoted For Truth. Hilary is clearly a warmonger and no different than bush cheney, those of you "democrats" that think he is inexperienced is trash. Hilary might has well have said vote for me and enjoy a nuclear winter. The self righteous idea that we can tell people what to do and not do it ourselves is what got us to this position in the first place. Why would someone nuke us? we would respond, Obama didnt say that. he said he wouldnt instigate... THANK GOD, and he wants to talk to people harboring terrorists so that they stop wanting to kill us!!! who bites the hand that feeds them? god some people here need to grow up and travel internationally, and that doesnt mean going to Canada.

Naive and inexperience seems to be words that Hiliary and others against Obama will continue using. What a shame. Would any one say the experience Hiliary made the right vote about the war in Iraq? The American people are stupid enough to elect Bush instead of Al Gore. We can of course bring down our main presidential hopeful, Obama. I believe we are indirectly responsible for the rapes and deaths in the Darfur, several hundred thousand civilian in Iraq, and millions of climate refugees around the world. Al Gore is right, we're all going to die soon. I wonder who he supports – Hiliary or Obama.

If you guys remove the part about Pat Tillman from my previous post, which I admit was definitely not on the subject, could you put my blog back up? I mean it was up last night, and I don't see why it was taken down, other than the Pat Tillman comment. Thank you.

None of you seem to understand a key fact here: He is not being a politician to grab the office of president. He is, quite simply, giving you his real thoughts and ideas and plans. If he does not get to be president because of that I am sure he will be saddened, mostly by the fact that these realistic plans and ways of acting were overlooked by the American people for another typical politician. Obama will not pander or lie about his plans/thoughts/ideas to become president. He will become president while giving us all the reality of his thoughts and planned actions, or not at all.

Teach your children about this man, I have seen few role models so great as he.

This is what I find confusing: Why does "We should never use nucleur weapons," sound crazy? WHEN WILL WE EVER USE A NUCLEUR WEAPON AND NOT REGRET IT? Using any weapons of mass destruction would be rash and not accomplish anything positive- unless we were being invaded by hostile aliens.
The U.S. is just scared to put down their arms first, because we know we've mistreated too many nations. Right now we are like a crazed, scared lunatic standing in a corner with a bazooka.

Let's start with the basics. What has Obama accomplished since being elected to the U.S. Senate? From the perspective of aa Illinois citizen, damn little. What is Obama willing to do to get elected president? Weave, waffle and promise everybody everything. Nuff said. If he's elected, America's loss would be Illinois' gain.

I'm really saddened though not surprised at how the media is treating Obama. Wrongly he has been tagged as "inexperienced" and I don't think he can move past that.

Nuclear weapons are terrorist devices as is evidenced by their use in WW2 by the United States as psychological warfare with massive civilian casualties. Anyone who considers them a necessary evil is ignorant.

What world do you people live in? You and Hillary Clinton make me sick.

Although I'm voting for Ron Paul, if Paul weren't running, I'd vote for Obama. He is accurately correct and well spoken. He does represent change. Something that no amount of rhetoric can change when it comes to Clinton. I pray for my Country every day, and I now include a blessing for the American people that they see the light and do not vote for Clinton. A vote for her is a continuation of what we've had now for 24 years. Why we as Americans continue to walk blindly over the proverbial cliff like a flock of lemurs is beyond my comprehension.
I sincerely believe that racism is involved when it comes to Obama. And that's something I never thought I'd admit to. Oh, by the way, I'm a white, middle aged male.

I am an independent, leaning towards the Democratic candidates. All this foolishness of attacking Obama by the GANG has got to stop. If not, I can stay home in 2008 and let the Republican idots win again.

One party is no better than the other except for when it comes to helping the american people verses the corporations who are rich beyond belief.

Don't tell me big business needs the money to improve and expand. Oh wait...maybe they do need the money to improve and expand over seas.

Do you rich people read the Bible, you won't be getting into Heaven with all that money!!!

I think it has been successfully stated by some others who have posted in this blog- It is definitely a case of the old established powers ganging up on the new guy with fresh ideas. All those who support Clinton and the other dem. candidates based on their "experience" are just plain wrong, in my opinion. As a New Yorker, living upstate my whole life, I can say that Hillary has done NOTHING to improve the situation in New York. Upstate is still depressed economically and I have seen NO changes for the better that can be attributed to Hillary. This is New York– What will/can she do for the whole country? I think everyone knows her plan to become a senator from NY was a stepping stone to the presidency (she disgusts me). Also, as for the "experience" of these established Washington insider candidates: This is the same "experience" that has been running our country into the ground. So, lets all take a lesson from our own "experience" with these entrenched Washington politicians–WE NEED NEW IDEAS.

P.S.-What do you think the reaction will be if we continue with this pig-headed attitude that we can use nuclear weapons, the most disgusting and destructive force man has created, and others cannot and will not be allowed to- or face our wrath. The double standard that these "experienced" politicians project only serves to damage our influence and image on the international stage.

I guess it's easier to push the RED button, then to look them in the EYE..

"Senator Obama’s comment that it would be a mistake to use nuclear weapons in circumstances involving civilians is pure common sense. Nuclear weapons are mankind’s most hideous invention. I admire his courage to take a stand against the use of weapons that can vaporize millions of innocent human beings in seconds."
Posted By Rodney Tims

I totally agree with this Rodney. For a president or candidate to NOT rule out using nuclear weapons is a credibility problem for the US. How can the US fight to stop other dangerous countries from developing and using them when our own leaders/candidates won't rule out using them in the future? Does that really make us any less dangerous than them?
I agree with Obama's stance. I don't believe there would ever be a justification on using a nuclear weapon again, as it would kill and injure far too many innocent people. Rodney you are correct when you said that "Nuclear weapons are mankind’s most hideous invention."

RA from Las Vegas... spelling the word "does" wrong several times in your ridiculously long observation really undermines your point. Not to mention to the atrocious grammar and punctuation. Anyway, I don't see any problem in Obama's statements; the press seems to be trying to eat him alive lately. The fact that the other candidates would even consider using nukes in the war on terro is absurd... the fact that we have nukes ourselves, consider ourselves superior and detest other nations from having them is somewhat disturbing itself.

This statement by Senator Obama really shows how inexperienced he is in the arena of foreign affairs. While I would not rule out voting for him because of this statement, I am looking and listening more closely to what he has to say. I do like much of what he has to say particularly about engaging with diplomacy those nations who are now working against us in the Middle East. Besides if we were to condemn all the candidates who have made misstatements there would be nobody left to vote for. Lighten up on the man! He is lot better than the idiots now in power.

Obama keeps showing why he should not be trusted with control over the white House let alone over the Union. Then why are Obama bloggers always attacking CNN? What would they have done if they feel CNN carries favourable report of their candidate? Praise them? Then that's the way Politics was played in the 15th Century. Let them wake up to reality.

Bravo Sen. Obama,

You have the courage to speak up for the 3,000 fellow americans murdered on 9/11/01. Pakistan knows and has always known where all of the murdering terrorist bosses are. They,Pakistan, were on our list of BAD GUYS before 9/11 an we should not forget that. Senator Obama, politiclly correct or not, Democrat or Republican, we need to bring to justice the cowardly terrorist that wrought fear and brought 3,000 deaths on our homeland, the land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE. Pakistan only prolongs this agony and isn't truly helping matters. Pakistan wouldn't dare use a nuclear weapon against us because we decide to use our forces to bring the those murdering terrorist to justice.

I'm getting really sick of the Clinton News Network.

We don't need a nuke to kill bin Laden. Just send in a special task force and get the guy!

Go Obama!

The use of nuclear weapons should not be an option under any circumstance by any nation, the US included. The catastrophic loss of life – invariably civilian life in large part – as well as the commensurate generations of childhood cancer and birth defects resulting from radiation, is too high a price to pay for a strike using nuclear weapons, be it for retaliatory or preventive purposes.

Do Americans realize that the biggest TERRORIST in the world is AMERICA itself? If a TERRORIST is defined as 'one who terrorizes or causes fear', then American certainly qualifies as the biggest of all.
I would never vote for any candidate who implies that we attack another country because we believe there are 'terrorist' hiding 'somewhere' in that country. Be realistic! If that is the policy on terrorism that these fools are banking their campaigns on, then they are saying that America should be bombing ITSELF!! Where did the terrorist learn to fly who bombed the WTC? Right here in America. Where did they live? In Florida. There are as much terrorist hiding here in the US, gaining citizenship, being born in the US as there are in those poor countries we are terrorizing.
How do we fight terrorism then? Instead of becoming that which we are condemming, we should use our so called 'intelligence' to perform 'raids' on the areas where we are CERTAIN, by at least 75% that the terrorist are hiding. And we should be doing that internationally and LOCALLY!
That is a foreign policy on terrorism that I would certainly support.
And candidates, please, pretending to flex your muscles at another countries expense is idiocy and just shows why you should NEVER be made PRESIDENT.
Remember, a cornered rat always fights back. When we corner those countries that are now our allies, we will be forcing them to become our enemies.

