JAMES, THE REAL ONE, PHOENIX AZ:

SIMPLER QUESTION: Do you really think that our armed forces were not ALREADY skirmishing with Quds Forces scurrying to the border after attacking them or supporting those who attacked them — BEFORE Kyl-Lieberman?

Keep your ocean-front property and I will sell you some flood insurance when you build there.

Great whenever someone gets proven wrong they get mad and spin my words.

I asked you when was the last time we declared war?

I understand kyl-liberman fully. My point was for the third time that this president is very unpopular. And should he choose to go to war whether he seeks authorization or not…It will be much easier to sell a war against a terrorist organization…and it is irresponsible to give george bush that kind of clout.

I think that that was clear…you are so angry because I am saying something opposed to your beloved clintons.

Emancipate yourself from Hillaryland!

COACH HAUGHTON NH:

Just WHAT IS your point, Coach? If Bush doesn't need Congressional Authorization to take action against a terrorist state, then you should know that Iran has ALREADY been designated a state sponsor of terror. Bush has ALREADY said that those who sponsor terrorism are the same as terrorists. So, according to your "logic," Bush can already initiate a "police action" against Iran as a "terrorist" state.

According to your own argument, he NEVER needed Kyl-Lieberman to attack Iran. Funny then, that Bush hasn't already used this justification to attack Iran. You know what else is funny? Bush said that Saddham Hussein harbored and trained terrorists, but Bush still went to Congress for a use of force authorization.

Incidentally, THAT was the last time that Congress authorized force against another state, REMEMBER? Sen. Clinton voted for the use of force resolution and that's why you think she'd make a terrible president, REMEMBER? I suppose if you can't keep track of your own arguments, it's useless to expect you to drill down on the fine points of Kyl-Lieberman.

Dawn - MD,

Simple question:

Do you REALLY think President Bush (with the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution) will NOT target Iran's elite guard if they run back into Iran??

We've got some ocean-front property here in Phoenix I'd like to sell you!

you miss the point entirely dawn.
tell me the last time we declared war please.
Police action on a terrorist organization is a lot easier sell that this president needs lest he face impeachment with approval ratings like that.
If he attacks forces inside Iran, will you defend hilliar or hold her accountable.

I SERIOUSLY DOUBT CNN WILL POST THIS ONE!

To Meks

You are one of several slaves that I am fighting to emancipate from hillaryland.

I find it amusing that you post things like that and accuse me of "vitriolic hatred".

My comments reflect my analysis of the facts…if my brashness upsets you I think that may be an indication that you are finding it difficult to debate some of the facts that I present.

You are correct in a lot of what you say…but I think you need some additional facts to understand my point.

You are correct the grand ayotulla directs the revolutionary guard. The grand ayotulla also has all the real power in Iran. I don't suggest that hilliar desires war with Iran…I suggest that this president has a proven track record of unjust, rash and wreckless military action…I suggest that hilliar is irresponsible in this vote and has repeated the same mistake she made with her iraq vote.

If you see the above facts straight from the legislation
(the argument you gave me is the same from hilliars website…hmm)
it is clear and apparent that while it may not be his immeadiate intention to do so..George Bush now has the authority and justification to take military action against the Revolutionary Guard. In reality that is war with Iran because their elected government is mostly symbolic because all power lies in the hands of the ayotullas. Economic sanction on the country of Iran would serve to combat the Revolutionary Guard as well. It may not be as effective but at least it wouldn't help draw the ruling force in iran into the presidents " Global War On Terror". You constantly accuse me of not having my facts right when I happen to be dead on. When I give you more facts you get mad and accuse me of vitriolic hatred. The arguement you presented was the same as on hilliars website.

We are similar in that we really look into the issues before drawing conclusions. I think the differece we continue to have is that you love the clintons so much that you adopt their rhetoric as truth. You are not stupid in doing so because they have a very well spun rap. That is the problem I have with the entire party this cycle. My facts are DEAD ON!

Reread the legislation that I suggest. Keep in mind what we know of George Bush's character. And I think a guy as smart as you should be able to concede that this vote was not a good thing.

Also you know that suggesting that she intended to put a prohibition on war with iran into law was an absolute stunt. Not enough votes, veto, constitutional powers.

I don't hate you or anyone else Meks but stop being her pawn for the sake of america.

Obama 2008

JAMES THE REAL ONE:

The President cannot attack Iranian forces in Iran without Congressional approval: Kyl-Lieberman does not give this approval. According to our Constitution, Congress makes declarations of war. (Art. I, Sect. 8:11). Declarations of war are made against states as long as they still possess sovereignty. If simply labeling a country "terrorist," makes them eligible for attack on the president's say-so, President Bush could have attacked Iran, A STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR, long ago. As badly as some in his administration want to go after that country, why haven't they cited Iran's status as a state sponsor of terror as authority for doing so? BECAUSE IT ISN'T.

The President is OF COURSE free, with or without Congress' authorization, to attack any Quds Forces he should happen to find in IRAQ because the United States is the lawful occupying power there.

As for Osama bin Laden: again, I assert, the man was an INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL. It would be very strange if the President needed a Congressional authorization of force to arrest or kill a criminal. If Osama bin Laden is the only authority for your argument that labeling part of the regular army of a state entitles the president to attack it without Congressional authorization, that's the END OF THE STORY. The cases simply bear no comparison.

If you have some other authority for your novel theory of warfare, I'd be happy to hear it.

COACH HAUGHTON NH:

Yes, Kyl-Lieberman REQUESTS (NOT AUTHORIZES) that the president exert military power against the Quds Force in IRAQ. Do you seriously believe that if Quds Forces shoot at our armed forces in IRAQ, or supply IEDs that kill our armed forces in IRAQ, that the president doesn't ALREADY have authority to exert military power against them?

For your "argument" that simply labeling a part of another state's armed forces "terrorist" gives us authority to "go to war with" them, please see above.

Hill didn't read the 2002 NIE report
before voting for the Occupation!
Therfore if you don't read the
Bin Laden bound to strike the US,
then you shouldn't be President!

We have a fool / king now that failed
do so and sat in a classroom after
the second plane flew into the WTC.

Obama was against the cash kow for the
Military Industrial Complex! Wise UP!

i really hope this lady does not become president.

