CNN

George S. worked in the Clinton White House but i'm sure he was not biased in any way...He only owes everything he is to the Clintons's can we get some real journalism up in here.

Go Kucinich!!! Glad you are leading the ABC poll, we need a President for the People not for the Presidents gang...

Obama's Senate voting record is exactly the same as Senator Clinton,s except for one missed vote and Obama voted FOR one of Bushs war Generals showing support to Bush while Senator Clinton voted against. If Obama has been an elected official longer than Clinto then what is he talking about old vioces in Washington. His is older then Clintons. The man speaks the tongue of no experience. It isn't his resume but the inexperience that comes out his mouth. Clinton 2008. The Republicans will never allow a minority into Washingto.s White house. If Obama is the Nominee. Alot of Dems will vote elsewhere. Maybe Nunn, or Bloomberg. I for one will not support the inexperience.

I first heard about this article on my Global Grind News Page. I decided to check out the source for more info. Throughout the debate Obama had to keep his cool while countering suggestions that he’s too inexperienced for the position. That was the first freaking debate question. Obama was by far the most impressive. He stood strong, while everyone, even the moderator, tried to break him.

Did anyone watch Bill Moyer's report about marketing of the Iraq war and the role of journalists in manipulating the public? It is still going on... Mr. Obama won the debate, but headlines and CNN are not reflecting it. Clintons are well aware that comparison with Bush/Cheney makes anyone look like Einstein or Mother Theresa, that's why Hillary keeps refering to the current administration instead of her fellow candidates.But many Democrats were holding noses at the end of Clintons eight years in the White House. They were inspiration for WAG THE DOG and TRUE COLORS...yes, they are very experienced politicians and no doubt there is lot of behind the scenes political maneuvering going on right now : to discredit and belitle Senator Obama who is the strongest competitor...except it is not working, because we,the voters also became more experienced... fool me once, you'll never fool me again

To all of the pundits out there:

The nice thing about posting on these sites is that we all get a chance to express ourselves. Our interest in politics has an audience of kindred spirits (even though we may disagree with each other).

The important thing to keep in mind is that none of us (except for operatives disguising themselves as "one of us") are really in a position to say with any degree of accuracy that one candidate is better than another.

Different voters are looking for different things from their candidates, so when you read somthing like "Hillary will be our next president" or "Obama is our only hope," keep in mind that while that opinion may count for something, it doesn't mean it's right just because someone says it loudly and with conviction. It's nothing rooted in fact...it's just an emotional response.

We are over a year away from the election and there will be lots of ebb and flow. It's important to keep your eyes and ears open, but more importantly, to keep your minds open.

And here's something to consider...when I read posts that tout one candidate by tearing down another, the negativity of the person doing the posting actually drives me away from the candidate they're trying to support.

But enough preaching...here is my opinion on the subject at hand:

Based on my dealings and conversations with everyday people, I believe that Hillary and Obama are both probably unelectable, although for very different reasons. On the Democratic side, I personally have the most respect for Joe Biden and Bill Richardson. Richardson has not done particularly well in these debates, but prior to his being a candidate, he always was a great interview, so I don't think the debates have been kind to him. I don't care for Edwards' populist message of "two Americas" and believe its negative tone will not resonate with mainstream voters.

So at this point, if I were to pull the lever for a Democrat, it would be Biden. But, that being said, I will continue to monitor developments over the coming months and would not rule out someone else overtaking him to get my vote.

I look forward to hearing more from people on this site...I'm hopeful that the discourse will be better in the coming months.

And now, folks, here we are at the political wax museum where the 2008 Democratic presidential contenders are depicted as they looked that year. Yes, they do look life-life, don't they? Actually, more life-like than the real persons seem to be. Note all the men are wearing dark suits and red orblue neckties. The Stepford politicians historians called them. And the woman, Hillary Clinton was her name, often had that "What the blazes did I get myself into?" look about her. Why did they all lose? No one believed anything they said. Thanks for dropping by.

I'm counting on the American people to get it right this time around and elect a REAL leader. Joe Biden has a command of every issue that faces our nation today AND solutions to deal with them. He's respected around the world and on both sides of the aisle. This is THE MOST important election in decades and we cannot fail as a people. Hillary, I believe, will divide our country. The Republicans will be ABSOLUTELY relentless with attacks on her. Ten times worse than what they did to her husband. NOTHING will get done if she were elected. America cannot afford a dogfight in congress for four years. There's too much at stake for our country and people around the world. I like Obama, but I'd like to see him as a VP to someone like Joe Biden to acquire the correct experience needed to be President of the United States. God Bless you Joe!!! Our country and this world needs you in these troubled times.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OtGCaqOdIJ4

I have a simple question...

With President Bush's approval ratings so low, congressional ratings being low, the nation being unhappy with Iraq, THIS election is should be a slam-dunk for the democrats.

WHY would democrats pick the one candidate with the highest negative ratings? (Hillary)

You're BEGGING republicans to win!?