Apparently, Clinton actually supports the Bush administration's strategy for combating, scratch that, promoting terrorism by using weapons of mass destruction. What's next Hillary, do you advocate thinly veiled threats to use biological weapons as well?

What's wrong with taking a stand and having moral principles? Apparently, the President could learn a few things, just like the other Democratic candidates. How elementary to criticize his comments when you haven't expressed your own. If anyone thinks that George Bush has been a great President you need your head examined. Obama has my vote. Hopefully he can restore America’s political creditability and create a dialog with every nation. So much for the axes of evil statement, look in the mirror.

If you seek sane U.S. foreign policy, based on Constitutional principles, please vote for Ron Paul in the primaries next year! The letter below from the Ron Paul 2008 campaign demonstrate his approach. Note that the letter is edited for brevity, and that the full version is at his campaign website.

"On October 10, 2001, Congressman Ron Paul led the effort in Congress to give President Bush the tools he needed to capture, dead or alive, Osama bin Laden and the other terrorists responsible for September 11th. Dr. Paul introduced on that day H.R. 3076 – The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001.

If passed, that legislation would have given President Bush an additional weapon against bin Laden. If Dr. Paul's legislation had passed in 2001, it is likely bin Laden would not still be at large six years later.

Letters of marque and reprisal would:

1. Improve chances to capture Osama bin Laden and others more quickly.
2. Decrease the risk of American military being wounded or killed.
3. Decrease the risk of a larger war developing.
4. Decrease the number of innocent civilians killed.
5. Reduce the cost of U.S. military operations.

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 10 and 11 of the U.S. Constitution grant Congress the power to offer a bounty and appoint stealth warriors, private companies and individuals, to capture or kill an enemy such as Osama bin Laden and his fellow terrorists, as well as seize their property.

Dr. Paul's marque and reprisal legislation did not pass in 2001. But Osama bin Laden is still at large. Therefore, Dr. Paul re-introduced his legislation a few days ago.

In a letter dated July 21, 2007, Dr. Paul states:

I opposed giving the president power to wage unlimited and unchecked aggression. However, I did vote to support the use of force in Afghanistan. I also authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation."

The Associated Press had to reprint this article that the blogger not an actual journalist, is pulling from. The full quote includes "in pakistan" at the end for one.

2 maybe only the people that have actually read or seen the speech should have an opinion. He is constantly debunking the haters and the desktop pundits who say he lacks supbstance by putting out more policy plans than any other candidate. But yet they continually ignore it.

Where is dodds plan, edwards, clinton? Oh thats right they dont have them.

And it takes more than just a week to put together that kind of speech. Folks need to take a look at their liberal biggotry and wake up.

Yeah, that's what we need.. Mutually Assured Destruction. What is wrong with you people? Ofourse we need to take the Nuclear option off the table. We can't go starting nuclear war epecially not in the middle east. You people who live in the 60's during the cold war need to get a grip.

In fact Obama is one of the few Senators who has proposed cutting our nuclear arsenal, and getting the cooperation of other nations to dismantle the global nuclear stockpiles.

Obama is not saying anything different in regard to Pakistan than the other main Democratic candidates have said, and his position is in line with the mainstream view on fighting terrorists along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. Do you not remember Bush ordering airstrikes on the camps last year? Most Americans would agree that we need to find Osama Bin Laden wherever he is.

This is a no brainer for level headed Americans. A Barack Obama Presidency means a safer more secure America, and a safer world to raise the next generation.

The more they bash him, the more relevant he will become. So by all means, BASH HIM. OBAMA 2008

I don't know how you managed to survive 8 years with George Bush.. but that just crippled any credibility for the United States for as long as you and your kids will probably remmeber.

just from an observation from overseas here.. Obama seems the more prudent and well spoken and Logical thinking candidate out of all them! He's more balanced out and in touch with your fellow Citizens as opposed to tunnel vision'd on past and current policy.

This could be your chance to write your wrongs or any wrongs and start fresh and make America / the US the strong nation it used to be.

The other democratic candidates have nothing more to offer but criticism because they know that if they keep quite and not attack obama he will continue to steal their shine. there is no doubt that any sensible person will agree with obama's well elaborated plans against terrorism. what have the others got to offer? nothing but stupid and criticisms, as for hillary clinton she has just lost all the respect i had for her by declearing that she might consider the use of nukes on the war against terrorism. i will vote for barack obama cos he has substantiated that he is the best amongts them all.

Obama, we need a real person and you are that person. Finally a real honest for the people politician. My choice is either you or Ron Paul for President.

You know, I have to say that as an avid politcal junkie, it saddens me that most Americans still haven't figured out what makes a good leader and what doesn't. I think anyone that calls Barack inexperienced and naive are the same idiots that voted Dubya into power. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I don't trust most Americans to make an informed decision, especially on political matters.

Go Barack! Keep fighting the status quo!

I think it is extremely irresponsible and downright silly to criticize someone for not being willing to destroy the lives of millions of civilians with nuclear weapons. I belive it is this exact attitude-this lack of value for human life-that encourages violence. Nuclear weapons, unfortunately, exist, but it is illogical to criticize someone for not wanting to use these highly dangerous weapons and for wanting to resort to diplomacy-a tactic that will not only enhance America's reputation, but will also save the lives of millions. It would be prudent for all citizens, Presidential candidates included, to think before they speak and at least show a little human decency before being so quick to defend the use of nuclear weapons (which we don't want to allow any other country to use).

Leadership is stepping up with proposals and solutions for Americans to make their judgements, admend its shortcomings than criticising, PLease Hillary and those canvassing for Vp, simply bring forth your own plan on Healthcare where u failed priorly when Bill was president, your earmarks for the last session than hiding because of special interests groups, Foreign policy strategy, or may i guess is it ignoring them like u said when it came to dialogue with dictators like your secret admirers Bush and Cheney.
Obama for president 2008.

They are obviously trying to pull him down to their hopeless level. Sad state of affairs for the Dems.

Hillarious reminds me of those prim and proper school girls who were always quick to tell on fellow classmates to gain the approval of her headmasters.

Remember those Saturday Night Live sketches that showed her with the painted on grin and complete lack of human emotion? Really amazing how much art imitates life sometimes.

Does ANYONE like her?

I can't beleive the other Dems are fussing because he said he wouldn't use nukes! What did they want him to say?? A resounding, "YES! Absolutely!" Then they'd call him barbaric. It's a lose-lose situation. Oh and by the way, I don't hear any of those other schmucks coming up with any plan. Thats why they're all jumping on him. At lease he's explaining HOW. Talk is cheap. And all the other Dems are just running their mouths, saying what they will do...but they haven't said HOW they will do it. I applaud Obama because he took a step out there. Oh and by the way, I'm a little sick of all of the "rookie" comments. All of these people are ROOKIES! Being first lady is not being the president. And being a senator or a governer is not being the president. At least this rookie had the guts to take a step out on his own.

Smart man, but of coarse it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that you can't use nuclear weapons on an idealogy such as terrorism.

Sounds like the press is just trying to heckel him, if this is the best question they can come up with to create supposed dirt.

This even further solidifies my view that Obama is the man for president.

I admire Senator Obama's courage, compassion, and commitment to protecting our values and our country. It's refreshing and reassuring that a candidate has the courage and character to be straight forward about his thoughts. I'm tired, as other Americans are, of candidates talking generalities.

Why should Obama respond to the comments? He stated what he was going to do. He has nothing to defend. He didn't vote for Bush to drag us into this war. Bush is the one they should have "opened fire" on. Then the American people could have seen the benefit of your "experience".

Our country has voted for former actors to serve in office, so I don't think we can use "lack of experience" as a reason.

At this point, my mind is made up. Senator Obama, I hope you continue to be straight with us.

Wow, Hillary criticizes for saying he won't use nuclear weapons. Dodd criticizes him for potentially provoking a nuclear war. Have the other Democratic contenders finally lost all the marbles. How dare Obama voice that he will actually go after terrorists where they actually are! (sarcasm) Even worse, fellow Democrats are criticizing him for actually coming out and saying what he would do as President. Apparently you aren't supposed to do that while compaigning.

