CNN

No, Sue, I am NOT kidding. Why would I be kidding? Do you think that the Republican candidate Mitt Romney is less capable of being elected president and then being the president of the United States than Hillary is? Frankly, I don't think so. Gov. Romney has much more experience needed to lead our nation than Hillary does.

And congratulations, good for you that you are one of those blind supporters of Hillary.

We have to take out Iran's nuclear capability before it's too late.

No liberal president would have the guts to do anything about this problem.

Iran is hell bent of destroying Israel with America a close second. Let's hit them first. They've been asking for it since 1979 when they took our people hostage. The world will be better off without Iran having nuclear weapons.

As Edwards' support from dem voters has declined close to single digits, he chance for nomination is very slim.

Before the 2004 nomination, he dropped out of the race, threw supported to the front runner and was then picked as a VP running mate.

This time, he has realised that he has no chance to be the VP running mate, as Hillary may pick Obama instead for addtional votes if she needs it for the presidency. That explains why Edwards is getting desperate, not dropping out of the race and keep bashing Hillary. That does Edwards no good and closes Edwards political coffin.

Give up John, this by no means gives Bush authority to go to war with IRAN and you know it. I am no Hillary fan and I am a republican but you look really desperate here and need to just go away.

Val, you're kidding about the "brilliant" Republican candidates, aren't you? There isn't a man there that doesn't have way more baggage than Hillary to contend with-pro-abortion, multiple marriages and divorces, ready to bomb Iran..I don't know what universe you inhabit, but here in the real world we think that a strong effort to stay OUT of war trumps about any other position. I am also tired of the Republican mantra "No taxes" when they spend us into oblivion. Of course you have to have taxes, and frankly, the war tax proposed in Congress is a great idea. Put your money where your mouth is, Bush (or rather, our money!) Then we'll see who supports this President! GO HILLARY...we're ready for the Dems again. Short of the Rove-led cheating that got Bush into the WH in 2000 thanks to Jeb, and the questionable election tactics in Ohio in '04, the Dems will win.

Kyu Reisch, Radcliff, Kentucky:

Sorry buddy. "Very selfish" is precisely the definition of yourself. You are the one blindly following Hillary, thus, forfeiting any chance at your party's victory in general election. I can make a bet that Hillary will be a loser in general election if she is a nominee – she is despised by way too may voters. Remember I said this next year in November, Kyu.

Oh, and one more thing. Don't worry about the Republican candidates, they are pretty brilliant themselves – they'll figure it out.

>>At least Edwards, as well as Obama, are actually saying what they mean and saying it consistantly from beginning to end of the conversation.<<

What they are saying, and about the only thing they are saying, is what Hillary is doing wrong–and it is hard to find those kinds of things. They need to say what THEY are going to do for America, but they don't seem to have much to say about that. If they couldn't talk about what Hillary is doing wrong, they wouldn't be able to think of anything to say.

GO, HILLARY!!

YOu are the only one who is saying what you WOULD do, rather than what everyone else shouldn't do. YOU DEFINATELY HAVE THE VOTES FROM MY HOME.

Posted By J.McKinney SW MO : October 14, 2007 10:28 am

And they do, At least Obama does. I don't know about Edwards. If you go on Obama website it would tell you what he plans for America

AYYUB

>>At least Edwards, as well as Obama, are actually saying what they mean and saying it consistantly from beginning to end of the conversation.<<

What they are saying, and about the only thing they are saying, is what Hillary is doing wrong–and it is hard to find those kinds of things. They need to say what THEY are going to do for America, but they don't seem to have much to say about that. If they couldn't talk about what Hillary is doing wrong, they wouldn't be able to think of anything to say.

GO, HILLARY!!

YOu are the only one who is saying what you WOULD do, rather than what everyone else shouldn't do. YOU DEFINATELY HAVE THE VOTES FROM MY HOME.