James, the possibly unreal one, it isn't a video game! Nice idea that the prez could follow our enemies in every country in the world and punish them. Maybe he could wear that Master Chief suit from Halo when he does that. But here in reality we have to live with the aftereffects of our wars.
We haven't declared war on anyone since WWII, in case you thought we had; all our wars have really only been police actions. It's really hard to declare war on someone unless they bomb Pearl Harbor.

This is directly from the Kyl-Liberman amendment that passed.

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in

[Page: S11866]paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;
(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and

I wasn't sure about this so I looked it up on the senate website.

This DOES give the president justification to take military action against the Iranian army. She is playing the word game by saying that it does not give the president the authority to go to war with Iran. It's not an authorization of war, but the president does not need such a vote to take military action against a terrorist organization. That was the point in giving them the label.

To fully understand you need to look up the emergency economic powers act as well.

This is very scary folks. First Iraq…now this?

Calling it like I see it.

Rocco, if we start voting that other countries are terrier states we will have really gone to the dogs.

We call the Revolutionary Guards terrorists, and many others will call our Marines terrorists.

How did the other candidates vote on this?

I had to post this again because the "Freedom of Speech" censors at CNN removed it:

This verbal tussle demonstrates that Hillary does NOT want to answer difficult questions. This is why she refuses to go on the top rated cable news program, "The O'Reilly Factor".
Senator Kerry made that mistake during the 2004 presidential election (he has since admitted that avoiding O'Reilly in 2004 was a huge mistake).

I will not even consider voting for a politician who refuses to answer questions on issues that affect the life of my family and me.

Dawn - MD,

(Before Kyl-Lieberman Resolution):

Iran is a STATE. The military protecting Iran is the (state-sponsored) elite guard. We can't attack a STATE therefore nothing we can do about Iran's military.

(After Kyl-Lieberman Resolution):

Iran's elite guard is now deemed a "terrorist organization". IT IS NO LONGER a STATE issue, rather - it is a TERRORIST issue (a-la Bin Laden). Now we can attack Iran's elite guard.

Holy moley Dawn, can you REALLY not see the difference?

To Coach Haughton:

The big lying dog! We can impose economic sanction on a country without declaring them a terrorist state but we cannot impose economic sanction on a part of government who strategically aid insurgents with IED's to maim our soldiers,(though i believe the war is pointless), without labeling them with something. Revolutionary Guard is not a state but rather an entity within the Iranain government which runs its own government and is not totally ressponsible to the Iranian president. They have stronger powers in some ways since they take directive from the body of mullahs (headed by supreme commander, Khomeini). Get your facts right before evoking your emotions and vitriolic hatred on this blog. All the bill did was to label them terrorist so state department can impose economic sanction on the members of this group and the group itself. Why don't you for once be honest to yourself.

You people are saying she dodged the question. She didn't dodge the question. She answered it. He said why did she give approval to invade Iran. She said she didn't. She gave approval to list them as a terrorist organization so that sanctions can be applied. You people need to know all the facts before you start talking. The question was answered. She satisfied my curiosity.

Wow! She sure gets a response! Over 260 of them to this article alone! I commend her in her response. She was asked the same exact question three time at three different venues and therefore, the temperment of her response is reasonable. As for the specifics of her response, it is as she said - in order to place sanctions on Iran, the Congress had to first declar its armed forces terrorists. How that translates to a resolution giving Bush unfettered authority to invade Iran is beyond me! And he's not ready to invade Iran…he knows he can't with the current state of our military stretched so thin right now.

Let's see:

8 years Bush Sr VP
4 years Bush Sr Pres
8 years Clinton Bill Pres
8 years Bush Jr Pres
8 years Clinton Hill ? Pres
8 years Bush Jeb ? Pres
8 years Clinton Chelsea
8 years Bush Jenna

60 year empire…. (i bet Bush sr will really feel like a dope being the only one who didn't get 8 years as pres… at least he had the 8 as vice, though)

Van, from NY, you are one poor soul!

"Don't listen to these people, most of whom have based their opinions on their biases and haven't even heard the actual exchange."

And what is your "UNBIASED" source ?
"Hillary is 44…" That is really pathetic if that is your supposedly objective source of information. That is a Hillary propaganda site that is operated by people who won't even disclose themselves who they are and won't post any comments from the public.
Basically they are an echo chamber of Hillary propaganda.

I feel for you Van!

James (the real one),

Your statements don't pan out. What I was saying was the truth of the matter. You and others seem to enjoy stating that the Kyl-Liberman Resolution is some grand scheme to start another war in the region. And your pandering of this as such is simply false.

The Iraq War that we are stuck in now, thanks to the current administration had to go through a good many steps to get even the troops on the ground. There was the attempts at getting the U.N. Security Council to impose more than little sanctions. And there was the continuous bombardment of false information from the administration on who had what and when in the arena of WMDs over there. It wasn't until there was enough, I will use the term "proof" loosely here, that a formal Declaration of War was put to Congress. And I am missing the years and years where Iraq tossed out the inspectors and then let them back in, moved a few things around, then kicked them out again. And the no-fly zone, etc. As you can see it ain't as easy as you seem to make it out!

The fact is that we have a country named Iran that has it's Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iraq and they are not there for a picnic. Their ordinance has been found in IEDs and their personnel have been picked up. Now going as far as complaining to Iran and labeling their guard forces as terrorists? I would say that it fits. But declaring a war? Congress has no intention of doing it and the country wouldn't stand for it.

Telling it like I see it,
Wynter

"So haters and Women bashers… keep hating.."

This is what angers me most about Clinton supporters… those of us who do not support her have a variety of reasons, primarily based on her spotty record, authorization of the Iraq war, terrible environmental record, high negatives going into the general election, inability to find common ground and pass health care in the ninetees, etc etc.

And yet people like you claim the reason we don't like her is that she's a woman. I think that's one of the most ignorant and sexist arguments you can put forward.

I think it would be great to have a female president. But I could not in good conscience support Hillary Clinton.