Obama is 100% percent correct in saying we cannot use nuclear weapons. Hillary has just lost my support completely with making the assertion you cannot rule them out. She was already dwindling with that fact she rules out diplomacy meetings with states that we have hostile relations with. Honestly, how would Hillary's positions on these critical issues differ at all from Bush -Cheney?

If Obama loses, it will be a real shame because he has come out with the right ideas that could actually save us from the dark road we are currently heading down. I for one, am not a big fan of living the rest of my life in a nation that believes eradicating (read that as killing) our enemies abroad is the only answer.

It is even more distressing to see fellow Democrats use such typical political language against each other. I am sick, an quite frankly very tired of politics as usual and even more bothered at the establishment, of both parties, attempting to kick Obama to the curb. It seems some seasoned politicians like Dodd, Clinton, and Biden have become quite arrogant in believing they only need to play the experience card on Obama.

I just hope that I am not the only one wanting to actually try something different for once, and going by Obama's donations (record highs and no PAC money) it looks like I am not going to be alone after all.

Good for Obama. If a President used nukes for any reason, he or she should be locked away for life for crimes against humanity.

Nuclear bombs should be demolished except for a few that should be kept for unforeseen situations (like meteors hitting earth).

I love the fact that democrats are fighting each other, when the smart candidate simply won't do it and promise what needs to be changed in our country... yet it seems they aren't smart enough for that... but the republicans aren't either...

GO POLITICS

I'm a republican but plan to vote for Senator Obama. He is a trustworthy person who makes intelligent decisions and has good values.

Clinton and Edwards and most of the rest of the bunch say the same thing about going after Al Qaeda in Pakistan if there was actionable intelligence. That is what Obama said. So what is the fuss all about? The other candidates are being dishonest by criticizing Obama when they would do the same. Obama is showing leadership, and they are being cowards. And what is this about nuclear weapons? Clinton is for the use of nuclear weapons? What is she thinking? Obama has got it right. He is being straight with the American people about things, and all the others are being deceptive.

I think that the other candidates' comments are disgusting and are only making them seem more desperate for votes. For those of us that have read the speech in its entirety know that Obama is the most logical, intelligent candidate out there when it comes to foreign policy. Everyone else who is offering an opinion simply based on the headings that CNN is providing needs to do a little more research before making seemingly substantive claims. Obama for '08!

Barack is a smart man but everyday I become very much certain that he is not yet ready to lead this country. He still has lots to learn about what a CIC really does.

To Eunice in Maryland:

"Barack Obama’s comment about Pakistan is very irresponsible given that Pakistan has been fighting very hard alongside U.S to defeat AL QUAEDA"

if they have been fighting hard, i guess they haven't been fighting hard enough since the latest NIE reports that al-qaeda has regained to almost 9/11 strength. obama has done the right thing on laying out the comprehensive plan to pressure pakistan to DO A BETTER JOB! read his whole speech!

Few showed as much promise and potential as Senator Obama in the last Presidential election. This from someone who only gave a speech at the convention.

It was to be an interesting contest for the democrats with Obama in the mix; however, he has displayed that he is more rhetoric than substance over the past week. His attempt, or rather his handler's attempts to get him more exposure and involvement with foreign affairs has only shown how much out of touch he really is.

The cold war standard, and the prevailing standard since more than one nation had nuclear capabilities, has been to offset each other. This prevented annialation by the Soviets in the 60's and has been successful in having many of the conflicts the nations of the world have faced to be settled through diplomatic channels rather than bullets and bombs.

Alas Iraq is a different story. Admitting that we should never have been doesn't change the fact that we are. The war with Iraq was won over 4 years ago and the dictator disposed. What is left is Civil war and anarchy that no matter how much effort the USA puts into it can only be resolved among the Iraqis.

Leaving this is where the real conflict should have been fought and cordoned off from expanding to other countries, and that is Afghanistan; not Pakistan. Can anyone imagine what position the USA would be in if Pakistan had not allied its forces and government with us? Lest many forget Pakistan is a nuclear power and what many of the terrorist want is access to nuclear devices.

Yes Bin Laden is right next door to Pakistan, or maybe even inside; but he does not have that nuclear grail that would empower him for devestation beyond the imagination most people who have written in to defend Obama's comments.

This is the reason that I can not support his statements and have a very difficult time listening to any discussion that attempts to justify Obama's threat towards Pakistan.

In reality Obama did not say that he would not use nuclear weapons. What is quoted is that there has been "...no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table." The fact of the matter is that nuclear weapons are on the table and all ready in the middle of the plate by the knowledge that terror organizations have attempted to acquire nuclear devices and that Pakistan is a nuclear power.

Senator Obama can not be President when he is unaware of the terrorist threat and the terrorist desire for nuclear weapons. This lack of understanding poses to the USA and the rest of the world.

With responses from most other candidates, Senator Edwards can you tell us the truth?

I support Obama, but this statement about not using nukes is a mistake that he needs to recant. No potential president should start down the slipper slope of spelling out when he/she would rule in or out a nuclear response.

At the very least his diplomatic skills are very lacking. He's calling Clinton "Bush-Cheney light"? He's the one who sounds like Bush with his cowboy diplomacy. It's probably closer to the truth that he knows his inexperience is showing, and he's just making it worse by trying to overcompensate. Clinton is the one who's ready. He should take a position as her VP and be ready for the top job in Jan 2017. He's just not ready yet.

I don't understand why people fear change so much. Senator Obama represents the future for an America that is very different from the one we knew prior to 9/11.

They complain about Senator Obama's lack of experience, but they fail to realize that no amount of experience can prepare someone for the world that we live in today. The world is constantly evolving, we need a new breed of politics; politics not found in textbooks.

Elect Clinton, elect Edwards, elect any Republicans, and you will get textbook politics. There was nothing textbook about 9/11, nothing textbook about Al Qaeda, nothing textbook about Jihad.

We need a leader that can guide us through these volatile and dangerous times, a leader that doesn't "stay the course", a fearless leader not afraid of change. Ladies and gentleman you have that leader before you and his name is Barack Obama.

Obama is right when we should not use nuclear weapons especially when innocent civilians are involved. It is appalling how the world's most advanced military cannot scour the mountains in Afghanistan looking for this man. In the 6 years we have been messing around in Iraq, we could've spend that time instead looking in Afghanistan. We and the media spend so much time in Iraq, I sometimes forget that we even invaded Afghanistan too.

It is time for a new approach to foreign policy. Hopefully Democrats and the rest of America will realize that.

Obama is correct in saying we should not use nukes with civilians involved. We would just look like a bully and more countries and people will just hate us and try even harder to damage us next time. America is the most powerful country in the world and we should set a good example for everyone.

I think Obama is saying exactly what most of the non-right-wing of America thinks. I wouldn't put it past Evangelicals and arch-conservatives to think nuking Iran or Afghanistan is a good idea, but I think the rest of the country knows better. As for Eunice commenting that Pakistan has been helping us in the war on terror, Pres. Musharraf is playing both sides of the street. He does just enough for us not to encourage us to invade and do it ourselves, but also not so much to truly piss off the Muslims in his country. Unfortunately for him, he is on the way out (either when he steps down or is forced from power, probably this year) and I guarantee our leaders will not like his replacement. So we better move on and come up with a better strategy than "pray and hope and wish that Pakistan helps us" because that isn't working so well.

I find it interesting that the only bagging on Obama comes from people who only repeat Shrillary's talking points.

She bases her whole campaign on ugly, insulting repsonses to good solid common sense.

EVERYONE VOTE FOR THE DEM PRIMARY – THAT'S WHERE THE NEXT PRESIDENT IS BEING ELECTED. OVERCOME THE MACHINE. HILLARY IS SPONSORED BY THE SAME PEOPLE AS BUSH.

The fact that this man would make a "blanket statement" regarding the non-use of nuclear weapons is a breath of fresh air.

I feel sorry for those Dems who feel they must toe-the-line; in regards to the nuclear option.

Who would condemn a man who actually feels that the use of weapons of mass destruction is a bad recourse in response to a threat?

The answer is: Those who are so short sighted and acute in their thinking; whether Democrat or Republican.

When is this Democratic feeding frenzy going to end?

Has anyone else noticed that so many comments are generated by Obama supporters whenever he is criticized, planned I am sure. It is like Bush's truth squad all over again...anyone that criticizes Bush is the enemy. Now, it apperars, anyone that criticizes Obama is the enemy.