The major news outlets have already joined Senator Barack Obama in mischaracterizing Senator Hillary Clinton’s position regarding negotiations with Iran. They have asserted that her comments during the July YouTube debate contradict her comments made during an October 11 campaign appearance in New Hampshire. However, a mere twenty minutes of internet research to find the actual sources of her comments clearly demonstrate that her position has been entirely consistent throughout, despite the mischaracterizations by Senator Obama and the media.
This is all laid out in detail below. In short, Senator Clinton clearly said she would not commit to direct, personal meetings with specific, tyrannical leaders in her first year without any preconditions. On the other hand, what she has stated all along is a commitment to vigorous diplomatic negotiations between her administration and the Iranian government in order to lay the groundwork for improved relations and the kind of principals’ meeting called for at the YouTube debate.
As for the detailed analysis, here was the question at issue from the YouTube debate:
QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
Here is how Senator Obama began his answer:
OBAMA: “I would.”
Here is what Senator Clinton said at the debate about that question:
CLINTON: “Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year.”
That is all she said she would not do. In reinforcing this point, she said in the very next sentence what she would do:
“I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.”
So, right off the bat, she promised to enter into diplomatic discussions, as distinct from direct high level meetings. She repeated this in the same response.
“And I will pursue very vigorous diplomacy. And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.”
So, it is clear she was rejecting the idea of unconditional meetings with the specific national leaders, such as Ahmadinejad. In fact, here is how Anderson Cooper rephrased the question to Senator Edwards immediately after Senator Clinton gave her response:
COOPER: “Senator Edwards, would you meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il?”
(If Senator Obama meant for his answer to be directed at lower level national negotiations, he has never said anything to correct the record.)
Senator Clinton reemphasized these exact positions the next day in her interview with an Iowa Quad City Times reporter, noting the distinction between directly meeting with those leaders and carrying out diplomatic negotiations, (you can listen for yourself at http://www.qctimes.com/multimedia/audio/070724_clinton.mp3). In calling Senator Obama’s position naïve and irresponsible, she particularly emphasized that the question they each answered at the debate was narrowly focused on committing without preconditions to a meeting during the first year with those five world leaders. She specifically criticized the Bush administration for not laying the diplomatic groundwork of even speaking with representatives of the Iranian government in order to develop a path toward negotiation.
Her comments during her October 11 campaign appearance were completely in line with these positions. Here is what she said, which you can find posted on her campaign site’s blog (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/): “I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions because we don't really understand how Iran works.” She noted the relative unimportance of Ahmadinejad compared to the supreme leadership and clerical leadership, and that we don’t even understand those real leaders. Then, as with the Quad City Times Reporter, she noted the failure of the Bush administration to even establish low level negotiations. It was in this context that she then stated that we need to prepare for “the opportunity to sit down and figure out if there is any way that we can convince, persuade, threaten the Iranians not to pursue nuclear power. So that's what I would do. I would negotiate with them. No conditions.” Clearly, in this passage, she reiterated her YouTube position of not promising to meet with Ahmadinejad, but vowing to “pursue very vigorous diplomacy” with Iran on a country-to-country level.
Here is an example of how NPR blurred this distinction to mischaracterize Senator Clinton’s position, as presented on their web-site’s lead in to Senator Obama’s October 13 interview with NPR’s Andrea Seabrook: “On Thursday, Clinton said she'd meet with Iranian leaders "without preconditions" — a position she criticized Obama for taking earlier in the summer.”
Here is how Senator Obama himself perpetuated this mischaracterization during his interview with Ms. Seabrook, by blurring the distinction between direct, face-to-face meetings with certain leaders, including Ahmadinejad, versus establishing lower level diplomatic negotiations on a national level: “But the most important thing that we have to do is initiate the kind of diplomacy that is going to stabilize the situation. And there, Senator Clinton and I do appear to have a difference, although it's hard to tell. I suggested that we should talk to our enemies and not just our friends, including Iran, including Syria. I got in an argument with Senator Clinton back in the summer about this, because she suggested that that approach of negotiating without preconditions could be used for propaganda purposes and would be naïve.”
Notwithstanding this distortion, the distinction Senator Clinton has repeatedly made, as outlined above, is clear. The public sees it and we will hold you accountable if you perpetuate this falsehood, whether to discredit Senator Clinton or merely to add heat to your campaign coverage. As the quote below shows (http://mediamatters.org/items/200708280005?src=rss-alert), Media Matters is also on to this:
“The Washington Post has recently portrayed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as opposing meetings with leaders of countries hostile to the United States. In fact, Clinton has opposed committing to meeting with such leaders without preconditions and within her first year in office.”
I suggest you maintain your journalistic responsibility and integrity and report what actually occurred, clearly and accurately, so that voters can decide for themselves.

sorry John, your handsome, but the sour grapes against CLINTON are very unattractive...