@VAN

Van, I agree with Lance; you said no one would, should. In fact, I think it would be a worthy note to point out that all of your posts, the ones in nearly every ticker comment section, are all Pro-Clinton. Ironic considering you are saying the same thing to Lance, whom actually posted a well thought out, intellgent post. Your posts have all lacked considerably in that area and are far more preachy and self righteous than any other poster I've read so far. You are blinded by your Clinton Homerism. Quit trying to prove to everyone that you are the smartest person here and that only your opinion matters, and only your opinion is right. Whatever with the reuters tag as well, that tells all that anyone needs to know about you and it comes to no surprise that every post of yours has the stench of self righteousness blasted all over it. You're boring me with rhetoric and I would politely request that you tone it down a notch before your pink hilary panties get twisted into a fury of anger by my devils's advocate ways. In short, just shut up please, CNN is already posting enough garbage on this website, and doesn't need you adding to it. Thanks!

How about a big yawn?

Methinks the only folks following this debates (like myself) are the only ones following these debates!

Rock oN

Bill Richardson is clearly the most experienced dem. candidate – former UN amb., governor of high growth state, deals with immigration directly on his state's border. Why hasn't the democratic party woken up yet and realized we do indeed have the best qualified candidate between both parties – Gov. Richardson?

Bill Richardson is not given the time he deserves at during these debates. He is the most qualified man for the job!! I have been telling everyone I have talked politics with in the last two years that Bill Richardson is the one to beat. Please take the time to listen to Bill & read up on Bill he IS the beat man for the job.

CNN, you do a poor job at covering these debates. If I were a Biden, Gravel, Kucinich, Dodd, or Richardson reporter, I'd read this article and ask...WHAT ABOUT ME and MY CANDIDATE?!

Maybe the only story on CNN.com about the debate should include AT LEAST 3 sentences about ALL the candidates running for the country's highest office.

No excuses, this article is a disservice to anyone objectively trying to follow the race.

Our democratic republic deserves better than this.

I certainly agree with Eugene Minter of Kennet Sq., Pa

I am a proud Democrat, and like the candidates that we have to choose from this year, but I am surprised by all of the people who have bought into Obama's image. The thing I hate most is hypocrisy. Obama talks about bringing in a new type of politics - but, 20 points down in the polls, now he's always on the attack. It's one thing to have a honest debate over differences in policy positions, stooping to dirty politics and suggesting Clinton is "Bush-Cheney lite" is a cheap, desperate shot. Obama says he doesn't take money for from federal lobbyists. But he does take it from state lobbyists, he hires former lobbyists, and he uses bundlers. Come on, not exactly taking a stand against corporate interests. And, the only platform he's running on is how he "was against the war from the beginning." It must have been easy to speak out when he was representing one liberal district in the state house. Since he has been in the U.S. Senate he has voted for every war bill, except for this very last spending resolution - the exact same record as Hillary (except she voted not to confirm Casey and Obama did). I would be more in Obama's corner if he were more honest - but his actions just don't live up to the hype.

I would like to make a point on the difference between the main stream media projecting a biased view towards a candidate and One person giving their opinion on why they like or dislike a certain candidate. When CNN only shows the high points of Mrs. Clinton, they are failing at the ethical duty as the fourth branch of government to provide the public with quality information. They are a reputable organization that has a long history in the business, and is their responsibility to provide us with unbiased news so we can form our own opinions.
On the other hand, when one reader shares his or her opinion on likes and dislikes (weather for or against any of the candidates) it is our responsibility to determine the comment's weight against everything else we have already gathered.
When I decide which candidate I support I am going to do everything I can to help get him or her elected. It's up to you to agree or disagree with what I say.

As a non-veteran who discredits a veteran's loss of limbs in a war, Karl Rove's remarks should be discredited!

I admit I didn't watch the whole debate, but I did watch most of it and I have to say that the format of this debate was horrible. Kucinich and Gravel were completely ignored, I think I heard them speak for a combined 2 minutes while Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Biden got at least 5 minutes a piece. I thought debates were supposed to provide equal time to the candidates so that we could get an understanding of where each of them stood, but I guess that is just my idealism showing through.

I did see Kucinich get the best line in the entire debate that I saw though, in regards to the e-mail question about prayer and whether it could have prevented or lessened the impact of Katrina and/or 9/11: "Well George, I've been praying for 45 minutes that you'd call on me to answer a question." Best line ever.

One theme did crop up a lot in the debate portions that I saw and that was change, and I have to agree. The reason that the Dems took control of the Senate and House this year was because the American people wanted change. Well now with a presidential election coming up next year we have the opportunity for real change, lets get some Independent candidates elected to office, any office, state level or federal level. If you really want change vote for an independent or third party candidate.

Your summary dose not adequately cover issues discussed.

Posting unsupported allegations as fact is intellectually dishonest. -Van

Its a way of life for the left Van. Hadn't you noticed?? Funny how the left doesn't see the media's bias until they attack the lesser of their own. Obama is lucky he's not close. Otherwise, CNN would unleash hell on these posts..