Perhaps Obama and his supporters would be happier as Republicans; the last time I checked we were still allowed to have a civil disagreement in America.

Wow, this has really reduced my respect for everyone except for Obama. Who knew that Hillary would leave open the option of nuking civilians? I think the vast majority of democrats, and I'd say the American public generally, are with Obama on this one.

And I echo the other statements here when I ask, why is this post about the responses and not about the content of Obama's plan? He was the first democrat to lay out a comprehensive plan and CNN decides not to discuss it at all.

Obama = common sense and unafraid to say what he thinks. Best orator of them all right now. Supports all people of all origins, which is how Americans should think because of that ole Constitution. Says war on terror should be fought where terrorists are living in Pakistan/Afghan safe haven, hmmm, sounds like a plan based on most easily pinpointed and relevant threat. I vote for common sense in '0bama8.

Make more war, create more anti-US feelings in the Muslim world and spend more money on wars...great job Mr. Obama. Who is Bush-Cheney Lite now? People on this forum who are supporting Obama on this one need to go for a mental check-up. He's a great guy, no doubt, but he's got this one wrong folks.

Well as much as I admire Obama and know that I will certainly vote for him, I think these comments are a little too off the hook for him at this moment. They seem like blank promises because in reality, no one knows beforehand what power they will use to defeat an enemy. So saying that he will never use nuclear weapons is a blank promise since he will not know if he will ever use them in the first place.

So, I think that Obama should be more careful in what he promises because when the time comes and he does use it, the American people will be left staring at their screens and wondering where that initial promise went.

These comments are proof why every politician skirts around every issue with vague answers and other generalities...the second someone comes out with an actual plan and course of action that might be controversial he gets attacked to no end

Front-Runners have to expect to be criticized. The opposition is afraid of them.

Obama’s intelligence and empathy are obvious to the enlightened.

Obama means Hope.
Obama means Change.
Obama means America HAS a future.

Obama’s vision will not just change America, it will change the world. Obama for First Minister of Earth !!!

No Nukes, under A-N-Y circumstances !!!

Anyone who talks of using Nukes again (for A-N-Y reason) is themselves the worst kind of Terrorist on the planet !

Intelligent people learn from the mistakes of History. Obama has got it right. Thank the Fates that SOMEONE does…..

Keep it up, Obama. You RULE !!

Obama doesn't know what to do while running for president, how can we expect him to know what to while BEING president!? He is clearly showing he is not presidential material and just a gifted speech giver. Someone get this guy out of the race!

Front-Runners have to expect to criticized. The opposition is afraid of them.

Obama's intelligence and empathy are obvious to the enlightened.

Obama means Hope.
Obama means Change.
Obama means America HAS a future.

Obama's vision will not just change America, it will change the world. Obama for First Minister of Earth !!!

I think I can summarize Obama's presidential platform at this time.
1. War is not much fun
2. Health insurance costs a lot
3. The future is ahead of us.
4. I'll say and believe anything in order to get elected

At least Obama speaks his mind on critical topics and questions. It's easy to sit back and criticize comments and statements made during political speeches. Mr Dodd, when was the last time you actually spoke your opinion regarding a serious topic without checking with your consultants?Anyone who says nuclear weapons are, or would be, justified for use on civilians has not given serious thought to the repercussions of the actual act.

I don't see any plans from his critics. Obama is the only candidate that is candid enough with the American Citizens to make any statements that don't skirt the issues at hand. Kudos to Sen. Obama for being the type of candidate we should demand in America.

I like Obama more and more each day! Sure he has made some comments that some could call “naïve”, but there is a true belief in what he says. So unlike the rest of the field of Democrats who will tell you what you want to hear. Continued attacks on him only solidify the fact that the other candidates, namely Mrs. Bill, see him as a threat.

No Nukes, under A-N-Y circumstances !!!

Anyone who talks of using Nukes again (for A-N-Y reason) is themselves the worst kind of Terrorist on the planet !

Intelligent people learn from the mistakes of History. Obama has got it right. Thank the Fates that SOMEONE does.....

Keep it up, Obama. You RULE !!

What Obama seems to have forgotten is that it would be his fundamental duty as CINC to protect and defend the citizens of our country against enemies. Removing nukes from the table and making blanket statements like this will encourage heads of state in countries like China, Russia, N.K. and etc...to feel completely safe...they can nuke us but our President won't nuke back...Bad move from a rookie who is riding on media/internet popularity...grow a brain stem, American public.

The shallow thinking of the other Democratic candidates is evident. How can they justify using nuclear weapons against al Qaeda or any terroroist organization? The news media and all the idiots that subscribe to something different should be ashamed of their moronic drivel.

this is what Obama means by change, a change in washington and this is what his stance is on forigen policy. But not one of the candidates stated anything different. There attacking Obama as if he's the front runner, so I wonder if CNN,NBC,ABC,CBS are on the payroll. Because the images there painting of Obama are just plan wrong. You go Obama

So everyone who disagrees with Obama's statement about not using nuclear weapons is all for nuclear war fare??? And hillary says its not off the table but yet we can say we dont want North Korea or Iran to posses nuclear weapons? Is that kind of Hypercritical?
So we should say ok we will have talks with countries to solve our problems but if you piss us off we will NUKE you??? is that what hillary means by that?

The media is playing an unfair game here. Instead of reporting the news as it is, they are forcing people read their twisted version of the story instead of the story as it is. I admire this man who think hard, understand issues really well and propose solutions that are practical and effective. He is not afraid to express his opinion regardless of which direction wind is blowing. When so called "experienced" politicans jumped into Iraq war, he was against the popular opinion. Guess what he was right. Why so much fuss about hitting on high value target based on specific intelligence inside Pakistan IF Mosharraf does not act. Bill Clinton fired missile on Bin Laden's cave in Afganistan. Israel always attack on Hamas leaders in west bank. Edwards, Hillary will do the same in similar situation. Obama is taking lead on issues. He is new on national stage. He needs to express his position on major issues that American people care about. Politics of hope and change is fantastic and people also need substance. Those who criticize show come forward with their own ideas and we can have a debate on whose ideas are best. Instead of asking reaction on Obama's position, why not media ask other candidate to present their strategies. Face him on substance if you can. Stop twisting words by taking a sentence out of context from a 35 min long speech. CNN is simply ridiculous.

This is great. Not even his party's candidate, and Obama is threatening unilateral military action in soverign states and taking the use of nuclear weapons off the table because they might kill civilians. As I said once before here, if this junior senator wasn't black no one would be paying him any attention at all.

How about the other candidates stop being such arm chair quarterbacks? They just sit, waiting for Obama to do something and then react–ALWAYS NEGATIVELY–to his ideas. Any ole Joe can sit around and CRITICIZE FROM THE SIDELINE!!!! Where are the other candidate’s plans for terror? WE DON’T SEE THEM. IT MIGHT DO THE OTHER CANDIDATES WELL TO READ SOME OF THESE BLOGS. While there may be some outlandish and ignorant comments, there are also some very smart ones especially regarding nuclear weapons.

What is the argument to Obama's nuclear answer? THERE SHOULDN’T BE ONE! Last time I checked nuclear weapons decimated huge tracts of land and left collateral and residual damage THAT CANNOT BE QUANTIFIED. How can this be used (if nuclear weapons should even be used in the first place) IF OUR ENEMY IS INTERSPERSED WITHIN INNOCENT SOCIETIES AROUND THE GLOBE? Cue Hillary, and…and… whatever their names are.

Hey other candidates how bout A LITTLE LESS MUDSLINGING AND A LITTLE, scratch that, A LOT MORE CRITICAL THINKING? Maybe if they weren't concerned about playing the game of politics and were actually concerned with what matters-THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE (the main theme of our DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE) our government could do something CONSTRUCTIVE. The Bush Administration's strategy of 50 PERCENT PLUS ONE is an atrocity that identifies them as the scheming manipulative leaders that they are.

Barack keep coming up with the right answers to the tough questions and leave the other candidates where they belong–ON THE SIDELINES.

And I pray that Pat Tillman was not murdered for political reasons. Read deep.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2951521

Realize that the WHITE HOUSE is claiming executive privilege (WHAT A SURPRISE) regarding documents surrounding his death (THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IF IT WAS ACCIDENTAL FRIENDLY FIRE). And when is the “I don’t recall” excuse going to be seen for what it is—AN EFFING COVER UP. WHAT IS SO BAD ABOUT THE TRUTH THAT THEY DON’T WANT US TO KNOW?!?!?

The obvious front-runner of a group of politicians vying for the same position is always attacked by his/her opponants.