Its time for you to consider being her Vice President.
CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT

The guy above got it absolutely right. No hispanic or black guy can beat a white girl. Hillary will win and you won't even have a vice presidential shoot or Obama. So you supports of these boys need to give up because Hillary Clinton is the winner.

My response:

For the Racist Bigot whose name I will not honor and whose city of residence I will not shame.

I'm sure that if you said that in the presence of hillary, barack or richardson they would laugh at you, and then turn away in disguist.

Wouldn't it be so much easier for barack if clinton actually said "I think I am most qualified for president because I a white girl"

Whenever visiting the south I notice that the words black and white serve as prefixes for girl and boy more often than not.

Just letting you know that is laughable to about 3/4ths of the country.

On the bright side, the candidate you support is an excellent spin artist.

Kyu-

What is sad is you not having a clue about the ramifications of Hillary's vote on Iran.

Those who do not learn from their mistakes are destined to repeat them.

Enjoy your blind ignorance.

Mr. Edwrads,
Most dem voters do not care what you say. You are just a bag of wind. You are finished politically in next Januray.

Edwards feels he can beat Clinton because she gets only a $ 50 haircut whereas Edwards gets something far better than that.

The guy above got it absolutely right. No hispanic or black guy can beat a white girl. Hillary will win and you won't even have a vice presidential shoot or Obama. So you supports of these boys need to give up because Hillary Clinton is the winner.

HILLARY 08!

Posted By Chris, Dallas : October 12, 2007 2:06 pm

It's sad that Hillary supporters have gone this low. It's shameful and absolutely sad.

The Edwards campaigns looks as if it is falling apart. The only thing he is doing is attacking Senator Clinton. He has not attacked Senator Obama for not even showing up to vote on the Kyl-Leiberman amendment. He is only focused on bashing Senator Clinton. He is really really looking desperate. He had an enormous lead in Iowa, that has vanished. His campaign donations are down. His support is dwindling.

I think former Senator Edwards needs to retire from Presidential politics. He has his opportunity. It's time he gave someone else theirs.

It is sad, Obama and Edwards couldn't understand what Hillary meant about Iran. Obama told us he wants to meet them man to man, Hillary told us America will negotiate with Iran, means government to government. They know her intention but they just like to make attacking issue, because they knew they have no any hope in this point. Val Davydov, you couldn't speak out which party you belong to proudly? shame on you. I am a Hillary supporter, no thanks, I don't need your advice, I am very possitive what I am doing. I think Republican candidates need somebody's advice. "which of course is fine by me" but not for the Country, you are very selfish, just like Republican.

I am sooooo tired of hearing Edwards criticizing Hillary. I will be glad when Iowa and NH are over and maybe he will go back to NC!

Good job John Edwards!

Obama/Edwards 08

I want to say something to all the Clinton Bedroom supporters.
HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MINDS! Please you all sound desperate to get this woman in to office to the point you would blindly protect her if she's being called on something she did wrong. And if you're going to bring up where was Obama on the day of the vote you should have watched CSPAN! If you know all that match about politics at all. I hope Hillary doesn't tell you people to jump off of a bridge because right now I truely think you would do it.

AYYUB

I am sure he does – probably will move to convert us to Islam straight away if elected.

For my record, this is the best part of the CNN Political Ticker. Constant political news of the "small ball" variety, yet still important.

One problem, though. "Standing with him on stage, Clinton said she would first send envoys to test the waters and called Obama's position irresponsible and naive."

Not true. If you actually look back at the video of the YouTube/CNN debate, you can see that Hillary did not directly confront Obama over his comments onstage, and that the "irresponsible and naive" statement came AFTER the debate, not during.