Sen. Clinton answered Mr. Rolph's question and she answered it fully, accurately, and calmly. Mr. Rolph was simply incorrect when he insisted, repeatedly, that Kyl-Lieberman authorizes military action in Iran. First, Kyl-Lieberman doesn't contain a use of force authorization of any kind because it is a non-binding "Sense of the Senate" Resolution. Second, it REQUESTS that the president use military power against Quds Force operatives in IRAQ, not IRAN. (Newsflash: our forces will do that anyway.)
Sen. Clinton was perfectly reasonable with an ill-informed and VERY persistent questioner who would not accept her ACCURATE answer. She wasn't "testy," or "sharp," or "irritable." Nor did she display a "short fuse.
Can we be done with this silly "story" now?

And JAMES (THE REAL ONE):

Elementary international law point. It's not because Osama bin Ladin was a terrorist that President Clinton was able to go after him in Sudan (I believe it was) without Congressional approval. It's because Osama bin Ladin is an individual, NOT A STATE. States don't declare war against individuals (except metaphorically); they declare war AGAINST OTHER STATES. (Sudan is widely perceived as a failed state, meaning it has no sovereignty to violate, which is why attacking it without congressional approval was within the bounds of international and U.S. law. Afghanistan under the Taliban, likewise.)
THINK ABOUT IT: does the President need Congressional approval before he arrests or uses deadly force against every criminal? No matter how many people the criminal has killed?
By all means, be against Sen. Clinton, but PLEASE, use coherent arguments.

Face it people, Hillary Clinton is taking big corporate money by the bushel and she's joined at the hip with Israel. Just like Bill, who was the best republican president we ever had, she will continue pushing the corporate "free trade" agenda that rapes developing countries and is ruining the American middle class. Sure, she'll throw out a few crumbs like health care and maybe a tax on the wealthy in her first term, but the republicrats in both houses will make sure that none of it ever turns into anything meaningful. By the way, Hillary has no intention of ever pulling all U.S. troops out of Iraq. In the global domination play book that her and Bill read to each other every night, that's the next middle east outpost that the dems will inherit, gratis, from George W.. Sure, she'll pull out a lot of troops, but she has no illusions about giving up that beautiful embassy and all those brand new permanent military bases. Don't forget that she voted to let Bush invade Iraq, and continues to vote funding for it at every opportunity. If Bush attacks Iran, no doubt she'll find some very good reasons to fund that too, no matter what she says in town hall meetings. She voted to let Bush suspend habeas corpus in the name of "fighting terror", and she'll
continue to use the terrorist bogeyman to accumulate every ounce of power for the executive that she can in her presidency (god forbid). Meanwhile, the neo cons are giddy and drooling over the prospect of having another shot at her and Bill. Fox news and CNN are no doubt already digging through their archives for footage of Monica, the hearings, and the whole mess. A Clinton nomination for '08 would mean one thing; can you spell "Guliani"?

We all enjoy the fun of catching a candidate without the answer we feel is correct. Let's not forget some of this is serious stuff. If a vote is necessary to legally name Iran a terrior state that is a more important issue. As much as I hate Bush let us not forget this is serious business.

I'm voting for the Democratic candidate in this election, unless it's Hillary. She was one of the few Dems that I didn't vote for in 2006 when she won a 2nd term as my state's senator. Incidents like this one and her $5K baby bond are a prime reason why. I don't understand how so many Democrats flock to this woman and ignore Obama and Edwards, when in all reality, she's the closest of their candidates to being Republican.

Bryan, Rolph was the dog on Muppet Show. Since being cancelled he's gone really right-wing, insisting that Jim Henson was killed by the Clintons and spending a lot of his own money on right-wing candidates. This isn't the first political rally where he's been spotted barking questions at the audience.

For whatever reason Hillary does not field tough questions and prefers to operate in a controlled bubble. It's a shame, because she is certainly capable, but obviously has an agenda she needs to hide from those of us who are anti-war.

This country has become the Lying States of America. None of the politicians ever tell the truth,either on the left or right. They are just like the Lawyers in the judicial system. Truth has nothing to do with the outcome of a trial, it's only which lawyer can B.S. the jury the best. And the more money you have the better B.S.er you get. Bush has B.S.'d this country into believing he is a christian, but christians aren't supposed to lie in order to start a war. Christians aren't supposed to kill. And christians are supposed to give to the poor not millionaires. Wake up and smell the coffee folks, the god of America is money, not Jesus. The military industrial complex loves this war, they are making hundreds of billions of dollars. And that is why it will go on for the next fifty years. And that is why Hillary refuses to have the troops out by the end of 2013. She said they might not be out by the end of her second term.

that's the problem with being the front runner…it opens you up to scrutiny…she is trying desperately to play the centrist role, but she (nor any other candidate) can be all things to all people. I say she ultimately will shoot herself in the foot…the Dems have become very good at this lately

Ron, if the guy flew thousands of miles to be there just to ask her that question, then he was what I would call a plant. That is, he wasn't a local voter with a concern but an outsider playing reporter.

She has a short fuse and she's playing into this whole "we can attack anybody as long as we call them terrorists" idea. I'm affraid of Hillary. And what's up with calling "hillary haters" "women haters"? I would support a female president if she supported the constitution and didn't want to bury us in taxes. It has nothing to do with her gender, she's just a bad choice for president. Ron Paul has my vote. I wish the media would give him some attention.

…Don't tase me, bro!

Wynter -

You wrote, "But to answer some people's questions on this bill labeling Iran's "Revolutionary Guard Corp's" a terrorist organization. First off, it isn't an authorization to go to war. You need a clear "declaration of war" passed by congress for this to occur as stated by the War Powers Resolution(1973). All of the recent wars including the Iraq war has followed this resolution."

It's amusing to watch Clinton Apologists like you, Wynter, attempting to explain away Hillary's vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution. Your emphatic attempt to assure "it's not authorization to start a war".

You're so desperate to support Hillary you can't see the TRUTH: President Bush was hanging by a thread on the current issues (Afghanistan/Iraq) and had NO support doing anything about Iran. This resolution - calling Iran's elite guard a "terrorist organization" GIVES President Bush the support he needed to take action. Of COURSE he's not going to start a "war" - but he will authorize strikes and engage this "terrorist organization". It's all semantics and you can't see it??

Bill Clinton didn't need congressional approval to command air strikes in an attempt to hit Bin Laden (a "terrorist"). Classifying someone or a group as "terrorist" gives the President and the military permission to attack.