Although I live in Ontario and I can honestly say I don't follow US politics very much, I must say as a woman, I am very disappointed and saddened with Hillary Clintons comment that she cannot understand Karl Roves "obsession" with her. She must understand that using that card, because she is a woman is pretty low even for her, and I have never formed an opinion about her in the past, but..I must say that this comment has completely explained why a woman will never be President nor should have any high ranking roll in politics. If she fells that Karl is "obsessed" rather then doing his job she should re-think her career if she feels that she should not be subject to negative comments by another politician. Where has she been in her political career?...that's what they do, and furthermore, because he is stating correct comments about her that my hurt her political carrier, it does not give her the right to use the "obsessed" comment. This comment is more disturbing to me because in todays society there are "real" problems where woman come to tragic endings because of "obsession"!!! Hillary should have never used this comment so freely to avoid a tarnish on her political career, and she should be ashamed of herself for doing so. I don't believe that I speak alone on this topic and rather that I speak on the behalf of all men being accused of being "obsessed" who are not... and lose their reputation to false allegation, and any woman who really has had an obsessed person in there lives and because of people like Hillary, their pleas for help are never heard in time, and they or their children fall subject to life altering changes... I think Hillary needs to consider a less influential public roll, as saying that a man is Obsessed with her for doing his job is rather low for any woman to do. And Hillary if you read this...think to yourself...have you ever heard a male politician during his campaign ever cry wolf as your doing to avoid a real debate as you've done...and have you picked up a news paper recently and read of what obsession really is? Yours truly and respectfully. Vicki

Oops...forgot to respond to the article. In response to the article, I like how Obama is putting himself out there and making some bold statements even if it will have some consequences across the world. Not saying anything to the American people has consequences, also. I totally understand taking nuclear weapons off the table, also, because Pakistan will never get rid of their nuclear weapons if India has them, which India does, and it will make Pakistan trust the negotiations a little more. I think it's an ingenious idea.

In response to xtina: Senators make the worst presidents...just like President Bush? (Please note the sarcasm.)

I hate everyone saying the Bush is the worst president ever. I am a democrat and I don't like bush, but he is far from the worst ever, He has done some good for the USA, I admitt that IRAQ was a disaster, but that is all anyone ever looks at, look at his other acomplishments. Everyone voted him in for a second term AND his approval rating was through the roof after 9/11 he was easily a better choice than Kerry.

Now moving on, if the democrats want a chance to win the election they either need to have edwards win the nomination or get my favorite guy Howard Dean to run again! NO ONE AND I REPEAT NO ONE will vote for Clinton, or Obama for president in the actual election. As much as I think both of those candidates can do it, no one will think we are ready. MARK MY WORDS if CLINTON OR OBAMA win the nomination then the presidency will got to a Republican.

I have observe all the comments. And most of the comments were great, but some of the comments. Well!! Let us live that alone for another time. First, I would like to think all of you who had a little of time to post some great comments. "Lance" I think you for the recommendation and also on your comment.
Now, I'm assuming everybody want change not just in the government but in general.
The Million Dollar questions is "How does someone get experience and How does someone knows he or she has experience? The answer is basic, but important. In any case, an individual gets and gain experience on the job. Secondly, number of years on a job does not define how well experienced an individual is. For example, Sen. Hillary claims she have over 30+ years of experience. Hmmm!! Let's take a look at her records. They are: 1. "She voted no against Health care, and Education"(Rove). Yet, she voted yes for the war in Iraq, and to give more money to the Washington Lobbyist.
My friends, if anybody can claim that type of records as experience. Honestly, I never want to be experienced, nor will ever have experience.
People wake up and see Hilary for who and what she really is.
"WE NEED A DRASTIC CHANGE, AND THAT DRASTIC CHANGE IS NOT GOING TO COME FROM "HILLARY". She's not authentic, she's a liar, and she does not even care for the people. All she cares about is the Lobbyist in Washington. Bottom line is I never ever voted for anything in my life before. But this time, I will definitely voted for a "CHANGE". I sincerely think that "CHANGE" is Obama..

Obama is scary. The first thing he'd do if elected is visitn Chavez, North Korea, Iran, (and if he could find him) Osama Bin Laden – and tell them all he wants to be friends and just get along and then promise not to use WMD against any of them ....... my dog has better sense than this jerk

And a secong correction there xtina, W was not really a Governor. His people ran his office for him with photot shoots and fluff while W arrived latwe to work, played with his nintendo and left early. During that time there was no opposition to the GOP in god forsaken Texas and they became the worst polluted state in the country. For xkhan, the time between candidates is allocated by the poll numbers in a prearranged manner. And George S got shafted over by Bill Clinton and left that job in much less than hugs and kisses. He has no eason to favor Mrs. C unless it is honest admiration for a guperior woman. As for fear mongering, we have seen it from the best liars money can buy for 7 years, and know it when we see it. She is right. Not as much from terorism, but from the damage the GOP has done to this nation while inflicted with bushitis. Romney is more of the same two faced pulp fiction that you might as well give it to Chaney. And giving the throne to Romney is likely what the GOP will try to do.

I always get the impression that people love Hillary because they miss Bill. Obama is a wonderful guy, I loved his books- but he lacks experience. The issue isn't whether the candidate was a senator or a governor- its whether they have experience or not. Bush didn't have experience- look what happened to him abroad. I wish the media would start paying attention to the one candidate who doesn't need to overcome a massive learning curve- Bill Richardson. He's not a glam candidate- but he is going to be the dark horse. If you compare the records, he beats everyone on either side of the spectrum. You want someone who governs from the center? He won New Mexico, a red state, with 69% of the vote for his second term. You want someone with foreign policy experience? He was the US Ambassador to the UN, and he was a go-to guy for several administrations to negotiate for hostage releases. He's been successful in Iraq and North Korea, to name a couple.
Bill Richardson. He doesn't have a lot of cash, he can't buy your vote. He isn't married to Bill Clinton, so you can't love him for nostalgia sake. He isn't beautiful, he isn't trendy, but he is the best choice for a prosperous America.