Truth is the most important thing in news coverage, and it must never be sacrificed for simplicity.

Why is it so difficult to see the difference between negotiating government-to-government and meeting leader-to-leader? Really, can Senator Obama and former Senator Edwards not see this distinction, or do they actively choose not to?

Posted By Lee, Boston, MA : October 13, 2007 3:02 pm

Are you an air-head? C'mon! It's the same thing. The government includes the leader and the people that work for and with him/her. Do you even know what government is? I hope you learn more about politics.

the breck girl is the biggest con artist since zero mostel

Flip flopping makes for good polling because you can say whatever is most popular at the time without standing by it later. Once people jump on the bandwagon they will be too embarrased at themselves admit their mistake. They will buy the candidates spin and excuses or even create new ones for them.

Hate it or love it this one is going to stick.

In her Iran statements, the keywords are "no condition" and the words "I will". I believe this situation exposes her game of creating false impressions on her opponents to score some propaganda points. She admitted that winning propaganda battles is her chief concern. Though she is skillful in manipulating the media, the problem is this approach doesn't fool people very long (ASK G. BUSH). I hope people wake up before its too late. I feel that she fails to think outside the box…thinking conventionally in unconventional times.

Hillary Clinton says she will negotiate with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard with no conditions.

Hillary Clinton votes to label this group a terrorist organization.

Hillary Clinton says she will not negotiate with terrorist groups.

Hillary Clinton ... seems conflicted...
If you're trying to gain leverage with someone, you probably shouldn't eliminate an entire avenue of going forward (i.e. diplomacy) with the cast of a vote.

Barack Obama has the ability and experience thinking outside of a box that Hillary is desperately trying to base her campaign on. Her experience, if she truly has any, is the wrong kind for our country at this point in history.

Edwards is absolutely correct – Hillary is the biggest flip-flopper on the entire planet. I would liken Hillary to leaf-tailed gecko (look up this little creature – he is pretty "cool") – he is an expert at hiding against the bark of a tree, just like Hillary is an expert at changing her positions whenever is it deemed necessary for her political gain. Another prominent feature of this specie is that if it is spotted by a predator, the gecko quickly sheds its tail, a trick that confuses the enemy while it escapes: something similar to the incident in Iowa when the voter approached Hillary about Iran (only Hillary attempted to confuse the voter, but he came out victorious, while she was left as a victim).

I am not a Democract, but here is a piece of advice: if Hillary is your nominee, you will no doubt lose general election once again. Which of course is fine by me.

The term "flip flop" should be retired from any kind of political discussion.

Why is it so difficult to see the difference between negotiating government-to-government and meeting leader-to-leader? Really, can Senator Obama and former Senator Edwards not see this distinction, or do they actively choose not to?

PollM:

As we speak, the United States is carrying on government to government negotiations with North Korea. To my knowledge, President Bush HAS NEVER MET with Kim Jong-il.

President Clinton too, carried on government to government negotiations with North Korea: I don't believe he ever met with the "Dear Leader" either.

President Carter re-established diplomatic relations with Iran after the Shah was deposed. Lengthy negotiations were carried on between the governments of Iran and the United States to free the hostages. To my knowledge, President Carter never had a face-to-face meeting with any high-ranking government official in Iran as president.

I could go on and on and on. But let me stop here and ask the question: can there be a clearer or more compelling distinction than one that exists in REALITY?

This is typical Clinton politics. Change your message based on the audience.

Tell a group of veterans or military families you support them 100%.
Then tell the anti-war groups that you think the military is too big and needs to be redeployed.

Of course if both crowds are in the same venue, make sure to say, "I don't respond to hypotheticals". Just Perfect.

Clinton needs to understand that every debate, interview, press statement, dinner, and presentation is part of a job interview. Its for the President of the greatest nation in the world, the United States of America.

You don't got into a job interview for any position stating that you won't answer questions dealing with situations that are happening, will happen, or can happen.

That is a sure ticket out the door and into unemployment.