Let me end by saying "thank you" to Hillary and you supporters. As a conservative I hope the President continues pursuing our enemies regardless where they hide (including in Iran). When this gets "ugly" - we conservatives can point back to Hillary's vote and say it had bi-partisan support.

Who cares if the person was a "plant". There should be a plant at all these events. None of the candidates like to answer the tough questions but they MUST.
She is a master of the non answer. And she was not all presidential with her temper. Keep asking the tough questions of ALL those who would be our leader.To Jim in Cleveland…are you daef and blind? You said "good for her…tell it like it is". Where did you hear her tell it at all? All she did was loose her temper and duck the question.

Jo in Atlanta -

You said,

The good people of this great country will give you these by voting for Hillary…

- An end to this war as we know it.
- Health care for your kids.
- Affordable health care for you
- Reduced health care payments by the companies you work for
- The Good old days of high paying jobs

——

LOL… thank you for the belly laugh this morning! I feel much better. Sadly, though, I suspect you REALLY believe those things your wrote:

- End to the War (Hillary is going to continue the war and can't promise troops will be home by 2013!)

- Healthcare for your kids (this one is true - Hillary believes in socialism so anyone that believes personal responsibility is dead and is looking for a government handout should be happy)

- Good old days of high paying jobs (maybe you forgot it was Bill Clinton that signed NAFTA into law - which exported thousands of jobs. Or maybe you don't realize the impact of 15+ million illegal immigrants has by effectively lowering wages in our country…and Hillary wants to give them amnesty)

But don't let truth or facts get in the way of your enthusiam. YOU GO GIRL!!

I would have asked her the same question. In fact, I sent a letter to both her and Senator Charles Schumer's offices expressing my disappointment with their yea votes on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. I wonder what her response to this letter will be?

Furthermore, if I were at a town hall meeting with Barack Obama, I would have asked HIM why he himself abstained from voting on this particular piece of legislation (along with John McCain).

Then again, I wouldn't even bother to attend a town hall with Hillary because I decided I wasn't voting for her way back when she supported the attack on Iraq. I figured that she knew what she was doing, she was a warmonger, and if she didn't know, she was quite dumb.

I think it's a foregone conclusion that she will win the presidency whether she "deserves" to win or not because Bush-Clinton has got it all wrapped up. At least she can construct a coherent sentence, unlike that other "plant," the Bush currently occupying the White House.

Poor Hillary is just so sure that anyone that doesn't agree with her had to have had the question given to them. If she was half as smart as she claims she would realize that the independent portion of the electorate was on the rise and that they don't kneel at either parties alter.

IT would be nice if we could get answers for questions asked..but I guess if they don't like a question they are a plant. Nice going MS Clinton

This guy was obviously a plant if she's been asked the same question three separate places. But then Romney also had a tough time answering a guy with Muscular Dystrophy who asked, "Are you going to send me to jail for using medical marijuana?" Bottom line: All politicians are born slimy.

So there's Hillary, thinking that people can't think for themselves.

i am "kind of" a fan of hillary clinton, but i will not vote for her.

the question is completely valid whether or not she'd heard it 3x before in other places, because chances are….people aren't following her around to each and every town hall meeting and therefore are not hearing her answers to these repeated questions. it would be different if things were televised and then she was hearing repeated questions.

Let's see if I got this straight:

- Guy asks question about Iran.
- Hillary responds.
- Guy doesn't like her response.
- Hillary explains to the man that there were two versions proposed and that the one she voted on did not give Bush the authority to attack Iran.
- Man still insists that she learned nothing from her previous vote on Iraq.
- She offers to have her staff give him the text of the resolution.
_ Man is still not satisfied with her response.

Frankly, I too would have lost my patience with this man. It apears that no answer that she gave him would have satisfied him. I don't know if you can call him a plant, but he does blog regularly at KOS.

To the writer of the article: The first paragraphs refers to "a questioner". The second paragraph refers to "a questioner". The third paragraph refers to "the questioner". The fourth paragraph refers to "the questioner". The fifth paragraph refers to "the question" and "somebody obviously sent it to you". Then the first word in the sixth paragraph is "Rolph". Who the hell is Rolph? From the context, I assume he is the questioner. If "the questioner" had a name, why not tell me that in the first or second paragraph? I don't know how many articles I have read on cnn.com where I think I'm crazy because the article starts talking about someone who hasn't been mentioned before. Then I have to go back and read it again to figure out if I'm losing it or if you all are just bad writers. Also, does "Rolph" have a first/last name or is he a one name wonder like Madonna?

Go on Hillary haters…

Thank God you are part of the percentile that hates her and will never vote for her. The good news is there are people that like her…

So haters and Women bashers… keep hating..

The good people of this great country will give you these by voting for Hillary…

- An end to this war as we know it.
- Health care for your kids.
- Affordable health care for you
- Reduced health care payments by the companies you work for
- The Good old days of high paying jobs

and much more.

GOP knows there is no stopping her if she wins the primaries. That's why they plant this guys in there.

The guy that asked the question does not live in Iowa…so tell me; he travelled that far from Florida to ask her that question??????

Well now; If the Dems lost again in 08 it won't be because of Hillary, it will be because they couldn't see pass the reason why they hated her more than George "da decider" Bush & Dick "shoot a friend in da face" Cheney. My guess is because she sticks by her man and show strenght in the face of adversity instead of weakness and, definately, because of her gender. Or, Properbly, no matter what a lot of people think they know about her, they can't bring themself to agreed that it's what the right wing and the phamarceutical industries spend 50 million to ingrain in their mind — notwithstanding that the 8 yrs of Bill & Hillary is the best in the last 28 yrs counting the Reagan yrs.
And, bytheway, she did answered the question that was asked!.

I can't believe anyone is actually buying that he was a "plant"! Stop eating every word that comes out of Hillary Clinton's mouth. Start to think for yourself! The same guy asks hard questions of ALL the democratic candidates… as EVERYONE should! These people may be our next President. They NEED to be asked the HARD questions. And each candidate needs to ANSWER the hard questions!