It's a compliment, really. He's now the front-runner, and can expect more and more attacks as time wears on.

Obama is focused enough to handle the attacks. And is probably smiling in between them, knowing that the more popular he gets, the more his competitors will complain.

Obama means Hope.
Obama means Change.
Obama means America HAS a future.

Let the others call him names. He will prevail. He has more intelligence and empathy than ALL of the other Democrats and repubes combined !

Obama will take the reins in 08, and the World will change, not just America.

You GO dude !! Show'em how to do it !!

My comment has been removed!
Hillary clinton CNN?Or what!
Obama is the best.
OBAMA VS Team Clinton(Richardson,Biden, Dodd)

You go Barack! Show us that you stand for not nuking other human beings and talking to enemies instead of engaging them in a test of masculinities. You're wise beyond your years and already have my vote in the bag.

By going against the usual rhetoric, Sen. Obama is getting things right. He may not be scoring any points from within his own party, but because he has yet to be influenced by mainstream Washington, he is one of the most refreshing candidates in recent years. His answers in the past week show a stance on the war on terror that can appeal across the board. I thought he was a straight liberal regardless if he wrote The Audacity of Hope–just look at his Senate voting record. However, with his new stance in recent days, I'm starting to like his appeal even more.

Some people call Obama inexperienced, but it's just what we need.

I was really getting frustrated by reading all these negative stories about Obama. There is no doubt the media is de-campaigning Obama.I believe that Obama is using common sense politics. America is considered a leader of the world and therefore should lead by example.
Most dictators from around the world act the way they do because they know that Bush is doing the same thing.
I wish Obama was vying for the world presidency then I would be able to vote for him since he is very exemplary and does not seem to be playing with people's minds. I wish everyone could open up their minds to see this. From the comments I read I can see that a lot of americans still have common sense.

This is a political play in the middle of the game's first quarter. With many months ahead before the primaries, we have all the time in the world to watch pointless character attacks. If we allow the inevidable tidalwave of mudslinging to define this race, we will choose a weaker candidate.

Sen. Obama is fresh, and maybe sometimes, not quite ripe at points. He made a statement out of Honest Humanity. God help us if we choose a President who WANTS to use a nuke. But it still must be noted, that no matter who wins this election, the nuclear weapon arsenal will be on the table. We're America. We have stockpiles chillin' in the desert. (psst...Saddam didn't)

If we can all agree on sharing that basic reality, we can see past these attacks. As the months go on, a few candidates may drop out. After the first primaries, you're either at the front of the game or ejected. This years primary race is followed like none before it. The 24-hr news cycle now promotes little squabbles, like this. I'm going to try and have faith that, in the remainder of this year, the candidates will be defined on the issues, and not on frivolous attacks. That is precisely the tone of campaign that Sen. Obama is trying to conduct. Cheers!

clearly the democratic party does like black people as much as they pretend.
I am a white independent and Obama is clearly superior to the most polarizing
politician since Adolph Hitler, Hillary
Clinton. Hillary had everything given to her and Obama rose from what was frankly nothing short of oppression.

Democrats stand!!! Vote Obaman or you have nothing!!!

Well, if he was looking for a way to distinguish himself from the rest of the field this might be his break away moment–the no preconditions, hold no quarter for terrorists, anti-nuke candidate. At first I thought this was bad for Obama but now I am thinking that maybe it's not so bad after all. No doubt there will be time for more speeches. He makes a point of rejecting the Bush no diplomacy approach, then comes out tough on terror, then pulls back to make the point that he is no war monger. Actually pretty bright. The AP guy is the beat reporter for Chicago politics so this was no casual decision to include the "scratch that" line. Meanwhile all the Dems pile on and sign up for what? the pronukes, antidiplomacy, careful war on terror? If you were a Dem running for President how would you explain your position to the public now? The next debate is going to be interesting.

It is usually when a candidate becomes a real threat that the opposing team decides to ban together in order to eliminate it. Whoever thinks Obama is falling is clearly confused. The only mistake Obama has made is in backpedalling in the face of oposition after making a very clear, concise, intellectual, and sound decision if bold.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with his statement about it being a mistake to use nuclear weapons when civilians are concerned, in fact, thats like pointing out the obvious. His recant by saying its not on the table was not even necessary. If something should be attacked it should be the stupidity of the question. What kind of person would think it was "ok" to nuke a country and its civilians over one man? If we have to resort to that sort of thing we clearly need to re-evaluate our military effectiveness.

As for foreign policy, again, why is the Clinton administration threatened by Obama's stance on using diplomacy with rogue nations? Has history not shown us enough what happens when diplomacy is cut off and force is used instead? Theres no need to look at history actually, since what happens is staring us right in the face today during our fight against terrorism.

"What’s the comprehensive plan? Where’s the substance?

Posted By Michael, Charlotte, NC"

Here it is.

“http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php”

This is the bottomline folks. Obama has presented a healthcare plan, an anti-terror plan (mostly dipolmacy. READ THE SPEECH) and a limited energy plan. The other candidates: Edwards (healthcare, poverty), a big goose egg for Hillary, Biden, Dodd & Richardson. Everyone elses plan is to attack the other guy's plan. I am sooo sick of this BS. I don't care if you agree with all of Obama's policies, this guy has a lottttt of guts. The next time one of these candidates attack Obama ask them what is their alternative plan. If I hear one more non-answer/attack from these a#%clowns I going to puke! Remember all of these clowns are responsible for the war, no healthcare, a pitiful energy policy and constant bickering with Repubs. Way to bring us together. They didn't (Hillary, Biden, Dodd, Richardson) start in politics yesterday and neither did the problems. All of a sudden these "verterans" have the answer. As for Richardson's "foreign experience", remember that great job of taking North Korea out of those nukes? Wait they got them.

I'm saving my vote for the most uninspired, more of the same, career politician. BOO TO CHANGE.

All of you haters get over it. If Obama said, "Hell yes, I'd nuke any country that looked our way!" they would gang up on him and say he's a warmonger. If he said, "I don't know, I wouldn't rule out the use of nuclear weapons." They would gang up on him and say that he's indecisive.

You don't see the Dems ganging up on Dodd, Richardson, Vilsack, or Kucinich! They only gang up on the strongest, most prominent to threat to their bid for presidency. The fact they have to get together against one man shows his ideas and decisiveness are frightening them, imagine that.

Obama is just the BEST!
I knew from the Start that the other candidates(Richardson,Dodd,Bidenetc...) were against the fresh and intelligent senator! We can just see during debates!
In the Dems side,It looks like a fight: Obama VS all other candidates!
The DEMS should take care; this time around! Obama is black! And this election 08 will show if blacks really have their place in the democratic party (which has always made them lot of promises).
I would not be surprised if the republicans win. And this time around, I think the democrat will think twice, before using the WORD establishment(Because I think the choice is already done:HRC; what a dictature!)!
Obama is according to me the best candidate among the democratic candidates
GO OBAMA,don't be afraid of the manipulated polls!

Senator Obama is the real deal. All the status quo politicians just don't get it. The MSM is fighting to keep their power and influence over the electorate and he is definitely a challenge to their influence. Drive on Senator the people get you!

I don't see what all the hoopla is about. So the man said he won't use nuclear weapons...this is bad because of what???

This shows how the American Media controls the mindset of most Americans, who I can factually say are very ignorant due to a lot of misinformation from thee media.One can't blame the media alone ,the goverment also has it share in misinforming its citizens.It's up to the average American to read and listen to various sources of information both in and out of their country to become knowledgeable citizens.Spewing unintelligent comments without really reading the facts of a debatable topic like this one does not help anyone.Maybe America is not ready for a the change but atleast by reading what Obama said,I deduced he really cares about taking care of the extremist lunatics, at the same time trying to turn the moderate muslim away from the canker of radical Isam.He is no hypocrate he criticise the past election held in pakistan as one infallible of electoral malpractices.Democracy won't come to Pakistan in a year, but atleast his hammering on the need to "toe the line"!Unlike Bush his actually trying to spend good money educating the masses and changing attitudes towards the west.He won't only show the way, his willing to work along with the government of Pakistan.What does the Us get in return a stable Afghanistan devoid of extremist and a democratic Pakistani goverment in real control of the whole Nation notjust a part.So let the Republican and Clinton spin doctors spin all they want, the truth hurts sometimes.The world through the UN will support the US to take out Binladen any given day.Pakistan will need to be protected from civil unrest and thats what Obama is willing to do.Failures in Iraq ,a profiteering War lunched by corporate interest is not a reason to oppose clearly thought out longterm strategies to keep Binladen and his cohorts from terrorising any country in the world be it the USA,Sweden or Sudan.Thank you for taking time to read.Be free to argue to the contrary.PS: Mind my grammatical errors english is no my first language.