Hilary is a flip-flop. She just says thinks to play to the crowd but her voting history is spineless and lacking in principle and quality leadership.

Same old, same old:

From the CNN/YouTube Debate Transcript:

In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.
In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

Please note that the question is about meeting with the LEADERS of the named countries and says nothing about establishing country-to-country negotiations with the states mentioned. If you read the whole transcript of the Q&A that has prompted this latest flurry of false charges, it's clear that she hasn't changed her mind about having a face-to-face meeting with Ahmadinejad, whom she termed a "figurehead."

Senator Clinton has ALWAYS been in favor of negotiating with Iran. She has REPEATEDLY called for a robust diplomatic effort with Iran. Only the (unexpected) dishonesty and understandable desperation of Senators Edwards and Obama makes them pretend that they don't know and understand this.

SENATOR–BY ATTACKING SENAOR CLINTON--–ARE YOU TRYING TO ENHANCE YOUR CANDIDACY FOR PRESIDENT?? STICK TO YOUR POSITIONS ON ISSUES–LIFT YOURSELF UP DONOT WORRY ABOUT OTHER CADIDATES--RICHARD STRUNK

Edwards is dead on.

Talk with Iran? You can't talk with Iran. They know that our country has been weakened in the eyes of the world by this present administration. That guy is laughing at us. I saw him on 60 Minutes and he was so arrogant and even twisted everything around. You can't reason with a terrorist. Hillary is right.

Yes, Hillary would first send one of her famous Focus Groups...

Speak up John, speak up about every lie, every manipulation! American voters need to learn the truth.

Majority of Democrats are not voting for Hillary Clinton and many of her current "supporters" are just mislead by her name recognition and the initial media blitz. It's a bubble. The Emperor has no clothes! Point it out!

WHATEVER

This is clearly a "switcharoo", call it what you want it is what it is.

Any kind of distinction they're trying to make is full of you know what.

Is Hillary Clinton making a clear and compelling distinction between meeting the Iranian

President and Government to Government? http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=696

Turn up the volume on her, guys. She reminds me of the Wrigley gum chicklets who give us "two, two, two minds in one" candidate!

Yesterday, Obama and Clinton exchanged some very harsh blows on Iran, and the Democratic race turned nasty. Edwards clearly feels that he has been left out of the Clinton-Obama dogfight and is trying to jump back in - only problem is that Clinton is refusing to answer Edwards's attacks. Full analysis on Campaign Diaries.

Great after the war mongering Hillary seems to build an insurmontable lead the other candidates realize they are not running Pope.

It is interesting to watch the polls that show how congress's approval ratings are lower than the President's, yet the top Democratic candidates are or were from the Senate. I'm really surprised Bill Richardson isn't playing up that side of the issue.

In six months, he'll be a contestant on, "Dancing with the Stars". He stands a much better chance of winning there...

old hillary is not honest about anything. Just look at her record and that of her husband. People need to be doing some real research on these too and discover what they have really been up to all these years. The news organizations don't seen to have the internal fortitude to report it, so we have to do our own research. The clinton's can't cover up everything. Reasearch, reasearch, reasearch.

Mr Edwards, please change your thumbnail: it makes you look scary.
I suppose that at this point you must be going all-out to be the pawnbroker/kingmaker at the Convention?

Typical Washington doublespeak by Clinton, the same sort of talking out of both sides of her mouth that she and Bush are both famous for.

At least Edwards, as well as Obama, are actually saying what they mean and saying it consistantly from beginning to end of the conversation.

I have a great deal of respect for both Edwards and Obama. I feel like they both represent a good directional shift in this country, a true voice of change. Although I like Edwards, I feel that Obama actually has the momentum to decisively defeat the RNC and become the next President. Edwards would be an awesome vice president.

Obama has inspired me to really get involved in politics for the first time in my life. He continues to be a leader instead of the status quo.

Edwards is definately right. Obama-Edwards 08!

Cool it Mr Edwards, and let Ms Rodham Clinton take charge. She knows what she is doing and saying very well.

Call her out John. That's right she is a complete flip-flopper.

I am supporting Obama and hope you will become his VP

Tell her like it is John...way to go