The thing is….Hillary voting to see the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization in not really wrong - her response to a potential constituent speaks volumes of how she will "work" with those whos opinions differ…

What I wan to know is - where does she plan on getting the five grand she says she wants to give to every newborn child for college education? Is she going to tax us to death to get it? On top of that she believes in amnesty for illegals! So illegals come here and use social services and now our taxes are paying for their college education!?!?!? You must be out of your mind lady!

Go Dr. Paul! You are the champion of the Constitution! God bless you sir!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com

I've never been a Hillary hater, but…open mouth, insert foot.

"Hi, I'm Hillary Clinton. I'm paranoid, and I think the American public is too uninformed to pose an intelligent question."

Nice one Hillary.

I don't care if the questioner was a "plant" or not - candidates should still be expected to answer questions and not hide behind handlers and stump speeches. As time passes, Hillary will eventually be asked tough questions, and Obama will eventually consent to interviews that aren't "Oprah puff pieces." I just want a questioner to ask, "How will you keep Iran from getting nukes, bombing Tel Aviv, and blocking the Strait of Hormuz to jack up the price of oil to $300 per barrel?"

Hill is right in Iran case; Iran is threat to Middle east and current iranian president is crazy need to watch carefully.
This guy is left wing hypocrite wants to make hill bad. he should know that she has tons of supporter for what she believes.
Hill for president, '08!!!

I once got a chance to ask Hillary about medical marijuana. She said it was a plant.

Then she kicked my wheelchair off the stage . . .

I hope everyone on this comment board is voting in '08 for their favorite republican so this country can get kick in the back end for another 4 years. Wake up people….big bucks for big business doesn't give a sam hell about you working stiffs… DONT BE SO NIEVE!

I find CNN's process for eliminating opinions interesting. In an earlier note, I simply stated:

- I do not think we need any more Bushs or Clintons as I believe they are
both puppet/stooges bought by the same
military/industrial/congressional complex that CONTROLS both parties.

- I strongly feel that this nation desparately needs representation outside of these two parties, for this
very reason.

WHY SHOULD THIS OPINION BE CENSORED????
IS CNN AGAINST FREE SPEECH ???

LOL - what does Hilary think - there is only one person capable of asking a question in search of a viable answer? Please… why is is that no political figure is willing to answer the tough questions? Do they all think that we are stupid? It's time to let them know that we ARE paying attention!!!

What did Obama do to the networks. Does it mean we need black people as producers? I think it is high time!

I just have two words to say: Al Gore.

OF course, Hillary, it absolutely had to be plant, because you cannot possibly comprehend that someone, somewhere in America could possibly take exception to your cnadidacy. Are you that narcissitically naive as to think that you are the perfect answer to all that is wrong with America?! You need to wake up and smell the coffee and realize that it is your proposed policies of social liberalism, big government, and out of control spending on every policy that would extend the already long are of the federal government that are the problem with America today.

I think it's hilarious that the republican party is so afraid of the Clintons. It's also ironic that the steps Dubya and Cheney have taken will make her the most powerful president in history. The republicans are running full tilt afraid, and everyone knows it. They've been a complete failure. Full of corruption and sexual scandals. The party of Lincoln has become the party of corruption.

Wow, she's pure evil, cackles, and doesn't have pretty legs. Sounds exactly like the LAST FOUR PRESIDENTS, doesn't it?

I guess only a really pretty president can save America now. Rudy, get out the face powder again.

Typical Clinton. Like other people in this country cannot have a rational thought. A lot of people I know have the same questions on the Iran issue and whether the president and congress are ramping up the rhetoric for a strike at Iran.

Hillary has already voted to give Bush the power to invade Iran. Read it and weep dems..

YOU GO HILLARY!!!!!

Busted! About damn time someone confronts this power hungry fraud!

I dont like hillary at all, nor would i vote for any of the current dems, but if their are iranian military men, killing american women and men, then why wouldnt they be labled a terrorist organization. They are KILLING OUR TROOPS.

Rolph clearly needs to get a life. I question what he does in his spare time with the sheep on his farm and I'll bet he can't wait to have George Bush's baby.

In typical political fashion, as if it was a seasonal change in the primary, out come the "verbal assassination" attempts by the other candidates and republicans that want to throw their own monkey wrench into the process. Like a primary ever ran smoothly! Hillary was correct to call the questioner exactly what he was. It's a common practice where a person from another candidate's team sends a specifically worded question to someone attending an event in an effort to fumble them up. They sometimes even take a training class in how to do this effectively. After listening to the combative questioner I would have to come to the same conclusion… he recieved the question from another candidate's team.

But to answer some people's questions on this bill labeling Iran's "Revolutionary Guard Corp's" a terrorist organization. First off, it isn't an authorization to go to war. You need a clear "declaration of war" passed by congress for this to occur as stated by the War Powers Resolution(1973). All of the recent wars including the Iraq war has followed this resolution.

Secondly, this bill only defines this organization, which by the way has been shipping and funding the more technically advanced IEDs that have been killing our troops in Iraq, as a terrorist organization. And if you define terrorism as the funding and equiping of an insurgent force in an attempt to kill troops, civilians, etc. without engaging in clear war then the Revolutionary Guard Corp's are clearing doing this.

The Iran Revolutionary Guard Corp's are a mercenary organization within Iran that is not completely under their government's control. Their primary mission is to protect the Islamic "revolution" which occurred back in 1979. Since then they operate extraterritorily to bring about these ends. This includes forming militant groups and arming them as have been seen in Iraq.

Labeling them what they are is hardly difficult. But is a necessary step in approaching sanctions against Iran.

Telling it like I see it,
Wynter

I would ask the same question if I were in a 'town hall mtg' with her. I would think this is a typical question that she should be more & more familiar being out on the presidential campaign & she should not be so defensive in her response. That's a perfectly legitimate standard question. And Believe me, that is not a 'planted question'. Obviously, she's not relating to us common folks to well.

I am a staunch Democrat….think & feel like a true blue Democrat….but I'm not sure who I will be voting for, if I vote in this upcoming presidential election.

Believe me, there's a 1,000 questions I would like to ask her in person.

Why am I not surprised at how she treated this person? And she's supposed to be better than King George? Come on America, wake up before it is too late!

I worked for the Clintons. If, an opponent responded this way, someone like me would develop a strategy to do just that and more to rattle their cage and get them, 'off-their-game.'