It confuses me as to how we are supposed to pick a president when any talk of specific plans is considered "showing inexperience and naivete." If I showed up for a job interview and said, 'Sorry, I can't answer any specifics in regards to how I will actually do my job, but I can ensure you I'm experienced, a hard worker and am sure I can handle the job,' I would probably be laughed out of the room...even probably at McDonalds. As long as all the candidates hide behind this shroud of unexplained experience, I will be voting for Obama come '08.

It always amazes me how America shuns some countries for possesing, or attempting to make Nuclear arms, even going as far as invading them on mere suspicion. Yet we flaunt our nuclear might, and want to kill millions of innocent human beings just to weed out a few hundred people. My vote is now sold for Mr. Obama. Sen. Clinton and the rest of the Democrats who are lashing out at Obama need to realize that it is this nuclear arrogance that seeps to the heart of the reason why so many countries hate us. Obama wants to introduce a new form of diplomacy, I say lets do it. Because whatever is going on right now is not working at all. Kudos to you Sen. Obama for standing up for a concept that is so simple and makes so much sense. You dont need to kill an ant with a sledge hammer.

Let's get real. Biden, Dodd, Clinton and Richardson have one thing in common. They share anxiety over their growing suspicion that Obama is not only separating himself from the pack but is also creating a new dialogue that is resonating with more and more folks. Fortunately for America and the world, he has the money and the support to continue spreading his message of common ground, common sense and common values.

arent the views expressed by the other democratic hopefuls against the "pro-life" idea. they're saying that they would use the nuclear weapons at some point right? doesnt that defeat wut they use as one of their stances? If it came down to it and I HAD to vote democrat, Obama would have me.

I read Obama,s speech and I have listened intently as he has espoused his views. I like Senator Obama but does he really believe what someone else is apparently writing for him. I would like to see his spend at least another term in the Senate and gain the experience he desperately needs. I believe the other candidates have a better grasp on the realities of the world we live in today. Yet Obama does have some very profound ideas that are worth looking at. Foreign isn't one of them.

All that glibbers may not be gold. Athough Obama may look "fresh", that does not mean he is experienced, capable or wise. A fresh droping from a dog smells bad too.

Obama has made many bad statements in the last week showing his ignorance in foreign policy or politics. He is a wolf in a sheep's skin, or the other round?

For some time, I thought that Obma may be picked as a running mate as a VP. Now, I am not sure.

If Obama gets elected as president, america will get another blow in the international arena, following Bush.

We can forever discount using nuclear weapons to attain our military goals.

We're talking about saving the world environment but willing to make toxic some land where our enemies hide out?

Today's nuclear weapons are worse than atomic bombs dropped on Japan.

The Mountains of Pakistan, there would be runoff to lower valleys, flowing radiated water.

These arguments are getting stupid, how the individual candidates feel.

Foreign policy is a group think project in the White House administration. How the individuals as Presidents will act, they will have much information to make a decision from a variety White House staff and Joint Chiefs at the Pentagon.

When asked these kind of questions about foreign policy the candidates must agree, its not a singular decision in Washington. A personal view may not be the actual policy the White House can use on a foriegn country.

Notice the lack of substance in any of the criticisms - just some talking points and posturing by competing campaigns. Amazing too are the contradictory criticisms. Here is what they are really saying:

Clinton: I won't answer that question, and I will hide under my patronizing response that to do so "would not be presidential". By the way, I am very presidential - I bet Barack does not even know how much to charge for a stay in the Lincoln bedroom.

Dodd: We do not need to pressure Pakistan. Nobody will be mean to us if we just leave them alone.

Richardson: I do not think we should fight Al Qaeda in Iraq, even if they are there. And I will ignore the part where you talk about strengthening the military so we will not be overextended.

Biden: I agree. Why won't anyone listen to me?

Obama is right, and he is the only candidate mentioned here who is demonstrating real leadership.

This statement is a quote taken out of context – the question was would Obama ever use Nukes against Afghanistan or Pakistan. He was only referring to those two countries.

It is Hillary (and CNN) using Karl Rove like spin to twist Obama's words. At least Politico.com did the leg work to fix this mischaracterization:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0807/Obama_clearer_this_time.html#comments

One Democratic candidate takes a definite stand on something, and all the rest jump on him for it. Some things never change.

This is just a case of the underdogs attacking him. He has very good ideas and he is not afraid to tell the truth, unlike the rest of them.

damn...i'm tired of these old guards..talking smack..its time for us to get ready all of thier ass's....its time for the younger generation to stand up...and get the old gaurd out of there...they do not have our best interest...my vote is for BO...its like that and thats the way it is

Mrs. Clinton often feels entitled in telling minorities "what we should do and how we should get ahead." She is a liberal in the abstract, much like the democrats of the past. She has now become an elitist, but blatantly transparent when playing "fiesta" politics." Yes, we like the attention, and we are often amuzed with the photo ops. However, Mrs. Clinton's biggest mistake is believing she is entitled to the nomination, over all the other candidates. Her arrogance will be her worst-best friend.

RA from Las Vegas, what are you saying? I figured if your commentary was nearly as long as the Senator's, you might have something useful to say.

Senator Obama gets the notion he can be President because believe it or not, people believe in him. He has experience at the local level, state level, and federal level.

He does not pretend to act with resistance to fatigue. I went to one of his rallies and he told the crowd that this would be a long journey and to make America better, he would need everyone's help. You may or may not believe his words, but it's more real emotion than other candidates have expressed.

Senator Obama has many flaws, as do all of the other candidates, but I do not believe your notion of Senator Obama being some no-name candidate is a correct one.

He does not believe he is a God nor does he believe that he is a pharoah. He believes he is the best person suited to command our troops if war is necessary. He may or may not be, but is it wrong of him and his 250,000+ donors to at least hold that opinion?

I think it took a respectable amount of courage and leadership to be the first Democratic candidate to make an effort at clarifying their position in respect to terrorism. Everyone knew that the first one out with a position, even one to this extent (which I agree lacks specificity, but is more than we have heard from others in the field) would be lambasted by both the other Dem candidates and the GOP, not to mention the inevitable objection from Pakistan. To disparage the person and pick apart their proposal rather than presenting an alternate solution of your own is simply a Rovian tactic. A tactic that, sadly, seems to have become the norm in politics and blog commentary during the Bush years.

After following his career since the 2004 Dem Convention, reading his speeches, watching interviews, monitoring his actions in the Senate, I have come to trust Barack Obama's judgment. I trust that he gave this issue responsible, rational, forethought. And, more importantly, I trust that if he is presented with a better plan, he will not dismiss it, but learn from it.

Barack Obama continues to have my support and my vote.

The more the mainstream media seeks to discredi Obama and cast him as inexperienced, the more the American people are exposed to his fresh and pragmatic ideas.

I believe the criticism by his opponents only validates the extent to which Obama is really a serious candidate. Kudos to him and his staff, and kudos to the mainstream media, because whether or not they know it the free publicity they are giving him will only help Obama gain name and policy recognition (which is behind those stupid poll numbers which differ by greatly from poll to poll).

Who cares what Joe Biden says He had the ceo's from tank building companies on his private jet when he left the debate. He's a war profiteer which is why he never votes to stop the war he don't care about me, you, or your family. He just cares about the greenbacks

Obama is naive. The experienced politicians know better than to say anything of substance. It is much less risky to sit back and criticize those who do actually communicate ideas, like Obama.

His speech and all the other have allready stated in debates the nuke's were on the table why are they trying to back pedal now funny how they all want to take Ron Pauls position now that he said no preemptive nuclear war
should ever be on the table. Stop promoting the posers CNN and start reporting the real news like HR 2605
and HR 3216. The first withdraws the troops and returns power to congress to only be able to declare war and the second to A BILL
To authorize the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to certain acts of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future. to capture Osama Bin Laden Think you can do that.
This is current legislation contact your rep, congressman and ask them to cosponser to stop the war and capture Osama.

What makes Mrs. Clinton so clever and experienced in foreign policy? Having being married to a man who was president does not make her a worthy candidate. She is not entitled to the presidency...she needs to earn her position. Mrs. Clinton thinks she "earned" her senate seat, much like she thinks she is entitled to the presidency.

Where is CNN that Clinton keep up breaking her promised of attacking Obama. Obama go ahead, don't all the gullup polls. You got real vote.