One thought always noted when pondering democratic nominees is whether Barack Obama is experienced enough to become president. I find this troublesome since the converse is never thought of in earnest. How many hopefuls have been so entrenched in the political machine for so long that they have been purged of all independent thought on the political process? How long is too long to move from one job, which forces you to jockey for position on issues to gain influence, to another which makes it completely necessary to be open minded, fresh, and bold? Karl Rove does have a point when he says that people have already formed an image of Hillary Clinton in their minds over the many years she has been in office, but take into account that the public has a short memory, and that she has always understood change; you will find a formidable opponent is a seasoned veteran whom you think you can predict, and who can predict you, but who continues to create new, definitive ideas to combat new challenges. Experience, as well as naiveté, must be in a balance to make a good candidate, as well as president.

debates have a way to make you fired up for your nominee , lets not be fooled by all the people who are commenting about this right now they all love or hate a candidate because like the debates they want to spotlight whats bad about somebody else and whats good about their favorite candidate the truth is we should embrace all the candidates for standing up against the idiot george bush jr thank god he cant run again he would cheat his way through like barry bonds

David,

Monroe was a governor as well a Sec. of State before he was president. John Q Adams was also Sec. of State before he was president. Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman were vice-presidents. All of these men had executive experience before being president. John Kennedy wasn't so much a good president as he was handsome and charismatic. His handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, as excellent as it was, doesn't make him a good president. Even George W. Bush had huge public support for the military action in Afghanistan after the World Trade Center was destroyed.

obama won

I was most impressed with Obama. His openness and intelligence is refreshing.

I'm really disapointed with CNN. this is not the first time i'm seeing this, this period is devoted to the presidential campaign and everyboby should be treated as equal, but you CNN do not do that. everytime you take pleasure to overshadow senator barack oabama.look at this picture! where are sen obama and cuccicni. that's unfair, if all of them can't fit then it shouldn't have been any photo. thank you.

kucinich was hands down the winner of the debate. it shows it at the abc polls...now is the time for change,and that is only possible through one person, DENNIS KUCINICH. tell cnn to picture the poll winner!

I hate to see debates that don't allow all of the candidates equal time and change the candidates positioning on the stage so that Clinton, Edwards, and Obama can be separate from one another. Even though I did not see this debate, these three are always in the center.
I would like to see a real Democratic candidate with real Democratic party values. Most of these candidates are so worried about rubbing elbows with Hollywood and special interests groups that they have forgotten about Blue Collar America (the backbone of our country).

I didn't see the debate – but after seeing the picture at the top of the article I think I got the gist of it. Edwards is smiling cheesily at the camera, Clinton is front and center, and Kucinich is not in the picture. The only interesting thing is that Obama's not there either. CNN's taking the next step to marginalise him too – the only one of the top-tier who makes any sense. He must feel like he's taken crazy pills. Why do the other candidates berate him for wanting to engage in dialogue. Have we learned nothing from the Cold War? We must communicate with the world. The other candidates subscribe to this Bush nonsense – I'm glad one candidate is rational. Too bad he won't win. The best ones never do.

Kucinich has a plan and a heart. The others have only ambition and a desire for personal glory. Kucinich is not concerned with how much money his corporate handlers will give to his estate. Hillary should be pilloried because that is exactly what she intends to do with the American people. Obomination is a race bater as is Edwards. The other folks in the race are there for window dressing. Kucinich is the only honest candidate with real solutions!

Obama won the debate, he stood strong while the others seem to try to break him, and I loved his comment about Cheney and Rumsfield when it came to how well they did.doing because of experience. Obama was by far, the winner and Richardson was a very close 2nd.

Van Reuter from NY!

You call someone a "simple minded cheerleader" because they don't support your candidate? That's exactly the kind of 'negative politics' that we don't need. You sound like someone from the Bush administration. "If they disagree with us on war, then they're unpatriotic".

Stop with the name calling and just express your views.

Frankly, I want to hear more from Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and Biden. This is what the political process is all about. Again, please stop with the negativity. You're going a little overboard.

Wallace

Hey VanReuter from NY.

Give me a break with your comments. Your "Posting unsupported allegations as fact is intellectually dishonest" comment is a joke.

You have done that numerous times on this website. You're obviously a Clinton supporter. If you want to add value to this forum then start to show some objectivity here.

You call people plants, but all you do is bash every candidate except for Hillary. You, my friend need to stop with the "intellectual dishonesty" nonsense. There isn't anything wrong with supporting a specific candidate, but try to be objective. People may actually listen to you.

Wallace

Guess who won the debate according to the ABCNews poll??!?

That's right - people are finally starting to wake up!!!

Only Dennis Kucinich in 2008!!!

Obama was definitely on tonight in the debate! He was cool and unruffled even
though everyone else on that stage knows that Obama is the one to beat. Even Karl Rove clearly does not want to see his party face this prospect of Obamas strong and positive message of creative problem solving. See meet the press Sunday Aug.19.
I am sorry for HC's low energy rote
walk through tonight. She looked kind of tired...with the same old ho hum guarded and restricted canned responses.
Obama seemed alert and ready for
the naysayer onslaught by comparison.
The republicans would love to see Obama taken out in the primary because
they are ready for Hillary. I hate to say it but she looked kind of frumpy in that drab polyester brown pants suit.