Watch and see, if that scenario develops from 'fellow' democrat candidates or in the general.

Craig Livingstone
Former Clinton campaign and WH Staffer

The whole Iraq mess is so confusing nobody knows what's going on or what's the best move. Blame the guys who dove in and couldn't pull out for that, not the opposition party.

All the candidates are pretty crummy this time around. By now America would vote for an actual elephant or donkey if it said it would get us out of Iraq.

Some of these comments are laughable. First of all, many of you say this was an extremely important question. Well, where were you 8 or 4 years ago when many of you voted a complete idiot into the White House? There are many, way more important questions that have never and will never be answered.
Second, the reason she voted for the war was because she had been fed a bunch of total lies. If I was told all these lies I would ahve voted for the war as well. To this day Colin Powell is still sick to his stomach that he believed and helped spread those lies at his famous speech at the UN.
Second, the sentiment at the time was very pro war. If you spoke against it you were labeled "unpatriotic". Hillary knew of course she was going to run for president and didn't want to risk being labeled "unpatriotic". At the time polls showed that 80% of the country wanted the war. Everyone believed the lies. Obama, who I like and respect as well, has the luxury that he never had to vote for or agaiinst the war. With all the lies he may have voted for the war as well, who knows.
HIllary will lead this country and has the experience to do so. I don't want another 8 years of religious crap. I want a president who will lead this country in the iddle. Not too much to the left, not too much to the right. Her husband did that and was a great president. No matter what mistakes he made in his private life, he was a good president. Not an extremist. The reality is that we currently face a religious extremist who had lead our country into the abbyss. Everyone hates us and we are stuck in an unwinnable war. No matter how much you are agaisnt the war, we still need someone who can lead us out of there the right way. Hillary has the ability to do that. As far as the inplant I'm glad she had the guts to speak up iso cower down. Good for you Hillary!

Good Job Hillary!!! Any person who thinks you will lead us to war with Iran is just an idiot who is scrambling for some scare tactics to sway voters. Get real people!!! Hillary is privy to the fact that 70% of us are opposed to this occupation with Iraq and she is not about to ignore that fact, complicate it further and get us into another disastrous mess with Iran.

Hillary is most likely going to be the democratic presidential candidate and ALL democrats need to stand behind her and get her into office. Quit making idiotic threats that if she is the nominee "I'm voting for someone else".

Imagine President Guiliani, Romney, or worst of all, McCain. It's stupid to think the Democrats can't beat these losers in the next election. Any of the Dem. candidates are better choices. We need to band together, no matter who our candidate is.

Just wait until the compassionate conservative christians start running their 'Swift Boat' attack ads on her. She'll be toast for the neocons. Then they can send someone else's kids to Iran to die for oil.

That would be so unlike the Republican Slime Machine to send disruptive plants against their future opponents. They bekieve in truth,justice & the American Way. Hell, they wear American Flag lapels. They(Rove,Inc.) are PATRIOTS!!!

I'll add my vote to the many above:
That simply being we do not need any
more Bush's or Clinton's. They are both
bought out by the same cartel, that chose to cover themselves by placing bets on both sides. That's not to say that most of the other candidates are better….this country desperately needs to rid itself of both parties !!

Both parties are are almost mirror images of one another. No wonder the dems and repubs are deathly afraid of a third part. A third party would cast serious light on how crooked these two parties really are. Four years of Billary will just be a continuation of Bush, et al.

I am a woman and Hillary never got into my mind. I see her a joker more than Obama. I see Obama going all the way. This guy is sharp. Watch how it will play out. Don't forget Obama didn't know many people in the world than Clinton and here is the media campaining for her. I hate to hear she has won all the time the debate is over after a campaign when the debate is on. The same media has supported bush all the way and I wonder whn Americans will ever have their take.

CLINTON ALL THE WAY. WE SEE WHAT YOU REPUBLICANS ARE ATTEMPTING. CLINTON IS VERY DIPLOMATIC FOR HOLDING THESE EVENTS. WHERE ARE THE REPUBLICANS? PLAYING GOLF I BET.

Billary is just like her husband, a BORN LIAR! This woman plays to the crowd. When she's in Harlem, she says what African-Americans want to hear; when she's in rural Ohio, she says what Midwestern whites want to hear. It's sad that the democrats always trot out such tired, passe candidates every four years and it's sad that so many people will vote for this manipulative, deceitful and evasive woman. Four years of Billary could very well be even worse than eight years of GW. People, let's please not make a mistake that will keep this country mired in unnecessary war for another eight years!

It is quite obvious that Hillary will do anything for a vote. I mean come on after she found the stats on Hispanics being the fastest growing minority she immediatley began courting them for votes.She does not answer questions directly …vague at best..and worst of all thinks the American people who pay her salary even as a Senator are too dumb to ask questions about a troubled country and how she intends to repair the damage "if" elected.
Now we ask ourselves do we continue with the same old same old every 4 yr empty promises and hopes or elect someone , Obama , who is not afraid to buck the system and is a man of action instead of empty words.If we as a country want change then we as a country must take a stand and vote for whats in all of our best interests instead of worrying about party .

It looks like Hillary has been using his campaign fund to pay cnn…..Has someone realized Obama is invisible nowadays….I think the media is to blame for Howard Dean fall. They kept people hiped and that is why he bursted! This is no exception to hillary. Let their emotion not run high in january for he. I predict a major depression.

My oh my Hillary Clinton sure has certain political runners,leaders etc. running scared! What's wrong Washington, can't handle someone who knows what they're doing, little alone… A STRONG WOMEN…..you better run because she is our next commander in chief!!!!! YAHOO!

Tammy

It's New Hampton, Iowa - not North Hampton. FYI.

rrrreeeeooooooooowwwwww fffft, ffffft. Hillarious!

Here's what you people can expect for the next 4 years. What a condesending wench. Is she going to cry out like that every time she has an assumption? LET ME FINISH? I love it! I can't wait for her to lose.

At least Clinton did not have the student attacked and arrested as the Republicans (and, sadly, Kerry) would have done.

Remember Bush's "town hall meetings?" Only Bush loyalists were allowed in, and if anyone showed any signs of disagreeing, they were hustled out and/or arrested. That’s Bush’s idea of free speech.