Obama really shouldn't speak without a teleprompter or prepared text.

Today he proved just how not ready for prime time the Junior Senator from Illinois is. As he demonstrated during the debates, Obama just can't seem to help stepping into a big pile of his own making.

His latest flailing of I-won't-use-nukes-with-citizens-wait-scratch-that-I'm-not discussing-nukes debacle illustrates that he is as clueless about how a Commander-In-Chief should address the most potent weapon in his military arsenal as he is about how to respond to a terrorist attack or about Presidential diplomacy.

The American electorate doesn't seem to like what Obama is stepping in, either.

The three most recent national polls, taken after the debate, show Clinton trending up and ahead by double-double digits over her nearest rival. As of today, Clinton trounces Obama 43(38) to 21(25) Rasmussen; 43(39) to 22(25) NBC/WSJ, and 40(34) to 21(24) Pew.

Standing in front of a teleprompter and reading a speech written by Richard Clark isn't a terribly difficult thing to do. Unfortunately for Obama, the American electorate knows that we live in serious times and require more from their President than a dramatic reading from a prepared text.

There's always 2012, Obama. This next election isn't going to happen for you – not at least at the top of the ticket. If anything – you're fighting it out with John Edwards for the VP role.

This article is basically about nothing. It's a no-brainer that we would not use nuclear weapons in the war on terror. Whose country would we drop it on, Al Quedastan? Not Bush, Clinton, Obama, McCain or any of the other candidates would ever consider this. This statement doesn't make me anymore or less likely to vote for him, b/c he isn't saying anything we don't already know.

On the other hand if he's totally ruling out the use of nuclear weapons ever, no matter what the scenario...first of all I don't believe him and if he's serious I think that shows a lack of knowledge of history. As terrible as nuclear weapons are, by dropping them on Japan we saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives by causing Japan to surrender and ending the war as quickly as possible.

Hopefully he wasn't talking about such a scenario.

Obama is has protrayed himself as a veritable leader and the other candidates and CNN are teaming up against him. Obama you got my vote.

The more I see uninformed comments like the ones on here, the more I think that after 4 years of an "experienced" President, people are gonna look back and wonder why they didn't vote for Obama.

Okay, James from Cincinnati, Ohio what does Obama being black have a da*n thing to do with his lack of knowledge about foreign policy? I'll tell you what NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY, NOTHING that is the stupidest comment I have ever read in my entire life. How about this? Every criticism made about Hillary is because she is a woman I think Hillary should play the woman card. Your post just confirms the ignorance of the majority of the Obama's supporters. Please!

The man is a total idiot, confussed about life and can't handle the attention he's getting right now. I promise you in the next few weeks the truth about this man will come out. We don't need 4 years of a wishy washy no nothing that will probably only get us into more trouble.

VOTE FOR HILLARY IN 08 LEAVE OBAMA AT THE GATE

Barack Obama continues to compound the growing realization by the media and voters that he will not be able to lead our country when it comes to foreign policy. As good as he is talking about domestic issues, it's all moot if he can't be the leader around the world that he needs to be.

A Democrat will not be elected unless he/she can win the foreign policy debate, not only about Iraq, but also Latin America, the Middle East, China, etc.

Out of all the candidates in the race, Chris Dodd is the one that seems to be best suited to win this debate. Not only is he leading the push to reinstate the rule of law and habeas corpus in regards to detainees, he also has the necessary experience needed to improve the reputation of our country around the world. Some people on these comments talk about experience as a bad thing for the next president. I don't understand how Democrats would allow for us to emulate the mistake that the Republican's made in 2000.

I agree with Obama and I think that Democrats should get off his back

Anyone who thinks nuclear weapons are on the table in "the war on terror" is stupid. In a war that pits the US vs. terror cells loosely scattered everywhere,always embedded among civilians, where and when would it be prudent to drop a nuclear bomb? Obama is right, nuclear weapons should not be on the table. In a time like this our President needs to stress the humanity of the US to better our diplomatic efforts in the world, we have flexed enough misguided military muscle for the next century.

In all honesty, this is really a non-issue: even if you consider his answer to be poorly worded, it gives no practical insight into whether he would make a good president.

Just because he worded something awkwardly does not mean he can't provide univeral healthcare or make sound foreign policy decisions. Further, anybody who voted for Bush has no ground to stand on if they criticize Obama for this.

The '08 contenders are just trying to differentiate themselves by arguing issues out of no real substance or indication.

What's the comprehensive plan? Where's the substance?

UH OH! Obama got it right and everyone else, especially Hillary, know it and are probably trying to eat their words already. Nuclear weapons, now that's a big deal! No one, especially a leader, or potential leader, should ever infer their use either directly or indirectly through insinuation, or abstention, or refusal to directly answer any question regarding their use. I believe that by doing so you open yourself up to be attacked first perhaps. (If you can do it we can do it too – FIRST!) This is really something that is bigger than all of us and needs to be off the table – totally, until it is "absolutely" necessary for their use.
I am sure that Hillary and the others will all say that is not what they meant by their statements but it now has become obvious that nukes might be considered / used by Hillary and the others as a threat and that is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS to even insinuate such a thing in todays world. That is not necessary! A big "WHOOPS" for Hillary...! Holy Cow! Talk about terrorism!!!
Perhaps congress should investigate Hillary's statement and intentions!
CNN should also probably hop all over this! The Democrats are now in a very unfortunate and precarious situation I think – except for Obama!

Hey...If Obama goes against the other "Business-as-usual" candidates, he may be worth another look.

Joe Biden really hit the nail smack dab square on the head this go around and sunk it completely in only one very swift and light blow. I did read Barack Obama’s counterterrorism speech in its entirety, and honestly, I do not know were this guy is coming from? He speaks very loosely and dose say a lot; but did he write the entire speech him self? Not saying Joe Biden is the best choice; But dose American want President Bill Jefferson Clinton as our first gentleman? So I believe our choices clear and are slim too none at these junctures in the path; with to respect too our democratically nominated candidates.

How dose an inexperienced senator; such as the likes as Obama; get some idiotic notion or impression that he will be elected for the highest office in our land? I do not know exactly how many times he wrote in his speech (when I am President and/or as President will do this); at least over a dozen times, and only with his ridiculous five (5) step plan. He is promising to save the world like he some kind of god or something; what is in his mind? Dose he think he is some damn dead pharaoh that has come back from the after life!

Well he had better get started right away, or his plan is already domed for failure weather he is elected too the Presidential office or not. Dose Barack Obama’s even process the true qualities and capabilities for even the thought of handling the most powerful office in our Nation? Or dose he believe American citizens are the most ignorant people on our plant? But then again maybe some/most are just increasingly; inherently stupid and dose not pay any attention to their own livelihood and wellbeing!

Because he will need a lot more than just one hundred (100) days from the start, just to fulfill his 5th step plan that needs to be implemented priority one, and cover all his bases in doing so. Obama is nothing but a fish bowl of democratically placed double talk rhetoric all over again. If he plans on double talking our Nation while asleep at the wheel; he had better start his plans right here in our home land first. I do believe the American masses are intelligent enough too recognize the difference between the sand and water by now, even if they may be increasingly; inherently stupid.

I have reached the point of no return when it comes to making a decision for 2008 Presidential candidacy involving Barack Obama to sit in a disgraced throne occupied by previous administrations in the oval office of our White House; that he cannot possibly be filled with some sense of morality and integrity. When I will no longer give a second though or even consider his candidacy and I suspect it is mostly because of his display of his own in-experience rather than his actual potential. In any case he would benefit from being his own man once again to follow through his law practice and stop pretending to act with resistance to fatigue. Rather than pandering to what his staff perceive as the best answers for his own audience and sounds like his words may be dictated by others. We already have someone on board liken to him sitting their now.

For the record; personal opinion expressed in comment are those of the writer and constitutional rights.

Stating that Nukes are not an option in a limited war against insurgents and religious fanatics living in the midst of friendly nations should be a no brainier.

The fact that Hilary would attack that is not only a sign of desperation, Its just plain scary.

Nothing personal against Obama, but when he makes statements such as this as well as meeting with dictatorships, etc., it really exposes how inexperienced he is compared with Clinton or Edwards.
I have thought at the 04 convention, he was turning into the Demo-darling and we knew next to nothing about him.
He needs more experience.
Try in 2012, maybe then...For now, we have much more believable and experienced candidates from which to choose.

Once again... its the establishment against a new chapter. Thats all that needs to be said about the rounds of criticism. If alot of people criticise you... I guess it means you are doing something right.