Obama looks great and sounds confident
and seems to be quite at home handling
the tough questions. I certainly think that he is the smartest guy in the room as they say.

America help is on the way!!

BaROCK the vote!!!

Do you want someone whose only job has been being a lawyer to run this country???

And, since when does being married to someone with a big job qualify as job experience?? Good bye Hillary!
a good job qualify as job experience???!
Do you want your doctor's wife to be your doctor?

By the way, how about the guy who sued your doctor. Do you want him to be president?

Richardson is the only democrat with decent background. Romney has really accomplished things and should be considered.

What cracks me up are the posts which states:
"The Clintons are unethical."

This statement coming from anyone after eight years of the Bush Administration is just priceless!

If Mother Teresa was running for President her religious views would likely be scrutinized!

Van,
After reading some of your comments, I thought I would straighten out some of your over-generalizations concerning Senator Obama. And before you throw the "you are too-much of an Obama supporter" line at me, I will acknowledge that yes, I believe Obama to be the best choice for President.

"Obama has the same Washington insiders in his campaign that everyone else has in theirs,"
#1 – How is this physically possible? Surely his staffers are not the same as Hillary's staffers?!
#2 – To quote you from above: "Posting unsupported allegations as fact is intellectually dishonest."

"he gets his money from the same places the others do,"
#1 – Actually, this is incorrect. Obama's donations from small donors far outstrip any other candidate's in the field. And he is not taking donations from registered lobbyists.
#2 – "Posting unsupported allegations as fact is intellectually dishonest."

"his voting record on the Iraq war, since his election to the senate is the same as Senator Clinton's, with only one exception."
- Perhaps, but here comes the "experience vs. judgment" distinction. Obama came out opposing the war during his Senate Campaign, when it was unpopular to oppose it. Hillary skipped reading the intelligence brief and then voted for one of the greatest foreign relations blunders of our time.

"There is little to distinguish him in his actual political career, where, without exception, he is the least experienced in national politics of the candidates"
#1 – How does being the spouse of the President qualify one to become President of the United States? I am a lawyer, does that mean that my wife should take over some of my cases? No.
#2 – Look at the initiatives that she WAS entrusted with during the Clinton Presidency. One big example is health care reform. Unsuccessful.
#3 – What exactly has she done in the Senate? http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/23/223205.shtml
Less than Obama.

So please, do not over-generalize your criticisms of Senator Obama. It is easy to throw out an assertion without backing it up. It is much harder to be "intellectually honest".

I'm so sick and tired of hearing that Clinton has more experience than Obama. It's just not true. Obama has twice the elected legislative experience that Shrillary has and in his two years as a senator has passed twice as many authored bills. Now, some of you may say, "well she was first lady for eight years...that counts for something..." OK, then let's extrapolate. Would you going to support Laura Bush's run for senate in Texas next year? Hey, she's been first lady for eight years and a full term as first lady of Texas before that. She's just as qualified to run as Shrillary. Still not convinced Obama has as much experience? Try this one: My wife is a doctor and has been for 20 years. I've gone to many symposiums and conferences with her around the world because it's cool to do so and she has someone to hang with when not stuck in meetings and conferences. But does the fact that my wife is a doctor and I've hung out with her when she traveled make me qualifed to practice medicine? Of course not. Besides, we won't know just what she did as first lady now that she sealed up her papers. Why isn't that story getting more play on the Clinton News Network? Why isn't the USA/Gupta Poll asking Americans what they think about that Rovian tactic to squirrel away potentially damaging papers? She's no better than Bush/Cheney...in fact, she's Bush/Cheney lite just like Obama said. If we elect her all we're doing is replacing Bush's special interests with Shrillary's. She wins the nomination and the next day I change my party affiliation to "Declined to State" and write Barack Obama in as president. You will see a huge campaign to get people to do the same.

Clinton evaded answering the question about her negatives. She doesn't have a plan to win I guess. She is just going to hope people change their minds. That's not good enough for me.

Notice in the picture at the top of this story. Hillary 1st in line, Barak Obama not even in the picture? George Snnuffaloughagus showing a bias to the wife of his former employer...say it isn't so.

What I don't get are what are the precondition, bargaining-chips needed to have a conversation ro meeting with another head of state?

Do they discuss what brand of champagne they're gonna drink, is it the menu, is it the white or yellow place-settings?

I didn't see the debate yet so can't comment on the content, but from the reporting it looks as if the 'old-guard' tried to gang up on the new guy, which means their afraid.

Hope you have a good week!

Chip

I just don't get the reactions in here.

Was Ronald Reagan really a competent politician before he came into office in DC? Don't forget this: He was a B-Actor who had great communication skills........But he was more or less inexperienced when it came down to politics. In the end though, Reagan is considered as one of the best presidents of the last 40 years.

It's different with George Bush Sr. He's the ex-governor of Texas. He has got great credentials on his position as governor of Texas. Later on, during the election of 2000, he said on NUMEROUS occasions that he would be a moderate Republican.....following Reagan's and Clinton's footsteps.