I see that President Ahmadinejad does the same now. Bush and Ahmadinejad—mirror images.

I don't think she's been asked that question enough. If she wants Democrats' support, she needs to be a leader, not a follower.

Hilary,

You have been asked that question 3 times, because people are concerned about where such a distinction might lead. You didn't think it possible that more than one person could share the same conerns? If not, you certainly don't kow the people of this country and I would call your ability to lead this nation into question.

ARE ALL REPUBLICANS FOOL'S? ARE ONLY FOOL'S REPUBLICANS?

Posted By HAWK, TEXAS : October 8, 2007 5:51 pm

Thank you "Hawk" for your usual well thought out and intelligent posting with CAPITAL letters that augment your genius.

Keep up the good work, "Hawk"?.

Those damn Republicans getting her to yell at this guy for having the stupidity to ask the annointed one a tough question with the expectation of an actual "presidential answer".

The reality is that she did not know if he is a plant, but you saw her angry reaction to someone asking her something that wasn't a softball question.

it seems Clinton is going to have other problems now that Mr. Berger might be advising her. But I dont think you will read that on CNN.

Plant or flower - you still should answer the question in a dignified manner Hilary.

Even if he was planted, an "experienced" leader (or so she claims) should just simply answer the question. If she was asked the same question previously, she obviously knows the answer. Quit your moaning and groaning Hillary and answer a real question for once….

I'm also shocked she didn't do her little hyena laugh before her "experienced" answer. Oh, Hillary… where did your inner hyena go?

Go Hillary! Their hate is a measure of your success. We are out here, quietly waiting to vote for you.

If Hillary were a man, I doubt there would be all the fuss. Let's face it - she has a steeper mountain to climb than all of the other candidates, Democrats & Republicans. She has my vote. She's complex & intelligent… you don't get a simple answer from her because she recognizes that most answers aren't simple as most of you would like to believe. She's trying to represent all of Americans - liberals and conservatives. It's the game of politics… did you expect anything else?

Senatro Hillary Clinton is a smart lady and is benefitting from her husband Bill. The Voters need to understand that Hillary is running for herself and not to serve the Amereican people. She is a power hungry, egotistical women seeking to be the most powerful job. If you want to do something for this country than vote for Edwards, Obama or Biden but certainly not Clinton.

Let's see:

8 years Bush Sr VP
4 years Bush Sr Pres
8 years Clinton Bill Pres
8 years Bush Jr Pres
8 years Clinton Hill ? Pres
8 years Bush Jeb ? Pres
44 years

Enough. Wake up America. This is America, is it not?

It is time for frsh leadrship.

I dont like the last 20 years of leadership. And another 8 years of the same 20. If we vote clinton and we get the same po po we had for the last 20 years. Then we have no place to complain !!!!! since we elected the same old leaders agin. So we get what we deserve more failed leadership.

I perfer Joe Biden but Obama ok too.

Come on !!!!!!!is it time for new fresh leadership or the same ole poo poo leadership we had for the last 20 years????

Whats next ??Hill does 8 years then Jeb Bush from flordia does 8 years then 8 years of Clinton daughters then 8 years of Bush daughter. And so on.

Enuf is Enuf. No more corpate republicans and no more Clintons.

Go Biden or Obama !!!!!!!

God help me If Hill gets ELECTED then Jeb Bush runs after 8 years of Hill them Im Moving out of the US. By then we be a country of no hope and live in fear. And the Amercian Dream will be Bankrupt.

YEAH! BRING'EM ON BUSH!! YEEEEAHHHH!!!

Not surprising. She should do what bush does, have her goons make sure there aren't any.

Look! Over there, its a plant. No!! Don't read it again!!!

Clinton's recent Senate vote calling on President Bush to formally call the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization confers Bush with the ability to invade the country.

Go Hillary! Politics is tough business, full of negotiation, compromise, and balancing of multiple issues. Those of you who are so vehemently opposed to Hillary are pretty simple minded thinking "your way is the right way". That sort of thinking is just like Bush. What you call lying is compromise and negotiation - that's politics - get real! I like Hillary because she's trying to bring a moderate balanced point of view - Republicans are voters too and if you don't try and represent their thoughts or consider their thoughts then you are no better than what we already have. Is that what people want? A single minded simple President - we've had 8 years of that. Simple minds breed simple Presidents.

Also I forgot to say, IT'S ABOUT TIME WE GOT A REAL ISSUE. NO GOD IN THIS STORY, YEAH!!!!!!! bACK TO REAL ISSUES OF POLITICS.

I think, finally, people are starting to see through ms. Clinton's thin veil of civility. The metamorphosis of her every-changing campaign. "Advisors" whispering in her ear, trying to shape a "winner". The laugh-track phase was my personal favorite. Disingenuous. I truly pray the American people will come to understand that a disingenuous CANDIDATE will most certainly be a disengenuous president. Do you folks want someone in power that looks upon the American people as a bunch of dunces that can't be trusted with the truth? Personally, I'm sick and tired of that- I am an intelligent citizen of this country- and I've had my fill of half-truths and lies. With Hillary- I can only see more of the same. I have much respect for Sen. Obama- I hope he secures the nomination-

Duh….have something to hide? Worried about something, like maybe voter intelligence…gotta watch that paranoid response!

Once again we see the true attitude and response from Clinton. This is a woman ready to blame someone for entrapping her to answer a question. It's always a conspiracy against her and her husband. She even showed once again that her secret service and other people that has served her that said she was easily angered and defensive was right. That's what we want running the country. I don't think so.

Thank Van Reuter for proving to me that Hillary is every bit as shrill as I've been told. I was leaning Hillary, but after watching the video your supplied I'm voting Obama. I believe Obama, even if he knew the dude was a plant, would have answered his question. Van Reuter, you have done me a great service and I thank you. I'm for Obama now.