Critics (which include the media houses such as CNN and Fox) pick out what they want to report. Its so amazing, non of the media people have reported about anytyhing else about that powerful and interesting speech. SO much could be said. But in an effort to denigrate Obama's credibility, they take one comment, sensationalise headlines and encourage unwarranted critiques. The critiques always make headlines and questions which come up about experience always seem to be most important to the media.

As for Dodd, his remarks are so vague, it makes me question whether he had something in mind he wanted to critique. Just looking for some airtime I guess. Obama never made a threat of invading another country. Dodd should improve on his comprehension skills, had he done that then maybe the U.S may have been without a war.

Hillary Clinton always seem to rely on ambiguity and vague remarks to seem highly experience. If no one address hypotheticals, how can one explore the many policy options a president must face?

Declaring that nukes shouldn't be used was not a blanket statement, it was a human statement.

Dodd, Clinton and Biden in their criticisms are as thoughtful as when the co authored the wreck that is Iraq.

I'll take Obama's judgement over their lack of foresight and vision anyday.

The MEDIA and the Washington establishment controls American democracy.... Such a pity for democracy, such a pity for talent like Obama.

CNN should start doing a piece on the Media and Politics and interview regular folk like me.

Am I to understand that not only is Hillary reluctant to use upper level diplomacy with those who oppose us, but she is willing to leave the Nuclear option on the table in this kind of limited war against insergents and rebels? it is this kind of mentality that helps fuel the misstrust that is damaging our political standing in the world.

The more I hear from the other candidates the less I like them, the more i hear from Obama the more I pray that he is our next President.

Obama seems to be following the Britney Spears political path with a bit of Paris Hilton as a spice! Do you think he might shave his head too?

Scratch That? Scratch What? Watch where you put your hands sir, we’re not voting for Michael Jackson either?

I am disappointed that the reporting of this issue was limited almost entirely to reaction to the Senator's strategies and not to the strategies themselves. It should fall upon the American people to come to their own conclusions and not be subject to having to filter their own beliefs through the prism of Clinton, Dodd, Biden and others.

Be realistic: America has been in the Middle East after overthrowing a democratic Iran in the early 1950's. Other candidates are decepetive when they suggest that we will pull out completely (Democrat or Republican). As long as there is OIL, America will have a strong presence in Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. and will do whatever they can to control another country's wealth at the expense of our infrastructure, health care, social security solvency and the education of our children.

In short: Obama is right and all the others are WRONG! The ruling class will force us to stay there for bigger barn building.

J. N.
Greensboro, NC

Do you get a feeling that Obama's fresh and bold ideas is shaking the so called 'experienced' status quo. The same experience that got us into Iraq in the first place and forgot about our real enemies. '08 is a year of change. Obama – Mark Warner ticket all the way,.

I saw Senator Obama's message in it's entirety and it's how I would want my Commander-and Chief to position himself. He was fearless yet compassionate, honest about protecting the values of Americans but clear that terrorism would be dealt with "by any means necessary...in Pakistan, Afganistan WHERE EVER." That's refreshing. Bush has acted like a rich-spoiled-coward thinking that the position "I wont talk to you unless you do what I want" or "I'll take my ball home if you don't let me play." and the "No One can have nuclear weapons but us" theme is so so stupid. IT'S TOO LATE to put the Genie back in the bottle. Now you must negotiate with everyone. Everyone must win something!! Food, prosperity, Health Care, peace....something. The old Imperialistic, White Supremisist, two party foolishness is OVER. Now these gutless, clueless candidates want to use Obama's public STAND to springboard into the news PLEASE....Grow a pair and sit down. REAL MEN are TALKING.

Biden, Dodd, and Richardson aren't even serious candidates for the Presidency. They're all just gunning for positions in Hillary's administration.

The current race is Team Hillary (Hillary herself, Dodd, Biden, and Richardson) versus Obama. Don't buy into Hillary's Bush-Cheney Lite rhetoric and flip-flopping political stances.

Am I incorrect in interpreting his initial answer as "we should never use nukes period, when we are dealing with civilians."

The clause about civilians being added after the fact. His first gut response was to say, "Nukes should never be used." Realizing how this would piss off Cold War mentalities and appear like a flower child, added the part about civilians.

So, now people are jumping on the nuke comment to what end – are they just saying, "You should never rule out the use of nukes." I'm not quite following the criticism on this comment.

At least he is willing to put his thoughts out there and we don't have to guess at what each candidate would do! It must be doing something right if is own party is shook up by his statement. Clinton and other candidates, where do you stand? Let us know!

This is a case of the old guard choking with jealousy. I wish the so called reporter who wrote this article had the wits to ask them what they'll do instead of reporting there whining and pouting.

It would be a geopolitical disaster if the United States ever used a nuclear bomb again. What better motivator for Iran to develop nuclear technology then to spew rhetoric that you may be compelled to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance? (Not to mention giving nuclear technology to India, a country that isn’t operating under UN treaties or guidelines)

In regards to Clinton, her perspective is old-hat politics. In fact, before the end of last week, she was moving more towards Obama’s position on international diplomacy. And her trying to label Obama as naïve is a laugh given she’s the one that empowered Bush to go to war while Obama had the foresight to understand it was a bad idea. (You know, he did major in international studies)

Let me break down Obama’s positions so Dodd can comprehend: Obama is in favor of meeting with countries we don’t consider friends without preconditions (like Iran having to stopping all nuclear work) that would prevent the meetings from occurring. Obama also supports acting against terrorist elements in Pakistan if Pakistan won’t. (Pakistan’s power structure is currently in flux, causing President / General Musharraf to be unable to act against the northern tribes with Taliban links) Lastly, Obama does not support using nuclear weapons (tactical or otherwise), which a position that most people in the world would agree with.

Richardson’s statement is ridiculous. Obama doesn’t want to leave troops in Iraq indefinitely. The only thing he’s ever said about leaving troops was in regards to leaving a residual force (meaning small and supportable) that would train Iraq’s and hunt al-Qaeda. Is Richardson saying he’s against going after al-Qaeda?

Lastly, Biden needs to realize that the difference between him and Obama is that while Biden may have taken some controversial positions in the past (and no longer talks about them), Obama is taking those positions now.

Maybe Hillary can explain when she would use nuclear weapons to attack someone?

Barack Obama's comment about Pakistan is very irresponsible given that Pakistan has been fighting very hard alongside U.S to defeat AL QUAEDA. He displays a lot of lack of experience in his statements to Pakistan. I don't think this guy is fit to be President of this country. He is very very inexperienced. CHARISMA IS NOT THE KEY. WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE IS THE KEY.

“I disagree with his plan to leave troops in Iraq indefinitely. We still would be militarily overextended,”

Don't think this was said Sen. Dodd. Way to twist the words.

Another ANTI_OBAMA blog by the Clinton News Network.

Senator Obama's comment that it would be a mistake to use nuclear weapons in circumstances involving civilians is pure common sense. Nuclear weapons are mankind's most hideous invention. I admire his courage to take a stand against the use of weapons that can vaporize millions of innocent human beings in seconds.

It's too bad Sen. Obama is not ready for prime time. I was thinking of voting for him . . .

Hmmm... Seems some people feel a bit threatened by a certain someone's comprehensive plan to combat terrorism... I guess they're much more comfortable with their own set of generalities... "Specifics!!! Not that!!"

Rats take notice: Obama is a sinking ship.

Obama is only drawing fire from all these other status-quo clowns because he has actually said something of substance. He's displaying more leadership than the rest, including Hilary Rodham Clinton. Go Obama.

So many rookie mistakes by Obama, he is clearly not presidential...he shouldn't even be on the same playing field as the others...Obama, give it up & drop out now, maybe you can try again in 8 years, after you come to your senses.

NEVER say NEVER when it comes to using Nukes to defend the United States.

I guess he peaked too soon and too low. It's hard to imagine any of his rivals being able to damage his candidacy more than he has himself over the last week or so.

Obama has my vote! Stand tough, Senator!

That just makes me want to vote for Obama even more than before...no scratch that. I'm sold, Obama is getting my vote.

The Democrat rivals have all ganged up against him...apparently preferring to say nothing about the war on terror or appear wimpy against the Republicans.

Go Obama, rock the vote!

Sounds like they are picking on him because he is black. Obama should play the race card. This goes against traditional Democrat strategy which is to pander to blacks only to later ignore them once elected. But the shoe is on the other foot now. I'm surprised the liberal media hasn't run a story on this yet, making Obama out to be a victim. Who is paying Al Sharpton to keep quiet? The Clintons?
CNN once again = Clinton News Network