But what did we get instead after 8 years? Answer that question please. And DO something with that answer. Please focus on the CURRENT facts. Bush made a mess of the USA and its people. Bush made sure that trust in politicians is completely diminished by now.

What Americans need to gain back is trust in people. In God we trust, that's for sure.......

We try to see in every single presidential candidate the next president of the United States of America, but NO one can look into the future. Don't base your judgments from each presidential candidate on prejudices; prejudices that are usually ignited by Karl Rove-like figures.

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney can say a lot of things about the future of America. But no-one knows that, if he will be elected next president of the USA, he could well be sitting behind his Oval Office taking former Bush plans into consideration again.

And when almost everyone is judging Clinton on the outcomes of the already famous 'favourability polls', she could well be remembered as the best president of the USA by 2016 since the Reagan-years.

Alas, no one knows that yet. Again: we can't look into the future. Simply judge the candidates on his or her political ideas and other credentials. And please start the election 2008 by trusting ALL candidates in the first place. That makes a good objective judgement easier to evolve.

I cant help but notice that every fundraiser I go to for the Democratic party has an overwhelming amount of people supporting Hillary. The first dinner I went to,that had 1300 people in attendance had about 75% Hillary supporters. The dinner I went to today, around 500 people. I was hard pressed to find a sticker for anyone else but Hillary. I think this shows that the majority of people feel very comfortable with her as a leader.

Obama will not get elected president because he is black and white people are afraid that he will cater to the needs of blacks only.

George Stephanopoulos. Hmmm. Was he not on the Clinton team the last time one of them ran for President? How about asking Karl Rove to moderate the next debate?

I am amazed at this comment board. Everytime I read it, it seems as if someone makes a special effort to get on to bash Senator Clinton and uplift Obama; whatever happened to the campaign of hope Sen. Obama. Maybe its time for him to turn a page on in his campaign.

At this Debate, senator Hillary Clinton wins again: Smart and mature, rational and expressive !

We can't deny the truth that her performance is the best so far in the all Democratic and Republican presidential candidate campaigns.

kes to make an excellent President.

Obama supporters are very obssessive, are you guys nerveous or Obama is disable to stand by himself? Please let him do his campaign. Americans are smart enough to vote the best candidate this time because they realized they made a huge mistake in 2000 election. Our Country is messy because Bush is immature, lack of experienced(only governor) and ignorant of foreign policy. We are not going to make another mistake. America is the most justified Country in the world. Obama supporters, don't worry.

Senator Clinton leads with her Honesty and stay on the subject. When the 5th place canadate(Obama) was asked a question he would just refer to what the others said, that he agreed. Then he would reply with something off the subject like Senator Clintons war vote. The world knows how she voted and knows her stance. This shows Baracks inability to move on to whats important. the future. He is clearly not doing his home work reflecting in his answers. Looking for a quick line to dig him self out of hot water. Look at his voting record. exactly the same as Clintons except when it came to voting on one of Bush's Generals appointments. Senator Clinton voted against. to where Obama voted with BUSH. he is such a foney. His wife is scary. very polarizing.

Are you kidding from NJ?-
"Well, the disturbing thing about the Democratic candidates is that – with the exception of Bill Richardson – they have no executive experience. Clinton, Obama or Edwards have not run anything of much significance at any point in their lives." You mean good executive experience like bush-league? Vote republican? Not after what's this horrible administration has done.

How do you but in to words the disgust that you feel when, the filth that is spewed form the mouth of those who “only want the best for our nation”. Leave the WAR alone it is going to take time and time is all that is going to fix it. Just like most, I raised my hand and signed the dotted line knowing what I was going to get myself into stop trying to end it so soon and work on coming to a common solution focus, don’t try and cram our democracy and way of politics down a country that has survived on there ways, of life for thousands of year. You want change the only way you are going to get it is with time. Focus on our people help them, with there needs quit wasting your time on trying to win votes by saying what you are going to do, in getting the troops out. Oh yeah Hilary honey it will never happen stop now!!

I've got a bone to pick with CNN, which keeps doing things to suggest a network bias against Barack Obama.

Recently, CNN posted a photo of Obama, a very unfattering photo taken from behind the candidate, where he was hunched over enough to show the wires that all of these candidates must be wearing as they get feedback from their people.

Oops? Maybe not.

In your photo covering the debate, why would you use a picture that excludes Barack Obama? A high-school student submitting an assignment for a class would not have been allowed to turn in a photo excluding one of the front runners. What is your excuse?

I thought this was a professional news organization. Is this amateur hour, or do you have someone on staff who thinks it's cute to slant things this way or that?

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

It was refreshing to see Barack be able to get the last word in a few times since the other candidates often had to answer first instead of having Barack respond first and then let Clinton try to one-up him with some inane point.

Seriously, does Hillary honestly think that Chavez, Castro and Ahmidinijad actually think they lose out by the USA's refusal to engage in a conversation? This position is not a "bargaining chip," it's helpful to them. It's one of the reasons they can blast America with basically whatever they want to say and then also make the truthful statement that the US government isn't interested in dialogue.

I don't hold much hope that actually meeting with these punks would change their behavior right away, but it would at least start forcing people to look at what they are actually doing instead of blaming America for not even being willing to get in a room and discuss and negotiate.

As usual, Obama won the debate.

Hillary wins again. Smart, mature, rational, expressive, tough, article. Not my favorite person, but can't deny she has what it takes to make an excellent President.