SHE DOESN'T HAVE MY VOTE (OR MANY IN THE MILITARY) VOTE AS SHE DOESN'T CARE FOR THE PEOPLE OR THE TROOPS. ASK AN ACTIVE DUTY SOLDIER, SAILOR OR MARINE!
As she stated to my husband in NMF-Iraq when she displaced troops from helocopters when she wanted to 'change' her schedule for her convenience… she stated "It's the troops job [to be in danager]…" her change knowingly by her placed troops in hummers vice their scheduled helos so she could 'change' as she desired. She also didn't want to do any PR time with them and fussed with one of her 'handlers'/ 'manager' when she said "Fine I'll do it" she cut her time short and didn't show her care for the soldiers or sailors present… including my husband (he was so disappointed) We share our testiment with all who will listen as this is a side of Hillary she like to dress up in drag and pass of as a 'caring politician' HOG WASH! GO HOME HILLARY.

Clinton NEVER answers a question straight on. When she's not bashing other candidates, another party, anyone she can to take the focus off of her incompetence, she's tiptoeing around questions.

What is the difference between Clinton and Giuliani? Only fiscal policy. Hillary Clinton will govern like a Republican if elected.

The point isn't whether the questioner was a plant or her arrogance - it's about her answer. She used this very rationale in explaining her previous vote for authorizing the war in Iraq. She has no experience (aside from being the First Housewife) and she's just not very smart. She is, however, underhanded, conniving, unprincipled, and untruthful. I agree completely that it's time we had a woman as President, just not this one. I've never voted for a Republican in my life, but couldn't vote for Clinton in good conscience. She's the only candidate that could lose the presidency for the Democrats.

LOL! I can't believe anyone would ever vote for her or take her seriously! What a joke!

~*~Mitt Romney 2008~*~

She is just like Bush. Sorry Hill, but I’m a lib to the bone and I also want to know why you voted for the Iran bill!!! In fact when I heard about it you dropped off from being my #2 choice to not being a choice at all for me in 2008, and the way you answered that guy’s question. If your not prez I can also say if you run in NY again you will not have my vote. I think it’s safe to say the base of the Dems, and Reps are getting sick of their leaders.

Ray in Pensacola,

Not all of us that comment voted for Bush. I voted against him twice. I don't get the logic of those who vote for him and who support this kind of nonsense-he was so darn successful at creating fear to gain votes and take illegal action. An ignorant public is taking our country down the tubes.

your comment:
You people who comment are all the same ones who put W in office twice. The man invaded a country and let Americans die in battle so his Vice President's company could make billions of dollars. W cares NOTHING about this country. He and the Republicans are about one thing only, MONEY for themselves and there friends.

I agree with this completely. It would do many people good to do some research into PNAC and what was going on just prior to 911. 911 gave W and Cheney an easy catalyst to invade Iraq in the hope to control middle eastern oil. Wake up America, we are not there for any other reason. Cheney made millions off of the war with his involvement with Haliburtan and their no bid contracts giving no other company any input at all. Now it appears we are being primed to invade Iran as well. The media and congress have fallen right back into the same ignorance as before. Hillary scares me just as much as Bush and company. Rudi and many of the Republican candidates are just as ignorant, or worse, money hungry and run by corporate America. We need a candidate that truly cares about American interests, not just his or her own. I support Obama wholeheartedly. I fear though, that our public is too easily influenced, cannot think for themselves and it will be the demise of our country.

Dear TimeforaChange in Raleigh:

You are a neighbor to me in NC…explain exactly how having Hillary as our next president will be a change? We have had 28 years of either a Bush or a Clinton Controlling the White House….so a change would be going from a Bush back to a Clinton? For every fault you can find in Bush, I can find you an equal one that did just as much damage under the Clinton years….if you want a CHANGE, then you need to get away from the "status quo"

I'm alarmed by how many psychos think President Bush needed Clinton’s approval to do anything. Also I think it is pretty self serving to criticize her for voting for something almost everyone thought at the time (especially since their opinion was anonymous). So the big complaint about her here is she doesn't let it slide that her adversaries are playing cheap games. Silly me, I thought she was running for President of the US, not the Rotary Club. I also think the issue of Iran is a serious one, and shouldn't be handled with peace signs and sit ins. I don't see anyone in this race that brings as much experience, savvy, and statesmanship. I take comfort in the fact that people take more interest in posting this junk than they ever do in voting.

RE THIS POST: THANK GOD I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS PICKED UP ON THIS! It is funny how Mrs. Clinton can say "We need to change the direction of this country" Well The only way you can have change is to MAKE A CHANGE…If they have the name BUSH or CLINTON, They will NOT get my vote. 28 years is enough of 2 Families controling this country. She and her husband need to retire, along with the Bush's.

****************

8 years Bush as VP
4 years Bush as President
8 years Clinton as President
8 years of Bush jr as President
28 years of Bush or Clinton.

Isn't that enough years of Clintons/Bushs guiding our country?

Posted By Danny, Virginia Beach, VA : October 8, 2007 4:44 pm

This verbal tussle demonstrates that Hillary does NOT want to answer difficult questions. This is why she refuses to go on the top rated cable news program, "The O'Reilly Factor".

Senator Kerry made that mistake during the 2004 presidential election (he has since admitted that avoiding O'Reilly in 2004 was a huge mistake).

I will not even consider voting for a politician who refuses to answer questions on issues that affect the life of my family and me.

Of course he was a plant! Peole who are belligerent aren't there with an open mind supporting the candidate, they are there trying to knock the candidate down. She handled herself very well. These attacks are pathetic and desperate. Hillary has my vote.

Hillary's been asked the same damn question because it's such an obvious one. The fact that she doesn't GET why this vote was wrong, is exactly WHY she won't be a good president. She's totally out of touch with her own perception with the American people. She's isolated, she lives in an ivory tower, and she is arrogant.

Sound familiar? She really is George Bush light.

No, Ray of Pensacola. I never voted for that *evil* clown.

Every Right Wing, Left Wing, and middle of the road person needs to read the brief article called "Middle East Imperative" - By: Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen. USAF Ret.

It will take you 5 minutes. Read that article, then sit and think about who you are going to support. All, the left wants to do is do everything against what Bush has done. They are not thinking of ways to change the future. However, Bush is a complete knucklehead who has made alot of mistakes.

You can see I am not affiliated with any party. Just read that article, Im dead serious.

Since the campaign season started out so early with a millino debates, they are all tried…exhaustion sets in, I wouldn't be surprised if we hear some strange things fro Giuliani, Romney or Obama….campaigning takes a toll.

The claws come out!

Hillary is as arrogant as Bush, but she might be just