I really think the media fascination with the thought of another Clinton presidency is along the shallow lines of tabloid journalism. They can not uncover and report fact anymore so they go to the lowest common denominator which is entertainment, just as a hypothetical, if Clinton were elected and served 8 years I will bet you any amount that the media would push for a Jeb Bush presidency simply because of the novelty factor of having these two families run the country. So what I'm saying is that the media,ANY media are not doing their job to inform and enlighten the electorate to make the best choice for America so it is up to the citizens to work harder to find the information to make the most intelligent decision for us all.

Dems need to beef up issues.

It's time to talk big picture issues.

Voters are ready to make up their minds.

shawn kalin

Lance- You're either a plant, or just a simple-minded cheer-leader. From your latest;

"Clinton is so two faced".

"Hillary is truly becoming the "fear" candidate, even as Obama becomes the candidate of reason and shows that the true experience he has is real world experience, social experience. Not only is he the strongest leader on the stage, he's the most well rounded."

"Obama represents the best hope we have for the future. He's current. Hillary, frankly, is a relic of the past, still living in the cold war."

"Obama won the debate today hands down, as he does every debate."

Maybe you really believe the things you post, maybe you're getting something for posting them. Either way, your rhetoric is too pro-Obama in every way, to be taken as serious political thought. Obama has not won every debate hands-down, or otherwise, and no reasonable person, Obama supporter or not, would agree with that statement. It exposes your inability to consider any information that doesn't support your pre-conceived beliefs.

Obama has the same Washington insiders in his campaign that everyone else has in theirs, he gets his money from the same places the others do, his voting record on the Iraq war, since his election to the senate is the same as Senator Clinton's, with only one exception. There is little to distinguish him in his actual political career, where, without exception, he is the least experienced in national politics of the candidates. He is a fine man with a compelling personal story, and is a welcome addition to the political scene. He is very much like his major rivals in the campaign, in policies and positions on the issues, most of the democratic candidates are similar, but he is less seasoned, untested, and unproven on the national stage. Perhaps the campaign will transform him into the person you so fervently believe him to be, but as things stand, he is not, and your praise of Obama, and denigration of Senator Clinton and the rest of the field, is at best, overzealousness.

Van

Hillary was AWESOME! She rocks!

There's HOPE with Hillary!
She will make a fine president!

I would love to comment on this debate, but..
The Madison, WI TV station (WKOW) cut into the debate to show PAID religious programming from Coral Ridge Ministries.

My head exploded at that point.

Lance,

I don’t think we see the world very differently. And believe me I will work hard for Senator Obama if he gets the nomination. I may even vote for him, I haven’t decided yet.

But I’ve been in politics a long time and I’ve been frustrated by repeated failed attempts of the left to put idealism above pragmatics. I’m not saying we don’t have to stand for something, just that we have to strive for what is possible. I don’t deny that the Clinton’s are part of the “system of control”. But I respect their ability to manipulate that system for the good of everyday Americans.

Thanks for the book recommendation. I’ll check it out.

I completely agree with Khan in Houston TX. George S was totally biased and ran the whole debate toward Hillary trying to stump Obama (to no avail).

The great performances of the day were: OBAMA, Bill Richardson, and Kucinich. (Although I am sure CNN will have a different story as always...)

Obama, as always, spoke with intelligence and looked at the broader picture of each issue instead of trying to state scripted 90-second blurbs while not addressing the actual questions that were asked. Each time I hear him speak, I grow more supportive of Barack Obama and the leadership he will bring to the United States.

It's not that I am trashing Sen. Clinton, I simply don't think that she'd be as good a President as Obama. You should check out a book called "Armed Madhouse" by a reporter named Greg Pallast. It isn't about Clinton or Obama, but it talks all about how big oil and corporate lobbys have taken control of both our government and the world economy.

I simply think that Clinton is part of that system of control, the corporate powers love her, which is why CNN continues to promote her so heavily and trash Obama and Edwards, as they are the two candidates that may actually try and reign corporations and lobbies in.

If you really get informed about the eye opening issues that are not fully expressed in the main stream media, you will start to see the key differences in candidates.

If Hillary is eventually the nominee, I'll throw my full support behind her as she is far better than any of the backward thinking Republicans that are truly pawns of big oil.

But until that time, I think it's best to speak out wisely about why she may not be the best candidate. If I and others don't speak openly and honestly now, then we miss a huge opportunity for change with Obama.

And look, I don't take anything away from what Sen. Clinton has done in the past. Her husband was a good President and I think her heart has been in the right place. The problem, is that she has been exposed to the system for too long in my opinion. Her grand plans didn't work out with health care and education and other things, and now she feels she has to play ball with the lobbys to win. Maybe ultimately she's right, that's still to be determined. But it's a sad day when a candidate cannot speak openly and honestly about the issues at hand for fear of upsetting big business and losing their favored candidate status.

If you really look around at our country and our world, you'll see that we need some change on major levels if we're to survive the next hundred years. Being driven by powers beyond our control with such vast sums of money is corrupting to our entire lives. We're sacrificing our health, our mental well being, our place in the world by "going with the flow."

I refuse to go with the flow when it leads me to Hillary. I don't like being told who the defacto candidate is.

If you think Rove and all the Repubs predicting her inevitablility are doing you any favors, they're not. They know she's the easiest to beat. I've spoken with Democratic delagates here in L.A. that share that feeling. She will be very devisive as a candidate and I honestly and truly feel that Obama won't be. He will be inclusive and he hasn't been in the system long enough to be such a hated name to the right.

I don't want my candidate to be used as a propaganda tool, and that's what will happen with Hillary, to the point we'll have another close election and then the RNC can cheat their way to victory as they have in the last two.

Again, read "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Pallast. You can find it at the library or Borders or wherever. It will change your opinion of how politics are played out.

Don't just listen to the soundbites. we have to challenge Hillary to stop playing it safe and close lipped. There's hope for her, but my hopes rest overwhelmingly in Barrack Obama. I feel he can be the one that starts us on the long road to recovery we need to be on.

The Clintons are the worse kind of snake. If the Democratic Party wants to win the Presidency, they must stay as far away from the Clintons as possible. Also, George was extremely biased toward Sen. Clinton

Obama won this hands down. I just cant wait until the media spins this one.

Yea, Governor make the best Presidents – Bush has proven that – NOT.

Obama won this debate hands down. The format was horrible and the first part was set up to allow the candidates who have been attacking Obama to do so in this forum. Two things happened – Dodd, Biden and Clinton who have been hammering on Obama did the usual political two step and didn't answer the question and backed down on what they have been saying in the media about Obama. And, Obama – being the exception person that he is – took the high road, took the attack and handled it with grace, style and humor.

Kudos Senator Obama, onward and upward to the White House Barack!

She's scary.

Xtina writes: “Senators make the worst Presidents.”

It is difficult for Senators (from any party) to achieve the Presidency because the nature of Senate procedure forces them to go on the record with votes on bills which are compromises between factions.

That said, I wouldn’t count James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy and Harry S Truman among our worst Presidents. That honor goes to the current incumbent – a former Governor.

I believe that Senators Clinton, Obama, Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Gravel and yes even McCain have the experience to be excellent Presidents.

On the other hand, we have never elevated a MAYOR to the Presidency and I hope we don’t take that reckless chance in 2008.

Clinton is so two faced. She's said almost exactly the same thing Obama has said. I feel every debate she just stands there binding her time saying as little as possible to not open herself up to either her real views or attack.

Obama is actually out there swinging. He's so absolutely right that the time for posturing and fear mongering is over. Look at what Clinton said, "I believe we face the most dangerous time of any president..." She's playing off fear in the same way Bush does. That's so pathetic. Things have always and will always be dangerous. She knows this and yet she goes for the quick and easy soundbite while Obama actually shoots to the heart of the problem, which is that America can never afford to be isolationist and consumed by its own paranoia and fear.

Hillary is truly becoming the "fear" candidate, even as Obama becomes the candidate of reason and shows that the true experience he has is real world experience, social experience. Not only is he the strongest leader on the stage, he's the most well rounded. He admitted what the other candidates have said before the campaign, that he'd go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden. The others were too scared to stick to their own words.

Obama represents the best hope we have for the future. He's current. Hillary, frankly, is a relic of the past, still living in the cold war.

Obama won the debate today hands down, as he does every debate. But I agree with his campaign that he should limit the debates to only the sanctioned ones, because none of these politicians are accomplishing anything other than the same usual soundbites at these debates. I'm hearing the same comments about the same conversations over and over. Only Obama is trying to bring some fresh air to the debate and he can do that in longer discussions and town hall environments with real people.

The last crowd that can tell anything like it is is a bunch of politicians on the stage.

Obama 08.

Obama won the debate hands down but tomorrow's Clinton News Network/Gupta poll will show that Hillary "has extended her lead." Why doesn't CNN disavow Gupta, an obvious Clinton supporter? Don't they see the conflict of interest? Or does it just reflect their shared interest?

Well, the disturbing thing about the Democratic candidates is that – with the exception of Bill Richardson – they have no executive experience. Clinton, Obama or Edwards have not run anything of much significance at any point in their lives.

We need someone who is a proven and competent leader, with high ethical standards. This country needs Mitt Romney.

The Clintons are unethical.
Posted By Ed NC : August 19, 2007 2:27 pm

Posting unsupported allegations as fact is intellectually dishonest.

Van

The Clintons are unethical.

What cracks me up about this article is the reference to Barack Obama's position as being "only three years out of the Illinois legislature."

Even if you're 23 years out of the legislature, you don't have executive experience if all you've done is legislate. Why don't any of these senators try for governor.

Anyone can sit there and lobby the feds for money for their state and raise taxes whenever they need to bolster the state's revenue. But Senators make the worst Presidents.

I was disgusted with the so called moderator George S. I watched him doing the Republian debate and I watched this morning again, he was not impertial and unbiased. I follwed him for last 15 yrs in public spot light but this was the show of pertiality.He was clearly biased towards Hillary. If you invite all candiates, shouldn't they all get equql time? For the first 45 min. he spent trying to undermine Obama and highlight Hillary, not giving each candiates to answer questions. I hope during the presidential debate Republican VS Democrat he is not a moderator.

Great line by Richardson!

Here’s his web site:

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/

Write off: Gravel, Kucinich, Dodd.
Write down: Clinton, Obama.
Write up: Edwards, Richardson, Biden.